edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Seymour David; Woods MeganDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you Mr Chair. I think this is a really important point. There is a cost and a benefit to this. There is the cost of having what could be working capital ring-fenced and not able to be used by the business. That's a cost but the Minister doesn't know what the quantum of that working capital or that retention money is. But then there's also a benefit that there's less insolvency. But the Minister said they don't know what the benefit is. So am I correct to think that this Government has brought a piece of legislation to the House and the Minister responsible doesn't know what the costs or the benefits are?Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister for Building and Construction): No the member is not correct.
Seymour David; Woods MeganDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Can I just briefly comment on that answer—I guess doing construction is voluntary. You know it's certainly true that businesses could choose not to enter into any contract at all but that's kind of moot. I think the point is that under this law if people do want to enter into construction and if they do want to use retentions—which have been part of construction for a very long time—then there are some constraints put on them. So I'm not sure that the Minister is really addressing the question. But the question I asked earlier was if the Minister could quantify the amount that is lost by insolvency. Now just to be helpful to the Minister the regulatory impact statement says annual insolvency costs are $89 million. Does the Minister think that might be how much is lost from retentions that aren't properly paid each year in New Zealand—$89 million—or is it some other number?Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister for Building and Construction): I'm aware that the regulatory impact statement puts that insolvency cost at $89 million but one of the issues that I addressed as an answer to an earlier question is because there isn't a regime around recording all of this in terms of the flow of retentions you cannot just extrapolate from that and say that that is the amount it could be. But with having this framework around the retention moneys and the fact that we will have a structure around it we will be able to have more of an idea around what that will be.
Bayly Andrew; Woods Megan; O'Connor GregANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): I just want to turn to the lessons out of the Ebert liquidation which also followed the Mainzeal failure. What came out of the court decision was that it confirmed that the legislation—this is 2017 legislation—did not work as Parliament may have originally intended.For example in the Ebert case the High Court confirmed that although it may have been Parliament's intention to create a deemed trust—which clearly it was—by operation of the statutory regime the actual effect of the language used in the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act only creates an obligation on the payer to create a trust.So my first question is: can she give assurance to the committee that this bill actually deals comprehensively with that matter? And the second thing: there's been many examples of situations where contractors have had their tools on site and there's been a liquidation or receivership event overnight and they've been precluded from getting access to those tools.Can she also in that second regard confirm to the committee that that situation is also provided for in this bill and will be necessary the result being that contractors will be able to get access to their tools? So two questions there.Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister for Building and Construction): In answer to those questions—the first one: yes. In answer to the second one—and I believe this was something that was talked about quite a lot at select committee—the issue of contractors and their tools and subcontractors and their tools and their ability to access on site we all know that is a significant issue but it is not an issue that is covered off under this legislation. That is an issue that is covered off under the insolvency laws. This in many ways is a carve-out for a specific piece of that insolvency legislation.ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you for the response Minister. I know it's outside the realm of this particular Act but given the relevancy of it is it her understanding that under the insolvency laws that arrangement the tools and the stock that they may have on site like an electrician would be covered? Because it's very relevant to this whole issue around failure and contracts of construction contractors which is the motion we're debating tonight.Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister for Building and Construction): While it's not my role as the Minister for Building and Construction speaking on this piece of legislation to get into the ins and outs of insolvency law essentially yes. It is the role of the person administrating an insolvency to work out whose assets are whose and to distribute them accordingly. But I think we should keep this to the bounds of this piece of legislation.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Mr Bayly while we are broadly looking at the whole bill it's creeping outside the provisions of the bill.
van de Molen Tim; Woods MeganTIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Thank you Mr Chair. I appreciate the Minister's response around the clarification on that Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) she's brought forward and I just wanted to query that because I see the section 7 she's referring to.My question would be whether or not that gives enough clarity around the party Bs being in relation to one construction contract because looking at that my understanding of it would be that it relates to a party A that has sought a complying instrument that complying instrument could potentially cover multiple contracts that they have across a range of different projects and therefore that would be party B or party B and one or more other persons each being a party B under a construction contract or party Bs under construction contracts. But nothing in that specifies that they could be party Bs of the same construction contract.That's the issue for me. Obviously to me this acknowledges the fact that one head contractor for example being the party A could be working across multiple sites and multiple contracts but it doesn't seem to me to be entirely clear that it relates to both the subcontractor and the sub-subcontractor and any other participants within the one overarching contract. So that's what I'm seeking to address specifically with my SOP because I think it is really important that we do have clarity and perhaps if the Minister is able to give us confidence that indeed it does address both the situation where party A is operating across multiple sites and therefore multiple contracts and also the situation where party A has multiple party Bs on the same contract. If we can get clarity that both of those apply under the proposal that she's brought forward then that would be fantastic.Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister for Building and Construction): The section that the member is referring to does allow for multiple parties if they want to do across multiple contracts there is nothing precluding that in this legislation. That was the point I made in my initial contribution speaking to the member's Supplementary Order Paper.
Seymour David; Woods MeganDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Surely one of the effects of the bill is that it will reduce the amount of working capital available to construction firms at a time when a lot of construction firms are under a lot of pressure. Doesn't it seem perhaps a bit irresponsible to pass legislation without knowing what the quantum of the effect on construction firms' working capital will be?Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister for Building and Construction): In answer to Mr van de Molen over the Supplementary Order Paper that he was introducing in the clauses of the bill that I read out—actually it is possible to package up clubs of subcontractors and contractors in terms of what that can be. The whole point of this is to make sure that we do have protections for those subcontractors; that you can argue becomes really important at a time where there is a tight property market and they could be at more risk. But the other point I'd make is that many of our construction companies already operate this. It is good practice; it is the way in which they do already operate. But there are options to make sure that we can have the ability of our construction sector to get ahead.DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you Mr Chairman. If the Minister's unable to tell us how much money is currently subject to retention in the construction industry can she give us an indication of the value of defaults due to companies failing to pay retention money when they otherwise should've?
Bayly Andrew; Seymour David; Woods MeganANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you Mr Chair. While we're just digesting that—and thank you to the Minister for that response—I suppose the first question is that the first reading was in June 2021 and here we are in 2023. I seem to recall being on the committee doing the original work on this. Can she perhaps just explain to the committee and no doubt to construction entities and organisations that may be listening to this debate—even though it's just after 11 at night—why there has been such a delay because this is a very significant piece of legislation and many people have been calling for it. It follows a couple of court cases particularly the Ebert court case. So I suppose that's the first question I'd like to understand from the Minister.DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I just wonder if the Minister could tell us what quantum of money is currently subject to retentions in the New Zealand construction industry right now.Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister for Building and Construction): In answer to the two questions that have been put in the committee there are two reasons why this bill has taken some time to come back to the floor of the House. One is availability of House time. Quite a lot has occurred in terms of lost time in the House over that period of time but the other and more substantive reason is in terms of the Government Supplementary Order Paper. We're wanting to make sure that we have the compliance regime there so that it actually did have some force.In answer to Mr Seymour's question that he's put one of the issues is the fact that there isn't a regime around it means there actually isn't a good handle on what money is held as retention moneys at the moment. This is the kind of regime that will allow us to have those protections in place and because there is more of a system around it to have more of a handle of what the quantum is.
van de Molen Tim; Woods MeganTIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Thank you Mr Chairman. I appreciate the Minister's consideration of that and I wanted to come to the section around complying instruments because to me it's not clear that it is possible to do that currently under the current section on compliant instruments section 18FB. It makes it clear that the complying instrument must be issued in favour of party B or endorsed with party B's interest and it must require the issuer to pay the retention money to party B if party A fails. So nothing in this—and there's a couple of other aspects—gives any indication that it can apply to multiple party B participants within a construction contract.That's the real challenge here—that in most construction contracts there are more than one party B layer. So when you have a subcontractor and then a sub-subcontractor which is quite normal then you are—I believe—not allowing for that under the current legislation around complying instruments. That's why my Supplementary Order Paper seeks to clarify that multiple parties who all have an interest in some aspect of the overall project are able to then come together around one individual complying instrument because as I say the complying instrument currently must be issued in favour of party B or endorsed with their interests. That doesn't in my mind refer to multiple participants being able to attach to the same complying instrument. So I'd be interested in the Minister's view on that.Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister for Building and Construction): I direct the member to clause 7 of the legislation which says that section 18FB will be amended. This is of course the complying instruments replacing section 18FB(3)(a) with (a) be issued in favour of or endorsed with the interests of (i) party B; or (ii) party B and 1 or more other persons (each being a party B under a construction contract); or (iii) a class of persons (all being party Bs under construction contracts) of which party B is a member". That is the clause that allows what is outlined in the Supplementary Order Paper to occur."
Woods MeganHon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister for Building and Construction): Thank you Mr Chair. I would like to take the opportunity to thank the members of the select committee who I think have given this bill some very thoughtful consideration. I think it is one of those pieces of legislation that is an incredibly pragmatic and sensible piece of legislation that makes sense and it's something that needs to happen. It's good to see all members across this House getting behind it.In that spirit I have examined the Supplementary Order Paper that the member has just addressed in his contribution. It is talking about a scenario where you may have multiple head contractors with multiple construction contracts with multiple subcontractors beneath. So it is a complex construction contract arrangement that you are talking about and suggesting that there be one complying financial instrument that could be used for the whole of that job.As I said I have looked at it and I have sought advice on it. One of the things that I keep coming back to is that we won't be supporting it because it is not a necessary amendment. There is nothing in the legislation that precludes anyone from doing that; they would need to find someone to issue them a complying financial instrument in order to be able to do it if they were to use the bond mechanism in order to do it. It simply not good legislative practice to provide for something in the legislation that can occur anyway. So the fact that there is nothing to stop this happening does mean that we won't be supporting that Supplementary Order Paper.
O'Connor Greg; Utikere TangiCONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS (RETENTION MONEY) AMENDMENT BILLIn CommitteeParts 1 and 2 the Schedule and clauses 1 to 3CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Members the House is in committee on the Construction Contracts (Retention Money) Amendment Bill. We come first to Part 1.TANGI UTIKERE (Chief Whip—Labour): I seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one question.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is none. The question is that Parts 1 and 2 the Schedule and clauses 1 to 3 stand part.
Doocey MattMATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): Good choice Madam Speaker. Thank you very much for selecting me. I'm going to take a call on behalf of the National Party—that might come as some surprise—on the third readings of the civil aviation legislation.I just want to carry on from my colleague Shanan Halbert who was introducing some puns around the aviation sector into this debate. I quite like that the Hon Michael Wood in his PR said This bill was to help aviation recovery take off." I encourage all speakers that will follow me to add their take and puns on the aviation sector in this bill as well just to bring some light relief to what I think will be a fairly dry debate because as we can tell we have some support across all parties.Hon James Shaw: You're running out of runway Matt!MATT DOOCEY: So far so good. Let's hope I don't crash and burn! Hey look I just want to say how good our aviation sector is. I think something that we do—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): I laughed—I laughed.MATT DOOCEY: I know. Look it's good. I'm glad that you're listening Madam Speaker.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): I'm listening.MATT DOOCEY: It gives me great delight. But coming back to what we're debating tonight the aviation sector I just want to say how good it is. I mean it's something that we actually probably take for granted in New Zealand. I mean we have a huge number of airports. I'd argue that anywhere you are in New Zealand you'd probably be an hour and a half a two-hour drive to an airport. And why I raise that is for a small country like New Zealand—some will know my wife is Hungarian. It's quite a large country; 10 million people. You'd be fascinated to know that it only has one airport in the whole country. Simon Court: The Soviets bulldozed the rest of them.MATT DOOCEY: And just to acknowledge other Magyars with their heritage in the House tonight as well. But isn't that interesting? It's something that we actually take for granted with the many airports we have and the aviation airlines as well. So I want to acknowledge them. They bring huge economic growth into the country as my learned colleague Simeon Brown alluded to supporting 11 percent of GDP and enabling over $17 billion in our tourism economy. Of course this legislation has been somewhat long in gestation and it repeals and replaces the Civil Aviation Act 1990 and the Airport Authorities Act 1966. So it's fair to say when you look at those two Acts some time ago 1990 and 1966 there's some issues in this bill that potentially weren't around in those times—obviously the advent of new technologies like drones and autonomous aircraft. We've also got the uncertainty of the global environment and the ever-evolving nature of terrorist threats meaning that our airport security systems should be keeping up with the best in the world.This is legislation that I think has been traversed quite widely across the three readings and the committee of the whole House and that is why I commend these bills to the House. Thank you."
Halbert ShananSHANAN HALBERT (Labour—Northcote): Thank you Madam Speaker. My colleague Simeon Brown's previous speech reminded me of this particular bill. It was a slow take-off and then he started to launch to the end and then finished abruptly. That's certainly the journey that the Civil Aviation Bill has taken through this House. This bill fits squarely with Labour's plan in reconnecting New Zealanders with the world—and the civil aviation sector is of course a huge part of that. Our commitment to economic development and our economic recovery is incredibly important.The Civil Aviation Bill creates a single modern law that will provide safety security and economic regulation of the civil aviation system. We traversed this significantly under the leadership of Greg O'Connor in his time as our chair of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee and I know we heard a number of submissions.So it's a good piece of legislation it is timely that this has come through and I'm certainly pleased about it. I commend this bill to the House.
SpeechCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the Minister's amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 325 be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the Hon Julie Anne Genter's amendment to clause 3 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 240 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 10Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Noes 107New Zealand Labour 64; New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 9.Amendment not agreed to.The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 10 Noes 108. CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the Hon Julie Anne Genter's amendment to clause 4 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 241 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 10Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Noes 107New Zealand Labour 64; New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 9.Amendment not agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March's amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 329 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 12Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Noes 107New Zealand Labour 64; New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 9.Amendments not agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that Chlöe Swarbrick's amendment replacing clause 58 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 239 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 10Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Noes 107New Zealand Labour 64; New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 9.Amendment not agreed to.Parts 1 to 11 Schedules 1 to 10 and clauses 1 and 2 as amended agreed to.Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Associate Minister of Transport): I move Supplementary Order Paper 326 dividing the bill.Motion agreed to.Bill to be reported with amendment and divided into the Civil Aviation Bill and the Civil Aviation Amendment Bill.House resumed.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The committee has considered the Civil Aviation Bill and reports it with amendment and divided into the following bills: Civil Aviation Bill and Civil Aviation Amendment Bill. I move That the report be adopted.Motion agreed to.Report adopted.
Court SimonSIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you Madam Chair. Minister that is a really insightful explanation; I do appreciate it. So what we take from that is that the cost of engaging an independent auditor—and let's say we're a corporate business. Imagine we're a private airport operator like an Auckland International Airport for example or a Wellington International Airport. We would have to have our annual accounts and performance audited by an external auditor so that our shareholders and our board could be satisfied that as an airport operator we were operating to a standard expected of us by financial and other regulators. Aviation security around the world particularly since September 11 2001 has had a very significant role in safeguarding airport operations and airline operations and the safety of passengers. Yet it appears to many people travelling around the world that in some places and cases aviation security services are not operated efficiently and they are not necessarily operating in a way that is adapted to our changing needs and people's expectations of what good customer service looks like in airports.So I just want to contrast your statement that it was seen as too expensive to engage an independent auditor with what every other commercial organisation including airports and airlines operating in this space would need to do which is to engage independent financial auditors independent health and safety auditors and all of those independent reviews of their performance so that their shareholders and directors can be satisfied they're operating to the highest standard.So Minister given that contrast do you think it's worthwhile that officials the Ministry of Transport have another look at the potential to engage independent audit whether that's through the Office of the Auditor-General or a similar function Officer of Parliament so we can have confidence that aviation security is operating efficiently and effectively.Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Associate Minister of Transport): Yeah look I thank the member again for his inquisition into this area and I don't want my statements to be conflated as something that I didn't quite intend. I think what I meant is that in terms of setting up a whole new independent regulatory regime like an independent auditor as an actual separate and independent regulatory function; that was what I meant. That was not a cost that was considered necessary in these circumstances. I note the member is being well engaged on these issues. If I just set them through the regulatory performance is overseen by the director in the civil aviation board. The ministry then has the governance responsibilities for civil aviation. That falls within my role. In the end the accounts are audited. And when it comes to the civil aviation we've delineated out so that the director of the civil aviation isn't the person that's directly responsible for the Aviation Security Service (AVSEC). Instead it's the board of the Civil Aviation Authority that AVSEC is managed by. So I hope that clarifies it. It is a relatively complicated regime.
Court SimonSIMON COURT (ACT): Minister I just want to explore a little bit more about the functions of the Aviation Security Service (AVSEC). The bill attempts to address the perceived conflict of interest between the civil aviation and aviation security. The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) is responsible for providing the AVSEC service and the Director of Civil Aviation is responsible for monitoring AVSEC and that creates a perception of a conflict of interest—or could. AVSEC is tasked with not just a really important security function but also with having a role in getting passengers to their flights in a timely manner. Just coming back to that theme of what role do these agencies like aviation security and others play in the efficient performance of our airports has the Minister considered ACT's proposal—or have officials considered ACT's proposal—for an independent auditor to evaluate whether aviation security are performing their functions effectively and efficiently exercising their powers in an appropriate manner and minimising disruptions to travellers and airport operations? Has the Minister or officials given any consideration to ACT's proposal to establish an independent performance auditor such as by the Office of the Auditor-General?Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Associate Minister of Transport): Yes thank you Madam Chair. Look I think first just to acknowledge that there is an actual conflict of interest between the director of the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) and the Aviation Security Service (AVSEC)—that's clear. The way that they've sought to circumvent or protect limit impact that conflict is by removing some of the certification and delineating out the roles. The advice received on this is that it didn't warrant the cost and time in terms of having an independent regulator to perform that function and given that the costs and the changes within this environment have been pretty substantive unless there's a compelling case to do otherwise and implement that type of independent regulatory regime it's not something that's being considered at this time.
Brown SimeonSIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): I'd like to ask a couple of extra questions. The first one is in relation to the recent International Civil Aviation Organisation report in relation to New Zealand's aviation security which took place towards the end of last year. I'd like to ask whether any findings or recommendations from that review of our aviation security have affected any of the amendments in the Supplementary Order Paper which we have on the Table today and if so what are the changes that that is making?The second is in relation to aviation security. I think many who use airports recently would note that aviation security has certainly become wanting in terms of the timeliness that it is causing upon those who travel up and down our country or internationally and I note that this bill does provide for aviation security services to be outsourced potentially. Is that something the Government is considering?Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Associate Minister of Transport) So in short just to the primary question the answer is no. The review hasn't led into that Supplementary Order Paper. However—where am I? No I'm on the wrong page—there we go. Look I understand that no that review hasn't led to any of the amendments. National security is of course a substantive issue which all Governments have taken seriously since 11 September 2001 which changed the modern world as we're all well aware. But there's no intent of the Government at this time; there's been no discussions to that effect.
Court SimonSIMON COURT (ACT): I just want to ask the Minister: that being the case—and look it's great to know that these agencies are already engaging with airports. But when Auckland International Airport announced that what is essentially a spaceframe shed with a long run ColorSteel cladding on it was going to cost $3.7 billion many in the industry and airline operators have said How on earth could a building that is meant to process people in an hour or so coming from aircraft landing in New Zealand moving on to domestic flights or moving on to buses or private vehicles into Auckland—how on earth could a building for what is by international standards a relatively small airport cost $3.7 billion?"So would the Minister be able to give any indication about what role these other Government agencies might have had in forcing that $3.7 billion cost on to Auckland International Airport? Because while it's gratifying to know that they're engaging in early negotiations what will result under this bill is an enforceable undertaking—which the airports must comply with. Of course that means the Government has the power to force them to accept cost. So are we seeing through Auckland Airport's announcement of the $3.7 billion build for a new shed an example about what's to come?Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Associate Minister of Transport): Obviously we don't have responsibilities for the decisions of Auckland International Airport; those are commercial and other decisions for them. No I think in short is the answer."
Brown SimeonSIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Appreciate the answer from the Minister. So can the Minister clarify: so the Minister has sought evidence around those time frames—that's what was stated—and she was given evidence that the majority were dealt with within the three-month period. Is the Minister able to provide some additional information to the committee as to what percentage of applications to the medical convenor for review were dealt within that three-month period? Over the last five years for instance what percentage were beyond three months? I'm not sure if the Minister has that specific information here but if she does it would be great to have that tabled so that we can actually see it from this side of the Chamber because I think that that's a very important piece of information for this particular part of the debate. Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Associate Minister of Transport): No but in consultation with the officials I understand that the Ministry of Transport have previously provided that evidence to the select committee. So I don't have that particular piece of advice here in the Chamber tonight but I'm happy to provide it to the member through a written question.
SpeechHon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Associate Minister of Transport): Thank you to the member just for raising that and that was something that sparked my interest because I think any time we do have unsatisfactory and untimely decisions it leaves people hinging their lives on the decisions of others. So I acknowledge the member for raising that point. My understanding is that why there is no prescribed time limit within the Schedule 2 section 21 test really is that the medical reviewer needs to be assured that they've got all of the medical history available to them. Secondly that timeliness is really dependent on a range of other things apparently coming to them—this is how I best understand it.The officials have said to me that in most cases this medical review is completed in three months or not more than three months. However I think there's been a couple of particular instances where it really has exceeded that. So on the advice that's been provided from the director and from the medical profession it's just not tenable—is essentially how they described it—to be able to put a strict time limit on it. But I was satisfied to hear on probing that the time frames were by and large within that threemonth period which wouldn't seem unjustifiably long.
Belich Camilla; Salesa JennyCAMILLA BELICH (Junior Whip—Labour): Point of order Madam Chairperson. I seek leave to have all parts taken as one question.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Is there any objection to the motion? There are no objections. We will take the rest of this bill as one.
Court SimonSIMON COURT (ACT): So Minister Allan just with respect to clause 410 clause 410(1)(a) refers to a convention and to Annex 16 Vol IV of the Convention:". So would the Minister like to describe—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Point of order to the member: even though clause 5 refers to clause 410 you can't actually debate clause 410 at this time because that is part of Part 6.SIMON COURT: Right. Well thank you Madam Chair.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Go ahead and ask questions about clause 5 though.SIMON COURT: Yeah. So when it comes to clause 5 and we're looking at the definition of an "operator" it is actually material what they're required to do. I would have thought that actually getting a bit more clarity on this from the Minister would be helpful because we are talking about definitions of who operates in New Zealand airspace and what their obligations are. And if their obligations by being defined as an "operator" include having to report on their carbon emissions and so on with a whole lot of other international obligations it would just be helpful if the Minister would just clarify that now. And happy to come back and debate it later Madam Chair.Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Associate Minister of Transport): Thank you Madam Chair. Look I mean this is drawing into that broader part of the debate. This sits under subpart 3 of Part 6 as the member Simon Court's well aware under clause 206 and as I said is defined there. I'm happy to read it out but I'm sure the member has it before him as well. For the sake of clarity though clause 206(1)(a) reads "has a registered place of business in New Zealand and holds a New Zealand AOC with ANZA privileges; and (b) operates an air transport service offering air transport services to 1 or more places outside New Zealand as a New Zealand airline". So just to reiterate my point for the third time: this applies to international airlines and specifically Air New Zealand. This is directly tagged to eligible New Zealand operators for the purposes of emissions."
Brown SimeonSIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): I'd like the Minister to just provide a bit of clarity in regards to that particular point about eligible New Zealand operators. Is the Minister saying that clause 410 doesn't operate—doesn't apply—to all airports or is it only applying to some airports? Currently the definition of eligible New Zealand operator" doesn't refer at all to clause 410 but this Supplementary Order Paper is adding in reference to 410 which as has been mentioned is in relation to "Regulations relating to carbon offsetting and reduction scheme for international aviation" and relates to "how an eligible New Zealand operator may be attributed to New Zealand" "how flights … be attributed to an eligible New Zealand operator" "the content of an emissions monitoring plan" and "the method or methods by which fuel emissions may be calculated." So it has a variety of things which are very different to the variety of things which are referred to in clause 206(2). So it seems to be that the bill is now pointing us in a very different direction from what it was originally pointing us towards. Appreciate any clarification around why that new definition has been added to this particular clause.Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Associate Minister of Transport): Yes thank you Madam Chair. Look I apologise if I wasn't as clear as I could have been and I'm remiss if that was indeed the case. So a "New Zealand operator" is defined at 206(1)(a) and (b) and you'll see there that it specifically applies to airlines. Clause 410 is aligned in that the definition it refers to indeed what we were trying to capture which is international aviation so it's really related directly to those airports that operate internationally."
Court SimonSIMON COURT (ACT): I just want to come to clause 5 Madam Chair the definition of eligible New Zealand operator". There was a lot of debate a lot of questions in select committee Minister about whether local council owned and operated airports should come under the same regime as the larger commercial airports. And there were some significant concerns that actually they would have a different regime of treating the way they operated. So would the Minister provide some explanation as to why in clause 5 the definition of "eligible New Zealand operator" now includes after Part 6 in section 4(10). Because when we look at section 4(10) it requires a whole lot of information about essentially climate-related disclosures which are quite extensive quite onerous and look like they would put quite significant costs on airport operators. So would the Minister please explain why airport operators appear to have to supply a whole lot of information that actually looks like it's quite onerous.Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Associate Minister of Transport) Thank you; this is a good question. It's at clause 226 of the bill where it's really expanded upon so it clarifies who the exemption to operate an airport commercially applies to and specifically ensuring that we capture Crown and local authority joint venture airports who choose not to operate commercially. So the eligible New Zealand operators—it's really about emissions from international airlines primarily where Air New Zealand would operate out of."
Court Simon; Salesa JennySIMON COURT (ACT): Minister who sought the changes and on what grounds? Did they believe they required an additional six months in order to give effect to the bill?Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Associate Minister of Transport): Yes it's a significant bill. It's going to have large implications. The member will have heard about this with the people he was with last night. But indeed over the significant period of time that this—Matt Doocey: What happened last night? I missed out.Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: Yes he was at a function last night. It was an airports function; one that I think your mayor might have been at. It was a good function. But look as you'll be well aware it's a significantly large bill massive implications for the entire civil aviation environment. Primarily the changes have been sought by the Civil Aviation Authority and the Ministry of Transport but that's been through engagement with the sector.SIMON COURT (ACT): So were there specific reasons that the authority the Ministry of Transport and any stakeholders that might have been consulted about the extension—were there any specific reasons that they gave? Because there are many things in this bill that the industry has been asking for to streamline the way they operate to make it more efficient and to update the regulations. So while some of it might be complex and difficult to implement based on current state I'm surprised that that extension of time has been asked for for the date of when the bill comes into effect. So if the Minister could just tell us who asked for the extension and what was the reason that would be very helpful.Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Associate Minister of Transport): I'm happy to reanswer that question because I think I was relatively clear but I'll restate it for the member. Clause 2 Commencement"—it will extend the commencement date of the bill for 24 months after the Royal assent. So that won't have a specific date because the Royal assent is yet to be determined subject to tonight and other matters and secondary to that as I said before the secondary legislation—its substantive programme is large. This has been well canvassed with the industry and we're giving effect to those changes.Simon Court: Madam Chair.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): If I may Simon Court before you ask another question about commencement commencement is not actually to be debated until right at the end of the bill. Clause 2 only talks about the preliminary parts not the actual commencement date. So go ahead and ask other questions but we will debate the commencement much later on."
Court SimonSIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you Madam Chair. ACT welcomes this bill coming back to the House. It's about time that we modernised some of the regulation and red tape that is stifling New Zealand businesses and the Civil Aviation Bill when it becomes law will go a long way. However there are some issues that have been raised at the Transport and Infrastructure Committee with the performance and operation of civil aviation particularly with respect to the independent review of decisions made by the Director of Civil Aviation and while submitters in the industry have indicated that they are somewhat satisfied by the changes made to the bill they are not entirely satisfied. ACT also has raised concerns about the performance of some entities that fall under civil aviation—in particular the monitoring and the independent assessment of aviation security services as we referred to in the report back to the House. So I would like to ask the Minister to please explain why only yesterday on 28 March two Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) have been tabled which make some rather significant changes to some aspects of the bill what it is that the Minister and officials mean to achieve by tabling those SOPs and why have members and stakeholders not had an opportunity to review those SOPs until yesterday? Minister. Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Associate Minister of Transport): It's a pleasure to be here in the Chamber this evening under urgency. Very briefly in response to the member's questions: they have been tabled because they are Supplementary Order Papers and they've been worked through a fulsome process going back to 2021. Stakeholders have been engaged the whole way through. It was good to be able discuss these—actually at the same function that Mr Court was at last night—with some key stakeholders again. These are minor in the scheme of things and they do nothing other than what has been previously indicated that this Government will do.
Belich CamillaCAMILLA BELICH (Junior Whip—Labour): I seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one question.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is. The question is that Part 1 stand part.
SpeechCIVIL AVIATION BILLIn CommitteePart 1 Preliminary provisions CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The House in committee for the Civil Aviation Bill. We will start with Part 1. This is the debate on clauses 3 to 12 Preliminary provisions" and Schedule 1 "Transitional savings and related provisions". The question is that Part 1 stand part."
Foreign Affairs (Consular Loans) Amendment Bill — Third Reading
SpeechDr ELIZABETH KEREKERE (Green): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. I am very pleased to rise in support of the Foreign Affairs (Consular Loans) Amendment Bill in this its final reading. Thank you again to the Minister the officials the select committee—everybody that's helped move it through so we can gracefully send it on its path tonight.I too wanted to add my thanks to the embassies and the consulates around the world. Last year some of us who are part of the European Union Parliamentary Friendship Group did a trip to Europe. We visited six countries in two weeks. It was a whirlwind but we had ambassadors and people from our embassies around the world looking after us every step of the way. I know we're fortunate as MPs as members of Parliament as Ministers that we have certain privileges but the rest of our people who head out there in excitement to see family and experience different things they don't always have that back-up when something happens. But this is the back-up. We're pleased that we can take care of the technical issues. It means that this can continue.I also thank the Minister for giving us that outline of what kind of money we're actually talking about here. It's not a fortune but when there's an emergency and someone's health or safety is threatened somewhere else in the rest of the world it's the lifeline that they need and I'm really thankful that we can make sure that it continues. We commend this bill to the House.
SpeechDAN ROSEWARNE (Labour): Kia ora Madam Speaker. It is my pleasure to speak on the Foreign Affairs (Consular Loans) Amendment Bill. At this stage at the third reading I think it's fitting to acknowledge New Zealand's network of 60 embassies and consulates and their 863 offshore staff who play a vital role in representing New Zealand abroad and protecting Kiwis when they're facing difficult situations overseas.One of the tools available to them is to assist New Zealanders in distress with the consular loan. This financial assistance is a last resort provided in exceptional circumstances when the health or safety of the person is at stake. So I commend this bill to the House.
Mooney JosephJOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you very much Madam Speaker. I rise to speak briefly on the Foreign Affairs (Consular Loans) Amendment Bill on its third reading. This is a relatively simple bill but an important one that will re-establish legislative authority for a longstanding practice. For over a quarter of a century the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade has provided financial assistance to assist New Zealand citizens and permanent residents when their immediate health or safety is at risk.And certainly over the last few years we've seen a real challenge where a large number of New Zealanders were stuck overseas for quite some period of time and found themselves in very difficult situations. Our great consular services did assist them. This bill will ensure that those loans are retrospectively approved where necessary and ensure that the right legislation is in place to ensure this is legal going forward. So it's a simple but important bill and one that hopefully we won't be needing to the same degree that we have over the last few years for a very long time to come. But with that I commend this bill to the House.
SpeechIBRAHIM OMER (Labour): Thank you Madam Speaker it's a pleasure to take a short call on the Foreign Affairs (Consular Loans) Amendment Bill third reading. It's good to see—it's a good night in the House when the whole House comes together to debate a bill that might look insignificant but it's actually very important to a lot of people who travel overseas. The bill does a few things but one of the things that it does is it seeks to re-establish legislative authority for longstanding practice. This is not to seek to create a new policy approach. Rather the intention is for the power to make loans provided for in legislation to be applied in the same way as reflected in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade's (MFAT) consular loans policy. It also retrospectively validates the loans issued between 2017 and 2020. In early 2020 MFAT became aware of the lack of authority under the Public Finance Act so as it manages a significant increase in the number of consular loans due to the COVID-19 pandemic I too wanted to add my voice thanking and appreciating our diplomats all over the world who look after us. Last October I was in Addis Ababa and the embassy staff and Ambassador Michael Upton looked after me very very well and I'm sure that they do this throughout the world for Kiwis that travel overseas. I want to acknowledge the hard-working select committee that's chaired by yourself for the good work that they have done scrutinising this bill. I'd like to thank the submitters the Clerk's staff and everyone who contributed in this bill and also everyone who spoke in favour of this bill tonight across this House. It's heart-warming to see that once we can disagree on things but when it comes to things that affect Kiwis we come together and we get the job done and that's exactly what happened in this House tonight. This is a good bill; I commend it to the House.