edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Jones ShaneHon SHANE JONES (Minister for Oceans and Fisheries): Extraordinary we're now talking about the rights of initiation. Obviously the authority to undertake a review of conditions depends on the concurrent authority being exercised by the Director-General. Nothing is legal until such time both parties have agreed that there is a case for—within the two-year period—such an exercise to take place. It is beyond cavil in terms of the clear meaning of the law.In relation to who ought to be invited or entitled to have a say in relation to either an appeal in the event that someone is offended by the effects of this inquiry within a two-year period I think you should contemplate it in the sense of the law of propinquity—i.e. how close are you to the effects of the decision? We don't want this business where these are cafe-sipping people from Ponsonby can muck around in the Tai Tokerau wander down to other earthy parts of regional New Zealand and have a say about a highly localised relatively modest issue. For those reasons the law clearly states a limited number of people are entitled to be nosy parkers.Now this is an extraordinarily longstanding failure of resource management law. It's provided an opportunity for people to claim standing. In actual fact the likelihood of them being impacted by the decision is remote. But then they get involved they frustrate the local development outcomes of an area and those types of meddlesome activities are stripped away by this bill—all gone. There'll be no more of these interfering urbanites undermining the resilience of regional New Zealand.So that reflects the policy intent and I hope to see when the select committee eventually reports back my beloved fast-track initiative a similar standard. No more standing for these self-appointed guardians like Greenpeace lecturing the rest of the world as to how we should live. Their capacity to influence regional development through aquaculture and marine farming needs to be narrowed and we don't want any mutinous activities such as what Sea Shepherd did in America undermining the rights of the fishing industry in New Zealand. We've had enough of that. That's what's been hobbling our country.Now in respect of appeal rights the law as contemplated here is very clear. No one is stripping away the ability of someone to take an appeal in the event statutory authority is exercised. But we are putting a discipline in. You're not going to exercise statutory authority just because a number of people who have exaggerated the importance of a landscape value to the point that it's swamping the need of New Zealanders to be in employment. If you've got any doubt about that look at the closure of industries and manufacturing plants today due to the distant corporate ambitions of people who are soon to feel the wrath of our Government.
Luxton JoHon JO LUXTON (Labour): Thank you very much Madam Chair. I want to question the Minister around the Process applying to review" new section 165ZFHL. Now the Minister he talked before about where the marine farms aquaculture farms—it's commons area. So therefore no one specifically owns a piece of it as you would a piece of land.Within the process applying to review—let's say it's gone through the process of the council wanting to review the consent; the director-general's given the sign off on that. And then in this particular clause here Minister it talks about the people who will be notified. Now I don't see general public here; there is a specific list of people who will be notified. But Minister given that these aqua farms are in commons and given the fact that the review will have to be paid for by the council therefore paid for by the ratepayers how is it democratic for ratepayers—putting aside your thoughts around nimbyism; let's pretend this isn't nimbyism happening here—other ratepayers who have an actual real interest in this? Why are they excluded from being notified? Why is this not going to be publicly notified given that they will be the ones footing the bill for this review that has gone through the process of being reviewed? How can this be a democratic process? Is this not just—for a Minister who talks about getting everything out of Wellington and out into the regions—sucking back decision making to Wellington?"
Lu Nancy; Kuriger BarbaraNANCY LU (National): I move That debate on this question now close.CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I just want to signal here that we are getting closer to the closure of this debate. I watched last night and this morning and I do see that the Minister has progressively worked his way through answering the questions. I am going to take a couple more questions from people who have been waiting for a little while—burning questions—but I want to see new questions. I'm going to go first to Jo Luxton. Then I'm going to go to Tangi Utikere. Then we'll see what develops from there but we're getting very close to the end.
Kuriger Barbara; Luxton JoTUESDAY 20 AUGUST 2024(continued on Wednesday 21 August 2024)RESOURCE MANAGEMENT (EXTENDED DURATION OF COASTAL PERMITS FOR MARINE FARMS) AMENDMENT BILLIn CommitteeDebate resumed.Part 1 Amendments to Part 7A of Resource Management Act 1991 (continued)CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Right good morning members. The committee is resumed. Last night when we were considering the bill we were debating Part 1. I've got the run sheet here of the questions and the engagement that were being asked for last night. So we're still on Part 1 and the question is that Part 1 stand part.Hon JO LUXTON (Labour): Oh thank you very much Madam Chair. I would just like to bring to the Minister's attention that the question I asked last night was around his wont desire to have an aquaculture bill. He didn't answer my question last night when I brought up the fact that the process was quite rushed that people didn't have much time to submit and I asked the question as to why he didn't take the time allow a longer period of consultation in order for him perhaps to be able to develop the aquaculture bill that he so desires to do. So I look forward to the answer from the Minister with regards to that.I also have another question. It is in regards to the time frame allowed for consultation and the very quick report-back date for this bill. If you will indulge I may just quote a couple of submitters. There was some real concern from submitters about the very quick short consultation period and in particular from iwi. For example I would be interested in hearing the Minister's thoughts on the expectations as a Te Tiriti partner insofar as this consultation period has gone and therefore the final bill that's come to the House that we're debating now and the changes that weren't made as a result of this very short consultation period—where we've had 1100 submitters a thousand were opposed and perhaps not feeling quite listened to. So I'd be really interested in the Minister's thoughts on this. For example Ngāi Tahu talked about the fact that the engagement … has fallen well short of Cabinet guidelines and our expectations as a Te Tiriti partner. And also Waikato-Tainui have mentioned that "While the Government has committed in its coalition agreement to deliver longer durations for marine farming permits it has also committed to honour the undertakings in Treaty of Waitangi settlements. This proposal is a clear breach of that commitment."So I would like to hear from the Minister again around his desire for the aquaculture bill that he could have had if he had extended this period out and therefore also allowed proper consultation from all of New Zealanders and including iwi Māori who feel that they haven't been given that opportunity and it is a bit of a breach as far as Te Tiriti obligations go. So I'd really like to hear from the Minister about that please."
Salesa JennyTUESDAY 20 AUGUST 2024The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.KARAKIA/PRAYERSHon JENNY SALESA (Labour—Panmure-Ōtāhuhu): Ke tau lotu. 'E 'Otua Mafimafi kuo mau taa'i mālie 'i ho'o 'ofá mo e ngaahi tāpuaki hono kotoa. 'Oku tuku homau lotó ka mau hū atu ke malu'i ange mu'a 'a e Kuiní mo tataki 'emau fua fatongia 'i he Fale Aleá 'aki 'a e poto Faka-'Otua 'ofa pea mo e 'ulungaanga malū ko e 'uhí ko e mo'ui mo e melino 'a e fonuá. 'Oku mau kole atu 'a e ngaahi me'á ni hono kotoa 'i he huafa ho 'alo ka ko homau fakamo'uí 'Emeni.
Luxton Jo; Jones Shane; O'Connor GregHon JO LUXTON (Labour): Thank you very much Mr Chair. First of all I just want to highlight to the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries the question that I asked earlier around his aquaculture bill; he didn't come back and answer my question around that.The other thing I wish to highlight is that he hasn't addressed the question around the director-general (DG)—the question that my colleague Mr Steve Abel asked. I wanted to come back to that particular point because many submitters and also the Labour members and Green Party members couldn't quite understand why it was so important for the director-general to be given such a lot of power within this bill. A council as we've talked about before can undertake a review right? They've got in this up to two years to do that but they can only do that if the director-general gives them permission to undertake that review. Now earlier on in the evening the Minister himself made a point around councils undertaking reviews and he said which are very few". So if he wants the DG to be there to safeguard against councils undertaking reviews willy-nilly because of nimbyism and all that kind of stuff that he has talked about why does he see that the director-general is such an important part of that? Councils are going to have to pay ratepayers are going to have to pay to undertake a review. So why has he put in that additional step in the director-general that both the Opposition parties in the Primary Production Committee perhaps suggested an amendment at the time to remove that because in actual fact if councils have to pay they're not likely to just go and undertake reviews willy-nilly because of nimbyism and all those other things.So I'd be very interested in why the Minister wouldn't consider removing the DG from that process or why he considers it so very important to have the DG there in the first place.Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Oceans and Fisheries): The involvement of the director-general reflects that this Government wants to see the key ministries such as the Ministry for Primary Industries driving towards economic development prosperity and resilience. We've had occasions where regional councils have wandered off their constitutional reservation. One should look no further than the Otago Regional Council and their wilful disregard of this Government's intention to rationalise and recalibrate water standards. So with the director-general enjoying this status there will be no willy-nilly no random fanciful forays on behalf of regional councils blighting economic development within aquaculture. There are and there remains some unresolved issues amongst a host of our regional councils—and I repeat again: one should look no further than the current conduct of the regional council of Otago who need to be pulled into line and if we had a provision like they've got here for the regional councils we would not have that time-wasting ideological foreign thinking we're seeing in Otago.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The time has come for me to leave the Chair. The committee will resume at 9 a.m.Sitting suspended from 9.57 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Wednesday)."
Luxton JoHon JO LUXTON (Labour): Thank you very much Mr Chair. It's a pleasure to take another call in this committee of the whole House stage. Minister we had 1100 submitters—1000 submitters opposed the bill in its current form. We had many submitters suggest time frames of five years 10 years—and yes I know this has been brought up before but I have a different angle to this Mr Chair. Both my colleague Tangi Utikere and Steve Abel also have amendments put forward with regards to the time frames that were suggested. The Minister himself has said that the 20-year duration is to give certainty to give the opportunity for growth for regional economic development in the regions for employment opportunities and all those things. No one is arguing that that is not a good thing. We all want thriving agricultural marine farms. We all want good regional employment good regional job opportunities.But the Minister also said that he would have loved to have ideally an aquaculture bill and that he couldn't or didn't do all the things that he wanted to in this particular bill. So I ask the Minister then why aside from the reasons he's given us he didn't seek to give a shorter time frame of the five and 10 years to the sector for a rollover that would give them certainty and that would give some regional development opportunities for jobs so that then this would not have been a rushed process and he could have developed a bill that is fit for purpose. That meets all the things that he wanted to do that gives everyone certainty going forward and looks after the environment; one that ensures proper consultation happen because we've heard from many—we had 13 days I think for an opportunity for people to submit—concerns around the ability for tangata whenua iwi hapū to be able to really be consulted on this for the public everyone to be consulted and have the ability to submit on this. Why then did the Minister not take that into consideration and therefore have a bill that was fit for purpose that was not rushed—like this piece of legislation—that would give him the opportunity to put forward the aquaculture bill that he really wanted to put forward?
Utikere TangiTANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Thank you Mr Chair. I'm still interested to hear from the Minister around the method for notification under new Subpart 1A clause 165ZFHD. Just further in that particular section specifically subsection (3) it talks about a situation where a permit holder decides to continue to operate under an extant coastal permit that would be extended under this particular subpart. If someone is doing that then there is a requirement here where they must withdraw the application. So this is a situation where there's an application that's live and they make the decision to continue to operate under the existing conditions or under the existing permit. This clause requires the permit holder to withdraw the application that they have lodged within a time frame of two months. Now my question to the Minister is why that cannot be automatic. If there is a requirement for notification to occur to the consenting authority under previous provisions—and I've got it here; I can tell the Minister if he needs it—why then is there a requirement for there to be the onus on the applicant to actively withdraw an application?I know that this is largely administrative but I think it's an important point that yes there's a requirement under this bill for existing permit holders that would be subject to this extension to make a decision to either continue under the existing conditions of the current permit they hold or to continue with an application that's currently lodged. In the circumstance where they wish to do the former as I understand it there is a requirement for them to withdraw the application but there's also a requirement for them to notify the consenting authority of which decision they wish to do. So that's one particular question to the Minister.The other is in clause 165ZFHF. This is about the decision to operate under extant coastal permits. Now subsection (2) talks about when the surrender of a permit would actually take effect. My question to the Minister is—and language is important because I know that you know details matter—when it comes to surrendering effectively a permit what does that actually mean? Why don't we have the word cancel" in there? Is it because that at some point in time actually that surrendered—what is the status of the surrendered permit? Once the permit is surrendered is that the end of it or does it sit there with the potential for it to be uplifted at a future point in time?So the first question is why is it that there is an onus on the applicant to withdraw an application where they've already made a decision to effectively have their permit extended? The second question is around the status of a surrendered permit—and I do note that it is a replacement permit but nonetheless is there a reason as to why it's surrendered and not simply cancelled?"
Brooking RachelHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): I want to go back to something the Minister said in response to my questions and that was about amenity. I think he may have misheard me because my question was: if amenity is the concern—it's not ecological things; it's amenity it's landscape—then I did tell him that he should have supported the Natural and Built Environment Act. But also if that is the point; if that is the problem—that the policy purpose here is that regional councils do not go around doing reviews based on complaints from wealthy bach owners; if that is the crux of the problem—then that is what this constraint on councils not being able to charge for reviews should apply to.I put it to you that when we look down at 165ZFHK the Concurrence of Director-General required for review to proceed" that issue around landscape could be embodied in that so that the Director-General will only give concurrence for a review to proceed if the review has nothing to do with amenity or landscape or baches for instance. Then you wouldn't need this at 165ZFHI for this carve-out about section 36 not enabling a council to charge for a review because you simply would not allow any reviews for those amenity issues.When I was talking about evidence and the Minister responded with some examples of where marine farms have not been consented in the first place. But this bill is not about consenting of new marine farms; it is all about extending the consents of existing marine farms. So the question was on evidence regarding reviews: have regional councils done reviews of existing consented marine farms based on these amenity values that so upset the Minister? So that is the question there. Why not—if the problem is amenity and baches—amend 165ZFHK so that the Director-General will not give concurrence if the review is based solely on amenity grounds and then delete the "Despite section 36 a consent authority [has to] bear its own costs"?"
Jones ShaneHon SHANE JONES (Minister for Oceans and Fisheries): A number of remarks that cannot go on in their false and ill-conceived way. There is the fiction that amenity and landscape values are of a greater level of significance than jobs and household livelihoods. To the former Minister for Oceans one need look no further than the debacle of the salmon company struggling after $10 million to seek a resource consent—$10 million down the gurgler of consultants unelected bureaucrats unhelpful scientists people who are driven to act in a manner inversely related to economic durability in their communities. Who wins from that type of attitude? Yes there are a tiny number of property owners in areas such as Marlborough Sounds who do not want this type of industry. They should not be able to drive the outcomes that affect hundreds if not thousands of New Zealand families who do not have university degrees to complicate common-sense things who do not have access to the deep pockets of those groups who want to weaponise environmental law and hide it behind consultants' gobbledegook. All of that is gone now in this bill. This bill cuts through that level of bureaucratic molasses—all gone. This is purely ensuring that those elements are not weaponised to the point we're driving communities into penury.On the matter of giving evidence that a regional council has frustrated—look no further than the area I hail from. The capacity to create additional marine farming enterprises off the coast of Te Tai Tokerau hovers near zero. Yes there is an example where a group did create off the shores of Stephenson Island out of Whangaroa Harbour some new space for mussel farms. That took them millions of dollars but they now have a consent and they've got it till 2050. They don't have to submit themselves to these invasive costly woke-riddled processes. That's why this bill is very important.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the motion be agreed to.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 55New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6; Tana.Motion agreed to.SPEAKER: I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Local Government (Water Services Preliminary Arrangements) Bill the Resource Management (Extended Duration of Coastal Permits for Marine Farms) Amendment Bill and the Corrections Amendment Bill.
Cameron MarkMARK CAMERON (ACT): Thank you Mr Chair—Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Mr Chair?MARK CAMERON: Thank you to the other members for giving me the opportunity to ask the Minister to illuminate further what I think is a very salient issue—and I think we haven't canvassed it at all well and I think this is a wonderful opportunity for the Minister to do that—employment in regional New Zealand: what it actually looks like. I think the Minister might have an opportunity to contextualise for my benefit in this jaundiced environment tino rangatiratanga giving people self-determination. We hear about it all the time Minister by members of the Opposition that we have an economic activity seen to sit in the doldrums. Sir could you speak to what Part 1 looks like in terms of the extension of 20 years given places like Auckland Council have certainly afforded a longer period of time and what that looks like to help our regions—especially areas like Northland?
Jones ShaneHon SHANE JONES (Minister for Oceans and Fisheries): If I can start with the rather discursive remarks from the last speaker Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan the focus on the date of 2050 or the 20-year duration is driven by solid commitment to turn around the dire economic circumstances in many parts of regional New Zealand. Yes we can mount arguments. Five years may enable people to enjoy some short relief before they go through the thicket of unnecessary costs being imposed by these indiscriminate grandies living in regional council with no conception of how their bureaucratic decisions impose costs on long-suffering entrepreneurs and the people that are the backbone of the New Zealand aquaculture industry. I don't like that thinking.The second thing: I think the most recent speaker made reference to the fact that I am circumventing or undermining Crown obligations to iwi. A substantial settlement was entered into in the Helen Clark Government in terms of an aquaculture settlement. It has been blighted because regional councils have been unwilling through the planning system both with regional coastal policy statements regional plans and for me a very jaundiced interpretation of the coastal national policy statement—something that needs a kina cut severe pruning. So the people that already hold consents as a consequence of this extension will be freed from all of that detritus. There will be no more indiscriminate cost impositions dreamed up by people who actually are driven sadly to undermine industry because the local communities are the beneficiaries when there is a thriving aquaculture enterprise. They're often the only jobs in that particular area but they shouldn't be used as a mine where rents are extracted by regional council unless it's absolutely necessary. And that level of necessity will be arrived at by dint of the fact that the ratepayers and the council need to pay for it—a brilliant discipline because after all the owners of these enterprises need to be disciplined with their spending. And yes OK some of my remarks may have been a bit rhetorical about the Marlborough council. I know there are some redeemable members of that council. But from time to time—from time to time—the truth must be spoken. The truth of the matter is that particular council is covered perpetually in shame because they created the imbroglio of the seabed and foreshore and this is a small response enabling us to better use the seabed and foreshore resources to create jobs and not to pander to the indiscriminate tiny irrelevant concerns of ecologists and other such people.
Xu-Nan LawrenceDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you Mr Chair. I have a number of questions for the Minister Shane Jones but I would kind of want to start by talking about clause 165ZHFC in the context of Extension of coastal permits for marine farms" specifically subclause (1) in the sense that I understand the intention of this bill is to extend such coastal permits to 2050 however I wanted to ask the Minister whether he has considered some of the options that have been put forward in the regulatory impact statement. Because I understand there are a lot of people—according to the Minister's response previously—that the Minister doesn't like or doesn't think deserve any sort of attention or say regarding this particular aspect. But I would have assumed that as a Minister the Minister would at least take on board some of the recommendations by the Ministry for the Environment as well as the Ministry for Primary Industries. I kind of turn to page 17 of the regulatory impact statement where it specifically talks about that for all forms of extensions the negative impact that it will have in terms of promoting the sustainable management and natural and physical resources as well as upholding the Crown's Treaty of Waitangi Te Tiriti o Waitangi obligations—whether the Minister has considered the ministry and the Minister's own ministry's advice on some of these areas. In particular I also want to draw attention to paragraph 76 on page 18 where officials consider the option three and four which is in this case the options for three and four are extending it by five years—oh no—which is extending the consent by 15 years or extend all consent by 25 years not consent to 2050 as a blanket approach. I wondered if the Minister could enlighten us on why those two options were not considered when the officials themselves said that these two options are likely to best deliver on the Government's goals on relatively similar in terms of net benefit that the Minister has spoken about. And I think in particular with the Minister talking about the economic benefit it seems like option three which is to extend all consent by 15 years would deliver similar economic benefits that the Minister suggested. Why was that also not considered?So yeah if the Minister wouldn't mind clarifying on some of the advice that the ministry has provided which isn't reflected in the bill."
Utikere TangiTANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Thank you. Mālō e lelei Mr Chair. Thank you. I know this is the committee of the whole House stage and I have a number of questions that I'd like to pose to the Minister. It's certainly accepted that Part 1 is the substantive part with a number of suggested amendments to a number of clauses there.One of the issues that was raised by submitters and just noting that even with the reduced number of days that were available for select committee submissions—actually 13 yet over 1000 submissions were received. There was a consistent theme around—well first of all there was a consistent theme around opposition to the bill but that to one side if that was not going to be accepted by the Government then there were a number of suggestions around changing the time frame within which the coastal permits would be set down for. There are a couple of Amendment Papers in my name that do seek to do exactly that.If I can turn to Subpart 1A—and I apologise in advance but as we work through each of these new sections many of them are like alphabet sections. I turn to new section 165ZFHA inserted by clause 4 which comes down to the interpretation. I would like to ask the Minister whether he is satisfied given the passage of time since he has considered this matter that there is a view out there that actually a more appropriate term could be that of a 10-year period of extension that is automatic—so there's an Amendment Paper in my name that does reflect that; that's Amendment Paper 55—or what was offered up which was actually widely supported by the public in terms of submissions which was a five-year period.Now I know the Minister has previously indicated that the 20-year period is where it sits but I think what's really important is justification for concerns around mitigational aspects that might need to be considered and whether a five-year a 10-year period which may be seen as a short-term or a medium-term sort of perspective might be more appropriate. So I have a number of questions for most of these clauses so in the spirit of committee stage I'll leave it here and pick up once we get a response from the Minister.
Luxton JoHon JO LUXTON (Labour): Thank you Mr Chair. My question follows on from my colleague the Hon David Parker who raised the issue around local councils having to foot the bill if they wish to do a review of a coastal permit. In the select committee process the majority of all councils that submitted on this piece of legislation were in opposition to this rollover of consents regardless of environmental impacts or the ability for people to participate in the process and encourage a review. When it comes to councils having to foot the bill for this in particular there was concerned raised around the cost of it. And we know that it is a substantial cost to review these consents and the unfairness of it having to be footed by basically the ratepayers.I'd like the Minister to help us understand why he feels that local ratepayers should have to foot the bill should councils wish to do a review of a consent given that ratepayers already pay substantial amounts of money to councils for various other things. Why should ratepayers be charged for a consent review when in fact these farms are in the sea and in the ocean which is my understanding is the commons where no one has specific ownership of that particular area? So I would like the Minister to explain to us why he has decided that councils should have to foot the bill for any review of consents thereby ratepayers having to foot the bill for something that in actual fact they are not part of for example a marine farm. It's not them that is potentially causing pollution. It is not them that are causing any issues. And yet unfairly they will have to be the ones that will ultimately pay for any review thereby making it difficult for their councils I think to undertake reviews because ratepayers will be up in arms if they think councils are spending their money on things that they don't think are fairly their cost. So I'd like the Minister to explain to us what the thinking is behind that decision.
Kuriger Barbara; Parker DavidRESOURCE MANAGEMENT (EXTENDED DURATION OF COASTAL PERMITS FOR MARINE FARMS) AMENDMENT BILLIn CommitteePart 1 Amendments to Part 7A of Resource Management Act 1991CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members we now come to the Resource Management (Extended Duration of Coastal Permits for Marine Farms) Amendment Bill. Members we first come to Part 1. Part 1 is the debate on clause 4 Amendments to Part 7A of Resource Management Act 1991". The question is that Part 1 stand part.Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): Thank you Madam Chair. My first question to the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries relates to this rather unusual provision in this Draconian piece of legislation that says that on the rare occasions that a council might be so brave as to embark upon a review of a decades-old consent for use of a marine farm they can't recover the costs of doing so. My question of the Minister who is so old that he was in the office of Geoffrey Palmer when the Resource Management Act (RMA) was originally passed and so has intimate knowledge of the Resource Management Act more generally—my question of the Minister who will be aware that the Resource Management Act has always allowed for a charging regime to be imposed by regional councils for the use of marine space—for example if a regional council wants to charge for a boatshed or for the occupation of marine space for marine farming my understanding under the RMA is that a regional council would be able to embark upon a charging regime for the private use of the public space. So my question for the Minister is: having taken away the right of a council to charge for the costs of reviewing the terms of an occupation licence for aquaculture is he also taking away the discretion of councils to have a charging regime for the occupation of marine space which is currently allowed for under the Resource Management Act? And if I'm wrong that that right currently applies under the Resource Management could he correct me as to my misapprehension?"
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 49New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Tana.Motion agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Steve Abel's amendment to clause 1 set out on Amendment Paper 72 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 49New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Tana.Noes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Amendment not agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Lan Pham's amendment to clause 1 set out on Amendment Paper 73 is out of order as not being an objective description of the bill.A party vote was called for on the question That clause 1 be agreed to.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 49New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Tana.Clause 1 agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Minister's amendment to clause 2 set out on Amendment Paper 65 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 49New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; TanaAmendment agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That clause 2 as amended be agreed to.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 49New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Tana.Clause 2 as amended agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I will report this bill with amendment presently.
Abel SteveSTEVE ABEL (Green): Thank you very much Madam Chair. I want to propose an amendment to the title of the Local Government (Water Services Preliminary Arrangements) Bill. One of the substantial themes that we received in submissions from iwi Māori was a deep concern about the diminishment or removal of Te Mana o te Wai.The Iwi Chairs Forum is concerned about this reactive piecemeal incremental approach to policy development and implementation on issues of such fundamental importance to the health and wellbeing of both our communities and our waterbodies.Ngā Waihua o Paerangi (Ngāti Rangi) expressed their concern that the undermining of te mana o te wai was one of the primary characteristics that is observed by submitters—and is thus something that is worth mentioning in the title—Te Mana o Te Wai is a fundamental and hard-fought-for principle developed over many years and supported not only by iwi/hapū but by many other stakeholders including industry farmers councils and environmental interests. … Te Mana o Te Wai refers to the vital importance of water to all of us. It is not about our ethnicity. It applies to us all equally. It is about managing water sensibly without destroying the integrity of the environment."Ngāti Tūrangitukua Charitable Trust: "While Te Mana o Te Wai is a concept that is derived from Te Aō Maori its source in mātauranga does not preclude it from having universal application for all New Zealanders in terms of how we use and manage water."So my proposed amendment is that the bill be called "(Te Mana o Te Wai Deprioritisation)"—that's something of an extension on the previous speaker the Hon Rachel Brooking—Hon Member: "Honourable".STEVE ABEL: I did say "the Hon Rachel Brooking"—I did yes.Stuart Smith: Give her a double "Honourable".STEVE ABEL: I'm sure that will happen in due course—perhaps in a couple of years or even sooner. I want to commend this amendment to the committee and I look forward to you supporting it. Thank you."
Leary IngridINGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): I would like to ask the Minister if the words preliminary arrangements" should be taken as meaning that there isn't actually a fuller plan. And the reason I say that is summed up very well by Mayor Bryan Cadogan who has advocated on this in my electorate of Taieri tirelessly actually over many months showing what the burden will be on small councils because we know that the preliminary arrangement is around giving councils council-controlled organisations or community trusts the ability to borrow around five times of their annual operating allowance which is effectively about twice as much as they currently can. But the small councils in particular are up against their debt ceilings.Bryan Cadogan summed it up by saying that making these arrangements and allowing councils to borrow this much money is a little bit like giving a drowning man a glass of water. Even if councils were to take the longest period which is allowable under the preliminary arrangement of 50 years the interest payments are going to be absolutely massive. Under this bill it doesn't really talk about the long-term plan of who will pay for that. Clearly for a small council like Clutha it's not going to be the residents—there just isn't the rater base.So then we've been told in the Government's spin that "Oh that's fine. Councils can amalgamate." Well who wants to join with a small council like Clutha?CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): So can we have some questions about title and commencement please?INGRID LEARY: So what I'm interrogating is that these are preliminary arrangements but should the title actually say "Preliminary Arrangements Bill while we wait for a Full and Final Plan"? Because for the small councils and particularly Waitaki is in a similar situation where it has to decide whether it tries to amalgamate upwards or amalgamate downwards and the requirements of Taumata Arowai might actually make it even more difficult for these small councils because when they borrow money they must be able to have a proportionate cost-effective and efficient approach to ameliorate that burden.Now my question to the Minister is the word "preliminary" to me when I read it shows me that here is a piece of legislation that is a very very short-term response. It certainly isn't an adequate response for small councils. Is there going to be a subsequent piece of legislation that is going to basically make this redundant? And is that subsequent piece of legislation going to have a real plan for the small councils such as the Clutha District Council in the electorate of Taieri? Or is there no plan? And if there is no plan perhaps that should be reflected in the title of the bill."
Brooking RachelRACHEL BROOKING (Labour): Thank you Madam Chair. Going back a little bit and I notice that the Minister in the Chair has changed to our Part 5 debate and I realise of course that we are now on the title and commencement and that is what my question is going to be about. Because of course Part 5 changes the Water Services Act 2021 and we heard that that was because of section 14 of that Act which is Te Mana o te Wai: meaning application effect" and that says "When exercising or performing a function power or duty under this Act a person must give effect to Te Mana o te Wai to the extent that Te Mana o te Wai applies to the function power or duty."So my question is whether or not the Minister considered rather than amending section 138A I think of that Act if it would have been much simpler to amend the section 14 to say that it applies to the functions powers or duty and the hierarchy does not apply to whatever it is that the Government wants to do? So my question is should not the bill be changed its name to the Water Services Strange Te Mana o te Wai Amendment Act rather than the Local Government (Water Services Preliminary Arrangements) Bill?That's one of my questions. I do think this question about preliminary—it's a difficult word to say too many "Rs" in it for me. It's difficult when your name is Rachel. So my colleague makes some good points about that and why it is necessary to be in the title of the bill. And when can we expect more of the changes as well?We had the Minister say earlier in a previous—a previous Minister in a previous part of the bill that you know other announcements were made the other week. We've heard about those but we're not yet sure about the temporal nature of that. So another question is whether a temporal element has been considered for that title of the bill and whether that that would be useful. And of course that could then relate to the commencement of the bill as well."
Kuriger Barbara; Belich CamillaClauses 1 and 2 CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members we now come to our final debate: clauses 1 and 2. This is the debate on title and commencement.CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you Madam Chair. The part of the debate that everyone looks forward to: the title and commencement debate.Now I have a couple of questions for the Minister around both the title and commencement. I wondered: did the Minister consider changing the title of this Act in clause 1 to the Central Government (Water Services Preliminary Arrangements) Act"? The reason I ask that question is because when we actually have been debating parts of the substantive part of the bill we've actually found that—contrary to what you may think about this bill—there is actually quite a lot of central government involvement.One of the examples of that is a section we were debating previously where the Secretary for the Department of Internal Affairs actually makes up essentially the charter for Watercare meaning that there's much more central government control over water services than there is in actually local government. Actually in that particular provision there's just consultation provisions with local government and actually nothing substantive to do with central government.I also wondered in relation to the commencement: we have here what is quite a complicated commencement provision. So we have a standard what you would expect in the commencement provision: "the day after Royal assent." Then we have another part of the bill that comes in on the "recommendation of the Minister." I wondered why in fact it was not possible to have a more certain date. It's always an objective to have certainty in legislation; it's important to make sure that it's clear for the people who this legislation will apply to which has substantive repercussions for most of New Zealand.Then we have additional provisions coming on 1 July 2025. Then also a provision that any other provision that's not come into force—very unspecific. If the Minister could maybe answer in clause 2(3) what this catch-all provision is meant to cover because it's not really specific in relation to this commencement provision. Then lastly we have a section which looks at the secondary legislation in relation to the commencement.So I wondered: is there a simpler better way—according to the Minister—to introduce this piece of legislation rather than having four different time frames that people who are wanting to utilise this bill will have to look at in order to determine when things come into force? Also my question in relation to the title: does this truly reflect the nature of this bill?"
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 49New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Tana.Motion agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Lan Pham's amendments to Part 5 set out on Amendment Paper 71 be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to. Ayes 49New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Tana.Noes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Amendments not agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That Part 5 be agreed to. Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 49New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Tana.Motion agreed to.Part 5 agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): We now come to Schedule 1. There is no debate on Schedule 1. The question is that Schedule 1 stand part. A party vote was called for on the question That Schedule 1 be agreed to. Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 49New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Tana.Motion agreed to.Schedule 1 agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Schedule 2—also no debate. The question is that Schedule 2 stand part. A party vote was called for on the question That Schedule 2 be agreed to. Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 49New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Tana.Motion agreed to.Schedule 2 agreed to.
Xu-Nan LawrenceDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you Madam Chair. I will be quite quick. Thank you so much to the Minister in the chair before for a number of the clarifications that she has provided. I think we are still waiting on her clarification around the use of the Henry VIII" clause in this case particularly around clause 102 because this has raised a number of concerns from the New Zealand Law Society as well as our own Regulations Review Committee. But I wanted to ask the Minister in addition to that has the Minister considered a sunset clause to this? This is one of the things that usually is a way to curb some of the power that can be granted with a "Henry VIII" clause having a sunset clause or a particular duration. So that's my first question to the Minister.My second question which is also really discrete is to do with clause 103 particularly in relation to Schedule 2. Now in terms of Schedule 2 there is only one area I wanted to get some clarification from the Minister on and that is the amendments to the Ombudsmen Act 1975 where it talks about "Crown monitor appointed under section 60". I wanted to know from the Minister: in this case why was only the Crown monitor appointed under clause 60 of the Local Government (Water Services Preliminary Arrangements) Act mentioned but not the Crown facilitator appointed under clause 21 nor the Crown water services specialist appointed under clause 24? Thank you."
Parker DavidHon DAVID PARKER (Labour): Thank you Madam Chair. So we've heard from the Minister in the chair the Hon Penny Simmonds that the Government doesn't want Taumata Arowai to have to apply the hierarchy in the national policy statement on freshwater management which is not absolute but essentially says health of the river human uses other commercial uses third in hierarchy. And the Government doesn't want that to apply to Taumata Arowai. Am I correct Minister that at the same time the Government has another piece of legislation which says that that should not apply to people who are seeking resource consents under the Resource Management Act—i.e. if one of these water services entities whether it's Watercare or another council applies for a resource consent to discharge to water? Am I correct Minister that in other legislation you're also removing the effect of the national policy statement on freshwater management including the Te Mana o te Wai hierarchy of obligations for consents? Because if I'm right you're not just stripping this requirement out from Taumata Arowai you're actually effectively saying that the water services entities don't have to apply it either—sorry the councils that are considering applications by water services entities don't have to apply it either.