edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
4. Question No. 4—HealthDr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour—Banks Peninsula) to the Minister of HealthQuestion No. 4—Health4. Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour—Banks Peninsula) to the Minister of Health: What announcement has the Government made about removing the postcode lottery for cataract surgery?Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Minister of Health): It has been a priority for this Government to eliminate the inconsistency patients experience when they need surgical treatment because of where they live—the so-called postcode lottery". That's why I was proud to announce that an estimated 3500 more cataract surgeries will be delivered as a result of a new nationally consistent threshold for surgery. A nationally consistent threshold will remove the postcode lottery that has denied some New Zealanders access to this life-changing procedure.Dr Tracey McLellan: Why is the Government implementing a nationally consistent threshold?Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: For decades the former district health boards used a point system that held widely differing thresholds for access to cataract surgery varying from 46 to 61 points. A score of 46 points represents mildly reduced vision; a score of 61 represents poor vision that a person could no longer legally drive. In Auckland and Waitematā for example you could become eligible for a cataract operation with a score of 46 but in Canterbury and Southern you needed a score of 61. That variation represented the worst of what's become widely known as "postcode lottery" in healthcare and it isn't fair.Dr Tracey McLellan: Given that what will the nationally consistent threshold for cataract surgery now be?Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: In a first under the new health system there will a nationally consistent score of a maximum of 46 in order to access surgery opening up eligibility for approximately 3500 more surgeries. A score of 46 means patients with mildly reduced vision—such as a result of cataracts—will have much earlier access to surgery improving their quality of life considerably.Dr Tracey McLellan: How will this be implemented?Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: In the Budget we allocated $180 million to reduce wait-lists and standardise access to healthcare including cataract surgery. Te Whatu Ora's hospital and specialist team will work with referring specialists to identify who will be eligible under the new score and ensure they have timely access to the procedure. Actions being taking by Te Whatu Ora include initiatives such as outsourcing to other providers and ophthalmologists as well as improving the productivity through innovative models of care and improving theatre efficiency."
2. Question No. 2—Energy and ResourcesNAISI CHEN (Labour) to the Minister of Energy and ResourcesQuestion No. 2—Energy and Resources2. NAISI CHEN (Labour) to the Minister of Energy and Resources: How is the Government partnering with businesses to support the uptake of low emissions technology?Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Energy and Resources): Through the Low Emission Transport Fund the Government is partnering with 19 businesses to support the uptake and roll-out of innovative low-emissions marine and off-road technology. While the Government is making significant progress in supporting the transition of the light vehicle fleet emissions in the marine and off-road sector are harder to abate. Our partnerships with businesses will help to de-risk these projects speed up the uptake and provide opportunities to demonstrate new low-emissions technology. Naisi Chen: How is the Government partnering with the marine businesses to decarbonise their fleets?Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Each year our maritime and off-road sectors together use an estimate 1.6 billion litres of petrol and diesel which equates to around 13 percent of New Zealand's total energy-related greenhouse gas emissions. To accelerate the decarbonisation of the marine sector we're partnering with the likes of CentrePort to roll out shore-based power to Wellington ferries and Next Generation Boats Ltd to deploy electric boats—including for tourism—as part of our plan to support the marine sector to decarbonise.Naisi Chen: How is the Government supporting the uptake of low-emissions off-road technology?Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Technology to support the transition for our off-road and heavy vehicles sector is rapidly evolving and the Government is partnering with businesses to help de-risk the roll-out of these vehicles here in New Zealand. We've partnered with TDX Ltd to support the demonstration of the three electric wheel loaders including one pre-production Volvo 20-tonne electric wheel loader and we're working with Brian Perry Civil Ltd to roll out an electric excavator and wheel loader to support the creation of a zero emissions construction crew.Naisi Chen: How else is the Government partnering with businesses to decarbonise transport? Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Recently the Prime Minister announced a broad range of measures that go beyond transport—to partner with New Zealand Steel to install an electric arc furnace which will remove 800000 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions each year; that's the equivalent of taking 300000 cars off the road. This is New Zealand's biggest ever emissions reduction project and the first of our large emitter partnerships through the Government Investment in Decarbonising Industry Fund.
Therapeutic Products Bill — In Committee—Part 6
Dean JacquiCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members the time has come for me to report progress. Members that was not the correct thing to say. The debate is suspended until 9 a.m. tomorrow and we will pick up where we left off.Sitting suspended from 9.56 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Wednesday)
Dean JacquiPart 6 Other prohibited conductCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members we come now to Part 6 the debate on clauses 187 to 201 Other prohibited conduct". The question is that Part 6 stand part."
Severin Toni; Verrall AyeshaTONI SEVERIN (ACT): I would like to speak on Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 385 on behalf of Brooke van Velden. This one is around clauses 148 149 and 150. It's all to do with commercially valuable assets owned by pharmaceutical companies and confidential information including tech data and trade secrets and intellectual property (IP). Now quite a few of our companies have come to see us and they're concerned about their IP and how safe from disclosure the active ingredient information or use will be. Because again a lot of people—not just companies but also people—have created natural health medicines or medicines in general. You know they've put a lot of time effort and money into making these medicines and a lot of them have already gone through a lot of regulatory stuff like the Food Act and all that. And I know that they're all behind. But the thing is we want a guarantee that if we give this information to the regulator it is going to be kept safe and it is not going to leak out. That's the biggest thing that these people have asked us. You know we have created this stuff in good faith; we are selling it. If someone else is able to get some of their information around the products and then are able to compete against them it puts it into an unfair advantage.So we just would like to make sure that protection period in clause 148 and also 149 the protection with the ingredients and then also the limited circumstances in which protected active ingredient information may be disclosed and used—so we just want to reiterate and make sure that these loopholes are tidied. Again you know intellectual property is a huge thing for a lot of people and especially when they've put a lot of time effort and work into creating products and we need to make sure that we're not going to disadvantage them by giving this out accidentally to a competitor or something. So we would hope that the Government would recognise that there could be possible problems with this and make sure that no loopholes are there. So this is why we support this SOP 385.Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Minister of Health): The bill contains protections on data and confidentiality already and care has been taken to make sure that they are in line with our international obligations with respect to these matters. It is important that we protect the data that is used as part of the development of innovative medicines. There is a risk with the Supplementary Order Paper as it's drafted to undermine the ability of the regulator to discharge its obligations.
Severin Toni; Verrall AyeshaTONI SEVERIN (ACT): I'd like to speak on the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 380 in the name of Brooke van Velden around clause 120(2A) in this that we're wanting to look at. We've just got concerns around as the explanatory note of the SOP says The circumstances which justify a product being made available in New Zealand through provisional authorisation may include a public health emergency or other time critical matter it is essential for the avoidance of doubt that the Act clearly states the Regulator may rely on evidence from trusted overseas entities or expert organisations when determining a product's safety quality and efficacy. Any uncertainty in this regard presents a risk of delay or a trigger for debate concerning what evidence a decision may be based on and delay and debate may be counter-productive given the circumstances. So this is a concern that was brought to us again from a lot of our medical companies that have come to see us—just not also in natural health stuff as well. We're just a bit concerned around this and about a risk of delay especially.I know that yes things happened through COVID but this is just to make things a little bit more clear and a little bit more precise because there is a little bit of doubt around some of these clauses in here. I know we jump around with a lot of the clauses too. We're just trying to make things a little bit more tidy so that people can understand these bills a little bit more clearly because they are very complicated—especially this page—because as you know we're going from one Part to the next. So I'd like to speak on behalf of SOP 380 in the name of Brooke van Velden. Thank you.Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Minister of Health): Thank you Madam Chair. I am also very concerned around issues relating to the use of authorisation of medicines for response to a public health emergency because one of the first piece of pieces of legislation I passed in this House was the retrospective amendment to the Medicines Act under urgency in order to do the COVID vaccine roll-out and that is not the ideal situation we want to be in.We want to be able to respond to public health emergencies in a timely way and that may mean that different processes for authorisation may need to be used in that setting. It may mean that we'll rely more—there is the option to use information from overseas authorities already as well in this bill. The proposed Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 380 unnecessarily duplicates clause 346 which says that the regulator may rely on decisions of designated entities in evaluating a therapeutic product. In fact that is a codification of current existing practice; half of the approvals that Medsafe currently make they make using information from overseas regulators as important parts of their decision.So that reason while we agree with the intent of the SOP it is already reflected in the bill and we will not be voting for it."
Kerekere Elizabeth; Verrall AyeshaDr ELIZABETH KEREKERE: Kia ora. I'd like to echo the words of my colleague who just resumed his seat Dr Shane Reti. One of the major concerns we heard from submitters from natural product producers especially small producers across the country was about compliance costs and the range of requirements of this bill and that that level of compliance is absolutely disproportionate to the overall level of risk that they pose. Again echoing words my colleagues have used earlier in this committee the framework for medical devices and medicines is not appropriate to be used for natural health products.The other concerns that people who came to us raised were about those expected compliance costs being a barrier to entry into the market. I think as climate change is continuing more people are thinking that it might be better to start growing their own food. I come from the Tairāwhiti. Where some seed falls in the ground that is going to grow. People think Well I could make some money out of—and maybe an income a life out of—what our whenua produces."—and just a shout-out to all of those producers now in that situation after our severe weather events that have actually impacted on that as well.Coming back to this we know that overregulation will disadvantage small businesses who are unable to maintain those maintenance costs while staying competitive with our larger multinational companies that have products available online and from across the world. We just wondered when you're discussing in this reply back to us about how these amendments will ease their minds. Kia ora.Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Minister of Health): Many concerns shared by the Government expressed in the House. Let me reassure the previous speaker Dr Elizabeth Kerekere that foods that are governed by food standards under the Food Act are excluded from the Therapeutic Products Bill. And on the matter of regulation of natural health products (NHPs) I think everyone accepts in this debate that natural health products have some activity some risk but not no risk and the overall approach to this bill is a risk-proportionate approach to regulation. That will be borne out in how authorisations are done.Responding to Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 376 we canvassed some of the issues we discussed in relation to the related SOP tabled in Part 1. Just to repeat: those clauses 122 to 124 already provide what is being sought by this SOP which is a notification scheme but also allowing flexibility where necessary. These clauses provide the platform for an automated self-assessment declaration pathway for most natural health products. But rather than providing clarity to industry the proposed amendments risk creating uncertainty over the criteria that might apply to NHPs.Finally removing clause 123(3) will limit the ability of the regulator to assess and approve custom health claims. These claims are what industry will want to be able to make in order to speak to the potential benefits of their products. So for that reason we won't be supporting the SOP."
Dean JacquiPart 4 Market authorisations for medicines medical devices and NHPsCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members we come now to Part 4 and this is the debate on clauses 117 to 150—market authorisations for medicines medical devices and NHPs. The question is that Part 4 stand part.
Dean JacquiPart 3 Dealing with therapeutic productsCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members we come now to Part 3. This is the debate on clauses 67 to 116 Dealing with therapeutic products". The question is that Part 3 stand part."
Severin ToniTONI SEVERIN (ACT): Thank you Madam Chair. I'd like to speak on behalf of Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 382 in the name of Brooke van Velden around clause 65. Now this clause here is about a special-case requirement". We feel talking with the industry that there could be a bit of an overreach here around this. When you read the explanatory note in the SOP it says that "Clause 65(2)(b) currently adds an additional and imprecise requirement of 'appropriateness' that risks adversely interfering with the exercise of professional judgement and accordingly patient treatment and outcomes." Now this is a bit of concern in terms of these special cases—it's a little bit of an overreach where it comes from the regulators rather than necessarily from the practitioner or a veterinarian. And this is the other thing that most people who are sitting at home probably don't know—that this Therapeutic Products Bill is not just for humans; it is also for our animals as well and all treatments. It's quite wide-reaching. So we would hope that the Minister of Health would consider this because this is another thing that's been brought to us by the industry and also by the professionals within the medical profession. We're just a bit concerned about this overreach around these special cases because we really need to make sure that the right people are actually administrating the right procedures that are required. So I would hope that the Minister will consider SOP 382 in the name of Brooke van Velden to change the clause and just bring it back into the authorised people and with the indication of off-use labels and patient needs. This is the biggest thing: that we have a lot of doctors who are prescribing things that aren't necessarily able to be gotten here in New Zealand or are off-label because they are needed for something else and we need those expertise people to be able to judge it not necessarily these regulators. So I'd hope the Minister would consider this change to clause 65. Thank you."
Reti ShaneDr SHANE RETI (National): Thank you Madam Chair. Thank you for that clarification but we still have concerns. Information and statements around the mechanism for market authorisation for natural health products (NHPs) would appear to be not only unclear but in some cases contradictory. Furthermore there are concerns with the capacity of the regulator to assess the potentially huge number of NHP authorisations. The process for NHPs should be a market notification process where the regulator is satisfied that an NHP product conforms to the relevant criteria. Currently under clause 124 of the bill an NHP would meet the criteria if the regulator is satisfied on reasonable grounds that a number of criteria apply. This includes that there is reasonable and adequate evidence to demonstrate the safety and quality of the NHP". Reasonable grounds should not be a condition because the product will be declared to meet the requirements in regulations and rules.So fundamentally we have quite a number of concerns for the large number—the hundreds probably thousands—of NHPs that will require market authorisation even with the exclusion of the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that the Minister has put on the Table. We just can't see how there will be a regulator who could possibly undertake the compliance for those authorisations both in a snapshot inventory on day one or any transition period leading up to it or certainly monitor it in perpetuity. This is why through SOP 384 relevant to Part 1 we're seeking to make a change."
Verrall AyeshaHon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Minister of Health): Thank you Madam Chair. It's a pleasure to be able to see this bill the Therapeutic Products Bill through to its committee stage. It's right to reflect on the work that's gone on across both sides of the House on this bill since 2003.I want to address the concern in relation to the notification of authorisations of natural health products (NHPs) which I believe is being addressed as part of Part 1. This is Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 376 in the name of Dr Reti. The SOP seeks to develop a notification instead of an authorisation for declaration of online natural health products. That's a concern and an interest of the industry here that the Government has heard as well.Overall one of the principles we'll come back to probably several times this evening about this piece of legislation is the desire to have risk-proportionate legislation. We've had many debates on these issues around natural health products previously in this House and of course it's well-established that there are harms from natural health products but these harms are different from those of medicines and this bill seeks to regulate them in a risk-proportionate way.So in turning to SOP 376—Dr Shane Reti: 384.Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: Sorry 384 which is very similar to 376 in that it seeks a notification scheme for natural health products. I just draw the committee's attention to clauses 122 through to 124 that already provide for an approval pathway that is functionally equivalent to a notification scheme. The bill's provisions also allow the regulator to exercise necessary regulatory powers and decision making. The SOP removes this putting in doubt the regulator's ability to respond to unforeseen circumstances—for example IT failures.In addition the proposed SOP may unintentionally restrict the ability of the regulator to assess and improve custom health benefit claims. This is the only way by which a sponsor can be approved to use a health benefit claim that is not on the preapproved list of the health benefit claims specifically for that product. That is something the industry has sought to have in the bill.So for that reason the Government does not support SOP 384 because the provision for a notification scheme is already there. Rather than providing clarity to the industry the proposed amendments risk creating uncertainty over natural health claims.
Severin ToniTONI SEVERIN (ACT): Thank you Madam Chair. The ACT Party is also very concerned about this bill with a lot of the overreach—and especially concerned around the safety quality and efficiency. And once again most of us don't have too many problems with Part 1; we've got Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) in further parts. But overall we've been talking to a lot of the people in the industry and they're just concerned about these overreaches—again those within the cosmetic trade our toothpastes as well as the natural health products. Again we're very concerned that there's overreach and there's regulation systems that this bill is going to bring to New Zealand.We all believe in making sure that these things are safe for people to use but when you have to put a whole lot of regulation—and where are we going to get all these regulators from? This is where we're a bit concerned around the administration of this regulatory system. It is a huge concern definitely because these products are important in everyday lives for everybody and whoever is going to be part of this regulatory authorisation is—you know where is this expertise coming from and what sides of these expertise have we got? Now this is our biggest concern. And again the likes of Dr Shane Reti the ACT Party—under Brooke van Velden—have put many SOPs in the following parts and we look forward to discussing this because we again think there is a lot of overreach that's been going on in this bill and also so many changes. Thank you.
Salesa Jenny; Utikere TangiTHERAPEUTIC PRODUCTS BILLIn CommitteePart 1 Preliminary provisionsCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members the House is in committee on the Therapeutic Products Bill. We come first to Part 1. This is the debate on clauses 3 to 13 and Schedule 1—Preliminary provisions. TANGI UTIKERE (Chief Whip—Labour): I seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one question.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is objection to that. The question is that Part 1 stand part.
Secondary Legislation Confirmation Bill (No 2) — First Reading
Robertson Grant; Dean JacquiSECONDARY LEGISLATION CONFIRMATION BILL (NO 2)First ReadingHon GRANT ROBERTSON (Leader of the House): I move That the Secondary Legislation Confirmation Bill (No 2) be now read a first time.Motion agreed to.Bill read a first time. Bill referred to the Regulations Review Committee.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Therapeutic Products Bill.
McAnulty KieranURGENCYHon KIERAN McANULTY (Deputy Leader of the House): I move That urgency be accorded the first reading of the Secondary Legislation Confirmation Bill (No 2); the passing through the remaining stages of the Therapeutic Products Bill the Fuel Industry Amendment Bill; the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Rugby World Cup 2023 Extended Trading Hours) Amendment Bill the Business Payment Practices Bill the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Amendment Bill and the Inspector-General of Defence Bill; and the second readings of the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill the Legal Services Amendment Bill and the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Community Participation) Amendment Bill.With the House soon to be out of action again for a couple of months during the election campaign there is a need to give MPs sufficient time to consider significant legislation on the Order Paper and to ensure that legislation is enacted before the election. A common feature of many of the bills in the motion is that they bring about significant change in their sector and a delay in their passing would mean that preparations for their implementation would be frustrated by those awaiting the changes. The Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Rugby World Cup 2023 Extended Trading Hours) Amendment Bill is a clear example. It is desirable that the licenced premises are able to open for additional hours for Rugby World Cup games have certainty and can make the appropriate arrangements in good time.Urgency will cover three sitting days so none of the legislation in the motion will progress through more stages than would have been possible in a normal sitting week. Earlier today the Government requested that the Business Committee agree to hold oral questions at 2 p.m. on Wednesday and Thursday as normal and that the schedule of members' days should proceed as it would have done had urgency not been moved this week. This will be the only urgency motion moved in the current sitting block.
Sosene Lemauga LydiaLEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE (Labour): Thank you. Being the final speaker for the Government I put forward in terms of the Government bill second reading. Firstly I want to acknowledge the chair Eugenie Sage for her commitment for her leadership in guiding the many Environment Committee members—the permanent ones because we had to have a lot of subs as well. I do want to acknowledge Minister David Parker and the Hon Rachel Brooking in terms of their kōrero and their advice and strength throughout the process. I also want to acknowledge the colleagues even though we disagree but the collegiality was really helpful in terms of the seven months. Though we disagreed on various points it was helpful to have a very strong secretariat who provided really good advice and that includes parliamentary counsel.I do want to acknowledge the just over 600 submitters who assisted the committee members in terms of understanding and providing examples of the legislation. That was helpful in terms of the report back of the chair to the House.The Spatial Planning Bill is part of the reforms for the Resource Management Act. It is what the Government has been prepared to do and worked through the many various iterations because we need it. We've seen the weather events of this year and we need to move to a system that will guide New Zealanders not just iwi Māori and hapū that we heard from—some very strong submissions. We also heard from many many industry partners across the motu and that was very helpful being provided with analysis and refined drafting of the initial legislation specifically around project development of where New Zealanders can build and cannot build as we've seen this year.This bill addresses a number of features and specific to that is the 100 district plans that will now turn into 16 regional plans that will be administered by the regional planning committees. It will provide more meaningful efficient development. And there are many views across the House; however this bill will achieve what we set out to do in terms of stronger intent the national consistency across key aspects of strategies. So as I wrap up the bill will provide certainty and predictability. It is a good bill with permitted activity for future areas of growth. I commend this bill to the House.
McLellan TraceyDr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour—Banks Peninsula): Thank you Madam Speaker. I too would like to make a short contribution but nevertheless a meaningful one on this Spatial Planning Bill tonight. We've heard from several people in this session that there were 610 submissions which is a mighty effort. I'd like to commend those people and also echo my colleague the Hon Eugenie Sage when she gave thanks to the officials—and the secretariat in particular who often don't necessarily always get that shout out; they must have done a stellar job for that high praise to have come their way. And in that same vein I would also like to extend my thanks and my gratitude towards the Minister the Hon David Parker and also acknowledge the chair of the Environment Committee—which I hear is a very hard-working select committee—the Hon Eugenie Sage who by all accounts was an incredibly thorough and very learned chair whilst tackling this particular piece of legislation.We need an integrated effort as we have heard tonight if we're going to help minimise the costs of adapting to natural hazards and I think that's really important when we think about recent weather events and all of the scenarios that that raises. A regional spatial strategy—that are not regulatory plans; they're forward-looking strategies—that will be able to flow through plans into action into a delivery and integrated approach I think for each area acknowledging those bespoke requirements and those needs is a really good thing. This is an excellent piece of legislation and I commend it to the House.
Williams ArenaARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe ngā mihi o te wā Matariki. It is a Whiro moon tonight which means that it is low energy in the Chamber tonight but it is a good bill that we are passing and the brevity of this speech is no reflection on how important and necessary this bill is. In fact it just reflects that we need to do it quickly.May I take this opportunity to thank the members of the Environment Committee that worked on this bill the secretariat their advisors and the many officials who have put a huge amount of time into this reform project. The reform of the Resource Management Act has been something that around the House we have spoken about with positivity because it is something that people care about; it is something that the people we represent need. This Government is delivering on that. We have the privilege of tonight seeing in some legislation which will make our planning system cheaper faster and more effective. It will also be better for Māori. This bill has provisions which come straight from the recommendations of the Randerson report that will streamline and make more effective the provisions for Māori participation in our planning processes. When we bring in those voices to planning practice and infrastructure integration that is important. That makes our cities better; that makes our planning processes for the entire country better and that's why I support this bill.
Warren-Clark Angie; Salesa JennyANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): Thank you Madam Speaker—a real pleasure to be speaking on the Spatial Planning Bill. It is a real pleasure because—currently living in Tauranga Moana and thinking about the infrastructure difficulties that we have in that community and the fact that we did not have a spatial planning bill or operation which gave us that outward look 30 years and so we are in a real mess in our community. This bill sort of looks at those kinds of problems that we have in these communities and seeks to solve them. So I am delighted to be here speaking on this bill.It also does a couple of things which I—I am a business owner and I have a construction firm and one of the things that I really particularly like about this bill is the amount of attention we pay to developers and their issues around consenting and the fact that if you're building in one community versus another community you might have two completely different consenting sets of rules you may have a different cost here or a different cost there or a different set of standards. So what this bill does in practicality is it fixes those things. It fixes those things by giving a long-view plan out there around how we want to develop. You know we heard from a lot of the community—610 submissions—and we had independent advice and we had amazing advice from our officials. I'm really delighted that this strategic direction this work that we're doing is going to set us up to protect the environment but to support and enable development. Thank you. I support the bill.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): The next call is a split call and I call on Barbara Kuriger—five minutes.
Twyford PhilHon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): Thank you Madam Speaker. I'm going to take a shortish call on this important bill which—as the Hon Rachel Brooking observed before the dinner break—finally integrates town planning or urban land-use planning with infrastructure and that is indeed one of the breakthroughs. This Spatial Planning Bill is bringing New Zealand into the 21st century in terms of planning practice by making spatial planning a central feature of the new system. It's not just about integrating various kinds of land-use planning with infrastructure and growth planning and so on. It also integrates on another level and that is spatially and through governance entities principally our city councils and district councils. Let me give you an example of an area where this is particularly important. So in the Waikato Hamilton is a growing thriving metropolis the Tron" but it's surrounded by other district councils like Waipā like the Waikato District Council. It makes no sense for these individual councils to be doing their own standalone planning in silos. Housing markets transport corridors the movement of people economic activity the protection of the things that matter that we want to set aside and protect from development—none of these things respect the governance boundaries of local government of councils. So this bill this Spatial Planning Bill integrates on that level. It requires multiple councils to get alongside each other to create these regional spatial planning committees and produce regional plans. That is really important. As the Minister also pointed out at the beginning of this debate there will be a representative from central government in the regional spatial planning committee. That's important too—that's important too—because central government is the funder and provider of much of the most important infrastructure like our transport infrastructure the State highways the rail corridors; you name it. And it has an interest has a stake in this planning. So that is important. It's also critically important in the new planning system because one of the big shifts that takes place now is that there is a shift away from consenting towards planning. The regional spatial plans will feed through into the natural and built environment plans. The work that goes into those plans will enable a very significant reduction in consenting. There will be far more permitted activities. And in the interests of progress I'm going to leave it there until the next instalment."
Salesa JennyASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members before we broke for the dinner break we were debating the second reading of the Spatial Planning Bill. The next call is a Labour Party call.
Nash Stuart; O'Connor GregHon STUART NASH (Labour—Napier): Thank you very much Mr Speaker. It's a pleasure to speak on the Natural and Built Environment Bill. I truly believe that this is one of these legacy pieces of legislation that I don't think could have actually been carried through this House or advanced or achieved by any other Minister except the Hon David Parker and competently backed by hugely competent officials and through the select committee and with also special mention to Rachel Brooking herself an expert practitioner in Resource Management Act (RMA) legislation. Mr Parker is a Minister with a passion for this legislation but also a very deep deep political and practical knowledge of the management of our natural resources. There is a lot of intellectual grunt in both the Minister's office and officials MPs and select committee a lot of political graft and toil and precedent-setting concepts embodied within this legislation for the first time. It recognises the importance of true partnership in terms of getting things done in the second quarter of the 21st century onwards.The RMA when it came into being was a very innovative piece of legislation. But like all innovations its time is now up and its replacement is just as innovative if not more so than the RMA was when it came into being last century. That's why it is a pleasure to commend this bill to the House.DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is That the amendments recommended by the Environment Committee by majority be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.
Leavasa Anae NeruDr ANAE NERU LEAVASA (Labour—Takanini): Thank you Mr Speaker. It is a pleasure to rise for the Natural and Built Environment Bill second reading and again I want to comment on many of my colleagues who have already said to thank the Minister the Environment Committee chair and the members that sit there. I've had the pleasure to sub in at times and when I've come in the committee is going into detailed discussions that sometimes go over my head! But it's always good to hear and learn about this space because I know—and I can speak of my electorate of Takanini: we have many areas that are getting developed and many of the property developers comment on making sure that things of the old system this current 30-year-old RMA gets reformed and improved on. My population is increasing 5 percent annually in Takanini: we've got to make sure that we're providing good housing but also making sure that the environment is well protected and this legislation does so. We talk about poorly written district plans that happen across the country; we have delays in consenting as well high consenting costs and I believe that—in the discussions I've come in during the select committee stages and then now—that this legislation will do the job. So I commend it to the House. Fa'afetai.
Warren-Clark AngieANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): Thank you Madam Speaker. It's an actual delight to be standing and speaking on this bill—not because I spent the last seven months of my life in very long select committee days listening to fascinating submissions but also because I do believe that this bill will make a significant change.We all know that the Resource Management Act hasn't worked. It hasn't worked for us doing infrastructure and building and it hasn't worked for our environment. Imagine a young person such as myself discovering—very very long time ago—that actually how much pollution we put into the ocean or into waterways was a permitted activity. I couldn't understand it and I haven't been able to understand how we've been able to treat the environment like a salami cutting off pieces here and there. This bill will actually create something that goes across the entire environment. We are no longer looking at parts of the environment individually; we are no longer looking at an individual property right. We are looking at what is appropriate for the environment.I have to just acknowledge as others have the Hon Eugenie Sage and also my colleague the Hon Rachel Brooking. Their extraordinary contribution to this bill alongside our Minister have been utterly—utterly—professional and I want to acknowledge that. I want also to say to all of those submitters—we had 2945 submitters and 365 submitters that spoke to us in Wellington Christchurch Tauranga and Auckland. And I also want to acknowledge Barbara Kuriger for her attendance and her very thoughtful suggestions into the process. I have enjoyed very much working with you. This bill changes things tremendously and I commend it to the House.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): The next call is a split call. I call on Barbara Kuriger for five minutes.
Twyford PhilHon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): I too would like to acknowledge the fine work of the Hon Eugenie Sage who chaired the Environment Committee as it scrutinised and debated and went through clause by clause the Natural and Built Environment Bill. I think the Hon Eugenie Sage did really professional high-quality work leading the committee on this massive massive reform exercise.I also want to acknowledge the Hon Rachel Brooking who was the senior Labour member on the committee for most of the time that it was doing this work and also for her expertise and dedication to the task.The old Resource Management Act (RMA) spawned an entire industry of lawyers and consultants and people who fed off that legislation. At the same time the legislation the old RMA spawned a huge industry of rhetoric from the National Party over those years which liked to blame the RMA for every possible social and economic ill.But it was—finally—the Hon David Parker who in this term of Government has led this massive and hugely important reform process—something that National could never find it in themselves to do for the nine years that they were in office where they blamed the RMA every day of the week. They never ever were able to deliver the reform themselves. Now as they desperately try to etch out any kind of political advantage in the lead up to the election they can't find it in themselves to support this high-quality piece of reform and legislative work that's been done led by David Parker. It's a shame to see them throwing away what's in the long-term interests of this country the very people they purport to represent—even the developers who will find it easier to do their business under this law National and ACT cannot find it in themselves to acknowledge what a fine piece of work this is.This bill will shift the onus away from the consenting process towards democratic plan-making—a much more deliberative process so that as communities and as a country we choose the development outcomes we want we choose how to protect the environment. At the moment vast amounts of our natural wealth get ploughed into individual consenting decisions. It's a mad mad system and this law is going to change it. The economic modelling shows that there will be a 20 to 40 percent reduction in consents efficiency benefits for system users between $210 million and $430 million.This legislation will strengthen the protection of the environment. It will allow us to do more to build more. It is a good thing. I commend this bill to the House.
Privilege — Consideration of Report of Privileges Committee—Time Taken to Correct a Misleading Statement
Urgent Debates Declined — Oranga Tamariki—Fighting at Youth Justice Residences
Petitions Papers Select Committee Reports and Introduction of Bills (continued)
Privilege — Registrar's Inquiry into Hon Michael Wood's compliance with the requirements of Appendix B of the Standing Orders—Question of Privilege
Rurawhe AdrianURGENT DEBATES DECLINEDOranga Tamariki—Fighting at Youth Justice ResidencesSPEAKER: Members I have received a letter from Karen Chhour seeking to debate under Standing Order 399 reports of mixed martial arts - style fighting at an Oranga Tamariki youth justice residence. An urgent debate is a way of holding the Government accountable for an action for which it is responsible."—Speakers' Ruling 200/4. The Government's response to this matter and other reports about abuse in Oranga Tamariki facilities has been to appoint a former Police Commissioner to lead a review into youth justice facilities. That response was debated on 21 June. I'm not convinced that there have been further developments in the Government's response that warrant an additional debate at this point. The application is therefore declined."
Rurawhe AdrianPETITIONS PAPERS SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLSSPEAKER: Select committee reports have been delivered for presentation. CLERK:Report of the Environment Committee on the Ministry of Environment's long-term insights briefing 2023reports of the Governance and Administration Committee on the:Annie Oxborough Birth Parents Registration Billreports of the Controller and Auditor-General: 2021-31 long-term plans and consultation documentsreports of the Ombudsman: Ready or not? A report on the public sector the OIA and the pandemic; OIA compliance and practice in Te Kawa Mataaho Public Service Commissionreport of the Health Committee on the petition of Sally Walker report of the Justice Committee on the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Rugby World Cup 2023 Extended Trading Hours) Amendment Billreports of the Māori Affairs Committee on the:briefing on Māori climate adaptationbriefing on Te Mātāwai and on theMāori Fisheries Amendment Billreports of the Petitions Committee on the petition of Sunday Blessingspetition of Kate Dayreport of the Primary Production Committee on the 2023-24 Estimates for Vote Landsreport of the Regulations Review Committee on the complaint about the Consumer Information Standards (Origin of Food) Regulations 2021report of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee on the inquiry into the future of inter-regional passenger rail in New Zealand. SPEAKER: The bills are set down for second reading. The reports of the Environment Māori Affairs Regulations Review and Transport and Infrastructure Committees and the reports of the Controller and Auditor-General and the Ombudsman are set down for consideration. The Clerk has been informed of the introduction of a bill. CLERK: Secondary Legislation Confirmation Bill (No 2) introduction.SPEAKER: That bill is set down for first reading.
Rurawhe AdrianPRIVILEGERegistrar's Inquiry into Hon Michael Wood's compliance with the requirements of Appendix B of the Standing Orders—Question of PrivilegeSPEAKER: The registrar has determined that the matter under inquiry involves a question of privilege. The question therefore stands referred to the Privileges Committee.
Rurawhe AdrianPETITIONS PAPERS SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLSSPEAKER: Petitions have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation.CLERK: Petition of Daniel Bond requesting that the House make available in the next general election the option of a vote of no confidence in any of the registered political partiespetition of Aaron Hendry on behalf of Manaaki Rangatahi requesting that the House urge the Government to urgently develop a strategy and allocate funding to end youth homelessness.SPEAKER: Those petitions are referred to the Petitions Committee. Ministers have delivered papers.CLERK: 2021-22 annual report of Crown Regional Holdings Limited2022-23 annual report of the Māori Purposes Fund BoardGovernment response to the referral of the petition of Juliana CarvalhoBeautiful Children Inquiry into the Lake Alice Child and Adolescent Unit report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care December 2022statements of corporate intent for:Airways CorporationAsureQuality LimitedCommerce CommissionElectricity Corporation of New ZealandEnvironmental Science and Research LimitedGeological and Nuclear Sciences LimitedKiwi Group Capital LimitedKiwiRail Holdings LimitedKordia Group LimitedLandcare Research New Zealand LimitedLandcorp Farming LimitedMetService New Zealand LimitedNational Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research LimitedNew Zealand Forest Research Institute LimitedNew Zealand Post LimitedNew Zealand Railways CorporationPlant and Food Research LimitedPublic TrustQuotable Value LimitedTranspower New Zealand Limited2023-24 statements of performance expectations for:City Rail Link LimitedClassification OfficeCommerce CommissionCrown Infrastructure Partners LimitedCrown Regional Holdings LimitedEducation Payroll LimitedKiwi Group Capital LimitedNetwork for Learning LimitedNew Zealand Trade and EnterprisePublic TrustReal Estate AuthorityResearch and Education Advanced Network New Zealand LimitedReserve Bank of New Zealand Taumata Arowai andWorkSafe New Zealand.SPEAKER: I present the report of the Registrar of Pecuniary and Other Specified Interests entitled Registrar's Inquiry into Hon Michael Wood's compliance with the requirements of Appendix B of the Standing Orders. Those papers are published under the authority of the House.
O'Connor GregTUESDAY 18 JULY 2023The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.KARAKIA/PRAYERSGREG O'CONNOR (Deputy Speaker): Almighty God we give thanks for the blessings which have been bestowed on us. Laying aside all personal interests we acknowledge the King and pray for guidance in our deliberations that we may conduct the affairs of this House with wisdom justice mercy and humility for the welfare and peace of New Zealand. Amen.
Tuesday 27 June 2023 - Volume 769
Deposit Takers Bill — In Committee—Part 9
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That Part 9 be agreed to.Ayes 107New Zealand Labour 62; New Zealand National 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere; Whaitiri.Noes 10ACT New Zealand 10.Part 9 agreed to.