edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Stanford Erica; Rurawhe AdrianERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you. I just want to thank the Minister for her really good detailed answers. I've got another quite technical one sorry. Now new section 13FF is around the affected employers automatically covered by union claims. My interpretation of this is that there could be a case where employees have raised and/or settled a pay equity claim with an employer which would've involved every affected employee being notified of the claim with an option to join it and then at some point in the future a union could raise a claim against the same employer relating to the same work. Is that a correct interpretation? Am I right in assuming that? And why is the system set up so that an employer could have two consecutive claims laid—if that is the correct interpretation?Hon Julie Anne Genter: Sorry just checking that.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Does anyone want to take a call? Otherwise I can put the question.
McKelvie IanIAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): This is not a bill I envisaged taking a call on and I don't have any problem with the parameters of the bill. I think the idea and the ideals of it are excellent. The thing that amazes me is that the Supplementary Order Paper is double the size of the bill. I don't understand that for a start.The other thing I want to say is that where I come from I think equal work for equal pay is absolutely how the world should work and I watch down on the farm where you get the odd shearer that comes along who will get paid $3.20 a sheep or whatever it is whatever they are whoever they are and I think that's how it should be. The thing that absolutely amazes me and I want to ask the Minister about is what we are doing at half past 11 on whatever night it is—Thursday night I think it is—dragging a whole lot of staff out in the middle of the night to discuss a bill that is in my view of significant importance. Now whatever the economics of it are is irrelevant; the fact is that this is an important bill and I've never seen the final of the Super 12 or the Cricket World Cup played in the middle of the night with no one watching it and no one listening to it.So we've got this piece of legislation that's probably quite important in the terms of New Zealand Inc. and we're debating it at 25 past 11 on a Thursday night. That's my question Minister: what on earth are we doing with a piece of legislation that we think's important sticking it through the House with no one in the world listening to it but us and no one in the world taking any notice of what we say but us at 25 past 11 at night? Thank you.
SpeechJOANNE HAYES (National): Thank you Mr Speaker. I'm pleased to stand and talk on the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products (Vaping) Amendment Bill. Obviously this side is supporting the bill but I too want to acknowledge the Hon Nicky Wagner for the work that she has done in preparing everything and moving this particular bill forward.Anything to reduce the number of Māori smoking I support. This bill states that it will be a step towards helping Māori to reduce the amount of cigarette smoking tobacco smoking that they are currently smoking and it does concern me a lot especially Māori women who have very high tobacco smoking rates. I want to acknowledge Nicky for all the hard work she's done for the three Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) that she's put forward for the committee of the whole House process. I think that she has been really diligent and I have sat through a number of meetings in our caucus listening to the work that Nicky has done and it is pleasing to see that the Government has finally started to take notice of this bill. And as my colleague Simeon Brown has said it is almost a carbon copy of what the Hon Nicky Wagner had put together in her bill.We need to make sure that young people do not find and they have done vaping as an attractive alternative to smoking. I think it does look awful actually. I am a reformed tobacco smoker for many years now and to ride along behind someone who is vaping in their car and seeing all these clouds of vapour coming out it just looked very ugly and horrible. But anything to regulate the sale of vaping products and vaping has got to garner my support and that of this side of the House. So without any further ado I commend this bill to the House and look forward to hearing the debates around especially the Hon Nicky Wagner's SOPs. Thank you.Bill read a second time.
Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products (Vaping) Amendment Bill — Second Reading
Genter Julie AnneHon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Minister for Women): Tēnā koe Mr Speaker. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare. The Green Party is supporting this legislation. It strikes a really good balance. It's very important that vaping is able to be used as an effective tool to help people quit smoking. It's also important that it's properly regulated from a harm minimisation point of view so that we don't have large numbers of young people targeted with advertising and finding themselves taking up a new addictive habit. So the Green Party will be supporting this bill. I commend it to the House.
Brown SimeonSIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you Mr Speaker for the opportunity to take a short call on the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products (Vaping) Amendment Bill. In doing so I want to acknowledge the Hon Nicky Wagner who has spearheaded this issue from the National Party by putting her own member's bill forward which the Government has then essentially taken up and is shortly going to fix to ensure that it is essentially a carbon copy of the piece of legislation that she put forward in the first place.The unfortunate thing which has happened here is that the Government has dithered and delayed when it comes to regulating vaping products in New Zealand; has allowed the industry to grow substantially has allowed our young people to get access to these products and this has caused untold harm and caused all sorts of issues up and down our country. That is an indictment on this current Government which is now trying to pass this legislation in its dying days of Government here in July only two months out from the election where they will be kicked out of Government.This bill is being put forward as some way to achieve our smoke-free goals of 2025. Well New Zealanders know there's a referendum coming up at this election to legalise marijuana and to have smoking for marijuana. So we're going to have a goal to get to Smokefree Aotearoa 2025 and on the other hand we're going to be putting it to New Zealanders to legalise marijuana—Hon Tracey Martin: No nothing to do with vaping. Good on ya. SIMEON BROWN: Oh no well I hear some complaints. Well maybe you'll be able to vape marijuana as well. Oh but you'll also be able to have the edibles—the edible products. So it won't just be vaping or smoking; it'll be the edible products and there'll be the lollies and the cakes and there'll be all the other products as well.But anyway this bill has gone through a robust select committee process and I'm proud of the work that has been put into it. It is a pity though that it took so long for this Government to actually prioritise what was something which was needed. We've all heard the concern from parents from schools who get attracted by these products the issues that are being seen in our communities and now we have a bill which will finally bring some regulation to this important area and I commend it to the House.
Craig LizDr LIZ CRAIG (Labour): Thank you Madam Speaker. It's a real pleasure to stand in support of this bill. This is an incredibly important bill particularly for our children and young people but also for older New Zealanders. I think the fact that over 1200 submissions were received during this period shows that it's really important to New Zealanders as well. We heard 84 oral submissions and we heard these during lockdown and actually as a process it worked incredibly well. We had some wonderful conversations with a whole range of people ranging from retailers to public health experts to people working in vape shops and they told us a lot of important things around vaping and how we could improve the bill. The issue with the bill is that it tries to balance and does it quite well two separate aspects. One is that it wants to prevent young people taking up vaping and taking up smoking. So what it does is it bans sales to those under 18 but it also restricts advertising and it also restricts the flavours available in generic retailers like dairies to three flavours: menthol tobacco and mint. But on the other hand what we also need to be thinking about is how we can assist those who are smoking to transition to less harmful products. So in that respect what we heard is incredibly important again for smokers to have access to a whole range of different flavours and also to the expertise in specialist vape shops to take them through the different products and what would suit them best.A lot of the debate within the select committee focused on how we balance that and much of that focused around flavours. And in the debate really we heard a lot of submissions saying No we don't want to be able to have any vaping products or flavours in generic retailers." Others agreed with the three flavours that we have proposed. Others though said that fruit flavours and dessert flavours were important in assisting smokers to transition and we should expand the range of flavours. So there was quite a lot of debate there on where we needed to land and as a select committee we transitioned this debate and felt in favour of preventing the uptake by young people. And so we ended up landing on wanting to stay with those three flavours as proposed but also noting that regulations could be subsequently made down the line which would expand those. We also had quite a bit of discussion around what was a specialist retailer and what proportion of sales should be adjusted with vape products because the bill as introduced was 85 percent. But where we ended up was saying no we can reduce that down to 70 percent because the feedback was from many retailers that 85 percent was too high. And we also introduced a transition period so that vape retailers could for the first 12 months actually have about 50 percent of their sales with vape products and then moving up to 70 percent after 12 months to allow transition. This is an important bill and I think we landed on the right balance between stopping young people taking up vaping but also allowing flavours and access for those who want to transition to less harmful products. So I commend this bill to the House."
Lubeck MarjaMARJA LUBECK (Labour): Thank you Mr Speaker. Just a very short contribution from me as well which hopefully will draw some applause. This bill obviously will provide efficiency and cost reductions and remove unnecessary burdens. I commend it to the House. Thank you.
Genter Julie AnneHon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Minister for Women): I commend this bill to the House.
Kanongata'a-Suisuiki AnahilaANAHILA KANONGATA'A-SUISUIKI (Labour): Kia ora e Te Mana Whakawā. It's a privilege to give a very brief contribution to the Rates Rebate (Statutory Declarations) Amendment Bill. At the end of 2019 103000 people applied successfully for rates rebates. This bill will make it easier for those people to receive their claim. I commend this bill to the House.
SpeechMARK PATTERSON (NZ First): Thank you Mr Speaker. I rise to offer New Zealand First's continued support for this Rates Rebate (Statutory Declarations) Amendment Bill.As has been well traversed this bill removes the requirement for the statutory declaration when applying for a rates rebate and 102000 Kiwis applied for this rebate. It's an incredibly important mechanism to help our lower income and particularly our seniors. Some 79 percent of the users of the scheme were seniors.I had a young guy come up to me last weekend actually that I think encapsulates why this is a good bill. He's a guy that worked for Kiwibank and he was pitching for the SuperGold card to have photo ID because he said that there's so many of our seniors coming to the bank they no longer have a driver's licence they no longer have a passport and he often cannot help them because they haven't got the required ID. He has to send them out the door. I think that is an absolute example and I'm sure that happens around some of these statutory declarations.Lawrence Yule talked about the seniors struggling online and his mother and I think my mother—if you're watching Mum I think it's fair to say that you would and you bred me so I'd probably struggle to do it online as well being famously technophobic. But a lot of our seniors and Tracey Martin talks about this a lot as the Minister for Seniors are actually very savvy online. The witness to that is the SuperGold card and the new app which has had massive uptake. So I think we shouldn't underestimate how advantageous that will be for those particular seniors that are technologically savvy.So New Zealand First has no issue at all with supporting this. We think it's a good sensible bill. Simeon Brown pointed out it's probably not the biggest bill that's gone through the House but it is an important one for those 102000 people that it would've supported last year and will support this year. New Zealand First supports this bill. Thank you.
Radhakrishnan PriyancaPRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): Thank you Mr Speaker. It's actually an absolute pleasure to rise and take a call on the third reading of the Rates Rebate (Statutory Declarations) Amendment Bill because it was a bill that the Social Services and Community Committee considered. We heard from a number of submitters. And given that it's a third reading can I just at the outset acknowledge the Minister for the work that's gone into the bill to get it up to where it is today officials who helped members on the select committee and submitters who took time out of their day to give us their view as well.Now as has been said before this is a bill that makes actually quite a small change in a sense to the Rates Rebate Act to make it easier for those who are eligible to apply for a rates rebate—well easier to apply because they don't have to go and make a statutory declaration as the Minister said. We know from the research into it that the application process is actually—one of the biggest barriers to it is the requirement to make a statutory declaration. And this bill requires that need.Now the previous speaker mentioned that it potentially then opens the process up to fraud. I refute that because although there seems to be some concern from across the House really there is still a legal requirement for applicants to provide accurate information to the best of their knowledge and the same fraud prevention mechanisms that exist today will exist when this bill is passed as well. Applicants that provide false or misleading information are and will continue to be committing an offence under the Rates Rebate Act.So really this bill is about fairness. It makes the process that much easier for those who want to apply for a rates rebate especially those who have mobility issues for example can't travel all the way to get a witness for the statutory declaration process or can't wait in line as well. It makes it easier it reduces costs for our local territories it allows local councils to tweak the process to suit the needs of their people and at the end of the day it also stands up to the fraud provisions that are currently in the bill. I commend this bill to the House.
Tinetti JanJAN TINETTI (Labour): I commend this bill to the House.
O'Connor GregGREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): I often get in conversations with wool farmers who lament the lack of any coordination in the industry which results in very low wool returns and look for Government support to shore up that industry in some way—the same sort of support that actually will result in that same regulation around the forestry industry. So it's a matter of a little bit of consistency here—that there is a belief that somehow Government intervention is going to be required to get the wool clip back into some sort of economic state and yet here when the forestry industry were attempting to do the same thing there then it's lo and behold whoa whoa whoa. So you can't have it every way. This is good legislation. I think history will show that it came in at a very good time. I commend this bill.
Dean JacquiHon JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): The forestry industry already has a healthy industry and log traders have a very strong part of that. We were told through the very imperfect consultation period of this bill that the Government appeared to be looking for a solution to a problem that doesn't actually exist. We had a number of points noted to us throughout the submission process which was overwhelmingly against the regulation and the requirements which come with the provisions in this bill. For the Minister in the committee stage the Hon Shane Jones to note that on behalf of the submissions on the bill this was a relatively uncontroversial process—that could not be further from the truth.We were overwhelmingly told across a range of interests in forestry that there was simply an absence of an argument for the necessary imposition of future regulation on the forestry industry. They did acknowledge that there are some players—log traders for example and foresters—who were suboptimal and didn't provide good advice. Well point me to even a regulated industry where that is not the case. But overwhelmingly we were told that there was no great problem that they could identify—nor could the Minister identify—that needed remedying throughout this bill.Just my final point is that yup National doesn't like regulation because with regulation comes cost and uncertainty and it diverts New Zealand business from doing what it wants to do and that is getting on and being productive. I would have thought that in these post-COVID economic times we needed foresters and every other business—large or small—in New Zealand focusing on their business not focusing on a new raft of regulation that is going to come down on them. Thank you.
Simpson ScottHon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel):. Thank you Madam Chair. Again I think the Minister in the chair the Hon Shane Jones is—I accept that he's trying to help but I think he's instilling only more fear amongst those who are concerned about that particular clause because if the prospect of a lesser Minister than himself perhaps a Green Party Minister at some future date invokes fear and concern in the minds of foresters then the next big scary thing is that judges activist judges should be the ones who determine who can log a tree and at what stage. If we leave it to the judiciary that may be all well and good but some poor landowner some poor forester is going to have to go through a judicial process go through litigation to have some kind of definition that the Minister's assuring us will surely come if that is going to be judicially interpreted by a judge maybe an activist judge who is going to look at the purpose clause of the bill and say Well I know exactly what the Hon Shane Jones meant by that but I have a different view. And it's my view"—said the activist judge—"that actually these registered forestry advisers do have a capacity to tell landowners when a tree can be felled and at what stage of maturity and which type or variety of tree can be planted on which piece of land." That's even more scary to members of the sector than in fact probably even the prospect of a Green Party Minister having purview over this piece of legislation is. So my concern is that in trying to placate us with the prospect of long and expensive potentially activist litigation actually this will only instil even greater fear in the minds of those people who are worried about it. I want to ask a separate question relating to new section 63ZZD the rules about the code of ethics in new Part 2A of the Forests Act set out in clause 7. Subsection (1) states "The Forestry Authority may on the recommendation of the Minister make rules that set a code of ethics for registered [foresters]." And these rules may include—and then these are those worrying words—"without limitation matters relating to—" and then it goes through a series of matters that may be applied in terms of creating a code of ethics. This Parliament has been grappling with issues of those sorts. And if parliamentarians can't agree a code of conduct or a code of ethics it seems hardly fair that on the recommendation of the Minister a code of ethics is going to be forced without limitation upon these registered forestry advisers. I'm interested to know what the Minister's thoughts and views are on that subject please."
SpeechHon SHANE JONES (Minister of Forestry): These remarks especially from the member who has just resumed his seat have been very focused. Now on the question of exemptions I direct his attention to new section 63H(2) set out in clause 7. At this stage I have received no advice that the quantums referred to 2000 tonne—and there's about 30000 tonne on an ordinary international freighter taking the logs out of the country to 35000 tonne and 47 to 50 tonne on a truck. If it comes to pass that the regulations need to be niftily crafted to overcome that problem I've got every confidence because Te Uru Rākau the officials that will go forward and implement this bill realise that centre of mind must be economic services and economic returns.On the question of exemptions—I'm on page 36. I'm on new section 63ZZC(2A) in clause 7. I think in the future the best answer I can give to Mr Simpson is that there may very well come to pass where legal minds far more acute than mine not unlike the chair of the select committee will give a definition as to what properly" is. Does "properly" mean "ordinarily associated with a day-to-day bog-standard commercial transaction" or are we referring to "is the conduct properly considered to have belonged to a bog-standard commercial transaction?" When time comes for that debate to take place they'll go back to the purpose of the Act and the purpose of the Act is very lucid. It addresses the need for us to maintain international trade and it addresses the overdue need to give confidence for those investors who want to expand the size of the domestic manufacturing base in this particularly in some cases stressed industry but in this industry with an enormous amount of potential in the future.So I would caution members on the other side of the House from delving too deep into apocryphal interpretations. Time will pass and they will find that this bill actually strengthens the entirety of the industry—in particular those who are employers employees and investors in the processing sector. Sadly no one from that side of the House has stood up to talk for the processors."
McKelvie IanIAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): Thank you Madam Chair. Well I'll answer the questions for the Minister. That'll solve the problem. I was very interested in the point he made about the Green Party Minister running this bill. We in fact used to have a Roundwood operation ourselves and we used to use draught horses which will please the Minister no end. That solves the problem of that. The other thing I was intrigued about that the Minister said in one of his earlier answers with post-COVID is I took it to be cryptic for we no longer need to consult. In fact that's what his answer sounded very like. But I wanted to ask an interesting question about the exemptions because when you get into—well I think it's interesting—bills like this and you start to put exemptions in place those exemptions are always kind of subject—because you get to a point where you're a tonne over or a tonne under and how do you work that out? But it's interesting when you drive through the Rangitīkei electorate. There are two—and I invite the Minister to drive from Waiōuru to Ōhākune. There's a very large firewood operator in that area and actually in Marton also there's a very very large firewood operator. And when you think about 2000 cubic metres a year it's not a lot of wood. It's about 50 loads of logs if you think about it in that respect from those trucks that come down to the port here for those people who want to know what a load of logs look like. So about 2000 cubic metres a year and I'll guarantee this legislation could well catch the firewood operators on that rate. I realise the regulations are able to specify different volume and no doubt that's how they'd work but what interests me is how that would work and how it would be tested. So my question for the Minister is really around the thresholds and what triggers those thresholds and what would trigger a Minister to review those thresholds or the regulations to review those thresholds. So that's one point. I think pretty much every other point in the bill has been covered by our previous speakers and we've had answers to some of those questions. Some of them of course won't have to satisfy us because we clearly oppose. We don't oppose all of this bill because like every piece of legislation that comes to the House there are some bits of these bills that actually would be quite useful were they in a different form. So that's my lot.
SpeechHon SHANE JONES (Minister of Forestry): There's a number of issues raised but if I could start with the former Minister of Agriculture the Rt Hon David Carter's concerns and if I could direct your attention to page 36 and isolate new section 63ZZC (1)(a)(ii)—the reference to biosecurity sustainable land use.So obviously the ongoing tension between landowners who are favouring forestry as opposed to those who favour ongoing pastoralism—it's not in a happy spot in some parts of New Zealand but we have every right to expect that people selling their intellectual services as advisers will be required to offer advice to a high quality of standard. It may come to pass that a future Government wanting to rebalance the extent to which forestry creeps into farmland or indeed the opposite as has been the case for the last 10 to 12 years and to reference the fact that those standards will deal with matters such as biosecurity sustainable land use shows that a future Minister—and I know I did alarm some members of the forestry sector when I said Look if you think that I'm a bit over the top you could end up with a Minister from the Green Party so behave yourselves." I said that to them sadly and I have to apologise to Minister Sage because I quoted her name and at that point about a thousand xeroxed submissions materialised from the ether. But that was a political remark.So the point that I'm making is that there will be an opportunity for standards to be promulgated. They will not usurp the rights of a territorial authority to exercise their statutory functions or indeed the Crown through national policy statements. I think that that's a very useful addition to the arsenal of opportunities that the receivers of advice can hold the givers of advice to.There was a question raised about "Was there adequate consultation?" Well we live in post-COVID times and there is such huge tremendous pressure confronting our export sector our investors and I think the fact that this bill is where it is tonight reflects the sense of urgency that grips the Government to build statutory frameworks that allow us to get more value out of volume and many Governments have preached that.The final point I'd say is that obviously this bill would not be in its current sophisticated form and state if there was any sense that it might compromise or undermine our international obligations but the purpose of the bill makes reference to international trade and domestic processing. I'm very proud to have led this quality of advocacy as the politician privileged enough to be the Minister. Look I think that the gale of uncertainty that swept through the forestry sector—once this bill passes it'll all diminish."
McAnulty KieranFORESTS (REGULATION OF LOG TRADERS AND FORESTRY ADVISERS) AMENDMENT BILLIn CommitteeKIERAN McANULTY (Junior Whip—Labour): I seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one debate.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is none.
Speaker's Statements — Sitting of the House—Suspension to Follow Valedictory
Mallard TrevorVALEDICTORY STATEMENTSSPEAKER: Members it's my intention to do as I did last night and to indicate that at the conclusion of the Hon Anne Tolley's valedictory the House will be suspended until 7 o'clock on this occasion so I don't have to interrupt the celebrations that are occurring when that speech ends. I will say of course that if the speech goes too far over time I'll be gone.
Craig LizDr LIZ CRAIG (Labour): It's a pleasure to take a very brief call on this really important bill. This is an incredibly important bill in the context of our acute housing shortage. What it's going to do is allow us to do these complex urban developments that we really need to be doing taking into account where you've got areas with multiple landowners where you've got infrastructure that's ageing and may need to be moved. So basically this bill gives us the powers and the processes to be able to do this. I commend this bill to the House.
SpeechRt Hon DAVID CARTER (National): I'll take a very brief call on the Urban Development Bill following the excellent speech by my friend and colleague Andrew Bayly. He asked the House why it had taken three years for this Government to get this legislation before the House. The answer is absolutely easy: it's in the name of the Hon Phil Twyford. I'm surprised it's even here. I want to conclude my comments by also acknowledging the valedictory about to take place by my friend and colleague since I've been in this Parliament and the wonderful contribution that Anne Tolley has made to the democracy of New Zealand.
Andersen GinnyGINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you very much Mr Speaker. It's a privilege to be able to speak on the Urban Development Bill. It's a real shame that not all parties within this House are voting for such a good piece of legislation particularly when there's complaints of houses being torn down and land having lain vacant for so long that there's opposition to actually making progress and streamlining the ability for building houses even faster than what we are doing already.We know that we need to intensify our urban environment and we also need to know that such projects require a lot of work in terms of infrastructure in terms of how we get that land and how we create high urban development standards and often that creates a lot of risk for our developers. What we will do is enable specified developments and projects in two main ways and we've seen that happen exactly in the Hutt Valley with Ēpuni where we have 153 houses being built on land that has lain vacant there for over eight years. So right now when we're building on that land having streamlined processes with the local council with the way to build greater intensification right next to schools and rapid transport that is the way that we have high-quality developments within our cities that provide much needed housing for people who are waiting. So I commend this most excellent bill to the House.
SpeechHon NATHAN GUY (National—Ōtaki): Well that was a very interesting address from the Hon Julie Anne Genter. What I heard her say was they support this bill because it's going to streamline a whole lot of things and get urban development happening. But I've heard speeches from the Greens recently opposing the COVID-19 Recovery (Fast-track Consenting) Bill which is all about building things roads and providing jobs and economic growth in this country. So how is it that the Green Party can have two stances? I'm confused by that contribution.I'm not going to speak too long. We have some concerns about this bill. We've raised them in the select committee and we've raised them today with Minister Twyford. We got some satisfactory answers. We also found that the Minister wasn't on top of the specifics of this bill. I'm concerned about this Crown agency having the power to acquire land willy-nilly. I'm concerned about the compensation. There are other aspects that concern the National Party as well. But if I can just for the last half a minute of my contribution can I acknowledge a colleague who's going to be standing up here very shortly the Hon Anne Tolley in giving her valedictory speech. I have been in Cabinet with Anne Tolley for quite a period of time. She served this Parliament and her constituency of East Coast and Napier incredibly well over 21 years. We're sorry that she's leaving the National Party but I wish her well—more time with Allan and the grandchildren. Congratulations and well done.
SpeechHon SHANE JONES (Minister for Infrastructure): This bill has been carefully crafted. It builds upon the debris of nine wasted years under the former regime where despite a host of attempts each intervention worsened the statutory framework for resource management in New Zealand hobbled the ability of private enterprise to deliver housing outcomes worsened the prospects of landowners and quite frankly drove investors out of the field of expanding the industrial estate within New Zealand. It has taken our colleague the Hon Phil Twyford to bring forward the Urban Development Bill.The essence of this bill is a statutory mechanism enabling Kāinga Ora after it's followed a process called the specified development project process to assemble disparate blocks of land and to bring them into a coherent whole thus enabling developments to take place. Whilst there will be opportunity outside of the heart and the more densely populated areas of metropolitan New Zealand as my colleague Mr Eagle said there are a host of areas in our capital city that will definitely benefit from the implementation once it comes out of the House and has been ratified by the Governor-General. So our party has not a sliver of doubt in supporting the Urban Development Bill an overdue increase in statutory measures to affect societal outcomes in the form of better housing and a higher quality of life. We support the bill.
Eagle PaulPAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai): Thank you Madam Speaker and what a pleasure it is to speak this afternoon on the Urban Development Bill. Can I say that I know—let me digress a little—that on that side of the House they do secretly support this because I know several of their members have come to me saying What a fantastic piece of work. It's about time." I know when I read through this they absolutely love it. I know the good people of the East Coast sitting up there will say "We love this too." So there we are.This is a fantastic bill because what it does do is—and I am surprised because I know the member has a local government background has experience from local government and this is the near-perfect piece of legislation as part of a suite of legislation to help local government and other partners bring about housing and infrastructure in their communities. It fast tracks it through and brings about the transformation that actually only documents talk about. I always see lots of documents in council buildings which talk about the fantastic planning that could happen should happen but doesn't happen. This is the bill that's going to make the transformation a reality because what it does is it brings about all the nuts and bolts to put in place a community new communities a whole lot more easily than can be done right now. I know representing Wellington South-east we have corridors from the Basin Reserve up through to Newtown there that would benefit 100 percent from this type of legislation led by Crown entity Kāinga Ora who would facilitate this in partnership with the local authority and those partners already in place and there are two. Despite that side of the House saying that there's development right now under way being brought to some disrepute—and I was talking to that developer and he's well under way. That's the sort of person that will bring about practical and just real change to the housing market. I know that the Wellington City Mission too is planning a major development for transitional and emergency housing. Players are already in this space wanting to make a difference. This piece of legislation makes that happen and it makes it happen a whole lot more easily than it happens right now. I'm not going to talk too long because this is just too good to be true and I want to see this through. I want to see this enabled and enacted so those on the ground wanting to build more homes for Kiwis right across New Zealand particularly in our urban communities can just get on with it. I commend this bill to the House."
Twyford PhilHon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister for Urban Development): Let me start by responding to Erica Stanford's question about clause 33 Project assessment". The reason that the drafters have replaced "at a high level" with "in general terms"—I know it's probably a subtle distinction but in this clause which is basically about doing due diligence on these projects the desire of the drafters was to make sure that there was as much flexibility as possible given to the people doing that due diligence work.In response to Nathan Guy I would say that the powers in the bill that are around acquisition of land essentially apart from deviating in some key aspects largely mirror the powers of the Public Works Act that are used routinely around our country for roads and motorways and network infrastructure.Hon Nathan Guy: Do you think that's enough?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well in fact what we have done with this bill based on a lot of deliberation has been to constrain and roll back some of these powers. So the powers that Kāinga Ora will exercise on land acquisition are quite significantly restrained particularly in relation to Māori land.On compensation exactly the same provisions apply as exist under the Public Works Act. The member anticipated correctly that I don't expect Kāinga Ora would acquire land and leave it sitting around for a long time just as I would not expect Waka Kotahi the Transport Agency to do that. I can say to the member that I am not aware that there has been any thought given as to whether this Urban Development Bill could be used in relation to Ihumātao and while I have had much correspondence with the Mayor of Auckland he's never raised with me the fact that their planning staff are being paid high salaries at Kāinga Ora."
Dean JacquiHon JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): Thank you. I do invite the Minister to provide an answer to my question. I'm quite happy for the Minister to take advice if he needs but the question I think was relatively simple and has been flagged within the context of the Urban Development Bill. What is the context of this bill within the wider Resource Management Act framework? That's the question. So I really am very happy for the Minister to take advice on that.My question in this intervention refers to clause 33 in Part 2 wherein the clause sets out what Kāinga Ora would need to do when assessing a project selected in accordance with clause 31. So within that subclause (a) which would require Kāinga Ora to identify at a high level the constraints and the opportunities that arise for the project—and this is information for the Ministers. So it could be argued that it's critical that that information is at a very good quality. During the select committee process of course the phrase high level" was replaced with the words "in general terms". So given the fact that this is a project assessment being undertaken for the information of Ministers for what is potentially a very large scale and complex project I would like the Minister to answer the question: what does "in general terms" encompass?"
Stanford EricaERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you Madam Chair. I wanted to talk—well I would like the Minister in the chair the Hon Phil Twyford actually to talk about his Supplementary Order Paper (SOP). I know I'm only a new member but I haven't in my time—which has only been three short years—seen an SOP like this. It looks to me like a tidy-up SOP. I mean for the people who are listening at home and can't see this SOP there are many things like In clause 100(3) replace "remains" with "is" "after 'consents' insert 'within a project area' " and it goes on and on and on like this for many pages. Apart from potentially the first part there doesn't seem to be anything substantive; rather just a tidy-up. So if the Minister could run us through this SOP—I think it's important; this is the first I've seen it—and just run us through some of the more substantial parts of this SOP and the reasons for that but also then just if he could clarify: why all of these changes? We spent a long time in the Environment Committee going through the bill and I wasn't aware of the fact that there would need to be more amendments made to the bill. So it would be really useful if the Minister could run us through those I think."
Stanford Erica; Twyford PhilERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Sorry last one for now. Can the Minister then stand here today and tell me categorically that land at Ōkura which has been very recently protected by the Environment Court will not be developed?Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister for Urban Development): Much as I don't want to play into the member's scaremongering I'm not going to stand here and list a series of land parcels around this country that will be excluded from this bill. Our Government believes in development. We believe in growth. We believe in building more houses. Now that's the point of this legislation. Now if the member wants to put a Supplementary Order Paper on the Table listing a series of suburbs and communities and villages around this country that will be excluded from this legislation I invite her to do that but she won't get support from the Government for that.
Dean JacquiParts 1 to 6 Schedules 1 to 4 and clauses 1 and 2Hon JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): Thank you Madam Chair. Thank you to the committee for agreeing to consider this committee stage in one part and I think it is a useful way to approach this bill which gives us an opportunity to really ask some of the questions around—I want to start on this bill by asking the Minister in the chair the Hon Phil Twyford and thanking him for being available—the nature of the bill itself this Urban Development Bill. My first question for the Minister is that there are a number of processes outlined in this bill leading towards the creation of a specified development project—so even before we get to a project being designated as a specified development project there are a number of processes and I'm not asking the Minister to outline every one of those processes because they're all there in the bill but what I am interested in hearing from the Minister is the rationale for those processes.Erica Stanford: Madam Chair?Hon JACQUI DEAN: No no. No I've asked a question.Erica Stanford: I know but he's not standing up.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Erica Stanford.Hon Jacqui Dean: So he's not going to answer? I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): May I anticipate your point of order and if I don't address it you're welcome to have another go. The Minister isn't required to address every point as they come up; it is expected that he will be answering all the questions. But if he doesn't feel a need to answer yours as you go then we could have another contribution.Hon Jacqui Dean: Thank you. I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. That leaves me a little questioning of the process because earlier today in fact when considering a number of committee stages the Chair at the time suggested to the committee that this was more of a conversation and that was—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Correct. What's the point of order?Hon Jacqui Dean: The point of order is that if it is a conversation then a question is posed and an answer given and then the questioner has an opportunity to ask another question and receives an answer. That's the way a conversation goes.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Thank you. That's not a point of order. You will find on occasions that conversations are more one-sided than you would find ideal. The Minister's not required to answer every question as they are raised. The expectation is that he will answer them and the member who's had the call who didn't take the full entitlement of five minutes will be expecting another call and the Chair will be giving him or her another call.
van de Molen TimURBAN DEVELOPMENT BILLIn CommitteeTIM VAN DE MOLEN (Third Whip—National): I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I seek leave for all parts of this Urban Development Bill to be taken as one debate.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. You're not calling for a party vote on that! No.Tim van de Molen: All in good time!
Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you Madam Speaker for this opportunity to contribute briefly on the Public Service Legislation Bill which of course has been split into two separate bills. Others on this side of the House have noted the shortened process as compared with the very large piece of legislation in front of us and made unfavourable comments about the extent to which that would seem inappropriate for the purpose of scrutiny and so on. I won't belabour that point but I do state it for the record. On the other side of the House we have heard a point that I think was actually pretty well made about the significance of the phrase public servant". I do just want to pause at this point and acknowledge with thanks those who work with and for our country to improve the lives of many of its citizens—and I used the term "citizen" pretty broadly—to the betterment of us all. So I do want to acknowledge and thank those who are directly affected by the legislation and indeed those who have helped put it together. But I would say it seems a bit of a strange argument for the Minister of State Services to be placing quite so much emphasis on the importance of the phrase "public servant" as opposed to "State servant" suggesting that the name "State servant" would imply that such people are not serving the people directly but instead serving the State. Well if that's the case then officers of Parliament are not performing a function that's directly useful to people but rather merely serving the Parliament and Ministers of the Crown likewise presumably would be thought to be serving only an abstract entity and not the people of the country. Opinion may differ on the extent to which any given Minister of the Crown is indeed serving the people but that's not a territory for this debate—and of course we can have some fun on that matter in the upcoming couple of months and not the upcoming couple of minutes. So I'll just echo a couple of comments made by others on this side of the House rueing the lost opportunity to improve interconnectedness between and within local government and central government—and others have made similar points along the lines of those colleagues who have emphasised the importance of fiscal prudence. We made a specific suggestion regarding an amendment for that. I suppose the other side might reasonably say "Well of course it should be obvious to any public servant or indeed any politician that fiscal responsibility should be one of the aims of the exercise that they are conducting." Of course that's the case with all these principles: they're all stating the obvious to some extent. But the purpose of the exercise is to put in black and white the kinds of things that should be taken into account on each and every occasion. I don't think I'll probably be able to add much more to the debate either in terms of time or value so at that point I'll say that I join with colleagues on this side of the House and reflect the position that we've already stated in relation to the bills."