edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Bayly Andrew; Webb DuncanANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you Madam Chair. I keep labouring this point about what is the basis of this and the reason for why we've ended up with such comprehensive oversight—economic regulation—because that is the platform on which everything else follows.What I find intriguing is the basis for building the platform and it's interesting looking at clause 12 Purpose of this Part". It says that "The purpose of this Part is to promote the long-term benefit of consumers of water infrastructure services in markets where there is little or no competition and little or no likelihood of a substantial increase in competition". Then it goes on to say that the purpose is to provide "incentives to innovate" to have "incentives to improve efficiency" "share with consumers the benefits of efficiency gains" and "are limited in their ability to extract [excess] profits." It's that last one I find quite intriguing because the Minister just referred to it. He said we need to regulate in effect—I'm paraphrasing—if these entities end up achieving higher than their required returns that might in some ways be damaging.But the point is—and I think the Minister's acknowledged it—these entities can't pay out dividends. They can't pay out any remuneration to shareholders. The benefit sits inside the entity for the benefit of consumers. If that does build up retained earnings which I presume these entities can to meet future obligations—in particular infrastructure obligations which are often 30 years' life of these assets—then I find the proposition with that is why I just can't understand why we've ended up with such heavy-handed regulations.Because this is one of the core differences that we have with the Labour Party in terms of oversight of this. We certainly agree that there should be the oversight but the model that's been put forward by the Government is one of a heavy-handed nature and that's what I'm trying to ascertain from the Minister as to why he has promoted this and what were the other options. Because there are many other options you could have put in place but this is the foundation on which this whole bill rests.Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Look this is the fourth time that question's been asked and now the fourth time it's been answered so I don't propose to engage in any further discussion on it. If the member wants to know what other options were explored I invited him to go to dia.govt.nz where all of the options papers can be found.This approach is one that's tried and true not only in New Zealand across other sectors but in respect of publicly held water entities in Scotland—as the member will know well. Indeed it drove significant cost savings and efficiencies there. So that's resulted in significant decreases in the cost of water services for customers there."
Cameron Mark; Webb DuncanMARK CAMERON (ACT): Thank you Madam Chair. Minister if we could just go back to the Commerce Commission's role as a regulator in this instance. It had been offered to me on the back of conversations with Simon Court that they lack the technical capacity to actually understand the state of the infrastructure as we sit here today. There are projections and statements offered to me by him that perhaps in some instances the understanding of the assets' state of repair or disrepair might not be afforded to the Commerce Commission for the next two or three years. In other words the state of repair as we sit today. So how will the Commerce Commission seek to regulate an industry when the state of asset management as it is today is still an unknown reality?Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): I thank the member for the comment. It's an apposite observation that the state of repair of many of our water assets is unknown and that is why in the initial phase of this regulatory regime the main power that the Commerce Commission will be exercising—before full regulatory powers come into force—will be information gathering. That will be information gathering on the state of the assets the pricing regime the investment required investment plans in place and what will be required in future.So this is a programme which to be fully rolled out will take several years but absolutely right that because of the lack of investment and the diverse nature of these assets being spread around the country—amongst many many local authorities—we don't know what we need to know and that will be one of the first jobs of the commission.
Halbert Shanan; Salesa JennySHANAN HALBERT (Junior Whip—Labour): Point of order Madam Chair. I seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Leave is sought for that purpose. Are there any objections? There are none.Andrew Bayly: I'm waiting for the Minister hopefully to stand at some point. So—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): One moment please Andrew Bayly. The question is that Parts 1 to 5 Schedules 1 and 2 and clauses 1 and 2 stand part.
Water Services Economic Efficiency and Consumer Protection Bill — In Committee—Part 1 (continued)
Bayly AndrewANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): With all due respect to the Minister I'm still on the third attempt trying to get him to understand and provide a reason why we've ended up with such heavy-handed regulation. I noted prior to dinner the functions of the Commerce Commission under clause 4 and the definition of competition" over the following pages. So what I'm trying to understand is why the Minister thought it is absolutely necessary to have such a heavy-handed approach when we've essentially got a small number of entities that do not compete with one another. And what is the issue—how would he define "competition"? Why would that have driven the Labour Government to impose such a heavy-handed regulation? It's all in the definitions there so hopefully the Minister can answer the question this time."
Bayly Andrew; Webb DuncanANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thanks Madam Chair. I know we've just had a break so I did ask two questions before the dinner break of the Minister. One is: what were the other models that were considered? Because as I said prior to the dinner break where we've ended up is with a very heavy-handed regulation environment for these water companies whether they're four or 10 or whatever. Also there is this definition of competition" which is included in clause 7 in Part 1 on page 13. So what is the nature of that competition? We know that these entities are not going to compete across borders and we know that they're not going to compete for consumers. So I'm quite interested to hear at a higher level why the Minister thinks with that framework around customers and competition in general that such a heavy-handed approach would be required because if you look internationally this is right up there in terms of a comprehensive overarching sort of type of arrangement to regulate this small number of entities. Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): I note for the member that there are two documents. One is Supplementary Order Paper 417 which has been tabled which contains all the provisions and it would just be useful if there's any reference to that that we know whether we're referring to the bill as it was reported back or to the Supplementary Order Paper. In terms of "competition" "workable or effective competition" is well recognised as a definition of competition throughout the Commerce Act and elsewhere. It is understood as an effective definition of "competition" throughout the law generally. In terms of the wider-ranging issues I don't see any of that referred to in Part 1. But if there's anything else in respect of Part 1 I'm happy to respond."
Salesa Jenny; Lee Melissa; Webb DuncanWATER SERVICES ECONOMIC EFFICIENCY AND CONSUMER PROTECTION BILLIn CommitteeDebate resumed.Part 1 Preliminary provisions (continued)CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members the committee is resumed on the Water Services Economic Efficiency and Consumer Protection Bill. When we suspended the debate before the dinner break we were considering Part 1. The question is that Part 1 stands part. MELISSA LEE (National): Thank you Madam Chair—that was very lucky. I just have a very quick question in terms of Part 1 at clause 3(2)—well clause 3(1) (2) and (3) I guess. It's talking about This Act provides for—" and this is the preliminary provisions where it talks about "the regulation of the price and quality of water infrastructure services as set out in Part 2;". But the question I have is that in terms of the way that this is actually structured when the regulatory impact statement actually states that the prices that consumers will pay will potentially be higher how does the Minister feel that the price regulation in terms of providing quality water infrastructure services are actually looking after consumers when the prices are actually going to be quite high? Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): I wonder if the member might just refer me in Part 1 to the exact provision she's referring to? I'm just struggling to see where in Part 1 that matter is raised."
Water Services Economic Efficiency and Consumer Protection Bill — In Committee—Part 1
Salesa JennyIn CommitteePart 1 Preliminary ProvisionsCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members the House is in committee on the Water Services Economic Efficiency and Consumer Protection Bill. We come first to the debate on Part 1.
SpeechANGELA ROBERTS (Labour): Thank you Mr Speaker. I rise to take a call the last call on this second reading and I just want to take a moment to thank the select committee. It was obviously a robust process and they made some great changes to this bill that will ensure that we have good strong regulation and consumer protection.I am a little confused though that people are worried about having the inclusion of Te Ao Māori or matauranga Māori or you know that you can't actually make good economic decisions and still consider Te Ao Māori. I challenge the other side of the House to go and have a little look at our Māori economy that's worth $70 billion; it's growing it's resilient and it's global. I don't think that this is a bad thing for a commissioner to have access to and because of that I commend it to the House.
SpeechDAN ROSEWARNE (Labour): It's my pleasure to take a short call on the Water Services Economic Efficiency and Consumer Protection Bill in this second reading. This bill is part of the wider water services reforms launched by the Government in July 2020. It's absolutely long overdue. It will reduce rates for our households and it will be well received by the people of Waimakariri in particular. So I commend this bill to the House.
Boyack RachelRACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Thank you Madam Speaker. It's a pleasure to take a short call on the Water Services Economic Efficiency and Consumer Protection Bill. Can I just begin by pushing back a little on the previous speaker who claimed there was a truncated process here. This bill was introduced to the House in December 2022. It is now eight months later and we are considering it for its final stages. So I just want to push back that there hasn't been considerable analysis and consultation on this bill over the last few months.This bill is a critical part of our water reform programme. It's important that with the introduction obviously of the affordable waters reform we have a system to ensure that economic regulation is in place to protect consumers. I note that the economic regulation regime that we're introducing through this bill is similar to the existing economic regulation regimes that are under Part 4 of the Commerce Act which regulates electricity line services gas pipeline services and specified airport services. The approach is also similar to the regulation of fibre fixed-line access services under the Telecommunications Act.This bill will complement the drinking-water safety and regulation oversight that's provided by the water regulator Taumata Arowai. It will ensure that consumers are protected through our reform. It's an excellent bill and I commend this bill to the House.
White Helen; Salesa JennyHELEN WHITE (Labour): Hello. It's really nice to take this call and to be able to actually express my respect for the honourable member that's just sat down the Hon Eugenie Sage who is in her last few weeks in this House and she is still tenaciously contributing in everything and we are really grateful for what she has done including on this committee. It was a very constructive discussion over this bill in the Finance and Expenditure Committee and it was quite a creative one. We really thought about the issues particularly with regard to power imbalance. One of the things that came out of that was a really strong discussion about the role of the Consumer Advocacy Council in making sure that consumers were protected but also the Commerce Commission's role in doing so. I commend this bill to the House.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): The next call is a split call. I call on Joseph Mooney for five minutes.
SpeechANNA LORCK (Labour—Tukituki): Thank you Mr Speaker. It is with great pleasure that having to see these water bills through to where they are—to know that now we can say to ratepayers that not only will their rates go down and cost less from what they would be we are also making sure that we have the regulator to make sure that the charges that are put on our water consumers are absolutely on point. It has been a long time coming. I know that in my electorate in Hawke's Bay the four councils that are part of this are absolutely looking forward to seeing affordable water finally delivered for our region. Thank you Mr Speaker.
Leary IngridINGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): I'm very disappointed that the previous speaker wasn't as enthusiastic about the Water Services Economic Efficiency and Consumer Protection Bill as he was in the Finance and Expenditure Committee where he actually contributed quite a bit to some of the substantial changes including making the dispute resolution more robust and that it proactively take into account the need to identify classes of vulnerable consumers and take their interests into account. Also there is a change to clause 74 where complaints can be taken by consumer groups. We think this also increases the consumer protections in the bill.The really interesting discussion that I thought the previous member would pick up on is around the presumption in the bill when it came to us that there would be price quality regulation. Now that presumption is still mainly there and that's good. It sends the right signals around price and quality to the market but it also means that there can be baseline data gathered and that the commissioner in its determinations as it gets that data can decide in the case of each of those entities whether price quality regulation is needed or at what point. Now I think that's a really useful and flexible change to the legislation because what it means is it doesn't assume price quality. There's a signal to ensure that the providers act appropriately but in the event that more competition comes into the market just through the other interventions and certainly through the exposure of data that will be provided through information disclosure there is some flexibility for the Commerce Commission to respond accordingly. That's good regulation. It's something that Mr Bayly contributed to robustly in the discussions and it's a shame not to see that reflected in the House today.
SpeechTĀMATI COFFEY (Labour): And the Labour Party does because it is really important that we make sure that we're doing the best for New Zealanders that we are actually taking our foot off the pedal when it comes to our emissions. We need to give support to the agencies that help to decide how hard and how fast we go in this space and that's what this bill is intending to do. Bringing iwi and hapū into the decision-making process is really important; giving them the ability to call for reviews in that process is also really important. It has support from this side it will become law and I look forward to it. I commend it to the House.
SpeechDr ANAE NERU LEAVASA (Labour—Takanini): Thank you Mr Speaker. It is a pleasure to take a brief call on the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill at third reading. I just want to say a huge thankyou to the Minister the Hon Dr Megan Woods for also answering those questions in the committee stage as well and also to the select committee for their work in ushering this bill.This bill does a few things and one of them of which those across the House have also mentioned as well is about making improvements to our permit licence holders as well as permit applicants to engage better with iwi and hapū to ensure the engagement demonstrates their respect for the authority mana and local expertise. I think this is one way to make sure that we strengthen our relationships with local iwi and leveraging off their knowledge and experience within that area as well.One of those ways that we can do that is requiring permit holders to share annual reports on iwi engagement to relevant iwi and also for them to agree on that. So there are many things. I commend this bill to the House.
SpeechSARAH PALLETT (Labour—Ilam): Thank you Mr Speaker. I rise to take a short call on the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill this afternoon which as we've heard creates more flexibility of Crown-owned minerals for the benefit of New Zealand.When I was reading through my notes on this particular piece of legislation I was struck by the importance of the amendment that allows for the decommissioning-related classification amendment that basically ensures that the likelihood of companies gaining permits to mine in New Zealand that do not have that financial and technical capability to undertake and fund decommissioning will be able to be taken into account.The very last thing we need is a repeat of events around the Tui oil field—events I could remind the House that cost the New Zealand taxpayer enormous amounts of money and created significant potential for risk to our precious environment. That's why I commend this to the House.
Rurawhe AdrianCROWN MINERALS AMENDMENT BILLThird ReadingDebate resumed.SPEAKER: The House will now continue with urgency. Before the lunch break the House was considering the third reading of the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill. We had completed call No. 6. We come to call No. 7. I call Julie Anne Genter.
Personal Explanation — Hon Michael Wood—Privileges Committee Report
SpeechPERSONAL EXPLANATIONSHon Michael Wood—Privileges Committee ReportHon MICHAEL WOOD (Labour—Mt Roskill): I seek leave to make a personal statement.SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is none. Hon MICHAEL WOOD: The Privileges Committee has tabled its report into my compliance with the requirements of Appendix B of the Standing Orders. I thank the committee for their work on this issue.Their report confirms that I should have declared the shares I personally owned in the 2017 to 2021 period and that I should have corrected the register of pecuniary interests after I did correctly declare them in 2022 and 2023. I have previously acknowledged this and I would now like to take the opportunity to unreservedly apologise to the House. As the committee notes this was an error on my part and I deeply regret it. I've learnt a clear lesson: in an intense and all-consuming job I lost sight of the importance of these matters and I will prioritise complete compliance in this area as I continue my work in the Parliament. Again I thank the Privileges Committee for their considered report on this matter; it points to a number of areas which I believe will be useful to all members. I also take this opportunity to thank a number of members from across the House who have been supportive of me in what has been a challenging issue to deal with.
SpeechHon MICHAEL WOOD (Labour—Mt Roskill): One of the worst and laziest debating habits that occurs in this House from time to time is the creation of the straw man. That is the development of an argument that is self-evident but doesn't actually go to the matter that is under consideration. That is what we have been treated to over the last couple of speeches from the Opposition who are opposing this bill. The Opposition have waxed lyrical at some length about the fact that extractive industries are important to our modern economy and our modern society. There is not a single member of this House who disputes that in some cases extractive industries are important for some of the things that we enjoy in our societies and nor does this bill make that claim yet listening to the Opposition members' speeches one might think that.What this bill simply does is to ensure that we have a Crown minerals regime in New Zealand that ensures that when we do allocate rights to Crown minerals—which we accept in this House it is the purview of the Crown to allocate—that they are managed in a way that is good and to the benefit of our country and as the previous Labour speaker Naisi Chen said with a broader range of considerations in mind including environmental considerations and the needs of future generations.What we really got to and we heard this from the last couple of speakers as they got a bit deeper into their speeches is the fact that the National-ACT Opposition fundamentally has got to the point where they'll mouth some words about climate change but ultimately will not actually do anything to change our practices in a meaningful way that would reduce emissions. They want to reopen prospecting for new oil and gas. They want to mine for more gold. It's good to get the clarity and honesty from the ACT Party and I give the ACT Party some credit for that. I disagree with them profoundly but they tend to coat it in fewer weasel words than the National Party. The ACT Party wants to mine for more oil and gas and coal and that is what we will get under a future National-ACT Government that will abandon all of the meaningful steps that we have taken to actually reduce our carbon emissions.The final point that I find extraordinary is that we have an Opposition voting against this bill that puts in place stronger provisions around the decommissioning of oil and gas infrastructure. That is a fundamentally irresponsible position because it will leave the Crown in the position of having to take up the costs of that decommissioning in future years—yet another cost that you can add on to the National Party's uncosted future Budgets.This is a good bill that means that we can manage mineral extraction in a better way in the future not close it down—no one's proposing to do that—and that will reduce cost to the taxpayers through the decommissioning of future infrastructure. It's a prudent and sensible bill and I'm very pleased that it will pass through the House today.
SpeechNAISI CHEN (Labour): Thank you Mr Speaker. It's my pleasure to be able to support the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill. This is a bill that was considered carefully by the select committee—a great select committee the Economic Development Science and Innovation Committee and I just wanted to thank all the submitters and all of the officials for working with us on this bill. As it has been already canvassed in this House we made a few more changes and a few more clarifications around some of the clauses in this bill but mainly this bill is here so that we can make sure that our Crown-owned minerals are there to benefit all New Zealanders and the management and the way we manage it can be good for our environment and our economy as well.We have strengthened the rules of engagement with iwi and hapū; we've also made it more clear about what the requirements are for decommissioning making sure that we give these rights to those responsible mining companies. I just wanted to quote something—as many of us would watch every day—from Air New Zealand: that this land is not just yours or mine it's not just inherited from our ancestors but borrowed from our children and we have a responsibility for future generations in looking after it. That's why I commend this bill to the House.
Bennett GlenGLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth): I move That the question be now put.
Court SimonSIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you Mr Chair. That was a fascinating insight into the workings of the Minister's mind! I want to come back to the bill Minister. Clause 14 amends section 41 the Transfer of interest in permit". You made a good point: that it's important that an operator in the oil and gas industry decommissions a well decommissions offshore equipment—whether it's on the sea floor or whether it's a rig—that they fulfil their obligations to their community and to the environment by making sure that all of those hazards are mitigated as far as is practical. So it is fair enough that a Minister would have decision making as to whether the transferee is highly likely to comply with the conditions of the permit particularly when it comes to decommissioning.Minister you refer to—without using the words I understand—the "Tui problem" which is where an operator sold its interests in a New Zealand business to an overseas company which then defaulted on its obligations. Minister I understand that that business has since been sold and that the new owner has in fact made a commitment to fulfil a great proportion of the obligations to decommission and clean up in addition to what the Crown has had to contribute. But that must surely be a very very rare occurrence.Minister in previous amendments to the Crown Minerals Act that you referred to and which this clause 14 further amends you make the point that a much more rigorous regime has been put in place. But Minister isn't it correct that the regime is now so onerous that it imposes retrospective penalties on directors and on companies including jail time if they fail to meet their decommissioning obligations—that it has essentially sterilised interests in oil and gas development in New Zealand? And that even if a company was to sell its oil and gas interests as a going concern still pumping oil and condensate from New Zealand's reservoirs whether its offshore or onshore Taranaki still getting gas out supplying it to New Zealand consumers including businesses and manufacturers—even if they sold their business as a going concern with an existing revue stream the new owner of the business even if they decommissioned to the requirements of the permit the Minister could still insist that the sellers before the directors of the company that originally owned it were still liable for any rats and mice or potentially a very very large bill?Hasn't that completely sterilised interests in investing in New Zealand oil and gas? And doesn't this section 41 amended by clause 14 of this bill "Transfer of interest in a permit" further undermine the willingness of international and local investors to actually get our energy out of the ground and supply it to businesses that need it?"
Stanford Erica; Woods MeganERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): I'm just wondering if the Minister could elaborate on one of her comments she made before and just let us know how much coal was imported last year and what record low does that compare to? So when she says it's a record low" what year is she comparing it to? How much was imported last year and then what year is she comparing that to in terms of "record low"?Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Energy and Resources): Less coal was burnt in the last three months of 2022 than in any other quarter since December 1990. I guess when you're talking about a 32-year low and 2022 is the year it would make sense that 1990 was the date that you'd be using there.That September 2022 quarter saw just 426000 tonnes of coals burnt for industry process or electricity generation so that's the quantum we're talking about. But of course this is a situation where we do need to continue to phase out coal in the economy and that is exactly what our Government is doing. What we have done is we have set an end date for the fact that we will be able to burn coal for industrial or process heat and that is exactly why we are partnering with industry.But I would like to bring that member back to what we are debating here in this bill. This is about the New Zealand Crown Minerals Act. This is about how it is we grant permits for New Zealand extraction. So while I'm happy to act—as probably what she could have got off Google in terms of what those dates in tonnages of imports looked like—what this is about is the regime for how it is that we administer the New Zealand Crown mineral estate. What the member is asking about is coal imports but what I am pleased to report to the House is a 32-year low in the burning of coal in New Zealand."
Salesa Jenny; Halbert ShananCROWN MINERALS AMENDMENT BILLIn CommitteeParts 1 and 2 the Schedule and clauses 1 to 3CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members the House is in committee on the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill. Members we come now to Part 1.SHANAN HALBERT (Junior Whip—Labour): Madam Chair 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.
SpeechSARAH PALLETT (Labour—Ilam): Thank you Mr Speaker. It gives me pleasure to stand and take a short call on this piece of legislation the Water Services Legislation Bill which we have heard the rationale for. Four people died in Havelock North from contaminated water from campylobacter poisoning that was completely predictable and preventable. Many thousands of people were made sick and many still live with the impact on their lives and will do for the rest of their lives.This is wholly unacceptable in New Zealand today. The National Party though? Perfectly fine by them. A boil-water notice is currently in place in Oxford. We've heard about how fantastic things are in Waimakariri—they're not. There's a boil-water notice in place currently as we speak in Waimakariri.I support this legislation. It will save the ratepayers in Christchurch City $2680 at a minimum and in Canterbury $4780. Thank you.
van de Molen TimTIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Thank you Madam Speaker. That was a good example of why we do need financial literacy training I suppose but a little bit irrelevant to the actual bill because what we've got here is a terrible piece of legislation. The Government are doing anything they can to distract from this horrible piece of unworkable legislation that will not deliver improved outcomes for New Zealanders. Sadly we've seen time and again a Government that will introduce a piece of legislation take every opportunity to make it longer and more burdensome than it needs to be and ultimately end up delivering more cost and less benefit for New Zealanders and this is a clear example of that. It is centralising the water systems.Actually I haven't heard the other members talk about three waters. That was the name that was given early on in the piece and I do just want to mention that because it is about the three waters and what we've seen consistently is strong opposition to the proposals that have been put forward. This Government despite all of that have decided that they still know best; they will centralise it all and take over yet another area. Like we''ve seen with the health sector like we've seen with the polytechnics centralisation seems to be the only solution this Government has. It's a typical arrogant approach that you see does not deliver better outcomes for Kiwis and Kiwis are getting tired of this. They are sick and tired of a Government that does not listen to their voices does not hear what they have to say and ultimately impacts their lives and their ability to get on and succeed.Fortunately we will repeal and replace this terrible piece of legislation. If we're fortunate enough to be in on 14 October it'll be gone by Christmas. Finally the public will have the opportunity to have confidence again to have some clarity to understand that things will be better.Hon Scott Simpson: Hope is on the way.TIM VAN DE MOLEN: The horizon looks good and hope is on the way Mr Simpson—absolutely.So look we don't need to continue speaking on this piece of legislation. It is terrible but it has taken up too much of this House's time. As I said it won't be in place for too long—we'll be getting rid of it by Christmas—but frankly it just epitomises this Government's inability to deliver better outcomes as you've seen time and time again legislation after legislation coming through and not improving New Zealanders' lives. National will get New Zealand back on track and it is only a few short weeks to wait. So we wholeheartedly oppose this piece of legislation.
SpeechNAISI CHEN (Labour): Madam Speaker I once said that water is probably the most unsexy topic we can talk about here in this House but this is something that we can no longer ignore when we have people who are dying because of polluted waters when we have people on boil-water notices there is something we need to do about it.I sat here and listened to lots and lots of speeches from the other side of the House. Labour has promised this week to teach financial literacy to students; I do think the National Party needs to listen to that as well. The whole point of having balance sheet separation is so that we can increase either the debt or the investment that we put into our water infrastructure. Making sure that if local councils hit their debt ceilings the only way of collecting more rates is not the way that they're limited to investing and providing good infrastructure for the rest of New Zealand. Making sure that we can give the basic human right of access to clean healthy water to New Zealanders is a fundamental job that the Government will have to do so that's why I commend this bill to the House.
White HelenHELEN WHITE (Labour): I just want to take a short call and respond to some of the contrasts we're seeing between the two major parties here. I listened to Matt Doocey talk about the Waimakariri and then I googled the Waimakariri. It's a river that is called cold rushing water" in Māori—that's the translation. But immediately I came across a spot called Thompsons on that river and people can't swim there anymore. My friend in the House gave me pictures which I was looking at of dark water coming out of pipes quite close by as I understand it. There are water notices in that region. This is not as Matt Doocey characterised it something looking for a problem etc.; this was a problem. This is a problem for New Zealand. We need to fix the water supplies and the processes in this country and Labour is the only party that's going to do that."
Salesa JennyTERISA NGOBI (Labour—Ōtaki): Mālō e lelei Madam Speaker and thank you for the opportunity to take just a short call on the Water Services Legislation Bill. I''ll start by saying I understand why the National Party and the Opposition oppose this bill and that is because this bill looks after all New Zealanders not just a certain rich few. Currently we know that what is happening to our pipes needs cleaning up. We know that the status quo cannot continue and if it does only the certain rich few will be able to afford clean drinking water.But you know what? On this side of the House the Labour Government are here for all New Zealanders not just the few and so on this side of the House we believe to make sure that all New Zealanders can expect to have clean drinking water—that's right all New Zealanders. We also believe on this side of the House that with the drains they shouldn't be so rundown that they are flooding people's properties. We want to look after all New Zealanders and make sure that we clean all the pipes up and that is why this is a good piece of legislation. That is what this Labour Government's doing supporting all New Zealanders. I commend this bill to the House.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): The next call is a split call. I call on the Hon David Bennett for 5 minutes.
SpeechDAN ROSEWARNE (Labour): Well what a diatribe that was. The member for Waimakariri thinks he can slide in here like Steve Parr on Sale of the Century promising people the money—promising the people of Waimakariri the money—whereas in reality all they're going to get is the bag: the bag full of broken promises. One thing the member for Waimakariri did not mention was the people of Oxford and the boil-water notice that exists for them with their water being offline for six weeks until it's up to a potable standard. That's why this bill is overdue. It provides new water services entities and legislative tools and arrangements and they will need to be in place so that they're fully operational by 1 July 2024 and 1 July 2026. So it's a fantastic bill and I commend it to the House.
Leary IngridINGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): New Zealand's water infrastructure in many places is quite frankly stuffed. This is about broken pipes and waterways and the National Party may want to repeal these reforms but they don't have a credible plan to replace it with. The Finance and Expenditure Committee did a really thorough process on this bill. The main areas that I really valued were the changes around stormwater making sure there's accountability for the maintenance of waterways; also the mandatory relationship agreements where a lot of the devil in the detail lies; the changes to rural water supplies which shows that we listen to rural communities; and also the care taken to ensure access and affordability for all New Zealanders. It's a really great bill. I commend it to the House.
SpeechClauses 1 and 2CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members we come now to our final debate clauses 1 and 2. This is the debate on Title" and "Commencement". The question is that clause 1 stand part."
SpeechPart 2 Amendments to and repeal of other legislationCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members we come now to Part 2 Amendments to and repeal of other legislation". This is the debate on clauses 26 to 203 and Schedules 3 and 4. The question is that Part 2 stand part.Tim van de Molen: Madam Chair. Madam Chair?CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Is the member seeking a call?Tim van de Molen: Yes Madam Chair.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Oh! If members want the debate to continue they need to stand up and seek a call. I was just about to start ruling or whatever it is I do.TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Yes so looking at new section 468A actually—and this comes to the earlier comment I'd been making about the uncertainty this legislation creates as well because when we're coming through a significant transition phase there is unsurprisingly a significant level of concern around what that might be for different individuals as they're impacted but also for the councils.In this instance we see a change proposing the contract term that was originally set at being able to go up to a limit of 35 years when contracts relate to the provisions of drain management for example. So in this instance obviously you've got entities investing in significant plant and equipment to be able to undertake this business for a period of time. There was a provision that allowed them to enter into contracts for up to 35 years in respect of those matters including covering water courses repairing properties removing private drains cutting down trees etc.—that sort of maintenance work—but now the proposal is to reduce that to less than half to only 15 years. I'm interested to understand why the Minister has decided what originally presumably his decisions were around a 35-year time frame; now it is only a 15-year time frame.This actually speaks to some of the broader challenges we have around infrastructure planning and delivery in New Zealand as well when you have relatively short time frames to give some level of certainty. I say that in the context of primarily investing in the plant and equipment. That's a significant capital cost that has to be outlaid to procure that equipment and of course you need to be able to generate a return from that over time. So having certainty within your contracts helps to achieve that.But also equally importantly alongside the plant and equipment is actually having the skills and the competency. This is an issue that we see from a workforce perspective where we typically go through these waves where we potentially bring in people with skills who are able to do jobs and then there's a significant shift in the focus and those skill sets head off to other opportunities or indeed head offshore which we're seeing significantly at the moment. So I really want to understand why we're reducing that proposal period and therefore creating more uncertainty when it seemed clearly that it was deemed fit for purpose originally."
Belich CamillaCAMILLA BELICH (Junior Whip—Labour): I move That the question be now put.
Doocey Matt; McAnulty KieranMATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): Oh thank you very much Madam Chair and I'll thank the Minister for his answers as well. I just wanted to drill down into his response there. Just to clarify so it seems like he is saying that there will be an ability for each council jurisdiction within the water entities to have a different volumetric fixed charge and I suppose what will be the course of action a council could take if they think that that pricing was too high? I think that then flows through to a further question which is: what are the principles that those decisions will be made on around the fixed charge? Where I'm going with that no doubt he's gone round the country and spoken to—well we do know that because they all came back and said Nice guy; wrong party." But a lot of them think they have done very well and there might be a parochial aspect there as well but I do know quite intimately one council where I live that has done exceedingly well because the ratepayers have invested into their water assets. So it will be interesting when that variation comes out in charging within a water entity and how the decision is made based on I suppose the level of investment that ratepayers perceive they have put in over the years.Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Minister of Local Government): I thank the member for the question. It has actually been addressed but I'll go and do a wee bit more one last time. So in replacement section 475 inserted by clause 22 there will be the ability to limit through regulation the ratio between fixed and volumetric charges for residential customers if it was considered necessary for example to protect vulnerable consumers. This is up to the entities. It won't necessarily be along territorial authority boundaries but it's not necessarily a uniform charge across the board. The entity through the direction of the regional representative group of which all councils are members will be able to adjust pricing according to the realities in those communities."
Smith Stuart; McAnulty KieranSTUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you Madam Chair. I am just turning now to changing contract prices—and new section 335—and I wonder if the Minister could explain something for me.So it says The chief executive of a water services entity may enter into negotiations to change [certain provisions in certain contracts]" and it goes on—through various (1) (2) and (3)—under (1) the "entity may enter into negotiations to change pricing and charging provisions in a contract that—(a) relates to the supply of water services … ; (b) is transferred from a local government organisation" and it says that under (3) "If the chief executive and the other parties fail to vary the contract before 1 July 2029 the contract expires."Well that's six years away. What's that arbitrary date; why the significance of that arbitrary date? Why not 2028 or why not any other particular time say than that particular date? I don't understand the significance of that. So if the Minister could enlighten us on that it would be much appreciated.Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Minister of Local Government): There's nothing stopping the entities renegotiating a contract and there needs to be a date by which it expires. The member's right pointing out that this 1 July 2029 if it's not. But that's covered by the ability for entities to renegotiate the contract. They will not necessarily be bound by the terms that they inherit all the way through to 2029.While I'm on the member I may as well answer his first question in this section. That was actually—there's a bit of a theme here but that was covered off in Nicola Grigg's question actually. This is in reference to the Water Services Economic Efficiency and Consumer Protection Bill. That's outlined in that.But to your other question around the catchments so there's no change proposed in what currently already exists. So it's a direct transfer of what's already in place now; the entities will be bound by that.In regards to the question about compensation it can only happen with permission. So if there's no permission that can't occur and therefore there's no provision for compensation because they have to get permission in the first instance. If there is damage to the property for other regions or the catchment for other regions the responsibility to fix that falls with the entities.Mr Doocey's question new section 332. This will all be publicly available to ensure transparency. An entity is required to engage with territorial authorities consumers and communities on a funding plan.In regards to Mr Court's question: again this was all set out in the Water Services Entities Act Schedule 3 specifically. However new sections 461 and 465 outline in this bill that they'll still be required to publish feedback."
Halbert ShananSHANAN HALBERT (Junior Whip—Labour): I move That the question be now put.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): No—no. As we already know there are a number of new parts being inserted into Part 1. Each of those parts brings substantive measures into the bill. I think that this debate should allow for members to raise questions and issues they find with each and every one of those parts. We are keeping a close eye on the debate. Part of that close eye also is having a look at how much of a particular part to be inserted is being debated and has there been enough debate on that. I am listening very carefully.
Grigg Nicola; Doocey MattNICOLA GRIGG (National—Selwyn): Thank you Madam Chair—great choice. The Minister I think would do well to explain to New Zealanders around section 231 that the Board may designate controlled drinking water catchment areas". I was quite fascinated to read through this particular part of the bill which talks about allocating controlled drinking water catchment areas for the purposes of you know geographical areas that surround surface water and a groundwater catchment from which drinking water can be abstracted. But the detail goes further to talk about that designations may be made only if "the water services entity owns or has long-term control of the land" or "the owner of the land to which the designation relates agrees to the designation." Now that's really interesting. Again when I think about the Canterbury example where a lot of the catchment area falls on private land and farm land particularly in Selwyn where the district territorial authorities area like the electorate goes all the way to the Arthur's Pass. So there's obviously a lot of headwaters coming out of the Alps in the foothills. But it's quite I think topical to discuss whether when the catchment area falls into private land will this include any form of compensation to that landowner? And I think from a Crown entity perspective what is the Crown's estimate thus far of the total compensation that may have to be meted out to cover all areas within the country that will be captured by this part of the bill?MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): Thank you very much Madam Chair. I wanted to continue with the exploration around volumetric charging that the Minister referred to that there is autonomy for the water services entities to look at the fixed price for their customers. So I suppose the next question with that course of exploration would be: is there a potential for each council within the water service entity to have a different fixed price for volumetric charging?"