Thursday, 25 July 2024 - Volume 776 Sitting date: Thursday 25 July 2024 THURSDAY, 25 JULY 2024 The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m. KARAKIA/PRAYERS GREG O'CONNOR (Assistant Speaker): Almighty God, we give thanks for the blessings which have been bestowed on us. Laying aside all personal interests, we acknowledge the King and pray for guidance in our deliberations, that we may conduct the affairs of this House with wisdom, justice, mercy, and humility for the welfare and peace of New Zealand. Amen. OBITUARIES Janet Elsdon Mackey SPEAKER: Members, I regret to inform the House of the death, on 22 July 2024, of Janet Elsdon Mackey. She was a member of this House from 1993 to 2005, representing the electorates of Gisborne, Māhia, and East Coast. During her time in the House, she served on the Education and Science Committee, the Justice and Electoral Committee, and the Finance and Expenditure Committee. She was also the deputy chairperson of the Primary Production Committee and was the chairperson of the Law and Order Committee. I desire on behalf of the House to express the sense of loss we feel and the sympathy for the relatives of the late former member, and I ask members to now stand and join with me in observing a period of silence. Honourable members stood as a mark of respect. BUSINESS STATEMENT Hon SIMEON BROWN (Deputy Leader of the House): Next week, the House will consider the second readings of the Resource Management (Extended Duration of Coastal Permits for Marine Farms) Amendment Bill, the Gangs Legislation Amendment Bill, and the Local Government (Water Services Preliminary Arrangements) Bill. We will also consider the third reading of the Local Government (Electoral Legislation and Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill. Wednesday will be a members' day. Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): When can we expect the Government to reintroduce the Regulatory Systems (Social Security) Amendment Bill? Hon SIMEON BROWN (Deputy Leader of the House): Well, maybe before or after the next season of Finding Nemo or Celebrity Treasure Island. I don't watch TV. SPEAKER: Very good. PETITIONS, PAPERS, SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS, AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLS SPEAKER: There are no petitions to be presented. Ministers have delivered papers. CLERK: Ngāi Tahu Ancillary Claims Trust, annual financial statements for the year ended 30 June 2023 2024 to 2029 statement of intent for the Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand and the Aviation Security Service 2024-25 statements of performance expectations for Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand and Aviation Security Service, Airways Corporation of New Zealand, Commerce Commission, and Te Māngai Pāho 2024 to 2028 strategic intentions for the Public Service Commission. SPEAKER: Those papers are published under the authority of the House. Select committee reports have been delivered for presentation. CLERK: Report of the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee on the review briefing on the 2022/23 annual review of AgResearch Ltd Report of the Health Committee on the review briefing on the 2022/23 annual review of the Health and Disability Commissioner Reports of the Social Services and Community Committee on the 2024/25 Estimates for Vote Arts, Culture and Heritage and the 2024/25 Estimates for Vote Sport and Recreation. SPEAKER: The reviews are set down for further consideration. No bills have been introduced. ORAL QUESTIONS QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS Question No. 1—Finance 1. Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) to the Minister of Finance: Does she stand by her statement, "The rising number of visitors to our tax calculator reflects Kiwis' keen interest in understanding how the Budget will personally affect them through the savings we've achieved and the tax relief we're implementing"; if so, how many of the 513,000 people that have used the calculator are unique individuals? Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): Yes. Look, I thank the member for her question, because I absolutely stand by that statement. To the second part, the 513,000 refers to users. I've been advised that the calculator has now been used by 517,024 users, up 3,928 users since just yesterday. Separately to the question, I am advised that the number of users is different from the number of views. The number of views is far greater at 759,588. I'm also advised that in the Wellington region alone, in which her electorate is based, there have been more than 65,000 unique users of the website. So I'm advised that the one person sitting at home on their computer or phone, looking over and over again at how much tax relief they will get and thanking the Government for standing up for working people, represents just one user. Hon Barbara Edmonds: How many of those users that have viewed the calculator found out that they are, in fact, worse off because of her tax cuts. Hon NICOLA WILLIS: That number would be extremely small. The reason for that is that there is, as the member has previously been advised, a small group of people, around 5,000, who will receive no reduction in the income they get each fortnight—they will receive the same income—but who at the end of the year may be eligible for a slightly lower tax refund. Hon Barbara Edmonds: How many, if any, will personally benefit by receiving the full $250 as promised by the leader of the National Party? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, I'm advised that more than 3.5 million New Zealanders will benefit from tax reduction. The amount of tax reduction will vary depending on their personal and family circumstances, which is why I recommend they visit the tax calculator. And I'm advised that fewer than 3,000 people would benefit from $250 a fortnight. Hon Barbara Edmonds: How many, if any, will personally benefit by receiving the full $271 as promised in her Tax at a Glance brochure? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I don't have that information. But, actually, that scenario was not one that I campaigned on. It was a scenario that, when I was advised by my tax officials, I said, "Well, look, the maximum anyone could get is $250." They said, "No, Minister, you're wrong. Some people will benefit by more." And I said, "Isn't that great?" At the same time, I thought to myself, "Isn't it sad that members opposite have voted against every single dollar of tax relief?" Hon Barbara Edmonds: How many users that have used the calculator are net better-off under her Budget when some are facing a $45 per week increase in insurance, an average of 9.6 percent increase in rates, higher prescription fees, and higher public transport costs? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Every single New Zealander is better off with a Government that's getting on with rebuilding the economy, who's getting on with restoring value for money in Government spending. If the member wants to cry crocodile tears about not enough tax relief, why did she vote against it? Working people will remember that. Question No. 2—Children 2. KAHURANGI CARTER (Green) to the Minister for Children: What does she say to Tupua Urlich, a survivor of abuse in State care, who said of the proposal to repeal section 7AA from the Oranga Tamariki Act, "We know time and time again they place children with strangers who go on to physically, sexually and mentally abuse these children." and "Whānau means more than mum, and dad and uncles - we have a wider hapū and iwi. There is no way the state can turn around and say there is no one safe enough to look after these children"? Hon KAREN CHHOUR (Minister for Children): I would say that I am truly sorry for what he has been through. Some members in this House, as well as members of the public, may not be aware that just because a child is in the custody of Oranga Tamariki, it does not mean they are placed with strangers. In fact, around 70 percent of children in care are placed with whānau in what are called remain or return to home placements, or in whānau care placements, and this means they are being looked after by family or whānau. We know from reports such as the Independent Children's Monitor's Returning Home From Care report in 2023 and Oranga Tamariki's own Safety of Children in Care reports that children in these placements were being harmed or abused, and are still at risk of being harmed or abused. A child must be safe first. If this can be with family, hapū, or iwi, then this should happen. However, unless we face up to the fact that harm happens everywhere, including within family, hapū, and iwi, then we will never properly address this national shame. Too often, a child is killed in this country by someone they know, someone that is meant to protect them, and someone who is meant to love them. Kahurangi Carter: Was the royal commission of inquiry into abuse in care considered prior to announcing the intent to repeal section 7AA, and, if so, why did she not wait for the recommendations before moving forward with the bill? Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I do not take that report lightly, but what that report also showed us was that for far too long, Governments and Ministers and people in places of power took too long to take action, and didn't do what was right because they feared the backlash or they feared that they may not succeed. But what I will say to you is that I will do everything in my power to succeed, and everything I do is with the safety and the best interests of children at the forefront of my mind. Kahurangi Carter: How does she reconcile the proposed repeal of section 7AA with the report's finding that "The State did not take the steps it should have when it saw signs its care system was failing people in care. Those steps should have included: … legislation specific to care settings to give effect to … te Tiriti o Waitangi, particularly tino rangatiratanga"? Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I once again acknowledge the failures of the past, and I can't take back the failures of the past, but what I can do is make sure that we are doing the right thing for our young people and putting their safety and best interests as the first point of order when we are making decisions around their safety in care. To me, that is the right thing to do. Laura Trask: Does she agree with the quote on the inquiry, "This must be bigger than politics… This work will extend beyond the life of any one Government, so we should work together to make sure this happens."? Hon KAREN CHHOUR: Absolutely. [Interruption] SPEAKER: Yeah, just a minute—just a minute. I know that passions run very high around this particular topic, but we still need to follow the decorum of the House and at least try to hear some of the answers given by the Minister. Hon KAREN CHHOUR: Absolutely. We stood in this House yesterday with joint agreement across all parties that what happened in the past cannot happen again. We have to make sure that everything we are doing in this place is with the best interest of our kids at heart. Kahurangi Carter: Does she agree that section 7AA, when applied correctly, would redress the report's findings that, "Critical rights, such as those guaranteed to Māori in te Tiriti o Waitangi and human rights, that should have protected people in care, were ignored and overlooked altogether."; if not, why not? Hon KAREN CHHOUR: The repeal of section 7AA is about wanting there to be clarity within Oranga Tamariki that the interest in safety and the wellbeing of children and young people are at the forefront of all decision making. This is the core purpose of Oranga Tamariki, to care for and to protect children and young people. Oranga Tamariki continues to work in partnership with providers, communities, Māori, iwi, hapū, and whānau, and nothing about the repeal of section 7AA will affect the support services and the programmes Oranga Tamariki provides for Māori or the partnerships it has and will continue to develop. Kahurangi Carter: What would she say to the survivors who not only experienced neglect, abuse, and torture at the hands of the State but also shared in the report that disconnection from whakapapa and te ao Māori "compounded the impacts of the abuse and neglect they suffered."? Hon KAREN CHHOUR: Once again, I would say I am sorry for what they have suffered. Nobody should suffer anything of what they have experienced. I would never ever say that people should not have their whakapapa connection. I have never said that and I have constantly said that I find it important that young people know where they come from, but their best interests and safety must come first. Kahurangi Carter: Will she commit to discharging the bill to repeal section 7AA as a sign of good faith to survivors and their moemoeā; if not, why not? Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I cannot say this enough and I will keep saying the same thing: the best interests and the safety of our young people need to be the very first thing we are considering when it comes to the care of our young people. This does not mean that whānau, hapū, and iwi are not a consideration; it just means that safety and wellbeing come first. Question No. 3—Finance 3. RYAN HAMILTON (National—Hamilton East) to the Minister of Finance: When was the last time personal income tax rates or thresholds were adjusted? Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): The last time personal income tax rates or thresholds changed was on 1 April 2021, when the top tax rate of 39 percent was introduced. However, this was, of course, a tax increase. Finance Minister Steven Joyce did announce personal income tax relief in Budget 2017, but this was reversed later in the year by Grant Robertson, so personal tax rates and thresholds have not, in fact, been adjusted since 1 October 2010, 14 long years ago. That will change next Wednesday. Ryan Hamilton: How much will people get in tax relief? Hon Peeni Henare: Bugger all. Hon NICOLA WILLIS: To the member opposite who said a phrase that is not very parliamentary, I'd say that they'll get a lot more from us than you were promising them. It does, of course, depend on individual circumstances. Glen Bennett: What are you taking away? Reuben Davidson: How much has the rent gone up? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, what you were promising them was zero. And what you did was vote against every dollar of tax relief. I actually encourage people to go to budget.govt.nz, check the tax calculator to see what tax relief is coming their way. As the Hon Barbara Edmonds was keen to quote me saying, the rising number of visitors to our tax calculator reflects Kiwis' keen interest in understanding how the Budget will personally benefit them through the savings we've achieved and the tax relief we're implementing. Ryan Hamilton: How will households benefit? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: As I said, people and families are in a wide variety of circumstances; hence, the calculator. But, in summary, I can tell the member that an estimated 727,000 households will benefit by at least $75 a fortnight; 187,000 will benefit by at least $100 a fortnight. On average, households will benefit by $60 a fortnight, and households with children by $78 a fortnight. Ryan Hamilton: How many thousands of people, again, have now used that Budget tax calculator? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Obviously, I was asked this patsy question earlier. As I told the House yesterday, that number was 513,000 yesterday. It has risen overnight. I'm sure it will rise overnight again, the more we talk about it, but, actually, the number of visits to the website has increased several more than that, because that is the number of individual users as opposed to the number of visits, which has been a much larger number. My reflection would be that New Zealanders are very interested in tax relief, because they haven't seen it for 14 long years. SPEAKER: Before I call the next member, I just want to say, in this question, interjections are supposed to be rare and reasonable, but they're part of the general sort of interaction that occurs in this House, but on this particular question and the one that will follow, I'm playing particular attention to those interjections. Question No. 4—Children 4. Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) to the Minister for Children: Does she stand by all her statements and actions? Hon KAREN CHHOUR (Minister for Children): Yes. Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Do any of the 10 boys in the boot camp pilot have a history of care and protection, and, if so, what does she say to abuse in care survivor Tupua Urlich, when he says "Part of acknowledging the harm that has been done is taking a more empathetic approach to the healing for our young people. You don't just inflict trauma and abuse upon them and, when those signs and symptoms of your failures show up in the community, lock 'em up."? Hon KAREN CHHOUR: To the first part of the question, yes, I would assume that they have had care and protection before, because they are in a place that has care and protection under Oranga Tamariki. Hon Willow-Jean Prime: What are specific examples of how the boot camps will incorporate a te ao Māori approach when nine out of 10 of the young people participating are Māori? Hon KAREN CHHOUR: There will be a wide range of activities, and there'll be a wide range of things that these young people will take part in. Each young person will have a full assessment before they come into this programme, and we will make sure that everything that is done around these young people is done to their needs and their best interests. We have many people who have come forward to bring their skills, and even in te ao Māori space, to make sure that these young people get everything they need. Hon Willow-Jean Prime: What are specific examples of the day-to-day military-style activities that young offenders will participate in, in the boot camps that she launched last week? Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I do not have the exact activities in front of me, but I have set the expectations that those will be made available to the young people. It may look different on a day-to-day basis. This is not something that will be a one-size-fits-all approach and we must be able to adapt as we go along, and that's all I have to say. Hon Brooke van Velden: Does she stand by her statement: "No one, regardless of their race, gender, or any other identity, deserves to be in a situation where they are abused and denied basic care, and I am committed to doing everything within my power to ensure that no child or young person in New Zealand suffers abuse in State or faith-based care."? Hon KAREN CHHOUR: Yes, and as I've said before, and as I will emphasise over and over again, what we have read in those reports and what comes up over and over again is that nobody did anything. It was easier to stand in this place and do nothing than do what is right. I will stand here and make sure that every decision and every moment of my time here—that the best interests and the safety of our children come first. Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Can she guarantee that the issues that have been reported in youth justice facilities recently, such as roughing up children, silencing informants, and inappropriate relationships with staff, have been addressed and will not occur at the boot camp at Te Au rere a te Tonga? Hon KAREN CHHOUR: We know, just as recently as last year, that this behaviour was happening. We cannot accept that that is happening, and I have been to visit these facilities personally more than once to make sure that they know that this behaviour will not be tolerated. Changes have been made, and we will make sure that there is transparency and availability of support when needed. Question No. 5—Transport 5. MIKE BUTTERICK (National—Wairarapa) to the Minister of Transport: What recent announcements has he made about the Wairarapa and Manawatū commuter rail lines? Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Transport): This morning, I announced alongside the Hon Nicola Willis and the Hon Chris Bishop that the coalition Government is investing into the Wairarapa and Manawatū commuter rail lines, which will deliver a fleet of 18 new trains as part of a funding agreement between the Government and the Greater Wellington and Horizons regional councils. This Government is investing in the lower - North Island commuter rail network to improve service reliability, reduce congestion, and support economic growth, and now we're getting on with getting the work done. [Interruption] Mike Butterick: Supplementary. SPEAKER: Just wait till the House is silent and not engaging in little conversations left, right, and centre. Mike Butterick: What impacts will this have on travel times between the Wairarapa and Wellington? Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, this investment comes as welcome news for hard-working people in the Wairarapa region, with passengers travelling on the Wairarapa line set to receive many benefits, including higher-frequency services and travel-time savings. Speeds on the Wairarapa line will be increased from 90 kilometres per hour to 110 kilometres per hour on the train line with these upgrades, resulting in significant travel-time savings of 15 minutes for passengers travelling between Wellington and Masterton. Suze Redmayne: Will this investment— SPEAKER: I haven't called you. Is this a new question or should I just bundle a whole lot together and let the Minister just give all the answers he's got? Suze Redmayne: Sorry. Supplementary, Mr Speaker. SPEAKER: Call on Suze Redmayne. Suze Redmayne: Will this investment deliver higher-frequency services for the Manawatū? Hon SIMEON BROWN: Yes. The investment will deliver higher-frequency— SPEAKER: Can't say much more than that. Hon SIMEON BROWN: —services for the Manawatū. SPEAKER: Thank you. Thank you. Hon SIMEON BROWN: Isn't that great? Suze Redmayne: What infrastructure upgrades are planned for the Wairarapa and Manawatū rail lines? Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, infrastructure work's been carried out to support the reliable operation of the new trains and increased services on the Wairarapa and Manawatū rail lines. There'll be platform upgrades at stations north of Waikanae and Upper Hutt to enable the operation of new trains and the provision of three stabling facilities. There will also be upgrades to track and signalling infrastructure on the Wairarapa and Manawatū rail lines. Our Government is committed to investing in a reliable public transport network so that local councils can deliver the public transport services New Zealanders need. [Interruption] Suze Redmayne: Supplementary. Supplementary? SPEAKER: I'm sorry. I'm having trouble hearing, given the commentary that's coming from my left. Hon Kieran McAnulty: Sorry, I was yelling at Simeon. Sorry. SPEAKER: Yeah. Yeah, you were. And I was trying to ignore you, so I'm sorry you called attention to yourself. Tangi Utikere: Kia orana, Mr Speaker. Does he stand by his confirmation to the Transport and Infrastructure Committee last month that this, the lower - North Island rail investment package, is simply a continuation of what was in Budget 2023; if not, why not? Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, on this side of the House, we actually deliver. On that side of the House, they just talk. Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. That was a very simple and straightforward question, asking the Minister if he stood by his statement confirming that the previous Budget provided the funding that they reannounced today. Then swiping back with that sort of thing, that didn't address the question, I don't think is appropriate. SPEAKER: Yes. And before I had any opportunity to make a comment on it, you're on your feet calling a point of order. So, fast out of the blocks and, in this case, correct. Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, Mr Speaker, I'd like to remind members on that side of the House that it is New Zealanders who provide the funding, not the Government, and they should respect the hard-working taxpayers who are helping to fund this significant upgrade. Tangi Utikere: Is the Government so desperate to announce something that is not a cut that they are now resorting to reannouncing previous Governments' announcements? Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, this— Hon Dr Megan Woods: The man of no vision. SPEAKER: Well, I'll you what. This is a really interesting position here because he has no responsibility for anything the previous Government did. But, anyway, you can answer it. [Interruption] Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, thank you, Mr Speaker, and—[Interruption] SPEAKER: Which would entirely make it an initiative of the current Government, if you think about your logic. [Interruption] Hon SIMEON BROWN: Could I ask the member to repeat the question? SPEAKER: Right, we'll go with absolute silence. Hon SIMEON BROWN: Could I ask the member to repeat his question? SPEAKER: No, you can't. Hon SIMEON BROWN: OK. Well, all I'd say to the member opposite is, as I said earlier, this Government is about delivery; that Government was simply about announcements, and that's why they got voted out on 14 October last year. Question No. 6—Prevention of Family and Sexual Violence SPEAKER: Question No. 6—and I make the same comment that I made before: these are sensitive matters in these questions and they should be treated appropriately by the House. 6. Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) to the Minister for the Prevention of Family and Sexual Violence: Does she stand by her statement, "I expect people to be able to get the right response for their needs"? Hon KAREN CHHOUR (Minister for the Prevention of Family and Sexual Violence): Yes, in the context in which I said it, which was in an answer to written questions regarding family harm call-outs. Hon Ginny Andersen: When was she informed that police are stepping back from attending family violence call-outs now, that this is being done—quote, from police—"regardless of the readiness of partner agencies", and they have warned that this may result "in poor safety outcomes or a threat to life"? Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I would just say that we need to be really careful when it comes to this matter and how we're addressing this matter. Police will always have a role to play when it comes to responding to violence, including family violence, or where there has been a crime, or where someone is in immediate danger. This is not changing. I want to make it clear to the people that they should always feel that they can call police, and to suggest that police will not respond risks undermining this. Hon Ginny Andersen: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked when she was informed. I don't think that answer even addressed that. Hon Kieran McAnulty: That's fair. SPEAKER: Yeah, in your view, but you weren't asked to rule on it. And you know that when these matters occur, I generally give the Minister an opportunity to say something further. But you can't expect every time to take a point of order saying the question wasn't answered. It may not be answered to the member's satisfaction, but it's an important issue and so the Minister can speak again if she wishes. Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I don't have that exact date in front of me. Hon Ginny Andersen: Is she concerned that police have investigated approximately 3,000 fewer family violence incidents since December 2023 and that this will further decrease the current reporting rate of family violence; if not, why not? Hon KAREN CHHOUR: Sorry, I just missed a little bit of that. Would I be able to hear the question again? SPEAKER: Yes, certainly. Hon Ginny Andersen: Is she concerned that police have investigated approximately 3,000 fewer family violence incidents since December 2023 and that this will further decrease the current reporting rate of family violence; if not, why not? Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I think we all know that there has been a workforce capacity and capability issue across the board when it comes to the family and sexual violence space. We as a Government are working, and are under way, on improving our systems to build a more capable workforce to ensure that the appropriate responses to family and sexual violence happen. And what I would expect is that people are getting the right response for their needs. Because the police are not investigating certain things does not mean other agencies are not stepping in when it is their job to be dealing with that particular issue. Hon Ginny Andersen: What action has she taken as the Minister responsible for the prevention of family and sexual violence to ensure people do get the right response to their needs, given that police have advised that some family violence incidents will not be responded to by other providers, and police have stated: "This will be damaging to trust and confidence if people who expect help can no longer access it."? Hon KAREN CHHOUR: What we do know is that family and sexual violence is a very complicated space, and it's not just up to one ministry to deal with this. As the Minister for the Prevention of Family and Sexual Violence, I've made my expectations clear that agencies work collectively on matters regarding family violence and sexual violence, and whenever there are suggested changes in this space, I would expect all agencies to be considering the implications of this and work through the outcomes and consequences of it. Hon Ginny Andersen: How can she stand by her statement that she expects people to be able to access the right response to their needs when she has made no Budget bids for the prevention of family violence, this Government is gutting agencies who support the victims of family violence, and now police are stepping back from the lead partner in family violence with no services in place to take up that gap? Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I do stand by that statement. People should be getting the response to their needs. Almost a billion dollars has been invested into family violence and sexual violence in the period from 2018 to 2023. This funding helps stabilise front-line services, strengthen the way the Government was working, and improve a range of services available. But before seeking further investment, I want to make sure that that funding is delivering as much as it can in the right place and that we know it's effective. Question No. 7—Social Development and Employment 7. RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) to the Minister for Child Poverty Reduction: Why has she made the choice to set child poverty targets for 2026/27, which would mean that approximately 17,000 more children experience material hardship than under the 2023/2024 target? Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Child Poverty Reduction): Because actual child poverty rates worsened under the last Government in the 2023 year, which means the new intermediate targets have to account for the fact that progress in reducing child poverty is miles behind what was forecast when the last Government originally established the targets. The actual number of children living in material hardship increased by 23,400 in 2022-23. According to the after housing cost measure, which is most closely connected to material hardship, Budget 2024 is forecast to see 17,000 fewer children in poverty. Our Government has a plan—including tax relief, FamilyBoost, breaking cycles of welfare dependency, improving educational outcomes—to help children overcome the circumstances they are born into and reduce hardship. Ricardo Menéndez March: Has she set weaker child poverty reduction targets because she will plunge more children into material hardship with her choice to cut benefit increases and to inflict more punitive sanctions on beneficiaries? Hon LOUISE UPSTON: No, I'm not sure the member listened to my answer. The number of children living in material hardship, while we would like to say it didn't, went up under the last Government. So what we have now is a worse position in which to try and reduce the numbers. That's why we've set a target that is both ambitious but, importantly, achievable. Ricardo Menéndez March: How can she say her target is ambitious when it is allowing material hardship to increase over the next few years? Hon LOUISE UPSTON: The member hasn't realised the point is we have to set a target based on what the reality is today. And what the reality is is an increased number of children—23,400 more—living in material hardship because of the last Government's record. We've set a target that is ambitious and achievable because we want to see fewer children in material hardship. Ricardo Menéndez March: How many kids could she have lifted out of poverty if the Government chose to spend $2.9 billion on benefit increases instead of tax cuts on landlords? Hon LOUISE UPSTON: What we have done in Budget 2024—and I'm really proud of the work that's been done—is to focus on the cost of living crisis that affects those households on the lowest incomes the harshest; it affects those the worst. So we are focused on material hardship, we are focused on the cost of living crisis, and we are focused on supporting households into work that will lift their incomes and their opportunities. Ricardo Menéndez March: How can she stand by that statement when her own official advice has shown that cuts to benefit increases will result in more children living in poverty? Hon LOUISE UPSTON: There's no cuts to benefit increases. We have changed the way future increases are allocated. And Budget 2024 will lift 17,000 fewer children out of poverty. Ricardo Menéndez March: Is she ashamed of her weak child poverty targets, and, if not, why did she fail to engage with stakeholder organisations about them and neglect to announce them with a press release? Hon LOUISE UPSTON: We have set intermediate targets that prove our Government is focused on reducing child poverty results, dealing with the unfortunate reality of what we inherited from the previous Government, where the numbers have gone up, but we're just getting on and doing the job, which is why Budget 2024 will lift 17,000 children out of poverty. Question No. 8—Social Development and Employment 8. PAULO GARCIA (National—New Lynn) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What steps is the Government taking to reduce the number of people receiving the jobseeker support benefit? Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): We are resetting the welfare system because too many people were on the jobseeker benefit when we came into Government, and the economic mess we inherited meant those numbers were always going to get worse before they got better. That's why job seekers with work obligations must now meet with the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) within the first two weeks of being on benefit to create a plan for finding a job, and if they're still on a benefit after six months, they'll need to check in with MSD again to talk about what support they might need. We are also helping 4,000 more job seekers aged 18 to 24 by providing them with case management over the phone because the number of 18- to 24-year-olds who shifted on to the jobseeker benefit, unfortunately, increased by 58 percent under the last Government. We've got more positive changes to come. Paulo Garcia: Why is the Government making the welfare system more proactive by requiring job seekers to meet with MSD more regularly? Hon LOUISE UPSTON: This Government is not content just to leave people on the jobseeker benefit to their own devices without getting the support they need to get a job. While 60,000 people have a case manager, this leaves 135,000 job seekers without one, so we've established two new check-ins to create more opportunities to provide job seekers the support they need, to check they are fulfilling their obligations to become work ready, and, of course, to find a job. Paulo Garcia: Why are young people the focus of the new phone-based case management service? Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Because, for young people on a benefit, they are estimated to spend in future years, on average, 21.3 years throughout their lifetime. Our Government wants a better future for young people and to break the vicious cycles of intergenerational dependency. That's why we're providing young people more support earlier, starting with an extra 4,000 being case managed over the phone. Paulo Garcia: Why is the number of people receiving the jobseeker benefit expected to increase before decreasing? Hon LOUISE UPSTON: The economy has been weak for the last two years, which, inevitably, means there are fewer job vacancies. It is forecast that job seeker numbers will continue to increase until January 2025. That's why we're acting immediately to help more job seekers so that they and their children experience the greater independence and opportunities that come from work. Question No. 9—Foreign Affairs 9. Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: Does he accept the International Court of Justice ruling that Israel is acting illegally as an occupying force in Gaza; if so, why has he not said so? Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction) on behalf of the Minister of Foreign Affairs: I refer the member to my post on X on 20 July, in which I said, "The International Court of Justice has issued an advisory opinion ruling that Israel's presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territories is unlawful and must end as rapidly as possible. Continued settlement expansion makes a two-state solution, the only way for Israelis and Palestinians to live side-by-side with security and dignity, more difficult. Israel must honour its international legal obligations." SPEAKER: I'll just ask the Minister to move the microphone a bit closer the next time you speak. Hon David Parker: Point of order. I understand the quote and I know that I can't expect a yes/no answer, but I wondered whether the person speaking was intending to say yes or no. SPEAKER: Well, that is not a point of order. That is a point of disturbance, in many facts. Does the member have another question or are we finished? Hon David Parker: I do indeed. Aren't the long-term and ongoing breaches of international law in Gaza so obvious that indecision by New Zealand is unworthy, notwithstanding that the USA takes a similar position? Hon CHRIS PENK: On behalf of the Minister, the Government of New Zealand takes the position that, in accordance with the preliminary finding of the International Court of Justice, certain actions must be taken. In particular, I refer the member to the longstanding position of successive New Zealand Governments, which is that a two-State solution is to be sought, and the Government's position has not changed in that regard. Hon David Parker: Does he agree with the statement recently by Janet Wilson, a former adviser to the current Minister of Defence, when she said, "While the shifting sands of geopolitics need to be considered, so too does the fact that for New Zealand this recent shift on decades-old independent foreign policy has been quietly executed without any electoral mandate."? Hon CHRIS PENK: On behalf of the Minister, I don't think that is an accurate characterisation of the position of the New Zealand Government, either in relation to the issue that was the subject of the primary question or, indeed, any other aspect of our foreign policy. Hon David Parker: Well, then, does he agree with Janet Wilson's further statement that "Luxon and Peters need to drop the smoke-and-mirror obfuscation when it comes to foreign policy and have a straight up conversation about their intent."? Hon CHRIS PENK: On behalf of the Minister, of course I reject the characterisation of the Government of New Zealand policy position being anything of that nature. So it's a moot point as to whether it should be dropped or otherwise discarded. Question No.10—Commerce and Consumer Affairs 10. Dr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula) to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: What recent steps has the Government taken to establish a consumer data right in New Zealand? Hon ANDREW BAYLY (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): I'm thrilled that the Customer and Product Data Bill passed with unanimous support yesterday at its first reading. The introduction of this bill allows for controlled and secure access to data, which will inevitably lead to greater competition in the banking and electricity sectors. This will occur by allowing innovative start-ups to more easily offer competing products and services using data that you have allowed them to access. Choice and competition are good things as they ultimately lead to lower prices and greater choice. Dr Vanessa Weenink: Why is this bill needed? Hon ANDREW BAYLY: We are behind the eight ball. Recently, the OECD ranked New Zealand dead last when it came to digital regulation. This bill will pave the way for greater competition; in turn, boosting productivity. It will also support existing fintechs and provide an environment for new start-ups to enter the market. We also know that there are approximately 300 companies willing and able to offer products in New Zealand right now, and, ultimately, this change will create jobs and lift living standards for all New Zealanders. Dr Vanessa Weenink: What assurances can the Minister make about the security of data sharing? Hon ANDREW BAYLY: I think it's important to acknowledge that currently there is no mandatory data standard. At present, many businesses often have to rely on a practice called "screen scraping" to get your data, which is highly risky for you as the consumer. The Government is making changes to make sure that data exchange is entirely opt-in. You have to give your express permission to access the data. Second, businesses that you authorise to use the data will need to be accredited. Third, there will be also a customer verification process which will require the entity that holds the data, such as a bank or telco, to verify that it is you making the request and not a scammer. Finally, it's worth noting that the Privacy Commissioner supports this bill. Dr Vanessa Weenink: Can the Minister provide some examples for how establishing a consumer data right will help New Zealanders? Hon ANDREW BAYLY: Great question. I want to give you two examples. One of the reasons why banks support these proposals is, for instance, in Australia, you can change your mortgage provider within 10 minutes by completing an online application. This reduced processing time is a result of the new bank being able to access your existing bank data through open banking provisions. Another example is the ability to switch seamlessly between electricity providers. This will allow consumers to make better-informed choices and also get the best bang for your buck. In time, the consumer data framework will likely be extended to other industries such as the telecommunications and insurance sectors. SPEAKER: The next question, I've been notified, has a longer than might ordinarily be anticipated answer from the Minister. Question No. 11—Government's Response to the Royal Commission's Report into Historical Abuse in State Care and in the Care of Faith-based Institutions 11. MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI (Te Pāti Māori—Te Tai Tokerau) to the Lead Coordination Minister for the Government's Response to the Royal Commission's Report into Historical Abuse in State Care and in the Care of Faith-based Institutions: How many of the 138 recommendations from the Whanaketia report on historical abuse in State care and faith-based institutions will the Government commit to adopting, if any? Hon ERICA STANFORD (Lead Coordination Minister for the Government's Response to the Royal Commission's Report into Historical Abuse in State Care and in the Care of Faith-based Institutions): Firstly, I'd just like to acknowledge all of the survivors of abuse in State care and faith-based care. As I said in the House yesterday, their courage in the face of appalling abuse, and their determination to bring truth to light about this dark chapter in New Zealand's history, is tremendous. And I want to thank the seven survivors of Lake Alice that I spent time with last night for their bravery and vulnerability in sharing their stories with me. It's clear from our conversations that torture that happened to them at Lake Alice has caused lifelong harm from which they can never fully recover. This Government has already adopted recommendation 2—that the Prime Minister will give a national apology for abuse and neglect in State care in the House of Representatives. That apology will take place on Tuesday, 12 November. We've also adopted recommendation 113—that the Government publicise and disseminate this report as widely as possible. Of the remaining 136 recommendations, 11 relate to redress, 100 relate to wider matters for the Government, and 25 relate to faith-based institutions. As recommended by the commission, we are prioritising working through the recommendations around redress at pace and expect to have more to say on this in November. Work on recommendations about significant organisational change and legislation will progress in 2025. Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Does she agree with the report's findings that depriving tamariki Māori of their 'hakapapa was a significant source of harm and trauma, which has "led to much larger social problems such as declining health, higher rates of incarceration, family harm, unemployment, homelessness, mental distress, and substance harm, and reduced educational opportunities"? That's a bunch; that's a whole lot. Hon ERICA STANFORD: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The primary question is around the recommendations of the report; the member's question is relating to the findings of the report—two completely different things and I don't believe it's in scope. Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Mr Speaker? SPEAKER: Speaking to the point of order? Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Yes. Sorry, your response was that you thought it was too far apart. I can't see how much—well, I don't agree that it's that far apart, Mr Speaker. I think it's close enough. I think the issue is poignant enough. I think it is palpable in the House and, therefore, I think deserves at least a go at it. Thank you, Mr Speaker. SPEAKER: Well, look, the "near enough is good enough" argument is probably not all that strong. But I think the Minister might make some response to the general thrust of the question as it relates to the report. Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Point of order. SPEAKER: A new point of order? Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Yes, it is a new point of order. Thank you, e te Pika. The point of order is that the findings and the recommendations in te ao Māori are one and the same, as are those who are the survivors and the community of survivors. SPEAKER: Well, that's a piece of information, not necessarily a point of order, but this is a matter that should be taken seriously by the House. The Minister may respond. Hon ERICA STANFORD: Mr Speaker, could I ask the member to repeat her question? Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Yes, happy to. Does she agree with the report's findings that depriving tamariki Māori of their 'hakapapa was a significant source of harm and trauma, which has "led to much larger social problems such as declining health, higher rates of incarceration, family harm, unemployment, homelessness, mental distress, and substance harm, and reduced educational opportunities"? Hon ERICA STANFORD: Mr Speaker, I will, as per your ruling, answer the question. Of course, many times the many stories that I read in the royal commission's report related to children who were taken from their families and their whānau and had that relationship severed. And, for many of them, they never had that reconnection. So, of course, it is a significant source of harm for many tamariki Māori and any other child that was taken into care. Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: How, then, does she reconcile the repeal of section 7AA from the Oranga Tamariki Act with the recommendations of this report—for example, recommendation 39, on the need to empower whānau, hapū, iwi, and Māori to care for our tamariki in accordance with our tikanga, or recommendation 126, which calls on the State to give effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi by allowing tangata whenua to design our own solutions in State care? Hon ERICA STANFORD: Mr Speaker, I'm going to answer the second part of that question— Laura Trask: Point of order. I think, as referred to earlier, this is out of scope from the original question, to discuss 7AA. SPEAKER: With due respect, I decide what's in scope or not. It is in scope. It relates to two recommendations inside the royal commission's report, or can be related to those. I think the Minister is well capable of answering that particular question. Hon ERICA STANFORD: I'm happy to answer the second question the member put, around the Treaty of Waitangi, and the answer to that question is that we will be considering all of the recommendations in the report in due course, in the context of the entire report, which I have read, and many of my other Ministers have read. The second part of the question was about the Treaty of Waitangi and that particular recommendation and my answer is that we will consider all of the recommendations in due course. Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Will she, then, consider scrapping the Oranga Tamariki repeal of section 7AA amendment bill, given that it contradicts the majority of the inquiry's recommendations? And can I also just acknowledge and mihi to the Minister for "though near is not enough" type of—and I understand that too, but just to mihi to her for actually just taking the question and doing the best to respond. Tēnā rā hoki koe, tēnā tātou. [Thanks to you in particular, greetings to us all.] SPEAKER: Well, that's very good of you, but the last question you asked is not in her responsibility. Do you have another question? Hon Simeon Brown: Point of order. I think this is highlighting the reason why the Minister raised a point of order initially, in terms of the question being very tight in regards to the recommendations from the report. It is a sensitive issue, and when you ask a specific question, that does have an impact as to what flow-on supplementary questions can be asked. I think the Minister has been generous, but I do think, actually, we are needing to have specific questions that flow from the primary question, which we haven't been getting. SPEAKER: Well, thank you for your assertion and your opinion. You're wrong. Where a primary leads into other questions or, as a result of what might have been said by a Minister, it does become open for the House to discuss. Hon ERICA STANFORD: Speaking to the point of order— SPEAKER: No, I'm ruling. You might have a new point of order, but at the moment, I'm ruling that so far we have been totally in scope. I've just ruled one question out of scope. Hon ERICA STANFORD: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I think that the second question that came was out of scope. It was about a finding, not a recommendation. You requested that I answer the question in good faith, but my point of order at that point was that it was not in scope, because it was not relating to a recommendation. Findings and recommendations are very different. SPEAKER: Are you going back over old ground? Hon ERICA STANFORD: No, it's a new point of order. SPEAKER: But is it on a past ruling? Hon ERICA STANFORD: Mr Speaker, I answered that question, which has now led to opening up a whole lot of other areas that are out of scope, but the second question wasn't in scope, which has now put me in a position where all of these questions flowing from that are out of scope. SPEAKER: Well, with respect, you've had two questions since then. I've just ruled the next one out. Simon Court: Point of order. SPEAKER: So I won't be taking any more discussion on this matter, thank you, Mr Court. Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: No further questions; thank you, Mr Speaker. SPEAKER: Thank you very much. Question No. 12—Building and Construction 12. ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) to the Minister for Building and Construction: Do "People who are actively engaged in building homes in this country" tell him that building colder, damper houses, with less insulation, will result in more homes being built? Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction): No. Arena Williams: Does the Minister disagree with Fletcher Building's Residential and Development Chief Executive Steve Evans, who was reported by RNZ as saying, "The insulation standards were going well, particularly that wall insulation and other improvements required were providing significant benefits to people by keeping out cold and damp."? Hon CHRIS PENK: The building sector has expressed a range of different views as to the workability of the new H1 regulation requirements, including as to the cost. I refer, for example, to the comments provided to the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) in relation to a general building sector survey: "I am unsure if it is necessary to upgrade from where we are at. It just adds so much cost that the public won't build new homes." Also, "MBIE should pay more attention to the coal-face builders who understand the true cost and practicalities of building. The H1 changes are based on fanciful ideas of environmentalists and greedy suppliers. Unfortunately, the of the builder [sic] and consumers get drowned out by the academics and bureaucrats." Now, I don't suggest that those who are making a particular argument in terms of the current settings are ill-motivated, but I would say it's important that we listen to a range of voices and a range of different interests who have a view about the complexity, the practicality, and the affordability of the changes as they have currently been made. Arena Williams: Well, when he says that the building sector has a range of different views, does anyone disagree with the Master Builders Association and the Certified Builders Association when they endorsed the insulation standards? Hon CHRIS PENK: Clearly yes, and I thank the member for the opportunity to also note a separate comment that was made by a building practitioner: "The introduction of the new H1 requirements is a mess, poorly introduced, lacked market detail. Architects are totally confused and do not understand the requirements. To put it in perspective, we process around 500 to 600 plans per month solely for insulation QS." Arena Williams: Does he disagree with National MP Dr Vanessa Weenink, who, when speaking about her experience as a medical doctor, said on Tuesday that if housing is damp or if it's in a mouldy environment, if it's overcrowded, that can actually lead to more avoidable hospital admissions and upper respiratory infections? Hon CHRIS PENK: My colleague and friend the good doctor is, of course, correct, and those who are arguing in favour of warm, dry homes I hope would be supported by every person in this House. No one is arguing that we should have homes that are not well insulated or ventilated. The key question, which I'm approaching on behalf of the Government in good faith, is how we achieve that. So, for example, I'd invite the member to look into the detail, for example, of whether the schedule method in clause H1 of the building code is more effective than the modelling method whereby you have a relatively blunt instrument that applied in different parts of the country that is proving impracticable and expensive. If she were to listen to some people who are engaged in the building sector who have different views from those she's already expressed and chooses to listen to, she will learn a thing or two. Cameron Luxton: Minister, what cost-benefit analysis was undertaken at the time of the review of H1 to weigh up the insulation gains from installing concrete slab insulation against the significant cost, and will he change the way these reviews are undertaken in the future to provide assurance for the industry that the costs don't outweigh the benefits? Hon CHRIS PENK: The member asked a very good question and one from a basis of knowledge, as a licensed building practitioner himself. The point around concrete slabs, I think it's a good one. It's one that's frequently raised by those who are carefully considering where the major costs lie—for example, weighing those versus the insulation, versus the thermal break requirement in the windows going beyond the double glazing. The detail does matter. In terms of the cost-benefit analysis, I would point out that, of course, for a cost-benefit analysis to be meaningful and hold weight, it needs to be based on the actual, real-world costs that are inputted into that. So part of the review that I'm keen that MBIE now conducts, talking to a range of different views within the sector, is precisely to weigh the actual cost versus the actual benefit, and we'll see what the true position is at that point. Arena Williams: Is the Minister telling the House that his proposal to reduce insulation requirements will not result in any homes being colder and damper? Hon CHRIS PENK: I haven't suggested that for a moment. I've suggested that we have a set of requirements in relation to insulation that actually achieve the aim without reducing housing affordability. It's as simple a matter as that and the detail of the way that the current regulations are operating versus what they could be, if it's possible to achieve the same results more affordably, more practicably, and with greater certainty, then that's a result that I think we should all try and work towards. Arena Williams: Then how many kids growing up in cold, damp housing is too many for that Minister to accept? Hon CHRIS PENK: The number of kids growing up in cold, damp housing that is unacceptable is one or greater. Since 1978, we have required at least some insulation in New Zealand houses. Prior to that, which accounts for half of the housing stock in this country, there was no requirement. The greater benefit in terms of cost-benefit ratio and the attention of this House, and indeed, of course, the work of the building sector will be to apply greater resource and imagination to the ways in which we can actually achieve that retrofitting as well as—for new builds as applied to H1—ensure that we have a reasonable degree of complexity versus the certainty of those different methods so we can achieve affordable outcomes that don't see any child in New Zealand grow up in a cold or damp home. SECONDARY LEGISLATION CONFIRMATION BILL First Reading Hon SIMEON BROWN (Deputy Leader of the House): I move, That the Secondary Legislation Confirmation Bill be now read a first time. I intend to move that the bill be reported to the House by 29 November 2024. A party vote was called for on the question, That the Secondary Legislation Confirmation Bill be now read a first time. Ayes 68 New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Noes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6; Tana. Motion agreed to. Bill read a first time. SPEAKER: The bill stands referred to the Regulations Review Committee. Bill referred to the Regulations Review Committee. Instruction to Regulations Review Committee Hon SIMEON BROWN (Deputy Leader of the House): I move, That the Secondary Legislation Confirmation Bill be reported to the House by 29 November 2024. SPEAKER: Those in favour will say Aye, to the contrary No. Hon Members: Party vote. [Interruption] SPEAKER: Can I just ask the House, as we've had a party vote called for, to hear that vote in absolute silence. A party vote was called for on the question, That the motion be agreed to. Ayes 68 New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Noes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6; Tana. Motion agreed to. TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): Point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I was just waiting for the conclusion of that vote. When the first vote took place, a member had her vote cast on her behalf when she was still occupying her seat in the Chamber. I'm just seeking your guidance on that, please. SPEAKER: Well, I've got to say that the whole exercise was somewhat unruly, with people all over the place in all directions. The whip's word, when a vote is cast, is taken as being their bond. Whether a person is in the House or not, a whip has their proxy. No proxies were inappropriately cast. I appreciate what the member is saying but, at the present time, I'm not going to do anything about that, because there was such a huge amount of kerfuffle going on as members were leaving the House. It was very hard for the whip to have seen who was here and who wasn't. But I just want to assure the House that all votes were appropriately cast. I declare the House in committee for further consideration of the Local Government (Electoral Legislation and Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill. LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ELECTORAL LEGISLATION AND MĀORI WARDS AND MĀORI CONSTITUENCIES) AMENDMENT BILL In Committee Debate resumed from 24 July. Part 1 Amendments to Local Electoral Act 2001 (continued) CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): All right. Thank you, members. The House is in committee for further consideration of the Local Government (Electoral Legislation and Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill. When we were considering the bill last night, we were debating Part 1. This is the debate on clauses 3 to 17, amendments to Local Electoral Act 2001 and the Schedule. Before I call for the first call, I will tell members what I'm going to ask for this afternoon. We've had a reasonably substantial debate on this, and I'm not intending to try and slow that down in any particular way, but I'm not looking for a general debate; I'm looking for things specific to clauses in the bill, so that's what I'll be asking members to be noting. I also have a good record here of things that the Minister's already answered. So let's make it new, let's make it relative, and let's have a good debate. Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I acknowledge your guidance to the committee. I indeed am after something new. The new thing that I am after is an answer—an answer to a question that I have already asked three times. Now, one could argue that it has been addressed, but it's my view—and I would wager the view of this side of the House—that simply having a Minister in the committee stage standing up and saying, "We won the election; therefore, we have a mandate." isn't actually answering a question, which is what is required of the Minister at this point, especially when there is an Amendment Paper that is actually larger than the original bill. Now, my question that I've asked three times is actually really simple: what councils have asked for this? The reason I ask that is because the Minister has made much ground in making the point that this Government wants to return to what it was, as if that was the best way about it. But given the cost that is being imposed on councils through these referenda, and given that it actually—in the words of the 52 local councils that signed the letter opposing what the Government is putting forward—is an example of an overreach, that this is undermining their decisions, and is actually counter to the rhetoric that the Government said they were going to do in regards to local government, I think the Minister owes the committee an answer to a very simple question: what councils asked for this? Because if you think about it as a proportion, 52 mayors signing a letter saying that they oppose what the Government is doing doesn't actually mean that the rest of the mayors support it. Fifty-two is a large proportion. It is a larger number than the number of councils that support the reversal of the water reform that this Minister's led. I only say that to make the point that we're talking about a very clear message from the local government sector. The Minister should provide us an answer. The other question I have revolves around a very peculiar addition to this part, which has a different process proposed for the Tauranga regional council, as opposed to any other council in the country. Now, look, I acknowledge that Tauranga has gone through an unusual journey itself. And I was very pleased that the Minister continued what we had lined up in terms of a new date for an election. And I was very pleased to see that that election took place. Can I take the opportunity very briefly to acknowledge the candidate, now councillor, elected through Te Awanui ward, Mikaere Sydney—the very first time there's been a Māori representative on the Tauranga City Council. I understand he is in hospital, so I'm sure the thoughts of the House are with him and his whānau at this time—a pretty historic moment for Tauranga. Now, they made a decision, with broad consultation amongst their community, that they were going to have a Māori ward. Now, what's unusual is that, as it's proposed, they don't go through the same process as other councils because, of course, if there isn't 5 percent—and I believe that threshold should be higher, but none the less, if there is 5 percent of people that sign a petition to start a referendum, they'll be able to do that. Tauranga doesn't have to go through that. Now, I get there's timing issues and all that sort of stuff. I understand that entirely because it is unusual up there, but it doesn't warrant a different process entirely. Sure it warrants different timing, but certainly doesn't warrant a different process. So I would like an answer to the first question, since it's the fourth time I've asked, and I would like the Minister to provide that explanation on the second. Thank you, Madam Chair. CELIA WADE-BROWN (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. This is a different question than in the extensive discussion yesterday. I'm interested in the justification for holding on to the two-term decision. When a council creates a long-term plan, they do that every six years, but they can change it every three years. They can make either minor or major changes to it. I'd like to acknowledge that I think it was a National-led Government that brought in the 30-year infrastructure planning, which was a great step forward. But each council can change how fast or slow or which assets of that, whereas whatever the original reasons that a representation review and, in particular, a Māori ward should remain, we still have the clauses that refer to it sticking for two terms. I can understand, if this proceeds, that a decision on a 2025 referendum will apply in 2028. But why would it then also apply in—if my maths is right—2031 as well? Why should it not just apply to the following years? There seems to be a big inconsistency. Unless you're going to have six-year terms, which I think would be a stretch too far, even for the most excitable electoral reform advocates, why are we binding? I mean, you're expecting—as I said last night—that somebody campaigns strongly for a ward that then becomes disestablished, that's bad enough; but why should one particular point in time determine the decisions about representation for two terms? That does not seem consistent with budgets, with infrastructure plans, with reserve plans, with all manner of different areas of local government. It would be out of step if wards were not able to be at least modified more frequently. And I wonder if the Minister could consider that in this day and age when, apparently, things are meant to move fast, we are based in sort of a treacle of— Hon Dr Duncan Webb: I like treacle. CELIA WADE-BROWN: Yes, I like treacle in some cases, though not in bureaucracies. It's almost like there's a freeze for so long before people are allowed to move again. And it might be a wider question that is addressed by asking why do representation reviews have these statutory limits of six years when boundary changes with very rapid—we've got very rapid population growth. Take the city of Tauranga—one of the most rapidly growing regions. Of course, Northland has also got potential great population increases. Should we not be able to do representation reviews and, in particular, the Māori ward matter rather more frequently than every six years? Thank you, Minister. Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Local Government): I thank members for their questions. The questions raised by the Hon Kieran McAnulty in regards to why we're bringing this bill to the House—that was explained in detail last night. In regards to the question around Tauranga, those questions were answered last night. In regards to the decisions around times, the standing principle in the legislation is that significant changes to representation arrangements—e.g., establishing Māori wards, changing the electoral system—should generally be in place for two terms so there is time for the change to bed in. So the poll outcomes will apply for six years, as was the case before 2021. Hon PEENI HENARE (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you very much for this opportunity to contribute to this ongoing debate of Part 1. When we debated Part 1 yesterday, we talked about the role of the Electoral Commission and the need for it to be supporting local government in order to then hold referendum, which is through the Part 1 debate that we're having here. I have a very simple request and an offer to the Minister of Local Government. Given the last general election in this country and the practice of the next sitting Parliament to review that particular election—and the role that the Electoral Commission plays in that is, of course, essential and rather significant—I wondered if the Minister would be of a mind to pause this particular bill to wait for the findings from the Justice Committee in the work that they do with respect to reviewing the general election, knowing full well that the Electoral Commission plays a huge part in that, as well as what's being proposed here by the Minister, making sure that any of the creases—any of the, shall we say, kinks, if you will—in the process of an election and all that that entails can be ironed out in order to make sure that at the local level, in local government, and what's being proposed in Part 1, as we look towards their role in supporting councils should they choose to have a referendum or, as is indicated in this bill by this Government, being forced to have a referendum to go back on decisions that a democratically elected council have already made. I wonder, and this is my submission to the Minister, if you'll consider letting the committee do the important work that can support and strengthen, indeed, the electoral process in this country at a national and regional and local level, in order to make sure that those particular institutions that support what's being proposed in Part 1 and the amendments being proposed by this Minister might be far more robust than what we have seen in the past. And there have been challenges in the past of the role of the Electoral Commission. Many of us across this House, as we go through general elections, are aware of some of those challenges, whether it be accessibility, whether it be counting numbers, whether it be officers who have responsibility to ensure that voting and the protection of those votes that have been cast—all of those matters. We're very familiar in this House with those matters. So my submission to the Minister here for his consideration is whether or not he would consider pausing this to allow the important work of the select committee to continue in order to make sure that as this particular amendment, as proposed by the Government, moves forward—and we accept that they do have the numbers—whether or not we can pause it to ensure that the Electoral Commission and all the institutions that support the amendments that are being proposed here will be better executed in the future. Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you, Madam Chair, for an opportunity to take my first call on this bill, and it'll be a short call. It's on Schedule 1, which relates to clause 17, so I believe it's in this part of the debate. What Part 3 is, is really where a lot of the meat is in this bill. So the Schedule in Part 3 of the bill inserts New Part 3 into Schedule 1 of Local Electoral Act 2001. It fundamentally groups councils into group 1 local authorities and group 2 local authorities. There are, by my count, 32 group 1 local authorities and 13 group 2 local authorities, so about 45 local authorities all up. Of course, New Zealand has—what? Is it about 78 local authorities, councils? So there's, of course, many councils that are not in either group 1 or group 2. So my question for the Minister about this is whether there's any been any consideration of group 3 local authorities, which would be the remainder of them, of the 78 that aren't those 45. I realise, of course, that the group 1 local authorities and the group 2 local authorities are around councils that have already had some action around Māori wards. I'm presuming what I'm calling group 3 are the ones that have not had any action around local wards, but it might have been useful—and so this is the question, in terms of the drafting—to be specific about what happens with those other local authorities. If the answer is that it's not needed, to have any drafting changes—it's always useful, of course, for the Minister to put on the record, on the Hansard, what the relevance of these changes is to those other councils. Thank you. SHANAN HALBERT (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate very much having the opportunity to ask the Minister questions this afternoon. Last night, I did ask a number of questions of the Minister. I don't believe those have been answered. At the same time, I'm encouraged by the keenness of members on the other side of the Chamber to stand up with what I hope are questions but which is, I think, actually an attempt to shut this debate down through closure motions. I would love to see our Māori Affairs Committee members make a contribution to this and ask some questions of the Minister themselves, simply because, in the establishment of the original legislation here, the select committee process did go through the Māori Affairs Committee. I note that, this time round, it was actually sent to the Justice Committee. And, as I understand it, there was no attempt by the Minister—and I would appreciate clarification from him on this—to at least bring those committees together in an integrated way to, I guess, fairly understand the legislation that is before us. The Minister has outlined repeatedly that he's just taking it back to what the original legislation was pre - two years ago, but I don't think that that's true from what I've seen from this particular committee. So that's my first question. I'd appreciate it if the Minister would articulate to the committee and for the record why he did not consider the Māori Affairs Committee as the appropriate avenue, given the original establishment of the legislation that he is taking it back to. That's the first one. Or did he consider an integrated approach to bring the Justice Committee and the Māori Affairs Committee together to consider it, given, I guess, the relevancy to a population group uniquely of its own, being our indigenous people—Māori—in this country? Second to that, I did ask for the costs to councils of doing this should they be required to do—or they are being required to do—a poll. I don't believe that the Minister did table those costs last night. And I followed up with a question specifically around Tāmaki-makau-rau Auckland Council. In a couple of years, the council would be required to consider their future on Māori wards. That would come at a substantial cost, given that the current council is on its knees financially. My concern here is that when a decision is made around Māori wards and the cost to do the poll is put in front of a council—which could be anything from $25,000 to hundreds of thousands of dollars—through not having the means, councillors responsibly would therefore say they didn't want to proceed with the establishment of Māori wards in their area. The Minister hasn't clarified that part. And, on that, is it his intention to offer up a financial contribution and funding to those councils to support the poll that he is requiring them to do? And, again, I go back to the fact that if it's a decision for a council to go down this avenue—which, I understand, through this legislation they must—and it is going to cost them $50,000 that they don't have or that could go towards a pool in their local community, it's easier to choose the pool, and then it's not fair on what actually might be a better representation, or the current representation that they currently agree with and that they want for their community, and, in fact, that they've seen benefits for. So I would appreciate clarification from the Minister. What are the costs upfront in order for each council to do this, particularly in Auckland as an example? Is he offering funding for those councils? What is he requiring of them, and how? What is his advice to manage, I guess, the sheer costs which they don't have in order to do this? ANDY FOSTER (NZ First): Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to ask questions. This is not a closure motion—I might surprise the Opposition on this one. I'm referring to the issue I raised in the second reading debate, and it's the issue of electoral fairness. This seems to be the only place that I can raise it in this discussion. As I said during the second reading debate, I was disappointed that this issue wasn't canvassed by the select committee. In the Electoral Act, we have a requirement, which the Representation Commission deals with, of each electorate being within plus or minus 5 percent of the other—so the populations are within plus or minus 5 percent. In the Local Electoral Act, for general wards, it's plus or minus 10 percent. And, in fact, if you've got more than one Māori ward, it's also plus or minus 10 percent. But if you only have one Māori ward—and this is in Schedule 1A—it can be plus or minus 50 percent. Now, one of the key things about democracy is not only one person, one vote— Hon Willie Jackson: That's right. ANDY FOSTER: —it's that each vote—and I know, Willie Jackson, you've been quite keen on tweaking democracy, and that is a very, very big tweak to democracy. But what it means is that, effectively, sometimes, at the very least, you're going to be having a vote in some places that is worth twice what it is in another ward. That is not in keeping with the good democratic principle of each vote being more or less the same. In terms of practice, if you look at the voter turnout, sometimes the disparity is as much as four to one. Scott Willis: And you voted for Māori wards. ANDY FOSTER: Absolutely. I did vote for a Māori ward. And I did say in my speech in the second reading, Mr Willis, that I looked at that and thought, "Am I comfortable with that?", and I hope that in the turnout in the election, people would, because they are so enthusiastic about Māori wards, vote in huge numbers and it would reduce that disparity. It was the opposite. And, in fact, what you generally find is that the turnout is really, really low. So what I'm asking the Minister is to at least give us a view on whether that is an issue. I accept that it's probably not on the agenda at the moment, but it's an issue that is worth considering in the future. Thank you. Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Local Government): I thank the members for their questions in relation to these issues. Many of these issues have actually already been discussed and debated last night. I note that the questions from Mr Halbert were addressed last night in relation to costs. Ultimately, there's a range of costs and those costs— Shanan Halbert: You didn't say what they were. Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, if you read the select committee report and if you listen to the submissions, councils put forward some of those costs. Ultimately, democracy does have a cost. That is the point that I think has already been made in this debate. In regards to the Electoral Commission's role, councils run their own elections—that's from the member Peeni Henare. In regards to the Hon Rachel Brooking's questions, hers were on group 3. Ultimately, this is in relation to councils who have put in place Māori wards and not in relation to those who haven't. In regards to Shanan Halbert's questions, again, around Auckland, they, obviously, are not having a referendum, because they've decided not to put in place a Māori ward. In regards to the question from Andy Foster, the answer to that question is that the Government's position is that we are reverting back to what the policy was prior to 2021. Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour): The Minister still hasn't answered my question about institutional racism, but that's fine. I want to come to a new question—well, that's not fine. If he wants to answer that, I'll be happy to hear him. A very important question about institutional racism, but I'll come to the clause— CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Come to the—thank you. Hon WILLIE JACKSON: I'll come to the new question, which is new section 19Z(2A), inserted by clause 6, "The powers in subsections (1) and (2) to resolve to establish Māori wards and Māori constituencies for electoral purposes include the powers to disestablish them." I'm wanting to ask the Minister: in his considerations, did he take into account the Justice Committee taking the opportunity to highlight the Waitangi Tribunal report, which is very evident in the Justice Committee's report? I think they did a good job in highlighting what the tribunal said. I need to read a couple of the areas where the tribunal spoke about the Government having breached their duty to act in good faith. It's important to note this, because you've got a Justice Committee that is majority Government. But they were good enough to highlight something that is incredibly important, particularly for Māori, that this particular legislation breaches the Government's duty to act in good faith. The tribunal also said the Government did so by failing to make reasonable and informed decisions and rushing the process to fit ministerial time frames without allowing for adequate consideration of Māori views. The tribunal also said the Government's prioritising of its political agenda over the desires of Māori for dedicated political representation at a local level breached the Crown's duty to actively protect the rights and interests of Māori. The tribunal considered that the poll provisions are inequitable and discriminatory and a barrier for Māori representation in local government. Removing the option for Māori voters to choose whether to be represented by general or Māori ward councillors breached the Treaty principle of options. The tribunal also recommended that the Crown stop the bill process to allow for proper consultation between Treaty partners. It also recommended that the process for establishing Māori wards be more closely aligned with sections 19H(1) and 19I of the Local Electoral Act. These sections relate to the standard representation review process. Now, this is incredibly important for Māori, as has been repeatedly said last night and will be repeatedly said today, because you've got a breach of the basic rights of Māori. You have a tribunal in place that is supported by both Labour Governments and National Governments in the past, and I still believe this Government is a supporter of the basic principles that the tribunal talks about. So what consideration did this Minister take in this Waitangi Tribunal report that has been highlighted by his Justice Committee? What type of consideration was put in place to ensure that Māori had an opportunity to fulfil their basic rights under article 2, tino rangatiratanga rights, the opportunity to be able to access their rights in terms of voting? This is very much a part of the Justice Committee's report—major highlight in this report. What time did this Minister put into this? Who did he consult, apart from James Meager, the chair, who's, obviously, an expert in terms of Māori things from a National Party perspective? What other Māori— CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): We'll try and keep away from the personal comments. Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Well, he was the chair of the Justice Committee. So who are the other Māori experts within the National Party who the Minister consulted with, or did he consult with some of our crew on Labour? What time was put into this area, which is an incredibly important part for te ao Māori? Kia ora. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Glen Bennett—just before Glen asks his question, I really do want specific questions now. I consider the Minister's answered a wide range of questions and if the people who are asking the questions don't consider they've got the answer that they want, that doesn't mean they haven't had an answer to some of the questions. Hon Willie Jackson: Could we ask it again, Madam Chair? CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Well, I've called Glen Bennett, so I'm going to let Glen Bennett ask his questions specific to a clause in the legislation. GLEN BENNETT (Labour): Kia ora, Madam Chair. Yes, I have got a specific question and it's following on from the Hon Rachel Brooking and her thoughtful questions. It's around clause 17, amending Schedule 1 of the Local Electoral Act. There is a preamble and I apologise, but it really is because, already on the table, the Minister of Local Government has proposed an amendment, and it's just around inserting "or" in one part of it. The reason I bring that up is because it's just around the speed of this legislation. I'm looking at Schedule 1, and I guess it's around drafting and ensuring that, actually, everything is in place and everything is in play. What I want to point out to the Minister is, as we talk about the different groups—so the group 1 local authorities, the group 2 local authorities, group 3—it's just in terms of making sure that they are correct, ensuring that the names are spelt correctly. Obviously, just coming back to the amendment, the Minister's put in just for a one-word change, it's making sure that it is all in place. I mean, the big picture is this is challenging for many councils and for many constituents and for many people around Aotearoa New Zealand—I guess, without sort of wanting people who maybe feel offended by this legislation to feel more offended by this legislation. So I want to ask the Minister, I'm looking here and in group 1 local authorities. As we go down the list of "Rangitikei District Council", Rotorua District Council, we get down to "Whakatane District Council". I'm no expert in te reo Māori, so I apologise to my colleagues in this room who are, but "Whakatane District Council" is missing, from what I can tell, a macron above the letter "a". So it's Whakatāne—or "aa" instead of "ā". Now, I know that, being from Taranaki, we have our ways. We, obviously, have our—is it a "collotal" stop? What's the—so we don't pronounce our "h" particularly much— Celia Wade-Brown: Glottal stop. GLEN BENNETT: Glottal stop. Thank you—yeah. So I guess around not being offensive to local councils, not being offensive to local communities—I mean, thousands of people have spoken against this. So I just really want to ask the Minister to ensure that the officials and everyone has actually gone specifically through each of the council names, has gone through all of the legislation to ensure that that spelling is correct, that grammar is correct, but particularly when it comes to Māori names. I did actually look up and check—and I was actually in Whakatāne last week, meeting with a number of groups, looking at what they're doing in the moana, looking what they're doing around economic development. I did meet with Whakatāne District Council and I did see the macron on the building as I walked in, and I have actually looked up, in terms of their paperwork. So, Madam Chair, just through you, to the Minister, I would like to know: have there been checks and balances put in place to make sure that we do honour the language, that we do honour not only Pākehā—for example, the amendment that the Minister put in—but also, obviously, honour te reo Māori in this space. So, through you, Madam Chair, I would like to know that there have been checks and balances done to make sure that everything is spelt correctly, as well as those macrons and those glottal stops. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Can I make a comment, please. Fair question, but it has brought the attention to the Minister and to the officials that are in the Chamber—that these things need to be correct. I just want really specific questions, because the question's been raised. I'm sure, in that process, you know, a five-minute speech on a macron might be just a little bit considered trifling at this point in time. But the point has been made very well—just probably the length of the speech. Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Local Government): The Schedule has a list of councils, the names are the legal names as set out in Schedule 2 of the Local Government Act. Only specific councils have macrons in their legal names, even though they might use them elsewhere. Rt Hon ADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour): Tēnā koe. I'd like to just address a point made by Mr Foster and I think that opens up a new kind of debating point which I'd like to address, and that is around the differentiation between a Māori ward and a general ward. I don't have a question, actually; I just want to have a comment on it because it was allowed to be part of the debate, and that is that there's an easy solution to that. We only need to look to the law around electorates in the South Island being that there has to be a minimum of 16. If we have a Māori ward, it's an easy solution: you just have a minimum of one Māori ward in a local authority, and then the other wards are sized based on that. That would be a simple solution. It raises the issues around—for me, anyway—equity and equality. Up until 1996 in the New Zealand electoral system, there was no equity for Māori electorates—being four. So we're well used to—because I think the point that the member was making was saying that Māori were better off because their vote in that situation would be greater. The issue for me, then: how many of those wards actually meet that criteria, if any, in the country? I'd be very surprised if there are any. That would be one point. The other point is that Māori are well used to having an inequitable input into every part of the democratic system in this country. So I think in looking at this piece of legislation, I guess I do have a question for the Minister and that is: does that meet the standards of equity of valuing a particular group of people who—and I note here that the Government is not removing Māori wards. Now, some of the arguments that they've made would make sense if they were removing it, but they're not. They're actually leaving them there. The issue is the conditions around having them, and that's the bit which is totally unfair. Thank you, Madam Chair. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke. Glen Bennett: Point of order, Madam Chair. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Oh, sorry. I have a point of order from Glen Bennett and then I'll come back to you. Sorry. GLEN BENNETT (Labour): Point of order, Madam Chair. Apologies—I didn't want to stop the flow of those speeches before, so I checked with my colleagues. I actually genuinely couldn't hear the Minister, who gave the explanation around the macron. Is it possible to have that repeated? I checked around—can we just check that, please? CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): It was to do with a legal name, I believe. The Minister's answer was that the ones that are in there are actually the legal names, regardless of what might be on a building, etc. So— Glen Bennett: OK, thank you. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yeah, thank you. HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE (Te Pāti Māori—Hauraki-Waikato): Tēnā rā koe e te Pīka, otirā tēnā rā tātou e te Whare. I'm hoping to ask a few sets of detailed questions to the Minister—the first one being, has the Minister consulted with any Māori wards; if so, who, and what was their response? Second question is—in my electorate of Hauraki-Waikato, we are currently having a by-election for Kirikiriroa—has the Minister taken the time to consult with these candidates who are involved in this by-election? The third question is—councils are very clear that they want to work with mana whenua, and disestablishing Māori wards or introducing a referendum to Māori wards would undermine and damage the good working relationships they have developed with mana whenua. Consider, for example, Tūwharetoa own 50 percent of the land in their rohe, largest forestry producers, and the owners of the Lake Tāupo bed. Another example is within my electorate, as we are a post-settlement iwi like Waikato-Tainui who have river settlements, Treaty settlements, group holdings, assets, and developments. Another kaupapa that actually relates to the question that was asked by one of the members across from the Labour Party was one of the crucial roles that Māori wards play in our councils such as overlapping claims, mana whenua rights, Māori wards—actually, an example within my electorate is the Māori ward would work with the geographical board of Aotearoa to change names like Pūtikitiki. Now, how does the Minister see councils being able to have the resources, the accessibility, the rauemi or the whakapapa, such as those examples of the street name Pūtikitiki that had to get replaced within my electorate that the Māori ward had a crucial part to play in? Another issue I want to raise is—this actually might be out of scope, Madam Chair. However, I want to raise one of the questions that the Hon Willie Jackson raised, which was around institutional racism. Within our councils today, just because the Māori wards are there, that doesn't mean that there isn't institutional racism within these councils. And now one of those examples— CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is out of scope because the member has actually, basically, said it's whether there are or aren't Māori wards, there could still be perceived institutional racism. So that question is out of scope— HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE: Point taken, Madam Chair. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): But I invite the member to ask—do you have another question? HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE: Yes, another question. So one of those examples is actually for the Kaipara district ward—we saw that they were unable to even do basics like karakia. So if councils aren't even able to perform karakia, how does the Government, how does this Minister, see working forward and making sure that customs, kawa, tikanga such as whakapapa names like Pūtikitiki, karakia in council meetings are able to carry on if they are proposing in this bill that they want to disestablish or referendum Māori wards with mana whenua? So those are my sets of questions for the Minister. Dr CARLOS CHEUNG (National—Mt Roskill): I move, That debate on this question now close. ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you, Madam Chair. Following on from the questions about the stakeholder groups who are asking for the change, which we haven't had an answer about, I wanted to ask the Minister—not only to seek an answer to that question about which councils are asking for this but also to open a new line of questions about which constituents, which people, are asking for this. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Related to a clause? ARENA WILLIAMS: Yes. It's related to Part 1 of the bill, particularly around those questions where he's proposing to amend section19Z, in clause 6, which would introduce the new provisions around the referendum requirements of the bill. The question is: is this the focus for New Zealanders; is this the focus that we need right now; and if the timing of these referendums would create an opportunity for social cohesion in our communities to be undermined? And my question really is: are these policies of the Government taking us backwards, or should the Government be focused instead on the cost of living for New Zealanders, the cost of their rates increases, and the impact on New Zealanders' budgets? CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): This is actually not a question about the bill, though; this is a wider question about what the Government focus is. We're looking for questions, actually on this— ARENA WILLIAMS: I take your guidance, Madam Speaker. RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini): I move, That debate on this question now close. A party vote was called for on the question, That debate on this question now close. Ayes 68 New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Noes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6; Tana. Motion agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, the Hon Kieran McAnulty's tabled amendment to replace all references to Māori wards and Māori constituencies with "all wards and all constituencies" is out of order as being outside the scope of the bill. A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 1 be agreed to. Ayes 68 New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Noes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6; Tana. Part 1 agreed to. HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE (Te Pāti Māori—Hauraki-Waikato): Thank you, Madam Chair. I actually wanted to raise a point of order that every single member in this debating chamber at least got an answer, whether they liked it or not, from the Minister. I asked seven sets of questions to the Minister. He did not answer one of them. And last night, I actually asked a question too and he didn't answer that. So that means he didn't answer eight questions that I have asked in this debating chamber—to have that on the Hansard as a record. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Thank you. And one of the things we do in the Chair, and particularly in the Chair at the committee stage, is that the questions are asked of the Minister—the Minister took a large number of speeches. Some questions will not be considered by members who have asked them to have been answered, either answered or in the way that they are answered. But our role is for the questions to be provided, and the Minister did spend a lot of time on his feet. But, in terms of whether people actually accept the answers that the Minister gave, that's up to the members as to whether they accept that or not. But thank you for the point of order. Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Point of order. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Just for the sake of absolute clarity, there is a distinction here between the Minister responding to a question—and, in that sense, I absolutely accept your commentary there; that it is not actually your job to interpret whether a member is satisfied or otherwise with the response. However, the concern is, as I pointed out in my last contribution, when a Minister outright refuses to answer a question. Now, I know that presiding officers take that into account, but the concern—and it's a longstanding concern—is that one of the factors that presiding officers take into account when considering a closure motion is repetition, but if a Minister refuses to answer a question, therefore members are well within their rights to seek that answer again. Is that taken into account? CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yes, it definitely is. I looked at the questions. We have a chart in front of us—the other presiding officers. We all fill in a chart here, and we know how many times questions have been asked. It is taken into account. And I heard, I think it was, the third time that you asked your question; so it is noted in our chart. But, at that point, if the Minister considers he has answered or isn't giving the answer specifically to what you've asked, that is where it sits, and then it is your prerogative to state that you believe the Minister hasn't answered your question. But it doesn't change the decision I have made here. Thank you. Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Speaking to that point of order, Madam Speaker, I accept that, actually. My point was, however—I totally accept what you've just said—that in seeking a subsequent call and pointing out that the question hasn't been answered, asking it again and explaining why it's important—is that considered by you and other presiding officers to qualify as repetition? CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): No. Part 2 Amendments to Local Government Electoral Legislation Act 2023 CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, we now come to Part 2. Part 2 is the debate on clauses 18 to 28, "Amendments to Local Government Electoral Legislation Act 2023". The question is that Part 2 stand part. All those in favour will say Aye, to the contrary, No. The Ayes have it. The motion is— Hon Dr Duncan Webb: No—party vote. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): —agreed. That was very borderline. I'm going to let you have a party vote, but be a bit quicker next time, please, Dr Duncan Webb. Hon Dr Duncan Webb: You should be slower! CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Would the Clerk please conduct—I could never want to be slower. Thank you. A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 2 be agreed to. Ayes 68 New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Noes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6; Tana. Part 2 agreed to. Part 3 Amendments to Local Electoral Regulations 2001 CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, we now come to Part 3. Part 3 is the debate on clauses 29 to 35, "Amendments to Local Electoral Regulations 2001". The question is that Part 3 stand part. A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 3 be agreed to. Ayes 68 New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Noes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6; Tana. Part 3 agreed to. Schedule CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): We come to the Schedule, which has no debate, and the question is that the Minister's amendments to the Schedule set out on Amendment Paper 48 and the tabled amendment be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to. Ayes 68 New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Noes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6; Tana. Amendments agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That Schedule as amended be agreed to. Ayes 68 New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Noes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6; Tana. Schedule as amended agreed to. Clauses 1 and 2 CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, we now come to clauses 1 and 2. Clauses 1 and 2 are the debate on title and commencement. Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Madam Chair. Just, obviously, the title here's important, and I know Rachel Boyack's got an Amendment Paper that she'll no doubt want to speak to. Glen Bennett: Very good. Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: It is a very good one, and I suspect it'll titillate the Minister of Local Government, and I'm sure he'll approve it. But if you look at what the bill is currently called, the Local Government (Electoral Legislation and Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill, it doesn't actually tell you what it does, and, in fact, it gives a false impression that, in some ways, it's putting these in place or furthering them in some way. In fact, what this bill does, as was set out in the Waitangi Tribunal report that Willie Jackson so elegantly—eloquently—spoke to—it wasn't elegant; not Willie! But what it does is, effectively, place a veto. It will ensure that there are fewer Māori wards in the future than there are now. So a much better title would, in fact, be the "Local Government (Reduction of Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill". It may be that the Minister would consider an Amendment Paper along those lines, because to capture what the bill does is what the title's for, and that's a much more accurate representation. A reduction in the number of Māori wards and Māori constituencies, sad though it may be, I think would be a more accurate reflection. Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. I agree with my friend and colleague the Hon Dr Duncan Webb in the sense that a title should reflect the contents and the intent of a bill. Calling this the Local Government (Electoral Legislation and Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill—if people weren't to look beyond that, if they didn't have a background in the issue, they were looking no more beyond the title, which, let's be honest, many of us do from time to time when we're scrolling through the news or whatever, we'll read the headline and move on—people would be forgiven for thinking that this bill was doing something positive in respect of Māori wards and Māori constituencies. But, in actual fact, as it currently stands before this bill gets Royal assent, Māori wards are on an equal level playing field as other wards, with one minor exception to do with the Local Government Commission. Now, if we wanted to address that, we could have done that very simply and not caused the division and the pain that the proposal in this bill does. If we want to be honest and have the contents and intent of this bill reflected in the title, the title will need changing, because what the bill is doing is bringing in processes and barriers to the establishment or maintenance of Māori wards that don't exist for other wards. So, if that is accepted—I'll try to say that as objectively as I can—we should all accept that that is the case, because that is what this bill is doing. It is bringing in the requirement, if triggered for a referendum on a matter that has already been resolved by local councils, a provision and proposal that would not, if this bill is passed, exist for any other ward. So regardless of members' views on that, surely that has to be accepted. It is actually not really a matter of debate; it's a matter of fact. There's a question here as to whether the title reflects that fact, and it doesn't. So if it were to be called the "Local Government (Additional Processes for Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill", that would better reflect the content. Now, I'm fully aware of the requirements under Speakers' rulings on contributions in the debate on the title that any amendment or proposed amendment to change the title cannot include political commentary or criticism of the bill. That claim could not be made on my proposed alternative title. If you were to look at it and it were to be called the "Local Government (Additional Processes for Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill", it doesn't actually trigger any particular political response. Someone who supports this bill and sees that title wouldn't think that it was a criticism of it, and someone who opposes the bill and sees that wouldn't think anything other than it being a true reflection of what this bill proposes. Now, throughout this debate, we have had a very inadequate exchange with the Minister, who refuses to answer simple questions such as what council asked for this bill—three times and another time today, utter refusal. Now, that says to me that no councils asked for this, and given that we know as a matter of fact that 52 councils, a significant majority, have written to the Minister and said they don't want this, shouldn't we, in recognition of that level of opposition, in recognition of the Minister's refusal at times to engage with the House, want the title to truly reflect the content of the bill? An additional element in favour of such a change is the commentary that the debate on this bill has stirred up in the public and in social media. What has been of concern, and I say this genuinely, is some deeply disgraceful comments that have been placed on social media—when this bill and the debate that is currently under way—have been discussed online. It was actually my intention to bring some examples down to the House to prove this point, but I don't actually think I need to. I think members will be in touch enough with differing views in their communities to know exactly what I'm talking about. That worries me a lot, because, actually, the way in which some contributors to this debate have portrayed this is that the mere presence of a Māori ward in itself is discriminatory and racist. Quite a bizarre view of the world. But it does draw on an interesting question, which is that if this Government doesn't believe that Māori wards in a local government sense have the same standing as Māori electorates in the general electoral sense, then it should say so. Maybe it doesn't, and if it doesn't, it should say so. Because it's the lack of clarity and the ambiguity around matters like that that give people almost permission, in their mind, to speak out in ways that in any other sphere, on any other forum, and on any other matter wouldn't be deemed appropriate. But, for some reason, we can't just have an honest discussion about this. This bill places different processes for the establishment and maintenance of Māori wards than would be in place on other wards. I find that to be deeply regrettable. I've been very up front about my views on that. But, in this instance, speaking to the proposal to change the title, I would suggest for the purposes of accuracy and also the purposes of focusing the debate, it's actually quite important. Because what will inevitably happen as a result of this bill is there will be referenda. We just know. It can't be avoided. It allows for it to happen, so it will happen. It only requires 5 percent of a local district council's eligible voters to trigger one. It will happen. If Parliament doesn't take the opportunity now to clarify what it is that we're actually debating, I'm worried about the standard of debate and the decency of commentary when those referenda inevitably occur. This actually isn't a debate on the legitimacy of Māori wards. It is a debate on whether it is fair and just that the establishment and maintenance of those should be different to any other. If the Government doesn't take the opportunity to clarify that and refine and refocus what it is that we're actually debating, I think we're going to have really serious division in our society that's going to turn ugly. I don't actually believe, as much as I oppose this bill and have criticised Government members for speaking in favour, that they would want that either. So why would we not take the opportunity to at least reflect in the title of the bill what it is that this is about? If the Government genuinely isn't questioning the legitimacy of Māori wards, say so and show the electorate that that is not what we're debating, and show them that we're simply debating the process by which they are decided. As opposed as we remain, that would be a better reflection of the contents, but, actually, more importantly, I hope that it would contain the inevitable debate at a local level on what they should be looking at and not emboldening those with disgraceful and disgusting racist views and giving them a platform with confidence to be able to hear them. Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Local Government): I thank the members for their commentary in relation to the title and commencement clauses, which we're debating. The title of the Act is the Local Government (Electoral Legislation and Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Act 2024, because it amends the Local Government Act in relation to electoral legislation and in relation to Māori wards and Māori constituencies. HŪHANA LYNDON (Green): Tēnā koe, Madam Chair. I'm wanting to follow on from my Labour colleagues and point to a tabled amendment, if that's all right, from my colleague Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan. He put forward a potential— Hon Kieran McAnulty: Good guy. HŪHANA LYNDON: It's all right to carry on? CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yes. Glen Bennett: He's a good man. HŪHANA LYNDON: Oh, yeah, yeah. No, I was just going to say, because we've got a few named amendments up there, so I just wanted to talk to the Green one. My colleague Dr Lawrence put forward a change, again, similar to my colleague from Labour, that we should be up front about what the intention of this legislation is, to replace the electoral legislation and Māori wards and Māori constituency name with, actually, the repeal of Māori wards and Māori constituencies. We know that, ultimately, the referendums will be divisive in our communities and they will see an end to the potential of what Māori wards have brought us for the last three years. By naming this legislation and being honest about what is going to happen, at least we can show New Zealand that this is an upfront piece of legislation and being really clear that, ultimately, we understand and know that the referendums will be the Death Star for Māori wards. The "Repeal of Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies Bill", if we were to move ahead with that as the name of the bill, would place at the centre what the ultimate outcome would be. It's really disappointing where we're at, because we heard in submissions the fact that it's been a natural progression of hapū and iwi relationships, that the way that community has been moving—and we've heard from Māori leaders who have said this legislation and this repeal misses the heartbeat of New Zealand and where we have been moving as a country. Now we're at a place where we're not being up front about the fact that we're going to acknowledge that referendums are going to roll across the country. The referendums will see a flood of external pressure on our communities, and, ultimately, Māori wards will be no more. So the proposal to change the name to the "Repeal of Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies Bill" is being straight up. It's about owning the destination, because, ultimately, it is going to see the end of Māori wards as we know them. The past referendums have disempowered Māori voice. The past referendums have provided a divisive platform for Māori and for Māori voice in local government, so let's adopt a name that's straight up. Let's be straight up about where this will end up landing, and it will see the end of Māori representation in local government. I want to refer briefly to a report from the Auditor-General that we received in the Environment Committee. It was really awesome. It was a review of hapū and iwi relationships in local government since 2019—awesome report, because it profiled four councils who have grown their relationship with hapū and iwi. Māori wards are plus/plus. It was a plus/plus opportunity. They do not take away from those important relationships with hapū and iwi, whether they are settled or not, but placed at the centre of it Māori community, hapū, iwi, and the opportunity for and/and. So I recommend that we seriously look at the name. What is in a name? A name is so important, just like Whakatāne, just like Whangārei. Kia ora. Arena Williams: Madam Chair— HŪHANA LYNDON: I haven't finished. I'm on a roll—let me go. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): That was too quick. HŪHANA LYNDON: So it's my proposal that we get to a point where we have the honest conversation as the committee, and following on from my learned colleague who has spoken to the fact that we need to be straight up about the destination where we're heading, as this legislation will see an end to Māori wards and Māori constituencies across the country. So there is strong tautoko from te Rōpū Kākāriki that we adopt the name "Repeal of Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies Bill". Kia ora. ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Apologies, Madam Chair, for my enthusiasm to take a call, but I am proposing to the Minister that he consider a name change of the bill to the "Local Government (Central Government Imposition of Referenda that take New Zealand Backwards) Amendment Bill". And my question to the Minister about that name is: is this Government's racist policy taking New Zealand backwards? And what do whānau get from this? What whānau are asking for right now is solutions to the rising cost of living. What Māori need right now is investment in our health system and our education system. And what all New Zealanders need right now is a Government that represents them and backs them. So will he change the name of this bill to be clear about what this is doing and what it is not doing? GLEN BENNETT (Labour): Kia ora, Madam Chair. I tautoko and agree with what has been said on this side of the Chamber this afternoon—it is tough. Coming to clauses 1 and 2, the title and the commencement, I've had a long history in working around Māori wards, being based in New Plymouth. It was probably 2010, I think, when we first started some campaigning. The Minister's well aware that before 2021, when we brought in the Local Electoral (Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Act, of the 24 councils that had tried since 2001 to establish a Māori ward and Māori constituency, only two achieved it—only two. So that's why we need to consider what this title is about, because I think it is misleading. What's in the tin should be on the tin. We need to realise that. Just to give context in terms of why I bring this up, it's because, you know, again, in Taranaki, in New Plymouth, we managed to get it across the line with councillors by one vote—by one vote. I remember that night. I remember sitting in the council chamber, and, as a foster parent, had four young people in there. We'd worked and we were excited—and we had kebabs for dinner that night. So it was so exciting; we went to the local kebab shop and had kebabs, which was a bit of a thrill. Anyway, I digress. But it was about voice. Talking with these young people, it was about, you know, to achieve and to be who you are, you've got to see who you are. And you've got to see those people in places like local government. So when it comes to the title, I think we need to reflect because 24 councils—22 councils, I should say—tried and failed before 2021 to enact Māori wards. Because there was the ability to petition, and 5 percent were able to petition and put it to a referendum. That's why we know that if—and I guess we have to be realistic on this side of the Chamber; when this passes into law, it's going to mean the end for many, many council Māori wards and constituencies. I hope—and maybe as I consider, as I'm about to sort of explain what I think the title should be—that we have moved on a lot since 2014. I hope that we've moved on a lot since 2001, when the original legislation was brought in. I hope we've moved on a lot since 1986. In Inglewood, I talked about the first female mayor last night and the consequences of her being elected, and the refusal to hand the mayoral chains to her—in fact, having to create a new set because they were hidden and out of sight and out of mind. So, I think, when it comes to this piece of legislation, I agree with everything that's been said on this side of the Chamber. The Local Government (Electoral Legislation and Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill 2024 is misleading. I thought about if you could put things in, like, the electoral legislation, the Māori ward—yeah, nah. I think that probably doesn't fit in with the Parliamentary Counsel Office. I was wondering about the "Electoral Legislation (and Māori Wards in my Constituencies Back Off-track) Legislation", but I just didn't think that would probably ring, and it's a bit too close to others. Then, as I mentioned in the House last night, when we look at this title, how do we give it relevance? I spoke about the fact that between 1876, New Plymouth District Council's first iteration, before Māori wards came into place, 0.43 percent—0.43 percent—of all elected members had been Māori at that stage. Only two had ever been elected, and the first was in 1998. So I really feel we need to consider this. We need to look at it and find, whether it be the "Local Government (Electoral Legislation and Māori Wards and the Abolishment of Them) Amendment Bill 2024"—we need to consider this because this is challenging, this is hard, and I believe that this is divisive. Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Local Government): Thank you, Madam Chair. Just in relation to recent comments from members, there is a tabled amendment from Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan of the Green Party. The Government will not be supporting that tabled amendment as it doesn't reflect what the bill does. The bill is the Local Government (Electoral Legislation and Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill because it makes amendments on all three of those issues. Rachel Boyack: Madam Chair. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Just in time, and because the member has an Amendment Paper, I'll take your call. RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Madam Chair, thank you for the opportunity to take a call. During the earlier stages of this committee debate, I asked a number of questions of the Minister that were particularly focused on the consistency of this bill. I've got some real concerns around the consistency and even some of the statements the Minister has made around the role of democracy. So I have a specific amendment to put on the Table today, which is on the title—which is the debate we're debating today. The part that we're debating is the title. My specific amendment is that we replace the piece that says "(Electoral Legislation and Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies)" with "(A Rare Misstep)", because I believe that this bill is a rare misstep on the part of the Minister. I think that it makes a number of errors in law and errors in the intent of the law and errors in terms of how this law will be implemented. So I may just take some time to go through those, because I think— Hon Kieran McAnulty: Absolutely. It is your amendment. RACHEL BOYACK: It is my amendment, and I'm going to talk to it. I think we've made a massive, rare misstep here on the behalf of the Minister. I think this would be one that would definitely go down in the history books. So let's talk to the first one. The first one is that what this law does is enact the ability for a referendum to take place on a Māori ward that's implemented. Yet there are a number of other things that a council could do, which I outlined in some speeches yesterday, such as implementing geographic wards, implementing general wards, implementing rural wards, implementing a new voting system, changing the number of councillors per ward—all of these things can be changed through a representation review but don't have to go through the referendum process. So I say it's a rare misstep on the behalf of the Minister that he is about to put a law through that would allow for only one part of those changes to go through to a public referendum. Surely that's an error? Surely that's a mistake? Surely that's a rare misstep on behalf of the Minister? I would have thought so. So I think that's why we should change the title of this bill from "(Electoral Legislation and Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies)" to "(A Rare Misstep)". We could even go so far as to say "(A Rare Misstep on Behalf of the Minister Simeon Brown)". I think that would be an appropriate title for us to have here. Another one of the comments that the Minister made was that this was returning the Act back to what it originally was. Now, if we were doing so, we would have allowed for a petition to lead to the referendum—so a rare misstep on behalf of the Minister, who claims that we are returning to the exact same law. But it's not the exact same law. Under the previous law, if the electors wished to have a referendum, they had to have a petition of 5 percent of electors wanting that referendum. What this law actually does is it imposes a referendum on those councils that have introduced a Māori ward since we as a Labour Government changed that law. For the Minister to stand up and say here in this Chamber yesterday that he was returning the law to exactly as it was before, well, I say it's a rare misstep. So I say let's change the title of this bill to be accurate—to be accurate that the Minister has made actually more than a rare misstep. We could say "a few" rare missteps—a few rare missteps that he has made in putting this legislation together and then making statements in this Chamber that clearly don't back up what the actual legislation does in terms of its intent and in terms of its implementation. The last thing I wanted to mention was some comments where I think the Minister has made another rare misstep, around the role of the Local Government Commission vis à vis the role of a referendum. The Minister has claimed that it's absolutely fine for us to have a referendum on this particular matter because the Local Government Commission can make changes to what councils have done through their processes if people make an appeal to the Local Government Commission off the back of some decisions of a council. Again, we're seeing an inconsistency here. If we really want to talk about democracy, we would have a consistent approach between what we're doing for Māori wards and what we're doing for all other decisions that are made by a council. I gave the very good example of Nelson City Council. They did make some changes. There was an appeal made. The Local Government Commission upheld the council's decisions that had been made through the representation review. So I say that, again, it's another example—I think I have pointed out three missteps, so perhaps we could say "(Three Rare Missteps on Behalf of the Minister)". But I really would like to hear from the Minister if he's willing to entertain my Amendment Paper, because I think it's a very good one. TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): I move, That debate on this question now close. A party vote was called for on the question, That debate on this question now close. Ayes 68 New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Noes 48 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14. Motion agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Rachel Boyack's tabled amendment to clause 1 is out of order as not being a serious amendment. The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan's tabled amendment to clause 1 be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 48 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14. Noes 68 New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 1 be agreed to. Ayes 68 New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Noes 48 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14. Clause 1 agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 2 be agreed to. Ayes 68 New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Noes 48 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14. Clause 2 agreed to. Bill to be reported with amendment. House resumed. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Mr Speaker, the committee has considered the Local Government (Electoral Legislation and Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill. I report the bill with amendment. I move, That the report be adopted. Motion agreed to. Report adopted. LOCAL GOVERNMENT (WATER SERVICES PRELIMINARY ARRANGEMENTS) BILL Second Reading Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Local Government): I move, That the Local Government (Water Services Preliminary Arrangements) Bill be now read a second time. This bill is a critical piece of legislation. It makes up the next step of this Government's Local Water Done Well plan, which is part of our coalition Government's plan for addressing New Zealand's water infrastructure challenges. I want to start by thanking the Finance and Expenditure Committee for considering the bill and for its recommendations that it has put forward to the House. New Zealand's longstanding water infrastructure challenges require locally led and financially sustainable solutions. Labour attempted a water reform approach which was ultimately an unpopular, mega-entity, co-governed model which cost taxpayers $1.25 billion, and it was overwhelmingly rejected by New Zealanders at the last election. Earlier this year, we delivered on our election commitment to repeal and end Labour's divisive three waters legislative reforms and to return water services to local communities, to local ownership, and to local control. The previous Government's three waters legislation was so unpopular, they received 88,000 submissions opposing it at select committee. Local Water Done Well outlines an approach and provides the settings for councils to have financially sustainable water services while retaining control over the assets their communities have paid for. This bill enables councils to self-determine their pathway to financially sustainable delivery models. We're not here to impose a one-size-fits-all approach on councils that know their communities best. Councils will determine their preferred delivery arrangements through developing water service delivery plans, and must demonstrate how they will deliver their water services in a way that is financially sustainable and that will meet regulatory standards for water and infrastructure quality. The Government recognises that for many councils, this would be best achieved through collaboration. That's why this bill enables councils to jointly submit a plan. The Government also anticipates that some councils may benefit from assistance with their plans and has, therefore, required that a Crown facilitator or water services specialist can be appointed to assist councils or to prepare a plan on their behalf. Councils can request this support, if they wish so. The bill further supports councils who are ready to transform their water services delivery at pace. It provides a streamlined option for consulting and deciding on forming a water services council-controlled organisation or a joint local government arrangement as an alternative to Local Government Act 2002 processes. The future economic regulator—the Commerce Commission—will benefit from the disclosure of specific information in the water service delivery plans as it works towards developing a full regulatory regime. Disclosure via the plans will also give councils some lead time to get themselves ready for full economic regulation. Finally, this bill delivers on our Government's election promise to provide a financially sustainable approach for water infrastructure in Auckland, and that is exactly what we have delivered. Earlier this year, Watercare projected that there would be a 25.8 percent water rate hike for Aucklanders in July. This 25.8 percent water rate hike would have piled costs on to Aucklanders already struggling with a prolonged cost of living crisis, increasing the cost of average annual household water rates by $348 per year. The previous Government spent $1.25 billion—$1.25 billion—on their failed three waters plan and it failed to deliver a solution for New Zealanders. We worked with Auckland Council to implement a new model that gives Watercare financial independence while allowing the council to retain complete ownership and control. Local Water Done Well for Auckland will substantially reduce Aucklanders' future water bills from the previous projections of a 25.8 percent increase in water rates down to 7.2 percent. Now, members on the opposite side of the House, including the former Minister of Local Government himself, claim that their three waters plan would have delivered lower rates for Aucklanders than Local Water Done Well, but they've failed to own up to the fact that their modelling imposed a price cap on the new entity A. The choice that they fail to answer—the choice that they fail to answer—is what would they like Watercare to have stopped doing, because if they were to have had a price cap of 2 percent, they would have had to either reduce how much maintenance they were doing in Auckland, which would have meant leaks on the streets in Auckland as well as leaks on the streets in Wellington, or it would have meant a stopwork on the Central Interceptor. Well, the reforms that we've proposed have meant that Aucklanders are able to have lower bills, they're able to continue investment, and the maintenance is able to continue. This is what Local Water Done Well is all about. After the bill's introduction, the Government also tabled an Amendment Paper to address its concerns about the cost to local authorities and ratepayers of reconsenting a number of waste-water treatment plants. This interim amendment to the Water Services Act 2021 means that Te Mana o te Wai hierarchy of obligations in the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management will not apply when Taumata Arowai sets waste-water standards. These changes are a pragmatic approach to applying the hierarchy while work is under way to rebalance the national policy statement of Te Mana o te Wai, as signalled in our coalition agreements. I want to thank the Finance and Expenditure Committee for its hard work considering the bill and progressing it at pace to ensure that the foundations of Local Water Done Well are able to be put in place as quickly as possible. I also want to thank the submitters for taking the time to submit. Recommendations relating to the water service delivery plans include clarifying that the plans are one-off in nature, making implementation plans mandatory to increase transparency and accountability, and specifically allowing plans to include information for periods of up to 30 years, in addition to the minimum of 10 years, where doing so would help to identify future investment requirements or support future housing and urban development. Another key recommendation is to require councils to give effect to some aspects of their plans as a way of ensuring that councils commit to starting to implement them. I think these are very sensible amendments. The committee recommended several changes to the role of the Crown monitor in relation to Watercare, following submissions from, particularly, Auckland Council. For instance, the Secretary for Local Government will now prepare Watercare's charter, instead of the Crown monitor, and is required to consult with Auckland Council, Watercare, Taumata Arowai, and the Commerce Commission in preparing that. This ensures an appropriate separation between roles such as the Crown monitor, who will be responsible for implementing the monitoring, and it also addresses Auckland Council's concerns about too much power being concentrated in the Crown monitor. We think that's a fair way, and it separates those concerns for Auckland Council. Finally, the committee recommended that the Amendment Paper be included in the bill in its entirety, noting its intention to be an interim measure while the Government updates the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management. This amendment to the Water Services Act will give certainty to those involved in infrastructure development and it will prepare the sector for the significant number of waste-water treatment plants that are due for reconsenting. This bill takes another significant step forward to the implementation of Local Water Done Well, a higher-quality, safer, and more resilient water services system. The previous Government spent $1.25 billion—$1.25 billion—on their three waters plan and had nothing to show for it. Councils and voters resoundingly rejected their approach at the last election. Expensive, bureaucratic—you don't have to go far to look at all the mess that the last Government created with their centralisation. The mess we see with Te Pūkenga, the mess we see with Health New Zealand—thank goodness we've managed to stop this one now, in its tracks, before we saw the mess that this bureaucratic, expensive, and co-governed approach the last Government had to three waters. Our Government is listening to New Zealanders, and our Local Water Done Well will deliver better, financially sustainable, and affordable water services while retaining local control of water infrastructure for New Zealanders. I commend this bill to the House. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to. Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. When a Minister spends half his allocated speaking time talking about the Opposition, you know that what he's saying isn't actually quite the case, and that is absolutely the case for the Minister of Local Government. What he has promised New Zealand, he won't be able to deliver. Hon Member: He already is. Hon KIERAN McANULTY: We will see. It's very interesting, isn't it, that Government members are quite vocal. I wonder if they will be vocal if ratepayers come into their office with their latest bill that demonstrates the latest increase—because they should, because it's their fault. Next time New Zealanders see an increase in their rates bill, they would be misplaced in blaming their council because this Government has put that council in that position, and they've done that in two ways. One is by repealing the water reform, and two is what the Minister did a couple of weeks ago and completely dismissed every single recommendation from the review into the future of local government. The reason this bill is going to cost ratepayers money—and I think it spoke volumes that the Minister actually didn't refer to advice that he'd received; he referred to the same political arguments they made during the campaign, because if he was upfront and did provide the advice, they would demonstrate that what the Government is proposing in this bill will cost ratepayers more than the water reform. The only thing they have is that the water reform cost $1.25 billion. The only point at which that was wasted was when they repealed it, because if they left it alone, things were in place, and all they needed to go—[Interruption] Listen to it. Anybody hearing this online or on the TV can hear the response. The reason they're reacting like that is because they know deep down it's true. I'll give them an example. In South Wairarapa, there are three towns. Two of them have now paused all development because the council-controlled organisation (CCO) that they are a member of does not have the funds to upgrade their waste-water systems. Now, this is a CCO that is exactly the proposal that exists under Local Water Done Well. This Government is setting up councils with a false promise—a false promise—and if they don't like that, I'll present them with this: they went around the country promising councils that if councils supported them when they got into Government, they would help them pay for their water upgrades and their water maintenance. They promised councils that they would help them pay. We're talking about $185 billion over the next 30 years. Councils cannot do it by themselves, and they cannot afford to do it even if they are under a CCO, because they won't be able to get the required level of balance sheet separation. But they promised them none the less. Then they got into Government and they broke that promise immediately. An objective person would say that if you promise something with no intention of keeping it and then you don't keep that promise, that is dishonest, and yet they walk around now and say that they have saved councils from the burden of the cost of water reform. It is disingenuous. We're already seeing rates increases around the country, and councils are saying that it is because of the repeal of the water reform. The advice is there from the Department of Internal Affairs—all that has been peer reviewed—this Government's decisions around water reform are going to cost councils and, therefore, ratepayers more. It was interesting that the Minister thanked the submitters. I don't know why, because they've ignored the councils that submitted to the Finance and Expenditure Committee that said if this goes through as is proposed, they are likely to be on their own. Now, the problem with that is it's usually the small, rural councils that are going to be left out. When you have councils with a massive roading network and a number of towns that they are required to service but a very small rate-paying base, they simply cannot afford to pay to do the work, and if no council voluntarily chooses to go with them, what are they going to do? Now, this is a problem that we have raised with the Minister on a number of occasions, and all that he has is the political attack lines that they used in the campaign. There's no substance there; there's no sincerity. What they've done is they have repealed reforms not because they weren't going to work, because all the evidence was there; they've repealed reforms because they contained co-governance. So they've wasted $1.25 billion, according to the Minister, because they didn't like co-governance. They didn't waste that money because it wasn't going to work. They didn't waste that money because it wasn't going to save ratepayers money. They repealed it because they didn't have the guts to front up to the electorate and say, "This will actually work, but if we do it like this, we're going to have to look at a way of recognising the long-established special interest that Māori have, via the Treaty and established through the courts, in water." They didn't have the guts to front up and have that conversation, so instead they made false promises to councils, they lured support amongst ratepayers and said that the "National Party will help our council pay for it if they get in.", and they got rid of it with no intention of keeping that, then scrapping the reforms which would've worked. Why? Because they didn't want to front up and have the co-governance debate. I actually think that is disgraceful. Even now, you know from the Minister's speech when he's trying to pre-empt what the Opposition might say, that his argument doesn't stack up on his own accord—it's the age-old tactic—that's because it doesn't. Nothing he has said today stacks up. The reason Watercare was proposing 26 percent was because these guys repealed the water reform. So when the Minister stands up and says, "We saved Aucklanders from 26 percent water charges.", that was a problem of their own making. It takes a bit of gall to be able to stand up and say, "We've saved Auckland from the problem that we started.", but that's what they've done. The other issue around Auckland is that was the easy fix. That was the only one that they were able to do what they've done in Auckland where it would work, because no one else has the scale. So to the people of Northland, they're cast on their own. To the people of Tairāwhiti, they're gone. The top of the South Island: they're on their own. The West Coast of the South Island: they're on their own. Because those councils don't have the scale, even if they join up just with a couple of their neighbours to make this work to the level that it needs to. Even then, a CCO, as is the supposed outcome, doesn't have the balance sheet separation to be able to withdraw the debt associated to the work that's already been done and absorb the debt that will need to be taken on in order to do the work. That's why you're looking at examples in the Wellington region, under Wellington Water, where that model simply has not worked. It's not delivering for South Wairarapa, and it's not delivering for the other councils in the Wellington region. Now, maybe—just maybe—they will be able to jimmy up an arrangement for these councils that is a slight improvement on the status quo but significantly worse than what would've happened if they'd let reform go through. It is all there in the data. All they care about is appeasing those people that were worried about co-governance, but I have a theory which I happen to think is true: that, actually, deep down, people care more about the rates that they have to pay than they do about co-governance. When you look at the projected rates increases across the country, not just this year but next year and every year for the next 10 years, they have all jumped up significantly since this Government repealed water reform. It's your fault. I say to the members opposite: you've all done this. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Not my fault, Mr McAnulty. Hon KIERAN McANULTY: I thought I got in there just in time, Madam Speaker. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Ha, ha! I'm still listening. Hon KIERAN McANULTY: I did say, "I say to the members opposite", but I'll clarify: I did not mean the Speaker. To members opposite, I say to them, "It is your fault.", and because they voted for it, they should be held accountable. Where are they fronting up to their ratepayers and saying, "We voted for higher rates bills because we didn't want co-governance."? That's what they should be saying, and I think the ratepayers will look them in the eye and say, "Actually, do you know what? I think I'd rather have cheaper bills." LAN PHAM (Green): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can we just make sure we're aware and jump up a little bit quicker next time? Almost lost that call. LAN PHAM: Thank you—thank you. I appreciate that, Madam Speaker. Look, it's a real privilege to be able to speak to te Pāti Kākāriki's position on the Local Government (Water Services Preliminary Arrangements) Bill. It's kind of clever, the name of this bill, because by the time you finish saying the title to anyone, they've completely lost interest. See [Gestures to Deputy Speaker]—and case in point. It's much like this Government's approach to our very real and very serious infrastructure deficit. I want to assure every New Zealander out there that this bill matters. It matters because the official advice states really clearly that 35,000 Kiwis get sick every year from simply drinking the water that comes out of their tap. Simon Court: Fake news. LAN PHAM: We have this rolling—fake news, I just heard called out, but it's actually in the official advice and official documentation. So thank you for pointing out that there's some real misinformation going on over that side. We have this rolling seasonal nightmare of health warning signs going up at our favourite swimming and fishing spots, needing to avoid certain areas from the risk that our dogs or our little kids could get sick from the contamination of our waste water and our stormwater—the majority of which, I might add, discharge directly into our fresh water or coastal environment. Nearly ¼ of these are operating on expired consents. So, yes, we do have immense challenges on our hands—that needs to be addressed. But, unfortunately, this bill does not spell out a clear way forward. Firstly, I want to touch on the use of urgency with the bill and the truncated select committee process which has been completely unnecessary. The time frame for submissions on this bill was nine days. It meant that councils and communities were unable to have their voices heard on legislation that has such significant implications for their health, their local community, and their environment. The New Zealand Law Society summed it up really nicely when they pointed out that the use of urgency in this case was, "not demonstrably necessary or appropriate". So we, as the Green Party, oppose this bill for a number of reasons, and I wanted to start with the most foundational aspect of where this bill falls over and that's with the role of iwi Māori partnerships and the Crown's Te Tiriti obligations that should be emphasised in this water service delivery—even in this preliminary bill. Now, there was discussion about this. It was like, "Oh, you know, that's covered in other legislation and this and that." But I want to make it really clear that iwi Māori have specific rights and responsibilities when it comes to water in Aoteroa in their exercise of tino rangatiratanga and kaitiakitanga. So meaningful consultation and collaboration with iwi Māori in terms of forming this legislation, in terms of clear things that were actually spelt out in terms of the Crown's obligations, are essential for upholding their rights and ensuring that water management practices and decisions actually align with cultural values and Te Tiriti obligations. Secondly, the removal of Taumata Arowai being able to consider Te Mana o te Wai in the setting of their waste-water standards is really inappropriate. It's completely short-sighted and it actually introduces considerable complexity and uncertainty into their processes and decision making. We heard really clearly from submitters during hearings on this bill that Te Mana o te Wai was designed as "a cohesive whole and that the removal of Te Mana o te Wai provisions from Taumata Arowai's considerations would be a significant step backward for New Zealand in our water management." We note submissions from public health experts who also considered this removal as "deprioritising the safety and quality of people's drinking water and potentially increasing the risk of illness from polluted drinking water." That is entirely unacceptable and unnecessary. Te Mana o te Wai was meant to be the driver that actually forced councils and any water service delivery partners to up the game when it comes to drinking water, when it comes to the treatment of waste water and stormwater, and this is a huge missed opportunity. It actually risks locking in immense under-investment in where we should be as a country. The fact that this removal of Te Mana o te Wai from Taumata Arowai waste-water - setting considerations was tacked on in this last-minute amendment bill that the committee has now adopted shows how little time and consideration these changes were actually given by Government. We had the Regulations Review Committee and the New Zealand Law Society both clearly spelling out that the proposed amendment is a "Henry VIII" clause in that it allows secondary legislation to actually override existing primary legislation and shouldn't be used unless absolutely necessary, which, in this case, it is clear it's not. It's simply bad law. The complexity for Taumata Arowai comes into it that they're even saying that their obligations for decision making under Te Mana o te Wai aren't clear, because they have it in the overarching legislation. It's a really bad idea and I'm really disappointed that the committee did not adopt a potential to remove the amendment from the bill. The other aspects that I wanted to touch on at this stage in the process were: the definition of "financial sustainability", which we proposed was actually widened to consideration of debt and future borrowing, and also affordability for communities, which has been so well covered by my colleagues across the House, and also consideration of environmental sustainability. The current definition of "financial sustainability" in the bill is much too narrow to provide for that comprehensive decision-making that would actually enable us to have long-term resilient infrastructure and make really good decisions towards that. The other aspect that was really important that, unfortunately, the committee did not take up was about the time frames in the bill, and I want to spell out here that we know that New Zealand is suffering climate impacts now, and this is only going to be increased in the coming years and decades. I did want to point out, though, that the total replacement value for exposed—particularly local government—infrastructure is in the billions and this is just replacement value, not the actual increase and uplift in our infrastructure that we need to actually respond to increasing sea-level rise and other such climate impacts. Unfortunately, the committee has stuck with the 10-year time frame for the water services delivery plans, which are completely insufficient when it comes to planning for resilient water infrastructure and water services, particularly with these climate impacts. We would have liked to see the required time frame be a minimum of 30 years and have really clear expectations on councils that these plans would consider climate change as recommended by numerous submitters. We would have equally liked to have seen the committee adopt the submissions from local government in granting a more pragmatic 18- to 24-month time frame for submitting their water services delivery plans. Because, as the public health experts summed up really concisely, there's a high risk that councils and communities with fewer resources or more significant challenges may be underserved by the water services delivery plan processes as currently outlined. In those nine days that submissions were open for, there were 182 submissions only; 102 were in opposition and only 19 were explicitly in support. I want to quote the official advice that so clearly spelt out that all councils submitted that "The cost and resource implications are both unclear and significant for councils, making it challenging to plan or fund the reforms." And yet this Government is ploughing on. So, in the absence of these really fundamental changes that we've just spelt out, the Green Party is hugely disappointed by this missed opportunity to prioritise the health and wellbeing of our communities. We oppose the bill. SIMON COURT (ACT): ACT supports the Local Government (Water Services Preliminary Arrangements) Bill. I just want to clear up some of the misinformation that has been shared by members of the Opposition, not least that member Lan Pham from te Pāti Kākāriki who has just resumed her seat. The problem that this bill seeks to solve is that many, if not most, local government entities, councils around New Zealand have failed to fulfil their obligations to maintain and renew their existing water, waste-water, and stormwater assets in a way that meets community expectations, and they've failed to provide for growth in the cities and towns that need it. Some cities, like Dunedin, failed to detect that lead solder in pipe joints was poisoning people in suburbs like Karitane. They absolutely failed their communities and they failed their most basic obligations to provide for assets that support the necessities of life. Local government was only created because it was a problem when people kept tipping sewage—buckets of sewage—from their windows into the street. It was suggested that maybe if property owners get together and form organisations, which became local councils, we could put pipes in the ground and we could get all of that waste away from the places where we walked and shopped. Now, out of that, councils have then, through successive Government reforms, taken it upon themselves to think they can do just about anything—just that "anything" didn't include maintaining and operating their assets and providing for housing growth. Look, they collected the money which they supposedly attributed to depreciation of these assets, they collected development contributions from people wanting to build a new home or develop a section, but no one actually checked if they were maintaining their assets and developing them. What that has meant is that not only are we left with a significant deficit in infrastructure quality, which necessitates a very significant investment—and I'll get to that amount shortly—it means if you want to buy a new home or buy a home in Auckland now in 2024, the cost of that home relative to your income is now 10 times your income, on average, for the average home and the average-income earner. In the 1980s, when I was a kid growing up in Auckland, it was about three times the average income, notwithstanding changes in interest rates. Three times in the 1980s, 10 times average income now—unaffordable. A large part of that unaffordability is the fact that over many, many decades, councils have failed to provision the infrastructure to enable land to be serviced and that serviced land to be used for housing. This Government is going to fix that, not just with this Local Government (Water Services Preliminary Arrangements) Bill but through our Going for Housing Growth programme, our urgent reforms to the existing Resource Management Act, and our replacement of the Resource Management Act with a new resource management system based on enjoyment of property, so people can actually get on and enjoy building and living in and developing their property. Most importantly of all, in order to enable these things, we are reforming the infrastructure funding and financing system so that it is easier for local government and developers and anyone else who wants to build infrastructure to get access to the finance and, importantly, that the funding stream that will pay off all of that debt through user charges and other mechanisms will also be significantly simplified. So why is this bill so good? Well, firstly, it gets rid of co-governance, which was that awful, divisive, race-based solution to everything that the previous Labour Government tried to impose—who knew?—on concrete pipes and manholes and sewage treatment plants. I mean, who in their right minds in any iwi organisation would want to be responsible for sewage treatment plants? That's how wonky the previous Labour Government was. Instead of actually addressing specific rights and interests conferred by Treaty settlements, they went all wonky and they said, "Oh, well. We're going to stand up these co-governance entities and we're going to create these massive bureaucracies, and somehow that's going to discharge the Crown's obligations to specific iwi and hapū in terms of the Treaty of Waitangi." What a load of rubbish. How wrong they were. Not only that, for the $1.2 billion the previous Government spent, most of it on consultants and navel-gazing, so much of it on developing IT systems for asset management. I mean, who knew a spreadsheet that tells us where the manhole is, in which street, how deep it is, what it's made out of and so on—who knew a spreadsheet could be a very simple asset register? No, the previous Labour Government wanted to spend hundreds of millions, and they're well on track to spend half a billion dollars, on the ultimate spreadsheet. That's one of the reasons why they got voted out, because not only does no one trust them to deliver anything, not only do New Zealanders reject out-of-hand crazy co-governance of things like water assets, also if you look at what they spent and what they got, off you go to the Opposition benches for a very, very, very, very, very, very, very long time. So what will we do? Well, this Government's delivering on what ACT campaigned on and what the coalition Government agreed on. Councils get to keep their assets. They can form council-controlled organisations voluntarily. Do you hear that, Labour, over there? Not taking the assets, forcing all of these, what you call, arranged marriages, basically, trafficking all of these councils into the basement and forcing them all to hold hands. No, we will let them form these arrangements voluntarily. Councils will, however, be accountable for service delivery, providing for growth, and linking rates and user charges to investment in water, waste-water, and stormwater assets. This is not just a trust model, though. No, not like any previous Government's policy—we just blow money out the door and, you know, we all hold hands and maybe we say a prayer and we really, really hope the money that we signed away turns into something good. No, this is a trust and check model. This Government's setting up an economic regulator, which is under development with the Minister of Commerce, which will also include a regulatory backstop power should councils or these water service providers fail to meet their obligations to maintain and operate their assets and provide for growth. This bill also requires councils to deliver water services plans within 12 months. Now, we've heard some bleating from councils, echoed by the Opposition—they will echo and amplify any complaint about what this Government might be doing around water and infrastructure and the environment. But, of course, imagine a council complaining that they had to table an asset management plan within 12 months. If they don't already have one, they should be sacked. The voters should vote them out. I mean, for goodness' sakes, a water services plan is simply an asset management plan that says what pipes have we got, what manholes have we got, how many people live here, how much water will we have to supply, how much waste water will we have to take away. If councils don't have this now, they are in dereliction of their duty and that's another reason why this Government's water reforms are so desperately needed. This bill sets the scene for the next two years where this Government will be setting clear rules and objectives for delivery of infrastructure, how it's to be funded and financed, making a lot more tools available, but also making it very clear that we do not accept that different parts of Government, whether they're public sector agencies or local government, can just stand back and say "Crikey, we hope that somebody from Government comes along and solves our problems." Or, if you're an agency, "Crikey, I hope we get more money in next year's budget." We're actually going to hold them to account for solving the problems that those agencies and those parts of Government are tasked to solve; in this case, local government. Make sure that the pipes aren't leaking. Make sure you've got sufficient capacity to allow for growth. Make sure that when your waste-water treatment plant comes up for consent renewal, you've actually got a design in the back pocket that's ready to go. And by the way, if people are telling you, "Oh, geez, you know, we've got to think about the cultural impacts of where we put the waste water.", well, in places like Singapore, the waste water from buildings with 5,000 apartments and 5,000 people living in apartments can get turned back into drinking water. So if we can't treat our waste water to drinking-water standard and put it into a river, put it into a stream, put it into the harbour, because of some kind of cultural constraint, this country's never going to succeed. We have to solve that too, and that's why we're changing the hierarchy of the national policy statement for fresh water and we're going to make sure that it's going to be cost-effective and simple to deliver these solutions for Kiwis. ANDY FOSTER (NZ First): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Look, we have major infrastructure challenges across this whole country, and it's not just water. In fact, when we talk about water in local government, sometimes we forget that central government is not particularly good at this at all either. Simon Court, the asset management plans you talked about—I love asset management plans. One of the problems we've got in this country is we don't have enough of them, particularly in central government, and central government is not very good at managing its assets either. It's got to get better at it. This is the next stage of replacing Labour's convoluted, divisive, massively over-expensive, centralised three waters legislation. To listen to what the Opposition is saying, you'd kind of think that if we'd left that in place, all the water would be fixed now. But that was never going to happen. It was going to take years, decades, to be delivered regardless of what the model is. It's as though there was a magic answer there in the three waters model. The other thing to remember—and we've had commentary there about the rates increases this year—is that three waters under Labour's model wasn't going to come in this year or next year. I think it might have started to come in the year after that. Those rates rises would still have been happening, three waters or no three waters. Kieran McAnulty talked about rates rises, and, look, yeah, in a way what they were trying to do is take the waters away from councils, give them to somebody else, give them to those four, then 10, water entities, but somebody was going to have to pay for that. There was no magic money tree—there was no magic money tree. The people that were going to have to pay for that were the people that consumed the water or used the wastewater. And guess what! They are the same people, by and large. So it was still going to be a cost on the same people. In fact, what it probably would have done is it would have released councils from some of the discipline that they would then have to have in fixing the water system first. That is really, really important. This is the next stage in this Government fixing the water system. Councils at the moment are clearly struggling. We've seen those rates rise. I've talked about that. They're very high—they're unaffordably high—at the moment, but this is the first stage, or the next stage, in helping them. I also wanted to mention that we are also helping them in reducing the cost of working on the roads. In fact, sometimes we hear from the Opposition benches mocking of the work that's being done to reduce the cost of working on the roads. But that is really, really significant. It's not just about work on the roads; it's also about the utilities that go underneath the roads. I've talked to council CEs, and they've said that the cost of the working on the roads, the traffic management, is up to 40 percent—40 percent—of the cost of delivering those projects, driven by health and safety and all the other things. That is a huge cost. If we can get that cost down—and we've had this confirmed at the Transport and Infrastructure Committee; we've had this confirmed—that will flow directly through into the cost of delivering new water services or replacing water services. That is a really significant part of helping them. We've heard a comment about two towns in the Wairarapa which have paused development. Again, three waters wasn't going to magically fix that. What fixes that over time is being able to levy development on growth so that growth pays for the new capacity that is needed. One example of this—the cost of working on the roads is definitely going to be part of this—is that in the last year, right before the 2022 election, we were faced with Wellington Water coming to the Wellington City Council and saying, "Oh, by the way, we're going to have to revalue all the underground assets that we've got by"—10 percent, 20 percent, 30 percent?—"80 percent."—80 percent. Now, imagine what that does to your rates bill—a catastrophic effect. We went back to them and said, "Hey, I think we need to rethink that. We need to talk that one through, because that is far, far too significant an impact to be able to be worn, especially in one year." We should be expecting that councils should be rethinking their costs, not only in the light of the changes that we are making to legislation now, the changes that will come, but also in the reduction of the cost of working on the roads. So what does this bill do? Well, first of all, it creates greater oversight from Government, and actually that matters, because, actually, Government has been overseeing councils for decades through the Office of the Auditor-General (OAG). But how high has the OAG raised the red flag and been saying, "Hey, we know that there has been under-investment for decades."? Have you seen that red flag being raised and them saying, "You must do something about this, councils. You must do something about that."? They've started to do that in the last couple of years, but it's too late. That infrastructure deficit is already there. Government needed to be overseeing councils and saying, "We expect changes to be done." And if the asset management plan is not good enough, do something about it, because otherwise we're not signing off your annual plans, your LTPs, etc. You must do something about it. What else does the bill do? Well, it requires water service delivery plans. We've heard the comment that 10 years is not long enough. Actually, I'd be inclined to agree; a longer term is a good thing, because these assets are going to be assets which, by and large, should be lasting 100 years. That actually is really, really important. The longer-term thinking is really important. But having a water services delivery plan is important. The second thing is transparent information for the community. Well, it should already be there, but that's really, really important as well, because that's how you hold councils to account. It's also how we should be held to account in terms of our asset management of the assets that the Government looks after. Making it easier to establish or change CCOs and other collaborative arrangements—that's a good thing. It allows councils to be more flexible in getting together, working together, and, hopefully, delivering some economies of scale. It allows the financial separation of Watercare from Auckland Council, which has already been announced. Obviously, financially, that's a significant advantage to the ratepayers of Auckland. So that's a really, really good thing. The other one I just wanted to mention was that it requires Taumata Arowai to set standards. That is really, really important, but what those standards are is going to be really, really critical, and that those standards are realistic—they give us better quality water, better quality discharge to water, but that they are also realistic. We've had Te Mana o te Wai mentioned. One of the things about Te Mana o te Wai is that it is a hierarchy. At the top of the hierarchy, it says we look after the health of the water, then we look after the health of human beings, and then we do all the other things that we need to do for our economic, social, and cultural good. The problem with hierarchies is that I've seen them interpreted. No. 1 is the one that gets picked, and Nos 2 and 3 are there, but if there is any conflict between Nos 2 and 3 and No. 1, Nos 2 and 3 get ignored. If you ignore the needs of the people and the needs of their social, cultural, and economic impacts, that becomes a real problem. Getting the model right, getting the incentives right, getting the oversight right is really, really important. This is the next step in that, and I commend this bill to the House. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): My understanding is that the next call is a split call. HŪHANA LYNDON (Green): Kia ora. E mihi atu ana ki a tātou tēnei wā. I'd like to acknowledge Andy Foster, the previous speaker from New Zealand First, highlighting te mana o te wai, because te mana o te wai is holistic. Te mana o te wai looks at the entire ecosystem: tangata, whānau, hapori, and then, ultimately, that wai-inu, so that it is free, the taiao is clean. I struggle when I hear that the hierarchy limits the way that we look after our wai māori, because te mana o te wai is about fresh drinking water, te mana o te wai is about the needs of the community, and te mana o te wai is, ultimately, about social, economic, and cultural wellbeing. So I'd encourage us to really think about the fact that the indigenous models that are gifted to the Government are an asset and something to provide guidance. It's, again, another example of plus-plus. It is sad, because we can be giving mihi to Māori one day, and then the next day we're passing legislation that will takahē Māori. So here we are again, another piece of legislation—e takahē ana e te mana o te wai. Reflecting on submissions that have been received and considering the fact that there was unity around the lack of engagement with te iwi Māori on the process in this bill. Now, that came through really strongly from Te Whakakitenga o Waikato, Tūwharetoa Māori Trust Board, Te Arawa Lakes Trust, Ngā Iwi o Taranaki, Te Rangapū Mana Whenua o Tauranga Moana, Taumatamakuku, Te Kahu o Taonui, Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu—all said, there's been a lack of engagement. In fact, this bill needs to give effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi, this bill needs to give effect to te mana o te wai, and this bill needs to recognise our special rights and interests of hapū and iwi in wai māori. So it's so disappointing that we're at this point, because the Crown is not meeting their obligations to Te Tiriti o Waitangi, they are ignoring the fact that councils themselves submitted, saying, "We appreciate Māori at the table." In fact, Andy Foster, who spoke previously, was one of the biggest advocates for iwi voice at the table in Wellington, and, you know, provided voting rights to my whānau of Ngāti Toa and Taranaki Whānui in the standing committees, plus they got paid the same amount as counsellors. So I mihi to my colleague because, ultimately, Māori at the table is a plus-plus. You get our skills, you get our expertise, you get our tirohanga Māori, and there you go, we're at the tepu. Co-governance is not something to fear. Ultimately, if we're all in it together, then we move out into the community together, and that's what three waters provided. May I speak to being a previous CEO and working with Waipunarangi for entity A. We spent, as iwi, months and months of time with the transition groups, talking about HR, we were talking about data, we were looking at asset management plans from Tāmaki ki Te Rerenga Wairua. We were working hard with our council colleagues and also with the Department of Internal Affairs—mō te kore take noa iho—[for no purpose at all.] It became nothing and that was such a shame. Ultimately, what was interesting was that many hapū and iwi never had a look at water asset management plans until Waipunarangi lifted the lid for them to take a peek, because councils had had exclusivity in that space. They had not engaged us until there was a resource consent. Waipunarangi opened the opportunity for hapū and iwi to be at the table. What a moumou—it's such a waste. As our colleagues have shared, "Hey, there's nothing wrong with tūtae in the moana. Let's let the tūtae go out into the moana." Hey, you know, the whānau in Hokianga went to the Environmental Court and fought against that tūtae to go out into Hokianga Whakapau Karakia. Because, ultimately, Te Mana o te Wai is the framework that protects all of us—Māori mai, Pākehā mai, tauiwi mai—and Te Tiriti o Waitangi is the central pillar for us to mahi tahi. That is why it is so disappointing that we're at this point. Why remove Te Mana o te Wai? Why relegate us just back to the Local Government Act and cross our fingers that Māori will get a say? Because if you don't entrench the requirement for councils to engage with us, then we're chasing them like we have in the past. Kia ora. STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Well, thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I'd just like to point out, actually, every New Zealander has rights and responsibilities and interests when it comes to water. Everybody does, and, actually, this bill restores equality when it comes to governance arrangements and access to water, and that's as it should be. That's modern democracy and that's where we should be. This bill was great. It's true it was a shortened report-back date that we had. None the less, we had 182 submissions and actually they were high-quality submissions. The submitters that appeared before the Finance and Expenditure Committee really added to the process, and so I'd like to thank them on behalf of the committee. I'd like to thank my fellow Finance and Expenditure Committee members who worked very hard on this bill in a shortened report-back date, so it really added to this bill. It had some unique features, this bill. We had to get clearance under Standing Order 295(1)(b) to get the power to consider an out-of-scope amendment, which was Amendment Paper 41, which was appropriate, but I think it's the first time I've struck that in select committee, so it was rather unique, and that brought a lot to the table. This is the second of three bills. Ultimately, it replaces three waters with Local Water Done Well, which is a fantastic plan, actually. As my colleague from New Zealand First mentioned before, having more Government oversight of what's going on with councils is a great help, because, obviously, when we look around, some councils have made a real hash of their water infrastructure assets. We don't have to walk too far from this building to see that bubbling up in the street ourselves. So that was very good. We had also a good old "Henry VIII" clause. We had a submission from the New Zealand Law Society and the Regulations Review Committee on clause 102 in regard to the danger of it being a "Henry VIII" clause and the dangers around that—well, it is a "Henry VIII" clause; let's be clear: we looked at the guidelines and absolutely it fits within that. However, the clause doesn't pose a constitutional risk, because Parliament actually had a policy that that will give effect to. So Parliament and the executive gives policy, right? But the executive can't do that on its own. So having that regulation-making power so an Order in Council can extinguish those particular clauses—that's what it does. Until the National Policy Statement on Freshwater Management is replaced, that is still in line with the policy intent. So it was a really good lesson, I think, for the committee; a few new members on our committee—I don't know, probably the first time a "Henry VIII" clause has come up, and it was a very interesting discussion on that. When three waters came up from the previous Government, I don't think I've seen as many road signs and had so much email traffic about anything, so water is very dear to people. Why is it so dear to them? Because, obviously, none of us can survive without water and none of us can survive, really, as we found out—and I'm sure my colleague Catherine Wedd will talk about what happened in Havelock North—without having clean and safe water, so getting this right is really important. I congratulate the Minister of Local Government on the work that he and his team have done, and the officials that advised the committee for the work that they did under such a tight time frame, and I think this bill is actually what we need in New Zealand and it gets New Zealand back on the track of democracy. With great pleasure, I commend this bill to the House. Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): The speaker who just took his seat, Stuart Smith, said this is a bill to get New Zealand back on track. This is yet another example of a Government that is taking New Zealand backwards. We see this through this bill. Up and down the country, before the election, parties of the then Opposition paraded around, telling people across the land that they were going to restore local decision-making and democracy to our water services and that they were going to relieve the cost burden. Labour will not be supporting this bill, because, in fact, on both of these counts, this bill goes backwards. This bill imposes more costs on the ratepayers of New Zealand. Despite the rhetoric of what we're hearing from members—and I'll go into it in some detail—actually, there is nothing in this bill to give local councils any comfort that they are going to be in charge of their own destinies when it comes to this. So let's talk about that local decision-making, the much-vaunted local decision-making that was paraded around the country prior to the election. One of the things that we know is that the Government talked big about the Affordable Water Reforms, alleging they undermined local decision-making, but this bill that we've got fails to provide for community involvement in the preparation of the water services plans that sit within this legislation. Under this bill, the community—and I think this is very important for people to understand—will have no guaranteed right to be part of the process where their local councils prepare the central government - mandated water services plans. I think that's something that people need to understand very clearly—that there is no guaranteed right for people to have that local say in these water services plans. There's a major gap in this bill, and this is highlighted by the bill providing that the consultation must occur to establish, join, or amend council-controlled organisations that are to deliver those plans. The obligation to consult does not extend beyond that. It does not extend to the water services plans, itself; it is merely around the vehicles that will be putting together those water services plans. So anyone who is sitting out there in viewer land, thinking that, upcoming, they're going to have a chance—and a guaranteed chance—to have a say on their local water services plan, I'm afraid that is not the case. You may well have been misled. You may well have been led down the garden path by a Government that went on the campaign hustings, saying one thing, but has come to the House with a piece of legislation that does the exact opposite. It does not stop there. One of the things that we know in terms of the vehicle being what is required to be consulted on, rather than the plans, there's also an obligation to consult imposed on the secretary of DIA—or the Department of Internal Affairs—when exercising the power to make rules in relation to the water services plans. But the secretary of DIA is obliged to consult with named organisations when considering the water services plans submitted by local councils. This is not the ratepayers. This is not everyday people in the street who thought they were going to have a say on what those local water plans would say. There is lots of mandatory consultation embedded in here but none of it is directed at communities. This is not about communities having their say; this is about a Government putting up a bill that is maintaining that control. The Government does retain the whip hand in this, and I think they need to be very clear with New Zealanders that that's what they're doing. We'll go through some of the obligations that are imposed on councils, and what councils had to say. But here's the cracker, because the Government made sure they got in here the ability to appoint a Crown facilitator for recalcitrant councils in addition to appointing a Crown water services specialist—so "Do what we say or we'll take over." That is what this legislation is saying. So this much-vaunted return of democracy to local communities was nothing but a sham. It is not hiding in this bill. It is not there. Now, let's turn our attention to costs, because that's one of the other key things that, up and down the land, the Opposition—as they then were; they nowadays call themselves the Government for the next two years—went around the country telling people that they were going to reduce costs. They talk about how much we spend on it. That is because we have to, as a country, spend money to upgrade our waters infrastructure. This is not some kind of thing we can put on the "never never" and kick the can even further down the road. What this bill has done is impose a whole lot of compliance on council, but nowhere is there a mention of funding; nowhere is there the ability for councils to actually carry this out. Who is going to pay for it? That still is not clear. Remember, let's go back to that ability for the Crown to appoint that facilitator; for the Crown to walk in and take over if they don't do exactly what the Government says. So impose a whole lot of very unrealistic expectations around time lines and what is expected, provide zero funding, but say you'll walk in and take over if you need to. That's what we're seeing in this bill. So what does this mean for New Zealanders in terms of cost? Because someone has to pay for this—that the infrastructure needs to be upgraded. Let's look around our country. Let's go through some numbers: 15.8 percent rates increases, that's Tauranga City Council; 17 percent, that's Kāpiti Coast; let's look at 18.5 percent, that's Wellington; and 14.75 percent, that's Kaikōura. These are the kinds of rates increases that New Zealanders around the country are facing because—and councils are saying this themselves—they have to fund their three waters work. That is what this means for New Zealanders. So we've seen this much-vaunted community democracy sham. What we've seen is imposed costs on New Zealanders in terms of increased rates and having to dig into their pockets because this was a Government that decided it was going to be fun; that dog-whistled some billboards to put up around the country in the lead-up to the general election, and parties who took great delight in doing that, and we're seeing many provisions of that in this bill. The problems with this bill don't stop with the fact it doesn't return local decision-making; it doesn't stop with the fact it's imposing costs New Zealanders. Let's have a look at the fact that it fails to protect public ownership. Under Labour's legislation, there were protections around public ownership—that was not something that Government members were even willing to countenance. One of the things that we said is that we need to ensure that these are assets that stay in public ownership—this is in the public interest to do so. So we have a Government that is imposing requirements on council with no money to do it and a cost that has to be borne through rates increases, yet won't protect public ownership. I can add: I know what those things usually add up to. I need a Government member to stand in this House today and give an ironclad guarantee that they are not setting up to hock off our water assets and get them out of public ownership. Because the fact they would not commit to that is something to be afraid of. Now, in my last minute, if New Zealanders needed any greater evidence of the fact that this wasn't a return to local decision-making, it has happened in this House this afternoon. We had a member of the executive in Simon Court—who is an under-secretary who was sworn in as a member of the executive—stand up and talk about sacking councils if they fail to provide what was expected of them. This is what members of the executive of this Government—how much they value local democracy and local decision-making. That is the very vibe that is entwined through this bill. It is a bill that does not protect local democracy; in fact, it erodes it. It is a bill that imposes cost, and it's a bill that fails to protect public ownership. CATHERINE WEDD (National—Tukituki): Look, I would just like to answer to the member who's been speaking, Megan Woods, about costs on the other side of the House and I'll give her a figure: $1.2 billion of wasteful spending on consultants, on your controversial, divisive three waters—$1.2 billion worth of wasteful spending with nothing, absolutely nothing, to show for it. Nothing to show for it: bureaucracy, undemocratic, centralisation, $1.2 billion on three waters with no delivery. Look, we're a Government of delivery and we are delivering good legislation which is going to deliver local democracy and going to deliver good water infrastructure. Look, I am from Havelock North, which is where a lot of this stemmed from. The Havelock North water crisis—everyone will remember it—where four people died. I would just like to acknowledge those families who lost their loved ones and have had their lives changed for ever. I do remember it very, very clearly. It was a Friday afternoon and reports were coming through from our local schools that half our kids were coming home sick. They had a vomiting bug. Everyone thought a vomiting bug was just going around. Little did we know. My husband had left for a weekend of hunting. He'd filled the water bottles up before he left with Havelock North water, contaminated water, drinking it all weekend, becoming sicker and sicker. My young babies were drinking the water and becoming sick. Our whole community literally felt like we were being poisoned by the water. For days, we were drinking contaminated water that was making thousands of people sick—over 5,000 people. This was not OK. Our council was in charge of our drinking water and they failed us. It was horrific. It was like a horror movie. Four people died because we did not have safe drinking water. My neighbour contracted a severe health condition. He's never recovered. Because when water is unsafe, it impacts our most vulnerable, our elderly, our sick, and our babies. Havelock North prompted change. We all know that we must do more to ensure that we have safe drinking water, but the way to do it is through localism and democratic processes. Hastings District Council has already spent $100 million on creating a world first, a world-class drinking-water system. It's been done locally and it's been the first in the world. Hawke's Bay councils were the first to be against the three waters legislation. They got together and they supported National's "water done well", because councils support localism and keeping our assets in local ownership, and that is why this is a good bill. It is about localism, it is about democracy, and it is about delivery, and that is why I commend this bill to the House. Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): I take the points that the member who has just spoken, Catherine Wedd, made about the need for safe drinking water. What happened in Havelock North was a tragedy. People died because the water that came out of their taps that should have been safe was not. This is a deeply serious problem which we need to solve. We need to ensure that the drinking water in this country is safe. So the question is how to do that. What is the best way to do that? How do we ensure that each of us up and down the country can turn the tap on, get a glass of water, and drink it, knowing that it is safe? On this side of the House, we believe that burden should be shared up and down the country. We believe that all of us need to contribute to that—that all of us need to look after each other. I want to call to the House's mind a submission that was made by one particular district council. I'm not going to name who this district council was because, frankly, I was appalled by what they said. What they said was, "We're OK. We've spent the money. We don't care about our neighbours. We don't care about the people one town over. We don't care about the people in that district to the north of us. We're OK. To hell with them." That was the gist of their submission. Now, when we looked at that particular district council, it turns out that that particular district council comes from a relatively wealthy area with relatively few urban areas to serve. They were able to charge rates in a way that enabled them to set up their water supplies so that they could do it going forward into the future. But their neighbouring district council was not in such a wealthy area, had not been able to rate in a way that enabled them to build up infrastructure, was desperately worried about how it could meet the regulations that were to be imposed by that side of the House. Now, let's be clear, we need the clean, safe drinking water. The issue is how to pay for it. On that side of the House, they are saying to some district councils, to some areas of the country: "To hell with you—to hell with you. We don't care that you've got to put your rates up. We don't care that your ratepayers can't afford it. To hell with you." That's the essence of the solution that they're proposing over there. We already know that rates are going up dramatically across the country. So my colleague Megan Woods ran us through it: 15.8 percent in Tauranga, 17.1 percent on the Kāpiti Coast, 18.5 percent in Wellington, 14.75 percent in Kaikōura. Rates are going up, and in some areas, ratepayers can no longer pay. In the Far North, 20 percent of ratepayers have not been able to pay their latest rates instalment. And this Government over there wants to add yet more costs on to them. We had a solution in place. We had a solution in place that meant that all of us cared for each other in this country, that meant that all of us shared in the burden of ensuring that everyone had clean drinking water, that meant that those of us who live in the urban areas could go to other parts of the country when we're on holiday and turn the tap on and be assured that the quality of the drinking water was as fantastic as it was in our homes. We were going to share the cost across the country, because that's what we do as New Zealanders: we look after each other. We try to ensure that all of us have access to the same standard of living. But not on that side of the House. "To hell with the poors.", they said. "To hell with the areas that simply couldn't afford to pay the rates." They are just abandoning them, and they have no solution in place. This is an appalling bill. NANCY LU (National): I want to say, first of all, thank you to the Minister and also all of the Finance and Expenditure Committee (FEC) members and all the submitters—people who have written to us, came to speak to us, came to present to us—and all of the FEC members and clerks who sat there and listened patiently to understand their perspectives. Now, this bill is here to provide the preliminary and the foundational provision for the framework of long-term, new, sustainable, certain, water-quality infrastructure for all of New Zealand. So this is actually us giving the framework, giving the powers back to local people who understand what is needed to be done locally for the peoples in our local community. New Zealanders need better water quality. New Zealanders deserve to have good, clean water. Our future generations need certainty—our future generations need certainty of the sustainable water infrastructure going into the many generations. What New Zealanders don't need is the waste of time. So, with that, I commend this bill to the House. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): Members, the House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 30 July 2024. Debate interrupted. The House adjourned at 5.56 p.m.