edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
11. Question No. 11—BiosecurityJO LUXTON (Labour—Rangitata) (remote) to the Minister for BiosecurityQuestion No. 11—Biosecurity11. JO LUXTON (Labour—Rangitata) (remote) to the Minister for Biosecurity: What recent announcements has he made on eradicating Mycoplasma bovis?Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister for Biosecurity): Last Thursday I was pleased to join the Prime Minister Dairy New Zealand Beef + Lamb and the Ministry for Primary Industries at the national bulk-milk testing lab MilkTestNZ to announce that we are just one infected property away from becoming the first country in the world to successfully eradicate Mycoplasma bovis. [Applause] Thank you. This is a significant achievement that we have achieved in partnership with the primary sector and once again shows that this Government is committed to supporting our primary sector and rural communities. We have cleared 271 farms of Mycoplasma bovis and plans are under way to clear that remaining infected property. I want to thank industry and New Zealand's rural communities for partnering with this Government to take on this challenge.Jo Luxton: How will the Government manage the M. bovis eradication programme going forward?Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: The Government is working with industry partners on the transition of the Mycoplasma bovis eradication programme to an agency under a national pest-management plan for implementation within the next year. This will see us move from delimiting to provisional absence of the disease including significant surveillance testing of herds around the country to provide assurance that there are no undetected pockets of the disease. The world-class bulk-milk testing and beef herd surveillance developed over the past four years will continue to be crucial tools.Jo Luxton: How will the Government continue to support industry to prevent similar incursions?Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: The Government is strengthening New Zealand's biosecurity system as part of Budget 2022 to help protect our vital primary sector and native flora and fauna from disease incursions and to manage incursions when they do occur. Last Thursday I was pleased to announce that Budget 2022 will deliver funding of $42.9 million to bolster the biosecurity system and $68 million over the next year for Mycoplasma bovis eradication.
9. Question No. 9—PoliceGINNY ANDERSEN (Labour—Hutt South) to the Minister of PoliceQuestion No. 9—Police9. GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour—Hutt South) to the Minister of Police: What recent announcements has she made regarding the number of police officers on the front line?Hon POTO WILLIAMS (Minister of Police): On Sunday I was at Counties Manukau Police Station with my justice sector colleagues to announce $562 million in funding over four years into Police so they continue to have the resource they need to keep our communities safe. This is in addition to our already record investment in Police since 2017. Budget 2022 also sets out $50 million from next year to ensure that we continue to grow the number of police officers in line with population growth. This will mean that there will be one police officer for every 480 people and delivers on a key manifesto commitment. Ginny Andersen: How many police recruits have graduated since this Government came into office?Hon POTO WILLIAMS: Last week I attended my 13th police graduation as Minister of Police which saw 71 recruits graduate and deploy to the front line. This brings the total number of police graduates since 2017 to 3145. The additional police investments we are delivering through Budget 2022 means that police numbers will not drop as our population increases as they did in 2011 and 2013. Ginny Andersen: What does having more police officers on the front line mean for keeping our communities safe?Hon POTO WILLIAMS: This Government has been clear: more police means safer communities. That is why we have seen over 3000 recruits through Police College since we came to office with 1400 additional police officers on the front line. As one commentator put it Don't underestimate the strength of that thin blue line when it is properly supported and empowered to do their job." Hon Mark Mitchell: Why isn't it working?Hon POTO WILLIAMS: That's why Budget 2022 makes further record investments into Police and I welcome Mr Mitchell's support for that additional funding. Chris Baillie: Can the Minister confirm that the net increase in police numbers in the last month was four? Hon POTO WILLIAMS: What I can say is we are well on track to increase—no I cannot confirm that. I don't know where that member gets his numbers from but what I can confirm is 1800 extra police by the end of the year six months ahead of budget."
7. Question No. 7—Social Development and EmploymentARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) to the Minister for Social Development and EmploymentQuestion No. 7—Social Development and Employment7. ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What recent announcements has she made about supporting people into employment education or training?Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Thank you Mr Speaker. Happy New Zealand Sign Language Week Youth Week Rotuman Language Week and New Zealand Music Month. Yesterday Minister Hipkins and I announced the extension to Apprenticeship Boost Mana in Mahi and the Māori Trades and Training Fund. Apprenticeship Boost has supported around 45000 new apprentices and begun building the workforce we need to futureproof our economy. Yesterday the Government announced $230 million in Budget 2022 for additional investment to support another 24000 apprentices and to continue to support 14000 more beyond August of this year. There are already 17000 employers involved in the programme and this investment will provide certainty to them and ensure new employers can sign up. This investment goes a long way to bridging the skills gap and providing work-ready employees for New Zealand businesses.Arena Williams: Why is the Government extending Māori trades and training?Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Māori trades and training is showing incredible promise as a programme. Last financial years it was over-subscribed with high demand for Māori entities willing to deliver employment-focused training programmes in their communities. The by Māori for Māori approach aligns with the all-of-Government employment strategy and Māori Employment Action Plan which seeks an improved Māori-Crown partnership to deliver more equitable labour market outcomes for Māori. The contracted programmes that have been launched have 254 participants with 177 in employment so far. The programmes have a retention rate of 95 percent. A total of 813 participants are expected to be supported through training with a Te Ao Māori focus and into sustainable employment under existing partnerships with more already being developed.Arena Williams: Why is the Government extending Mana in Mahi?Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Mana in Mahi is performing above expectations. By the end of the programme participants have had significant investment into their above expectations. By the end of the programme participants have had significant investment into their skills and experience and are more likely to continue in employment. Currently 89 percent of the 4719 participants have found work are still active on the programme or have exited their placement early and are not on benefit. More than half of the current participants are working towards a level 4 qualification or above. Mana in Mahi is a fantastic programme that provides significant incentives to employers and participants when they need it most.
4. Question No. 4—EducationMARJA LUBECK (Labour) to the Minister of EducationQuestion No. 4—Education4. MARJA LUBECK (Labour) to the Minister of Education: Noa'ia Mr Speaker. What action is the Government taking to give continued support to businesses in meeting their skill needs?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Yesterday I announced as part of Budget 2022 that we'll be providing for another 24000 apprentices getting the Apprenticeship Boost support and some 14000 apprentices will continue to get supported beyond August this year. In recognition of the significant growth in apprentices since 2020—and the employment strength of the New Zealand economy—and to extend the initiative at a reasonable cost the first year subsidy rate will lower to $500 per month from 5 August 2022. The second year subsidy rate will remain at $500 per month until the initiative ends in December 2023. There are already 17000 employers involved in the programme and today's investment means that new employers can also join up. Marja Lubeck: Why did the Government consider it important to make this investment at this time? Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: New Zealand's economy is one of the strongest in the world with record low unemployment of 3.2 percent and economic activity up on what is was pre-COVID-19—and I know they hate that over there. That's in large part due to the investments that this Government has made including in training and supporting New Zealanders into work. A key message that we hear from business is that they need more skilled workers and we've continued to invest in the training of New Zealanders who are building our houses and upgrading our infrastructure because we know how vital they are to the success of our recovery. Over the last two years over 190000 people have benefited from Government investment in trades training including in apprenticeships. Marja Lubeck: What response has he seen to this investment? Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: More good news. Business New Zealand has said that the Apprenticeship Boost had and I quote turbo charged" an uptake in the number of people entering trades at the time of skill shortages adding on to that: "The scheme has worked. We've seen tens of thousands of people entering apprenticeships up 55 percent … [on] the levels [that we] were up to previously." Another very positive comment from the Motor Trade Association who called it "brilliant news for the automotive industry" and the Building and Construction Industry Training Organisation said that the Apprenticeship Boost was "essential for the training of the skilled pipeline of workers needed in the building and construction industry.""
2. Question No. 2—FinanceDr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central) to the Minister of FinanceQuestion No. 2—Finance2. Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): The Crown accounts released last week continue to reflect the strong position that New Zealand is in to manage the challenging global environment. For the nine months to the end of March the operating balance before gains and losses (OBEGAL) deficit was $8.1 billion—$4.1 billion below that forecast in December's Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update. The investments made by the Government to help keep businesses open and keep Kiwis in work has paid dividends. Projections of 10 percent unemployment and an economy going backwards were avoided because of the actions that we have taken. New Zealand is in a strong fiscal position as we deal with the ongoing economic impacts of the Omicron outbreak and the global inflation pressures.Dr Duncan Webb: What did the report say about net debt?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: We've continued to take a careful approach to our spending net core Crown debts to 36.3 percent of GDP—$155 million less than forecast. This is substantially below the countries with which we compare ourselves. Our debt is set to peak at about half of Australia's around a third of the UK and around a fifth of the US measured consistently as a percentage of GDP. Our economy has come through the COVID shock better than almost anywhere else. The recovery has momentum and the easing of restrictions and opening up to skilled workers and tourists will help businesses and the economy rebuild. However 2022 will continue to be a challenging year for many New Zealanders facing the impact of global inflation and the ongoing impact of the pandemic. Our new fiscal rules will ensure we're taking a balanced approach: controlling spending but targeting it to those who need it most keeping a lid on debt and able to make those important investments in infrastructure.SPEAKER: I am going to allow the member to ask another supplementary but I'm going to advise the Minister of Finance to be briefer in his response.Dr Duncan Webb: What other reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well so many but last month credit rating agency Moody's reaffirmed New Zealand's local currency and foreign currency rating at triple A with a stable outlook. Moody's praised New Zealand's response to the pandemic calling it effective and proactive. It noted New Zealand's resilience supported the country's medium-term growth potential at a level higher than many advanced triple A countries. Moody's said New Zealand's solid fiscal metrics would stand it in good stead to respond to future shocks to growth.SPEAKER: I think the member had actually answered the question within about five words.
Voting — Correction—Plant Variety Rights Bill
Dean JacquiVOTINGCorrection—Plant Variety Rights BillASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members before we adjourn for the day during the vote on the second reading of the Plant Variety Rights Bill the vote for the Ayes was incorrectly recorded as 108 votes. The correct vote was 107 in favour. The record will be corrected. The House adjourned at 9.58 p.m.
Salesa JennyREPORT OF COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE HOUSECHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Madam Speaker the committee has considered the Retail Payment System Bill and reports it without amendment. The committee has also considered the Crown Pastoral Land Reform Bill and reports it with amendment. The committee has also considered the Maritime Powers Bill and reports progress. I move That the report be adopted.Motion agreed to.Report adopted.
Brownlee Gerry; Salesa JennyHon GERRY BROWNLEE (National): I'm sure the Minister will respond to questions asked in a few minutes. Look the other thing that is a little bit interesting is the issue of permission from flag States. So I'd like the Minister just to explain how that regime works because as you read the bill we are saying that we want to have powers to prevent or to take enforcement action against anybody committing any illegal activity on a ship inside New Zealand's territorial seas and then for any event that occurs in that space to extend the jurisdiction out into international waters as well. The question then becomes: is the bill contradicting itself by requiring that the permission to take an action against anybody on a ship requires the permission of the flag State for the vessel? Now if the reading of this legislation actually gives a contraposition then I'd like the Minister to make that clear if that's at all possible.The other question that I think has just been answered—or really perhaps not has been answered but will be answered by the Minister in relation to the continuation of powers which my colleague just raised which is the issue of: where does the stop and start occur on all of this? The bill itself has been amended and it would be good for the Minister to just explain exactly how that amendment gives effect to the proposal which means that if a pursuit is started in international waters or inside New Zealand's territorial sea then the powers of arrest containment etc. exist right up to the time that it is berthed inside a New Zealand port. The question is: what happens at that point? Are those charges then effectively laid before the courts in New Zealand? Who actually makes the arrest? Is the arrest made by the officer in the first place? Is there a handover to Corrections or is there a handover to the New Zealand Police? Exactly how that works is a question that it would be useful for the Minister to answer. As I've said before this is a bill that is necessary. New Zealand is an island nation. We are surrounded by one of the biggest territorial seas of any nation in the world. For us to have this sort of provision is important.The other thing that would be useful for the Minister to explain would be the reference to aircraft inside a maritime bill. It might be very obvious to some of us who've been through that. We all know that the use of drones etc. is going to become more and more prominent as time goes on but the explanation about how it fits into a maritime bill would also be quite a useful thing I think for the public record as we move forward.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The time has come for me to report progress.House resumed.
Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much Madam Chair. I've been enjoying the discussion between Minister Nanaia Mahuta and the Hon Gerry Brownlee. I think as Mr Brownlee has articulated this is a really key area for the committee itself to understand with the implication of course that courts might be called upon in the future—and in fact inevitably will be—to consider the question. So to have some clarity provided through this process would I think be helpful indeed. I note that the Minister is diligently taking some advice on that particular exchange so I'll take the opportunity of raising perhaps a couple of separate questions. They might be less important but nevertheless they're important to me. So I'll just put them out into the ether in any case and we'll see what we get back which may or may not be of course tonight. My question was actually in regard to the role that the Attorney-General will play in relation to possible prosecutions. I note that the Attorney-General himself—the current version thereof—is in the Chamber and I prefaced my remarks by saying of course that I don't cast aspersions on any person who holds that office. The intention merely is to understand the way that those powers would be exercised and particularly that kind of chicken-and-egg scenario that we've got whereby as the select committee articulated the Attorney-General's consent is needed for proceedings for trial and punishment of a person—to use their phrase—but nevertheless certain actions leading up to that can take place in the meantime and perhaps in anticipation of such consent notwithstanding that such consent hadn't at that time been sought let alone given. I presume that the reason for that is because it might be out on the high seas or in these various areas in the water delineated by the exclusive economic zone the territorial sea and so forth and that it's not practical to reach out to the Attorney-General and gain his or her—as the case may be—consent to those proceedings. But I do think it is an important question given that as the Minister herself has acknowledged search and seizure can take place without a warrant. Of course again it wouldn't be reasonable for me to suggest that the ordinary course of events on New Zealand land would take place such as a justice of the peace or a judge or the like would give consent for example to a search. So again I don't wish to make comments that could be regarded as a suggestion that's not practicable on the waters but nevertheless I did think it would be helpful to have some explanation from the Minister on that. I note that she appears ready willing and able to comment perhaps in response to the exchange that she and the Hon Gerry Brownlee have had so to allow time for that this evening I'll hold fire on any further questions or comments I might have Madam Chair.
Brownlee GerryHon GERRY BROWNLEE (National): Well look that's sort of helpful. But can I ask a very specific question then: are the powers of people other than the New Zealand Police limited to the Act under which they are able to already exercise enforcement powers?
Mahuta NanaiaHon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Foreign Affairs): Thank you for the helpful I guess clarification of the extent of the concern. Can I firstly make a comment in relation to the role of the New Zealand Defence Force—more than likely highly probable highly likely that it will be a defence vessel that will be undertaking the activity to pursue an identified vessel that will be of interest for a specific set of reasons.In terms of the ongoing comments around the suitability of Department of Conservation (DOC) rangers I think we have to keep in mind that the relevant expertise of each class of enforcement officers is a high consideration. So I am aware that the select committee received a table of advice setting out the comparable powers of each class of enforcement officers and what they are able to do. So for example DOC warranted officers and rangers have comparable powers under the Wildlife Act 1953 which enabled them to stop any vehicle or boat enter or board it search it seize evidential material detain a person and arrest a person. Similarly DOC endangered species officers who have powers under the Trade in Endangered Species Act 1989 have powers to stop a vehicle which includes a ship enter or board it search it seize evidence detain a person and arrest a person. And so it goes through the relevant class of enforcement officers including Customs and the relevant Act the New Zealand Defence Force and the relevant Act and in this case the Fisheries Act and the Crown Minerals Act also the Wildlife Act and the Maritime Crimes Act and also the Police who have comparable powers under the Search and Surveillance Act. It sets out very clearly the range of Acts that provide those identified enforcement officers with the subsequent powers that they can exercise into national waters.Can I also go back and say specifically with regards to DOC rangers and their particular powers they have expertise in terms of their knowledge of the Wildlife Act and the Trade in Endangered Species Act. And that is as you would expect; they have expertise under those particular Acts. New Zealand Police Force have expertise under their subsequent Acts and so do Customs officers. So for that reason it's going to be important that they act—as I said previously—in concert to undertake a pre-assessment of the nature of their concern with a particular vessel; it could be in relation to human trafficking wildlife and endangered species trafficking drug trafficking. But in concert and as a collective they will undertake an assessment and then collectively exercise the full level of responsibilities that they have as enforcement officers.
Brownlee GerryHon GERRY BROWNLEE (National): Can I thank the Minister for beginning a discussion on the issue of who may exercise the powers under this bill. It is the one area that the National Party has some concern about. It won't stop us supporting the bill through the balance of its House stages but I think given that courts these days will often derive some of their determinations around the law from what is said in Parliament then I think there needs to be a greater articulation by the Minister of exactly what the limits are on the powers of non-sworn officers of the Crown—in other words on Customs officers on the Department of Conservation (DOC) rangers and any others who might be included in that body of enforcement officers that the broad term enforcement officer" is used for here in the bill.While we would have some concern about the power being extended to people who are outside of the usual range of what we might consider policing just imagine if one of those officers did engage in what might be an arrest situation something that leads to a charge being laid but a question was raised about the jurisdictional rights of that officer to undertake the enforcement they had. Would that be a good thing or not? It would be a bad thing in my opinion so I think the Minister needs to articulate a little bit further exactly what the constraints are and what the extensions are of powers that will be or could be undertaken by those enforcement officers.I'd say it's also a little bit odd I think that DOC officers are considered to be—or DOC rangers can be considered as having these powers when in fact it would be expected that firstly the surveillance system in New Zealand would have identified a ship that might be engaged in some kind of criminal activity or might be the harbinger of criminal activity and therefore when a pursuit took place that there would be appropriately capable police on board regardless of whether there was Defence involved. But then the reality for New Zealand is that in a pursuit like that Defence will always be involved. So I don't quite understand why there needs to be the extension to DOC officers to DOC rangers as proposed in the bill. I have to say that notwithstanding the excellent work done by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade lawyers what has been provided to us was more about the fact of what might happen rather than a specific reason for it.So with those comments I'd ask the Minister to just expand for the Hansard record for a place that the court might refer to should there be a question about jurisdictional rights for enforcement officers to get some clear steer on what certainly the Government believes is the situation but also to elaborate or to make it clear exactly what the Parliament is going to express at the point that the third reading of this bill passes. I'll leave it for the Minister to comment there. I have a number of other questions that I'd like to put to the Minister."
Webb Duncan; Salesa JennyDr DUNCAN WEBB (Junior Whip—Labour): Point of order Madam Chair. Madam Chair I have discussed with the other whips and I seek leave that this bill be considered as one part.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Leave is sought for that purpose. I take it that that has been agreed to. We shall discuss this bill as one.Parts 1 to 3 Schedules 1 and 2 and clauses 1 and 2CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that Parts 1 to 3 Schedules 1 and 2 and clauses 1and 2 stand part.I call on the Hon Gerry Brownlee.Hon Gerry Brownlee: Oh sorry. You've got the Minister first I think.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): I call on the Hon Minister Nanaia Mahuta.
Salesa JennyMARITIME POWERS BILLIn CommitteeCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members we come now to the Maritime Powers Bill. I remind members that they are able to participate remotely. If you're on the Zoom and want to make a call please type call" into the chat. You should also use the chat if you'd like to raise a point of order. If we receive new tabled amendments I'll advise members so that they can refresh the House papers page to see the new amendment. Finally it'd be helpful for members to ask multiple questions if they have them. The members are in charge of the call. The Ministers are here to answer your questions."
Cameron MarkMARK CAMERON (ACT): Madam Chair thanks very much. I would like to add to that actually in talking about debating the name of the bill I think an appropriate name would be To Remove the Inherent Value From All New Zealand Farmers Bill" because this speaks to the very thing that has eroded 150 years of trust in rural New Zealand. It's an absolute disgrace. I think it's an apt name for it."
Smith StuartSTUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Well I think the name of this bill should be changed to the Crown Pastoral Land Reform (No Need to Have a Committee Stage) Bill". It was quite clear from the Minister's speech before—they're rattled aren't they? They're rattled. I don't know what's happened there. Maybe they got a bad poll I don't know but they're all a bit prickly tonight. But the Minister's spent quite a bit of time saying there was no need to have a committee stage—no need; it comes out of the select committee and it doesn't need to have a committee stage. And then he has the audacity to have a Supplementary Order Paper himself. Well I know he's not a new member but I don't know do they still run those classes for new members? Perhaps we can get him a bit of a refresher so he can understand how this works. And then poor old Duncan Webb doing the voting getting up [Member speaks with tired voice]: "65 votes in favour." The poor guy he needs a bloody Red Bull to vim him up a bit you know. I think their attitude today says it all. It's a poor bill. It's got a poor name and it needs to change."
Salesa JennyCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): I would like to make a ruling in terms of Part 1 and Part 2 and the amendments. The previous Chair did allow calls to be made on Schedules 1 and 2 during her time on the Chair with the debate on Part 1. I did follow it a little bit from my room. There was probably about up to an hour and a half spent on Part 1 and I do recall one of the things that the Chair at the time said was that she encouraged members to take calls on the amendments because it had been nearly an hour and the amendments had not actually been discussed. I've given members some leeway to take calls on the schedules during Part 2 but I'm now ruling that this debate will only be on Part 2 and the amendments to it from this point.
O'Connor DamienHon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister for Land Information): It's a bit late for that member. This bill went from the House into select committee where I and other members were open to proper discussion and consideration of these kinds of issues. No the Opposition chose to just oppose the bill in its entirety rather than work through to improve the bill where things like this might have been considered properly.One of the issues raised by the members over there; and it's something I've looked at the one of permitted discretionary and banned. These are extensive lists. I've made the point before about actually the National Government's legislation mean they all had to be discretionary. But I come back to a very small list of prohibited activities. I won't dwell on those but can I come back to the one of controlling invasive exotic plant pests—the area involved does not exceed 25 hectares in any five-year period. That issue has not been brought to my attention before. Indeed by submitters—and I've talked to the accord on a number of occasions and Land Information New Zealand have been listening—and indeed the select committee could have made a recommendation on that and it could very well have been changed. But no the Opposition just chose to belligerently oppose this bill and not do what it should do on behalf of the lessees and to make the adjustments necessary. I was open to any of them.Can I say that all the Opposition did is came back and said We oppose the bill." Can I say that at the heart of the progression here will be the implementation of farm plans. That I think is something that the high country farmers are welcoming. It's an opportunity to work through—many of them will have extensive farm plans in place. Some won't. But it's an opportunity to work through all these issues and where there might be a situation where more than 25 hectares of control is required then I would expect the commissioner working through that farm plan to approve that—if it's sensible with the proper mitigations or whatever. This is the kind of sensible approach that we will take moving forward to working in partnership with those high country farmers."
Smith StuartSTUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Well thank you Madam Chair. It is a pleasure to get to speak on my amendment which is labelled I" on the table. It is to amend Schedule 2 of the Crown Pastoral Land Reform Bill; a proposed new section 16 on page 43. It would strike out that one and have "Maintaining: a. existing consented roads paths or tracks (including laying local gravel); or b. roads tracks or paths for which no record of a consent having been issued is held by the Commissioner but which was formed prior to 1990 and the Commissioner has not notified the lessee or licensee that the formation of that road path or track required consent; and c. any such a road path or track by way of any necessary realignment following a weather fire or seismic event not involving more than 400m of formation of replacement road track or path."Now the reason for this is quite simple. These places and some have been farmed for 160 years—they didn't have consents 160 years ago and Land Information New Zealand might not have records for all of those tracks and almost certainly do not. It's just the way things are done. And yet this is sneaking something in and an unintended consequence of this is that there are going to be a lot of activities that would have been normally carried out on a property that were not considered necessary to have consents in this bill—because it's already in there—but for this omission of these tracks that don't have consents. And what's more if the Crown was concerned about that the commissioner should have actually notified the property owner that those tracks paths etc. don't have consents and they could have done something about it but they haven't done that. So I think it's inherently unfair—this is what we've heard several times through this debate tonight—and I'm sure it's just an omission just like the 90 percent is an omission as I alluded to before in new section 1(c) set out in Schedule 2: the invasive exotic pest plants comprise no less than 90 percent of vegetation cover. You see you don't need a consent only if the ground is covered by 90 percent or more by an exotic pest. That is just again poor drafting. It's just a rushed bill rushed through. The hearing of the submissions that came in—well they weren't really paid much attention to I don't think. I think there could have been far more interaction between the Government members and some of the submitters but that just didn't happen. And you know look we can say why but I think it's pretty obvious and I don't think there's any need to do that. But you've got an opportunity now Minister to sort this out and certainly in my case to support this amendment—a very good one. Minister Damien O'Connor I know that you do have a fair streak running through you and this is very fair and I think that you should vote for this. I think you should also answer the question I asked you before about 90 percent where you didn't come back to that—we need to hear that. Thank you."
Simpson ScottHon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you Madam Chair. I would like to refer to the tabled amendment in my name labelled E" on the Table. It relates to a fairly fine point but an important one none the less. So the tabled amendment seeks to in Schedule 1 of the bill propose a new Schedule 1AA 3(4) on page 40 of the bill. What this tabled amendment seeks to do is to replace the proposed clause 3(4) and replace it with the following words: "Nothing in this clause limits or affects the right of judicial review that a person may have in respect of the proposal or related review [of] a Court's ability to order that a tenure review [process] shall … as if this Act had not been passed or [made] other such orders as the Court sees fit." Now that might sound a little complicated so let me just take a minute or two to explain to the committee what is at issue here.The issue really is that the bill as introduced extinguished the rights of lessees to tenure review and to apply to the High Court to review the decision-making process of the commissioner and where relevant if necessary the Minister as well. So by ending tenure review that process of providing an opportunity for a judicial review has been removed. So the bill as reported back from select committee actually responded to submissions on that very point. The bill now provides for review but—and it's a big but—it provides no effective remedy to the review. So a successful High Court application could result in a finding that the Crown had acted unlawfully but with the repeal of a tenure review the court then would be unable to actually grant any practical remedy upon their finding.So this tabled amendment in my name addresses that deficiency and it ensures that where legal rights can be established then a remedy—an effective remedy an appropriate remedy—can indeed be ordered. I think that's just a bit of an error on behalf of the wordsmiths that did a little bit of drafting; I don't think there was any intent in a sinister way to remove that right to provide an effective remedy. But my tabled amendment provides for a remedy to be ordered when it is appropriate to do so by the court."
Mooney JosephJOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you Madam Chair. Minister I just wanted to speak to the tabled amendment in the name of my colleague Nicola Grigg marked G" on the Table. This would amend the bill namely paragraphs 1 and 2 of Schedule 2 under Part 1 of proposed new Schedule 1AB permitted activities which were fundamentally "… incapable of practical application. They will result in one or more of the following outcomes: Deterrence of sensible farm management practices being undertaken because of the cost and delay of an application process [and/or] Deferment of such applications and (in the case of weed control with consequential adverse effects) [and/or] Increased cost and delay in undertaking sensible farming practices [and/or] Undermined relationship between farmer and frontline officials. By way of example the current Bill requires consent for the clearance of exotic weeds (e.g. gorse broom wilding pines)—which are a significant issue across the South Island—unless: The exotic pest plants comprises 'no less than 90% of the vegetation cover' and The Lessee has not controlled more than 25 hectares of exotic pest plants in the past 5 years. The obvious issues [with this] are: What is the 100% against which the 90% is to be measured. A single wilding pine or gorse bush in a paddock would seem not to comprise 90% of the vegetation cover of that paddock and therefore cannot be removed without an application for consent". So we're sort of seeing some of the confusion that can arise very very quickly in adverse effects.Another question is "… Is the 90% to be measured by area or by species"? Another question is: "If you have a property of 10000 hectares a farmer is limited to controlling 25 hectares for pest plants in any five-year period (about 0.25% of the farm) whereas most farmers want to have an ongoing pest plant control programme". Another issue is: "Leaseholders are under an obligation by the terms of the lease; local and regional plans; and the Biosecurity Act 1993 to control pest plants". So there's an inherent conflict there. Another issue is that "The proposed law requires leaseholders to obtain consent to perform what other law obliges them to do". So these proposed changes in this tabled amendment Minister would introduce some common sense to the bill and would make it understandable and certainly ensure that we have the outcomes we want to see which is pest plants being removed. We don't want to see another situation like up in the top of the North Island where wilding pines are out of control and certainly other parts in my region and Central Otago parts of Southland with wilding pines have really got away. We want our high country farmers to have the tools to remove those quickly before they become a problem.So this tabled amendment would "… anticipate the use by the Commissioner of farm plans to provide a more efficient mechanism for management oversight and a practical framework for the management of specific pest plants.""
Sage Eugenie; O'Connor DamienHon EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Thank you Madam Chair. I would also like to just comment and ask the Minister a question about clause 21A amending section 89 and the changes there. In the bill as it was reported back from select committee the commissioner must not consent to the transfer of a pastoral lease unless they were satisfied that the applicant had made reasonable endeavours to enhance public access. In the Minister's Supplementary Order Paper 129 the burden has been changed and now it's the commissioner must consider whether requests for public access have been unreasonably refused by the lessee or licensee in the past. So there's a higher threshold around public access which actually benefits the leaseholder. Can I ask the Minister why this change was made from what was reported back from select committee? And was it the result of consultation with the High Country Accord or Federated Farmers or leaseholders?Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister for Land Information): Yes all of the above. It was through thorough consultation with all the parties. Some exaggerated the dilemmas and there weren't that many blocked access situations at all. There was a longstanding one; I'm not going to go into the details of that. But actually the vast majority of lessees do provide that public access. That goodwill should be maintained and I did not want to have overreach in this piece of legislation implying that every lessee was blocking access. That would be unfair it's inaccurate and I think the goodwill that has been established across almost all the leases should be maintained and that's what we're trying to do here.
Grigg Nicola; O'Connor DamienNICOLA GRIGG (National—Selwyn): Thank you Madam Chair. Sorry I'll just rearrange everything in front of me. I would like to speak to an amendment under my name seeking to amend clause 21A and I'd like to turn the Minister's mind to subsection (2A) and if you wouldn't mind just to clarify for him: If the land under the lease or licence is pastoral land the Commissioner must not consent to the transfer sublease or other disposal unless satisfied that the applicant has made reasonable endeavours to enhance public access to the land." It must be terribly embarrassing for the Government every now and then when private enterprise seeks to do its work for it and in this case the lessees have hired private lawyers to do the work for the Government because here we have an apparent statutory conflict. So I'd ask the Minister: what is the legislation that the leaseholder is required to prioritise here? Is it this bill or is it the health and safety Act? Which legislation has precedence and what would you say Minister to a leaseholder who has to allow public access to gain or retain consent for an activity but at the same time is liable for any accidents that might happen on that property to someone who gains access?Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister for Land Information): The health and safety legislation is pretty clear around all farmland and the landowners have to do all they reasonably can of course to alert people to potential dangers and I don't see that there's any more danger here than for other farmland where a large a number of farmers provide public access. The issue raised here was one of contention. It went back a number of years where a foreign landowner effectively blocked access to the high country through his particular property and it raised the reality that the values of New Zealand farm owners and high country lessees and the values of foreigners were not always aligned. And so God help us if the National Party ever get back into power again; they are most likely to consider the sale of New Zealand land to anyone and that would be a real risk and they then would open up the realities of that conflict of values.And because these are large blocks of land and because sometimes they do block access into other high country recreational areas—it's not often and I have to acknowledge the vast majority if not practically all of the high country lessees have provided public access over the years with a few exceptions. And so the question was "Well should we intervene and demand public access?" No that was going a little too far. We said "Well at the point of sale then the public access if it has been blocked should be considered by the commissioner prior to approving the transfer." I think it's a reasonable proposition. I don't think there will be many situations like this at all in the future but it's clear to know that there is a provision should public access be blocked through a property to the public estate at the back—often it's the high country—that if that's blocked when it's transferred then there's an opportunity to have a look at that situation. That's what this is about."
O'Connor DamienHon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister for Land Information): I'll just speak to that because on the face of it it seems a reasonably sensible proposal. It's one that I'm prepared to look at as we go forward but the High Country Accord has also put a similar proposal. It goes beyond of course pasturage; I guess it's restoration of indigenous. It's not planting exotic pines or exotic vegetation so it's in the middle there somewhere and I think that there needs to be more discussion in this area. I'm not opposed to that but I think there are far-reaching consequences of just including it here and how it might apply across other Crown land.So the member has raised as the accord has a legitimate question as we go forward as we're looking at sequestration as we're looking at utilisation of all land across New Zealand—Māori-owned land Crown land private land of course—to have more indigenous vegetation and exotics. So I commit to the member that this is an ongoing issue that will be considered but I don't consider it appropriate to just insert it in the bill at this time without considering the far-reaching consequences.
Mooney JosephJOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you Madam Chair. Minister I wish to speak to the amendment in my name which would be to add new clause 17A to amend section 2. And that would (1) Amend the definition of 'improvements' by inserting after 'includes':" the words: "'the managed regeneration of indigenous vegetation'." And section 2 would be amended to "Insert a new defined term in its appropriate alphabetical order: managed regeneration of indigenous vegetation means regeneration resulting from active farm management decisions to promote the regeneration of indigenous vegetation whether by way of covenant fencing stock management practices or otherwise".Now I note Minister that one of the goals of this as has been articulated is to improve the environmental outcomes on farms. And although I note that the Minister has acknowledged that this is done by many if not most—and I would say all that I've certainly come across—if that is the goal then the Minister should support this because this amendment would address the potential of Crown pastoral land to contribute to New Zealand's commitment to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions; something that this Government has made a lot of noise about. In fact it's likely to be making announcements next week that it's spending significant money in the Budget to encourage that. So if it's going to encourage it there why not encourage it here on these huge estates—this huge area of the South Island? The scale of the Crown pastoral land is approximately 1.2 million hectares. It provides the potential for lessees under this amendment to adopt farm management practices which would contribute to both greenhouse gas emissions and positive indigenous biodiversity outcomes both things that I can only imagine that this Government must surely support given all the noise it has made about its commitment to a reduction of carbon in our atmosphere.The importance of indigenous biodiversity which I think is something that this Government is contemplating considering—why not address it here? This amendment would actually provide an opportunity for the Crown pastoral lessees to get some benefit out of actually actively managing positive indigenous biodiversity on the farms and by doing that actually provide a significant benefit to the country. This would require managed regeneration of indigenous vegetation to be recognised as a lessee-owned improvement. This proposed amendment would provide for that outcome. I note this Government is allowing others into the country to buy up farmland to encourage the planting of more forestry. So they've encouraged carbon sequestration. Here we have many high country farms owned by generations of New Zealanders. Why not provide a mechanism for them to be able to take some benefit to actually achieving these same outcomes?"
Salesa JennyPart 2 Amendments to Land Act 1948CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members we now come to Part 2. This is the debate on clauses 17 to 22 which are amendments to the Land Act 1948. The question is that Part 2 stand part.