edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Sage EugenieHon EUGENIE SAGE (Minister of Conservation): Thank you Madam Speaker—pleased to stand in support of the Films Videos and Publications Classification (Commercial Video on-Demand) Amendment Bill. The Green Party supports this bill. Opposition speakers have criticised the Minister of Internal Affairs for speed but the Minister has developed this bill after targeted consultation. That always takes a bit of time but it is useful in ensuring that legislation is well formulated. So I think that criticism is misdirected.We are pleased to support it because of the huge growth in these commercial on-demand services: 77 percent of New Zealanders now use these streaming services and it recognises the need for people to be able to have information on the type of content that can be viewed particularly for parents with children and young people who may be vulnerable to especially films about things like suicide. So this is filling a gap and because of that vulnerability it needs to be filled as quickly as we can.I think what the bill is doing in providing for a self-rating system is ensuring that the system is efficient and as cost-effective as possible. In ensuring that there is a Schedule of providers who are required to meet the requirements of the legislation—that has been clear. That Schedule can be amended as the Minister noted. In providing for staged implementation so that new content has to have the labelling on it from January 2021 and that providers have to address their back catalogues from July 2021 and have those complied that is allowing time for the industry to implement the requirements of the legislation and it is at its heart trying to manage unnecessary harm to people in New Zealand.So it is a small bill but it is a good bill. Like others the Green Party will be interested in the submissions to select committee because as Stuart Smith noted there are problems with the regime at the moment particularly for some independent film makers those wanting to provide and sell videos of independent films and not being able to get their classifications through cost-effectively that being quite a high cost barrier. That is slightly wider than the scope of the bill but it may be that this bill is an opportunity to address these issues with some of those smaller independent producers to help ensure that they get classifications as well but it's not a really heavy cost burden on them. So I encourage those people to actually make submissions to the select committee. But the Green Party supports this bill and commends the Minister for bringing it to the House.
Smith StuartSTUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you Madam Speaker. I think we're all in agreement that something needs to be done. The question is: what is the something and will it work? One thing with this bill: it seems to have been quite rushed in the process. And yet the Minister had a whole year to get started on this and elected not to and then has rushed it through to a point where we have some serious doubts that this will be actually as effective as we think—particularly the gaming videos and so on and programmes that aren't captured in this. There is a list in the bill in the Schedule. The problem is this is such a fast-moving world that providers pop up all the time. So to have something in a Schedule like that we need the flexibility to make sure that that can adapt and adapt very quickly. I'm not confident that that will happen.The clunky process having bureaucrats involved always—as my colleague Melissa Lee mentioned about film festivals having to go through the process this has happened on a number of occasions with these film festivals being almost held at ransom because they can't get their content that they want to show actually classified in time. The last thing we want is for this process to mess with the Kiwis who are law-abiding and wanting to show quite harmless content who are being held up by these processes.So I'm sure that the select committee will deal with a lot of these processes—not sure it'll all work and be able to be knocked into shape enough but that remains to be seen. In the meantime there is an overarching review going on by the other two Ministers mentioned earlier which may completely negate this bill and it may need repealing as part of that process. So we support it in principle. Let's just see if it'll actually do what it says on the tin.
Wood MichaelMICHAEL WOOD (Labour—Mt Roskill): Thank you Madam Speaker. Young people in New Zealand are exposed to an incredible variety of influences and pressures and media to an extent that generations past have not necessarily been. Now we can't be unrealistic or prudish about these matters necessarily. Young people have always been curious about finding different types of material and informing themselves about the world that is around them. But what this piece of legislation does is address what is a fundamental gap within our system for ensuring that people have got good information about what the age appropriateness of content is in these particular media. Any Parliament worth its salt and any Government worth its salt will always be ensuring that the regulations that we have keep pace with technological changes. The reality is that over recent years an increasing amount of the content that young people view is through these on-demand providers and we've got a very very obvious loophole.This is a very sensible piece of legislation. It simply addresses a gap. We would expect and our laws expect that if content comes through other forms of visual media—if it's on the television—that there will be a process for ensuring that the age appropriateness of that content is known by people who are watching. That is not the same if it comes through these kinds of media.So this is a sensible piece of legislation. It's also important in terms of ensuring that people can make good decisions about what kind of content is appropriate. I firmly commend it to the House and look forward to the discussion that will ensue at select committee. Thank you.
Young JonathanJONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak on this bill. Just in regard to the previous member Peeni Henare's comments regarding my colleague Melissa Lee I think it's important to understand that the reviews that are taking place do have the potential to override some amendments that this bill could put into place.However suffice to say I am pleased that we are supporting this to select committee. I think it's going to be a very interesting debate. Look as a parent myself there have been absolute times when I have had concern about what young people do stumble across—and not only stumble across; seek out. I do think that in this debate what we're going to hear from parents is that concern that actually sometimes when you put a classification on a programme or a movie it actually is the thing that attracts people to it.But that aside I do think that there have been programmes that have been available without any warning or description that we would all hold serious concern about. One of those of course was the series 13 Reasons Why and the issue that that created in normalising people taking their lives. I think all of us would hold significant concerns about that. Some of these films depict life as we know it or life as other people and countries know it and you can say they are educational but sometimes I think people prefer not to be educated in such matters and there could be an opportunity I think for New Zealand to have some deep consideration about these matters.So can I commend the Minister of Internal Affairs for her concern and also look forward to what the select committee process will enable in terms of inviting submissions from the broader community right across the board. I think this is something that New Zealand needs to consider and discuss. Thank you.
Henare PeeniHon PEENI HENARE (Minister for Youth): Thank you Madam Speaker. I stand in support of this bill and I'm reminded of the words of a former Prime Minister the Rt Hon Sir John Key and I liken it to that member's speech saying that that contribution is a Walkman in an iPod era. She made reference to a broader review in the broadcasting space where I think that this is much needed and needed now. I say that with respect because we know that in this particular space it's ever evolving it's ever changing. If we were to wait for a far broader review which I know is under way and is being led by the Hon Kris Faafoi and also the work being led by the Hon Nanaia Mahuta then I'm afraid that it will be far too long. Far too many eyes will see programmes films documentaries or whatever they might be that aren't classified appropriately in order for parents and for viewers to make the right decision. So I support the Minister of Internal Affairs in her time frames that she's indicated in her contribution on this bill. I look forward to supporting this bill as it continues in the House and just as importantly upon its conclusion I also look forward to the great viewing ahead for the future. Tēnā koe.
Taumata Arowai—the Water Services Regulator Bill — First Reading
McAnulty KieranKIERAN McANULTY (Labour): As a good Catholic man I believe in the spirit of Christmas and part of that is not biting at that sort of nonsense that we heard on the other side of the House. So I think this is a good bill and I commend it to the House.Bill read a first time. Bill referred to the Health Committee.
Craig LizDr LIZ CRAIG (Labour): Thank you Madam Speaker. It's a pleasure to take a brief call on this bill because I think we all know—based on what we've heard about the Havelock North situation—about the importance of having safe drinking-water. As we've heard in the House about 5500 people were affected by that campylobacter outbreak about 45 people were hospitalised and it's thought that it may have contributed to four deaths and so it's incredibly important that we get this right.The Government back in 2016 established a two-stage inquiry. What this bill does is implement one of the main recommendations of their stage two report and that was to say that we needed a dedicated drinking-water regulator and so what we're doing today in speaking about this bill is the establishment of Taumata Arowai which will be that independent drinking-water regulator. So what this bill does is it sits alongside another bill the water services bill that's currently under development. That will lay out all of the detail around the water regulations but it will also lay out some of the detail around stormwater and waste water and also the thinking about protecting our water sources.So what this bill here today though does is it establishes that new Crown entity Taumata Arowai and that will be basically responsible for the administration and enforcement of the new water regulatory system. But the other thing that it's going to be looking at is also providing some much-needed leadership around stormwater and waste water because what we've got around the country at the moment is a whole lot of sewerage systems and stormwater systems that are discharging into our rivers and into our estuaries. That has got significant health impacts and having that leadership so that we can actually get that right is going to be critically important. So this is a really really important bill and I'm really happy to commend it to the House.
Guy NathanHon NATHAN GUY (National—Ōtaki): Thank you Madam Speaker. I would like to make a short call on this very important bill that we are debating this evening. The National Party will indeed support this bill but we do have some concerns that we would like to debate and thrash out in the select committee mainly around the cost.It's interesting. I read some analysis done by Beca who had a look at the three waters in New Zealand and who summarised the fact that the costs of upgrading our three waters in this country are huge. The example they gave was that in Auckland it is about $66 but over on the East Coast in Anne Tolley's electorate it is over $1600 per person. So it is staggering and we want to know that this new regulatory Crown agency is going to do the work that indeed is talked about in this bill about compliance and monitoring.I'm also interested to know that there is a Māori advisory board or grouping as part of this and when I read the bill I thought: why is a Māori advisory group a part of this bill? I can sort of understand why the Government has chosen to put iwi alongside this new Crown agency and I think the reason they have done it is they are trying to work their way through very gradually a water-bottling levy. That's all gone very quiet in the last six or probably eight or 10 months because I know from when I was a Government Minister how difficult that is indeed to bring in. Iwi rights and interests I know are paramount but there's no mention of water bottling in this. There's no mention of water storage. This is focused purely on drinking water because we know the water-bottling levy is indeed very complex.I know Minister Parker is in the debating chamber this evening. It would be good to get an understanding from him at some stage: is the water-bottling levy going to be introduced before the general election in 2020?Hon David Parker: Which election? Oh 2020.Rt Hon David Carter: That's the next one. The member didn't know.Hon NATHAN GUY: So what does the Minister think? He's now procrastinating and thinking: When is 2020?" He's only got about nine months before there's going to be a change of Government so if he's going to bring in a water-bottling levy he needs to get on to it. I suggest he works all summer on that particular issue. But the reality is that nothing much will happen on that. There was a whole lot of sort of political rhetoric in the 2017 campaign from Labour New Zealand First and the Green Party—"We're going to bring in a water-bottling levy." Well the reality is almost silence.Anyway back to the substance of this bill. We support it cautiously. We've got a whole lot of questions in the select committee and Todd Muller is going to lay out those questions very very shortly."
Warren-Clark AngieANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): Thank you Madam Speaker. It's a real pleasure to stand tonight and take a brief call on the Taumata Arowai—the Water Services Regulator Bill. I had the pleasure of being on the Health Committee when we passed the Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill earlier this year and we learnt all about Havelock North and the difficulties that had happened there and the number of deaths. So it's with great pleasure that I acknowledge the long period of work that we are undertaking in regards to three waters including our drinking water and that's what brings us here tonight.Havelock North with the four deaths and the 5000 people sick was a shocking event and even though we acknowledge it may be expensive to fix it is one that we do not resile from. I would like to acknowledge the Hon Nanaia Mahuta for her great work in this area and I have no hesitation in commending this bill to the House.
Pugh Maureen; Tolley AnneMAUREEN PUGH (National): Thank you very much Madam Speaker. I too stand with my colleagues to support the Taumata Arowai—the Water Services Regulator Bill in its first reading tonight. As my colleagues have said the National Party is supporting it through this first reading to the select committee and the reason we're doing that is because we want to hear from submitters about this bill.One of the concerns I have is the implication of cost to small communities and rural communities. And I think you know from a recent experience on the West Coast we could do a lot for water quality and water sources—if we could keep 700 dead rats from washing out of the Department of Conservation estate into the catchment areas so that we don't have to pick them up. So water quality in rural areas is really important but in my experience my water comes out of a creek. It's got no treatment. It's got a bit of a filter and it does me no harm. Some might argue that it does.But the reality is in small catchments with small water schemes the cost of implementing some of this regulation and this bill will be prohibitive to small communities—small" being defined as less than 500 people. Now we know from the paperwork that we've got in front of us that the cost to implement this could be upwards of $117 million a year for operating costs and nearly $700 million for the capital investment required. So for small communities this is simply prohibitive.So although we all want good clean drinking-water and we understand in the metropolitan areas that we do need this because of the volume of people that are hooked on to these supplies we still need to be cognisant of the fact that we do have cost implications and these will be borne because of the size of the rating areas by small communities. As this bill comes to us today we are not guaranteed where those costs are going to fall. I would expect they would come back to the ratepayers and certainly the ongoing running costs will.So I do look forward to the select committee process and I do encourage the submitters to come forward and give us their views on it before we develop our standing or our support going forward. Thank you Madam Speaker.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): This is a split call. I call Angie Warren-Clark."
Stanford EricaERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you Madam Speaker. I'm pleased to take what will be a very brief call on Taumata Arowai—the Water Services Regulator Bill at its first reading. As you would have heard we are supporting this bill at this stage.This is the second bill that this Government has introduced to the House in response to the 2016 Havelock North drinking-water inquiry in New Zealand. The events of 2016 were a tragic reminder of how important for public safety it is to maintain excellent drinking-water standards; given that a third of the town's population were affected by that outbreak especially. On average around 30000 people a year in New Zealand become sick from water-borne illnesses. It was so important that the previous Government moved so quickly to implement the inquiry that provided many of the recommendations that are now being implemented. This bill is an important part of a broader body of work that implements some of these recommendations. The bill sets out to establish a water services regulator—Taumata Arowai—as a new Crown agent and provides for its objectives functions and principles and governance agreements. The regulatory body will oversee administer and enforce the new drinking-water regulatory system.Now we broadly support the intentions of the bill but as previous speakers have mentioned we do have some reservations and we as Denise Lee said do encourage stakeholders to go to select committee and have their say. Our main concerns are around the cost to those very small drinking-water suppliers—private suppliers that may not have the capacity to comply with the new regulatory requirements. Their size may well limit their capacity. They may not have the expertise or the funding available to comply. So these are some of the issues that will need to be closely scrutinised at select committee. Broadly however we support the intention of this bill.The departmental disclosure statement states that this bill will be complemented by a separate bill that will among other things implement targeted reforms to improve the regulation and performance of waste-water and stormwater networks. In my electorate of East Coast Bays we see regularly very regularly the effects of decades of underinvestment and lack of regular maintenance. Our beaches are often closed. Browns Bay Beach in fact has been closed—only opened recently. It was closed for eight weeks because of E. coli contamination coming from a stormwater outflow at the northern end of the beach. Many broken pipes were found. We've got the same issues in Castor Bay and Takapuna and elsewhere in Auckland and we need to take a serious look at the performance of our networks in Auckland and also in other urban centres. All the maligning of those people in the rural sector for the degradation of our waterways—the quality of our urban waterways and beaches are far worse and it's time we looked more closely at those. So I do look forward to the next bill to be introduced. But for now for this bill we broadly support it and I commend the bill to the House.
Yang JianDr JIAN YANG (National): I rise to speak on this Taumata Arowai—the Water Services Regulator Bill. Now any responsible Government would take people's health and safety issues seriously and this bill is about the establishment of the water services regulator. In spite of some particular concerns we believe that the intention is good and we will support the bill to go to the select committee. The bill itself also covers some aspects of the new body including the objectives the function the governance the management and also the operating principles.Now the main background of this bill is the contamination of Havelock North's drinking-water supply in August 2016. Of course the contamination led to the outbreak of gastroenteritis. In Havelock North about one-third of the residents in the town became ill so it was a major issue to us and it was shocking news to the country. So that was the background. The then National-led Government acted quickly and we initiated the independent inquiry. Two reports were submitted in the following year—in May and December 2017 respectively. The first report focused on identifying what happened what caused the contamination and also the conduct of those who provided drinking water. The second report focused on broader systematic issues and also had some recommendations. So that was the main background.But this bill itself of course would be able to provide clear leadership in terms of regulating drinking water and it also would strengthen compliance monitoring and enforcement relating to drinking-water regulation. So there are merits here and that's why we would support this to go to the committee.At the same time we do see some risks in the bill some uncertainties and some challenges—for example the new regulator may face challenges in terms of a lack of capability capacity and even expertise and funding in terms of carrying out its functions. Related to this is a challenge to the new regulator in terms of building and maintaining its credibility and also confidence among stakeholders. So these are some challenges and risks. That's why we believe it's important for the bill to go to the committee to be further examined and also to enable people to make submissions to improve the bill.Our concern also relates to some other areas particularly about the cost because many smaller councils may find it very hard to fund the new regulations. The Government has been putting more and more responsibility on local councils and many of these responsibilities would cause more financial burden to local councils. That's why we believe we need to make sure that smaller local councils will be able to fund these new regulations. It may be OK for Auckland Council because Auckland Council is a very big council but smaller ones can be very difficult because they have a very limited ratepayer base. So these are some concerns.Above all we believe we should be able to support the bill to go to the committee and then we will be able to further improve the bill and then make it work. Thank you.
McAnulty Kieran; Tolley AnneSITTINGS OF THE HOUSEKIERAN McANULTY (Junior Whip—Labour): Thank you very much Madam Speaker. We have made an unexpectedly quick pace through today's schedule. In the Christmas spirit I seek leave for the House to rise for the dinner break five minutes early and resume at the normal scheduled time of 7.30 p.m.DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Infrastructure Funding and Financing Bill — First Reading
Huo RaymondRAYMOND HUO (Labour): Thank you Madam Speaker. I am very pleased to take a call to support this bill. In my humble opinion this is one of the most progressive and inspirational bills. In fact the relevant sector has been talking for quite a while about the credit rating of the big three—Moody's Standard and Poor's and the Fitch group—and its direct impact on the ability of central government or local government to raise funds. For example the Auckland Council's debt to revenue ratio has reached a certain point that the local authority may not be able to raise any funds at all. An SPV—a special purpose vehicle—is the answer and this is what the bill's all about.I want to reiterate what the Minister has just said. Our infrastructure funding and financing model is broken. Our current system has presented a range of constraints which make it harder for both the market and central and local governments to plan for and to meet with infrastructure demand. Some of our higher-growth councils which provide most bulk infrastructure have tapped out their balance sheets. The bill provides council and developers with a new tool to fund and finance infrastructure projects by enabling a third party rather than a council to finance and construct infrastructure projects. A special purpose vehicle will be set up for each project. The SPV will be responsible for raising the necessary funds and in most cases constructing the infrastructure too. This is essentially a project finance model where the debt associated with the project will be ring-fenced from city councils. This is an omnibus bill which represents a substantial policy programme. There are specific provisions dealing with the debt the public ownership and the city council's involvement.I have recently joined the Transport and Infrastructure Committee.Chris Bishop: A good committee.RAYMOND HUO: A very good committee—thank you Mr Bishop—unlike the Justice Committee which has been overburdened and full of issues and problems. It's a great pleasure for me to have joined my former buddy from the Justice Committee and to have joined the Transport and Infrastructure Committee. Probably we're lucky enough—wherever we go or whatever kind of select committee we have joined that committee will attract more bills. How lucky we are!I very much look forward to the progressing of this bill and in particular to the submissions from the sector and the public. I both commend the Minister and commend the bill to the House. Thank you.
Collins Judith; Tolley AnneHon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura): I really enjoyed the Hon Phil Twyford's contribution today but not nearly as much as I enjoyed from this side of the House. But—Chris Bishop: He's your friend isn't he?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: He is my friend thank you very much. I think one of the things that the public expect from the National Party in Opposition is for us to be all grown up when it comes to things like infrastructure and not to do what unfortunately the other side did when they were in Opposition. I enjoyed the fact that the Hon Phil Twyford mentioned the regulatory failure that has made it so difficult to get anything done. It's so nice to hear a politician of the left variety not blame the market but actually put the blame where it really should be which is in the regulation and overregulation. It's really hard as we know to get any infrastructure built in this country. We need to reform the Resource Management Act. We need to reform the way in which we can fund infrastructure.If you think back to the last really big infrastructure projects the ones that we did in Government around roading were very useful—shame we weren't there longer to finish a lot of those and get all the roads joined up—but before that was really actually back in the 1970s under the Think Big projects. People think back to that and think how terrible it all was and basically sort of bankrupted the country for a while but frankly we wouldn't have our hydroelectricity generation if it weren't for those. We wouldn't have Marsden Point. We wouldn't be talking about ports being shifted. We wouldn't have gas reticulated around the North Island. We wouldn't have frankly anything other than coal-burning power stations or we would be going without power.So I think there are lots of things that we need to do in Parliament and one of the things that we need to do is to work together where we can to at least support ideas where we're looking for solutions. The Milldale project which Phil Twyford has referred to is one which was started before the current Government. It did deal with issues around how to actually fund infrastructure where a developer may not be able to do it straight away and to understand that councils cannot continue to borrow as they have because they can't actually get past their debt ceilings. None of them seem to have any ability to sell anything not like people in the normal world who actually do sell a property before they buy another one or sell something. Councils seem to have given themselves all sorts of reasons why they can't do things. So sometimes it is important for us in Parliament to be the people with the big girls' and big boys' pants on and make those big decisions and help them do the right thing and I think most people would consider that that is actually part of our job. We're here to get the job done not to get all petty about stuff but to understand that that takes the adult in the room and that just happens to be us. Thank you.DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is a split call. I call the Hon Willie Jackson.
Hughes GarethGARETH HUGHES (Green): Kia ora Madam Speaker. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou kia ora. I rise on behalf of the Green Party to support the Infrastructure Funding and Financing Bill. Look it's infrastructure that built our country that saw us grow rich over time. It's something we all I think should be able to agree that we've lagged on in recent decades. It has slowed down our productivity it has slowed down delivering prosperity for New Zealanders and I think if anyone tuning in wanted to know why they just had to listen to the last speech. For so long we've played petty politics when it comes to infrastructure. As a small country we've wasted a fortune constantly chopping and changing. I think now is the time that we should be calling for cross-party support greater long-term planning; not more petty politics and name calling. Look we should just get on with the business of building infrastructure.Here's a good example of the Government getting down to business actually delivering solutions practical solutions that are going to make a difference for people. You know a couple of scenarios—because this legislation basically allows special purpose vehicles a funding mechanism through a levy to fund these projects over a long time. Pretty simple right? And there's a couple of I guess tangible examples: say you're in an apartment building 100 flats inside and you've discovered the sewerage is outdated and needs to be modernised. Now that's an expensive project for a single apartment building for a developer upfront but say you spread it out across multiple decades say you apply to the Minister to also apply to other infrastructure users who will benefit from that modernised infrastructure to also pay across a period of time it becomes more affordable. You reduce the barriers to the upfront infrastructure investment. Take a papakāinga community where maybe 20 houses are going to be built around a marae but you need a new access road to be built. Instead of the massive upfront cost you can spread it out across decades.Hon Phil Twyford: What a voice of reason!GARETH HUGHES: The voice of reason. So rather than playing petty politics let's get on with business. Let's do this.
Falloon AndrewANDREW FALLOON (National—Rangitata): Thank you Madam Speaker. I'll just be taking a brief call on the first reading this afternoon of the Infrastructure Funding and Financing Bill. As we've heard this afternoon this bill provides a new funding and financing model to support the provision of infrastructure for housing and urban development. We see that as quite an important thing to do because as we've discussed this afternoon and particularly in relation to transport infrastructure this is a Government that is struggling to build new infrastructure across a whole range of areas not just transport.The one I want to talk about this afternoon was urban development. It feels a little bit funny following my friend Mark Patterson who I think lives in Lawrence which has got about 400 or 500 people—and I of course live in the urban metropolis of Pleasant Point which I think is about twice the size of Lawrence. So it's a bit funny to be talking about urban development here this afternoon. But I did just want to talk about the light rail project which Jacinda Ardern promised a couple of years ago now—2½ years ago—would be built within four years—would be completed within four years. Here we are more than two years after that promise was made and literally nothing has been achieved. Nothing has been done on that light rail project.The worst part about that actually is that this is a Government—as I've said this afternoon a couple of times now—that took $5 billion out of the State highway network to put into rail and cycle projects and now they can't even get it right. With all of that money they've got available to them they can't get it right for the one major infrastructure project they've got in Auckland. What it means actually is that now they've had to go through and scrap a lot of roading projects that had been consented that were shovel ready and others that were promised by the previous National Government. Those roads are now more dangerous than they were two years ago. There are more vehicles on them there are more trucks on them and there are more people who are unwilling to drive on those roads now because they are more dangerous.So we do see this bill as a very small thing that can be done to try and improve infrastructure arrangements. As we've heard this afternoon it's going to change the funding model for those infrastructure projects. We support that. I do hope it goes to the Transport and Infrastructure Committee. That's the appropriate one for it to go to. I'd like to sub on to that committee because there are a lot of particular issues with these funding models that have been raised: how to keep that debt off the council balance sheet—I'm interested to hear how the Minister of Urban Development proposes to do that but until then I do commend this bill to the House.
Twyford PhilHon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Transport): I move That the Land Transport (NZTA) Legislation Amendment Bill be reported to the House by 24 April 2020.Motion agreed to.
Land Transport (NZTA) Legislation Amendment Bill — First Reading
Huo RaymondRAYMOND HUO (Labour): Tēnā koe Mr Speaker. After listening to members who spoke earlier especially the Minister of Transport the Hon Phil Twyford and National's spokesperson Mr Chris Bishop it's understandable where the members are respectively coming from. Quite the contrary to Mr Bishop's view I think Minister Twyford and his Associate Minister Julie Anne Genter have done a tremendously good job. I want to congratulate Minister Twyford on his leadership.This bill is about safety. Safety is this coalition Government's top transport priority and this bill seeks to achieve that by strengthening and clarifying the regulatory function of the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA). In October 2018 NZTA announced that NZTA had not been performing its regulatory functioning effectively and that in particular it was too focused on education and self-regulation. This came to light through the backlog of 850 regulatory non-compliance cases that had not been managed properly by the NZTA. One of the cases that some of the members touched earlier involved the tragic death of Mr William Ball who was killed in a vehicle that had not been properly inspected by a non-compliance vehicle inspector agent. We're not simply dealing with statistics; we are talking about people's lives.While speaking on a transport-related bill it is correct and appropriate for the Minister and other members to say that the former Government was asleep at the wheel and that this bill seeks to remedy the situation. We are putting people and their safety and their lives first and foremost.Bill read a first time. Bill referred to the Transport and Infrastructure Committee.
Hipango HareteHARETE HIPANGO (National—Whanganui): In taking this call again I'm at the back end being the last speaker for the National Party. We've boarded the bus as we talk about this omnibus bill. This bill—I'm a lawyer so I have to go through and state what specific legislation is part of this omnibus bill that we're all on board with—amends the Land Transport Management Act 2003 the Land Transport Act 1998 and the Railways Act 2005. It's about strengthening the regulatory leadership of the NZTA—the New Zealand Transport Agency—and setting up a new regulatory structure establishing the position of the Director of Land Transport centralising that regulatory authority and strengthening the NZTA's role in relation to its interventions including speed management and enforcement.I've heard in the House this afternoon about the importance of safety. National is unashamedly focused on building safer and more efficient roads because safer roads do save lives. This bill—legislation soon to be—supported by the National Party is about safety is about efficiency and is about the interests of our community. I think that encapsulates and sums up what the National Party is about as well.Look I'll keep this brief because my colleagues have addressed before the House what this bill is encapsulating but I'm just going to reflect on the comment that was shared by the MP for Rongotai Paul Eagle who talked about walking trackside in Aramoho in Whanganui a few weeks ago along the railway tracks. So I'm hopeful that during that sojourn you saw on the back of a bus—talking about omnibus and all and me being the last speaker for the National Party at the back end—that you reflected and saw my image as it was traveling around Whanganui and promoting safer communities promoting the fact that I value our communities. I glance across the room too at the Hon Willie Jackson who I'm also aware was in Whanganui. So I'm sure that as you may have manoeuvred around my fine and fair city in Whanganui—noting we've also got a slight obstacle at the moment with State Highway 4 and the NZTA are being certainly prompted and promoted to come to the party on this one as well to open up the roadways and ensure the safety of our road users.So this bill is very much about the statutorily independent Director of Land Transport leading the charge in terms of the regulatory function and decision making in that role. In closing this bill is commended to the House and supported by the National Party.
Lubeck MarjaMARJA LUBECK (Labour): Thank you Mr Speaker for the opportunity to take a short call in this first reading debate on the Land Transport (NZTA) Legislation Amendment Bill. We heard from the Minister Phil Twyford previously that there are basically a couple of components to this bill: establishing a Director of Land Transport role and strengthening and clarifying the New Zealand Transport Agency's (NZTA's) regulatory function—I think that has been outlined pretty much in the previous speeches.What I do want to talk a little bit about is the fact that safety is at the heart of this bill and the heart of these changes so that we can ensure that all New Zealanders can be safe on our transport system when they are travelling. It is good that we bring the focus back to safety because what the independent review actually found is that under previous transport Ministers the NZTA had been directed to focus on building roads and that came at the expense of keeping people safe. So what this Government is doing is clearly putting the priorities and the focus back where they should be: making safety our top priority.On that note the previous speaker Andrew Falloon was mentioning some of the roads that he believed needed to be built. Well I had a quick scan through yet another discussion document that the National Party brought out a couple of days ago: their transport infrastructure and housing plan. Very clearly that plan where they listed some of the roading projects was missing Penlink. I was quite surprised to see that because yes Penlink is not showing in there—Chris Penk: No that's next year—next year we announce the projects.MARJA LUBECK: Well Mr Penk whatever your party is thinking of announcing as yet another unfunded project I just wanted to make it very clear that this Government has put the funding aside for Penlink. We will ensure that it will get built and I'm sure that at the moment we are looking at maybe bringing that forward—hopefully; fingers crossed.But this Government is building roads as well as building more safety into our roads. So we have our priorities right I would say where the National Party has it all wrong. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you Mr Speaker.
Strange JamieJAMIE STRANGE (Labour): Thank you Mr Speaker. I'm delighted to take a call on this excellent piece of legislation. I'd also like to acknowledge the work that the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) do—I acknowledge that they have had some challenges but they do an excellent piece of work for our country. The total investment that we have in roads we heard at the select committee was around $50 billion—so that's a $50 billion piece of sunk infrastructure. Keeping those roads safe is an important aspect of NZTA's brief and they're certainly working very hard on that. We also heard at the select committee that over the summer months they've put a record amount of investment into road safety. This bill helps to enable road safety. This is what it's about. This is about keeping our families safe. It's about bringing people home at night. We do have a record of deaths and injury on our roads. That must be improved and we are working hard to improve that.I'd like to touch on the aspect there that the Minister Phil Twyford mentioned there in his opening speech around Tackling Unsafe Speeds—the implementation of the programme that this bill supports—and it's around enabling NZTA to issue infringement notices for offences detected by safety cameras. Now safety cameras are there for a purpose. I know that at various times when you're driving along someone coming towards you might flash their lights to tell people that there's a safety camera; I personally don't do that because I think that the safety cameras are there for a purpose: to keep people travelling at safe speeds. So it's an important aspect there around the safety cameras.The second one—and I'll just take a brief call because a lot of these points have been canvassed—is the aspect around speed limits on New Zealand roads. The bill establishes a centralised register where there will be a single definitive source of information about speed limits on all New Zealand roads. I personally believe that many of our speed limits are too high particularly on some of the narrow rural roads and people travelling along those roads at speeds that are simply too high. So I certainly welcome that as a member of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee.If this bill is sent to our select committee I look forward to supporting this bill as we hear from submitters out there. Thank you. I support this bill.
van de Molen Tim; Rurawhe AdrianTIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Thank you Mr Speaker. As we've already heard on this side of the House we will support this piece of legislation. Anything we can do to help bolster the regulatory function or to strengthen the ability of the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) to carry out their functions is a good thing and we support that. We've seen over the last couple of years that they have struggled somewhat. I think that's a fair characterisation of the NZTA's ability to conduct what was expected of them over that time. I think we saw obviously a significant shift when we had a change in Government with the new Government policy statement coming in around the priorities for NZTA refocusing and redirecting their attentions off the back of that.Now through that time and subsequently we've seen a number of challenges in their ability to deliver what has been expected of them. Now quite frankly that hasn't been good enough. There are a number of areas where they have not met the expectations of constituents around the country. The Waikato is one that I would point out. Some of the safety upgrades that were planned for State Highway 1 through to the Piarere intersection—those projects were meant to be delivered by May this year four pieces within those particular projects. None of them were delivered by May. Those sorts of examples can be found around the country. For a Government that highlights safety as its priority they've clearly been unable to deliver on that. We just heard from Mr Bishop before that the NZTA only spent 48 percent of their budget in terms of these safety aspects over this last year. That simply is not good enough. So this bill to help strengthen some of those regulatory functions I think will go a long way towards supporting their ability to respond to adapt and to focus on getting the best transport outcomes for New Zealanders because absolutely without a doubt that will continue to be a strong focus for us should we be fortunate to get back into Government; we will expect NZTA to step up to the plate. There will be a significant number of roading projects that we will be reinvestigating with haste with the expectation that we can deliver those as quickly as possible for New Zealanders in both islands—a number of different projects; 12 that were cancelled by this Government when they came in; projects that simply make sense. They have strong economic business cases and significant safety benefits as well and when we hear repeatedly that the NZTA's number one focus under the new Government policy statement is safety—we're simply not seeing the delivery of that. So these roading projects are critical and for that reason we will be refocusing on those should we be back in Government. Absolutely we need a strong NZTA with the right functions and powers to enable that to happen once that occurs. So on that basis we support it through to select committee and look forward to it progressing from there.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): This is a split call.
Hughes GarethGARETH HUGHES (Green): Kia ora Mr Speaker. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou kia ora. I rise on behalf of the Green Party to support the Land Transport (NZTA) Legislation Amendment Bill. I'm speaking on behalf of my colleague Julie Anne Genter the honourable Minister and I acknowledge the kind words of the transport Minister Phil Twyford. The Green Party is proud to support this legislation which is improving outcomes for New Zealanders.Now when it comes to the New Zealand Transport Agency's (NZTA's) regulatory responsibilities we have to be cognisant of the facts of history and what we have seen in New Zealand in the past—it has had fatal consequences. If I could take the opportunity to acknowledge the tragic death of Mr William Ball of Dargaville what we have seen in this country is cowboy operators and an agency which I think quite frankly was asleep at the wheel not doing the responsibility that every New Zealander deserves so that when they hop in a vehicle they know that it's got the safest standards possible. So this legislation is improving the standards; re-establishing the Director of Land Transport role beefs up this responsibility for the Transport Agency and I acknowledge the changes that have also happened in regards to the board as well. We think it's important that the NZTA steps up and that we can have confidence in our regime.Lastly I'd really like to single out the Tackling Unsafe Speeds programme and the changes as a result of this legislation. We know that speed kills we know it's dangerous and we know we can do more to tackle it. Part of the road to getting zero deaths on our roads—obviously it's going to take time but it is about the journey and it's about acknowledging that drivers are going to make mistakes and that through infrastructure through education through road planning we can mitigate that. This has been so successful overseas. So the Green Party is very happy to support this very positive step forward. Kia ora koutou.