edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Curran Clare; Mallard TrevorPart 3 LevyCLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): This part—Part 3 of the bill—deals with the insurance levy payment system to fund the new Fire and Emergency New Zealand (FENZ). My comments will go to the concerns that were expressed around this part of the bill particularly by museums. The concerns were raised at the Government Administration Committee by museums from right around the country. We believe that museums have a strong and compelling case in terms of the financial challenges that they would face if they were required to pay the levy based on the value of their collections.I just want to refer in particular to the Otago Museum Trust Board's submission which of course was a very good submission. Its concern was that if the bill went ahead as was planned before the Government Administration Committee it would have resulted in a 300 percent increase on the levy that it currently pays which I think was around $37000 a year. Given that its sources of funding are not likely to increase to cover that that was going to create a significant imposition. I think the select committee dealt with the issue sensibly and clearly had—I did not sit on the select committee although I did sit in to listen to those submissions. They dealt with the—The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! The time has come for me to leave the Chair and report progress.House resumed.The Chairperson reported the Resource Legislation Amendment Bill with amendment progress on the Fire and Emergency New Zealand Bill and no progress on the Māori Purposes Bill.Report adopted.The House adjourned at 9.56 p.m.
Mallard TrevorFIRE AND EMERGENCY NEW ZEALAND BILLIn CommitteeDebate resumed from 14 March.Part 2 Emergencies fire control industry brigades water supply and evacuation schemes (continued)The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): When we were last considering this bill we were debating Part 2. Clayton Mitchell had the call and he has 3 minutes and 12 seconds remaining.
SpeechA party vote was called for on the question That clause 1 be agreed to.Ayes 61New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2.Noes 60New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Clause 1 agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 282 in the name of the Hon Dr Nick Smith to clause 2 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 61New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2.Noes 60New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Amendment agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That clause 2 as amended be agreed to.Ayes 61New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2.Noes 60New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Clause 2 as amended agreed to.Bill to be reported with amendment presently.
Faafoi KrisKRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana): Just to continue along that line then—I understand the point that the Minister for the Environment is making as to some companies that may already have obligations because they may fall under different regulations. My question is whether the law should be more specific then about those that are not in that category. My understanding is that companies that may enter into this kind of practice would quite happily go to court and answer the difference between must" and "may" and could quite easily—if we are going to quibble over two words—put up quite a fight over whether it is actually obligated to submit a decommissioning plan if it thinks it can argue in a court of law that it need not. And my challenge is to ask whether we need to be more specific about those that may fall into that category to therefore not leave the possibility open that someone may take advantage of the word "may" instead of "must"."
Smith NickHon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment): I am happy to give the member a quick explanation. What you need to recognise is that we have got a difference between offshore platforms that operated prior to the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) legislation being in place. Our Government is the first Government to actually provide a regulatory framework for those activities and the environmental impacts in the exclusive economic zone.So the reason for the may" is that if there is a new facility that has been installed then it is required by law to include a decommissioning plan when it is consented. So the reason for the "may" is that if I have got a platform that has been installed as a part of the EEZ regime there is not a need for them to prepare a decommissioning plan because that was part of the application in getting set up. And then the question—this is important actually and this is why I brought the bill before the House—is that there are jurisdictions in the world that have been caught with hundreds of millions of dollars of liabilities at the end of life and a company has been able to exploit the oil and gas and then at the end of it leave an abandoned platform.What I am able to reassure the member is that with the regulation-making power that is provided in this section there is the power for us to be able to require those platforms that do not have decommissioning plans to require them to meet those requirements and that is why the member should be satisfied that the provision is appropriate."
Faafoi KrisKRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana): I did pose a question to the Minister Nick Smith a relatively simple one earlier during the debate. I guess without having to go over the details of that—The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): That would be repetitive.KRIS FAAFOI: That would be repetitive. But I think the difference between must" and "may" and the obligation on someone who has operated an oil rig at sea—there is quite a big difference between "must" and "may" and responsibilities therefore. My colleague Ruth Dyson has outlined her concerns around what may happen as a result of a penalty if they do not meet obligations in a decommissioning plan that they may or may not have to adhere to.We did also note that in an earlier draft of the legislation it was "must". And if the Government has changed its mind for some reason to allow the owners and the operators of those plants that are being decommissioned to move to less of an obligation then I think that is a fair enough question to ask and get a response from the Minister especially when people from coastal communities will be very concerned if this kind of activity is happening off the coast of what they call home.If there is an onus on those companies or those operators to put forward a plan to say that "If things were to go wrong here is the plan and this is how we're going to decommission a plant in order for it to be done environmentally safely—to protect the coastline." then that is great. But if that is an option to them and that is a decision that this Government has taken and has done it in a motivated way then I think that the Government should answer to that and answer to the community and to New Zealanders in terms of what the motivation is for the change of position. My understanding is that from the first draft there was an obligation that operators did have to do this. They did have to tell and publicly consult about how they were going to take and decommission their plant. As it reads now and with a small change in words that is now optional for them and there is absolutely no onus on them. It is optional to those operators as to whether they are going to do that.If that is a motivated change of position from the Government I think that is a fair enough question to ask and is worthy of a response from the Government. If it is not going to get a response from the Government then I think it will have to answer to those communities as to why it has made this change of position and why those operators who are decommissioning a plant and I am assuming it is a risky business and has the potential to go wrong—why they are taking this new position. I would ask the Minister if this is a motivated change of position to respond to why this is."
Faafoi KrisKRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana): I just want to go straight to a clause in Part 5 and that is clause 217. It may be one of those finicky ones in the legislation. It goes to new subpart 4 Decommissioning plans" and the submission of decommissioning plans for I guess oil rigs petroleum—I will read it out. "The owner or operator of an offshore installation used in connection with petroleum production or a structure submarine pipeline or submarine cable associated with such an installation"—and then the word "may" pops up. I am wondering whether that is meant to mean "must" because "may" is optional and "must" is not. I am wondering whether that is just a small thing within the piece of legislation—Hon Dr Nick Smith: What section number?KRIS FAAFOI: It is clause 217 new section 100A for the Minister. It says the owner or operator "may submit a decommissioning plan to the Environmental Protection Authority for acceptance." and then it goes in the next line "The decommissioning plan must—". So it sets out in pretty clear terms what the plan must have but it says anyone who owns or operates an offshore installation "may" submit a plan for the decommissioning. I know that the decommissioning is mentioned earlier on in the section but it just kind of sticks out a little bit that you are asking someone to do something and saying "may" and whether that might mean "must".Hon Dr Nick Smith: No.KRIS FAAFOI: If it is not if it is "may" then is it optional? If it is not optional and it is meant to be that you have got to do it then I would suggest that that is changed to "must". I am just wondering whether the officials might be able to answer that or the Minister because you are very prescriptive about what "must" be done in the decommissioning plan. It says you have got to—there are amendments to decommissioning plans requirements for public consultation for a decommissioning plan but if it is optional to do that you do not need to do that. I think I have made my point so if it is meant to be done I will suggest that change to a "must"."
Smith NickHon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment): I am happy to respond to the three questions that have been put by members. The first is from Mr Faafoi in respect of the issue of the boards of inquiry. A key theme of this Resource Legislation Amendment Bill is getting consistency of process—whether it be time frames for submissions or whether it be board appointment processes—so that they are common for the agencies that administer them. The Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) has responsibility for the boards of inquiry under the Resource Management Act (RMA). That deals with the big projects—for instance Transmission Gully and projects in the member's electorate to the north—and that process has worked very well.In aligning the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) legislation with the RMA legislation the appointment of the boards of inquiry is being applied consistently and being done with the Minister. You could argue that both be appointed by the EPA. We feel that these are decisions—and I would make the comparison for the member that for instance in Australia Europe or the US Ministers actually have a lot more influence than just appointing the board. We think it gets the right balance between independence but also the Government of the day being able to ensure the skillset is right for the decision making.It is a very similar answer to Eugenie Sage's point about the national policy. She raised concerns that the idea had come from industry. Actually I plead guilty; it was my idea. It was my idea because under the Resource Management Act we have national policies. In fact the member has been one of those who have advocated for greater use of national policies. All that we are doing in the EEZ framework is providing for a similar policy statement so that you get some consistency of framework around the decisions that are being made in the EEZ.The third question was asked by New Zealand First. That relates to the question of dumping. There is rightly in the EEZ legislation a prohibition on dumping but that does mean you need to be very careful that you define what it is. For instance if a ship or a platform that is working in the EEZ has something that is not the normal course of events—what we are trying to stop—then we need to be quite clear about that. In my view the definition of dumping" that is provided for in this part is quite—Denis O'Rourke: It's the exclusions that are the problem.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The member says that the exclusions are the problem. For instance if someone lays a cable for telecommunications purposes at the end of the life of that telecommunications cable we do not want to catch that in the definition of being a prohibited activity and that is why we believe the definition that is provided there is practicable and workable."
Ross Jami-Lee; Tisch LindsayJAMI-LEE ROSS (Junior Whip—National): I move That the question be now put.Motion agreed to.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Members we move then to Part 3. The question is that Part 3 stand part. Those of that opinion will say Aye" to the contrary "No"—Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I think it is Part 4 that you are putting.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): No we are on Part 3. We are voting on Part 3.Part 3 agreed to."
Whaitiri MekaMEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): I want to make a contribution to Part 3 particularly clause 172 inserting new section 72E and it might just be a question of clarification which the Minister for the Environment may be able to respond to. I want to congratulate him for I guess bringing it up to date in which land is acquired under the Public Works Act.As a member for pretty much the East Coast I have a real live situation on my hands that I too would like some advice on from the Minister. We have a railway line—the one from Wairoa to Gisborne. It is a beautiful railway line. It has been closed and there are discussions obviously around reopening potentially this railway line sometime in the near future. The issue with this particular railway line is that it is on land that is quite subject to erosion. There is the possibility with this opportunity that we may need to acquire adjacent land if we are going to open that railway line.That then leads me into the question I would like to pose to the Minister: in looking through his clauses on the public works and the compensation am I right to assume that public works that require land from Māori land owners for for example railway infrastructure are covered by this clause that we are debating in Part 3? I do not see it specifically but I just wanted some clarification from the Minister about whether it does include multiple-owned land. If not what would happen in the example I have given if Ngāti Rangiwaho for example—which is the hapū as part of Ngai Tāmanuhiri that owns much of that land in the northern part of the electorate of Ikaroa-Rāwhiti. If as part of opening the railway the land of the iwi and hapū will be required—does this clause that we are debating in Part 3 the adjustment of the compensation payable under clause 172 extend to multiple-owned Māori land? If not then I would respectfully ask the Minister: in this real live example that I have given you where would the owners of the Ngāti Rangiwaho estate turn to if their land is acquired for the opening up of that particular rail line?That is a short contribution but I still believe it is an important point that we put this on the floor of the Committee and perhaps get some guidance or assurances from the Minister. Does this cover multiple-owned Māori land? If it does not where do multiple-owned or freehold Māori land owners turn to if their land is acquired for for example the building of a rail line? Thank you.
Parker DavidHon DAVID PARKER (Labour): Thank you to my colleague Louisa Wall. I learnt some interesting facts in that contribution. The Minister Nick Smith might like to when he is responding to that point—the 10 percent extra if you like has a maximum set at $25000. I can understand why there is a need for some maximum because we are in addition to the 10 percent properly compensating people for their losses. So this is in addition to the compensatory payment they are due. They are getting something extra. And I would not like to think that someone who has got a $100 million property could get another $10 million from taxpayers because that is going too far in the opposite direction because they are already getting compensation for their $100 million property. You should not be giving them $10 million extra.The question as to whether $25000 is sufficient is something that I would like the Minister's response to because of course the difficulty for a person whose property is acquired is that the date at which they settle their compensation might be some months before they can purchase a replacement property. And when we have periods of house-price inflation—this is not a reference just to current house-price inflation in Auckland; it is a recent occurrence but it happens periodically through time—there are times when house prices increase quite quickly and if you are out of the market for 3 months because you have agreed your payment but you have not got your money and during that period house prices rise you could be behind through no fault of your own. So I would like some information from the Minister as to what the period generally is between when compensation is set and when it is paid out because it is not until it is paid out that the person who is receiving the compensation has the opportunity to buy a replacement property.
Mallard TrevorPart 3 Amendments to Public Works Act 1981The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): This debate includes schedule 6.
Ross Jami-Lee; Mallard TrevorJAMI-LEE ROSS (Junior Whip—National): I move That the question be now put.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): I think that if the member had been a call earlier he might have got it but that was completely relevant.
Twyford PhilPHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): I want to speak further about Part 2 and in particular clauses 162 to 165—The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): I hope so seeing they are the only clauses in it.PHIL TWYFORD: —the question of providing joint resource consent in recreation reserve exchange processes. I want to really reinforce the concerns that have been raised by my colleagues about the proposals and in fact the reservations that were expressed by submitters at the select committee on this. It did occur to me listening to the debate and listening to the Minister that even this provision is better than some of the behaviour that we have seen recently from this Government because by providing an optional alternate process for consideration of basically changing the status of parks under the Reserves Act in the Resource Management Act (RMA) at least it provides some due process. I want to compare that and contrast it with the legislation that this Minister has brought to the House. I am talking about the Point England Development Enabling Bill which essentially confiscates public parkland by legislative fiat. It cuts across the Reserves Act and the RMA to take away—Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I am looking forward to the debate on the Point England bill and welcome it but today we are debating the Resource Legislation Amendment Bill Part 2. That has no relevance to the separate Point England bill. [Interruption]The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! No I want to rule on this. Anticipating a debate is something that has quite a lot of Speakers' rulings around it. My understanding is that the Point England bill is not so close to being heard by the House that a debate on it is ruled out because it is anticipated. The point that I am going to make to Mr Twyford is that passing reference would be OK but he has now I think got beyond that. If there is anything left to be said that is new on this part he should get to it. [Interruption] I call Dr—sorry the Hon David Parker.
Smith NickHon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment): I am happy to answer a few of those questions very quickly. The member Michael Wood raises the concern that the test for any change in reserve relates to its recreational purpose. The member asks: Well what about scenic reserves? What about ecological reserves?". The member misses that this provision covers only recreational reserves. The ecological reserves the scientific reserves and the nature reserves—all of those reserves—are unaffected by this provision; it is only recreational reserves. So it is entirely appropriate that the legal test is whether the recreation is enhanced or not.The second point the member raises is whether this is just about the increasing development of housing on reserves. Not at all. It is about enhancing the amenity of our reserves. The member seems to be stuck in the mode of thinking that just because a set of reserves was provided for a community 100 years ago that configuration of the reserves is going to provide the maximum amount of amenity today. I could take that member to hundreds of recreational reserves around New Zealand that have negligible use that could be configured far more sensibly to enhance their community. This provision will allow that to occur in a place like Three Kings where actually the local sports club is very strongly supportive of the changes because the recreational amenity will be improved.The third test I give to members opposite who regularly lecture our Government on trusting local government is to ask why it is that the administering body that is referred to in this part rests with the council. Fundamentally it comes down to what occurs when councils come to make decisions about changes in reserves and when they have to meet that test whether there will be a net improvement in amenity. I fundamentally trust that councils will make good calls that will see more vibrant communities better recreational facilities and also where it makes sense opportunities for more intensive development because that is a critical part of the solution we have in providing the vibrancy and the housing for cities like Auckland."
Smith NickHon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment): This bill and part are quite specific around the Reserves Act. They provide for less bureaucracy. That is what this reform is about. I put it to the members from Labour and New Zealand First: how can you have a separate conversation one conversation about the changes to a reserve which are permitted under the law right now and have a separate process somewhere else for the resource consent and the planning changes that would enable better utilisation of our reserves and amenities?I acknowledge the member who spoke earlier who is vigorously opposed to the 1500 homes development at Three Kings. It is a development that would result in more homes—The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! The member will resume his seat. I probably over-cautioned the member previously as to sticking to the clauses in the bill. I think it is important if the member is going to make that sort of a comment that he very narrowly relates it to that because otherwise what he does is he opens it up to all other members to take general cases which might not be as closely related. It makes it very hard to chair.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I am happy to take that guidance although a practical example is a good way for us to work through the Government's objectives around these changes. In an example like Three Kings—but we could use many others—you have one set of process and submissions on the Reserves Act changes and a separate set of decisions and process around the planning changes and in respect of the resource consent. All this provision does is say that if you are going to do those things let us have one process. Why is it that members opposite are so into bureaucracy and multiple processes rather than actually having good integrated systems?The last point I really want to draw attention to is in respect of the very important subsection (5) of new section 15AA inserted by clause 164 which is the administering body the council—the elected council—in the area can only grant the application if it considers that the exchange would result in a net benefit for recreational opportunities for the community.Denis O'Rourke: Meaning what? How is that quantified?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well look I just listened to the interjections from the member for New Zealand First who continuously lectures us on trusting councils. The administering bodies are councils. These are elected bodies of people's communities and they should be able to make good smart decisions about the utilisation of those reserves the way they interact with the plans and the way in which they interact with resource consents. I simply say that the debate on this part reinforces that we are a party about less bureaucracy about being flexible and nimble so that we can address issues like housing. Typically Labour and New Zealand First members constantly complain about not enough houses being built about not enabling our communities to redevelop but then block every practical measure that would get more homes built more quickly.
Peters Winston; Carter DavidRt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I move that that member be given an extension of time—Mr SPEAKER: Order! No the member will resume his seat. He cannot move on behalf of another member.
Voting — Correction—Resource Legislation Amendment Bill
Shaw JamesGENERAL DEBATEJAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green): I move That the House take note of miscellaneous business. I think that we need to reclaim the word great". We need to reclaim it from those who would use it like a weapon and reclaim it from those who hark back to a past that never existed and who seek to use it for the 1 percent and not for everybody. New Zealand is truly a great place to live and it is great because of the people who live here. But we do need to keep it that way and to lift it higher. We need to give a voice to the voiceless. We need to look after everyone.I want to tell the story of Justin Duckworth who is the current Bishop of Wellington. He started out looking after street people and fostering teenage girls. He set up a community of young people in Wellington who are on the edges of society creating a community to look after each other and to include people. He decided that more people were needed especially given the mental health situation here so he raised money and bought some land up the Kāpiti coast to give street people a home a place to live and a place to be included. He was elected bishop in order to lead a similar change in the wider Church. That is greatness.We are great when we seek to include not exclude. New Zealanders are great because we expect more of our Government than what we are getting. We expect a Government that does not seek to kick things down until 2040 or 2050 but actually faces the huge challenges that we are facing today. We are not satisfied with a Government that wants to have tax cuts for those who are better off at the expense of core public services and creating an inclusive society and a sustainable economy that cuts health and education but ignores climate change and that ignores the poor and the state of our waterways.We are great because we care for each other and because we want the best for each other. We are great when everyone is able to afford a safe and a warm home whether they rent or they own. We are great when we choose to lead the world and to face up to the challenges of our time like climate change. We are great when we can safely swim in our rivers or when we can trust the water that comes out of our tap. We are great when we can trust our Government to be transparent and to be accountable and to be responsible to the voters who put it there. That is the country that we are looking for.New Zealand is a great country and we want it to continue to be great for our children and for our grandchildren. It worries me that this year there is the possibility that we can make a choice like that which has been made by other countries around the world to go down the path of populism and nationalism and misogyny and that we cannot afford. We cannot allow that to have any part in our political discourse. That is when we are not at our greatest. And that is what I hope that this year will be all about; we are great because we love to include. We love our children we love our grandchildren and we want to maintain this country the way that it is with what that promise of greatness is. Thank you."
Dunne Peter; Carter DavidWEDNESDAY 5 APRIL 2017Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.VOTINGCorrection—Resource Legislation Amendment BillHon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future): During the Committee stage of the Resource Legislation Amendment Bill last night owing to an administrative oversight on my part no proxies were exercised on amendments on behalf of United Future. All those votes should have been in the negative and I seek the leave of the House to have the record amended accordingly. My understanding is that the inclusion of those proxies does not affect the outcome of any of those particular results.Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that particular amendment to a series of votes as I understand it from what Mr Dunne has presented. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is none. The voting records will be amended accordingly.
Thursday 6 April 2017 - Volume 721
Resource Legislation Amendment Bill — Third Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Resource Legislation Amendment Bill be now read a third time.Ayes 61New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2.Noes 60New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Bill read a third time.The House adjourned at 6.01 p.m.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the motion be agreed to.Ayes 58New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.Noes 63New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Motion not agreed to.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the motion be agreed to.Ayes 58New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.Noes 63New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Motion not agreed to.IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I just want to clarify the National Party vote. We could not hear Mr Ross on this side of the House.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): No it was very clear. I heard it and the Clerk recorded it. I have announced the result.
11. Smoking—Nicotine E-cigarettesMAUREEN PUGH (National) to the Associate Minister of HealthSmoking—Nicotine E-cigarettes11. MAUREEN PUGH (National) to the Associate Minister of Health: What recent announcements has she made regarding nicotine e-cigarettes?Hon NICKY WAGNER (Associate Minister of Health): [Interruption] I am sorry I am overworked today. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! The question has been asked; the answer will be given.Hon NICKY WAGNER: Last week I announced Cabinet's decision to allow the sale of nicotine e-cigarettes and e-liquid—to make it liquid—with appropriate controls. The controls include restricting sales to those 18 years and over prohibiting vapour in smoke-free areas and restricting advertising to in-store only. This ensures that cigarette smokers have access to low-risk alternatives while we continue to discourage people from smoking or vaping in the first place.Maureen Pugh: What are the next steps for the legalisation of nicotine e-cigarettes?Hon NICKY WAGNER: The Ministry of Health will work with stakeholders to establish the quality and the safety standards and look into ways of allowing emerging tobacco and nicotine delivery products to be regulated as consumer products into the future. It will be presented to Cabinet in July.
9. Primary Sector—Export Trade BarriersBARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki—King Country) to the Minister for Primary IndustriesPrimary Sector—Export Trade Barriers9. BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki—King Country) to the Minister for Primary Industries: What announcements has the Government made to help support our primary sector exporters succeed in overseas markets?Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister for Primary Industries): Trade Minister Todd McClay and I recently announced new funding of just over $53 million to help support our primary sector exporters to overcome trade barriers. The funding was announced as part of the Government's Trade Agenda 2030 and it will increase the Ministry for Primary Industries' (MPI's) presence in European and South-east Asian markets; establish an export regulatory advisory service to help small exporters navigate complex regulatory environments; accelerate work on priority non-tariff barriers which are a major issue for our primary sector exporters; and expand MPI's economic intelligence units which will help exporters identify market opportunities.Barbara Kuriger: Why is accelerating work on non-tariff barriers so important for our primary sector exporters?Hon NATHAN GUY: That is a good question. While conventional tariffs are a major barrier the export of our goods is also affected by other measures such as quotas and technical standards. A New Zealand Institute of Economic Research study estimated that New Zealand exporters face around $6 billion in non-tariff barriers each year with much of this in the primary sector. This funding will help create a flying squad of experienced market access officials who will engage with their overseas counterparts to help gain easier market access for our products.Barbara Kuriger: How will this funding support existing and emerging markets for our primary sector exports?Hon NATHAN GUY: My thoughts are with the Edgecumbe farmers and households up there right now who are dealing with a major flood event. This agriculture town is based very much on the primary sector and they know that we export to around 130 countries. This MPI funding will help ensure that we can continue to diversify our export profile. MPI indeed holds a wealth of different information on different markets. The economic intelligence unit will be an important source of information for our exporters to identify new market opportunities—and of course with MPI increasing its footprint in the new South-east Asian markets such as Vietnam—and it will also strengthen our relationships in the very important European markets as well.
Ball Darroch; Mallard TrevorDARROCH BALL (NZ First): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I could be wrong about this but just looking at Standing Order 40 on page 28—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Yes the member is wrong. He will resume his seat. The question is that the motion be agreed to.Darroch Ball: A point of order sir.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Sorry? Darroch Ball: A point of order.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Well I have looked at Standing Order 40. There is only one thing there. It is a question of a Minister being present. There are two.
Doocey MattMATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): I commend this bill to the House.
Lees-Galloway IainIAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Under Standing Order 41 I move That strangers be ordered to withdraw. This is so that in the event that this debate reaches the vote the vote may be taken without any risk of undue influence over the members voting.
Hayes Jo; Mallard TrevorJOANNE HAYES (National): I stand to commend the Resource Legislation Amendment Bill to the House.Carmel Sepuloni: Chicken.Grant Robertson: Mr Assistant Speaker.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): No—Kris Faafoi: Which one?The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Well probably both of you but actually Carmel Sepuloni I think. [Interruption] Sorry—was it Carmel Sepuloni who used a poultry term?Carmel Sepuloni: Yes.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Yes right. The member will withdraw and apologise.Carmel Sepuloni: I withdraw and apologise.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): And a warning for Mr Faafoi for bringing me into the debate especially in reference to poultry.
Fox MaramaMARAMA FOX (Co-Leader—Māori Party): I find that last contribution quite ironic from the man who was the chief Treaty negotiator for Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa—quite ironic. I will leave it there because he is my cousin.Kris Faafoi: Have you figured out what a crop is yet?MARAMA FOX: Yeah I have. In fact we said it yesterday and you voted for it under my Supplementary Order Paper (SOP).The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): And the member will—she does know not to talk to—MARAMA FOX: Sorry Mr Assistant Speaker. My apologies. The Labour Party supported and voted for my SOP which stipulated that there was a carve-out for crops. The Māori Party supports the amendments within its SOP on the understanding that as negotiated with the Government they preserve the regions' ability under local plans to regulate all types of GM crops in their territories including forestry and grasses and any activities involving the growing of GM crops whether for commercial or other purposes.In fact if you look up the Forestry Rights Registration Act 1983 there is a definition of crop"—supplied by the member the lovely Steffan Browning. A crop is "a single crop … of 1 or more species:" or multiple crops inside the definition in the Forestry Rights Registration Act. We have the agreement of the Minister to include grasses and forestry. In terms of crops we would have preferred to align the wording with the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (HASNO) Act but it was under the guidance of the GM movement itself that the word "crop" be used. This is not the place to debate whether GM this and that—Iain Lees-Galloway: Yes it is.MARAMA FOX: No because that is the HASNO Act and under the Environment Protection Authority if you want to bring any GM anything into this country that is the place you go to have that determined. This SOP is to determine whether or not a region can declare itself GE-free and that is exactly what it does. The Opposition members can cry to their heart's content but that is what it does. So I would like to commend this bill to the House and I do so on behalf of the party. Thank you."
Robertson GrantGRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do not wish to disagree with your ruling but I want to raise a point of order under Speaker's ruling 136/4 which is a ruling of Speaker Algie from 1961 that states: Members must confine themselves to the general principles of the bill as it emerged from the committee." and also Speaker's ruling 137/4 which is a ruling from Acting Speaker Harrison that states: "The third reading is an occasion for drawing attention in passing to amendments that were defeated but not for a lengthy discussion on matters …".I think it is important to raise those two matters now partly because I intend to do it in my speech and I want to get a clear ruling from you. Julie Anne Genter raised questions around housing affordability in Auckland and did go through those points in some detail. The Minister for the Environment in introducing the bill and throughout the debate spoke about the reason for the bill being the housing issue that New Zealand is facing. I would have thought that that is actually within the general principles of the bill.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): All right the member can resume his seat. I understand that there are matters of interpretation in this and I was not unfortunately in the Chamber for the Minister's speech. That is a factor in how people can reply but I think 2 minutes on the capital gains tax was too much."
Bayly Andrew; Mallard TrevorANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): I am not going to continue discussion around this bill. I have heard my colleague Nick Smith here. I think this bill delivers a lot of very good stuff—12 key amendments—and on that basis I do support it. [Interruption]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! Order! On my left please—Kris Faafoi: He's lost his mojo.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Kris Faafoi!
Simpson ScottSCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): It is a real pleasure to stand in this third reading debate on the Resource Legislation Amendment Bill because it has been a long slow road to get to the point where we have been able to achieve under this bill the 40-something most significant changes to the Resource Management Act since its inception in 1991. Back then in 1991 the new Resource Management Act of that year brought together more than 50 pieces of planning and resource management legislation to provide the Act that we have today. It has been much amended along the way through so this phase two reform of the legislation which was promised by the National Party at the last election is important and I am very pleased that we are going to achieve that today.It has been a huge piece of work for the Local Government and Environment Committee and I want to thank members of the committee for their diligent and hard work. I want to thank the committee staff and officials our ministerial advisers and not least of all I want to thank the submitters—the over 700 submitters who took the time and effort to give us the benefit of their views and opinions on it. I particularly want to thank the 137 submitters whom we heard orally during the submissions on the bill.There has been lots of talk and posturing—political posturing—by members of the Opposition on this bill. They have been highlighting what they see as difficulties and complications. But the simple matter is this: the very reasons that those members opposite oppose this legislation are the reasons that this Government and our support partners want to advance it and have it passed. It is because these are the issues that are important to ensuring that we get job growth; that we get more housing; and that we have a smoother faster more efficient resource management system and these changes in this bill achieve that in a way that has not previously been the case. There will be a reduction in fees and costs a speeding up of process and overall New Zealand's planning and environmental management is going to be improved. This is a very significant piece of legislation. It is a good bill and I support it and commend it to the House.
Hipkins ChrisCHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka): Can you clarify the basis on which Ministers are allowed to use prepared—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): No no I am the sole determinant—CHRIS HIPKINS: —speeches to insult other members.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Well if there has been some insult to a member I did not actually pick that up. [Interruption] This is a debating chamber and there has been a robust debate over the last couple of days in the Committee stage. There have been no points of order brought up about insults against other members. I have looked very closely and I have presided over much of the Committee stage and I listen very carefully to the debate. That is my ruling.
Hipkins ChrisCHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In 2011 the Standing Orders Committee made some determinations and recommendations to the House around the reading of speeches. One of those was that the Speaker is the sole determinant of whether someone should be allowed to read a speech. But the other was that a Minister should be given greater latitude to read a speech where they are dealing with matters of a technical nature. I have not interrupted the Minister because I recognise that the sole right to determine whether someone can or cannot read a speech is yours but if a Minister is going to use their right to read a speech in order to read out a litany of abuse against other members then that is going to bring the principles that the Standing Orders Committee discussed and—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I thank the member for his points. I am the sole determinant as you identified as to the reading of speeches. The Minister in clarifying the position that the Minister has been involved in under his name has some latitude to read from his notes and that has always been an accepted practice in this House. I look very closely at the reading of speeches and I am now going to call the—Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Is this a new point of order?Chris Hipkins: It is a new point of order.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Chris Hipkins—a new point of order.
Lees-Galloway Iain; Tisch LindsayRESOURCE LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILLRecommittalIAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North): I move That under Standing Order 311 the Resource Legislation Amendment Bill be recommitted for consideration by the Committee of the whole House in order to consider amendments made to Part 1 of the bill Amendments to the Resource Management Act 1991".The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): There is no debate on this."
Urgent Debates — Ministry of Social Development—Report of Privacy Commissioner into Collection of Client-Level Data from NGOs
Hayes JoJOANNE HAYES (National): I want to take a very quick call on the importance of sharing information when it comes to the protection of our vulnerable children and people who are within the system. I can say that I have the experience of working in an organisation where the sharing of information was absolutely critical. However the systems that were in place at that time never allowed for that to happen. We had too many people keeping their hands around the information and therefore the people who were actually losing from the whole situation were the ones whom the issues were affecting.When we start looking at the right time the right place and the right types of people who are delivering the services those are the things that underpin the reason that this Government is doing what it is doing. Our Minister and this Government took the responsible pathway. When it was learnt that there was a breach in the system she shut the system down. I have seen on many occasions from the other side when I was working out in the community the many things that went wrong when it was not shut down when it should have been.Therefore in the short contribution that I have today I want to talk about this and to support the process that we have gone through which has worked very very closely with the Privacy Commissioner the Minister and the group of people within the Ministry of Social Development to make sure that we get this process right. Shutting down that system was getting it right. Sharing information is getting it right because at the end of the day with agencies all understanding the same story of the client it means that that client does not have to relive the trauma that they have been going through by having to repeat it 18 to 20 to 22 times. It is that that is actually off-putting to clients.I have met some of those clients. I have sat in the room and I have listened to them. What they have said to me is that they are really hōhā with the way things are going for them. So without any further ado I support what this Government is doing. May we keep going as this responsible Government dealing with the situations that need to be dealt with. Thank you.The debate having concluded the motion lapsed.
Carter DavidURGENT DEBATESSocial Development Ministry—Report of Privacy Commissioner into Collection of Client-level Data from NGOsMr SPEAKER: I have received a letter from Carmel Sepuloni seeking to debate under Standing Order 389 the Privacy Commissioner's report Inquiry into MSD Collection of Client-Level Data from NGOs. The release of the report is a particular case of recent occurrence. The report deals with the activities of the Ministry of Social Development for which there is ministerial responsibility. The Privacy Commissioner raises serious concerns that the collection of NGO client data will deter some people who are most in need from seeking support or assistance". The commissioner recommends that the ministry take an alternative approach that is not inconsistent with privacy principles. Having carefully considered this application I believe it requires the urgent attention of the House. I therefore call on Carmel Sepuloni to move that the House take note of an urgent matter of public importance."