edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Clark DavidHon Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you Madam Speaker. I want to begin my contribution which I hope will be a relatively short one by just pointing out a couple of very odd statements that have been made from the other side of the House. Gerry Brownlee who's just taken a seat spent the greater part of 10 minutes railing—railing—against the fact that there was not a regulatory impact statement provided to inform the policy decisions that led to this bill. He's read 2.3 in the departmental disclosure statement and he—it says next to it No"—"No." He spent 10 minutes railing on that topic. What he failed to do was read the paragraph that follows—the paragraph that follows. I will read it out for the benefit of the House. "The Treasury's Regulatory Impact Analysis team determined that the proposed amendment to clarify obligations relating to the fossil gas levy exemption in the Energy Resources Levy Act 1976 is exempt from the requirement to provide a Regulatory Impact Statement on the grounds"—wait for it—"that it has no or only minor impacts on businesses individuals and not-for-profit entities." Yet Mr Brownlee spent 10 minutes trying to tell the House that the sky was going to fall in the sky is falling in and it's going to cost cost cost cost cost. Well this is actually a very simple bill that fixes a small loophole that has been identified in the legislation that we're looking at. Business—industry—has asked for clarification and the Government is providing clarification; a simple tidy-up. Our tax system in this country is based on being low rate - broad based. That's how our tax system works and occasionally we tidy up the odd loophole or the odd thing that's been identified that might be inconsistent or that business or industry asks for clarification on. We say "We'll help you out; we'll clarify things. We'll tidy it up so there's no ambiguity."That's what we're doing here today. It's a very very simple bill that tidies up what could be a potential loophole in the legislation. The query was made; we're tidying it up. So the Chicken Littles on the other side of the House worried that the sky will fall in with this legislation need to kind of read the papers that have been provided—that will explain clearly that it's just a simple loophole that we are tidying up. I'll leave my other points because they pale in comparison to just drawing attention to that idiosyncratic speech and the fact that it's really identifying a problem that does not exist."
Boyack Rachel; Salesa JennyRACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Thank you Madam Speaker. It's a pleasure to take a call on the Energy Resources Levy Amendment Bill. This is a very straightforward bill despite some of the wailing and gnashing across the House this afternoon. It's a very straightforward bill. The Government is putting it forward because there have been inconsistent approaches to achieving a fair financial return on the Crown's natural gas resources. We've had inconsistency in the royalty rates between earlier permits and later ones and that's unfair on the sector. It also denies New Zealanders revenue that should rightfully be coming into the Crown accounts to help fund the services that we deliver across New Zealand. So it's a very straightforward bill. I don't quite understand why the other side are causing a big fuss about it because it's about fairness it's about consistency it's an excellent bill and I commend it to the House.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): I call on the Hon Gerry Brownlee—it's your time.
Roberts AngelaANGELA ROBERTS (Labour): Thank you Madam Speaker. I rise to take a call—and yeah inevitably there's a bit of an economics lesson or a history lesson involved; I suppose I do revert to type—but I just need to just query whether or not anyone on the other side of the House can actually pat their head and rub their tummy at the same time because it is possible to hold two thoughts in your head at the same time. In Taranaki we have been leading on energy—first in the Commonwealth to discover oil—since 1865 and it is possible to continue to pay attention to oil and gas and at the same time pay attention to a just transition in the broader energy context as we decarbonise. It is possible to do both. So it's really interesting to hear that the member opposite Barbara Kuriger says that we'll have nothing. She obviously hasn't been hanging around Taranaki much recently with the significant conversations around offshore wind and the ability to I don't know maybe have a windmill that helps to make urea. So you know it's really—Steph Lewis: Green hydrogen.ANGELA ROBERTS: —interesting. Oh green hydrogen; yeah there's another one. So it's really interesting that there is this inability to be incredibly ambitious for this country and incredibly resourceful and collaborative about building a great future in energy and at the same time pay attention to what is currently happening. We haven't remained stagnant; we've been passing legislation around energy since 1937. We have been ambitious. We dug our first oil wells on that beach at Ngamotu in 1865. We discovered oil and gas offshore in oh I don't know—Māui was discovered in 1969; a really good year for some reason other than Māui gas discovery; 1984 the methanol plant and we've had a really progressive oil and gas industry.The conversation we have now isn't about oil and gas; it is about energy. I talk to the engineering companies in New Plymouth. We talk to all of the other amazing progressive energy players in the sector and we can do that at the same time as we can pay attention to oil and gas. It is absolutely appropriate that the clarity that will be put into this with this bill that helps to ensure a fair return for New Zealanders—we should be able to benefit fully from the extraction of oil and gas. And because of that I commend this bill to the House.
Genter Julie AnneHon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green): Tēnā koe Madam Speaker. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. Look the Green Party is supporting this bill the Energy Resources Levy Amendment Bill. Obviously we've had some very alarming news overnight globally about the difficulty the world is facing in achieving our goals on keeping global warming to less than 1.5 degrees and it's very telling to hear the ACT Party leader and MPs moaning because they clearly do not accept the science or the physics that we have to change how we live and how we use resources if we want to have a sustainable future. We're already seeing the consequences of global warming here in New Zealand and I hear David Seymour talking about how terrible it is in the aftermath of Cyclone Gabrielle and the flooding in Auckland but there is a clear cognitive dissonance in the denial about what is needed to prevent those severe storms in the future.The International Energy Agency and many many scientists and experts in this subject have said that gas can't be a transition fuel—that if we're going to meet our goals globally we have to rapidly transition away from fossil fuel use—so the transition means not looking for more which is why it makes sense to stop exploration for new gas because we know we can't afford to use all the fossil fuels we already have. And at the very least we can try to close this loophole where at the moment we have very low royalties globally.I thought it was really telling as well when the previous member Simon Court mentioned that people who are in the business of producing gas" can't just up and leave New Zealand. Why would that be? Because they don't produce gas. The gas exists. They extract the gas. This is something that rightfully belongs to all New Zealanders all people. All people who are born on to this earth should have a rightful share to natural resources. And that's why it's so outrageous that they are quite happy for some people—who at the right time in history acquired those resources or access to them—to not pay their fair share to use it. And that is the reality of what the ACT Party stands for: protecting the wealth and privilege of a few—mostly due to things that were decisions that were made in the past.But actually all New Zealanders have the right to benefit from this gas and it's fair enough to close the loophole that means that when new gas supplies are discovered in areas or extracted and produced from areas where there was already a permit we should have the ability to levy the same royalty rate that we do for modern permits. Of course the Green Party will be supporting this. I think it absolutely is fair. But of course we need to go much faster and much further in terms of having a plan to phase out fossil fuel use here in Aotearoa."
Bennett GlenGLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth): Kia ora Mr Speaker and thank you for allowing me the call this afternoon. A lot of negativity as always coming from the other side of the House and I guess to run down this Labour Government by the previous speaker the Hon Judith Collins is a bit rich because she was leader of the National Party at the time that we were able to get the majority in this House. And so we have been cracking on and ensuring that we are making good legislation for the sake and the benefit of all New Zealanders. So thank you for your contribution this afternoon. It's important for us to look at fossil gas and how the levies are charged. As the Minister said earlier we have some of the lowest rates in the world when it comes to levies for fossil gases. And I just want to pause and reflect on our Minister of Energy and Resources the Hon Megan Woods. I want to thank her for the work that she does in this space and I know she spends a lot of time in my electorate in New Plymouth coming to engage with the sector to engage with iwi to engage with our communities around our way forward as we look forwards to 2050 to our low-carbon economy as we look forward to what the possibility of offshore wind is the possibility of green hydrogen the possibility of what is to come for the future of Aotearoa New Zealand. This legislation the Energy Resources Levy Amendment Bill is around fairness as has been said already this afternoon. When you look at 12.5 percent to other percentages others paying 20 percent depending on what year you're involved it's important for us to get it right and to lock it down to make sure it's happening. So this legislation is simple. It moves things forward. I support our Minister in this in terms of making sure we get it right. And I'm glad to see what we have and what our horizons and future hold when it comes to a clean green future. But fossil gases are part of that and we will continue to move forward. I commend this bill to the House.
Chen NaisiNAISI CHEN (Labour): Thank you Mr Speaker. It really astounds me the speed reading abilities of the other party. It's a very very short bill and it's actually a very very clear precise and tight bill that we're offering. Fairness is the word of this bill. It is to make sure that all of the licences that we've granted pre-1986—1986; am I allowed to say that was before I was born? So before 1986 those licences paid the same amount as those of the gas exploration and discovery afterwards and so it's making sure that the levy gets added—that we actually have fairness in the way that we as the Crown receive our revenue from fossil gas. Lots of the questions raised by the other side obviously are just coming from the fact that they haven't read the bill. But some of the things I do want to address in terms of making sure that the supply of gas—this is gas. So I heard a lot of details about petroleum but this bill is actually about our gas exploration and our gas discoveries and making sure that we actually clarify that confusion in the word exemption" whether it means discoveries or not. So it is discoveries after that 1986 date and it actually clarifies that that is not an exemption so that we actually have the levy to make sure that we charge everyone for the same thing no matter when you explored and discovered gas in New Zealand shores.There are hardly any impacts actually in terms of our gas supply in the country. The majority of them are actually the licensees. Those are sold under long term—so they're fixed-price contracts—so making sure that New Zealand still has the supply that we need in our gas and to make sure that there is actually fairness. I come back to the word "fairness"; no matter how long or how short you've been in this game you're not being advantaged just because you discovered gas on New Zealand shores earlier. So that's why I commend this bill to the House."
Rurawhe AdrianINTRODUCTION OF BILLSSPEAKER: I understand it is the intention of the Government to introduce bills.CLERK: Energy Resources Levy Amendment Bill introductionEnergy (Fuels Levies and References) Amendment Bill introductionTaxation (Annual Rates for 2023-24 Multinational Tax and Remedial Matters) Bill introductionTaxation Principles Reporting Bill introduction.SPEAKER: The Energy Resources Levy Amendment Bill is set down for first reading immediately. The remaining bills in the urgency motion are set down for first reading presently.
McAnulty KieranURGENCYHon KIERAN McANULTY (Deputy Leader of the House): I move That urgency be accorded the introduction and passing through all stages of the Energy Resources Levy Amendment Bill and the Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Amendment Bill; the introduction first reading and referral to a select committee of the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2023-24 Multinational Tax and Remedial Matters) Bill and the Taxation Principles Reporting Bill; and the first reading and referral to a select committee of the Land Transport (Road Safety) Amendment Bill.Following long-established practice the Government intends to progress bills through urgency as part of the Budget process. Two short energy bills will pass through all stages. The changes that they make are narrow and targeted. The purpose of the Energy Resources Levy Amendment Bill is to ensure that the Crown receives a fair financial return for its fossil gas. It must be passed quickly so as to avoid confusion over the current interpretation of the law with possible losses of levy revenue to the Crown and the public.The Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Amendment Bill aims to strengthen New Zealand's fuel resilience and economic security. Urgency is being used to ensure that levy funding is available to roll out the fuel resilience policy package as funding certainty is needed to finalise the arrangements for the reserve diesel stock arrangement by the end of 2023 and to administer the minimum stockholding obligation.The urgency motion also includes three first readings so that each can be referred to select committee without delay thereby maximising the time available for public consultation. The first of these is the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2023-24 Multinational Tax and Remedial Matters) Bill which has to be passed by 31 March each year. Select committee scrutiny will be interrupted by the election. The bill also includes changes that are part of the Budget package. The Taxation Principles Reporting Bill proposes a statutory framework for the reporting of tax information based on core taxation principles. The Land Transport (Road Safety) Amendment Bill was introduced on Tuesday and strengthens powers to address unsafe behaviour on New Zealand's roads.
Woods MeganHon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Housing): I move That the debate be now adjourned.Motion agreed to.Debate interrupted.
Robertson GrantFirst ReadingHon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I move That the Appropriation (2023/24 Estimates) Bill be now read a first time.
Appropriation (2023/24 Estimates) Bill — Introduction
Rurawhe AdrianAPPROPRIATION (2023/24 ESTIMATES) BILLIntroductionCLERK: Appropriation (2023/24 Estimates) Bill introduction.SPEAKER: The Appropriation (2023/24 Estimates) Bill is set down for first reading immediately.
Robertson Grant; Rurawhe AdrianBUDGET DOCUMENTSHon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I present the 2023 Budget speech; the Budget at a Glance 2023; the Wellbeing Budget 2023 including reports on the fiscal strategy on child poverty and the summary of initiatives; the Budget Economic and Fiscal Update 2023; and the Estimates of Appropriations for the Government of New Zealand for the Year Ending 30 June 2024.SPEAKER: Those papers are published under the authority of the House.
Robertson Grant; Rurawhe AdrianSUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES DOCUMENTSHon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I present the Supplementary Estimates of Appropriations for the Government of New Zealand for the Year Ending 30 June 2023.SPEAKER: That paper is published under the authority of the House.
Rurawhe AdrianPETITIONS PAPERS SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLSSPEAKER: A petition has been delivered to the Clerk for presentation. CLERK: The petition of Merran Davis requesting that the House urge Te Pūkenga's board to remove the chief executive urge the Government to remove Te Pūkenga's board and commission an independent public inquiry into Te Pūkenga's performance.SPEAKER: That petition stands referred to the Petitions Committee. Papers have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation.CLERK: Report of the Intelligence and Security Committee on the activities of the Intelligence and Security Committee in 2022Te Aka Whai Ora Māori Health Authority statement of performance expectations 2022-23.SPEAKER: Those papers are published under the authority of the House. Select committee reports have been delivered for presentation. CLERK: Report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the Reserve Bank of New Zealand's Financial Stability Report May 2023.report of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee on the report of the Controller and Auditor-General Results of our 2019/20 audits of port companies.SPEAKER: The reports are set down for consideration. The Clerk has been informed of the introduction of a bill.CLERK: Appropriation (2022/23 Supplementary Estimates) Bill introduction.SPEAKER: That bill is set down for first reading.
O'Connor GregTHURSDAY 18 MAY 2023The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.KARAKIA/PRAYERSGREG O'CONNOR (Deputy Speaker): 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 justice mercy and humility for the welfare and peace of New Zealand. Amen.
Tuesday 22 November 2022 (continued on Wednesday 23 November 2022) - Volume 764
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the report be adopted.Ayes 107New Zealand Labour 64; New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Noes 12Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Motion agreed to.Report adopted.
Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Amendment Bill — In Committee—Clauses 1 and 2
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That Clause 1 be agreed to.Ayes 107New Zealand Labour 64; New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Noes 12Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Clause 1 agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That Clause 2 be agreed to.Ayes 107New Zealand Labour 64; New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Noes 12Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Clause 2 agreed to.Bill to be reported without amendment.House resumed.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the question be now put.Ayes 97New Zealand Labour 64; New Zealand National 33.Noes 22Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Motion agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That Part 2 be agreed to.Ayes 107New Zealand Labour 64; New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Noes 12Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Part 2 agreed to.ScheduleA party vote was called for on the question That the Schedule be agreed to.Ayes 107New Zealand Labour 64; New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Noes 12Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Schedule agreed to.
Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Amendment Bill — In Committee—Part 2
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the question be now put.Ayes 97New Zealand Labour 64; New Zealand National 33.Noes 22Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Motion agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That Part 1 be agreed to.Ayes 107New Zealand Labour 64; New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Noes 12Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Part 1 agreed to.
Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Amendment Bill — In Committee—Part 1
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.Ayes 107New Zealand Labour 64; New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Noes 12Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Motion agreed to.Bill read a second time.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Barbara Kuriger): I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Amendment Bill.
Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Amendment Bill — Second Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.Ayes 107New Zealand Labour 64; New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Noes 12Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Motion agreed to.Bill read a first time.
Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Amendment Bill — First Reading
Water Services Entities Bill — In Committee—Clauses 1 and 2
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the report be adopted.Ayes 74New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Noes 45New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Motion agreed to.Report adopted.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the question be now put.Ayes 74New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Noes 45New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10 Te Paati Māori 2.Motion agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that Simon Watt's amendment to clause 1 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 298 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 45New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10. Te Paati Māori 2.Noes 74New Zealand Labour 64 Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Amendment not agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That clause 1 be agreed to.Ayes 74New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Noes 45New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Clause 1 agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the Minister's amendments to clause 2 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 306 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 74New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Noes 45New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Amendments agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that Simon Watts' amendments to clause 2 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 303 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 45New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Noes 74New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Amendments not agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Simon Court's amendments to clause 2 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 305 are ruled out of order as being contrary to a previous decision of the committee.A party vote was called for on the question That clause 2 as amended be agreed to.Ayes 74New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Noes 45New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Maori 2.Clause 2 as amended agreed to.Bill to be reported with amendment.House resumed
Water Services Entities Bill — In Committee—Part 6
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That Part 5 be agreed to.Ayes 76New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Noes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Part 5 agreed to.
Water Services Entities Bill — In Committee—Part 5
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the question be now put.Ayes 76New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Noes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Motion agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that the Minister's amendments to Part 4 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 306 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 74New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Noes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Amendments agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Simon Court's amendments to Part 4 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 295 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Noes 74New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Amendments not agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Simon Court's amendments to Part 4 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 305 are ruled out of order as being contrary to a previous decision of the committee.The question is that Simon Watts' amendments to clause 140 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 299 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Noes 74New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Amendments not agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Hon Eugenie Sage's amendment to Part 4 set out in Supplementary Order Paper 286 are ruled out of order as being contrary to a previous decision of the committee.The question is that Hon Eugenie Sage's amendment to clause 164A set out on Supplementary Order Paper 296 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 74New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Noes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Amendment agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Simon Watts' amendment to clause 166 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 300 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Noes 74New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Amendment not agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That Part 4 as amended be agreed to.Ayes 76New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Noes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Part 4 as amended agreed to.
Water Services Entities Bill — In Committee—Part 4
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the question be now put. Ayes 74New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Noes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Motion agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That Part 3 be agreed to. Ayes 76New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Noes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Part 3 agreed to.
Water Services Entities Bill — In Committee—Part 3
Water Services Entities Bill — In Committee—Part 2 (continued)
12. Question No. 12—Workplace Relations and SafetyMARJA LUBECK (Labour) to the Minister for Workplace Relations and SafetyQuestion No. 12—Workplace Relations and Safety12. MARJA LUBECK (Labour) to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: What steps is the Government taking to support the health and safety of workers?Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Yesterday the Health and Safety at Work (Health and Safety Representatives and Committees) Amendment Bill was introduced to the House. The bill delivers on a 2020 Labour manifesto commitment to ensure that all workers have access to health and safety reps in their workplace should they request one. Health and safety reps play an important role in workplaces across the country already and have the power to request information and conduct inspections. Trained reps may issue a provisional improvement notice to address a problem or direct a worker to stop unsafe work. This legislation will ensure that when a worker makes such a request the business in question will need to initiate an election. It also proposes ensuring that if at least five workers or a health and safety representative request for a health and safety committee to be established the business will need to do so.Marja Lubeck: What does the Health and Safety at Work Act currently provide for in terms of health and safety representatives?Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Current legislation allows for businesses outside of specific high-risk sectors with fewer than 20 employees to decline a health and safety representative request from their workers and not make a decision on establishing a health and safety committee. This means that almost 29.3 percent of New Zealand workers do not necessarily have the right to request a health and safety representative or a committee which we believe is a significant blind spot in the existing legislation.Marja Lubeck: Is the Government making health and safety representatives mandatory?Hon MICHAEL WOOD: No we are not. Businesses will only be required to initiate an election where workers on that worksite request them and workers may indeed prefer to engage in less formal ways such as through regular health and safety meetings. None the less we believe it is important that if workers determine that a health and safety rep would improve health and safety in that workplace that should be able to proceed.Marja Lubeck: Why is taking action on improving health and safety in the workplace so important?Hon MICHAEL WOOD: While health and safety outcomes have improved since regulatory changes and the establishment of WorkSafe as a regulator New Zealand does still have high rates of work-related harm in comparison to other countries. Rates of fatalities per 100000 workers are roughly double those in Australia and about four times those of workers in the United Kingdom. We know we need to address this and this legislation is just one step out of a comprehensive work programme the Government is undertaking to ensure that New Zealanders are safe and healthy at work.Hon Paul Goldsmith: Supplementary? SPEAKER: No. No more supplementaries for National.
10. Question No. 10—Internal AffairsGLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth) to the Minister of Internal AffairsQuestion No. 10—Internal Affairs10. GLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth) to the Minister of Internal Affairs: What recent announcements has she made about reducing gambling harm in communities?Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister of Internal Affairs): Last week I announced changes to strengthen harm minimisation requirements in venues that have pokie machines to reduce the harm they cause to people and their families. These include mandatory annual training for all staff dealing with gamblers ensuring that staff in pokies venues are better trained; new requirements around the steps venues must follow to identify harmful gambling such as regular sweeps and recording signs of gambling harm; two new rules around venue design that will support harm minimisation by ensuring staff can better monitor ATMs and pokie machines are less visible; and a range of new infringement offences that help penalise those who fail to comply with harm minimisation regulations.Glen Bennett: Why are stronger harm minimisation regulations needed?Hon JAN TINETTI: Pokies are known to be the most harmful form of land-based gambling in Aotearoa with one in five players considered to be at risk from gambling harm. Data from the 2020 Health and Lifestyles Survey indicates that about 10 percent of New Zealanders use pokies and while some may consider pokies a form of recreational fun for far too many Kiwis and their families they do cause serious harm including mental financial and social harms.Glen Bennett: What feedback has she received on the proposed changes?Hon JAN TINETTI: Given the level of harm caused by pokies these changes are designed to drive a strong culture of care in class venues over time. I've heard some views from within the gambling harm prevention sector say that these reforms are positive but they are concerned that they don't go far enough and I agree. More systematic change is needed to reduce harm from gambling which is why I have started work to scope a complete review of the Gambling Act 2003. As the Minister of Internal Affairs I am committed to ensuring our regulations are working to reduce harm as much as possible and that we have the necessary enforcement tools for non-compliance.Glen Bennett: What are next steps in reducing harm from gambling?Hon JAN TINETTI: I expect that the new harm minimisation regulations for pokies will be in place in the first half of 2023 and as mentioned we have also committed to scoping out a wider review of the Act which has been warmly welcomed from within the sector.
7. Question No. 7—EnvironmentTĀMATI COFFEY (Labour) to the Minister for the EnvironmentQuestion No. 7—Environment7. TĀMATI COFFEY (Labour) to the Minister for the Environment: Will the repeal and replacement of the RMA reduce costs and speed up consenting processes; if so how?Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Thank you Mr Speaker. Yes processes under the new resource management system will deliver considerable cost and time savings. More than 100 district and regional plans under the Resource Management Act (RMA) will be replaced by 15 Natural and Build Environment Act (NBA) plans. More activities will be permitted fewer consents will be needed. Clearer notification and information requirements independent hearings panels for plans better designations and narrower appeals will reduce planning delays costs and re-litigation. A fast-track pathway which has already shown to reduce consenting times by 15 months will be made permanent for infrastructure and significant housing developments so repeal and replacement of the RMA will be faster cheaper and better for Kiwis.Tāmati Coffey: When will we first see the improvements from the repeal and replacement of the RMA?Hon DAVID PARKER: A draft national planning framework is already being prepared and will include a pro-infrastructure chapter which will be released upon the Act being passed. This will then come into force in 2024 which will enable the first three regions to prepare their regional spatial strategies which will take about two years and will then enliven the new designation powers. Fast track which currently expires in 2023 is proposed to be extended so there is no gap between the current fast track and its permanent version under the NBA.Tāmati Coffey: How will reducing the number of district and regional plans from more than 100 to 15 reduce compliance costs?Hon DAVID PARKER: Well this will substantially reduce the number of plans obviously and it will also enable better-quality plans and greater consistency and therefore regulatory predictability. In Greater Wellington for example there will no longer be separate plans for Porirua Lower Hutt Upper Hutt and Wellington City and developers will be able to rely upon one plan across the region with provisions that become more consistent. More activities will be permitted in NBA plans with standards avoiding bespoke conditions. This too will result in fewer notified consents and simpler processes.Tāmati Coffey: How much does the repeal and replacement of the RMA estimated to cut costs by?Hon DAVID PARKER: The new resource management system will deliver economic as well as environmental benefits. For every dollar spent it's expected to deliver benefits of between $2.58 and $4.90. On a conservative estimate the benefit to users will be a 19 percent cost saving—or about $149 million a year which equals to more than $10 billion in cost savings over 30 years. In addition unduly restrictive planning restraints have contributed to New Zealand's urban land and housing prices being amongst the least affordable in the OECD and this will help turn that around too.
Water Services Entities Bill — In Committee—Part 1
O'Connor GregCHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Madam Speaker the committee has considered the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Amendment Bill and reports it without amendment. I move That the report be adopted.
O'Connor Greg; Swarbrick ChlöeClauses 1 and 2CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Members we come now to our final debate clauses 1 and 2. This is debate on clauses 1 and 2 Title" and "Commencement".CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green—Auckland Central): I guess in the final remarks on this debate the final little bit of scrutiny and the opportunity to question the Minister in the chair Megan Woods we've canvassed as much as we possibly can I think in the limited time frame that we've had to get across all of the documents and the Cabinet paper and the regulatory impact statement as released. Unfortunately as the Minister herself has put we haven't had the opportunity to hear from members of the public and I will just reiterate we also haven't had the opportunity to hear from members of the public who the regulatory impact statement notes are going to be the most impacted by this legislation that being tenants—renters; the 1.5 million New Zealanders who live in rental properties across this country who were not consulted with.This legislation is however titled the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Amendment Bill and I guess just in my final contribution in this committee of the whole House stage if I could proffer an alternative title one that perhaps is a little bit more explicit about the fact that this is a piece of legislation that kicks the can down the road on the entitlement that all New Zealanders have to the right—the human right that Aotearoa New Zealand recognises—to an adequate home that subsequent Governments have recognised that this is an extension to compliance for landlords and for Kāinga Ora to tenants having that adequate housing recognised as a human right and fulfilled through the healthy homes standards. So perhaps a title that is all the more adequate: something along the lines of perhaps "Residential Tenancies (Delay of Healthy Home Standards) Amendment Bill"."
van Velden Brooke; Woods MeganBROOKE VAN VELDEN (Deputy Leader—ACT): Mr Chair thank you for allowing me to take a call on Part 2 of this piece of legislation the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Amendment Bill. I was specifically looking into clause 7(4) and I just had a question about—in regards to the consultation that's taken place and the changes to the deadlines. And there seems to be one group of houses or house tenancies that doesn't get an extension and I wondered if the Minister could elaborate on what went into that because it appears—you know Kāinga Ora they can get an extension now to 1 July 2024; community housing tenancies are 1 July 2024; any other tenancies there's a whole range of rules about extending the 90 days to 120 days and otherwise up to 1 July 2025.But boarding house tenancies don't appear to have any form of extension it just that we're replacing the table with the start date of 1 July 2021. So I've looked at what is actually the standard for a boarding house and it says that it's a rental property that's intended to be rented by at least six tenants each tenant rents their own room in the property and they share communal facilities and the tenancies last for 20 days or more. Is it possible that there are boarding houses that would not have had to comply yet because of this? And I'd just be curious as to the answer.Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Housing): So clause 7(4) in terms of the schedule of the dates that are in there the principle that underlies all of these dates of course is that we don't pass retrospective legislation. So the time frames that the member is pointing to are of course times that have passed. So when you look to boarding houses they were required already to comply by 1 July 2021 so we can't retrospectively change that. And I think I made the point in one of my earlier contributions that this is not a time extension for landlords that should have already complied—so if that tenancy has turned over in that time before those dates and that is the principle of not having retrospective legislation.
Swarbrick ChlöeCHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green—Auckland Central): Just to respond to the point as raised by the Minister the Hon Dr Megan Woods and I guess to kind of elaborate on the point that I was trying to make: I wasn't stating that it is easy to get a tradesperson or materials in the kind of shortage that we all know we're currently experiencing as a result of the global pandemic. The point that I was making is that the clock started several years ago—while I totally take on board that there is the need currently in the legislation to comply within 90 days of a new tenancy what we're looking at doing here is extending that to 120—that that upgrading of a home doesn't necessarily have to occur at that starting point it can occur while a tenant is living in a home that is not currently healthy homes standards compliant. The landlord could choose to undertake improving that property. So the point remains that you don't have to wait for a tenancy to end in order to start this process of updating to the healthy homes standards.
Woods MeganHon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Housing): I'll just address the issue in clause 6 of the legislation which amends the regulation to replace 90 days" with "120 days". This is a very pragmatic decision. I don't know if the member has tried to engage the services of a tradesperson in the current climate. The ability to actually get work done within a 90-day period is challenging. People with the best will in the world could procure the hardware to do this—whether that be the batts or the heat pump—but actually the ability to get tradespeople to do it has also been a challenge. And that is the reason for extending that out.There was a subsequent question from another member about why we are using legislation to amend the regulation—that particular clause that he's talking to. In terms of us to be able to do all of the changes that we needed to do at the same time then it required legislation. Believe me if there had just been a regulatory fix to this the Government would have taken it."
Bishop ChrisCHRIS BISHOP (National): Thank you Mr Chair. I have a question about Part 2 Subpart 1 and it's this: it's quite unusual for Parliament to amend secondary legislation which is what we're doing here.Hon Chris Hipkins: No it's not.CHRIS BISHOP: So Subpart 1 makes—well it's not under this Government. Subpart 1—Hon Chris Hipkins: It wasn't under your Government either.CHRIS BISHOP: Yeah yeah. OK. [Interruption] It's 11.25 p.m.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): If members would like to take their conversation out into the lobbies that's fine. Other than that we'll just deal with this as—CHRIS BISHOP: The question is this: why are we using legislation to amend a regulation? Because regulation 7(2)(a) replaces 90 days with 120 days why do we need legislation to do that? I accept the legislation around Part 1 which is the dates which is fine but why do we need legislation to amend the regulations?
Swarbrick Chlöe; Woods MeganCHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green—Auckland Central): I just wanted to ask the Minister given that we've been talking about submitters in particular and those property managers the landlords and Kāinga Ora who were all consulted with and throughout the regulatory impact statement again in particular it consistently refers to statements that were in support of the extension my question to the Minister is: were there any submitters that were opposed to the extension or that expressed any concerns with that extension? To that effect what rationale was given by them about those potential concerns that may have existed out there? Because I do find it quite difficult to believe that there is a complete consensus amongst all of those property managers and all of those landlords for an extension particularly when we consider based on the survey—which again we've already canvassed is not statistically significant—that 85 percent of private landlords are already in compliance. So were there any of those submitters that were opposed to this legislation outlined in this legislation?Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Housing): I will note that the questions the member is asking relate to Part 1 of the bill not Part 2 the consequential secondary legislation amendments that we're talking about here. In terms of how it goes through the House was given the option to debate this all as one part but that was not a choice that was taken up by the House. But I will be liberal in my responses—CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The Chair will decide where it departs but carry on.Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Thank you. I will be liberal and answer even though the ball correctly belongs to Part 1 that there weren't submissions. I think it makes it clear in the regulatory impact statement: it wasn't a select committee process where submissions were called for so I think the member's probably mischaracterising that. Of course there were a range of views when stakeholders were consulted around whether or not some people could fulfil it and others couldn't but there was no one who was opposed to it per se.
Woods MeganHon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Housing): Happy to oblige with an explanation. So the legislation that we are amending the Healthy Homes Guarantee Act was enacted in 2017. It was one of the very early pieces of legislation that we brought in when we came into Government. Of course we weren't content with just one piece of housing legislation; there were subsequent pieces of legislation in particular the Kāinga Ora bill of 2019—it's a consequential amendment that resulted by a piece of legislation that was passed after the Healthy Homes Guarantee Act so it led to change because of that.
O'Connor Greg; Bishop ChrisPart 2 Amendments to secondary legislationCHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Members we come now to Part 2. This is the debate on clauses 5 to 11 and the Schedule Amendments to secondary legislation". The question is that Part 2 stand part.CHRIS BISHOP (National): This falls into the realm of niche question—Chlöe Swarbrick: Give it to us.CHRIS BISHOP: Here we go. Why does clause 7 amend the Schedule and replace the definition of "community housing tenancy"? Why does it replace the "Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Act 1992" with "Public and Community Housing Management Act 1992"? It feels to me like this is a change where officials have suddenly figured out that they've had the wrong Act in the existing primary legislation for a while—Hon Member: All along.CHRIS BISHOP: —all along—and we're just going to take the opportunity of this legislative vehicle which has sort of come about at the sort of tail end of the year and there's a legislative vehicle that's come available so we'll just slip it through. That's what it sort of feels like to me. It's just quite an odd thing to do. I have to admit I haven't looked up the 1992 Act and I haven't even looked up the Public and Community Housing Management Act 1992. I suppose I just want to know what the reason for the change is and if anything turns on it. Yeah thank you Mr Chair."