edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Smith Stuart; Parker DavidSTUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you Mr Chair. Just on that one Minister the per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances pollution for example happened quite some time ago. So does that apply—that statute of limitations as it were apply to that? Also the example that the Minister himself gave earlier about barrels rotting away with the chemicals inside them which could take let's say they're buried or stored somewhere and they rust through or corrode away you know over a period of 6.5 years—is the polluter then still able to be captured under that circumstance?Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): I should clarify an earlier answer in response to the member I conflated two issues: criminal penalties and civil penalties. Civil penalties the limitation period is six years. The criminal limitation period is extended from 12 months to two years. So the criminal limitation period is two years not six years. The civil one is six.In respect to the question about per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The PFAS challenge is an interesting one because those chemicals when originally used were legally used. People didn't understand properly that the long-term effect of PFAS and PFOS. I won't even try and pronounce the long name—polyfluoride—very long name.Hon Member: Oh give it a go!Hon DAVID PARKER: Ha ha! No. They were used most commonly in foam to put out chemical fires. We've had some problems around that in the country although not nearly as bad as the problems Australia have partly because we don't have as big a defence force and therefore not using as many of these foams in you know trials putting out—firefighting practice. So I would think that in most cases no there wouldn't be a remedy for those historic incidences in the use of that.Having said that we have found that since the banning of PFAS some people have continued to use it illegally. Not often but if there was a case where they had after it became illegal disposed of it and put it in for example a dump where it was causing problems and that was found out to have occurred then I would have thought that would be in breach of both the existing law and the new law. As to how that would interact with limitation periods that I've described well we'd have to look at the facts of the case.
Severin Toni; Parker DavidTONI SEVERIN (ACT): Thank you Mr Chair. Thank you Minister. You were saying earlier about coming together basically and working the differences out between polluters and non-polluters but I was just wondering—I might be completely blind—is there a time frame to be able to work it out before they go to the next stat? Because as you know many people work faster than others. Is there any sort of time frame to make sure that when two parties are working together to come to a solution there will be some form of time frame before you go to the next stat where you may have to go to court?Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Thank you that's a very good and practical question and yes there are. As with any other area of law enforcement there is general a period—except in the most serious of crimes like murder for which there is no limitation period. For things that relate to the environment there is generally a limitation period which stops you bringing a prosecution after a period of time. Now that sort of cuts both ways because if you have too short a limitation period you can both make it too hard to bring people to account but you also frustrate the ability of people to do the right thing in advance of and in substitution for more penal enforcement proceedings.So the bill tries to address that by extending the limitation period from two to six years which is the normal limitation period that applies at civil law. If I have a contract with you and I breach it you have six years to sue me. If I act negligently and cause you harm the statute of limitations says that you have six years to bring your case against me. And now in environmental cases councils will have six years to bring prosecutions against those who have erred. And of course during that sixyear period work can be done to ameliorate those things in a way that might avoid a prosecution.
Parker DavidHon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): The member asked for some practical examples. The first point I would make is that it's actually generally not Mr Smith" or "Mrs Brown" or any other individual who takes enforcement action for breaches of the Resource Management Act or the new statute—it's generally councils or the Environmental Protection Authority and they need powers to do what is practical. I agree with the member there.The clause that the member referred to clause 700(1)(j) makes reference to "monetary benefit orders" and "adverse publicity orders". These are both new instruments. I'm not sure if the member is aware—he may well be—that this matter could have come up when he was the Prime Minister but it certainly came up on my plate after we came into office.There was a very irresponsible company called Sustainable Solvents who had an operation near the Whangārei oil refinery actually. So-called "Sustainable Solvents" had a permission to bring on limited amounts of solvents collected from a range of places—like people that make paint or other people that are involved in chemicals—to process them and then take them off-site. They took the money they stored the solvents in metal barrels and they accumulated enormous quantities—far more than they were allowed to. They left it there so long these highly flammable highly toxic substances started to rot through the metal barrels that they were contained in and then they scarpered and ran away from their insolvent company.The cost to taxpayers and the local councils up there of remedying that particular atrocious behaviour was worth more than $1 million and—as history will record—there was actually no effective remedy against the people that caused the problem. There will be under the new regime and two of the mechanisms for that are monetary benefits and adverse publicity orders.Monetary benefit orders which are referred to in clause 700 are detailed at clause 718 and they allow the Environment Court to make an order to pay an amount that the court thinks is fair on the balance of the probabilities representing the monetary benefits acquired by the person as a result of the commission of an offence. So in that case if a director of that company had pocketed the money that they'd collected for the theoretically safe disposal of those chemicals and then then did the scarper leaving the council and central government with a million-dollar bill and if they had made a million-dollar profit on the way through theoretically the counsel could come along and say "You should have to pay $1 million." Now that would be an extreme example but sadly there are other examples of that like New Zealand.Now in that sort of situation I suspect an adverse publicity order wouldn't matter very much—but it does to the big corporates. Some of the big corporates that have got themselves in a bind do react to the possibility of an adverse publicity order. One of the things that happens overseas particularly in respect of large corporates is that the courts can say "There should be publicity that this particular corporate did things that were wrong." That's what adverse publicity orders do."
Salesa Jenny; Simpson Scott; Parker DavidPart 11 Compliance monitoring and enforcement CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): We come now to Part 11. This is the debate on clauses 694 to 802 Compliance monitoring and enforcement" including Schedule 6. The question is that Part 11 stand part.Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Madam Chair thank you for clarifying because I know the fact that Part 10 had disappeared—and those of us that sat on the Environment Committee will understand the reasons for that—but people who have been maybe following this debate assiduously at home or on the wireless will be wondering what happened to Part 10. Well it has been amended and that goes to show that the select committee actually did extraordinarily good work I thought on this and was capably chaired by the Hon Eugenie Sage throughout but we spent an awful lot of time on this legislation.Part 11 deals with compliance and enforcement and it's an area of the legislative flow plan—if I can put it that way—perhaps that is at the heart of much of what happens in resource management law planning and what have you. It's the bit that often causes individuals property owners and indeed councils regional councils and all sorts of people—businesses entities—an enormous amount of time effort and energy in terms of complying with the fine detail of the legislation and then indeed the actual enforcement of it.It's been the subject of much criticism in terms of the existing Resource Management Act and my opening question to the Minister is: in what ways does Part 11 make process better cheaper easier more convenient for people wanting to get things done? How is it that Part 11 throughout any of the clauses that are listed changes what is already existing and what provisions can the Minister point to that are going to make this part of his proposed legislation better than what we already have?Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Again much of this is carried forward by the Resource Management Act but the significant change I would say to the committee is the introduction of a civil remedies regime. Under a civil remedies regime instead of suing someone through the criminal courts and trying to get a conviction for breaches of the law and perhaps an enforcement order that some environmental ill that is illegal be remedied the new statute enables agreements to be reached between the errant party—if I could describe that in that ways; perhaps someone that's caused some pollution over a period of time—to invest in things that will remedy the breach. The experience overseas has been that you can sometimes get to better outcomes through an agreement with the errant party promising to fix up their errant ways rather than prosecuting them through the courts."
Smith Stuart; Salesa Jenny; Parker DavidSTUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Oh thank you Madam Chair. Just a quick one Minister. So I know you said if a land had been reclaimed but actually land can be reclaimed—as we saw along the Kaikōura coast—by an act of God. A significant amount of land can be actually reclaimed by an act of God. Do those provisions apply to God? Does God have to apply for an esplanade plan and provide access? Because he's done a massive amount of work lifting up a significant amount of territory out of the sea for access for a lot more people. Actually a good example—and the Minister I'm sure will like to know—is access to the Cape Campbell Lighthouse. It used to be completely guided or controlled by the tide; that's no longer the case because of the reclamation of the land and that esplanade doesn't seem to be there. Is that something that is covered in this bill?CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): I call on the Minister if he wants to address that particular question.Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Boundaries to land sometimes change through natural causes. Whether the change to a pattern of land goes into an adjacent title depends a lot on the age of the title. Some titles that go back a long way went to either the high water mean spring mark or to the midline of a river. Others are subject to esplanade reserves. Some of those esplanade reserves move with rivers; some of them do not move with rivers. It depends on the circumstance and the time of the creation of the title.
Parker DavidMARK CAMERON (ACT): Thank you Madam Chair. Minister if I could go all the way to clause 606(8) which speaks to a lake means … lake [where a] … bed area [of] 8 hectares or more"—so 20-odd acres if you want to use the old terminology. If you can envisage an area where there are half a dozen property owners that have a contiguous boundary between them all; topographically they have built a dam structure there that would have a bedded area larger than 8 hectares. Is that then construed as a lake in this instance and would it stifle the profitability of actually subdividing the said land? You could see it playing out in real time: property owners that share this contiguous reality not being able to subdivide their land based on the terminology of "what is a lake?" Gracious me a lot of the lakes I know have actually been man-made and they're not naturally forming bodies of water. Do you think that needs to be revisited?Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): This section applies where there is reclamation next to the sea a river or a lake where you reclaim land next to that lake—or if you hadn't reclaimed it there's generally access provided alongside most areas of the sea lakes and rivers through what are called "esplanade reserves" or "marginal strips". So this says that where you have reclaimed land; then you need to be thinking about whether there should be an access strip along it and it says that an esplanade reserve must be set aside from the allotment under the section's name but only if it's been required as a condition of the resource consent that was given for the reclamation."
Salesa Jenny; Parker DavidPart 9 Subdivision and reclamation CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members we come now to Part 9. This is the debate on clauses 568 to 629 on Subdivision and reclamation". The question is that Part 9 stand part. I call on the Minister the Hon Dr David Parker. Sorry the Hon David Parker. I keep on promoting you.Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Thank you for that. It was a very easy doctorate.Hon Scott Simpson: Was it philosophy or medical?Hon DAVID PARKER: I think I got it in a Weet-Bix packet. For the help of members I'm advised that these provisions are all but identical to the provisions in the Resource Management Act (RMA) and they deal with subdivision and reclamations of land. Members will see that for every one of the sections that are in this Part—and I have checked through every one of them—there is reference made to the equivalent section in the RMA."
Cameron Mark; Parker DavidMARK CAMERON (ACT): Thank you Madam Chair. Minister back to clause 545 Effect of heritage protection order" in verbatim if you'd be so kind to indulge me: "(1) While a heritage protection order is in force regardless of the provisions of any plan or resource consent no person may"—and we can go through it as you can well read. And I'll go through (a) (b) and (c): "(a) undertaking any use of land; and (b) subdividing any land; and (c) changing the character" Well I'm cognisant of the fact that in ownership structures—and in the multiple-ownership structures—there can be possible multiple titles with multiple owners involved. If there was in this arrangement a property that was subject to heritage protection orders how would this potentially affect those of multiple-ownership structures versus singular in terms of outcome and protection to their property rights?Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): The legislation contemplates all of those possibilities and indeed needs to because there are many different ways in which people own land—either on their own account; they can sometimes own fee simple interests or leasehold interests; they can sometimes have other interests in land like easements across the land. And each of those different interests in land can either be owned by individuals by corporate bodies or by groups of individuals or corporates."
Smith Stuart; Salesa Jenny; Parker DavidSTUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you Madam Chair and thank you Minister for those fulsome answers. In clause 552 Transfer of heritage protection order"—and you've touched on this before—it says that "The Minister may on the Minister's own initiative transfer responsibility for an existing heritage protection order to another heritage protection authority." However the Minister may not exercise that power particularly when it relates to private land. Does mean Minister that if a heritage protection order is being administered by a council over some site and a Minister believes that it's not being administered to a standard that the Minister might like their hands are tied so that they can't actually say "Well I'll take it over now as the Minister rather than the council."—is that possible and if not why not? CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Before I call the Minister I just want to say that there have been at least five calls on heritage protection orders. It's beginning to be repetitive. Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Well I think the clause means what it says which is that the Minister must not exercise the discretion to transfer responsibility for an existing heritage protection order if the heritage protection order relates to private land."
Cameron Mark; Parker DavidMARK CAMERON (ACT): Thank you Madam Chair. Minister forgiving my naivety with this—clause 543 we've been talking about heritage protection orders and I'm cognisant of the fact that there are certain areas especially in Northland with well-known geological features that have shared ownership locally. They would arguably be considered culturally sensitive to those but they are non-Māori owned as they've a shared ownership structure. In terms of heritage protection orders would there be a potentiality that that ownership structure should they be in a local authority that enforces a protection order on them—would that be eroded and what would that in terms of outcomes look like under the veil of that cultural heritage use that was referenced in here?Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Well it would be an issue for the decision makers who are actually generally local authorities as to whether they thought some sort of protection was warranted under the rules of their plan.
Simpson Scott; Parker DavidHon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you Madam Chair. Just following on from what the Minister said and I want to come to the appeal clauses in a minute but I'm interested just to tease out the concept of communal owned land. Because it's not only iwi hapū Māori land that is potentially communally owned. There are a number of organisations some of them more controversial than others where on the face of it land is owned communally. I can think of back in the day and the Minister may well have visited some of the communal owned properties in my electorate in the Coromandel—back in the day. He may be able to recall having made those visits and partaken of the hospitality of those communes. But does he envisage a situation where communally owned land other than land owned by Māori or iwi or hapū could be encapsulated into the provisions of this subpart of the bill? Is that something that is limited exclusively to iwi hapū Māori groups or could it stretch to land communally owned by other organisations groups or entities?Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Responding to an earlier question in respect of clause 543(4) that I said I'd ask officials about as to when a heritage protection authority may withdraw a notice said Act" I'm advised that that might occur for example where it looks like a planned change that would be necessary to give effect to that protection is unlikely to result and people might think that in those circumstances it wasn't worth proceeding. In that sort of situation it could be that a decision maker would withdraw their application.In respect of the question about whether there are sorts of land other than Māori land that are owned by more than one party that could be covered by heritage protection orders yes they would but they're not caught within the definition of Te Ture Whenua Māori Act Māori land as referred to in respect of clause 542."
Smith Stuart; Parker DavidSTUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you Madam Chair Actually my question is on clause 542 Consent of owners of Māori land". It says "A heritage protection authority must obtain the written consent of the owners of Māori land (as defined in section 4 of Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993) before it gives notice to a territorial authority of a heritage protection order affecting that land except when the authority is the landowner." My question is: does that include all of those landowners? Often there are many and that was one of the things that the National Government wanted to sort out with te ture whenua amendment bill some years ago but that was opposed. But if the Minister could clarify that because I think it's really important that if it is to be an order going on that land all of the landowners are indeed consulted. What happens if you can't contact them all?Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): That's an interesting question. There are actually many blocks of communally owned Māori land where the ownership is so fractionalised that there's not really an economic interest for those who inherit the interest of their parents making it worthwhile going through the process of updating the records of the Māori Land Court to ensure that the appropriate transfers take place. In those situations in my experience the Māori Land Court try to call meetings of the people to whom they can give notice and the Māori Land Court run a process through which the collective owners who often own structures such as ahu whenua trusts are asked to take a decision overseeing through a process which is approved by the Māori Land Court."
Muller Todd; Parker DavidTODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): Madam Chair thank you. I would like the Minister to further explain please clause 543(4) which is the heritage protection authority's capacity to withdraw a notice of heritage protection order. When you compare with clause 545 which is the effect of the protection order—where essentially this land is locked up in perpetuity because you've got no use of land; it can't be subdivided; the character the intensity the scale of the land can't change—what I'm interested in is whilst it makes sense at first reading to have the capacity for a notice to be withdrawn what would the Minister see as being the sorts of criteria which would drive a withdrawal notice for a heritage protection order?Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): I'll check with officials.
Kuriger Barbara; Parker DavidBARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki-King Country): Thank you Madam Chair and I really hope the Taranaki maunga continues to behave. My question is around clause 552 on page 473. So it talks about the transfer of a heritage protection order where the Minister may transfer responsibility for an existing protection order but not exercise power under subclause (2)(a) that relates to private land or also in subclause (2)(c) where it relates to Māori land. So Minister I'm just looking for perhaps an example or a reason where this may happen where the protection order is transferred but the landowners whoever they may be are protected. Thank you.Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): I'll check with officials that I've got this right but having read the definition I suppose one possibility would be that the original heritage protection order could have been obtained for example by the Department of Conservation and they might think it's appropriate to transfer it to Heritage New Zealand.
Smith Stuart; Parker DavidSTUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you Madam Chair. Just to carry on with that Minister if we had a Pompeii or Mt Vesuvius - type event are you referring to that? That could be where we could get the ash covering the historic sites. You could in theory with some of the maunga in Tāmaki-makau-rau lose one. It could disappear under ash. So would that be a subject of a protection order and if so how would that be dealt with?Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Well I suppose the Pink and White Terraces which used to be a wonder of the world that were covered up by the Mount Tarawera explosion—or was it originally a lake? The whole mountain blew apart and covered the whole area in amongst other things ash. Theoretically I suppose it would be possible to preserve the underlying Pink and White Terraces deep under that ash to the extent they still exist. That's never happened in the history of New Zealand under the existing Resource Management Act provisions and I think it will be no more likely under the new Act.
Muller Todd; Parker DavidTODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you Madam Chair. It's great to be able to stand and take a call in this debate. I'd like to build on my colleague Scott Simpson's line of questioning regarding the effect of heritage protection orders particularly as we're talking here clause 545. I would like the Minister to be able to explain how opportunities can occur for those protection orders to be removed should there be for example earthquakes or perhaps even more relevant some sort of weather climate change subsidence kind of issue where you have a protection order in place—which as Mr Simpson has said is exceedingly constraining in terms of being able to use that land in any additional way apart from just locking it up in its current state. What happens where are the mechanisms if there is a need to be able to change that categorisation because of weather or climate change - related events? How does that happen? And in particular these are new conditions; how are they then consulted on and promulgated so that people can understand what change is expected?Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Thank you Madam Chair. I would note that before they're put in place finally there are appeal rights so that if people feel that they're wrong they can appeal against the decision. There's not only a hearing through a plan or some other process; there can be an appeal against that decision under clause 550. But in respect of the specific question of the member if there was for example an earthquake and the building fell down or there had been a landslip and some ancient site had been covered up by the landslide clause 551 provides for that which is the carry-over of section 195A of the existing Act. And it says A heritage protection authority that is responsible for a heritage protection order may at any time give notice to the relevant territorial authority of its intention to alter the heritage protection order.""
O'Connor GregHOUSE IN COMMITTEECHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Members the House is in committee for further consideration of the Natural and Built Environment Bill and for consideration of the Spatial Planning Bill.
Privilege — Consideration of Report of Privileges Committee—Disclosure of Outcome of Vote
Rurawhe AdrianPETITIONS PAPERS SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLSSPEAKER: Petitions have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation.CLERK:Petition of Bronwen Jones requesting that the House amend the Dietary Supplements Regulations 1985 to allow manufacture or import of Bariatric Strength Supplements for Bariatric Surgery patientspetition of Kristine Hayward requesting that the House urge the Government to implement a centrally funded and administered risk-adapted early prostate cancer detection strategy.SPEAKER: Those petitions are referred to the Petitions Committee.No papers have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation.Select committee reports have been delivered for presentation.CLERK:Report of the Education and Workforce Committee on the 2023/24 Estimates for Education Sector Votesreport of the Environment Committee 2023/24 Estimates for Vote Environmentreports of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the:2023/24 Estimates for Vote Audit2023/24 Estimates for Vote Finance Fiscal Strategy Report 2023 and Budget Economic and Fiscal Update 2023Taxation Principles Reporting Billreports of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee on the:2023/24 Estimates for Vote Customs2023/24 Estimates for Foreign AffairsImmigration (Mass Arrivals) Amendment Billreports of the Governance and Administration Committee on the:2023/24 Estimates for Vote Internal Affairs (Excluding the Supporting Ethnic Communities and Community Development and Funding Schemes appropriations)2023/24 Estimates for Vote Office of the Clerk and Vote Parliamentary Service2023/24 Estimates for Vote Ombudsmen2023/24 Estimates for Vote Prime Minister and Cabinet2023/24 Estimates for Vote Public Service (Excluding the Supporting Implementation of a Social Wellbeing Approach appropriations)2023/24 Estimates for Vote StatisticsWater Services Entities Amendment Billreports of the Māori Affairs Committee on the:2023/24 Estimates for Vote Māori Development2023/24 Estimates for Vote Te Arawhitireport of the Primary Production Committee on the 2023/24 Estimates for Vote Agriculture Biosecurity Fisheries and Food Safetyreports of the Social Services and Community Committee on the:2023/24 Estimates for appropriation within Vote Public Service: Supporting Implementation of a Social Wellbeing Approach2023/24 Estimates for Vote Sport and Recreationreports of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee on the:2023/24 Estimates for Vote Building and Construction2023/24 Estimates for Vote Transport.SPEAKER: The bills are set down for second reading.The Clerk has been informed of the introduction of bills.CLERK:Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) (Provision of Breast Cancer Screening Services) Amendment Bill introductionNew Zealand Bill of Rights (Right to Lawfully Acquired Property) Amendment Bill introductionDistrict Court (Protecting Judgment Debtors on Main Benefit) Amendment Bill introduction.SPEAKER: Those bills are set down for first reading.
Woodhouse MichaelBUSINESS STATEMENTHon BARBARA EDMONDS (Minister for Economic Development) on behalf of the Leader of the House: Next week the committee stage of the Appropriation (2023/24 Estimates) Bill will begin. This is the Estimates debate. There will be appearances by the Ministers of Education Finance Health Housing Social Development and Employment Police and Transport. Other legislation to be considered will include the second readings of the Education and Training Amendment Bill (No 3) and the Land Transport (Road Safety) Amendment Bill. There will be extended sittings of the House on the morning of Wednesday 2 August for members' business and on the morning of Thursday 3 August for Government business.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you Mr Speaker. I thank the Acting Acting Leader of the House" for her update on next week. We are making some progress on the Natural and Built Environment Bill and the Spatial Planning Bill. These are very important to the Government. Can she confirm whether or not there will be further progress next week and if not that the Government does not intend to take urgency to advance that after the next recess week?Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Minister for Economic Development): If the committee stages are not completed today they will continue next week. Third readings will not take place. The Business Committee will be informed of any plans for urgency in advance."
Salesa JennyTHURSDAY 27 JULY 2023The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.KARAKIA/PRAYERSHon JENNY SALESA (Assistant Speaker—Labour): E te Atua kaha rawa ka tuku whakamoemiti atu mātou mō ngā karakia kua waihotia mai ki runga i a mātou. Ka waiho i ō mātou pānga whaiaro katoa ki te taha. Ka mihi mātou ki te Kīngi me te inoi atu mō te ārahitanga i roto i ō mātou whakaaroarohanga kia mōhio ai kia whakaiti ai tā mātou whakahaere i ngā take o te Whare nei mō te oranga te maungārongo me te aroha o Aotearoa. Amene.[Almighty God we give thanks for the blessings which have been bestowed on us. Laying aside all personal interests we acknowledge the King and pray for guidance in our deliberations that we may conduct the affairs of this House with wisdom and humility for the welfare peace and compassion of New Zealand. Amen.]
Tuesday 15 August 2023 (continued on Thursday 17 August 2023) - Volume 770
VoteASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is That the amendments recommended by the Transport and Infrastructure Committee by majority be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 75New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Te Paati Māori 2; Kerekere; Whaitiri.Noes 41New Zealand National 31; ACT New Zealand 10.Amendments agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the Land Transport Management (Regulation of Public Transport) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.Ayes 75New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Te Paati Māori 2; Kerekere; Whaitiri.Noes 41New Zealand National 31; ACT New Zealand 10.Motion agreed to.Bill read a second time.
Land Transport Management (Regulation of Public Transport) Amendment Bill — Second Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the amendments recommended by the Finance and Expenditure Committee by majority be agreed to.Ayes 104New Zealand Labour 62; New Zealand National 29; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Te Paati Māori 2; Kerekere; Whaitiri.Noes 10ACT New Zealand 10.Amendments agreed to.Motion agreed to.Bill read a second time.
Fuel Industry (Improving Fuel Resilience) Amendment Bill — Second Reading
VoteASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is That the amendments recommended by the Finance and Expenditure Committee by majority be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 75New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Te Paati Māori 2; Kerekere; Whaitiri.Noes 40New Zealand National 30; ACT New Zealand 10.Amendments agreed to.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the Taxation Principles Reporting Bill be now read a second time. Motion agreed to.Bill read a second time.
Taxation Principles Reporting Bill — Second Reading
Tuesday 15 August 2023 (continued on Wednesday 16 August 2023) - Volume 770
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Climate Change Response (Late Payment Penalties and Industrial Allocation) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.Ayes 109New Zealand Labour 62; New Zealand National 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Te Paati Māori 2; Kerekere; Whaitiri.Noes 10ACT New Zealand 10.Motion agreed to.Bill read a third time.
Climate Change Response (Late Payment Penalties and Industrial Allocation) Amendment Bill — Third Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the question be now put.Ayes 109New Zealand Labour 62; New Zealand National 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Te Paati Māori 2; Kerekere; Whaitiri.Noes 10ACT New Zealand 10.Motion agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the Minister's amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 409 be agreed to. Amendments agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That Parts 1 to 3 the Schedule and clauses 1 to 3 as amended be agreed to.Ayes 109New Zealand Labour 62; New Zealand National 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Te Paati Māori 2; Kerekere; Whaitiri.Noes 10ACT New Zealand 10.Parts 1 to 3 the Schedule and clauses 1 to 3 as amended agreed to.Bill to be reported with amendment. House resumed.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Mr Speaker the committee has considered the Climate Change Response (Late Payment Penalties and Industrial Allocation) Amendment Bill and reports it with amendment. I move That the report be adopted. Motion agreed to.Report adopted.DEPUTY SPEAKER: The bill is set down for third reading immediately.
Climate Change Response (Late Payment Penalties and Industrial Allocation) Amendment Bill — In Committee
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Climate Change Response (Late Payment Penalties and Industrial Allocation) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.Ayes 109New Zealand Labour 62; New Zealand National 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Te Paati Māori 2; Kerekere; Whaitiri.Noes 10ACT New Zealand 10.Motion agreed to.Bill read a second time.
Climate Change Response (Late Payment Penalties and Industrial Allocation) Amendment Bill — Second Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Integrity Sport and Recreation Bill be now read a third time.Ayes 109New Zealand Labour 62; New Zealand National 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Te Paati Māori 2; Kerekere; Whaitiri.Noes 10ACT New Zealand 10.Motion agreed to.Bill read a third time.
Integrity Sport and Recreation Bill — Third Reading
VoteCHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March's amendment to Part 2 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 408 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 72New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere.Noes 44New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.Amendment agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Karen Chhour's amendment to Part 2 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 411 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 10ACT New Zealand 10.Noes 106New Zealand Labour 62; New Zealand National 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere.Amendment not agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March's amendment to Part 2 set out Supplementary Order Paper 412 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 10Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere.Noes 106New Zealand Labour 62; New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.Amendment not agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Karen Chhour's amendment to Part 2 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 410 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 10ACT New Zealand 10.Noes 106New Zealand Labour 62; New Zealand National 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere.Amendment not agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That Parts 1 to 6 Schedules 1 and 2 and clauses 1 and 2 as amended be agreed to.Ayes 109New Zealand Labour 62; New Zealand National 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Te Paati Māori 2; Kerekere; Whaitiri.Noes 10ACT New Zealand 10.Parts 1 to 6 Schedules 1 and 2 and clauses 1 and 2 as amended agreed to.Bill to be reported with amendment.House resumed.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Madam Speaker the committee has considered the Integrity Sport and Recreation Bill and reports it with amendment. I move That the report be adopted.Motion agreed to.Report adopted.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): The bill is set down for third reading immediately.
Integrity Sport and Recreation Bill — In Committee
Integrity Sport and Recreation Bill — Second Reading (continued)
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Integrity Sport and Recreation Bill be now read a second time.Ayes 109New Zealand Labour 62; New Zealand National 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Te Paati Māori 2; Kerekere; Whaitiri.Noes 10ACT New Zealand 10.Motion agreed to.Bill read a second time.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): This bill is set down for committee stage immediately. I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Integrity Sport and Recreation Bill.
Spatial Planning Bill — Third Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Spatial Planning Bill be now read a third time.Ayes 72New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere.Noes 47New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2; Whaitiri.Motion agreed to.Bill read a third time.The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 72 Noes 44.
Natural and Built Environment Bill — Third Reading (continued)
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Natural and Built Environment Bill be now read a third time.Ayes 72New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere.Noes 47New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2; Whaitiri.Motion agreed to.Bill read a third time.
10. Question No. 10—Commerce and Consumer AffairsANNA LORCK (Labour—Tukituki) to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer AffairsQuestion No. 10—Commerce and Consumer Affairs10. ANNA LORCK (Labour—Tukituki) to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: What recent evidence has he seen that the Commerce Commission is acting in line with Government expectations?Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Seen heaps. Firstly the commission's recently provided an excellent preliminary issues paper on the market study that I initiated into personal banking. Second the Commerce Commission has successfully sought the highest ever fine under the Fair Trading Act: $3.675 million against One NZ previously known as Vodafone for misleading consumers. Thirdly I recently appointed the first ever Grocery Commissioner who has the tools to improve competition in the sector and hold supermarkets to account. This is all evidence that the Commerce Commission is meeting the expectations I laid out: that it will drive competitive markets and it will act with confidence to deter anti-competitive behaviour. The Commerce Commission is playing a vital role in keeping big businesses such as banks telcos and supermarkets in check—all part of this Government's relentless focus on the cost of living for New Zealanders.Anna Lorck: What will the banking study help achieve for consumers?Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: The study will look at the range of banking services people take up for personal or household use with a focus on deposit accounts and home loans. Research shows New Zealand banks are more profitable than in comparable economies over the past decade. This raises questions on whether there is enough competition in personal banking. The preliminary issues paper published last week proposes to look at how competition is working and will recommend any actions the Government should take to strengthen competition in the sector once the study has concluded.Anna Lorck: Why did the Commerce Commission take action against One NZ?Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Because the company misled consumers as to the nature of their product and distorted competition for the supply of broadband services in New Zealand. The commission called out the initial fine of $2.25 million as manifestly inadequate". They successfully appealed and ultimately the fine was raised to $3.675 million—the highest ever under the Fair Trading Act.Anna Lorck: How will the new Grocery Commissioner help protect New Zealand consumers?Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: There's a lot of interest in the Grocery Commissioner. The commissioner has broad powers to investigate how effectively and efficiently the grocery industry is operating. This includes the ability to examine costs revenue and margin and to require anyone with relevant information to supply it. And the commissioner has adequate powers to ensure that the cost savings from the removal of GST from fruit and vegetables will be passed on to consumers when it comes into effect in 2024."
9. Question No. 9—Pacific PeoplesSIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga) to the Minister for Pacific PeoplesQuestion No. 9—Pacific Peoples9. SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga) to the Minister for Pacific Peoples: Is she confident that taxpayers' money is being spent appropriately at the Ministry for Pacific Peoples?Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Defence) on behalf of the Minister for Pacific Peoples: On behalf of the Minister in general yes but it is correct that the Public Service Commission was recently brought in to investigate spending by that ministry. The commission concluded that the spending on a function to farewell the former chief executive was inappropriate and that is a conclusion that I agree with.Simeon Brown: Which Ministers if any were invited to and attended the farewell party for the outgoing chief executive of the Ministry for Pacific Peoples on 13 and 14 October 2022 that cost taxpayers almost $40000?Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I understand two Ministers at least one former Minister and a current Minister attended the event. I should just for the sake of the record also point out that although a total of $39262.00 was spent on that function approximately $11000 has been refunded by the person in whose honour the event was organised.Simeon Brown: Isn't it the case that the only reason the Government is now criticising the almost $40000 farewell party at the Ministry for Pacific Peoples is because it finally came to light through an Official Information Act request?Hon ANDREW LITTLE: On behalf of the Minister the information that Ministers received came as a result of the Public Service Commission investigation into the matter and Ministers were keen to see that investigation take place and Ministers agree with the conclusion of that investigation.Simeon Brown: Is she aware of any other instances of excessive spending by the ministry and if so what are these instances?Hon ANDREW LITTLE: On behalf of the Minister no and that ministry has now tightened up its guidelines on its spending but in any event it's a ministry whose spending to date has made a difference to many many members of the communities in whose interests they work. For example the financial literacy campaign has seen nearly 3000 Pacific Island citizens and residents learn financial management skills and that has seen 120 of them now in homeownership that otherwise they would not have been.
Education and Training Amendment Bill (No 3) — Third Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Education and Training Amendment Bill (No 3) be now read a third time.Ayes 75New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Te Paati Māori 2; Kerekere; Whaitiri.Noes 44New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.Motion agreed to.Bill read a third time.DEPUTY SPEAKER: I understand there is to be a waiata. In the absence then I'll call on Government order of the day No. 4. I'm sorry the time's gone—KarangaHaka
VoteCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the Minister's amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 406 be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Erica Stanford's amendment to clause 38 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 402 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.A party vote was called for on the question That Parts 1 to 3 the Schedule and clauses 1 to 3 as amended be agreed to.Ayes 75New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Te Paati Māori 2; Kerekere; Whaitiri.Noes 44New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.Parts 1 to 3 the Schedule and clauses 1 to 3 as amended agreed to.Bill to be reported with amendment.House resumed.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Mr Speaker the committee has considered the Education and Training Amendment Bill (No 3) and reports it with amendment. I move That the report be adopted.Motion agreed to.Report adopted.SPEAKER: This bill is set down for third reading immediately.
Education and Training Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Water Services Entities Amendment Bill be now read a third time.Ayes 72New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere.Noes 47New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2; Whaitiri.Motion agreed to.Bill read a third time.
Water Services Entities Amendment Bill — Third Reading
VoteCAMILLA BELICH (Junior Whip—Labour): I move That the question be now put.Motion agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that clause 1 stand part.A party vote was called for on the question That clause 1 be agreed to.Ayes 72New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere.Noes 47New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2 WhaitiriClause 1 agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that clause 2 stand part.A party vote was called for on the question That clause 2 be agreed to.Ayes 72New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere.Noes 47New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2; Whaitiri.Clause 2 agreed to.Bill to be reported without amendment.House resumed.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Madam Speaker the committee has considered the Water Services Entities Amendment Bill and reports it without amendment. I move That the report be adopted.Motion agreed to.Report adopted.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The Water Services Entities Amendment Bill is set down for third reading immediately.