edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Menéndez March RicardoRICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you Mr Chair. Just following up on those comments around putting the welfare of Kāinga Ora tenants at the forefront I want to get an understanding if at the point of developing this legislation and setting the new time frame there was any analysis done around the potential impacts on the interrelationships between the wellbeing of tenants in Kāinga Ora homes who—as the Minister has acknowledged—some of them are living in precarious situations or with health conditions how this exemption of the deadline may put additional pressures in the healthcare system as a result of people continuing to live in unhealthy homes and what are some of those costs that may be incurred as a result?Secondly were there any considerations about additional support provided for Kāinga Ora tenants who may still be living in unhealthy homes while this compliance is moved forward? Because while I do note that acknowledgment—and that is true that many tenants in Kāinga Ora homes are living in particularly vulnerable situations—I'd have concerns about the fact that without additional support being provided while those homes are being made healthier some of those tenants may end up facing worse health outcomes. So I'm just wondering whether there was any analysis around any additional support required to support those tenants while the deadline is met.
van Velden Brooke; Woods MeganBROOKE VAN VELDEN (Deputy Leader—ACT): Thank you Mr Chair. I had a question to the Minister in the chair Megan Woods regarding the consultation with stakeholders—just two basic questions. The first is: what was the time frame for the consultation? Was it last year or this year and over what period of time? And then secondly when it comes to the consultation that did occur the Minister touched on the fact that the consultation was not about whether or not the stakeholders were asking for an extension but it was merely about what the compliance was like for these stakeholders. Did these stakeholders ask for any extensions or was it merely a data-gathering exercise?Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Housing): I think there's been a misunderstanding of an answer that I gave to another member. I said that the consultation wasn't about whether or not we should have a healthy homes regime; it was about whether or not they could comply whether or not there was an extension needed. So I think that we just need to be really clear what that answer was about. In terms of the stakeholder consultation: that was carried out in April and June of this year I am advised.
Swarbrick ChlöeCHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green—Auckland Central): Thank you Mr Chair. I have a number of follow-up questions to the Minister of Housing and I really appreciate what I feel is a pretty robust committee of the whole House stage in absence of our opportunity to give this due parliamentary scrutiny at select committee.So I just wanted to drill into those points as raised by the Minister particularly about Tenancy Services because I think this is one of the key issues when it comes to evidence and data on healthy homes standards compliance. It's something which I put in a relatively flippant question earlier this year to the former Associate Minister of Housing the Hon Poto Williams about whether the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment (MBIE) needed to update its computer systems because of course it is the case that with every new tenancy that is registered documents or the contract have to be uploaded to Tenancy Services and as a result of that the healthy homes standards compliance sheet as well has to be uploaded. Therefore theoretically we already have a kind of framework that would be able to track potential compliance. Is it the case that we just need a tick-box in the process of uploading data on these new tenancy contracts so that MBIE can keep track of that proclaimed healthy homes standards compliance? I just wanted to ask the Minister: had there been any thoughts given to updating MBIE's services to that effect?Secondly I just wanted to really drill into that point of compliance because as the Minister has already stated there is increasing work when it comes to attempting to do some proactive mahi there with regard to compliance. But none the less what we're seeing reflected in the regulatory impact statement is that even if this legislation weren't to exist—this legislation that extends the time frame for compliance for private landlords and for Kāinga Ora—where the situation where officials are advising that effectively there's not really all too much of a penalty for landlords that don't comply even if they get to the Tenancy Tribunal if they can showcase that they have been attempting to comply. So I guess I just wanted to also ask the Minister: what consideration if any was given to perhaps creating with this legislation that is going to have the greatest impact on tenants as again identified in the regulatory impact statement that did not consult tenants—if there was any consideration of also incorporating a better backstop or a better form of enforcement with regard to compliance particularly where cases get to the Tenancy Tribunal? It would have been a perfect opportunity to not just postpone the implementation of compliance but also to ensure that when compliance and those backstops were actually reached that we had proper enforcement provisions in the first place.
Swarbrick Chlöe; Woods MeganCHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green—Auckland Central): When it comes to that compliance as the regulatory impact statement also canvases we have an issue with regard to data and the survey which many have bandied about—the 85 percent compliance from private landlords—is data that comes from a survey commissioned by the Government to try to get a sense of compliance. However I'd note that both in the regulatory impact statement and the departmental disclosure statement and in that survey itself it outlines very clearly that that survey is not statistically significant". So I wanted to ask the Minister if there was any consideration given to other methods of collecting this data or this evidence or if that as a baseline was acceptable to the Government?Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Housing): Again that was traversed in oral questions in this House yesterday. There is a large body of work that is going on in compliance not through the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development but through the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment (MBIE) through the Tenancy Services team there. In fact there was funding in the Budget to ensure that we did have expanded compliance services and I outlined what they were in question time yesterday.But to recap MBIE is responsible for the enforcement of the healthy homes standards and they have a range of compliance tools. The Tenancy Services' Tenancy Compliance and Investigation Team (TCIT) work programme is now required to complete 3000 pieces of work with landlords and property managers for the year ended 30 June 2023. As I have informed this House before that is not just reactive; that is a proactive compliance role that that team has. And actually most of the investigations that have been launched to date have been as a result of proactive initiatives by the compliance team there. Its work programme is based on a risk-based enforcement programme approach and outcomes are determined by the extent of harm or the risk of harm taking into account the scale conduct attitude and the public interest.So we are targeting a lot of the compliance measures to some of our most vulnerable communities where we know that there has historically been homes that haven't reached those standards. Since 1 January 2022 the TCIT has completed 572 cases where healthy homes were an aspect of which 494 were proactive cases—so the vast majority of them were proactive; 78 resulted from complaints; 335 of those cases were in the light-touch work programme; 25 were detailed assessments; and the balance made up of proactive general and investigations. Approximately 33 percent of the cases that I just outlined resulted in TCIT determining that there had been a breach."
Swarbrick Chlöe; Woods MeganCHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green—Auckland Central): I want to thank the Minister for that indicative list and also very much appreciate that she's across the detail and that she'd like to get back to me with more specificity in that written question answer. But I do really appreciate that.To that list and to the stakeholders that were chosen and identified to be consulted with my follow-up question is: was there an intentional policy decision or a decision by the Minister or by Cabinet to not consult with tenants or tenant organisations?Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Housing): I feel like we have traversed this ground that I have answered this question from the member. I said the purpose of the bill that we are debating here tonight is from those who were required to fulfil the requirements. It was not whether or not we should do it; that was a decision that our Government had already made. That was a decision that this Parliament had already. This was about the ability of those that were required by that law to fulfil the obligations under the law. Therefore it was an intentional decision to consult with those who had the requirement under the law and whether or not they could fulfil it. It was around their level that they'd managed to do what their purchase agreements looked like in terms of getting access to the materials. This wasn't a question of whether or not we should do it; this was a question of whether or not there could be compliance. So it made sense to talk to those that were required to comply.
Swarbrick Chlöe; Woods MeganCHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green—Auckland Central): I want to thank the Minister for referring me back to paragraphs 23 to 30 of the regulatory impact statement. I can assure the Minister that in preparation for this committee of the whole House I have indeed read the entirety of the regulatory impact statement. So unfortunately paragraphs 23 to 30 don't address the question that I asked and that was for a specific list of the stakeholders that were engaged with.This is something which I put on notice to her office through written questions but of course—as I noted before—it's not something that we'll be able to get access to when it comes to the kind of content and the substance of this debate tonight.So I think it is something that would be really beneficial for us to have in front of us because it states very clearly at paragraph 23 that stakeholders were approached. So there was a conscious decision by the ministry—or the Minister or Cabinet or officials—to approach certain stakeholders and to intentionally solicit their feedback. So I think that it is entirely the remit of the House to ask for specifically who those stakeholders were.Because again I note that it states very clearly that the stakeholders who were consulted with were property managers were landlords and were Kāinga Ora. We can say that Kāinga Ora—yep we know that. But which property manager groups? Especially because it states that property managers who were consulted with gave very specific feedback. Which landlord groups? I would really really appreciate—and I think that the committee would really benefit from a list of who those stakeholders were.Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Housing): As the member has just indicated she's put in a written parliamentary question which will be answered.In terms of the information that I can get to hand to give in this committee stage—at this point I'd like to say this is an indicative list. I'd like officials to go back and do a thorough search of all the records of exactly who was consulted.But for the purposes of having debate at committee stage Kāinga Ora—as the member has indicated—and then of course representative groups of landlords. Those that would be required to consult that being the Real Estate Institute of New Zealand which is a large body representing property managers; Crockers which is a large property management company; and the New Zealand Property Investors Federation.
Woods MeganHon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Housing): In answer to the first question that the member just put in terms of the options for time frames that were considered they are well-spelt-out in paragraphs 46 to 55 of the regulatory impact statement. They go through the four options that were considered: the status quo; an extension from 90 to 150 or 180 days with a six-month extension only for public houses; option three extension from 90 to 120 days for private landlords and a nine-month extension for private landlords and public housing providers; or option four which is what is in the legislation.As to the website I know I have a reputation as being a hands-on Minister but I can assure the member that I'm not sitting there updating the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development (MHUD) website myself. I haven't appointed myself webmaster-general at the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development—yet.I have asked officials to check whether that is the case; it appears there has been information loaded up that shouldn't have been. I've just asked officials to remove it because clearly this is not law and has not been made law but I would also like to reassure the member that the MHUD website is not Sovereign.
Woods MeganHon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Housing): Thank you Mr Chairman. Just the two specific questions that the member's put forward I think if the member goes through paragraphs 23 to 30 of the regulatory impact statement it gives a clear indication of who the targeted consultation was. It's an important question but I think equally important is for members to understand what it is that this piece of legislation is doing. This is not a piece of legislation about whether or not we should have healthy homes standards for our homes in New Zealand. That bill has already been through this Parliament. That debate has been had. There has been select committee processes. Everybody has had the chance to submit on it. The bill we are debating tonight is about whether in response to a global pandemic that causes supply chain issues around the world—the fact of the matter: there was a shortage of heat pumps in New Zealand for a period of time particularly in the days of 2020 and 2021. We all know the tangle that we got into at the Ports of Auckland and heat pumps were one of those products that got caught in the supply chain issues.So I think it's really important to have absolute clarity that we are not debating the if". That is a piece of legislation that was passed by our Government in our first term something we made a priority of when we first came to Government because people having warm dry safe places to call home was an absolute priority for us as a Government. So in terms of which stakeholders were consulted it was those who had to comply. We were getting feedback that they simply would not be able to comply and therefore would be breaking the law—they would be knowingly breaking the law. So the targeted consultation was with those people and around the feasibility of the meeting the regulated time frames that they had to comply within. It wasn't about going and asking tenants whether or not we should have warm dry healthy homes because as a Parliament we had already decided that—as a party and as a Government Labour had already made that a priority and had passed law to that effect.In terms of the warrant of fitness and whether that was considered—in fact I think the member who asked that question in this committee stage asked me a similar question in oral parliamentary questions yesterday. There was a cost-benefit analysis that was undertaken in terms of the ability of putting standards and regulations in place as opposed to a warrant of fitness and it came out in favour of the approach that we ultimately took. This was a piece of work that I think from memory—and I will get officials to confirm this with me—was carried out by Sapere Consulting. So that was a cost-benefit analysis that went beneath that."
O'Connor GregIn CommitteePart 1 Amendment to Residential Tenancies Act 1986CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Members the House is in committee on the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Amendment Bill. Members we come first to Part 1. This is the debate on clauses 3 and 4 amendment to Residential Tenancies Act 1986". The question is that Part 1 stand part. The member's name just escapes me.Chlöe Swarbrick: Chlöe Swarbrick.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Chlöe Swarbrick."
Webb DuncanDr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you Madam Speaker. We are a pragmatic party. We don't require people do the impossible. We don't punish them for doing things that can't be achieved. This is a simple response to some difficulties in supply chain and labour shortages. It's a great bill. We're still committed absolutely to healthy home standards. I commend this bill to the House.
Bayly AndrewANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Well thank you Madam Speaker. It's a pleasure to be talking at 10.37 p.m. on the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Amendment Bill! So I listened very carefully when the Minister of Housing introduced this bill tonight earlier on some time ago. When a Minister starts talking about taking a flexible and pragmatic approach you know something's really happening! I want to say what I really want to say but in parliamentary language you just can't say it can you? But it means things haven't gone well.Hon Scott Simpson: It could be a cluster!ANDREW BAYLY: Yeah a bit of a cluster. But anyway what it really means is the Government hasn't delivered again. That's what it is. This is a bill about lack of delivery.I'd be far more supportive of it—and I know we are going to support it—if the bill allowed private landlords to have an extension but when you wrap in the Government organisation controlled by the Minister and they've got 23000 buildings houses yet to update and they're the ones who put the rule in place—what the dickens! Anyway hopefully the Minister's not going to stand up in a year's times and say Due to flexible—you've got to be flexible and pragmatic"—and won't be a COVID next time—hopefully it's not going to be another COVID reason. It can't be nine years of neglect; no that's not going to work either.Stuart Smith: Five years of failure?ANDREW BAYLY: Oh five years of failure; I don't know you don't want to have six years of failure.Well anyway we will support it. But the Government should have got its act together. The Minister should have been over the top of it. To use the term "flexible and pragmatic" is just an excuse."
Kuriger Barbara; White HelenASSISTANT SPEAKER (Barbara Kuriger): Excuse me is the Māori Party going to take a call? Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: I'm not sure if my colleague is online. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Barbara Kuriger): No he's not.HELEN WHITE (Labour): I'll just take a short call on this matter. Yes so this is something I'm extremely proud that the Labour Government has done. I too have had discussions with people who are in a medical profession who told me that this is where we can get the best bang for buck. If we actually make our houses warm and dry we will actually save real lives. It was actually Dr David Galler who was talking to me about this and he was saying that we had a system which had actually turned many of our hospitals into places where we dealt with chronic disease instead of trauma and that is a great tragedy. This is a pragmatic piece of legislation and this is the kind of Government that this country needs because it will be pragmatic when it needs to be but it will also be principled and it will save lives.
Simmonds PennyPENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill): Thank you Madam Speaker. And Madam Speaker in this my first call when you've been in the Chair can I pass on my congratulations to you on that.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Barbara Kuriger): Thank you.PENNY SIMMONDS: I'll take a very short call on this much as it galls me to be supporting Labour giving themselves a get out of jail free" card which is exactly what this bill is it does however extend that grace period for private landlords and therefore we should support that. But I'm sure landlords are very aware that it is only happening because Labour couldn't get their own house in order. So on that basis we support it. Thank you very much Madam Speaker."
Craig Liz; Dean JacquiDr LIZ CRAIG (Labour): Thank you Madam Speaker. In reply to my colleague over the other side of the House: I spent years monitoring child health and seeing thousands and thousands of sick children coming into hospital with housing-related conditions. I spent years advocating for healthy homes standards and it was amazing that within months of us coming into Government the Healthy Homes Guarantee Act passed into law. It's one of the things that I'm most proud of. And so it's amazing also to see the progress that's been made with about 80 percent of private rentals now either meeting the standards or work under way and similarly with Kāinga Ora homes. So it's amazing to see the progress but we can't also forget the impact that COVID's had on supply chain disruptions workforce shortages problems getting heat pumps coming into the country and so this bill is a pragmatic solution but it also ensures that houses are compliant by 1 July 2025. I commend it to the House.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Penny Simmonds; this a split call—five minutes.
Kuriger Barbara; Henderson EmilyASSISTANT SPEAKER (Barbara Kuriger): Thank you. Look I'm going to take Emily Henderson but before we start I realise we're a little bit out of order. It's past 10 o'clock and everyone's got themselves a little bit shuffled around but I am counting.Dr EMILY HENDERSON (Labour—Whangārei): Thank you Madam Speaker. As the MP for Whangārei where we have some of the most deprived and ramshackle housing in the country I am hugely aware of the importance of the healthy homes standards hugely in favour of the work being done by this Government and hugely admiring of both Kāinga Ora and our private providers who are both managing neck and neck to get through this. But pragmatism is necessary in order to reach some sort of appropriate achievements. We need pragmatism. This bill is going to give it to us in an environment where COVID has prevented people getting things done on time. I commend this bill to the House.
O'Connor SimonSIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Thank you very much Madam Speaker. I'm tempted to suggest to the Parliament that we just need a moment to take a breath after what were quite a lot of words firing out there from the previous speaker. One of the problems we have with the Greens—and we support this bill—is that they always believe that they and bigger government can solve every problem there is; there's no space for the private sector. One of the reasons we're supporting this bill tonight is because actually there is a role for the private sector along with a number of regulations as well.Chlöe Swarbrick: You just want to regulate women's bodies. And the gays.SIMON O'CONNOR: The member Chloe Swarbrick still hasn't taken a breath but you know evidence is always on her side. She never has an ability to accept that there's other points of view.As we say we support this bill. It's something that we raised when the bill—sorry the now Act—was going through Parliament a while back: that the time that was given was not going to be enough. And this side of the House had also pointed out at the time the inconsistency in that Housing New Zealand or Kāinga Ora was given different time zones. The fact that this is moving forward is positive. Certainly my observation in my own electorate is that most private landlords are moving relatively swiftly to implement what is required and I think that's appropriate. As I said at the start we don't want larger and bigger government. I've said before in this House that being a landlord is not a social service at the whim of the Greens and others. We want to actually work with—Chlöe Swarbrick: Is housing a human right?SIMON O'CONNOR: Someone is crying out Is housing a human right?" One of the things that she has to understand is yes home or shelter is a human right. How that manifests becomes slightly different—OK? That's actually a really a subtle difference. The problem with the Greens is that it's not just wanting shelter and a home; they have to specify an absolute high high level of what they deem to be appropriate. Chlöe Swarbrick: No that's you mate. You don't want housing in your electorate.SIMON O'CONNOR: I'm not your mate because I'm on this side of the House and you're confused on whether you're in Opposition or in Government. Fundamentally we're not here to give a lesson to the Green Party in human rights or housing. We just want to note that we support the bill and thank the Minister for bringing it to the House."
Walters VanushiVANUSHI WALTERS (Labour—Upper Harbour): Thank you Madam Speaker. Mr Bishop talks about an embarrassment but I'll tell you what's an embarrassment is the massive sell-off of State homes by the Opposition when they were in Government. That is the embarrassment and that is the double standard. But given that the National Party Opposition are supporting the bill today I'll stop my critique there and I will just commend the Minister of Housing on her pragmatism in bringing forward this important bill and I know the Minister considered other time lines as well and gave significant thought to the time that would be required to get us to full compliance. This is a Minister who has been working very hard to also ensure that Kāinga Ora has supply agreements in place and I know that there will be plenty of work done to ensure that they meet that new time line. I commend this bill to the House.
Seymour DavidDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Point of order. Madam Speaker I think it was very clear that I was seeking a call. You had the option of actually encouraging and allowing debate on a motion. Instead you didn't even look to see if anyone was seeking a call immediately moved to say you were putting a motion and then—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Yep thank you very much. Thank you.David Seymour: No no. Hang on a minute—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): No no. No. I do understand what the member is saying. I had commenced voting and once that happens I need to continue.BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Deputy Leader—ACT): Point of order.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): As long as it's a new point of order.BROOKE VAN VELDEN: Madam Speaker until the end of the sentence of the voting motion has taken place the vote hasn't actually started.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Yes thank you very much. The member won't dispute my ruling. My ruling was final.David Seymour: Point of order.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): And furthermore—just before the member wants to continue to re-litigate this issue I will rule it out of order. So I'm warning both members that the matter is closed I have ruled and we will be moving on.DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Point of order.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Is it a new point of order?DAVID SEYMOUR: Yes indeed Madam Speaker. You seem to be under the impression that the point of order is about whether you are able to—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): No. The member will resume his seat. I have ruled and we are moving on. And I will warn the member that if he continues to contest and question my ruling I will have to take the matter further.DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Point of order. Madam Speaker I want to be perfectly clear that this is a different point of order.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Good.DAVID SEYMOUR: The point of order does not relate—and I want to be perfectly clear: does not relate—to whether or not you are able to take a point of order after you have begun putting a motion. The point of order relates to whether you sought to check if anyone was seeking a call and second to that whether it is consistent with actually encouraging debate and upholding the rights of members to debate a motion not to do so. And I would ask you that if there are speaking slots remaining and if somebody is seeking a call then you actually make an effort to look up and see if anyone is seeking a call so that people can come to this House and do their job which is to debate the motions on the table.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): OK. Thank you very much for that. Thank you you make some good points. At this point we have moved on from the first reading. But as the member knows we have a long road to go in this urgency motion. So I take note of your point of order and thank you for raising it.
Leary Ingrid; Dean JacquiINGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): It's quite difficult to sit here and listen to members around the House talk about failure to deliver when Labour is the only party that has bothered to put in healthy home standards because we understand the link between health and the quality of housing. What's happened has been COVID—there have been disruptions to the supply chains. It would be inherently unfair to expect landlords who cannot get heat pumps or construction supplies to comply with regulations when they are actually not able to do it. This is a pragmatic solution it's a fair solution and I commend the bill to the House.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the motion be agreed to.David Seymour: Madam Speaker Point of order.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): I've started putting the motion.David Seymour: Point of order.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The member will resume his seat. I have started putting the motion.David Seymour: Well I raised a point of order Madam Speaker.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The member will resume his seat. I have started putting the motion.Brooke van Velden: Point of order.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The member will resume her seat. I have started putting the motion. The question is that the motion be agreed to.
Pugh MaureenMAUREEN PUGH (National): Thank you Madam Speaker. I rise to take a very short call on this bill. We understand that this is the Government abdicating its responsibility to meet its own deadline but we do support the fact that landlords have been given an extension of time. We support this bill and I commend it to the House.
Walters VanushiVANUSHI WALTERS (Labour—Upper Harbour): Thank you Madam Speaker. It's a pleasure to take a brief call in support of the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Amendment Bill. The Minister has already spoken comprehensively about the need for this bill which does centre around being realistic about how we manage the supply chain impacts of COVID-19. We do believe it's very important that people are able to access warm dry homes and significant change and development is already happening including in the private sector where data suggests that around 85 percent of private landlords are either already compliant or taking action to become compliant. Kāinga Ora has also made good progress with around 84 percent of Kāinga Ora's tenanted housing stock meeting the standards or being upgraded right now. I commend this bill to the House.
Craig Liz; Dean JacquiDr LIZ CRAIG (Labour): Thank you Madam Speaker. All of us have been impacted by COVID-19 in different ways and I think it's no different for landlords trying to comply with the healthy homes standards. This is an important bill because what it makes sure is that we do end up complying with all rental homes by 1 July 2025 but it also takes into account supply chain reductions. It also takes into account difficulties getting heat pumps into the country and workforce shortages. I commend this bill to the House.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Making a remote contribution and a five-minute call I call Rawiri Waititi.
Henderson EmilyDr EMILY HENDERSON (Labour—Whangārei): Kia ora te Māngai o te Whare. This is a very important process that we have with the healthy homes standards. This is a pragmatic response to an international global situation. I commend it to the House.
Dean JacquiCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Madam Speaker the committee has considered—[Members interjecting]ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Barbara Kuriger): Silence.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The committee has considered the Water Services Entities Bill and reports it with amendment. I move That the report be adopted.
Leary IngridINGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): I move That the question be now put.
Kanongata'a AnahilaANAHILA KANONGATA'A-SUISUIKI (Labour): I move That the question be now put.
van Velden BrookeBROOKE VAN VELDEN (Deputy Leader—ACT): I thank the Minister for his comments. I think there are an awful lot of people who are concerned in our communities who do want their voices heard not just on this piece of legislation but on a lot of legislation that the Government is putting through. But I still think the Government and the Minister need to elaborate further on what this consumer voice means in this legislation. I'm specifically looking at clauses 203 204 and 205. I think it's quite wonderful that we have the idea of having a consumer forum so that people can have meaningful consumer and community engagement that they can compile consumer views so that the water service entity can understand the consumer needs their expectations and their service requirements. I think that's really quite wonderful because it's all about how does this entity interact with the community and what they need so that they can get clean and safe drinking water.But I still question how this works in effect when Part 5 had the issue of the Minister being able to appoint a Crown review team to look into what's happening at the water service entity because you see we've got in one hand consumer engagement that should be leading how this water service entity is managed and how it will work over time to represent the consumers of the region. But on the other hand we have the Minister being able to get involved with the Government policy statements and I really don't think that they work together. So on one hand you can have the Minister saying You as an entity have not done what the Government policy statement says under section 11." and on the other hand you can have the entity saying "Yeah but we're not doing what the Government policy statement says because we're actually listening to the needs of the community and those are different." But if we listen at large to the needs of the community and if they are different to what the needs of the Government are the Government will just override them and they will take away their ability to respond to the community.So how is it possible that we can have proper true consumer engagement if it means that the water service entity actually follows what the consumers and the community want but if they do that the Minister gets involved and overrides them because they say "You're not taking effect of the Government policy statement."? So I think everybody in our communities is concerned by this new law. They don't truly understand what it means. But what does this mean specifically for consumer voice when if the entity actually follows what the community voice is they could be overridden by the Government's policy statement?"
McAnulty KieranHon KIERAN McANULTY (Associate Minister of Local Government): Thank you Mr Chair. I thank the member for her question; I know that it's genuine and sincere. Let me reassure her that the Government Supplementary Order Paper strengthens the requirements around the forum. There will be a requirement for participation within rural provincial and metro areas so if you were to take entity A for example it wouldn't comply if it was just held in Auckland.But further to that the Office of the Auditor-General worked with the Department of Internal Affairs to ensure that there will be an audit requirement over these consumer stocktakes.
Simmonds PennyPENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill): Thank you Mr Chair. I'm interested in getting a little bit more information from the Minister on clause 203 Consumer forum" and I've been reading through trying to decide whether the obligation on the entity is to establish a single forum or in fact whether fora—plural—might be an expectation because if you look at subclause (3) "A consumer forum may be established under this section—(a) for the whole or part of a service area; and (b) in relation to all or a particular class of consumers."From that I am presuming that there may be a number of fora established so you would hope that it couldn't be just one that only covered part of the service area. And I suppose that's where I get concerned again about the smaller local authority areas the rural areas where unless they are going to be in some kind of particular class of consumers they might get further disenfranchised from this process if they are not included in it.So it's around whether there might be standing forum that covers the whole service area whether there might be multiple fora in that with some covering just parts of the service area and some just covering parts of a particular class of consumer. Again just really wanting to tease out how this won't become just a tick-box exercise because many of us are familiar with the concept of advisory committees or advisory fora and they can be very very useful: they can give feedback; they can be really engaged with an entity and adding absolute value.But we can quickly see in an instance where they might not be meaningfully used—that the engagement would fall off and they might feel that they are wasting their time. I didn't actually see in here—and it may be my fault—any recompense or any payments for any of these people that might be involved in it and so if you're talking about that very large geographic area of the southern region people from western Southland trying to be engaged in a forum representing rural people are they going to have to travel to Christchurch if the head office is in Christchurch? Are they going to be expected to do that under their own steam without any recompense for it?So I can see how advisory consumer fora might be particularly good but I could also see how through the establishment and application and implementation of these fora they could be made to feel like they are just ticking the box just showing that they've done what's required of them but actually not being meaningful at all. And the public is not stupid. They do not want to be used in this way and they will quickly drop off having any sort of engagement if that is what occurs and so it would be very useful to get some further feedback from the Minister on this. Are we talking a standing forum are we talking single-purpose fora are we talking about where they may gather information if there's a particular development going on from a particular class of consumer? So just really wanting to tease out what these advisory groups—they look to me like advisory groups—might be like and how they might actually be implemented. Thank you very much Mr Chair."
Mahuta NanaiaHon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Local Government): I'll take a brief moment to respond. Firstly in so far as the review is concerned there are two reviews. In the first instance it is to look at the roles functions and responsibilities of the water services entities five years after the commencement date of this particular legislation. But the question was: why five years? If you look at the go-live date that's intended for the water services entities that's 1 July 2024. And then if you factor in when economic regulation comes into place which is July 2027 five years is a good period of time to review how the system is working. That is why it's 10 years for the whole system and we're including not only Taumata Arowai the water services entity but also economic regulation and the overall system-wide benefit of reviewing the system after 10 years. So that's the first point on the review period and why that period of time.On consumer forums what we do know from existing practice and best practice is that having consumer forums can continue to improve the service delivery operational benefits of an organisation. And in this instance it's the water services entity. It's outlined in clause 203 and clause 204 the way in which consumer engagement can take place and what is covered. The point that the member raises I think is how we can be assured that views will be taken account of. And again that is set out in clause 204.The other thing to note is that there are layers of engagement with different types of interest that are represented throughout the reform. For example there is an opportunity through the annual general meeting of the regional representative group for the water services entity's functions to be reviewed during that accountability process.In terms of engaging with different types of consumers—and I'm thinking that members on that side of the House have raised you know the rural community. They are a bespoke set of consumers that not only use water for drinking but primarily for production. That could be a consumer forum that is targeted across a particular entity because of the profile of the entity. But so too could industry users and particular sectors. And there is the flexibility within the formation of consumer panels for a water services entity to better engage with consumers. And then there is the opportunity that we anticipate if we look at best-practice and comparative examples for the economic regulator to also assess the way in which consumer outcomes have been achieved by the water services entities.
O'Connor Greg; Mahuta NanaiaPart 6 Miscellaneous provisionsCHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Members we come now to Part 6 which is the debate on clauses 195 to 228 and Schedules 3 and 5 the Miscellaneous provisions". The question is that Part 6 stand part.Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Local Government): Thank you Mr Chair. There are two clauses in this particular part that over the duration of the debate in the Chamber I should bring the attention of members to. Firstly there has been a lot of discussion in the Chamber around engagement and what is taken into account and what things are engaged on and how. That is set out in clause 202. And then in relation to the interests of consumers—so what we have in both clauses 203 and 204 are provisions that relate to consumers that will over time help to improve and evolve the way in which water service entities engage with consumers. By way of example because there were comments in earlier parts of the debate that this will be a cost burden on water service entities—but if we look to current examples that support efficiency outcomes in service delivery areas we only need to look to Watercare. They have a customer service engagement strategy that supports the efficiency gains of the whole operation of the organisation and that has been built into the service delivery approach that Watercare has taken.There are many other organisations that engage with consumers in order to improve not only how they present or what they do but actually to get live feedback around what it is that matters most to consumers when they're working with an organisation. So that's partly the intent of ensuring that we don't leave it to chance and we make it express in legislation."
O'Connor Greg; Mahuta NanaiaPart 5 MonitoringCHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Members we come now to Part 5. Part 5 is a debate on clauses 169 to 194 Monitoring". The question is that Part 5 stand part.Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Local Government): I don't intend to take a long call on this particular part because the provisions roughly mirror those that are in the Local Government Act (LGA) 2002 and relate to system stewardship. This is overall a beneficial outcome in terms of long-term improvements to the way in which water service delivery occurs. It enables the ability should a problem be identified and that is in clause 174 of the bill in terms of problem definition. Should that threshold be met the Minister can have three avenues to try and explore the extent of the problem. The actions are proportional to the problem that's been identified. Those three layers are either to appoint a Crown review team a Crown manager or a Crown monitor and that will enable the problem to be investigated or identified considered and then relevant actions taken. So proportionality matters having a threshold of action matters and having various mechanisms for which the Minister is responsible for to be able to ensure that the system is working in the way that it is supposed to. I commend this part of the bill to the House primarily again because it mirrors clauses that are already in existence with the LGA 2002."
Bennett David; Dean Jacqui; Mahuta NanaiaHon DAVID BENNETT (National): Point of order Madam Chair. Thank you Madam Chair. I would just like to raise a point of order around the Minister of Local Government. Before we asked some very genuine questions in my speech—three genuine questions. The Minister actually wrote them down but never replied to them and—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Order! Order! Order! That is not a point of order.Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Local Government): Point of order Madam Chair. Flattery is not a prerequisite to answer a question.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): OK.
Dean Jacqui; Utikere TangiCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): I call Tangi Utikere.Hon David Bennett: Point of order. Point of order. Point of order.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): No. I will deal with this matter first because I have called the member.TANGI UTIKERE (Junior Whip—Labour): I move That the question be now put.
Doocey MattMATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): Oh a very good choice thank you very much Madam Chair. I must say it's been a long day in the Chamber and what helps pass time is the Greens' contribution. I do enjoy them at one stage being part of the Government and then when they decide not to be they're opposing the Government. I find that absolutely fantastic.Hey I want to drill down into 154(2A) now looking at the planning infrastructure strategy. Look it reads well as bills do: (2A) An infrastructure strategy must outline how the water services entity intends to manage its infrastructure assets taking into account" what existing assets are going to be renewed or replaced responding to growth or decline in demand for services and allowing for planned increases or decreases. Well imagine what that's going to be like on a regional representative council.Look you can understand the board taking a very rational approach but of course it'd be interesting to hear from the Minister of Local Government about the interface with the regional representative group because of course they're going to be very parochial. Well they're the ones who actually can get on that group as well because of course many territorial authorities won't actually be able to get on there depending on their size.I want to call this clause the "Nigel Farage clause" because I think we are believing that everyone's going to get on to that representative group with the best intentions. But as we know when Nigel Farage tried to bring down the European Union he did that by being democratically voted into it and brought it down burning from inside.So what's going to happen on that the regional council where people are going to be very parochial? And of course decisions need to be made of—maybe in these super mega entities where an area down in let's say a fantastic area like Gore is up in competition with Waimakariri. Of course Gore and Waimakariri are very fast-growing areas because why wouldn't they be? A great place to live: the climate the people and the culture the outdoors and the nightlife. That is going to draw demand.So I'd be interested to hear from the Minister how some of those issues are going to be traversed because of course the whole idea of being on a regional representative group is to represent your area and of course you will be very parochial in your area. And I don't think anyone's going to take too kindly to being told that their area is in decline or in fact one area is going to get a planned increase over another. So I think it would be very good to hear from the Minister about the interface between the board and the group as well and how issues like that will be mediated."