edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
9. Question No. 9—FinanceDAMIEN SMITH (ACT) to the Minister of FinanceQuestion No. 9—Finance9. DAMIEN SMITH (ACT) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement that GST is a comprehensive tax which makes it very easy to administer and people in the room who've been in other countries with more exemptions will know it becomes an absolute [boondiggle] to get through" and does he support expanding exemptions to GST in New Zealand? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I do stand by that statement in the context it was made and with the word "boondoggle". In answer to the second part of the question—Erica Stanford: "To-ma-to" "to-mate-oes". Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: —the Government's tax policy—well that's the thing isn't it? The Government's tax policy for this term has been set out clearly and we're not making any changes of that sort. Damien Smith: Does the Minister agree with the findings of the GST background paper produced by the Tax Working Group in 2018 that exempting items such as food and drink is purely targeted towards achieving distributional goals and has a disproportionately large revenue impact and does he support expanding exemptions to GST in New Zealand? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As I just said in my answer to the primary question the Government's tax policy for this term has been set out clearly and we are not making any changes of that sort. Damien Smith: Would the Minister agree that a boondoggle is a project that is considered a waste of both time and money yet it is often continued due to extraneous political motivations and does the Minister agree that providing tax exemptions on goods sold by supermarkets whilst simultaneously seeking to address the high excess profits of those supermarkets would be counterintuitive? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: In answer to the first part of the question I've already mentioned a couple of projects that have been called boondoggles that have been successful. Another one for the member's edification was the attempt to land people on the moon which was called a "moondoggle" and it actually turned out all right in the end. Damien Smith: Does the Minister acknowledge the various court cases which have occurred in countries which do have different rates of GST on different food items—including whether smoothies should be counted as liquefied fruit salads and if juice cleanses can be considered meal replacements in the UK—and does he think that determining which tax rate applies to individual food items would be a good use of funds in New Zealand? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As I've said twice now and in my primary answer the Government's tax policy for this term has been set out clearly and we are not making any changes of that sort."
6. Question No. 6—FinanceNICOLA WILLIS (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of FinanceQuestion No. 6—Finance6. NICOLA WILLIS (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by all of his statements and actions on tax policy?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Yes in the context that they were made and undertaken.Nicola Willis: Does he stand by his statement made earlier this year that taking GST off food would mostly benefit supermarkets?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I stand by the statements I made in the context in which they were made.Nicola Willis: Does he stand by his statement in relation to exempting food from GST: other countries with more exemptions will know it becomes an absolute boondoggle to get through." and what exactly did he mean by "boondoggle"?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I'm very pleased that the word "boondoggle" is getting a run in Parliament—one of my favourite phrases. I do obviously stand—as I said—by the statements in the context in which they were made. I'd also note for the member there are a few things that have been called boondoggles over the years that turned out all right. The Sydney Opera House was one of those and the Hubble Space Telescope.Nicola Willis: Was he correct when he identified definitional concerns about the removal of GST from fresh fruit or vegetables: "you get into an argument about what's the difference between beetroot and canned beetroot and if you want to make a real impact on the lowest income people you wouldn't cut the tax off fresh beetroot"?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Again as a former fruit and vege worker in a supermarket discussion about beetroot is one that I am particularly pleased to have here. My father used to put beetroot on scones which is not something I would support New Zealanders doing. I stand by the answers I have already given.Nicola Willis: Was former revenue Minister David Parker correct to agree—in a report from 2013—that removing GST from fruit and vegetables would have "opened exploitable and confusing loopholes and dirtied an otherwise clean tax"?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: In this House I am responsible for my own statements. I stand by the statements I have made in the context that they have been made. What I do think is incredibly important about taxation policy is that you show how you can pay for it. If you can't show how you can pay for it as the member can't that means cuts to public services. That's what is important in tax policy and we do not have a funded tax policy from the National Party.Nicola Willis: Would he support a tax policy to remove GST from fruit and vegetables?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As I've said many times in this House the Government has completed its tax work programme."
1. Question No. 1—FinanceHon JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister of FinanceORAL QUESTIONSQUESTIONS TO MINISTERSQuestion No. 1—Finance1. Hon JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister of Finance: What unused revenue tools if any are available to the Government that would both increase allowances and enable better investment in public services?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Kia orana Mr Speaker. The answer to that hypothetical question is limited only by the member's imagination. However I would note that the implementation of any such tool is limited by what is practical and affordable.Hon James Shaw: What is the effective tax rate paid by the wealthiest 1 percent of New Zealanders?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: If I recall the Inland Revenue research that was released earlier this year it's about 8.9 percent. Hon James Shaw: And what is the effective tax rate paid by the average New Zealander?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I am enjoying quiz time. I believe it might be around about 20 percent.Hon James Shaw: And does he agree with the Prime Minister: We don't have a great money tree in the backyard that means that we can continue to indefinitely increase Government spending we have to pay for everything somehow." and if so how much revenue did Treasury predict could be raised with a tax of 1.5 percent on net assets over $5 million?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: In answer to the first part of the question despite extensive searching no such money tree has been found although looking at the transport policy produced by the National Party in the last few days they appear to have found some magic money to the tune of about $10 billion.Hon James Shaw: How much revenue did Treasury predict could be raised with a wealth tax of 1.5 percent on net assets over $5 million?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Again if I recall correctly—and enjoying the quiz that we're going through at the moment—not including the family home I believe about $3.4 billion.Hon James Shaw: And what would the cost be of lifting the 45000 children who are still currently below the material hardship line above that line excluding household costs?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well I don't have that information with me. I'm very proud of the record that the Government has in terms of lifting children out of poverty—77000 children using the after - housing costs measure. There is always more to do when it comes to supporting our children to thrive. What we could not do and could not afford is tax cuts that aren't funded and would lead to cuts in the services that those children need."
Walters VanushiVANUSHI WALTERS (Labour—Upper Harbour): Thank you Madam Speaker for the opportunity to take a call on the Land Transport (Road Safety) Amendment Bill a bill that has passed through the very hard-working Justice Committee who will be meeting during our lunch break today—a reminder for colleagues around the room.This is a bill that is designed to improve the legislative response to fleeing drivers and to address the public safety issues within the land transport system. I am still a little bit unsure whether the National Party are supporting or opposing the bill. I understood from that speech that they were supporting the first part but not the second. So I'm sure other members will confirm their position for us. I am a bit disappointed in that though because the significance of point to point cameras is that they can evidence fleeing drivers as well. So there is a connection between the first and the second part that Mr Goldsmith was speaking to. And we did traverse this within the select committee as well.Can I thank committee members for engaging on this bill but also our advisers. This was a fascinating bill to work on because we did have four sets of advisers with us: Waka Kotahi the Police the Ministry of Transport and the Ministry of Justice who came back to us on several occasions with additional advice. We also had 33 submissions and eight submitters who also really did help us make some proposed changes to this bill some of which the Minister has traversed. They include things that are really practical like changing the commencement date to allow for some public education but also policies and procedures to be developed to allow Waka Kotahi to make arrangements to collect the fees or the payment of fees from the registered person because Waka Kotahi would be in the first instance responsible for them.I think one of the really useful points that submitters made was in the area of financial service providers. So where there's debt registered against a car that might have been confiscated. And the points that they made resulted in us proposing an insertion in clause 13 of new section 97A which meant that we'd be clear that those financial service providers would not be liable for fees associated with impounding the car but also inserting a provision which means that if the financial service provider became the registered owner then the vehicle would automatically be released.I know my colleagues from the ACT Party have a differing view and I do understand their concerns in terms of the rights of people who may not themselves be connected with the actual offending of fleeing. But I do believe that there are sufficient protections within the bill to ensure that there's a good rights balancing exercise that's taken place including amendments to section 102 of the Land Transport Act which means that those owners can make an appeal in relation to the release of the vehicles.So I do believe that we have had a really robust process. I thank the Members again and I commend the bill to the House.
Halbert ShananSHANAN HALBERT (Labour—Northcote): Thank you Madam Speaker. I'll make a short contribution to wrap up this debate on the Education and Training Amendment Bill (No 3). Firstly can I acknowledge my colleagues that are with us today from the wānanga and particularly my former colleagues from Te Wānanga o Aotearoa. I remember very fondly the stories shared with me by Rongo Wetere and Aunty Ma in her time who talked about the start of Te Wānanga o Aotearoa as the Waipā Kōkiri Arts Centre that established itself in a garage in Te Awamutu. The story started there to be now the third-largest tertiary organisation in the country.What this bill does is it establishes a governance framework for our wānanga. That is an important part that they are recognised as a Crown entity that they are funded appropriately of course or the framework enables them to be recognised from a lens of tino rangatiratanga from a lens of mana and the contribution that not only that they make to the tauira the students that they teach but also the greater economic and social contributions that they make to some of our most vulnerable communities as well as the contribution that they make to te reo me ōna tikanga in this country of Aotearoa New Zealand.Secondly I just want to push back on some of the narrative that's come back from Opposition in regards to better representative boards in our schools. The point is absolutely we can have representation and skill sets too. Just because we are elevating more representative groups in this instance for our kids that are LGBTI+ from our rainbow community that they are more included in their school that they are feeling safer. That doesn't mean that we compromise the skill set at a governance level.One of the Opposition members made a suggestion that our Government's not focused on learning outcomes—we're focused on boards today. Well actually leadership does start from the top. If you've got a good representative quality board of trustees in place then absolutely the school will run better and achievement will be attained also.I also want to acknowledge that in that representation when I go back to the point about representation and skill—look what we've done for women. As we've increased the number of wāhine representatives across governance groups that doesn't mean we've compromised on skill. It means actually we've achieved a better outcome for all people involved. When it comes to representation in our schools that is particularly our children and young people and their achievements.So I'll conclude my speech there. This is a wonderful piece of legislation that amends some critical issues in our education sector. Long may it continue because as we continue to build an education sector that is representative of everybody in this instance whether it be wānanga Māori or whether it be our LGBTIQ+ community it's a very very good thing that raises achievement outcome and benefits for all involved.
Rosewarne DanDAN ROSEWARNE (Labour): This bill will make a range of small but very comprehensive changes to the Education and Training Act 2020 to improve our education sector. It's been great to hear the contributions from other members on this side of the House particularly those who have worked in the coalface and know how much of a difference this bill will make.The first change that this bill makes is that it will establish a robust governance framework for wānanga. The wānanga are tertiary institutions that assist in the application of knowledge regarding Māori tradition and tikanga Māori. They have a unique role to play in our tertiary education system and this bill acknowledges that and will establish a framework to support them in the transmission of Māori knowledge which is very important for our rangatahi. It is also important to recognise these institutions and to allow Māori education to develop and thrive and it's imperative that their mana and rangatiratanga are recognised and respected.This bill enables existing wānanga to either reconstitute themselves as a Crown entity wānanga or convert to a non-Crown entity wānanga—and the former to have a bespoke purpose function and governance arrangement. While the latter will primarily be accountable to iwi hapū and other Māori organisations they will retain some accountability to the Crown. The Education and Workforce Committee has made multiple important additions to this framework and it now specifies the financial reporting requirements and better defines the responsibilities of each stakeholder in this new framework. So it's an important bill and I commend it to the House.
Sosene Lemauga LydiaLEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE (Labour): Kia orana Madam Speaker and thank you for the opportunity to make a contribution to this debate with regards to the Education and Training Amendment Bill (No 3). May I please take the time firstly to thank the members of the Education and Workforce Committee and also the submitters and also the officials. The submitters came and provided to the committee many many views on this bill. I also want to acknowledge iwi and hapū who also came along and provided their views whether written or oral.This is a second reading of the Education and Training Amendment Bill (No 3) which contains new policies and minor technical amendments in the existing provisions. The bill establishes a governance framework for wānanga and also an eligibility criteria on school boards and also election processes. We heard wānanga who came to the select committee and we listened to their kōrero and we listened also to their mana and their wairua when they presented to the select committee. As a select commission member I was very grateful to hear their kōrero and pātai.I have heard other members across the House mention that the terms of wānanga A" and "wānanga B" and I disagree with the point that the member on the other side has made: that the select committee were limiting wānanga. Actually it was the opposite. It was to hear the kōrero see the wairua and really feel it—that they have a strong strong wairua to include those values in this kaupapa.I move now to the school board ineligibility criteria. That is listed in terms of if you have committed or you are convicted under Schedule 2 of the Children's Act 2014 you are ineligible to become a member unless you have a special pass.For the last two decades I served school committees and school boards. The chair of that committee and the chair of that school board worked very hard with the members. Even though there were Ministry of Education guidelines and specific rules I know that the members that I worked with on those school committees and the school board—it was in their strong interest to keep our tamariki safe. This bill does that. This bill enhances what the current rules are and strengthens the school board election processes.Just to finish one of the school boards that I served on—it was very important to hear rangatahi voices. We did not have that lever at the time. If we're going to talk about rangatahi if we're going to talk about our young people we need to have them at the table. This bill will enhance that. I commend this bill to the House."
Roberts Angela; Dean JacquiANGELA ROBERTS (Labour): Thank you Madam Speaker. It is a pleasure to rise as a member of the Education and Workforce Committee that considered the Education and Training Amendment Bill (No 3). I just want to reflect a little bit about the select committee process. For me I think what was really unique was the collaboration the care and consideration that meant that especially when it came to the part of the bill about the new governance framework for wānanga it was something that we were confident was what was needed. Te ao Māori it's not my world and I know a little bit about what I don't know. So I'm very grateful for the very clear guidance and the collaboration that brought the bill to where it was and helped us to navigate those two really tricky issues which I really appreciate being brought to the House today from the other side about the term the name the concept to use clunky English words about wānanga and those placeholder terms.I think we we've got clear guidance that that is the work that needs to go into that. The consideration and care that must go into that work that unfinished business needs to continue and not be truncated and that was the whole point. Let's do this that has been asked of us by wānanga so they can get on with doing the amazing things that they do enable them and at the same time enable the very important mahi that has to happen around that consideration. Actually from this process will grow wonderful things because that conversation for those of us who don't innately know what wānanga means is given so much by being able to participate and hear and learn. So it is because of that that I'm grateful for the process that we've been through so far and I commend this bill to the House.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The Hon Michael Woodhouse—a five-minute call.
Omer IbrahimIBRAHIM OMER (Labour): Thank you Madam Speaker. I rise to speak on the Education and Training Amendment Bill (No 3). As the Minister of Education said this bill makes a number of amendments in education. It contains policies and minor and technical amendments to existing provisions in the Education and Training Act 2020. These changes progress the education work programme and contribute to the continuous improvement of education.The bill focuses on three main things: establishing a governance framework for wānaga changes to school board ineligibility criteria and changes to school board election processes. As the Minister stated we heard from a range of submitters: 1124 in total 55 oral submitters. I had the privilege of chairing the Education and Workforce Committee meetings while our capable chair was away and I was in charge of the meeting while submitters expressed their strong views—some strongly in favour of the bill and some obviously in opposition to some parts of the bill—but one thing is that the leaders of wānanga submitted to us and they clearly and loudly recommended that the bill passes. As a Government our job is to hear from people and that we are acting on recommendations that they strongly make. Now when I hear speakers on the other side of the House saying that we are not listening to people and leaders of wānanga it kind of confuses me. But I'd like to make a point that we appreciate very conflicting views—people who strongly opposed some parts of the bill and vice versa—but the point is this bill is going to amend the education system itself. It's a part of the continuous work that's being done by the Minister to improve our education system.I'd like to commend the committee for their hard work. We didn't agree on things but nonetheless we had respectful discussions around the table and I'd like to thank people that who took the time to submit to our committee. As a result of the submissions the committee made a range of recommendations and amendments. As a result the bill came out at the rest of the day looking better than it was at the beginning of our deliberations. Finally it's a good bill. I commend it to the House.
Rosewarne DanDAN ROSEWARNE (Labour): Kia ora. Thank you Madam Speaker. It's my pleasure to speak on the Water Services Entities Amendment Bill. I just want to thank the Hon Kieran McAnulty for bringing this important bill before the House. I also want to thank my colleagues on the select committee for their work on the bill.This bill continues on the work done by this Labour Government to improve the water infrastructure across New Zealand for the long term. Decades of patchy management and underfunding has left our water infrastructure in a situation that's not delivering the best outcomes for our communities. This bill represents a concrete plan to improve the standard of our water infrastructure and allow New Zealanders access to efficient and functioning water for the coming decades.Last year a million New Zealanders received tap water that did not meet minimum drinking water standards. In 2020 40000 Kiwis had to boil their tap water. This subpar quality of our water infrastructure represents a real danger to all New Zealanders and it is a burden on the health of many and represents a big inequality between those with access to clean tap water and those who do not. On this side of the House we believe that this situation is unacceptable and we see it as our responsibility to ensure that all Kiwis have access to clean safe drinking water.However funding for all of this work represents a huge investment. Local councils will need to find up to $185 billion over the next 30 years to finance all the work that's needed to bring our infrastructure up to that acceptable level. That will need—you know we'll need to finance that replacement—hundreds of kilometres of pipes across the country; that's what's needed to upgrade the drinking water and waste-water treatment plants and to prevent waste water overflows. We've seen a lot of that across flood-affected regions across the North Island.As things stand now this cost falls on local councils. Clearly they are unable to bear this burden. Many councils cannot borrow enough money and they are also not in a position to increase rates in their districts. So if we don't do anything councils will be stuck spending more money to take care of their water infrastructure that is only getting worse.This is an important bill. It's taking bold and decisive leadership. I commend it to the House.
Pallett SarahSARAH PALLETT (Labour—Ilam): Thank you so much Madam Speaker. Golly that was an interesting speech. That was completely divorced from any form of reality.It gives me great pleasure to stand in support of the Water Services Entities Amendment Bill. I didn't have the privilege of sitting on the Governance and Administration Committee but I commend them—I nearly accidentally said condemn"; I do mean commend. I commend them for their diligent work. Look this bill is yet another bill that has been subject to significant mis- and disinformation and I'm not going to be pointing any fingers here.So what I thought would be helpful would be if I just have a little revisit of what this bill actually does do.Angie Warren-Clark: Some facts would be great.SARAH PALLETT: This bill—facts thank you. Facts: it creates 10 dedicated water services entities and the reason why this amendment is being made to the Water Services Entities Act to replace four water services entities with 10 is basically because we listened. We listened to communities and what moving from four to 10 water services entities allows for is greater community ownership of water entities. This bill also guarantees that every district is represented on a regional representative group. That voice is critically important: it establishes community priority statements that can be submitted to a regional representative group and staggers establishment dates through to 2026.Quite frankly Madam Speaker you'd have to be living under a rock not to understand that these are critically needed reforms and you would have to—I beg your pardon Madam Speaker; not you. One would have to be financially illiterate to think that councils could afford the $185 billion that was absolutely critically important—Angie Warren-Clark: How much?SARAH PALLETT: —$185 billion Ms Warren-Clark; absolutely unaffordable. The bottom lines on this bill: public ownership of water services entities will continue. Balance sheet separation which provides for operational and financial independence is absolutely critical to allow the entities to make investments—although I have to say that the phrase "balance sheet separation" is one that I have to make really slowly; it's quite a tricky one quite a tricky phrase quite an important concept—joint oversight of the entities and strong regulation of the entities to ensure fair prices for consumers and quality of service. All entities will be publicly owned and regionally led and everybody will be financially better off. Speaking to Canterbury - West Coast entity Christchurch city ratepayers will be better off by $2860 but the Grey District Council residents $18760 would have to be found under National's non-plan uncosted as per every single policy that they have put forward it is simply unaffordable. For that reason I am delighted to commend this bill to the House."
Sosene Lemauga LydiaLEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE (Labour): Well Thank you Mr Speaker. It's been interesting listening to the member who has just resumed his seat Chris Bishop making a number of statements with regards to this bill—and Mr Speaker I thank you for the opportunity. Kia orana.Mr Speaker I support the second reading of this bill. The Government as you heard the Minister this morning talks about the reforms of the water services entity because it is a better bill. Although the member previous to me had made a number of statements regarding our Ministers of Government I can tell you now that coming from South Auckland and visiting the Māngere waste-water plant the infrastructure reforms are really really important particularly for iwi and hapū and for communities who need the support of Government in terms of water infrastructure. Water is a taonga to iwi and hapū and New Zealanders. It is really important that that side gets what this bill is talking about.I want to highlight that this bill creates dedicated water service entities and it will have regional representation. Although we've heard other speakers from across the House speak about why regional representation is important I can tell you now Mr Speaker that as a local elected council member we saw quite intimately why infrastructure reform is required: so that the Government can support—because councils can't afford it they really can't. We worked as elected council representatives going around having a view of the waste-water plants in South Auckland and the requirements. So this bill helps creates that infrastructure.I want to commend the select committee; I am not a member. I also thank the submitters who gave varying views on this bill.National left us with no credibility in terms of water infrastructure. The status quo was unsustainable. Councils and CEOs needed to raise enough money to invest in water infrastructure; it is a requirement. People need clean water.What I want to highlight is that local councils just cannot afford it. This bill as you've heard our Minister of Local Government Minister McAnulty went around the motu and had a kōrero with many communities. The bill fits into our larger plan and it will invest its estimation of billions of dollars over the next 30 years because without these changes Kiwis across the motu would see unaffordable increases to their rates for the investment that is needed.Whilst I've heard that the Minister went around and heard from communities and then I also heard that the words in the legislation may" or "can" I can tell you now that the Government has been listening and is serious about investing in water infrastructure because that clean water needs to get to our communities wherever they are—urban or rural across the motu.So Mr Speaker I thank you for the opportunity to make a contribution. I commend the bill to the House."
Prime Willow-JeanAMENDED ANSWERS TO ORAL QUESTIONSQuestion No. 3 to MinisterHon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Associate Minister of Health): Point of order. I seek leave to make a personal explanation to correct an answer to an oral question.SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: I would like to correct an answer I gave in relation to oral question No. 3 supplementary No. 3 yesterday. While I was speaking about the Best Start Kōwae assessment tool and it being available to all I wasn't clear that the incentive payments that are paid to the practitioner are paid when they use the assessment with individuals who identify as Māori.
Voting — Corrections—Sitting of the House
Rurawhe AdrianVOTINGCorrection—House SittingSPEAKER: Members earlier in today's sitting—which was yesterday—when the House was considering the motion for the extended sitting the result of the vote on the question was incorrectly recorded as Aye 73 Noes 44. The correct result is Ayes 74 Noes 44. The record will be corrected accordingly.
O'Connor GregREPORT OF THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE HOUSECHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Mr Speaker the committee has considered the Appropriation (2023/24 Estimates) Bill and reports progress. The committee also considered the Spatial Planning Bill and reports it with amendment. I move That the report be adopted.Motion agreed to.Report adopted.
Brooking RachelHon RACHEL BROOKING (Associate Minister for the Environment): Thank you Mr Chair. Touching on a number of those points I'll start with the Hon Scott Simpson's point about the name which is of course actually part of the debate—Hon Scott Simpson: The title.Hon RACHEL BROOKING: —the title—that's right of the Spatial Planning Bill and he asked if there was some discussion there about that the word strategic is not a synonym for spatial and I totally agree with that; they are different things. That is why particularly at clause 15 there is a lot of focus on the strategic plan—on the strategic nature of the spatial plan. You could call it either a spatial plan or a strategic plan and you could have called it a strategic spatial planning bill as well because the plan needs to be both spatial and of course strategic. That is quite a mouthful if you put two Ss in there as the member knows—my issues with two names with two Ss—Hon Scott Simpson: There's nothing wrong with two Ss.Hon RACHEL BROOKING: That's right. So that is the reason there. Of course spatial planning is an internationally recognised term as well.Going into some other commentary Simon Court was talking about the enabling housing legislation and the work of councils. Of course the transition provisions here mean that a spatial plan isn't required until that three years from once the committee is set up so the timing is quite different. In terms of the three sisters the rocks that have come and gone due to climate change. You know that third piece of legislation that is discrete and it is really difficult to work at how as a country we are going to deal with climate adaptation how we do that in a fair manner and that requires a lot of thought particularly around existing activities. The thinking is that that is a separate piece of legislation because it does deal with these issues that aren't about the normal day to day planning that the Natural and Built Environment Bill is about and of course the Spatial Planning Bill is about more than day to day planning—you're looking out there 30 years. So of course you're looking at areas that are going to be affected by climate change but then that is for your future planning rather than the existing issues that we have as a country with many of our communities that will be affected at some stage—we don't know when—by sea level rise and that are already being affected by stronger weather events as the member knows. So when that piece of legislation does arrive it will have its own commencement section and of course it will have to interact with these pieces of legislation these sister bills but also a number of other pieces as well.Then the Hon Scott Simpson gave us a history lesson again and suggested that—as we've heard already in these debates on this bill—we might be wanting to send this back to select committee in another Parliament for tweaks and modifications. Which is very different from the National Party statements that I've heard throughout these debates that in fact the whole thing needs to be repealed and very different from ACT's position as well. So it comes as somewhat of a surprise.
Court Simon; Kuriger BarbaraSIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you Mr Chair. Well the Minister need not fear. ACT has prepared our alternative solutions for building New Zealand and conserving nature. But Minister I just want to come back to the commencement. Only a short time ago this current Government passed the Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply and Other Matters) Amendment Act which required councils—the major metros including Auckland Hamilton Christchurch for example—to go through a planning exercise to provide for three units of three storeys on their entire metro area. And councils like Hamilton and Auckland which has consulted on plan change 78 that would require that policy of this Government to be implemented by a certain time frame—they are delivering that; it's costing them a lot of money it's costing submitters a lot of money and time—CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Mr Court get to the point of your question please and not concentrate on too much context.SIMON COURT: Yes Mr Chair. The concern for the Minister is that while all of that planning activity is going on under the existing Resource Management Act a parallel planning activity will have to commence once this Spatial Planning Bill becomes law which will essentially duplicate a whole lot of planning work undertaken by Auckland Council by Hamilton Christchurch—these other metros.So Minister wouldn't it be helpful to delay the implementation of the Spatial Planning Act—if it becomes law—say to 12 months from the time that this is passed and give it an implementation date similar to that of the Natural and Built Environment Bill so that these councils who are already carrying out significant plan changes as a result of the last piece of legislation this Government passed can at least complete that process or have a landing on it so they're not trying to carry out the implementation of the Spatial Planning Bill at the same time as they're still carrying out the plan changes directed through the Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply and other Matters) Amendment) Act. Minister?BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki-King Country): Thank you Mr Chair. I've just got a question around—there's been a bit of talk about sister bills this morning and obviously there's a third one that we haven't seen yet in a little place I represent called Tongapōrutu. We actually have a rock structure called Three Sisters and the tide and the climate actually came in at one point and washed one of them away. And fortuitously the climate actually came in again and formulated another one so we're back to Three Sisters.So what this has to do with the commencement clause Mr Chair is I just wanted to ask the Minister in as much as she is able to tell us about the third sister in this set of bills. In respect of the commencement of that bill are the clauses in that bill to be constructed in a way that the commencement of that bill will nicely align with the commencement of the two bills that we've already previously discussed so that when it comes into force it's all working in tandem and we have three sisters again?
Salesa Jenny; Simpson Scott; Brooking RachelClauses 1 and 2CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members we come now to our final debate. This is the debate on clauses 1 and 2 which is on the title and commencement.Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you Madam Chair. At clause 1 the title could easily be called This Act is the Spatial Planning Act (Soon to be Repealed before Christmas) Act." because that's certainly the intention if we have an opportunity to—with our ACT coalition partners—lead a new Government after the general election in October. But my question to the Minister is that in its first conceptual stages this piece of legislation was referred to as the Strategic Planning Bill and at some point the word "strategic" was replaced with the word "spatial". Although there was some debate at the time—and I can't actually recall; I think the Randerson committee's report called for a Strategic Planning Act but now we have a Spatial Planning Act.So I'm keen to know what the rationale what the reason what the change was why it was made what was the basis of it and can the Minister give us maybe some historic insight into it. Because she herself was a member of the Randerson panel and I'm sure that back in the conceptual formative days of Randerson there was probably quite a lot of consideration given to it.The other point that I would like to make in regard to the title is why this bill exists in its entirety. Why couldn't this bill have actually been incorporated into the Natural and Built Environment Bill? Do we actually need a separate title and a separate piece? Could this piece of legislation have been incorporated into one statute? So if the Minister can give us a bit of an insight into that I would appreciate it.Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Associate Minister for the Environment): Thank you. The member is correct that certainly it was at one point—before it was introduced—referred to as the "Strategic Planning Bill" and of course it is about strategic planning but the way many people referred to it and thought about it was as spatial planning. Because that is the term that most people seem to use and because as the member knows I'm pleased that the word "map" is now in the bill—we want to be able to see the plan as well and so that is the element of spatial.In terms of whether or not it could be two different bills I'm not sure that it is to do with the title of this bill but it is a good question and I'll leave it there."
Prime Willow-JeanHon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Minister of Conservation): I move That the question be now put.
Court Simon; Brooking RachelSIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you Madam Chair. Just in terms of the regulations Minister—the Governor-General in terms of clause 68 can make regulations providing for anything this Act says may or must be provided for by regulations. I mean this is a remarkable clause. What's been clear Minister through the development of the legislation: first reading second reading—in fact let's go back to the exposure draft of the Natural and Built Environment Bill back in 2022. There were a whole lot of conflicts that this legislative process was intending to resolve or to develop legislation that would allow these conflicts to be resolved Minister. So conflicts between protecting special places in the environment and Hey we need to build things. We need to build homes for people to live in. We need to develop resources like quarries so we can excavate the hard blue rock in the case of South Auckland and North Auckland so that we can build the roads so that we can make the concrete blocks so we can build the subdivisions and build our cities."In Auckland alone between half a million and a million people are expected to come to our great city between now and 2050. That's according to population projections that the Auckland Unitary Plan provides for. So Minister given that the bills—the Natural and Built Environment Bill and this Spatial Planning Bill—have deferred the resolution of conflicts between the natural environment between apparently the interests of mana whenua in each region and people who want to build things and get on with life. It's deferred the resolution of all of those conflicts to a national planning framework and then maybe Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment plans and then of course spatial plans made under this bill where these conflicts appear still not to be resolved; they appear to have been kicked for touch. So Minister would you care to elaborate on what recommendations of the Minister made under clause 68(1): "The Governor-General may by order in council"—"may". What regulations provide for anything this Act says "may" or "may be" provided for and how the information might be set out in an implementation plan? Because as with everything that this bill has delivered it hasn't appeared to resolve conflicts. It'd be very interesting to hear the Minister's interpretation of how this clause may be interpreted and how it might help to resolve conflicts.Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Associate Minister for the Environment): Well of course there is some conflict resolution within the purpose of the Act which is in a different part which we've had in a different debate. I'd say in terms of the specific question around clause 68(1) and providing for anything in this Act we've already discussed that there can be regulations for the type of evidence used and I would think that wording is a fairly standard one."
Kuriger Barbara; Brooking RachelBARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki-King Country): Thank you Madam Chair. Minister I just want to go to clause 63 because it's around the Minister making grants and loans. It says The Minister may make grants [and] loans to any person to assist in achieving the purpose of this Act." So if you go back to the purpose around te Oranga o te Taiao—it's quite broad and it says "The Minister may impose terms and conditions on a grant or loan".Could you just please—I don't know if this is a carryover from the Resource Management Act or not because I don't know it as well as you do but it just seems to me that it's quite broad. Could the Minister give some examples as to what this potentially could be used for just in the theoretical sort of way—or maybe some examples of where it may have happened in the past?Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Associate Minister for the Environment): I understand it is a carryover here. On my version it says "compare with the Resource Management Act". I'll see if the officials come up with an example and I'll give it to you in a minute."
Salesa JennyPart 3 General powers duties and other mattersCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members we come now to Part 3. This is the debate on clauses 58 to 70 General powers duties and other matters" and Schedule 5."
Henderson Emily; Salesa JennyDr EMILY HENDERSON (Labour—Whangārei): I move That the question be now put.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Before I take the next call can I just say my opinion is that especially Simon Court has been a bit repetitive on some of the issues. I call the Hon Scott Simpson.
Brooking RachelHon RACHEL BROOKING (Associate Minister for the Environment): Thank you. I'll go first to the Hon Scott Simpson's question. Good to see you're not sitting next to Stuart Smith tonight! The answer there is in part at clause 62 whereby the Minister—Hon Scott Simpson: Sorry what was that? Clause 52—Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Clause 62. So the Minister has the powers to direct action. Of course there are the transitional provisions as well with the three years to have these up and operational and they can be staggered as well.Going to Simon Court's question about the geographical boundaries he makes the point that the regions that we use for regional government—which are well established in New Zealand—are different from some of the other regions that other parts of central government in particular uses. He references the water entities. Also of course we see that the making of a spatial plan interacts with a lot of other Government agencies. Of course the Government policy statement on land transport is one of the documents that is looked at and that also has differing boundaries from local government regional council boundaries. That is something that local government is used to working with central government—having a range of different boundaries for different agencies.