edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Henare PeeniHon PEENI HENARE (Labour): Thank you Madam Chair. It's not like the Chamber to fall silent so I thought I'd take the opportunity to thank the Minister for his consideration of the 18 months and it was to my point around iwi and in particular the Ngā Hapū o Ngāti Porou being in limbo. So bringing it into alignment here I think is actually quite a smart move.I will also though pick up on the point made by the Minister in the chair—how Cabinet makes a decision the House passes a bill and then the Governor-General signs it into law. Well an Order in Council is just a little bit more complex than that. An Order in Council isn't simply a Let's just sign the paper and done deal." For members across the Chamber having sat in an Executive Council with the former Governor-General it was quite a daunting task to sit there and explain your legislation to somebody who'd served on the High Court and served as a Justice to make sure that it was quite clear to them because if the rationale wasn't clear then they weren't obliged to sign it.So it's really just a point of clarification for the Minister in the chair. But I come back to the point around the accepting of the amendment. There are going to be questions about whether or not any of the amendments that the Minister might bring back in between now and that 18 months might continue to impact the time. So we are looking for a reassurance here and for any amendments that will come forward we will be looking towards making sure we stick to that 18 months.From the feedback and the emails and the messages I've had from iwi around the country as they watch this bill progress through the House there are two words that became obviously clear in all of the correspondence from them and they were "Lawyer up". Because what I'm suspecting is that the Government can receive—and will be receiving—significant claims legal action from iwi right across the country. And I think the 18 months will actually serve them well while they look towards how they might be able to deep dive into this particular repeal bill to make sure that they can cover off all of the bases to know that their rights are protected in this repeal bill.That's going to be really important from Ngā Mana Whakahono also to Ngā Hapū o Ngāti Porou to those who have current arrangements and I'm heartened by the Minister in the chair's comments about protecting Te Tiriti o Waitangi settlements making sure that we continue to honour those as we have done in this House. But I suspect that the 18 months will be a good opportunity to allow iwi to come on board and make sure that they can protect their interests through the right legal mechanisms.That's a thank you to the Minister for accepting the 18 months and we look forward to his return to make sure that we do get these things right which is how this process should have been done in the first place anyway. If we had gone through the select committee we wouldn't have to have pushed out the time; we wouldn't have to be using words like "lawyer up" in this House. But I know that iwi and hapū are already looking towards doing that to make sure that their rights are protected moving forward."
McAnulty Kieran; Bishop ChrisHon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Thank you Mr Chair. The issue with including new material here is that I still haven't got an answer to the previous question I asked a genuine question about the definition of a natural hazard. I would like an answer to that because I'm considering putting forward an amendment for the consideration of the Minister responsible for RMA Reform so that we could do that. If he could give an indication as to whether he'd be willing to consider the current definition of natural hazard" under the Natural and Built Environment Act and simply state in this bill that that is the definition that local councils will continue to be able to refer to in their operations under the new planning model.It's not about opposing what's happening here: we know what the Government wants to do; we know they want to move back to the Resource Management Act 1991. But a genuine plea: let's at least have an up-to-date definition of "natural hazard" that considers takes into account not only climate change but also contaminated land—a point that I wasn't able to make last time—as a result of climate change and natural disasters.It is important that the definition that local government operates with with specific reference to natural hazard is up to date. Times have changed. We now know that climate change and natural hazards are linked without question. The definition should reflect that. I'm in the process of drafting an amendment to that—at least an answer to my question would be good but an indication from the Minister as to whether he'd be willing to consider that.Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): Happy to look at it. Sorry I meant to answer it before and I take your point. I'm advised that there is basically—the only thing that has changed is the Natural and Built Environment Act clarified that the activities that are covered had to be caused by climate change. So it's just literally a clarificatory statement but all of the activities that were covered are still covered; it's just by dint of the passage of time the Resource Management Act 1991—I don't know I mean we're 30 years on; it's just a minor clarificatory statement. So I don't think anything substantive turns on the wording. All of the activities that you'd want to be covered through natural hazards are covered. But I'm happy to look at the wording if the member wants to—Hon Kieran McAnulty: I'll print it now.Hon CHRIS BISHOP: OK very good."
Bates Carl; O'Connor GregCARL BATES (National—Whanganui): I move That debate on this question now close.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): There has been very little new material in the last several presentations so I will give the call to Mr McAnulty but it will be new material.
Weenink Vanessa; O'Connor GregDr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula): I move That debate on this question now close.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): I'll just indicate that that last speech is the sort of general points being made that have been made a lot and that do lead to a closure so I'll just be warning those now—very very specific. Hon Megan Woods.
Williams Arena; Bishop ChrisARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you Madam Chair. I appreciate the opportunity to ask my next questions in light of the Minister responsible for RMA Reform's answer that there is no practical effect. My suggestion here is that the House should certainly consider my Amendment Paper 9 to delete all amendments to the Urban Development Act 2020 in light of that answer given that there is no practical effect. The symbolic nature of the change that happened in 2023 is important for the way that the public servants can conduct their affairs. It is simpler for the public servants to have one indication not this couched hierarchical way of considering their decisions. It cuts down the litigation risk because it means that the policy decisions made at a Kāinga Ora level are easier and more straightforward.But given that I want to ask my third and fourth and fifth questions to the Minister. In the context of the Urban Development Act is the urban development purpose of the Act at odds with the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi? Is there any balancing there that is being required by the new wording that the Minister proposes?My fourth question is: does the difference between the new amendment words which are take into account the principles" and the old wording which was "give effect to the principles"—in the Minister's mind is there a difference in those two things? Would he expect as the Minister responsible for Kāinga Ora for decision makers within Kāinga Ora to treat those two things differently? He said that there is no practical difference. I want him to clarify for the House then what the difference is between those words: "take into account the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi" which is the new amendment that he proposes and the old words "give effect to the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi" which is what this side of the House would prefer.The fifth question is that—if in fact there is a difference then this provision does not belong in the consequential amendments. This House will get itself into trouble if we make this kind of decision in a consequential amendment to Part 2 of an amendment bill which is buried on page 68. Because if there is a difference to the way that decision makers give effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi which is a part of our constitutional law in New Zealand then it should not be a consequential amendment.Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): As I've said about five times now we are going back to what the law was—it's as simple as that. I know the member's trying to create something that isn't there. It's really quite simple: the Act used to say "take into account"—Arena Williams: Dean's going to tweet about you.Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well I mean he tweets a lot about me. But you know—good luck to him. So the member is really grasping at straws."
Bishop ChrisHon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): I can answer this very simply: the change made through the Natural and Built Environment Act (NBA) strengthened the Treaty provision of the Urban Development Act. The change we are making through this bill goes back to what the law was prior to the passage of the NBA. As I have said multiple times now it is actually quite a simple piece of legislation notwithstanding the saving of the fast track. We are going back to what the law was—with some exceptions—prior to the passage of the NBA. So in answer to the member's second question about practical effect there is essentially no practical effect. Nothing has happened in the last three months because of the changed Treaty provision in the Urban Development Act.
McAnulty KieranHon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Thank you very much Madam Chair. I'm pleased to have the opportunity to make my first call in this contribution. It will be I hope one of many. There was an instance last night where in raising a point of order the presiding officer conceded that there were relevant spokespeople on this side of the Chamber that didn't get an opportunity to speak. The presiding officer said that was a fair point. So just registering now that there is through my portfolios of local government housing and to some degree regional development a desire to touch on those. There is also a desire from the finance spokesperson to speak to this Part. However the Opposition showed I think the sort of collegiality that we expect in Parliament at Business Committee last night and agreed to allow the Government to release their financial details today which wouldn't normally occur under urgency. But because we were quite happy to agree to that he is now working on that. So just registering our desire for him to contribute as well. The reason I've said that is because last night we also got an assurance from the presiding officer that now that we're in Part 2 we can speak specifically to the parts of the Acts that are being proposed to be repealed. Specifically within the Spatial Planning Act 2023 there is clear reference to the Water Services Entities Act 2022. So the first question that I have in regards to the local government portfolio and the proposal to repeal the Spatial Planning Act is: how does that then align with what is currently in the Act around the Water Services Entities Act? Because we do know it is the Government's intention to repeal that also but that hasn't happened. We don't know when that will happen and we don't know details about that. So in repealing the Spatial Planning Act that then puts local authorities in difficult positions when it comes to water services. We know what the intention is but we also know another provision will be put in place. We don't know the details yet and I don't intend to ask that today. I don't think that will be relevant. But what is relevant is what local councils do in the interim. We do know that local councils as a whole made it very clear that they were unable to do what was expected of them in their local areas under the old Resource Management Act situation. But by repealing this we go back to that. What is different however is that we have currently anyway a situation where councils are preparing for the establishment of water entities and in the case of Northland and Auckland that is very well advanced. So what happens to those councils in the interim when they are put back to the old planning structure whilst also being required for the time being to prepare for the establishment of water entities? We know that councils are in a dire financial situation. We recognise that they have indicated concern about how their financial situation could get more difficult if this is put back. In the context of water services I think it is important and relevant to get an understanding of the Minister's thinking.
Tuesday 12 December 2023 (continued on Thursday 14 December 2023) - Volume 772
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Land Transport (Clean Vehicle Discount Scheme Repeal) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.Ayes 67New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 54New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.Motion agreed to.Bill read a third time.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday 19 December 2023. Thank you everyone.The House adjourned at 6.22 p.m.
Land Transport (Clean Vehicle Discount Scheme Repeal) Amendment Bill — Third Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That clause 1 be agreed to.Ayes 67New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 54New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.Clause 1 agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the Hon Rachel Brooking's tabled amendment to clause 2 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 54New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.Noes 67New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Amendment not agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Tangi Utikere's tabled amendment to clause 2 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 54New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.Noes 67New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Amendment not agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That clause 2 be agreed to.Ayes 67New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 54New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.Clause 2 agreed to.Bill to be reported without amendmentHouse resumed.CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Madam Speaker the committee has considered the Land Transport (Clean Vehicle Discount Scheme Repeal) Amendment Bill and reports it without amendment. I move That the report be adopted.Motion agreed to.Report adopted.DEPUTY SPEAKER: This bill is set down for third reading immediately.
Land Transport (Clean Vehicle Discount Scheme Repeal) Amendment Bill — In Committee—Clauses 1 and 2 (continued)
Land Transport (Clean Vehicle Discount Scheme Repeal) Amendment Bill — In Committee—Part 2 (continued)
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That debate on this question now close.Ayes 67New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 54New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.Motion agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Camilla Belich's tabled amendment to insert new clause 22A be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 54New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.Noes 68New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Amendment not agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That Part 2 be agreed to.Ayes 67New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 54New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.Part 2 agreed to.
12. Question No. 12—TransportTANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North) to the Minister of TransportQuestion No. 12—Transport12. TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North) to the Minister of Transport: Does he stand by all his statements and actions?Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Transport): Yes and in particular actions to repeal Labour's inequitable and fiscally irresponsible ute tax by 31 December as part of our coalition Government's hundred-day plan. Can I thank the support from the ACT Party and the New Zealand First Party for this policy.Tangi Utikere: Supplementary. [Interruption]SPEAKER: Well he's trying to speak.Tangi Utikere: Does he stand by his statements on a regulatory impact statement for the Land Transport (Clean Vehicle Discount Scheme Repeal) Amendment Bill: I believe one has been drafted." and "I believe it would be published."; if so when will it be published?Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well as I said in answer to earlier questions there is a draft and it will be published.Tangi Utikere: Point of order. Mr Speaker the question was quite clear in terms of timing and I submit to you that—[Interruption]SPEAKER: Hang on excuse me—points of order will be heard in silence.Tangi Utikere: The question was quite clear in terms of timing and I submit to you that the member has failed to address the question.SPEAKER: Yes but it was the second leg of the question. Ministers must address one of the legs of a question.Tangi Utikere: Does he agree with Christopher Luxon: "I believe transparency is important openness is important." and "Talking straight to the New Zealand people about outcomes and the achievement of them or not [it's] how you get judged as a Government."; if so why is he refusing to release the regulatory impact statement before the final vote on the bill later today?Hon SIMEON BROWN: I always agree with the Prime Minister who is getting our country back on track.Tangi Utikere: Does he really think that telling journalists and members—[Interruption]SPEAKER: Sorry just a minute—start again. You've got to be quiet when people are asking questions.Tangi Utikere: Thank you Mr Speaker. Does he really think that telling journalists and members to just OIA a regulatory impact statement and continue to refuse to provide it to the Parliament meets National's coalition agreement that "decisions will be based on data and evidence"; if so how?Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well as I said in answer to earlier questions the document will be released."
11. Question No. 11—AgricultureSUZE REDMAYNE (National—Rangitīkei) to the Minister of AgricultureQuestion No. 11—Agriculture11. SUZE REDMAYNE (National—Rangitīkei) to the Minister of Agriculture: What reports has he seen on the export revenue forecasts for the primary sector?Hon TODD McCLAY (Minister of Agriculture): The Situation and Outlook for Primary Industries report released today shows a forecast dip in export revenue. Exports hit a high of $57.7 billion this year but are forecast to drop to $54.3 billion in the year to June 2024. It's been a tough few years for New Zealand's food and fibre businesses. However it's still a strong result against a backdrop of very challenging times. The Government will be working with the primary sector to ensure they are productive and remain world's best-practice food and fibre producers.Suze Redmayne: What else is this coalition Government doing to help farmers?Hon TODD McCLAY: We will be supporting our primary sector businesses through targeting a doubling of the value of exports over 10 years. We think we should measure ourselves more on how much we export and sell overseas by value not just by volume. Non-tariff barriers cost New Zealand agriculture around $8 billion each year. We're committed to working to resolve barriers that are preventing New Zealand's world-class primary industry sectors from doing business with the world. We understand that part of growing value is getting more return for what we already export and I'm delighted to work closely with the sector to see what else we should do to supercharge the support to businesses. We're determined to the break down barriers that are such a drag on their product productivity and growth.Suze Redmayne: What benefit can our primary sector expect to see from this work?Hon TODD McCLAY: The Government is going to champion the significant achievements the primary sector has made at home and abroad. The sector accounts are 81.9 percent of New Zealand's goods exports to the year June 2023. Food and fibre export revenue growth has exceeded the non-primary industries for seven of the last 10 years. Adding indirect effects we estimate that the food and fibre sector contributions to GDP increased by 16 percent. They're responsible for 13 percent of employment. When rural New Zealand does well all of New Zealand does well and when the rural economy is strong New Zealand's economy is strong. The coalition Government trusts farmers. We'll be working to get costs down; better rules not more regulations; supercharge the rural economy so farmers can be proud of what they do. We have stopped Labour's war against farmers.
8. Question No. 8—HealthHon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister of HealthQuestion No. 8—Health8. Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by his statement The dream I have for Māori is to lift pretty much every health metric we have to the level we have for non-Māori"; if so what actions if any will he take to achieve this?Hon MATT DOOCEY (Associate Minister of Health) on behalf of the Minister of Health: Yes and I stand by the rest of the quote where the Minister said "I think the hapū probably know what's best for their communities." Hūhana Lyndon: How will Māori health leadership be brought into the health sector when you intend to disestablish Te Aka Whai Ora?Hon MATT DOOCEY: On behalf of the Minister can I point the member to another quote "My dream is to devolve decision making and funding and give to mana motuhake as close to home and hapū as possible."Hūhana Lyndon: Why is the Minister proposing to repeal a structure that will enable Te Aka Whai Ora to take a local approach empowering hapū iwi and whānau through iwi-Māori partnership boards and localities?Hon MATT DOOCEY: On behalf of the Minister as outlined in the Speech from the Throne services will be delivered on need using a range of effective providers including iwi and community groups who have the best reach into the communities they serve. On this side of the House we believe communities know what's best for their people not Wellington.Hon Marama Davidson: If he agrees that iwi and Māori are best placed to ensure our health system works well for Māori at a central level as well as through local devolution then why not ensure this is resourced through Te Aka Whai Ora that was already established instead of creating a new model?Hon MATT DOOCEY: On behalf of the Minister if I can point that member to another quote from the story she's referenced: "The difference in philosophy on where we want to go and where the Māori Health Authority was going was why was all that funding held in Wellington with a Wellington-knows-best approach?"Hon Marama Davidson: Does he acknowledge that removing the smoke-free laws will mean more people will die from smoking while the only people who will benefit from this are landlords getting tax cuts?Hon MATT DOOCEY: On behalf of the Minister—have stated in the House before I have full confidence in Minister Costello and to reaffirm this Government is committed to reducing smoking rates and helping people give up smoking."
7. Question No. 7—HealthHon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour) to the Minister of HealthQuestion No. 7—Health7. Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour) to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by all his statements and actions?Hon MATT DOOCEY (Associate Minister of Health) on behalf of the Minister of Health: On behalf of the Minister yes. I particularly stand by my statement on the New Zealand Health Survey that the results underline just how badly an urgent change in direction for health is required".Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Is it correct that the New Zealand Health Survey shows that the smoking prevalence for Māori is still 17 percent and repealing amendments to the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Act will mean unacceptable levels of Māori cancers and Māori deaths and aren't those outcomes worth showing some moral courage for?Hon MATT DOOCEY: On behalf of the Minister this has been delegated to Minister Costello. What the Minister has said is that this Government is committed to reducing smoking rates. This Government is committed to reducing smoking rates and helping people quit smoking.Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Does he stand by his answer last week that the target of 5 percent smoking prevalence was unlikely to be achieved even with that Government's proposed policies or does he agree with Dr Shane Reti MP's statement that the denicotinisation proposal "by itself almost gets us to the smoke-free target that we're looking for."?Hon MATT DOOCEY: On behalf of the Minister as I've said to the House before this has been delegated to Minister Costello.Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Can he confirm that following this flip-flop the Government's health policy amounts to nothing but scrapping the free prescriptions initiative in order to fund cancer medicines while allowing more cancer-causing tobacco to fund millionaire's tax cuts?Hon MATT DOOCEY: On behalf of the Minister this Government is committed to improving health outcomes for all New Zealanders including Māori. Particular areas of need we're targeting are shorter stays in emergency departments faster cancer treatment improved immunisation shorter wait times for first specialist assessment and shorter wait times for surgery. I find it interesting with that member who was part of a Government that took a wrecking ball to our health system in the middle of a pandemic.Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: What does he say to the thousands of people who marched the 47000 who signed a petition and the 67 percent of voters who want our smoke-free laws to stay and why won't he front up to them?Hon MATT DOOCEY: On behalf of the Minister this Government is committed to reducing smoking rates and helping people quit smoking.SPEAKER: Listen we're going to have to make a bigger effort when questions are being asked. With all due respect to Dr Verrall when she was asking her questions a lot of the commentary was still coming from both sides of the House. Even though you're quick out of the blocks you've still got to show that respect."
2. Question No. 2—FinanceSTUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura) to the Minister of FinanceQuestion No. 2—Finance2. STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura) to the Minister of Finance: What reports has she received on the state of the New Zealand economy?Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): New Zealand is experiencing difficult economic conditions. Statistics New Zealand confirmed today that GDP declined in the third quarter of this year a third decline in just the last year. It's also been confirmed that New Zealand did experience a recession at the end of the last year and the beginning of this year. I've also seen reports from the member for Remutaka who claimed last week that we inherited an economy that is growing faster than many economists had predicted" and that the economy was "never in recession" but I have seen no evidence to confirm those reports.Stuart Smith: What reports has she seen on the outlook from here?Hon NICOLA WILLIS: After six years of economic mismanagement turning the New Zealand economy around won't be achieved overnight. Our Government has inherited big fiscal deficits a large current account deficit an economy in decline and a labour market on the skids. Rebuilding the economy will be a massive task which is why we are moving fast and getting quick wins as part of our 100-day plan.Stuart Smith: What reports has she seen on GDP per capita?Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Today's GDP per capita figures show on a per person basis the New Zealand economy has gone nowhere since the start of 2021 and has gone backwards four quarters in a row. The last time GDP per capita continued to slide for at least that long was during the global financial crisis. Kiwis knew they were going backwards under Labour. Today's data is just a confirmation of the challenge they face.Stuart Smith: What steps is the Government taking to turn economic conditions around?Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The Government is taking urgent steps to rebuild the economy in the interests of all New Zealanders. We're supporting the Reserve Bank in their fight to beat inflation because after years of rampant spending this Government understands that monetary policy needs mates. We're eliminating wasteful spending ensuring taxpayers' money is spent well and we're clearing out the blockages in the economy and reducing costs on business so we can chart a course back to growth investment and opportunity."
VoteCHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Tangi Utikere's tabled amendment to insert a new clause 8A be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 54New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.Noes 67New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Amendment not agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The Hon Damien O'Connor's tabled amendment to insert a new clause 16A is out of order as not being in the proper form of legislation. The Hon Julie Anne Genter's tabled amendment to section 175 of the Land Transport Act 1998 is out of order as being out of scope of the bill. The question is that Part 1 stand part.A party vote was called for on the question That Part 1 be agreed to.Ayes 67New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 54New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.Part 1 agreed to.
Land Transport (Clean Vehicle Discount Scheme Repeal) Amendment Bill — In Committee—Part 1
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That debate on this question now close.Ayes 67New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 54New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.Motion agreed to.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Land Transport (Clean Vehicle Discount Scheme Repeal) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.Ayes 67New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 54New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.Motion agreed to.Bill read a second time.The result corrected after originally being announced Ayes 70 Noes 51.DEPUTY SPEAKER: This bill is set down for committee stage immediately. I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Land Transport (Clean Vehicle Discount Scheme Repeal) Amendment Bill.
Land Transport (Clean Vehicle Discount Scheme Repeal) Amendment Bill — Second Reading (continued)
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Land Transport (Clean Vehicle Discount Scheme Repeal) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.Ayes 67New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 54New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.Motion agreed to.Bill read a first time.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): This bill is set down for second reading immediately.
Land Transport (Clean Vehicle Discount Scheme Repeal) Amendment Bill — First Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Fair Pay Agreements Act Repeal Bill be now read a third time.Ayes 67New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 54New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.Motion agreed to.Bill read a third time.
Rutherford TomTOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): Today is a good day. The Land Transport (Clean Vehicle Discount Scheme Repeal) Amendment Bill will get rid of the fiscally irresponsible and blatantly unfair Clean Car Discount scheme also known as the ute tax". This ute tax and Clean Car Discount is a reverse Robin Hood scheme which is taxing hard-working Kiwis for the vehicles they need to subsidise other people to buy new cars.To our hard-working famers and tradies: you have done it tough for the last six years. Under the previous Government you were public enemy number one. Well under this Government we back you. You are the backbone of our country and we are here to work for you and support you. I'm proud to commend this bill to the House."
Tana DarleenDARLEEN TANA (Green): Madam Speaker colleagues in the Whare I would like to just start by acknowledging the honourable members who gave their maiden speech today in the Whare. It was really moving. One of the things that stood out for me in the kōrero was the need to listen to each other. I'll confess being a newbie MP in this space I've been a little surprised I suppose at the behaviour for what passes for rigorous debate. I would just like to echo the words of a new member spoken earlier this afternoon about the need to just listen to what is being said.We are in a climate crisis. Irrespective of you know what's going to go down today with respect to this bill 2 megatonnes of carbon dioxide were saved thanks to this policy. This Government had an opportunity to achieve a net marginal abatement cost and frankly I find that stunning coming from that side of the Whare which purports to know something about business. Earlier in the day during the second reading I suggested that we read the user manual on how to navigate the Clean Car Discount fee rebate system. We've missed a beat by getting us this far. I'm very interested to hear what the regulatory impact statement when it is finally finalised has to say about the fiscal neutrality of this policy. We see many overseas examples where the mechanism has been in place for more than 20 years and they have achieved fiscal neutrality.I want to celebrate a little bit on behalf of New Zealanders who thanks to the Clean Car Discount and Clean Car Standard have a greater choice thanks to applying those mechanisms at the supply side so that the vehicle importers could bring a wider choice of electric vehicles into the country and at a faster rate.Carl Bates: There's nothing stopping them.DARLEEN TANA: There is nothing stopping them you're right but the thing is it was too early to pull the plug. As I say I'm looking forward to hearing what the regulatory impact statement has to say about that.I'm going to close. We do not commend this bill at all but I would like to thank you all for listening to my kōrero this afternoon. Tēnā tātou.
Patterson MarkHon MARK PATTERSON (Minister for Rural Communities): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to support this bill through the third reading. I have made in the first two—what are they called these days? I haven't been here for—the first two readings thank you. It was a late night last night. In the first two readings I've articulated my case so I won't. But one thing I will do—as the new Minister for Rural Communities I want to take issue with Julie Anne Genter. She talked about this taking options away. It's taking no options away for urban people. They can still buy their Teslas. This is a deeply regressive tax for rural communities. It is a direct transfer of money from rural to urban particularly utes. They're not lifestyle choices as the member over there tried to articulate before. They carry tools they carry stock feed they carry the dogs they carry injured stock at times and those utes don't have viable alternatives. They don't live near a cycle lane.I went out on my first visit as Minister to Tairāwhiti last week. I went out to the Bruce Road about an hour out of Gisborne. There were four families out there all represented all waiting on the other side of a river. Their bridge had been washed away. The culvert bridge that was put up as a replacement that they had to wait six months for had been washed away as well in an ensuing rainfall event. I'd like any of the members opposite to go and visit those families who were really deeply distressed who had to handle infrastructure that was absolutely devastated by yes a weather event and yes impacted by climate change. They don't have the option. They have to get to town. They have to get to work. They have to get supplies in. They have to get stock out and get their kids to school and get them home.So those are the sort of people that you're not thinking about when you're having your intellectual arguments about whether urban people have choices. If they want to have the choice of buying a Tesla they can buy one but don't punish those that need a ute. Thank you very much Mr Speaker.
Stephenson ToddTODD STEPHENSON (ACT): Thank you Madam Speaker. I want to thank the Minister for bringing this bill to the House and honouring the coalition agreement between ACT and National. ACT campaigned strongly on the repeal of this law. It disproportionately affects some of the constituents we are most keen to represent particularly the rural community who this ute tax unfairly affected.What I've just heard is—I mean this has been an incoherent policy as we've heard throughout the day. It's unsustainable and it actually doesn't make sense. What this Government is doing is actually restoring a sensible coherent climate change policy that will actually work. So I want to say ACT is very proud to be a part of the Government and to get this law repealed and I want to say it's actually a demonstration of where we identified bad public policy and we're addressing it and actually putting correct public policy in place to address the serious issues that have faced New Zealand. I commend this bill to the House.
Brown SimeonLAND TRANSPORT (CLEAN VEHICLE DISCOUNT SCHEME REPEAL) AMENDMENT BILLThird ReadingHon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Transport): I move That the Land Transport (Clean Vehicle Discount Scheme Repeal) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. This bill which repeals Labour's regressive ute tax—inequitable ute tax—scheme is now before Parliament ready to be passed into law to end the ute tax on 31 December 2023. A happy New Year to our farmers and tradies who have been punished by the former Government. This Government was elected with all three parties—National ACT and New Zealand First—committing to the repeal of the ute tax as part of our coalition agreement and this bill gives effect to that as part of our 100-day plan. I want to acknowledge the ACT Party for their coalition agreement on this and the support of New Zealand First as well on this particular piece of legislation.As I've said in my other reading speeches on this particular piece of legislation the policy which was put in place by the prior Government was fiscally irresponsible—a $300 million deficit left behind by the previous Government. It was inequitable by taking money from people who have very little or no choice as to what type of vehicle they can use and giving money to people who can already afford to buy electric vehicles. That policy is something that this side of the House does not support. It also would constantly require changes that impact the car industry and car market significantly creating uncertainty in the market which is unnecessary.The National Party the ACT Party and the New Zealand First Party are proud to stand here repealing that piece of legislation. We know that there will continue to be an increased uptake of electric vehicles as more and more car manufacturers produce more and more electric vehicles and bring them into New Zealand and we will continue to invest in the electric vehicle charging infrastructure to support this uptake over time. I commend the bill to the House.
Utikere Tangi; Kuriger BarbaraSITTINGS OF THE HOUSETANGI UTIKERE (Chief Whip—Labour): I seek leave for the House to rise when debate on the third reading is concluded rather than at 6 p.m.DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave has been requested. Is there acceptance for that leave? Are there any objections? There appears to be none.
Pugh MaureenLAND TRANSPORT (CLEAN VEHICLE DISCOUNT SCHEME REPEAL) AMENDMENT BILLIn CommitteeDebate resumed.Clauses 1 and 2 (continued)CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Members when the committee suspended on the Land Transport (Clean Vehicle Discount Scheme Repeal) Amendment Bill we were debating clauses 1 and 2. This is the debate on clauses 1 and 2 the title and commencement clauses.Tangi Utikere's tabled amendment to clause 1 is out of order as not being an objective description of the bill.
Kuriger BarbaraCHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Mr Speaker the committee has considered the Land Transport (Clean Vehicle Discount Scheme Repeal) Amendment Bill and reports progress. I move That the report be adopted.Motion agreed to.Report adopted.
Land Transport (Clean Vehicle Discount Scheme Repeal) Amendment Bill — In Committee—Clauses 1 and 2
Kuriger Barbara; Brown SimeonClauses 1 and 2CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members we now come to our final debate clauses 1 and 2 Title" and "Commencement".Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Transport): Thank you Madam Chair. This is the final part of the debate. There are two simple clauses that we are debating here: the title and the commencement. The title is: "This Act is the Land Transport (Clean Vehicle Discount Scheme Repeal) Amendment Act 2023." I note there are a number of proposals on the Table—the Government won't be supporting any of them.The commencement is: "[The] Act comes into force on 1 January 2024." This has been long signalled. This was what the Government campaigned on. This was what people have had clearly signalled and we will not be extending that at all. I see there's a range of other amendments on the Table but we campaigned on this policy; we are now delivering on this policy."
Brooking RachelHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you Madam Chair; I was being vigorous based on your previous advice. This will be a short contribution and I note that these new MPs across from us are very full of themselves. It's interesting that they are not embarrassed that the Prime Minister said in question time that he was all for—what was it?—proper process". And here we are in urgency in an all-stages debate and yet the Government benches are so loud and not embarrassed and I would hope that people like James Meager would be embarrassed by this process. [Interruption] Here we go—I was planning on making a very short contribution but apparently I'm to talk about the last six years and my contribution since I've been here which is interesting.I did very much enjoy being an Associate Minister for the Environment and of course doing our great legislation to do a whole lot better for mitigating climate emissions Madam Chair which of course you know about having served on the Environment Committee. That was important work that we have done and I very much hope that it will not be undone.I will of course refer more about that in the third reading when we're talking about the whole bill but here I was just going to remark on a remark of the Minister mere minutes ago when he was discussing an answer to Tangi Utikere's question about the timing of when the scheme ends. He said—if I heard correctly—that it will be at midnight on 31 December 2023. I'm interested in why he's saying it's at midnight on 31 December 2023 because of course the Schedules refer to the close of 31 December 2023 and if the close is to mean midnight I think it should say midnight. But if we can have the Minister on record on the Hansard saying that it should indeed be midnight and to clarify the point that it wasn't an offhand response that would be a very useful thing for the member to do. Thank you."
Genter Julie AnneHon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai): Thank you very much Madam Chair. I do have a question for the Minister about the vehicle emissions and energy economy label in Schedule 3 now that we have the larger version of it and thanks to the officials for getting that or whoever it is that provided that.I was just wondering if there is the ability for this label to be updated in line with changing costs. So for example the energy economy if you look under the energy economy side next to the star label it says its cost per year is an estimate based on a petrol price of $2.50 per litre an electricity price of 15c per kilowatt hour and an average driving distance of 14000 kilometres. I'm just wondering if the Minister can tell us if there's provision for the information that's used to calculate the estimated cost to change based on rising petrol prices because petrol prices have been over $2.50 a litre I think for quite a while and they stay above $2.50. Obviously the higher the petrol price the more cost savings from an energy efficient vehicle like an electric vehicle or a low-emissions vehicle.So if anything this label if it's using $2.50 per litre as the estimate is underestimating the cost savings of an energy-efficient vehicle. Or it's underestimating the cost of an energy inefficient or gas-guzzler vehicle and I think that's really important. I just want to make sure given that it's in the Schedule is this word for word in the Schedule or is there a provision for the wording around this to change to reflect changing petrol prices which I think would be quite important to give accurate information to consumers?Now maybe this is just an example and it is possible to make those changes but I guess I'm just seeking guidance as to whether the actual specific wording in here and the numbers that are used to calculate the cost estimate are limited to what's in the Schedule or whether that is something that can change. And if it does change how often is the cost of petrol updated in these energy labels? Could the Minister tell us that?