Parliament Hansard Report – Petitions, Papers, Select Committee Reports, and Introduction of Bills – 001191

Source: New Zealand Parliament – Hansard

PETITIONS, PAPERS, SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS, AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

SPEAKER: A petition has been delivered to the Clerk for presentation.

CLERK: Petition of Paul Fisher requesting that the House urge the Government to review Waka Kotahi’s proposed safety improvements to State Highway 1 Timaru to St Andrews.

SPEAKER: That petition stands referred to the Petitions Committee. Ministers have delivered papers.

CLERK:

  • 2022/23 Annual Report of the Remuneration Authority
  • International Labour Organisation Report of the New Zealand Government Delegates to the 111th Session of the International Labour Conference, Geneva, 5 to 16 June 2023
  • 2023 to 2027 Statements of Intent for the Broadcasting Standards Authority, Radio New Zealand Ltd, Television New Zealand Ltd
  • 2023/24 Statements of Performance Expectations, Broadcasting Standards Authority, New Zealand on Air, Radio New Zealand Ltd, and Television New Zealand Ltd.

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 International treaty examination of the Agreement between New Zealand and the EU on the Participation of New Zealand in Union Programmes and the Protocol on the Association of New Zealand to Horizon Europe
  • Report of the Environment Committee on the Briefing on reducing construction and demolition waste going to landfill
  • Report of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee on the Inquiry into illegal, unregulated, and unreported fishing
  • Report of the Governance and Administration Committee on the Briefing about the select committee exchange to Australia
  • Reports of the Justice Committee on the Briefing on trends in youth crime
  • Petitions of Christine McCarthy, Diane Hunt, and Lois McGirr
  • Reports of the Petitions Committee on the Petition of Akhtar Zaman and Kirstin Murray
  • Report of the Primary Production Committee on the Inquiry into the future of the workforce needs of the primary industries of New Zealand
  • Report of the Regulations Review Committee on the Briefing about orders made under section 70 of the Health Act 1956
  • Report of the Social Services and Community Committee on the Ministry for Pacific Peoples, Long-Term Insights Briefing 2023.

SPEAKER: The reports of the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee; the Environment Committee; the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee; the Governance and Administration Committee; the Primary Production Committee; the Regulations Review Committee; and the Social Services and Community Committee’s and the Justice Committee’s briefings are all set down for consideration. The Clerk has been informed of the introduction of bills.

CLERK:

  • Residential Property Managers Bill, introduction
  • Hauraki Gulf / Tīkapa Moana Marine Protection Bill, introduction
  • Ram Raid Offending and Related Measures Amendment Bill, introduction
  • Victims of Family Violence (Strengthening Legal Protections) Legislation Bill, introduction.

SPEAKER: Those bills are set down for first reading.

Cabinet’s emissions pricing plan leaves too much to chance

Source: Green Party

Only the Green Party has a plan to reduce agricultural emissions at the scale and pace needed. The Labour Cabinet’s plan for pricing agriculture emissions announced today falls short.

“The Labour Cabinet’s emissions pricing plan leaves too much to chance. People deserve a plan that will work – and with a strong hand in the next government, the Green Party will make it happen,” says Green Party co-leader and climate change spokesperson, James Shaw.

“We need an enduring cap on total emissions that reduces over time. That is the only way we will be able to cut pollution in line with what science tells us. We can start immediately by reducing reliance on the things that fuel emissions-intensive farming, like nitrogen fertiliser and imported supplementary feed.

“In my role as the Minister of Climate Change, I have made clear to my Labour colleagues why I do not support their preferred option for pricing agriculture emissions. We have agreed to disagree. 

“I do support Cabinet’s decision to develop a standardised way of measuring on-farm emissions. While the Know Your Number programme has had good uptake, a single accounting system for farm-level emissions will be a critical component of any future pricing system.

“I also strongly support the decision to recognise carbon sequestration from things like wetlands and small-scale planting in the Emissions Trading Scheme, rather than in a parallel levy system. This was recommended by the Climate Change Commission and was always the first preference of the agricultural sector themselves. I have worked very hard to get this decision over the line and I look forward to implementing it in the coming year. 

“However, I do not think the Labour Cabinet’s proposed levy-based system will work to actually reduce emissions.

“First, under Cabinet’s plan, there will be no cap on agriculture emissions – and therefore no guarantee that emissions will decline. 

“For most of its history, the existing Emissions Trading Scheme (NZ ETS), which covers every sector of the economy except for agriculture, also had no cap. It was a massive public policy failure, which saw our country’s emissions go up almost the whole time we had an NZ ETS which was supposed to bring emissions down. 

“Our emissions only started to come down when I introduced a cap into the NZ ETS in our first term of Government. We should learn from the mistakes that were made with the NZ ETS when it comes to a pricing system for the remaining half of our emissions that come from agriculture. 

“Second, Cabinet has said it would set the price of emissions itself. Any system that leaves pricing decisions up to Ministers – even with a role for the Climate Change Commission – is guaranteed to be subject to lobbying. Future governments are all too likely to set the price too low to drive change. Rather than encouraging more environmentally sustainable farming practices, a low price is likely to just be absorbed into business as usual and passed on to customers.

“Third, Cabinet has also made a promise to keep the price as low as possible. It is unclear that there will be any revenue to recycle back into incentives for farmers to cut emissions, once behind-the-farm-gate deductions and operating costs for the scheme have been covered. Given that the scheme is designed to raise revenue for incentives, rather than to use price as an incentive, this is a serious flaw.

“Fourth, Cabinet’s preferred option is unfair to farmers who have already invested in reducing their emissions. Because the levy would be set at a flat rate, farmers who have already worked to cut emissions without reducing production will pay the same rate as those who have done nothing. 

“Finally, the plan approved by Cabinet is weak enough that it could be easily dismantled by any future government. In opting for short-term political convenience, Cabinet is short-changing the future of our children and grandchildren – as well as the future of the agricultural sector in Aotearoa.

“Only the Green Party has a credible plan for what we should do next. We need to learn from what works for pricing emissions in all other sectors in Aotearoa, and apply the same basic principles to agriculture. 

“First, it is essential to set an annual cap on methane emissions – and reduce it every year to guarantee the methane targets in the Zero Carbon Act are met. We would then draw from the expertise of the Climate Change Commission for decisions on how to allocate methane units within the cap in a way that is fair and recognises the circumstances of different types of farming, like sheep and beef farming, dairy or horticulture. 

“Farmers and growers would be required to hand in units for their on-farm emissions of methane and nitrous oxide, and could trade between themselves. Only farmers and growers would be allowed to trade units, without the influence of speculators or outside organisations. This would mean farmers themselves set the price of emissions reductions through the market, providing a powerful incentive to invest in action to cut emissions. 

“Landowners could earn revenue from the ETS by planting trees, rewetting peatlands or any other scientifically valid way of removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. This would give farmers the revenue they need to cover their methane or nitrous oxide emissions. 

“While this system is put in place, we would take immediate action to cut agriculture emissions. We would immediately reduce the cap on synthetic nitrogen fertiliser, and banning unsustainable imported feeds like Palm Kernel Expeller. With Green MPs in the next Cabinet, we can take these steps at the same time as developing an effective agriculture pricing system,” says James Shaw. 

Green Party Agriculture spokesperson Teanau Tuiono added:

“We can have a thriving, sustainable farming sector that supports rural communities and tackles the climate crisis. This year’s election is a critical moment that will shape the future of farming for decades to come. A decision to take the least action possible is not good enough. 

“New Zealand faces a stark choice. It can either elect a National-Act government with a policy platform of delaying action on agricultural emissions and dismantling the Zero Carbon Act, the Climate Change Commission, and with every other action we have taken. Or, the Green Party will be in a position to set the direction of the next government and demand that agriculture fully plays its part in protecting the climate. 

“Our children deserve action that meets the scale of the crisis and ensures agricultural emissions actually reduce in line with the Zero Carbon Act targets. Anything less than this is too little, too late. Dealing with agricultural emissions is a challenge that has defeated successive governments for decades. We cannot leave another generation to inherit the burden of slow progress.

“If we get this right, we can change the way we grow our food to keep our climate healthy and benefit our rural communities for generations to come,” says Teanau Tuiono.

Parliament Hansard Report – Thursday, 17 August 2023 – Volume 770 – 001190

Source: New Zealand Parliament – Hansard

Question No. 2—Social Development and Employment

2. Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Minister for the Prevention of Family and Sexual Violence) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Does she agree with the recent Working for Families review that it presents “the best opportunity in the coming years to achieve substantial reductions in measured child poverty and to make significant ‘headway’ towards achieving the ten-year targets”?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Yes. This Government has consistently increased Working for Families to make everyday life more affordable for Kiwi families. Our Families Package increased the family tax credit and introduced the Best Start payment, dedicated to supporting parents with extra costs in a child’s first three years. We have expanded access to the in-work tax credit to ensure more families receive this support. Our increases to the Best Start payment and family tax credit in 2022 meant 346,000 families are better off by an average of $20 per week and an estimated 6,000 children have been lifted out of poverty. And, on 1 April, we adjusted Working for Families tax credits in line with inflation, supporting Kiwi families with the cost of living. Is there more to do? There certainly is.

Hon Marama Davidson: When will her Government stop discriminating against children of parents on a benefit, who are left in poverty while awarding extra support to working families?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: It’s not discrimination. Fifty percent of children living in poverty are living in households that are working. They are low-income households. They have expenses associated with working, whether it be getting to work, the travel associated; whether it be childcare costs. We want to ensure that those families are looked after. That doesn’t mean that we have neglected our responsibility to those that are on benefit. We have significantly increased benefits during our time. When we lifted main benefits, we’re estimated to have lifted between 19,000 and 33,000 children out of poverty. By doing things like child support pass-on, we also have lifted children out of poverty—for that particular initiative, between 6,000 to 14,000 children lifted out of poverty. We are focused on families that are on benefit but also low-income families that are working and trying to get ahead.

Hon Marama Davidson: And that is good, but is it fair that single parents who are caregivers don’t get the in-work tax credit despite caregiving for children being essential unpaid work to households?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: We absolutely respect the role of parents that are staying home, including those that are on sole parent support. As I said, one of the things that we did do was change the discriminatory policy where sole parent beneficiary recipients were not getting the child support passed on to them. That will make a significant difference to them and their children, and I’m very proud that we as a Government have been able to do that.

Hon Marama Davidson: Will tweaking the Working for Families abatement threshold and the in-work tax credit have any impact on child poverty targets when half of children in poverty are in households in receipt of a benefit?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: We are expecting that the report-back to Cabinet for the Working for Families review will occur at the end of this year, and at that point more consideration can be given to Working for Families and any potential changes.

Hon Marama Davidson: Does she agree with advice given to her by her own officials that “there are significant issues with the design of in-work assistance, particularly with the minimum family tax credit but also to a lesser extent the in-work tax credit.”, and, if so, will she simplify Working for Families and create one child-centric payment which goes to all struggling households?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I do believe that there needs to be structural reform with Working for Families, and that report-back will go to Cabinet at the end of this year.

Parliament Hansard Report – Karakia/Prayers – 001189

Source: New Zealand Parliament – Hansard

THURSDAY, 17 AUGUST 2023

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

KARAKIA/PRAYERS

DEPUTY 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.

Parliament Hansard Report – Business Statement – 001188

Source: New Zealand Parliament – Hansard

BUSINESS STATEMENT

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Leader of the House): Next week, the Appropriation (2023/24 Estimates) Bill will receive a third reading.

Other legislation to be considered will include further stages of the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill, the Fuel Industry (Improving Fuel Resilience) Amendment Bill, the Land Transport Management (Regulation of Public Transport) Amendment Bill, the Land Transport (Road Safety) Amendment Bill, the Legal Services Amendment Bill, the Local Government Electoral Legislation Bill, the Resale Right for Visual Artists Bill, the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Community Participation) Amendment Bill, the Taxation Principles Reporting Bill, the Water Services Legislation Bill, and the Water Services Economic Efficiency and Consumer Protection Bill.

There will also be 11 valedictory statements next week.

SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Will the House be in urgency again all of next week?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Leader of the House): Oh, well, the Government, as I’ve just outlined, has a very busy programme of work, and we’ll make decisions about those matters as we go. But if we continue to receive strong support from the Opposition, as we did on the Taxation Principles Reporting Bill today, we’ll make excellent progress.

Prioritising roads over climate is simply irresponsible

Source: Green Party

The Government’s decision today to prioritise new roads is the exact opposite of what Aotearoa needs right now and needs a rethink.

“Aotearoa deserves a balanced transport network with rapid transit connecting more people where they want to go, not more urban motorways,” said Green Party transport spokesperson Julie Anne Genter.

“We’re pleased to see some rail, and recognition of necessary safety improvements but the focus is still too much on new roads, and not low carbon alternatives.

“Funnelling billions into building more roads, instead of investing in low carbon transport options like regional rail, shows Labour are not serious about climate change.

“We hope this has had a full climate assessment that is required in line with meeting our emissions budget.

“If not, there are serious questions to be asked about how climate change is being considered when decisions about the future of transport in Aotearoa are being made. The advice from the Climate Commission is very clear that to meet our targets, we need to prioritise low emissions alternatives to private vehicle use.

“Labour and National seem to be in a road race this election to come up with the most expensive waste of money on new roads. People want better, and they deserve better.

“Recent polling shows that doing the right thing for the climate is popular. Nearly 3 in 4 New Zealanders think public transport, rail and coastal shipping should be the priority for investment, not new roads.

“It’s so obvious that most people want greener options. These options are better for the climate and also do more to free up our existing roads for those who use them.

“Investing in rail to get more freight and private vehicles off our state highway network is absolutely essential – and must be scaled up as quickly as possible to meet the challenge of climate change.

“Having more Green Ministers in Cabinet to speak up for people and our climate in every decision has never been more essential.

“The Green Party would transform public transport networks, build light rail in Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch, and provide comprehensive bus lanes in all cities.

“We will make it possible for more safe walking and cycling to school and in our communities. We will invest in nationwide rapid rail for passengers, and rail and coastal shipping for freight, to connect regions and major cities.

“Our message is clear: if people want real action on climate change and long-term transformational investment in public transport, the only option this year is the Green Party. More Green MPs in government will mean we can finally direct decision-making towards fast, reliable and affordable buses and trains,” says Julie Anne Genter.

Parliament Hansard Report – Tuesday, 15 August 2023 (continued on Thursday, 17 August 2023) – Volume 770 – 001187

Source: New Zealand Parliament – Hansard

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you, Madam Speaker. What a wonderful bill this is. What an excellent bill. I mean, successive Governments down through the ages have made changes to the tax system in the name of fairness, without facts. The idea of fairness can be subjected and manipulated to suit political arguments, but here we have a bill in this House which encourages transparency so the public can debate the merit of tax changes with real facts behind them.

I want to congratulate the Hon Deborah Russell for bringing this to the House and the Hon David Parker for his work on this bill over a long period of time to achieve a bill which actually shines a light on our tax system so that we as New Zealanders can understand how it works. I hear opposite the frustration from the party that would want to defend the interests of the very wealthiest New Zealanders. You heard how often they referenced the wealth report that was done that showed that those earning typically over $20 million—sorry, net assets worth well over $20 million—pay around 8.9 percent as a tax rate as opposed to middle-income New Zealanders, who pay around 20 percent as a tax rate. People know our system intrinsically is a bit unfair. People have always kind of known that, but we haven’t had the facts and they don’t like seeing them out in the public. This bill would seek to make sure that we actually have regular reporting on how our tax system is functioning. So I want to, just quickly in my contribution, look at the schedule at the back of the bill which goes through the different principles. In the select committee we had quite a bit of time going through this with tax experts—I think around about a dozen submissions from tax experts—that helped us zone in together with the help of Sir Rob McLeod on the principles in this bill.

The first focuses on economic income, and it is the principle of horizontal equity—looking at what is the real wealth that people have, not just the wealth they’re currently taxed on but their real wealth and how equal and fair that is looked at across the system.

The second looks at efficiency and, in my view, really gives us the opportunity to say: is the system itself efficiently functioning in a way that removes distortion? For example, is our economy focused on investing in productive assets which we’d all want to increase our exports and make us a wealthier country, a more prosperous country overall.

The third is vertical equity, which looks at progressivity of the system overall. We all know that lower-income people pay a higher portion of their income on taxation. And we all know that actually in real terms, wealthier people pay a bit more of their income typically, although not always, through the tax system. We want to know that the system overall is progressive.

Revenue integrity looks at whether there is coherency in the system, whether loopholes are emerging as changes happen, and then we want to look at the compliance and administration costs—is it hard for taxpayers and Government to comply, does it carry a cost for them in doing it, and how do we minimise that? Then certainty and predictability so that taxpayers can know what they’re likely to have to pay in tax; they can understand their obligations before they’re due. Flexibility and adaptability looks at the way in which the tax system continues to change to reflect current circumstances. Those are the principles in this bill.

I just wanted to spell them out really quickly, to go once over quickly so that people can see there’s nothing to be afraid of in there. What we’re looking at is transparency in our tax system and it’s just astonishing to me that the National Party are arguing against transparency. It is not clear to me, or maybe it is, what they’re trying to hide by opposing this bill. It is astonishing—astonishing. New Zealanders should have a good hard look at this debate, both sides of it—I think transparency is really valuable here—and see those who don’t want you to understand regularly what our tax system looks like and those that would really like everyday New Zealanders, middle-income New Zealanders, to understand how the tax system functions and how those who are in the very wealthiest class, for example, as one outcome of this, avoid paying the kinds of tax rates that middle-income New Zealanders do.

We need transparency in New Zealand. It’s for the long-term good of the system. I want to congratulate again, particularly, the Hon David Parker for his excellent work on this bill, and I commend it to the House.

Parliament Hansard Report – Taxation Principles Reporting Bill — Second Reading – 001186

Source: New Zealand Parliament – Hansard

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you, Madam Speaker. What a wonderful bill this is. What an excellent bill. I mean, successive Governments down through the ages have made changes to the tax system in the name of fairness, without facts. The idea of fairness can be subjected and manipulated to suit political arguments, but here we have a bill in this House which encourages transparency so the public can debate the merit of tax changes with real facts behind them.

I want to congratulate the Hon Deborah Russell for bringing this to the House and the Hon David Parker for his work on this bill over a long period of time to achieve a bill which actually shines a light on our tax system so that we as New Zealanders can understand how it works. I hear opposite the frustration from the party that would want to defend the interests of the very wealthiest New Zealanders. You heard how often they referenced the wealth report that was done that showed that those earning typically over $20 million—sorry, net assets worth well over $20 million—pay around 8.9 percent as a tax rate as opposed to middle-income New Zealanders, who pay around 20 percent as a tax rate. People know our system intrinsically is a bit unfair. People have always kind of known that, but we haven’t had the facts and they don’t like seeing them out in the public. This bill would seek to make sure that we actually have regular reporting on how our tax system is functioning. So I want to, just quickly in my contribution, look at the schedule at the back of the bill which goes through the different principles. In the select committee we had quite a bit of time going through this with tax experts—I think around about a dozen submissions from tax experts—that helped us zone in together with the help of Sir Rob McLeod on the principles in this bill.

The first focuses on economic income, and it is the principle of horizontal equity—looking at what is the real wealth that people have, not just the wealth they’re currently taxed on but their real wealth and how equal and fair that is looked at across the system.

The second looks at efficiency and, in my view, really gives us the opportunity to say: is the system itself efficiently functioning in a way that removes distortion? For example, is our economy focused on investing in productive assets which we’d all want to increase our exports and make us a wealthier country, a more prosperous country overall.

The third is vertical equity, which looks at progressivity of the system overall. We all know that lower-income people pay a higher portion of their income on taxation. And we all know that actually in real terms, wealthier people pay a bit more of their income typically, although not always, through the tax system. We want to know that the system overall is progressive.

Revenue integrity looks at whether there is coherency in the system, whether loopholes are emerging as changes happen, and then we want to look at the compliance and administration costs—is it hard for taxpayers and Government to comply, does it carry a cost for them in doing it, and how do we minimise that? Then certainty and predictability so that taxpayers can know what they’re likely to have to pay in tax; they can understand their obligations before they’re due. Flexibility and adaptability looks at the way in which the tax system continues to change to reflect current circumstances. Those are the principles in this bill.

I just wanted to spell them out really quickly, to go once over quickly so that people can see there’s nothing to be afraid of in there. What we’re looking at is transparency in our tax system and it’s just astonishing to me that the National Party are arguing against transparency. It is not clear to me, or maybe it is, what they’re trying to hide by opposing this bill. It is astonishing—astonishing. New Zealanders should have a good hard look at this debate, both sides of it—I think transparency is really valuable here—and see those who don’t want you to understand regularly what our tax system looks like and those that would really like everyday New Zealanders, middle-income New Zealanders, to understand how the tax system functions and how those who are in the very wealthiest class, for example, as one outcome of this, avoid paying the kinds of tax rates that middle-income New Zealanders do.

We need transparency in New Zealand. It’s for the long-term good of the system. I want to congratulate again, particularly, the Hon David Parker for his excellent work on this bill, and I commend it to the House.

Greens secure representation for rainbow athletes

Source: Green Party

The Government has tonight adopted an amendment to the Integrity Sport and Recreation Bill at a crucial stage of the Parliamentary process that will ensure LGBTQI+ representation.

“The establishment of a new Integrity Sport and Recreation Commission will be key to ensuring that everyone who participates in sports and recreation in Aotearoa is protected and their wellbeing is looked after. Today, the Green Patty has made sure our rainbow community will be included in this,” says Green Party rainbow spokesperson Ricardo Menéndez March.

“The Green Party’s amendment, which was adopted in the committee stages of the bill, will ensure that the competencies and experiences of rainbow peoples are represented on the new board. This will ensure that the board makes informed decisions and takes the perspectives of rainbow peoples into consideration, especially when it comes to sport integrity and anti-doping issues. 

“The Green Party knows that it’s not enough for rainbow people to just be consulted on decisions, it is essential their experiences and expertise are actually represented on the board. 

“The Green Party will continue to ensure that all Rainbow and takatāpui people live with dignity, equality and respect,” says Ricardo Menéndez March.

Parliament Hansard Report – Tuesday, 15 August 2023 (continued on Wednesday, 16 August 2023) – Volume 770 – 001185

Source: New Zealand Parliament – Hansard

SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I do rise to speak on the Water Services Entities Amendment Bill. Isn’t it ironic that we hear the opening words from the Minister in regards to this legislation, talking about the critique and criticism that is being levelled against this bill? You see, the reality is that our role in this House is to represent our communities, to represent the views of hard-working Kiwis across this country. It is not to simply pay lip service to that feedback and not take into account the views of our community.

Well, National have listened to our communities. We have listened to local government and we have proposed a solution, called Local Water Done Well, that we believe will deal with the reform requirements of water infrastructure in this country. As the Minister failed to note in his address as he opened today, all major parties in this House believe that water infrastructure reform is necessary. It is a question of how do we achieve that outcome. This bill is not the mechanism which we believe, nor the majority of local councils across this country—nor, in fact, the majority of Kiwis—is the pathway to achieve sustainable change in an area which is so critical.

I think when the Labour Party members reflect, in 51 days’, on some of the contributing factors of what happened in the 53rd Parliament, the water services entities legislation and the amendment bill that we are referring to and talking on at its third reading today will be a significant element and a significant contributing factor to the fact of where Kiwis no longer trust this Government. The three waters legislation and the Water Services Entities Amendment Bill is a litany of errors, it is a litany of broken promises, and it is a litany of making it up as you go. And that is the reality that personifies this Government and its processes.

Labour Ministers, and the Minister we have just heard from, are accountable for this reform. They are accountable for its failures and they are accountable for not listening to New Zealanders in regards to how this could have been improved. Because this bill could have been improved, had we given it more than six weeks of consultation with the public. On 22 June, this bill was read, and on 27 July it was reported back to this House. Well, is that acceptable? Is that the way in which we do business in this democracy? I say no. I say that is a complete derogation of our democracy and the fact that we should be taking this legislation that we passed through this House very seriously. We got that feedback loud and clear from submitters on this bill throughout the process that they did not have adequate time to be able to consider the inputs and requirements of this bill.

This bill is a back-down bill. This bill came as a result of the release of the National Party’s alternative, Local Water Done Well. Following that, with a new leader of the party and a need for a policy bonfire and a policy reset, and following the release of our alternative model, then this bill came into play. What is so frustrating is that, actually, none of the substantive aspects that needed to be changed in the bill, the elements around the mega-bureaucracies that are co-governed—an opportunity was there begging to be able to make the amendments and changes in this bill that went without any due consideration. And that is a great shame, because all this bill does is change the number of the mega-bureaucratic co-governed entities from four to 10. That’s pretty much it. It doesn’t deal with the significant pushback across this country that co-governance within the water services and the Public Service delivery—pipes under the ground is not the appropriate mechanism. Co-governance remains unchanged in regards to this legislation. The mandating of the fact that the assets and liabilities across councils will have to go into these new entities is unchanged, with the exception of the Chatham Islands, because don’t forget the Chatham Islands is actually the one territorial authority in this country which was exempted from this legislation. Well, there’s always one, but I do wish the 668 residents in the Chatham Islands all the very best, but they will not be alone in regards to the only entity that is outside this legislation; post 14 October, all other councils will join with them, and rightly so.

The other element of this bill that has not been modified that received significant feedback: 1,997 submissions. That’s quite a lot. The challenge is only 28 individuals were heard through the select committee process, and I think one doesn’t have to be too good at maths to work out that’s not a large number, but you can see why people are fired up and annoyed that their voice has not been heard. But the undemocratic element of this bill in regards to the Te Mana o te Wai statements—and the Minister continually says, and I acknowledge, that in the prior National-led Government, there was the introduction of the principle—the principle—of Te Mana o te Wai. The principle is very different to the introduction by this Government, and reinforced in this bill, of Te Mana o te Wai statements. The statements are not the principle; there is a very clear point of demarcation between those two aspects, because the statements, in effect, bring into place powers and obligations on a number of individuals in regards to this legislation. It is not a principle; it goes further. And so for the Minister to say that the Te Mana o te Wai statements in this bill are simply just a continuation of prior principles under prior Government is not consistent with what we heard in regards to the feedback during the select committee process.

New Zealanders are simple—sensible, sorry; they are sensible and they understand that this is going to be legislation that does not deal with the underlying aspects that we need in this country. This is a back-down bill, and what is interesting to hear from the Minister in regards to the fact that this legislation will remove debt from all of those councils that are burdened with debt, and this will mean that their rates are not going to go up—well, where does that debt all go? Where does it all disappear off to, because the costs and the debt required to fund the water pipes under the ground will still continue irrespective of where that ends up. So maybe the debt’s coming way from the council, but it’s going into another entity. And I’ll tell you what: there is no magic money tree. There is no magic money tree that means this debt just sort of disappears and that no one has an obligation in regards to paying. Ratepayers and taxpayers will continue to be on the hook for the funding of infrastructure in this area. So to simply say that removing the debt from councils, and, as a result of that, a reduction of rates, is going to solve all the problems, is, again, inconsistent and, again, not noting the reality that we are simply moving this problem from one side of the boat to the other. And it will still exist, and that obligation will still exist. And, yes, we do have a deficit of infrastructure, but simply ignoring the fact that this needs to be repaid is, I think, something that Kiwis will see through and have already seen through in regards to this bill.

The opportunity that was placed upon this Government in regards to this legislation, as I have highlighted, is absolutely there for the taking. The elements within this bill—there was a real opportunity in order to reset the position around water services and three waters infrastructure. That opportunity has not been taken up by this Minister, and this Minister, when reflecting on the performance of the 53rd Parliament, in 51 days, will need to take accountability for the actions that have been taken in regards to this piece of legislation and the other elements of the bill that are connected, because there is no one else that the blame can be laid upon other than the Minister, the Hon Nanaia Mahuta, and the Prime Minister, for pushing through reform that was so strongly opposed by all New Zealanders. And that’s the reality: you’ll hear a lot of comments and excuses around that, but that is the reality of this bill. National opposes this bill.