edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Lee Melissa; McAnulty KieranMELISSA LEE (National): Thank you very much Madam Chair. I'd like to ask the Minister in relation to when the water services entities exercise their power to perhaps access owners' properties to lay infrastructure. Apart from the fact that they actually need to get permission they may also need to move the utility operator's infrastructure that is under the ground for example. This is in Part 1 clause 22 in relation to section 211(2). There is no mention in terms of compensation should that exercise actually go wrong because often you hear about people who actually dig underground and cut fibre-optic cables because they read the map wrong and accessed the wrong entry way and potentially cut thousands of people off their telecommunications line. Maybe I've missed it but I don't actually see it.I am comparing that to section 222 where it talks about where the road owner the owner of the house who actually has to dig up the land and potentially has to move the water infrastructure because of something that they're doing—the cost is borne by the property owner. So I'm trying to find out if there is compensation specified—perhaps the Minister could point me to that. I specifically ask that because during Cyclone Gabrielle there were power cuts which impacted on telecommunications both landline and mobile infrastructure as well as fibre that was actually cut and it took so long for a fix to be brought into the area because telecommunications companies could not even helicopter the batteries to the area because there was no power to—is it the civil aviation towers?—actually land the planes. And I thought How did they land our planes in the past without power?" They had hand signals I think. I'm sure I look ridiculous actually pretending I'm a signal person but I'm trying to find out—in situations like that you would actually want to make sure that there is a contingency plan and the Minister has actually stipulated those kinds of instructions.Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Minister of Local Government): Compensation provisions are in the Public Works Act and section 222 is directly based on the Electricity Act 1992 and they're quite longstanding provisions."
Doocey Matt; McAnulty KieranMATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): Thank you Madam Chair—great choice; not that I'm competitive. I'd like to continue exploration around volumetric charging. I'm looking at sections 239 330 and 331 in clause 22 and my question to the Minister is around the water entities. I see in section 330 that the board may set charges and charge a fixed or variable fee. My question is around the issue—and it did come up I think during the select committee stage I'm led to believe—with the submissions: will it be a fixed charge for the volumetric charging across all the customers for each water entity or will there be a variation within certain areas of the water entity?Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Minister of Local Government): I thank Mr Doocey for his question. It's covered in section 475 in clause 22 and the answer is a point that I've made a number of times now. This bill enables the entities to make decisions that are best for them. His question will be answered by each entity in a way that is best for those communities.
Grigg Nicola; McAnulty KieranNICOLA GRIGG (National—Selwyn): Thank you Madam Chair. Given that the Minister is also the Minister for Emergency Management I just want to turn your mind to the clauses in the bill that talk about action in emergencies. And I know I keep banging on about Entity (I) because it is my home patch. If I could just outline to the Minister some of the water provision in the Selwyn District for example is bore or aquifer driven; some is also from service water. I think of the likes of a little town called Springfield and Sheffield and another little town called Hororata. They got very very badly impacted in the 2021 floods because the rivers that were supplying the town water were blocked with rubble and trees and shingle and so on and so forth which took a very very long time to clear and a very long time for the turbidity to flow on through and a very long time for residents to be able to use their tap water once again.So bearing in mind that Entity (I) the Canterbury councils will also be merged with the West Coast councils—which I would wager are even more flood prone than on our side of the divide—with regard to clause 220 the Management and maintenance of water services infrastructure" in the context of emergency management whereby "water services entity must manage and maintain the water services infrastructure in its service area." Can the Minister outline a time frame given you know the conception of the entities the urgency of the work the remedial work the mitigation work that needs to be carried out in Canterbury and indeed on the West Coast? How soon can residents and ratepayers expect that their water supplies are going to be futureproofed for future natural disasters and emergencies and flood events?Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Minister of Local Government): I can't give a detailed answer on that. That's up to each entity and the constitution that is established. But the answers actually fall within what has already been passed in previous bills in that the changes that we made with the amendment bill last week gives each council within the entity a seat on the regional representative group. There's also a commitment that those workers that are based in each area can maintain a presence in that area. And that's really important for the entity you're referring to because of course there's no point having all the workers in Christchurch when they're trying to serve the West Coast and vice versa. It's vitally important that the regional representative group ensures through their constitution that every area is serviced. That's why I was particularly keen to ensure that every council had a seat because my concern was that rural areas would miss out and isolated areas would miss out.To the specific question around a time line that falls to the entities in those councils that are on the regional representative groups."
McAnulty KieranHon DAVID BENNETT (National): Thank you Madam Chair. Well the Minister in the chair Kieran McAnulty gave a very terse answer trying to dismiss the issue of stormwater and I expected that from that Minister. But the question is: either he doesn't know he doesn't want to reveal or he didn't—Shanan Halbert: Or it's out of scope.Hon DAVID BENNETT: Well no it's not—it's not out of scope because if you go to Subpart 2 and you look at stormwater how can you make these rules if you don't have an understanding of the amount? That's the third part. You know how can the Minister engage in all this legislation without knowing what the costs are going to be and how can those costs then be attributed to different places?So Minister answer the question: how much are we dealing with in quantum in cost because you made all these rules—the natural implication if you won't give the cost is that you made the rules without understanding or actually identifying the cost. It's either one or the other and we'll draw our inference from your answer. So what is the cost?Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Minister of Local Government): It's not one or the other; it's the fact that we are here in a committee stage for this piece of legislation and the member's question refers to bills that have already passed.
Doocey Matt; McAnulty KieranHon DAVID BENNETT (National): Just one question for the Minister: what's the estimated cost of the improvements needed in the Auckland waste water network to enable people to swim on the beaches in the North Shore and eastern suburbs? Minister I'm just seeking your clarification of that number.MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): Oh thank you very much Madam Chair. Just continuing the discussion around rating information and charging for water I'd be interested to hear from the Minister whether there was any consideration that maybe councils maintain the function of facilitating the payment for water charging or is the bill going to come directly from the water entity itself; and whether councils were considered a way of maintaining that relationship with the ratepayer?Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Minister of Local Government): The Hon David Bennett's question isn't related to the bill and Mr Doocey's question is a fair one.So we've been dealing with councils in regards to charging and what provisions they themselves may be able to offer. As we're all aware councils often charge on behalf of regional councils in their rates bills and then siphon that off to the regional council so that ratepayers only get the one bill. There is provision for that but it's up to each council as to whether they'd be willing to do that.In essence though the charge for water will come from the entities. Whether it goes through each local council will be determined by that entity. There is a provision in there that as a transitional period the councils will be asked to pass on the bill in the first instance. We've had some mixed feedback on that and where that might cause some difficulty for councils—whether they have the resources to be able to do that—we're going to work through them on that. Hopefully we'll be able to get through it without putting any undue burden on councils.
Halbert ShananSHANAN HALBERT (Junior Whip—Labour): I move That the question be now put. CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): There are nine new parts being inserted into Part 1 and the scope of the debate is extremely wide. I'm aware that we have been debating Part 1 for just over an hour—about an hour and 10 maybe. I am hearing new material but I am listening carefully.
Court Simon; McAnulty KieranSIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you Madam Chair. Minister I'd like you to clarify your answer to my question before which referenced an answer that you'd given to Nicola Grigg about council-controlled organisations. Minister it's very clear in replacement section 18(4) inserted by clause 9 that partnership has the meaning given to it [or set out] under sections 8 and 9 of the Partnership Law Act". This Water Services Legislation Bill says that entities may not enter into a partnership—they may not Minister. So I'm seeking your clarification. Does that mean that they may not enter into public-private partnerships? Because potentially the Minister thinks that a council-controlled organisation is a public-private partnership. It's not—it's not. A public-private partnership has quite a different definition. That is where the public sector partners with the private sector. The private sector provides the capital the technical nous the management experience and the private sector in reward for providing capital and as a reward for taking a risk takes a profit Minister from the activity.If you look at the partnership definition in the nature of partnership in the Partnership Law Act 2019 it says "Partnership is the relationship that exists between persons carrying on a business in common with a view to profit". Minister that appears to be at odds with your previous statement which as far as I was aware said that public-private partnerships could continue although you did refer to council-controlled organisations which are not public-private partnerships.So would you provide some clarity Minister? Will water service entities be able to engage with the private sector to stand up public-private partnerships for the purpose of seeking private and institutional capital to invest in infrastructure and to have access to management and expertise from the private sector and to have that asset funded financed delivered operated and maintained by the private sector or do you Minister and this Government exclude the private sector from having that role in infrastructure delivery in New Zealand?Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Minister of Local Government): I did answer that question. At the end of the answer I made it really clear that there is nothing in this bill that prevents entities entering into joint ventures with private companies. Then in the follow-up question from Ms Grigg I clarified that the limit on that joint venture is that there cannot be any transfer of ownership of assets but there's nothing in this bill that suggests that they can't enter into joint ventures and that was clearly answered when I answered this the first time."
Lee Melissa; McAnulty KieranMELISSA LEE (National): Thank you Madam Chair and I apologise to my colleague Nicola Grigg who obviously had a couple of other questions but I wasn't going to lose out on my opportunity to actually ask the Minister in the chair Kieran McAnulty a question. I'd like to thank the Minister for being very generous with his time and actually endeavouring to answer often what seems like quite repetitive—I'll actually go to something quite different. In clause 17 it is in relation to Obligation to publish asset management plan" and it says that "As soon as practicable after an asset management plan is provided to the regional representative group the chief executive of a water services entity must publish the asset management plan". I'm trying to find out what that actually means. Practicable—as soon as it's practicable—normally there is a time line as to when they have to do that within a certain time period. I'm wanting to know if the Minister actually has it in his mind as to how soon that is what "practicable" actually means—"As soon as practicable".Also it talks about how it has to be published "on an Internet site maintained by or on behalf of the water services entity in a format that is readily accessible." Does he actually have instructions to the officials that it has to be mobile accessible because often people use their mobile to access things and sometimes internet sites are not that friendly to mobile users.Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Minister of Local Government): The term "as soon as practicable" is used throughout legislation and is consistent—for example it's in the Crown Entities Act. So when it's already in place and systems are already under way we thought it was important to remain consistent. In terms of referencing internet sites that includes a requirement for mobile accessibility."
Grigg Nicola; McAnulty KieranNICOLA GRIGG (National—Selwyn): Thank you Madam Chair. What a relief to have been able to ask another question.Look if I could turn the Minister's mind please to clause 11 just following on from Simon Court's questions around the obligation to maintain water services. I also want to extrapolate that out to clauses 17 18 and even—no just 18. I think it'd be really helpful for the Minister—I think everybody in this House acknowledges there is enormous public discontent and disconcertion around this bill and I think it would be very helpful if the Minister could outline particularly around clause 11 the Obligation to maintain water services" and the "transfer [of] any of its significant infrastructure to a subsidiary that the water services entity owns or operates."Is the Minister aware or has any work been done around the monetary value of each and every entity thus far and the infrastructure assets that these entities will inherit off the territorial authorities? Are territorial authorities in a position to understand the full picture of the removal of those assets from their own balance sheets and are you able to go through entity by entity what the value of each of those entities is going to be worth? I'll come to 18 and 17 shortly.Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Minister of Local Government): So the process for outlining and establishing the value of the assets and what will be transferred from councils to entities was set out in the previous Act but I'm happy to quickly outline how that process would work.So the initial transition unit is in that process already with the councils in the Auckland and Northland entity because of course the amendment bill that was passed last week doesn't change that proposed entity. So the go-live date stays as it is and that work is under way. That is by way of agreement because of course they need to agree to the value of the asset what's going to be transferred the level of debt that will be removed from the council's books and be taken on by the entity. All those things need to be agreed on before they can progress.In terms of the clause that was mentioned by the member the purpose of this is to ensure that the ownership of the asset stays public so that it stays with the entities. It can't be transferred to a subsidiary or heaven forbid to a private company. It must maintain public ownership and clause 11 helps establish that."
Court Simon; McAnulty KieranSIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you Madam Chair. Minister I just want to come to clause 9 of this Bill the Water Services Legislation Bill which proposes to amend section 18 of the primary legislation: Other things water services entities can do". Clause 9(3) says "A water service entity—may establish own … or operate a subsidiary only if the subsidiary complies with the requirements specified in Schedule 5". But more importantly clause 9(3)(b) says what it may not do: it "may not enter into a partnership with another person or persons." Now assuming that means a natural person or a person in the sense that it could be a corporate this clause appears to extinguish the opportunity for water service entities to partner with the private sector to deliver services in the form of a public-private partnership for example or a special purpose vehicle for example Minister where a local government entity now or in this case a water services entity of the future which is seeking private and institutional capital—it could be from the Accident Compensation Corporation where that capital comes from. It could be from the New Zealand Superannuation Fund it could be from KiwiSaver it could be from an iwi investment fund; the private capital component plus private management experience capability whatever that specific expertise is partnering with water service entities in the form of a public-private partnership say to deliver a whole lot of new services for a new subdivision or potentially to upgrade existing networks in existing urban environments to allow for much higher densities to be built. For example where currently there are one- or two-storey homes—many parts of our major metros are zoned for six storeys or even eight storeys by right Minister but they can't proceed because the water infrastructure is very expensive and whether it's a council or a water service entity it's not clear where the capital will come from to do that.So Minister could you please confirm: does clause 9 which amends section 18 of the primary legislation extinguish the ability of water service entities to enter into public-private partnerships?Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Minister of Local Government): No it doesn't and we covered this to some degree last night when the answer to Ms Grigg's question around council-owned council-controlled organisations (CCOs)—Nicola Grigg: Great question.Hon KIERAN McANULTY: It was a great question actually—very topical and a good opportunity to clarify some of those concerns that are out there. What I said in response to that question was that only the CCOs in Wellington and Auckland will be included in that. The others will remain in ownership with the councils. There is nothing in this bill that would stop entities entering into joint ventures with those or with private companies as well."
Cameron Mark; McAnulty KieranMARK CAMERON (ACT): Thank you Madam Chair. Minister can we go back to your previous answer to Stuart Smith when you were talking about mixed use for rural supply. I'm trying to get some clarity and maybe you can double down on it and give that clarity because I'm trying to ascertain what it would look like if you were a farmer as you alluded to—that mixed supply model when you might actually have a farmer who was predominantly supplying who stopped the water but then there were half a dozen homes on that.In that instance would there need to be some sort of standard set for the drinking-water element of that mixed supply model and what was the number given that the ACT Party had asked for a 30 endpoint user exemption—why wouldn't you actually look at that? Because genuinely speaking there are often many instances where there is more than one source of supply on a private property that feeds into several abodes or several homes. Arguably that person is a provider and it would be incumbent upon them—it's my understanding of this legislation—to then make sure that the water was of a safe drinking standard assuming it was an artesian water source or something to that effect. What is the potential outcome if I'm interpreting this piece of legislation correctly that in more than one instance you can potentially see the cessation of that supply based on the fiscal constraints and obligations of that now deemed provider? Can you give some clarity?Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Minister of Local Government): I thank the member for the question. Like I explained to Mr Smith this actually isn't in this bill. I just provided that for his understanding in terms of the context of rural supply but this particular matter was debated in the Water Services Bill in 2021. I'm happy to address it but I'll probably leave it there at that point given it's not proposed in this bill. It is required of the provider to meet minimum standards through Taumata Arowai. That has long been in place; everybody agrees that if you're receiving water it needs to be of a safe standard. However the changes that I outlined to Mr Smith were that in working with farmers we clarified to them that it's likely that all that will be required at the point of receipt is that they have a UV filter to meet the standards rather than imposing undue requirements on the provider which will inevitably likely lead to people just saying Well I'm not going to supply my neighbours." and pull out. We don't want that. We want it to be as practical as possible and that's what was outlined for rural providers."
Smith Stuart; McAnulty KieranSTUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you Madam Chair and thank you Minister for that answer although I didn't quite understand where the committee members if it's a relationship with a council—are they directors or not directors under the Companies Act? That's the first thing.The second thing is in the case where a water entity has no relationship in itself with the council but those householders have a sewerage service supplied by the council so there is one of the three waters relationships with the council but not the drinking-water one or the stormwater one. How does that work under this bill? Thank you.Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Minister of Local Government): Thank you very much—very good point. That was the first note I wrote down and it was the first one I missed so I'll get to that straight away. No they won't be considered directors because of course the entities remain publicly owned but what it will be is exactly the same as they've got now. It's an opportunity for those users to have a significant level of influence in terms of the decisions that are made on that use scheme but they won't be considered directors and they won't therefore have the obligations and responsibilities that fall on directors. That will still sit with the entities because they're publicly owned.In the example the member gave where perhaps one of the three waters might be supplied by the council I'm not aware of an instance where waste water for example in a rural area has a committee like they would do with drinking water. If waste water is provided by the council now I don't think they would have a committee on that—they might. If they do it'd be the same answer. If they don't then it just carries on as it would do now except it'd be the entities providing that service not the council.
Thursday 30 March 2023 - Volume 766
11. Question No. 11—CourtsMARJA LUBECK (Labour) to the Minister for CourtsQuestion No. 11—Courts11. MARJA LUBECK (Labour) to the Minister for Courts: What progress has been made to reduce delays in the coronial system?Hon RINO TIRIKATENE (Minister for Courts): Yesterday saw the passing of the third reading of the Coroners Amendment Bill. I'd like to thank my colleagues across the House for their unanimous support. The Government is committed to improving the coronial system and the experience of families who engage with it. The new law will reduce delays for a number of measures including the establishment of a new coronial position known as the associate coroner. The associate coroner will help to ensure that coronial cases are where possible dealt with promptly and efficiently while not adversely affecting the quality of coronial findings the judicial independence of coroners and adherence to law. Since 2014 there has been a significant increase in the number of active coronial cases and time taken to conclude them. The measures in the bill will address these delays for grieving families.Marja Lubeck: How will this bill support coroners in their work?Hon RINO TIRIKATENE: Associate coroners are able to exercise almost all of the duties functions and powers of a permanent coroner. In practice associate coroners will primarily undertake duty coroner work within the first 48 hours after death and will be responsible for some of the more straightforward coronial investigations. This will free up coroner time to be utilised for more complex cases—in particular cases requiring an inquiry to be opened and cases where it is in the public interest for a coroner to make recommendations to avoid similar deaths in future.Marja Lubeck: Have any other positions been established to support coroners?Hon RINO TIRIKATENE: Yes there have. Budget 2022 saw a package of investment to improve the coronial system including the establishment of the clinical advisers team. Clinical advisers will work alongside coroners and pathologists to ensure coroners have high-quality clinical information to support their decisions. This will contribute to improving efficiency of coronial cases. This month has seen the appointment of the first Chief Clinical Advisor working with the coroner's court and a full team of clinical advisers will shortly follow.Marja Lubeck: What other work is being undertaken to improve the coronial system?Hon RINO TIRIKATENE: In addition to the bill the Ministry of Justice has a broader work programme under way to further improve timeliness of coronial processes and the coronial experience for families. These work streams include responsiveness with respect to tikanga Māori and improving the ministry's case management system. The improving coronial system Budget 2022 initiative provided $28.4 million in funding which is funding new permanent coroners associate coroners and clinical advisers. All this work is aimed towards achieving where possible more timely completion of coronial findings while ensuring the public interest continues to be well served across the coronial system.
9. Question No. 9—EducationERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays) to the Minister of EducationQuestion No. 9—Education9. ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays) to the Minister of Education: Does she stand by her statement when asked if she could explain how it is fair for one child in one school to get an hour of maths a day as recommended by the Royal Society while a child in another school the same age gets far less Oh yes absolutely I can"; if so does she accept this variation has contributed to the widening gap in maths achievement for New Zealand students?Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister of Education): Yes and yes.Erica Stanford: Why did she say on Tuesday that some teachers will have an approach to teaching maths that will mean they don't need to teach an hour a day when the Royal Society experts recommended an hour of maths a day regardless of the way in which maths is being taught?Hon JAN TINETTI: The Royal Society in their report—and it was a Government-commissioned report—made 14 recommendations and this Government instead of being focused on one is focused on all 14 of them. I made the statement on Tuesday because of research that shows that—and I will quote Dr Sarah Aiono's research that says—"One hour per day of focused teaching for each core subject is developmentally inappropriate for most children in the primary school sector." The research shows giving students information in small chunks at a time gives the brain time to process the information and continue to practise it. Accumulatively that could add up to an hour of maths a day or even more. That is why National's outdated policy of sitting kids down with a pen and paper for an hour isn't an effective way to teach maths. The science has moved on.Erica Stanford: How will she guarantee that every primary and intermediate school child across New Zealand will get the same amount of time learning maths every day to ensure that they are mastering the basics?Hon JAN TINETTI: The Royal Society in the report that the member keeps referencing notes that most teachers are already teaching three to five hours of maths a week and 20 percent are actually teaching seven hours of maths a week. But the point that the member is missing is that lifting maths is not about clock-watching; it's about quality teaching.Erica Stanford: If a teacher follows the recommended maths teaching methods in her proposed Common Practice Model which includes supporting student relationships with maths which encompasses feelings and emotions related to maths and addressing issues of power social justice and equity will this method require less than an hour of maths per day for all students as she suggested on Tuesday?Hon JAN TINETTI: The Common Practice Model will be in place from next year and will ensure that maths is taught consistently from Kaitāia to Invercargill. What the Common Practice Model might actually do is actually show that the amount of teaching will be prescribed as well but we are not at the point of making those policy decisions at this point in time. We are concentrating on quality teaching not clock-watching."
7. Question No. 7—HealthDr SHANE RETI (National) to the Minister of HealthQuestion No. 7—Health7. Dr SHANE RETI (National) to the Minister of Health: Has she seen St John Ambulance data released this week showing that the amount of time ambulances are ramped while waiting to admit patients to hospital emergency departments has more than trebled since 2019 and are ambulances being used as ED waiting rooms?Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Minister of Health): In answer to the first part of the question: yes. In answer to the second part: no although ambulance handover delay does happen when it is determined to be clinically necessary and work is under way to reduce emergency department (ED) pressures and address this issue.Dr Shane Reti: What responsibility does she take if any for Auckland Hospital on 6 March diverting six ambulances to other hospitals because its ED was full with ED doctors saying that every bit of corridor and recreational space was full of people still on their ambulance stretchers?Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: Since I have been Minister of Health I have established the winter preparedness or the response to the acute demand in our hospitals as a priority. There are a number of measures under way to address the demand that is in our hospitals following on from COVID. As I've already said in the House that includes comprehensive flu and COVID vaccination programmes measures within our hospitals to make sure flow of patients in and out of them are maintained plus collaborative work with community partners including St John and primary care to make sure that all opportunities to keep people out of hospital are maximised.Dr Shane Reti: How was her inability to know how many staff vacancies there are at each emergency department contributing to EDs saying that they are under-resourced?Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: I don't believe that is the response to the written parliamentary questions that member has submitted.Dr Shane Reti: Why has the number of people waiting more than 24 hours in emergency departments trebled since Health New Zealand was formed?Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: The relevant trends in interpreting that data is that there has been an increase in acute demand since the pandemic. This has been seen in a number of countries—for example the relevant stats for ambulance ramping in the UK are five times worse than they were pre-pandemic. This is a global trend with increased demand for healthcare and we are determined to address it.Dr Shane Reti: Have the international countries she has just referenced also undertaken major structural change of their health system?Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: The opportunity to address acute demand in our health system is maximised by having a single national service and the member will see a number of initiatives that were developed at a local level be rolled out nationally because of our new joined-up health system.
6. Question No. 6—VeteransDAN ROSEWARNE (Labour) to the Minister for VeteransQuestion No. 6—Veterans6. DAN ROSEWARNE (Labour) to the Minister for Veterans: What is the Government doing to support veterans?Hon MEKA WHAITIRI (Minister for Veterans): With the indulgence of the House may I welcome students from Hukarere Girls' College whose Eskdale-based college was completely devastated in the recent floods. In response to the question: tomorrow the Government's 1 April adjustments will come into effect and this will see the New Zealand superannuation increase by over $100 for a couple per fortnight and nearly $70 for individuals. What this means for our veterans and their whānau is an increase for those on the veteran's pension. Tomorrow's adjustments will help 880000 people receiving New Zealand's superannuation and more than 5500 on the veteran's pension. Dan Rosewarne: What else have we done to support the RSA veterans and their families?Hon MEKA WHAITIRI: The Government recognises the value of the services the RSA provides and for the past four years with a grant of $250000 annually we have supported the RSA to help them do what they do best: provide welfare and support for our servicemen and servicewomen and their whānau. Recently I made the decision that this funding will continue for the next three years. In addition in 2020 during COVID the Government supported the RSA with a one-off grant of $2.53 million so they could continue to provide welfare support to veterans and whānau during the pandemic. Dan Rosewarne: What have we done to support the wellbeing of our veterans?Hon MEKA WHAITIRI: Many veterans leave service and transition into civilian life successfully but others experience mental health and/or addiction issues. He Ara Oranga a 2018 report to our Government's inquiry into mental health and addiction identified veterans as a vulnerable group. However a framework was never developed to address their needs. In 2021 the ministry for veterans' affairs began the process of building a framework that brought together key defence and health organisations veteran advocacy groups health practitioners and veterans to focus on the mental health and wellbeing of veterans and their families.Dan Rosewarne: How did the Government respond to the He Ara Oranga report to the Government?Hon MEKA WHAITIRI: In 2022 we launched a new framework to address mental health and wellbeing for our veterans called Te Arataki mō te Hauora Ngākau mō ngā Mōrehu a Tū me ō rātou Whānau The Veteran Family and Whānau Mental Health and Wellbeing Policy Framework. This framework identified what was needed and just as importantly it looked at the evidence about need and responses. It also identified where work needed to be done and what are the sorts of interventions that actually do make a difference for our veterans. This framework along with the increased amounts to superannuation and veteran's pension is just another step by this Government to improving the quality of life for our veterans and all those that serve our country.
2. Question No. 2—HousingBROOKE VAN VELDEN (Deputy Leader—ACT) to the Minister of HousingQuestion No. 2—Housing2. BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Deputy Leader—ACT) to the Minister of Housing: How many additional permanent and fixed-term full-time equivalent staff were employed by Kāinga Ora in December 2022 as compared with December 2019 and how many additional homes did Kāinga Ora manage in December 2022 as compared with December 2019?Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Associate Minister of Housing) on behalf of the Minister of Housing: On behalf of the Minister I'm advised that there were 1361 additional staff and 4628 additional homes.Brooke van Velden: How can she justify Kāinga Ora increasing its staff count by over 1350 fulltime-equivalent staff in three years an increase of 74 percent when the number of homes managed in the same time period only increased by 7 percent?Hon BARBARA EDMONDS: Kāinga Ora has been given a much broader mandate to help meet the Government's housing priorities. Kāinga Ora has transformed from a State house seller to a State house builder to leading the largest urban regeneration ever undertaken in New Zealand. Kāinga Ora staff costs have been very stable as a proportion of total spend.Brooke van Velden: How is Kāinga Ora's establishment of an additional 455 management positions between October 2019 and January 2023 not representative of a bureaucracy out of control?Hon BARBARA EDMONDS: The increase in staff matches its vastly increased work programmes. The majority of the growth in staff has been in front-line teams that support customers and in the construction and urban development and planning areas. It is also delivering a range of new functions and accountabilities under the legislation. These include the teams which are helping drive the increase in housing supply and the large-scale urban regeneration of large-scale projects which will deliver up to 40000 homes over the next 15 to 20 years.Brooke van Velden: When will her Government stop trying to compete with more efficient private developers by creating a bulging Kāinga Ora bureaucracy at the taxpayer's expense?Hon BARBARA EDMONDS: I refer the member to my previous answers and I also add Kāinga Ora people costs as a proportion of overall expenditure are declining and will continue to decrease over the next few years when balanced against the continued growth in houses built and developments completed.
O'Connor GregDEPUTY SPEAKER: This debate is interrupted and set down for resumption on the next sitting day. This House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday. Can I thank members for their sterling efforts over the last three days. Have a good weekend.Debate interrupted.The House adjourned at 4.55 p.m.
SpeechIBRAHIM OMER (Labour): I rise to take a call on the Counter-Terrorism Acts (Designations and Control Orders) Amendment Bill. This is part of the work the Government is doing to boost our counter-terrorism laws to make it harder for people who pose serious threats to New Zealanders or need to unleash terror attacks and I'd like to thank the Minister for bringing this bill to this House.Now the terrorism landscape is evolving and our laws need to reflect this reality as well. So the designations and control orders schemes which are in line with this Government's commitment to implementing the recommendations of the royal commission of inquiry into the Christchurch terror attacks in Christchurch masjidain is specifically in line with recommendation 18 which is related to counter-terrorism.The bill also amends the regime for imposing control orders in the terrorism suppression Act of 2019. The horrific attacks in Christchurch and LynnMall is a continuous reminder of the devastating consequence of terrorism on our communities and individuals and these are very important amendments that look to keep Aotearoa New Zealand as safe as possible.As young people are active more online and terror groups are relentlessly looking online to radicalise the young people we need to futureproof our legislation to make sure that our country is being safe and this is going to contribute to that as well. I'd like to thank the select committee for the work they have done to scrutinise this bill. I'd like to thank the submitters and the Minister for all their work to actually get this bill today in this House and I'd also like to thank the contributors from across the House who positively contributed to this. So it's a good bill; I commend it to the House.
SpeechVANUSHI WALTERS (Labour—Upper Harbour): Thank you Mr Speaker. This is a very complex area of the law that does require a lot of care. So like the previous speaker the Hon Mark Mitchell I would like to thank the Minister for bringing it to the floor and through the House; but also the Justice Committee for their work on this.I want to speak briefly to one of the tensions that the select committee grappled with as we sought to strike the right balance. It was a concern expressed by submitters about the inclusion of two additional grounds under which a publication may be deemed as objectionable" for the purposes of eligibility. That was seen by some as overreach. Committee members may correct me in later speeches but my sense was that we over-focused on that issue alone in isolation when in fact getting to a control order being imposed is a three-door test and the first two doors are about eligibility.So door one is really where this bill is widening the eligibility by adding two other types of "objectionable" material that don't directly touch on terrorism. Door two stays the same—and that requires that the Police Commissioner must prove that an individual continues to pose a real risk in terms of engaging in terrorist offences. We needed to see those two doors together.Door three is where our judiciary exercises discretion; that's where they consider the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act; that's where they consider the appropriate conditions to impose. I think while this is an incredibly hard balance to get right as the committee started to see all three doors together we understood that the settings were appropriate for the risks we currently face. I commend this bill to the House."
Mitchell MarkHon MARK MITCHELL (National—Whangaparāoa): It's a pleasure to stand and take a call on the Counter-Terrorism Act (Designations and Control Orders) Amendment Bill. Can I just acknowledge the Minister; I think that when it comes to national security this Parliament—certainly since I've been in it—has got a history of a very bipartisan approach certainly amongst the two biggest parties in terms of making sure that we work constructively on bills that strengthen our national security and deal especially with threats in relation to terrorism. So the Minister without a doubt as the incoming justice Minister embraced that and I want to acknowledge her and the work that she's done with our side of the House.It is a good bill. One of the main issues was the fact that a designation could expire while a terrorist was in prison and without a doubt from a very pragmatic and common-sense point of view that had to be fixed and dealt with and this bill does that. It quite simply means that with that designation the pause button is hit while that person is in jail. The only other point that I do want to quickly make is in her opening comments the Minister alluded to the royal commission of inquiry in response to the tragedy that we had with the Christchurch mosques. I want to acknowledge that there is good work going on in that area but there were 44 recommendations that came out from the royal commission. To date there's only eight of them that have been completed—I do want to recognise that there is work under way on the other ones. But certainly from my position as being the portfolio holder for counter-terrorism—we don't talk about it much in this country until we actually have an event and we're not immune to them; we've had two in the last five years. So I just want to remind the Government to stay focused on this and stay focused on these recommendations and let's try and get as many of them delivered and complete before the end of the year. Thank you very much Mr Speaker.
Urgent Debates — Hon Stuart Nash—Dismissal as Minister
Rurawhe AdrianURGENT DEBATESHon Stuart Nash—Dismissal as MinisterSPEAKER: Members I have received a letter from Christopher Luxon seeking to debate under Standing Order 399 the decision by the Prime Minister to dismiss Stuart Nash as a Minister. The application was received on Tuesday 28 March but because of urgency this is the first opportunity to consider it. This is a particular case of recent occurrence for which there is ministerial responsibility. The dismissal of a Minister is a significant matter. After weighing up the circumstances and the public interest in ministerial probity I have decided to grant the application. Before proceeding I would like the House to consider the fact that the Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition do not generally attend Thursday sittings. While Ministers can act for each other the dismissal of a Minister is something only the Prime Minister can do. It may be more difficult for another Minister to have the knowledge to act for the Prime Minister. In this instance therefore I am going to seek leave of the House to hold the urgent debate on Tuesday 6 April. It is entirely up to this House to decide whether it does or not. Any one member can object to this but having outlined my intention to seek that leave I do so now. Is there any objection? There is objection. I call on a member to move on behalf of Christopher Luxon that the House take note of a matter of urgent public importance.
Robertson GrantBUSINESS STATEMENTHon GRANT ROBERTSON (Leader of the House): Next week the committee stage of Appropriation (2021/22 Confirmation and Validation) Bill—the annual review debate—will begin with star appearances by the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Agriculture. Legislation to be considered next week will include the remaining stages of the Severe Weather Emergency Recovery Legislation Bill the first reading of the all-important Integrity Sport and Recreation Bill the second reading of the Grocery Industry Competition Bill and the committee stage of the Counter-Terrorism Acts (Designations and Control Orders) Amendment Bill. The first general debate of the year will take place on Wednesday which will also be a members' day. At 5.30 p.m. on that day the Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern will deliver her valedictory statement.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you Mr Speaker and I thank the Leader of the House for that very fulsome update on what's going to happen next week. Can I also point out that Government order of the day No. 5 is in the name of an individual that I think you'll find is neither a Minister nor responsible at least for that bill.Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Leader of the House): I note that point and I'm sure that by the time we get to Government order of the day No. 5 that will have changed.
SpeechTHURSDAY 30 MARCH 2023The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.KARAKIA/PRAYERSHon JACQUI DEAN (Assistant 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.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Fire and Emergency New Zealand (Levy) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.Ayes 107New Zealand Labour 64; New Zealand National 31; ACT New Zealand 10;Te Paati Māori 2.Noes 10Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Motion agreed to.Bill read a third time.DEPUTY SPEAKER: Members urgency has ended. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. today when we will resume for oral questions. Just before members go I would just like to acknowledge the Speaker's Assistant Roland who has just had three days of birthdays because until the last moment we were still on Tuesday when his birthday was. So via an anomaly he is presumably three years older.[Members sing Happy Birthday" to Roland Todd.]The House adjourned at 11.09 a.m. (Thursday)"
Tuesday 28 March 2023 (continued on Thursday 30 March 2023) - Volume 766
Organic Products and Production Bill — Third Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Organic Products and Production Bill be now read a third time.Ayes 107New Zealand Labour 64; New Zealand National 31; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Noes 10ACT New Zealand 10.Motion agreed to.Bill read a third time.