edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Belich CamillaCAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Oh thank you Madam Chair. I have two areas of questions for the Minister which I don't believe have been covered. I'm going to start with the second part first really as in chronological order. I have a question for the Minister around the intersection of the changes that are proposed in Schedule 2 Part 1—which I understand of Part 5 which we are debating—in relation to the changes to the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act. I'm particularly interested in this as Labour's spokesperson on emergency management and obviously the incredible importance that water infrastructure and fresh water have in our managing of emergencies. So that's in Schedule 2 Part 1. Then additionally in Part 2 there are changes to the National Civil Defence Emergency Management Plan Order 2015. There are substantially more changes in relation to that particular plan and I wanted to get from the Minister a bit of a reason as to why this formed a part of this particular bill and what changes citizens of New Zealand would see as a result of that conclusion.The second question I had was around clause 102 which inserts new section 138A—which I believe people have touched on but I have a question in relation to that. That's in relation to the technical workings of this particular provision and my question for the Minister is: is this a Henry VIII clause? If so what is the justification for using a clause of this nature in this bill? When usually it's good practice—and I believe the Minister and I both sat on a Regulations Review Committee at various times in the last Parliament together. If she could reflect on the use of that particular instrument and why—I assume that it's only in there because it's absolutely necessary if it is in fact one of those clauses; that we have to use this particular instrument when it's not usually desirable from a legislative drafting perspective. So those are my two sets of questions in relation to emergency management and that particular piece of legislative draft.
Simmonds Penny; Kuriger BarbaraHon PENNY SIMMONDS (Minister for the Environment): Thank you Madam Chair. I'll go back to some of the questions that have been lining up here.If I can go back to Steve Abel's questions about safe"—and I think it's really important that he understands that there is certainly no intent to take any provision away regarding the safety of drinking water—Taumata Arowai will continue to regulate drinking water including its safety and it will also continue to have powers to set waste water standards by taking into account public health. And removing the hierarchy will actually give more flexibility to them in this area. I think it is really important for us to be very clear that Taumata Arowai will continue to make waste water standards under the Water Services Act. In terms of "safe" not occurring in it the legislation isn't replacing the legislation that sets out drinking water standards.I think there was a question from the Hon Rachel Brooking on the section in the Water Services Act relating to waste water standards—why the changes are required—that don't mention the national policy statement. The Water Services Act requires Taumata Arowai to give effect to te mana o te wai as part of all its functions. The definition of te mana o te wai in section 14 links directly to the national policy statement.Hon David Parker: Madam Chair?Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Madam Chair?CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I'm going to call the Hon David Parker and I'm just going to ask for questions now because I feel like we are starting to get quite repetitive on some of these things. I'll come back to you Mr Xu-Nan."
Abel SteveSTEVE ABEL (Green): Thank you Madam Chair—I appreciate it. I have an amendment to propose to clause 101(3A) which currently says—and others have spoken to it somewhat—When making wastewater environmental performance standards under this section Taumata Arowai must not have regard to the hierarchy of obligations". Now the amendment proposes to remove that section.Can I just reflect I just did a document search on the entire legislation for the word "safe". And the number of times the word "safe" appears in the entire document is zero. You'd think that safe would be a useful word to associate with drinking water. I searched "safety" and that word appears twice in the entire document only in a clause about legal action in the Watercare section. It seems very pointed following from your answer to the last question Minister that this legislation makes a real point of removing references to water safety and makes sure that in consideration of that the authority responsible for water safety Taumata Arowai is told that it must not have regard to the hierarchy of obligations. Now what is the view of this in terms of the Public Health Communication Centre—the public health experts on the removal of the hierarchy from the consideration of wastewater management? "The hierarchy of obligations is an essential addition across policies relating to water as it gives sufficient legal weight to the protection of people's drinking water sources." This is the Public Health Communication Centre's submission on this legislation.Now it should be logical to us that management processing reticulation of sewage is one of the most fundamental developments in urban infrastructure to benefit human health. Imagine cities some time ago when there was no sewage reticulation system. Imagine what the state of health was. Well you don't have to imagine you can look it up—there's plenty of history about it. Hon David Parker: Typhoid and cholera.STEVE ABEL: Pardon me?Hon David Parker: Typhoid and cholera.STEVE ABEL: Exactly: typhoid and cholera. So why in the regard to managing of wastewater would that vital hierarchy of human safety not be a worthwhile consideration? That's a very important question to be answered and I don't think it has been answered. "Sufficient legal weight for the protection of drinking water has not previously existed in policy and because of this (and other system failures) NZ communities experience contaminated drinking water sources. Removing the hierarchy of obligations from Taumata Arowai's work (as proposed by the Bill) means deprioritising the safety and quality of people's drinking water and potentially increasing the risk of illness from polluted drinking water."So this amendment would allow Taumata Arowai to have regard—that's all it has to do have regard; remove the term "must not" from the legislation. And how can that be anything but good for public health for the health of our society and the health of our communities and the health of our water? It must be a good thing. If Minister you are taking the advice of public health experts surely this amendment would be one you would support. Thank you."
Simmonds PennyHon PENNY SIMMONDS (Minister for the Environment): Madam Chair thank you very much. I'll address some of the points that have been made and I acknowledge the comments from the Hon David Parker about the length of time that the aspirations that we all have for improvement in our waterways but also acknowledge that it is going to take some time to occur. The hierarchy of obligations is something that we were very clear about in our campaigning. We saw the hierarchy being an obstacle to economically viable solutions for both councils and for industries and there needed to be a balancing of the obligations rather than the hierarchy of obligations that was there. We know the impact that for example reconsenting from being able to have treated waste water go into waterways and then having it go on to land is significant. I know that the Minister of Local Government has frequently referred to the Palmerston North situation where their consenting has been looked at. In their 2021 long-term plan it was going to be $390 million and it has escalated to over $650 million in 2024 due to that requirement to discharge to land. Just last week I was speaking with the mayor of Invercargill and they are going through this very issue with Bluff waste-water treatment. The cost increase again was significant. To change from having treated water discharged into water and having to look to discharge it on to land was going to increase severalfold the costs. So it's really the regulations that are going to be possible for the councils and to achieve over time those improvements without causing the economic harm that would have been caused by leaving that hierarchy in place.
Henare PeeniHon PEENI HENARE (Labour): Thank you Madam Chair. My question to the Minister is very direct towards te Taumata Arowai. We've seen throughout the debate in this bill the role that te Taumata Arowai plays in the ability to contribute towards the charter and then all of a sudden we have this provision here that to cast your eye over it for the first time seems to all of a sudden not value the role that te Taumata Arowai might be able to play in the way that we manage waste water moving forward.I think of the complexities of Tāmaki-makau-rau of Auckland and the need and the challenge and the struggle to continually find a Māori voice in all of the planning that relates to Tāmaki-makau-rau to Auckland. Now I was going to raise the matter of the Independent Māori Statutory Board and whether or not actually through some of the provisions in earlier parts—it says Auckland Council" so I'd like to make the assumption that that includes the Independent Māori Statutory Board which is a very well connected well represented group for the Auckland view towards what we might do with respect to Watercare to waste-water management and everything else that relates to those hapū those tribes and those who consider themselves to have customary rights proven through settlement to the many waterways in Tāmaki-makau-rau.It then comes back to the question that my colleague the Hon David Parker has asked which is: why are we doing this? What it would seem to be doing is one unnecessary in the first instance but two making very clear that te Taumata Arowai while respected throughout much of the other work to do with water management and right across this country te Taumata Arowai a fantastic group well represented good smarts on that group—not Tāmaki-makau-rau- or Auckland-specific however all of a sudden not being relevant with respect to Part 5. That's a very direct question about the role and purpose of te Taumata Arowai. Is it being diminished simply through this particular part through this particular clause? If that is the case then why have we wasted time throughout this entire bill talking about te Taumata Arowai when it's clear that the skill set and what they offer with respect to water management in this country is really important and te Taumata Arowai work hard there? But that in turn raises the question about being Auckland-specific which is about Tāmaki-makau-rau and about the water management in Auckland as a wider grouping which is why I raise the question about the Independent Māori Statutory Board and whether or not they will continue to find a voice in all of the planning that's done around water wider across Tāmaki-makau-rau—a very direct question."
Twyford PhilHon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): Thank you Madam Chair. I wanted to ask the Minister in the chair the Hon Penny Simmonds in relation to Part 5 what is the political intent? It's a strange piece of drafting that says we're going to empower the Governor-General to strike out the provisions in the national policy statement (NPS) for freshwater management. OK we're opening the door to getting rid of this and we're going to replace it with a new NPS but what's the intent? The part is completely silent on that. I think that members of this House and the public are entitled to ask What is the intent?" because the part doesn't explain at all what the motivation is.The reason I ask that is I have a very real interest in my electorate of Te Atatū in West Auckland. The waterway that runs right through the heart of urban West Auckland is Te Wai-o-Pareira / Henderson Creek. For decades and decades it's been a recreational playground: people fish in it they swim in it they boat in it they row they water ski. The real problem is that Te Atatū Peninsula which the waterway runs alongside is one of the very weak points of the waste water system in Auckland—which sort of reminds us of the previous part. It has been under-invested in for decades and every single time we have any significant rain event waste water flows into the into the creek and anybody who gets into that creek gets sick. You cannot fish there any more; it's a health hazard. The community feel bitterly upset about this.Now I would like to know: what is the intent of this part and what will the effect be on an urban waterway like this that's had decades and decades of degradation? Currently our community relies on the knowledge that under the existing NPS that waterway will be cleaned up infrastructure investments will be made pollution will be stopped and eliminated and eventually that waterway will be returned to a swimmable state. Are we to put that hope aside? What is the intent of Part 5?"
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the motion be agreed to.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 49New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Tana.Motion agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Minister's amendments to Part 4 set out on Amendment Paper 65 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 49New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Tana.Amendments agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That Part 4 as amended be agreed to.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 49New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Tana.Part 4 as amended agreed to.
Simmonds Penny; Kuriger BarbaraHon PENNY SIMMONDS (Minister for the Environment): Thank you Madam Chair. To answer Deborah Russell's questions about why Watercare is getting special treatment I think that they were quite quick off the blocks so their proposed arrangement is expected to deliver lower prices than would have otherwise been the case prior to the deal being struck. Auckland Council was proposing to increase water charges by 25.8 percent from 1 July. With the financial separation the price increase will be around about 7.2 percent and future charges are also expected to be lower than they would have been. So it is a substantial decrease in what was expected from 25.8 percent down to 7.2 percent. Going to the previous questions about When a monitor is appointed what are the criteria?" the Crown monitor will require as you would expect a range of skills expertise and experience in for example the regulation of a monopoly business and will have familiarity with the water industry and the economic and financial skills which you might expect of a monitor. So we're anticipating that that sort of criteria would be applied in the appointment process. With regard to the fees framework that was mentioned for the Crown facilitator and Crown water services specialist that is based on arrangements under Part 10 of the Local Government Act. The Crown facilitator and Crown water services specialist are appointed by the Minister in a similar manner to how Crown managers or other assistance and intervention roles are as in Part 10 of the Local Government Act. So I hope that covers the questions. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I am going to call the Hon David Parker but what I want to hear from here on in—because we have been on this bill for a long time; this is a smallish part—I want to hear questions rather than speeches so I know that a skilled previous Minister will be able to home in on that."
Wedd Catherine; Kuriger BarbaraCATHERINE WEDD (National—Tukituki): I move That debate on this question now close.CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I'm going to take a call from Camilla Belich who has been vigorously trying to get a question. But I really would ask that we come pretty close to honing in on the questions now because we've had quite a bit of time on some of these. Thank you.
Brooking RachelHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you Mr Chair—sorry it's quite noisy so I couldn't hear either. I'm just really inviting the Minister to answer the questions that have been asked. I note that he answered my rhetorical question before about changing the Local Government Act. There are two very simple questions to answer and that is—as the Hon Kieran McAnulty has just referred to—why is clause 59 there and why is this repeal of section 58 needed? Is it a simple temporal issue that in five years' time everything will be done or not and what happens? Does that mean that councils can't amend those agreements after five years? So a simple question: why is clause 59 there repealing what will be section 58? The other question was about the purpose of this part and the amendments that are made in the Minister's Amendment Paper 65. There are many other amendments in that Amendment Paper that just change words here and there and it's difficult for everybody to go through to determine what they mean. But I was asking and inviting the Minister for a simple explanation of what those amendments are for and if it is indeed a clarification of when and where consultation is mandatory and when it is not.
Russell Deborah; Brown SimeonHon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): Oh look I'd just like to thank the Minister for that answer because that does really clarify why you only have that requirement to only do it once with the substantive reason behind it so that's very very helpful thank you Minister and I'm sure that will help in this process.There's an interesting thing about this bill in that two local entities if you like kind of have their own separate bits of the bill. Now we'll be coming in due course to Part 4 which deals with Watercare up in Auckland and so obviously we'll discuss that in detail then but the interesting thing is that in Part 3 of the bill we've got clause 49A which says that a reference to a territorial authority includes Greater Wellington Regional Council and carrying on through the part there are references to Greater Wellington Regional Council and what looks like the making of special rules for Greater Wellington Regional Council.Now again there'll be a good reason for that as to why that might not fit under the structure of just the other territorial authorities in the legislation. I think for the benefit of Wellington ratepayers for the benefit of the entities that don't have their own special rules it would be good to hear from the Minister why there is this separate set of rules for Greater Wellington Regional Council.Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Local Government): I've answered this question in a previous part. Greater Wellington Regional Council is the only regional council which is a water supplier and so therefore is covered; all other regional councils are not.
Williams ArenaARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you Mr Chair. In the previous part I had a question for the Minister around the use of the Infrastructure Funding and Financing Act 2020 and the arrangement for the application of those funding and financing rules also apply to this part. So in Part 3 the purpose as the Minister has helpfully said is that it sets up the decision-making requirements that will apply to territorial authorities when making decisions under this part but I want to ask him whether it is this part which does not deal specifically with councils who are proposing to use the levy under the Infrastructure Funding and Financing Act 2020 and whether that in fact then means that an arrangement where they do propose to use it can be brought into this part. I'm asking that question because there are specific references right throughout Part 3 of the Minister's bill before the committee today on the inserted words a joint local government arrangement under section 137 of the [Local Government Act 2002]" and section 137 of the original Act specifically sets out a subsection—it's subsection (4A)—which says that "An arrangement entered into by a local government organisation is not a joint arrangement [if they are] proposing the use of a levy under the Infrastructure Funding and Financing Act 2020 to support the construction of eligible infrastructure:" only for that reason. So I want to ask him whether that is intended to also apply to Part 3 in his proposed bill or whether it only applies to joint local government arrangements and so therefore not to water services council-controlled organisations."
O'Connor Greg; Brown SimeonCHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Members we come now to Part 3. This is the debate on clauses 49 to 59 Establishing water services council-controlled organisations and joint local government arrangements". The question is that Part 3 stand part.Part 3Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Local Government): Thank you Mr Chair. The purpose of this part is to support councils in terms of setting up water service council-controlled organisations and joint local government arrangements as part of our Local Water Done Well approach. Supporting councils to set up joint organisations between councils there's a faster consultation a streamlined consultation process that's been put in place. It is about making that process easier and more efficient for local government."
Russell DeborahHon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): Mr Chair we have done a lot of work on this section. I do just want to draw to the Minister's attention one final sort of set of issues here and it's to do with the penalties that can be imposed. Now they are quite significant if water services entities fail to supply the information that's required and so on. So we're talking up to $5 million. Now we've already had quite a discussion about the extent to which water services entities perhaps—well we know that we're going to be looking for alternative sources of funding. These are not rich entities at the moment.So I'm wondering and it's something I've had in mind ever since we started working through this bill in terms of monitoring the public's knowledge of what is going on we've got the penalties that can be imposed by the Commerce Commission but there's a whole lot of information that can be disclosed and that the commission can have a look at.So if we look at clause 40(1)(b) the Commission can investigate water services entities including (i)how effectively and efficiently a provider of water services is delivering water services:" and so on. Now what we've already seen was the way that the Commerce Commission does a lot of work. We've just seen with the banking report that's come out today that a chunk of it is more or less I suppose what we'd call a name and shame strategy. We're just revealing the practices that are going on.I guess what I'm interested in Minister is the extent to which we are relying on water services entities being held to account by the Commerce Commission. And there's sort of been a sliding scale if you like of ways for which water services entities can be held to account and whether the first level of a water service entity being held to account is based around information that is disclosed so that the public understand what is going on.Now we know an issue right across the country is getting people to engage with local councils and understand what local councils are doing. Nevertheless Minister isn't this really part of what we're trying to do here—is to get a little bit more clarity a little bit more transparency and a little bit more capacity for ordinary members of the public to shame a water service entity into doing its job properly? Thank you."
Williams Arena; Brown SimeonARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): A brief call for the Minister to close off that line of questioning around whether the Commerce Commission is the right regulator. And I am disappointed that the Minister hasn't engaged with those points but I want to ask him whether clause 40 is the clause which is intended to clarify the interface between water services entities and the developer finance water infrastructure provided under the Infrastructure Funding and Financing Act which is an intent which has been stated around giving these extra powers to the Commerce Commission. Is that to be found in clause 40(1)(d) or (e)?Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Local Government): There's been a number of questions in relation to these things. The Hon Deborah Russell has been repeating the question around penalties that's already been addressed. Penalties represent an upper limit. In relation to determinations being secondary legislation I'm advised this is consistent with the commissioner's powers in other regulated sectors. In relation to the member Arena Williams' question around the Commerce Commission the Commerce Commission is well practised in using these tools and the Infrastructure Commission does not have the experience in economic regulation. In relation to the question of clause 37(3) is it broad enough; this is a list similar to requirements under the Commerce Act.
Xu-Nan LawrenceDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you Mr Chair. I'll just make this really short because the previous Minister has been very concise in terms of their response. This is in relation to clause 35(2) specifically—which hasn't been mentioned—in relation to clause 37. Looking at The Commission must consult interested parties" when we're looking at the content under clause 37 and we're looking at subclause (3)(f) "financial and non-financial performance measures"—and particularly non-financial performance measures—could I just get clarification from the Minister that that means the interested party would also include members of the public? The reason I mention that is because non-financial measures specifically may affect or may be of interest to members of the public. To give a few examples: things like water quality water security—I'm not an expert on this but potentially stormwater drainage speed. So just a very short response from the Minister on whether interested parties would include the public. Thank you."
White HelenHELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): Thank you Madam Chair. I would just like to ask about clause 38. I'd like to know about the actual provision that relates to the Commerce Commission itself in terms of that information. Under subclause (3) it says that it's specified that the entity provides goods or services that are not incidental to or related to delivering water services". Can the Minister tell me when that would be something that the Commerce Commission would want to do and why they would want to look at that information? And whether that information might be looked at even if it is commercially sensitive because from what I understand under this clause it's being used by the commission itself for its own purpose rather than simply to pass on to somebody in terms of disclosure. So will they be looking at information that is perhaps commercially sensitive because they're a trusted entity to do that? And what sort of information beyond that related to water services would be relevant to the inquiries that they've made? Thank you."
Wedd Catherine; Pugh MaureenCATHERINE WEDD (National—Tukituki): I move That debate on this question now close.CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I am still getting new material so I will go back to the Hon Ginny Andersen.
Williams ArenaARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you Madam Chair. This is my first opportunity to take a call on this part. As the Opposition spokesperson for commerce and consumer affairs I am delighted to open up a new line of enquiry with the Minister about the Commerce Commission's powers that are set out in this part. I'll just draw the committee's attention to the first of those clauses which gives effect to the Commerce Act 1986 which is clause 40 in this part. I want to ask the Minister first the advice that the Minister received in granting the Commerce Commission these extra powers—extra to those that it would otherwise have under the Commerce Act.And the second question in line with that is really about the role of the Commerce Commission here because at various stages which this law has been progressing through this House there has been consideration given both in Parliament and in the Beehive and out in the wider infrastructure sector about whether the Commerce Commission is the correct regulator for infrastructure. In various sectors of our infrastructure builds we have a mix of public ownership and private ownership. And in some situations the Commerce Commission is the regulator of infrastructure providers who have a weighted assets return ratio on their infrastructure and that's how they are primarily regulated in their law—say for example the three regulated airports which come under the Commerce Commission's purview.I'm asking because under clause 40 of this part the Minister is introducing new powers for the Commerce Commission to essentially investigate situations where it does not have enough information to perform a regulatory role but those powers are different to the way that it regulates say the regulated airports of which it is the infrastructure regulator. So those are the two questions that I'll open up this line of questions with the Minister for.
Xu-Nan Lawrence; Penk ChrisDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you Madam Chair. I do apologise for sort of jumping around a little bit in terms of Subpart 3. There is one particular part in clause 32 that I would like to address that my colleagues have not previously addressed. I also want to first apologise to the Hon Rachel Brooking; I forgot to use your honorifics before. This is to do with clause 32(2) and I want to specifically focus on the words produced in competitive markets." Also thank you to the Minister in the chair for your clear and concise responses to the questions before.Now clause 31(2)(c) has been mentioned but subclause (2) itself has not been in the context of "competitive markets" as well as when you are reading it in line with subclause (1)(a) which is "to promote the long-term benefit of consumers". I want to check with the Minister who obviously has been providing clear and concise answers: what is then prioritised here? Would being "consistent with outcomes produced in competitive markets" take priority over the benefit to consumers?The reason I mention this is because when we're looking at subclause (2) although it's in reference to subclause (1)(a)—and you list additional subclauses beyond this—but the fact that "competitive markets" has been put into a higher prioritised clause implies that it takes priority over other areas such as what is mentioned in (a) to (c). So if "outcomes produced in competitive markets" takes priority over any subsequent clauses—i.e. particularly around the "benefits to consumers"—then what would the compromise be when a water service provider when the entity would then go "Look due to competitive markets we need to increase in terms of prices as opposed to lowering as in subclause (2)(b)."So I wanted to check with "competitive markets" can they then say "Due to that we can't do this."—as in "We can't provide cleaner water we can't provide sufficient water because we are in a competitive market." I'm just really curious as to why that is in there in the first place. Thank you.Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction): Thank you Madam Chair. We don't see the principles of establishing a "competitive market" and "benefit to consumers" as being mutually exclusive. Because they're consistent we think it's a moot point as to which would prevail in the event of a conflict and therefore the relative priority is an interesting sort of academic question but with all due respect I don't think there's any undermining of either of those priorities or tasks within the legislation."
Brooking RachelHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you Madam Chair. Honorific included as well thank you for that. We spent a bit of time on 32 and on 32(3)—Catherine Wedd: Repetition! Very repetitive. Hon Dr Deborah Russell: Lots of subparts.Hon RACHEL BROOKING: There are lots of different words in these clauses. One of these different words is that it relates to competition of water services. One of the water services is defined as stormwater so the question is: how does competition relate to stormwater? I'm interested in the Minister's answer. I see that he is nodding there and I thank the Minister for answering the questions—it's very helpful of course for Hansard. So thank you for doing that.I wonder in his previous answer to the question about the pecuniary penalties being $5 million for a council saying that it comes from the commerce legislation has there been thought about the fact that this will only apply to councils or council-controlled organisations? So is that right to shift over from commerce legislation for giant companies—$5 million might be an appropriate penalty but a council is a public entity; it's ratepayer money. How is $5 million appropriate for that? If he could give an answer on that that would be useful as well.Finally I just note that the Minister is answering questions which is very good so I'll be very short. The Hon Dr Duncan Webb asked a question that has not been answered yet and that was a point on councils that are not contiguous to each other. What happens to those councils? This was more in Subpart 2 but I would be very interested to hear an answer on that. I know that the officials were here when that question was asked. Thank you.
Parker DavidHon DAVID PARKER (Labour): Thank you Madam Chair. The genesis of New Zealand's change in the management of water arose from the drinking-water problems that we had at Havelock North where underinvestment by the then council for many years lead to thousands of people becoming ill from contaminated water and some of them dying. Through the evolution of the regulatory response to that failure at local government level and actually failures within the Ministry of Health decisions have been made by successive Governments not just to consider drinking water but also to be looking at the disposal of foul water or sewage. And my question relates to how clause 37 of the bill deals with some of the complexities around that.Clause 37 of the bill says that a determination can be made by the Commission as I understand it as to information that has to be disclosed to the Commission and the contents of the determinations are set out in clause 37 of the bill. And under clause 37 (3)(i) the quality performance measures and statistics" and (j) the "assumptions policies and methodologies used or applied in the delivery of water services" are things that have to be disclosed if the Commission asks them to be. My question relates to the interaction between that and how a water services entity gets a consent for their discharge of sewage and the standards that might be applied to that. There is a discussion in later parts of this legislation as to the overriding of the existing National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management and we'll come to those questions under that part. But am I correct in my understanding that the level of treatment if you like that is required for a sewage discharge will somehow be set by a regional council probably. It's the quality parameter that it might be set and that resource consent that will be required to be reported to in these disclosure obligations so that the Commission can take account of what the costs are of proper treatment for example of sewage in accordance with their monitoring role as to what is an appropriate level of cost to be charged for the delivery of that service.Now I'm not making a comment here as to what ought to be the standard of treatment. That's obviously up to the consent authority. But am I correct in my understanding that the Commission has to effectively await that coming from the water services entity who gets it from a regional council before they can make a determination as to what's an appropriate fee?"
Xu-Nan LawrenceDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you Madam Chair. With Part 2 Subpart 3 on foundational information disclosure requirements there are actually quite a few different elements to this subpart and it's really important for us to be able to unpack each of the elements here. I have a number of questions but in terms of the first question I'm going to kind of draw on the cost element to this. So to start with I am looking at clause 40A Levy". Now this is a new addition to this particular version of the bill we have in front of us. It says that "(1)Every person who provides water services must pay to the Minister" and to refresh our memory I think this actually goes back to the comments of one of our Labour colleagues Rachel Brooking previously in our last session around the potential risk of a bottom-up effect when we're looking at what sort of costs and what sort of charges we are going to be producing and the unintentional consequences around this.But for this particular one I would really like to get one very specific clarification from the Minister. This is around the concern of what is on page 11 of the commentary on the bill. On page 11 under the section "Commerce Commission may make determination" it says "We recommend inserting clause 40A into the bill a levy-making power to recover the costs of the Commerce Commission's regulatory work under subpart 3 of Part 2." I just want to get the specific idea because we have seen in a previous bill around waste management that once we started charging levies for the work of a commission we are straddling a very dangerous territory between what is considered a levy and what is considered a tax. So for this bit I would really like some confirmation and some confidence from the Minister that the levy that is going to be charged and is going to be payable by every person or persons who provides water services can be tracked and will be accountable specifically to Part 2 of Subpart 3 and no broader than that. Because then what we might see and what we don't want to see is that our water service providers are paying for the work that is done by the Commerce Commission for other purposes not relevant to this.Also in that regard it would be really good to get some confidence and clarification from the Minister on exactly how those kinds of charges will be incurred and the mechanisms that would likely be sent to these water services providers. Is it that every water service provider will have to pay a standard levy based on the service they provide or is a pay-as-you-go kind of service required from the Commerce Commission? So that is the first point that I would like some clarification on. Thank you."
Grigg NicolaHon NICOLA GRIGG (Associate Minister of Agriculture): Thank you Madam Chair and I thank the members from across the House for their questions thus far. I just wanted to touch on a couple that have come from members of the Labour Party in particular. Dr Deborah Russell has raised the issue of the foundational information disclosure. I'm sure the member like many members in this Chamber will know that information disclosure is a very common economic regulation tool. And she's spoken specifically to clause 32(2)(c) about the excessive profits. I'd just caution the member against misrepresenting that particular language and I would go so far as to say possibly scaremongering. But as most members will know this phrase is a typical safeguard used and found often in the Commerce Act to protect consumers in industries where there is monopoly characteristics. In this scenario people won't be able to choose to go to a different water services provider so this clause will ensure consumers are being charged a fair price. Again I just want to reiterate this is a very common safeguard in the Commerce Act.Turning to some of the questions raised by the Hon Dr Megan Woods she asked specifically about what incentives there are to innovate and to invest. Well isn't it wonderful that we do have this opportunity in this Chamber to rewrite this piece of legislation because we believe that transparency is a real opportunity to innovate around. And transparency to consumers on what they are being charged and how those charges will be used this is a real opportunity for councils to be able to do that. As the saying goes sunlight is the best disinfectant. So information disclosure makes councils act transparently particularly about the state of the assets how efficient they are and their plans to upgrade and replace those assets.Dr Woods has further asked around protections against privatisation. Well these are already provided for in the Local Government Act 2002. Nothing in this bill changes those provisions. This bill only relates to local government water service providers. So the Local Government Act provisions apply as a matter of course.
Russell DeborahHon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): Thank you. I do want to continue this—it's actually a very serious point. If we look at what has happened in the United Kingdom with Thames Water there's been the most appalling extraction of profits and the most appalling water pollution. That's happened in part because of the profit motive. So I want some pretty strong reassurance around a profit motive at all and also around the term excessive profit". So there's a set of questions around excessive profit as well. So first up there's the profit motive but the second one is what is meant by excessive profit? Now that implies that a water services entity may make a "reasonable profit" but not an "excessive profit". So I want to know who is going to be making that judgement about what is an excessive profit as opposed to a reasonable profit and what that judgement is going to be based on. Is it going to be based on the number of rateable households? Is it going to be based on the number of people using the water supply? Is it a return on investment? Is it some kind of relationship to assets? Is it related to future revenue streams? There's a whole lot of questions in there as to what a reasonable profit might look like as opposed to an excessive profit.So you know we might think those two little words didn't really mean very much at all but there's actually some pretty substantial issues sitting in there and I would appreciate the Minister giving us some reassurance around them."
Pugh MaureenHOUSE IN COMMITTEECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Members the House is in committee for further consideration of the Local Government (Water Services Preliminary Arrangements) Bill and for consideration of the Resource Management (Extended Duration of Coastal Permits for Marine Farms) Amendment Bill and the Corrections Amendment Bill.
10. Question No. 10—Social Development and EmploymentJOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland) to the Minister for Social Development and EmploymentQuestion No. 10—Social Development and Employment10. JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What recent announcements has the Government made about supporting people on the jobseeker benefit into work?Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Last week I announced a comprehensive package of reforms to the welfare system to support more people off jobseeker support into work and to introduce tougher consequences for those who repeatedly do not meet their benefit obligations. This includes a new traffic light system to inform people what is required of them to continue receiving a benefit and warn them when they are not meeting those expectations. Our Government believes that work is the best pathway to independence and further opportunities. We continue to take action to support New Zealanders into work and the traffic light system is an important tool to achieve this.Joseph Mooney: Why was the traffic light system introduced?Hon LOUISE UPSTON: The traffic light system was introduced to clearly communicate to job seekers what is expected of them and to ensure they comply with their obligations. It spells out if they are at risk of breaching their work obligations and what the consequences are of failing to comply. Our Government expects those receiving taxpayers' support to meet their basic obligations to become work ready and to find work because we believe in rights and responsibilities.Joseph Mooney: How will the traffic light system work?Hon LOUISE UPSTON: The traffic light system categorises job seekers based on their compliance level providing crystal clear steps on how to comply with their obligations. Green means a beneficiary is on track and complying with all their work obligations. Orange means a job seeker has failed an obligation and must re-comply within five days. Red means a job seeker has breached their obligations which will result in sanctions being imposed.Joseph Mooney: How else does the traffic light system affect job seekers?Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Job seekers will be required to reapply for their benefit every six months and they must also complete a mandatory job seeker profile. This will enable the Ministry of Social Development to match people with job vacancies. There will also be new non-financial sanctions that will be available next year and past failures will be counted against a job seeker's record for two years instead of one. Our Government is making our welfare system more proactive to help job seekers into work and experience the benefit of greater financial independence and further opportunities that come from work.
Bishop ChrisSITTINGS OF THE HOUSEHon CHRIS BISHOP (Leader of the House): I move That the sitting of the House today be extended into tomorrow morning for further consideration in committee of the Local Government (Water Services Preliminary Arrangements) Bill; and consideration in committee of the Resource Management (Extended Duration of Coastal Permits for Marine Farms) Amendment Bill; and the Corrections Amendment Bill.