edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Mitchell MarkHon MARK MITCHELL (Minister of Corrections): Firstly I'd just say that if there's violence perpetrated inside our prisons you have to remember that a lot of the people in prison are there because they're violent people. Last week I was on the phone doing a welfare check with a corrections officer who had been stabbed in the face with a shank. About a month before that I was talking to a prison officer who was off work for two months because he had been assaulted by a group of prisoners. So I just want everyone to remember that actually they're looking after people who were taken out of our society because they're often violent; they're violent offenders who hurt people or kill people. So it's a very difficult and dynamic environment that our corrections officers are working in. They often go unnoticed; they're under the wire because unlike our other first responders who are very visible in the community they aren't always seen and they aren't always recognised for the outstanding work that they do and the massive contribution that they make to us as a country around public safety. I want to put on the record and thank and acknowledge them now for the work that they do.In relation to the changes around tactical options for them the change from non-lethal to less lethal was driven in part by the report that came out from the UN. It was just quite simply around the fact that you cannot guarantee—anything that you use you cannot guarantee that there may not be a lethal outcome. But of course dependant on the tactics that you're using that is reduced to the bare minimum. But that's why the change was made between non-lethal to less lethal.In terms of de-escalation I agree completely with the member. The police are outstanding in de-escalation. You referred to the power of communication and that's the most powerful tool that they've got. It's also the most powerful tool that our corrections officers have. Yes they do a lot of work around de-escalation. We have world-class negotiation teams inside our corrections service. We have world-class special tactics teams. We have world-class at-height teams that are able to respond and support their colleagues on the front line.In terms of some of the less lethal options that corrections officers have got: obviously pepper spray and batons. That is absolutely a last resort. They don't want to be in a physical confrontation. I don't think anyone gets up in the morning to go to work to want to be put in a position where they're in a physical confrontation. But they work in an environment with violent people and sometimes those people are violent and they have to have the tools and they have to have the training to be able to deal with that.
Mitchell MarkHon MARK MITCHELL (Minister of Corrections): Yeah a really good point to raise. So just quickly on remand accused and remand convicted—it's quite simply that. Someone who is remand convicted has been convicted—so they have been to court they have been convicted and they're awaiting to be sentenced to find out what their sentence is going to be. Remand accused have not actually been to court and had their case heard. So that is the fundamental difference and that is why if you were to deliver offence-based programmes to someone that was remanded accused even though they may actually ask for it that could be seen as an admission of guilt because they're engaging on a programme like that. So fundamentally that's why they've been separated out.Look in terms of te reo or any language that anyone wants to speak inside corrections absolutely they can; there's no restrictions on that they're very welcome to do that. And I do agree with you that there's also opportunity in corrections to expand cultural-based programmes not just te reo but to other cultures as well.
Mitchell MarkHon MARK MITCHELL (Minister of Corrections): Look a really good question. The one thing I'd say and I'd come back to the point that I've been making is that we have never had Treaty provisions inside the Corrections Act ever and yet the system has been working very well. It'll continue to work well. All of the obligations on the chief executive and on Corrections in terms of continuing to work on strengthening that relationship and recognising the importance of that relationship with iwi and hapū will continue and is continuing today as programmes are rolled out and delivered.Camilla Belich: So why take it out?Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well quite simply it was taken out because—the member alluded to it in her opening comment—we are a coalition Government and that was a Cabinet decision.
Mitchell MarkHon MARK MITCHELL (Minister of Police): Yeah well firstly I mean the reality is that this Government has made a significant investment—over $70 million—to be able to deliver programmes to prisoners on remand either remand convicted or remand accused. Remand accused have to have different types of non-offence – based programmes delivered to them because in the eyes of the law they're innocent until proven guilty and unfortunately they haven't been in court yet. So you know of course it would be wrong to deliver offence-based rehabilitation to someone that's remand accused. All the non-offence – based programmes including cultural ones will be made available to them. So I'm not too sure what the member is referring to there. In relation to the visual and audio quite simply every option is available in the bill. Of course if it's going to be visual there's going to be audio that accompanies that as well.
Belich CamillaCAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you Mr Chair. I also had some questions around the removal of clause 6A which is titled Tiriti o Waitangi/Treaty of Waitangi". And I just had to raise some reflections on this clause before I get to my questions for the Minister. This is a very specific clause that actually unlike many other Treaty clauses in legislation outlines very very specifically what Corrections should do in order to give effect to the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. So I think it's really important for the committee and for our discussions today in analysing this bill to note that these are very specific commitments. And I have been listening to what the Minister's been saying in relation to this clause. And I've heard his assurances that rehabilitation work will continue and that the work that corrections officers are doing is good work. And I don't doubt on an individual basis that they do do the best job that they can. But also we've heard comments from members around the Chamber and I think that that we must acknowledge that the statistics in relation to Māori are not where they should be and that something needs to be done and I think that this was the attempt in this originally drafted bill to address some of the inequities.So my questions are actually very specific. In clause 6A if we look at the sections that have been removed what in this section will not be going ahead as a result of the removal of this clause? So specifically we've got the corrections system and support for rehabilitation and reintegration of Māori offenders. We've got a "chief executive's function of ensuring the development maintenance and implementation of a strategy that is focused on improving outcomes for Māori in the correction system:". I won't read all of the different sections but in that section specifically I'd like to know from the Minister what won't be happening.And a follow-up for that question: if these things are still going to be occurring under the corrections system—if he wants to jump up and answer I'm happy to yield. But my follow-up question is really: if they're not happening why not? Because these seem to be very very practical solutions to addressing a very real problem that has existed within our corrections system. If they are happening then why are they being removed from this piece of legislation? And to what extent does the title of this clause being a Treaty of Waitangi clause—as my colleague Duncan Webb has said this is not just looking at the Treaty and saying we should use it as a philosophy for the basis of our work which is what many other Treaty principles are; this is a very practical bill and a very practical clause. Why is it being removed? Because it seems to me to provide a way forward to addressing some of these very important issues that exist for Māori in our corrections system. So those are my questions for the Minister."
Mitchell MarkHon MARK MITCHELL (Minister of Corrections): Yes. I have lots of reports to read and yes I have read the report. The member Hon Willow-Jean Prime is right that they have made recommendations around improvements. I agree—Hon Willow-Jean Prime: But you're not doing them.Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well every agency should be focused on ongoing improvements and that's exactly what Corrections are doing. They are fully committed to that. But I completely reject the premise that because the Treaty provisions have been removed at this stage with this bill—by the way the Treaty provisions have never been a part of the Corrections Act and it hasn't stopped those very deep relationships being formed with Māori hapū and iwi. It hasn't stopped the delivery of those rehabilitation and culturally based programmes. It hasn't stopped any of that. All of that is ongoing work. And I agree with the member that Corrections is always looking for improvement it's always looking to strengthen those relationships and it's always looking to be able to deliver more programmes. And a big part of what this bill is currently about is being able to deliver more programmes to people especially those on remand because we have an unacceptable high level of people on remand at the moment.
Prime Willow-JeanHon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour): Thank you Mr Chair. I want to start my contribution to this issue by asking the Minister has he read the Waitangi Tribunal's report Tu Mai Te Rangi!". I see he doesn't want to answer my question so I'll leave that one for him to think about whether in fact he's actually even read the Waitangi Tribunal's report on the justice system which specifically talks about Corrections and the role that Corrections do in fact have as part of the justice system to address the over-representation of Māori. So very clearly my question is have you read the report? Have you read the recommendations? Have you read your own regulatory impact statement on improving rehabilitation reintegration and safety outcomes in the Corrections system? Because if the Minister had read the impact statement the regulatory impact statement on page 84 section D: improving long-term outcomes for Māori diagnosing the policy problem operational changes under way guided by Hōkai Rangi that were needed.The Minister said in his first responses that we don't need a Treaty provision in law that this can happen without it that relationships were happening that expectations had been set that things were happening at an operational level. But if you read your regulatory impact statement and the tribunal's report it said what had been happening was insufficient and it needed more done and the recommendation is to include it in legislation to require it to happen to give practical effects to the application of those Treaty principles.Now the Minister has said Cabinet's made a decision based on their coalition agreements. There's one party who wants the Treaty principles bill—so rewrite what all of those might even mean—and there is another party in that coalition agreement who says they will review repeal remove or replace all Treaty references in all legislation. That's New Zealand First. So what is driving this: coalition agreements or actual problem definition actual solutions to that backed up by evidence from experts who say there was not enough partnership and relationships and delivering on these things prior to it that the strategy alone that the operations model alone was insufficient? It needed legislative provisions to ensure that we are on a track to reducing those disparities which you have acknowledged. I find it really hard to be here in the Chamber and hear the problem being acknowledged the challenge being acknowledged and "If only we could do something!" Well you can do something. You can put it into—sorry the Minister the Government can put it into the law to make that actually happen; hold everybody accountable hold the organisations accountable. The Minister the Government Cabinet deliberately decided to remove these provisions. What does that tell us all?Has the Minister read the report?"
Mitchell MarkHon MARK MITCHELL (Minister of Corrections): Yeah firstly I want to acknowledge the member and her interest in our corrections facilities and corrections staff and prisoners and residents there. Obviously her recent visit to Waikeria highlights a genuine interest and desire to understand and know what's actually happening inside our corrections system. I want to acknowledge too that she has put forward an Amendment Paper. I can't support the Amendment Paper because it would be going against a decision that had already been taken by Cabinet.But I just want to correct one thing and she said in her opening comments that there was nothing Corrections could do—it wasn't their issue—around the fact that Māori were overrepresented in our corrections system. That's not what I meant. What I meant was Corrections have got no control over who is coming into the system. When the people do come into our system I'm extremely proud of the work that they do whether it be community-based or whether it be at our corrections facilities. I just want to assure her that the people that I see and that I meet inside our agency are deeply passionate about being able to deliver rehabilitation and looking after those people whilst they're with us and giving them the best possible chance at being able to reintegrate and make good decisions in their lives when they come back into society.A big focus that I have as Minister of Corrections is also delivering programmes that give them real life skills; that give them the best chance of being able to come into meaningful employment get some independence get some pride back have some options in their lives and them more towards making good decisions instead of bad decisions which put them in that spiral back into our criminal justice system.We know that we're grappling as a country with Māori overrepresentation in our criminal justice system—I acknowledge that. But to say that our police and corrections officers and staff are racist: no I completely reject that. In my experience our police officers serve without fear or favour and they're colour-blind. It's exactly the same that I've seen inside our corrections services.If we're willing and brave enough to have honest conversations about why there's an overrepresentation then we need to go right back into people's lives and find out where we make the investment where we can support them so that they can realise the potential that we have in our country so they can make good decisions and so they don't come on to a fast track into our criminal justice system. That fundamentally is the social investment model that I'm a huge believer in.Those are the sort of conversations that we should be having. Those are the sort of issues that we should be brave enough to address and that fundamentally is going to be in my view the way that we're going to make the biggest impact and stopping people from coming into our criminal justice system and instead being on a much more positive pathway in terms of realising their true potential.
Mitchell MarkHon MARK MITCHELL (Minister of Corrections): Thank you for the member's opening comments. I just want to acknowledge and say that yes I agree with you. I want to acknowledge all of our Corrections officers and personnel whether they be community based or whether they be working now in Corrections facilities. It's a difficult and demanding work environment and they do an outstanding job but it's incumbent upon us as lawmakers to make sure we bring legislation into this House that actually is going to make them safer and going to make the people that they're looking after safer as well.In relation to the removal of the Treaty provisions as she's alluded to as the incoming Government a coalition Government that was the decision taken by Cabinet. But the one thing that I would say to her is this. She's saying that because the Treaty provisions aren't in the bill that means that Corrections are not able to actually deliver the services that we all expect of our corrections service especially in relation to Māori. I agree with you; they're overrepresented in in our corrections system. That is not the Corrections' problem. They just have to deal with what is presented to them.However they are very passionate about as I am making sure that we deliver more rehabilitation programmes making sure that we continue to work strongly with iwi and hapū because they have an extremely important role in the rehabilitation of our prisoners and making sure that they successfully reintegrate and that they're able to make good decisions on their lives instead of bad ones. But having the Treaty provisions in there—by the way the Corrections Act has never had those provisions in there. They've never had them and yet Corrections have been extremely effective in the work that they do over successive Governments for many many years.I don't see this as being a barrier at all in terms of the outstanding work that our Corrections staff do in the delivery of those programmes. And they're continuing to work alongside—which I'm facilitating myself as the incoming Minister to strengthen those relationships with iwi and hapū to make sure that we can continue to deliver those great rehabilitation programmes into our corrections system.
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 49New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Tana.Motion agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Tangi Utikere's amendments to clause 1 set out on Amendment Papers 54 and 55 are out of order as not being serious amendments.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.A party vote was called for on the question That clause 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.Clause 2 agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That clause 3 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 3 agreed to.Bill to be reported with amendment presently.
Redmayne SuzeSUZE REDMAYNE (Junior Whip—National): I move That debate on this question now close.
Abel SteveSTEVE ABEL (Green): Thank you Mr Chair. Yes well here we are at the title and commencement. I think one of the striking things about this piece of legislation is that it represents a significant overreach of central government undermining the local authority the rights of iwi Māori the essential environmental protections that we have put in place over many years in this country. It shifts the burden of risk and cost from private entities to the public and it misuses our common coastal marine area. And I should also add that it's a violation of Te Tiriti o Waitangi and in our view infringes on the rights of mana whenua and mana moana by excluding hapū and iwi from participating. It disregards the effective and current national environmental standards under which marine farms are being managed and without a single application being declined even when they are in inappropriate locations even when they are the most high impact forms of fish farming. Not a single thing gets declined. So I suggest an appropriate title would be King Jones Ocean Giveaway Bill"—Hon Shane Jones: "Matua"—"Matua"!STEVE ABEL: He's liking it—he's liking it: "King Jones Ocean Giveaway Bill". Basically this is an instance when central government is saying "Here you go; you can have it"—with no caveats no obligations—"Here's a free giveaway of these marine coastal consents" irrespective of whether you're a good marine farmer or you're a poor marine farmer. Irrespective of whether you are designated to be in an inappropriate location—which is a tiny percentage of the marine farms—nevertheless you will get a free permit. Irrespective of whether you're a higher impact activity like fish farming you'll get a free permit. So it's basically the "King Jones Giveaway Bill".If that is not accepted—and I'm hoping the Minister will appreciate it—I also would like to support Tangi Utikere's proposed titles for it: "(Extended Duration of Coastal Permits for Marine Farms"—in clause 1—"Despite Potential Degradation of the Environment)". An obvious title and an excellent one. And I'd also like to support his other proposed amendment: "(Extended Duration of Coastal Permits for Marine Farms to Kick the Can down the Road)". And I thought that my colleague the Hon Rachel Brooking's suggestions were similarly excellent. This is a dark day in the relationship between central government and local government between the Crown and iwi between the balance that we must strike in providing a living for members of our society and taking care to look after the environment on which all of us rely for generations to come. I'm very sorry to see the likelihood that this Government will pass this piece of legislation. Thank you."
Jones ShaneHon SHANE JONES (Minister for Oceans and Fisheries): A final and brief contribution. The name of this bill reflects the deep commitment towards giving certainty and confidence to this sector of our economy. And look I don't think it uplifts the mana of this House or purpose of this bill by all sorts of extreme suggestions from the other side. This is a time for dry focused language and I think Mr Chair that we've reached a point where the public has exhausted its patience listening to these colourful fanciful suggestions and we need to return back to the technical language of the bill as reflected in this very sensible harmless title.
Hamilton RyanRYAN HAMILTON (National—Hamilton East): I move That debate on this question now close.
Utikere TangiTANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Thank you Mr Chair. Given the Minister has provided a response I want to pick up on what the Minister has just said because he has said that there are people who are losing their jobs. That is correct—that is absolutely correct. It is the one thing actually that I agree with that has come from this Minister through this committee stage it's that people are losing their jobs. And why is that? Why is that? It's because of the decisions that this Minister and his Government are taking that's what is leading to that. So if this particular bill is seeking to address some of those issues and this is a direct response to—Hon Nicola Grigg: What's your question? Very political statement. TANGI UTIKERE: Well Ms Grigg seems to have a lot to say perhaps she could take a call on this. Actually any of the members could take a call on this.But the Minister is right people are losing their jobs. But if this is the context in which he is painting and saying that you know capitalism is the answer around that well people will form their own views on it.I'm thankful to my colleague Mr Abel for his clarity around his Amendment Paper because I didn't want to be discourteous and speak to his own thoughts here without hearing what he had to say. So I will now address Amendment Paper 58 which is in his name. My question to the Minister is: why is he not prepared to consider in a positive way the introduction of a reference to administrative charges as part of this part—which is entirely in order—given the fact that he has referenced that people are losing their jobs given the fact that this will be an additional cost that is borne by the ratepayers. I'm still to hear from the Minister about his view.You know a maximum of 50 percent could have been borne by the ratepayers in terms of cost recovery—just one aspect if things were fair and reasonable. Why is the Minister not prepared to incorporate administrative charges on Mr Abel's Amendment Paper given that this will be an additional cost on ratepayers? Rates are going up people are losing their jobs—that's out of the mouth of the Minister himself. So consider that actually that is something that is related to Part 1A. The Minister thinks that this is a benign piece as my colleague—Dana Kirkpatrick: We're in Part 2 aren't we?TANGI UTIKERE: Well it's actually Subpart 1A. So we are in Part 2 as I've heard from members opposite but this relates specifically to Subpart 1A which is referencing both the costs and the ability for decisions to be made about coastal permits and others.So my question to the Minister is: in light of his comment and his acceptance that people are losing their jobs that this is an additional cost on the ratepayers that there are provisions available for it to be capped—although he's not keen to explore that I infer although he hasn't addressed that previously. Rates are going up. Why will the Minister not signal support for Mr Abel's Amendment Paper?
Hamilton Ryan; O'Connor GregRYAN HAMILTON (National—Hamilton East): I move That debate on this question now close.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): There's not much left to go but I'm looking forward to hearing something new Mr Utikere.
Local Government (Water Services Preliminary Arrangements) Bill — In Committee—Clauses 1 and 2
Tuesday 20 August 2024 - Volume 777
Local Government (Water Services Preliminary Arrangements) Bill — In Committee—Part 5
Local Government (Water Services Preliminary Arrangements) Bill — In Committee—Part 4
Jones ShaneHon SHANE JONES (Minister for Oceans and Fisheries): When are we going to hear an end to these snowflake-prize falsehoods? Think about the New Zealanders today who have lost their jobs and who may also lose their jobs in this sector unless we give greater certainty and greater confidence to this area of natural-resource development. All this talk about administrative charges—sadly that was dealt with last night. If a council officer is possessed of information requiring him or her to intervene in the legal operations of an enterprise—and these people love their enterprises; they love the environment; they're not quietly plotting and scheming at 11 o'clock at night that they're going to go tomorrow and release toxic material into the environment. It would destroy the fact that they're growing food. This is the catastrophisation that we've seen for far too long from that side of politics. This I say again is a benign insignificant and inoffensive portion of the bill that simply creates clarity for the small number of permit holders who may go beyond what is contemplated in this bill. It makes their rights legal. It assures them that they are involved on behalf of the broader New Zealand society in regions where it would appear that side of the House has nothing but detestation for them. They've found a champion in me.
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 48New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14.Motion agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is the Minister's tabled amendment to clause 49 in 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; Tana.Amendment agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that the Minister's amendments to Part 3 set out on Amendment Paper 65 as amended be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments 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.Amendments agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That Part 3 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.Part 3 as amended agreed to.
Local Government (Water Services Preliminary Arrangements) Bill — In Committee—Part 3
Abel SteveSTEVE ABEL (Green): Thank you Mr Chair. I appreciate the advice of the Minister t I've been speaking the wrong section. I'd better polish up that law degree that I didn't do. So I'm speaking to new clause 5AA in Part 2 which inserts clause 5 page 8 before line 25 to section 36 amended and it's about administrative charges. after section 36 (1)(ab) to insert section 165ZFHI in relation to the review of conditions for a coastal permit extended under subpart 1A of Part 7A. So this is to give effect to the consent authority been entitled to recover costs and it's about administrative charges. is what I would like to correct and put as an amendment to this House and I'd like to hear—we've probably heard the Minister's view on it already but I would like to echo while I have a brief moment the consternation and distress of my colleague on this side of the House at the sort of blatant acceptance of the narrative that it's OK to make money at any cost. Clearly that is not the view of our society and it is right that we have a balance and we take into account the ecological and environmental effects of activities such as marine farming. Thank you.
Local Government (Water Services Preliminary Arrangements) Bill — In Committee—Part 2
Brooking RachelHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you Mr Chair. I am interested in what the Minister the Hon Shane Jones was just saying there about the application of new subsection (5) to section 123A of the Resource Management Act being only to do with the 35-year relationship. My understanding was that this inserts the whole of subpart 1A. If he's saying it's limited to the timing of only some of the extensions that may or may not apply it would be useful for clarification on that.Going back I did ask—and this is how that 35-year relates—if there is a 20-year extension the council has two years where they can pay for a review if the Director-General applies but what happens for those other 18 years? That is the question and the answer I think I received was the Minister basically saying that there are no environmental protections for those 18 years and that this is to enable capitalism. If I am correct in thinking that what the Minister was saying was in answer to my question—I'm not sure that it was; that is why I am re-putting it for clarity here—that is extraordinary. It is beyond just not being orthodox; it is extraordinary. The Minister is sitting here and is happy to say there should not be environmental protections for 18 years because of capitalism.Hon Member: He's not saying that.Hon RACHEL BROOKING: I am hearing someone from the other side of the Chamber saying that is not true. I hope that that person is a National MP and that they are going to their Ministers at the moment and saying What have you agreed to in Cabinet?" This is reprehensible. It is not benign. It is not just about stopping bach owners from complaining about aquaculture. It is saying "If there is a discharge that is dangerous to the environment the regional councils can't do anything about it and that is fine because somebody is making money."Well they are only going to be making money in the very short term and this will have financial consequences for the wider community as well. It is shameful and I call on all those members on the opposite side who now appear not to be looking at me and are very quiet to take a call on this matter and say what National's position on this bill is. I've not heard one speech on it in this committee stage. People are jumping up and down to take a vote but are you listening to what the Minister is saying? He is saying that there should be no environmental protections for 18 years—18 years.Hon Member: He's doing an outstanding job—outstanding Minister.Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Ah the members are happy about this now. This is shameful and I hope that your voters are listening to it."
Abel SteveSTEVE ABEL (Green): Thank you Mr Chair. I thank my colleague opposite for—Hon Member: Not opposite!STEVE ABEL: Across—across the chamber—across. I appreciate it because I actually made the error of speaking to this amendment earlier on in the wrong part but I should clarify that it belongs in this part. We were sadly not able to speak to a number of amendments in the earlier part because the debate seemed to be shut down prematurely in our view. But this amendment is one that rebalances the burden of cost for the consent authority which is effectively the ratepayer so that those commercial activities that are indeed being reviewed—if there is a requirement that they be reviewed—that the consent authority is entitled to recover the cost of review undertaken under the subpart including any costs arising from a request by the Director-General under section 165ZFHK(3) for information not held by the consent authority in its normal course of business."Again this is a very reasonable proposition in an otherwise reckless piece of legislation that would make it a little more reasonable because it recognises that if these worthy businesses as I'm sure many of them are are in fact solvent they should be able to cover the reasonable cost of consent. Where it is seen appropriate as the legislation requires that not only the consenting authority has to recognise the need for a review but they have to do that with the agreement of the director-general then surely it is also fair given that consent or consensus that there needs to be a review that the costs of that should be recovered and recoverable. So that's the nature of the amendment and we would like to hear the Minister's response to another very nominal and reasonable amendment."
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 48New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14.Motion agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that the Minister's amendments to Part 2 set out on Amendment Paper 65 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to. Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 48New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14.Amendments agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Lan Pham's amendments to clause 8 set out on Amendment Paper 70 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 48New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14.Noes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Amendments not agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Lan Pham's amendments to clause 8A set out on Amendment Paper 66 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 48New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14.Noes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Amendments not agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Rachel Boyack's tabled amendment to clause 11 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 48New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14.Noes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Amendment not agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Lan Pham's amendment to clauses 11 and 13 set out on Amendment Paper 68 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 48New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14.Noes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Amendment not agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Lan Pham's amendment to clause 16 set out on Amendment Paper 67 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 48New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14.Noes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Amendment not agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That Part 2 as amended be agreed to.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 48New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14.Part 2 as amended agreed to.
Kuriger Barbara; Utikere TangiPart 2 Other amendment to Resource Management Act 1991CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members we now come to Part 2. Part 2 is the debate on clause 5 and that is Other amendment to Resource Management Act 1991". The question is that Part 2 stand part.TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Thank you Madam Chair. Part 2 in terms of what it proposes to insert in the sort of number of word count is quite small but the implications actually are quite significant because they relate to the entire part of Subpart 1A of this bill. We have last night and this morning been making our way through Subpart 1A which relates to the duration of a coastal permit. Now section 123A which this part seeks to amend by basically inserting an additional provision does relate to the duration aspect.My question to the Minister in the chair Shane Jones is despite the views that have been expressed and some of the answers that have been given whether he is open to—and there's still an opportunity to perhaps put another Amendment Paper on the Table—ensuring though that the consideration of the five-year extension and the 10-year extension time frames effectively are still in play. While I accept that that might be unusual it is still not an impossibility.So my question to the Minister is the five- and 10-year options which have been advanced by the community—albeit haven't been agreed to by the Primary Production Committee—were issues that were raised in Subpart 1A and there were very good reasons for that. Some of the points that the Minister has raised relate to the ability or inability of the director-general to exercise their discretion in terms of making determinations and decisions. So it might be that actually ensuring that there is a specified time frame within Part 2 is more conducive to ensuring that all of the information is made available to the director-general. So I'll start with that particular question."
Jones ShaneHon SHANE JONES (Minister for Oceans and Fisheries): I remind the House Mr Chair that we have already addressed Part 1. We have already addressed these relatively insignificant largely marginal details reflected in the member's amendment.I bring us back to Part 2. Part 2 is explicitly covering those small number of rights holders if I can use that term figuratively that may go beyond a point where their entitlement stretches beyond 35 years. This is about ensuring that they don't run afoul of what is an overdue piece of legislative liberalisation. It is driven to give greater certainty with the greatest of respect to the honourable member from the Green Party that debate that issue—not necessarily the amendment but the issue—was covered off in Part 1.And I repeat again: yes it is a departure from orthodoxy that the council staff—before they push the go button before they worsen the prospects of the men and women—hail sun rain shine are up in the dark early in the morning creating jobs boosting exports braving the elements of the Tangaroa and Mother Nature. This bill celebrates their prowess and the sooner it passes the better.
Kuriger Barbara; Utikere TangiCHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger):I'm going to take a call from Tangi Utikere next. I just want to remind members that this is a very very small piece of the bill and I don't want any repeat questions of anything that's already been asked because this is not something that's got a lot of scope to it.TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Thank you Madam Chair. There are still some questions that haven't been addressed by the Minister. I note that the Minister has said that this particular part is inoffensive and actually he describes it as benign which is rather unfortunate because this is an actual part of the bill that is rather active in terms of its transference and what rights and responsibilities it does actually pose. So for the Minister to describe this as benign perhaps he is referring to the word count rather than the actual impact or effect that this might have. So that's a question to him.I do note actually that there is an Amendment Paper in my colleague Mr Abel's name so I won't touch on that because it relates to inserting reference to administrative charges which actually we haven't covered in this particular part yet. And in the previous part the Minister still failed to address the Amendment Paper in my name—OK I accept it was voted down but it did still reference what was considered to be fair and reasonable and at a cap of 50 percent. So on this side of the committee at this stage we would look to support Mr Abel's Amendment Paper because it inserts a further trigger in the sense of administrative charges being carried over. But I'll leave that to the Greens to explore a bit further.My question to the Minister is around—given this is specifically related to Subpart 1A at what point is the extension given effect to? Because while this is a discrete clause in terms of word count it talks about the fact that the duration—so we're talking about a time frame of a coastal permit—to which the section applies subject to any extension that may have been effectively authorised under Subpart 1A. Now Subpart 1B is about the review of conditions and we've talked about that; this is about Subpart 1A. So my question to the Minister is given the number of proposed new sections in Subpart 1A which of those are effectively engaged? Does it start at the new proposed section 165ZFHC which is when it identifies the actual date of conditions or is it at the point that the coastal permit is updated? Is it at the point when the application is withdrawn? Is it at the point where the decision is made that actually know the application is to continue? Is it at the point where the decision is taken for a permit to be surrendered? And I accept what the Minister has said around that. There are a number of different proposed new sections in Subpart 1A which is what this part refers to that identify different actions to be taken. Now it may be quite simple in the sense that actually the point of engagement here is when regardless of those different sections the different criteria are met. But my question to the Minister is at what point is Part 2 actually engaged when it comes to an extension that may apply under Subpart 1A?
Jones ShaneHon SHANE JONES (Minister for Oceans and Fisheries): We are talking about Part 2 an inoffensive benign section in this proposed legislation. What it deals with is there may be cases—especially in Tāmaki-makau-rau covered by the supercity council—where there's been a history of allocating 35-year permits if I can use that term. In the event that someone who enjoys such a permit ends up having the opportunity to extend their permit so it goes beyond 35 years as a consequence of us having a drop-off date of 2050 they're not going to use their entitlement.On the question of discharges—on the question as to whether or not Part 2 in addressing whether or not there are a small number who have a longer period to run their business without being hassled undermined or unnecessarily taxed in a figurative sense by these busybodies in regional government the reality is we're going backwards. The purpose of this benign segment here is to give surety to those long-suffering hardy employers developers of our natural resource. Now where there is an egregious case at some ill-defined point in the future reflective of what the honourable Green member and the former Minister of oceans have referred to through fish farming and if it did represent a biological threat there are other pieces of legislation that can be invoked. We are not going to have a situation where a tiny group day and night studying the innards of the Resource Management Act weaponise every obscure reference to undermine capitalism to undermine the functioning of the market after people have made a difficult but admirable decision to invest their own money in creating jobs. This bill this Minister unashamedly stands with them. There may be a few molluscs and rare obscure snails that go by the way but I'll take jobs any day.
Xu-Nan LawrenceDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you Madam Chair. I wanted to pick up on something that the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries mentioned before in terms of Tai Tokerau. My understanding was that Tai Tokerau iwi did not actually support this bill particularly Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki who actually had a lot of the marine farms also did not support the extension. So if the Minister wouldn't mind clarifying what the Minister meant by Tai Tokerau that would be great.But in terms of Part 2 and particularly when it comes to clause 5 inserting new subsection (5) to section 123A of the Resource Management Act. When we are looking at Subpart 1A of Part 7A in the Resource Management Act I want to particularly draw attention to what happens if the permit holder no longer wishes to hold the permit. One of the things that I have found within the bill itself but also within Subpart 1A of Part 7A of the Resource Management Act is clarity around this. Also I'm sorry my apologies: Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki is not in Tai Tokerau but other iwis in Tai Tokerau did vote against this.The reason I mention this is because the Minister answered one part of my question previously but my second part of the question is around the sort of modelling that has been done when it comes to if the permitholder no longer deems their production or their business to be profitable—can they  in this case shorten or amend the duration of their permit?Now new section 165ZFHI inserted by clause 4 does say that you must not amend the duration". I'm looking to Subpart 1A of Part 7A for any example or any sections that may potentially imply an adjustment to the duration at the permit holder's own volition when it comes to the coastal marine permit. I wondered if sections in the Resource Management Act such as 165D of Subpart 1 of Part 7A around "Power of consent authorities to refuse to receive applications" doesn't quite cover it but whether something under the subheading "authorisation"—like section 165T "Authorisation lapses in certain circumstances"—may be a possibility. I'm really looking for the Minister's and the officials' guidance on this because there is nothing in this bill that has any clarity around voluntary shortening of that permit if someone didn't want to hold on to it and what some of the implications are. There might be none; in which case please let me know in this case if there are no additional implications they simply hold the permit and they don't need to do anything with it and it naturally lapses in 2050 but it then is no longer operational.So yeah the question is around: are there any provisions under the Resource Management Act Subpart 1A of Part 7A that gives the permitholder the opportunity to at their own volition shorten a permit if they no longer deem their business to be profitable or they no longer wish to operate under that permit and not replace it with another permit? Thank you."
Wedd CatherineCATHERINE WEDD (National—Tukituki): I move That debate on this question now close.