Tuesday, 20 August 2024

TUESDAY, 20 AUGUST 2024

TUESDAY, 20 AUGUST 2024

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Karakia/Prayers

Karakia/Prayers

Hon JENNY SALESA (Labour—Panmure-Ōtāhuhu): Ke tau lotu. ‘E ‘Otua Mafimafi, kuo mau taa’i mālie ‘i ho’o ‘ofá mo e ngaahi tāpuaki hono kotoa. ‘Oku tuku homau lotó ka mau hū atu ke malu’i ange mu’a ‘a e Tu’i, mo tataki ‘emau fua fatongia ‘i he Fale Aleá ‘aki ‘a e poto Faka-’Otua, ‘ofa pea mo e ‘ulungaanga malū, ko e ‘uhí ko e mo’ui mo e melino ‘a e fonuá. ‘Oku mau kole atu ‘a e ngaahi me’á ni hono kotoa ‘i he huafa ho ‘alo ka ko homau fakamo’uí, ‘Emeni.

Motions

New Zealand Olympic Team—Congratulations

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Point of order. I seek leave to move a motion without notice congratulating the New Zealand Olympic team on their achievements at the 2024 Olympic Games in Paris.

SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is none.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I move, That this House congratulate the New Zealand Olympics team, comprising 204 athletes across 23 sports, on their success at the 2024 Summer Olympics in Paris, where they won 10 gold medals, seven silver medals, and three bronze medals.

On behalf of all of the Government, I congratulate the New Zealand Olympic team on its incredible performances and achievements at the Olympic Games in Paris. These games were historic for New Zealand, not just for matching our record tally of 20 medals in Tokyo but for clinching the most gold medals New Zealand has ever won and finishing 11th on the medal table, ahead of such sporting powerhouses with far bigger populations, such as Canada, Spain, and Sweden. Our athletes, without exception, performed with skill, determination, and integrity. One brilliant statistic is that of our team of 204 athletes, 42 of them are coming home with at least one medal around their neck.

Now, we had many notable and standout performances across the 17 days of action and competition. But I want to acknowledge a few in particular. Dame Lisa Carrington has etched her name in Olympic history with her eighth gold medal. [Interruption] Yep, between her eight golds and the bronze that she won in Rio, Dame Lisa is comfortably New Zealand’s most decorated Olympian. To put that feat into the historical context it deserves, eight gold medals is bigger than the haul managed by any of Spain, Sweden, Brazil, or Hungary in Paris.

Hamish Kerr also made history by becoming the first New Zealand male to win a field event in the Olympic track and field programme. His jump-off in the final was probably responsible for an increase in heart palpitations right across New Zealand. But what a fantastic result it was in the end.

I have to say, I personally also enjoyed Lydia Ko’s impressive performance, winning gold in the women’s golf. Frankly, for an athlete who has done it all, to see her with immense pride, standing on that podium, hearing our national anthem, was something pretty special.

The super-mums Brooke Francis and Lucy Spoors have worked so hard and also juggled family life so well to win gold in the women’s double sculls.

We had Finn Butcher, the boy from Alexandra, whose gold at the inaugural men’s kayak K1 cross event saw him honoured as our flagbearer at the closing ceremony.

And then we saw the cool clutch, mental skills, and poised maturity of 24-year-old Ellesse Andrews winning gold in the women’s keirin and also the women’s sprint, as well as being part of a silver medal - winning team sprint crew.

And then there was our women’s sevens team, whose epic final against Canada resulted in the gold medal in front of an ecstatic Stade de France crowd, thanks in part to a heroic try assist by captain Sarah Hirini, who, despite having several fractures in her face during that game, managed to set it up for a win.

I mentioned Lisa Carrington earlier, but I can’t go without also mentioning her paddling teammates. Our women’s K2 crew of Dame Lisa and Alicia Hoskin were utterly dominant in their final, finishing more than a boat length ahead of their rivals. And our women’s K4 team of Dame Lisa and Alysha, along with Olivia Brett and Tara Vaughan came home victorious ahead of European paddling powerhouses Germany and Hungary.

I could keep going for a long time because every one of our athletes, whether they medalled or not, produced performances that, frankly, inspired and delighted us. I do want to echo the remarks of the Minister for Sport and Recreation, the Hon Chris Bishop, when he said that our athletes’ performances had been magnificent and that every one of them exemplified our values of fair play and integrity that New Zealanders are known for across the sporting world. Our athletes’ respect for their competitors, their commitment to fair play, and their ability to forge lasting friendships across nations showcased, I think, the true spirit of the games. In the men’s triathlon, for example, New Zealanders cheered Dylan McCullough for his selfless act which actually ruled him out of the medals to ensure that Hayden Wilde had a shot at a podium finish, and then we proudly watched Hayden’s heartwarming gesture and sportsmanship towards Great Britain’s Alex Yee, despite Alex having just pipped him at the post for a gold medal. I also know that Lydia Ko and Maddi Wesche were acknowledged for their support and their encouragement of fellow competitors, exemplifying the true essence of Olympic values, excellence, respect, and friendship.

Additionally, two former New Zealand Olympians were elected to roles with the International Olympic Committee (IOC). Beijing 2008 silver medallist Sarah Walker from BMX was elected as an independent IOC member. And Tokyo 2020 bronze medallist Marcus Daniell from tennis will join the IOC’s Athletes Commission. As members of the IOC, they will be instrumental in shaping the future of the Olympic movement.

Furthermore, Barbara Kendall, triple medallist in windsurfing and a Kiwi Olympic icon, has been honoured as an Olympian for Life—one of only five former Olympians to have been recognised in that way in Paris.

It takes a huge team effort to get even one athlete to the starting line at the Olympics, let alone 204 of them. So I do want to take a moment to recognise all of those who have been a part of the team behind the team. Thank you to the New Zealand Olympic Committee, thank you to High Performance Sport, and Sport New Zealand, who all worked incredibly hard to get our team to Paris. Thank you also to all the sponsors and the donors whose generosity helped our amazing team succeed. Thank you to all of those on the ground, including our 75 volunteers who helped establish New Zealand House, our very Kiwi home base situated on the famous Champs-Elysees.

New Zealand House served as a gathering place for around 20,000 people during the games—New Zealand ex-pats, friends and family of athletes, and often the athletes themselves, as well as curious Parisians and international tourists who were keen to see a little slice of New Zealand and to experience some of our food, wine, and hospitality. The team also hosted international sports Ministers and heads of international sporting federations.

I do want to extend a very, very special thankyou to our incredible chef de mission, Nigel Avery, and his team of operations, sports performance, health, psychology, communications, athlete support experts, and volunteers, who worked so tirelessly to ensure that New Zealand not only had a successful Olympic campaign but also a memorable presence in the village and in Paris.

Perhaps most importantly, I want to say thank you to all the families, partners, and the friends of the athletes. I know how many of you have made huge sacrifices to enable your loved one to compete on the international stage. Our athletes couldn’t do what they do without your unwavering support and love, and I hope you feel so proud—and so justifiably so—of them.

In closing, let me remind you that the sporting excitement isn’t over yet. I do want to take the opportunity to wish all of our New Zealand Paralympic team all the very best as they compete in the Paralympic Games beginning in Paris next week. Know that New Zealand is behind you 100 percent and that we’re going to be cheering you on loudly from the sidelines.

Congratulations once again to all our athletes on your very inspiring performances. Thank you for representing and thank you for being the very best of us. I know I speak for all of New Zealand when I say how immensely, immensely proud we are of you all. Thank you.

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

Hon PEENI HENARE (Labour): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Tēnā koutou katoa. I stand in support of the motion and endorse the words of the Prime Minister in congratulating all of our athletes, who did an absolutely stellar job at the Olympics in Paris. I’m reminded of the cheering that comes from the hallways of this House. I’m reminded of the many conversations that are had in this House and outside of this House about how proud we are, as we cheered on our athletes in their sports. Can I also endorse the words of thanks to their coaches, the administration of sports right across New Zealand, and in particular the families, many who made the trip and many who did not, who stayed home and cheered on their loved ones as they competed at the highest level.

With all those thanks, I’m also reminded of just how important Māori culture is on the international stage. We saw our athletes not only partake in the haka but also speak te reo Māori, marking our difference as we competed on the world stage with athletes from around the world—athletes like Eliza McCartney, who can deliver a full speech in te reo Māori in thanking the support that she received from fellow athletes and also those administrators and whānau who made it there to support her. I’m proud of the way that New Zealand stands on the world stage. That will no doubt continue as our Paralympians make their way to the Games to compete on the biggest stage in the world, and I look forward to making sure that this House supports our Paralympians as we get behind them and they compete against others from around the world to once again hoist the New Zealand flag high above everybody else.

I heard what the Prime Minister said about our track and field gold, and I do want to acknowledge, as was mentioned to me by one of my colleagues, Dame Yvette Williams, who was one of our famed Olympians, a gold medallist in the long jump, if I recall correctly, in 1952, I think it was, in Helsinki, who did us all extremely proud. When I think of the legacy of the likes of Dame Yvette Williams and so many others, we know that the record-breaking attempts and efforts of our athletes in Paris, in the most recent Games, will continue into the future. We now put Paris behind us, and we look forward to supporting our Paralympians and, of course, we have a view towards the next big sporting commitment for our Olympians, which is in four years’ time.

On behalf of the Labour Party, I stand in support of this motion. I thank all of our athletes, their whānau, and administrators, and I say to our Paralympians, “All the very best.”

SCOTT WILLIS (Green): Kia ora, Mr Speaker, and thank you. I stand in support of this motion and support the words of our Prime Minister and the Hon Peeni Henare. We would like today to congratulate our wonderful New Zealand Olympic Games team for their outstanding performance at the Paris Olympics. It was a historic achievement for us, with Aotearoa’s athletes securing 20 medals, as we’ve heard—10 gold, seven silver, and three bronze. But what makes this all the more special is that 14 of these 20 medals were won by our extraordinary women athletes and women’s teams. They’ve not only inspired us but they’ve set a powerful example for future generations of New Zealanders.

This success comes down to preparation. In October 2018, the then New Zealand Government launched a strategy to address the inequities women and girls experience in sport and recreation, the women and girls in sport initiative. As we can see, the results of this initiative have been massive, and not only in the Olympics. Women’s rugby is now thriving, for example, and I hear Grant Robertson is very pleased down in Ōtepoti Dunedin.

We’ve heard the congratulations for Lisa Carrington, Lydia Ko, and all of our athletes that have done so, so well. I also want to think about tae kwon do, because tae kwon do is my sport. I wanted to see our athletes, and I was sad to see the muck-up that denied Eisa Mozhdeh and Jemesa Landers a chance to compete, but I think it’s really, really important that we recognise that our athletes, their support staff, their families all experience the blood, sweat, and tears of preparation—years of preparation. Everyone who pushes themselves deserves to be congratulated.

We know that competing is a costly exercise, so special mention has to go to rower Robbie Manson, who took to posing on an OnlyFans website to raise funds. For those who don’t know, OnlyFans is a subscription-based service used for publishing adult-themed content, so there are ways and there are creative ways to get to the Olympics.

The success of our athletes in Paris goes far beyond medals and records, however. As we heard, as Rahui Papa highlighted in a speech at Koreneihana yesterday, the culturality that team New Zealand brought to Paris was seen and felt by all. Our athletes didn’t just compete; they carried the identity and spirit of Aotearoa with them, showcasing our unique cultural identity on the world stage. This cultural knowledge and cultural acceptance has been a cornerstone of their success, and we need to continue the celebration of our unique identity here based on Te Tiriti here at home. Our athletes demonstrated kaupapa Māori in their victories, and we in the Greens join in acknowledging and celebrating the extraordinary accomplishments of team New Zealand in Paris. They went over there with determination and grit, they demonstrated indomitable spirit, and they came back as world champions, making us incredibly proud.

So I should say, “Congratulations, team New Zealand.”, or possibly, “Félicitations” and “Bravo pour les bons efforts.”, and I hope our House will support the Paralympics just as thoroughly as they have supported the Olympics. Kia ora.

CAMERON LUXTON (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Today, I stand to represent the ACT Party in support of the motion and in expressing our pride for the athletes that donned the silver fern and represented our nation on the world stage.

Firstly, I’d also like to start by opening up and saying thank you to the host nation, France, and particularly Paris. Thank you for welcoming the world to your backyard and showing us the beauty of your iconic venues and the rich culture and history held above and below the Parisian streets. I would also like to mention Teahupo’o, Tahiti, right here in the Pacific. The small coastal town has now hosted the second surfing event at the Olympics, after its introduction at the 2020 Tokyo Olympics. The two locals who made their childhood dream come true—congratulations to you both on competing in your home shores and for welcoming the world, through their Olympic surfers, to the Pacific.

My family bought a Sky subscription just to keep up with the Olympics. The kids loved watching the events and keeping an eye on our Kiwi champions. Every morning at breakfast, they’d catch up on the events they were already invested in and the ones which they discovered during the games, calculating how old they’d be at the next games, and I saw how invested the kids were. The Olympics provide a glimpse into our hopeful future, showing our children that they too can achieve greatness and excel on the world stage. My hope is that we see New Zealand’s Olympic contingent, rich in quality and quantity, heading to Los Angeles next, and then across the ditch to Brisbane for the 2032 Olympics.

The games are huge for families, and I’d like, along with other members of this House, to do a big shout-out to the mums, dads, and all the whānau behind the scenes who helped every one of our athletes reach their potential. Achievements like these take a long time and a lot of energy, patience, and petrol money—not only from our Olympians but also from the people who support them and rally around them. To the parents watching from home with the kids, the grandparents babysitting the grandkids, and all the support networks that have formed around these world-class athletes, I thank you.

Most of all, I would like to honour our Olympians. They spent thousands of hours behind the scenes, often alone, doing the hard yards to achieve greatness—you are our inspiration. You have pushed through adversity, sweat, and tears to reach the pinnacle of achievement in your field. We stand here in Parliament today to congratulate you and celebrate your success.

Our 20 medals came from across a whole wide range of sports, from athletics, canoe slalom, golf, rowing, rugby sevens, sailing, track cycling, and triathlon. Ellesse Andrews became the second New Zealander to win gold in track cycling, after Sarah Ulmer in 2004. She won gold in the women’s keirin. Her father and coach, Jon Andrews, was watching in the Paris Velodrome. Talk about a huge win for their family and the legacy that Ellesse has worked hard to secure.

Lucy Spoors and Brooke Francis combined to win gold in the women’s double sculls. Both athletes took time away from the sport to have children post - Tokyo Olympics and absolutely blew everybody away with their commitment and love for their sport. Both were supported by their children, who were present in the stands when they won.

We saw the selfless feat of Dylan McCullough falling back during the triathlon to provide much-needed support to his teammate Hayden Wilde, who ended up winning the silver medal.

And who can go past Dame Lisa Carrington? Already an Olympic champion, she brought home multiple gold medals. She is one of the greatest kayakers the world has ever seen. She was also part of two rowing teams, both securing gold. She leaves Paris having won the same number of gold medals as Usain Bolt.

As we wrap up our celebration of the Olympics, we can look forward to the Paralympics coming up in the next few weeks. To our flag bearers, Anna and Cameron, carry our flag with pride and know that we are proud of what you have achieved and that we are excited to see you compete. My family look forward to keeping up with the Paralympics, and I wish all our Kiwi Paralympians the best of luck heading to Paris.

Behind all these achievements, behind all the medals, our Olympians captured our hearts. From the inspiring stories of new mums competing and winning gold to our young up-and-coming athletes and to families training, coaching, and winning together, the future of New Zealand sport is brighter than ever. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Motion agreed to.

Petitions, Papers, and Select Committee Reports

Petitions, Papers, and Select Committee Reports

SPEAKER: Petitions have been presented to the Clerk.

CLERK:

Petition of Seiji Tonouchi requesting that the House allocate funding to allow epilepsy patients to choose any anti-epileptic medication without conditions

petition of Bob McCoskrie on behalf of Family First requesting that the House define “woman” as “an adult human female” in all New Zealand laws, public policies, and regulations

petition of John Hellstrom requesting that the House not repeal the Animal Welfare Amendment Act 2022

petition of Stop Institutional Racism requesting that the House urge the Government to re-establish Te Aka Whai Ora.

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

CLERK:

Government responses to the petitions of Kristin Davis and Peter James Cullinane

Climate Change Commission Progress report: National Adaptation Plan (August 2024)

Reserve Bank of New Zealand Monetary Policy Statement August 2024.

SPEAKER: I present the report of the Controller and Auditor-General entitled Insights into local government: 2023 and the annual review into the Parliamentary Service Commission for the year ended 30 June 2024. Those papers are published under the authority of the House. Select committee reports have been delivered for presentation.

CLERK:

Report of the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee on the 2024-25 Estimates for Vote Business, Science and Innovation (excluding appropriations related to the Retail Crime Subsidy, the Health Research Fund, and New Zealand Trade and Enterprise

reports of the Education and Workforce Committee on the:

2024-25 Estimates for Vote Education and Vote Education Review Office (excluding the appropriation related to the Independent Children’s Monitor)

2024-25 Estimates for Vote Labour Market (excluding the appropriation related to border support services)

2024-25 Estimates for Vote Tertiary Education

report of the Health Committee on the 2024-25 Estimates for Vote Health and appropriations within Vote Labour Market (border support) and Vote Business, Science and Innovation (Health Research Fund)

reports of the Primary Production Committee on the:

2024-25 Estimates for Vote Agriculture, Biosecurity, Fisheries and Food Safety

2024-25 Estimates for Vote Forestry

2024-25 Estimates for Vote Lands

report of the Regulations Review Committee on the briefing on retrospective change of limitation periods and the truncating of appeal rights in secondary legislation in response to an emergency event.

SPEAKER: The briefing is set down for consideration.

Motions

New Zealand Olympic Team—Congratulations

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori): Point of order. I seek leave, please. Our huge apologies, we didn’t realise that the other party wasn’t taking a call, and we would welcome the opportunity to take the call, particularly for the Olympics. My apologies.

SPEAKER: Well, we can’t generally go back. Are you seeking leave for a call?

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER: Yes, I said I was seeking leave. Sorry.

SPEAKER: Leave is sought for an additional call recognising the Olympic team. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.

TĀKUTA FERRIS (Te Pāti Māori—Te Tai Tonga): Tēnā tātou. Tēnā tātou e te Whare. Ngā mihi nui i roto i ngā āhuatanga o ngā Taumāhekeheke o te Ao, me te whai wāhi o Aotearoa Niu Tireni ki roto ki aua whakamātautautanga puta noa i te ao, me te eke panuku, te eke tangaroa o ā tātou hau tipua i roto i ērā mahi.

Nō reira e mihi ana anō hoki i runga i ngā āhuatanga ki a Kahurangi Lisa Carrington, te uri o Te Aitanga a Mahaki, Te Whakatōhea, me Rongomaiwahine, otirā ki tērā hau tipua, Portia Woodman, i whakanuia whānuitia puta noa i te ao ki runga i ana highlight reels mō tōna hau tipuatanga i roto i te ao whutupōro.

[Greetings to us all. Greetings to all of us of this House. Many greetings with respect to the aspects of the Olympics, and Aotearoa New Zealand’s participation in those tests all across the world, and the successes of our supreme athletes in those activities.

I would also like to acknowledge, with respect to those circumstances, Dame Lisa Carrington, the descendant of Te Aitanga a Mahaki, Te Whakatōhea, and Rongomaiwahine, indeed to that other talented athlete, Portia Woodman, who was widely praised all across the world on her highlight reels for her prodigious talent in the rugby world.]

Te Pāti Māori would like to add our congratulations, and thank you for your grace, e te Speaker. Mihi to our athletes who went and represented our country so well, and, as has been said, Kahurangi Lisa Carrington, Dame Lisa Carrington, the descendant—proud descendant, I might add—of Te Aitanga-a-Māhaki, of Te Whakatōhea, and the famous iwi of Ngāti Kahungunu, Ngāti Rongomaiwahine. And who could forget—and I bet you no one missed—Portia Woodman’s highlight reels that spun around the world for a good two weeks; he uri nō Ngāpuhi, he hau tipua ki te reo Māori, a wahine toa [a descendant of Ngāpuhi, a champion of the Māori language, a strong woman] who is not only awesome on the field but is an awesome speaker of te reo Māori. Kia kaha rā ki a tātou.

Reflecting on the work that tēnei ankara ōku, a Tā Derek Lardelli, nāna i hautū i te taha ki ngā tikanga Māori hei tāwharau mō te katoa i haere i roto i te wāhi i noho ai ngā hau tipua ki Pou Tangata.

[Reflecting on the work that this uncle of mine, Sir Derek Lardelli, who led all things to do with tikanga Māori as a safe haven for everyone who went into the place where the athletes stayed, Pou Tangata.]

So I acknowledge also the mahi of Sir Derek Lardelli in his efforts to sustain and uphold a solid cultural platform for our athletes as they travelled across the world. And whilst we invest a lot of money into achieving great things in sporting success, it’s often the 1 percent that gets you across the line in first place. And the way you feel—so, the values, the passion, and, of course, the culture that they went with. Kia kaha rā ki a rātou, ki a tātou anō hoki. [May they be strong, may we too.]

Lastly, I’d like to pay tribute to the Minister Chris Bishop, who in his interview with Te Karere from Pou Tangata was very—you know, he sent the mihi to the world and acknowledged the importance of te ao Māori, te iwi Māori, and the Māori culture to the performance of our athletes on the international stage; I thought that was marvellous by our friend over there. Lastly, ki ō tātou whanaunga i roto i te whai kaha, me ō rātou Taumāhekeheke o te Ao e haere tonu mai ana, kia kaha, kia māia, kia manawa nui. Tihei mauri ora ki a tātou.

[Lastly, to our relations within the disabled community, and their Olympics that are still to come, be strong, be bold, resolute.]

SPEAKER: Well, we’ve already voted on the motion, but since we are in a general agreement that the Olympic team have done so well and should be congratulated, I’ll ask everyone to stand and give them a round of applause.

[Applause]

Introduction of Bills

Introduction of Bills

SPEAKER: There’s nothing like goodwill—we’ll see how long it lasts. No bills have been introduced.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Prime Minister

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

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes, and especially this Government’s action to improve road safety by going after drugged and drunk drivers. Our Government is absolutely committed to building great roads and Kiwis deserve to be safe when they drive on them, and alcohol and drugs are the number one cause of fatal crashes on New Zealand roads; in fact, around 30 percent of deaths on our roads involve drug-drivers. So our Government is taking action, with more funding for roadside tests as part of a package of $1.3 billion for road policing in the next three years. But we know funding isn’t enough, which is why we’re setting targets for alcohol and drug tests so we see better results for where the money is spent.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does he stand by his statement, “Part of the history of modern New Zealand has been our struggle to understand the intentions and expectations of those who signed the Treaty. … That work is still happening and will keep going.”, and, if so, can he set out his understanding of Te Tiriti o Waitangi by telling the House whether he believes that Māori ceded sovereignty?

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

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does the Prime Minister believe that Māori ceded sovereignty?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Our position is that the Crown is sovereign.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is it a fact that 102 years ago, in a major thesis, Sir Āpirana Ngata set out the very circumstances of the Treaty and he said that Māori ceded sovereignty—far closer to the action as he was, as were other Māori leaders of that time?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, as I’ve said, our position is that the Crown is sovereign, and also—importantly—the Treaty of Waitangi has protections in there for both Crown and Māori interests.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Are we to take it from that answer that the Prime Minister believes that Māori ceded sovereignty?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I don’t know how I can be clearer in answer to the first question.

Chlöe Swarbrick: When did Māori cede sovereignty?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I’d just say to the member that we have the Treaty of Waitangi as the founding document of New Zealand; in there is protection for both Crown and Māori interests. But, as I’ve said to you, the position is very clear: Māori ceded sovereignty to the Crown.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does his Government’s Treaty principles bill consider the Waitangi Tribunal’s finding from 10 years ago that “The rangatira who signed Te Tiriti o Waitangi in February 1840 did not cede [their] sovereignty to Britain,” or does he intend to continue to sideline the Waitangi Tribunal?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We haven’t seen a Treaty principles bill yet.

Question No. 2—Prime Minister

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

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes, and especially our action to rein in inflation and to reduce the cost of living as part of our plan to rebuild the economy. We had a plan to fight inflation and we started work on day one: stopping the wasteful spending, removing costs on businesses, and returning the Reserve Bank to a single focus on inflation. Now, we see inflation is tracking down to 3.3 percent and heading lower, and last week brought more good news for every Kiwi with a mortgage, with the first cut to the official cash rate in 4½ years. We know life is tough out there, but there are encouraging early signs that our plan is working to get New Zealand back on track.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: What responsibility does he take for the fact that since he became Prime Minister, the monthly number of new building consents has dropped 26 percent, 6,000 jobs have gone from the building and construction sector, and 57 percent of construction businesses now report difficulties with Government procurement and work consent conditions, up from 36 percent last year?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, that is a function of bad economic mismanagement and vandalism from the previous administration that created something called inflation, and inflation works because if you have an 84 percent increase in spending—wasteful spending, much of it—you increase debt from $5 billion to $100 billion, and you hire 18,000 more public servants, you get high levels of domestic inflation. That then leads to high levels of interest rates. When interest rates go up, that leads to recession, which is what we’ve been experiencing—thank you to the previous Labour Government!—and, in turn, that leads to rising unemployment. That’s why this Government is working incredibly hard on the root causes of the problem, which is actually getting inflation down so we can get interest rates down, and so we get the economy growing and we keep people in work.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Well, is the Civil Contractors association—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: No, hang on, just—sorry. Please don’t talk while someone is asking a question.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Is Civil Contractors New Zealand CEO Alan Pollard wrong when he said, “We have this strange situation where there’s a mountain of infrastructure work that the country needs, and it’s coming”—but then goes on to say—“but since the election, everything has stopped, effectively.”

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What is happening is there’s no doubt that is a sector experiencing the impacts of inflation, which is a gift from the previous administration. But, importantly, this is a Government that wants to get things built, and I really appreciate the member’s interest in the area of infrastructure and I’d ask him to come on board and support our fast-track legislation.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why does the latest Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors’ global monitor survey report that New Zealand’s construction sector is now the most depressed since that survey started and is the most depressed in the world, with more than half of respondents citing as a reason the change in Government in October 2023, which resulted in cuts, delays, and policy change?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Oh, my goodness—oh, my goodness. I just don’t know where to start—what a gift. What I’d just say to that member is—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: No, just—hold on. You can’t ask a question, from your leader, and then just barrack like crazy so you don’t get the answer. Please. Perhaps we’ll ask the question again, and then we’ll have the answer reasonably presented.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Very happy to, Mr Speaker. Why does the latest Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors’ global monitor survey report that New Zealand’s construction sector is now the most depressed since the survey started and is the most depressed in the world, with more than half of respondents citing as the major reason the change in Government in October 2023, which resulted in cuts, delays, and policy change?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: The reason that that sector is feeling it pretty tough is because of something called inflation, high interest rates, and recession, which was a gift from the previous administration. We have a Government here that wants to invest in infrastructure, and make sure it’s modern and reliable infrastructure that drives economic productivity in this country. We’ve taken the genius idea from David Parker about fast-track provisions; we’re putting it in and expanding it further. I’d ask him to come on board and support the rule, if he’s serious about building infrastructure.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Supplementary question, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Yeah, could I just make the point that all the barracking and interjection doesn’t make an answer turn into the answer that someone might be wanting to hear. By all means, carry on.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: What’s the total value in dollar terms of the infrastructure projects that have been cancelled or delayed since his Government took office, including school rebuilds and expansions, roading projects, rail upgrades, hospital rebuilds, State house upgrades and new builds, and public transport projects?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I’m sure if the member gives a specific question, we can get him a specific answer, but what I would say is that there is $68 billion in this year’s Budget for infrastructure. I would also point to the member that having projects with names doesn’t mean they are actually projects, so spending six years on Auckland light rail and spending $250 million to $300 million doesn’t make it happen; it’s just a Post-it note slogan bumper sticker—that’s what that is. The same thing happened on Lake Onslow—just another bumper sticker. There’s a difference between real projects that improve productivity and phantom projects that just actually are Post-it notes.

SPEAKER: I’d just make the point that while barracking against an answer that you don’t like doesn’t make it change, nor does barracking in favour of an answer you like make it any better—so just a bit of calm.

Hon David Seymour: When the Prime Minister eventually leaves office, does he anticipate spending his first year out combing the world for statistics to show how badly he buggered the economy?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I’d just say to the member, on this side, in the Government, as he well knows, he’s part of, actually, a Government that wants to get things done. We think there are five things that we need to grow this country: a world-class education system—we didn’t inherit that from the previous Government—we’ve got to embrace science, technology, and innovation; we need to get rid of the red tape, green tape, and bureaucracy; we need to make sure we’ve got modern, reliable infrastructure; and, importantly, international connections. That’s what will drive economic growth.

SPEAKER: It may surprise the member to know that the Prime Minister has no responsibility to this House for his future. Good question; well answered, but we’ll go now to the Rt Hon Chris Hipkins.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Will he take responsibility for the construction sector business confidence collapsing under his Government’s watch, from one in three businesses having a confident outlook to only one in five now?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What I’d take responsibility for is rebuilding the economy from the hell of a mess that we inherited, and you’re starting to see that. We have stopped the wasteful spending, we’ve stopped loading costs up on businesses, and we’re getting spending under control. That’s driving inflation down, thankfully—and I would hope the member is joining us in great celebration with the lower interest rates that came through last week—and from that will flow economic growth and, ultimately, more employment opportunities for people.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he think the 6,000 people who’ve lost their jobs in the building and construction sector and the firms who are closing because they have a shortage of work because of his Government’s decisions think that this is what getting back on track looks like?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I think those 6,000 workers understand that a Government that had six years, mucked around, and actually drove the economy into a hole is a reason why they’re doing it pretty tough. But they know that on this side, the Government wants to actually make sure we build infrastructure and we get things done, and that’s going to happen.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Has he got any plans to assign $54 million, for example, for a cycleway over the Auckland Harbour Bridge, and when it’s all over, nothing is done with it?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: There were a lot of phantom projects from the previous Government; we can go through them if you’d like. There was the cycle pathway over the Auckland Harbour Bridge. That was a lovely idea for about a week and a half or so—

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, Mr Speaker. It’s the general approach, as you’ve suggested, to try and leave you to deal with that, but that immediate response from the Prime Minister was to have a crack at the previous Government, and it should have been ruled out right then. The question wasn’t about that, but the Prime Minister made the answer about that, and it was out of order.

SPEAKER: Well, that might be something that I’ll need to look at the Hansard to reconsider.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Thank you.

SPEAKER: Thank you.

Question No. 3—Finance

3. STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has she seen on the economy?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): Over the past few years, New Zealand has endured a cost of living crisis, with rampant inflation eating away at New Zealanders’ incomes and savings. In response, interest rates were lifted very sharply, imposing additional costs on Kiwi households and businesses. I was delighted to see that last week marked a significant turning point, with the Reserve Bank’s monetary policy committee deciding to cut the official cash rate (OCR) by 25 basis points, to 5.25 percent. What’s more, the bank has set out a forecast track for the official cash rate which shows a steady decline over the next few years, back down to 3 percent in 2027.

Stuart Smith: What does an OCR cut mean for New Zealand families and businesses?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Lowering the official cash rate will lead to lower interest rates across the economy; in fact, this process has already started. It means Kiwis will pay less interest on their mortgages and on their personal loans, easing the cost of living for families. It also improves the conditions for businesses, making it easier for them to borrow to expand, hire people, and grow. Lower interest rates will be a breath of fresh air for the economy. Coupled with the tax relief package we introduced on 31 July, this is an important milestone in beating the cost of living crisis.

Stuart Smith: What is the Reserve Bank’s forecast for inflation?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: During the cost of living crisis, annual Consumers Price Index inflation got to 7.3 percent and was over 7 percent for most of 2022. The Reserve Bank’s latest forecast is for inflation in this quarter—that is, the September quarter of 2024—to be well within the target band, at 2.3 percent. That is a very considerable drop. The Reserve Bank clearly has confidence that inflation is under control and that the age of extreme price increases is over, after four years where the only way for interest rates was up.

Stuart Smith: What has been the contribution of fiscal policy?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Fiscal policy can either get in the way of monetary policy, as we saw with big spending over the last few years, or it can be helpful. This Government has been helpful, as the Budget demonstrates. New Zealanders benefited from long-overdue tax relief, and this tax relief was delivered in a way that was fiscally neutral and did not add to inflationary pressure, with every single dollar accounted for. More importantly, Government spending as a proportion of the economy is forecast to fall over the next few years, as the Monetary Policy Statement shows. As the Treasury said in the Budget update, “The decisions taken through Budget 2024 will on balance reduce the contribution fiscal policy is making to inflation pressure.”

Question No. 4—Finance

4. Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) to the Minister of Finance: Mālō ‘aupito, Mr Speaker. Does she stand by her statement, “We’ve acted swiftly to root-out waste, reduce bureaucracy and move resources from the back-office to the front line”; if so, is she confident New Zealanders have gained more from the tax cuts than they lost from the Budget 2024 baseline savings exercise?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): Yes, and yes.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Why has Oranga Tamariki ended contracts with 190 front-line social service providers and a further 142 providers have had their funding reduced, or are these contracts wasteful spending, as described by the Prime Minister?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, if the member wants detailed answers on specific contract decisions by Oranga Tamariki, I would encourage her to put those questions to the relevant Minister. I will make two points: first, overall funding for Oranga Tamariki in the Budget increased; and, second, if that member thinks that the position of a Government should be that every single contract signed up to needs to be stuck in stone and never changed, then she’s delusional. In fact, what our Government has committed to do is drive better services. We want New Zealand children to be safe, we want there to be good and effective service delivery, and Oranga Tamariki is expected to deliver on that.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Is it reasonable, as part of her Budget 2024 baseline savings exercise, for front-line social service providers to provide 100 percent of their contracted Government services with only 70 percent of the Government funding, and is this consistent with the social services commissioning model?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Our expectation is that we will drive better results for the taxpayers’ money we invest in social service provision. We are particularly conscious that in recent years, social service providers have watched while Wellington grew, the dollars that went into Government agencies expanded, and the number of policy analysts and managers hired grew, and yet those front-line service providers often only saw in return more contracting requirements, more compliance, and, actually, weren’t able to deliver better results. Our Government is focused on ensuring the dollars actually make it to the front line.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: What does she say to providers like Taeaomanino Trust, Wesley Community Action, Porirua Whānau Centre, Barnardos Aotearoa, Wairere Care Services, North Shore Women’s Centre, WELLfed New Zealand Trust, E Tipu E Rea, and the Salvation Army, who have all had reductions in funding and lost front-line staff as a result of her Budget 2024 baseline savings exercise?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, I’d say to each of those social service providers that the Government values what you do. You play a significant role in helping New Zealanders in need, and our Government wants to work with you to ensure we can make the maximum impact for the people you serve.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Was making funding cuts for Oranga Tamariki providers, who serve our most vulnerable children, worth it to pay for her tax cuts?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, I completely reject the accusation in the member’s question. We invested every single dollar gained from savings at Oranga Tamariki back into Oranga Tamariki, which, overall, had increased funding in the Budget.

Question No. 5—Finance

5. KATIE NIMON (National—Napier) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has she seen on the banking sector?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): Today, the Commerce Commission released its final competition report into personal banking services. The report provides substantial evidence that New Zealand’s banking sector is uncompetitive and that Kiwis are not well served by a two-tier oligopoly. The report makes it clear that our banks are highly profitable compared with international peers, they lack innovation, and do not aggressively compete for market share. Instead, competition resembles a cozy pillow fight, with greater focus given to maintaining profit margins than serving New Zealanders well. We are concerned that New Zealand customers are missing out and that as a result of this imperfect competition, they are facing higher prices, limited choices, and poorer service, even when compared to customers of the same parent banks in Australia.

Katie Nimon: What recommendations did the Commerce Commission make?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The commission has made 14 recommendations aimed at encouraging more disruptive players into the market, increasing the level of competition between existing players, and empowering consumers to get a better deal from their banking services. In the short term, the commission found that providing Kiwibank with access to more capital has the greatest potential to disrupt and deliver more competitive services to New Zealanders. In the medium to long term, the commission finds that open banking has the greatest potential to promote ongoing disruptive competition by allowing innovative new players such as fintech firms to enter the market and offer banking services to Kiwi consumers that compete with the traditional banks.

Katie Nimon: What recommendations does the report make about Kiwibank?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, one of the key recommendations is for the Government to support Kiwibank to become a real competitor to the major banks. At the moment, Kiwibank is only just nipping at the heels of the big Australian-owned banks, with just 5 percent of the market. To compete more aggressively with the Aussie banks, Kiwibank needs significantly more capital. I have asked the Treasury to engage with Kiwibank’s owner, Kiwi Group Capital, to understand the best options for providing Kiwibank with the capital it needs. The Government will explore all the options for where that additional capital might come from. Possibilities include KiwiSaver funds, New Zealand investment funds, and everyday New Zealanders themselves looking for home-grown places in which to put their money and invest in New Zealand’s future. I will take proposals to Cabinet no later than December this year.

Katie Nimon: What other actions is the Government taking in response?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: A number of the Commerce Commission’s recommendations relate to existing work that is already being progressed by this Government. For example, the Government, led by Minister Bayly, is progressing work to create a consumer data right—

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Oh, great bill—we did that.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: —to give customers greater control over how their data is accessed and used. While those members chuff themselves, I remember they talked a lot about open banking; they didn’t deliver it. For sectors like banking, this change will make it easier for consumers to switch providers or for innovative and disruptive new players like fintechs to enter the market and compete. The Government has already scrapped the overly prescriptive Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Regulations and we’ve updated the Responsible Lending Code to ensure loan application processes are fair and flexible. Later this year, I will issue a revised financial policy remit for the Reserve Bank outlining the Government’s view that improving competition in the banking sector should be a stronger factor in the Reserve Bank’s decision making. This is in line with the Commerce Commission’s recommendation. This Government is committed to delivering a more competitive banking sector so New Zealanders can get a better deal. That’s why we are taking action to address all 14 of the commission’s recommendations.

Question No. 6—Social Development and Employment

6. RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Has she read the analysis in the Welfare Expert Advisory Group’s 2019 report that “There is little evidence in support of using obligations and sanctions (as in the current system) to change behaviour; rather, there is research indicating that they compound social harm and disconnectedness”; if so, what specific evidence, if any, has she seen that benefit sanctions support people into employment?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Yes, I did read that in 2019, and I’ve also looked into the empirical evidence in New Zealand between 2017 and 2023. During this time, the number of people on the jobseeker benefit increased by 70,000, or 57 percent, which included periods of prolonged labour shortages. During the same time, the use of sanctions nosedived from 60,588 to 25,329, or a decrease of 58 percent. Our Government believes this demonstrates that sanctions are a necessary part of the tools needed, including more proactive support, to motivate people to take the steps needed to shift into work. Sanctions are also about enforcing the basic responsibility to fulfil obligations if you are being supported by taxpayers.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Why is she choosing to ignore the research that shows sanctions do not support people into employment and, instead, conflating correlation with causation when it comes to the so-called empirical evidence she quoted?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: This side of the House is clear that there must be mutual obligations, rights, and responsibilities. Just as the Ministry of Social Development will provide support and assistance, job seekers who fail to hold up their end of the bargain should face some consequences.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Is it easier or harder for someone to find suitable employment when they have lost half of their benefit and fall behind on rent, food, debts, and bills?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: That’s why we’ve introduced a traffic light system. We want people to be really clear about where they are, whether they’re at green, orange, or red, so they don’t lose any entitlement.

Mike Butterick: What recent commentary has the Minister seen on the use of benefit sanctions to change behaviour?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I did agree with the comments made on Newstalk ZB in Wellington on 15 August, that were “When it comes to sanctions, I’ll tell you what, especially for the younger ones, particularly the [under 20s and for] teenagers hitting the workforce, I think those sanctions straight out of school … are a good idea.” I would like to thank Labour MP Greg O’Connor for his endorsement and for confirming that common sense hasn’t been completely extinguished from the Labour Party.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Why has she been unable to—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: No, no—no, hold on. Thank you.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Why has she been unable to substantiate and produce evidence that sanctions support people into employment, and instead continues referring to contributions on talkback radio and conflating correlation with causation?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: It’s really simple, and that’s why I was pleased to support another colleague’s common-sense approach to this. This side of the House believes that there should be rights and responsibilities, obligations—and those obligations are pretty simple work obligations to be available for work and to look for work—and consequences when they don’t. I would add that we have seen in July an increase in the number of work exits from a year ago, so I’m confident that what we’re doing is working.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Does she stand by her answers to supplementary questions last sitting week when she said that caregiving is work, and, if so, will she guarantee that caregivers will not be subject to work obligations and sanctions under the traffic light system?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: There will be work obligations for those on the jobseeker benefit. There may be some conditions or capacity that is assessed for those with health conditions and disabilities. But where there are work obligations, our expectation is that they are fulfilled.

Question No. 7—Disability Issues

7. Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston) to the Minister for Disability Issues: Mālō e lelei, Mr Speaker. Does she stand by all her statements made during the Disability Issues Estimates hearing at the Social Services and Community Committee on 19 June 2024?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Disability Issues): Yes, but since then the independent review has found that the disability support system was in a much worse state than we first understood. Access to disability support services is a postcode lottery based on where someone lives, not their level of need, and Whaikaha - Ministry of Disabled People lacks the capabilities necessary to deliver disability support services effectively, partly due to their rushed establishment under the last Government. The independent review recommended that the initially planned phase two not proceed, as stabilising the disability support system was urgent. That’s why last week our Government announced a series of measures to ensure that the increased budget of $2.6 billion is distributed in a fairer, more consistent way, based on need.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Does the Minister stand by her statement that “Our Government remains committed to the Enabling Good Lives approach”, and, if so, how does she reconcile this with her decision to pause Enabling Good Lives?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Our Government of course is committed to the vision and principles of Enabling Good Lives, particularly the principle that talks about mainstream first and ensuring that disabled people are supported to access mainstream services before specialist disability services. The independent review highlighted dire issues with a disability support service that required urgent action. Our Government is taking that urgent action.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Does the Minister stand by her statement that “The most critical thing we do is for people who are already accessing and in need of disability support services, that we stabilise the system and give them certainty”; if so, how can she justify uprooting and transferring disability support services from Whaikaha to the Ministry of Social Development, a process for which the cost and time frame is unknown?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: The report that came from the independent review panel, unfortunately, was bleak. That was on top of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet stocktake that was undertaken for the previous Government and released before the election, as well as an independent assurance report that also showed poor financial controls. That is why, in order to stabilise and ensure services that are delivered to disabled people are stabilised, we’ve taken urgent action. That is why we are prioritising disabled people, their families, and carers by making these changes.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Does the Minister stand by her statement that the review into disability support services engaged “with a number of organisations and groups and individuals—disabled and non-disabled.”; if so, how does she reconcile this with the comments made by New Zealand Disability Support Network chief executive, Peter Reynolds, who said, “The Government’s bombshell decision to cut disability support funding in real terms, while gutting the Ministry designed by and for disabled people without even deigning to talk with the people affected first is heart-breaking”?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: The state of the books and the rapid decline of the ministry’s ability to maintain within its appropriation meant that changes were required. That’s why an independent review panel was set up at pace. And over that time that the independent review panel was doing its work, I met with disabled people, with families, with carers, with organisations, with the Disabled People’s Organisations Coalition, with providers—including the organisation that that member referred to—to understand exactly how they saw the disability support service and what their experience was. It’s fair to say it was bleak; that’s why urgent action has been taken.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: How can the disabled community trust a Minister who said her Government was committed to Enabling Good Lives, then paused it; said they would stabilise disability support services, then uprooted it; and said they would engage with the disabled community when she didn’t?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I just want to reconfirm what this review was about and the actions that were taken. Over many, many weeks and the discussions with disabled people, families, carers, and providers, it is very clear. It is very clear that the system we have today is unfair, it is inconsistent, and it is a postcode lottery that delivers to disabled people depending on where they live. That is not sustainable, and that is why, with an increased budget of $1.1 billion, we want to ensure that those with the highest needs get their needs met.

Question No. 8—Prime Minister

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

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Does he agree with the mounting evidence that his Government’s policies and actions are worsening race relations in Aotearoa?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Does he believe that his Government’s actions and policies are changing the constitution of this country?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Does our constitution allow for three Prime Ministers at the same time?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Does Parliament’s constitution grant supremacy to a coalition agreement over Te Tiriti o Waitangi?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We have a very clear coalition agreement. We honour our coalition agreements.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Can the Prime Minister describe the distribution of constitutional power created by the agreement of te iwi Māori to Te Tiriti o Waitangi?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: As I’ve said before, the Treaty of Waitangi is a foundational document of New Zealand. It protects both Crown and Māori interests.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Has the Prime Minister given total control of his Government to ACT and New Zealand First, or is he using the coalition agreement as an excuse to pursue his own anti-Māori agenda?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Look, I’m really proud of this coalition Government because we are united on the things that New Zealanders—Māori or non-Māori—care about, and I would just say to that member that I hope she cares as deeply about Māori achievement and education, Māori health outcomes, Māori housing outcomes, Māori economic outcomes. Those are the things that this Government is fixated on fixing.

Hon David Seymour: Will the Prime Minister be pleased to learn that amongst the 78 initial applicants to run kura hourua charter schools are a large contingent of kura kaupapa Māori operators, and that there is going to be an iwi leaders appointee on the authorisation board that chooses those schools, because the iwi leaders group has written to me strongly supporting charter schools kura hourua?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I just want to say thank you to that member for bringing charter schools together in such a comprehensive way. It’s going to be a fantastic feature of the education system of New Zealand, and I also have heard from iwi leaders saying how much they appreciate the charter schools initiative.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Which recommendations, if any, will he adopt from the Waitangi Tribunal’s report on his Government’s Treaty principles bill and Treaty clause review policies, which included abandoning the Treaty principles bill policy before it’s introduced into the House, as well as working with Māori to reverse the damage his Government’s actions have caused to Māori?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I will continue to engage with the Waitangi Tribunal in good faith, but there is no Treaty principles bill that is before this House at this time.

Question No. 9—Children

9. Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) to the Minister for Children: How many Oranga Tamariki community service providers, if any, have had their funding increased, and by how much, if anything, as a result of the Budget 2024 Reduction in Contracting Service Costs?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR (Minister for Children): I’m advised that 34 services across 25 providers will have their funding increased, with a total increase of at least $18.7 million. On top of that, Oranga Tamariki (OT) will be procuring at least 50 new services, and this will include additional services for high and complex needs, and the expansion of the Fast Track programme by $7.6 million. I’ve asked OT to make sure that there’s a more rigorous approach to contracting to ensure the $500 million worth of services it funds each year gets to where it will have the greatest impact. Under the last Government, OT was allowing providers who were under-delivering on their contracts to keep unused funding, they were funding services that weren’t core business, and they were duplicating services in various parts of New Zealand. If the last Government had taken this same approach to contracting now, at least $132 million more could have gone to the children, rather than letting some bank accounts build up.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Can she confirm that the Independent Children’s Monitor and the Chief Children’s Commissioner have written to Oranga Tamariki stating that they had continued concerns on a range of aspects of the current change process, given its potential detrimental impact for tamariki and whānau, and, if so, what is she doing to reassure them?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: It is the same amount of funding—no cuts have been made to funding. What we are doing is reprioritising that funding to where it will make the biggest impact. Oranga Tamariki needs to go back to its core purpose. We can’t keep the status quo, and those organisations you’re speaking to have said that over and over, over the years, Oranga Tamariki is not performing and needs to get back to what they should be doing: looking after our children’s safety.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was about whether she could confirm that the Independent Children’s Monitor and the Chief Children’s Commissioner have written to Oranga Tamariki about their concerns with the process and detrimental impacts on children, and, if so, what is she doing to reassure them—the Independent Children’s Monitor and the Chief Children’s Commissioner. She didn’t answer that.

SPEAKER: Well, I would have thought that the answer was her reassurance, quite bluntly, because you’d stated Government policy and stated that there were no funding cuts. Do you have another question?

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Sure. Can she provide an assurance that any funding changes to community service providers are, in fact, like for like and that there will be no gaps in service provision for all communities across the country, and, if not, why not?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: Nobody has ever said it would be like-to-like services; what we’ve said is we are going to realign the money where it’s going to make the greatest impact and where it is focusing on the core purpose of Oranga Tamariki, which is the care and protection of children in their care.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Does she share the concerns of the Chief Children’s Commissioner and Independent Children’s Monitor, who have said, “Oranga Tamariki could not guarantee that transitional arrangements were in place, but hoped they would be”, and, if not, why not?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I have been advised that for services that will be discontinued, provisions have been made to support partners and providers to wind down the services and to safely transition tamariki, rangatahi, and whānau receiving the services to another service. These provisions also allow for either a three-month or a six-month wind-down, depending on the terms of their contract.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: How do shambolic cuts to service providers, poor communication with providers about their contracts, and having no assurance about transitioning children and family to alternative services fit with her stated commitment that child safety is her priority?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I actually refuse to stand here and be lectured by a member of that previous Government, which made absolutely no progress when it came to the safety of the wellbeing of our young people. The state of Oranga Tamariki when I took over was absolutely disgusting, and I’m not going to allow that to continue.

Tākuta Ferris: Can the Minister explain why 10 percent of the rangatahi who are now involved in her new boot camp initiative left the programme, and can she guarantee us that the other 90 percent won’t?

SPEAKER: Well, look, the Minister may choose to answer, but that’s very broad of the wickets on the primary question. But the Minister might want to make a comment.

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I have been assured that that young person has been supported to complete their sentence at another youth justice residence. I’ve also been advised that there is one other young person who will be joining the programme, so now there will be 10 young people within that programme, and all of them are doing well.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Can the Minister please explain why there are 790 Māori tamariki who have entered Oranga Tamariki in the last eight months—a record amount of tamariki?

Hon Shane Jones: Ask the whānau.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: I’m asking the Minister—it’s her role.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Ask your cousins.

SPEAKER: That was—

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Point of order.

SPEAKER: No, hang on. That was a supplementary question.

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: Can you ask that question again?

SPEAKER: Yeah, ask it again. Debbie Ngarewa-Packer, could you just ask that question again.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Can the Minister please explain why a record of 790 Māori tamariki have entered Oranga Tamariki in the last—past eight months? Sorry.

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: That would be a question for Oranga Tamariki in writing, so they could give you a specific answer.

SPEAKER: Question No. 10—

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I take offence to the Deputy Prime Minister, who referred that we should go and ask our cousins when we asked the Minister this really important question. There is a record amount of Māori tamariki going into State care—

SPEAKER: Yeah, good. You’ve made the point, and what I would make the point is that the member herself was very, very, I suppose you’d say, dancing around a pin the week before last, making what some could consider to be very offensive remarks. So I’d suggest we just desensitise a little bit and move on. Question No. 10—

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Speaking to the point of order, I have no issues with personally being attacked. But I don’t have any cousins who have children in Oranga Tamariki, and if I do, prove that.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Speaker, the reality is those of us who are Māori know that before we’re going to have a renaissance with respect to what’s going on with young people, we have to fix our own place up first. I am saying it to every Māori, including myself, and not taking this judgmental view that she is.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Point of order.

SPEAKER: No.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: I do not have any cousins—

SPEAKER: No, wait on—wait on a minute. Excuse me, I have ruled on this, and we are moving on to question No. 10.

Question No. 10—Social Development and Employment

10. JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What recent announcements has the Government made about supporting people on the jobseeker benefit into work?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Last week, I announced a comprehensive package of reforms to the welfare system to support more people off jobseeker support into work and to introduce tougher consequences for those who repeatedly do not meet their benefit obligations. This includes a new traffic light system to inform people what is required of them to continue receiving a benefit and warn them when they are not meeting those expectations. Our Government believes that work is the best pathway to independence and further opportunities. We continue to take action to support New Zealanders into work, and the traffic light system is an important tool to achieve this.

Joseph Mooney: Why was the traffic light system introduced?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: The traffic light system was introduced to clearly communicate to job seekers what is expected of them and to ensure they comply with their obligations. It spells out if they are at risk of breaching their work obligations and what the consequences are of failing to comply. Our Government expects those receiving taxpayers’ support to meet their basic obligations to become work-ready and to find work, because we believe in rights and responsibilities.

Joseph Mooney: How will the traffic light system work?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: The traffic light system categorises job seekers based on their compliance level, providing crystal clear steps on how to comply with their obligations. Green means a beneficiary is on track and complying with all their work obligations. Orange means a job seeker has failed an obligation and must re-comply within five days. Red means a job seeker has breached their obligations, which will result in sanctions being imposed.

Joseph Mooney: How else does the traffic light system affect job seekers?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Job seekers will be required to reapply for their benefit every six months, and they must also complete a mandatory job seeker profile. This will enable the Ministry of Social Development to match people with job vacancies. There will also be new, non-financial sanctions that will be available next year, and past failures will be counted against a job seeker’s record for two years, instead of one. Our Government is making our welfare system more proactive to help job seekers into work and experience the benefit of greater financial independence and further opportunities that come from work.

Question No. 11—Justice

11. Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) to the Associate Minister of Justice: Does she stand by her statement, “Good legislation involves everybody, and bad legislation is usually when somebody goes off and does something by themselves … I’m never going to be arrogant enough to think that I have the answers to everything”; if so, why?

SPEAKER: The Hon Nicole McKee, in the context of her ministerial responsibilities.

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice): Thank you, Mr Speaker. In answer to the question, yes. That means that, for example, we need to avoid the type of rushed lawmaking that led to a three-day select committee and a 10-day—total—process for the last reform of the Arms Act by the previous Government. I also stand by another statement I made in the article that the member references: “I’ve got to make sure it’s not my personal views that go forward but rather collected views.” As part of my four-phase firearms reform work programme, New Zealanders will have four opportunities to submit their views to the select committee. Furthermore, stakeholders from both sides of the debate have had the chance to participate in focused consultation on both clubs and ranges reforms and the review of the firearms registry. This Government cares about the voices of New Zealanders, and we are doing the due diligence that should have been done back in 2019.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Why did she attempt to remove Police’s comment “The stakeholder consultation is heavily weighted towards firearm licence holders and should include broader perspectives, including from groups like the Police Association.” from the Cabinet paper on firearms reforms?

Hon NICOLE McKEE: As I have actually publicly said, learning about the Cabinet process and how we go about utilising the papers, I was informed that I could not remove some of the comments, and I wondered why they were there in the first place, seeing as it was my paper. I’m very pleased with the advice that I got that I should keep it there and actually respond to those comments. I’d also point out that the Police Association were never on the original list of those that should have been spoken to that was given to me, and the list that the Labour Government used beforehand. I’m quite happy with the very fulsome response I’m getting from New Zealand Police and the fact that they are being so fulsome with their responses. They represent their entire workforce; not just their union.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Does she agree with Police Association president, Chris Cahill, that “Without a registry, you buy as many firearms as you like. There’s no controls, whether you still have them or you pass them on to someone else.”, and is she concerned that without a firearms registry, A-category firearms like Alfa Carbine rifles will get into the hands of criminals who directly threaten front-line police officers’ safety; if not, why not?

Hon NICOLE McKEE: In answer to the first part of the question, I do not agree with Mr Cahill, because legislation actually has restrictions around the legal transfer of firearms—part of the reason why we need to have people involved in the consultation that actually understand the legislation.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Does she agree with Police advice—not Police Association advice; Police advice—on the Government’s firearms reform programme that “This should report back to at least two Ministers, as National Party supports the registry.”; if not, why not?

Hon NICOLE McKEE: I have been given the opportunity, on behalf of the Government, to lead this reform in the firearms space. What is really important is that we as a Government, as a whole, agree with the process as we move through the transparent process of four firearms reform phases. I’m really happy with the opportunity that I have been given to make New Zealand a safer place, because that side failed to do that post-2019.

Todd Stephenson: What is the Minister doing to target gun crime in our communities?

Hon NICOLE McKEE: This Government is committed to targeting violent offenders and gang members who use illegally held firearms to commit crimes in our communities. Earlier in the year, we introduced legislation to Parliament to strengthen the ability for police to search violent offenders and gang members who are subject to a firearms prohibition order for illegally held firearms. New Zealanders deserve to feel safe in their communities from gang members and violent offenders who use firearms to intimidate, to threaten, and also to harm. Strengthening the firearms prohibition laws will give police the powers needed to tackle illegal firearm use head-on.

Hon Ginny Andersen: How does she justify attempting to remove the power of Police to comment in a Cabinet paper when she is part of a Government that has spoken so strongly about increasing the powers of police?

Hon NICOLE McKEE: I think I answered that where I had already said that I am very grateful for New Zealand Police giving me their thoughtful and fulsome advice, and I also like the opportunity that I have to be able to rebut or even comment back. I’m happy with the process. I’m happy with New Zealand Police being involved.

Question No. 12—Science, Innovation and Technology

12. Dr HAMISH CAMPBELL (National—Ilam) to the Minister of Science, Innovation and Technology: What recent announcement has the Government made about gene technology?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Science, Innovation and Technology): Last week, the Prime Minister and I announced that we are overturning the nearly 30-year effective ban on gene technology, for the benefit of New Zealand. We will establish new legislation and a dedicated regulator based on the Australian regime. The science has matured, other countries have embraced gene technology, and it has potential to treat cancers, increase agricultural production, lower emissions, adapt to a changing climate, and, ultimately, grow the economy. Gene tech is already being used safely in 29 other countries, including many of our trading partners such as Australia, China, Japan, the US, Canada, and many European countries. New Zealand needs to keep up, and we will be able to do so with this new regime. I’d also point out that I’ve had some good conversations with colleagues across the House on this move and I’m happy to provide briefings for MPs who are interested, and if they just get in touch with my office, we’ll arrange that for them.

Dr Hamish Campbell: How can gene technology support higher productivity and growth?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: We’re committed to building a productive and growing economy, and I’m confident that gene technologies will contribute to that goal. In the primary sector, New Zealand scientists, including those at Plant and Food—where we launched the policy—have used gene technology to increase the productivity of crops, but only in laboratories. For example, researchers are looking at how to make fruit like apples and blueberries produce year-round, meaning faster breeding and, potentially, no off-season. Ultimately, this means better returns for growers and cheaper produce for consumers. However, under existing rules, virtually none of this research ever leaves the lab in New Zealand.

Dr Hamish Campbell: How will gene technology support better health outcomes and lower greenhouse gas emissions?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: This policy will allow many more New Zealanders to access highly effective cancer treatments, including CAR T-cell therapy developed at Wellington’s Malaghan Institute, and this treatment has already successfully treated patients with cancer for the handful of those who were able to participate in its trial. This change in the gene technology regime means more New Zealanders will be able to access this advanced treatment and others like it. Gene technologies can also help to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. New Zealand is an agricultural nation, which is why around half of our emissions come from agriculture. Our world-class farmers are at risk of being left behind their competitors if they don’t access advanced gene technologies just as our competitors are.

Dr Hamish Campbell: How will this new regime adequately manage risk?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Gene technologies have moved significantly since the current legislation passed nearly 30 years ago, and I want to assure New Zealanders and this House that risk management will be at the forefront of the new regime. The regulator will focus on risks to human health and to the environment. The regime will be risk-based, which means technologies with greater unknowns or higher risks will be subject to the most stringent rules. The regime includes public consultation, and the Ministry for Primary Industries will be responsible for enforcement. A technical advisory group will support the regulator, and a Māori advisory group will consider implications for Māori. I expect this new legislation will be in the House by the end of this year. It will have a full select committee process, and I encourage members of this House and the public to engage. I intend the new regulator to be in place by the end of 2025. I’m very confident that this regime will get New Zealand up to speed with the rest of the world.

SPEAKER: That concludes oral questions.

Sittings of the House

Sittings of the House

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Leader of the House): I move, That the sitting of the House today be extended into tomorrow morning for further consideration in committee of the Local Government (Water Services Preliminary Arrangements) Bill; and consideration in committee of the Resource Management (Extended Duration of Coastal Permits for Marine Farms) Amendment Bill; and the Corrections Amendment 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.

SPEAKER: I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Local Government (Water Services Preliminary Arrangements) Bill, the Resource Management (Extended Duration of Coastal Permits for Marine Farms) Amendment Bill, and the Corrections Amendment Bill.

HOUSE IN COMMITTEE

HOUSE IN COMMITTEE

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Members, the House is in committee for further consideration of the Local Government (Water Services Preliminary Arrangements) Bill and for consideration of the Resource Management (Extended Duration of Coastal Permits for Marine Farms) Amendment Bill and the Corrections Amendment Bill.

Bills

Local Government (Water Services Preliminary Arrangements) Bill

Debate resumed from 8 August.

Part 2 Water services delivery plans and foundational information disclosure requirements (continued)

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Members, we start with 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”. Once again, the question is that Part 2 stand part.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s been 10 or 12 days since we were last looking at this bill, so I just want to remind the Chair and also other members in the Chamber of the process we were working through with respect to Part 2 of the bill.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I have that information in front of me.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: Thank you. Part 2 of the bill, of course, has three subparts, and we’d worked through subpart by subpart. We were just transitioning from Subpart 2 to Subpart 3. We’ve really just begun the debate on Subpart 3, and there are a number of questions that I want to dig into on Subpart 3, some of which, I think, are just around drafting—where I think that some things are a little confusing because of it—and some of which are substantive questions where I’m hoping for some information from the Minister. Looking at Subpart 3, it is about the “information disclosure requirements”. Now, the drafters have the word “Foundational” in there. I can’t quite work out why. I guess they thought it was pretty, but it is just the basic information that needs to be disclosed on requirement.

As I understand it, the way it’s going to work out is that the Commerce Commission is, in effect, going to be the regulator here, and it is going to be regulating water services entities in various ways. This particular part of the bill is setting out the sorts of information that can be required from water services entities, but sitting within that, then, are some rather interesting questions, not just on what sorts of information. By requesting or specifying that sort of information, it betrays something about the nature of the bill overall and the nature of these water services reforms.

I want to draw the committee’s attention to Subpart 3, clause 32, subclause (2)(c)—so clause 32(2)(c). There’s a couple of sets of words in here that I want to sort of dig into. The first one is saying, if we look at that subclause (2)(c), the first thing is that water services entities or providers of water services “are limited in their ability to extract excessive profits.” It’s kind of interesting just in itself, because it implies that water services entities will have a profit motive. Now, that’s quite interesting because, up to now, water services have been provided in this country by local authorities, by regional authorities in some cases—in Auckland, it’s provided by Watercare. We do have some very localised little schemes around the place, which are pretty interesting, but they’re not profit-making entities. This phrase, “ability to extract excessive profits”, is quite a telling phrase, because the implication is that the whole purpose of this scheme, the whole purpose of this legislation, is not just to ensure that New Zealanders have access to good drinking water, that the waste water is appropriately treated, and that stormwater systems are set up so that people aren’t affected by stormwater, but it implies that there is a profit motive. Now, I think the Government needs to justify this quite singular shift.

It’s not just the words “excessive profits”, but it’s that they can extract profits at all. Now, I guess there’d be some reassurance around this if we could be sure that any profits that were generated by a water services entity were going to continue to be held within that particular water services entity and used only for the purpose of ensuring the future of that water services entity and ensuring it would continue to supply the water services that were required. But I think we need some reassurance, perhaps from the officials, that in fact is going to be the case. I’d like to know for sure that a future Government wasn’t going to be able to somehow change these rules around and suddenly start extracting profits from water. After all, if we look overseas to the United Kingdom—[Time expired]

RYAN HAMILTON (National—Hamilton East): I move, That debate on this question now close.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): Thank you. I do want to continue this—it’s actually a very serious point. If we look at what has happened in the United Kingdom with Thames Water, there’s been the most appalling extraction of profits and the most appalling water pollution. That’s happened in part because of the profit motive. So I want some pretty strong reassurance around a profit motive at all and also around the term “excessive profit”.

There’s a set of questions around excessive profit as well. First up, there’s the profit motive, but the second one is: what is meant by excessive profit? Now, that implies that a water services entity may make a “reasonable profit” but not an “excessive profit”. So I want to know who is going to be making that judgment about what is an excessive profit as opposed to a reasonable profit and what that judgment is going to be based on. Is it going to be based on the number of rateable households? Is it going to be based on the number of people using the water supply? Is it a return on investment? Is it some kind of relationship to assets? Is it related to future revenue streams? There’s a whole lot of questions in there as to what a reasonable profit might look like, as opposed to an excessive profit.

We might think those two little words didn’t really mean very much at all, but there’s actually some pretty substantial issues sitting in there and I would appreciate the Minister giving us some reassurance around them.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): Thank you, Madam Chair, and I join my colleague the Hon Dr Deborah Russell in seeking some clarity from the Minister on that and on whether there is any thought as to putting within the bill any definition of what “excessive profits” are. But I just want to speak within this Part 2 to Subpart 3 specifically to clauses 32, 39, and 40.

Now, my colleague talked about clause 32(2)(c), but I want to talk about clause 32(2)(a)(i), and that is the incentives that are going to be put in place for various things. One of these is to “innovate and to invest in water services, including in replacement, upgraded, and new assets;”. First of all, I’d like to know from the Minister in the chair what incentives are going to be put in place for the entities in terms of the investment. I’d also like to know more what is meant in clause 32(2)(a)(i) in terms of innovation. What are we talking about here? Are we talking about technological innovation, are we talking about different business models—and this relates very much to the questions that my colleague the Hon Dr Deborah Russell has just been asking in terms of introducing within the same clause the term “extract excessive profits.”

Are we talking about innovation in business models, which leads us on to a question which we really see threaded right through many of the clauses in this bill, and we want some certainty from the Minister in the chair around what protections are in place to stop the privatisation of these assets, to ensure that these do stay public assets and that these are things that will continue to be owned by the people that have built them up over many, many, many generations. So I’d like to know how that incentive, innovation—what they mean and what the Government and the Minister in the chair are envisioning through those things, and maybe have some examples of the kinds of things that we could expect to see.

I do have some very specific questions just on some detail going through. If we go now to clause 39, “Charge for providing copies to public”, it states that “(1) A specified entity that is required, by a determination made under section 35, to provide copies of statements and information to the public on request may charge for providing those copies. (2) The charge must be no more than is reasonably required to recover the costs of providing those copies.”

Now, of course, the Official Information Act (OIA) also intersects here as well, and I want to know if the purpose of this clause 39 is to supersede the Official Information Act and the ability to charge for official information or the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act (LGOIMA), as may be the case in this, rather than the OIA. How does the Minister see that clause of this bill interacting with either LGOIMA or the OIA legislation, and I ask whether she sees there being any difference in the operation of those.

Then, we go on to clause 40 under Subpart 3 in Part 2, which is the “Additional monitoring and investigation powers based on subpart 8 of Part 4 of Commerce Act 1986”. If we have a look at clause 40(1)(c), there are powers given to “examine, consider, or investigate any activity, cost, revenue, transfer, asset valuation, circumstance, or event that is occurring or that has occurred during the previous 7 years:”, I’d just like to know from the Minister why “7 years” was chosen. Why is seven years the significant period of time we need to have that retrospective power given in terms of those monitoring powers for the Commerce Commission? Why not five years? Why not 10 years? Why is it that “7 years” has been deemed by the Minister, in drafting this legislation, as the optimum period of retrospective ability to go back and have a look?

Now, obviously, as we go through this clause by clause under Subpart 3 within Part 2, there’ll be many more specific questions like that. But just to summarise for the Minister: what is meant by incentives and what is meant by innovation in clause 32(2)(a)? Then there are the business models and how that intersects with the ability with the expectation around profits that my colleague has spoken about, then there is the intersection of clause 39 with the OIA and LGOIMA, and then, in terms of “7 years”, why that number was chosen.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. With Part 2, Subpart 3 on foundational information disclosure requirements, there are actually quite a few different elements to this subpart and it’s really important for us to be able to unpack each of the elements here.

I have a number of questions, but in terms of the first question, I’m going to kind of draw on the cost element to this. So, to start with, I am looking at clause 40A “Levy”. Now, this is a new addition to this particular version of the bill we have in front of us. It says that “(1) Every person who provides water services must pay to the Minister”, and to refresh our memory, I think this actually goes back to the comments of one of our Labour colleagues—Rachel Brooking—previously in our last session, around the potential risk of a bottom-up effect when we’re looking at what sort of costs and what sort of charges we are going to be producing and the unintentional consequences around this.

For this particular one, I would really like to get one very specific clarification from the Minister. This is around the concern of what is on page 11 of the commentary on the bill. On page 11, under the section “Commerce Commission may make determination”, it says, “We recommend inserting clause 40A into the bill, a levy-making power to recover the costs of the Commerce Commission’s regulatory work under subpart 3 of Part 2.” I just want to get the specific idea, because we have seen in a previous bill around waste management that once we started charging levies for the work of a commission, we are straddling a very dangerous territory between what is considered a levy and what is considered a tax.

So, for this bit, I would really like some confirmation and some confidence from the Minister that the levy that is going to be charged and is going to be payable by every person or persons who provides water services can be tracked and will be accountable specifically to Part 2 of Subpart 3, and no broader than that. Then, what we might see, and what we don’t want to see, is that our water service providers are paying for the work that is done by the Commerce Commission for other purposes not relevant to this.

Also, in that regard, it would be really good to get some confidence and clarification from the Minister on exactly how those kinds of charges will be incurred and the mechanisms that would likely be sent to these water services providers. Is it that every water service provider will have to pay a standard levy based on the service they provide or is a pay-as-you-go kind of service required from the Commerce Commission? So that is the first point that I would like some clarification on. Thank you.

Hon NICOLA GRIGG (Associate Minister of Agriculture): Thank you, Madam Chair, and I thank the members from across the Chamber for their questions thus far. I just wanted to touch on a couple that have come from members of the Labour Party in particular.

Dr Deborah Russell has raised the issue of the foundational information disclosure. I’m sure the member, like many members in this Chamber, will know that information disclosure is a very common economic regulation tool. She’s spoken specifically to clause 32(2)(c) about the excessive profits. I’d just caution the member against misrepresenting that particular language, and I would go so far as to say possibly scaremongering. As most members will know, this phrase is a typical safeguard used and found often in the Commerce Act to protect consumers in industries where there is monopoly characteristics. In this scenario, people won’t be able to choose to go to a different water services provider, so this clause will ensure consumers are being charged a fair price. Again, I just want to reiterate this is a very common safeguard in the Commerce Act.

Turning to some of the questions raised by the Hon Dr Megan Woods, she asked specifically about what incentives there are to innovate and to invest. Well, isn’t it wonderful that we do have this opportunity in this Chamber to rewrite this piece of legislation because we believe that transparency is a real opportunity to innovate around. Transparency to consumers on what they are being charged and how those charges will be used—this is a real opportunity for councils to be able to do that. As the saying goes, sunlight is the best disinfectant. So information disclosure makes councils act transparently, particularly about the state of the assets, how efficient they are, and their plans to upgrade and replace those assets.

Dr Woods has further asked around protections against privatisation. Well, these are already provided for in the Local Government Act 2002. Nothing in this bill changes those provisions. This bill only relates to local government water service providers. So the Local Government Act provisions apply as a matter of course.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you, Madam Chair. I thank the Minister in the chair, the Hon Nicola Grigg, for taking the time just then to answer some questions. I would very much like the Minister to also answer the questions that were asked in the last session—I’ve got a new point as well—and those related, particularly in my contribution, to clauses 32 and 33 and the interaction between those two.

This isn’t a greatly political point that I’m making here; it’s simply a drafting one, which I’m sure the Minister and the officials will want to answer. It is related to clause 32, “Purposes of this subpart”. At clause 32(3), it says, “This subpart—(a) relates only to”—and it references some other sections, which are about the framework and disclosing information, and then there’s an “and”. But then you turn over the page to clause 33 and it’s “Application of this subpart”. How does the application of the subpart in clause 33 relate to what is, presumably, what clause 32(3) should be doing? It’s just a drafting question—a simple one there—which I think it would be useful to have an answer to. It might be a mistake; it might be able to be rectified.

My more substantive questions before we closed up shop the last Thursday, I think it was, we were sitting—it seems a lifetime ago—were on clause 40A, about the levy. The Minister for this bill had been explaining to us in answers that this bill is going to be good for councils; it’s going to be bottom-up rather than top-down. I don’t understand, then, why there needs to be a levy at clause 40A. I do note that the Finance and Expenditure Committee, in its report, did talk about how this is for Commerce Commission work. But it would, again, be useful to understand how this piece of legislation is helping councils, because it very much looks like it is doing exactly the opposite and is putting a whole lot of centralised requirements on to councils whilst the Minister tells us it’s doing exactly the opposite. You can imagine that that is quite frustrating for us members asking questions about this bill.

Related to that levy and “Why do you need this levy?”—and it is a new point that the officials won’t have heard from me—if we go over a couple of pages, the subheading just before clause 42 says, “Pecuniary penalty orders”, and there is a whole scheme here whereby the High Court can make such an order. This relates to not disclosing information; so we’re talking about these reports and disclosing information. At clause 43, we see the maximum amount of a pecuniary penalty. For an individual, it’s $500,000, but for an organisation, it’s $5 million. Presumably, the organisations would be the councils or the council-controlled organisations that are part of this bill. And $5 million for not providing information seems like a very high amount. I’d like to know why it’s so high and if it does just relate to those information disclosures, and how that compares to other legislation where there are these penalty clauses for not disclosing information.

I understand that there may be circumstances where councils have not disclosed information that’s important and that there perhaps should be a penalty, although that would make more sense if you were saying that the whole scheme of this legislation is to make councils do things to do with water infrastructure. The Minister keeps telling us it’s not about that; it’s bottom-up, not top-down. This all seems, to me, to be very top-down. So, again, it would be useful to have some answers on that point.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. The genesis of New Zealand’s change in the management of water arose from the drinking-water problems that we had at Havelock North, where under-investment by the then council for many years led to thousands of people becoming ill from contaminated water, and some of them dying. Through the evolution of the regulatory response to that failure at local government level, and, actually, failures within the Ministry of Health, decisions have been made by successive Governments not just to consider drinking water but also to be looking at the disposal of foul water or sewage. My question relates to how clause 37 of the bill deals with some of the complexities around that.

Clause 37 of the bill says that a determination can be made by the commission, as I understand it, as to information that has to be disclosed to the commission, and the contents of the determinations are set out in clause 37 of the bill. And under clause 37(3)(i) the “quality performance measures and statistics” and (j) the “assumptions, policies, and methodologies used or applied in the delivery of water services” are things that have to be disclosed if the commission asks them to be.

My question relates to the interaction between that and how a water services entity gets a consent for their discharge of sewage and the standards that might be applied to that. There is a discussion in later parts of this legislation as to the overriding of the existing National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management, and we’ll come to those questions under that part. But am I correct in my understanding that the level of treatment, if you like, that is required for a sewage discharge will somehow be set by a regional council, probably? It’s the quality parameter that it might be set and that resource consent that will be required to be reported to in these disclosure obligations so that the commission can take account of what the costs are of proper treatment, for example, of sewage in accordance with their monitoring role as to what is an appropriate level of cost to be charged for the delivery of that service.

Now, I’m not making a comment here as to what ought to be the standard of treatment. That’s obviously up to the consent authority. But am I correct in my understanding that the commission has to, effectively, await that coming from the water services entity, who gets it from a regional council before they can make a determination as to what’s an appropriate fee?

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. Just before that, I would like to still get a clarification from the Minister in the chair, the Hon Nicola Grigg, regarding the question I asked. Just also on the topic of when we’re looking at the cause of some of these areas, there’s one tiny thing I would like to ask the Minister, clause 39(2), which is that when you’re looking at copies to the public, it mentions that a specified entity can have charges for these copies, but they can only be used for the recovery of those copies. A very short question: can I just check with the Minister if that applies to e-copies, which may not come at any additional cost to the specified entity?

However, I know that I’m going to jump a little bit—I do have questions for earlier clauses, but then there is this one particular section that I think is incredibly concerning that I would like to address right now, and that is sort of the dichotomy that’s being created between clauses 42 and 45. Clauses 42 and 45 talk about what happens when a person, in this case, does not comply with the obligation to disclose information. The concern I have here is that subclause 42(1)(a) talks about it in the context of the person both knowingly and actively contravening an obligation to disclose information. Now, under criminal law, we see that fulfils a requirement of both mens rea and actus reus—both the mental component and the physical component. However, in subclause 42(2), it talks of a person being considered involved in a contravention—i.e., what is considered in 42(1)(e)—if the person, per subclause 42(2)(a), “has aided, abetted, counselled, or procured”.

Now, the language that they use here is akin to, or is parallel to, section 66 of the Crimes Act which is around party liability. This, however, is incredibly concerning because this doesn’t necessarily have the same level of mens rea that is required. The issue we have here is the penalty amount—for everything that is considered under clause 42(1) and (2)—can hold a maximum penalty of $500,000 in the terms of individuals, or $5 million in any other cases, per clause 43(1). However, if we see the offence under clause 45(1)(a), where a person commits an offence—not necessarily a pecuniary penalty—if “the person, knowing that water services are subject to an obligation to disclose information” and “intentionally contravenes”—again, we’re looking at both the physical and the mental components, the actus reus and the mens rea. However, in clause 45, when a person knowingly and actively decides not to disclose, the fine is only $200,000 for an individual, or $1 million in any other case, which means that under clause 45 an individual who then decided not to disclose the information would get a lower penalty than someone who may have just aided or abetted someone under clause 42(2), which has a chance of getting a much higher penalty.

I would like some clarification from the Minister regarding why these particular sections were laid out like this, and under what circumstances would one trigger clause 42(2)(a) and clause 45(1)(a), and is there a rationale why a person who may be a party liable may potentially get a much higher penalty than someone who actively, both mentally and physically, decided not to provide the information? Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The Hon Dr Deborah Russell.

Hon Nicola Grigg: Madam Chair?

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Oh, I’m sorry. I’m sorry, but I had given the call to Deborah Russell.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): Oh, OK, thank you, Madam Chair. I want a brief follow-up on a number of issues. The questions I was asking earlier were around the phrase “excessive profits” and the Minister in the chair gave me the explanation that it’s just a pretty standard term used in this sort of field of law, this regulatory area. It might be a standard term, but it doesn’t actually answer the substantive issue as to why we’re making profits in this space at all. Explaining that it’s a common term is interesting. I get that it’s a common phrase, but not then the substantive issue there. So I do want the Minister to come back to that and explain why these water services entities are making profits at all.

I want to raise a further point on the discussion around the levy in clause 40A, and we’ve already had a bit of discussion about this from some of my colleagues. Everyone has to pay a levy and it’s determined in a particular way. I’m just looking at clause 40A(2)(d) “providing different levies for different classes of providers of water services”. I’m interested in what those different classes of water services might be, because my first thought when seeing this discussion around the levy was the concern that some water services entities are much larger than others. Some of them come off a much larger rating base than others. Some of them are going to be in a much better position to pay a levy than others, so I’d like some discussion from the Minister as to how we might set up those different classes of water services entities or what’s going to be taken into account.

I guess as someone who is always in favour of progressive taxation and progressive levies, I’m rather hoping that there is a progressive scheme in mind here so that the cost weighs proportionately, I guess, so we’ll look for an answer on that. Those are just follow-ups on some of the questions that some of my colleagues have already asked, just elucidating a little bit more information there.

The question I am particularly interested in that I wanted to do some untangling on is in clauses 36 and 37. If we go to 36(1)(b), the Commerce Commission has made a determination, the water services entity has to provide the specified information, and then it says it has to provide a copy of all the information; it has to be supplied to the commission, who is going to be making the decisions disclosed in accordance with the determination within five working days after the specified entity first publicly discloses the information. That felt a little curious to me, because ordinarily I thought it might have gone the other way around, that the information was disclosed to the commission and then it was made available publicly a few days later, so I was thinking, “Why on earth are we doing it in this particular order?”

If we go to clause 37—I must have left a number out when I was writing this out. Clause 37(1)(c): any determination has to specify the time frames that must be complied with. So that’s kind of interesting. It just seems to me a little bit in reverse order there. I would ordinarily expect to see a time frame—that’s fine—but then it says it’s a time frame for public disclosure of information, but the person who’s wanting the information is actually the commission, and so it just seems to be a little odd. I would have thought that the way to structure this would have been to say that under clause 37(1)(c), you can set a time frame and that is the time frame to respond to the commission. Then I would have expected to see in clause 36(1)(b), you’ve got to supply to the commission a copy of all the information, and then I would expect that you would have to publicly disclose it within five days of having supplied all the information to the commission.

Because it’s the other way around from what would be expected, there must be a reason for doing it that way. I would hope it’s not just a convenience reason but a substantive reason as to why we would want that information to be public before it went to the commission. There might be some good that is obtained by doing it that way, and I would like to hear the Minister explain a little bit as to why it’s been framed in that particular way.

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. The member expresses a hope that some good may be obtained. I hope not to disappoint her. Covering a number of different questions that have been raised by various members around the Chamber, in the committee, I start with, I think, the same member’s question around the levy and observe that different classes of providers could include distinguishing between providers by population size, but that is detail that yet could be provided in the regulation. In that sense, of course, the purpose of passing this primary legislation isn’t the last word, so I think that’s commendable that she raised it. That’s an important detail that needs to be worked through in a secondary legislation kind of way.

As to the Hon David Parker’s question around what might be described as mixing up the role of regulators, the Resource Management Act will continue to set regulatory standards for waste-water discharges, whereas the economic regulator will consider the quality standards that councils must adhere to when looking at revenue sufficiency and investment choices, so giving them those mechanisms to be able to provide appropriate settings from an economic point of view. And, of course, there’s a link between the environment and the economy, when we’re talking about water usage, to the extent that, of course, we want to minimise water wastage so leaks can be found most efficiently. One efficient mechanism for that is by having people charged for the use of water and, thus, incentivised to notice when there are shortfalls in the pipeline infrastructure and so on.

As to questions around pecuniary penalties and offences, I’m advised—and I’m sure rightly—that this approach is consistent with that taken in the Commerce Act.

As for the questions around levy making, a subject dear to the heart of everyone who is currently in or has previously been a member of the Regulations Review Committee, what’s in the bill—

Ryan Hamilton: Great committee.

Hon CHRIS PENK: It is a great committee. Thank you, Mr Hamilton of Hamilton. I sound like I’ve got a stutter, don’t I? I just had to give you that shout-out. So what’s in the bill is a standard approach to regulations that relate to levy making. They would be developed, of course, through standard Order in Council process, and the details of those would need to be developed and set out as part of that process and be, of course, consistent with the general rules around levy making such that they, for want of a better phrase, need to relate to the work that’s been undertaken for the benefit of those levied in that particular way on a narrow set of guidelines and not by way of a general revenue raising or slush fund.

The member Rachel Brooking, the Hon Rachel Brooking, asked, I understand—I think, prior to my time in this particular position—a question around the subject of how the piece of legislation is helping councils. I would simply point out, relying on the handwriting of someone who’s got much better handwriting than me happily, economic regulation is critical to supporting councils to become more efficient and invest in their infrastructure. This will include information disclosure, and I heard some comments on that in my time in the Chamber as part of this committee, helping councils to be more transparent about how much revenue is required to cover costs and investment choices.

Of course, in the context of paying for water infrastructure that is obviously needed, ratepayers need to understand that that is important work that should be undertaken by their council. They will have the ability to fund that in a transparent way, rather than having those costs buried in a more general rating burden. Of course, the effect of not highlighting the costs associated with providing water infrastructure, I think historically has been that many local councils and territorial authorities have probably avoided making such investments, because they’re perhaps not as interesting politically as other types of infrastructure on which a ribbon can be cut and so forth. So that’s my very comprehensive answer to that question.

As for pecuniary penalties, again, this is consistent with the approach taken in the Commerce Act.

As for that difference between clauses 32 and 33, they are separated into the purpose of the subpart and who it applies to—clause 32 being the purpose and clause 33 to whom it applies.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Can I, before I take the next call, just say we are starting to see a bit of repetition, so I’m just looking for new material.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. I do apologise for sort of jumping around a little bit in terms of Subpart 3. There is one particular part in clause 32 that I would like to address that my colleagues have not previously addressed. I also want to, first, apologise to the Hon Rachel Brooking; I forgot to use your honorifics before. This is to do with clause 32(2), and I want to specifically focus on the words “produced in competitive markets”. Also, thank you to the Minister in the chair for your clear and concise responses to the questions before.

Now, clause 32(2)(c) has been mentioned, but subclause (2) itself has not been, in the context of “competitive markets”, as well as when you are reading it in line with subclause (1)(a), which is “to promote the long-term benefit of consumers”. I want to check with the Minister, who, obviously, has been providing clear and concise answers: what is, then, prioritised here? Would being “consistent with outcomes produced in competitive markets” take priority over the benefit to consumers?

The reason I mention this is because when we’re looking at subclause (2), although it’s in reference to subclause (1)(a)—and you list additional subclauses beyond this—but the fact that “competitive markets” has been put into a higher prioritised clause implies that it takes priority over other areas, such as what is mentioned in (a) to (c). If “outcomes produced in competitive markets” takes priority over any subsequent clauses—i.e., particularly around the “benefits to consumers”—then, what would the compromise be when a water service provider, when the entity, would then go, “Look, due to competitive markets, we need to increase in terms of prices, as opposed to lowering, as in subclause (2)(b).”

So I wanted to check, with “competitive markets”, can they then say, “Due to that, we can’t do this.”—as in, “We can’t provide cleaner water, we can’t provide sufficient water because we are in a competitive market.” I’m just really curious as to why that is in there in the first place. Thank you.

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction): Thank you, Madam Chair. We don’t see the principles of establishing a “competitive market” and “benefit to consumers” as being mutually exclusive. Because they’re consistent, we think it’s a moot point as to which would prevail in the event of a conflict, and, therefore, the relative priority is an interesting sort of academic question, but, with all due respect, I don’t think there’s any undermining of either of those priorities or tasks within the legislation.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you, Madam Chair. Honorific included as well, thank you for that. We spent a bit of time on 32 and on 32(3)— 

Catherine Wedd: Repetition! Very repetitive.

Hon Dr Deborah Russell: Lots of subparts.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: There are lots of different words in these clauses. One of these different words is that it relates to competition of water services. One of the water services is defined as stormwater, so the question is: how does competition relate to stormwater? I’m interested in the Minister’s answer. I see that he is nodding there, and I thank the Minister for answering the questions—it’s very helpful, of course, for the Hansard. So thank you for doing that.

I wonder, in his previous answer to the question about the pecuniary penalties being $5 million for a council saying that it comes from the commerce legislation, has there been thought about the fact that this will only apply to councils or council-controlled organisations? So is that right to shift over from commerce legislation for giant companies—$5 million might be an appropriate penalty, but a council is a public entity; it’s ratepayer money. How is $5 million appropriate for that? If he could give an answer on that, that would be useful as well.

Finally, I just note that the Minister is answering questions, which is very good, so I’ll be very short. The Hon Dr Duncan Webb asked a question that has not been answered yet, and that was a point on councils that are not contiguous to each other. What happens to those councils? This was more in Subpart 2, but I would be very interested to hear an answer on that. I know that the officials were here when that question was asked. Thank you.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you, Madam Chair. This is my first opportunity to take a call on this part. As the Opposition spokesperson for commerce and consumer affairs, I am delighted to open up a new line of inquiry with the Minister about the Commerce Commission’s powers that are set out in this part. I’ll just draw the committee’s attention to the first of those clauses which gives effect to the Commerce Act 1986, which is clause 40 in this part. I want to ask the Minister, first, the advice that the Minister received in granting the Commerce Commission these extra powers—extra to those that it would otherwise have under the Commerce Act.

The second question in line with that is really about the role of the Commerce Commission here, because at various stages which this law has been progressing through this House, there has been consideration given, in Parliament and in the Beehive and out in the wider infrastructure sector, about whether the Commerce Commission is the correct regulator for infrastructure. In various sectors of our infrastructure builds, we have a mix of public ownership and private ownership. In some situations, the Commerce Commission is the regulator of infrastructure providers who have a weighted assets return ratio on their infrastructure, and that’s how they are primarily regulated in their law—say, for example, the three regulated airports which come under the Commerce Commission’s purview.

I’m asking because under clause 40 of this part, the Minister is introducing new powers for the Commerce Commission to, essentially, investigate situations where it does not have enough information to perform a regulatory role, but those powers are different to the way that it regulates, say, the regulated airports of which it is the infrastructure regulator. So those are the two questions that I’ll open up this line of questions with the Minister for.

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

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I am still getting new material, so I will go back to the Hon Ginny Andersen.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): I’ve got a question for the Minister in relation to new section 38A which specifically relates to commercially sensitive information. This is a particularly sensitive issue because many of our councils around New Zealand probably don’t know the full extent of some of the investment required to get water infrastructure up to the standard needed to even last over the next few years. So, of course, there’s going to be numerous instances where there is potentially quite commercially sensitive information.

I’m quite interested in understanding how that balance is made between enabling ratepayers to have all of the information they need to know what’s happening balanced with whatever is perceived as being commercially sensitive. Councils have made numerous decisions over the years and some of those have been incredibly difficult. When I think back in my own area in the Hutt Valley, you know, significant money was spent on a new event centre and redoing the town hall, and even subsidising a local business owner to build a hotel in the centre of Lower Hutt. People could argue that those ratepayers’ funds probably could have been better spent in securing that we didn’t have sewage pouring up in people’s backyards and that we had adequate infrastructure in place to serve the new builds that were going on across the Hutt Valley.

So, when we go into this and open up the books, my question is: how will we determine what is commercially sensitive? Some of that might just be politically sensitive, and ratepayers might have a very good cause and reason to understand how those decisions were made. Because this is a new section and the commission has the power to exempt disclosure of commercially sensitive information, it would be very useful to understand how that weighing up of interests occurs and also if the commission—which also has the power to revoke that exemption. So, if a determination has been made that information is commercially sensitive and not made available, what is the cause for a local interest group or other group of people who are lobbying to then go to the commission and request for that exemption to be revoked? I’d be really interested to hear the Minister’s views on that.

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction): Thank you Madam Chair. Taking the last point first from the Hon Ginny Andersen, the question around commercially sensitive information, I think the member identifies what is always a weighing exercise between the imperatives of commercially sensitive information being protected in the interests of encouraging enterprise in a way that’s appropriate while, at the same time, recognising the public interest in the disclosure of information. To argue against an exemption or to appeal against it—I imagine that usual avenues would be available for that purpose.

As for the question of stormwater and competition asked by the Hon Rachel Brooking, it seems to me that with the exercise of information disclosure, we have the opportunity to have maximum transparency, including for the purpose of ensuring that the efficient systems are in place, which include, you know, therefore, incentivising the innovation and investment in the improving of efficiency of delivery of stormwater services—so competition in a pretty broad sense, I suppose, but nevertheless one that leads inexorably to the most efficient outcome in the way that we understand competition well in some manner of market.

As for the powers of the Commerce Commission, combining points made by Arena Williams, but also again the Hon Rachel Brooking, I point out that Rachel Brooking has identified a maximum penalty. It wouldn’t be necessarily that the full weight of that dollar amount would be brought to bear against a territorial authority, having not met its obligations. We think that that maximum amount is set at the appropriate level because, of course, the penalties go to conduct. It’s their relevance to incentivise right behaviour, perhaps in more of a stick than a carrot kind of way, but nevertheless incentivising the behaviour of the entity, rather than the nature of the entity being public or private that is relevant.

In terms of whether those powers are additional to those in the Commerce Act, as Arena Williams notes, they are, and we think that’s appropriate, because we want to provide maximum ability for the mechanisms in the Act to be enforceable, and we think it’s appropriate for the provision of water services on behalf of the ratepayers and citizens of the country.

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): Thank you, Madam Chair. I would just like to ask about clause 38. I’d like to know about the actual provision that relates to the Commerce Commission itself in terms of that information. Under subclause (3), it says that it’s specified that the “entity provides goods or services that are not incidental to or related to delivering water services”. Can the Minister tell me when that would be something that the Commerce Commission would want to do and why they would want to look at that information? Also, whether that information might be looked at even if it is commercially sensitive, because, from what I understand under this clause, it’s being used by the commission itself for its own purpose, rather than simply to pass on to somebody in terms of disclosure. Will they be looking at information that is perhaps commercially sensitive because they’re a trusted entity to do that? What sort of information beyond that related to water services would be relevant to the inquiries that they’ve made? Thank you.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. We’re still working our way through Subpart 3 of Part 2, and I’ve just noticed, really, that we’ve done a lot of talking around the Commerce Commission’s powers and levies and so on, but we haven’t really talked about the actual information that has to be supplied. We haven’t paid a lot of—in fact, we’ve paid no—attention to clause 37 at all and the actual information that a water services entity can be required—

Hon Rachel Brooking: Are you going to fix that problem?

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: —to hand over to the Commerce Commission. And, yes, thank you, the Hon Rachel Brooking, I am going to fix that problem. I looked through the list of information that’s going to be required. It looks pretty standard, but there is some stuff that I would like to clarify. It should only take one call or maybe a little bit of a second one. We’ll see how we go.

Look, the first one for the Minister is clause 37(3)(a) where, obviously, it says, well, “financial statements”. The obvious question here is: are these audited financial statements? I’m assuming that there would have been some audit process and perhaps that—it would be interesting to know if they are going to be audited financial statements. That might be quite relevant when it comes to the projected financial statements as well, because it’s not just financial statements that are required but also projected financial statements. Now, they would need to be subject to some kind of testing, some kind of review, to ensure that they are fair and accurate financial statements. I’d be interested to know if that’s sufficiently well specified, just by saying “financial statements” and “projected financial statements”, or whether that particular phrasing gives sufficient scope to the Commerce Commission to say, “Actually, they need to be audited financials.” I’m sure that’s a very straightforward question, but maybe it does need to be specified in the legislation itself. Yes, I could do that too, Minister. So that was the first question I wanted a little bit of clarification on.

Now, running down the list, some of those things will just be subject again to audited statements like asset values and valuation reports, or the asset values would again come through financials valuation reports, so there’ll be registered values and so on. Some of those are quite straightforward. But then, going to subclause (3)(e), “transactions with related parties:”—now, that’s a fairly obvious one that we’d want disclosure on. What would be interesting to know there is which standard are we using for measuring those related parties? We know there are lots of different related party rules through lots of legislation. There will be a specific set of rules that apply to this definition of “related parties”. It would just be good to get an understanding, for a determination or something like that, of whether it’s some particular standard that’s being referred to there for the related parties and what entities that might entail. I can imagine, for a water services entity, it might be something like the relevant regional council or the relevant territorial authority, but what other related parties might be involved there as well—and, of course, the transactions with them?

This one I want to talk about a little bit is something which I’m sure will appeal to the Minister in the chair, knowing as I do that he does enjoy words and appalling puns, really. That was a compliment, Minister, a compliment.

Hon Rachel Brooking: Dad jokes.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: Dad jokes, the “Minister of Dad Jokes”.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): That’s not disorderly!

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: Clause 37(3)(i): the word “quality” is puzzling me. It says, “quality performance measures and statistics:” Now, as someone who plays around with ambiguity and words myself, does this mean “measures of performance quality and statistics”, or does it mean “performance measures that are quality performance measures, because they are high quality, and statistics of high quality”?

Frankly, if I was writing this piece of legislation, I would just clarify that a little, because in the phrase “quality performance measures”, that adjective “quality” could apply to the “performance measures”.

Hon Chris Penk: Yeah.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: Yeah, the Minister gets it. I knew that the Minister would get the particular little wrinkle there, but I want to hear his response on this. And if he can work in a pun or two, that would be interesting. I think there is a simple solution there, and perhaps I might actually put it in an Amendment Paper, but I have to write it very quickly, of course, but “statistics and quality performance measures” or—[Bell rung]

Hon Members: Mr Chair! Mr Chair!

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: Mr Chair, I have one more point, and it will be brief.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): One more point. Hon Deborah Russell, you may continue while the Minister the Hon Simeon Brown settles down.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: I will. I’ll leave that “quality performance measures and statistics” alone now. I do want to go to just one other subclause in clause 37. That’s subclause (5), and it says, “A determination may … (a) require disclosed information, … to be verified by statutory declaration:”.

Now, that’s quite interesting. That’s quite a high level of affirming that information is correct. I guess it’s a little bit akin to having audited financial statements or so on. It’s presumably something which the Commerce Commission uses reasonably regularly, saying that some information has to be verified by a statutory declaration. That caught my eye, and I wondered why it requires a statutory declaration for information that is to be disclosed by a water services entity. It seems like quite a high standard of verification, but I’m sure there will be a reason for that.

So that is a series of questions around the actual content of the determinations, and I’m sure that the Minister will have some answers for them.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): I’m just considering at the moment, all members that are standing up. I’ve been watching this debate for some time. There will need to be some quite new information and new lines of questioning here. It has been going for some time, this Part 2.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you, Mr Chair. The new question that I put to the Minister in the chair previously is: should the Commerce Commission have these new powers introduced by clause 40? That was not answered by the Minister. The question is: given that the Government has said—and we accept this on our side; it’s not what we would have done—that a regulator other than the new regulator which Labour have proposed was required and it’s giving it new powers in clause 40, why isn’t that regulator the Infrastructure Commission?

Mr Chair, this is a brand new line of questions, which I was trying to get to with the Minister, because where the Government has proposed new powers, in clause 40, unlike powers which have been given to the Commerce Commission before, these are more like powers which would be appropriate with an infrastructure regulator. I gave the Minister the example of the regulated airports which do not fit within the Commerce Commission’s model easily, and we have now 20 years to look back at how that has been applied by the Commerce Commission, and has been criticised and has been recently very roundly criticised by the two parties which are subject to that regulation.

I want to give the Minister some context around this, because what is, essentially, being proposed here in clause 40 (d) to (f) are new powers for the commission to get an external consultant or an external body to tell the Commerce Commission what regulation is required. So instead of giving an infrastructure expert the power to regulate directly—like the Infrastructure Commission—the Commerce Commission is being granted powers here, particularly at (d)(ii) and (e)(ii), to ask a water services provider to get an engineer to tell the Commerce Commission what it needs to know.

What I’m putting to the Minister here is: what advice has he received that the Commerce Commission is the right regulator here when he has other options? The Infrastructure Commission itself said, in its recent report about water services, that waste-water, water, and stormwater sectors should be reformed by, including, (a) implementing performance-based economic regulation and water quality regulation to ensure that water providers are incentivised to drive efficiency and deliver excellent customer service; and (b) ensure there is a clear link between the cost of providing water services and the prices that are charged to users. This is core business for the Infrastructure Commission.

What I’m asking here is: what has the Minister had, in terms of expert advice, about why the Commerce Commission is the better regulator here than that kind of body, which has been active in providing advice for the public about what sort of regulation is required? Particularly, I draw the committee’s attention to the new powers at clause 40(1)(f), where it provides for, in legislation, a requirement that a water services provider would ascertain the expert opinion of a third party, because that acknowledges that the Commerce Commission does not have this kind of advice-giving power in its core remit and would be dependent on infrastructure experts, because that is not what the Commerce Commission currently does.

Just in the time available to me, I’d also like to raise a question around clause 35(8), which is related to that part in terms of the new powers of clause 40, because determinations made by the commission will be, essentially, secondary legislation. It’s also an unusual power for the commission to have when it is giving determinations about the kinds of advice that it will receive. If you look at clause 35(2) and (3), that determination can also relate to all of the entities at once, which would be a more normal power under secondary legislation, or one particular entity, and that would be to elevate that opinion as if it were binding to one particular entity, and this is an unusual secondary legislative power. It might be compared, say, to the IRD’s power to make binding recommendations, but those are not instruments of secondary legislation.

So I want the Minister to confirm for the committee that that’s the intention here, which would be unusual, and whether he can provide us with some comfort about whether there are any other examples of regulators like the Commerce Commission having that kind of power.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’ll just make this really short, because the previous Minister has been very concise in terms of their responses. This is in relation to clause 35(2), specifically—which hasn’t been mentioned—in relation to clause 37.

Looking at “The Commission must consult interested parties”, when we’re looking at the content under clause 37 and we’re looking at subclause (3)(f), “financial and non-financial performance measures”—and particularly non-financial performance measures—could I just get clarification from the Minister that that means the interested party would also include members of the public? The reason I mention that is because non-financial measures specifically may affect or may be of interest to members of the public. To give a few examples: things like water quality, water security—I’m not an expert on this, but, potentially, stormwater drainage speed.

So just a very short response from the Minister on whether interested parties would include the public. Thank you.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): Mr Chair, we have done a lot of work on this section. I do just want to draw to the Minister’s attention one final sort of set of issues here and it’s to do with the penalties that can be imposed. Now, they are quite significant if water services entities fail to supply the information that’s required, and so on. We’re talking up to $5 million. We’ve already had quite a discussion about the extent to which water services entities perhaps—well, we know that we’re going to be looking for alternative sources of funding. These are not rich entities at the moment.

I’m wondering, and it’s something I’ve had in mind ever since we started working through this bill, in terms of monitoring the public’s knowledge of what is going on, we’ve got the penalties that can be imposed by the Commerce Commission, but there’s a whole lot of information that can be disclosed and that the commission can have a look at. If we look at clause 40(1)(b), the commission can investigate water services entities, including “(i) how effectively and efficiently a provider of water services is delivering water services:”, and so on. Now, what we’ve already seen was the way that the Commerce Commission does a lot of work. We’ve just seen with the banking report that’s come out today, that a chunk of it is more or less, I suppose, what we’d call a name and shame strategy. We’re just revealing the practices that are going on.

I guess what I’m interested in, Minister, is the extent to which we are relying on water services entities being held to account by the Commerce Commission. There’s sort of been a sliding scale, if you like, of ways for which water services entities can be held to account, and whether the first level of a water service entity being held to account is based around information that is disclosed so that the public understand what is going on. Now, we know an issue right across the country is getting people to engage with local councils and understand what local councils are doing. Nevertheless, Minister, isn’t this really part of what we’re trying to do here—is to get a little bit more clarity, a little bit more transparency, and a little bit more capacity for ordinary members of the public to shame a water service entity into doing its job properly? Thank you.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): A brief call for the Minister to close off that line of questioning around whether the Commerce Commission is the right regulator. I am disappointed that the Minister hasn’t engaged with those points, but I want to ask him whether clause 40 is the clause which is intended to clarify the interface between water services entities and the developer finance water infrastructure provided under the Infrastructure Funding and Financing Act, which is an intent which has been stated around giving these extra powers to the Commerce Commission. Is that to be found in clause 40(1)(d) or (e)?

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Local Government): There’s been a number of questions in relation to these things. The Hon Deborah Russell has been repeating the question around penalties that’s already been addressed. Penalties represent an upper limit.

In relation to determinations being secondary legislation, I’m advised this is consistent with the commissioner’s powers in other regulated sectors.

In relation to the member Arena Williams’ question around the Commerce Commission, the Commerce Commission is well practised in using these tools and the Infrastructure Commission does not have the experience in economic regulation.

In relation to the question of clause 37(3)—is it broad enough?—this is a list similar to requirements under the Commerce Act.

Dr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula): 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 48

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14.

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 2 set out on Amendment Paper 65 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 68

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

Noes 48

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14.

Amendments agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Lan Pham’s amendments to clause 8 set out on Amendment Paper 70 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 48

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14.

Noes 68

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

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Lan Pham’s amendments to clause 8A set out on Amendment Paper 66 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 48

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14.

Noes 68

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

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Rachel Boyack’s tabled amendment to clause 11 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 48

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Lan Pham’s amendments to clauses 11 and 13 set out on Amendment Paper 68 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 48

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14.

Noes 68

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

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Lan Pham’s amendment to clause 16 set out on Amendment Paper 67 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 48

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14.

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 2 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 68

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

Noes 48

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14.

Part 2 as amended agreed to.

Part 3 Establishing water services council-controlled organisations and joint local government arrangements

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Members, we come now to Part 3. This is the debate on clauses 49 to 59, “Establishing water services council-controlled organisations and joint local government arrangements”. The question is that Part 3 stand part.

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Local Government): Thank you, Mr Chair. The purpose of this part is to support councils in terms of setting up water service council-controlled organisations and joint local government arrangements as part of our Local Water Done Well approach. By supporting councils to set up joint organisations between councils, there’s a faster consultation, a streamlined consultation process that’s been put in place. It is about making that process easier and more efficient for local government.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): Thank you to the Minister, the Hon Simeon Brown, for that brief but nevertheless useful introduction to this part. It’s an interesting part because what it does, in some of the clauses, is set up alternative requirements for consultation. Now, there’s a whole lot of consultation requirements embedded in the Local Government Act 2002, and they’re designed to be there to make sure that local people do get a say in what’s going on locally. They’ve been around for a long time; they’re pretty tried and tested. I guess local governments spend a lot of time consulting, and for good reason, but what this part does is actually set out alternative consultation and decision-making requirements.

Part of that is obviously because, where you’ve got two or more existing local government entities joining together in order to provide a water services entity, that’s going to have a different decision-making structure, and there are going to be needs to do that. But the interesting bit, to me, is the alternative consultation processes, and it begs the question: what is wrong with the existing consultation processes within local government? Why did there need to be an alternative process instead of just the standard process that local bodies are already well versed in using? What’s the particular need either to shortcut it—because I notice that in clause 52(2) a territorial authority is only required to take consultation once. It means that consultation is being reduced for the setting up of the water services entities. That’s interesting, because that’s a reduction in democratic participation, and we know that a lot of what this Government has talked about has been the need for bottom-up organisation, and it’s been the need for localism—for decisions to be taken at the most local level possible—but this alternative consultation seems to run against that.

I’m taking it that there is good reason for doing it this way, but I think we owe it to the citizens of New Zealand and to the ratepayers of New Zealand, to those who will be having to manage the setting up of these water services entities, as to why democratic participation is being reduced. Not at this level. We’ve had our democratic participation here, through the standard parliamentary processes and the select committee processes, shortish though they were, but they were still there. What also needs to happen—because we are regulating for local government areas. Why is democratic participation being reduced at that level? It will certainly make things easier for local government entities, and it will make things easier as these water services entities are being set up, but is that appropriate?

So I would like to hear from the Minister not just what this part of the bill does—we know that—I want to know why this bill has been set up in this fashion. I want to hear the Minister’s reasons for going down this path of reducing democratic accountability.

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Local Government): Thank you, Mr Chair. The member the Hon Dr Deborah Russell may wish to look at clause 52(3), which says, “Despite subsection (2), a territorial authority may decide to undertake further consultation before making the decision.” There is no limit. We’re not putting any limits on what territorial authorities may wish to do.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): Look, that’s a “may”—that’s a “may”—and local government entities may well take that path, and they could engage in more consultation. The fact is that by saying consultation is only done once, it does reduce local participation. In fact, a local government entity could overrule what the people in the area that it administers want. They may want more than one round of consultation, but a local government entity could rely on clause 52(2) and say it’s only required to do it once and just leave it at that. It does create a capacity here for democratic participation to be reduced, and to be reduced by local government entities. Saying that another clause has a “may” doesn’t answer that question as to why reduce the capacity for democratic participation. I would really like the Minister to actually address that issue instead of just brushing it off.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you, Mr Chair. In the previous part, I had a question for the Minister around the use of the Infrastructure Funding and Financing Act 2020 and the arrangement for the application of those funding and financing rules also apply to this part. In Part 3, the purpose, as the Minister has helpfully said, it sets up the decision-making requirements that will apply to territorial authorities when making decisions under this part, but I want to ask him whether it is this part which does not deal specifically with councils who are proposing to use the levy under the Infrastructure Funding and Financing Act 2020 and whether that, in fact, then means that an arrangement where they do propose to use it can be brought into this part.

I’m asking that question because there are specific references right throughout Part 3 of the Minister’s bill before the committee today on the inserted words “a joint local government arrangement under section 137 of the [Local Government Act 2002]”, and section 137 of the original Act specifically sets out a subsection—it’s subsection (4A)—which says that “An arrangement entered into by a local government organisation is not a joint arrangement [if they are] proposing the use of a levy under the Infrastructure Funding and Financing Act 2020 to support the construction of eligible infrastructure:” only for that reason. I want to ask him whether that is intended to also apply to Part 3 in his proposed bill, or whether it only applies to joint local government arrangements and so, therefore, not to water services council-controlled organisations.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Thank you very much, Mr Chair; I appreciate that. My question to the Minister refers to Part 3, clause 58, the “Exemption from cost-effectiveness review”. I found this really interesting, because, of course, what the Minister has said throughout is he claims that the rationale behind these changes is around cost-effectiveness. He has made many claims in justifying this approach, the most recent of which was made just the other day during the announcement around the changes to local government financing, increasing the debt caps. He’s, basically, said that there does not need to be as much work done as was outlined by the Department of Internal Affairs in the previous modelling, which stated that it was up to $185 billion.

I note that in the regulatory impact statement (RIS) for this, it outlines that some alternative modelling has been done, but for the purposes of the RIS, they are working on the basis of at least $120 billion, which, of course, was always the figure—$120 billion up to $185 billion, which is interesting because, during the announcement for the funding of this, where they claimed that it was going to be more cost-effective, they were working on the basis in their claim that it would be significantly less than that. So there’s a discrepancy there between the claims made in the announcement and the figures that the RIS is based on—the figures provided by the department.

Now, when you have serious questions around this, that they are making claims around cost-effectiveness based on an assumption that significantly lower levels of investment will be required, and yet this clause exempts councils from a cost-effectiveness review—now, the Minister may stand up and he may say, “Oh, well, they still can. They don’t have to, but they still might.” But what we’ve already seen under the changes made by this Government is it’s resulting in the potential for a perverse outcome. And if you look at Māori wards, it’s the perfect example. It’s very similar to what I fear may come from what’s proposed in this clause.

Councils all around the country are currently considering whether or not to hold a referendum on whether to keep Māori wards or whether to scrap them. I know from councils that I’ve spoken to that their council actually, obviously, supported the idea of Māori wards, but now they are faced with the reality of voting for a referendum and, therefore, imposing a cost on their ratepayers, and so they’re thinking about scrapping it altogether—a perverse outcome. It’s totally against the wishes of their community and totally against the views of the councillors, but because they simply can’t afford it, they’re thinking about getting rid of it. So why would a council voluntarily do something that will use resources and impose further work on their workers, on their officials, if they don’t have to?

I accept that I am anticipating that that is the Minister’s response, but given it was a response to a pretty reasonable question from Dr Deborah Russell, I’m anticipating that it would likely be that. Let’s just assume that it’s just not going to happen. Why would councils be exempt from a cost-effectiveness review when that is the entire rationale behind this proposal? Perhaps it’s because, in doing so, it might reveal to those councils and the ratepayers that it is actually not all that cost-effective after all. I say that because, subsequent to the announcement that was made last week about financing changes, Standard & Poor’s, the credit rating agency—the agency which has assessed this work and assessed alternative proposals for water reform—have said that this is likely going to lead to significant increases in the cost of borrowing, which is of course what we have been saying all along. And that goes to the claim of it being cost-effective, yet again.

When you have a bill here in front of us that the Government claims is going to be cheaper for ratepayers, have not provided any evidence to back that up—they have claimed that there’s going to be a need for significantly less levels of investment, which in itself is a flawed claim, because what they have based that claim on is that it is on council’s long-term plans. The Minister knows that councils haven’t accounted for the 30 years of upgrading and maintaining that is required and was the scope of the original assessment and rationale for water reform in the first place because long-term plans only go out 10 years.

They also made the claim that their figures are more accurate because it was “bottom up”. I think deliberately washing over the fact that the assessment that came to a figure of up to $185 billion was derived from the council’s own numbers themselves, because they had already provided it. But they were required to do so over a 30-year period to give us an accurate assessment. Now, all of a sudden, they’re only looking at figures that come from long-term plans, knowing full well that those figures are 10 years and will not give a true and accurate reflection moving forward. So, if you look at those two things and the fact that Standard & Poor’s have cast serious doubt over affordability of councils, why on earth would the Minister then exempt councils from a cost-effectiveness review?

Now, if you link that question to that which remains unanswered posed by Dr Deborah Russell around consultation, it’s possible that ratepayers will be asked to consider something without the facts, and at one opportunity. It’s possible, under the way that things are written here, that they consult at the start, they then go and carry on and talk to other councils. Yes, they may consult more—they might not because of the additional costs that that would bring to the council—and then, by not having a cost-effectiveness review, not give the people making the decisions or the people who have voted those people in the information that they need, and I want to know why.

I suspect it’s because the numbers don’t add up. They know they don’t add up. This is, ultimately, a political solution to an issue that they created. They want to wash their hands of it, hand it back to councils, and then when it inevitably turns sour, say, “Well, that’s their fault for not sorting themselves out.” And I wonder if that’s the reason why councils are exempt from a cost-effectiveness review, when you consider that this is a massive change to the way local government works, and for some weird reason they’re exempt.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. I actually just want to draw the Minister’s attention around the consultation. We still need to get some clarification from the Minister regarding clause 52(2) around “consultation once” and its relationship with subclause (3) around “may decide to undertake further consultation”.

Now, what I want to talk about, in the context of subclause (4), is when the territorial authority decides to take on the further consultation, I want to check with the Minister what is the rationale that a territorial authority doesn’t need to consider consulting more than once? He says “may”, but then if it does decide to consult more than once, only then they have to consider subclause (4). I would assume it would be a natural and reasonable order for a territorial authority to first take into consideration what is considered in subclause (4) before deciding if the consultation is sufficient.

I particularly want to draw attention to what it says in subclause (4)(a), which is “the requirement in section 78(1) of the [Local Government Act]”, which is around the need and understanding of hearing from the community views. Section 78(1) of the Local Government Act states “A local authority must, in the course of its decision-making process in relation to a matter, give consideration to the views and preferences of persons likely to be affected by, or to have an interest in, the matter.” I would assume that that would have been the logical order first—that they would consult and they would go, “On balance, based on subclause (4), it’s not sufficient. Let’s consult again.” As opposed to, “We’ll consult once. We don’t need to do it again, but if we do want to do it, let’s consider have we thought about all of the views?”

I also want to mention this in the context of the Amendment Paper 65 that has been put forward by the Minister, where the Minister has made changes to subclause (2) and has created two separate sections of that—(2) and (2A). Now, (2A) is particularly interesting, where it says, “A territorial authority that makes a decision described in subsection (1)(a)”—i.e., a water services council-controlled organisation—“is not required to undertake any further consultation before making a decision described in subsection (1)(b).” In terms of the wording, I also want to get clarification from the Minister that it is not to do with a water service council-controlled organisation transitioning into a joint local government arrangement under section 137 of the Local Government Act. Surely, as we see in clause 54(1)(e), “if the proposal involves establishing, joining, or amending … or a joint local government arrangement” that does require consultation because it’s one of the required pieces of information for consultation.

I want to get two clarifications from the Minister. One of them is what is the rationale to decide for a territorial authority to not decide to further consult in the context of clause 52(4), as opposed to consider clause 52(4) first before making a decision whether they need further consultation? Based on the Amendment Paper that the Minister has put forward, and this is Amendment Paper 65, changes to clause 52(2), and also specifically (2A), that it is not implying that a water services council-controlled organisation transitioning into joint control doesn’t require any further consultation which would then contradict clause 54(1)(e)?

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Local Government): Thank you, Mr Chair. The questions in relation to consultation can be answered, as this clarifies that consultation is only required once. Councils are currently unsure about how much consultation is required—the Local Government Act isn’t clear about this. There are no specific requirements in the Local Government Act 2002 about how many times consultation must occur. Councils have discretion about this, and so this is a clarification. I think that answers most of the questions that have been asked in relation to consultation.

In relation to the Hon Kieran McAnulty’s question in regards to the exemption to the cost-effectiveness review, the elements that would be requiring the cost-effectiveness review are being already undertaken as part of the water service delivery plan.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): Look, I’d just like to thank the Minister for that answer, because that does really clarify why you only have that requirement to only do it once with the substantive reason behind it. That’s very, very helpful, thank you, Minister, and I’m sure that will help in this process.

There’s an interesting thing about this bill in that two local entities, if you like, kind of have their own separate bits of the bill. Now, we’ll be coming in due course to Part 4, which deals with Watercare up in Auckland, and so, obviously, we’ll discuss that in detail then. But the interesting thing is that in Part 3 of the bill we’ve got clause 49A, which says that a reference to a territorial authority includes Greater Wellington Regional Council, and carrying on through the part there are references to Greater Wellington Regional Council and what looks like the making of special rules for Greater Wellington Regional Council.

Now, again, there’ll be a good reason for that as to why that might not fit under the structure of just the other territorial authorities in the legislation. I think, for the benefit of Wellington ratepayers, for the benefit of the entities that don’t have their own special rules, it would be good to hear from the Minister why there is this separate set of rules for Greater Wellington Regional Council.

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Local Government): I’ve answered this question in a previous part. Greater Wellington Regional Council is the only regional council which is a water supplier and so, therefore, is covered; all other regional councils are not.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you, Mr Chair. A couple of, really, clarification questions. The first one relates to this consultation discussion that we’ve been having, and the Minister of Local Government has told us that the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) is unclear as to how much balancing councils have to do with consultation, so the purpose of these changes are to make it clear that it only has to be once—the mandatory is once only. I was wondering if the Minister is also thinking, then, of amending the LGA to make it clear for all consultations under that Act.

I also wanted to go to back to clause 49, which is the purpose of the part, Part 3, “Establishing water services council-controlled organisations and joint local government arrangements”. Amendment Paper (AP) 65 in the Minister’s name, which my colleague referred to, amends clause 49. Basically, the main change seems to be that the wording in the bill, as we have it reported back from the Finance and Expenditure Committee, is that on consultation—well, it says, “(a) to set out alternative consultation and decision-making requirements that territorial authorities can use”—so that’s a “can”. Then, in the AP, it changes the wording to specify “may” at clause 49(a)(i), and then “must” at paragraphs (ii) and (iii). So while the wording was less specific, less directive, in the version of the bill we’ve got, it becomes clearer in the Amendment Paper. I’m wondering if the Minister can comment on why that change is made—and if it is, just to be very clear about when things must happen and when things may happen.

Also, another point, the Hon Kieran McAnulty was talking about clause 58 and the exemption from the cost-effectiveness review. The Minister’s, in part, answered that question, but then we have, at clause 59, titled “Repeal of section 58”: “Section 58 and this section are repealed on the date that is five years after the section comes into force.” So my question is, really: is the intent of this that section 17A of the Local Government Act that requires that cost-benefit analysis—does that then come into being, or is the idea that the new arrangements will be so far through by that stage that they won’t need a review anyway? It’s just pointless talking about reviews, because you imagine that all the different bodies will be established by that point. So the question there is around the purpose of clause 59 and why it repeals section 58, in that relationship to section 17A of the Local Government Act.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you, Mr Chair. A simple question following on from my previous question to the Minister of Local Government, which I don’t believe was answered. This question is: do the provisions that currently exist in the Local Government Act, section 137, still apply to the new entity—well, the entities that would be otherwise covered by the Minister’s proposals in Part 4 of this Act?

With specific reference, I want him to answer for the committee whether a water entity that comes under these new provisions would still continue to be legally responsible for providing the water services and retain control over the following matters: (1) the pricing of water services; and (2) the development of policy related to water services. I’m asking that specifically because it is set out in section 137 at subsection (4), and it doesn’t appear that those protections necessarily give an effect in what he is proposing here, even though there is an inclusion right throughout his proposed legislation which creates a reference to that section 137. It does read as an either/or—that either these entities will be subject to section 137 in the Local Government Act 2002 or they will be water services council-controlled organisations (WSCCOs) under this new part that he is proposing.

I want to make sure that it’s not his intention to exclude those WSCCOs, which are now provided for in his legislation, from those protections which were envisioned under the Local Government Act 2002.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Thank you very much. A pretty simple question—I appreciated the Minister of Local Government’s response, I just didn’t hear the end of it. We’ve had some issues with that mike before, and I just wonder if he wouldn’t mind just repeating that answer to my question so that will inform my next responses.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. While we wait for the Minister of Local Government’s response, I also have quite a short question. This is to do with this whole section which provides alternative requirements which is stated in clause 50(1). I’m kind of curious: it says it doesn’t need to comply with the Local Government Act, but when we’re looking at clause 54, on information required for consultation, in subclause (3), it talks about what is publicly available.

I just want some clarification from the Minister that, when we’re talking about public availability and the fact that this whole section provides a little carve-out, what is in the Local Government Act that inadvertently is no longer applicable to this section? The one example I can think of here, and the key example, is—considering it isn’t mentioned—what is the requirement around the territorial authorities to give sufficient time to the community, and to the public, when it does use the alternative requirement for consultation? Without looking at anything in the Local Government Act 2002, there’s nothing in clause 54 of this bill, or related clauses in Part 3, that gives any confidence to sufficient time given for the consultation.

If the Minister wouldn’t mind, could he please identify a clause within Part 3 that will give the committee confidence that sufficient time will still need to be given for consultation, particularly as we mentioned that territorial authorities may only need to consult once. Which particular clause talks about duration of consultation? Thank you.

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Local Government): This section is about supporting councils to put in place these entities quickly. It is about ensuring there’s a streamlined process.

In reply to the Hon Rachel Brooking, she asked if the Local Government Act should be amended for all consultation—well, the scope of this bill is on water services, and councils are looking to be able to move quickly. That’s what this does.

In relation to the question about joint local government arrangements under section 137 of the Local Government Act 2002 and Infrastructure Funding and Financing Act, this part of the bill applies to joint local government arrangements relating to water services, and that is the scope, again, here, that we are dealing with.

In answer to the Hon Kieran McAnulty’s question, which was in relation to clause 58, the matters that are covered in the cost-effectiveness review are also covered in the water service delivery plan.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): I’m now a little confused by two things the Minister has said. I had to press before I got an answer as to why territorial authorities were only required to take consultation once. Eventually, after pressing for an answer, I got the response that, in actual fact, some of the consultation requirements in the Local Government Act are unclear. All right, so this was intended to provide a bit of clarity. But in the response given just now about why we had some of these consultation arrangements, the Minister said it was in order to streamline the process for local government entities.

Now, that is a somewhat different answer, so I just want the Minister to clarify—streamlining enterprise: we’re sort of paring it down, we’re making it minimal, we’re making it easy to get through, versus clarifying the requirements of the Local Government Act. I would like the Minister—if he could, please—just to reconcile those two explanations that he’s given, because they do actually pull against each other slightly and I think we deserve a little better than that.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Kia orana, Mr Chair, thank you. I have a few questions for the Minister that do relate to clause 52, around consultation, and also clause 53. My colleague the Hon Dr Deborah Russell has indicated some surprise from the Minister’s response around streamlining. I also heard the Minister’s response to indicate that the reason as to why clause 52 was there was to enable things to happen quickly.

Now, that might be so, but it is still important that local government—which is reflective of all of our communities of interest and certainly in the mighty Manawatū in Palmerston North—

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Great town.

TANGI UTIKERE: Thank you, sir. I’m concerned about that and how that aligns with subclause (2) and (3). What we’ve been hearing in this committee stage is that the Minister is saying, “Well, there is actually only a requirement that councils would be required to undertake consultation once. However, subclause (3) does provide an option for further consultation.” My question to the Minister is: if he is suggesting that the intent is around streamlining this process and enabling things to happen more quickly, does he foreshadow that, actually, subclause (3) is likely, then, to not be engaged by councils? Or is his desire that subclause (3) is not likely to be engaged because it would undermine either the streamlining aspect or, indeed, trying to move at haste?

I wonder whether the Minister has thought about—when it comes to within clause 52(2)—just actually indicating why it can’t just read then that the territorial authority is required to undertake consultation “at least” once? If that was the case, then, actually, it still leaves the next subclause, (3), open to a territorial authority to engage. What we’re hearing the Minister say to the committee is, “Actually, no, the purposes of these changes in this clause is to streamline and to make things happen quickly.” Well, Minister, I’d be interested to hear your thoughts on whether you’re open to actually amending subclause (2) so that it indicates, actually, that, yes, the effect is still the same in that clause, but, actually, consultation would only happen at least once.

My second question is around subclause (4)(c), and this is with regard to the nature and significance of the decision. Now, those involved in local government will know that, from time to time, there is a special process that is engaged, and that is the special consultative process. That’s really where there are significant decisions that are taken by our community decision makers. Such is the significance that there is, effectively, not an additional layer but an additional opportunity.

I’m interested to hear from the Minister: where in this process does the special consultative process sit? I note that there is reference to subclause (5) that indicates that—it does reference the relevant council’s significance and engagement policy, and councils are required to adopt those. But where does the special consultative process actually sit within this whole area of consultation? It might be that that aspect is, in essence, triggered every single time that there is a decision to be taken around the provision of water services. Certainly, in my experience around a council table for more than a decade, when it comes to the delivery and provision and access to water services and other key bits of infrastructure, that absolutely would meet the criteria for engagement of a special consultative process.

Now, I know that there are aspects that lend itself to where a council may actually consult as part of a long-term plan process—and, in those regards, you don’t need to engage the special consultative process—but my question is to the Minister: firstly, why can he not just amend subclause (2) so that it’s actually just indicating that there needs to be consultation but it just needs to happen on “at least one” occasion—which leaves it open to a council to then turn its mind to any further consultation—rather than actually saying, “Well, you need to consult once.”, but his view as Minister is that we need to streamline and quicken this process? That is not going to incentivise councils to turn their mind to subclause (3), which is the intent. I’d be interested in the Minister’s response to those two questions, please.

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Local Government): Thank you, Mr Chair. The point’s been made a number of times around consultation. The legislation is very clear in relation to clarifying that the territorial authority must consult once, but they may decide to undertake further consultation. That is incredibly clear. That is the clarification that councils requested, and that is what is being provided in this legislation.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you, Mr Chair. Well, here it is. I have asked the Minister twice to address questions, to allay the fears of members on this side of the House that his intention here is to make it easier and simpler for councils to privatise their water assets and sell them out of local body ownership without appropriate consultation.

He has answered the questions put by my colleagues, on consultation, but he has not addressed the second leg of his own part, clause 51, which says “decision-making requirements”. The decision-making requirements that he is proposing to change are set out in section 137 of the Local Government Act 2002, and, on those decision-making requirements, which I have asked him to tell New Zealanders that he is not changing, there are three important points here.

One is that councils cannot create new entities under his legislation so that they are not legally responsible anymore for the provision of water services. Under his clause 51, councils can, if they join up with another council, propose that they are no longer responsible for the provision of water services for people in the area because the provisions in section 137 do not apply to them.

The second one is that they are not required to retain control of water pricing, because, if they join up with a buddy down the road, they do not have to be subject to the provisions in section 137, where they must retain public rights to consult on and then be responsible for the pricing of water. So consumers have no guarantees that their councillors and their elected representatives or those that they appoint to council-controlled organisations (CCOs) will be accountable for the pricing of their water services going forward.

The third most important protection set out in that section 137 of the Local Government Act is that currently councils who enter into these relationships are required to retain the ownership of the infrastructure assets that people in their cities and their regions have built up over generations. People back 100 years ago were paying their local council rates to own these water infrastructure assets and there is no requirement under his legislation that they would be retained in council ownership. If you join up with a buddy down the road, you can sell them off, because the provisions under section 137 will not apply to you.

This is a really important point for the Minister to explain, and I have put it to him that the provisions under section 137 read currently like an either/or scenario, and I’d like that—because he has added in the ability for joint local government arrangements to be read as if, in his new legislation, they were CCOs. But we know in this Chamber that CCOs have an added layer of protection. They must act in accordance with the wishes of the governing body. They are accountable to locally elected councillors. They are accountable to the people who allow them to govern their water assets. Under this kind of arrangement, it is easier, even with a sped-up consultative process that the Minister has been answering on, to make decisions which require local people to accept that their water infrastructure assets that they have built up over generations will be sold off if they join one of these special arrangements between councils. I would like the Minister’s answers on that. He has not answered three questions now on it.

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Local Government): I find it ironic that the Opposition has become the defender of wanting to maintain ownership, and welcome them to the party, because that is exactly where the Government is at. That is what this Government is delivering is actually restoring council ownership. Welcome back into the tent. We thank you that you have finally rejected the position that you’ve taken for the last six years.

In terms of clause 51, the “Alternative requirement … (1) This section applies if a territorial authority is deciding whether or not to establish, join, or amend (a) a water services council-controlled organisation; or (b) a joint local government arrangement under section 137 … (2) In the course of that decision-making process, the territorial authority (a) must identify both of the following 2 options (i) remaining with the existing approach for delivering water services; and (ii) joining, forming, or amending (as the case may be) the [water services council-controlled organisation] or the joint local government arrangement”. This bill doesn’t affect what is provided in section 137 of the Local Government Act—that continues, unaffected and unaltered. This is about the consultation requirements, not in relation to the requirements in section 137.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Thank you, Mr Chair. Can I invite the Minister of Local Government to the earlier question that I did pose around the special consultative process and how that relates to matters. I’d be obliged if he was able to do so.

I did signal that I had a question in relation to clause 53, and that’s around the “Alternative requirement: consultation on amendment to [a] long-term plan”. As I’m sure we all know, when a long-term plan is going through a consultation process, it carries a little bit more weight in terms of what it can and can’t do. However, when I read through the suggested change that’s come through from the Finance and Expenditure Committee in that first subclause, it talks about the amendment to a long-term plan for the purpose of establishing, joining, or amending, or for a joint local government arrangement under section 137 of the Local Government Act (LGA), which the Minister himself has just cited. If that is the case, then “the authority is not required to consult on the amendment if”—and then we move on.

Now, my question is: is it possible for a council or an authority to consult, for example, on the establishment of a council-controlled organisation but, through that process, land somewhere else, such as a preference for a joint local government arrangement under section 137? The way that the clause is currently worded, it could be possible for a council to consult in one area if it chooses not to consult in a broad term but actually land in an area there where it may not have consulted. When I read this clause, that is quite permissive, and it wouldn’t require any further consideration of a further form of consultation under subclause (1)(a).

When you look at paragraph (b), Minister, it says that, actually, a council could do that if it was satisfied that the community has a good understanding of the implications of the proposal. Now, if what was being consulted on as a proposal was different to the outcome that the council actually landed on, is it not that that clause then doesn’t require any further consultation that might follow? And then, following on, that, actually, it’s satisfied that it understands its community’s views on the proposal?

Earlier, there has been reference to section 78(1) of the LGA. Now, that is contained specifically in clause 52(4)(a) of this bill. It is referenced there because the council must be satisfied that section 78(1) of the LGA has been met in terms of deciding whether or not to follow any further consultation. That is not referenced when it comes to clause 53(1)(c); it simply states that the council or the authority needs to be “satisfied that it understands its community’s views on the proposal.” So there is an inconsistency here between the two clauses. One is saying that the council needs to turn its mind to section 78(1) under the LGA; clause 53 is saying, well, it doesn’t need to do that—it simply needs to be satisfied.

So my question to the Minister is: why is there an inconsistency between clauses 52 and 53, where section 78(1) of the LGA is engaged in one but it’s not engaged in the other? I think that alongside the suggestion of the possibility of a council consulting on one particular proposal but landing somewhere else, perhaps if the form of consultation is broad, I can understand how that could be fine, but in a circumstance where the council might consult on establishing or joining or amending a council-controlled organisation, as opposed to joining the joint arrangement, I’d be interested in the Minister’s thoughts—well, an answer on both of those, please.

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Local Government): There have been a number of questions in regards to consultation, many of which I have already answered. In relation to the question around special consultative procedures, the special consultative procedure is not required under provisions in the bill. Under the Local Government Act, there are only a few occasions when the special consultative procedure must be used. It is usually up to councils to decide how to consult, using the principles of consultation in section 82 of the Local Government Act 2002.

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

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I have to say that the Minister’s response to the question from Arena Williams was pretty disappointing. Instead of actually allaying the fears that not just this side of the Chamber has but many New Zealanders have around what protections are in place to prevent the privatisation of water services assets, he decided to make a glib political comment.

Let’s get straight to the point. What protections are there in place here? If a council-controlled organisation or alternative arrangement is established and they get into financial difficulty, what is stopping them from selling them off? It is a legitimate fear and it is a fair question. If there are protections in place and if this Government was serious about preventing that happening, it should be pretty easy for the Minister to stand up and address that. If you look at what was in place before this Government repealed it, that was modelled on what was happening in Scotland, which has protections.

Many of the things that this Government is doing, they’ve signalled that they wish to emulate what is happening in England—like housing, for example, with housing associations. We know that that was a disaster and we know that many of the social houses were sold off in England under that model. We also know that, in England, many of their water services were privatised and it has been an absolute disaster for that country and the communities that it services. Either the work hasn’t been done or the charges have been unaffordable, and, of course, that is the thing that we are trying to avoid.

It should be pretty simple. The Minister should be able to just get up and reassure the committee and the people of New Zealand that there are protections here that would prevent them. What I hope he won’t do is stand up and say, “Well, that’s a matter for the councils.”, because quite often in many of the questions that we have posed to this Minister at various committee stages that revolved around this, that has been the response or he’s just chosen not to answer. He’s just sat down and stayed down and thought, “Oh well, eventually time will run out.” He proved to be correct and he hasn’t had to answer those questions.

I hope that he takes this one seriously and doesn’t try and follow what he did with Arena Williams’ question, because there will be a lot of people that would be concerned if there aren’t protections in place. We’ve heard the finance Minister stand up today and yet again hint that they’re going to sell Kiwibank. Well, is this any different? Of course, it’s not actually good enough when the Minister is in the Chamber talking to the bill that’s in front of us now to say, “Oh, well, that would be a matter for the councils.” when he could address it and sort it out in this bill. So that’s my response to that which he gave to Arena Williams.

My next comment is in regard to the response that he gave to me and my question around clause 58. I appreciate that he answered again. I think it was a mix of the mike and what appears to be my rapidly deteriorating hearing—I’ll have to get that sorted out—but we got there eventually. Now, it was interesting that he indicated that councils will be required to do so as part of their delivery plans, but what I found interesting in here—that’s outlined in clause 58—is that it gives a few options as to what would trigger this exemption: “deciding whether or not to establish, join, or amend”—so just as they are; “whether or not to establish, join, or amend a joint local government arrangement under section 137”; or “has [already] established, joined, or amended”—there are two options there. So deciding whether to or not—they might; they might not. They might stay where they are.

Obviously, that’ll be outlined in the plan, but we can all see how this might work. They originally do an assessment, and with the uncertainties around the finances here, there have been credit rating agencies casting doubt over it. There’s serious doubt over their assumptions around the level of work. If councils are working on that basis and they come to a conclusion and that’s included in the delivery plan, but then further light is shone on the situation and further information comes out, they’ve already done that work. They’ve already satisfied that, but they’re exempt from a cost-effectiveness review, and so I think that needs to be clarified. I know my colleague Rachel Brooking mentioned it, but I don’t think it was addressed.

Then we’ve got clause 59. Clause 59 says that all that stuff that we’ve just talked about, “Don’t worry about it. In five years, it’s all good.” Well, if it’s all good in five years, why not now? I don’t quite get it. Why is there an exemption now because it’s included in the delivery plans, but not later, when new information might come out, when circumstances might change, when the leadership of the council and those that are elected to council to assess things and make decisions on behalf of their communities might actually take a different view? You’ve got two scenarios there. You’ve got one where the situation has changed and it looks like, if it’s after five years—or even under section 58—they’ve complied; they don’t have to do another one. Or the situation hasn’t changed but they’ve got a new council with a differing view. They don’t have to do a cost-effectiveness review there, either. There are a few questions here. It just doesn’t quite add up.

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Local Government): The answer to the member’s question around privatisation is that there are protections in place in several sections of the Local Government Act that will continue to apply unaffected. This part of the bill, though, that we are debating today here is about consultation and decision making.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you, Mr Chair—sorry, it’s quite noisy, so I couldn’t hear, either. I’m just really inviting the Minister to answer the questions that have been asked. I note that he answered my rhetorical question before about changing the Local Government Act.

There are two very simple questions to answer, and that is—as the Hon Kieran McAnulty has just referred to—why is clause 59 there and why is this repeal of section 58 needed? Is it a simple temporal issue that in five years’ time, everything will be done, or not, and what happens? Does that mean that councils can’t amend those agreements after five years? A simple question: why is clause 59 there, repealing what will be section 58?

The other question was about the purpose of this part and the amendments that are made in the Minister’s Amendment Paper 65. There are many other amendments in that Amendment Paper that just change words here and there, and it’s difficult for everybody to go through to determine what they mean. But I was asking and inviting the Minister for a simple explanation of what those amendments are for, and if it is, indeed, a clarification of when and where consultation is mandatory and when it is not.

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): 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 48

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14.

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is the Minister’s tabled amendment to clause 49 in Amendment Paper 65 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 68

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

Noes 49

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Tana.

Amendment to the amendments agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 3 set out on Amendment Paper 65 as amended be agreed to.

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

Ayes 68

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

Noes 49

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Tana.

Amendments as amended agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 3 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 68

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

Noes 49

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Tana.

Part 3 as amended agreed to.

Part 4 Watercare Services Limited

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Members, we now come to Part 4. This is the debate on clauses 59A to 98, “Watercare Services Limited”. The question is that Part 4 stand part.

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Local Government): Thank you, Mr Chair. The purpose of this part is to ensure the financial separation of Watercare and Auckland Council, to enable Watercare to be able to provide water services to Auckland in a financially sustainable way. This has been negotiated as part of the deal announced in May between the—

Hon Dr Deborah Russell: Point of order. We just can’t quite hear the Minister, because of the mike. Thank you.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Sorry. I apologise, this has become a recurring theme in relation to this microphone.

Hon Member: For once, we want to hear you and we can’t!

Hon SIMEON BROWN: I know, I know.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Could somebody who controls the mike turn his volume up?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: It’s unfortunate. I will attempt to speak with my question time voice again.

This part was part of the negotiation between Auckland Council and the Government in relation to the Local Water Done Well deal, announced in May, between the mayor and the Prime Minister. It relates to a number of elements of that plan in relation to financial separation, putting in place a Crown monitor, a charter, and in relation to the financial separation.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you, Mr Chair. Starting at the start of Part 4, is clause 59A, “Purposes of this Part”. We read that they are “(a) to promote the long-term benefit of consumers”, etc. What I’m interested in asking the Minister about is, at clause 59A(2)(c), this comment that it “is limited in its ability to extract excessive profits.” This is to do with “(2) … promoting outcomes that are consistent with outcomes produced in competitive markets such that Watercare … (c) is limited in its ability to extract excessive profits.” What I’m interested in—and I’ll come to it in another point as well—is how this relates to stormwater, because, of course, the purpose of this part, in clause 59A(1)(a), is “to promote the long-term benefit of consumers of water services”. As we know, that definition of “water services” includes stormwater. Does this limit “in its ability to extract excessive profits” apply to stormwater, and, if so, how? How does that work? That’s what I’m interested in there.

Then we’ve got, over the page, still on clause 59A, that “(3) This Part relates only to delivering the purpose of this Act under section 3(2)(e).”, which is the section about providing a financially sustainable model for Auckland. That makes sense, but then we go to clause 59B, which is the “Application of this Part”, and it says, “This Part applies to water services provided by Watercare in circumstances if there is”—and these are the words I’m interested in, “if there is”; I presume it means that if there is not, then this part does not apply, which seems a little bit odd. I mean, it is all to do with competition, but if we go back to the purposes of the part, it did seem to be about the long-term benefit of consumers. Clause 59B is saying that it only applies if there is “(a) little or no competition in providing those services; and (b) little or no likelihood of a substantial increase in the level of competition.”

I’d really like some clarification from the Minister about the breadth of this part of the bill. Is it only supposed to be where there is little or no competition? Presumably, again, that would always be around stormwater. I can’t imagine a circumstance where there’d be competition for stormwater, but I’m happy to hear an explanation of how I might be wrong on that and should be more imaginative—or if, in fact, that’s a mistake, and the part applies to water services generally by Watercare and it’s not limited to those areas where there’s no competition. As we’ve heard, the purpose of the part in clause 59A is to promote the long-term benefit of consumers and water services, and then, at subclause (3) there, we’ve got that reference back to the start of the bill, at what will be section 3(2)(e), which is the specific provision around Watercare, which I think is what the Minister was referring to when he was saying that there was this deal done in May with Auckland.

My final question, for now, is: given the Minister’s statements about this as the deal for Auckland, what happens to Northland? Is there any ability for Northland to enter this arrangement or not? Of course, we all know that Northland has a number of councils with very small ratepayer bases that have had huge problems, historically, with water treatment in particular. I am interested in the Minister’s answers on that, and across—really, when answering, it would be very helpful to know what services are being talked about when we’re talking about drinking water, when we’re talking about waste water, and when we’re talking about stormwater. The way this is written, it really seems to be focused on drinking water that you’re charging for water usage—you’ve got your water meters in there. And that’s what already happens, is my understanding, with Watercare—that people are charged for their water use. But “water services” is defined to be much broader than just the drinking water. Drinking water’s very important—I don’t mean “just” in any derogatory way—but so is waste water and so is stormwater.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you, Mr Chair—a confined set of questions to the Minister on clause 62A(1) and (2). There will be a number of issues to discuss in the Watercare charter, but I want to just offer the Minister an opportunity to comment on proposed amendments to this section here. As he has said, this is an arrangement that has been reached by his Government and the Auckland Council. But the issue here is that the powers belong to the secretary to prepare the Watercare charter, and not to Aucklanders. I know that he is committed, as Minister, to delivering localism under this plan; in fact, he used his call in answer to my question to remind me of that.

If he’s going to remind this committee of his commitment to localism, is it then a mistake in clause 62A(1) that it’s the secretary preparing the Watercare charter, and, at clause 62A(2), that it’s consultation with Auckland Council rather than development by Auckland Council? Should clause 62A not read, “Auckland Council to prepare the Watercare charter”, and clause 62A(2)(a) read that Auckland Council, Watercare, and Taumata Arowai would develop, under the commission’s regulation, the draft charter? Those words would do what he has said he would do, which is restore localism in this way and protect local ownership of those assets and local provision of local services. There are flow-on effects of the secretary preparing the charter here, for a number of things, which then are given effect to by that clause 62A.

Given that that’s the new provision which he’s introduced, I want him to be able to comment to this committee on that particular section now. I guess the question to him is: would it be appropriate for Auckland Council to develop that charter and to have the power to do so under this part, given that Auckland Council is the decision maker up until this point and could continue to be the decision maker about the values and about the protections that are in place under his legislation that he has proposed? Thank you, Mr Chair.

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Local Government): I thank the members for their questions. What happens to Northland? Part 4 deals with services for Watercare in the Auckland region—it does not apply to Northland—but it does not prevent Auckland Council from entering into joint arrangements with other councils if they wish. How does it apply to stormwater? Auckland Council will continue to retain stormwater. The arrangement set out in Part 4 is mutually beneficial for both Auckland Council and Watercare, and, ultimately, consumers, because it enables them both to borrow independently of each other.

In relation to the issue in clauses 59A and 59B, these clauses are here because, ultimately, Watercare is a monopoly provider and so this is about clarifying that they are a monopoly provider. Of course, then the point of having a Crown monitor and in terms of having a charter is to ensure that there are consumer protections in place to protect consumers and to ensure that, as it says in the purpose section, clause 59A(1)(c), “Watercare manages its operations efficiently with a view to keeping the overall costs of delivering water services at the minimum levels consistent with the effective conduct of its undertakings and the maintenance of the long-term integrity of its assets.” That is what those clauses are to do with.

In relation to the question asked by Arena Williams, this is a point that was discussed between the Government and the Crown. In relation to the preparation of the charter, it was agreed that the secretary would prepare it, but that would, obviously, be done in consultation with Auckland Council. That is, ultimately, due to the fact that the arrangement here needs to ensure that the financial separation which is articulated works to the benefit of both the Crown and the council.

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

Sitting suspended from 5.57 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): OK, members, just before the dinner break, when the committee adjourned for dinner, we were on Part 4. This is the debate on clauses 59A to 98, “Watercare Services Limited”. The question is still that Part 4 stand part.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. For Part 4, there are a number of things we would like to speak on, but I want to start by discussing clauses 61 and 62, which are around Crown monitors. We have seen a similar layout and format previously, under clauses 21 and 24, but in this case there are different elements, compared to previous clauses where similar phrasing has appeared.

The first question that we have is a question that my colleague Francisco Hernandez asked previously when we were discussing clauses 21 and 24: when a Crown monitor in this particular case is appointed, what are some of the criteria that the Minister will be looking for when he comes to the appointment of the Crown monitor?

I would be particularly interested in one of the possibilities for a Crown monitor, which is in clause 60A, when it is an individual. I think there might be—and other people may feel free to speak on this—some sorts of guarantee or consistency when we are looking at clause 60(b) and (c), around a Crown entity or a company named in Schedule 4A of the Public Finance Act, but when it is an individual who is being appointed, what are some of the criteria for that appointment, as alluded to in clause 61? In terms of clause 62, in terms of the role of a Crown monitor—a similar thing to what we’re seeing here, although we’re talking about a monitoring function—what are some of the criteria when it comes to ensuring that an individual meets the requirement when they’re being appointed to that? So the first question is around criteria.

The second question I have for the Minister is around clause 74, and, again, it’s to do with the Crown monitor—in this case, in terms of the Crown monitor’s expenses. In clauses 21(2)(da) and 24(2)(da) previously, it was very specific. When you’re looking at recovering remuneration expenses from a Crown facilitator or a Crown water services specialist, it specifically mentions a fees framework; however, we’re not seeing that particular fees framework being suggested in clause 74. So I want to know from the Minister why there is no fees framework that is being used in clause 74 when it comes to the expenses that are recoverable from Watercare for the usage of a Crown monitor.

Again—correct me if I’m wrong—is the reason why a fees framework isn’t being used purely on the basis that we’re looking at the financial separation between Auckland Council and Watercare? But then, again, previously when we were looking at the fees framework that is being used to recover other forms of Crown-appointed individuals, they use the Crown fees framework—whereas, again, it’s not really mentioned here. So I would really be interested to hear from the Minister why that fees framework isn’t being used in this case.

The two questions to the Minister are: the first one is around the criteria for appointing a Crown monitor, and the second one is in terms of the expenses incurred by the Crown monitor. Why is there no fees framework? Thank you.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): We’d really only just started on this part of the bill before the dinner break. I’m aware you will have been watching.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I have. It’s not a big part, though, I have to say.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: But it is a very significant part. And it’s a very significant part because it concerns the water services for a third of the population of the country and the biggest city in the country. It concerns quite a unique structure in the country around Watercare Services.

I think we need to understand, from the Minister, the nature of the deal that has been struck with Auckland Council, because we know that a special deal was struck with Auckland Council. Auckland-based as I am, I think it’s important for people in the rest of the country to understand why Watercare is getting some special treatment here. I think there are some particularly important issues around what is to be done with water in Northland. Northland has been left isolated by this treatment for Watercare.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I believe I heard, when I was listening earlier, the question come up about Northland and the Minister in the chair at the time did answer that.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: It wasn’t a particularly satisfactory answer, Madam Chair, I take it, but as I was saying, we’ve got all these sets of issues that matter in this part of the bill. What I am particularly concerned about is—it’s right up in the purposes part of the bill, and it’s in clause 59A(2)(b). We want to promote outcomes that would be similar to those in competitive markets so that Watercare “shares with consumers the benefits of efficiency gains in supplying water services, including through lower prices;”. However, interestingly, in the advice that was given to the Minister around this bill and Auckland Council, there was a finding from Standard & Poor’s that, in fact, the debt-servicing costs for Watercare would go up under this arrangement and that, in fact, the cost to run Watercare would increase.

Now, this was reported, obviously, in the advice of the Minister, but it was also reported—I think I read it in The Post—in July. It was an article by Thomas Manch. It’s well recorded that one of the impacts is that, in fact, some of the costs associated with Watercare are going to increase under this arrangement. In actual fact, we know that water rates in Auckland will actually go up—I think the projection is by about 8 percent. I’ve just lost that detail. So it is quite interesting, then, that this particular part of this bill around Watercare Services says that one of the objectives is to share “with consumers the benefits of efficiency gains”, including sharing those benefits “through lower prices”. Yet we know the costs associated with Watercare are going to go up. I don’t understand how the arrangements that the Minister is putting in place can possibly achieve this part of the purpose, and I would like the Minister to speak to the costs that are going to be incurred by Watercare.

Some of those costs are quite substantial. Now, we’ve had a major project going on in Auckland for as long as I’ve lived there—the construction of the central interceptor, a huge underground project to improve the waste-water and the stormwater discharge so that when it rains, we do not get faeces in the harbours anymore. In terms of providing water services that are quality, we know that the population of Auckland is on the increase, and we know that there is increasing pressure on the water infrastructure services. I want to understand how, in the long term, this arrangement is going to ensure that one-third of the country—the 1.5 million of us projected to grow to 2 million of us—who live in Auckland can be sure that this arrangement will guarantee us water of the quality we want and we deserve, and that we get the waste-water disposal in a way that does not pollute our harbours. How is this arrangement going to be any better? So I want to understand that from the Minister.

This is speaking, really, to these two purpose parts of the bill. How does this serve ordinary people in Auckland, who want to know, when they turn on the tap, that the water is safe to drink; who want to know, when it rains, that their harbours will not be polluted; and who want to know that they are going to get water services of the quality they deserve? I’m challenging the Minister to move and tell us how this serves Auckland.

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS (Minister for the Environment): Thank you, Madam Chair. To answer Deborah Russell’s questions about why Watercare is getting special treatment, I think that they were quite quick off the blocks, so their proposed arrangement is expected to deliver lower prices than would have otherwise been the case prior to the deal being struck. Auckland Council was proposing to increase water charges by 25.8 percent from 1 July. With the financial separation, the price increase will be around about 7.2 percent, and future charges are also expected to be lower than they would have been. It is a substantial decrease in what was expected, from 25.8 percent down to 7.2 percent.

Going to the previous questions about “When a monitor is appointed, what are the criteria?”, the Crown monitor will require, as you would expect, a range of skills, expertise, and experience in, for example, the regulation of a monopoly business, and will have familiarity with the water industry and the economic and financial skills which you might expect of a monitor. So we’re anticipating that that sort of criteria would be applied in the appointment process.

With regard to the fees framework that was mentioned for the Crown facilitator and Crown water services specialist, that is based on arrangements under Part 10 of the Local Government Act. The Crown facilitator and Crown water services specialist are appointed by the Minister in a similar manner to how Crown managers or other assistance and intervention roles are, as in Part 10 of the Local Government Act. I hope that covers the questions.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I am going to call the Hon David Parker, but what I want to hear from here on in—because we have been on this bill for a long time; this is a smallish part—I want to hear questions rather than speeches, so I know that a skilled previous Minister will be able to home in on that.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): I hope so. Thank you, Madam Chair. The history of the regulation of monopolies in the water space is an illustration of why you actually need it. Theoretically, if you have a community-owned monopoly, you would think the incentives for excessive profit-taking are not as strong as if you have a private sector owner of a monopoly. But you can still have the problem of under-investment by the monopoly, and we’ve seen that up and down the country in the water and sewage space for a long space, which is why we have the problem in New Zealand of poor water quality delivered by some of our councils and inadequate treatment of their sewage. So I accept that history in New Zealand shows we need a regulatory model around the monopoly services that councils provide for water and sewage.

My question, though, is: what should be the pricing model that we apply to that monopoly? There’s been quite a long-time controversy—or not so much controversy but divided views within the economist communities in New Zealand as to whether we’ve got the right regulatory oversight model and pricing model for our monopolies, whether it’s water, like this case; sewage; electricity transmission; or some of the other monopolies. And there’s a very capable economist—Geoff Bertram—who points out that we run a different regulatory model for monopolies in New Zealand than they do in the United States. In New Zealand, we tend to try and value the overall asset base and give a fair return on the overall asset base, with some incentive for new investment. In the United States, they tend to give a greater incentive to the next investment, because you need the next investment in the new piece of infrastructure. So they’ll allow a high rate of return on the new investment, but they don’t increase the value of the existing asset base by inflation, they, effectively, only allow a decent rate of return on that historic cost. So they incentivise the new investment very strongly, but they don’t allow the old assets to be constantly revalued upwards.

My question of the Minister in the chair, Hon Penny Simmonds, is whether, in these arrangements that we are setting for the oversight of the revenue model, which, of course, is associated with the services that are to be supplied by Watercare, we are leaving open policy space for that debate to continue in the future. I, for one, think that the experience in New Zealand suggests that our under-investment in infrastructure might suggest that it is worthy for New Zealand to have the policy space to be considering whether we should be reconfiguring the incentives based on the pricing mechanisms that apply, or the oversight mechanisms that apply, to these providers of monopoly services, so that we really incentivise the new investments that we need, but we don’t unnecessarily lift the value of the asset base and inflate the rate of return that is given on the historic investments.

Just to be clear, again, my question of the Minister is: do we have the policy space in this regulatory framework to allow both of those options going forward, or are we, effectively, putting in place a regulatory regime that entrenches the status quo model that we’ve seen in New Zealand, which doesn’t take the same approach as in America?

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

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’m going to take a call from Camilla Belich, who has been vigorously trying to get a question. But I really would ask that we come pretty close to honing in on the questions now, because we’ve had quite a bit of time on some of these. Thank you.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you very much for the call, Madam Chair. As an Auckland-based MP, I am really pleased to be able to have a call on the Watercare section of this bill. I do have a number of questions which I don’t think have been addressed yet by the Minister—and I just note that for the purposes of this section, the Minister for Auckland has been replaced by the Minister for Invercargill. But that’s an aside.

The questions I have are in relation to the charter for Watercare. The charter for Watercare is set out in quite a bit of detail in this bill and it forms quite a big part of this bill. In clause 62A, it states that the secretary—which is the Secretary for the Department of Internal Affairs—must prepare a charter for Watercare. The question I have for the Minister is: we’ve heard a lot of rhetoric around this bill making sure that local services and local people are in control of local affairs, how does that work with this proposal for the Secretary of the Department of Internal Affairs to create this new charter for Watercare? It’s quite detailed on this. I do note that it also outlines that there should be consultation with other groups that are located in Auckland, but the final decision does rest with the secretary. I just wanted to know: has the Minister considered putting more local control into this particular part in relation to the charter, which I think is quite important?

In relation to the charter, I just had a question around—and I did have a bit of a research; I’m not on the select committee that was considering this bill—to try and see if there was an existing charter that it was replacing. I could see that Watercare had a promise that they made that they’ve outlined on their website. I wanted to ask the Minister the intersection between the Watercare promise, which is, essentially, as far as I can ascertain, to treat water, to provide safe drinking water, to not allow pollution. Now, that promise, as a resident of Auckland, I can tell you, is sometimes not upheld by Watercare. A group I’ve been working with for quite a period of time in Hobson Bay, Hapua Thrive—there’s a huge amount of sewage going into the harbour there. It’s very difficult for the residents there. There’s a significant need for additional infrastructure in this area.

I wanted to know, with the focus on Watercare and with this—in the charter, there’s a lot of requirements for Watercare to meet certain objectives. What I wanted to know is can the Minister guarantee that under these changes, the people—like the people of Hapua Thrive who live near Hobson Bay—will they be able to, or can the Minister make some kind of commitment that these new provisions around Watercare will actually produce better results for them in terms of the outgoing sewage into the harbour that they can smell on their walks, that makes it difficult to let their dog off a lead, that means that they can’t enjoy going kayaking in the Waitematā?

I would like the Minister to address that, but also just to go back to my initial question: can she let us know about the charter and exactly the local elements of the charter and how this will actually ensure local control of local affairs? I think there are a lot of people in Auckland who will find it unusual to have a fully council-owned organisation like Watercare having a piece of extremely detailed legislation in relation to its performance. They’re almost like key performance indicators in this section of the bill, and how is that actually going to deliver better water quality for Aucklanders? I do think that there are some important questions, and I see the Minister is taking some advice, so I hope that she’s in a position to be able to answer those.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’m just waiting for a moment. The Minister’s taking some advice.

RYAN HAMILTON (National—Hamilton East): 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 49

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Tana.

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 4 set out on Amendment Paper 65 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 68

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

Noes 49

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Tana.

Amendments agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 4 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 68

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

Noes 49

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Tana.

Part 4 as amended agreed to.

Part 5 Amendments to Water Services Act 2021 and consequential amendments

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, we now come to Part 5. This is the debate on clauses 100 to 103, “Amendments to Water Services Act 2021 and consequential amendments”, and Schedule 2. The question is that Part 5 stand part.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): I know something about the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management, and I can’t understand this provision. The National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management, essentially, says that, as a country, we should be setting some targets for our water bodies that are degraded that are science-based, and that we should then, over a long period of time, head towards achieving those targets.

Those targets are set by regional councils in consultation with their communities, having regard to various attributes that have to be taken into account—like turbidity, the E. coli concentrations, nutrient concentrations that if you get too much nutrient cause slime to grow in your rivers, and the like. I think the attributes are pretty much agreed across society. The rural communities were particularly concerned that we were going to have too tough a nutrient attribute, but we didn’t go for a specific dissolved or inorganic nitrogen attribute, and there was considerable flexibility left in the instrument for regional councils to determine how they should, over time, improve the quality of degraded waterways. I thought that we as a country agreed that we should—and being blessed as we are with such beautiful water resources—look after them pretty well.

Now, one of the overarching provisions in the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management is that, at a high level, the way in which you should be managing your water is to first look after the water body; and then the next priority is to attend to human needs, like sewage discharge or water tanks for drinking—both of those are, obviously, human uses—and then, thirdly, commercial uses. Now, none of these are absolutes. No one has been pretending that we’re going to, all of a sudden, have absolutely pristine waterways, and it’s not a trade-off between cost and cleanliness, particularly where you have a degraded waterway. But I don’t understand. I would like the Minister of Local Government to explain to me why it is that there is the need for this change.

What is wrong in the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management, particularly in relation to the hierarchy of obligations, which is referred to in clause 101 of this bill, which inserts a new section 138(3A), which says, “When making wastewater environmental performance standards under this section, Taumata Arowai must not have regard to the hierarchy of obligations in clause 1.3(5) of the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management.”? I don’t understand the driver for that.

I don’t understand what the need is for that revocation of that principle, because my understanding, based on when I was the Minister, was that it wasn’t something that would prevent councils from getting resource consents for what they currently do or want to do in the future. Yes, over time, if they are polluting a waterway, we want them not to make it worse. But there is no regulation that says there wasn’t some flexibility as to how they improve things over time, or some unrealistic standard to which they were being—and I do remember that there were other parties at the time, the Māori Party, with respect, I thought were unrealistic; they thought things should be cleaned up to a drinkable standard, which I thought was an impossible ideal, as much, though, as we would love that. But the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management didn’t do that. I would like the Minister to explain to us why it is that this provision is necessary.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): Thank you, Madam Chair. I wanted to ask the Minister in the chair, the Hon Penny Simmonds, in relation to Part 5, what is the political intent? It’s a strange piece of drafting that says, “We’re going to empower the Governor-General to strike out the provisions in the National Policy Statement (NPS) for Freshwater Management. OK, we’re opening the door to getting rid of this and we’re going to replace it with a new NPS.”, but what’s the intent? The part is completely silent on that. I think that members of this House and the public are entitled to ask, “What is the intent?”, because the part doesn’t explain at all what the motivation is.

The reason I ask that is I have a very real interest in my electorate of Te Atatū in West Auckland. The waterway that runs right through the heart of urban West Auckland is Te Wai-o-Pareira / Henderson Creek. For decades and decades, it’s been a recreational playground: people fish in it, they swim in it, they boat in it, they row, they water ski. The real problem is that Te Atatū Peninsula, which the waterway runs alongside, is one of the very weak points of the waste-water system in Auckland—which sort of reminds us of the previous part. It has been under-invested in for decades, and every single time we have any significant rain event, waste water flows into the creek, and anybody who gets into that creek gets sick. You cannot fish there anymore; it’s a health hazard. The community feel bitterly upset about this.

Now, I would like to know: what is the intent of this part, and what will the effect be on an urban waterway like this that’s had decades and decades of degradation? Currently, our community relies on the knowledge that under the existing NPS, that waterway will be cleaned up, infrastructure investments will be made, pollution will be stopped and eliminated, and eventually that waterway will be returned to a swimmable state. Are we to put that hope aside? What is the intent of Part 5?

Hon PEENI HENARE (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. My question to the Minister is very direct towards te Taumata Arowai. We’ve seen throughout the debate in this bill the role that te Taumata Arowai plays in the ability to contribute towards the charter. Then all of a sudden, we have this provision here that to cast your eye over it for the first time seems to all of a sudden not value the role that te Taumata Arowai might be able to play in the way that we manage waste water, moving forward.

I think of the complexities of Tāmaki-makau-rau, of Auckland, and the need and the challenge and the struggle to continually find a Māori voice in all of the planning that relates to Tāmaki-makau-rau, to Auckland. Now, I was going to raise the matter of the Independent Māori Statutory Board and whether or not, actually, through some of the provisions in earlier parts—it says “Auckland Council”, so I’d like to make the assumption that that includes the Independent Māori Statutory Board, which is a very well-connected, well-represented group for the Auckland view towards what we might do with respect to Watercare to waste-water management and everything else that relates to those hapū, those tribes, and those who consider themselves to have customary rights proven through settlement to the many waterways in Tāmaki-makau-rau.

It then comes back to the question that my colleague the Hon David Parker has asked, which is: why are we doing this? What it would seem to be doing is (1) unnecessary in the first instance; but (2) making very clear that te Taumata Arowai, while respected throughout much of the other work to do with water management and right across this country—te Taumata Arowai, a fantastic group, well represented, good smarts on that group; not Tāmaki-makau-rau - or Auckland-specific, however—is all of a sudden not relevant with respect to Part 5.

That’s a very direct question about the role and purpose of te Taumata Arowai. Is it being diminished simply through this particular part, through this particular clause? If that is the case, then why have we wasted time throughout this entire bill talking about te Taumata Arowai when it’s clear that the skill set and what they offer with respect to water management in this country is really important and te Taumata Arowai work hard there? But that in turn raises the question about being Auckland-specific, which is about Tāmaki-makau-rau and about the water management in Auckland as a wider grouping, which is why I raise the question about the Independent Māori Statutory Board and whether or not they will continue to find a voice in all of the planning that’s done around water wider across Tāmaki-makau-rau—a very direct question.

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS (Minister for the Environment): Madam Chair, thank you very much. I’ll address some of the points that have been made, and I acknowledge the comments from the Hon David Parker about the length of time that the aspirations that we all have for improvement in our waterways—but acknowledging that it is going to take some time to occur.

The hierarchy of obligations is something that we were very clear about in our campaigning. We saw the hierarchy being an obstacle to economically viable solutions for both councils and for industries, and there needed to be a balancing of the obligations rather than the hierarchy of obligations that was there.

We know the impact that, for example, reconsenting from being able to have treated waste water go into waterways and then having it go on to land is significant. I know that the Minister of Local Government has frequently referred to the Palmerston North situation, where their consenting has been looked at. In their 2021 long-term plan, it was going to be $390 million, and it has escalated to over $650 million in 2024 due to that requirement to discharge to land.

Just last week, I was speaking with the Mayor of Invercargill, and they are going through this very issue with Bluff waste-water treatment. The cost increase, again, was significant. To change from having treated water discharged into water and having to look to discharge it on to land was going to increase the costs severalfold.

So it’s really the regulations that are going to be possible for the councils, and to achieve, over time, those improvements without causing the economic harm that would have been caused by leaving that hierarchy in place.

STEVE ABEL (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair—I appreciate it. I have an amendment to propose to clause 101(3A), which currently says—and others have spoken to it somewhat—“When making wastewater environmental performance standards under this section, Taumata Arowai must not have regard to the hierarchy of obligations”. Now, the amendment proposes to remove that section.

Can I just reflect, I just did a document search on the entire legislation for the word “safe”. And the number of times the word “safe” appears in the entire document is zero. You’d think that safe would be a useful word to associate with drinking water. I searched “safety”, and that word appears twice in the entire document, only in a clause about legal action in the Watercare section. It seems very pointed, following from your answer to the last question, Minister, that this legislation makes a real point of removing references to water safety, and makes sure that in consideration of that, the authority responsible for water safety, Taumata Arowai, is told that it must not have regard to the hierarchy of obligations. What is the view of this in terms of the Public Health Communication Centre—the public health experts—on the removal of the hierarchy from the consideration of wastewater management? “The hierarchy of obligations is an essential addition across policies relating to water as it gives sufficient legal weight to the protection of people’s drinking water sources.” This is the Public Health Communication Centre’s submission on this legislation.

Now, it should be logical to us that management processing reticulation of sewage is one of the most fundamental developments in urban infrastructure to benefit human health. Imagine cities some time ago when there was no sewage reticulation system. Imagine what the state of health was. Well, you don’t have to imagine; you can look it up—there’s plenty of history about it.

Hon David Parker: Typhoid and cholera.

STEVE ABEL: Pardon me?

Hon David Parker: Typhoid and cholera.

STEVE ABEL: Exactly: typhoid and cholera. So why, in regard to the managing of wastewater, would that vital hierarchy of human safety not be a worthwhile consideration? That’s a very important question to be answered, and I don’t think it has been answered. “Sufficient legal weight for the protection of drinking water has not previously existed in policy and because of this (and other system failures) NZ communities experience contaminated drinking water sources. Removing the hierarchy of obligations from Taumata Arowai’s work (as proposed by the Bill) means deprioritising the safety and quality of people’s drinking water and potentially increasing the risk of illness from polluted drinking water.”

This amendment would allow Taumata Arowai to have regard—that’s all it has to do, have regard; remove the term “must not” from the legislation. How can that be anything but good for public health, for the health of our society, the health of our communities, and the health of our water? It must be a good thing. If, Minister, you are taking the advice of public health experts, surely this amendment would be one you would support. Thank you.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you, Madam Chair, for this opportunity to speak. I’m actually going to take the opposite angle to the previous questions about what is in clause 101 and this amendment of section 138. And then I’m also interested in talking on the “King Henry VIII” clause as well.

We’ve heard from people, and we’ve had an answer from the Minister about the hierarchy that you find in the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management. I’ll make some comments about that in a minute, but my main point is: why was this inserted into this bill when Taumata Arowai, section 138, doesn’t mention the Resource Management Act or any of the instruments under the Resource Management Act? We know that the national policy statement is a regulation made under the Resource Management Act. Taumata Arowai doesn’t talk about the Resource Management Act at all or its instruments. Is this a proactive—I’m assuming, and this is what the question is to the Minister—action to stop any future changes to the Taumata Arowai Act to have regard to the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management? I fundamentally don’t understand why it’s been included in this bill, given the framework of Taumata Arowai in the legislation that’s been amended, the section 138. That makes no sense to me. I’d really like an answer to that.

Then, of course, we have the Minister’s response just before, talking about the hierarchy that is in the national policy statement—and I acknowledge that the Minister in the chair is the Minister for the Environment—and saying, to paraphrase her answer somewhat, that councils need to be able to discharge to water. I think that is the fundamental tenet of what the Government is trying to do here. They’re trying to say it’s very expensive if you discharge to land. And, normally, that is what iwis’ preference is—a discharge to land. It is also the thing that has much more environmental benefits. Normally—I’m talking in generalities here. If you discharge to land, it can be more expensive, particularly if you have old treatment stations that are just used to doing a bit of filtering and then discharging into the rivers—this is for waste water, obviously. We want to change all the laws to make sure that councils can continue to discharge into rivers—if that’s what the Government means, then they can just say that. Surely, a better provision here would be “Wastewater environmental performance standards”: “Councils do not have to discharge to land.” If that is the nub, the crux, of the problem that the Government is interested in, why are they not saying that?

Again, we keep hearing that this National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management is the cause of all problems and that nobody can get consents. And, of course, sometimes I’ve been lucky to sit on another select committee about a different bill where we’ve heard many people say that, in fact, it hasn’t been stopping consents, the way the hierarchy operates, because, of course, it all needs to be in the plans. The big issue, the big inefficiency issue, that’s happening with water in this country at the moment is that councils are being told to delay those plans—to not have the plans that can then permit activity so that people don’t need resource consent. A lot of that is being done with a great disregard for the processes of this House and the processes of making regulations as well. You cannot make regulations by press releases, and we’ve seen that happen around these national policy statements made under the Resource Management Act, both with freshwater in relation to the Otago Regional Council and also with what Minister Hoggard was trying to do with biodiversity.

Then we come to clause 102, which is the new section 138A, and this is to repeal provisions relating to the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management at some later point. And this is a “King Henry VIII” clause. So we know, and I’m sure other people will want to speak to this as well, that “King Henry VIII” clauses are unusual. [Bell rung] Madam Chair, may I continue?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yeah. Can we come to the questions?

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Thank you, Madam Chair. Yeah, well, the question is: why on earth do we need a “King Henry VIII” clause about a National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management that doesn’t even apply to the Taumata Arowai Act? The question is: why do we have clause 101 here at all? It’s completely unnecessary. Even if you put aside all of the politics and the disagreement about the national policy statement for freshwater, it doesn’t need to be in here. But then, given it is in here, the justification for using the “King Henry VIII” clause needs to be strong, and it just seems to be incredibly weak. I’m asking the Minister what the justification is for using a “King Henry VIII” clause in this situation when it appears entirely unnecessary.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. I have two areas of questions for the Minister which I don’t believe have been covered. I’m going to start with the second part first, really, as in chronological order.

I have a question for the Minister around the intersection of the changes that are proposed in Schedule 2, Part 1—which I understand of Part 5, which we are debating—in relation to the changes to the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act. I’m particularly interested in this as Labour’s spokesperson on emergency management, and, obviously, the incredible importance that water infrastructure and fresh water have in our managing of emergencies—so that’s in Schedule 2, Part 1. Then, additionally, in Part 2, there are changes to the National Civil Defence Emergency Management Plan Order 2015. There are substantially more changes in relation to that particular plan, and I wanted to get from the Minister a bit of a reason as to why this formed a part of this particular bill, and what changes citizens of New Zealand would see as a result of that conclusion.

The second question I had was around clause 102, which inserts new section 138A—which I believe people have touched on, but I have a question in relation to that. That’s in relation to the technical workings of this particular provision, and my question for the Minister is: is this a “Henry VIII” clause; if so, what is the justification for using a clause of this nature in this bill? When usually it’s good practice—and I believe the Minister and I both sat on a Regulations Review Committee at various times in the last Parliament together. If she could reflect on the use of that particular instrument and why—I assume that it’s only in there because it’s absolutely necessary if it is, in fact, one of those clauses—we have to use this particular instrument when it’s not usually desirable from a legislative drafting perspective. Those are my two sets of questions in relation to emergency management and that particular piece of legislative draft.

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS (Minister for the Environment): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ll go back to some of the questions that have been lining up here. If I can go back to Steve Abel’s questions about “safe”—and I think it’s really important that he understands that there is certainly no intent to take any provision away regarding the safety of drinking water—Taumata Arowai will continue to regulate drinking water, including its safety, and it will also continue to have powers to set waste-water standards by taking into account public health. Removing the hierarchy will actually give more flexibility to them in this area. I think it is really important for us to be very clear that Taumata Arowai will continue to make waste-water standards under the Water Services Act. In terms of “safe” not occurring in it, the legislation isn’t replacing the legislation that sets out drinking-water standards.

I think there was a question from the Hon Rachel Brooking on the section in the Water Services Act relating to waste-water standards—why the changes are required—that don’t mention the national policy statement. The Water Services Act requires Taumata Arowai to give effect to Te Mana o te Wai as part of all its functions. The definition of Te Mana o te Wai in section 14 links directly to the national policy statement.

Hon David Parker: Madam Chair?

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Madam Chair?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’m going to call the Hon David Parker, and I’m just going to ask for questions now, because I feel like we are starting to get quite repetitive on some of these things. I’ll come back to you, Mr Xu-Nan.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. We’ve heard from the Minister in the chair, the Hon Penny Simmonds, that the Government doesn’t want Taumata Arowai to have to apply the hierarchy in the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management, which is not absolute but, essentially, says: health of the river, human uses, and other commercial uses third in hierarchy. The Government doesn’t want that to apply to Taumata Arowai.

Am I correct, Minister, that, at the same time, the Government has another piece of legislation which says that that should not apply to people who are seeking resource consents under the Resource Management Act—i.e., if one of these water services entities, whether it’s Watercare or another council, applies for a resource consent to discharge to water? Am I correct, Minister, that in other legislation you’re also removing the effect of the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management, including the Te Mana o te Wai hierarchy of obligations for consents? If I’m right, you’re not just stripping this requirement out from Taumata Arowai, you’re actually, effectively, saying that the councils that are considering applications by water services entities don’t have to apply it either.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. I will be quite quick. Thank you so much to the Minister in the chair before for a number of the clarifications that she has provided. I think we are still waiting on her clarification around the use of the “Henry VIII” clause in this case, particularly around clause 102, because this has raised a number of concerns from the New Zealand Law Society, as well as our own Regulations Review Committee. But I wanted to ask the Minister, in addition to that, has the Minister considered a sunset clause to this? This is one of the things that usually is a way to curb some of the power that can be granted with a “Henry VIII” clause, having a sunset clause or a particular duration. That’s my first question to the Minister.

My second question, which is also really discrete, is to do with clause 103, particularly in relation to Schedule 2. Now, in terms of Schedule 2, there is only one area I wanted to get some clarification from the Minister on, and that is the amendments to the Ombudsmen Act 1975, where it talks about “Crown monitor appointed under section 60”. I wanted to know from the Minister: in this case, why was only the Crown monitor appointed under clause 60 of the Local Government (Water Services Preliminary Arrangements) Act mentioned, but not the Crown facilitator appointed under clause 21, nor the Crown water services specialist appointed under clause 24? Thank you.

RYAN HAMILTON (National—Hamilton East): 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 49

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Tana.

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Lan Pham’s amendments to Part 5 set out on Amendment Paper 71 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 49

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Tana.

Noes 68

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

Amendments not agreed to.

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

Ayes 68

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

Noes 49

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Tana.

Motion agreed to.

Part 5 agreed to.

Schedule 1 Transitional, savings, and related provisions

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): We now come to Schedule 1. There is no debate on Schedule 1. 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 49

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Tana.

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 49

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Tana.

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 49

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Tana.

Motion agreed to.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Schedule 2 Consequential amendments

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Schedule 2—also no debate. The question is that Schedule 2 stand part.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Clauses 1 and 2

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

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. The part of the debate that everyone looks forward to: the title and commencement debate. Now, I have a couple of questions for the Minister around both the title and commencement. I wondered: did the Minister consider changing the title of this Act in clause 1 to the “Central Government (Water Services Preliminary Arrangements) Act”? The reason I ask that question is because, when we actually have been debating parts of the substantive part of the bill, we’ve actually found that—contrary to what you may think about this bill—there is actually quite a lot of central government involvement.

One of the examples of that is a section we were debating previously where the Secretary for the Department of Internal Affairs actually makes up, essentially, the charter for Watercare, meaning that there’s much more central government control over water services than there is in, actually, local government. Actually, in that particular provision there’s just consultation provisions with local government and actually nothing substantive to do with central government.

I also wondered, in relation to the commencement: we have here what is quite a complicated commencement provision. We have a standard, what you would expect in the commencement provision, “the day after Royal assent.” Then we have another part of the bill that comes in on the “recommendation of the Minister.” I wondered why, in fact, it was not possible to have a more certain date. It’s always an objective to have certainty in legislation; it’s important to make sure that it’s clear for the people who this legislation will apply to, which has substantive repercussions for most of New Zealand.

Then we have additional provisions coming on 1 July 2025. Then also a provision that any other provision that’s not come into force—very unspecific. If the Minister could maybe answer in clause 2(3) what this catch-all provision is meant to cover, because it’s not really specific in relation to this commencement provision. Then, lastly, we have a section which looks at the secondary legislation in relation to the commencement.

So I wondered: is there a simpler, better way—according to the Minister—to introduce this piece of legislation, rather than having four different time frames that people who are wanting to utilise this bill will have to look at in order to determine when things come into force? Also my question in relation to the title: does this truly reflect the nature of this bill?

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): I would like to ask the Minister if the words “preliminary arrangements” should be taken as meaning that there isn’t actually a fuller plan. The reason I say that is summed up very well by Mayor Bryan Cadogan, who has advocated on this in my electorate of Taieri tirelessly, actually, over many months, showing what the burden will be on small councils. Because we know that the preliminary arrangement is around giving councils, council-controlled organisations, or community trusts the ability to borrow around five times their annual operating allowance, which is, effectively, about twice as much as they currently can. But the small councils in particular are up against their debt ceilings.

Bryan Cadogan summed it up by saying that making these arrangements and allowing councils to borrow this much money is a little bit like giving a drowning man a glass of water. Even if councils were to take the longest period which is allowable under the preliminary arrangement of 50 years, the interest payments are going to be absolutely massive. Under this bill, it doesn’t really talk about the long-term plan of who will pay for that. Clearly, for a small council like Clutha, it’s not going to be the residents—there just isn’t the rater base.

Then we’ve been told in the Government’s spin that, “Oh, that’s fine. Councils can amalgamate.” Well, who wants to join with a small council like Clutha?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): So can we have some questions about title and commencement, please?

INGRID LEARY: What I’m interrogating is that these are preliminary arrangements, but should the title actually say, “Preliminary Arrangements Bill While we Wait for a Full and Final Plan”? Because, for the small councils—and particularly Waitaki is in a similar situation where it has to decide whether it tries to amalgamate upwards or amalgamate downwards; and the requirements of Taumata Arowai might actually make it even more difficult for these small councils because when they borrow money, they must be able to have a proportionate, cost-effective, and efficient approach to ameliorate that burden.

Now, my question to the Minister is the word “preliminary”, to me, when I read it, shows me that here is a piece of legislation that is a very, very short-term response. It certainly isn’t an adequate response for small councils. Is there going to be a subsequent piece of legislation that is going to, basically, make this redundant? And is that subsequent piece of legislation going to have a real plan for the small councils such as the Clutha District Council in the electorate of Taieri? Or is there no plan? And if there is no plan, perhaps that should be reflected in the title of the bill.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you, Madam Chair. Going back a little bit, and I notice that the Minister in the chair has changed from our Part 5 debate; and I realise, of course, that we are now on the title and commencement and that is what my question is going to be about. Of course, Part 5 changes the Water Services Act 2021, and we heard that that was because of section 14 of that Act, which is “Te Mana o te Wai: meaning, application, effect” and that says, “When exercising or performing a function, power, or duty under this Act, a person must give effect to Te Mana o te Wai, to the extent that Te Mana o te Wai applies to the function, power, or duty.”

My question is whether or not the Minister considered, rather than amending section 138A, I think, of that Act, if it would have been much simpler to amend the section 14 to say that it applies to the functions, powers, or duty, and the hierarchy does not apply to whatever it is that the Government wants to do? So my question is: should not the bill change its name to the “Water Services Strange Te Mana o te Wai Amendment Act”, rather than the Local Government (Water Services Preliminary Arrangements) Bill?

That’s one of my questions. I do think this question about preliminary—it’s a difficult word to say; too many “Rs” in it for me. It’s difficult when your name is Rachel! My colleague makes some good points about that and why it is necessary to be in the title of the bill, and when can we expect more of the changes as well?

We had a previous Minister in a previous part of the bill say that other announcements were made the other week. We’ve heard about those, but we’re not yet sure about the temporal nature of that, so another question is whether a temporal element has been considered for that title of the bill and whether that would be useful. And, of course, that could then relate to the commencement of the bill as well.

STEVE ABEL (Green): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I want to propose an amendment to the title of the Local Government (Water Services Preliminary Arrangements) Bill. One of the substantial themes that we received in submissions from iwi Māori was a deep concern about the diminishment or removal of Te Mana o te Wai.

The Iwi Chairs Forum is concerned about this reactive, piecemeal, incremental approach to policy development and implementation on issues of such fundamental importance to the health and wellbeing of both our communities and our waterbodies.

Ngā Waihua o Paerangi—Ngāti Rangi—expressed their concern that the undermining of Te Mana o te Wai was one of the primary characteristics that is observed by submitters—and is thus something that is worth mentioning in the title—“Te Mana o Te Wai is a fundamental and hard-fought-for principle developed over many years and supported not only by iwi/hapū but by many other stakeholders, including industry, farmers, councils, and environmental interests. … Te Mana o Te Wai refers to the vital importance of water to all of us. It is not about our ethnicity. It applies to us all equally. It is about managing water sensibly without destroying the integrity of the environment.”

Ngāti Tūrangitukua Charitable Trust: “While Te Mana o Te Wai is a concept that is derived from Te Aō Maori, its source in mātauranga does not preclude it from having universal application for all New Zealanders in terms of how we use and manage water.”

My proposed amendment is that the bill be called “(Te Mana o Te Wai Deprioritisation)”—that’s something of an extension on the previous speaker, the Hon Rachel Brooking—

Hon Member: “Honourable”.

STEVE ABEL: I did say “the Hon Rachel Brooking”—I did, yes.

Stuart Smith: Give her a double “Honourable”.

STEVE ABEL: I’m sure that will happen in due course—perhaps in a couple of years or even sooner. I want to commend this amendment to the committee, and I look forward to you supporting it. Thank you.

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

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Steve Abel’s amendment to clause 1 set out on Amendment Paper 72 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 49

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Tana.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Lan Pham’s amendment to clause 1 set out on Amendment Paper 73 is out of order as not being an objective description of the bill.

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 49

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Tana.

Clause 1 agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Minister’s amendment to clause 2 set out on Amendment Paper 65 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 68

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

Noes 49

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Tana

Amendment agreed to.

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

Ayes 68

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

Noes 49

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Tana.

Clause 2 as amended agreed to.

Bill to be reported with amendment.

Bills

Resource Management (Extended Duration of Coastal Permits for Marine Farms) Amendment Bill

In Committee

Part 1 Amendments to Part 7A of Resource Management Act 1991

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, we now come to the Resource Management (Extended Duration of Coastal Permits for Marine Farms) Amendment Bill. Members, we first come to Part 1. Part 1 is the debate on clause 4, “Amendments to Part 7A of Resource Management Act 1991”. The question is that Part 1 stand part.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. My first question to the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries relates to this rather unusual provision in this Draconian piece of legislation that says that on the rare occasions that a council might be so brave as to embark upon a review of a decades-old consent for use of a marine farm, they can’t recover the costs of doing so.

My question of the Minister, who is so old that he was in the office of Geoffrey Palmer when the Resource Management Act (RMA) was originally passed and so has intimate knowledge of the Resource Management Act more generally—my question of the Minister, who will be aware that the Resource Management Act has always allowed for a charging regime to be imposed by regional councils for the use of marine space—for example, if a regional council wants to charge for a boatshed or for the occupation of marine space for marine farming, my understanding, under the RMA, is that a regional council would be able to embark upon a charging regime for the private use of the public space.

So my question for the Minister is: having taken away the right of a council to charge for the costs of reviewing the terms of an occupation licence for aquaculture, is he also taking away the discretion of councils to have a charging regime for the occupation of marine space, which is currently allowed for under the Resource Management Act? And, if I’m wrong that that right currently applies under the Resource Management, could he correct me as to my misapprehension?

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Thank you. Mālō e lelei, Mr Chair. Thank you. I know this is the committee of the whole House stage, and I have a number of questions that I’d like to pose to the Minister. It’s certainly accepted that Part 1 is the substantive part with a number of suggested amendments to a number of clauses there.

One of the issues that was raised by submitters—and I’d just note that even with the reduced number of days that were available for select committee submissions, actually 13, over 1,000 submissions were received. First of all, there was a consistent theme around opposition to the bill, but that to one side, if that was not going to be accepted by the Government, then there were a number of suggestions around changing the time frame within which the coastal permits would be set down. There are a couple of Amendment Papers in my name that do seek to do exactly that.

If I can turn to new Subpart 1A—and I apologise in advance, but as we work through each of these new sections, many of them are like alphabet sections—new section 165ZFHA, inserted by clause 4, which comes down to the interpretation. I would like to ask the Minister whether he is satisfied, given the passage of time since he has considered this matter, that there is a view out there that, actually, a more appropriate term could be that of a 10-year period of extension that is automatic—there’s an Amendment Paper in my name that does reflect that; that’s Amendment Paper 55—or what was offered up, which was actually widely supported by the public in terms of submissions, which was a five-year period.

Now, I know the Minister has previously indicated that the 20-year period is where it sits, but I think what’s really important is justification for concerns around mitigating aspects that might need to be considered and whether a five-year or a 10-year period, which may be seen as a short-term or a medium-term sort of perspective, might be more appropriate. So I have a number of questions for most of these clauses. In the spirit of the committee stage, I’ll leave it here and pick up once we get a response from the Minister.

Hon JO LUXTON (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. My question follows on from my colleague the Hon David Parker, who raised the issue around local councils having to foot the bill if they wish to do a review of a coastal permit. In the select committee process, the majority of all councils that submitted on this piece of legislation were in opposition to this rollover of consents, regardless of environmental impacts or the ability for people to participate in the process and encourage a review. When it comes to councils having to foot the bill for this in particular, there were concerns raised around the cost of it. We know that there is a substantial cost to review these consents, and the unfairness of it having to be footed by, basically, the ratepayers.

I’d like the Minister to help us understand why he feels that local ratepayers should have to foot the bill should councils wish to do a review of a consent, given that ratepayers already pay substantial amounts of money to councils for various other things. Why should ratepayers be charged for a consent review when, in fact, these farms are in the sea and in the ocean, which are, in my understanding, the commons where no one has specific ownership of that particular area? I would like the Minister to explain to us why he has decided that councils should have to foot the bill for any review of consents, whereby ratepayers will have to foot the bill for something that, in actual fact, they are not part of—for example, a marine farm.

It’s not they who are potentially causing pollution, it is not they who are causing any issues, and yet, unfairly, they will have to be the ones that will ultimately pay for any review, thereby making it difficult for their councils, I think, to undertake reviews, because ratepayers will be up in arms if they think councils are spending their money on things that they don’t think are fairly their cost. So I’d like the Minister to explain to us what the thinking is behind that decision.

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Oceans and Fisheries): It’s a pleasure to stand and help shepherd this overdue piece of legislation through the House. Of course, this piece of legislation points out that at a deeper level, we actually need an aquaculture bill. Sadly, I was unable to achieve everything I wanted in this bill, and I will now turn to the questions posed by the former Attorney-General.

Now, this is unashamedly a piece of legislation designed to generate more confidence and certainty in industry to create jobs and to boost economic earnings and export revenue. Yes, it will require the council to meet the costs on the rare occasion that they may find that there is a strong need to review the conditions of farms that had existed for decades, and the next 25 years will give the confidence to the owners of these farms and their permits that they can dedicate their scarce resources to actually achieving economic outcomes, rather than playing a type of roller derby with the local councils.

The council can conduct a review of the conditions, but no council is going to be allowed any longer to pursue their aberrant ways or, indeed, act on nimbyism, which has driven, sadly, an enormous amount of cost structure into this industry. It’s a very good discipline that where the conditions must be reviewed, it has to be of such a threshold with such an egregious case that the councillors and the staff believe it’s worthwhile on behalf of the community to dedicate community resources to address these particular conditions, and not be driven by the growing number of people who want to protect their property values and advocate for amenity values, which go straight into the capital and strengthen the capital value of the small number of New Zealanders that own properties at the beach who don’t want to see aquaculture.

Aquaculture is an industry equally as important as the landscape and amenity values enjoyed by the small number of Marlborough bach owners who have had a very long and successful career at driving aquaculture out of the Marlborough Sounds, and I don’t like that council, because they actually created the seabed and foreshore debacle. Whilst the law does enable it to happen, it ensures that they have to be genuinely serious concerns. Now, there have been some remarks made that scientists and ecologists are concerned. Ecologists must not be allowed to interfere any longer in any indiscriminate, unreasonable way with the march of economic growth to get some jobs in the regions.

In relation to why we are settling for a year of 2050, now, it is quite a long time: 25 years. Given that on 3 September 2024, I’m going to be 65, it’s highly unlikely that I’ll see the full fruition—

Hon Tama Potaka: You don’t look like it.

Hon SHANE JONES: Who knows, who knows, who knows; young at heart, young at heart—though it’s highly likely that this will remain a contested area. But these are long-term capital investments, and resource management, in so far as industry exists within the marine environment, is about trade-offs. We can’t allow a minority range of concerns to overwhelm the need for regions to boost and create and enlarge the economic footprint in their own neighbourhood to keep people employed and to keep the confidence in the community so that we don’t see this onward drift of people away to Australia, or, indeed, the urban drift. That should provide a necessary understanding as to why the period of time to 2050 is very important.

Now, the Hon David Parker raises a very good point: what is the return to the Crown or to the public for the occupation of what you might say is the commons—i.e., private enterprises occupying either oceanic space in the future, or seabed and foreshore for the purposes of mussels and oysters? Sadly, that particular issue has been confused by the mission creep that we’re seeing in the seabed and foreshore legislation. Hopefully, we will have time to address that oversight in the near future.

STEVE ABEL (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. There is a situation we have here where we did receive substantial submissions from the Marlborough District Council, which the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries is so disdainful of; a council, I might add, which, in its region, manages 80 percent of the entire value of aquaculture in New Zealand and has 600 of the 1,200 farms in New Zealand. It’s the overwhelming majority consenting authority for the wealth and value that is in marine farming, so it’s strange that we can’t pay some attention to their wisdom on it. I’m sure that in the consideration of resource consents, all factors are taken into account, and that’s as it should be.

One amendment that I propose to you, which is a follow-on from my colleague’s opposite—or alongside, rather, is—

Hon Rachel Brooking: Same side.

STEVE ABEL: Same side—colleague “Same Side”. One amendment that I propose to you is to make it a five-year extension. Now, that was the most commonly struck-upon number by submitters. It’s still a very generous thing to have a free five-year extension. I will speak later to amendments that address the problem of giving extensions to farms that are deemed to be in inappropriate areas.

Also, the other amendment I’d like to speak to—that first one I spoke to was Amendment Paper 60; that’s changing it from 20 years to five years in new section 165ZFHC of new Subpart 1A, inserted by clause 4. The other amendment I’d like to speak to is regarding the director-general.

Hon Shane Jones: Ah, yes.

STEVE ABEL: Pardon me?

Hon Shane Jones: The Crown.

STEVE ABEL: When a consent authority does deem it appropriate to review a consent, currently, there is a requirement, as this legislation has it, that they must get the approval of the director-general. Now, they should not have to get that approval. We also propose that that is an amendment so that if the consenting authority does determine that they’re going to do a review, they don’t have to get the director-general’s approval—that would be less top-down oriented in a central government and less telling the regions what to do. It’s not localism by any stretch, this legislation.

We propose replacing new section 165ZFHI(4), inserted by clause 4, with: “A consent authority is entitled to recover the costs of a review undertaken under this subpart, including any costs arising from a request by the Director-General under section 165ZFHK(3) for information not held by the consent authority in its normal course of business.” And, in Part 2, we propose inserting new clause 5AA, amending section 36: “After 36(1A)(b): insert: (c) section 165ZFHI in relation to the review of conditions for a coastal permit extended under subpart 1A of Part 7A.” That’s Amendment Paper 58.

That amendment would, again, mean that local communities are not paying for the cost of a reasonable review of a consent activity in their area. To my colleague’s point: why is it that ratepayers should have to pay for the reasonable management and assessment and reviewing of consents in their area when, in fact, it is a commercial activity? And the cost of that commercial activity, the cost of its licence to operate, should reasonably be included in its costs. It should be something that that commercial activity pays for.

When we asked and put that question to most of the commercial players in the Primary Production Committee process, they also thought it was reasonable. No one could contest that they should rightly have to pay for the costs of a review of their consent or any of their consent processes. I invite the Minister to support that amendment. Thank you.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Thank you, Mr Chair. It’s disappointing to hear the Minister’s response around the lack of support for the proposed time frames, including the one that Mr Abel has just referred to. That is disappointing.

It’s actually also very disappointing to hear his disdain for Marlborough District Council. Perhaps he’d like to have a conversation with his colleague Mr Arbuckle—I mean Councillor Arbuckle, who still sits on that district council. That would be a very interesting caucus committee conversation, perhaps, wouldn’t it? Maybe Mr Arbuckle may want to ask the Minister some questions around that, given he is representing the ratepayers of that council that the Minister has such disdain for. But, anyway, we’ll see if that goes anywhere. Minister, I want to put to you—

Suze Redmayne: Not disdain. He just doesn’t agree with everything they say.

TANGI UTIKERE: Well, feel free to take a call over that side. I’m very interested to hear in what your contributions and questions might be.

I’m interested to hear from the Minister in terms of the conditions of new section 165ZFHC(3)(a)—this relates to a change in a condition, and, Minister, you’ve cited a process around where conditions may be sought to be changed or are up for review. I’m interested in what an example would be of a change to one of those conditions that would be required as a consequence of extending the duration of the permit, because it seems that the extension action is the actual trigger that would bleed into what that change in condition would be. So, given that the trigger is in the bill, perhaps it would be helpful for the committee to just get an understanding of what one of those conditions might be.

I’ll turn to 165ZFHD. I am going in some form of chronological order, albeit alphabetically. This is where there would be a requirement to update the nature of the extended coastal permit, and it’s particularly around the duration aspect. Minister, there appear to be two options under new subsection (1)(a) when a decision is made that is a decision taken by way of the application that’s lodged—either the first decision to continue operating under the existing permit or the second to continue with an application. So my question is whether or not there is any thinking around the fact that if there is a continuation of an application that, effectively, is live whilst there is still a decision to be taken in relation to the existing permit. There will be cost implications associated with that.

Given the Minister’s view that the councils should not be seeking to, effectively, cost-recover anything—and there is an Amendment Paper in my name that would seek to change that, and I’ll come to that in due course—what consideration is there for cost implications but also in terms of notification to the relevant council or consent authority of that decision to either continue to operate under the existing conditions of the permit or for the council to continue to process the application? How was that notification to take place? Elsewhere through this bill, it refers to written notification. Is that form of the notification going to continue to be silent? Will it be something that is set via annual regulations? The consistency aspect, I think, is quite important. I’ll leave the Minister with those sets of questions.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. I have a number of questions for the Minister Shane Jones, but I would kind of like to start by talking about new section 165ZHFC in the context of “Extension of coastal permits for marine farms”, specifically new subsection (1), in the sense that I understand the intention of this bill is to extend such coastal permits to 2050. However, I wanted to ask the Minister whether he has considered some of the options that have been put forward in the regulatory impact statement, because I understand there are a lot of people—according to the Minister’s response previously—that the Minister doesn’t like or doesn’t think deserve any sort of attention or say regarding this particular aspect. I would have assumed that, as a Minister, the Minister would at least take on board some of the recommendations by the Ministry for the Environment as well as the Ministry for Primary Industries.

I turn to page 17 of the regulatory impact statement, where it specifically talks about, for all forms of extensions, the negative impact that it will have in terms of promoting the sustainable management of natural and physical resources, as well as upholding the Crown’s Treaty of Waitangi, Te Tiriti o Waitangi, obligations. Has the Minister considered the ministry and the Minister’s own ministry’s advice on some of these areas? In particular, I also want to draw attention to paragraph 76 on page 18, where officials consider options three and four. In this case, options three and four are extending the consent by 15 years or extending all consents by 25 years, not consents to 2050 as a blanket approach.

I wondered if the Minister could enlighten us as to why those two options were not considered when the officials themselves said that these two options are likely to best deliver on the Government’s goals, with relatively similar net benefits that the Minister has spoken about. I think, in particular, with the Minister talking about the economic benefit, it seems like option three, which is to extend all consent by 15 years, would deliver similar economic benefits that the Minister suggested. Why was that also not considered? If the Minister wouldn’t mind clarifying some of the advice that the ministry has provided which isn’t reflected in the bill.

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Oceans and Fisheries): If I can start with the rather discursive remarks from the last speaker, Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan, the focus on the date of 2050 or the 20-year duration is driven by a solid commitment to turn around the dire economic circumstances in many parts of regional New Zealand. Yes, we can mount arguments. Five years may enable people to enjoy some short relief before they go through the thicket of unnecessary costs being imposed by these indiscriminate grandees living in regional council with no conception of how their bureaucratic decisions impose costs on long-suffering entrepreneurs and the people that are the backbone of the New Zealand aquaculture industry. I don’t like that thinking.

The second thing: I think the most recent speaker made reference to the fact that I am circumventing or undermining Crown obligations to iwi. A substantial settlement was entered into, in the Helen Clark Government, in terms of an aquaculture settlement. It has been blighted because regional councils have been unwilling, through the planning system, both with regional coastal policy statements, regional plans, and, for me, a very jaundiced interpretation of the coastal national policy statement—something that needs a kina cut, severe pruning. The people that already hold consents as a consequence of this extension will be freed from all of that detritus.

There will be no more indiscriminate cost impositions dreamed up by people who actually are driven, sadly, to undermine industry, because the local communities are the beneficiaries when there is a thriving aquaculture enterprise. They’re often the only jobs in that particular area, but they shouldn’t be used as a mine, where rents are extracted by regional council, unless it’s absolutely necessary. That level of necessity will be arrived at by dint of the fact that the ratepayers and the council need to pay for it—a brilliant discipline, because, after all, the owners of these enterprises need to be disciplined with their spending.

And, yes, OK, some of my remarks may have been a bit rhetorical about the Marlborough council. I know there are some redeemable members of that council, but from time to time—from time to time—the truth must be spoken. The truth of the matter is that particular council is covered perpetually in shame, because they created the imbroglio of the seabed and foreshore, and this is a small response enabling us to better use the seabed and foreshore resources to create jobs and not to pander to the indiscriminate, tiny, irrelevant concerns of ecologists and other such people.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you, Mr Chair. Where to start? We’ve heard about—

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Nothing.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Ha, ha—nothing! We’ve heard some florid language. We have talked about this power to undertake a review and how, strangely for the Resource Management Act (RMA), this amendment says that a consent authority cannot charge for a review of consent, and we’ve heard the Minister answer that.

Then we have, at the next clause down, the purpose of the review, and some strange language for the Resource Management Act, but it says, “as long as the review is undertaken in a way that—(a) is consistent with Part 2;”—that being Part 2 of the RMA, and we know that sustainable management purpose—“and (b) does not prevent the permit holder from carrying out the aquaculture activity to which the coastal permit relates.” So my first question, with zero rhetoric, is: what is the temporal scale of that (b)? Is the permit holder not able to be prevented from carrying out the aquaculture activity whilst the review is being undertaken? Or is it that they can never be prevented from undertaking that aquaculture work, which would defeat any point of a review happening in the first place, whoever was paying for it? And we know, in this case, it will only be ratepayers who could possibly be paying for it, because of the avoidance of section 36 of the Resource Management Act.

I want to focus on some of the things that the Minister has told us. He has told us that this is all about jobs and that these activities are extant. He hasn’t referred to any evidence showing that they are forecast to continue for ever. I am sure that is his view, though. He hasn’t provided any evidence about these “aberrant” councils reviewing consents, but he has mentioned, a lot, “landscape concerns” and “amenity”. I would commend to him the Natural and Built Environment Act that this Government has repealed, because that did a lot to change the strength of amenity that we have in the Resource Management Act, and I think that is something that this Government should go back to, of course. But, if this is true—if the Minister has the evidence to show that the council is behaving terribly and reviewing all these consents based on amenity values based on landscape—then that could be in the purpose of the review, and the council could have to pay for their own reviews if it was related to those landscape and amenity issues. But no.

What we heard then was that ecologists are trouble as well, and maybe don’t go back to the Natural and Built Environment Act if you don’t like ecologists or environmental bottom lines. I am, of course, in favour of these things—caring about the environment—and that, of course, is what the purpose of the RMA is to some extent as well, with its sustainable management purpose. And that takes us back, of course, to the purpose of the review having to be consistent with Part 2. There should always be a role for ecologists in this. The Minister talked about indiscriminate “detritus”, and I put it to the Minister that indiscriminate detritus can sometimes have important ecological effects, and those effects are ones that may need to be assessed. It should not be for the ratepayers to assess those effects, if they are having a detrimental effect on the environment—the environment that is everybody’s and not just those permit holders’.

So my question is: one, how can the Minister have so much disregard for the environment when this clause still refers to Part 2 and all of these sections are within the Resource Management Act, the purpose of which is sustainable management? And, secondly, what is the temporal nature of new section 165ZFHJ(b)?

MARK CAMERON (ACT): Thank you, Mr Chair. Thank you to the other members for giving me the opportunity to ask the Minister to illuminate further what I think is a very salient issue—I think we haven’t canvassed it at all well, and I think this is a wonderful opportunity for the Minister to do that—employment in regional New Zealand and what it actually looks like. I think the Minister might have an opportunity to contextualise, for my benefit, in this jaundiced environment, tino rangatiratanga, giving people self-determination. We hear about it all the time, Minister, from members of the Opposition, that we have an economic activity seen to be sitting in the doldrums. Sir, could you speak to what Part 1 looks like in terms of the extension of 20 years, given places like Auckland Council have certainly afforded a longer period of time, and what that looks like as help to our regions—especially areas like Northland?

DARLEEN TANA: Thank you, Mr Chair. I have several concerns and questions, and depending on how the debate fares, I also have some proposed amendments tabled. Because I can understand the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries’ appetite for growth, I’d like to ask the Minister for his reflections, please, on how this bill will serve, or relates to, our seafood sector requirements to meet our international trade obligations. I am thinking of free-trade agreements with the UK and the EU and their chapters on trade and environment, when they talk about kaitiakitanga and mauri.

In a similar vein, we are aware that our international trading partners have increasingly rigorous expectations around the credible, sustainable food production—be that terrestrial or marine. So I’d like to understand how the Minister understands the passing of this bill, as currently proposed, will support our marine farm consent holders in modernising, perhaps, to actually keep abreast of these increasing standards over the next 20-odd years, because 20-odd years is a long time, as the Minister has said, and I just do wonder at the wisdom of issuing consents for such a period with such massive changes happening climatically—rising sea water temperatures is one example.

I ask these questions because I wonder whether, firstly, a blanket extension is appropriate for all 1,200 marine farms or whether some form of nuancing might be appropriate, in case, for example, where we do have existing marine farms that do fall short of our regulations of national environmental standards maybe based on their location. Secondly, I wonder whether the review provisions are strong enough or whether they might be appropriate, if only to signal some kind of a direction of modernisation intent.

My other area of concern relates to the appropriate locus of decision-making power. I would like to acknowledge the submissions of the learned officials—among them tangata whenua, the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, the Environmental Defence Society, and, notably, the regional councils’ consenting authorities themselves—for highlighting the very practical realities that the appropriate locus of decision-making power, in terms of this bill in new Subpart 1B, should be local or regional. The whakapapa in each rohe moana and rohe whenua is unique, and, yes, fish are whanaunga too. The mauri, even if we were to define it crudely as the state of biodiversity of each of those rohe moana and rohe whenua, are also specific to place. The kaitiaki ahi kā, those with mana i te whenua and mana i te moana, have obligations to tiaki, to care for, the whakapapa of those places.

My third question to the Minister is, therefore: why are we introducing a central government actor? Why is that needed—in this case, the Director-General for the Ministry for Primary Industries—when regional councils have been doing this work since the beginning of the Resource Management Act and are best placed to assess the adequacy of existing consent conditions and make recommendations according to best practice, if not to the national environmental standards for marine aquaculture?

I do have other concerns relating to appropriateness of cost-recovery provisions, but I think our colleagues on this side of the Chamber have covered those, so I won’t venture into that territory. Thank you. I look forward to hearing from the Minister.

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Oceans and Fisheries): There are a number of remarks that cannot go on in their false and ill-conceived way. There is the fiction that amenity and landscape values are of a greater level of significance than jobs and household livelihoods. To the former Minister for Oceans and Fisheries, one need look no further than the debacle of the salmon company struggling after spending $10 million to seek a resource consent—$10 million down the gurgler of consultants, unelected bureaucrats, and unhelpful scientists, people who are driven to act in a manner inversely related to economic durability in their communities. Who wins from that type of attitude?

Yes, there are a tiny number of property owners in areas such as Marlborough Sounds who do not want this type of industry. They should not be able to drive the outcomes that affect hundreds if not thousands of New Zealand families who do not have university degrees to complicate common-sense things and who do not have access to the deep pockets of those groups who want to weaponise environmental law and hide it behind consultants’ gobbledegook. All of that is gone now in this bill. This bill cuts through that level of bureaucratic molasses—all gone. This is purely ensuring that those elements are not weaponised to the point we’re driving communities into penury.

On the matter of giving evidence that a regional council has frustrated, look no further than the area I hail from. The capacity to create additional marine farming enterprises off the coast of Te Tai Tokerau hovers near zero. Yes, there is an example where a group did create, off the shores of Stephenson Island out of Whangaroa Harbour, some new space for mussel farms. That took them millions of dollars, but they now have a consent, and they’ve got it till 2050. They don’t have to submit themselves to these invasive, costly, woke-riddled processes. That’s why this bill is very important.

Hon JO LUXTON (Labour): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. It’s a pleasure to take another call in this committee of the whole House stage. Minister, we had 1,100 submitters—1,000 submitters opposed the bill in its current form. We had many submitters suggest time frames of five years, 10 years—and, yes, I know this has been brought up before, but I have a different angle to this, Mr Chair. Both my colleagues Tangi Utikere and Steve Abel also have amendments put forward with regards to the time frames that were suggested. The Minister himself has said that the 20-year duration is to give certainty, to give the opportunity for growth, for regional economic development in the regions, for employment opportunities, and all those things. No one is arguing that that is not a good thing. We all want thriving agricultural marine farms. We all want good regional employment, good regional job opportunities.

The Minister also said that he would have loved to have, ideally, an aquaculture bill and that he couldn’t or didn’t do all the things that he wanted to in this particular bill. I ask the Minister, then, why, aside from the reasons he’s given us, he didn’t seek to give a shorter time frame of the five and 10 years to the sector, for a rollover that would give them certainty and that would give some regional development opportunities for jobs, so that then this would not have been a rushed process and he could have developed a bill that is fit for purpose, that meets all the things that he wanted to do, that gives everyone certainty going forward and looks after the environment, and that ensures proper consultation happens.

We’ve heard many—we had 13 days, I think, for an opportunity for people to submit—concerns around the ability for tangata whenua, iwi, and hapū, to be able to really be consulted on this, for the public, everyone, to be consulted and have the ability to submit on this. Why then did the Minister not take that into consideration and, therefore, have a bill that was fit for purpose, that was not rushed—like this piece of legislation—and that would give him the opportunity to put forward the aquaculture bill that he really wanted to put forward?

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m still interested to hear from the Minister around the method for notification under new Subpart 1A, new section 165ZFHD. Just further in that particular section, specifically new subsection (3), it talks about a situation where a permit holder decides to continue to operate under an extant coastal permit that would be extended under this particular subpart. If someone is doing that, then there is a requirement here where they must withdraw the application. This is a situation where there’s an application that’s live and they make the decision to continue to operate under the existing conditions or under the existing permit. This clause requires the permit holder to withdraw the application that they have lodged within a time frame of two months.

Now, my question to the Minister is: why can’t that be automatic? If there is a requirement for notification to occur to the consenting authority under previous provisions—and I’ve got it here; I can tell the Minister, if he needs it—why then is there a requirement for there to be the onus on the applicant to actively withdraw an application? I know that this is largely administrative, but I think it’s an important point that, yes, there’s a requirement under this bill for existing permit holders who would be subject to this extension to make a decision either to continue under the existing conditions of the current permit they hold or to continue with an application that’s currently lodged. In the circumstance where they wish to do the former, as I understand it, there is a requirement for them to withdraw the application, but there’s also a requirement for them to notify the consenting authority of the decision they wish to make. So that’s one particular question to the Minister.

The other is in new section 165ZFHF. This is about the decision to operate under extant coastal permits. Now, new subsection (2) talks about when the surrender of a permit would actually take effect. My question to the Minister is—and language is important, because I know that details matter—when it comes to surrendering, effectively, a permit, what does that actually mean? Why don’t we have the word “cancel” in there? Is it because that at some point in time, actually, that surrendered—what is the status of the surrendered permit? Once the permit is surrendered, is that the end of it, or does it sit there with the potential for it to be uplifted at a future point in time?

So the first question is: why is it that there is an onus on the applicant to withdraw an application where they’ve already made a decision to, effectively, have their permit extended? The second question is around the status of a surrendered permit—and I do note that it is a replacement permit, but none the less, is there a reason as to why it’s surrendered and not simply cancelled?

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. I would like to first thank the Minister for providing me with much-needed entertainment. But I have yet to get a response from the Minister regarding the question that I asked. I understand the Minister’s position on a lot of the things that he mentioned, but I was specifically asking it in the context of the regulatory impact statement, particularly where the regulatory impact statement talks about the negative impact on promoting the sustainable management of natural and physical resources and upholding.

I would just like to get a clarification from the Minister: if the Minister believes there is no negative impact to the natural and physical resources or that the Crown / Tiriti obligations have been upheld, would that mean that the regulatory impact statement, as has been stated here, is incorrect? Which is good; which is fine. We get that. But it would be good to get that from the Minister.

The other thing that we mentioned before, and one of the other speakers mentioned before, is in terms of what this does to the regions. I will also, I guess, at this stage like to point out that all regional and unitary councils oppose this bill. It would be really good to get the response from the Minister that if this is really good for regional development—and I really hope that it is; also it did state here in the regulatory impact statement that it does have certainty for industry and consent authorities; this is not my area of specialty—why then would the regional and unitary councils oppose this bill if it’s going to be good for the regions? If the Minister wouldn’t mind clarifying that as well.

On the off chance that this does have potential future impact, because the extension of this bill goes to 2050, as we mentioned, has there been any modelling? Again, providing jobs is really, really important for the regions, and we would like to see those jobs sustained for long periods of time. I would like to ask the Minister or the officials whether there has been any sort of modelling around when certain environments or when the agriculture or the consent itself can no longer sustain the same level of jobs or production through a variety of reasons—the degradation of natural resources or the natural environment being one of them. But, for the sake of talking about the courses just in general, has any modelling been done in case something doesn’t go according to plan over the next 25 years? What are some of the mechanisms for that?

In this case, I’m looking at new section 165ZFHC(3), where we’re looking at “The conditions applying to … coastal permit”, and I wondered if anything has been done around that, if any sort of additional conditions or any sort of wiggle room has been provided during this period, or if we are going to see an exponential or increasing investment into something for the same level of output or for the same level of sustainability. I think the Minister used a very key word here, “economic durability”, which I agree with, and I think it would be nice for us to have that, but what happens if we are putting in more investment into it than the output? Would that be considered durable?

Those are the three questions that I would like to get some response from the Minister on. Also just, Mr Chair, for you as well, so far what I’m hearing is we’re still sort of on the new Subpart 1A part of this discussion, but it’d be really good at some stage to weigh in, when we get the clarifications that we ask for from the Minister in due time and move on to new Subpart 1B. Thank you.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): I want to go back to something the Minister said in response to my questions, and that was about amenity. I think he may have misheard me because my question was: if amenity is the concern—it’s not ecological things; it’s amenity, it’s landscape—then he should have supported the Natural and Built Environment Act. But also, if that is the point, if the policy purpose here is so that regional councils do not go around doing reviews based on complaints from wealthy bach owners, if that is the crux of the problem, then that is what this constraint on councils not being able to charge for reviews should apply to.

I put it to you that when we look down at new section 165ZFHK, “Concurrence of Director-General required for review to proceed”, that issue around landscape could be embodied in that so that the director-general will only give concurrence for a review to proceed if the review has nothing to do with amenity or landscape or baches, for instance. Then you wouldn’t need, at new section 165ZFHI, this carve-out about section 36 not enabling a council to charge for a review, because you simply would not allow any reviews for those amenity issues.

When I was talking about evidence, the Minister responded with some examples of where marine farms have not been consented in the first place. But this bill is not about consenting of new marine farms; it is all about extending the consents of existing marine farms. The question was about evidence regarding reviews: have regional councils done reviews of existing consented marine farms based on these amenity values that so upset the Minister? So that is the question there. Why not—if the problem is amenity and baches—amend new section 165ZFHK so that the director-general will not give concurrence if the review is based solely on amenity grounds, and then delete new subsection (4) saying, “Despite section 36, a consent authority [has to] bear its own costs”?

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Thank you, Mr Chair. We still wait for some of those responses from the Minister, but while we wait for that, I would like to move on to clause 4, which inserts new section 165ZFHH, “Application of extension where coastal permit is under appeal”. It seems very peculiar that in subsection (2) here, it says that “The extension does not apply—(a) until all rights of appeal are exhausted;” or if the application is declined or withdrawn. My question to the Minister is: why is it necessary to indicate in legislation that all rights of appeal need to be exhausted? I note that on a question of a point of law, there is an appeal through to the High Court, which is indicated elsewhere, but why is there a need to insert the reference to ensuring that all appeal rights have been exercised and exhausted? Surely, that’s a natural justice application that exists with all decisions that are made, provided that they are taken through the right judicial process.

I want to follow up on the point that my colleague the Hon Rachel Brooking has just touched on, and it relates to the proposed new section 165ZFHI, “Power to undertake review”. Now, it talks about the ability of a consent authority to undertake a review of the conditions that might exist under Subpart 1A, but when we look at subsection (3)(b), it talks about the fact that a review that might be undertaken under this particular provision “must not be undertaken more than once in relation to any coastal permit;”. Now, my question to the Minister is: what if there has been a review that has been sought for a condition of a permit that has gone through the process? And then there is an issue with a different condition of that permit. Is that then subject to no further review, despite the fact that the conditions are distinctly different or separate?

So my question to the Minister is, firstly: is subsection (3)(b), in fact, indicating that the limitation of only one review in relation to a coastal permit is for the permit in toto, or is it related to the conditions, and if it is related to the permit in toto, then how is that providing a fair approach to have other conditions, that might be sought to be reviewed effectively, reviewed by the consent authority?

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Oceans and Fisheries): I sense we’re wending our way to the end of this session, so I shall make some additional remarks. The member makes some very relevant points as to why the rights of an applicant to continue on with a process would be retained. In the event that this legislation does change, there may very well be applicants who are seeking, for example, to change some of the boundaries of a permit that this legislation will allocate to them into, arguably, 2050, and I would say that a lot of people have got permits well beyond 2050. They’ve got permits that go 35 years long, so the fact that I’ve compromised on 2050, I thought, was very modest and reasonable. The policy point that’s made here is to preserve the rights of that applicant to continue, indeed if they feel that it’s necessary because there are problems with the location of the farm, to enjoy those ongoing rights.

On the matter of new section 165ZFHI, “Power to undertake review”, when the review is undertaken—and they will be very, very few in number, because this is not really a troublesome industry. These farms have been there for decades. They’re now an indelible feature of the local environment, and it’s a sad day, actually, that they’re not there in perpetuity, but the only reason we can’t do that is because this is the commons and, if people are going to have a perpetual right, that right, sadly, has to be dealt with in the context of whether there are residual interests with the local Māori through the seabed and foreshore. And I don’t want the industry permanently blighted by that endless fairytale. I would say that the two-year reference talks about the fact that, if there are conditions that need to be reviewed and you have a period of uncertainty, it has to be dealt with in two years.

I really feel that the bill, when you look at the fundamental, underlying purpose of the bill, lays out that there are trade-offs. It is not reasonable that people who have spent their life savings, who have got their houses mortgaged to the hilt to create jobs in wee businesses in regional New Zealand, year after year have to put up with the depredations of unelected grandees in these councils, who do not face the costs of their ill-informed, indiscriminate wandering ways, trying to interfere with the lawful business of aquaculture. That’s why it’s really important that we focus, as I’ve endeavoured to do, on the two-year period.

I don’t really want to talk any more about the regulatory statement, because that’s now an element of history. We’ve got to look forward. Yes, there was a host of considerations reflected from the different Government departments in that regulatory statement. This bill does not undermine any iwi interests. Yes, there were references in the regulatory statement from some iwi who feel that it violates their iwi settlements. Far too much is read into these consultation opportunities in the iwi settlements. They are not the power of veto. They are not going to be allowed to hijack economic development where garden-variety Kiwis are trying to make a living and they fear that their enterprises are going to be hijacked or held hostage by people reading up, or coming up with, the most jaundiced interpretation in respect of the Treaty settlements.

The Treaty settlements were and remain a point in time, and the Crown does have to work with iwi to respect them, but all iwi need to hop on the bus of economic empowerment, whether it’s the iron sands of Taranaki, the aquaculture in Marlborough, or the mining in Tai Poutini.

STEVE ABEL (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. I appreciate the call. Minister, we clearly see your bluster and certainty around the need to trample on your garden-variety Kiwis in the regions who want to have input on what happens in their commons and to make these dictates from on high from the throne of central government. But I do wonder, in considering what a reasonable piece of legislation might look like, if you have any mind to making some reasonable amendments to this. Obviously, we oppose it in its entirety. But, given the nature of this House, with this current Government being so averse to even the slightest improvement or tweak on an otherwise bad piece of legislation, I wonder if you in your wisdom and experience might consider that there are, in fact, some well-considered amendments that could improve this bill. Thank you.

Hon Members: Mr Chair! Mr Chair!

STEVE ABEL: I haven’t finished. I know you’d like me to be finished, but I haven’t quite finished yet. It’s the passion.

One of the things that came up in the hearings, Minister, was the impact of fish farms—finfish farms—being quite significantly different to molluscs. Finfish farms produce a lot of waste: faeces from the fish, and uneaten food. They are well known and understood across the world to generate problems of pest organisms. The nutrient loads that make their way to the seafloor suffocate benthic communities and turn the seabed hypoxic and anoxic. They have impacts on wild fish species and wild species of all sorts of varieties. The antibiotics that are put into finfish farms also have an impact on the environment, and the detritus that comes out of a finfish farm can travel for up to 1,000 metres, indiscriminately. Finfish farms make up a tiny percentage of our total farms—around 2 percent of total consents—and so I have a proposed amendment here that would not give this 20-year extension to finfish farms.

In recognition of the unique characteristics of the complexities we’ve had with them here in this country, with fish dying en masse in one instance—or other instances as well—and with the significant impacts they have, is it not correct that they should be subject to a more thorough scrutiny and consent process? And, simply, the existing status quo consent process could be applied to finfish farms who wanted to extend their consents. They would not be entitled to this exceptional privilege of an automatic 20-year extension. And the other consideration is that, unlike molluscs, finfish are considered as sentient in our legislation, and some people, in a number of submissions, characterised some forms of finfish farming as like battery farming at sea. I know the Minister will have a lot of fun with that, but that is a view that is taken, because fish are animals too. Given they make up only 2 percent of our consents, would not excluding finfish from the bill recognise their more substantial environmental effects? Under this amendment, they would be given this free pass that they perhaps should not have.

Minister, in clause 4, new section 165ZFHB, we propose inserting a new subsection (2), on page 3, after line 16: “However, nothing in this subpart applies to coastal permit authorising aquaculture activities in relation to finfish, as that term is defined in section 2(1) of the Fisheries Act 1996.” That is a proposal that seems nominal and reasonable, and I hope you will consider it, Minister. Thank you.

Hon JO LUXTON (Labour): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. First of all, I just want to highlight to the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries the question that I asked earlier around his aquaculture bill. He didn’t come back and answer my question around that. The other thing I wish to highlight is that he hasn’t addressed the question around the director-general (DG)—the question that my colleague Mr Steve Abel asked. I wanted to come back to that particular point because many submitters and also the Labour members and Green Party members couldn’t quite understand why it was so important for the director-general to be given such a lot of power within this bill. A council, as we’ve talked about before, can undertake a review, right? They’ve got, in this legislation, up to two years to do that, but they can only do that if the director-general gives them permission to undertake that review.

Now, earlier on in the evening, the Minister himself made a point around councils undertaking reviews, and he said, “which are very few”. So, if he wants the DG to be there to safeguard against councils undertaking reviews willy-nilly because of nimbyism and all that kind of stuff that he has talked about, why does he see that the director-general is such an important part of that? Councils are going to have to pay—ratepayers are going to have to pay—to undertake a review, so why has he put in that additional step for the director-general, which both the Opposition parties in the Primary Production Committee, perhaps, suggested an amendment at the time to remove? In actual fact, if councils have to pay, they’re not likely to just go and undertake reviews willy-nilly because of nimbyism and all those other things. I’d be very interested in why the Minister wouldn’t consider removing the DG from that process or why he considers it so very important to have the DG there in the first place.

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Oceans and Fisheries): The involvement of the director-general reflects that this Government wants to see the key ministries, such as the Ministry for Primary Industries, driving towards economic development, prosperity, and resilience. We’ve had occasions where regional councils have wandered off their constitutional reservation. One should look no further than the Otago Regional Council and their wilful disregard of this Government’s intention to rationalise and recalibrate water standards. With the director-general enjoying this status, there will be no willy-nilly, no random, fanciful forays on behalf of regional councils blighting economic development within aquaculture. There are and there remains some unresolved issues amongst a host of our regional councils and, I repeat again, one should look no further than the current conduct of the regional council of Otago, who need to be pulled into line. If we had a provision like they’ve got here for the regional councils, we would not have that time-wasting, ideological, foreign thinking we’re seeing in Otago.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The time has come for me to leave the Chair. The committee will resume at 9 a.m.

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

TUESDAY, 20 AUGUST 2024

(continued on Wednesday, 21 August 2024)

Bills

Resource Management (Extended Duration of Coastal Permits for Marine Farms) Amendment Bill

In Committee

Debate resumed.

Part 1 Amendments to Part 7A of Resource Management Act 1991 (continued)

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Right. Good morning, members. The committee is resumed. Last night, when we were considering the bill, we were debating Part 1. I’ve got the run sheet here of the questions and the engagement that were being asked for last night. We’re still on Part 1 and the question is that Part 1 stand part.

Hon JO LUXTON (Labour): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I would just like to bring to the Minister’s attention that the question I asked last night was around his wont, desire, to have an aquaculture bill. He didn’t answer my question last night when I brought up the fact that the process was quite rushed, that people didn’t have much time to submit, and I asked the question as to why he didn’t take the time, allow a longer period of consultation in order for him, perhaps, to be able to develop the aquaculture bill that he so desires to do. I look forward to the answer from the Minister with regards to that.

I also have another question. It is in regards to the time frame allowed for consultation and the very quick report-back date for this bill. If you will indulge, I may just quote a couple of submitters. There was some real concern from submitters about the very quick, short consultation period, and in particular from iwi. For example, I would be interested in hearing the Minister’s thoughts on the expectations as a Te Tiriti partner in so far as this consultation period has gone, and, therefore, the final bill that’s come to the House that we’re debating now and the changes that weren’t made as a result of this very short consultation period—where we’ve had 1,100 submitters, a thousand were opposed, and perhaps not feeling quite listened to. I’d be really interested in the Minister’s thoughts on this. For example, Ngāi Tahu talked about the fact that “the engagement … has fallen well short of Cabinet guidelines and our expectations as a Te Tiriti partner.” Also, Waikato-Tainui have mentioned that “While the Government has committed in its coalition agreement to deliver longer durations for marine farming permits, it has also committed to honour the undertakings in Treaty of Waitangi settlements. This proposal is a clear breach of that commitment.”

I would like to hear from the Minister, again, around his desire for the aquaculture bill that he could have had if he had extended this period out, and, therefore, also allowed proper consultation from all of New Zealanders and including iwi Māori, who feel that they haven’t been given that opportunity and it is a bit of a breach as far as Te Tiriti obligations go. So I’d really like to hear from the Minister about that, please.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Kia orana, Madam Chair, thank you. When we left off last night, there were still a number of questions that the Minister had not yet addressed. The three that I have on my list that I have put to him—one is just to serve as a reminder. Why is there a need to reference appeal rights within the legislation? That’s contained within new section 165ZFHH(2).

The second was around the limitations on only one review of a permit and the impact that that might have in relation to a review of a further condition to take place within the two-year period. So this is where you’re only allowed, as I understand it, one opportunity for a review, if that follows through the process, around a condition, but if within a two-year period there is a further issue with perhaps one of the other conditions that relate to a permit, whether that door is closed for the purpose of a review. That is new section 165ZFHI(3)(b).

Then the other one which is still of great interest is the status of a surrendered permit—so this was about a replacement permit. In the circumstance where activities operating under a replacement permit, if that permit was surrendered because the applicant had decided to take up the opportunity to have the permit extended, what is the status of a surrendered permit? Is it that it just lies dormant and can be reactivated in some way? Why not just use the word that the permit is “cancelled”. It’s about the status of that. Those are the three questions that I’m keen to get a response for from the Minister.

I want to turn to the Amendment Paper in my name, which is Amendment Paper 57. This relates to new section 165ZFHI(4) inserted by clause 4. It’s specifically around the ability for territorial authorities or consent authorities, more specifically, to, effectively, recover some of the costs. Now, the Minister has said that he believes that these costs should be borne by the consent authority. That means that those are costs that are to be borne by the ratepayers. It is the Minister and the Government, effectively, lumping on to ratepayers of this country an additional cost, once the director-general has determined that a review can take place. This Amendment Paper seeks to find some balance between full cost recovery and the full cost being borne by the ratepayers. I’m interested to hear the Minister’s thoughts on Amendment Paper 57, which says that “Despite section 36”, which is a section that relates to costs, “a consent authority may recover costs of a review undertaken under this subpart, subject to the following criteria”, and there are two.

The first is that the costs need to be considered as fair and reasonable, and there is much case law around the country as to what fair and reasonable might be considered as, but that is the first criteria that must be engaged if there are costs to be recovered. The second, and this was raised as a possibility through the select committee process, is to actually have the costs capped at a maximum level. Instead of a consent authority saying that actually, “No, we’ll recover part of it.”, or whatever it might be, what my Amendment Paper does is effectively sets the maximum so that any costs that would be recoverable would not exceed 50 percent of the total costs incurred.

It’s also worth noting, for the Minister, that they are not either/or; both of those components need to be engaged in order for the costs to be recovered. They need to be fair and reasonable or they need to be up to 50 percent. This is saying, actually, if you look at the costs that have been incurred or may be incurred, that they are considered as fair and reasonable in the circumstances, and also that they won’t exceed more than 50 percent; so that even if the costs do run higher than that, it means that the ratepayers are not out of pocket for some costs. I’ll leave those with the Minister and come back to some of the other issues.

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Oceans and Fisheries): Thank you very much and greetings, everyone, for what will, no doubt, be an illuminating morning. On the question of costs—

Hon Jo Luxton: No doubt.

Hon SHANE JONES: —there, no doubt, will be opportunities in the future for the director-general to alert future Governments as to whether or not these enlarged fears that are being spread around the Chamber this morning have any substance. From my perspective, the policy work behind this bill, those fears are groundless. The reason why the ratepayers and the council will meet the costs of an intervention in the legal, rightful business of a marine farmer is because they will know that it has to be of a particularly egregious nature because they’re going to pay for it themselves. In the event that they decide that the condition problem is of such a magnitude that they need to spend the ratepayers’ money, they will also consult and seek the authority of the director-general as a further discipline.

New Zealand is saddled with far too many cases where relatively narrow-minded local government officials are interfering in the rightful business of entrepreneurs and the marine-farming industry. This particular rod of discipline is overdue. The ratepayers know that they benefit from having industry in their regions. The industry, based on risk, multiplies a whole host of benefits every day it remains in business. The dividend enjoyed by the ratepayers is the presence of that industry. Before anyone interferes in this very innocuous, harmless industry called aquaculture, there is an extremely high threshold they must pass.

On the question of the surrendering, you may have worked out that I am not surrendering in terms of my advocacy for this bill. This bill provides an opportunity for a marine farmer to enjoy the permit they already have extended till 2050, at the latest; or if they’re involved in a process to adjust elements that comprise their entitlements within that defined area, they can’t have two permits at once. Our side of the House doesn’t believe in double-dipping. The surrendering option enables the applicant to come back and enjoy the 20 to 25 years security, and it simply provides clarity that you can’t be involved with two permits at the same time.

Tangi Utikere: So it’s cancelled.

Hon SHANE JONES: Now, on the question—I say again: this bill cancels no permits; this bill breathes life into the entrepreneurial endeavour, the risk-taking ability, and the commitment to double our exports over the next 10 years. That’s the ideological, philosophical purpose of this bill. Where an applicant is already in a process at the point at which this bill is enacted, you only have one permit.

My point in relation to one review on a permit: the review, if such an additional review is required and there is an egregious failure, like the member from the Green Party contemplated last night with fish farming—a highly profitable activity, happens all over the world: Chile, Norway, other parts of the world, but here in little New Zealand, we catastrophise these points in the ocean that are the size of a beauty spot, but, no we’re not allowed to do it. This bill is getting rid of all of that ideology. We are going to focus through here where there are cases where there may be a serious threat, such as an unwanted biological presence—there are other pieces of legislation to deal with that.

We’ve had far too many unnecessary, superfluous, and worrisome interventions from local government interfering with the rightful business of employers and investors in the marine-farming industry, and today they have their champion in the matua.

STEVE ABEL (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair, thank you very much. We do appreciate the florid rhetoric of the Minister, but we also would love to get some solid answers on some quite legitimate questions. I thought there was quite a valuable comment from my colleague Lawrence Xu-Nan who said that a beauty spot can too be carcinogenic, and we need to be aware of which ones to watch out for.

Now, I have a very specific question to pick up on a comment the Minister made yesterday. It was a reference to his love of seabed mining in Taranaki—something the Minister raised yesterday. I wanted to question the Minister: how does he balance the diverse interests in that commons that he rightfully acknowledged yesterday when there are tensions between not just ecological values or visual values, but also commercial activities? Taranaki being a good example, but there are similar instances in other parts of the country—many similar instances. In Taranaki, to clarify, we have a situation where the seabed miners want to rip up tens of millions of tonnes of seafloor to extract supposed minerals. It has been fiercely opposed—as the Minister, I’m sure, would know—by the fishing industry for 10 years because it is seen by the commercial wild fisheries industry to be a direct threat to their industry.

Most recently, another opposition has come in from the offshore wind industry, because they say they will be unable to build their windfarms if the seabed has been so disturbed that it has lost its stability. These are three competing commercial activities. How and who is it to make the determinations about how to balance these tensions of use of the marine space, which is a commons, if there is simply a dictate from central government to say, “We are going to extend all of these marine farms without consideration of the other interests in that marine coastal environment.”? That’s a question for the Minister: how are you going to balance those different tensions?

I note, very well-articulated by the Marlborough District Council—his favourite regional council—“The allocation of public space in the coastal marine area is no easy feat, requiring a strategic approach to balance the competing demand for this common resource.” Now, specifically regarding Marlborough, described eloquently in their submission, “with its drowned river valleys, and the open coastline of the East Coast of South Marlborough. This coastal area contains scenic landscapes, high levels of indigenous biodiversity, as well as a diverse range of recreational, commercial, and cultural uses.” Who is it to make the determination about how to allocate these resources if not the local people, the regional councils, those representatives of the locals? If we are to impose dictates from on high from central government that override the ability of those regionally elected representatives to make determinations on how to balance these different interests, surely we are in big trouble. Because how is this House best able to determine all of the nuances of the interests that exist in a space such as Marlborough or Taranaki?

In its submission, the council concludes that “It is fundamentally unsound to have both central and local government attempting to allocate the same coastal marine area”. I would like to ask the Minister: how does he reconcile that fundamental tension? Is he absolutely content to impose the will of central government—it is not localism—on those regional councils?

My second point is another very important one to do with aquaculture management areas. This is a very excellent solution that Marlborough has come up with over years to deal with the challenges of marine farms. Now, in 2016, the Marlborough Aquaculture Review Working Group sought to assist the council with how to deal with the extent of their marine farm activity. Just reminding us that we have half of all of New Zealand’s marine farms in Marlborough and 80 percent of the total commercial value of marine farming is in Marlborough, so we should be paying attention to this region—[Time expired]

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’m going to let Mr Abel pose his question, but I don’t want to see this be a speech or a five-minute call. I want to see the question relating to Marlborough as you had already started on.

STEVE ABEL: Thank you, Madam Chair. Just to clarify what the aquaculture management areas are, they’re called, simply, Variation 1. They allow for a seaward movement or adjustment of the existing marine farm to the aquaculture management area. This adjustment is enabled through a controlled activity status for reconsenting existing marine farms within an aquaculture management area. The reallocation of the majority of inappropriate marine farms to an aquaculture management area (AMA)—I will speak about any inappropriate marine farms in another call. Marine farmers, therefore, have certainty of tenure through Variation 1. It articulates where aquaculture is appropriate and implements the requirements of the New Zealand coastal policy statement and the RMA in Marlborough.

Now, Variation 1 disincentivised marine farmers from moving seaward into AMAs to provide for Variation 1. In this legislation, they’re saying, “The blanket extension provided by the Bill has the very real potential to undermine Variation 1”, and these variations strike the “balance of enabling Marlborough’s marine farming to continue to thrive while at the same time ensuring sensitive coastal areas and habitats, many of which are regionally and nationally significant, are protected.” So here it is, Marlborough has at great lengths sought to solve the challenges. Marine farmers, therefore, have certainty of tenure through Variation 1, which is what the Minister is concerned about.

I’d like the Minister, if he would, to respond to that question about the impact of this blanket extension on the option of aquaculture management areas in Variation 1, as well as my earlier question on how it is to manage these diverse interests in the marine space if not through the knowledge of the local regions. Kia ora.

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Oceans and Fisheries): Let’s be really clear: the allocation of space, the utilisation of the commons, is already subject to central and local government interactions. Aquaculture allocation—i.e., entitlements—are guided by the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement. That wretched creature is a feature of central government. Sadly, in the vast majority of New Zealand, it impedes the economic monetisation of our boundless coastal environment—something I hope to change in the near future. It is not correct to say this is exclusively an area where local representatives have the ultimate authority. They are guided by guardrails created by central government. An additional guardrail with neon lights will be passed by this Parliament very shortly—that’s the first thing.

On the question of how do you manage vexed areas such as Taranaki, I’m the first to admit that there has been a historic level of friction between quota owners and applicants wanting to extract vanadium, titanium, and a host of other very valuable rare earth minerals from the bed of the sea. A national conversation is most certainly needed, because we have surrendered to a tiny minority of loud, shrill, ill-informed voices who have weaponised not only tikanga Māori but have weaponised the anxieties that people have at a time when New Zealand has very few options other than to engage in trade-off politics and use mother Nature’s bounty—i.e., the iron sands off the coast of Taranaki.

I look forward to playing a key role as the Minister of natural resources, but today I’m here as the steward of this bill in my fisheries role. There is already a host of opportunities in regional New Zealand to balance what’s in the coastal policy statement, driven by the Department of Conservation, what’s in regional coastal policy statements, what’s in regional coastal plans. The effect of those plans has been to chill, undermine, and freeze economic development in the coastal environment.

Coming back to Marlborough, there is nothing to stop future applicants using this much-vaunted new approach. But people who already have their permits will be spared the ordeal of having to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars in these processes in Marlborough—highly weaponised—and employment is going to trump privilege enjoyment.

NANCY LU (National): I move, That debate on this question now close.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I just want to signal here that we are getting closer to the closure of this debate. I watched last night and this morning and I do see that the Minister has progressively worked his way through answering the questions. I am going to take a couple more questions from people who have been waiting for a little while—burning questions—but I want to see new questions. I’m going to go first to Jo Luxton. Then I’m going to go to Tangi Utikere. Then we’ll see what develops from there, but we’re getting very close to the end.

Hon JO LUXTON (Labour): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I want to question the Minister around the “Process applying to review” new section 165ZFHL. Now, the Minister, he talked before about the marine farms, aquaculture farms—it’s commons area. Therefore, no one specifically owns a piece of it as you would a piece of land.

Within the process applying to review—let’s say it’s gone through the process of the council wanting to review the consent; the director-general’s given the sign off on that. Then in this particular clause here, Minister, it talks about the people who will be notified. Now, I don’t see general public here; there is a specific list of people who will be notified. But, Minister, given that these aquafarms are in commons and given the fact that the review will have to be paid for by the council, therefore paid for by the ratepayers, how is it democratic for ratepayers—putting aside your thoughts around nimbyism; let’s pretend this isn’t nimbyism happening here—other ratepayers who have an actual real interest in this? Why are they excluded from being notified? Why is this not going to be publicly notified, given that they will be the ones footing the bill for this review that has gone through the process of being reviewed? How can this be a democratic process?

Is this not just—for a Minister who talks about getting everything out of Wellington and out into the regions—sucking back decision making to Wellington?

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the Minister, the Hon Shane Jones, for addressing a couple of the questions. There is still the issue of the reference to the appeal rights inclusion in the legislation, which the Minister has not addressed, and also I am yet to have a response from the Minister about his view on Amendment Paper 57, which is on the Table and has been available in the public domain for the last couple of weeks. I would be keen to hear the Minister’s thoughts on that.

I want to turn my focus now to new section 165ZFHK, and this is about the concurrence of the director-general (D-G). Now, our position is that we don’t agree that the director-general should be involved in this particular way, but if that is going to be set aside by the Parliament and the director-general is involved, I do have some questions that relate to the role that the director-general would undertake. In particular, when we’re looking at that proposed new section, subsection (2)(a) talks about the need for the D-G to make a decision either to concur with the consent authority or otherwise. The question that I have for the Minister, firstly, is how will the director-general be guided in making those determinations? Surely there must be some form of framework or ability for the director-general to consider various aspects, otherwise it would change depending on director-general to director-general. The question is around scope, really, and what guidance would be provided for the D-G to be able to exercise those—whether that’s something that’s suggested might be within regulation or not.

Further in that section, it talks about a particular time frame for the director-general to receive information in reaching a determination. Now, OK, what’s consistent with the Resource Management Act is that there is an ability for time frames to be extended if there is a need for further information to be provided. What’s not clear in this section, however, is that whilst there might be a time frame for getting the information to the director-general to be able to make a determination on a review, there doesn’t appear to be any time frame for the director-general to make a determination. It’s one thing in the process of receiving information—and, OK, it’s quite clear about working time frames, as to when that information would arrive—but I invite the Minister to comment on the ability for a time frame within which the director-general will make a decision. Now, that is important because, further on this particular part, there are time frames set for when decisions need to be made on a review, but it seems to be absent of time frames that relate to the director-general to be able to make a decision. So I will leave that with the Minister.

The other area that I do want to touch on—I understand that my colleague Mr Bennett actually has an interest in asking a question on one part of new section 165ZFHL, so I won’t, in the interest of time, delve into that. The issue that I do have is on new section 165ZFHM. This is about the time frame relating to when a decision needs to be made. The Primary Production Committee has changed the wording from “beginning” to “initiating” the review. My question to the Minister is: how is initiation described?

It could be that, if you begin a review, that’s very clear—when the green light has been given to the consent authority to undertake the review. It would seem, to me, that that’s when the time starts ticking. Now, initiating a review—are we talking about when the consent authority first lodges something with the director-general? Is it the point when the director-general makes the determination that a review can go ahead or not? Is it extended by the 20 working days because the director-general makes a determination that they need more information? There is a clear change in the wording from “beginning” to “initiating”, and my question is: what does “initiating” mean in the context of a process for determining whether a review is successful?

If a review is not to be undertaken, that’s a moot point, clearly, but “initiating” is what? I think that’s important. Is it the date that the application is received? Is it the date that the director-general makes the decision or determination? Is it the date that the notification exists? They are important considerations that I’d appreciate from the Minister.

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Oceans and Fisheries): Extraordinary, we’re now talking about the rights of initiation. Obviously, the authority to undertake a review of conditions depends on the concurrent authority being exercised by the director-general. Nothing is legal until such time both parties have agreed that there is a case for—within the two-year period—such an exercise to take place. It is beyond cavil in terms of the clear meaning of the law.

In relation to who ought to be invited or entitled to have a say in relation to either an appeal in the event that someone is offended by the effects of this inquiry within a two-year period, I think you should contemplate it in the sense of the law of propinquity—i.e., how close are you to the effects of the decision? We don’t want this business where these are cafe-sipping people from Ponsonby who can muck around in the Tai Tokerau, wander down to other earthy parts of regional New Zealand and have a say about a highly localised, relatively modest issue. For those reasons, the law clearly states a limited number of people are entitled to be nosy parkers.

Now, this is an extraordinarily longstanding failure of resource management law. It’s provided an opportunity for people to claim standing. In actual fact, the likelihood of them being impacted by the decision is remote. But then they get involved, they frustrate the local development outcomes of an area, and those types of meddlesome activities are stripped away by this bill—all gone. There’ll be no more of these interfering urbanites undermining the resilience of regional New Zealand.

So that reflects the policy intent, and I hope to see, when the select committee eventually reports back my beloved fast-track initiative, a similar standard. No more standing for these self-appointed guardians like Greenpeace lecturing the rest of the world as to how we should live. Their capacity to influence regional development through aquaculture and marine farming needs to be narrowed and we don’t want any mutinous activities such as what Sea Shepherd did in America undermining the rights of the fishing industry in New Zealand. We’ve had enough of that. That’s what’s been hobbling our country.

Now, in respect of appeal rights, the law as contemplated here is very clear. No one is stripping away the ability of someone to take an appeal in the event statutory authority is exercised. We are putting a discipline in. You’re not going to exercise statutory authority just because a number of people who have exaggerated the importance of a landscape value to the point that it’s swamping the need of New Zealanders to be in employment. If you’ve got any doubt about that, look at the closure of industries and manufacturing plants today due to the distant corporate ambitions of people who are soon to feel the wrath of our Government.

CATHERINE WEDD (National—Tukituki): 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 48

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14.

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Tangi Utikere’s amendments to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 54 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 48

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14.

Noes 68

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

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Tangi Utikere’s amendments to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 55 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 48

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14.

Noes 68

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

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Steve Abel’s amendment set out on Amendment Paper 59 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 48

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Steve Abel’s amendment set out on Amendment Paper 62 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 48

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Darleen Tana’s amendment set out on Amendment Paper 74 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 48

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Steve Abel’s amendment set out on Amendment Paper 60 is out of order as being the same as an amendment previously not agreed.

Darleen Tana’s amendment set out on Amendment Paper 79 is out of order as being the same as an amendment previously not agreed.

The question is that Tangi Utikere’s amendment set out on Amendment Paper 57 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 48

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Tangi Utikere’s amendments set out on Amendment Paper 56 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 48

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14.

Noes 68

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

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Steve Abel’s amendments set out on Amendment Paper 61 are out of order as being the same as amendments previously not agreed.

The question is that Steve Abel’s amendment to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 58 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 48

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Darleen Tana’s amendment set out on Amendment Paper 78 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 48

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Darleen Tana’s amendment set out on Amendment Paper 80 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 48

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Darleen Tana’s amendment set out on Amendment Paper 77 is out of order as being the same in substance as an amendment previously not agreed.

Darleen Tana’s amendments set out on Amendment Papers 75 and 76 are out of order as being the same as amendments previously not agreed.

The question is that Steve Abel’s amendments set out on Amendment Paper 63 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 48

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14.

Noes 68

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

Amendments not agreed to.

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

Ayes 68

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

Noes 48

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14.

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 49

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Tana.

Motion agreed to.

Part 1 agreed to.

Part 2 Other amendment to Resource Management Act 1991

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, we now come to Part 2. Part 2 is the debate on clause 5, and that is “Other amendment to Resource Management Act 1991”. The question is that Part 2 stand part.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Thank you, Madam Chair. Part 2, in terms of what it proposes to insert, in the sort of number of word count, is quite small, but the implications actually are quite significant because they relate to the entire part of Subpart 1A of this bill. We have last night and this morning been making our way through Subpart 1A, which relates to the duration of a coastal permit. Now, section 123A, which this part seeks to amend by, basically, inserting an additional provision, does relate to the duration aspect.

My question to the Minister in the chair, Shane Jones, is, despite the views that have been expressed and some of the answers that have been given, whether he is open to—and there’s still an opportunity to perhaps put another amendment on the Table—ensuring, though, that the consideration of the five-year extension and the 10-year extension time frames, effectively, are still in play. While I accept that that might be unusual, it is still not an impossibility.

My question to the Minister is the five- and 10-year options which have been advanced by the community—albeit haven’t been agreed to by the Primary Production Committee—were issues that were raised in Subpart 1A, and there were very good reasons for that. Some of the points that the Minister has raised relate to the ability or inability of the director-general to exercise their discretion in terms of making determinations and decisions. It might be that actually ensuring that there is a specified time frame within Part 2 is more conducive to ensuring that all of the information is made available to the director-general. I’ll start with that particular question.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. I wanted to pick up on something that the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries mentioned before in terms of Tai Tokerau. My understanding was that Tai Tokerau iwi did not actually support this bill, particularly Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki, who actually had a lot of the marine farms, also did not support the extension. So if the Minister wouldn’t mind clarifying what the Minister meant by Tai Tokerau, that would be great.

In terms of Part 2, and particularly when it comes to clause 5 inserting new subsection (5) to section 123A of the Resource Management Act, when we are looking at Subpart 1A of Part 7A in the Resource Management Act, I want to particularly draw attention to what happens if the permit holder no longer wishes to hold the permit. One of the things that I have found within the bill itself, but also within Subpart 1A of Part 7A of the Resource Management Act, is clarity around this. Also, I’m sorry, my apologies: Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki is not in Tai Tokerau, but other iwis in Tai Tokerau did vote against this.

The reason I mention this is because the Minister answered one part of my question previously, but my second part of the question is around the sort of modelling that has been done when it comes to if the permit holder no longer deems their production or their business to be profitable—can they, in this case, shorten or amend the duration of their permit?

Now, new section 165ZFHI, inserted by clause 4, does say that you “must not amend the duration”. I’m looking to Subpart 1A of Part 7A for any example or any sections that may potentially imply an adjustment to the duration at the permit holder’s own volition when it comes to the coastal marine permit. I wondered if sections in the Resource Management Act such as 165D of Subpart 1 of Part 7A, around “Power of consent authorities to refuse to receive applications”, doesn’t quite cover it, but whether something under the subheading “authorisation”—like section 165T “Authorisation lapses in certain circumstances”—may be a possibility.

I’m really looking for the Minister’s and the officials’ guidance on this, because there is nothing in this bill that has any clarity around voluntary shortening of that permit if someone didn’t want to hold on to it, and what some of the implications are. There might be none; in which case, please let me know, in this case, if there are no additional implications—they simply hold the permit and they don’t need to do anything with it and it naturally lapses in 2050, but it then is no longer operational. The question is around: are there any provisions under the Resource Management Act Subpart 1A of Part 7A that give the permit holder the opportunity to, at their own volition, shorten a permit if they no longer deem their business to be profitable or they no longer wish to operate under that permit and not replace it with another permit? Thank you.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you, Madam Chair. A number of questions for the Minister. Of course, this relates to all of the bill—the entirety of the bill—because what is happening, as my colleague Tangi Utikere described, is that this insertion is Part 1 of the bill is being acknowledged here in section 123A of the Resource Management Act (RMA). That is that “The duration of a coastal permit”—to which the Part 1 that we’ve already been discussing is—“is subject to any extension” under the duration here of a consent for aquaculture activities.

The questions are around that coastal permit. The coastal permit is not just a permit to occupy. That is part of what a coastal permit can be—occupation—but it is also the discharge that can be done through a coastal permit. The Primary Production Committee report says that right up the front in the commentary: that extensions are to “cover all RMA consents needed for a marine farm to operate (such as a coastal permit to occupy or a coastal permit to discharge)”.

It’s that latter issue of discharge that has the particular environmental effects that we were talking about in Subpart 1. Those are very important because we’ve also talked about in Subpart 1 that the review—we know that has been well litigated that it’s ratepayers to pay for any review. Not only is that review constrained by needing the director-general’s concurrence but it is also constrained to this two years that it can only commence “not later than 2 years after this subpart comes into force”.

That means that there are 18 years’ duration where a consent to discharge cannot be reviewed. I’m interested to know what evidence there is for saying that there’s never going to be a need to review a consent in that 18 years, or if there’s analysis that other parts of the RMA may be able to override this if their effects are significant. I asked the Minister if he sought advice on that particular point, but also if the Minister’s sought advice on other legislation that might apply.

We heard the Minister and responses to questions earlier saying that—this was in relation to a question about an Amendment Paper that was put about fish farming rather than molluscs. Fish have different environmental effects—different discharges—and they might change over time, so they might need to be reviewed, and what is the Minister going to do about that? The Minister replied, “Well, other legislation might apply.” I’m wondering, then, what other legislation he’s referring to, what advice he has sought on the other legislation, and specifically around environmental effects.

We’ve heard very clearly from the Minister that he’s not interested in amenity and he’s not interested in landscape, and that would be addressed under the occupation consent. But a discharge consent is about environmental effects. We’ve also heard from the Minister that there is an ideological purpose to the bill and he’s told us that he wants to help entrepreneurs. The flip side of that is that it’s allowing pollution—that is what this bill is about. It is about allowing pollution, and even if you’re going to make ratepayers pay to try and do some regulation of that pollution—some protection of the environment from that pollution—they can’t do it for 18 years. This just seems extraordinary.

So I’m interested in the effect that this amendment has on section 123A. How are environmental regulators going to make assessments in those 18 years where a council won’t be able to instigate a review with or without the director-general? How are those environmental issues from discharges going to be managed?

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Oceans and Fisheries): We are talking about Part 2, an inoffensive, benign section in this proposed legislation. What it deals with is there may be cases—especially in Tāmaki-makau-rau, covered by the super-city council—where there’s been a history of allocating 35-year permits, if I can use that term. In the event that someone who enjoys such a permit ends up having the opportunity to extend their permit so it goes beyond 35 years as a consequence of us having a drop-off date of 2050, they’re not going to lose their entitlement.

On the question of discharges—on the question as to whether or not Part 2, in addressing whether or not there are a small number who have a longer period to run their business without being hassled, undermined, or unnecessarily taxed, in a figurative sense, by these busybodies in regional government, the reality is we’re going backwards. The purpose of this benign segment here is to give surety to those long-suffering, hardy employers, developers of our natural resource. Now, where there is an egregious case at some ill-defined point in the future, reflective of what the honourable Green member and the former Minister of oceans have referred to through fish farming, and if it did represent a biological threat, there are other pieces of legislation that can be invoked.

We are not going to have a situation where a tiny group, day and night, studying the innards of the Resource Management Act, weaponise every obscure reference to undermine capitalism, to undermine the functioning of the market, after people have made a difficult but admirable decision to invest their own money in creating jobs. This bill, this Minister, unashamedly stands with them. There may be a few molluscs and rare, obscure snails that go by the way, but I’ll take jobs any day.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’m going to take a call from Tangi Utikere next. I just want to remind members that this is a very, very small piece of the bill, and I don’t want any repeat questions of anything that’s already been asked, because this is not something that’s got a lot of scope to it.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Thank you, Madam Chair. There are still some questions that haven’t been addressed by the Minister. I note that the Minister has said that this particular part is inoffensive, and, actually, he describes it as benign, which is rather unfortunate, because this is an actual part of the bill that is rather active in terms of its transference and what rights and responsibilities it does actually pose. For the Minister to describe this as benign, perhaps he is referring to the word count rather than the actual impact or effect that this might have. That’s a question to him.

I do note, actually, that there is an Amendment Paper in my colleague Mr Abel’s name, so I won’t touch on that, because it relates to inserting reference to administrative charges, which, actually, we haven’t covered in this particular part yet. And, in the previous part, the Minister still failed to address the Amendment Paper in my name—OK, I accept it was voted down, but it did still reference what was considered to be fair and reasonable and at a cap of 50 percent. On this side of the committee, at this stage, we would look to support Mr Abel’s Amendment Paper because it inserts a further trigger in the sense of administrative charges being carried over, but I’ll leave that to the Greens to explore a bit further.

My question to the Minister is around, given this is specifically related to Subpart 1A, at what point is the extension given effect to? While this is a discrete clause in terms of word count, it talks about the fact that the duration—so we’re talking about a time frame of a coastal permit—to which the section applies subject to any extension that may have been, effectively, authorised under Subpart 1A. Now, Subpart 1B is about the review of conditions, and we’ve talked about that; this is about Subpart 1A.

My question to the Minister is: given the number of proposed new sections in Subpart 1A, which of those are, effectively, engaged? Does it start at the new proposed section 165ZFHC, which is when it identifies the actual date of conditions, or is it at the point that the coastal permit is updated? Is it at the point when the application is withdrawn? Is it at the point where the decision is made that actually, no, the application is to continue? Is it at the point where the decision is taken for a permit to be surrendered? And I accept what the Minister has said around that.

There are a number of different proposed new sections in Subpart 1A, which is what this part refers to, that identify different actions to be taken. Now, it may be quite simple in the sense that, actually, the point of engagement here is when, regardless of those different sections, the different criteria are met, but my question to the Minister is: at what point is Part 2 actually engaged when it comes to an extension that may apply under Subpart 1A?

STEVE ABEL (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. I thank my colleague opposite for—

Hon Member: Not opposite!

STEVE ABEL: Across—across the Chamber—across. I appreciate it, because I actually made the error of speaking to this amendment earlier on in the wrong part, but I should clarify that it belongs in this part. We were, sadly, not able to speak to a number of amendments in the earlier part because the debate seemed to be shut down prematurely, in our view. This amendment is one that rebalances the burden of cost for the consent authority, which is, effectively, the ratepayer, so that those commercial activities that are indeed being reviewed—if there is a requirement that they be reviewed—that the consent authority is entitled to recover the cost of review undertaken under the subpart, including “any costs arising from a request by the Director-General, under section 165ZFHK(3) for information not held by the consent authority in its normal course of business.”

Again, this is a very reasonable proposition in an otherwise reckless piece of legislation that would make it a little more reasonable, because it recognises that if these worthy businesses, as I’m sure many of them are, are in fact solvent, they should be able to cover the reasonable cost of consent. Where it is seen appropriate, as the legislation requires, that not only the consenting authority has to recognise the need for a review but they have to do that with the agreement of the director-general, then surely it is also fair, given that consent or consensus that there needs to be a review, that the costs of that should be recovered and recoverable. That’s the nature of the amendment, and we would like to hear the Minister’s response to another very nominal and reasonable amendment.

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Oceans and Fisheries): I remind the committee that we have already addressed Part 1. We have already addressed these relatively insignificant, largely marginal details reflected in the member’s amendment.

I bring us back to Part 2. Part 2 is explicitly covering those small number of rights holders, if I can use that term figuratively, that may go beyond a point where their entitlement stretches beyond 35 years. This is about ensuring that they don’t run afoul of what is an overdue piece of legislative liberalisation. It is driven to give greater certainty, with the greatest of respect to the honourable member from the Green Party, that debate, that issue—not necessarily the amendment, but the issue—was covered off in Part 1.

I repeat, again: yes, it is a departure from orthodoxy that the council staff—before they push the go button, before they worsen the prospects of the men and women—hail, sun, rain, shine, are up in the dark early in the morning creating jobs, boosting exports, braving the elements of the Tangaroa and Mother Nature. This bill celebrates their prowess, and the sooner it passes, the better.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you, Mr Chair. I am interested in what the Minister, the Hon Shane Jones, was just saying there about the application of new subsection (5) to section 123A of the Resource Management Act being only to do with the 35-year relationship. My understanding was that this inserts the whole of subpart 1A. If he’s saying it’s limited to the timing of only some of the extensions that may or may not apply, it would be useful for clarification on that.

Going back, I did ask—and this is how that 35 year relates—if there is a 20-year extension, the council has two years where they can pay for a review if the director-general applies, but what happens for those other 18 years? That is the question, and the answer I think I received was the Minister, basically, saying that there are no environmental protections for those 18 years and that this is to enable capitalism. If I am correct in thinking that what the Minister was saying was in answer to my question—I’m not sure that it was; that is why I am re-putting it for clarity here—that is extraordinary. It is beyond just not being orthodox; it is extraordinary. The Minister is sitting here and is happy to say there should not be environmental protections for 18 years, because of capitalism.

Hon Member: He’s not saying that.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: I am hearing someone from the other side of the Chamber saying that is not true. I hope that that person is a National MP and that they are going to their Ministers at the moment and saying, “What have you agreed to in Cabinet?” This is reprehensible. It is not benign. It is not just about stopping bach owners from complaining about aquaculture; it is saying, “If there is a discharge that is dangerous to the environment, the regional councils can’t do anything about it, and that is fine because somebody is making money.”

Well, they are only going to be making money in the very short term, and this will have financial consequences for the wider community as well. It is shameful, and I call on all those members on the opposite side, who now appear not to be looking at me and are very quiet, to take a call on this matter and say what National’s position on this bill is. I’ve not heard one speech on it in this committee stage. People are jumping up and down to take a vote, but are you listening to what the Minister is saying? He is saying that there should be no environmental protections for 18 years—18 years.

Hon Member: He’s doing an outstanding job—outstanding Minister.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Ah, the members are happy about this now. This is shameful, and I hope that your voters are listening to it.

STEVE ABEL (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. I appreciate the advice of the Minister that I’ve been speaking to the wrong section. I’d better polish up that law degree that I didn’t do.

I’m speaking to new clause 5AA in Part 2, which inserts clause 5, page 8, before line 25, to section 36 amended. And it’s about administrative charges, after section 36(1A)(b) to insert “(c) section 165ZFHI in relation to the review of conditions for a coastal permit extended under subpart 1A of Part 7A.” This is to give effect to the consent authority being entitled to recover costs and it’s about administrative charges. That is what I would like to correct and put as an amendment to this committee. We’ve probably heard the Minister’s view on it already but I would like to echo, while I have a brief moment, the consternation and distress of my colleague on this side of the Chamber at the sort of blatant acceptance of the narrative that it’s OK to make money at any cost. Clearly that is not the view of our society and it is right that we have a balance and we take into account the ecological and environmental effects of activities such as marine farming. Thank you.

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Oceans and Fisheries): When are we going to hear an end to these snowflake-prize falsehoods? Think about the New Zealanders today who have lost their jobs and who may also lose their jobs in this sector, unless we give greater certainty and greater confidence to this area of natural resource development.

All this talk about administrative charges—sadly, that was dealt with last night. If a council officer is possessed of information requiring him or her to intervene in the legal operations of an enterprise—and these people love their enterprises; they love the environment; they’re not quietly plotting and scheming, at 11 o’clock at night, that they’re going to go tomorrow and release toxic material into the environment. It would destroy the fact that they’re growing food. This is the catastrophisation that we’ve seen for far too long from that side of politics.

This, I say again, is a benign, insignificant, and inoffensive portion of the bill that simply creates clarity for the small number of permit holders who may go beyond what is contemplated in this bill. It makes their rights legal. It assures them that they are involved on behalf of the broader New Zealand society in regions where it would appear that side of the Chamber has nothing but detestation for them. They’ve found a champion in me.

RYAN HAMILTON (National—Hamilton East): I move, That debate on this question now close.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): There’s not much left to go, but I’m looking forward to hearing something new, Mr Utikere.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Thank you, Mr Chair. Given the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries has provided a response, I want to pick up on what the Minister has just said, because he has said that there are people who are losing their jobs. That is correct—that is absolutely correct. It is the one thing, actually, that I agree with that has come from this Minister through this committee stage, is that people are losing their jobs. And why is that? Why is that? It’s because of the decisions that this Minister and his Government are taking, that’s what is leading to that. If this particular bill is seeking to address some of those issues, and this is a direct response to—

Hon Nicola Grigg: What’s your question? Very political statement.

TANGI UTIKERE: Well, Ms Grigg seems to have a lot to say. Perhaps she could take a call on this. Actually, any of the members could take a call on this. The Minister is right, people are losing their jobs, but if this is the context in which he is painting and saying that capitalism is the answer around that—well, people will form their own views on it.

I’m thankful to my colleague Mr Abel for his clarity around his Amendment Paper, because I didn’t want to be discourteous and speak to his own thoughts here without hearing what he had to say. I will now address Amendment Paper 58, which is in his name. My question to the Minister is: why is he not prepared to consider in a positive way the introduction of a reference to administrative charges as part of this part—which is entirely in order—given the fact that he has referenced that people are losing their jobs, given the fact that this will be an additional cost that is borne by the ratepayers. I’m still to hear from the Minister about his view.

A maximum of 50 percent could have been borne by the ratepayers in terms of cost recovery—just one aspect, if things were fair and reasonable. Why is the Minister not prepared to incorporate administrative charges on Mr Abel’s Amendment Paper, given that this will be an additional cost on ratepayers? Rates are going up, people are losing their jobs—that’s out of the mouth of the Minister himself. So consider that, actually, that is something that is related to Part 1A. The Minister thinks that this is a benign piece, as my colleague—

Dana Kirkpatrick: We’re in Part 2, aren’t we?

TANGI UTIKERE: Well, it’s actually Subpart 1A. We are in Part 2, as I’ve heard from members opposite, but this relates specifically to Subpart 1A, which is referencing both the costs and the ability for decisions to be made about coastal permits, and others.

My question to the Minister is: in light of his comment and his acceptance that people are losing their jobs, that this is an additional cost on the ratepayers, that there are provisions available for it to be capped—although he’s not keen to explore that, I infer; although he hasn’t addressed that previously. Rates are going up. Why will the Minister not signal support for Mr Abel’s Amendment Paper?

RYAN HAMILTON (National—Hamilton East): I move, That debate on this question now close.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Steve Abel’s amendment to Part 2 inserting new clause 5AA set out on Amendment Paper 58 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

Darleen Tana’s amendment to Part 2 inserting new clause 5AAA set out on Amendment Paper 77 is out of order as being the same in substance as an amendment previously not agreed to.

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

Ayes 68

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

Noes 49

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Tana.

Part 2 agreed to.

Clauses 1 to 3

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Members, we come now to our final debate, clauses 1 to 3. This is the debate on clauses 1 to 3—“Title”, “Commencement”, and “Principal Act”. The question is that—Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair.

Hon Member: A bit slow.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: We were waiting, hoping that the Minister may have something else worthy to say—yeah. I would like to make a couple of suggestions to the Minister around potential title names that maybe the Minister would like to consider.

I think one of the things we have heard throughout this entire debate is the fact that the Minister gives very little regard to local government. Indeed, one of the things we did see during the select committee stage is the fact that 90 percent of the submitters were opposed to this bill. I wondered if the Minister has considered the amendment that rather than the Resource Management (Extended Duration of Coastal Permits for Marine Farms) Amendment Bill, we may get the “Resource Management Act (We Don’t Care About Local Government) Amendment Bill”.

It’s not just the local government, both in terms of the submissions that the local government made but also the burden that it places on them in terms of the extra duties that local council and ratepayers will have to be responsible for. We also heard from iwi Māori that this is something that they do not agree with, and we’ve heard from Ngātiwai, Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki, just to name a few that did not agree with this bill. I wondered, again, if the Minister had considered not just that we don’t care about the local government amendment bill but also iwi Māori. Frankly, in the select committee, we heard that this is a violation of Māori rights and Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

More broadly speaking, we have found that the Minister spent more time during this debate criticising us and also our position and the evidence that we have put forward and evidence that the Minister’s own ministry has put forward. The Minister has mentioned a number of things around, you know, the greenies and all of these people, Greenpeace and all of those, but I wondered if this is just a simple case of the fact that the Minister has his head in the sand and this is a bill that is more accurately referred to as the “Resource Management (Head in the Sand) Amendment Bill” or “Tunnel Vision Amendment Bill”. Or even the fact that we live in an alternate universe where there are not so much as ecosystems, because the Minister does not believe there is any impact to the ecosystem or anything ecological, and it’s better to call it, rather than ecosystem, “ecosilos”, because that’s what we think that the suggestion here is going to do without any sort of accountability.

When we are looking at this particular bill, and the extension we’re giving for a lot of those permissions, for a lot of those permit holders, they may be yearning to make those kinds of changes, the kind of review that will incentivise them to make those kinds of changes, undergo modern environmental assessments, but this particular bill will not address that. It also does disregard the effect on current national environmental standards. Very much so, I think: if the Minister would consider renaming it to the “Resource Management (Rather than Ecosystem but Ecosilos) Amendment Bill”.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you, Mr Chair. I have been in the Chamber for most of this bill, this committee stage of this bill, and have been listening closely to the Minister. I also have some suggestions for the title, and it’s the title clause that I’d like to talk on.

Of course, we had a lot of discussion in the committee about how it is the council and, therefore, ratepayers that are going to have to pay for any review of these extended consent conditions. But, of course, they can only do that for the first two years. My suggestion is—I’ve got it, again, in this title that I’m going to suggest, and that is because, of course, I’ve spent a lot of time yesterday, as well as in the House, talking about the water bill, and there we see, as well, more and more money being put on councils and ratepayers. My suggestion is that it’s the “Resource Management (Costing Ratepayers Again) Amendment Bill”. That’s my first suggestion. That is, of course, because it is shameful that it is councils that have to pay for any review when the Minister has explicitly said that his concern is that it’s those wealthy bach owners who are requiring reviews. That is his justification for the consent holders not to be paying for those reviews, which is the standard resource management process.

Of course, he already has a mechanism to get over that, because the Director-General of the Ministry for Primary Industries has to agree to any review in the first place. We’ve also heard that they can only do a review in those first two years, leaving an additional 18 years, so a further title that the Minister might want to consider is the “Resource Management (Justified by Nimby Wealthy Bach Owners, but Actually Stopping Review of Discharge Conditions for 18 Years) Amendment Bill”.

Another suggestion related to that particular point of these 18 years of no review on discharges—I’m not talking about the occupation consent, but the discharge consent, so that is pollution in our commons—is that it should be the “Resource Management (Allowing Unchecked 18-Year Discharges) Amendment Bill”. I think that is an appropriate name for the bill.

Then, of course, we’ve heard, in very florid language, about the importance of jobs and people making money from the commons, and “capitalism” was used by the Minister as well. Another suggestion, of course, is that it could be the “Resource Management (Taking Capitalism to the Commons and Allowing Pollution) Amendment Bill”. That, I think, would much more correctly explain what it is that this bill is doing.

We also, earlier in the debates last night, heard about the aberrant councils, and we heard, of course, about the Minister’s disdain, in particular, for the Marlborough council, despite his whip hailing from, or still being a member of, that council. I was suggesting, if this is all being driven because of that particular dislike of that council, it could be the “Resource Management (Punish Aberrant Marlborough Council) Amendment Bill”. That seems to capture a lot of what the Minister was talking about.

We heard from the Minister about “indiscriminate detritus”, and by that, I think he was talking about, maybe, people involved in the resource management system. Of course, being a proud holder of an ecology degree, I think of “indiscriminate detritus” as being very important. Detritus can be very important in our ecosystems. Of course, there could be detritus from these fish farms—as we heard from Steve Abel, particularly the finfish—that do cause negative environmental consequences that would normally be controlled by consent conditions on discharge consents but will not be able to be reviewed by these changes. Of course, it could be the “Resource Management (Permitting Indiscriminate Detritus) Amendments Bill”.

Then, finally, my final suggestion for now is that we also heard from the Minister about trade-off politics. In resource management and planning law, you often hear about trade-offs in the planning sense—so, do we want to protect landscape over wind farms? That’s the most obvious and easiest one to talk about. We do not generally hear about environmental bottom lines, which seems to be what this Minister is intent on doing in this and other pieces of, legislation, so my final recommendation that I’d like the Minister to consider is the “Resource Management (Trade-off Politics by Getting Rid of Review Rights) Amendment Bill”. This bill is a disgrace and should be renamed.

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Oceans and Fisheries): A final and brief contribution. The name of this bill reflects the deep commitment towards giving certainty and confidence to this sector of our economy. Look, I don’t think it uplifts the mana of this House or purpose of this bill by all sorts of extreme suggestions from the other side. This is a time for dry, focused language. I think that we’ve reached a point where the public has exhausted its patience listening to these colourful, fanciful suggestions, and we need to return back to the technical language of the bill as reflected in this very sensible, harmless title.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Thank you, Mr Chair. I thank the Minister in the chair, Shane Jones, for his benign contribution. I do think that the suggestions that have been offered from members on this side of the House—and I do note that there was a wry smile from the Minister when my colleague the Hon Rachel Brooking was suggesting some of those possibilities there, particularly the nimby aspect—are aligned with what clearly is an anti-ratepayer approach to this. When we think about the fact that rates are continuing to increase in our community—and, yes, let’s be fairly frank about this: the majority of locations where these coastal permits will fall will be from the local consenting authorities, many of whom took the time to share their views with the Primary Production Committee—I do think that it is appropriate that the committee does consider what might be sort of phrased as anti - local government, anti-ratepayers, anti-council sort of definitions or tones for this particular title.

I have a couple of my own that I’m sure the Minister has had an opportunity to reflect on, because they are part of the tabled Amendment Paper. The first one is to call this the “(Extended Duration of Coastal Permits for Marine Farms Despite Potential Degradation of Environment)” Amendment Bill”. Look, I was actually quite happy to not have that and to vote against that myself—and this side would—on the proviso that the opportunity to reduce the time frame for extensions to that of five years or even 10 years, which was seen as a compromise, was going to be taken up by this Government at this stage, in the committee of the whole House. Sadly, that has not been the case, and so I feel that I have to continue with what was proposed there, because, let’s be honest, there is the potential for ongoing degradation of the environment when this Government, effectively, extends permits and the conditions that are currently operating—not about a review but the actual current operation of the permit over a 10-, 15-, 20-year horizon—and beyond. There is bound to be some potential—there is absolutely bound to be some potential—for degradation when it comes to the environment. Calling it that was certainly an option.

The other was the “(Extended Duration of Coastal Permits for Marine Farms to Kick the Can Down the Road)”, because this has become symptomatic of this particular Government in terms of their approach to, basically, anything and everything these days. That’s on Amendment Paper 55. I’m interested in the Minister’s thoughts, given that they have been tabled.

I want to turn now to clause 2, which is about the commencement. Now, it’s proposed that this particular Act, once it’s given Royal assent, will come into force the day after Royal assent is given. As we’ve worked through this committee of the whole House stage, largely around Part 1, we have turned our mind to some of the hurdles and obstacles that applicants; that councils, particularly consenting authorities; and that the director-general themself may actually encounter. Given that there is still an element of some uncertainty—and the Minister might actually refute that there is uncertainty in this particular space—my question to the Minister is: why not consider a time frame post Royal assent? For example, even if it was to be six months post Royal assent to ensure that there are processes that are in place for the director-general to go about consideration.

Yes, there are time frames that are already given in terms of the 20 working days for additional information to be provided, but wouldn’t it provide some confidence and certainty—the very things that the Minister wants to provide in this bill—to ensure that the processes that this Government are wishing to set up and put in place can adequately be put in place? A six-month, 12-month period may do so. It would still provide certainty for the individuals that the Minister seems keen to provide certainty for.

My question is: why is it necessary to allow this bill to, effectively, come—well, once it’s given Royal assent, it will be an Act—into force the day following Royal assent? I mean, we deal with this in this Parliament all the time, where the commencement date can be very different depending on a range of different circumstances. I don’t think that the need for certainty and confidence would be done by providing a further date. I’ll leave that question with the Minister.

STEVE ABEL (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. Yes, well, here we are at the title and commencement. I think one of the striking things about this piece of legislation is that it represents a significant overreach of central government, undermining the local authority, the rights of iwi Māori, the essential environmental protections that we have put in place over many years in this country. It shifts the burden of risk and cost from private entities to the public, and it misuses our common coastal marine area. And I should also add that it’s a violation of Te Tiriti o Waitangi and, in our view, infringes on the rights of mana whenua and mana moana by excluding hapū and iwi from participating. It disregards the effective and current national environmental standards under which marine farms are being managed, and without a single application being declined, even when they are in inappropriate locations, even when they are the most high-impact forms of fish farming. Not a single thing gets declined. I suggest an appropriate title would be “King Jones Ocean Giveaway Bill”—

Hon Shane Jones: “Matua”—“Matua”!

STEVE ABEL: He’s liking it—he’s liking it: “King Jones Ocean Giveaway Bill”. Basically, this is an instance when central government is saying, “Here you go; you can have it.”—with no caveats, no obligations—“Here’s a free giveaway of these marine coastal consents.”, irrespective of whether you’re a good marine farmer or you’re a poor marine farmer. Irrespective of whether you are designated to be in an inappropriate location—which is a tiny percentage of the marine farms—nevertheless you will get a free permit. Irrespective of whether you’re a higher-impact activity, like fish farming, you’ll get a free permit. It’s, basically, the “King Jones Giveaway Bill”.

If that is not accepted—and I’m hoping the Minister will appreciate it—I also would like to support Tangi Utikere’s proposed titles for it: “(Extended Duration of Coastal Permits for Marine Farms”—in clause 1—“Despite Potential Degradation of the Environment)”. An obvious title, and an excellent one. I’d also like to support his other proposed amendment: “(Extended Duration of Coastal Permits for Marine Farms to Kick the Can down the Road)”. I thought that my colleague the Hon Rachel Brooking’s suggestions were similarly excellent.

This is a dark day in the relationship between central government and local government, between the Crown and iwi, between the balance that we must strike in providing a living for members of our society and taking care to look after the environment on which all of us rely for generations to come. I’m very sorry to see the likelihood that this Government will pass this piece of legislation. Thank you.

SUZE REDMAYNE (Junior Whip—National): 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 49

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Tana.

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Tangi Utikere’s amendments to clause 1 set out on Amendment Papers 54 and 55 are out of order as not being serious amendments.

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 49

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; 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 49

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Tana.

Clause 2 agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 3 be agreed to.

Ayes 68

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

Noes 49

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Tana.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Bill to be reported without amendment.

Bills

Corrections Amendment Bill

In Committee

Part 1 Amendments to principal Act

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Members, we come now to the Corrections Amendment Bill. We come first to Part 1; this is debate on clauses 4 to 47A amendments to the principal Act, and Schedules 1 and 2. The question is that Part 1 stand part.

Hon MARK MITCHELL (Minister of Corrections): Thank you, Mr Chair. Look, firstly, I just want to acknowledge my predecessor the Hon Kelvin Davis and the previous Government who did the bulk and substantive work on this bill and, of course, as the incoming Government, I was pleased to be able to make what I think are some really important changes and additions, especially around the rehabilitation and the delivery of programmes to prisoners on remand, inside the corrections system.

It’s unacceptable; we have an unacceptably high amount of prisoners on remand in our corrections system as a result of them trying to get through a court system that’s clogged. But whilst they’re with us, I think it’s important—especially those remand accused who are getting no programmes at all delivered—that, actually, we make an investment and we make the change to make sure that they get a programme delivered and support towards rehabilitation whilst they’re with corrections.

The bill makes important changes to the Corrections Act 2004. It changes intelligence provisions in the bill, which is going to give corrections staff a much stronger ability to keep the front line and prisoners safe; this is critically important. Corrections intelligence staff will be able to better identify risks and respond to them. These provisions directly respond to the reality of challenges that corrections faces every day. As the incoming Minister, my number one priority was around staff safety, and if the staff are safe, then that naturally leads on to a better-run prison with an upside for everyone.

The bill includes a number of other important tools for safety. Strengthening the disciplinary process in prisons is one of them. This will ensure the disciplinary process in prisons is more effective and holds prisoners to account. The bill provides for the expanded use of body imaging searches of prisoners. This change will help prevent contraband such as drugs and cellphones from entering our prisons. This change also ensures the legislation provides flexibility to adapt to future technologies and better supports staff safety.

Extending rehabilitation, like I said, to remand prisoners is one of this Government’s priorities. The bill enables limited mixing of remand and accused and convicted prisoners for non - offence-based programmes. The bill also provides for offence-based rehabilitation for remand convicted prisoners. I also want to acknowledge the minority views that were submitted by both Labour and the Green Party during the select committee process. In relation to that, I want to touch on the Treaty of Waitangi provisions that were removed at the select committee stage. I want to be clear that it’s my expectation that Corrections will continue working with Māori. This includes continuing its work with hapū and iwi to deliver culturally responsive rehabilitation.

Finally, I brought forward an Amendment Paper that makes minor and technical changes to the bill. These changes enhance the workability of the bill and will not change any of the policies in the bill. Mr Chair, I look forward to debating the bill.

Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair, and thank you, Minister, for those opening remarks. I appreciate the fact that you’ve set out a little bit of the context to this Corrections Amendment Bill. It may look like small bill, in two parts, but the regulatory impact statement is a hefty document, as are several of the pieces of advice that the Minister of Corrections, previous and current, would have received, and certainly the select committee process had lots of things to consider as we worked our way through this bill.

There are several themes that the questions today will address. I think the Minister has certainly touched on one. Whilst it would be certainly the intention to go through in a systematic way and perhaps to do the sort of back and forth as the preference of the committee is, with regard to asking and answering questions, I think what I will do today is just set out a little bit more of that context. I know that I have colleagues who will be very keen, perhaps, in themes but also as questions arise, to pick up and circle back over various other considerations and concerns that we have with this piece of potential legislation.

The Corrections Amendment Bill, as the Minister has correctly said, was first introduced by the previous Government because there was—and we acknowledge—a need to update and keep modern and ensure that our corrections facilities and our Department of Corrections are always up to date with best practice, because, as the Minister has mentioned, safety of both staff and of prisoners is critically important. It’s a dangerous environment. It’s an environment that’s complex, that’s full of all sorts of considerations, because it’s full of human beings. By virtue of that alone, it’s one of those complicated ones, indeed.

The several proposals, the several legs to this bill as was first introduced by the previous Government, have largely been retained. We will have some questions about the practical applications of that as we go through this process of the committee of the whole House.

As the Minister has also touched on, the fact that the Minister and Cabinet made an explicit decision to remove Te Tiriti provisions and not only reference to Treaty but the principles and the other bullet points, essentially, that we will go through one at a time, from what has now come before this committee, we think is such a shame, is so atrocious. It completely guts and, quite frankly, ruins large swathes of the intentionality of this bill, and it’s something that we intend to spend a considerable amount of time on, working our way through, because the implications are so profound. It’s not just a principle, it’s not just in principle, but everything else that’s in this bill was guided by the legislative foundation that that simple clause in the early stages of the bill guaranteed and supported. Without that, there is a different lens to which we now must examine the rest of this bill, and that’s what we intend to do.

As I said, that’s the foundation, and there will be colleagues not only from the Labour Party but from whānau in the Green Party who will take up various aspects of this, because this is a really big question. It’s not just a bill. It’s not just a simple black and white, two-dimensional clause on a piece of paper. It was an opportunity to provide the legislative framework from which the rest of this made sense.

People and colleagues will approach it from several different angles, but I just want to ask the Minister, as a means by which to prompt and to give notice, I suppose, in terms of his own responses and his own thinking, if he could certainly turn his mind to that and think about the means by which the justification can be made and also the specifics as we go through the clauses as to what the practical implications might be.

I have a few questions. As I said, we had hoped to go through in a systematic way, but we’re going to skip to the clause that I think is the most contentious—clause 7—and that is one that has been completely removed from this bill. The section it referred to was 6A—[Bell rung] Mr Chair?

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Dr Tracey McLellan.

Dr TRACEY McLELLAN: I promise I will get to my questions quickly so that we can afford a little bit of back and forth. The section is section 6A, “Tiriti o Waitangi/Treaty of Waitangi”. Originally, it was drafted and it was included in the bill, as introduced, in order to provide the Crown’s intention to give effect to the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi—the Treaty of Waitangi.

I suppose my question to the Minister is: whilst you’ve touched on it and whilst I’ve read the documents and I’ve read the advice, I’m just interested to hear a little bit more from you as to why you thought it was necessary to remove that clause that underpins so much else in this bill and gives effect not only to the operational strategy and the documents—but what was the harm in making that explicit? What was the harm in keeping it in? What was the harm in showing—not saying, but showing—your intentionality to do something that gave effect to the fact Māori are overrepresented in our prisons and after years and years and years of trying to redress that shameful statistic, we finally put something in legislation that had some oomph, that had some intentionality, that was in black and white, and you’ve just turfed it out?

Can you talk me through the process that’s not as simple as it was part of a coalition agreement, it was part of a 100-day plan, and to suffice all of those relationships, you decided to prioritise that instead of doing what I believe is the right thing for the people of Aotearoa and for the people and the families and all of the individuals who are affected by this who find themselves with friends, relatives, whānau in the prison system? So can you just give me a little bit of an update on that and clarify your thoughts? We’ll come back with more specific questions as time goes on.

Hon MARK MITCHELL (Minister of Corrections): Thank you for the member’s opening comments. I just want to acknowledge and say that, yes, I agree with you. I want to acknowledge all of our corrections officers and personnel, whether they be community-based or whether they be working now in corrections facilities. It’s a difficult and demanding work environment and they do an outstanding job, but it’s incumbent upon us as lawmakers to make sure we bring legislation into this House that actually is going to make them safer and is going to make the people that they’re looking after safer as well.

In relation to the removal of the Treaty provisions, as she’s alluded to, as the incoming Government, a coalition Government, that was the decision taken by Cabinet. But the one thing that I would say to her is this. She’s saying that because the Treaty provisions aren’t in the bill, that means that Corrections are not able to actually deliver the services that we all expect of our corrections service, especially in relation to Māori. I agree with you, they’re overrepresented in in our corrections system. That is not Corrections’ problem. They just have to deal with what is presented to them.

However, they are very passionate about—as I am—making sure that we deliver more rehabilitation programmes, making sure that we continue to work strongly with iwi and hapū, because they have an extremely important role in the rehabilitation of our prisoners and making sure that they successfully reintegrate and that they’re able to make good decisions on their lives instead of bad ones. But having the Treaty provisions in there—by the way, the Corrections Act has never had those provisions in there. They’ve never had them and yet Corrections have been extremely effective in the work that they do over successive Governments for many, many years.

I don’t see this as being a barrier at all in terms of the outstanding work that our Corrections staff do in the delivery of those programmes. And they’re continuing to work alongside—which I’m facilitating myself as the incoming Minister—to strengthen those relationships with iwi and hapū to make sure that we can continue to deliver those great rehabilitation programmes into our corrections system.

TAMATHA PAUL (Green—Wellington Central): Kia ora, Mr Chair. Thank you for allowing me to take a call. My questions pertain to the Treaty provisions some more because I think that I have a different perspective to offer from that of my Labour colleague Dr McLellan, which is why I’ve got an Amendment Paper to restore the Treaty provisions within the bill. In your answer just then, Minister, you said that that was not the Department of Corrections’ problem—the overrepresentation of Māori—but it absolutely is. You yourself have acknowledged the disgrace that it is that Māori are overrepresented throughout our justice system, and that is the responsibility of Corrections to address that overrepresentation.

The Treaty provisions in the Corrections Amendment Bill would have allowed for equitable rehabilitation and reintegration for Māori. There was a requirement for the chief executive to ensure the development, maintenance, and implementation of a strategy that is focused on improving outcomes for Māori in the corrections system to address longstanding Māori needs. The provisions were making access to cultural activities a purpose for which prisoners could be temporarily released or removed from the prison, which is important so that they can attend things like tangi and other cultural activities; ensuring that prisoners have access to cultural activities, regardless of the prison in which they are detained; and were enabling the views of whānau, hapū, and iwi to be taken into account, where appropriate and practicable, in decisions about which prison offenders are accommodated in.

The reason that those Treaty provisions were inserted in the bill by the previous Government was because Māori are overrepresented in every single stage within the justice system. Whether it is the moment that they’re apprehended by police, through the remand process, through sentencing, through the time served, or through reintegration back into society, Māori are not experiencing or receiving the same treatment and outcomes as non-Māori.

In Te Tiriti o Waitangi, article 3 talks about the rights of Māori to have equitable outcomes to their non-Māori counterparts, so in not putting those Treaty provisions within the bill, it completely ignores that the founding document of our country provides for those equitable outcomes between Māori and non-Māori. Where is the onus on the chief executive or the members of the Department of Corrections to meet those needs and to address the institutional racism that is baked in throughout our justice system?

We know that there is racism baked in throughout our justice system because researchers have made that clear. Advocates, criminologists—people across our society have made it clear that there is racism baked into our justice system. If we want to look at the statistics that back up those claims, we know that the main one is that despite the fact that Māori make up only 17 percent of the general population, they account for 38 percent of people proceeded against by police, 42 percent of adults convicted, and 57 percent of adults sentenced to prison. Of people within youth justice custody, 67 percent of those are Māori, and in our women’s prisons, 68 percent of that population is Māori. We are among the most incarcerated people in the world, and I refuse to believe that that is something that is genetic or inherent within our people. It’s a reflection of the impacts of colonisation—legacies of poverty and trauma within communities that have come about as a result of colonisation.

I’m not saying that having Treaty provisions within this Act will turn those statistics around overnight, but what it does demonstrate is a genuine and sincere commitment from the leadership of Corrections and from the Minister himself to rectify those disparities, which are a disgrace. I guess my question is: why is it that the Government’s coalition agreement is more important than rectifying discrepancies between Māori and non-Māori, and what advice did you receive on the detrimental impact of removing the Treaty provisions from this bill?

One of the core aspects of rehabilitation for people who are in prison is their ability to take responsibility for the harm that they have caused and to be accountable for the harm that they have caused. How is it that we can have these expectations of the 10,000 people in prison that they will be responsible for their actions and harms caused if the ministry itself is not willing to take accountability and be responsible for the harm that they have caused in perpetuating the impacts of colonisation, and how are we supposed to have certainty that people in prison will be able to access programmes and initiatives that address their cultural needs as a pathway towards their rehabilitation?

We went to Waikeria Prison on Monday and we got to visit the Kia Mārama unit, and that’s one of the few Māori units throughout our prisons in New Zealand. We were able to talk to people in prison who had been a part of that unit, and they talked to us about the importance of learning their pepeha, learning karakia, learning waiata—that access to their culture that they’ve never had before. In the abuse in State care report, which details the abuse endured by people in State care during that time period, one of the harms that was highlighted was the disconnection of children from their culture and whakapapa, which led to the creation of gangs as we know them and the over-incarceration of Māori.

If we know that meeting people’s cultural needs is an important aspect of their willingness to engage with rehabilitation programmes and if we know that people having their cultural needs met is an important aspect for them to have pride in their identity and be able to see themselves differently than the way that they are treated—which is often like animals—then that’s going to be an important step towards rehabilitation. Can the Minister talk about whether he might consider supporting my Amendment Paper 81 to restore the Treaty provisions in the Corrections Amendment Bill, and can he talk a bit more about the overrepresentation of Māori and why he might believe that the work that Corrections is doing is sufficient in addressing the overrepresentation of Māori?

Hon MARK MITCHELL (Minister of Corrections): Firstly, I want to acknowledge the member and her interest in our corrections facilities and corrections staff, and prisoners and residents there. Obviously her recent visit to Waikeria highlights a genuine interest and desire to understand and know what’s actually happening inside our corrections system. I want to acknowledge too that she has put forward an Amendment Paper. I can’t support the Amendment Paper because it would be going against a decision that had already been taken by Cabinet.

I just want to correct one thing, and she said in her opening comments that there was nothing Corrections could do—it wasn’t their issue—around the fact that Māori were overrepresented in our corrections system. That’s not what I meant. What I meant was Corrections have got no control over who is coming into the system. When the people do come into our system, I’m extremely proud of the work that they do, whether it be community based or whether it be at our corrections facilities. I just want to assure her that the people that I see and that I meet inside our agency are deeply passionate about being able to deliver rehabilitation, look after those people whilst they’re with us, and give them the best possible chance at being able to reintegrate and make good decisions in their lives when they come back into society.

A big focus that I have as Minister of Corrections is also delivering programmes that give them real life skills; that give them the best chance of being able to come into meaningful employment, get some independence, get some pride back, have some options in their lives, and lead them more towards making good decisions instead of bad decisions which put them in that spiral back into our criminal justice system.

We know that we’re grappling as a country with Māori overrepresentation in our criminal justice system—I acknowledge that—but to say that our police and corrections officers and staff are racist: no, I completely reject that. In my experience, our police officers serve without fear or favour and they’re colour-blind. It’s exactly the same that I’ve seen inside our corrections services. If we’re willing and brave enough to have honest conversations about why there’s an overrepresentation, then we need to go right back into people’s lives and find out where we make the investment, where we can support them so that they can realise the potential that we have in our country, so they can make good decisions, and so they don’t come on to a fast track into our criminal justice system. That, fundamentally, is the social investment model that I’m a huge believer in.

Those are the sort of conversations that we should be having. Those are the sort of issues that we should be brave enough to address, and that, fundamentally, is going to be, in my view, the way that we’re going to make the biggest impact and stopping people from coming into our criminal justice system and instead being on a much more positive pathway in terms of realising their true potential.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to start my contribution to this issue by asking the Minister, has he read the Waitangi Tribunal’s report “Tu Mai Te Rangi!”. I see he doesn’t want to answer my question, so I’ll leave that one for him to think about whether in fact he’s actually even read the Waitangi Tribunal’s report on the justice system, which specifically talks about Corrections and the role that Corrections do in fact have as part of the justice system to address the overrepresentation of Māori. So, very clearly, my question is: have you read the report? Have you read the recommendations? Have you read your own regulatory impact statement on improving rehabilitation, reintegration, and safety outcomes in the corrections system? If the Minister had read the regulatory impact statement, he’d have seen, on page 84, section D: improving long-term outcomes for Māori, diagnosing the policy problem, operational changes under way, guided by Hōkai Rangi, that were needed.

The Minister said in his first responses that we don’t need a Treaty provision in law, that this can happen without it, that relationships were happening, that expectations had been set, that things were happening at an operational level. But if you read your regulatory impact statement and the tribunal’s report, it said what had been happening was insufficient and it needed more done, and the recommendation is to include it in legislation to require it to happen, to give practical effects to the application of those Treaty principles.

Now, the Minister has said Cabinet’s made a decision based on their coalition agreements. There’s one party who wants the Treaty principles bill—rewrite what all of those might even mean—and there is another party in that coalition agreement who says they will review, repeal, remove, or replace all Treaty references in all legislation. That’s New Zealand First. What is driving this: coalition agreements or actual problem definition, actual solutions to that, backed up by evidence from experts who say there was not enough partnership and relationships and delivering on these things prior to it, that the strategy alone, that the operations model alone was insufficient? It needed legislative provisions to ensure that we are on a track to reducing those disparities, which you have acknowledged.

I find it really hard to be here in the Chamber and hear the problem being acknowledged, the challenge being acknowledged, and “If only we could do something.” Well, you can do something. The Minister, the Government can put it into the law to make that actually happen; hold everybody accountable, hold the organisations accountable. The Minister, the Government, Cabinet deliberately decided to remove these provisions. What does that tell us all? Has the Minister read the report?

Hon MARK MITCHELL (Minister of Corrections): Yes. I have lots of reports to read, and, yes, I have read the report. The member Willow-Jean Prime is right that they have made recommendations around improvements. I agree—

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: But you’re not doing them.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, every agency should be focused on ongoing improvements, and that’s exactly what Corrections are doing. They are fully committed to that. But I completely reject the premise that because the Treaty provisions have been removed at this stage with this bill—by the way, the Treaty provisions have never been a part of the Corrections Act, and it hasn’t stopped those very deep relationships being formed with Māori, hapū, and iwi. It hasn’t stopped the delivery of those rehabilitation and culturally based programmes being delivered. It hasn’t stopped any of that. All of that is ongoing work.

I agree with the member that Corrections is always looking for improvement, it’s always looking to strengthen those relationships, and it’s always looking to be able to deliver more programmes. A big part of what this bill is currently about is being able to deliver more programmes to people, especially those on remand, because we have an unacceptably high level of people on remand at the moment.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Kia ora, Mr Chair. I thank the Minister, the Hon Mark Mitchell, for his wide-ranging introductory remarks, and I’ll just observe, before I get into some detail, that the Justice Committee, which considered this bill, the Corrections Amendment Bill, has also been engaged with the Ombudsman on the corrections system. The Ombudsman said, more in sadness than in anger, that he had seen no real change in the corrections system despite repeated reports where the Department of Corrections said, “Yes, we agree with all of your criticisms about prisoner safety and rehabilitation and lack of resources” but ultimately did nothing. This bill as presented to the House by Kelvin Davis was something that did something.

I want to go through and ask the Minister some specific questions, particularly around the differences between the bill as introduced and the bill now. And I want to go through it in a very methodical manner, starting on page 6 of the bill, which deals with interpretation. I observe that the innovation of having accused prisoners being able to access some rehabilitation is a really good thing, because people come to prison—they may be innocent but they may still have things in their lives that can be improved. I commend Corrections and the Minister for progressing that, but the first thing is this change: the deletion of “cultural activities”. The bill before the committee now removes the definition of cultural activities, and that definition simply said, “cultural activities means activities that are integral to establishing and maintaining a person’s connection with their culture”.

Now, Willow-Jean Prime has just touched on some Treaty issues, but this is not actually a Treaty issue at all. This is just recognising that we have a diverse range of people that come into prison, who, if they are going to be treated, firstly, humanely and, secondly, put back into the community in a better place than they arrived, need to understand their own cultural context, whether that be a Sikh, a person from China, a Māori person, a person from the Pacific—whatever. I’m just really perplexed as to why reference to cultural activities would be removed, particularly in light of page 7, where the legislation talks about “non-offence-based programme” and it actually refers to programmes which relate to te ao Māori or cultural, educational, employment, religion-based, or reintegrative programmes. On the one hand, we are getting rid of reference to cultural activities, but, actually, in the very next breath, the bill refers to cultural, religion-based, te ao Māori activities, which fundamentally are cultural activities. That’s the first thing; what’s going on there?

I am going to go through, essentially, line by line, and I’m going to start on my next one, which is quite distinct, and that is the definition of “remote access facility”. Obviously, the use of remote access facilities for things like visiting or even some hearings is important, and we’ve got a definition of audio link and audiovisual link. Obviously, an audio link is not as useful as an audiovisual link in terms of looking at people and seeing what’s going on, but then we’ve got “visual link”, and I’m a bit perplexed as to what the purpose of a visual link is—because it’s got no audio, and it’s hard to communicate with no audio. Is there a suggestion that we’re going to have some kind of remote visits, for example, or some form of important communication where it’s simply visual link alone, because that would really be deeply problematic? We’re looking at audiovisual links, visual links, and audio links in other contexts such as court hearings, and I think we need to be really cautious here. In terms of the insertion in that definition—this is a new insertion—of “visual link”, I’m very interested to hear what’s going on there.

I’ve asked two questions, one about cultural activities and this disjunct between that and the “non-offence-based programme” definition, and one about visual links and what exactly that means.

Hon MARK MITCHELL (Minister of Corrections): Well, firstly, the reality is that this Government has made a significant investment—over $70 million—to be able to deliver programmes to prisoners on remand, either remand convicted or remand accused. Remand accused have to have different types of non - offence-based programmes delivered to them because, in the eyes of the law, they’re innocent until proven guilty, and, unfortunately, they haven’t been in court yet. Of course it would be wrong to deliver offence-based rehabilitation to someone that’s remand accused. All the non - offence-based programmes, including cultural ones, will be made available to them. I’m not too sure what the member is referring to there. In relation to the visual and audio, quite simply, every option is available in the bill. Of course, if it’s going to be visual, there’s going to be audio that accompanies that as well.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. Thank you to the Minister for answering some of those questions, but he does actually raise further clarifications that it would be good to hear from the Minister on. I want to start with a big-picture question. Going through the regulatory impact statement, one of the things that did come out is some of the recommendations or suggestions from the prisoners themselves, because this is a bill that affects our prisoner whānau immensely. I wanted to ask a big-picture question from the Minister first, which is what kind of consultation and what sort of recommendation was taken on board from prisoners when this bill was particularly drafted?

Going on to the specific elements, again, we’re also sort of working through this because Part 1 is quite substantial and it covers a lot of different areas. In order for us to sort of do collective thinking and moving at a pace, we’re also going to go systematically through the clauses.

I’d also like to discuss in terms of clause 4(4) around interpretation. Now, we heard from the Minister around the fact that it’s not appropriate to have offence-based rehabilitation to those on remand, but I wanted to check from the Minister one additional clarification, because that’s to do with subclause (4) of clause 4, where it talks about “accused prisoner— … (b) does not include a prisoner who is on remand awaiting sentence”. I know there’s a later provision that other people may address in clause 11A around rehabilitation for those who are on remand awaiting sentence, but I want to just check over here what was the rationale behind specifying what we have here in, essentially, three stages: accused prisoner who is awaiting trial on remand, prisoners who are on remand awaiting sentence, and then prisoners post sentence.

I’m assuming that, from the Minister’s perspective, the treatment of each of these three groups would be quite distinct, but I do want to know, in terms of accused prisoners and prisoners who are on remand awaiting sentence, what is the duration we’re looking at here? One of the things the Minister addressed is the length of time that we have with prisoners on remand, and that’s one of the issues of why we have such a high remand population in Aotearoa, but what are some of the thinkings around splitting those two off specifically?

Coming over also to the point that the Minister has mentioned around the presumption of innocence—and particularly I’m looking at the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act (NZBORA), section 25(c), around people who are provided the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty—how does NZBORA then tie into these two categories of remand that have been created as a part of the definition of “accused prisoners”?

Finally, one other area that we haven’t heard from the Minister yet, and our colleague the Hon Dr Duncan Webb has mentioned it, is in terms of the removal of cultural activities. Other people may have further to say around the removal of clause 6A around Tiriti o Waitangi, but I, as a Chinese person, would like to focus on that element of cultural activities. The link I want to draw to is in the regulatory impact statement, paragraph 189, which is talking about feedback on Te Tiriti. One of the things I want to talk about is ensuring that Māori are not at risk for speaking te reo. I wanted to check whether the removal of cultural activities would then have inadvertent effect on the sort of treatment that people will have, particularly from a migrant background, when they are speaking in their own reo, when they’re speaking their own language in the prison system and how that would be addressed by the corrections facilities.

The questions would be around the three different types of prisoners, and particularly the two types of prisoners that have been created with the definition of “accused prisoner”, and also in terms of speaking their own language and the impact of that with the removal of cultural activities. Thank you.

Hon MARK MITCHELL (Minister of Corrections): A really good point to raise. Just quickly, on remand accused and remand convicted—it’s quite simply that. Someone who is remand convicted has been convicted—so they have been to court, they have been convicted, and they’re awaiting to be sentenced to find out what their sentence is going to be. Remand accused have not actually been to court and had their case heard. That is the fundamental difference, and that is why, if you were to deliver offence-based programmes to someone that was remand accused, even though they may actually ask for it, that could be seen as an admission of guilt, because they’re engaging on a programme like that. Fundamentally, that’s why they’ve been separated out.

Look, in terms of te reo, or any language that anyone wants to speak inside corrections, absolutely they can; there’s no restrictions on that, they’re very welcome to do that. I do agree with you that there’s also opportunity in corrections to expand cultural-based programmes, not just te reo but to other cultures as well.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. I also had some questions around the removal of clause 6A, which is titled “Tiriti o Waitangi/Treaty of Waitangi”. I just had to raise some reflections on this clause before I get to my questions for the Minister. This is a very specific clause that, actually, unlike many other Treaty clauses in legislation, outlines very, very specifically what Corrections should do in order to give effect to the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. I think it’s really important for the committee and for our discussions today in analysing this bill, to note that these are very specific commitments.

I have been listening to what the Minister’s been saying in relation to this clause, and I’ve heard his assurances that rehabilitation work will continue and that the work that corrections officers are doing is good work. I don’t doubt, on an individual basis, that they do do the best job that they can, but also we’ve heard comments from members around the Chamber, and I think that we must acknowledge that the statistics in relation to Māori are not where they should be and that something needs to be done. I think that this was the attempt, in this originally drafted bill, to address some of the inequities.

My questions are actually very specific. In section 6A, in clause 6, if we look at the sections that have been removed, what in this section will not be going ahead as a result of the removal of this section? Specifically, we’ve got the corrections system and support for rehabilitation and reintegration of Māori offenders. We’ve got a “chief executive’s function of ensuring the development, maintenance, and implementation of a strategy that is focused on improving outcomes for Māori in the correction system:”. I won’t read all of the different sections, but in that section, specifically I’d like to know from the Minister what won’t be happening.

A follow-up to that question: if these things are still going to be occurring under the corrections system—if he wants to jump up and answer, I’m happy to yield. But my follow-up question is really: if they’re not happening, why not? These seem to be very, very practical solutions to addressing a very real problem that has existed within our corrections system. If they are happening, then why are they being removed from this piece of legislation? And to what extent does the title of this clause, being a Treaty of Waitangi clause—as my colleague Duncan Webb has said, this is not just looking at the Treaty and saying we should use it as a philosophy for the basis of our work, which is what many other Treaty principles are; this is a very practical bill and a very practical clause. Why is it being removed? It seems to me to provide a way forward to addressing some of these very important issues that exist for Māori in our corrections system. Those are my questions for the Minister.

Hon MARK MITCHELL (Minister of Corrections): Look, a really good question. The one thing I’d say, and I’d come back to the point that I’ve been making, is that we have never had Treaty provisions inside the Corrections Act ever, and yet the system has been working very well. It’ll continue to work well. All of the obligations on the chief executive and on Corrections in terms of continuing to work on strengthening that relationship and recognising the importance of that relationship with iwi and hapū will continue, and is continuing today as programmes are rolled out and delivered.

Camilla Belich: So why take it out?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, quite simply, it was taken out because—the member alluded to it in her opening comment—we are a coalition Government and that was a Cabinet decision.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I’d like to pick up on those questions that were on, I think, page 7 under clause 6 of the bill. In particular, I really appreciate that the Minister’s been really forthright with his answers so far in relation to the removal of the Treaty references in this legislation. I just wanted to pick up on one thing he stated, which was that Corrections should be colour-blind and that if they weren’t, then it would somehow impede or make their job not right, so they should be colour-blind.

I would just like to refer the Minister to the regulatory impact statement, which specifically references the work that’s been undertaken by Corrections in relation to Hōkai Rangi. They specifically state that “Corrections is contributing to improved rehabilitation and reintegration outcomes by delivering its programmes and services in a way that recognises the power and the strength of whakapapa to enhance a sense of belonging and identity with the community.” I would see that as integral to the Hōkai Rangi strategy that has been and continues to be implemented by Corrections. It is not colour-blind; in fact, acknowledging Māori, their identity, their whakapapa, and their cultural connections is the very essence of how rehabilitation may well occur. I’m really puzzled by the Minister’s comments that the Department of Corrections should be colour-blind.

I would further really like to understand, and we haven’t had this answer yet, why the Treaty provisions have been removed. When we on the Labour side asked officials why these provisions were removed, similar to the Minister, the explanation we were provided was we’ve already got all these great Māori programmes happening; we can do some programmes, we can do cultural things, we can have te reo Māori—we can do all these things—so we don’t need a Treaty reference in this bill in order to be able to do all these great things for the 53 percent of Māori inmates that we have. But the question is: so why take it out? What’s wrong with having the Treaty in there? If these things are so fundamental to our partnership between the Crown and te iwi Māori, what is the problem with that?

You can just point to your coalition agreement, but it’s your coalition agreement as well. You need to be able to explain to New Zealanders that there is more to this than just a political promise. There needs to be logic behind removing it. I agree that you’ve made a deal with some coalition partners to be able to form a Government and pass legislation like this, but I think incumbent upon that power comes responsibility to explain to voting New Zealanders why taking Treaty references out of this bill makes one lick of difference. Because I can’t see how it does. You can’t leave it both ways. Either you take it out and it makes a difference to the bill or you leave it in and it stays the same.

I still yet have not heard from the Minister responsible for this legislation why the Treaty references have been taken out of this bill and also why they make the bill better by removing the Treaty references in this bill. We know that over 50 percent of those incarcerated in our prisons are Māori, and I do not accept that being colour-blind makes any difference or makes it any better.

He says that the corrections system is working incredibly well. Well, I would say that rehabilitation needs to hugely improve, recidivism needs to hugely improve, and I would think that the Treaty as a framework in a partnership between the Crown and te iwi Māori was a good starting point to start to address some of those huge discrepancies that we’ve continued to see over decades and decades in New Zealand. We still not have not received an answer as to why the Treaty references taken out, and, secondly, what difference this actually makes to the bill. All of the things that were already happening in there are, so why don’t we just leave the Treaty reference in there?

Hon MARK MITCHELL (Minister of Corrections): Well, I’ve actually answered that question four or five times out of respect for the members that keep asking it.

In relation to my comment around being colour-blind, if the member had been listening she would have heard that both the Police and Corrections were accused of being racist. I was very clear that I reject that accusation and that both services, in my view, are colour-blind. Now, that does not mean that our corrections officers aren’t deeply passionate about delivering programmes and caring for and looking after people—not just one ethnicity, multiple ethnicities inside our corrections system. I’m extremely proud of the work that they do. But are they racist? No, I completely reject that.

In relation to the question around the removal of the Treaty provisions, again I’d say to the member that, yes, it was a Cabinet decision based on a coalition agreement.

HŪHANA LYNDON (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Chair; thank you for the opportunity to speak. I’d like to support those who have echoed frustration in the Chamber in relation to the removal of the Treaty clauses in this legislation. Just because it hasn’t been done in the past, it doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be done now—now and for the future, because by locking in Te Tiriti o Waitangi into the legislation, it is for strategic purposes, it is for iwi Māori to know that there are protections in there, and it’s above and beyond obligations to a coalition agreement because the original agreement was Te Tiriti o Waitangi, signed in 1840; kia ora tātou.

Now, I want to ask the Minister: what hui did he have to inform his decision to remove these Treaty clauses? Maybe hapū and iwi missed the memo that there were hui held to consult. Then what advice or analysis was provided from officials in terms of the potential impact that not having Te Tiriti clauses could have on Māori in prison? We have, what, 68 percent of wāhine Māori incarcerated, and 53 percent of Māori overall. Because the original intent—and this is what I found; that our officials provided advice and said that Te Tiriti o Waitangi clause which is being removed is the most critical to achieving the original intent of the Treaty provisions, which is to ensure Corrections consistently focuses on improving outcomes for Māori. That’s the point of having Te Tiriti provisions: it elevates and it provides focus at a strategic, CEO-down, across the organisation.

May I pause and reflect on our visit to Waikeria Prison and the Te Ao Marama Unit, and meeting with Whaea Katarina, the kuia of the corrections facility. She was very clear on the way that they as hapū and iwi of that rohe embed themselves in that facility. Waikeria is working as a firm relationship with the tribes of Waikeria.

I think that that comes from a long relationship; I think it comes from something that iwi Māori have reached out to. But is that happening across the system? Do we have strong relationships, hapū, iwi? Do we have kaumātua kuia groups operating in each of the facilities? In Waikeria, the taumata sat there and they listened to the kōrero, and they shared the benefit of how they are trying to include cultural activities for these incarcerated whānau, and the fact that—I know, I’m going to go on to cultural activities too, because they’re hand in hand: connection to whakapapa, knowledge of who you are, and then the ability to execute those cultural activities are fundamental for protections in terms of te iwi Māori being able to go out into the community, go out into their families, and be strong individuals contributing positively to society.

Now, reflecting again on the Te Ao Marama programme: Hinewirangi Kohu-Morgan dedicated her life as a wahine Māori to work in Waikeria. This is, again, on purpose. She dedicated her life to sexual offenders. She passed recently, and her daughter is carrying on that legacy in Waikeria, and it was wonderful to see her daughter come and mihi to us as the Green Party, in there.

I believe that we need to lock in Te Tiriti o Waitangi to ensure—strategically and operationally—we have firm plans, we have accountability, and monitoring of the system across the board, not by chance. Just because Waikeria is amazing in what they’re doing to help strengthen our whānau that are incarcerated, it does not mean that it’s consistent across the system. And that’s the importance of Te Tiriti o Waitangi in providing that framework that we have heard in this Chamber: Te Tiriti framework provides protections and also overall accountability of the CEO, all the way down.

I acknowledge those that came into this Whare, the mōrehu who came and are the victims of State and faith-based care. Many of them are in the system, and when we think about the stories shared at Waikeria Prison and the way in which those experiences have impacted upon them, their ability to go out and participate in cultural activities, to be able to tuku mihi—to give a mihi—to be able to karakia and waiata with confidence, to be able to participate in programmes like those of Hinewirangi Kohu-Morgan are supremely important. But they cannot be by chance.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. I support that kōrero of Hūhana Lyndon. I appreciate the Minister has got out there and spoken with different groups. I’d be really interested in that.

One of the absolutely overwhelming facts that we hear, Minister, is that, as Hūhana Lyndon said, once our people get a bit of reo, once our people learn a bit of culture, it changes their lives—it changes their lives. I have seen it in my life. I’ve seen people turn around from nowhere to all of a sudden standing up, being proud, because they know how to speak a little bit of Māori, because they know their whakapapa, because they’re able to stand up in front of their kaumātua and kuia and introduce themselves, their maunga—their river—their whakapapa. It’s one of the most beautiful things.

I just ask the Minister, who, as I said, I know has got out there and I’ve seen him at different hui: was he here in 2019 when the Hōkai Rangi strategy was launched in Parliament here by Kelvin Davis? I ask the Minister: was he here that day and did he support what Minister Davis was saying at the time, that the aim was to reduce that Māori population from 52 percent, I think it was, down to 16 percent, was the goal? Of course, that hasn’t happened, but did he support the principles of what Hōkai Rangi was all about, which was more about treating the individual, looking at the history, the background, of that individual, rather than just a heavy approach and hammering the individual?

Some of the stuff that Kelvin did, I think, was something that should have been bipartisan, could have been supported by a National Government too, as some of the work that Simon Power did in the past was supported by Labour and other people. Simon Power was a National Party Minister; he had gang members coming into Parliament. Why? Because he wanted to find a way forward so that our communities could all work in tandem. So we had political parties working in tandem from both sides, a strategy driven by a person in National, and there was no reason for Labour to oppose it—looking at the depth, looking at the background of some of these gang members, and looking at the history in terms of jails. Is the Minister still committed to the principles of Hōkai Rangi? I’d like to know that.

Did the Minister also—and I’m not sure if I saw him—attend the justice conferences that Andrew Little initiated? Ināia Tonu Nei was incredibly important. Yes, I know he’s out there, but I want to know, what level of work has been done on the ground? At that time, we had Julia Whaipooti—I think it was—and Zac Wallace, who was a long-time prisoner in Paremoremo Prison, who was working at ground level; Deirdre Nehua. These were the people who were working for us at ground level. We had contracts in terms of prisoners coming out of jail and we were housing them around our marae at Ngā Whare Waatea. What level of contact has the Minister had with some of these groups? I would hope that a coalition agreement would not mean the end of a relationship with Māori and special groups and people who’ve made a contribution. And I don’t even know how these people vote, actually, to tell you the truth, but they have a huge commitment.

There were so many expectations that our justice people put in place. We had major hui here in Wellington. We had major hui in Rotorua. What is the future looking like in terms of Māori working in tandem with the Government? What’s that looking like? Is there a plan? It does distress us that the Treaty is being put aside because of a coalition agreement. The one underlying principle and priority from these hui was that the Treaty is an integral part of rehabilitation. I just asked a few questions there in terms of the background and has the Minister been involved in some of these kaupapa in the past, and are they still important going forward?

Hon MARK MITCHELL (Minister of Corrections): Thank you, Mr Chair. Look, to the previous speaker, Hūhana Lyndon, first—it’s great to hear that you had such a positive visit and experience at Waikeria Prison. Like I was saying earlier, it’s good to see members that are interested in taking a keen interest in terms of what our people are doing. I’m extremely proud of what they’re doing.

In relation to consultation about the removal of the Treaty provisions, the Treaty provisions have never been part of the Corrections Act. It’s very hard to be able to understand what the impacts are when they’ve never been part of the Corrections Act.

Coming to the Hon Willie Jackson, yes, I was definitely around in 2019; yes, I definitely support the initiative that Kelvin put in place and acknowledge him for that; yes, we’re working with iwi and hapū, as he knows; and, yes, we remain committed to making sure that we continue to develop and deliver the programmes that we think will do the best and move us towards, when people rejoin society, giving them the best possible chance of reintegration and making good decisions in their lives.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Just before we move to the next call, just some reflections. I want to acknowledge that there have been a lot of questions around the removal of section 6A, the Tiriti provision. A lot of that stuff has been addressed. There is still some new material coming up, but I would encourage members to not repeat arguments that have been made by themselves or by other members.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Mr Chair, and I acknowledge that guidance. There is a point in clause 6 that I did want to make that hasn’t been touched on, and that’s in clause 6 where it says, “After section 6(1)(h), insert: (ha)”, it’s on page 7 of the bill as reported back.

The issue I intend to raise pervades this legislation, and it’s this: that this is about “accused prisoners may, so far as is reasonable and practicable in the circumstances within the resources available, be given access to activities including non-offence-based programmes”, and so on. Now, the law does generally one of three things: it prohibits something, it requires something, or it gives someone a power to do something. My concern with this clause and clauses like it—and there are several through the legislation—is that it does none of those things. It just loosely waves in the direction of what—because it’s clear that the Corrections department can provide programmes, but it doesn’t require anything.

In particular, the expectation being placed on the department is watered down by at least three qualifiers, because one of the challenges that we’ve heard from the Ombudsman is that the department simply doesn’t provide sufficient rehabilitative programmes and people get to the end of their stay—however that may occur—and they haven’t received the attention that they need and deserve. In this clause, and in other clauses throughout, it says “accused prisoners may,”—so it’s not mandatory—“so far as is reasonable”—the first qualifier—“and practicable”—the second qualifier—“in the circumstances within the resources available,”—the third qualifier. If we have a genuine intention to deliver these programmes, what on earth is the point of this? It, basically, says, “If you feel like it, if you want to, if you can be bothered, if you’ve got the time available and the staff spare and some space.”

Now, if we are genuine in providing good programmes both to accused prisoners and other prisoners, then why on earth are we not saying, “Corrections is required to provide programmes.” I accept, and the Minister well knows, through exchanges we’ve had, that Corrections has not met minimum standards, let alone exemplary standards in respect of how it addresses and provides for prisoners in terms of their basic rights. But we need to do more, and a clause like this which says, “Accused prisoners don’t have an entitlement to any programmes, but they can have them if the chief executive and department wants to give them as far as is reasonable, as far as is practicable and within the resources available.”—it may as well say nothing, because that’s, essentially, what it does.

I think there is a genuine expectation, both by the community, who want to see people come out of prison better than when they went in, and by the people who are detained, to get the help they need. This can’t be dismissed by saying they do a great job because, I’m sorry, Minister, they don’t. We have the words of the Ombudsman on numerous reports and in person to the Justice Committee saying that’s not the case. I’m interested in whether the Minister would consider tightening this up and making it much more of an entitlement on the part of the detained person, and an obligation on the part of the department, to provide these kinds of programmes—rather than just a wish, a loose wish. I’d be interested in the Minister’s comments on that.

Hon MARK MITCHELL (Minister of Corrections): Thank you for the member’s comments. Look, at the end of the day, that clause means that we want to put Corrections in a far better position—much stronger position—to be able to deliver rehabilitation programmes. The reality of it is—and I’m sure that the member has visited one of our corrections facilities, and he will see that there is an up-tempo, very challenging, and dynamic environment. Corrections over the last few years have been operating severely under capacity in terms of numbers. We are starting to fix that. For the first time in a long time, we were above the rate of attrition and doing very well with recruitment, training, and deployment of new corrections officers.

To codify it and not give them the flexibility and the ability to be able to recognise the environment that they work in would mean that you could be putting Corrections in a position where they’re breaking the law. And we’re not going to do that. The whole focus of this legislation is to make it safer for both corrections officers and prisoners, and for us to be able to deliver more rehabilitation to those that need it—and that’s exactly what this bill is going to deliver.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. I would also like to first thank Mr Chair for allowing us to take a number of calls around the removal of Te Tiriti o Waitangi clause. This is incredibly significant, and this is incredibly significant for the Opposition to hear as well, because this removal took place after the select committee stage, so, in fact, no submitters have been able to comment on this. Hence a lot of people have been questioning around modelling and to what extent, so I want to thank the Minister for that.

I hope Mr Chair will be happy to know my question is not related to Te Tiriti. However, the first question I have is related to non - offence-based programmes. I want to thank the Minister for talking earlier about the importance of having the non - offence-based programmes for people on remand who are still awaiting trial. One of the things we know within the prison system, within the correction system, is the disproportionate number of people who are neurodivergent or who have dyslexia. I wanted to check whether the non - offence-based programmes that have been named here have considered the neurodivergence and also the dyslexia that is experienced by our prison whānau and whether these non - offence-based programmes would then be tailored to the people who may not learn in a one-size-fits-all manner within this programme system. That’s my first question to the Minister.

Now my second question is on clause 5, which inserts new section 3A, “Transitional, savings, and related provisions”. I want to specifically focus on Schedule 1AA, which is after Schedule 1. Now, there are going to be people who are talking about other elements of the rest of bill and the transitional nature of the bill, but I want to focus specifically on Schedule 1AA when they talked about clause 2(1) around management plans. What I want to focus on, which would really pique my interest, is the provision that it potentially has in place that prevents a retrospective penalty or double jeopardy that is in line with section 26 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act (NZBORA). I have a question around the transitional plan, in terms of whether the Minister has considered, as part of this transition and all other elements that we will be discussing that relate to the bill, whether that transitional plan has taken into consideration, when a person has been sentenced or is in the corrections system or is on remand waiting for a sentence, the risk of this bill creating a harsher punishment for these people, more so than at the time of their sentencing or at the time of their trial, ergo creating a harsher sentence, ergo double jeopardy.

I wanted to check if that has been a consideration by the Minister or by the officials around this, because one of the things that is in the regulatory impact statement, in the table on page 31, talks about monitoring. As an example, it talks about the fact that this may affect section 14 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, around the rights to freedom of expression, because some prisoners may have expressed that they are not able to express themselves fully if they’re being monitored—which implies that there is a level of consideration that they may feel that the treatment they are getting is harsher than when they were first sentenced. I want to know whether that has been considered and, upon balance, whether the Minister or the officials have considered for certain provisions in here to not be applied to prison whānau with a certain duration of sentence or to prison whānau on remand, waiting for sentence, that potentially will make their treatment worse than when they were sentenced or worse than when they were trialled.

Those are the two questions: whether neurodivergence and also dyslexia have been considered when we’re talking about non-offence programmes and what that would look like; and also in terms of Schedule 1AA around the transitional phase and whether we are looking at any potential issues with section 26 of NZBORA around retrospective penalty and double jeopardy. Thank you.

Hon MARK MITCHELL (Minister of Corrections): Thank you, Mr Chair. Look, I think what you’ve highlighted—and it’s true that Corrections deal with a wide range of very complex issues: from addiction issues to mental health issues. I think you raise a very good point around neurodivergence and people with dyslexia and whether those needs can be met. I can’t give you a very definitive answer on that. The only thing that I would say to you is that Corrections are very sensitive to this. They’ve got very good processes in place. They make sure that the prisons are supported in the best way that they can be.

In terms of transitional planning, I think that you’ve highlighted one of the issues that the previous speaker was talking about, and that’s how dynamic the environment is, and a lot of that stuff is outside Corrections’ control, in terms of someone that’s going up for parole may get parole or may not get parole, how long are they going to be in the system for, and whether they are going to be there long enough to be able to complete a programme. These are all very specific issues that Corrections have to deal with on a daily basis, but they’ll take all of those matters into full account when they’re making a decision in terms of when they are delivering a programme, always, always with the priority being how they give that person the best possible support and the best chance of being reintegrated and making good decisions when they leave the corrections service.

TAMATHA PAUL (Green—Wellington Central): Thank you, Mr Chair, for allowing me to take a call. I have some follow-up questions around new section 6A—the removal of the Treaty provisions—based on some of the answers that the Minister, the Hon Mark Mitchell, has provided to the committee today. Hopefully that won’t be too repetitive, but there was a comment made by the Minister which, roughly, said Corrections are not responsible for the people who come into prison. That was as a response to concerns that have been raised by this side of the House about the overrepresentation of Māori within the corrections system.

I understood the Minister’s comments to mean that it’s not Corrections’ fault who ends up in prison and what the make-up of that population is, because they’re not the ones who are putting people into the system in the first place. However, the way that people are treated while they are in prison directly impacts what they’re going to do when they get back out into society. We’re talking about recidivism, and so, actually, if prisons are environments that are hostile and that use punishment and retribution as a tool to control and restrain people—or, put simply, if you treat people like animals, they’re going to act like animals. So, actually, Corrections does have a responsibility and does have some control over who is coming back into the system due to the way that they are being treated.

That leads me to questions that I have around amended section 85, which replaces references to “non-lethal weapons” with the term “less-lethal weapons”. I would be really keen for the Minister to talk to us about what some of the weapons are that are used within Corrections and how appropriate it is to continue to use some of those weapons that cause extreme harm to people who are on the receiving end of those weapons. So my question around “non-lethal” versus “less-lethal” weapons is: could the Minister define what non-lethal weapons are, and could the Minister define what less-lethal weapons are, and what the rationale was for changing that terminology? I think, if the Minister could provide some examples of the weapons that are used, that will really provide some clarity. I was really concerned to see there isn’t even a definition for what “less-lethal” means. So, if the Minister could talk to us about his understanding of what less-lethal means, that would be really helpful. Does not including a definition of “less-lethal” leave an open risk as to any lethal weapon being used against incarcerated people? I would appreciate it if the Minister was quite clear about the difference between those two definitions and what those might look like in reality.

When I went to Paremoremo prison a month ago, I asked the officers what they thought about the changes in terminology, and I asked the prison director, Steve Parr, to show me what weapons they use and have at their disposal. I was happy to see that the first thing they did was point to their mouth, in terms of de-escalation and communication as the first and most important tool they have access to. But I know that, in reality, there is still use of weapons that really degrade, humiliate, and harm people in prison. I know that corrections officers are not able to access the same type of training that maybe police officers access. With police, as you know, as the Minister of Police, they’re able to access de-escalation training and training that helps them to accurately perceive threat within an environment. But corrections officers don’t have access to these same types of training.

There has been quite a bit of media around the use of different weapons within the corrections system. There has been some focus on Cell Buster extractions, which is, obviously, the process of gassing a prisoner in order to restrain them. There was one particular incident that was reported on by Guyon Espiner in 2020, which was about an asthmatic woman in Auckland Women’s Prison who had four canisters of gas put under her door and the officers stuffed the door with towels in order to not allow the gas to escape from the cell, and this ended up being taken to court in the Cripps v Attorney-General case. But that’s the reality. People are still being gassed in prison. Can he talk to us about some of those weapons and how is this consistent with the United Nations guidance around human rights that states that chemical irritants should not be used in closed environments without adequate ventilation or where there is no viable exit owing to the risk of death or serious injury from asphyxiation?

I’d also like to ask some questions about the use of spit hoods within prisons and with people who are held in custody. I know the Minister likes to borrow laws from Australia. I did a bit of research and found that New South Wales and South Australia have actually outright banned spit hoods and the use of those spit hoods. My question is: can the Minister, please, clearly outline some examples of weapons that are used within Corrections to restrain people in prison, and be really clear with the committee about the differences between non-lethal and less-lethal weapons—what those actually look like? And what will the changes to this piece of legislation mean for the upholding of the dignity and humanity of people in prison?

Like I said before, if you treat people in prison like animals and you strip them of their humanity and their dignity and you humiliate and harm them, that is going to further entrench the harmful attitudes and behaviours that they have, because they’re going to believe that everyone out there is going to hurt them. Hurt people hurt people. If we are cruel to people while they are in custody, the likelihood that they come out—most people in prison will come back into the community at some point. If we degrade them and strip them of their humanity during their time in custody, what is the impact of that in terms of when they come back into the community? Are they going to believe that violence is a tool that they can use to negotiate and navigate life?

Any clarity that the Minister can provide around non-lethal and less-lethal weapons would be helpful? And also, what training and guidance will Corrections staff receive on the use of non-lethal or less-lethal weapons, and what will the process look like if certain prisons want to employ different weapons? What is the process? What are the criteria for those weapons to be authorised for use? How are we going to make sure that there are sufficient protections in place to make sure that particular weapons don’t cause loss of life and don’t cause people significant physiological and psychological damage? How do we preserve and uplift the dignity and the humanity of people in prison? How do we make sure there won’t be deaths in prison due to the use of these weapons? Those are my questions on weapons.

Hon MARK MITCHELL (Minister of Corrections): Firstly, I’d just say that, if there’s violence perpetrated inside our prisons, you have to remember that a lot of the people in prison are there because they’re violent people. Last week, I was on the phone, doing a welfare check with a corrections officer who had been stabbed in the face with a shank. About a month before that, I was talking to a prison officer who was off work for two months because he had been assaulted by a group of prisoners. I just want everyone to remember that, actually, they’re looking after people who were taken out of our society because they’re often violent—they’re violent offenders who hurt people or kill people. It’s a very difficult and dynamic environment that our corrections officers are working in. They often go unnoticed; they’re under the wire, because unlike our other first responders, who are very visible in the community, they aren’t always seen, and they aren’t always recognised for the outstanding work that they do and the massive contribution that they make to us as a country around public safety. I want to put that on the record and thank and acknowledge them now for the work that they do.

In relation to the changes around tactical options for them, the change from “non-lethal” to “less-lethal” was driven in part by the report that came out from the UN. It was just quite simply around the fact that you cannot guarantee—anything that you use, you cannot guarantee that there may not be a lethal outcome. But, of course, dependant on the tactics that you’re using, that is reduced to the bare minimum. That’s why the change was made between “non-lethal” to “less-lethal”.

In terms of de-escalation, I agree completely with the member. The police are outstanding in de-escalation. You referred to the power of communication, and that’s the most powerful tool that they’ve got. It’s also the most powerful tool that our corrections officers have. Yes, they do a lot of work around de-escalation. We have world-class negotiation teams inside our corrections service. We have world-class special tactics teams. We have world-class at-height teams that are able to respond and support their colleagues on the front line.

In terms of some of the less lethal options that corrections officers have got, obviously, there are pepper spray and batons. That is absolutely a last resort. They don’t want to be in a physical confrontation. I don’t think anyone getting up in the morning to go to work wants to be put in a position where they’re in a physical confrontation, but they work in an environment with violent people, and sometimes those people are violent, and they have to have the tools and they have to have the training to be able to deal with that.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Mr Chair. I have two short points. The first is around clause 8, which is on page 8 of the bill, and that is simply around a strategy focusing on improving outcomes for Māori. The Minister has, on repeated occasions, said that he agrees in principle with that as an objective of the corrections system. Clause 8, which is deleted in this version of the bill, says that, essentially—because it was a requirement under that clause, or it would have been a requirement—the chief executive has a strategy. That’s a document that says, “Here’s what we want to do, here’s how we’re going to get there, and”—providing requirements for monitoring the outcome—“here’s how we’re doing.”

The Minister’s thrown that out and, I guess, I’m asking the Minister—because he said on a number of occasions, “We can still achieve these things; we just don’t need legislation to do it.”—will he be requiring, as Minister, the chief executive to have a strategy, in place of legislation, which focuses on improving outcomes for Māori in the corrections systems? That’s my first and very short question.

My second question is, again, around the high degree of discretion given to the Corrections department generally, and the chief executive. I was looking, on page 10, at section 61CA, which is about dealing with at-risk prisoners. We heard and we sympathise with the things the Minister has said about how difficult the corrections environment is, but this is about, essentially, isolating at-risk prisoners, and this might be a prisoner who’s likely to self-harm. I understand that that’s necessary, but I was looking at the new insertion in subsection (8), and the general sense is this: if you’re going to put a prisoner in isolation to protect them from self-harm, it’s got to be under constant review by a health professional, because this is solitary confinement, which is, you know, a significant infringement on liberty and it can be quite harmful.

The requirement is that a health professional check daily whether it is still required that they are, essentially, isolated in solitary confinement. Except, subsection (8), once again, says that they don’t have to do it if they don’t think they need to. What the words are is: “While a direction under this section in in force,”—that’s the isolation direction—“the health centre manager must,”—in a bit of awkward grammar, by putting this in the middle—“unless the health centre manager is satisfied that it is not necessary in the circumstances, ensure that a registered health professional visits the prisoner concerned at least once a day.”

Why do we need that to say, “unless you don’t think it’s necessary”? We’ve got a prisoner who is at risk and in isolation, in solitary confinement—for their own health and welfare, I accept. Why is it so hard to say, “We need a registered health professional.”? I mean, that might be a nurse, and, as I understand it, there’ll be medical professionals, like nurses, on site in a prison available for this very purpose. Why are we giving a free pass if the health centre manager is—because the danger here is that you say, “I don’t think it’s necessary.”, which becomes “It’s all a bit too hard.” This is the real danger: it’s not necessary because the nurse is busy across the other side of the precinct, or something like that.

Once again, it really lacks, in respect of something that touches on quite important human rights about being kept in isolation, in solitary confinement, and whether that still remains necessary. So two questions: one on the strategy question and one on isolation.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. Just following on from that kōrero, I’ve still got a couple of questions that are lingering. It’s very interesting that you’re in the Chair, Mr Chair.

I just wanted to follow up on, first of all, the Minister of Corrections’ answers in terms of racism, which were put forward, which I thought were interesting, and the Minister denying that there’s any racism in the police. I certainly accept—many of us accept—that there’s been a big effort in the last few years in addressing the racism. But surely the Minister must acknowledge that—and I’m sure the Chair might support him—in past years—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): This isn’t about the Chair, Mr Jackson.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Yeah, well, you have a good history there, Mr Chair. I’m just showing you some respect in terms of your history. I apologise if that’s upsetting.

There’s no doubt in my mind that there’s been a history in terms of racism and the police. I’d like the Minister to address that. We only have to look back to Tūhoe in 2007, 2008, and it was a terrible, terrible situation that happened there in terms of the raid on Tūhoe at the time, as we all know. Since then, of course, we had major apologies from the police to the people of Tūhoe. I do have a relevant question, also, in terms of section 19—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Looking forward to hearing it, Mr Jackson.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: —which I’ll come forward to. I’m interested in the Minister’s response to that, because I think a lot of that past has affected what is happening today, although I acknowledge that there’s been a big effort in terms of addressing the past indiscretions and racism that was exhibited by the New Zealand Police.

I want to come to the deletion of clause 19, which inserted new subsection (2) in section 80, and this is an area that I’m not sure if the Minister has addressed properly, which talks about, now, “Māori prisoners and other prisoners detained in a corrections prison must have access to cultural activities, so far as is reasonable and practicable, regardless of the corrections prison in which they are detained.” I’m not sure if the Minister has answered this properly or correctly. How does he view this? I would have thought that this was something that the Minister would support. But is this another coalition demand? One would have thought that this was something based on need.

The reality is, with the Māori prison population being so high, why wouldn’t you have opportunities and give Māori prisoners the access to cultural support, as well as other prisoners of course—of course everybody should have access to cultural support. Given that Māori are filling 50 percent of the prisons, why would you delete that when we have overwhelming evidence that tells us that once that cultural support goes in, you get a turn-around in terms of some of these prisoners’ lives—you get an absolute turn-around. As I said in an earlier kōrero, once they get some awareness of their language, once they get some awareness of whakapapa, knowing who they are, knowing where they’re from, knowing who their tūpuna are, you get a hugely significant change. There is so much data to support that. I’m sure Minister Potaka over there would support me 100 percent. In fact, I’m sure he’s spoken on this, actually, and said that the way forward—in fact, I’m sure I’ll find something where he’s spoken about how the language, the reo, can change people’s lives. But here we have Minister Potaka, sadly, supporting a terrible clause like this, which takes away the opportunity for some of these prisoners to get access to cultural activities.

So the question is: is this a priority or not, or is this yet another coalition push to delete references to tikanga Māori, to te reo Māori, and to Te Tiriti? What is the background to this? I would have thought, given the Minister’s responses so far, that he actually supports the principles of what Kelvin Davis has said and what Labour has done—and we thank him for that support—that he would be backing this particular clause that gives priority to Māori and others to find a cultural base.

Hon MARK MITCHELL (Minister of Corrections): Look, sadly, I wish that I could stand in the Chamber and say that we don’t have pockets of racism in New Zealand, but we do, and that applies to all ethnicities. It’s incumbent upon all of us in this Chamber to continue to lead to make sure that we become a country where we can purge that.

In relation to Government agencies and ministries, I’m sure there are rotten apples, and if there’s any evidence of any racism anywhere, then that should be dealt with quickly, regardless of what Government is in power.

In relation to Hōkai Rangi, I’ve been very clear; I’ve said that we’re committed to that. This Government is firmly committed to increasing rehabilitation programmes and access for prisoners to have rehabilitation programmes, and that is contained within the bill.

JAMES MEAGER (National—Rangitata): I move, That debate on this question now close.

HŪHANA LYNDON (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m so grateful for this opportunity to address the komiti, but I’d like to pause and acknowledge the Minister for his sentiments in relation to our kaimahi, the staff, that are in Corrections and the important work that they do with those whānau that are incarcerated. I’d like to reflect on the staff and the engagements that we had at Waikeria on Monday, and the respect that inmates shared about the director, the deputy, and the staff relationships.

We know that healthy relationships can really build and strengthen a sense of whānau, but also having delivery of programmes that can support the staff to engage with Māori inmates is really important. I know that Corrections has done a lot of work around staff capability and capacity to engage with Māori inmates, and that’s a part of the responsibility when you have 53 percent of Māori in corrections, it’s important that we support and awhi our staff to be able to work in the prison context, knowing we have broken whānau in there, and then work out how to engage with them, just like the de-escalation training. So thank you, Minister.

Mine is but a small contribution, in closing, in relation to Te Tiriti and those provisions which will no longer exist in this legislation. And thank you to my colleague Lawrence for raising the fact that submitters did come before the select committee and gave their contributions, and at that time, Te Tiriti o Waitangi was tapu. But, as we know, the select committee has now removed it, and we haven’t had a chance to go back out to iwi, to community.

Now, I’m trying to be proactive in thinking about an opportunity to discuss or maybe find a meeting of minds with the Minister to see if—because of the coalition Government’s primacy of the agreement between the parties, rather than a priority on our founding document, Te Tiriti o Waitangi—we could look for a way in which—OK, we’re deleting Te Tiriti, but could we look at amendments that would provide a provision or just one clause that can lock in improving Māori outcomes so that at an organisational level, there is to be that ongoing commitment, whether it be workforce development, whether it be the delivery of services throughout the system, and operationally there is a commitment, knowing 68 percent of wāhine Māori are locked up right now, and then 53 percent of overall Māori. So that’s just a pātai, really, to the Minister: could we look at something else?

Is the word “Māori” also not allowed to be included in the legislation because of the coalition agreement? There’s been contributions from this side of the Chamber saying, “Actually, we are a high-needs population. We should be a priority population because of what’s happening right now.” Can we look at some other wording whereby we, as te iwi Māori, can feel and see ourselves within the legislation and, therefore, can use it when engaging with Corrections across the system operationally and at a strategic level?

My final pātai and contribution, following on from Matua Willie, is in relation to cultural activities. We have prisoners who are members of whānau and community, and when there is a death or a hui mate or there is a hura kōhatu—an unveiling—and other really important cultural functions, whether they be from the Pacific or from our migrant communities, the ability for them to be able to access temporary release is really important. I’m really mindful that those cultural responsibilities and the ability to participate, whether you’re a grave digger or whether you go to harvest kai or whether you sit on a taumata and deliver the karakia in the service, is something that enriches the lives of those that participate. I’m really mindful because—with the cultural activities part really not being clear anymore in terms of the compulsion for that to be available and with the knowledge that, often, Māori don’t get the temporary release, because of security concerns—how can we look to bridge that gap? What can we do?

So this is a proactive ask of the Minister about the way in which we can build something in this legislation to improve outcomes, particularly for Māori inmates. Kia ora.

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Minister for Courts): Point of order, Mr Chair. Thank you, Mr Chair. The member just referenced that in the coalition agreement there is the coalition agreement to remove the word “Māori” from legislation. That is incorrect.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Well, that’s not a point of order. If the member wants to take a call, that’s fine, but that’s actually not a point of order to be taken to correct. The point of order is where there’s been a breach of the Standing Orders. It’s not a point of order. The member’s welcome to take a call at some stage to correct anything.

SUZE REDMAYNE (Junior Whip—National): I move, That debate on this question now close.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): I’m aware I haven’t heard any new information in recent times, but I’ll hear Dr Tracey McLellan.

Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. As I made the opening contribution and I prefaced the fact that I had several questions, this is the first opportunity I’ve had since then to actually ask any of those questions, so I do ask for your indulgence to move through the list. I haven’t moved off the very first one yet, but I do have some to ask.

I’m not going to ask questions on this, because, although I do think that some nuance has been lost in the ability to sort of delve into them a little bit more—and I appreciate the fact that the Minister of Corrections will feel like he’s answered the questions relating to Te Tiriti, and he certainly has attempted to address it on several occasions now, so I do appreciate that. However, without asking a question, I am going to make a couple of remarks before I move on. This is an acknowledgment that the Minister spoke—well, he raised it, and I’d like to come back to it—about the fact that Corrections has no control over who they deal with in the corrections system. I would like to reiterate what Tamatha Paul said about the recidivism rates for people who are incarcerated being so high that, inevitably, the Department of Corrections absolutely has control over who is going to come back through their doors. It is incumbent upon them to do anything they can to improve the recidivism rates by, I think, entrenching some legislative foundations to ensure that we get better outcomes.

Minister, Hōkai Rangi has been referenced on several occasions today. Whilst that’s the operational means by which some of the good things that we hope would be done in the corrections system could be done, as introduced by previous Minister the Hon Kelvin Davis, I note that that strategy runs from 2019 to 2024, which is this year. Can the Minister, before we move on, provide us with some details about what work is under way or what the time line is, given that we are more than halfway through 2024. Whilst we’re consistently, during this process today, being told that operationally—the fact that we’re removing, gutting, the reference to the Treaty out of the bill; operationally things can still happen. But the operational framework is on its last legs as well, so it’s not feeling like it’s very robust or that there’s much grounding in what we know should be done, so can the Minister please provide us with some information about that?

I’m particularly interested because, whilst, again, the Minister will feel like he’s addressed it and has attempted to answer it on several occasions, I don’t feel particularly satisfied with the response in so far as I don’t feel any further ahead as to why these provisions are being removed, particularly because I look at advice that the Minister received in February this year from his department. It clearly sets out, on several occasions, the benefit of having the Treaty provisions and the specific references that were grounded in that whole new section 6A, inserted by clause 7, that’s now being removed.

In lieu of not banging on a drum—that’s probably done and dusted now as we’ve moved on—I would like the Minister, though, to turn his mind to page 10. When we look at replacement section 51, amended by clause 11—and it may seem like a relatively simple clause—it’s looking at the fact that references to management plans are now changing to case management plans and are, I presume, providing a little bit more specificity about what that is. But, when we look at the replacement subsection 51(4)—“Each case management plan must be consistent with the resources available to the chief executive to manage the prisoner.”—as has been previously mentioned all the way through, or at several instances through, this bill, it’s replete with examples of where resources are afforded or where the chief executive knows that resources are available. I would like the Minister to reassure us, at this stage, the committee of the whole House stage, that the case management plans aren’t completely contingent on resources and that it doesn’t create a bit of a precedent in terms of how that interacts with every other aspect.

As we go through, I will have some further questions about how that relates, then, to the rehabilitative programme, how it relates to the ability to, therefore, go up for parole, and how it even relates for some of the reasons that can be made for ensuring that people are able to be transferred, because the Minister has prefaced his opening statements about the fact that he’s very proud of the fact that rehabilitation is supposedly a bit of a cornerstone of this bill, and yet there’s many, many fish-hooks, I think, in so far as the practical application.

It is incumbent upon this committee, because this is the only chance that we get to ask some of these very specific questions and because things often sound good when high-level statements and proclamations are being made, but there’s some really, really concerning parts of specific practical application here. That is another thing I would like the Minister to turn his mind to, if he could. As has been prefaced earlier by the Hon Dr Duncan Webb all the way through here, it is contingent upon resources being available. This is just one example. I do intend, or hope to intend, to move on to provide several more. So I’m going to leave it at that and give the Minister an opportunity to get some specific advice, if he is able to answer about case management and resources.

Actually, I will ask one more question just because it took such a long time to get another one. As we move on, I also note that another specific example is when we talked about replacement subsections 92C(2) and (2A), amended by clause 23, “Particular matters relating to imaging technology searches”: “(2) An image produced as a result of an imaging technology search for the purposes of detecting an unauthorised item must be disposed of within 24 hours.” As I was reading this, it immediately came to mind as yet another example of how there’s quite a lot of creep and increase in duty and staff duty within this bill. And yet we know that there’s certainly been a cost saving exercise that’s gone under way within the Department of Corrections. We know that there is no fat, absolutely no fat, in the back office. In fact, that’s been decimated quite heavily. I think that all sorts of documents that the department and the Minister refer to rely on the fact that staff safety is a number one priority, and yet you’re adding quite a lot of duty. They might not sound like large duties, but the disposal of stuff, the information gathering, and the intelligence cache that are going to be required do require extra resources.

So, in line with the case management question, can you also, using that information technology clause as an example, talk us through how you are convinced and how you’re confident that adding all these extra duties won’t overstretch an already overstretched department and won’t result in a variety of negative outcomes?

Hon MARK MITCHELL (Minister of Corrections): Well, first of all, I just want to reassure the member that there are no fish-hooks in the legislation at all. Yes, she is right that the legislation is designed to make our corrections officers safer and to make their operations more efficient so they actually have the time to be able to dedicate to things like case management and prisoner safety. It refers to resources because, for a long time, they’ve been operating under strength. In a service like corrections, when you’re operating under strength, you have to start making trade-offs, and you have to start making decisions in terms of the safety of your officers and the safety of the prisoners.

The good news is that in the last eight months, we’re now above the rate of attrition. They’re doing very well with their recruiting campaign. Every month now, I’m going to graduations where they’re recruiting, training, and deploying up to 140 new corrections officers. What that means is that those resources are starting to come back online. Those options are starting to become more available to them. They can just start delivering more rehabilitation programmes. That is quite simply what the reference to resources is—“as resources allow”—because that is what will govern what they can actually deliver on a day-to-day basis.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Kia ora, Mr Chair. I’m sure I won’t take a full call here, because I only have a short point to make, but it is around a very important point and that is the use of what’s now called “less lethal” devices to restrain or suppress prisoners. My first point’s a very, very short one, and it’s on clause 21A, which simply says: “In section 88 replace ‘non-lethal’ with ‘less-lethal’.” My short point is a drafting one, and that is that on my reading of section 88 as it currently stands, it doesn’t use the word “non-lethal”, so you can’t replace it with “less lethal”. Now, I may have that wrong, but I’m sure your officials will be able to tell me where that is.

The other point is this, though—and I’m looking at clause 21, page 12, running on to page 13 of the bill. It says “An officer may only use a less-lethal weapon prescribed for use in dealing with a prisoner who is passively resisting a lawful order in the situation described in … [the section] if the officer has reasonable grounds for believing there is an imminent threat of injury or harm to the prisoner or any other person.” Now, with the threat of self-harm, I can understand that the prisoner might not be resisting the officer but that they’re harming themselves, so you need to debilitate the prisoner using these devices so that you can then go and make that prisoner safe. I can understand that kind of situation. But I’m a bit perplexed as to why we have, on the end of the sentence, “or any other person”, because passive resistance is, by definition, not threatening any other person. You’ve got an ability to use these—and let’s be honest; it’s called a “less-lethal” device because it’s known that there have been instances where people have died from this being used on them, so we’ve got to be very cautious indeed about that. So if we’ve got someone passively resisting, not self-harming but refusing, how on earth can they be putting any other person at risk?

This seems to be a kind of excuse to use a device that’s totally unnecessary, and it simply puts a lack of clarity into a section that, because of the seriousness of these devices, needs to be as clear as possible. My view is that those last words “or any other person” should be deleted because it simply clouds that issue. That’s all I’m going to say, but I do think that’s an important point, given that these are tasers and pepper spray, which can be lethal.

Hon MARK MITCHELL (Minister of Corrections): Thank you, Mr Chair. Look, quite simply the fact of the matter is there are many, many different situations and scenarios, inside a corrections environment, where a passive prisoner, someone that’s refusing to follow instruction, could be putting other people at risk. Whether it be the fact that they might have just seriously assaulted another prisoner that needs some medical attention and they’re blocking the doorway passively, the corrections officers might have to take action, or whether it be a prisoner that has barricaded himself somewhere passively or put himself somewhere passively where it’s taking three or four or five corrections officers to try and deal with them whilst, at the same time, someone else is requiring assistance, that may mean that they have to take action. It’s a dynamic environment. Force is always a last resort for our corrections officers. They will always use de-escalation, but there are going to be times with a passive prisoner where they may be putting other people at risk and they have to take action.

CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour): I move, That debate on this question now close.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Kia orana. Thank you, Mr Chair. I’d like to touch on some clauses that I understand have not been referred to in the committee stage at this point, and that starts at clause 36, which is part of Part 1. This is really important because it relates to the rights of prisoners who are charged with an alleged offence, internally, in prisons, Minister. New section 133A relates to the role of a hearing adjudicator. My experience of hearing adjudicators is that they are well trained and that they do an excellent job in the prisons in terms of conducting. They’re not just anyone; they have to undertake specified training in order to do that. This bill introduces a new change in that process, and it relates to the ability for a hearing adjudicator to, basically, proceed with a disciplinary hearing without the prisoner being present. Up to now, prisoners are expected and required to be present for proceedings of this nature. There is also an opportunity for a prisoner to appeal to a visiting justice a decision that a hearing adjudicator has made.

Now, I’ve spent five years as a visiting justice in prisons in this country before coming to this place, so I’m very, very familiar with this process. What does concern me, though, Minister, is that new subsection (3), basically, indicates that there is no right of appeal to a visiting justice solely against the decision of a hearing adjudicator, under new subsection (1), on the basis that the hearing adjudicator made the decision to proceed in the absence of the prisoner. I can recollect countless occasions where there would be prisoners who’d be brought to the hearing and, for some reason, it wouldn’t immediately become clear as to what the issue might be.

Now, there might be circumstances, for example, where the hearing adjudicator makes the decision to proceed with a hearing in the absence of the prisoner. Yes, there is an evidentiary threshold that’s required to be met, but there’s no further detail about what needs to happen. It just needs to be that the adjudicator receives evidence from an officer that the prisoner has refused. There are circumstances where there might be family bereavements and there might be issues that the prisoner is dealing with, that may not be apparent at the time, but that is the genesis upon which the prisoner makes a decision to refuse.

My question to the Minister is: as I understand it, the new section actually provides no discretion at all for a visiting justice, who is at the appellate level, to, basically, consider reasons for the failure to present the prisoner, and, if this is so, is he open to make changes in that particular space? It would seem to me that it would be an affront to natural justice if the visiting justice simply was not able to consider an appeal without all of the information. That’s the first one.

The second one is in relation to clause 40. This is where the visiting justices themselves make the decision, and they may actually make the decision that the prisoner is refused, etc. There is a requirement for the visiting justice to proceed with the hearing. If they do so, they must record the decision in writing and the reasons for it. Now, my experience with visiting justices is that the reasons that are recorded are in the prison’s visiting justice book. Often, it’s a ledger where there are maybe five compartments—date, who the person is, what the penalty is, whether it’s proven, and then a signature or stamp. Is that satisfactory for the purposes of the decision? It is extremely rare, in my recollection, for visiting justices to, effectively, dictate what in the courts would be delivered as a written decision. I’d like some clarity around what it means by “must record in writing the decision and reasons for it.”

There is also no expectation that that decision would be made available to the prisoner. In a court context, that would be open to the prisoner. But, if the prisoner chooses not to actually attend, the visiting justice goes ahead with the hearing, in the absence of the prisoner, and makes a decision, which needs to be recorded in writing. How will the prisoner know what the outcome of that is, apart from whether they perhaps are on their way to self-confinement or loss of privileges? I think there is an important distinction between the two, and there are a couple of other areas that I’d like to pick up on as well, but perhaps I could leave it there in the first instance.

Hon MARK MITCHELL (Minister of Corrections): I think the whole purpose of why this was put into the bill is to make the disciplining process more efficient and safer, leading to safety for our prison officers and the other prisoners as well. I think that the reason why—clearly the reason why the prisoner can’t appeal the fact that he wasn’t there is because he’s refused to actually attend. He can still appeal the actual outcome of the hearing, but he doesn’t have any appeal rights in terms of failing to appear, because he’s been given the opportunity and he’s chosen not to appear. In terms of whether or not there’s personal mitigating circumstances, that is very operational, but my experience is—and I’m sure it’s the member’s experience too—that Corrections will work around that. They’ll give them every opportunity to appear, and if there’s mitigating circumstances—like a death in the family or, for some reason, they just don’t feel up to it—then Corrections will take that into account and work around it.

The other point in terms of—of course the matter has to be recorded by the justice, and of course the prisoner will be informed of the outcome of that hearing.

TAMATHA PAUL (Green—Wellington Central): Kia ora, Mr Chair. Thank you. I note your point about not going back and repeating information, so I’ve got a number of questions around the use of body image scanning technology, some questions around the increased monitoring and surveillance that happens through this bill, and then, if I have time, I’d like to ask some questions about the mixing of adult and youth populations within prison.

Starting with the body image scanning technology, we are supportive of introducing this technology as a way to reduce the need for rub-down and strip searches within prison, and my question to the Minister on the body image scanning technology is: what other steps can we take to eventually remove the need for rub-down and strip searches? I ask that because when I was reading the Turiki! Turiki! report by the Safe and Effective Justice Advisory Group, there was a statistic in there that said that 53 percent of women in prison have experienced sexual violence in their lifetime, and 15 percent of men in prison have experienced sexual violence within their lifetime. We can take those as conservative figures, understanding the under-reporting of instances of sexual harm. The reason I raised those statistics is because it’s clear that the experience of sexual violence is prevalent within our prison population and that things like strip searches and rub-down searches can be retriggering and retraumatising for people who have experienced sexual violence in their lifetime. In what ways can we move away from those strip searches and rub-down searches?

I also note the statement within the regulatory impact statement for the bill that staff at sites where imaging technology has been deployed report that it is harder to get unauthorised items into prison when body imaging technology is used, compared to strip and rub-down searches. Staff also report that physical searches can lead to prisoners becoming upset and confrontational, reducing staff safety. So we are supportive of moving towards this technology, but what are some of the barriers that prisons are experiencing in terms of introducing that technology?

I read in the regulatory impact statement that there are obviously privacy concerns around the use of that technology and the collection and disposal of those images. I’m keen to hear some more about how this bill makes that technology more prevalent throughout our prisons, but I’m also really interested in the disposal of those images too—given they are quite intimate; you know, taking imaging of somebody’s body—and how those will be disposed of, particularly given there have been some concerns around the way that, say, police officers, for example, collect images of people and how they dispose of those, noting the case around tens of thousands of images of young Māori being collected by police officers and not disposed of adequately in line with the provision set out within the Privacy Act. Those are my questions around body image scanning.

The next point that I wanted to move on to is around surveillance and monitoring, and I’m really interested in understanding how the Minister has been able to balance the ability of people in prison to maintain their connections with people on the outside with the importance of anticipating any risks to people in prison, noting the submission from the Law Society, which talks about how increasing powers to enable monitoring of in-person visits raises privacy issues. One of the guiding principles within the bill is that contact between prisoners and their families must be encouraged and supported, so far as is reasonable and practicable, within the resources available and to the extent that this contact is consistent with the maintenance of safety and security requirements.

Now, we know that people in prison’s having connection to their communities and their whānau and their friends is an important part of the rehabilitation process. They need to understand that people care for them and have expectations of them. They need to maintain these relationships in order to be able to reflect on their behaviour and their actions and to address that and to change that, but I guess what I’m concerned about is that increased monitoring and surveillance might reduce the ability for prisoners to have that connection, even though that’s a core principle within the bill. In the People against Prisons Aotearoa submission, they stated that incarceration is an isolating experience that, and separation from family and whānau, is a significant stressor on the mental wellbeing of incarcerated people. How can we maintain those connections with these new provisions and not put in unfair—[Time expired]

Hon MARK MITCHELL (Minister of Corrections): Thank you, Mr Chair. Look, that’s a really good question around technology. Obviously, we’re fully committed to that. We want to continue to roll technology out. We want to try and get away from, as much as possible, physical searches and strip searches, but you’re never going to be able to eliminate them completely, because, unfortunately, you’re dealing with people that are very inventive in the way they get contraband into the prison, which not only puts prison officers or corrections officers at risk but fellow prisoners as well.

In terms of the images, the images are kept for 24 hours and then automatically deleted. The only one that sees the image is the person that’s actually operating the scanners at the time.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Mr Chair, thank you for that. It’s good that we’re doing a whole lot of new material. I haven’t heard any repetition for some time as we’re working progressively through this bill.

I have a very short point, and it is actually about the collection of intelligence information. New section 127F, on page 24 of the bill, says that “(1) The chief executive may authorise an eligible employee to be an authorised intelligence person”. This is the person who can surveil prisoners, open their mail, listen in on their telephone conversations, and listen in on their visiting—do all of those things that are so highly invasive—for an intelligence purpose, which is a restrictive purpose. But I want to focus in on the words “eligible employee”. Now, it might sound like that means it’s a corrections officer who’s been identified. I dug around, because I was a bit perplexed by that. Section 111 of the principal Act says, “Eligible employee means a person who is an employee of the chief executive,”—that’s fine—“an employee of a contractor, an employee of a contracted provider, or a contracted provider”. These are not public servants.

Now, Minister, I think we’ve made a mistake here. I don’t think we intend for an employee of a contractor, who is not a sworn officer, to be able to search and surveil a prisoner, because that is an exercise of quite an extraordinary State power. I would suggest, and I suspect, that we always intend that it’s corrections officers who are employed by the department through the chief executive who are able to surveil prisoners and see this highly personal information and use it for intelligence purposes. There’s a bit of a slip here, because all of a sudden, we’ve got people who are three steps removed. It’s a person who is contracted to a person who is contracted to the department. That can’t be right. We can’t have people who are not answerable to the State being intelligence officers and surveilling prisoners. I’m going to leave it there, because it’s an important point and I’d really appreciate an answer from the Minister on that. Kia ora.

Hon MARK MITCHELL (Minister of Corrections): It’s a good point, because I agree with him that it is a big power—it’s at the discretion of the chief executive. Quite simply, why it refers to contractors is, of course, because we have a private prison that’s being run by Serco.

RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini): I move, That debate on this question now close.

Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. Further to what my colleague the Hon Dr Duncan Webb has just said, when we’re talking about authorised persons and the process that’s going through—because if I go back a step, the first bullet point under the intentions of this bill is: “explicitly empowering Corrections to monitor [prisoners’] communications and information sources for intelligence purposes to improve prison and public safety”. There are four parts to this bill, and this is one of them.

I understand, as the Minister very, very briefly touched on earlier on in his opening remarks, that the system needs a little bit of updating. The way that prisoners communicate with each other isn’t always by snail mail anymore; there are all sorts of other forms of communication, so that needs to be accommodated.

When I look at new section 127K, inserted by clause 33, which is just a little bit further on from the previous clause that was asked, I do think that the way that’s worded does lend itself to some future sort of misinterpretation. But new section 127K, “Monitoring of exempt prisoner communications and information sources”, says that the authorised intelligence person, who we know, therefore, is an employee appointed from the chief executive, “who is monitoring, collecting, or using prisoner communications and information sources under this subpart and who forms the view that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the prisoner communications and information sources are exempt prisoner communications and information sources must—(a) promptly stop monitoring, collecting, or using them”.

I just wonder if you could give us a little bit more information on how that process actually works. You can imagine a person, during the course of performing their duties as an authorised intelligence person, who is privy to information that they then have reasonable grounds to believe is exempt—let’s say it’s medical information. When they—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): I’m sorry to interrupt the member, but 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 Local Government (Water Services Preliminary Arrangements) Bill and reports it with amendment. The committee has also considered the Resource Management (Extended Duration of Coastal Permits for Marine Farms) Amendment Bill and reports it without amendment. The committee has also considered the Corrections Amendment Bill and reports progress. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. today.

The House adjourned at 12.57 p.m. (Wednesday)