edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
5. Question No. 5—HealthDr ANAE NERU LEAVASA (Labour—Takanini) to the Minister of HealthQuestion No. 5—Health5. Dr ANAE NERU LEAVASA (Labour—Takanini) to the Minister of Health: What announcement has she recently made regarding improving the mental health of New Zealanders?Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Minister of Health): Earlier this week I was proud to announce that the Government's mental health and addiction programme Access and Choice has hit the 1 millionth support session mark since it started delivering services in 2020. Access and Choice provides support to people experiencing mild to moderate mental health challenges so small issues don't become big problems. Dr Anae Neru Leavasa: How many New Zealanders does the Access and Choice programme support? Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: Each month tens of thousands of New Zealanders are benefiting from this new programme which offers mental health support in healthcare settings they are used to such as GP clinics. The wellbeing support provided in general practice alone has population coverage of over 3 million New Zealanders. Figures show that approximately 40000 to 60000 sessions a month are being delivered and this number will continue to grow as the phased nationwide roll-out of services continues. Dr Anae Neru Leavasa: How has the Access and Choice programme supported New Zealand's diverse communities? Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: New Zealanders can get free and easy to access face-to-face support from Kaitāia through to the Bluff and more than 600 locations in between. We have seen great uptake in the number of Māori accessing the service with 19700 sessions delivered in May and June this year. We have also seen 4000 sessions delivered to Pacific people and 9900 sessions delivered to young people also in May and June this year. This shows what can happen when we design services with diversity in mind. Dr Anae Neru Leavasa: How can someone access those services? Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: Access and Choice services don't require referral and are appealing to a wide cross-section of Kiwis wanting to address mild to moderate mental wellbeing challenges. New sites are also coming on stream every month. Now you can get free and easy to access face-to-face support from Kaitāia through to Bluff and at more than 600 locations in between. To find a provider close to where they live head to wellbeingsupport.health.nz. Matt Doocey: In light of the Minister's response of being proud how proud is she that under her Government an extra 176000 people have been unable to get mental health support with the latest New Zealand health survey reporting that unmet mental health need has increased from 4.9 percent in 2017 to now 8.8 percent in 2022 despite the $1.9 billion somewhere for mental health? Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: We have just described a brand new mental health system in the community that is addressing unmet need and if we had been in the position that that Government left us in there would be nothing in the community for mental health. If we go back and turn back the clock in the way National wants us to for mental health those people would be a lot worse off.
VoteCHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The committee has considered the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill and reports it with amendment. I move That the report be adopted.A party vote was called for on the question That the report be adopted.Ayes 72New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere.Noes 47New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2; Whaitiri.Motion agreed to.Report adopted.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): The Crown Minerals Amendment Bill is set down for third reading immediately.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the question be now put.Ayes 72New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere.Noes 47New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2; Whaitiri.Motion agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that the Minister's amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 415 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 72New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere.Noes 44New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.Amendments agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Parts 1 and 2 the Schedule and clauses 1 to 3 as amended stand part.A party vote was called for on the question That Parts 1 and 2 the Schedule and clauses 1 to 3 as amended be agreed to.Ayes 72New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; KerekereNoes 47New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2; Whaitiri.Motion agreed to.Parts 1 and 2 the Schedule and clauses 1 to 3 as amended agreed to.Bill to be reported with amendment.House resumed.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Water Services Legislation Bill be now read a third time.Ayes 62New Zealand Labour 62.Noes 57New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Te Paati Māori 2; Kerekere; Whaitiri.Motion agreed to.Bill read a third time.DEPUTY SPEAKER: I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill.
Water Services Legislation Bill — Third Reading
Water Services Legislation Bill — In Committee—Clauses 1 and 2
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That clause 1 be agreed to.Ayes 62New Zealand Labour 62.Noes 57New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Te Paati Māori 2; Kerekere; Whaitiri.Clause 1 agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the Minister's amendment to clause 2 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 418 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 72New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere.Noes 44New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.Amendment agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that clause 2 as amended stand part.A party vote was called for on the question That clause 2 as amended be agreed to.Ayes 62New Zealand Labour 62.Noes 57New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Te Paati Māori 2; Kerekere; Whaitiri.Clause 2 as amended agreed to.Bill to be reported with amendment.House resumed.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Mr Speaker the committee has considered the Water Services Legislation Bill and reports it with 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 Legislation Bill — In Committee—Part 2
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the question be now put.Ayes 62New Zealand Labour 62.Noes 57New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Te Paati Māori 2; Kerekere; Whaitiri.Motion agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the Minister's amendments to Part 1 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 418 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 72New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere.Noes 44New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.Amendments agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That Part 1 as amended be agreed to.Ayes 62New Zealand Labour 62.Noes 57New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Te Paati Māori 2; Kerekere; Whaitiri.Part 1 as amended agreed to.
Water Services Legislation Bill — In Committee—Part 1
Local Government Electoral Legislation Bill — In Committee
Salesa Jenny; McLellan TraceyIn CommitteeParts 1 to 3 Schedules 1 to 3 and clauses 1 and 2CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members we are in committee on the Local Government Electoral Legislation Bill. We come first to Part 1. This is the debate on clauses 3 to 33—Amendments to Local Electoral Act 2001—and Schedules 1 and 2.Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Junior Whip—Labour): Point of order. I seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one question.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Leave is sought for that purpose. Are there any objections? There are none. The question is that Parts 1 to 3 Schedules 1 to 3 and clauses 1 and 2 stand part.
McAnulty KieranLOCAL GOVERNMENT ELECTORAL LEGISLATION BILLInstruction to CommitteeHon KIERAN McANULTY (Minister of Local Government): I move That it be an instruction to the committee of the whole House on the Local Government Electoral Legislation Bill that it consider and if it thinks fit adopt the amendments in my name set out in Supplementary Order Paper 367.
O'Connor GregA party vote was called for on the question That the Land Transport Management (Regulation of Public Transport) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.Ayes 75New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Te Paati Māori 2; Kerekere; Whaitiri.Noes 41New Zealand National 31; ACT New Zealand 10.Motion agreed to.Bill read a third time.DEPUTY SPEAKER: I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Local Government Electoral Legislation Bill.
Land Transport Management (Regulation of Public Transport) Amendment Bill — Third Reading
Williams ArenaARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Mr Speaker thank you for the opportunity to speak on this bill the Land Transport Management (Regulation of Public Transport) Amendment Bill. It's a good bill because the Public Transport Operating Model doesn't work and it needs to be put in the bin. This bill puts it in that place. This is a bill that also is about increasing those things that we think there should be more of in our public transport system like better wages for the bus drivers and choices to be made about how sustainable these can be. So with that I commend this bill to the House.
SpeechSIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Thank you Mr Speaker. Look my first pitch actually is to Auckland Transport but seeing we're talking the land transport regulation it would be great if they could put another bus on on Gowing Drive to get our school kids there. The current buses are packed full. So that's just a bit of a request to Auckland Transport on behalf of my constituents.Hon Scott Simpson: Are you sure they're listening?SIMON O'CONNOR: I hope they are listening actually. Actually they won't be at this time of night—sad. Anyway the idea that somehow removing competition and sending public transport back to councils to organise makes absolutely no sense. I think it's one of the reasons amongst many that this Government is not only rushing this through urgency but it's probably delighted that it's 10 to midnight so that people don't understand again the core concept that they are removing what is a competitive contractual space back in-house. It just sort of reflects this centralising mind set. The strange thing about it is I think it's not going to make public transport any more efficient but this speech is.
SpeechSTEPH LEWIS (Labour—Whanganui): Mr Speaker thank you. It's my pleasure to rise and take a short call this evening. In Whanganui we used to have trams that went the length and breadth of our beautiful city but we don't have those any more. We do have Mabel still she goes along the awa front but we need our public transport system to be rebuilt. We need strong public transport networks and we've finally got advocates in Whanganui who are helping to do that in Anthonie Tonnon. So to honour the work that he has done to advocate for public transport in Whanganui I commend this bill to the House.
McLellan TraceyDr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour—Banks Peninsula): Thank you Mr Speaker. That was a bizarre contribution but it is quite late at night.The primary driver obviously for this piece of legislation is that the Public Transport Operating Model simply hasn't worked. It's been an unmitigated disaster it is market failure and it requires the State to step in and fix it. On that reason I commend it to the House.
White HelenHELEN WHITE (Labour): Mr Speaker thank you. It's a delight to take a call on this bill. I was on the select committee with the Hon Julie Anne Genter and my lovely friend Terisa Ngobi who is in the House tonight.It was a relief to see legislation come through like this because what this does is it gives choice and power back to the local bodies. Instead of imposing on them a requirement that they must contract out services it allows them to decide whether they will or not whether it's in the benefit of the people who are paying the taxes and the citizens to do that or not. It's basically a move away from ideology not towards it.That choice has turned out to be a good one for places like London where they own the fleet and then they contract out the service—but the city owns the fleet. Now there's a good reason for that. For the layperson that's a huge infrastructure that has to be brought in the case of public transport. So if you buy a fleet of buses or you buy a ferry it costs a lot of money and if there's only one party who's done that actually we're all a bit vulnerable to that company that owns it. If the council owns it you're much less vulnerable. So it's a much more flexible system and it's one thing; they don't have to choose that but they can under this. There's another flexibility option here and that is the flexibility of being able to have on-demand services included. It's another good modernised move. Nobody should be afraid of this. This is a good bill and it will make our transport system work much more efficiently. I commend the bill to the House.
SpeechTERISA NGOBI (Labour—Ōtaki): Thank you Mr Speaker for the opportunity to take just a short call tonight on the Land Transport Management (Regulation of Public Transport) Amendment Bill. I am lucky enough to sit on the Transport and Infrastructure Committee one of the hardest-working committees that was able to work through this bill. We heard from over 50 submitters good submitters and of course I want to thank those submitters for taking the time to submit on the bill.This bill establishes as we've heard a sustainable public transport framework that will replace the PTOM—the Public Transport Operating Model—that we have at the moment which we clearly know does not work which we clearly know does not support workers. We've heard about the terrible working conditions of the bus drivers and so on.So the sustainable public transport will make sure that we focus on strengthening employee welfare it improves our environment and health outcomes and of course it improves our public transport. It's a no-brainer and I commend this bill to the House.
Boyack RachelRACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Thank you Mr Speaker. Look I love public transport and it's a privilege to take another call in this House this week about the Government's fantastic work to make public transport better in New Zealand. One of the comments that the other side have been making tonight is around their reliance on immigration to solve some of the challenges we have had around our driver shortage in New Zealand. Now of course there are times when it is appropriate for us to bring workers in from overseas but one of the problems with our public transport operating model introduced by the National Government is it has led to a race to the bottom on wages and conditions for drivers. One of the important components of this bill is that it will actually enable operators and councils to lift the conditions and wages for drivers lift the training opportunities and continue to grow the number of bus drivers that we have in New Zealand. It's an excellent bill and I commend it to the House.
O'Connor GregHouse resumed.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Madam Speaker the committee has considered the Land Transport Management (Regulation of Public Transport) Amendment Bill and reports it with amendment. I move That the report be adopted. Motion agreed to.Report adopted.
Brown Simeon; Parker DavidSIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you Madam Chair. My question was whether or not the existing legislation allowed for the wages and conditions to be a non-negotiable term in the tender process. Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Transport): My answer was that it's the wrong question because the outcome was the one that I have repeated on a number of occasions which was that the practice under the current model drove down wages to the point where the bus drivers couldn't be recruited.
SpeechTERISA NGOBI (Labour—Ōtaki): I move That the question be now put.
Brown Simeon; Parker DavidSIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Madam Chair thank you very much and I'd like to ask the Minister whether or not the existing legislation allows for public transport operators to be able to put in place in the tender particular pay rates? Does the legislation need to be changed in order for them to be able to make the pay and conditions a non-negotiable term?Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Transport): The practice under the current legislation has been to award tenders to the lowest cost operator. The way those operators have lowered their costs is to compete on wages in a way that drove down wage costs to unsustainable levels that meant that they couldn't recruit bus drivers.
Court Simon; Parker DavidSIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you Madam Chair. Minister I just want to come back to this clause 14 which amends section 124 of the primary legislation. As you've raised if bus drivers don't have time to get out and use the bathroom or take a smoko break or a vape break in between their shifts and assuming that there are already rules and regulations that stipulate how many hours commercial drivers can drive—I understand it's 11 hours in a 14-hour shift that they're legally allowed to operate a heavy vehicle and that they must have regular breaks—how is it Minister that even though fair pay agreements have been passed even though there already exist employment laws and this Government has been a Government for six years how is it Minister that under this Government bus drivers weren't able to take a toilet break? What responsibility does the Minister take or the Government take for that?Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Transport): Thank you for that question because it's what you call a lob at the net. You know the need for this is illustrated by the fact that under the current system schedules were arranged in a way that was so impractical. You will get better outcomes if you talk to people as to whether these outcomes are practical. This isn't about the statutory maximum hours to be worked or the break that's needed every four hours; it was about simple things like whether routes could be run in a way that were fair to the drivers in order to attract drivers to the routes.
Salesa Jenny; Belich CamillaLAND TRANSPORT MANAGEMENT (REGULATION OF PUBLIC TRANSPORT) AMENDMENT BILLIn CommitteeParts 1 and 2 the Schedule and clauses 1 to 3CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members the House is in committee on the Land Transport Management (Regulation of Public Transport) Amendment Bill. Members we come first to Part 1.CAMILLA BELICH (Junior Whip—Labour): Point of order. I seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one question. CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Leave is sought for that purpose. Are there any objections? There is none. The question is that Parts 1 and 2 the Schedule and clauses 1 to 3 stand part.
SpeechANNA LORCK (Labour—Tukituki): I've just heard in the House that we can have differences of opinion on what fairness is. It's something that I think shows such a significant difference between why we need to tax in a way that ensures those who actually earn more pay a better fairer proportion of tax. One thing I've also heard tonight as the final speaker is that the National Government keeps saying—Simon Court: Not yet.ANNA LORCK: National Opposition keeps saying—but when they were in Government they increased GST. They said they wouldn't they gave New Zealanders a so-called tax cut" and then they went back on their word. They said they wouldn't do anything anymore and they taxed New Zealanders more GST. That speaks volumes about what the National Party really plans for New Zealand. They cannot be trusted on tax. They will tax tax tax Kiwis all the way if they ever—ever—get into Government. I hope they don't."
Kuriger BarbaraBARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki-King Country): Thank you Madam Speaker. Well I haven't taken part in most of this debate up until this hour of the night. I guess on this side of the House we get the fact that data is important; recording measuring and managing is important. However the arguments that we don't buy into over here is we had quite a lecture around fairness before. Fairness is subjective and fairness is related to ideology. Therein lies the difference between one side of the House and the other.Yes Governments need to be informed but when it comes to fairness conversations we're always going to have some sort of differing view around taxation systems. Therefore the National Party opposes this bill tonight.
Twyford PhilHon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): I want to devote and dedicate this very short call to the principle of vertical equity which is the extent to which the tax system is progressive. Tax is progressive if people with higher levels of economic income—that's not just earned income from working but it includes the value of assets—Chlöe Swarbrick: You're talking my language.Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Yup. People with higher levels of economic income pay a higher proportion of that income in tax. A progressive tax system does not mean that every tax is progressive. For example GST is regressive relative to income but the overall system ought to be. In practice wealthy people should pay no lower an average rate of tax relative to their economic income than middle New Zealanders. And that is what they're afraid of.
SpeechVANUSHI WALTERS (Labour—Upper Harbour): Thank you Madam Speaker. I'm going to begin by commending Minister Parker and Minister Russell for their commitment to informed governance in an enduring way. Good data requires time that is entirely the point of this bill. But much like my colleague Chlöe Swarbrick I'm a little bit perplexed tonight. I'm perplexed by the Nothing to see here behind the curtain" sort of conversations that the Opposition members have been having this evening. But I'm also perplexed about what it is they actually believe. I can't put my finger on it. Is it (a) that regardless of what the data shows this data should never inform governance thinking regardless of what it shows? Now that is perplexing. Or is it (b) let's not look at the data because that might legitimately inform governance thinking? That they don't want to do that is entirely perplexing. On this side of the House data is important. On this side of the House good governance means eyes open to real data. I commend this bill to the House."
White Helen; Salesa JennyHELEN WHITE (Labour): One of the most important things we do as parliamentarians is we tax people. It's a very serious thing because people work really hard and the lower their income then the more the responsibility is on us to make sure that we what we are doing is fair and reasonable.What this bill does is it shows us the effect of our tax policies. It shows us whether they're fair on people whether they're a reasonable way to tax our hard-working citizens—and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. In fact you'd think it would have been something that we'd been doing for a very long time.I would wonder at anyone who suggests that it's a waste of money to report what is actually going on in this country with regard to such an obligation. The parties on the other side of this House ought to be ashamed because these are our people these are our country people and they deserve a fair tax system but more important they deserve to know what is happening in their country and who is paying tax—and if they know you shouldn't be afraid if what you are doing is actually fair and honest and consistent with these principles should you?This bill is a wonderful thing because it brings our system into the sunlight. It shows us what we're doing. Then yes we can have a conversation but if as the other party suggests—if it were elected we know what would happen: this would be buried because the last thing that they would want is for New Zealanders to know what was going on in this country with regards to wealth.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): The next call is a split call. I call on Chris Penk for five minutes.
Leary IngridINGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): Any political party that was interested in fairness and interested in evidence-based policies would love this bill because this bill puts evidence into the conversation. That's why it's being done. Ordinary New Zealanders know anecdotally they feel that somehow there's some unfairness in the tax system and the thing that was revealed in the work led by the Hon David Parker this year was to show the anomaly between the richest 1 percent of New Zealanders paying an effective tax rate of 8.9 percent while most of the rest of New Zealand pay around 22 percent. Now I don't call that fair.The National Party likes to call it fair and you have to wonder why. If they are scared about putting sunlight on to data which is what we do for every other policy base that we do in this House—we rely on information and real data—why are they scared to put this tax principles bill through? That's the question. For too long there have been assumptions around the tax system there has been an approach to policy which is pretty much on guesswork and finally we have the intellectual rigour and the data to be able to support an informed debate. That's all this bill is—no more no less. We've heard unequivocally from our Prime Minister and again from the Hon David Parker today: there is no intention to put a capital gains tax on the family home. This is simply about transparency and data.My question to ordinary New Zealanders who might feel that they're paying an unfair amount of tax compared to the top 1 percent is: what is the National Party what are the Opposition benches afraid of in this bill?
Russell Deborah; O'Connor GregThird ReadingHon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Associate Minister of Revenue): I present a legislative statement on the Taxation Principles Reporting Bill.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: I move That the Taxation Principles Reporting Bill be now read a third time. Madam Speaker honourable members—well probably honourable member Andrew Bayly—I thank you for the debate on this bill. The views expressed are important because the tax system is important to New Zealand. So just for the sake of clarity I want to provide you with a very brief recap on the measures in this bill and their objectives.The bill imposes a reporting obligation on Inland Revenue. The bill recognises that all New Zealanders are equal stakeholders in the tax system and as such Inland Revenue would report to the public on a range of tax system measures against a set of agreed tax principles. These reports will set out facts about the tax system that are relevant to the tax principles so that ordinary people can be informed—not just about call wait times and other administrative matters but about the distribution of tax paid and levels of compliance. The tax principles that will be reported against represent decades—actually centuries—of experience in considering what are the good features of a tax system. They are crucial hallmarks of a good tax system.The reporting framework will make a great deal more information about the operation of the tax system available to the public and will thus contribute to an improved understanding of tax policy among the general public. The requirement for regular reporting will allow for observation of trends and provide insights into how the tax system is developing and responding to external challenges.So the bill proposes that IRD reports annually with a more comprehensive report produced every three years. These reports will be made available to the public perhaps on the department's website or—in terms of the comprehensive report it may be presented to this House. This reporting based on core tax principles will supplement other statutory reporting on the administration of the tax system and the Government's revenue strategy.Now this bill is for the benefit of ordinary taxpayers ordinary citizens. On behalf of New Zealanders and the Government I want to thank the Finance and Expenditure Committee for their work on the bill and for their valuable recommendations. I also wish to thank the policy officials and drafters for their work in helping to bring this bill to its third reading especially Adrian Kelly Murray Shadbolt and Josh Fowler; their work is very much appreciated.And of course this bill owes its genesis to the insight of the Hon David Parker and it is an honour to bring it to this third and final reading and know that he started this process. I commend this bill to the House.DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to.
O'Connor Greg; Salesa JennyHouse resumed.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Madam Speaker the committee has considered the Taxation Principles Reporting Bill and reports it with amendment. I move That the report be adopted.Motion agreed to.Report adopted.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): This bill is set down for third reading immediately.
Taxation Principles Reporting Bill — In Committee—Part 1
Sosene Lemauga LydiaLEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE (Labour): Thank you Mr Speaker. I rise to take a short call in support of this bill the Water Services Economic Efficiency and Consumer Protection Bill. As we've heard from many speakers on this side of the House it will establish the economic regulator and also protect consumers in terms of much-needed water services as part of the reforms with the oversight of the Commerce Commission. This bill will deliver improvements for New Zealanders in terms of having tighter regulation. It will be the best option for New Zealanders because our local councils cannot afford the under-investment of water infrastructure. On that note I would like to finally finish by thanking the Finance and Expenditure Committee members for their work and also the officials and the submitters. I commend this bill to the House.
SpeechDr LIZ CRAIG (Labour): Thank you Mr Speaker. It's a real pleasure to rise and speak on this third reading of this bill. Basically what we've heard already is that this bill is part of a suite of legislative reforms that are very necessary in terms of providing the water infrastructure that we need.I just want to congratulate all of the Ministers and the officials that have been involved in getting it to this point because once we've passed this bill what we're going to be seeing is a much greater likelihood of having affordable drinking water affordable waste water and stormwater and making sure that that's available to consumers and communities right across the country. And what this bill does is it adds some extra things in terms of making sure that we've got greater service quality and we've also got consumer rights protections for New Zealanders. So on that note I am happy to commend this bill to the House.
Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Oh thank you Mr Speaker. I can assure you it won't be all of five minutes. It's standard to get up and say it's a pleasure to speak on a certain bill but it's not really a pleasure to speak on this one. I've heard so many other people speaking on it that I don't think I can improve much on the contributions at least the ones from this party.The politicians have had a lot to say on three waters and various bits of legislation associated with that. The people will get their say on it soon enough. While I don't pretend that the whole thrust of the general election is a referendum on three waters it does nevertheless go to some of the themes that will decide how the country wants to be taken forward.In relation to this space we say that local control of these assets is still an important value. We think that scrutiny is important. Of course the thrust of this bill by its own telling is to provide independent commercial scrutiny and of course that's the purpose of appointing the Commerce Commission as the regulator.But we say that other forms of scrutiny are important as well not only in terms of the election coming up but scrutiny through local government and responsible and accountable government—accountable to the ratepayers of course who own the assets—are important values. We think that scrutiny is a more important type. We say that the purpose of this is merely to try to give effect to that which the Government has set up. So it talks about a natural monopoly—well it's created a particular form of monopoly. We don't think it's very efficient. We don't think it's very accountable. What can be done can also be undone; we intend to do that if we should be so lucky as to win the election. I do not commend the bill to the House.
O'Connor GregDAN ROSEWARNE (Labour): We know that our water services sector is not performing as well as it should be. We know that the quality of service being provided does not reflect what consumers demand and we know that there has been systemic long-term under-investment in our water infrastructure and we have seen the effects of that at a local level. So this bill introduces an economic regulation and consumer protection regime which will ensure the entities promote the long-term interests of consumers by providing services that are efficient effective and responsive. So I commend the bill to the House.DEPUTY SPEAKER: Five-minute call—Chris Penk.
SpeechANNA LORCK (Labour—Tukituki): This is the trilogy of bills that will finally deliver affordable water reform and water infrastructure for New Zealanders. It has been one of the most significant pieces of legislation that this Labour Government has been able to deliver which will ensure that ratepayers are able to afford the infrastructure that we need for safe drinking water for improved stormwater and for our waste-water systems. This all started from my electorate of Tukituki under the Havelock North water crisis. This legislation will ensure we do not have another Havelock North water crisis in New Zealand. That is the reason that I have absolutely supported this bill right from the beginning and I commend it to the House. Thank you Mr Speaker.
Lee MelissaMELISSA LEE (National): Thank you Madam Speaker. I think if I could address a comment by Ingrid Leary I think the issue that my colleague Andrew Bayly was actually talking about is his frustration because there is actually quite a lot more in the bill that he wanted to speak to and so did I and to actually have it closed down seemed a little sudden—especially because it was agreed upon in good faith. Anyway I'll move on.As we actually said in earlier parts during the second reading I think I actually said something along the lines of the fact that National believes in sound economic and commercial regulation including economic regulation and definitely consumer protection. But we want it for the right water services entity and for local council and the local people to have a say in determining that. And for this water services three waters bill right from the beginning it has been an utter disaster. And this bill the Water Services Economic Efficiency and Consumer Protection Bill is no different. It is all part of it. As my colleague Andrew Bayly said this is the last of the bills that we are debating.I think the issue that we have is that when the regulatory impact statement also states that there is a huge transitional uncertainty created because of this reform over time the scope and form of the economic regulation is not in the best interests of the water consumers. Throughout the committee stages I think one of the questions that I asked the Minister was in relation to whether through this regulation what kind of cheaper or—I mean we were talking about a better quality framework for the water entity but does it actually mean that the customers are in fact going to get cheaper water? I think his answer was: could I please point him to the specifics in the legislation so he could actually answer it but I didn't quite get to that.This bill is not a bill that we support. And considering the fact that we will—the National Government will actually repeal and replace the three waters bill I see no reason why I should waste more time on this particular bill. Thank you very much.
Leary IngridINGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): If I may bring us back to this particular bill. When I was watching the committee stages I observed really a number of questions from Andrew Bayly the member that's just resumed his seat that on the one hand inferred there was going to be competition under the structures that would be set up and therefore the regulation was heavy-handed and on the other hand suggested that there needed to be much tighter regulation. So it is little wonder to me that I sense Minister Webb's frustration sitting in the chair having to repeat the same answers. I was very pleased when the debate was brought to a close.What I'm surprised that the member didn't raise though—the one who's resumed his seat—is the interplay between clause 45 and section 15. Because it was the Finance and Expenditure Committee which worked together to ensure the flexibility of the regime that answered the very questions he was asking which is how the Commerce Commission would be able to use a phased approach assume that there would be price-quality regulation but allow enough flexibility in the legislation to make that price quality happen at the discretion of the Commerce Commission at the right time and based on real baseline data.That is what is so good about this legislation—that along with the disputes resolution mechanism which means that consumers will be able to have ready access to justice and they will be able to be represented by consumer groups as well. It's a good bill; I commend it.
Salesa JennyCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Mr Speaker the committee has considered the Water Services Economic Efficiency and Consumer Protection Bill and reports it with amendment. I move That the report be adopted.
Halbert Shanan; Salesa JennySHANAN HALBERT (Junior Whip—Labour): I move That the question be now put.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the question will be now put. All those in favour will say Aye to the contrary No—Andrew Bayly: Point of order Madam Chairperson. I thought that one person couldn't make multiple requests to close the debate—the same person could not make multiple requests to close the debate. CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Yes people can make unlimited requests to close the debate. Andrew Bayly: That's outrageous. CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is—that is actually correct. I was in the process of closure. The question is that the question be now put.
Bayly Andrew; Cameron MarkANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you Madam Chair. Well yes OK just carrying on with input methodologies—I'm just wondering whether I'll rebut some of that but I won't. It's interesting the Minister made the aspersion around the quality of assets the water and waste-water assets of the councils and said Oh well maybe you know you'd be surprised." Actually when I look at clause 27 at the actual requirements they're quite specific. The first one says "methodologies for evaluating or determining the following" "cost of capital"—well that's not a hard job. If you went to an economist they could probably do that in a week because cost of capital for these types of entities it's standard practice very easy. Capital asset pricing model betas whatever—they're all readily available.The second point "valuation of assets including depreciation and treatment of revaluations" presumably that is going to take place anyway because as I understand it these new entities have been set up they'll have to set up with new assets and there will have to be a transfer of value back to the councils as well as an assignment of debt. So before you can set them up that would've already taken place I presume to establish values—otherwise we really would be ripping off the councils wouldn't we and ultimately the residents of those areas.Third one "allocation of common costs" well yeah OK that's pretty easy. They're going to be brand-new operations. And "treatment of taxation" well I didn't think there was taxation on these entities. Maybe the Minister can elaborate on what the taxation is. Are these entities subject to tax and if so what's the nature of that? Are they paying at a corporate rate? Are they paying at a different rate than that?So there we are—we've got four. Maybe I'll let the Minister respond to those before I'm moving on to the next lot.MARK CAMERON (ACT): Thank you Madam Chair. Minister going back to this transportation issue leaving aside reticulation which we can understand going through conduits pipes etc. etc. treatment facilities—transportation: would this yes or no include trucks? Now I live in rural New Zealand. Quite often drinking water is taken via the supplier to households. I mean we're on tank water as you can well imagine. Transportation is again very subjective; it's a very wide definition here. Would it include the regulatory oversight from the Commerce Commission for those transporting drinking water i.e. on a road network in trucks quite specifically or quite separate from a reticulated system? Yes or no please sir."
Bayly Andrew; Webb DuncanANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): You made the comment about—something about we're a bit repetitive but unfortunately I just would note that we've agreed that we're going to do it all at once all parts but we're obviously working our way logically through the bill. I have asked some very specific questions and I'm yet to get a response on them and I don't want to keep going back to them but they have been asked for a reason namely: what is the definition of excess profit? It's not a stupid question. What is the return that would be expected of these entities and above that what does that mean excessive"? Because it does have a play in terms of pricing or the conversation we're about to have around quality pricing framework all that sort of stuff. So I would urge the Minister to address some of the specific questions otherwise I will keep going back to the question.Now I want to just move on in terms of the next question around moving into the timing and nature of the input methodologies. Obviously those are going to be determined by the commission during the initial period—I'm referring to clause 18 here. Can the Minister provide us provide the committee and hopefully some of the listeners with some information on what would be the nature of those import methodologies? Can you give us some examples? Again I'm seeking specific questions rather than just trying to stand up and give a speech.Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Thank you. I am not an expert in input methodologies nor am I an expert on what profits are excessive. The experts in that are the Commerce Commission. So the reason why I won't be standing up and telling you an economic definition of what an excessive profit looks like is because that job has been given to the Commerce Commission who will develop models and methods based on the information they gather to do that. So I won't be designing input methodologies here nor will I be determining what an excess profit looks like because those are the very questions we're asking the Commerce Commission to look into."
Cameron Mark; Webb DuncanMARK CAMERON (ACT): Thank you Madam Chair. Minister If I could draw your attention back to some remarks you made earlier about the primary role of the Commerce Commission in terms of information gathering I think you said and it may take—I'm paraphrasing because I apologise I can't remember your exact wording—several years to source the needed information over the state of the assets their repair or state of disrepair before subsequent regulations came into effect. What sort of cost-benefit analysis has been done as a counterfactual if any at all that you want to speak to or are aware of in terms of how it would stifle investment in infrastructure asset management water infrastructure asset management in the interim period if you've used the words several years" and what does several years ultimately look like whilst we're going through this theorised information-gathering preamble to the regulations that follow it?Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): If the member wants to see a cost-benefit analysis they're all available on the Department of Internal Affairs website and this debate is not the place for that. In terms of time lines there are two slightly different time lines one for Entity A which is the Auckland - Northland entity which is more prepared to embark on this journey and the second time line is for the other nine entities. By way of example rather than going into every minute detail up until the middle of 2024 information gathering will go on for Entity A. Then the pre-regulatory period taking that information and developing input methodologies models and so on so that we can understand how it will roll out—that will occur in 2024 through to June 2026. The first regulatory period for Entity A will start on 1 July 2027 and that's when the quality regulation will be in place. Then if we're looking at price quality regulation that would be the second regulatory period which would begin on 1 July 2030."
Bayly Andrew; Webb DuncanANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Well let's get specific. Clause 12 that I've been referring to can the Minister define what excessive profits" means? Just while the Minister's doing that can the Minister again in the same clause tell me what are the incentives to innovate that's going to make it and improve efficiency? And what are those sorts of measures? I think the big issue is actually whether there's under-investment or over-investment. Under-investment is not meeting the requirements and over-investment is going for gold-plating. I think that's probably the issue more likely to be of importance when determining the nature of investment spending and ultimately the pricing put forward.I just want to now turn to clause 15 while the Minister's contemplating that hopefully or should I let the Minister stand? I'm just looking at him there. Turning to clause 15 "Determinations made by Commission under this section" it talks about "The Commission may make determinations under this section specifying how 1 or more of the following apply to regulated water services providers: (a) information disclosure …: (b) quality regulation: (c) price-quality regulation."What I'd quite like and I think my colleague from ACT was starting to allude to this—what is the linkage and overlap with Taumata Arowai in terms of quality regulation? Because all parties I think even ACT supported Taumata Arowai as the regulator in terms of setting standards. What is that interplay between this and the role of the Commerce Commission? Because ultimately it should be for the water services entity to take the instruction from Taumata Arowai and then to put them in place and put the investment frameworks in place to meet those over time. So again I'll just leave that question.Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): I'll try—I've been given advice if I've got this wrong but my understanding of Taumata Arowai is it is very much a health standard and that's one aspect of quality quite appropriately set by an independent body. But water service delivery quality comes in many forms. For example the way in which the billing is done so that it's understandable to consumers is one form of service quality. Another form of service quality would be consistency and pressure. It doesn't affect the drinkability or usability of the water but nevertheless is a quality standard. So yes Taumata Arowai has a quality function in terms of water being potable being safe healthy and drinkable as indeed this water is before us. But overall in general there are much wider quality standards and the commission will have a role in determining those."