edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
SpeechIBRAHIM OMER (Labour): Thank you Madam Speaker. In 2010 in a move that was seen as unjust and anti-worker and was widely met with fierce opposition from the workers the Employment Relations Act 2000 was amended to remove film production workers from its definition of an employee. That only happened under the National Party because they are always anti-worker. In doing so they have taken the right of the workers to get paid minimum wage and the right to bargain collectively. This meant that this group of workers could not challenge their employment status in courts. This bill creates a regime for contractors in the screen industry. It rights the wrongs. It's a good day; it's a good bill. I commend it to the House.
SpeechANGELA ROBERTS (Labour): Thank you Madam Speaker. It's a real privilege to stand and take a call on behalf of workers because workers are on film sets and on TV sets. So why are we here? We're here to restore collective bargaining rights to film production workers and right the wrongs of this Hobbit law" we've heard about. I find it ironic. The Shire is meant to be the small beautiful idyllic and fruitful land and it's meant to be a place for happy hobbits. Well that did nothing for film production workers to ensure dignified work. Eighty-five percent of them are contractors. That's the nature of the job and that's great but that does not mean that they lose their right to collective bargaining.I want to acknowledge the Film Industry Working Group but they're creators and so it's not surprising that they've been able to collaborate and come up with something that will work. It is not about a title; it's about a relationship. I support this bill and commend it to the House."
White HelenHELEN WHITE (Labour): I wanted to speak on this bill because I have been an employment lawyer for 30 years and because I was working as a barrister I got people who were on contracts rather than employment come into my office and what I saw was quite worrying. I saw a lot of exploitation. I saw people who were dismissed because they had had the audacity to date somebody that the boss didn't agree that they should date. I saw all sorts of situations where work was so precarious that it was undermining the confidence of the people involved and undermining the wellbeing of their families.So what I see here is a collaborative effort between the industry and the people involved and I see the basics coming into play: fair treatment good faith. These are things that we stand for in the Labour Party and that we stand for as a country and I see their making a real difference to why we will go forward in the way we will. My daughter did a film degree. She's not working in the industry because who would—who would? She's a talented bright clever woman and she won't work in this industry until we change it for the better and this bill will do this. I commend this bill to the House.
Belich Camilla; Salesa JennyCAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you Madam Speaker. It's a pleasure to take a call on this Screen Industry Workers Bill. I want to say that the reason that we are here today is because of a shameful chapter in workers' rights in New Zealand where the previous National Government removed the workers' rights of an entire industry—an entire industry. Let's go back to how we got here today.In 2005 Bryson v Three Foot Six Ltd a decision of a court in New Zealand emphasised the real nature test which determines whether a person is an employee or a contractor. Then following that after that was settled law and consistent with all other decisions film workers decided to have the audacity to use their fundamental right of freedom of association to collectively bargain. Now that was seen as too much of a risk to this country that it would be found to be unattractive to filming for overseas film companies. What did the National Government do then? Did they stand up for New Zealand workers? Absolutely not. They did not. They removed the workers' rights from the film industry with no select committee process under urgency; an absolutely shameful chapter New Zealand's history. So I am proud to stand here today to reverse the damage that that previous Government did to this group of New Zealand workers. This bill brings back minimum standards to the film industry. This bill brings back the right to collectively bargain and I am proud to be part of a Government that is bringing back fundamental rights unfairly taken away from New Zealand workers.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): The next call is a split call. I call on Simon Watts—five minutes.
Boyack RachelRACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): It's a pleasure to take a short call and the final call on what is a very important and a very good piece of legislation that we are passing in the House today. As many previous speakers have already traversed this bill responds to the Supreme Court decision in 2018 that found inconsistencies with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act regarding prisoner voting. What this bill does is introduce a mechanism for the House and the executive to consider those inconsistencies when the Supreme Court finds that there has been an inconsistency. As previous speakers have noted there are times when Parliament does make law that does have an inconsistency with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and that is that ultimately Parliament is sovereign. But all speakers throughout the debate have noted that it's important for us to have a mechanism to make that consideration when the courts do observe those inconsistencies. So I want to congratulate the Privileges Committee who have taken a good couple of years to consider this bill. I think we've seen a significant amount of analysis and robust debate in order to get to this point. It's an excellent piece of legalisation. I congratulate the Minister and the committee and I commend this bill to the House. Motion agreed to.Bill read a third time.Sessional order agreed to.
Prime Willow-JeanWILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour—Northland): Thank you Madam Speaker for the opportunity to take this brief call on the New Zealand Bill of Rights (Declarations of Inconsistency) Amendment Bill. I want to recognise the Privileges Committee. I am not a member of that committee but I have been following the debate both last night and this morning. As I understand it this issue came out of the Supreme Court's decision in 2018 and through the great work of the Privileges Committee they put forward several recommendations to improve the initial proposed legislation. The bill seeks to create a statutory mechanism for bringing declarations to the attention of the House of Representatives with the aim of facilitating consideration of the judiciary's declarations by the legislative and executive branches of Government. I do really want to commend the committee for the work that they did and their ability to come to a unanimous decision on those recommendations and so I commend this bill to the House.
Williams ArenaARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Madam Speaker it's a pleasure to rise and take this call which was a Māori Party call on the New Zealand Bill of Rights (Declarations of Inconsistency) Amendment Bill. Just to make the point that I want to thank all of the members in this House who have been responsible for having these conversations around how we introduce and have the discussion as Mr Penk said about rights in this House. Whenever we go through these processes as a House of updating and of considering carefully in each Parliament the way that we have these rights-based conversations we firm up our posture on the process of considering rights in our law. It's good to have these conversations regularly. It's good to be able to have these debates in the House and I want to thank all of the members particularly on the other side of the House for being involved here.
Belich Camilla; Salesa JennyNEW ZEALAND BILL OF RIGHTS (DECLARATIONS OF INCONSISTENCY) AMENDMENT BILLThird ReadingSTANDING ORDERSSessionalDebate resumed.CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you Madam Speaker. It's a pleasure to take a call on this bill the New Zealand Bill of Rights (Declarations of Inconsistency) Amendment Bill. It's an unusual bill in the sense that it has support from across the House but I want to reflect on how significant that is. We as legislators don't often agree on things but one thing we do agree on in relation to this bill is the fact that the fundamental human rights as outlined in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and in the Human Rights Act are something that need to be held in great importance. Also when we fail to get the balance right between two different rights or when we make a mistake we need to be held to account for that and this entire Parliament is standing here today and saying to New Zealanders that when we get it wrong we not only want to be told that we got it wrong but we want to be given the opportunity to do something about it and I think that reflects really well on our democracy.As we've heard from other speakers this came about through legal action that was taken in Taylor v Attorney-General. But what we're doing here today is not only recognising the fact that the judiciary have seen it as appropriate to make declarations of inconsistencies when there is an inconsistency between the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and the Human Rights Act but actually that we accept that decision and we want to do something about it. The process has been outlined by a few speakers previous to me but essentially it will be that the Attorney-General will make a statement in the House within six days and then it will go to a select committee and then Parliament will need to respond within six months.Now it doesn't stipulate as others have said how we should respond but it's really important that we do have to respond as part of this legislation. I want to also reflect just as I finish on how significant this is in relation to our human rights framework which forms part of our constitutional arrangements. We've heard the Attorney-General say it's one of the most significant changes since these Acts came into effect and I want to congratulate the House and also send a message to New Zealanders that we take your human rights seriously and when we get it wrong we want to be held to account.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): The next call is a split call. I call on Chris Penk—five minutes.
Salesa JennyTUESDAY 23 AUGUST 2022(continued on Wednesday 24 August 2022)ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Mālō e lelei members. We will continue with the third reading of the New Zealand Bill of Rights (Declarations of Inconsistency) Amendment Bill. The next call is a Labour Party call.
Tuesday 15 August 2023 - Volume 770
Water Services Entities Amendment Bill — In Committee—Part 2
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the question be now put.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.A party vote was called for on the question That Part 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.Part 2 agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That Schedule 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; Whaitiri.Schedule 1 agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That Schedule 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.Schedule 2 agreed to.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the question be now put.Ayes 72New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere.Noes 44New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.Motion agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that Simon Court's amendments to Part 1 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 405 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 44New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.Noes 72New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere.Amendments not agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Simon Court's amendment to Part 1 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 404 is ruled out of order as being against the principles and objectives of the bill. The question is that Simon Court's amendments to Part 1 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 401 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 44New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.Noes 72New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere.Amendments not agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that Simon Court's amendment to Part 1 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 400 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 44New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.Noes 72New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere.Amendment not agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that Simon Court's amendment to Part 1 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 403 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 44New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.Noes 72New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere.Amendment not agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that Simon Watts' amendments to Part 1 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 407 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 44New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.Noes 72New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere.Amendments not agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That Part 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; Whaitiri.Part 1 agreed to.
Water Services Entities Amendment Bill — In Committee—Part 1
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That urgency be accorded.Ayes 72New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere.Noes 44New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.Motion agreed to.
Estimates Debate — Transport
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the votes contained in the Estimates of Appropriation for 2023/24 stand part of the Schedules.Ayes 72New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere.Noes 44New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.Motion agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That clauses 1 to 10 and Schedules 1 to 5 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.Clauses 1 to 10 and Schedules 1 to 5 agreed to.Bill to be reported without amendment.House resumed.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Madam Speaker the committee has further considered the Appropriation (2023/24 Estimates) Bill and reports it without amendment. I move That the report be adopted. Motion agreed to.Report adopted.
9. Question No. 9—Energy and ResourcesHon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green) to the Minister of Energy and ResourcesQuestion No. 9—Energy and Resources9. Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green) to the Minister of Energy and Resources: Does she stand by her reported statement in relation to the carbon price doubling or tripling that the financial consequences for families would be too harsh"; if so does she support further measures to directly assist households to decarbonise?Hon DAVID PARKER (Acting Minister of Energy and Resources): On behalf of the Minister yes and yes.Hon Julie Anne Genter: Is she aware that a gas heater has lifetime emissions of over 11000 kilograms of carbon dioxide is more expensive to run than a heat pump and exacerbates childhood asthma; and if so when will Warmer Kiwi Homes be expanded to include swapping out gas heating?Hon DAVID PARKER: I certainly accept that the particulate discharges from gas heaters—particularly if it's not vented—can be problematic and that a heat pump is better. And I stand by the record of this Government which is to deliver 100000 insulation and heating retrofits through the Warmer Kiwi Homes programme.Hon Julie Anne Genter: Does she accept Transpower's assessment that Aotearoa needs 13 percent solar generation to achieve a 100 percent renewable electricity target; if so what is the Government doing to get more rooftops solar on homes?Hon DAVID PARKER: On behalf of the Minister yes I accept that solar is part of the future. Most solar investments are likely to be in solar farms rather than on rooftops. Rooftop installations are most cost-effectively done at the time of building of houses which is one of the reasons why the Government programme in respect of State house builds is incorporating some solar on roofs of new builds. Hon Julie Anne Genter: Does she support the call from The Homes We Deserve coalition of over 160 organisations to commit to a large-scale retrofit programme over the next nine years to reduce emissions and household bills?Hon DAVID PARKER: I have no responsibility for other parties' or other groups' policies."
8. Question No. 8—JusticeARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) to the Minister of JusticeQuestion No. 8—Justice8. ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) to the Minister of Justice: How is the Government delivering more support for the victims of crime?Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Minister of Justice): Last week I introduced the Victims of Sexual Violence (Strengthening Legal Protections) Legislation Bill which will in the next phase of our work support victims of crime. The bill addresses some important issues in the justice system reducing the risk of child victims of sexual violence being asked about consent while in court as well as increasing the maximum penalty for the offence of sexual connection with a child to 20 years' imprisonment to align with other offences. The bill also gives adult victims of sexual violence greater say over name suppression for themselves as well as the offender. This Government is delivering on our goal to improve the experience of victims in our justice system.Arena Williams: What other work is under way to address gaps in the justice system for victims?Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: Just last month three new pilot programmes got well under way. The first will help make sure victims' voices are heard when bail decisions are being made. The second pilot aims to improve the experience of child witnesses in sexual violence cases and provides training for support staff to work with them. The third pilot programme is focused on improving the coordination and safety planning for victims of serious crime. Victims have told us that there are some parts of the justice system that are not working for them. We have heard those concerns and these pilots will make a real difference in this space.Arena Williams: What financial support is now available for victims?Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: Since we came into Government we have tripled the amount of funding for the Victim Assistance Scheme and doubled the amount of funding for Victim Support. Our support for the Victim Assistance Scheme means an estimated 10000 more grants are available for victims of serious crime including increased financial support for homicide victims' families counselling for victims of serious crime and a new grant specific to victims of sexual violence. I'm proud of our strong track record for supporting victims—compared to the previous Government which reduced funding in this area.Arena Williams: What other work is under way to support victims of crime?Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: The bill introduced last week is part of the tranche of a three-year programme to transform victims' experience in the justice system. We passed the Sexual Violence Legislation Act and established Te Aorerekura to empower communities to fight back and reduce family violence. The work is under way to make further changes to prevent litigation abuse in Family Court proceedings. These are always practical changes that will make sure victims have a meaningful role in the decisions that directly affect them and their families. As a Government we are committed to having a justice system where victims feel safe heard and empowered.
4. Question No. 4—WomenSARAH PALLETT (Labour—Ilam) to the Minister for WomenQuestion No. 4—Women4. SARAH PALLETT (Labour—Ilam) to the Minister for Women: What recent announcements has the Government made on pay transparency?Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister for Women): Last week Minister Priyanca Radhakrishnan and I were proud to announce the Government is taking action to close the gender pay gap for New Zealand's women through a mandatory pay transparency reporting system. This is a significant next step to close the gender gap. It will mean 900 entities with over 250 employees will be required to publicly report their gender pay gap. This move is part of the Government's ongoing commitment to make New Zealand an equitable and desirable place for people to live work and do business.Sarah Pallett: What will the system look like?Hon JAN TINETTI: Organisations with 250 employees or more will report their pay gap initially and then organisations with over 100 employees will be required to report after four years. We expect around 900 organisations to be covered initially increasing to 2700 when the threshold reduces. The Government is also committed to exploring the inclusion of ethnicity and pay gap reporting for Māori Pacific peoples and other ethnic groups.Sarah Pallett: Why is gender pay gap reporting important?Hon JAN TINETTI: Gender pay gap reporting is one of several tools to address the gender pay gap and ensure equity in the workplace. Countries we compare ourselves to including Australia Canada and the United Kingdom have introduced gender pay gap reporting with successful results. I would like to note that today the gender pay gap has reduced from 9.2 percent to 8.6 percent. That is excellent progress but while a gap exists there is still more work to do.Sarah Pallett: How does this complement the Government's other work to close the gender pay gap?Hon JAN TINETTI: We know from history that achieving gender equity isn't an overnight fix but requires deliberate and concerted efforts. This Government has a strong track record of delivering for women in the workplace through increasing paid parental leave to 26 weeks settling historic pay equity claims for close to 157000 women investing in KiwiSaver to match employer contribution to paid parental leave recipients reducing the gender pay gap in the Public Service from 12.2 percent in 2019 to 7.7 percent and reaching 50 percent representation of women on Government boards. There is still more work to do but I am proud to be part of a Government that is putting in the tools we need to tackle the gender pay gap as a country.
2. Question No. 2—HealthDr ANAE NERU LEAVASA (Labour—Takanini) to the Minister of HealthQuestion No. 2—Health2. Dr ANAE NERU LEAVASA (Labour—Takanini) to the Minister of Health: What announcements has she made recently about improving the pay and conditions of nurses and midwives in New Zealand?Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Minister of Health): Last week I was pleased to announce that New Zealand's hard-working Te Whatu Ora hospital nurses and midwives have accepted their collective employment agreement. This was on top of the nursing pay equity settlement announced on 31 July and the increase in midwifery pay rates for pay equity announced on 6 July. This Government is proud to have delivered for nurses and midwives.Dr Anae Neru Leavasa: What will this mean for graduate nurses?Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: When Labour came into Government in 2017 graduate nurses earned $49449 a year. Over the first five years we were in Government we increased these nurses' pay to $59834 a year. Now that pay equity has been settled and the collective has been agreed these nurses now earn $73566. Next year in April they will receive a further increase to $75773. This is a total increase across our term of Government of 53.2 percent.Dr Anae Neru Leavasa: What will the announcement mean for registered nurses?Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: When Labour came into Government in 2017 registered nurses on the top step of the pay scale earned $66755. Over the first five years we were in Government we increased these nurses' pay to $83186. Now that pay equity has been settled and the collective has been agreed these nurses earn $103630. Next year in April they will receive a further increase to $106739. This is an increase of 59.9 percent since we entered Government.Dr Anae Neru Leavasa: Why is this important to our health system?Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: The rates we pay our nurses in New Zealand are crucial to keeping them in our health system. Another priority is the wellbeing of our health workforce. Reaching agreement on these measures addresses many of the issues and concerns raised by the New Zealand Nurses Organisation during these negotiations. This Government is committed to addressing pressures on our health workers and this settlement package is a step towards achieving that. I would like to acknowledge everyone involved in the bargaining process for both the collective and pay equity. The challenge of delivering healthcare in a complex and increasingly demanding environment is something we need to do together.
Water Services Entities Amendment Bill — In Committee—Clauses 1 and 2
Court SimonSIMON COURT (ACT): On the name of the bill Water Services Entities Amendment Bill" you could call it the "Back-down Bill" Minister. It started off with four entities; now it's 10. You could call it "Much More Expensive and Less Efficient Water Services Entities Amendment Bill" Minister because that's what you said when you came to select committee. You could call it "giving up" Minister—the "Giving Up the Water Services Entities Amendment Bill" the "Let Me Out of Here (It's Nearly 10 o'clock) Water Services Entities Amendment Bill" Minister.But when it comes to the time for implementation that's the problem with this bill. If there was one date that local government professional services engineers maintenance contractors communities could plan for—as there was in the original bill. I mean that provides this thing called "certainty"; allows organisations to develop a pipeline of work; allows funders and financers even to say "Hey on a certain date we'll be there with some private institutional capital" as ACT proposes in our solution here Minister—ACT's solutions for building New Zealand and conserving nature 30-year infrastructure plans. Private institutional capital to finance to build out of the three waters infrastructure needed for growth and remediating the pipe networks in our major cities. But Minister even the time for implementation has blown out to the nether-nether. There was 1 July 2024; now it's "Hmm sometime between then and 2026". Yeah that's assuming a whole bunch of other stuff.Minister this has been a very very disappointing end to the water services reform programme which I was informed about by Department of Internal Affairs officials in September 2020. There was no mention of co-governance then. It sounded like an eminently worthy concept a laudable proposal. Where we've got to with this bill is not just disappointing it's a waste of tens of millions of dollars of taxpayer funds to get it to this point—not to mention all the efforts and the good will of the officials people who want to see good water reform local government and all of the stakeholders out there in communities who've put the time and effort into submitting on these bills.And there's two more bills. There's the Water Services Legislation Bill. So don't worry viewers don't worry listeners it's not over yet! The Water Services Legislation Bill and the "Water Services Consumer Guarantees or Economic Efficiency of Something Bill". Anyway consumer guarantees economic efficiency is done; this bill wrecks it.So we'll debate the others. ACT will offer our constructive suggestions. But Minister this bill doesn't deserve to pass with whatever title.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members the House is suspended and will resume at 9 a.m. tomorrow morning.Debate interrupted.Sitting suspended from 9.58 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Wednesday)"
Watts SimonClauses 1 and 2CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members we come now to our final debate clauses 1 and 2. This is the debate on clauses 1 and 2—title and commencement.SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Well thank you very much Madam Chair. We're coming to the end of what has been an interesting debate this evening in regards to the Water Services Entities Amendment Bill in this aspect referring to the title of the bill in regards to clause 1.There are a number of suggestions that I want to make to the Minister in regards to what we could call this bill but I want to provide a number of pragmatic suggestions because the reality is that this Water Services Entities Amendment Bill as it is titled is actually—and should be referred to as—Labour's Back-down Bill". Because in effect what this bill is actually doing is making a number of amendments and back-downs in regards to legislation that was put in place by this Government and amending elements of legislation put in place by this Government only a number of months before a subsequent change of those at the helm of the Government and subsequently that policy bonfire process that went on and the subsequent release of a National Party policy document in regards to an alternative Local water done well. Following that release the Government decided to listen and reset their position and came up with the Water Services Entities Amendment Bill.But I think this bill should be referred to as the "Back-down Bill" because that's what it is and that is what it should be called because it is not reasonable to not refer to it as something that it is not. But the fact that subsequently the bill was only out just over a month or so for consultation also shows that it isn't really obviously a full process of consultation. That feedback is in the report which was the feedback from the select committee. I mean it says "Many submitters commented on the limited time provided for consultation with affected groups during the process of legislating for [the] water services reform." Well you pretty much couldn't sum that up better but that's the reality.So we recommend that we call this bill not the Water Services Entities Amendment Bill but instead the "Back-down Bill" and we'll be interested to hear contribution from those other members. Thank you."
Utikere TangiTANGI UTIKERE (Chief Whip—Labour): I move That the question be now put.
Simpson Scott; McAnulty KieranHon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you Madam Chair. Part 2 of the bill deals mostly with amendments to other legislation and I want to refer to clause 36 which is an amendment to the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002.Clause 37 provides an amendment to Schedule 1AA of that principal Act. So there's quite a long and detailed inclusion there that is headed up on page 43 of the bill that's on the table. It's headed up Provisions relating to Water Services Entities Amendment Act 2023" and it applies to a rating mechanism for water services. It says that at subclause 4(1) "This clause applies if—(a) a territorial authority's district is wholly or partly in the service area of a water services entity with [the] establishment date (under section 6A(3A) or (4)". Without wanting to go through and just read out the whole page—because it's quite detailed—I want to just ask the Minister some questions around his interpretation of the words in that amended part. I'm not an accountant but looking—Nicola Grigg: You're way too fun.Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: Nicola Grigg says "way too fun" to be an accountant.Nicola Grigg: Simon Watts is an accountant.Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: Oh Simon Watts is an accountant? There you go. There you go. But look just coming back to the amended Part. As I say it's quite long. It creates a formula for rate collection and calculation and there is an example that is prepared on page 44 of the bill on the table. Frankly I'm at a loss—as I say as a layperson not as an accountant—to understand the example that is put forward.I'm wondering whether the Minister can advise me and maybe other members of the committee what's his interpretation of the example that's given there? It looks to me to be an example that's probably been prepared by officials and it's quite involved. At one point in subclause (5)(b) it says "(A + B) / E <= 30%". Now I only did school certificate mathematics so I find that a little bit daunting. But I'm sure the Minister will be able to—given his background with numbers and odds and sums of money—provide some insight into a layperson's understanding of what the example provides in that piece.Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Minister of Local Government): I thank the member for the question. It's not my job to provide interpretations of the bill. As Ministers we introduce bills; we provide legislative statements to outline the intent. I understand it. If the Minister doesn't perhaps he wants to ask an accountant in his caucus."
Watts SimonPart 2 Amendments to other legislationCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members we come now to Part 2. This is the debate on clauses 28 to 44—amendments to other legislation. The question is that Part 2 stand part. SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Point of order Madam Chairperson. I'm just seeking clarification. My understanding is we only were referring to Part 1 up to clause 15 or new Subpart 1A in the last portion. CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Sorry could—I'm not following the member. We've just voted on Part 1. SIMON WATTS: In its entirety? OK. CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): I'll put the question again otherwise—Simon Watts.
SpeechDr TRACEY McLELLAN (Junior Whip—Labour): I move That the question be now put.
McAnulty KieranHon KIERAN McANULTY (Minister of Local Government): Thank you very much Madam Chair. I have total faith in local councils' ability to work with mana whenua on the regional representative groups. Mr Watts made a couple of incorrect statements I'm happy to correct. One is a reference to the 75 percent. That threshold is specifically relevant to proposals for a potential merger. But there are groupings of councils across the country that work together incredibly well. I happen to think that those that are involved in local government are highly competent highly committed to their communities and are looking forward to the opportunity to be able to deliver water services in a way the community can afford—which this can do.Mr Watts' comments in regards to three councils being in entities—well he said that himself. I mean initially the question was prefaced with when they propose council-controlled organisations (CCOs) working with three councils and now all of a sudden there's an entity with three councils". It's not the fact that there's three councils; it's the fact that a CCO model as proposed by the National Party and in fact can already be done is proven not to work. It will not remove the debt associated with water services from councils' books which many councils are absolutely screaming out for—they need it. But an entity will achieve that.We had advice that—of course we wouldn't have proposed an entity boundary if the advice wasn't that we would achieve balance sheet separation. Even in the two smaller entities the Taranaki and top of the South Island we got advice to say that it is workable—not as workable as four; we've always conceded that. But this is again the trade-off from giving every council a voice on the regional representative groups which are not governance bodies but nevertheless do ensure that every council there is represented.The comments in regard to establishment I went into that in great detail earlier. I think that covers off all the points that were raised."
McAnulty KieranHon KIERAN McANULTY (Minister of Local Government): Thank you Mr Chair. I think it's pretty poor form for a member of this House to directly criticise officials individually. I think it's appropriate of course to criticise departments. But for a member to question openly the motivation and work ethic of officials I think is poor form.In regards to the question of the CEOs that was already—at the member's own admission—answered today in the appropriations but I'm happy to go through it again. As explained earlier today the CEO of entity A" will continue in that role because there are no proposed changes for that entity. The other two that have been hired will continue in a role within the department going through the proper change process. They have expertise that can be utilised through the transition period.I think it's inappropriate to suggest that a Minister should direct a department to sack people; that would be beyond the realms of what is reasonable for a Minister so I totally reject that. As I've said earlier in regards to member's comments around the Supplementary Order Papers 400 401 403 and 404 we will not be supporting those and I've already outlined the reasons why."
McAnulty KieranURGENCYHon KIERAN McANULTY (Deputy Leader of the House): I move That urgency be accorded the passing through the remaining stages of the Water Services Entities Amendment Bill and the Education and Training Amendment Bill (No 3); the third readings of the Natural and Built Environment Bill and the Spatial Planning Bill; and the remaining stages of the Integrity Sport and Recreation Bill the Climate Change Response (Late Payment Penalties and Industrial Allocation) Amendment Bill; and the second readings of the Taxation Principles Reporting Bill the Fuel Industry (Improving Fuel Resilience) Amendment Bill the Land Transport Management (Regulation of Public Transport) Amendment Bill the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Community Participation) Amendment Bill the Water Services Legislation Bill and the Water Services Economic Efficiency and Consumer Protection Bill.
Brown Simeon; Genter Julie Anne; O'Connor Greg; Parker DavidSIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Well Mr Chair I'm still yet to get an answer from the Minister of Transport regarding the New Zealand Upgrade Programme and the projects that were outlined as having been re-scoped. I'd like an answer around those three particular projects.Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green): I'm wondering if the Minister of Transport can comment on the benefit-to-cost ratios of the projects in the New Zealand Upgrade Programme. I wonder if he has any thoughts about why there's such a double standard for investment in transport projects where so many politicians claim that rail is low value when we've seen many many studies showing investments in passenger rail like the lower North Island passenger rail business case that has a return well over the investment that's being proposed to put in. But when it comes to highways for some reason the parties on the right who supposedly care about fiscal discipline do not care about fiscal discipline because they're proposing highways that consistently have lower returns than the cost of the project—not even counting the environmental externalities the health externalities the fact that you have to own a car and operate it to use the infrastructure that they're investing in. I mean do you have any comment Minister on that? I also wonder if you could comment on the percentage of investment that has been put into new State highways relative to new public transport investments over the last years.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The Hon David Parker—four.Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Transport): In the four seconds available the good news is that we have funded new trains for Palmerston North to Wellington.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Members the time for this debate has now expired.
Court Simon; Doocey Matt; O'Connor Greg; Parker DavidSIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you Mr Chair. Minister for Transport thank you very much for addressing some of our questions although your history of road maintenance in New Zealand might have missed a few things out but you and I can catch up afterwards and I'll set you straight. Minister City Rail Link—thank you for raising City Rail Link—a $5.5 billion dollar project. You've acknowledged in response to a written question actually that it's more likely to be closer to $6 billion because there's a huge contingency or risk outstanding that the public haven't been told about till I told them just now Minister. Then I want to get on to the unfunded contingency Minister; that is the road and rail separation the grade separation in Auckland. City Rail Link's going to deliver zero benefits. It's going to be stuck on 15000 passengers an hour unless we can separate the road crossings from the rail in Auckland. That's going to cost hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars and it needs to be done before City Rail Link opens otherwise City Rail Link is a lemon. Minister will the Government fund grade separation road and rail separation in Auckland so that we can get the most out of City Rail Link before this Government spends another dollar on Auckland light rail?MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): Thank you very much Mr Chair. I just want to follow on from my colleague Simeon Brown—and I must say I think New Zealand is looking forward to him being the next transport Minister in two months' time. He outlined a lot of roads that have been cancelled. But wait—there's one more: the Belfast to Pegasus expressway including the Woodend Bypass that was cancelled by this Labour Government when they came in. It would have helped unlock the potential of the Western Belfast Bypass and the northern corridor which were built by the last National Government—no Government has done more for transport and greater Christchurch than the last National Government.So my question to the Minister of Transport is: when you look at AA Canterbury highlighting the Woodend area—one of the most dangerous roads in Canterbury with the fatalities and the accidents. Since they cancelled that motorway the traffic volumes have increased by over 30 percent. What is in this Budget for the good people of greater Christchurch about ensuring that the arterial route out of Christchurch is secure with a new four-lane highway?CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Just for the members that is the time left for the debate which is on the screen now.Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Transport): Responding to the question about grade separation in Auckland Waka Kotahi has been doing work with Auckland Council on the cost of grade separation and I agree that is a challenge that is yet to be overcome in Auckland.
SpeechVANUSHI WALTERS (Chairperson of the Justice Committee): Madam Chair thank you very much for the opportunity to make some brief remarks to lead off this debate on the justice Estimates.Firstly I'd just like to thank the Minister and the chief executive Andrew Kibblewhite and also the officials who provided us with information and advice on the day and thank the committee members for their diligence through this process. The Justice Committee hearing forms an important part of our holding the executive to account.In 2023-24 the appropriations sought for Vote Justice totalled $856.932 million. That is about 3.6 percent more than the previous year's estimated actual expenditure of $827.013 million. Of those appropriations they included $303.578 million for legal aid services and $196.59 million for services provided by the Ministry of Justice as well as $72.968 million for community-based justice services including services such as the community legal service network.Through our discussion with the Minister and the chief executive we discussed subjects such as the cluster approach to Budget bids—and this is of course the second year that that approach has been taken—the sentencing of offenders support and assistance for victims legislation to address organised crime and the appropriation within Vote Justice that is the responsibility of the Minister for the Prevention of Family and Sexual Violence. So with those brief remarks I would thank the members again for their work.
Salesa JennyJusticeCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members we now have the Minister of Justice. The Minister of Justice is going to be available from 4 p.m. until 5 p.m. I call on the chair of the Justice Committee Vanushi Walters.
Watts SimonSIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Thank you very much Mr Chair. It's an absolute pleasure. I wanted to go further into a couple of aspects. It's interesting in regards to this appropriation that the Minister refers to the reforms and the fact that the three waters reform programme will take the debt off council balance sheets. But what the Minister has not clearly articulated is: where does that debt go? Because the reality is that there isn't any magic money tree that exists. And while the debt may be taken off the council's balance sheet that does not mean the debt does not exist in the context of the broader economy. While it may under the Government's proposed model sit within a water services entity at the end of the day the ratepayer or the taxpayer will still need to contribute in order to fund that debt profile. So I think it's interesting to sort of make that point but I don't think it holds any water to use the point in regards to the fact that actually there is no magic money tree for this debt. What is clear in regards to the estimated $3 billion of establishment costs—these are costs that have been outlined across the period and a large portion of those costs have already been included within this appropriation—is that those will not actually derive one single metre of additional water pipe going into the ground; actually quite the opposite. The majority of that expenditure to date has been spent on what is a Conga line of consultants a gravy train of consultants and contractors by this Government to implement a reform programme which was strongly opposed by the majority of local government and the majority of Kiwis.So I'm interested in the Minister's comments in regards to: does he stand by the fact that the expenditure within the appropriation is value for money and is actually going to derive benefits? And while the debt will be taken off councils' balance sheets who actually is going to be funding that debt? Who is this magic population that isn't the ratepayer or the taxpayer? Or is it actually the ratepayer or the taxpayer? Because I think most Kiwis are pretty sensible and they can see through that that no matter how you dress up this issue the fact is that someone is going to have to pay and at the end of the day that person will be members of our community.So those are the two points Mr Chair that I wanted to add and to thank the Minister for his contribution.
Urgent Debates Declined — Migrant Exploitation—Recent Case
Court Simon; McAnulty KieranSIMON COURT (ACT): Minister in response to the question I put to you about whether the Department of Internal Affairs (DIA) will continue to pay three soon-to-be-redundant chief executives hired by the DIA's national transition unit on three waters—they'll be redundant today or tomorrow by the very legislation you're sponsoring Minister. You said that's out of scope" for the Estimates debate. Those salaries are funded out of these Estimates paid by the DIA through the national transition unit to these three individuals. Minister it's clearly in scope. Will you instruct the DIA to make them redundant and stop paying them when the roles are redundant or do you support the DIA keeping those individuals on paying their salaries out of this year's Estimates for appropriations so that you can do what with them Minister?Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Minister of Local Government): The member is incorrect. One CEO will continue because one of the entities in which the CEO has been hired has not changed and will continue to go live in July 2024. So that person continues in that role. Outside of that there is a change process under way. If they wish to continue to assist with the establishment then they'll have that opportunity."