edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Woods MeganHon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): Thank you very much. I thank the Minister responsible for RMA Reform for the answers to those questions. One of the things that I'm interested in in terms of the transitional provisions that we're talking about under Part 1 of this bill and particularly as they pertain to renewable energy is that the Minister has indicated that this Government is eager to keep in place the fast-track provisions that the previous Government instituted. I can see why: under that scheme nine solar projects were consented that were three times the output of the Clyde Dam. We have similar kinds of statistics for wind projects. So we can see that actually in terms of the problem definition and why the Government is using as a basis for why we're here today that it takes too long to consent renewable energy as one of the key talking points both the Minister—and as I've indicated both in substantive contributions and in heckles across the Chamber—and the Prime Minister use this as the basis of their problem definition and particularly how long a particular wind farm in Wellington took to consent.While the Prime Minister and the Minister consistently say eight years why I have been asking questions is that is simply incorrect. The wind farm that the Minister is talking about and the Prime Minister has been talking about took three years. It took three years from the time that the consent was lodged with the Wellington City Council. This is one of the problems with rushing legislation like this. If the very basis of the problem that both the Minister and the Prime Minister are putting up is the reason why we are here the week before Christmas repealing substantive legislation and they can't even get the basic facts right I think it speaks something to the speed at which this Government is going.But I do have a substantive question around the transitional provisions and what it is is that the fast-track consents are going to be kept in place. The Minister's party has talked about wanting to increase to 35-year consent periods and I wonder whether it is the intention of the Minister when further changes are made and these transitional provisions are carried over to institute 35-year consents for renewable energy. And if that is the case what advice and thought the Minister has already taken or will be taking to how it is that we can avoid people basically sitting on consents to block competitor behaviour in fact stifling the build-out of the renewable generation—lose it or use it" clauses if you like. One of the problems of course that we have when it comes to things like wind energy is that we have many more projects consented than have been built that are sitting there and not built by the electricity sector.So in terms of those transitional provisions that are in Schedule 1 of the bill I'd like to know what thought the Minister is likely to give so that we do not create what I do believe would be an unintended consequence in terms of stifling the ability to build out."
Woods MeganHon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): Thank you Mr Chair. Just a further call. One of the things that the Minister mentioned in his last contribution when I asked him a question—or it may have been in response to another member—was the work on the national policy statement (NPS) renewable energy. I have some questions for how the NPS renewable energy intersects with the transitional arrangements that will be laid out specifically the fast tracking laid out in Schedule 1.What I'd like to know from the Minister is: is the NPS renewable energy that he said his Government has started—does that mean they are not continuing with the work the previous Government had done when indeed an NPS renewable energy had been released for consultation? Is the Government starting that work again or is it a continuation of the work that our Government started many many months ago?The other thing I'm interested to know from the Minister further to the answers he said he believed that Mākara had been applied for in 2000. I'd like to ask the Minister what was applied for in 2000 and who was it applied to? Is he referring to the resource consent to Wellington City Council? I'd just like some more clarity because one of the problem definitions that both this Minister and the Prime Minister himself have been using is the example of Mākara taking eight years to consent. So I think given that we're in urgency I'd like some clarity around exactly what was applied for in 2000 to who and was that the Wellington City Council consent?
Edmonds BarbaraHon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana): Thank you Mr Chair. Again I want to reiterate the difficulty in relation to this bill and I am just a lowly tax lawyer; I'm not a Resource Management Act (RMA) lawyer like some of my esteemed colleagues on this side of the House or advisers to the Energy Efficiency & Conservation Authority.But actually one of the important things which was not included as the Minister knows because of a Cabinet Office directive which is not to have a regulatory impact statement. So putting that aside in order to look at the evidence base as to whether this bill which is repealing some very important Acts which have only had four months actually in progress you look to then the departmental disclosure statement. I've had a lot of experience with departmental disclosure statements. Actually I was the very first official who did the very first departmental disclosure statement under Jonathan Ayling of the Treasury and that was for a tax bill—actually was called the foreign tax bill.But anyway looking to 2.3 of the departmental disclosure statement it actually—and I'm not too sure whether this is the right part but I'm going to speak to it in this part because Part 1 has the transitionary rules—and: The extension of the deadline for councils [not] to notify freshwater planning instruments is not covered by the 100-day exemption … due to time constraints a RIS was not developed" for this particular bill that we're taking through."Instead the Treasury and the Ministry for the Environment have agreed that decisions to change the deadline will be subject to post-implementation assessment in line with other 100-day plan initiatives and when Cabinet makes further decisions relating to commitments to replace the National Policy Statement (NPS) for Freshwater Management."So my very specific question and short contribution to the Minister is: when will that post-implementation occur? Who will be involved? Will that information be made public? And when can this House—given that we don't have a select committee process; we are repealing this Act under urgency—expect some transparency in relation to the repeal of this bill and in relation to that NPS of freshwater management?"
Pugh Maureen; Tuiono Teanau; Seymour David; Genter Julie Anne; McAnulty KieranASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Resource Management (Natural and Built Environment and Spatial Planning Repeal and Interim Fast-track Consenting) Bill.In CommitteePart 1 Preliminary provisions and Schedule 1 Transitional savings and related provisionsCHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Members the House is in committee on the Resource Management (Natural and Built Environment and Spatial Planning Repeal and Interim Fast-track Consenting) Bill. We start with the debate on Part 1.DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Point of order. Mr Chair if I may I'd like to draw your attention to Standing Order 310 which states that the purpose of a committee stage is to determine whether the bill as returned from the second reading expresses the objects and principles of the bill—it's not actually to have a policy debate it's to decide whether the text returned from the second reading will achieve what was agreed to. And I just wonder if you might bear that in mind in concurrence with Standing Order 112 about relevancy because we could spend a huge amount of time with people trying to prove a point but it's not clear what they've proved other than used up a lot of Parliament's valuable time.Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai): Speaking to the point of order. Mr Chair obviously this bill is proceeding under urgency; there's been no select committee stage and for that reason I would expect there to be more scrutiny during the committee stage of each part of this bill than there would for a bill that was passing not under urgency that had had a normal select committee.DAVID SEYMOUR: Speaking to that—I can see why the member might wish to say that but there's actually no authority and she can't quote one to support why that is a relevant matter.Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Mr Chair I find it extraordinary that a point of order would be made questioning the content and contributions at this stage before anything had been made. I'm sure you in your capacity are more than able to judge relevancy and whether or not it is compliant with Standing Orders.CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Thank you to members for all their contributions. I do hear what members opposite are saying in terms of there being no select committee process and the real important need to scrutinise the bill and also hear from Government members as well as the need for relevancy and for us to focus on part to part. I guess the role of the Chair here is to make sure that we strike that balance and we can do that by starting to listen to some of the contributions from members but just being mindful to members that are critiquing the bill—as returned—to really try to focus on the specific parts as well. Thank you. OK Part 1 debate on clauses 3 and 4—Preliminary provisions—and Schedule 1. The question is that Part 1 start part.
Nimon KatieKATIE NIMON (National—Napier): I'm pleased to be speaking on the second reading of this bill because overregulation is not the best way to achieve outcomes. I have examples in my electorate of where these Acts are actually getting in the way of progress of building houses and renewable energy. It is time we stopped playing the game of political whack-a-mole" and with that I commend this bill to the House."
Bidois DanDAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): E te Māngai e te Whare. Mr Speaker let me start by congratulating you on your ascension to your promoted role. It is my privilege to speak in support of this repeal bill.Everybody in this House knows that the Resource Management Act 1991 is in desperate need of reform. Where the divide is—this Act that we are repealing today is not the solution to that. It would have made it more complex more legalistic harder to actually get things done and get things developed in this country. Let me speak to those directly at home and let me guarantee to those at home that our intentions our very clear. Our intentions are very clear to develop a law that is less bureaucratic less complex that improves local decision-making and helps us meet our decarbonisation goals as a country. That is what we are committed to on this side of the House and it is my privilege to commend this bill to the House.
Resource Management (Natural and Built Environment and Spatial Planning Repeal and Interim Fast-track Consenting) Bill — Second Reading
Butterick Mike; Tuiono TeanauMIKE BUTTERICK (National—Wairarapa): Thank you Mr Speaker. I speak again in support of the repeal of this Act an Act that would be the biggest impediment to getting anything done in this country. This Act would not be a step forward for economic development nor the environment and it would do very little to get New Zealand back on track.In addition this Act demonstrates contempt for basic property rights and the change from a facts-based regime to an outcomes-based approach further weakens respect for private property. The existing Act does nothing to support New Zealand's productivity and it also does very little to support the rapid development of urgently needed housing. I look forward to the repeal of this Act.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): I call Steve Abel. Just before you start because of the misbalance of the call there is four minutes 30 seconds on the clock.
MacLeod DavidDAVID MacLEOD (National—New Plymouth): Thank you Mr Speaker. May I first start by telling the member from Te Pāti Māori that I'm very happy to be on this side of the House—certainly just after that—and that's because we need to unleash the potential of our country. The recent changes made affect our ability to subdivide land to build houses to establish businesses or just simply dig a hole in the ground. We have become a country constipated by bureaucracy. That's right. It's affecting people's lives people who are simply wanting to get ahead. I repeat: we need to unleash the true potential of our country. I commend this bill to the House.
Bishop ChrisHon CHRIS BISHOP (Leader of the House): Just in view of the fact that there's only about four minutes to go until the dinner break I just move that we lift a few minutes early and resume at 7.30 p.m.SPEAKER: Leave is sought. All those in favour? OK. No objections. The House is suspended until 7.30 p.m.Sitting suspended from 5.56 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.
Unkovich TanyaTANYA UNKOVICH (NZ First): Thank you. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First who are not confused to take the call on the second reading of this bill and we are in support and commend it to the House.
Butterick MikeMIKE BUTTERICK (National—Wairarapa): Thank you Mr Speaker. I speak in support of the repeal of the legislation. It's overly complex and will undoubtedly add another further burden to businesses struggling to get ahead.I find that it's absolutely staggering that the Labour Government managed to introduce even more bureaucracy to a system already overburdened with bureaucracy red tape and weight. Even more red tape will strangle provincial electorates like the Wairarapa electorate and I know that businesses in the Wairarapa electorate will be delighted that this red tape will be removed and that this Government will introduce new resource management legislation by the end of the term that will be far more amenable to progress. I commend this bill to the House.
MacLeod DavidDAVID MacLEOD (National—New Plymouth): Thank you Mr Speaker. At the end of the day we are all endeavouring to get legislation that allows us to use our natural environment in a way that does not adversely affect the air the land the fresh water or the coastal environs that we all enjoy daily. We are wanting an environment that allows people and entities to be able to get on with it to get on with their developments in a timely fashion while having appropriate community engagement. Having projects that take eight years to consent and only two years to build is absolutely ridiculous. If we don't repeal the newly enacted regime it will only get worse. That's not just my words that's the words also of professionals that work with this on a daily basis. They call it a dog's breakfast. We need to get back to the former Resource Management Act (RMA) and start again with a process that will produce the outcomes that we all seek in a timely fashion. I commend this bill to the House.
Patterson MarkHon MARK PATTERSON (Minister for Rural Communities): Thank you very much Madam Speaker. New Zealand First rises to support this repeal bill. It is a unique ability of the previous Government to have started with something as bad as the Resource Management Act and made it worse. That is something that New Zealand First are firmly of the view of and I think the case has been made well by the previous two speakers within the coalition. We do support and we are looking forward to the fast-track legislation coming through the amended fast-track legislation. I know the Hon Shane Jones will be playing a role in that. We are going to get some stuff built in this country. We have lost all ability we are in economic malaise and we are going to dig our way out of it with some decisive legislation which will get this country back moving again in the right direction so we can afford the social services and the like and the infrastructure that we all want.I'd just like to pick up on the Hon Andrew Hoggard in the last contribution. I do congratulate him on his first contribution and congratulations to the Green member Lan Pham as well.We are meeting with a group shortly. Farmers have got this. We know what we need to do. The catchments themselves it is a catchment by catchment process with a broad set of rules with an empowering—Hon Member: Oh what about all those big commercial farmers?Hon MARK PATTERSON: The farmers of New Zealand are really committed to this stuff. We know that there's a provenance story here. We know there's a social licence issue here. We know for our own families as Andrew Hoggard just pointed out these things are as important to us as they are to everyone else and we're going to bring some solutions forward that have got full buy-in from our farming community. We will do this and we're looking forward to opening those engagements that the farming community certainly didn't feel like they had under the previous Government. So New Zealand First will be supporting this legislation. Thank you Mr Speaker.
Secondary Legislation Confirmation Bill (No 2) — Third Reading
Bishop ChrisThird ReadingHon CHRIS BISHOP (Leader of the House): I move That the Secondary Legislation Confirmation Bill (No 2) be now read a third time.Motion agreed to.Bill read a third time.
Secondary Legislation Confirmation Bill (No 2) — Second Reading
Speaker's Rulings — Parliamentary Questions—Answers
By-election — Port Waikato
Menéndez March Ricardo; Kuriger BarbaraRICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Tēnā koe Madam Speaker. The Green Party supports the Secondary Legislation Confirmation Bill (No 2) and endorses the reflections that have been made by previous speakers around the importance of those existing checks and balances on this type of legislation. We commend the Regulations Review Committee members for their constructive and collaborative work and therefore we commend this bill to the House.Motion agreed to.Bill read a second time.DEPUTY SPEAKER: This bill is set down for third reading immediately.
Bishop Chris; Kuriger BarbaraSECONDARY LEGISLATION CONFIRMATION BILL (NO 2)Second ReadingHon CHRIS BISHOP (Leader of the House): I move That the Secondary Legislation Confirmation Bill (No 2) be now read a second time.This—Hon Andrew Hoggard: Great bill.Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well it is a great bill whoever said that. I think it was Minister Hoggard who's a new member to the Parliament and he won't have seen one of these pieces of legislation moved before. But it is—Hon Andrew Hoggard: So excited.Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well you are sorry. And maybe in your ministerial roll you'll have the opportunity to engage with it at some point. In fact I think you probably will because actually as I read it one of the matters covered in the instruments we are confirming includes extending and amending levies on egg producers and also on the owners of pāua and rock lobster quotas continuing the export prohibition on green-lipped mussels under a certain shell size and correcting some tariff drafting errors so it may well be the case Minister Hoggard that you indeed engage with this. In fact many of the pieces of secondary legislation that the House is confirming have to do with agricultural matters. And it's one of these little constitutional quirks that there's a range of instruments where they get passed by various departments—well they get passed through the various regulatory processes that they have to go through—but then they have to be confirmed by the Parliament and it's very important that happens because if that doesn't happen by a certain date they get revoked. And so traditionally this is one of the last acts of a Parliament for the year and it's a very important piece of legislation.It's been reported back from the Regulations Review Committee. Now the Regulations Review Committee—Ryan Hamilton: Woo.Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I'm looking down the back there to the new deputy chair the aptly named member for Hamilton East Ryan Hamilton and I know that he'll be doing a good job. And the member who's just resumed her seat before I spoke the Hon Rachel Brooking is a former member of the Regulations Review Committee. In fact I see many members in the House: Dr Duncan Webb—I believe he's been a member before—Hon Rachel Brooking and no doubt some future members to come as well. It's a very important committee.Hon Andrew Bayly: What about me?Hon CHRIS BISHOP: What's that?Hon Andrew Bayly: What about me?Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Andrew Bayly—yes indeed. Well no one could ever forget about Andrew Bayly. It's because you're sitting right directly behind me Minister that I couldn't see you but it's a very important committee. In fact we started our time in Parliament on that very venerable committee together and—here's a blast from the past—the Hon David Cunliffe was the chair of the committee and David Parker the former Attorney-General.Anyway I digress. I'd like to thank them for their diligent work considering the bill. It's really important we pass it but I know members want to get on to more substantive matters such as the resource management matters we're about to discuss. Thank you Madam Speaker.DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to.
Kuriger BarbaraINTRODUCTION OF BILLSDEPUTY SPEAKER: I understand it is the intention of the Government to introduce two bills.CLERK: Resource Management (Natural and Built Environment and Spatial Planning Repeal and Interim Fast-track Consenting) Bill introduction. Taxation Principles Reporting Act Repeal Bill introduction.DEPUTY SPEAKER: Those bills are set down for first reading presently.
Bishop Chris; Kuriger BarbaraURGENCYHon CHRIS BISHOP (Leader of the House): I move That urgency be accorded the passing through all stages of the Secondary Legislation Confirmation Bill (No 2) and the Employment Relations (Trial Periods) Amendment Bill and the introduction and passing through all stages of the Resource Management (Natural and Built Environment and Spatial Planning Repeal and Interim Fast-track Consenting) Bill and the Taxation Principles Reporting Act Repeal Bill.The Government has a hundred-day plan. The legislation we are moving through urgency gives effect to a variety of commitments as part of that hundred-day plan. For reasons of convenience we are also including the Secondary Legislation Confirmation Bill (No 2) which is required as the Deputy Speaker knows to confirm a range of instruments before the House rises for the year. Ordinarily we would not pass that through urgency but just for completeness we are putting it in the urgency motion.DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to.
Garcia PauloPAULO GARCIA (National—New Lynn): I move That this debate be now adjourned. Motion agreed to.Debate interrupted.
Bishop ChrisPARLIAMENTARY SERVICE COMMISSIONMembershipHon CHRIS BISHOP (Leader of the House): Point of order. I seek leave to move a motion without notice and without debate on the membership of the Parliamentary Service Commission.SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There appears to be none.Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I move That under section 15(1)(d) of the Parliamentary Service Act 2000 Jamie Arbuckle Takutai Tarsh Kemp Barbara Kuriger Ricardo Menéndez March Todd Stephenson and Tangi Utikere be appointed as members of the Parliamentary Service Commission.Motion agreed to.
Brownlee GerryPETITIONS PAPERS SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLSSPEAKER: Petitions have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation. CLERK:Petition of Hāpai Te Hauora requesting that the House maintain the 2022 Smokefree legislationpetition of New Zealand Council of Trade Unions requesting that the House restore the Fair Pay Agreements Act 2022petition of Free Fares NZ requesting that the House retain current public transport discounts and expand them to provide 100 percent free public transport for under-25s tertiary students and Community Services Card holders Total Mobility Card holders and their support people. SPEAKER: Those petitions stand referred to the Petitions Committee. Ministers have delivered papers. Members it is a very long list. I ask that you give your patience to the Clerk as he reads that list. CLERK: Reports in relation to selected non-departmental appropriations for the year ended 30 June 2023 for arts culture and heritage portfolio Vote Arts Culture and Heritage; Housing portfolio Vote Housing and Urban Development2022-23 annual reports forAccident Compensation CorporationCallaghan InnovationCriminal Cases Review CommissionDepartment of ConservationGovernment Superannuation Fund AuthorityGuardians of New Zealand SuperannuationInstitute of Environmental Science and ResearchLand Information New ZealandLandcare Research New ZealandMāori Health AuthorityMinistry of Justice together with Te ArawhitiMinistry for Primary IndustriesMinistry of Social DevelopmentNew Zealand Customs ServiceNew Zealand Film CommissionOffice of the Children's CommissionerPlant and Food Research LtdReserve Bank of New ZealandSocial Workers Registration BoardTaumata ArowaiTe Papa TongarewaTe Puna AonuiTe Whatu OraTeaching Council of New ZealandTourism New ZealandWorkSafe New Zealandstatements of intent forGovernment Superannuation Fund AuthorityHealth and Disability CommissionerHealth Quality and Safety Commission New ZealandNew Zealand Green Investment Finance Ltdstatement of corporate intent for AgResearchstatements of performance expectations forGovernment Superannuation Fund AuthorityGuardians of New Zealand SuperannuationMāori Health AuthorityNew Zealand Blood and Organ ServicePublic Trust OfficeTe Whatu OraPre-Election Economic and Fiscal Update. SPEAKER: Those papers are published under the authority of the House. Select committee reports have been delivered for presentation. CLERK: Report of the Business Committee on the recommended sitting programme for 2024report of the Regulations Review Committee on the Secondary Legislation Confirmation Bill (No 2). SPEAKER: The bill is set down for second reading and the recommended sitting programme is set down for consideration. The Clerk has been informed of the introduction of a bill. CLERK: New Zealand Bill of Rights (Right to Sustainable Environment) Amendment Bill introduction. SPEAKER: That bill is set down for first reading.
Brownlee GerrySPEAKER'S RULINGSParliamentary Questions—AnswersSPEAKER: Members as I suggested last week I want to set out my approach to the answering of parliamentary questions. It's well established that Ministers are expected to answer questions unless they consider it not in the public interest to do so: Speaker's ruling 199/3. The public interest test is a high one and should be used sparingly: Speaker's ruling 200/1. Ministers are accountable to the House for the public office they hold and should therefore endeavour to give informative replies: Speakers' ruling 200/6. That is the cornerstone of responsible Government. Ministers are responsible for their answers. It's not for the Speaker to judge the quality or accuracy; the House and the public do that: Speaker's ruling 207/3. The Speaker's role is to uphold the Standing Orders which require that an answer that seeks to address the question must be given if it can be given consistently with the public interest: Standing Order 396. Ministers must make a reasonable attempt to provide an informative answer on the matter they've been asked about. This is particularly true for primary questions since Ministers have time to prepare their answers. Question time is a political exchange. Members will not always be satisfied with the answers they receive: Speaker's ruling 207/2. They should use supplementary questions to probe unsatisfactory answers. Only in cases where an answer is manifestly inadequate will the Speaker intervene usually by allowing further supplementary questions: Speaker's ruling 207/6. While there is a strong expectation from the House and the public that Ministers will answer questions the Speaker cannot force a Minister to give an answer to a question: Speakers' ruling 199/4. It is for members and the voting public to judge a refusal to answer.
Brownlee Gerry; Shaw James; Lu NancyMEMBERS SWORNSPEAKER: I understand that James Shaw is present and wishes to make the affirmation of allegiance. Would James Shaw please come forward to the right of my seat.Hon JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green): I James Shaw solemnly sincerely and truly declare and affirm that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles III His heirs and successors according to law.SPEAKER: I understand that Nancy Nan Lu is present and wishes to make the affirmation of allegiance. Would Nancy Nan Lu please come forward to the right of my seat.NANCY LU (National): I Nancy Nan Lu solemnly sincerely and truly declare and affirm that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles III His heirs and successors according to law.我Nancy Lu 陆楠郑重、诚挚、真实声明并确认我将依法忠实效忠于查尔斯三世国王陛下、他的继承人和继任者。
Brownlee GerryLIST MEMBER ELECTEDNew Zealand National—Nancy LuSPEAKER: I have been advised by the Electoral Commission that under section 137 of the Electoral Act 1993 Nancy Nan Lu has been declared to be elected a member of the House of Representatives to fill the seat formerly held by the Hon Andrew Bayly.
Brownlee GerryRESIGNATIONSNew Zealand National—Hon Andrew Bayly ListSPEAKER: I wish to advise the House that I have received a letter from the Hon Andrew Bayly resigning his list seat in the House with effect from 13 December 2023.
Brownlee GerryBY-ELECTIONPort Waikato—Hon Andrew BaylySPEAKER: I have received from the Electoral Commission a writ declaring the Hon Andrew Bayly to be elected to represent the electorate of Port Waikato.
Brownlee GerryTUESDAY 19 DECEMBER 2023The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.KARAKIA/PRAYERSSPEAKER: Almighty God we give thanks for the blessings which have been bestowed on us. Laying aside all personal interests we acknowledge the King and pray for guidance in our deliberations that we may conduct the affairs of this House with wisdom justice mercy and humility for the welfare and peace of New Zealand. Amen.
Thursday 1 February 2024 - Volume 773
New Zealand Productivity Commission Act Repeal Bill — Third Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the New Zealand Productivity Commission Act Repeal Bill be now read a third time.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 55New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.Motion agreed to.Bill read a third time.
11. Question No. 11—EducationHon JAN TINETTI (Labour) to the Minister of EducationQuestion No. 11—Education11. Hon JAN TINETTI (Labour) to the Minister of Education: Does she stand by all her statements and actions?Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Associate Minister of Education (Partnership Schools)) on behalf of the Minister of Education: Yes. In fact how long do you have? A personal favourite is my commitment to reintroducing partnership schools under this Government a policy that was unceremoniously dumped by the previous Government and yet has the potential to make an enormous difference for disadvantaged students up and down this country.Hon Willow-Jean Prime: What does the Government's commitment to restore balance to the Aotearoa New Zealand's histories curriculum actually mean?Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: On behalf of the Minister this Government is a coalition of three parties and the coalition agreement set out that restoring balance is exactly what the Government is committed to doing with the Aotearoa histories curriculum. The way that that will be done is set to come before Cabinet in the future and once those policy decisions have been made I'm sure the member will be the first to know.Hon Jan Tinetti: Does the Minister stand by her statement that the ministerial advisory group reviewing primary school English maths and statistics curricula are subject-matter experts who will ensure that our curriculum is knowledge-rich detailed grounded in the science of learning and internationally comparable?Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Supplementary. Yes—Hon Grant Robertson: No. No no. Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Oh that's right—Hon Grant Robertson: I'd like you to ask a supplementary.Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: That's right we won the election! On behalf of the Minister yes.Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Does she think ministerial group member Professor Elizabeth Rata's statement Nearly 40 years ago the 1985 Treaty of Waitangi Amendment Act set in motion a radical constitutional agenda. The aim: to shift the country from democracy to tribalism. In [the same] time a corporate tribal elite has privatised public resources acquired political power and attained governance entitlements." is knowledge-rich and if not why not?Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Supplement—oh sorry. I've got to stop doing that. On behalf of the Minister I've appointed Professor Elizabeth Rata because she is a well-recognised and renowned educational expert. Any views that she has expressed in terms of her political views are not relevant to her appointment which is based on her educational expertise. It would be a strange thing for the Labour Party to reveal that they actually profile people for their political views before appointing them on the basis of their expertise to get the job done and get a better curriculum for New Zealand's kids."
9. Question No. 9—PoliceHon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) to the Minister of PoliceQuestion No. 9—Police9. Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) to the Minister of Police: Is it the Government's policy to train no fewer than 500 new frontline police within the first two years" as per the National and New Zealand First coalition agreement?Hon MARK MITCHELL (Minister of Police): Yes; the Government will deliver 500 net more police on the beat in two years.Hon Ginny Andersen: Given the Minister's renewed commitment to the National and New Zealand First coalition agreement of 500 new police within two years when did he first become aware that Police's current recruitment practices would not enable police to achieve any desired growth without other interventions?Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well as I've said many times in this House I became aware as the incoming Minister that Police faced major challenges around recruiting due to the fact that the Australians are here recruiting our police officers they were finding it difficult to fill recruit wings and we've got many police officers that are fast approaching retirement age.Hon Ginny Andersen: When did he first inform the Prime Minister's office that Police's current recruitment practices would not enable Police to achieve any desired growth without other interventions?Hon MARK MITCHELL: I had several conversations when I became aware of the situation around recruiting with several of my colleagues.Hon Ginny Andersen: What specific interventions is he considering in order to meet his renewed commitment to the 500 new police in two years and will he rule out lowering current recruitment standards as one of them?Hon MARK MITCHELL: I was recently at the Gisborne Police Station and there was a young constable there that had been put in charge of mentoring and identifying young people in the community that may be interested in a career in Police. He has been very successful. In the latest recruit wing I think there were four that had been recruited through that process and were proudly graduating. So I think we're just going to have to look at many different options in terms of how we meet our target of 500 over two years.Hon Ginny Andersen: Point of order Mr Speaker. That was a question that asked whether he was going to lower the standards and he gave me a story about a visit in Gisborne.SPEAKER: Have another go at asking.Hon Ginny Andersen: Will the 500 new police all be constabulary or does it include authorised officers?Hon MARK MITCHELL: No. Unlike the previous Government who deceived New Zealand by saying they had recruited 1800 front-line police officers when in fact they hadn't—it was 1500—we will be recruiting training and deploying 500 sworn police officers. In relation to standards no we will not be dropping standards.SPEAKER: I just remind the Minister answering the question that the choice of language was not appropriate there. All political positions will be put from a position considered honest by the person putting it. How someone else sees it is a different matter but it's not for this House."
6. Question No. 6—ChildrenTAKUTAI TARSH KEMP (Te Pāti Māori—Tāmaki Makaurau) to the Minister for ChildrenQuestion No. 6—Children6. TAKUTAI TARSH KEMP (Te Pāti Māori—Tāmaki Makaurau) to the Minister for Children: Does she stand by all of her statements and policies?Hon KAREN CHHOUR (Minister for Children): Yes.Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke: What is she doing to ensure the safety of tamariki in State care in response to the report by Oranga Tamariki which has shown that more children than ever are being harmed under her watch?Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I acknowledge that the reports do not reflect well on Oranga Tamariki or the previous Minister for Children. But while there have been some improvements there are many areas that have been highlighted that are an issue. I am dedicated to making real change in this area and some of that space is around making sure caregivers have the right support wrapped around them to take care of our most vulnerable and making sure that we are making sure that the best interests of our young people are the first and foremost in decision making when it comes to our young people.Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke: How can she justify cutting 600 staff at Oranga Tamaki when understaffing is a major factor in the increased rates of harm we are seeing under her watch?Hon KAREN CHHOUR: No commitments have been made on what's going to happen in staffing levels. Those decisions are still ongoing and those discussions are still ongoing.Takutai Tarsh Kemp: How can she justify removing section 7AA from the Oranga Tamariki Act when rates of abuse for tamariki Māori in the Crown's care have almost doubled in the last five years?Hon KAREN CHHOUR: Repealing section 7AA is something that I have campaigned on for the last three years. We need to make sure that the best interests are first and foremost in every decision we are making around our children and those reports are showing that a lot of that harm is when children are being placed back into family care. We need to make sure that we are creating the best wraparound services possible so that these young people have a chance in life to not just survive but thrive.Takutai Tarsh Kemp: Will the Minister accept responsibility for any further increases in rates of abuse of tamariki Māori in State care as a result of her policies including removing section 7AA from the Oranga Tamariki Act?Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I take this role very seriously and every report of harm of a child is disappointing. My focus is to make sure that every child—Māori or non-Māori—is safe loved and cared for.
5. Question No. 5—HealthSAM UFFINDELL (National—Tauranga) to the Minister of HealthQuestion No. 5—Health5. SAM UFFINDELL (National—Tauranga) to the Minister of Health: What recent announcements has he made about improving the safety and security of our health workforce?Hon Dr SHANE RETI (Minister of Health): Our health workforce is the backbone of our health system and we will support them. That is why we increased the number of security staff in emergency departments (EDs) by an additional 200 staff across 32 EDs over the Christmas and new year period.Sam Uffindell: What feedback has he received about this important uplift in security?Hon Dr SHANE RETI: I have visited a number of hospitals across the country and have heard firsthand from staff and patients how beneficial this programme has been. I am told that there has been a noticeable reduction in the number of people who have been abusive towards staff. This has improved due to the increased presence of security in our EDs and has ensured people feel safer when they access care in their times of need.Sam Uffindell: Why was this such a priority for the Government?Hon Dr SHANE RETI: Just last week guards that were provided through our ED security boost helped to swiftly remedy a fight in Christchurch Hospital's emergency department between gang members. That is why this programme was such a priority for the Government. The safety of our health workforce and patients is and always will be a top priority. We must say no to violence in our EDs.Sam Uffindell: What are the next steps for security in emergency departments?Hon Dr SHANE RETI: This programme addressed an urgent immediate need over the busy summer period. We'll be assessing the impact that this has had and will look for ways to improve safety long term. Ideally we would not and should not require security in our EDs. This Government is committed to law and order and making our streets safer for everyone including our EDs.
4. Question No. 4—FinanceHon GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour) to the Minister of FinanceQuestion No. 4—Finance4. Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour) to the Minister of Finance: Does she stand by the statement in the National Party and ACT Party coalition agreement The concepts of ACT's income tax policy are considered as a pathway to delivering National's promised tax relief subject to no earner being worse off than they would be under National's plan"?Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): I can confirm to the member that that is indeed the wording in the coalition agreement and the Government is delivering on that commitment.Hon Grant Robertson: Will the Minister rule out cutting the top income tax rate from 39c to 33c in this term of Government?Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I've already done so.Hon Grant Robertson: How then can the ACT Party system of taxation be being considered by the Minister when a core plank of it she has just ruled out?Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well there are many aspects to the proposals that Mr Seymour and I are discussing along with other Ministers in the Cabinet. I have to say that I am delighted to see the new-found interest from the Opposition member in the necessity to reduce taxation. If only he'd taken one of the six opportunities he had to do so."
3. Question No. 3—Treaty of Waitangi NegotiationsHon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi NegotiationsQuestion No. 3—Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations3. Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations: Does he stand by his statement that My focus in government is upon fixing the bad outcomes of colonisation and building on the good ones"?Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Housing) on behalf of the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations: Yes and I note my wider quote where I said "People can argue about history and that's appropriate everybody will have a different point of view I certainly have no doubt that there were many bad things that have happened as a result of colonisation and what I'm focused on is ... improving them and restoring them and that's the focus of our government."Hon Marama Davidson: What specifically are the "good" outcomes of colonisation that he is planning to build on?Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Unlike that member I don't view history in a binary way. History is complicated. Colonisation brought to New Zealand things like Westminster democracy the rule of law economic development. Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Mansplaining!Hon CHRIS BISHOP: How can it be mansplaining to answer a question from a woman in Parliament? Seriously like—ridiculous. On the other hand colonisation brought immense suffering for many people. It brought the loss of land for tangata whenua it brought disease and it brought illness. And of course we are all engaged in a national effort to remedy and right the wrongs of the past and that's what this Government is committed to.Hon Marama Davidson: How does cutting the budget of the Waitangi Tribunal which has exclusive authority to determine the meaning and effect of Te Tiriti o Waitangi contribute to "fixing the bad outcomes of colonisation"?Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well all Government agencies are being asked to make savings. The member will be aware of the coalition Government commitment around looking at the scope purpose and the nature of the inquiries of the Waitangi Tribunal. That work has yet to begin but it will begin in due course.Hon Marama Davidson: Is he concerned that cutting the funding of the Waitangi Tribunal to pay for tax cuts will affect its ability to scrutinise the Government's proposed Treaty principles bill?Hon CHRIS BISHOP: No and I reject the characterisation of the member's explanation.Fa'anānā Efeso Collins: Does he think the Treaty principles of partnership and participation as developed by the courts remain relevant to "fixing the bad outcomes" for Māori in areas such as justice health and education?Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Yes.Fa'anānā Efeso Collins: Has he met with representatives from iwi and hapū since becoming Minister and if so have they raised with him any concerns about the Government's approach to Te Tiriti?Hon CHRIS BISHOP: On behalf of the Minister I'm not able to comment on that because I don't have visibility over the Minister's diary and what happened in those meetings I'm sorry."
Social Workers Registration Legislation Amendment Bill — Second Reading (continued)
Sosene Lemauga LydiaLEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE (Labour—Māngere): Thank you Madam Speaker. I'm very pleased to stand up and speak on this bill and make a short contribution. I also want to acknowledge the number of speakers that we have heard today. We heard the Minister for Social Development and Employment last night. We also heard the former Minister Carmel Sepuloni talk about the social worker registration especially her impact and knowledge and lived experience of bringing the original bill to the House shepherding it through. I also want to thank speakers on this side of the House Matua Jackson Willie Jackson—many of us know many social workers in our local communities. In South Auckland a number of them qualified and unqualified assisted during the COVID period especially in Māngere where we had the floods and many of our mātua came through.I do want to make a short contribution as to why this bill is important. I also want to highlight and thank the many individuals who are not qualified but they have mana and they have aroha and they are involved in social work. This bill is about their consideration of becoming a qualified person. But in some of our communities—particularly iwi Māori Pasifika ethnic—there isn't that need to become a qualified person because you are already there.The last point I wish to highlight: last night the Minister for Social Development and Employment said in her kōrero; in her contribution—and I'm sure it's on Hansard—that she was considering reducing the time from four years to two years. I want to put a plea in to the Minister as she considers and reviews and puts the bill through the necessary processes: I would oppose that consideration for the simple fact that many of our community members that can go through and become qualified actually are quite busy—very busy looking after their families going through the cost of living crisis and other duties. It's not that study and becoming qualified is anything less. There's just the time. When you come from intergenerational households that you are supporting you are working; you are helping three generations of your household. I would support that the length of time of four years needs to be supported. I commend this bill to the House.