edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Sage EugenieHon EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Thank you Madam Chair. I would like to move to another matter in Part 4 and that's around major transactions. The Green Party has sought to respond to public concerns expressed through submissions about ensuring that there is good scrutiny of any transactions by the water services entities and that the entities that hold commitment to public service is really solid.There was a recommendation through the Finance and Expenditure Committee to replicate in the bill some of the provisions that exist in companies law to ensure that there was scrutiny over any major transactions by the regional representative group. So new clause 164A provides that any major transactions—whether it's the acquisition or an agreement to acquire more assets or the disposition or agreement to dispose of assets of the entity or a transaction that has the effect of the entity incurring obligations or liabilities including contingent liabilities which are more than half the value of the entity's assets before the transaction—would have to go to the regional representative group and there would have to be a special resolution requiring 75 percent support on the regional representative group for that transaction.There's a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 296 in my name which seeks to reduce the definition of major transaction to any transaction involving more than 25 percent of the entity's assets. Reducing that threshold would then trigger that 75 percent majority required to support that. The intention behind that is to ensure that the regional representative group representing councils and iwi and the wider public is really engaged in these major transactions. And again it signals the commitment on this side of the Chamber to the water services entities acting in the public interest.I think it is irresponsible of some of the previous speakers to say they're just going to repeal the bill when they haven't put up a plan about how they would reform water services how they would ensure that three waters were well provided. So it's changes likes the major transactions one which we see as responding to the public recognition of the importance of a strong public service ethos to the delivery of water services and the concerns that the Public Service Association and others expressed in their submissions about progressive contracting out which can lead to privatisation.So this SOP 296 increases the scrutiny that the regional representative group would have and ensures that any of these major transactions have a 75 percent majority support in the regional representative group.
O'Connor Simon; McAnulty KieranSIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Thank you Madam Chair. National has a very clear policy responding to the Associate Minister of Local Government: we will repeal this legislation.We are of course debating Part 4 Financial and accountability matters". So the question here is really for the Associate Minister whether he understands the notion of what a treaty is because in defending the right of mana whenua to have a direct influential and material say over and above everybody else—over and above everybody else—does the Minister in the chair Hon Kieran McAnulty understand that treaties are by their own definition about partnership about equality about relationships.The very nature of a treaty is it's not one-sided Minister. Why is it only one group of people? That's not a treaty-natured relationship. So it's actually a very false argument a very illogical and inconsistent argument to say that Te Mana o te Wai all this way through Part 4 are only the problems of one element of a treaty. That's not a treaty; that's a singularity. I would just really like the Minister to see if he could respond to that or explain why in a treaty relationship one group of people have more say than the other.The second part that I want to draw on very quickly is if I might—and I raised it earlier to the Minister in Part 3—what are the qualities of mana whenua that other people in the world don't have? What is this absolute unique view of water that mana whenua have? Because as I—CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): To the member can we stick to Part 4 please.SIMON O'CONNOR: Absolutely. It is all of Part 4 because all the reporting on financial matters—and thank you Madam Chair—is prefixed on a point of difference. I'd just like to understand what that is because when I think of water and other people we all do want it to be ecological well-guarded for multiple generations and so forth. So I'm just trying to understand: what is this unique point of difference that the Minister sees exists?Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Associate Minister of Local Government): Thank you Madam Chair. This won't take long. I like to boil things down to its most simple element. When you have a treaty or a contract you live up to what you promised and we're living up to what we promised in Te Tiriti o Waitangi."
Sage EugenieHon EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Thank you very much Madam Chair. I would just like to respond to a few comments that National members have made about the entrenchment provisions because I think they are saying there is no need. But it was the National Government that despite a major public campaign to keep our assets passed the mixed ownership legislation that allowed for the privatisation of part of Meridian Energy Mighty River Power Genesis and Air New Zealand. This was despite a massive public campaign in 2012 to gather signatures on the referendum to keep those energy companies and Air New Zealand in full public ownership.So while members of this House may say there is no intention now to privatise any of the water services entities they showed back in 2012 that they would ignore more than 300000 people who signed the referendum to keep our assets. And that's why this entrenchment provision in this Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) is so important because it highlights that it would require a 60 percent majority of the Parliament to change the fact that water services entities should maintain the provision of water services and maintain their assets. There may be no intention at the moment but things change.As the Minister noted when the Electoral Act was first passed in 1993 provisions in that were entrenched. Even though Parliament can't bind future parliaments it is that moral power that an entrenchment provision has—that it's a strong signal in this bill that it represents the will of New Zealanders. There were a lot of submissions very concerned about privatisation and on this in the Green Party and in the Labour Government—it's through responding to those concerns that we ensure that water services assets and infrastructure and the operation of those services are maintained in public ownership. The way the bill is structured with local authorities having those shares in proportion to every 50000 people is signalling that they remain publicly owned and this entrenchment provision further underlines that. That's why it's important. And if the National Party really had no intention of privatising in future then it would support this SOP.
Cameron MarkMARK CAMERON (ACT): Thank you Madam Chair. Minister going back to Part 3—we're in Part 3 obviously—clause 116 again can I seek your clarification if you'd be so obliging. Clause 116(2): In order to perform or exercise its duties functions or powers under this Act a water services entity must not do any of the following: use water services assets infrastructure as security for that purpose".So obviously that's balance sheet separation. And to your words earlier today it gives council oversight over its asset and yet this entity decides how those assets are adjudicated and where the monies are spent and where contractors services and/or procurement is directed to. How do you reconcile that?Again going back to the rural ends—and I'm sorry I'm going to bang on about the rural ends but it's dear to my heart as it is to many many many parts of the country. When there is no need for balance sheet separation because local authorities working hand in glove with local contractors have a continuing reality where asset management and health standards—i.e. we're talking about Food Act health standards for freshwater consumption—are meeting the necessary standards. Do you want to clarify that? Because again you've spoken about how councils will own their own assets and yet the water services entity decides how those assets are managed.I'm trying to reconcile that as are many rural New Zealanders when we currently don't have a lot of problems."
Cameron MarkMARK CAMERON (ACT): Thank you Mr Chair. Clause 118 in Part 3 I'm just trying to get my head around. Minister you've made some statements about joint contracting realities and they will stay in play. Again I'm going through the lens of rural New Zealand and you spoke of local procurement that's existing and in place. I draw your attention to clause 118(2)(c) which says any other interested persons that the board considers appropriate." In that instance is there not the potentiality that existing contracts could be undone if there is objection at a board level by a person or persons that the board considers appropriate? Again when you actually think about that in a rural context a lot of these contracts have been—I won't say multigenerational but they've been in play a long time. Is there potential in this legislation to undo existing agreements at catchment level local drainage board level and have it taken over to one of the major entities? You can see how this is quite convoluted. Can you please explain that for rural listeners in New Zealand who are deeply concerned about where this goes and how it affects their local assets?"
Rurawhe Adrian; Brownlee GerryINTRODUCTION OF BILLSSPEAKER: I understand it is the intention of the Government to introduce two bills.CLERK:Crown Minerals Amendment Bill introductionLocal Government Official Information and Meetings Amendment Bill introduction.SPEAKER: Those bills are set down for first reading. I declare the House in committee for further consideration of the Water Services—Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Just a clarification: so the urgency motion yesterday—there was a Crown minerals bill in that motion. Is this a different bill?Hon Chris Hipkins: No it's the bill that was in the motion.Hon Gerry Brownlee: Well if it's introduced under urgency what have we now got—why is it now being introduced? Is it not on the Table at the present time?SPEAKER: The Government can introduce a bill at any time.Hon Gerry Brownlee: The point is Mr Speaker with all due respect—SPEAKER: Is it a new point of order?Hon Gerry Brownlee: Well it's the same point because the urgency motion is effectively an introduction of the bill so we're effectively doing that twice.Hon Chris Hipkins: Speaking to the point of order Mr Speaker. When the member the Hon Gerry Brownlee was the Leader of the House it was usual for the Government to pass an urgency motion that would have the words and other bills to be introduced by the Government". The Standing Orders were changed some Parliaments back to require that the Government be more specific in terms of which bills would be considered under urgency. There is not a requirement for those bills to have been introduced at the time that motion is moved; so the motion moved yesterday included some bills that had yet to be introduced two of which have now been.SPEAKER: It's Standing Order 292 for members. I declare the House in committee for further consideration of the Water Services Entities Bill."
Water Services Entities Bill — In Committee—Part 2
Little AndrewHon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): Thank you Madam Chair. I'm happy to respond further to Paul Goldsmith and his contributions. I think with all due respect to Mr Goldsmith conflating what is a multi-layer level of decision making—strategic with the regional representative group and operational and entity-focused for the board—as somehow comprising 50:50 representation; it actually doesn't. But as we have seen in other spheres—and he referred to decisions this Parliament has already made and legislation it's passed—we have at various levels allowed a level of representation that reflects a Treaty partnership and it is 50:50 representation. But when it comes to decisions—decisions about operations; decisions about extensions of networks for example; decisions about incurring debt in order to carry out infrastructure construction—that is a matter for the board and the board making that with the repository of skills reflected in it. That repository of skills reflects the statutory requirements for appointments to those boards. That is not 50:50 representation and given Madam Chair your ruling about the scope of the debate I won't engage any further on the particular points that the member has raised.To Shanan Halbert there is a very important challenge there for ratepayers who are ultimately through their councils the owners of these entities who are there to manage these water assets and what have you. It is going to be through those bodies and through their representatives that are drawn from their councils to keep ratepayers informed about what is happening. Of course ratepayers will take a very keen interest in ensuring they continue to enjoy the benefit of running water where they are on a reticulated water supply and for the discharge of waste water and everybody—provincial rural metropolitan—will be concerned about stormwater and the management of stormwater. So it'll be for those representatives and the councils from which they are drawn to make sure that their ratepayers are kept informed.In terms of local voice I refer the member to clause 29 which refers to the collective duty of the regional representative group and outlines a number of duties and functions and powers which are described as wholly or mostly for the benefit of all consumers and communities in the entity service taking into account the diversity of consumers and the community and taking into account interests of the future as well. I think that is an issue that when we think about the life of infrastructure that we need and the very long life that goes beyond many many cycles of the electoral cycle of local government and indeed of central government it's important that the decision makers at the time whether at the board level or at the regional representative group level take account of that long-term interest. I'm confident that in the framework that we've established in the bill to date we will achieve that.
Halbert ShananSHANAN HALBERT (Labour—Northcote): Thank you Madam Chair for the call and to speak particularly on an area we heard a lot about in the submission period. I know from my own community and all members around the House would have had discussions with their own electorates to hear feedback on the Water Services Entities Bill. The key themes Minister that have come up in my community are one around how do ratepayers keep up with the sheer costs—the 7 percent increase that Aucklanders saw introduced this year—and the potential rising of those costs.The second one particularly for the North Shore was around the closure of a number of North Shore beaches and how do we protect our water from contamination.The third one was around how do we ensure that local voice that taxpayers ratepayers continue to have their say and have a contribution. In Auckland it's quite unique of course because we are under Watercare infrastructure already. But as the Finance and Expenditure Committee travelled around the country to hear those submissions very strongly that came through around how do local people have their say? How do they contribute to the issues around water infrastructure in their own areas whether that be in Tāmaki-makau-rau Auckland or whether that be in more regional areas? I'd just appreciate if you just break that down a little bit more Minister to avoid any confusion and be very specific around how we are protecting local voice.
Goldsmith PaulHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you Madam Chair; you're very kind. I suppose the question that the Minister didn't answer that I want to get him to explain is how he has taken the step from the idea of partnership in the broad context to 50:50 decision-making as outlined in clause 27 of this bill. Because it is not obvious to me and to many New Zealanders that a broad concept of partnership under the Treaty overrides what up until now in New Zealand has been a widely understood concept that all New Zealanders should have an equal say in matters affecting their lives and who they elect to make decisions about matters affecting their lives. So this Government—this Government—has made a very significant shift in its interpretation of what partnership means to mean 50:50 decision making. That in our belief is totally contrary to the basic understanding of our democratic values which is that all New Zealanders should have an equal say either at the ballot box or—primarily at the ballot box—Chlöe Swarbrick: Unless they're 16.Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Indeed; all New Zealanders over the age of 18 and I'm glad that our colleagues in the House want to debate those issues and that's fair enough but in this matter we're talking about New Zealanders over the age of 18. So I'd like to understand from the Minister why his Government has decided to take the leap from a broad idea of partnership to understanding that to mean 50:50 decision-making. If he comes back and says Oh well the previous National Government did it in relation to a few settlements." yes indeed we did with a strict focus on matters before a settlement claim in a discrete issue in the management of something like the Waikaremoana park or a particular river. This is a much broader issue as it affects decisions affecting the lives of everyday New Zealanders of all ethnicities so that is what I'm trying to get him to explain.If his argument is that "Well we've decided that partnership means 50:50 decision-making." the second question I have which he didn't answer was how far does that extend? Can he give the Committee an undertaking that it's his intention and the Government's intention to extend that to every part of Government decision-making?"
Cameron MarkMARK CAMERON (ACT): Thank you Madam Chair. Minister in clause 16(1) and (2) I'm trying to reconcile the share system where it says 50000 people and under are one share. Well I live in Northland which you and I have discussed. So you've got the Far North and the Kaipara—that's essentially two shares in that instance. Compare that to Auckland which is going to have a good ol' wheelbarrow full of shares. The infrastructure management of water assets in rural New Zealand is fundamentally different from anything that you might consider urban-centric. Waste water management and stormwater management in rural New Zealand is often funded by ratepayers themselves. They pay for a septic tank. It's not part of a reticulated scheme. They put a tank—I have rainwater on my roof Minister. I paid for all of that and yet here we are. You can see how it turns into with the previous member before deep confusion for rural asset owners and the management therein. There's fundamentally a huge difference in stormwater management in rural New Zealand. It's heavily weighted—the infrastructure—in terms of investment in rural New Zealand and stormwater management and I can tell you Minister just one anecdote: I had farmer owner operators saying the process of cleaning canals stormwater management has been handbraked because they have to identify with cultural sensitivities. In rural New Zealand someone apparently saw a taniwha there. Now this is handbraking not only productivity but outcomes for fresh water and stormwater management. Earlier today we talked about green overland flow. Well respectfully Minister that's nonsensical when most of this stuff has been managed and owned and nuanced and all the understanding has been managed by rural New Zealanders. We don't need this stuff in the country. There are parts of New Zealand—Dunedin Hastings Havelock North—that absolutely do but stormwater and all the confusion at what this means in terms of asset management in rural New Zealand this undoes. Can you please answer how we as farmers can operate in this lens.
Simmonds PennyPENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill): Thank you Mr Chair. Mr Chair I want to canvass clause 16 the allocation of shares in water services entities and also clause 32 and 33. We have talked about the allocation if the population is not more than 50000 and my concern is that we are going to see small local authorities such as for example the Gore District Council who are going to feel completely disenfranchised from this process in that there will be ratepayers in those small councils who are paying not insignificant amounts. Farmers there are likely to be paying rates of $5000 $6000 $7000 per annum and will feel that they will not have a voice at this table. It's a very unusual situation to be in to be the owner of assets where the value will be in the millions of dollars—to be the owner of those assets but to literally have no voice or such a small voice at the table that they will be disenfranchised from the decision making.It's also a very unusual thing—and I know that the Minister has spoken about the partnership model but it is a very unusual situation for owners of an asset to not have a majority say in the strategic use of those assets which clauses 32 and 33 bring about. It is I guess part of the move from this being a voluntary opt-in to being a compulsory requirement to be in that it makes the shareholding proportion all the more important and I think it is probably at the root cause of why so many local authorities have become so staunch on opposing this as they feel their voice is going to be so diluted.And looking at the partnership—and again I refer to the comments my colleague Nicola Grigg made about Ngāi Tahu covering such a broad geographic region—there doesn't seem to be anything in the method of appointing mana whenua representatives that might require that the mana whenua representatives actually have any knowledge of or affinity to or affiliation with that geographic spread. So for example for the North Island entity the mana whenua representatives could arguably all come from the Canterbury region and have very little or no knowledge of the assets and the issues that might be occurring around the Gore region or the western Southland region or the Queenstown region. So I'm really struggling to see how (1) that voice of the local people is going to be given effect to and (2) that seems to be actually exacerbated by the appointment process of the mana whenua representatives not actually having any requirement to have that geographic spread either.So I'm interested to hear from the Minister how she believes the shareholding model based on population is actually going to give voice to those very small local authorities such as the Gore District Council with a population of around 8000 but with people in that that are making quite significant rates payment that are going to obviously impact on the assets that that authority holds. Thank you.
Grigg NicolaNICOLA GRIGG (National—Selwyn): Thank you Mr Chair. I just want to turn the Associate Minister's mind to some comments made by the lead Minister earlier. So I know that this is new ground to canvas. The Minister when I asked some questions around the definition and provision of green stormwater infrastructure my questions were wide ranging there was a lot to canvas but the Minister in her response to me indicated that there was room to negotiate particularly around mixed-use assets" as she described them. When I asked the question around who would have the overriding responsibility for the management of services whereby you have crossover of various territorial authorities or a Government agency or indeed the new entity deed speaking with a particular reference to the South Island who would manage those water services in those vicinities where there's a lot of crossover her words were she said you know that it would depend on—she acknowledged that there were some mixed-use assets and that it would depend on what was the predominant use. So I think that in a bill that is creating such enormous transformational change there does need to be some very very definitive clarification as to the hierarchy of decision making and funding processes contractual processes and procurement processes. She also said that the councils—and again I quote—"Councils can negotiate with the entity on a case by case basis." So again I'd ask the Minister can we have some clarification as to what those case by case bases might look like particularly in reference to clause 6 of Part 1.And then finally the comment that I'm really interested in having teased out was that territorial authorities will identify which infrastructure will transfer to entities. Well therein lies the crux I think of the opposition to this bill—that the vast majority of territorial authorities and indeed regional councils across New Zealand have objected to the transfer of these assets and of this infrastructure. So therefore we now have a Minister in the Chair not 30 minutes ago saying that territorial authorities will identify which infrastructure will transfer to entities. What is the rationale behind that? What is the rationale that a territorial authority can use to negotiate and discuss with the new entities as to which assets will transfer? If I look further down the track wherein does that funding mechanism step in? If the territorial authority agrees and—sorry negotiates and agrees with the entity that they will manage the ongoing maintenance and upgrade of existing infrastructure then where does effectively—who pays is what I'm trying to say in a roundabout way? Where is the line drawn? So I would appreciate some clarification around those areas please Minister."
Sage EugenieHon EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Thank you. Thank you Minister. I don't think the Minister has answered Mr Watts' questions about clause 11 and also clause 12 in relation to the two Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) that he has put in. The Green Party will be supporting those two SOPs because there's a very broad commitment in clause 11(1) that During the establishment period a local government organisation must co-operate with the department and any relevant water services entity to facilitate the … reform." Now we are aware that the Minister has gone round has visited and has engaged with local authorities all over the motu. There needs to be a good relationship between local authorities and central government—one of partnership where they each respect each other's responsibilities. It seems to the Greens that this clause and also clause 13 which allows the chief executive (CE) of the Department of Internal Affairs to issue directions of non-compliance are fundamentally changing that relationship in having central government in a very directive way telling local authorities what to do. We want this reform to work. It will work when the two partners—local authorities and central government—engage well and it seems that clause 11 and clause 13 are really undermining that relationship. So I would encourage the Minister to properly answer the questions: why doesn't the Government consider that given the earlier undertakings that the reform would be voluntary an SOP which removes the ability of the CE to issue the direction of non-compliance and actually makes it much more of a cooperative relationship rather than a command and control one has merit in helping reduce some of the concern about this change process?"
McAnulty KieranHon KIERAN McANULTY (Associate Minister of Local Government): Thank you very much Mr Chair. So I'll just go through some of the questions that Ms Mahuta hadn't already addressed. So speaking to Mr Mooney's questions the water service entities will still be required to seek resource consents just like any other party. Clause 9A has two outcomes. The clause seeks to preserve any rights and interests in water consistent with assurances given by the Crown to the Supreme Court in 2012 and recorded in New Zealand Māori Council v Attorney-General in 2013. This records the acknowledgment given on behalf of the Crown that Māori have interest and rights in water and geothermal resources. That acknowledgment was given by the Rt Hon Bill English. Reference to the principles of the Treaty is consistent with the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975. In regards to the regulation that the member was referring to touching on the Water Industry Commission for Scotland that was specifically in reference to economic regulations not in reference to Te Mana o te Wai.Mr Bayly's questions: nothing in the bill would interfere with the public's existing access to or enjoyment of parks and reserves in the Hunua Ranges. While the bill requires the activities of head office to be within the same entity—that's clause 128—the entities will continue to have local officers throughout the service area and therefore there's never been any suggestion that what the member outlined will be the case.
Walters Vanushi; Dean JacquiVANUSHI WALTERS (Labour—Upper Harbour): I move That the question be now put.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): No. No not yet. I'm ruling on this. This a substantive part of the bill. I'm following the debate very closely. I'm fully aware that this is the second session that we have been considering Part 1 and Schedule 1. I would note that the committee of the whole House's fully engaged. Every party present in the Chamber is fully engaged in this debate. I notice a shift occurring to new matters that have not been traversed. How do I know this? Because I'm keeping track of everybody's contribution.
Russell DeborahDr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn): Following on from the question about stormwater I have a similar one related to concern from my own area the New Lynn electorate which includes the entire Waitakere Ranges. A number of people in the Waitakere Ranges have expressed concern that the land there might transfer to the new water services entity and pass out of local control because it has significant water catchment dams there. They're very beautiful very important to Auckland near 100 percent full but the real worry is the surrounding water catchment. So I'm asking if the Minister could please give some assurance that the land the park—the beautiful Waitakere Ranges Park—will remain in local control under the new water services entity. Thank you.
Cameron MarkMARK CAMERON (ACT): Thank you Madam Chair. Minister last night you and I canvassed the green stormwater aspect in clause 6 Interpretation" and both Nicola Grigg and the Hon Eugenie Sage brought up how convoluted this could actually be for the ownership structure and the operation of these freshwater assets as they go over land. Now I just want to give you a bit of pause here. I live in the Kaipara district area and we have the Raupo Drainage Board. That has gone through 130 years of reclamation. All of those water assets up there have been managed locally Minister. In this instance the operation the monetisation and the oversight of those local assets would go. Now I'm trying to reconcile that. When you take that story anywhere in rural New Zealand green overland flow water infrastructure—how it's managed who has oversight where the revenue streams are coming from—in a lot of cases these are local catchment groups that have got very nuanced—very nuanced—methodologies funding streams etc. etc. Now we were very collegial after the fact when you and I spoke last night. Again do we need to actually have the stormwater aspect—the Hon Eugenie Sage and Nicola Grigg and myself have brought this up—taken out of this piece of legislation? This is massively—to use Nicola Grigg's words—convoluted."
Bayly AndrewANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you Madam Chair. What a pleasure. First of all I just want to pick up on my good colleague Hon Gerry Brownlee's comments earlier.I'm referring to the definition of water supply". In clause 6 "Interpretation" "water supply" includes in paragraph (c) "water supplied for agricultural or horticultural purposes". I'm keen for the Minister just to give us an indication: what is the threshold for that definition for water supplied for agricultural or horticultural purposes?So is that a pipe system coming off—one operated by district council—a reticulated system which means there's a pump and is the pump one that must be operated by a council operation? Because if it's an agricultural pump—one operated by the local farmer—that gives a different intent to that piece of legislation.Secondly what is the threshold? Because if it's just turning on one small tap that's one thing and obviously it should be a de minimis level in that. But I don't see any sort of threshold at which stage something that is a water supply for agricultural or horticultural purposes would be captured under this bill which will obviously be of real concern to horticulture producers particularly in my electorate in Pukekohe.The other thing is about natural watercourses. Already they're under a lot of pressure with water that flows through their land and now we get back into the definition of stormwater. Is the ability to capture that water on their land—obviously as the councils are starting to impose rules and regulations on that does this bill anticipate any further restrictions on farmers and growers being able to capture that water? So that's the first question.Now I'm going to turn to Schedule 1 which is part of Part 1. I suppose the first big thing is the appointment of the establishment chief executive. The establishment chief executive is nominally accountable to the department as it's defined in this part of the bill. Yet that nominal chief executive is then required to do a stack of things in this Schedule. For instance the establishment chief executive must do a 10-year plan and must lay all that out.So I've got a couple of questions. First one with the establishment chief executive effectively being appointed by the department what are the rights of the new board to fire or change that establishment chief executive? Secondly what is the process for the establishment plan for the infrastructure that's put in place for the new entity—one of the four entities—to be able to review that immediately or in fact reject it if it's not thought to be properly taking into account the individual council priorities around its infrastructure?So what is the process to do that or is it just an annual review or can they do it straight away? What will happen if they do reject both the CEO and the plan? So I'll start with that; I've got a stack of stuff I want to talk about to do with this establishment phase."
Sage EugenieHon EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Tēnā koe Madam Chair. Thank you. I think the member Nicola Grigg makes a good point and it's one of the reasons that the Green Party—and there is a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) in my name—seeks to withdraw all of the provisions around stormwater from the bill—because of the huge complexity in managing these areas and in areas like Canterbury integrating with flood protection management. I know that in SOP 306 there are changes to new clause 5A in Schedule 1 which talks about the guiding principle for treatment in allocation schedule of secondary water services." I'm just asking the Minister whether there's been any consideration if/when councils are developing their asset registers—and it highlights what Nicola Grigg and I talked about yesterday with the stormwater assets that are fundamentally natural areas where there are a range of agencies involved where local authorities are also providing for recreation and other values—of relooking at including stormwater because of the complexity of the landownership and the management of these areas. And I'm asking whether in the Minister's SOP in terms of Schedule 1 new clause 5A those guiding principles could lead the Department of Internal Affairs and the entities to decide that a lot of these assets which have got multiple agencies involved for stormwater stay with the councils and then what provision there will be to ensure that councils can continue to fund management of stormwater there because they won't necessarily be able to borrow against the revenue they get for charging for water services because that's all been transferred to the entity. Stormwater is incredibly complex to the land asset and it's not a pipe system so I'm wondering whether the Government considered actually putting a pause on the transfer of stormwater or coming back to that issue in the subsequent legislation that's going to be introduced primarily around the transfer of assets so that entities can focus on drinking water and waste water and not have the complications of stormwater management."
White HelenHELEN WHITE (Labour): Thank you Madam Chair. Minister I have a woman in my constituency who asked me about her husband who works for Watercare. Obviously we've had really good submissions come in from the union that supports those workers in support of the bill because they have really moved from the transition from the old system to Watercare and now they're moving again.That woman was asking me a really bread-and-butter question and I think it's what a lot of New Zealanders really want to know. How is it going to be for the workers who transfer into these new entities what kind of change will they have to cope with and how have you provided for them?CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Can I ask the member to confine her comments and questions specifically to Part 1?HELEN WHITE: Yeah so that is Schedule 1 of Part 1 Madam. [Interruption]CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Let me sort this out; do this properly. OK Helen White.HELEN WHITE: Thank you. Actually that's the end of my question. I'd just like to know about the transfers.
Mahuta NanaiaHon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Local Government): Given that it's the member's first time taking a call and that the material is significantly new can I just respond to the issue of consents for water use in the first instance. This bill is not about consenting. In fact the existing consenting regime through the Resource Management Act remains and those consents that have been already awarded stay intact. This bill is about water service delivery and covers councils primarily and those water supplies that currently sit under councils. I know that the member's brought up private water suppliers and independent water suppliers mixed-use suppliers. To the degree of intent that we have in this legislation it was always very clear that the legislation covers those councils who deliver water and those supply schemes who currently sit under their councils and are primarily managed by their councils. So that's that in the first instance.In the second instance the member raised an issue in relation to the South Island. Far be it from me to perhaps explain the mana whenua interests in one's own area but given that the member was a part of the Government who settled the Ngāi Tahu Treaty claim which confirmed the legal identity of Ngāi Tahu and their Papatipu Rūnanga Te Mana o te Wai statements will be developed through that particular structure which actually makes it administratively more seamless for that iwi. And in the instance that the member relates to it may well be that under a Papatipu Rūnanga there will be many hapū that sit under that organisational structure but it is within the context of Ngāi Tahu in their structure for their iwi that those interests will be accommodated for and relate in a relevant way to the catchment across the South Island.In relation to the questions that both Mr Brownlee and Mr Court raised around borrowing and security against water assets the whole premise of this reform is to be able to derive benefit from scale and aggregation. Yes the councils will continue to own the water network assets. The debt and liability of those water assets will transfer to the water services entity to be able to create that aggregation of scale to be able to derive broader benefit across the entity region. It's not appropriate probably in this part but perhaps if the member looks forward to clause 166 that would be the appropriate place to get greater clarity about what can't happen in relation to water service assets. So councils independently as a result of this legislation will not be able to take security or borrowing against the assets once this bill goes through.
Edmonds BarbaraBARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana): Thank you Madam Chair. I wanted to be able to ask a couple of questions to the Minister based off some of the other comments that were raised by the opposite member Simon Watts because he does raise a good point around Te Mana o te Wai definitions.Simon Court: Just let the Minister answer.BARBARA EDMONDS: My question around this is—and again that member is welcome to ask the question which he just has so in the same respect I'm also allowed to ask a question.So during the select committee process we had heard from submitters including Federated Farmers around Te Mana o Te Wai. One of their particular things they asked the committee to look at was to ensure there was a legislative definition of Te Mana o te Wai in this particular bill. So therefore off the back of that the committee sought advice from officials officials agreed so what the committee agreed to is to put in—in Part 1 in the definitions—an actual definition of Te Mana of te Wai" as a result of that Federated Farmers submission. Now what I understand though is that the Minister—Hon Gerry Brownlee: It doesn't mean anything.BARBARA EDMONDS: So it actually sets out that Te Mana o te Wai applies for the purpose of the Act not only to freshwater but also to coastal water and geothermal. Those three terms are defined in section 2(1) of the Resource Management Act. Now Minister I've just noticed that your Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 306 amends clause 6 by making a different definition of "Te Mana o te Wai". My question to you Minister: is how does your definition which you put in SOP 306 reflect the call from Federated Farmers to make sure that there is an actual definition within the legislation of Te Mana o te Wai and how does that reconcile or align with the Resource Management Act? Thank you Minister."
Tuesday 22 November 2022 - Volume 764
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That urgency be accorded.Ayes 64New Zealand Labour 64.Noes 55New Zealand National 33; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Motion agreed to.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Water Services Entities Bill.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Spatial Planning Bill be now read a first time.Ayes 74New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Noes 45New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Motion agreed to.Bill read a first time.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is That the Spatial Planning Bill be considered by the Environment Committee.Motion agreed to.Bill referred to the Environment Committee.
Spatial Planning Bill — First Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Natural and Built Environment Bill be now read a first time.Ayes 74New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Noes 45New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Motion agreed to.Bill read a first time.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is That the Natural and Built Environment Bill be considered by the Environment Committee.Motion agreed to.Bill referred to the Environment Committee.
Natural and Built Environment Bill — First Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-a-Rua Claims Settlement Bill be now read a second time.Ayes 109New Zealand Labour 64; New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Abstentions 10Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Motion agreed to.Bill read a second time.
Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-a-Rua Claims Settlement Bill — Second Reading
12. Question No. 12—EducationPENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill) to the Minister of EducationQuestion No. 12—Education12. PENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill) to the Minister of Education: Does he stand by his Associate Minister's statement on his behalf regarding Te Pūkenga that no discussions have been had around co-leadership"?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Yes in the context it was made particularly as it followed questions about whether Te Pūkenga should have a Māori at chief executive level. I am aware that Te Pūkenga's current recruitment includes eight regional co-leadership positions. Each of the four regions will have one co-leader with primary responsibility for maintaining and operating effective partnerships with hapū and iwi in that region.Penny Simmonds: Is the cost of co-leadership roles included in the programme business case the Minister received from Te Pūkenga in October and how much additional funding in total was sought in the business case above what had been budgeted for?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The answer to the first part of the question is yes. In answer to the second part of the question we have not yet released that information.Penny Simmonds: What impact does the Minister consider the eight co-leadership roles costing between $200000 and $350000 each might have on the morale of staff waiting to hear if they are going to be made redundant?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Consolidating 16 individual entities into one national entity with a regional leadership structure is likely ultimately to result in cost savings at the leadership level.Penny Simmonds: Does the Minister consider it good practice to advertise co-leadership positions for four regions that haven't yet been agreed on and will the regions mirror the four regions of three waters and/or iwi boundaries?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: In answer to the last part of the question those will be decisions for Te Pūkenga. In answer to the first part of the question I do think that the co-leadership model in this particular instance has a lot to offer. There is no question that our vocational education system needs to do a better job of serving Māori learners. The member will be well aware of that given her former institution the Southern Institute of Technology has the worst first-year retention rate for Māori students in the country."