edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Bennett DavidHon DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): Thank you Madam Speaker. I'd just like to follow the two speakers on this bill so far and to reiterate the support for Todd Muller who has brought this bill forward to the House. Todd Muller has done an excellent job in making sure that this bill has passed through the committee stage of the House and is now going to be into law at some point in the near future. It is a small piece of legislation that does cover up an area of law in which there would be some dispute or some inaccuracy with many not knowing the real context in which a decision is made by a company that wanted to do dividends in this manner. To clarify that is really important for our cooperative sector and I think at this time it's important to acknowledge the strong cooperatives we've got in New Zealand that are the backbone of New Zealand agriculture and that provide our farmers with the ability to compete on a world stage that they would not have if we didn't have a cooperative base. Legislation like this that assists those cooperatives in managing their finances and their shares and their approach is vital to enabling them to be able to have the tools to actually compete and deliver for New Zealand farmers. So this bill although small in its scope does have an important role in backing our farming sector and backing our cooperatives that are vital to the future of New Zealand going forward. So I'd like to thank all those involved on both sides of the House for the way that they conducted this through the committee. It was done in a very reasoned approach and we've got a good bill here that will deliver the outcome that's been wanted. Thank you.
Speaker's Statements — End of Life Choice Bill—Allocation of Calls
Mallard TrevorWEDNESDAY 13 NOVEMBER 2019The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.SPEAKER'S RULINGSEnd of Life Choice Bill—Allocation of CallsSPEAKER: Members before we move to questions I just want to give an indication with regard to the End of Life Choice Bill debate third reading. I have received a note from a member with some advice from a particular group from a particular party as to the allocation of calls. If I took that advice and was balanced it would mean that no one else with that point of view or from that party would get a 10-minute call. Therefore I'm not prepared to accept that advice. But as guidance I want to indicate that I will attempt through the debate to get balance on an issue to be even-handed around the House and to give some preference to people who have shown leadership on the issue during the period who worked hard on the select committee. I will take into account those who have already had calls in the earlier readings of the bill. I will have regard to seniority in the House. I will have regard to attendance during the debate and the fact that people have been seeking the call. I will give preference to people who have indicated that they would prefer a five-minute as opposed to a 10-minute speech but I will allocate on the basis that early speakers in the debate will receive 10 minutes unless they have indicated to me that they would prefer five minutes and people should do that by way of note.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That Part 2 be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 57New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Part 2 agreed to.Clause 1A party vote was called for on the question That clause 1 be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 57New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Clause 1 agreed to.Clause 2A party vote was called for on the question That clause 2 be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 57New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Clause 2 agreed to.Clause 3A party vote was called for on the question That clause 3 be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 57New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Clause 3 agreed to.House resumed.The Chairperson reported the Public Finance (Wellbeing) Amendment Bill without amendment.Report adopted.
Carter David; Rurawhe AdrianRt Hon DAVID CARTER (National): I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The member has just moved that the question be now put. We need to vote on that.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Yes that's right and I did not accept that motion. No other member stood to take a call. If they had they would have got the call. Therefore I must put the question. I'll repeat the question.
Allan KiritapuKIRITAPU ALLAN (Assistant Whip—Labour): I move That the question be now put.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): The question is that Part 2 stand part. All those in favour say Aye—
Robertson GrantHon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): As I said in my answer to the Rt Hon David Carter this is a matter I traversed in an earlier question but I will repeat my material for the member Alastair Scott's benefit. So not only is it to line up with the other long-term reporting obligations that are in the Public Finance Act which are four-yearly; it is also because of the way that data does arrive. We're obliged to do a Budget every year but actually a lot of the data that we rely on as a country in terms of wellbeing does not come annually. The General Social Survey is the core actually of a lot of the data that is part of Treasury's Living Standards Framework. That is not produced in a way that can be updated every single year; so a four-yearly framework provides the ability to have the richest set of data. Four years is the judgment of where we can get that data and it will be meaningful and that it lines up with the other elements of Treasury's reporting framework.In terms of the member's second question around their independence and what they will measure I just refer him to section 26NA(4) inserted by clause 7 which includes with the amendment here that The statement of responsibility must state that the investment statement has been prepared by Treasury using its best professional judgements." So this is about Treasury's judgment and in actual fact it's in many ways a recognition of the fact that the annual wellbeing objectives and reporting will reflect the Government of the day's view the four-yearly one will actually reflect Treasury's view and to be very specific on the member's question they may well differ from what the Government of the day has said its wellbeing objectives are."
Scott AlastairALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa): Thank you Mr Chair for the opportunity. I wanted to talk about two things. I don't think the Minister's answered David Carter's question around the four years and I just want to understand why four years not just because other reports are done four-yearly but I want to know why four years. David Carter sort of suggested annually—you know quite short—or at least asked the questions. My question is why is it not five-yearly or six-yearly because these Titanics" these targets take a long time to turn to make a difference and to me at least four years seems to be quite a short period of time. I understand that it's good that it's not a three-yearly political cycle—I get all that. But I want to know his thinking around why four years and I don't want to hear the answer "Well just because there are other reports that are reported four-yearly." The second question I have is around the definition of "independent" relating to Treasury's report. David Carter also sort of hinted and got to part of my question but again it wasn't addressed by the Minister. The Minister talked about the Labour Government's framework and targets being able to be slotted into this bill and another National Government will be able to create their own framework or targets and it would neatly—but have to turn their mind to these certain things. So I get all that. So my question is: when Treasury is doing their report when you talk about Minister "independent" does Treasury consider the Government's framework and targets and emphasis or not? Is Treasury purely independent and do they have absolutely no consideration of the Government's emphasis whether it's a National Government or a Labour Government's emphasis and look to conduct their own independent surveys of what New Zealanders wish to focus on and want to define as "wellbeing" and go out and survey globally what Australians the UK Canadians consider to be wellbeing?Because it's quite difficult—we've talked about the definition of "wellbeing" and we're not going to go there again but I want to understand what "independent" means as far as Treasury's role in producing this report. Is Treasury going to be dragged in as David Carter suggested to comment on the political nature of the Government's frameworks the Government's emphasis you know the pillar that that particular Government wants to focus on or is Treasury absolutely not considering the Government of the day's framework that is inserted into this bill?"
Robertson GrantHon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I thank the member for his questions some of which have already been asked; so I will repeat the answers for the benefit of the member but they have already been asked. The ones that haven't were around other countries and it was interesting actually—was it yesterday morning or the morning before—that I had a conference call with the Canadian Minister of—a fantastic name for her portfolio I might say—Middle Class Prosperity. She is also an associate finance Minister in Canada and she specifically initiated the call to be able to learn about the experience that New Zealand had had when it came to our Wellbeing Budget. It was a very useful and interesting conversation. I find I learn a lot from those conversations as well as different countries are embracing this approach of not just valuing the narrow numbers on a spreadsheet—Rt Hon David Carter: Just one.Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No I was giving you the latest example Mr Carter and others include France Italy Spain Wales Scotland the United Arab Emirates and Costa Rica. These are all countries—and the member may be interested; in fact I'll invite him given he's so interested to have a look at the network of countries that work on these issues. I know that when I delivered a speech about this at the London School of Economics in January last year this is now a field of very serious endeavour within the study of economics and wellbeing economics and so this is genuinely a topic. And I know the member was looking for ways of coming up with questions but that is the answer to his question.The matter of why it's four years was answered in an earlier question. It's to align it with the investment strategy and the long-term statement of fiscal position so that those are four-yearly reports and so I have already answered that on the minute. On the member's final matter what I can say to him is that the two events the wellbeing outlook and framework and the Treasury's particular health and safety and operational matter are utterly unrelated things. So the work on the wellbeing approach is not related at all to what was an internal operational matter around how—Rt Hon David Carter: So they're still playing cards.Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: —to support New Zealanders well. You'd have to ask the Secretary to the Treasury that but not related in any way whatsoever Mr Carter to this bill.
Robertson GrantHon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Effectively the answers to the member's questions come down to one very fundamental principle: how serious a Government is about holding itself accountable for the overall effects and outcomes of the programme of its work. At Budget time each year the Minister of Finance since 1989 has stood up and been held accountable for the fiscal outcomes of the Government. Our view is that that's not good enough; that actually a Government should be responsible across the board for outcomes not just in a narrow set of fiscal indicators. So it's actually about how seriously our Government thinks it should be held accountable and how serious it is about the overall wellbeing objectives and outcomes for New Zealanders. We believe on this side of the House that we should be taken seriously and that we should have accountability for those things and the Public Finance Act and Treasury's role in both monitoring that Act but also in monitoring the overall outcomes means that they are well placed to produce this report.In terms of the second set of questions which are really around the role of the Social Wellbeing Board that used to be the Social Investment Agency it does bring us back to the difference between the last Government's approach to these issues and this Government's approach. Yes Treasury developed the Living Standards Framework under Sir Bill English's tenure as finance Minister. He however didn't see that it had a role clearly within the Budget process. The National Party have changed their position on that because Todd Muller said two Sundays ago that he does see it having a role in the Budget process but Bill English didn't. Bill English allowed the work to continue and supported it I'm sure at a conceptual level but he didn't see it as being closely involved. The member is correct in saying that Mr English was very focused on the social investment approach. Personally and from this Government's point of view that was a very narrow way of looking at wellbeing because what it did was take an actuarial approach: put people really as numbers on a spreadsheet and move them around. This approach is much broader; this approach is clearly about making sure we look at a range of wellbeing objectives not just fiscal ones and I've been through the four capitals of the framework several times in my interventions.So from the member's perspective she's asking Well why Treasury? Why the Public Finance Act?" Because Treasury is responsible for the overall value for money of our spending and that includes more than just dollars and cents; it includes the outcomes that we want for New Zealanders."
Robertson GrantPart 2 Wellbeing reportHon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Part 2 of the bill deals with the responsibilities of Treasury with regard to wellbeing reporting. Part 1 was about the Government of the day dealing with the fiscal strategy report that the Government of the day is responsible for. Part 2 deals with Treasury producing an independent analysis of wellbeing in New Zealand. There was some debate as we prepared this legislation about how regularly that kind of report should be delivered. Obviously the Government delivers a Budget each year. So in Part 1 the fiscal strategy report would reflect wellbeing objectives each year. In order for Treasury being able to produce that report and to do it in such a way with a decent amount of data available being able to draw on data that doesn't necessarily update annually but updates over a longer period of time we determined that four years was the appropriate length of time. The other reason for that is that there are two other elements within the Public Finance Act within the public finance reporting that is mentioned in the Public Finance Act; that is the statement on the long-term fiscal position and the Government's investment statement. They are also four-yearly reports; so we thought it was best to line the three of those reports up on the same time frame in order to be able to get some consistency within reporting that the Government does under the Public Finance Act.It is important for the integrity of this process that Treasury is able to do this work independently of the Government of the day just as they do on all the other aspects of their reporting within the Public Finance Act framework. So this is the partner to the activities of the Government of the day and Treasury will be producing these reports in line with their other fiscal reporting.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Education and Training Bill be now read a second time.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 48New Zealand National 46; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Bill read a second time.
Luxton JoJO LUXTON (Labour): Thank you Mr Speaker. I must admit after listening to the contributions from the Opposition I'm a little confused as to where they stand. They support many things within this piece of legislation but then they don't support pieces of this legislation. So I would say it's a matter of opposition for opposition's sake actually.But one of the things I do want to talk about briefly is around the fact that people who provide home-based early childhood education—other members of their household will now have to be police vetted and I think that that makes perfect sense. Because in an early childhood setting every person that teaches or works in that setting when children are around must be vetted and so I see this as an extremely important step towards ensuring that our tamariki are kept safe while in their education and care facilities whether it be centres or whether it be home-based.Huge piece of legislation fantastic piece of legislation and I commend this bill to the House.
Garcia PauloPAULO GARCIA (National): I stand to make a contribution to the Education and Training Bill. It seeks to accomplish—it has a large scope. It wants to put together a number of existing legislation and consolidate it into the bill. It is a good thing the consolidation. While that is a good thing the resulting centralisation of control in the Ministry of Education is something that National does not support. National believes that it is indeed sensible to put the things together but there are portions of the bill that National opposes. I am a trustee in a board in a school in the place where I live. Speaking to the exchange about being a volunteer or not I do believe that I'm a volunteer. I am paid a meeting fee which is donated to the school—so essentially there is still consideration for being a trustee. Being a trustee I've seen how much work goes into the board into the meetings and how much work and effort the parents of the school put into being involved in the direction of the school. Taking away the authority or taking away the opportunity for the board of trustees to make decisions and discuss and review the setting of the zonal geographic requirements of the students is something that the trustees actually—it's a part of the desire to give service to the board and taking it away is not something that they would agree to I think.The National Party also on the other hand agrees with and supports some portions of the bill. Removing barriers to foreign teachers who can become registered and come to New Zealand to teach is a good thing. The dispute resolution is a very good step forward in the sense that it gives to the students and the parents the opportunity for a discussion outside when they have had no success from the school. This process needs to be fleshed out because there have been concerns from submitters saying that they are not fully aware how this system could be worked out in practical terms.The amount of work that has gone into the consolidation of legislation is such a big effort that running through the six-month period with three months of that period done during the lockdown makes it seem insufficient in terms of the opportunity that the public may have had to make submissions. Although many have been made I understand that only about 23 boards of trustees were able to make submissions. So that's a bit of a concern as well.Ultimately National believes in making sure—I'm sorry my time has ended.
Lubeck MarjaMARJA LUBECK (Labour): Thank you Mr Speaker. You can just tell a lazy Opposition when they say that a six-month process is a rushed process. They obviously don't do anything at all. As we've heard already in the speeches this bill is a revamp of the whole education legislative framework. It puts a new structure in place. It's more modern. It's more reflective of a less prescriptive education environment and in general it reflects all the many tidy-ups that are quite frankly long overdue.What really thrills me though is the aspect of lifelong learning in this bill something that this Government is obviously investing in heavily. We saw that recently with a boost into adult and community education. This bill's been through a very thorough process. We've heard 545 submissions. A quarter of those gave oral submissions and I'd like to thank all those submitters who came. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you Mr Speaker.
VoteThe question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Papers 517 and 519 in the name of the Hon David Parker to Part 1 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 57New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Amendments agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That Part 1 as amended be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 57New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Part 1 as amended agreed to. Part 2 Amendments on other enactmentsA party vote was called for on the question That Part 2 be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 57New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Part 2 agreed to.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 517 in the name of the Hon David Parker to the Schedule be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 57New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Amendments agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the Schedule as amended be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 57New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Schedule as amended agreed to.Clause 1A party vote was called for on the question That clause 1 be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 57New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Clause 1 agreed to.Clause 2The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 517 in the name of the Hon David Parker to clause 2 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 57New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Amendments agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That clause 2 as amended be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 57New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Clause 2 as amended agreed to.House resumed.The Chairperson reported the Resource Management Amendment Bill with amendment.Report adopted.
Parker DavidHon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): None of those matters are in this bill.
Falloon AndrewANDREW FALLOON (National—Rangitata): Thank you Mr Chair. I wasn't planning on taking a call on this bill this afternoon but I couldn't help myself listening to the Minister for the Environment the Hon David Parker in relation to this bill because the process that he outlined in relation to the Essential Freshwater proposal that was put out last year is actually nothing like what the process was because this was a Minister who put out a proposal for a dissolved inorganic nitrogen (DIN) level of 1—of 1. Now just to put that into context in parts of mid-Canterbury you've got farms that are next door to Department of Conservation land you've got farms that are next door to Landcorp land which have DIN levels of 3.2 coming on to their property. So you're already dealing with farms that cannot reach that standard. The Minister actually accepted that—the Minister accepted that—by then saying well actually a DIN level of 1 isn't possible so let's axe that and instead come up with a nitrogen toxicity level increase of 80 percent to 95 percent. The Ministers accept—in fact Minister O'Connor across the Chamber has accepted that would be I think from memory a DIN level of 2.4. So both Ministers have accepted that a DIN level of 1 is not actually possible. The Minister in the chair has accepted that even though he isn't particularly open to suggesting that this afternoon. But what you have in Canterbury is that farmers across the board are saying that 1 and 2.4 are equally unachievable" because they've been working towards a standard of 6.9.Hon Member: Rubbish.ANDREW FALLOON: Well the Minister heard it himself two weeks ago— Hon Damien O'Connor: They're not equally unachievable.ANDREW FALLOON: They are exactly saying that. In Hinds Minister—Hon Damien O'Connor: They're not equal.ANDREW FALLOON: In Hinds Minister—how do you think Minister a farmer can get to 2.4 in the Hinds catchment? Take a call and tell us explain to us how a farmer in the Hinds catchment is going to get to 2.4. Farmers across Canterbury have been working towards a DIN level of 6.9 under the ECan proposal which they consider to be very ambitious but they've been working towards it in good faith. The Government are now throwing that out bringing in a DIN level of 2.4. I do want to come back to the Minister's other comment in relation to how he has treated everyone fairly whether they be in urban areas or in rural areas. Well Minister in 2017 you were down in Ashburton and you were threatening farmers—you were threatening farmers. Mr Parker turned up to a public meeting in Ashburton where he said if farmers keep pushing him over what the water tax will be he will double it. Well Minister take a call and tell us when you've ever done that to an urban dweller when you've ever told a person in a city—when you've ever threatened a person in a city to double their tax if they continue to push them."
Parker DavidHon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Well responding to the first point the Minister of Agriculture the Hon Damien O'Connor is always keen to prevent the perception that there is a rural-urban divide; so am I. In virtually every speech that I give about these issues I give examples in both urban and rural areas. Some of the people who decry what they assert to be an urban-rural split actually cause it. I do sadly have to put on record that at the time of the launch of the Essential Freshwater proposals for public submission I together with the Minister of Agriculture and the Prime Minister were all in a meeting where agricultural lobby groups said that they would respond maturely and moderately through the submission process to what was to be launched the following Monday. The following Monday representatives of Federated Farmers said that this was the end of pastoral farming as they knew it. Of course that caused great alarm within the farming community in part because those incendiary comments were picked up by rural newspapers and presented to all of the farming groups who were understandably concerned that this was going to be the end of pastoral farming as they knew it.Andrew Falloon: How would you farm at a dissolved inorganic nitrogen (DIN) level of 1 in mid-Canterbury? Hon DAVID PARKER: Well actually in respect of that question all of the gravel bottom rivers in Canterbury are already under a DIN of 1 so that's how you do it.Andrew Falloon: How about Hinds?Hon DAVID PARKER: Well actually those issues were very properly canvassed as a consequence of the meetings that were held including the meeting in Washdyke just near Timaru I think it was that the Minister of Agriculture myself and the member was present at. So those issues had been worked through. But the responsibility that we all have for waterways in both urban and rural areas is a joint responsibility that we all own as citizens in order to pass on to the next generation the same things that we inherited from our parents. And I don't mean inherited in a property rights sense but you know I am someone who still swims in rivers. I really love the fact that I can pop down to my local river in summer and pop my head under without the risk of getting crook. And I've got to say that although I still swim in a lot of rivers there's occasions when I think Oh I'm not sure I should be putting my head under." That's rational because in some of the rivers that I used to swim in that are now no longer as clean as they were when I was younger it probably would be wise for me not to put my head under. I want to get us back to a country which I think is an ambition that's shared by rural and urban folk alike that we can pop down to our local river and put our head under without the risk of getting crook."
Simpson ScottHon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you I appreciate the Minister the Hon David Parker making that clear. So I just want to come back to some of the questions about water particularly the issue that sometimes is prevalent—and it may be more of a perception than a reality but it's certainly very real to many people particularly in provincial and rural communities—that there is a kind of anti-farmer tone to much of the Government's legislative programme and that the Resource Management Act changes have a Let's deal to farmers rather than deal with farmers" mind-set. Now I'm happy to accept—and I'm sure the Minister will probably refute that but that presence that sense of perception does exist.One of the areas that I guess helps reinforce that perception are things like the increasing in this bill of fines for stock exclusion infringements. So the bill in Part 1 will see the fine for stock exclusion infringements going up to $2000. Many farmers would see that that is pretty steep pretty heavy—and I realise that the $2000 is a maximum but they would say "Well isn't the impact of a city dweller dumping rubbish fly tipping rubbish into an urban waterway in a calculated deliberate fashion potentially more harmful than the accidental breaching by cattle of a rural waterway that was not intended that was not malicious that was not premeditated?" Yet there doesn't seem to be a similar balance in terms of the impact on people who degrade deliberately and in a premeditated way our urban waterways.So I'm interested just to get a sense of what the Minister's view is about the bigger picture of the urban-rural split if you like the perception that some people in our rural communities will have and also how he thinks that this piece of legislation will actually focus on albeit the physically shorter urban waterways but the demonstrably dirtier urban waterways."
Parker DavidHon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): I'm happy to respond to that. It's not strictly within the terms of this but yes the end of May was the intended date; of course COVID interrupted. The chair as you say is very efficient and determined to meet his time obligations so he provided a draft but incomplete report a little while ago because he wanted to show he was very close to that original time frame. There are a couple of parts that were yet to be finished and I'm expecting to receive them within weeks and I'm expecting the whole report very promptly thereafter then to be provided to the public after it's gone to Cabinet.
Simpson ScottHon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you Mr Chair. I want to just pick up a little bit on what the Minister for the Environment the Hon David Parker was just saying and also further some questions that my colleague the Hon Nathan Guy was asking about as well. But just a quick question: has the Minister seen a draft of the Randerson report? He seems to be reasonably au fait with what it might or might not have and his comments just a moment or two ago follow on from comments that he made in select committee earlier today that would indicate that maybe a draft has been seen or indeed the full report has already been received by him. It was due to be received I think at the end of May and knowing Judge Randerson as many of us do I would be surprised if it wasn't a timely delivery of a report like that.
Guy NathanHon NATHAN GUY (National—Ōtaki): Mr Chair thank you. I just want to acknowledge the Minister for the Environment the Hon David Parker for his very comprehensive overview of his thinking which I think when he outlines it the way that he has done sort of makes some logical sense. We know that this is incredibly technical it involves lawyers we know that there's a big planning process around all of this and he's also talked about numerous examples of water quality where it is degrading. I was waiting for him to talk about water quality in the cities because that's a hell of an issue. It's not a rural issue on its own but with cities. When I used to get around the traps I would always have to defend farmers and things and I'd say Well actually do you know where the most polluted water body in the country is? It's not too far from downtown Auckland." No doubt the Minister will try and dispute that and I'd be interested to hear what his officials think as well. But importantly one aspect that the Minister didn't talk about was the costs but he may well have been going to address that just before he sat down. I think the Minister was framing up that the costs in his mind are going to be less because the time frame for the bureaucracy part may indeed be truncated. So I'd be keen—not now but at some stage this afternoon—to hear from the Minister on the indicative costs of this process and what he alluded to was that that's likely to fall back on the regional council. But what I'm just keen to know is: can we get a sense that these costs are they going to be more than what regional councils may indeed have budgeted for policy statements to meet these bottom lines in terms of processes or not and does the Minister have a view that these costs if they are potentially going to be higher could end up meaning that rates may increase as a result?"
Guy NathanHon NATHAN GUY (National—Ōtaki): Thank you very much Madam Chair and thank you Minister for the Environment the Hon David Parker for the engagement this afternoon. I do like this new format where we can pose some questions and get good clear and succinct responses and I appreciate you turning to your officials if there is any element of doubt.A big part of Part 1 is the establishment of a Freshwater Commissioner and a panel and I'm curious to ask some questions about that and as I understand how it's going to work there'll be as we know regional policy statements aligning with national policy statements—or they might be different. So the Government of the day may have national policy statements; as we do 2014 for freshwater management. And then the regional council or unitary authority calls for submissions; they write a report. At that point as I understand it that goes to the Freshwater Commissioner and then the commissioner or the panel will make a decision with I think limited appeal rights that follow that. I'm curious to know from the Minister this afternoon about the cost of that process. Who is indeed going to incur the cost?I guess there's another topical aspect of this that I wouldn't mind having a discussion with the Minister this afternoon about. We know that there's a proposed dam up in Northland—Ngawha; it's been publicised recently. There's another aspect that the Environment Committee are dealing with submissions through another Resource Management Act fast-track bill on the back of COVID-19 that's going to create jobs. How would it work hypothetically if that particular dam was to apply through the Northland Regional Council? It could well be for a water consent or a water take. How would the Freshwater Commissioner and the panel be a part of that process?I'm curious if the Minister when he gets up next to speak could talk a little bit about the practicalities of how the commissioner and the panel would work and I'm also keen to hear from him about likely and indicative costs of this and where those costs would lie. Would they fall back to the regional council? In which case would they then get passed on to their whole ratepayer base—in terms of would there be an increase of rates as a result of having this panel set up? Or would indeed a specific application go straight to the panel—let's say a private sector applicant that ends up there? Their application goes through to the commissioner and through to the panel. Would those costs therefore fall back on the individual or the entity that is indeed requesting a water take or other examples?
Parker DavidHon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Responding to the first point about the increasing length of the Resource Management Act (RMA) I agree that's a valid criticism of the Act and successive amendments to the RMA have just kept adding to its length. That's one of the focuses of the review being led by the Hon Tony Randerson QC which is due to report back in a matter of weeks. In the meantime this amendment bill goes some way to removing the different alternative process tracks for consents and plans which have grown like—well they've just grown ever more varied and complex. One of the provisions of this bill is to remove the collaborative planning process. The last Government added many tens if not—I think it might've been close to—100 pages of text to the Act by codifying collaborative planning processes which were already permissible by councils on a non-codified basis. The codified process made it more rigid. In fact the codified planning process has never been used so one of the provisions of this bill which removes complexity and decreases the length of the RMA is to repeal those provisions.In respect of development contributions and financial contributions the advice that the Environment Committee got that that I sat on with the Hon Scott Simpson was that there was no double-up and that remains the advice. We received submissions both at that select committee and subsequently from some councils who have set up their long-term provision of infrastructure and from memory I think this was in particular around the Tauranga area where their smart growth corridors have had long-term plans to recover some of the infrastructure that are put in by the council at the cost of ratepayers over the long term by developments through financial contributions. As a consequence we were satisfied on the basis of the advice that we have that one there is absolutely no double dipping and two financial contributions should be retained.
Simpson ScottHon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Just while the Minister for the Environment is getting some advice on that there's another matter that I wanted to raise. The purpose of this piece of legislation states that the objectives of the bill are to reduce complexity increase certainty restore public participation opportunities and improve Resource Manage Management Act 1991 processes. As the Minister's just said this is a long complicated and multi-faceted piece of legislation. The Resource Management Act itself I think when it was first passed 30-odd years ago was something around 300 pages; it now runs close to 900 pages. This is the 19th I think significant amendment to it in its history. A piece of legislation that is already complicated largely unintelligible to lay people costly time consuming and expensive—surely part of the process that should be being applied here is to try and reduce cost and particularly if that can assist in reducing the cost of building homes.Now one of the changes that the Minister's wanting to make in this amendment is a reversal again of a change that was made by the last National-led Government under the guidance of the then Minister for the Environment the Hon Dr Nick Smith. It relates to the issue of financial contributions and development contributions. The original Resource Management Act provided for financial contributions and also separately under the Local Government Act there was a provision for development contributions. It was our view and still is that that is effectively allowing local government to essentially double dip in that they are taking what's really simply two bites at the development financial contribution cherry. So that was under National's legislation phased out and in short it meant that the financial contributions were not available to councils. This piece of legislation reinstates those financial contributions and means that then as well as the development contributions under the Local Government Act combined you'll have just extra cost and a layer of cost to building houses making them more expensive. Surely that's not the objective of the legislation.So I'm keen to know what the Minister's rationale and motivation is for essentially allowing local government to have two bites at the development financial contribution cherry.
Parker DavidHon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): I'll just check with officials as to whether that's possible under the legislation but if that is possible I don't think it would happen often.
Stanford EricaERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Could the Minister then foresee a situation where a local authority starts an investigation and the Environmental Protection Authority then takes it over and then hands it back to the local authority?
Parker DavidHon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Well I suppose it would be theoretically possible to more codify the conditions on which that discretion could be exercised but I would suggest that one that's unnecessary and two it would add complexity and length to an already complex and lengthy Act and I'm quite satisfied that the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) can make decisions normally in consultation with the local authority as to where and when they should intervene. I can envisage in some situations it will be done at the request of local authorities.Now the EPA's not always going to accede to those requests from local authorities because this primarily should remain a responsibility of local authorities; they should be attending to their own monitoring and enforcement regimes. But on some occasions they might come to central government and say Look this is actually a very important test case. We think central government should be paying attention to it." In those situations it may well be that the EPA was willing to take it over."
Stanford EricaERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you Madam Chair. Look I thank the Minister for the answer and we don't disagree that having the expertise of the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) there to undertake those investigations and any enforcement actions is a good thing when the local authority isn't able to do it. But the problem that the submitters brought up was that the lack of certainty and criteria or factors for when they definitely would be the body to investigate. So the submitters are saying We don't know because there's no criteria in there to show me which—is it going to be the local authority or is it going to be the EPA?" But further to that their problem is we could start an investigation under the local authority and then halfway through find that the EPA come in over the top and take over the investigation. That's a problem because you can imagine they've gone through cost and time and lawyers' fees and then to pretty much have to start the process all over again with the EPA you might even find that they get all the way to the end of an investigation with a local authority and then have the EPA go through that all over again. So you can see the lack of certainty and the cost for these guys they're worried about.So look I understand what you've said but you haven't addressed the points that they bring up and that I'm raising in terms of the lack of certainty and the factors that could be laid out in the bill to actually state exactly when the EPA are going to undertake an investigation and to give more certainty around whether or not the EPA can come in over the top of a local authority and take over halfway through or indeed even at the end. I'm just hoping the Minister might be able to respond to those points."
Parker DavidHon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Responding first to the first point raised by Mr Simpson we are reinstating the presumption that is actually reflected in most rules and most plans around the country and the member is correct that we have reversed the changes late in the term of the last Government. It's part of a suite of changes that are intended to return to the status quo before the amendment late in 2017 which we thought was wrong in principle. In essence the effect of those changes was to remove rights of public participation and respective sub-divisional applications.I sat on the Environment Committee with Mr Simpson and he and I I'm sure both recall that one of the criticisms that was made of that rule by network operators like airports and people who operate quarries was that the effect of those rules was that reverse sensitivity effects of subdivisions adjacent to industrial activities that are none the less important to local economies couldn't be taken into account—or wouldn't necessarily be properly taken into account—because the owner of the quarry or the operator of the quarry or the airport wouldn't necessarily have a right of submission in respect of the nearby subdivision application. So over time that could result in a quarry necessary for a large city being encircled by residential development that would in the end put pressure for the closure of the quarry even though the quarry had been there first.In respect of the question in respect of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) having rights of information gathering and the right to mount prosecutions one of the problems that we have had in the system is that some councils as the member said have—partly because of the virtue of size and other factors—been unable to properly investigate breaches of their plans and breaches of the Resource Management Act (RMA). Sometimes they've been unable sometimes they've been unwilling and the Government believes that it's appropriate that the EPA have that power. It actually hasn't got a large budget to run away madly doing this all over the country but on occasions it can help.In terms of timeliness the statutory time frame or the statutory period of limitation for prosecutions under the RMA until this passes is six months. Even after this bill passes it's still only 12 months—so all of this stuff has to be done within 12 months anyway. The most recent example of where this probably would have been useful was following the big rain event that we had in the Gisborne region which resulted in a lot of debris flooding across farms destroying some buildings and clogging up beaches and it would have been useful for the EPA to have been able to directly help the Gisborne council in that event.