Tuesday, 15 August 2023

TUESDAY, 15 AUGUST 2023

TUESDAY, 15 AUGUST 2023

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Karakia/Prayers

Karakia/Prayers

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): E te Atua kaha rawa, ka tuku whakamoemiti atu mātou, mō ngā karakia kua waihotia mai ki runga i a mātou. Ka waiho i ō mātou pānga whaiaro katoa ki te taha. Ka mihi mātou ki te Kīngi, me te inoi atu mō te ārahitanga i roto i ō mātou whakaaroarohanga, kia mōhio ai, kia whakaiti ai tā mātou whakahaere i ngā take o te Whare nei, mō te oranga, te maungārongo, me te aroha o Aotearoa. Āmene.

[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 and humility, for the welfare, peace and compassion of New Zealand. Amen.]

Petitions, Papers, Select Committee Reports, and Introduction of Bills

Petitions, Papers, Select Committee Reports, and Introduction of Bills

SPEAKER: Petitions have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation.

CLERK:

Petition of Charlotte Christie requesting that the House ban the sale of vaping products in non-vape premises

petition of Kylee Kelly requesting that the House ban dog shock collars

petition of Kiwilaw Probate and Estates Ltd requesting that the House raise the financial threshold for requiring probate or letters of administration before estate funds can be released by a financial institution.

SPEAKER: Those petitions stand referred to the Petitions Committee. Ministers have delivered papers.

CLERK:

2021 annual report of the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra

2022 annual report of the Social Workers Registration Board

Government response to declaration of inconsistency on the voting age in the Electoral Act 1993 and the Local Electoral Act 2001

Government response to referral petition from Juliana Carvalho

Government response to the report of the Petitions Committee on the petition of Patricia Fabish

Ministry of Health Long-Term Insights Briefing, August 2023

2022-26 statement of intent for Predator Free 2050

2022-24 statement of intent and updated 2022-23 statement of performance expectations for Te Whatu Ora Health New Zealand

2021-22 statement of performance expectations for the New Zealand Infrastructure Commission

2022-23 statement of performance expectations for the New Zealand Infrastructure Commission

2023-24 statement of performance expectations for NZQA, Predator Free 2050, and the Social Workers Registration Board.

SPEAKER: I present the Parliamentary Service Commission’s annual report for the year ended 30 June 2023. Those papers are published under the authority of the House. Select committee reports have been delivered for presentation.

CLERK:

Report of the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee on the Fuel Industry (Improving Fuel Resilience) Amendment Bill

report of the Environment Committee on the Climate Change Response (Late Payment Penalties and Industrial Allocation) Amendment Bill

reports of the Justice Committee on the

inquiry into the 2020 general election and referendums

petition of Christian Newman

petition of Corinda Taylor

report of the Attorney-General under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 on the Returning Offenders (Management and Information) Amendment Bill

reports of the Petitions Committee on the

petition of Chlöe Swarbrick

petition of Eye Health Aotearoa

petition of Ian Young

report of the Primary Production Committee on the Department of Conservation, Land Information New Zealand, Long-Term Insights Briefing 2023

reports of the Regulations Review Committee on the

complaint about the Health Act (COVID-19 Alert Level 3) Order 2020

COVID-19 Public Health Response (Self-isolation Requirements) Amendment Order (No 2) 2022

report of the Social Services and Community Committee on the Integrity Sport and Recreation Bill.

SPEAKER: The bills are set down for second reading. The reports of the Primary Production Committee, the Regulations Review Committee, and the Justice Committee are set down for consideration. The Clerk has been informed of the introduction of bills.

CLERK:

Victims of Sexual Violence (Strengthening Legal Protections) Legislation Bill, introduction

Electoral (Lowering Voting Age for Local Elections and Polls) Legislation Bill, introduction.

SPEAKER: Those bills are set down for first reading.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Prime Minister

1. DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all of his Government’s statements and policies?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Prime Minister): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Yes, particularly this Government’s work to build an economy that keeps wages growing ahead of inflation and maintains record low unemployment. Statistics New Zealand data out today shows median weekly earnings from wages and salaries grew 7.1 percent in the year to June 2023, ahead of the rate of inflation. We know that the most important thing we can do to help New Zealanders with the cost of living is ensure that they are in work with growing wages. I’m particularly proud that we have delivered unemployment below 4 percent for 24 consecutive months, a feat that has only been achieved on one other occasion in the last 30 years.

David Seymour: How much money does the Government currently collect in goods and services tax, or GST, on fresh fruit and vegetables, and can he confirm it’s approximately $500 million per year—$10 million per week or $2 per person per week?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The cost across the forecast period is about $2.2 billion.

David Seymour: Does the Prime Minister agree with his Government’s Tax Working Group, which said, “changes in rates for specific goods and services were on average not fully passed through and had an estimated average pass through rate of approximately 30 percent.”, and, if so, does he accept that taking $2 worth of GST off fresh fruit and vegetables per person would save the average person 60c a week?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: No.

David Seymour: Why not?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Because I don’t agree with them.

David Seymour: Does he accept his Government’s Tax Working Group’s conclusion that low-income households’ benefit from taking GST off food would be three times less than high-income households’, and can he name any groceries a low-income shopper won’t need to take out of their trolley and put back on the shelf because the Government saved them 60c by no longer charging GST on fresh fruit and vegetables?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I reject the assertion in the last part of the member’s question.

David Seymour: Does he agree that the Government’s record of increasing spending by $56 billion per annum has led to a culture of extravagance where public servants think it’s acceptable to spend $40,000 on a leaving function, and what does it say that ACT has been able to identify a billion dollars of wasteful spending programmes that could be stopped immediately without anyone noticing except the people working in those bureaucracies?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I do note that some of the policies the ACT Party proposes to cut would result in significant job losses across the economy, including in the private sector. The ACT Party wants to cut all of the support for the screen sector in New Zealand—no more Hobbits, no more Lord of the Rings, no more Avatar; cut under an ACT-National Government. I notice they also want to cut the support for the space sector, so forget about Rocket Lab and other innovative industries that actually see New Zealand as a great place to base their operations; gone under an ACT-National Government. These would be private sector jobs gone. I can say to the members in the ACT Party and the National Party that a tax cut won’t mean much to people who lose their jobs because of their cuts.

David Seymour: Does the Prime Minister seriously expect New Zealanders to believe that Peter Beck’s success with Rocket Lab is because his Government employs 50-odd people, mostly hired after Rocket Lab hit lift-off, or is he really just worried that he’s going to need a new job soon and he’d like to be a hobbit in the next movie that’s sponsored by the Government?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Well, if the member thinks that we shouldn’t have a regulatory framework for space in New Zealand, he should talk to the previous Government, who were the ones who put it in place in the first place.

David Seymour: Would he say it’s a good example of the Government tightening its belt that Mac Leauanae’s $40,000 farewell from the Ministry for Pacific Peoples was followed by a welcome to the Ministry for Culture and Heritage that cost only $12,500, including $468.70 on flowers, which included 60 bucks of GST?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I don’t believe that expenditure was appropriate.

David Seymour: Will he admit that the Government’s firearm reforms failed after five firearm deaths—half of New Zealand’s annual average of fatal shootings—occurred in just 17 days, or would he like to take this opportunity to argue that we’ll all be safe soon because those criminals and the crims who supplied them with illegal firearms will be registering their guns soon?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: In fact, if Governments had worked earlier to remove illegal firearms from circulation, we might not be in the situation that we are in now. I welcome the fact that the member now seems to be backtracking on his unequivocal pledge to remove the firearms register—one of the tools the police have been asking for, for decades—that is being delivered by this Government and that would be at risk under an ACT-National Government.

David Seymour: Does his statement that “the healthcare system should be treating people equally”—is that a statement he stands by, and as Prime Minister is there anything he can do about race being used to prioritise surgical wait-lists, give out Prezzy cards exclusively to pregnant Māori women, a pharmacy service being accessible only to Māori and Pasifika, a separate Māori Health Authority, and a medical health line that opens with “Press 1 if you are Māori”?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: In answer to the first part of the member’s question, yes, absolutely. I recognise that our health system has delivered inequitable outcomes for Māori and Pacific New Zealanders, including New Zealanders in rural communities, for example, and proactive targeting of ensuring that we are creating equal outcomes for different population groups, I think, is a positive thing. I note the member isn’t attacking the fact that there are now targeted support services—health services—for rural communities in the way that he is some of those other population groups.

David Seymour: Is the Prime Minister aware that both Māori and non-Māori live in cities and in rural areas, and what New Zealanders object to deeply and strongly is the constant profiling of citizens by race by his Government?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I absolutely reject the statement in that question, which is just plain racism.

Question No. 2—Health

2. Dr ANAE NERU LEAVASA (Labour—Takanini) to the Minister of Health: What announcements has she made recently about improving the pay and conditions of nurses and midwives in New Zealand?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Minister of Health): Last week, I was pleased to announce that New Zealand’s hard-working Te Whatu Ora hospital nurses and midwives have accepted their collective employment agreement. This was on top of the nursing pay equity settlement announced on 31 July and the increase in midwifery pay rates for pay equity announced on 6 July. This Government is proud to have delivered for nurses and midwives.

Dr Anae Neru Leavasa: What will this mean for graduate nurses?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: When Labour came into Government in 2017, graduate nurses earned $49,449 a year. Over the first five years we were in Government, we increased these nurses’ pay to $59,834 a year. Now that pay equity has been settled and the collective has been agreed, these nurses now earn $73,566. Next year, in April, they will receive a further increase to $75,773. This is a total increase across our term of Government of 53.2 percent.

Dr Anae Neru Leavasa: What will the announcement mean for registered nurses?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: When Labour came into Government in 2017, registered nurses on the top step of the pay scale earned $66,755. Over the first five years we were in Government, we increased these nurses’ pay to $83,186. Now that pay equity has been settled and the collective has been agreed, these nurses earn $103,630. Next year, in April, they will receive a further increase to $106,739. This is an increase of 59.9 percent since we entered Government.

Dr Anae Neru Leavasa: Why is this important to our health system?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: The rates we pay our nurses in New Zealand are crucial to keeping them in our health system. Another priority is the wellbeing of our health workforce. Reaching agreement on these measures addresses many of the issues and concerns raised by the New Zealand Nurses Organisation during these negotiations. This Government is committed to addressing pressures on our health workers, and this settlement package is a step towards achieving that. I would like to acknowledge everyone involved in the bargaining process for both the collective and pay equity. The challenge of delivering healthcare in a complex and increasingly demanding environment is something we need to do together.

Question No. 3—Prime Minister

3. CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all of his Government’s statements and actions?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Prime Minister): Yes, particularly this Government’s work to ease the cost of living and support New Zealand families and businesses through difficult economic conditions. We are building an economy that keeps wages growing ahead of inflation, that maintains record low unemployment. We’re taking practical steps to support families like removing the $5 prescription charge, extending targeted childcare assistance, extending 20 hours’ early childhood education to two-year-olds, and making public transport free for kids and at half-price for younger New Zealanders. Our policies are carefully designed to deal with the pressures families are facing right now while maintaining prudent levels of Government spending and keeping a lid on debt.

Christopher Luxon: Was his trade Minister, Damien O’Connor, right or wrong when he said “We probably don’t have enough tax in this country.”?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The member’s taking the Minister’s quote out of the full context in which it was made.

Christopher Luxon: Was former tax lecturer Deborah Russell right or wrong when she said removing interest deductibility from rental properties was “a bad idea” and that “Plenty of residential property investors would simply increase rents.”?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The Government’s policy position on this is very clear and I think Deborah Russell is making a significant contribution in the tax area. I note that those comments were made over 10 years ago.

Christopher Luxon: Can he confirm that since the Government increased the cost of owning a rental property by removing interest deductibility, average weekly rents have increased by $75, just as Deborah Russell predicted?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I note that there has been a significant spike in inflation during that period.

Christopher Luxon: How much better or worse off would a typical low-income renter be if they save $2 a week on fruit and vegetables but were paying an extra $75 a week in rent?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The Government is doing a number of things to support low-income New Zealanders, including making sure that their incomes are keeping up with the rising costs that they are facing. Wage growth is growing ahead of inflation. That is one of the best things we can do to support families through this inflationary period. Bringing inflation down is also one of the good things that we can do to support them, and I note many of the policies the member is promoting would result in higher inflation for longer.

Christopher Luxon: Has he received advice about the number of IRD officials and lawyers that would be required to determine whether a mixed bag of salad or a vacuum-sealed beetroot count as processed or fresh?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: No.

Christopher Luxon: Was finance Minister Grant Robertson right or wrong when he said that cutting GST on some items will “mostly benefit supermarkets”?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The member himself has confessed to having a road to Damascus conversion. The policy that the Labour Party has announced, of course, will be implemented after the election. I welcome the member’s confidence in the re-election of this Government.

Christopher Luxon: Was the Government’s Tax Working Group, led by Sir Michael Cullen, right or wrong when they reported that evidence from 17 countries over 14 years found that only 30 percent of the benefits of GST exemptions were actually passed on to consumers?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I will allow everybody to make their own judgments on the Tax Working Group’s report. Of course, I note that there are some other recommendations in there that the member isn’t quite so enthusiastic about.

Christopher Luxon: Are there any members left in his Cabinet who actually support his tax policies or are they just waiting until the election so they can dump him and his desperate economic band-aid politics?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Well, at least I have a clear tax policy, which is more than the member has, and I think it’s because his co-leader hasn’t figured out how to pay for it yet.

Question No. 4—Women

4. SARAH PALLETT (Labour—Ilam) to the Minister for Women: What recent announcements has the Government made on pay transparency?

Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister for Women): Last week, Minister Priyanca Radhakrishnan and I were proud to announce the Government is taking action to close the gender pay gap for New Zealand’s women through a mandatory pay transparency reporting system. This is a significant next step to close the gender gap. It will mean 900 entities with over 250 employees will be required to publicly report their gender pay gap. This move is part of the Government’s ongoing commitment to make New Zealand an equitable and desirable place for people to live, work, and do business.

Sarah Pallett: What will the system look like?

Hon JAN TINETTI: Organisations with 250 employees or more will report their pay gap initially, and then organisations with over 100 employees will be required to report after four years. We expect around 900 organisations to be covered initially, increasing to 2,700 when the threshold reduces. The Government is also committed to exploring the inclusion of ethnicity and pay gap reporting for Māori, Pacific peoples, and other ethnic groups.

Sarah Pallett: Why is gender pay gap reporting important?

Hon JAN TINETTI: Gender pay gap reporting is one of several tools to address the gender pay gap and ensure equity in the workplace. Countries we compare ourselves to, including Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom, have introduced gender pay gap reporting with successful results. I would like to note that today, the gender pay gap has reduced from 9.2 percent to 8.6 percent. That is excellent progress, but while a gap exists there is still more work to do.

Sarah Pallett: How does this complement the Government’s other work to close the gender pay gap?

Hon JAN TINETTI: We know from history that achieving gender equity isn’t an overnight fix but requires deliberate and concerted efforts. This Government has a strong track record of delivering for women in the workplace through increasing paid parental leave to 26 weeks, settling historic pay equity claims for close to 157,000 women, investing in KiwiSaver to match employer contribution to paid parental leave recipients, reducing the gender pay gap in the Public Service from 12.2 percent in 2019 to 7.7 percent, and reaching 50 percent representation of women on Government boards. There is still more work to do, but I am proud to be part of a Government that is putting in the tools we need to tackle the gender pay gap as a country.

Question No. 5—Finance

5. NICOLA WILLIS (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by all of his statements and actions related to tax policy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Yes, in the context in which they were made and undertaken, acknowledging that context can change as a result, for example, of global and domestic economic backdrops.

Nicola Willis: Does he stand by his reported statement that removing GST from fruit and vegetables would mostly benefit supermarkets, and, if not, why not?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I believe that the particular policies that the Labour Party has announced are important. They’re going to be useful in the future when the member clearly believes a Labour Government will be re-elected, but they are not the subject of my ministerial responsibilities.

Nicola Willis: Does he stand by his earlier statement—yes or no?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I stand by—as I said in my primary answer—statements in the contexts they were made. The member, however, does give me an excellent inspiration for this, because when she back-flipped on the medium-density housing rules and it was put to her that it was a U-turn, she said, “I don’t see it that way, I think it’s a step forward.” It’s a step forward.

Nicola Willis: Was his earlier statement based on the analysis by his own tax working group, which found that similar changes in Europe were not fully passed through and, on average, consumers only reaped 30 percent of the benefit?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: My earlier statements were based on the information I had at the time. My current statements are based on things which aren’t my ministerial responsibility, but, again, I’m glad to see the member’s endorsement of the Labour Party continuing in Government.

Nicola Willis: Does he agree with Grant Robertson MP, who said at the weekend that depreciation deductions for commercial buildings were “the last remaining … COVID … stimulus measure”, or was the Minister correct when he said that it was “not a temporary measure until we get back on our feet; it is, instead, a change to restore and correct policy settings.” and “not a short-term measure.”?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As I said in my primary answer, I stand by the statements I’ve made in the context in which they were made.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Can he confirm that a tax-free threshold paid for with a wealth tax would guarantee that more people have enough income to cover the essentials?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Obviously, that would depend on those people’s circumstances.

Nicola Willis: Has the Minister asked for advice on how much it would cost to provide the Grocery Commissioner with the army of officials he would require in order to enforce a GST policy which would deliver a 100 percent reduction on a pass-through on fruit and vegetables?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No.

Nicola Willis: Are there any other statements on tax he’s made that he would like to walk back today, or would he prefer to ask the Prime Minister first?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No, I’m very comfortable with the statements I’ve made. However, I am happy to reach out to the member and assist her with taking down all of the signs that she’s going to have to take down by midnight because they’re against the rules of the Wellington City Council.

Question No. 6—Trade and Export Growth

6. DAN ROSEWARNE (Labour) to the Minister for Trade and Export Growth: What recent announcements has the Government made about sustainable and inclusive trade as part of the Trade for All agenda?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Minister for Trade and Export Growth): It was a privilege to be in Adelaide last week with my Closer Economic Relations (CER) colleague, the trade Minister for Australia, Don Farrell, and to conclude and sign a sustainable and inclusive trade declaration between Australia and New Zealand as we mark 40 years of closer economic relations. As close partners with shared values, both New Zealand and Australia believe in a trading system which sees everyone getting a fair go. This joint declaration is about upholding those values of sustainability and inclusion throughout the next 40 years of CER, and it sets out our commitment to work together on important issues like modern slavery, plastics pollution, climate change, and indigenous trade. The Government was proud to sign this declaration, progress our Trade for All agenda, and continue our world-leading work on sustainable and inclusive trade.

Dan Rosewarne: What work has the Government done to ensure the momentum of our Trade for All agenda continues into the future?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: More great news; last week the Government released our refreshed Trade, Environment, and Climate Change Framework and our refreshed Trade and Labour Framework. It goes without saying that trade is key to our economic success, but it’s also a tool for good. These updated frameworks will be used to guide our future trade negotiations and will ensure that this Government continues to negotiate agreements that don’t just bring new opportunities for New Zealand exporters, but also improve standards of living, protect labour rights, and take action on climate change. This Labour Government’s record on trade is historic. Since 2017, we have secured seven new or upgraded free-trade agreements, and each and every one of those free-trade agreements has delivered progress for our exporters, for our economy, and for our Trade for All agenda, and we fully intend to continue that momentum.

Dan Rosewarne: How does the recent UK free-trade agreement (FTA) reflect our Trade for All agenda?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: Well, the UK free-trade agreement is our very first trade agreement negotiated and signed under our Trade for All agenda. It is a gold standard—in fact, I say a platinum standard—agreement. The UK FTA delivers unprecedented access to the sixth largest economy in the world, saves Kiwi businesses $37 million in tariff reductions immediately, and sees 99.5 percent of our exports enter the UK market duty free. At the same time, the agreement also sets ambitious commitments on sustainable and inclusive trade, such as tackling harmful environmental subsidies. The UK FTA shows that market access and opportunities and Trade for All principles are not mutually exclusive; it is possible to have the best of both worlds, and with the UK FTA we indeed have.

Dan Rosewarne: How is our Trade for All agenda reflected in our recently signed EU FTA?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: It keeps getting better. The EU FTA was also negotiated and signed under this Government’s Trade for All agenda, and it delivers huge opportunities in a market of 450 million people. In fact, we expect that the EU FTA will increase our exports to the EU by up to $1.8 billion per year by 2035 and, of course, the agreement also includes ambitious outcomes in areas like climate action, subsidy reform, Māori trade, and gender equality. The Trade for All agenda is about maximising opportunities for all New Zealanders, and the EU FTA will boost our economy, cut costs to exporters, create new opportunities for small and medium businesses, and protect jobs for Kiwi families.

Question No. 7—Housing

7. CHRIS BISHOP (National) to the Minister of Housing: Was Inland Revenue right that additional taxes on rental housing “will put upward pressure on rents and may reduce the supply of new housing developments in the longer-term”, and how much have average rents increased since the Government’s interest deductibility changes were introduced?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Acting Minister of Housing): On behalf of the Minister of Housing, the evidence does not suggest that the interest deductibility changes are the main causes of rent increases. A recently released report from the Treasury, the Reserve Bank, and the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development found that wage increases and the relative supply and demand of homes were instead the main driver of rents. Since the introduction of the new interest deductibility rules in October 2021, nationwide rent for new tenancies has increased by 5.9 percent to the end of July 2023. This is in line with the longer-term average and below the rate of general inflation. We know the way you get out of a housing crisis is by building more houses, not selling them like the previous Government used to do. That’s why we’ve ensured new builds are exempted from the interest limitation rules for a period of 20 years. Consents remain above pre-COVID levels and completions of new builds are at record highs.

Chris Bishop: How does she square those comments with the research conducted by the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development, which actually asks landlords why they are increasing rents, for which the answer is: because of changes to interest deductibility legislation, introduced by her Government?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: That’s not the information we’ve got from landlords—

Chris Bishop: It’s your own document.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: No, the member is quoting something that is out of line with what we’ve received and we don’t agree with those comments.

Chris Bishop: Has she seen the comments of noted tax expert Dr Deborah Russell, who said that removing the ability for landlords to deduct interest costs is “a bad idea” and “simply won’t work”, and does she agree?

Hon Dr Deborah Russell: Over 10 years ago, mate.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Yet another stupid question from that member. We all say things and we do things differently than 10 years ago. I mean, that member was a lobbyist for the tobacco companies 10 years ago, and now he’s an honourable member.

Chris Bishop: Has she heard the comments from noted tax expert Dr Deborah Russell—that her comments were 10 years ago when she said removing ability for landlords deduct interests costs “would be an arbitrary rule designed to achieve a non-tax purpose”, and what responsibility does she take for rents being up $175 a week in the last six years?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: These questions are getting stupider and stupider. The member is talking about what someone said 10 years ago. We have a member here who totally supports what the Government are saying. He should look at what he was doing 10 years ago, which was advocating for the dirty, rotten tobacco companies.

Chris Bishop: What is incorrect about the remarks of noted tax expert Dr Deborah Russell that removing the ability for landlords to deduct interest costs were an arbitrary rule designed to achieve a non-tax purpose, were a bad idea, and simply won’t work; what is incorrect about the analysis?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: The member can’t get it through his thick head that the Minister was making those comments in a previous life—10 years ago. So get it through your thick head that this member here totally supports the Government, and we support Minister Russell, 100 percent.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Point of order. The question of time has nothing to do with the correctness of the answer. He could at least address the question, which was: what was incorrect about the quotation? Being old doesn’t make it incorrect.

SPEAKER: I’ll have to have a bit of think about that one, because there was a lot that the Hon Willie Jackson said. I’m just trying to think whether it actually addressed the question or not. One of the problems, of course, was it was quite loud in here—been many rulings about that, whether the Speaker can hear the question. I don’t think it probably was, and I’ll give the member the benefit of doubt. Mr Jackson, unhelpful to describe any question by a member in that way. I encourage the Minister to think carefully about the question. I’ll ask Chris Bishop to ask it again. Answer the question, not comment on the quality of it.

Chris Bishop: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The question was—paraphrasing slightly—what was incorrect, or what is incorrect about the analysis of noted tax expert Dr Deborah Russell in her long blog post that explains that removing the ability for landlords to deduct interest costs is a bad idea, won’t work, and is an arbitrary rule designed to achieve a non-tax purpose?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: In 2013, the Minister now—who was not even a member of Parliament at the time—was probably correct, because it was a different time. It was a different environment. Since then, we’ve had to inherit a housing crisis. Times change, people change, jobs change. As I keep saying, this person here was advocating for the tobacco companies, advocating against the average New Zealander. He should hang his head in shame, but now he’s an honourable member, some say.

Hon David Parker: Can the Minister confirm that since interest deductibility was limited, rents have gone up by less than the rate of general inflation?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: One hundred percent. Rents are below the general inflation rate and, in fact, things are so much better for renters under this Government. Under the previous Government, landlords would kick our people out—Kiwis out—just at a whim. Chris Bishop’s mates—these landlords, they had no time for the average Kiwi. Now we have warm homes. We look after people. You can’t put rent up just at the drop of a hat, like Mr Luxon and his rich mates would do.

SPEAKER: That last comment was not helpful. I think I’ll get you to withdraw and apologise.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: I withdraw and apologise.

Question No. 8—Justice

8. ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) to the Minister of Justice: How is the Government delivering more support for the victims of crime?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Minister of Justice): Last week, I introduced the Victims of Sexual Violence (Strengthening Legal Protections) Legislation Bill, which will, in the next phase of our work, support victims of crime. The bill addresses some important issues in the justice system, reducing the risk of child victims of sexual violence being asked about consent while in court, as well as increasing the maximum penalty for the offence of sexual connection with a child to 20 years’ imprisonment, to align with other offences. The bill also gives adult victims of sexual violence greater say over name suppression for themselves, as well as the offender. This Government is delivering on our goal to improve the experience of victims in our justice system.

Arena Williams: What other work is under way to address gaps in the justice system for victims?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: Just last month, three new pilot programmes got well under way. The first will help make sure victims’ voices are heard when bail decisions are being made. The second pilot aims to improve the experience of child witnesses in sexual violence cases and provides training for support staff to work with them. The third pilot programme is focused on improving the coordination and safety planning for victims of serious crime. Victims have told us that there are some parts of the justice system that are not working for them. We have heard those concerns, and these pilots will make a real difference in this space.

Arena Williams: What financial support is now available for victims?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: Since we came into Government, we have tripled the amount of funding for the Victim Assistance Scheme and doubled the amount of funding for Victim Support. Our support for the Victim Assistance Scheme means an estimated 10,000 more grants are available for victims of serious crime, including increased financial support for homicide victims’ families, counselling for victims of serious crime, and a new grant specific to victims of sexual violence. I’m proud of our strong track record for supporting victims—compared to the previous Government, which reduced funding in this area.

Arena Williams: What other work is under way to support victims of crime?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: The bill introduced last week is part of the tranche of a three-year programme to transform victims’ experience in the justice system. We passed the Sexual Violence Legislation Act and established Te Aorerekura to empower communities to fight back and reduce family violence. The work is under way to make further changes to prevent litigation abuse in Family Court proceedings. These are always practical changes that will make sure victims have a meaningful role in the decisions that directly affect them and their families. As a Government, we are committed to having a justice system where victims feel safe, heard, and empowered.

Question No. 9—Energy and Resources

9. Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green) to the Minister of Energy and Resources: Does she stand by her reported statement in relation to the carbon price doubling or tripling that “the financial consequences for families would be too harsh”; if so, does she support further measures to directly assist households to decarbonise?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Acting Minister of Energy and Resources): On behalf of the Minister, yes and yes.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Is she aware that a gas heater has lifetime emissions of over 11,000 kilograms of carbon dioxide, is more expensive to run than a heat pump, and exacerbates childhood asthma; and if so, when will Warmer Kiwi Homes be expanded to include swapping out gas heating?

Hon DAVID PARKER: I certainly accept that the particulate discharges from gas heaters—particularly if it’s not vented—can be problematic, and that a heat pump is better. And I stand by the record of this Government, which is to deliver 100,000 insulation and heating retrofits through the Warmer Kiwi Homes programme.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Does she accept Transpower’s assessment that Aotearoa needs 13 percent solar generation to achieve a 100 percent renewable electricity target; if so, what is the Government doing to get more rooftops solar on homes?

Hon DAVID PARKER: On behalf of the Minister, yes, I accept that solar is part of the future. Most solar investments are likely to be in solar farms rather than on rooftops. Rooftop installations are most cost-effectively done at the time of building of houses, which is one of the reasons why the Government programme, in respect of State house builds, is incorporating some solar on roofs of new builds.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Does she support the call from The Homes We Deserve coalition of over 160 organisations, to commit to a large-scale retrofit programme over the next nine years to reduce emissions and household bills?

Hon DAVID PARKER: I have no responsibility for other parties’ or other groups’ policies.

Question No. 10—Conservation

10. ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour) to the Minister of Conservation: What recent announcements has she made regarding taking action to protect the Hauraki Gulf?

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Minister of Conservation): Last week, the Prime Minister announced that we are taking a major step towards protecting the Hauraki Gulf for future generations through the Hauraki Gulf / Tīkapa Moana Marine Protection Bill. This beautiful blue backyard is where Kiwis in the region have some of their best experiences. It’s also essential and a traditional source of food, and a vital part of our economy for the tourism, transport, and seafood sectors, with a recent assessment putting the economic value of the gulf at $100 billion. However, we know that the gulf is under stress, and action is needed now. The Hauraki Gulf / Tīkapa Moana Marine Protection Bill will see the implementation of 19 new protection areas that have been designed to represent and protect a range of crucial ecosystems in the region. They will be located across the inner and outer gulf, protecting a range of rare, ecologically important, and representative habitats and species. Through this action, we will nearly triple the area of Auckland’s maritime area that is under the protection from just over 6 percent to about 18 percent.

Angie Warren-Clark: How will these new marine protection areas work?

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: As I have noted, the Hauraki Gulf / Tīkapa Moana must be protected for the enjoyment of future generations. The way we will do this is threefold. Firstly, we are extending the country’s first marine reserve, Cape Rodney-Ōkākari Point Marine Reserve—or Goat Island—and Whanganui-A-Hei (Cathedral Cove) Marine Reserve on the Coromandel Peninsula. Secondly, we will create 12 new high-protection areas to protect and restore marine ecosystems, while allowing for customary practices of tangata whenua. And, thirdly, the bill will allow for five new sea-floor protection areas to preserve sensitive sea-floor habitats by prohibiting bottom-contact fishing methods and other activities which harm the sea-floor.

Angie Warren-Clark: How are these marine protection areas developed?

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: The best way to protect the special marine ecosystem is to find conservation solutions which work for different people, and that’s exactly what this action to revitalise the gulf does. The bill announced this week follows years of careful work and extensive consultation to strike a good balance. An important catalyst for change was the innovative endeavour the Sea Change - Tai Timu Tai Pari marine spatial plan. It was developed by a group that comprised tangata whenua, fishers, farmers, and environmental groups. Since then, the Department of Conservation and Fisheries New Zealand led several rounds of consultation with tangata whenua and key groups. During our final public consultation around the end of 2022, we had significant contributions from the community, with more than 7,500 submissions on the marine protection proposals.

Angie Warren-Clark: What impact are the new marine protection areas anticipated to have?

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: These new marine protection areas will protect at-risk ecologically valuable and representative habitats and ecosystems in the gulf to support their recovery. They will also increase our understanding of marine ecosystems within the gulf and the pressures on them, and support holistic management. Just two examples of protection that these areas will provide include one of the last and possibly best remnant seagrass meadows found in the Hauraki Gulf, as well as a more comprehensive protection for rock lobster, which are considered functionally extinct in the gulf, through the marine reserve extensions. This week is Conservation Week and the theme is relevant to this kaupapa: take action for nature. So as the Government moves to do just that in the Hauraki Gulf, I also take this opportunity to encourage everyone to get involved: Conservation Week is to improve the environment and their own wellbeing.

Question No. 11—Health

11. Dr SHANE RETI (National) to the Minister of Health: How many of the 24 initiatives in the 2023 winter plan have resulted in patients actually being treated, and what evidence, if any, does she have that the plan has reduced pressure on hospital emergency departments (EDs)?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Minister of Health): This year, a comprehensive winter plan was put in place to ease pressure on the whole health system. As that member is aware, the plan included new pathways to treatment as well as actions across the system to better manage acute demand, including expediting needs assessments, vaccination, data, and staffing projects. Of the interventions that are new treatment pathways, I am advised there have been 50,000 free consultations in pharmacies with a minor health condition scheme; over 20,000 calls diverted to the clinical telehealth service since December 2022 by eligible practices for overflow and after-hours support, with more eligible services signing up. The clinical telehealth service pilot for ambulance staff has seen over 1,200 patients nationally treated in the community, and avoiding a trip to the emergency departments since the start of the year. In answer to the second part of the question, I am certain the plan reduced pressure on emergency rooms—had we not vaccinated over 1.2 million people for influenza, over 600,000 people for COVID, or over 340,000 children for their routine immunisations. Although we are almost through the winter, it is not finished yet and a full and comprehensive evaluation of the winter plan and its impact on the system will happen once winter is over.

Dr Shane Reti: Point of order. I didn’t ask how many people had participated in any number of initiatives. My primary question on notice asked, “How many of the 24 initiatives in the 2023 winter plan have resulted in patients actually being [seen]”? “How many of the 24 initiatives” was my question.

SPEAKER: Yeah. I’m not an expert in this area, but I did hear three distinct areas. Maybe the—[Interruption] Who was that? I’m trying to do a ruling. It’s really unhelpful, people interrupting. Maybe the Minister can help me in making that discern, but I thought I heard you mention three of those initiatives. Am I right or—

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: Mr, Speaker, yes. I did name three, but the answer would be 11 of the initiatives treat people.

Dr Shane Reti: What specific actions is she taking to ensure that Oamaru ED will not have to close for a fourth time this year?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: Those contingencies are managed by local clinicians, and it is important that those plans are in place to make sure that patients are looked after when staffing levels are low. Te Whatu Ora has taken responsibility for increasing the resourcing that was previously provided to the district health board to make it more able to face these challenges, and works in the longer term with that centre—and the trust that owns it—in order to address the staffing challenges it faces.

Dr Shane Reti: How many people have been diverted to other hospitals because Oamaru ED has been closed?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: That’s a very precise question. That does occasionally happen, and it is not ideal but it is important that when that decision is necessary, clinicians are supported to make it to take care of people.

Dr Shane Reti: Have any patients been diverted to other hospitals because Oamaru ED has been closed?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: I am aware that patients were referred both in advance of the change and during the time when staffing levels were low.

Dr Shane Reti: Why is she unable to report ED wait time data until two weeks after the election, given it has been previously reported monthly for decades?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: It is not me who reports ED wait time data. Te Whatu Ora has a responsibility to do that. They have written a very long report on the appropriate process for doing so, and if that member wants accurate information, the processes that are outlined in that report need to be followed.

Question No. 12—Education

12. CHRIS BAILLIE (ACT) to the Minister of Education: Does she agree that the Relationships and Sexuality Education: A Guide for Teachers, Leaders, and Boards of Trustees resource produced by the Ministry of Education “must” be included in teaching programmes for years 1 to 8 children, and that “the school does not need to seek parents’ or caregivers’ permission for ākonga to participate in the programme”?

Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister of Education): Within the New Zealand curriculum, health and physical education, which includes relationships and sexuality, must be taught. However, the document the member refers to is a guide and not a requirement. Under the Education and Training Act 2020, schools have a legal obligation to consult with their communities at least every two years about their local health curriculum. Under the Act, parents and caregivers still have the right to withdraw their child from relationships and sexuality education by written requests to the school.

Chris Baillie: What should a parent do if they don’t want teachers talking to their children about gender identity and gender diversity, given that the guidelines suggest the curriculum programmes could be integrated into English, science, technology, maths and statistics, languages, and social sciences?

Hon JAN TINETTI: I have just said in my primary answer that they should write to the school. But I will actually read here what it does say about the suggested learning intentions—that in that guide it says it can be taught across the curriculum. In English, for example, it could explore and critique the representation of gender roles and relationships in text. Therefore, it could look at gender stereotyping—for example, women going to the supermarket all the time.

Chris Baillie: Does the Minister think that parents should have greater involvement over the delivery of relationship and sexuality education in schools?

Hon JAN TINETTI: I will refer to my primary answer. Can I read the part from those guidelines where it says schools, teachers, and parents or caregivers have some particular rights and responsibilities around requests for children to be withdrawn from aspects of the sexuality programme responding to children’s questions on sensitive issues. Firstly, the way that this happens is that schools must legally consult with their school community on what they are planning to teach in their local health curriculum. The school board of trustees then decides what the curriculum will be, taking into consideration the consultation from the community and the professional guidelines provided by the ministry. The school does not have to seek further consultation or permission from parents at this stage. However, if parents wish to remove their child from this part of the curriculum, they can do so.

Chris Baillie: Can the Minister explain why enabling year 1 to 8 children to “interrogate the ongoing effects of colonisation” is relevant to relationship and sexuality education for five- to 12-year-olds?

Hon JAN TINETTI: The guidelines the member is referring to have been developed by experts. What I will say is that, as a teacher, I know, from being a teacher, that when you put learning into the context of the learner, the educational outcomes are more powerful.

Chris Baillie: What teacher professional development has been provided to teach relationships and sexuality education, or can anyone do it?

Hon JAN TINETTI: Professional learning and development is part of the contract system. When a school decides that that is what they want to focus on, they will make those applications to the Ministry of Education or they will contract those private providers themselves. But it’s up to the school to determine where their strengths lie and also where their weaknesses lie, and what professional development they need as a school.

Urgent Debates Declined

Migrant Exploitation—Auckland

SPEAKER: Members, I have received a letter from Erica Stanford seeking to debate, under Standing Order 399, a recent case of migrant exploitation that was reported last night in Auckland. An urgent debate is a way of holding the Government accountable for an action for which it is responsible—Speaker’s ruling 200/4. The application does not disclose any Government action on the matter. Indeed, it notes that the Government has made no formal statements in relation to these events. The application is therefore declined.

Estimates Debate

In Committee

Debate resumed from 3 August on the Appropriation (2023/24 Estimates) Bill.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Members—quietly, please—the House is in committee for further consideration of the Appropriation (2023/24 Estimates) Bill. The Business Committee has determined to organise the debate by portfolio so there’ll be no sector specific debates.

All Votes are available for debate but only specific Ministers will be available each day to speak to the indicated portfolios only. The Government has indicated that the Minister of Local Government, the Minister of Justice, and the Minister of Transport will be available today. I understand that the relevant select committee chairpersons have indicated they do not wish to take calls to commence the debates.

This debate expires after 11 hours, at which point questions will be put that the Vote stand part of the Schedules and on the provisions of the Appropriation (2023/24 Estimates) Bill. There are two hours 29 minutes remaining in this debate. New Zealand Labour has 30 minutes remaining; New Zealand National has one hour 20 minutes remaining; ACT New Zealand has 22 minutes remaining; the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand has 13 minutes remaining; Te Paati Māori has 11 minutes remaining; Dr Elizabeth Kerekere has six minutes remaining; the Hon Meka Whaitiri has six minutes remaining.

The Estimates debate should be relevant to the Government’s current spending plans as contained in the Estimates of appropriations. A compendium of the reports of select committees on the Votes is available on the Table. The committee will be suspending at 5 p.m. for valedictory statements and will be sitting again after the dinner break.

The question, once again, is that the Votes contained in the Estimates of appropriation for 2023/24 stand part of the Schedules. We start with the Minister of Local Government. The Minister is available from 3 p.m. till 4 p.m.

Local Government

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Minister of Local Government): Thank you, Mr Chair. On the basis that the Labour Party only has 30 minutes remaining of the 2 hours and 29 minutes, I intend to signal to the House that how I’ll approach the hour that we’ve got is that I’ll let some questions build up and then answer them all in one go to try and be a little bit more efficient with time.

SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Thank you very much, Mr Chair, and I acknowledge the Minister has run out of steam already, but that’s not a problem at all. We will maximise this opportunity just to remind the Minister in regards to potentially some of the areas that he can ponder over answers. But it is clear that a number of these questions won’t have answers because a number of the decisions have been made in circumstances which sort of beggar a little bit of belief.

But I want to firstly question the Minister in regards to the three waters reform and, in particular, ask whether he stands by the degree of consulting and contractor spend that has been undertaken on what has been, without doubt, a woeful example of a Government reform programme. I acknowledge that the Minister has had a hospital pass from the prior Minister of Local Government the Hon Nanaia Mahuta, and there is an element that, potentially, I feel sorry for him in that circumstance.

But the degree of consultancy expenditure is in the region of around $30 million, with $600,000 spent on PR from Senate Communications. If we remember back on those failed ads that had green slime coming out of the taps and that expenditure, nearly $3 million was spent on an advertising company, FCB, in order to put together that advertising campaign that had green slime coming out of water taps—hard-earned taxpayers’ money. The question to the Minister is: does he believe that that was appropriate Government expenditure and not wasteful spending, taking into account that that communication programme—as the prior Minister of Local Government articulated—was a failed campaign in regards to information that did not convey the reality for many communities across this country?

What about the $1.27 million that was spent on the Scottish water authority to provide advisory into the numbers which underpin this Government’s three waters reform programme? Remember that number that the Prime Minister refers to—the $185 billion of capital? Well, those numbers have been debunked by a large number of people across this country, including mayors and councillors, who, with respect, I think would know more about their local government infrastructure than a couple of bureaucrats out of Scotland. Again, $1.27 million of Government expenditure was thrown up against that water agency for consultancy spend as part of that.

My second area of questioning is in regards to the forecasted nearly $3 billion—$3 billion—of establishment costs for this three waters reform. Don’t forget that that’s up $1 billion from what was originally forecast, at nearly $280,000 per day—$280,000 per day—of establishment costs for a reform which none of the local government bodies, from the outset, thought was actually going to really deliver fundamental change and improvements. What an absolute waste of money. I appreciate that the Minister is out of time, but he’s probably lucky that he’s out of time, with respect, because trying to come up with an answer that is all credible for why that is not wasteful spending is beyond us.

We appreciate that a number of bills still proceeding through this House relate to the changing of the number of entities, remembering that this was set out when we went through the first three waters reform programme. We said that absolutely this could not be done with no less than four mega-bureaucratic entities—remember that? Remember that Minister Mahuta came up and said, “No way, we’ve done all the analysis; no way this will ever work without dropping it down to four.” Well, what happened? After the grand reset by this Government—

Hon Scott Simpson: The policy bonfire.

SIMON WATTS: The policy bonfire, and what a bonfire—I think there was a bit too much petrol thrown on the bonfire, and a few people on the other side got their fingers burnt, didn’t they, through throwing a little too much dry kindling on to that fire. But that policy bonfire came up with “Oh no, let’s change four to 10 entities.”, but they didn’t change any of the underlying structural elements around the fact that they were still cogoverned mega-bureaucratic entities that are not based on democratically elected principles.

So I want to give the Minister the opportunity to potentially just say, “Hey, actually, do you know what? With only three sitting weeks left of this Parliament, maybe we made a mistake.” Here’s an opportunity, right? Here’s an opportunity, because the problem with this election is that this topic will be—there’s a very clear difference between the two political parties on this. So, in effect, the outcome of the election will be a mandate from the New Zealand public in regards to this. So my third question to the Minister is in regards to whether the new proposal of 10 entities is still something that the Minister believes is going to be appropriate.

The other area of questioning that we went through as part of the reviews was in regards to the IT expenditure projects. I tell you, for anyone who has looked at Government IT programmes, they generally don’t go too well, do they? But in order to ensure that this Government’s IT programme in regards to three waters is as credible as it could be, it decided to not undertake a proper procurement process, of course—right? So what better way to provide integrity and assurance would you have than if you didn’t undertake a proper procurement process, and that would be OK if the numbers were potentially reasonably immaterial, but guess what? Guess how much the numbers were in regards to the IT programme? I don’t know—throw some numbers out.

Hon Scott Simpson: I bet they’re big.

SIMON WATTS: How much—big numbers, yeah. I mean, a couple of hundred million, maybe—maybe that. Maybe $530 million, or maybe half a billion dollars of expenditure on the ICT programme? It was $530 million for this ICT investment programme.

So I’m asking the Minister clearly: does he stand by the fact that the officials have undertaken a procurement programme for ICT relating to three waters that did not go through a proper procurement programme, for $530 million of taxpayer money? No competitive process, no looking at options internationally, no looking at different systems, and no looking at alternative ways in which we should spend that money. No, just choosing a single supplier, signing a deal, and going ahead. Interestingly, that product that was selected is the same product that is used by one of the largest water companies in the country, and I’m sure that all of the process was appropriate, but the Minister needs to articulate that there was integrity in regards to that.

The other aspect, while we’ve got a little bit of time, is for the Minister to provide a little bit of comment around the chief executive officer roles that were appointed to manage these entities. Remember, we had four entities originally and we hired the CEOs. It’s come out that these CEOs are on salaries in the region of $600,000 to around about $800,000 per annum, per person. Well, let’s talk about a cost of living crisis, right? Let’s talk about a cost of living crisis. But the Minister has obviously been quite comfortable that we’ve got, initially, four CEOs on that, but, of course, with the change from four entities to 10, one doesn’t have to be too au fait on the mathematics to work out that that, potentially, is going to mean that we might have up to 10 of these CEOs across the country on between $600,000 and $800,000 per annum.

So I want the Minister to articulate and provide assurance to this committee—and to Kiwis out there watching this—whether this is value for money. What are going to be the additional outcomes in value that this will create by paying chief executive officers for 10 entities across this country, and all of the peripheral—

Hon Scott Simpson: There’ll be welcoming parties.

SIMON WATTS: There probably will be welcoming parties, I say to the Hon Scott Simpson. I wonder if they will spend around $40,000 on welcoming parties for each of them, because that would be another $400k that would go on top of that as well. Maybe the Minister could give us a little bit of an answer on whether he’s going to rule that out and say that there won’t be any welcoming parties for these 10 CEOs when they assume their positions.

Of course, the legislation doesn’t kick in until mid-2026. Just for the record, we’re in 2023 right now, so that’s a little way into the future. But, interestingly, these CEOs are already on those salaries, and they haven’t even started. They don’t start work for three years, but they’re already getting paid that accrual as money. So, again, can the Minister articulate whether that is value for money?

The last aspect is, in retrospect, in regards to all the challenges that local government faces across this country—the workforce shortages, the critical pressure that our local communities and local government are under—is it still appropriate that the Government is pushing through such wide-scale reform and ripping the heart out of local government by confiscating their assets and putting them into undemocratically elected entities? I ask whether that is still appropriate or, actually, should we just restore local ownership and control of water assets and ensure that our local communities are empowered to do what they should do in regards to three waters?

SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you, Mr Chair. Questions for the Minister: will the forecast establishment cost for the three waters entities, projected to increase from $2 billion to $3 billion now, deliver any additional waste water, stormwater or drinking water infrastructure? If not, what value, if any, will taxpayers and ratepayers get for the additional billion dollars that this Government now proposes to spend on three waters reforms? Minister, please note that one down in your notebook.

Secondly, has the Minister asked the Department of Internal Affairs (DIA) to identify where any savings might be made to reduce the $3 billion cost that is going to land on taxpayers, ratepayers, or water users just for setting up these entities, and, if so, if you ask the DIA for savings, what savings did they offer? Another question: how is it acceptable that the Department of Internal Affairs continues to pay between $602,500 and $815,500—the salary banding that applies to the three civil servants hired by the DIA as chief executives of the three water entities—even though those water entities are disestablished by the Water Services Entities Amendment Bill, which is on the order paper today, meaning they’ll be disestablished today or tomorrow at the latest. How is it acceptable that the DIA intends to continue paying them?—which was your response to my written question. Are there any other Civil Service chief executives who continue to be paid for a role that no longer exists?

It’s not just the ACT Party that wants to know; every single taxpayer in New Zealand wants to know. How is it acceptable that the Department of Internal Affairs hired recruitment consultants at a cost of $500,000 to recruit these CEOs—four CEOs for four water service entities, three of whom whose roles will soon be redundant. Half a million bucks to recruit them, and will the department ask the recruiters to help find them another job when they’re made redundant by the Water Services Entities Amendment Bill when it passes today or tomorrow? Will these same recruiters be asked to help shuffle these people along?

A final question from the ACT Party on behalf of all of the consumers and taxpayers in New Zealand: has the Department of Internal Affairs ever ended the employment of any staff as a result of their roles becoming redundant and, if so, will the department act to save taxpayers money by terminating the three chief executives who’ve been hired for three water service entities which won’t exist after today or tomorrow when the Water Services Entities Amendment Bill is passed? The Government’s going to disestablish their roles; will the DIA make them redundant, and if not, Minister, why not?

CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I appreciate the opportunity to contribute to the discussion about local government and I’d like to do so in a number of different areas. But perhaps starting with its relationship to the cyclone recovery, I acknowledge that there is a separate Minister for Cyclone Recovery, but the matters that I’d like to raise with the Minister relate to that very important relationship between central and local government.

Noticing that the Government—by which I mean central government—has touted a locally led, centrally supported recovery, and of course noting that the Minister himself also has a particular role as a ministerial lead within a particular region—and I reiterate, for the committee, that National will be supportive of any efforts that the Government makes that we think are positive changes for those who have been displaced by Cyclone Gabrielle—I note that the six-month mark from the time of that disaster has recently passed and I acknowledge all those who have found themselves in difficult circumstances, and indeed those who lost their life in some cases and certainly were endangered and lost much property and personal possessions that are dear to them, and so forth, in the events of 14 February and around that time.

My questions for the Minister will revolve around seeking to understand from him—and I acknowledge he has limited time available to deliver a response, but the question is whether the model of a locally led and centrally supported response or recovery has been effective. It has been effective, it seems to me, in some ways, but in other ways not so much. And while at the theoretical level we in the National Party agree that local input is hugely important, indeed vital, nevertheless it is the case that central support must be provided in order for that to be delivered meaningfully. And I think it’s fair to say that in certain key respects we haven’t had meaningful delivery.

Certainly, visiting Muriwai within my own electorate of Kaipara ki Mahurangi yesterday morning, I was taken to view a number of badly damaged homes. In fact, it’s probably an exaggeration now to call them homes, except that’s where the lives were being made of these people who have been displaced. They are certainly not habitable now. In some cases there were large trees and mudslides through them; the cliff had come down on that fateful night. It’s obvious to anyone with a civil engineering degree, or not—and certainly I’m no expert in these matters from a technical perspective—to see that these houses are not habitable now, in some cases. I’m not referring to all, obviously, but the ones that are not are very obviously not, and those should have been designated for the buy-out regime much sooner than the six-month mark; they still don’t have that. So I put it to the Minister that the locally led, centrally supported notion was a valuable one and a worthwhile one but it’s only been as successful as the extent to which central support has been provided; in too many ways it has not.

One of the problems that we’ve seen in the relationship between Wellington and these respective local governments is that the mayors and the councillors, and indeed even those who live within these regions, appear reticent to criticise or to ask for more, even from the Government, because to do so would be to bite the hand that feeds them. They are crucially dependent on the largesse of the Beehive. Noting the disparity between ratepayer versus taxpayer bases, you know, the large scale of assets at play and differing revenue streams mean that, actually, there’s a power imbalance between local and central government. Now, that’s historic. That’s not something that’s occurred only recently in relation to cyclone recovery. It’s been the case for many years; it’s not a particular thing that’s arisen over the course of the last two terms, for example.

I don’t make any political partisan point in relation to that, but I do point it out because it’s relevant background to understanding that, because local government is so dependent on central government playing a part in a situation such as this, we do need to acknowledge the assistance that local government needs, the support, indeed, that it needs in order to achieve things in relation to cyclone recovery.

The cost-sharing arrangements that the Government announced it would reach with local councils in affected areas is a major topic of contention and, if I’m allowed additional time, Mr Chair, then I’ll point out that it is only in the case of one region, namely Hawke’s Bay area councils, that a cost-sharing arrangement has been agreed. So Wellington is yet to reach equivalent agreements with others. My current understanding—and if there’s an update in this then I’ll thank the Minister; I’ll be grateful to hear from him that others have been concluded—is that while we have heard for some time now that it is close to hearing an agreement between itself and the Tairāwhiti region, nevertheless such an arrangement has not yet been made. Likewise with Auckland Council jurisdiction with large areas of West Auckland and the north-west that remain totally in limbo in the absence of a cost-sharing agreement.

Also lacking, for the benefit of the Minister, is an understanding—whether from local government or central government or between them—as to when buy-outs of irreparably damaged homes, category three homes, as we say, will actually take place. We’ve heard good intentions in this regard from the Minister and we support those intentions, but unless and until those become reality, that’s not much consolation to those who have been displaced. We don’t know when we will know, we don’t know when the buy-outs will take effect. I think it’s a reasonable hope and expectation that these might take place before Christmas. There’s an emotional attachment, I suppose, and an impetus for people to feel as though by Christmas-time—that special time of the year, in many ways—people will know better what life will lie ahead for them in the following year. But, nevertheless, they don’t now and we face the prospect of, regardless of who is in Government following mid-October and regardless of the shape of that, that whoever is responsible for implementing such a buy-out regime will be left with too little time to achieve that before Christmas and that would be a real shame.

To think that the country’s Civil Service, and private sector too, for that matter, will close down for a month or so as is customary over the summer break, and what a fine tradition it is too, nevertheless, that will be bittersweet for those who have more time cooling their heels outside the suburb in which they have lived, outside the communities in which they have connections, and without the emotional and financial certainty of their situation.

And an example of the problem is that there are people who are living away from their homes at the moment, they’ve been displaced, they’ve entered into rental agreements for a certain period of time because at the point that they were displaced they’ve tried to find anywhere that they can to keep a roof over their head. They don’t know how long to enter into those—they don’t know how much of a renewal they should seek. They’re in precarious financial circumstances. Now, I will acknowledge—and I give credit to the Government for this—recently there was an announcement that there would be some accommodation support that would allow those who are in that situation to gain some support from central government. So again, just to emphasise, we welcome that as far as it goes. However, the bigger picture is that people need the certainty of what’s happening with their situation more substantively so that they’re not relying on the Government to prop them up on a temporary basis month by month, or six month by six month, or year by year in the case of tenancy agreements.

While we’re talking about it, it’s also the case that the scheme took some weeks to come into effect. So for people who were left in that limbo, who were really already struggling and didn’t have good circumstances in terms of their living situation, they had to actually wait for quite some time until they could be eligible for that. And even then there were all kinds of complications that have been the result of central government rules as to be applied either through central government departments or in conjunction with local government. And one of them, it seems to be, and we’re trying to unpick this puzzle now, is actually that it appears that if you own your home—your family home—in a trust, that you won’t actually be eligible to gain such accommodation assistance. That seems to be extraordinary because there are many reasons that a person might own a home in a trust. For example, to protect against creditors relevant to a professional situation. It might be some legitimate family reason that’s not for avoiding or, let alone, evading tax, and yet these people are disqualified and that seems to me quite wrong. It’s a theme I might be able to pick up in a future contribution.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Minister of Local Government): Thank you. I’ve been taking notes throughout, so I’ll run through them. To Mr Watts’ first question. There were two parts; neither are relevant to the Estimates. To the second question: it’s an estimate only and isn’t appropriated for within the estimates. To the third question: yes. To the fourth question: yes. To the fifth question: CEO roles will be sized appropriately to the size and scale of the entity. And to the sixth question: yes, and the reason I say that is because the Government can and has always been able to demonstrate that our plan will save ratepayers’ money. The member’s party’s plan, such that it is, cannot.

To Simon Court’s question, the first one: yes. The second one: the increase is offset by the removal of tranche two of the Better Off funding, $1 billion of which was due to be funded by the entities. The third and fourth questions are not actually a matter for the Estimates.

In regards to Mr Penk’s questions, I have a lot of sympathy for those questions and genuinely would like to engage in that discussion. However, I’m in a difficult spot where, in so far as I’m Minister of Local Government, my responsibility doesn’t go that far. I’ve gone through the Estimates documents and looked at it. Definitely there’s funding that’s come through these Estimates around the seven regional recovery organisations across all the affected regions, including those that he’s mentioned, and of course funding for local government around support for flood mitigation etc.

It is true that I am the Minister responsible for the recovery in Hawke’s Bay, the Tararua district, and the Wairarapa, but in so far—and I would love to have that yarn, but I’m limited in this debate. But I would say that I acknowledge the concerns that the member’s raised. They are concerns that I share also as the Minister responsible for Hawke’s Bay, which is the most affected but also the most advanced. It has been an incredibly complex process, but I do want to acknowledge the five councils in Hawke’s Bay for showing the leadership that they have and for getting to the point that they have at this point.

Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair, and I hope these questions do relate to the Estimates. There’s a budget of $605 million for the Minister of Local Government, and there’s quite a chunk of money across various appropriations that are for the water services reform. There were a number of questions that the Governance and Administration Committee asked of the department, including some of the risks around key deliverables for the whole reform programme over the next 12 months. The response was that, yes, the costs of transition—such as key personnel and establishment boards—would be covered, and the like. But one of the answers said that there was no intention to undertake a performance assessment prior to the completion of the project, the reform programme; there would be a post-implementation review.

Given the large amount of money in Vote Internal Affairs, and the local government portion of that that is going to the reform, why isn’t there a performance assessment being done prior to the completion? What assurance can the Minister give that there is appropriate scrutiny of expenditure? And are the questions that have been posed by the National member about the cost of the ICT system and the system of record correct or not? Because questions that were asked to the department about providing an update on the systems and record implementation business case and when it was expected to be presented to the Minister weren’t answered with any level of detail. The department is apparently working through a revised work programme, but that ICT system will be expensive. So when does the Minister expect to receive it and how much is it likely to cost out of the Minister’s Vote?

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Minister of Local Government): I thank the member for her question. The response she received is obviously directly from the department. I will follow up, personally, and get an answer to her directly.

SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Thank you very much, Minister, for those responses. Just following on from my colleague, Chris Penk, in regards to the implications of categorisation of some of the homes in my local electorate of the North Shore—and particularly Milford, located on the back of the Milford stream, which was one of the significant outflows following the Auckland floods.

The responsibility for categorisation of the impacted homes is on local government—in particular Auckland Council—and yet some six months on, my community and many communities surrounding that are still waiting for that categorisation process to be completed. That obviously has a significant implication in regards to the pressure that falls upon those families and individuals that continue to live with their properties backing on to that stream, and the continuing concerns around a large number of individuals: I think about the Parklane retirement home that is in Sunnynook and Forrest Hill areas of my community of which nearly 40 homes within that—and this is a retirement village—those homes are completely uninhabitable and the residents are still not able to go into their homes nearly six months later. Yet, the responsibility around categorisation does fall upon local government. The irony here is that when we’ve got a funding model—and acknowledging that the Auckland funding model isn’t public, but if you use the precedent of the agreement of 50:50 funding that has been reached in other jurisdictions outside of Auckland, then when council has responsibility to actually categorise and the categorisation leads to a fiscal consequence on them as a council, surely you can see the logic that there is a conflict of interest in regards to that decision-making process, that adversely will impact residents within the local community.

So as Minister of Local Government, I am seeking clarity and assurance around why this process is taking so long. Christchurch took about 120 days for that categorisation process to be undertaken, on a scale which was significant, and acknowledging this is broad, but the number of homes is known—the number and the location of those—and yet we have not seen any significant tangible progress on that, nor, actually, clarity in regards to a timeline of when that will occur. So acknowledging the current state is people still don’t know the answer, they don’t even have the certainty of when that question will be answered, and that obviously is completely unacceptable, and many of those within my community continue to worry about when the next heavy rain will come, because no tangible feedback has been received from local government in regards to the lessons learnt from that flood.

What did the reviews find as a result of what caused the implications, and as a result of the findings of those reviews by local government? What actions, if any, have been taken to mitigate this from happening again? Those are all questions, six months on, that remain unanswered, and I do see it as the role of the Minister of Local Government to be ensuring that we have got a process of transparency in that regard, and I’ll be interested in the Minister’s comments in regards to that.

I want to go back to the three waters legislation. I note that the Minister said that my question around consultancy expenditure was out of scope; well, I challenge that. I do see that during the period in which we are discussing today there is a large number of consultancy expenditure that has been incurred within the period; to say that that is not relevant is an interesting opinion, but not one that I share. The questions I have in regards to the aspects of the three waters legislation are around the Te Mana o te Wai statements, and this is a principle that has been in place for a long time. The Minister has been on record to say that actually the Te Mana o te Wai statements—which is a new construct under the water services legislation which basically provides requirements for the regional representative groups that must take into account feedback within those statements—still remains. And while the community priority statements have been brought into play in regards to mitigating some of this issue, the community priority statements have been embedded to potentially provide another basis for other stakeholders to input into that process. The consideration around those priority statements is that they “may” be considered versus “must”, and there is obviously a key point of difference there. And I’m interested in the Minister’s comments in regards to the difference between the Mana o te Wai principle, and then the subsequent construct of the Te Mana o te Wai statement, which did not exist prior to this Government’s three waters legislation, and it is the basis of a large amount of question and concern by members of this community.

I’m also interested in the Minister providing comment in regards to when the Hon Nanaia Mahuta, the prior Minister of Local Government, called that the three waters reform was an arrangement that was “co-governance”, and then subsequently, the Prime Minister Chris Hipkins was quoted as saying “co-governance” never existed in any of Labour’s three waters reform. Well, there’s a slight conflict around views there. I’m interested in whether the Minister stands by the Prime Minister in regards to saying “co-governance” never existed in Labour’s three waters reforms, or the Hon Nanaia Mahuta, who was very clear that those labels were “co-governance”. And let’s just remind those considering around that: the regional representative groups still have a dedicated number of seats within those governance entities, or those entities that are dedicated only for iwi Māori, and a number of seats that are only allocated to territorial authorities—and actually, an equal weighting, and that’s why it’s referred to as “50:50 co-governance”, so I’m interested in what the Minister’s comments—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Mr Watts, you will show us the context of this.

SIMON COURT (ACT): Minister, you made the statement, in response to my question, that the $1 billion in additional costs for the three waters transition won’t be borne by taxpayers or ratepayers or the entities because it’s been offset by the Government cancelling the billion or more in Better Off funding that it offered to councils in recognition of all the additional costs they’re going to face as a result of this transition; in particular, the costs in back office, retaining staff, overheads, Minister—not to mention the fact that many councils like Whangārei District Council, for example, their water assets and revenues are cash-flow positive, Minister, which means that by taking their assets off them and the revenues they’re going to be worse off. So, Minister, the Better Off funding is still needed by councils even though this Government has withdrawn it. So, Minister, is there any opportunity in the provisions made in this year’s Estimates to recompense those councils who are having their assets taken off them without compensation—expropriated—who will suffer these additional costs that the Better Off funding was supposed to compensate them for? Minister, is there anything in these Estimates, in this provision, which will compensate them?

Second question, Minister, in your role, being responsible for local government, for councils such as Wellington City Council—Wellington City Council is going ahead with the Golden Mile improvements project, which is nothing more than a mass demolition of Lambton Quay that’s going to last for two or three years in terms of construction and all of the other impacts that will have on businesses. Now, the project aims to remove Ubers, private cars, taxis from Lambton Quay, spend $140 million of ratepayer and taxpayer money—probably more, because you can’t trust a cost estimate delivered by this Government—and the overwhelming majority of Wellington businesses, retailers, property owners, delivery drivers, taxi drivers, Uber drivers, anyone who has to access the Golden Mile is opposed to this project, Minister. So does the Minister have confidence in Wellington City Council delivering and proceeding with this project with no backing from those affected, and, if so, why? Thank you.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Minister of Local Government): Point of order. Thank you, Mr Chair. It might be useful to the previous two members to point out that this is an Estimates debate. And so when I respond and say that questions were out of scope and not relevant to the Estimates—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): That’s not a point of order. The Minister can answer the question and point that out in his answer. Other than that, it will be for the Chair to decide what is relevant.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: Fair enough, Mr Chair. However, I do have one point I wish—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The Minister’s not answering the Chair. The point of order is over. The Minister can now answer the question or sit down.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: OK, sure enough. So in the limited time that I have, any question that is asked that refers to costs that have gone previously or matters that are outside of the Estimates document are out of scope; similarly, this is not a committee of the whole House stage—so any question around Te Mana o te Wai statements, etc.

The other point that I wish to make is like the comment I said to Mr Penk: I would dearly like to have a discussion around the cyclone recovery. This is a matter that is very important to me. However, whilst the matter might be relevant to the local government sector, it is not relevant to this portfolio nor the Estimates debate.

CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. Just going back to the Minister’s previous response of a few minutes ago, I was heartened by his willingness to have a conversation about these matters, in relation to cyclone recovery. I look forward to taking him up on his offer to have a yarn—as he would have it. So we’ll arrange that offline; I don’t need to take the committee’s time to ask him to open his diary and see how 3.30 next Friday might be. But, in principle, I’m very pleased to have that offer and I look forward to doing that.

I think the point in relation to cyclone recovery—and I hear the Minister’s point that that portfolio is not in direct alignment with the local government one, but I do think, nevertheless, in an Estimates hearing, the points I’m about to make, Mr Chair, you will regard as reasonable for this context, which is to talk about what’s set out in the Estimates and in Budget and annual review documents and all those ones that are relevant to the funding of the sector. Because the demands on the sector are as set out, in the first instance, in the Local Government Act and various other items on the statute book, and, for now, at least, the Resource Management Act and soon-to-be, albeit temporarily, Spatial Planning Act and the other one, Natural and Built Environment Act. But also there are miscellaneous and occasional and irregular demands that are put on the sector, and it’s reasonable to ask, in this context, how the Government of the day, and local government more particularly, will respond to these challenges, including by way of resourcing, and so on.

So, if I can use an example, in the Tiniroto community on the East Coast, there’s a Bluff road that has been closed; the bypass one—Parikanapa Road—is, effectively, a bypass. Now, by the way, I’m not asking the Minister to be an expert on these particulars. That wouldn’t be fair, wouldn’t be reasonable, and I’m not about to ask a question particularly on the matter. But just to point out to the committee, more generally, that these demands on local government are a good illustration of the demands that are on councils and territorial authorities, whereby if there is a small ratepayer base but a large geographical area or a large problem in infrastructure terms that needs to be addressed, then that’s an issue that needs to be taken into account by central government in determining what level of support is needed. That’s an issue, incidentally, on which I would be grateful to meet with the Minister, if he has time, and, certainly, that community has reached out, hoping to be able to meet with a Minister—and, in fact, your name specifically was mentioned, Mr McAnulty. So, again, not to put you on the spot in terms of making that particular arrangement now, but just to flag these are the kinds of demands that the local government sector is facing. There’s the business as usual—and there’s the business very much not as usual, in response to events such as Cyclone Gabrielle, of course.

I have some unrelated questions and comments to make, which, perhaps for the sake of neatness, I should seek in a separate call. But I’d be remiss if I didn’t add in to this contribution that we have good people involved in local government. We have elected representatives up and down this country who work hard, who represent their communities. Some of their decisions that I’m aware of, whether it’s my own patch or elsewhere, I’d agree with; others, not so. But these are people who put themselves forward to serve their community and they deserve our commendation for that. They’re part of a democratic process through local government elections—and, as recently as last year, of course, that was their fate to go through, and they were putting up billboards, and we were not; 12 months later, of course, it’s our time—those of us in central government. But in a way we are engaged in the same act of, we hope, representation in public service. So I think it’s worth acknowledging that. And, again, just to use, by way of example, the Cyclone Gabrielle recovery context, there are people who have been very deeply affected in their own households or businesses, nevertheless, trying to deliver the goods and services and the leadership that their local communities need. Where central government can support them to do that, recognising the difficulty of their circumstances, that’s a positive thing.

So, again, I would encourage the Government to do everything in its power to provide that support, noting the circumstances, noting the good intentions but sometimes more limited resources in terms of staffing, expert knowledge, ability to communicate, and so forth. So I’ll conclude my remarks on the local government point, as it relates to Cyclone Gabrielle, there, and if no other—the Minister or other—wish to take a call, I’ll pop up and perhaps make some other local government - related remarks.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Minister of Local Government): I thank the member for those comments. He might remember back when the Auckland floods first hit, that I contacted him directly and invited him to stay in touch with me and work as a conduit between his caucus and me and my office to try and give him the information that he needed. I would extend that again. If he needs to have a yarn specifically around where it’s relevant to my portfolios, I invite him to do that.

I certainly recognise the issues that he’s raised: that councils are constrained financially and that’s having an impact on them to do their day-to-day activities—in particular, roads. I think of the Tararua District Council in my electorate; it has 12,000 ratepayers, the fourth-largest roading network in the country. They simply are struggling to afford to do that, which is why the Government has assisted them with an increased allocation through the emergency works budget.

I would point to the fact that water services reform will remove a significant amount of debt from councils’ balance sheets—a debt that they are, in some instances, struggling to cover now. Some councils are already at their debt cap; other councils simply cannot increase rates, because their communities can’t afford it. They will be assisted greatly by the removal of that debt cap. That is also a major feature of the review into the future of local government. The member may remember or recognise that I have invited Local Government New Zealand to work with the sector and figure out what they want from that; what the solutions are, in their view, to deal with the funding problems, and then come back after the election and we’ll work through it together.

SIMON COURT (ACT): Minister, in response to the question I put to you about whether the Department of Internal Affairs (DIA) will continue to pay three soon-to-be-redundant chief executives hired by the DIA’s national transition unit on three waters—they’ll be redundant today or tomorrow by the very legislation you’re sponsoring, Minister. You said that’s “out of scope” for the Estimates debate. Those salaries are funded out of these Estimates, paid by the DIA through the national transition unit to these three individuals. Minister, it’s clearly in scope. Will you instruct the DIA to make them redundant and stop paying them when the roles are redundant or do you support the DIA keeping those individuals on, paying their salaries out of this year’s Estimates for appropriations so that you can do what with them, Minister?

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Minister of Local Government): The member is incorrect. One CEO will continue because one of the entities in which the CEO has been hired has not changed and will continue to go live in July 2024. So that person continues in that role. Outside of that, there is a change process under way. If they wish to continue to assist with the establishment, then they’ll have that opportunity.

SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Thank you very much. As the Minister outlined in his reply to one of the questions, the reference there to the future of local government review, my question is in regards to that review, which was undertaken during the period in which we are reviewing this afternoon: why has that subsequently been thrown to another, in effect, review committee to work out what needs to be done and, in effect, kicked for touch to April—give or take—of next year when, actually, a large number of the issues within the local government sector are well known and 90 percent of the issues primarily relate to funding, finance, and the financial sustainability of that sector? So why is the Minister choosing to continue to kick that issue down the road and not take some accountability in regards to being clear and concise around how the Government is planning to deal with the financial sustainability issues that the local government sector is facing?

Also in regards to that future of local government review, there were a wide-ranging number of recommendations, many of which, in our view, are not necessarily relevant or make the boat go faster in regards to making the local government sector high quality nor financially sustainable. I’d be interested in the Minister’s view around what aspects of that review he does not support, to save a little bit of time and effort by those individuals from further considering those points and coming up with further recommendations which will not be implemented by any Government in the future.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Minister of Local Government): The member might be happy to pick and choose which ones he and his party support and then go to the sector and say, “This is what we think; what do you think?” We’re not going to take that approach. We’ve said to the sector “Here’s an opportunity.” We don’t want to repeat the mistakes of the past and numerous reviews over successive Governments that have taken the approach that he’s proposing. We’ve said, “Sit down together, try to find a consensus view on the recommendations.”—a view that takes into account rural, metro, provincial, and regional/unitary authorities, and how it worked for them. Then, after the election, I have invited them to sit down and we will work through it together. That has had a really positive response and I stand by that. If we’re going to find a solution that works for the sector, we’ve got to work alongside them, and as long as I’m Minister, that’ll be my commitment to them.

SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): One of the major issues facing the local government sector, in addition to the issues around financial sustainability, funding, and finance, relate to workforce. From the Minister, I’m interested in what plans or actions the Minister has considered, or is the Minister considering, in regards to providing relief to the local government sector in terms of the significant workforce challenges that that sector has been under, under the review in which we are undertaking during that period, and continues to be impacted by. In particular, a number of examples in regards to workforce vacancies which are related to the appropriation and the fact that the local government sector has the inability to fill those vacancies because a number of those technical experts have, in effect, been—and I’m using some language from a number of those within the local government sector—“poached” by central government agencies on salaries sometimes 30 to 40 percent higher for the same or similar role within local government.

So I’m interested in regards to aspects around, particularly, retention of those individuals within the sector and what the Minister is planning to do in order to provide a degree of certainty for those individuals who obviously undertake significantly important roles across our local government sector and, in effect, provide a number of solutions and options and value for our local communities. And I think that was highlighted again by the response of our local government sector during the period of the natural disasters that we faced earlier this year.

It is without doubt that, without the support of, and the role of, and the actions by members of our local government sector, we would not have seen our communities be able to respond nor our communities be able to rebuild from the implications of what has occurred in that regard. But the reality is that a number of people within the local government sector, because of those significant workforce shortages and issues around changing reform policy, means that they are leaving the sector, and yet we don’t seem to have a clear plan in regards to the workforce and the keeping and the building of capability and competence within that sector, which is a critical sector for our community.

So I’m interested in the Minister’s views around that and what specific actions, if any, have been undertaken in regards to mitigate that risk.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Minister of Local Government): In so far as that is relevant to the Estimates, I will give an example that will assist councils considerably and that is water reform, because what the Government is doing will remove a significant amount of debt from council’s books, debts that they are currently having to service; that is a significant financial burden on local communities. The member’s party has put forward a proposal that will not remove debt from their books and they will continue to have to service that individually at rates that will ultimately become unaffordable for ratepayers.

CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you, Mr Chair. In the dying stages of this excellent discussion on local government with the Minister in the chair—

Simon Court: And this Government.

CHRIS PENK: Oh, the Government—the dying days of the Government too, Simon Court points out. Well, I’m sure he’s not far wrong there. We’ve got nearly three weeks to go—sitting weeks—or two weeks to go, plus a bit as colleagues in my office misleadingly put up every time.

So, I do want to make a bit of a local pitch in relation to the local representation arrangements in my electorate, and, again, not to put the Minister on the spot to be OK with the particular aspects that I’m going to talk about, but it is an opportunity to put on record some concerns of the community that have been expressed to me—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): In so far as they refer to the appropriations, Mr Penk—

CHRIS PENK: Absolutely, and so far as they refer back to—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Which you will refer back to constantly.

CHRIS PENK: Absolutely, absolutely. I’ll refer constantly back to the appropriations, Mr Chair, and I appreciate your guidance on that point. Although can I just say, and I know I’m straying to dangerous territory, but you’ll indulge me, I hope, these points have been made to me, but also the Labour list MP based in the area, namely Marja Lubeck. I do want to acknowledge, ahead of her valedictory statement which will be made in just over an hour, in fact, that that’s an aspect on which we’ve been working together closely, with local advocates, and I’ve enjoyed doing so—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): That still doesn’t lead it into the appropriations.

CHRIS PENK: No, no, but if I were to say how that relates to the appropriations, I probably wouldn’t have much to say. So I will actually just get on firmer ground and say that, while the appropriations for local government for the relevant year, whichever that may be, relate to various ways of local government operating, of course it’s important that it operates as efficiently as possible and revenue streams are relatively limited, because, of course, we’ve got a particular system that’s enabled under the legislation and the rating thereof. The point that relates very clearly to the appropriations in relation to my electorate is that the more rural areas sometimes feel underrepresented because they’re part of a larger whole, whereby the old Rodney district, for example, which existed in its own terms, is now part of the Auckland Council—the so-called super-city—despite the fact that this area is very much not a city. It’s very rural in character and nature, and the plea from locals who meet with me, they say, “Chris, for goodness’ sakes next time you’re in the House and discussing the appropriations of the local government sector in an Estimates kind of way, can you please raise this?” And I say, “Well that would be very relevant, so I’ll be happy to do so”.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Well, you could go back to them and say you have local issues time to do that.

CHRIS PENK: We have local issues time as well, that’s right, Mr Chair. I think you’re giving a very good contribution, if I may say; it’s almost as good as my own. But look, I do just want to make that point that that’s part of the bigger conversation about what’s important to local government: the efficiency, the revenue that’s obtained by rates, and the fairness of the representation there on. So with that, I welcome any response that the Minister may have to that in the remaining time.

SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. It’s an absolute pleasure. I wanted to go further into a couple of aspects. It’s interesting in regards to this appropriation that the Minister refers to the reforms and the fact that the three waters reform programme will take the debt off council balance sheets. But what the Minister has not clearly articulated is: where does that debt go? Because the reality is that there isn’t any magic money tree that exists. And while the debt may be taken off the council’s balance sheet, that does not mean the debt does not exist in the context of the broader economy. While it may, under the Government’s proposed model, sit within a water services entity, at the end of the day the ratepayer or the taxpayer will still need to contribute in order to fund that debt profile. So I think it’s interesting to sort of make that point, but I don’t think it holds any water, to use the point in regards to the fact that actually there is no magic money tree for this debt.

What is clear, in regards to the estimated $3 billion of establishment costs—these are costs that have been outlined across the period, and a large portion of those costs have already been included within this appropriation—is that those will not actually derive one single metre of additional water pipe going into the ground; actually quite the opposite. The majority of that expenditure, to date, has been spent on what is a Conga line of consultants, a gravy train of consultants, and contractors by this Government to implement a reform programme which was strongly opposed by the majority of local government and the majority of Kiwis.

So I’m interested in the Minister’s comments in regards to: does he stand by the fact that the expenditure within the appropriation is value for money and is actually going to derive benefits? And while the debt will be taken off councils’ balance sheets, who actually is going to be funding that debt? Who is this magic population that isn’t the ratepayer or the taxpayer? Or is it actually the ratepayer or the taxpayer? Because I think most Kiwis are pretty sensible and they can see through that, that no matter how you dress up this issue, the fact is that someone is going to have to pay and, at the end of the day, that person will be members of our community.

So those are the two points, Mr Chair, that I wanted to add and to thank the Minister for his contribution.

Justice

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members, we now have the Minister of Justice. The Minister of Justice is going to be available from 4 p.m. until 5 p.m. I call on the chair of the Justice Committee, Vanushi Walters.

VANUSHI WALTERS (Chairperson of the Justice Committee): Madam Chair, thank you very much for the opportunity to make some brief remarks to lead off this debate on the justice Estimates.

Firstly, I’d just like to thank the Minister and the chief executive, Andrew Kibblewhite, and also the officials who provided us with information and advice on the day, and thank the committee members for their diligence through this process. The Justice Committee hearing forms an important part of our holding the executive to account.

In 2023-24, the appropriations sought for Vote Justice totalled $856.932 million. That is about 3.6 percent more than the previous year’s estimated actual expenditure of $827.013 million. Of those appropriations, they included $303.578 million for legal aid services and $196.59 million for services provided by the Ministry of Justice, as well as $72.968 million for community-based justice services including services such as the community legal service network.

Through our discussion with the Minister and the chief executive, we discussed subjects such as the cluster approach to Budget bids—and this is, of course, the second year that that approach has been taken—the sentencing of offenders, support and assistance for victims, legislation to address organised crime, and the appropriation within Vote Justice that is the responsibility of the Minister for the Prevention of Family and Sexual Violence. So with those brief remarks, I would thank the members, again, for their work.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. So, for those tuning in to this debate, this is a debate where we’re discussing the Government’s spending in the justice sector for the coming year in the Budget. As has just been indicated, you know, $800 million - odd are spent in the justice-specific area, but, obviously, a lot more is spent on the prisons through corrections and through the police, and in the broader sense that there are several billions being spent. Justice, as the overarching portfolio, guides the priorities for the Government of the day in terms of spending, and that’s guided by the legislation that they pass. We’ve been on the record a number of times querying the priorities of this Government in justice as a whole. It is a fact that the one, real, clear priority that they’ve set out so far, articulated by Kelvin Davis, is to reduce the prison population by 30 percent, irrespective of what’s going on in our communities and on our streets.

We contend that that is a misplaced focus. Everybody wants to see fewer people in prison, but it needs to follow a fall in crime. But, instead, we’ve seen an increase in crime over the same period. In terms of violent crime, we’ve seen a 40-odd percent increase in violent crime over the same period that we’ve seen a more than 20 percent drop in the number of people in prison. So that leaves people confused and confounded and trying to understand what the purpose is. Is it to keep us safe, or is it just to follow an ideological desire to reduce prison numbers, come what may?

So when we see the money that’s being spent—a lot of it on advice from the Ministry of Justice—we ask ourselves: “Well, what is the focus of the advice; what are they trying to achieve?” We are two months out from an election. If I was fortunate enough to be Minister of Justice, I’d be focusing on making better progress on reducing violent crime in our communities. So I’d be interested in where the Government sees her priorities are there and what the Government is trying to achieve there.

Then, we’d be trying to deal with the real problems that we’ve got on youth crime—we’ve seen a 500 percent increase in ram raids, and that’s got out of control over the past few years. Various schemes have been put forward, but they haven’t seemed to have been working so far. We have proposed some new tools, such as military academies. We’ve also proposed new legislative tools around young serious offenders, but we haven’t seen much progress made there.

The third area needs to be the focus on speeding up the processes of the courts, which is keeping people’s lives on hold for years, waiting for justice. But when we see this Government’s priorities—as well as reducing the prison population, we just heard today that they’re going to be introducing legislation to reduce the voting age to 16. Well, I mean, heck, thank goodness for that! That’s one thing that the people of New Zealand are calling out for when there’s violent crime increasing, youth crime is out of control, and there are long delays in the court system! But this Government is focused on reducing the voting age to 16. Now, they’ve also been spending millions of dollars on their crusade to ban hate speech, which is on and off again—I think it’s off at the moment—but has involved a lot of ministerial and official advice on that topic. So I’d be interested to know just what the Government is proposing to spend on the consultation and advice on that latest bill that they brought in around reducing the voting age, the Electoral (Lowering Voting Age for Local Elections and Polls) Legislation Bill.

Then, finally, we’ve heard from the Minister of Justice today, talking about being victim-centric and trying to focus on the needs of victims of crime. The fundamental question I ask her is: surely the thing that victims of crime want to be most focused on—well, first is not to become a victim in the first place, which is around improving public safety, but then, secondly, to see justice and justice done. We’ve seen a number of cases over the last few years where people—young men—have been convicted of very serious sexual assaults on young women, including rape, and have received home detention sentences. I would have thought victims would not be very impressed with that, frankly, and what that means.

So what I’d like to understand is why the Minister and the Government haven’t given more attention to the Sentencing Act and whether it’s working effectively, and whether the massive discounts that we’re seeing—sometimes up to 70 percent of sentences—from judges as they apply a whole lot of discounts—where people have come in, committed, and been convicted of very serious crimes, serious assaults, and, like I say, rapes, where the starting point might be eight or nine years in prison, and then a whole lot of discounts have been applied and they’ve ended up in home detention, on the Xbox, watching TV, and doing whatever they’re doing on home detention. So the question is: is the Minister satisfied with the situation where there is unfettered discretion on the part of the judiciary to reduce them as much as they feel due fit?

Now, we in the National Party have proposed a limit on that, and I’d be interested in her views on whether she sees that as appropriate. So when it comes to the $196 million that’s being spent on the Ministry of Justice, primarily to provide advice to the Minister, has she asked for some advice on that, whether we’ve got that balance right, and why should we change and why shouldn’t we change?

I also want to know whether she’s asked for advice on whether the community is safer as a result of her Government’s goal of reducing the prison population by 30 percent, regardless of what’s going on in the community? And I saw some interviews where she said, basically, they hadn’t asked and they didn’t really know. I’d give her another chance, I suppose, to answer that—perhaps a bit better—so that she can reassure New Zealanders or try to explain to New Zealanders why she sees that as a priority when everybody is seeing an increase in violent crime in our communities. We’ve had a dreadful number of shootings in Auckland recently. We’ve seen the increase in ram raids. We’ve seen the 100 percent increase in retail crime, such that the many shop workers up and down the country are concerned for their safety, and the many parents who’ve got young kids working in hospitality and retail worry about their safety. And yet the Government continues to be focused first and foremost on reducing the prison population, come what may. I want to know whether the Minister’s got advice from officials as to what impact that is having on public safety, so that we can get a better understanding of that.

Another area that I’d be interested to know is around the $6 million - odd a year that’s being spent on cultural reports, including some money going to the likes of Harry Tam, a lifetime Mongrel Mob member, to write some of these reports. His company has a nice website sort of promising reduced sentences from these cultural reports, if they do them well, and you can get a quote for doing one of these cultural reports. We on this side of the Chamber aren’t impressed with the cottage industry that’s developed there. It’s our view that that money would be better spent better supporting the victims of crime and giving them access to the support and help they need. The previous Minister, Kiritapu Allan, before she departed, did say that she wasn’t very convinced that we were getting good value for money from those cultural reports. I’d be very interested to see whether the new Minister, the fourth Justice Minister we’ve had in this Labour Government, following Mr Little, following Mr Faafoi, and Kiri Allan—the fourth Minister, I wondered what her view on the cultural reports was and whether she thinks we would do better by victims of crime if we gave them some of the extra support that they need.

Finally, I think, just some other random impertinent questions for the Minister to consider. Does she believe we are indeed in a crime wave in this country after six years of this Government? How would she describe the situation more broadly, given all the money that we invest, given the laws that are passed, and given all the talk that she has said about new legislation, extra police, and more resources? How would she assess the current situation that we face, does she believe there is room for improvement, and how does she think sticking with the current plan, which is to reduce the prison population irrespective of what’s going on in community, is going to help? And I’ll leave those questions for her to consider.

NICOLE McKEE (ACT): Thank you, Madam Chair. Following on from my colleague Paul Smith’s—

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Goldsmith!

NICOLE McKEE: Goldsmith’s—[Interruption] Following on from his questions, I, too, have similar questions when we’re looking at the Vote documents. The justice Estimates, they don’t present a coherent picture of what or how the Government is seriously looking at tackling the crime that we’re seeing, the increase in crime that we’re seeing, but also how we’re going to tackle getting through the backlog of cases that are going through our court and justice system. We’re hearing of some trials taking up to three years and we’ve also heard some talk around whether or not courts should be sitting on a Saturday to help relieve some of that.

I wonder, Minister—when we look at the sector within the Vote Justice system, it’s really quite hard to ascertain exactly what some of these Estimates budgets are going to be spent on. And it makes it hard to actually figure out what is going on with crime, what is going on with our court process, and trying to make sure that everybody gets access to justice fairly, but our victims especially get access as well. So, Madam Chair, I just wonder whether or not the Minister can give us a bit of detail on what it is within the justice Votes that tells us what is the coherent picture of how the Government’s going to deal with the increased crime, and what is the picture in regard to dealing with the backlog of court cases?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Well, I’ve got some more questions for the Minister to consider as well. One would be when she talks about her Government, and again in the House today, being very focused on the needs of the victims of crime—yeah, she is aware, I presume, that her own officials in the ministry admitted during the previous Budget process that the victims assistance scheme, and I quote, “The Ministry and Victim Support have managed the cost pressure by deliberately under-promoting the scheme to minimise access and uptake.” I just want to read that again, just so people get that sort of clear in their head: “The Ministry and Victim Support”—this is from officials. This is from officials writing through the Minister to the Minister of Finance, saying: “The Ministry and Victim Support have managed the cost pressures by deliberately under-promoting the scheme”—and we’re talking about the victim assistance scheme, deliberately under-promoting the scheme—“to minimise access and uptake.”

That was the style; they talked a big game about how they’re focused on the needs of victims for years. Kris Faafoi would stand up on his hind legs and he would talk about it and Andrew Little would, before. And yet, at the same time, they were deliberately under-promoting the scheme to minimise access and uptake, because they hadn’t put enough money into it and they couldn’t cover the need. And so the first question is: have you changed, Minister? Are they still under-promoting the scheme or have they actually decided that perhaps they should let victims of crime know about it so that they can access the help that they need? And how can we have some assurance that that is going to actually lead to New Zealanders getting better access to the help that they need?

Because another example I could give the Minister, and another question that follows from it, is the big announcement made with great fanfare about a fund of $20 million around strangulation. Now, everybody knows—well not everybody knows, but a lot of people know—that when people strangle somebody else, particularly in a domestic violence situation, it is a well-known precursor of even worse violent crime and a real signal of danger. So strangulation is a big red flag fluttering everywhere. And so this big fund was announced, $20 million, to help victims of or complainants of strangulation to get through the court system and to get the help they need, and it was promised that it was going to be 800 people helped a year. But then it turned out that virtually nobody had—and I think they might be up to 50 or 60.

I’d like the Minister to give us an update on how many people have actually been helped, because it was, like I say, nowhere near what was promised. And then it turned out that actually that fund had been used to help more perpetrators of strangulation than defendants or complainants of strangulation. So, I mean, it is sort of beyond recognition. So on the one hand you’ve got a victims assistance scheme, which deliberately under-promotes itself so as to not draw attention to itself because it is inadequate to the task, and then, secondly, you’ve got a strangulation scheme announced with great fanfare and totally under delivering and actually giving more help to the perpetrators of strangulation than the defenders of strangulation.

So on both those instances, I’d like an update from the Minister as to what progress, if any, has been made on both of those important areas.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Before I call the next member, can I just remind the member who’s just taken his seat that it’s not really respectful to call another member who is not in the Chamber as having hind legs. So reflect on that kind of language.

RAWIRI WAITITI (Co-Leader—Te Paati Māori): Thank you, Madam Chair. Kia ora tātou e te Whare. Well, we know Aotearoa has one of the most imprisoned populations in the world, with 170 per 100,000 in prison. Of those people, 52 percent are Māori. The majority of Māori prisoners are locked up on drugs- and property-related offences. In other words, crimes of poverty. Since this Government began its programme to decrease the number of Māori in prison—in 2019—our prison population has gone up by 2 percent. Two-thirds of our prisoners have been denied their right to maintain contact with their whānau, due to the ban on face-to-face visits, long after the rest of us have had COVID19 restrictions removed.

So not only has the prison population increased under this Government but life for prisoners has gotten worse. In fact, this has been the case for the last 35 years. Since the publication of Moana Jackson’s groundbreaking report, He Whaipānga Hou, the rate of incarceration for tāne Māori hasn’t changed, at 50 percent. The rate of incarceration for wāhine Māori has risen significantly. Today, Māori women make up 64 percent of the female prison population in Aotearoa. Our people suffer unequal outcomes at every level. We are more likely to be stopped, searched, arrested, and convicted.

Despite what the ACT Party believe, and the National Party, tāne Māori receive special treatment from the Crown, as in, the criminal justice system. Does the Minister believe that the system is racist, and how is she going to decrease Māori incarceration rates? It was only last year that an investigation by the Privacy Commissioner and the Independent Police Conduct Authority found the police guilty of racially profiling and illegally photographing rangatahi without consent. Children as young as 15 were approached in broad daylight and threatened with arrest if they refused to have their photo taken, all for the crime of looking out of place. That is not policing with consent; that is bullying. It is predatory behaviour and a total abuse of power. We know too well what happens when Māori break the law. We are reminded on the news every day.

But what happens when the police break the law? Well, in this case, the Minister of Police—who is now the Prime Minister—pledged to change the law to allow the police to continue to violate our rights. No consequences for the police. But we know what the consequences are for Māori: over-incarceration and the continued intimidation of our rangatahi by the State. The question I’d like to know is: how will the Minister ensure the police are held accountable for breaking the law as we citizens are held to account? After those particular reports have found that it was illegal to be photographing rangatahi without parental consent, the whakamā trauma of these incidents shouldn’t be carried by the rangatahi and their whānau; instead, it should be the police. Crime in Aotearoa is a result of colonial inequities here in Aotearoa. It’s past time the colonial Government stop feasting on the misery of our people.

Under Te Tiriti o Waitangi, the Crown has no right to take our people from their whānau, hapū, and iwi and put them in the State prison system. The impacts of the prison pipeline from State care and the education system are clear. Studies have shown that one in three children placed in residential care by the State ended up in prison later in life. Recent reports, including Ināia Tonu Nei and Turuki! Turuki! put forward a series of recommendations to restore power to tangata whenua and end inequality in our justice system.

Here are the questions we would like to ask of the Minister. Would she take a look at establishing a Māori justice authority? A Māori independent justice authority—precedence has been used in the health space—and we want to ensure that we can mirror the opportunities that the Māori Health Authority has in the justice system to be able to come up with our own solutions by iwi, hapū, whānau, Māori organisations. We know there’s $97 million of Whānau Ora money sitting in prisons. What is happening with that money? What is Whānau Ora got to do with the justice system? It’s actually got absolutely everything opposite to do with the justice system. So those are some of the questions that I have for you, Minister, through the Chair.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Minister of Justice): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I’ll be quick, as we have limited minutes to respond to all those questions.

So the first point from Mr Goldsmith, who tries to draw a correlation between the decrease in the prison population and an increase in offending. So he’s asked if we’ve had any advice from officials. The advice is that there is no correlation between the reduction in prison numbers and an increase in some areas of crime. I can speak to that briefly by saying that the key areas of the prison population, under offence types, that we’ve seen a reduction in prison numbers would be for burglary and would also be for drug offences—for those possession offences of drug offences. They are the two main areas.

Interestingly, as the prison population has reduced, there is now a more significant proportion of the prison population that have been incarcerated as a result of violent offending. So the number of those in prison for violent offending has actually increased. So I’m happy to provide more information on that later on if he would like it.

He’s also asked in relation to the Sentencing Act, and I’m not sure if it’s his policy that I think he referred; he didn’t clarify it—but there were requirements. I think one idea was that to specify for the safety of the victim and also for the safety of the community, to be requirements for a judge to weigh up at sentencing. If the member would like to refer to the Sentencing Act, those are already in legislation. So those are factors already that are a requirement for judges to take into consideration upon sentencing.

In terms of the Section 27 cultural reports, those have been around for well over a decade. I have seen an increase recently in terms of a cottage industry that has sprung up to create those reports. I’ve already indicated in this House during question time that I will take a look at that. It seems like it does seem to be increasing, and I’m prepared to take a look at where that’s tracking and whether that’s a good use of funds.

In terms of the other questions that that member raised, he also specifically asked, I think, around youth offending. He asked around—I think it was ram raids was your question. So what we have seen is a sharp increase but that has been tracking down—and I think that tracking down for youth offending in ram raids has been tracking down as well. That is largely because those programmes that we brought into play at the end of last year, which was a whole range of better pathways for youth offenders—that is working well. We are seeing that those young people who have been repeat offenders are getting the wraparound support that will take them to stop reoffending.

In terms of questions—I’m running out of time, so I’ll go really fast. In terms of questions—and I’ve lost my piece of paper for Nicole McKee, sorry—that you raised in relation to court backlogs was your question. I have the list here of what the Government is currently doing to address court backlogs, which would be: increasing the number of judges in the Court of Appeal, High Court, and District Court through to 30 June 2025; the Government’s provided $15 million over four years as part of Budget 2021 to establish new Family Court associates to speed up that process in the Family Court; also the Criminal Process Improvement Programme, additional funding there for Police prosecutions to enable that; also in the Coroner’s Court, we’re seeing the appointment of special assistants in that space to speed that up; the development of demand-driven rostering and scheduling approach to ensure optimal use of all judicial officers, courtroom staff—to making sure that’s running as effectively as possible. They are some of the measures we are taking to address that backlog.

NICOLE McKEE (ACT): Thank you, Madam Chair. Minister Andersen, I’ll ask you two questions; one of them’s quite quick. The Human Rights Commission: they’ve been given $14 million and they have two chief executives. Its recent activity is to claim “the fundamental illegality of the State” and that the Crown’s claim to sovereignty is “illegal”. So why is the Government paying for the existence of a body which actively seeks to deny the right of Government?

My second question to the Minister is regarding sector leadership and support. At page 100 and 101—the bottom of page 100 and the top of page 101—it talks about “[The] appropriation is intended to achieve timely advice and support by the Ministry of Justice to the Justice Sector.”, and there’s an allocation of $13 million there. But when we look at the assessment of the performance, the assessment itself is based on “The satisfaction of the Justice Sector Leadership Board with the leadership, advice and support provided by the Ministry”, and it’s rated eight out of 10. Now, that’s the key performance indicator, just people being happy with a $13 million spend. So I wonder: what is involved in that? What is involved in the satisfaction of the Justice Sector Leadership Board for a $13 million spend, because I think the people actually should be well aware of what that entails and what the detail is around that spend.

So, $13 million in sector leadership and support, Minister, and $14 million to the Human Rights Commission, who are wanting to—actively seeking to—deny the right of Government. We’re just wondering why we’re funding them to do that. Thank you, Minister.

RAWIRI WAITITI (Co-Leader—Te Paati Māori): Madam Chair, thank you for the opportunity to speak a second time. Just a couple of questions, Minister, before we end the session, around—I understand Operation Tauwhiro, Operation Cobalt, and the reasons why those particular operations are in action. My question is: what are you doing as a justice Minister around tax fraud and tax evasion in this country that’s costing this country $7 billion a year? Where is the operation in regards to tax evasion here in this country? Where is the operation—like Operation Tauwhiro, like Operation Cobalt—for those who are costing this country billions and billions of dollars of tax evasion? That’s one question I’d like to ask.

The other question is around ensuring that we look at a whole, transformative approach to the justice system. Again, I welcome the Minister to answer the question around the appetite for an independent Māori justice authority to allow Māori the dignity and the mana motuhake to be able to come up with solutions—because the current solution isn’t working for us—to allow us some dignity and to allow us the opportunity to reform ourselves as we climb from underneath the bonnet of years and years of colonial violence.

And so koina hoki aku whakaaro, e te Minita [those are my thoughts, Minister]. If you could answer those questions, that’d be much appreciated. Kia ora.

CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you, Madam Chair, and thanks to the Minister for engaging in this discussion about Justice and its Estimates and various challenges in the sector. Obviously, it’s pretty broad ranging, and I acknowledge the Minister also has the portfolio of police, and, of course, courts, which is very dear to my heart, within that broader justice sector as well. I know the Minister will be au fait with some of the issues in our court system, having been chair of the Justice Committee before that.

As others, including my own colleague and friend the Hon Paul Goldsmith and Nicole McKee, have both quite rightly pointed out, one of the major barriers to justice in this country at the moment, from an access to justice point of view, is the huge backlogs involved in having cases heard in our court system. I might bring out some of those figures, not to quote them all across the different types of courts and tribunals necessarily but to highlight for the attention of the House just how dire the situation is, but by way of shorthand, Ms McKee is quite right when she says that it can be up to three years that it takes a case to go through. The key aspect of that is actually understanding that it can take, you know, the majority of that time even to get one’s case begin to be heard. It’s not even necessarily that the cases take a long time—and, of course, sometimes there are good reasons for that—but even to get to the start line of being heard is a major challenge in this country at the moment.

So I wonder if the Minister can offer her thoughts on using, much better than is currently the case, much more extensively, what’s sometimes called virtual meeting rooms, sometimes called AVL—audiovisual link—or other remote participation methods. By way of background to the question, she’ll be aware that it’s already possible under the statute book that we have now, with the remote participation Act, for people to Zoom in—you know, as we would say in colloquial fashion now—whether it’s from, maybe, a custodial situation to avoid the security risk and cost of transporting a prisoner to have a relatively minor hearing. We’re not talking about full trials or jury matters or whatever, but I wonder if the Minister can advise what thought she has given to working with the justice sector to have much more remote participation where that’s appropriate and where that would be in the interest of justice. I’m hoping she will reflect on the savings of time, of cost, of removing the postcode lottery of lawyers being available in one location but not another, to take away the challenges of a pandemic situation or other public health challenges—maybe ill health during the winter months in a more ordinary way—earthquake strengthening issues with courts, flooding issues, in the case of extreme weather events.

I hope that she will reflect that there is much more that we can and should do in this country working with the courts—yes, recognising that as a separate branch of Government, but working with them to provide them the tools to enable that more technology-based interaction through our courts, and thereby to improve the lives of those who so desperately need to have their matters heard. They need their day in court. They need for justice not to be delayed and therefore justice not to be denied. I sense the Minister is engaging in various matters of importance, so I’ll sort of seek an indication of when she’s able to address that question.

But maybe I’ll jump ahead to a related point, which is in relation to legal aid. I do acknowledge that the Government has recently announced an increase to the levels of legal aid, and I think that’s worth supporting, but in terms of the structure of how legal aid representation works, I wonder if the Minister has received any advice or would seek advice on whether junior lawyers assisting a more senior colleague might be able to attract legal aid funding in a way that will be helpful for the speedy resolution of the matters but also by way of succession training—that is to say, equipping the next level of the profession, the younger or at least newer practitioners, to be able to have the mantle passed to them and so to be able to provide that important representation into the future, particularly in criminal justice matters but not exclusively those.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Before I take the next call, I’d just like to inform the House and members that I’ve had a request from the main Opposition party that they would like to move on to transport soon, sooner rather than later, so if there are no further calls on justice—we will continue with justice?

CHRIS PENK (Senior Whip—National): Point of order, Madam Chair. I wonder if there’s been a slight miscommunication. The point is, I suppose, we’ve only got a certain amount of time left, and other parties likewise, and we’ll try and manage that as best we can. I’m sort of keen to understand what will happen if we finish the justice one earlier, and I think I understand from you that that would mean we’d go into transport more quickly, and if that’s the case then so be it, but we don’t actively seek to move on to transport more quickly than would otherwise be the case.

SHANAN HALBERT (Junior Whip—Labour): Speaking to the point of order, Madam Speaker, just to confirm that we’re happy to proceed through as planned.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Madam Chair, thank you. We’ve had a bit of debate, from various speakers, around prison and what that represents, and we’ve received a long-term report from officials around the changes in the make-up of New Zealand’s prison population; 20 to 30 years ago there were far more people there on property crime—stealing things—and on drug crime. Now the prison population is very much more—almost exclusively—serious violent crime and sexual crimes, with some very serious drug dealing in the mix. And so I struggle to understand the point of view of my colleague from the Māori Party Rawiri Waititi, who sort of implied that people shouldn’t be there, given the very significant crimes that they have been convicted of before being there.

And so I was just interested to know whether the Minister, in terms of the overall spending and the focus of policy in justice—as I’ve iterated, the current Government’s philosophy is to reduce that prison population, irrespective of what’s going on, by 30 percent. We had her predecessor as Minister of Justice saying, “Locking people up and throwing away the key is exactly what gangs want. They want New Zealanders to pay for their university of crime.” That was a quote—a tweet—from our previous Minister of Justice Kiri Allan. And I just want to know whether the current Minister of Justice has the same philosophy or view that prisons are some sort of university of crime and therefore something to not support or to try and avoid at all costs.

It’s relevant, I suppose, because of the very widespread public anger—I think would be the right word—over a recent prominent case where somebody who had been convicted of a serious violent crime was on home detention and then went on to commit a horrendous crime in Auckland; a shooting. And many people ask “Well, how is it that somebody convicted of a serious violent crime is left in the community and actually able to go and work?” And so my broader question is—and, of course, there are always going to be various instances and exceptions, but is she broadly comfortable with the practice that has developed of people convicted of serious violent crimes not going to prison but being on home detention? And if she is, well, that’s fine, because that seems to be the approach, because there is no significant change proposed by this Government. But I want to know whether she has given real consideration to restricting in some way the ability of judges to massively reduce sentences to the point of home detention for a whole host of reasons. And so that’s one area that I’d like to get some better understanding from her.

We would make the point that public safety should be the priority and where people have been convicted of serious violent crimes, in most cases the most appropriate thing is to get them out of circulation for a period of time so that they cannot create new victims. That seems to be the issue, and so I’d be interested to know what the current situation is: how many people are currently on home detention who have been convicted of serious violent offences? That would be a useful thing for us to know so that we can understand the scale of the problem. And, ultimately, does she think that is—not in an individual sense, because no Minister should comment on individual cases, but the Minister is responsible for the Sentencing Act and so I want to know whether she has a view whether the current arrangements where people can be convicted of serious violent offences and end up on home detention is something that she is satisfied with or whether she thinks some review of the Sentencing Act is required as the National Party is proposing, because she has been quoted as saying, “People are frustrated with the level of crime.” and so the fundamental question is what’s she proposing to do about it differently?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Minister of Justice): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. So as a result of the Auckland shooting recently, there are a number of inquiries currently under way. One will be the coroner, one will be through the police investigation. I understand the Independent Police Conduct Authority of New Zealand will also be conducting their investigation and also the Department of Corrections will also be looking at that. So I’m interested to see all of the outcomes of those investigations to determine if there have been any red flags which have been missed.

Saying that, Mr Goldsmith, it’s important to note that whether home detention is awarded or not is for judges—the judicial decision that is made for judges. So I assume that he is proposing that he would, in some way, limit or curtail what judges currently do in order to have an impact from this House into the courts in terms of what is able to be awarded. I don’t currently have a programme of work under way to do that. However, I think it will be very important to take a look at all of those inquiries currently under way to see what the findings are before we quickly jump to any conclusions.

I want to address, also, the use of audiovisual links (AVL) or virtual meeting room remote use that was raised by Mr Penk. So yes, it is available. It’s also important to note—I think the number I have is that there has been an increase of 97 percent of use of AVL, so it is encouraged and used at a far higher rate than it has been used before. It is still at the discretion of a judge when that AVL is used or not. Obviously there will be some instances which would probably be inappropriate, such as sentencing or a first appearance potentially, where the use of AVL would not be appropriate. But there is a movement towards utilising it more and, by that statistic, there has been a big increase in the use of AVL.

In terms of the question he raised in terms of legal aid, a second lawyer can be funded under legal aid. But this is more generally for those big or more complex cases—and he’s already noted that there has been a significant increase, under this Government, for funding of legal aid. So that has been in place.

There was one other point made—I think there was a point raised by Mr Waititi in relation to Operation Cobalt and I think Operation Tauwhiro. Both of those fall under operational activities of police. We’re in Estimates now for justice, so I can’t really go into discussing what’s under that appropriation when we are discussing justice. I would point out in relation to improving outcomes for Māori in terms of the justice system, that Te Pae Oranga—Māori justice panels—have been rolled out right across the country. They continue to prove that reoffending rates and getting people on the right pathways within their communities—all of those reviews are proving that they are providing far more positive outcomes for Māori, and I look closely to see how we can continue to support that work.

In terms of—Mr Goldsmith had one other question. Oh, that’s who I had—Nicole McKee raised whether it was value for $14 million for the justice senior leadership board; whether that’s a good use. I would say that the justice cluster, in general, are put in all of those Votes in one, being able to get better value for money. All the chief executives I speak to think it’s working well, that it is good value for money, and to have that level of coordination going right across Courts, Police, Justice, Corrections does require a level of administration. But I would say, overall, having that coordination—having that oversight—actually holds the key to getting better outcomes for victims of crime, and that has been the missing case in our justice system.

Without that coordination, it’s each of those agencies taking their own lens, without having the ability of looking at how that, in fact, impacts upon the victim. So that coordination, I think, holds real opportunities for New Zealand to increase the rights of victims and the visibility of victims within our justice system.

NICOLE McKEE (ACT): Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Minister, for the answers to that. The question about the sector leadership and support was not so much whether it was value for money for the $13 million, but what was it that they provided specifically for $13 million. The request in the question about value for money was directed at the Human Rights Commission and them having two chief executives, and them actually undertaking a project looking at the sovereignty of New Zealand and coming to a conclusion, so far, that it’s illegal. So it was asking a question about that. I have two more quick questions for you, Minister. One is looking at the biggest driver of costs in our justice system, which appears to be our legal aid bill. When we looked at it, it’s gone from $180 million in 2018/19 to $281 million in 2022/23. Now, it’s an estimated $304 million cost for 2023/24; that’s a 56 percent increase in legal aid requirement over the last five years. So I’m wondering: what is the driver behind this?

This then leads on to my second question, which is about the elimination of family and sexual violence. I understand that it’s not the Minister’s portfolio, but the budget actually comes under the justice cluster, and it has $22 million attached to it. So the question is: what has actually been done in that portfolio? The performance in page 95 of the Vote is essentially saying that it’s overseeing actions in the plan and that the Minister’s satisfied with advice—so it looks like we’ve spent $22 million on actions that we don’t know about and that the Minister is happy with the advice. We know, and the Minister in the chair has said herself, that we have an increase in family harm occurring at the moment. The police commissioner has said the same thing. So with the $22 million and everybody being happy, but we’re seeing no progress, is the Minister able to answer as part of that justice sector, what has that $22 million been spent on, and will we see some tangible results in the next 12 months? Thank you.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. So, hoping for some good answers from the Minister on these things. So ultimately it all comes down to the Government’s priorities for the $190-odd million dollars that it devotes to the Ministry of Justice to work on problems that we’re trying to fix as a society. When we look around the justice space, the three, four things that spring to mind are the increase in violent crime that is the scourge in our community—the fact that the gangs are recruiting faster than the police, and a sense of disorder on our streets.

Secondly, there is a real worry about the massive increase in youth crime and this is particularly exemplified by the ram-raiders who are running amuck and causing so many difficulties across our communities. The third issue, which would strike me as top of mind, is the very long delays to justice that many New Zealanders face, whether they are in the criminal system, in the family court system, and all the other elements of the courts with people’s lives being on hold. That partly relates to the previous question that my colleague Chris Penk was talking about, the very significant increase in the legal aid budget. Well, a big part of it is that everything takes so much longer and there are so many lawyers involved in the whole process.

So those are three big challenges in the justice space, the fourth area I’d identify would be around electoral law and the importance of reasserting equal voting rights for all New Zealanders. Now, equal suffrage is a core part of our human rights legislation, but it only directly applies to general elections. This Government has undermined that at local elections through its Canterbury Regional Council bill, which moves away from equal voting rights for all citizens and democratic accountability.

So given those priorities, what I want to understand is why this Minister and this Government has instead prioritised reducing the prison population by 30 percent, irrespective of what’s happening in our community. Secondly, they spend an enormous amount of time and official advice, millions of dollars on an ill-conceived proposal to ban hate speech and whether the Minister regrets all that diversion of effort. Another area has been on reducing the voting age to 16, which is not something that I would have thought was top of mind for most New Zealanders in that justice context. Then a whole lot of electoral law, financing boondoggles, which weren’t carried out in the normal process of being bipartisan, but rammed through, we think, in order to skew things in one direction.

So I suppose that what I’m putting to the Minister is: why have you prioritised those things at a time when, as a country, in the broader justice space, we have these very substantial pressures when it comes to violent crime, youth crime, and very long delays to justice in our justice system? And does the Minister believe that she, and her Government over the past six years has given enough attention to those real pressing issues on the front line that all New Zealanders are focused on?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Minister of Justice): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Look, as we only have a couple of minutes left, I’ll touch on the issue of violent crime. The member has raised the issue that violent crime has increased and I’m pleased that he mentioned that the large reason for that increase has been family violence. That has been a significant driver of that area, and it’s for that reason that this Government has invested, more so than any other, in Te Aorerekura, which is the first time we have the funding in place in those NGO sectors like Women’s Refuge, for those outreach groups to actually get involved and fund our communities, not only to respond to family violence, but to engage with those families to stop it happening again. So I would say that there has been the biggest investment New Zealand has ever seen to reduce family violence and stop it from happening to the next generation.

When we talk about youth crime and the increase we have seen—a spike in ram-raid offending, that looks like it is tracking downwards, and that is because there has been significant resource invested in those wraparound programmes like Kotahi te Whakaaro, like Circuit Breaker. We see that around 80 percent of those young people who go through those programmes do not reoffend, and I put that in stark contrast to the National Party’s policy of introducing boot camps, which have an 80 percent number of those who do reoffend after going through those camps. So they don’t work, and we continue to be a Government that goes on evidence. We have evidence-based policy and that is why investing in family violence, and that is why investing in reducing youth offending addresses and tackles those route drivers of crime that do take time, but we know that they do track our communities in the right direction.

CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s traditional when the gallery starts filling up for valedictory remarks to sort of comment self-deprecatingly on how they might all be there to hear you, the speaker, on justice Estimates, and I have to say that it’s good to see the debate being so warmly welcomed. Actually, I do want to acknowledge, if I can, and take the liberty to say that there’s a couple of people from the Kaipara ki Mahurangi electorate who are here, no doubt, in support of Marja Lubeck. So I acknowledge them coming from the Labour Party and supporting her, and Marja herself, who is about to give her valedictory.

Just briefly in relation to justice matters, I wonder if the Minister can address now or undertake to find out if it’s the case that the scheme whereby duty lawyers have been incentivised to have their clients plead guilty early—that was something that has come up previously, and I think most people have understood that that programme had been discontinued. Her predecessor the honourable Kiritapu Allan had indicated that she was unhappy with it and that it would be discontinued, which I would say is a good thing, but my understanding anecdotally recently is that, actually, that isn’t the case, and in other District Courts that would continue to take place. So I ask the Minister to take that on board and find out if that’s indeed so.

Finally, in relation to the Criminal Process Improvement Programme, or CPIP, as it’s known, I wonder if the Minister can explain in her remaining time—short as it is—what positive changes have derived from that, or, for that matter, the Te Ao Mārama programme, which had been designed to improve our justice system. But it seems to many casual observers and, actually, to those who have followed it more closely as well that there hasn’t been much tangible gain from those. If the Minister can say otherwise, then I would be very interested to hear it in order to be convinced that it’s a worthwhile programme to have continue.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): I call on the Hon Paul Goldsmith, but just a heads-up that we will be going to valedictory speeches soon.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. I was just wondering if we’d had an answer from the Minister to my previous question around the strangulation fund of $20 million that had been announced, with great fanfare, to help 800 people a year—I think the number was—who are victims of strangulation, or complainants, to deal with it. We’ve found out that a very small number—maybe 50 or 60 a year—had been receiving the help, and then, secondly, we found out that there had been more perpetrators receiving help from that fund than victims or complainants. Given the context of her speech, I was wanting to get an update on that figure. Then, secondly, on the Victims Assistance Scheme, which, as I said, had been deliberately under-promoted “from the officials” because they didn’t have the funds, I wanted to know whether that was still the policy of her Government to deliberately under-promote that scheme, or whether she had changed her mind on that and was actually promoting it in order to help victims of crime.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Minister of Justice): Thank you, Madam Chair. Just very quickly, as I know that we’re short on time, in relation to the member’s question around strangulation, or the offence of “impedes breathing”, that was a new offence that was introduced under this Government that has resulted in a large increase to the number of family violence offences being reported. So the question he raised was that there was funding made available to the defence in a court case that is made available to the defence if they request it for specialist evidence. That has not made any difference in terms of what the outcomes are, and I do have the statistics there that show that the judge’s having that information before them assists them in making a good decision. I wouldn’t say that it potentially assists either way the defence or the prosecution.

So there are approximately just over 1,000 people charged with strangulation each year. Since 2019, there have been over 4,000 charges and, roughly, 50 percent of those people who were charged in 2021-22 were convicted, and so that was a slight increase on the year before. Of those people charged who were convicted, about 37 percent faced imprisonment. So that statistic indicates that while the defence may have had the opportunity for specialist advice, we’re still seeing good numbers in terms of not only prosecutions but convictions, and even a prison term being served for that offence.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members, the committee is suspended for valedictory comments. We will resume at 7.30, after dinner.

House resumed.

Valedictory Statements

Valedictory Statements

SPEAKER: Members, following the valedictory statements, the House will suspend for the dinner break and resume in committee at 7.30 p.m. for further consideration of the Appropriation (2023/24 Estimates) Bill. I call on Marja Lubeck to make her valedictory statement.

MARJA LUBECK (Labour): Raurangatira mā, tēnei te mihi ki a koutou i runga i te kaupapa o te rā. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

[To the many esteemed leaders here today, this is my convivial greeting to you on the subject that has brought us together. Thank you all.]

And in the legendary words of my colleague, “g’day”. Whānau, comrades, friends, and frenemies, it’s humbling to see you all here. Even though I’ve risen to speak more than 300 times since the first time I got up, I’m still standing in this House with a sense of wonder at the sheer privilege of having had this opportunity.

I didn’t expect to stand up here, when I was asked in 2017 to help get the party vote out for Labour in Rodney. I remember Tolley told me that I could get a bit of an idea what it was all about, and, if I liked it, who knows what would have happened in 2020 or 2023. Well, mate, who would have thought that here in 2023, I would have served two terms as an MP, and that, I’m told, is about the average time for an MP to serve.

But there was nothing average about the last six years. A lot has happened between 2017 and 2023. It was a privilege to serve in the Labour team during some incredibly tough times that our nation went through. I am for ever grateful for how the then Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern led New Zealand’s response to March 15, COVID, and other challenges. Together as a society and with very special leadership, so many lives were saved during the worst pandemic in a century, where other countries could not. But despite the challenges, these were also six years where lots of progress was made.

If I may sound like an advertisement just for a moment, I’m a proud member of a team that from day one started to tackle those long-term challenges in New Zealand, strengthening workers’ rights, massively building our apprentices workforce, increasing the minimum wage, and addressing gender pay discrimination. From making abortion a health issue and giving women choice, we’re building more houses than any Government since the 1970s to taking action on climate change—and everything in between. Now, in the Chris Hipkins - led Government, our team continues that mahi, focused on building back better—what our finance Minister always refers to as “the silver lining on the darkest of clouds”.

But I couldn’t have known that was going to happen, when I started my first speech in this House in 2017. It was for the most about a topic that I was then and am now passionate about: workers’ rights. I spoke about the decline I had witnessed over so many years of working conditions for hard-working Kiwis; the erosion of longstanding protections. It was a main motivator for me to start my law degree at 44 so that I could better serve my fellow union members. It was after that speech in 2017, which was so heavily dominated by a topic that I knew so well, that someone said to me that I wasn’t trying to be all things to all people. What I didn’t know yet was that being an MP means being all things to all people, especially when you’re an MP for your communities.

There is this misconception that as a list MP we don’t make positive changes in our area. But one of the most rewarding parts of the job has been advocating for the communities of, first, Rodney and, after the rezoning, Kaipara ki Mahurangi and Whangaparāoa. I won’t have time to tell the stories of the many people that came through our office over the years, but I’m proud of all we have achieved in the area. Some issues had been languishing for years and decades and I was able to advocate, on behalf of the communities, for investment in our schools, the restoration of the Mahurangi River, and, of course, Penlink. We are the first Government that put actual funding with the promise to build—so thank you, transport Ministers Phil Twyford and Michael Wood, for listening to the communities and committing that $830 million.

My Warkworth office has served not just constituents but hundreds of businesses and community organisations. The staff in our electorate offices are unsung heroes. Alan, you’ve been my steady force in the electorate office, a source of infinite knowledge. You were joined a couple of years ago by Tania, community outreach extraordinaire. Here in Parliament, Nick, you made my first term so much easier. My time on the 11th floor of Bowen House was probably my happiest time in this place. Yes, Jan and Aupito probably played a large part in that, and Nina and her cooking. Eva, Jack, Laura, Christine, thank you for holding the fort at different times. A special mention of our roving support team—especially Wendy these last couple of months, you’ve been invaluable.

When I first started, I found out the hard way that without a job description what you can take on is pretty much limitless. The responsibilities of representation weigh heavily, the hours are long, and the work is endless. It’s all-consuming, and it’s difficult to accept that you can’t do everything. It’s challenging to manage work and personal life in that environment—I did try. Early on, I joined one of the walking groups, there were two at the time, one with Ruth Dyson and one was Kris Faafoi. Ruth already had a few members in her team, so I thought I’d go with Kris; except, many months later, I found out that this particular walking group was for those who don’t like walking. So if anyone needs a brand new pair of sneakers, size seven, come and see me.

Now, it’s just after 7 a.m. in the Netherlands, so if my parents are awake, it’s the first morning with internet in their new home. It’s a big thing to shift out of your family home after 51 years, and Papa and Mama, I’m so proud of you. Thank you for your unconditional love and the sacrifices you made for us. It has been especially difficult being away from you these last few years. On the topic of thanks, also a big shout-out to my sister Petra, her husband Herman, and my nephews, Mike and Lars, because this wouldn’t have happened without you. I’ve been privileged that the sacrifice of my family has enabled me to give it my best. I’ve been away so much and absent, even when I was home. I tried the best I could, but Shane and Max, I know at times I let our whānau slip way too far down the list of priorities, and I’m sorry.

Thank you, Max, for all those messages you send me. It always brings a smile to my face when I read “Mum, have you eaten?” And, Shane, you worked so hard taking care of the rest of life, and I know your body suffers. When you broke your leg, things got even harder, and you had to miss out on being here today. It’s been anything but plain sailing, but you were and always will be my best friend—thank you for always letting me do what I needed to do.

Some of that involved creating tighter connections with Dutch and Indonesian communities so that they feel represented in Parliament. Being the first Dutch-born MP from Indonesian descent, I have seen it as my role creating tighter connections with those communities. To the ambassadors, leaders, members of the communities, thank you for your manaakitanga, welcoming me into your spaces. Dank je wel and terima kasih for your support for me. With our phenomenal and largest ever ethnic caucus, you’ll be in good hands, but I’m planning to stay in touch.

Speaking several languages has come in handy—I’ve always had a thing with languages. When I first came to New Zealand, I was helping out another immigrant worker with some English lessons, and we joked between us that she was possibly the only Chinese woman in New Zealand who spoke English with a Dutch accent.

It’s been a privilege to co-chair the New Zealand - Europe cross-party group, building on our relationships and sharing best practices with MPs from other countries. A lot of that occurred over Zoom—especially during COVID; that was the way to keep in touch. Zoom meetings have their own challenges, and I’m sure everybody is well aware of that, but none took such an unexpected turn as our first Zoom with Lithuanian MPs. Halfway through, one of them abruptly disconnected from a meeting with the words: “Got to go, the Russians are coming.” Now, this was 10 November 2021, and we now know it was not just an excuse to leave the meeting early, but it was an early sign of what was to come. We were able to show our support for the Baltics when we were the first New Zealand delegation to visit Lithuania, in July 2022. As the EU Ambassador, Nina Obermaier, has said, “although New Zealand is distant geographically, from the very start, New Zealand has stood shoulder to shoulder with Europe in solidarity with Ukraine”. New Zealand’s support was acknowledged and appreciated by all the Parliaments we visited.

Another great privilege was being welcomed as an ally in the rainbow community, and in 2018, I got to know a fierce activist called Amanda Ashley. Her Rodney Rainbow petition, combined with the one from Young Labour and Young Greens, collected more than 20,000 signatures. A long story short, I’ve been blessed to have had the privilege to be part of the kaupapa to ban conversion practices. We’ll never know the specific individuals whose lives were impacted by this legislation, but we do know that the world is a safer place for it. Thank you to everyone who’s doing the mahi to protect particularly our rangatahi against the dangers of prejudice, discrimination, and intimidation.

There’s more work to do, but there’s also a lot of good stuff happening. It doesn’t always get the airtime it deserves, and that should change because it’s so much easier to give people hope by showing them the positive initiatives and the wins—that there are a lot of people in this place who care and are working hard to make things better. They often give until there’s nothing left in the tank to give, and that is a story worth telling. But in the era of social media, clickbait, and the 40-minute news cycle, trolling and rampant misinformation, it feels, at times, that it’s not the good stories that make the headlines. I wish politicians and media could stop their focus on catching people out with perceived or real slip-ups—or 10-year-old tweets for that matter. Feeling powerless witnessing the take-down of some of my colleagues over the years has been the source of my greatest frustration. That, and possibly the change of the breakfast menu in Copperfield’s!

Now, this is obviously an adversarial environment, and I’ve done my fair share of heckling. Jason Walls, you called it: I spoke my mind. Because you know what they say: “Many people are too polite to be honest, while the Dutch are too honest to be polite.” But as one of my colleagues said, politicians are not prey, and that is how it feels to me at times—preying on the imperfections. We are not robots; we are humans—good people, doing our best, often to the detriment of our personal lives. If we could just make the political and media culture less toxic, I think we’d make a lot more progress.

I’ve loved being part of my Labour whānau in Parliament. Thank you to so many of you for your kindness, friendship, and support. Ministers who, no matter how busy, gave their time, including one, often referred to as “Chippy”, who always made you feel listened to.

The awesome class of 2020: having you on our delegation, Rachel, was just the best thing. To my mates from the class of 2017, I’m going to miss you so much. In a place where you need to feel someone has your back, we’ve always had each other’s. I felt aroha at times when I felt lonely, overwhelmed, or I needed a sense check. It has definitely prevented some serious mishaps on Twitter!

Taking this time to reflect, I realise that what I will miss most is working with so many good, decent people, all different, but with a common goal of making New Zealand the best it can be. Lots of our changes are working towards that. I’ll mention a few—actually, I’ll mention one, because I’m running out of time. Cut, cut, cut, I’m not the National Party—oh, sorry!

Fair pay agreements: thank you, Michael Wood, for your determination. We need to keep going with ensuring people have fair pay, decent conditions, and a voice in the workplace. We are investing in our people and the economy, and fair pay agreements are part of that.

I’ve loved being chair of the Education and Workforce Committee. It’s a privilege to hear from submitters and to deal with legislation that often can have such a profound effect on people’s lives and that of their families.

So many people have been part of my journey, providing me with friendship and mentoring—and sometimes unsolicited advice. There are few of you here, but there are too many to name. But I’ll give it a go. Susan and Des, always there right from the start. Thank you; I owe you. Also for the jacket—Dunedin op shop. Sorry, Colin, I know you’re watching—say hi to Peggy and Hueline.

I acknowledge our formidable Labour electorate committee (LEC) chair, Hugh, and the Kaipara ki Mahurangi team Andrew, Guy, Neil, Olga, Mike, Robert and Pauline, Mike, Boudine for the cooking and baking for our meetings. Kura, Judy, Adam, Janine, Brad, Sam, Nisha, Brad, Dev, Marina, Ken, Rewa, Derek, Alan, and Joy. The Whangaparāoa LEC, Gabrielle, Tanja, Ernie and Velma, Glen and Nobu. James, you were only 13 when we met in 2017. Shane, our chief hoarding. Ann and Mike, Eric and Lane, Eanna, Scott and Dean for helping me at the markets. Greg and Cherie for the many elegant events held at your place. David and the late Mary at Herons Flight for your hospitality and support. Colin and Jeff—always making me feel good about myself and I’m counting on my parliamentary colleagues to make sure that Colin Morley Couture continues showing off.

Young Labour: your enthusiasm and energy is contagious—keep it up. E tū, my union, Council of Trade Unions, and representatives of affiliated unions present here today: you’ve been at the forefront of fighting for better pay and better working conditions. Thank you for your support of me and for my hinerangi. I’ll treasure my taonga for ever.

To clerk Edward Siebert for making the select committee job so much easier. Thank you to everyone who runs Parliament. There’s just too many of you to mention. But you’re all awesome, and we could not do it without you. And, of course, the Labour Party leadership and everyone in it, for you are these words: you’re phenomenal.

One of the biggest compliments I received in this place is that I haven’t changed from the day I entered Parliament, and while that can’t be entirely true, I do leave with the values I entered Parliament with and I still hold dear—in particular, relentless optimism and compassion for people. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Applause]

Waiata—E tū kahikatea

JAMIE STRANGE (Labour—Hamilton East): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I appreciate the opportunity to speak in this House for a final time. My journey to Parliament began in 2014 when I stood in the Taupō electorate, alongside yourself, Mr Speaker. And I remember phone calling the Labour Party stronghold of Cambridge! I made 30 calls—30 National Party voters on the end of the line. I soon realised I would need to develop a thick skin in order to become an MP. In 2017, I stood in the Hamilton East electorate under the leadership of Jacinda Ardern in the “Let’s do this” wave. I entered Parliament on the list—snuck in with a few other of my colleagues. Then in 2020, I won the Hamilton East electorate—first time a Labour candidate had won it since Dianne Yates in 2002; something I’ll always treasure. Now, in 2023, I move on with my family into new fields of endeavour and community service.

I’d like to begin by acknowledging my family: Angela, Jack, Brooklyn, Chloe, Charlotte—also our three cats: Holly, Snowy, and Sparkles. I may well be the first MP to put their cats in Hansard. Thank you for your support. I couldn’t have served in this way without you. Ange, we’ve been best friends during our 27 years of marriage, and I’m super proud of all the work that you are doing to serve our Waikato region. To our children, for the times that we’ve been out and about and I’ve started talking with people and probably talked too long, the times I’ve been in Wellington and missed some of your activities, but mainly for putting up with an oversized photo of my face on our Toyota Estima for six years—never give up on your dreams. You can achieve anything, and mum and dad are always there for you. To my wider family in Nelson, Perth, Hamilton, and my sister Chelsea who is here today in the gallery, thank you for your support.

Being an MP is a community role. The more I ponder this word “community”, I settle on the fact that everything we do is community, whether it’s education, health, housing, sports, arts, politics, business. It became very vivid to me when I recently heard a couple of local CEOs in Hamilton. They were talking about who would get the contract for a project. And one of them said to the other one “Well, it doesn’t really matter which one of us gets the project, the money’s all going back into the community anyway.” And they were right, because whether it goes back in wages, whether it goes back to support for various organisations for schools, everything we do, everything we have here is community. It’s about connection. And most of the problems in our society today can be traced back to people becoming disconnected. The more we can foster that connection, the better we’ll be as a society.

Parliament is not about us MPs; it’s about our open and liberal democracy. I remember someone say to me once that as an MP, you enter Parliament; it’s like diving into a swimming pool. You’re in the pool for a while, you hop out, the water covers over, and it was like you were never there. Because we have a strong democracy in New Zealand, it’s important that we continue to foster that democracy. It’s very important that our jobs do not define us. If our jobs define us, we can often have perverse outcomes.

Parliament is a difficult place to get into. In fact, there have been more male All Blacks than MPs. My first option was All Black, but far too small for that! However, it’s also a difficult place to leave. How do we measure the success of an MP? Is it longevity? Is it impact? Is it favourability ratings? I’d like to suggest that we ask those closest to us—we ask our partners, we ask our children, we ask our key local leaders. They’ll give us an honest answer of our performance.

I believe we need a four-year term in Parliament to allow Governments time to fully implement the policies that they went to the electorate on. I acknowledge we don’t have an Upper House and there’ll be questions around not having enough checks and balances for four years, but I believe that we are mature enough as a country to take on the four-year term. We have a stable democratic system that I believe could handle that.

Politicians are public figures—we know that. We get into this job and we understand that. But often, particularly around social media, people tend to turn politicians into an object rather than a person. There have been many times, particularly early on in my career, when people have shared their views on social media and I’ve commented and I’ve said, “Look. Book in a meeting.”, and I’m actually genuine, but none of them book in a meeting. So I’d encourage everyone out there who’s listening: please feel free to make your comments, that’s our free and open democracy, but also meet with MPs—meet with us, talk with us; we’re open-minded people.

We must continue to monitor the benefits of social media to our society and the purpose of this medium—we need to keep a close eye on it. I look forward to scaling back my social media presence and simply posting the odd random 1980s cricket video every couple of months. That gets a maximum of two likes: one from my father and the other from parliamentary staffer Peter Hoare, whose cricket blog “My Life in Cricket Scorecards” I highly recommend.

In 2019, the parliamentary cricket 11 took a trip to the UK, paid for by corporate sponsors and individual MPs. And while we were there, we contested the Inter-Parliamentary Cricket World Cup. We got thrashed in the world cup. But I remember attending the 2019 world cup final at Lord’s that we did not lose—I just want to put that on Hansard too! Ha, ha! I think that’s important.

In April 2021, I remember playing for the parliamentary 11 at Seddon Park in Hamilton, and we played the Seddon Cricket Club. I was pretty nervous coming into bowl, because this was my childhood dream—to play on Seddon Park. And I just remember thinking, just pitch the ball in a good length outside off-stump. It’s all you’re trying to do. And I bowled it. The first batter got a single. The next batter came on strike—it was this batter’s first ball—bowled it, swung, and I thought I heard a faint edge, and I turned around and looked at the umpire and appealed, and he said “That’s out.” I was, like, yes! Saw my name up on the scoreboard. However, we got into the team huddle and I distinctively remember our co-captain, Chris Bishop, looking at me going “Jamie, he was the sponsor of this event.” And I got him out first ball! It was CEO Cam Wallace, MediaWorks’ CEO Cam Wallace, as some of you will know. He’d actually paid $5,000 for that event and I suitably felt pretty bad.

On the theme of sport, in 2023, our parliamentary football 11—we visited Brisbane and we played Australia, and I’d like to acknowledge my co-captain David Bennett here. Last time we played Australia we hadn’t won, so David and I were determined to win this game. We were leading one nil with five minutes to go and the Australians got a break. I could tell this guy was quick and I knew we were in trouble. However, all of a sudden from nowhere, David Bennett came flying in and just wiped out an Australian MP, and David was standing over the top of him and the guy was sharing his views about the tackle. I came across and David looked at me and he said “I had to do it.” He’s right; he did. And we held on and we won the game.

In fact, every time I visit Australia I often ponder the thought: will we ever become one country, Australia and New Zealand? My personal view, and it’s only a personal view, is that New Zealanders shouldn’t rule that out. There would certainly be economic benefits, economies of scale in the private and public sector, opening ALDI stores on our shores. In fact, technically the option remains open for New Zealand to join Australia under their constitution. The main problem I foresee, though, is: how do we integrate the Australian cricket team? But we conquered Everest, so you never know.

I’d like to thank a few people. I’d like to thank our Prime Minister, Chris Hipkins. You’re a very secure leader and that’s often quite rare in leadership. And I feel like I’m someone who has been a student of leadership over many years. I’d like to acknowledge that about you. You’re not afraid of having hard conversations. You have tremendous respect for the institution of Parliament and upholding our democracy and you understand the everyday New Zealander.

To all of the party leaders in this House, those who have served during my time and the current leaders, Chris Luxon and James Shaw, Marama Davidson, David Seymour, Rawiri Waititi whom I stood in Parliament for in 2014, Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: servant leadership is a sacrifice and I acknowledge the sacrifice that you’re all making.

Class of 2017 members from Labour: thank you for your friendship and support over the years, and also class of 2017 members from the other parties. We’re forever bonded as the group that entered this House in 2017 to do our bit for our country. I’ll miss you all.

To my Hamilton office colleague Nanaia Mahuta: thank you for your advice over the years. You’re an inspirational leader and you’ve served the Hauraki-Waikato region with passion and empathy. We’ve shared an office for six years in Hamilton, but due to our busy schedules we have only spent one day in the office together and that was the opening. But she helped me share the cost, which is helpful.

I’d like to acknowledge a couple of other people. I’d like to knowledge my good friend Paul Eagle, the champion of the Chathams. If we tallied up how much Government funding each MP has attracted for areas of their electorate, per capita, Paul Eagle would win hands down. And I’m convinced that council passed a bylaw to ensure that the only mugs allowed on the Chatham Islands are Paul Eagle mugs.

I’d like to acknowledge the Hon David Bennett. I have huge respect for you and the work that you’ve done in Hamilton since 2005 as a member of Parliament. I’m confident you’ve knocked on more doors than any other MP in the history of this House. And I know that because when I used to knock on doors, people would say, “Oh yeah, David was here last week. I’ve been waiting for you to pop by.” I’d also like to acknowledge the work you did on the expressway. That, I know, will be one of your legacies, and it’s significant in terms of the Hamilton to Auckland corridor and the growth in our region.

I’d like to acknowledge key Hamilton parliamentary staff: Ray Stevens, Tom Rowland, Dan Steer, who are all in the gallery, and also Melissa White. Thank you for your support, your reliability, hard work, and for serving the people of Hamilton.

I’d like to acknowledge my MP gym buddies; you know who you are—I’m looking around the room.

Rawiri Waititi: I’ll miss you.

JAMIE STRANGE: Yeah—Rawiri. I’ll miss you too, Rawiri. My children, whom I love, particularly love the parliamentary pool, but I’d like to take this moment to apologise for all the manus performed in the parliamentary pool—and also those done by my children as well!

One of my main goals was to attract Government investment into the Hamilton and the Waikato region, and I did have a list here but I’m running out of time. But there have been a number of significant projects that this Government has invested in, and these projects are absolutely vital for the Hamilton community.

I’d like to acknowledge my parliamentary colleagues who have regularly attended the parliamentary prayer meeting for the past six years. Thank you for your support, love, and friendship. Our prayer group is a sea of peace and tranquillity in the hustle and bustle of Parliament life. And thank you to David and Russell for your service to us.

I’d like to close with a prayer:

God of Nations at Thy feet,

In the bonds of love we meet,

Hear our voices, we entreat,

God defend our free land.

Guard Pacific’s triple star

From the shafts of strife and war,

Make her praises heard afar,

God defend New Zealand.

Men of every creed and race,

Gather here before Thy face,

Asking Thee to bless this place,

God defend our free land.

From dissension, envy, hate,

And corruption guard our State,

Make our country good and great,

God defend New Zealand.

Peace, not war, shall be our boast,

But, should foes assail our coast,

Make us then a mighty host,

God defend our free land.

Lord of battles in Thy might,

Put our enemies to flight,

Let our cause be just and right,

God defend New Zealand.

Let our love for Thee increase,

May Thy blessings never cease,

Give us plenty, give us peace,

God defend our free land.

From dishonour and from shame,

Guard our country’s spotless name,

Crown her with immortal fame,

God defend New Zealand.

May our mountains ever be

Freedom’s ramparts on the sea,

Make us faithful unto Thee,

God defend our free land.

Guide her in the nations’ van,

Preaching love and truth to man,

Working out Thy glorious plan,

God defend New Zealand.

[Applause, hongi, and harirū]

PAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai): E te whare e tū nei, tātou o te Whare, tēnā tātou. Tēnā tātou i ō tātou tini mate, rātou kua huri ki te pō, kaore e hā ko Kara Puketapu, tērā o ngā pou e noho mahana tonu ki roto i ngā whakaaro. Nā reira tangihia rātou te hunga mate. Hoki mai ki a tātou, ō rātou nā morehu ki muri nei, kia ora anō tātou.

Te Ātiawa Taranaki Whānui, te iwi taketake o tēnei wāhi, tēnā koutou. Kei te mihi ake ki a Ahumairangi, te maunga whakahī o tēnei rohe. Kei te mihi hoki ki te moana o Te Whanganui-a-Tara e papaki mai nei. Ki taku rohe kāinga o Rongotai me te iwi e whai pānga ana ki reira tēnā koutou.

Tēnā hoki koutou ngā iwi o Whare Kauri, Rēkohu, Ngāti Mutunga, Moriori, anei tēnei o pononga e mihi nei ki a koutou. E te Pīka, Adrian, tēnā koe. Tēnā koe e pupuri nei i te mauri o te Whare. E ngā mema Pāremata, otirā ngā kaitautoko hoki o tēnei Whare, tēnā koutou, kia ora huihui mai nei tātou katoa, kia ora, kia orana.

[To the House that stands here, and us who are of the House, greetings to us all. Greetings to us and to our loved ones who have departed to the spirit world, including Kara Puketapu, that pillar that remains warm in our thoughts. And so we grieve for them who have passed away. And to return back to us the descendants who are left behind, hello to us all.

Te Ātiawa Taranaki Whānui, the indigenous people of this land greetings to you all. I acknowledge Ahumairangi, the illustrious mountain. I acknowledge the sea of Te Whanganui-a-Tara. To my hometown of Rongotai and the local tribe who have interest there, acknowledgements to you also.

Greetings also to the people of Whare Kauri, Rēkohu, Ngāti Mutunga and Moriori, I stand here as your servant to acknowledge you as well. To the Speaker, Adrian, thank you for holding intact the life essence of our House, and to the Members of Parliament, as well as the staff of this House, greetings to all of us assembled here, hello, hello.]

I rise one last time in this House. I rise one last time to pay tribute to members past and present, and those yet to be elected. I rise one last time to honour the invisible hands that make this great House function. The cooks and the cleaners, the clerks and the couriers, the security guards and switchboard operators, the techies and tradies. Without all of you, this boarding school for older kids simply wouldn’t work. So thank you all for your manaakitanga.

Less than six years ago, I delivered my maiden speech as a message to my son, Tamarangi. I promised him that I would be the best dad that I could be, that I would be a strong representative for the people of Rongotai, and that I would change our adoption laws so that thousands of people like him—and me—would know our whakapapa, our identity. Now, I’ve tried hard to keep those promises, but it will be for Tamarangi and others to decide if that’s true.

It might come as a surprise to many that my election night success in September 2017 was a bittersweet moment: sweet because I was the first Māori man to win a general seat for Labour in more than 100 years; bitter because I was giving up the deputy mayoralty of Wellington with the daunting task of filling Annette King’s very large shoes. People who know Dame Annette will understand what I’m talking about. It goes without saying that I owe a debt of gratitude to Annette and her husband Ray. I want to also acknowledge former party leader Andrew Little for opening the door for my bid to stand in Rongotai—kia ora, Anaru. Your belief in me paved the way for me to become an MP.

Now, some people think I came late into politics; the truth is, I was born into it, as my parents—who are watching from hospital, unfortunately—will attest. My dad was a Methodist minister for some 50 years who was heavily involved in the Labour movement. Mum, Judith, was a health worker who believed in community service. During my childhood our house was always full of visitors who came to talk about politics and social justice issues, and it was the same at church and party fundraising events alike. At one point I did say to Dad, “What is the difference between the church and the Labour Party?” I can’t remember the response, but there was talk of stopping the Dawn Raids, about apartheid in South Africa, and old stories about standing up to nuclear testing at Mururoa. These conversations seeped into me and influenced my thinking. They also helped shape my values and my politics, and those were values around honesty, integrity, authenticity, and approachability.

In the spring of 2017, my first campaign for Rongotai was going very well. My favourite opponent was the fearless Christopher Finlayson and at our first public debate I found it interesting that we mainly talked about the Chatham Islands, where he had done a lot of early work on the Treaty settlement for the Moriori and Ngāti Mutunga. At subsequent meetings, the crowds used to get quite testy—until my opponent at one of the meetings reassured everyone that if he unexpectedly won the seat, he would call for the recount. We got on pretty well after that.

Like the workers in Parliament, the activities of an electorate MP, as Jamie Strange has said, are often invisible. Our contribution is not measured in policy announcements, the passing of new laws, or the amount of column inches we generate. The work is done quite often in the humble suburbs of the electorate where local issues dominate, where constituents get help to find a job, a new home, a visa, or some funding for their school project, or help to understand a letter from the council or Government agency. But these are but a fraction of the many hundreds of issues that, as an electorate MP, I love to solve. And it’s been certainly a privilege to represent constituents who grapple, with difficulty, with such matters that affect their daily lives.

As you’ve heard—and as some people say—one of the joys of being the MP for Rongotai is that I’m also the MP for the 660 residents of the Chatham Islands and their diaspora on the mainland here and around the world. To our Chatham whānau here today, mayor Monique Croon, councillors, chief executive Owen Pickles, Ngāti Mutunga’s Deena Whaitiri and Gail Amaru, our Moriori whānau here, and the island fishing community represented by Pita Thomas—thank you.

I have to say, each year, the Chathams have this annual big festival, and I wanted to have a Labour stall there. I saw all these blue tents and I thought, “I must get a red tent in there somewhere.” So I talked to the event organiser, Alexandra Hind, and said, “Look, I’ve got this idea.” She said, “Yep, no problem.” But I just needed some heavy hitters to run the stall. So thankfully I found two people: the self-anointed selfie queen Anahila Kanongata’a and the Women’s Weekly cover man Tāmati Coffey, who agreed to willingly help.

We had a wonderful time. We met the locals and it came time to leave. But unfortunately, the plane broke down. This was normal, but with no mobile or internet coverage, we couldn’t even contact the whip’s office to say we weren’t coming home for three days. But also at this stage, Tāmati had developed a sore foot and got a quick health check, which we all agreed just to keep on the down low. As he hobbled back down the hill to our accommodation, only a couple of minutes away, where the hotel manager innocently asked with a big smile “How’s the gout, Tāmati?”

So I’m pleased to say we did help get them a mobile phone network on the Chathams. We extended the runway and brought them into the jet age and will soon lower their power bills with renewable energy generation. These investments were made possible thanks to the previous Labour - New Zealand First Government under the Provincial Growth Fund, which enabled Chatham Islanders to get the same basic services we sometimes take for granted here on the mainland.

As I said earlier, one of my main goals was to change our 1955 Adoption Act. While we didn’t quite complete the reform during my time, the groundwork has been laid. I believe the next Parliament will bring the law into the 21st century, and I acknowledge Andrew Little again here. Members from across the House, I believe, recognise now that every New Zealander deserves to know who they are, where they are from, and not have to wait 20 years to know who gave birth to them, as happened to me. I do want to acknowledge my birth father, Jack; birth mother, Madeline; together with my birth sisters who are here—two of them—Lorraine and Courtney. Thank you for inspiring me to make those changes that, I reassure you, will come very soon. I look forward to the new legislation that will ensure the needs of the child are at the centre of any adoption. Kia ora.

One of the privileges afforded to backbench MPs is the member’s bill, and I was fortunate enough to promote such a bill with the support and guidance of Nanaia Mahuta when she held the local government portfolio. The bill sought simply to reinstate the four wellbeings to the Local Government Act and it became a Government bill. Thank you, Nanaia, for your insights and leadership there too. Also, alongside Nanaia, I want to personally thank Peeni Henare and Rino Tirikatene for their perspectives, and all the members of Labour’s Māori caucus for their support. Tēnā koutou e ngā rangatira.

I want to also thank my Samoan uncle and good friend Aupito William Sio, who rang me from Samoa—well, it sounded like it was Samoa—and who has watched over me ever since we first met in Manukau City some 20 years ago. But I’m truly grateful for his friendship and wisdom. Fa‘afetai tele lava e le avanoa.

No valedictory is complete without acknowledging those who have contributed to my time in this Whare. Luamanuvao Dame Winnie Laban is one of them, with Dr Peter Swain for their unwavering support for many years. The Greater Wellington City Council chairman Daran Ponter, who helped keep me grounded when I got too big for my boots. I’m sorry for harassing you about our city bus service constantly, but thank you, Daran. I thank all my support staff, volunteers, and helpers. These are the unpaid people who do so much and have done so much. Rita Evans, Taylor Arneil, Lauren Woolley, Dominic Shaheen, Kirsty Carre, Ray Tuffin, and Candice Russell. Louie Encabo, Tawhai Johnson, Sera Benseman, and Melissa White—and how could I forget the 30-year plus veteran, my super loyal volunteer, Robin Boldarin. You are all amazing and have gone above and beyond.

There is one staffer who deserves special mention. He has been my electorate office manager, media minder, trusted adviser, MC, event organiser, ordained Anglican vicar, occasional bus driver, and salt-of-the-earth character—up there in yellow and black stripes—my wingman, the Rev. Brian Dawson. Thank you, Brian. I also acknowledge the Rongotai Labour electorate committee chairs Bob Mason, Jo Spratt, and Maryan Street, who will continue the work leading our local Labour members.

But of course there’s one person who won’t be there to keep the electorate humming anymore, and that’s my wife Miriam. Without you, there would be no parliamentary career, there would be no political representation, and certainly no public service. You’ve been there through the thick and thin, the good times and the bad. We’ve had lots of good times, though, haven’t we? But thank you for everything. I love you and I appreciate all that you do.

In closing, I have one wish, and that’s to urge our future parliamentarians to rise above petty politics. Let’s see what unites rather than divides us—to know that pragmatism is not a dirty word. I believe we fundamentally sort of agree on most issues, but politics sometimes gets in the way from us seeing that. Everyone knows that a divided House is a recipe for failure, but a House underpinned by kotahitanga is a foundation for success.

Although I am stepping down from the political stage, I leave here with a full tank—or a fully charged battery, as I have to say now. I’ve got lots more to give and there’s lots more work to do. Community service is in my DNA, which means I will continue to be a servant of the people. Can I thank my Labour colleagues? Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou me rongo.

[Applause, hongi, and harirū]

Waiata—Te Aroha

Sitting suspended from 5.48 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

Estimates Debate

In Committee

Debate resumed on the Appropriation (2023/24 Estimates) Bill.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Good evening, members. When we suspended, we were debating the Appropriation (2023/24 Estimates) Bill. There are 28 minutes remaining in the debate. New Zealand Labour has 10 minutes remaining, New Zealand National has seven minutes remaining, ACT New Zealand has eight minutes remaining, the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand has 11 minutes remaining, Te Paati Māori has four minutes remaining, Dr Elizabeth Kerekere has six minutes remaining, the Hon Meka Whaitiri has six minutes remaining.

Members, we now have the Minister of Transport. The Minister is available from 7.30 until the end of the time allocated for the debate.

Transport

SHANAN HALBERT (Chairperson of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee): Thank you, Mr Chair. It’s my privilege to chair the Transport and Infrastructure Committee and work collegially with our colleagues from across the House throughout this Estimates process. Can I also acknowledge the Minister of Transport, the Hon David Parker, who stepped into the role as Minister just days prior to coming before our committee.

Vote Transport comprises funding for infrastructure investment, services, and regulatory activities related to transport in Aotearoa New Zealand. In 2023/24, the total sought for Vote Transport is $10.115 billion. The largest element of the Vote is funding for the National Land Transport Programme (NLTP) through the National Land Transport Fund. In 2023/24, $3 billion is appropriated for the NLTP, and this funding is drawn from the land transport revenue and is detailed in the appropriations “National Land Transport Programme PLA” and “National Land Transport Programme Additional Crown Funding (2021-24)”. The five largest activity classes under this are the State highway improvements, approximately $1 billion; public transport services and infrastructure, $778 million; State highway maintenance, $496 million; local road maintenance, $425 million; and Road to Zero safety infrastructure, $182 million.

The focus for Estimates this year, as I understand it, as presented to our select committee, is to tackle congestion and reduce emissions, and I appreciate the contribution that the Minister has made throughout this process.

SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you, Mr Chair, for the opportunity to take a short call on these Estimates. One of the questions I’ve got for the Minister, of course, is relating to this Government’s so-called transformational transport programme, which in particular relates to Let’s Get Wellington Moving and Auckland light rail. Of course, this Government was elected in 2017 and said that Auckland light rail would be built to Mount Roskill by 2021. I frequently go down Dominion Road, but I’m yet to see any evidence of that. But the question I’ve got in relation to the Estimates is: what is going to be achieved for Auckland light rail and Let’s Get Wellington moving during the Estimates period, the 2023/24 Estimates for Vote Transport? What is planned to happen for those two projects during the Estimates period?

This Government talks a big game when it comes to transport. They cancelled the roads of national significance to build light rail in Auckland and Wellington, but we’re yet to see any delivery. Well, there has been delivery in Wellington; they built the pedestrian crossing. Who knew that a pedestrian crossing could cost $2.5 million and that you need half a million dollars for consultants for a pedestrian crossing? Clearly, no one at the New Zealand Transport Agency remembers how to build a pedestrian crossing.

So I look forward to the Minister answering to the House what will be delivered for Let’s Get Wellington Moving and Auckland light rail during the 2023/24 Estimates period.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. I found that contribution from the previous member Simeon Brown quite interesting, because when I worked as a transport consultant in 2008, a common cost at the time known to all engineers was that the cost of upgrading to a signalised intersection was $4 million. So in 2023—

Simeon Brown: That’s not even an intersection. It’s a pedestrian crossing.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: It’s actually signalised—it has signals, Mr Brown. I’m not sure if you’ve seen it, but it does have signals. It is a signalised intersection.

Anyway, I think that this debate shows the pathetic-ness of the state of the transport debate in New Zealand. It’s absolutely outrageous that in 2023 the National Party, the ACT Party, and the Labour Party are competing to see who can spend more money on new motorways that have incredibly high carbon emissions just in building them. But the worst part is they won’t even address the very problem that they’re supposed to solve, and by now, in 2023, we have enough evidence—we literally have 70 years of evidence—that urban motorways do not reduce congestion and that relying on high car ownership poses an enormous fiscal cost and burden on households.

This is related to the Estimates, Mr Chair, because Simeon Brown from the Opposition party recently said that he thought the countries with the best roads in the world were Hong Kong, Singapore, the Netherlands, Sweden, and Switzerland. Those are all countries that have lower cars per capita than New Zealand—significantly lower, in many cases—and have lower vehicle kilometres travelled per capita. So I want to know, Minister, in the decisions that were made around the Estimates and in recent announcements by the Labour Government, if the goal of reducing vehicle kilometres travelled was taken into account in any way in the analysis of the proposals around the second harbour crossing. If the Minister could tell us that, it would be very useful.

But I do feel that I have to elucidate for the other parties in this House—particularly on this side of the Chamber—that as a planning tool, reducing vehicle kilometres travelled makes absolute economic sense, because people have not chosen to have to use a car for all of their journeys. This was a result of decisions made by central government and local government that have used up enormous, valuable amounts of our urban lands in car-parking and that have unintentionally subsidised single-occupant vehicle trips and led to enormous costs on ordinary New Zealand households, who have to spend $8,000 a year, at least, owning a car—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Ms Genter, could you just relate this to the appropriations, please.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: It’s related to the debate, which is that I want to understand if the Minister and Waka Kotahi are undertaking actual analysis of the impact on carbon emissions and the vehicle kilometres travelled of the proposals, particularly around the preferred option for the additional Waitematā Harbour crossing.

Hon MEKA WHAITIRI (Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Mr Chair, thank you very much. I’d love to take a call in this Estimates debate on transport. Mr Chair and the Minister in the chair, as you know, you’ve travelled State Highway 35. You’ve travelled State Highway 35, I know, several times. That particular road is part of the roading network, and I want to acknowledge the chair of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, who gave the bare minimum of introduction of the Estimates, but he did mention the $1 billion around State highway improvements.

I just want to focus on State Highway 35 because it’s a stretch of road that is the only access way to the communities that live up the Coast. The Minister himself has been told directly, as have other Ministers in this Government, about the challenges of the people that live in that part of Aotearoa New Zealand. So the questions I have to the Minister really go to his Estimates and the flexibility of those policies to adapt to the changing environments.

My first question is: how flexible is the New Zealand Transport Agency in being able to adapt to the changing climate, and by that I mean, on a scale, could the Minister indicate whether it’s very flexible or very inflexible? That’s question No. 1.

Question No. 2: where in the Estimates does it best reflect this level of flexibility? So I am again trying to lead to the point of our having a transport policy that is fit for purpose with our changing climate, particularly for State Highway 35.

My third question is: in real terms, where do communities like those that live off State Highway 35 get assurances that access to their homelands is not put at risk due to this level of flexibility or inflexibility? My fourth question to the Minister is: what overall plan has his Government got on improving the livelihood of those on State Highway 35 now and for the future?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Transport): For the benefit of listeners, we’re all subject to time limits in this debate, and so I will try to briefly reply to the questions that have been put to me by various speakers. In respect of the question by Simeon Brown on Let’s Get Wellington Moving, both the Prime Minister and I have said that we’re dissatisfied with the pace at which that is progressing, as have the mayor and the chair of the regional council. They have both written to me recently, saying that they think the Government should take more responsibility for the parts of the project, particularly, that are on State Highway 1 leading from the Arras Tunnel towards the Mt Victoria Tunnel and for the improvements needed or the additional tunnel needed through Mt Victoria, which is not to deny the importance of the other parts of Let’s Get Wellington Moving, particularly the rapid transit issues that are important to Julie Anne Genter and others, and to the Labour Party.

In respect of Julie Anne Genter’s question about—

Simeon Brown: What about Auckland light rail?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Oh, Auckland light rail. No decisions will be taken on that before the election. We are seeking—

Simeon Brown: Nothing?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Well, there’s a lot of work being done, but no final decisions will be taken as to whether it’s over ground or underground.

In respect of Julie Anne Genter’s questions in respect of Waitematā crossings, any option that proceeds will have increased public transport capability in every stage. There will be no stage that doesn’t increase public transport connectivity across the Waitematā, including for public transport but also for active forms of transport—cycling and pedestrian access—across the bridge.

In respect of her questions about vehicle kilometres travelled, I accept the member’s capability in these issues, and I would, though, observe that quite a bit of the Government expenditure on roads at the moment is necessitated by storm damage, particularly in provincial and rural areas, where people actually don’t generally have public transport options and they are reliant on the roading network. But particularly in our cities—yes—you can’t build your way out of traffic congestion through more motorways; you actually have to support rapid transit.

In respect of the issues that Meka Whaitiri raised in respect of State Highway 35, State Highway 35 is in a parlous position, made worse by Cyclone Gabrielle and the earlier cyclone, and storm events last year—repeated storm events. A total of about $1 billion has already been allocated by the Government to the restoration of roads, and the highest spend of that per capita would be in the Tairāwhiti region because of their great need in that region. So Waka Kotahi are working very hard on re-establishing bridges and roads throughout those storm-affected areas.

SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you, Mr Chair. Minister, I’d just like to set the scene for those people watching or listening at home. There is a huge infrastructure deficit when it comes to transport infrastructure, whether it’s four-laning within our regions or between regions so that people who want to do business—truckies who want to get around can plan deliveries and can actually meet their customers’ needs. And for cities that are growing by another half to a million people in the next 30 years like Auckland is, or only a few hundred thousand like Wellington is projected to, people who live there need to know that their Government understands what level of investment is needed in transport infrastructure—whether it suits people to travel by public transport, which ACT is a supporter of if the investment case stacks up, or by private motor vehicle, or by truck no matter whether it’s an electric or hydrogen truck.

So, Minister, I put to you that the budget proposed this year in these Estimates is completely inadequate. Only a billion dollars for CAPEX into the State highway improvements, only $497 million—less than half a billion—on maintenance. And that in Estimates that have been published recently, there’s a billion-dollar shortfall in road maintenance that has accrued over the past decade. Minister, that’s just not enough money.

And then we look at investment management. Well, clearly Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency has a huge job on its hands to plan future works, to do the designation, get the consents in place, acquire the land before they start building. Minister, this doesn’t appear to be enough money.

Would the Minister consider tolling and actually putting a user price on roads immediately in accordance with ACT’s plan to supercharge investment in the highway network, tolling for maintenance and CAPEX and allowing the private sector to compete with the Government for delivery, funding, and financing of roads? I’m sure there’s people at Waka Kotahi, perhaps even some of those sitting here in the House right now, who would love to offload some of those difficult projects and make them the private sector’s problem. And I can guarantee you, Minister, the private sector people who build roads here and around the world, they’re up for it.

Minister, specific questions—let’s just come to Auckland. I’m an Aucklander; Minister. I know you’re an Aucklander, and we love our city. So has any provision been made by this Government in the Estimates for an integrated transport plan for Auckland? And if the Mayor of Auckland and Auckland Council propose a transport plan and programme that differs from the Government’s in the way that it proposes to stage, time, fund, and deliver, say, an Auckland Harbour Crossing or an Auckland light rail, will the Minister accept the plan that bubbles up from the region and from the city—a city deal that might be proposed by a mayor like His Worship Mayor Wayne Brown?

Minister, question one: if the Mayor of Auckland doesn’t agree to the Government proposing to spend $30 or $40 billion on a harbour crossing, and the Mayor of Auckland and Auckland Council have a better proposal that’s more cost effective, will the Minister accept Auckland Council’s counteroffer? The same thing applies for Auckland light rail. If the Mayor of Auckland and Auckland Council have a proposal or prefer an option that’s, say, above ground at much lower cost or can be delivered much more quickly as part of an integrated transport management plan, will the Minister and will this Labour Government accept a counteroffer from the city and from the region that’s eventually going to have to pay for it and going to have to live with the consequences?

So, Minister, there doesn’t appear to be enough money. Where’s the money coming from? Will you take up or recommend ACT’s supercharge road maintenance and investment tolling plan? And the three specific questions about Auckland, Minister—Aucklanders would love the answers, so does everyone else around New Zealand, including people like farmers in Southland who do not expect to be asked to pay for a $30-billion light rail or a $40-billion harbour crossing for Auckland. Minister, there you go.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. I was wondering if the Minister could comment on a couple of things. One, on the record, if the Minister has it available, could he let us know or confirm that, in fact, roads are not entirely paid for by road users, particularly since there’s significant Crown investment in the New Zealand Upgrade Programme and other roading projects—not to mention the 50 percent, at least, contribution from ratepayers to most local roads. And I also wonder if the Minister could comment on the impact on the National Land Transport Fund (NLTF) on two things: one is the public-private partnerships that were signed up by the previous National Government, Pūhoi to Warkworth and Transmission Gully. What is the annual cost of that ongoing? And what impact is that having on the NLTF and the ability of future Governments to maintain and rebuild roads around the country in places like the East Coast, which has been severely affected by severe weather events, and the impact of the cut to road user charges and petrol tax that was partially in place during the previous financial year.

MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I want to thank the Minister for being in the House tonight to answer our questions on Vote Transport and the Estimates from the Budget that we’ve just had. I must say, being the Transport Minister at the moment in the dying throes of this Labour Government must feel like a hospital pass.

The Minister spoke of the focus of this Budget—if I understood him right—around responding to flooding, resilience, and bridges. I want to get an update from the Minister for the good people of Ashburton after the devastating Ashburton floods just recently that took down that bridge that ended up cutting the South Island in half. So if there was a resilience project that was much needed in New Zealand, I’d advocate for the Ashburton Bridge. So I’d be very interested to ensure that that vital transport corridor remains open. What is his commitment to the Ashburton Bridge within this Budget for the good people of Ashburton?

SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you, Mr Chair. I would like to ask a couple of questions regarding the New Zealand Upgrade Programme, which was discussed at the committee regarding the Estimates. The New Zealand Transport Agency had previously told us that Ministers were reviewing the scope of several New Zealand Upgrade projects. The Minister had no further update regarding the projects that were being reassessed—that’s what the Minister stated at the time of the hearing. I’d like the Minister to please outline to the House what the status of those projects are, including the South Auckland package, Ōtaki to north of Levin, and Whangārei to Port Marsden.

Helen White: It’s going ahead. Don’t worry about it.

SIMEON BROWN: Well, the member over there says it’s going ahead, but it says here in the committee report that they’re being re-scoped. So it’d be great to hear directly from the Minister to know what is happening with those particular projects, because I’m sure there’ll be significant local interest in relation to the New Zealand Upgrade Programme. Of course, this is the programme of projects which, at the beginning of 2020, the Labour Party said, “Oh, we need to build some roads because we can’t build light rail; that’s taking too long, and we cancelled all those roads back in 2017. So we better find some roads.” So, of course, they picked out a whole lot of roads, and one of those was Mill Road in Auckland, but they cancelled that one again after they announced it.

Andrew Bayly: That’s right. One of the worst things they’ve done.

SIMEON BROWN: That’s right. And then there was the Whangārei to Port Marsden run, which they’re now just doing safety upgrades on. And then the Tauranga Northern Link, which they’ve decided they’re only doing half of it—they’re only doing half of it. And then they’re only going to give half the lanes to general traffic anyway. So I’d like an update, Minister, on the status of those projects.

Hon MEKA WHAITIRI (Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Thank you, Mr Chair. Just thank you to the Minister of Transport for his response around State Highway 35. I’m picking up on one of the priorities in this year’s Estimates, which is around reducing emissions. Again, off my earlier question, where’s the Government’s thinking around the blue highway strategy, Minister, particularly, again, for areas that only have one road and no airport? So, specifically, again, where’s the Government’s thinking around blue highways, particularly for our rural communities? And tagged onto that question is the introduction of sea gliders. I’m aware that previous Ministers have received a presentation on the evolutionary use of sea gliders, from a company here in New Zealand, actually—Air Napier—that have put their own capital in to explore the use of sea gliders—not just for the coast but actually for the whole country; fully electrical. Discussions have been had with ports. There’s not a huge amount of infrastructure required to set up sea gliders. But I’m interested to know, from the Minister and this Government, in the context of reducing emissions, whether blue highways are being thought about, and, in the context of blue highways, are facilities like sea gliders which are fully electric being considered in this Government’s plan to reduce emissions?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Transport): Responding to a number of the questions asked—Simon Court referred to what he said was a $1 billion shortfall in road maintenance that had accrued over the last decade, and he’s right that there was an underinvestment in road maintenance for most of the period of the ACT-National Government, when maintenance was frozen. As a consequence, the extra funding that went into the system was spent on roads, and the amount of road surfacing halved, or just about halved. Instead of 9 percent of roads been resurfaced every year, it dropped to about 5 percent—

Hon Damien O’Connor: Plus heavier trucks.

Hon DAVID PARKER: —made worse by heavier trucks. And as a consequence, the road surface both cracked up and wasn’t repaired. We’ve now, in every full year—in every full year—that we have been in Government since, been repairing roads—

Simeon Brown: And it’s got worse—and it’s got worse.

Hon DAVID PARKER: —and resurfacing at the rate of 9 percent. The ignorant National Party spokesperson ignores those realities.

In respect of cost overruns, Julie Anne Genter is correct that there were cost overruns on Transmission Gully and some other projects we inherited from the last Government. Sadly, we’ve also had cost overruns on big public transport programmes, including the City Rail Link, where cost overruns for us and the council have totalled about a billion dollars. In respect of the question as to whether roads are not paid for by road users, that is correct that there is insufficient money in road-user charges and petrol excise duty to cover the cost of road maintenance and construction. For some time now, there have been top-ups required from general taxation in the form of both grants and loans.

In respect of Simon Court’s question about if there’s money in this year’s Budget for preparation of an integrated transport plan, yes, there is, including for Auckland, and that has been the case.

In respect of the question about the loss of the Ashburton Bridge, which freed the lower half of the South Island from Ashburton, those issues do need to be addressed.

SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you, Mr Chair. Minister for Transport, thank you very much for addressing some of our questions, although your history of road maintenance in New Zealand might have missed a few things out, but you and I can catch up afterwards and I’ll set you straight. Minister, City Rail Link—thank you for raising City Rail Link—a $5.5 billion dollar project. You’ve acknowledged in response to a written question, actually, that it’s more likely to be closer to $6 billion because there’s a huge contingency or risk outstanding that the public haven’t been told about till I told them just now, Minister. Then I want to get on to the unfunded contingency, Minister; that is, the road and rail separation, the grade separation in Auckland. City Rail Link’s going to deliver zero benefits. It’s going to be stuck on 15,000 passengers an hour unless we can separate the road crossings from the rail in Auckland. That’s going to cost hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars, and it needs to be done before City Rail Link opens, otherwise City Rail Link is a lemon. Minister, will the Government fund grade separation, road and rail separation, in Auckland so that we can get the most out of City Rail Link before this Government spends another dollar on Auckland light rail?

MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I just want to follow on from my colleague Simeon Brown—and, I must say, I think New Zealand is looking forward to him being the next transport Minister in two months’ time. He outlined a lot of roads that have been cancelled. But wait—there’s one more: the Belfast to Pegasus expressway, including the Woodend Bypass, that was cancelled by this Labour Government when they came in. It would have helped unlock the potential of the Western Belfast Bypass and the northern corridor, which were built by the last National Government—no Government has done more for transport and greater Christchurch than the last National Government.

So my question to the Minister of Transport is: when you look at AA Canterbury highlighting the Woodend area—one of the most dangerous roads in Canterbury, with the fatalities and the accidents. Since they cancelled that motorway, the traffic volumes have increased by over 30 percent. What is in this Budget for the good people of greater Christchurch about ensuring that the arterial route out of Christchurch is secure with a new four-lane highway?

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Just for the members, that is the time left for the debate which is on the screen now.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Transport): Responding to the question about grade separation in Auckland, Waka Kotahi has been doing work with Auckland Council on the cost of grade separation, and I agree that is a challenge that is yet to be overcome in Auckland.

SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Well, Mr Chair, I’m still yet to get an answer from the Minister of Transport regarding the New Zealand Upgrade Programme and the projects that were outlined as having been re-scoped. I’d like an answer around those three particular projects.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green): I’m wondering if the Minister of Transport can comment on the benefit-to-cost ratios of the projects in the New Zealand Upgrade Programme. I wonder if he has any thoughts about why there’s such a double standard for investment in transport projects, where so many politicians claim that rail is low value when we’ve seen many, many studies showing investments in passenger rail, like the lower North Island passenger rail business case that has a return well over the investment that’s being proposed to put in. But when it comes to highways, for some reason the parties on the right, who supposedly care about fiscal discipline, do not care about fiscal discipline, because they’re proposing highways that consistently have lower returns than the cost of the project—not even counting the environmental externalities, the health externalities, the fact that you have to own a car and operate it to use the infrastructure that they’re investing in. I mean, do you have any comment, Minister, on that? I also wonder if you could comment on the percentage of investment that has been put into new State highways relative to new public transport investments over the last years.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The Hon David Parker—four.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Transport): In the four seconds available, the good news is that we have funded new trains for Palmerston North to Wellington.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Members, the time for this debate has now expired.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Votes contained in the Estimates of Appropriation for 2023/24 stand part of the Schedules.

Ayes 72

New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere.

Noes 44

New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.

Motion agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clauses 1 to 10 and Schedules 1 to 5 be agreed to.

Ayes 72

New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere.

Noes 44

New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.

Clauses 1 to 10 and Schedules 1 to 5 agreed to.

Bill to be reported without amendment.

House resumed.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Madam Speaker, the committee has further considered the Appropriation (2023/24 Estimates) Bill and reports it without amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

Urgency

Urgency

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Deputy Leader of the House): I move, That urgency be accorded the passing through the remaining stages of the Water Services Entities Amendment Bill and the Education and Training Amendment Bill (No 3); the third readings of the Natural and Built Environment Bill and the Spatial Planning Bill; and the remaining stages of the Integrity Sport and Recreation Bill, the Climate Change Response (Late Payment Penalties and Industrial Allocation) Amendment Bill; and the second readings of the Taxation Principles Reporting Bill, the Fuel Industry (Improving Fuel Resilience) Amendment Bill, the Land Transport Management (Regulation of Public Transport) Amendment Bill, the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Community Participation) Amendment Bill, the Water Services Legislation Bill, and the Water Services Economic Efficiency and Consumer Protection Bill.

A party vote was called for on the question, That urgency be accorded.

Ayes 72

New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere.

Noes 44

New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.

Motion agreed to.

Bills

Water Services Entities Amendment Bill

In Committee

Part 1 Amendments to Water Services Entities Act 2022

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Members, the House is in committee on the Water Services Entities Amendment Bill. We come first to Part 1. This is the debate on clauses 3 to 27 and Schedules 1 and 2, “Amendments to Water Services Entities Act 2022”. The question is that Part 1 stand part.

SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I’m looking forward to a good evening this evening in regards to the committee of the whole House stage on the Water Services Entities Amendment Bill. For those at home getting ready to settle down for what will be two hours of some of the best political debate you have seen in a long time, get some popcorn, get some chippies and maybe a little Diet Coke, and settle in, because we’ve got a little bit to talk about this evening.

Todd Muller: We need a West Coast perspective.

SIMON WATTS: It’s good to have you here, Todd Muller. Thank you very much for that. I’m looking forward to your contribution soon.

So let’s start with clause 16, eh? Let’s do that. Clause 16. I’ve actually got a Supplementary Order Paper on the Table here in regards to this. This is a topic of which will come as no surprise, but a topic of which has raised significant controversy across this bill.

Don’t forget this is the “back-down bill”, right? This is the bill in which the Government did their big master reset plan, remember? The policy bonfire—remember the policy bonfire?

Nicola Grigg: Damien didn’t burn anything.

SIMON WATTS: No, only some of them did the bonfire. Anyway, the policy bonfire resulted in this change in the water services entities, and this is the bill that’s going to take it from four mega-bureaucratic co-governed entities, to 10 mega-co-governed bureaucratic entities.

But clause 16, of which my Supplementary Order Paper 407 is on, relates to the proposal around these proposed community priorities statements. Remember those Te Mana o te Wai statements that the Government put into the legislation, which said that, say if you’ve got a stream that runs through your farm—I don’t know, if you’ve got a farm in Canterbury, maybe, I don’t know, anyway, somewhere like that, maybe the Waikato—that makes sense, farmer owns the farm. In order to make some recommendations in regards to that stream that runs through the farm, well, you’d sort of expect the farmer who owns the farm and owns the land would be able to input and make some comment on that. Well, originally, that wasn’t the case; it was only iwi who were able to make comment on that stream, even though it was stream that ran through private land. But irrespective, the Government recognised that was a bit of a gap and they put in place these community priority statements.

The community priority statements—the challenge with these, and the legislation as it stands, is that the governance groups that need to consider these, the wording in clause 16, in the heading, under new section 145C—and for those watching at home, this is going to be quite hard to follow, because this bill is amending a bill that’s just got passed in only a short amount of time before this new amendment bill came in.

Anyway, it amends the wording to say—at the moment, they say they “may be considered”. Well, there is a difference between the words “must be considered” and “may be considered”, right? Te Mana o te Wai statements must be considered, right? So that’s pretty clear. But the community priority statements—remember the farmer that I referred to who owns a farm and the stream runs through the farm, the statements and the contributions that that individual makes are only “may be considered”, right? So there’s a hierarchy—a lower hierarchy—even though that person owns the land and the stream runs through the farm, and, actually, by all accounts, cares deeply about the environmental impact of that water stream that passes through, or whatever, going on.

But my Supplementary Order Paper says, actually, we should be replacing the word “may” with the word “must”, because we’re into simplicity here, aren’t we? We want to keep it simple. We’re just going to change one word, right? Easy as that. Simple as.

I appreciate that we haven’t got too many more days of this House sitting here, but I think maybe tonight the Minister may see the logic of this and go, “You know what? What a great idea. There is one thing that I want to do before I finish up my role as Minister, and that will be to actually say, ‘This is a sensible Supplementary Order Paper. We’re going to change the word from ‘may’ to ‘must’.’ ” That means that places everyone on a level playing field.

Why should farmers in the Wairarapa sit at a lower tier than iwi in the Wairarapa? Why is that? Is that fair to anyone? Well, currently, under the Minister’s bill, there’s a hierarchy, and the farmer sits below iwi. Well, we don’t think that’s right. That’s not fair. That’s not sensible. We should have all stakeholders that have an interest in regards to those water flows be having the same ability—an equal ability—to be able to contribute and inputting feedback in terms of that. That’s not unreasonable; that’s just basic fairness. So, hence, we’re really encouraging the Minister to consider clause 16 and the modifications in regards to that portion.

The second aspect that I’m keen for the Minister to have a consideration around is in regards to clause 5, which is around the establishment dates. Don’t forget that this piece of legislation originally was all going to be all on, all happening by mid-2024. Remember the good old days of those? Remember that? Well, before the policy bonfire—before the petrol got thrown on the fire—that was the plan.

Hon Scott Simpson: Who was Prime Minister then?

SIMON WATTS: Well, I can’t remember. There’s so many changes, haven’t there, the Hon Scott Simpson?

Hon Scott Simpson: Who was the Minister?

SIMON WATTS: I can’t even recall. Jeez, nearly lost count on that as well. Crikey! You’re putting me under the pressure, but I’m not in the seat.

So the point around the establishment date is that—so this bill is now changing the date from mid-2024 to sort of a sequenced drop date right out to mid-2026. Well, that’s kicking it for touch for another, give or take, three years from now. You can imagine the bureaucracy and the spending and the consultants, the gravy train, the conga line of consultants that are lining up behind this—the “three waters conga line”, just heads in the trough. Plenty of money going to consultants and high-paid contractors, meanwhile it’s all funded out of the back pocket of hard-working Kiwis.

So around the establishment date in clause 5, I’m keen to get a little bit of feedback from the Minister around why we are wasting so much time doing more bureaucracy. Look, if they really want to do this, and they’ve got the parliamentary majority, they could do this tomorrow if they wanted to, right? But they haven’t; they’ve just sort of kicked it around and dragged it out. Why are we kicking it to touch to mid-2026?

But, actually, if you look at new section 6A, inserted by clause 5, on page 8—I’ll just give you some page numbers, Mr Chair, because it’s quite hard to follow some of those—the Auckland, Northland entity actually kicks in in July 2024. Well, it’s interesting, right? I’ll tell you what, do you think the Auckland Council are in behind these reforms? Do you think Mayor Brown thinks this is a good idea? Gee, I tell you what: the Government is spending a lot of capital up there having teas and coffees and meetings, trying to negotiate on that. But I’ll cut to the chase: don’t waste your time having teas and coffees; he thinks this is a dumb idea—he thinks this is a really dumb idea.

But yet, the legislation—they had the chance to make an amendment to kick this for touch but they’ve actually brought this forward, and, according to new section 6A, it’s 1 July 2024. Well, that’s not listening to the feedback of local government, because that’s what we’ve heard in the narrative all through this bill, haven’t we? “Oh, we’ve been listening. We’ve done a lot of listening.” Don’t forget they read the bill on 22 June and it reported back on 27 July. That’s not really a long process of feedback. But anyway.

So I’m interested in the Minister’s comments in regards to the Auckland, Northland date. Can the Minister clarify that, actually, pretty much every mayor in Auckland and in Northland don’t support these reforms, right? Well, what a great place to start—what a great place to start in terms of, “Let’s all work together. Let’s listen to local government. We all want to do this.” Well, guess what! Every mayor in the entity A—of which is going to be first off the rank, which is going to be the sort of poster child of these reforms—is strongly opposed to the reform. This is a failure from the start. Why is the Minister not listening to the feedback from local government and going, “Well, actually, everyone thinks this is a dumb idea, but, no, let’s keep trucking on, head down, no listening.”? The only ones that think this is a good idea are probably only the Minister, and definitely not those people and those residents within those entities.

So a little bit of feedback on clause 5, on the establishment date, and a little bit of feedback on new section 6A in regards to the Auckland, Northland date. We’ll have a look at the actual phasing of all the other dates for all the other entities. Just in regards to the Northland and Auckland Water Services Entity—actually the names of the entities are in Schedule 1 on page 48, so we’ve got the Far North District Council, Kaipara, Whangarei, and Auckland Councils. Those are the ones that I’m referring to when I’m talking about new section 6A around the establishment date of 1 July 2024. Thank you.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you, Mr Chair. For the sake of the people who are at home, we are in urgency. The normal procedures of the Parliament have been set to one side so the Government can push through its legislative agenda, of which this Water Services Entities Amendment Bill is just one bill in a very long list that will keep the Parliament occupied probably right through till the end of the week.

Now, what’s interesting about this bill, and particularly about Part 1, is that it represents everything that is wrong with this current Government in terms of the schmozzle and bamboozled approach to not only water services but the whole water issue. Here we are, in the dying days of this current Labour Government, amending a piece of legislation that was only passed towards the end of last year. The principal Act that we are amending is the Water Services Entity Act 2022. Here we are, in August 2023, already amending it, to make changes that will be superficial at best, and complicated, confusing, and costly at worst, but driven by ideology.

So I want to turn to—as an example of that—clause 4A in Part 1 of this bill; it’s on page 6 of the bill that’s sitting on the Table. At 4A(4), it says that “After section 3(2)(d), insert: … [the words] providing a locally led process enabling them to merge if their regional representative groups decide to do so”. Therein lies the rub. This is warm, fuzzy words that actually mean very little in terms of local democracy, local accountability, or electoral accountability. This is the sort of wording that lies at the very root of the criticism that has been so loudly voiced up and down the nation, across the countryside, by not only local government representatives of every colour and hue but by ratepayers all over the country.

The words “providing a locally led process enabling them to merge if their regional representative groups decide to do so” is the epitome of what is wrong with this legislation. The whole concept behind the current Government’s three waters proposals that created the four mega-entities, soon to be replaced by this piece of legislation that turns those four mega-entities into 10 mega-entities, was little more—and has been little more—than State-sanctioned theft. That’s been the criticism up and down the countryside.

So my question to the Minister in the chair is: why can’t his Government listen more closely to ratepayers, have a better regard for their views, and a better regard for democratic processes that have underpinned local government in this country since local government was established? Why has the current Government got such disregard for the views of ratepayers and indeed those elected local government representatives? “Providing a locally led process enabling them to merge if their regional representative groups decide to do so”—well, you couldn’t get anything more waffly than that.

We’ve got a range of other questions that we will proceed to ask the Minister through the course of this debate on Part 1. That’s my starting contribution. I know my colleagues on this side of the committee will be wanting to speak to the various Supplementary Order Papers. Simon Watts, my colleague, has just referred to his Supplementary Order Paper that amends clause 16, and that’s a good piece. I know that my colleagues in the ACT Party—Simon Court—have a number of Supplementary Order Papers on the Table as well. Thank you, Mr Chair.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Minister of Local Government): Thank you Mr Chair. In response to the comments and questions from Mr Watts, specifically around his proposed Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 407, the flexibility of “may consider” means that entities can determine the most appropriate response to a statement. Resource and effort can be scaled according to the nature of the statements and entities’ particular circumstances. This makes absolute sense to me. This is an issue that was traversed in great detail at the select committee stage. It was deemed by members of the committee that it was important to ensure that people that did not have a close connection to the area in question could not provide a statement of their own, and the deputy chair of the committee had particular examples where that may happen.

In regard to the difference between community statements and Te Mana o te Wai, we won’t be supporting the SOP, because we as a Government wish to be consistent with the view of the previous National Government in 2014, when they established the requirement for Te Mana o te Wai. They, themselves—at the time when in Government—recognised that there is a role for this, and it is a requirement of this Government to be consistent with that, and that is what’s being proposed in the bill. I would propose that this is pure politicking. I would also propose that it is—

Hon Member: Oh, hypocritical!

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: —quite telling that—point of order. Point of order?

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Point of order, the Hon Kieran McAnulty.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: There are very few things that you cannot accuse members of being. I’ve just been accused of that and I would ask the member to withdraw and apologise.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): I didn’t actually hear any words. If any member over there has used a word that should rightfully cause offence to the Minister, could they please stand, withdraw, and apologise. Well, in the absence of that, carry on.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: Well, that says it all. To Mr Simpson’s points, the points in the bill around potential mergers and his question around listening to the sector, all the changes that are in this bill have come about as a result of listening to the sector, and that includes the provision that allows for mergers. Councils have asked for this to be included in the bill so that in the future, if they themselves choose that it is in their community’s interest to merge, they would like a mechanism to be included in the bill. We have listened to the sector. That is why these changes are being made.

Hon Members: Ha, ha!

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: The members may scoff, but I can guarantee they have not visited as many councils as I have. Many months ago I challenged Mr Watts to visit councils and sit with them and listen to them. He didn’t. So the point here is that what they’ve asked for—they’ve said we can’t do this by ourselves. This country has met $185 billion. When I was in Selwyn speaking to that council, they told me themselves that they can’t do it by themselves. They recognised across that they collectively could do this; individually, they can’t. There are many councils—all 55 rural and provincial councils—that I met in person. They all told me one simple thing: they need reform. They need reform and they can’t do it by themselves. That is what this bill does. They had concerns about four. They are much more comfortable with 10.

Here is a challenge for those members tonight: tell us what they’re going to do and show us how that adds up. We’ve asked them to do that for months. They haven’t. They can’t because their plan does not add up.

SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you, Mr Chair, and, Minister McAnulty, thank you for the opportunity to describe an alternative vision about how we solve the problem of funding, financing, and delivering three waters infrastructure. Now, let’s just start with the bill—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Mr Court, that will be within the confines of Part 1 of the bill?

SIMON COURT: Absolutely, Mr Chair. Problems with the bill: it’s the latest in a series which seeks to reform three waters infrastructure, the way it’s delivered and operated. Despite the limited time frame to consider this bill, which transforms the four-entity model to a much less efficient and more expensive 10-entity model, as the Minister himself was happy to confirm in the House, at select committee—much more expensive, much less efficient, but, you know, that’s what Labour’s come to in its dying weeks of its six-year term.

Minister, why on earth did a member of the Labour Party sitting on that committee think—given the limited time available—it was sensible to try to introduce some kind of collective bargaining, fair pay agreement thing into a water services bill that would bind all future water services companies? Minister, I mean, the explanation—I’m looking heavenward, because I don’t think there’s anywhere else this could come from; it doesn’t make any sense except for it to be maybe a bolt of lightning.

Minister, this bill proposes to amend an Act only passed eight months ago—eight months ago—to fanfare by a Minister, the Hon Nanaia Mahuta, who, even though that Minister had claimed co-governance, ethnic representation on boards, 50 percent of the seats allocated on the regional representative groups that will govern the three waters entities must go to iwi Māori because of an intrinsic relationship that they have with water.

Now, let’s be clear: the State and its agents, local government, treated iwi Māori, hapū, whānau, and marae terribly. When it comes to building infrastructure like sewage treatment plants right in front of the marae, like they did at Māngere in the 1960s, destroying their shellfishing grounds—treated them terribly. Now we have the Resource Management Act—whatever you think of it—which weighs up the needs of people and property owners and customary rights holders against the need to build infrastructure, and that would never be allowed today. But using that type of example or reasoning about intrinsic relationships with water, to put 50 percent of the representatives on regional representative groups, that they must be iwi Māori, makes no sense.

Even the former Minister, the Hon Nanaia Mahuta, said, “To my knowledge Māori have not expressed rights and interests in three waters assets over and above those [of] ratepayers within their respective communities of interest.” That’s it, Minister—cogovernance is done. But, no, this Government’s persisted.

So what would ACT do? ACT is a positive party. We’re looking for practical solutions. You know, there’s a lot of stuff in the three waters reforms that ACT would agree with. It’s important that we have better funding and financing mechanisms. It would be very helpful that councils and local government entities that are failing as asset owners have more technical support. Maybe that means being part of a larger entity, but doing it by stealth, pretending it wasn’t going to be compulsory then making it compulsory, pretending, “Oh, four entities and iwi co-governance is the solution; oh no, now it’s 10, but it’s inefficient.”—I mean, Minister, come on. Whatever you go on to do in your next career, Minister, this will not be your finest moment.

That’s why ACT is here to help, Minister—that’s why ACT is here to help. Here’s an amendment to the bill: Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 400. Rather than having to face down these local councils when you go back to Wairarapa, Minister—you have to face your local council saying, “Why are you taking our assets, Minister?”—you can adopt ACT’s SOP: give each territorial authority, each council, one vote per 50,000 on the entities. Let them retain ownership and control, Minister. There you go—there’s SOP 400, an amendment to the bill. Instead of forcing iwi co-governance—complex, unnecessary, unfounded even, according to the Hon Nanaia Mahuta—well, ACT says you can give respectful representation, consultation, and input to mana whenua, Minister.

You can adopt the model that says in the Auckland super-city plan—one which I participated in—where, as a representative of Auckland Council, I had to go and represent Auckland Council talking about infrastructure plans that involved cleaning up old rubbish tips in the coastal area to the 19 mana whenua representatives. Because many of them do have genuine concerns about the way the State—or its branch, local government—treats them. [Bell rung] Mr Chair, just a couple more things to get through.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Simon Court.

SIMON COURT: Thank you, Mr Chair. So there are other opportunities, such as establishing a mana whenua forum or having a mana whenua representative on a governing body. That is why ACT proposes, on Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 401, to amend clause 10. “Each entity’s regional representative group must include territorial authority representatives.”, and, “One non-voting mana whenua representative must be appointed to provide advice on whether provisions of any relevant Treaty settlement Act may affect the operation of the water services entity.” Because ACT is a party that respects property rights.

We respect customary rights, and where property rights have been infringed, then what ACT would say is that we need to recognise that, but that is not through allocating voting rights to iwi Māori based on their whakapapa and somehow claiming that that addresses some grievance that is better addressed—more honestly addressed; more openly and truthfully addressed—through a Treaty settlement process. Where an entity that has customary rights in water, or that has had their customary rights infringed by the State, has an opportunity to seek redress through the Waitangi Tribunal rather than having cogovernance imposed on—let’s be honest—pipes, manholes, and sewage treatment plants, Minister. I mean, it sounds mad when you actually say it out loud, doesn’t it? For the voters and for the people listening at home.

Then I want to come to another amendment—ACT has thought deeply about this, we’ll get through it, Mr Chair. Amendment to clause 10, proposing to insert clause 10A: The appointment of territorial representatives. Council representatives may be revoked by a council. In other words, if they appoint someone who’s not suitable, then council can pull them off. Whereas at the moment, they have to be proposed and it’s actually up to the regional representative group whether they accept or reject the nominee. They might keep someone on who’s really not helping their local community—really not representing them—because it’s politically convenient to the regional representative groups that will essentially be, unfortunately, compromised on the day their established, Minister, under this legislation.

So what ACT says: we should amend this bill so that the representatives on the regional representative groups for water service entities, council-controlled organisations—whatever they are in the future—must be democratically accountable back to their communities. Without democratic, legitimate, one-person - one-vote, or the ability of the people to recall their representatives, Minister, the water service entities will lack any political or popular legitimacy—if you hadn’t noticed, Minister, judging by all the “Stop Three Waters” signs up and down the country. There you go, there’s a proposed amendment to clause 10.

Now, we’re going to get through this very quickly, Minister. Pretty much, if you accept these amendments, I can have a chat to my caucus and leader—we might even support the bill passing. Very simple amendments: restore democracy; respect mana whenua, but not through co-governance; let councils own the entities; one share for 50,000.

Then we come to this one. We want to amend a further clause, Minister: clause 11A, the “Territorial authority owner may leave Water Services Entity”. Who knew that a council or a shareholder or an asset owner that becomes part of a larger corporate, a council-controlled organisation, a regional water authority, a water service entity, might decide, Minister, that they’re really, really unhappy with the way their assets have been managed for their small or large community as part of a larger entity. They might decide to leave and go and join another water service entity. I mean, the ACT Party believes that if you want to take your assets and your property and go and enter into contract agreements with someone else, the State shouldn’t stop you.

In fact, if Auckland Council wants to get together with Wellington—I mean, I don’t know why they would; if anyone’s seen all the water running down the streets in Wellington, you’d know that their council has failed—or conversely, if Waikato District Council wants together with Auckland and Northland, which they’ve said they would, Minister. They’re not allowed to under this bill, Minister. But with ACT’s proposed amendment to clause 11A on SOP 404, councils that want to leave an entity because they’re not getting good service or value for money—because their communities are not getting the service they expect—can leave and join another entity, or just go out on their own. Because maybe councils like Whangarei District Council, which are cash flow - positive and which are going to lose out by tens or hundreds of millions of dollars through this legislation, Minister, would prefer to go it alone; back themselves; trust their engineers and planners; trust their own ratepayers. Minister, I’d love you to respond to this. This is practical stuff. ACT is here to help, Minister.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Minister of Local Government): Thank you, Mr Chair. Before I respond to Mr Court’s comments, I’d noted that I neglected to respond to the establishment date questions by Mr Watts, so I want to do that now. The establishment date for the northern entity of Northland and Auckland hasn’t changed, because the proposed entity boundary hasn’t changed. All the work that had gone into establishing that entity still remains relevant. It was the original date and so we’ve stuck with that.

In terms of the range of dates available to the other entities, the original proposal was, obviously, for four entities and they were able to do so by a set date. With larger entities, there needs to be a longer time in which to do that. We’ve gone through a process with councils to get a gauge as to when they would like to go. Some want to go early, some want to go late within the time frame, and we’ve done our best to try and give them an indication as to where we think they might be able to fit through. But, of course, those dates may change depending on their circumstances. They may get through their work quicker. So we’ve left that open to Orders in Council to establish the date once they’re in a position to give us a firm indications.

I thank Mr Court for his comments and questions. I’ll go through them one by one. It is true that the Government has been very clear right throughout that the reason we landed on four is because four entities would be more efficient and would provide more savings to ratepayers. We were firm on that. When we listened to councils and heard what they had to say about wanting more local input, more local say, we landed on 10. But as a result of doing it, it did enable us to have a representative from every single council within each entity to have a seat on the regional representative group. That’s the trade-off. Four would be more efficient and would save more; 10 not so much, but considerably less than the status quo—and that’s the point here. These reforms will prevent unaffordable and unsustainable rate rises that people will have to face.

In regard to—I’ve just realised I’ve overlooked another comment that was made around the community priority statements around a stream on a farm. The committee must remember that the only areas in question here are those that are currently served by a council-run scheme. Most rural areas, be they a rural supply scheme or ones that are self-sufficient, don’t come under the remit of these proposals.

Mr Court’s comments around collective bargaining: of course, this Government will look to enable collective bargaining wherever appropriate at every opportunity. We’re firm in the belief that it’s through collective bargaining—if people choose to engage in that—that people get better wages and better conditions. We’ve heard from the sector and the water industry that they are concerned about retaining staff and they want to be able to attract staff, and one way to do that is to ensure good wages and good conditions.

In regards to Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 400, we won’t be supporting that. There’s nothing stopping an entity being able to adjust the proportionality of representation through their constitutions. We also have serious concerns with these proposed changes, whether balance sheet separation would still be able to be achieved, and, of course, that’s a key element to these reforms. We’ve heard numerous proposals, some late in the piece, but nevertheless alternatives were put forward. None of them will be able to achieve what we need to achieve here.

With $185 billion, now deemed to be a conservative estimate of the cost that we need to find as a country, 67 councils, none of which can do it by themselves, we have to find a way forward. We could do as has been proposed and can already be done, and that’s allowing councils to work in a council-controlled organisation model or shared services, etc.

But there’s one key element that that approach would overlook, and that’s the debt that’s currently associated to water services would still sit on councils’ books. Right across the country, we have councils that are—through no fault of their own, through the position they find themselves in—having to put forward considerable proposed rate increases that, for many people, are on the verge of being affordable. That trajectory will only continue, particularly if the debt associated to water services sits on their books. These proposals remove that debt. No other proposal that’s come from any other party in the House will achieve that.

SOP 401 doesn’t reflect the special interest in water that was established through the Supreme Court, in part by testimony from Sir Bill English. As a result of that—

Simon Court: Oh, water’s not sewerage pipes, is it, Minister.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: This may be a debating point, but I’m answering the question. This is why we’re doing it and I find it. It’s really interesting, though, that Mr Court was focusing on co-governance and not on an alternative funding model. A proposal that he put forward previously was to share GST with councils. Of course, that would equate to $1 billion a year. This isn’t a $185 billion issue that we’re dealing with here. So this is—what we’re proposing—going to deal with the issue over 30 years—[Bell rung] The ACT Party, 155 years later—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Are you seeking a call?

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: Yes, Mr Chair. SOP 402: we won’t be supporting that either, because entities’ constitutions can address this through themselves already. Of course, SOP 403—there’s no need for this because every single ratepayer that is currently being served by a council-run scheme will benefit from these reforms.

SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you, Mr Chair. Look, for the viewers watching Parliament TV, the people listening at home, it’s clear there’s not a lot of point litigating this stuff with this Minister. This Minister has offered barely a defence of the three waters reform and the Water Services Entities Amendment Bill. This Minister hasn’t even bothered to book in Department of Internal Affairs’ staff to appear with them here tonight. He’s sitting here, unsupported in the Chamber—for those of you who are listening and not watching. Where are the officials that this Minister would usually have lined up behind him? Or have they given up on the reforms as well?

Because I’ll tell you what: those officials from the Department of Internal Affairs who have been given this task, who might have actually delivered something coherent and workable based on what they briefed David Seymour and I back in 2020 before the election, I think they’ve given up too. I don’t think they even care if this passes or not. Their heart’s not in it. You’re here all by yourself, Minister.

So here’s the question for you: did they give up and throw in the towel on your reform programme, Minister, when one of your Labour Party colleagues, Rachel Boyack, proposed to put fair pay agreement collective bargaining nonsense into a water services bill? Did they say, “We don’t have time for this. We’ve got to get a water services piece of infrastructure through.”? I think that’s what they said. In fact, I might have heard them say it. Minister, you’re going to pass this tonight.

Hon Scott Simpson: No.

Nicola Grigg: No.

SIMON COURT: Maybe tomorrow, maybe this week. Certainly in the next three weeks. Minister, when this bill passes, instead of four chief executives required for four ginormous water service entities, there’s only going to be one needed—one that’s going to go to the northern entity, “entity A”, the Auckland and Northland entity. The three chief executives the Department of Internal Affairs have hired as implementation or transition chief executives for the other three entities, well, those three entities are gone with this bill—they’re gone.

Minister, I asked you this afternoon in the House in the Estimates debate on local government, will the Department of Internal Affairs make the three chief executives whose roles are made redundant when this passes—will they make those chief executives redundant? Or will they keep them warm? Will they keep them warm? Will they put them in the warming draw in case some new, juicy roles come up that they might just want to apply for? Or will they do the right thing and send them back to the job market so the private sector can determine if those three spare chief executives—maybe the private sector can discover what they’re worth.

Are they worth between $600,000 and $800,000 a year or are they not? Because the Department of Internal Affairs won’t need them, the water services entities won’t need them, the taxpayers won’t need them. So when this bill passes—whether it’s today, tonight, whenever it gets Royal assent—Minister, will you tell the Department of Internal Affairs (DIA) to make those people paid millions of dollars in taxpayer money, currently for sitting around doing goodness knows what—will you tell the DIA to send them packing, get them back on to the job market? Maybe they can do something efficient in the private sector. Maybe they can even apply for a role with one of the 10 water service entities or the other nine, hopefully at much lower chief executive pay rates. Because it beggars belief—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Mr Court, you’re getting off the section—well off.

SIMON COURT: Unfortunately, Mr Chair, all of this came up in select committee and it was not resolved. But, I take your point.

Let’s not punish this Minister any more. He’s suffered enough with this hospital pass of a Water Services Entities Amendment Bill. He’s suffered enough. Soon the voters will end his suffering. He’ll be a backbencher like me. I tell you what: I reckon being a backbencher is a lot more fun than being a Minister in a Labour Government. Minister, the voters are going to offer you that opportunity. But in the meantime, what ACT says is you can adopt our Supplementary Order Papers. If you do that, I’ll go back to our leader David Seymour and our caucus and I’ll ask, “Could we therefore support the bill passing with ACT’s recommended changes?” It’s quite likely we could. But if you won’t support it, Minister, there’s no point in ACT continuing to labour the point. The voters will make up their mind. Minister, the ball’s now in your court.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Minister of Local Government): Thank you, Mr Chair. I think it’s pretty poor form for a member of this House to directly criticise officials individually. I think it’s appropriate, of course, to criticise departments. But for a member to question openly the motivation and work ethic of officials, I think, is poor form.

In regards to the question of the CEOs, that was already—at the member’s own admission—answered today in the appropriations, but I’m happy to go through it again. As explained earlier today, the CEO of “entity A” will continue in that role, because there are no proposed changes for that entity. The other two that have been hired will continue in a role within the department, going through the proper change process. They have expertise that can be utilised through the transition period.

I think it’s inappropriate to suggest that a Minister should direct a department to sack people; that would be beyond the realms of what is reasonable for a Minister, so I totally reject that. As I’ve said earlier, in regards to member’s comments around the Supplementary Order Papers 400, 401, 403, and 404, we will not be supporting those, and I’ve already outlined the reasons why.

SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Well, thank you very much, Madam Chair. I’m wanting to have a discussion in regards to both clauses 10 and clauses 11: clauses that we haven’t discussed so far this evening in detail. Clause 10, firstly, is in regards to the regional representative groups, and the point that I’m interested to converse with the Minister about is in regards to how this will work in practice. Because the regional representative groups in this clause outline that there will be one member for every territorial authority that will sit on that committee—and, of course, there is 50:50 co-governance embedded within this, which means that for every one of those roles there will be an equal and opposite position for mana whenua on that.

But when you look at—and this is linked with clause 11—the water services entities that will be established, and you have to reference Parts 1 to 10 of Schedule 2 to get the list of those entities, but one of the entities is in the Waikato. The Waikato Water Services Entity has 10 separate territorial authorities: Waitomo, Waipā, Waikato, Matamata-Piako—I could go on.

So, in effect, 10 representatives on these regional representative groups, plus 10 mana whenua or iwi groups—you’re going to have 20 people on this regional representative group, and what’s interesting is this isn’t the biggest one that’s there. I’m sure we might hear a little bit more about that later on. But just for simple pragmatism, the Minister noted that one of the consequences of the Government listening to feedback is that they’re going to implement that one representative group, but how in practice will a group operate with 20 different individuals? I’m sort of laughing a little bit because I’m just thinking of the practicality of actually—with all the will and a bit of divine intervention, no doubt.

I still don’t think it’s going to be possible to get those 10 entities plus then the 10 iwi representatives—and, of course, in the North Island, particularly up in that neck of the woods you’ve got a large number of iwi groupings which will be wanting and seeking representation. How is that group ever going to be able to get to a consensus—make a decision on anything, let alone, you know, what time they break for morning tea? Even that conversation, I think, might be a tough one. So I don’t think that’s at all workable or practical or pragmatic.

My question to the Minister is quite simply: how has he sought assurance himself that actually this is going to be able to work in practice when in reality we all know that it is challenging at best even with eight or 10 around a table to get to a position where you need consensus? Of course, don’t forget the legislation underpinning this, of which this is amending, requires 75 percent consensus across those stakeholders on those groups—75 percent consensus. Well, that is a threshold that puts us up into orbit and beyond, I think, in regards to the practicality of decisions being made.

So that’s the question in regards to clause 10, I then refer on, subsequently to that, surprisingly, to clause 11, which follows clause 10. This is in regards to the establishment of these entities, and don’t forget, the whole purpose of this amendment bill is to, in effect, establish six additional water services entities over and above what were previously envisaged. So the list, again, in clause 11 refers to Parts 1 to 10 of Schedule 2 and it outlines all of the entities in regards to what will be established.

The specific question I have, and the Minister’s referred a number of times—I think it was in reply to one of the supplementary order papers from the ACT member Simon Court—around, “Well, that’s not going to allow us to meet balance sheet separation etc., etc.” Well, when you look at—and don’t forget; remember back in the day when there were some suggestions around forming council-controlled organisations, and the pushback was when you’ve only got three entities, that wouldn’t necessarily meet balance sheet separation. That was the pushback that we had in the early days.

But now you look at Taranaki Water Services Entity—and you’ve got New Plymouth and South Taranaki, and you’ve got Stratford, and that’s it! There’s three! So that’s a pretty small entity, but that seems to all of a sudden miraculously meet the criteria. Then you get down to Canterbury and West Coast, and you’ve got Tasman and Marlborough, and then you’ve got split entities—this gets into where the Ngāi Tahu boundary is, of course, which creates another degree of complexity in this whole legislation. You’ve got parts of Buller District Council and parts of Grey District Council, so it’s sort of like a shadow boundary line. I mean, if you want to make this more complex, you’d think, “Crikey, that’s one way to do it”, and they’ve been successful, so I do acknowledge the Minister’s success in that regard, of creating a governance model which is borderlining.

The feedback was very clear from the councils down in that neck of the woods that “Please, please Minister, give us a break. You know, just allow us to operate within our defined boundaries; I mean that, in itself, would help us”. That fell on deaf ears, because none of that feedback was taken on board. We’ve kept these secret boundaries, but again in regards to clause 11, which establishes these entities, how is that going to work in practice when you’re, in effect, slicing down parts of the district—I mean, Buller and Grey, just driving a line between those entities, and one town, one little settlement, one house on that side of the road is in one water service entity, and the other house on the other side isn’t when I go up the road. I mean, seriously? Geez. The opportunity here, for this amendment bill, was to sort of reflect back and go, “Oh, maybe we made a couple of mistakes, that’s OK”—

Hon Scott Simpson: A couple!

SIMON WATTS: Maybe a couple; I’m being generous.

Hon Scott Simpson: You’re being very generous.

SIMON WATTS: —very generous. Maybe this is an opportunity to amend it! It’s all in the title, isn’t it: the “Amendment Bill”. Well, that’s another opportunity to amend it. But no, no. We left that there. So the question for the Minister, again, is: how the heck, in practice, is this really going to work? Of course, we set up originally at the start and we said, “This model will never work if we have more than four entities. Remember that conversation? Well, we listened and that’s the feedback and now we’ve created 10.”, but again, how is this going to work in practice?

My last question in regards to clause 11 is what sort of consultation was undertaken with the councils in regards to establishing these entities? Because, as we referred to before, if I look at Northland and Auckland Water Services Entity, Auckland Council are opposed to the reform—well, that’s quite a big issue when they’re quite a big, significant player in that entity. Kaipara: well, they’re definitely opposed; I’m looking to the good member from up that neck of the woods in terms of Far North District Council. Then you’ve got Whangārei.

I mean, no one wants to do this, right? No one wants to do this. They’re pretty comfortable that they can create their own structure, but they haven’t been given the choice to be able to do that. They’ve been mandated to do this. So what sorts of conversations were had with these entities?

Then, of course, as we know, in regards to clause 11, which establishes the entities, we then go on to refer to the clause that we referred to before around clause 5, which then means that actually that Northland-Auckland entity—of which no members of those entities actually want to do the reform anyway—is accelerated and actually kicks off in mid-2024. I think no further questions, your honour. So I’ll leave it at that.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Minister of Local Government): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I have total faith in local councils’ ability to work with mana whenua on the regional representative groups. Mr Watts made a couple of incorrect statements I’m happy to correct. One is a reference to the 75 percent. That threshold is specifically relevant to proposals for a potential merger. But there are groupings of councils across the country that work together incredibly well. I happen to think that those that are involved in local government are highly competent, highly committed to their communities, and are looking forward to the opportunity to be able to deliver water services in a way the community can afford—which this can do.

Mr Watts’ comments in regards to three councils being in entities—well, he said that himself. I mean, initially, the question was prefaced with “when they propose council-controlled organisations (CCOs) working with three councils, and now all of a sudden there’s an entity with three councils”. It’s not the fact that there’s three councils; it’s the fact that a CCO model, as proposed by the National Party and in fact can already be done, is proven not to work. It will not remove the debt associated with water services from councils’ books, which many councils are absolutely screaming out for—they need it. But an entity will achieve that.

We had advice that—of course, we wouldn’t have proposed an entity boundary if the advice wasn’t that we would achieve balance sheet separation. Even in the two smaller entities, the Taranaki and top of the South Island, we got advice to say that it is workable—not as workable as four; we’ve always conceded that. But this is, again, the trade-off from giving every council a voice on the regional representative groups, which are not governance bodies but nevertheless do ensure that every council there is represented.

The comments in regard to establishment, I went into that in great detail earlier. I think that covers off all the points that were raised.

Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. Just sticking with regional representative groups. The primary legislation provides for 50,000 people and there’s a share in the entity based on that. ACT—Simon Court—is putting up Supplementary Order Paper 400, which provides for every territorial authority (TA) owner to appoint one representative for every 50,000 people.

Minister, the select committee amended the bill to ensure—I think, in clause 10—that every “entity’s regional representative group must include at least 1 representative from each territorial authority owner in the entity’s service area.”, providing that flexibility to better represent the populations, particularly in the metropolitan councils, by having more than one representative on the regional representative group.

I totally agree with the Minister, that members of local authorities are competent and representative of their communities, so certainly, TAs can have the discussion about how many representatives they should have. But there would be some value, I think, in making it explicit that the representation should be proportionate to the population, because that would really underline the democratic representation. So why is the Minister so opposed to having an explicit provision in the bill that relates representation back to the population of each TA area? First question.

The other issue is around the establishment dates in new section 6A in clause 5, which are being done by Orders in Council. When the Governance and Administration Committee considered submissions, we had some benefit of having representatives from the transition unit provide a bit of the operational context. But I did not get a clear impression or clear information about the whole issue of stormwater.

We all know that the transfer of the green spaces in cities, which provide opportunities for stormwater to seep into aquifers to slow the run-off of stormwater after rain—those are managed by councils. They’re a key part of place-making in our cities and towns. The transfer of those assets—which have got a mixed function, for recreation, often, as well as for being part of the stormwater system—will be quite complex.

Could the Minister provide some advice, in terms of the Order in Council, in setting the start date for the entities of how this process of identifying the stormwater assets, which will be transferred and those which will stay with councils is going? Because of the complexity of legal title and the like there, is that a key factor in determining what the go-live dates will be that will be making use of those provisions in new section 6A in clause 5 of the bill?

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Minister of Local Government): I thank the member for her questions. To answer the final question: yes, and that’s why it’s allowed for a range of dates for these entities to go live and why we haven’t set a firm date in the legislation, leaving it up to Orders in Council. We have an indicative date for each entity at the moment; that’s as a result of consultation with each council within the proposed entities, to get a gauge to whether they want to go early. Some councils in the entities do, for their own reasons, in part because of the debt that they’ve got sitting on their books that would be removed and taken on by the entity.

But, obviously, we need to be convinced and satisfied that they are in a position to be able to do that, and that includes stormwater. We’ve already recognised, when we discussed this previously, around the complexity of stormwater—we certainly do recognise that.

In regards to the member’s comments around proportionality, the reason why I am not able to support that proposal is because we’ve had advice that if it gets to the point where one single council has the majority over the other councils by itself in the regional representative group, we won’t have balance sheet separation.

So if we went to a true proportional model, then the Auckland-Northland entity won’t be able to reach balance sheet separation and will miss those gains. But what entities are able to do, through their constitutions, is to look at the number of reps per council and decide whether some councils might warrant an additional rep. We can all think of regions where there’s one dominant urban council surrounded by smaller rural councils. The flip side of that is true, too; we don’t want to make sure that the opportunity for, finally, these small, rural councils—large in geography, small in population—facing massive liabilities, miss out on the opportunity to ensure that the rural voice is heard. Because there is a real concern, under the original proposal, that the needs of the large urban centres would always be met over those of rural areas.

So if an employer might be looking to employ 50 people going to a rural area, that’s massive; going to a large city, it wouldn’t even bat an eyelid. But if all the investment for development was only going to the cities, they would miss out on a good opportunity there. So we’ve got to get that balance, and we believe we’ve got it.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you, Madam Chair. Before I start my contribution right now, I’m just slightly concerned that the Minister seems to be bereft of officials assisting him. It’s usually the case in committee stage that there are officials seated at the right-hand of the Speaker’s Chair to assist and advise the Minister. I am concerned that he may be relying entirely on his own memory and understanding of the legislation, or perhaps he is using some kind of electronic device to communicate with his officials; some kind of a whiz-bang technology that may be unusual in this House. Because normally, officials are present to advise and assist the Minister—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Thank you. The member has made a point, and I’ll ask him now to return to Part 1 of the bill.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: Thank you, Madam Chair. So I want to refer to clause 4B of Part 1, on page 7 of the bill that is sitting on the Table. This is a section that amends the interpretation of the principal Act that was passed in 2022—last year. In particular, I want to refer to the amending clause 4B, which relates to definitions that are used in the Resource Management Act 1991. It won’t escape the attention of members in this Chamber that that is a piece of legislation that is currently under review itself. In fact, as part of the urgency motion that was passed earlier tonight, the replacement legislation to the Resource Management Act 1991 is actually going to be considered by this House towards the end of the week—that’s the Natural and Built Environment Bill and the Spatial Planning Bill.

So my question to the Minister in the chair relates to the use of terminology and definitions that are currently contained in a piece of legislation that is about to become null and void in its own right. Now, having said that and asked the question, I want to make it very clear to members across the Chamber in this committee stage—and also to people who may be listening on their wirelesses or watching on television—that, in fact, the National Party will, given the opportunity after the general election in October, be repealing not only this Water Services Entities Amendment Bill in its entirety but it’s also our intention to repeal completely, before Christmas, the natural built and environment legislation and the spatial planning legislation.

Nicola Grigg: That’ll be a real bonfire.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: “That’ll be a real bonfire”, my colleague Nicola Grigg says. So here we have the kind of nonsense that is going on in terms of the dying stages of a Government amending legislation that was passed using their absolute majority just six or seven months ago, replacing definitions in a piece of legislation that they are indeed themselves replacing, but will also be repealed if a new Government is elected in October.

So my question to the Minister relates to the use of the definitions in the existing Resource Management Act 1991, in clause 4B of this amending legislation, and it includes definitions relating to water, amongst which it says “water in any form while in any pipe, tank, or cistern”, “water … in any part of a river, lake, stream, pond, wetland, or aquifer;”. That’s a very wide definition of water.

There are some critics of this legislation who say that part of the problem is that by owning the infrastructure, you, effectively, own the water. Of course, that has always been a principle from this side of the House, that nobody owns water—that nobody owns water. But if you own the water in any form—while in “pipe, tank, or cistern”, “in any part of a river, lake, stream, pond, wetland, or aquifer”—then, actually, effectively, you own that water simply because you own the infrastructure and the network that goes with it.

So I’m keen to know from the Minister—what, effectively, this piece of legislation does is, by abrogating the ownership to these 10 entities, remove the democratic responsibility and accountability that goes with it. Then, defining water as widely as it does—interestingly enough, it doesn’t include, apparently, steam or ice, and, I guess, maybe that could be considered water in any form. But what, effectively, this means is that the control and ownership of what flows through the pipes, tanks, cisterns, rivers, lakes, streams, ponds, wetlands, or aquifers then becomes, effectively—even if not written into the black letter law of the legislation—the ownership of what flows through, namely the water, is designated and deemed to be in the ownership of these unelected, undemocratic, and unaccountable organisations. So, if the Minister could cast some light on those matters, I would appreciate it.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Minister of Local Government): Madam Chair, thank you very much. I thank Mr Simpson for his questions. So the definition of water aligns with that proposed in the Natural and Built Environment Bill and the Spatial Planning Bill. Any outstanding references have been dealt with through the legislation bill. All three of those are included in the urgency motion which we find ourselves in now. What is proposed in this bill is about the management of water, not ownership. There’s nothing in the bill that could reasonably lead to what the member has suggested.

Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Junior Whip—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 72

New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere.

Noes 44

New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that Simon Court’s amendments to Part 1 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 405 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 44

New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.

Noes 72

New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere.

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Simon Court’s amendment to Part 1 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 404 is ruled out of order as being against the principles and objectives of the bill. The question is that Simon Court’s amendments to Part 1 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 401 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 44

New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.

Noes 72

New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere.

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that Simon Court’s amendment to Part 1 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 400 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 44

New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.

Noes 72

New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that Simon Court’s amendment to Part 1 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 403 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 44

New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.

Noes 72

New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that Simon Watts’ amendments to Part 1 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 407 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 44

New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.

Noes 72

New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere.

Amendments not agreed to.

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

Ayes 72

New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere.

Noes 47

New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2; Whaitiri.

Part 1 agreed to.

Part 2 Amendments to other legislation

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members, we come now to Part 2. This is the debate on clauses 28 to 44—amendments to other legislation. The question is that Part 2 stand part.

SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Point of order, Madam Chairperson. I’m just seeking clarification. My understanding is we only were referring to Part 1 up to clause 15, or new Subpart 1A, in the last portion.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Sorry, could—I’m not following the member. We’ve just voted on Part 1.

SIMON WATTS: In its entirety? OK.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): I’ll put the question again, otherwise—Simon Watts.

SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Thank you very much for the opportunity to take a call on Part 2 of the legislation. My question in regards to this portion of the legislation—in particular I want to go to clause 40, which actually refers to the aspect in regards to the arrangements for the Chatham Islands, actually. Because it’s interesting that while right from the start of this reform programme, the option of being able to opt out was never afforded to any councils—any councils.

Simeon Brown: Say that again.

SIMON WATTS: The opportunity to opt out. Remember the option to opt out if you wanted to opt out of this legislation?

Simeon Brown: That was a phantom, wasn’t it?

SIMON WATTS: Well, interestingly enough it might have been. But, what seems to have snuck its way into the Water Services Entities Amendment Bill in clause 40 is a clause in regards to the fact that the Chatham Islands Council is not subject to the specific clauses in this bill. So the Chatham Islands are now, literally, an island by themselves. And that’s no disrespect to the Chatham Islands, because it is a wonderful part of our jurisdiction. But interestingly enough, none of the clauses in the legislation now apply to the Chatham Islands. It doesn’t appear in Schedule 2 in regards to the 10 entities—it’s not part of that. They are excluded. They have their own model in regards to the provision of water services. They have been given and afforded the rights to be able to choose their destiny in regards to this aspect.

Joseph Mooney: Eight hundred people.

SIMON WATTS: Eight hundred people, is that right? Well, there you go, Joseph Mooney. There’s a little bit of contribution. So how could it be that what’s good for the goose is not good for the gander? As the saying—

Hon Scott Simpson: Ask the people of Waiheke. What about the people of Waiheke?

SIMON WATTS: Yeah, well, what about the people of Waiheke? What about the people of Great Barrier? What about that? What about the people of—

Hon Scott Simpson: Stewart Island.

SIMON WATTS: Stewart Island—the good people of Stewart Island. I’m going to do a little call out to a good couple of friends down there. One’s running the pub and one’s running the school on Stewart Island. Why are they cut? Why can’t they choose their own destiny in regards to how they manage their water services, and yet the Chatham Islands can?

So that is interesting. So I’m really interested and intrigued on what occurred and what has occurred through the deliberations and the engagement by this Minister that has led to the insertion of this clause and the fact that that jurisdiction, that territorial authority, is not part of the Water Services Entities Amendment Bill. It won’t be subject to any of the obligations in regards to these entities. I guess that’s one saving in terms of not having an 11th water services entity with a new CEO and a new number of bureaucracy and all of that. But how could it be, after all the significant submissions from councils across this country saying, “Actually, you know what? We can manage our water infrastructure just fine. It’s not broken. We’re quite capable of doing that. Can you just let us get on and do our job.”? But for some reason, the Chatham Islands have been given special treatment by this Minister, and they are excluded in regards to this piece of legislation. That’s a little detail that I don’t think too many people would have picked up on—the fact that there was one council or one territorial authority that has been given the choice to opt out of the three waters reform programme. What is going on—what is going on? I wonder why.

Hon Scott Simpson: It’s not a choice for them, they are statutorily excluded.

SIMON WATTS: They are excluded. And have the people of the Chatham Islands been asked—do they want to be part of this? There must be one person—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Order! Look, I’m just going to bring the member back. I’ve just lost my Standing Orders but I just want to direct the member to cast his eye over Standing Order 108: “Member to address Speaker. A member on being called to speak addresses the Speaker and, through the Speaker, the House.” There’s a couple of good reasons for that. One is obvious: what would I be doing otherwise? And the second reason is that if the member wishes his dulcet tones to go out through the airwaves, he would be wise to speak into the speaker.

SIMON WATTS: Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

For those residents in the Chatham Islands that are listening this evening to this, I’ll just go back and repeat what I was just saying. [Interruption] No, there are calls for me not to do that. OK, well, I won’t repeat everything that we’ve said. But that’s simple. Let’s just have an explanation around what is so special—why have the good people of the Chatham Islands been excluded and what is the rationale for that? And just intrigue us with a little bit of rationale in that regard.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Minister of Local Government): It would be incorrect to compare the situation of the Chatham Islands with Stewart Island, because, of course, Stewart Island aren’t their own council. I’m surprised the member, as local government spokesperson, didn’t know that.

The Chatham Islands are their own council. There are 660 people on the island. The council has a longstanding unique relationship with central government, where they are directly funded. They are directly funded because rates alone can’t cover the basics. So there is a record amount of investment from this Government around the wharf, but they also need funding for roading, for simple, basic provisions that other councils can do, but with a small isolated population of 660, the Chatham Islands can’t.

The reason why they haven’t been included in the entities is because, after seeking advice on whether it would actually just be simpler to continue and extend the existing direct funding relationship that the Chatham Islands councils have with central government, I deemed that it was actually better for them to just continue that. I put it to them and they agreed. They didn’t ask to be excluded.

SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you, Madam Chair. Minister McAnulty, I wasn’t entirely sure whether it was worth continuing to labour the point with you, but you seem to have an enormous appetite for responding to challenges to this legislation, so I’m going to offer you a couple more. I’ll offer you a couple more.

Now, I understand that the Hon Kieran McAnulty has been known to offer odds, and I’d be interested in hearing what the Minister’s odds are that this legislation will survive past Christmas. But before we get to the wagering part of the night, Minister: clause 35, inserting clause 31 into Schedule 1AA, “Long-term plan to take effect for all or any of 2024/2034, and related documents”. So, for context, local government—councils—are required to develop a long-term plan, a 10-year plan, of which ACT would say it’s probably not long enough. In fact, what ACT would say is, actually, future Government needs to adopt ACT’s proposal for 30-year infrastructure plans. But at the moment it’s a 10-year long-term plan.

One of the problems that councils identified, Minister, was that when trying to make provision for 2024-25, 2025-26, and so on—because this bill provides for an uncertain transition time frame to one of the nine water service entities, there are councils up and down New Zealand who won’t know how long they’re going to have to provide maintenance contracts, or whether capital works are required to upgrade plant and equipment, replace pipes and manholes, maybe re-sleeve sewer networks so that rather than digging them up and replacing the pipes they repair them from the inside. All of this work needs to be budgeted and planned, but they don’t know on the day that a water service entity will be created by the Department of Internal Affairs. They’re told to jump in now, no matter what their long-term plan, no matter what their budgets, no matter what their procurement arrangements are with their contractors and with their professional service providers.

I mean, it really goes to show the complete lack of understanding of this Labour Government, its Cabinet Ministers, even its myriad backbenchers, some of whom have even worked for local government. They have failed to understand how to operationally implement infrastructure reform. But, Minister, don’t worry. All of the effort, all of the submissions that we’ve heard at select committees over the past few years of three waters reform won’t be wasted. That is because the ACT Party has listened, and we’ll be prepared to deliver ACT’s infrastructure plan—30-year infrastructure agreements, set out in this document, ACT’s solutions for building New Zealand and conserving nature.

Minister, question: what on earth are councils supposed to do with the lack of certainty and timing, which inserted clause 31 alludes to? They’re going to have to make plans, long-term plans, but they won’t actually know on which date their assets go into a three waters entity.

Then, Minister, I want to come to “Infrastructure strategy”, clause 37, inserted into Schedule 1AA by clause 35. It says a local authority is no longer required to include water services in the infrastructure strategy. Can you imagine any other developed country in the world where a local authority, responsible for planning; responsible for land-use planning and consenting; responsible for the interface between landowners, people seeking to develop land and wanting to know what is it that council and asset-owners are doing, “Where do I go to find the information?”—the local authority infrastructure strategy won’t include water services? What kind of infrastructure strategy is that? How on earth, during a water infrastructure reform process, did the policy intent result in water being separated from local governments’ infrastructure strategy?

I mean, what would be helpful, what we’ve heard from councils, what we’ve heard from the Infrastructure Commission, Infrastructure New Zealand, operators, professionals, Taituarā association of local government, Local Government New Zealand—honestly, all the submissions, Minister; you should read them, you really should. What they said was that a coherent infrastructure strategy that combines land-use planning with an infrastructure pipeline—that actually goes some way towards giving certainty, not just to landowners and property owners but also to the industry that is supposed to deliver all of this infrastructure, that is supposed to fund and finance all of this infrastructure. Yet here we have an infrastructure strategy, Minister, that’s supposed to be broken out—water is not to be included in local government infrastructure strategies. Please explain, Minister.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Minister of Local Government): In response to Mr Court, I did read the submissions, and that’s why I can say with absolute confidence that the provisions that he referred to in the first part of his contribution have the backing of the majority of the local government sector. They are happy with this, so I don’t see what the problem is. The member has expressed a concern on behalf of the sector, but the sector’s happy, so I consider that all good.

In regards to his second point, that’s dealt with by the inclusion of the requirement in the first two years of the long-term plan moving forward.

NICOLA GRIGG (National—Selwyn): Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to pick up, actually, on a little bit of what Simon Court over in the ACT Party was talking about with regard to subpart 4, amendments to the Local Government Act. I’m fascinated by the wording of new clause 31 in Schedule 1AA, inserted by clause 35(8), where we’re talking about the long-term plan “to take effect for all or any of the 2024/2034”—and related documents. Particularly in new clause 31(1): “(a) water services are to be transferred from the local authority to a water services entity during [that period] … 2024/25 and 2025/26 financial years; (b) the implications of, and any significant risks associated with, the transfer” and also the council must report “(c) how the council is planning to deal with the implications of, and any significant risks associated with, the transfer”.

I don’t think anyone’s talked much this evening about “entity I”, and that is my part of the world. It takes in Canterbury and the West Coast in it. It is approximately at this point in time and it may well change about 14 councils in the regional representative group. As we know, there’ll be 14 representatives on that regional representative group and, of course, 14-ish mana whenua.

The Minister’s talked a lot this evening about balance sheet separation. I just want to submit to the Minister that there are vast differences in this entity. In particular, if you look at the wide deep rate base that is enjoyed by Christchurch City Council, and indeed by the Selwyn District Council, collectively I think we’d be close to 700,000 residents across both those and I’m not even including Waimakariri, Ashburton, and further south.

But, to the Minister, when we’re talking about how councils are now going to be mandated to outline to their communities matters like the financial implications and risks of this merger, this mega merger, what does the Minister say to the likes of the Selwyn District Council or the Christchurch City Council—how are they supposed to be able to communicate to their residents, to their ratepayers about the risk when they are quite clearly going to be subsidising councils on the other side of the main divide in Buller and West Coast - Tasman, in that lovely part of the world that Maureen Pugh does such an excellent job in? These are light and day, literally, on two sides of the South Island. These councils have light and day between their balance sheets, so how can the councils on the eastern side of the divide communicate to their residents in good faith about the risks and financial implications that they will be having to deal with because of being forced into this merger?

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Minister of Local Government): The boundaries of course were debated in Part 1, but in terms specifically around communication and risk, there is significantly more risk to these individual councils if reform does not occur. There are savings for each ratepayer in each of the councils in every entity that is proposed.

Nicola Grigg: That’s simply not true.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: It is true. We can back it up. We’ve provided numbers. We’ve asked the National Party to provide numbers on numerous occasions over many months and they haven’t done it. They’re not doing it because their numbers don’t stack up. Our numbers have been peer reviewed on two occasions. They’ve been reviewed again by rating agencies. Yet again, we can prove that these reforms will save ratepayers money. That’s the end of the story.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you, Madam Chair. Part 2 of the bill deals mostly with amendments to other legislation, and I want to refer to clause 36, which is an amendment to the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002.

Clause 37 provides an amendment to Schedule 1AA of that principal Act. So there’s quite a long and detailed inclusion there that is headed up on page 43 of the bill that’s on the table. It’s headed up “Provisions relating to Water Services Entities Amendment Act 2023” and it applies to a rating mechanism for water services. It says that at subclause 4(1), “This clause applies if—(a) a territorial authority’s district is wholly or partly in the service area of a water services entity with [the] establishment date (under section 6A(3A) or (4)”. Without wanting to go through and just read out the whole page—because it’s quite detailed—I want to just ask the Minister some questions around his interpretation of the words in that amended part. I’m not an accountant, but looking—

Nicola Grigg: You’re way too fun.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: Nicola Grigg says “way too fun” to be an accountant.

Nicola Grigg: Simon Watts is an accountant.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: Oh, Simon Watts is an accountant? There you go. There you go. But look, just coming back to the amended Part. As I say, it’s quite long. It creates a formula for rate collection and calculation and there is an example that is prepared on page 44 of the bill on the table. Frankly, I’m at a loss—as I say, as a layperson, not as an accountant—to understand the example that is put forward.

I’m wondering whether the Minister can advise me and maybe other members of the committee, what’s his interpretation of the example that’s given there? It looks to me to be an example that’s probably been prepared by officials, and it’s quite involved. At one point, in subclause (5)(b), it says “(A + B) / E <= 30%”. Now, I only did school certificate mathematics, so I find that a little bit daunting. But I’m sure the Minister will be able to—given his background with numbers and odds, and sums of money—provide some insight into a layperson’s understanding of what the example provides in that piece.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Minister of Local Government): I thank the member for the question. It’s not my job to provide interpretations of the bill. As Ministers, we introduce bills; we provide legislative statements to outline the intent. I understand it. If the Minister doesn’t, perhaps he wants to ask an accountant in his caucus.

SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): What a delightful response in regard to what I think was a reasonably genuine question! But I think that personifies the mannerism in which this Government listens so attentively to feedback and the way in which it responds so eloquently to such feedback. But I’m not going to labour the point—well, maybe we could, actually, because it’s such a lovely formula, isn’t it—looking there, on page 44, at the example. Let’s go through it, eh? Let’s play along and let’s go through the detail, because I’m quite interested in the numbers as well.

So we’ll go through—no. Actually, no, I’m not. I’m going to go to clause 38. In the interests of sanity, we’ll just stay on a few other clauses before we get into that detail. Let’s take a look at clause 38(8), which inserts new clause 38, “Budget, and unapplied rates revenue, for water services”, into Schedule 1AA of the Local Government Act 2002—the clause that we’ve all been waiting for this evening because it’s a very important clause. The subpart around this in regards to new clause 38(3) is “As soon as is reasonably practicable after the establishment date”—so this is a clause that allows the territorial authorities the mechanism to be able to transfer to these newly created water services entities the unapplied rates revenue that has been collected in that financial year.

I guess the point of the question here is: what is the fiscal quantum that the Minister foresees that this new clause 38(3) will actually be dealing with, and, in particular, whether there are any territorial authorities that, through the process, have been identified that potentially may have a significant amount of unapplied rates revenue? I guess, in layman’s terms, what is the problem that the Minister is trying to achieve or fix as a result of this ability to, in effect, apportion that rates revenue?

Rates are collected, obviously, by territorial authorities to service costs that are very wide ranging, not just in regards to water pipes or stormwater or waste-water pipes but, actually, a wide-ranging aspect of local government services. So one would consider, probably rightly, that any unapplied rates revenue would need to be apportioned for the elements that relate to the elements of water services, and the other aspects that aren’t related to water services would, therefore, not be applied and would not transfer. So I’m interested to hear from the Minister in regards to how that process will work in terms of, first, the quantification of what is that value; secondly, what, if any, apportionment is going to be undertaken in regards to splitting up the rates revenue that’s relevant to the three-waters infrastructure and the elements that are not; and, thirdly, what is the overwhelming driver in regards to having this here, other than potentially the complexity that I’ve summarised in my contribution?

I think I do feel like I might go and have a look at that other clause in regards to the calculation that the Hon Scott Simpson was referring to, because I think his questions were quite reasonable in regards to what that element refers to. We find ourselves on the example that is on page 44, in new clause 5, which is to be inserted in Schedule 1AA by clause 37, just above the clause relating to our good colleagues in the Chatham Islands, at new clause 6—which was covered at length. But I want to go to that example that’s under subclause (5) there. It talks about “A”, “B”, “C”, “D”, and “E”, and it’s got a lovely formula there, which is “(A + B) / E ˂= 30%”. So it is quite straightforward, isn’t it, I say to the Hon Scott Simpson, when you look at that formula.

Hon Scott Simpson: Nicola Grigg knows the answer.

SIMON WATTS: Yeah, it gives you a rate of “29.6%”. So I’m interested in terms of what that is representing in regards to those different subclauses.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you, Madam Chair.

Hon Member: Oh, the suspense.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: Yes, the suspense. Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to raise a matter that relates to the schedules—is that part of Part 2, am I permitted to speak to the schedules or not? Not at this stage. Oh, well, in that case, I’ll speak to another clause.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Those matters were dealt with in Part 1.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: Sorry?

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): In Part 1—those schedules were dealt with as part of Part 1.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: In Part 1. OK. Well, that’s OK. So I do want to come back to this question relating to the Chatham Islands, because that seems to be something that is quite separate and new, that wasn’t a part of the original, principle legislation, Water Services Entities Act 2022, that was passed—what, is it only seven months ago? Something like that—

Hon Member: Eight.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: —seven or eight months ago. And so this question relating to the carve-out for the Chatham Islands—now, just this evening, we had the valedictory speech of the member of Parliament who has responsibility for the Chatham Islands, Paul Eagle, and, notwithstanding his very staunch advocacy for the Chatham Islands, this does seem strange. Now, the Minister for Local Government mentioned earlier on that the reason that the Chatham Islands had been carved out is simply because they have their own council. Well, there are many other parts of the country that have their own council. I would argue that there are some parts of the country that could equally be separated out because of geographical reasons or distance or matters of simple democracy.

I want to point to an area in my own electorate of the very beautiful Coromandel. So the Thames-Coromandel District Council, for instance, has been lumped in with the Waikato Water Services Entity, and yet that is part of the Hamilton City Council, the Matamata-Piako District, Ōtorohanga, South Waikato District, and Taupō District. And I’d argue that, notwithstanding those very good councils, they have almost nothing in common with the issues and the concerns and the matters that are foremost of the thinking at the Thames-Coromandel District Council. The peninsula is largely covered by the Thames-Coromandel District Council. In many respects, it is—although not separated by water like the Chatham Islands—literally a different geography, a different set of communities, and a different set of issues, needs, and demands, not the least of which is the cyclical nature of peak water demand over the normally good summer periods that we have in the Coromandel. Not that we’ve had that for the last summer. We’ve got some severe issues that the Minister, wearing another hat, is, of course, very aware of.

But, notwithstanding that, I’d argue that there is a good argument for actually excluding an area like the Thames-Coromandel District Council in the same kind of principled way that the Minister has taken in terms of the Chatham Islands. As I say, not separated by water, but geographically separate, having very little in common with Ōtorohanga or the Taupō District Council or, indeed, Hamilton City. And there are many people—there are many people—in the Thames-Coromandel District area that think already the regional council, for instance, that operates in the area, the Waikato Regional Council, is far too Hamilton-centric.

So I’m interested to know, if the Minister can make one carve-out for a geographic area that, just in this particular case, happens to be separated by water rather than solid geography but is still a separate community of interest, different needs, demands, desires and peaks in terms of tourism and water demand, why can’t that necessarily happen in an area, for instance, such as the very beautiful and desirable part of my electorate in the Thames-Coromandel District Council. I’d be happy if the Minister could give us some insight, please.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Minister of Local Government): Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr Simpson’s contribution in reference to boundaries—as I said earlier boundaries were dealt with in Part 1. I answered Mr Watts’ question around the Chatham Islands as a courtesy to him, but actually the bit that deals with the Chatham Islands’ bespoke arrangement is also in Part 1. So the entirety of that contribution isn’t actually relevant to Part 2.

In regards to Mr Watts’ question around the wording, that’s worded appropriately because it adds adequate flexibility to reflect the fact that there are different ways in which rates are collected across the country. So if you were too prescribed in the way in which that was dealt with, then you would come a cropper with some councils. It is up to the councils and the relevant water services entity to determine what is reasonably practical and how the transfer will be made depending on their individual circumstances.

TANGI UTIKERE (Chief Whip—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 72

New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere.

Noes 47

New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2; Whaitiri.

Motion agreed to.

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

Ayes 72

New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere.

Noes 47

New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2; Whaitiri.

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

Ayes 72

New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere.

Noes 47

New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2; Whaitiri.

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

Ayes 72

New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere.

Noes 47

New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2; Whaitiri.

Part 2 agreed to.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Clauses 1 and 2

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members, we come now to our final debate, clauses 1 and 2. This is the debate on clauses 1 and 2—title and commencement.

SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Well, thank you very much, Madam Chair. We’re coming to the end of what has been an interesting debate this evening in regards to the Water Services Entities Amendment Bill, in this aspect referring to the title of the bill in regards to clause 1.

There are a number of suggestions that I want to make to the Minister in regards to what we could call this bill, but I want to provide a number of pragmatic suggestions, because the reality is that this Water Services Entities Amendment Bill, as it is titled, is actually—and should be referred to as—Labour’s “Back-down Bill”. Because, in effect, what this bill is actually doing is making a number of amendments and back-downs in regards to legislation that was put in place by this Government, and amending elements of legislation put in place by this Government, only a number of months before a subsequent change of those at the helm of the Government and, subsequently, that policy bonfire process that went on and the subsequent release of a National Party policy document in regards to an alternative, Local water done well. Following that release, the Government decided to listen and reset their position and came up with the Water Services Entities Amendment Bill.

But I think this bill should be referred to as the “Back-down Bill”, because that’s what it is and that is what it should be called, because it is not reasonable to not refer to it as something that it is not. But the fact that, subsequently, the bill was only out just over a month or so for consultation also shows that it isn’t really, obviously, a full process of consultation. That feedback is in the report, which was the feedback from the select committee. I mean, it says, “Many submitters commented on the limited time provided for consultation with affected groups during the process of legislating for [the] water services reform.” Well, you pretty much couldn’t sum that up better, but that’s the reality.

So we recommend that we call this bill not the Water Services Entities Amendment Bill but instead the “Back-down Bill”, and we’ll be interested to hear contribution from those other members. Thank you.

SIMON COURT (ACT): On the name of the bill, “Water Services Entities Amendment Bill”, you could call it the “Back-down Bill”, Minister. It started off with four entities; now it’s 10. You could call it “Much More Expensive and Less Efficient Water Services Entities Amendment Bill”, Minister, because that’s what you said when you came to select committee. You could call it “giving up”, Minister—the “Giving Up the Water Services Entities Amendment Bill”, the “Let Me Out of Here (It’s Nearly 10 o’clock) Water Services Entities Amendment Bill”, Minister.

But when it comes to the time for implementation, that’s the problem with this bill. If there was one date that local government, professional services, engineers, maintenance contractors, communities could plan for—as there was in the original bill. I mean, that provides this thing called “certainty”; allows organisations to develop a pipeline of work; allows funders and financers, even, to say, “Hey, on a certain date, we’ll be there with some private, institutional capital”, as ACT proposes in our solution here, Minister—ACT’s solutions for building New Zealand and conserving nature 30-year infrastructure plans. Private institutional capital to finance, to build out of the three waters infrastructure needed for growth and remediating the pipe networks in our major cities. But, Minister, even the time for implementation has blown out to the nether-nether. There was 1 July 2024; now it’s “Hmm, sometime between then and 2026”. Yeah, that’s assuming a whole bunch of other stuff.

Minister, this has been a very, very disappointing end to the water services reform programme, which I was informed about by Department of Internal Affairs officials in September 2020. There was no mention of co-governance then. It sounded like an eminently worthy concept, a laudable proposal. Where we’ve got to with this bill is not just disappointing, it’s a waste of tens of millions of dollars of taxpayer funds to get it to this point—not to mention all the efforts and the good will of the officials, people who want to see good water reform, local government, and all of the stakeholders out there in communities who’ve put the time and effort into submitting on these bills.

And there’s two more bills. There’s the Water Services Legislation Bill. So don’t worry viewers, don’t worry listeners, it’s not over yet! The Water Services Legislation Bill and the “Water Services Consumer Guarantees or Economic Efficiency of Something Bill”. Anyway, consumer guarantees economic efficiency is done; this bill wrecks it.

So we’ll debate the others. ACT will offer our constructive suggestions. But, Minister, this bill doesn’t deserve to pass with whatever title.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members, the House is suspended and will resume at 9 a.m. tomorrow morning.

Debate interrupted.

Sitting suspended from 9.58 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Wednesday)

TUESDAY, 15 AUGUST 2023

(continued on Wednesday, 16 August 2023)

Bills

Water Services Entities Amendment Bill

In Committee

Debate resumed.

Clauses 1 and 2 (continued)

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members, when we were debating this bill last night, we were on clauses 1 and 2, which are the title and commencement clauses for this bill. Are there any members who would like to take a call?

SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and good morning. It’s good to be back again on the Water Services Entities Amendment Bill.

I’m keen to get into a little bit of commentary in regards to the commencement date of this bill in clause 2. Obviously, in regards to the commencement of this legislation, there is a variety of timing mechanisms that are embedded within it. My concern, and the question to the Minister, particularly relates to the provisions that will commence before 1 July 2024. If we walk our way back and just remind ourselves—and I appreciate that for some of us that causes a little bit of stress and pressure, but it is something to reflect on—1 July 2024 is the date when all of this three waters reform was meant to kick off originally, and, obviously, post the policy bonfire and the great reset under the new leadership in the Government, the time line for this, as per this bill, kicks that out to mid-2026. But there is a phased approach around that.

Clause 2, in regards to the commencement, which links to the detail around that, says that some aspects, particularly around the initiation around shared services, will be kicking in straight after the Royal assent. So my concern here is that, acknowledging that we’re 51 days away from a general election and that there is significant differential in the positions around how water reform should be undertaken within this country, and taking into account that there are significant amounts of money continuing to be spent—significant amounts of public money, taxpayer money, continuing to be spent—on reform that, post-election, will either continue or will cease rapidly, then it would only seem sensible that, actually, all of the Act comes into force on 1 July 2024. I think that’s reasonable, because if the mandate is given to whatever Government comes through, then that mandate will be clear, and that is democracy. But in the context of the fact that we have still got 51 days of costs being spent on reform, which under a National-led Government will cease pretty much straight away, it seems a little bit ironic that we’re continuing just to head in and not take into account the pragmatic nature of the time line and the issues of where we’re at.

So I ask the Minister to put some consideration to the commencement of this legislation. The chances of him making any modification—well, I won’t take a bet; I’m not a betting man. But, anyway, I’ll give the Minister an opportunity to consider that. But, other than that, we’ll finish it there. Thank you.

CAMILLA BELICH (Junior Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that clause 1 stand part.

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

Ayes 72

New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere.

Noes 47

New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2, Whaitiri

Clause 1 agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that clause 2 stand part.

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

Ayes 72

New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere.

Noes 47

New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2; Whaitiri.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Bill to be reported without amendment.

House resumed.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Madam Speaker, the committee has considered the Water Services Entities Amendment Bill and reports it without amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The Water Services Entities Amendment Bill is set down for third reading immediately.

Third Reading

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Minister of Local Government): I present a legislative statement on the Water Services Entities Amendment Bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: I move, That the Water Services Entities Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

This country faces a massive challenge, and that challenge equates to up to $185 billion. That’s a lot of money, and it’s especially a lot of money when you consider that at the moment our district councils—67 of them—are having to face that bill individually. What that means is that ratepayers are having to face a bill that they have to lend at rates that are unfavourable, which will lead to rates that are unaffordable. And that’s the crux of the issue; if we don’t do something, ratepayers in this country, district councils in this country, will face bills that they simply cannot afford, and rates are going up enough as they are. So this bill brings in reforms that will save ratepayers thousands of dollars each year on water services.

It will also relieve councils of the burden of significant amounts of debt that is sitting on their balance sheets that councils are having to service at the moment. Now, members in this House will know numerous examples in their local areas where rates are going up at points where many people simply can’t afford it. That’s without taking into consideration the massive bill that they face at the moment. This is not the fault of local councils; they are doing the best they can in the circumstances they find themselves in. They are often dealing with decisions that were made many, many years ago. But the facts are very clear: there are councils in this country that are facing millions—hundreds of millions—of dollars, and they don’t have a way to deal with it.

This Government, through this bill, is providing a solution to that. And it’s interesting that throughout this debate, throughout the passage of this bill, there have been criticisms of all sorts of things from other parties in this House. None of them have outlined their alternative from a financial sense. None of them have outlined how it’s going to pay the bills. The ACT Party, for example, have put forward—which we did consider in the process of considering this bill. We looked at the alternatives. We tried to find other ways in which to do this; none of them stacked up. The proposal from the ACT Party that they will share GST with councils equates to $1 billion a year. The expenditure we’re talking about is over a 30-year period—$185 billion over 30 years. The ACT Party’s proposal equates to a billion a year. Over 30 years that’s $30 billion—$155 billion short or 150 years short of the problem that we are facing.

The National Party, which we also looked at and considered in good faith, are essentially proposing the status quo; they are proposing voluntary mergers through council-controlled organisations, they are proposing shared services—all of that can happen already. And at the crux of this is that neither of those proposals remove debt from the councils’ books. So we can say “Sure, work together; go for it.” But when it’s happening now and when councils are still servicing debt that they simply are going to struggle to afford moving forward, the simple question is: how is that a solution?

What this bill proposes is that collectively, through 10 entities which largely reflect geographical boundaries, there is a way in which they can get the scale and access to lending at a rate that they can afford to do that investment to maintain and upgrade water services in this country in a way that ratepayers can afford. Originally the proposal was for four entities. When I was given the task of being local government Minister, I took on board the feedback from the local government sector. They said, “We do need reform, but we have concerns about four entities.” So we looked at it. We considered 16, to go along with the regional council boundaries. But what we found was that if we left Northland, Tairāwhiti, or West Coast by themselves, there’d be no change for them because they wouldn’t have the scale. So that’s why we’ve landed on 10: Northland into Auckland as was originally proposed; Tairāwhiti into Hawke’s Bay; you’ve got the top of the South together, the three unitary authorities there alongside the Ngāi Tahu takiwā; you’ve got the West Coast into Canterbury; you’ve got Southland into Otago, and we end up with 10.

What’s interesting is that I think there’s a reason why opponents to this proposal don’t want to talk about rates. It’s because they know their proposals don’t stack up. We can prove—we can show—that the figures that back up this proposal will save ratepayers money. My challenge to the other parties as they contribute to the third reading today is: why don’t they show us how theirs stack up? They won’t. It’s a challenge I’ve put to them throughout this debate; they will not come up with figures to show that their proposals stack up, because they don’t.

And that is the simple thing that equates to this bill that people have to consider: this will save them money; theirs will not. So, with all the scaremongering and all the opposing that we’re about to hear in the third reading, we won’t hear how their bill saves them money. That is the guts of this, and that is why I am proud as Minister to have brought this through the House, and that is why this side of the House will be voting for it. I commend the bill to the House.

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

SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I do rise to speak on the Water Services Entities Amendment Bill. Isn’t it ironic that we hear the opening words from the Minister in regards to this legislation, talking about the critique and criticism that is being levelled against this bill? You see, the reality is that our role in this House is to represent our communities, to represent the views of hard-working Kiwis across this country. It is not to simply pay lip-service to that feedback and not take into account the views of our community.

Well, National have listened to our communities. We have listened to local government and we have proposed a solution, called Local Water Done Well, that we believe will deal with the reform requirements of water infrastructure in this country. As the Minister failed to note in his address as he opened today, all major parties in this House believe that water infrastructure reform is necessary. It is a question of how we achieve that outcome. This bill is not the mechanism which we believe, nor the majority of local councils across this country—nor, in fact, the majority of Kiwis—is the pathway to achieve sustainable change in an area which is so critical.

I think when the Labour Party members reflect, in 51 days, on some of the contributing factors of what happened in the 53rd Parliament, the water services entities legislation and the amendment bill that we are referring to and talking on at its third reading today will be a significant element and a significant contributing factor to the fact of where Kiwis no longer trust this Government. The three waters legislation and the Water Services Entities Amendment Bill is a litany of errors, it is a litany of broken promises, and it is a litany of making it up as you go. And that is the reality that personifies this Government and its processes.

Labour Ministers, and the Minister we have just heard from, are accountable for this reform. They are accountable for its failures and they are accountable for not listening to New Zealanders in regards to how this could have been improved. Because this bill could have been improved, had we given it more than six weeks of consultation with the public. On 22 June, this bill was read, and on 27 July it was reported back to this House. Well, is that acceptable? Is that the way in which we do business in this democracy? I say no. I say that is a complete derogation of our democracy and the fact that we should be taking this legislation that we pass through this House very seriously. We got that feedback loud and clear from submitters on this bill throughout the process—that they did not have adequate time to be able to consider the inputs and requirements of this bill.

This bill is a back-down bill. This bill came as a result of the release of the National Party’s alternative, Local Water Done Well. Following that, with a new leader of the party and a need for a policy bonfire and a policy reset, and following the release of our alternative model, then this bill came into play. What is so frustrating is that, actually, none of the substantive aspects that needed to be changed in the bill, the elements around the mega-bureaucracies that are co-governed—an opportunity was there begging to be able to make the amendments and changes in this bill that went without any due consideration. And that is a great shame, because all this bill does is change the number of the mega-bureaucratic co-governed entities from four to 10. That’s pretty much it. It doesn’t deal with the significant pushback across this country on co-governance within the water services and public service delivery—pipes under the ground is not the appropriate mechanism. Co-governance remains unchanged in regards to this legislation. The mandating of the fact that the assets and liabilities across councils will have to go into these new entities is unchanged, with the exception of the Chatham Islands, because don’t forget that the Chatham Islands is actually the one territorial authority in this country which was exempted from this legislation. Well, there’s always one, but I do wish the 668 residents in the Chatham Islands all the very best, but they will not be alone in regards to the only entity that is outside this legislation; post 14 October, all other councils will join with them, and rightly so.

The other element of this bill that has not been modified and that received significant feedback—1,997 submissions; that’s quite a lot. The challenge is that only 28 individuals were heard through the select committee process, and I think one doesn’t have to be too good at maths to work out that’s not a large number, but you can see why people are fired up and annoyed that their voice has not been heard. But the undemocratic element of this bill in regards to the Te Mana o te Wai statements—and the Minister continually says, and I acknowledge, that in the prior National-led Government, there was the introduction of the principle—the principle—of Te Mana o te Wai. The principle is very different to the introduction by this Government, and reinforced in this bill, of Te Mana o te Wai statements. The statements are not the principle; there is a very clear point of demarcation between those two aspects, because the statements, in effect, bring into play powers and obligations on a number of individuals in regards to this legislation. It is not a principle; it goes further. And so for the Minister to say that the Te Mana o te Wai statements in this bill are simply just a continuation of prior principles under a prior Government is not consistent with what we heard in regards to the feedback during the select committee process.

New Zealanders are sensible and they understand that this is going to be legislation that does not deal with the underlying aspects that we need in this country. This is a back-down bill, and what is interesting to hear from the Minister in regards to the fact that this legislation will remove debt from all of those councils that are burdened with debt, and this will mean that their rates are not going to go up—well, where does that debt all go? Where does it all disappear off to, because the costs and the debt required to fund the water pipes under the ground will still continue irrespective of where that ends up. So maybe the debt’s coming away from the council, but it’s going into another entity. And I’ll tell you what: there is no magic money tree. There is no magic money tree that means this debt just sort of disappears and that no one has an obligation in regards to paying. Ratepayers and taxpayers will continue to be on the hook for the funding of infrastructure in this area. So to simply say that removing the debt from councils, and, as a result of that, a reduction of rates, is going to solve all the problems, is, again, inconsistent and, again, not noting the reality that we are simply moving this problem from one side of the boat to the other. And it will still exist, and that obligation will still exist. And, yes, we do have a deficit of infrastructure, but simply ignoring the fact that this needs to be repaid is, I think, something that Kiwis will see through and have already seen through in regards to this bill.

The opportunity that was placed upon this Government in regards to this legislation, as I have highlighted, is absolutely there for the taking. The elements within this bill—there was a real opportunity in order to reset the position around water services and three waters infrastructure. That opportunity has not been taken up by this Minister, and this Minister, when reflecting on the performance of the 53rd Parliament, in 51 days, will need to take accountability for the actions that have been taken in regards to this piece of legislation and the other elements of the bill that are connected, because there is no one else that the blame can be laid upon other than the Minister, the Hon Nanaia Mahuta, and the Prime Minister, for pushing through reform that was so strongly opposed by all New Zealanders. And that’s the reality: you’ll hear a lot of comments and excuses around that, but that is the reality of this bill. National opposes this bill.

RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I want to make a short contribution today and just note a couple of specific points that came up through the select committee process and a couple of other matters just in response to the previous speaker, Simon Watts.

The first point I just want to note is around the establishment date of the water services entities. We received a lot of feedback from local government authorities wanting some certainty around when they would move to the new dates for establishing their new entities. We also heard from officials that there had been significant consultation, but there was still work to be done to ensure there was agreement around the best dates.

So in order to add that certainty into the legislation, we did add in a requirement for the Minister to put the dates for the new entities into an Order in Council within six months of the legislation being passed—which is now. So within six months of this time, we will have those establishment dates noted by Order in Council by the Minister, which is a good thing for certainty from those councils

The next matter that we considered was around community priority statements. One of the amendments we made to those statements was to ensure that those who make those community priority statements do have a genuine interest in the area they’re making them for. In my area of Nelson and other parts of the country, we have had issues related to water where people from outside of our region—with no connection to our region—have been able to take court action or try to influence activity in our water areas, and it has ended up costing Government and costing other agencies significant amounts of money. So we did want to limit that to ensure we weren’t going to have vexatious approaches from people outside of particular areas.

The next piece I just want to note is around the regional representative groups, and there have been calls from some parties to have equal weighting based on proportion of population. We’re very clear—and I’m very clear as a provincial MP—that it’s important that, as part of the reform, our provincial and rural communities have strong voices sitting at the table. That has been one of the challenges around water infrastructure—that our smaller councils with lower populations and larger areas to cover, particularly in rural communities, have found it difficult to invest. So we need to ensure that their voices are strong at the table so that they’re not swamped by our dear friends from the large urban centres.

I just want to note one further point, which is the importance around that particular issue with the representation, as it helps ensure that genuine balance sheet separation. We know that we need genuine balance sheet separation so that we can invest the way that we need to. On the point of debt, by having larger entities with greater numbers of population and that genuine balance sheet separation, we can ensure that that debt will be serviced using lower interest rates, and that allows us to be able to invest properly in the way that we haven’t for generations.

This is an excellent bill. I’m so delighted it’s passing its third reading today, and I commend it to the House.

CHRIS BISHOP (National): Oh, thank you, Madam Speaker. Well, this is the “Back-down Bill”. It was signalled that it was coming, I predicted it—or we predicted it—and here it is. We’re finally at the tail-end of this Parliament, considering the Government’s bill that, essentially, gives effect to their embarrassing climb-down over water services.

What a shambolic process it’s been from start to finish—and it’s a frustrating shambles because, actually, across the Parliament, there’s quite a degree of consensus that water infrastructure in this country is stuffed around various different parts of the motu. There is, I think, a consensus across Labour and National and ACT and the Greens that we need more investment, we do have an infrastructure deficit. Councils—some councils, not all councils, but many councils have done a poor job of managing their water assets and we need change. And you’ve just got to step back and ask yourself at the third reading: how have we got ourselves into a position where the Government has managed to inflame local democracy and local communities up and down the country, where what some people would regard as slightly esoteric matters have led to billboards all around rural and provincial New Zealand. It’s extraordinary—

Anna Lorck: They’re not up anymore. You can’t see them anymore.

CHRIS BISHOP: Oh, you can’t see them anymore?

Anna Lorck: No.

CHRIS BISHOP: Oh, that’s because they’ve all been replaced with National Party billboards, that’s why. They’ve all been subbed out. Anna Lorck says you can’t see “Stop Three Waters” anymore. The reason you can’t see them anymore, Anna—I’ll tell you why you can’t see them anymore—is because the same people who are opposed to Three Waters have now translated their support over to the National Party and they’ve put up National Party signs.

Anna Lorck: Make a prediction. Make a prediction.

CHRIS BISHOP: OK, here we go—OK, make a prediction.

Anna Lorck: Come on, Mr Bishop.

CHRIS BISHOP: Make a prediction, make a prediction. No, no, no—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Order! Order! I would like to hear the member’s speech.

CHRIS BISHOP: I want to hear Anna Lorck’s prediction.

Anna Lorck: Oh, I’ll be speaking.

CHRIS BISHOP: Yeah, but are you going to make a prediction? OK, if you won’t, I’ll make a prediction: Anna Lorck won’t be an MP after 14 October. Because she and a number of other Labour Party members of Parliament in rural and provincial—[Interruption]

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Order! Order!

CHRIS BISHOP: She and a group of Labour Party MPs in rural and provincial New Zealand know in their heart of hearts they have completely stuffed this issue up. It has led to and is leading to a big backlash. And this goes back to my original starting point, which is: how has it got to this point? Because, actually, there is consensus across the Parliament, I believe, that we need sensible water reform. But the Government, from start to finish, has gone out of its way to annoy, enrage, and frustrate the legitimate interests of local communities. It started with the Hon Nanaia Mahuta’s very stupid ad campaign in which local councils were, essentially, insulted—with taxpayers’ money—by TV ads and print ads and things like that basically saying to local communities: “Your councils have got this wrong.” That unsurprisingly put the backs up of local councils.

Then the Government pretended to go through this consultation process and said, “We’re not wedded to anything. We haven’t ruled anything out.” But it turns out, as my colleague Simon Watts discovered, Cabinet had already agreed to a legislated all-in solution. They were out there going around the country saying, “Well, we want to talk to you; we take this very seriously”—blah, blah, blah, all the things that Ministers have to do. But the point is Ministers have to do that, but they have to mean it—the words they say have to mean something. And it can’t just be a fig leaf, which is what it actually turned out to be. Then, essentially, the Government came in over the top and said, “We’re going to confiscate these assets and put them into these four mega entities.” And that’s where the rubber really hit the road. There was a big backlash, a big controversy about that and Chris Hipkins’ so-called reset—the reset that’s not going so well—went from four entities up to 10. OK, that’s a marginal improvement. But, actually, what should happen is we should let councils decide on their arrangements on their own volition.

Our policy, which is I think the correct policy, is to leave councils to sort it out and if they don’t deliver the type of changes that are required, then central government of course has a legitimate role. There is consensus around economic regulation. There is consensus around water quality regulation. There is consensus, I believe, around the necessity for balance sheet separation to use debt to fund these long-lived assets. That’s the crazy thing about all of this—there is actually quite a degree of consensus, but the Government has got the politics all wrong. And that’s my second point, which is that there is a consensus but the Government has stuffed the politics and therefore they’ve stuffed the policy.

However, there are a number of objectionable elements to this bill and to the Government’s water reform programme generally. The first is confiscation. As I’ve already mentioned, this bill does confiscate local assets, it does take those assets off councils, and our view is that is wrong. The second thing we object to is the mandatory co-governance provisions in the bill. The Government has never properly explained why the governing entities have to have fifty-fifty co-governance; they are yet to articulate a proper reason as to why that is required. We have asked repeatedly, and communities have asked repeatedly, and we are yet to hear a reason as to why that is required. And we had the ridiculous spectacle of the now Minister of Local Government, Kieran McAnulty, arguing on Q+A that mandatory fifty-fifty co-governance was necessary for balance sheet separation, which is just ridiculous. It just makes no sense—and that was also the interview in which he claimed that democracy had changed in that the sort of modern notions of democracy were different and that we sort of had to all go along with this idea of mandatory—

Simon Court: He’s going to find out about democracy in a few weeks.

CHRIS BISHOP: Well, that’s exactly right—that’s exactly right. And so we object to that on principle.

Then we get to the other thing, which is Te Mana o te Wai and the disjunct between Te Mana o te Wai statements and the community priority statements. And this is really important, because members opposite, including the Prime Minister, have made much of the fact that the Government’s listened and now there’ll be the ability for everyone to influence the new water entities through the community priority statements. Except there’s a big difference: the entities “must” give effect to Te Mana o te Wai, but in relation to community priority statements, the word is “may”. As lawyers in the House will know, there is a big difference between “must” and “may”. One compels the entities to do something; the other gives them the discretion to do something—so there is a disparity. These new water services entities will have to give effect to Te Mana o te Wai statements and, as various commentators have pointed out in the public domain, the breadth of these statements is, essentially, untrammelled, very large in scope, no one knows exactly how they will be used, and the entities will have to give effect to them. The only people who can issue Te Mana o te Wai statements are mana whenua of the local area. So it is not clear how they will be used, it is not clear what they will actually have the effect of doing—all we know is that the entities will have to give effect to them.

Then we get to community priority statements, and, as I’ve said, that is discretionary. A water services entity could be compelled by law to give effect to Te Mana o te Wai, and for anyone else who decides to issue a community priority statement, the water services entity could say: “Well that’s all very interesting, but I’m not compelled. I only have to think about looking at, and we don’t want to.” That’s the reality; that is the legal position. Attempts were made in this House to equalise the two statements between Te Mana o te Wai and community priority statements, and the Government rejected that, the Government chose not to do that—that’s an explicit policy decision made by the Government. So, essentially, community priority statements, they’re not quite legally meaningless, but they may as well be legally meaningless—particularly in contradistinction to Te Mana o te Wai.

Do Māori have rights and interests in water? Yes, they do. The Crown conceded that under the last National Government and that remains the position of the National Opposition. But to give effect to legitimate rights and interests in water, our position is that you do not need mandatory co-governance provisions and you do not need Te Mana o te Wai statements that are legally superior to other abilities for communities to legitimately influence water infrastructure in their patch.

This bill is objectionable, and the National Party will oppose it. We will sort out three waters properly in Government ourselves.

NAISI CHEN (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. As I came here this morning, I passed The Paddington complex in Wellington. As I remembered the story behind that whole entire development, it was the fact that we could have built higher apartments instead of two-storey townhouses. But why couldn’t we do it? It was because the city council did not have enough money to upgrade the infrastructure—the pipes under the ground—to support intensified housing.

I think it’s really important to look at the reason why we’re here today. I’ve never thought of three waters as a sexy topic; in fact, talking about probably the other types of waters, apart from the blue water, is probably something I would shy away from in the House. But like our Minister, the Hon Kieran McAnulty has talked about, this is a problem that is staring down New Zealanders, and we need to make sure that we get on top of it. We don’t want the tragedy of Havelock North happening again—and I want to commend my colleague here, Anna Lorck, who has been an absolutely amazing advocate for her area in Tukituki. If we want a first-class country, if we want first-class cities, we need first-class infrastructure under the ground as well. We don’t see these pipes—and a lot of the time we don’t know that they exist or the health that they’re in, but I know that if we don’t invest in them, we definitely feel the consequences of them.

As we went through the select committee process, we heard from local government bodies and we addressed some of their concerns, and I want to commend the Governance and Administration Committee, and our chair as well, in terms of actually working constructively through some of those details—things like the commencement dates, things like having proportional representation on these regional representation groups, but also looking at how we can make sure that we guarantee the voices of these local entities; voices of local communities. Then we balance that with the need of balance sheet separation. It’s a balance on a balance in making sure that we really actually deliver the savings in terms of our ratepayers, but then also making sure that the debt structure that we have—whether it’s through central government, whether it’s through borrowing, or whether it’s balance sheet separation—means that local government can use their debt targets to more efficient means or for more efficient purposes. We need to make sure that at the end of the day, we deliver a package that is helping all New Zealanders to get the world-class infrastructure that they deserve, so that’s why I commend this bill to the House.

SIMON COURT (ACT): The ACT Party engaged constructively with the Government and with officials in the Department of Internal Affairs back in 2020, before the last election, when the proposal for the reform of the way water infrastructure is funded, financed, and delivered was first raised. At the time, when I received a briefing from Department of Internal Affairs officials—that was before I was even elected to Parliament as a representative for New Zealanders—the proposal made some sense. But at that time, back in 2020, officials never mentioned co-governance. They never mentioned compelling councils to hand over their assets; they never mentioned the extraordinary cost, now estimated at $3 billion, for delivering this reform; and they never mentioned that they were about to start some kind of culture war between the councils in the regions of New Zealand and a whole bunch of other people that this Labour Government promised would be given rights and interests in water infrastructure assets—that is, iwi Māori.

These reforms, as proposed, sounded OK; as delivered by Labour, they have been an absolute disaster. That is why New Zealand needs the ACT Party: practical policy solutions for people. I’m going to outline what they are, but first let’s have a look at the problem. The problem that this bill tries to solve is the lack of funding and financing for infrastructure, whether that’s renewals, asset management, and maintenance on existing networks. When you look at some parts of New Zealand, the age of the assets is well over 40 years old. And the thing is, concrete or clay pipes in the ground, particularly in a country like New Zealand with sensitive soils and high rainfall—they don’t last as long as maybe they do in very, very stable geology, so we do need to do regular maintenance. A lot of councils didn’t do it. Why didn’t they do it? Well, I mean, maybe one reason is because Labour, in a previous iteration, gave councils the power of general competence—some people might say the power of general incompetence. Because if they are going to be allowed to focus on painting rainbow-coloured pedestrian crossings on the road or investing ratepayers’ scarce and precious funds on convention centres instead of fixing the underlying pipes, sewage treatment plants, and all of these things—in Wellington, they don’t even have water meters in residential properties, so residents don’t even know how much water they’re using and neither does the council. Maybe that explains why there’s drinking water running down the road and losses amount to 30 percent of the water delivered from the dams to the network. Maybe Labour is to blame for the problem with three waters and it goes back well prior to this Labour Government.

Funding and financing—well, where would the money come from? Well, under this model it’s going to be, apparently, borrowed and lumped onto water users. Because, the thing is, it doesn’t matter what the solution is, somebody has to pay, to catch up with all the deferred maintenance and to provide for growth, because if we want to grow up in our cities, if we want to live in fun cities where more people live closer to transport infrastructure, closer to town centres, and in higher-density communities, then that infrastructure is very, very expensive. Building enormous stormwater and waste-water collection systems in our cities is much more expensive than building them in greenfield areas, but there is a way to do it.

Then we come to quality assurance. Who’s going to make sure that the drinking-water quality is delivered and that the outputs from stormwater and waste-water discharges are acceptable? And who’s going to assure that, actually, the investment in infrastructure, whether it’s maintenance or for growth, meets the needs of communities and actually meets the targets or the growth plans set out in local government’s regional plans, district plans, and spatial plans? Well, we don’t know. I mean, the water quality thing has been partially sorted by Taumata Arowai, but let’s see where they get to. What did Labour propose? Divisive co-governance: allocating seats on regional representative groups to create the most complex governance strategy ever devised. Te Mana o te Wai is a concept which puts the spiritual health of water—channels gods from one particular culture in New Zealand, channels their energy, and gives the task to decision makers to make decisions about water quality and infrastructure based on spiritual and animist concepts. Nowhere else in the developed world would any Government try to do that.

But, unfortunately, this is not just a problem caused by Labour. Back in 2014-15, Te Mana o te Wai was proposed by a previous Government. And, look, if someone comes along to my office and says, “Hey, there’s some concepts here we’d like to write into law; we’d like to get some policy up; we’d like to recognise that iwi Māori, for example, or Māori in general, might feel that they’re connected to their gods spiritually and that water is part of that. We’d get that into legislation, make them feel better.” How’s that going? How’s that going? Because you cannot make decisions about infrastructure and water allocation referring to a concept that is, essentially, spiritual and animist. There’s no country in the world that does that; that’s what Te Mana o te Wai does. It’s flowing through to resource management policy, freshwater consenting all around the country right now—

Mark Cameron: Freshwater farm plans—make sense of that one.

SIMON COURT: Freshwater farm plans even include Te Mana o te Wai. This country is at a crossroads. We either go down a route where decision makers, people using resources, are forced to consider metaphysical concepts like Te Mana o te Wai—a spiritual life force, mauri—or we can just focus on delivering good infrastructure and drinking water to people in communities that need it. [Knocks glass of water] Whoops! Just like that.

So what would ACT do? What would ACT do? We need better three waters infrastructure, including in the House! What would ACT do? Well, it’s quite simple. We would solve the funding and financing problem by incentivising councils to not just sign off consents and not just sign off consents for new builds but also incentivise them with cash. That is, by returning $1.2 billion per annum, we forecast, from the GST collected on new builds, back to councils.

Now, the Minister this afternoon—this morning, sorry; I mean, it’s actually still yesterday according to House time. The Minister stated this morning in the House that $1.2 billion a year wouldn’t go anywhere near to closing the infrastructure deficit. Well, let’s apply the same logic this Government has, which is if you can borrow against revenue, potentially councils, or whatever entity comes next, can borrow $4 billion to $6 billion a year based on the leveraging allowed for under the water services reforms. So, over 30 years, that equates to about the same amount that Labour proposes: $120 billion to $180 billion. But ACT would make sure those councils or entities have $1 billion to $1.2 billion a year in revenue coming back from the GST on building, and that would help cash flow and allow that debt to be raised.

Then, of course, there’s the opportunity for large-scale land developments to enter into public-private partnerships through other revenue-generating opportunities, which could include putting targeted rates on properties or simple things like putting a water meter outside somebody’s house or business and charging them for the water they use, to raise revenue. That’s really constructive, practical policy. Of course, rather than following the prescriptions in the Water Services Entities Amendment Bill or any of the other legislation Labour has proposed which enshrines divisive co-governance over infrastructure assets, ACT would get rid of that. As per the amendments we tabled last night, we’d say that, in fact, if councils are going to have so-called ownership in these assets, they should be given at least one share per 50,000 of residents. They should be able to vote on or off any representatives to water services entities or council-controlled organisations. They should be able to form their own voluntary associations with whichever councils or other entities they wish to. All of this is ACT’s plan. We look forward to implementing it.

Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker, thank you. I think we’ve just heard speeches from the ACT and National Party representatives that underline exactly why they shouldn’t be in Government after October. We have heard from National that they’ll leave it to the councils to sort it out, but we haven’t seen that happen to date. The Green Party would certainly have preferred that there was more incentive for revenue sharing with councils and that there was a better programme across Government to revenue share so that local government had the resources it needs to do the vital work that it does. But we have not seen a plan from either National or ACT about how they would deal with water services. I have a real fear that the corporate model that we are moving into with this legislation and the sister pieces of legislation—if National and ACT did get into Government, what we’ve just heard from ACT talking about public-private partnerships, is that there would be privatisation of these entities, and that is why we’re disappointed that there weren’t stronger provisions in the original legislation to really provide a strong protection against privatisation with this corporate structure.

There is no alternative—that acronym “TINA” existed under the fourth Labour Government. We have seen tens of millions of dollars spent on analysis, consultants’ reports, work by the Department of Internal Affairs, the Water Industry Commission for Scotland and others to develop a framework, legislation go through this House following on the establishment of Taumata Arowai as the regulator for water quality in terms of drinking water, this other legislation to establish the regulator with the Commerce Commission to provide consumer protection which we still have to complete dealing with; there is a whole framework being established here. I have not heard from either National or ACT what the elements of their framework would be. We all agree on the need for increased investment in three waters infrastructure, but we haven’t heard a clear plan from the Opposition.

I do acknowledge this bill and the Minister’s effort to ensure that the entities are more closely connected to their local communities who are having 10 rather than four entities. There’ll still be a lot of work to do once they go live through the discussions between territorial authorities in terms of how many representatives they will have on the regional representative group, and how their votes should be weighted in the constitution to ensure that there is an adequate democratic voice from around the region. There is more flexibility now with the go-live date with the Order in Council process, but also more certainty that they have to be done within six months of the legislation being passed. There are more safeguards around the Minister’s powers of direction for shared services, there is the ability for a locally led merger process, and there is a longer establishment period.

But the recognition of the need for increased investment, moving things off the council balance sheet so that there can be much more debt funding of that—we do need to look at what has happened in the United Kingdom with the privatisation of their two waters entities and the huge level of debt which entities like Thames Water as a privately owned company have incurred. Their level of debt increased from $5 billion in 2010 to $14.3 billion, and now that company is in serious difficulty. So the Commerce Commission will have a key job in its oversight of these entities, ensuring that the debt doesn’t get too burdensome, and ensuring that there is no temptation that they be sold off in future.

So the Green Party is supporting the bill. It has made improvements on the principal legislation, but there will need to continue to be a lot of scrutiny of how these entities actually operate once they’re established.

TĀMATI COFFEY (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Very happy to take a short contribution on this, the Water Services Entities Amendment Bill.

I think sometimes in this House, we talk in a bit of an echo chamber. As I’ve been out there in our communities, when I’ve tried to engage “Joe Public” out there—salt-of-the-earth people—about what the water reforms look like, they get confused. They get confused. On our side of the House, we’re adamant that we need reform in this space. They get confused by some of the messages from the Opposition. Just earlier this year, I found myself sitting in a room full of school principals—all in charge of intermediate and high schools—and I wanted to talk to them about this reform. They didn’t know what it was about. They didn’t know what was being achieved here. They were confused about it and maybe I reflect on it and think, “Could we have done better in trying to take New Zealand on this journey?”

What we do know is that we do need reform in this space. You heard it from our Minister Kieran McAnulty, who said he’d visited a whole lot of councils up and down Aotearoa New Zealand. The one thing they were incredibly clear about was that we needed reform in this space and they didn’t have the money to be able to invest in it.

When I was on that day, talking to these principals, having lunch, we talked about the messages that were out there in the public. We talked about words like “asset grab” and they were confused about whether or not it was an asset grab. I had to let them know that it wasn’t necessarily an asset grab; it was actually a “liability grab” from the entities that were going to be charged with the liability of looking after the water infrastructure for the whole of New Zealand. I had to talk about the fact that we needed some kind of mechanism, or entities, across the country that looked after their own particular regions so that they could deal with that at a local level as well. It’s not an asset grab by any stretch of the imagination. It is absolutely a liability, and it’s a liability that we’ve been bold enough to be able to say, “This is big and it’s bold and we need reform in this space.”

One of the earlier contributors talked about Te Mana o te Wai and I want to just acknowledge the group that put a lot of work into that. I do believe that if we had switched onto actually just looking after our precious resource of water—fresh water—then we wouldn’t be in this situation right now. We need to take a different approach, and all of us stand to benefit from accepting that Te Mana o te Wai—the actual mana of the water—should be first and foremost, and the commercial gain that we might be able to get from that should come not even secondary but after that. We have to look after the water. We have to look after the ecosystem around that water and then if we can make some commercial benefits of it, then let’s do that.

But actually, we all rely on fresh water. We know that we need the reform in this space. Councils know they need the reform. We’ve been bold and led out on this reform, but as our previous speaker from the Green Party, Eugenie Sage, said, it’s still going to take a lot of work to get to the place where we need to be from the place where we are—which is dire at the moment. I commend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): The next call is a split call. I call on Nicola Grigg for five minutes.

NICOLA GRIGG (National—Selwyn): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I must commend Tāmati Coffey for that heroic effort in trying to rewrite history and for very, very diligently trying to avoid the words “asset grab”, but, at the end of the day, the whole principle of this legislation, the whole principle of these reforms, is to remove the three waters assets from the ownership of local territorial authorities. That is an asset grab. Ratepayers will no longer own the three waters assets that they have paid for and that have been administered by the councillors that they have voted into public office.

The National Party is continuing to oppose the Water Services Entities Amendment Bill at this third and final reading. We find it deeply sad—I suppose that’s the best word—that where there could have been a collaborative process where parties on this side of the House have put up fully costed, robust alternate proposals to improve the delivery of water services in New Zealand, they have been roundly ignored. But not only have our proposals been ignored, the will of the New Zealand public has been ignored.

We heard in the prior bill that came before this piece of legislation that over 80,000 submitters voiced their opposition to this. This time, around 1,900 submitters have voiced their opposition. Barely 2 percent of those submitters were even heard by the select committee because the select committee process was truncated from six months down to just over a month. That is anti-democratic.

The reason we oppose this bill so much is because the fundamental principle is not being achieved. It is not going to improve the delivery of water services in this country. And I look to my own patch and to the example of what will now be called Entity I, where there will be an amalgamation and a merger of the water assets owned by the Canterbury councils on the East Coast of the main divide and the West Coast councils on the West Coast of the main divide. That’s about 14 different territorial authorities.

On the East Coast, you’ve got large, large councils like the Christchurch City Council, which represents about 650,000 people, and then in my patch, the Selwyn District Council, which is about 85,000 people, rapidly heading towards 100,000 people. We’re going to be merged in with West Coast councils who have far smaller rate bases and far smaller asset and balance sheets. The Government members will argue that that’s the point—that there are councils that need to be subsidised. But it is not the job of the councils with large rate bases, with large asset holdings, to subsidise other councils.

And the reason I’m so convinced of this is that it’s actually been the mayors and councillors across the Canterbury and West Coast regions who have been the most vocal opponents of this. And I have to shout out to the likes of Nigel Bowen in Timaru and Neil Brown in Ashburton, Phil Mauger in Christchurch, and Dan Gordon in the “Waimak” and the councillors on the Selwyn District Council, like Grant Miller, who have put forward not only vocal opposition to it but fully costed, reasonable alternative proposals which have been ignored. And that will be the greatest folly of this Government—it has ignored the voice of the ratepayers, the elected representatives. It has ignored the ideas that have come from the grassroots up, and one of the largest causes for concern with this particular bill is that baked-in co-governance.

This will be a folly of the Government. It has not had the obligation to explain to New Zealand why it sees the necessity for the equal representation of the elected members and the mana whenua across an entity. I, for example—we have 14 of each. Nobody on that side of the House has explained to the people of New Zealand why this is necessary.

We also deeply oppose the priority placement of the Te Mana o te Wai statements over the community priority statements. It is fundamentally unfair and fundamentally anti-democratic. We will continue to oppose this bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Helen White—I assume it’s a five-minute call.

Helen White: Yes, it is.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Thank you. Helen White.

HELEN WHITE (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I wanted to talk about the power of the issue of water in our lives. The United Nations in 2010 declared that safe drinking water and sanitation was a human right. This map I’m holding up is from the regulatory impact statement. You can see that the map is of places that have drinking water notices in New Zealand. These are the temporary ones, and these are the permanent ones. And so, as an Aucklander, while Auckland looks relatively good, I travel all around this country and I am exposed to this risk, as are my children and my whānau. So it’s incredibly important that we get it right, because this has to be a country where we know that the water will be safe to drink and there won’t be the issues that there have been, which tragically affected people who were in Hawke’s Bay and Havelock North. That was the beginning of this process, because what had happened was that a lot of the councils had just not had sufficient funding, and so they weren’t able to make sure that the water supplies and the sewerage systems were all right.

Now, in the floods in Auckland, I saw the danger of that in my own community, where the water overflowed from the pipes, infrastructure, etc., because that’s the nature of the pipes in that area. So even in Auckland, which is better than most places in the country, I saw the risk. I saw people swimming in the floodwaters and I was worried about the quality of what they were swimming in, because it would have mixed with sewage.

So that’s our reality; that’s what we have to fix. While there are a lot of distractions, this has been a very good learning process where submissions have been taken into account, and this third bill takes the number of entities up so that there is a happy compromise between people. And we have done something here that will be significant for the country, as the bill seeks to make sure that water is quality in all its aspects throughout this country and safe to drink. Thank you. I commend the bill to the House.

ANNA LORCK (Labour—Tukituki): Thank you, Madam Speaker. This is an opportunity for me to talk about Hawke’s Bay and the contribution that Hawke’s Bay has made to the Water Services Entities Amendment Bill. Hawke’s Bay put forward a proposal that agreed that reform was necessary. Hawke’s Bay put forward a proposal about how joining forces together, as councils, they could provide an option for an entity that would enable the region to deal with its water infrastructure. As the local MP for Tukituki, I strongly advocated for Hawke’s Bay in their solution towards water reform. This bill has seen and listened to a large part of what Hawke’s Bay was saying.

We now have 10 entities that will look to implement affordable water reform. When you join forces, you enable a cross-subsidisation for rates, and one of the reasons that we need to have councils working together is being able to afford the massive cost of infrastructure that is needed to bring our water infrastructure up to world-class standards. So by joining forces for the entity that will serve Hawke’s Bay and Tairāwhiti, we now have our councils welcoming this reform, and that is a significant improvement in how we’re going to go forward in enabling access to safe drinking water where we know that, when we turn the tap on, clean water that is safe to drink will come out of the tap. This is what this water reform is about, and this is why we need to work together to make sure that those costs that ratepayers are looking at are not too big for the ratepayers going forward.

But we all know—in this House, and right across New Zealand—that affordable water reform is necessary. I don’t want to see what happened in my electorate, where over 5,000 people got sick, and people died, and a large part of that was because despite warning after warning to invest in maintaining our water infrastructure, we didn’t, and that can never be allowed to happen again in New Zealand. I think this bill will make sure that what happened in Havelock North never happens again in this country. And that is why I commend this bill to the House and thank Hawke’s Bay, my region, for the enormous contribution they have made to ensuring that we put forward a bill that will work. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to be talking on the third reading of the Water Services Entities Amendment Bill. Having been a member of the Finance and Expenditure Committee during the long period of hearing submissions on the first two of the four bills that now represent the water services changes, and, like many in this House, having witnessed the cascade of submitters who turned up and were virulently opposed to these changes and came with good sound reasons—they weren’t just emotional reasons; they were well validated views on why they opposed the three waters reforms. It was a pretty sobering exercise as we went around the country listening to all those submitters in their genuine attempts to try and get the Labour Government to at least change some elements of these proposed reforms.

But, unfortunately, they all fell on deaf ears, and it was a pretty sad indictment of what consultation means, given some of these issues that have been pushed through by this Government, because many New Zealanders do not agree with these reforms. In fact, in many of our electorates, we’ve still got signs going up: “Stop Three Waters”, which is interesting, because people remember this and they will remember this for certain when we’re going over the next few months.

The big issue, I think, around this—and I was involved in the British reforms of the water entities—was about going from being council-owned right through, ultimately, to privatisation, which, in hindsight, I don’t think was a good idea. But the reforms around how they restructured the entities and moved into more commercial operations—I think if we’d put up the governance structure that is proposed here in New Zealand, it would have been laughed at—it wouldn’t have even been considered, given the complicated governance arrangements that this bill and these proposals entail. This different layering up of diffused ownership and governance and control—and, ultimately, no one has ever explained to me who’s going to own the shares, because my view of ownership of shares is that if you have a share, you need to either have directorial right to control it or you must have some form of management influence. Under these arrangements, whilst the Government is keen to say that it is controlled and owned by the local authorities, that, legally, in my view, is wrong, and always has been, and no one, not even the officials who took us through this weird process, were ever able to give a proper view on who will own the shares. I think if these reforms were to be put in place, from an accounting perspective, no one, actually, would be able to say who owns the shares.

I think that’s the first thing around ownership, but the diffused governance structures have councils, representation boards, then we’ve got regional advisory boards, then we’ve got the boards of the entities themselves, and, of course, we’ve then got the murky arrangements around co-governance. That is not to say that mana whenua don’t have a role to play in water; they do, they’re very important, and we should value their input, but the structural arrangements, the structural impediments that the arrangements will embed, are just something that only a weird academic would ever conjure up in terms of coming up with an optimal solution to restructure the water industry in New Zealand. It is a phenomenally complicated structure, with a lack of accountability, a lack of control, and what we’ll end up with, inevitably, is very powerful CEOs, and we’ve seen them being put in place at vast cost, and they will be the ones that will run these entities, because there will be little accountability above them. And the worse thing is the lack of accountability back to the original people who currently own those assets, namely the councils, and, ultimately, the residents of the areas that they represent.

So, of course, we oppose these reforms because we want to make sure that ownership stays with councils, on behalf of the residents of New Zealand. That is the first and primary part of this. But it is very important that we put in place good oversight with these organisations around quality. Of course, we supported, way back, even before these reforms came about, the particular arrangements here. But the Taumata Arowai reforms are about making sure that we have good regulatory oversight of councils around water quality. I take Anna Lorck’s point earlier in her speech: it was inappropriate. That deals with the issue around having an independent oversight of the councils around water quality; that is important. But these reforms are murky, muddy, unclear, and will ultimately lead to poorer outcomes.

Certainly, if you’re sitting in one of these regions, like Gisborne or whatever, or some small town, and you’re trying to ring a head office that might be based in Wellington and talk about a broken pipe, there’ll be a lack of ability to actually get someone to know where you’re talking about, a lack of ability to get a local operator involved, someone who can turn up quickly and do it. Instead, there will be a monolithic organisational structure. It will be wrong, it would be poor, and we would do a disservice to New Zealanders if we were to allow these reforms to go through in their current form. Therefore, on that basis, I’m happy that we’re opposing these reforms.

DAN ROSEWARNE (Labour): As it stands, this bill will provide significant savings for New Zealand and also, in addition, better health outcomes. The average household will be seeing savings of between $2,700 and $5,400 per year. Without these reforms the cost for the consumer will be significantly more. And I just want to also touch on the health aspect of this. What I have here is a Facebook post from the Waimakariri District Council—so just in North Canterbury there—and it’s about the boil water notice and I just want to read it out for the house just quickly. It was from four days ago: “A boil water notice has been issued for the Oxford No. 1 Water Supply … Please inform any neighbours or friends on the scheme who may not be aware of this notice … We are carrying out extensive flushing of the well and will be monitoring [it] closely over the weekend. If it does not improve, we will have to consider taking it offline for re-development … which could take up to a month … Residents on this supply need to use boiled tap water or store-bought bottled water for drinking, cleaning teeth, making ice, washing dishes and preparing food until further notice. Tap water should be boiled on a rolling boil for one minute.”

So that’s a significant concern. This is in one of our communities in North Canterbury. And Mr Bayly and Mr Bishop, in their contributions, mentioned the “Stop Three Waters” signs. When I get out and about around the community, those “Stop Three Waters” signs are, interestingly, in the same locations as where all the boil-water notices are—in the same areas.

Anna Lorck, in her contribution, talked about what consumers really want. Most people just want to be able to turn on the tap and have clean water come out. It’s as simple as that. Unfortunately, the Opposition has decided to make it into an issue that’s trying to divide our country when, in fact, the average punter doesn’t care. The average punter just wants clean water to come out of the tap. And it’s important that—we owe it to New Zealand; we owe it to Havelock North—we do not have a repeat of those instances that we’ve had in the past. So it’s for that reason that I commend the bill to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Water Services Entities Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

Ayes 72

New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere.

Noes 47

New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2; Whaitiri.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Education and Training Amendment Bill (No 3).

Bills

Education and Training Amendment Bill (No 3)

In Committee

Parts 1 to 3, the Schedule, and clauses 1 to 3

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members, the House is in committee on the Education and Training Amendment Bill (No 3). We come first to Part 1. This is the debate on clauses 4 to 16—

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

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is none. The question is that Parts 1 to 3, the Schedule, and clauses 1 to 3 stand part.

Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister of Education): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m delighted to be here in the committee of the whole House for this very important bill that we are taking through the House. I do want to say that I’ve got my Associate Minister of Education (Māori Education) in the Chamber, the Hon Kelvin Davis, as well. I know that there are some aspects of this bill that he has been working very hard on, so I may vacate the chair at some point to hand over to him if there are specific questions around that.

But what I am introducing here this morning is Supplementary Order Paper 406 to fix minor drafting errors in the bill. This is presented in the form of a revision-tracked version of the bill that will be used during the committee of the whole House. The Supplementary Order Paper makes a change so that, for the purposes of developing an Order in Council made under clause 9, the annual report of a wānanga on the remuneration of employees and former employees for amounts of $100,000 or above must include a report on the remuneration of the chief executive of the wānanga. This is to make clause 9 consistent with clause 25 of the bill, which makes the same change generally for university and wānanga annual reporting on employee and former employee remunerations.

New section 398K provides for the appointment of members to the council of a wānanga. A minor change has been proposed that allows for the nomination of members as well as appointments. Minor changes have been made to new section 398S for consistency to ensure that the requirements of non-Crown entity wānanga relating to the application of the Public Audit Act can be found in the same section. Consequently, minor changes have also been made to new section 398J and new section 94A.

The rest of the changes in the Supplementary Order Paper are focused on minor technical changes, improving readability, and correcting small drafting errors such as grammar or adding in missing cross references.

ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you, Madam Chair. I thank the Minister for her introduction. I wanted to go straight to Part 2—I think the Minister will be aware I’ve got a Supplementary Order Paper I want to speak to. But before I speak directly to it, I want to ask the Minister some questions around Part 2, clause 38, the co-option of members to a school board. The first question I want to ask the Minister is: why is it that one of the existing provisions around the 50:50 split of male and female has been removed from the Act and disappeared completely, and is replaced with the genders, sexualities, and sexes of the student body? I just want to ask the Minister: first off, what was it that was wrong with sexes and why has it been replaced?

Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister of Education): Thank you, Madam Chair. Basically because we’ve got a changing view of the terminology, and that has been pointed out throughout the shepherding of this bill—to understand the diversities within the community and the full diversities within the community. Can I also point out that this particular part does relate to the co-option of board members and we have around about 5 percent of our boards, so we’re not talking about a huge number of our boards, but we are talking about when they are co-opting into those areas to take account of the different diversities and the differing diversities within there. It’s looking at your community and your school community as a whole.

ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): One of the very good submissions on the bill from the group Speak Up for Women made the point that in the previous Education Act between 1989 and 2020—when that previous Education Act was in place, we saw huge steps in the acceptance of the rainbow community in New Zealand. The Human Rights Act 1993 made it illegal to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, civil unions provided for legal representation of same-sex relationships, and finally the legislation for same-sex marriage. So huge gains between 1989 and 2020; these momentous things all occurred in the 31 years between the Education Act 1989 and the Education and Training Act 2020.

When this Minister’s Government in 2020 introduced the new Education and Training Act, there were no appointment criteria recognising sexualities despite all of those gains. Why it is in the last three years it’s suddenly—the question is: what has happened in the last three years that means wording that was perfectly fine in 2020, after all of those gains of 30 years for the LGBT community, is suddenly out of date and desperately in need of modernising just three years later? I’m talking about in terms of sexualities, where we’re adding it in now, where the Minister in her previous answer just said change of terminologies, and it doesn’t really hold water because this Act was only amended in 2020 after so many gains over so many decades in terms of sexualities. The question is: what has changed in the last three years that we now need to add sexualities in?

Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister of Education): Well, was it working? That’s one of the reasons why we have legislation going through the House, to make certain that we are making it stronger. It’s the whole reason why we are here doing this job, so I would disagree with the member’s take on what she has just presented there. Specific criteria are helpful prompts to support boards to think about the diverse perspectives that need to be raised to ensure that they are meeting the needs of the diverse school community that they have. We know that there are disabled and LGBTIQA+ learners present in almost every school, and specifically including these terms in criteria can prompt and support boards to consider the needs of those students and their community that they are representing when they are co-opting members.

So I would like to, once again, say that one of the reasons that we are doing this is because it will make it stronger for those members of the community.

ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Another good point made by Speak Up for Women is that there is an insinuation by this Minister and this Government that members of the rainbow community are not able to be elected on their own merit—I’m reading from her submission, and that that is offensive and untrue. “All throughout New Zealand, for many years, members of the rainbow community who want to serve have been elected to school boards. The inference that we need special treatment or recognition is another form of othering us and yet again calling us out as different. When many of us have fought for the right to be ordinary. To be boring. To be just like everyone else. To have the same rights as everyone else, nothing more, nothing less. To be chosen on merit, not because of a special identity.” The reason I read that out Minister is because I want to—I’ve got more questions on the back of this, but I wanted you to answer their questions around this, and also that the offence that they’re taking, that they believe they’re able to be elected on their own merits rather than having to have a special category carved out for them.

Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister of Education): Look, first of all I would like to say thank you to all submitters who took the time to submit on this bill, and while I respect the process of their submissions, I disagree with that and I’m very disappointed to hear that people think that minority groups or groups that have struggled to make themselves heard do not need to be elevated because they can just stand on their own merit. Ask other people, ask other groups that have struggled to make themselves heard over time how well that’s worked out for them. We need to actually acknowledge our groups in this country, including our LGBTIQA+ group. We need to acknowledge them and have that separate criteria so that they are seen, because if we don’t have them, they will not get seen. That’s not to say that they are not amazing people, but they will not get seen. That is the bottom line.

We have the same here; we have a 50:50 split in our Parliament now of women and men. We got that through deliberately—people deliberately, and parties deliberately going and acknowledging that we needed to do that. We were not seen up until that point. If that member thinks that people can stand on their own merit and get elected, go ask those groups that that hasn’t happened to. Now, we’re not talking about election here; we’re talking about co-option. What we are talking about is that when board members are co-opted, they will give the reflection to those particular groups. Those groups are being seen in the process.

ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you. That leads to my next question to the Minister of Education around the appointment of these people. The ministry seemed to say, in all of the Education Committee process, that this change requires no collection of information or asking of awkward questions. But in many of the submissions that we heard from—and I also have the belief that this will be a problem—this simply can’t be true that there won’t be awkward questions. A number of people that spoke to us in committee, who are current or former board members, reflected that in many instances they simply didn’t know the sexualities of their board members or if any had a particular gender identity. Some said that they’d made the assumption based on things like partners or spouse’s names, but on reflection they really didn’t know. So others mentioned it wasn’t a topic of discussion. They were focused on what they were there for: to govern the school well for every student. So my question to the Minister is: the ministry is saying there won’t be any awkward questions, how does she think that co-opting members of different sexualities to school boards will happen without asking any awkward questions, or will it just be guess work?

Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister of Education): Because I trust the schools.

Erica Stanford: My next question to the Minister is around—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Erica Stanford.

ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Oh, sorry. Madam Chair? Thank you. My next question is around definitions. The ministry has not defined what they mean by “gender” in the bill, leaving it up to boards simply to guess. For the record, I was hoping that the Minister of Education could put on record—so that it’s in Hansard and we can all see it—the difference between “gender” and “sex”, for the purpose of this bill.

Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister of Education): Here, “gender” is referred to as a person’s social and personal identity as male, female, or another gender, or genders that may be non-binary. Both “gender identity” and “gender expression” are included in the definition.

ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): I ask the Minister of Education, once again, how is it that a board will know someone’s gender identity, as opposed to their sex, without asking questions or collecting information? The Minister may want to think about that question and answer it later, because she hasn’t answered it either time that I’ve asked it.

The other question I want to talk to her about is the inclusion in the section of socio-economic diversity. One of the submitters to the bill made a very similar point regarding the reference to socio-economic diversity and says that it’s outdated—giving a quote here—“It appears to simply be a Wellington way of insinuating that poor people may not be able to be elected on merits so they may need to be co-opted.” I read that as a direct quote out of one of the submissions that we got. I’d like the Minister to answer the question of whether or not she thinks people of low socio-economic means are not able to be elected on to a board by their own merits and therefore need to be co-opted and added as a separate category under this bill.

Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister of Education): I don’t like doing this, but I’m going to. The member hasn’t had experience of working with a low socio-economic school before—I have.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Oh, here we go.

Hon JAN TINETTI: Thank you. I don’t like doing this.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: First-class Labour arrogance.

Marja Lubeck: It’s experience.

Hon JAN TINETTI: It is experience.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: No, it’s not. That is ignorance. That is—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Order! Order! This is a robust House.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Yes, it is.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Thank you, the Hon Gerry Brownlee. I can do without his contribution. So can we just keep this to a respectful, not hectoring time?

Hon JAN TINETTI: Thank you, Madam Chair. What I was going to go and say is that in many experiences that I have had, there have been many people that have had the skills to work on the boards of trustees before, but have not necessarily put their hands up to do that, because they’ve had a lack of confidence in their own ability. This gives them the ability to stand alongside the board, just as it does in many other sectors. We have the same processes in many public sector boards, many private sector boards have the same processes, where they see skills that might exist in people who won’t necessarily have that confidence. This gives those boards the ability to be able to think about those people who might not necessarily have the confidence but do have the abilities and skills and knowledge to be able to be on a board of trustees successfully.

I think this is a really good amendment that we are making here, or a good part of this bill that we are showing here. And I actually do thank you for the ability to be able to get up and talk about this. I’ve had it from experience—I’ve seen many, many people who have had that experience, those skills, and that knowledge, but they do not have the confidence. This gives those boards the ability to be able to have that pathway for them to come on and develop their knowledge, their skills, and their abilities to be able to not only work on this board of trustees or their school’s board of trustees but to be able to take that through to other boards as well. That’s why this is here.

ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you. I thank the Minister of Education for her answer. It was really interesting that she talked about confidence in terms of their skill and ability, but never actually mentioned the words “socio-economic conditions” of that person.

I guess the next question is: how would a board know? I mean, I guess that the board could seek out people who they didn’t think were confident in their ability, but that’s very different than socio-economic conditions. I guess the question to the Minister is: how would a board know the socio-economic position of someone that they were co-opting to the board? It’s a very similar question to the one that I asked earlier about gender and sexuality, and she couldn’t answer those questions, or wouldn’t.

The next question, then, is around socio-economic conditions of that family. Will they have to provide a statement of financial position? How will it be that a board will know that a particular family is in a low socio-economic group to then co-opt them onto a board? Because all the Minister just said before was their “confidence”. How will that be defined, and also how will the board know, when they’re co-opting, that someone is in that situation? Rather than talking about just confidence, I’m specifically talking here about what it says in the bill, because this is important—it is making a change. It’s talking about the socio-economic diversity of the student body and the community. So that indicates that the board will have to know the socio-economic status of the person that they are co-opting to the board. How would they know that?

Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister of Education): I’m sure the member knows how well schools know their community. Schools know their communities inside out. They know the connections within communities. They know more than what people think they know about their school’s communities. Just as I said to an earlier answer—and this actually could cover all of the questions that I’ve been asked so far—I trust schools because I know that they know their communities inside out. Absolutely.

ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Right, well that leads me to my Supplementary Order Paper, because as the Minister just said, she trusts schools—awesome. In that case, why do we need a long list of things that boards must take into account? My Supplementary Order Paper removes all of them, and says “that every board should reflect the diversity of their students and school community”—trusting schools to know their communities, schools, and students to be able to make their own decisions based on the skills and experience of the people that they are co-opting to that board to make sure that they have a good representation. If the Minister is so hung up on trusting schools, as she should be, then why do we need all of these carve-outs which actually leave out many groups? Because she talks in here about disabilities, but we know that there are many, many things that a student might have that are not officially classified as a disability, therefore not included in this list. It’s not an exhaustive list, so why have a list at all? Because it does lead to unintended consequences where you get people who are left out.

It is much more simple and fair, and if she indeed does just trust schools to know their communities, will she support my Supplementary Order Paper that removes all of those—and all of the problems that they come with—and the lack of definitions, leaving it just up to schools to decide what the differences between gender and sex are; and making the LGBT community, in one of their own submissions, just feel that they are being marginalised in this bill? And the same with people from low socio-economic circumstances, being marginalised because they are poor and not just capable of being on a board.

All of those things that we heard in select committee would be clean and tidy if we had this Supplementary Order Paper which just said “every board should reflect the diversity of their students and school community”: trusting schools to make the right decision for their community. So I put that to the Minister, and I do want to go back and just make sure that she understands that the things that I have been bringing up were from submitters. They were direct quotes from submitters, and I would like to point out the overwhelming majority of submissions on this part of the bill were in opposition.

Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister of Education): The new co-option criteria was of significant interest to submitters, and I appreciate the time, as I’ve said earlier, that people gave to make their views known. Many submitters said that the bill should define sexes, gender, and sexuality. Some submitters considered that skill, rather than personal attributes, should be the most significant factors in board membership. The change proposed through the bill is to ensure that population groups underrepresented in school governance, who can feel invisible in the schooling system, have greater opportunity to have a voice in how schools are run. I remind the member of what I said in an earlier reply: you know, we think sometimes that when we group these groups together, they will automatically be seen. Ask those groups, in many other instances, how seen they have felt in other times when they have been seeking representation, and “very invisible” is the answer that they will give through that. The amendment posed by the Opposition would mean that boards may not be prompted to consider the representation of groups listed in the co-option criteria. This is just about prompting. This isn’t about, “You must do this”, or “You must co-opt these groups”. It is about prompting those groups. If we don’t have those prompts there, they might not be seen—

Erica Stanford: I thought you trusted schools.

Hon JAN TINETTI: I absolutely trust schools, but as someone who would love to have those prompts there, I think that this is a really, really good amendment to this. Furthermore, I reject the view that having broader community representation on school boards will result in a reduction in the skills and experience of school boards. I also remind the committee that it is not compulsory for school boards to co-opt members, or, if they wish to do so, it is not compulsory for boards to appoint people from any specific community, including LGBTQIA+ or disability communities. On that basis, I therefore do not support the member’s Supplementary Order Paper.

ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Just one more final question on this part—well, maybe; I think so. The Minister just said that there are population groups that are underrepresented. I would like to ask her: what evidence can she state, here in the committee today, that LGBTQ people are not well represented on school boards? What specific evidence—not anecdotal evidence, or things she’s heard from her time as a principal, but actual data—has she received? [Interruption] Well, you started this, Minister! What evidence do you have that those certain LGBT population groups are underrepresented that led her to this bill; not anecdotal, but actually data?

Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister of Education): I’m really disappointed that the member would actually minimise the views of the rainbow community, because it is the views of the rainbow community that have led to this today. And to say, “That is anecdotal, so we don’t want to know that”—that says a lot about the views over there. We have listened to the views; we have listened to those rainbow students who have felt minimised and marginalised in their schools—

Nicola Grigg: Where’s the data?

Hon JAN TINETTI: There is data; if the member is looking for data, look at the mental health statistics for that particular group. They want to see themselves represented. This is a big part. You cannot be what you cannot see. When you have that representation, you can aspire to those roles, but, also, you have people that are advocating for you, who know your journey that you’re going through; that know the difficulties that you’re going through. We have that data. We want to turn that around—we want to make it a safe and happy place for our students from those communities. I am disappointed that that member—or members from that side of the House—believe that this would not seek that safety and assurance that our young people would see themselves represented within that school and have people that would advocate for them. Very disappointing.

CHRIS BAILLIE (ACT): Thank you, Madam Chair. Just following on, I’m a bit confused. Can you just confirm that you’re saying that there are a group of people that are underrepresented in school boards, but you don’t know who they are?

ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): What I take from the Minister’s previous answer when she eventually got to the point and said she has the data—didn’t actually say what it was—is that she actually doesn’t have data. The reason I’m asking this question is not from me but from our submitters. Our submitters in particular said—and they were LGBT groups themselves. They came to our select committee and said that they felt that the fact they couldn’t get elected on their own merit was offensive and it was untrue, that they are being elected on to school boards, and that they don’t need to be singled out. So their question was, we already know that LGBTQ people are being elected to school boards in numbers and they don’t feel that they need to be singled out.

That was their submission. It’s not me saying this, Minister; it’s a submission that we have which I want to know her view on. And they specifically asked whether or not there was any data to show that their groups were not already represented on school boards so that they would need to be singled out. They felt—it’s not me—that this was unfair. They felt marginalised by this, and they wanted to know whether or not there was any actual data showing that LGBTQI people were not already represented on school boards so that they needed to be singled out. And, as I said in my previous contribution, they said they didn’t want to be called out as being different when they’ve been fighting for so long to be just ordinary and, in their words, boring, just like everyone else. They felt that being singled out in this way was not something that they wanted to do and they didn’t think that it was required.

So the question again, Minister, is: what does the data say in terms of LGBT representation on school boards—what percentages are there, so that this change is required? That is coming from a submitter. I’m interested in her answers to their questions.

Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister of Education): In April and June 2021, the Ministry of Education did consult publicly about the changes to the school board elections framework. They gathered the data at that point, around representation. So as part of this, they asked whether the criteria for co-opting and appointing board members should be updated. So the proposal was put that that criteria could be updated so that boards should reflect, as far as reasonably practical, disabled students and the school’s disabled community; the genders, sexualities, and sexes of the school students and of the school community; and Māori students and the school’s Māori community. Overwhelmingly, submissions supported the inclusion of those criteria for the co-option. Can I remind the member, once again, that we are talking about 5 percent of boards who use co-option. This is a prompt to prompt people to think about the different demographics who they represent within their school. It is a prompt. Then they are trusted to make decisions based on the needs of their school. That’s what the co-option process is for. The co-option is there to make sure that those full demographics are being represented. These are prompts only. It is very, very disappointing to hear that people would not think that that was important, to ensure that wider representation within a school board of trustees—very disappointing.

PENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill): I’d like to turn now to Part 1, “Amendments to principal Act relating to [the] wānanga”. This is a groundbreaking piece of legislation, but I am so disappointed, and particularly for all the people that are here today representing our three wonderful wānanga, that they have had this incredibly important part recognising the history of the wānanga sandwiched into a piece of legislation about early childhood education (ECE) police vetting and sex, sexuality, and gender of board appointments.

It is disrespectful to the three wānanga and it is asking for a compromise from the three wānanga. They deserved better. They deserved to have legislation that was absolutely specifically recognising their proud history and recognising what an important part of legislation that this is. So I acknowledge all those from the wānanga that are here and I also thank those—[Interruption]

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Order! Order! With apologies to the member, I am sitting right in the middle of this Chamber and I am now beginning to struggle to hear the member making a contribution. It is every member’s right to be heard.

PENNY SIMMONDS: Thank you, Madam Chair. I think that continues the disrespect of this piece of legislation. We have people here in the gallery today that have given a lifetime of work towards the wānanga. We have people here who were the very inaugural starters—drivers—behind their wānanga. The wānanga should have had legislation specific to them that enabled all parts of what was required to make this important part of legislation work.

Instead, they have been asked to compromise. They have graciously agreed to that compromise for the sake of getting the main part through of Crown, non-Crown entities. But they have had to compromise, and every time I read this, it feels disrespectful that they will be called “category A wānanga”, “category B wānanga”, “category C wānanga”. The legislation should have been specific to this; it should have allowed the ministry to concentrate only on getting all this right, and it should have included appropriate agreed terms—not “category A, category B, category C wānanga”—and it should have got protection of the term “wānanga”. Now, I understand why they have accepted the compromise to get the main part through, but they should never have been asked to accept that compromise. They should never have been asked to be gracious in that.

There are many people who won’t understand where the wānanga came from. Obviously that doesn’t include anyone that’s here in the gallery, but there may be many people watching this that don’t understand. I’ll give the comparison of what was my own institution, the Southern Institute of Technology. It started from a Southland technical college. The wānanga had to start from nothing. They started from iwi and individuals mortgaging their own houses to get the wānanga started. They started by the commitment and the passion of people who wanted to make the wānanga work. So they did that right from the start, and now, again, we have been asking them to compromise.

So I would like the Minister to tell us why they are being asked to compromise and be called “category A, category B, category C wānanga”; they have been asked to compromise on not getting parity with the universities and the polytechnic and getting protection of the term “wānanga”; and why they were not allowed to have this as their own piece of legislation, not sandwiched in against police vetting for ECE and board appointments of schools; why they didn’t allow a single focus on the wānanga to get this right instead of them being asked to compromise again. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Associate Minister of Education (Māori Education)): Thank you, Madam Chair, and I thank the member for her crocodile tears. First of all, I would like to acknowledge the three wānanga: Te Wānanga o Raukawa, Te Wānanga o Aotearoa, and Te Whare Wānanga o Awanuiārangi. I would like to acknowledge the aspirations of the tūpuna and the iwi behind those wānanga. The member was right with her contribution that the wānanga did have to start up from nothing, but they are by Māori, for Māori institutions.

The short answer to her question is that we worked with the wānanga. This is what they wanted. The kiko, or the substance, of the bill—the framework—is what’s most important, and it will give wānanga time to actually develop those terms so that there can be the appropriate consultation on the terms that they want. But what’s most important is the substance of this part that gives life to the aspirations of the iwi and the tūpuna behind all the wānanga.

TEANAU TUIONO (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. I te tuatahi, e mihi atu ki a koutou, ngā wānanga. Nau mai ki te kōhanga reo o te Pāremata. Aue taukiri e. Heoi anō he pai ake ngā piropiro o ō mātou nei mokopuna kei roto i ō rātou nei kōhanga reo. Heoi, taku pātai ki te Minita: e pēhea tēnei ture e aro ana ki ngā rangatiratanga e hiahiatia e ngā wānanga ki roto i tēnā pire? Tēnā pea ka taea e koe te kōrero mai te horopaki katoa me pēhea anō e tautoko ana tēnei ture i ērā i hiahiatia ai e ngā wānanga. Kia ora.

[Firstly, I acknowledge you, the wānanga. Welcome to the early childhood centre of Parliament. Oh my goodness. Anyway, our grandchildren are feeling better now in their early childhood centres. However, my question to the Minister: how will this legislation address the autonomy that the wānanga desire in this bill? Perhaps you could speak about the entire context of how this bill will support those things that the wānanga desire. Thank you.]

Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Associate Minister of Education (Māori Education)): Thank you, Madam Chair. Tēnā koe. E mihi kau atu ki te mema mō tana pātai. Koia te tino kiko o tēnei pire. Taku taenga tuatahi atu ki Te Wānanga o Raukawa e rima tau i mua, ko te tino raruraru, tā rātou tino amuamu ko te pōhēhētanga o te Kāwanatanga nō rātou te mana whakahaere. Nā, arā ka kī mai ki a māua ko te Minita Mātauranga o taua taima, a Chris Hipkins, me whakawehewehe te rangatiratanga i te Kāwanatanga; tukuna te rangatiratanga, te mana whakahaere o ngā wānanga.

Nā reira ko tēnei pire te whakatinanatanga o aua moemoeā o Te Wānanga o Raukawa me ngā wānanga atu. Mehemea e hiahia ana rātou ki te whai i te huarahi o te category B Wānanga, mā te rangatiratanga e whakahaere. Mehemea e hiahia ana rātou ki te noho tonu kei raro i te maru o te Kāwanatanga, e pai anō hoki tēnā. Engari he whiringa mō ngā wānanga.

[Thank you. I thank the member for his question. That is the real meat of this bill. When I first arrived at Te Wānanga o Raukawa five years ago, the main problem, their main complaint was about the mistaken belief of the Government that they have the authority of management. So they then said to myself and the Minister of Education of the time, Chris Hipkins, the autonomy should be separated from the Government; transfer the autonomy, the authority of management over the wānanga.

So this bill is the implementation of that dream of Te Wānanga o Raukawa and the other wānanga. If they want to follow the path of a category B Wānanga, it will be up to the autonomy to manage. If they want to stay under the mantle of the Government, that’s also good. But it is a choice for the wānanga.]

TEANAU TUIONO (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. He whakaaro tāpiri. He pātai tēnei ki te Minita i te mea i mea atu a Nāhinara he hanaweti noa iho tēnei pire. Heoi kei te tata tō tātou wā ki te poupoutanga o te wā, e tino hiakai tēnei mō tētahi hanaweti. Heoi anō e te Minita, ko tāku pātai: ka taea e koe te kōrero he aha ngā rerekē i waenganui i ngā ara e toru? Me pēhea e tautoko ai i te ia o ngā moemoeā o ia wānanga?

[An additional thought. This is a question for the Minister because National said that this bill is just a sandwich. However, our time is drawing close to high noon, and I’m getting really hungry for a sandwich. However, Minister, my question: could you speak about the differences between the three pathways? How will the gist of the dreams of each wānanga be supported?]

Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Associate Minister of Education (Māori Education)): Āe, ko te rerekētanga: kei raro i tētahi o ngā momo wānanga, mā te wānanga e whakahoki ki te Karauna. Kei tētahi atu huarahi, mā ngā wānanga e whakautu ki ngā iwi, ngā iwi nā rātou i whakatinana, i whakaturea ai ngā wānanga. Koia te tino rerekē o ngā huarahi e toru. Ko te huarahi tuatoru ko te status quo. Horekau e pai ki ngā wānanga ko te status quo, engari koirā te rerekē o ngā huarahi. 

[Yes, the difference: under one type of wānanga, the wānanga answers to the Crown. On another track, the wananga answers to the iwi, the iwi that implemented and enacted the wānanga. That is the main difference of the three pathways. The third pathway is the status quo. The wānanga are not amenable to the status quo, but that is the difference of the pathways.] 

PENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m enormously disappointed that the Minister Kelvin Davis has turned this personal and talked about “crocodile tears”. Can I assure him that having worked with Te Wānanga o Aotearoa for over two decades, I saw people like Rongo Wetere, who went through not only financial sacrifice but enormous personal sacrifice both for him and his family as their reputations were torn apart as they tried to establish and grow their wānanga. So there are no crocodile tears here; there is real understanding of the sacrifices that were made.

I’m pleased that the work was done with the wānanga, and there has been no criticism of that. Indeed, that’s what I’m saying; there should have been more time, more focus entirely on working with the wānanga to get all these components of the implementation correct. And so my question to the Minister is that everything that was done was in accordance with what the wānanga wanted. Can you tell me, did the wānanga ask to be called “category A wānanga”, “category B wānanga”, “category C wānanga”?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Associate Minister of Education (Māori Education)): Thank you. Look, the member has to realise that the path that has been taken is the path that was chosen by the wānanga. There was intensive engagement over probably five years to get to this point and it is the substance of the bill that is the most important. So the initial naming was a “Crown entity” and a “non-Crown entity”, and that wasn’t satisfactory to the wānanga so this is just basically a placeholder so that the time can be taken to get the names right. But there needs to be appropriate consultation, because the whole term “wānanga” is contentious in itself in that universities can call themselves “whare wānanga” but the wānanga can’t call themselves “university” because of the protected term. Also various iwi and hapū and whānau hold wānanga. We don’t want them to think that they would be excluded from using “wānanga”. So there needs to be a discussion in Te Ao Māori about the use of it and the appropriate names. So that that will take some time.

But the substance of this bill is what is most important to the wānanga, and the name can come at an appropriate time in the future when everybody has had the appropriate discussions around the names for the types of wānanga they will be.

PENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill): Thank you, Madam Chair. I think the Minister has answered the question himself, that if there had been sole focus in this legislation on the wānanga amendments, then that could have been worked through. Can I just make it very clear that the majority of submissions to this bill were about the sex, sexuality, and gender of seconded board members. That’s what took up the time of the select committee. That was what the focus was on and the Minister is quite right, the focus should be on the consultation with wānanga but it should have been in its own legislation. It should have been totally concentrated on and focused on that, because that was important to get the implementation right and instead they have been asked to compromise. They have graciously agreed to it, but I can almost guarantee that at the start of this process they did not put their hands up and say, “Please call us category A, category B, and category C wānanga.” They should have been given the respect, the time, the concentration, and the focus to get not only the core of the changes here right but the implementation right.

Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Associate Minister of Education (Māori Education)): In a perfect world maybe what the member says would be great, but in my perfect world this would have happened 183 years ago.

HARETE HIPANGO (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. Minister, I note your colleague Minister Jackson was nodding as my colleague Penny Simmonds was making submissions around the issue of timeliness. So, Minister, the Education and Workforce Committee report—I didn’t sit on the select committee, but I have read the report—it states very clearly that: “Section 390 of the Act protects the use of the terms ‘university’, ‘polytechnic’, and ‘institute of technology’ ” and that “All three wānanga told us the term ‘wānanga’ should similarly be a protected term.” The select committee report also clearly states: “However, there has not been adequate consultation and robust policy development for this proposal.”, which is further reinforced by a statement, in relation to Crown entity wānanga and non-Crown entity wānanga, that “There is insufficient time at this stage of the legislative process”.

Minister, it’s noted that when this bill was introduced to the House on 28 March of this year, submissions were called for with a closing date of 1 May 2023. Is it the Minister’s opinion and evidence that 24 working days—24 working days—was sufficient and respectful consultation with the three wānanga represented here in this Whare today?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Associate Minister of Education (Māori Education)): As I said earlier, this has been probably five years in the making, the discussions with the wānanga. She’s asking whether 20-something days is enough time—look, to be honest, we’ve got to this point and the only thing that is holding this up are the questions that are coming.

SHANAN HALBERT (Junior Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the Minister’s amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 406 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Erica Stanford’s amendment to clause 38 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 402 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Parts 1 to 3, the Schedule, and clauses 1 to 3 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 75

New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Te Paati Māori 2; Kerekere; Whaitiri.

Noes 44

New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.

Parts 1 to 3, the Schedule, and clauses 1 to 3 as amended agreed to.

Bill to be reported with amendment.

House resumed.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Mr Speaker, the committee has considered the Education and Training Amendment Bill (No 3) and reports it with amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

SPEAKER: This bill is set down for third reading immediately.

Third Reading

Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister of Education): I present a legislative statement on the Education and Training Amendment Bill (No 3).

SPEAKER: That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

Hon JAN TINETTI: I move, That the Education and Training Amendment Bill (No 3) be now read a third time.

I’d like to start by thanking once again those who took time to submit on this bill and the hard-working members of the Education and Workforce Committee who carefully evaluated the views of the public and helped strengthen this bill by providing useful suggestions and deliberation.

This bill will provide important and necessary changes to the Education and Training Act 2020 that will support great outcomes for students across the education sector. It will support the rangatiratanga of wānanga, enable school boards to better fulfil their role in keeping our schools safe, strengthen school governance, and increase accountability and transparency in education institutions.

The most important and significant change in this bill is the establishment of a new governance framework for wānanga to better recognise their mana and rangatiratanga. I am going to leave it to my colleague the Hon Kelvin Davis to speak to these changes and the other proposals that impact kaupapa Māori education in detail.

I would like to mihi to those people who are in the gallery to support this, but also, as the education Minister, I want to show my absolute delight that something, as we heard my colleagues say in the committee of the whole House, that has taken a significant amount of time has got to this point. I am absolutely excited and ecstatic that we are able to pass this here today.

Another important change in this bill that we haven’t heard too much about is the strengthening of school board eligibility requirements to ensure that they adequately reflect the role the school board members have in providing a school that is a physically and emotionally safe place for students and staff. That is really important. The changes that we are making around board eligibility, when they come on to board membership, are all about the emotional and physical safety of our students and staff.

The bill ensures that people who have been convicted of an offence listed in Schedule 2 of the Children’s Act 2014 are not eligible to serve on a State school board unless they have been granted an exemption by the Secretary for Education. This is something that has been raised with me a number of times around keeping our young people safe by looking at those board members and how we can strengthen that. Today we are putting right something that was a bit of an anomaly in the previous legislation. The bill also empowers the secretary to conduct audits on school board members to ensure that they meet eligibility criteria.

In parallel to these changes, a code of conduct for school board members was recently issued, which makes clear board members’ responsibilities and expected standards of behaviour. Both the code of conduct and these eligibility changes contribute to safeguarding our schools and increasing the confidence of school staff, students, and the school community that board members are suitable for the role and acting appropriately.

I would like to thank particularly the New Zealand School Trustees Association, who have had a lot of input into developing both the code of conduct and the changes that we are making through this bill here today.

The bill enables the ministry to publish or disclose data relating to the socio-economic status of children attending early childhood education services, and their families, for the purpose of developing an early childhood equity index. A really important part of this is that we found that, again, there was a bit of an anomaly around being able to share that data across from Statistics New Zealand, and we are able to do that quite easily after this. I’m really happy that we can do this to ensure that that equity index can be developed in its entirety. It is really important to make certain that we have equal opportunities right from our youngest learners within the system.

The bill makes three changes to the board election provisions to ensure that the governance of our schools is representative and efficient. The first of these we haven’t heard a lot about either, but this is actually really critical. The first is a one-off practical change to shift the timing of the next mid-term school board elections to November of this year. It is important that we get this legislation through right now, because that’s November of this year.

The 2022 triennial school board elections were moved to allow time for changes to be made to school board election settings. This shifted the next mid-term elections to March 2024, which means election processes would need to begin in the summer holidays. This amendment avoids this impractical timing by reverting schools to the usual election timetable, and it is something that schools have wanted.

The second change modernises and expands school board member co-option and appointment criteria to ensure that boards reflect, as far as reasonably practicable, the genders, sexualities, and sexes of the student body and the community of the school and the diversity of schools’ disabled students and disability community when deciding on members to co-opt or appoint. This update makes the criteria for school board co-option more inclusive and encourages board members to think about how they can best reflect the diversity of their school students and community. I remind people in this House that we are talking about 5 percent of boards who use the co-option as a process to make sure that their communities are appropriately represented within their board of trustees, and this is a prompt for them to think about the different diversities within their school community.

The final change to school board election provisions is to enable school boards to fill the student representative position if a student is not elected at the annual September elections. Currently, if no student representative is elected at the September election, the vacancy cannot be filled until the next election. This change will allow the vacancy to be filled and support the Government’s priorities in education to reduce barriers and increase student participation.

The bill builds on previous amendments that have strengthened police vetting requirements for non-teaching and unregistered workers and contractors at schools and early childhood services. Again, we’re talking about the safety of our young people, which is critically important.

There are other changes that this bill is making to support accountability and transparency within our education sector. It requires universities and wānanga to publish information about the remuneration and benefits of employees and former employees for amounts of $100,000 or more, improving transparency within that part of the sector. The bill restricts the appointment of the chief executive of Te Aho o Te Kura Pounamu to a term of five years, with the ability to reappoint for further terms. Finally, the bill makes a number of minor and technical amendments to the Education and Training Act to ensure that it is fit for purpose and to tidy up and modernise the language within the Act.

I am convinced of the positive and meaningful impact that this bill will have on our education sector, particularly the new enabling framework for wānanga that has taken many, many years but is a significant reflection of the progression in the relationship between the Crown and wānanga. I am absolutely delighted to commend the Education and Training Amendment Bill (No 3) to the House.

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

PENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill): Mr Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak on this. Well, my comments in a previous debate on this bill have been borne out by the Minister’s speech. It took eight minutes before she mentioned the wānanga. My point is that the wānanga is not first and foremost in this legislation. The Minister has got a piece of legislation here that tidies up data sharing, timing of school boards, elections, secondments to school boards, police vetting of early childhood education (ECE)—but in the gallery, we have people who came here to hear about the groundbreaking change for the wānanga. The importance of this for the wānanga has been completely undermined by sandwiching it in with other bits and pieces of legislation. It has been disrespectful and it has not enabled a full process to ensure that the implementation of this legislation for the wānanga can go ahead.

I am delighted for the wānanga that they have had success in achieving Crown or non-Crown entities. But I am sure they are not delighted to be called “category A wānanga”, “category B wānanga”, “category C wānanga”—they should have had the full concentration of this Government and of the ministry officials in getting this legislation right. The wānanga have been asked to compromise and they have done that graciously, but they should not have been asked to make that compromise, and I apologise to them that they have been sandwiched in with data sharing, timing of school boards, secondments to school boards, ECE, and police vetting. You should not have been put in that position. You should not have been pushed to the eighth minute of discussion in this.

It is important that we recognise why this legislation needed to come into play. And, again, it’s about the proud history of the three wānanga, dating back to 1981. Each of the three wānanga have quite different historical evolution, some by iwi: Te Wānanga o Raukawa, in 1981, arose from their very strong iwi base. Te Wānanga o Aotearoa, which I had the privilege of working alongside for over two decades: pan-iwi, and it had a different history, driven out of the passion and the innovation of Rongo Wetere and his family, who, again, I make the point, put not only finance into this but also put his time and his reputation and his family’s efforts into this as well, because of his concern about the number of young Māori that were being excluded from their schools. And so he started in Te Awamutu and it was a real privilege to see that wānanga go from about 1,400 fulltime-equivalent students up to, at one point, over 3,000 fulltime-equivalent students—bar none, the biggest tertiary entity in this country. I know now they have settled down to around 19,000 or 20,000, but that is still a very large, important entity in our tertiary education space, and I recognise the solid leadership of my friend and colleague Nepia Winiata and his team with Te Wānanga o Aotearoa.

Awanuiārangi had another slightly different proud history to it, that was started by the very respected Tā Hirini Moko Mead, who decided, in the late 1980s, that he should establish a wānanga, and for six or seven years, he and his passionate group of people pushed this concept and opened in Whakatāne with their very modest wānanga at that time, their very modest campus—just a couple of transportable classrooms. But that campus today is a very beautiful campus with a very beautiful set of buildings and a very strong set of particularly post-graduate qualifications that enable people to flow through from a lower level of qualifications right through to post-graduate.

To me, the wānanga are the hub of developing and educating young Māori leaders of the future. And so I thank them for the work that they do in that space, but I also thank them for their generosity of spirit in extending that out well beyond Māori. In our space in Southland, we have worked in partnership with the wānanga to ensure that we have one of the highest uptakes per head of population of people learning te reo Māori, and that is only because it was enabled by partnership. So I thank them for their generosity of spirit, of taking it beyond young Māori but extending it to people of all ethnicities and all ages. So not only do the wānanga have a proud history but they also have a very important part to play in our society going forward, and I thank them for their willingness to do that.

I want to talk a little bit about the protected terms, because, again, people may not understand how important it is not only to recognise the past and the history and the development and the evolution of the wānanga but also the need to protect the term “wānanga”. So the polytechnics, the universities, have absolute protection of their term; nobody else, no entities in this country, can use those terms “university” or “polytechnic”, but any entity that wants to can tack wānanga on to their title. So you will see a number of other organisations that put a translation into their title of wānanga; there is no protection whatsoever, and so the three wānanga that are sitting here represented today have no protection of that term, and it puts them out of kilter with the other players in the tertiary sector, the polytechnics, and the universities. And that is not acceptable, and that is why we keep saying this legislation should have been solely focused on the wānanga and getting the legislation right to ensure the implementation is right.

So we are opposing the legislation not because we oppose the ability for the wānanga to be Crown or non-Crown entities but because we oppose the secondment part for the boards of the schools, and we oppose the fact that this legislation has required the wānanga to compromise and accept that they are not getting the full package that they should have in this legislation. So with that, Mr Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity.

Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Associate Minister of Education (Māori Education)): E te Whare, hei tīmatanga kōrero māku e mihi kau ana ki a koutou o ngā wānanga e toru, o Raukawa, o Awanuiārangi, o Aotearoa. E mihi kau ana ki a koutou, ō koutou moemoeā, ō koutou tūpuna me ngā iwi kei muri i ēnei o ngā wānanga. Nā reira tēnā rā tātou katoa. Nau mai, haere mai, whakatau mai ki tēnei Whare.

[To the House, for my opening comments let me greet you of the three wānanga, Raukawa, Awanuiārangi, Aotearoa. I acknowledge you all, your aspirations, your ancestors and the iwi that are behind these wānanga. So I greet all of you. Welcome, welcome, welcome to this House.]

This is personal for me. People may think that the first reading of the bill was the start of the journey for me. I alluded to, in the committee stages, that myself and the Minister of Education at the time about five years ago, the Hon Chris Hipkins, went up to Ōtaki to meet with Raukawa about their aspirations. They’d sent a letter to us that—I guess the real guts of it was this disparity or the belief that kāwanatanga should override rangatiratanga. I looked at the letter that they’d sent to me and I said, look, the issues that they raised I thought, naively, being a new Minister, that they could all be sort of addressed in a couple of months. Well, how wrong was I, because five, six years later, we’re getting to the conclusion of that part of this journey.

But even then, that wasn’t the start of this journey for me. I remember in the 1970s I was still at primary school, and I’d barely travelled south of Auckland at that time, but for some strange reason my father, his older brother, my uncle Rome, his daughter—my first cousin, Alice-Rose—and my older brother Greg were off on this adventure driving down to the bottom of the North Island to this place that sounded so exciting—it had traffic lights; it sounded like a real adventure.

They were going to be away for a week and I wanted to go, and my father said, “No, you stay at home.” and I remember having little tangi, as I did, that I couldn’t go off on this adventure, because I’d never been to Ōtaki before. That was at the time when Raukawa were talking about their future aspirations for education.

But even then, this story doesn’t start there. Again, I alluded to it: in a perfect world, 183 years ago we would’ve had stuff happening, because 183 years ago, in February of 1840, my tupuna Whētoi Pōmare signed Te Tiriti o Waitangi. I mentioned him in my maiden speech and said I believe that at the time, he was signing Te Tiriti for a better world for his uri—his descendants—but barely had the ink dried on his signature there and we know that Te Tiriti was not being honoured. There were three parts to Te Tiriti: kāwanatanga, which we have; rangatiratanga was guaranteed—and this goes back to the very essence of that first hui myself and Chris Hipkins had at the time in Ōtaki. I’ve always said that when kāwanatanga and rangatiratanga work together, that’s where we’ll see magic happen and we’ll see the article 3 promises of equity being realised.

But we know that rangatiratanga has been suppressed by kāwanatanga for 183 years, and this bill is starting to turn that around, where rangatiratanga have their say, where they can make the wānanga through rangatiratanga, can assert their rangatiratanga, and make their decisions for their people and anyone else who wants to enrol and go to a wānanga. If we just would’ve allowed that 183 years ago, we would’ve seen more equitable outcomes throughout Aotearoa in education.

But it probably doesn’t even start there, this journey, for me, because I want to go full circle: my tupuna Whētoi Pōmare, who signed Te Tiriti in February of 1840, his wife was Te Rangingangana. Te Rangingangana was a daughter of Te Whatanui from Ōtaki, the chief of Raukawa. So I’ve never forgotten that. That’s the reason that my father, his brother, my brother, and my cousin went down to Ōtaki in the mid-1970s, to engage in those discussions around education for the descendants of Ngāti Raukawa.

So it is personal. It is very personal, but it’s also more personal for us as Māori because we, and our cousins, our nephews, our nieces—they’re the ones that haven’t achieved those equitable outcomes in education that were promised under Te Tiriti o Waitangi. So what we are doing today, 183 years late, is just sort of trying to right the balance and close off that part of this journey, because this isn’t the end; this is just part of the ongoing journey, and the wānanga have a huge role to play in the ongoing success of our people.

Education is the pathway forward. I was an educator, and so was the Minister of Education. I was a teacher and principal for 20 years, and I grew up on a street with 14 families; 95 children in those 14 families, not counting the whāngai and all the mokopunas—that was just the children of the people who owned the homes. Close to 100 of us, but only three went on to university—only three. If we’d had the wānanga established back then—or, you know, back 183 years ago—we may have seen more of those 95 kids on that street end up with higher qualifications.

And I have to acknowledge—so only three people on that street went on to university and got a degree: my older brother, the one that happened to go to Ōtaki on that adventure in the 1970s; my younger sister; and a girl across the road who also became a teacher. That was until about three years ago, when I was invited to speak at the graduation of Te Whare Wānanga o Awanuiārangi, and, would you believe, just totally coincidentally, two people—my next-door neighbours in that street in Kawakawa—the same age as me, so in their 50s, graduated with a degree that day, and I was able to present it to them. So, of those 95 kids, five now have degrees. In one day, at that graduation, we almost doubled the educational achievement of the 95 Māoris who lived on Leonard Street in Kawakawa.

So that’s what this is about. And, yeah, it’s not a perfect world. I’d really love to see the Opposition support a Māori education Act.

Hon Member: Never gonna happen.

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: That’ll never happen, will it? You know, in a perfect world it all would’ve happened, you know, as Penny Simmonds says, but it’s not a perfect world. But we worked alongside the wānanga to get to this stage, and it’s the kiko of the bill that’s the most important, and we’re going to achieve that.

I just want to acknowledge all of those people in the wānanga who set about on this path, in all of the wānanga—all those intense meetings. You know, we were basically working to a time frame where if one thing went wrong, we wouldn’t have met the stay; it could’ve been booted out until after the election, then who knows what might happen. So we had to—we had to—make it happen. And, yes, thank you for the concessions to all of the wānanga, but I also want to acknowledge all the ministry officials who slogged away, and for them—we were talking last night—they’re so excited because we are achieving this against the odds, and we did it together: the officials and the wānanga working together. Kāwanatanga, rangatiratanga working together, and the magic has happened. And it’s going to be, at the end of these—there’s nine more speeches. At the end of those nine speeches, it’s done, and it is just a great moment for all of us to celebrate, everybody in this room.

So I’d just like to take those final minutes to acknowledge everybody: the officials, the people of the wānanga, those who just have had the patience to wait for this moment, and we’re just continuing to see those aspirations that were started in the 1970s, that my tupuna Whētoi Pōmare had when he signed Te Tiriti o Waitangi back in 1840. Those aspirations are finally being realised, and I just want to acknowledge everyone for the parts that they have played in making that so. Kia ora.

ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m pleased to take a call on this bill. As we know, this bill will be passed today and I know that the three wānanga who are represented here today will celebrate the new Government’s framework that will be created from this bill. I think Penny Simmonds made this point, and I’d like to reiterate this point, that we support this part of the bill.

We have made some comments around the fact that we’re disappointed around the fact that we weren’t quite able to get everything that I know the wānanga wanted in terms of the terms that were placeholders in the bill—A, B, and C—which we didn’t think were perfect and we would have liked to have seen worked on a little bit longer and made sure that in the bill we had the proper terms rather than those placeholder terms. I thank the wānanga, though, for their patience and for agreeing to A, B, and C even though I know that they would have wanted proper terms, but I know that the wānanga just wanted to get this bill through. So thank you for your patience.

We did make the point, in our differing view—the National Party and ACT Party differing view—that we were not happy with the placeholder terms of A, B, and C. We also made it clear that we are very supportive of protecting the term “wānanga”—and we all understand the problems with that which were raised on both sides of the House today. But I think we’ve put on record that we support very much the protection of that term, that the wānanga deserve that. I do hope that in the future we can get to a point where we are able to do that. It was a shame that there wasn’t the ability to get there in this bill, but I think we’ve put on record today our support for that and that we would like to see that happen in the future.

I’d also like to put on record the National Party’s support for choice in education, especially in Māori education. I’d like to put on record that the first kōhanga reo in this country was set up with the support of a National Government. The first kura kaupapa was set up under a National Government. And in fact, the charter schools that were set up under a National Government and supported at the time by Minister Willie Jackson and Minister Kelvin Davis, who very quickly changed their tunes, were set up under a National Government. And many of those—many of those—were run by incredible Māori educators that we support and in fact we would like to see more of. We want to see more choice in education; we would like to see more choice in education. We would like to see more incredible Māori academics and Māori educators setting up charter schools that provide choice for Māori students in this country. And I know that Kelvin Davis and I know Willie Jackson supported them—until they didn’t.

But I’d like to move on, because I think I have quite well put on record our support for that part of the bill. It has been incredibly frustrating that this bill was not just about the wānanga. From our perspective, we would have liked to have seen a piece of legislation that respected wānanga that was just for you, but instead we got a bill with lots and lots of other pieces jammed into it, some of which we oppose. But I want to make it very clear today, we are opposing this bill not because of the changes to the wānanga, but because of other changes in the bill that I think I made clear earlier in our committee process. And I’d like to move on to that part of the bill, having made our intentions very clear around the wānanga.

I do want to move on to the part of the bill that we are opposing. Unfortunately, my SOP, my Supplementary Order Paper, was not accepted but I think it made the very clear point that we don’t need and we don’t require a very, not a long list, but a list of different groups of people that boards need to take into account when they are making co-options to their board.

The Minister made it very clear in her contributions that she trusts schools. She trusts principals because they know their communities best. Well, what better way to trust communities, to trust boards, to trust schools than to let them make their own decisions? They don’t need prompting. And the reason—and I found some of the submitters at the Education and Workforce Committee made very, very good arguments around why those “prompts”, as the Minister now calls them, were not required. I think it was very strong, the submissions that were made—especially from those rainbow communities who said that they do not need to be singled out, that they are perfectly capable of being elected on to a board because of their skill and their ability; that they didn’t need to be singled out, that they felt like this was marginalising them even further. Those were their comments, and they meant a lot to us on this side of the House when we were listening to the submissions, I thought they were important contributions.

I think that what it led on to was a whole lot of problems that this throws up around definitions, of the difference between sex and gender that we’re leaving up to schools—the fact that it is very, very difficult to determine, without asking awkward questions or collecting data, people’s gender or sexuality. The ministry seemed to say that it wouldn’t require any collection of data or any asking of awkward questions, but the people who submitted to our committee overwhelmingly said that actually this would lead to awkward questions. And many of the people who served on those boards said to us that they didn’t even know what the sexuality was of the people who were sitting on the boards, they just knew the capabilities and the skills of those people in getting the jobs done that they needed to get done properly. So we are very worried about the definitions, we’re very worried about the collection of data and asking of awkward questions.

It’s the same when it comes to those low - socio-economic groups of people who are—the Minister said in her contribution, she called them, well, she said that they didn’t have confidence, but she never actually talked about the fact that they were potentially from low-income communities. Again, we have problems with the assumption that people are from those communities. Again, the Minister came back to, “Well, we just have to trust the boards and they know best.” Well, if that is the case, then there is no need for this part of the bill. It’s unfortunate that we couldn’t get to a position where we just accepted that every board should reflect the diversity of their students and their communities. Because I think that by having a list of people that need to be considered leaves many people out, causes more problems than it solves, and is throwing up a lot of issues for boards, now that they’re going to have to think about it—that, I imagine, will cause more confusion for them when actually they were already taking into account the make-up of their school communities and their student bodies.

I think one of the telling things from the Minister when she was asked about the data was that she didn’t have any data. She makes claims that these people are underrepresented on boards, and the claim from the rainbow communities that submitted to our committee was that they don’t feel that they are underrepresented on these boards and that they are able to get there on their own. And so when I asked the Minister if she had any data, she was not able to point to a single piece of data that showed that the LGBT community is underrepresented on our boards.

Angela Roberts: This is shameful.

ERICA STANFORD: The members opposite like to say that “this is shameful”, but I am reading directly from submissions that were given to us by submitters. Now, if the members opposite would like to maybe email those submitters and say that their submissions were shameful, well then I welcome them to do that. But I am reading out what their views are that they said to us, that they didn’t feel like they needed to be separated out and they wanted to know whether or not there was any data that actually showed that they were underrepresented. When I asked the Minister, she was not able to give one single bit of data that backed up her claim that we needed to have this in there. Those communities said to us that they doubted whether or not it needed to be in there, they didn’t support it, and the Minister wasn’t able to back her claims up with any data—as per usual.

So while I welcome very much today the inclusion of the changes to the governance structures for wānanga, and while I have put on record our support for choice in education and the setting up of more choice in the form of charter schools, or designated character schools led by amazing Māori educators—

Penny Simmonds: Like Willie Jackson.

ERICA STANFORD: Like Willie Jackson—ha, ha! We do oppose this bill, not for that reason, but for the reasons I’ve mentioned around the options to the boards, which will throw up more problems than they will be solving. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Before I call the next speaker, can I just remind members around the House that it is actually hard to hear the speeches in the debate, not just for me as Speaker but for those who are actually watching either online or right here. Can we please keep the heckling to a minimum.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Minister for Broadcasting and Media): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Tuatahi e mihi ana ki a koutou, ngā wānanga i tae mai nei, i whakarangatira i te kaupapa i tēnei wā, tēnei te tino mihi ki a koutou. Kei te pīrangi au ki te mihi ki a koutou katoa mō ā koutou mahi nui mō ō tātou iwi. E mihi ana, e mihi ana ki a koutou, nō reira tēnā koutou, haramai, haramai, nau mai.

[Thank you, Madam Speaker. Firstly I’d like to acknowledge you, the wānanga that have arrived here to honour the topic at this time, this is a real greeting to you. I want to thank you all for your great work for our people. My thanks, I thank you, so greetings, welcome, welcome, welcome.]

It’s lovely to see all the wānanga people here today. I’m very happy to tautoko my mates here today. As you heard, they’re all academics. My background is from the freezing works, but I’ve been a major—unlike Kelvin Davis and Minister Jan Tinetti, that’s been my background. But I’ve been listening to some of the kōrero today, particularly the member over there Penny Simmonds, who seems to know the wānanga so well. So I was listening to Penny Simmonds and I thought, well, I know the wānangas pretty well too, so I might talk about my relationship with the wānanga, in fact, all three wānanga, just because, Penny, you seem to know so much and I reckon I’ve got a closer relationship. So I’m going to go down that track, first of all.

But, first of all, I want to salute the leadership of these wānanga—three magnificent leaders who started these wānanga, starting, of course, with Whata Winiata, who’s just one of the most brilliant academics, I think, who we’ve ever seen, and one of our foremost Māori leaders. I notice his son here in the audience today. I just want to read this quote for you, for everyone, from Ani Mikaere: “By 1975, an alliance of three iwi (also known as the ART confederation)”—and we know there is Ngāti Toa Rangatira, Te Ātiawa, and Ngāti Raukawa ki te Tonga—“realised that they were fast approaching the point of irreversible cultural collapse. They launched Whakatupuranga Rua Mano: Generation 2000, a counter-assimilatory strategy which focused on revitalisation of Māori language, reconnection with cultural institutions and restoration of traditional values to the heart of Māori thinking and practice. Central to this activity has been the establishment of Te Wānanga o Raukawa, a tertiary education institution that seeks to transform Māori futures and, in so doing, to transform the colonial state of New Zealand.”

Isn’t that magnificent—isn’t that magnificent? And I think that sums up Te Wānanga o Raukawa so well, and their leader, Whata Winiata—the first wānanga that was established. So I mihi to that whānau, and I will say that my wife is related to that Winiata whānau. Rongo Wetere, too, is my mother’s second cousin, believe it or not. No, it’s true. Their parents are brother and sister. So I think I might have a closer relationship than you, Penny Simmonds. My Uncle Rongo came to Ngā Whare Waatea Marae in the 1980s and talked to my mother about setting up something for all the people. She said, “Yes, cuz—yes, cuz. Well, put a prefab over there.” And, of course, we all know what happened with the wānanga. He had so many dreams and so many aspirations, and he was just one of the foremost leaders. So I want to mihi to him for his mahi. Also the CEO of Te Wānanga o Raukawa, Mereana Selby, who is here today, and also Nepia Winiata, who is here today from Te Wānanga o Aotearoa.

And, of course, te Awanuiārangi, where we have our Professor Sid Mead, one of the foremost leaders, in terms of Māori, over the years. What a magnificent leader. And even today, I think the koroua is 95, or he might be a bit older, might be 97, but leading the way in terms of his people in Ngāti Awa—magnificent. That’s the type of leadership that we’ve had in Te Ao Māori. And I want to mihi to the CEO, Wiremu Doherty, and acknowledge my wife who is on the board of Awanuiārangi, Tania Rangiheuea, who I think hopefully is in the audience today. I think she got a bit hōhā with me because I got the times wrong. But I want to acknowledge her and the mahi they do—just fantastic.

I remind the Opposition, Penny Simmonds in particular, that this place is all about compromise. The whole Treaty settlement process that you put in place is about compromise. Our people walk away with crumbs, but they settle, because crumbs is better than nothing. You can build goldmines from crumbs. That’s what Tainui have done. That’s what Ngai Tahu have done. So you are doing the wrong thing today by not supporting a kaupapa that realises so many of our dreams as Māori. Yes, as the Minister has said, in an absolute ideal world you would have had your ideal bill that’s totally concentrating on the wānanga—we get that. But that’s not what Parliament is about. The National Party know that better than anyone. And our people have learnt the art of compromise. It irritates us. It bugs us. We don’t like incremental change. We want it all straight away. But people like Professor Sid Mead and Whata Winiata and my Uncle Rongo Wetere knew to get something in place and they’d build something for the people. And they did that—and they did that—and we are all beneficiaries of it. The whole nation are beneficiaries in terms of the mahi of the wānanga.

At Wānanga o Aotearoa, more Pākehā learn Māori than Māori. That’s an absolute fact. That’s how giving we are to the nation. What do we get? We get nonsense. We get nonsense from the ACT Party. We get nonsense from the National Party. And we get nonsense from Penny Simmonds. I acknowledge your mahi—I do acknowledge your mahi in the past, although I’m not a person to get personal, as members know. No, I’m not a person who gets personal. I want to acknowledge your mahi in the past—no doubt about it—but, today, you’re disappointing Te Ao Māori and, in fact, yourself. So I just want to say that, because this bill should be supported wholly by the House.

I want to acknowledge my mate, the Minister over here, who goes through so much. He’s done so much work in pulling the whole kaupapa together.

Mihi nui ki a koe, taku hoa. Koutou katoa i tae mai nei ki te tautoko i te kaupapa ataahua i tēnei wā, tēnei te hōnore ki te mihi ki a tātou katoa, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.  

[Many thanks to you, my friend. All of you who have arrived here to support this beautiful initiative at this time, it is my honour to acknowledge all of us. Greetings and thanks to all of us.] 

CHRIS BAILLIE (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s hard to follow a comedy act that hasn’t understood the part of his whole speech—of his whole speech, forgets about all of the other parts that is what we have an issue with.

I rise on behalf of ACT to speak to the Education and Training Amendment Bill and I speak as a teacher of 22 years’ experience, and earlier on it was so important—experience was so important. I have taught in all areas of socio-economic communities and I may be beginning to realise that experience only counts if you agree with the Labour Party. This bill and its many amendments have been well traversed over the last few months, even with the shortened consultations stage, and they’ve been explained really well again today. The many submitters have made it clear how they feel about the particular changes that affect them, and as has become quite typical with the Government, the feedback will be ignored and the bill will be pushed through with all in its entirety.

The bill has some good bits, no doubt about that, which if they were taken by themselves ACT would support. We live in a democracy and the people really did speak with their disapproval of some of the other bits, and they just can’t be ignored. They just can’t be ignored. The feedback from teachers and principals that I’ve received is that they don’t want many of these changes; some they do, many they don’t, especially the changes to school board appointments. We must trust our boards, our principals, and our teachers. They actually know more than politicians about a lot of things, and funnily enough, quite a bit more about education. It’s a harsh reality for quite a few to take and it was great to hear our Minister this morning talk about how she trusts principals and teachers. It seems she trusts them except when it comes to dealing with schools and education.

There are so many issues in education in New Zealand at the moment, with tumbling literacy and numeracy rates, we’ve got appalling truancy, we’ve got unprecedented violence in our schools, and here we are introducing a bill that changes the make up for school board appointments, not because there’s a problem, but because of this Government’s ideological agenda—it’s just nuts.

The Minister’s inability this morning to answer basic questions relating to this provision shows just what a nonsense this is. The changes to the wānanga in the rushed and unsatisfactory way it’s been dealt with have been explained well by my National colleagues, so I won’t go into that. To include this important area with the rest of the tinkering that’s going on in this bill is really quite devious, and I’m sure our guests in the gallery can actually see through it.

The issues that ACT had have largely been satisfied and we are happy to support those parts of the bill. We don’t entirely agree with everything, but we’re happy to support. Of all the political parties here, ACT have taken the education of young Māori the most seriously. Partnership schools have worked for the diversity of learning and the most vulnerable. Their success was undeniably proven, and the kids that this Government purports to care for, they attended school and they succeeded, but in an act of political spite, Labour got rid of them.

I’ll never understand the constant desire for division, but I wish the wānanga well in their continued development and education of young people. There are things we like in this bill; there are things that we think are OK, but because of what I mentioned earlier, ACT cannot support this bill. Thank you.

TEANAU TUIONO (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thought the comedy had stopped when Willie Jackson had left the room, but then it kept going.

I rise on behalf of the Greens for this third reading, and I reflect on some of the comments from around the House. You know, often in these education debates, we talk about lifting literacy standards and the importance of literacy, particularly from that corner of the House. But here’s the thing: they have failed to read the room today. Unlike the Hon Willie Jackson, I don’t know if I’ve got any relatives up in the public gallery; if you are there, let me know! But what I would also say is that earlier comments focusing on sandwiches—I could see that the Hon Willie Jackson was quite hungry and had to dip out, probably down to Copperfield’s to get his lunch.

I tua atu i tērā, e ngā wānanga e toru, tēnei ka mihi atu ki a koutou katoa. E mihi ana ki ō koutou nei māia, e mihi ana ki ō koutou nei ngao i whakapau werawera kia tae atu ki tēnei o ngā wāhi. Me mihi atu ki te tauira nā koutou anō i taki, nā koutou anō i whakarite mā tātou, te ao Māori.

Ehara i te mea ko tēnei mea te wānanga he wāhi noa; he haerenga. I kite mātou, te ao Māori, otirā te tūmanako tēnei Whare i ngā hua i puta i ā koutou nei mahi. Kei te whakaaro ake ki tērā o ngā rautaki, ko te Whakatupuranga Rua Mano. Anei anō tētahi nō te Manawatū i kite i ngā hua i tae atu ki tō mātou nei pito o te takiwā. Nā ko te tūmanako nui, ka whai wāhi anō kia whakarite he ara anō mō te Whakatupuranga Toru Mano, he oranga tērā mō tātou katoa.

Ko tāku nei ki roto i tēnei ture, me pēnei anō ngā waeture, me pēnei anō ngā ture katoa. Tē taea e te ture te mea atu, “anei anō tō rangatiratanga, anei anō tō mana”. Ka taea kētia e ēnā ture te aro, te kite, te rongo, te tiro, anā anō tō rangatiratanga. Me pērā, anā, ngā ture.

Ko tērā te, ki tōku nei whakaaro, te ia o tēnei o ngā ture. Nō reira tēnei o ngā Kākāriki e mihi atu ki a koutou katoa.

[Apart from that, to the three wānanga, I acknowledge all of you. I acknowledge your bravery, I acknowledge your energy and the sweat that was expended to get to this point. It is appropriate to acknowledge the example that you have set, that you have prepared for us, for Māori society.  

This thing, the wānanga, is not merely a place; it is a journey. We saw, Māori society, indeed I’d hope that this House saw the fruits that were produced by your labour. I think about that one of the strategies, Generation 2000. Here is another from Manawatū who saw the benefits that came to our part of the area. So the great hope is that there is an opportunity to prepare another pathway for Generation 3000 that would be of benefit to all of us.

For me in this legislation, regulations should be like this, all legislation should be like this. Legislation cannot say to you, “here is your autonomy, here is your authority”. Instead that legislation can pay attention, see, hear, look, there is your autonomy. Legislation, there, should be like that.

That is the, in my opinion, the trend of this piece of legislation. So this one of the Greens greets all of you.]

This bill addresses governance of the wānanga, and that’s been traversed quite a bit as well over the last two hours or so as well, and the Green Party support that. It is about the collaboration between the Crown, the Ministry of Education, and the wānanga. And here, I want to acknowledge in English, Te Wānanga o Aotearoa, Te Wānanga o Awanuiārangi, and Te Wānanga o Raukawa—that emphasises Māori decision-making. The bill allows these institutions to choose between becoming Crown entities or non-Crown entities accountable to iwi, hapū, and Māori organisations, aiming to ensure fairness and cultural autonomy. And I want to acknowledge that in the House about how important that is and also the strategy that is being put into place to ensure that that moves forward—not just for their own communities, but for all of Te Ao Māori.

The term wānanga itself: it’s not just a destination or a location—but in this case it can be—but it’s also a journey, because knowledge always evolves. Mātauranga Māori evolves; knowledge evolves as well, and so it’s so important that actually that stuff is built in to help to enable the aspirations of Māori to enable the aspirations of wānanga as well. And I do want to reflect on some of the kōrero around the protection of the word “wānanga”. It’s so important that that word is protected. But as we have said before—as went back and forth in this debate as well—we could continue to have that kōrero, because as I was saying, it’s not just the location; it’s the journey.

Knowledge evolves and changes, and that that requires time, it requires space, and to actually have those conversations; those very important conversations, because we don’t know how long those conversations could be. Could be just over a cup of tea—probably not, but it could also be over a number of weekends or years, and so on and so forth. But it is so important that we give space to enable those conversations to be had. Tēnei te mihi atu ki a koutou, kia whai wāhi anō ki tērā o ngā āhuatanga. [I acknowledge you for the engagement with that one of these things.]

The important thing here, I think we need to recognise as the House, is that this is what the wānanga wanted; this is what the wānanga want—they get it. You know, this place is all about compromises and we get what we can to a particular point. We set, we rest, we wānanga again and then we move again, and that’s what the point of this bill is. We had those conversations with the wānanga. And, yes, I do agree with the sentiment of the member Penny Simmonds around the frustrations of being called “category A” or “category B” or whatever. But here’s the thing, right: the journey is up, it’s down, and then we rest and we reset; we achieve something, we get somewhere—and we’re doing that with this bill today, and then we continue to have that conversation as we move forward, because that’s what folks want. It’s about moving forward: that’s why Te Ao Māori has always been about movement. We’re moving from one place to the other in terms of our thinking, in terms of our knowledge, and it’s just so, so important that we respect that and we honour that.

There was lots of conversation about a lot of the other parts of this bill as well, and I do want to acknowledge our irawhiti whānau, our trans whānau, and to say that the Green Party see you. The Green Party is supporting this legislation to enable that visibility to happen, to enable that that space—or that potential space—to be created. But I also acknowledge the words of the Minister, who said, “You know what, this stuff isn’t compulsory. It’s about empowering, it’s about enabling—it’s about giving people the nudge and saying ‘Hey, you know what, being inclusive and being diverse is a good thing. Have you thought about it; what this could mean for rainbow youth in particular, for rainbow communities? Make sure that you have that engagement.’ ”

I also want to reflect on some of the connections that I have with school communities. When schools operate well, they’re connected with their communities. They know their communities, there are embedded parts of their communities, and if we give them this prompt, if we give them these ideas, then they can go, “Well, you know what? This could be great for our schools. This could be great for our tamariki, particularly for those tamariki who are less visible than others”, and so that’s so important. Nō reira e mihi atu ki tērā o ngā āhuatanga. [So I acknowledge that phenomenon.]

There are a whole lot of other important amendments as well, but I would also like to underline and point out that this is Education Amendment Bill (No 3)—it’s like the trilogy that just doesn’t end, and there will be other amendments coming forward as well. I’ve only been here for about three years, but I think I’ve spoken on a couple of the other amendments as well. So it’s not like “You know what, this is it and it’s over”, there is time for us to actually reset, to acknowledge the accomplishments of our wānanga in particular, and the wide support for our Māori communities as well, and I note Te Rūnanga nui o ngā Kura Kaupapa Māori came along to tautoko and to share their whakaaro. Te Kaunihera Māori came along to show their support for the kaupapa as well, and that’s an important part of that as well.

Nō reira e te Whare, e te Pīka, anei mātou ngā Kākāriki e tautoko ana i a koutou, ngā wānanga e toru. Te tūmanako noa kia huaki anō te wānanga, kia wānanga me pēhea te tika o tēnei kupu, te wānanga, kia wānanga ai te kupu, kia wānanga anō ai te whakaaro, kia wānanga tō tātou nei ao Māori. Lindsay, tēnā koe, otirā tēnā koutou katoa.

[The Māori Council came along as well to show their support for the initiative as well, and that’s an important part of that as well. So to the House, Mr Speaker, we the Greens support you, the three wānanga. The only hope is that the discussion is opened again, to discuss what is the truth of this word, wānanga, to discuss the word, to discuss the concept, that our Māori society discusses it. Lindsay, greetings, indeed greetings to all of you.]

LEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE (Labour): It’s a real privilege to make a short contribution today on the Education and Training Amendment Bill (No 3). I am a member of the Education and Workforce Committee, and we had the pleasure of hearing submissions from wānanga. I also want to thank my colleagues and the officials for their work.

I asked to speak on this bill because I want to acknowledge the work of the wānanga for Pasefika. I wanted to acknowledge and mention, in particular, and thank Te Wānanga o Aotearoa in Māngere in South Auckland, who has a huge registration of Pasefika students. Their work in this kaupapa has been really integral for our local community, and I want to thank kaumātua; I want to thank iwi, Māori, and hapū for their kaupapa and for enabling, in Māngere—in South Auckland—the huge contribution to the Pasefika learners in our community to be able to progress forward in their lives because they have attended the local wānanga.

In my short contribution, I really just wanted to highlight two specific points. The first one is establish and support the governance framework for wānanga. This is a huge recognition and a significant milestone to enable wānanga to have that kōrero, to be able to dictate their terms, to be able to maintain and acknowledge mana and rangatiratanga of the wānanga and the uniqueness of the wānanga.

I want to acknowledge the contribution from our Ministers, Tinetti, Davis, and Jackson—who always has a colourful contribution to remind us where we have come from to where we are going. It is important that the bill is an enabler to allow iwi and wānanga to be able to have that kōrero, to be comfortable and specifically in their time. Because rather than be dictated to, they need to tell us what is comfortable. I thank wānanga for the enormous contribution for Pasefika whānau and aiga that they have been able to make in Aotearoa.

The second point is the changes to school board of trustees and eligibility. I’ve served two decades on boards of trustees and school committees. It is really important for our students—our rangatahi—and their whānau to feel safe and to understand that the governance of that school community has the safety, has the education aspirations for the young people of that school community. On that note, I commend this bill to the House. Fa‘afetai.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is a five-minute split call. The Hon David Bennett.

Hon DAVID BENNETT (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. The National Party opposes this bill, not for the clauses around the wānanga but for other clauses in the bill. Just as someone from Hamilton that grew up in Te Awamutu, I just want to acknowledge the wānanga and the great work that you do in our community and the many lives that you have changed for the better, so thank you for your work.

But our problem in New Zealand is our education system. At a very younger age, it is just failing our people, and it’s failing in a number of ways. We need to see real change at that primary school, that early childhood education, and at that secondary school level so that people actually have the skills to engage in the wānanga or other forms of education. That’s why we oppose school board of trustees elections processes which are mandated by Government rather than being left to communities and schools to dictate who has got the interest and the desire to be on those trustees. That is the primary concern we have in this bill.

As someone that went through a Catholic boy’s education, you know, I think, when you look at our education system and you compare it with Australia, for example, there is a big difference in that we do not have a very strong independent schooling network. We do not have a very strong integrated schooling network. They are very small percentages of our total schooling network. I think that competition, but also the values and the approach taken, in those schools has shown to be very effective. If you look in Hamilton, for example, Church College was one of the pre-eminent schools in the city and no longer is there. And you can go through a number of other Maōri education facilities that, you know, had a religious basis but actually had quite a strong effect on education.

And no, I’m not an overly religious person—don’t get me wrong—but what I’m saying is that we need more balance in the education system. If you look at Australia, for example, a third of their education system is integrated or—

Angela Roberts: Yeah, and gets truckloads of money.

Hon DAVID BENNETT: No, one-third of their system is actually integrated or private schools or schools that actually have a religious bent to them, you could say, but it’s actually the values they teach. And I think that that’s really important. If we really wanted to do something about getting our primary school education better, we should be focusing on those kind of changes, which reflect what is working in other countries, rather than these changes in this bill.

RAWIRI WAITITI (Co-Leader—Te Paati Māori): That prompt then gave me a hua of a fright! Kia ora tātou i tēnei rā. [Hello to all of us here this day.] First of all, I apologise for what you’ve had to hear in this House over the last hour. You’re never going to get that back in your life ever again.

Kei te aroha atu ki ngā kōrero o te Whare nei; āhua pōtatutatu wētahi. Āhua pōtatutatu. Ka kōrero mai, “it’s insulting to call you Wānanga A, Wānanga B, Wānanga C,” and in the second breath call you a sandwich.

Tēnā tātou i tēnei rā, i tēnei pire kei mua i a tātou, kei mua i a tātou. Me te mea hoki kia kauaka awahau e āta kārawarawa i ngā kōrero kei roto i te pire. Kua tutuki. Kua tutuki. Kia kauaka tātou e hoki whakamuri. Ko te whakamua tātou e haere ake nei. Inā ngā kōrero a Awanuiārangi, “mau tonu ki tāu ake ōhākī”. Ki tā te kōrero a Raukawa, “e kore au e ngaro”. Ki tā te kōrero a Aotearoa, “ka mua, ka muri”.

Me pērā pea tā tātou whakaaro i tēnei rā. Hāunga ngā huihuinga kua oti, hika! Kua mutu noa atu ngā carpark meetings. Kei te ahu whakamua tātou. Ahakoa wētahi mea kua mahue kē ake i waho i te pire nei, kei te pai. Kua pai ake ināia tonu nei ki tā te pire ki mua noa atu. Āe, āhua iti noa, incremental steps. Oh, well, koinā te āhuatanga o tēnei Whare. Engari kei te ahu whakamua tātou. Nō reira e ngā wānanga, haramai ki tō koutou Whare, haramai ki te whakarongo ki tēnei pire e āhua whakatikatika i ngā mahi hē ka roa e hē nei i tēnei Whare, i a tātou.

[My condolences for the comments of this House; some are a bit distracted. A bit distracted. They say, “it’s insulting to call you Wānanga A, Wānanga B, Wānanga C,” and in the second breath call you a sandwich.

Greetings to us today, and this bill that is before us, that is before us. And also let me not cut the statements in the bill into shreds. It is complete. It is complete. Let us not go backwards. We are about progress now. There are the statements of Awanuiārangi, “hold onto your own legacy”. According to the statement of Raukawa, “I will never be lost”. According to the statement of Aotearoa, “walking backwards into the future”.

Perhaps that is how we should think today. Aside from the meetings that have already been completed, geez! The carpark meetings finished a while ago. We are moving forward. Even though some things have been left out of this bill, it’s OK. It is better in this moment than the bill from earlier. Yes, only a little, incremental steps. Oh well, that is the nature of this House. But we are moving forward. So to the wānanga, welcome to your House, welcome to listen to this bill that kind of corrects the misguided work that has long been misguided in this House, by us.]

I just want to acknowledge the wānanga here today, and I think I’m more closely related to the wānanga than Willie Jackson. The big difference is that I have a degree out of those wānanga; he doesn’t. Oh, it’s not nice—it’s not nice, but, you know, he told us how he was related to all the clever ones. I was wondering what happened to him. He just about had his 21st at secondary school, so maybe his wife should be taking him to Te Whare Wānanga to go and get a degree. But, look, I’ve been a teacher, I’ve been a student, I’ve been a graduate, and I’ve been in a lecturer of all three wānanga. Te Ara Poutama, Te Ara Reo Māori—I’ve been a teacher in that particular space. I was a graduate of Raukawa with a Master’s in mātaurangi Māori. I’m currently a graduate of Awanuiarangi, but I’ve still got to finish my PhD. I see the CEO up there; I won’t make eye contact with him right now. And I was also elected for Raukawa for the mātaurangi Māori paper.

So, look, we are here to celebrate—although tinkering—a huge milestone here today, kura kaupapa Māori. Kia kaua tātou e wareware ki te kura kaupapa Māori, [Māori immersion schools. Let us not forget the Māori immersion schools,] who have been pushed aside and made special character, and I won’t accept this House taking the mana away from the people who set up kura kaupapa Māori, who set up kōhanga reo. That was business as usual and so you should be doing that. But I am sick and tired of them saying, “It was under us that kōhanga reo was able to fly. It was under us that kura kaupapa was able to fly.” Whakamutua atu! Nā tātou anō tātou ērā kaupapa. Ka whakaaro au mō ngā pakeke kua riro atu ki te pō. Ngā kaiako i roto i te kōhanga reo, ngā kaiako i roto i te kura kaupapa, Te Heikōkō mā.

[Cut it out! Those initiatives were our own. I think about the elders who have passed on into the night. The teachers in the Māori immersion early childhood centres, the teachers in the Māori immersion schools, Te Heikōkō and them.]

That’s what’s insulting—that we continue to allow this House to claim the merit of the hard work our people have continuously done in our communities. And that’s not isolated to Te Whare Wānanga. So kei te mihi atu rā ki a koutou, kei te mihi atu rā ki a tātou i tēnei rā, ka roa nei e whawhai mō te oranga o tō tātou iwi Māori. You know what would be even better? Te Matakahuki, kei te whakarongo mai koutou.

[So I acknowledge you, I acknowledge all of us today, who have long been fighting for the benefit of our Māori people. You know what would be even better? Te Matakahuki, you are listening.]

Do you know what would be even better? That we set up a known independent Māori education authority that takes 25 percent of the total funding of education, puts it in there so we can be in charge of our own oranga. So you fellas know who to vote for come October—kia ora tātou. But just to say, look, this is our opportunity to celebrate the small gains. This is our opportunity to celebrate us. This is our opportunity to continue the mahi—the awesome mahi—we do in our communities.

Nō reira kei te mihi atu rā ki a koutou. [So I acknowledge you.] I’m waiting for Whakatōhea to arrive this afternoon. We’ve got some more firecrackers. Kia ora tātou.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe Mr Speaker. Tuatahi me mihi ki koutou ngā wānanga e toru, e mihi ana haere mai nau mai ki a koutou katoa.

[Greetings, Mr Speaker. Firstly acknowledgments to you the three schools of learning, welcome, welcome, thank you all.]

It is an honour and a privilege to speak today. I’m the chair of the Māori Affairs Committee and I want to acknowledge those members of this House who are also members of the Māori Affairs Committee, Rawiri Waititi and Teanau Tuiono, for their impassioned speeches on this important bill. That is a committee which is deeply concerned with finding a way forward for Māori, and that is also what this bill does. This bill is about a step forward that we should all be able to agree to in this House. It is something that the Labour Government with Minister Tinetti and Minister Kelvin Davis have advanced and I’m proud to stand with them and speak to it today.

This bill is about those aspirations that Mr Waititi has spoken about, those community aspirations which all of you are the representation of. And it’s not just people who are alive today. It’s our tūpuna, who we all stand on the shoulders of, who have dreamed about this day and about advancing Māori education in this way. It makes me think of the whakataukī of Te Wānanga o Aotearoa—he takapou mātauranga he whānau huarewa: whānau transformation through education.

But it’s that big vision for me that speaks to my personal history in education. My father grew up in the shores of the Ōhiwa Harbour. He didn’t speak a lick of English until he was nine years old and he learnt from the Bible. He was nine when he went to school down the road, and he was unable to speak Māori at that school, but he went to Ardmore Teachers’ College because a few local farmers believed in him. He went as well because the Norman Kirk Government put buses on the roads that allowed him to go to high school and then to achieve tertiary education.

He became one of the first Māori lecturers in education, and he lectured in early childhood education. His philosophy has always been the transformative power of education for our people and for me personally. I’ve always had someone who was an advocate for education in my life, and I have no doubt that that’s why I’m here today, to be able to be the best that I can be. So thank you to all of you who are Māori educators, who stand on the shoulders of those giants who’ve done so much for Māori kids like me to be here and to be in any position in public life, in business, in science that they can be. Thank you for that work.

I also want to acknowledge the kōrero today about the term “wānanga”. Te Whare Wānanga is something which is sacred. It is not just a word. It is an acknowledgment of the history of education that has been handed down by our tūpuna. My tupuna Waioeka, she was one of the last graduates of Te Whare Wānanga in Te Tairāwhiti. Judith Binney captured her kōrero in it—stories of her as a young woman and as a teenager attending Te Whare Wānanga and learning the sacred rituals of Te Whare Wānanga. That is a term that is right for the Government to give special consideration to, to lift up in our legislation, and to achieve what is guaranteed to Māori in the third article of the Treaty, which Minister Davis talked about; that guarantee of our taonga and that guarantee of equality in the eyes of the law for those things which are special to us as Māori.

I acknowledge that this is a step forward, it is progressive, it is incremental, and everyone in this House has spoken about our collective support for doing more for Te Whare Wānanga. I want to say to you that this bill progresses that. It is not just the beginning, it stands on so much work which has gone on by you, by people in this House, and by those who have come before it, and I’m proud to support it.

HARETE HIPANGO (National): Tēnei te mihi ki a koutou i tēnei wā e huihuia mai nei ki te kōrero i te pire Education and Training Amendment Bill (No 3).

[I acknowledge you at this time who have assembled here to speak about this bill, the Education and Training Amendment Bill (No 3).]

I stand as the last member of the National Party, and as has been heard in the House, the contributions, I reflect that this Chamber is one of reflection and one of memory and memorial. It’s also a Chamber where there is an exchange of debate, and that debate I always approach in a respectful manner. The issue may be one that members in this House and members of the public agree or disagree about, but the importance of a democracy, particularly in this Chamber of reflection, it ought to be one of respect, and that the conduct is always respectful and not disagreeable.

As is known, the National Party is opposing elements of this bill. For the benefit of New Zealanders listening in, and as I say, for a respectful debate to occur, it’s well known that the numbers in this House today will ensure that this bill does pass into law. It is important that with the exchange of views in debate in a democracy that that is aired and that is heard. This bill has had significant proportion of it in this debate and appropriately so because of those members of the public who are gathered in the gallery, and I acknowledge every single one of you who are here today, but also many others who are from afar and may be listening in to this debate.

My acknowledgment is to those from Te Wānanga o Raukawa, from Te Whare Wānanga o Awanuiārangi, and from Te Wānanga o Aotearoa. I’ve listened to the stories and the contributions from members from the various political parties, and this is a place where politics does come in to the debate, but I share and express my support to the kaupapa—and the support of the National Party to the kaupapa of what our wānanga and whare wānanga are about. I’ve listened to Minister Jackson share his stories, I’ve listened to Minister Davis, also, share the stories of the relationships and the whakapapa that we have to those persons associated with each of the wānanga, whare wānanga.

I’ve also listened to the fact that this Education and Training Amendment Bill (No 3) is not solely focused on the issue of the wānanga, and my colleague Penny Simmons has appropriately, and I acknowledge and support, that in terms of respectful exchange and engagement, it is the National Party’s view that the wānanga and the whare wānanga are appropriately, and ought to have been given the due recognition of the elements of this bill within a separate piece of legislation. But that does not say that the National Party does not support these aspects of the wānanga within the bill, other than the fact that due process has been compromised. We’ve heard from members in the debate today that, yes, there is always compromise, but how much longer do we bend to the will and actually continue to be compromised? That is the point of the debate from the National Party today.

The compromise is one that’s such due process—this is a debate that is under urgency, and the point is that if this was given due process and respect it would not be under urgency. It would have been allocated priority in terms of the scheduling at an earlier time. It’s been heard that there has been korero and engagement for a long period of time. My question to the Minister: why was that compromised? In this legislative process and my responsibility as a lawmaker, after having served as a law facilitator and lawyer for three decades, is that I have a responsibility in this House as a lawmaker to ensure that due process is invoked and followed.

The concern that’s been identified is that only 24 working days has been given to this bill and the elements associated not only with whare wānanga, which is an important component of this legislation, but also the issue that’s been heard in the committee of the whole process, and exchange of questions and answers around the school board election process, around child protection—which is the background that I come from in my service back home in Whanganui, in my community around child welfare protection and families.

Tertiary: the element under this Bill is about establishing the new framework for wānanga, and a significant component, appropriately so for this debate, and recognising those who have gathered here in this gallery, is around the wānaga and the due regard, respect, and process that has been compromised, and then other miscellaneous elements within the Bill. At the second reading, when I spoke for the first time on this bill, I signalled that I was not a member of the select committee, my colleagues Penny Simmons and Erica Stanford were the representatives for the National Party, but when I came into this House to speak at the second reading with limited knowledge other than reading the select committee report and then perusing the bill, as is my responsibility, and every member in this House who speaks to the bill as a lawmaker, to scrutinise that. So in the scrutiny of that bill, drawing on the background of service that I’ve given, I talked about child protection, child welfare, and safety, and that this bill, importantly, changes the criteria for school boards so anyone convicted of an offence, as is outlined in Schedule 2, and Schedule 2 details the seriousness of convictions associated with ensuring that the element of child welfare and protection is addressed by the school board with the appointment of members to that board. Schedule 2 in terms of child protection to ensure that any person who has a conviction as is outlined in Schedule 2 is automatically ineligible unless exempted by the Secretary for Education.

So the backgrounds that I have come from in advocating and representing the most disparate and vulnerable amongst our community of children and families is that Schedule 2 identifies specified offences—anybody who has a conviction of a sexual violation nature, of sexual exploitation, of indecency, not only towards a child but also men or women, that it is important that matters where a person has convictions associated with injuring others or assaults or ill treatment or neglect of a child, that there is a responsibility of the school boards in ensuring that that element of child welfare and protection is incumbent, and that our children can, and our families expect that our children can go to school and be safe.

So, in closing, just touching on when I spoke in this House at the second reading, referring to Minister Davis and Minister Jackson about relationships, I shared that the association that I have as the granddaughter of Hori Hipango, that association was with matua—Professor Whatarangi Winiata in the days when he was a student at Victoria University. It was shared with me not long after I came into this public service role as a member of this place, that when he met me and heard my name, made the association and correlation with my koro. It was humbling to hear that Professor Whatarangi Winiata, matua, had said as a student here at Victoria University in his younger days, he would travel through to Putiki, Whanganui to wānanga with my koro to learn the reo. So the association that we have—that I have personally with Te Wānanga o Raukawa is through that whakapapa—is through the generations.

So, in closing, I stand to say that the intent is to support the kaupapa and always will be. I acknowledge Rawiri Waititi, who has said in this House today that parties lay claim—actually, the National Party is acknowledging the support that has been lent to the kaupapa of Kōhanga Reo, kura kaupapa and the whare wānanga. And, on that note, I close my speech to say that the intent is good to support, but due process and due regard and respect has been compromised, and I cannot support that.

ANGELA ROBERTS (Labour): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. It is a very humbling experience to be standing here as the last speaker on the third reading of this bill. We have a really complex education system. It’s big and it’s complicated, and I just want to pick up three examples of how, despite that complexity, we can pay attention and we can find ways to make changes that are important. Some of them are really small, but they are significant, and those changes will impact not just on individual lives but the entire system and our entire nation.

So a small but significant change that hasn’t been mentioned at all today is the restoration of the status of kura kaupapa Māori. It seems small but it is significant and, I think, a really fine example of the next steps that need to happen to make progress.

The second change that I want to reflect on is the enabling of school boards—the support and guidance to encourage them to think a bit differently about how diversity and bringing that voice to a governance level can really help them, as school boards are trying really, really hard to meet the challenges in their schools, to hear the students that are unheard, to see them, to look after our most vulnerable and to ensure that they flourish. There’s nothing to be afraid of when you have a piece of legislation that enables you to be courageous and helps you along on that journey.

The third change is something that we have heard mostly about today, and the reason so many wonderful people are up in the gallery, and that is around our wānanga, and I acknowledge you for being here today and for all that you represent. We have heard about the 183 years, we’ve heard about the recent five, and we’ve heard very, very clearly that today is the next step, the conclusion, but the next step in your journey.

I just want to reflect: I’m not a lawyer. I come at this as an educator, as a person who’s been on a board of trustees, as a mama, and I reflect on the precedent that’s actually been set today. Maybe I’ve been in the classroom too long and I’m too much of an optimist and a Pollyanna, but I see this piece of legislation as being incredibly precedent-setting. This legislation has created space in this really sort of tightly constrained Westminster model that we operate under. The collaboration has given those involved over the last few years the courage to say, “You know what? Let’s just put some placeholders in there and allow the mahi to continue.” I think that’s really exciting, to be able to see that space so you don’t have to kind of ram in mātauranga Māori or Te Ao Māori, but, actually, let’s just create a bit of space for that understanding to go and to flourish. It’s given confidence.

My understanding is that another precedent is that it’s the first time that we will have an Order in Council that is both in te reo and in English. I applaud you and thank you for the confidence that brought us to that point.

I was running to precinct and it was absolutely hosing down, and I had to come around a bus or two as I crossed the road—slightly disorganised, didn’t have a brolly—but I did reflect on the people who were getting off the bus: they were organised; they had brollies. They also were making sure that everybody who got off the bus got off safely and didn’t slip over—they looked after each other—and they also had big smiles on their faces. There was one woman I stopped and she said, “Yeah, it’s raining, but it’s not windy.” And I just want to acknowledge and reflect that it’s that resilience, the ability to collaborate and bring everybody with you, and that optimism, that makes me so excited.

This legislation is enabling; it is powerful and uplifting. And as a Pākehā educator, I know the influence that you will have not just on your learners but my learners—I teach the kids of the freezing workers, and I know that for them to have choice and to be valued is something that I’m really, really grateful for. I wish you all the best for the next steps—I’m excited. And it is with those thoughts that I commend this bill to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Education and Training Amendment Bill (No 3) be now read a third time.

Ayes 75

New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Te Paati Māori 2; Kerekere; Whaitiri.

Noes 44

New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Karanga

Haka

Bills

Natural and Built Environment Bill

Third Reading

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): I present a legislative statement on the Natural and Built Environment Bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Could I just ask people leaving to be quiet please. The business is still to go on, thank you.

Hon DAVID PARKER: I move, That the Natural and Built Environment Bill be now read a third time.

This bill replaces the Resource Management Act (RMA). As economist Herman Daly famously said, “The economy is a wholly owned subsidiary of the environment, not the reverse.” Environmental legislation is undoubtedly needed to protect the environment, but it should also efficiently enable appropriate development. The RMA achieves neither. There’s widespread agreement the RMA is not working, it takes too long, and it costs too much. It hasn’t adequately protected the environment nor supported housing and infrastructure, nor promoted a low-carbon economy. Cumulative effects have degraded water and biodiversity. It’s no exaggeration to say it’s broken.

Reports from the Productivity Commission, the Environmental Defence Society, the Property Council, the Northern Employers and Manufacturers Association, Infrastructure New Zealand, the Waitangi Tribunal, and Local Government New Zealand all attest to that. Those reports were drawn on by the expert review panel chaired by former Court of Appeal judge Tony Randerson KC, who set out the blueprint for the new resource management system. Over 100 RMA plans decrease to 16 with more permitted activities, faster plan-making, and fewer consents. Hundreds of millions of dollars will be saved every year across infrastructure and housing.

The consensus for change is clear. Until recently, even our political opponents in the National Party agreed. But now the election is upon us, they’ve changed their tune. Having railed against the RMA for years, National announced that, if elected, they’ll repeal the new Acts. Incredibly, they say they’ll reinstate the RMA and recreate the problems of the old system. Never mind that the fundamentals of the new laws are widely supported. The Nats would rather throw it all away to chase a few votes from nimbies and others who self-interestedly support the status quo. The only justification National has for their flip-flop is that the new laws have many pages and will take time to implement and interpret. Of course they will. This is system change. You can’t do that with a bit of fiddling around the edges. That’s what National and ACT ineffectually did for years.

Our opponents accuse us of ramming reform through without proper input—arrant nonsense. We’ve had five years of preparation, extensive consultation, and two select committee processes, the last of which attracted 3,000 submissions. Many sensible and practical submissions improved the new legislation. Local democracy is strengthened through statements of community outcomes. Improvements to planning and consenting provisions, notification, better designations and fast track have all been made. The Environment Court applies the law and Treaty of Waitangi provisions, but it’s not constituted under the Treaty clause. This was clarified at select committee in response to the concerns raised by the Chief Justice.

Our reform provides the critical framework to protect and, where necessary, restore the environment, the natural environment, and we’ll do this while enabling development within environmental limits. The Natural and Built Environment Act (NBEA) will shift the focus from managing adverse effects to promoting positive outcomes.

Clarifying the role and purpose of system outcomes was a focus of submissions to the Environment Committee. The system has to deal with tensions between environmental protection and development. Not all outcomes can always be achieved across all places. What should be priorities, where and when, and resolving tensions between outcomes is achieved through the hierarchy of instruments preserving the King Salmon logic helpfully provided by the Supreme Court.

Environmental limits and targets will have a central role in achieving environmental protection and, where necessary, improvement. Biophysical limits will be set for things like water and air quality, subject to matters of personal taste—a crutch for nimbyism in the present system—have less weight in the new system.

Under the RMA, national direction is provided across over 20 national policy statements, environmental standards, planning standards, and regulations. The new system consolidates these into a national planning framework, the NPF, that will provide regional spatial strategies under the Spatial Planning Act and the NBEA plans that flow from them.

The bill knocks over the first in first served for water resources, which, allied with the bias in favour of renewal, has prevented the rational, fair, and economically efficient allocation of water in water short catchments.

The average current consent duration is 12 years, but the theoretical maximum is 35. During the transition, renewals will be normally for 10 years, but they’ll be easy to get. Hydro facilities of any size can still get a 35-year renewal. The bill was amended at select committee to enable further exemptions from the 10-year transitional term for nationally and regionally significant infrastructure, including water storage.

The new system will better recognise Te Tiriti and Te Ao Māori. The new laws give effect to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi in a similar way to the Conservation Act. The legislation commits the Government to fully upholding all Treaty settlement arrangements that currently interact with the RMA. Many of these arrangements were created by the previous National-ACT Government.

In recognition of the Waikato River settlement, the Prime Minister and I have provided a letter of undertaking to Waikato-Tainui committing to a process to ensure all elements of the Waikato River settlement are upheld in full. It is expected that a Treaty Settlement Transition Settlement Bill for that and other settlements will be introduced to the House in 2024.

Māori participation has to be efficient. Te Puni Kōkiri already maintain a list of iwi and hapū for each area, but it can’t be relied upon by participants in the RMA processes. That central record will in future be able to be relied upon as an authoritative list or code of Māori groups who need to be consulted on or notified on plans and consents. This important aspect of the new legislation helps provide greater certainty around who needs to be notified. Of course, the list can be updated, but it can be relied upon by those using it at the time used.

A freshwater working group is established to make recommendations relating to freshwater allocation and a process for engagement between the Crown on Māori and freshwater allocation. My expectation is that working group will include a broad set of Māori interests in fresh water, including landowners. Non-Māori interests are of course also important and must be heard.

The RMA not only failed to protect the environment, it failed to enable provision of infrastructure and housing. Consenting costs and urban land prices soared. Overly restricted planning rules hindered much needed housing intensification. No one is forcing intensification, but plans have prevented people doing what they wanted to do.

In the five years to 2019, consenting costs increased by 66 percent for non-notified consents and 124 percent for notified. Processing times ballooned by about 15 percent. Consenting costs for mid-size infrastructure—there are about 5.5 percent of total project costs in New Zealand compared to a range of just 0.1 to 5 percent in European countries. New Zealand is outside the extreme end of that range. This legislation fixes that, dealing to the waste of time and money.

There are many provisions in the new Acts and the NPF to improve outcomes for infrastructure. These include better designation powers. The new system will deliver significant cost savings to system users. New content in the NPF, led by the Infrastructure Commission, will reduce infrastructure consenting costs, including by enabling standards to be used instead of bespoke conditions. Renewable energy is made easier to consent. There will be fewer consent categories and greater clarity up front in plans about what is permitted.

The Government’s fast-track process decreased consenting times by an average of 15 months, benefiting infrastructure and housing projects. The environmental tests didn’t change, but the process sped up, saving both process and holding costs. Fast Track is reinstated under the NBEA for infrastructure and regionally significant housing projects. The legislation requires plans to meet the environmental protections of the NPF and development outcomes, including more expansive land markets for housing. Analysis indicates that for every dollar spent, the new system will deliver from $2.60 to $4.90 in benefits; in fact, $4.90 is the mid-range.

System users will get the biggest benefits through a 20 to 40 percent reduction in consents, efficiency benefits to users—and modelled it between $210 million and $430 million per annum. Improved land markets will also moderate land prices. Environmental outcomes, which can’t be valued in dollar terms, will also be better as we move from an effects-based regime to an outcomes regime. Again, there’s been too much emphasis on subjective matters of taste, allowing nimbyism, but not enough attention to biophysical cumulative effects. Both of these issues are addressed.

Poor implementation of the RMA almost guaranteed its failure. A lesson from the RMA is that if you try to do the whole country at once, the system gums up and everything is delayed. So the new system turns on region by region. Central government will give extra help to those regions who go first. High quality plans will help those who follow. The complexity endured in the transition from the Town and Country Planning Act will be avoided. Existing authorisations like resource consents are preserved and acknowledged. We are on the cusp of a new system, more efficient, less costly, positive outcomes for natural and built environments. It will be faster, cheaper, and better, and I commend the bill to the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The legislative statement the member referred to is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website. The question is that the motion be agreed to.

CHRIS BISHOP (National): The question before the House is not “Is the Resource Management Act (RMA) bad?”, because you won’t find many people who will defend the RMA; the question before this Parliament, with this bill and its long passage, is: are the bills that the Government has put before the Parliament better than what we have now? That’s the question. And the answer is a demonstrable no. And that’s the reason why the National Party will oppose the third reading of this bill and the Spatial Planning Bill, and, if we are given the privilege of governing the country after 14 October, we will repeal both bills by Christmas.

You won’t find anyone on this side of the House defending the Resource Management Act, but we are not going to sign up to a mammoth, labyrinthine piece of legislation just because David Parker says he thinks it will work. Actually, we’ve closely scrutinised it and analysed it, and our view is that it will make it harder to do things in New Zealand. It will not lead to things that are “faster, cheaper, and better”—to use his language. It will make it harder to do things, it will make it harder to use the environment, and it will make it harder to protect the environment, and therefore we will oppose it.

This is all very well to rail against the RMA, as Mr Parker, the Minister for the Environment, does. The question has to be: is what the Government’s proposing actually going to work; will it be better? And our view is the answer is no. So the National Party is not just going to go along for the ride with the Government just because they’ve produced a reform package. If the reform package is retrograde and bad, then we in the National Opposition would not be doing our duty if we were to vote for it.

Actually, just because a lot of people have spent a lot of time and money on it doesn’t make it right. I acknowledge that there’s been a lot of work gone into it—I see the Associate Minister for the Environment, Rachel Brooking, who was on the Randerson review panel, is here—and a lot of people have worked hard on it. But that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s going to work. That’s a classic sunk cost fallacy. This is how we get ourselves into trouble—we spend a lot of time on something, and we just keep on going and going and going, even though we’re heading in the wrong direction. And that’s actually how we’ve ended up, in some ways, with this position today.

So our view is: better to cut and run now; better to stop all work on this because it is fundamentally flawed. That’s why we’re going to repeal it by Christmas. And some people have said, “Well, why don’t you just let it sort of start and let some have a good look at it?” The reason why—the reason why—it has to be repealed forthwith is that there is a 10-year transition window, and there’s an army of officials working away on all the things that will happen once the bills pass, and we have to stop that immediately, or as quickly as possible. So that is why we will get it off the statute box and make it very clear that the new Parliament is not going to have any truck with what has just passed.

Let me go through the fundamental objections. The first is the purpose of the bill, the Natural Environment Bill—clause 3. The purpose—the sole purpose—is “to uphold te Oranga o te Taiao.” That’s it. That’s the purpose of the bill—to uphold te Oranga o te Taiao.

Simeon Brown: What does that mean? What does that mean?

CHRIS BISHOP: Well, Simeon Brown says, “What does that mean?” That is actually defined, but that’s another problem—I’ll come to that.

The second point is that the purpose must be achieved in a way that protects the health of the natural environment. Now, the word “protect” is particularly prescriptive and directive. It’s a strong word. “Protect” means protect. “Protect” means you have to go out of your way to look after the environment. Only subject to the protection of the environment, can you use and develop the environment. So the purpose is to uphold te Oranga o te Taiao—and I’ll come back to that. That must be achieved in a way that protects the natural environment. Only if you can do something in a way that upholds te Oranga o te Taiao and that protects the environment can you use and develop the environment. That is a licence and a charter for doing nothing.

So our objections, as David Parker says, are not about the fact that the bill is long, even though it is, and complicated, even though it is; our objections are fundamental. The starting point for the bill is wrong. The whole starting point—clause 3—infuses itself throughout the rest of the legislation. The system outcomes, in clause 5, have to give effect to the purpose of the bill or ensure that the bill is given effect to. It suffuses itself through the national planning framework and the regional plans. The starting point, the most core piece of legislative architecture in the bill, which will become an Act, is wrong—it is unbalanced.

For David Parker to say it is “widely supported” is nonsense. Absolute nonsense. The Environment Committee heard submission after submission from people up and down the country, from widely different political persuasions and different economic perspectives. The support for the bill was actually scant. Support for RMA reform is comprehensive and substantive; support for this bill and this package of bills is thin on the ground, actually. So the idea that it is “widely supported” is nonsense. The purpose of the bill is misguided and wrong.

Secondly, the whole approach is naive. Mr Parker thinks that the bill can do everything. On the one hand, he says it’s going to allow for ample land supply and stop the nimbies and it’s going to allow for infrastructure provision and fast track. And, on the other hand, he says, “Oh, and, at the same time, it’s going to be this enormous boon for the environment”—make it harder to do things, protect the health and wellbeing of natural habitats and indigenous biodiversity, and all the rest of it. He thinks that it can do everything. Actually, the lesson of the RMA is that you can’t—you can’t—do that in the one piece of legislation. So the whole approach is naive and misguided.

Everything has an environmental impact. The using and developing of the environment has an impact on the environment, but things that help the environment, impact the environment. To give an obvious example, wind farms have an impact on the environment. You put in pylons and concrete and all of the work and all of the things that go into wind farms, on land—sometimes that will cut across areas that have, you know, birds and forests and lakes and all the rest of it. Likewise with height. I mean, the most obvious example is not actually wind, it’s hydroelectricity, which has an enormous impact on the environment. But why do we do it? We do it because we want to harness our natural resources in order to provide sustainable, renewable electricity. So all of these things have an impact on the environment and the bill pretends that they don’t, and that’s the problem. The worry is that the courts will decide that new wind farms or hydroelectricity—or anything, actually, for that matter—has an effect on the environment that doesn’t protect it, and it will make it harder to do things. So the approach is naive.

The third point is this will inevitably lead to endless litigation. What does the word “uphold” mean in relation to te Oranga o te Taiao? What does that mean generally? And yes, it’s defined in subclause (3) of clause 3, but that takes you not very far. Most of the subclauses in clause 3 are, essentially, tautological. Most of them don’t actually advance things and help the courts define what it means. And I encourage people to listen to the exchange in the committee stage between Tama Potaka and the Minister, who went through some of the nonsense talked by the Minister in relation to te Oranga o te Taiao.

There will be litigation as a result of this. We are not a wealthy enough country to have endless fights about words in Acts when it comes to doing things in this country. This will be a stumbling block for development, and people said so in the committee. Contact Energy turned up and said this bill will be the single biggest barrier to decarbonising the New Zealand economy. In contradistinction to what the Minister’s just said, the Wind Energy Association said it will be harder after this bill passes to build a wind farm—harder, not easier. Well, these are the guys who actually built them. So it’s all very well for David Parker to say, “Oh, yeah, we want to make it easier.”—everyone’s in favour of more wind energy. But these are the experts turning up and saying “We’ve read your 900 page monstrosity and we think it will be harder.” It’s not easy enough now but it will be harder.

The national policy statement on renewables, which actually would make a difference, which the Government’s farted around on for six years not developing, isn’t even in the national planning framework. It’s not even in the first national planning framework. The thing that would actually make a difference, they haven’t bothered to do.

So the purpose is wrong. The whole approach is naive. It will be litigated. It’s a stumbling block for development. We oppose and will repeal it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The House is suspended until 2 p.m.

Sitting suspended from 1.04 p.m. to 2 p.m.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Prime Minister

1. CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all of his Government’s statements and actions?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Prime Minister): Yes, particularly the action this Government has taken on the housing crisis that we inherited in 2017. We have reversed the decline of public home numbers by adding 13,000 new public homes, including 10,000 new builds, and delivering 4,000 transitional houses. We’ve incentivised new builds to reverse the housing deficit, with building consents reaching record levels over our time in Government. We’ve tipped the balance in favour of first-home buyers—so that they are a larger share of the market—by increasing the first-home grants, removing the house price caps from first-home loans, and banning foreign speculators from purchasing existing New Zealand homes. Let me be clear, banning foreign property speculators has made a difference. If it was reversed, it would put our first-home buyers at the back of the queue, which is where they were under the last National Government.

Christopher Luxon: Isn’t it embarrassing that having spent half a billion dollars of taxpayers’ money to restructure the health system, polling reported in the Post this morning shows that 70 percent of New Zealanders say that the health system has got worse?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: It’s desperate times for the National Party when they’re quoting their own pollster in the House.

Christopher Luxon: Which failure in health does he think is most responsible for the 70 percent of Kiwis saying the health system is worse; is it the record wait times in emergency departments, the thousands of Kiwis on surgical wait-lists, or the collapse in childhood immunisations?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: It’s a tragic day when the National Party can’t find any evidence to back up its arguments in the House, other than jacked-up polls done by their own pollster.

Christopher Luxon: Go talk to some people. How is it possible that he can spend $5 billion more on education, only for 81 percent of Kiwis to say that there has been no improvement since the last election, with 57 percent saying it’s actually got worse?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Of course, the biggest driver of the increased spending in education is the increased salaries. The question that the member asked probably explains why teachers got such paltry pay rises under the last National Government, and why it’s been up to us to make sure that their wages have been catching up. I am very proud of the fact that teachers’ salaries at the top end of the salary scale—which, for secondary and primary teachers, is most of the teachers—have gone up so significantly under our Government from somewhere around 70 grand to over a $100,000 a year.

Christopher Luxon: Which of his failures in education does he think is influencing Kiwis the most: his broken polytechnic mega-merger, the record number of Kiwi kids not in school, or the abysmal decline in basic skills like literacy and numeracy?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I will make no apology for the work the Government has done to clean up the mess in vocational education that we inherited from the last Government, where almost all of our polytechnics were going broke and probably wouldn’t still be around if we hadn’t stepped in to bail them out.

Christopher Luxon: Who is right: the 64 percent of New Zealanders who say that the criminal justice system has got worse since the last election, or the Minister of Police, Ginny Andersen, who says New Zealanders feel safer?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: If the member is going to continue to quote Ministers out of the full context of their quotes, that can go both ways. We could start quoting him out of context as well.

Christopher Luxon: Why does he think Kiwis have totally lost faith in his Government on law and order; is it the 107 percent increase in serious assaults, two ram raids every day, or the 70 percent increase in gang membership?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: What New Zealanders can have confidence in is when it comes to issues like violent crime, we are making sure that that violent crime is actually being reported. One of the biggest drivers of the increase in violent crime reporting has been an increase in reporting of domestic violence. That is something that the members opposite don’t like to talk about; it’s something that, actually, we should acknowledge. More people are reporting domestic violence than they used to. I actually think that that is an encouraging sign that New Zealanders’ tolerance for that kind of violent crime is no longer what it used to be. That is a good thing.

Christopher Luxon: Isn’t it obvious that whether it’s health, education, or law and order, it doesn’t matter how much taxpayer money it spends, this incompetent Labour Government is simply incapable of delivering better outcomes for New Zealanders?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Once again, the member fails to acknowledge where the extra spending is going. Actually, if we look at health and we look at education, one of the biggest drivers of the increase in spending is that we are paying people properly, something the last National Government did not do. For those people who lose their jobs if National gets in and decides to cut public spending to pay for tax cuts, the tax cuts won’t mean very much at all.

Question No. 2—Sport and Recreation

2. HELEN WHITE (Labour) to the Minister for Sport and Recreation: What has been the impact on New Zealand of co-hosting the FIFA Women’s World Cup?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister for Sport and Recreation): The tournament has been an extraordinary showcase for New Zealand. We’ve had more than 700,000 people attend the FIFA Women’s World Cup, in the 29 games held in New Zealand, and watched the exceptional athletes and wonderful football that has been on offer. We’ve seen record crowds for a football match in New Zealand, at 43,217; the biggest stadium crowd for a sporting event in New Zealand so far this year; the biggest TV audience for a football match shown in New Zealand in 20 years; nearly 165,000 people have attended FIFA fan festivals; and more than 20,000 international visitors have come to watch games here in New Zealand, providing a boost to the tourism and hospitality industries during what is traditionally a quieter period of time. I’d like to thank New Zealanders for getting out to support this event, as well as those involved in the organisation, and, in particular, the 5,000 volunteers who have put their time into making this tournament a success.

Helen White: What other impact has the tournament had on New Zealand?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The tournament has caught the attention of football fans around the world. FIFA has reported that the group stages alone saw records broken for ticket sales, broadcast figures, and digital media. The tournament is set to exceed the 1.1 billion people who tuned into the last world cup, in 2019, and, in doing so, highlights New Zealand’s unique value and raises the country’s international profile. The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment will carry out a post-event analysis to determine the economic impact of the tournament. However, a report for the Hotel Council Aotearoa found that hotel room occupancy rates were 7 percent above the equivalent month before the pandemic and represented the highest increase in occupancy rates since the pandemic. As one tourism operator was reported as saying, they’ve experienced “three weeks of mid-summer levels of business, almost exclusively because of this tournament”.

Helen White: What legacy has been created by co-hosting the tournament?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, the event has provided us with an opportunity to create significant social benefits for our country. Communities across New Zealand will benefit from newly upgraded sporting facilities as a result of $25 million that the Government has invested across 30 sporting facilities, including pitch, lighting, and facility enhancements, unisex changing spaces, and event infrastructure. Funding has also been set aside to support a leverage and legacy programme, which includes 50 projects around the country, including several projects that are being delivered by mana whenua groups. This aligns with the Government’s strategy for women and girls in sport and active recreation: to grow visibility, participation, and new female leaders in sport.

Helen White: How does the FIFA world cup align with the Government’s women and girls in sport strategy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: In 2018, the Government launched New Zealand’s first ever women and girls in sport strategy, with three themes: participation, leadership, and valuing visibility. I am proud of the strides that we have made in promoting women’s sport across New Zealand and across the world. The FIFA Women’s World Cup 2023 is the culmination of New Zealand’s hosting of three major international women’s sporting events: the ICC Women’s Cricket World Cup, the Rugby World Cup, and the International Working Group Conference on Women and Sport. By creating a platform through which to encourage and inspire women and girls to be involved in sport, these events play a key role in further advancing each of the strategy outcomes in Aotearoa New Zealand. I’m immensely proud of New Zealanders’ hosting of this event.

Question No. 3—Oceans and Fisheries

3. Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Green) to the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries: Does she agree with the statement in the State of our Gulf 2023 report, “recent events have underscored the precarious nature of the situation and the ecological tipping points we seem intent on testing”; if so, does she consider that the Hauraki Gulf Fisheries Plan is an adequate response to the situation?

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Minister for Oceans and Fisheries): To the first part of the question, yes. The fisheries plan and wider marine protections announced last week are a significant milestone in protecting the Hauraki Gulf. The plan itself is the first of its kind: an ecosystems-based approach tailored to the unique challenges facing the gulf. However, our work does not end there. Just this morning, in a speech to the New Zealand Seafood Conference, I called the industry’s attention to the very report the member references. The Hauraki Gulf is one of the most beautiful and productive waterways in the world and it is under stress. We need action, working alongside mana whenua, communities, and wider industry, and that is exactly what a Labour Government will continue to deliver.

Hon Eugenie Sage: Is she confident that the fisheries plan will restore fish stocks once abundant in Tīkapa Moana—the Hauraki Gulf—such as snapper and kahawai, and prevent any further fisheries from collapsing, as the scallop fishery has?

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: The plan will continue to look at what all those species are doing. It is a five-year plan, and it has an action plan for every year, and a lot of the actions include monitoring. Where there are specific measures needed for specific stock within the gulf, further regulatory actions can be taken.

Hon Eugenie Sage: Why has she not acted immediately to ban bottom trawling in the Hauraki Gulf given the clear public mandate of more than 2,000 public submissions on the draft fisheries plan and 36,000 people signing a petition calling for a ban on bottom trawling in the Hauraki Gulf?

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: At the moment, 27 percent of the Hauraki Gulf has bottom trawling banned from it, and one of the actions in the fisheries plan is to really reverse that presumption so that bottom trawling in the gulf can’t happen, except for in very specific areas. We will soon be consulting on the size of those very specific areas, and—to the member’s question about why not totally ban it at the moment—in general, of our whole fishery, 67 percent of our fisheries is from bottom trawling, and it is a significant part of our economy.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Has she sought advice from Fisheries New Zealand about the risk of bottom trawling spreading the invasive seaweed Caulerpa brachypus, and, if not, why not?

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: I’ve certainly had many discussions with the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) about Caulerpa and its spread. In those discussions, the evidence does seem to say that where the Caulerpa is found is in areas where there are yachts.

Hon Eugenie Sage: Is it acceptable that mana whenua and community groups have had to take their own action, such as establishing a rāhui around Waiheke Island and elsewhere, to help restore fish stocks in the absence of prompt Government action?

Chlöe Swarbrick: Shout-out to Ngāti Paoa.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: I just heard a little heckle there from the member for Auckland Central, and I do agree with it. There is amazing work being undertaken by community groups in that area at the moment, and I commend them for that. Caulerpa is a biosecurity problem, and that doesn’t fall under my delegations, but of course it is relevant to the fisheries in the Hauraki Gulf, and there has been over $3 million spent by MPI on this issue already.

Hon Eugenie Sage: Will she take strong and urgent action to ensure the health of the gulf is restored rather than allowing the continued trends of decline, as has happened in the 20 years since the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park was established?

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: I consider that this fisheries plan and the work that will continue on as it’s implemented is strong action, and there’s always more that can be done, both on land and in the sea.

Question No. 4—Health

4. SORAYA PEKE-MASON (Labour) to the Minister of Health: What has the Government done to support the health workforce?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Minister of Health): So many things. We have taken a range of actions to boost and support the health workforce. We are training more medical students, increasing the number of nursing placements, boosting the number of people working in the public health system, and we are increasing their pay. We are focused on making our health workforce more sustainable, growing our own workforce, and building a workforce representative of our community.

Soraya Peke-Mason: What has the Government done to improve the pay and conditions of nurses?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: We’ve done a lot to improve the conditions of nurses, including growing their workforce. We’ve boosted our international recruitment and now provide up to $10,000 in financial support for international nurses to cover their New Zealand registration costs. Proof of the impact of this work: in the quarter from 1 April to 30 June this year, 3,000 nurses got registration in New Zealand for the first time. Now that pay equity has been settled and their collective has been ratified, graduate nurses now earn $73,566 a year and registered nurses on the top step now earn $103,630 a year. Increasing the pay of nurses goes a long way to retaining them in our system, and as a result, in the public health system we have seen over 5,000 nursing fulltime-equivalents across our time in Government.

Soraya Peke-Mason: How will the Government’s workforce plan support the sector?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: Protecting, promoting, and improving the health of New Zealanders is only achievable with a strong health workforce. That’s why we have released the Health Workforce Plan with six action areas and initiatives that will make an immediate difference to deliver the long-term shifts we need for the sustainability of our workforce. For example, to grow the number of doctors working in general practice, we will grow our rural generalist pathways, scale the General Practice Education Programme—

Simon Watts: Six years of neglect—six long years of neglect.

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: —to 300 places a year by 2026—is someone over there opposed to training general practitioners? Speak up!—and establish a national picture of health training pathways. It will take time for the actions we’re talking to to be fully realised, but we are laying the pathway of a much better health system.

Soraya Peke-Mason: Great work e te Minita. Supplementary—

SPEAKER: Order! You just wasted that question. You got another one?

Soraya Peke-Mason: Why has the Government focused on supporting the health workforce?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: We are working on long-term plans to ensure a representative and responsive workforce to meet the future needs of New Zealanders, no matter where they are, who they are, or where they live. Global workforce shortages and long-term underinvestment has put a lot of pressure on our workforce, and these challenges are not unique to New Zealand. Over the next year, stabilising our domestic workforce and supporting them to manage the day-to-day pressures will be a key focus. Workforce has been a demonstrated priority for this Government, and we have a long-term plan to assure a sustainable, representative, and responsive workforce to meet our future needs.

Question No. 5—Finance

5. NICOLA WILLIS (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by all of his statements and actions related to Government tax and spending decisions?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Yes, in the context in which they were made and undertaken, acknowledging that that context can change as a result, for example, of the global and domestic economic backdrop, including the emergence of a one-in-a-hundred-year economic shock linked to a global pandemic or the second-most expensive natural disaster to hit this country.

Nicola Willis: Does he think the 80 percent increase in annual Government spending that has occurred on his watch has delivered an 80 percent improvement in public services, and, if so, why don’t New Zealanders agree with him?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: To reiterate the words of the Prime Minister earlier, David Farrar is obviously charging a lot of money, because he has to get many, many mentions of his work in the House. I am proud of the fact that, as this Government, we supported New Zealanders through the COVID pandemic. The large chunk of the extra expenditure that the member is talking about was devoted to getting households, businesses, individuals, and communities through the pandemic in a healthy way and with their businesses still operating and with people still in work.

Nicola Willis: Can he confirm net Crown debt has risen from $5.4 billion in 2019 to $73.3 billion today, and what does New Zealand have to show for it?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I can confirm, yes indeed. To get through the pandemic, we did indeed increase the borrowing that we did as a country. What New Zealanders have got to show for it is that tens of thousands of their family and friends are alive today because we adopted the approach we did. What we’ve got is 3.6 percent unemployment—one of the record-low levels of unemployment because we stepped in and we looked after people and we looked after businesses. The member might want to rewrite history and join Mr Seymour in the faculty of hindsight economics; on this side of the House, we deal with what’s in front of us.

Nicola Willis: Were Treasury and IRD right when they said, “Fiscal drag has had the greatest impact on average full-time wage earners, and why won’t he adjust brackets and allow New Zealanders to keep more of what they earn, when he seems to be able to find billions of dollars each time Chris Hipkins asks for quick cash, but he won’t find a cent for working New Zealanders?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: That is absolute nonsense. We have consistently over the last few years increased support for working New Zealanders, be it through the family tax credit, be it through childcare assistance, be it through the lifting of the minimum wage. What I note is that our focus is on supporting New Zealanders to increase their incomes by their wages rising. The National Party seem to think that the only way you can increase someone’s income is by cutting their taxes; that is a road to nowhere.

Nicola Willis: How can he claim there is no wasteful spending that could better be used for tax reduction when the Ministry for Pacific Peoples can find $40,000 for a leaving party, and how much has he budgeted for his?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: In answer to the first part of the question, I invite the member to think about all of the Governments in all of the history of New Zealand and think about things like hair straighteners at Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment or an $11 million sheep farm in the middle of the Saudi desert. The Prime Minister has been clear that that expenditure was inappropriate. There is no budget, there is no leaving party. However, I am prepared to donate to the member’s party when she becomes the leader and rolls Christopher Luxon.

Nicola Willis: Now that he’s had to walk back his views on depreciation deductions, GST, wealth tax, and capital gains tax, does he accept that his real legacy after six years in Government will be a highly indebted, highly taxed economy in which public services have gone backwards?

SPEAKER: That’s probably the most assertions I’ve heard in a supplementary. The member can answer however he likes.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: In which case, I will speak freely in response to that. The questions of legacy come when someone is at the end of their political career; I’m not. I’m here because I’m want to make sure that we lift more children out of poverty—the 77,000 that we’ve lifted. I’m here to make sure that we add to the 60,000 apprentices that we’ve trained in our time here. I’m here to make sure that unemployment stays low, that wages keep rising, and that we support and look after New Zealanders. The member betrays something, though, doesn’t she? It’s all about personal stuff, legacies, for that member. This Government is here for all New Zealanders; that member is here for herself.

Question No. 6—Finance

6. INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri) to the Associate Minister of Finance: What is the Government doing to ban foreign buyers from the New Zealand residential property market?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Associate Minister of Finance): When this Government took office, around 20 percent of homes in central Auckland and 10 percent of homes in the Queenstown region were being purchased by overseas buyers. We fixed that within 100 days by introducing legislation to effectively ban foreign buyers of existing residential homes in New Zealand. Now the percentage of foreign buyers of New Zealand homes is just 0.5 percent. This is a successful policy that has delivered on its promise to restrict foreign buyers of New Zealand homes.

Ingrid Leary: Why is it important that the New Zealand housing market is set by New Zealanders?

Hon DAVID PARKER: This Government believes New Zealanders should not be outbid for homes by wealthy foreign buyers. Whether it’s a beautiful lakeside or ocean-front house or a modest suburban home, this law ensures that the market for our homes is set in New Zealand not on the international market.

Ingrid Leary: How does the ban on foreign buyers of New Zealand homes interact with our trade agreements?

Hon DAVID PARKER: The Government banned foreign buyers before the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal came into effect. If we had not done so, foreign citizens from within that agreement and other countries we have trade agreements with, including China and now the European Union, could not be prevented from buying up New Zealand homes. If that position is reversed by any future Government, such a law may be irreversible without violating our international trade agreements.

Ingrid Leary: Does the Government have any plans to loosen the ban on foreign buyers of New Zealand homes?

Hon DAVID PARKER: The Government is not considering that because removing the foreign buyer ban would not be for the benefit of New Zealanders; it would only be for the benefit of foreign capital. Giving open slather to foreign buyers would be selling out young New Zealanders who are finally getting a foot on the property ladder, because, under settings like we have in this Government, the percentage of homes that go to people who live in them rather than rent them out—from overseas or New Zealand—owner-occupiers do better under us. Allowing foreign buyers into our housing market would send young Kiwi first-home buyers to the back of the queue. Our position is clear. The position of other parties is for the media to investigate.

Chris Bishop: How does he reconcile this opposition to foreign capital with the Government’s announcement of a $2 billion fund funded by BlackRock, a foreign capital fund, to invest in renewable energy?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Unlike the other side of the House, we’ve always seen a difference between foreign direct investment in companies and in, actually, commercial property, compared with allowing rich-listers from overseas to outbid New Zealanders for a modest house in South Auckland. New Zealanders want one house to live in. We don’t want rich people from overseas outbidding them.

Question No. 7—Immigration

7. ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays) to the Minister of Immigration: What percentage of all accredited businesses have had a post-accreditation check completed since the Accredited Employer Work Visa was introduced, and what percentage of Accredited Employer Work Visas logged with Immigration New Zealand have had a verification check completed since applications opened?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Immigration): To the first part of the member’s question, 27,947 accredited employer applications have been approved, 609 post-accreditation checks have been completed, and 1,723 are in progress. Therefore, 2.2 percent of all approved accredited employer applications have had a post-accreditation check completed, and a further 6 percent are in progress since the Accredited Employer Work Visa (AEWV) was introduced on 23 May last year. To the second part of the member’s question, 100 percent of approved work visas logged with Immigration New Zealand have been assessed by an immigration officer.

Erica Stanford: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The second part of my question was quite specific and asked how many of the work visas logged with Immigration New Zealand have had a verification check completed, and that was not answered or addressed.

SPEAKER: I think it was, but you can use your supplementaries to explore that.

Erica Stanford: How can he claim that the AEWV will reduce migrant exploitation when Immigration New Zealand have approved 64,000 work visas while only conducting verification checks on 2,330 of these, a little over 3 percent?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The member’s facts are wrong, which is unfortunately par for the course for her. In excess of 77,000 visas have been given to workers under the Accredited Employer Visa work program.

Erica Stanford: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to table an email from Immigration New Zealand to an immigration advisor stating that of the 63,800 visas that have been granted, only—

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

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

Chris Bishop: In other words you’re wrong, as per usual.

SPEAKER: Order! Be quiet.

Erica Stanford: Supplementary question?

SPEAKER: Yes, you can have one.

Erica Stanford: Thank you, Mr Speaker. When he told the media that “very few” of the 27,000 accredited employers are participating in fraud, how does he know this, given just 2.2 percent of accredited employers have had post-accreditation checks completed and in light of the increasing number of migrant exploitation stories in the media, Immigration New Zealand have now conceded they simply do not know how widespread migrant exploitation is?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: There’s a number of issues in that question, but of the 27,892 accredited employers, they weren’t all accredited on day one. That number is as at 14 August this year, and the other relevant figure as at 14 August this year is 80,576 Accredited Employer Work Visa applications have been revealed. And so the member has revealed in her question today just how out of date she is. But to answer the particular point that I think the member was making, the post-accreditation checks are happening, and that is why a number have lost their accreditation, a number have been suspended, and a number are under investigation. That is what happens. I’m just intrigued by that member, who suddenly wants a lot more checks and processes, in light of her comment only a couple of months ago when she said she was “concerned about the over-regulation of these businesses under the accredited employer visa scheme.” The member is flaky.

Erica Stanford: When he stated in the Estimates debate that “what we are seeing now is reported levels of migrant exploitation that are in fact what they always were;”, can he explain if the reports on Monday night of 40 migrant workers whose jobs never materialised, living in a three-bedroom overcrowded home for months with no money, begging for food before, out of desperation, calling the police is as it has always been?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The events that have transpired in relation to that group of workers who have been the subject of publicity in the last few days have been absolutely horrific and have been absolutely tragic, and they are the victims of a scam and a fraud that now clearly crosses boundaries. Sadly, migrant worker exploitation and the exploitation of, for example, students on visas in this country is, tragically, not new. What we need to make sure of is that we have systems that keep abreast of it and enable our enforcement officials and authorities to enforce compliance with the law, and that is what is happening right now with that case and the other cases that have come to light—most of which have been notified through the renewed notification processes that this Government put in place two years ago because we knew that migrant worker exploitation was hugely underreported and has been for years.

Question No. 8—Police

8. VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour—Upper Harbour) to the Minister of Police: What updates has she seen about the Police’s use of laws to target gangs and organised crime?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Minister of Police): Following heightened tensions in the Manawatū, police last week invoked the use of criminal activity intervention legislation (CAIL) to provide warrant powers to search vehicles—and the occupants of vehicles—of suspected gang members. This is the second time the legislation has been invoked since it came into effect in April of this year. Once again, it has proven to be a vital tool in police’s ability to crack down on gangs. Under this warrant, police searched 21 vehicles, 34 members and associates; and resulted in three arrests, three firearms and five other weapons being seized. Most importantly, the law had a chilling effect on gang activities and aided the lowering of tensions in the region.

Vanushi Walters: What effect are laws like the Criminal Activity Intervention Legislation Act having?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: Under the Criminal Activity Intervention Legislation Act, police have now laid five charges for discharging a firearm to intimidate and have issued two warrants, in both Ōpōtiki and the Manawatū, resulting in a total of 48 vehicles being seized, seven firearms and 16 other weapons being seized, and 12 arrests. I’ve also heard from police on the front line that having the warrants in place leads to lowering tensions and a quicker dispersal of gang members. Our commitment of 700 additional officers working on organised crime is having clear and tangible benefits, unlike other silly policies suggested in this House, such as asking gang members to take off their patches and giving them a ticket for hanging out together.

Vanushi Walters: What feedback has she received on these law changes?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: What I hear directly from front-line police is that the laws this Government has implemented are making meaningful difference to their work cracking down on gangs and organised crime. Police officers that I talk to directly specifically cite their overwhelming support for the provisions contained within the CAIL that allows for warrantless searches during periods of heightened gang conflicts—also the new abilities to freeze criminal assets, through amendments to the Criminal Proceeds Recovery Act. This Government remains committed to smart legislation that cracks down on gangs and organised crime, not pointless chest beating that does nothing to back our cops.

Vanushi Walters: What further reports has she seen on police targeting organised crime?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: To quote the front of today’s New Zealand Herald: “Meth: police net record haul”. Police have just confirmed that meth bust, provisionally calculated, is at 747 kilos, the largest in New Zealand’s history. I would like to commend the hard work of front-line police and Customs in cracking down on illicit drugs to keep that harm out of our communities. I have no doubt that this Government’s increase in police funding of 50 percent, an additional 1,800 officers, and continued strengthening of our laws is ensuring police have the rules and the tools they need to actually tackle organised crime.

Question No. 9—Pacific Peoples

9. SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga) to the Minister for Pacific Peoples: Is she confident that taxpayers’ money is being spent appropriately at the Ministry for Pacific Peoples?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Defence) on behalf of the Minister for Pacific Peoples: On behalf of the Minister, in general, yes, but it is correct that the Public Service Commission was recently brought in to investigate spending by that ministry. The commission concluded that the spending on a function to farewell the former chief executive was inappropriate, and that is a conclusion that I agree with.

Simeon Brown: Which Ministers, if any, were invited to, and attended, the farewell party for the outgoing chief executive of the Ministry for Pacific Peoples on 13 and 14 October 2022, that cost taxpayers almost $40,000?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I understand two Ministers, at least one former Minister and a current Minister, attended the event. I should, just for the sake of the record, also point out that although a total of $39,262.00 was spent on that function, approximately $11,000 has been refunded by the person in whose honour the event was organised.

Simeon Brown: Isn’t it the case that the only reason the Government is now criticising the almost $40,000 farewell party at the Ministry for Pacific Peoples is because it finally came to light through an Official Information Act request?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: On behalf of the Minister, the information that Ministers received came as a result of the Public Service Commission investigation into the matter, and Ministers were keen to see that investigation take place, and Ministers agree with the conclusion of that investigation.

Simeon Brown: Is she aware of any other instances of excessive spending by the ministry, and, if so, what are these instances?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: On behalf of the Minister, no, and that ministry has now tightened up its guidelines on its spending, but, in any event, it’s a ministry whose spending to date has made a difference to many, many members of the communities in whose interests they work. For example, the financial literacy campaign has seen nearly 3,000 Pacific Island citizens and residents learn financial management skills, and that has seen 120 of them now in homeownership that otherwise they would not have been.

Question No. 10—Commerce and Consumer Affairs

10. ANNA LORCK (Labour—Tukituki) to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: What recent evidence has he seen that the Commerce Commission is acting in line with Government expectations?

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Seen heaps. Firstly, the commission’s recently provided an excellent preliminary issues paper on the market study that I initiated into personal banking. Second, the Commerce Commission has successfully sought the highest ever fine under the Fair Trading Act: $3.675 million against One NZ, previously known as Vodafone, for misleading consumers. Thirdly, I recently appointed the first ever Grocery Commissioner, who has the tools to improve competition in the sector and hold supermarkets to account. This is all evidence that the Commerce Commission is meeting the expectations I laid out: that it will drive competitive markets and it will act with confidence to deter anti-competitive behaviour. The Commerce Commission is playing a vital role in keeping big businesses such as banks, telcos, and supermarkets in check—all part of this Government’s relentless focus on the cost of living for New Zealanders.

Anna Lorck: What will the banking study help achieve for consumers?

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: The study will look at the range of banking services people take up for personal or household use, with a focus on deposit accounts and home loans. Research shows New Zealand banks are more profitable than in comparable economies over the past decade. This raises questions on whether there is enough competition in personal banking. The preliminary issues paper published last week proposes to look at how competition is working, and will recommend any actions the Government should take to strengthen competition in the sector once the study has concluded.

Anna Lorck: Why did the Commerce Commission take action against One NZ?

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Because the company misled consumers as to the nature of their product and distorted competition for the supply of broadband services in New Zealand. The commission called out the initial fine of $2.25 million as “manifestly inadequate”. They successfully appealed, and ultimately the fine was raised to $3.675 million—the highest ever under the Fair Trading Act.

Anna Lorck: How will the new Grocery Commissioner help protect New Zealand consumers?

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: There’s a lot of interest in the Grocery Commissioner. The commissioner has broad powers to investigate how effectively and efficiently the grocery industry is operating. This includes the ability to examine costs, revenue, and margin, and to require anyone with relevant information to supply it. And the commissioner has adequate powers to ensure that the cost savings from the removal of GST from fruit and vegetables will be passed on to consumers when it comes into effect in 2024.

Question No. 11—Agriculture

11. MARK CAMERON (ACT) to the Minister of Agriculture: What advice, if any, has he requested from his officials regarding the Global Dairy Trade Auction Price Index falling by 7.4 percent overnight, and what impact does he expect this fall will have on New Zealand’s wider economy?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Minister of Agriculture): To the first part of the member’s question, yes, I have requested advice from the Ministry for Primary Industries about the change in the Global Dairy Trade Price Index. To the second part of the question, I will quote, for a start, ANZ rural economist Susan Kilsby, who said this morning, “We’ve seen these cycles before, and everyone does get through them,”. This will have a big impact on our economy and this Government commits to work with the dairy industry to ensure that market opportunities are opened up and that we assist them with the vital infrastructure that they and their farmers need.

Mark Cameron: Is it still his Government’s policy to price agricultural emissions, a policy which could decrease net revenue for dairy farmers by 6 to 7 percent despite the fall in the Global Dairy Trade Price Index?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: This Government’s been working with all the agricultural sectors for about five years. We’ve made good progress in the recent week or two. We are committed to include agricultural pricing in our international emissions reduction programme. I’ll remind him and the National Party that it was in 1997 that former Minister Simon Upton committed New Zealand’s agricultural emissions—

Christopher Luxon: You’re making it up.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: —to our international obligations to reduce them.

SPEAKER: Order! Christopher Luxon will stand, withdraw, and apologise.

Christopher Luxon: I withdraw and apologise.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: Mr Speaker, thank you very much. I’m a little bit deaf, particularly to comments like that. Can I say that it is irresponsible for any agricultural leaders to ignore the market realities that are coming at us. Can I quote, “Fonterra’s biggest customer is Nestle. Nestle has a commitment to reduce its Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions by 50 percent by 2030.” If we don’t participate in that emissions reduction programme and give honest signals to farmers, we are misleading them and they will be locked out of markets.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: See if you can respond in a ministerial statement.

SPEAKER: Order! That’s completely out of order. Come on.

Mark Cameron: Has he asked his colleagues to put a hold on essential freshwater regulations which increase cost for dairy farmers via expensive resource consenting and freshwater farm plans, given dairy farmers are facing record high production costs and falling dairy prices?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: I’m acutely aware of the dilemmas that the dairy farmers are facing at the moment. There is a whole range of different dairy farming operations, some that will be paying $4 to $5 per kilogram of milk solids to produce their milk, and others that will be requiring over $8. Resilience is the trendy word of the day. What we are saying to the sectors is that we must be prepared for the cycles that inevitably go down. We have been seeing record returns and prices for dairy and other primary sector income. This year a record $56 billion in gross export earnings have come into this country, a lot of it from dairy. If you have prices so high in commodity markets, the only way for them to go usually is down, and it is important that we warn farmers, including the increasing requirements on market access. And if that member thinks we can continue to have degradation of our water, degradation of our biodiversity, and outrageous animal welfare practice and still get into our high-value markets, he’s misleading the dairy industry that he proposes to represent.

Mark Cameron: Will he ask James Shaw to dump significant natural areas, a policy that will mean farmers lose even more productive land to Government red tape?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: Since 1992, when the National Government passed the Resource Management Act, significant natural areas have been a legal obligation for councils to identify. The fact that many of them have not and that now there is a requirement to do so is simply part of the reality that if we are to market into places like the European Union, they require us to be responsible managers of biodiversity, of our natural features and attributes. It’s the reality that we face as the producer of the finest food and fibre in the world trying to sell to the world’s most discerning markets. We have put hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer money to assist the farmers through this journey. We’ll continue to do that. If he thinks that’s not necessary, he’s misleading himself and the farmers.

Question No. 12—Police

12. Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Whangaparāoa) to the Minister of Police: Does she stand by her statement, “It is my view that New Zealanders feel safer”; if so, why?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Minister of Police): For those in the back, I stand by my full statement at the time it was given, that it is my view that New Zealanders feel safer with a Government on track to deliver 1,800 extra police. As that member is aware, we have now delivered on that commitment. I further stand by my commitments today that the best way to disrupt gang activity and the harm it causes is by resourcing the police and giving them the proper legislative tools to ensure they can effectively hold offenders to account, not knee-jerk, headline-grabbing slogans.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Yeah, like weak legislation. Does—

SPEAKER: Was that your question?

Hon Mark Mitchell: No.

SPEAKER: Hmm, yeah, be careful.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Why does the Minister think that Kiwis feel safer when there have been five homicides in 17 days as a result of gang and gun violence?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: The firearms offences of the past few weeks have been incredibly concerning—in particular, the gang violence we have seen within our communities. However, the data does demonstrate that these are isolated events and not indicative of a broader trend. And if we go back through August over the past four years, the numbers are 10, 15, seven, and 14. This Government is doing more to reduce the harm caused by firearms than any other previous Government, including the banning of semi-automatic weapons in the wake of March 15th, buying back more than 60,000 guns, introducing firearm prohibition orders, as well as establishing New Zealand’s first digital firearms register. If that member was truly worried about the danger of firearms, he’d talk to Christopher Luxon and convince him to make keeping it a bottom line for National. But he hasn’t, and he won’t keep that promise to front-line police.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Can the Minister confirm that over 50 percent of Operation Cobalt charges relate to traffic infringement and admin offences?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: I’m more than happy to provide a breakdown. Those 45,000 charges are varied, as well as the nearly 500 firearms seized that were illegally held by gang members. We continue to resource Operation Cobalt and I’m incredibly surprised that that member does not support such an effective operation that cracks down on gangs.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Point of order, Mr Speaker. It was a very specific question around the Cobalt charges. The Minister said she was very happy to give us a breakdown of them, and then she didn’t give us a breakdown of them.

SPEAKER: But she did address the question.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Does the Minister think Kiwis feel safer when ram raids have increased to two a day?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: I am not happy with the rate of ram raids, but it has been pleasing to see over the past two months that they have continued to decrease and the figures for this month have decreased again from end year. This is a result of police working closely with groups such as Oranga Tamariki and really effective programmes like Kotahi te Whakaaro and Circuit Breaker that roughly see that about 82 percent of young people who go through those programmes do not reoffend. That’s in stark contrast to that member’s policy of boot camps, which sees 80 percent of those people who go through the programmes going on to offend.

Bills

Natural and Built Environment Bill

Third Reading

Debate resumed.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Associate Minister for the Environment): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’ll try and talk over the din here, but I am very pleased to be speaking on this third reading of the Natural and Built Environment Bill. It’s a single environment—at one point, it was going to be the environments bill.

Why I’m so pleased to be speaking on this is because it’s such a good piece of work—as opposed to what the last speaker, Chris Bishop, was saying—and it really deals with a lot of tricky issues that we haven’t been able to fix with the Resource Management Act (RMA).

So some of those things that it does, I’m going to talk about. It sets out the outcomes that it wants—and these are similar to sections 6 and 7 in the RMA, but a little bit different. But there are many of these outcomes, and, of course, there will always be conflict between those outcomes. So it’s very clear, in this piece of legislation—particularly at clause 3A—that there is to be a national planning framework. When the RMA was implemented, it was always supposed to have good national documents, but they didn’t really come along for a long time, apart from the coastal policy statement. So the national planning framework is going to be there and it’s going to really try and knock out some of the planning conflicts that you’re always going to get in anything to do with planning law. Of course, though, the bill also has some environmental bottom lines, and the purpose clause we heard about from the previous speaker of te Oranga o te Taiao.

Then there’s the regional spatial plan. So, at the moment, New Zealand is pretty terrible at planning for infrastructure. We’ll have these spatial plans—that’s in the next bill that I’ll talk about separately, but that that’s an important change as well. Then we’re going to have the regional natural and built environment plans—or the regulatory plans—which are similar to the current RMA plans. That’s where you look to see if you are going to need a resource consent or if you can or cannot do something.

At the moment, we’ve got over 100 of those plans, both made by regional councils and by district councils or territorial authorities. Instead, we’re just going to have one per region. You may be aware that we have some unitary authorities such as Auckland and Nelson, now Marlborough and Tasman, and Gisborne and Nelson and Tasman—they’re going to go together but Marlborough will go it alone. So we’ll have many fewer plans for users to have to deal with, which is a good thing.

Other changes from the RMA—much stronger on climate change. It also links with the Climate Change Response Act and you see that and the outcomes that I just referred to. Also stronger on hazards—and there is a national direction coming on those hazard provisions. I understand that there will be a national hazard planning framework and a national policy statement on natural hazard decision-making. So these will provide guidance to local government on how to consider natural hazard risk when making decisions on plan changes and resource consents. This is when they relate to new developments such as housing and infrastructure. The national policy statement is expected to limit new building in areas that are at very high risk from natural hazards, as well as require mitigations for areas at moderate risk. So the ministry is working on those at the moment.

Related to natural hazards and climate change, of course, are trees and green space, and the Environment Committee heard a lot about urban trees—and I note that I’m sitting next to one of my West Auckland colleagues, the Hon Dr Deborah Russell, and certainly a good number of her constituents made submissions about trees in the beautiful part of the world that she’s from. Also, though, what we’ve been thinking more about this year is the importance of green infrastructure and green spaces and the ability to soak up stormwater. We’ve also, of course, been thinking about stormwater as well.

We’ve seen changes from the select committee and in the Supplementary Order Paper during the committee of the whole House stage, so that the national planning framework (NPF) that I’ve been talking about—clause 58—gives some other specific issues that the NPF can include, and that now includes trees and green space. Green space is not defined and, of course, the Ministry for the Environment will need to do some further work and thinking in that, but I encourage them to do that as well and as quickly as they can—it’s a very important issue.

Also on green infrastructure, for designations now, accepted infrastructure as natural and green infrastructure is defined at clause 497 as “infrastructure that uses natural systems such as plants or soil, or mimics natural processes, to avoid, minimise, or remedy the environmental impacts of activities”. It’s a very good step in the right direction.

We heard from the previous speaker, citing many submissions that were opposed to the bill. Of course, there were many submissions that wanted changes to the bill—I totally accept that point. But when talking particularly about renewable energy, there were many submissions saying that proposed short-term consent for hydroelectricity was going to cause problems for that sector of our economy and our energy production. This was amended by both the select committee and the Supplementary Order Paper.

That’s a really important point to make—that there’s been a lot of listening, a lot of responding, and a lot of dialogue in the creation of this piece of legislation. It, of course, had a process with the Randerson review; it had an exposure draft; and then it had an extended select committee process as well. It’s important legislation—it deserves all of that. The previous speaker also said that it was naive to think that this piece of legislation would solve all the problems of the RMA and the planning world. But I think given that process, you cannot say that this is a naive piece of legislation, nor is it a naive idea to think that we can do better with our planning by doing better at both the national level and the regional level.

I do accept, though, that implementation of it is incredibly important. That didn’t happen with the RMA, as I just mentioned. We didn’t have the national planning direction that was also always considered necessary for the good implementation of the RMA. There is money that’s been budgeted for that in this implementation.

It will be done with some regions going first so that central government can work with them and work out what works well and what doesn’t work so well, so when other regions roll out, we will learn from that implementation and do it as efficiently as possible. It’s also crucial for that implementation that both the national planning framework and those regional plans—both at the spatial level and the regulatory level—do make those difficult trade-off decisions and take the community with them when they’re doing that, which of course the bill provides for.

So it’s one of those days in life where, on a personal note, I wasn’t sure that it would necessarily come, but it has come and I’m very pleased to be standing here in front of you and commending it to the House.

BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki-King Country): Thank you, Mr Speaker. So here we are, on the third reading. It has been a very long process for this Natural and Built Environment Bill, and it actually goes way back before I started on the Environment Committee. There was an exposure draft earlier on. I joined this process in about the end of January or the start of February this year. It was a really interesting process when we looked at how we do things in our country as we went through the process of the cyclones. We were sitting there, in live timing, actually thinking about where the flooding in the Hawke’s Bay had sat, where things had happened in West Auckland where there wasn’t enough room for the water to go.

We wondered how, as humans in this world, we had got some things quite wrong over a period of time, to the point where there were a lot of people in this country who were going through personal suffering at the loss of their houses and their businesses. It wasn’t particularly due to anyone’s fault. It was just the way planning systems have worked. It has been in our rush to get housing built. I think that we all would agree that the old Resource Management Act process that we currently have is not actually working to full effect to protect either the environment or the people who live in it.

I think the big thing about this is that all of this work is hard. We’re looking at an integrated statute for resource use. We’ve got two bills at the moment: we’ve got the Natural and Built Environment Bill, and then, coming up after this, the Spatial Planning Bill. They have to fit together. Then when we get the climate adaptation bill—that has to fit in and lock in along with it. Alongside that, we’re doing the Local Government Act Review, and the Water Services Entities Amendment Bill and the three waters, which is now 10 waters; there’s a lot of stuff going on in this space. People want to be absolutely assured that whatever is put in place by whatever Government—whatever colour it might be—is going to work and that it is not going to, legally, be able to take years and years of, I guess, discussion going through the court system, as has been the case in the past.

So it is hard, and there is a diagram in the legislative statement that was put up by the Minister this morning. So what we’re taking into account, as we do this process, is the natural environment. Of course, we need development. We want the system to be efficient. We need climate adaptation and mitigation, and that certainly—as I said before—took up a lot of our conversations. Then of course, there’s Te Tiriti and the mātauranga Māori aspects of it all. So we’ve got quite a neat little diagram here that looks at how we put the national planning framework into place, how the regional spatial strategies are going to fit with it along with the Natural and Built Environment Act plans, the consenting system.

The Minister actually said in the House this morning, when he spoke, that there should be a 20 to 40 percent reduction in consent processing. Now, if all worked well, under this new piece of legislation, I think a lot of people would be hand clapping and going, “This is a really good idea”. I think the questions that still stick in people’s minds are: how is this going to work, and how is it all going to lock together? There’s still quite a lot of question marks out there.

The good thing, from most people’s perspective, is that this is actually now going to be a system which takes a shift from managing adverse effects to promoting positive outcomes. Personally, I’ve long been a fan of catchments being able to do their own—you know, we’ve got to have a bottom baseline of where we want our water quality to be achieved, our land quality to be achieved, all of the things that go on in our catchment, our carbon sequestration, all the rest of it. We need to have a system where we know what the outcomes are that we want to achieve.

What we’ve had up till now is a system where we’ve had so many regulations thrown at us, so that often, when people are looking at regulations, they don’t know if the one that’s coming down yesterday is going to complement or be contradictory to the one that is likely to come down tomorrow. I think that’s what we’ve done to people, not just in the farming community, but over a range of various business sectors. Everything is tied up in red tape. We’ve never looked up—very actively—to see what the outcomes are going to be. So I think the change in mood and the intent of this bill is heading in the right direction in terms of people just wanting to get up in the morning, not wanting to tick millions of boxes—so I hope certainly that that is going to be a really positive outcome of this piece of legislation—but actually putting their work clothes on and going out to work, whether it be farm gumboots or whether it be some business that’s undertaking a mining industry aspect. You know, if you can’t dig it, graze it, extract it, or grow it, and it’s not a fish, we really don’t have it. I say that time and time again and I’ve challenged lots of people in many rooms to give me something that doesn’t fit in one of those categories. So the people that are undertaking those, as well as people who want to develop housing developments, as well as people just wanting to build their own house want to know, “What is the outcome that is expected of me?” rather than ticking a whole lot of boxes, which is something that has traditionally happened in the past.

Look, I know even in getting roads built—I’ve got Mount Messenger in my electorate, and it’s good to see it’s coming along. There are cranes everywhere. From the time it was put in the Budget process in 2016, it actually took six years to get that started. It’s no wonder that we can’t actually make some progress. There’s still appeals going on, and there’s still things happening in that place. So I think we have to get much more swept up in this space. So the intent of the bill is a good one.

One of the things I wanted to comment on—and the last speaker, Rachel Brooking, actually alluded to it—was hydro facilities of any size, which the Minister spoke about in the legislative statement and in his speech this morning. It has been amended by the select committee because it certainly was a real concern, for a country who wants to build much more renewable electricity, that for small hydro schemes it was looking like 10-year consenting was going to rule them out of the ballpark. It would mean that they would never start, because the banks wouldn’t lend them the money. So it is good to see that this change has been made. Good projects like that will be looked on favourably in terms of where we take our renewable electricity work in the future.

What I would like to say in this third reading is that I think I spent something like 30 days in that select committee, and I know others spent a lot more time in that select committee than I did; I want to say that the process of that select committee was absolutely outstanding in terms of people being able to sit around the room, express their views. I have to give credit not just to the members of the select committee but also to the officials that came in from the Ministry for the Environment. Not every question or every change was able to be accommodated, but they certainly accommodated many things when they could and where they could.

I have to say that the chairmanship of the Hon Eugenie Sage and the members of that committee—it was very open. It was very transparent. We worked well together. We started off by splitting people across into subcommittees, because we did have lots and lots and lots of submissions coming through. I think one of the key things was the hydroelectricity, renewable electricity. People were concerned about the purpose of the bill: te Oranga o te Taiao. We spent a lot of time working on defining that. Basically, if the environment is healthy, the people are healthy. The wellbeing of the environment actually leads to the wellbeing of the people. It’s not a complicated thing to understand, but it does create lots of discussion. We want to make sure that that is absolutely in a good legal standing when it is introduced.

I think the one big thing that locals still need to be convinced of—we heard a lot about local voice and local input, and there’s still a bit of concern that maybe, as we lock this system together, that won’t be happening to the extent that they would like it. But I can certainly say that the process of the committee was a very intense and good one. Thank you.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m very happy to be able to take a short call on this momentous occasion as the Parliament ushers in this bill, which sits at the heart of the new planning system, one that I believe will serve this country well in the decades to come.

This Natural and Built Environment Bill, once it becomes an Act, will, I think, reflect and take into account many of the really important lessons around how we live with and in our natural environment. It reflects a stronger, more urgent desire that New Zealanders have today to protect our natural environment for future generations.

It’s learnt many of the hard lessons from the last 30-odd years on how the planning system messed up our housing markets and made it really difficult for us to deliver enough quality, affordable housing for the people of this country. It seeks a lighter, more agile process. One of the very tough lessons of the Resource Management Act (RMA) era was that a heavy, slow, bureaucratic, and costly system dragged down people, both those who were wanting to protect the environment and those who were wanting to do things like build our towns and cities. It also reflects the contemporary desire for better and more Māori participation in the public life of this country.

I believe this law will better protect the environment. The notion of environmental limits are at the heart of it, and I think about Te Wai o Pareira, the river that runs through the middle of my electorate in West Auckland, and how polluted it is not only by the failure to invest in decent infrastructure but by the failure of the planning system to protect the taonga that our community loves so much, but it has become so polluted.

By investing more time and energy in plan making, the democratic process of our communities and our institutions—people coming together to plan what kind of development they want and what places in our country should be set aside and protected from development—it will mean that we will have far more non-notifiable activities. There will be fewer consents needed, and that will result in significant cost savings for people, for businesses, and for the country as a whole. It will be a lighter, more agile system.

National direction: through the national planning framework, which is central to this new law, we will have comprehensive and regularly updated national direction. One of the great failings of the RMA was that successive Governments failed to actually provide the national direction that that system was built around, and, as a result, we saw some terrible consequences, both environmentally and in terms of our built environment in the growth of our towns and cities.

The planning that will be done by councils and their communities and mana whenua under the Natural and Built Environment Act will be collaborative. Development, transport corridors, water catchments, and regional economies pay no heed to the boundaries of local government, and that’s why we are regionalising through this bill the planning process. It will force people to collaborate and to come together and to plan the kinds of environments and the towns and cities that they want. That is a huge step forward.

Finally, moving away from the approach of the RMA, which was of managing the effects of development, and towards a more deliberative and deliberate planning approach that will allow our communities to come together to say what kind of development they want and what kinds of places they want to protect is a move away from the neo-liberal thinking of the 1980s, which said, “We’re going to manage the worst effects of development, and otherwise we’re just going to let the market do everything.” That hasn’t worked, it was never going to work, and it was really at the root of many of the problems of the RMA. This bill, really, is in sync with the modern thinking that actually doesn’t consider “planning” to be a dirty word. We know we can think together, we can plan and prioritise, and we can build the country that we want, and this bill gives us many of the tools to do that.

I want to acknowledge the outstanding leadership and work of David Parker as the Minister for the Environment. This is a huge piece of work, and he has been right across it the whole time. He has shepherded it through and taken people along with him, and it’s also important at this stage to recognise the professionalism and the talent of the Hon Eugenie Sage in chairing the Environment Committee, who also, I think, did a tremendous job on that. I commend this bill to the House.

SIMON COURT (ACT): New Zealanders agree on the problem to solve: the Resource Management Act (RMA) has failed New Zealand in the past 30-plus years. The Resource Management Act has been the single biggest handbrake on developing land for housing. It’s made it harder to build warm, dry, and affordable homes. It’s led to a range of social problems: people living in cars, but not just living in cars, people considering whether they want to move towns, move cities, or regions for a better job, and finding they can’t find an affordable home that matches what their ability to pay is.

The Resource Management Act has made it much more difficult to build transport infrastructure. In Auckland, I can think of a number of projects, including the East West Link, which still languish in the Supreme Court awaiting determinations; projects that are absolutely vital to get trucks off local roads, improve productivity, and allow people actually to get on with building businesses rather than wasting money on expensive consultants and RMA lawyers.

The RMA has resulted in less competition, even between supermarkets until recently—higher prices for everything, lower productivity. If you can’t build efficient roads what that means is trucks spend longer delivering materials to site or to supermarket—we need to put more trucks on the road to achieve the same volume of work, it leads to traffic congestion and lower productivities. Ultimately, the Resource Management Act, and, I hate to say it, Minister Parker, for all the work you’ve done, the replacement bill will only lead to an ongoing decline in standards of living. This is not going to work, because what Labour has done is take the advice of people with vested interests; the same lawyers and the same advisers who advised on the Resource Management Act back in the 1990s were the same people engaged to tell this Labour Government how to fix the Resource Management Act. And you know what happens when you let a fox into the hen house? It has a good old feast on the hens, and that’s what’s happened for the last five years of consultation on the RMA—very, very disappointing for practitioners, for people like myself who have come from the building and construction sector, to see what Labour and what Minister Parker has delivered.

This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to reform the resource management process—the way we use land, the way we protect the places that are special to us—but instead Labour has doubled down on some of the things that have frustrated development. It’s extended the red tape. It’s included metaphysical concepts in the Natural and Built Environment Bill, spiritual and animist concepts like Te Mana o te Wai. The purpose of the bill being to uphold te Oranga o te Taiao. It’s a novel term. Lawyers told us at the Environment Committee that it could take a decade or more to unravel what that means. This bill includes undefined terms like “mātauranga Māori” and “tikanga Māori”. Well, you can go to court and ask a judge what it means, or the Minister might have agreed with me when I tabled an amendment to this bill at the committee stage that we could include a very simple definition of what traditional Māori knowledge is if that’s what mātauranga Māori means. But the Minister refused.

This bill will carry over national policy instruments that have been one of the greatest handbrakes on moving on and developing productive land in New Zealand—getting on with building. The freshwater plans, that national policy statement which defined three bulrushes in a paddock as a wetland—three bulrushes in a paddock as a wetland—is one of the national instruments that’s going to be carried over with David Parker’s enormous 1,000-page bill. Now, when I pointed out to the Minister that three bulrushes in a paddock are a wetland and getting consents to disturb a wetland was prohibited, the Minister belatedly, after 18 months, finally changed the definition of a wetland in that national policy statement. Eighteen months of quarry developments—we depend on the aggregates, we depend on the sands and other materials to make concrete to build roads. Eighteen months of developments not able to get consent because the Minister accepted the advice from officials that three bulrushes in a paddock makes a wetland. All of that nonsense is being carried over in the Natural and Built Environment Bill.

Counter-productive policy that slows New Zealand down costs money. The Infrastructure Commission made a good point in a recently released report: consenting alone, stacking up the documents to apply for consents, spending their time in court—Environment Court, High Court, Supreme Court—cost New Zealand infrastructure- and asset-owners $1.3 billion in the year that they assessed; $1.3 billion just to get consents, not to do the bat survey, not to put up the silt fence, not actually to sort out the traffic management—$1.3 billion on consenting. Completely unacceptable. That is what is holding New Zealand back. This bill will make it worse, much worse, because it will take 10 years to work out what half of it means.

So what do we need to do? What could we have done differently? Well, a different policy approach that was rejected early on in the consultation by the Minister was to separate environmental protection of our special places from building and construction, from urban development, because it doesn’t make any sense to apply the same environmental protection principles and approach and framework and tests to, say, somebody who wants to build a gondola up the side of Mount Cook as it does to somebody who wants to build an urban motorway through a paddock, or a subdivision. But that’s what the RMA did with its integrated approach to land-use planning and environment with sustainable management, that 30-plus-year failed experiment. The Natural and Built Environment Bill, which will soon become law, doubles down on that approach.

What would ACT do differently? Well, we would say it’s time for a radical reset. When I came to Parliament, I gave a maiden speech. I said I’m not here to just cruise along with the status quo. I said I was a radical environmentalist, and that’s because we need to take a radical approach if we want to solve the problems of environmental damage and pollution and loss of biodiversity. We need a separate environmental protection Act that just focuses on environmental improvement and we need a separate urban development Act so we can get on with building infrastructure that actually allows our cities to grow, allows our regions to be connected to ports, to workers, and to markets. ACT would do that through our proposal for building New Zealand and conserving nature. You can find it on act.org.nz. We spent 18 months researching this.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr Court—déjà vu. You know where to go—back to the bill.

SIMON COURT: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The opportunities that this bill neglected were actually to change the focus; instead of having more people decide how you use your land, to go back to the principles of common law and private property rights. So the presumption should be not that we have to beg for permission from a planning tribunal or from a judge, but instead we have the right to use our land as long as we don’t affect our neighbours or discharge to the commons. Now, there are different ways to regulate discharges to the commons, like to fresh water or to air, than having to apply for permits over and over. The Natural and Built Environment Bill will soon become law and will still require people to get consents and permits for things that they can simply cut and paste from a code of practice. What ACT would say and what the Infrastructure Commission said in advice they gave to the Minister when preparing this bill, is that 80 percent of consents are unnecessary because we already know how to carry out those functions. That’s why ACT would say, “Let’s avoid all the consenting nonsense, and for common activities—in fact, all of those except for the most high risk in the most sensitive environments—you shouldn’t have to get consents at all”. ACT can reduce the cost of consenting permitting under any type of resource management law from the $1.3 billion a year to a fraction of that.

Now, what are the opportunities to come? Well, this bill will be passed. Councils will have to face this problem of how they implement something not knowing whether it will proceed. In fact, most likely it won’t because there will be a change of Government, and a Government that involves ACT has an alternative solution. So all of this transition cost, all of this wasted effort, all of this five years may be lost—or it won’t, because all the good advice we have will go into ACT’s policy prescription for resource management reform. Look forward to sharing it with you.

Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. Very pleased to take a call on the Natural and Built Environment Bill. Some people have said that the Labour Government has not been transformative, yet this area of resource management law has required tremendous leadership by the Minister, the Hon David Parker—and supported by the Associate Minister for the Environment, Rachel Brooking—to actually initiate this reform and to pursue it because of the huge complexity. As the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment said, and I quote, “Complexity in legislation of this nature is inevitable. The environment we live in is not simple. It intersects with everyone’s property rights. There are many interdependencies between property owners as well as many spillovers from their use of environmental resources. The natural environment also goes to the core of Māori identity. Any attempt to manage these frictions or conflicts, whether through regulations or markets, will involve complexity and demand high levels of specialist expertise.”—and that’s what we’ve had in terms of the Minister’s leadership of this reform.

Others—National and ACT—say that they’re just going to jettison it, but they do not provide any detail of what they’re going to put in its place, and I would contrast the tub-thumping bluster of Mr Bishop’s speech with the much more measured contribution of Barbara Kuriger, who sat on many, many days of submissions and hearings on the select committee and who was recognising that there is a need for change and some of the ways that change would improve things. So we have, on the one hand, what could have been cross-party agreement around this bill—there was the kernel of that in Barbara Kuriger’s speech—and yet we have the political positioning we have seen from National and ACT in opposing the bill from its first reading and not being prepared to engage in the changes that were needed in response to submissions.

Can I record again thanks to all of those individuals, organisations, councils, iwi, hapū, environmental organisations, and others who made submissions. The bill was substantially changed through the parliamentary select committee process because of those submissions. I acknowledge other members of the Environment Committee, the secretariat, Parliamentary Counsel Office, and everyone else in the Ministry for the Environment and all of the mahi that was put into that process. I think it’s easy to say “We’ll repeal the bill”, but why turn one’s back on all of that effort? The bill, in the time that it’s been available in Parliament, is the best that it could be. Land users, councils, and others all need certainty. Passing this bill and making it clear what the new legislation is the best course from here.

The bill certainly still has shortcomings from the Greens’ perspective. We think the infrastructure override provisions, in relation to places of national importance and areas of highly vulnerable biodiversity value, are too broad. We think that the Minister has too many powers and they are still not adequately constrained. The fast-track provisions endure despite the legislation purporting to be a more efficient process, and there’s inadequate recognition and protection of regionally and locally important landscapes. But it is the best that could be done in the time available.

I think it’s the debate over the purpose clause—clause 3—to uphold te Oranga o Te Taiao, which “enables the use and development of the environment in a way that promotes the wellbeing of present and future generations.” subject to this being achieved “in a way that—(a) protects the health of the natural environment;”. It’s that debate which has really been the nub of the issue, because we’ve seen from ACT that it just wants to get rid of any planning process and any consenting process, and we’ve seen from National that they do not recognise that the economy is a subset of the environment. To National, the environment is just something to exploit to promote more revenue generation.

So this bill, with its focus on that purpose, and with the 18 outcomes beneath that purpose, is about driving towards more positive outcomes. It is with the recognition, as the Randerson review did, that the Resource Management Act (RMA) has really failed the natural environment. We’ve seen that with increasing loss of indigenous vegetation cover, the indigenous biodiversity crisis, and the declining quality of our waterways. So, yes, there will be litigation around clarifying the purpose.

It does incorporate a Te Ao Māori perspective. That, I think, is really important in this place of Aotearoa, because Māori have recognised for generations that humans are part of nature, not separate from it; we have an intrinsic relationship with it and that all parts of the environment—te taiao—are interconnected. For the first time, we are trying to put that into the purpose of legislation. It is fundamental to who we are in Aotearoa and to our environmental management law, and it also is the basis for much improved participation by Māori in the way our environmental law works, particularly through the representation of mana whenua on the regional planning committees.

The 18 outcomes: there were a lot of submissions about the lack of priority here. There is potentially still a concern that the lack of priority in the legislation and the competition between the outcomes could go back to that overall broad judgment approach which has been problematic under the RMA, but the national planning framework has a critical role here in doing that prioritisation and giving recognition to key outcomes. Some of those new outcomes are absolutely fundamentally important, particularly in relation to climate change. We’re seeing severe weather events happening at an unprecedented rate and having to contend with those, so the outcomes in clause 5 around reducing greenhouse gas emissions so that we meet our targets in the Climate Change Response Act, and to reduce the risks arising from natural hazards and the effects of climate change are really important, particularly as the bill does enable some encroachment on existing use rights where there are provisions in regional plans to ensure that we meet those outcomes.

There will be a lot of work done on environmental limits and targets. We hope to see quite a few of those in the national planning framework, including those in the current national policy statement for freshwater management. It’s been the lack of targets and limits that has been problematic under the RMA until last term, Minister Parker strengthened the national policy statement on freshwater and it was no longer the tissue-paper document that it had been under National.

There are new provisions that will be in the national planning framework—and the Green Party pushed hard for these—around urban trees. I heard Chris Bishop talking about the bill being far too pro-environment, yet it has been incredibly hard to get recognition of urban trees in the legislation despite that being a major public concern. We finally did, and through a very late Supplementary Order Paper, we ensured that the first national planning framework will provide guidance on urban trees, because urban trees and green spaces, and the whole concept of “spongy cities” and using nature and green infrastructure as part of the solution to climate change is increasingly important. It is very cost-effective, it adds to urban amenity, and now that there’s this reference to urban trees and green spaces, there will be direction in the national planning framework around that.

I totally agree with the comments by the Hon Phil Twyford about planning, the need for a very effective planning process, and the value of planning, but there does need to be a major change in planning culture to get rid of the turgid, waffly, very lengthy plans that we have where people have to get consultants in to actually understand them. There is a requirement around succinctness and plain English in the bill, and I really hope that this occurs in the cost-benefit analysis and the evaluation report, and that this also is driven through into the plans.

This has been a massive exercise, and it is now going through its final stages in the Parliament. I hope that it delivers improved outcomes for te taiao as the basis for a healthy society and a healthy economy, and congratulate all of those—particularly the Minister, officials in the ministry, submitters, Parliamentary Counsel Office, and the select committee staff and members for the mahi that has gone into this. Kia ora.

ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is an utter pleasure to stand here today and to speak on this bill. It has taken such a lot of time in this term to go through, so before I thank members etc., I want to just talk about the fact that we consulted on the exposure draft as an inquiry in 2021, so those members on the Environment Committee have been sitting with this process for a long time. We had the Randerson review land in July 2019 and we began our work there, and then, of course, we had the Natural and Built Environment Bill come to us. We have spent many, many, many months working on this piece of legislation, but rightly so because it has been 32 years since there was a proper and actual review that needed to occur across the whole system. We have carved up, cut out, and added to the Resource Management Act in too many ways for that piece of legislation to effectively protect our environment, so I’m really delighted to be here speaking.

I want to acknowledge, as others have, the stellar chairing by the Hon Eugenie Sage, who had the foresight to work with us all in such an amazing way to ensure that we all kept talking. She was completely over the detail of every submission and was such a valuable chairperson. We are very lucky to have had her in our select committee and I—we’ve all said it, but actually this is 1,000 pages of legislation that she knows every word of. So I do want to acknowledge that, and I would also like to acknowledge the Minister David Parker for the collaborative work that he did across the community as well.

This bill does something that very simply—very simply, we have moved from a Resource Management Act to a Natural and Built Environment Bill.

Hon Member: What does that mean? Explain it.

ANGIE WARREN-CLARK: This means that we have put the environment back into our legislation. We have put the environment at the front of—

Simon Court: Environmental protection?

ANGIE WARREN-CLARK: I won’t say it again, but that’s what it has done. So we are incredibly—on this side of the House, this is a piece of work that we have been working extremely hard for.

Simon Court: [Walks toward exit] I’m wasting my time with you lot.

ANGIE WARREN-CLARK: I’m extremely proud of the fact that we have got this across the line, and as a consequence—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr Court!

Simon Court: Yes, sir.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Excuse me, you do not make gratuitous comments while you’re walking. You will go back to your seat, and you will stand, withdraw, and apologise.

Simon Court: [Returns to seat] I withdraw and apologise.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. Now make a nice, quiet, dignified exit please. Can I just add that time? Add another minute to the speaker.

ANGIE WARREN-CLARK: Another minute? Thank you, sir. I’m actually just about to take my seat.

But what I do want to say is that I’m incredibly proud of our Government for doing this piece of work. We have done it on behalf of the people of this country. Each and every person who has ever worked under the Resource Management Act has found some difficulties, and we’re fixing them. I commend this bill to the House.

TAMA POTAKA (National—Hamilton West): I’m honoured to present on this third reading of the Natural and Built Environment Bill. National supports Resource Management Act reform but it should improve the status quo. In my view, this bill does not do that. I respect Minister Parker and the select committee for their mahi. There are some parts that are progressive and interesting but, in my view, ultimately flawed—flawed culturally, commercially, and constitutionally.

The bill’s purpose, to uphold te Oranga o te Taiao, demonstrates the vacuous drafting at play. That a Māori-sounding concept such as te Oranga o te Taiao can guide decision making is commendable. In this Chamber, defining these concepts implores caution and integrity, particularly when the concept is actually new to Māori communities. The definition proffered around te Oranga o te Taiao is near Picasso-esque: a thing of mysterious beauty that not many if any really understand. It reminds me of my fourth form art work down at central Hawke’s Bay. In my opinion, the use of a Māori phrase here, defined by ambiguous English language, is a boondoggle drafting experiment. There is an absence of hierarchy across the constituent parts of the definition.

There’s an absence of direction for those who invest across territorial and marine environments, including Māori who have a relationship with te taiao based on whakapapa and an aspiration to do something, like aquaculture in Whakatōhea, goldmining in Tara Tokanui, and corporate dairy farming like Wairarapa Moana and Parininihi ki Waitotara Incorporations. These absences, which are nearly as provocative as absences across our schooling system, have caused many diverse commentators to raise their concerns: the Chief Justice, Helen Winkelmann; Federated Farmers; and the Environmental Defence Society, who commented that the purpose of this legislation is wrapped up in word soup that allows fertile ground for litigation.

Clause 5 demonstrates legislative cubism, where the bill sets out system outcomes that must be achieved to ensure that the purpose of the Act is achieved. Clause 5(10) provides that one of the system outcomes is as follows, “The relationship of iwi and hapū, and the exercise of their kawa, tikanga Māori (including kaitiakitanga), and mātauranga Māori in respect of their ancestral lands, water, sites, wāhi tapu, wāhi tūpuna, and other taonga, are recognised and provided for.” But on questioning during the committee of the whole House the Minister was ill-prepared and unable to define what “kawa, tikanga” constitute. Time and again that question was asked, and what did I get? Crickets. I’ll tell you what, I’ll probably get the same crickets from the former Minister of Conservation—their epistemological foundations, their practical implementation, and their interface with one another are not known by the decision makers let alone applicants and the entire bench.

We should have kept our three wānanga here today to help us and guide us as to what they actually mean. We will definitely need our pyjamas for that conversation, though, because wānanga, as the member for Manurewa knows, best happen beyond the hours of urgency that the House holds. It is absolutely outrageous that the Minister and the select committee chair cannot define what kawa, tikanga, and mana mean but are eager beavers to throw it into the bill.

Absence again features in this clause—an absence of hierarchy between kawa and mana, tikanga and mātauranga. There is an absence of direction around what kawa is important and whose kawa? Ngāti Toa? Ngāpuhi? Tūhoe? Or te whānau of Waipareira? There is an absence of clarity. Our constitutional Westminster system has a number of foundational principles and the rule of law is the central poutokomanawa of all of them. In this moment, in this third reading, that rule of a law and legal certainty is immeasurably compromised. We’ve thrown more coals on the fire of legal activism, and for what? Another tick on the Government’s insatiable long list on omniscient kāwanatanga aspirations.

Minister Parker has described that National and others might have fiddled around the edges to reform the resource management system. This conclusion, I would recommend, is myopic. It makes cubism seem like basic art. Even the Green Party, fortunately, knows the only way to get genuine green outcomes is through blue. To suggest that the Treaty provision, now effectively similar to section 4 of the Conservation Act, will give clarity and stimulation is completely at odds with the actions of the current Government and the former Minister of Conservation, which failed at nearly every single step to implement genuine partnership with Ngāi Tai ki Tamaki in the Hauraki Gulf—the very iwi who sought and achieved favourable Supreme Court guidance regarding that clause. Instead, the young minds, the young talent, the young brilliance of Māori working out there in the tribal domain end up in judicial review and litigation processes instead of developing the socio-economic wealth and wellbeing we desperately need. Kia ora tātou.

ANGELA ROBERTS (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I always love a bill where we get to quote economists—yay. It’s a good day—a good day in the House. As we know, economics is fundamentally about the systems that we use to allocate our resources, right? You know, who gets to decide what we do with our stuff? Do we use it, do we transform it, do we protect it, and who gets to benefit from that?

In recent years, we’ve seen a shift away, more and more, from those decisions being driven by the market and being driven by an insatiable desire for growth. The Resource Management Act was an attempt to try and help manage the damage that was done by allowing our resource decisions to be made by the market, fundamentally. We’ve seen shifts in the ways economists think and sociologists think, and Treasury—we can see, as they’ve incorporated our living standards framework.

This bill is another piece that helps us to shift fundamentally from a growth-led to a sustainability-led economy. It’s quite exciting. It enables us to fundamentally shift the way we operate our economy.

Students of modern-day economics—not those of us who studied when Mr Gekko was around in the last millennium—would have heard of Kate Raworth and her concepts that she introduces in Doughnut Economics. She talks about us living between where we’ve got fundamental social foundations that are strong and healthy and an ecological ceiling, and we have to try and live within that.

This bill helps. The intention—the collaboration that was required to tackle such a complex problem is evident. We’ve heard about the years of reviews and consultation and engagement and the changes that were made at select committee, and that collaboration is valued by those of us who, luckily, just got to sit outside and watch this massive piece of work being done.

I’m going to finish by quoting Kate Raworth. She says, “Today we have economies that need to grow, whether or not they make us thrive. What we need are economies that make us thrive, whether or not they grow.” And so I commend this bill to the House.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. I am very glad to have a call on the Natural and Built Environment Bill, which is a great bill because this has been a long time coming and this reform is something that Minister Parker and the Ministers involved in this can be extremely proud of.

From the beginning, Cabinet, since 2020, has been committed to an objective for these reforms being to give effect to the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi and to better recognise Te Ao Māori, including mātauranga Māori. I am going to use my time today to clarify three of the objectives which were subject to much discussion in the committee of the whole House and in speeches that have been given today. They are, first, te Oranga o te Taiao; second, Te Titiri o Waitangi clause; and, third, the National Māori Entity and its role.

First let me take you to te Oranga o te Taiao. It was very simply summarised—and well summarised, I thought—in the speech of Barbara Kuriger when she said, basically, if the environment is healthy, the people are healthy. It’s not complicated. And I appreciated that, because I think that’s something that all New Zealanders can understand and appreciate. Te Oranga o te Taiao is a concept drawn from Te Ao Māori and indigenous understandings of the environment, but those are not at odds with the modern demands of how we must care for our environment.

Upholding te Oranga o te Taiao is the purpose of this law. The concept has been deliberately developed to be an environmental ethic for all people in Aotearoa. Better recognising Te Ao Māori results in better outcomes in our planning system and for all New Zealanders. Te Oranga o te Taiao is defined in clause 3 of the bill and the definition reflects what the Resource Management Review Panel called the fundamental truth accepted in all communities—that the health and wellbeing of people is dependent on the health and wellbeing of the taiao.

Some members raised questions about te Oranga o te Taiao being a new term in the legislation and that that would therefore create uncertainty. We’ve heard hyperbole from the other side today about the number of lawyers, the many years tied up in litigation. But as the Minister, David Parker, dealt with in the committee of the whole House, he said even if we had kept the old Resource Management Act (RMA) purpose clause, this still would have been interpreted differently because this legislation creates a new planning framework. It would be unrealistic to create a new planning framework and then expect the courts to interpret the words in the same way. The idea that there can be significant resource management reform without the courts interpreting the words used, whatever the words are, is simply incorrect.

The bill, as discussed in the committee of the whole House, provides clauses to assist with the clarity and certainty of te Oranga o te Taiao as well. I’ve heard questions from the other side of the House today about the way that the hierarchy works. The good news is that the bill is set out in a way which assists ordinary people to understand how to implement it. The purpose, like the purpose of all pieces of legislation, does not stand alone. Unlike the RMA, the key means of achieving this purpose are coherently set out. This is in clause 3A of the bill.

Upholding te Oranga o te Taiao will be achieved through these means, in line with the approach outlined in King Salmon. There is a cascade of instruments that will progressively provide more detail on upholding te Oranga o te Taiao, from the legislation to the national planning framework to regional spatial plans to plans.

I also note that clause 3(2) of the bill sets out very clearly that upholding te Oranga o te Taiao must be achieved in a way which protects the health of the natural environment, and that subject to this—subject to this—it must be achieved in a way that enables use and development of the environment. That is clear: there is a clear hierarchy of priorities. I want to underscore that the Ao Māori worldview does not see rigid distinctions between environmental protection and use of the environment, and both are provided for in this legislation. As Minister Parker outlined in his speech, protecting our environment and fostering responsible development are not mutually exclusive.

Let me then bring us to Te Tiriti o Waitangi clause. I want to speak about how this clause is the same in both the Natural and Built Environment Bill and the Spatial Planning Bill. It requires all persons exercising powers and performing functions and duties to give effect to the principles of Waitangi. You might be familiar with those words, “give effect to the Treaty of Waitangi”, because they are what’s used in the Conservation Act and they have been in effect in that Act since 1987. They are not new words to our court system and to the lawyers who use them or to the developers and people who use our natural environment. The give-effect weighting to the Treaty clause is important because it’s been tested in the courts, but it is a strong weighting and it sends a strong signal.

The courts have said that “give effect to” simply means implement. On the face of it, it is a strong directive, creating a firm obligation on the part of those subject to it, and the question is: why is that important? In over 15 reports of the Waitangi Tribunal, they have found that the RMA falls short of the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi and that Māori interests guaranteed under Te Tiriti are balanced out under the RMA. Importantly, most submitters at every step of this nearly four-year reform have asked for a “give effect to the Treaty” clause. This is well-supported change and it will help ensure Māori interests are no longer balanced out in the resource management system. It’s an important step forward for our system as a whole, and I believe that it will deliver better outcomes for all New Zealanders.

Let me then turn to my third point, which is the National Māori Entity. It’s the last mechanism that I wanted to speak about, and it’s an independent statutory entity. What’s important to note here is that the entity doesn’t take over the role of iwi, hapū, and Māori in the system, nor is it a substitute for those relationships which already exist between the Crown and Māori. The role of the entity is to add an additional support for the roles of iwi and Māori provided under these bills. The mana of iwi, hapū, and Māori is not usurped by the entity. Its primary function is set out in clause 30ZH of the bill, and its function is to monitor whether or not the resource management system is giving effect to the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

The entity will develop and publish a framework for this monitoring function and regularly monitor those who will be required to give effect to the principles of Te Tiriti under the Natural and Built Environment Act and Spatial Planning Act. It’s an important step within this process and when viewed with those first two things that I’ve spoken about. It’s also an opportunity to support decision makers to continuously improve how they give effect to the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, because, as we’ve experienced with the RMA, the expectations of people change and our decision makers need to evolve their decisions too.

In summary, the bill provides important mechanisms for meeting the Government’s objectives: that the reforms give effect to the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi and better recognise Te Ao Māori. The new and improved roles for Māori provided by the bills support the roles in resource management that successive Governments have agreed with iwi, and these are things that all Governments of all colours need to continue to support. These reforms will deliver real benefits for New Zealanders, and that’s why I’m glad to have had a call on this bill and to support it today.

STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is a pleasure to speak on the Natural and Built Environment Bill. What we’ve heard is quite a bit of passion from both sides of the House. I think one thing that anyone listening to this debate can be certain of is that everyone in the House cares for the environment. What we’re hearing is a contest of ideas—a contest of principles in which we should approach the management of the natural and built environment. We should not be afraid of that. We’re about to go through a contest of ideas when the House rises on 31 August through to 14 October. Not agreeing on something is healthy, actually. If we all agreed on it, probably the bar is not high enough, I would suggest, or it’s too woolly to worry about. The member who just took her seat, Arena Williams; I don’t agree with everything that she said but I cannot for a moment question her passion on this idea, and I think that’s great—it’s fantastic. But also, equally, my ACT colleague earlier also spoke with great passion with a diametrically opposed point of view, and I don’t think that’s an unhealthy thing.

I have not had the pleasure of being on the Environment Committee through the hearing of all the evidence for these bills, but I do want to take a moment to acknowledge the chair of the select committee Eugenie Sage’s herculean efforts to steer the select committee through that process, and all the other permanent members on that select committee, because it was a heck of a job. What a pity, after all that work, to have almost 1,000 pages of a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) dumped on the Table, which really I think was a kick in the teeth really.

Hon David Parker: That’s not true—that’s just not correct. It was done at select committee.

STUART SMITH: Well, I think the Minister has had his turn. And I think that that SOP is just too much to bear. The exposure draft—I did go through that exercise—was also futile because there were so many empty clauses that meant nothing really; they were all placeholders.

So we heard evidence—a lot of it actually quite prescient when we went on to find what the bill was and warned against the very things that we have in the bill. For example, the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi—what does that mean? And we actually asked—and I was present when that was asked, I’m pretty sure, I do remember that—the officials: “What are the principles, then?” And they said, “Well, they’re evolving.” That is the issue that, time after time, we did hear, and we asked many questions of the Minister in the chair: “What does that mean? How is that going to be interpreted by the courts? How is that going to be interpreted when there is no actual definition?” What we heard, actually, in the Environment Committee on another matter referring to the same issue from a constitutional lawyer was that, actually, the law has a principle in that the law should be known by all—should be known by all. You don’t have to know it, but you should be able to know it. And what we have riddled throughout this bill are principles and references that are unknowable at the moment—for example, the principles of the Treaty, because they are evolving. The previous speaker said that referring and giving effect to the Treaty was great—that was fantastic. Well, the Treaty ceded sovereignty in article 1, and then it conferred property rights, and then in the third article of the Treaty it gave equal citizenship. Well, no one can disagree with that. We should just do that anyway. So what is the argument here and why that’s in the Natural and Built Environment Bill I’m not sure. We don’t know because we didn’t get any explanation. We asked the Minister time and again—didn’t get a thing out of it.

We heard before that the bill was going to put the environment at the centre and at the front. Well, I don’t think it’s ever not been, quite frankly. To think that this is novel, I think, is not actually all that relevant. Values and actual thoughts and what is thought to be the right thing evolve over time. I’ll give you an example of that. In south Marlborough, it was thought by the Forest Service at the time and the catchment board that the best thing to do was to spread Pinus contorta around to stop the erosion of the hill country in south Marlborough, which has now turned into an absolute environmental disaster. So having the environment as their cause was why those Pinus contorta seeds were actually planted—some of them right up above the bush line, as you know, I’m sure, Madam Speaker, because you’ve been there. And that has caused a huge environmental disaster today. Further, conifers were advised by the catchment board to be planted to stop rabbits—unbelievably today. It actually gave a better environment for rabbits to thrive.

So having the environment at the centre might sound great, but that’s not actually the end point. You’ve actually got to weigh things up; over time things change. This bill does nothing to improve on that. I think my colleague Chris Bishop put it pretty well when he talked about the fact that there’s so much work going into this, we’ve got to stick to it and carry on. He said it’s the sunk cost fallacy, and I think that’s absolutely right. There’s a lot of effort gone into this and, undoubtedly, the officials are beavering away at the moment on the assumption that this bill’s going to pass, and, unfortunately, it will. It will, but it won’t last long. Should we win the election on 14 October, it will be gone by Christmas. We’ve given that undertaking, and rightly so.

And we do see a way forward. All the members on the other side have to do is look towards our Electrify NZ policy, which shows how to deal with resource management in terms of renewable energy, which we’re all in favour of. By the way, Contact Energy said this bill, should it pass, will make it much harder to build renewable energy. The New Zealand Wind Energy Association also said it would be much harder to build—

Hon David Parker: Rubbish.

STUART SMITH: —renewable energy under this legislation. Well, the Minister says “Rubbish”. He’s such an expert—he’s such an expert.

Hon David Parker: The fast track applies to wind.

STUART SMITH: And the fast track—how fast is that? Pretty slow as it turns out—in one year under our policy. All of these experts have looked at it and they actually have all dismissed the Minister’s claims. I think the Chief Justice had something to say about that. What did the Chief Justice say? Was that a ringing endorsement? No it wasn’t. He said it was going to be a very difficult bill to navigate, and quite rightly so.

Hon Member: Are you calling the Chief Justice a “him”?

STUART SMITH: They’re now complaining about the Chief Justice. Well, you can’t have it both ways. It’s a contest of ideas and, unfortunately, some people are afraid of a contest of ideas, perhaps because of the weakness of their own argument, I can’t possibly say.

Angela Roberts said that the growth led to sustainability and ecological certainty. I’m paraphrasing; I’m not quite sure exactly what she said but along those lines. Sure, we’re in favour of environment. Our resources are limited, but they are not that limited that we can’t have a small impact on the environment. And under this principle of the bill, it says that we must protect the natural environment. We’ve heard from legal experts that that is such a high test we’re going to be tied up in court for decades and it’s going to take 10 years to come into effect anyway.

I think this bill is a wasted opportunity. I commend the Minister for having a crack, but he went down the wrong track right at the beginning with the wrong principles. He’s wasted a lot of time and energy, and, unfortunately, when this bill passes, it will trigger a series of court cases that will go for many decades. The legal profession—actually, I thought they’d be delighted, but they’re not, because they end up having to defend people and try and get their clients’ projects across the line. And with all the uncertainty, no one will know where it’s going to go and how much it’s going to cost, and it is just a needless waste of this House’s time. Thank you.

LEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s great to be the final speaker, and it’s quite a privilege to speak on the Natural and Built Environment Bill in the third reading. I firstly want to acknowledge the Environment Committee members who worked tirelessly and also the officials from the different ministries. We worked for months, we had many, many meetings. I also want to acknowledge the chair, Eugenie Sage, who shifted us through collectively. We worked well to read the 2,945 written submissions.

We went the breadth of Aotearoa to hear the over 340 oral submissions and it was very helpful because I was a new member on the select committee. It was very helpful that over a period of months, listening to the current Resource Management Act legislation and reading about the new reforms, working with a planning approach, hearing communities from various local councils, but also industry experts who spoke on their written submissions.

One of the biggest features that I heard was the 100 current plans that will be moving to the new system under the Natural and Built Environment Bill to 16 regional spatial plans. It was helpful to understand that they will be phased over time. There were a number of recommended changes that were technical to improve the workability of the specific bill, especially to help the committee to be able to read it better. There was a lot of time spent with officials improving that, and I do want to acknowledge our Minister, David Parker, as well because he helped the select committee to understand the fundamentals of this bill.

We also heard about the failures of the current Resource Management Act throughout Aotearoa and why it is very important that this bill improves the environment, because currently what we heard was that under the Resource Management Act things are too costly and they take too long to improve. It was helpful to listen to submitters who raised a number of issues around rivers, around landscapes. It was helpful to hear from iwi, Māori, and hapū, on those features around the motu, fresh water, the concerns about infrastructure, and also around consenting and system users who provided analysis and development. It was also helpful to hear from the very busy building and construction industry and also from experts in the electrical industry. And there are a number of tricky issues that we heard about that the new legislation, when passed, will help with in the national planning framework.

The new limits of the nationwide policy: it is intended that those will have moderate risks, it was helpful to understand that, and specifically what was in front of us was the climate change challenges that we have in Aotearoa, thinking about green infrastructure, stormwater, and productive land. And we saw that in January when the severe weather events hit Aotearoa. So, lots of meetings, lots of kōrero; there’s a big journey around what this means to Aotearoa. We heard from many councils throughout around why local voices are very, very important to be part of the regional spatial strategies.

Therefore, the Natural and Built Environment Bill has fundamental framework limits and will help in a fail-safe way to reset the environment that takes into account biodiversity, and, specifically, improvements nationwide. I commend this bill to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Natural and Built Environment Bill be now read a third time.

Ayes 72

New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere.

Noes 47

New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2; Whaitiri.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Spatial Planning Bill

Third Reading

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): I present a legislative statement on the Spatial Planning Bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

Hon DAVID PARKER: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move, That the Spatial Planning Bill be now read a third time.

The Spatial Planning Bill is an important part of the new RM system—resource management system—and it works in tandem with the Natural and Built Environment Act that the House has just passed. The Spatial Planning Bill has a single function: the creation and implementation of integrated regional spatial strategies.

Time and again, through the RM reform process, we’ve been told by developers, environmentalists, councils, that the absence of regional planning is a major problem in the current system. It was also a strong theme in submissions to the Environment Committee. Those who want more predictability and less uncertainty think we need better regional spatial plans to identify where trunk infrastructure and the like should go, what land should be next released for development, what areas are not suited for development. There’s a lot of time and money currently being wasted as wheels spin on these issues, and spatial planning at the regional level will be a big step in overcoming this and then help mobilise the necessary private and public sector investments to make these things happen—as cities develop, for example.

Regional strategies help achieve the purpose of the Natural and Built Environment Act (NBEA). They are prepared by the same regional planning committees that are established under the NBEA with the addition of a central government representative. Using the same committee was a recommendation of the select committee that has been adopted. The participation of a central government representative was at the request of councils who otherwise find it hard to pin down central government agencies.

Regional spatial strategies are required for each region, and they’ll set out a vision and objective for a region’s development over a 30-year period. They will focus on the big issues and opportunities facing the region. They’re essentially a large map. Regional spatial strategies become a vehicle for delivering infrastructure in the right places at the right time, providing clear investments to the private sector as well as local and central government agencies responsible for things like transport and housing. Obviously, if you identify or require transport corridors early for protection, you’ll get better outcomes.

A regional spatial strategy will also identify areas that are less amenable for development. These could be areas of significant biodiversity; could be highly productive land. It might be better to direct development in the future on areas of less productive land—the high-productive land should be protected from subdivision where possible—then it might be that there are areas that are at risk for natural hazards like sea level rise that can be identified so that you have fewer battles about those things at the local plan level.

A regional spatial strategy isn’t intended to be a document that sits on a shelf, but rather it’s a blueprint for action. Implementation agreements are provided for, and progress on action can be monitored and reported on annually. Plans under the NBEA will put the detailed policies and rules in place to implement the regional spatial strategies. The NBEA is, of course, making process improvements like designations being able to be delivered more efficiently.

In the end, quite complex mixes of housing infrastructure, corridors, schools, hospitals, commercial developments identified in regional spatial strategies will flow through to NBEA plans as permitted activities. This is one of the ways in which there will be fewer consents required under the new system—or fewer notified consents.

The legislation allows the regional planning committee to use different public and stakeholder engagement approaches for different issues, but the process must include some specified steps, including a hearing of submissions on a draft strategy. Enabling local democratic voice was a significant area that the select committee received submissions on and made suggestions which have been incorporated so that local aspirations via statements of community outcomes and statements of regional outcomes are incorporated—and regional planning committees are required to report on how they’ve taken these into account.

The central government appointee on the regional planning committee will be responsible for communicating central government priorities. These regional spatial strategies, then, you can see how they deliver an integrated approach, identifying the areas where future growth is likely to occur. On occasion, they might list a population trigger after which these things are released for development—and also identifying the areas where development ought not to occur. This will help infrastructure planning with the investment signals being clearer for those who have to provide the money for infrastructure and housing, for example.

Much of the discussion around spatial planning has focused on urban growth and the need to ensure integrated investment in housing, transport, other infrastructure, and, for example, the green spaces that you need around new urban areas. But spatial planning also has the potential to address other community needs—including, perhaps, how we deal with major tourism destinations to help them deliver sustainable tourism, and how we provide a future pathway for delivering resilient infrastructure in rural communities.

Spatial planning could also help deliver catchment, restoration, and collective efforts to improve our natural environment; could include landscape scale management programmes that involve multiple parties over a long period of time such as Predator Free or Wild + Pine programmes. An integrated approach can also be achieved for port development, integrated with inland ports, addressing shipping lanes, dredge dumping sites, coastal ports as well as inland ports—as I mentioned—and connecting rail and road infrastructure.

Various forms of spatial or strategic planning have been under way in parts of New Zealand and they have included urban growth partnerships and collaborative processes. In many cases, these have been undermined by not having a clear legislative basis, so agreements reached aren’t held to, aren’t implemented, and don’t link into implementation mechanisms such as transport planning and investment—and there are linkages in the Act through to those other transport planning legislation. Work currently under way on some of those spatial strategies can carry through into the regional spatial strategies under this Act.

We will continue on natural hazard planning work which we need as a country, and of course that can also feed into spatial strategies. Work by potential investors, infrastructure agencies, and community groups to identify what they want to achieve will be optimised by long-term spatial planning. We do need to get on with this bill without the delay that the members opposite now seem to want. There was a strong consensus in submissions to the select committee that spatial planning of this sort is needed. I find it unclear as to why members opposite want to repeal this legislation. It’s a recipe for uncertainty and extra cost.

Can I take the opportunity to thank everyone who’s been involved in what has been a big project—the resource management reform process—bringing these two bills to fruition? Can I add my thanks to others; to the Environment Committee members? They put an enormous amount of work in. Can I name, particularly, the Hon Eugenie Sage, whose competencies and hard work were evident; members of the Randerson panel; ministerial colleagues—this has been a cross-Government programme—including representatives of Treasury, transport, housing; and, of course, local government who implement most of the system have been an essential partner. Māori groups, environmental NGOs, industry and business groups, and the public have all contributed to this legislation.

Stuart Smith, in his last contribution, made the assertion that there’s been lots of Supplementary Order Papers to these pieces of legislation. He’s just wrong. The work was done at select committee. It is a matter of practice that, to aid the House, the changes made at select committee are shown in a tracked version of the bill which was in the House—and that was done here. Those amendments were 90 percent - plus done at select committee.

Can I, particularly, acknowledge the hard work and long hours put in my officials at Ministry for the Environment and at the Parliamentary Counsel Office? This has been a big piece of work and they’ve worked hard on it.

One of the criticisms that seems to be made here is it’s a long Act. I’ve noted previously that the legislation isn’t actually long compared with the status quo. But if you look at other areas of legislation, whether it’s the cornerstone legislation for tax or customs or the companies legislation in the Commerce Act, legislation does have to—or the Health Act or the Education Act; none of them are short. This is the cornerstone piece of legislation that affects both the environment and development, and obviously you have to do it thoroughly.

The other side moaned for decades about the Resource Management Act (RMA). They did nothing about it. They said they were going to repeal the RMA—never did it. Nine years, fiddled—made it worse. The ACT Party and the National Party could never deliver, and it does seem like there’s sort of a little bit of jealousy here that they can’t admit that we’ve delivered what they failed to achieve in over nine years.

They do have some issues that they have made clear in respect of Treaty-related clauses. It’s fine for them to differentiate them. Stuart Smith’s wrong about the uncertainty caused by a clause that refers to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. Those same principles were previously referred to in the current legislative package. It’s just that the members of the—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The member’s time—

Hon DAVID PARKER: Madam Speaker, I thought that there was a mistake made by cutting that short. Have I got that wrong? I commend the bill to the House.

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

CHRIS BISHOP (National): Well, I actually do want to hear what the Minister was saying. Was there an issue with the time? We’re not sure? OK—all right. Well, I was going to seek leave for the member to have a few more minutes.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Sorry, could the member please explain what his question was around the timing? You can stop the clock.

CHRIS BISHOP: Oh, sorry—well, point of order. Sorry, Madam Speaker. The Minister seemed to indicate that he thought he had more time than he had; there might’ve been a stuff-up with the clock. I was actually quite interested in what he was saying at the tail end of his speech. You seem to be shaking your head and saying no, he had the full 10. Well, I mean, I seek leave for the Minister to have two more minutes to finish his contribution.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Thank you for that. Before I put the leave, I just want to be very clear about what has happened here, because the Minister has raised an issue around the timing. I’m not across that, so just let me talk to the Clerk for a moment.

Look, thank you for your forbearance. I’ve checked. I understand, and I’m advised, that the timing that was allocated to the Minister was entirely appropriate. However, the member has asked for leave to—well, would the member like to put the leave?

Hon David Parker: Well, I think, appropriately, I have to seek—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Well, if the member wants to speak, would he like to take a point of order?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Point of order, Madam Speaker. I think I have to seek leave for myself; a member can’t seek it for another. I seek leave for a two-minute extension.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is none.

Hon DAVID PARKER: Thank you, Madam Speaker, and can I thank Chris Bishop for that suggestion. I was actually dealing with the issue of Māori rights and interests, and I can see from the debate around this Chamber that there is a legitimate debate around those issues. I would make the point in respect of Stuart Smith’s comments that the reference to the principles of the Treaty is very common across the legislation in this country, and the change relates to from “taking into account” to “giving effect to” the principles of the Treaty, not the reference to the principles of the Treaty. Members will probably be aware that there is quite a bit of jurisprudence as to what those principles are, and a concern that if you go directly to reference the Treaty itself rather than the principles, you actually create more legal uncertainty and outcomes that might be a surprise because of new jurisprudence.

In respect of some of the other issues that I know Chris Bishop has raised in earlier issues relating to the debate, I think there is room for argument around those issues, and I can see why parties might differentiate that and want to change some of those provisions, but the overall scheme of this new legislation, which moves from an effects-based regime to outcomes with regional spatial plans, with plans decreasing from over 100 to 16 Resource Management Act plans, and with a more coherent articulation of outcomes, including outcomes for development, I think there is wide societal agreement that it is appropriate. So it saddens me that the Opposition threaten to throw the baby out with the bathwater and say start again rather than just making minor changes that they could make if they were elected and were so minded.

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

CHRIS BISHOP (National): Thank you very much, and I thank the Minister for that useful contribution, which was slightly less vituperative than his contribution on the Natural and Built Environment Bill. Look, the National Party opposes this legislation but we do so with less hostility towards it than the Natural and Built Environment Bill.

For some of the reasons that the Minister has outlined, everyone’s in favour of fewer plans—there’s no doubt about that. We have too many, they’re too long, the process around changing them is too difficult, and they increase complexity. I think the Minister has talked publicly about—well, it might not have been the Minister but it was certainly someone from the Government side—various different housing rules being different in Lower Hutt compared to Upper Hutt. They are only 15 kilometres down the road as the crow flies—builders in both patches have to have different specifications. That sort of stuff’s nuts and we all want to reduce that and there’s not really a debate about that and nor is there a debate about doing spatial planning better. And actually, as the Minister himself said in his contribution, it happens now and essentially what’s happened is councils and communities have just got around the Resource Management Act and actually come up with some quite sophisticated structures with central government already. So I think of—

Hon David Parker: But they don’t stick; they’re forever re-litigated.

CHRIS BISHOP: Yeah, sure, sure. Yeah, I accept that. But the structures are there and so I think about the Waikato, for example, which I spent a bit of time in recently, a forward-leaning, pro-growth region and, frankly, some of the Wellington city councils—

Hon Louise Upston: The best in New Zealand

CHRIS BISHOP: Well, Louise Upston says the best in New Zealand. Certainly, in some respects they are and, frankly, the Wellington Regional Council, which seems to be going out of its way to stop housing being built anywhere in the Wellington region and involve itself in an endless debate about the fantasy of light rail, could adopt some of Waikato’s and Hamilton’s pro-growth mind-set. But Waikato is getting on with it and actually, to acknowledge the Government, some of that work was started by the Hon Phil Twyford when he was the Minister of Housing.

I think about some of what’s going on in Tauranga now, for example, where the commissioners are have upended a sort of anti-growth mind-set which has resulted in some of the most unaffordable housing prices in the developed world in Tauranga as Tauranga transitions from a small retirement community into what is a city, a big city and a growing city, in the heart of productive New Zealand, situated very, very close to Hamilton and Waikato and the so-called Golden Triangle.

So some of that stuff is happening already and so the question is how you give effect to that. And the question that this bill poses is: is the superstructure created by the new spatial planning regime that the right way to do that? We’re as yet unconvinced that that is. We worry about the over bureaucratisation of the process. There were legitimate concerns expressed by local government around the anti-democratic nature of some of this. Now, I am not someone for whom local democracy is the be all and end all of existence. There is clearly a balance and a tension between central government’s legitimate policy goals and local decision-making.

To take the most obvious example, central government spends $4 billion a year on housing subsidies, $4 billion: $2 billion in the accommodation supplement, $1.5 million and change on the income-related rent subsidy, and the rest of it on emergency housing—$4 billion a year is an astonishing sum of money. The reason central government has to spend all that money is in large part because of council planning rules that have stopped cities from growing. And we bear all the consequence of that in central government, and local government just, you know, says no to housing and so there’s clearly a legitimate role for central government to compel regions to grow.

Hon Phil Twyford: MDRS?

CHRIS BISHOP: Well, you know, the medium density residential standard is still there under National’s policy; it’s just more discretion and flexibility. But the point is they’ve got to go for growth—they have to go for growth, and our policy is the same as yours was, Mr Twyford, back in 2017 when the Government gave a Speech from the Throne saying the metropolitan urban limit would be smashed. And six years later, the metropolitan urban limit is still in place in Auckland. In fact, the future development zone in Auckland doubles down on the restrictive planning rules stopping Auckland from growing. And the future development zone—there’s an article just by Todd Niall in Stuff this morning in which a succession of councillors and planners in Auckland are boasting about the fact that Auckland will not grow as much. It’s just demented, actually, because Auckland house prices are some of the most unaffordable in the developed world and the idea that Auckland can just put a ring around itself and basically just hope for the best is, frankly delusional. So thank you for that interjection, Mr Twyford. It allowed me to have a bit of a vent.

The Minister mentioned natural hazard planning and he said we need to get on with it. Well, we agree. With respect, where’s the bill? Because we were told there’d be a trifecta of bills; we’re on to the second one now. Where’s the third bill? I mean, we’re up for that, on this side of the House and we do want to have a genuine bipartisan conversation about it, because it’s really important, as the Minister says, and the Minister seemed to be implying the National Party was opposed to it. We’re not. We want to talk about natural hazards and proper planning around that. We’re just waiting for the bill which, as yet, is yet to materialise and we want to see that. Maybe, if we have the privilege of forming a Government, we’ll get to have a look at where the work’s got to. So we wait and see for that.

Can I also just, in this quite potpourri contribution speech, acknowledge Eugenie Sage, who’s a departing MP, for her chairpersonship of the committee. She did do a good job, as the Minister says. We have our political differences, but she’s a very fair minded and genial person who’s made a big contribution to Parliament, and I, for one, will miss her.

On the Māori rights and interest thing, I think the point is not so much that the bill gives effect to the Treaty. The point, I think, is the change from “take account” to “give effect to”, and I do worry about that, because it sounds like a subtle change but I worry about what effect that will have on our planning regime.

I also worry about clause 7, “Iwi and hapū responsibilities in relation to te taiao”, because, as I got into the Minister in the committee stage, the subheading is “Iwi and hapū responsibilities”, but the actual clause says “All persons exercising powers and performing duties and functions … must recognise and provide for the responsibility and mana of each iwi and hapū”. So the clause is actually wider than that and I worry about that, from a planning point of view and a certainty point of view.

Just finally, as we close off these two bills, with respect to the Minister, it’s not jealousy that the Government is reforming the Resource Management Act (RMA) that National opposes it. National has always been up for RMA reform. In fact, we tried and the Minister knows it. We tried in Government. We never had the numbers, thanks to the Hon Peter Dunne, who should hang his head in shame over his behaviour on the RMA. But we never had the numbers and the Government now does have the numbers. We wrote to the Government—this is all on the record—saying that we were up for bipartisan RMA reform; this stuff is really important. And we never really had a response. So we are where we are and the Government has charged off in their own direction, and I feel confident in saying that there are Government members who are worried about aspects of this legislation and concerned about it.

I do think clause 3 of the Natural and Built Environment Bill, which is linked to the Spatial Planning Bill, will prove disastrous. We will have to change it, and much of where the Government has landed is wrong-headed. So it’s not that we oppose it for its own sake. It’s not just party politics for the sake of it. I am really—and we are really—concerned about where this is going. The Government has decided to pass it through before the election, while they have the numbers—we know that—and maybe things will be different after 14 October; maybe they won’t. But all we can do before the bills before the Parliament right now is just put on the record our opposition and our intentions, and we’re being completely up front and transparent around that.

We oppose the bills. We do think they should be off the statute book. We are up for RMA reform and, as I think have indicated, we are up for regional spatial planning. There are some really good things in this bill. There are some sensible things in this bill. Maybe some of them will carry over to the new regime when the time comes, but for now, we oppose.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Associate Minister for the Environment): Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to speak on this bill, the Spatial Planning Bill. As we discussed in the committee stage, it’s not the “Strategic Planning Bill”, but the spatial plans do have to be strategic.

It’s a really good bill, and it’s a really important thing that we do by making these statutory spatial plans at the regional level. As the Minister for the Environment just mentioned, there are a lot of spatial plans that have already been developed around New Zealand. Some of them are with central government and local government and mana whenua working together: some with different combinations, some focused on roads, some focused on housing, and some focused on both, but, certainly, none of them are focused on all the matters that are in clause 17 of the bill, which is “Contents of regional spatial strategies: key matters”.

But before I draw some attention to those key matters in clause 17—which, for me, is really the heart of the bill—of course I want to again reference the fact that the word “map” is now in the bill, and I say thank you to the select committee for that work. This is because, of course, when we’re thinking about these spatial plans and a lot of the layers of data that will be involved in them, they will need to have a visual component to them—in fact, I would say that that’s the main component to them for the users—to be able to see how these key matters play out by the people who are making this spatial strategy.

Some of those key matters include things like areas that are appropriate to be reserved for rural use because, for example, they contain highly productive land; areas in the coastal marine area that are appropriate for development or change in use; matters relating to infrastructure, including existing, planned, or potential infrastructure that is or may be required to meet current and future needs; opportunities to make better use of existing infrastructure—that’s something that’s often forgotten about. We have a lot of existing infrastructure that may be able to be used in a more effective way, and we shouldn’t just always be thinking about building new things.

Also, there is climate change mitigation, at clause 17(1)(ja): “matters relating to climate change mitigation, including—(i) indicative locations for infrastructure that is or may be required to support the production of renewable energy or other measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions:”. That is very specific and important for doing the energy transformation that we need to do in New Zealand by electrifying the country.

Also, at clause 17(1)(ja)(ii): “areas that are suitable for land use change that would support reductions in greenhouse gas emissions:”, and we’ve talked a lot today over the debates on the two bills about natural hazards, as well. Paragraph (jb) has “matters relating to risks arising from natural hazards and the effects of climate change, including—(i) areas that are or will be vulnerable to those risks:”. It’s very important that in the spatial strategies we’re identifying those areas that people shouldn’t be building new houses on, for instance.

I also want to note, going back to those spatial strategies or spatial plans that already exist, that they don’t have a legislative standing at the moment, so it’s been very difficult for—well, some of them have a little bit of legislative standing, but a lot of them don’t. So it’s been difficult for people doing their Resource Management Act plans to really make those spatial strategies inform those resource management plans. By having this Act work with the Natural and Built Environment Act, that relationship is clear, and that is very important.

We heard in the last speech there about “Where’s this other piece of legislation regarding the climate adaptation?”, and that is a difficult piece of legislation to do, because the idea or the intent of that is to deal with areas where people already have existing activities and there needs to be some change to those. Part of the problem or part of the complexity of that issue is, of course, the expense. It’s expensive to move and to change, and there are questions about who pays and how much.

Those are all difficult and important questions that do need to be answered, and, in my opinion, they need to be bipartisan as well. So James Shaw, the Minister of Climate Change, has just announced, I think, yesterday that he’s inviting the Environment Committee—a very good select committee, and we’ve heard about them a lot today—to look at that issue and report back, obviously, after the election.

I note also that the previous speaker mentioned the difference between “take into account” and “give effect to” when talking about the Treaty principles, and, in an unusual admission, I do agree with Chris Bishop on that point. It is an important change. It’s a big change to go from “take into account” to “give effect to”, and it’s done on purpose.

My last point I think I’ll make on this bill is the importance of the central government person or representative that is going to be on the planning committee. So when the planning committees are making the natural and built environment regulatory plans, they don’t have a central government person on them, but when they are making these spatial plans, they do have a central government person on them, and the point of that central government person is not to tell everybody what to do because they’re from central government, but to try and coordinate what is often a very siloed environment. I’ve been involved in many plans being made over the years, and often you’ll have very different voices from central government representing quite different ideas. So as to the idea that central government can be cajoled, they have a coherent message and can be clear about what plans are there for various different types of infrastructure—and by “infrastructure”, I of course do not just mean roads, but the schools, hospitals, and the stormwater that I was talking about earlier in the previous debate.

So, again, this is great to see this here at a third reading. Like the other speakers have also said, I do want to thank the select committee for their hard work on it and thank all of the officials and always, obviously, the Parliamentary Counsel Office but also the officials of the select committee as well. The select committee has spent a long time on these bills. It has listened to a lot of submissions and had a lot of to-ing and fro-ing with the advisers, and that meant that the clerks on the committee had a lot of work to do. They of course did a great job, and I’m very grateful for that work. I commend the bill to the House.

BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki-King Country): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Well, here we are on the Spatial Planning Bill, after the Natural and Built Environment Bill this morning and this afternoon.

It has been a big job actually listening to all the submissions—almost 3,000 submissions on both these bills—but it was really interesting when the submissions come through between both of the bills, the submissions were very intertwined, all of them, because actually that’s what the two bills do. They’re designed to work together, and it’s not surprising that most of the submitters chose to intertwine their submissions rather than do separate ones.

I would like to note that as a committee we were able to make changes to the bill. The officials were very willing and, as I said before, we didn’t get all the changes that we might have liked to have made, particularly with the other bill. But I think when it comes to this one, when I said before that the natural built environment and resource management planning is hard—and we know that there’s a third stream to this which is going to have to link in, in many ways. That’s actually going to be much harder because it’s going to be a huge disruption to the status quo for many people. I saw a presentation just recently around how difficult it would be and how many Acts it interacts with, and so if we think this part is hard, going forward into further parts is going to take a huge amount of thinking because it’s going to cause a lot of disruption to many people’s lives.

I think probably where a lot of the objections have come in around both of these bills is around the legal aspects of it. I’ve not got a background in resource consenting, but I know others have and there is quite a bit of concern from a number of people that there will be some legal challenges around this. Other people will have varying different views and they probably vary quite a bit as you work your way around the House. But I do think when it comes to long-term planning, it is important to put a strategy before the structure, and I think going from 100 plans to 16 plans has to be a good move. If we think about how our regional councils sit now, if we think about regional boundaries, if we have the opportunity as regions to look each other in the eye and do some face-to-face work, we can often come out with some good things.

Now, there’s a question around local voice and local council and local communities and how they might react to these regional planning committees, but the idea of regional plans in itself makes a huge amount of sense. And I think not just from a regional planning perspective but also from a series of connected maps, because no region is ever an island. If I look at an area like Taranaki, it’s quite a nice, compact little region where it’s very easy, with the maunga in the middle, to be able to interact. It’s not too far to drive. It’s much more simple than—and I know the Waikato region and all their good planning has been mentioned this afternoon. If I look at the Waikato region, it goes from up in the Coromandel up where Scott Simpson lives—which has largely been affected by cyclones over recent months—right down to Mokau, which is at the north end of Taranaki, and it fits all into the same regional council and there’s a huge amount of varying differences. So spatial planning for that one region in itself is going to take quite a lot of thought into how that works.

But then of course each region then links with other regions. And I take note of what Minister Rachel Brooking said before about the map, and we had lots of discussions at the Environment Committee about a map. I think that makes a huge amount of sense to start with a map, look what the area entails, and then have people identify opportunities within that map to show what they see is happening in their region. Because it doesn’t make any sense to do it bit by bit by bit. Because whatever we do for nature, nature always wins. Nature is hard. And in terms of planning, we saw the Hawke’s Bay floods, we saw pictures of where the historic wetlands were, and then we saw overlaid aerial photographs of where the water sat after the houses had been built. And then we wonder as human beings when we build in some places, without giving it too much thought, why things wash away when we have a cyclone. It’s not to point the finger at any particular person, and I’m sure there will be examples in the Auckland flooding, there will be examples in Tairāwhiti. There are things where we say, “Why did we do it like this?” And I think spatial planning really is one of those things that will give us the opportunity to look at what we have and do it differently in the future.

We also had, as a committee, the opportunity to work with the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment around planning where green spaces might have been, and we looked at how the water didn’t drain away in some of those places when we had copious amounts of rain. But also, some of the other things, when we look at the heating up and the climate change, that we can cool streets down quite effectively by having more trees than what we might have had in the past. And there’s some very good examples of streets where they’re not very far apart, particularly in warmer places, and we saw some examples in Australia where trees make such a huge difference. So it is really important that we think about—we see lots of current housing plans and pictures of sub developments where we just have house by house by house. So it gives us a very good opportunity to stand back and look more closely at where we put things.

It would have been easy, as a country, when we look at highly productive land to stand back and go, “Well, this would be the best place to put it; this place would be the best place to put it; and that place would be the best place to put it.” But now that we’re already moved as a population in time, there’s no way that you can actually then stand back and do that as simply as you could if you had a blank map. So we need to think quite carefully around that. But the climate adaptation bill is going to be a hard one to fit in, and it will take some spatial planning, it will take quite a bit of spatial planning to figure out if we’ve got to shift people from where they are now, shift activities from where they are now to where they need to go. And we’re going to have to have a jolly good look at each region and each spatial plan to figure out where and how and why we would be doing things. Because what we don’t want to do is make the same mistakes in the future.

There has been some concern around the people appointed to the regional planning committees and having one central government person. It has been explained to us that that would be a link back to the Government departments and to be able to make those connections with our Government departments in order to help the Spatial Planning Bill make the spatial planning committees do their work. I think it would be unfortunate if we did go to regional spatial planning and then had a central government overlay, which then goes back to the way Governments actually—and Governments of both colours do this. I know that councils and regional councils, in an endless process of planning and long-term planning—before you know it the central government changes the rules and you have another plan in place and another plan in place, and I dread to think how much as a country we would have spent over a long period of time on long-term planning, which actually doesn’t turn out to be long-term planning because someone else puts a new idea in the middle and before you know it things are rolling over.

And yes, we have to evolve, but we’ve spent a lot of money on planning over the years, and so if this—well this bill will pass today, if this does come into place, you know, National has signalled that we would be repealing and taking another look at this. But if this was to be in place, I would hope that it would last a lot longer than what the current situation is, because as a country we can’t afford to keep undoing and redoing and undoing and redoing all our plans. We have to actually think years ahead, put some longterm plans in place, and get on with it. So hopefully that’s what we can look forward to as we progress with more long-term planning.

I think it’s probably fair to say that it is the Natural and Built Environment Bill that is the harder one for National to accept. This one has some things in it that would need fixing, but we do believe in spatial planning. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): Thank you, Madam Chair. Well, it’s good to follow Barbara Kuriger, an outstanding member of the Environment Committee. In the last term of Parliament, as Minister of Housing and Urban Development, I instigated and oversaw a series of regional planning initiatives also known as the urban growth partnerships, starting in the mighty Waikato, Wellington, Bay of Plenty, and the Auckland-Hamilton Corridor. The approach that we took was to get multiple councils: regional, city, district, together in the room. Mana whenua there right from the beginning, looking out over a 30 year horizon. Central government in the room with local government and iwi. High level spatial plans, maps, looking out into the future, taking into account growth projections for economic growth and population growth, dealing with climate adaptation, natural hazards, infrastructure—the network infrastructure, roads and water particularly, and the protection of ecological and cultural assets. It’s basically the approach that is reflected in the Spatial Planning Bill.

I saw the enthusiasm and commitment that all of those actors, local government particularly, brought to that enterprise. They were keen as to get in the room with all of the other players, to do spatial planning way beyond the governance boundaries of their councils, recognising that land markets, housing, the movement of people, transport take no account of those boundaries—they are a hindrance. There were two real standout performers—people have mentioned the Waikato councils, but also the Bay of Plenty were fantastic, and they demonstrated a willingness to work together, to think about long-term growth projections, to reform zoning in order to deliver more housing and more urban growth, and also to consider how to futureproof and modernise the transport networks to support the kind of growth they wanted.

This bill, the Spatial Planning Bill, enshrines that approach in law and puts it at the heart of the new resource management system. It’s an excellent approach. It’s long overdue. The regional spatial strategies that will be produced by the planning committees will inform and provide direction and context for the natural and built environment plans. I believe that these regional spatial strategies will significantly improve the environmental outcomes. They will give communities more of a say in the really important choices and challenges facing our regions. They will make it easier for our towns and cities to grow, particularly by identifying the important corridors for future growth, the early marking out of grids for roads and network infrastructure like water, and this will enable the supply of land and development opportunities that will make our urban land markets more competitive, something that has been sorely lacking under the existing planning system now for several decades. I commend this bill to the House.

SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Spatial planning is an important tool if it gives people, businesses, and communities information so they can plan where to build. The previous speaker, the Hon Phil Twyford, once had a good plan himself. That was to abolish Auckland’s metropolitan urban limit—what a fantastic idea. It was even included in the Speech from the Throne in 2017 because it would have liberated Aucklanders from the artificial constraint of being told where they are and are not allowed to build. But, like so many of Mr Twyford’s good ideas, unfortunately, it’s disappeared in a puff of smoke. But don’t worry, Mr Twyford, ACT might just bring that back.

Now, there is a problem to solve that spatial planning tries to solve. It should reduce the number of consents and the complexity of any planning or application process so that people who own land—private property owners or developers, whether they be property developers or asset infrastructure developers—can get on with building the things that we need to actually deliver social benefits. Even though engineers, like me, love watching bulldozers push dirt around, we love watching concrete get poured and buildings go up, actually, all of that infrastructure is for one specific purpose, and that is to deliver social outcomes.

What does this bill do? Well, it doesn’t make it easier to build. In fact, what we heard from the Minister for the Environment is that the plan will identify where future growth happens, and it will provide a triggering mechanism so that land will only be released for development—around existing urban areas, for example—when a trigger is hit under a regional or spatial plan. So instead of property owners deciding “I want to build something somewhere because it’s needed.”, they won’t.

This bill adds divisive co-governance to regional planning committees. A minimum of two out of six of the appointed, not elected—two out of six appointed or elected people on regional planning committees will have to be appointees representing iwi Māori. And you can’t vote these committees out, unlike now. If you’re unhappy with the plans the council makes and a community decides they’re not delivering for them, they can vote the council out—you’ll never be able to vote out these regional planning committees. If you think the regional planning committees are doing a bad job, just wait, because this bill also gives the Minister for the Environment, who will become the most powerful Minister in a future Government, the opportunity to tell these regional planning committees what they want them to do—absolutely removes democratic local control from the way communities have planned and decided the way they develop.

This bill also will allow these plans to limit how people use their land. For example, what we heard from officials, what we’ve heard today from Labour Party representatives, is that the bill will say where you are and are not allowed to develop. Now, they use the very important information around, say, where sea levels might rise, where there are coastal hazards, where there are flood zones, and where there are risks of slips or volcanoes or seismic risks. Of course a spatial plan needs to convey that information to people who are building or planning for the future. But colouring in the map in a way that sterilises potential resources, like quarry resources—sand, rock, and all kinds of minerals that planners today don’t know are there—is incredibly unhelpful.

What is much more helpful is if a regional spatial plan actually outlined places that are so special, that have such high environmental values, for example, that we would actually delineate them and say “No, there won’t be any building there.” But, of course, if they are on private property, that would actually require the Government to pony up with taxpayer funds if they are proposing to acquire somebody’s private property rights or take some of those property rights away by colouring in a map saying what they are and are not allowed to do. This Government doesn’t know about private property rights—they don’t understand what they mean. So, clearly, that’s probably why they’ve omitted mention of private property rights from this bill.

The Associate Minister for the Environment, the Hon Rachel Brooking, also mentioned how wonderful it would be to have one representative from central government sitting on a regional planning committee. Of course, there are so many parts of Government that want to build things and sometimes they don’t all talk to each other or the local council that does the planning. Well, can you imagine one representative of central government sitting on a planning committee and trying to work out where everything should go, like a game of Tetris, or like a teenager playing SimCity, a teenager obsessed with central planning and central control? Imagine the health department, the education department, road, rail, ports, airports, and council parks and recreation all having to tell this committee what they want to build and when it is going to be. It’s going to be one central government representative who’s going to help them coordinate it all—I mean, it’s fantastical. I’ve seen Parks and Recreation—it’s hilarious—but that’s not the prescription that New Zealand needs.

Now, what is the purpose of spatial plans? Well, to convey information to people who need it, so, when they go to build, they can take account of natural hazards. Or, of course, if a transport agency or a railway operator or a port or an airport wants to expand or build, people will know that when they go to build there—that airport, for example, have said, “We’re going to build a second runway. You need to know that planes might be flying over a house you build there.”—very, very, very useful.

But what this Government appears to assume is that by doing the spatial planning, that’s enough. They talk about how this planning process will enable infrastructure. Well, how is infrastructure enabled? An infrastructure operator, an asset owner, has to create an infrastructure delivery programme that says what they’re going to build, whether it’s four-lane roads, whether it’s ports, or whether it’s rail—whatever it is they want to build, it has to be on a programme held by that asset owner, that infrastructure owner. And while it might be on a programme so that they can accommodate future growth—whether it’s a whole lot of kids coming to live somewhere, so they need to build a new school, whatever it is—unless they have funding and financing locked in, unless they have a long-term horizon, none of this stuff can happen. This “spatial planning equals infrastructure” is a “magic happens” approach to solving some of New Zealand’s underlying problems, such as how do we deliver more service land at a more affordable price so that housing can be delivered more affordably to people who need it where and when they want to live.

That brings me to another problem with this bill. This bill, the Spatial Planning Bill, when passed, will, essentially, extinguish the opportunity for private developers to progress private plan changes that have delivered some of the best, highest-quality master-plan communities for people who want to live around New Zealand—outrageous. Telling people that you can’t plan and deliver fantastic communities, build town centres, or build public transport facilities because it’s not where a Minister or an unelected co-governance panel of planning tsars tell you you’re allowed to.

So what would be better than this? Well, you could say just about anything. But we do acknowledge there is an important role for spatial planning—it conveys information. But the bit that’s missing is the infrastructure funding and financing component. Now, here’s the tell: when this bill, one of three, was first proposed, it was called the Strategic Planning Bill. Maybe that’s the tell. Strategic planning involves working out the “where” on a map with the “how”, which is the infrastructure delivery programme. Again, far too complex for a Labour Government staffed by a cadre of inexperienced Ministers to ever hope to get their heads around.

But don’t worry, the ACT Party and our friends in the National Party are going to be able to restore the balance. We won’t just be colouring in the colouring-in book like Labour have. We’ve got plans to deliver infrastructure, to fund and finance it, and to reform resource management law in New Zealand in a way that upholds private property rights, guarantees customary rights to people who have them, and allows Kiwis to get on the building. [Holds up document] And it’s right here: ACT’s solutions for building New Zealand and conserving nature. People watching at home or listening on the radio can download it at ACT.org.nz. I highly recommend it. It’s a practical prescription for progress. That’s what New Zealanders are asking for as we go into this election in October 2023—they’re asking for practical solutions to problems. That’s what ACT is offering. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Green): E te Māngai o te Whare, tēnā koe. Thank you. I’m really pleased to take a call on the Spatial Planning Bill, and I think this bill has got huge potential to improve the way we plan in Aotearoa and the way we develop new urban areas, our towns expand, where we put infrastructure, how we look after nature, our rivers, and our coast, and how we respond to climate change, rising sea levels, and increased flood hazard events.

We are very fortunate that the Parliamentary Counsel Office is very skilled at drafting law in plain English. So this is a more manageable bill, as I’ve said before, than the Natural and Built Environment Bill, partly because it’s a lot shorter, but it’s also very easy to read. The purpose of it is to get these regional spatial strategies, which will have a life of planning for up to 30 years and longer, and to ensure that there’s more strategic direction to how we manage nature, and how we develop and how we use natural resources.

It is about being strategic and it is about integrating with the Natural and Built Environment Bill and the outcomes in that bill. It’s about having these strategies developed in a slightly different way from the way we’ve done planning to date in terms of having a very sort of staged process of everybody putting in submissions, going to a hearing, then potentially going to appeal after decisions have been released. There is a strong thrust in the legislation that the regional planning committees will run a really good and solid engagement process to really get the public’s ideas about how do they see the region developing, what are the areas of nature that really need to be protected, and how should we respond to things like rising seas.

So, as other members have noted, the fact is that we are now putting into law a requirement for spatial planning. Councils working together have endeavoured to do it, but they’ve had to develop their own governance arrangements. It has often relied on the initiatives and the personalities of particular councils, lucking on a good independent facilitator or chair. Now this bill is requiring it, except in the Chatham Islands, where it’s optional because of the size of that area. So I think and I hope that with regard to the practice that’s developed under the Resource Management Act regime, people can draw on what’s been best in that and put it into effect as the bill gets becomes law and is implemented.

One of the key changes, as the Hon Rachel Brooking has noted, is that there will have to be a central government representative on the committee that develops the spatial strategy. Now, ACT has thundered against that, and ACT’s comments fail to recognise that you have one person there, but you can’t have them making all the decisions just in the room. But they are the connector to ensure that if Waka Kotahi funding is needed for roads, there is a link-in with the planning that is happening around where the urban development and subdivision is to be, where we need new busways and that that’s integrated into that, new cycleways—that the funding then gets bid for in the Budget process, so you get an integration which is not always obvious to date.

The bill sets out the key outcomes for and contents of the strategies in clauses 16 and 17, the key matters that they have to deal with. There were quite a few changes that the select committee made here. There was a strong push by Horticulture New Zealand and others for stronger protection of highly productive land, and that is one of the changes that we made, because we do not want urban sprawl to compromise soils that are valuable for food growing. Sprawl, despite what the ACT Party says around plan changes, also leads to transport systems that are not nearly as efficient and are much more expensive and infrastructure that is more expensive. So taking that long-term view of 30 years or more, as councils do with their asset management plans, is about being strategic.

I guess I’m a little frustrated, because what I heard from the National Party was some very measured contributions, and I think Chris Bishop said National was opposed with less hostility to this than the Natural and Built Environment Bill—everyone is in favour of fewer plans. So it is a tragedy that the select committee process was not used by National to highlight the things that they saw as needing change in this bill, because everyone agrees about the need to plan well, and so there was the potential for there to be cross-party agreement on that. But, once again, there’s been a political position taken at the very outset which has prevented that.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Oh, well, that’s unreasonable.

Hon EUGENIE SAGE: So—sorry, Mr Brownlee, I didn’t hear that.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Yeah, it’s very unreasonable.

Hon EUGENIE SAGE: So we do want this to work well. I’m looking forward to the guidance that the Ministry for the Environment provides to the regional planning committees in terms of how to implement it but I would really encourage the public and others to actually read the bill, because it is very readable.

I guess the other thing is, in terms of the key matters that are to be included in these regional spatial strategies, it’s also areas of cultural heritage and areas with resources that are important to Māori. We haven’t had that in our planning law. This means that mahinga kai, for example, will get flagged and protected through the planning process. It’s taking planning to a new level, so I am very supportive of the bill and commend it to the House.

ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m delighted to stand, once again, to speak in the House on the Spatial Planning Bill. We worked through this bill concurrently alongside the previous bill we’ve mentioned today, the Natural and Built Environment Bill. It was an interesting process to do that, because I completely agree with the member the Hon Eugenie Sage; the difference in the two pieces of legislation are quite marked. This is a much simpler piece of legislation and, in fact, a piece of legislation that people across the country have been asking for.

I spend a lot of time with developers and builders etc.; of course, we have a family business doing so. One of the things that in the community of Tauranga, the Bay of Plenty, we worked across Government and across regionally to work with the UFTI group—the Urban Form Transport Infrastructure group. The biggest ask in that group was that the Government was at the table alongside the central and local councils.

That was really important that they were there, and this one of the things that this bill does. Essentially, it’s giving that long view of what a community or place-making should look like. It’s that up-to-30-years plan, and it’s important that we have this oversight. It’s about making the right decisions for our communities. It’s cutting back from about a hundred plans to about 16; that tells us, really simply, that we need to start thinking about our communities as not being discreet and individual, but also connected. I think this is a really useful piece of legislation.

Just before I take my seat, I do want to acknowledge the long—many long—hours that the select committee took, but also for our officials from the Ministry for the Environment, who worked weekends, who worked all sorts of hours to bring us really sound and good advice, and our clerk team, as well, who were there organising and orchestrating the constant movement that occurred; a tremendous effort. To the Hon Eugenie Sage and the Hon Rachel Brooking, as well as the Hon David Parker, this is a good piece of legislation that all three of you have shepherded through this House. I utterly commend it to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): The next call is a split call. I call on Tama Potaka for five minutes.

TAMA POTAKA (National—Hamilton West): Thank you for this opportunity to speak to the Spatial Planning Bill at the third reading. As mentioned, National supports reform of the Resource Management Act (RMA) and endorses spatial planning as a concept, but respectfully opposes this very readable bill and also the legislative ram-raiding that has resulted in the bill accelerating through this House.

The bill continues to be negligent, with illusory and ill-defined commitments to Māori concepts: legislative chicanery at its finest. A proverbial Pied Piper of resource management has emerged and there is a clamouring of consultants, lawyers, academics, and potential committee members awaiting their hungry feast. I’ve previously socialised what I believe is the Government’s unreasonable stumble to maximise kāwanatanga, often uncosted at the expense of rangatiratanga and common sense. This bill does nothing to allay my concern.

Kāwanatanga takes over more here, except we call it “regional planning committees”. On a Treaty theme, can I refer to clause 5, which mirrors clause 4 of the Natural and Built Environment Bill. The bill doubles down on that powerful clause in reference to Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and thanks to the Minister, who confirmed there is no intent to confuse those applicants and decision-makers who are affected by its provision. But the problem here that I respectfully signal again is that the interpretation of Treaty principles have often generated more hope and a lot more dissatisfaction. The Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki Tribal Trust and Department of Conservation decision at the Supreme Court reinforces this observation: lots of resource, years of effort, a major judicial decision, and no genuine partnership between the Crown and Ngāi Tai. Kakī hōhonu; pāpaku uaua, e hoa. [Deep throat; shallow muscles.] 

A Treaty reference is useful when it results in action, and I’m sceptical about how regional planning committees, in some regions, will genuinely accommodate and deliver on the diverse aspirations of iwi and Māori outside tribal narratives, place names, and some tree-planting programmes for planning purposes. The regional planning committees, set out in this bill, comprising individuals that are appointed, not elected, appear to just be another layer of bureaucracy. It will have the effect of convoluting planning and decision-making and compromising rangatiratanga further, because there are not enough seats for all the iwi and Māori organisations that might wish to be on them. The democratic principle of one person, one vote—which we heartily agree with—is gone; gone by lunchtime, and further shadowed by appointing more and more bureaucrats to join more and more and more committees and make more and more decisions. Who’s going to pay for them? Nowhere have I heard what the actual costs for these kumu on more seats in the corridor of decision-making actually constitute.

As drafted, these planning committees have more than a symbolic and cursory function. Through my uneducated and thick lens, they look like they’re overtaking the responsibilities of councils—who should be really delivering on these issues? They seem under-democratic, time-consuming, faceless, and unreflective of communities of interest. Hamilton City Council—which, by the way, sports three oxen, two pūkeko, and the Waikato River on its coat of arms—opined in their submission that their own decision-making process will be severely compromised with the current drafting. Actually, what will our council do, David Bennett, if 10 waters, RMA reform, and other Government objectives are legislated? Hosting more world rugby finals and more darts nights is simply not enough to keep our mayor and councillors happy.

Hon David Bennett: Bring the V8s back.

TAMA POTAKA: That’s right, the V8s—that $40 million question. We’ve opined previously on section 7, which refers to mana, but we’re none the wiser about what mana means in this third reading. Honourable use of the terms, yes; unclear use, definitely. During a previous incarnation of this speaker, I spoke to the wisdoms of the wisdoms of that well-known Labour legislator Geoffrey Palmer, former Prime Minister, and his concern with our law being too fast. Sir Geoffrey Palmer referred to New Zealand lacking the checks to prevent constitutional slippage—slippage and ambiguity is the hallmark of this triplicate legislation.

If we can’t get these terms clear, like “kawa”, and “tikanga” and “mana”, how do we expect the Māori gold and pounamu miners, the Māori corporate dairy farmers, and the Māori aquaculture specialists to actually get things done and get the country back on track? If we can’t get those terms clear, how do we expect to rely on the reliable, independent bench to actually get our country moving? I don’t know; I don’t know, Mr Smith. But at the moment, what I’m looking at is a series of terms, a series of planning committees, a series of concepts and terminology that have been rushed through a process that’s determined to fail—

Angie Warren-Clark: Five years!

TAMA POTAKA: That’s what I see. Five years. And with that, Madam Speaker, I’ll take alight and sit. Kia ora.

SARAH PALLETT (Labour—Ilam): It gives me great pleasure to rise in support of the Spatial Planning Bill, although my credulity has been stretched listening to some of the speakers earlier—not from this side of the House, I hasten to add. I was really making reference, as one would understand, to the other side of the House. I would really refer to the previous speaker, Tama Potaka, who referred to his “uneducated lens”, and that pretty much sums it up. When we compare the input of the Hon Rachel Brooking, who has had in excess of 20 years as a resource management lawyer, and the many, many years this legislation has been in the creation.

I do want to acknowledge and thank the extremely hard-working Environment Committee. I am not a part of that august committee, but I have had the great privilege of sitting on it as a substitute member of Parliament and to acknowledge the hard work of the Hon Eugenie Sage and, of course, the Minister, described as “inexperienced” by Simon Court, the Hon David Parker, elected in 2002 and a Minister for two parliamentary terms, as well as being our Attorney-General. “Inexperienced”—interesting!

This bill is going to tackle problems, such as lengthy delays in consenting development applications, high consenting costs—even those for relatively straightforward development plans—inconsistent and poorly written district plans, a lack of national direction and guidance to councils, and patchy, inconsistent, and ineffective environmental protection across the country.

This bill will allow for planning for positive outcomes. It will condense 100 district plans into 16 regional plans. It will allow new standardised conditions with fewer bespoke consents. Stronger, more consistent national direction is something that developers across the country have been pleading for for many years, and that is why I would like to commend this bill to the House.

DAN ROSEWARNE (Labour): It’s a pleasure to take a short call on the third reading of the Spatial Planning Bill. The Spatial Planning Bill has a single function, and that’s the creation and implementation of regional spatial strategies. This will do a few things, including national consistency across key aspects of all those strategies.

I’d just like to touch on the regional spatial strategies. They will help achieve the purpose of the Natural and Built Environment Bill, which is intertwined. And while the Spatial Planning Bill is a separate and new part of the resource management system, it’s intrinsically linked to the Natural and Built Environment Bill. And as the Minister David Parker said in his opening remarks, regional spatial strategies will become a vehicle for the delivery of infrastructure in the right places and at the right time. These are needed to provide a clear direction to the private sector as well as local government and central government agencies like those responsible for transport and housing.

The regional spatial strategy will be unique to the region. I’ve subbed in on the Environment Committee on a number of occasions when this bill was at the committee stage and there were some good submissions, particularly around light pollution around the Tekapō area. Those of you who have been down to that fantastic part of the country will be aware that Tekapō and the surrounding areas are a light pollution - free zone which lies below one of the largest international dark-sky reserves in the world, only one of four such reserves in the world. So whether it’s areas that should be protected from light pollution or areas with significant biodiversity or productive land or even the risk of sea level rise, this bill protects those areas well into the future. So it’s a good bill, a pragmatic bill, and I commend it to the house.

STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is a great pleasure to speak on the Spatial Planning Bill. I want to take up a couple of points that were just raised by Dan Rosewarne, the list member from Waimakariri, right on the southern border of my electorate. It’s only a 3½ hour drive from my house to that end of the electorate, and I’m not at the top of my own.

I take his point about dark sky reserves and spatial planning. Actually, Kaikōura is seeking a dark sky reserve because the Hutton’s shearwater doesn’t like lights at night and they fly into them and it causes all sorts of problems. All of those things were never thought of, of course, when lights or street lights were put in—and still not even thought about today. KiwiRail has put in some lights that are quite disruptive to the Hutton’s shearwater. They didn’t do this deliberately of course; it’s just that no one knows unless they’re told, do they? The Hutton’s shearwater only need them at a certain time of the year when they try to leave after breeding and their chicks have fledged. They head off out to sea. And that is the point, I guess, of spatial planning—to get those things right at the beginning. But, unfortunately, things change over time and people aren’t aware of those things initially.

I think one of the great examples of spatial planning gone wrong is actually what happened with the red zones in Christchurch, where land was built on that probably never should have been, and, in fact, developers often pestered the council when the council really didn’t want them to be built there. But the legal mechanisms to stop that were not available to them and we ended up with whole lot of housing and we know what happened in that area when the earthquake struck.

In my own electorate, we had similar issues with people under terraces and banks where the ground opened up, rocks came down, and those houses were then deemed to be uninhabitable even though they weren’t damaged. So getting the spatial planning aspect of our Resource Management Act type of legislation is absolutely essential. However, it’s not that simple, and I think while we don’t violently disagree with this bill, we’re not very happy. Of course, as you’ve all heard on the previous bill, the Natural and Built Environment bill, they do go together and we do have to have spatial planning legislation. But there are concepts in there, as my learned friend Tama Potaka alluded to in a far more learned way than I could appreciate, about the different terms used in both of those bills and that they are not actually clear at all and open us up for, perhaps, what could be endless litigation.

I think we have to be careful when we put words into legislation that it’s actually the words that are needed to make the legislation and get the outcomes that we need, not just paying lip service to them by adding them in. Now, an adaptation bill will come but spatial planning will be a part of that. We’ve got areas in New Zealand that are susceptible to sea-level rise or in my case in my electorate actually in most of the Kaikōura Coast, went up recently, although some small parts of it went down.

We have the oldest site of known human habitation in New Zealand on the Wairau Bar—1280 AD, it’s estimated, for the remains that were found on the Wairau Bar. That bar is a gravel bar with fish traps that were circular, and at high tide the water and the fish would flow and they close off the traps and then the tide would go out, and they’d go and catch the fish. Those traps are above sea level today, or round about the level that they could have been useful 800-odd years ago. So we are in a situation where we don’t know exactly what’s happening in New Zealand, with such a dynamic coastline because of the tectonic forces that are at play there.

So exactly how we deal with those particular issues—we won’t solve them all. We will find out that areas that we didn’t think were susceptible to sea-level rise will be because of earthquakes, or those that we think that will, might not be because the earthquakes may lift that land up. We certainly know that that the Hikurangi subduction zone is likely to go at any point and there’s potentially a magnitude 9 earthquake along that point, and it will push the land up because it’s been dragged down at the moment. So we know that the sea level will change, but this piece of legislation doesn’t necessarily make that a better situation.

The regional planning committees—I think that’s one of the real bones of contention that we have on the National Party, and we do stand for one person, one vote. We believe that all those people that represent us have to answer to us—that is, the ratepayers and the voters in New Zealand. There is a move to lower the voting age to 16. Well, that’s going to be of little used to the 16-year-olds when they don’t have the vote for the people on those planning committees that will have an effect on their lives and the environment that they live in, and they’re going to be living in that environment for much longer than any of us in this House. So what’s the point of having regional planning committees with appointments that are not voted on? That does not stand up to the test of democracy We have to remember that going back for decades, over 100 years, people have fought and died for the right to protect our democracy, for freedom of speech, for freedom of expression, and for the right to vote—one person, one vote.

These planning committees do not meet that test. Why should we accept that? There may be a good rationale in the mind of the person who put this forward, but it does not mean the one person, one vote principle, the level of democracy that we have all benefited from. And while people might argue, and they often do, about members of Parliament and their councillors as to how good they are or not, they have an opportunity to make a decision to get rid of us or support us, and that’s coming up on 14 October. We know we’re all looking forward to that in this House. Yes, Shanan, I’m looking forward to it too, and we just wonder how many people are going to be back here. I’m certainly looking forward to 14 October.

But when are the planning committees going to stand up for their opportunity? That is the ultimate test. We get the ultimate in a performance review every three years. We’re not getting that with these planning committees. We have to sit up for that test, and so we should. I think every one of us in this House accepts that test. That’s what we come here for. So why should we put in place a piece of legislation taking away the right for New Zealanders to judge the people that make the decisions on their behalf?

So I think that’s a really poor part of this legislation and that is one of the reasons why we oppose this bill. As I said, it’s not as bad as the Natural and Built Environment Bill, but it is bad. That said, I would like to acknowledge, as I did on the previous bill, the Hon Eugenie Sage, who chaired that select committee and has done a fantastic job. I thank the permanent members on the select committee for the work that they did. I came and went on that select committee. I had little to do with the Spatial Planning Bill, but I do accept and respect the work that the committee members did. I’d also like to thank all the submitters that gave up their time to come along and submit on this very important bill. So while this bill is a good attempt, I do not support it.

LEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. As the final speaker for the Government on this side of the House, I support the Spatial Planning Bill in the third reading. I want to thank the fabulous contributions, particularly on this side of the House. I want to thank all the select committee members, the officials, and especially acknowledge the chair Eugenie Sage. On that note, I commend this bill to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Spatial Planning Bill be now read a third time.

Ayes 72

New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere.

Noes 47

New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2; Whaitiri.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 72, Noes 44.

Bills

Integrity Sport and Recreation Bill

Second Reading

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister for Sport and Recreation): I present a legislative statement on the Integrity Sport and Recreation Bill.

SPEAKER: That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I move, That the Integrity Sport and Recreation Bill be now read a second time.

I want to acknowledge the Social Services and Community Committee for its excellent consideration of this bill. I was very pleased to see the committee report the bill back early, and that it has unanimously recommended that the bill be passed with some amendments to clarify and strengthen the bill. I also want to thank members of the public, including those from the sport and recreation sector, that submitted on the bill. The committee did receive a large range of submissions, and has taken them all into account.

I am acutely aware of timings this evening, so my contribution in this second reading will be relatively brief in order to cover off a few of the changes that have been made. We will then obviously discuss them further in the committee of the whole House and the third reading stages that follow on.

It is just worth noting for colleagues in the House the functions of the Integrity Sport and Recreation Commission that this bill establishes. It is to promote, advise, and educate on integrity issues and threats to integrity within the sports and physical recreation sector; develop and issue integrity codes; prescribe policies and procedures for complaints management and dispute resolution; implement the World Anti-Doping Code and facilitate compliance with New Zealand’s international obligations with respect to doping in sport; investigate suspected breaches of integrity codes and threats to integrity, and advise the Minister for Sport and Recreation on the state of integrity in sport and organised physical recreation.

The purpose of putting this legislation before the House is to modernise the way that we deal with issues in our sport and recreation sector that are threats to integrity. That does include doping in sport, competition manipulation, bullying, sexual misconduct, racism, and other behaviours that undermine sport and recreation in Aotearoa New Zealand.

It is worth noting that the bill does disestablish Drug Free Sport New Zealand, and shift all of its functions, powers, responsibilities, and staff to the commission. I want to take this opportunity to acknowledge the excellent work that Drug Free Sport New Zealand does. The fact that it is being absorbed into this commission is no statement on that work. It remains important, and the people who do it do a great job—on behalf of us and on behalf of sportspeople—to keep our sport clean.

The committee did make a number of changes, and I just want to briefly highlight those. First, they have recommended that the definition of “threat to integrity” in clause 5 is amended to include attempted competition manipulation. This better aligns with what is done internationally, including by the Olympic movement. There were several submitters who noted that illegal sports betting was not referred to in the threats to integrity. In light of this, clause 5 is being amended to refer to sports betting activity associated with competition manipulation. This recognises that while the commission is not a betting regulator, certain prohibited betting activity can be captured by the bill.

Clause 5 is also amended to refer to unlawful discrimination as defined by Part 2 of the Human Rights Act (HRA). This clarifies, for the avoidance of doubt, that the commission will need to interpret discrimination consistently with the HRA, which sets out those prohibited grounds on discrimination.

The committee did receive a lot of feedback from sporting organisations around how codes should work. As a result, the committee has recommended changes to clause 19 of the bill, to articulate a clear purpose for the codes, which is “to provide for minimum standards of integrity that would be consistent across the parts of the sport and physical recreation sector” that they apply to. Clause 19 is also amended to clarify that codes cannot apply to a single sport or recreation activity. These changes make clear that the intention is for codes to promote consistency across the sector, and address concerns about multiple codes leading to greater complexity.

There was a strong theme in the submissions that we should make sure of a focus on safeguarding children, given the particular harms that children can experience in sport and recreation environments. As a result, the committee has recommended changes for the commission to be set up to appropriately handle integrity matters involving children and young people. There is a new clause 54B requiring the commission to have a child protection policy.

Finally, the committee has proposed to clarify a range of consultation requirements for the commission in clauses 16 and 20.

This is a good bill. This is an important piece of legislation to ensure that all sport and recreation in New Zealand is clean and free from cheating, from drug manipulation, from competition manipulation, but it is also an important place for people to take their concerns and complaints. There have been many brave people—particularly women—who have taken complaints about how they have been treated in the sporting arena. They do not always feel that they have been heard properly. There will now be a place and a commission that does that. I strongly recommend this bill to the House.

SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to. It is probably unfair to start a 10-minute speech at this stage and then interrupt it in less than two minutes.

Debate interrupted.

Valedictory Statements

Valedictory Statements

SPEAKER: Members, following the valedictory statement of Dr Elizabeth Kerekere, the House will suspend for the dinner break. I call on Dr Elizabeth Kerekere to make her valedictory statement.

Dr ELIZABETH KEREKERE: Tēnā rā tātou katoa. E tika ana kia tuku mihi ki ngā atua, ngā kaitiaki me ngā tipua e karapoti nei i a tātou i tēnei wā. Ki te hunga mate, koutou kua riro atu, koutou kua takahi i ngā tapuwae o ngā mātua tīpuna, ki a Georgina Beyer, Pat McGill, Aki Paita, Patsy Tamihere. E moe, e moe, moe mai rā i tō moenga roa.

Tahuri mai ki te hunga ora, Te Ātiawa, Ngāti Mutunga, otirā Taranaki Whānui, tēnei te mihi ki a koutou. Ka tuku mihi hoki ki ngā kaiwhakarite ā-mana whenua o Pāremata, Kura Moeahu kōrua ko Ali Houpapa.

Te Māngai, e te Mana Whakawā, ka tū koe ki tō ake mana, ki te mana o ngā iwi o Te Taihauāuru hoki.

[Greetings to us all. It is appropriate to offer greetings to the deities, the guardians, and the powerful that surround us at this time. To the deceased, you who have passed on, you who have followed in the footsteps of our forebears, to Georgina Beyer, Pat McGill, Aki Paita, and Patsy Tamihere, sleep, sleep, rest in peace on your eternal bed.

I turn now to the living. Te Ātiawa, Ngāti Mutunga, indeed Taranaki Whānui, this is a greeting to you. I offer thanks to the mana whenua facilitators of Parliament, Kura Moeahu and Ali Houpapa.

Mr Speaker, you stand on your own mana, and the mana of the iwi of the western regions of the North Island.]

Mr Speaker, thank you so much for support and advice, especially over the past few months. I also acknowledge the former Speaker the Rt Hon Trevor Mallard, who once sent me a note in the House to say that my purple sequin jacket was “stretching the definition of business attire”.

Shout-out to Parliamentary Service, who indeed are the best people supporting the best Parliament in the world, and especially my relationship manager Jane McKenzie and those who have supported my office as we’ve transitioned. Ka mihi au ki a koutou, ko aku hoamahi, tōku whānau me ōku hoa, ōku hoa katoa kua tae mai. Tēnā rā tātou katoa.

[I thank you, my colleagues, my family, and my friends, and all of my friends that have arrived here. Thanks to all of us.]

Greetings to my colleagues, my whānau, all of our friends and community people who are here in person and watching online as we #PaintParliamentPurple one more time. I have gathered you here to tell you a story. It is a story of hope, of expectation, of hard work and very late nights, of laughter, and of tears—not mine though; apparently, I’m not allowed to cry. There is scandal, because no one is surprised that I would challenge the powers that be, but there is also betrayal, because the powers that be don’t like to be challenged.

As No. 4 on the Green Party initial list this year, I thought I was on a heart-warming two-part series, and it turns out I was on Survivor and I did not see The Blind Side coming. However, it is ultimately a story of triumph, because very few people ever get to be an MP. And I sit proudly on my seat up in the naughty corner, because it is an incredible honour to serve those who put me here, and I will work hard for them every day. Mihi atu ki Te Paati ACT for granting me this space to speak to you all here tonight. As I said in my maiden speech, change happens at many levels, and for some change, for takatāpui, Māori, and rainbow whānau, it can only happen here. And I’m really proud of the things that I’ve helped usher through, because real power and real change lies in community and with whānau, where I come from and where I gladly return.

In 2020, I came in as part of the most-diverse Green caucus ever, and, with four rainbow MPs, we proudly claimed to be the proudest party in the proudest Parliament in the world. I continue to hold out hope for our next trans, non-binary, or intersex representative who will one day follow in the footsteps of the late and great Georgina Beyer. I came into the Green Party and eventually into Parliament after over 40 years of working for our people on Te Tiriti o Waitangi and kaupapa Māori things and over 35 years on youth development and rainbow issues. My focus has always been on our health and our wellbeing and for suicide and violence prevention. I led the Māori strategy as chair of Te Mātāwaka, the Māori-Pasifika caucus of the Greens—and shout-out to the incredible Te Mātāwaka staff, who supported that mahi. Tēnā rā tātou katoa.

A highlight was our meetings with the authors of Matike Mai and He Puapua to focus our efforts for the rights of tangata whenua, radically shift the way we make decisions together in this country, and to work towards a future our ancestors dreamt of when they signed Te Tiriti o Waitangi. We supported occupations around the motu including at Ihumātao, Pūtiki, Aotea, and Mau Whenua. We encouraged whānau, hapū, and iwi to reach out so we could work alongside them, using our platform and resources to amplify and progress their kaupapa.

Operation Pātiki ki Kohupātiki Marae reached out to us through the Greens’ Hawke’s Bay Te Matau-a-Māui branch—and welcome to both rōpū who are represented here today. In February 2022, Aki Paipper, known as “Te Kuini o Te Awa”, shared a vision to restore the mauri of the awa, and enhance the wellbeing of the people through the return of its original name: Ngaruroro ki Moko-tūā-raro ki Rangatira. We supported their petition, two full applications to the Geographic Board, visiting Hastings every month, and talking almost every day on the phone. In June, we celebrated that success. It was an exciting, exciting day, with the official renaming of Te Awa o Mokotūāraro. We were devastated when, only a month later, Aki passed away in her sleep. Her legacy lives on, and my office will stay committed to Operation Pātiki in her memory.

Another favourite was when the whānau of Te Waimana Kaaku, who are also represented here tonight, reached out to us a year ago. I was proud to host them here in Parliament. They shared their vision of their people with jobs and houses on their whenua and the devastating impact of the sudden halt of a joint hapū-Government project that had promised—or they thought had promised—to bring their vision to reality. After I raised questions in the House, and arranged meetings for them with Ministers and their officials, they had their deposits returned, and the project looked set to resume. Now, those houses aren’t built yet, but, again, we remain committed to supporting them until one day we’re seeing those being built and the whānau back home.

It is in the rainbow space that we have been the most transformative Government. Shout-out to Rainbow Greens, who were with me every step of the way and several of whom are here in the House. In 2021, the Greens led the news at Waitangi for the first time, talking about takatāpui rights and banning conversion therapy. My record-breaking petition was launched at Auckland Pride—and garnered over 157,000 signatures in one week—pressuring the Government to pass legislation sooner rather than later. I joined the Justice Committee for the also record-breaking numbers of submissions and hearings. I also joined the Governance and Administration Committee for the Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Act 2021 to ensure that our trans, non-binary, and intersex whānau could more easily change their birth certificates. We’ve made progress for those people who are born here, but there’s work to do on those who are born overseas. We will keep going.

One of my single proudest things is putting the term “takatāpui” into legislation for the first time—in the Pae Ora legislation—after so very long of researching, promoting, and advocating. To be able to do that was an incredible, incredible thing for me. My member’s bill—I put that in the biscuit tin, like, just around my maiden speech, and it got drawn just in time to exist. We’ll see what happens in the next Government, but it was the Human Rights (Prohibition of Discrimination on Grounds of Gender Identity or Expression, and Variations of Sex Characteristics) Amendment Bill—again, putting a stake in the ground in law for our trans, non-binary, and intersex whānau. In a quick shout-out to the Human Rights Commission and the cross-party parliamentary rainbow group, we have supported the International Day Against Homophobia, Biphobia and Transphobia and, loosely, through our respective parties, contributed to all the legislation that has happened in this area. So that was some of the great stuff. There are other things, not so great.

A few months ago, I had a falling out with the co-leaders of the Green Party which led to my resignation from the party and my retirement from Parliament. I don’t know if anyone here noticed it, it was handled quite discreetly, and, actually, it was not fun. Day after day, week after week, month after month, I watched while increasingly unfounded and increasingly elaborate allegations were made about me. They also claimed that these issues were being resolved by some sort of process that they had under way. I categorically dispute all such allegations. So this email was sent to my lawyer from the so-called process team dated 7.14 p.m., Wednesday, 3 May—a full four weeks after the original incident. And I quote: “As previously discussed, please find attached draft terms of reference for the next steps in our process. You will note that the list of complainants are just Marama and James, this is because we have not received formal complaints from anyone else at this time.”

So to recap, no formal complaints, no natural justice, and never a process, let alone a tikanga-based one. I consider this to be an epic failure of leadership. I’ve been a leader for most of my life and mentored many other leaders, especially amongst our young rainbow people. So here’s some tips on how to be a good leader: if the staff, person, or MP expresses concerns with how they’re being treated, address it immediately. Follow a good faith and restorative process. If a staff member or MP is bringing concerns about racism or other behaviour from other MPs and senior staff, perhaps address those issues. If allegations have been made about someone, perhaps talk to that person to clarify the facts before you start vilifying them in public. And lastly, if your organisation has a clear principle of non-violence, perhaps do not engage in ongoing abusive behaviour.

Many people have asked, even after all this, why I still support the Green Party. I support the vote in the House, except of course for the therapeutic bill. But I’m as committed to our charter principles of ecological wisdom, social responsibility, appropriate decision making, and non-violence, as I ever was. I support the Green kaupapa and policies—several of which I helped write—and use of Māori frameworks I created. As, in fact, the entire restructure of the party was based on a Māori framework I created. Some of the people I love and trust the most in this world are Green Party members, including my wife—under duress—and my staff, Kerry Peipi, and the former party co-convener Wiremu Winitana. I mihi to all the Green members from the across the country who are in the House here tonight, particularly to the other former party co-convener, Penny Leach, and her girls who are here all the way from Munich. Because I still think of this as my party, and one day I plan to be back. I’ve got work to do, but I will never apologise for calling out racism, homophobia, and transphobia wherever it occurs.

Speaking of calling out, like many people I thought the theatre of the debating chamber was indicative of relationships in this House. But, of course, it is not. The thing that most surprised me when I became an MP was how collegial it was, and we know we get most of the real work done in our select committees and cross-party parliamentary groups. I am such a big fan of the Health Committee. I am so proud to do that work, and it is the time when I most feel like a lawmaker, is in that space working with my colleagues. I have such huge respect for the chairs and the members of that committee. And just a shout-out to the staff who do incredible work—we’ve gone through 67 petitions in our job, and I have appointed myself as the editor-in-chief of all reports and papers that come through that committee.

I also became co-chair of the Parliamentary Friendship Group for North America with my colleague Nicola Grigg, and I’m a member of the Europe Friendship Group that involves hosting a meeting online with dignitaries across those regions. Last year, my highlight was visiting colleagues in six European countries in just two weeks, including seeing the European Parliament in action and listening to Paul Goldsmith play music of a Lithuania composer on a grand piano in Lithuania. Less fun was when our entire delegation’s luggage went missing and it chased us across Europe for the last week.

I was also part of the Parliamentarians’ Group on Population and Development, and supported events by the Commonwealth Women Parliamentarians. A highlight for me was the combined celebration we held last year for being the first Parliament in the world to get 50 percent women representation. But I am most proud of being chair of the Artworks Committee. Shout-out to Tasha Fernandez and the crew for their stellar work. We opened Te Papakura gallery and increased the representation of women and Māori artists in the collection with the purchase of six new major works.

This is a workplace unlike any other. Being in Parliament leaves its mark on all of us—like I never used to work with the TV on, but now Parliament TV has been the soundtrack of the last three years. Now not only can I recognise every single voice in this House without looking, I don’t know how I will function without hearing the dulcet tones of Andrew Bayly or Grant Robertson, or hearing the Hon Ginny Andersen tell the Hon Mark Mitchell one more time, including today, how “the 1,800 extra police will help New Zealanders feel safe.”

I have never taken this job for granted, because the goal was never to be an MP, the goal was to do what only an MP could do. Now I know how everything works I can operate better as an advocate in the future. I said in my maiden speech that I would work respectfully across the House and I hope that my colleagues have found this to be so, and that regardless of who is in Government after the dust settles, those MPs who remain will take my call if I ring. And to be clear, I’m not starting my own lobby company—only because none of the communities I represent can afford to pay me. After Parliament, I will put my energy back into my research and ensuring Pae Ora actually delivers everything it claims it will for Māori, Pasifika, women, rainbow people, people with disabilities, in rural areas, and with rare disorders.

Now, I promised a triumphant end to this story. When I became an independent MP, we heard the horror stories of previous independents who struggled without the machinery of their party. I aimed to, number one, be the best independent MP ever in this Parliament and, number two, to go out in style. History will decide the first and I would like to thank all of you here today for helping create the second. My colleagues, you are all welcome to join our party tonight. There will be food, drink, a cashless cash bar and dancing. Shout-out to my favourite band, White Chapel Jak, who have come down from Auckland to perform for us, because if you want to catch up with me, you will need to go on to the dance floor.

Finally, as I like to say, why do we get up in the morning if not to change the world? I’ve done that in every other part of my life, and with all of you I’ve done that here, and I’ll strive to keep doing it after I leave, because this is not the end of my story. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora huihui mai tātou katoa.

[Applause, hongi, and harirū]

Waiata—Karanga Aotearoa

Sitting suspended from 6.04 p.m. to 7 p.m.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members, the House is resumed. When we broke for the dinner break, the House was considering the Integrity Sport and Recreation Bill.

Voting

Correction—Spatial Planning Bill

Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Point of order. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Could I seek leave to correct the voting record for the Spatial Planning Bill?

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is none.

Hon EUGENIE SAGE: Te Paati Māori, two votes opposed; Meka Whaitiri, one vote opposed. Thank you.

Bills

Integrity Sport and Recreation Bill

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I am pleased to rise in support of the Integrity Sport and Recreation Bill at second reading, and to confirm that the National Party will be supporting this bill through its remaining stages.

I join with the Minister for Sport and Recreation in firstly acknowledging the collegial nature that the Social Services and Community Committee embarked on. I’m not a permanent member of that, but I was quite heavily involved for this item of business—well chaired by Angie Warren-Clark—and the committee navigated some quite interesting, I think, aspects of this bill. It came to the committee in pretty good shape and I think it’s come out of the select committee in better shape thanks to the very good submitters that we had—and I want to thank them—particularly those who submitted on what the bill actually did, and those people were overwhelmingly supportive of the idea of a sports integrity framework.

Now, by way of background, I think the genesis for this has been sort of twofold and the confluence of two sets of inquiries. One was the two Heron reports into aspects of Cycling New Zealand, first in 2018; and then I think in 2021 following the tragic passing of Olivia Podmore. Then, of course, also the Integrity Working Group’s work that predated that second Heron report and was reported back to the Minister and Sport New Zealand in April last year. So the bill itself is really the product of that.

Although I think it’s also fair to say that this was the story of two Olivias. Because while I think we all remember Olivia Podmore, I want to acknowledge and reference the bravery of another Olivia: former Commonwealth Games gymnast Olivia Jobsis. Now, Olivia Jobsis went public three or four years ago with quite stark revelations of her experience as an elite athlete—Commonwealth Games gymnast—revelations that included fat shaming; improper conduct, including sexual conduct; psychological abuse; and mental manipulation. She appeared before the committee with Gymnastics New Zealand, and that was a very, very important submission because Andrea—the chief executive, Andrea Nelson; sorry, I should have known that—and Sally McKechnie and Olivia Jobsis came and told us firstly about the profile of Gymnastics New Zealand, where 90 percent of the athletes are under the age of 12, and 79 percent of them are female.

That really brought into sharp relief the importance of making sure that the bill was sufficiently robust and strongly reflective of child-friendly processes when we think about an integrity framework. I think, by and large, we certainly listened very carefully. I think the committee has made recommendations that do, to a large degree, reflect those concerns of both Gymnastics New Zealand and others where there are a high number of elite and pre-elite athletes who are nevertheless very young.

Now, I mentioned the issue of those who submitted on the bill. But we had a number of submissions where there were concerns about aspects that the committee concluded—and was advised—were outside the scope of this bill. This related to the issue of transgender participation in sport, particularly women’s sport, and the concerns on both sides of that discussion about the questions of participation being reconciled with safety and fairness.

I think it was fair to say that we had tensions on both sides of that discussion that were not reconciled. Indeed, thankfully, I think the committee didn’t need the Wisdom of Solomon because those issues—important though they are—are not being addressed in this bill. I think it’s important to set on the record that that is the case, and it will be over to individual sporting codes to decide how best to deal with that within the guidelines that Sport New Zealand have provided already.

But I do think it was emblematic of that discussion, a question that I asked a submitter from inside out, where I asked if it was possible to express concerns about fairness and safety of biological women and children in sport without being labelled transphobic, and, if so, how? That was a question that didn’t get an answer. But certainly the person I was questioning acknowledged that that was an important issue.

It is my hope that we can get to a point where we can have legitimate concerns on both sides of that argument raised without epithets being thrown. Unfortunately, if we look at social media and other aspects, that has, I think, got to the point where there are two discrete echo chambers and we need to fix that. Nevertheless, this was not the place to fix that. I want to acknowledge, though, that they were concerns and the sports integrity bill will not resolve them—that is over to the sports organisations themselves.

I was also very pleased to see some exemplars of what a sports integrity framework might look like from Sport Integrity Australia, because the Australian sporting authorities are ahead of us and we were given examples of, for example, Swimming Australia, a child safeguarding policy, a National Integrity Framework, guidance on the improper use of drugs and medicine. These are exactly the sorts of things that New Zealand sporting codes will have to deal with and I hope we don’t have to reinvent the wheel.

As policy makers, we can be a bit like a kleptomaniac—we can steal good policy where we see it globally. I say that because I do have some concerns about the cost of setting up a framework like this, albeit that the best way to invest in an integrity framework is to invest in education and prevention rather than investigation and sanctioning. I do hope that the body—when it is up and running fully and has its codes in place—invests most of its time in education and prevention, because that will be the best for welfare of our athletes.

I do want to come back to the Heron report, because some of the things that we did here were about winning at all costs, measuring success by medals, and then sort of reverse engineering what’s required to get there. I think what the second Heron report talked about was to say, “Well, if you do it the other way around, if you get the processes and the framework right, medals will follow, success will follow,” and I tend to agree with that. So let’s use what excellent work Australia has already done and set that as the standard for New Zealand.

I want to attach myself to the comments of the Minister of sport in his second reading speech before the dinner break, around the excellent work Drug Free Sport New Zealand has done and that the building into the sports integrity body of the Drug Free Sport organisation is not a reflection that they aren’t doing an excellent job. In fact, it’s quite the opposite. I think it’s an endorsement of that, because I think it’s around that that the integrity body will be built and I commend the work they’ve done.

So, with those comments, the importance of safeguarding children, the importance of moderation and cost—oh, and I think the third issue that was a concern to me at first reading was the voluntary nature of the codes when they came through, and I still have that concern. I think they were alleviated to some degree, but I think the integrity framework will work best when there is a very, very high level of participation and compliance by sports organisations to those codes. So I’ll accept the need for them to be voluntary, but I think we should be watching that closely to ensure that there is a high level of compliance. But, with those comments, I’m very pleased to continue to support this bill at second reading.

ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I appreciate the opportunity to talk to this bill. As the chair of the Social Services and Community Committee, I do have to absolutely agree with the member who’s just resumed his seat—Michael Woodhouse—on the collegial way that we worked across the matters that were raised with us.

Look, this piece of legislation is long overdue, I believe, and I really want to acknowledge the Minister for Sport and Recreation for presenting to us a piece of legislation that was pretty damned good in its first blush. We have done some work on it and made some changes and, essentially, where we’ve landed, I think, is satisfactory for everyone. We had some really good advice, but certainly we had 183 submissions—all groups or individuals—and we heard from 19 submitters from Wellington or by Zoom videoconference.

The purpose of this bill, quite simply, is to strengthen the integrity of sport and recreation. It sets up an independent Crown entity—a commission—to do a number of things, and I’m just going to run very quickly through those. There’ll be between seven and nine members on this commission. Their work will include developing and issuing integrity codes. We heard about the anti-doping functions which will be collapsed in from Drug Free Sport New Zealand, which is really important, and, again, I put it on record as well how effective they have been. This is a sensible process and movement. They will be investigating and resolving integrity matters. There will be independent methods for resolving disputes, which is really important. We did some changes in there to ensure that those whistleblowers, or people who were making some commentary around what was going on in sports, were actually protected to do so, and it’s very important that their confidentiality is maintained.

There is a lot that we tweaked with this bill, and one of the things that has been mentioned is around children. It’s really important. Many of us here on this side of the House have worked in the child protection area, and we thought it incredibly important that we ensure that child protection is at the forefront of some of the policies that exist in some of the direction.

I also want to acknowledge that at times we heard from submitters in the community who were out of scope in relation to the gender identity of members playing sport. It became quite divisive at times, but I think that as a team and as a select committee, we worked well across that. We were able to listen to opinions, regardless of whether we changed anything in the legislation. We made very certain that girls and women were at the forefront of the work that we do, and we’ve included changing the term “rainbow communities” to “rainbow people”. So, with that, I commend this bill to the House.

Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Whangaparāoa): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Look, it’s a pleasure to stand and take a call on this, the second reading of the Integrity Sport and Recreation Bill. I held the sport and recreation portfolio for only a very short time before it was passed to my good friend and colleague the Hon Michael Woodhouse, who was probably far better qualified to have it, having been a top-notch rugby union referee and also a very, very good halfback for the parliamentary rugby team as well.

But the one thing that became apparent to me very quickly on having that portfolio—and it was a big surprise—is that I had top-level sportsmen and -women come to me seeking meetings that were trying to deal with sometimes serious issues within their code, and I had top sports administrators come and seek meetings as well for exactly the same reason. The one thing that I worked out very quickly is that, especially when you’re dealing in high-performance sport, you’ve got very strong characters that have to be extremely driven to want to be the best that they can be and the best in the world in their chosen sport, but what this often means is that it can create conflict as well. So I think that the need, and a decision by us as a country, to have a commission in place to deal with some of those issues that sort of provides a neutral and unbiased place for some of those issues to be able to be dealt with is a very, very good idea and a very good move on our part.

I think that the previous speaker highlighted drugs, and I think drugs now—we’ve all seen the stories where you might have an athlete that inadvertently takes some sort of even prescribed medicine that suddenly traps them in a negative or a positive test, whichever way it may fall. It’s a complicated and complex world out there now in terms of how they’re operating and competing, and I think that us as a country, in terms of maintaining our own integrity on the sports field—because as Kiwis we like to think that we’ve got a pretty fierce reputation around the world for being very, very tough competitors but also being fair—I think that it’s important that we continue to maintain and guard that great international reputation that we have.

Although I didn’t sit on the Social Services and Community Committee and I didn’t hear—

Angie Warren-Clark: You missed some fun.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: It was fun, was it? I’m sure it was, because it looks like you had a wide range of submissions, and I’m sure that on the select committee certainly that feeling of the fact that we’ve got lots of fantastic sports administrators in this country who are deeply passionate about their codes or their respective sport, backed up by incredible athletes, regardless of what level they want to compete at. It’s actually really important to make sure that they are supported and they’ve got a place to be able to go that’s safe, to be able to maintain those standards and make sure that their respective codes are operating in the best, most professional, and fairest way for everyone, whether it be an administrator, whether it be a competitor, or whether it be someone that’s just involved in the sport as a supporter or, you know, more on the sidelines.

So, look, I think that this is a very good bill. We are supportive of it. There were some changes made on this, I see, in the select committee process which were good changes, which certainly on our side of the House made it easier to continue to support the bill. I’m very happy to recommend it at this second reading. Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

ANAHILA KANONGATA’A (Labour): Thank you e te Mana Whakawā. It’s an honour and a privilege to make a brief contribution on the Integrity Sport and Recreation Bill. As we’ve heard, the bill establishes the Integrity Sport and Recreation Commission and it sets out its powers and its functions. The commission will be an independent Crown entity and it will have seven to nine members. What I like about the membership is that a minimum of two members must have experience and knowledge of Te Ao Māori and tikanga Māori, because I think that’s really important in terms of our commitment to the Treaty of Waitangi.

Also what it does is the commission has to identify integrity codes and it also includes anti-sports and anti-doping. I want to acknowledge the—what? 180?—

Angie Warren-Clark: 183.

ANAHILA KANONGATA’A: —183 submitters, acknowledging that there were a lot of form submitters. But I want to acknowledge that there have been some discussions held in those submissions that, as a country, even though some of the things that were said were hard to listen to, we needed to have that conversation. And I want to respect everybody whose views were heard by the committee, but I think it was a place to have listened and have heard.

I want to acknowledge Madam Chair and, of course, the member Michael Woodhouse, who has also made very good contributions in our select committee work, but also the work of Ricardo Menéndez March, from the rainbow community. One of the submitters said that they want to change the word from “rainbow community” to “rainbow people”. So I want to acknowledge those changes and I just want to acknowledge that the committee—it has been said many times that the work of the committee is valuable in terms of changing the law. I know that there are some changes that are coming about into this bill, which is welcomed, and I welcome the conversations that we have on that.

But I do want to commend the Minister on his leadership and his passion about getting sports right for women and children and, basically, for Aotearoa. On that note, I commend this bill to the House.

NICOLE McKEE (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I stand on behalf of the ACT Party, but, more importantly, for my two colleagues who are not here this evening to speak to this bill: Karen Chhour, who sits on the Social Services and Community Committee, and Damien Smith, who is our sports and recreation spokesperson, who also sat in on the committee during the hearings of the submissions for this, the Integrity Sport and Recreation Bill.

We’re going through all remaining stages this evening, so I’m going to concentrate my second reading speech on a particular aspect of the select committee report and speak to the two Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) that my colleague Karen Chhour is hoping to have on the bill for speaking to at the committee stage. In the third reading, I will then look to speak to the other issues that have come out of the bill.

There were less than four weeks for submissions, and we were told that 183 were received, with 19 being oral submissions as well. I’d like to acknowledge all of those that submitted, both in writing and those that came to appear in front of the committee, whether it be through presenting themselves or through Zoom, which has been a great way to get people to participate in select committee processes. And I’d like to, as part of my emphasis on one aspect of this bill, acknowledge those that submitted, including—and I’m going to quote here directly from the select committee report—the “significant proportion of submitters [that] raised the issue of the participation of trans people in sport.”, and the concerns that were raised there around the fairness of participation. While others are concerned this bill will ultimately end up reducing the participation of females in sport, those submitters’ concerns were determined by the committee to be out of scope. So, relatively, they were ignored because it was out of scope of the bill.

Yet the bill itself, when enacted, could cause a transgendered person to be eligible to compete in an event designed for females only, because of the discrimination factors about to be legislated into this bill. When there is a significant proportion of submitters, as has been reported in the select committee report, who have raised an issue around this, we need to make sure that we can in some way look to address that as fully as submitters would like. As a way of being able to do that, ACT have submitted two different Supplementary Order Papers for the next stage, the committee of the whole House, and they are supplementary order papers 410 and 411.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! I’m just going to warn the member that if she were to refer to Speakers’ rulings—and I’d encourage members to do that as they’re writing their speeches—Speaker’s ruling 115/1: “At the second reading of a bill it has long been accepted that the broad intention of the bill, the broad principles of it, are a proper subject of discussion”—and, thank you, the member has done that. Speakers’ ruling 115/2, “On the second reading of a bill discussion must be confined to the bill before the House as printed.” And we go on to Speakers’ ruling 115/3, “(1) A member may … refer to the subject matter of an amendment appearing on a Supplementary Order Paper, but it cannot be discussed in detail; that is a matter for [the committee of the whole House]”. So I would ask the member to reflect on those Speakers’ rulings, and craft her speech accordingly.

NICOLE McKEE: Thank you, Madam Speaker. ACT finds it troubling that a bill claiming to address sporting integrity issues fails to address a global issue of sports integrity—that is, the issue of biological women having to compete in sport against biological males who choose to identify as women. Male puberty makes people on average significantly taller with greater muscle and bone mass, and this has actually been directly responded to within the Human Rights Act at section 49. This actually does make a difference to those who participate in sport—and, depending on the sport, a significant difference; for example, if a person was weightlifting, if they were running, or even if they were swimming. An American college sportsperson who’s a 6 foot 4 swimmer called Lia Thomas bounced from rank No. 462 in men’s swimming to No. 1 in the women’s code after transitioning. And New Zealand’s own Laurel Hubbard, who transitioned at the age of 34, went on to win gold medals in an international weightlifting competition.

This is not an issue of transphobia. ACT says people should be able to live however they want, if they’re not affecting other people. This is an issue of fairness. Speaking as an athlete who has represented New Zealand on the international stage at multiple times, I understand the blood, sweat, and tears that goes into training for an event and goes into training to achieve the success of what it is that you’re trying to get medals in or win competitions in. Luckily, the sport that I participate in is gender neutral and there is no issue there. However, I recognise that after literally years of training to become elite in a field of expertise, to have someone with such an unfair advantage come along, potentially to take that achievement away from me, is in itself unfair.

So, when we’re looking at what it is that has potentially been changed, we see that women’s rights and actually women themselves have been added into the bill, but we still do not, within the bill, actually look to make sure that women are able to have safe spaces within their sport and be able to compete in fairness. The Human Rights Act 1993 at section 49 actually speaks to this, and, in their own words, not mine—

Angie Warren-Clark: Point of order.

NICOLE McKEE: —it actually says nothing in section 44 shall prevent, quote—

Angie Warren-Clark: Point of order.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Oh, point of order. Sorry, I didn’t hear the member.

Angie Warren-Clark: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The matter that is being raised currently is out of scope, and we have heard it for quite a period of time. The matter of transgender is not part of the bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Thank you for that. I have been reading through—this is the first time I’ve looked at this bill. I have noted, though, that there is discussion in the select committee report on rainbow communities. Now, I believe and I determine that that is close enough, though I’m listening very carefully to the member. It is my ruling that yes, the discussion, which is consistent with a second reading focus on the principles of a bill, is in order.

NICOLE McKEE: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’d like to also point out—I believe it’s on page 4 of the select committee report where it is acknowledged, as I quoted at the beginning of my speech—the “significant proportion of submitters [that] raised the issue of the participation of trans people in sport”. In order to be able to ensure that their voices are heard in the second reading speech, as part of the select committee report—this is why the ACT Party are standing up for those particular submitters.

As I was starting to talk about, the Human Rights Act 1993, section 49, actually refers to nothing in section 44 preventing “the exclusion of persons of one sex from participation in any competitive sporting activity in which the strength, stamina, or physique of competitors is relevant.” And so that’s why we’ve brought it up today.

I look forward, in the third reading, to speaking to some of the other points within this bill. But it looks like I’m getting pretty close to my time, so I will finish it there and speak to my SOPs in the next stage, the committee of the whole House. Meanwhile, ACT does oppose this bill. Thank you.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): I just want to set the record straight because the ACT Party spoke to a multitude of things that have nothing to do with the bill. And part of why the select committee’s report in relationship to participation in sports ruled all of those submissions out of the scope of the bill was because the Integrity Sport and Recreation Bill does not cover or address who gets to participate in sports. And that is something really important—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Can I just—Order!

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: I’m responding to the ACT Party member.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): No. The member will sit down. The member’s comments are beginning to reflect on the ruling around relevancy, and I will ask the member not to do that but to stick to the substance of this debate and discussion of the bill. Please don’t argue with me.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: OK. Well, I will speak about the submissions that were out of scope and that were ruled out of scope by the select committee because what the Integrity Sport and Recreation Bill sets up is an integrity unit. It has nothing to do with who participates in sports. That is why we considered the submissions that were speaking about issues regarding integrity in sports such as the wellbeing of athletes, such as the wellbeing of young people, such as the wellbeing of rainbow peoples. And as was noted by previous speakers, this was done constructively and collaboratively because the members of the select committee understood that we needed to set up an integrity unit that looked after the wellbeing of athletes. Something that, as previous members have noted, had been an issue for too long; that we needed a body that could look after the wellbeing of athletes to then allow the different bodies of sports to determine who gets to participate in sports.

So one of the things that was noted in the submissions was the need to better address the wellbeing of young people, but they also spoke about how we needed to use precise language. For example, changing the words “rainbow communities” to “rainbow peoples” to then specify what we mean by that. We also looked at reviewing and putting in place provisions so that anti-doping rules were reviewed at least once every three years, because we recognised that anti-doping as a concept and as a regime does change over time and therefore those rules need to be changed over time. And I want to acknowledge as well that the field of sports is broadening to include things like e-sports. This is why it’s important that we have an integrity unit that is also resourced to cover the broadening of the scope of what we consider sports. For example, anti-doping issues in e-sports can be different. Things like caffeine and Ritalin that are now used in a completely different scene are things that are now going to be able to be considered as part of this unit.

I think part of the other thing that we considered was about the potential make-up of this board and what the things are that we’re looking at when we’re thinking of what we want the Minister to consider when it comes to appointing members of the board. While it is good to see that there is consideration for Māori representation, it could be greater. I think we also could do better in terms of the representation of rainbow people. For example, having gender minorities being represented as well, because a lot of these issues are deeply, deeply complex. On the one hand, there may be the argument that there is not a huge number of people in Aotearoa with this level of expertise, but what I would say from the work in the community that we’ve done is that there is. There is a huge range of people who are passionate and understand the needs of our sporting community. So we also need to tap into that and we need to develop that expertise as well so that we have the ability to have succession in this board in a way that enables all these diverse communities to be able to guide the integrity unit in a way that prioritises wellbeing.

So the Green Party is supporting this bill because we do acknowledge the need to have this integrity unit. We need to also learn from overseas examples such as Australia that has a similar unit, and what they’ve done that has worked and what hasn’t and keep an open mind in that regard. We need to also then commit to resourcing this unit so that it can do its work appropriately, because ultimately a lot of this will involve adequately consulting with different community groups. For example, part of what we’ve acknowledged is that we do think it’s important to add things like having national sports and recreation organisations and women and girls amongst the list of relevant stakeholders that the commission must consult. In order for this to be done adequately, proper resourcing will need to go into the unit so that that work in the community can happen, because we’ve seen what happens when we set up bodies that are supposed to consult with different stakeholders. And if there’s not enough staffing resources to do that at a community level, then it’s the loudest and most well-resourced voices that then win when that consultation happens.

Finally, I want to honour the people who came and submitted, who submitted in good faith and with a clear understanding of the bill. I think the committee was able to identify really tangible improvements we could make to this bill. This came from a diversity of voices. I think this once again highlights the importance of the feedback from our communities about how legislation can be improved to centre the voices that are coming to Parliament. So the Green Party looks forward to supporting this bill, looks forward to continuing this constructive conversation, and pushes back against the comments from the ACT Party regarding what they believe is relevant or otherwise to bring up in Supplementary Order Papers later in the debate.

Dr EMILY HENDERSON (Labour—Whangārei): I rise to speak in support of this bill as a member of the Social Services and Community Committee who worked long and hard upon it, and if I may I will begin by reiterating the comment made by various colleagues around the House that it was a most collegial working process. I particularly enjoyed getting into the minutiae with the Hon Michael Woodhouse, and I don’t think that clause 19 will ever leave me.

As has been said by Mr Woodhouse and also by our wonderful chair, Ms Warren-Clark, this was a bill that came to us in pretty good shape. We believe it left in better shape.

This is a bill that sets up a commission that will look to guide and lead our sporting codes to create their own codes within their own disciplines, which will look to enhance the integrity of sport by setting up, essentially, complaints processes. So there will be codes of the principles under which people are to operate, and then complaints processes, accountability for offenders when they are found to be offenders, and protection for whistleblowers. The complaints process will be in an accessible form that will be appropriate for the often very young people who come before it. Making sure the complaints process will be child friendly, young people friendly, was one of the excellent changes the committee is recommending.

We came to this bill for the simple reason that there is a desperate need for it. We have already heard referred to in this House the tragedy of Olivia Podmore, and we have also had her colleagues bravely speak to us about their experiences of abuse and bullying within the codes described here tonight.

I am, as I have said before in this House, no sportswoman, but I am the mother of a young sportswoman, and one of the things that was very apparent to us was the real vulnerability particularly of young sportswomen in these disciplines who are, sadly, open to abuse. As someone who has worked on institutional abuse cases, it’s often remarked that in any place where there is a strong hierarchy and little power to participants, there is an environment ripe for abuse. And the sad truth is that that does happen, unfortunately, in some of our sporting codes where it should not happen. Sport should be a matter of joy and pride that it is in most cases. I strongly commend this bill to the House and look forward to hearing further speeches upon it.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Chris Penk—five-minute call.

CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. Well, it’s been interesting, actually. The collegial nature of the discussion as Emily Henderson has just referred to has made me reflect that politics itself can sometimes be a team sport. I had thought I would resist the temptation to do that very New Zealand thing and make everything a sporting metaphor—

Arena Williams: Do it!

CHRIS PENK: Oh, OK, well, maybe—maybe so.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Who is he to deny the audience?

CHRIS PENK: I know, well, that’s right. I’d be surprised if there is any audience by the end of the five minutes but we’ll see how we go. But, actually, it does seem like it’s been a constructive approach. It seems as though there’s been a lot of serious thought in terms of the detail, with a starting point that there was broad agreement about the desirability of establishing a commission. I did wonder, having not been part of that select committee process, why it was that it was the Social Services and Community Committee that it went to. I couldn’t think of a more appropriate one—

Dr Emily Henderson: Because we’re awesome.

CHRIS PENK: Because they’re awesome, I hear. Well, I was going to mention another select committee that it might have gone to, for example, Health, and I thought, well that kind of might be appropriate too. Sport in New Zealand is also big business at, you know, the elite end, if I can use that phrase, so in terms of even within the health sphere you know it’s sort of the physical health benefits as well as costs, I suppose, in terms of injury, mental health, and so forth. So anyway, I didn’t reach any other conclusion than that select committee was as good as any other. Some might say, “It was awesome”, and they’re entitled to their view of course.

But, in any case, sport is many things to many different people and it’s a lot of different things to this nation of ours as well so I think it’s right that we all take it very seriously for all those reasons. And if you look at the things that the commission is being set up to do—and it’s the establishment of the commission that’s at the heart of the bill—then it’s clear that there are serious matters that do need to be considered and are worth the time of the House and are worth an independent body being established; an independent Crown entity, no less.

So, if you think about the kinds of issues that are going to need to be handled by this commission, they are actually quite complex and we’ve had a bit of a flavour in the House tonight of what some of those might be. The commission’s remit will, it seems, be quite broad. So the House, and indeed the select committee, doesn’t appear to want to bind its hands too tightly in terms of the kinds of issues it will consider, let alone prescribe an outcome. But we’ve considered tonight, even across the House, issues of safety and fairness, doping in sport, competition, manipulation, bullying, sexual misconduct, racism, and discrimination. And these are specifically set out as areas that the commission will be invited to prevent and address threats to integrity in relation to those.

So it will be extremely interesting work actually, that the commission will be doing, and there has been a bit of guidance in terms of the procedural matters and, at the risk of turning even a bill about sports into something of a procedural justice matter—I can’t help myself, I suppose—but, genuinely, if you look at the powers that are given to the commission, it’s to allow the specified organisations to provide information or documents necessary for an investigation, it’s prescribing reasonable and proportionate sanctions for breaches, and establishing a disciplinary panel; so all these mechanisms to say, “Well, actually, if there are issues of fairness and integrity and discrimination, all these things that have been discussed, then there must be some powers for the commission to investigate these things to actually do something about it that’s constructive and meaningful and worth the time of this independent Crown entity.”

So I think it’s obvious from reading the select committee report that the members have turned their mind to that and they’ve wished to give effect to the intent of the Minister to allow a body to be set up that’s going to be able to do some useful things in this space.

There are protections from retaliation or victimisation by an organisation if they make a complaint. So that’s sort of a whistle-blower regime, and the closest I’m going to come to the threatened sporting metaphor is that a whistle-blower, of course, has a particular role in the sporting context—whether a referee or an umpire—and, of course, the appeal rights to the sports tribunal as well is reminiscent of a captain’s challenge in the world of rugby league, which I am very fond of, or video umpire or video referee, as the case may be.

So these are good mechanisms that are set up to allow some integrity in the system, to give some serious weight to the role that the commission will play. We think they’ve got a good remit. We think it’s a worthwhile body to establish. We’ll wish them well at the point that they’re set up but for now at the second reading, National continues to commend the bill to the house.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Arena Williams—five minutes.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Safer, fairer, and more inclusive sport—that’s something we can all get behind, and I acknowledge those members of the Social Services and Community Committee who have reached a pretty good outcome on this bill. They have heard from submitters who have approached these submissions with a lot of knowledge and goodwill, and have come back to the House with a number of really sensible changes.

This will be a short and simple call for what is a pretty short and simple bill, and it’s a good one. It deals with the problem of how we make complaints in our sports systems, and prior to this bill, several reports into New Zealand’s sport and physical recreation sector found that there is insufficient capability to deal with integrity-related issues, particularly the management of complaints within the system. That is an issue that this House needs to address.

We all need to have faith in our sporting system and the people who are participating in it, so the creation of the Integrity Sport and Recreation Commission is a great solution to that, and that has a wide remit. My colleague Chris Penk, who’s just taken his seat, is right to comment that it is a wide remit. It includes threats to integrity, including doping in sport, competition manipulation, bullying, sexual misconduct, racism, and other behaviours that undermine sport and recreation in New Zealand. That’s not things that any New Zealander wants to see in our sports, and so this solution deals with that issue in a way that everyone can accept.

I want to conclude my comments by thanking those members of the committee who made a particular contribution throughout the process, particularly Ricardo Menéndez March and my colleague Dr Emily Henderson. Having an expert on the way that children engage with procedural law and with complaints in the room in a select committee is something that the New Zealand Parliament has benefited from, and I thank Dr Henderson for her contribution. I commend this bill.

TERISA NGOBI (Labour—Ōtaki): Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity just to take a short call on the second reading of the Integrity Sport and Recreation Bill. Given the kaupapa and especially the focus namely around sports and women, I just want to take a moment to acknowledge the recent passing of a wahine toa in the sporting field: Leanne Harrison, from Ngatokowaru in the Ōtaki electorate who was the president of the Horowhenua Netball Association and will leave a massive gap in the Horowhenua netball communities. Moe mai ra e hoa and my aroha goes to Erana, Anna, Bill, Justine, Michelle, and Jody. Thank you for indulging me, Madam Speaker.

This bill, as we have heard, and the commission that will be established, will address and support integrity issues at all levels from elite sports to grassroots, the community sports, and everything in between. This bill, the commission will look after the wellbeing of all people who participate in sports—all people who participate in sports, and that includes women, that includes our rainbow people, and that’s what this bill is so good about. It makes sure it supports the wellbeing of all people who participate in sports.

As a member of the Social Services and Community Committee, I want to thank, also, the submitters—the over 100 submitters—that submitted on this bill. I took the time to do that, but I also want to thank the officials that helped us work through it. Of course, the Minister, for bringing this important kaupapa to the table, and I’m not just saying that because everyone wants the fill a space, I really do mean that; it’s an important piece of legislation to make sure that we support, again, all people who participate in sports. As our colleagues around the House tonight have said, it was collegial for the most part, there was differing views on rainbow people, and I’m really glad where we were able to land because, again, this bill will support all people who participate in sport, and that includes our rainbow, our takatāpui, our women, and everyone else in between.

The other thing I like about this bill is it protects the participants who raise integrity matters, and that’s really important as well. The bill provides protection for participants and other people that make a complaint or provide information to the commission, and the bill requires that to be confidential information—really key. So, again, I love that about this bill. I love that it protects all people that participate in sports, and I also love that this bill is not just for the elite, not just for the professionals but the grassroots as well and everyone in between. Great piece of legislation, and I commend this bill to the House.

PENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m pleased to be able to rise and speak also in support of the Integrity Sport and Recreation Bill. While sport was a very big part of my life some years ago, it has been less so in the last few years, and so I was very happy to take my lead on this bill from my friend and colleague the Hon Michael Woodhouse. As we’ve heard, Michael Woodhouse was a top rugby referee, and I have to confess there may have been times when I called his integrity into question when he may have been refereeing Otago versus Southland, and I didn’t feel he had both eyes open at that time. However, notwithstanding that, I was very happy to take the lead from the Hon Michael Woodhouse.

Look, the purpose of this bill is quite clear, and it is to strengthen and protect the integrity of New Zealand sports and recreation. As, again, my friend and colleague the Hon Mark Mitchell has said, that’s incredibly important to us in New Zealand, because we are known for being tough sportspeople but for being fair, and so this helps support that reputation and helps support the individual codes.

Several reports did outline that the sector has insufficient capability to deal with integrity issues. As I said, in a previous life I was very involved with hockey at regional level and at national level, and there is never a lot of money and there is never a lot of resources. So I was particularly pleased with the work of the Social Services and Community Committee in making some slight changes around the fees, to ensure that fees would not be charged for complaints and investigations. I think that’s a very enabling addition to the bill, and I thank the select committee for bringing about those small changes. I acknowledge that this could have perhaps gone to a number of select committees, but I do occasionally sit on the Social Services and Community Committee and I’m sure that they were particularly mindful and respectful of the submitters—the 183 submitters and those that made oral submissions. So I thank both the submitters but also the select committee for listening and giving consideration to those submitters.

My colleague the Hon Michael Woodhouse has talked about how important it will be for the emphasis to be on education and prevention, because we know that mandating is much less successful than educating and preventing things before they happen. So the key functions of the commission have been outlined as promoting, advising, and educating on integrity issues and threats to integrity, and so it will be really important to see that come through strongly.

It will be also important—and, again, my colleague has talked about it, the Hon Michael Woodhouse—that we don’t have to reinvent the wheel on many of these matters: developing the integrity codes, setting minimum standards of conduct, prescribing policies and procedures. We are not the first to have engaged in this, and it will be really important that we don’t waste time and money by trying to reinvent the wheel when there will be many good examples that we can pick up on. So I endorse the comments of the Hon Michael Woodhouse on this.

The ability to investigate suspected breaches of integrity in codes and threats to integrity—being an external and independent set of eyes—will be incredibly important as part of this role. It is very difficult in a country our size, in different sporting codes—we all get to know each other very well, and so having that ability to have that external and independent set of eyes is going to be an extremely valuable thing.

A couple of the other small changes that were made through the select committee process: putting in place the three-year review period I think is a very sensible thing to do, and also adding age into the list of characteristics, because as I think the select committee found during the submissions process, particularly around sporting codes such as gymnastics, and, I would probably think, swimming also, a lot of the elite or pre-elite athletes there are very young children. So, again, a very sensible change made by the select committee.

So I’m certainly very pleased to join with all the other voices around the House tonight in supporting—sorry, I accept that it’s not a unanimous support but the vast majority of speakers supporting this bill. So thank you for the opportunity to participate, Madam Speaker.

Dr ANAE NERU LEAVASA (Labour—Takanini): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is a pleasure to take the last call on this Integrity Sport and Recreation Bill second reading. This is my first time speaking on this particular bill—and obviously it’s talking about sports and I love my sports. I love my rugby and I played for the high school that produced the most All Blacks, and that’s out at the mighty Auckland Grammar School. Then I became the sports doctor for Ponsonby Rugby Club, which produces the most All Blacks as well.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Oh, hang on!

Dr ANAE NERU LEAVASA: Hey, let me check that on Google—I just did a quick Google check. But as a sports doctor that has worked with grassroots sports athletes for around 20 years now—that’s where my first medical career started and then shifting into elite athletes and high-performance units and international world cups as well—it’s a pleasure to see this bill come to the House. I thank the Minister for his work and our awesome Social Services and Community Committee members for their work as well. Also the many organisations that have submitted on this bill.

Working with our athletes, it’s always my goal to look after the health and wellbeing—the total health and wellbeing—of our athletes. I always follow the Te Whare Tapa Whā model in order to make sure that that has a full scope. Seeing this commission to be set up and addressing the different issues that come through to our athletes, it is really important that we look at that full picture and I also want to acknowledge the youth and the children included in the commission’s work.

Because, as a sports doctor and as a GP sitting in a clinic, we often see our young folk come in and there’s always a few questions to ask our young folk when they come in with sports injuries. It’s “Which school do you go to?”—because that’ll often point out what their training programme is like—which sport do they play, and also their position in the team. All these factors play a huge role in whether it be physical injuries or the mental health issues that come with it as well. So overtraining, nutritional issues that come with it as well.

So I’m so glad that this commission will be doing the mahi to make sure this provides another avenue—whether it be our youth, our children, up to our adult, elite level—it’ll produce many of the health and wellbeing issues that we want to be addressed. So I commend this bill to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Integrity Sport and Recreation Bill be now read a second time.

Ayes 109

New Zealand Labour 62; New Zealand National 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Te Paati Māori 2; Kerekere; Whaitiri.

Noes 10

ACT New Zealand 10.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): This bill is set down for committee stage immediately. I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Integrity Sport and Recreation Bill.

In Committee

Parts 1 to 6, Schedules 1 and 2, and clauses 1 and 2

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members, the House is in committee on the Integrity Sport and Recreation Bill. We come—

Camilla Belich: Point of order, Madam Chairperson. I seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one question.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is none. The question is, then, that Parts 1 to 6, Schedules 1 and 2, and clauses 1 and 2 stand part.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister for Sport and Recreation): I thought I would just take a brief call at this outset to run through, essentially, the framework of the bill and what we’re trying to do here and just reiterate, as we have at earlier readings—well, particularly the second reading just now—the really good way in which the Social Services and Community Committee worked through this bill, and the excellent support provided by officials as we worked through it. It is clear to me that for the vast bulk of members of the House, they can see that this is the right thing to do to deal with a set of quite common complex issues, but ones that do interact with each other and provide a very clear framework.

So, essentially, Part 1 of the bill, as is normally the case, deals with definitional issues. There have been one or two changes made there which have been highlighted in the second reading. They are good and useful and constructive changes that will make interpretation of the bill significantly easier.

Part 2 is one of the meatier parts of the bill. It’s the establishment of the commission as an independent Crown entity. I do just want to mention—it was mentioned in Penny Simmonds’ last call, I think—that independence from the Government of the day, the structures of sport as we know them, is actually essential here. I, in the nearly six years of being Minister for Sport and Recreation, have been the recipient of an awful lot of correspondence about every level of sport that you could imagine, all of it heartfelt, all of it coming from a place where an independent voice, lens, and place is critically important, because, as Penny Simmonds noted, these communities are often very small and people do know each other, and it’s very hard to get the perspectives that are needed. It’s also very hard for people to raise complaints—and I will come, at a later stage, in another reading, to talk a little bit about some of the people who have come forward and their courage in doing so. So that point of making it an independent Crown entity is, I think, a very, very important one.

Then, obviously, the series of functions which have been run through at some length in the earlier readings, so I won’t go through them again now, but they are clear and they are important functions for the commission to do all of its job.

Then, Part 3 is about the codes. I know this was the subject of quite a bit of discussion both in the committee and from submitters. Striking that balance for the codes being both useful documents that can be applicable at different levels of sport, from the elite down to the grassroots, and ones that don’t reinvent the wheel, has already been indicated by some speakers—but that have enough meaning that they will be useful and people will know how they can work or how they can work through them. So there’s a process to make the codes, which is through Part 3 of the bill, and consultation processes that are included in that, particularly bringing our anti-doping rules into this framework, having been in the previous Drug Free Sport New Zealand framework.

The other parts of the bill, I won’t go into in any great detail now, but I’m very happy to answer questions around Part 4, where the powers and investigations and disciplinary panels are dealt with, and the way in which investigations happen. This is an important area because it will be very sensitive. It will need to be handled in a thoroughly professional way. That is outlined for everybody, as to how those processes work, all the way through. Then, finally, Parts 5 and 6 tidy up the various bits of provisions of other Acts.

So I just wanted to give that broad introduction. I’m more than happy, as is usual, to answer questions on the bill. Again, I thank all colleagues for their work on it.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. I don’t think we will be too long in our detailed examination of the bill. I do want to address the most controversial part of the second reading speech from Dr Leavasa, and his outrageous claim that the Ponsonby Rugby Club has produced more All Blacks than the Otago University Rugby Football Club, which is, as any rugby aficionado knows, the cradle of All Black rugby. Now, it’s been a while since I’ve had a look at it, but I think there were about five or six ahead. So we’ll just let that lie there, but I think that could be a battle that Dr Leavasa—I’m not even a member of a university rugby club. I’m a Sharks man, but there you go. I will defend the integrity of Otago Rugby.

Now, on a slightly more serious note, I was—

Simon Court: Forty-eight All Blacks from Ponsonby.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Forty-eight? Well, there were 49, I think, from Otago University. If one counts those that played after leaving the university, then I think it’s up to about 70, against a paltry 51 from Ponsonby. So there you go. Now, anyway, I definitely digress.

I wanted just to address the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) in the name of Nicole McKee, and also something she said in her second reading speech, before I ask the Minister for Sport and Recreation a question about clause 21. I think it’s going to be quite important. She said—and I’m paraphrasing—that the bill will result in fewer women and girls participating as a consequence of its failure to address the perception of the ability for transgender participants in women and girls’ sport. Now, while that might be an issue, and I’m not undermining that, this bill is not going to make that worse. In fact, thanks to the amendments made to the bill by the Social Services and Community Committee, which have been approved at second reading, that risk is lower, not higher. Now, I think the SOP is in the name of Karen Chhour, is that correct?

Nicole McKee: It is.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Thank you. The SOP will seek to add section 49 of the Human Rights Act into clause 5—the definition of “threat to integrity”. But the select committee has already dealt with that by the inclusion of Part 2 of the Human Rights Act: bullying, violence, abuse, sexual misconduct, intimidation, or harassment in sport or organised physical recreation. Now, Part 2 includes section 49, and section 49 is a carve-out for legal discrimination on the basis of sex, disability, and something else; I can’t remember what it is. So the SOP is unnecessary because the select committee and this House have now already dealt with it.

My question, Minister, is around clause 21—I think it’s something that has troubled me since the bill was introduced—and that is the voluntary nature of the codes. What’s it called? The departmental disclosure statement talks about the integrity codes made by the commission, under clause 19, not being mandatory, and organisations will need to opt in for the integrity code to apply. This approach may be considered unusual, compared with other secondary legislation; however, it is consistent with other regulatory approaches.

Now, we kicked this around. We didn’t make any changes, as far as I can tell. So I would like an explanation about why organisations won’t be bound by the codes, and the perceived risk that regional or national sports organisations or codes would just stay out, particularly if they had issues of integrity or betting infractions, a record of drugs. Why would they not want to be a part of that, and, that being the case, why not simply make it compulsory?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister for Sport and Recreation): Madam Chair, I thank the member for raising this. As I indicated in my earlier contribution, I am conscious that this is one of the areas where there has been debate. I’ll be completely transparent with the member. We debated it ourselves, as to whether or not we should be heading down the path of, effectively, mandatory codes, or whether it should be the approach, which we ended up adopting, that is in the bill.

I have several comments. Firstly, internationally, there is different practice in this. So there wasn’t one thing for us to say, “That’s what we should follow” if we were looking at where other countries or other jurisdictions went. Secondly, we are at a particular juncture in this legislation, between the role of the State and the role of individual organisations and bodies. If there is a crime that has been committed, then, quite clearly, there are pathways, you know, for that to be dealt with. Where a law is broken—it’s not a question of a code, or anything like that—it is a breach of the law, and the prosecutions, which you would expect that would follow from that, would follow from that, to take some of the examples that the member has given.

But when we’re talking about getting sports to adopt and genuinely own these, we fell on the side of saying, “We want sports to sign up to it”. Now, I think the wording is important in clause 21 here, because once a sport has agreed to a code, it’s bound by the code. So there is a binding effect once you do it. It’s our view—and certainly by the consultation we’ve undertaken with sports—that most sports want this. Most sports will be very pleased to sign up. Then once they are, as you go through clause 21(2) and beyond, you’ll see that they are in fact bound by it at that point. So it’s the point of entry into having the code, at which we have left that open. The experience internationally, what we’ve heard from the codes themselves, indicates to us that we’ve fallen on a line of, effectively, giving people something that they will have true ownership of, rather than feel that it’s being dictated down to them, rather than it not necessarily working for them and their sport as well as it might.

The member notes, and we’ve got that in the changed clause 22, that we now have the three-yearly review. In a way, I’m actually very happy that that is now in the legislation, because that means we can see really this contestable space, which I absolutely acknowledge that it is—we’ll be able to review in three years’ time whether we got it right.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate the answer from the Minister for Sport and Recreation. It is true, for example, that if there is the commission of a crime that’s unlawful under the Crimes Act, for example, then, obviously, there’s a different process to be followed. But what we were hearing about in the Social Services and Community Committee were—well, they were grey areas, but they were certainly very clear breaches of integrity.

So in accepting, as I have, begrudgingly, that the code will be voluntary, I wonder, regardless of who the Minister of sport might be from November, if this Minister would commit to—

Angie Warren-Clark: Ha, ha!

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Don’t laugh too hard, you might get into trouble. If the Minister would commit to ensuring that, to use a sporting euphemism, some kind of score card is kept of the progress towards ensuring as many as possible of those sporting codes that have been the subject of questions about integrity—whether that’s behaviour or betting or drugs—are actually signing up to the integrity codes once they’re done. And if they’re not, then this House might need to reflect on that and do something differently.

I just want to note also in clause 20, the consultation has been extended—and, I think, significantly—to acknowledge the change in definition recommended by Ricardo Menéndez March to describe rainbow people, but also that women and girls who, frankly, putting aside any of the transgender issues, were very much the victims and the storytellers. And I think that it’s going to be very important for them to be consulted.

And the last thing I will say is I absolutely agree with the Minister in his comment about the review of the code at least once every three years. I think that’s going to be particularly important in the first three to six years as we get this going. But as I said in my second reading speech, Australia’s got some pretty good templates. I’m sure if we ask them nicely, copyright issues notwithstanding, we could probably get a pretty good head start on them.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister for Sport and Recreation): I thank the member. There were just a couple more points to add to my initial response to him. The first of those is, when it comes to the anti-doping rules, which, of course, are being incorporated into this, they themselves are usually voluntary, but sports want to do them because their athletes’ ability to participate actually relies on them being part of them, even though they’re voluntary. So there is a consistency with the way we deal with anti-doping.

The other point is clause 32 of the bill does allow for investigations of a threat to integrity if the public interest test is satisfied. And I think that covers the point that the member was making about the area between the obvious criminal activity and what is perhaps the grey area that he mentioned. If the public interest is deemed to be sufficient, there is an ability there, beyond the code or anything else, for an investigation of threat to integrity. So, I think, with that, that I have sufficient confidence that the scheme is robust. But, as both of us have now agreed, the review helps us with that.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. So, yeah, I just wanted to acknowledge the contributions regarding the questions about whether it should be mandatory or otherwise. But I wanted to focus on, I guess, as I alluded to in my previous speech, the challenges that our different sports bodies and governing bodies have in terms of having fit-for-purpose policies around e-sports, and I want to acknowledge the bodies in New Zealand who engaged in the creation of this bill. But, I guess, I wanted to get a reflection from the Minister for Sport and Recreation in terms of how we can ensure that we make this bill work for that scene when there are the broader challenges, both in terms of very new, frequent changes to the scene—and it’s a new scene, and the challenges they have in anti-doping are unique, right? So, I guess, I just wanted to get a reflection from the Minister regarding how we make this bill work for the e-sports scene.

Secondly, I guess I wanted to get a reflection from the Minister, as well, regarding what he would say, I guess, to—we had commentary from rainbow peoples and submitters who talked about the need for greater consultation and engagement, and who are often feeling under attack, often by misinformation, in these sorts of debates. So I guess I would like a reflection from the Minister regarding how he thinks this bill will further enhance the rights of rainbow people, of gender diverse people, women, and gender minorities as well. Thank you.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister for Sport and Recreation): I thank the member Ricardo Menéndez March, and I also want to add to other colleagues thanking the member for his contribution as the bill has gone through the Social Services and Community Committee, and, indeed, on the last point that he’s raised—the changes Mr Woodhouse alluded to earlier—on the definitional section around rainbow people, and then also in the consultation on codes and the seeking of views in terms of the establishment of the commission.

I think it’s a real step forward for us that this piece of legislation identifies groups that have been marginalised in the sporting and recreation sector and, very sadly, have been the recipients of bullying, of harassment—people who haven’t always felt that there was a pathway for them. I think what we’re setting out here now is not just that pathway for them but a requirement on the commission to do the right thing and to be there and to listen and to bring that into their work.

Just, if the Chair will indulge me just very briefly, one of the amazing things about the last three weeks with the FIFA Women’s World Cup has been to not only go to the events but all the talk around the community about sport. And, of course, as somebody who loves sport, for me it’s amazing, and I’ve always felt that sport has this extraordinary ability to bring communities together.

I’ve equally thought that if we exclude people, that means then they’re not part of our community, so when we’re having this moment and we’re having this celebration, if some people feel excluded from it, then we’re letting them down and, actually, it’s undermining the strength of our communities. And so what I feel this bill does—and, again, I thank the select committee for their work to enhance this—is it really does provide a template on consultation, but also on the way in which they establish themselves to be truly open to hearing about everybody’s experience and how we can make that better.

So, you know, I think this bill will take a bit of work to get into full practice. It will require a very proactive effort. It will require making sure that the members of the commission—and that’s covered in clause 11 of the bill—are able to take that on. It’s a big job—it requires the ability to understand law and children’s rights and the different communities that we have—but I think that’s the right thing to do, to be ambitious about how that will work.

And, as I say, there’s some good templates out there, not just overseas but also the work that Drug Free Sport New Zealand has done. I think we can learn a lot from that, and they are being incorporated into what we do here. So, you know, it will require a lot of work. It’s proactive, but it’s written down in the bill, and that, to me, gives me confidence it’ll happen.

NICOLE McKEE (ACT): Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Minister for Sport and Recreation. Minister, I’m going to speak to the two Supplementary Order Papers that my colleague Karen Chhour has placed on the table, and I understand, as well, my colleague Michael Woodhouse and what he was saying about feeling like it has already been added to the bill, because we actually speak within the bill about wanting to remove the discrimination issues that are apparent, including recognising—anyway, what we’re looking to do is have fairness for all. And we do note that within the Social Services and Community Committee submissions, there was, as reported in the select committee report, a significant proportion, I guess, of parents out there who are worried about the integrity of sport for their female children.

It looks like the select committee have done a really good job in trying to tidy things up and make it quite clear. Michael Woodhouse has actually said, “Look, we’ve already got this within our bill.” But I think there is a way that we can actually clarify it—for those worried parents, the significant number of worried parents—by actually just referring to a clause of the Human Rights Act that’s already there. It’s not like we’re producing anything or creating anything; we’re just putting it into the bill.

So, Minister, could I please have you just speak to me about why it wouldn’t, and what is the reasoning for not using this as a way to alleviate some of the concerns of those parents out there? Thank you.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister for Sport and Recreation): I will be reiterating what a couple of other colleagues have said. This bill is not about who can and cannot participate in sport. That is not what this bill is about. It was never about that. It’s about supporting and upholding and safeguarding the rights of the people who are participating in sport, whoever they may be. So I don’t believe that the Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) put forward by Karen Chhour actually are either relevant in part to the bill itself—it’s certainly not necessary. And with respect to the member, I also do not accept that it’s just a matter of clarity.

I do find it somewhat ironic that these amendments are coming from a party who profess to believe in libertarian values and the State not being involved. Most sporting organisations in New Zealand apply rules about participation on the basis, usually, of an international guideline. That’s normally what happens. It’s the international rules of a particular sport. I have tried very hard over the last few years, whilst utterly believing in the importance of inclusion in sport and supporting transgender participation in sport as well, to not get in the way of sports making their own decisions about how they organise themselves, because, internationally, that’s what they’re doing. And it just seems very odd to me that the ACT Party thinks that the heavy hand of Government should come down and tell those individual sports what they should do.

So I don’t support these amendments. They are completely unnecessary. They are only borderline even relevant for the legislation. That’s not my decision and I’m not taking it; I’m just saying it’s my opinion. I’m choosing my words carefully because I don’t want to step out of the rules of Parliament. But I think we all know where this kind of rhetoric comes from and what it’s about, and I can tell you with absolute certainty it is not about the purposes of this bill. So, no, we don’t support those SOPs.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m going to be in the unusual situation of both agreeing with the Minister for Sport and Recreation, partly, and agreeing with Nicole McKee, partly.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: No, pick a side.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Well, so there’s no side to pick—I think that’s the point that the Minister was trying to make. And to the degree that the amendments made by the Social Services and Community Committee to clause 5 is a belt and braces one, effectively, what Karen Chhour’s Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 410 seeks to do is to make it clear that the exceptions in section 41 are included in the bill. But there’s no need to, because paragraph (c) of the definition of “threat to integrity” in clause 5 makes it very clear: discrimination that is unlawful under Part 2 of the Human Rights Act—discrimination on the basis of sexual disability, according to section 41, is not unlawful, and, therefore, there is no need for the SOP.

Now, I am going to give the Minister a little bit of a rebuke, in my view, on the question of libertarianism and the heavy hand of the State, because, actually, one of the reasons why there was so much concern was because of an interpretation on Sport New Zealand’s guidelines on the participation of transgender athletes in sport where the three legs to that are very important: participation, safety, and fairness. But those guidelines described participation as paramount, and that has got a lot of people worried that that means that the fairness and safety aspects of participation would be subordinate.

I think those fears are legitimate, and, as I said in the second reading—quoting my question to InsideOUT in the select committee—is it possible to express those concerns without being labelled transphobic? We didn’t get an answer. It’s homework for us all, I think, to be able to have a moderate discussion on both sides of this argument without resorting to epithets. By the way, I should qualify it: I don’t think that that was what the Minister was doing at all, and I wouldn’t want to leave the impression that that was the case.

I want to finish by coming back to the earlier response that the Minister made in respect of the question of voluntary compliance with the code by pointing out—and I’ve got to find it in my scribbled notes here. It referred to clause—was it 31?

Hon Grant Robertson: Clause 32.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Clause 32, sorry—clauses 31 and 32, basically. So clause 31 says that the commission may investigate anyone who’s bound by a code, but then—and I don’t think I picked this up in the select committee process—at clause 32, the commission may also “investigate anything to which neither section 31 nor the anti-doping rules apply” if, effectively, it’s a threat to integrity and—

Hon Grant Robertson: It’s the public interest bit, Michael—yes.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: —it’s in the public interest. So does that mean, therefore—and I’d ask the Minister just to clarify if I’ve him right—even though a sport may not be subject to the code or may not have signed up to a code, the commission may still nevertheless investigate a breach of it if it’s in the public interest to do so? Because that’s actually quite a big—I wasn’t aware of that, I don’t think. But, if that’s the case, that’s going to be quite difficult for sports organisations not to sign up to the code. It’s kind of a Hobson’s choice at that point.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister for Sport and Recreation): I think I know where the member Michael Woodhouse is coming from, but I don’t think it’s the choice that he thinks it is. The codes are the codes, and they will govern the way in which sports operate and the standards that are expected of them, the participants will know where they’re going—you know, it’s something that everybody will buy into.

What clause 32 does is it creates something that’s of a much higher nature—I mean, the concept of the public interest takes you to a different place than the day-to-day complaints that might come through as a result of a code breach or an anti-doping rule breach. I just would invite the member to look down to clause 32(2) and then go through the list of things that the commission has to take into account as to whether or not there is the particular place and role for this kind of investigation.

I’d just reiterate what I said to him in my first intervention on this: I think this sits between the things that would be normally covered by the code—the things that are automatically referred to the police because they represent activity that is in breach of the law—and now we’re in a space where there is a threat to integrity that is of sufficient seriousness for it to be regarded as being in the public interest for the commission to pursue it. So I believe it fits. It actually does exactly the thing the member was asking about, and I think it fits well into the framework.

NICOLE McKEE (ACT): Thank you, Madam Chair. Minister, thank you for your prompt reply. Although, you know, when you start politicking instead of actually listening to some of the issues that are being raised—which are genuine issues that have been raised—and the response is, “We’re going to look at integrity, but not necessarily balance that out with fairness”; that’s exactly what the ACT Party are looking for. The moment you start talking about certain issues, you get labelled in certain ways, but our second reading speech even said, “It’s not about transphobia; it’s actually just about fairness in sport” and addressing some of those issues of some of the submitters.

When I look at the select committee report, Minister, it says on page 4—the acknowledgment of women and girls, having been historically “greatly affected by issues of discrimination in sport and active recreation.” It goes on to say that clauses 16 and 20 have been amended to actually recognise women as being stakeholders within this arena. For that, we congratulate the committee for looking into it and also making those amendments.

We think that it could be stronger if the board could actually be made up of one female within that sport, just to actually take on board what is within the select committee report. It’s about fairness as well as maintaining that integrity, Minister. It’s not about having a go at anybody in particular or any type of person, but actually being able to have fairness within sport so that it goes hand in hand with the integrity. Thank you, Minister.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Mr Chair. I just want to make a final comment about clause 50 and leave the Minister, and his officials, to be vigilant in making sure that when fees are charged, they are reasonable in the circumstances. Now, the Social Services and Community had—

Angie Warren-Clark: Quite the discussion!

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Well, for all the things that we had to deal with, it was actually a little thing that became a quite big thing and a cause of some tension at the end of the process. Maybe we were a bit tired and emotional that day, but we got there in the end.

Just for the committee’s benefit, I have had a little bit of experience of—when there are health tests—certain organisations charging like wounded bulls, frankly, and well above what I know are the reasonable costs for them. It was with that in mind that I wanted to sort of tighten up a little bit on the freedom to charge, because ultimately it’s going to fall on either the athlete or the national sports organisation. We settled on subclause (2A), “The amount of a fee charged under subsection (2) must be reasonably related to the expenses incurred or to be incurred in relation to the testing conducted.”

Now, that belies a great deal of discussion about what constitutes “reasonably related to the expenses occurred”. I guess in professional services, it used to be the old way—used to be you’d go one-third, one-third, one-third: one-third salary, one-third overhead, and one-third profit. Well, it’s a lot higher than that now—and the lawyers in the room will probably want to shrink a little bit. But the health sector can also do that and there will be some health tests involved in this regime.

I guess the homework for the Minister and officials is to make sure that there is a monitoring regime to ensure that there are benchmarks or some other kind of guidance for these expenses so that it doesn’t get silly. That was the intention of the committee in including this clause, which is not dissimilar to subclause (2) of clause 49. It will be an issue, I think. I just want to make sure that officials continue to—

Angie Warren-Clark: Look at the review though. We built the review in, remember.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: That’s right; we do have the review, and the review should include any inappropriate charging by stakeholders in the integrity framework, because that would be undermining integrity—how ironic would that be? With that, I think that’s basically what I wanted to say.

NICOLE McKEE (ACT): Thank you, Mr Chair. Minister, I just wonder if you can clarify—maybe we can put it on the record, because this is part of the concern, that discrimination that is unlawful under Part 2 of the Human Rights Act 1993, and Part 2 includes section 49 which we’ve talked about extensively. But a proposed problem foreseen within the particular bill is that the commission may decide that discrimination on the basis of gender identity is a matter of discrimination and therefore it overrides section 49, especially as clause 14(2) of this bill refers to gender identity and expression. So can you just confirm, Minister—if you are in the position to confirm—that section 14(2) won’t override section 49 of the Human Rights Act and that that way we do actually get that fairness?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister for Sport and Recreation): This is repeating material we’ve already covered, but the Human Rights Act exists. This bill does not override the Human Rights Act—it exists. What this bill does is to also—as the select committee did—recommend an amendment to clause 5 of the bill to ensure that the reference to discrimination in the definition of threat to integrity was to discrimination that is unlawful under Part 2 of the Human Rights Act. So I am repeating myself; it is what I said earlier. I believe that this bill does important things to grow inclusion in sport, and I believe that the Supplementary Order Paper that the member is discussing is jumping at shadows.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s amendment to Part 2 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 408 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 72

New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere.

Noes 44

New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.

Amendment agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Karen Chhour’s amendment to Part 2 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 411 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 10

ACT New Zealand 10.

Noes 106

New Zealand Labour 62; New Zealand National 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s amendment to Part 2 set out Supplementary Order Paper 412 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 10

Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere.

Noes 106

New Zealand Labour 62; New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Karen Chhour’s amendment to Part 2 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 410 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 10

ACT New Zealand 10.

Noes 106

New Zealand Labour 62; New Zealand National 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere.

Amendment not agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Parts 1 to 6, Schedules 1 and 2, and clauses 1 and 2 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 109

New Zealand Labour 62; New Zealand National 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Te Paati Māori 2; Kerekere; Whaitiri.

Noes 10

ACT New Zealand 10.

Parts 1 to 6, Schedules 1 and 2, and clauses 1 and 2 as amended agreed to.

Bill to be reported with amendment.

House resumed.

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

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): The bill is set down for third reading immediately.

Third Reading

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister for Sport and Recreation): I move, That the Integrity Sport and Recreation Bill be now read a third time.

I want to begin by thanking a large number of people who have been involved in the development of this legislation. We undertook a piece of work over the course of the last couple of years around integrity in sport, and that involved a wide range of stakeholders, beginning with a piece of work that delved quite deeply into integrity issues, consulted very, very widely. We in turn then developed the integrity transition committee, that’s being chaired by Don Mackinnon—not to be confused with a former member of the House—who is a well-known lawyer and sports lawyer, and supported by a range of other experienced people. I do want to just note the role here of Tim Castle, who is the current chair of the Drug Free Sport New Zealand board, because obviously they are being brought in here and other members of that committee. I particularly want to acknowledge the work of the Executive Director of that group, Rebecca Rolls, who has played a truly significant role in shepherding this legislation forward and working with all the officials from agencies across the board, including Sport New Zealand. I want to thank all of them for their work. I want to thank every member of the sporting and recreation community of New Zealand who took the time to submit, and who took the time to care about the issues that are in front of us today.

What we are creating here, I believe, is something that will ultimately improve the experience of a range of New Zealanders when they go about sport and recreation in their community. I think it’s going to mean that some people stay in sport when otherwise they would have left. I think it’s going to mean that some people, and I do not say this lightly, some people’s lives will be saved by this piece of legislation that we are passing tonight. On that note, I want to—and I did this, I believe, in an earlier reading—I want to acknowledge Olivia Podmore and the family of Olivia Podmore. While I can’t speak directly to issues that are currently before the coroner’s investigation, I do want to acknowledge Liv and her family and the tragedy that surrounded that.

I equally want to acknowledge all of those people who have courageously come forward to blow the whistle about things that have been happening in their sports, often women, often people who have been placed in quite difficult and vulnerable circumstances, who have put their hands up and said this is not right and it needs to change—sometimes at the elite level of our sports and other times just at the grassroots. This bill creates an entity where those people can go. They’ll be heard fairly, they’ll be heard independently, and they’ll know that something will happen. I don’t want to raise too many expectations on the body, they’re going to have a lot of work when they come together, but I do believe that place, that independent place where things can be handled well and transparently, will make sport better, will give people confidence, and, as I say, I ultimately believe it will also help save lives as well.

It’s also worth noting at this point the issues that have been raised by the select committee again, one more time. This is a situation where the committee has added real value to what we’re trying to do here—picked up some of the more challenging issues around definitional matters, around the way that the codes will be worked on, and made sure that we have a better bill, and that review clause that allows us to be able to come back and look at whether things are working, particularly when it does come to the codes.

I also want to acknowledge Drug Free Sport New Zealand again. Drug Free Sport New Zealand has been an extraordinary organisation to keep New Zealand sport clean. It’s also members of the Drug Free Sport New Zealand family, those who’ve been on the board, those who’ve been on the staff of it, that have played an extraordinary role internationally, at the World Anti-Doping Agency in particular, and I think here about the likes of David Howman who played such an important role in its establishment. Drug Free Sport New Zealand has done a great job and from this bill’s enactment onwards they become a critical part of this commission.

I want to acknowledge the current team there. As I said before, Tim Castle is the chair of the board, but also Nick Paterson who is the reasonably long-serving chief executive, who has done a tremendous job. Their work will carry on, and Mr Woodhouse raised this earlier, that the education piece is important. That’s what Drug Free Sport New Zealand has been doing really well over the last few years, is actually getting out there among competitors, even starting with senior secondary school students who are at the elite level saying, “Hey, this is what’s expected of you as you move through sport.” That education piece now becomes part of the wider commission’s work. But Drug Free Sport New Zealand, even if their name will disappear, what they’ve done and the path they’ve blazed on this is important, and I wanted to acknowledge that today.

I also wanted to acknowledge the issues that the committee dealt with around children’s rights. I absolutely agree with the work there and I want to acknowledge members of the committee who have supported us bringing that forward. Children in certain sports are made very vulnerable—I think it was Penny Simmonds who said it before, you reach the elite level quite quickly in a number of sports, and they are the ones where we really do need to look out for children’s rights as we go forward. So I think that work and the way in which the committee brought that forward is important.

The bill also acknowledges the diversity of our communities and I’m very pleased, as I said earlier on in the committee stage, that we’ve got a piece of law now that gives a good solid definition of our rainbow people that can be used to help guide the consultation that’s there. It’s important that those who are often marginalised are there, can see themselves, and see their place in there. Equally that we’ve got a focus on making sure that we’ve got people who have an understanding of tikanga and Te Ao Māori within the commission as well.

For me, this is a really important and significant day. As the Minister for Sport and Recreation, I’m immensely proud of what we do in New Zealand in sport, as we’ve seen in recent weeks and as we often see—what this does is give me confidence that we’re setting up a system where everyone gets a chance to be involved. No one should be excluded from sport and recreation in our communities. No one should feel unsafe when they are involved in sport and recreation in our communities. Everybody should have been included and have a pathway to resolving issues that they do not feel are fair, or that they do not feel they have been treated well, or their wellbeing has been looked after.

Sport, as I said before, brings communities together. What this bill does, I believe, is allow everyone to be a part of that community, and for that reason alone, I commend the bill to the House.

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

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Well, the Minister for Sport and Recreation’s speech has knocked several minutes off mine and I don’t need to prolong the debate, except to say that I endorse all of the acknowledgments and the thanks that he has given and a great deal of the reflections that he’s made.

One of the things that I have strongly supported is his efforts and his Government’s efforts to improve participation and success of women and girls in sport, and it’s been an appropriate thing to do, but, goodness me, he’s been a bit lucky. He was very lucky that Caroline Drouin missed the penalty at the end of the world cup semi-final last year, and he was very lucky that Hannah Wilkinson didn’t miss and set up the circumstances for what has been a spectacular showcase of women’s sport in Australasia. We are now 72 minutes away from kick-off in the in the women’s football Ashes—

Hon Grant Robertson: This has not escaped me!

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: —don’t worry, I won’t be going for 72 minutes, Minister—and we will see that showcase again. It’s just been a brilliant example of how, when a product as good as that is is brought to the attention of the public, the public will support it. I think there’s a salient lesson for all of us in that. I mean, for sports nuts—you know, I’ll watch dog long jumping. I don’t care what competitive endeavour it is; I’ll do that.

Hon Grant Robertson: I’ll just see whether that’s in the code!

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: It used to be a thing, apparently, in the 1990s. But we do need to bring, particularly, elite women’s sport, obviously, to the forefront, and I think those two tournaments have gone a long way to doing that.

But there’s no candy coating the reality that for too many of our athletes and our participants in sport, there have been times when events have fallen well below the standard that we would expect, and this integrity framework will do a number of things, not the least of which will prevent—and I appreciate the Minister’s comments about that. Now, he talked about the education piece particularly in the context of Drug Free Sport New Zealand, but there’s no doubt that the fear of getting caught and the serious consequences of getting caught with illegal substances has had a significant moderating behaviour—maybe not for Tour de France, but, you know, everything else; I should say that under privilege, but for everything else I reckon there’s a certain deterrent element there. So, education, yes, but deterrent is important, and I think that I would like to see that with the integrity codes for non-drug issues, because if I reflect on some of the anecdotes that have been provided to me and to Mark Mitchell when he was the spokesperson, there did seem to be a downplaying or a denial or a contextualising of unacceptable behaviour.

Also, we’ve seen incidents where individuals who were perpetrators—for want of a better term—popped back up again in what is a very narrow ecosystem in New Zealand sports organisations. I think it’s really important that as we implement our integrity codes and work hard to prevent, there also has to be a significant consequence for those who breach those codes. Now, for sport that might be a life ban—you know, it doesn’t actually need to be monetary or punitive in the traditional sense. People in this country love their sport, and if they knew that their errant behaviour, that fell below the crimes level that the Minister was talking about, may lead them to not being able to participate in the future, either as athletes or as coaches or volunteers, then I hope that would have a moderating behaviour.

But I agree with the Minister—I said it in my second reading speech—prevention; education; coaching, effectively, of what are appropriate standards; and then processes for dealing with disputes and breaches, as we aspire to, will I think, see a much, much higher level of integrity in our games. As Mr Robertson said, there is a lot of work to do. This isn’t the beginning of the end; it’s the end of the beginning, to quote a famous politician, and I wish him all the best for the seven or eight weeks he has left in that role before there may be a change, but whoever—whoever—is in Government after 14 October and whoever is the Minister after then, the Government can be assured that this is a framework and a bill that has, I think, widespread support and will continue to be implemented whatever happens in October.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Given the member’s comments on the Tour de France, perhaps it’s fortunate he’s not attending the Rugby World Cup with the parliamentary team this year!

ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m going to take a very short call on this bill, but I want to acknowledge the Minister for the shepherding of this bill through the House and our officials for all the support they have given us. I have to say that this has been a very important piece of legislation to work on. I do agree this will save lives. It will also prevent, I believe, so much harm.

I think back to when I was a little sportsgirl playing soccer, and then I played hockey, and I did surfing, and I did diving, and I had a whole pile of sports. One of the things that we do in this country as Kiwi kids is we play sports, and I’m delighted that we are going to put the grassroots protections in place as well as the elite sports. No longer is it going to win at all costs, now it is going to be about making sure we win and we win well, and our people are taken care of. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Whangaparāoa): I will be brief, in the acknowledgment that there is a game that people want to get to tonight. But, look, I only worked with the Minister for a short time when I had the portfolio, but there was no question, and you cannot doubt not only his passion for sport but his passion for making sure that our codes, our sports, our sportspeople, the families involved, and the community have got a framework that actually makes it a safe place for everyone, and I think that he has been committed to this.

He has brought a piece of legislation to the House that he has found broad party support for, and although he got up and he said—and he alluded to the fact that he feels like this piece of legislation could save lives. And that may seem funny in the context that it’s an Integrity Sport and Recreation Bill, but he is absolutely right. He’s absolutely right that this is going to provide a safe place and a backstop for someone to be able to engage with—and we talk about high-performance sport, and we know how much pressure comes to bear on these high-performance sportspeople. A lot of it they put on themselves, because that’s why they’re there—they want to be the best—but there’s pressure and issues right through all of our codes, whether it’s grass roots right through to high performance.

So I just have to say that we haven’t spoken about it that much in the House tonight, but a lot of the social issues that we deal with as a country—if we could get an increased engagement in young people, particularly in sport, then we could actually provide strong role models and mentors, we could give them somewhere where they feel a part of something, and it could actually go a long way to getting them on to a positive track and not a negative one.

And so I just want to acknowledge the Minister. I want to acknowledge the Minister for staying committed and focused on getting this bill through and being willing to listen to and engage in cross-party discussion and debate on the bill so that we can stand in this House tonight, and I’m very happy to support the third reading of this bill. Thank you.

ANAHILA KANONGATA’A (Labour): Thank you, e te Mana Whakawā. It’s always an honour and a privilege to make a contribution in this House, but especially in the Integrity Sport and Recreation Bill. This bill is about setting up the Integrity Sport and Recreation Commission and sets out its powers and functions. I thought what I would do is I would actually describe what the bill defines as “threats to integrity”. So threats to integrity include competition manipulation; corruption and fraud; use of prohibited substances, which is doping; abuse, including abuse of children; bullying; violence; harassment; intimidation and racism; and all other forms of discrimination. So what the commission will do—I felt that that needed to be said, because that’s the focus of this bill, and that’s why a commission is set up to do that.

So the commission, their roles and responsibilities—their seven to nine members, which will have two people who have knowledge and experience of tikanga Māori—are to, one, promote, advise, and educate on integrity issues and threats to integrity within sport and physical recreation. It will engage with participants in the sport and recreation sector on integrity issues. It will develop and issue integrity codes, including to set a minimum standard of conduct. Of course, it would prescribe policies and procedures for complaints management and dispute resolution. And, of course, it will implement the World Anti-Doping Code and facilitate our compliance to it as a country. With the bill, as we’ve spoken about before, it will review codes in three years, and the Minister for Sport and Recreation will review it within five years.

We’ve just finished the Netball World Cup, and I can’t finish my contribution without acknowledging the Silver Ferns who, unfortunately, came fourth. But Tonga, the Tala—the Tongan netball team—came eighth, and I just want to congratulate the Tongans on that. And the Fiji Pearls were 14th in the in the Netball World Cup. And I look forward—

Hon Grant Robertson: Oh, so the Tongans beat the Fijians.

ANAHILA KANONGATA’A: Just saying, you know. And I just want to acknowledge everyone that’s contributed into this bill, particularly the Minister, because integrity is saying what you’re saying and doing what you’ve said, and you’ve done that, Minister. I commend this bill to the House. Mālō.

NICOLE McKEE (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I stand on behalf of the ACT Party and my two colleagues Karen Chhour and Damien Smith, who have been part of the select committee process going forward.

When I stood to stand for my—stood to stand! When I stood for my second reading speech, I spoke to one aspect of this bill and promised that in my third reading I would speak to other aspects within the bill as well. I’d like to start off with some of the positives that we can see in this bill.

All sports face some sort of doping or match-fixing issues and this bill is hoping to make those issues administratively tidy. I think that that is really quite important and a good aspect of this bill. We do have the World Anti-Doping League, and in fact I’ve been a part of having to comply with some of the rules and regulations around there. So being able to pull what is the drug agency right now into a new portfolio actually sounds like a really good idea.

We also like the idea about the addition of the word “people” and the removal of “communities”. So we’re no longer talking about rainbow communities, but rainbow people. It actually becomes that we do integrate everybody, not as a community as such but as individuals. And in a lot of our sports, that’s what we’re dealing with, individuals in sports rather than communities in sports. So we agree with that change as well.

Some sports also face challenges, such as being called out on bullying culture in some disciplines, and some disciplines are worse than others, especially when it comes to our children. Hearing, over the discussions tonight, that there was some expert commentary, especially from Emily Henderson, who has worked really hard with children, to be able to put that concept into the mind, to upgrade the bill to make sure that it is fit for purpose when we’re dealing with our kids—some of them in some of the disciplines actually do need to make sure that there is somebody looking after them, looking over them, and it looks like this will look to address that. But ACT still has concerns about the bill, hence our opposition at first and second readings and continued opposition as we come into this, the third and final reading.

While there are some aspects of the bill that we agree with in what they are trying to achieve, we do not believe that creating more Government bureaucracy is actually going to achieve what is needed here. The bill creates a central bureaucracy that writes integrity codes and then it acts as the investigator as well as the judiciary on those matters. It even decides penalty or redress and the costs of implementing their desires is also maintained by them as well. It reminds me of New Zealand Police in the firearms section where they write policy, they administer it, they enforce it, and we have issues there when you just have one agency trying to do all of that work. So we do have legitimate concerns around that.

If individual sports don’t want to participate in this, we’re told within the bill that they can opt out of participation. So that’s good to see that that’s in there. But we do note that there was a time when New Zealand Rugby was fined $280,000 and they actually look set to lose $600,000 of their funding because they hadn’t met the 40 percent gender diversity quota for the make-up of their board. So, again, we do have a little bit of concern that if people do not opt in to the code, there could be some sort of penalty—hopefully, not financial—for not doing so. ACT is sceptical that one-size-fits-all and centralised solutions do not always work. So ACT is sceptical of this approach, especially when it gives sweeping powers to the commission.

More importantly, it has not recognised the significance of women and girls in sport, especially at a time when we do have the women’s football world cup running here. It is strange that women and their plight for fairness in sport has actually been totally ignored in this bill. But we are pleased that women and girls have been included in the bill at select committee. But really? Just as stakeholders and that’s it? We could have gone further there and made sure that they have a representative on the board, but the Government has decided that women don’t need that place there. So it’s important that women are not left out and that’s our view there. ACT did recommend a Supplementary Order Paper that would include them, but, as I mentioned, Labour have turned it down. ACT also want to protect women’s sports. Hence our other amendment directly incorporating section 49 of the Human Rights Act into the bill. I say it’s for clarity; it’s actually for the parents of young girls out there in our community who are seeking the clarity.

The bureaucracy that is coming from Labour at the moment is just absolute madness. We do have integrity issues in sport, but we also have Sport New Zealand and we have High Performance Sport New Zealand as well. And rather than creating a whole new layer of bureaucracy there, why are we not just sending people in to teach, to learn, to be a part of these two organisations to ensure that integrity is well and truly embedded within those two organisations?

Instead, we’re just looking to create more bureaucracy, more taxpayer money being spent in areas where it could have been lightened if we’d utilise what we already have instead of creating this whole new centre to look at sports. We don’t need another bureaucratic arm. We don’t need another commission. We have so many of them. When we’ve put lots of costs, lots of taxpayer money into establishing a whole lot of commissions, and we have worse outcomes occurring for New Zealanders at the moment, I don’t see how spending more money is actually going to make a difference.

Integrity in sport absolutely needs help, and we have two foundations that are already set up at grassroots level. If we offered assistance to those foundations, we could actually have an impact because they already know the business. We’ve done quite well on the world stage in all of our sporting codes without having to have a centralised commission telling us what to do, how to do it, when to do it, and what the punishment is if we don’t. We have been successful in our own right.

What we need to do is protect the people, protect the sportsmen, sportswomen and people out there and especially our children. On the issues determined to be too hard, like the transgender participation in women’s sports that I mentioned, the answers throughout the select committee report actually shows that it was an issue. If we are to have a commission, then we need to deal with the issues and stop shying away from being able to talk about them; not doing something about them and placing the emphasis back on to international settings. If we’re going to have a commission deal with the issues and stop referring back to those international codes, we need to, if we’re going to use a commission, actually look at New Zealand regulations for New Zealand sports.

I started this third reading speech by commenting on some of the good things that this bill can achieve. But the reality is it’s just another bureaucratic arm of this Government telling New Zealanders what they can and cannot do, how they conduct themselves in sport, and how to cause dysfunction among existing agencies. We cannot support this bill on that basis.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Every now and then, a representative from each party gets up and congratulates our sporting bodies for their successes overseas.

But if we scratch the surface of our speeches, there are massive underlying issues with high-performance athletes coming to us as representatives, and to our Government bodies, highlighting that there is a crisis when it comes to the wellbeing of our athletes. I want to acknowledge Olivia Podmore and her whānau for their advocacy and bringing this to Parliament, and for the many other athletes and sporting bodies that have advocated for this bill to finally—almost—come to fruition.

So I find the ACT Party’s comments to say things like that we’ve done well and have successes overseas, and to then brush off the need to have a unit to look at threats to integrity, frankly, dismissive of the voices of the athletes who have been calling for Government to act on this. This is about setting a unit that will look at ensuring that we have fit-for-purpose standards and regulations to look after our athletes. To call it things like “bloated bureaucracy”, as ACT often calls it, is completely out of line with what this bill is trying to do. More than anything, it really shows that they’re guided, more often than not, by headline-catching sound bites that have nothing to do with the bill.

If the ACT Party was so concerned about representation of women in the board of this unit, they could have supported our Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) to actually have gender balance in the board rather than just throw out sound bites for social media.

But I want to commend the Minister for bringing this bill forward. I want to also acknowledge our officials who worked really constructively in the select committee—our Social Services and Community Committee—who worked in a really, really constructive spirit to improve this bill and of the submissions that we’ve heard. I want to also thank the Labour Party for supporting my SOP to ensure that the rights of rainbow people were being considered as part of the make-up of the board.

I think this will ensure that a broader range of perspectives and rights are considered, particularly when we’ve seen how anti-doping provisions have been weaponised against trans people—which ironically end up then disproportionately impacting cis women—it’s really, really important that we get these provisions right. So I want to thank the Labour Party for their support and ensuring that we have great protections to get this right.

Finally, I also want to acknowledge that as this bill passes, we’re going to need to resource the unit adequately to ensure that this unit’s able to consult with the stakeholders that are listed in this bill. That will be key to ensure that we get it right. I particularly want to acknowledge that with the e-sports scenes, this will be critical because it is a growing scene. It is one where we have literal stadium-sized audiences watching e-sports athletes, but massive challenges in terms of substances that are being used by the athletes that are not currently actually considered by the public as substances that would have performance-altering effects. Having a unit that is well resourced will ensure that this is tackled.

Because, as the National Party members talked about, sport can play a huge role in improving social cohesion and bringing us together as communities. So therefore we need to consider the wide range of sports that are out there.

Threats to integrity, as defined in this bill include racism, and I wanted to pay tribute to the Manukau United Football Club, who released a report recently on racism in football. I think there’s been many bodies that have talked about threats to integrity in many different ways, and it’s great that those bodies will now be able to engage with those threats to integrity now with the unit that is going to be set up.

So I think if we all continue working constructively, based with evidence, and guided by the people affected by this bill, we’re going to have a brighter future and improve the wellbeing of our athletes. So the Green Party looks forward to commending this bill and seeing its passage.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Um, the member—

Dr Anae Neru Leavasa: Anae.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Anae Neru Leavasa. Thank you.

Dr ANAE NERU LEAVASA (Labour—Takanini): Thank you—thank you, Mr Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I was expecting Jamie Strange.

Dr ANAE NERU LEAVASA: It’s OK. I subbed in—on the field, so thank you, Mr Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Good sporting analogy.

Dr ANAE NERU LEAVASA: Ha, ha! So it’s great just to take a brief call on the third reading of this bill, and I just want to thank the Minister Grant Robertson for answering some of those questions during the committee of the whole House and, again, thanking my colleagues in the select committee for your awesome work and the awesome submitters that came through, through that process.

I just want to focus my brief comments on the sports anti-doping functions that will absorbed into the commission, and I just want to acknowledge the work of Drug Free Sport New Zealand—their tremendous work, not only with athletes, but also with health professionals.

During my years as a sports doctor, I’ve been very thankful to Drug Free Sport New Zealand for their work in training and education for us health professionals and providing the care to our athletes. When you’re looking after sports teams, you get athletes messaging you any time, 24/7, in regards to anything that they’re taking, whether it be medicines or supplements, so I thank Drug Free Sport New Zealand for providing those resources that we can always recheck and providing that resource for our athletes.

One other thing that I want to mention as well is the independence of the commission, because I’ve seen other teams, when players do make complaints, those players are dropped from the team. So having this independent avenue for our athletes will make a huge difference—and also to keep it confidential when integrity matters are raised.

It’d be pretty sad to see, whether it be grassroots sport or even elite sports—seeing some of our rugby teams and the countries that they represent make complaints and then get dropped and they’re not seen at the world cup. I won’t mention countries, but it’s really said to see, so having this provision in this bill will make a huge difference for our athletes. On that note, I commend this bill to the House.

TAMA POTAKA (National—Hamilton West): It’s a great and glorious evening when I can stand to support a Government bill, and today is that evening. I’ve got time. But I’ve got to scaffold some of those comments, some of those tributes and congratulations to the Minister, noted athlete, for this Government’s support of the FIFA Women’s World Cup and many other successful events recently. Not just the best women’s world cup ever—so far, three games to go—but maybe the best world cup ever.

Over the past 30 years, there’s been a number of integrity issues across a wide variety of sports organisations in New Zealand—basketball, canoeing, cycling, rugby, even dragon boating in today’s news. We’ve collectively let a lot of people down as a country, especially with the management and resolution of complaints and integrity issues. But establishing a focused commission to raise awareness and engage and ensure integrity in my view is a very persuasive idea, subject to delivery in a fiscally, culturally, and socially prudent manner.

One issue that some people forgot to raise during the select committee process, but I think is absolutely necessary to opine on today, is an exemption, a retrospective application to a rugby match between the Te Aute first XV and Rotorua Boys’ High first XV in 1993, when a young Billy Weepu, brother of Piri, Karl Te Nana, and myself lost 23-19 to a Chris Grinter - trained team. Chris Grinter was the principal and coach of the Rotorua Boys’ High School that day, and continues to be the principal today, whereas my rugby career is a distant memory. We scored three tries to one, but still lost.

But I’ll remind all of those here in the House today of the absolute focus, integrity focus, in my whanaunga over there from Takanini and also Hamilton—great city. I know about the absolute focus on integrity in first XV rugby and the Maadi Cup, and this type of commission I hope will help to educate and help to grapple with some of those issues that are affecting the various schools but, more importantly, the young woman and men and their teams and coaches involved in those particular well-known competitions, the 1A in Auckland and the Maadi Cup.

Now, I appreciated the phrase “threat to integrity” enunciated in Part 1, and the careful definition of this, and I certainly hope that that sort of definition continues on to other pieces of legislation that the current Government promotes. The lack of support for athletes’ wellbeing is well documented, as is the need for change, and the select committee has worked hard to address some of the issues that our party has raised along the way, such as vague wording and set-up costs.

Perhaps a couple of conclusory and summary comments: No. 1, sports is a fantastic way to get kids engaged—young kids and old kids—and I think back to school and doing things after school. There’s plenty of examples throughout the world in far-flung places like Iceland, where the teachers were schooled up in how to teach music and how to teach kids, and maybe that’s something—no matter what colour we wear in this House—that we can support more of through teacher training programmes and teacher training colleges.

The second one that I’d like to make a comment on, just in passing, is the physical head injuries that people in contact sports are suffering—it’s an absolute concern. It’s something that our health and social systems should carefully consider more of and support those athletes who are suffering from those quite damaging encephalitis injuries.

The third thing—and with a nod to this evening’s game—is the celebration of female athletes. No matter what the level, this is something that I’ve absolutely appreciated an increase of and encouragement towards and support, whether it’s the FIFA Women’s World Cup or the Saturday netball down at an Minogue Park in Hamilton West, which is the best place to grow up and also the home of the national secondary schools rugby and netball champions, Hamilton Girls’ High School. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I apologise to the member for not reminding him it was a five-minute call, so thank you for adapting.

Dr EMILY HENDERSON (Labour—Whangārei): Kia ora e te Māngai o te Whare. I rise again to take a short call on this matter, and I too want to congratulate the Minister, whose championing of opportunities for women and girls in sport I have greatly appreciated, even though I am probably the last person of this House who will ever take advantage of any of them!

I want to speak briefly on the matters that were raised by my colleague from the ACT Party earlier, Nicole McKee. She commented that she sees this creation of a commission to deal with complaints and challenges to the integrity of sports that occur from time to time in sporting disciplines—that she considers this to be over-bureaucratic, if I can paraphrase, “nonsense” that is going to take up too much time and money, and the better approach would be simply to educate our sports organisations out of bad behaviour. Would that we could—

Simon Court: Tell me about the bad behaviour. Give us some examples!

Dr EMILY HENDERSON: We have had too many occasions unfortunately—

Simon Court: Give us one!

Dr EMILY HENDERSON: We’ve got a comment coming from across the House from a member from the ACT Party who appears unaware, so let’s talk about some of those behaviours. In any organisation where you have hierarchy, when you have big disparities in the power between those who are working, those who are young sportswomen—and in particular, I’m thinking of the young gymnasts that we have had worldwide and in New Zealand come forward to talk about the physical, emotional, and sexual abuse to which they were subject by coaches to whom they did not feel they could speak back. And we have had those examples again and again and again. Where we have well-meaning sports organisations which are largely run by volunteers, the risks that you are going to get inappropriate and unsafe behaviours develop over time becomes worse. Our sportspeople have said, “We need an organisation to independently review and assess what is going on and to police this behaviour”. This is what this bill sets up, and I am very happy to commend it to the House.

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): I too would like to put on record my sadness that the ACT Party have confused integrity with bureaucracy, and also to thank the Minister who has really shown great integrity himself in his approach to the sports portfolio in recognising that sports is another avenue for young people to be able to achieve excellence and fulfilment in their life, and particularly for young women. What we have seen with the FIFA success is the money, the pressure, and the opportunity. So an estimated $200 million worth of benefit to New Zealand, 20,000 extra tourists, but also we can see the pressure of high performance sports and the opportunities for countries like New Zealand when there’s already conversations about potential future Commonwealth Games. And certainly, as the MP for Taieri, I can see the opportunity around our upgraded sports facilities at Tahuna Park. So it’s very timely this bill is here tonight with the semi-final that we’re about to play, and ironic that ACT should suggest comments about not supporting women in sports when, in fact, the event funding that has led to us being able to host FIFA would be cut under an ACT-National Government.

My real point is that this legislation can’t come soon enough, because, when we’re looking at the nature of sports and young sportspeople, it’s inherently physical. There’s physicality. There’s also the influence of drugs or doping and the vulnerability. And the third element is that really intimate relationship between coaches and young participants. So it’s really important in order to keep the integrity of that and the safety of our young people that we need an independent commission. I’m so glad that we have the support from the other side of the House. The list of those codes that have experienced problems that Tama Potaka mentioned also includes gymnastics. This can’t come a moment soon enough. I want to thank the Minister for what he’s done for women’s sports and I commend the bill to the House.

PENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill): Thank you so much, Mr Speaker. I’m pleased to rise in this final reading to speak in support of the Integrity Sport and Recreation Bill. Can I thank the Minister for Sport and Recreation for the very open debate that we had on the mandatory versus voluntary, in the committee of the whole House. It was something that we had flagged that, as a party, we had some concerns around, but I think that we were given a very full explanation and an ability to think a little bit further on that. And I think that in looking at this in hindsight, the fact that they have fallen on the side of voluntary rather than mandatory has been a sensible decision, particularly recognising the value of having buy-in from sports codes rather than mandating. So I thank the Minister for his openness on that particular point.

I think too some of the points that he bought up reinforced that, while it will be voluntary, there will be some fairly significant mitigating aspects of that, not the least being that there is that public interest test where if it is deemed to be sufficient, regardless of whether you’ve bought in or not, there will be an ability for the Integrity Sport and Recreation Commission to be involved. So that’s certainly a mitigating fact. There is also the fact that around doping in sport there are aspects of that that are mandatory because of the international sporting body requirements. So that, and the fact that this can be reviewed in three years’ time to see how it’s working, all, I think, gives sufficient comfort to consider that falling on that side of voluntary was the right thing to do at this time. So thank you for that.

Just reflecting on how this encompasses and then broadens out from the Drug Free Sport New Zealand—disestablishing that, morphing it into this much broader commission—I was reflecting on what sort of secondary benefits we might get from this now being broader. I looked at things like collation of data, the ability to track trends across sporting codes, and the ability to share best practice. You know, I think there will be secondary benefits that come from this that we perhaps haven’t even thought of. That is not in any way diminishing the very good service that we have had from Drug Free Sport New Zealand and the functions that they have undertaken.

I was thinking back, as we were speaking on this, to just how long ago it was that I was introduced to this as a coach. I think it was when I was coaching an under-18 team, so it would have to be in excess of 15 years ago. It was an under-18 hockey team. That the drug-free aspects were brought into that level, on that age group, and normalizing it at that age group, allowed that education component of it. So I am a great believer in things not being compulsory to be mandatory, and to put the emphasis on the education and prevention.

I’m not going to go on at length with this, but there is one point I do want to make—and I know we’re all very keen to be able to watch, perhaps, the semi-final across the ditch. At the risk of jeopardising trans-Tasman relationships, I have to say that I am rooting for the English team, and for one particular reason: they are the only team left with a head coach that is female. In fact, even at the eight team part of the tournament, they were the only team with a female head coach left. I remember that we had these challenges in hockey of being able to progress female coaches through, and I’m not sure whether it’s heartening or disheartening to see that, actually, this is something that’s obviously on a global scale. I know we’re speaking a little bit broader than this bill and a little bit broader in matters of integrity, but it is nonetheless a very important matter of women’s coaches being valued and progressed in women’s sport. So for that reason, when we are able to watch the semi-final in about 20 minutes’ time, I will be cheering for the English team. With that, I support this bill.

RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to take the final call tonight on the Integrity Sport and Recreation Bill, and can I thank the Minister for his work, particularly to promote women and girls in sport. I want to just note my wonderful sister who actually could have ended up playing football for New Zealand if it wasn’t for the fact that she did one of her knees while playing in America. She didn’t have the opportunities as a youngster than so many of our girls do today, so I’m so pleased to see that progress.

I want to pay particular attention in my short call tonight to the importance of protecting children in sport and acknowledge one of the submitters, a wonderful organisation based in my electorate of Nelson called Safeguarding Children. I want to acknowledge their founder and leader, Willow Duffy, who does remarkable work with sports organisations across New Zealand to address their child protection policies and ensure that they are doing everything they can to protect child in sport.

We have seen, unfortunately, incidences in previous years and decades where historical issues have come to light that are unacceptable in terms of their treatment of children. There are a couple of changes in the bill that I do want to note that specifically resulted from their submission.

One is around amending the Children’s Act to ensure that the new commission has to adopt and report on a child protection policy. So I want to give a shout-out to Willow Duffy tonight, because this is the policy that she is always in my ear about for every organisation that works with children, and I know that she will be very pleased to see this change.

The other change in the bill that came through that I also want to acknowledge Safeguarding Children for was ensuring that there are age-appropriate dispute resolution processes involved and if young people do bring allegations that there is child-friendly processes. Having worked in this area myself, alongside people like Willow, I know how important it is that when young people raise allegations that these are taken seriously and in a sensitive way to ensure our young people are supported.

This is an excellent bill. It will help progress the importance of sport in our country in ensuring that integrity, that safety, and that appropriate mechanisms for keeping people involved and engaged in sport are adhered to in years to come. I commend it to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Integrity Sport and Recreation Bill be now read a third time.

Ayes 109

New Zealand Labour 62; New Zealand National 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Te Paati Māori 2; Kerekere; Whaitiri.

Noes 10

ACT New Zealand 10.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Climate Change Response (Late Payment Penalties and Industrial Allocation) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Hon JAMES SHAW (Minister of Climate Change): I present to the House a legislative statement on the Climate Change Response (Late Payment Penalties and Industrial Allocation) Amendment Bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

Hon JAMES SHAW: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I move, That the Climate Change Response (Late Payment Penalties and Industrial Allocation) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

New Zealand has committed to a net zero target for 2050, and the emissions trading scheme (ETS) is a critical tool for achieving this by putting a price on the pollution that causes climate change. This bill will make the New Zealand emissions trading scheme more accurate and reduce an unnecessary cost to the Crown. It will also more equitably treat other sectors and reduce the pressure on our emissions budgets.

Currently, industries that are emissions intensive and which compete with foreign companies that are not exposed to a carbon price receive what we call “industrial allocation”, or free New Zealand emissions units, up to a certain percentage of their expected emissions costs, but some industries are receiving more free emissions units than they need. This bill improves the way that the ETS functions by updating the decade-old baselines used to calculate industrial allocation. The bill also tightens the eligibility criteria for new industrial activities wanting to receive free emissions units.

Addressing over-allocation is long overdue. Over-allocation is a significant cost to the Government of almost $50 million every year. The bill also reduces the risk of over-allocation in the future by introducing five- to 10-year review and update window periods for updating baselines in eligible industries—in other words, no sooner than five years and no later than 10 years. This window aims to balance the risk of additional cost to Government due to over-allocation whilst also providing businesses and investors the certainty that they need to invest in new ways of working that will lead to emissions reductions.

The bill also includes three technical improvements to industrial allocation policy. These are, first, enabling updates to allocative baselines if technical settings change; second, easier access to data from industrial allocation applications; and, third, a new methodology for resetting the electricity allocation factor.

The bill also makes changes to penalties for late payments by small forestry participants to reduce the risk of serious financial hardship. Small foresters are forestry participants with liabilities of less than 25,000 units on average per year. The revised penalty will take effect from 1 January 2025 to allow for sufficient time to educate participants on how the penalty will work.

I do want to thank the Environment Committee for its diligent consideration of this important piece of work. I also want to acknowledge everyone who has submitted on the bill during the select committee stage. The bill received over 100 submissions, including submissions from the Climate Change Commission, not-for-profit organisations, individuals, industries, and climate experts. Your input has proven invaluable in this process.

I now want to focus on the changes that the select committee has made to this bill, which all relate to industrial allocation. In my first reading speech, I asked the select committee to look into proposed changes that may increase eligibility for industrial allocation. The select committee examined these settings closely and has recommended some changes. Again, I do want to thank the submitters, and particularly independent experts such as Dr Christina Hood, for their work with the select committee and with the Ministry for the Environment officials to get to where we did on this.

The first change is to retain, rather than to change, the current thresholds used to test whether an industry or activity should be eligible for industrial allocation. In addition, the bill will require that eligibility for existing activities not be retested as part of the upcoming allocative baseline update. I welcome this change. It addresses concerns from many submitters that updating the eligibility thresholds using a recent carbon price would have made it easier for some businesses to receive industrial allocation. The bill will keep the current classifications and maintain the high bar for eligibility, supporting the broader emissions reductions goals.

The second change concerns eligibility for new industrial activities. The select committee recommended changing the additional test for eligibility for new industrial activities, and I also endorse this change. The test requires the Minister of Climate Change to consider additional matters. Under this new test, it will be difficult for new activities to gain eligibility for industrial allocation. As well as being consistent with our broader climate change commitments, this will help the Government to manage the scheme’s fiscal costs.

The third change that the select committee recommended relates to the over-allocation test for future updates to allocative baselines. The bill proposes that the Government can update baselines when allocation is more than 60 percent of the emissions costs associated with moderately emissions-intensive activities, such as the production of ethanol or of tissue paper. For highly emissions-intensive activities, the baselines can be updated when allocation is more than 90 percent of the emissions costs. Highly intensive activities include cement production and aluminium smelting. This is an important change. The revised test will deal more effectively with any significant over-allocation that occurs as companies decarbonise. Having two different trigger levels for moderately intensive and highly intensive activities will treat companies more equitably.

Lastly, each eligible activity has at least one associated product. For example, a product from the production of cementitious products is cement clinker. The select committee made a change to the bill so that new products within an existing eligible activity could use projected data to set its allocative baselines when actual data is not yet available. Without the ability to do this, a firm could be better off continuing with its current method of operation and receiving free allocation rather than decarbonising. I support this change as it would encourage firms to pursue decarbonisation investments, which is crucial for our transition to a more resilient low-emissions economy.

This bill as reported back by the select committee supports the review and the update of industrial allocation settings that are long overdue. This bill futureproofs the emissions trading scheme by ensuring that we more accurately determine the rates of allocation and that there is a framework to update them in the future. The changes that we make today will help us to meet our emissions budgets, our international obligations, and our broader climate change goals. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I commend this bill to the House.

SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. It is a pleasure to make comment in relation to the Climate Change Response (Late Payment Penalties and Industrial Allocation) Amendment Bill in its second reading. I wish to acknowledge the Minister in regards to this bill. While I’ve attended a limited number of the select committee deliberations in regards to this bill, it has been a process, I think, led by the Hon Eugenie Sage, that has taken into account a wide-ranging amount of feedback from a number of stakeholders, and I think has ended up in a place in which National will be supporting in its second reading.

As the Minister has outlined, the bill makes two key adjustments and provisions: one in regards to the changes in terms of the allocation baselines around industrial allocations, the other one in regards to the penalty regime, in particular for small forestry participants when they fail to surrender or repay emissions trading scheme (ETS) units. Both amendments within this bill are, from National’s perspective, reasonable and pragmatic changes and we continue to support this bill through all remaining stages.

It is a pleasure to speak as National’s climate change spokesperson. National are committed to achieving our net zero commitments by 2050. We also strongly support and endorse the role in which the ETS plays in order to assist us to achieve those goals. These changes within this legislation enable us to strengthen elements of that mechanism, which will, no doubt, ensure that we can meet those obligations in the future, which is so critically important.

It is good to see that the Government has taken on board the concerns and feedback, particularly from small forestry participants, in regards to this. We heard a number of those submissions through the select committee process. Equally, it is good to see that the Government has taken on board the feedback in regards to some of the industrial emitters, because this is—and we do share with them some of the concerns that were raised in regards to the implications that this bill is changed. Of course, it is positive that in this instance we are seeing the Government work constructively with the sector and not against them as we proceed through this basis.

As we noted, the Environment Committee had 107 submissions, of which 27 submissions were heard. I wish to thank all of those submitters in regards to the comprehensive nature of feedback that they provided. It is heartening to see that a number of those submitters whose feedback was provided have been taken into consideration and adopted in regards to changes in this bill. That is how our democracy should operate in regards to that select committee process, and it is good to see that.

There were a number of changes made and, by and large, they were made unanimously across the committee. That is important recognition in terms of those changes. But we do recognise that there still remains a number of key aspects that need to be improved if you consider the broader Government’s climate change policies, and in particular the actions required by the Government in order to support emission reduction within our economy and get us on a glide path in order to meet those 2030 and 2050 obligations. It is the desire of National, and into the future the opportunity that arises with us as a National-led Government, to see a step change, and a step change in the pace in which those actions are implemented to reduce emissions in order to meet our obligations.

In regards to the industrial allocations elements, as has been noted by the Minister, the select committee did make a number of changes in regards to that. That is important. It is interesting to note in the regulatory impact statement at sections 119 to 121 that there were issues raised in regards to the implications on both the regional economy and economic activity of adverse consequences on a number of these industrial emitters, particularly where we’ve got industrial emitters such as in the fertiliser space—in particular one in New Zealand—and the implications around that business. If that business shuts down, then New Zealand would potentially lose around 30 percent of its ability to produce nitrogen and that would then have to be imported, primarily from overseas and primarily from China.

So there are considerations around ensuring that we get the balance right in terms of protecting the elements of industry within this country, but also acknowledging the fact that they also need to, in effect, for many of those industries, undertake a transformational reduction in regards to the way in which they reduce their emissions profile. For many of those businesses, they do face significant challenges, quite simply because the solution, the technology, and the options to actually achieve that at the pace which is required do not currently exist in all instances. So we need to acknowledge that for some of those industries they are at a different phase versus others, and that is just the reality of where we are. But we are confident with the challenges in front of us and that, with the appropriate research and development and technology and focus, solutions will be found to those problems as we proceed in the future. In the interim, we should focus on the opportunities that are available for us immediately.

In regards to the changes on the industrial allocations, it is important to say that a number of the changes have been made in order to make it clearer within the legislation, and making sure that the changes that were fed through by the select committee actually do work appropriately for industrial allocations. As a result, I think the changes ensure that we’ve actually made the ETS able to perform better than what was previously the case, which is important. It also deals with the reality that things have moved on over the past 10 years, and we are using this opportunity to rebalance or level up that aspect which provides a much more solid footing, going forward.

I think the reality is that, again, in regards to the industrial allocations and those large emitters, this is going to continue to be a conversation—a dialogue. And I commit to those industries within our country that a National-led Government will work with you, not against you, in order to work through those challenges, because we need to find a position in which we all are able to achieve the outcomes that we need to. We need to work with each other, not against each other. That is the expectation on this side of the House.

That’s pretty much all that I wish to cover this evening. As is outlined, National will be supporting this bill and through all stages this evening. I acknowledge again the work of the Minister and the work of the select committee who I think, all in all, worked very constructively in regards to putting in place this legislation. We commend this bill to the House.

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

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m just going to make a few brief comments about the bill; in particular, one of the two aspects of the bill, which is this question of industrial allocation, which, for the folks at home wondering what “industrial allocation” is, it’s the giving of free emissions units to emission-intensive trade-exposed industries. If we didn’t do this as part of the emissions trading scheme (ETS), the risk would be that the ETS would add cost to New Zealand firms, causing them to either shut down or move their operations offshore with loss of jobs for New Zealand but no reduction in net global emissions.

One of the things that the bill does is amend the eligibility criteria for industrial allocation by updating the emissions intensity thresholds to reflect a more recent carbon price. The problem that we’re trying to solve is over-allocation. The eligibility criteria and the rules on allocation are over a decade old and are simply too generous. Some firms have been receiving more free units than they need, costing the taxpayer unnecessarily and somewhat reducing the incentive to decarbonise.

This is a rather technical bill. It’s a tweaking of a couple of aspects relating to the ETS, and I want to, really, just acknowledge the work of the select committee, which, as the previous speaker commented, I think worked together in a pretty collegial way. We benefited greatly from a number of submissions, including, I would say, particularly the Climate Change Commission, but especially Dr Christina Hood, an expert in carbon markets. With Dr Hood’s assistance, the committee worked quite hard to toughen up some of the rules around industrial allocation, and I take from the Minister’s earlier comments that he’s satisfied that the committee significantly improved the bill. On that note, I will commend this bill to the House.

BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki-King Country): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s also a pleasure to take a call on the Climate Change Response (Late Payment Penalties and Industrial Allocation) Amendment Bill tonight in the House. The title of the bill is almost longer than the bill, and some bills that we’ve been discussing today took hours and hours and days and days of work. This one was actually rather small in comparison but, none the less, thorough by the select committee, and it was a pleasure to be involved for a large proportion of it.

I also would like to thank the Minister for the ability for the Environment Committee to make changes. I always think legislation works at its best where submitters come in and Ministers have an open mind, and this is one that worked extremely successfully. As has been explained, the bill does allow our businesses to compete internationally on a fair playing field by giving some free allocations to those businesses who need it, and the other part of that is the rules relating to the penalties around small forestry participants; those who have less than 25,000 units. And at the time that this was developed, it was deferred for small forestry participants until 2023, due to concerns that applying it would cause serious financial hardship, potentially putting their personal assets such as home or farm at risk.

So this is a good continuation, and I think it’s really important for those small foresters. I won’t have a lot more to say in my small speech tonight about that one, but I do think the update on the allocated baselines in determining industrial allocation of free emission units has to be updated—obviously, now that the reviews are set in place, somewhere between five and 10 years. It’s been quite a while, and, as we know, technology research and development should be moving us forward at a fast pace and so, at that rate, business will be able to use science to make changes faster. Therefore, to keep the regime relevant, we need to be watching it and monitoring it much more often, and it is positive to see the Government working in this regard.

The others have talked about the submissions—107 submissions, and 27 provided oral evidence. I think, really, the report of the committee acknowledged that the urgent work is still needed to improve the design of the climate change policy in relation to industrial emitters, and there is always more work to do. I think, really, some of the most important changes from the aspect of science and technology are the clarified eligible process for new industrial activities. We should always expect that there will be new industrial activities. As people change their processes in light of decarbonising, we shouldn’t keep assuming that what we knew 10 or 15 years ago is current to what we know now and what we will know in five years’ time. So it’s good that this bill allows the use of projected data for new products in existing eligible industrial activities when actual data is not available to set the relevant allocated baselines. It gives an opportunity for those businesses to get started to make sure that they’re competing with whatever the new product might be, and be able to compete on an apples for apples basis, if you like, if that’s an acceptable terminology for measuring climate change.

So I’m not going to speak for much longer on this bill tonight, because as I said, it’s a smallish bill and a lot of the detail has already been relayed by other speakers, but just to say that National is very pleased to commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Again, I am pleased to stand and speak on another bill—I think my fifth tonight—to speak on the Climate Change Response (Late Payment Penalties and Industrial Allocation) Amendment Bill.

The second reading is often an opportunity for us to talk about the submissions, of course, and we have heard that there are 107 of them and 27 of these submitted to us orally. I do want to acknowledge my colleague the Hon Phil Twyford, who talked about Dr Christina Hood’s contribution—outstanding and extremely helpful to support us in our understanding.

I want to acknowledge the Minister as well. I do recall working on the Climate Change Response Act amendment in the last term, and I feel like I have probably learnt much more about the emissions trading scheme than I thought I’d ever need to know. But nevertheless, I think is a good piece of legislation. It tidies up a couple of things, and one of them, I think, which is quite important, is providing and creating for us a formula of how penalties will be applied.

Now, the reason I think that this is really important is because when these small farm holders who have these blocks of land with pine trees on don’t do what they are supposed to do, there’s a massive penalty applied to them. As a consequence, by codifying for and extending out a year, and explaining to those small holdings owners what would happen, it essentially does give some clarity to what they’re up for. I think it’s a really fair thing to do.

I don’t usually enjoy legislation that has a formula in it, but I think this is well explained. With that, I’d like to commend the bill to the House.

SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Two problems this bill tries to solve: the issue that for small foresters who have cut down their trees; trees that were in the emissions trading scheme, because at some point during that forest lifecycle, the landowner thought it was a good idea to enter the emissions trading scheme, offer their trees up as carbon soakage, only to discover many years later when they go to harvest the trees that the cost of harvest for a small wood lot often outweighs the price they get at the mill. By the time you get timber off a remote farm or remote property, sort it out on site and get it to the mill, it hardly covers their costs. So then they say, “Well, why would we replant, when it hardly covered our costs?” Now, for those people who entered the emissions trading scheme some years ago, if they don’t replant, they have to pay a penalty, and what this bill recognises is that while participants in the scheme should be required to honour their obligations to continue taking carbon out of the atmosphere, the penalties were excessive. So ACT supports that aspect of the bill.

But there’s a part we don’t support, and that is the way that carbon emissions from New Zealand’s major industrial facilities—and we don’t have many in New Zealand, because there’s only 5 million people. We’re not industrialised like Northern Europe or the United States or Japan or Korea is. We only have a few industries, but they employ tens of thousands of people in extremely high paid jobs in towns and regions where there are not a lot of well-paid jobs. You might think of Taranaki, for example. You might think of Ballance, Kapuni, which makes a nitrogen-based fertiliser from natural gas, one of New Zealand’s most valuable and precious resources. Or you might think of a big pulp mill making pulp for paper and all kinds of other packaging products in the central North Island. It also relies heavily on natural gas as a fuel in order to turn trees into pulp so they can export that pulp, earn really good export revenues, pay people well, and employ people in a place like Tangiwai in the central North Island, where there are very few high paid jobs as an alternative.

What this bill attempts to do is to look back in time and say, “In 2008, 2009, 2010, these industries were emitting carbon dioxide in a way that created a baseline.”—fine; I accept that. Now, 2023, a lot of them have decarbonised. They’ve invested in more efficient plant and equipment. They might have decided, “Hey, instead of a gas-powered compressor, we’ll have an electrical-powered compressor, even though we still use natural gas in our industrial process to create very high heat to turn those very stiff lignin fibres into wood pulp, or to turn natural gas into, literally, urea fertiliser—an amazing piece of scientific technology right there in Taranaki, at Ballance, Kapuni.

These businesses came to select committee and said, “We have decarbonised. We will accept a rebaselining opportunity, where we get to submit our data to the Ministry for the Environment, whatever agency you like, and we will accept the rebaselining now in 2023 or 2024.” But what this bill proposes to do is to give the Minister of Climate Change, that all-powerful deity, the opportunity to call in their business and have their emissions rebaseline reassessed every five years. And what these businesses told us was “Look, we’re happy to embark on a deep carbonisation pathway out to 2050. No problem. A lot of the kit we’re going to replace our existing plant and equipment with is very, very expensive, though.” For example, a $200 million piece of equipment that was described as being able to deliver 20 percent reduction in emissions at Ballance, Kapuni, in other words, reducing by 20 percent the emissions produced to make that urea fertiliser that goes on our farms all around New Zealand, a 20 percent reduction in emissions—that’s phenomenal.

I mean, that should be celebrated. But what they said was that if we make that investment at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars on the basis that our industrial allocation is, essentially, fixed between now and—you know, give us a good 15 years’ payback period. I mean no one is going to go to their board and say, “Hey, Mr Chair, can I have $200 million for a piece of equipment? But, by the way, I don’t know if, actually, we’re not ever going to get the payback period on it. We might have the rug pulled out from us from some climate deity, otherwise known as a climate Minister, five years from now.” They said we would never get permission to make that investment in decarbonisation.

ACT listened to these submitters, which is why, unfortunately—despite the good things in this bill—overall, we have to oppose it, because it does not address that fundamental issue. How do we retain New Zealand industries here which employ highly paid people in regions like Taranaki and the central North Island, who are people who didn’t necessarily have to complete high school, who may not have had a perfect past, and who may not have university degrees, but they get to go to work and work in industries which pay them as well, if not better, than if they did. That is something that we used to call the Kiwi Dream. But if this bill passes as written, part of that Kiwi Dream is not just at risk but it may well be on life support until a future Green Minister pulls out the plug.

This bill risks the de-industrialisation of New Zealand and the extinguishing of high-paid jobs in the provinces and regions, and it will set New Zealand’s decarbonisation efforts back by a decade or more. Why would businesses domiciled in countries like Japan or Korea or the United States continue to invest in New Zealand when this bill proposes to pull the rug out on their long-term decarbonisation investments?

Now, the purpose of the primary legislation is not just to create a test for industrial allocation—in other words, how many credits should an industry give, based on its emissions intensity. The other part of this bill is the trade-exposed part—emissions-intensive, trade-exposed industries that compete with either goods manufactured overseas or that want to manufacture goods in New Zealand and export to overseas markets. Either way, New Zealand wins if our businesses here are competitive and are paying people well to make manufactured products here in New Zealand.

Whether it’s methanol, whether it’s fertiliser, whether it’s wood pulp, whether it’s turn recycled glass bottles back into glass, like O-I Glass do in Penrose, using natural gas—all of those industries are at risk if we get this wrong. If this Minister of Climate Change, James Shaw, gets this wrong, if Labour gets this wrong, if National gets this wrong, all these industries are at risk, and yet it appears that this Government and those supporting the bill are quite happy to put the ship “New Zealand” on autopilot and let the zero carbon Act guide us to an uncertain, impoverished, and a highly unlikely to be low-carbon future.

What has the Minister done to make the case that these amendments in this legislation are necessary and that they’re going to work? Well, what he’s done in the past few months is completely undermine the premise of this bill by going around the country and handing out green bucks—sorry, money taken from consumers under the emissions trading scheme. He’s been taking that money, which could go back to consumers in the form of a carbon dividend—I mean, that’s what ACT says would be the most effective way to establish the credibility of the emissions trading scheme as an enduring way to put a price incentive on emissions.

He’s gone around the country, the Minister of Climate Change, and his comrades in the Labour Party. They’ve gone to visit a whole lot of businesses, handing out green bucks: $140 million to BlueScope Steel at Glenbrook to decarbonise and to buy an electric arc furnace, as if a $2.7 billion profit - making Australian company couldn’t afford to buy its own furnace. That’s right, silence—you’ve got no answer for it.

What this Minister has done and what Labour have done through the Government Investment in Decarbonising Industry Fund and all these other interventions is undermine the rationale behind this bill. They risk introducing a corruption of the spirit into New Zealand business, which will become dependent on a future Minister here, green bucks here, and red bucks here.

ACT has a different approach. We say that we should cap our emissions at the same level as our top five trading partners managed to reduce theirs by last year. That would allow the emissions trading scheme to discover the price. That price will be the world price, and that’s what our industries should pay. That’ll keep jobs here, and that’ll keep New Zealand going.

Dr EMILY HENDERSON (Labour—Whangārei): While the previous speaker takes a little moment to sit down and calm down a wee bit, may I just take a very short call on this sensible bill, which essentially is updating a 22-year-old Act—the Climate Change Response Act 2002—which set the allocation of New Zealand emission units, which recognised—

Hon Member: Do not ask this person to be your lawyer.

Dr EMILY HENDERSON: Which recognised the cost to businesses who are trying to decarbonise and do the right thing—

Hon Member: You will lose.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Order!

Dr EMILY HENDERSON: The Climate Change Response (Late Payment Penalties and Industrial Allocation) Amendment Bill updates these decades-old industrial allocations settings, which have unfortunately resulted in some emitting firms receiving more units than they needed at an estimated cost to the Government and thus the New Zealand people of $60 million a year.

It is a sensible bill, it is overdue at 22 years old, and I commend it to the House and thank the committee for the hard and detailed work they have done upon it.

HELEN WHITE (Labour): I’d like to join my colleague Dr Emily Henderson in making a short call in support of this bill. I’m not on the Environment Committee and I’m always impressed by the level of knowledge and care that they take over bills like this that are actually going to make a real change to New Zealand society.

This was a bill that tried to make sure that our industries that were not carbon-friendly were able to continue to operate in a way which sustained them and sustained their employees but that also allowed them to move into a new world—and so is the Government Investment in Decarbonising Industry Fund, and I’m incredibly proud of some of the things that it’s done; so was, obviously, the move that Mr Court seemed to object to, to actually go in and work with businesses like BlueScope to change the way they make steel in this country.

I was a lawyer at the Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union at the time I first went to the steel mill, and it’s this incredible place which is making steel from our sand, and one of the greatest parts of job has got to be going and seeing raw material turned into product. But wouldn’t it be good, and isn’t it going to be good, when those kinds of industries and these kinds of measures become something we can do without destroying our environment and our climate. Thank you. I commend the bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): The next call is a split call. I call on Ian McKelvie for five minutes.

IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): Thank you, Madam Speaker. This bill, I suppose—to steal a phrase from Sean Fitzpatrick—is like a bill of two halves. The first half’s pretty easy to understand and probably logical, and will probably save—and I’ll explain who it’s going to save in a minute—some people from, I guess, not breaking the law but from some pretty serious penalties. The reason for needing that is, I guess, the awareness of the emissions trading scheme (ETS), and certainly the rules around it have been pretty vague in New Zealand—not because they’re vague but because people don’t necessarily think they need to understand them. So you could easily get people—probably, the majority of them would be farmers—who’ve had pine trees planted on their farms for years and years, who’ve cut them down quite innocently. And off they go with the cash, only to find that they were either pre-1990 or had been registered by a previous owner in the ETS.

So that’s what the first part of this is about. It’s, effectively, rationalising those penalties, because it’s a pretty serious issue and I think there will be a number of MPs in this House who’ve had constituents come to them on this very issue with this bill. It’s not overcoming it, because it still needs some penalty in place, but, certainly, making it much less onerous. And with good reason, because I don’t think anyone deliberately undermines the law or deliberately sets out to break the law, but, none the less, it is easy to do, and you can see how it could easily happen. So it restricts the penalties on those, I suppose, forest owners—for want of a better word—and makes the whole system less intimidating for them.

I listened to Simon Court with interest—some of which I didn’t understand; some of which I did. But the second part of the bill is much more complicated, and whilst it might be fine today, it won’t be fine in a year’s time. The reason for that is the environment in which we operate in—in any country in the world—changes very quickly, and business changes very quickly, and product changes very quickly. The reason for this piece of legislation, in my view, running the risk of being outdated quite quickly is that those will change so quickly that we’ll then need to account for a whole different regime in two or three years’ time.

That leads me to the issue that concerns me most about this, and I spoke about it in the first reading: this is an extremely complex business, the Climate Change Response Act, and what’s happened to it in the time it’s been operating and the changes we’ve made to it. And we’re seeing that quite clearly with the ETS right now, where we’ve got, I suppose, significant uncertainty in the way it’s going to operate in the future. I’m a supporter of the ETS. I think it needs to work, from a New Zealand perspective. At what level it works—that’s another issue, because, when you look around the world and actually look around New Zealand, the cost that these types of schemes can impose, particularly on our lower-income communities, is significant.

Some of us had the opportunity to tour to South America last year and see the extraordinary poverty in some cities, particularly in places like Santiago, Buenos Aires, and Mexico City. The biggest concern they had was what, I guess, regimes like this are going to put on the future cost of food and the future cost of servicing those communities—electricity is a particularly harsh one. So all those things get significantly lifted in cost by what we’re trying to address in the second part of this bill.

Now, to some extent, it sets out to address that—and that’s where I do agree with Simon Court. It sets out to address it, but, actually, it’s very difficult to address it in law. And so I think we’ve made this whole situation, over a number of years, extremely complicated. So this bill will have to come back—or the second part of this bill will undoubtedly come back. It will be reviewed next year anyway, and it would undoubtedly come back for further change. I’m not criticising the bill, because I think that, given the circumstances we’re in right now, it needs to be pushed on with.

So the first part of the bill, I think, is great. The second part of the bill, I think, will be back—long after I’m gone, but will be back—and will need alteration. So the whole thing needs more consideration. I commend the bill to build the House.

LEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to speak on the Climate Change Response (Late Payment Penalties and Industrial Allocation) Amendment Bill and happy to make a short contribution. I support the second reading of this bill. It is a technical bill and I do want to acknowledge the Environment Committee as a member—my fellow colleagues, members—the officials and submitters, in particular Dr Christina Hood.

The emergency action that is demanded is ambitious, urgent, and requires a coordinated response across Government to meet the scale and complex challenges. It enables just transition and low emissions, as the Government has a priority of a climate-resilient future. We’ve seen, quite recently this year, the effects of climate change and those are being felt in our community.

The bill reforms industrial allocation policy and revises the late payment penalty for small forestry participants, and we heard the Minister of Climate Change talk about those changes that this bill proposes with the New Zealand emissions trading scheme. We know that this bill will ensure businesses receive appropriate amounts. It will address over-allocation and reduce the significant costs to Government to align with Aotearoa’s climate response targets, and the changes will also make it also easier for emissions budgets to be met.

Just very quickly, the allocation of baselines will be updated with new data. It allows reassessment of eligibility of current industries and also has technical improvements to industrial allocation policy. The select committee made a number of recommendations for the bill to be considered and, on that, also a revised penalty for small forestry participants. I commend this bill to the House.

Harete Hipango: Madam Speaker. No? Am I too soon?

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): The next call is a Labour call. I call on the Hon Michael Wood.

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Labour—Mt Roskill): Madam Speaker, thank you. I’m pleased to take a brief call before the member opposite makes her contribution to the debate. I’m pleased to take a call on this bill because it goes to an enormously important area of public policy. In some respects, this debate has been quite instructive about what’s been achieved and also what is, in fact, at risk.

The good news in this space is that what we’re doing is working. Over the last few years, we are beginning to win the battle of reducing New Zealand’s emissions. The figures that came through at the end of 2022 identified that our emissions are, as of that point, at the lowest certainly since 2014 and possibly since the early 2000s. That has happened because Government policy has driven change. The successive reform and making our emissions trading scheme (ETS) framework more robust, under the Hon James Shaw as Minister, and direct policies to work with industry, specifically in emissions-intensive areas like transport, energy, and electricity generation are working; the numbers don’t lie. The key thing that we have to do is to make sure that we continue to have the right policies and an ETS framework that actually sends the right signals into the market and to emitters.

The key problem that this bill is trying to overcome is the issue of overallocation for the relatively small number of firms in these sectors who are high emitters and are trade exposed. It’s a relatively small numbers of firms; I think, under 100 in total. It is accepted by the Government and by this legislative framework that there is the case for there to be an industrial allocation into those sectors, but we need to get it right, because, if we overallocate, we will completely defeat the purpose of the ETS regime; there will not be sufficient tension within the system; the signals will not be sent to reduce emissions as much as those firms reasonably can under the circumstances. It’s positive to see that there is pretty broad support across the House for that.

The point I make in terms of what’s at risk is the attitude on display in this House by the ACT Party—this is a party which opposes every single direct measure and policy that the Government puts in place to reduce emissions and says that we should fall back on an efficient and effective ETS system. Yet when we try and do that through this piece of legislation by making sure that we don’t overallocate, by making sure that our decisions are based on good and up-to-date information, they oppose that as well. That really does show that party out to be true to form, to be the climate-denying party of this Parliament, as they have been for 20 years. That is the risk if that party is in Government after this election. This is a good bill. It will mean that we continue to make progress on climate change. I commend it to the House.

HARETE HIPANGO (National): Thank you. I rise as the last speaker for the National Party, following on from my colleagues: our spokesperson for climate change, Simon Watts, who is by profession an accountant; and also my colleague Barbara Kuriger, who sat on the select committee with Simon and is our spokesperson for conservation and a farmer; and Ian McKelvie, also a farmer. So the contribution from the National Party: two farmers and an accountant, very much from a pragmatic point of view in support of this Climate Change Response (Late Payment Penalties and Industrial Allocation) Amendment Bill—quite a mouthful.

So the position has been outlined by my colleagues. My contribution in this House this evening will be brief. But climate is something that we’re all experiencing throughout our nation and globally as being predictably unpredictable. So listening to some of the speakers this evening who have talked about the fact—and Ian McKelvie, saying that climate does rapidly change—and, as a result, the legislation will need to keep up with that.

In summary, for the benefit of members of the public who are listening into this debate, this bill is to amend provisions in the Climate Change Response Act 2002 relating to the New Zealand emissions trading scheme. It updates the penalty for participants with low volume liabilities of less than 25,000 units on average per year from forestry activities occurring from 1 January 2025. Now, this will be meaningful to those persons who are in the forestry sector and also those persons who do have an investment in vested interests in this sector—so occurring from 1 January 2025, who fail to surrender or repay units by the due date. The bill also updates industrial allocation settings.

So, in saying that, I’m keeping this contribution brief; it’s important that the National Party does support this bill. Both amendments are reasonable and pragmatic, like the contributions from my colleagues, and the respective professions and sectors that they come from. These pragmatic changes, we will continue to support them at all remaining stages.

Just to note that at select committee, this bill was thoroughly canvassed and considered by the Environment Committee: 107 submissions were received and 27 provided oral evidence. So the select committee has provided a comprehensive report which is available. It’s noted that those submitters were acknowledged and the contributions appreciated, particularly those impacted like those who currently receive industrial allocations.

So on that note, in keeping this brief, in saying that climate is predictably unpredictable; something that is predictable in terms of this bill, it does have the numbers and, at this second reading, going through to the committee of the whole House stage and hopefully this evening to the third reading, it will pass into law. The National Party commends this bill to the House.

GLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth): Kia ora, Madam Speaker. It’s lovely to rise in the House this evening at this late hour and support this piece of legislation. As someone from Taranaki where climate change and the challenges that we face when we have an energy industry—and we have, of course, the dairy and agriculture industry—obviously we are working on things like Just Transition, like our Taranaki 2050 Roadmap which all people across this space are working together on. We’ve got challenges to face that we are going to work on together, but things like this legislation will help us, and that’s why we see across the House—except for, of course, the ACT Party who are denying many things and this being one of them; that is why we support this legislation.

I want to thank the Minister, the Hon James Shaw, for bringing this to the House, to the Environment Committee for the work they have done and for hearing submitters on what’s going on. It’s about Just Transition, it’s about finding a way forward, and it’s about not keeping your head in the sand but looking to our future and our future generations. I commend this bill to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Climate Change Response (Late Payment Penalties and Industrial Allocation) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

Ayes 109

New Zealand Labour 62; New Zealand National 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Te Paati Māori 2; Kerekere; Whaitiri.

Noes 10

ACT New Zealand 10.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): I declare the House in committee for consideration of the bill.

In Committee

Parts 1 to 3, the Schedule, and clauses 1 to 3

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members, the House is in committee on the Climate Change Response (Late Payment Penalties and Industrial Allocation) Amendment Bill. Members, we come now to Part 1.

SHANAN HALBERT (Junior Whip—Labour): I seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is none.

SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I’d like to ask the Minister some questions on the Supplementary Order Paper 409 that is on the table, in regards to proposed amendments on clauses 2, 5, 14, and 17. I note in the commentary to this that these are minor and technical amendments to some errors that were noted in the legislation. As was noted before, there are a number of formula and other aspects within the legislation. I’d be interested if the Minister could provide some assurance around the background for these amendments—the basis in which they were identified, assurance that you’re comfortable that there is nothing further remaining that needs to be updated, and any other context that may be useful in us considering this Supplementary Order Paper.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that Parts 1 to 3, the Schedule, and clauses 1 to 3 stand part.

SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you, Madam Chair. ACT does not support the bill proceeding in its current form. But the ACT Party would be prepared to consider supporting the bill in the interests of having a more efficient, effective, transparent, reliable, and enduring emissions trading scheme, and in the interests of reducing the potential liabilities that the New Zealand Government might have to face in having to cover the cost of allocating emissions credits or these allocations to industries in the future.

So ACT supports the target of net zero carbon by 2050. But, Minister, the problem, ACT would contend, is with some of the announcements that you yourself have made in the name of this Government to reduce emissions—or, at Glasgow, a new target to reduce New Zealand emissions by 50 percent by 2050, net. The emissions reduction plans set out targets for reductions with no real understanding of what the cost of meeting them is, Minister. And then, having gone around the country, allocating funds to different industries from the Government Investment in Decarbonising Industry fund, which is supported by the emissions trading scheme revenues—there are so many parts at play. This Government’s approach to reducing emissions and providing New Zealand businesses and consumers with a long-run view of what a pathway to zero carbon 2050 looks like is really confused right now.

Would it be helpful if you could explain for the committee the purpose of the amendment that you have proposed in Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 409? Because this relates to the formula that appears in the bill, which is one of the ways that emissions allocations are treated. Now, the formula that appears in the bill, prior to the amendment that you tabled, actually was only offered to the select committee in the few days before the report was finalised. Select committee members—myself and Simon Watts of National—asked officials to please demonstrate how this formula works. Because it’s not clear that the allocations that this formula would give to New Zealand industry would be sufficient so that they could remain competitive with their overseas competitors, either with goods manufactured overseas that aren’t subject to a carbon price or goods manufactured here that our exporters might want to send to another jurisdiction.

The whole point of industrial education is so that our businesses remain competitive with overseas businesses, so that New Zealanders’ jobs are secure, so that in the regions which depend on manufacturing jobs in order to sustain their schools and all the other things that make the regions strong and communities strong—the whole purpose of this is to prevent carbon leakage when New Zealand’s carbon price is higher than that of our competitors overseas. And so New Zealand business is subject to a high carbon price, such as under the emissions trading scheme or whatever other scheme this Government might dream up—a high carbon price means they will leave. They won’t invest in decarbonisation; they won’t invest at all. They will close the factory gates, they will lay off their workers, and they will leave, when what we could do is encourage them to stay here in New Zealand and continue to invest.

But the choice that this Government has made and, in fact, you’ve made personally is to go around the country handing out money from the emissions trading scheme (ETS) through the Government Investment in Decarbonising Industry fund—the GIDI fund, for short—which has created the sense that if businesses only wait for Minister Shaw to turn up with some of this money from the emissions trading scheme revenues, then they’ll be saved from this risk of having to leave New Zealand.

Now, Minister, it’s a very dangerous precedent that you’ve set. So I’d like you to explain how this SOP will work in terms of amending the formula. Will we know whether New Zealand businesses are getting a fair shake, when it comes to a carbon price? And, Minister, what is your behaviour doing to undermine the ETS?

Hon JAMES SHAW (Minister of Climate Change): Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to address a couple of questions there. So I had a question from Simon Watts about a couple of the points in Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 409, just testing whether they are, in fact, minor and I think—if I’m interpreting the question correctly—that they are in fact minor and technical, and you know, we’re not opening ourselves up to any more. I’ve sought assurance from officials, and I’m assured that they are.

In relation to the question from Simon Court, quite a lot of that commentary was well outside the scope of the bill; it relates to other matters of climate policy that have got nothing to do with this, however, there was one relevant sub-question there in relation to the formula. Broadly speaking, the intention here is to ensure that industries aren’t receiving more free units than they need to in order to remain competitive, and then that is, in fact, the purpose of the entire bill.

I want to mention the work that the Environment Committee did on this, you know, which has led to this SOP, because when we introduced the bill into the House at first reading, I was not wholly sure that we had landed where we needed to; I was a bit queasy about it and invited the select committee to look at this. The select committee worked very hard on this, and you know, I acknowledge that it is a very technical area and the work that the Climate Change Commission, the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, independent experts like Dr Christina Hood and the officials did for Ministry for the Environment—coming back to select committee a number of times in order to work through those quite complicated matters. To arrive at this amendment, I think, gives me all the assurance that I need that the formula does do what it is intended to do and that the bill does what it is intended to do, which is to ensure that companies receive the support that they need in order to remain competitive against competition from foreign companies that aren’t exposed to the same level of carbon price, but without going beyond that, into, essentially, over-subsidising them.

SIMON COURT (ACT): It’s heartening for some, no doubt, to hear the Minister of Climate Change’s confidence, but not for the ACT Party. Minister, the bill allows Ministers, future Ministers—could be you—to re-evaluate the allocative baseline for industries as often as every five years. So, this is the amount of so-called free credits that industries get in terms of the emissions trading scheme, which means they don’t have to pay for their carbon emissions, or all of them—they get a proportion allocated for free.

Minister, every five years: submitters pointed out that this is likely to undermine the incentives that they potentially have to invest in emissions reductions which have a longer payback period than five years, because if for example they want to invest in a $200 million piece of equipment to reduce emissions by a significant amount, the payback period from that for heavy industrial equipment is typically 15-plus years, potentially not returning a profit or return on that investment for over 15 years. So they identified the risk that having their industry or having their activity called in or re-evaluated after five years and therefore a risk that their allocation would be reduced means that for executives going to a board saying, “Can we have $200 million, please, to invest in decarbonisation equipment?”, their board might say, “Well, yes, but if this thing happens where a Minister calls in our industry for a reassessment and we lose that allocation, then we’re going to be underwater.” Minister, do you just want to address that concern?

Hon JAMES SHAW (Minister of Climate Change): Yeah, very happy to. So, under the existing legislation, the way it’s set up at the moment, there is no time, and it’s entirely arbitrary and up to the Minister. So there’s a level of uncertainty that companies already face, because they could face a review at any moment. And because it has been over a decade since we last looked at it, when I did initiate a review to say are we—you know, we kind of had a sense that perhaps there were companies that were receiving over their allocation, in fact in some cases well over 100 percent, so they were actually receiving more free pollution permits than they were emitting in total. You know, we kind of looked into it and discovered that a number of businesses were.

Now, what that means is that companies who have kind of been counting on that or using that as a revenue stream can suddenly have that taken away with no predictability at all. So, in setting up a schedule where we say “no sooner than five years, no later than 10 years”, what that means is that businesses understand that there is a set series of reviews.

Now, a review does not mean a change in the allocative baseline. What it means is that you take a look at it and say, you know, does it still stand that the basis on which companies are receiving their allocation remains the same? If they have done that and made those investments in good faith, then there’s no particular reason why that would lead to a change.

But the whole point of having a regular schedule here is actually to provide the industries that are receiving these free units—that there is some predictability to that process and that there are some considerations or some constraints on the Minister, despite the godly powers that that member bestowed earlier on in the evening.

SIMON COURT (ACT): Minister, in this current arrangement, where we’ve separated church and State, it’s not up to me to anoint a Minister with powers beyond that provided for. It may well have been said in jest, Minister; in fact, it was said in jest.

But it is true that there are many people in New Zealand who do believe that the powers that the zero carbon Act gives the Minister are, essentially, God-like powers, where the Minister can pick and choose which industries succeed or fail, which businesses survive or not. Even under the zero carbon Act, if some of the plans suggested or proposals suggested by the Climate Change Commission—if the Minister was to act on them, some of us who rely on gas heating might find that we no longer have hot showers. But, Minister, I’m sure you wouldn’t do that—not even to punish a member of the ACT Party at 10.45 p.m. on a Wednesday night.

Minister, I’m really interested because the allocation to industries has a cost. And so if the carbon price is 50 bucks or 100 bucks a ton, whatever it is, and the current arrangement allows for the Government to allocate so many hundreds or thousands or hundreds of thousands of tons of carbon to an industry or a sector, that comes at a cost to the Government. I understand, Minister, that cost is projected potentially to balloon out to the billions. It’s a massive liability, potentially. But whether it balloons out or whether it’s just a massive cost, how does the Government propose to fund this now and in the future?

Hon JAMES SHAW (Minister of Climate Change): So when the Government creates a New Zealand Unit (NZU) inside the emissions trading scheme, it carries that as a liability on its books. So it’s not something that we purchase; it is something that is created, but, in an accounting sense, it does appear as a liability on the books. In 2021, which is the last year that we’ve got fully verified data for—because there is a time lag—we gave away about 6.6 million units under the industrial allocation programme. Now, a fairly conservative estimate is that getting a more accurate picture, as we are through this bill, could reduce the amount that we hand out by about 800,000 units, which if you assumed a carbon price of $60, which is what it is today, is about a $50 million paper loss on the Government’s accounts.

The way to think about it is actually less in terms of the cash component of that and more about an NZU as a licence to pollute—to put a ton of pollution into the atmosphere—then we’re literally handing out something in the vicinity of 800,000 tons of pollution, or rights to pollute tons of pollution, that aren’t grounded in reality, right? That means that there’s a slackness in the emissions trading scheme. I know that member and that member’s party are great believers in the emissions trading scheme and that it needs to be built on really solid foundations. So I’m sure it would distress the member to know that we are, essentially, we estimate, overallocating 800,000 tons worth of pollution permits that are unnecessary and that make it more difficult for all of our industries to decarbonise as a result.

SIMON COURT (ACT): Oh, thank you for your insights, Minister. So if I’m to take it from your reply, this is an accounting charge and that no taxpayer currently—I just need you to confirm this for me if you could—no taxpayer in the future will have to pay for these allocations. Is that correct?

Hon JAMES SHAW (Minister of Climate Change): The more that we allocate for free, the less we can auction. So it carries a loss in that sense, right? Rather than a taxpayer buying a unit, it’s revenue that’s forgone through the auctioning system.

There is a scenario in the future which is that, if we succeed and the country decarbonises, then demand for New Zealand Units will obviously decline alongside that. But if we’ve guaranteed that we’re going to be handing out pollution permits as we have in perpetuity—albeit at a declining rate—then there will be a point at which those lines intersect, where demand actually drops lower than the amount that we’re dishing out for industrial allocation.

At that point, the Government would actually have to purchase units in order to supply them into the market in industrial allocation. That would be quite an absurd situation, if it got to that point—which is that the Government would literally by buying, probably, forestry offsets to back freely allocated units. We’re a very, very long way away from that scenario at the moment, but to answer the question accurately, there is a scenario in which that could occur in the future, but we are a long way from that point right now.

SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Minister. It’s very helpful, particularly for people who are listening at home who might be interested in what this is all about. Because the emissions trading scheme (ETS) is not something that typically gets discussed at a barbecue—unless I’m there, or James is there—

Hon Member: Minister.

SIMON COURT: —the Minister’s there. So Minister, I just want to come to the forgone revenue part of it. The last two auctions that the Government has run have been passed in without selling any of the carbon credits. Minister, if you can just give us an indication of how much revenue you think is being forgone and what the implications of that are? Because the revenue from those auctions then goes into the decarbonising industry fund, which is one of the levers that ACT’s very concerned about—actually we don’t think it should be going into that fund; we think the ETS revenue should be going back to consumers in the form of a carbon tax credit so that consumers can make their own decision about how they decarbonise.

But Minister, could you just give us an indication of how much revenue might have been forgone through those auctions failing to trigger and sell?

Hon JAMES SHAW (Minister of Climate Change): Well, the honest answer to that question is: you can’t tell until you’ve had the second two auctions—the remaining auctions this year—because units are allocated on an annual basis and any units that weren’t auctioned at the first two become available at the third and fourth, which are yet to happen. But having said that, that’s irrelevant to the scope of this bill.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): I call on Simon Court. Try to keep it relevant to this particular bill.

SIMON COURT (ACT): Quite. So, I mean, I disagree that it’s irrelevant because the problem that this bill tries to solve is an excess of allocations of units. Minister, you’ve described that allocations from the Government’s cache that are allocated to industry mean the Government has less to auction. So Minister—and Madam Chair—I do believe this is quite material. We need to understand what the implications are of excessive free allocations or potentially lower allocations, meaning the Government’s got more credits to auction.

It doesn’t change the fact, though, Minister, does it, that the Government—or the Minister, in fact—are using powers akin to a deity and has the ability to set a cap on carbon emissions? So if that’s the case and we’ve got this giving an allocation for free versus revenues that the Government could potentially raise, there is an inherent tension there.

Minister, I’d just like you to explain: is there any thinking going on which is influencing decision making about how many credits are made available for free, and the downside risk to the Crown’s revenues through the emissions trading scheme; and would the risk of giving away free credits—and potentially the Crown missing out on the revenue for, say, pet Government Investment in Decarbonising Industry projects—have any bearing on decision making or the development of formulas or measures in this bill?

Hon JAMES SHAW (Minister of Climate Change): No. That would be outside the scope of this bill.

SIMON COURT (ACT): Minister, you’ve said quite clearly that giving away carbon credits for free is a downside—it’s a foregone revenue from the emissions trading scheme that the Government could have generated from the auction mechanism. So there’s clearly a balancing going on somewhere, either in the Minister’s office or a Government department or maybe in Treasury or Grant Robertson’s office—I don’t know. But the more we give away, the less we get to auction, the less revenue comes into the Government, the less money that the Minister might have to allocate—or the Minister for Energy through the Government Investment in Decarbonising Industry Fund might have to allocate to projects that this Government wants to progress. So, Minister, this is entirely material: what thinking has gone on around this calculus, and is there anything in this bill that would allow us to potentially get a bit more transparency around what that calculus is?

Hon JAMES SHAW (Minister of Climate Change): No, that’s the annual emissions budget, the emissions trading scheme unit supply process, which takes place within the emissions budgets, that’s based on the advice of the commission under the zero carbon Act. This bill is designed to work out whether companies that are currently entitled to industrial allocation, whether their industrial allocation is accurately based on their actual emissions.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Before I call the member again, can I just warn the member that he is beginning to be quite repetitive about the same issue which is somewhat relevant. He may want to talk about a different clause.

SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you, Madam Chair. I do appreciate your guidance. I guess, from the perspective of somebody who’s new to climate economics—even though I’m an engineer—I can only imagine the people listening at home are trying to determine what the implications of this are; they might find it rather impenetrable. So it has been helpful to get the Minister’s explanations.

Minister, there’s a test that I asked officials whether this bill met—in the Environment Committee—and I wasn’t satisfied they were able to give the ACT Party confidence. It is: if a business is manufacturing something in New Zealand—whether they’re manufacturing concrete products, which results in carbon emissions, or whether they’re manufacturing wood pulp, or turning all of that recycled glass that’s collected around New Zealand back into new glass to be made into glass bottles, hopefully filling them up with some tasty beverage, some refreshing beverage, or whether they’re making methanol or urea fertiliser—how do we know whether a New Zealand business is paying the same for their carbon emissions in New Zealand under this bill as a competitor in, say, one of New Zealand’s top-five trading partners?

Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Junior Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you, Madam Chair. That is fundamental to this bill. Minister, this bill covers emissions-intensive trade-exposed industries. The question I asked officials is: do the mechanisms under this bill allow us to fairly compare the carbon price a New Zealand manufacturer would pay to that of their competitor in another country, so that an evaluation can be made? Are New Zealand businesses paying a fair carbon price or not?

RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): I move, That the question be now put.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the Minister’s amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 409 be agreed to. All those in favour will say Aye, to the contrary, No. The Noes have it. A party vote has been called for—

Chris Penk: I don’t think you did the closure motion. You didn’t put the—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Ah, that’s true.

Chris Penk: Sorry to be—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): That is true. So it does give someone else an opportunity for one last call.

SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you, Madam Chair. Minister, would you care to explain whether the Supplementary Order Paper making changes to clause 2, 3, 14, the Schedule—I mean, there’s cross-referencing errors in all of this. That’s what it’s designed to correct. And this is errors to a formula of process which was only tabled a few days before the select committee wrapped up.

Minister, even in the regulatory impact assessment—I’ve got it here somewhere. It says—oh, here we go, Minister, here we go. Problem identified: “Under current legislative policy, eligibility to receive industrial allocations is contingent upon two tests, emissions intensity and trade exposure.” How on earth are New Zealand businesses supposed to be confident that allocations under this proposal—that a carbon price, in totality, that a business which benefits from free allocations might pay—will be equivalent to that of a competitor overseas? Minister, we don’t know, and you still haven’t responded to that question.

Now, in the regulatory impact assessment it’s quite clear, although amusing: “We are confident in the analysis in this regulatory impact statement; however, we’re unable to predict the impact at firm level for the subset of activities carried out by a relatively large number of participants. This limits our ability to consider regional impacts at a granular level. We won’t know the eligibility thresholds” and so on and so forth.

Minister, each major industry is unique. I mean, I think I’ve heard you say that it’s almost like New Zealand has five or six factories that this really applies to. And yet there’s no clarity here this evening whether a New Zealand business, competing with imported products—whether it’s precast concrete products made from New Zealand - made cement that are going to be supplied to New Zealand construction projects, made by New Zealanders, supplied to New Zealand jobs—will pay the same carbon price as concrete products manufactured in another jurisdiction not subject to the same regime.

Minister, I have no clarity; people listening at home will have no clarity. That’s the fundamental test: will this bill result in emissions leakage? In other words, businesses leave and make the same stuff overseas but with more carbon emissions than if they’d stayed here. Will this bill—

Hon Peeni Henare: All hypothetical.

SIMON COURT: Absolutely hypothetical, the Hon Peeni Henare. This is what this bill is designed to address, Mr Henare, and the Minister’s failed to address it.

So will New Zealand businesses remain competitive? Will they receive an allocation that means they pay the same carbon price as their competitors? Because, if they don’t, what’s the point in all of this? We’re going to have to go back to the drawing board—aren’t we, Mr Cameron?—should ACT form part of a future Government, because we can’t rely on officials, who say that they’re confident in their analysis but then they’re not confident in the information.

Rachel Boyack: Point of order. I just want to refer to Speaker’s rulings which, I understand, mean that you can’t criticise officials who are in the Chamber.

SIMON COURT: Madam Chair?

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): I’m taking the point of order. That is actually correct. Can the member withdraw and apologise.

SIMON COURT: I’m afraid I’m not aware of any criticism I’ve levelled at officials. So, while the member has made that statement, I’d have to look at the Hansard, but I certainly haven’t intended to criticise any officials, and I don’t believe I have.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): I believe you did in terms of their calculations.

SIMON COURT: No, I’m simply reading from the regulatory impact statement—I’m reading it. I’m not criticising them; I’m reading what they’ve said. That’s OK. I just will proceed. I don’t think that’s a matter that needs to be litigated.

Hon Peeni Henare: Then just withdraw and apologise and carry on.

SIMON COURT: Why? It’s here.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Does the member want to continue his call? If he does, he will withdraw and apologise; then he can continue.

SIMON COURT: Sorry; it’s contingent on me withdrawing and apologising, is it?

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Yes.

SIMON COURT: Well, I withdraw and apologise. And I certainly didn’t mean any offence to officials in the Chamber, but it is clear from page 5 of the regulatory impact statement that there is a conflict of confidence, and that officials wrote that.

Minister, can you give us confidence here in the House tonight—people listening at home, the businesses that came to select committee and were really concerned that their business activities, their investments might be undermined by these changes—that they will pay a carbon price equivalent to their competitors overseas?

Hon JAMES SHAW (Minister of Climate Change): This is an amendment to an existing regime, which is that, since 2008, businesses that are moderately emissions-intensive will receive an allocation equivalent to 60 percent of their emissions—they get that for free from the Government in order to be able to compete with imports from countries which face different or no carbon prices—and that businesses that are highly emissions-intensive will receive 90 percent of their emissions obligations free from the Government in order to remain competitive.

Now, carbon prices vary wildly around the world, including among our major trading partners, and they change over time. So, for example, the European Union—with whom we have just signed a free-trade deal, which includes a chapter on climate change and sustainability requiring both parties to uphold their agreements—has a carbon price that’s close to NZ$200 a tonne, which, given that ours is $60, means that they are paying considerably more than we are producing here. At the same time, there are other countries with whom we trade where the carbon price is closer to NZ$20 a tonne, which is about a third of what we pay. And in some countries that we trade with, there is no carbon price at all. So what that means is if there is no global carbon price. The only way to be able to do that on a product-by-product basis would be to apply an average—and we do sit at about the average in terms of our carbon prices at the moment. That is the entire point of the industrial allocation system.

Now, I will admit it is ugly policy. I mean, remember that industrial allocation is subsidising pollution—right?—which seems to run in direct contrast to the entire point of the emissions trading scheme, and it does. The reason that we have industrial allocation is because there is no global carbon price, and because we don’t have carbon border adjustments—or at least we don’t yet. It is conceivable that there will be a point in the future where we are able to have a system of carbon border adjustments which is able to moderate for the variabilities in price between imports from countries that have got different carbon prices to our own, but we are not at that point yet. So, in the meantime, we use industrial allocation to moderate that effect.

Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Junior Whip—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 109

New Zealand Labour 62; New Zealand National 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Te Paati Māori 2; Kerekere; Whaitiri.

Noes 10

ACT New Zealand 10.

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the Minister’s amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 409 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Parts 1 to 3, the Schedule, and clauses 1 to 3 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 109

New Zealand Labour 62; New Zealand National 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Te Paati Māori 2; Kerekere; Whaitiri.

Noes 10

ACT New Zealand 10.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Climate Change Response (Late Payment Penalties and Industrial Allocation) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

Ayes 109

New Zealand Labour 62; New Zealand National 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Te Paati Māori 2; Kerekere; Whaitiri.

Noes 10

ACT New Zealand 10.

Motion agreed to.

Parts 1 to 3, the Schedule, and clauses 1 to 3 as amended agreed to.

Bill to be reported with amendment.

House resumed.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Mr Speaker, the committee has considered the Climate Change Response (Late Payment Penalties and Industrial Allocation) Amendment Bill and reports it with amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The bill is set down for third reading immediately.

Amended Answers to Oral Questions

Question No. 8 to Minister

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Minister of Police): Point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to make a personal explanation to correct an answer to an oral question to No. 8 today.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is sought, is there any objection? There is no objection.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: In the response to a supplementary question I stated that 48 vehicles were seized in Ōpōtiki and the Manawatū under new legislation. I should have said that the 48 vehicles were searched.

Bills

Climate Change Response (Late Payment Penalties and Industrial Allocation) Amendment Bill

Third Reading

Hon JAMES SHAW (Minister of Climate Change): I move, That the Climate Change Response (Late Payment Penalties and Industrial Allocation) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have described industrial allocation, as I’ve just said, as ugly policy. The way that it deals with international competitiveness is, essentially, by subsidising pollution, because a New Zealand Unit (NZU) inside the emissions trading scheme is, in essence, a licence to pollute a tonne of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

The scheme has been around for almost 15 years now, and the primary way that we have dealt with the differential carbon pricing between domestic production and competing imports from around the world is by, essentially, giving New Zealand businesses that are highly emissions-intensive free units in order to meet their obligations under the emissions trading scheme. Those units are equivalent, if they are highly emissions-intensive, to 90 percent of their total obligation, and if they’re moderately emissions-intensive, it’s 60 percent of their allocation.

Now, since 2008-09, when this scheme was up and running, it has, I believe, been allowed to drift, because there haven’t been any kinds of regular checks to see if the basis on which businesses are being given these units actually still stands. If it does, fine, but if it doesn’t, we need to take a look at that. So over the course of the last few years, we have found that, actually, some businesses have been receiving a number of licences to emit pollution into the atmosphere greater than 100 percent of the total pollution that they do put into the atmosphere. In other words, they’re receiving more permits to pollute than they pollute. Now, that’s nonsensical, and so we need a system to tighten that up and to ensure that there is an accurate basis on which companies are being allocated these units for free.

Now, it’s not an ideal solution. It’s not an ideal policy—you know, we live in a less than ideal world. In an ideal world, there would be a global carbon price, or—the second-best option—there would be adjustments at the border that could take account of the differential between what domestic production is and the price that’s allocated in the countries where those competing products come from. But we don’t have that system, although the European Union, Canada, Australia, the United States, and others are all looking at that, and so we might see something akin to that occurring over the course of the next few years, in which case this third-best option may come up for review at that time. But that is some way away from where we are today.

So, in the meantime, what we do is we do provide these units for free to act as a buffer for companies where they are producing things that—for example, steel, which is a necessary ingredient in modern civilisation. It currently has a very high emissions intensity to it for it to be able to produce that steel here in New Zealand for New Zealand consumption, even whilst we are also importing steel from countries that do not impose the same price—or, in some cases, any price—on steel production, although that is also changing over time.

This bill actually does have quite a narrow scope. It really just does deal with the issue of whether we are over-allocating units to those businesses. As I mentioned during the committee of the whole House stage, the most recent year for which we’ve got data shows that we allocated about 6.6 million pollution permits, or NZUs, in the system. If you think about that, that’s about 6.6 million tonnes of carbon dioxide, and our total pollution going into the atmosphere is about 75 million tonnes a year. So it’s an appreciable portion of the total.

Now, we estimate on a reasonably conservative basis that by tightening up the system in this way we will be handing out 800,000 tonnes fewer worth of pollution permits than we do today. So what that is saying is: well, we’ve been handing out these units and they’re unnecessary, right? They’re not required for international competitiveness matters, but they do create a slackness in the system. And so in that sense, what this bill does is to make the emissions trading scheme both more accurate and also more predictable for the participants in the system.

I know it has been an anxiety for some of the companies who currently receive allocation that there will be a regular schedule of reviews and of calling for data. But, actually, by being able to check in on a regular basis and to say, well, we know when that’s going to happen as opposed to the current system—which is entirely arbitrary and entirely up to the Minister to do that as and when the whim of the Minister requires—we’ve now got a system where businesses know that there will be these kinds of check-in points and that a check-in point, a call for data and for information, is not the same as changing the allocation. It’s simply saying: is the basis on which those were handed out and those allocations decided—is that basis the same now as it was when it was first allocated? And if there is a case that actually things have changed to a point where a business is again being over allocated, at that point you can review it and change it.

I do just again want to acknowledge the work of the select committee. I have to say this is one of those moments where I think that Parliament worked as it is intended to do, where there was some doubt about some parts of the bill and the select committee worked very hard on drilling into that, given that it is, you know, kind of technically challenging to get into and did require expert support—as I mentioned, the Climate Change Commission, the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, and others, independent experts, particularly Dr Christina Hood, who came in I think two or three times into the select committee to support them. The select committee asked for additional time to grapple with this and get it right. Again, I just want to acknowledge the work that every member of the Environment Committee did to ensure that this bill landed in as good shape as it did. I really thank them for that. And I particularly want to acknowledge the chair of the Environment Committee, the Hon Eugenie Sage, who in my opinion is a superb chair of that committee and did a great job of dealing with this issue; also with many of the other very complex issues that the Environment Committee was dealing with simultaneously.

Hon Phil Twyford: You should keep her on.

Hon JAMES SHAW: I would love to keep her on. So, having said all of that, I do think that this bill has landed in very good shape. I think it has been improved significantly as a result of the parliamentary process. I would like to thank the National Party, Te Paati Māori, and other parties for supporting this Government bill. I think having a level of parliamentary consensus—not complete consensus but a very high level of parliamentary consensus—on this sends a very reassuring signal to the industries that are participants in it, and they can rest assured that it has been thoroughly worked over by both sides of the House, through the select committee process.

I do think that this bill does help to futureproof the emissions trading scheme. There are other aspects of the emissions trading scheme which are up for review and which we need to get to, but this is a reasonably narrow but very important component of what it is that we need to do. And that is accurately determining the rates of industrial allocation and ensuring that there is a framework to upgrade them in the future, which we have not had for the last 15 years or so of that. So the changes that we make today will help us to meet our emissions budget by having a more accurate and a tighter system. It will help us to meet our international obligations. It will make it a little bit easier to meet our otherwise very challenging broader climate change goals. And it also will offer a bit of relief to those small foresters who I think were kind of unfairly or unreasonably exposed under the old penalties regime. So by updating the penalties regime, it does provide some more reassurance there.

I think it’s a very good bill. I thank the House for it. I commend the bill to the House.

SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise on the third reading of the Climate Change Response (Late Payment Penalties and Industrial Allocation) Amendment Bill. As has been traversed already this evening, the National Party will be continuing to support this bill. As we have outlined in prior contributions, this bill does deal with two key aspects, which, in our view, are pragmatic adjustments in regards to issues that do exist and the resolution of them, particularly around the industrial allocations. It will strengthen the emissions trading scheme and provide greater certainty in regards to the market and the way in which we deal with those components.

The certainty is important in regards to the signals that this sends to the broader market—I think, as the Minister of Climate Change has outlined, in areas such as this, in an area of public policy that is so critical to our country and our economy, the ability that we can, in effect, work together around ensuring that these changes are consistent and put in place, I think, stands us in good stead as we head towards dealing with what will be a very difficult and challenging objective around reducing the emissions, but one in which National are absolutely committed that we need to and will work towards meeting net zero by 2050.

We’ve talked at length around the industrial allocations portion, which I think is probably the most applicable component. We have acknowledged those people. And I also want to join with the Minister in acknowledging the chair of the Environment Committee, Hon Eugenie Sage, who, obviously, will be retiring at this point. But I do just wonder if you want to indulge a little bit—I just want to recognise that member’s contribution. The way in which this bill was navigated—it is a complex bill, and it was done so very professionally. I have had the ability, albeit a small amount of time, to work with that member and have always valued their council in regards to a number of elements and bills in this House. So I wish her very well.

In regards to that, I don’t think there’s anything further that we are really wanting to place on the record. We acknowledge that there are going to be a number of other needs, particularly in the coming years where modifications and further check-ins are required. This is an area that is evolving, and it is important that we continue to ensure that we are up to date. The reality of where we are seeing developments in more of the global space around new options that are coming on the table is both exciting but also they are ones which will need to be worked through appropriately to ensure that the specific needs of our country and our economy, and the needs which make us so unique and special, are taken into account as part of that process. But we will do so in a manner in which is collaborative and in a manner in which, as always, will enable us to achieve our net zero targets by 2050. We commend this bill to the House.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): There were a number of proposals made and presented to the Environment Committee when we were scrutinising this bill, including things like overall phase-out rates, capping the overall allocation to make it consistent with the emissions trading scheme cap, and the use of international benchmarks—all of which were outside the scope of the bill.

But in a sort of post-script in the committee’s report, it noted that there is much to be done beyond the scope of the bill to tackle the broader design of industrial climate change policy—and I quote from the committee’s report—so that we can “move from a system that locks in [high]-emissions [industrial] activities, to one that [supports a rapid low-carbon transition].” The committee noted that the second emissions reductions plan, due to be developed next year, is an ideal opportunity to “set a new direction for industry policy”.

I just want to finish this brief contribution by saying to the House that it is surely time that we get more serious about reducing carbon emissions, that we try to find the policy settings that will genuinely incentivise rapid decarbonisation, and not provide free allocations that subsidise carbon pollution in perpetuity.

I commend this bill to the House.

BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki-King Country): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Look, I’m not going to take a long call this time, because we’ve largely traversed what has been in this bill over the stage of the readings and the committee stage. But I think what I really would like to say is that it’s good to see again the recalibration of something that is a constantly moving. We need to have the emissions trading scheme dynamic, we need to have it constantly adjusting and changing, and we need to have the ability to review things often as technology and research development and science move us forward.

I think it’s very important, particularly as we don’t have cross-border regimes and we are competing with other parts of the world and this gives our own businesses a chance to compete on a level playing field at this point in time. I mean, at some point the world may catch up, but we’ve always said that it’s important that it’s not up to us to lead the world, but to actually move with the world and do our bit, and these adjustments help us to do that with our businesses. So with that, I would like to commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker—final speech for me for the night, speaking on the Climate Change Response (Late Payment Penalties and Industrial Allocation) Amendment Bill. I really think we probably could’ve done better with the name—I really do. Look, this is a good bill. We’ve traversed the issues quite thoroughly, I think. I’m going to make a very short contribution, but I do want to acknowledge the Minister, the Hon James Shaw. He has always worked really well with our Environment Committee and came and briefed us and spoke with us, was open to changes, and was absolutely useful in terms of the process of getting the legislation across. We had good conversations, and I want to just acknowledge you, sir, for your work. I’m not going to call you a deity, however, but I do want to acknowledge the way that you worked with us.

I also want to acknowledge the technical detail of this legislation, and I want to just particularly acknowledge one of our clerks who did some extraordinary work getting this piece of legislation into a really readable format. So, Jacob, our clerk who did this work: I’d like to acknowledge you for the work that you did pulling this very technical piece of legislation together and helping us draft a report that’s really readable and accessible.

With that, I commend this bill to the House.

SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I do want to thank the Minister for his forthright responses to the questions that the ACT Party wanted answers to during the committee of the whole House stage, but, unfortunately, we’re not satisfied and we won’t be able to support this bill proceeding any further.

The Minister himself described this piece of legislation—in fact, the bill of the Act that this legislation seeks to amend—as representing ugly policy. The ACT Party would contend that this Government’s climate policy is being played on a playing field that’s so messy, no one can see where the lines are marked anymore. This Minister—this Labour Government, supported by a Green climate Minister—has made so many announcements about the emissions trading scheme, about the role of forestry, whether pine trees are in or out, whether pine trees or trees at all get the same amount of recognition for storing carbon as any other type of carbon storage, that it’s created confusion.

It’s created enormous uncertainty, to the extent that the last two auctions under the emissions trading scheme, where the Government tried to release carbon credits into the market to raise some revenue to fund all their other green boondoggles, failed. Which means that instead of collecting the $1.4 billion that this Government relies on—that Labour relies on in order to fund its climate hogwash policies and boondoggles and handouts to big business—they don’t have the money.

Now, the Minister responded in the Environment Committee when I asked him this question: considering this legislation, what are you going to do if we don’t have the money, Minister? How is the Government going to fulfil its obligations, all the promises it’s making? He said, “Oh, there’s two more auctions to go. We’ll cross that bridge when we come to it.” Again, the Minister repeated it in the House tonight.

The ACT Party does not believe that is the way to establish enduring climate policy that leads to enduring reductions in greenhouse gas emissions; that provides certainty to New Zealand businesses and those who might wish to come and invest in New Zealand; that if they come to New Zealand and buy a business or establish a new business or process and they invest in decarbonising or efficiency or reducing greenhouse gas emissions, that it will be worth it. None of that is clear. This bill has not made it any clearer.

Worse than that, New Zealand businesses that manufacture here, that employ tens of thousands of people—whether it’s in Taranaki or Tangiwai in the central North Island; or remanufacturing glass from recycled glass in Penrose; or making methanol from New Zealand’s rich natural gas resource; or making urea fertiliser, again from New Zealand’s rich natural gas resource—don’t know whether the costs imposed by Government under this legislation will mean that they’re paying the same carbon price—or a fair carbon price—as their competitors. It is still unknown.

The Minister did provide this information, which was helpful, that, at the moment, around 6.6 million carbon units are allocated to industry, which means they don’t have to pay the full price of their emissions—around about $60 a tonne at the moment. So it is a significant level of assistance to New Zealand industry. The downside of that is, of course, that that reduces the incentives on these businesses to decarbonise.

But what we don’t know is whatever the price these businesses are paying overall for carbon, is it more or less than their competitors overseas? Does it put New Zealand jobs at risk? Does it risk de-industrialising New Zealand? Does it put our strategic position at risk? It’s especially important at this time, where the Government’s own defence review has indicated that this Government is concerned about the risks of instability in the North Pacific—the risk to our supply lines, the risk to logistics—and keeping big industries here that make things like pulp and paper and methanol and fertiliser means that we are less exposed to the risk of conflict in other countries.

This legislation, the impacts of this legislation are material for New Zealand’s economic and social stability as well as our security in an increasingly unstable world. We have to see this bill, which appears to some as impenetrable climate economics, as something that, if we don’t get it right, could lead New Zealand to lose industries. Now, if the fertiliser manufacturer at Kapuni closes down—they’re currently making fertiliser in a really, really cool process where they turn natural gas out of the ground into ammonia gas and then into ammonia urea fertiliser. This is a plant built in the 1980s in New Zealand, actually funded by Government at the time, but now having been sold off—Minister Henare, I know you’re concerned about selling assets—sold off to the private sector. Guess what! Still manufactures fertiliser, that fertiliser still goes on Kiwi farms.

The alternative is—and this is where we get back to this issue of national security and resilience; supply chain resilience—fertiliser would have to be imported from other countries, potentially Canada, potentially China, potentially Africa, potentially Europe, Turkey. The supply lines are a lot longer. The costs of transporting are a lot greater. And, of course, New Zealand has no control over the emissions in those countries and what they pay.

This bill tries to solve a wicked problem. The problem is wicked. It’s difficult. It’s ugly, as Minister Shaw said, and the ACT Party would agree. But it doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t try very, very hard to solve it in a way that provides transparency for New Zealand businesses. Certainty for those wishing to invest in New Zealand, confidence to those workers in places like Tangiwai in the Central North Island, who work in Taranaki, South Auckland, that the manufacturing businesses will continue and won’t be subject to cost penalties that their competitors overseas don’t face, and which means that their jobs will be lost. That’s called carbon leakage, where businesses that produce carbon face a higher carbon price than they can contend with and they shut down and move to another country where the carbon price isn’t so high. It’s a wicked problem. But this policy is more than ugly, the Minister was gilding the lily, he was painting the face of this policy with some late night lipstick. It’s still a pig. It’s an ugly pig.

So what would ACT do? Because it’s important to consider what the options are. We need to consider the opportunity cost. We take one path—it seems like there’s some benefits down that path—but the other path might have benefits as well. We have to weigh up the opportunity costs of every decision we make. And it’s quite clear from the regulatory impact statement—that apparently triggered the feelings of some in the House—that while the officials said they’re confident in the analysis, they immediately go on to describe how unconfident they are. How unconfident they are, how unconfident. This is a wicked problem to solve.

What would ACT do? Well, it’s quite simple. Here’s what looks like a policy that might work: we propose a realistic, no-nonsense climate change policy that ties our emissions price to that of our top-five trading partners. How do you do that, you say? Well, it’s possible. I got a report from the Parliamentary Library just yesterday updating the price of all of New Zealand’s competitors who manufacture the same products that this bill will apply cost to. It’s possible that if New Zealand sets a cap on our emissions at the same level as our competitors are managing to cap their emissions and reduce them year on year, then it’s possible—in fact, likely, based on the analysis that ACT has seen—that the carbon price New Zealand businesses will face will on average be equivalent to the carbon price manufacturers in other countries face. That will provide a transparent and obvious pathway with much greater certainty for those willing to invest in New Zealand. It will allow New Zealand to meet its climate commitments to fulfil our international obligations and allow consumers to choose how they pay for their emissions and how they choose to reduce them or offset them in some way. If you emit less, under ACT’s policy, you keep more of your own money. How easy is that, how cool is that? That’s ACT’s offer to New Zealand. It’s not ugly; it’s beautiful.

TERISA NGOBI (Labour—Ōtaki): Thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing me to take just a short call on the Climate Change Response (Late Payment Penalties and Industrial Allocation) Amendment Bill. While I do not sit on the Environment Committee, I do chair Labour’s Infrastructure, Environment and Transport caucus, and I do receive updates from the Labour Environment Committee. I’ve also sat on just a couple of the Environment Committee hui while they were working through this bill. The work was immense; I see that, and I want to acknowledge the Environment Committee but also add to those other accolades for the chair—the very knowledgeable and extremely capable Eugenie Sage.

This bill modernises the decades-old industrial allocation settings. This bill ensures businesses will receive an appropriate amount of NZ Units. It addresses over-allocation, reduces costs to Government, and aligns Aotearoa New Zealand’s climate respond targets. Again, I mihi to the select committee, but also to the Minister, James Shaw, to make sure that they’re doing the mahi that protects Papatūānuku and Te Taiao. I commend this bill to the House.

RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to take a short call on this bill tonight. I just want to acknowledge that we do have near-unanimous support for the bill. It’s an excellent bill. It’s a straightforward bill. It basically sorts out the issue, which is that the current industrial allocation settings in the emissions trading scheme haven’t been updated in over a decade, and that means that there are extra costs to Government, in that some emitting firms are receiving more emission units than they should be.

It’s a pretty straightforward bill. We’ve got good support across the House for it. I thank the Minister and select committee and, of course, most importantly, officials for their work. I commend it to the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: This a split call. Five minutes—Ian McKelvie.

IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): Thank goodness, for that, Mr Speaker. I don’t often agree with Rachel Boyack—I’ve never really wanted to disagree with her, but I’ve got to disagree with her on one point: this is not a straightforward bill. Ha, ha! Some bits of it are straightforward, but some bits of it are immensely complicated. But while they’re complicated and I did cover this in my second reading speech; I don’t need to cover it again now. I think this bill will be back in the House—well, not this bill, but there will certainly be further amendments to this bill made in the near future, as a result of the second half of this bill.

The second speech I made in this House would have lasted about 30 seconds—this one’s lasted about 50, and it’s my second-last. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: You’ll be missed, Mr McKelvie.

Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour—Banks Peninsula): Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I too will take a short call tonight on the Climate Change Response (Late Payment Penalties and Industrial Allocation) Amendment Bill.

Hon Member: Just repeat this a couple of times and you’ll—

Dr TRACEY McLELLAN: Ha, ha! I did feel like repeating it. I would like to start by acknowledging the Environment Committee and in particular the chair, the Hon Eugenie Sage, being a constituent of mine who also lives in Banks Peninsula and a very valued member of this House, and someone who has made an enormous contribution across many different portfolios over a period of time. We will miss her greatly.

This bill allows allocative baselines to be updated with new data, it allows reassessment of the eligibility of current industries, and it comprises four technical improvements to industrial allocation policy. So, on the basis of that, I commend this bill to the House.

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): Thank you, Mr Speaker. This is a bill that recalibrates the system. It provides access and equity, and—as the previous speaker said—most importantly, I believe, it updates the baseline use for measurement, because when the baseline is accurate, everything else follows from that, but if it’s not quite calibrated, it can be a house of cards. Therefore, it also reduces the risk going into the future for this sophisticated, complicated, yet also very worthwhile sector, which is the carbon emissions sector. I commend the bill to the House.

HARETE HIPANGO (National): Thank you. I rise to take the last call for the National Party this evening. The Climate Change Response (Late Payment Penalties and Industrial Allocation) Amendment Bill—I agree with my colleague Angie Warren-Clark, it’s a bit of a mouthful, and it has been tonight. It’s been interesting listening to this debate, particularly the position that’s been taken by the ACT Party and that Simon Court has been courting controversy again on behalf of the ACT Party, acting up in relation to this.

So the National Party supports this bill and that there seems to be recognition across the House that this climate change, in this day and age, and the responsiveness to late payment penalties and industrial allocation, particularly around the industrial allocations and small forestry participants—that this bill, in summary, introduces a revised penalty for small forestry participants in the New Zealand emissions trading scheme (ETS) who failed to pay units on time, mitigating their risk of facing serious financial hardship, and that it’s good to see the Government taking the concerns of small forestry participants seriously, and that the bill also amends the New Zealand ETS industrial or free allocation provisions in the Climate Change Response Act 2002 to reduce the risk of over-allocation of units to emissions-intensive and trade-exposed industries, which currently cost the Crown approximately $60 million a year.

So it’s positive to see the Government working to improve alignment with New Zealand’s national and global climate change commitments. On that basis, the National Party commends this bill to the House at its third reading.

LEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. As the last speaker for this side of the House, I wish to support the Climate Change Response (Late Payment Penalties and Industrial Allocation) Amendment Bill at its third reading.

There have been many contributions tonight on this bill. I want to acknowledge the Environment Committee members; I am a member of that committee. In particular, I also want to acknowledge the chair who has done a stellar job, in terms of collegiality in working across; thank the officials and especially submitters and, in particular, Dr Christina Hood.

The Government policy wants to really look at climate change. There have been a number of proposals to the select committee. In my short contribution, there were proposals made outside the scope of the bill. We want to move to a system that supports low-carbon transition. We traversed the bill in the committee stage, and the ability to move forward—it is important that the system is tightened up and it is complex, and we’ve heard those contributions, in terms of the emissions trading scheme.

We need to have accuracy and make it easier to meet the climate change goals. In particular, just as I finish, the small forestry participants require the repayment of units by the due date or those that fail to surrender that. It is a good bill, and, in its complexity, has technical changes. I want to thank the Minister James Shaw. I commend this bill to the House.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Taxation Principles Reporting Bill

Second Reading

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Associate Minister of Revenue): I present a legislative statement on the Taxation Principles Reporting Bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: I move, That the Taxation Principles Reporting Bill be now read a second time.

I wish to begin this speech by acknowledging the vision and insight of the chief architect of this bill, the Hon David Parker. We are fortunate to have someone with such intellect in this House. This bill is an historic one for a tax bill: it imposes no taxes. It also makes no changes to obligations on taxpayers, but it improves taxation in New Zealand. It is a bill for our times.

Its genesis stretches back in history, yet it prepares future Governments to face future challenges. We are all aware of just what types of challenges those could be. In just this parliamentary term alone, this bill has passed legislation to respond to some major crises, crises which have made heavy demands on the public purse—from the effects of Cyclone Gabrielle and the Auckland anniversary weekend floods to the arrival on our shores of COVID-19 and the global cost of living crisis. In a globalised world and with our globalised economy, we have to be prepared for overseas events to have a ripple effect on our economy. And with the effects of climate change, we have to brace for ever more frequent weather events. The calls on taxpayer dollars will continue.

Meanwhile, we’re staring down the barrel of some major threats to the integrity of the tax system, the longer-term sustainability of tax revenues, and future Governments’ ability to respond. We know a crunch is coming, with more New Zealanders living longer and associated health costs rising, even as the tax burden falls on the shoulders of a smaller group of earners. There is a limit to how much Governments can tax those earners.

Our tax system is a national asset. Like any asset, it needs to be invested in, maintained, and adapted to suit changing times. Without a properly functioning tax system, our government, our economy, and our society would quickly grind to a halt. We need to ensure that people continue to comply with the tax laws, knowing what they need to do and being able to comply at a reasonable cost. Our focus must be to ensure that the tax system is as efficient as possible, that it supports our economy, and that it upholds fairness, transparency, and integrity—and those are principles of taxation. It’s not a new idea: in 1776, Adam Smith in the Wealth of Nations set out four maxims of taxation. Broadly speaking, these were that all should contribute a proportional amount according to their means, that there should be certainty and transparency about tax, that compliance costs should be minimised, and that the administrative cost of collecting tax should be as little as possible over and above the amount of tax paid. These were good ideas then, and according to the various tax reform committees we’ve had in this country, these principles continue to be good ideas.

The 1981-82 McCaw committee, for instance, was appointed because the tax system was increasingly seen by the public as unfair and lacking integrity. Economic commentators saw high tax rates and uneven rules as significantly contributing to New Zealand’s poor economic performance. The committee recommended a more transparent tax system where tax rates were lower but applied more consistently in practice. The aim was a more honest system that would lead to economic decisions being made more on economic merits rather than being determined by the pursuit of tax advantages.

The 2001 McLeod review was of the view that a framework of tax policy principles is needed to guide the reform of a complex tax system and to avoid ad hoc changes. In their view, the key focus of tax policy was to enhance the overall economic wellbeing of New Zealanders by seeking ways to reduce the costs of imposing taxes—or making the tax system more efficient—while promoting fairness and continuing to raise revenue. They also argued that the absence of a coherent approach to tax policy made for instability and uncertainty and higher costs for both administration and compliance.

The committee recommended that tax design should be guided by generally accepted principles of fairness—that is, people in the same position should be treated similarly, people should contribute in accordance with their ability to pay, and tax reform should be transparent and prospective.

In 2010, the Victoria University of Wellington Tax Working Group stated tax principles that were similar to those of their predecessors, and it noted that the tax system lacked coherence, integrity, and fairness. They found that compliance was likely to be affected by perceptions that the system is unfair. Their report recommended six principles for a sound tax system: efficiency and growth, equity and fairness, revenue integrity, fiscal cost, compliance and administration cost, and the coherence of the tax system as a whole.

So we have long known that fairness and transparency are desirable. We have always known that compliance is jeopardised if the public view the tax system as unfair. To improve fairness, our tax reform committees have recommended various changes using similar tax principles.

Now, of course, members of this House have different views on this elusive beast called “fairness” and how to achieve it. But a good place to start any debate on the fairness of the tax system is with some facts. This bill will require Inland Revenue to produce reports that provide facts about the tax system in relation to these tax principles. Then members can get on with the work of actually building on those facts and making changes to make the tax system fairer—or more efficient or less costly, depending on the particular trade-offs that members want to achieve.

This was something that the select committee looking at this bill emphasised: tax principles should be seen as a package rather than individually because they overlap or can conflict, and so require trade-offs to be made. Any proposal for a change of tax policy is likely to be a blend of various tax principles, improving on some grounds and lessening on others. The trade-offs that are made speak to the state of the tax system currently and to the value and focus of whoever is making the proposals.

If New Zealanders can see for themselves how the tax system works and understand that trade-offs are required, we stand a better chance of maintaining our tax base and, crucially, maintaining Government’s ability to continue providing the services that New Zealand relies on. I think that New Zealanders want that transparency. Submitters to the select committee were generally supportive of the objective of the bill. Many were supportive of the notion of tax principles and the obligation on officials to report to New Zealand on the performance of the tax system against those principles.

I am immensely grateful to the Finance and Expenditure Committee for their work on the bill. They have listened to all the submissions that made some sensible recommendations for improvement. These include changes to the descriptors of the principles themselves. The changes will help ensure that the principles are more enduring. They have also recommended a later commencement date to avoid retrospective application. The commencement date now proposed is the date of Royal assent.

I do intend to make two small changes to the descriptions of the principles in Schedule 1. The first is to link coherence more closely with the principles of certainty and predictability, and the second is to clarify what is meant by “middle New Zealanders” in relation to the principle of vertical equity.

I also want to thank the officials from Inland Revenue who worked on the bill and the many people and organisations who contributed to it through the select committee process. As I said at the start, this bill does not propose any new taxes or change any tax obligations, but it is for the benefit of ordinary taxpayers. It brings much-needed transparency and understanding to the inner workings of the tax system. It sets the grounds for a principled debate. I commend this bill to the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I congratulate the member on her sense of timing. The time has come for me to leave the Chair. The House is suspended until 9 a.m.

Sitting suspended from 11.55 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Thursday)

TUESDAY, 15 AUGUST 2023

(continued on Thursday, 17 August 2023)

Bills

Taxation Principles Reporting Bill

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Good morning, members. The House was last considering the Taxation Principles Reporting Bill. We continue with that.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Well, good morning, Madam Speaker. It’s nice to be back in urgency but not nice to be discussing this bill. In fact, this is probably the most misnamed bill on the urgency motion. I had to laugh last night when Dr Russell, in moving the second reading, praised “the vision and insight of the chief architect of the bill, the Hon David Parker.”, only the chief architect of the bill has thrown his toys out and walked away from the revenue portfolio when the Prime Minister specifically ruled out the wealth tax that this bill sets the framework for. Now, he didn’t walk from Cabinet, he didn’t lose all the baubles; he just threw his toys out and said, “Barbara Edmonds, you can have the revenue portfolio.”, and then that esteemed tax expert Dr Deborah Russell gets the associate revenue portfolio. But we should be under no illusion that this bill is setting the information framework to enable a wealth tax to be introduced, and when the PM ruled it out, Mr Parker was off.

But here’s why I think a wealth tax is still on the cards. If the election delivers a cobbled-together coalition of the left, with Labour, the Greens, and Te Paati Māori, I think an absolute condition of the two parties who are overtly committed to a wealth tax—and the one party that likes the idea of a wealth tax but understands for political reasons that it can’t say so now—will, by coalition, be to bring a wealth tax to an economy near us.

The other reason I think that is quite simple: they haven’t thrown this bill out. If they truly believed that a wealth tax was not on the cards in the foreseeable future, why do we need this information framework? Because what this bill does is it repeats the report that David Parker had commissioned over the last couple of years to report on economic income that is not taxed under current income tax law.

Now, in his first report, he went after the 279 so-called wealthy individuals who have untaxed economic income and then threw that in the denominator, put the amount of tax paid in the numerator, and decided that they were paying half the tax of “Joe Average”. The issue with this bill is that the reporting requirements that the Commissioner of Inland Revenue has do not make such a distinction. The Commissioner of Inland Revenue is required to prepare a report every year on all of the principle measures and the impact on the tax system, and those principles include economic income as part of vertical equity. Now, they’re all fancy words, but they, essentially, boil down to the same thing. That is how much growth in wealth is being experienced in New Zealand that is not being taxed.

Hon Dr David Clark: What has he got against transparency?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Nothing. It’s consistency, Dr Clark, that I want. Let’s lead on to consistency. We have discussion in here—and I’m prepared to argue against the regressivity of GST or at least to say that, among the economic commentators, there are arguments for and against the degree to which GST is progressive, regressive, or flat. What it shouldn’t be—particularly in a principled tax framework, Dr Clark—is cherry-picked and have fruit and vegetables, however they are defined, suddenly taken out for political reasons. It was not principles that led to the Government’s announcement last week, Dr Clark; it was politics.

I had to love Dr Russell quoting the 1776 tome from that esteemed father of capitalism, Adam Smith—the first Labour MP, I think, in my 15 years in this House to ever proudly quote Adam Smith. [Interruption] Yes, she was. She’d obviously gone to the Parliamentary Library and grabbed it, although, to be fair, she might be the only one, along with David Parker, who actually has a copy of Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations. I have it on Kindle. It’s a very good albeit long read. David Parker’s probably got it there beside his Piketty volumes, but being the anti-capitalist that he is deep down—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! And back to the bill.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: It’s about the speech that Dr Russell gave in her second reading contribution. She quoted Adam Smith and said the tax system should be transparent, as Dr Clark said—but this tax system under Labour isn’t—and that compliance costs should be minimised—well, I dare say that that’s not going to happen when GST on fruit and vegetables is removed—and that the administrative cost of collecting tax should be as little as possible. Again, a gross breach of the very taxation principles that this Government purports to espouse.

And who is wealthy? We haven’t got a definition of it. Now, David Parker went after, I think, 279 of the wealthiest individuals. [Interruption] Chlöe Swarbrick will tell me—was it a 9 percent effective tax rate on their economic income? Something like that—terrible. Only, all of the difference is in unrealised changes in wealth, so those individuals would have to come up with millions and millions of dollars to pay for the things that Labour are spending money on.

When challenged on talkback radio, David Parker said, “Well, they’re worth on average a quarter of a billion dollars each. They’re bound to find some cash down the back of the couch.” I’m paraphrasing, but that was pretty much what he said. That doesn’t sound very principled to me.

Nor indeed if we are talking about principles and economic income overall, it’s all economic income, including on family homes. Now, I’m not proposing a capital gains tax or a wealth tax on family homes but the inconsistency is here: if in Deborah Russell’s electorate of New Lynn an average homeowner bought a house five years ago for $1 million, because of the Government’s profligate spending driving inflation up now that home is worth $1.5 million. In those five years, they’ve earned more in the increase in value of their house than they have working as a tradie—that’s untaxed. Now, nobody’s talking about that over there, and nor are we here.

But if the same plumber lives in Balclutha—listen up—owns a $500,000 house and buys a $350,000 rental property, which over the same five years increases to half a million dollars, the wealth increase, the economic income on that second house, is $150,000, and that plumber would have to pay probably $40,000 to $50,000 in income tax—a lower capital gain but a higher tax bill. How principled is that? But that’s what this Government will give us. The really sad thing about this is they’re not going after the big fish that they said they would. In 2017 and 2016 when I was the Minister of Revenue, the big issue was base erosion and profit shifting—multinational companies moving transfer costs and interest to reduce income earned in higher-taxpaying countries to record taxable income in lower-tax jurisdictions. And the OECD has been battling this for years.

After initially sending a bill to this House to, again, create an information framework, nothing has been done by this Government on the thing that they said was the number one revenue issue during the Key/English years. So this is a really disappointing piece of legislation, but it reveals much, much more about the Government’s intention for wealth. They are coming for unrealised economic income. They are coming for your cribs and your baches and the shares in the plumbing firm—they are going to tax them if they’re still in office on 14 October, and the public need to know about it.

The Minister says, “Oh, this isn’t about collecting a single dollar of tax.” Yes, it is. She then went on and listed all the reasons why this Government needs more tax. Where are they going to get it from?

Hon Member: Back to the bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order!

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: They’re going to get it from the untaxed economic income that is coming out of this bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): I’m sorry to interrupt the member, but the members to my right who have continually questioned the relevancy of the speech and the context of the speech in terms of the Standing Orders and the Speakers’ rulings have a remedy. They can take a point of order and just see where that takes them.

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): What a load of scaremongering. What are the Opposition afraid of? If there was ever a myth that keeps poor people poor, it is the myth of fairness without transparency, especially when the conditions of fairness are assumed and not agreed or are conceptualised without data, and then they’re sterilised from political analysis because they’re deemed separate, distinct, discrete, and devoid of influence because they belong in the realms of an objective economy, an objective rules-based system. This is modern-day mythology. It’s lazy analysis, and one of the most powerful fabrications of our political system is that the tax system is based on generalised symptoms of fairness, which no diagnosing practitioner worth their reputation would ever attest to. It is classism disguised as a rules-based system in the 21st century, yet nobody really knows the rules, because nobody can test them against a backdrop of real principles.

Now, the Taxation Principles Reporting Bill is groundbreaking. It unpacks what is meant by “fairness” into six fundamental taxation principles, without hierarchy, so that policy trade-offs can be fairly understood. It doesn’t seek to rank them. Rather it seeks to inform those impacted about the trade-offs so they can understand what is understood as “fair” in the context. It also reflects a common understanding that a good tax system involves different trade-offs at different times. This is in the context of the high-net-worth individuals research data that reveals some people in our society pay a real tax rate of 9 percent while others pay around 20 percent. It requires income and wealth situations to be transparent, measurable, and comparable so that policies can be created against a backdrop of baselines, not assumptions.

This obvious yet revolutionary law sets up the ability for New Zealand to make tax rules based on real data and inequalities and disparities in wellbeing by setting out openly the accepted tax principles. It requires us to enunciate the principles at play, the trade-offs, and the anticipated benefits through the Inland Revenue commissioner. Anyone who sees this as hard to do is ducking for cover. Why wouldn’t they want a baseline of real data from which to make their policy? The legislation gives the IRD the tools to get real data to form a real baseline from which to make real policy. It shows, transparently, the principles at play, the trade-offs, and the assumptions underpinning the tax system. It allows for open, transparent discussions on tax.

We’ve heard about the principles: horizontal equity, vertical equity, efficiency, integrity, coherence, and flexibility. These are all well accepted—they are well-accepted principles, but what I’m really proud of—as a member of the Finance and Expenditure Committee—is that when we look at inequality, we are also able to consider comparative wellbeing. That puts wellbeing across the economy, both in the Public Finance Act and the Public Service Act, and now into the tax system in a way where we can really understand what the impact is of our policies, not just the inputs.

I’m really proud of this bill. I commend the Minister who shepherded it for so long through the process, the Hon David Parker, and I’m really proud to be standing here today seeing this come into the House. I commend it.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you, Madam Speaker. For those who may be watching on their television sets or listening on their wirelesses, we’re in a strange situation in the Parliament—

Hon Member: Wireless?

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: The crystal sets? Perhaps there are some people listening on their crystal sets. John Banks always used to say that people would be listening on their crystal sets. I remember him referring to that regularly. But here we are on a Thursday morning in parliamentary urgency. It’s a weird kind of a thing for people who are not part of the parliamentary process, because the calendars around the debating chamber still say Tuesday, 15 August. The reason we’re doing this is because we’re in the last, dying days of the current Labour administration. Their shambolic legislative programme is being pushed through under urgency, and this bill—the second reading of the Taxation Principles Reporting Bill—is just one of a suite of ideologically driven bills that the current Government is trying to push through before their term in office comes to an end.

On this side of the House, we oppose this legislation. We oppose it quite simply because we know, in the National Party at least, that we don’t need to have a piece of legislation that tells politicians about how tax law should be interpreted and applied. We don’t need a piece of legislation that goes through a set of make-work principles that are designed to do little other than lay a groundwork for even greater taxation. I had the dubious privilege of sitting in the debating chamber at about 11.50 last night listening to the Hon Dr Deborah Russell waxing lyrical. In fact, it was almost Shakespearean in its delivery, full of pathos and passion. It’s just a shame that, at 11.50 p.m., she had such a small audience, because I don’t think there would be too many people listening on their crystal sets last night. But, if anyone wants to go and have a look at the theatre of parliamentary debate, there was a good example of it last night. But it was mostly just theatre, and that has become the hallmark of this Government, a Government that is much bigger on theatre than actually principled actions. So we oppose this piece of legislation because we see it simply as a bureaucratic, make-work scheme, of which this Government has become so good.

Of course it’s obvious that a tax system should be fair, that it should be simple, and that it should be transparent and administratively easy and adequate to service the country’s revenue needs. But those things are all given. They don’t need a bespoke separate piece of legislation. They are a given; they have always been a given as part of the nation’s taxation regime, and they will continue to be, notwithstanding this piece of legislation. But what is happening here, as my colleague the very insightful and articulate Michael Woodhouse mentioned just a few minutes ago, is that the real thing that the Labour Government wants to try and do is lay the foundation for increasing tax for New Zealanders. They want to introduce a wealth tax. They want to introduce a capital gains tax. They want to tax New Zealanders more. In fact, it’s been the hallmark of this Labour administration over their time in office that they really only have three policies on anything, whether it’s tax or any kind of subject you might like to raise. They have only three policies, and their policies are to ban it, make it compulsory, or tax it. Often—often—they are a combination of all three: banning, making compulsory, or taxing, and then, for good measure, tax again and tax again; just keep raiding the pockets of New Zealanders as if they were tapping into an unlimited ATM.

When we go back and have a look at the genesis of this bill, we find that the father of this bill was none other than the Hon David Parker in his capacity as the then revenue Minister. Now, he’s no longer the revenue Minister, and what’s been interesting is that his principled act of resigning as revenue Minister and then his reluctance, for instance, to back or endorse in any way, shape, or form the Labour Party’s election promise to take the GST off fruit and vegetables is very telling. It’s often the way in the Parliament, and indeed in the discourse of political debate, that sometimes it’s what’s not said that speaks louder than what is said. What’s not said speaks louder sometimes than what is said, and David Parker has not been saying much about the dancing on the head of a pin by the finance Minister, Grant Robertson, in terms of his flip-flop on what he previously referred to as a “boondoggle”. Well, this piece of legislation provides the very foundation for the work that Mr Parker and, I suspect, a small coterie of his colleagues had wanted to achieve, had they been able to convince their caucus and Cabinet colleagues that the introduction of a wealth tax was a good idea.

Well, they got rolled on that—they got rolled on that—when Jacinda Ardern exited stage left and Chris Hipkins fell into the spotlight. He immediately put those plans on to his policy bonfire, and they are no more. He’s gone from what David Parker would, I am sure, have assumed was a principled position, at least in his mind, to one of utter political expediency. We know the reasons for that. The reasons for that relate to an upcoming general election in less than 60 days. So here we are in urgency on a Thursday morning, in the dying stages of this Labour administration, debating an ideological piece of legislation that is little more than bureaucratic make-work—unnecessary; confirms principles that are well known, understood, accepted, and have been part of the taxation framework structure of the New Zealand economy for years and years and years. No one is suggesting that they shouldn’t be there, other than that they don’t need to be in a bespoke and special piece of legislation. So, when we look at the principles—and my colleague Michael Woodhouse, and even the Minister, the Hon Dr Deborah Russell, last night, was waving around in the debating chamber, towards midnight last night, a copy of Adam Smith’s four principles on tax from 1776, in The Wealth of Nations. I was surprised to know that Michael Woodhouse keeps a copy on his Kindle. I’m sure that he reads it regularly! Those principles have been part of taxation policy work for years and years and years, and enshrining them in a piece of legislation like this is little more than bureaucratic make-work.

So, on this side of the House, we don’t think this bill is necessary. We are very sceptical, very suspicious, and very understanding of what this Government’s aims and objectives are, should they find themselves in a position where they want to tax New Zealanders more. It was Damien O’Connor, the senior Labour Cabinet Minister, only a week or so ago, who said that the problem we have is not enough tax. In a moment of lucid clarity, he actually spilt the beans: they want to take more tax from New Zealanders. Well, on this side of the House, we take the view that Governments should have a much greater respect for taxpayers’ hard-earned dollars, that the wasteful spending should stop, that the country needs to get back on track, and that this piece of legislation doesn’t help that. It doesn’t help that. Help is on the way—help is on the way. A general election is imminent, and we think that, in very short order, New Zealanders will vote in the ballot box, in the secrecy and privacy of the ballot box, and they will make a decision about whether they want to have a Government that is determined to tax them more, determined to spend more money, determined to be more wasteful and have less respect for taxpayers’ money, or whether they will want a Government that is sensible, pragmatic, and sound, and that will lead the country to a far more rational and balanced economic approach that is going to get us out of the recession and the economic dire mess that we are currently in. We oppose this bill.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you, Madam Speaker. What a wonderful bill this is. What an excellent bill. I mean, successive Governments down through the ages have made changes to the tax system in the name of fairness, without facts. The idea of fairness can be subjected and manipulated to suit political arguments, but here in this House we have a bill which encourages transparency so the public can debate the merit of tax changes with real facts behind them.

I want to congratulate the Hon Deborah Russell for bringing this to the House and the Hon David Parker for his work over a long period of time to achieve a bill which actually shines a light on our tax system so that we as New Zealanders can understand how it works. I hear opposite the frustration from the party that would want to defend the interests of the very wealthiest New Zealanders. You heard how often they referenced the wealth report that was done that showed that those earning typically over $20 million—sorry, net assets worth well over $20 million—pay around 8.9 percent as a tax rate, as opposed to middle-income New Zealanders, who pay around 20 percent as a tax rate. People know our system intrinsically is a bit unfair. People have always kind of known that, but we haven’t had the facts, and they don’t like seeing them out in the public. This bill would seek to make sure that we actually have regular reporting on how our tax system is functioning.

So I want to, just quickly in my contribution, look at the schedule, at the back of the bill, which goes through the different principles. In the select committee, we had quite a bit of time going through this with tax experts—I think around about a dozen submissions from tax experts—that helped us zone in, together with the help of Sir Rob McLeod, on the principles in this bill.

The first focuses on economic income, and it is the principle of horizontal equity. It looks at what the real wealth that people have is—not just the wealth they’re currently taxed on but their real wealth and how equal and fair that is looked at across the system.

The second looks at efficiency and, in my view, really gives us the opportunity to say: is the system itself efficiently functioning in a way that removes distortion? For example, is our economy focused on investing in productive assets which we’d all want to increase our exports and make us a wealthier country, a more prosperous country, overall?

The third is vertical equity, which looks at the progressivity of the system overall. We all know that lower-income people pay a higher portion of their income on taxation, and we all know that, actually, in real terms, wealthier people pay a bit more, typically—although not always—through the tax system. We want to know that the system overall is progressive.

Revenue integrity looks at whether there is coherency in the system and whether loopholes are emerging as changes happen.

Then we want to look at the compliance and administration costs—is it hard for taxpayers and Government to comply, does it carry a cost for them in doing it, and how do we minimise that?

Then we have certainty and predictability so that taxpayers can know what they’re likely to have to pay in tax and they can understand their obligations before their tax is due.

Flexibility and adaptability looks at the way in which the tax system continues to change to reflect current circumstances. Those are the principles in this bill.

I just wanted to spell them out really quickly, to go once over quickly so that people can see there’s nothing to be afraid of in there. What we’re looking at is transparency in our tax system, and it’s just astonishing to me that the National Party are arguing against transparency. It is not clear to me—or maybe it is—what they’re trying to hide by opposing this bill. It is astonishing—astonishing. New Zealanders should have a good hard look at both sides of this debate—I think transparency is really valuable here—and see those who don’t want them to understand regularly what our tax system looks like and those that would really like everyday New Zealanders, middle-income New Zealanders, to understand how the tax system functions and how those who are in the very wealthiest class, for example, as one outcome of this, avoid paying the kinds of tax rates that middle-income New Zealanders do.

We need transparency in New Zealand. It’s for the long-term good of the system. I particularly want to congratulate again the Hon David Parker for his excellent work on this bill, and I commend it to the House.

BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Deputy Leader—ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise on behalf of my ACT Party colleague Damien Smith, who, if you haven’t read his speech at the first reading, I really would recommend you go back and read. It is quite hilarious. He makes quite a few jokes that I don’t think I could do service to.

It is a pleasure to rise in opposition to the Taxation Principles Reporting Bill. We do it for a range of reasons, but I wanted to, firstly, talk about what this bill is hoping to achieve. It is hoping to achieve a statutory framework requiring that the Commissioner of Inland Revenue reports annually about the country’s tax settings against a set of core principles, and these principles are all set out in Schedule 1 of the bill. It says here—quite lovely—it’s “to improve the public’s understanding of the tax system”, but that’s a bit Orwellian, really, because that’s not really what it’s aiming to achieve.

Schedule 1 sets out these principles, and it says that the key principles here are “considered for designing or changing a tax system, as measured by the approved taxation principles measurements” as follows: horizontal equity, efficiency, vertical equity, revenue integrity, compliance and administrative costs, certainty and predictability, and flexibility and adaptability. While the purpose of the bill is to produce a report about the tax system and extent it will then meet these principles, the conclusion is always going to be, in every report, that no system can possibly meet all of these principles.

There’ll be people from all sides of this House that will have different opinions. There’ll be people at times who are in Opposition and will think what comes out of these reports is bad because certain parts of these principles have not been met, and there’ll be people in the Government that will think it’s good because other certain aspects have been met, and vice versa when people flip-flop back and forth from Government to Opposition.

It will be true of every single debate that we ever have about taxation in this country. There will be no new information that this bill will bring to a debate about taxation and whether or not it meets the principles of horizontal equity, efficiency, vertical equity, revenue integrity, compliance and administrative costs, certainty and predictability, and flexibility and adaptability. These are all principles that underpin a lot of taxation and the system, but there’s not actually going to be any new information. It’ll just point out that there are different goals to meet some extent, or all extents, of the Taxation Principles Reporting Bill.

So, in effect, what we’ll end up with is simply a new layer of bureaucratic requirements on the Public Service to produce a report, and, when you think about that, that’s just another level of bureaucracy. This Government always wants to pass new laws that add more levels of bureaucracy, more working groups, more reports—more reports that get written and then never read, even by the Government, and never acted upon. But there is actually no need for legislation to create reports like this, because the Minister could simply just request at any time that a report like this is written by the Commissioner of Inland Revenue. There’s no need to set it out in legislation that the Commissioner of Inland Revenue must write this report. I mean, David Parker will know, having been Minister of Revenue, that you could simply just request for a report to be made.

But the biggest problem that I have with this is that it didn’t actually go through the generic tax policy process when creating this bill. And when you go on to the IRD website, it says: “How [is] tax policy … developed”? Well, since 1995—only a little bit after I was born—it has said that the “tax policy has been developed using the Generic Tax Policy Process”. So, for our entire lives there has been a standard, and the policy result of following the generic tax policy process means that “major tax initiatives are subject to public scrutiny at all stages of their development. As a result, we have the opportunity to develop more practical options for reform by drawing on information provided by the private sector and the people who will be affected.” The whole process of going through the generic tax policy process “gives us greater opportunity to explain to interested parties the rationale underlying [the] proposed reforms”, thus improving the long-term stability of the tax system.

This bill didn’t go through the generic tax policy process. It didn’t go through a formalised consultation period. There was only a small number of stakeholders that were informally consulted. Now, that goes against how we’re supposed to do changes to tax law. I don’t think that is right. I also don’t think it’s right that the first reading of this bill went through urgency. Less than three months later, we’re sitting through the second reading under urgency on an issue to do with tax, and it didn’t actually go through proper scrutiny and proper consultation. That can’t be good for the long-term sustainability of our tax system.

The third reason that the ACT Party is opposing this bill is that we do not believe that the Inland Revenue Department is the right department to be reporting on the tax system, because it is responsible for giving policy advice on and administering the tax system.

Number four: we don’t believe that this report is actually going to be requiring an explanation of the trade-offs and the different weightings of these tax principles. You see that there are quite a few tax principles that have to be met—the horizontal equity, efficiency, vertical equity, etc., certainty and predictability. Now, in designing any tax system, there will be trade-offs, and that will be open for discussion and debate about how we weigh or make those decisions. But this bill just means that the report will say that there are different principles and you can’t satisfy all of them. It’s not necessarily going to go into great detail about why various weightings have been given. The tradeoffs really should be explained and the principles given a weighting so it’s clear why one principle has been met rather than the other. I think it’s important that that is there for transparency for people who are reading these reports.

But, all in all, we don’t believe that this is a necessary piece of legislation. It’s going to add a new level of bureaucracy by requiring a report that’s not needed. If it really was needed, the Minister could just ask for one rather than requiring it under law. It’s not going to go into great enough detail to actually explain the different trade-offs and the weights given behind the different principles underneath it. And, actually, the IRD really shouldn’t be the one issuing this type of report on the tax system, given that they are at the same time administering it. So I am opposed to the bill on behalf of the ACT Party and my colleague Damien Smith.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green—Auckland Central): E te Māngai, tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. Let’s be really clear about what it is that we’re debating today in the Taxation Principles Reporting Bill. This is not a piece of legislation that proposes any amendments to how we collect tax in this country or where the burden of taxation should lie. All it does is outline a way in which we can collect and then go about reporting on the way that our tax system currently operates in this country, against a set of seven principles that are outlined explicitly in this bill. I have not heard any arguments from any members of the Opposition—who have stood up and bandied about their red herrings, I would say—against those principles. In fact, we had quite collegial discussions about what those principles are at the Finance and Expenditure Committee. What it is that they are apparently fighting against is the process of collection and publication of the apparent distortions within our taxation system in this country and therefore the flow-on impacts with regard to productivity, inequality, and otherwise.

So, just to really dig into this—and I guess I should first foreshadow that of course the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand will be supporting this bill. I just wanted to commend the former Minister, the Hon David Parker, for the mahi that he has done in this space, not just this year in bringing this bill to this House but also in the production of the high - net-wealth individuals report as published at the beginning of this year, which, of course, as many other members have alluded to—and, again, it’s worthwhile putting on the record—made it patently clear that our tax system is fundamentally unfair and that there is a disproportionate tax burden borne by those who work in this country, not those who make their money off of the further and further accumulation of wealth.

So the Opposition are fighting against the collection of this data, and the Hon Michael Woodhouse said—and I quote—that “this is setting the information framework [for] … a wealth tax.” Well, I think you may be saying the quiet part out loud there, because if in fact the publication of this data and this evidence and this information provides the information framework and, therefore, a rationale for the implementation of a wealth tax, well, that’s a political decision and one that I guess would be mandated by the general public demanding something like this happen because they for the first time have the evidence which very clearly points out the discrepancies and the unfairness in our tax system.

Further to that point, we heard from the Hon Scott Simpson that this is ideologically driven. Of course, this is one of those arguments that I’ve got to stand up and argue against every single time, because, guys, I’m sorry to tell you, all of us here are ideologically driven. We have these things called ideologies or values, which underpin our political parties and colour how we interpret and conceptualise of evidence—the things that we’re willing to look at, the things that we’re not willing to look at; the communities that we’re willing to listen to, and the communities that we are not willing to listen to. We are all ideological, and I would say, actually, the antithesis of ideology is being open to collecting the evidence and the data and looking at it as objectively as is possible—i.e., the very point behind this legislation: to put out objective facts which all of us can interpret subjectively through our ideological values, political parties, and partisan lenses. So what is it, in fact, that is ideologically driven? Well, I’d say it’s the argument ideologically to not collect objective data to prove a point, which we could all then go about debating from our different ideological positions.

I also heard from the Hon Scott Simpson, and again I quote—I wrote all these down—that he’s “very suspicious” of what we might do with this data. Again, that will be a matter of public debate, because all this bill does is set up a framework for collecting evidence and then reporting that publicly. There is absolutely no impetus—nothing in here—that says that you must do X, Y, and Z with it. In fact, that’s the point of an election campaign. That’s the point of fiscal policy. It’s the point of everything that we do in this place—to interpret data. But the point of this bill is that we don’t have the damn data to do that meaningfully or objectively—or subjectively—in the first place.

The other point made by the Hon Scott Simpson is that this shows a disdain or a lack of respect for taxpayer dollars. In fact, I’d say quite the opposite, because, again, as outlined in the research from the Hon David Parker in his former role as Minister of Revenue, commissioned by the IRD, it made it explicitly and abundantly clear that the average taxpayer in this country pays more than double the effective tax rate of the wealthiest in this country. There is a disproportionate burden on those who earn their income from work as opposed to those who earn their income from wealth. I’d say the greatest disrespect that you could pay to the average New Zealand taxpayer is to tell them that you’re not interested in lifting the lid on that issue.

In fact, I’d say that the most responsible thing that we could do as ostensible leaders of this country is to try and get all the more evidence and data to have an all the more informed public debate on this stuff, because, otherwise, all we’re doing in this place is vibes, and that’s not good enough. It’s how we’ve gone about facilitating and creating tax and economic policy in this country for far, far too long. There’s a reason that people have an intuition out there that this stuff is unfair, because as the data is beginning to bear out from the IRD and Treasury research as reported at the beginning of this year, it is unfair.

I also need to respond to the point, raised by Brooke van Velden from the ACT Party, that we can’t meet all seven principles. Well, that, again, is part of the point. We are reporting against those seven principles—again, I’ve not yet heard any member of the Opposition argue against any of those seven principles, just simply the collection of and reporting of this data. So I’d really, really ask them to respond to which of those seven principles they’re against. But if you can’t meet those seven principles, then let’s be explicit as lawmakers about which ones we’re willing to prioritise and the weighting that we’re wanting to put on each of them, because that is the political decision. All this does is set up a reporting framework against principles which, again, it appears there’s relative consensus in this House on. The debate is whether we actually report on this stuff in the first place and, therefore, whether we have an objectively informed, evidence-based debate. Brooke van Velden was here saying that there’s not going to be any explanation of the trade-offs within the IRD research. That’s not their role. Their role is to provide us with the evidence, and then it is our ideologically driven positions as politicians which will then decide to interpret and make decisions on how we make those trade-offs on those variables.

To that effect, it’s already been made abundantly clear, in the likes of that high-wealth individuals report from the beginning of this year, that we’re already making quite substantive trade-offs with regard to productivity in this country, because what we see is that as a result of our tax system being 136th in the world, based on Oxfam’s reporting, for addressing inequality, we know that there are massive challenges right now with how capital flows continue to go into land speculation at the expense of productivity, small businesses, innovation, and research and development. We also know that there are distortions which continue to suppress talent and skills and people’s genuine want to participate in our society in lower-income neighbourhoods and communities across this country.

I just for the life of me can’t understand how we’re here having a debate today about whether we just want this data out there in the first place. This bill does not do anything in terms of actual changes to our tax system, which, I’d say, I wish that we were actually debating about, because we do have quite substantial evidence that was released at the beginning of this year. But what we’re debating about is whether we just have baseline access to what I would say is fundamental information that is useful for having an informed public debate. I thought that was the point of this place. So I really, really would appeal to members of, particularly, the National Party to stand up and to point to which of the seven principles they oppose being reported against, because, otherwise, all I’m hearing from them is ideological drivel and that they do not want objective evidence and information out there which we can pick over and debate explicitly from each of our ideological and values-based standpoints.

Just finally, because I’ve got another minute and a half, the tax system is unfair, and the Greens have outlined our policy going to this election in 2023. The National Party, of course, are waving around the bogeyman that perhaps the Labour Party might be foreshadowing a wealth tax, but I’d say to those who are listening along at home that so far, it’s only really the Green Party that I’m aware of who have meaningfully outlined how we would implement something like that to pay for a guaranteed minimum income and to make the political choice to end poverty in this country, because, after all, that’s the point of this place.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Attorney-General): It gives me pleasure to rise in the second reading debate. Can I thank the Hon Deborah Russell for carrying forward this legislation, and the select committee for the work that was done by select committee members—who did work collegially on this bill; even though some members disagreed with it, they drilled down into the principles to articulate them as well as can be—the IRD officials, and Sir Rob McLeod for his very wise advice to the Finance and Expenditure Committee. This is actually a very important bill, and you can see its importance from the strength of feeling it engenders from the Opposition, who don’t want transparency as to the outcomes of our current tax system.

Do you know that when the high-wealth individual work was done earlier this year, after that work was done, the Treasury re-estimated the distribution of wealth in New Zealand. Prior to that work being done, they had estimated that the top 1 percent of wealth-holders in New Zealand held 21 percent of all assets in New Zealand, including family homes—21 percent. It’s quite an extreme amount of wealth to be held by the 1 percent. After the study was done, they re-estimated it to 26 percent of all assets held by the 1 percent. If you think about that, well, that’s pretty extreme, but then if you think about investments outside of the family home, they re-estimated that of all of the investments in New Zealand outside of the family home, 35 percent of them are held by 1 percent of the population—35 percent of all investments, all net wealth outside of the family home, is held by 1 percent. That’s what data-driven analysis of the tax system shows to New Zealanders.

We heard reference from the ACT Party that this didn’t go through the generic tax policy process and, therefore, is flawed. The generic tax policy process wasn’t used to increase GST or change income tax rates. That’s about technical stuff like what you are going to do for foreign investment rules and double taxation and really technical things like that.

Who’s on the generic tax policy groups? Major corporates and their tax accountants, essentially, and the occasional lawyer, but it’s mainly—I go to those meetings with those groups that are in that, and that’s who they are. Those people have themselves told me that they can’t involve themselves in the bigger tax debate. I had one of the partners of one of the major accounting firms, a real leader in taxation, tell me that when he publicly expressed an opinion in favour of a capital gains tax, they lost clients to the firm because the people who would have been charged a capital gains tax said, “I’m not going to use you as my accountant”—this is one of the big six firms—“if you talk publicly about that.”

It’s impossible for those people to, by and large, talk publicly about what they really think about the big issues in the tax system. That’s the job of this place, and this place needs information upon which to have those debates, and that’s all this bill does. It sets out principles, which are settled principles, against which that information can be provided through us to the public.

What’s one of the other trite phrases we hear in New Zealand? I hear it from the National Party: “broad based - low rate”—“broad based - low rate”. New Zealand doesn’t have a broad base - low rate tax system. We have a broad-based GST system, and its rate is lower than if it was a narrow base, but GST is a very high proportion of taxation in New Zealand, relative to other OECD countries. We do not have a broad base - low rate tax system, as shown by the high-wealth work earlier in the year, which showed that the people who had an average wealth of $256 million pay tax at less than the rate of 10 percent, which is less than middle-income earners in New Zealand by a factor of a half to a third.

So what are the principles set out here? “Horizontal equity is the extent to which people with similar levels of … income pay similar amounts of tax.”—the next part of that is important—“In considering horizontal equity, the time value of money matters and the tax system should generally recognise the economic effect of income.” What happens now? Why do the National Party hate that? Why don’t they want that in our system?

When you borrow money from the bank and you take out a $300,000 mortgage, wouldn’t you love for the bank to say, “Oh, by the way, we’re not going to charge you any interest or get the money back for 30 years. You can have the money free for 30 years.”? Well, that’s what happens in New Zealand for some people. Their tax on any income can be delayed for decades, so their effective tax rate is much, much lower compared with a wage or salary earner, who pays tax every week or every fortnight when they’re paid. Some other people, if they ever pay tax, can delay it for decades.

One of the reasons that the National Party hates this—and they didn’t like the fact that Rob McLeod agreed that the tax system should look at economic income, not necessarily realised income—is that they know that the people that they back have forms of income that are never taxed, or, if it is taxed, taxation is delayed for decades. That’s who backs the National Party. That’s who backs the ACT Party, and the ACT Party have become so divorced from their original position as the Association of Consumers and Taxpayers that Sir Roger Douglas recently came out and said that they are now the party for the wealthy and that they’re not actually backing fairly all New Zealanders.

So horizontal equity is important. “In considering horizontal equity, there are important areas where exemptions … are justified”, like the family home. We’ve put that in there, because otherwise the right wing tries to tell everyone that we’re going to tax the family home. We’d never propose that. That’s now clear in these tax principles.

I won’t go through efficiency. Vertical equity is really important. You know, if Jeff Bezos lived in New Zealand—the richest man in the world—he would pay virtually no tax. How is that fair? That’s an example of how vertical equity is important, and it could be done better in New Zealand.

Compliance and administrative costs—really important. No one wants to waste a lot of money on unnecessarily obtuse tax rules forcing people to fill out extra forms, but you do need to not allow that as an excuse for gross unfairness. That’s why this says, “Compliance and administrative costs is the extent to which compliance and administrative costs for taxpayers and the Government are reasonable, but minimising costs is not justification for substantial unfairness in the tax system.”, and why do the National Party hate that principle? It’s because they always use that excuse—always use that excuse.

This is good legislation. This is really important for the future efficiency of the New Zealand economy. Chlöe Swarbrick’s contribution—the misallocation of capital caused by inappropriate tax rules driving speculative asset classes, highly leveraged, offered to minimise taxation at the cost of productive investment is one of the reasons why Australia is more productive than New Zealand, because their tax system is better than ours. I commend this bill to the House.

STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you, Madam Speaker, and thank you, everyone, for the applause. That’s a great way to start my speech off, with such appreciation—I haven’t even said anything yet, but I do welcome that.

It is a pleasure to actually speak on the Taxation Principles Reporting Bill. Isn’t it a pity—isn’t it a pity—that David Parker doesn’t have that same passion about allocating our taxpayers’ money in a most efficient way, minimising waste in the public sector. If he had done that, then we would not have the current account balance that we do today. He’s caused a whole lot of issues—or his Government has—by not actually carefully spending other people’s money, and that’s what you do when you gather tax.

I was going to raise it later on in my speech, but I’ll do it now seeing the Minister mentioned Sir Roger Douglas. I think he seeks to make a mark in the Labour Party, in the history books, up to that sort of level, but unfortunately he will never get to the level of Sir Roger Douglas—the best Minister of Finance I would argue, ever. He was a Labour Minister, and I think it would be good if more of the Labour Ministers aspired to reach the level of effectiveness of that Minister, because he made a massive mark on New Zealand’s history and set New Zealand down a path of success for many years after he retired from Parliament.

No debate on taxation, I think, would be complete without a quote from Jean-Baptiste Colbert. Now, Jean-Baptiste Colbert was Louis XIV’s most trusted adviser. He was accredited with developing trade, and with developing industry and, of course, the Merchant Navy, which made all of those things possible. His quote on taxation was: “The art of taxation consists in so plucking the goose as to obtain the largest possible amount of feathers with the smallest possible amount of hissing.” I would argue that this bill lays the groundwork to test the upper limits of the hissing and the tolerance of the goose—that being the taxpayer. This is definitely laying the groundwork for a wealth tax. I don’t think anyone disagrees on that—they might say otherwise, but I know deep down that is exactly what it’s all about.

Why wouldn’t we want a wealth tax? Well, I’m going to tell you that. The countries that have tried it are backing off from it. In the OECD, there’s only three countries that have wealth taxes now. That’s Norway, Spain, and Switzerland. Norway, now they’ve brought in their wealth tax, have had to actually bring in, or are considering bringing in, an exit tax, because the wealthy are leaving. The problem, they forget, with wealth is the wealthy people don’t own all the houses in New Zealand and so they they’re not rooted in this area. They can take their money with them and go elsewhere. Their money is used to create wealth. It creates wealth for all of us. So I think that’s something that’s been forgotten in this debate.

I think the GST nonsense that David Parker was going on about—we did have a good GST system, but they’re going to ruin it—that’s if they win, of course, on 14 October—by taking fresh fruit and frozen fruit and vegetables out of the out of the GST system. That makes it more complicated, more expensive to run, and it actually breaches one of—I know David Parker, who spoke earlier, is a great fan of Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations, but it breaches several of his maxims for tax: equity and fairness. It certainly doesn’t meet that, these proposals for his wealth tax. If we’re going to have a tax on capital gains and if it was to meet the first equity and fairness test, it would also be able to count the losses as well as the gains. It would count everyone’s gains and losses, not just a select few, which a wealth tax seeks to do.

I can’t go through all four of them, but what I can say is that this is definitely setting the groundwork for a wealth tax. We oppose it, and it’s actually quite a waste of Parliament’s time.

GLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth): Well, it’s very easy to stand up and speak after the previous National Party speaker, Stuart Smith, but it’s actually very hard to speak after the Hon David Parker giving his synopsis and reflection on this. He makes it very, very clear what this piece of legislation is about, and that is around establishing that framework that will require officials to provide data on, and assess the performance of, our tax system—clear, simple legislation.

I want to thank the Hon David Parker and specifically the Hon Dr Deborah Russell for bringing this piece of legislation to the House. This is part of our Government’s revenue strategy. It’s focusing on a fairer tax system, and because of that, I commend this bill to the House.

HELEN WHITE (Labour): It’s an absolute pleasure to take a call on this bill, because this is one of the things I am truly most proud of in terms of what the Labour Government is achieving for this country. I am going to take my copy of this bill, and I’m going to get David Parker to sign it, and I’m going to auction it off, because it speaks to our voters and our backbone. This is the situation: before the high-wealth report, New Zealanders didn’t know that the high-wealth individuals who have $20 to $30 million worth of income—that’s what the target was—are paying 8.9 percent tax on average. Middle-income New Zealanders are paying 20.2 percent tax, and that is so unfair. That is so unfair.

We have a problem in this country with a gap between rich and poor, and it shows itself. It shows itself in things like poverty. It shows itself in crime. It shows itself in all sorts of ways that are costly to this country, and we must, must understand what we are doing. What we had was we had a tax department that did not understand that 35 percent of assets were held by 1 percent. We must understand those things; they must inform us, and they must inform our public. In a time like now, we need to know those things and make decisions based on real information. I am shamed by the ACT Party, which is supposed to be all about transparency. I am ashamed that they are actually fighting transparency. They are fighting people knowing what is going on in this country.

We have to know what’s going on in order to make policy, and nobody should be afraid of us examining the tax policy in terms that have been thought about for generations: fairness, certainty, convenience, efficiency, thinking about wellbeing, and thinking about economic income. That’s an empowering thing, and I urge the New Zealand voter to think about this, because this debate is the stark contrast between parties. If you vote in a right-wing Government, you will lose transparency, and more money will go to the 1 percent. That is the reality, and there we are. That is why I am commending this bill to the House.

CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. What an interesting discussion on this Thursday morning that’s also somehow a Tuesday still because we’re in urgency. While the parliamentary calendar is delayed by a couple of days, I can assure New Zealand that we are in fact still a couple of days closer to the election and the change of Government that so many people want in order to get their country back on track.

But it’s been an interesting discussion from the three Smith brothers. We’ve had Stuart Smith and, before that, the reference to ACT’s Damien Smith and, of course, Adam Smith, their older brother—their contemporary—but also other interesting discussions around the House. I do want to refer to a couple of those, because I think it’s quite illuminating the way that different parties have approached this. I enjoyed, for example, in David Parker’s valedictory statement, the reason that he set out why in his time in Parliament he’s been fighting the Labour Party on these things. I didn’t find all his remarks particularly persuasive, but I do like that he gave a really good go at persuading the Prime Minister and the finance Minister of the wisdom of his tax principles. At least he has shown that to him the Groucho Marx quote does not apply, that if you don’t like these principles, then I have others.

Anyway, it’s been an interesting discussion, and I think actually at the heart of it is a question that was asked by my colleague and friend the Hon Michael Woodhouse, leading the debate from the National Party side of things, which was to ask why we need a framework scheme divorced from actual tax policy or law that would actually have a real-world meaningful effect. Because, actually, what we have here, Madam Speaker, as you’ll be aware, having heard the debate, is not a particular proposal in terms of rates or bans or even types of taxation that should be levied—which is not, you know, technically accurate—or, you know, imposed if you like. I was trying to find some more neutral way of putting that. Anyway, the taxpayers of this country have particular proposals that are made by political parties ahead of an election. Of course, the Government of the day can introduce policy by way of a Budget, or at other times too, for that matter. But we don’t have that. All we’ve got is a set of principles and permission to display and gather data about wealth and income, and we can talk about the specifics of that, but I don’t understand why legislation should be needed merely to put in place an ideological world view.

Of course, everyone’s entitled to their ideology. I agree with our colleague and friend Chlöe Swarbrick, who notes that, at some level, we do all have an ideology, so we shouldn’t shy away from that. But the point that was being made on this side of the House—I think by my colleague and friend the Hon Scott Simpson—was that if an ideological basis for a law comes through that isn’t founded in any kind of reality, in any real-world outcome that would be positive and productive, then, actually, that’s a very dangerous thing, and we should resist that, and we should call that out when we see it. We see it here precisely because a law is being passed in this House by the current Government that has no foundation in reality, in terms of any real-world outcome, positive or negative, except, of course, in the gathering of the data and the presentation of these so-called principles.

If this isn’t necessary in itself to authorise the fishing expedition or the witch hunt that we’ve already seen, then what is the value of having it in law? I mean, potentially one has a sort of framework legislation like the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act (BORA), because that’s the yardstick against which you can measure other legislation. In the case of NZ BORA, it would be the case that if someone doesn’t like the way another law is operating, then they can actually go to the court and say that that law should be declared inconsistent with NZ BORA. Obviously, we can have a debate and discussion about that, and the former revenue Minister, before he found his position untenable, understands that well in his position as Attorney-General.

I presume that no one’s going to go running off to the court and say that the tax law that’s passed by a duly elected Government isn’t consistent with the Tax Principles Reporting Act and, therefore, should be struck down or declared inconsistent. But this is the door that we open when we have framework legislation that sets up principles against which other legislation can be measured and does not in itself provide anything useful or concrete or tangible to affect the taxpayers and, indeed, the other citizens and residents of this country.

We’ve heard from the Hon Dr Deborah Russell, as the Minister who led the contribution for the Labour Government side of things, about Adam Smith, the father of economics, back in 1776. I find it interesting and amusing—actually, I found the discussion genuinely quite interesting, despite the fact that it was very nearly midnight last night and I was wanting to do a Cinderella routine and leave the House as quickly as I could before the clock struck 12, with or without my glass slippers. But, you know, we go all the way back to those centuries of economic thought. Indeed, he was credited with starting the idea of economic thought and how markets work and so forth in his seminal work The Wealth of Nations. Yet, relatively recent application of principles by no less than the Minister herself and the Hon David Parker and the finance Minister have been discarded as being all the way back in the distant past of 10 years ago, and we heard that exchange in question time yesterday.

So if we’re talking about tax principles and the tax principles Act, as it will be soon enough, I think we do need to understand as a House and as a country that the principles appear to be very malleable on that side of the House, and they seem to be a way of justifying the things that one side of politics wants to do and could do anyway if it were minded. It has a single party majority. It can pass tax law whether we like it or not, and then the people can speak. I think Chlöe Swarbrick came so close to understanding and getting it right, actually, when she said that we’ve got to be wary of discussion that’s only based on the vibes and, actually, we should be talking with people about what tax policy should be. That’s, of course, the main criticism of this bill, as far as I’m concerned. It is just about the vibes. It’s not actually doing anything real. It’s not doing anything concrete—again, good, bad, or indifferent. It’s just not actually achieving anything.

So, yes, let’s have a discussion about it. Let’s discuss it in the next 60 days with the people who matter, which is the taxpayers and other residents and citizens in New Zealand. We look forward to doing so, and we’ll do so in a way that will produce real positive outcomes for all New Zealanders and not be an ideological witch hunt enabling tax principles bills such as this. We do not commend the bill.

DAN ROSEWARNE (Labour): It’s my pleasure to take a call on the Taxation Principles Reporting Bill. As has been discussed in the House today, it establishes a statutory framework requiring the Commissioner of Inland Revenue to report annually about this country’s tax settings against a set of core principles which have been widely traversed this morning. The purpose of this bill is to improve the public’s understanding of the tax system and to encourage informed debate about tax going forward.

This bill came to the committee—it was actually my first day on the Finance and Expenditure Committee, and it was a bit of a schoolhouse for me to hear a lot of clever people discuss this bill and then also to learn about the principles that underpin this bill. Adam Smith has come up on a number of occasions, and so initially I thought, who was this Adam Smith dude? What I like about the Finance and Expenditure Committee is you get to do a lot of deep thinking, and so I got to read about a couple of his books and learn a bit more about the tax system.

Interestingly, Sir Michael Cullen, when he first became the finance Minister, was unsatisfied with the information that he was getting from Treasury at the time, so he wrote to Treasury and told them not just to read Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations but also to read up on The Theory of Moral Sentiments, because it was the social aspect that he really wanted our officials to drill into. That was really good reading about that, and it’s great that that theory of moral sentiments and that social aspect have found their way into this bill. It’s a good bill and I commend it to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is, That the amendments recommended by the Finance and Expenditure Committee by majority be agreed to.

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

Ayes 75

New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Te Paati Māori 2; Kerekere; Whaitiri.

Noes 40

New Zealand National 30; ACT New Zealand 10.

Amendments agreed to.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Fuel Industry (Improving Fuel Resilience) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Hon PEENI HENARE (Acting Minister of Energy and Resources): I present a legislative statement on the Fuel Industry (Improving Fuel Resilience) Amendment Bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

Hon PEENI HENARE: I move, That the Fuel Industry (Improving Fuel Resilience) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

I want to thank the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee for the work that they’ve done on this particular bill. While I note that, sadly, they were unable to come to a full agreement on that particular committee, they still, however, made some rather good suggestions to ensure that this bill is a strong bill moving forward. Therefore, I think it’s important that we cover off what some of those suggestions were and how those suggestions will continue to make sure that this bill is a good bill into the future.

Just by way of background, though, the Fuel Industry (Improving Fuel Resilience) Amendment Bill is designed to help ensure that we have sufficient petrol, diesel, and jet fuel in New Zealand to weather major disruptions to our fuel supply. Many of us in the House, here, will recall when there was significant disruption to our jet fuel supply. And, in particular, myself and other MPs based in Auckland were subject to a number of those rather huge disruptions. In order for our country to be productive, it needs strong infrastructure and it needs the ability for people, in particular of the great city of Tāmaki-makau-rau, of Auckland, to be able to get around the country. The disruptions were significant and, sadly, very costly. That’s why it was important that this Government take action on how we might be able to create resilience in the supply of fuel—petrol, diesel, and jet fuel in this country.

What we noticed too, of course, was that with the more frequent severe weather events that we’ve been experiencing here in New Zealand, it’s become even more apparent why we must create resilience. While I already gave the example of Tāmaki-makau-rau, I can already tell the House that in my visit to the Hawke’s Bay region and the Tairāwhiti region after Cyclone Gabrielle, one of the biggest challenges was getting supply of fuel in there in order to operate the heavy machinery to clear roads, to clear pathways, to clear houses; it was clear to all of us that we needed to do more here.

Therefore, the Government made an announcement that looks towards how we might create more bulk-storage facilities to ensure that we have national levels set in order for us to have confidence in our resilience, that we can have a stockholding level that we can all agree upon at a minimum to make sure that our country isn’t severely impacted by these. To meet the obligations, though, fuel importers will not necessarily have to make significant investments in fuel storage facilities; however, some of them may need to change their stock management practice to reduce fluctuations in their stock levels.

Some of the changes that the select committee recommended, we consider to be very good changes, on behalf of the Minister. So I’m going to cover off a couple of those. The bill, obviously, was referred to the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee on 6 June 2023. There were a number of submissions; 11 in total, and eight of those were heard in oral presentation. So a big thankyou to those who did make a submission to the select committee. One of the ones that we feel, I think, is important to amend in the bill as it progresses is the commencement date. The bill, as introduced, provided for the bill to come into force by Order in Council no later than two years after the date on which it receives Royal assent. That means, if the bill was passed as introduced and the regulations were made by early 2024, the minimum stockholding obligation could come into force in early 2024. Some submitters were concerned that this date was too short, and that they needed a bit more time to look towards the infrastructure and what they’ll need to do to become compliant with this particular legislation. So, therefore, the select committee recommended that the commencement date be amended to give certainty, to oblige parties by bringing the information disclosure provisions in the bill into force on 1 July 2024, and the remaining stockholding obligation provisions on 1 January 2025.

It also became clear during the select committee that the bill, as introduced, caused some confusion as to how the calculation method of the obligation works. Some submitters did not understand that the minimum level of cover for the initial period is intended to be met on an average basis and that this is an average of daily stock level estimates for a month. The committee recommended amending the definition of a “variable a” in the formula, which is the obliged person’s stockholding obligation, to clarify that the required minimum stockholding volume must be met on an average basis.

In the bill, as introduced, “average daily demand”, which determines the obliged person’s stockholding obligation, is the average over the 12 months immediately before the compliance period. Some submitters noted that fuel imports are typically ordered three or four months ahead of delivery, which means that an obliged person would have to order fuel up to four months before knowing with certainty what its stockholding obligations were in the compliance period afforded by the bill. So the committee recommended that the obliged person’s average daily demand be based on the obliged person’s average daily offtake from bulk storage facilities over the 12-month period, four months before the compliance period.

One of the other recommendations from the committee was one that this Government agrees with. As the bill was introduced, the penalty was for half a million dollars—$500,000—for each act or omission. In response to some of the concerns from the submitters, the committee has recommended that the maximum pecuniary penalty be set at $100,000. On behalf of the Minister, the Minister is satisfied that this lower penalty will continue to be a significant deterrent, in order to bring people into compliance.

The select committee also recommended several amendments to clarify processes that could apply when an obliged person is temporarily unable to meet the stockholding obligation. Exemptions to the minimum stockholding obligations may be granted by the Minister, with some conditions, in exceptional circumstances, of course. This would provide the Government with more tools than just prosecution through the courts.

To provide more clarity and flexibility about how these provisions on exemptions and enforceable undertakings are used, the select committee recommended a number of changes. I’ll just list them very briefly: providing for the Minister to grant an exemption if a series of events or circumstances prevent an obliged person from complying with their obligations, allowing regulations to prescribed circumstances that will be grounds for an exemption, clarifying that other instances of non-compliance or potential non-compliance may be addressed by enforceable undertakings, and clarifying that obliged persons can seek agreement from the chief executive for a path to compliance in circumstances where they are unlikely to meet the obligation by the commencement date. All, I think, pretty pragmatic and sensible recommendations.

So, through the select committee process, we now have a more robust bill. The bill has been carefully designed to increase our fuel resilience in a way that will limit potential price impacts on our consumers.

Recent jet fuel disruptions, as I discussed earlier, were really significant, and, as our country reopens to the world after the pandemic of COVID-19, it’s important that there is the resilience in our infrastructure to make sure that the visitor numbers that come to New Zealand can get out and about across our beautiful country. It’s a lifetime dream of them coming here, and I can tell you, Madam Speaker, that the raw data from the Auckland Airport, through the FIFA Women’s Football World Cup, has already proven that we must make sure that the resilience is there to cater for the thousands and thousands of visitors that came during that particular amazing event.

This bill will mitigate the extent to which New Zealand is exposed to fuel-disruption scenarios. On behalf of the Minister and this Government, I’m pleased to commend it to the House.

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

STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Oh thank you, Madam Speaker. It is a pleasure to speak on the Fuel Industry (Improving Fuel Resilience) Amendment Bill.

The National Party is supporting this bill, although we do have reservations about the speed with which this bill has gone through the process—although we were ably chaired by Naisi Chen at the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee; her attention to the time that is allowed for speakers and for submitters is legendary, actually. She’s quite a stickler for time, but that is great. We needed to have that on this bill in particular, because we didn’t have the time that we needed to consider it fully.

Actually, the closure of Marsden Point has brought all this about and that happened quite a long time ago. That this bill was only introduced in June is actually quite unforgivable. This is a really important issue. As the Hon Peeni Henare mentioned before, the disruptions with the jet fuel are quite significant. For example, airlines were required to tanker. What that actually means is that instead of having enough fuel in, with the normal safety reserves, they had to often fill the tanks right to full to take a journey, so they had enough fuel for a safe return journey as well—with more passengers on. So it actually cost them a lot of money. It also meant that some international flights had to fly with low fuel loads to Australia or Fiji and then refuel and continue on—extra landing fees; all those sorts of things—when, actually, airlines run on very small margins. They’ve got a huge capital expenditure upfront for the aircraft, all those operating costs—it really made a big difference.

So fuel security is a big deal for us, and that came about because a shipment of fuel that arrived at Marsden Point was not up to the fuel specifications. It is quite comforting to know that the fuel specifications are so rigidly applied for the aviation sector. Obviously, you can’t pull over to the side of the road when you’re halfway across the Pacific, so it’s absolutely essential we get that right.

There are also issues that occur with other fuel, particularly with diesel, where we have one specification and we have winter diesel and summer diesel—which people don’t really appreciate. So the chemical composition of those fuels does change, and other countries have different specifications to us. But diesel was much easier to blend to deal with those issues, should a shipment arrive not to the specifications that it was ordered under.

So these current rules—the required minimum stockholding obligations are calculated on previous years, as the Minister alluded to. But it’s 28 days for petrol on average, 24 days for jet fuel, and 21 days for diesel. It was raised in select committee that diesel being lower than petrol is the wrong way around, because, actually, when the Christchurch earthquake occurred, it was diesel that was in short supply, not petrol. When civil emergencies occur, that will be the way it works, because all the emergency services utilise diesel, not petrol, for their fire service, for ambulances, and so on. So that, we believe, is wrong, and the wrong way around. So there was quite a bit of discussion about that sort of thing.

So it’s only June, we’re here now. Is that a good process? Well, not quite. Could have been a lot better. But, actually, the current, or the latest, fuel storage data that I have that’s on hand is 43 days for premium petrol, 40 days for regular petrol. There’s 47 days, at a current rate of consumption, with jet fuel on hand, and 21 days for diesel. Again, diesel is the one, as I just alluded to, that should be higher than any of the others, but it’s not, unfortunately.

The Minister went through some of the issues that were raised and the changes that we made, and I think it’s quite important that we go through that. There were 11 submitters and eight that appeared before the committee. They all brought helpful and useful suggestions—and this is the whole point of the select committee process, of course. But I think it’s often lost how collaboratively we work, often, in select committees—particularly when you’ve got good submissions, as we had, from the sector that affected all the nuts and bolts of that and how the legislation might work. We were able to make some changes that will make quite a difference.

So the commencement date has already been mentioned, and while it might seem that we’ve got enough fuel overall—those numbers that I mentioned before—that’s a gross number; it’s not on the individual companies, and, of course, it will be individual companies that are required to keep that level of storage. So that is an issue for them to consider. But we’re pushing the commencement date out. We’ll give those companies enough time to get to the point where they can meet that minimum stockholding. It’ll be tight—that’s what they’ve told us—so we hope that that’s enough time.

There was also the point about the average of over a month, that assessing those stockholding levels at any moment in time, of course, could be below those levels and it would have been nonsensical to not take an average, so that’s been put in the legislation. Of course, the original level—if it was just taken as the legislation was written—would be quite unfair given the long lead times that these fuel orders come in on. Obviously they don’t just call up for a shipment to be delivered next week. There are quite long timelines; they come from Singapore mostly. So it’s at least a week—it might be two weeks actually—sailing from Singapore to get here. So those sort of lead times have to be taken into account.

There are, I think, the minimum penalties—there was a penalty in the proposed section 65, which was potentially $500,000 for individuals. We thought that was unfair for individuals, so that’s been lowered to $100,000. You know, these people are not going to go out and deliberately breach these rules, but if they do breach the rules, we didn’t think $500,000 was a fair level so we’ve brought that back to 100,000.

We also—how individual companies could move their fuel around in terms of their obligations; we discussed that at great length. There was quite a long discussion about the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) because shipments inside the EEZ are counted as stockholdings here in New Zealand and shipments are moving around. That’s one advantage, in fact, with Marsden Point closing: we no longer have a single point of failure in theory—we do for jet fuel, probably, because of the issue with the pipeline and all of our fuel going down to the airport that way. But now, the shipments are coming down through different ports; the ships are dropping off at different locations. So we’re getting more frequent shipments of fuel than we had before, albeit I don’t believe Marsden Point should have closed. I’m not for a moment supporting that at all.

But I think this bill is in good a shape as we could get it in the time that was allowed. I’d like to thank all of the submitters who helped this process go as smoothly as possible, and my fellow select committee members who—we had a very collegial go at this bill and I think we’ve knocked it into as good a shape as possible. Thank you.

NAISI CHEN (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I just never thought that I would start a Government bill speech saying I congratulate the Opposition for seeing the light—their own journey on the road to Damascus and coming back and supporting this bill. It’s an absolute joy to have heard that today; just a pity we couldn’t have passed the select committee report in unanimous agreement, but I’m still extremely pleased. And I just want to start on that note and thank my select committee, the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee, and especially my deputy chairperson, Glen Bennett, for chairing most of the submissions. A lot of the timekeeping falls on Glen’s head as well with the submissions, because I had been actually with the tourism Minister in China at that time. So yeah, it’s been a really great process for us to come into conversations with lots of the industries, including the airlines, including different airports. I had been able to catch up with them at different occasions and they had all thoroughly enjoyed the process of the select committee submissions, but also some really important conversations about a critical infrastructure and critical supply to our fuel industry.

This is setting a floor to how much we need to reserve in our country. Can I just put on record that the Marsden Point refinery was closed down because of commercial reasons and it was by a private company, and if the Opposition is willing to commit to use taxpayers’ money to go fund a public oil refinery, I think that would set some sort of historical record as well. But it’s also great to be able to talk and agree on saying that our country definitely needs to have that reassurance, especially, as the last speaker, Stuart Smith, has just talked about, in cases of emergency such as in Christchurch, and talking about the diesel.

We have lifted the floor—well, we will be through this legislation—on all types of fuel, whether it’s petrol, jet fuel, or diesel. So saying that just because diesel is comparatively lower to the other types of fuel doesn’t actually mean that it’s not enough or doesn’t set the required standards for diesel; it’s just the comparative standard. So during Christchurch and the situation that happened, that was because there was no floor—it was lower than the standard we had already set at. So it’s always being able to look across the whole entire economy—all of our communities and needs—to set that floor for different types of fuels.

I just wanted to also touch on the fact that there has been discretion given—when we talk about situations of emergency—to the Minister to consider when people are not able to comply with their obligations, what types of concessions can the Minister give, and that is to be able to give flexibility to the situations that we’ve been in. But overall, like I said, once again, it is a balance across all different competing criterias we have to weigh up. Finally, I just wanted to say that as the world is changing, as different types of energy are changing, this is a bill that will protect the interests of New Zealand, putting the needs of New Zealand at the forefront. So that is why I commend this bill to the House.

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I rise to speak on the Fuel Industry (Improving Fuel Resilience) Amendment Bill. It’s one that National supports, although there are some concerns from the National Party at the speed with which this is progressing through Parliament. We note that the bill was introduced as recently as June and gave the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee just two months to report back, allowing stakeholders only two weeks to submit their views which is a very short time line considering that the Marsden Point oil refinery closed a bit over 15 months ago. So we do have some concerns that they didn’t provide adequate time for stakeholders and the public to share their views on what is a significant piece of legislation for New Zealand’s fuel market.

There’s a lot of discussion, obviously, around fossil fuels and alternative fuels, etc. but the reality is we still require fossil fuels, there is no alternative—for example, for jet fuels—at this point that’s financially realistic. And so we are going to need these and that’s why we have this bill here today recognising that these fuels are critical for New Zealand’s export economy, for our connection to the world, and for the ability for us to send things to the rest of the world and for other things that we need from the rest of the world that we can’t produce here to be sent to New Zealand, to keep our planes running, to keep our tractors running, etc. There is an energy transition happening, but there are sectors of the economy which just can’t operate without these fossil fuels.

So this bill will require minimum stockholding obligations calculated on the previous year’s consumption of litres per day. So it’s 28 days consumption of petrol on average, 24 days of consumption for jet fuel on average, and 21 days of consumption for diesel on average. It’s also recognising, I think, that fuel security is, like I said, really important for the economy and the wellbeing, actually, of New Zealand and New Zealanders. There is, unfortunately, some significant geopolitical instability in the globe at the moment that we’ve obviously seen with the war in Europe which would have been unthinkable only a few years ago. But we do need to have security of supply particularly for diesel—only 21 days of consumption of diesel. If we don’t have diesel we don’t have trucks moving around the country taking food around the country to supermarkets, we don’t have tractors out there tilling the soil and getting goods to market etc., etc.

So it is a relatively short time but it’s important that we have this disclosure and we have this understanding of the fuel stocks on hand in New Zealand. Just on the point of this being rushed, it is important that we have a good discussion and a good debate about these issues because they are quite challenging and they are very, very complex. I note, for example, that back in I think it was 2021, the Minister of Finance, I think it was, asked ACC to accelerate its moves to divest from investments in fossil fuels and, obviously, ACC held at that point around 10 percent of Refining NZ’s shares. There was some clarification sought from the Minister about his position in relation to ACC and other Crown-related funds investing in Refining NZ. I don’t believe the Minister wanted to get involved with that. Obviously now Marsden Point oil refinery has closed and we have lost those jobs and those opportunities in Northland, I just think it’s really important that, though we have this goal of carbon zero by 2050 and the steps towards that, that we make sure we do this in a sensible and careful way and that we don’t have unintended consequences along the way. For example, banning gas, when other countries are using gas as a transition fuel to move away from coal—

Glen Bennett: No one’s banning gas.

JOSEPH MOONEY: —and we’ve seen that in New Zealand. For example, we’ve actually been reporting a record amount of Indonesian coal in recent years as opposed to countries, say, Canada, which have been moving very heavily into using gas as a transition fuel, and a lot of investment being put into that and recognising that has a lower carbon component and a lesser impact on the climate than coal does.

So as a country we need to have ambitious goals but we also need to be very careful about how we progress towards them and that we don’t send ourselves backwards along the track and, unfortunately, I think we actually have done that in the last few years with using more coal. Because, fundamentally, we need to keep the lights on, we need to keep people warm, we need to keep our economy moving and so we do need to have some good discussion and debate around these issues. That’s why it is disappointing that more time wasn’t given for stakeholders to have more input into this bill so we can make sure we have all relevant information before Parliament as we take this important piece of legislation through the House. But with that, like I said, we do nevertheless support this bill, and do on that basis commend it to the House.

GLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth): I’m really glad that the National Party is supporting this legislation, and, as has been spoken about already, there has been a good debate within our select committee, and I was happily able to chair part of it as the deputy chair. Often it’s around quality, not quantity, and so the 11 submissions and then eight oral submissions that were presented, in a timely fashion, were good, robust conversation. As has been mentioned by Minister Henare, there was some good debate and some good changes made during that process to ensure that this has come back to Parliament all the better, and for the future. That was around the commencement date, the calculation method which had been debated and many in the industry talked about that and the pecuniary penalties and the enforceable undertakings and exemptions.

It’s always nice when you have a piece of legislation when it’s really clear in the title of the bill, and the fact that it is improving fuel resilience, which is in the title; this is what this is about and it’s important. Last night I was at an event and met one of the executives from Air New Zealand, and the first question they asked me was: have we passed this bill yet? And they are really, really interested to ensure—and they submitted on it—to make sure we get this through. Because, obviously, for them it’s business, for them as a key stakeholder in New Zealand, as a key stakeholder in the regions like Taranaki. We need to ensure that resilience is there for our jet fuel, for our petrol, for our diesel, to make sure that we have resilience into the future, no matter what happens and what moves forward.

So it is really simple. I’m encouraged that across the floor we have support this morning for this, and it means that we can continue to move on and make sure that the Fuel Industry (Improving Fuel Resilience) Amendment Bill is able to take force, and I commend it to the House.

SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. This bill is attempting to solve a problem that is a genuine problem that needs to be addressed. That is the issue of resilience in New Zealand’s fuel supply and fuel infrastructure. Why is it a problem? Well, according to some, it’s because the Marsden Point oil refinery closed. Another reason given why New Zealand’s access to liquid fuels is at risk is because the Ukraine war disrupted supplies, primarily from the world’s biggest gas station, Russia. But, let’s be honest, the major disruptor to fuel resilience and to a supply of affordable energy in New Zealand has been this Labour Government with its terrible policies, banning oil and gas exploration and forcing regulations and costs onto businesses that are simply trying to make products that are affordable for consumers, that want to hire workers, expand their facilities, manufacture and export to the world, and deliver better economic and social outcomes for New Zealanders.

Well, it’s their resilience that is at risk from this Labour Government, and this bill doesn’t address that. In fact, it increases costs to consumers, increases the risk that some businesses might choose not to invest further in New Zealand because they’re unsure about the regulatory environment that they would experience here. And for that reason, ACT won’t support this bill, but we do have some suggestions as to how to improve fuel resilience.

So what does resilience mean? Well, if you live on the West Coast of the South Island, or if you live in Wellington and there’s a major earthquake—I’m talking “the big one”: the Alpine Fault letting go, or a magnitude 8 earthquake on the Wellington Fault or the Wairarapa Fault; the kinds of events that absolutely annihilate cities and destroy infrastructure in a way that can take decades to rebuild. Ask the people of Christchurch what that was like, and that was only a 7-point-something. The Alpine Fault’s going to deliver something between an 8 and a 10 magnitude earthquake.

What does resilience mean to communities affected by that? Well, what it would mean is that there is infrastructure that is built to be resilient: roads, ports, additional lifeline routes. Transmission Gully into Wellington is a great example: before that was built, Wellington only had State Highway 2 over the Remutakas or State Highway 1 through Kāpiti Coast. Resilience or fuel resilience can simply mean the tankers can get through, the trucks can get through. It doesn’t necessarily mean building a whole lot of storage tanks or forcing the private sector to build a whole lot of storage tanks to store a couple of extra days’ supply of diesel or petrol. That’s nonsensical, because if the roads are broken and the port is devastated from an earthquake, it doesn’t matter that you’ve got a tank of petrol or diesel somewhere else in the country. It won’t be able to get to the people who need it.

What about industrial action? Well, if there’s one thing this Labour Government has ensured with its fair pay agreements, we’re bound to get more industrial action unless we can turf this Government out in October. Isn’t that right, Mr Baillie? Isn’t that right? We’re bound to get more union blockades at ports. No doubt there’ll be climate-worried unionists wanting to blockade fuel terminals—

Simeon Brown: Or glue themselves to the water!

SIMON COURT: —or disrupt shipments, or, as Mr Simeon Brown said, maybe even glue themselves to the road in the path of fuel tankers.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Order! The member will come back to this bill instead of pontificating and saying what might happen.

SIMON COURT: I mean, to describe my offer as pontificating is to deify me in a way that no one else would, but thank you, Madam Speaker.

Industrial action is a risk of fuel resilience, and then, of course, fuel quality: shipments of fuel coming to New Zealand which don’t meet the quality standard. If you put dirty aviation fuel into a plane, that could cause a massive risk to passengers and freight. If you put dirty diesel into a truck, that could stop your truck on the side of the road, cause you the loss of a couple of days’ business.

The problem that most people face is when they go to fill up with gas, if they’re not paying close attention, instead of putting diesel in the ute, they put petrol or vice versa—that’s the typical quality issue New Zealanders have to face. But let’s be honest, even without Marsden Point oil refinery, there are a whole series of refineries on the East Coast of Australia, two to three days’ sail away, that can take off-spec product out of New Zealand, return it to the refinery it was supplied from in Australia, probably get them to redo the batch—at their own cost, if they’ve supplied us with faulty product—then we get it back and we’re good to go.

Well, that brings me to the issue at hand: fuel resilience, the minimum stockholding obligation. This bill will require fuel companies to build tankage, to build pipe networks, to build bunded containment facilities, to fence them off, to provide fire protection systems and groundwater monitoring systems for a very long time to come. Because you don’t just build a fuel storage tank, put 30, 50 thousand tonnes of fuel in it, and then say job done, walk away, we’ll just send the tankers every few days. That requires constant monitoring, constant oversight, groundwater testing, air emissions testing. The obligation is not for a bit more diesel in a tank, it’s for a whole lot of cost and red tape on industry out, potentially, decades into the future.

And then we come to the next problem. Apparently this Government believes there’s a climate emergency and that climate was a nuclear-free moment for a former Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern, and her Labour Party. And yet here we have a Labour Government bill insisting on building more fuel storage around New Zealand. Apparently we’re still going to need petrol and diesel into the future—who knew?

Well, belatedly, Minister Megan Woods introduced this bill, gave the select committee two weeks to hear submissions on a matter that anyone in the industry, anyone in the transport industry depending on fuel, could have said we will always be reliant on liquid fuels until there is something cost effective to replace them. So, two different policy directions: save us from climate change by getting rid of fossil fuels; oh, by the way, could you please build more fuel storage for fossil fuels because we’re going to need them a lot longer.

Completely incoherent policy approach, and that is why New Zealand, after six years, is begging for a change of Government, having practical people with policy solutions that actually make it more affordable to live and work in New Zealand, to set up and do business in New Zealand. That’s what people are asking for. That’s what ACT MPs are hearing when we go around the country. And they’re also asking for some certainty and security about their energy supplies.

So what would ACT do? Well, we listen to the industry: the people who import fuel, the people who store fuel, the people who supply fuel—not just to the retail service stations where I might take my Subaru and fill up with the highest octane I can get on any given day, but the people who supply fuel to all the trucking companies, to the telecommunications companies that depend on having diesel for generators to keep the telco networks up and running in the event of a loss of electricity or a loss of service.

And what they told us was this: “Simon, there are a whole lot of refineries on the east coast of Australia, a few days’ sail away. There are ships constantly crossing the Tasman, loaded up with aviation fuel, with diesel and petrol. We rely on Australia. They are our only formal ally as nation states. New Zealand and Australia have a closer economic relations agreement. If we can’t rely on Australian suppliers to supply us with petrol and diesel, who could we rely on? And if there needs to be a minimum stockholding obligation, well, could you please let us count the ships that are actually in the Tasman heading here? Because unless something goes terribly wrong, they’re not likely to get lost travelling between the east coast of Australia and New Zealand. We’d like to be able to count that fuel on the seas is part of the obligation. We think that’s practical. We won’t need to build any tankage.”

The ACT Party would concur with that. It comes at no cost to the taxpayer, no cost to the consumer; no extra infrastructure needs to be built; no extra bureaucracy and monitoring and regulatory compliance for new equipment; no risk of stranded assets and stranded capital—another issue that suppliers of fuel are worried about. It’s a very simple and elegant solution. It doesn’t even require this Government to pass a law. That’s what ACT would accept. That’s what New Zealanders need: no or low-cost fuel security delivered by the private sector, market-based solutions. That’s what ACT stands for and we look forward to delivering all of that.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Tēnā koe e te Whare. The Green Party is supporting this bill, the Fuel Industry (Improving Fuel Resilience) Amendment Bill. It is prudent to have measures in place to ensure that we have that resilience, given the dependence of our transport system and economy on petrol and diesel for the time being. Of course, the singlebiggest action we could take to improve resilience—and the single-biggest threat that we are facing is dangerous climate change from greenhouse gas emissions. And people who don’t acknowledge that—you have to wonder what they’re paying attention to, because we’ve had the highest temperatures in recorded history, in over 10,000 years, in the last summer in the Northern Hemisphere. We’ve had horrific, severe rainfall events and cyclones hitting New Zealand already. The longer we take to stop fossil-fuel use, stop adding to that dangerous greenhouse pollution to the atmosphere, the worse it’s going to be. And there’s no adaptation after a certain point. So, while there are a bunch of vested interests who seem to want to make a few more dollars in the interim, before the Earth becomes uninhabitable, we have to stop listening to them and organise to support life on Earth and the future for our kids and their grandkids.

And we can do that, because shifting to electrification of transport and our entire economy is nothing but upside for New Zealand. It’s cleaner air. It’s more resilience. It’s cheaper cost to move people and goods. You know, we’ve got abundant sun and wind energy that could be fuelling everything we do, and it’s just all upside: creates jobs, better health. It’s kind of astonishing to me that everyone in New Zealand isn’t in agreement about the need to rapidly electrify as quickly as possible—other than people have been very confused by the amount of money that was put into lobbying by the fossil fuel industry to delay this sort of action, because they make more money from the status quo while the planet gets trashed and people’s lives are worse. So, yeah, we support this bill—it’s fine—but let’s see some real action on the real, imminent, clear and present danger and seize the opportunity of electrification and energy efficiency here in Aotearoa. That will give us energy independence, make our people healthier and happier, and reduce costs. The most effective thing we could do to reduce inflation is to shift away from petrol and diesel and shift to clean, renewable electricity generated right here in our country. People need to vote Green, I guess, if they want that.

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Labour—Mt Roskill): I’m very pleased to stand and commend the Fuel Industry (Improving Fuel Resilience) Amendment Bill on this reading in the House. I also did enjoy the clarity of thought and intent in the ACT Party’s presentation on this bill and the commendable level of honesty—that, effectively, their policy in this important strategic area is to freeload off Australia.

Now, there are two points of interest that the House might like to be aware of here. Firstly, Australia has a minimum stockholding obligation and, in fact, that minimum stockholding obligation is shortly to increase—24 days is going to 27 days for petrol, going from 20 to 32 days for diesel, and going from 24 days to 27 days for jet fuel in 2024.

The member who spoke for the ACT Party also displays an astonishing degree of naivety. His argument appeared to be that if New Zealand ever gets in shtook because of global supply chain factors restricting our access to critical fuel, which is important for our economy, for our society, for jobs and all of the rest of it, the Australians will just step in and help out. These are the blokes who bowled an underarm to the New Zealand cricket team, whose NRL refs every week try and do over the Warriors, to little effect at the moment. And in the event of global supply chain shocks, the Australian Government and the Australian people quite rightly will focus on making sure that they have security of supply in their own country.

It is incumbent on this Government and this House to make sure that we look after New Zealand by having prudent measures in place. That is what this bill does. This is a very standard and orthodox approach to making sure that we have sufficient stockholdings in place. Most developed countries have it around the world. COVID-19 and the supply-chain shocks that occurred during that period really did relay and bring home the importance of prudence in this area.

Supply chains are under stress in what is a challenging international and global environment. There are many things that could create those stresses again, and it is critical that we have these sorts of economic cushions in place to make sure that our supply chains do keep supplied with fuel. Most of the House recognises this, and the ACT member’s speech was a good reminder of the dangers of having an extremist and highly ideological ACT party anywhere near the Treasury benches. I commend this bill to the House.

MELISSA LEE (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise and—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: A five-minute call—I’m sorry.

MELISSA LEE: Ha, ha! I knew that. It’s a pleasure to rise and participate in the debate on the Fuel Industry (Improving Fuel Resilience) Amendment Bill. I think having resilience in our fuel industry is actually really important, considering the fact that—first of all, I’ll say that the National Party supports this bill. I know that some members opposite have raised issues as to why we did not actually support the report back from the select committee. I’ll answer that.

We have a serious concern in terms of process as to how quickly the bill—after having actually been introduced in June, the select committee only literally had two months to report this back. And that means the stakeholders literally only had two weeks to actually get their act together, make submissions for this to happen. I know that Glen Bennett, who chaired most of it, mentioned that he wanted quality not quantity. I think that’s precisely the problem that we actually see. Rushed quality is not always good quality, Mr Bennett, and I think that was the concern. But having said that, I have to say Naisi Chen’s timekeeping must have rubbed off on you as you were very diligent in your timekeeping and actually kept us in check.

I think one of the issues that Stuart Smith, my colleague, elaborated on for the select committee process was that because it was rushed and we didn’t have a lot of time and we knew that there were things that we couldn’t really sort of delve into and have a deeper conversation and have had more submissions from the sector—but I think where this bill has actually come to, providing resilience, to actually have onshore stockholding for fuel for all petrol, jet fuel, and diesel and having a minimum average stockholding, is a good one. And the reason is that, for example, in the jet fuel industry with Marsden Point closing, we actually have had a bad shipment of jet fuel that arrived in the country in a space of a year. That actually meant that they had to ration fuel, which meant there were disruptions in our flights.

That is rather a difficult situation for us to be in, considering the fact that New Zealand does in fact not only have domestic planes, but we also have international visitors who couldn’t rely on the jet fuel to be the right quality. Earlier, I think, one of the speakers mentioned about having to fly with a heavier load of fuel on the plane, which is actually an extra cost for them and actually having to land in a midpoint to refuel, which is also extra added cost to the industry and the airline industry.

The Green member talked about the environmental concerns. I think we are all aware of that. While we are starting to rely more on electric vehicles and decarbonising away from fossil fuels, we still have industries where they do rely on fossil fuels. And we need to actually keep the New Zealand economy moving, making sure that things—our food and stock—are in fact delivered to the destination. They do rely on fossil fuel, and having a resilient stockholding would actually mean that they can actually go about their business, not worrying about having a contingency plan should there be a bad stock of fuel that is arriving, like we actually had with the jet fuel industry.

Some of the recommendations from the select committee which the Minister earlier talked about—one of the things that I’m particularly proud of is the penalties in relation to individuals, because often some of the actions that they were actually wanting to penalise may not necessarily have been their own in terms of wanting to be a bad actor. Sometimes it’s the exceptional circumstances that they are in that actually put them in a situation where they may not be meeting the required obligations. I think that is actually a good move, and delaying the start date when this bill comes into action—instead of April 2024, we actually start in January 2025—is something that I really support.

And on that note, Mr Speaker, I’ve run out of my time and I commend this bill to the House.

SHANAN HALBERT (Labour—Northcote): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s my privilege to speak on the Fuel Industry (Improving Fuel Resilience) Amendment Bill, and acknowledging the contributions of the House this morning. This bill, the fuel industry amendment bill, boosts New Zealand’s fuel supply, resilience, and economic security by ensuring there is sufficient fuel supply to weather any major disruptions.

There were 11 submissions that were made on this particular bill—eight additional submissions that were made orally—and just acknowledging, I guess, the discussion in the House this morning that some members did feel that there was a bit of pressure, and also acknowledgment of the chair, Naisi Chen, in her well-managed facilitation and timekeeping of those submissions throughout the process, albeit it was condensed, and well managed quickly.

This is an important bill that we do want to proceed with, and, of course, there is acknowledgment that there are a number of proposed changes to this bill that have been recommended by the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee, one of which is to amend the proposed clause 2(1) to bring the information disclosure and minimum fuel stockholding obligation (MSO) provisions into force on specific dates. The information disclosure provisions would come into force on 1 July 2024 and MSO provisions on 1 January 2025.

There are a number of proposed changes, albeit the well-managed time facilitation, “getting things done” approach of this Government, and I commend the bill to the House.

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): Not only has there been the experience in New Zealand of the aviation fuel mini-crisis, if you like, that has been alluded to this morning, but recently I was at an event I hosted where the EU spoke about lessons learned from the war in Ukraine, and a really, really big factor in that was about access to fuel, the absolute importance to be able to have access to keep the economy running.

I sat on the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee at the time when submissions were being made, and there was a question about whether fuel could be held in ships that kind of went around the coast of New Zealand. We heard very clearly that the nature of fuel is such that even if it tests OK out on those ships, by the time it gets to shore it can be contaminated, with catastrophic consequences, so that wasn’t an option.

Simon Court mentioned the fact that ports and roads and other elements also play a part in fuel resilience, and while that is true, if there is no fuel to start with then that point becomes moot, so I’m not sure where his argument was going. He also said that he listens to the industry. Well, that’s great, but on this side of the House we listen to New Zealanders, and one thing that’s really clear to us is New Zealanders value our self-determination. The last thing we want to do, as the Hon Michael Wood said, is be totally dependent on Australia, and naively so, being at the mercy of what the free market ideology that Simon Court is proposing might throw up, whether it is outrageous fuel prices or, if that was not possible in a regulated market, some kind of beholdenness to Australia—absolutely outrageous. I hope there are no Australian media watching who are going to suggest that we would try and pull this on them.

This is a rational and pragmatic bill. There’s also a sense of urgency to it, because COVID has taught us that we do need to be prepared, and that’s why we need to get this done. I commend the bill to the House.

SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to take a call on the Fuel Industry (Improving Fuel Resilience) Amendment Bill. As has been mentioned, the National Party of course supports this bill, which will help to secure our resilience for fuel stocks in the case of global events which risk the fuel supply in New Zealand. I have been really enjoying listening to members on the other side of the House talking about how important fuel is to our economy and how important it is that we can fuel our cars and our trucks and our planes so that we can keep the engine room of our economy moving. What we often hear from the other side of this House is that we need to stop driving, stop flying, and stop using trucks.

Of course, the irony of it is that this is a Government which, when they first came to office, banned oil and gas exploration here in New Zealand. How things have changed and the Government has changed its approach, and here we are now finally talking about how we can actually secure resilience in the supply of oil and gas and petrol, diesel, and jet fuel here in New Zealand, which is, of course, critically important to our country. So, whilst we have raised concerns about the rushed process that this Government has put to this piece of legislation—there are, of course, regulatory impacts which should have been given more time and consideration by the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee, allowing for the industry who are impacted to be able to work that through—we do, of course, commend this bill to the House. Thank you very much.

Hon POTO WILLIAMS (Labour—Christchurch East): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Just a few comments to make on this piece of legislation as it passes through the House today. Primarily, it is about Governments doing what all Governments do, and that is put backstops in where they are needed. This is about ensuring resiliency in an area where everyone in this country is impacted if we are unable to ensure not only supply of fuel but appropriate quality of fuel—it does have huge impacts for our industry, for mums and dads around the country. So this is about doing what Governments should do, which is building resiliency into the system.

Obviously, as there’s broad support across the House, no one is disputing that. Also, no one is disputing that we are in uncertain times, and unless we are able to do what we need to do to provide resiliency in this part of our economy and in this part of the sector in our industry, we would throw ourselves, as a nation, into huge disruption if there were disruptions to fuel and to the quality of fuel. So, in that vein, and not wanting to hold the passage of this bill up any further, I commend the bill to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Fuel Industry (Improving Fuel Resilience) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

Ayes 104

New Zealand Labour 62; New Zealand National 29; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Te Paati Māori 2; Kerekere; Whaitiri.

Noes 10

ACT New Zealand 10.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Voting

Taxation Principles Reporting Bill—Correction, Leave Declined

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’ve been made aware of an error in the vote on the Taxation Principles Reporting Bill second reading, where the National Party opposed the amendments recommended by the Finance and Expenditure Committee but the motion that the bill be read a second time was passed on the voices. I seek leave for the vote to be recorded for National as 30 votes opposed on the substantive motion.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is sought to hold a party vote on the Taxation Principles Reporting Bill. Is there any objection?

SHANAN HALBERT (Junior Whip—Labour): Just objection—speaking to that point of order. My understanding is that we would need—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I take it there is objection.

SHANAN HALBERT: Yes.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is objection.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Point of order. I think the member, Mr Halbert, was going to inform the House that a correction of the record in this way is not possible. But actually, the House is the architect of its own destiny, and I think the way in which you put the leave was much better than I had sought it, which was to simply hold a party vote. That’s still within the prerogative of the House, and I just want to make sure that Mr Halbert is aware of that before declining leave.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, what I’ll allow you to do is to ask for leave. Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is.

NICOLE McKEE (ACT): Point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you, Mr Speaker. The ACT Party seeks leave to also amend their vote in the final vote for the Taxation Principles Reporting Bill as well, if we may, please, Mr Speaker.

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

CAMILLA BELICH (Junior Whip—Labour): Point of order. Unfortunately, I wasn’t in the House when the points of order around this first occurred, but my understanding is that my colleague was clarifying to you, Mr Speaker, that because the bill has been decided, a vote can’t be taken but an option might be to record the other parties’ opposition within the Journals. I’m advised that that’s the appropriate way—because the vote has been decided—that this should be dealt with.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I’ll just take some advice on that. Just in relation to the point of order, I’m advised that that is not an option, because there was no party vote. However, since there seems to be a desire to see a way through this, what I’ll do is ask the Hon Michael Woodhouse to put that request again.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): I seek leave for a party vote to be held on the Taxation Principles Reporting Bill second reading.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is there any objection? There is objection.

Bills

Land Transport Management (Regulation of Public Transport) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Minister for Oceans and Fisheries) on behalf of the Minister of Transport: I present a legislative statement on the Land Transport Management (Regulation of Public Transport) Amendment Bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: I move, That the Land Transport Management (Regulation of Public Transport) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

This bill is part of the Government’s commitment to improve public transport in Aotearoa New Zealand and, in turn, strengthen employee welfare and improve environmental and health outcomes. This bill aims to align the framework governing public transport planning and provision with Government objectives through the establishment of the Sustainable Public Transport Framework, or SPTF, addressing issues identified by the PTOM review, which is the Public Transport Operating Model review. The bill does this is several ways, including establishing new governing principles; creating greater flexibility around asset ownership and service provision models; enabling innovation in the types of services that can be provided, including supporting the provision of on-demand public transport services; creating new transparency and planning requirements; and altering and clarifying the regulation of exempt services.

We have already taken important steps to reduce our public transport emissions through requiring that only zero-emission buses are purchased from 2025, and we have provided funding to decarbonise the bus fleet through Budget 2022. Through Budget 2022 and 2023, we have also funded improved bus driver wages and conditions. The SPTF is the next step towards embedding improved workforce and environmental outcomes in the public transport system.

This bill amends the Land Transport Management Act 2003, replacing PTOM with the Sustainable Public Transport Framework. This framework will place workers and public transport users at the heart of public transport procurement, planning, and provision, while retaining successful components of PTOM. It will support workforce recruitment and retention and will prioritise fair and equitable treatment of employees, mode shift, and environmental and health outcomes. It will enable on-demand public transport services and enable public transport authorities to own assets and operate services, allowing tailored solutions for communities and greater service flexibility. New notice requirements for the withdrawal of integral exempt services will provide surety to regional councils and users. It also introduces new transparency and planning requirements, strengthening collaboration between regional councils and operators. Overall, this bill brings us a step closer to delivering positive environmental, social, and public transport specific outcomes.

Thank you to the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, which has done a lot of work on this—so thank you to that select committee—and also thank you to the 54 organisations and individuals who submitted on this bill. The diverse range of expertise shared by these submitters has been integral to getting the bill to this stage today.

The recommendations made by the committee are supported, and I will touch briefly on several changes to the bill. The first change removes the automatic exemption for inter-regional services. This change was among the most advocated for changes by submitters. It amends the treatment of inter-regional services, making it so they are treated the same as services within a region. With this change, inter-regional services will only be exempt if they are not identified as integral and they operate without subsidy. This change reflects the inter-regional services that are already a critical part of the public transport system, and it makes it clear that there should be collaboration across regional boundaries to plan and deliver these services.

I also note that a transitional provision has been included to ensure this change does not affect funding arrangements for existing subsidised but exempt inter-regional services. This will prevent current services from being negatively impacted and will provide more flexibility for regional councils.

The second change clarifies which exempt services do not need to be registered, limited to certain unscheduled services and shuttle services. This is necessary to ensure scheduled public transport services continue to be registered, enabling continued regional council oversight of the public transport system.

A third change will ensure sufficient regional council funding is available before the Minister recommends the removal of a service exemption. We agree with the committee that consideration needs to be given to regional councils’ ability to fund services if an exemption is removed.

Changes have been made to the guiding principles. Specific mention of supporting equitable access and coordination of public transport services with land use have been included. It makes sense that these two vital components of an effective public transport system are directly mentioned.

Following feedback from submitters, the committee has recommended a sensible clarification to the transparency requirements. The change clarifies that if information is requested, it does not need to be disclosed by a regional council or Waka Kotahi if there are grounds to withhold it under other relevant legislation. This ensures improved transparency between operators, regional councils, and Waka Kotahi, while protecting commercially sensitive information.

Finally, the committee recommended changes to regional public transport plan—or RPTP—requirements. Changes to RPTP requirements will ensure consistency with the guiding principles. Removing commercially and competition-based requirements reflects the shift towards a more holistic approach to public transport provision. Meanwhile, requiring regional council consideration of public transport worker and representative union views when preparing RPTPs supports a fair and equitable workforce treatment.

Again, thank you to the select committee and to all those who submitted on the bill. We would always like to acknowledge your participation in the democratic process.

This bill is another milestone in the Government’s emissions reduction plan. The establishment of the Sustainable Public Transport Framework, which will replace PTOM, is necessary to lay the foundations to achieve emissions reductions through mode shift and decarbonising public transport. The reforms also address systematic issues in the sector and improve the regulation of public transport services. I commend the Land Transport Management (Regulation of Public Transport) Amendment Bill to this House.

SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to take a call on the Land Transport Management (Regulation of Public Transport) Amendment Bill which the National Party continues to oppose. We oppose this legislation because this is an example of more central planning and control of public transport services in New Zealand by a Government, without actually having a plan on how it is going to achieve better public transport. And, in fact, this piece of legislation, in my opinion, is going to put things backward because what it does is it, effectively, takes away the key requirements for operating a public transport service—that it must be done in a commercial way where it goes through competitive tenders and where we know that there is good value for taxpayers money coming through that process.

What this legislation does is it, effectively, puts in place a whole new regime which dramatically changes that approach which has been in place. The Government stands up and says, “Well, we need to change the system because, effectively, what we’ve had is we’ve had low use of public transport in recent years and we need to therefore throw everything out.” Well, I wanted to put it straight on the record: this Government is responsible for the reasons why we have such poor patronage on our public transport network at this stage. And it is the former Minister of Transport who put this bill to the House, who was also the Minister of Immigration, who took 12 months too long to make sure that there would be enough bus drivers available to actually operate our public transport networks in New Zealand. And so this Government says, “Well, it’s all about wages and it’s all about emissions and it’s all about frequency.” Well, actually, what they failed to think about was: how do we make sure we’ve got enough bus drivers in the country to be able to actually operate the public transport network? It’s even worse for our ferry services, where they have to wait even longer because of how long it’s taken for the Government to actually change the immigration settings to be able to get ferry workers to be able to operate ferry services in New Zealand.

So we listened to officials throughout the process when this was before the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, and the question that was for me most interesting was the question around whether those issues that the Government said needed to be fixed could have been negotiated through the Public Transport Operating Model. The question around whether you could negotiate that the services that were operated by public transport operators had to be using, for example, electric buses—well, yes; the answer was yes, you could include that as a requirement in the tendering process. Could you describe, in the tendering process, particular pay and conditions? The answer was yes. Could you put in place particular minimums of frequency? The answer was yes. And so all of the issues that the Government says needed to be fixed could all be managed through the tendering process under the Public Transport Operating Model legislation as it exists today, and does not require the Government to be passing new legislation.

But in the meantime, what this legislation is doing is then taking things a step further. They are throwing out some of the key principles around how public transport operations should be undertaken in New Zealand and changing those principles dramatically. For example, one of the principles which is being removed is: “The incentives should exist to reduce reliance on public subsidies to cover the cost of providing public transport services.” Making sure that public transport services are operating efficiently—no longer a requirement. We went through this at select committee. In terms of the new principles they have a new principle which says the investment needs to be efficient, but then the following clause says, “providing public transport services assists in furthering the principles … (a) to (d)”, and of course efficiency comes under (e). So it’s no longer required to actually be considered as part of making sure that taxpayers’ money, when it’s being put towards public transport, is actually operating in an efficient manner.

There are, of course, further changes which this bill does which came up through select committee, and there are a number of submitters who raised concerns around this, but the bill allows for in-house provision of public transport servicing with no tendering process required. The regulatory impact statement revealed that the Ministry of Transport had a differing preferred option to the Minister regarding this particular point—basically said it’s not going to work in terms of achieving better outcomes for public transport users. But no, the Government ignored that advice and instead has decided that public transport operators should be able to operate public transport services in-house, without a tendering process, which effectively means we’re going to go back to the bad old days where public transport effectively operates within an opaque—no one really knows how it’s being funded and there will be no real clear measures and outcomes put in place. And that is going to be something which I don’t think is going to deliver better public transport services for New Zealanders.

As I discussed, the issue around bus driver wages, that issue can already be resolved through the negotiation process and the tendering process. It didn’t require a legislative change to actually address that. But I think the biggest issue really comes down to the fact that this Government is now saying to regional councils that instead of going out there and tendering, instead of having to go through a competitive process to operate a public transport service, making sure that the ratepayer and the taxpayer are getting good value for money, that the outcomes that are being required through that tendering process are being robustly tested against what the market can provide, instead of that approach being taken to public transport operation in New Zealand, what this legislation says, effectively, is that the regional transport operators—regional councils—will, effectively, be able to just decide to run that in-house. They’ll own it, they’ll run it, they’ll operate it and I can tell you what, it will not work in New Zealand and things will go backwards, mark my words on that.

And so the National Party continues to oppose this piece of legislation. We share the concerns around what a number of players in the industry raised, that competition creates efficiency and removing that competition removes that efficiency and ultimately means that taxpayers and ratepayers don’t get the value for money and don’t get the service delivery. If we’re going to achieve the increased patronage which we all aspire for our public transport operations, if we’re going to get more people using buses and trains and ferries, it’s not going to work if you operate an inefficient service run in-house by a council. It needs to go through a competitive process and that is exactly what this legislation ultimately overturns.

So the National Party thanks those who submitted on this piece of legislation and the process that this went through via the select committee. We have not been convinced of the need for change through this legislation and we continue to oppose this bill.

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

SHANAN HALBERT (Labour—Northcote): Thank you, Mr Speaker. There it goes again: when it comes to getting on top of our transport challenges in this country, in particular in our largest city, the National Party is going backwards. They offer no help, no forward-thinking; no solutions about actually how we’re going to tackle congestion and reduce emissions. They think by doing the same old thing it’s going to get a better result—it’s simply not. When we look at the workforce shortages, absolutely, the pandemic has contributed to the challenges that are in front of us—but naively, the National Party thinks that if we just let everyone in, that would solve our problems. It fails to actually acknowledge that not only was it the pandemic that impacted on our workforce shortages, but actually the drive to the bottom of how we pay bus drivers and ferry drivers is the number one reason why people leave the profession.

And so it’s this Government, actually—and can I acknowledge the Hon Michael Wood, who did the particular work on changing and putting up actual solutions that are going to change our public transport system. This bill amends the Land Transport Management Act 2003. It will replace the Public Transport Operating Model (PTOM) with the Sustainable Public Transport Framework. This framework will place workers and public transport users at the heart of our public transport system—and procurement in planning and provision while retaining successful components of PTOM. It will support workforce recruitment and workforce retention, and prioritise fair and equitable treatment of employees that work in the sector, mode shift that we desperately need in a growing Tāmakimakaurau, and environmental and health outcomes.

It’s my privilege, always, to be the chair of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee. It’s the role in this House that I value the most, next to being the MP for Northcote, because people in our city in Northcote, and as we know—yes, an announcement this week: 100 percent of our bus shortage issues are back in order, we’ve got our buses working and our drivers in place and being paid fairly because of this Government. We’ve got some more work to do around ferries: I want to put it on the record that I’m very, very disappointed that our ferry services at Birkenhead Wharf and Northcote Point have been cancelled recently; I’ve raised my concerns about that. But this particular bill, of course, is one part of the issues that are in front of us.

This Government is about change. It’s about being bold and brave and actually putting good solutions in place to reduce congestion and to increase our public transport uptake in our largest city. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon DAVID BENNETT (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Well, if that last speaker, Shanan Halbert, meant his final words about Birkenhead and Northcote, he would have seen that Fullers actually opposed the Land Transport Management (Regulation of Public Transport) Amendment Bill. I didn’t see him advocating—

Shanan Halbert: They did because they’ve got a monopoly.

Hon DAVID BENNETT: He says they’ve got a monopoly—he says they’ve got a monopoly. Ha, ha! That’s his view. He comes into this House and has the gall to say that there shouldn’t be closures of certain ferry routes, when he actually opposes the organisation that provides those ferries and does an excellent job in Auckland, as a matter of fact.

Now, I didn’t sit on the Transport and Infrastructure Committee. I have been a member of the committee before but, unfortunately, I was not sitting on the committee this year and didn’t see this bill. But, when you look at it, it is the true lefty approach that Government knows everything. You just have to take one sniff of this bill and you’ll understand the failure of that Government over there and how they’ve ruined this country in six years, and just the destruction they’ve caused because of their ideology. It’s the complete ideology that Government knows best; Government can control everything. If you leave it to Government, all public services will be delivered in the appropriate manner! That’s what this bill does; it takes it away from competition. It takes away the competitive aspect and says councils can do a better job. Well, I don’t know any council that can do a better job. I don’t know any Government that can do a better job. If Government could do a better job, it would be doing it already, and it doesn’t.

When we were in Government—in the last Government—we brought in this concept that there would actually be some sharing of costs and some fair recovery. Now, that was one of the first things the Labour Party got rid of—the idea of fair recovery, of making people actually pay something. The Minister may shake his head, but he knows damn well that they did take away that requirement for fair recovery. We had a 50 percent recovery that we were intending councils to get, and they got rid of that as soon as they got into Government. That was the first step of taking away any competition in the public transport sector, and this is just a final blast, you could say, to really consolidate the power in central government and local government and destroy any competitive pressure or tension that you may have in the market. And it will fail, just like any of the other left-wing ideological things that this Government has done.

Every time they do things like this, it just costs more money. We just have to look at their ideas around public transport in Auckland and how they were going to have this great cycling and walking bridge across the harbour and the millions of dollars that went in consultants—for nothing. Then you look at Let’s Get Wellington Moving. There was an article in the paper this morning about the highest-paid officials in Wellington doing nothing. There’s no actual results. And then the greatest irony of all is that today they’re going to actually announce Cambridge to Piarere and some other roading projects that they cancelled when they got into Government. They were actually funded. They were actually there, funded, and these guys cancelled them—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Right-o, Mr Bennett, now, you’ve had a good 3½ minutes. Let’s have a look at the bill, shall we?

Hon DAVID BENNETT: Yeah, it’s all part of this, because, like I’ve been talking about, public transport and how they have taken an approach that the Government knows best and can do a bit of delivery has been shown to be a failure.

If you look at what they did around that walking and cycling bridge, they said that Government could deliver this better. They couldn’t even get it off the ground. They said that they could deliver light rail in Auckland. They haven’t even got it off the ground. It will be the same in this context. And there’s no ability to have environmentally friendly engagement with transport operators that may be looking at options to undertake better transport methods, to achieve the environmental goals they talk about, because they’re taking away their competition. They’re saying that the regional council will do it and the regional council will be better than the competitive aspect that you see. If anybody looks around New Zealand at the moment, at buses that are using more environmentally conscious sources of energy, they’re coming from the private sector. That’s where they’re coming from. They’re developing them themselves. That’s what’s happening, and to hide behind the environment as the reason for this bill is just another one of the ways that this Government has tried to pull the wool over New Zealanders’ eyes for six years.

New Zealanders are very aware that this has an impact on their daily lives. We can’t just give away free things all the time and say Government will deliver a better result. That has an impact on everyday New Zealanders, has an impact on their interest rates at the moment, is going to have an impact on their job security, and every time this Government steps into this House and says, “We can do it better.”, they’ve failed. The last six years have shown they’ve failed, and we didn’t need to have the last six years. That approach has always failed. You can go back a hundred years and find out that the approach of big government always fails. It’s not a new thing, but they had to go and prove again that it fails, and they have hurt a lot of New Zealanders in the process. This is just another example of big government—government knows best; we can do it better than the private sector; we don’t need competition; we don’t need to have a competitive process; we don’t want the private sector to engage in technologies and solutions that are better for New Zealand! “Let big government do that; we’re much better at it.”

Well, New Zealand has learned another lesson: you don’t trust big government, you don’t trust the Labour Party, you don’t trust an ideology that’s failed for a century, and it will fail in the future again. This piece of legislation is just an example of, and epitomises, the failure of this Government and how they have taken a great experiment with New Zealanders over the last six years. Their experiment was that they knew best and they could solve all the problems, and this experiment has failed. The leader that started the experiment—she left. The Government, which is in tatters now, can’t control anything in the economy. They can’t control their own team. It’s a complete and utter failure, and New Zealanders are paying for it. They’re paying for it at the pump, they’re paying for it in interest rates, and they’re going to pay for it with their jobs. And it’s a shame that New Zealanders had to be taken down that road again, because people used arguments around the environment and such like to try to position themselves for their real ambition, which is what this bill does: that Government will deliver, Government will solve your issues, and Government is the answer. It doesn’t work all the time—and, in public transport, it certainly doesn’t work all the time—and this is a great example.

If it did work, where’s that beautiful bridge for people to walk and cycle across the Auckland harbour? Where’s that beautiful rail network that was going to go in, which hasn’t even got off the ground? Where’s the effectiveness of the transport, Ministers? And why, on their last days, do they have to go out and promise a whole lot of roading projects that they cancelled six years ago because of their agenda and their failed view and experiment for New Zealand? Thank you, Mr Speaker.

HELEN WHITE (Labour): Thank you. I’m going to try and address some of the rant and ramble that I just heard, because it’s a little crazy-making.

Hon Michael Wood: You’ve only got 10 minutes.

HELEN WHITE: What we—that’s true, I have only got 10 minutes. We have an interesting confusion here, because what the Public Transport Operating Model did was it actually prescribed—central government prescribed—that people had to contract out the services, which meant you had to give the money, if you were a local council, to run public transport to the private sector, i.e., Mr Bennett’s mates. You weren’t actually in a position where you could run the service yourself, if it made sense.

Hon David Bennett: Point of order—point of order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Not “you”.

HELEN WHITE: Sorry.

Hon David Bennett: Point of order. I take offence at that comment.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think, David, you’re a robust character. I don’t think there was anything in there to take offence. Carry on.

HELEN WHITE: Sorry, Mr Speaker. So the issue with this bill is it is actually allowing true competition, because the public entity gets to choose, the local body gets to choose, who it is contracting with. It doesn’t have to just look at efficiency; it can look at a whole lot of other factors when it does that.

Now, the problem with running something like a big team of buses or ferries is that it’s really expensive, and so you often end up in a position where you’ve got very little choice if you leave it entirely to the private sector. So we can see that with Fullers ferries: it’s the only show in town, and you’re really stuck with it because you haven’t invested in ferries and competition to it. That is really important, that we break that down, because in Auckland at the moment we have not had great public services. Actually, as a result of focusing on wages of our bus drivers, we have managed to solve that one.

So this is the framework which allows good solid public transport and choice when you are Auckland Transport or you are the Auckland Council—choice about how you do it and actually bringing competition in, not strangling the situation and actually telling people how to do it from central government. So this is the irony, this is the great difference from the speech that we’ve just heard—this is the opposite. This is a Government bill which puts choice back in the hands of local body and allows the build-up of public services.

Now, I have once before spoken about my experience as a lawyer for the bus union. I remember how terrible things were in those times, when bus drivers were just getting so little pay and they had split shifts and they were on minimum wages. The answer to our bus driver shortages is just simply not lower conditions and bringing in migrants to do low-paid work, because guess who pays for that? Those workers pay, but also we all pay, because we have to house those bus drivers in Auckland. Let’s start employing people on decent terms and conditions, and let’s see what can happen as a result. And, lo and behold, what happened this morning? We had an announcement that bus driver shortages are over in Auckland because people are being paid decently.

Let’s move on. Let’s have a framework that works for this country and brings our public transport system up to date. I commend this bill to the House

SIMON COURT (ACT): That was the most remarkable series of assertions from the Labour member, Helen White, about what this bill intends to do, what the benefits are, and what the risks are of not following through. But ACT has a differing view, which was presented in the report back on the Land Transport (Regulation of Public Transport) Amendment Bill, which some people might say is a version of “bus communism” but let’s give the Government the benefit of the doubt.

Hon David Bennett: Socialism.

SIMON COURT: Well, all socialism ends in communism. You know that. So the policy intention is that this bill will achieve the objectives to regulate public transport and to prioritise mode shift—that’s bullying people out of cars and on to public transport, walking, and cycling. Then there’s fair and equitable treatment of employees. Well, imagine that. New Zealand already has laws that require employers to treat their employees fairly, but for some reason the Minister responsible for the bill at the time, the Hon Michael Wood, insisted that fair and equitable treatment of employees be included in a bill about public transport, for goodness’ sake, as well as improved environmental health outcomes.

Public transport serves a vital good. It enables people to get from their place of work to home, from home to school, wherever they are going, in large numbers. It’s meant to be efficient. It’s meant to be delivered in an effective way so it can move the most people in the shortest possible time. Environment and health outcomes should not be in this bill. Environment legislation is covered by the Resource Management Act. Climate legislation is covered by the emissions trading scheme, which puts a price on emissions. Health outcomes are up to the public health agencies. This bill is another example of the incoherent approach to delivering better value for money, more affordable living for New Zealanders. It’s confused, and, frankly, it’s unnecessary. It’s a waste of the committee’s time, and ACT does acknowledge that the officials who contributed to this bill and came to the select committee were doing their best to help committee members understand it, although it’s quite clear that some of those on the Government side of the House still don’t understand it.

This bill enables regional councils to own assets directly by removing the requirement for local authority interests in public transport services to be held in a council controlled organisation. I’m going to read that again—it enables councils to own assets directly. Now, has anyone heard of three waters? The three waters reform, which is a bill that passed yesterday, forces councils to hand over their assets in three waters, and this bill says they should own public transport assets. The incoherence, the confusion, the lack of policy principles is not remarkable; it’s what’s got us to this place in six years.

But Kiwis shouldn’t worry because there’s going to be a general election. ACT has some practical policy solutions to get to you on the bus, get your bus there on time, and get you to work on time or school on time if that’s where you need to go.

What else does the bill do? It requires public transport services to be procured and planned and operated in an open and transparent manner. I would hope to goodness that in New Zealand services procured with taxpayers’ and ratepayers’ funds are procured in an open and transparent manner. Because if they’re not we’d want the Auditor-General to go and have a look at it, wouldn’t we? Wouldn’t we? Oh, no, does this now need to be included in a public transport bill? What else has failed in the last six years?

Simon O’Connor: You don’t have enough time.

SIMON COURT: Oh, I don’t have much time—I’m going to stick to the bill. The bill proposes to encourage greater collaboration between regional councils and territorial authorities. For people listening at home who think that all councils are kind of the same, regional councils typically control regional land transport plans. They have a regional overview—a really important role. Territorial authorities are your city council and your district council, which often provide the infrastructure—for example, the bus stop or the local road the bus travels on. Of course they should collaborate. How on earth is that since the Local Government Act was amended by a former Labour Government to give councils the power of general competency, which means they can do anything, anywhere at any time they like, including competing with the private sector, Helen White, and it isn’t a very good idea, if you want the private sector to be delivering efficient services and to have a fair go, to have local government soaking up its overheads with ratepayers’ funds and going out there and competing unfairly with the private sector.

But imagine greater collaboration between regional and district and city councils. Well, of course that is necessary, but the power of general competence has led to councils becoming less competent at everything. It’s expanding the definition of public transport—and this is the kicker; this is what really tears ACT’s nighty—to clarify the treatment of on-demand public transport services as public transport services. These guys want to patch over Uber. These guys want to use taxpayer and ratepayer funds to subsidise services on demand. I’ve got an app on my phone. If I want on-demand services, I can get them now. It’s absolutely unnecessary, incoherent overreach from a Government that is out of ideas and has failed at everything it’s tried to deliver, including getting the buses to run on time.

So we can assume there are worthwhile benefits from public transport which are shared by the fare-paying passenger and the road operators due to reduced congestion and emissions at peak times, because, of course, if you’re operating a diesel bus, if you’re operating a private motor vehicle that runs on petrol and diesel, you will pay for your emissions under the emissions trading scheme.

So let’s assume there’s an economic model that demonstrates there are worthwhile benefits from public transport, and that’s why it should be delivered as efficiently as possible, so that costs are minimised and benefits are maximised, and the people who pay for it should be the people who benefit from it to a large degree. It’s not clear that this piece of legislation will do that. In fact, it’s much more likely that regional and city councils who want to take on the role of owning the buses and owning all the infrastructure—and remember they’re already cash strapped. Remember that one of the reasons for the three waters reforms is because apparently councils can’t borrow any more money. They’re already cash strapped. So where on earth they’re going to get the money to buy all these buses and build all this infrastructure is unknown.

So let’s assume that it needs to be delivered as efficiently as possible. Well, the people who benefit are the people who get to use the bus. But under this Government’s model, fewer and fewer people are paying the full cost or even a fair share of the cost of public transport. And then you think about all the people on the road who might say, “Well, I would use the bus if it arrived on time and if it was a good service.” And yet what did the former Minister Michael Wood do for the people of West Auckland? He said, “Instead of a northern northwest busway like the one that we built out in the North Shore, you can have bus stops on the side of the motorway at Te Atatū and Lincoln Rd.”

And that former Minister said in a select committee that that’s what good public transport looks like. Now, ACT disagrees. So do the people of West Auckland. That is the most outrageous claim from the former Minister Michael Wood—that bus stops on the side of the motorway represent good public transport. But that’s the vision—bus communism, patching over Uber, and bus stops on the side of the motorway—from a Government that said climate change is a nuclear-free moment and that you should all get out of cars and get on the bus.

Anyway, it’s only a few short weeks to the election. There will be a referendum on the former Minister’s bus stops on the side of the motorway in a few short weeks, and I think the people of West Auckland will vote against them. So what would that do? Well, let’s assume there’s an opportunity to reset expectations. We would say there’s a need for investment in public transport and the transport infrastructure and networks and services in general. Best way to do that? Get the cities and districts to tell central government what they need to deliver for a growing population. Establish 30-year infrastructure plans that lock that in so future politicians can’t come along and say, “You get light rail, you get a bridge.”—that won’t happen under an ACT 30-year infrastructure plan—and lock in the funding and financing, including bringing in billions from the private sector to support the delivery of good public transport and transport infrastructure.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. This is a really good bill. It’s a move in the right direction. I have to start by congratulating the Hon Michael Wood for all the effort that led to this bill finally coming to the House and to the chair of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee and all the members—Shanan Halbert and all the Labour members. I think that we did really good work at the select committee and made further improvements to the bill.

Ultimately, New Zealanders want better public transport. They do. We’ve just seen a poll of New Zealanders which said 72 percent wanted to see the priority as more investment in public transport, rail, and coastal shipping; not new roads. People in New Zealand are crying out for options that don’t force them into using a car for every single trip; spending $8,000 a year, on average, owning and operating a car. They want more people-friendly cities where their kids can have more independence to get around, as we once had. We can do all of that.

Now, the most outrageous thing to me is that the members speaking on the right say they care about economic efficiency and outcomes, and yet they keep proposing failed models that won’t get those outcomes they say they want.

Let’s just have a little bit of history about this bill, how we ended up having to come to this bill. In the 1990s, we had a National Government that forced local councils to sell off bus operations and to privatise the operation of bus services, and that led to the lowest level of public transport use in the history of New Zealand, really, in the mid-1990s. Of course, that’s only just started getting built back up, particularly after the establishment of the Auckland Regional Transport Authority—

Hon Judith Collins: The 1990s! Oh, dear oh dear, 1990s! How could she know?

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: I’ve seen the graph with the data. I mean, I know this is a huge mystery to the National Party, that you could actually look at evidence and data; they just rely on their reckons based on their experience. But I actually look at data, the Hon Judith Collins, and the data shows that public transport was at an absolute low in the 1990s, after being at incredibly high levels in the 1950s when we had electric trams across many of our cities. But, anyway, I digress.

After the establishment of the Auckland Regional Transport Authority, we started to see some improvements to public transport in Auckland. I mean, Wellington, because it had its rail network electrified a long time ago, actually maintained relatively high levels of public transport and had clean electric trolley buses running until 2018—it’s a shame that those got ripped out, and I did my best to stop that.

Before Steven Joyce came in, there was the Public Transport Management Act, which was passed by the Labour-led Government. What’s interesting about that is they brought three options to the House, and there was option one, option two, and option three. Option three gave the regional councils or the public transport authorities the most power to use the data to plan a good public transport network that would serve the people of their communities. Interestingly, Simon Court probably doesn’t know this but Jeanette Fitzsimons called up Rodney Hide and the ACT Party and convinced them that even though they were kind of generally opposed to public transport that if public money was going into public transport, it made sense to get most value for the community out of that public money. That’s why the ACT Party supported option three, which, actually, the Labour Government wasn’t supporting, but option three ended up passing, which was great, and then National got in.

Here’s the thing about National: they can’t seem to differentiate between what is good for private business and what is good for the community and people. That makes it very hard for them because ultimately they think that rich people getting richer, profits being privatised and maximised—that’s what they’re really here for; that’s what they’re here for. They like to say that it will benefit the community, but we know, we have decades of evidence, that that’s not true, and I think the average person on the street knows that, that when the supermarkets are banking $1 million a day in excess profit, that’s not good for people shopping at the supermarket. And when bus operators are making profits—we don’t even know their level of profit—that means people aren’t getting the best value for money out of that investment in public transport services.

So the way we can do public transport better is by enabling more public ownership, particularly of strategic assets, like bus depots. I don’t think there’s a single person on this side of the House that’s been involved in public transport operations, but I can tell you that the strategic location of a bus depot makes it, effectively, a monopoly for one operator, the owner of that bus depot, when bidding for certain contracts, because it would take too long to try to run more buses to that area. Therefore, you don’t actually get competition.

The whole idea of trying to get proper competition of what is a natural monopoly—a public transport network—flies in the face of any economic rationality. But, of course, we do know that the Hon Steven Joyce failed all his economic papers at university and got a degree in zoology, so I guess that’s why he didn’t grasp that concept, and also the concept that it’s difficult to commercialise the benefits of investment in public transport.

The people who benefit the most are not the people riding on those public transport services, it’s not the people operating the public transport services; it is the people who are using the road, who have less congestion because every person on a bus takes up way less room than another car. The major thing that is making it difficult for people to drive around on our roads in cars and trucks is other people in cars. If those people in cars who want to take public transport—and we know a whole bunch of them do—if we provide a frequent, reliable, effective, and affordable service, they will take it, and they always have; they always have. Everywhere we’ve invested in good public transport, like the Northern Busway, which the Green Party advocated for and the National Party opposed; like electrification of Auckland’s rail network, which is how I joined the Green Party and campaigned for that massive success; like the City Rail Link, which I tried to convince the Hon Gerry Brownlee to invest in sooner, and he dragged his heels and eventually the National Government realised they had to do it, but it was five years too late—all of that is successful investment in public transport that benefits everyone, including our climate.

But we are not going to get better public transport through allowing private operators, like Infratil, who owned NZ Bus and flogged off the incredibly strategically important Kilbirnie bus depot, which was originally a public asset; they sold that off, they sold their bus operations to some overseas equities fund—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Who sold it to them? Labour, that’s who.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: No; it was—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: 1989; they did.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: Well, OK. Therefore, the 1980s Labour Government—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Get the history right.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Would that member please desist with the barrage of interjections, the Hon Gerry—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I was just helping.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): No. The member will stand, withdraw, and apologise.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Withdraw and apologise.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: We can all agree that the 1980s and 1990s in New Zealand were a failed experiment in neoliberalism and the idea that the private sector is always better and that allowing private—

Simon Court: No, ACT doesn’t agree. No.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: OK, the ACT Party doesn’t agree with that. They’re in denial about many things, including the reality and threat of climate change and of the failure of neoliberalism to deliver benefits to everyone. That’s why Roger Douglas is denouncing the current ACT Party.

New Zealanders want positive solutions. The reality is: investment in public transport for public good benefits everyone. It benefits the people who use that public transport, it connects our communities, it benefits business, it reduces the fiscal burden on households who have to own as many cars, and it enables more people to move at peak times. So enabling public ownership of strategic assets is long overdue, whether that’s the vehicles themselves or bus depots. It will help us get more efficient services and provide better value to the community for our investment in public transport.

That’s why this bill is a very good bill. I’m very sorry to hear that the National and ACT Parties won’t be supporting it, but I do think it is a lesson for the people at home that if you vote for either of these two parties, you are not going to get practical transport solutions; you’re going to get a failed ideology that cannot understand the concept of public investment for public good, of protecting our environment, our climate, and our health; to understand all of these things are interrelated and we can make better choices that will benefit us now and in the long term.

RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): I love public transport. I think people who know me well know that it’s pretty much all I talk about at the moment. Growing up, before I moved to Auckland, I used to ride my bike to school. Then I moved to Auckland and managed to live there for a few years without owning a car and the same in Wellington. It wasn’t until I moved to wonderful, sunny Nelson that I actually started driving.

At that point, 15 years ago, I identified that we needed better public transport in Nelson, and so I’m delighted that recently we’ve just introduced 17 lovely electric buses, and I just want to acknowledge my predecessor, Nick Smith, who’s seen the light. Nick actually has his bus licence, and I risked my life getting in the bus while he drove it. Apart from a quick little brake—where he possibly stepped on the brake a bit too heavily—we made it home in one piece, I’m pleased to share.

This is an excellent bill because it corrects a wrong with the Public Transport Operating Model that really led to the driving down of wages and conditions for bus drivers and the driving down of investment in public transport. The biggest thing that this bill does is it gives that flexibility around ownership and delivery and allows councils to actually be far more embedded in the delivery of public transport services.

I’m really pleased that we have put this bill in place, because in Nelson, we do have two councils that have oversight of public transport, and they’re delivered by a fantastic local company called SBL; I acknowledge Tim Cumming and his team.

What this bill does is it doesn’t take away the opportunity to run our public transport system that way, but it allows for a lot more flexibility and really focuses on ensuring we’re investing, rather than driving down costs and wages. It’s a fantastic bill, and I commend it to the House.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National): This bill, I think, could be best described as an empty box wrapped up with Christmas paper: looks really good, and you can make wonderful speeches about how marvellous it is, but it fails to recognise the fact that it is totally back to the future. The speech before by the Green member, Julie Anne Genter, should have gone one year back from the history that she was attempting to quote and recognised that it was a Labour Government in 1989 that brought in the reorganisation of local government, and saw the end for numerous transport boards run by local authorities throughout New Zealand. Why did they do that? Because they were a hopelessly inefficient way of providing public transport. And now we have—just these 30 years later where, you know, some changes might be useful—a complete return to what was the norm in the 1980s. Quite unbelievable.

Julie Anne Genter talked about the “failed ideology” of ensuring that there is competition and efficiency in the delivery of services. Well, what is so failed about that concept? The reason why people don’t use public transport in New Zealand in great numbers is because of the lack of reliability of those services. And now, we have a Government that is going to take away some of the requirements about that efficiency and replace it with this set of new requirements: new “principles”, they call them. The first one is: “[a] well-used public transport service reduce[s] … environmental health and health impacts of land transport, including by reducing reliance on single-occupant vehicles and using zero-emission technology”. Everyone knows that; so why does that have to be a principle for the establishment of your public transport? It’s a simple point, and no one is going to argue that point.

But when it comes down to looking at councils, again, owning bus services—then I think there is a problem. And you’d have to ask, why would we encourage local government to take their ratepayers’ money to buy bus services that they already can control through the arrangements that exist right now? And that might have been a place to make some changes because, well, for all the vain hope in the world that it might be possible to get local government, both regional councils and district councils, to discuss these things, to sort out some good routes, etc., etc.,—they don’t do it now. There’s nothing stopping them getting in a room to have a discussion about where those bus routes should go, but they don’t do it. And I know in Christchurch it’s a constant ache for people who want to use bus services, and the idea that we’re going to now have perhaps the Environment Canterbury bus service, and all that investment by those companies who have provided bus services in the city for 30 years is suddenly just going to be set aside.

There is absolutely no gain to any consumer in this particular proposal; not one. There is a whole lot of feel-good stuff in here that ends up just making you wonder why on earth there was so much time invested in all of this. One of the principles here is: “regional councils, territorial authorities, and public transport operators should work together to provide co-ordinated public transport services and associated infrastructure necessary”. Where is the provision in the law that says they must do it, and what is different about what they can do right now? So we’re going from a “can” to a “could”, to a “maybe” and a “would”; and none of this is going to make a blind bit of difference to another person going to a bus stop tomorrow morning, next month, next year—wherever—if there isn’t reliability in that service.

So all this does is creates a whole lot more uncertainty. Why would any one of the current bus operators out there at the moment want to reinvest in their capital stock? Why would they want to buy better buses, why would they want to buy electric buses? What would be the reason for them investing all that extra cash when they know that at the drop of a hat, the local authority can turn around and say “You’re out, we’re taking it all over, it’s all ours”. The member from the Green Party used the term “ideological approach”. This is what this is, and it is a failed ideological approach.

NAISI CHEN (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I just can’t believe that in 2023 we have to explain to the other side why promoting our public transport in our country helps with our environmental and health outcomes. The absolute siloed thinking that we’ve heard from the other side in terms of not recognising that some of the most successful economies in this world have great public transport. And the fact that we are having to look climate change straight in the face, and having to face all of the challenges that we will—and we already have started to at the beginning of this year.

We need a good public transport system that will sustain us into the future, that will help us with emission reduction, and that will make sure the wellbeing of all our people in Aotearoa New Zealand gets looked after. This bill enables it, that’s why I commend this bill to the House.

Dr ANAE NERU LEAVASA (Labour—Takanini): Fa‘afetai lava, Madam Speaker. It is a great honour to take an opportunity to take a brief call on the Land Transport Management (Regulation of Public Transport) Amendment Bill’s second reading.

I just want to, first of all, thank the Ministers, former and present, for their work on this bill, bringing it to the House, and also the awesome Transport and Infrastructure Committee that I got to be a part of this morning as well, led by Shanan Halbert and the team. Also, to the 54 organisations and individuals that presented their submissions during this process, I thank them for their contributions as well.

As part of the Government’s commitment to improve public transport in Aotearoa, like we have heard from my colleagues, this is all strengthening employee welfare and improving environmental and health outcomes.

When it comes to public transport in Takānini, we currently have two consultations happening at the moment. That is the Takānini level crossings, in terms of improving the railway links and the buses that go through the network there and helping improve the efficiency for our passengers. The other one is the southern Frequent Transport Network Routes plan in order to provide the bus networks to get to those vital points in Takānini to improve the service as well.

This bill does several things and I just want to comment on one of them: enabling innovation in the types of services that can be provided, and that’s part of supporting the provision of on-demand public transport services. So in 2021 and 2022 we had Auckland Transport piloting a programme for on-demand services to our people. That was a success, with a couple of our local board chairs commenting on the efficiency that provided to our community members, and that has now been put in place permanently for our community. On-demand services—in innovative ways, and providing those services for our community is the way to go. So I can commend this bill to the House.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Well, thank you, Madam Speaker. Here we are, still in urgency, debating the second reading of the Land Transport Management (Regulation of Public Transport) Amendment Bill. Although out in the real world it’s Thursday afternoon, here in Parliament it’s still Tuesday, and we’ve been debating legislation under urgency. We went through until midnight last night and we started at 9 o’clock this morning because the Government’s shambolic legislative programme is in chaos. They’re trying, in their dying days—in the last, dying, desperate days of this Government—to ram through a range of ideologically driven, “Wellington knows best” legislative changes that surely, as my friend and colleague the Hon Gerry Brownlee noted a speech or two ago, is really nothing more than just back to the future.

And the reason things were changed, back 30 years ago, was because it wasn’t working then and it won’t work now. We have a crazy situation where this Government takes the approach, on so much of what they want to do—in terms of their approach to legislation it’s “Wellington knows best.” Wellington knows best how to operate just about everything, in Labour’s view of the world. And so here we are, this is a piece of legislation that kind of sounds warm and fuzzy, and if you don’t look past the pleasant words and platitudes, it sounds kind of OK. But it’s not until people dig into the detail of it that they will realise that what this piece of legislation does is, effectively, entirely screw private sector public service providers from doing what they do well—what they do best.

I come from the Coromandel and we don’t have a lot of public transport in the Coromandel. In fact, we’ve got a little ferry that goes across the Whitianga Harbour, we’ve got a minibus or two that do a little circuit around Thames, and that’s about it. There are no trains. We don’t have any bus services to speak of. In fact, any that we have that come from the InterCity services, and what have you, have been diminished or reduced. Our roads are continually under threat and are fragile, and the main highway is still closed. So our local government operators in the Coromandel find that this will mean nothing to them. It will mean absolutely nothing to them, but across the country, the potential for screwing the marketplace is very high indeed. So what we’ve got here is more central planning and control of public services by a Government that wants to just foist its ideological approach on the marketplace.

A year or so ago I visited the very nice city of Timaru, and I was pleasantly surprised and amazed to see that they have developed a trial system of something that they call “MyWay on-demand”. Now, in Timaru it used to be that the council contract had arranged for buses to travel on a circuit on a schedule that just literally drove round and round Timaru every day, all day. The vast majority of those buses that travelled on that predetermined schedule of the old type meant that more often than not the buses were either empty or had very few passengers in them. It wasn’t a particularly efficient system. So the Timaru MyWay model actually is quite exciting; it’s an on-demand system that allows people to literally use an app, use technology, use modern innovations, to call up a public transport provider and essentially not use a scheduled programme, repeat cycle, old-fashioned bus schedule, and it seems to be from all accounts working very well. Now, this is currently a model that, as I understand it, is run under the auspices of the council. But if we follow it to its logical conclusion, it effectively could become sort of like an Uber bus service. And there’s no reason why private commercial operators shouldn’t and couldn’t operate something like that that’s innovative, that’s smart, that’s modern, that’s intelligent and, more importantly, efficient and effective in terms of ratepayer investment but is also a really good service for the people who want to use it.

And so here we have a political party that’s determined to take us back to the future, and the future’s not good. The future is looking pretty jolly bleak. There were very good reasons that changes were made to allow the Public Service provision of transport to be contracted out on a transparent, fair, competitive basis to private sector providers. This legislation would change all that, and I want to make it clear that under a re-elected National-led Government that isn’t far away, we’ll ensure that public transport operators continue to be funded in a transparent way with the market-based approach to delivery of public transport operations that has been working so successfully until now—until this Government actually wants to meddle with it.

We in the National Party support public transport. We are very big supporters of public transport, but we don’t want to have a position that is going to be able to, effectively, as the Hon Gerry Brownlee pointed out, put at risk the capital and the investment potential of private sector operators. Because as Gerry Brownlee so correctly and aptly pointed out, why would a private bus investor, a private bus supplier, a transport supplier, invest the hundreds of thousands of dollars required to buy just one modern, electric, low-carbon, climate-friendly bus when they know that there is a potential for the council, maybe just by dint of a changed political philosophy in that council, suddenly saying, “Oh no, no, no, we’re not going to use your services anymore, we’re gonna take it on.” It’s kind of like going back to the old days of the Ministry of Works or something, just literally operating everything from the centre. And so the risk to those investors or those businesses is that they simply won’t invest, they simply won’t allocate capital and that will mean that we end up having a transport fleet, a bus fleet, that is old, that is not particularly carbon friendly, that is not particularly climate efficient and is not modern. And that actually will be a long-term net negative, not only to the people who travel on those buses and those services, but it will be a net negative to the long-suffering ratepayers who ultimately have to fund those inefficient services.

And I just don’t know how it could possibly be that in today’s age a bill like this could actually get past a Labour Party caucus to get into the Parliament. Now, I notice that the bill is in the name of the Hon David Parker, and people listening on their wirelesses and on their televisions, maybe, to this debate today, will know that David Parker is a very new Minister of Transport, and I’m not sure that David Parker probably really has his heart in this legislation because, you know, he’s a clever one. He’s one of the performers in the current Government. He’s the one that actually gets to do all the heavy lifting and all the hard jobs, and, in fairness to him, he’s had a very high work rate. Much of the work has been questionable but you can’t deny that he’s had a high work rate. So he’s picked up this transport portfolio from his predecessor the Hon Michael Wood. Now, what we know about the difference between Michael Wood and David Parker is that Michael Wood was hell-bent on an ideological approach to transport—an ideological approach to transport throughout the nation that saw little done but lots announced. And this is a bill that very much fits into that mode. This is a bill that is more about grand gestures and words that will have a negative effect. But it plays deliberately to an ideological approach—a certain sector of the political marketplace that I don’t think understands the reality of how commercial operators work. And that’s one of the problems that the Labour Party have; that they really don’t understand it.

One of the things that we know is that Labour have only three approaches to policy: make it compulsory, ban it, or tax it, and if they are in doubt they just tax it more. Well, this is a bill that fits classically into those three criteria: big on grand gesture, light on detail, and with a perverse outcome that will impact negatively not only on ratepayers but also on public transport users. We oppose this bill.

IBRAHIM OMER (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to speak on the Land Transport Management (Regulation of Public Transport) Amendment Bill. I am a proud Wellingtonian who takes pride in taking public transport every day, as much as I can, from home to work, and vice versa, and so do thousands of Wellingtonians who take public transport every day. A bill that’s discussing good environmental outcomes and also the health and wellbeing of New Zealanders is, all of a sudden, taking us back to the past, and the cynicism and the negativity from members of the Opposition is just mind blowing.

Climate change is getting worse. It’s serious; it needs to be dealt with. Some of the ways to do that is by decarbonising our public transport. Having efficient, reliable public transport is a good way to do that, as well, because we have to make sure that we’re giving people an option to actually get out of their cars and get on to public transport. This bill is part of the Government’s commitment to improve public transport in Aotearoa New Zealand, to strengthen employee welfare, and to improve environmental and health outcomes. This is the core aim of this bill. It does this by establishing new governing principles, creating greater flexibility around asset ownership and service provision models.

To me, this bill is another milestone in the Government’s emissions reduction plan: the establishment of the new sustainable public transport framework that is going to replace the Public Transport Operating Model. This is a good bill. I commend it to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is, That the amendments recommended by the Transport and Infrastructure Committee by majority be agreed to.

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

Ayes 75

New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Te Paati Māori 2; Kerekere; Whaitiri.

Noes 41

New Zealand National 31; ACT New Zealand 10.

Amendments agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Land Transport Management (Regulation of Public Transport) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

Ayes 75

New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Te Paati Māori 2; Kerekere; Whaitiri.

Noes 41

New Zealand National 31; ACT New Zealand 10.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Voting

Taxation Principles Reporting Bill—National and ACT Party Votes

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek leave for it to be recorded in the Journals of the House of Representatives that National and ACT would have cast a party vote against the second reading of the Taxation Principles Reporting Bill if such a vote had been held.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Leave is being sought for it to be recorded in the Journals of the House of Representatives that National and ACT would have cast a party vote against the second reading of the Taxation Principles Reporting Bill if such a vote had been heard. Is there any objection? There is none.

Bills

Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Community Participation) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 3 August.

HELEN WHITE (Labour): Thank you. It’s a pleasure to take a call on the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Community Participation) Amendment Bill. It’s something that I noticed in my own community—that these local alcohol plans were actually just not being adhered to, because you had a real disparity of power, and you had big supermarkets and big lobby groups with lots of power up against the community. That really was causing issues, and it has undermined the purpose of having a local alcohol plan. So it’s a pleasure to see this bill come through and streamline that process and give power back to those communities.

I can say that I know of a case in Auckland where people spent over a million dollars just trying to do what they needed to in their community, and that’s just in legal fees. That case remains before our Supreme Court. It’s just not a sustainable position, and I’m proud of the Labour Party for noticing that—for making sure that it really takes account of the realities of economic power—and has amended the law accordingly. I’m pleased to support this bill.

SORAYA PEKE-MASON (Labour): I’m pleased to take a call on the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Community Participation) Amendment Bill. This bill gives power back to the community concerning alcohol licensing. I love that this bill considers the aspirations of the people and not those of corporate and power positions who clearly care about the bottom lines. So I welcome the bill. It’s important communities have a say in what happens in their backyard.

Alcohol consumed sensibly is a lot of fun. Alcohol consumed excessively is dangerous and a scourge on society. I just want to share some research by Rose Crossin et al.: the aim of the study is “to evaluate and rank drug harms … using a [multi-critical] decision analysis (MCDA) framework, and … separately consider harm within the total population, and among youth.” The results: “When considering overall harm … results indicated … alcohol, methamphetamine and synthetic cannabinoids were the most harmful to both … overall population and … youth, followed by tobacco in … total population. Alcohol remained the most harmful drug for the total population when separately considering harm to those who use it, and harm to others.”

I want to support this bill wholeheartedly. The current law clearly does not work in the best interests and as was intended, so this bill gives mana motuhake back to the communities. I commend this to the House.

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): I rise to speak on the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Community Participation) Amendment Bill. The National Party is not supporting this bill. We don’t think it’s a good response to what are some genuine issues.

Communities in New Zealand, obviously, have the right and should have a say in how alcohol is sold in their communities, and that’s why we have these processes established in legislation to enable that to happen. But this bill has gone about it the wrong way to try to deal with what is a real issue—and there is a real issue in that it can take too long for the appeals process to wind their way through the system, and for decisions to be held and the costs associated with that. But this bill has approached it in the wrong way, and it’s probably going to have some pretty unintended consequences, which aren’t good at all.

It reminds me a little bit of that old saying that “The path to hell is paved with good intentions”. Sometimes you might be wanting to do the right thing, but you end up achieving completely the opposite outcome, which I think this bill will do, and I will just touch on a couple of points about why that is. This will allow any person or group to object to a new or renewed licence application, except for trade competitors where the objection relates to trade competition. So that means that an application in, say, Queenstown or in Gore could be objected to by people living in Auckland or Northland, or an application in Tauranga could be objected to by someone living in Nelson, and that really begs the question of how this is helping local communities have a say in where alcohol is sold in their communities. It’s just got it, frankly, quite wrong.

This also removes, effectively, appeal rights. The idea here is, obviously, to try and address the issue of these appeals taking too long and costing too much, but completely removing any appeal right is frankly, in my view, bizarre. There should always be an option and an opportunity for affected persons to appeal against a decision made against them, and to completely remove that, I think, misunderstands the way our justice system works and the way that we resolve disputes in our communities. Frankly, it’s just not good law and it’s not good rule of law to remove those appeal rights, so I find that quite extraordinary, actually, that that’s the process to be taken in this bill.

The other thing is that this bill allows parties or their representatives to question other parties or witnesses of other parties, but it does not permit cross-examination. Now, having spent many years working in courts all across New Zealand from the top to the bottom of the North Island and the South Island, I can say that it’s critical to allow cross-examination of witnesses, because witnesses have a tendency, consciously or unconsciously, and parties have a tendency, consciously or unconsciously, to advance their own best interests, and it’s only through the process of cross-examination that it’s actually possible to bring to the surface other facts and other issues that they don’t necessarily want to, or haven’t thought of alerting the decision maker to.

But it’s actually really important for the decision maker or makers to understand so that they can make the right decision. So to completely remove the ability for a cross-examination takes away that key, fundamental cornerstone of our justice system—and it’s a system that we’ve established over many, many hundreds of years—to bring to the surface the best facts available so that the decision maker or makers can make the best decision based on the information available to them.

So that, again, just completely misunderstands things. This doesn’t go as far as it, but I just think of the best intentions in judicial processes that have been done in the past, and this is obviously not the same, but I’ll just touch on the historical example of the Star Chamber, which is probably well-known to those who have a legal interest. That court was originally established many hundreds of years ago in England to ensure the fair enforcement of laws against socially and politically prominent people whom ordinary courts would hesitate to convict. But the way it developed—despite that good intention—was that it became known, and it is still known well to those who have a legal interest, as a court that had strict, arbitrary rulings as due process rights were ignored. It went as far as even having secretive proceedings, and it became synonymous with social and political repression through the arbitrary use and abuse of the power that it wielded.

This is not to that degree, but this, unfortunately, does have some similarities in that it removes the appeal rights, it removes the ability for cross-examination, and, ironically, it enables anyone from anywhere in the country to make a submission on a local application or renewal of a whole licensing application.

Like I said at the beginning, there is certainly a case, and an appropriate case, to be made, and communities should have a say on the way that alcohol is sold, etc., in their community. But we need to be careful, and I think of the history in my own region, where between 1902 and 1957, the Gore District was under strict prohibition. No alcohol at all could be sold between 1902 and 1957, so it was a very, very long period of time. What is also well-known in my region is that the Hokonui Hills behind Gore became alive with stills, where illegal alcohol was brewed merrily and sold without any kind of oversight or control around the district. People were happily accessing alcohol between 1902 and 1957, but the Government had no oversight and no control. The community—

Hon Judith Collins: It’s like the King Country.

JOSEPH MOONEY: My colleague the Hon Judith Collins says it’s like in the King Country—the same thing.

So the Government might come in and say, “All right, we’re going to just stop things.”, but it has to be workable. It has to have an opportunity for people to be heard and to have their say and for the best facts to be provided to the decision maker, and it needs to be so that local communities are making submissions for their community, rather than people all around the country, which simply doesn’t make sense.

Well, I should just do a shout-out when I’m talking about Gore and Hokonui. The Hokonui Moonshine Museum in Gore is a fantastic place. It tells the history of prohibition and what led to it and what happened during those merry 50-plus years when the moonshine stills were up in the mountains of the Hokonui Hills, where the water was being used to make liqueur and other alcohol around the region. In fact, you can buy some responsibly brewed and sold whisky there, which is actually extremely good.

So look, with that, I’ll say that the intention in this bill is certainly good but the execution is not. It is bad and it’s not good due process. It won’t lead to good decisions, and, fundamentally, that’s what this House should be focused on.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members, the Government has indicated that it no longer wishes to continue with urgency. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. today.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 12.47 p.m. (Thursday)