edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Costello CaseyHon CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Police): I am floored that we just heard a diatribe about using imagination. This is not about imagining: this is about fact; this is about looking in the eyes of victims and saying We hear you and we will make you safe." This is not about rhetoric and clever phrases; this is about practical actions to make our communities safer and ensure that serious offenders know there will be consequences. We will not continue down the path of taking mercy against an offender who has inflicted harm. This is not a programme that's in isolation; this is a wraparound social response. But at one end of the spectrum there has to be an ability to make sure they will not create further victims. We will ensure that happens we will ensure that they know there is a consequence and I fully commend this bill to the House."
Costley TimTIM COSTLEY (National—Ōtaki): Thank you Mr Speaker and it snuck in there in the end didn't it: the people getting locked up are the victims—that's what we heard—they're the victims they're the ones we should be worried about. It's mean; it's mean to put serious offenders behind bars. Well actually I don't support that. I don't believe that and that's why we're here; that's why we're passing this legislation. I hear the call that says this isn't the only way to deal with it and that's why we have a social investment approach in this Government targeting those resources early where they can make a difference. But where there is serious offending and where there are victims that are seriously impacted by this there has to be consequence and this bill does that. It brings backs consequence. There is still the out provision for where it's manifestly unjust unless of course it's murder. It has to go to the senior courts for that third strike but there has to be guidance that ensures there will be serious consequences for serious offenders in the right circumstance. That's what this bill does; it just needs to be read and I commend this bill to the House.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That debate on this question now close.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 55New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.Motion agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That Part 1 stand part.Ayes 102New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 21Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.Part 1 agreed to.
Immigration (Mass Arrivals) Amendment Bill — In Committee—Part 1
Menéndez March RicardoRICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you Madam Chair. So if I heard correctly the Minister in the chair the Hon Chris Penk talked about the advice that he had received being complex. But I guess I want to elicit exactly what level of advice he received particularly around resourcing right? Because in the event of a mass arrival paired with the definitions that are created here there does need to be a level of deployment of public services to respond to such a thing. So I was wondering about the confidence that he has in the capacity of the health system and the public health system actually were there to be a mass arrivals of asylum seekers who presented with health conditions perhaps transmittable diseases—around making sure that they're looked after not just from a public health angle but actually just around the welfare of those people.Why this is extremely relevant is because part of what was identified in Part 1 was around making that distinction and the example around cruise ships has been used several times. If you get a bunch of people exiting a cruise ship they actually don't have to face any medical tests any form of—we just kind of assume for the most part that they're not here to transmit any new diseases overall. So there's a distinction that's being created here—it's often been argued that the kind of weird loophole and gap that we have with cruise ships is one of the reasons for the rationale around Part 1. That is why it is important to have confidence that actually the system as it is has the capacity to meet those health requirements to respond to those—but then also whether the Minister received any advice since taking on the role because of that gap between the previous Government handling the bill and this new Government taking it on board around whether additional resources would be required in any parts of the system to then comply with the additional checks that creating a definition of mass arrivals" would entail as opposed to for example how they would have been treated say if you could claim that they were a cruise ship.So I guess it's about that confidence around the system being responsive to the needs of people who would now be categorised under Part 1. So the new angle of the question that I'm asking is around the level of resourcing capacity by the system not just so much around the public health advice that he may have received."
Boyack Rachel; Tuiono TeanauRACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Thank you Mr Chair. I just wanted to take the opportunity to make a short contribution in the committee tonight just to respond to the amendment tabled by my colleague from the Green Party. I'm hopeful that he will consider allowing a vote on his amendment where the two parts are voted on separately. The Labour Party won't be supporting the first change that he wants to make which would be to replace all actions" with "any action". The reason we won't be doing that—and we have talked about this a lot throughout all readings of this bill actually—is that we do support the Government's approach here which is to validate the previous practices. We do agree with that. So my concern and the Labour Party's concern is that changing the words "all actions" to "any action" would potentially open up a stronger case for a legal challenge and so we do agree with the Minister and with the Government on that part. However in the next part the extra words at the end of that clause do appear to be somewhat redundant and unnecessary and so we'd be quite happy to support that change to the clause. So I'm hopeful that the member will be comfortable with the committee voting on each of those separately so that we can vote in favour of one and against the other. On that note I think I've made the Labour Party's position clear and I thank my colleague from the Green Party for putting forward these amendments and the arguments in favour of them. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The committee is suspended and it will resume at 9 a.m. tomorrow.Debate interrupted.Sitting suspended from 9.59 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Wednesday)"
Doocey MattHon MATT DOOCEY (Minister for ACC): Thank you very much Mr Chair. It's great to be back debating this bill. In response to Rachel Boyack's amendment—the handwritten amendment with probably some of the neatest handwriting I must say I have ever seen. But no I would not support her amendment because it would remove the principle of fairness and would potentially create a perverse incentive. The second amendment—would I support Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan's amendment? His amendment hasn't been handwritten but typed and if he is a true doctor that's probably because he hasn't got very tidy handwriting I would have thought. But I would not support his amendment because it would remove retrospectivity which is the intent of the bill.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Imprest Supply (First for 2024/25) Bill be now read a third time.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 49New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.Motion agreed to.Bill read a third time.DEPUTY SPEAKER: I declare the House in committee for further consideration of the Accident Compensation (Interest on Instalment Plans) Amendment Bill.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Appropriation (2023/24 Supplementary Estimates) Bill be now read a third time.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 49New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.Bill read a third time.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Appropriation (2023/24 Supplementary Estimates) Bill and the Imprest Supply (First for 2024/25) Bill be now read a second time.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 49New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.Motion agreed to.Bills read a second time.DEPUTY SPEAKER: Those bills are set down for third reading immediately.
Bishop ChrisURGENCYHon CHRIS BISHOP (Leader of the House): I move That urgency be accorded the remaining stages of the Appropriation (2023/24 Supplementary Estimates) Bill and the introduction and passing through all stages of the Imprest Supply (First for 2024/25) Bill; the remaining stages of the Accident Compensation (Interest on Instalment Plans) Amendment Bill; the second reading of the Corrections Amendment Bill; the first readings and referrals to a select committee of the Education and Training Amendment Bill the Sentencing (Reinstating Three Strikes) Amendment Bill and the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Scheme Agricultural Obligations) Amendment Bill; the passing through all stages of the Forests (Log Traders and Forestry Advisers Repeal) Amendment Bill; the first reading and referral to a select committee of the Overseas Investment (Build-to-rent and Similar Rental Developments) Amendment Bill; the passing through all stages of the Land Transport (Clean Vehicle Standard) Amendment Bill; and the first reading and referral to a select committee of the Therapeutic Products Act Repeal Bill.We're moving urgency tonight to complete three bills left over from Budget night. In addition to that we're including other bills that we had scheduled for this week that due to the nature of the singular sitting week and the Budget debate are required to be included in this motion. The supplementary estimates and first imprest supply bill have to be passed before the end of the financial year; it's a standard part of the Budget cycle. The ACC bill makes it explicit that ACC can charge debit interest where levies are paid by instalments; there is some current ambiguity in the legislation and we did hope to tidy up that part of the law before the House lifted just after the Budget. That wasn't possible for a range of reasons.The forests log traders bill reduces a regulatory burden and removes unnecessary compliance costs. The land transport bill is required to be done as soon as possible to provide certainty for the vehicle industry. We're also sending five bills to select committee: the education and training bill to establish charter schools; re-establishing three strikes; repealing the Therapeutic Products Act which is of course a New Zealand First - National coalition commitment; taking agriculture out of the emissions trading scheme; and making build-to-rent developments easier.DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that—Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Point of order Madam Speaker.DEPUTY SPEAKER: I had just started a vote—I had started a vote. I can take your point of order after the vote but I had actually started a vote Dr Duncan Webb.
Kuriger BarbaraIMPREST SUPPLY (FIRST FOR 2024/25) BILLIntroductionDEPUTY SPEAKER: I understand it's the Government's intention to introduce an imprest supply bill.CLERK: Imprest Supply (First for 2024/25) Bill introduction.DEPUTY SPEAKER: The bill is set down for first reading immediately.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Imprest Supply (First for 2024/25) Bill be now read a first time.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 49New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.Motion agreed to.Bill read a first time.DEPUTY SPEAKER: The bill is set down for second reading presently.
Webb Duncan; Bishop Chris; Kuriger BarbaraHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Point of order. Thank you Madam Chair. My point of order was that the Minister in signalling urgency—which he's entitled to do under Standing Order 57—ran through a list of legislation and largely told us what it did. It's a longstanding convention and Standing Order of this House that in respect of each of those bills he needs to explain why they are urgent. We have five bills—routine bills—going to select committee which don't have any particular urgency and if there is the Minister certainly didn't tell us what they were.Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Leader of the House): Speaking to the point of order. The member's wrong on two points. Firstly the requirement for urgency to have reasons is a recent practice. From memory it came in in the Standing Orders review after 2017. So it's not a longstanding convention of the House. The member needs to familiarise himself with Standing Orders.The second point is that Standing Orders requires the mover of the urgency motion to give reasons. I gave extensive reasons. I'd encourage the member to reflect back on past moving of urgency by the Hon Chris Hipkins in which he just basically said words to the effect of We're the Government. We can do what we like." I've actually provided a whole range of different reasons.DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you Mr Bishop."
Kuriger Barbara; Reti ShaneDEPUTY SPEAKER: The House is resumed. Before the dinner break we were speaking on the Appropriation (2024/25 Estimates) Bill and the amendments proposed to it.Hon Dr SHANE RETI (Minister of Health): I move That this debate be now adjourned.Motion agreed to.
Brownlee GerryPETITIONS PAPERS SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLSSPEAKER: A petition has been delivered to the Clerk for presentation.CLERK: Petition of Erin Tiplady on behalf of Northcote Intermediate School Room 3 requesting that the House urge the Government to thoroughly inspect and survey the wreck of the RMS Niagara in the Hauraki Gulf for any oil that should be removed from it.SPEAKER: That petition stands referred to the Petitions Committee. Ministers have delivered papers.CLERK: Government responses to the:report of the Petitions Committee on the petition of Hāwea Flat School Boardreport of Education and Workforce Committee on the petition of Amanda Drummreport of Petitions Committee on the petition of Maggie Ross.SPEAKER: I present the report of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment entitled Going with the grain: Changing land uses to fit a changing landscape. Those papers are published under the authority of the House. No select committee papers have been presented. No bills have been introduced.
Tuiono TeanauWEDNESDAY 22 MAY 2024The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.KARAKIA/PRAYERSTEANAU TUIONO (Assistant Speaker): E te Atua kaha rawa ka tuku whakamoemiti atu mātou mō ngā karakia kua waihotia mai ki runga i a mātou. Ka waiho i ō mātou pānga whaiaro katoa ki te taha. Ka mihi mātou ki te Kīngi me te inoi atu mō te ārahitanga i roto i ō mātou whakaaroarohanga kia mōhio ai kia whakaiti ai tā mātou whakahaere i ngā take o te Whare nei mō te oranga te maungārongo me te aroha o Aotearoa. Āmene.[Almighty God we give thanks for the blessings which have been bestowed on us. Laying aside all personal interests we acknowledge the King and pray for guidance in our deliberations that we may conduct the affairs of this House with wisdom and humility for the welfare peace and compassion of New Zealand. Amen.]
O'Connor Greg; Mooney JosephCHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The time with the Minister has expired. I'd invite an honourable member to move that the committee report progress. JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): I move That the committee report progress on the bill. Motion agreed to.House resumed.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Madam Speaker the committee has considered the Appropriation (2022/23 Confirmation and Validation) Bill and reports progress. I move That the report be adopted. Motion agreed to.Report adopted.
Utikere Tangi; O'Connor Greg; Abel Steve; Jones ShaneTANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Thank you Mr Chair. Can I ask the Minister around the suitable use of fishing stocks but also around the question of allocation. What has been the direction of travel for the three types of fishers—the commercial customary and recreational fishers—and whether or not we can expect with him as Minister to see any changes regarding stock but also allocation?CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): There don't appear to be—Steve Abel.STEVE ABEL (Green): Never to miss an opportunity Mr Chair. I guess I'll repeat the question: will you release the footage that proves or otherwise the efficacy of those seal protection devices? What are you afraid of showing; what is the industry afraid of showing? If that footage is available it can be scrutinised independently and it can be assessed. If you are so certain of the advice what is the harm in releasing that footage Minister?JENNY MARCROFT: Thank you Mr Chair. My question to the Minister: could he inform the Chamber as to what is the response to the roll-out of the camera programme? What is the response from many of the skippers on the boats that have these cameras?Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Oceans and Fisheries): Obviously the existence of the footage in respect of the sea lions issue does not rest with the crowd. Obviously the footage that is referred to associated with the cameras has enabled the officials to better test their models—and they've found that their models are remarkably accurate. But let no one think in this session that that footage is going to be surrendered to people who have as their motivation the delegitimisation of fisheries. That's just not happening.
Abel Steve; Jones ShaneSTEVE ABEL (Green): Thank you Mr Chair. Minister given the recent article in the Sunday-Star Times this weekend of the footage of the efficacy or otherwise of the SLEDs the sea lion exclusion devices will you release that footage or instruct that that footage is released for public scrutiny so that we can indeed assess the efficacy of the SLEDs? And in that regard I wanted to repeat my question: why remove the bycatch kill limit for sea lions if indeed the SLEDs are working? Surely there is no need to remove the limit because it won't be reached. And will you bring in pace a similar mortality limit for leatherback turtles? Those are the two follow-up questions. Thank you.Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Oceans and Fisheries): Just before we wind up there is no great threat to sea lions. I trust the quality of advice coming from our officials. They are not driven by politics ideology such as the member who's just resumed his seat. And similarly there is no great threat from the technology which has been deployed to enable the sea lions to escape when they may from time to time encounter harvesting activity. And I'm not interested in the wittering of that lady from the Otago university—irrelevant to me.
Wedd Catherine; Cameron Mark; Jones ShaneCATHERINE WEDD (National—Tukituki): So I understand that our seafood exports are going to increase hopefully to around $2.3 billion by 2024. Obviously that drives a lot of productivity here in New Zealand and that's something that we've discussed a lot on the Primary Production Committee. And obviously there's a lot of potential in our fisheries industry to add a lot of value and drive some of this productivity. What's your vision in that area?MARK CAMERON (ACT): Thank you Mr Chair. Minister can I for the sake of the question help you illuminate—or you might be able to illuminate this further—the difference between the coastal commercial fleet fishing and the deepwater fleet the disparities in technology. And for the former Minister's benefit maybe some of the cost structures therein in terms of the roll-out of cameras on boats—the technology—what it looks like in terms of implementation and the distinct difference between table fish market and the export market.Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Oceans and Fisheries): Sadly the cameras issue was conceived without true appreciation of costs but it's driven and propelled by an ideology which is very hostile to the flourishing of the fishing industry. Sadly that was allowed to carry on uncontested. But wait taihoa help is on the way.In reference to the member's question from my right—yes we are seeking to boost the profitability of the fishery sector. To that end four meetings a year are happening between the key leaders. They are finding common ground that will include—that will include—options not to increase levies during the next two or three years and to learn to live within a shortened piece of cloth.To that end it's important we work out how the industry can not only profit but how the industry can work more effectively with the State—maintain their social licence but curb the incessant upward pressure on levies and other costs that are being imposed on industry in New Zealand. So the question to my right was a very clever question and given that we will be addressing the uncertainty around the permits associated with aquaculture you will find there will be a greater level percentage-wise of wealth coming from aquaculture over the next 5 to 10 years. Details will be revealed very very soon.
Utikere Tangi; Abel Steve; Jones ShaneTANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Thank you Mr Chair. We'll try third time lucky. We still haven't had an answer from the Minister to industry transformation plans and the time frame for the taihoa on cameras on boats. Perhaps he's still looking through his mammoth heap of paper there to find the answer.Can I move to the Oceans Secretariat. I'd like to put to the Minister: what has motivated him to essentially disestablish the Oceans Secretariat and how does he expect that to impact the fishing industry and the health of New Zealand's oceans respectively. And in the absence of such a secretariat what resources does he foreshadow the Oceans and Marine Ministers Group will need to make informed decisions that will ensure the long-term resilience but also the long-term health of ocean and costal ecosystems including the role that fisheries would play within that?STEVE ABEL (Green): Minister I appreciate you commenting on the Minister of Conservation's opinion on marine protected areas or something to that effect. But I wonder: have you expressed any opinions on marine protected areas to the Ministry for Primary Industries? Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Oceans and Fisheries): I realise that time is running out and this is obviously an important feature because marine protected areas marine reserves rāhui areas mātaitai areas and taiāpure areas are a key feature of marine-based resource management. That role obviously rests with my officials to study the various demands and needs. If you're asking me To what extent is that a priority?" you're asking the wrong guy."
Williams Arena; Abel Steve; Jones ShaneARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): If the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries is correct in saying that he wants Māori to be able to progress their interests in developing their fisheries rights and sharing that with iwi who benefit from settlements then isn't the first version of the bill which came to this House which had cross-partisan support and will be enduring a better option than what has come back and has been proposed essentially by Te Ohu Kaimoana to suit their interests in the status quo?STEVE ABEL (Green): Thank you Mr Chair. In 2023 the New Zealand orange roughy fisheries ORH 3B responsible for 80 percent of the catch lost our Marine Stewardship Council certification—an important marking point to the United States and EU consumers. Evidence showed that the fishers were having to trawl for longer yet still not catching more fish suggesting depletion and spawning aggregations had disappeared or were severely reduced on seamount areas and had been heavily trawled. The only seamount that showed some positive signs for the fish was one that is closed to trawling. The implication is that the extent of the exploitation was meaning that there would be no sustainable orange roughy because we'd fished it to oblivion. How is that sustainable for the industry let alone the environment and what does the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries intend to do to ensure that New Zealand fisheries remain actually ecologically sustainable and viable? And to that point has the Minister given any instructions to the Ministry for Primary Industries on marine protected areas?Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Oceans and Fisheries): On the latter I'm aware that the Minister of Conservation has a bill wending its way through the House. My level of interest in that is not particularly strong but it's not my statutory role. I as you may have worked out sir am here to enable the industry to boost the dividend within the parameters of sustainably.On the question of orange roughy I'm advised by the officials on searching for the answer in this mammoth midden heap of paper that in 2023/24 orange roughy 3B was reduced by 40 percent. The system works in this very simple way: scientists establish—and I'm talking about robust genuine science not these lib pen-pushers—genuine enforceable justiciable figures and the politicians like myself act on that. But we have no time for these lib pen-pushers who write all this green diatribe.
Jones ShaneHon SHANE JONES (Minister for Oceans and Fisheries): Kia ora. Greetings to members of the Primary Production Committee and thank you for those questions. As a few words of introduction sadly this is a sector of governmental and economic activity riddled with apocryphal falsehoods. The fishing industry is not going out there plundering plaguing or targeting rare and endangered species. It grieves me to hear—in fact it reminds me of the milky flesh disease when I listen to the member from the Green Party suggesting that the industry number one is not telling the truth. The modelling carried out by the officials behind me is not too inconsistent with the recent results and the camera initiative is all about the future. On the question as to what the future of the camera roll-out is a number of boats will be focused on and the cameras will be affixed to them and at that point we're going to have a taihoa and ascertain who's going to pay for this; and if it's a public good then how the public is going to pay for it. We're not going to have this commercial sector continually burdened down with a host of compliance costs preventing it from generating the necessary economic dividend to pay for our schoolteachers our police men and women and to meet the costs of our schools and hospitals. Neither are we going to have a situation where the footage associated with the cameras is continually chased up by these busybodies these meddlesome third-party interests who want to further stigmatise the existence of a proud industry. So to be very very clear I'm not going to continue with the perfidy of the last regime. I campaigned against cameras but that was unsuccessful sadly.On the matter of FishServe FishServe is a legitimate legal and indeed existing company with enforceable obligations. One of the options that will be investigated is how more of the responsibility of cameras can be delegated down to FishServe. I hope at some point in time prior to the next election as my officials work with us to enhance and optimise the outcomes from a better fisheries management system to take and place before my colleagues—in our drive for greater relief in terms of regulatory burden—an option as to how that burden might be shared between the State and if it's good enough for the National Animal Identification and Tracing programme to not be fully fully covered by the Official Information Act. I'm exploring how that can be emulated with cameras.
Utikere TangiTANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Kia orana Mr Chair. I have a number of questions but I'll start with a couple of them. The first is in relation to cameras on boats—to the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries –whether specific advice has been given to him about the future of cameras on boats and if so what is the nature of that specific advice? I think it would be also very helpful for the committee to understand from the Minister what has been learnt from his perspective as a result of having them on board. I'll just start with those.
Abel SteveSTEVE ABEL (Green): Thank you Mr Chair. I'd appreciate the opportunity to ask questions of the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries.Minister after the industry fought for so long against cameras on boats we found that when the data came in on the 127 vessels with cameras there was significant under-reporting: a sevenfold increase in dolphin interactions a 350 percent increase in albatross interactions and an almost 50 percent increase in discarded fish volume. When will your review of cameras on boats be completed? And will you extend the programme? That's my first question.Secondly are you concerned about a company that is wholly owned by the fishing industry—FishServe—taking control of camera footage from commercial boats? And who will have access to that footage—the Department of Conservation? And how often will they have that access? That's my first tranche of questions but I would also like to talk about the bycatch kill limit.Minister you removed the fishing-related mortality limit (FRML) on sealions just recently. My question is: if as the industry claims the sealion exclusion devices are working surely then there is no need to remove the limit because it won't be reached? Secondly will you consider setting a fishing-related mortality limit for leatherback turtles following recommendations of a recent National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research report? And on what basis did Fisheries New Zealand set the fishing-related mortality limit for Māui dolphins—i.e. why isn't it set over a period of time like other FRMLs? And will the Minister release the underpinning advice? Thank you.
Costley Tim; Tuiono TeanauTIM COSTLEY (National—Ōtaki): Well we've heard a lot in the debate so far particularly around the structure and I'd like to tap not just into structure but infrastructure. So if we think about structure thinking about councils and how they are formed how they are funded how they are elected how they operate—and we've spoken briefly on the local government review that was done last year. The future of local government—particularly around the suggestions of for instance giving 16-year-olds the vote and changing the mandate or the requirements for people to be elected to Government and maybe the Minister has some views on what the future really looks like. But I'd like to move from the structural to infrastructure because there are 17 recommendations as the member for the Greens mentioned in that report. Many drop in the word wellbeing" every second sentence but none around infrastructure none about actually delivering the quality roads and pipes and opening up opportunities for development that people need if they are indeed to have any wellbeing at all. Nowhere in that is there a focus on delivering public services which I think is a key function of local government. And so I'd be really interested to hear the Minister's views on that.For example in our region in the Kāpiti Coast where I represent the good people of Mills Albert would have been out there replacing our pipes. We've brought on water meters. We don't want to be lumped in with Wellington metro when it comes to three waters. Actually we believe in autonomy but we do believe that there needs to be a focus on infrastructure. If I think about in Horowhenua where we're building an entire new suburb—3500 homes—it needs roads it needs pipes it needs connection it needs the ability to develop. That's how wellbeing comes not by adding it to a report.So I'd be really interested to hear from the Minister what he thinks the future of local government looks like. I'd be really interested to hear his views that came out of the report on things like forming new Government departments new entities new bureaucracy if that is indeed the answer or if we need a focus on world-class infrastructure. Do we need it on world-class infrastructure on delivering public services rather than these mandates for new Government entities and bureaucracy?CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Members our time with the Minister of Local Government has ended. The Minister for Oceans and Fisheries is now available for 30 minutes to respond to members' questions."
McAnulty Kieran; Brown SimeonHon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Thank you very much Mr Chair. It's extraordinary to hear those sorts of responses. But I do note that he didn't answer one of my questions so I'll repeat it: does he agree with the Prime Minister that all local government needs to do is to stop doing dumb stuff" and does he agree that the rating system as it stands is currently unsustainable?Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Local Government): Well I would agree that councils should not do dumb stuff and also when you think about it—and I just made the point earlier—we want councils to be focused on must-haves not "nice-to-haves" and that's exactly what we're doing as a Government. We're doing the exact same thing as Government going line by line to ensure that the focus is on the must-haves not the "nice-to-haves" because we're in tough economic times. We have had an inflation bomb left behind by the last Government and we're trying to deal with these challenges. Local government is dealing with these same challenges too and so the focus needs to be a focus on core business and must-haves not "nice-to-haves" and to stop the dumb stuff."
Luxton Cameron; Brown SimeonCAMERON LUXTON (ACT): Thank you Mr Chair. I'd just like to ask the Minister following on from the erudite questioning from my colleague the MP for the Bay of Plenty Tom Rutherford and the less erudite contribution from former Minister Willie Jackson—we've got a situation about democracy in New Zealand and as one famous commentator once said Throw the buggers out." That's the real benefit of democracy; you can throw them out when you don't want them.In Tauranga we have been unable to throw the buggers out. No matter what decision they have made there has been no opportunity for the good people of Tauranga Moana to throw the buggers out. Well I thank you for clarifying Minister that there will be full democracy returning to Tauranga in the elections on 20 July.But I do have a question that I would love to hear you expound on and that is Minister: what do you think about what the commissioners in their time as the leaders of Tauranga City Council—what do you make of the decision the commissioners took to ignore a petition which was submitted to council with the required amount of votes to have a referendum on a Māori ward? What do you make of the commissioners' decision to ignore such feedback from the community and implement a Māori ward?I'd like to also note that we are going to be having a Māori ward established in Tauranga where there has never been one before due to the decisions made by this commission. I'd ask the Minister to reflect on what has happened here.Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Local Government): I acknowledge the question. Ultimately the commission has the same responsibilities as an elected council to make decisions under the law. What I would say though in relation to the issue of the Māori ward is that there will have to be a referendum in Tauranga. The legislation we'll be bringing to the House will mean that that referendum will have to happen between now and the next local government elections. Ultimately that is when Tauranga people will be able to make their decision as to whether that ward stays or goes."
Jackson Willie; Brown SimeonHon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour): Oh thank you Mr Chair. Just a couple of questions to the Minister over this whole democracy area. Would the Minister agree that we have seen quite a diverse set of councillors over the last year or two—last couple of years. With the change in terms of Māori seats we have seen Māori being given an opportunity that they have never had before. Would the Minister agree that in past years so few Māori would be able to get elected on to the council? So in the previous Government obviously we thought Well this is an opportunity." Now we're seeing record numbers. We're seeing Shane Jones' nephew for instance as the mayor up there in the north. You've got a whole Māori board up there in the north—opportunities they've never had before.So I'm asking the Minister in all seriousness did he see benefits in that? And if he did how can we maintain Māori representation? Surely Māori have a right to be a part and play a part in New Zealand's democracy today because there's been so few who've been afforded an opportunity. So what are the Minister's plans in terms of giving Māori opportunities giving them the chance to get on to the council? Is it just about returning to what has been done in the past or is there some new innovative creative strategy that the Minister might be able to give us?Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Local Government): Thank you Mr Chair. I thank the member for his question. I note this is the former Minister who once famously said "democracy has changed". Well I'm not quite sure what he means by "democracy" but on this side of the House democracy has not changed because we actually believe in people of this country being able to decide who represents them.When it comes to the issue of Māori wards we are going to reverse the position to ensure that local communities can make those decisions as to whether there is a Māori ward on a particular council—that is about letting local voters actually make decisions. In some councils around New Zealand I expect they will vote to retain those Māori wards and in other councils they may not. That is ultimately about local communities local voters the public of New Zealand the voters of New Zealand being able to have their say.And he mentions Matua Shane Jones' nephew Moko. Well Moko is not elected as the mayor of the Far North on a Māori ward; he is elected as the Mayor of the Far North District Council in an open contest against every single other person who decides to put their name forward for elected office. That is how it is and that is how he got elected. Whether a council retains its Māori ward because the voters in that community decide they want it or they don't I am confident that more and more Māori will get elected to local councils up and down this country."
Brown SimeonHon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Local Government): Well thank you Mr Chair for the opportunity to take a call in regards to the annual review of local government. This debate obviously relates to the last 12 months or the last financial year so I will keep my comments within that but obviously I will give some colour where necessary in terms of the direction this Government is taking. I thank the members for their questions. I thank the committee for its work on the review and there has certainly been a range of issues that have been raised through the committee stage.The question from my colleague Cameron Brewer around Local Water Done Well noting what has happened there. Obviously we've taken a very different approach from the last Government in terms of water; the last Government had a one-size-fits-all approach to water and that ultimately ended up with them spending I think $1.2 billion in the last six years mandating co-governed mega-entities or local councils across the country. Ultimately the vast majority of councils rejected that approach which is what we are doing through our Local Water Done Well approach which we are delivering on.The second question is in relation to the future of local government review. Look I think the point I'd make about that review is it raised a number of good points but it ended up finding all the woke answers—you know: Well if we're going to fix it let's lower the voting age. That's going to solve the problems." "Why don't we entrench the four wellbeings into local government. That'll fix it as well." "What about STV? If you just had STV voting that will fix the problems that local government are facing." Well ultimately that ended up with finding all the woke answers rather than actually dealing with some of those actual challenging issues and then effectively said "Well if you just give more money then that will solve all the problems" and that was the answer of the last Government. It was ultimately that if you simply just put more money—I think I heard one of their former Ministers once say "Just appropriate it. You'll be able to fix all of the problems". So ultimately—Hon Willie Jackson: Just say what you feel.Hon SIMEON BROWN: I am saying exactly what I feel. I'm saying exactly what I feel Mr Jackson. Effectively it was trying to also entrench co-governance through local government which was another part of that report. The question was: does the system of local democracy need to evolve? Well I'd say let's start with the word "democracy" and let's ensure that people are able to have their say and that communities are able to vote and have their say and that's the side of that particular question that this Government stands on."
Wade-Brown CeliaCELIA WADE-BROWN (Green): Tēnā koe Mr Chair. It's a pleasure to be the third member of the illustrious Governance and Administration Committee to ask questions today. I'd like to ask more about the Future for Local Government report He piki tūranga he piki kōtuku which was issued on 16 June. I'd like to ask: does the Minister agree first of all that our system of local democracy and governance needs to evolve? And which of the report's five identified shifts—amongst those wider recommendations were five specific shifts: strengthening local democracy especially increasing citizen participation; authentic relations between councils and hapū iwi and Māori enabling self-determination and shared authority; number three a stronger focus on community wellbeing; number four a genuine partnership between central and local government to coinvest and deliver wellbeing outcomes; or number five moving from a constrained funding system to an equitably funded system that enables communities to thrive. So I'm asking the Minister which of those five he thinks is the most important.
Brewer CameronCAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour): Oh thank you Mr Chair. My question's around strategic intent and it follows the Minister and the Prime Minister along with the Mayor of Auckland Wayne Brown announcing the Local Water Done Well policy an agreement unanimously reached by Auckland councillors that will avoid a 25.8 percent water rates increase on water users in and around Auckland this coming financial year. They were up for $348 per average household and it will be a lot lot less than that. So my question looking forward is to the Minister in the chair Simeon Brown: when will the broader range of structural and financing tools be available to other councils to ensure they can finance themselves appropriately and access the long-term debt required for investment into water services?
Boyack RachelLocal GovernmentRACHEL BOYACK (Chairperson of the Governance and Administration Committee): Thank you Mr Chair. It's a pleasure to kick off the debate this afternoon into the annual review of the local government sector. I just note that the annual review for local government takes part under the Department of Internal Affairs. This year for the 2022/23 year the Governance and Administration Committee undertook its first in-depth review of local government under the new Standing Orders. The Department of Internal Affairs has Government oversight for the regulation and guidance that is provided to local government by central government.Can I thank the officials who provided advice to the committee throughout the hearing and also to the committee members of the Governance and Administration Committee for their constructive and useful approach to the annual review.There were a number of matters that we undertook to examine as part of the annual review and I'm going to note some of those now before we get into questions for the Minister of Local Government. The first was around the future of local government reform. Members of the committee will be aware that the Future for local government Review was established in 2021 to assess the ways in which local democracy and governance need to adapt into the future. The review's final report was published in June 2023 and included 17 recommendations. We noted that the Department of Internal Affairs had advised the select committee that the responsibility for the implementation of that review and its recommendations does sit with local government. But we did note that we would like to see stronger support and reporting into the work that the Department of Internal Affairs does to support local government on the ground.We also spent a lot of time discussing infrastructure. It will be of no surprise to the committee that the topic of investment in critical water services and water reform was a matter of reporting to the select committee and I'm certain will be part of today's debate and questions that are put to the Minister.Finally I did just want to make some comments around another matter that was brought to the attention of the select committee around ongoing support and financing of local government. This is a matter of critical importance for central and local government to resolve and the increase in rates that we see and the increase in debt that we see across local government is a matter that will continue to have an impact on ratepayers. It does fall to local and central government to work together to address how we can resolve the critical matter of how we fund the services and investment needed to run local government in New Zealand.So no doubt it will be an interesting debate this afternoon. Again I thank officials for advising the select committee and I thank the select committee again for what was a very constructive look at local government as part of our first in-depth review of the Department of Internal Affairs. Thank you Mr Chair.
Urgent Debates — Grounding of Aratere Ferry—Government Response
Bishop ChrisHon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister for Infrastructure): That is a curious rewriting of history by the former Minister the Hon Dr Duncan Webb. Here are the facts: the Government came to office—actually even before the Government took office briefings were provided to incoming Ministers about the iReX project. The situation was extremely alarming. Ministers had to confront the reality that a project that started life as a sensible ferry investment—which we all agree is a good idea for the reasons the member outlines: the freight connection and passenger connection between the North and South Islands. We had to confront a situation where a project that started life as sensible at least on the face of it had grown to the point where the Crown was up for the thick end of $3 billion possibly more.As it transpired as Ministers dug into the detail—a thing that I might add the previous Government clearly had not done—it was not just two big new ferries; the consequence of that decision meant that the Crown was up for a massive amount of money on the land-side infrastructure to support those ferries. So members opposite are wilfully deluding themselves when they pretend that the Government had any other option but to repudiate the contract with Hyundai because no one had done the hard work about the land-side infrastructure costs required. What's more there are real questions about whether the size of the ferries purchased by KiwiRail or intended to be purchased could traverse the Cook Strait in particular the Tory Channel.Now I'm not a shareholding Minister in relation to this—I'm not an expert on it—but those are the facts as they appear to be. So members might want to rewrite history and say they did a good job of getting into the detail; the reality is they didn't—the reality is they simply did not—and the new Government or newish Government has had to confront fiscal reality. That is why we have made the decision we have done. We're committed to ferries across the Cook Strait. It's very important for the reasons Dr Duncan Webb mentions but the Government is not up for a blank cheque. I am someone who is a believer in the ferry service across the Cook Strait but the proposition that has been put to the Crown is simply not acceptable and that is why the Government has made the decisions we have made.
Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) (Overseas Travel Reporting) Amendment Bill — Third Reading