edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Overseas Investment (Forestry) Amendment Bill — In Committee—Part 1
VoteCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members the question is that the Hon Eugenie Sage's amendments to Part 1 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 219 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 10Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Noes 108New Zealand Labour 65; New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Amendments not agreed to.Part 1 agreed to.
12. Question No. 12—Health (Pacific Peoples)LEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE (Labour) to the Associate Minister of Health (Pacific Peoples)Question No. 12—Health (Pacific Peoples)12. LEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE (Labour) to the Associate Minister of Health (Pacific Peoples): What recent work has the Government done to build the Pacific health workforce?Hon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO (Associate Minister of Health (Pacific Peoples)): Budget 2022 will deliver 1900 new health workers and will support 2700 more students into training programmes through a $76 million investment to continue to grow the Māori and Pacific health workforce. Specific funding of $37 million over four years for the Pacific health workforce is critical for building a more diverse and sustainable pathway into health for Pacific people and it will ensure that as our health workforce grows it reflects also the communities it serves with a workforce that values Māori and Pacific languages and cultural intelligence and ensures economic security for our Pacific communities in good and bad times. Simply put this approach is a targeted Pacific—by Pacific for Pacific—approach and something as we learnt during COVID which directly accelerated positive COVID vaccination rates for Pacific peoples and kept everyone safe.Lemauga Lydia Sosene: How are Pacific health workers supported by this boost in a Pacific health workforce?Hon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO: In 2016 Counties Manukau had a Pacific population comprising 21 percent of the local population but just 11 percent of its staff identified as Pacific. For this reason we are growing our Pacific health workforce with investment to build on the successes we've had in responding to COVID-19 and this in turn will help transition Pacific people from COVID-19 roles to day-to-day roles in the health system on other primary healthcare priorities. We're taking their learnt experiences on the ground during a global pandemic and pivoting those to new roles in the health sector capturing their cultural capital and cultural intelligence and ensuing it continues to achieve better positive health outcomes for Pacific people which will in turn lift better outcomes for the rest of New Zealand.Lemauga Lydia Sosene: What will this growth in the Pacific health workforce mean for our communities?Hon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO: This Budget 2022 initiative will support the roll-out of comprehensive primary healthcare teams over the next four years to support and strengthen communities because this is our approach—by Pacific for Pacific who are one of the fastest growing populations in Aotearoa New Zealand. This will ensure that Pacific communities across the motu can get access to a wider range of services close to home and in their community and not draw from other parts of the system which are already under strain. This Government will continue to build on the cultural capital of our Pacific health providers and workforce who already enjoy trusted relationships with our Pacific communities on the ground. This Budget initiative also provides a significant investment to support Pacific health providers to deliver the Government's Pacific wellbeing approach which benefits all New Zealanders.
7. Question No. 7—Social Development and EmploymentGLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth) to the Minister for Social Development and EmploymentQuestion No. 7—Social Development and Employment7. GLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What updates has she seen on creating jobs in the construction workforce?Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Recently the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) partnered with the Western Institute of Technology at Taranaki (WITT) and the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment (MBIE) to help build the workforce needed for the construction of Taranaki Base Hospital. Project Maunga Stage Two is the continuation of the Taranaki Base Hospital redevelopment and will see the continuation of the new east wing a six-storey building housing many of the hospital's acute services. The collaboration between MSD MBIE and WITT sees MSD helping to coordinate recruitment training and upskilling and engaging with local education organisations providing support for site workers and connecting with iwi groups and industry. This is a meaningful collaboration and one which maximises the number of jobs locally for people who are out of work or haven't been given that opportunity to work.Glen Bennett: What feedback has she seen on this partnership?Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Western Institute of Technology at Taranaki CEO John Snook says The project leaves behind not only a hospital but a trained community of apprentices. In some ways this is going to be the biggest legacy of all." He also says "Project Maunga is a significant sized project and it will provide opportunities for the future workforce of Taranaki to get an education gain experience and make a meaningful contribution to the regional economy of Taranaki."Glen Bennett: What other updates has she seen on employment in the construction workforce?Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I'm pleased to report that we're seeing a year-on-year increase in the number of people employed in the construction sector. There are now 295000 people employed in the sector an increase of nearly 20000 people since the same quarter last year. This is a reflection of our investment in programmes like Apprenticeship Boost which has seen almost 50000 apprentices pick up a trade and other smaller but equally as important initiatives like Kiwi Can Do which has supported almost 900 people into jobs in the construction sector. These numbers show that the Government is working effectively with the construction sector to meet workforce demand and fulfil the aspirations of our job seekers."
2. Question No. 2—FinanceBARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) to the Minister of FinanceQuestion No. 2—Finance2. BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): The jobs market is continuing to show its resilience. The SEEK New Zealand Employment Report rebounded 1.3 percent in July following the previous month's 5.3 percent decline and it's up 28 percent for the year. BNZ's economist said it's too early to say that job ads have peaked as monthly figures do tend to be volatile but the trend measure eased for the first time since September last year in the wake of the Delta outbreak. We know that some sectors and businesses are facing worker shortages and in response we are continuing to invest heavily in skills and training programmes such as Mana in Mahi Flexi-wage and He Poutama Rangatahi while making it easier at the same time to attract overseas workers to get the skills we need. Over 7917 businesses have received accreditation to employ migrants since the scheme opened in late May.Barbara Edmonds: What reports has he seen on the international context for New Zealand's labour market and its impact on the economy?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: New Zealand's labour market compares favourably with the countries that we generally compare ourselves with. The latest report from the OECD shows for the June quarter New Zealand has the sixth lowest rate of unemployment in the OECD at 3.3 percent compared with the US in 10th place the UK and Australia in 14th equal and Canada in 22nd place. In terms of employment rates New Zealand ranks fourth in the OECD ahead of Australia on seventh the UK on 12th and Canada in 13th equal and the US in 22nd equal place. The robust labour market is supporting the economy in what is a volatile and uncertain global environment.Barbara Edmonds: What other reports has he seen on the economy?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: In its latest fortnightly economic update Treasury reported that meat and dairy production had rebounded in the June quarter. Meat processing rose 8.8 percent—Barbara Kuriger: As expected.Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: —compared with the March quarter as reduced worker absenteeism from COVID-19 enabled the industry to clear some of the backlog. Ms Kuriger will be pleased to know that milk production also improved in the June quarter: up 5.5 percent although production was down 4 percent for the year. The recovery in meat and dairy production will support GDP in the June quarter along with the expansion in the service sector that I mentioned in the House yesterday. The opening of the borders and the prospect of a strong summer tourism season will further support the recovery of sectors who have borne the brunt of the pandemic.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the motion be agreed to.Ayes 77New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Noes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Motion agreed to.
SpeechREPORT OF COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE HOUSECHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Mr Speaker the committee has considered the Appropriation (2022/23 Estimates) Bill and reports progress. The committee has also considered the Overseas Investment (Forestry) Amendment Bill and reports it without amendment. The committee has also further considered the Oversight of Oranga Tamariki System and Children and Young People's Commission Bill and reports progress. I move That the report be adopted.Motion agreed to.Report adopted.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): The House is suspended and I will resume the Chair at 9 a.m. tomorrow for the extended sitting. Sitting suspended from 9.58 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Thursday).
Chhour Karen; Sepuloni CarmelKAREN CHHOUR (ACT): Thank you Madam Chair. So just going back to this report it states submissions at the select committee stage were largely opposed to the bill. A lack of independence of the Monitor was cited as one of the key reasons for not supporting the bill. Some submitters recommended the inclusion of a specific legislative independence provision in the bill however the majority recommended that the Monitor would be established as a Crown entity to ensure independence from Ministers"—then goes on to say "Cabinet decided that the Monitor would be a departmental agency hosted by Education Review Office (ERO). Advice on the home of the Monitor was addressed that if the Monitor was housed within ERO the Monitor would face issues regarding the perception of ministerial influence." I'm just wondering what kind of advice did you receive on that and how damaging the perception of ministerial influence would be on public trust?Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment): We looked at overseas examples of where they had split monitoring and advocacy and the rationales for that—also the redress report that came through from the royal commission that felt that it was really important to differentiate between the two and to keep them separate. We had to make a determination as a Cabinet when given the different options. We absolutely agreed that the monitor needed to have the level of independence that we have clearly articulated in the bill that we have in front of us. But we also thought given our experience and sometimes the questions that we've had of Oranga Tamariki in general—and I know previous Governments and all parties in the House have—that we wanted the ability to be able to ask them to undertake work where we had concerns with the system. I think that that's a really important part of what we're able to do with the monitor with the way in which we'd set it up. If it had a higher level of independence we would have no ability to even be able to ask them to do any additional work that may be reflective of the concerns that we might have. So we as a Cabinet—again it's not in the bill—made that determination.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members the time has come for me to report progress.House resumed."
Chhour Karen; Sepuloni CarmelKAREN CHHOUR (ACT): Thank you Madam Chair. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to this issue. During the select committee process it was very clear how distraught some of the submitters were in regards to the independence of the monitor and having trust in the monitor that it did have independence. Now I'd just like to speak to a report that was sent to the Minister on 16 April 2022 and this is a report I got from an Official Information Act request. The purpose of the report was to provide advice on specific independent provisions for the Oversight of Oranga Tamariki System and Children and Young People's Commission Bill and it set out four different options on how you were going to look at putting independence into this bill. I have a few questions around some of the things written in this report and one of them was—it states MSD had initially explored a more explicit independence provision when drafting the bill similar to the independence provided to the Chief Archivist under the Public Records Act 2005 as there was a clear recognition that the monitor needs to be perceived to be independent in order for public support in trust and transparency. However the Public Service Commission was not supportive of including this explicit legislative independence provision of this nature."Would the Minister mind letting us know why they weren't in support of having that kind of independence added into this bill?Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment): I just want to reiterate that the form of the monitor was a decision by Cabinet and is actually not traversed in this bill at all. The decision was made and now we have drafted a bill that is in front of us with the level of detail around how it will work but it's certainly not something that was in the bill."
SpeechOVERSIGHT OF ORANGA TAMARIKI SYSTEM AND CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE'S COMMISSION BILLIn CommitteeDebate resumed from 9 August.Part 2 Oversight of Oranga Tamariki system (continued)CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members we come now to further consideration of the Oversight of Oranga Tamariki System and Children and Young People's Commission Bill.I don't believe there's anybody likely to wish to take a call if they do they know they write call" in the chat. If we receive new tabled amendments I'll let members know so that they can refresh the House pages to see the new amendment. And finally it would be helpful for members to ask multiple questions—the flow of the debate goes extremely well when that happens—if they have them of the member in charge during the call.Part 2: this is the debate on clauses 12 to 42 "Oversight of Oranga Tamariki system". Members when we were last debating the bill we were debating the question that Part 2 stand part."
Overseas Investment (Forestry) Amendment Bill — In Committee—Clauses 1 to 3
SpeechClauses 1 to 3CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members we come now to our final debate clauses 1 to 3 Title" "Commencement" and "Principal Act". The question is that clause 1 stand part.Clause 1 agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that clause 2 stand part.Clause 2 agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that clause 3 stand part.Clause 3 agreed to.Bill to be reported without amendment."
SpeechCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members the Hon Eugenie Sage's amendments to Part 2 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 219 are out of order as being inconsistent with the previous decision of the committee. The question is that Part 2 stand part.Part 2 agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the Schedule stand part.Schedule agreed to.
Overseas Investment (Forestry) Amendment Bill — In Committee—Part 2
SpeechANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): I move That the question be now put.Motion agreed to.
Mooney Joseph; Parker DavidJOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you Madam Chair. Minister I wonder if you could just give the committee a little bit of clarity around the purpose behind amending Schedule 3 which is in clause 9.So I note there's a focus here on unconsented forestry rights. I'd be grateful if you could just clarify for the record why it was necessary to change this to focus on unconsented forestry rights and noting that in clause 9 new clause 7 it says In this clause unconsented forestry right means a forestry right that is acquired otherwise than in reliance on a consent"—that's been changed to say—"any of the following: (a) a consent: [or] (b) an exemption in or an exemption granted under this Act or the regulations (other than an exemption under this clause)."So the secondary part of this is why an unconsented forestry right could be otherwise then—the exemption; what is meant by an exemption granted under this Act? If you could provide some more information for the record on what that means as well please.Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): This is another minor and technical change which was made to clarify that when determining whether the 1000 hectare exemption applies only unconsented forestry rights are considered in that calculation i.e. if they've already been approved elsewhere they don't need to be counted again."
van de Molen Tim; Parker DavidTIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Respectfully there was a slight difference there Minister between Mr Penk's contribution and my own his initially being around the definition of forestry activities and then the use of that land. Mine was more around whether there could be accommodation either in the same dwelling where one person in there is working on the forestry land; another person tenant or worker in the same accommodation is working on adjacent land or indeed there are adjacent sharing quarters for example that are on the forestry land but have no use for that but are used on an adjacent land and are perhaps rented to that farmer or indeed in the sense where we have forestry workers coming into the accommodation for a period of time to carry out pruning for example and then leaving again and the accommodation—is it then able to potentially be used for other purposes outside of the time when it is being used for forestry purposes? So obviously there are seasonal elements or specific times when forestry work will be required to be carried out and plenty of times when it will not be and the accommodation may not be used at all. So during those times can it be used for example as shearers' quarters for a neighbouring farm when they are having their peak shearing season or for accommodation for school camp groups for example? Are these sorts of activities enabled? Because it seems to be a very tight definition around purpose only of supporting forestry activities. My understanding not being on the Finance and Expenditure Committee but my understanding was and to your point earlier the intent was to allow some more flexibility so can I get confirmation from the Minister that the examples that I have given would be allowed under his understanding of the intent of this? Because certainly it would be for me an appropriate consideration especially if it's not at the cost of forestry work. You know if that work can be carried out and then when it's not being used it can be utilised for some other cause as long as it's not impacting on that forestry use then surely that should be enabled as well.Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Thank you Madam Chair. I can confirm that but that's not in the schedules; that's in the first part of the bill which does contain provisions to allow that flexibility. But we've already considered that part of the bill.
Penk Chris; Parker DavidCHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much Madam Chair. Goodness me! The other aspect I thought was interesting of Part 2 is clause 8A which amends Schedule 2 of the Overseas Investment Act and that is talking about a certain subclause within that and it's all about what could be regarded as land that's supporting forestry activities. And of course forestry activities is an important definition. It's an important concept to the bill. That's what we're interested in of course here we're talking about the importance of forestry and you know from a New Zealand Inc." perspective. Of course one weighs up the various competing considerations whether that's property rights of those who own land and should you know on the face of it be able to sell those to whoever they should please versus of course you know the more strategic aims that we might have in terms of the land being put to its most productive use overall.So of course that's really significant what we regard as such land. In this particular provision we see that where "… accommodation is being provided for the purpose only of supporting forestry activities … being carried out on the farm land … or the relevant land …"—and—"all the buildings being used for that accommodation are located on [the] land on which some or all of those forestry activities are being carried out …" etc. So I think what's happening there—but again as always grateful for the confirmation of the Minister—is that we're saying that well there might be land that's ostensibly or mostly being used for forestry activities some bits of it may not be but they may not be in a way that makes sense in the sense that they are enabling forestry activity. So there might be accommodation but we're not talking about a hotel or other commercial accommodation. It's that specifically which is used for supporting forestry activity. So it seems to me that that's consistent with the purpose of the bill the intent of the regime as a whole and I think that's probably a sensible interpretation that anyone looking to invest under this Act should have regard to.I think that would be the way that it would be interpreted if there's a line call that the courts might be asked to make or indeed the office itself might be asked to make where there might be accommodation that's perhaps ambiguous as to where it starts and ends and there might be activities that are ancillary. Maybe it's accommodation to support forestry with workers but the workers might stay on longer in New Zealand if they're temporary for the purposes of a holiday or whatever. So any comments the Minister can make in relation to that to help clarify the intent of the regime and indeed this particular provision I think would be really helpful and interesting.Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): I think that's the same issue that Mr van de Molen just raised and so I refer him to that answer respectfully."
van de Molen Tim; Parker DavidTIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): I'll take a call on this and give Minister Parker hopefully some time to provide a more fulsome answer for Mr Penk's very probing question there on clause 10.Now I have a question in relation to the new clause 8A around including the exemption for accommodation if the accommodation is for forestry purposes. So obviously the exclusion is—it can't be residential properties on the land but this creates the exception for that if that accommodation is there for forestry purposes only. I think it's that last bit for the purpose only of supporting forestry activities" that I just wanted to test with the Minister because I have some concern that there may indeed be accommodation on a forestry piece of land that is used for dual purpose—perhaps for both the forestry aspect in terms of managing that particular title of land but also perhaps an agricultural use in terms of managing an adjacent property a sheep and beef property or whatever it may be and therefore having a use that is not forestry only. Or indeed having someone who has a property on a title working in the forestry aspect but other tenants in that house are working on the neighbouring side of the fence an adjacent title of land that has agricultural purposes.Is that therefore excluded under this reasonably tight definition being "for the purpose only of supporting forestry activities"? I would like to think that it would not exclude situations where there is a dual use. Or indeed it may be that it's not necessarily the same house or dwelling but it may be in adjacent sharing quarters for example that just happen to be located on this block of land instead of across the fence. This sometimes may be the case in farming senses where properties end up where they are most conveniently located from time to time and that may of course have preceded a particular land use that has evolved over time but in the broader context of that area the ongoing land use remains for agriculture purposes from some part of the property or one particular dwelling in a wider curtilage sense and not another.So can we clarify whether or not those particular examples might still be considered acceptable in terms of the carve-out under new sections 17(5)(a) and 17(5)(b) set out in clause 8A? Thank you Minister.Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): In respect of overseas companies that are trusts yes the grouping of people whose for example compliance records can be assessed overseas by the Overseas Investment Office goes wider than the legal entity to include those who are in charge of it or in control of it.In respect of the issues most recently raised in respect of new clause 8A this was another minor technical change that was recommended by the Finance and Expenditure Committee to effectively give a little bit more flexibility to the Overseas Investment Office to approve sensible arrangements in respect of buildings that are on the land."
SpeechPart 2 Other amendmentsCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members we come now to Part 2. This is the debate on clauses 8 to 10 and the Schedule—Other amendments". The question is that Part 2 stand part."
SpeechSARAH PALLETT (Labour—Ilam): I move That the question be now put.Motion agreed to.
Bayly Andrew; Parker DavidANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you. I just want to acknowledge my colleague Damien Smith who raised the issue of the Overseas Investment Office (OIO) and I alluded to that I was going to ask some more questions on that earlier.So we are supporting this bill and we've made that clear obviously because it is a slight tightening up on the regime. We do welcome foreign ownership or foreign investment into our forests but we want to make sure that these new rules do work. So can the Minister just provide some certainty to the committee and certainty to the people who will be listening as to the role of the OIO?Obviously this is a more stringent requirement so they require specialist skills. So not only the ability for OIO to process these applications in a timely manner to do it on a fair basis and also in terms of the point that Damien Smith raised was the issue around monitoring once the arrangements have been agreed the capability of the OIO to do that and certainly that it will do that because there have been some claims that the OIO have been less than robust in following up and monitoring investments. I'm not talking in the forestry industry particularly but on other foreign investments. So what certainty can the Minister provide to the committee and also to the people looking to potentially invest in New Zealand that they will be dealt with in a speedy timely and appropriate manner?Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): I'm confident that the committee can be assured that that will be the case. We actually have changed the fee regime. There's cost recovery on this to enable those jobs to be done properly. We've also taken out some of the unnecessary minutiae of detail that used to have to be provided by applicants so that it is somewhat streamlined and more efficient while still meeting the policy objective.
Mooney Joseph; Parker DavidJOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you very much Madam Chair. Minister I was interested in your comments earlier where you said that land is special. And it's certainly something that I think most people who work and live on the land in New Zealand would agree with. In particular those who are producing food certainly think it's special and it's their communities—and certainly in my electorate of Southland it's something I hear regularly. It is the benefit of a community of people who grow things on their land and the schools the children all the various businesses who provide services to the farmer and make the local economy work.I'm interested in why you've chosen the benefits of New Zealand test relying on seven different factors. And if you are able to step us through why those seven different factors will be better than the farmland benefit test which I note was another alternative that the Government looked at but said that in its view the farmland benefit test is more complex than the benefit to New Zealand" test which this legislation is changing to. If land is special and farmland is obviously providing food and is special why not use that test rather than the seven benefits to New Zealand assessment test?Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): I have been through this a number of times and I'm not allowed to mention whether members have been in—Andrew Bayly: Well not really; not tonight.Hon DAVID PARKER: Well I'll actually read out exactly what I read last time so that there can be no ambiguity because it's the same words I'm reading from: there are three reasons why the general "benefit to New Zealand" test balances these objectives. First the most stringent farmland benefit test would discourage the productive investment needed to support the sustainable growth of the production forestry sector. Additionally the risks to productive learning could be managed under the general "benefit to New Zealand" test because an investor must demonstrate benefits in proportion to the sensitivity of land. "Proportionality" in this sense means that overseas investment in our most sensitive land must demonstrate a higher degree of benefit than land that is not so sensitive. The assessment of the sensitivity of the land goes beyond its economic productivity and includes land of high conservation value for example.Finally the farmland benefit test captures a broad range of land including that which is unproductive or unsuitable for agriculture or horticulture. In these cases it can impose a disproportionate burden on some investment. The Act already recognises this by providing for exemptions from it. The bill provides that forestry conversions should be a fourth exemption to the farmland benefit test."
McLellan TraceyDr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour—Banks Peninsula): Thank you Madam Chair. I move That the question be now put.
Parker DavidDAMIEN SMITH (ACT): Thank you. This is my final question to the Minister: how confident is he that Land Information New Zealand can record and have recorded all trees in the right place; and going forward if this industry grows how confident is he that they will be able to keep those records so we can all be informed?Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): The Overseas Investment Act records only deal with approvals or disapprovals of applications to buy land that is covered by the regime and monitoring of conditions if conditions are imposed. For example if someone sought to acquire a farm that was mainly forestry land but had some high-value agricultural land and they said We're going to subdivide it and sell off the highly productive horticultural land." they'd monitor against that. But they don't do that in general for all land in respect of the overall vision that was described by the Minister of Forestry the Hon Stuart Nash and it is good that we've got a Minister who has a vision for the sector. That's actually achieved through not just the overseas investment rules but it's partly rules that lie in district plans and through the emissions trading scheme as well as in overseas investment settings."
SpeechJAMIE STRANGE (Labour—Hamilton East): I move That the question be now put.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): I call Tim van de Molen but I am now looking for new debating points and I'm getting a sense of some repetition so let's hear you.
Bayly Andrew; Parker DavidANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you Madam Chair. I'm very grateful for the opportunity to talk. I just want to acknowledge the Minister of Forestry and his contribution because he talked about that utopian vision for land and forest living in harmony and obviously he referred to the Aitken farm where he thought it was fantastic that their farmer had planted up obviously steep unproductive land left the productive soils and that actually had a beautiful arrangement which he's very supportive of. I think everyone in New Zealand probably shares that view. But unfortunately the 2018 regulations didn't actually create that. What the 2018 regulations did has actually made it much more permissive for foreigners to come and buy that land. The rules now under this arrangement—up to a thousand hectares. Now let's assume this farm the utopian farm is still in existence and owned by the Aitken family; they still remember Stuart Nash fondly. Now what is the test under the new proposed arrangements? So let's assume that Aitken farm—beautiful trees all grown up now; a foreigner wants to come and buy it and it's over a thousand hectares. So what are the new rules? How will the new tests be executed? And the sense is is there a requirement for a counterfactual? Is there a requirement to set out what the benefits are of converting that utopian farm now into a pine forest? What are the new arrangements? And also I'd quite like to understand about the capability of the Overseas Investment Office but I'm going to leave that for my next question. Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): I've actually already addressed that issue on a number of occasions. The member is incorrect that the changes that we made in 2018 made it easier to invest in forestry. It didn't—it closed a big loophole in respect of forest registration rights that otherwise was an avoidance pathway that made a nonsense of the controls of investment via freehold and leasehold interests. In respect of the test to be applied the general benefit to New Zealand" test—I've explained that in detail as to how that applies and I'm not going to do it again. Andrew Bayly: Can you give us an example of the counterfactual?Hon DAVID PARKER: In respect of whether there's a counterfactual test: no there isn't. The test is applied compared to the current state of the land."
Penk Chris; Parker DavidCHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much Madam Chair for looking past Andrew Bayly—which is a difficult thing to do in all kinds of ways! My contribution will be brief; I don't profess the policy background that other learned colleagues on this side of the House—and maybe even some on the other side of the House—would claim in this space. So a reasonably tight question a narrow question; indeed one that the Minister in the chair might be well placed to answer maybe almost from his legal background and if he were to wear the hat of Attorney-General he might be equally well placed to answer it.So it goes to the provision in Part 1 whereby clause 4 subsection (3) that the inserted subsection new—well I don't want to get too caught up in cross-referencing. If the Minister is able to identify where it says Subsection (1C) does not apply if the relevant Ministers are satisfied—" and then it lists a number of different points of satisfaction that are needed—such that subsection (1C) which already exists in the primary legislation.My question really is: what is the satisfaction of the relevant Ministers to be based on? Would it be submissions of applicants? Would it be maybe other parties who are interested in the matter—might have a commercial interest; might have a general perhaps environmental advocacy interest; might be local to the area and have a geographical interest therefore? And so I wonder how the Minister would contemplate that relevant Ministers as defined and as used in the legislation would come to that decision and feel satisfied that those various points apply.In particular I'm interested to know whether the Minister would feel the need to seek independent advice of those various interested parties—so advice that could be regarded as independent such that they could come to those decisions and thinking particularly from a point of view protecting against judicial review or otherwise questions of the decision?So that was my sole question for Part 1 and I thank Madam Chair for the opportunity to ask it and in anticipation to the Minister for answering it.Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Thank you Madam Chair. The information that the Minister relies upon is essentially the summary of submissions as analysed by well the summary of the application because there's not a third-party submission process. That's the summary of the information that is provided by the applicant for the consent.There are some general provisions relating to forestry land such as that it is forestry land that on occasions are not true of part of the land; there could be for example a house and curtilage that is part of the land that is not going to be forested but the Overseas Investment Office can none the less say that overall this falls within the class of forestry land and should be approved according to that net-benefit test."
Bayly Andrew; Parker DavidANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): I'd like to acknowledge the Minister for such a fulsome answer. But to be honest my sense of history is perhaps just a little bit different in the sense that my recollection—and I was on the committee at the time so I remember going through it quite explicitly. So at the time that the original change which allowed up to 1000 hectares to be acquired by a foreign owner to come in here with very loose requirements for approval—basically you could buy up to 1000 hectares—was from my recollection actually a New Zealand First initiative supported by Government. But if you want to say it was Labour supported by New Zealand First it's fine. But at the time that that was introduced the members of the committee in Opposition parties were saying that they were concerned about the ability of foreigners to come and buy with a huge amount of ease a relative ease to come and buy swathes of land. That's not to say that we weren't interested in supporting the forestry industry; we were. But we were all very concerned. The Opposition parties were all very concerned about the ease of it.So here we are. Just to go back to my original question that was the result of arguments put up by you—and I'm talking to Mr Parker here—and New Zealand First as to why we should do that right? Now here we are a few years later and hey presto we look like we're going back almost to where we were before which is a much more regulatory approach. What are the drivers and why didn't you listen to people at the time?Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Because the National Party refused to back bringing in forest registration rights into the screening regime. That's the reason.Andrew Bayly: So you thought it was a good idea to do 1000 hectares?Hon DAVID PARKER: Well if we hadn't done that New Zealand would for ever have an ineffective screening regime. The member has just said he thinks there should be some restrictions on overseas investment into forestry and that there should be a consent regime around it. There would have been no effective consent regime because you could get around buying freehold and leasehold interest by buying a very long-term forest registration right. And it was happening and that was explained by me to the House at the time.
SpeechOVERSEAS INVESTMENT (FORESTRY) AMENDMENT BILLIn CommitteePart 1 Amendments to Part 2 (consent and conditions regime)CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Members we now come to the Overseas Investment (Forestry) Amendment Bill. I'll remind members that they're able to participate remotely. If you're on Zoom and want to take a call please type call" into the chat. You should also use the chat if you want to raise a point of order.If we receive any tabled amendments I will advise members so that they can refresh the House Papers page to see the new amendment.Finally it would be helpful of members to ask multiple questions—if they have them—of the member in charge during their call. Members we now come to Part 1. The question is that Part 1 stand part."
Belich CamillaCAMILLA BELICH (Labour): I move That the committee report progress presently and move to consider the Overseas Investment (Forestry) Amendment Bill.Motion agreed to.Progress to be reported.
Estimates Debate — Environment and Oceans and Fisheries
Simpson Scott; Parker DavidHon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you Mr Chair. I just want to come back to Jobs for Nature and particularly focus my last question on the funding. The $1 billion or more that was invested in the Jobs for Nature programme was of course part of the Government's COVID stimulation package to pump money into the economy. Some of the projects have been very worthwhile—there's no denying that—but some have been less effective.My question to the Minister is: what is going to happen to the effective projects that will require ongoing funding when the money runs out? I'm particularly concerned about the conifer and wilding pine eradication programmes that require ongoing treatment to ensure that seed viability over sometimes a decade or more doesn't just wipe out the good work that has been done to date.Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Thank you for that question. I agree that there's not much point funding things that rely upon continued effort to be sustained if you can't rely on the continued effort. I sat on the panel of Ministers that approved projects and that was one of the things that we quizzed officials on in respect of projects. That's obviously true of some of the Department of Conservation predator control work in respect of native forests. They assured us that the projects that we were funding were likely to be enduring.In respect of wilding pine control the member will be aware that there's been some decades of work done there already. We've managed to give it a gee along but it won't be finished in the time that Jobs for Nature finishes. There is some good news about that in that there are new control techniques including some selective poisons—herbicides that didn't used to be available—which meant that there was a much more expensive form of wilding pine control involving actually physically cutting down the tree. But now sprays are able to substitute that.I expect in the future there will be new technologies including probably in our lifetimes—touch wood—the use of drones and other things to particularly target individual or groups of trees.
Court Simon; Parker DavidSIMON COURT (ACT): Just coming back to recycling Minister currently glass and aluminium have very high recovery rates. It appears that it's the plastics that have little value and are therefore the problem to solve with recycling. We've heard from packaging industry representatives and brewers that the container deposit scheme could add $6 to $8 on to a box of beer—$6 to $8 in the middle of a cost of living crisis at 20c a can; $6 to $8 to those of us who like a beer. Yet the packaging industry have said they would be prepared to set up their own scheme at no cost to the taxpayer and they believe that they can get recycling rates up to something that the Ministry for the Environment believes that the Government could with its own scheme.So would the Minister give assurances that any container deposit scheme will firstly not impose a cost on business? The scheme as currently devised proposes to locate container deposit banks in supermarket car parks and to force supermarkets to accommodate these things—busy supermarket car parks in urban environments which are already under pressure already struggling with supply chain issues health and safety issues in car parks. So would the Minister give an assurance that a container deposit scheme won't add any extra cost on to that box of beer for those of us who like a beer and like to buy it in bulk; it won't add any cost to households; and certainly won't add any administrative costs to taxpayers who unfortunately under this Minister's Government appeared to be carrying the can for a whole lot of bad policy Minister?Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Look I won't try to compete in the recycling puns. I can absolutely assure the member that his beer's not going to go up by $6 to $8 a pack of beer. The Queensland Productivity Commission recently did a report on the container deposit scheme that's been introduced in Queensland. Virtually everywhere in Australia now has one a lot of countries in Europe have them and indeed New Zealand used to have them for beer and fizzy drinks and we think it would be progress if we went back to that. I would refer the member to that productivity commission study. I won't quote the figure because I think I might get it wrong but the cost per beverage container has turned out to be much lower than was even modelled and certainly was much much much lower than the apocryphal stories that were told by critics of the scheme over there before it was introduced.In respect of the supermarket issue I do find the criticism ironic really given that most of the waste streams that we're trying to deal with actually come out of supermarkets in the first place. So I don't have too much of a problem making it convenient for people to return their containers when they're going to the supermarket. When they've got them in their boot they can take them and put them into a reverse vending machine in large supermarkets. It won't happen for every supermarket but we know from overseas experience that the success of these schemes depends in part on the convenience of the return venues that are accessible to people who want to return their containers.
Simpson Scott; Parker DavidHon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you Mr Chair. I'd like to come back to resource management issues. In particular I'm keen to know from the Minister what progress has been made on the templated plans and if there has been progress when will they be made public?Secondly has he finalised which three regions will be selected to develop the first Spatial Planning Act (SPA) and Natural and Built Environments Act (NBA) plans?Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): There is work that is being done by the ministry to develop templates. They're not finished yet and they will be developed as the first three model plans are prepared. To a certain extent it'll be trial by doing". We did consider having one format and just doing one trial plan but we thought that we would learn more if we had three running and took the best of them rather than just thinking we would get it right in one.In terms of which areas will be the three we haven't finalised that. We're anticipating that decision being taken by about November—I think it is from memory; might be October. I think it's November. We're looking to have a variety of different regions. I would like one region to include the mix of a metropolitan centre rural issues and provincial centres and their suite of environmental and development issues. Another one which could be a unitary authority which covers both regional and district council functions and a third where there are complex overlapping iwi issues.Which reminds me that another question that I didn't address of Mr Court's was whether we're proposing a co-governance model. We're not proposing a fifty-fifty co-governance model but we are proposing that Māori have a role on the planning committees. But it won't be a co-governance arrangement in the manner that he describes."