Thursday, 8 August 2024

THURSDAY, 8 AUGUST 2024

THURSDAY, 8 AUGUST 2024

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Karakia/Prayers

Karakia/Prayers

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

Business Statement

Business Statement

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Deputy Leader of the House): Today, the House will adjourn until Tuesday, 20 August. In that week, the House will consider the committee stages of the Corrections Amendment Bill, Local Government (Water Services Preliminary Arrangements) Bill, and Resource Management (Extended Duration of Coastal Permits for Marine Farms) Amendment Bill. Wednesday will be a members’ day.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): I wonder if the Deputy Leader of the House could inform us, given that the Regulatory Systems (Social Security) Amendment Bill will not be introduced as an omnibus bill, whether it will be divided and introduced as a number of bills or will the Government be giving up on that bill?

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Deputy Leader of the House): Well, I would just say to the member, that bill is very important to this Government, as is Celebrity Treasure Island to the Opposition.

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

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

SPEAKER: No petitions have been delivered for presentation. Ministers have delivered papers.

CLERK:

2024 statement of corporate intent for GNS Science

2024-25 statement of performance expectations for the Tertiary Education Commission.

SPEAKER: Those papers are published under the authority of the House. Select committee reports have delivered for presentation. There is quite a long list.

CLERK:

Reports of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the:

2024-25 Estimates for Vote Finance, Fiscal Strategy Report 2024, and Budget Economic and Fiscal Update 2024

2024-25 Estimates for Vote Regulation

2024-25 Estimates for Vote Revenue, and

Controller and Auditor-General annual plan 2024-25

report of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee on the 2024-25 Estimates for Vote Foreign Affairs

reports of the Governance and Administration Committee on the:

2024-25 Estimates for Vote Office of the Clerk and Vote Parliamentary Service

2024-25 Estimates for Vote Internal Affairs (excluding the appropriations that are the responsibility of the Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector and the Minister for Ethnic Communities)

2024-25 Estimates for Vote Ombudsmen

2024-25 Estimates for Vote Public Service, and

2024-25 Estimates for Vote Statistics

report of the Māori Affairs Committee on the 2024-25 Estimates for Vote Māori Development

reports of the Social Services and Community Committee on the:

2024-25 Estimates for appropriations within Vote Internal Affairs that are the responsibility of the Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector and the Minister for Ethnic Communities

2024-25 Estimates for Vote Oranga Tamariki

2024-25 Estimates for Vote Pacific Peoples

2024-25 Estimates for Vote Social Development, and

2024-25 Estimates for Vote Social Investment

reports of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee on the:

2024-25 Estimates for Appropriations within Vote Finance related to the infrastructure sector

2024-25 Estimates for Vote Building and Construction (excluding appropriations that are the responsibility of the Minister of Housing), and

2024-25 Estimates for Vote Transport.

SPEAKER: The report on the Controller and Auditor-General annual plan is set down for consideration. No bills have been introduced.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Local Government

1. RYAN HAMILTON (National—Hamilton East) to the Minister of Local Government: What recent announcements has he made on Local Water Done Well?

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Local Government): This morning, my colleague the Hon Andrew Bayly and I shared great news for ratepayers and local government, announcing the enduring components of water service delivery under our Government’s fantastic Local Water Done Well plan. This is about providing local government with the certainty it needs to deliver the water services that Kiwis rely on, while minimising costs for ratepayers. Members on the other side said that Local Water Done Well could not be done, but after just nine months we’ve delivered for communities across our country.

Ryan Hamilton: What are these enduring components of Local Water Done Well?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: The enduring components of Local Water Done Well announced today will enable new models for financially sustainable water organisations across the country and financing from the New Zealand Local Government Funding Agency for water organisations, which will reduce the financial burden on ratepayers who were faced with higher rates under three waters.

Ryan Hamilton: What does this mean for councils across the country?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Councils will be pleased with today’s announcement. The New Zealand Local Government Funding Agency provides the lowest cost financing that is available to local government. From today, it will be able to support leverage for water council-controlled organisations (CCOs) up to a level equivalent of 500 percent of revenue—around twice that of existing financing levels for councils, subject to water organisations meeting prudent credit criteria. This would not have happened under the co-governed, mega-entity, three waters model. Our plan restores local ownership, it restores local control of water assets, and it recognises the importance of local decision-making.

Ryan Hamilton: What impact will this have on ratepayers?

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I’ve been sitting here listening to the supplementary questions, and they simply don’t relate to any announcements that the Minister has made. Yesterday, you upbraided a member of the Opposition for supplementaries not relating to the primary. Now, if the member has questions about other announcements, that would be within scope, but this would seem to be without.

SPEAKER: There was only one supplementary—probably the last one—and the question that’s just been asked is most certainly relating to this. The question was about the effect on ratepayers.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: No, the question was about announcements.

SPEAKER: Well, OK. I’ll do what I did yesterday and give the member the opportunity to ask it with a slightly different focus.

Ryan Hamilton: What impact will this announcement—that being Local Water Done Well—have on ratepayers?

SPEAKER: Well, yeah, I see the point. Have a think about it, and maybe move on to another question. The Minister can’t really reflect on how ratepayers feel about the announcement. The effect of the announcement might be a different matter. So I’m sorry, if we’re getting all pedantic about the words, which we appear to be, then we need to think about that.

Ryan Hamilton: Thank you, Mr Speaker. What will be the financial implications of this announcement?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Today’s announcement is great news for ratepayers. Local Water Done Well will provide lower costs to New Zealand councils for financing than could have been achieved under the previous Government’s three waters reform, which we swiftly repealed to restore local control of water assets to communities. It will do this with the New Zealand Local Government Funding Agency being able to immediately lend to water CCOs. This financing is available as of today and means that communities will have the flexibility and the tools they need to meet their unique needs.

Lan Pham: Did the Minister include in his announcement that out of the only 182 submissions who were able to submit as part of the truncated 10-day deadline, only 19 explicitly supported the bill, 18 percent of councils missed out on even having their voice heard, and of those who did, all of them submitted that “the cost and resource implications are both unclear and significant for councils, making it challenging to plan or fund the reforms”?

SPEAKER: Just if we’re getting all pedantic about what goes into questions, I’d suggest that members look at Standing Order 390. Much of what was just said would not comply with that Standing Order. But it has to be said, to make the question reasonable, and I think that’s the judgment that has to be made here.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, the member’s discussing the bill, which was before the House, which relates to water service delivery plans. The announcement made today is about the financing models which are now available for councils to be able to invest sustainably into their water services and actually make it happen and get things done. So that’s what this Government has done with Local Water Done Well. We’ve got a plan, we’ve got the financing, and now it’s up to councils to take the leadership to ensure that they can deliver for their local communities. What we campaigned on, we’re delivering.

Question No. 2—Health

2. HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE (Te Pāti Māori—Hauraki-Waikato) to the Minister of Health: Can he guarantee that the proposed review of the Māori and Pacific Admission Scheme, which has admitted more than 700 Māori and Pasifika students to medical school in the last 10 years, will not lead to its disestablishment?

Hon MATT DOOCEY (Associate Minister of Health) on behalf of the Minister of Health: As part of our coalition agreement with ACT, we have agreed to review the Māori and Pacific Admission Scheme (MAPAS). This review is yet to begin, and no decisions about terms of reference have been made. That’s because we have been laser-focused on addressing the financial challenges left to us by the botched merger of Health New Zealand.

Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke: Does he agree with the associate health Minister that the Māori and Pacific Admission Scheme is an example of “lazily looking at everyone through the lens of race”?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: Well, on behalf of the health Minister, what I do agree with is the review of MAPAS in line with the coalition agreement. When you think about it, what is wrong with reviewing a programme to ensure it’s meeting its objectives?

Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke: Does he still believe that “if you’re treated in a culturally competent context, you get a better outcome.”, and, if so, what is his plan to get more Māori doctors into the workforce, following the review?

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: They don’t want Māori to do well. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: OK, all right. We’re not going to have outbursts like that, and I’d ask the other side of the House to keep those interjections rare and reasonable.

Hon MATT DOOCEY: On behalf of the Minister of Health, we don’t accept the poor outcomes for Māori in health, unlike the last Government. That’s why we’re focused on ensuring we lift health outcomes for all New Zealanders, including Māori and Pasifika and our communities in need.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister as to whether his inspiration comes from over a hundred years ago when the then Minister of Health, who was a Māori called Pōmare—

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Sir Apirana Ngata.

SPEAKER: Sorry, we’ll just start again. Now, Dr Webb, you know that’s a rule: you don’t speak while someone else is asking a question.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Mr Speaker, don’t worry—I can handle him in my sleep.

SPEAKER: I know you can handle it, but I’d like you to start the question again.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister as to whether his inspiration is a former brilliant Minister of Health—who was a Māori, back over a hundred years ago, called Pōmare—who brought modern medicine to Māori, and is that his intention in 2024, ’25, ’26?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: On behalf of the Minister of Health, our aspiration is to grow a domestic pipeline of representative workforce for New Zealanders.

Question No. 3—Finance

3. Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) to the Minister of Finance: Meitaki maata, Mr Speaker. Does she agree with the Prime Minister’s statement, “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”; if not, why not?

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister for Energy) on behalf of the Minister of Finance: Yes. We inherited an economy in recession, a broken health system following a botched merger, and an education system that has been failing too many children for too long. But good news: we have got a plan to turn things around. We’re fixing education, we’re fixing health, we’re growing the economy, we’re reining in wasteful spending, and we’re reducing the amount spent on external consultants, unlike members opposite, who seemed to outsource—

SPEAKER: No. That’s enough, thank you.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: How does stopping the construction of schools, hospitals, and houses, when 6,000 people in the construction industry have lost their jobs, help the economy?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: On behalf of the Minister of Finance, we’re not stopping the construction; we are actually getting on and fixing the fundamentals in this economy. We inherited an economy that was in recession, interest rates that were at record highs, and inflation was well outside the bounds. The previous Government was addicted to spending. We are turning this country around, unlike the mess we got left behind.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: What estimates has she received of the cost to New Zealand businesses and the economy of the loss of rail capability on the Interislander ferries, given those ferries currently carry over half a million metres of train freight per year?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: On behalf of the Minister of Finance, I’m not sure if she has realised, but the ferries are still operating, providing freight services between the North and South Islands. What we are doing is going through a process to secure their resilience into the future, but, as KiwiRail has made very clear, those ferries are safe to operate until at least 2029.

Teanau Tuiono: Meitaki ranuinui, Mr Speaker. What steps is the Government taking to address the critical funding shortages faced by Hato Hone St John ambulance service, which have led to the impending national withdrawal of labour of over 2,500 ambulance officers?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: On behalf of the Minister of Finance, I encourage the member to put questions on specific issues like that in writing, but what I would say, though, is that we’ve inherited a really tough situation in our health system left behind by a previous Government which decided that the best time to reorganise a health system was during the middle of a pandemic.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Are they not delivering in health because her Government is leaving clinics like those in Dargaville, Wellsford, Kenepuru, Napier, and Rotorua unstaffed overnight?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: On behalf of the Minister of Finance, we have inherited a mess when it comes to our health system, and this Government has a plan to turn it around; unlike the previous Government, who decided the best time to reorganise the health system was during the middle of a pandemic. It’s unbelievable the mess that was left behind and the challenges that this Government is having to clean up, but, unlike them, we’ve got a plan.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does she believe that Tākai, which has shut down because of her cuts after 20 years of social service, is a cash cow, and what does she say to the tens of thousands of parents who have benefited from their support?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Again, on behalf of the Minister of Finance, we have inherited a number of challenges as a Government, which we are having to clean up with the mess left behind by the previous Government. They were spending like drunken sailors, they were borrowing, they had interest rates and inflation through the roof, and this Government has been elected to fix this economy, to ensure our public services are delivering on the front line for New Zealanders, but we have a huge mess to clean up.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: How does giving the tobacco industry a $216 million tax break, leaving less money for health, help the economy?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, on behalf of the Minister of Finance, there was a range of assumptions in that particular question, but what we are very focused on is reducing smoking rates. We’ve got a plan to address that on this side of the House, but we’ve also got a range of challenges that we need to sort out, and we’ve been elected to fix it. If that last Government were still in charge, they’d be spending more, they’d be taxing more, and delivering less.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Point of order. That member, in his answers, has largely attacked the former Government. And I have tried not to intervene, to try not to interrupt and disturb the dignity of the House, but he’s continued to do it, and you’ve said repeatedly that it’s inappropriate.

SPEAKER: Well, I think the point is that the member himself took a point of order before to say that words matter, and they do. And I’ve also in the past said it’s not unreasonable—and other Speakers have said this before me—for Governments to refer to previous administrations. It’s a matter of how that is done, and I think saying that a circumstance was inherited hardly breaches that particular provision. But I would suggest the Minister makes his answers slightly briefer or offers them more briefly than he has been at the moment. Have we got any further questions on that? No? Good.

Question No. 4—Social Development and Employment

4. Dr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What steps is the Government taking to support people on the jobseeker benefit into work?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): The coalition Government has delivered a series of initiatives to support job seekers into work. Recently, we established a new over-the-phone case management service for 4,000 young job seekers and expanded the number of places for young job seekers in community-led employment programmes with coaching, by 2,100. We have also introduced work check-in seminars that job seekers must attend within two weeks of coming on to benefit and again after six months. Our Government is working hard to make changes to the welfare system to ensure New Zealanders are able to reap the rewards and opportunities of work.

Dr Vanessa Weenink: What are the key features of the community coaching the Minister has announced as part of the Government’s Welfare that Works?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: This is our Government’s new approach that will see more funding for community organisations with a proven track record of supporting young people off welfare. This will see more young people getting a needs assessment, a job plan, and tailored support, including job coaching, to help them access employment opportunities. This programme highlights our Government’s commitment to putting young people on a pathway to a better future through work.

Dr Vanessa Weenink: Why has the Minister chosen He Poutama Rangatahi providers for this programme?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Five hundred places for the community-led programmes will be with a selection of He Poutama Rangatahi which was launched by the previous National Government in 2017 for people aged 18 to 24 who have been on jobseeker support longer than a year. We know that 77 percent of participants in this programme are Māori. I am concerned about the increasing number of Māori job seekers. Community coaching delivered through He Poutama Rangatahi will help young Māori improve their employment opportunities and reach their potential.

Dr Vanessa Weenink: Why is additional support for job seekers needed now?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: The challenging economic situation we have inherited inevitably means that job seeker numbers were expected to increase until January 2025, before decreasing. We know job seekers are vulnerable to tougher labour market conditions, which is why our Government is working hard to make our welfare system proactive in helping as many job seekers as possible in the current economic climate. Even though we have a challenging economic environment, our Government will not stand by and allow New Zealanders to languish on welfare and waste their potential. We are acting now to support job seekers into work so they can experience the independence and opportunities that work provides.

Kahurangi Carter: Does she accept raising a child is work; if so, why do parents face work obligations rather than being allowed to raise their children the best way that works for them?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: We are focused on supporting people off the jobseeker benefit and we want to see fewer children being raised in benefit-dependent households.

Kahurangi Carter: Does she accept raising a child is work?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Of course, and there are many parents who work and raise their children.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Point of order. I cannot see how that second supplementary was being addressed when the question was whether she considered it to be work. It was very, very narrow and she just said that there are many parents that work—that’s very, very unrelated to the actual, very narrow content.

SPEAKER: No, no, no. The actual question was “does she support”, and the answer came “of course”, and then with the backup behind that.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Speaking to the point of order. Kahurangi asked whether the Minister accepted that raising a child is work. So the Minister didn’t address the question because she talked about—

SPEAKER: And the answer was “of course”. And then an explanation that many people not only do that but also have other jobs.

Question No. 5—Social Development and Employment

5. Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Do recent unemployment figures show New Zealand is back on track; if not, why not?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Our coalition Government is getting New Zealand back on track, and, as I’ve acknowledged before, too many New Zealanders have been denied the independence and opportunities that work provides. We’ve inherited a low-growth economy from the previous Government, which, unfortunately, means rising unemployment. That’s why we’re implementing a more proactive welfare system to support people off benefit and into work. In the six years before we took over, the number of people receiving the jobseeker benefit increased by 70,000, or 57 percent.

Hon Willie Jackson: How can New Zealand be back on track when, on average, every month since she’s been in office there’s been an additional 1,000 people out of work?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: As I explained, unfortunately we inherited an economy that saw the previous Government absolutely mismanage the economy, and, unfortunately, New Zealanders are paying the price. For every New Zealander that loses a job right now, it comes back to the broken economy that we inherited and the damage that that side did.

Hon Willie Jackson: Does the Minister consider Māori employment rates to be back on track when, under her watch, in just nine months, Māori unemployment has increased from 8.2 percent to 9.1 percent?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Unfortunately, the economic conditions that we have inherited mean rising unemployment. We have seen the unemployment rate rise—fortunately not as far as those forecast—and the job seeker numbers are, of course, getting worse. That is the reality of the economy we have inherited. Our job is to fix it. That’s exactly what we are doing, because we want to see more New Zealanders and more Māori in work.

Hon Willie Jackson: Does the Minister consider Pacific employment rates to be back on track when, under her watch, in just nine months, Pacific unemployment has increased from 6 percent to 8.3 percent?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I can tell that member what this Government won’t do with Pacific unemployment: we will not oversee an increase in six years of 93 percent in Pacific unemployment—that’s outrageous, and that’s your record.

Hon Willie Jackson: Can the Minister tell us how she can say youth employment is on track when recent figures show that youth unemployment has increased from 15.1 percent to 20.7 percent just in the last June quarter of 2024?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I’m pleased that that member is finally interested in youth unemployment, because what we saw, unfortunately, was a welfare system stagnating so much that a young person who goes on to benefit under the age of 25 now is forecast to spend two decades on welfare. That’s the record of that member. We’re not standing by to watch it, which is why we are taking action.

Hon Willie Jackson: Does the Minister have any plan to get people into work, or is she just planning for the figures to get better once a whole lot of Kiwis move to simple, old Australia?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I’m very proud to again put on record the changes this Government has made to reduce the number of job seekers by 50,000 by 2030. We have made sure that the sanctions regime is utilised and people are clear about their obligations to look for work. We have introduced a work check-in within two weeks of someone going on to the jobseeker benefit, and again after six months. We have increased case management, and, for young people, 4,000 young people will now get case management over the phone. We have also, last week, increased the number of young people that will get access to the very successful He Poutama Rangatahi programme launched by National in 2017, including community coaching.

Question No. 6—Building and Construction

6. JAMES MEAGER (National—Rangitata) to the Minister for Building and Construction: Why is the Government reviewing the earthquake-prone building legislation?

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction): Our Government is focused on rebuilding the economy as part of our broader aim of getting New Zealand back on track. The earthquake-prone building system attempts to manage risk by requiring earthquake-prone buildings to be remediated by set time frames. However, many building owners are currently unable to meet deadlines due to high remediation costs and excessive layering of regulations. This is why we have acted with urgency to bring forward the review to provide certainty and ensure we have a good balance between protecting lives and real-world costs.

James Meager: When will the review into earthquake-prone building legislation begin?

Hon CHRIS PENK: We are moving at pace and the review is under way as we speak. This very afternoon, in fact, the Building (Earthquake-prone Building Deadlines and Other Matters) Amendment Bill will have its first reading in this very House. The bill extends the remediation deadlines for earthquake-prone buildings by four years to give temporary relief to Kiwis while the review is under way.

James Meager: What will the review focus on?

Hon CHRIS PENK: The review will be extensive and report back in the first half of 2025, with four key foci. The first is the costs of mitigating earthquake risk and improving buildings resilience; the second, proposals for managing earthquake risk, including the effect on private property owners; the third, barriers and the types of incentives that would help building owners better manage seismic risk; and, fourth, changes that align with broader Government objectives, such as going for housing growth and rebuilding the economy.

James Meager: How can the public have their say?

Hon CHRIS PENK: The public can provide feedback and share their views on the earthquake-prone building system via the building.govt.nz website or by emailing building@mbie.govt.nz or, of course, via the select committee process. This is all about listening to Kiwis to ensure that we have rules that work for them.

Question No. 7—Oceans and Fisheries

7. DARLEEN TANA to the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries: Does he agree with the statement by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment that the Resource Management (Extended Duration of Coastal Permits for Marine Farms) Amendment Bill is a “Bill that is a case of a sledgehammer being used to crack a nut”; if not, why not?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries: No. This bill responds to longstanding and widespread concerns by the aquaculture sector about the costs and uncertainty and mahi—that means work—associated with re-consenting processes for existing marine farms under the Resource Management Act. This process of re-consenting is inhibiting aquaculture growth. These marine farmers, many of whom are Māori, don’t want the unnecessary costs and uncertainty; they want to be allowed to refocus their efforts on investment, on jobs, and on exports.

Darleen Tana: What does he say to councils and environmental non-governmental organisations who consider that the national environmental standards for marine aquaculture are working efficiently and effectively for re-consenting, and that a blanket extension of consents for 1,200 marine farms by a further 20 years is unnecessary?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, answering both those two questions, the person who first drafted the legislation is the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, namely Simon Upton. This was in 1991. He was told back then it wouldn’t work, and that parts of it had to be fixed up to ensure that the kinds of exports which we desperately need, in a safe environment, went ahead. Of course, he’s entitled to his opinion and so are those other councils, except they’re dramatically wrong. Why do we have Ngāi Tahu waiting all this time and all this money for a simple resource consent? Why do we have so many other precious operations which will bring wealth to our country, to all sorts of people—and parallel the biggest mussel farm in the world now being built in Ōpōtiki, and the Māori people down there—why don’t we focus on that as being our purpose, rather than this constant big-city, small-minded complaint?

Darleen Tana: How does he reconcile blanket-consenting 1,200 marine farms by another 20 years, pushing aside environmental standards and upholding the Crown’s obligations to Te Tiriti o Waitangi with free-trade obligations, and particularly chapters that relate to mauri of marine ecosystems and kaitiakitanga?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: That is not a matter of reconciliation, because when you stand up and by way of a question state a number of untruths and misnomers, it requires no response at all, other than to say this: this bill does not change or remove the existing Resource Management Act (RMA) provisions that manage consented activities. Existing marine farms will continue to operate under the conditions of their consent according to the RMA. Those are the facts that so-called critics should understand. Many marine farms’ consents have conditions that are consistent with standard environmental practice under the RMA. The bill will also provide councils with a one-off opportunity to review the conditions of any consent extended in duration under this bill, to update them to improve the environmental management of the consented activity. But the CEO of the Ministry for Primary Industries is required to agree so that they do not stop people trying to progress in these difficult times from starting new jobs and new export industries and turning this economy around.

Question No. 8—Children

8. Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) to the Minister for Children: What evidence does she have to substantiate her statement, “For too many years, Oranga Tamariki has been the cash cow for community service providers who say they will provide services, and then don’t”?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR (Minister for Children): I refer the member to the $22 million Oranga Tamariki has already recovered from the last financial year where services weren’t delivered, with more expected to come. In previous years, some providers have accumulated significant surpluses and this is unacceptable. Every cent of taxpayer funding that providers receive needs to reach the children and young people for its intended purpose, not sit idle in their bank accounts. I also refer the member to an email I received this morning from a lawyer who works in this space, who said, “I have been appalled over the past few years at how much taxpayer money has been wasted on agencies that make big claims yet deliver nothing but a glorified babysitting service.” This is a Government that is making sure that that money will be used where it is needed, with organisations that are struggling for funding when it’s sitting in bank accounts unused.

Hon Ginny Andersen: When she stated in her press release, “The funding they provide is for the care and protection of children in state care. Nothing more, nothing less.” when referring to Oranga Tamariki, does this mean that family services that prevent children going into State care will no longer be funded?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I instructed Oranga Tamariki to get back to their core purpose and do their core purpose well, which is in the best interests of children in care and that come to the attention of Oranga Tamariki.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Does she consider that Oranga Tamariki has a role in assisting families, whānau, hapū, iwi, and family groups at the earliest opportunity to meet the needs of their children and young persons; if not, who holds this responsibility?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: Absolutely, but it’s not just up to Oranga Tamariki to fix this problem; it’s up to all of Government agencies and also society itself. Step up when you see something is wrong with our young people. Speak up when you see something is happening with our young people. Don’t just rely on Government to fix it.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Is she aware that the previous statement is one of the statutory purposes of Oranga Tamariki in the Act, and, if so, does she intend to repeal the purpose of the Oranga Tamariki Act along with section 7AA?

SPEAKER: The Minister may like to comment, but it’s probably answered pretty much in the previous answer.

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: Oranga Tamariki’s job is to protect the children in their care and to make sure they’re protecting any children that come to their attention with reports of concern.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I think we’re dancing around here. The point the Minister made was that Oranga Tamariki would only fund children in State care. They would not be funding children and their families in order to provide a prevention service—she stated that. So my question to her was: how can the purpose of the Act be fulfilled if she’s not taking that preventative action?

SPEAKER: Yeah, my recollection is that you asked her what was the purpose of the Act, and you outlined some views there. The Minister’s answer to you started with “Absolutely”, and I think to then have another question that questions the answer needs to be a little clearer than perhaps it was put. So without loss of one of the party’s supplementaries, try and put it a different way.

Hon Ginny Andersen: How can Oranga Tamariki fulfil their statutory requirements to act at the earliest opportunity to meet the needs of children and young people if they are not funded to undertake preventative services that would occur before a child or young person enters into State care?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: There are many ways a child can come to the attention of Oranga Tamariki, not just being placed into State care. And when a child is brought to the attention of Oranga Tamariki, it is their responsibility to intervene as early as possible.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Does she agree with Zoe Hawke, the chief executive of E Tipu E Rea Whānau who says of the cuts to their services, “The core of our mahi, the core of our work is prevention, preventing uplift … We have prevented so many uplifts, unfortunately we may not be able to do that any longer.”; if not, why not?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I can’t comment on individual contracts without that information in front of me—but if you’d like more information, please put that in writing.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Can she reassure New Zealanders that there will not be an increase in Oranga Tamariki uplifts as a result of her cuts?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I cannot make guarantees about anything. What I can guarantee is that Oranga Tamariki will get back to their core purpose, which is the care and protection of young people in their care and children that come to their attention. If a child is unsafe and needs care and protection, that’s what will happen.

Question No. 9—Children

9. LAURA TRASK (ACT) to the Minister for Children: What recent announcement has she made regarding key performance indicators for Oranga Tamariki?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR (Minister for Children): This morning, I wrote to the chief executive of Oranga Tamariki, instructing him to report to me every three months on key performance indicators. These include the frequency of social worker visits to children in care, the timeliness of responses to reports of concern, and whether or not caregivers feel supported by Oranga Tamariki. These areas are going to make the biggest difference to the safety and wellbeing of children and young people in care. Too many children in the care of their family or their caregivers die or are abused and neglected every year in this country. It is a national disgrace and I’m not willing to accept it. As Minister for Children, it’s my expectation that Oranga Tamariki is relentlessly focused on its core purpose of ensuring the safety and wellbeing of children in their care.

Laura Trask: Why does the Minister think it’s necessary to have quarterly public reporting on these performance measures?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: Oranga Tamariki has oversight from the likes of the Independent Children’s Monitor. However, these compliance reports are only provided to me once a year. Quarterly updates in areas that are most vital to ensuring the safety of children will allow me and the public to identify earlier any areas where Oranga Tamariki is not meeting expectations. This will mean that we can address any issues as they arise, rather than waiting for a yearly report to find out what is going on and needs to be fixed. Providing greater transparency and accountability will give Oranga Tamariki the focus it needs to ensure it’s delivering on its core purpose, which is keeping children and young people safe in their care.

Laura Trask: Why is this accountability and transparency so important?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: Clearly, things need to change. When a child is killed every five weeks in this country and so many more are abused and neglected by those who are meant to care for them, then a new approach is desperately needed. By making Oranga Tamariki report every three months and making these reports public, it will give Oranga Tamariki the focus it needs to ensure that it is delivering on its core purpose: keeping children and young people safe.

Laura Trask: Why is supporting caregivers one of the Minister’s priorities?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: The reality is that many children and young people are not able to live with their immediate family. For whatever reason, their home is not a safe, loving environment for them. In these circumstances, caregivers, including wider family or whānau, play an essential role. They open up their hearts and their homes to look after our most vulnerable. However, I have heard too many accounts of caregivers who say they do not feel supported by Oranga Tamariki. It is so important that we have skilled and experienced caregivers available for situations where a child is not able to stay in their family home.

Question No. 10—Tertiary Education and Skills

10. Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour) to the Minister for Tertiary Education and Skills: Does she stand by her statement that Te Pūkenga is a “financial mess, drowning in debt of over $250 million”; if so, why?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS (Minister for Tertiary Education and Skills): Yes. Te Pūkenga has $8.426 million of commercial debt, $35.391 million of Crown debt, and $207.311 million of intercompany debt, amounting to a total debt of $251.128 million.

Hon Dr Deborah Russell: Why is the Minister including the $150.6 million of internal debt, of intercompany borrowings, in that total debt figure?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: If I can just help the member on that, it’s $207.311 million of intercompany debt. When Te Pūkenga was set up, different industry training organisations (ITOs) and polytechnics came in with different financial positions. Some came in with reserves; some came in with debt. Those with reserves have had to allow their reserves to go to offset commercial debt that was being held by the other institutions. That is real debt.

Hon Dr Deborah Russell: Why does she claim that Te Pūkenga is awash with and drowning in debt of over $250 million when, at 30 June 2024, total external borrowings were only $45.3 million?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: As I’ve outlined, there is $207.311 million of intercompany debt, which has been taken from reserves of some institutions and applied against the debt that other institutions have. As Te Pūkenga is disestablished, that debt will have to be dealt with. It is real.

Hon Dr Deborah Russell: Why does she claim that Te Pūkenga is $250 million in debt when, of those total external borrowings, at 30 June 2024, of $45.3 million, $44.6 million is with the Crown and is non-interest bearing and only a tiny portion is external to the Crown?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: Debt to the Crown is debt, and so we have significant debt being held—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Excuse me. We’re going to hear the answer in silence, thank you.

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: Debt to the Crown is debt, just as intercompany debt is real debt. Te Pūkenga has over $251 million worth of debt.

Hon Dr Deborah Russell: Why did she tell Radio New Zealand this week that Te Pūkenga was running a $77 million deficit when she told the House just yesterday that it is now forecasting a surplus of $28.5 million?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: That’s the half-year surplus. So when you run a polytechnic or an ITO your income comes early, your income comes in the first half of the year, your expenditure goes throughout the year. It will bounce around a little bit, but that $28 million was their half-year to date surplus.

Hon Simeon Brown: Will the Government’s reforms for Te Pūkenga include improved financial literacy?

SPEAKER: No, that’s enough.

Hon Dr Deborah Russell: Has the Minister been taking—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just a minute. We’ll just wait for everyone to settle. If you could start the question again, please.

Hon Dr Deborah Russell: Has the Minister been taking lessons in mathematics from the Minister of Finance, who seems to think that $12 billion of extra borrowing isn’t going to tax cuts?

SPEAKER: That is not a question that the Minister needs to answer.

Hon Dr Deborah Russell: Meitaki, Mr Speaker. Why, given that she was advised that the benefits of the Te Pūkenga merger would take at least five years to materialise, is she spending millions and millions, against the advice of Government officials and her own special advisers, breaking up an organisation that is finally posting a surplus?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: Te Pūkenga hasn’t posted a surplus yet. However, I can advise the member that in October 2022 a business case was done that was going to require Te Pūkenga to have over $900 million spent on it to make it fully operational. The Minister at the time understandably rejected that. They came back and said, “Oh, well, over five years, it will need over $400 million to be operational.” Again, the Minister understandably rejected that. This is an organisation that would need to have hundreds of millions of dollars spent on it to make it operational, to have its systems interoperable, and I am not prepared to see that sort of money be used on setting up a structure when it should be used on tertiary education.

Question No. 11—Commerce and Consumer Affairs

11. DANA KIRKPATRICK (National—East Coast) to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: What announcements has the Government made regarding the economic regulation of water services?

Hon ANDREW BAYLY (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): This morning, the Government announced that it is establishing a new economic regulation regime for water providers, overseen by the Commerce Commission. The new regulatory regime will ensure that water providers invest in the right infrastructure at the right time so that Kiwis can rely on having fresh, clean water at an affordable price.

Dana Kirkpatrick: What regulatory tools will be available?

Hon ANDREW BAYLY: We’ve designed the economic regime to provide the Commerce Commission with a flexible range of regulatory powers. The initial regulatory tool will be the use of what we call information disclosure, which will require water providers to disclose important information such as the nature or state of their infrastructure and their financial situation. The Commerce Commission will also have the ability, if necessary, to set minimum or maximum revenue thresholds, impose quality standards or performance targets, and, ultimately, it could implement price-quality regulation.

Hon Phil Twyford: Labour did that.

Hon ANDREW BAYLY: In addition—no, it didn’t. In addition, we’ve allowed the commission to take a proportionate approach to regulation by categorising providers based on their sophistication, strategic importance, and size, Mr Twyford.

Dana Kirkpatrick: What consumer protections will be put in place?

Hon ANDREW BAYLY: The new information disclosure will allow the commission to collect and analyse information relating to consumer protections, such as complaint procedures and customer engagement. If deficiencies are identified, the commission will have the power to require further protections. These could include strengthening complaints procedures or adoption of an external dispute resolution arrangement.

Dana Kirkpatrick: How will the economic regulation regime ensure appropriate investment?

Hon Phil Twyford: We worked on this together, actually.

Hon ANDREW BAYLY: But you should have listened, Mr Twyford; that’s the difference. The difference is we’re putting it in place; you talked about it. So an important ingredient is that the economic regime requires that the revenue collected by the water providers will be ring-fenced and only spent on investing in their water infrastructure. In essence, we’re not going to allow spending to be directed into unrelated activities. Local Water Done Well not only keeps water in local ownership and control but also ensures that we get the right level of investment at the right time into our water assets so that Kiwis have access to high-quality, affordable water.

SPEAKER: Well, who’d have known that water could cause such unruly behaviour.

Question No. 12—Children

12. KAHURANGI CARTER (Green) to the Minister for Children: Does she stand by her statement that “Savings coming from getting money back where it hasn’t been used are redirected to other front-line services”; if so, how is the budget for contracted services being cut by $120 million?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR (Minister for Children): In answer to the first part of the question, yes. In answer to the second part of the question, the member is incorrect. The figure the member is referring to is $30 million a year over four years, which is not a cut. This is the amount Oranga Tamariki has forecast it will be able to recover from providers at the end of a contract period where they have not delivered everything we have paid for. If taxpayers pay for a service and they don’t get it in full, I expect that money to be repaid. If this had been happening over the last six years, there would have been at least $132 million that could have gone to children, rather than letting some providers build up significant surpluses.

Kahurangi Carter: What evidence, if any, does she have to support the claim that “Oranga Tamariki has been the cash cow for community service providers”, and does she think that it’s fair to accuse valued, not-for-profit community providers at the front line of banking funding, instead of caring for at-risk tamariki?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I refer the member to an answer from a previous question today. The member would have heard about the $22 million that Oranga Tamariki has already recovered from the last financial year where services weren’t delivered, with more expected to come. In previous years, providers have accumulated significant surpluses, and this is unacceptable. Every cent of taxpayer funding that providers receive needs to reach the children and young people it is intended for, not sit idle in bank accounts.

Rachel Boyack: Will she visit community organisations like Family Start in Nelson and meet with staff and clients so that she can get a proper understanding of the critical work they do to support babies, children, and families?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: Nobody is denying that they don’t do a good job in those service areas. What we’re saying is that they undelivered in the last financial year, and their new contract has been adjusted from the information we received from them.

Kahurangi Carter: Does she accept the recent finding by the Independent Children’s Monitor that Oranga Tamariki does not have the systems in place to properly monitor their own practices, and, if so, how can she be confident that each of the 332 front-line service providers who have had all or part of their funding cut have been evaluated fairly and accurately?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: All decisions are at Oranga Tamariki level, but I instructed Oranga Tamariki to do a thorough process of checking through contracts to make sure we were getting the services that we were paying for and make sure that we were actually targeting the right areas for the care and protection of our young people, and I believe they’ve done so.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I ask the Minister whether she will thank the questioner for conceding that Oranga Tamariki does not have the systems in place to do the job properly and that’s what you’re setting about to fix?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: Absolutely. Over the years, Oranga Tamariki has not performed as well as the public would expect. I am now setting expectations that they achieve the right goals and that they’re making sure they’re spending taxpayer money wisely.

Kahurangi Carter: Will the $14 million cut from Family Start Nelson be redirected to other front-line services, and, if so, which comparable service in Nelson is being funded to fill this gap?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I believe we’ve already spoken about that provider previously, where they did not deliver the full services that they were paid for. Their funding has been adjusted based on the information they provided to Oranga Tamariki, and Oranga Tamariki will make sure that that money is not sitting in a bank account and that it is going to a provider that can actually provide a service.

Kahurangi Carter: Is she concerned that the cuts to Presbyterian Support South Canterbury’s funding mean that “There will no longer be any free counselling services available within South Canterbury”, and, if not, why is she comfortable with creating these gaps in front-line service provision?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I cannot make an answer on information I don’t currently have in front of me. If that member would like information on that specific question, please put it in writing. But what I would say is we are making sure that every dollar of taxpayer money that is being spent is actually going towards a service that is being provided to our young people who are in the care and protection of, or the attention of, Oranga Tamariki.

Kahurangi Carter: How can she continue to claim that savings are being redirected to other front-line services when the Government is simply cutting the budget for contracted services by $120 million to help fund their tax cuts for landlords?

SPEAKER: No, the last part of the question renders it somewhat out of order. Just ask the question without the extra bit on the end.

Kahurangi Carter: Thank you, Mr Speaker. How can she continue to claim that the savings are being redirected to other front-line services when the Government is simply cutting the budget for contracted services by $120 million and putting it back into the overall bucket?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I can stand here and say that because that is not what is happening. That money is not going back into the main Budget; that money is being redistributed back to front-line services.

SPEAKER: That brings to an end oral questions. We’ll just take a minute while members leave the House quietly and quickly, without conversations on the way.

Bills

Building (Earthquake-prone Building Deadlines and Other Matters) Amendment Bill

First Reading

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I present a legislative statement on the Building (Earthquake-prone Building Deadlines and Other Matters) Amendment Bill.

SPEAKER: That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the parliamentary website.

Hon CHRIS PENK: I move, That the Building (Earthquake-prone Building Deadlines and Other Matters) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Transport and Infrastructure Committee to consider the bill. At the appropriate time, I intend to move that the bill be reported to the House by 31 October 2024 and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions), during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, and outside the Wellington area, despite Standing Orders 193, 195, and 196.

I would now like to outline the key changes contained in the bill. They cover three areas: earthquake-prone buildings, most obviously, as the name suggests; the building warrant of fitness scheme; and changes that could be characterised as minor or technical in nature.

The first is extending earthquake-prone building deadlines. I am delighted that today the Government is taking steps to provide more certainty and clarity to New Zealanders about the earthquake-prone building system. This is an issue that affects New Zealanders up and down the country in large cities and small regional towns alike. Collectively, there are approximately 5,000 earthquake-prone buildings in New Zealand and, unfortunately, in many cases, these are sitting empty and derelict, sometimes for up to years at a time. Empty, derelict buildings can be dangerous, but they are also a handbrake on growth and development and can suck the life out of a town or city.

The Government is focused on reinvigorating our cities and regions to support economic growth. To do this, we need an earthquake system that balances the safety of life with the real-world costs and barriers of remediating earthquake-prone buildings. That is why we have commenced a review into the earthquake-prone building system. The review aims to provide building owners with more certainty and better incentivisation to remediate or demolish their earthquake-prone buildings so that Kiwis can safely live, work, and play in vibrant towns and cities. I do want to acknowledge the history of the legislation that is being amended and, most particularly, to acknowledge the tragedy of the lives lost in the Canterbury earthquakes. Of course, earthquakes in this country prior to that time and, of course, those that have happened since, no doubt will continue to afflict our shaky isles.

These are not easy matters and, of course, we need to take a balanced, nuanced approach. I acknowledge all those in this House who, in previous capacities and those in the communities who have worked hard to provide as much assurance and comfort and, of course, worked diligently in good faith to provide the best possible system that we could have in this regard. I acknowledge those who already have constructively engaged on the subject, be it in central government, including across the aisle, and local government too, and, of course, building owners and other players, key players, in civil society throughout this land.

Having said all that, the current system attempts to manage risk and, in some cases, successfully does manage risk by requiring earthquake-prone buildings to be remediated before set deadlines. However, in some cases, the system is not working as well as it had been hoped, and the reality then is that many buildings are not able to be remediated. Around 150 buildings have already failed to meet their remediation deadlines and many more are unlikely to be remediated, I’m told, due to high seismic strengthening costs and other barriers. The Government’s review into managing seismic risk will take a fresh look at the system, but, in the meantime, there are nearly 500 buildings with deadlines rapidly approaching. While this review is under way, it seems to me sure only fair that we extend the remediation deadline for these buildings.

I’d like to provide clarity and certainty to building owners and territorial authorities about the obligations—local councils themselves often being owners of such buildings, of course—while the review and any subsequent changes take place. Of course we don’t prejudge the result of that review, but we hope, of course, that we will receive many sensible suggestions for change that might be made as a result of the review.

To achieve this, in the meantime, the bill, once it is passed into law, I hasten to add, will extend by four years all earthquake-prone building remediation deadlines that had not lapsed before 2 April 2024, being the date at which the Cabinet decision was made that this measure should be brought to the House. The extension will provide temporary relief from legal compliance and the threat of enforcement while we work through the review. That being said, of course, building owners who are able to carry out remediation work are encouraged to get on and do this. Of course, we acknowledge there are motivations that outside the remit of Government, be it insurance requirements or the obligations on a landlord in relation to tenants, and of course the health and safety legislation and so on that would encourage people to get on and do work that they are able to do. The bill also introduces a one-off power to extend deadlines by up to two years, a further two years, by Order in Council. However, there are some controls around the use of this power.

I acknowledge that the extension means that it is theoretically possible that life-safety risk in some buildings won’t be addressed as quickly as originally intended. However, I do think it is very important to stress in the same breath that in many cases these buildings are not being remediated anyway. The simple fact is that building owners face difficulties that for some are so great that even under the existing time frames, building users would likely have been exposed to some of those exact same risks in any case. Once the amendment Act comes into effect, the extension will apply automatically to eligible buildings. I should qualify that point around automatic status, by adding that territorial authorities will be required to reissue earthquake-prone building notices to all eligible buildings and to update the register of earthquake-prone buildings.

Passing to the other matters in the bill, for the remainder of my time: strengthening the building warrant of fitness system or scheme. Following last year’s devastating fatal Loafers Lodge fire—again, acknowledging the human tragedy of those lives lost—the previous Cabinet agreed to a set of no regrets actions to improve fire safety in buildings. This means that some changes that could be agreed relatively readily would be made, but, of course, without suggesting that there should not be other changes contemplated as well, and I’ll touch on those briefly if I may within the time available.

In the meantime, though, this bill will implement sensible changes to help protect the safety of building occupants, including in an emergency. Some of these occupants will be vulnerable people living in temporary or low-cost boarding house - type accommodation. A building warrant of fitness (BWOF) must include a certificate issued by an independent qualified person—I’ll just say IQP, going forward—known as a form 12A.

There are many good people working hard and diligently in the space, and I want to acknowledge the Association of Building Compliance, which gathers together many such people, and the work that they are doing to help educate, advocate, and ensure certainty and consistency for that system. I commit to working closely with all those who share the aims of ensuring we have good, robust qualifications and recognition of people who have that level of expertise, important as it is.

People within the building industry, therefore, have raised concerns about instances where forms were issued without the procedures in the building compliance schedule being fully complied with. This may mean that issues with specified systems such as fire and smoke control systems go undetected, which could place building occupants at risk and historically that is exactly what we have found, sadly not only with Loafers Lodge itself but, of course, in the subsequent investigation known as Operation Magazine.

The Building Act does not currently state the duties of independently qualified persons and there are no specific offences for wrongly issued certificates. This bill fills that gap and introduces an offence for breaching the duty with a fine of up to $50,000 for an individual and up to $150,000 for a body corporate. This is a strict liability offence, but nevertheless, I think I’m right in saying that there are defences available—in any case, I’m not able to go into that today. The new offence will also provide territorial authorities with tools to discipline and deter this misconduct. It will also help to ensure that IQPs are fulfilling their obligations under the BWOF scheme. The bill also increases the infringement fees to promote compliance with these obligations and better protect the safety of building users.

Some minor and technical changes now. Finally, there are some changes along the lines that stand-alone building consent authorities, currently just the one being Consentium, which does the work for Kāinga Ora, do not need to pay their fee directly to the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment at the moment; indeed they can’t. They have to go through their relevant territorial authority. We are removing that anomaly. We’ll also remove the obligation for dam owners—that is, owners of water storage facilities—to display a copy of the compliance certificate in a prominent place on the dam, which is physically impracticable to do in many cases, but instead must simply forward the relevant certificate to the regional authority.

Then finally, to clarify or meet the intent of the Building (Pools) Amendment Act 2016, we will exempt small heated pools, such as a spa, from the requirement for periodic inspection if they have a safety cover that complies with the building code. Finally—finally, finally; my second “finally”—a certificate of acceptance for building work that’s issued by territorial authority need not also attract a building consent to regularise that retrospectively. I commend this bill to the House.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you, Mr Speaker. This will be a brief call from me, as the spokesperson for the Labour Party on building and construction, to set out the Labour Party’s position on this. It will also give the House a sense of how eager we are to get into the detail of this bill in the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, chaired by the very able Andy Foster, and joined by representatives of all parties around this House, because this should be something that all parties have an interest in, and this should be something that submitters get to have a say on and that we get to work through some of these details, because it is of interest to all New Zealanders.

The starting points and the principles that I will be considering when we look at this in more detail at select committee level is that no one should be put at undue risk due to the building that they are in. We have to be mindful that these rules were set up in the wake of the Christchurch earthquake and in the context of things like the Kaikōura earthquake, which represent real tragedies for New Zealand, and we need to make sure that these very real events, which happened in New Zealand and which caused loss of life, huge loss of property, and a huge cost to our national infrastructure, are provided for in our legislation and that we have these settings right.

At the same time, I think everyone in this House is incredibly sympathetic to the plight of those people who find themselves owners or responsible for buildings that are earthquake-prone, particularly in the context of residential homeowners and apartment owners in places like Wellington who are now faced with bills they simply cannot pay. So we need to be able to work our way through and find solutions which recognise the role of Government here in supporting people through this and the huge financial costs to them in a way that is safe and recognises that not everyone has access to information about the kind of buildings that they’re in, especially when they’re commercial premises.

The Labour Party is in opposition to this bill, but we are really keen to work through, at the select committee, some of the questions that we have. So I’ll outline what they are, briefly, now. The first is that absolutely key to this whole regime is the idea that someone will need to pay for strengthening. Is that the Government? Is that private owners? Is that retrospectively the Government paying for private owners to enjoy the support of Government and not requiring them to bear any risk, or is there a role for local government here as well? All of those questions do not get answered if central government is unable to fulfil the role of holding to the remediation time frames that it sets, and so there is a question there about whether extending the time frames, essentially, rewards procrastination.

That was a point made in media commentary by one of the Christchurch earthquake survivors, who commented and asked whether we are rewarding procrastination here if Government continues to kick the can down the road, and that is a question we have on our minds because we must send clear signals, not only to those homeowners and not only to the people affected but also to the local councils. There is a question of certainty around things like insurance and the costs spread around people if Government does not have hard deadlines in a case like this.

Another question that we will be asking is whether the settings for homeowners who cannot pay are right and how we can support people through a really difficult time financially. Labour had a solution for this. I won’t go into it as I don’t have time, but solutions around lending to people and requiring them to pay it back only on sale or death might be something here that we need to look to.

I’m sure that the select committee will have the opportunity to discuss this with submitters, because though this is relatively limited in scope—this bill in particular—we will attract a number of people who want to have their say on this issue, which brings me, in the final minute of my contribution, to the report-back date.

We oppose the shortened report-back date. We would like to hear fulsomely from those submitters, particularly in local government, and the homeowners who are affected and the people who have been through these earthquake events before, their reasons about how these deadlines are important to certainty in their areas. We’d also like to hear from property developers and people with an interest in other regions like Auckland who might oppose the rules on why they think the deadline extension is a useful thing. So we’re keen to get into this at select committee, and there will be calls on this side of the House about the report-back date.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. My contribution actually has a certain amount in common with the previous speaker, Arena Williams. Being a representative of a part of Wellington, this is a bill that will directly impact and assist those who own buildings in Wellington that have been having a really difficult time financing meeting the standards.

It’s a question that I’m personally very interested in. I have lived in a heritage apartment building that was just sort of 1 percent above the acceptable new building standard (NBS); I think it was like 38 percent or something. But, interestingly, because it was on bedrock in Mount Victoria, it seemed fine over the last 80 years of earthquakes; whereas some modern buildings built on reclaimed land in Wellington that were at 100 percent of NBS didn’t fare so well in the earthquake—in fact, fared quite poorly. So I’m really interested to understand how we can have earthquake standards that genuinely reflect the risk, taking into account more than just the building itself but also the ground conditions and whether that can be part of the solution.

The Greens have actually long recognised—in our arts, culture, and heritage policy—that the earthquake-strengthening system for heritage buildings is cost-prohibitive and leads to buildings being demolished rather than remediated, which is not always a great outcome. So one of our policies had been just recognising that if we want to address this, this is one of those things that we address together as a community and as a country, and Government is well placed to help find collective solutions. It’s going to be a similar situation with adapting to climate change and dealing with severe weather events. If we just leave it to individuals, a lot of people are going to be in incredible hardship.

I have a constituent who messaged me specifically about the previous Government’s assistance programme that was going to help with the cost of remediating building. She was actually writing on behalf of her mother, who also lives in the Rongotai electorate, who is on a fixed income, on a pension, has owned this apartment, it’s her home, she doesn’t want to give it up, and has found herself in a situation of needing to—alongside the other owners of the building, spent an enormous amount, went through all of the paperwork, finally got through all the hurdles to apply for that assistance fund, and then just as that happened it was announced by this Government that they were cancelling the assistance fund. It may have been a small number of people—and I agree that that fund hadn’t gone far enough to address the problem and that something needed to be changed there, but, I think, for those people who had already put a lot of time and effort and emotional stress that they were suffering from going through this effort to try and access that fund, to have it taken away like that was unfortunate.

This legislation just extending the time frames doesn’t address the issue of the compliance cost and of how we actually achieve safer buildings in a sustainable way. So that’s something that I think we need to be able to tease out in the select committee process. We do support this at first reading and we’ll have to see what comes out of that select committee process. I absolutely understand the discomfort with the select committee process being shorter. Ideally, it would have been longer than 2½ months. However, 2½ months is a lot better than 10 days, as has been the case for some other legislation we’ve seen earlier this year. So we do understand that because of the need to meet the deadline and give certainty to so many building owners and so many communities, particularly here in Wellington and Rongotai but also right across the country in rural towns as well—we can accept, I think the 2½-month select committee process.

As has been said by the Minister, we can’t really assess the risk of extending the time frames against a perfect scenario where all of those buildings were remediated by the time frames, because 80 percent of them were not going to be. But we do need to work together, I think, to find a truly sustainable solution that is going to look out for our people. We are a country that is very much affected by seismic risk. There are many other countries that have learnt to live with this. I hope we can get better building codes and better funding and better insurance options for people through this process.

CAMERON LUXTON (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Much like the previous two speakers, I too am a member of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee—

Grant McCallum: Great committee.

CAMERON LUXTON: —great committee—and I suspect the following speakers from New Zealand First and National may well be members as well. I’m looking forward to seeing this bill at select committee, and, therefore, ACT is proud to be supporting this bill past first reading.

I think it’s a pragmatic bill that the Minister has brought forward. You know, there’s a few things that need tidying up in our building legislation and this is seeking to address some of it, specifically the earthquake-strengthening issues that we have in New Zealand. There’s a lot of angst out in the community, in small towns and large cities, about the current regime for earthquake strengthening and the time lines around that. So I congratulate the Minister on extending that to give some certainty to the industry, especially since making that announcement back in April that there would be some extensions available. I think this is going to be well received by building owners up and down the country who have been seeking some clarity. And clarity will be coming because local councils will be required to reissue their earthquake-prone building notices. So that means if you are a building owner out there and you’re worried about how this is going to affect you, your council needs to be in contact with you.

The purpose of a bill like this should be about improving safety and compliance, not making it harder. So, I think, having a review to actually reassess where we’ve got to over the last decade with our regulations and the codes and practices of the building industry and the engineering fraternity, and the way they assess things such as the new building standard (NBS), and the way they use the national building code standard to actually assess the earthquake-prone or earthquake-risk elements of a building—there’s some great stuff happening in this review, and tidying up the other things that need tidying up in the Building Act at the end is a very good use of a bill like this.

In the confidence in the NBS ratings, I do think we have an issue that I believe needs to be addressed. As the previous speaker, Julie Anne Genter, mentioned, one point above the national building standard of 34 percent is the difference between an uncompliant building and compliant building. We need to have confidence that it is not being applied differently across the country by different engineering outfits, that there is some trust in a scheme such as that, because, you know, on one end, it can be that 33 to 34 is a requirement to remediate or not, but at the other end, the difference between 66 and 67 percent means that a bank might not lend, therefore you can’t sell your building to someone who’s unable to get a mortgage, and things like that. So these single digit changes in the rating of a building are very important and can lead to a massive change for a building owner. I think we need to have confidence. Building owners and the industry itself needs to have confidence in that.

Now, as I say, this is tidying up some great things, which is great, but ACT sees a building industry that is proportionate to the risk. We don’t want to have a ratchet effect of councils pushing up compliance, then engineers push up compliance, and then banks push up compliance and we end up over-engineering ourselves out of existence, to the point where, when our civilisation is dead and gone, they can see the expensive buildings that at the time cost a fortune and may have been great for archaeologists of the future to look at, but, actually, was that a good use of our funds on the day?

A test of reasonableness would be greatly appreciated. We don’t have the layers of protection that are just, like I say, ratcheting each other up. I mean, designers need to have confidence that what they are designing is actually going to leave them in a space where they’re not over-burdening the client who then has to pay for this, but at the same time are providing the necessary safeguards to the occupants of the building, whether it’s during the day or whether it’s overnight. Because, I mean, if you are staying overnight in a building, you need to have a higher degree of confidence. I think there needs to be a cost benefit done in the entire building industry.

I commend the Minister and I commend this bill. I think it’s a great start. I’m looking forward to hearing about it in select committee. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

ANDY FOSTER (NZ First): Mr Speaker, thank you. Like my colleagues on the Transport and Infrastructure Committee—a very good committee; a very hard-working committee—I’m also going to focus not so much on the other matters in the Building (Earthquake-prone Building Deadlines and Other Matters) Amendment Bill but on the issues around the earthquake-prone buildings.

This bill is good news because it’s a pragmatic approach. It gives more time for building owners. As a Wellingtonian, I have spoken with a number of building owners, particularly people who live in apartment buildings in the central city, who are stressed out about the arrangements as they are at the moment, trying to work out how they can possibly afford to do the strengthening that needs to be done, especially when their insurance costs are also going through the roof. Also, those issues of certainty around regular changes, which we’ve already heard—as my colleague Cam Luxton has just said—it’s not just the confidence about the rating of a building, whether it’s 33 or 34 or some other number; it’s whether the standards will change over time. They’re compliant at this point in time and then they’re not compliant at some other point in time. So there are huge stresses that are involved there.

Not only that; the other point I might make is that if we want to densify our cities, if we want to have more people living in our central cities, one of the worst things we could possibly do is to undermine the confidence of the very people that we want to be living in those cities, because that message will go out to other people, who might think about living in central cities and they will say, “No, I don’t want to live in an apartment building.” So we have to fix this. This bill gives four more years to strengthen those buildings, and potentially another couple of years. “Four more years”—it sounds a bit rugby-ish, doesn’t it? Not a good thing to remember. That is not a good thing to remember.

I want to give a lot of credit to the Minister, the Hon Chris Penk, for this. Also, it was really good, in seeing some coverage of this, to see the “credit where credit is due”. They were actually the words that were used by one of my former Green colleagues on the Wellington City Council. So, well done to the Minister. But let’s be clear, as we heard from the Hon Julie Anne Genter: this does not fix the problem. There is still a problem; it just gives more time to fix that problem. We live in a shaky country. In fact, some of us went down to the Crisis Management Centre earlier in the week, and we were reminded of the likely frequency of some major earthquakes in this country. We cannot just bury our heads in the sand and say, “This will go away.”; it won’t.

We have somewhere between 5,500 and 7,000 buildings listed as earthquake-prone nationally. I was interested to see that, in fact, while we’re very, very conscious of it in Wellington City—the rest of the region is added to that—Wellington City only represents about 10 percent of those. There are three times as many in Auckland, which surprised me, but that’s the way it is. It’s a much bigger city, of course. Wellington City has always taken this very, very seriously. In fact, as a council, the council started doing assessments of earthquake-prone buildings way back in 2006—obviously, before all the Canterbury earthquakes—and, in fact, I can remember at one local government conference, Wellington City had just about finished its work when just about everybody else had barely started it on that particular score. Wellington had done more assessments than every other territorial authority in the country put together. So it shows that it’s an issue which is taken seriously.

I do want to use Wellington as an example, and also one other jurisdiction if I have the time to do so, because it underlines the importance of this extra time. Wellington City has some 572 buildings on its earthquake list. For 229 of them, their yellow sticker turns red in 2027—229 of them—and if you include the ones between now and 2027, it’s 305. So nearly all of them, or the vast majority of them, are in the next three or four years. It’s not only a stress and a pressure and a financial pressure on the building owners but it’s also a question of the capacity of the market, of the industry, of the experts, to actually be able to do the work that needs to be done in that short period of time. So the extra time is really, really important.

I said that more work needs to be done. So it’s really great to see the Minister’s review which is being done. I’m sure—the Minister said it’s absolutely fine to hear this as well—we will hear many out-of-scope submissions which are talking about things which are more than just the time table, but they will be valuable. There will be valuable information, because they will all be related to the issues around the earthquake-strengthening regime and what the challenges are, what can be done to make it better, and I think that those will be very, very valuable. So I’m looking forward to that work.

If I might finish off with just one other area which I’ve also seen, I know how important this legislation will be to some of our rural and provincial towns, towns like Feilding, because giving more time changes the economics and allows people to get on with strengthening their buildings. I commend this bill to the House.

HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE (Te Pāti Māori—Hauraki-Waikato): Tēnā rā koe e te Pīka, otirā tēnā rā tātou e te Whare. E tū ana ahau ki te waha i ngā kōrero mā Te Pāti Māori i te rangi nei. Ahakoa te poto o tāku kōrero, ka ū tika ki tēnei kaupapa mō te whakahaumarutanga o ngā whare e tūpono ai ka rū whenua, me te takiwātanga o ēnei angawā.

[Thank you, Mr Speaker, indeed greetings to all of us in the House. I stand to give voice to the statements on behalf of the Māori Party today. Despite the brevity of my speech, I will engage directly with this topic for the safety of homes in the event of an earthquake, and the extent of the time frame.]

I rise to take a short call on behalf of Te Pāti Māori in support of this bill, to see it go through to the select committee process and stages. Some of our key focuses and interests, in awaiting to hear public consultation, is from a number of marae, as marae may be forced to be demolished if they fail to meet these deadlines. Extending time frames may save some marae from demolition, but it will not address the core issue, as other members have said across both sides, that many hapū cannot afford to strengthen their marae. The Government should fully fund strengthening for marae.

Another issue I would like to raise is the bigger issue of all of this for us—as a person who lives near their papa kāinga and marae—is the future safety plans in place for houses, and particularly for marae, in a course of natural disasters. We’ve seen many marae, for the past couple of years now, getting hammered by natural disasters, yet they are the first place of response and locations during a natural disaster—whether you are non-Māori or Māori. Knowing that marae are not just walls and windows but they are our museums, also making sure that there are right protections in place taonga tuku iho like carvings, tuktuku, poupou, and tūpuna artifacts that we would like to have consultation process on, and how the process will look like moving forward.

So we would like to have those conversations no matter the political party, as the safety of our people is paramount. So, in short, we support this bill to the select committee stage and we await to hear submissions from the select committee. Tēnā rā tātou.

GRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to support this bill, the Building (Earthquake-prone Building Deadlines and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. Like most of the speakers before me, I will be focusing mainly on the earthquake side of this, rather than the other matters. This is a very important bill because it’s going to help give us time to address some issues that have been building up for a while, but always at the heart of this we’ve just got to remember that we’re talking about buildings and earthquakes and the potential damage that can come from it. We’ve all seen in recent times what can happen and we must always keep that in our minds, which is that it’s a delicate balance at times to get between building something that’s going to protect us in a disaster and the actual costs of strengthening the existing buildings. So we always must acknowledge that.

I’d like to acknowledge my fellow committee members on the Transport and Infrastructure Committee: our great chair, Andy Foster; my other members Tom Rutherford and Cam Luxton, who’s sitting up there; and Julie Anne Genter is still here in the House. I acknowledge also the speaker before from Labour, Arena Williams. It’s interesting—I’m pleased to see that we have almost got unanimity within the House to support this bill through to select committee, with the one exception being Labour, which I find rather unusual, given that so far their speeches have pretty much been in support of what the goals of the bill are, to give us more time to do a better job, and yet they’re going to vote against it. I just find that interesting, it’d be fair to say.

The main reason we’re giving more time is because I know the Minister for Building and Construction, the Hon Chris Penk—who’s doing a great job in a number of areas, I might add—wants to try and bring some clarity to what is at times a confusing situation, and I’ll use my own province of Northland as an example. We are not renowned for our earthquake risk, and yet the current legislation is unclear as to where we stand on what we have to do in that space. So I want to bring clarity as to what Northlanders have to do to make their buildings safer versus other parts of the country which are more earthquake-prone.

It’s interesting; there’s been quite a bit of commentary on the fact that the proposal for this extension of time until the whole review came from, for example, the Mayor of Wellington, Tory Whanau, when she said that she welcomed this review and as she welcomed the extension of the deadline. “This is an extremely complex issue. It’s important that New Zealand has a system for strengthening buildings that is fit for purpose. The closure of earthquake-prone buildings come with significant social and economic costs, resulting in an often unaffordable and unsustainable position for building owners.”, said Mayor Tory Whanau.

Then I also have another quote here from another mayor—a deputy mayor in this case—from the Manawatū. Michael Ford said that the building and construction Minister Chris Penk had “listened to councils by providing a timeframe extension, which has helped take some pressure off. … There is not a one-size-fits all solution to this important issue facing our regions,” Ford said, “The review will need to answer some fundamental questions about how this system could work better [in the future]”. As a final comment, I would just note that the exceptionally outstanding MP for Napier, Katie Nimon, is quoted in her local paper as saying that the earthquake-prone buildings review being brought forward is “good news for Napier”.

So I just think what this highlights is that this is an issue that needs addressing. We have a Minister that is listening, and I think that is what this Government is doing a great job of. We’re listening to what the people of New Zealand want. They want us to review this, give us time to do it properly. I commend this bill to the House.

Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the chance to say a few words on this Building (Earthquake-prone Building Deadlines and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. Thinking about this bill, and listening to some of the contributions, always reminds me of one of those frustrating but real facts about human beings, and that is our reliability, if not always in a valid way, to favour the immediacy bias, to always be thinking about what’s right in front of us and how much it might cost, or what a hassle it might be, instead of actually putting the work into saving our own skins and doing what’s best in so far as a safety issue.

As other contributors have also mentioned, the impetus for this current law is premised on the lessons we learnt from Christchurch. I know I certainly will never ever get out of my mind all of the sights and all of the sounds and all of the smells and all of the horrible things that I witnessed on that day in the city centre in Christchurch in 2011. Whilst nothing could ever have provided any forewarning, and there was no building code that would ever have prevented the CTV Building coming down and taking the life of my friend and workmate, I think it is up to the people who lived through that experience—particularly some of the people who experienced real harm and have dedicated their time since then—to campaign for better regulations and for better safety, particularly with buildings in what can only be described as a very earthquake-prone country that we live in.

It’s not to say that we don’t also appreciate the fact that this is complicated and there are various considerations that need to be made. We’re not supporting the bill, primarily because of a fundamental understanding that if you keep kicking the can down the road, nothing ever gets done. There will always be a myriad of considerations that need to be made, there will always be competing variables at play, but at some point you’ve just got to get on with it.

I’d like to also note that whilst we talk about the fact that people should never be put at undue risk due to the buildings that they’re living in—and we talk about apartments if we talk about Wellington. Can I also just remind everybody that we also shouldn’t be put at undue risk from buildings that we merely may be driving past, or we merely may be passing by just for a moment. It took me a long time to notice it—years actually. Particularly I would notice it coming up to Wellington, walking in the CBD—which is a novelty because we didn’t have one for such a long time, or a concept of some sort of business district—walking up the town, and, without even thinking about it, my first thought was always “You won’t survive if you walk past that building”, or “That won’t last five seconds.” You know, people that haven’t seen it take it for granted. We have sayings about things being as strong as buildings or, you know, as safe as houses, and all these various other sayings that we’ve learnt over generations to take as a truism—and it’s just not, when you see them fall down as easily as they can.

So I think that it is incumbent upon the Government to look at different ways in which we can support—and as my colleague Arena Williams intimated earlier, no one’s saying that this is an easy solution or that there are quick fixes, but we are saying that the State and the Government probably do play some sort of role in ensuring that we can move forward. And we definitely need to move forward. This could potentially be the first of several different extensions, and before we know it we will be no further ahead and we will be regretting that decision.

Also intimated in a prior contribution from Arena Williams was the fact that she didn’t quite have enough time to go through specifics of what the solutions to this were. But Labour’s solution in Government was the Residential Earthquake-Prone Building Financial Assistance Scheme, and it has been cancelled by this Government. Whilst the member Grant McCallum, who made the contribution before me, found it somewhat perplexing that we weren’t supporting this particular bill, I likewise find it somewhat perplexing that some things that could have been helpful and could have moved us along in a bit more steady way have been cancelled. But, nevertheless, this is the situation that we find ourselves in.

I will watch with keen interest as it goes through the select committee stage, undoubtedly, and I look forward to hearing all the contributions from people with lived experience and all of the expertise that will be lent in that direction. Thank you.

TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): I rise today to speak in support of the Building (Earthquake-prone Building Deadlines and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. This bill addresses critical issues regarding the safety and economic viability of our buildings in the face of seismic risks. It aims to provide clarity and breathing space for building owners and territorial authorities as we work towards a more effective system for managing earthquake-prone buildings.

The current system, implemented in 2017, aimed to reduce the risk to life by requiring the remediation of our most vulnerable buildings. However, it has become clear that this system is not working as effectively as intended. Around 150 buildings have already failed to meet their remediation deadlines, and many more are unlikely to be remediated, due to high costs and other barriers. With nearly 500 deadlines set to expire over the next four years, we are facing a potential crisis that could have devastating impacts on our economy.

The key purpose of this bill is to extend the remediation time frames for earthquake-prone buildings by four years, with a limited power to extend deadlines by an extra two years. This extension provides clarity for building owners and territorial authorities, prevents clusters of expiring deadlines, and offers relief from enforcement challenges.

Alongside this extension, our Government is initiating a comprehensive review of the earthquake-prone building system, to be completed in the first half of 2025. This review will focus on costs, risk-management proposals, compliance barriers, and alignment with broader Government objectives. The bill also clarifies responsibilities in the building warrant of fitness scheme, improves the building levy collection system, and addresses inconsistencies in dam safety penalties and obligations.

We are striking a critical balance between public safety and economic consequences. The devastation of the Christchurch earthquakes is still fresh in our national memory. We must do all we can to prevent such tragedy in the future. We must also face the very real economic consequences of overly burdensome regulations. Empty buildings in our city centres and towns don’t just represent lost revenue; they represent lost jobs, lost community spaces, and lost vitality in our urban areas.

In conclusion, this bill represents a balanced approach to a complex problem. It provides necessary relief and time for building owners and local authorities while work is done towards a more effective and sustainable system for managing earthquake-prone buildings. It’s about finding the right balance between safety and economic sustainability. I urge all members to support this bill and I encourage them to engage constructively in the select committee process. The safety and prosperity of our communities depends on getting this right.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s actually quite tricky to speak on this bill because there are a few members in this House who have had firsthand experience of an earthquake, and the alarming thing is that the earthquake that I experienced and some others in this House experienced was a little one. Andy Foster mentioned that he’s been in the emergency management bunker and has seen the projections. It doesn’t give enough emphasis to the devastation that will hit New Zealand—probably a real possibility that it will be this city—and the catastrophic damage that will occur.

Tracey McLellan mentioned that we’re all biased to kind of project our own experiences historically into the future and, therefore, if we’ve lived for 30 or 60 years and have never really seen a major disaster, we assume we won’t see one in the rest of our lifetime. We know it’s coming, so the question is this: how do we strike the balance between life and prosperity?

I heard the member before me talk about the need to fill up vacant buildings and have bustling inner cities. That’s all very nice, but when this earthquake strikes, if a building is earthquake-prone and we have a genuine earthquake—a serious earthquake—then some of those buildings will fall over and people will die. I know and have spoken to people who talk of the financial pressures, the stress, the anxiety, and the constraints on their lifestyle that earthquake strengthening causes, but if we leave people to entirely make their own decisions about the safety of buildings, there is never a good time. So we’re not going to be obstructive on this bill; we’re going to be constructive when it comes to looking at it in a select committee. But we can’t accept, when we live where we do and we have the science that we have before us and we know the quality of the building stock, that it’s a good idea to defer remediation of these buildings.

We agree that a review of the relevant earthquake regulations and building codes is a good thing—absolutely endorse that—and with the somewhat binary nature of these questions where it’s either a dangerous building or it’s not, it may be that we do need to look at that. But if we sit on our hands, we’ve been here before. The Christchurch earthquake was more than a decade ago. We know the problem. We’ve been nudging people to do the right thing, and the Minister for Building and Construction himself—and I’ve a lot of respect for the work he’s doing—has said that “We encourage people to do this remediation work.”, but on this side of the House, our view is that we can’t just encourage; we’ve got to compel. We might want to assist as well, and that’s certainly the approach that the Labour Party had put in place with financial assistance.

This is a really serious question for this House: where are you going to strike the balance between risk to life and prosperity? Let’s not fall into the trap of thinking that it probably won’t happen, because when it does happen, it will be catastrophic. It will be beyond anything we could imagine. So let’s take advice from our scientists, seismologists, and engineers, but, most of all, let’s get on and make our buildings safe. Kia ora.

CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour): It gives me great pleasure to rise to speak in the first reading of this bill and, as others have said, its key purpose is to extend the remediation time frames for earthquake-prone buildings by four years. It’s an extension that will provide clarity and certainty both for building owners and territorial authorities as well as the Minister announced recently that the review of the management of seismic risk in the existing buildings and subsequently any legislative amendments has been brought forward from 2027. So I want to acknowledge that.

We’ve got to strike a balance, and that’s what this Government is committed to with both this bill and with the review. If we don’t strike that balance, we will only see more earthquake-prone buildings rot in our rural towns and our city centres across the country, and if members want to know what that looks like, I invite them to check out the old Molly Malones building on the corner of Courtenay Place and Taranaki Street in central Wellington. It’s been abandoned, it’s been deteriorating, it’s almost unsellable, and it’s been in that situation for 10 years.

Another well-known Wellington building that I want to point to is the former Press Gallery Annex at the back of the Beehive—earthquake-prone, but having architectural merit, according to Heritage New Zealand. Architectural merit—brutalism. It’s too hard, at first blush, to remodel for ministerial offices, so subsequently it remains empty, right here in the parliamentary precinct. We want to see less examples of empty buildings than more, hence why the Minister is acting with some haste but with a lot of consultation with his expansive review.

In Auckland, interestingly enough, more than 1,700 buildings are registered as being earthquake-prone, which is a big proportion of the over 5,000 earthquake-prone buildings nationwide. Auckland Council’s general manager of building consents, Ian McCormick, has welcomed the Government’s review: “We support the review to ensure the investment by property owners to upgrade their buildings is proportionate to Auckland’s seismic risk.” Nearly 500 deadlines are set to expire over the next four years, so this gives us time.

Again, I want to give a lot of credit to the Minister for Building and Construction, the Hon Chris Penk, for bringing forward the review of the earthquake-prone building rules and extending remediation for four years. This is a great day, and a big sigh of relief is being exhaled by councils, mayors, property managers, property owners, and business associations up and down this country. We are giving them more time and that’s what they’ve asked for, and, as one property manager said in the media just recently, an extension is a godsend.

Also, let’s have a look at this review that that’s under way and will be completed next year—2025—and, again, it has been brought forward from 2027. It’s a wide-reaching review. There will be extensive consultation across the property sector and across local government which will result in legislative changes. It will result in legislative changes, but then they will go through an exhaustive select committee process and will then be reported back to this House for debate, for further consideration, and, ultimately, for ratification.

So, for Auckland, where the Mayor of Auckland has said that there’s been no signs of earthquake activity for 100,000 years—well, we know that the Mayor of Auckland sometimes exaggerates and has a turn of phrase. But for Auckland, it makes sense. We’re a low-risk area, we need more time, and our response needs to be proportionate. So I commend this first reading to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Building (Earthquake-prone Building Deadlines and Other Matters) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 89

New Zealand National 49; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8; Te Pāti Māori 6; Tana.

Noes 34

New Zealand Labour 34.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is, That the Building (Earthquake-prone Building Deadlines and Other Matters) Amendment Bill be considered by the Transport and Infrastructure Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Transport and Infrastructure Committee.

Instruction to Transport and Infrastructure Committee

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction): I move, That the Building (Earthquake-prone Building Deadlines and Other Matters) Amendment Bill be reported to the House by 31 October 2024 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions), during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, and outside the Wellington area, despite Standing Orders 193, 195, and 196.

Madam Speaker, I know that this is a very tight debate in terms of the Government’s view, and it is supported by some others in the House that there be a shortened select committee time, but perhaps you’ll indulge me just to acknowledge the thoughtful contributions made by parliamentary colleagues all across the House, including on both sides of the argument, in relation to the first reading. I think it’s appropriate that there’s constructive dialogue, and I thank everyone for exactly that.

I do wish to point out in relation to the proposal that’s before the House that there be a shortened select committee period that the fact we are now discussing and debating this bill at all in the first place reflects that there has been considerable discussion in the community, including with local government—between themselves and with central government—and, certainly, I’ve been grateful for guidance by the mayors and other elected representatives of many different councils across New Zealand, including those in whose jurisdiction we currently stand. So I think I would respectfully point out to those who are nervous about a shortened select committee report-back period that, first, there has already been considerable consultation and discussion. This is not a new idea—this is not, indeed, an original idea to me. Second, just to emphasise to anyone who’s listening and in case it’s not clear already, I’d point out that, of course, this bill relates only to the extension of the current deadlines, as opposed to the much more substantive and difficult and gnarly and complex question of what the review might find and, therefore, what the regulations should be, going forward.

With that, I look forward to hearing how the select committee goes, though, obviously, not to influence it, but to take great interest in it, and I thank in advance the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, whose members—many of whom are in the House today and have contributed already to the debate—I know will be diligent in the time that’s afforded to them. I know that they will take seriously the obligation to consider this question of extension. Finally, I’d like to point out that the time frame that we are proposing—31 October—for report back will enable us to pass this bill by the end of this calendar year, thereby providing more certainty, more clarity, and less retrospectivity to the question of an extension, whereby for those in the period of time from 2 April until today or such time as this bill comes into effect are in some sort of legal limbo.

We know that Ministers cannot make law merely by announcing, and, certainly in the case of statutory and amendment, we know from the case Fitzgerald v Muldoon and other discussions in our constitutional history that we can’t regard these changes as being effective in law until such time as that law is passed. Therefore, it’s appropriate to have a shortened select committee report-back so that we can get on and provide that certainty and then, of course, continue the important task of discussing those major questions that will surface during the review and already have, indeed, been the subject of some discussion. With that, I look forward to contributions that, no doubt, will continue to be constructive in tone regarding the report-back period, and, of course, I wish the select committee all the best in its considerations in due course.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to. For all members who might wish to take a call on this, just a reminder that it is about the report-back time, not the details of the bill.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Madam Speaker. The Minister struck a lovely tone, but didn’t actually give us any reason as to why this should be truncated. He basically said two things in that speech, if I heard him rightly. One is that we’ve knocked this idea around a fair bit, so there’s been some sense of community consultation, and the other thing was that the people who, when the obligation crystallised in April—they’re in a kind of a limbo. Neither of those pressed why there should be a less than four-month report-back stage. I guess it’s difficult for me to stand up and now debate and say the reasons he gave were terrible, because he actually gave no reasons. He just seemed to say, “We don’t really think we need a six-month period.”

I think it’s really important in this House that we note that a full select committee process is really, really important so that we have both a good process and a legitimacy around what Parliament is doing, and whilst we know that urgency and shortened processes are useful sometimes, and appropriate—all Governments use them—they certainly have to be very clearly justified. I mean, it’s a little ironic to me that we’ve got a bill here which is extending time, kicking the can down the road, and we’re doing it with a truncated process. With one hand, we’re saying, “Oh, we can adjust time frames and push it out. Everyone needs a bit more time.”, but when we’re considering that very question, we’re giving the House less time.

So that seems very strange to me, and I simply can’t accept, in terms of the limbo question, that it’s problematic. You know, we’ve all heard of the Fitzgerald v Muldoon case and we know that a Minister—and that Minister, of course, knows—can’t stand up and declare that the law will be changed in the future and change behaviour now. We get that. But, pragmatically speaking, some months ago, the Minister issued a press release and let it be known to the community that he was going to take a particular approach and that gave considerable certainty. That’s why he did it—so that the sector could have certainty.

Now, there’s no suggestion—and I couldn’t imagine, of all the Ministers of that Government, that that one would go back on his word. We know that the sector has certainty around this, so, genuinely, I just can’t see it. It’s like we could get the same result without any downside by giving the select committee either four months, in which case we wouldn’t be having a debate, or the routine and regular six months, which is what is normal and appropriate. It may be that the Minister will just round off and explain to the House why there is some particular urgency that means we need less than four months to get on with it. It would be useful if we could really put the finger on it because the select committee procedure is an important one, and it does truncate.

I accept that the bill does a whole lot of other things that people may take an interest in, like small, heated swimming pools and things like that. But it is a relatively technical issue in terms of earthquake strengthening and time lines and how we go about it, so it’s not likely that people are going to front up and give their personal reckons on what the issue is. They’ll be substantive submissions backed by evidence. It is quite likely, and I genuinely hope that the committee will be informed by submissions from professional people like lawyers who have been engaged in that space, like professional engineers, and like property owners and managers. Those people want to do a professional submission, which takes time, and it would be a sad day if, because of a truncated time frame, people who genuinely wanted to inform the House and give substantive and informed professional submissions didn’t get an opportunity to because their professional lives were too busy or whatever.

I understand that the Minister gets another opportunity to speak. It’d be good to say, “Well, it is urgent and here’s why it’s urgent.”, because at the moment, what we’ve got is a risk that we’re running of—I know the committee will do the best job it can—a lower-quality select committee procedure then would otherwise be the case.

Look, I’ll leave it there. I know there’s another bill that I’m very keen to speak on a little later on in this House, but I’m sure some of my colleagues will want to speak to this, as well. Kia ora.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Building (Earthquake-prone Building Deadlines and Other Matters) Amendment Bill be reported to the House by 31 October 2024 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions), during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, and outside the Wellington area, despite Standing Orders 193, 195, and 196.

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.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just before I call on Government orders of the day Nos 2 and 3, I just wanted to clarify, actually, that the Minister only has one call in any motion. So the Minister, even if he wanted to, was unable to take—

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: I would have given him leave!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I just wanted to make that—yes, I just had that advice and wanted to make it clear so that it’s not a problem on future occasions.

I declare the House in committee for further consideration of the Gangs Legislation Amendment Bill and the Local Government (Water Services Preliminary Arrangements) Bill.

House in Committee

House in Committee

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Members, the House is in committee for further consideration of the Gangs Legislation Amendment Bill and the Local Government (Water Services Preliminary Arrangements) Bill.

Bills

Gangs Legislation Amendment Bill

In Committee

Debate resumed from 6 August.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): When we were last considering this bill, we were debating Part 5. Part 5 is the debate on clauses 36 to 38, amendments to the Sentencing Act 2002, and Schedule 4.

Part 5 Amendments to Sentencing Act 2002 (continued)

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to first pick up part of my contribution in the previous session around—which the Minister didn’t have the opportunity to clarify—the greater implication of Part 5 by including gang affiliation as part of aggravating factors in section 9 of the Sentencing Act, particularly in terms of the interconnectivity of the Sentencing Act with the Crimes Act, and certain crimes that may have no affiliation or no relation to the gang affiliation being, unfortunately, attached or implicated as a result. One of the things I mentioned as part of that just very briefly was on section 220 of the Crimes Act in terms of theft in a special relationship.

The other thing I mentioned around the Crimes Act is section 66, in terms of party liability. I want to sort of expand on that, first, around party liability, which is some of the instances that we have seen previously when people—and in this case, when we’re looking at, potentially, the unfair treatment of wāhine Māori in this particular legislation, because if we’re looking at cases such as the R v Ahsin case in 2013 where wāhine Māori had been made accessory to certain acts that had been done by their spouses—in this particular case, under the requirement and the interpretation of section 66 of the Crimes Act, they were liable for the crime as well, under party liability. In this particular case, what you will see is that because of the aggravating factor that will be introduced as part of section 9 of the Sentencing Act, wāhine Māori may be unfairly targeted as a result of this.

I just wanted some clarification from the Minister or the officials on whether any modelling has been done on the potential to increase the sentencing and also on increasing the chance of wāhine Māori in our prison system as a result of this introduction. Now, this is particularly important since, for the longest time, we have been talking in this House about the fact that wāhine Māori and Pasifika women have been unfairly represented in our prison system. So I would like some clarification from the Minister regarding that.

The second part that’s also a consideration to this is I would really like the Minister to clarify or consider another scenario where gang affiliation may be unfairly treated if it’s included as an aggravating factor. That is when we’re looking at section 201 of the Crimes Act regarding infecting with disease. This is particularly the case when we’re looking at the R v Mwai case from 1995, where we are looking at people who either intentionally, or accidently—if we’re looking more broadly under a breach of criminal nuisance in section 145, which is a breach of section 156 of the Crimes Act, which is “Duty of persons in charge of dangerous things”—infect someone with a sexually transmitted disease. Again, those kind of things are criminally liable actions and people can be criminally charged, but the gang affiliation is a bit of a stretch in terms of having that being an aggravating factor under section 9 of the Sentencing Act.

All of these sorts of scenarios are scenarios that have happened in Aotearoa New Zealand. These are not things that are just hypothetical; these are actual cases. So when we are looking at this, what is the Minister’s consideration in terms of the potential increase in unfair treatment of gang members, or those who are affiliated with gangs, when the crime itself actually has very little to do with gang affiliation? So if the Minister wouldn’t mind clarifying—and that is section 220 of the Crimes Act, which is theft in special relationships; section 66, which is party liability; section 201, about infecting with disease, and, should the Minister wish to also respond, section 145, about criminal nuisance. Thank you.

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction): Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and I thank the member Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan for his intelligent and articulate contribution. I think the two different legs of his questions can be answered substantially in the same way. Taking the second one first, around those different provisions within our criminal law that he says may be unlikely to be connected with the fact of gang membership, I think that the Government’s view is that it’s appropriate for the judge not to be unduly limited in deciding that extent of connection when she or he is making that decision, and, of course, in relation to the first point, that applies equally where we say that in relation to the proposal that wāhine Māori might be disproportionately affected.

Of course, the member is right to raise an important question for our society and, indeed, our criminal justice system more generally. But at an individual case level, the principle of equality before the law, as a key aspect of the rule of law, is such that these demographic factors should not be taken into account by the judge when making a decision on these matters at sentencing.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Madam Chair, and thanks to the Minister for those comments. One thing that springs to mind immediately from those comments, and I think it’s actually quite an important one: is it the Government’s intention with the amendment to the Sentencing Act that the more closely connected to gang membership the crime is, the more aggravating the factor is? So if you’ve got a group of gang members engaged in a burglary, then that’s a gang crime; if you’ve got a gang member who’s carelessly used a motor vehicle, it’s not a gang crime. In terms of how aggravating gang membership is, would it be fair to say the more of a gang crime it is, the more aggravating it is? So that’s my first question.

My second question is actually one I hope the Minister will take a real interest in and might have some instructions on, and that’s on the retrospective nature of clause 17 in new Part 5 of Schedule 1AA of the Sentencing Act that is being added in Schedule 4 of the bill, which is the very last thing in the bill. Now, I raised this in an earlier debate, but the Minister didn’t get a chance to respond to it whilst he was there. This is the commencement clause for the change to the Sentencing Act, and, as it’s drafted, it says that “applies only to proceedings commenced on or after the commencement date.” The difficulty with that is that the offence could have been committed two years ago. The New Zealand Bill of Right Act provides that a person is entitled to be charged and sentenced under the law as it stood at the time that the offence was committed, and this actually departs from that. Now, my amendment solves that by replacing “proceedings commenced” with “offences committed”.

The last time one of my other amendments, the Minister sneakily put an Amendment Paper in as well and usurped me there, so it may be that that’s going to occur. But I actually think that’s quite an important one. It’s tucked away in the kind of depths of the bill, but it does strike me as a transgression of the retrospectivity principle in actually quite an important way. So I will stop there because I’m hopeful the Minister will be able to respond to that.

Hon Member: Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The Hon Dr Duncan Webb was on his feet first.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Oh, thank you, Madam Chair. Well, I can see that the Minister—the very good Minister of Justice that he is—is thinking carefully about it. So I’ll just touch on the other question that wasn’t responded to, and I know that it may be that my friends on the other side are keen to leap to their feet, but it would be good for the Minister to have an opportunity to respond to these, even if it requires the committee to pause for a moment.

My other amendment is really about the difficulty we have with the aggravating factor simply of being a gang member when it bears no rational relationship to the offending, and my amendment, which has got a “l” on it, adds a subclause there which links it into serious offending so that it’s not shoplifting or, as in Mr Xu-Nan’s example, infecting someone intentionally with a sexually transmitted disease. That’s not one that leapt to my mind, but, again, it’s a really good example of a crime that doesn’t have a gang element in it.

I don’t agree with the underlying principle of the Act, but my amendment would at least make it so that there was some “gang-ness” to the crime, if you like, because it is serious offending as identified in this legislation. So if you could respond to that retrospectivity piece in particular, but also whether you’d smile upon that other amendment.

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I do acknowledge and, as best I can, I will address the points that the member has made. In terms of the question of whether the Government intends that there’ll be a proportional relationship between, on the one hand, connection with gang membership and the nature of the offence, I think the Government’s position would be that that’s an appropriate question for the judge in any individual matter in the act of sentencing to consider and apply as they think appropriate.

In terms of the question of commencement, or rather the applicability of the new sentencing regime, as it affects a matter in which an actus reus has taken place versus the commencement of proceedings, it seems to me there’d be a relatively narrow subset of actions, and then cases to which this might apply. But it’s a reasonable question, I think, as far as it goes. It seems to me that the Attorney-General’s report under section 7 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act (NZBORA) did contemplate that question and, indeed, other NZBORA-related matters, and I think it seems to me that the intention isn’t that there be a retrospectivity about the bill and its effects. I would point out that while, of course, the NZBORA does have things to say about retrospectivity in relation to criminal matters, we’re not in the serious territory of declaring an act to be a criminal activity or offence that was not at the time that it was perpetrated, but rather a bit of nuance around the extent to which certain factors might be able to be taken into account.

On the third and final point, which I think is the amendment marked “p” for pa, then I think I’m right in saying that the—oh, I beg your pardon; I think that I’m in the same territory as I was for the one that was marked “l” for lemur. So if I’m confused on that point, I apologise. I’ll see if I can gain any greater clarity either under my own steam or with some help from my friends, or perhaps the member himself.

PAULO GARCIA (National—New Lynn): I move, That debate on this question now close.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’m going to take a call from Tamatha Paul, as the Minister has just indicated that he’s looking for some more clarification, but I believe we are getting close. We’ve had a lot of time on this bill.

TAMATHA PAUL (Green—Wellington Central): Kia ora, Madam Chair. Thank you for allowing me to take a call on Part 5 of this bill. My question is related to aggravating factors, and I know that we have already covered the aspect that the crime that has been committed might not relate to the offender’s membership of a gang. But I do want to dive into that aggravating factor a little bit more and the way that this takes away discretion from the judges who are charged with taking into account the person before them and then giving them a programme of rehabilitation or sentences that deals with the offending that has taken place.

My question to the Minister is: why doesn’t the Government trust the judiciary to implement the aggravating factor for gang membership that already exists within the legislation, and why is the Government choosing to override the judiciary again? Today, we had hearings on the three-strikes legislation, which does a similar thing in that it provides more instruction to judges about how they need to sentence and deal with different crimes. Again, we have this really important separation of powers within our democratic system that separates us and the executive from the judiciary. This takes out the judge’s discretion.

I’m further concerned that with the un-funding of section 27 reports that our judges aren’t going to have an accurate picture of the person before them to be able to give them an outcome that actually addresses their offending and addresses the needs of the victims, if there are some, in the situation. So how is the judge supposed to take into account what appropriate rehabilitation is needed when they don’t have the cultural or background information that they need via a section 27 report? I’m assuming that most people who are in gangs would probably need to rely on legal aid for that section 27 report. But all the judge has got in front of them is this aggravating factor that this person belongs to a gang, but doesn’t have the reason why this person is in a gang in the first place. We know that that’s important context to have, because just two weeks ago, we had the abuse in State care report, which detailed just one of the many reasons why people feel that they need to turn to gangs in the first place.

Actually, if you look to the report of the Chief Science Advisor to the Prime Minister about minimising gang harm in Aotearoa, that adviser says in the report that gangs exist because they perform a function within society. This is all-important context that our judges need to have before them but won’t be able to have before them. So that’s my first major question: what has led to the major distrust in judges’ abilities to provide appropriate sentences? Is it because this Government chooses to prioritise deterrence theory, which is, effectively, that people who commit crime are aware of the sentences tied to the crime that they’re committing—which we know is not true?

Often, crime is motivated by emotions and the situation before the person who commits the crime, as opposed to them making a rational decision based on “If I do this thing, these are the consequences of my actions.” That’s not the way that crime happens, and we had lots of criminologists and lawyers and people that work in the criminal law space that understand that deterrence theory isn’t accurate and doesn’t work because the people that commit crime and most of the people in prison have got significant mental and cognitive issues. Their literacy is not the same as everybody else. There are significant neurodiversity issues with people that are in prison, and their ability to make decisions and weigh up the consequences of their actions is impaired. So that’s my first question.

Has he seen any evidence at all that making gang membership an aggravating factor at sentencing will help people to exit gangs as well, because that’s surely the outcome that we all want across the House. We want fewer gang members and we want to make sure that people can exit gangs safely. But what evidence has he seen that longer sentences—which will inevitably come through a bill like this—actually lead to people exiting gangs in the first place?

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction): Madam Chair, thank you. Very briefly, if I may, I won’t engage on the points that were not related to the bill, but to the three points that were in relation to the member’s contribution. She alleges that we are overriding the judge’s discretion—indeed, we’re not; we’re actually empowering choices that they make to decide the appropriate weight to place on gang membership in relation to any individual matter before them.

Second, she makes a point around deterrence as though deterrence was the only aim of the criminal justice system. It is not. There are various others, including prevention, which is by way of saying that if members of the public who have committed violent acts are behind bars for the period of time that they are, society is a bit safer. Again, that’s not a sole or exclusive aim of the criminal justice system, but it’s another one, and another one, incidentally, is rehabilitation. This Government’s approach is that if we have better rehabilitative processes when people are incarcerated then they will have better life prospects, including in relation to society and community membership other than by gangs.

Finally, in relation to sentences, I think the member’s point was along the lines that there would be an effect on sentencing. But, of course, again, it’s back to a judge’s discretion in terms of determining the appropriate degree of weight. But Parliament has the ability to provide guidance to judges through the Sentencing Act. That’s then applied in individual cases without our interference, and that’s why we have a Sentencing Act in the first place. I would be surprised if any member of this House would suggest that we shouldn’t have any kind of guidelines in the Sentencing Act, at all.

If I can just return to the points that were made by Dr Duncan Webb previously, one of which I missed addressing entirely—that was the amendment marked “p”. The point, actually, for that—and I do want to say it on record because this is important and this could be a matter that judges take seriously going forward in terms of understanding Parliament’s intent. In the Government’s intent, we intend that this legislation be interpreted consistently with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act (NZBORA). So, if there is any question of that in terms of perceived or alleged ambiguity, please know that we intend that the bill be interpreted in a way that is consistent and able to be consistent with NZBORA.

Finally, amendment “l”—“l” for “lemur”—is provided again by the Hon Dr Duncan Webb. That would have a broader effect than just this bill, so we don’t propose to accept that or at least vote in favour of it.

JAMES MEAGER (National—Rangitata): 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 (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to insert clause 37(hb)(iii) be agreed to.

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

Amendment not agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 5 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 5 agreed to.

Schedule 1 Transitional, savings, and related provisions

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): We now vote on Schedule 1, which has no debate. The question is that Schedule 1 stand part.

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

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Schedule 2 Identified gangs

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): We now vote on Schedule 2, which has no debate. The question is that Schedule 2 stand part.

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

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Schedule 3 Consequential amendments

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Schedule 3—also with no debate. The question is that Schedule 3 stand part.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Schedule 3 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.

Schedule 3 agreed to.

Schedule 4 New Part 5 inserted into Schedule 1AA of Sentencing Act 2002

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): We now come to Schedule 4 with no debate. The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Schedule 4 set out on Amendment Papers 64 and 51 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 (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 17 of Schedule 4 be agreed to.

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

Amendment not agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Schedule 4 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.

Schedule 4 as amended agreed to.

Clauses 1 and 2

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, we now come to our final debate, and this is on clauses 1 and 2. These are the “Title” and “Commencement” clauses.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thanks, Madam Chair. In terms of the title of this bill, I think that the Gangs Legislation Amendment Bill is a missed opportunity and a missed direction for what this bill actually serves. I would recommend that this bill be renamed the “Gangs (Fearmongering and Division) Bill”, because that is what this bill serves.

What we have been seeing, and what we have been hearing from the Minister, is around the fear of gangs, but at no point is the Minister actually addressing the root causes of gangs in Aotearoa. What we are hearing, the Minister has mentioned, is a lot of talk about the fact the Greens have mentioned colours and that we can’t wear certain colours in certain places. But there are many other instances when we may not wear a certain colour—for example, when you are supporting a particular sports team. I think if you a supporting a particular football team in the UK—you support Manchester instead of Liverpool—there will be certain colours that you will not be wearing, both in terms of the respect you have for the team but also in terms of other things. For example, I would not be wearing certain colours. I would not be wearing blue in certain instances for fear that I might be mistaken for someone from a particular political party, because a lot of people think that Chinese people all vote for one particular party.

There was no evidence, as we’ve seen in the regulatory impact statement, particularly page 30—this is from the Ministry of Justice—that ever suggested this legislation was going to do anything but harm the relationships that we have within our own communities. But I think that one other thing that also could be an alternative, when we are looking at the title of this bill, could be something like “Unwilling to Address Systemic Trauma That Contributes to the Root Causes of Gangs Amendment Bill”. I do think that is quite a long title, but it is an important point. This bill itself does not address any of that. It is simply putting a plaster on a much bigger wound, and there is nothing that suggests this plaster is going to work for that. So I would seriously implore the Minister to reconsider the necessity of this bill and what this bill will do to our communities.

Throughout this debate, we have mentioned a variety of factors that mean this bill is not evidence based. There are things that we have not thought out in terms of this bill. If we look at this purest—all things aside, I would go to my Amendment Paper on the change of the title, because I do think that “Gangs Legislation Amendment Bill” does not reflect the true intent of this, or any sort of specific element of this. Just to be particularly factual and process based, in terms of the content, when we were looking at Part 2 and Part 3 of this bill, which are the substantial elements of this, I think “Gangs (Insignia and Dispersal) Amendment Bill” is a much more accurate reflection of the content of the bill, as opposed to “Gangs Legislation Amendment Bill”, which is not incredibly descriptive of its content.

So I would hope that, with everything else I mentioned aside, the Minister would seriously consider my amendment to the change of the title to “Gangs (Insignia and Dispersal) Amendment Bill”. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour): I think the appropriate name for the bill would be, probably, “Kick the Māoris in the Guts Again Bill”. I think that’s probably a better title. I’m serious about this, because this is happening every week from the Government, if we think about it. I know that was a nice title from my friend over there, the Green member Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan, but I just think “Kick the Māoris in the Guts Again from the Government Bill” would be a much better title.

I think that this bill—and I’m not the first one to say this; so many people are saying that out there. I think James Meager agrees with me too in his heart, if he thinks about it. Every week, Māori are under attack. So that’s why I’m saying—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Can I just ask the member for a moment just to lift the conversation. I’ve heard a lot of debate in this piece of legislation and I’ve also heard very good, forthcoming speeches about how, actually, this is about the gangs, and there’s a small proportion of those gangs who are, in fact, Māori, so can we keep this conversation—and I did hear the Minister who was in the chair at the time acknowledge that, because I was sitting here. So I think could we make it about the gangs and the title and the commencement of the gangs bill—yeah. Thank you.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Yeah, well, I’m giving you a suggestion in terms of the title, and I’m giving you some basis for the title. I want to elaborate, because I’ve had Māori leaders, gang leaders talk to me. I think I know, with respect, probably more gang members than most people in this House. I suppose that’s not something to be proud about, but I’ve been raised around many gang members, many who have turned their lives around—many who have turned their lives around—some of them who will be working with this Government.

Good on this Government for wanting to work with some of those gang members, because you’re never going to get to the root of the problem if you don’t work with the Eugene Ryders of this world, if you don’t work with the Denis O’Reillys of this world, if you don’t work with the gang leaders. I’ve been around many of them and I’ve been no big fan of gangs at all. In fact, for the committee’s information, we bar patches on my marae, and we’ve had that gang patch ban—

Simon Court: Is it working?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: —for many years. I’ll tell you why it’s working, and that’s a good question. I’ll tell you why it’s working: because we work with the whānau too—we work with the whānau too. So I accept some of the kōrero that the gang patches can be intimidating. All people can get intimidated by gang patches—Māori, Pākehā, whatever. But one thing we can’t walk away from—and this is the problem with the legislation—is that you’re actually affecting whānau; that’s the problem.

In our school that we set up at my marae at Ngā Whare Waatea, which is open to everyone, 25 percent of our kids had gang fathers. Gang fathers—they know when they attend the marae, no patches. So we need to bring in laws. See, here’s the thing: National has got some history in terms of working with gangs. A very famous or infamous Prime Minister—Rob Muldoon—had a relationship with gangs. He had the gangs in here. He knew the way forward. The way forward was to keep them busy, to keep them in work. When Muldoon died, the Black Power performed a haka at his tangi. He wanted to find a way through. He was someone who knew there had to be a strategy around gangs, not just getting rid of patches. What we did was try to dismantle the assets where this former Minister over here did some wonderful work.

We have to cut to the chase, cut to the root of the problem. Just taking their patches is not going to make communities any safer; it’s got to be a bit more than that. I appreciate the fear. I appreciate the fear that is out there amongst some of the communities. I’ve debated this at length with people like Michael Laws, who I worked with some years ago. We used to debate this on radio in terms of the effect of taking patches off. At the time, Michael Laws was the Whanganui mayor and he was going down this track, and so my partner in crime there John Tamihere, who became the president of Te Pāti Māori—[Time expired] Madam Chair? Thank you, Madam Chair.

So, if I could just continue, my partner in crime John Tamihere, who is now the president of Te Pāti Māori, absolutely supported getting rid of patches. Just for Te Pāti Māori’s information, he 100 percent supported getting rid of patches of gangs, but, of course, I know Te Pāti Māori has evolved, and so has John Tamihere, I believe. But, at the time, he was absolutely clear that those patches had to come off the gangs. He was in Michael Law’s court, believe it or not. I never was, because we needed to think this out. We needed to think about the broader strategies. Were we looking after whānau? Was employment being put in place? Were the gangs being, I suppose, looked after? When people, whether it’s gangs or whatever have nothing to do, they do what they shouldn’t do, we should know that.

Now, my organisation, back in the 1980s and 1990s, we were contracting Black Power, and the president at the time was a guy called Abe Wharewaka, who you would know—Abe Wharewaka. They were contracted to our organisation, and so we had the Black Power members all in work, all busy, all active. This is what Muldoon said, one of the National Party icons and heroes. He said you just can’t leave them to their own devices. People like Muldoon said it’s not just about taking their patches; it’s about providing work. It’s about looking after whānau. It’s about getting these guys out of what they’re involved with.

I am not a supporter of gangs. Sorry about that there, sister, but I am not a supporter of gangs, and I have told the gangs this, but I’m a supporter of their whānau. When I see them, I see their families, I see their wives, I see their tamariki, and we have an obligation as Māori and Māori community organisations to look after their whānau, no matter what the hell their fathers have done sometimes. We all tell them off. These people in the Chamber will tell them off, but you can’t just take patches off them and think that “Oh, it’s all been solved now.” It’s too superficial. You have to hit them in the pocket. You have to hit the asset side. What this legislation is threatening to do—you need to listen here. You need to listen. I’m not just trying to grandstand here. You need to think about things in a whānau aspect.

This is a Government that prides itself in terms of supporting Whānau Ora. This Government has supported the funding in terms of Whānau Ora. I’ve given Tama Potaka some credit with that. Part of Whānau Ora is looking after people who might upset you, who might have upset your whānau and upset your community, but you have an obligation to look after that whānau. So I say to this Government, you’ve got to look beyond the patch. You’ve got to look beyond the patch—what’s happening at home? What’s happening in the community?

I think the Prime Minister fronted very well in terms of when we had the abuse victims here. It was a very good day, I think, for this Parliament, when we had a Prime Minister and parties supporting people who have been dealt to by the State. Then the next day, you start pushing this type of legislation. Māori and communities have had enough. So I implore this Government—I know they’re not going to change this legislation now—to think about this, because you’ve got communities in an uproar. You’ve got communities in an uproar. You saw some of the—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Don’t bring the Chair into the debate, please.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: My apologies, Madam Chair. We have communities in an uproar. You saw some of the performance on television last night in terms of the Māori seats—you saw that. Do we support that sort of violent response? Of course not, but this is what happens. People get emotional. I know people will say, “Oh, these are only gang patches and so who cares?” Families care. Communities care. Iwi care.

So I say today that I can’t give you any other title apart from “Kick the Māori in the Guts”. That’s the best suggestion I could come up with at this stage, but I’ll keep talking, if you like, and I might find another title over the next five minutes, but I’m asking the Government to consider the overall strategy. How do we best hurt these gangs? You hurt them by dismantling their asset space. There’s no easy fix. How do we go through the rehabilitation? How do we? We go through—[Time expired]

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I thank the member for turning that into a constructive call, and I’ll take a call from Tamatha Paul please.

TAMATHA PAUL (Green—Wellington Central): Thank you, Madam Chair—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): On title and commencement—let’s go back to the title and commencement. Thank you.

TAMATHA PAUL: Yes, back to the title—100 percent. My question is whether the Minister considered the title “Suppression and Surveillance of Indigenous People Act”. I know that we just listened to 10 minutes relating to the impact of this bill on Māori, but I have some different points to make and they’re more related to the consorting orders within the bill, which is one of the three key tenets of this bill. The first is the gang patch ban, the second is the non-consorting order, and the third is the dispersal notices. We actually didn’t really have an opportunity at all to touch on the consorting orders during the committee of the whole House phase, but I think if we look at the way that they’ve been applied, you can see why this would relate to the suppression and surveillance of Māori, or the suppression and surveillance of indigenous people, which is what I wanted to talk about in this call.

When I did a bit of background research, when the Government announced their plan around gang patches, I think it was Minister Mitchell who said that he would be basing some of these laws on Australian laws and similar legislation that’s been in place in Australia, and so I reached out to one of my Green colleagues in New South Wales David Shoebridge to ask him the success of these laws and how they had been applied. He said that—and I looked this up and there is heaps of evidence of this—those consorting orders have been used disproportionately against young Aboriginal people in Australia, which is why I think that the title of this bill needs to reflect the discriminatory impact and use that is used disproportionately against indigenous people. I’ve got the report here; it’s from the Law Enforcement Conduct Commission. It’s called Discussion Paper: Review of the operation of the amendments to the consorting law under Part 3A Division 7 of the Crimes Act 1900, and it’s from last year. In that, it talks about the use of these laws.

For context, in Australia, indigenous and Aboriginal people make up about 2 percent of the general population. But these consorting laws—which, I again repeat, we have not had the chance to talk about in this committee of the whole House phase, despite the fact that it is a major piece of this legislation. During the review period, 1,797 of the 4,257 people who were on the receiving end of a consorting order—so 42 percent—were Aboriginal people. Then, you look at a breakdown of how it’s been used in different jurisdictions within New South Wales, you can see that of the use of these consorting laws, 48 percent were used against indigenous people,;39 percent used against indigenous people—51 percent; 48 percent. For 75 percent of the times that these consorting orders were made, they impacted Aboriginal and indigenous people, and we know that it’s going to be no different in Aotearoa because we already know that we have a system that surveils and suppresses Māori and that picks us up and takes tens of thousands of pictures of young Māori and stores them illegally, even after the Privacy Commissioner has said to the police, “You need to delete those photos.”

When we had submitters on this bill coming to the Justice Committee, I think it was the Police Association that said that this was about giving extra tools to police—it’s extra tools in the tool belt. But those are extra tools in the tool belt to surveil and suppress Māori, and we know that. The reason we draw that connection to Māori is because when you look at the list of gangs identified within this piece of legislation, you don’t see white supremacist gangs in there. You don’t see a whole range of other gangs in there. Not even Destiny Church is in there. It’s a whole bunch of Māori gangs, and we know that that is a statistical fact, because 80 to 90 percent of gang members are Māori.

So these are just tools to contribute to the surveillance and suppression of Māori, which is why I suggest that that should be the title. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The Hon Ginny Andersen, and it will be title, commencement, or questions for the Minister, and not wide-ranging views. I did allow that speech because there was a cut-off the other day, when the member didn’t have the opportunity to do that.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): All right, my contribution, Madam Chair, is in relation to the commencement, but I was wondering if I had to make it climate-change related, given who’s sitting in the Minister’s chair, but I’ll try and keep it on gangs. So, in terms of commencement, I understand this bill will come into effect immediately after it receives the Royal assent, which will be in couple of days. So it should be, all going well, up and running by the third reading coming up. That should be sort of, I guess—what are we now? Late August—in October or November, it should be up then.

So my proposal, and the Minister who’s available may wish to address this, is that I actually think that in order for this legislation to be effectively able to be implemented there needs to be an extension to that commencement date, because currently there’s insufficient police resources for this legislation to be enforced. I consider it’s really irresponsible of this Government to pass a law without having the resources in place to be able to actually enforce it. We know that there’s around about 124. There’s been a wing, but a few more have left. We’re sitting at around about the 120 mark. There are fewer police officers on the front line than when this Government came into office and so this legislation is quite resource-intensive for police officers.

My major concern is that the additional police officers that this Government has promised—the 500—actually need to be fully recruited before police are at an operational capability to be able to effectively enforce this legislation. So my suggestion would be to kick out this commencement date until they actually reach their 500. I think that would be a far more realistic way to make sure that we’re not putting, I guess, unattainable expectations upon the front line to be able to roll this out.

We get regular updates on the vacancies currently carried right across New Zealand Police and those vacancies are heavy in our rural areas. We know that there are places around New Zealand where there are one or even just two officers in a station where they might be currently carrying four, five, or six vacancies in different roles. That’s a huge administrative burden on our police service. If this legislation is enacted and there is a clear public expectation for police officers to enforce this as soon as it comes into force, then that’s not fair on those police officers because they need that resource in place to be able to do that.

My proposal is that this Government gives some serious consideration to effectively recruiting the additional 500 police and making sure, by talking to those district commanders and the Commissioner of Police, that those staff are put into areas that are able to make sure that legislation is able to be enforced as it’s intended. Otherwise, what’s the point of this bill? What’s the actual point of passing this if the law is in place but it can’t be enforced? That would seem like it was just kind of stuff to look good on the telly, wouldn’t it? Of course, I’m sure they’re not doing that. It can’t be that; of course they want to make sure it’s actually going to have some effect.

I actually think that that’s a pretty fair idea: to kick out that commencement date to make sure the Government meets their target of 500 additional police, and I think that that actually would give police—it would allay some of their concerns. The New Zealand Police Association have come out really strongly on this. They’re quite concerned that having laws that can’t be enforced by police officers undermines the credibility of the New Zealand Police service and, effectively, undermines the rule of law in New Zealand. Why pass a law you can’t enforce? That gives people the understanding, or the impression, that all laws don’t necessarily have to be enforced.

So, if we are talking about restoring law and order, as promised by those members opposite, why are we passing laws that can’t be enforced? That would just seem to be good clickbait or a pretty good slogan, but it wouldn’t actually be delivering on what’s being promised to voters in New Zealand.

Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Climate Change): Thank you very much, Mr Chair, and I thank the member the Hon Ginny Andersen for the question. As the member will be aware, the commencement date was covered as part of the select committee process. The agreement around the commencement of the bill being 21 November 2024 was through discussion in the select committee process and was actually based on the date on which the police requested that the legislation would be commenced. So, on that basis, we are happy to accommodate the police’s request of 21 November 2024. That is the date on which this bill will commence and that is how we are going to proceed.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Mr Chair. Now, I’ve talked very carefully about this and—

Hon Matt Doocey: Come on, no irony!

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Well, Mr Doocey, on this side of the committee, we do think carefully, unlike the people who came up with this bill, who really didn’t think it out.

Hon Matt Doocey: Come on.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: No, because this bill should be called—and the title clause should be “Amendment”—have put an amendment in if the Minister’s happy—the “Gang (Intimidation) Amendment Bill”.

What this bill actually does is it’s really just Paul Goldsmith saying, “You gangs, you got to watch out. We’re coming for you.” That’s about how effective it is. It’s as effective as Paul Goldsmith with his “Make America Great Again” cap on saying, “We’re coming for you” and the gangs—you know what? The gangs are quivering in their boots. That’s about how effective this is, because this is Paul Goldsmith trying to intimidate gangs out of their patches.

We know for a fact—we heard quite clearly that the police are not going to go around and hunt out gang patches. This is utterly window dressing. It’s just an utterly ineffectual attempt by that Government over there to address gangs by trying to scare them out of their gang patches—boom. It’s just not going to work. So it’s a ridiculous bill and the fact of the matter is that it’s, effectively, posturing, but the posturing would be fine if it was effective—

James Meager: Oh, pot kettle!

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: —but it’s absolutely ineffectual posturing. As we went through this—and I know why James Meager hasn’t taken a call: because he’s absolutely appalled by his own Government’s bill. He sat there in the Justice Committee with his head in his hands as we went through and worked out how hopeless that bill was.

Hon Member: We know that’s not true!

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Now there, you’re still—take your head out of your hands, stand up, and take a call and talk about the so-called merits of this bill. This bill, as we went through it in committee of the whole House here, time and again it was demonstrated how it was unworkable. So it can’t be anything other than window dressing and an attempt to intimidate.

So, really, the fact of the matter is that the bill, as we went through it—although we were, and I do want to say this; I want it on the record: we were precluded from talking about non-consorting orders. That debate was shut down in a way which was most unfortunate. Those are a really good example of orders that will never be made, just like non-association orders which already exist under the Sentencing Act and are pretty much never used because they’re not useful, they’re not effective, they don’t have any actual criminal justice purpose.

What we have here is a bill which is ineffectual window dressing. None of the things—gang patches, dispersal notices, consorting orders, sentencing, aggravating factors—are workable. As you look through them, none of them actually work, so it can’t be anything other than either a window dressing bill or an attempt by Paul Goldsmith to stare down the gangs with his tough-on-crime, real-consequences approach which is simply unworkable.

So there you go. If the Minister’s happy to have it called the “Gangs (Intimidation) Legislation Amendment Bill” or perhaps the “Gangs (Paul Goldsmith Intimidating Them) Amendment Bill”, that might be a more appropriate title.

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

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): I call the Hon Willie Jackson—on the title and commencement.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. I was thinking about its commencement, Mr Chair. I was thinking about it. Given the Government’s strategy around te ao Māori, the commencement is very, very important. As we all know, they have this Treaty principles idea up at the moment. So I think, strategically, this type of legislation should go after the Treaty legislation process is completed. I mean, I think that would make sense to all of us, wouldn’t it?

Andy Foster: No.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Well, you want to hear from your coalition partner. The coalition partner Mr Seymour wants to hear free thinking and free speech. He wants all this free thinking. He wants everyone making a contribution through his rotten select committee process. I’m thinking, “Well, you’ll have gangs” you know, this is only fair. I’m sure, if the Government thinks about it, a primary date, when we could do this all again, is probably 12 months from here. I’m thinking 8 August 2025 is when we should resume this, because it would fall in line with the strategy that this Government is imploring, which is about attacking Māoris every week.

A question for the Minister: given the ramifications of the Treaty principles bill and this legislation, has the Minister read the Waitangi Tribunal report with regards to colonisation and the effect of gangs? Has the Minister read the recommendations from the Tribunal which talk about working in tandem with Māori and not against Māori? That’s a really important area when we consider what type of legislation we’re trying to put in place at the moment, and I think it’s only reasonable to ask that question. Then the types of consultation: what has gone down—because we’ve had iwi leaders in the last week meet with the Government—

Hon Member: Give us an example.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Yes, that’s right—Hūhana’s relations there. Some of them walked out. Some of them stayed in to try and do a few deals, but, you know—

Hūhana Lyndon: Oppose from the inside.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Mariameno’s relations—some of them stayed in and did a few deals and then they came outside and criticised the Government. So, you know, Māori are playing it both ways.

What type of consultation has the Minister—and I respect we’ve got a new Minister in the chair today. Has the Minister seen, with regards to this, particularly in terms of the commencement—I come back to the commencement because of the strategies from this Government; strategies where Māori, sadly—and I had another kōrero tonight. Apparently, there’s an attack now on Te Arawhiti. Yesterday, it was about te reo Māori from Mr Goldsmith. The day before, it was about iwi rights; it’s about Māori rights. Given the type of kaupapa—oh, yes, I’m coming back to the commencement, Mr Chair. Given the types of things that are happening with the Treaty principles bill, I’m saying today: would the Minister consider relooking at this in 12 months? We’ll help him in that area. We’ll be quite open in supporting the Government in delaying this because of the ramifications.

I’m worried about the Government, because people are getting angry out there. You saw some of that behaviour up north yesterday from Mariameno’s relations up there, very upset over the—

Hon Matt Doocey: Only your mates.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: No—Mariameno’s relations up there.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Mr Jackson, let’s use some surnames, shall we? We’re not in a bar now.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: I think I did. I used the full name. But thank you for that. I’ll just continue.

In terms of the commencement, it’s really, really important because of the consequences in terms of Māori, and tribunal reports have to be considered. Consultation, in terms of Māori, has to be considered. All through this debate, you would have heard the concerns from te ao Māori, from Māori members, from Pākehā members on this side of the Chamber, and Asian members. This is an Opposition focused on the rights of people. There’s no big love affairs going down with gangs. People are talking about community—[Time expired]

HŪHANA LYNDON (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’d like to support the members in the Opposition who have pointed out we don’t have the capacity nor the capability now for commencement. I worry about the time frame of waiting for Royal assent—that’s just around the corner. We’ve heard from the Hon Ginny Andersen: 500 police short, and yet we’re going to lump this on top of them, in a short period of time. If we were realistic around capacity and capability—have we discussed with the judiciary? Are the judiciary ready to be flooded by more gang members in court? Are the prisons ready to take more Māori? Well, yes, they are, because they’re building the mega-prison at Waikeria—not houses for our people. Kāinga Ora’s been shut down—there’s a big halt. That’s the thing: are we preparing to house Māori in prison? This bill here is hazardous for te iwi Māori.

Looking at the time frames, we are not ready. The infrastructure and services are not ready, let alone rehabilitation, let alone engaging with the community support services that Matua Willie has explained and provided examples time and time again on behalf of Ngā Whare Waatea. There are many programmes around that could be a part of a wider solution than just locking up our people. The judiciary needs to be ready. Prisons, are they ready? The cops are not ready. When we have a place like Ōpōtiki, with 2,000 gang members and two police, is Ōpōtiki ready? Is Kohukohu ready? Is Kaeō ready? Is Kaikohe ready? That’s the reality on the ground.

When you have the Police Commissioner and the Police Association coming up and saying, “No, we are not ready. We need more gang liaison officers. We need more takawaenga, those specialist support services within the police who are well-trained and have the skills, to be able to support this bill.”—but it’s not going to be ready in time for Royal assent; that’s just around the corner—we need to be realistic around the time frames for implementing this, because there will be a flood of notifications, and, next minute, our whānau are going to be hauled before the courts. Will we even have enough for security to start driving our people around from Ngāwhā correctional facility? You know, this is the ground reality for us in Tai Tokerau, and it will be no different to those of our whānau in Bay of Plenty, or even Tairāwhiti, where Matua Willie’s from. So I want to ask the question: what’s the rush?

If we want this to be an effective law and we want it to be something that, actually, the police and the full system are ready for, why are we rushing to Royal assent instead of giving it a year, instead of really scoping it out? Has anyone priced this up? Has anyone in the Government priced up the implications of implementing such a law? What is the price to society? What is the price to police? What is the price to prisons and to the judiciary to implement this, when we are ignoring things such as the Matariki Court or in terms of the taitamariki court, which have very successful gang liaison officers and takawaenga? All of these specialist positions need to be expanded if we’re going to go down this route and start banning people wearing their patches in public. These are things that the police have been doing well, and same with the judiciary, but are we really ready, New Zealand?

Are we really ready to start isolating a small number of whānau in our community—and they are our whānau—locking up more Māori because they affiliate with gangs, because they come from the product of colonisation? Two weeks ago, we were giving a mihi to all of the mōrehu in this Whare. Two week ago, we were giving a beautiful mihi and acknowledging the harm: 90 percent of gang members come from the State harm that’s been inflicted upon them. They don’t even know how to read, some of our whānau. They are neurodiverse, and they’re already in prison. So can we focus on the rehab services that are required in prison, the community services that Ngā Whare Waatea and others perform in our communities? Because we’re going to need a backstop. We’re going to need a backstop in implementing this legislation, because, ultimately, the system is not ready.

So, for me, in terms of where we’re at, Royal assent is too quick. Can we look at 18 months to ready the system? Can we look to work on the specialist positions that are required, and “oomph up”, expand, those community services and also the rehab services that are in prisons to support whānau once they are caught by this bill? Kia ora.

Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Climate Change): Well, thank you to the member for that question. I would refer the member to clause 2 of the bill, which states that the commencement of this bill is from 21 November 2024. If the member wants to be reminded about the select committee process—which, to the other member’s question, involved a full process in terms of feedback from all related members—those questions were covered in detail and the date is based on feedback and the date requested by the New Zealand Police that aligns with their operational requirements. On that basis, that is the date that has been selected. So everything that has been commented on is lovely, but it doesn’t correspond to the reality of what the decision is based upon.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Members, we’ve had some quite good contextual speeches. Right now, title and commencement will be the subject of any talk. The Hon Tracey McLellan. Sorry, Tracey McLellan—too early.

Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. I wanted to specifically also focus on the commencement date, because as we’ve heard, the commencement date of 21 November is the commencement date, and I think that my colleague from the Green Party makes a really, really valid point, particularly in relation to prisons. We know, for instance, that, sure, there is some extra capacity coming on board. That won’t be viable until at least third quarter, probably, next year, and we’ve heard from the Hon Ginny Andersen about the shortage of police.

It was interesting; I know that the Minister was briefed earlier this year about what is the impact that the Government’s policies might have on the prison population, certainly in the short term, and whilst it’s just modelling and it’s a bit of a guesstimate, it is, in fact, what we base that on. I notice that there was four particular lines in the table that were provided. The first one was section 27 reports, and that was assumed would increase the prison population by about 380 prisoners, and the second one was adding 300 police, which I note wasn’t 500; it was 300. I’m not sure whether that indicates, for instance, the Government’s lack of confidence that they’ll get to the 500 target, but nevertheless the estimate was that that would increase the prison population by 100. So we’re already up to 400 of the increased capacity of the 500 beds that are coming on at Waikeria in the middle of next year.

Then, there were two lines that were redacted, and I’m wondering whether the Minister, obviously, probably will have some further information about what those two entries were in, because we can’t see (a) what they were. We can surmise that one of them may have been this gangs legislation—that would make sense in so far as it being the next cab off the rank. But what we can tell is the total, and the total was 800. So we know there’s an expectation of about 320 increased prisoners because of these two redacted pieces of policy that we’re due to endure.

When I think about 21 November as the commencement date, it really does create—as has been said—quite an impetus for some urgency. We know that prisons are bursting at the seams. We know that there are some infrastructure challenges in so far as rebuilds and people being moved all over the show to accommodate that and the huge cost that that incurs. So I would be interested in the Minister expressing a little bit more confidence in the commencement date on 21 November with some specifics about how that will be handled when we know full well that it will require that capacity and acknowledgment of such. Any information will be much appreciated, but particularly if he could comment on those two pieces of information that we’re unable to get our hands on because they’re redacted, but almost certainly are related to this bill.

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

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): I’ll go to the Hon Willie Jackson with the expectation that you will not drift very far, if at all, from the title and commencement.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour): I’m really concerned about this bill, as the committee knows. I would like to talk about the title.

Hon Matt Doocey: Point of order. Mr Chair, the Standing Orders make it very clear that title and commencement in committee of the whole House is about getting up and asking the Minister questions. We’ve had that member get up successively and give us 10-minute rants about nothing—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Mr Doocey, sit down! As you well know, that is a job for the Chair. Any more of that will be trifling with the House, so no more. Carry on.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m a bit disappointed that that member’s not enjoying my submission, but I hope that he’ll be able to learn something from this kōrero, because I’m talking about the title.

I want to help the other side of the committee out there because they’re struggling with this title. Coincidentally, I got a phone call about the title just in the last few minutes from a gang member who wants to help out—fully rehabilitated. His name’s Martin Cooper. I’m quite happy to name some of these gang members. In fact, Mr Chair, you would probably know some of them too, given your background and history in dealing with gangs too. This is someone who’s really concerned about the title, which is what we’re talking about. He sees the Gangs Legislation Amendment Bill, and he was part—I’m just giving you some background and history, Mr Chair—of the work programmes that were in South Auckland. Martin Cooper worked and put young gangsters into work. He’s suggesting, and I’d have to agree with him, to call this the “Gang Legislation (Can You Find Us a Job?) Bill”.

I thought that was a pretty good suggestion from someone who’s working at the grassroots. His story is one of redemption. You can google his story and you’ll see that this guy has gone through the system, gang boss, everything, and now he’s working on our committees, on our maraes at Ngā Whare Waatea, rehabilitating, working with young people, getting patches off gangsters.

Hon Matt Doocey: What’s your question?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Do you not want to hear these stories? These are beautiful stories. I know a lot of them. I can keep going till 6 o’clock, Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): As they relate to the title and commencement, Mr Jackson.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Mr Cooper is saying the title is misnamed. That’s all I’m trying to say here: the title is misnamed. He wants work, so why wouldn’t you include—this is the “Gang (We Want Work) Amendment Bill”. That’s all he’s saying, you know? He’s not a supporter of the young people going into gangs; he’s a supporter of getting them busy, getting them activated, getting them rehabilitated, getting them to be productive so that our communities will be safe. This is what the Government wants. This is what we want. We’re all on the same waka here, and they want to shut me down here today. I don’t get this. I am trying to contribute and help—particularly Mr Meager, he’s done a wonderful job chairing the committee; I’m trying to help him along, trying to help the Government along, and all I’m getting is insults from the other side of the committee.

These are real people. These people wouldn’t know gang members if they fell over them. We work with them on our marae, which the Government funds—can I be very clear: funds our marae. They’re all very welcome to come to the marae. I’ve got an open invitation to the Government to come to our marae. They will see firsthand how a community deals with some of these gang members, ex - gang members. I can tell you now, it’s not a soft hand given. My mother, Mr Chair, 20 years on the Parole Board, as you well know—some of the gang members used to hide from her because she was so tough on them. There’s no softly, softly approach here. I know now that, if Mum was alive, she would agree with the new title on this gang legislation. Yes. Bless her soul, my mother. She would say, “Let’s find them some work, son, and you’ll stop them from all the nonsense that they’re doing.”

But, seriously, if we activate, motivate, get these whānau involved, we would stop some of this nonsense that’s happening out in our communities. We all want the same thing, but it’s not just about taking patches off the backs of these gangs; it’s about working at the coalface, it’s about dismantling their assets, it’s about taking away from them what is dear. You heard Eugene Ryder through the select committee process: you take the patches off, and they’ll just wear colours. It’s just nonsensical legislation.

Let’s all work together on this. Let’s delay this for another 12 months. I’m going to seek the call again, too, Mr Chair. I don’t know if I’ve quite reached the point I wanted to, but I think I’ll get there over the next 10 minutes, if you give me the call again. But it’s about supporting our communities, supporting our country—[Time expired]

TIM COSTLEY (National—Ōtaki): I move, That debate on this question now close.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the motion 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.

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 1 be agreed to.

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

Amendment not agreed to.

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

Clause 1 agreed to.

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

Clause 2 agreed to.

Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Climate Change) on behalf of the Minister of Justice: I move Amendment Paper 50, dividing the bill.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the motion 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.

Motion agreed to.

The committee divided the bill into the Gangs Bill and the Sentencing Amendment Bill, as set out on Amendment Paper 50.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): I’ll report this bill with amendment and so divided.

Bill to be reported with amendment and divided into two bills.

Bills

Local Government (Water Services Preliminary Arrangements) Bill

Debate resumed from 7 August.

Part 2 Water services delivery plans and foundational information disclosure requirements

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Members, we come now to the Local Government (Water Services Preliminary Arrangements) Bill. When we were last considering the bill, we were debating Part 2. This is the debate on clauses 8 to 46B, “Water services delivery plans and foundational information disclosure requirements”.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. Just a reminder of what we were doing in terms of working through the committee stage of this bill: we were going part by part, but, in actual fact, there are three quite substantive subparts to Part 2 of the bill. We had worked our way through Part 1 and, when the debate last closed on this, we were making our way through Part 2—Subpart 2 of Part 2. So we haven’t yet even begun to address any part of Subpart 3 of Part 2. Indeed, we have quite a few questions left and issues to discuss relating to Subpart 2 of Part 2.

Just as a reminder, Subpart 2 of Part 2 exercises itself with what the Minister can do in relation to water services delivery plans—so, specifically about those ministerial powers. Now, we had just started discussing it but had just a very few speeches on it. There is a particular issue I want to bring up fairly early on, and it’s a point of contrast within Subpart 2 of Part 2, because Subpart 2 of Part 2 gives the Minister the power to do a couple of things—very specific powers that the Minister can exercise. She or he can appoint under clause 20, “may appoint a Crown facilitator”, and under clause 23 he or she “may appoint a Crown water services specialist”. So there are two types of roles to which the Minister can appoint people.

To be honest, looking in terms of what these people can do, they do seem to cross over in quite some degree as to what a Crown facilitator can do versus what a Crown water specialist can do. It’s not even necessarily particularly clear in which circumstances a Minister would appoint a Crown facilitator versus when she or he would appoint a Crown water services specialist. So for the benefit of the many people following at home at 5.40 on a Thursday evening—

Hon Matt Doocey: There’s quite a lot of them.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: Yep, plenty of people following along, I should think. Actually, for the benefit of everyone who will want to understand the differences between these two roles—and also in terms of making sure it’s in the Hansard. Again, it’s possible that this could be litigated at some stage, and one point of litigation might be whether it was appropriate to appoint a Crown facilitator versus a Crown water services specialist.

So there are a couple of things that I would like to hear from the Minister in this regard. One is the difference between the roles of these two people. Now, I’m just going to note that the person may be a panel—all right. So the bill does explain that it could be one individual, but it could also be a panel of people. That’s obviously just a decision for the Minister as well. But what I want to understand is the difference between the roles of the facilitator and the specialist.

I’m also trying to understand when the Minister would appoint those people. What would cause the Minister to decide on one of these roles rather than the others? Is it a time-based thing—as in, sort of a time during the process - based thing? Is it based on the particular needs of the underlying regional territorial authority? What exactly is that that would drive that difference there? I think it’s worth getting that on the record for the Hansard, so that we do have an understanding of it recorded. Who knows, it might prevent future litigation or it might not, but it would certainly give us a good explanation as to what is going on.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. Just to reinforce what the previous speaker, the Hon Dr Deborah Russell, has said, for us, we’re also currently on Part 2, Subpart 2 out of three subparts for this particular section. In the previous session, one of my colleagues—Francisco Hernandez—mentioned around the criteria for appointment of the Crown facilitator as well as the Crown water services specialist.

I would like to sort of change the focus in a slightly different way and look at, in this case, clause 20(4), which is that when we’re looking at a Crown facilitator—a Crown facilitator can be a singular person—according to subclause (3) of clause 20, it can be one person or a panel of two or more people. And if it is a panel of two or more people, then the Minister must appoint one member as the chairperson. My question to the Minister is if the Minister wouldn’t mind clarifying whether it’s a standard practice to appoint just one person as a chairperson, or is there room or opportunity—why was it limited, the co-chair option?

The reason that I raise this is because subclause 2(b)(ii) of clause 20, which is where the Minister is able to or may consider appointing a Crown facilitator on the grounds that a group of territorial authorities are having difficulties agreeing on the terms of a joint plan. This is interesting in terms of tying it to a previous clause, clause 17(3)(b)(iii). But I want to focus on the fact of what happens if you’re in a situation where the group is having difficulty agreeing to a joint plan and the best opportunity for there to be an agreement is to appoint co-chairs from, for example, either of the group, as opposed to limiting it to one particular member, which then may further create friction between the two groups who may not be in agreement. Of course, the Minister is within their right to appoint this, as someone who is completely independent, but I’m just checking if that option of having co-chairs was considered.

The next part I want to mention, as a part of clarification from the Minister, is around clause 21(2)(da). Now, this is how a Crown facilitator is appointed, which is, essentially, the same clause as clause 24(2)(da) as well. I would like to focus specifically on, if the Crown facilitator or the water service specialist is appointed, how renumeration and expenses of the Crown facility will be apportioned between territorial authorities. Now, I’ve got two points of clarification, and the first part of that has to do with the actual cost itself, which is detailed in clause 29, of the fees framework.

Now, in clause 29(2), it talks about the fees framework being determined by the Government. When we are searching in terms of the fees framework, we have both the Government fees framework as well as local government and also territorial authorities fees frameworks. To give an example based on 2022’s determination, the Government fees framework for someone who is in a position of a chair and scores a score of 24 to 28, is $594 to $1,265. However, for Auckland Council, for the same band of score 24 to 28, it is the cost of $540 to $1,150, which is less. So, in this case, if the territorial authority—the reason that they’re being appointed a Crown facilitator is because they have not been able to manage the plan or been able to manage some of the cost. Having the Government determination as opposed to the local government determination may also add additional financial burden to the local government as well—so that point of clarification as well from the Minister.

If he wouldn’t mind clarifying whether that has been taken into consideration—that if we’re using the Government determination, it will be at a greater cost to the territorial authorities.

Hon MATT DOOCEY (Minister for ACC): Thank you very much, Mr Chair, and just to acknowledge Lawrence Xu-Nan, who gave me flashbacks to the time he kept me here till midnight for the ACC debit instalment bill—something I am still trying to recover from! Clearly, he’s getting settled in for another marathon effort.

To the Hon Dr Russell, in response to some questions around appointing a Crown facilitator versus a Crown water services specialist—is the crossover clear? What are the circumstances around appointment?—I’ve been advised that a Crown facilitator is mainly for assistance to councils during the preparation of water services delivery plans. It’s the intention that they can be available to advise and assist councils, whereas Crown water services specialists are for when a council fails to submit a plan at all, and mainly when the Minister has lost confidence in a council’s ability to develop a suitable plan or to give effect to the plan. So which of the appointments might be needed will depend, clearly, on the situation and what kind of skills are needed at that point in time.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): I have some comments on Subpart 2, but then I’m going to move to Subpart 3.

On those last comments from the Minister, I’d like to go back to something another Minister in the chair said earlier: that the point of these plans is to not be top-up, like apparently the last Government’s approach was, according to the Minister, and to go from the bottom-up. These plans are supposed to be simple for the councils to do. We heard that internal affairs is going to provide Excel spreadsheets to make it all very easy. So I’m wondering why it is that there needs to be either of these sets of people that the Hon Dr Deborah Russell was asking about—which you’ve just answered about, Minister—but also why, at clause 30, there needs to be the recovery of remuneration and expenses from local authorities such that the “territorial authority owes a debt to the Crown”. If this is just all about being bottom-up, surely there is no need for clauses such as that.

Now, moving on to Subpart 3—and I’m not saying that my colleagues don’t have further questions on Subpart 2, but I’m now on to Subpart 3. I’ve spent a bit of time on the purpose of this subpart. This is at clause 32, and I think some parts go against other parts of clause 32, so I’m looking for some clarity from the Minister on this. We have at clause 32 that “(a) The purpose[s] of the subpart [are] to promote the long-term benefit of consumers of water services”—that sounds quite good—and “(b) to ensure that sufficient information is … available”. Then we go to clause 32(2), which talks about for innovation, for improving efficiency, and for providing water services “at a quality that reflects consumer demands”. Again, this all sounds good, but the rest of this part seems to be about information.

So my first question on how this purpose works is: how is it that incentives are going to be provided that go beyond the provision of information, which is what the subpart seems to be about? To my reading, it looks like a contradiction there. But then there’s some further strange drafting in this part, because at clause 32(3) it says, “This subpart—(a) relates only to delivering the purpose of this Act under section 3(1) and (2)(c);”. So those purposes relate to the overall framework and the disclosure of information, and “applies in relation to delivering water services only in circumstances where there is—(1) little or no competition … and (11) … no likelihood of that competition.” Is this entire subpart only to areas that aren’t going to have competition? And why are we thinking about competition for the delivery of stormwater measures?

This all goes back to water services. Water services are defined to include, of course, stormwater, so I’m wondering what clause 32(3) is about, and then how it also links with clause 33. In clause 32, you’ve got this specific subpart restricting what it relates to, and then you have another clause—clause 33—just over the page, which says, “Application of this subpart”. If you’ve already said in the clause before that it only applies to some of it, why do you need another clause to go on about the application of that subpart? So how do those two link together?

Then also on Subpart 3, at clause 40A, there’s provision for a levy. The Finance and Expenditure Committee report says, “Well, this is for any Commerce Commission work that might happen.” But what is that work that might be happening and how is that levy good for councils? The Minister in the chair yesterday asserted that this bill is going be good for councils. I’m not sure wh the levy is there. I’d also remind the Minister that Duncan Webb’s point about councils that are not contiguous has still not been answered.

Hon MATT DOOCEY (Minister for ACC): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I’m mindful of the time boundaries, so I did want to get on my feet and just respond to some questions—but potentially not all, as they might have to come back at the next round of the committee of the whole House. One question we were asked around the expenses and fees framework—I’ve been advised this approach is consistent with what happens in the Local Government Act in relation to other appointees made by the Minister, potentially such as a Crown manager or Crown observer if there are problems with the local authority.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The time has come for me to report progress.

Progress to be reported.

House resumed.

Report of Committee of the Whole House

Report of Committee of the Whole House

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Madam Speaker, the committee has considered the Gangs Legislation Amendment Bill and reports it with amendment and divided into the following bills: the Gangs Bill, and the Sentencing Amendment Bill. The committee has also considered the Local Government (Water Services Preliminary Arrangements) Bill and reports progress. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Gangs Bill and the Sentencing Amendment Bill are set down for third reading next sitting day. The Local Government (Water Services Preliminary Arrangements) Bill is set down for further consideration in committee next sitting day. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 20 August 2024.

The House adjourned at 5.57 p.m.