edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Upston LouiseSecond ReadingHon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): I move That the Social Security (Benefits Adjustment) and Income Tax (Minimum Family Tax Credit) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. As I said earlier ensuring the fiscal sustainability of the income support system while still protecting the real incomes of beneficiaries and low-income working families is a priority for this Government. This bill will help to achieve this goal by again indexing main benefits to inflation a measure which has been used for 31 out of the last 35 years. This will revert the previous Government's action to index main benefits to net average wage growth. In line with ongoing policy it also adjusts the minimum family tax credit—which tops up incomes to ensure that people are better in work than on benefit—to ensure it remains in step with benefit rates. Our Government is relentlessly focused on getting New Zealanders into work and these amendments will help align incentives to achieve this goal. We want people receiving a main benefit to continue to have enough income to meet their basic needs but also to ensure that the best way to get ahead is through a job. It is important that this change be made as soon as possible to allow the rate of main benefits to be indexed to inflation when the yearly adjustment of rates is implemented on 1 April 2024. This will both ensure that the benefit system starts upon a path to greater fiscal sustainability and contributes to changes that emphasise the importance of work in New Zealand. For this reason I commend this bill to the House.
Nakhle RimaRIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini): I rise to speak to this bill the Social Security (Benefits Adjustment) and Income Tax (Minimum Family Tax Credit) Amendment Bill.I just want to say that there's no magic going on here. Essentially one of the main things we're doing is we're going back to a true and tried method of indexation where we're basing it on the Consumers Price Index. We're not doing any experiments with the New Zealand people. We're going back to what has been tried and true under successive Governments including Helen Clark's. As the Minister Louise Upston said this Government has a relentless focus on a few things. First what we campaigned on on prudent financial management; second that working families are going to be better off because we want to support our working families with our family tax credit and with our childcare tax credit. Again we want to make sure that people that can work do go to work but at the same time there's that approach where we understand there are always people that are in those difficult positions that cannot work and they are supported but we also support people that can work. I commend this bill to the House.
Bidois DanDAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): It's a pleasure to rise and take a brief call in support of this bill the Social Security (Benefits Adjustment) and Income Tax (Minimum Family Tax Credit) Amendment Bill. This side of the House supports the social safety net approach that has been longstanding in this country over many generations. That's why we support an increase in main benefits by Consumers Price Index which is actually quite high at the moment as we know from the cost of living crisis. The cost of living is actually quite high and therefore beneficiaries will be better off under our changes.But just let me remind this House that on this side we don't believe that being on a benefit is the end game. We actually want people in a job because we have a strong belief in the dignity of work. Under that side of the House we saw 67000 more people on a jobseeker benefit—67000. That's more people than fit in Eden Park stadium. So we've got a huge task to get those people into work to make their lives better off because that is in fact the real way we make these people's lives better off by getting them into work and letting them take charge of their lives. I commend this bill to the House.
Garcia PauloPAULO GARCIA (National—New Lynn): We are all aware that we are all living in a cost of living crisis a very high inflation that many of us have not experienced before. The bill aims to index the main benefit to inflation because indexing it to average wage growth has actually already failed. We want to make the main benefit predictable so that people can make plans and understand their way forward. We also corollary to that want to increase the minimum family tax credit so when the main benefit increases the family tax credit also increases.We hear a lot of heart-tugging words about rich and poor. We're talking about benefits and we're talking about having a long-term plan to be able to implement in a predictable manner so that people can expect what they have in hand as they live on through this crisis that actually is a result of some very poor policies and decision making in the previous Government.So what we want to do is actually give help. While there is no easy solution for people who have been unable or disabled to work we on this side of the House and in this Government believe in helping people come off the benefit—there's science behind that—and into full-time employment which is good for the integrity of everyone. I commend this bill to the House.
Patterson MarkHon MARK PATTERSON (Minister for Rural Communities): New Zealand First also rises to support the Social Security (Benefits Adjustment) and Income Tax (Minimum Family Tax Credit) Amendment Bill. I'd just like to take issue with the Green member Ricardo Menéndez March who made the exact point in defence of this bill. He talked about how it lowers increases to benefits the key word there being increases". We are not slashing benefits; we are protecting benefits in indexing them to inflation protecting purchasing power. These are still increases. This is a Government that has a core focus of getting people off benefits and into the dignity of work. There has been almost full employment for the last number of years. Employers are screaming out for workers there but on the other hand we have seen an explosion in the number of people on the jobseeker benefit. Those things do not make sense. People certainly at the moment are not without the opportunity to change their own circumstances. For those whose own circumstances mean they need the security of the benefit we are ring-fencing increases to inflation and indexing it within the benefit system. So the safety net is absolutely still there; it will be ring-fenced and protected for inflation. But New Zealand First as we are absolutely famous for take a balanced approach to this. While we see the merits of indexing to inflation and protection that purchasing power we also see the absolute imperative of encouraging people to change their own circumstances to get into employment to have the dignity of work and provide for themselves and not rely on the State. So New Zealand First has pleasure in supporting this bill. Thank you."
Parmar ParmjeetDr PARMJEET PARMAR (ACT): Thank you Madam Speaker. On behalf of ACT I'm taking this call to support the Social Security (Benefits Adjustment) and Income Tax (Minimum Family Tax Credit) Amendment Bill. We believe that this bill doesn't only bring a sensible approach but it also brings a very practical and equitable approach to this intent of the policy that the bill wants to bring—that is to adjust main benefit by linking it to the Consumers Price Index rather than net wage growth. We believe that this is the right approach because ultimately the main benefit or family tax credit is given to people so that they can afford those goods and services. So this is about affordability this is about the purchasing power of people this is about the real value of money. We know the Consumers Price Index is the acceptable measure of inflation. So that is the average price change of goods and services that households consume. So it's ultimately about making sure that people are able to afford those goods and services that they need to have a reasonable or efficient life.I would like to remind members—those who spoke before me from the other side—that in 2022 when we experienced a steep increase of inflation at that time the previous Government responded by providing a one-off top-up payment to main benefit to meet the percentage increase of Consumers Price Index for the April 2023 adjustment. So they have accepted when they were in Government that linking it to net wage growth didn't work so that's why they had to make that adjustment to link it to the Consumers Price Index—not directly; just a one-off payment but still they accepted it. So that is why we want to bring this sensible approach to this.We have heard from so many people that the increase in inflation that we experienced in the past couple of years it has been really brutal. I have spoken to so many people and obviously when I'm talking to these people I'm not asking what they earn but I can tell from these conversations that some of these people must be earning above average or some of these people even own a house. Even those people despite factoring in for fluctuations of inflation have been experiencing a lot of financial difficulty. So it's not just the current financial situation of these people that is being disturbed but their financial future as well because they don't know how many years it will take to regain where they were before the steep increase in inflation that we experienced.So it's about making sure that people are able to afford things that they want. We don't want to see that people are taking a big bundle of currency to bring a small bag of grocery items back home. I know in some countries it happens—you take a big bundle of notes a big bundle of currency but in return you get only a small bag of maybe a couple of grocery items.It's about making sure that people are able to afford things that the value of money is there and that is what I think is important for members on the other side to understand. It's because of this reason the ACT Party supports this bill. Thank you.
MacLeod DavidDAVID MacLEOD (National—New Plymouth): Many councils will be breathing a sigh of relief. Many communities will be breathing a sigh of relief. They can now feel assured that the control management and ownership is retained where it should be: local. We campaigned on this bill which repeals the three waters legislation that the other Government introduced a piece of legislation that was unpopular to many including many councils. We are now on the way to providing a solution to our drinking water our waste water and our stormwater challenges. This bill along with the two other proposed bills being introduced later on this year will provide all the tools and legislation required to finally get our water infrastructure up to scratch and back on track. And Cameron Brewer you're absolutely right. Look at the clock: gone by lunchtime. And for that reason I'm very happy to commend the bill to the House.
Brewer CameronCAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour): Stop three waters! Stop three waters!" Can't we remember those signs? Can't we remember those signs on the gates of farms all round New Zealand on the fences of Auckland flats on the overbridges of our provincial cities and towns? "Stop three waters"—it was a huge campaign. Only 26 percent of New Zealanders at its peak supported three waters and ladies and gentlemen Madam Speaker three waters is gone by lunchtime. This is a Government that's delivering in its first 100-day plan. This is a Government that's listening to democracy. This is a Government that believes in localism. We have worked with local government and a number of people across this country to get to where we are at and local control of water assets local ownership of water assets is coming home.The confiscation of local water assets continued despite their rebranding—and we remember their rebranding but this three waters policy of theirs was very unpopular. It took out two local government Ministers. It took out two Prime Ministers. It took out one Government. It also took out the local government Ministers' seats—they also lost their seats at home. That's how unpopular it was. New Zealanders did not want it and this Government is going to deliver on a much better option with a technical advisory group that is going to blow Mr Jackson's mind. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you."
Lu Nancy; Kuriger BarbaraNANCY LU (National): I commend the Water Services Acts Repeal Bill to the House because we don't agree that the only option is to take assets away from all the ratepayers. We believe that there is no one plan for all especially not coming from the central government here at Parliament. So let the local councils do the work to service their own people. I commend this bill to the House with my full support.DEPUTY SPEAKER: This call is a split call—I call Ingrid Leary.
Smith StuartSTUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you Madam Speaker. It's a pleasure to speak on the Water Services Acts Repeal Bill. One thing about democracy is it is a contest of ideas and we've heard that playing out in the debate this morning. This is only a few months after the election where all of the coalition parties campaigned on doing what we are doing right now. The people spoke and the people gave the coalition an overwhelming victory and we're delivering on our promises. That's something that the National Party the ACT Party and New Zealand First will do: we'll make promises and we will deliver on them. So with that I commend the bill to the House.
Luxton CameronTUESDAY 13 FEBRUARY 2024(continued on Wednesday 14 February 2024)WATER SERVICES ACTS REPEAL BILLThird ReadingDebate resumed.CAMERON LUXTON (ACT): Thank you Madam Speaker. The three waters reform was a highly bureaucratic divisive and unfair policy that appropriated assets from communities which had diligently built them up for generations. ACT has been consistent in our opposition to these three waters reforms which we are now repealing. Our spokesman Simon Court said during the first reading on 9 June 2022 that ACT opposes … [Labour's] three waters reform and should we be part of a future Government we will act to repeal it." ACT stood against the original passing of the Water Services Entities Bill. ACT campaigned on repealing it during the election.I am proud to be here today by the will of the people speaking in favour of the bill which repeals the original legislation. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you."
Tuesday 13 February 2024 - Volume 773
VoteCHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Kieran McAnulty's tabled amendment to clause 1 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 55New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.Noes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Amendment not agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That clause 1 be agreed to.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 55New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.Clause 1 agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb's tabled amendment to clause 2 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 55New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.Noes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Amendment not agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Kieran McAnulty's tabled amendment to clause 2 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 55New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.Noes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Amendment not agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That clause 2 be agreed to.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 55New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.Clause 2 agreed to.Bill to be reported without amendment.House resumed.CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Madam Speaker the committee has considered the Water Services Acts Repeal Bill and reports it without amendment. I move That the report be adopted.Motion agreed to.Report adopted.DEPUTY SPEAKER: The bill is set down for third reading immediately.
Water Services Acts Repeal Bill — In Committee—Clauses 1 and 2
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That debate on this question now close.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 55New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.Motion agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The 14 tabled amendments to clauses 8 and 9 from Rachel Boyack Dr Tracey McLellan the Hon Ginny Andersen Cushla Tangaere-Manuel Tangi Utikere the Rt Hon Adrian Rurawhe and the Hon Jan Tinetti to insert exceptions for various entities are out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation. The Hon Dr Duncan Webb's tabled amendment replacing clause 10 is out of order as being contrary to the principles and objects of the bill.The question is that Arena Williams' tabled amendment deleting clause 10 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 55New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.Noes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Amendment not agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Arena Williams' tabled amendment to clause 10 is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb's tabled amendment to clause 17 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 55New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.Noes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Amendment not agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That Part 2 be agreed to.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 55New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.Part 2 agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That Schedule 1 be agreed to.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 55New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.Schedule 1 agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That Schedule 2 be agreed to.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 55New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.Schedule 2 agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That Schedule 3 be agreed to.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 55New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.Schedule 3 agreed to.
Water Services Acts Repeal Bill — In Committee—Part 2
Water Services Acts Repeal Bill — In Committee—Part 1
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That debate on this question now close.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 55New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.Motion agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Arena Williams' first tabled amendment to clause 3 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 55New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.Noes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Amendment not agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Arena Williams' second tabled amendment to clause 3 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 55New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.Noes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Amendment not agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Arena Williams' third tabled amendment to clause 3 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 55New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.Noes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Arena Williams' fourth and fifth tabled amendments to clause 3 are out of order as being merely an attempt to criticise the bill.The question is Arena Williams' tabled amendment to delete clause 5 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 55New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.Noes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Arena Williams' first tabled amendment to clause 6 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 55New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.Noes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Arena Williams' second tabled amendment to clause 6 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 55New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.Noes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That Part 1 be agreed to.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Noes 55New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6. Part 1 agreed to.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Water Services Acts Repeal Bill be now read a second time.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 55New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.Motion agreed to.Bill read a second time.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): This bill is set down for committee stage immediately. I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Water Services Acts Repeal Bill.
Water Services Acts Repeal Bill — Second Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Water Services Acts Repeal Bill be now read a first time.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 55New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.Motion agreed to.Bill read a first time.DEPUTY SPEAKER: This bill is set down for second reading immediately.
Water Services Acts Repeal Bill — First Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the motion be agreed to.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 55New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.Motion agreed to.
11. Question No. 11—Emergency Management and RecoveryCATHERINE WEDD (National—Tukituki) to the Minister for Emergency Management and RecoveryQuestion No. 11—Emergency Management and Recovery11. CATHERINE WEDD (National—Tukituki) to the Minister for Emergency Management and Recovery: What recent announcements has he made regarding cyclone recovery? Hon MARK MITCHELL (Minister for Emergency Management and Recovery): Firstly can I acknowledge that tomorrow is the one-year anniversary of Cyclone Gabrielle which caused much devastation across the North Island. I'm looking forward to being on the ground in Napier and Hastings tomorrow to be with the communities there and to attend their commemoration event in Hastings. The devastation caused by the cyclone was profound and I'm proud to be part of a Government that is firmly focused on ways that the response can be accelerated so that people have answers and can move on with their lives. I'm pleased to share in the House that on Sunday the Prime Minister and I visited Napier and alongside a tour of Bearsley Farms—which was hit particularly hard—and celebrating the hard-working first responders and volunteers across the region we made a significant announcement of $63 million to support and accelerate the clean-up of silt and debris in both Tairāwhiti and Hawke's Bay.Catherine Wedd: Where is the funding going? Hon MARK MITCHELL: The funding will be split across respective councils: $40 million is going to Hawke's Bay Regional Council for urgent work to continue to remove sediment and debris across the region with $3 million of that ring-fenced for debris removal in Wairoa; the Gisborne District Council will receive $23.6 million to ensure urgent work will continue for the processing and removal of woody debris across the region. Catherine Wedd: What feedback has he had from locals on the ground? Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well Hawke's Bay and Tairāwhiti are two regions that are very well served by their local members of Parliament. They are regularly in touch with me providing me feedback about the recovery. Additionally I've had lots of positive feedback from communities and people that I've met and engaged with in the region who welcome the funding and have called it a boost for local employment and have said that the clearing of silt and debris is a high priority in terms of restarting the region's economy and freeing up productive land.Catherine Wedd: What is the Government's approach to the recovery? Hon MARK MITCHELL: We're firmly focused on delivering a system that delivers better outcomes and gets the recovery happening in a much quicker way. The message to the people affected by Cyclone Gabrielle is that this Government is listening and working as hard as it can to speed up this recovery. We are behind you.
7. Question No. 7—Local GovernmentKATIE NIMON (National—Napier) to the Minister of Local GovernmentQuestion No. 7—Local Government7. KATIE NIMON (National—Napier) to the Minister of Local Government: What recent announcements has he made about water infrastructure?Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Local Government): Thank you Mr Speaker and thank you to the member for that question. The coalition Government is restoring council ownership and control of water assets by replacing Labour's three waters legislation. Three waters was divisive and hugely unpopular and all it would have delivered was a mega - co-governed bureaucracy. We heard the concerns that many New Zealanders had with the proposals which is why we're committed to repealing three waters and replacing it with Local Water Done Well.Katie Nimon: Why is the Government repealing the Water Services Entities Act 2022?Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well as I said the last Government's proposals would simply have created mega - co-governed bureaucracies and failed to actually address the infrastructure challenges that New Zealand councils are facing. Later today I will be starting the process to repeal three waters. This was part of the Government's 100-day plan and I want to acknowledge our partners ACT and New Zealand First for their support in this.Katie Nimon: What are the next steps in making sure that local water is done well?Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well good question. There will be two further bills progressing through Parliament to transition to Local Water Done Well. The first bill will provide streamlined requirements for establishing council-controlled organisations enabling councils to start shifting the delivery of water services and a second bill to provide for a long-term replacement regime will be introduced in December this year. This will set out the long-term requirements for financial sustainability and provide for a complete economic regulation regime and a new range of structural and financial tools.Katie Nimon: How will Local Water Done Well help councils prepare for future water infrastructure?Hon SIMEON BROWN: New Zealand's water infrastructure is facing significant challenges and Local Water Done Well will enable councils to have the tools that they need to access long-term funding and financing. Local Water Done Well recognises the importance of local decision-making and flexibility for communities and councils to determine how their water services should be delivered in the future rather than the Government coming over top like the former Government.
4. Question No. 4—HealthRYAN HAMILTON (National—Hamilton East) to the Minister of HealthQuestion No. 4—Health4. RYAN HAMILTON (National—Hamilton East) to the Minister of Health: What recent announcements has the Minister made to increase the number of New Zealand - trained doctors?Hon Dr SHANE RETI (Minister of Health): Just two hours ago the Government completed another key commitment from our 100-day plan the signing of a memorandum of understanding (MOU) for a third medical school. This is the first step in a process to help increase the number of New Zealand - trained doctors.Ryan Hamilton: What are the next steps following today's signing of the MOU?Hon Dr SHANE RETI: The signing of the MOU enables the Ministry of Health and the University of Waikato to progress with establishing a business case and carrying out a cost-benefit analysis as described in the National-ACT coalition agreement. This is an important step as our country faces a dire shortage of Kiwi doctors with many planning to retire over the next 10 years.Tim van de Molen: What is the significance of the MOU for our provincial and rural communities?Hon Dr SHANE RETI: Many provincial and rural communities are already experiencing large shortages of doctors and with many GPs planning to retire over the next 10 years this issue will only get worse. A medical school which further considers the needs of rural areas will help ease the pressure felt on rural healthcare.Tim van de Molen: How will this impact New Zealand's ongoing workforce shortage?Hon Dr SHANE RETI: New Zealanders have been facing longer and longer delays in accessing healthcare. Tackling the workforce crisis is key to solving this issue. With this initiative we aim to retain more New Zealanders in our domestic medical school programmes given more than 300 New Zealand students each year have been training in Australian medical schools. We will train more home-grown culturally competent New Zealand doctors.Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Will the full cost-benefit analysis of the proposed Waikato medical school committed to in the National-ACT coalition agreement include comparisons with the costs and benefits of training additional medical students at New Zealand's existing medical schools?Hon Dr SHANE RETI: The Ministry of Health is currently scoping out what the cost-benefit analysis in the business case will look like and we'll be happy to keep the member informed as that progresses.
3. Question No. 3—Prime MinisterDEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori) to the Prime MinisterQuestion No. 3—Prime Minister3. DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his Government's policies and actions?Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes and particularly in the context they're made and particularly about our efforts to try and improve Māori health and education outcomes for young Māori.Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Does he agree with Te Hunga Rōia Māori o Aotearoa the New Zealand Law Society and the New Zealand Bar Association that scrapping funding for section 27 reports will disproportionately impact Māori undermine rehabilitation and lead to higher rates of offending and if not why not?Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No I don't. The reality is that Māori are higher victims of crime than anybody in this country and we're making sure that Māori feel safe in their own businesses their homes and their communities.Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Does he accept that his policy will create a double standard in sentencing: for the wealthy who can afford to privately fund their own section 27 reports and for those who cannot?Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No I don't. The intention of section 27 reports was that someone could bring a friend or a family member to speak to their past. That was what was intended to happen. Instead what's happened is that there has been a cottage industry of reports often prepared by people who don't even know the offender. So the reality is that we're putting it back to its original purpose. That option still exists and will continue to exist.Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: What work is this Government doing to ensure that Māori and those on lower incomes will not be unfairly sentenced as a result of this policy?Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well we are making sure that we actually have a fair system. That is fair and stands up for the victims of crime; it doesn't stand up for the offenders.Rawiri Waititi: Supplementary—SPEAKER: Ah—Rawiri Waititi: You've forgotten me so early Mr Speaker. SPEAKER: —Rawiri Waititi.Rawiri Waititi: Does he find it acceptable that Māori women make up 64 percent of the female prison population while Māori men make up 50 percent of the male prison population and if not what are his Government's solutions to reduce that number and ensure it doesn't increase as a result of this policy?Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No I don't find it acceptable and that's why we're working so hard on lowering crime.Rawiri Waititi: Point of order Mr Speaker. I don't think he answered that question.SPEAKER: Yeah I know but that's not the test. What is the point? Rawiri Waititi: The point of order? SPEAKER: What is the point of order? Rawiri Waititi: The point of order was that he didn't answer the question around whether he finds it acceptable and what is his Government going to do about it.SPEAKER: Well I think he did. The Hansard will show that there was an answer to that. It might not be the answer you want but please carry on. OK question No. 4 in the name of Ryan Hamilton.
Water Services Acts Repeal Bill — Third Reading
Brooking RachelHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you Madam Chair. Whilst of course I agree with everything that my colleague the Hon Kieran McAnulty just said I'd also note that the title is the Water Services Acts Repeal Bill 2024. Of course you then think Oh well this bill is to repeal the Water Services Act." but in fact it's not. It's to repeal the Water Services Entities Act the Water Services Legislation Act and the Water Services Economic Efficiency and Consumer Protection Act but it's not to repeal the Water Services Act 2021. So the name does not say what in fact it should be doing. It would be much clearer to name the Acts that are listed in clause 3 the "Purpose" clause. So I'm wondering if the Minister of Local Government can comment on that and how this could cause a great amount of confusion."
McAnulty KieranHon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Thank you very much Madam Chair. I have two proposed amendments relating to the title and commencement—I hope to have the opportunity to speak to both. I will start with the proposed amendments regarding the title. The title currently as it stands is the Water Services Acts Repeal Bill. I propose that it be called what it is the Affordable Water Reforms Repeal Bill" because that's actually what this is. The reforms when they were redesigned were called the affordable water reforms. And it's interesting that the Government hasn't actually referred to the title of the thing that they are proposing to repeal. I don't think it comes as any surprise to any of us as to why—the clue is in the name. What this Government is repealing is the affordable water reforms. What they are going to replace it with will not be as affordable. The departmental advice demonstrates that.Now I asked the Minister of Local Government earlier to provide his costings in the absence of a select committee process. He refused to do so. There was a bit of a theme this evening of the Minister picking and choosing which questions to answer and hoping that time would run out. It proved to be a relatively successful strategy because there are questions—and his colleagues in the Chamber are gloating about it now; they're laughing and smiling about it. But there are serious relevant questions that remain unanswered. Perhaps question time tomorrow is an opportunity to go through that. Perhaps the media who are watching may follow up on that tomorrow.But at the moment right now we are discussing the title and I think it's only right that the New Zealand public see exactly what this is. It is after all repealing the affordable water reforms. So I think it's only right that the title of this bill is the "Affordable Water Reforms Repeal Bill". Parliament rules are really clear around debates on the title of the bill: debates on the title of the bill cannot be used as an opportunity to critique the contents of the bill. I'm not doing that. I'm proposing that the bill be named to reflect what it's doing. The thing that this bill is proposing to repeal is called the affordable water reforms because it reformed water services in a way that will make it more affordable for ratepayers. And just because the Minister doesn't want to talk about costings just because he didn't want to talk about what councils he consulted with or worked with—because it turned out to be not many if any—and just because he didn't actually want to touch on balance sheet separation which is a crucial fundamental element to whether or not this is going to work—three things that are pretty crucial that the Minister refused to talk about—doesn't change the fact that the thing that he is proposing to repeal is called the affordable water reforms. I think the title should reflect that."
Kuriger Barbara; Brown SimeonClauses 1 and 2CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members we now come to our final debate clauses 1 and 2 the Title" and "Commencement".Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Local Government): It's a very simple part of the legislation. Clause 1 proposes that the Act is the Water Services Acts Repeal Act 2024 and this will commence on the day after it receives Royal assent."
Butterick MikeMIKE BUTTERICK (National—Wairarapa): I move That debate on this question now close.
McAnulty KieranHon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Thank you very much Madam Chair. Those that have been following along will know that I've asked the same question twice already and the Minister of Local Government has not answered and it is the same thing for the question that Grant Robertson has posed that I've posed and that the Hon Phil Twyford has posed around balance sheet separation that the Minister has yet to answer. Ministers are obligated to answer reasonable and relevant questions. Fortunately those questions that were relevant to Part 1 were also relevant to Part 2 so I will ask again a very simple question and I hope the Minister has time to answer it. He has time to send tweets I note whilst he's in the chair. Perhaps he will have time to answer questions. Ironically—ironically—the tweet may go some way to giving me the answer. The question I've asked twice already and now for a third time is in relation to both the purpose and now the proposal to repeal. In declaring the Government's intention to repeal the water services Acts the Minister has said that he had worked alongside councils to develop this policy. I want to know what councils he's worked alongside. The way the Minister presented it was that he had worked with the majority of councils and that he had the majority of councils' support. I propose that that's wrong and this is an opportunity for the Minister to clarify it. It would have been a straightforward answer but his refusal to provide an answer makes me suspicious. Whilst sitting in the chair during this committee stage instead of answering basic simple relevant questions he's tweeted a picture of himself standing next to the Mayor of Waimakariri the Mayor of Manawatū and the Mayor of Whangārei and I wonder if that was his consultation. Are they the mayors that he's spoken to? Not quite councils as he's presented it. Hon Simeon Brown: Oh the member's feeling lonely—the member's feeling lonely. Hon KIERAN McANULTY: Ministers aren't supposed to heckle from the chair Madam Chair. Perhaps you might want to inform him of that. The Minister stood in the theatrette and said to the nation that he'd been working alongside councils in developing this policy. He's refusing to tell us who. He tweets from the chair a photo of him standing alongside three mayors—is that the only consultation he's done? Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Local Government): I thank the member for that question and I would just like to note that our policy Local Water Done Well was announced about 12 months ago. It was worked on while we were in Opposition and then we took it to a thing called the election and New Zealanders voted for it. So not only did we work with local councils but New Zealanders voted for it and now we're delivering it.
Brooking RachelHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you so much Madam Chair. My question is specific to Schedule 2 which as we know makes up Part 2 and it is regarding—we've got it on page 19 of the bill and it's about amendments to the Water Services Act 2021 and of course the Water Services Act remains in place. Now we have that section 14(1) of that Act is going to be amended. Now section 14(1) refers to Te Mana o te Wai meaning application and effect and it's defined in relation to the national policy statement (NPS) for freshwater. And then if you go to section 5 of that Act it talks about the definition of the national policy statement. It's very clear that that national policy statement is the one that we all know about that was put into force in 2020. That national policy statement has a definition of Te Mana o te Wai. Now we have heard from this Government—I haven't been listening to all the speeches today so I'm not sure if it's come up but we've heard in questions to the House that there is a desire to change the hierarchy of Te Mana o te Wai. Now that hierarchy at the moment is that first we care about the health of the water and we're doing regulation; secondly the health of people; and third consumptive or commercial uses. So we know that this Government wants to change the balance amongst that hierarchy—which can only mean more pollution in my opinion.But what I want to ask relating to this change of Te Mana o te Wai is that the replacement not only refers to the 2020 national policy statement; it also then says—and this is the change—and any statement issued under that section that amends or replaces the 2020 statement;". And why this is important is not only for the political reasons that I've just outlined—about how I don't think it's a good thing and I don't think most people would think it was a good thing to change our water laws to enable more pollution; I think most people want healthy rivers—but it also goes to a legislative drafting point. That is because the NPS is a regulation it is a secondary instrument it's spelt out in the current legislation that it just refers to the 2020 version but now we're saying it's any other replacement to the 2020 version. So that is anything that Ministers change—by regulation that doesn't come through this House—will amend the definition of Te Mana o te Wai in a piece of legislation that we're not even repealing today. That is very significant and I think needs an answer because it is generally considered unacceptable—or that you need a very good justification—to have a "Henry VIII" clause. Hopefully I've spelt out here that it's different from what the current legislation says because the current legislation specifies the version of that regulation the national policy statement that applies.So you can always if there are other versions of the regulation—which often happens when you're looking at the primary legislation—go back to the version that existed when the primary legislation came into effect. This clause changes that and I think has both major political ramifications major policy ramifications and is also bad lawmaking."
Pugh Maureen; Brown SimeonPart 2 Repeals and disestablishment of Northland and Auckland Water Services EntityCHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Members we now come to Part 2. Part 2 is the debate on clauses 8 to 18 Repeals and disestablishment of Northland and Auckland Water Services Entity" and Schedules 2 and 3. The question is that Part 2 stand part.Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Local Government): Thank you Madam Chair. Members this part repeals the Water Services Entities Act which also legally disestablishes the Northland and Auckland Water Services Entity; repeals the Water Services Legislation Act 2023 which provided those entities with powers to carry out water services in place of local authorities; repeals the Water Services Economic Efficiency and Consumer Protection Act and confers powers on Taumata Arowai the water services regulator related to the consumer protection role; repeals a number of local spent Acts—these are in Schedule 3; the administrating local authorities have confirmed these local Acts are outdated and no longer required to carry out statutory duties and obligations.There are consequential amendments. There's a number of provisions in relation in Subpart 2 to the disestablishment of the Northland and Auckland Water Services Entity—I know there's a range of questions potentially going to come in regard to the employment rights of people employed by that entity. The good news for the committee: there was only one employee which was the CEO. The bad news was that he had a very high salary. The last Government employed people on $700000 salaries for those water entities and that person was employed for that entity. But that is all part of the wasteful expenditure of the last Government. So that is in relation to what is happening in relation to that.There is also a range of other clauses in this part which provide our local government authorities with a range of powers in relation to their setting of long-term plans (LTPs) flexibility in relation to the time frame that they wish to set them within and amendments around consultation. There are effectively two options for local councils: they can delay setting their long-term plan until 30 June or they can delay it by one year and just put in place a one-year annual plan instead. These are all choices that we have made available to local councils to help them have that flexibility as we repeal the last Government's regime and replace it with Local Water Done Well.I would just point out to members of the House: the vast majority of councils other than Auckland and Northland were required to have water on their long-term plans for at least the next two years in terms of setting those LTPs in regard to the process. What we're saying here is that they will now have to set a long-term plan which adds that water back on as part of that LTP as we put in place Local Water Done Well.There's also a range of definitional changes obviously updating a range of Acts and legislation recognising that the last Government's legislation will be removed and ensuring that the definitions and references to legislation are consistent through legislation which is affected."