edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
McAnulty KieranHon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Thank you very much Madam Chair. I echo the comments from the Hon Grant Robertson because one of those questions that is yet to be answered is the one that I've posed and it was right at the start of this debate roughly an hour or so ago. It was asking the Minister of Local Government for the advice that he has received that doing this would ensure balance sheet separation.Now what we heard from the Minister was a repetition of the information that was readily available in the policy document. In answering the questions about balance sheet separation he didn't actually say balance sheet separation" so a good opportunity there for the Minister to answer that.But the question that I'm actually wanting to ask again because it hasn't been answered was that that I posed before the dinner break and it was a question about the councils that the Minister has been "working with" in the development of this Government policy. We are of course talking about the purpose and the purpose is to repeal and in the process of coming to that decision the Minister himself in justification of the position that the Government has taken has said that he worked with councils to develop this policy. It was presented in a way that made it look like the majority of councils support this and so I think it's important for the committee's understanding of the purpose of this the rationale behind the proposal to repeal to know what councils the Minister has been working with as he claimed in the development of this policy. It's a pretty straightforward question. I was expecting it to be addressed immediately after the dinner break when the Minister stood up. I have a list of 68 councils here. I'm happy to go through them one by one but it would save the committee's time if the Minister just answered the question."
Pugh Maureen; Brown SimeonCHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Members the committee is resumed. We are in committee on the Waters Services Acts Repeal Bill. Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Local Government): Thank you Madam Chair and before the dinner break there were a number of questions posed by members in relation to a number of issues. Arena Williams asked some questions and she has an amendment in relation to transitional savings and related provisions. This is the normal part of any piece of legislation to have this in as default that as the water entities legislation hadn't actually come into force there was no actual transitional provisions or savings hence why the schedule is there.In terms of the question around changing the date at which the Act is repealed; again this is a drafting convention to reduce the number of spent Acts. So I hope that answers the member's questions. The Hon Barbara Edmonds asked about the employment issues; that is dealt with in Part 2. I look forward to those issues being discussed and debated in that part of this bill. There have been a number of questions around balance sheet separation. Of course our policy Local Water Done Well which we're developing will ensure councils are able to have the revenue sufficiency and the ability to have long-term funding and financing for water services and infrastructure in their communities.
McAnulty KieranHon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Thank you Madam Chair. It is concerning that there have been three questions asked specifically about balance sheet separation relevant to the purpose of the bill and the proposal to repeal. I asked that question the Hon Phil Twyford asked that question and the Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall asked that question—and the Minister of Local Government has not said the words balance sheet separation" once. Given how crucial this is to the rationale and the purpose of the bill I think it is important that the Minister addresses that.So having said that there is another thing that I think is important for the committee to understand in considering the purpose of the bill. When presenting this repeal yesterday the Minister said that he had been working with councils to develop this bill and I think it's important for the committee to understand what councils he's not only been working with but consulting. But let's just focus on "working with" given those were his words. I would like to know from the Minister what councils he has been working with in the development of this bill."
Williams ArenaARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you Madam Chair. My third question to the Minister of Local Government—of five—is: did the Minister consider transitional and savings arrangements while the new entity is created? That is directly in relation to clause 3(b) about the Northland and Auckland Water Services Entity. I ask that and I hope for an answer from the Minister because I've also proposed an amendment to clause 5 which is a deletion of the words there—because the answer from the Minister will determine whether that's needed. Because as you'll see if you go to clause 5 and track through to Schedule 1 there are no savings provisions or transitional arrangements proposed under Schedule 1. So either this should be deleted because there are no provisions or there might be something the Minister can share with us about his intentions around savings provisions.And I ask it in relation to the purposes Madam Chair because it's helpful for the committee if the Minister could explain why he then hasn't considered transitional arrangements around the Northland and Auckland Water Services Entity particularly when there is work under way here that could be saved. There are say contractual arrangements governance arrangements—there are people involved here who are undertaking work who will be affected by this and this is the kind of thing that we would use the savings provision to protect. So it would be useful if the Minister could help me before I propose that amendment to clause 5.The next question I will ask the Minister now is: are there no transitional and savings arrangements because the Minister's intention is to disestablish the Northland and Auckland Water Services Entity and then simply replace it with something quite similar soon?My question there also relates to the next question which is: under the status quo which the Minister is returning to now is it true that Auckland could not partner with Northland in the way that it would have been partnered with Auckland because of provisions in the Local Government Act which would prevent it from doing so?So what I'd like with this series of questions is for the Minister to explain to the committee what his intentions are around the role of the Northland and Auckland Water Services Entity in the future. Is there an intention there that something similar will be created legislatively or is the intention for another partnership model to be introduced? Or is it simply that the status quo will return and there will be no support for Northland—in which case it's very useful for the committee to be clear on that point—and also could he give me an intention of whether then if there are no transitional provisions he's quite happy for the committee to make that deletion to clause 5?
Brown SimeonHon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Local Government): Well thank you Madam Chair; I was just about to take a call. I just want to thank members for their questions that they have been raising.There's been a question in regards to Te Mana o te Wai. This bill doesn't repeal Te Mana o te Wai. I think the letter that was being referred to may have been in regards to a different issue. In terms of Auckland and the issue with Watercare we're working closely with Auckland Council around the options they have in front of them to achieve financial sustainability for Watercare and that work is happening at pace.The question from Rachel Boyack I think in regards to private and mixed-ownership schemes—they are out of scope of this bill. The schemes charge the users as they see fit and repeal doesn't impact this.A question from the Hon Kieran McAnulty: does repealing this bill achieve the Government's objectives? Well the Government's objective is to repeal the legislation and replace it with Local Water Done Well. We campaigned on that we were elected to do that and we are now delivering that as we promised.There were questions in regards to the amendments in regards to Treaty settlements. I believe those are best dealt with in Part 2 but just to recognise that this legislation doesn't actually change those; it just simply changes the references in those things but we can get to those conversations shortly.
Rurawhe AdrianRt Hon ADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour): Thank you. Tēnā rā tātou katoa. E rere kau mai te awa nui mai i te Kā'ui Maunga ki Tangaroa; ko au te awa ko te awa ko au.[Greetings to us all. The great river flows from the council of mountains to the sea; I am the river and the river is me.] That's a whakataukī from Whanganui and I thought it was appropriate for me to start there because in 2017 this House passed a piece of legislation—the Te Awa Tupua (Whanganui River Claims Settlement) Act. I want to address some of the things in the bill from that perspective and as an uri of Whanganui. The question that I have is: what discussions has the Minister of Local Government had with the people of Whanganui about the impact of this bill on that settlement? I know that through reading it there is a change to—because it was considered under the legislation that is being repealed and I know that they were consulted on that. It seems to me only fair that one would consult them if you were now removing that.My second question is: what advice has he had regarding the impact on the Te Awa Tupua (Whanganui River Claims Settlement) Act that this legislation has?My third question to the Minister is: will he undertake to have the same level of discussion with the people of Whanganui on behalf of Te Awa Tupua? And as stated within that settlement legislation will he uphold Tupua Te Kawa as part of his responsibilities within this bill?
McAnulty KieranHon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Thank you very much indeed. The Minister of Local Government is quite right; we are talking about clause 3 which outlines amongst other clauses the purpose of the bill so I will contain my questions to the purpose of the bill. The purpose is to obviously repeal the three Acts that are outlined. The question I therefore have is: what advice did he seek and what advice did he receive that repealing was the best way to achieve this Government's objectives? Did he explore the possibility of amending the existing legislation to achieve those objectives? The reason I ask that question is because the Minister himself since making this announcement yesterday has made a number of assurances and one of those is that balance sheet separation could be maintained. Now we all know—those of us that have looked into this in some detail and have followed it throughout its progression—that maintaining balance sheet separation is utterly essential in order to be able to obtain the economies of scale and more importantly the separation from councils' books. The reason that is important is because we know that many councils potentially most councils are under financial strain at the moment. Some councils are at their debt cap so can't borrow more; other councils represent communities that simply cannot afford higher rates. Those communities might include city councils like Porirua that have a large proportion of people on low incomes; lower socio-economic areas. It could also include other councils that are completely different like the Tararua District which have a relatively small number of ratepayers a massive area a large number of towns each with their own treatment systems and the fourth-largest roading network in the country. The reason I raise this is because all the advice that I have seen from the department and from those agencies—including credit agencies but also agencies that have reviewed the Government's proposals the Government's preliminary work the alternative model that was put forward by Communities 4 Local Democracy which is remarkably similar to what this Government has signalled they are going to do—says that unless balance sheet separation is maintained none of the things that the Government is claiming they will prioritise will be able to be achieved. Now it could be that the advice that the Minister received in order to outline the purpose of this bill is that the only way to do that is to repeal but I am interested to hear if he received advice that he could have obtained the Government's objectives by amending what is currently in place. On that note I would also be interested to hear the advice that he has received from the department which says that balance sheet separation can be maintained without an entity model given that council-controlled organisations currently exist and haven't worked.
Leary IngridINGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): I'd like to ask the Minister of Local Government whether the purpose of the bill as described in clause 3 is to make small communities that belong to a body corporate pay for their own water infrastructure.I can contextualise that for the Minister in terms of Waipori Falls which is in the Taieri electorate. This was a small community that was formed when the Dunedin electricity company changed its legal status in the 1990s—sections were available it formed a body corporate. They've had a lot of water woes and I would point out to the Minister that only last week in the Otago Daily Times one of the residents was complaining about vomiting blood being taken to hospital because of the bad water infrastructure.Now in my role as MP I had got Mayor Bryan Cadogan from the Clutha District Council to come to a number of meetings with the residents of Waipori Falls to look at what could be done under the previous regime from the Labour side which was affordable water where perhaps the Clutha council even though they weren't required to look after those residents would have been able to kind of sweep them in—it's only 35 households—in order to be able to give them safe drinking water and water for cleaning and so on. Now since the affordable water reforms have been swept out that is no longer the case from the Clutha council. They've made it quite clear publicly that they will not be in a position to support Waipori Falls because of the projected rate increases. They just would not be able to sell that to their ratepayers.Meanwhile the residents of the 35 households have had 130 days straight of boil-water notices. On most days they've had a maximum of around seven hours of water a day. There are people who are really fearing for their health and safety in terms of the contamination of the water that is available to them. In fact during the previous term of Parliament I was able to get a ministerial intervention to allow residents to go on to a Department of Conservation bridge and access water from the river which they could then boil because that was another issue. If that hadn't been available to them they would have had absolutely no water—CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Come back to the bill.INGRID LEARY: Yes but just for context Madam Chair and for the Minister this community is some distance; it lies between both Dunedin council and Clutha council. It is a body corporate. They do have a ratepayer base and I'd just really like to hear from the Minister what his plans are for small communities like that where now councils are saying publicly they will not step in to support them and yet we have people from those communities vomiting blood on the way to hospital after having accessed the water.
Willis ScottSCOTT WILLIS (Green): Thank you Madam Chair. I would like to hear from the Minister of Local Government about his plans for engaging with Ngāi Tahu meaningfully on the significant repeal of Te Mana o te Wai. He may recall that I mentioned a river that I could swim in when I was a child before intensive dairy drained that river and did much worse to it. In the Manuherikia old mining offtakes have now been used for intensive dairy—constant irrigation of what was dry land resulting in a trickle that's hardly called a river—and it has seriously degraded biodiversity. So Te Mana o te Wai gave a hierarchy ensuring the health of the water came first. Water is life.I understand that there was a letter sent on 31 January to stakeholders advising them that there would be repeal and change and that stakeholders had until today to respond. My understanding of Ngāi Tahu expectations for Crown engagement in accordance with the recognition of the rangatiratanga and the principle of good-faith engagement are that firstly that there will be direct engagement with Ngāi Tahu as a Te Tiriti partner. The Ngāi Tahu takiwā extends right across most of Te Wai Pounamu—that's half of the country. Ngāi Tahu interests across this extensive takiwā shouldn't be represented through engagement with pan-Māori or other advisory groups.Secondly my understanding is that engagement with Ngāi Tahu must begin early and continue through all stages with significant notice and good information so that Ngāi Tahu can meaningfully engage and thirdly that significant engagement must be resourced.So what is the Minister's plan for correcting this oversight and ensuring meaningful engagement with Ngāi Tahu? I want to hear what the Minister's plans are for engaging with Ngāi Tahu on this significant repeal of Te Mana o te Wai.
Kuriger Barbara; Brown SimeonIn CommitteePart 1 Preliminary provisionsCHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members the House is in committee on the Water Services Acts Repeal Bill. We come first to Part 1 Preliminary provisions". Part 1 is the debate on clauses 3 to 7 and Schedule 1. The question is that Part 1 stand part.Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Local Government): Thank you Madam Chair. This part as you outlined is the preliminary provisions of this bill. Clause 3 sets out the purposes of this bill which are "(a) to repeal the Water Services Entities Act 2022 the Water Services Legislation Act 2023 … the Water Services Economic Efficiency and Consumer Protection Act 2023; [to] (b) to disestablish the Northland and Auckland Water Services Entity … (c) make transitional arrangements for local authorities' long-term plans"; defines terms used in the bill; provides transitional and savings provisions; provides that the bill when enacted is repealed one year after it comes into force; and provides that the enacted bill binds the Crown."
MacLeod DavidDAVID MacLEOD (National—New Plymouth): Thank you Madam Speaker. I want to start by saying there are some elements of what's just been spoken that I actually do agree with but a lot I don't. First of all I just want to say that communities across New Zealand—there are some councils that are actually doing a particularly good job in this space so it's not every council that we're trying to find a solution for. But we have to ask the question: why are we in this position? Literally hundreds of billions of dollars are needed to bring everything back up to speed and it's significant because as a result of it we can't use the normal rating system. We need to look at new financing tools etc. etc. But what are we trying to achieve? Ultimately it's the supply of quality water for our communities. Ultimately it's the management of waste water so that we don't destroy our environment and affect different communities and also dealing with stormwater in a way that protects people property assets and our environment. But we're also trying to do this in a way that maintains local ownership local control and local delivery and for that reason I commend this bill to the House.
Brewer CameronCAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour): The unbelievable defence of three waters reminds me of the belligerent grumpy old man driving up the wrong side of the motorway blaming everyone else: 26 percent of people supported at its peak three waters just as 26 percent supported the Labour Party. They tried to rebrand their three waters from four entities to 10 entities but the confiscation continued. The Communities 4 Local Democracy—and if you have a look on their website you'll see a lot of council logos; keep scrolling most of the logos are there—commented the proposed confiscation of assets funded by generations of ratepayers is not the right solution".So it gives me huge pride to be able to rise in support of this repeal bill. It was a lightning rod during the election three waters—the hoardings were up all around the country for two years. They rebranded; the hoardings stayed up. People could see; people did not want to give up those locally funded locally owned assets. That was the driving point.This coalition Government will restore council ownership and control of council assets and of water assets and so I commend this bill to the House."
Lu NancyNANCY LU (National): I stand to commend the Water Services Acts Repeal Bill because I strongly believe that Local Water Done Well will enable local governments to have the tools to find funding to make their long-term plans and to have the flexibility and to really deliver the water infrastructure that local constituents and users really need. If the member's opposite have emphasised so much on what they see locally I wonder why nothing was delivered in the six years that they had the power and the time and the funding and apparently the solution to do anything. But the National-led coalition Government is very determined on the delivery of real changes to restore the council ownership and control of water assets. Our Government with our plan—the Local Water Done Well plan—will give local decisions and the ability to fix where things are really broken where things really need to be built where water infrastructure is really required. So I commend this bill to the House.
Smith StuartSTUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you Madam Speaker. Well I'm going to be brief on this—I made most of my points in the first reading—but I would like to say that it is quite ironic that we're debating this bill in the city which is the worst example of good management of water infrastructure. However the Act that was put in place to deal with it had no impact on that. What we really need is Local Water Done Well and we will deliver that. So with that I commend the bill to the House.
Lu NancyNANCY LU (National): I am standing here to support the Water Services Acts Repeal Bill. I wanted to make a mention when the member talks about the visitors that we have in the gallery—our mayors—about watching their back and no longer having a job that she should probably look up. Because the mayors are really shaking their head and disagreeing with the member's comments.But I support this bill because there are many New Zealanders who have had enough of the lack of water infrastructure and the poor water planning locally. The last Labour Government while they were in Government and in power had all the time and resources and votes to do something and they did not.So I support this bill because many voters have openly called out for the last Labour Government to stop the mega-merge into the three—and then later 10—services entities. All the talks but no delivery. So I support this bill.
Smith StuartSTUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you Madam Speaker. It is a pleasure to speak on this repeal bill. I'd like to begin by acknowledging the mayors in the audience in the Speaker's gallery particularly one of my constituents: a mayor in my area Dan Gordon who I know needs special acknowledgement for all the work that he did in rallying the rest of the troops—those sitting with him—to get this where we are today and actually delivered a pretty good plan for the future. So thank you very much for the work that you did collectively.This was a divisive bill—this was mentioned earlier by my colleague Andrew Bayly. In fact it divided up Marlborough and Marlborough ratepayers were going to be either on one side of the border and be in one entity or the other. It was incredibly divisive. No communities of interest were considered when these boundaries were set up.I mean as the great President of Argentina Javier Milei says collectivism does not work. This was a great example of collectivism that would have spiralled out of control and it needs to be repealed. I commend this bill to the House.
Bayly AndrewHon ANDREW BAYLY (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Thank you Madam Speaker. It is a pleasure to be talking on the Water Services Acts Repeal Bill. Having endured the 88000 submissions through a long period on the Finance and Expenditure Committee that some of us endured—and I'm looking at the other side of the House here at Ingrid Leary who also had to endure that dreadful thing—it is an absolute pleasure to be talking today about repealing it. It was evident through the last term of Government what a divisive dreadful piece of legislation it was—or three pieces of legislation—and what this proposed change which the Labour Government sought to bring about was causing in our communities. I acknowledge our council CEOs up in the audience. The bill raised a whole lot of issues but of specific importance to me are the issues relating to the Water Services Economic Efficiency and Consumer Protection Bill. My job is to work with Minister of Local Government the Hon Simeon Brown to bring about new changes new rules in terms of economic regulation of the water entities that will be formed under our new proposal of local water made better. What we want to ensure is that New Zealanders do get access to high quality water but we want to make sure that the decision making for that occurs at a local level. The big issue with the previous economic efficiency and consumer bill was that it assumes that these entities were all about making profit and ripping off New Zealanders; that of course was the wrong approach and that's why the overzealous economic regulations were totally inappropriate. What we will do is pare it back and make sure that we have adequate economic regulations that do ensure that councils invest properly to meet their minimum health standards to meet the needs of their consumers. But perversely actually the regulations are about making sure they invest enough not ensuring that they make a profit—because of course they're separated stand-alone entities; that is why they'll be ring-fenced. That is not about profit maximisation; it's about creating better infrastructure. I'm looking forward to doing that over this year and putting the proposals back into the House at the end of the year alongside Minister Brown.
Brownlee GerryINTRODUCTION OF BILLSSPEAKER: The Government is going to introduce bills.CLERK: Water Services Acts Repeal Bill introductionSocial Security (Benefits Adjustment) and Income Tax (Minimum Family Tax Credit) Amendment Bill introduction.
Brown SimeonURGENCYHon SIMEON BROWN (Deputy Leader of the House): I move That urgency be accorded to the introduction and passing through all stages of the Water Services Acts Repeal Bill and the Social Security (Benefits Adjustment) and Income Tax (Minimum Family Tax Credit) Amendment Bill; and the committee stage of the Social Workers Registration Legislation Amendment Bill.The Government is today according urgency to progress key aspects of our 100-day plan which includes repealing the last Government's three waters and indexing benefits back to the Consumers Price Index and progressing work on the social workers legislation bill.
Points of Order — Speaker's Ruling—Request for Ruling on Content of Answers
Menéndez March Ricardo; Brownlee GerryPOINTS OF ORDERSpeaker's Ruling—Request for Ruling on Content of AnswersRICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Point of order Mr Speaker. Thank you Mr Speaker. Just in relation to your previous reflections last sitting week I raised a point in relation to Speaker's ruling 205/5(1) around Ministers commencing their answers to a question with a political attack. At the time you mentioned you were going to go back and reflect on it and I was just wondering whether you had any views on the events of last week and how we'd move forward in relationship to that. SPEAKER: I will come back to you.
Brownlee GerryPETITIONS PAPERS SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLSCLERK: Petition of Angela Clifford requesting that the House urgently direct the development of a Government-facilitated food strategy.SPEAKER: That petition stands referred to the Petitions Committee. Ministers have delivered papers. CLERK: 2022-23 annual reports of the:Armed Forces Canteen CouncilDrug Free Sport New ZealandFire and Emergency New ZealandKiwRail Holdings LimitedMercury New Zealand LimitedNew Zealand Artificial Limb ServiceNew Zealand Lottery Grants BoardTranspower New Zealand LimitedTreasury together with the Minister of Finance's Report on Non-Departmental AppropriationsGovernment response to report of the Māori Affairs Committee on Māori Climate AdaptationVote Building and Construction Report in relation to selected non-departmental appropriations for the year ended 30 June 2023Agreement between New Zealand and the Slovak Republic for the Elimination of Double Taxation with respect to Taxes on Income and the Prevention of Tax Evasion and Avoidance together with the National Interest AnalysisSecond Protocol to the Agreement between New Zealand and the Republic of Austria with respect to Taxes on Income and on Capital done at Vienna on 21 September 2006 together with the National Interest Analysis.SPEAKER: Those papers are published under the authority of the House. A select committee report has been delivered for presentation. CLERK: Report of the Petitions Committee on the Petition of Cheryl Singh. SPEAKER: There are no bills for introduction. We come now to questions for oral—
Speaker's Rulings — Ministerial Responsibility—Origin of Documents
Brownlee GerrySPEAKER'S RULINGSMinisterial Responsibility—Origin of DocumentsSPEAKER: I just wish to read a ruling that I said I'd come back to Parliament with at the end of the week prior. Members when the House last sat I indicated that I would rule on the extent to which Ministers could be questioned about the origin of documents they use. In practice a wide view is taken of the concept of ministerial responsibility. Ministers are responsible to the House for all actions taken and statements they make in their capacity as a Minister. Where they are questioned about a matter for which they are responsible Ministers must give an informative answer. That's not new; it's Speaker's ruling 174/1. Members also raised the issue of prime ministerial responsibility. The Prime Minister is responsible to the House for all the actions of the Government that they head. However it's not reasonable to expect that the Prime Minister will have detailed knowledge of every matter dealt with by the Government. So while it is fine to ask the Prime Minister what they know about the origin of a document used by a Minister in an official capacity it is reasonable for the Prime Minister to answer that they do not know. My ruling is therefore very much in line with the approach of my predecessors. Ministerial accountability to this House is fundamental to our form of parliamentary democracy and I continue the expectation that Ministers address questions informatively.
List Members Elected Members Sworn
Brownlee Gerry; Bishop ChrisADDRESS IN REPLYPresentation to Governor-GeneralSPEAKER: I have to announce that accompanied by members I attended upon Her Excellency the Governor-General with the Address agreed to by the House in reply to the speech at the opening of this Parliament. Her Excellency was pleased to make the following reply: Governor-General Cindy KiroMR SPEAKER AND MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:I receive with much pleasure the Address which has been adopted by the House of Representatives in reply to my speech at the opening of the First Session of the Fifty-Fourth Parliament of New Zealand. I thank you for your assurance that the matters referred to in my speech will receive your careful consideration.Cindy Kiro Governor-General.Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Leader of the House): I move That Her Excellency's reply be entered in the Journals of the House.Motion agreed to.
Brownlee Gerry; Halbert ShananLIST MEMBER ELECTEDSPEAKER: Members I have received from the Electoral Commission a return declaring Shanan Halbert to be elected a member of Parliament to fill the vacancy created by the resignation of the Hon Kelvin Davis from his list seat. I understand that Shanan Halbert is present and wishes to take an Oath of Allegiance. Would he please come forward to the chair on my right.MEMBERS SWORNSHANAN HALBERT (Labour): Ko ahau ko Shanan Kiritea Halbert e oati ana ka noho pūmau taku pono ki a Kīngi Tiāre te Tuatoru me tōna kāhui whakaheke e ai ki te ture. Ko te Atua nei hoki taku pou.[I Shanan Kiritea Halbert swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles III His heirs and successors according to law. So help me God.]
Brownlee GerryTUESDAY 13 FEBRUARY 2024The 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 9 May 2024 - Volume 775
Motions — Climate Adaptation—Finance and Expenditure Committee Inquiry
Marcroft JennyJENNY MARCROFT (NZ First): Thank you Madam Speaker. I'm really pleased to stand on behalf of New Zealand First in support of the notice of motion into an inquiry into adaptation as presented by Minister Simon Watts in the House this afternoon. It was my pleasure in the 52nd Parliament to be part of the Environment Committee—Hon Dr Duncan Webb: A great committee!JENNY MARCROFT: —as we went through—along with the great Dr Duncan Webb and other members of the House right across the House. It was a great committee in terms of the work we did on the zero carbon bill. And setting that precedent of working in a cross-party manner on such an important issue it is good to hear from members who have stood in this House this afternoon saying that that is the spirit in which we should conduct this inquiry into adaptation that goes through the Finance and Expenditure Committee.One of the things that the select committee did in the 52nd Parliament was travel to the United Kingdom to hear about their climate legislation which by that stage had been 10 years in the making. One of the points that they made very clearly to us was to really make sure we looked at adaptation as a really important piece of work to do. So it is good to see that now some years later the focus is on adaptation.Adaptation has been a focus of the work that Minister Shane Jones was doing as part of the Provincial Growth Fund and I'll raise an example here. He put money into the Taradale stop bank. Now if that piece of adaptation work hadn't happened when the cyclone went through there would have been even greater damage happen because of the floodwaters—from the banks obviously if they hadn't been rebuilt. That's just an example of how New Zealand First is very supportive of adaptation because we have got a changing climate; there's no doubt about it. And it's good to see that this is going to be a cross-party piece of work. I'm very much pleased to support the inquiry. Thank you Madam Speaker.
Woods MeganHon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): Thank you Mr Speaker. Labour supports this notice of motion in the House today to move the Finance and Expenditure Committee to conduct an inquiry into climate adaptation and are happy to work with colleagues across the House on this important piece of work. The purpose of the inquiry—to develop and recommend objectives and principles for the design of the framework that we need for successful climate adaptation for all New Zealanders—is an important piece of work that it is important that we turn our collective minds to.I agree with the Minister who moved this motion that it is imperative that we develop enduring and long-lasting policies and frameworks to put around our approach to climate adaptation. The solutions that we come up with need to outlast any one Government. I personally think that the work around climate adaptation and how governments deal with it be it local or central governments not just in New Zealand but around the globe is one of the most complex pieces of public policy that we will have to face in the 21st century. This is not easy work and it is important that we work together and Labour is happy to commit to working within that spirit.I'm also pleased to see this work taking place at the Finance and Expenditure Committee.Chlöe Swarbrick: Great committee!Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: It is not only a great committee as Chlöe Swarbrick says but it is also important that we tackle and address that fundamental question of the funding and the financing and who pays and have that advice as we tackle the work around climate adaptation.We in New Zealand know only too well the effects of extreme weather events. Wild weather knows no partisan politics and it is important that we pool our resources. New Zealanders want to know that we can be resilient to the effects of climate change. We've seen this time and time again that we must be and we welcome this conversation at the Finance and Expenditure Committee for the cross-party work on this important issue.
Watts SimonMOTIONSClimate Adaptation—Finance and Expenditure Committee InquiryHon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Climate Change): I move That the Finance and Expenditure Committee conduct an inquiry into climate adaptation with the following terms of reference:Inquiry into climate adaptation(1) The purpose of the inquiry is to develop and recommend high-level objectives and principles for the design of a climate change adaptation model for New Zealand to support the development of policy and legislation to address climate adaptation.(2) For this purpose the committee must consider the following topics:(a) the nature of the climate adaptation problem New Zealand faces(b) frameworks for investment and cost-sharing(c) roles and responsibilities(d) climate risk and response information-sharing(3) The committee may as it thinks fit consider other matters relevant to the purpose of the inquiry.(4) The committee must take account of submissions received by the Environment Committee on its recent inquiry into climate adaptation.(5) The committee must finally report on the inquiry by 5 September 2024.I want to move a notice of motion through the House for the Finance and Expenditure Committee to conduct an inquiry to look at how we can help New Zealand prepare for the impacts of climate change.Damaging natural weather events are only going to become more frequent and severe over time. These events are costly to New Zealand and stop New Zealanders from enjoying a way of life and an economy that protects our people communities industries and environment.What we have learnt from previous events including the Auckland floods and Cyclone Gabrielle is that we need an enduring and long-term approach to provide New Zealanders and the economy with certainty as the climate continues to change. That's why I am moving this motion.The Finance and Expenditure Committee is the appropriate committee to undertake this inquiry as it has representatives around the table from every part of this House.The inquiry will support creating a framework that will help communities and businesses know what investment will happen in their area.This matter is one that I have discussed with colleagues across the House both within the coalition Government and the Opposition. I am immensely grateful for the support expressed thus far for this work. I am additionally pleased to be able to work together on this issue as we prepare New Zealand for the impacts of climate change.I look forward to having more to say on this topic shortly. But what I will say for now is that I hope that this will be the beginning of a programme of work across political lines to develop an enduring framework to address climate adaptation and provide Kiwis certainty as we prepare for a world impacted by climate change.
Urgent Debates — Kāinga Ora—Government Response to Review
Maipi-Clarke Hana-RawhitiHANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE (Te Pāti Māori—Hauraki-Waikato): Tēnā rā koe otirā tēnā rā tātou e te whare. E tū ana au ki te waha i ngā kōrero mō tēnei take ā e tū ana mō Te Pāti Māori i tēnei wā.[Greetings to you and to everyone present in the House. I stand to speak to this matter and stand to represent Te Pāti Māori right now.]In this country our Māori children—our Māori mokopuna—suffer. They have suffered under every Government and today the suffering continues. All whānau have a right to warm leak-free secure homes yet 30000 tamariki are hospitalised every year in this country because of substandard housing. Further over 100000 people are homeless in Aotearoa and 60 percent of them are Māori.Tangata whenua should never be homeless in their own land. Regardless it seems it is this Government's objective to do exactly that. The detail the truth of our people with whom we are displaced and dispossessed is in the history of this country. We need only reflect on land loss; the Native Schools Act which displaced tamariki Māori from their whānau and their whenua; and urbanisation which forced Māori into cities into social housing and into a cycle that continues today.I can say that as it is Māori make up of half of the social housing wait list. It is Māori that make up one-third of those living in damp overcrowded and unsafe housing. When we create an environment a way of life for people and that continues through legislation through law and through Budget to keep them in the same cycles whilst judging and ridiculing them in this House what message are we sending? Can the people—can our people—really trust this Government?We know as Te Pāti Māori that we understand our people. We listen to what they ask and we can respond to these calls. Our solution to the historical oppression of our people through housing—or rather lack thereof—would be to build papa kāinga [original homes] a cost estimated to be $600 million. I actually live on a papa kāinga housing with my own whenua growing māra [garden] kai and through my whakapapa which clearly speaks to the privilege that I'm allowed to have.We would introduce rent controls with higher incomes end property speculation and allocate 50 percent of new social housing to Māori—given we make up the majority of those who utilise these services. We want better for our people for our mokopuna and this Government threatens our very existence unless we assimilate conform and keep ourselves from sharing what they consider our unhelpful comments. No reira tēnā rā tātou.
Andersen Ginny; Mitchell Mark; Tuiono TeanauHon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you Mr Chair. Now I just wanted to clarify one point—the answer the Minister gave before in relation to front-line staff and non - front line staff. I understand that he said that is a clear decision for the commissioner to make but then he's also provided the answer in a written parliamentary question and today that those 111 call responders are not front line. So if you could just reconcile those two different pieces of information I'd really appreciate that.Hon MARK MITCHELL (Minister of Police): Well I just think that she's conflating the two issues. The first thing is the commissioner will decide what's front line. He'll decide where he deploys his staff and he'll decide the best use of all his resources and his staff. The member asked me as the Minister of Police what I would define as a front-line police officer and I said I consider a sworn police officer as front line.CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Members our time with the Minister of Police has ended.The Minister of Local Government is now available for 30 minutes to respond to members' questions.
Andersen Ginny; Mitchell MarkHon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you very much Mr Chair. So retail crime has continued to be a problem for our business community as well as our communities. Funding for the Retail Crime Prevention Programme was provided in the last Budget. Does the Minister have any intentions to halt or pause the funding of that programme?Hon MARK MITCHELL (Minister of Police): Sorry I was talking to the chair. Does she mind just repeating the last part of that question.Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): The Retail Crime Prevention Programme: does he have any intention to halt funding to that programme?Hon MARK MITCHELL (Minister of Police): No I don't—anything to do with retail crime and getting on top of the violent retail crime in New Zealand is a huge focus for this Government. And if anything we want to invest into that more because there's a huge human cost to this and it's awful. And in my view we're a small island nation we've got a lot in our favour in terms of trying to get on top and deal with this and we should be but that is going to require ongoing investment to make that happen.
Maipi-Clarke Hana-RawhitiHANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE (Te Pāti Māori —Hauraki-Waikato): Thank you to the Minister for responding back to my questions. However I do want to clarify that yes one of them had gang member whānau but two of them had absolutely no gang patches no gang whānau. It was just a normal tangi where people were attending and in one instance the police officers weren't actually on the marae but on the actual street—the beginning road of the marae. And the members had then been pulled up or there had been checkpoints which I think is discrimination. Because there is no gang members there there are no gang patches there there are no affiliation to gang member rōpū; it is just Māori people having a tangihanga. Now I understand where the Minister is coming from. However I think it is completely inappropriate for police officers to then discriminate Oh there's a Maōri tangi; let's go to that area." That's not right. And I'm liking to get more clarification on not the gang members but the actual tangihanga proceedings: how would those proceedings occur in future for my local electorate of Hauraki-Waikato?"