Wednesday, 7 August 2024

WEDNESDAY, 7 AUGUST 2024

WEDNESDAY, 7 AUGUST 2024

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Karakia/Prayers

Karakia/Prayers

TANGI UTIKERE (Palmerston North): Te Atua Mana, te akameitaki atu nei matou iakoe no toou takinga meitaki taau i riringi mai ki runga ia matou. Te akaruke nei matou i to matou tu tangata, te akamaara nei matou i te Ariki, e te pure nei matou kia arataki koe i ta matou uriuri anga manako, kia rave matou i ta matou angaanga i roto i teia ngutuare na roto i te pakari, te tuatua tika e te akaaka no te meitaki e te au o to matou basileia Aotearoa. Amene.

Visitors

Laos—National Assembly

SPEAKER: I’m sure members will want to join with me in welcoming and wishing a warm stay in New Zealand to members of the Lao National Assembly, who are present here in the gallery.

Urgent Debates Declined

Te Reo Māori—Removal from Matariki Invitation

SPEAKER: I have received an urgent debate letter from the Hon Willie Jackson seeking to debate under Standing Order 399 the removal of te reo Māori from an invitation to Matariki celebrations from the Minister of Arts, Culture and Heritage. This is a particular case of recent occurrence for which there is ministerial responsibility. The big hurdle, however, for applications for urgent debate is whether the issue raised warrants setting aside the business of the House. This application does not meet that threshold. The application is declined.

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

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

SPEAKER: Petitions.

CLERK: Petition of Chloe Hatch requesting that the House urge the Government to increase funding for mental health counselling services in primary and intermediate schools.

SPEAKER: That petition stands referred to the Petitions Committee. No papers have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation. Select committee reports have been delivered for presentation.

CLERK:

Report of the Governance and Administration Committee on the 2024-25 Estimates for Vote Prime Minister and Cabinet

report of the Health Committee (interim report) on the Improving Arrangements for Surrogacy Bill.

SPEAKER: The interim report on the bill is set down for consideration. There have been no bills introduced.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 11 to Minister, 6 August—Amended Answer

Hon KAREN CHHOUR (Minister for Children): I seek leave to correct an answer I gave in response to oral question No. 11 yesterday.

SPEAKER: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: Thank you, Mr Speaker. In my primary response to the Hon Ginny Andersen in oral question No. 11 yesterday, I stated that family violence and sexual violence were an important component of the Government target to reduce violent crime by having 20 percent fewer people be victims of assaults, robberies, and sexual assaults. I meant to say 20,000 fewer people, not 20 percent.

Question No. 1—Prime Minister

1. Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his Government’s statements and actions?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes, and especially the steps that we are taking to restore confidence in New Zealand’s energy industry. New Zealand needs a rational energy policy, but, instead, previous Governments spent years undermining private sector investment, creating the conditions for future shortages and pricing spikes. Now Kiwis are experiencing the consequences. This morning, Simeon Brown called in the gentailers to make it clear that they must be competitive in the energy market. We’re taking action to restore confidence in the energy sector and to enable investment. That means ending the ban on oil and gas; it means cancelling Lake Onslow; it means bringing in fast track to enable more investment, including renewables; and, of course, it’s all part of our plan to rebuild the economy and to make sure we have energy security.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does his Minister for Trade’s statement “You’re not in Mexico now. We don’t do things like that here.” and subsequent dismissal of concern, calling it “friendly banter”, reflect the standard of behaviour he expects from his Ministers?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: It was good to see the Minister withdraw and apologise for that statement.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Is he aware that the number one excuse invoked by the perpetrators of harassment in the workplace, be it racism, sexism, or otherwise, is to excuse that behaviour as friendly banter, and, if so, is that the type of workplace culture he is trying to create?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I’d just say it’s a bit rich coming from that member, who this morning, just a few hours ago, was on Radio New Zealand exhorting the fact that everybody needs to watch their rhetoric—a message that I have played back over a number of months—and yet he has a former Minister and a senior MP condoning putting up a video saying that I’m killing children. I don’t think that’s appropriate.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Points of order are heard in silence.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: The Prime Minister doesn’t have any responsibility for other members of Parliament. He does have responsibility for Ministers in his Government, and that was what my question was about. It was about a comment made by a Minister in his Government.

SPEAKER: Yes, I think the Prime Minister was making a point, but I’ll ask the Prime Minister to add to his answer.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: As I’ve been saying, I am asking all political leaders to watch their rhetoric.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: In that case, is his Minister of Foreign Affairs providing a running commentary on the gender of international athletes consistent with the standard of behaviour that he expects of his Ministers?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order, Mr Speaker. That claim and that question requires it to be authenticated. I have the post, it says nothing of the sort, and I expect him to get up now and apologise.

SPEAKER: Well, the first point is supplementaries are seldom, if ever, able to be authenticated, because they are part of an onflow of discussion. However, if the Minister feels that he has been in some way impugned, then he has a right to reply. Did you want to do that, or—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Mr Speaker, by way of my point of order, I have given you my reply. His question is based on drivel, and a nonsense repeated by Louisa Wall, who herself didn’t bother to verify what she was writing about.

SPEAKER: Does the Prime Minister want to add anything to that?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked the Prime Minister whether the statement made by the Minister of Foreign Affairs was consistent with the behaviour expected of his Ministers. He hasn’t even attempted to address or even reply to the question.

SPEAKER: Yes, I know. But if the Minister has taken a point of order taking exception to the question and the assertion of the question, he’s got a right to reply to that under our Standing Orders. He has replied that it is not accurate, and, therefore, his member’s word has to be accepted.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. That doesn’t mean the Prime Minister shouldn’t then have to address the question.

SPEAKER: Well, that’s right, and I asked the Prime Minister whether he wished to. His comment was “No.”

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Well, point of order, Mr Speaker. Are you indicating that a Prime Minister simply can say he doesn’t want to address the question, because the only grounds on which a Minister can say they’re not going to address a question is if they don’t believe it’s in the public interest to do so.

SPEAKER: Well, I’m not going to speak for the Prime Minister. I can assume that when the Prime Minister said that, he was imagining that since it had been denied, there wasn’t a great deal of public interest in continuing. But I will ask the Prime Minister if he would like to respond to the question.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Look, the Minister has denied it, but what I’d say is that Minister is doing an exceptionally good job as a Foreign Minister for New Zealand, and we should be incredibly proud of him because he is lifting the intensity and the urgency of our relationships across the Indo-Pacific like no one has done before.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does his Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage’s decision to remove te reo Māori from formal letters inviting an Australian Minister, who is a champion of indigenous languages, to New Zealand for Matariki celebrations reflect the standard of behaviour that he expects from his Ministers?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I would just say to that member we value te reo in this Government. What I’d also say to that member is the correspondence was being directed to an Australian Minister overseas, and what I’d say to you is, in my dealings with Australians, it always pays to be incredibly simple and clear and use English.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Good to see him leading by example! Supplementary—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: No, just wait—just wait. The member’s own party is just taking a little time to settle.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does his Minister—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just hang on, we’ll just wait until the House is quiet. Now we’re right.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Thank you. Does his Minister for Children’s refusal to answer questions in the House last week in preference to wearing an ACT Party badge reflect the standard of behaviour he expects of his Ministers?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Again, I fully support our Minister for Children and Oranga Tamariki—she’s doing a fantastic job. What I’d say to the member is what a petty line of questions that we’re seeing today. This is a country where our economy is in real trouble, this is a country where we cannot deliver health and education services as well as we need to—

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: —and we have rising levels of crime—

SPEAKER: A point of order—please sit down, Prime Minister.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: —and this is the line of questioning from the Leader of the Opposition.

SPEAKER: Thank you. [Government members applaud] Right, another outburst like that and someone will, on a representative basis, take an early day. [Interruption] Who laughed then? Point of order, the Rt Hon Chris Hipkins.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Mr Speaker, this is actually a serious question. It’s the first time in the 16 years that I have been a member of Parliament that a Minister has refused to stand up whilst being in the House and answer a parliamentary question. That is the job of Ministers, and I think the Prime Minister should be expected to address that question, rather than do the very thing that he’s been telling everyone else all week not to do and attack the questioner.

Hon David Seymour: Speaking to the point of order, as a matter of technical fact, the Minister stood and sought a call to answer the question, but was forbidden under the conditions. So the member maybe hasn’t been here long enough to learn all the rules, but the way he’s characterising it is untrue.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Speaking to that point of order, Mr Speaker, I’m very familiar with the rules, and if the member had removed her badge and prioritised her ministerial responsibilities over wearing her ACT Party promotions, then she would have been able to answer that question. She chose to refuse to answer the question. That is a matter of ministerial conduct, and it is absolutely appropriate that the Prime Minister be questioned on that and asked to explain it.

SPEAKER: That’s right, and, unfortunately, I don’t think it’s the responsibility of the Prime Minister, that circumstance; that circumstance was entirely my responsibility. Does the member have another question?

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. To be clear, I am not questioning the ruling that you made; you are absolutely within your rights, as Speaker, to do so. The Minister’s choice to not comply with your ruling and instead refuse to answer questions is absolutely a matter of ministerial conduct for which the Prime Minister is answerable—not you, as Speaker; the Prime Minister is answerable for that.

SPEAKER: Yeah, and I’m not going to let the question go any further, because this has been a matter that has been settled, and I expect that the current compliance of the rules of the House will continue. Without losing a question—

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. You’ll note that the Opposition fully endorsed the position that you—

SPEAKER: Yep.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: —took last week. However, there are not two standards for Ministers in this House. Ministers come under significant pressure—and the Minister was under significant pressure last week—and we respected the ruling that you made as the Speaker. That does not ever excuse Ministers of the Crown from being held to the same standard as every other Minister of the Crown. Every Minister of the Crown reports to the Prime Minister; their conduct is a matter for the Prime Minister to answer for. The question that I asked is completely within order. It does not in any way question the ruling that you made as the Speaker; it questions why a Minister in his Government prioritised promoting her political party over discharging her duties as a Minister.

SPEAKER: Ask the question one more time.

Hon David Seymour: Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: A point of order—

Hon David Seymour: Supplementary.

SPEAKER: No, I’ve called him, sorry.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Did his Minister for Children’s refusal to answer questions in the House last week, in preference to wearing an ACT Party badge, reflect the standard of behaviour that he expects of his Ministers?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No, the Speaker has addressed that question, I think, very well. There were challenges last week, he has reset the tone of this House, and we deal with that going forward.

Hon David Seymour: Mr Prime Minister, what in the view of this Government are the priorities of the New Zealand people—what do they need from the Government and the Parliament right now?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I thank the member for that question. What they want is a Government that’s going to rebuild the economy, restore law and order, and deliver better health and education. Those are the big issues that, outside of this place, New Zealanders are concerned about.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: If that’s the case, why are his Ministers prioritising wearing party badges over answering questions, making racial taunts against members on the other side of the House, providing a commentary on the gender of international athletes, and refusing to use—

SPEAKER: Just a minute—just a minute.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: —te reo Māori in their correspondence?

SPEAKER: Just a moment. There was considerable talk coming from the Government side of the House while that question was being asked. The Rt Hon Chris Hipkins will ask it again.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: If that is indeed the priorities of this Government, why are his Ministers refusing to answer questions in the House, and prioritising wearing party badges instead; making racial taunts to members on the opposite side of the House; refusing to use te reo Māori in their correspondence promoting things like Matariki; providing a commentary on the gender of international athletes; and, of course, attacking the courts—which is something we haven’t got to yet?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What I observe is I see a hard-working Cabinet and a set of Ministers that are actually doing the business for New Zealand. I look at our economic Ministers who are actually reducing inflation, lowering the cost of living, and making sure we’ve got a growth plan, going forward. I look at our law and order Ministers and I see them focused on lowering crime. I look at our education Minister, who did more in six hours and six days than that member did as education Minister for six years. I look at what our health Minister is doing to make sure that we improve our health outcomes for Māori, non-Māori, and all New Zealanders. That’s what I see.

Question No. 2—Finance

2. NANCY LU (National) to the Minister of Finance: What approach is the Government taking to managing spending and reprioritisation in Budget 2025?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): The Government’s fiscal approach to Budget 2025 has three elements: first, there will be a very high bar for new initiatives in the Budget, and these will be limited to the most important Government priorities; second, significant savings will need to be found beyond those already identified in this year’s Budget; and, third, with a small number of exceptions, Government departments should expect to receive no additional funding in the Budget. They must manage cost pressures within their baseline, and if they want to do new things, they will need to reprioritise from existing activities. This Government is serious about responsible management of public finances.

Nancy Lu: How will she ensure departments are delivering within their baselines?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The Government has introduced a new tool called “performance plans”, which departments must now prepare. Departments must set out how they are planning to deliver within set baselines over the medium term. That will almost certainly involve trade-offs. Performance plans must be clear about those trade-offs so Ministers can make the necessary decisions. Performance plans will also set out any risks to financial sustainability, department performance, or delivery, and explain how those risks will be managed. Performance plans are an important part of our Government’s approach to Budget 2025 and to future Budgets, as well.

Nancy Lu: What sort of information will performance plans contain?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Among other things, a performance plan must provide information about a department’s purpose and resources, its impact—for example, how the department is currently delivering value—and the drivers of its cost pressures and how these will be managed. This will help change people’s focus to medium-term fiscal sustainability and away from the idea of an annual Budget lolly scramble.

Nancy Lu: Where are the requirements for performance plans set out?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Last week, the Cabinet Office released a circular setting out in detail the requirements for developing and maintaining performance plans. This can be found on the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet website. Over the past six years, Government spending has been taken from $80 billion a year to $140 billion a year, and, in response, this Government is embedding a culture of responsible spending, restoring fiscal discipline, rightsizing the Government’s footprint, and improving the efficiency and productivity of spending. Performance plans will help achieve that.

Question No. 3—Prime Minister

3. CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all of his Government’s statements and actions?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes, and especially this Government’s action to enable more energy investment and to fight climate change. We need more gas and more renewable energy if we want to fight climate change and grow our economy, and now our Government is taking action to achieve exactly that. We are ending the broken ban on offshore gas exploration, we are bringing in fast track to enable more investment in renewables, and we won’t beat climate change by importing more coal from offshore while making it so hard to build a new wind farm or a solar farm. So I’d say to that member, if she’s sick of the bumper stickers and slogans and actually wants to fight climate change, get on board.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does he stand by his statement “we know that … the promise and the obligations of the Treaty were not upheld by the Crown.”, and, if so, can he outline what those promises and obligations are by defining article 1 of Te Tiriti o Waitangi?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Again, in answer to the first part of the question, yes.

Chlöe Swarbrick: How would the Prime Minister define article 2 of Te Tiriti o Waitangi?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I’m well aware of the articles; I don’t think I need to define them for you here in this House.

Chlöe Swarbrick: How would the Prime Minister define article 3 of Te Tiriti o Waitangi?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Equal citizenship for all.

SPEAKER: Supplementary question, the Rt Hon Winston Peters—and we’ll hear it in silence.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Before the Prime Minister hears the Green Party’s version of the Treaty of Waitangi, will he take time out to see what the most famous Māori politician in this country, who got a law degree in record time between any European or Māori to get a law degree—in two years flat—thought about the Treaty of Waitangi when he wrote about it 102 years ago?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Apirana Ngata?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Yep.

SPEAKER: Does the Prime Minister want to answer that question? That was a question, I think.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Oh sorry, that was a question?

SPEAKER: Yeah.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Look, I often have the history of Apirana Ngata—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: No, hang on—just a minute.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: —quoted to me by the right honourable member. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just wait a minute. OK, I think we’re right now.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Can the Prime Minister tell the House what He Whakaputanga is and does?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Again, the member may want to get into this conversation—I’d just say to her that on this side, in our Government, what we’re focused on is improving outcomes for Māori. I think it’s incredibly sad that only 12 percent of our Māori students are actually at where they need to be at maths at year 8, and that’s the thing that we should be talking about in this House and that I haven’t heard from the Opposition.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Should New Zealanders watching be concerned that their Prime Minister is demonstrating a clear lack of understanding about the founding documents of this nation’s constitution while progressing legislation at an unprecedented pace to undermine it?

SPEAKER: Before I call the Prime Minister, can I just point out that the member’s question asked, “Does he stand by his Government’s statements and actions?” Now, the questions have to relate to statements and actions. You might want to just think about rewording that last question.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Should New Zealanders watching be concerned that their Prime Minister is demonstrating such a clear lack of understanding about this nation’s founding documents while progressing legislation—i.e., this Government’s actions—at pace to undermine that very constitution?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What New Zealanders watching will actually see is a Government that is focused on the things that they care about. They want us to fix the cost of living, they want us to restore law and order, and they want us to deliver better health and education, and if they’re watching, that’s what they’ll be seeing through this House.

Question No. 4—Finance

4. Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) to the Minister of Finance: Kia orana katoatoa, Mr Speaker. Does she stand by her statement, “Our Budget was very deliberate in the funding of core priorities because our priorities are the same priorities as New Zealanders”; if so, is she concerned that her priorities are disconnected from everyday New Zealanders?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): This is exactly the same primary question as the member asked yesterday, so you won’t be surprised that the answer is also exactly the same. In answer to the first part of the question, yes; in answer to the second part of the question, no.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Is it a priority to support Kiwis into work when unemployment is up to 4.6 percent and her only solution is to sanction beneficiaries?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Yes, it is a priority to support New Zealanders into work, and today’s unemployment statistic is yet another reminder of how letting inflation get a grip on the economy was so damaging. That is the legacy that we have inherited, and this Government is not only rebuilding our economy; we are also taking sensible, prudent steps to ensure that New Zealanders in receipt of a benefit are properly incentivised to find work.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: How can the 21,000 additional people on the benefit find jobs when the employment rate is unchanged and job ads have slumped by 32 percent, leaving Kiwis no other choice than to look overseas?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: On this side of the House, we want to rebuild this economy so that we can see businesses creating more jobs so New Zealanders have better options. The sad fact of the matter is this: we inherited a grossly damaged economy which had sustained out-of-control inflation for three years, causing interest rates to rise very, very high. That previous Government perpetuated that with its own wasteful spending, and now we are cleaning up the mess.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Is it her priority to support front-line social workers who have lost their jobs because of funding cuts to services and programmes like Tākai that have had to shut after 20 years of serving the community?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, if the member has a specific question, specific to contracts provided by a particular agency, I suggest she put those questions to the relevant Minister, and I know that if the Minister for social development were to be answering this question, she would say that she expects her agency to provide sufficient supports to all New Zealanders in receipt of a benefit to ensure they have the maximum opportunity to find work and get work.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: What does she say to nursing students like Ana, who have asked, “What is the point of me completing this degree when I’m so uncertain whether I will get a job?”, and can she assure Ana that she will have a job in the public healthcare system when she graduates this year?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: My message to Ana is this: thank you for taking on the incredibly important job of nursing New Zealanders. Taking the chance to learn those skills and learn that capability is a great one because your skills will be needed in the future for New Zealand, and my encouragement to you is not only work hard and make sure you complete that qualification but also be wary of those politicians who like to claim they’re on your side and then ruin the economy so that, actually, there are fewer opportunities in it.

Question No. 5—Education

5. GRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland) to the Minister of Education: What evidence has she seen to support her recent announcement on Make it Count, an action plan to transform maths education in New Zealand?

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education): As we heard in the House yesterday, the Curriculum Insights and Progress Study showed that only 22 percent of learners at year 8 were at curriculum for mathematics. We took immediate action to accelerate our Make it Count action plan to introduce structured mathematics. A structured maths approach is underpinned by the science of learning and decades of cognitive research which show that explicit teaching, when supported by a knowledge-rich, year-by-year curriculum that develops mastery, supported by high-quality instructional resources, lifts student achievement. This action plan is just another step towards closing the equity gap, giving our children every opportunity to succeed in turning round these dismal results.

Grant McCallum: What other evidence has she seen to support this announcement?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Research from the National Centre for Excellence in the Teaching of Mathematics in the UK highlights the importance of enabling a coherent learning progression though the curriculum. That is why our Government is rolling out a knowledge-rich, year-by-year curriculum grounded in the science of learning, and bringing it forward by a year. The Education Review Office surveyed new primary teachers in 2023, finding that nearly a quarter felt unprepared in their maths content knowledge when they first started in their role. That’s why, as part of this action plan, we’re prioritising maths when it comes to professional learning and development, with $20 million of funding being made available, alongside raising the level of maths for entry into initial teacher education to level 2 NCEA mathematics and working with the Teaching Council to boost the amount of mathematics training happening at initial teacher education. Teachers deserve our support and we’re going to deliver it.

Grant McCallum: What feedback has she received from principals on her announcement?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: I have received really positive feedback. One principal wrote to me saying, “Thank you, I am excited at the idea of a structured maths programme. After 13 years of principalship and several years with primary teachers, this is fabulous news. Thank you. I am excited as a principal and look forward to supporting and embedding the structured maths programme at our school.”, and another wrote: “Excellent news, Erica, and well done. We have been aware of this decline for years, so it’s great we’re putting in place clear expectations for achievement and resources to support, as well as addressing standards for teacher entry.” I am hugely grateful to all of those who have shared their thoughts.

Grant McCallum: What feedback has she received from teachers on her announcement?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Teachers have written to me as well, and one said, “As a teacher, I say thank you to Erica Stanford and the New Zealand National Party for caring and acting in the best interests of students, teachers, and society. These changes are needed.” Another wrote, “As a secondary school maths teacher, this is the best news. Thank you, you are addressing that which should have been addressed.” My message to parents is clear: we are a Government who is putting achievement back at the heart of the education system, and, as the Prime Minister said, we are moving heaven and earth to make sure your children experience success in mathematics.

Question No. 6—Prime Minister

6. DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all of his Government’s statements and actions?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes, and especially our action to lift maths achievement among young people—Māori and non-Māori. It’s absolutely appalling that just 12 percent of Māori heading off to high school are at curriculum for mathematics, and if we’re serious about achievement and opportunity, then we actually have to turn that around. So we have a plan and that means more resources for every child—Māori and non-Māori—in every classroom in New Zealand, and since we’ve released that plan, I have to say to that member we haven’t heard anything from Te Pāti Māori on student achievement—no, nothing to say about Māori achievement, nothing to say about our plan, and nothing to say about turning the lives around of our young people.

SPEAKER: That’s politically interesting, but not particularly helpful for the order of the House.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: In light of comments made by John Key at the National Party conference that “Māori are the indigenous population of New Zealand and Treaty partners, so you have to treat them with respect.”, does he believe that his Government is treating Māori with respect?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: John Key is a private citizen and a former Prime Minister and he’s entitled to his own views, but in this case I agree with him.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: What actions will he take to uphold New Zealand’s legal obligations as ruled by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to hold Israel accountable for their illegal occupation of Palestinian lands and their war crimes against Palestinian people?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, as that member will well know, we have said for many years that those occupations are illegal. The ICJ has actually confirmed New Zealand’s longstanding position, so we support that.

Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke: Is his Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage’s erasure of te reo Māori greetings from official Matariki invitations an example of his Government’s treating Māori with respect?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: As I said before, we value te reo. We should be comfortable in this country speaking te reo and English. In this case, he was addressing a letter to a foreign Minister and felt it was best delivered in English.

Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke: If te reo Māori is good enough for King Charles to use in his official Matariki greetings, why is it not good enough for the New Zealand Government?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Again, I’d just say the Minister made a decision to say that he wanted the communication to be in English so that the Australian Minister could understand it.

Question No. 7—Arts, Culture and Heritage

7. Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour) to the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage: Does the Minister think it’s appropriate that te reo Māori be used in an invitation for Matariki, a distinct holiday to celebrate the Māori New Year; if not, why not?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage): Yes, which is why the official invitation to Matariki contained te reo Māori—as I have here—entitled “Mānawa maiea te Mātahi o te Tau” [“Arise the New Year”], and he would know this if he’d checked with his leader, the Rt Hon Chris Hipkins, who received one of the invitations and declined to come.

Hon Willie Jackson: Mr Speaker—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just wait for the quiet. OK.

Hon Willie Jackson: The Minister knows what I’m referring to is his letter to his counterpart yesterday, and I want to ask the question: what is the big problem with saying “tēnā koe”, which means “hello”, in his official invitation?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, I was writing to a Minister from Australia and I was encouraged to sign it off with “Nāku noa, nā” [“Humbly yours, from”], and I thought “Yours sincerely” would be more easily understood by the Australian.

Hon Willie Jackson: Is the Minister aware of a recent statement from the Hon Tony Burke, his Australian counterpart and the person the invitation was for, stating that support for First Nations’ culture, stories, and languages is crucial, and, if so, why did he jump to the conclusion yesterday, saying, “I didn’t think he needed a lot of … reo in his invitation, because he’s an Australian.”?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: No, I wasn’t aware of that quote, and I must say I’m amazed that that member thinks that this is a matter that deserves an urgent debate in the House and that my writing to an Australian Minister is a matter of such interest.

Hon Willie Jackson: Point of order, Mr Speaker. He hasn’t—

SPEAKER: Point of order, the Hon Willie Jackson.

Hon Willie Jackson: —even come anywhere near—

SPEAKER: No, no, hang on—wait, wait. Just let me call you, then, so the whole—

Hon Willie Jackson: Sorry, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: —House can hear you. The Hon Willie Jackson.

Hon Willie Jackson: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Minister hasn’t come anywhere near to addressing the question. I’m asking the Minister: is he aware of the Hon Tony Burke’s support for indigenous languages and the statements he’s made around supporting First Nations’ culture and languages, and he’s made it very clear that that’s crucial. He hasn’t addressed the question at all.

SPEAKER: Well, he did start his answer with “No, I wasn’t aware of that statement.”, which kind of covers it. But before you took the point of order, I was going to suggest to the Minister that he didn’t use decisions made by the Chair in answer to his question.

Hon Willie Jackson: Mr Speaker, point of order. Can I table a press release from the Minister, and it’s a release that talks about putting words into action—

SPEAKER: Well, hang on a moment.

Hon Willie Jackson: —to safeguard—

SPEAKER: Wait on.

Hon Willie Jackson: —indigenous languages. Can I seek leave to table it?

SPEAKER: Whose press release is it?

Hon Willie Jackson: Tony Burke, the Australian Minister.

SPEAKER: But it’s pretty freely available, though, isn’t it?

Hon Willie Jackson: It’s available, but it hasn’t been very available in New Zealand. But I seek leave to submit it.

SPEAKER: Is the member now a distributor for an Australian newspaper, or is it genuinely something that most members of the House would not have access to?

Hon Member: It wouldn’t have been.

Hon Willie Jackson: Yeah, it hasn’t really been available freely, but I’m—

SPEAKER: I’ll put the leave. Leave is sought. Is there any objection? No. The member can table it.

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

Hon Willie Jackson: Mr Speaker, will—

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Point of order—

SPEAKER: Point of order—oh, hang on. He’s still on a point of order.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: No, I think he’d finished, didn’t he?

SPEAKER: No, I decide whether he is or not. He is.

Hon Willie Jackson: I’ve got another question, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Oh, OK. In that case, point of order.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to table the official invitation to Matariki, which was sent to the Leader of the Opposition and was declined.

SPEAKER: I presume that’s not widely available, either.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: It was only sent to the people who were invited, and so I’m tabling it for the general public so that they can see it’s in both languages.

SPEAKER: Leave is sought. Any objection? There appears to be none.

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

Hon Willie Jackson: Will the Minister now do the consistent thing and advise the King of England and the King of New Zealand, His Majesty King Charles, to remove te reo Māori greetings from his Matariki message; if not, why not?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: No, I wouldn’t be making any such instructions to the King of New Zealand.

Hon Tama Potaka: Talofa lava. Does the Minister consider that the recent Budget announcements regarding nearly $50 million—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just a minute—just a moment. [Interruption] Just a moment. We’ll hear the question in silence.

Hon Tama Potaka: Ngā mihi, Mr Speaker. Does the Minister consider that the recent Budget announcements regarding nearly $50 million of ongoing support for Te Matatini and $142 million of support for Māori language entities represent and demonstrate a strong level of support by this Government for te reo Māori?

SPEAKER: The Hon Paul Goldsmith—and without commentary.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Yes, I would.

Hon Willie Jackson: Will the Minister be advising the Minister for Sport and Recreation to write to the New Zealand Olympic team and to our Olympic medallist Eliza McCartney to stop referring to New Zealand as Aotearoa, and, if not, why not?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: I’m sure that Minister can handle his arrangements perfectly well.

Question No. 8—Justice

8. Dr CARLOS CHEUNG (National—Mt Roskill) to the Minister of Justice: What actions is the Government taking to reduce harm caused by gangs and make communities safer?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): The Government is taking action to reduce harm caused by gangs by progressing legislation that will reduce the ability of gangs to operate and cause fear, intimidation, and disruption to the public. The Gangs Legislation Amendment Bill, which inched closer to its third reading last night, is a significant step in making our communities safer. Gangs peddle misery and cause fear and intimidation, and this Government is taking the safety of the public seriously.

Dr Carlos Cheung: What examples, if any, has he heard of the fear, intimidation, and disruption that gangs cause in our communities?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, I heard an example from a member of Parliament from the Greens last night saying, “we don’t really wear red in Tokoroa, and that’s just the way things are.”, and the only reason why people wouldn’t wear a particular colour in a particular place is because of fear of the consequences—ultimately, fear of violence. No New Zealanders should live in fear, and that’s why this Government is intending to ban the display of gang insignia and is passing this piece of legislation.

SPEAKER: Yeah, keep the answers to answers, and not reference to past debating points.

Dr Carlos Cheung: What other examples has the Minister heard of the fear, the intimidation, and disruption that gangs cause in our communities?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, I heard another example from another member of Parliament, also from the Greens, last night. It said, “I know, just like in Tokoroa, don’t wear red. Don’t wear red in Whangārei”, and, like I said before, no New Zealanders should be living in fear. The Gangs Legislation Amendment Bill will provide extra tools for the police to deal effectively with gangs.

Dr Carlos Cheung: Why is the Government taking action against the fear, intimidation, and disruption that gangs cause in our communities?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, because gang membership increased by 51 percent in the previous six years and, at the same time, violent crime in our communities had gone up by 33 percent. New Zealanders should be able to go about their normal lives without fear of being intimidated or preyed upon by organised crime. If that means banning the presence of gangs and gang patches in public, this Government is quite happy to justify that so people can expect to go about their lives in safety.

Question No. 9—Health

9. Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour) to the Minister of Health: Is it correct that he was advised of Health New Zealand’s plan to block early access to the cancer drug Keytruda on Friday, 2 August, and that he did not take action to address this issue until after it was made public?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Health) on behalf of the Minister of Health: To the first part, yes. To the second part, first thing on Monday morning, the Minister spoke with health officials regarding this issue. I’m pleased to see that Health New Zealand has taken a pragmatic approach informed by clinical advice to deliver these treatments, thanks to the Government’s transformative investment to deliver up to 26 cancer treatments.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Well, how much advice does he need in order to recognise that blocking early access to a life-saving cancer drug is a bad idea?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: On behalf of the Minister, these decisions are clinical decisions made by Health New Zealand, and he has faith in Health New Zealand to come up with pragmatic solutions based upon clear clinical advice.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Is it correct that Health New Zealand officials had the impression that the delay in implementation of the Government’s flagship health policy was acceptable because he failed to set clear expectations on delivery?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: On behalf of the Minister, no.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Is it correct that documents released under the Official Information Act show he did not progress work on his original promise to fund cancer medicines to a Cabinet paper until public backlash against the Budget, and don’t New Zealanders deserve a Minister that will fight for better healthcare for them?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: In answer to the second part of the question, they deserve a Minister that will fight for better health outcomes, and this Minister is fighting for better health outcomes by delivering a transformative investment in cancer treatments for New Zealanders.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Can he confirm he is still the Minister of Health, or has the Prime Minister’s office decided to try out some talented associates for the role?

SPEAKER: You need not answer that question.

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: Oh, come on, let me.

SPEAKER: OK—OK, answer it.

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: We have—on behalf of the Minister—a very competent associate health Minister who is actively supporting the Minister in his role.

Question No. 10—Internal Affairs

10. TODD STEPHENSON (ACT) to the Minister of Internal Affairs: What recent announcements has she made about passports?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister of Internal Affairs): I was pleased to announce yesterday that wait times for New Zealand passports have halved, and New Zealanders should now allow up to five weeks for a standard New Zealand passport, down from a peak of 10 weeks. I’ve been advised that many passports are being issued faster than this time frame as well. The recent delay in passport wait times was caused by a software upgrade in March. Since then, the department and I have been focused on reducing passport processing times as a top priority. Getting passport wait times down to the standard two weeks continues to be a priority for me. I want to provide Kiwi families and businesses with certainty on how long it will take to receive their passport.

SPEAKER: I’d just note that the Minister’s microphone is not picking up as audibly as it should, so if there’s someone in the box who can look at that—and maybe she can just stand a little closer to it.

Todd Stephenson: What benefits have New Zealanders received from the upgrade to the passport system?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: The new system allows families applying as a group to use one online form, rather than multiple paper ones. Kiwi families are making good use of this feature, as 91 percent of passports last month were applied for online and 32 percent of these were group applications. The upgrade also makes it easier to report a lost or stolen passport, and allows referees to verify an applicant’s identity online, rather than through a phone call. This is the largest upgrade to the passport system in over a decade.

Todd Stephenson: How can New Zealanders ensure they get their passports in time for their overseas trips?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: The top action New Zealanders can take to ensure they get their passport on time is to apply as soon as they start planning an overseas trip and, secondly, it’s to make sure that the photo they send through is of a good quality and meets the requirements. For context, 11,598 photos were rejected by the Passport Office in February alone this year, which delays the application process. There is an online photo checker available to use on the passport website, and, remember, selfies are not accepted.

Question No. 11—Children

11. KAHURANGI CARTER (Green) to the Minister for Children: Does she stand by the Government’s Budget description of the Oranga Tamariki Contracting Service Costs savings initiative that “This initiative improves the efficiency of service delivery, with no reduction in frontline services”; if so, how is Oranga Tamariki ensuring no reduction in frontline service provision?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR (Minister for Children): In answer to the first part of the question, yes, and in answer to the second part of the question, that savings initiative is money Oranga Tamariki expects will be returned where a provider has been funded and services have not been delivered. Previously, organisations were allowed to sit on funding, even if they weren’t using it. Now, where services and outcomes are not delivered, Oranga Tamariki will be asking for the money back. I think taxpayers would be alarmed to learn that this was not happening in the past. In terms of front-line service provision, what is happening is where contracts are being changed, it is because this Government is making sure that funding is delivering outcomes for children and young people and that taxpayers are getting value for money. Where organisations have not delivered on the full value of their contracts last year, Oranga Tamariki will be funding them this year based on that prior delivery. Going forward, we will be funding these organisations that are delivering outcomes for children, and not funding those who don’t.

Kahurangi Carter: How does she reconcile this commitment to no reduction in front-line services with Family Start losing 40 percent of their front-line staff due to their funding being cut by $14 million per year, compromising their ability to support at-risk infants in Nelson?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I would like to refer to a media release released this morning by Oranga Tamariki, speaking to specifically this provider. For example, He Matapuna Ora, the Family Start provider in Nelson, stated they are in the top four performing Family Start providers in the country. Based on their own quarterly reports and our internal review of all Family Start contracts between 2022 and January 2024, they achieved, on average, 80 percent of the whānau volumes, lower numbers of home visits than were expected, and based on this information, we have reduced their fulltime-equivalents (FTEs) from 12.75 to 10. At one point, He Matapuna Ora reported in previous financial years that they had had 17 FTEs, despite being contracted for 12.75.

Kahurangi Carter: Supplementary—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just hold on—hold on a minute. OK.

Kahurangi Carter: Does she agree with Family Start Nelson manager Rebecca Ravenscroft, who said, “our whānau workers are frontline workers, they are in the homes of these whānau and whenever they visit they have to sight the baby so they are definitely frontline workers”, and, if not, what is the Minister’s definition of front-line services?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I’ll refer to the previous answer where I stated that this organisation, in particular, only met 80 percent of the whānau volumes and lower numbers of visits than were expected. So that money that was not delivered on will be redirected to a front-line service that can deliver that.

Kahurangi Carter: Does cutting funding for Family Start Nelson meet her expectations for Oranga Tamariki’s savings initiative, when evaluation found that their programme reduced overall post-neonatal mortality in the first year of life by 42 percent, and, if not, why is Family Start facing these cuts?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I think I’ve actually answered part of that in my previous answers, but what I would say is it does meet my expectation if money cannot sit in these organisations’ bank accounts that’s not being spent when it could be redirected to organisations that could be delivering a service for our young people.

Kahurangi Carter: Will she recommit, as the Government did in the Budget, to there being no reduction in front-line services because of the $120 million of cuts to Oranga Tamariki - contracted services, and, if so, how will Oranga Tamariki fill the gaps already created by these cuts?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: Overall, the Government and Oranga Tamariki are not reducing front-line services. Savings coming from getting money back where it hasn’t been used are redirected to other front-line services. Separate to this, what we are doing, unlike previously, is reviewing contracts and making sure we are getting what we pay for. Changes have been made based on previous utilisation and delivery, and where demands and needs have changed in particular regions, Oranga Tamariki has also looked at where there is duplication of services in the same areas. This means some providers will see a decrease in funding and others will see an increase. Funding does not equal delivery. As we saw under previous years, you can throw more and more money at a problem, but unless you demand results, things can get worse.

Question No. 12—Tertiary Education and Skills

12. Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour) to the Minister for Tertiary Education and Skills: Meitaki, Mr Speaker. Kia orana koutou katoatoa. Does she stand by her statement that “the previous government’s Te Pūkenga mega-merger has been nothing but an abject disaster”; if so, why?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS (Minister for Tertiary Education and Skills): Yes, and to name a few reasons why, in 2023 all previous Institutes of Technology and Polytechnics of New Zealand (ITPs) individual business units recorded deficits, with at least three recording deficits in excess of $20 million and all but two previous ITP individual business units forecasting deficits in 2025. Further, international student numbers recovery for Te Pūkenga is behind universities, is behind schools, and is behind language schools. Overseas, no one knows what Te Pūkenga is. Further, Te Pūkenga has overseen a 9 percent decline in domestic enrolments. Polytechnics are unable to make decisions about their domestic and international fees. ITPs have been unable to make decisions that meet regional needs of their communities.

Hon Dr Deborah Russell: Why, then, in the regulatory impact statement prepared by her own officials, does the Minister’s preferred option rank as “worse” than the status quo when it comes to system sustainability and to learner and employer needs?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: There is a consultation document out at the moment for the sector to give their thoughts on. I have taken a range of advice and, as well, I have relied on the over 30 years that I’ve spent in the sector, and so options are there for the sector to submit on.

Hon Dr Deborah Russell: Why, in the regulatory impact statement prepared by her own officials, does the Minister’s preferred option rank as “much worse” than the status quo when it comes to implementation cost and complexity, and ranks her preferred option overall as “worse” than the status quo?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: This Government is very focused on ensuring that all regions have access to vocational education and training. We understand that it is a pathway to employment for individuals such as school leavers and those returning to the workforce. It is absolutely critical that options that we look at ensure that regional delivery can occur. The proposal that is out for consultation enables the Open Polytechnic to support those smaller regional polytechnics to be able to maintain that level of provision.

Hon Dr Deborah Russell: Why is she ignoring the advice of her seven specialist advisers, who—at a cost of $2,000 a day each—told her to keep the Te Pūkenga model with some regional groupings?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: Well, I would note that they were not my specialist advisers. They were Te Pūkenga’s specialist advisers, and they gave a range of options, of which the option that we are consulting on was one. [Interruption]

Hon Dr Deborah Russell: Isn’t it true—

SPEAKER: Just wait—just wait for a minute till the House resumes a bit of silence for the question.

Hon Dr Deborah Russell: Isn’t it true that the real, abject failure here is a Minister who is so set on protecting her own pet institution that she just doesn’t give a damn about the needs of the rest of the country?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order, Mr Speaker. You’d think somebody with a modicum of education would not begin by “Isn’t it true”, but then that soon was compounded by her outrageous sort of venting of her dislike for the Minister and not knowing her subject at the same time.

SPEAKER: I’d tend to agree with the member. There is one question more. You can have that question again if you can ask in a different way and as something that goes to the heart of the Minister’s portfolio responsibilities.

Hon Dr Deborah Russell: Why did she tell Radio New Zealand—RNZ—that she had proactively released the advice she received from her seven specialist advisers when she has done no such thing, and when will she release the advice?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: I noted that it would be proactively released. I wasn’t sure if it had been or not, and I understand that it’s due to be proactively released in the next week. I would note, again, that they were not my specialist advisers, but I would also note that under a new chief executive at Te Pūkenga, who has experience in and understanding of the sector; a new chair; and a clear set of expectations from this Minister, Te Pūkenga is at last undertaking the cost-out work and is forecasting a year-to-date surplus for the six months to 30 June 2024 of $28.5 million.

SPEAKER: Yeah, very good—that brings oral questions to a close. We’ll take 30 seconds while members swiftly leave the House without conversations on the way.

General Debate

General Debate

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister for Energy): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business.

When the people of New Zealand elected this Government last year, we knew that we were facing significant challenges as a country. The Labour Government had spent up large, the cupboards were bare, education, law and order, health—all were going back in the wrong direction. We were entrusted by Kiwis to get them back on track, and that is what we are doing.

Perhaps the most dire loss of confidence was within our energy sector. The previous Government wrecked confidence in energy with the oil and gas exploration ban, with a hare-brained and wildly expensive Lake Onslow scheme, which wasn’t going to provide energy until 2038 at the earliest, costing at least $16 billion, and with their reckless 100 percent renewable electricity target by 2030. The result is that New Zealanders are now paying the highest electricity prices in the Western World. Just this morning, the spot price in Northland reached over $1,700 per megawatt hour.

After stifling investment in the gas sector, after increasing our sovereign risk as a country, and after six long years of Megan Woods thinking she knows best, New Zealand now finds itself in an energy crunch with dry year conditions being compounded by a low supply of gas, which is critically important at this time. The high electricity prices New Zealanders are facing are deeply concerning and a direct result of those policies.

They are threatening the viability of New Zealand businesses, many of whom export products to the world, and the jobs they underpin. We’ve seen that, in recent days, with the announcement of several hundred job losses at Winstone Pulp and at OJI’s Penrose facility. High electricity prices have been cited on both occasions. This is ever-devastating for the individuals, the families, and the communities that rely upon these large employers, but this position we find ourselves in today has not happened by chance. It is a direct result of the poor policy decisions by the last Government and what we inherited.

This morning, I met with the four largest gentailers in New Zealand to discuss the situation and the solutions needed. The message is incredibly clear: New Zealand needs more natural gas supply to secure our energy sector’s confidence and our security as a country. But, as a result of the ban, our gas supplies are falling rapidly. Figures obtained from our gas producers released earlier this year show a 20 percent decrease in proven plus probable reserves from 1,635 petajoules to 1,300 petajoules. Instead of low-emission natural gas, electricity generators are having to turn on everything else they can. That includes coal-fired and diesel-powered plants, all while gas peakers—approximately 500 megawatts of gas peakers currently available—sit idle because we don’t have the natural gas that this country is needing.

This Government is taking action to respond to this through the Gas Security Response Group and the work the Gas Industry Company is leading on this issue. The Gas Industry Company is currently leading on two critically important work streams, which we reported to Cabinet on Monday. Firstly, the work stream on the feasibility of importing liquid natural gas, which is a lower-emissions fuel than coal, to improve gas supply in the short to medium term. I think this is a significant thing to have to be investigating as a country. This is a significant thing to be investigating as a country, because, as a country, we have been blessed with natural resources, but because of the last Government’s reckless policies, we are being left in this situation.

We must keep the lights on. We must support our industries. We must ensure New Zealand has the energy that we need, and so we’re working on that. The group’s also investigating how to increase investment in flexible, gas-based generation to ensure there is plant available to meet our future electricity needs for flexible generation. This Government is taking this issue incredibly seriously. We will not stand by while industry shuts down. We need to have the energy security this country needs. The reckless policies of the last Government have been thrown in the bin. What we need is a bipartisan approach where they give confidence to the sector so this investment can happen. I call on them to back this Government so we can have the energy security this country needs.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): Today, the Labour Party has called on the Government to use its Government procurement rules to ban Government agencies from purchasing goods and services from Israel’s illegal settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, and we are also asking the Government to communicate directly to the Government of Israel that it should act immediately on the ruling of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and withdraw from the occupied territories now.

Why this; why now? Because the International Court of Justice, the United Nation’s highest legal body has handed down an advisory opinion that is a sweeping and damning indictment of Israel’s occupation of East Jerusalem, Gaza, and the West Bank, which it acquired by force in 1967 and has held ever since. It’s worth a look at what the ICJ ruling actually says, and I want to quote directly: “The sustained abuse by Israel of its position as an occupying Power, through annexation and an assertion of permanent control over the Occupied Palestinian Territory and continued frustration of the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, violates fundamental principles of international law and renders Israel’s presence in the Occupied … Territory unlawful.”

The ICJ goes on to catalogue forced evictions, extensive house demolitions, restrictions on residents and movement, the transfer by Israel of 700,000 settlers into the illegal settlements, its failure to prevent or punish violent attacks by settlers on Palestinians, restricting the access of the Palestinian population to water. But here’s the important thing for this House: the ICJ found that all States, including New Zealand, are under an obligation not to recognise as legal the situation arising from the unlawful presence of Israel in the occupied territories and not to render aid or assistance to that occupation.

The ICJ ruling has changed the game. The world has watched in horror over the last eight months as Israel has killed nearly 40,000 civilians in Gaza, in spite of repeated calls by the United Nations General Assembly for a permanent ceasefire. Now the UN’s highest court has issued a damning indictment of Israel’s illegal occupation. Governments, like New Zealand, have a duty to act and this builds on a range of initiatives and policies that successive New Zealand Governments have held on this issue, and I want to reference when Murray McCully was the Foreign Minister of the National Government of the time, in 2016, New Zealand then held a non-permanent seat on the UN Security Council and co-sponsored a resolution that was passed in the Security Council that condemned Israel’s illegal settlements and called on Governments—with the force of international law—to differentiate between Israel the State, and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. I note that some members, some Ministers in this Government disown that resolution now and publicly have differed with it.

I also want to point out that our Government, in recent days, has called on the Government of New Zealand to recognise Palestine, to give it diplomatic recognition, just as Ireland has done in recent days, just as Spain and Norway have done—144 other countries in the United Nations have recognised Palestine, as a way of signalling the need for a negotiated political settlement in the region.

Finally, I want to say that the ICJ ruling is not a suggestion; it’s not a request. It is international law and this Government likes to talk a big game on the international rules - based order, but it has been strangely quiet on Israel’s war crimes and its multiple breaches of international law going back decades. If this Government doesn’t speak out on this question that the ICJ has ruled on, if it doesn’t take the kind of practical actions that we are calling for today—at least in the beginning, a ban on Government procurement of goods and services produced in the illegal settlements—then this Government is inviting people to accuse it of being selective, inconsistent, and hypocritical and undermining New Zealand’s standing in the world.

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Can I say, finally we have a Government that is putting educational achievement back at the heart of our education system, because we are aspirational for our kids. In the face of the last six years of declining results, 42 percent of our kids at the National Monitoring Study of Student Achievement are not at Curriculum for mathematics; half of our kids are not able to pass a functional literacy and numeracy assessment at NCEA; three consecutive years of dropping NCEA results; Programme for International Student Assessment, Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study, and Progress in International Reading Literacy Study results dropping like a stone. The question has to be—with all of these warning lights flashing, with the dashboard lit up like a Christmas tree, with the console screaming at them “Pull up! Pull up!”—what did they do in six years in education? I’d be very surprised if anyone in this country can think of anything that this last Government did, let alone their priorities in the education agenda, in six long years of education and declining results.

As education Minister in this Government, we have a purpose and clarity and we are working at pace to raise achievement and to close the equity gap. Underpinning all of this is our goal of getting 80 percent of kids to curriculum by the time they reach high school, to give them a chance at getting a meaningful qualification and going on to live the life that they want. We’ve outlined six clear priority areas: the Curriculum, the teaching practice, the fact that we need to assess our kids along the way, that we are investing in our workforce, that we’re investing in learning support, and that we’re using data and evidence to guide us.

We saw in the last few weeks that our maths results of those young students who are measured at year 8 against the Curriculum benchmark—only 22 percent of them were at curriculum for mathematics. This represents, as the Prime Minister said, a total system failure. High schools know it, because, as soon as I walk in the door, they tell me that they’re having to catch their kids up, that they don’t know their timetables and their basic facts. Parents know it, because after-school tuition is full, and maths and literacy and Kip McGrath and NumberWorks’nWords are all full, which is exacerbating the equity gap that we have in this country that we are trying so desperately to close. Primary schools know it as well: they have been awaiting a structured maths programme following on the very successful structured literacy programme that we’re rolling out next year to every single school.

A feature of our very quick turn-around with our maths approach is to introduce our knowledge-rich curriculum next year aligned with resources and teacher guides and workbooks and resources for kids in the classroom so that our teachers can successfully implement this new curriculum. We are ensuring that the teaching practice in the classroom is based on structured literacy and maths mastery—explicit teaching, a sequenced manner and a structured manner of introducing material, mastery before moving on, and an understanding of concepts and an automatising or recalling of basic facts. We’re making sure that we’re assessing our kids twice a year so that we can pick them up before they fall, and so that every parent in this country will know where their kids are at and how they are doing.

We are investing in our wonderful workforce—our amazing, passionate teachers. We’re making sure they have all of the resources that they need to support this new curriculum. We’re making sure that before they go into initial teacher education that they have the requisite level of maths to be confident in teaching it. We’re making sure, through the Teaching Council, that initial teacher education providers are properly teaching teacher trainees the math that they need to be confident—we’re investing $20 million into professional learning and development to do this. We’re also investing in learning support in class for those kids who are falling behind, with small-group interventions.

This is a Government that has high aspirations for our kids. We are not prepared to wait another single year to put these system changes in place—we have to raise student achievement. My message to all parents is this is a Government who takes your children’s success at school very, very seriously. It was really telling today in the House that the questions from the other side were around a letter that was written to an Australian Minister in English rather than using te reo, when 20 percent of our kids are at curriculum for mathematics, and 12 percent of our Māori kids, and yet nothing from the other side on these really important issues. It shows why in the last six years they achieved exactly nothing in education.

KAHURANGI CARTER (Green): I take this call on behalf of the Green Party to stand alongside tamariki across the country in the collective hope for a better future. I want to start my kōrero by reminding the Prime Minister of his very words at the National Party conference in 2022: “The lives of all children, and the circumstances in which they raise their own families, will be shaped by the decisions political leaders are taking right now.”

Let’s look at the reality tamariki face growing up in New Zealand today: over 200,000 children live in households below the poverty line. That is one in every six children—one in every five for tamariki Māori. The royal commission of inquiry into abuse in care concluded just last month that 200,000 kids had been abused by the State in care. On average, one child dies every five weeks in New Zealand from abuse. Of the 5,977 tamariki and rangatahi currently in the State care system, only 56 percent of these tamariki are enrolled with a primary health organisation. Of the annual year 9 to 13 enrolments, 15,000—around 5 percent—are regularly missing school, needing to work to provide for their families. This is not inevitable. Tamariki born into poverty is not inevitable. Tamariki having the connection to their whakapapa ripped away is not inevitable.

Again, in the words of our Prime Minister, “for every kid walking into school tomorrow morning, backpack on, ready to take on the world, my message is simple. I cannot change the choices you make, or the home you were born into, but I will move heaven and earth to give you the best possible start … [to] life”. So let’s look at “decisions political leaders are taking right now.”

The Government indexed main benefits to inflation, which their own officials warned could place as many as 13,000 more children in poverty. Just last month, the Government diluted child poverty targets, showing the Government is comfortable putting a further 17,000 tamariki into material hardship. The Government plans to remove section 7AA of the Oranga Tamariki Act, which will destroy connection of tamariki to their whakapapa. Last month, the Government launched boot camps just five days after the royal commission of inquiry released its findings on horrific abuse at State boot camps. The cutting of $120 million over four years to Oranga Tamariki contractors across the country—and they were kept in the dark about specific decision-making rationale. The reintroduction of charter schools is designed to take away accountability and oversight. The decisions this Government makes every day reinforces the same system that enabled the ongoing abuse in care, where the Prime Minister said, “You are heard, you are believed”, in this very House just 14 days ago. We know actions speak louder than words.

This attack on tamariki by the Government is targeted and deliberate. There is so much happening and it is designed this way so people switch off because it’s too painful, it’s too hard to bear witness to. This is an intentional strategy to collectively exhaust the public. Kiwis will remember this Government placing the profits of landlords over tamariki and will hold the Government to account for the “decisions political leaders are taking right now.”

Let me be clear: this will not go uncontested or without a fight. We have seen the hīkoi activations across the motu, and right here on this Whare’s doorstep, by Ngāpuhi on Monday, and this Saturday in Christchurch. We have seen almost 3,000 submissions to the Social Services and Community Committee on the removal of 7AA of the Oranga Tamariki Act. Today, in select committee hearings, Māori rangatahi from VOYCE - Whakarongo Mai, with care experience, said, “We have not been consulted with.” We have heard from hundreds of Oranga Tamariki community providers whose funding is being cut. We live in a country of abundance. There is enough for everyone. We can and must ensure our tamariki have everything they need to thrive.

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori): Tēnā koe e te Pīka. Last week, our co-leader Rawiri Waititi raised a phrase that we are “punch drunk”. It’s a phrase used to describe our fatigue—our fatigue from defending our culture, our fatigue from being unable to act normally, our fatigue from fighting for our rights and our identity, and our fatigue from feeling persecuted for being tangata whenua.

It is truly believed that this Government has started one of the biggest attacks that we’ve had as Māori since the 1860s, and, oh, for our people to have the luxury to curl up in a corner and cry. The amount of pain, fear, and harm that we are seeing from our whānau is heartbreaking. But, no, as tangata whenua, we must brave up because we don’t get to have the break, because we must stand strong and give our whānau hope, despite the tsunami of constant assaults, and it’s deliberate. It’s deliberately done, based on a history which is taught to us to grind us down.

Māori-focused solutions designed for generations are ending. The Māori Health Authority is demolished. Māori mokopuna in State detention with solutions like section 7AA—gone. Auahi kāti programmes, demolishing Māori wards, fast-tracking seabed mining.

Removing section 7AA, for us, is violent. Confiscating our reo is violence. Taking away Te Tiriti and constitutional rights is violence. Continual oppression to us as Māori is violence. And now, we have the foreshore and seabed decrying, with front-page, paid advertisements saying “Kiwis, not iwis”, because it’s all about going backwards. Prisons, where we’re having mega-prisons developed to prison their way to justice. Boot camps. Where is the aroha from this Government for its tangata whenua, whose solution to help with the British settlers who were unruly was to offer Te Tiriti?

Whānau mā, I think it’s really important that we are aware of what we’re in. The deliberate fatigue of repealing, policy extractions, and policy demolishes before the big one comes, because the big one is coming, and who is the architect behind this? How is this Government letting a small party like ACT be the tail that wags the dog? How has ACT groomed the Prime Minister and, indeed, National into deliberately exercising ethnocide?

Let me explain what ethnocide is. It is the deliberate, systemic destruction of our culture and us as tangata whenua by using legislative power and political force and influence to make us into one—their one, and our none. We’ll all be one New Zealanders, one people—where have we heard that before?

This Government has lost control. It is very clear, whānau mā, that National is being run by ACT, and they’re allowing them to destroy our culture, one repeal, one piece of legislation, one punch, at a time—very hard and very low, and it’s deeply, deeply dark. This Government is being led by a dark triad, and let me explain what that means. Three personality traits: the Machiavellian, the psychopath, and the narcissist, and I’ll get you to guess which one is which. They’re manipulative, extremely entitled, and they lack empathy, but together, those traits are dangerous for our people because, together, they create some of the cruellest social chaos ever known to indigenous people.

Ngāpuhi this week told the Government to stand down. Our kōrero to you, whānau, is to stand up, but be clear: do not get caught in the politics of distraction, because we must stay focused on our own. It’s going to take a revolution of minds to withstand what’s coming. Conserve yourselves and, together, stay focused on exactly what it is that we’re fighting.

Our Te Tiriti is under threat. Time is important. Intention is important. Strategy is important. Energy is important. Stay well and look after each other, because, as we’ve said, the next karanga will be big. That is why we’re calling on the necessity for our own Pāremata, because, whānau mā, this is not the way for our mokopuna to be living in Aotearoa. Te ngākau o te iwi whānau [The heart of the people, family], that’s one of our solutions, and we must continue to push forward on what was truly intended by Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Kia ora rā.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister of Internal Affairs): Point of order. Mr Speaker, I seek your guidance on what you would consider to be personal attacks. There were not names given in that speech, and I didn’t want to disrespect the member by interrupting her during her speech. However, there were comments made about the individual characteristics of three members who lead a Government, without their names specifically being mentioned—quite nasty characteristics—and I seek your judgment on whether those would be considered personal attacks under the Standing Orders.

SPEAKER: I listened very intently to the speech that’s just been given, and I think you raise something that is contestable. It’s my intention to have a look at it beyond this particular forum, in light of what I had to say to the House yesterday. I would make the point that if we go too far down this track, then everybody’s ability to speak freely will start to become curtailed, so it can’t be something that I’m going to leap to very quickly. I know that that will see a pile of people sending me all sorts of instructive emails, but I think that it’s the right thing to do for the sake of the Parliament and for that ability for all members to speak freely and from the passionate positions that everyone in this House comes from. But I take the member’s point and will, obviously, consider that.

Hon NICOLA GRIGG (Minister for Women): Thank you, Mr Speaker. This is my first opportunity to address the House since returning from maternity leave. I’d like to extend my profound thanks to yourself and also to members across the House for the very kind wishes and goodwill and support shown towards me in the seven months since I’ve had my baby. It is indeed a delight to be back.

In the context of getting some sleep, nothing sharpens the mind like having a baby. Nothing makes one more aware and more cognisant of the country and the future of the country and, indeed, the Government of the day and the decisions that it’s making to progress the future of the country, like having a child and suddenly being deeply invested in the future of that child. So it is as the Minister for Women and as a new mum that I would like to submit my comments to the House today.

I have to say, on my maternity leave, I had time—at times—to reflect on the direction of travel of the country and how women are treated. I have to say that I am profoundly pleased to be a new mum under this Government, not the previous. Under the previous Government, it became profoundly clear that politics were an order of the day, not the best interests of the women and girls of this country.

I think back to the previous Labour Government voting down Nicola Willis’ member’s bill that would have allowed parents to share their leave. I’m very pleased that we have now taken that bill on as a Government priority and it will be progressed in time. It will allow mums and dads in this modern society—or mums and mums, and dads and dads—to be able to share their leave as they see fit and to make autonomous decisions over how they structure their family and their working lives.

We’re here to make a positive difference to mums and dads and families. We have seen a catastrophic mismanagement of the health system under the previous Government. It is so wonderful to have Dr Shane Reti at the helm. Having just given birth and experienced the maternity services in this country, I am so pleased that he is now in charge of reforming the reforms that did nothing but degrade and run down the hospital system.

Again, this side of the House believes that parents know best. They know how to give their children the best start to life. I am so pleased, again, that National is going to take forward its three-day stay policy. It will mean that mums and babies will be entitled by law to 72 hours post-partum care. Staff will give them an alert to that, by law. They will be told of that entitlement.

As these little babies grow up and become small children and toddlers, we are also going to help our mums along by enabling them back into the workplace, should they choose. It’s all about giving parents choice, particularly our mums who are so overly represented in poorer outcomes for employment, and so on and so forth. We have been delighted to announce our FamilyBoost policy in this year’s Budget, which enables parents who qualify up to $150 a fortnight to go towards childcare, to get our mums back into the workforce, if they so choose.

On the topic of tax relief, women across the country can now keep more of what they earn. We are not the long hand of Government, reaching into their bank account and degrading their take-home pay with massively high levels of inflation that this country has seen for too long. Our Minister of Finance is getting the books back in order. We are driving down inflation. We are driving down interest rates. We are letting parents keep more of what they earn in order to enable lovely futures for their children.

On the topic of healthcare, again, thank goodness Dr Shane’s at the helm. We have announced the extension of breast-screening services to 70- to 74-year-olds. We’re in the business of saving lives. We’re in the business of boosting Pharmac to $6.3 billion over the next four years—that is the largest budget that Pharmac has ever seen. We are investing in healthcare for the future of the women of New Zealand.

In my last 30 seconds, I just wanted to very quickly touch on the pay gap. Under the last Government, it sat on or around 9 percent for six long years. We are the Government taking action. We are the Government working with business to design a pay gap calculation tool so that we can start to shine a light on the pay gap of New Zealanders—sunlight, as they say, is the best disinfect. It is the only way to drive it down and we are taking action to do that. Women are too smart to fall for lip-service. They were not interested in the press releases and proclamations of the Labour Government. The National Government—the coalition Government, with our friends in New Zealand First and the ACT Party, are driving changes to make a difference.

SHANAN HALBERT (Labour): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Welcome back to my colleague the Hon Nicola Grigg. I say “Tēnā koe” deliberately today because te reo Māori is an official language of this country, Aotearoa New Zealand, and I do not accept this Government’s continued whakaiti of our Treaty partner.

Aucklanders are not getting what they voted for. National promised voters that the cost of living would come down, that crime would stop, incomes would grow, climate change would be addressed, and we would all be better off, but that is not what we are seeing. Under National, “back on track” means rents are up, unemployment is up, benefit numbers are up, groceries are up. Insurances: up. Energy: up. Young people not engaged in training or education: up. Rates: up. Auckland businesses are closing at a much higher rate than their counterparts in the rest of the country.

You just can’t trust this Government, because nothing they do stacks up. It’s just slogans. It’s out of step with what experts say, and they aren’t focused on what really matters to Aucklanders. They believe that the still-to-be-proven repeal of the regional fuel tax eases the cost of living, and even if this was so, that gives Aucklanders back a mere $2 per week. Add on $50 for additional rego fees, add on public transport costs, add on prescription costs, add on their dirty fuel excise taxes. Even with all of their talk of tax cuts, an average Auckland family will pay at least $80 more per week under this National Government—$80 more per week. Aucklanders are left short-changed under National with all of their broken promises, and they just cannot be trusted.

Is this surprising when we look at the Minister responsible for Auckland issues? The Minister for Auckland is supposed to advocate on behalf of Aucklanders and coordinate an all-of-Government response. I think he spends more time working outside of Auckland than in, but he also has no plan to reduce congestion, to reduce crime, and, what I’ve spoken to today, he’s got no plan to reduce the cost of living.

Instead, he’s supported tax cuts for landlords and expected that to trickle down. He’s ripped out Māori wards. These are not priorities for Aucklanders. The cuts that he has supported are too extreme. The half-price public transport scrapped—more expensive to get around our city—$1.2 billion hole in Auckland infrastructures fund, disabling our city to futureproof our infrastructure. They promised to train 500 more front-line officers in two years—

Cameron Brewer: They’re coming.

SHANAN HALBERT: —but instead they have reduced police numbers from Auckland’s North Shore, Mr Brewer, and West Auckland to prop up their CBD response teams. In addition to that, huge cuts to Oranga Tamariki funding, including the North Shore Women’s Centre, leaving up to 500 women—vulnerable women and their tamariki—without support and forcing their closure. They promised no impact to front-line services, and here we are.

They’ve also scrapped the building of property of desperately needed classrooms and schools across Tāmaki-makau-rau Auckland and in my local community. Beach Haven Primary School, Birkenhead Primary, and Willow Park Schools—they’ve cancelled the building of our classrooms.

Aucklanders work hard, they pay their taxes, and they wanted a cost of living plan that this Government has not delivered—they’ve broken their promise.

DANA KIRKPATRICK (National—East Coast): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is with great pride that I stand and do my first speech in the general debate in this House. Look, in just a very short period of time, it will be a year since we were elected, and what a massive year it has been so far. The amount of incredible hard work done by the Ministers and MPs on the side of the House is quite extraordinary.

Just this week, we heard about the travesty that is our educational achievement in maths and literacy once more being sheeted home to us that, in New Zealand, we have been failing our children. Only 22 percent of our year 8 students are achieving at year 8 level. And, you know, we need, now, an approach that works. So it’s with great pride that our wonderful Minister of Education, Erica Stanford, has made the incredible announcements this week to bring forward the focus on numeracy to get our kids back on track.

I want to applaud the statement made by the Prime Minister, Christopher Luxon, at the weekend, where he said, “This issue … is bigger than politics.”, because I think that this is simply one of the most important things we have to sort out, because our future in this country depends on it. We have the smartest kids in the world, and, currently, we’re doing them a disservice.

In my electorate, the mighty East Coast, the most beautiful electorate in the country, our educational achievement has been slipping over the past few years, and so has the area of our regular attendance at school. It’s slightly on the improve now, but some of the towns in my electorate still struggle to get their children to school. Regular attendance ranges from 29 percent in some towns to 59 percent, which is the highest, across thousands of students in our electorate. We must do better than this.

One way to keep kids coming back, day after day, is to make sure they’re engaged, which is where our structured literacy and numeracy comes in. Education is the game-changer. It’s one of the very important pieces of work we need to nail, to break down our intergenerational cycles of poverty, our benefit dependency, and truancy. This issue was one of the biggest facing the communities I represent.

Now, those folks on the other side of the House will find every reason to oppose this and to rail against this, and they’ll say that the curriculum won’t be right or that it was National’s fault, or whatever other rebuttal they’ll come up with. But I say it’s time to stand up. For once, just understand that six years of nothing has not helped. It is time to take the politics out of this and find a way to get in behind it.

I met a young fella the other day in my electorate who’d been in a gang all his life. He left school at 12. He couldn’t read or write, so secondary school was a bit of a disaster. He left home. He lived on the street. There’s a lot to unpack in his story, but he told me that he’d learnt to read so he could get his driver’s licence. It was the proudest thing he’d ever done. Finally, he’d achieved something, and, now, he looked in the rear-vision mirror for safety, not for a cop. He changed his life, because the downward spiral of getting into trouble for him started from not being able to read and not getting a licence. Now, imagine what else he could do now with a bit of self-esteem and mana restored. I repeat: it’s the game-changer, it’s how people get a job, it’s how they make a contribution to society and the community they live in, and it’s leadership for change.

It’s time to get New Zealand back on track. We are in a very challenging period of New Zealand’s modern history. Our country is at a turning point. We are working hard to bring recovery from woeful fiscal management, from ideological rhetoric—and let me just give you an example. Let me draw to your attention, last week, when I listened to the debate on the very fine work from Minister Simeon Brown on roadside drug-testing. What I can’t help but shake my head at is a member of the Green Party, a former Minister of Transport no less, who, in speaking against the bill, said of the evidence that deaths and serious road accidents caused by drugs was only 7 percent and, therefore, in her terms, weren’t that serious. Well, tell that to the parents and friends and family of people who died because people took drugs and drove their vehicles. I just can’t let that go. Any death, in my book, is one too many. It’s just another example, I think, of the ideological rhetoric that we have heard, time after time, from that side of the House.

We cannot gamble with the education of our children in this country for one minute longer, and I’m delighted that we will now focus on teaching the basics brilliantly for the sake of our children. I just want to say, too, to the good hard-working taxpaying people of New Zealand who are now enjoying tax relief for the first time in 14 years, we won’t be taking advice from an Opposition who overtaxed, overspent, and, now, is over there. Let’s get New Zealand back on track.

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): To Martin Phillipps:

I know deep down hidden in you submarine bells chime

Golden groaning, sunlit toning, submerged sound sublime

Deep and dark my submarine bells groan in greens and grey

Mine would chime a thousand times to make you feel OK

It is OK for you now, Martin Phillipps. I note the committal on the Order Paper that refers to his passing on 28 July at 61 years of age. Martin Phillipps was an iconic New Zealand musician who does deserve recognition in this House and I would like to pay tribute to him. On Friday in Dunedin, maybe it will rain, maybe there’ll be rain on the window pane of the Glenroy Auditorium as New Zealand musicians from all over the country come down to celebrate the life of this wonderful singer-songwriter who really helped develop the iconic Dunedin sound. He wrote songs that were of place, land, sea and people with a deep sense of melancholy, and he became infused into the Dunedin cultural fabric. His collection was immortalised in the Otago Museum and also through the incredible documentary by Julia Parnell, who I had the privilege of working with.

He was brilliant. I think he was a brilliant enigma, actually. As Neil Finn said, he was one of New Zealand’s greatest songwriters. He was name checked by Iggy Pop and R.E.M. He was an enigma because he was humble and intelligent and one of the most unlikely rock stars you could meet. I had the privilege of watching him play when I went to Otago University. I interviewed him as a journalist when he came back from a fairly failed tour of the US and had the kindness and generosity to let me interview him about that particular chapter of his life.

I also worked with him in Glasgow at the Celtic Connections, where he wowed the Scottish audience there and I could really see how he had earned such incredible international acclaim. I finally got to meet him many times on street corners when the Labour Party would go out and campaign and Marty would always come out—on reflection, I think, to honour the loyalty that I had given to him. So I’m really looking forward to his send off on Friday with his family; his father, Donald; his sisters, Sara and Rachel; and, of course, hosted by his biggest fan and friend—possibly—my former colleague Grant Robertson.

Now, Marty did have mental health journeys and it is no secret that he suffered addiction, which is probably partly responsible for his early departure. So it’s appropriate that I do speak to my mental health shadow portfolio today and draw attention to something that I think Marty would want attention drawn to, which is the misnomer that this Government is not cutting services to the front line of mental health. We have seen that in Southland, no less—the area where both Marty and I were very approximate to—where staff had sent emails showing that vacancies for mental health nurses, despite the fact that those roles are desperately needed, ads have been pulled down from Health New Zealand’s website. We’ve seen broken promises with the number of psychiatrists promised by this National-led Government before the election—14; we have not seen any movement of that. They’ve promised 500 new mental health staff and yet they haven’t even been able to get the 50 extra doctors placed that they had promised prior to the election.

What really concerns me this week is the health innovation funding, because $24 million was earmarked for Gumboot Friday through a procurement that was, in my view, half-baked. Now, we see the remaining $10 million—that’s over two years—that was announced in this Budget, where NGOs and community groups thought they had a real shot at maybe getting some funding. Well, guess what! To get that funding, the organisations have to have a minimum of 80 full-time employees and $250,000 in matching funding. I would challenge any member of this House to tell me which community mental health group has a spare $250,000 kicking around in their bank account, or, if they did, that it would not be taken back by this Government as we heard in question time today.

So I leave those thoughts as I remember my friend—somebody who I really looked up to, and I know the whole of Dunedin did—Martin Phillipps. We will salute you on Friday, we will continue to carry your mental health message, and we will continue always to listen to your music.

JENNY MARCROFT (NZ First): Kia orana, Mr Speaker. I note that it is the Cook Islands Māori Language Week, so it is a pleasure to stand on behalf of New Zealand First and this Government as we understand the importance of reconnecting with the Pacific.

My leader, the Rt Hon Winston Peters, has brought a new energy and commitment to our Pacific neighbours. You could say, in fact, he has become the champion of the Pacific, the Rt Hon Winston Peters. As he has said, the Pacific is a major focus of New Zealand’s foreign policy and it’s important that we get into the region and spend time with all members of the Pacific family, because every member of the Pacific family matters to New Zealand.

I have to say that my leader, the Rt Hon Winston Peters, would have to be the hardest-working and most highly respected Foreign Minister. Today, in the House, this very day, the Prime Minister actually noted that the Foreign Minister is doing an exceptional job as a Foreign Minister for New Zealand and that we should be incredibly proud of him, because he’s lifting the intensity and urgency of our relationships across the Indo-Pacific like no one has done before. In fact, that previous Government were absent in terms of their connection with the Pacific. So it’s good to see that we have a Foreign Minister who is totally engaged.

But wait, there’s more. Shane Jones, the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries, like a modern-day way finder navigating Te Moana-nui-a-Kiwa, our champion of the regions, has crossed the mighty Pacific Ocean, distributing the pūtea. You could say, in fact, he has become the associate champion of the Pacific, a little bit like our own Hana Kōkō. Our Māori Centre, $50 million has been sent off to the Pacific to support sustainable Pacific Islands fisheries development over the next four years. This will go some way to address the recommendations of the parliamentary inquiry into illegal, unregulated, and unreported—that’s IUU—fishing by supporting better capacity and capability for monitoring and combating illegal fishing. So he’s out there, like the Foreign Minister, connecting with the Pacific.

In fact, my helper next to me will hand me this visual representation of exactly where the Foreign Minister and Shane Jones have been traversing across the Pacific. There we go, all the way, connecting around some of the islands they’ve been through—Fiji, Australia as well, Tonga, Cook Islands, Samoa, Papua New Guinea, Vanuatu, Tuvalu, the Solomon Islands, Nauru and Niue. Shane Jones has been to Solomon Islands and Fiji. I myself feature on this very map. I have been to New Caledonia, where I was able to attend the Anzac celebrations earlier this year—the first time a Government representative in more than a decade visited Noumea for those Anzac celebrations. Also spreading out some pūtea as we opened up the science lab, which will take a look at why these fish under these climate changes, warming seas, are moving out of the exclusive economic zones of these very Pacific islands, and the challenges they bring.

But wait, there’s more—more to come, as the Deputy Prime Minister leads another political delegation, a cross-party, across-the-House delegation; first off to Fiji, then, of course, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia and Palau. In fact, he said we have a goal of visiting all other 17 members of the Pacific Islands Forum during 2024, and this visit will mean they have made it up to 14 so far and on the way to 17 of those member nations by the end of this year.

But it doesn’t stop there. Back home, just last week, the Deputy Prime Minister and myself attended Radio New Zealand, where the Foreign Minister flicked the switch for the shortwave transmission which beams out across from Taupō, and that shortwave signal bounces on to the pumice, up into the ionosphere and bounces across the Pacific, spreading out those wonderful messages into the Pacific Islands, which is really important when there are cyclones. As we knew with the Tonga eruption, getting those messages through—shortwave does get through.

So, in conclusion, as it is Cook Islands Māori Language Week and the theme of the week is “Connect me to the canoe of my tribe”, I’d just like to suggest that if there’s someone no longer of your tribe on your waka, then it’s time to invoke the waka jumping rule.

JAMES MEAGER (National—Rangitata): Look, I join my colleague in congratulating a very excellent foreign affairs Minister, one of a number of excellent foreign affairs Ministers we’ve had over the past few years that this House can celebrate, I’m sure.

I’d like to say that today is a great day for New Zealand, it’s a great day for Mount Roskill, and it’s a great day for the people of Northcote and for Dan Bidois, because for many working New Zealanders, today is pay day. For many working New Zealanders, they will check their bank accounts today and they will see more money in their account this week than what they saw last week. For many working New Zealanders, after 14 years of hard work and toil, finally they are able to keep more of what they earn, because today tax relief is here.

Today is a great day for the people of mid- and South Canterbury. It may surprise you to know that my electorate is the hardest-working electorate in the country. We are ranked number one in the country for the number of workers who work between 50 and 59 hours per week. One-fifth of my electorate are labourers and 16 percent are in manufacturing, which are both the second-highest in the country. We know what hard work looks like. We know what turning up to work looks like. We know what it’s like to grind and toil day after day, night after night, to provide for our families.

Speaking of families in my electorate, 23 percent of families in my electorate earn between $70,000 and $100,000 per year, the highest rate of all electorates in New Zealand. They are the ones that will benefit from tax relief. They know what it’s like—

Cameron Brewer: They’ll be happy.

JAMES MEAGER: —to provide for their families, Mr Brewer. They work hard. They deserve to keep more of what they earn. From today, they will start seeing that in their pay cheques and in their bank accounts.

Today is a great day for the freezing workers of Smithfield and ANZCO Foods who spend 10 hours a day on their feet in gumboots on concrete, processing meat and goods for export around the world. Today they see their hard work rewarded with tax relief for working New Zealanders, Mr Costley. Today is a great day for the supermarket workers at Countdown Browne Street in Timaru and at New World Temuka who pack the bags and stack the shelves, working long into the night to provide the essential goods and services that we need for our families. Today they see their hard work rewarded with tax relief for working New Zealanders.

Today is a great day for truck drivers and port workers and mine operators, irrigation services and nurses and teachers and police officers and taxi drivers and baristas and retailers and every other working New Zealander. They finally have a Government who backs them to know what’s best for them, a Government that knows that they are the ones who are best placed to make spending decisions for them and their families.

This is not a Government which rests on its laurels. Today has also revealed an uptick in unemployment as the hangover from years of economic mismanagement finally kicks in and we on this side are left to clean up the mess. Inflation is dropping but continues to sit above the 3 percent target, meaning a prolonged wait for mortgage-holders as interest rates stay high in order to beat inflation down. Every single day, we have Ministers of this Government discovering more and more hidden financial time bombs, and every day we on this side of the House give thanks that New Zealand has a strong and courageous finance Minister in Nicola Willis to steer us through.

We will continue to hold up our end of the bargain. We will remain disciplined in our spending, ensuring every dollar is providing a return for New Zealanders in stronger economic growth, in safer streets, and in better health and education. There will be a high bar for new spending, as the finance Minister said, and it must align with Government priorities. What we save as a Government, we will return to working New Zealanders. Because while no side of the House owns the workers, only one side of the House truly supports the workers.

Finally, today is a great day for one Rose Stocker, the queen of Timaru, who turned 60 years old today. So on behalf of myself, Stuart, Zachary, Mykhaela, Harry, Oscar, Theo, Alfie, Xavier, and Lachlan, happy birthday, mum. You are a legend. Thank you for walking the dogs.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Well, thank you Mr Speaker. These are challenging times. If anyone’s seen the unemployment rate—up to 4.6 today—there is a severe shortage of energy, essential not only to big businesses but small ones and households, that I hope one day the parties opposite will take some ownership of for what they did. There is a geopolitical situation that’s pretty unstable, and not enough knowledge being transferred from one generation to the next. Yet we heard an Opposition party, and two and three, actually, who tried to do a quiz on the articles of the Treaty and talk about an invitation to an Australian to a party. That’s the standard that we’re getting from the Opposition, and I’d rather be talking about those other issues and what the Government is doing in each and every case to ensure that our spending is wise, that the economy is back under control, that people can afford to get to the end of the week with some money left in their account thanks to tax cuts, and what we’re doing to make sure kids are getting to school and learning.

I chose to take a speech in the general debate today on behalf of the ACT Party to talk about a value that is essential to the beliefs of our party, and I would hope every party in this Parliament. That is the simple idea that each of us are a sovereign human individual with the right as an adult to choose somebody to go and speak for us freely in public affairs. Whether it’s this Parliament or the local council, you have the right and each one of us has the right to pick a representative to go and express our views, no matter what they may be, so that we can settle our differences as a country and come together in consensus and make progress in public affairs in a peaceful way with no Vladimir Putin Russian threats of violence, no intimidation, just the best arguments eventually prevailing in healthy public debate. I love that value. It is foundational to our country and the prosperity that we all enjoy as citizens of a free and democratic society.

When I hear that a councillor in New Plymouth by the name of Murray Chong is on the radio saying that he has had to change his vote on a matter he believes important because he’s being intimidated, he’s having people firing air rifles at the car outside his house, he’s told that he can’t walk at night because he’ll be king-hit and “wake up in hospital”, that goes, actually, not just to the heart of New Plymouth or Murray Chong but to every single New Zealander who’s grown up in this country and inherited that basic right to be able to choose a representative to participate and express their views in public affairs without being intimidated or threatened or talked down like somebody might if they tried to contest an election in Moscow or Pyongyang.

That is why the ACT Party is calling on every single political party in this House to condemn the threats of political violence against Murray Chong, to agree that while we may differ on the question of Māori wards—and this Government certainly has a view—that it is absolutely wrong that anybody in an elected office should ever be threatened with violence or a sanction of changing the political views. They should be able to express the views of the people who elected them without fear or favour or concern for their physical safety. If there’s anyone in this House who doesn’t believe that, then they ought to ask themselves what exactly it is that they’re doing here, or why it is that perhaps their own arguments are so feeble that they cannot win them in an intellectual contest but would seek to win them in some other type of contest.

I have been disappointed at how little response there’s been from other party leaders. We’ve heard a lot today about invitations, we’ve heard a quiz on the Treaty, we’ve had questions about what the Government is doing about a 4,000-year-old conflict on the other side of the world, but I haven’t heard from the Opposition parties condemnation of political violence against an elected councillor in New Plymouth.

Murray Chong might be an eccentric character, he might not be the person that you or I would vote for should we live in New Plymouth, but nobody, including him, deserves to be threatened or menaced with political violence for holding a view that’s sincerely held on behalf of the people who elected them. They have the rights and the duty to express those views on behalf of the voters, in order for that democratic inheritance from which we’ve all benefited so greatly to continue to function and work, in a society where all of us are blessed with equal rights and freedom.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Bills

Regulatory Systems (Education) Amendment Bill

Third Reading

Debate resumed from 30 July.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): Thank you, Mr Speaker. We are discussing the Regulatory Systems (Education) Amendment Bill, and I want to use my brief contribution this afternoon to comment on the part of the bill that makes some changes to the provisions that govern the Pacific Education Foundation, and this bill amends their Act, which was passed originally in 1972.

The board of the Pacific Education Foundation administers various kinds of support and scholarships and grants for Pacific peoples, including the Tulī Takes Flight scholarships as part of the Government’s goodwill package—in fact, the former Labour Government’s goodwill package that was set up in response to the Dawn Raids. The reason I want to comment on this is that it sparked my interest, because one of the provisions here changes the definition of a “Pacific person” and replaces it with a new definition for an “Aotearoa Pacific person”. The intention here is to ensure that the definition of people who are selected for the board of the Pacific Education Foundation reflect the new diverse reality of New Zealand and our cities. It refers to a person with “indigenous Pacific cultural heritage”, and it expands the list of Pacific places—a longer list than was in the previous definition—and it means that more Aotearoa Pacific learners and their families will be eligible for support from the foundation.

The thing I wanted to say about this is that there is a very live debate going on in Auckland right now amongst the Fijian Indian community, which is a significant, large, and quite fast-growing community—particularly in West Auckland, where I’m based. The Fijian Indians are all the sons and daughters of the Girmits. That is the people who were indentured labourers in the 1800s. In fact, 145 years ago, the first ship arrived delivering the first group of what turned out to be more than 60,000 people who the British colonial authorities shipped from India to cut sugar cane in Fiji, and it was indentured labour. They weren’t there particularly by choice. They were there, actually, in conditions that were far more akin to slavery than the kind of employment practices that we would associate with modern times. The Fijian Indian community believes—many of those people—that they are Pacific people. They have lived generation after generation in the Pacific, in Fiji. They shaped and developed the country that Fiji is today, and many of them and their offspring have subsequently made new lives in New Zealand and are making a fantastic contribution to this country. They now mark Girmit Day every 14 May, and they have reclaimed and celebrate that identity as Girmityas, the people of the Girmit. “Girmit” is a transliteration, from that time in the 1800s, of the English word “agreement”.

So they feel strongly that they should be recognised as a people with a distinctive historical experience and cultural identity that places them in the Pacific, and yet they are not. They are not recognised that way by numerous different Government agencies. In raising this, I’m not having a crack at the Pacific Education Foundation; Labour’s supporting this bill, which tidies up various regulations, but I do think it’s important that as a country and as lawmakers, we can listen to and consider the arguments being put forward by the Fijian Indian community that they should be recognised as Pacific people. For nearly 150 years, they have been in this region. That is the historical experience that shaped them. They are just as much Pacific people and are not people of India anymore, just as Pākehā people in New Zealand who have lived here for generations don’t consider themselves to be, any more, people of Britain. I think that’s a really interesting argument that that we need to consider in this super-diverse country that we now live in.

MIKE BUTTERICK (National—Wairarapa): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Isn’t it great to have the Opposition wholeheartedly support us in promoting this bill through the House? I was thinking how good it would have been if they’d supported the tax relief the hard-working low and middle income earners are now getting in their back pockets. Not only didn’t they support it, some of them even asked for it to be donated to them.

This bill addresses somewhat minor but nevertheless important and necessary changes to modernise the legislation. It will preserve the legacy and mana of the 28th Māori Battalion into the future, support the work of the Pacific Education Foundation, and ensure that education regulatory systems are fit for purpose, such as amending the Health and Safety at Work Act. Regarding the Ngarimu VC and 28th (Māori) Battalion Memorial Scholarship Fund Act, this bill will clear up some legal confusion regarding the administration of the scholarship fund and also management of the use of the Māori Battalion’s names and emblems—this bill will provide clarity as to who can administer the fund. Only one member of the Māori Battalion is still alive, and this bill will help preserve the legacy and mana of the Māori Battalion by ensuring there is representation of Māori soldiers or veterans on the board. This bill replaces “New Zealand Defence Force” with “Armed Forces”, which ensures that only soldiers—rather than civilian staff—are eligible to be the representative on the board.

I would take a moment to reflect on the dedication and sacrifice of those who have and do serve New Zealand and thank them for their service. Lest we forget, as we stand here surrounded by the names of the battles that have been fought to give us the freedom that we enjoy today—lest we forget.

This bill also makes amendments to the list of Pacific people in New Zealand who can benefit from the Pacific Education Foundation easier, and this ensures the definition reflects the diversity we have in this country now and into the future. This also updates the Pacific Education Foundation board’s function and reporting requirements, enabling better support of Pacific education outcomes. On this side of the House, we recognise the importance of education—a good, solid one—as evidenced by Minister of Education Stanford and this side of the House’s unwavering and relentless focus on improved educational outcomes for all New Zealanders, and anything that contributes to this, such as this bill, should be commended. On that note, I commend this bill to the House.

SHANAN HALBERT (Labour): Whāia te iti kahurangi; ki te tūohu koe, me he maunga teitei.

[Pursue the rarest of treasures; should you bow your head, let it be to a towering mountain.]

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s my pleasure to speak to this particular piece of legislation before us today, the Regulatory Systems (Education) Amendment Bill. I’m very passionate about our young people achieving and ensuring that our tamariki mokopuna have the best opportunities in front of them, both in our compulsory education sector and also right through to secondary school education and through to higher learning, whether that be in polytechs, universities, or trades training. I’m an absolute believer that every person should have the same opportunity to learn, the same opportunity to carve a path to a good life, to a good job, and to raise their family.

I’ve been confused by this Government’s position on mātauranga, on education. At the one end, we have charter schools—an ideological experiment that enables certain schools in this country to be funded more than others—and at the other end is a Government that wants to micro-manage compulsory education in our State school system. The introduction of compulsory reading, writing, and arithmetic for one hour a day really takes away any confidence that we have in our practitioners, our teachers, and the people that we trust to teach and learn our tamariki.

I’ve been confused by the cancellation of a number of building projects up and down the country, and particularly in Auckland, in my own community. But what I do see today is some sense and a kaupapa in education that I personally find very important. I’ve travelled to Te Tairāwhiti—and I acknowledge the member for East Coast, Dana Kirkpatrick MP—on the East Coast and the wonderful place of Turanga Gisborne, where they house the museum for the 28th (Māori) Battalion. Eight weeks ago, I visited there for the first time. It’s a special place. It’s a special place to this country, which honours people who went to fight for this country, for who we are, but also it’s where my grandfather’s picture sits, as somebody who served this country for, in effect, what we have now.

When I was lucky enough to travel to Tāmaki-makau-rau Auckland, after growing up in the wonderful place of Hawke’s Bay, I had the opportunity to go on to further education, to university, and, as a first in family, study at undergraduate level. I wanted to go to university because I knew that at that place, whatever it was—and I’m not sure that at that time I knew exactly what university was, but I knew it was a ticket to opportunity, and I knew it was a ticket to influence the lives of others, to make New Zealand a better place, and that I in my lifetime can make a contribution to some of that.

Then, as a part of Ngā Tauira Māori, the Māori Students’ Association, at the University of Auckland, this particular contribution and investment in rangatahi Māori was in fact a pathway to that success. It enabled people to study at undergraduate level. It took away particular barriers that were there, unnecessarily in some senses, and the injustices that we face in this country, where not everyone has the same opportunity as the guy or girl next to them. That funded their opportunities, their hopes and aspirations to lead a better life and be educated. So this particular legislation, I have followed through the first, second, and third readings, from the last Government to this one, and I’m pleased that in the House today we are able to come together and that Labour will continue to support this original piece of legislation that we established in the last Government.

I acknowledge this Government for continuing it through to completion, because the Ngarimu VC and 28th (Māori) Battalion Memorial Scholarship Fund Act is an important one. It enables some of the technicalities to be taken away, to make it easier to fund rangatahi, young people, and particularly Māori, to access the learning opportunities that they desire. But also it looks back to the people who have served this country, just like my grandfather, who sit in that place in Te Tairāwhiti in honour of the fight, of the justice, but most of all the opportunities that they provided to all of us. Tēnā koe.

GRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland): Thank you, Madam Speaker, it’s a great pleasure to rise and take the final call on the Regulatory Systems (Education) Amendment Bill. There are three main parts of the bill in the sense that we’re looking to firstly preserve the legacy and the mana of the 28th Māori Battalion into the future, we’re looking to support the work of the Pacific Education Foundation, and to ensure that education regulatory systems are fit for purpose. But I would like to focus my contribution today on the first part of this, which was about focusing on preserving the legacy and mana of the 28th Māori Battalion.

I’ve spoken in some ways on this before but from a slightly different angle. This time, I’d like to talk about not only the lead up to the Māori Battalion itself but Māori contributions to the wars of New Zealand over time—the wars that New Zealand has partaken in over time. Going back to the Boer War and into World War I, they often went as volunteers and served our country, and it was with great honour that they served our country. It was when they went to the World War I that we had such great Māori leaders as Harding Waipuke Leaf, who’s from my part of the world up in Northland, from Hokianga. He was a great leader of men, and he really contributed to our efforts in World War I. At one point, he was told he wasn’t allowed to actually fight, he had to go and dig the trenches and so forth. But then he got sick of that. So, at one stage, he just simply picked up a rifle grab and made the battle cry “Fight like the Ururoa, fight to the death.” The Māori contingent has then gone on and contributed in such an amazing way.

Then, along came World War II and the formation of the 28th Māori Battalion, an amazing battalion made up of four companies: A Company was from the Northern tribes, my part of the world and were known as the Gum Diggers; B Company were from the Bay of Plenty tribes and they were known as the Penny Divers; then there was C Company from the East Coast, who were known as the Cowboys, probably something to do with the horses they all rode around up there, and probably still do to this day according to Dana Kirkpatrick, my colleague from the East Coast; and, of course, then there was D Company, which was from the rest of the country, and they were known as Ngāti Walkabout. They went off to war, and, actually, Ngāpuhi at one point weren’t going to go because Sergeant Leaf—Harding Leaf—wanted to go back to war but he was too old. So Ngāpuhi simply sent the message down to say, “Look, if Sergeant Leaf can’t go, we won’t go.” So guess what! Off they went. But, unfortunately, Sergeant Leaf was killed in action in—I believe it was Crete—in the first battle of Crete in 1941. A true hero.

As we progressed through the war, the 28th fought in many places and fought Rommel’s Afrika Korps and the Italian forces. Battles followed in Egypt, El Alamein, Tebaga Gap, and Takrouna. During the Battle of Medenine in Tunisia, the 28th suffered 22 casualties—right? One of these was Second Lieutenant Te Moananui-a-Kiwa Ngārimu, the man this scholarship is named after, which I thought was quite appropriate as this inspired leadership obviously earned him a VC. Then they went on to fight in the big fight of all, which was of course Monte Casino—that was in Italy. In here, we can find the names of all the battles; you’ll find the battle of Casino. The Māori Battalion suffered the heaviest losses of any of the battalions that fought there on our behalf.

Then, as the war came to an end and we came back—hold on, I’ve got to find my place. Here we go—I got a bit lost. As the war came to an end, we came home. The final command of the Māori Battalion—Sir James Hēnare sent the members of the battalion back to New Zealand and said “tu Māori mai”, “stand as Māori”, as he dismissed his troops. It was then, actually, when we talked about the mana of the battalion, preserving it—I think we need to reflect on, when they came back, the lack of mana and respect that was shown to the Māori people when they returned to New Zealand. For example, they were not entitled to the same service rate when they came back, in terms of pay; they were not entitled to enter into our ballots for farms.

Then there was something that I discovered with the help of my colleague across the floor Peeni Henare. He told me the story of the local RSA in Kawakawa, where, after the war, the only Māori allowed into the RSA were the officers—and that was Sir James himself, but he refused to go in because his troops weren’t allowed to. That was not reversed until, I believe it was, 1985, which is a long time. That’s only very recently. So it’s one of the things that really did trample over the mana, and I think it’s important that we recognise those things. That was an injustice that was undeserved because they all went to war as volunteers. I think we really need to respect that contribution to our people, and people need to acknowledge that history.

Finally, as we come to the conclusion, I’d like to thank everybody who’s contributed to this debate. It’s been a great debate, and I’d like to conclude by saying what the battalion would have said as they went into battle:

Mō te Atua! Mō te kingi! Me te whenua!

Auē! Ake, ake, kia kaha e!

For God! For King! And for country! For ever and ever. Be strong. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Local Government (Water Services Preliminary Arrangements) Bill

In Committee

Part 1 Preliminary provisions

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, the House is in committee on the Local Government (Water Services Preliminary Arrangements) Bill. Members, we come first to Part 1, and Part 1 is the debate on clauses 3 to 7, Preliminary provisions and Schedule 1. The question is that Part 1 stand part.

Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana): Madam Chair?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The Hon Barbara Edmonds. I just about took a vote then, so members need to know to be on their feet quickly, but the Hon Barbara Edmonds.

Hon BARBARA EDMONDS: Thank you, Madam Chair. I also want to acknowledge the Minister in the chair, who is not the Minister for Local Government but I understand that she is more than capable—

Hon Member: Better.

Hon BARBARA EDMONDS: —of being able to answer questions—and, yes, better, and I learnt that from experience, so I do want to acknowledge you, Minister.

Actually, my general question is, first: Part 1 of this particular bill contains the preliminary provisions of the bill, such as the purpose, the overview, interpretation. I’m going to have a couple of questions as we go through but to the Minister—and I’ll ask the question now in case officials can provide some advice, and that’s in relation to the regulatory impact statement, in particular, because the Minister is the Attorney-General as well and would understand this particular area of law quite well, which is the Official Information Act.

This particular regulatory impact statement was drafted on 14 March 2024, so it’s been a number of months and as I travailed through the regulatory impact statements there were a number of parts of the regulatory impact statement which refer to the purpose of the course because it sets out the root causes of the problem, which is why we’ve gotten to the point that we have today, which is the bill. It sets out various parts of analysis and what I notice is during parts of those analysis, there have actually been parts that have been redacted under the Official Information Act under 9 (2)(a), (b), subclause 12, subsection 1.

For members of the House who are not aware, that particular part of the Official Information Act advises that you can refuse the release of information if for any particular reason it has some sort of commercial sensitivity or other sort of sensitivity, which is why officials have taken that particular position to redact it. My quick question to the Minister, and then I can go back and continue the speech while the Minister gets some advice, is that there are particular elements in relation to paragraphs—the end of paragraph 98, 99, 100, 101, paragraph 102, 103, and, obviously, other footnotes—which have all been redacted under that particular provision of the Official Information Act.

My question is: has there been a revisiting of this particular advice, whether officials are able to release some of that information because we have had additional time since March when it was first drafted. The reason why I’m pointing to that particular information is because it goes to the root cause as to why we have got in to this bill in the first place, which is around funding constraints. The funding constraints of local government are well known and understood. I was really hoping the Attorney-General could answer my question—so, the Minister of Local Government, the question I had is just whether officials or yourself have revisited a number of the redacted clauses within the regulatory impact statement because it does go to the funding constraints.

For members of the Finance and Expenditure Committee, the funding constraints for local authorities was very much a pivotal reason as to how we got to the affordable water reforms in the first place, which have now been repealed by Local Water Done Well. The funding constraints are the reason why councils up and down the country are having double-digit rate rises and the double-digit rate rises have come from the funding constraints that councils have been put in because the Government decided to remove affordable water reforms. I will go into asking the Minister a few more questions about some comparisons in relation to that, because that does go to the purpose of this particular bill.

The funding constraints: those paragraphs on pages 27 and 28 of the bill set out some of the growing debt ratios and caps, and also talk about the increasing number of councils that receive credit downgrades and a reliance on rates or user charges to increase the revenue required to support their networks. I think in the fullness of time, given it has been a number of months since this regulatory impact statement was first drafted, it would be really good to understand whether the Minister—if we are able to have a bit more information about what has been withheld as part of that regulatory impact statement, particularly around the funding constraints, so that the members across the whole House are able to have a bit more of a debate around those funding constraints because I understand why officials and why the Minister has to keep that commercially sensitive, however we are now in a position where the Government has introduced a bill which requires local authorities within the next 12 months to provide a plan as to how they’re going to deliver water in their area and then how that plan basically needs to be also part of the public record.

I just want to finish this last bit of this speech because I know the time has gone out, but it’s just to check with the Minister—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The member’s time has expired.

LAN PHAM (Green): Tēnā koe, Madam Chair. Thank you for letting me take this call on the Local Government (Water Services Preliminary Arrangements) Bill. It’s been a real pleasure to be sitting on the Finance and Expenditure Committee for the proceeding of this bill through the House, but I wanted to start my questioning for the Minister of Local Government on the purpose section of Part 1, because I am really concerned, and I’d love to hear the Minister’s thoughts, about how truncated the process was.

Where this comes into question with the purpose is that it says, “The purpose of this Act is to establish a framework for local government to manage and deliver water services.” Now, my concern about the purpose of this is that because it was such a truncated process for submissions, not all councils were actually able to submit and have their voices heard in the development of this bill. It meant that many councils, because the time frame was only 10 days to submit, were unable to submit because they couldn’t go through the normal processes to actually get sign-off for their submissions. So we really had to rely quite heavily on, more, the joint submissions from the likes of Local Government New Zealand or Taituarā. But I’d love to hear from the Minister about any risks he sees about that council voice, and especially our smaller councils, not being able to be adequately considered in the progression of this bill.

I also want to ask the Minister if there’s any concern about the urgency and the truncated process around this time frame, because as the Law Society and many other submitters pointed out during our public hearings process, they considered the use of urgency was not demonstrably necessary or appropriate. So I’m interested for that in terms of the purpose of the bill, because is it really for local government? Who is this really for?

I did want to mention as well that of the councils that did end up getting their act together and being able to submit within that 10-day time frame, it was summarised in the official advice that all councils submitted that “The cost and resource implications are [both] unclear [and significant] for councils, making it challenging to plan or fund the reform[s].” Now, obviously, there’s so many clauses throughout the bill which will highlight this, but I’d really invite overarching comment from the Minister about this overarching concern where local government voices haven’t been able to feed in, and whether he feels like the purpose is still upheld.

I also wanted to point to one of the regulatory impact statements that informs the development of the bill, where it says, “A detailed comparison or analysis of all councils [has] not been included” and that “The Department [actually] relied heavily on evidence that has been collected from media reports due to time constraints.”, and whether the Minister’s concerned that because there isn’t that strong foundation of this bill actually being developed and thrown around by councils, is it really a strong purpose and foundation for progressing?

Why did the Minister consider it unnecessary to adequately consult councils and have this truncated process, and why did so few of the suggestions submitted by local government actually get incorporated into the bill? Now, we’re going to be able to step through those, but I’d love to hear any overarching comments from the Minister. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Local Government): Thank you, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to take a call in this debate on the Local Government (Water Services Preliminary Arrangements) Bill in the first part here, which deals with the purpose, overview, and interpretation provisions of this legislation.

There’s been a number of questions in relation to, I guess, the time frame and in terms of the purpose of this legislation. This Government recognises the need to act quickly when it comes to this critical issue for councils in regards to their water services and the provision of those services. It’s a simple piece of legislation, which, effectively, requires councils to put forward water service delivery plans. It provides their ability to be able to set up council-controlled organisations in a far more efficient manner, and it also has some provisions in relation to Watercare in Auckland. Of course, there’s always going to be questions around the speed and the time frame, and I thank the 55 councils that submitted, which is actually a significant number of councils—listening to the previous member who just took her seat, it sounded like no one submitted; actually 55 councils submitted. So even within the short time frame—I acknowledge it was a short time frame—55 councils submitted, and we thank each one for submitting on this piece of legislation.

It’s really important that, though this legislation does act with pace, as this Government is acting quickly to put in place Local Water Done Well, we have further legislation which will come later this year which will have more detail around the financial arrangements and also the structures for these new water entities, and work is under way on that, at pace, at this stage. But there is an urgency to this issue. I’ve heard comments from the previous member, the Hon Barbara Edmonds, who was saying, “Well, actually, this is a really big issue. We need to act urgently.” So she was saying, “Act urgently.”; a member from the Green Party was saying, “Why do we act so quickly?”.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: We are separate parties.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: I know they’re separate parties, but you’re also part of the Opposition, and so—but my point there—

Hon Barbara Edmonds: The same way you’re a separate Government.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: We’re a great Government, and the point I’d make, though, is two Opposition members had two different perspectives. One was saying, “Act really slowly.”, and the other one was saying, “Act really quickly.”. As a Government, we are acting with urgency on this particular issue. I’ll leave them to decide amongst themselves, between the different Opposition parties, as to what their particular concerns are. Questions made around the—

Hon Barbara Edmonds: We’re in for a fun night.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: There was a bunch of other—I’m looking forward to it. There were questions around the redacted portions of the regulatory impact statement. This is required to be redacted to preserve the confidentiality in relation to credit rating agencies to ensure that we do not impact the ability of Auckland Council to gain a credit rating for Watercare. So there’s very good commercial reasons for the redaction of that information.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): Thank you, Madam Chair. I have two main areas of questioning in this call for the Minister in regard to Part 1 of the bill—one carries on directly from the contribution he’s just made when he talked about the Government’s desire to act quickly. Of course, this is the second stage of a trilogy or a trifecta of legislation that is coming before the House. The first stage, of course, was repealing. The purpose of the Local Government (Water Services Preliminary Arrangements) Bill comes here, which is putting the transitional provisions, which my colleague Barbara Edmonds has talked about. But, really, it’s not until we get to the third bill, the Local Government Water Services Bill—where we get to a lot of the very substantive measures—which is not intended for introduction until, I believe, December 2024, and not for implementation until 2025.

Just in terms of the time frames and the Minister emphasising the desire to act quickly, I wonder if the Minister would like to outline to the committee in this committee stage why it is he’s not bringing the more substantive piece of legislation—the stage three that will do the things around the long-term regulatory settings for sustainable water delivery, the long-term requirements for financial sustainability, which I think we’ll have much discussion on as we progress different parts of this bill through this evening. That, of course, will include the establishment of the new classes of council water organisations, providing for the complete economic regulation to be developed by the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs, amending the legislation for the regulation of water services, establishing the new regulatory backstop, and providing refinements to water services. Given the Minister has spent a lot of time talking about the need to act quickly, I’d like the Minister to explain to the committee why it is that we have to wait until next year until we can have the implementation of the full lot.

The other question I’d like to put to the Minister in regard to Part 1 relates to clause 3, the purpose clause, and that’s 3(2)(b) which is “providing for the Minister to assist or intervene if territorial authorities find it difficult to prepare a water services delivery plan;”. Now, the Government has made a lot—and indeed the regulatory impact statement picks up on that—about how this was part of the coalition agreements and it was campaigned on, that this was a part of “[prioritising] … a policy programme to improve water services delivery to New Zealand through localism and flexibility”. I think we’ve heard that word being bandied out a lot in the election campaign and certainly in the first nine months of Government.

What I would like some more discussion on, in this committee, while we’re on this purpose clause, which does introduce the idea that the Minister can assist or intervene and come in if there is a failure to prepare a water services delivery plan—is where the Minister sees the red lines around when he will intervene, when the Minister will come over top of local authorities, when it will be decisions made in Wellington about local water services, and exactly where he sees that evolving into the third piece of legislation. I think that this piece of legislation that we’re debating in the Chamber is not probably quite as local as members on the Government benches would like to sell to their communities. There is certainly through this clause here a very strong ministerial override which does amount to a centralised control of water services, and I think we need some extensive conversation around that. It’s introduced in the purpose clause, and we’ll have a number of questions around what the triggers will be, what the levers are.

So they’re my questions for the Minister. It’s around why so long for the third part of the trilogy—I think everyone always wants the third part of a trilogy sooner, and it’s no different when it comes to this legislation. But also, what are the triggers where the Minister is going to come in over the top of local authorities—override them and impose his will—and where does he see that red line?

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Local Government): Thank you, Madam Chair, and I thank the member for her questions. I think the member, in terms of the question of urgency, should note some of the significant things which this bill does. Firstly, the significant changes it makes for Watercare in Auckland, providing a financially sustainable approach to water infrastructure in Auckland. That is something which has been talked about for many years and it’s been delivered in this piece of legislation. That ensures that Aucklanders won’t face—well, they were going to face a 28 percent increase in water-rate increases from 1 July this year. That has been significantly reduced to well under 10 percent because of the provisions in this piece of legislation, and that is an urgent change being made in this legislation.

The other thing this Government is doing is it’s allowing councils to set up council-controlled organisations far more quickly in a streamlined approach—that takes place because of this legislation which has been put in place. Now, the last Government—I love hearing them talk about localism because they forgot about it for the last six years; they forgot all about it. In fact, their approach was to mandate from the Beehive and tell councils how they strip away their assets, strip away their control, and put in place a whole different system. So this allows councils the ability to put forward those decisions.

In relation to clause 3(2)(b) which was put forward by the Hon Megan Woods, the question there in relation to ministerial interventions, we have been very clear there is a role for the Government. Obviously there is Taumata Arowai which has a role around the health regulation, water-quality regulation. This is about economic regulation to make sure that there is a financially sustainable approach, and we also want to ensure that, as it says very plainly, if territorial authorities find it difficult, there is a role for Government to intervene. But that is a backstop rather than being what the previous Government did, which was the first, the second, the third, and the only intervention.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. First of all, I want to just get a point of clarification from Madam Chair, if that’s OK. If we’re also currently debating Amendment Paper 65 as well, because the previous Chair—OK. I’m seeing not. That’s excellent. Thank you.

My question to the Minister around this is also around purpose, so we’re looking at clause 3(1) first—that’s my first question. Now, my question is around the points of legality and inconsistency within the legislation, because clause 3(1) talks about establishing a framework for local government to manage and deliver, but an important part of this, if we’re looking at the commentary on pages 2 and 3, is about separating Watercare away from local government, and in terms of the fact that we are shifting the obligation but also prohibiting Auckland Council from providing financial support to Watercare. So I kind of wanted to see if the Minister wouldn’t mind clarifying whether the separation of Watercare from Auckland Council actually is contradictory to the purpose of the Act in subclause (1), because numerically (1) precedes everything else. I do actually genuinely want to know that, because we have seen that in other legislation as well, where that level of inconsistency could be arguable.

The second question I have in terms of purpose is around clause 3(2)(d), and this is in reference to the Amendment Paper that the Minister has put forward, Amendment Paper 65, where it talks about replacing (d) with “processes for territorial authorities to use”, whereas the previous wording is “may use”. This is also in relation to the amendment that the Minister put forward in terms of clause 4, but we can talk about clause 4 a little bit later. Now, “for territorial authorities to use” and “may use” can be vastly different in terms of legislative interpretation and statutory interpretation, so I want to get clarification from the Minister if the amendment that the Minister put forward where it says, “providing specific consultation and decision-making processes for territorial authorities to use” should be interpreted as a “must” or should maintain the current version we have and be interpreted as a “may”.

Those are the two questions for the Minister. The first one is whether the separation of Watercare and Auckland Council, which I’m sure will be discussed later on as well, overrides the overall purpose under clause 3(1) and whether the Amendment Paper that the Minister put forward for clause 3(2)(d) should be still interpreted as a “may” as opposed to a “must”.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you, Madam Chair. I have some questions—and I will go through clause by clause—a range of questions. First of all, there’s a lot of questions here that I think it would just be very useful to be in the Hansard. As a former lawyer, it’s very useful, always, for the Minister to be able to explain what the legislation is supposed to be doing for both lawyers and law students and anyone else who has to come across a bill—judges as well.

The first question comes from clause 3, the “Purpose”, and it’s to, at (1), “establish a framework for local government to manage and deliver water services.” I’ll just note the term there: “local government”. Then we get to (2)(a), and it’s talking about “requiring territorial authorities to prepare water services delivery plans;”. I think it will be useful for the Minister to make a contribution about why it is different in (1) using the term “local government” and in (2) using “territorial authorities”. I presume that it is because the framework is for all councils—that is the idea. Then these delivery plans are council by council or perhaps subsets of those councils as well. So that would be useful clarification.

Of course, also, we just had some conversation then about the fact that central government can approve these plans and that they have some control over them, and the Minister made some remarks about how he laughs at the previous Government talking about local councils. But that seems highly ironic, given, in this case, there is a requirement from central government to make these plans. I can’t see—certainly in Part 1—that there will be any funding from central government for those plans. So, again, a comment on that would be useful.

Going down then to (2)(e), we see that we’re “providing a financially sustainable model for Watercare” in Auckland Council. Of course, we all know, in this committee, that where there are terrible problems with water services is in the area north of Auckland Council. So how does this bill and how does this purpose help those councils that are not part of Auckland Council and won’t be part of Watercare? That, I think. is also quite a fundamental point. I agree, and I haven’t heard any answers yet from the Minister to Hon Dr Megan Woods’ points about what are those red lines for interventions when central government is going to intervene?

I’m particularly interested in clause 4, the “Overview”, and subclause (5)—which is all changed; it’s all underlined—because it is to do with the requirement for Taumata Arowai to not have regard “to the hierarchy of obligations contained in the National Policy … for Freshwater Management when making wastewater environmental performance standards.” What I am very interested in—and I raised this in my second reading speech as well—is why this is necessary when section 138 of the Water Services Act doesn’t mention the Resource Management Act (RMA) or any instrument made under the Resource Management Act, such as the national policy statement for freshwater. So why then do we need to specify that something in another piece of legislation, made under a regulation under that, a particular part of that, shouldn’t apply to this other piece of legislation? That really makes no sense to me.

Then, also, not only do we have this incongruous situation but there’s a King “Henry VIII” clause that goes with it. This will come later in the debate, as well, around Part 5. I’ll signal now that the need for a “King Henry VIII” clause is outrageous at the best of times. Ministers really need to justify why they would be using that. But they don’t even need to have this clause in the first place, which makes it even more mysterious.

Moving on to the “Interpretation”, which is in clause 5. I have a question around the definition of “price”, and there is some commentary from the select committee about why this new definition of “price” has been included, and it says that it’s related to the Commerce Commission, and there’s some commentary at page 5 of the bill from the select committee report. It would be useful to know if the Minister has an opinion on this definition and if it does just relate to the Commerce Commission or if it goes wider than what the select committee report back refers to.

Another question is about the definition of “urban area”. The definition “means an area identified in a district plan or proposed district plan”, and these are Resource Management Act instruments, district plans and proposed district plans. I wonder whether or not the Minister has considered or would consider an amendment that actually refers specifically to the Resource Management Act, if that would be the normal drafting style when referring to district plans. I’m interested in any advice that he might have on that. Again, of course, this is all useful for the Hansard when people are coming and looking at these definitions of “urban areas”.

Finally, on Part 1, my last question at the moment, is about Schedule 1. Clause 6 is “Transitional, savings, and related provisions”, and Schedule 1 is attached to that, so it’s part of this debate. It is a little bit curious, because it just says, “There are no transitional, savings, or related provisions in this Act as enacted.” So, again, if it’s the Parliamentary Counsel Office, this might be a style-guide issue or some such. I’m interested to know why—

Simon Court: “Some such”. That’s a lawyer’s word.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: I’m allowed to say “some such”, Mr Court.

Simon Court: Who says “some such” in 2024?

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: I apologise to Mr Court who’s taken offence at “some such”. I will say it may be because the Parliamentary Counsel Office have some guidance around what happens with schedules when there are, in fact, no transitional, savings, or related provisions and why you need a schedule to say that there are no transitional, savings, or related provisions. Of course, it’s always useful to hear from the Minister as to why there are no transitional provisions as well.

So I’m particularly interested on commentary around that “Purpose” in terms of local government, the difference between local government as a whole, those councils individually and, also, if there’s any provision for funding from the centre given that we’re talking about “localism”, benefit for Northland Taumata Arowai, and why that needs to include a reference to an RMA document, and those questions around the “Purpose”, “urban area”, and Schedule 1. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Local Government): I thank the members for their questions. There was a question initially around the Watercare provisions. Watercare remains owned by Auckland Council but this, obviously, provides that they have a prohibition for financial support that enables a council-controlled organisation to be financially separate, but it remains owned by the council. So, hopefully, that addresses that question.

In relation to the question of “must” versus “may”, that was a request from councils as part of the select committee process, and so we’re responding to their submissions.

In relation to the questions from the Hon Rachel Brooking, and the question around Northland councils being required under this to put forward a water service delivery plan—in terms of intervention thresholds, that’s a question for Part 2.

In terms of waste-water standards, it’s a question for Part 5. In terms of the definition around “price”, as it says in the report from the select committee, that is the reason why that has been inserted. It is in terms of aligning language with the Commerce Act. In terms of “urban area”, that’s the definition, and it’s a common definition. It can always be amended later via changes to any other legislation.

In terms of Schedule 1, that’s a style guide, apparently. So I have had that question asked on previous legislation, and a Schedule 1 is inserted in order that if changes are made or something happens, then there is a Schedule 1 available for that to happen.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): Thank you, Madam Chair. I just would like to return to clause 3(2)(b). The Minister of Local Government, when I asked what his red lines would be, said that councils would find it difficult. This is, of course, the language that is already in the bill that we have before us, if I just read 3(2)(b): “providing … the Minister to assist or intervene if territorial authorities find it difficult to prepare a water services delivery plan”. What I’m interested in at this committee stage, while we’re on Part 1 and we are going through the purpose of the legislation, is for the Minister to elaborate to the committee around what “difficult” means. I think that we’ve got the word in front of us, “difficult”, but no clear direction from the Minister where his red lines are. For example, the regulatory impact statement (RIS) for the bill has got a large section on councils being forced to increase their expenditure and raise rates to address funding challenges, and it goes through there. I mean, “difficult” is a relative term, so I’d be keen to understand, in the Minister’s thinking, what does “difficult” mean? Is it difficult in terms of funding? Is it difficult in terms of the politics? Is it difficult in terms of the social licence? Where is the Minister’s thinking on this?

If we go through what the RIS does, I think in a very clear way, on page 29 of the regulatory impact statement, it puts a comparison of the proposed rates rises linked to water infrastructure costs and goes through a number of the then long-term plans (LTPs)—understand that a number of councils have made decisions around those LTPs since the publication of the RIS. But if we look at Ashburton council, 11.5 percent rates increases because of the increased cost of needing to account for waters infrastructure. Auckland Council: around 25 percent rates increases. Buller District Council: 31.8 percent rates increases. Clutha District Council: 20 percent for one year. Gisborne: 11.4 percent. Hamilton City Council: 25.5 percent, followed by 14.1 percent for four years. Hutt City Council: 16.9 percent. Wellington City: 13.8 to 15.4 percent rates increases. Then, the RIS helpfully goes through why it is and which particular piece of water infrastructure, because the previous reforms are being repealed—why that is putting more pressure on councils.

When the Minister says that councils will find it difficult, is it these kinds of double-digit rates increases that councils are going to need to impose and are, indeed, as we’ve seen through the latest round of LTPs that councils are imposing on ratepayers? Is that what, in clause 3(2)(b), the Minister has in mind for “difficult”, or are there some other kinds of difficult, other than double-digit rates rises that this is imposing on ratepayers around the country? That’s just a small subsection of councils. I’m sure there’s many other regions around the country which members will want to raise through the course of this debate as we get into the night on this legislation, and what that means for ratepayers around the country.

I’m still not clear, and I think this committee deserves to be clear, to know where the Minister’s red lines are. Where does he see the triggers that are laid out in the purpose statement of this clause for abandoning the much-vaunted localism in terms of this waters legislation and instead imposing the will of Wellington in the form of the Minister? If it’s not double-digit rates rises, I’m keen to know what difficult means in clause 3(2)(b). Simply the Minister repeating the words that are already on the page in the legislation I don’t consider adequately addresses the questions that this committee has put to him. There was a very short select committee process for this, and I think this is an issue that this House, in the committee of the whole House stage, needs to fully tease out.

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Local Government): Thank you, Madam Chair, and I appreciate the questions from the member. I mean, ultimately, the detail of that and thresholds are in the clauses in Part 2, and that is where that debate will be had in more full.

STEVE ABEL (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m pleased to be speaking to this for the first time, and I’ll begin with Part 1 also.

Given, Minister, that this legislation is replacing the Water Services Entities Act—or is the beginning of replacing that Act—one question I’ve got is to understand the decisions to exclude certain key things in the purpose of the bill. The purpose of the Water Services Entities Act was to enable long-term sustainable improvements in the safety, quality, resilience, accessibility, affordability, efficiency, and performance of water services and water services infrastructure.

Now, there are some very pertinent and important terms captured by that purpose, things that most New Zealanders think would be a good thing to expect of our water service providers. So my question is why would you remove so many of those things, such as the obvious one being safety of water or quality of water in your purpose of the bill, which simply states, “The purpose of this Act is to establish a framework for local government to manage and deliver water services.”—no reference to safety, to quality, to resilience, to accessibility, affordability. That’s my first question.

The second question is that glaringly absent from the purpose is any mention of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, which was of course in the Water Services Entities Act, in its purpose, requiring those entities to give effect to the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, the Treaty of Waitangi, and Te Mana o te Wai.

Now, I understand we will speak about Te Mana o te Wai later, but Te Tiriti o Waitangi is glaringly absent from this legislation. It was one of the points that was raised in submissions by the Pou Taiao Iwi Chairs Forum: “The bill’s proposals lack any acknowledgment of the Government’s Te Tiriti obligations to iwi and hapū, despite this Government maintaining that it continues to hold the position articulated in the affidavit of the Rt Hon Bill English, which acknowledged that Māori have rights and interests in water and geothermal resources, and there is no reference at all to iwi and hapū participation in the delivery and decision making in respect of the mechanisms proposed.”

It is quite an extraordinary thing to remove any reference to Te Tiriti, given the very significant importance, of water, of wai, to tangata whenua Māori. I would like the Minister to explain why that has been removed entirely from the purpose of the bill.

Further down, we see other purposes providing for monitoring and oversight arrangements. We have to understand in the context, and I will speak to this later, of the disaster that happened in the Hawke’s Bay with contamination there, ensuring water services infrastructure is retained in public ownership—I wonder if the Minister can give us an assurance that water services infrastructure will be retained in public ownership, and why that would not be kept or included as a purpose of this new bill, ensuring that water services infrastructure is not operated for the purpose of generating profit for shareholders. That seems to be a thing that most New Zealanders, given that water is a human right, would agree with. I wonder if the Minister can please give an answer as to why he would not keep that as a purpose in this new piece of legislation. Thank you.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to follow on from my colleague Rachel Brooking’s previous contribution where she had a good look at some of the definitions and some of the quite detailed clauses in Part 1. There’s one particular phrase that has caught my eye, and I’ve looked for a definition of it and I can’t find it, but it’s sitting there in Part 1, in the purpose cause. So I want to direct the Minister’s attention to clause 3(2)(c). The particular phrase that I’m interested in there is “specified foundational information”.

Now, “specified” is possibly neither here nor there. It’s the sort of phrase I would expect to be defined, because it’s kind of meaningless in itself. So we don’t quite know what “foundational” is, and that’s the word that’s doing the work there, so what is this foundational information?

Typically, in order to work that out, we’d just sort of pop through to the definition section of the bill. Sitting in clause 5 is the interpretation, and so I looked for the two obvious phrases, “specified foundational information”, and that’s not there. So I looked for “foundational information”, and that’s not there either, so there’s a little bit of a mystery as to what that phrase means.

Now, looking further through, because, again, the obvious thing to do is to look for some definition further through in the bill, and without foreshadowing the debate on Part 2, Subpart 3 of Part 2 does talk about foundational information, so I scanned through there to see if I could find some sort of definition there. It may well be that by the time someone has worked all the way through the bill and has gotten to that particular part, they understand what foundational information means. But here it is sitting right up in the preliminary provisions of the bill, where we would expect at least some signalling as to where that foundational information is defined, as to what it is.

That’s, I guess, quite a technical little point, but it goes to exactly what my colleague the Hon Rachel Brooking was talking about in terms of information sitting there for the benefit of lawyers, for the benefit of law students, so it is sitting there in the Hansard, so that people coming to this bill actually understand what it is trying to achieve and understand the technical detail of it without having to go, as I’ve just had to do, trying to track down little bits and pieces like that.

Of course, my particular background is in tax law, and there’s a lot of definitional work that goes on there and I know where to find stuff. Typically, we can find our way through bills, but I could not find that particular definition. I suspect it’s easily fixed. It might just be that I’ve just missed it, because I couldn’t find where it’s defined, but even then, I would expect to see it where that phrase, which is a little bit unusual, first pops up. Again, I think it’s the word “foundational” that’s doing the work there. If it was just “specified information”, I’d go, “Oh yeah, whatever.”, but it’s that particular little word, “foundational”.

I think, if we could have some advice from the Minister or even just saying, “Actually, maybe we’d better fix this up and we’ll just find a wee bit of a way of signalling where we’re saying what that foundational information is.”, so that right up the front we can understand the structure of this bill and what it is trying to achieve, I’ll look forward to hearing that from the Minister, or perhaps his officials. It is a somewhat simple question, but, hopefully, there is a simple answer to it.

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Local Government): Thank you, Madam Chair, and I thank the members for their questions. In relation to the member Steve Abel’s questions, there was a range of things which he highlighted as to signalling why they are not in there. In relation to water quality, water safety, there is significant water regulation that Taumata Arowai is responsible for in terms of drinking-water standards. Those provisions which are under, obviously, separate legislation continue to apply to water service providers and so those don’t change.

There are questions in relation to the Treaty of Waitangi. Ultimately, councils will still be required to meet any specified obligations that they have under the local government legislation. This doesn’t change any of this. This bill is about a framework for councils to determine how they wish to deliver water services in their communities, and they’ll continue to operate within existing obligations during that process.

In relation to the question around foundational information, I found that five minutes of my time leaving me very quickly, but I would just point the member to, potentially, a dictionary for the word “foundational”, and another one, a dictionary, for the word “information”, but also there is a Part 2. Again, I’d point the member to Part 2. It goes into a lot more detail around that particular issue and so I’m happy to have further discussion around that question at that point.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): Thank you, Madam Chair. I am going to push the Minister a little bit here. We are in Part 1, where we do have the purpose clause for the legislation, and for the Minister just to say “That’s the bit we’ll talk about.”, where his red lines are around where it is in terms of ministerial intervention for a council’s inability when they’re finding it “difficult” to provide a water services delivery plan—we do need to talk about this in the purpose clause of the bill. This is the part of the legislation where people will go and will want to find some very clear direction from this House, and I don’t think it’s adequate for the Minister to say that he doesn’t need to talk about it under this part. It is very clearly in clause 3(2)(b).

Now, “difficult”—I’d asked the Minister if it was double-digit rates rises that would equal difficulty for the council, and if they’re the kinds of things that would trigger the need for shattering that much-vaunted localism and having ministerial intervention, or whether there was some other thing. One of the things that we heard very clearly through submissions from a number of councils, in particular, was what have been termed orphan concerns, and I wondered if this was one of the difficulties—where there is an orphaned council or a territorial and local authority (TLA) that the Minister would see as being a difficulty under the purpose of the legislation in this clause that would trigger a ministerial intervention.

What we heard was that under the previous Government’s legislation, obviously, there were 10 water entities, where there was a mix of councils that could come together, and what we heard under the regime that this Government is putting in place is a concern from some councils that they were going to be left on their own—hence the term “orphaned councils”. We heard from the Far North Deputy Mayor, Kelly Stratford, and she told the select committee that none of the models offered by the bill ensured affordability for her district if Auckland was not part of the equation. So how is it that we account for those small councils that are going to be left on their own? Is that the kind of thing that’s going to constitute difficulty? She went on to tell the committee that her district struggled with having enough skilled people to comply with the higher standards that were being legislated in this bill. So how are they going to do that?

One of the things that we saw submitters make a point on—and I think it was a very interesting point and I want to understand how the Minister sees this interacting with clause 3(2)(b)—was that this is set against the Local Government Act and the provisions of the Local Government Act, which encourage councils and territorial and local authorities to focus on their immediate place. It is their job under that piece of legislation to be accountable to the ratepayers of their district, yet this is looking for these voluntary kinds of groupings to come together that will provide that mix so that we don’t get orphaned TLAs. But how does that mesh with the provisions of the TLA and how does it mesh with the purpose statement of this legislation?

I think one of the submissions that I was most concerned about—there were many of them—was the submission about how Buller could really be left as an orphaned council. Over three years, the ratepayers in Westport could see water charges rise from $2,300 to over $4,000 in just four years from now, under the provisions that we’ve got in front of us. That’s the kind of cost that the people in Westport would need to bear because of this fear that they would be orphaned and left on their own. As to the idea that councils would band together to spread the costs, we heard from a number of mayors that under the framework that’s been put forward by the Government, that’s just not going to happen.

So the question for the Minister in the chair is to give us some more clarity around what “difficult” in clause 3(2)(b) means. Is this what would constitute difficulty—orphaned councils? Is this the type of scenario that would see the Minister come in and force groupings to come together? Is that the kind of thing that he’s seeing in terms of the purpose of the bill, or is he prepared for the residents of places like Westport to face that rise from $2,300 to $4,000 over just four years and for them to absorb those costs? Is that the kind of thing that he sees as difficult and warranting ministerial direction? I’m still unclear, and I think this committee needs to understand that.

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ve got a question for the Minister. I’ve got a number of questions, actually, relating to Part 1 and the purpose of the bill “to manage and deliver water services.”, and I’m wondering if he can explain to me, in a number of scenarios, what those words “manage” and “deliver” mean. My first reference point would be the Clutha District Council, which could quite well be one of those orphaned councils. Originally, the residents of Clutha in my electorate of Taieri were looking at an up-to 20 percent rates increase. The council has opted to do less than that, but that is not going to fix the water problem, so we’re going to end up with a scenario where the councils are trying to keep the rates down to allow quite a senior population to potentially stay in their own homes and yet the water infrastructure will not be fixed, and they will have difficulties and they will be probably very likely orphaned.

This has been an absolute headache for the small councils down in the lower South Island, and I’d like to hear what the Minister’s solution is for Clutha, in particular. Would he be requiring it to join forces, say, with Dunedin City Council or with Christchurch City Council, or does he have another scenario? Would there be a bailout, or is this going to be the collapse of that council? Because there is no way that the people of Clutha can afford the rates rises that they would have needed, which would minimum be in the 20s—and we’re looking at the 30s—going forward, if they were to actually manage water infrastructure. And would it be “difficult” under the scenario that my colleague the Hon Dr Megan Woods raised in the previous question?

My second one relates to the people in Eastern Bush in Invercargill, where they haven’t had a significant rates rise. It’s only about 10 percent, but they’ve just been issued a three-year boiled water notice. So that’s three years of boiled water because the water is deemed dangerous. There has been no incentive, I guess, for that council either to increase the rates, because the councillors know this is the end of their political life. If there’s not going to be a bailout by the Government, then I don’t know what’s going to happen. But they are looking at three years of boiled water. Is this a difficult situation in the scenario that was raised by my colleague the Hon Dr Megan Woods?

The third situation is a little bit more complicated and goes to the situation in Auckland. When I look at the purpose of the bill and it talks about managing and delivering water services and then I go to the definition section to see what that includes, it talks about “stormwater”, and then when I go to the definition of “stormwater”—this is in the definition section—it refers to streams that could be related to the infrastructure. Now, under the bill as it currently stands, we had a really nimble solution to be able to resolve some of the problems that happened with flooding in Auckland, because what happened was that many properties suffered significant damage and cost as a result of badly managed stormwater systems. There are in fact 3,000 kilometres of streams in Auckland, and the way the law was being applied, prior to the legislation of the Labour Government, was that individual councils could determine whether they required those water systems to be cleaned out or not and who bore the liability; it was really a patchwork.

What happened was we had some very perverse outcomes where some people in Auckland, who, maybe, managed the stream going down by their property, ended up having to face liability for stormwater overflows due to the—I would say—negligence of councils or perhaps even the bad behaviour of neighbours, where they had allowed build-up in the streams, and there was no consistent application of the law. What happened under the legislation was that we were able to say, “This needs to be uniform. There is a duty of care, where it makes sense, on the councils, or they can put homeowners on notice, and if the homeowner doesn’t reasonably clean up the stream, then they will be accountable.”

When I look in this repealing legislation, it’s silent on whether, in those scenarios, the streams in Auckland are part of the water infrastructure system and who would bear the liability in that case. The words “related to” are quite ambiguous, so I’m keen to know how the Minister would see resolving that and whether he intends to do anything, because if he doesn’t, and this piece of legislation remains silent on it, then that is going to be a real headache, because there will be events. We know that these one-in-100-year events are happening every year. This scenario will come up. We had costs estimated up to $14 billion as a result of weather-related events and storm water and flooding across particularly Hawke’s Bay and Auckland. So that’s not a minor issue that I’m raising. It is technical, but it’s very, very important that we have clarity about what constitutes the stormwater network, what constitutes waterways being related to the infrastructure and where that line is drawn, whether the scenario had even been envisaged, and whether there is going to be certainty for the water entities and for homeowners as to who bears the liability and what the accountability is if they do not keep these streams and rivers clear.

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Local Government): Look, I thank the members for their questions. In terms of the question around the definitions of “manage and deliver”, ultimately, this is about making it clear that local government is responsible for managing and delivering water services in their community. I know that’s a fundamental change from the last Government’s approach where they consolidated and took the assets off local government and imposed their approach on local government. That was rejected resoundingly at the last election. We believe that local government should be responsible for managing and delivering water services, and that is the approach this Government is taking.

The questions raised by the Hon Megan Woods in relation to the word “difficult”—that is in relation to the water services delivery plans, that is not in relation to delivery and managing of water services. As I said, there is in Part 2, obviously, a lot of fulsome criteria around that—

Hon Dr Megan Woods: We’ll get to that, but this is the purpose.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: —and in relation to the—

Hon Dr Megan Woods: We’ll have a more fulsome discussion then, but you need to answer about the purpose.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: About the purpose, yes. So, in relation to the word “difficult”, there may be a range of scenarios in which councils have challenges in relation to putting together a water service delivery plan. As is outlined in Part 2, there are a range of potential interventions or supports that councils can have provided. One of those could be that the council actually even writes to the Government and says, “Can you assist us?” So there is a range of different levels of what that may mean. It is a broad term which is deliberately used, but it is something which—ultimately, our expectation as a Government is that all councils will follow the law and will put forward a water service delivery plan on how they’re going to manage and deliver water services in their community.

Now, members have raised a range of potential examples around challenges that councils may face—I’m not going to pre-empt any of that. What we’re saying here, though, is there is a range of tools and mechanisms in place which can be used if there is difficulty. I’m not going to preempt any of that because my expectation is that councils will work effectively and work together to put forward water service delivery plans for their communities.

Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana): Thank you, Madam Chair. My question actually goes back to a previous issue that I asked the Minister to address, and it might have got lost within the transition between two different Ministers, and it was in relation to the information that had been redacted within the regulatory impact statement. I was listening hard to understand what it was, and I think the Minister can address it shortly.

The reason why I ask that is because, actually, part of the regulatory impact statement is around what the root causes are that led to this bill. For me, it goes back to purpose clause 3(2)(c), which is around the public disclosure of specified foundational information in relation to delivery of water services. Now, it doesn’t take too much effort, because in the redaction within the regulatory impact statement, they fail to redact footnote 35 on page 28, which references a Newsroom article on 20 February 2024 that “Councils [are] placed on negative credit watch due to three waters repeal.” So I’ll wait for the Minister to confirm it, whether that particular part that had been redacted was actually around the credit rating of the different councils which are subject to the framework in which this Part 1 sets up. I’ll wait for the Minister to, basically, respond to that shortly—if the Minister would like to, basically, allow the committee, for officials or the Minister to table the advice that has been redacted in those elements of the regulatory impact statement.

The reason being is the failure to table that information—under the Official Information Act—totally contradicts, which is part of the purpose clause in Part 1 of this bill, because it requires the territorial authorities to publicly disclose specified foundational information, which I know we will go through with Part 2, to have a look at a couple of elements of that. But what I don’t understand is: why doesn’t the credit rating information need to be redacted from the regulatory impact statement? It was drafted in March; it is now August. Why can’t that information not be released, given, as well, we know that a number of councils have gone through credit rating assessments. For example, in Porirua, where I live, our council rates are 17 percent as of 1 July—that’s 17 percent. They have gone through a credit rating assessment with Standard & Poor’s and they received a downgrade in part of their very most recent credit assessment. Again, my assumption is just because, based on the footnote that’s in the regulatory impact statement, this does talk about credit watch, and perhaps his officials’ assessments of what councils throughout the country will be under credit watch or have a potential for a downgrade—why can’t that information be tabled?

I believe that we will get to the point as part of this bill where that information needs to be disclosed anyway, if that’s the purpose of subclause (c), which requires territorial authorities to publicly disclose specified foundation information. Again, that’s for the purpose of supporting economic regulation. Well, the supporting economic regulation is because you know what the debt limit is of those councils, you know what the credit ratings are, and you know what the risks are. I think that ratepayers—and taxpayers, because, ultimately, they’re two in one sometimes—need to be able to understand: is this what the Minister is intending or Parliament is intending as part of that purpose clause and subsection (c)? That’s the sort of information at a framework level that should be disclosed for ratepayers and taxpayers, in order for them to be able to hold their councils to account.

I think that’s important because this information, unless you ask for it to be released, will remain redacted until somebody else does it through an Official Information Act request, but yet we’re here in the Chamber tonight, we are debating making sure there is foundational information for the purpose of supporting economic regulation. But I think a key part of why this is a problem—the root cause of it—is the analysis that sits under it hasn’t been released. So I’m just really keen to know whether the Minister would consider releasing that information, if, again, I think it is about negative credit watch and assessment of it; if not, I’m just trying to understand at what point would a taxpayer or ratepayer, given that territorial authorities will need to provide foundational information, where can they find that information from in the future, and what sort of information we should be trying to table here to make a considered assessment on behalf of ratepayers.

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Local Government): I addressed this question earlier, in relation to these redacted portions, and the answer given was that it’s redacted to preserve confidentiality of credit rating agencies to ensure we do not impact the ability of Auckland Council to gain a credit rating for Watercare.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’m going to take some more calls but I just want to make a note that the question around “difficult” and the question around “specified foundational information”, as the Minister has said, is in Part 2. So if the Minister is going to answer that in Part 2, maybe we could have some questions on some different things, and we could return to that in Part 2.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Kia orana. Meitaki maata, Madam Chair. Thank you. Can I thank the Minister of Local Government for his response around the redaction. I wonder whether, though—I mean, it was almost feeling like a sense of déjà vu; in his other portfolio, transport, there are regulatory impact statements that also have redacted information that we often don’t get some information about. But the Minister, as I understand it, has informed the committee that it’s for reasons of confidentiality. I would be interested in his thoughts—given that’s the first response in that space—about whether there is a weight in favour of, effectively, waving some aspects of the confidentiality, given that this will have significant implications for local communities all around the motu. I think he’s seeking advice around that, so perhaps we’ll get a response.

If I can turn my remaining thoughts to the purpose section, which is clause 3, I do want to touch on clause 3(2)(b), not around the difficulty aspect but around the preparation, and the question to the Minister is: what stage does that preparation relate to? The Minister, I know, comes from a background of local government, like myself. There are many aspects in that particular sector that preparation can sort of entail. Is it around that development phase when a council may seek some support or advice or guidance or help or whatever it might be, whether it be from Government or elsewhere, or is it that there needs to be a well-defined and constructed delivery plan in place and signed off by the council and that’s what triggers that aspect of preparation?

So my question to the Minister is: at what stage in a preparation process for those involved in the local government sector would that actually kick in? Is there a requirement for a signed-off delivery plan to actually be on the table of the local government or of the council itself—or, actually, no, can councils engage at a much earlier level because they’re in the process of preparation? The Minister knows, given his background, that there’s a public consultation process. There is a process where elected members may make some of these calls themselves. There is a process where expertise, whether that be within the council organisation or outside of the council organisation, would be brought to the table. Where in the process, at a high level, can councils, basically, effectively, hit that button where they’re saying, “Actually, there is a sense of difficulty”, whatever that might mean, and how might they go about it?

My other question relates to the purpose clause 3(2)(c). It’s not about the nature of the foundational information, but it is the change that has been suggested by the select committee, which is around the public disclosure of that information and what that actually means. Now, what was originally in the bill was around the provision of the information. OK. That can be very transactional. This is actually taking it to a different level where it’s saying, actually, there would be a requirement on the territorial authorities to disclose that information, but they would have to do it in a public way. So is that just that being on a council’s website, for example, would be sufficient? Or is it actually that there needs to be something further in that space?

I have some other questions that relate to my specific area of Palmerston North City Council and the rates rises that have already been announced that flow from that, but I’ll come back to that once the Minister’s had a chance.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you so much, Madam Chair. My question is around clause 5, “Interpretation”, particularly around the definition that has been given for “financially sustainable”. Now, looking at the commentary, one of the things I noticed is what should be expanded in terms of this definition and what we’ve heard in terms of submissions from local government—oh, firstly, I also want to thank the Minister for so clearly answering my previous two questions. Thank you so much. They were super, super spot on.

In terms of what local government has suggested in this case, one of the things that it talked about is integration of the plan, but integration with the existing plans and processes and future development strategy that they’ve had. That then leads to one of the Amendment Papers that my colleague Lan Pham has put forward in terms of adding a subclause (c) to what is “financially sustainable”. I really implore the Minister to consider this amendment and these additional three things, because these additional three elements that have been touched on in Lan Pham’s Amendment Paper 69 address some of the concerns that have been raised.

The first thing I want to speak on in this case is the fact that, when we’re looking at the existing definition of “financially sustainable”, it talks about long-term investment and also talks about being financially able to meet the regulatory standards, but what it doesn’t mention is the consideration of debt and future borrowing. I think that is a really, really crucial element of the financial sustainability and financial viability for local government when they are considering the work that they need to undertake for this.

The second part of the Amendment Paper talks about “affordability for communities”. This is, again, something that my colleague Steve Abel has mentioned previously in terms of that level of affordability, and, again drawing attention to the regulatory impact statement, paragraph 108 and Table 2 also specify the risk and caution on the increase in rates for that. So that is the second part of that Amendment Paper.

The last part, albeit one of the more important elements that haven’t been addressed at all in this “financially sustainable” definition, is around environmental sustainability—because of the fact that this is also a concern for local government. I won’t mention too much around it, because it has been mentioned in terms of the environmental sustainability that, for example, Auckland faced last year due to the flood. So in terms of the Amendment Paper, I would ask the Minister to seriously consider it, particularly since it does affect Part 2—which I won’t mention, but I will be coming back to it later in terms of clause 8(1)(b)(ii).

If the Minister could consider those three elements of this Amendment Paper, which are not currently within the definition of “financially sustainable”—and that is around “debt and future borrowing”, “affordability for communities”, and also “environmental sustainability”—that would be really great.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to pick up on something the Minister of Local Government said in response to one of the previous speakers. We were worrying about the difficulties, and so on—so I take your point about us going to discuss that further. He said that he’s going to assume that councils can do their job. But I do want to draw the Minister’s attention to the regulatory impact statement and to really question that comment that the Minister made, because it runs up against some of the stuff that we were told in the Finance and Expenditure Committee about how many of the councils were going to struggle with some of the requirements. It also runs up against some of the stuff that is sitting in the regulatory impact statement.

Sitting in paragraph 30 of the regulatory impact statement, it says that councils are already struggling to fund deferred maintenance and replacement of water services, and they’re facing increasing costs in their operation of their water services. Then, the very next paragraph, paragraph 31, says, “There are fixed costs associated with delivery of water services that are challenging for councils with very small populations to fund, as councils consider vary considerably in … size.” So this problem is already signalled loud and clear. I do take the Minister’s point, but I’m also going to say that perhaps some foresight could go a little way here. Then, sitting in paragraph 40 of the regulatory impact statement, it talks about the five root causes that contribute to the persistent systematic problems with the delivery of water infrastructure. In paragraph 40, it offers five root causes—cause (c) is “varied decision-making quality”, and cause (d) is “funding constraints”. So, with respect, Minister, I find it puzzling that then you could also say that you’re going to assume that councils can do their job.

Now, I take it that councils want to do their job. I know that many of the councils who spoke to us during the select committee process, either as individual councils or via Local Government New Zealand—the people presenting talked about their commitments to their communities, talked about why they were in local government, and talked about how they wanted to do a good job. So everyone wants to do a good job. And I take it that the Minister, of course, would agree with that too—that the locally elected members want to do a good job. The problem is whether or not they are able to do a good job.

Sitting in the regulatory impact statement prepared by the Minister’s officials, which he would have gone through himself and sent on to accompany this bill, there is an absolute contradiction to his statement that he is going to assume that the councils can do their jobs. As I said, there’s a distinction between “want” and “can”. It goes absolutely to the purpose of this bill—something that, you know, sits right in there about whether or not councils actually can do the job. The funding constraints, the varied decision-making capabilities, the huge contrast between some of our councils—you know, comparing the incredible resources of Auckland to the very small councils like Buller and so on. And we haven’t even talked about the Far North yet so far—

Hon Rachel Brooking: I mentioned it.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: Oh, thank you, Rachel Brooking—I hadn’t realised you had done that. So there are real difficulties that councils face. I just want the Minister to comment a little bit more on that assumption that he’s made that councils can actually do their job.

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Local Government): Thank you, Madam Chair. The member Tangi Utikere talked about the redactions again. I would just mention this is not my document; this is the Department of Internal Affairs’ document, the regulatory impact statement—

Hon Dr Megan Woods: You’re responsible for your commentary on your bill.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, please feel free to put an Official Information Act request in if you wish.

In regards to the question around public disclosure, this is, of course, part of the disclosure requirements that are being imposed here around economic regulation and, of course, transparency requirements. And that is why that is being put in place.

Also, there was a question around, I think, the word “prepare”. And so this is obviously a thing in terms of clause 3(2)(b): “prepare a water services delivery plan”. Ultimately, again, Part 2 deals with all of the criteria in relation to those interventions.

There was a question from Lawrence Xu-Nan from the Green Party in relation to Amendment Paper 69. The current definition is broad enough to capture these matters. There is a risk that by adding further matters, we limit the application of the definition to identify and assess financial sustainability.

And the second question he asked around debt talks in there in terms of the words “long-term investment”, and that obviously requires the consideration around those investments and decisions, and, obviously, debt will play a part in terms of that.

The questions from the Hon Deborah Russell—effectively, she just outlined the difference between the Opposition’s perspective and our perspective in relation to this entire issue. And her question was: can councils do the job? And that’s why the last Government decided they couldn’t, and so they came in, took away all their assets, put in place these 10 mega - co-governed entities, and, effectively, New Zealanders rejected that at the last election. So we’re putting in place the foundations for councils to be able to manage and to deliver water services in their community. We’re putting in place a regime here which supports them to do that, and it’s something which many councils campaigned for.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to move on to clause 3(2)(e)—far be it for me to deal on “difficult”. I’d like to thank the Minister of Local Government very much for the answer that he gave to my colleague the Hon Barbara Edmonds about why it was that there’s so many redactions in terms of the questions around the funding constraints. I accept the Minister’s answer that that’s because there are some commercial sensitivities while Auckland Council establishes its credit rating and works through those things.

One of the questions I have for the Minister, and I’d be keen to know, is that, of course, credit ratings are something that are continually monitored by the ratings agencies, so, therefore, does the Minister foresee that this information will never be made public, that this isn’t something that we can have some transparency around? I would argue that you could put the argument that you’re continually and perpetually in a state of the credit rating agencies considering commercial sensitivities. So I’m keen to hear from the Minister around that and what his expectations in terms of the public disclosure of that information would be, if that is indeed the rationale that he sees as underpinning the withholding of that information. I think it is important for the committee to understand that, in terms of the expectations going forward, around how much information can be in the public domain.

The other question I have for the Minister is in terms of the purpose clause, which says very clearly that “The purpose of the Act is to establish the framework for local government to manage and deliver water services.” and “delivers that purpose by” and we go through (a), (b), (c), (d), and (e). But one of the things that I would like to ask the Minister, and it has been noted in commentary on the bill, is that one of the key things that is identified from submitters is actually around how we are going to pay for this. What is not in that purpose clause is—there is nothing about how these new water entities may be funded. The closest we get is the one that I asked about in here, which is clause 3(2)(e), which is “providing a financially sustainable model for Watercare to be financially separate from Auckland Council and an interim economic regulation regime for Watercare [and] is administered by a Crown monitor.”

Let’s take that up a level, because I think that fundamental issue of how it is that these entities are going to be funded, in other parts of the bill—and I don’t want us to get into bits that we are going to debate far more fulsomely as we proceed through this evening, but at that very purpose clause, why did the Minister not think of including, as part of the purpose of this legislation, one of those core issues that is raised by submitters and that, indeed, I think everybody, including the Minister, accepts is at the crux of this matter: who’s going to pay for it? How is it going to be funded?

We’ll get into issues about balance sheet separation and debt ceilings for a number of the entities. They’ll come in different parts of the bill, so I’m not trying to traverse those areas. It’s really that fundamental question that if we’re considering why it is we’re here in this Chamber considering this legislation, having this debate, that very, very core issue is not included. So I’m keen to hear from the Minister on those two things.

Given that he has cited commercial sensitivities, does he see that there is an end point for those commercial sensitivities, or does he see that the perpetual monitoring by ratings agencies will mean that we can never fully put that information out into the public arena? And, secondly, it’s why, when we’re considering this legislation, we’re not considering the most core issue, I would argue, that lies at the heart of this legislation.

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Local Government): In relation to the first question, I have made it very clear that that is in relation to Watercare establishing a credit rating, and this is redacted in order to not prejudice them establishing a credit rating. Once a credit rating is in place, generally those are made publicly available, and there’s obviously processes that go on from there.

In relation to the second question, this is Part 2. There’s obviously further legislation to come to the committee.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you, Madam Chair. Here is just a very short question from me, going back to the Minister’s previous contribution in saying that this bill was about supporting councils. I did mention, in my first contribution, that there seems to be some irony here when this Government says that they’re interested in what’s happening at the local level but there’s no funding from the centre. So can the Minister address that question? Is there no funding from the centre? Is this just putting extra workload on to councils? Is that what it’s doing? I would appreciate a clear answer on that. And what does he mean when he says the whole purpose of this bill is to support councils? It’s very important.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): Thank you, Madam Chair. I just have a very quick follow-up question, and I thank the Minister for his answer and for clarifying that he sees that that is about the credit rating being established and that, following that, there can be disclosure. So what I would like some clarity from the Minister on is when he sees that point being reached. Obviously there’ll be the passage of this bill once it’s passed, but what is his expectation in terms of time frames afterwards? When will he consider that their credit rating is established enough, given the processes that rating agencies go through in terms of monitoring? What is the point where he is satisfied that that is established?

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Local Government): That is a matter for Auckland Council, which is going through the process of the financial separation for Watercare.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, the time has come for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break. The House will resume in committee at 7.30 p.m.

Sitting suspended from 5.56 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Good evening, members. When we finished, we were debating Part 1 of the bill.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you, Mr Chair. I will just very quickly remind the Minister that before the dinner break, he had made the comment that the bill is going to support councils, and we are yet to hear how this bill is going to support councils. Of course, that is important, given that we are on the purpose section of the bill, being clause 3 in Part 1, so I’m very keen to hear a response.

Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana): Thank you, Mr Chair. I continue the debate on Part 1 of this particular bill, which we’d been canvassing before the dinner break, which are the preliminary provisions part of this Local Government (Water Services Preliminary Arrangements) Bill, which I notice had actually had a bit of a title change from what officials had put in the regulatory impact statement that was on the Table, because it was changed from “Transitional” to now “Preliminary Arrangements”. But, having gone through the regulatory impact statement as part of this bill, trying to understand the purpose and the objective of this particular bill which is set out in clause 3 of Part 1, I came across, in the regulatory impact statement, a footnote in relation to a Castalia report, which was from January 2024, Meeting key objectives of Local Water Done Well: Draft report on policy objectives and proposed process.

In reference to the Minister’s previous answer that, if members wanted information, they could Official Information Act request him, I did actually try and have a look for the background papers to this bill to see whether that particular report, which is very much on the policy objectives in the process for this bill, which, again, pertains to clause 3—whether I could find that particular piece of advice from Castalia.

For those members who are not aware of the affordable water reforms, Castalia was a consultancy group that was used by one of the council groups—I can’t remember the name at the moment, but a group of councils who were objectively against the affordable water reforms. So they had referred a lot to how Castalia had done, basically, a large amount of analysis, basically going through line by line what was called WICS—which is the Water Industry Commission for Scotland—who was actually contracted by the Government of that time to provide, basically, a number as to what this sort of water infrastructure deficit would look like.

Interestingly enough, the regulatory impact statement does refer to how WICS said $120 billion of investment is required over 30 to 40 years to maintain, replace, and upgrade existing assets and enable and provide for needed residential development. The regulatory impact statement quite helpfully goes through also why Castalia, basically, disagreed with the WICS analysis. Interestingly enough, the department and the advice that they provided for the Minister for this particular part of the bill didn’t say that they sided with WICS, but they agreed with the $120 billion price tag for these water reforms.

Basically, the $120 billion, for those who are not aware, is, basically, an analysis of how much would need to be spent to get the water infrastructure across the country, across all the different councils, up to scratch. So I found it really interesting, therefore, that later on in the regulatory impact statement, officials actually referred to this draft report on policy objectives. It goes to some of the earlier debates within this committee on this part of the bill around what the purpose of this particular bill is. It is set out in clause 3(2)(a) to 3(2)(e), but my question is for the Minister, because I couldn’t find that draft report online. I couldn’t find it in the proactive release that officials have helpfully done on the Department of Internal Affairs web page. I couldn’t find that particular report, and yet it seems to be such a crucial report, because it was January of this year when it was talking about the policy objectives and the proposed process.

So I would like to just have a bit of an understanding from the Minister: what is that report? Did he receive that report from Castalia or is that a report that officials received from Castalia? How did that inform clause 3 of Part 1 of this bill? If so, why has that not been—and the Minister might not be able to answer this—released? Or, actually, can he point to where I can find it online—

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Or table it.

Hon BARBARA EDMONDS: —or table it, because for me, I’m trying to understand why an independent consultant would provide a draft report to either officials or the Minister in January of 2024 around the policy objectives of these particular changes which pertain to this bill, and just basically, for transparency’s sake, where we can find this so we can have a look at the analysis and then compare what the policy proposals were that were put forward to the Minister, and then how that compares to Part 3.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): Thank you, Mr Chair. Following on from my colleague the Hon Barbara Edmonds, of course, we’re in Part 1 of this bill, the preliminary arrangements, defining the terms used in the bill and the bill’s contents. I think that’s one of the important things that Part 1 of this bill does; it really summarises what is in this bill.

Connected to the contribution and the questions that my colleague Barbara Edmonds has just asked, my question is really about paragraph 167 in the regulatory impact statement of the bill, which talks about “Due to timeframes, it was not possible for the Department to complete a full analysis of the costs and benefits of the four proposals beyond qualitative [assessments]. They should be considered as indicative only.” So my questions for the Minister are: why are we galloping ahead when we’ve only got indicative costings? We know that, in terms of what we’re doing here, the rubber is really going to meet the road when it comes to who’s going to pay for what and how much it is going to cost. I think this is the right part of the bill for us to be asking these very overarching questions of the Minister, given that this is the part of the bill that contains the summary of everything that is in there.

What I would like to know is whether, in the Castalia report that the Hon Barbara Edmonds referred to, there is anything in there that attempts to move beyond those qualitative assessments? Are we getting down and into any quantitative analysis of the various options in terms of what is set out in terms of what the bill is seeking to achieve? I think it’s really important for this committee to know what information exists before we move beyond the purpose in terms of the quantitative work that has been done and whether we have the ability to move beyond the indicative costings, because when we get into the more substantive parts of this legislation, as I’m sure you’ll appreciate, Mr Chair, there are going to be a lot of questions about particular councils, about particular costings, so for the Minister to give the committee an update on exactly what information is there in terms of both quantitative and qualitative analysis of the costings, I would be interested to hear.

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Local Government): Thank you, Mr Chair, and I appreciate the questions from members. The key question here following the dinner break is in regards to this Castalia report, which is referred to in relation to this part. The Castalia report was commissioned by the department. I haven’t received a copy of it. Castalia also provided advice to councils on modelling as councils did not agree with the efficiency assumptions in the Water Industry Commission for Scotland modelling. The previous Government’s modelling used a top-down methodology which estimated that some amount between $120 billion and $185 billion would be required at a national level to maintain and improve water infrastructure. Current long-term plans estimate $41 billion.

The point in this bill, which I think is an important point to go back to, is that this bill is around establishing a framework for local government to manage and deliver water services. It will require the territorial authority to prepare water service delivery plans. It’s a bottom-up exercise to understand what is actually needing to be done from local government’s perspective, working upwards, rather than what the previous Government was doing, which was saying, “This is what we think.”, and pushing it downwards and then taking all those assets away from local communities and the ownership and forcing on local councils their own mandated, co-governed model. We are taking a fundamentally different approach through this legislation.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Mr Chair. It’s a real pleasure to take a call on this really important bill, the Local Government (Water Services Preliminary Arrangements) Bill, and it’s something that I had an interest in in the previous Government, because the legislation there took an approach which saw not only an objective of regulatory compliance—that is freshwater standards and so on—but also had a whole framework around quality and price standards as well. So, in terms of looking at the purposes of the bill, which, essentially, seem to be structural purposes, to get a framework for delivery of water, I’m wondering why, in there, there’s nothing about the consumer. There’s nothing about the purpose of the bill being to deliver water services to the consumer at a price and a quality which is appropriate. And, in particular, in tying that into the definitions section there as well, I see that one of the key definitions is “financially sustainable”. And “financially sustainable”, essentially, is defined to mean that they’ve got enough money to meet their regulatory thresholds. But, again, in doing that, there’s no real identification of the need to meet quality and price standards for the consumer.

Now, quality standards aren’t just “the water doesn’t make me sick”; it’s that the water is there consistently and that there’s not outages. And, of course, the price standard is also not just “I want it cheap”; it’s a price standard which is reasonable given the costs of the infrastructure, the long-term costs, the ability of the consumer to pay, and all of those things going in. In terms of infrastructure like this, we’ve got models—airports are one example—where pricing structures are regulated in terms of the long-term cost of infrastructure. I’m interested to hear from the Minister where in terms of the, if you like, hierarchy—to use words from another legislative framework—does the consumer sit in this? At the moment, just on a first reading of the purpose clause and just on its words, it seems to say the consumer isn’t really relevant to this piece of legislation. “Consumer” is a defined term. So they sit there somewhere. In clause 5, “consumer means a person who consumes, uses, acquires, or is provided with, water services”.

The other consumers—and I know that my colleague Mr Bayly would be interested in this, because he had something to say about this—may also include future consumers, which might be developers who want to develop an area of land and want water connections. Now, where do they sit in that? Because that’s, in terms of water being a critical part of infrastructure to unlock land for housing and industrial and commercial development, a really important point.

So my question is twofold. On the definition “Financially sustainable”, why is there no reference to the provision of water at a price and quality that is appropriate? And, in terms of purpose, why is there nothing in the purpose clause which talks about protecting the interests and entitlements of the consumers of water services? Perhaps clause 3(2)(b) is when we’re talking about “consumers” as defined. Do we include consumers who might be future consumers, people who might want to connect to the water network in the future? Thank you, Mr Chair.

Dr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula): I move, That debate on this question now close.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): Thank you, Mr Chair. I have a very specific question for the Minister in relation to an answer that he has given in the Chamber. I appreciate that what the Minister said in terms of the lack of moving beyond qualitative and indicative costings is because it’s the desire of the Government to build a bottom-up approach, working with councils to get a sense of what the costings would be. But I’d just like to hear from the Minister about how that approach will work if clause 3(2)(b) is implemented and the Minister intervenes because he’s not satisfied with the water service delivery plan. How will it work when there aren’t any more detailed costings and these have moved beyond indicative, if that 3(2)(b) is instituted?

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Local Government): I thank the members for their questions. In relation to the Hon Duncan Webb’s questions, the issues around price, quality, affordability, and the regulatory framework are all good questions. There are three parts to our water reforms. This is the second piece of legislation. There is a third piece of legislation which will come and which will include a number of those particular elements, and this puts in place the start of the initial regulatory framework. I’d also make the point, though, that the purpose of this Act is to establish a framework for local government to manage and deliver water services. That is the purpose of this Act. It’s around the water service delivery plans, it’s around the council-controlled organisation opportunities, and it’s around Watercare. That’s the purpose of this particular legislation. There is further legislation to come.

In terms of the Hon Megan Woods’ question there, ultimately, the process is around the use of the powers which are envisaged through 3(2)(b) within Part 2 of the bill and in terms of the process, but it doesn’t change the fundamentals in terms of the water service delivery plan needing to be prepared.

STEVE ABEL (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m looking at the purpose of the bill in Part 1, and I appreciate the Minister earlier answered my question about water safety, though I don’t feel entirely confident that taking mention of safety as a purpose is the best way to approach it.

The Minister suggests that that is a bottom-up approach to not put those things as overarching objectives. What it made me consider, looking at the regulatory impact statement, was: what was the background to these reviews of the way that our water is done? Of course, it was in 2017 that the National-led Government first established the three waters review to assess whether local government practices and systems and oversight relating to water services and infrastructure were fit for purpose. We had the Havelock North event occur, which was a major influencer of the determination to set up Taumata Arowai, the water services regulator, and let’s not forget that event caused the death of four people, the hospitalisation of over 40 people, and made 5,000 people ill. So the prioritisation of water safety became starkly evident as important.

Given we have 67 councils operating water services across New Zealand for around 85 percent of the population, the challenges of having real clarity in the expectations of those water providers are great. Now, that water review was continued by the Labour Government, who, of course—when they came to power with New Zealand First and the Green Party in 2017—put in place three waters. We understand this Government has removed three waters and this is, essentially, the replacement for it—part two of that replacement.

I wanted to point out to the Minister and ask him why, in the purpose of this new regulatory system, the four key things that were outlined as part of the three waters reform programme were “safe, reliable drinking water;”, which was number one; “better environmental performance of wastewater and stormwater services;”, which is not mentioned in the purpose of this new Act; and “efficient, sustainable, resilient and accountable multi-regional water and [sewerage] services; and making it affordable for future generations.”, as my colleague from Labour has just been speaking about. None of these things are mentioned as purposes of the Act. Yet, as I would state again, water safety seems to be of the utmost priority when it comes to the provision of drinking water, in particular.

Earlier I had asked you, Minister, to answer questions as to ensuring water services infrastructure is retained in public ownership. I’d appreciate an answer as to what guarantees the Government is making that they will retain the water services in public ownership and that they will ensure that water services infrastructure is not operated for the purpose of generating profit for shareholders. Again, I would appreciate an answer to that because that’s an obvious impact on the affordability of water, which is a basic human right—access to safe drinking water.

Finally, in part three of your intended regime of change to the water regulatory system, the intention is, according to the regulatory impact statement, to “amend the legislation providing for Taumata Arowai’s”—which you sheet back all responsibility for ensuring safety of water—“regulation of water services, which could include amendments to the threshold for regulated suppliers;”.

I would love clarification as to what that refers to and why exactly it is not optimal in this legislation to place safety and reliable drinking water as a purpose of this overarching Act for our drinking water and all our water services. Thank you.

TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): I move, That debate on this question now close.

Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana): Thank you, Mr Chair. I have just a question, really, of the response that the Minister gave previously to my question—and thank you very much for clarifying with his officials that that Castalia report was not a briefing that he had seen but was actually one that officials had instigated off their own and must have clearly been part of this bill because, again, we’re going through the purpose clause.

The Minister talked about looking from the bottom up, rather than the top down, but this is where my confusion sits, because in the regulatory impact statement (RIS), officials have used the $120 billion tab minimum—minimum—based on the Water Industry Commission of Scotland’s (WICS) analysis. They had actually set out quite nicely, in pages 23 and 24 of the RIS, why Castalia—which was, basically, at the time, the group that was representing a group of councils—believed that the WICS analysis wasn’t robust enough. They basically said WICS was too much—it was overestimating it—and they had set out a number of reasons as to why.

For example, they argued that Auckland’s Watercare had an estimated 1.6 times more investment than needed; Waimakariri District Council, four times more investment than needed; Hastings District Council, more than 4.5 times more investment than needed. This is where the confusion for me sits with the Minister’s response—he said top-up, not top-down. However, the WICS analysis, which was used as part of the previous Government’s reforms, had actually sought the information from every single local council in order to come up with that particular $120 billion minimum figure.

I can show that to the Minister. I mean, it’s right here in the regulatory impact statement. Again, there was a whole lot of data and analysis that underpinned that $120 billion figure. So I just want to get some clarification from the Minister, given that his officials are now using advice that they instigated, which is not of his instruction. They’re using advice from a consultancy group in order to help them develop the purpose of this clause, the objectives of this particular framework, which we are, basically, testing tonight. However, it also goes to show, though, that this particular consultancy group did not agree with the previous Government’s analysis, which was based off the Water Industry Commission of Scotland’s—or WICS’s—analysis, which came up with the minimum $120 billion figure.

I’m just trying to understand, because that $120 billion figure came from information from councils. I know we will go through it as part of a different part of the bill—we will talk about those water service delivery plans and what’s the type of information that the Minister will be expecting from that and what the Department of Internal Affairs will be expecting from that. But I’m just trying to understand. Have I missed that alignment where, basically, both different sets of advice stand on their different merits? However, for the purposes of being able to put a price tag around this whole framework, which is dealing with water infrastructure, that you’ve landed on, $120 billion as a minimum—thank you to my colleague Rachel Brooking—I wonder whether you still think that that $120 billion figure is still robust, given that that information came directly from councils in order for them to get the analysis?

Is there a bit of a gap missing there, and is this why you’re going to do the framework later? I’m just trying to understand that now so that when we get to that next part where we will drill into the water service delivery plans, we will try to understand whether there are actually more gaps than actually what the framework of this bill sets up.

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Local Government): Thank you, Mr Chair. A couple of quick responses to those questions. Steve Abel raised a number of questions—I’ve already answered many of those questions. One was in regards to the definition of “financially sustainable” in relation to one of his colleague’s earlier questions, which was that there was a tabled amendment relating to that. The question, though—which I didn’t answer before—was in regards to public ownership. The purpose of the Act is to establish a framework for the local government to manage and deliver water services. I think it’s clear in the intent that this legislation is not about privatisation of water infrastructure. It’s very clearly about local ownership and control and management and delivery, and that’s very clear in the wording that we have determined and used in this legislation.

In relation to some of the other questions he raised around water quality, we have Taumata Arowai, who are the water-quality regulator. All of the requirements that they have in place around water-quality regulation stay. This is a framework for local government to manage and deliver water services. About the management and the water and the delivery, though, they have to meet those standards we put in place.

In relation to the questions by Barbara Edmonds around the modelling, the key point I’d make in response is: this is about a framework. It requires water service delivery plans to be put in place that will identify, at a local level, what those costs are, what’s required to meet the infrastructure growth, and how that can be addressed. That’s the purpose of these. Rather than coming in from a top-down perspective, which is what the last Government did, we’re taking a bottom-up. These water service delivery plans will play a key role in doing that.

CATHERINE WEDD (National—Tukituki): I move, That debate on this question now close.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai): Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. I’m very happy to be able to raise some questions and make a short contribution in Part 1 of this bill. I specifically want to raise an issue of a very unique part of my constituency, the Rongotai electorate, which is the Chatham Islands. The Chatham Islands is New Zealand’s smallest and most isolated council and faces a number of unique challenges when it comes to the provision of water services. The council is, as I’m sure the Minister is aware—I mean, the population of the Chatham Islands is around 700 people. They provide three-water services to some residents, not all residents—the majority being drinking water and wastewater; there’s very little need for stormwater. However, the council has significant funding challenges to be financially sustainable.

Now, my question is different to the reference to the tabled amendment of my colleague and the questions around “financially sustainable”. But I do have a question around the definition of “financially sustainable” in clause 5 because, as the Chatham Islands Council raised in its submission at the Finance and Expenditure Committee, there is not sufficient clarity on how that will be judged in practice. Is the Minister able to enlighten us, perhaps with reference to the specific circumstances of the rural population on the Chatham Islands, whether the council—how their financial sustainability will be judged? Because the council has had a practice for many decades—and I’m sure this is not unique, because many councils have faced this—of deferring capital investment in order to make their services affordable. But that is not sustainable.

Council cannot borrow, as it has no ability to service the debt. It would probably need central government to be able to borrow. They said in their submission that there were many years—potentially decades—of deferred investment. So they’ve deferred critical renewals, all capital works, in order for services to be affordable and financial sustainable. However, you can only do that for so long, obviously. We all know that. We can only defer capital investment and critical upgrades for a certain amount of time before that becomes untenable.

The capital infrastructure in the Chatham Islands is at or near the end of its useful life, and there’s a really high risk of existing infrastructure failing and causing significant negative health outcomes for the people of the Chatham Islands. So I’m just really interested as to whether—when we look at the definition of “financial sustainability” and how that’s going to be judged, obviously they need revenue applied to the delivery of the services. It has to be sufficient to ensure the authority’s long-term investment, and it’s got to be financially sustainable, but currently they cannot rely on rates to cover the cost of that.

Rates are already contributing to about 40 percent of the operating budget, but that can’t service debt. It’s not going to enable them to invest in capital infrastructure that is absolutely necessary. And, you know, 60 percent of the cost is covered by the Crown grant to the Chatham Islands for operating those services. So how will they be judged as financially sustainable? Is the Government going to have a mechanism or some commitment to funding capital works for communities like the Chatham Islands who have unique rural populations and who face significant challenges in funding these critical upgrades? Does the Minister have a specific answer to that?

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Local Government): I thank the member for her question. The question is in relation to the definition of “financially sustainable”. It’s a definition which is a broad definition to encompass a wide range of councils in New Zealand, and this legislation requires all councils to put forward their water service delivery plans, which, of course, includes the Chatham Islands, which will be required under the legislation to also be putting forward a plan.

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): I move, That debate on this question now close.

A party vote was called for on the question, That debate on this question now close.

Ayes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6; Tana.

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 65 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6; Tana.

Amendments agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Lan Pham’s amendments to clause 5 set out on Amendment Paper 69 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6; Tana.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendments not agreed to.

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

Ayes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6; Tana.

Part 1 as amended agreed to.

Part 2 Water services delivery plans and foundational information disclosure requirements

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Members, we come now to Part 2. This is the debate on clauses 8 to 46B, “Water services delivery plans and foundational information disclosure requirements”. The question is that Part 2 stand part.

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Local Government): Thank you, Mr Chair. Part 2 is in relation to water service delivery plans and foundational information disclosure. There are three subparts to it.

The first subpart is in regards to water service delivery plans which are required to be repaired by local authorities—they’re required to prepare one and submit one. The water service delivery plan will outline the council’s position in terms of its assets, its needs, and its financial position.

Subpart 2 is in regards to ministerial powers in relation to water service delivery plans. It provides ministerial powers in relation to these plans, and this is a point that has been already traversed, to some extent, in the first part of this debate. This is in relation to where there’s a range of circumstances where local authorities may find challenges in terms of preparing them, and this provides some powers in relation to supporting councils through that process.

The reason for that is, effectively, to ensure that councils do have the support, and if there is difficulty there are intervention powers available, but, ultimately, these are backstops—with the intention of this legislation for councils to be able to work together putting forward these delivery plans for their local communities as they own, manage, and deliver water services in their community, and to demonstrate how they will be financially sustainable in doing so whilst meeting the regulatory requirements.

Subpart 3 includes foundational information disclosure requirements and sets out a framework for specified entities to disclose foundational information for the purposes of economic regulation. It also includes provisions relating to information sharing and enforcement, and this is a really important part because this is the beginning of economic regulation for water infrastructure in New Zealand. There’ll be more; the Government will have more to say about this in terms of the next piece of legislation which will bring in further economic regulation. This is about ensuring that councils are providing water infrastructure in the most cost-efficient, effective, and efficient manner possible for those consumers who utilise those services.

So there is a number of key elements to it, but, fundamentally, this is the key part of this bill. It delivers the key elements to allow councils to move forward with the ownership, management, and delivery in a financially sustainable way of their water infrastructure.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): Thank you, Mr Chairman, and it’s good to take a first call in what is the most substantive part of this legislation. As the Minister has identified, this Part 2 is divided into three subparts—and, by and large, for the purposes of this committee stage debate, the Labour Party intends to address this subpart by subpart, in this Part 2 of the bill. So we have a number of questions in the first subpart of this, which is clauses 8 to 15 of the bill, and that is where the obligations for councils to prepare those plans is outlined and it lists the specific information that must be included in each plan, plans that must cover a consecutive 10-year period.

Now, one of the questions that we have for the Minister here is around the time frames for preparation of these plans. One of the things we heard very clearly from a raft of submitters at committee was that 12 months was simply not enough time, and a number of councils submitted that they needed longer—18 months or two years—in order to do this correctly. I would like to hear from the Minister what the rationale was for not including a longer time frame for the preparation of those plans. I think this came through consistently, and members hearing those submissions certainly heard that very clearly. So that’s the first of a range of questions that we’ll be putting to the Minister.

The other is around the part in this first subpart which makes the provision for two or more councils that can work together to submit plans that convey an intention to jointly deliver financially sustainable water services across the combined areas of the councils. Joint plans must explain how all councils will deliver water services, and councils have discretion whether to provide some or all of the stormwater services jointly. This really is the opt-in part of this legislation, which is contained within this first subpart of Part 2, and I think one of the things that we intimated in the debate around Part 1 of the bill that we’d like to raise more fully and have a fuller discussion about in this Part 2 is what happens to orphaned councils. We heard from a number of councils that with an opt-in arrangement they are going to be left on their own.

I intimated that I wanted to talk more fully about Buller and the submission that we heard from Buller in the Finance and Expenditure Committee hearing. What we heard there from the mayor, Jamie Cleine, was that Buller was going to be left orphaned, that they’d asked the councils around them, including over in Canterbury, and no one was really interested in submitting a joint plan for them. What this would mean for Buller—Mr Chairman, I’m sure you have an interest in this—is that water charges would rise from $2,300 to over $4,000 in only the space of four years. So within four years, people living in Westport would be facing $4,000 worth of water charges because they didn’t have that ability to join forces with another council. What I’d like to know from the Minister is what is going to happen for these councils where we are going to see such rapid increases like that that the optimum provision isn’t going to work for them. What we heard very clearly from the mayor there was that the average household income in Buller is almost 30 percent lower than the national average, that 30 percent of the population was aged over 65, and more were on fixed incomes—and the national average is 16 percent.

This bill that we have here has no requirement, when putting together these water services plans, around affordability, so what are we going to do for communities like Buller, which already, we know, has some of the lowest incomes in the country? We have a far greater proportion of people who are aged over 65 and are reliant on superannuation, but are going to see some of the steepest increases. What are the provisions around affordability, in this voluntary model that is outlined in this Subpart 1 that the Minister is putting up? I’m sure colleagues will talk to other parts of the country that are going to have similar circumstances. We know that there’s some very steep increases coming and being signalled by councils, right around the country, of what’s going to happen to rates in order to finance this. But how, when putting together water services plans, are councils going to consider the affordability of their constituents and their ratepayers? And how are they going to consider those very core issues around that? One of the things that that Mr Cleine made very clear is that although, you know, there’s all this encouragement to join forces, it’s just not forthcoming. So what is the Minister going to do in that case?

The other question I’d like to put to the Minister is around how these orphaned councils draw up these water services delivery plans. Are they going to be considered under clause—you know my obsession with clause 3(2)(b), about whether or not that is a difficulty, the fact that they are not affordable? Will the Minister say that is in some ways difficult, and will that be a red line? If we’re seeing people who are facing an increase in their water bills from $2,300 to $4,000 over a space of only four years, is that enough to trigger the Minister to think that it’s difficult? And will that trigger locals’ ability to have their own water services delivery plan? Indeed, it will be the Minister’s and central government’s water delivery plan that will be delivered there.

So there’s a range of questions in there. There will be many more that come, because this is the substantive part of the legislation, but we look forward to the Minister addressing those questions.

LAN PHAM (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to follow my colleagues in sticking very specifically to Part 2, Subpart 1, and I want to pick up on an amendment that I’ve tabled, which is specifically related to both clause 11 and clause 13, and it’s Amendment Paper 68.

Now, the reason that I’ve tabled this is for two really key reasons. The first is around suggesting a change to the time frame of the period of time that the water service development plan actually needs to adhere to. So currently in the Act, it says that they have to be a minimum of 10 years, which does allow for longer-term planning—which is great—but it doesn’t mandate it. That’s a concern, and I’m really interested to hear the Minister’s views on this, because it almost feels unnecessary to talk about how important climate impacts are when it comes to our nation’s infrastructure. But, time and time again, when legislation like this is coming through, it seems we’re not quite grasping the absolute immediacy and necessity of actually providing for a more long-term view, especially when it comes to investment in hard infrastructure.

We know that the replacement value of our local government infrastructure that is exposed to the impacts of climate change is in the billions, and that’s just the replacement value. That’s not actually an improvement in infrastructure that means that we can actually face the climatic impacts and changes that we know are coming. So the first part of my amendment is to clause 11(1). After subclause (1), it’s inserting a mandatory part that actually requires councils to put in their “information regarding climate change adaptation and mitigation [as far] as they relate to the delivery of water services:”.

Now, why that’s really important is this—and we heard it time and time again during submissions, particularly from the likes of Taituarā, which is the local government planning professionals. I want to quote from them because they summed it up so nicely by saying, “We submit that a ten-year outlook is far too short a period to make informed judgements … Although long-term plans have a minimum planning horizon of ten years, they are also subject to a test of financial prudent that applies across the useful life of assets”, and that’s what is absolutely key here. We know that the useful life of these assets is outside of that 10-year period. It’s at least 30, if not 40, if not 50 years.

Taituarā asked the committee—again, I’m quoting—“to consider matters such as climate change.” They want these things to be mandatory so that councils are not stuck in this under-investment spiral where they are actually making decisions that are not in the best interests for the long term for their community. They said that “Meeting future resource consent conditions is an issue in some local authorities now, even more local authorities will face this towards the end of, and just outside the ten-year period.” So they’re talking about how frustrating it is that we’re making this legislation to purportedly address this very serious infrastructure deficit, and yet we’re not giving the very clear, mandatory consideration when it comes to a longer-term time frame and also climate considerations.

I did want to pick up, as well, on Wellington and Horowhenua’s joint council submission, because they are one of the regions which has actually come quite far in trying to wrestle with their own water service delivery challenges and have come up with some opportunities. Now, they too—like all other councils, might I add—had this very clear submission that they wanted their water services delivery plan to be a 30-year minimum. Now, they said, “These include network renewal, regulatory requirements, resilience, climate change, enabling growth and improving the health and quality of waterways. It is only over this longer-term period that these issues can be addressed”, and I’d love to hear the Minister’s view on hearing that from local government.

RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Thank you, Mr Chair. I appreciate the opportunity to take a call. It’s the first opportunity I’ve had to take a call on this important piece of legislation that we are scrutinising tonight and seeking responses on from the Minister of Local Government. I will just note that I intend to keep my commentary to Part 2, Subpart 1, around water services delivery plans, just quite succinctly so that we can focus on the first part of Part 2. So I am looking forward to hearing some responses from the Minister on the questions that have already been raised. I’ve got three matters that I do wish to speak to, and I recognise I may not have time to cover all three of those matters, noting that if need be, I’ll seek to make a further call.

There have been submissions from councils but also just observations from colleagues around the development of the water services delivery plans and the resourcing in order to do that. An important matter that I’d like to get a response from the Minister on tonight, if I may, is that councils are under significant strain. As chair of the Governance and Administration Committee, we hear regularly from Taituarā, who are the representatives of the staff in local government organisations. We hear from Local Government New Zealand; we hear from the Department of Internal Affairs, through the scrutiny process but also on other matters, and while we didn’t hear this legislation, what we do hear from them is that local government is under significant strain. It has been for some time, and the concern that councils and those involved in the delivery of water services raised is that we are asking, over a 12-month time frame, for councils to develop a water services delivery plan, and this is off the back of a number of years of involvement in water reform.

Councils have been working on this for a long time, but we’re asking them to do these plans again, yet there’s no resourcing being provided to councils to do that. We hear from councils that they’re often struggling to retain some of their qualified staff. They’re often competing with the Public Service; they’re often competing with the private sector for people who actually have the capability to do this work. So the concern from councils, and it’s valid, is: where is the money coming from, from central government, in order to provide that support? You know, the Government during the election campaign was insinuating that there would be support for councils, financial support, in these matters, but yet when it comes to the very first piece of work we’re asking councils to do, there is nothing forthcoming. So that’s my first question to the Minister.

The second matter I just wish to bring to the attention of the Minister, if we look at clause 11(1) (da)(i) and (ii)—and so this is on page 15 of the bill, for those reading along—I have submitted an amendment, which is now on the Table tonight, to add, to this clause, clause 11(1)(da)(iii) and to insert the time frame for how the anticipated or proposed model or arrangements provided under paragraph (j) will be made compliant. My reading of this clause—and I recognise that there are other references in other parts of the bill to time frames for the delivery of the whole water services plan, but this particular clause speaks to water services that don’t comply with current regulatory requirements or will not comply with any anticipated future regulatory requirements. It asks that the water services plan includes the “description of the non-compliance; and—(ii) a description of how the anticipated or proposed model or arrangements provided under paragraph (j) will assist to ensure water services will comply”.

My addition is the time frame for that, because I think that ratepayers and consumers need clarity of time frame. If there is a water service in a territorial authority that is non-compliant, I think the water services delivery plan needs to be explicit that this particular model is going to be made compliant within six months or within five years or within whatever time frame is needed to ensure that that water is made safe and compliant. I think that that would be a useful addition to have in the bill, and I hope that the Minister will take that under some serious consideration.

I just note before I finish that I will have some further questions to ask, particularly around joint arrangements of council, which is quite relevant to my area of Te Tau Ihu in the top of the South. Thank you, Mr Chair.

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Local Government): Thank you, Mr Chair. A number of questions here in relation to Part 2. The Hon Megan Woods asked the question around why one year rather than two years in order to do these plans. Councils should be able to prepare plans in 12 months, as they will use long-term plan (LTP) data. Of course, they’ve just recently gone through the process of setting their LTPs, and many councils want to get on with these new arrangements. If councils are struggling with their plans, they can ask for support from—

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Sorry, point of order, Mr Chairman. I’m really loath to interrupt the Minister, but it’s actually incredibly hard to hear him. If he could pull the microphone closer, thank you.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Sorry—is that better?

Hon Dr Megan Woods: It is—we’re able to hear every word.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Very legitimate point of order, I might say, actually.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: I’ll speak up as well.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Imagine it’s question time.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: I’ll imagine it’s question time, Duncan.

Hon Members: No, no, no—that’s OK. That’s all right.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: He asked me to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): That’s Dr Webb you’re speaking about.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Dr?

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Duncan.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Honourable?

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Webb.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Is it “honourable” first?

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Carry on.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Hon Dr Duncan Webb.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): And just refrain in future from using first names.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: I apologise, Mr Chair—I appreciate your guidance. If councils are struggling with their plans, they can ask for support from the department or ask for support from a Crown facilitator, which, of course, is outlined in this part as well.

In relation to the issue of Crown facilitators, Crown facilitators could be used to help councils define solutions such as coordinating or negotiating a joint arrangement and joint plan, which of course is also envisaged in this part.

In relation to land farms—questions in relation to the 10-year view versus the 30-year view—this issue has actually been addressed in terms of the report back from the Finance and Expenditure Committee in relation to clause 13. Councils may include information that covers an additional 20 consecutive years if the information identifies investment requirements for water services infrastructure or to support future housing growth and urban development. And so that issue was addressed following submissions.

In relation to other elements of Lan Pham’s Amendment Paper 68, the issue in regards to climate change adaptation and mitigation as they relate to water services—these are covered in clause 11(1)(d) in terms of regulatory requirements, and also paragraph (i) of clause 11(1): “a description of any issues, constraints, and risks that impact on delivering water services:” So, again, those issues have been have been considered and addressed in terms of the bill, so we won’t be supporting that Amendment Paper because we believe those issues have been addressed and responded to in terms of the legislation.

In terms of Rachel Boyack’s questions around financial support, this is requiring councils to put forward these water service delivery plans. The department will be available to support and provide advice. Ultimately, councils hold the information. We’ll be requiring them to put forward those plans. And I would note that the department has been working with councils around some of the so-called Better Off funding that was allocated by the previous Government, which I would have thought would have been used to fund water infrastructure but was used—a very small percentage was going to water infrastructure, a lot of it was going to a whole range of other things. We have asked the department to work with councils to reallocate that funding towards water infrastructure or towards supporting councils with setting up these new arrangements, which is a critically important part of Local Water Done Well.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): Thank you, Mr Chairman, and thank you to the Minister for that very audible reply—much appreciated. One of the things that the Minister responded to—and why it was that he wasn’t willing to countenance an extension from 12 months to two years for the adoption of the water services delivery plans—is that councils had their long-term plan (LTP) data that could be fed into it. One of the things that did come through in a legal commentary that has been published is the question around councils that want to defer their LTP adoption to June 2025. That presents a very difficult timing issue, given that the water service delivery plans would need to be adopted within only a few months of that date. And there will be a high need—I think everybody recognises the very high need for the content alignment between the water services delivery plans and the LTP of any given council.

I think everybody in this House would agree that it seems eminently sensible and practical for the water services delivery plans to be adopted first, and the LTP—the instrument which will offer the funding—to follow on that. So I want to ask the Minister: has he given any consideration to that scenario? Will that be a ground for granting an extension? We’ll come to the clause that does cover the discretionary ministerial powers around granting extensions—I’m sure we’ll come to that in the fullness of time—but one of the things I’d like to know is, given he raised that in an answer: is that something (a) he’s given any consideration on; (b) had any advice on; and (c) whether he sees that as a scenario that would be grounds for the granting of the extension?

One of the things that I am also interested in, in terms of clause 9 of the bill—which grants territorial authorities the ability to enter into the arrangements to submit joint plans within here. One of the things that the Minister has talked about, and I recognise that the ministerial intervention is a continuum and it can range from advice—and we’ll hear more when we get to this, but the Minister can “assist or intervene” is the language that the bill uses around that. If we did get to a point where there was a council that is—as I alluded to in my earlier contribution on this part—like Buller, that is orphaned, is this a power that he would be willing to use in terms of assisting or intervening to bring together? I think he has, in some of the replies that he has given, talked about how it may be used to bring together councils. I just want to know how he envisions doing that, and where in the continuum of ministerial interventions he would see that coming together. Or is this not something that he is willing to countenance?

I think the ability to have those joint plans is going to be critically important for one of the key considerations for us on this side of this House, which is affordability and has always been affordability. It’s about not seeing rapid rates increases like we’re going to see in Buller. I’d be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about a situation like Buller where we’re going to see the increased rise from $2,300 to $4,000 within four years, and I think anywhere in the country that was looking at that kind of increase is going to be thinking, “How am I going to pay that?” That just isn’t doable, particularly when you overlay that it’s from a part of the country that I sketched out has a high proportion of lower-income households, a higher proportion of superannuation. So, in terms of the interplay between clause 3(2)(b) and clause 9 of the bill, does he see those coming together or is that something he’s willing to countenance?

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Local Government): I thank the member for the questions in relation to Subpart 2, “Ministerial powers in relation to water services delivery plans”, and the role and the approach the Government will take. I mean, I think the key message here in relation to Subpart 2 is that these are a range of powers that are available, but, ultimately, the responsibility lies and rests with local governments to put forward water service delivery plans—there is a requirement to put forward one within 12 months. There are the powers to be able to work together with other councils: the bill includes provisions in terms of setting up joint council-controlled organisations.

Ultimately, these are backstops. Some of these are not powers which I think are envisaged—that are in terms of any particular scenario. These are backstop provisions that are made available to ensure that councils have the support—whether it’s assistance, advice, or more direct involvement—available. That is ultimately what the Subpart 2 is there for. In terms of particular scenarios, I don’t think it’s helpful for the House for me to comment on particular councils or particular scenarios due to the fact that this is about putting in place a framework which then councils will respond to, and there are backstop provisions which then enable a range of different levels of interventions.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Mr Chair. I think I have only a short point, but it’s in respect of joint plans, which have been touched on, and the Hon Dr Megan Woods has identified the problem of orphans. I want to identify a different problem that I’m actually just genuinely not clear what the legislation anticipates, and that is the islands problem—that is to say non-contiguous territorial authorities clubbing together for a joint plan.

Now, I say this because it was raised personally with me that there are territorial authorities that are, essentially, going shopping for partners. You might have somewhere like Hurunui, which is relatively sparsely populated, with a small rating base, and difficult to service. And then you’ve got Blenheim city to the north of it, and Amberley and Waimakariri to the south. Now, what would happen if Waimakariri and Blenheim clubbed together but left Hurunui out in the cold?

The problem I have is that you’ve got a definition of “joint service area”, which kind of implies that you’re intending it to be contiguous, and then in clause 9, in Part 2, you’ve got that territorial authorities may submit a joint plan where they propose delivering water services through a joint arrangement. Now, is that joint arrangement? Is it enough if that joint arrangement is the engineering and accounting departments sitting in one set of offices, but there being absolutely no shared services whatsoever, there being two entirely separate water networks.

It strikes me that that hasn’t been contemplated. It strikes me that, in the back of our mind, is contiguous areas clubbing together to have geographical and economic efficiencies—and that’s a good thing, right; that was always part of the plan—whereas a joint plan which cherry picks well-managed, well-capitalised councils is kind of undermining that entirely. But it’s not clearly prohibited. And if it’s not prohibited, it’s allowed. I know that there are—and they’re only doing their job—councils out there looking for the best advantage they can get in this framework, for their people, as they should. That may mean that there’s, essentially, a highly inefficient delivery of water networks with islands of well-capitalised councils cooperating with a sea of undercapitalised councils around them. I’d be really interested if you could address whether that’s in or out.

LAN PHAM (Green): Thank you, Mr Chairman. Still picking up on Part 2, Subpart 1, I have another separate amendment that relates to this really important issue of time frames, and this is amendment 67, and it’s to do specifically with clause 16. I’d really be interested to hear whether the Minister would consider amending this to the bill tonight, because it’s so important to the actual delivery and success or failure of this bill. It’s about extending the deadline for local authorities to actually deliver these water service delivery plans. This is an acknowledgment of the fact that actually every single council that did submit on this bill asked for this extended time frame. Local Government New Zealand asked for it; Taituarā asked for it. And it’s really in recognition that the development of these water service development plans will take time. It’ll take specialist skills, and councils really need to hear from Government here that we’re listening in terms of granting them that pragmatic time frame.

Now, I want to pick up on this because the water service delivery plans themselves require information on the current state of councils’ water services. They not only want councils to set that out; they want to see, included in them, a strategy for how councils will deliver that financial sustainability that we’ve covered in previous areas, and how they will actually meet regulatory standards and the information that will actually lay the groundwork for the economic regulation of the water services. This is really extensive stuff. And what we heard really clearly from submissions on this is—and this is a quote from Taituarā: “The decisions that local authorities are likely to make will have significant impacts on lands and waters, and these decisions could give rise to a breach of the Crown’s Treaty of Waitangi obligations.”

This is a concern when it comes to time frames, because they elaborate in saying, “We are unconvinced that genuine processes with iwi Māori can be run against a clock, and we submit that any reform process for three waters must result in arrangements that are enduring. In that spirit, surely Parliament would want these processes to be done right, rather than done quickly?” And I think that’s definitely the sentiment that we’re hearing from the Minister. There is some urgency around it, because of our infrastructure deficit, but we want it to be done right. We don’t want this back-and-forth that we’ve seen with the previous Government and then this Government in place.

I want to also pick up on the Public Health Communication Centre, because they spelt out really clearly the importance of extending these time frames. They talked about their research which demonstrated that New Zealand’s water infrastructure has a really low resilience when it comes to climate change impacts, and they said, “For this reason, we also suggest that 12 months is an insufficient time frame for the development of these water service development plans. These are long-term complex and vital infrastructure investments, and they should be rigorously developed.” The amendment that I’m proposing is simply to change the 12-month period to two years. Now, I’m noting that, in the bill, there is the ability for councils to ask for an extension, but what councils are saying is this is going to be such a collaborative effort, and they want to be able to map it out properly, they want to be able to fund it properly, and by doing that with really clear set time frames, that actually helps them in their decision making.

I also wanted to hear from the Minister—because there was this quite interesting part of the regulatory impact statement that estimated that preparing the water service development plans would only require one fulltime-equivalent working 40 hours for a small council and up to 100 hours for a larger council—whether he has actually revised those time frames and expectations, given that, in the submissions we heard so clearly from local government that it’s going to take so much resource and that they want to do it properly, and that they’re really asking for that pragmatic extension in time frames. Thank you, Mr Chair.

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Local Government): Thank you, Mr Chair, and thank you, members, for the questions. In relation to the issue around joint plans, “Territory authorities”—as it says here; I mean the legislation is quite clear—“can prepare a joint plan in relation to delivering water services in the joint service area covered by a joint arrangement.”, and, ultimately, councils will decide and have those conversations and make those decisions. There are obviously some backstop powers in here as well, in relation to the role that Government may have, but, ultimately, councils are required to put forward their water service delivery plans and make those arrangements as this legislation requires.

In relation to Lan Pham’s questions here in terms of the issue around time frames—and I understand the point that she’s making in relation to one year and two years, and that is the reason why we have clause 17, to allow for there to be an extension granted by the Minister following an application—the reality here, though, is we’ve got a tension between the infrastructure challenges and the need for a clear plan from councils to ensure that we can deliver this infrastructure for New Zealanders, which is the Government’s priority, and the urgency that we’re applying to this issue and the member’s suggestion around wanting to take longer to grapple through those issues. I put it to her that, if we provide two years for all councils, most councils will utilise two years, and, actually, we need to provide a level of urgency in terms of requiring councils to put forward these plans in an efficient manner so that decisions can then be made and that can then be executed so we can get from the planning stage to the delivery stage, which is critically important for New Zealand’s water infrastructure. Twelve months is an adequate time for preparing it. There is an exceptions process in place, which we think is adequate if an extension is required.

There’s been a couple of other tabled amendments put on the Table. Rachel Boyack has put forward a tabled amendment in relation to clause 11—inserting, after clause 11, the time frame of how the anticipated or proposed model arrangements provided were made compliant. This is the same as the member’s—the time frame is set by the time frame of the plans. It’s up to councils how long their plans cover. Effectively, I’ve already answered that question in relation to—the legislation does allow for plans to be up to 30 years. The point is to allow a view of investment that falls outside of 10 years, if they wish.

In relation to the other Amendment Paper, made by Lan Pham, in terms of clause 8A, around replacing “Wellington Regional Council” with “regional councils”—we won’t be supporting the Amendment Paper—the reason for this reference to include “Wellington Regional Council” is that only the Wellington Regional Council provides water services. They are the bulk water supplier for the region. No other regional councils are directly involved in water services delivery, hence why we did that. I thought I’d just answer that there’s specific reason for having that in this legislation.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): Meitaki, Mr Chair. I appreciate the call. I want to follow on from an issue that my colleague Rachel Boyack canvassed in part, and that is the workload on councils in terms of preparing water services delivery plans. I also want to, like my colleagues in the Labour Party and in the Green Party, at this stage confine my remarks to Subpart 1 of Part 2 because we do want to discuss this subpart by subpart.

We’re working through Subpart 1 at this stage, and it concerns itself with a number of issues but it talks about the water services delivery plans that territorial authorities must prepare; that’s in clause 8(1), sitting there. They have to prepare these water services plans and we go through clause 11, and this is where the workload really comes on for territorial authorities, because clause 11 goes through and specifies the contents of these water services delivery plans—and there’s a lot in them. If we go through subclause (1) of that, in (a) it’s a description of the current state of the water services network; (b) description of the current services of the current levels of services; (c) a description of the areas in the district that get water services, and the water services infrastructure associated with a variety of population growth and so on—to what extent water services comply with regulations. I’m going to come back to this in a minute, but I just want to go through how much detail is required, for the benefit of the committee and for the benefit of people watching at home, so they understand the workload that is being imposed on territorial authorities.

In (e), the details of the capital and operational expenditure required to deliver services—and on it goes. There’s more, there’s more—(f) the financial projections for delivering water services, the operating costs and revenue, the projected capital expenditure—this is a lot of information—the projected borrowing as well. And still it goes on: (g) an assessment of the current condition, lifespan, and value of the networks; (h) description of the asset management approach; (i) description of any issues and constraints and risks. But wait, there’s more: (j) the anticipated or proposed model or arrangements for delivering water services; the possibility of any joint arrangement. In (k), a description of how the revenue from and delivery of water service will be separated from the territorial authority’s other functions—so that’s going to be an interesting one for councils that don’t particularly separate out, you know, a separate charge. They’re going to have to do some work around that. In (l), a bit of a summary of the consultation; (m) an explanation of what they’re going to do to make sure it’s financially sustainable—and we’ve discussed some of those issues already with the smaller territorial authorities—and (ma) an implementation plan.

That’s a lot of information that councils are going to be required to produce, but the bit that’s really, I think, going to add an extraordinary workload—and I really want the Minister to clarify some stuff around this—is what’s required in clause 11(d)(ii) and clause 11(da), and there’s a phrase in both of them: “anticipated future regulatory requirements”. Not only are councils going to have to describe what’s going on in their water services network at the moment, they’re going to have to find a crystal ball and have a little think about anticipated future regulatory requirements.

Now, that’s a big ask. The Minister is asking councils to go project into the future, and I think this is really problematic. For starters, they are being asked to project 10 years into the future under the standard version of their water service delivery plans that are required, or if they choose to develop a plan that extends for longer, they might have to project at least 30 years into the future as to how long they’re going to have to project what those regulatory requirements are for. I’m just wondering where the funding for the crystal balls is coming from. But, you know, that’s not all, and I’m going to seek an extension of this call because there’s another aspect of this which I don’t see is being canvassed in the bill, and I think we need some clarification.

The “anticipated future regulatory requirements”—with respect to what? With respect to what? Is it with respect to water services, or are councils going to have to project what regulatory requirements might be put in place due to, say, climate change requirements? Now, in the Finance and Expenditure Committee, at the moment, we are working through an extensive inquiry into climate adaptation and the sort of future frameworks that Government might put in place for dealing with climate adaptation. It’s a huge workload and we’re anticipating that coming out of it Government will eventually be setting regulations. Is the way this bill is framed—is it asking councils to anticipate those regulations? Is it asking councils to anticipate regulations, I don’t know, with respect to green space? Is it saying that councils have to anticipate regulations to do with import rules, with customs duties for bringing in particular—

Rachel Boyack: Allowing pollution into rivers, perhaps?

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: Indeed, oh yeah. There’s all sorts of regulations that Government make, so I think we need a little bit of clarity here.

This is a lot to ask of councils. They’re going to have to buy the crystal balls—these anticipated future regulations—but it looks to me like they’re going to have to buy a whole bowling set of them or maybe a pool-table set. You know, there’s going to have to be a lot of crystal balls that they’re going to have to use to look into the future. So I would like some clarity from the Minister about these anticipated future regulatory requirements. I’d like the Minister to sort of give some clarification. This is going to be important that it gets into the Hansard, because this is going to be interpreted by lawyers and in the courts when it turns out that councils have not gazed into crystal balls correctly, when they have not anticipated regulations because they couldn’t know. Some lawyer, some court is going to be looking at the Hansard and saying, “What on earth did the Parliament mean when it said ‘anticipated future regulatory requirements’?” So, Minister, I’d like to know how good these crystal balls have to be, and I’d like to know what sets of regulations they need to apply to. How well do councils have to engage with this, and in respect of what?

Now, it’s probably straightforward; it could probably be easily fixed with a little tweak that said something about anticipated future regulatory requirements with respect to water services; you could probably clarify it that way. I hope that is what the Minister intends and if, in fact, that is what he intends, perhaps we can have an amendment to that effect. But, beyond that, I want an understanding from the Minister as to how far into the future that councils have to try to work out what regulations are going to be in place in order that they can devise these water services delivery plans.

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Local Government): Thank you, Mr Chair. I thank the members for their questions. I noticed there is another Amendment Paper in the name of Lan Pham, No. 70, in relation to upholding the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. The Government won’t be supporting this Amendment Paper. It’s not necessary to amend the bill to incorporate the Treaty or Treaty settlements. Councils will have to continue to comply with all requirements under local government legislation and existing Treaty settlements, this includes requirements to consult, where relevant, with iwi or Māori. So that Amendment Paper is not required. In relation to—[Interruption]—oh, sorry, I need to use my question time voice.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Use your question time voice, Minister.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: I know how much everyone appreciates it when I’m a bit quieter.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Move closer to the mike.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, I’ll try and get closer to the mike. There we are. Sorry about that.

In terms of the question around workload—and I think the Hon Deborah Russell did a very good job of reading out clause 11. I appreciate that that is now in the Hansard. But the answer there is: a lot of the answers to these questions can be found within existing long-term plan data. They can request assistance from the department. A description of current levels of service, etc., are in other planning documents already. A lot of this information already exists. The purpose of this water service delivery plan is to bring it together in a water service delivery plan to outline the council’s intentions and strategy using that data as to how it’s going to implement it. The department will also be providing guidance and templates and Excel models for councils to populate, which will assist, I’m sure, greatly—and I’m sure the member will be very appreciative to hear that, that excellent work that the Department of Internal Affairs is doing to assist our councils.

In relation to the other part of the question around the crystal balls, which she spent quite some time talking about—and she suggested that we made the anticipated future regulatory requirements relate to water services—if she just read the first part of that sentence, it says, “if any water services do not comply”. It already was referring to water services. The intention here is to require councils to identify when consents of critical infrastructure may expire outside of the 10-year period or plan and to, obviously, look at those issues as part of these plans.

CELIA WADE-BROWN (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. And thank you, Minister Brown, for making sure that we can hear your answers. I’ve got a number of questions that I hope the Minister can clarify, given that the three waters are such a critical responsibility of local government.

I’d just like to refer to a very recent presentation in the Wairarapa, by Professor James Renwick, which, unfortunately, no other MP was able to attend. He was talking about the increasing climate change effects of both drought and floods. I do concur that looking further than 10 years is going to be absolutely essential, given that in many parts of the country, water for drinking in urban and peri-urban areas comes directly from rivers. So my first question is about the issue of the regional council. The Minister’s already addressed that being an existing part of Wellington Water is why you’re including the Greater Wellington Regional Council. But surely the issues of catchments, of the amount of water take for water races—all of those matters are within the purview of regional councils, and it would be extremely useful to have their advice and their thinking directly involved in these water services entities.

For example, I think South Wairarapa District Council must have one of the longest water races, at 240 kilometres long: the Moroa Water Race. I’m sure my colleague at the other side of the Chamber knows it well. So the first question is: are there not some more considerations about why regional councils, with their broader issues of forecasting, knowing water levels in rivers, and so on, are not included?

My second question is somewhat connected with that. Including regional councils would go some way to addressing the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s question about whether we will end up with, frankly, a spotty patchwork of well-resourced councils with those that—it may well not be the fault of the existing council; things may have happened, whether it’s earthquakes or floods that the current council has got a much more expensive row to hoe ahead.

My further question there is whether it’s almost a backdoor attempt to force amalgamation with councils. For example, what would the Minister say to a Greytown resident who today asked me—or, he made a comment that central government didn’t fully understand local government. He said, “Wellington may be able to manage their future requirements, Masterton may be able to manage their future requirements, but the South Wairarapa could become bankrupt.” What is the result for a council like that? So that’s another reason for being concerned about orphans, or, if you like, dry islands in the provision of water services.

I’m also interested in looking at how on earth a council is expected to create a water services delivery plan when we haven’t got bill three, which may look at financial support and how it’s achieved. Minister Brown will be well aware of how we form regional land transport plans, and they are not a limitless list of projects. Whether it’s a road, rail—thank you for the Wairarapa train—or even walking and cycling, those are worked together knowing what the financial assistance rate is for those different aspects. We know nothing about how central government will make any form of partnership. And there is—I guess I could call it a whakataukī, if it wasn’t English, which is “cut your coat according to your cloth”. How can a council do that?

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai): Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. Thank you very much. I just wanted to talk briefly to Subpart 1 in Part 2 and follow up, really, on the contribution I made earlier, which was about Part 1. But still, I do want to bring in the submission from the Chatham Islands Council. Many councils will be in a similar situation, and some of my colleagues on this side of the House have raised this, but I don’t believe we’ve yet really had an answer from the Minister.

I mean, the first point was around the time frames for developing water services delivery plans. Chatham Islands Council, like many other councils, asked for that to be extended. If the Minister is unwilling to consider two years, maybe 18 months would be a reasonable compromise. Otherwise, I do believe the Minister is going to get many applications for extensions and even the process of making the application is a certain amount of time and resource that’s taking away from actually getting the water service delivery plan done and the infrastructure in place.

Secondly, coming back to the Minister’s answer to me around how the water service delivery plan would identify the financial sustainability, and if we look at clause 11(1)(m), an explanation of what the territorial authority proposes to do to ensure that the delivery of water services will be financially sustainable, I’m sure the Chatham Islands Council isn’t the only one that is actually reliant on central government to know what they’re able to do, so this legislation is only asking for the council to do it.

In this case, what the Government is, effectively, doing, in their bottom-up approach, is putting a whole lot of legal responsibilities on councils: responsibilities to develop water services plans, to go out and find partners to make arrangements with, to do all of this work and they have very limited funding sources. Councils, like the Chatham Islands, have no ability to borrow, and unless they team up with a larger water delivery organisation, they will probably be unable to meet this. But how are they meant to deliver their water service delivery plan and specifically explain what they’re going to do to ensure that it’s financially sustainable without having the information from Government about funding that might be available to small councils like this?

I mean, ultimately, the crisis that we are facing in water infrastructure was not created in the last three or six years; it was created over several decades. There’s no magic money tree, the money has to come from somewhere to pay for the infrastructure. In the case of small rural councils, they simply do not have the rating space to pay for this, yet we still expect and want them to have safe drinking water, waste-water services that protect public health—we still expect all of that. So the question that the Minister has, of course, completely avoided and is unable to answer, I think, fundamentally, is where central government’s responsibility is and what their commitment is to funding this vital infrastructure or making additional revenue-raising tools available to councils.

I think that would help councils maybe like Auckland or Wellington or Christchurch, but it’s unlikely to help a council like the Chatham Islands. Who are they going to raise this revenue from? It’s a population of 700 people, extremely remote to the rest of New Zealand, with a population that is facing higher costs for everything they do, every single thing that the Government puts on them to do, like even a water service delivery plan or investing in infrastructure—all of that costs more in the Chatham Islands, and yet they have fewer people to pay for it.

Ultimately, the heart of this is, like, here we have the legal responsibilities and requirements that central government is putting on local government. Where is the partnership? Where is the commitment to funding? Central government raises far more revenue across New Zealand than local government does through their revenue-raising tools, and, really, it should be central government’s responsibility to fund this public good infrastructure, to a certain extent. I would love to hear the Minister respond to that.

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Local Government): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m just testing this new microphone angle; I’m not sure if that’s any better, and I just want to get some feedback.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Is it better?

Hon Members: It is better.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Is that great?

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): That’s better.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Oh, that’s good—I don’t have to use my question time voice.

Hon Rachel Brooking: Not quite.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Not quite. That’s good—that’s good. Well, I’ll just respond to a couple of those questions. The first one, from Her Worship Celia Wade-Brown, was in relation to small councils and amalgamations. The issue here is around shared services, so it’s not around amalgamations, and I think this legislation does put in place a framework which will enable far greater shared services between councils, which will achieve a greater level of economies of scale, but it doesn’t anticipate or require amalgamations. I think that shared services is a way in which councils can achieve those cost-effective efficiencies for consumers, and this is certainly one of the areas we expect councils to be working together very closely on.

In terms of the Hon Julie Anne Genter’s questions around the time frame, I’ve already addressed this question. There is an ability for councils to apply for an extension. Our expectation is that councils will comply with it. As I’ve already outlined, the Department of Internal Affairs (DIA) is going to provide templates—Excel spreadsheets which will be populated with the data. There’s going to be an ability for advice from them, as well. A lot of that information is already available or has to be prepared by councils, and so it’s putting that together as part of this plan.

In terms of the question around funding—and I’ve addressed this question already, as well—the last Government put half a billion dollars into the so-called Better Off Fund, or whatever they called it, and very, very little of it went to water infrastructure. A very small percentage went to water infrastructure. It went to all sorts of other manners of projects and cycleways and footpaths and other random things, and, actually, what we’ve asked the DIA to do is to work with councils who haven’t yet spent their Better Off funding to actually look at how it can be reallocated and utilised towards supporting them with these water service delivery plans, the advice they may need, and also then actual infrastructure, because, ultimately, that is what that fund should have been used for.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you, Mr Chair, meitaki. This is my first contribution on Part 2 of this bill, and we are still on Subpart 1 of Part 2. I want to start at a fairly high level and then I’ve got some more specific questions. We’ve heard from the Minister of Local Government in the Part 1 debate that this legislation is mysteriously going to help our councils, and I say “mysteriously” because I never got an answer to how that was going to happen. But here we are in Part 2 of the debate and we see that councils are going to have to do these water service delivery plans. That is what we are debating right now: the water service delivery plans.

We’ve heard from the Minister; he said, “Well, the previous Government’s approach, it was top down.” There was $120 billion minimum—figures derived from, as the Hon Barbara Edmonds has pointed out, information gathered from councils. The Minister says, “That doesn’t work. That’s top down. We need bottom up. And so how we’re going to do bottom up is we’re going to ask councils for this information to make the plans.” We’ve had discussions in this debate, which I won’t repeat, but there’s been questions about—well, what are the time frames for these plans and where are councils going to get the information for the plans? And the Minister has replied, “Well, there’s going to be an Excel spreadsheet. It’s going to be really easy for the councils to do this. They can decide their own time frames, because, of course, that is in the long-term plans and it’s up to them.” We’ve heard questions on—well, what is the planning for hazards and climate change? We know that a whole lot of this infrastructure is in areas where there will be sea-level rise. We know that a whole lot of this infrastructure is in areas where there are heavier rainfalls. I think the Minister’s answer has been “Well, it’s just up to councils. They can do what they like.”

My questions, assuming that I am correct in my summation, there, of where the Minister’s thinking is—and he said there’s going to be a third piece of legislation that’s going to work with regulation. I can only assume that that regulation will be something about water meters, given the comments in the regulatory impact statement and, of course, the blocked out bits of the funding constraints that we’ve covered as well.

Clause 8 is the primary clause in this part, about what is going to be in these water service delivery plans. It’s for the council to meet regulations, but the plan also has to be financially sustainable for that council—there’s “ands” in this clause—and it has to meet water quality standards, and it has to supports the council’s housing growth and urban development. I think this is where the Minister before said that the climate change piece fits in. But what happens when you can’t do “and, and, and, and”? What happens then? Is there a hierarchy in this? What are the Minister’s expectations? I know this Government likes to talk a lot about balance. How is the council to implement, when we hear over and over again that there are all these councils that simply cannot afford to provide this necessary infrastructure? What happens when there is a conflict between those Roman numerals in clause 8(1)(b)?

Then, of course, we know, and we see in clause 18, that there is a process—and there’s been some discussion about central government needing to approve these plans. So that’s at clause 18. And at subclause (4): the councils “must comply with the requirement to amend and resubmit a plan by the date specified.” A question to the Minister here, a very specific question: are there any parameters for that, and does that relate to the hierarchy, or is there any hierarchy, back in clause 8? So I think that relationship between clauses 8 and 18 is very important.

Very quickly, I’d remind the Minister of that very good point raised by Dr Duncan Webb about when councils aren’t contiguous—what happens then? And specifically, what happens—[Bell rung] Mr Chair?

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The Hon Rachel Brooking.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: I’ll be very, very quick with this—rounding up my contribution here. What happens with those councils in Northland? We’ve got that block with Auckland happening. Can they join with other councils? What is the thinking that’s gone in into that? So I would very much like some answers on those questions.

STEVE ABEL (Green): Kia ora, Mr Chair, thank you. I want to take it back to the beginning of Part 2.

Ryan Hamilton: Genesis.

STEVE ABEL: I do want to take it back to Genesis, in a sense, the genesis of our nationhood, because you could say that we have a Government that’s busy kind of trying to rewrite Genesis, if you like, trying to omit Genesis and burn it and remove it from various bits of legislation. I’m here to save the Minister of Local Government from this terrible omission of our founding agreement, Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

I know that members on the other side, their better instincts are not to deny Te Tiriti, not to undermine it, not to eat away at it, and so I have prepared, Minister—and I know you’ve earlier suggested that you don’t want to accept this amendment, but I would make a case to you, Minister, that it would be a major improvement to the legislation if you did put Te Tiriti o Waitangi in there. I’ve got the perfect place for it: it can come under Subpart 1 in Part 2, in clause 8, “Territorial authority must prepare water services delivery plan”. In clause 8, at subparagraph (v), we can insert “upholds the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi (Te Tiriti o Waitangi);”—you could omit the term “the principles”, we’d be happy with that; you could just say “uphold Te Tiriti o Waitangi”—“and is consistent with any obligations arising under a Treaty settlement Act or Treaty settlement deed.”

Subclause (2A)(a) of this clause could rightly also have “Treaty settlement Act means—(i) an Act listed in Schedule 3 of the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975; or (ii) any other Act that provides redress for Treaty of Waitangi claims, including Acts that provide collective redress or participation arrangements for claimant groups whose claims are, or are to be, settled by another Act, including—(A) the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Act 2004: (B) the Ngā Mana Whenua o Tāmaki Makauru Collective Redress Act 2014: (C) the Nga Wai o Maniapoto (Waipa River) Act 2012: (D) the Ngati Tuwharetoa, Raukawa, and Te Arawa River Iwi Waikato River Act 2010: and (E) the Treaty of Waitangi (Fisheries Claims) Settlement Act 1992;” And, finally, the “Treaty settlement deed means a deed or other agreement that—(i) has been signed by or on behalf of a Minister of the Crown and representatives of a group of Māori; and (ii) is in settlement of the claims of that group or in express anticipation, or on account, of that settlement; but (iii) does not include an agreement in principle or any document that is preliminary to a signed and ratified deed.”

We’ve taken some time with this, Minister, and I would invite you to consider, again, accepting this amendment. And I would invite your colleagues opposite, given the importance of this legislation—

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): It’s important that you direct your comments to the Chair, not to the Minister directly. So you’re having a conversation with me, yep?

STEVE ABEL: Pardon me—pardon me, Mr Chair. The advantage of adding in this Treaty clause is significant in the context of the thing we’re talking about, which is wai—water—that fundamental resource on which we all depend but which we must acknowledge is enshrined in our founding agreement as a taonga, as a treasure that belongs to tangata whenua. To omit Te Tiriti in that upholding of the recognition of Māori say and access and self-determination in the management of their lands’ resources is a serious omission and one that we believe the Minister should seriously consider correcting for the good of our nationhood. That is my submission.

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Local Government): Thank you, Mr Chair, and I thank the members for the questions. The questions from the Hon Rachel Brooking: there is no hierarchy in clause 8 and that is an important point. Those are all elements in terms of what must be repaired as part of those water service delivery plans.

In terms of the question around the Treaty of Waitangi, we’ve already outlined the Government’s position on that in relation to the Amendment Paper No. 70.

Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana): Thank you, Mr Chair. It’s a real pleasure to be able to take my first call on Part 2, Subpart 1. As I remind members of the committee, the Labour Party—because this particular part is where the rubber meets the road for this bill, it is quite substantial for us to structure it in a way that we can structure the debate. Because we had a number of members in the committee, we said we would go through it, through Subpart 1, which is clauses 8 to 19—that obviously covers what should be in the water service delivery plans. Then members would start to take calls on Subpart 2, which is the ministerial powers in relation to the water service delivery plans. We haven’t even touched on that—none of our members has even touched from clause 20 on. Then we would look at Subpart 3, which is the additional information disclosure, which is the remaining clauses of Part 2. So I go back to the start, which is Part 2, Subpart 1, and it’s really just a comment and, actually, a request to the Minister.

I know if we had a bit more time to proofread this in the Finance and Expenditure Committee (FEC)—I just want to check the drafting of clause 9. There is a lot of interchange between “joint plan”, “joint arrangement”, “joint water services delivery plan”, and I understand that all those three different terms are defined within the definitions part of the Act. But I want to just double-check that it reads correctly, because there’s a lot of interchange between the joint water services delivery plan and then a joint plan. So I just want to make sure—oh, sorry, joint arrangement, which is at the end. I just want to make sure that that particular clause 9(1) is actually correct. I think if we had more time at FEC, we probably would have redrafted that because it’s a little bit clumsy. But, of course, that’s what happens when you’re, basically, rushed to try and do the revised track of the bill.

Actually, my main question, really, is to the Minister and it’s in relation to his Amendment Paper 65: clause 15. So the Minister proposes to replace clause 15, which the select committee had provided as a revised-track version of the bill, and I’ve had to scribble it out to ensure that I could read it correctly with the Minister’s Amendment Paper. As my good colleague Rachel Brooking—who, like myself, is a lawyer—knows, there are many times when you have to do submissions for both court or for papers, for whatever reason when you do opinions, where you have to look back into the Hansard. Not that you really want to go through the annals of the Hansard, but you do to understand the intention of the Minister in relation to his amendment.

Now, this Minister’s Amendment Paper—the Minister hasn’t spoken to clause 15. This Amendment Paper is a new paper that has been tabled as part of this particular part of the bill. It does actually bring in a new requirement for consultation and it brings in a requirement “In relation to an anticipated or proposed model or arrangement for delivering water services in its water services delivery plan, a territorial authority must—(a) undertake consultation; and (b) ensure that its consultation and [the] decision-making complies with [the various] sections 51 to 54.” However, when we considered this clause 15 in the Finance and Expenditure Committee, we actually had a number of conversations at the select committee around the requirement to consult. Was it consulting on the draft plan once the draft or the draft joint plan had been completed? Do you have another round of consultation? Because there are quite stringent consultation requirements as part of the Local Government Act. That’s basically some of the conversations that we had at select committee.

The amendments that we had put in—which are in the revised-tracked version of the bill—say, at 15(2) that “A territorial authority must comply with the Local Government Act 2002 … except as provided in Part 3 of this Act.” Then (3) goes on to “This Act does not require a territorial authority to consult in relation to a water services delivery plan. However, a territorial authority must comply with the Local Government Act 2002”. That’s now been removed. The Minister is proposing an amendment to the bill, and I think what he’s trying to do is just remove that grey bit, but I’m not the Minister. Again, as Rachel Brooking has said, it’s quite important to have the Minister’s intention quite clear. This was not part of the select committee process; it is a new Amendment Paper, and I haven’t quite understood what’s the Minister’s intention in relation to that clause of the Amendment Paper.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. We’re still on Subpart 1, and this will be my only contribution for Subpart 1 of Part 2, and I want to pick up on what the Minister mentioned before in the conversation that the Minister had with my colleague Lan Pham. But I want to specifically focus on clause 17 in terms of the extension that the Minister mentioned.

Now, one of the things that the Minister mentioned previously was around the timing of the 12-month period and why he is not supporting, in this case, one of the amendments. But, considering that, for a lot of councils, in anticipation of the bill that the Minister mentioned will be coming later, around the financing, some of the councils might be waiting for a little while until there is a firmer idea of what that looks like before putting some of the plans together—specifically clause 11(1)(e) and (f). I want to check in terms of when territorial authorities are able to apply, to start the process of applying, for an extension.

Clause 17(2)(d) is very clear that you can’t apply for an extension any later than one month before the last date for submitting, but it doesn’t actually say how far in advance you are able to apply for it. So is it possible for territory authorities to start applying immediately—once this bill comes into effect—in anticipation of the delay in terms of getting some of the financing and some of the bills that are going to be coming later in the year, and start that process immediately? That’s my first question around clause 17.

The second one I have is: how long are they able to extend for? It is specified in (6A) that the Minister, if he decides to grant an extension, can notify the length of the extension. But it would also be quite nice to get some sort of intent from the Minister on what are some of the frameworks. If we’re looking at some of the requirements under clause 13(1)(a) in the sense that it has to start with the 2024-25 year, a natural assumption is that a territorial authority cannot extend or ask for extension for five years. So is it that we are looking at roughly a maximum of a 12-month extension, for example? Some sort of framework or some guidelines from the Minister would be quite helpful. That’s my second question.

My third question is that it says the Minister may grant “if the Minister is satisfied”. I want to know how long it will take for the Minister to decide. Now, if you’re looking at clause 18, when the secretary accepts a plan, they said, “as soon as reasonably practicable”. But, for the Minister, let’s say a person applies five weeks before their deadline and it takes three weeks for the Minister to make a decision—which is fair enough, because there’s a lot of factors the Minister may consider—if it is accepted, great, and then the Minister, under subclause (6), will outline that extension. But if it is declined, what would that mean? Does that mean that the territorial authority only, again, have two weeks left to quickly put everything together, or even if it’s declined, the Minister will respect the duration of clause 17(2)(d), of that one month? That’s my last question. What happens if it’s declined?

I wondered if it’s possible for the Minister for subclause (6A) to add something that is akin to clause 18(3)(a), which is “[may] notify the applicant of that decision.”, with a “resubmit it to the Secretary by a specified date;”. In that way, it’s an understandable duration, but it also could be unsettling for the territorial authorities if they’re like, “We’ve asked for extension. Are we going to get it? If we don’t get it, are we supposed to put something together in two weeks?”

So those are my four questions. When can people extend? How long can they extend for? How long will it take the Minister to decide? And if it’s declined, will they still be given a bit of a break? Thank you.

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Local Government): I thank the members for their questions. In relation to clause 15 and the tabled amendment, that is responding to submissions that were raised and are clarifying that particular clause.

In relation to clause 17 on when they can apply and those questions, the key, overarching point that I think is important for the committee to understand in relation to extensions is that this Government’s position is that we’re wanting councils to deliver these water service delivery plans within 12 months. An extension is not something that will be granted lightly or easily. There are clear criteria, and we have clear expectations that councils will deliver it.

So, look, there’s a lot of potential scenarios or game theory you could try and apply on how or what or when they should apply, etc. The point I would make, though, is we are legislating and requiring councils to put forward their water service delivery plans within 12 months. There is an exceptions process for an extension, but there are very clear criteria that need to be met, and these are not something that will necessarily just be given lightly.

Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana): Thanks, Mr Chair. I do now want to move on to Subpart 2, because I think I’ve checked in with my colleagues and because the Minister’s engagement has been really high during Subpart 1, we feel satisfied to move now to Subpart 2, so that’s from clauses 20 right through to 31.

This particular subpart discusses the ministerial powers in relation to water service delivery plans. It’s actually quite an important part of the bill because it’s the one part of the bill, similar to other legislation, where if Ministers are not satisfied with the water service delivery plan including the implementation—which is a new element that was introduced in the bill by the select committee—then the Minister, the executive has a particular power, and it’s in some ways almost unfettered power to intervene and to appoint a Crown facilitator.

I appreciate the advice that we have received through officials. It’s one of those situations where there has to be a particular threshold in order for the Minister to feel the need to appoint a Crown facilitator is needed. I want to be able to test a bit more and understand what that threshold is. Because in the absence of, obviously, the Hansard, again—I referenced the cases that we had talked about before and the Minister’s purpose and intention and Parliament’s purpose and intention being really clear in the Hansard. There is not that much information within the advice to help determine some of these grounds or when that threshold is crossed, as the Hon Dr Megan had said in an earlier part of this debate, kind of when those red lines get crossed.

So, if I can work through clause 20, it advises that: “The Minister may, in the circumstances set out in subsection (2), appoint a Crown facilitator … if (a) the territorial authority or the … territorial authorities requests, in writing to the Minister, that the Minister do so”. That one, I think, is pretty normal. Basically, they’re requesting the Minister to come and help them. They’re saying to the Minister, “Can you please come and grant our request?” I think that’s a relatively easy subsection, but I think it’s the next subsection which is where things might get a bit more difficult, particularly if the local authority and the Minister disagree. We know that our regional local authorities are very proud areas. No one likes, basically, central government coming in and saying, “We’re going to put a commissioner in.” or “We’re going to put a facilitator in and look after your assets because we don’t think that you’ve met a particular threshold.”

This is where I want to be able to ask the Minister—it says here that “the Minister believes, on reasonable grounds, that it would be beneficial to appoint a Crown facilitator because (i) the territorial authority or the group is otherwise unlikely to submit its plan to the Secretary in accordance with subpart 1;”—so, basically, the requirements of the water service delivery plan—“or (ii) in the case of a group of territorial authorities, the group is having difficulty agreeing on the terms of a joint plan.; or (iii) contrary to section 19A, the territorial authority or the group of territorial authorities has not given effect to its water services delivery plan.”

That clause 2(b)(iii) was an insertion by the Finance and Expenditure Committee because we think that that was a direct correlation to the implementation plan not being carried out by councils. But, actually, it’s the second clause which is that it would be beneficial to appoint a Crown facilitator—the “beneficial” part, for me, I believe, is somewhat subjective. It then brings a couple of objective tests into subsection (1) and (2). I’m just trying to understand from the Minister, it’s got an “or”; it clearly mustn’t be a hierarchy. It could be one or the other, but also from his perspective, the subjective test of “beneficial”—are there other types of precedents that you’d see in other parts of legislation that would help to define what “beneficial” means?

Second of all, in relation to Part 2, in the case of a group of territorial authorities, the group is having difficulty agreeing on the terms of a joint plan. I kind of don’t understand why that would be necessary, because then if they can’t agree to a joint plan, they don’t have a joint plan. It doesn’t meet the definition which is in Part 1 of this bill, which is what a joint service delivery plan is, which I kind of had talked about the drafting in clause 9 being a little bit muddled and trying to understand that.

So my question to the Minister, really quickly, is just about understanding the beneficial part, the subjective part of it, and the hierarchy of subclauses (1), (2), and (3). I think there is no hierarchy, but I just want to make it clear for Hansard. And also, what is the point of subclause (2)? Because, actually, there is no joint plan if they cannot come to an agreement. It is again an agreement; if there’s no agreement, then there’s nothing there sitting in order for them to disagree on.

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Local Government): Thank you, Mr Chair. I guess the key issue here in terms of Subpart 2 is a range of different interventions, but the key overriding point is that these will, ultimately, be used on a case by case basis. This bill sets out the situations when powers or interventions can be used in relation to plans. For example, if a council fails to submit a water services delivery plan, or if a council’s failed to have a plan accepted by the Secretary for Local Government, or a council’s failed to give effect—there’s a range of different scenarios. There’s a range of possible scenarios, and I don’t think it’s helpful for the committee to speculate, but, ultimately, this is a broad range of powers which can be applied in a broad range of circumstances, and which option is required will be used depending on what the circumstances are.

I think, ultimately, the Government’s very clear message here is our expectation is that councils will work, either themselves or collaborate with other councils, to put forward these plans within the time frame and that they will put them forward, that they’ll be accepted, and that they will implement them and then they will deliver against them. These are backstops. These are provisions which are available to be used if a council requests or if there is assistance needed in terms of needing to work through those issues.

TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): I move, That debate on this question now close.

LAN PHAM (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Chair; thank you for that. Now, I am really noting that we’re wanting to move on with the bill. I have one amendment. I’ve been calling diligently to speak to my final amendment on Part 2, Subpart 1. I’m going to be really short. It’s very short, but it’s very important, so I really want to be able to speak to it to the committee, because it’s really a listen up moment. It’s a listen up moment because this could not be more important.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Do you have the number of the amendment?

LAN PHAM: Yes. The amendment is No. 66 and it’s to do with clause 8A. Now, this is about the intention of what the bill should do in terms of allowing all regional councils, not just Greater Wellington Regional Council, to be part of the planning and decision making on these joint water service entities. I acknowledge that the Minister of Local Government has already explained the obvious, with Greater Wellington Regional Council being included because they have specific water service delivery responsibilities already, but this is about the intention of the bill being about communities across the board, outside of existing territorial authority boundaries.

Now, why it’s so important that regional councils are actually involved in the planning, the alternative consultation, and potential joint water service arrangements is that we know that councils, particularly district, city, and unitaries, swear this oath when they’re elected—councillors do—and they are subjected to their oath and then making the best decisions for the citizens in their rohe or their territorial authority boundary. Why it’s so important, when we’re talking about collective water services, that regional councils actually have a voice in this is because it automatically gives the elected member representation to be a voice for the good of the entire region. That is so important.

I’m noting a lot of my local government councillors across the Chamber tonight—and knowing that, you know, councils can be quite narrow in their view and it’s tricky to enable them to have a broader view. Now, I note that in the bill it says that councillors may take that broader view, but to allow regional councils to actually have that voice would be a way to unlock this and unpick this in a really pragmatic way. Wellington Region and Horowhenua District’s joint council submission picked this up really clearly when they talked about the impacts and views relating to an entire joint service area—i.e., considerations beyond the council’s own district and communities. They talked about how having a broader regional view—which would be the case if we had regional councils able to be part of these processes—would be critical to ensure that councils can fully consider the needs and challenges of the broader regional grouping rather than being bound by making decisions only in the best interests of their councils.

I think this is a very pragmatic, very clear amendment that we could put forward as a Parliament to really make sure that this bill is in the best position to actually not result in these orphan councils and these decisions that actually leave out certain areas of the country—rather than the collective good. Thank you.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. This is a really interesting subpart of Part 2 of the bill, and we do want to sort of go through this particular subpart in a bit of detail. The interesting thing is that going back, under Subpart 1, to clause 8, where it says, “(1) Each territorial authority must prepare a water services delivery plan”, and, of course, the question is: well, what if they don’t—what if they don’t—and there has to be in legislation something that compels the performance?

I think one of the interesting things about this is that it seems to contemplate a range of reasons as to why a council might not complete its water services delivery plan, and one is that the council kind of just refuses to do it. That would be an extreme case—councils in this sort of country pretty much do comply with the law, as much as they are able to—but it also contemplates that councils might not be able to do it and that they are actually going to be in a position where they say, “Well, actually, this is beyond us.” I think one of the ways we can see this most clearly is in clause 22 in Part 2, under Subpart 2 in Part 2 of the bill, which is the subpart we’re discussing now.

Looking at that clause 22, it uses a variety of verbs to describe what the Crown facilitator may do. The Minister may appoint a Crown facilitator, and there is a process for doing that, but then there is a description of what the Crown facilitator may do. The Crown facilitator may “assist” the relevant territorial, may “advise” the relevant territorial authority, or may “assist” again—this is clause 22(1)(a), (b), and (c)—but in paragraph (d), it has the interesting word, which is “direct” the relevant territorial authority to prepare a water services plan. So that’s a very commanding sort of word. I would like to hear from the Minister in what circumstances, really, he would expect that a Crown facilitator wouldn’t just assist or advise, but would actually direct a territorial authority to prepare a water services plan.

Now, there’s a bit of a time frame involved here. We know that the initial legislation says that this water services delivery plan has to be prepared within 12 months of the date of the Royal assent of this bill or such other date as the Minister may specify, or whatever, and that territorial authorities may apply for an extension on that. I’m just curious as to when a council is sufficiently non-compliant. Is it the point at which they perhaps don’t complete a water services plan and they don’t apply for an extension, or would the Minister perhaps be working with the central government officials to work with the territorial authority to actually assist them to prepare that plan and try to get them over the line? Is the Minister going to wait until the time period in which they could have got an extension is up, and at what point do we move from “assist” and “advise” to “direct”, and in what circumstances? What is the case? Is it just that they have refused to do a water services delivery plan altogether, or is it because some part of the water services delivery plan hasn’t been completed?

Previously, we discussed all the information that has to sit in a water services delivery plan, and there’s a lot of information there. Would the Crown facilitator get involved in directing when some parts of the water service delivery plan are not involved? There’s a lot of flexibility on this. I’d just like a little bit of a discussion from the Minister as to when a Crown facilitator is appointed, possibly against the will of territorial authorities. I can imagine that this might lead to disputes—

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The member’s time has expired.

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Local Government): Thank you, Mr Chair. Just responding to the question from Lan Pham relating to her Amendment Paper and the question on regional councils. I think it’s a good question. The issue there—and, obviously, I dealt with one part of the Amendment Paper before, but not the other part. The other part relates to regional councils. We don’t support the proposal there as regional councils are regulators and should not be involved in decisions about service delivery. So that’s the reason for not supporting that.

In relation to the Hon Deborah Russell’s questions and comments, I’ve addressed that in prior answers in relation to the fact that there’s a broad range of potential examples and circumstances, I don’t think it’s helpful to speculate but these powers are broad and flexible and provide for a range of potential circumstances.

FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. My question to the Minister—and I’ll keep my contribution quite brief—is that, you know, the role of the Crown facilitator and the Crown water services specialist has been defined.

There’s a description here that “Crown facilitator means a Crown facilitator for water services delivery plan appointed under section 20”, and the definition for “Crown water services specialist means a Crown water services specialist appointed under section 23”. But my question is: what is the criteria that someone might become either a Crown facilitator or a Crown water services specialist? Is it basically any person who the Crown sees fit to appoint under, you know—there is an appointment process described here in clause 21(1) for the Crown facilitator, and it includes descriptions of how they do it and the notice. But I think there is something lacking here in that there’s no kind of, you know, job description—there is a job description but there’s no kind of competency requirement that’s been described here. So is it that basically anyone can be a Crown facilitator and anyone can be a Crown water services specialist, or is it intended that these people are people with technical skills or knowledge, or even connection with—potentially—iwi or knowledge of te ao Māori? Like, what is what is the kind of intention?

I’m seeking guidance here because my understanding from my colleagues who have taken part in the select committee is that this hasn’t come up yet under the kind of discussions that have been held in the select committee, and in the previous discussions as well during committee of the whole House. So that kind of criteria might potentially be useful because, you know, people might rely on the discussions during committee of the whole House for guidance on the criteria for these. Because the work that they’re doing is actually very important—I mean, they have quite strong powers. We’ve heard discussions from colleagues on the Labour side about the potential of what might happen when someone might refuse. So I really would like, I guess, an answer on who is intended to kind of fill these roles and whether the Minister has thought through any kind of potential appointment criteria or whether that will be potentially gazetted at a later point. Thank you.

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Local Government): Mr Chair, just in relation to that question, there aren’t criteria listed in this bill—this is consistent with the approach taken in the Local Government Act. In relation to interventions under that Act, it will depend on the skills needed in the circumstances.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Members, the time has come for me to report progress.

Progress to be reported.

House resumed.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Mr Speaker, the committee has considered the Local Government (Water Services Preliminary Arrangements) Bill and reports progress. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow. Have a good night.

The House adjourned at 9.58 p.m.