Local Government (System Improvements) Amendment Bill

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Mr Chair. I was eager—eager—amongst all the noise in here.

Just before the lunch break—when, I can inform the committee, I did not have canned spaghetti—we were talking about the link between when a fast track has to be approved and then when the development contributions policy can change. I think the Minister of Local Government’s answer was that, yes, I was correct, in terms of fast track has to be approved, and then the council can change its policy.

I think what the Minister was, in part, answering with his answer was that, well, despite that sequencing issue, the developer and the council can make a development agreement that would cover off what would have been covered in the development contributions policy. If he can confirm that when he’s—I see he’s nodding, but when he next gets up, if he can confirm that, that would be useful.

Then one of my questions around that was: does it have to be development by development? The Queenstown examples I gave before lunch—I don’t know where in the process those ones are, but if you have two separate developments that are unlikely to be covered by development contributions going on at the same time, is the council able to do a development contributions policy that applies to more than one fast-track project, or does it have to be a separate process for each discrete fast-track project? That was the question that I would like an answer to as well as the nods that the Minister was just giving. Thank you.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Mr Chair. Before lunch—the member who just spoke obviously had moved to clause 18—we were still actually quite a little bit further back at clause 11, amending section 40. I just want to stay where I was talking earlier and just finish off a question that I hadn’t asked on that clause.

I have a tabled amendment to this, and it’s timestamped 16 September 2026, 9.09.11 a.m. It’s quite interesting when you read clause 11(2), inserting, after section 40(1)(f), new paragraph (fa), “how the local authority is acting in accordance with the governance principles set out in section 39(f) and (g)”. It’s a little bit bizarre, because obviously this is about the governance principles, and there are a number of governance principles that are actually in the Act, so this is just two more that are going to get added on after paragraph (e)—so (fa) and (g).

It just seems a little bit bizarre that a local authority has to act in accordance with the governance with the governance principles set out in section 39(f) and (g), but then, to me, this is saying they can then ignore (a), (b), (c), (d), and (e). I don’t think that’s the intention of what this new clause is meant to do; it’s actually meant to ensure that the local authority acts in accordance with all the governance principles that have been set out.

What I’ve just tabled is a very straightforward amendment, and it’s really just to remove (f) and (g) from that clause, so, instead of saying that they need to act in accordance with the governance principles set out in section 39(f) and (g), it’ll simply say that they need to act in accordance with the governance principles set out in section 39. That will therefore capture everything to ensure that local authorities are actually sticking to the governance principles that have been created in the Act, including the two additional ones that focus on the free exchange of information. That’s just a simple amendment that I’ve put forward to, hopefully, get rid of any confusion that may happen. We understand that once we put this stuff into legislation, it becomes quite rigid. I’d hate for councils to think they can, therefore, ignore and not act in accordance with all the governance principles that are actually set out. It’s a small amendment, but I think it’s an amendment that actually should be considered, because I think it actually will clarify and make sure there’s no uncertainty within an Act. It’s really important, when we do these bills, that we don’t actually create any uncertainty moving forward. It would be good if the Minister could consider that in good faith to try and actually make that a bit more straightforward. It’s just a simple question. I’ve tabled the amendment to make that better, and I’d like the Minister to reflect on that. Thank you.

Committee of the whole House

I thank the member for the question. We won’t be proceeding with that member’s tabled amendment. It’s not consistent with Government policy.

In the context of the question from the member around applications, they are separate applications. However, where the applications are all put in at the same time, then there is the ability to do so concurrently.

Committee of the whole House

Sorry, just the word there—he was using the word “applications”, and this is important because proposed new section 102A(1)—that’s in proposed clause 18B—says that this section applies if the approval is granted. It’s not to do with applications; it’s to do with grants of fast-track approvals. Can he confirm that when he was talking about “approvals”, he means “grants”, because I don’t think—and this is what my questioning was going to as well—that the sequence of events is that it has to be fully granted the fast-track approval before the council is able to amend its development contributions policy. I need confirmation on that point.

Then the second point I think what the Minister of Local Government is saying is that if there were multiple granted fast-track approvals in the same area, then the council would be able to include those multiple projects into its amendment to the development contributions policy. Is that right?

Committee of the whole House

Yeah, well, it would be helpful, firstly, if the member the Hon Rachel Brooking could state the clause specifically that she’s asking a question in regards to, so that I’m not repeating myself in regards to that. The question that was put to me was whether those needed to be separate requests, and my answer to that is yes. However, when they go in together at the same time, then they can be concurrent. I won’t repeat myself again.

Committee of the whole House

Sorry, I would like an apology, actually, from the Minister of Local Government, because I very explicitly said which clause I am talking about, as I almost always do, and I was telling you it was proposed new section 102A, which is at proposed clause 18B. These words are important, and I don’t think I heard the answer from the Minister about the “granted”, at proposed new subsection (1). I’m now looking on page 2 of his Amendment Paper 803, right at the top, to be very specific.

💬 Hon Simon Watts: What line?

Oh, I’m looking at the second line there, which is that “a resource consent approval is granted”. Why I am now using a different tone of voice from normal is because this is a ridiculous approach. We are here in urgency. No select committee has seen this. I’m asking some very basic questions, and it would be considerate, if nothing else, if the Minister actually tried to, in good faith, answer them so we have something on the record. But it is typical of the reckless approach to this Government with fast track that the Minister is not undertaking that, so I’m giving him an opportunity again. I’m asking very reasonable questions about drafting that we’ve only seen and that has not gone through any process and that nobody has made submissions on. So how does the sequencing work, Minister?

💬 Tim Costley: You weren’t even on the committee. You don’t know.

I beg your pardon?

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Take a call if you want to make a contribution.

Someone was saying I wasn’t in a select committee. That is right, and neither was this amendment, to those members across there. Perhaps if they’d been following this debate, they would know that we are discussing an amendment that has been tabled subsequent to the select committee process. It is a very serious issue that we are debating because it goes to the cost that will be imposed on ratepayers by developers, some of whom we know are donors to that political party. That’s interesting, isn’t it? At the moment, ratepayers will be paying for this, while these developers, these donors, they will just get by without development contributions.

Now, the Government had seen that this is a problem; it’s not going to fix it—because that goes to Part 2; we’ll get to Part 2 soon—for the problems that are already existing, but, for new ones, it is. I am asking questions about the new ones. A fast-track approval comes in and it is approved—this is my question: is it that only then the council can make a change to its development contributions policy under this amendment that members in that select committee have clearly not paid any attention to? That is the question. Please answer it.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Just before I do take the next call, just to sort of note what the Hon Rachel Brooking was talking about there. There is an Amendment Paper that has hit the Table today, I understand, and maybe all members are not aware of that, so just to note that for the committee. So questions about that Amendment Paper are important questions to put to the Minister and to the committee as well. Just to acknowledge that. If we can just focus on those particular questions and on the particular clauses and not those external issues, that would help us to move through the bill.

Committee of the whole House

I move, That debate on this question now close.

Committee of the whole House

Well, doesn’t that say what this Government thinks about this important issue? Shameful. Now, I’ve asked many questions that have not been answered, and I invite the Minister of Local Government to answer my questions.

My next questions are very simple. Running through this Amendment Paper, at clause 18C, it appears that there is no change here except for a reference, a cross-reference, and then again the other amendments—I’m turning now to page 3 of Amendment Paper 803—it seems that there are some other changes there; where, most of it, on its face, is not a policy change. There is one policy change in clause 19C and that is an amendment to section 197, and it’s about cross-boundary developments. I understand that the Government has a policy that works through this Amendment Paper, that, where a fast-track development goes across two different territorial authorities, then they can work together to charge a development contribution for those. The question is a very basic one: apart from that change that we can see in the interpretation at clause 19C, are there any other policy changes from 18C down to 19D? That’s a simple question. No? OK.

Moving on then to new section 198A, inserted by clause 19E, and we go to page 4 of the Amendment Paper. At the top of the page there, it says this is the “Purpose and application of section 198B”. These are all provisions that are being inserted into the development contributions part of the Local Government Act—being the principal Act. It says here that the purpose is to “provide the territorial authority with another basis on which to require a development contribution if a resource consent approval is granted under the Fast-track Approvals Act”. I note that “basis” is used in sections later on, and I’m wondering if the Minister can inform us why the word “basis” was chosen, because I’m not sure that this is a term that’s referred to elsewhere in the legislation.

However, elsewhere in the legislation, as I discussed in an earlier contribution, there are different trigger points for a development contribution, and those are not only resource consents but also when you hook on to the networks or you have a property information memo or a building consent. Does “another basis” mean in addition to those other things, those triggers, or is the idea that it’s something different? It’s not the triggers, it’s a new thing; it’s a new concept, this other basis, for these fast-track approvals. So that is my question about clause 198A.

Just reminding the Minister, I was asking him if there’s any policy changes in those proceedings sections, other than that cross-boundary development, that I understand is a clear policy position from the Government.

And then going back to clause 18B, that is that the fast-track approval has to be granted, and my sequencing question, which the Minister still hasn’t answered with the language that is used in these clauses. It’s a precise question about the sequencing—and I remind the Minister that after he criticised me for not telling him which clause I was on, when I had, that he was saying applications, and an application is what you do before something is granted. That is why I’m asking this question about sequencing.

In my mind—maybe the Minister’s mind is different, but an application is the thing that’s in the process and then once it comes out of the process, it’s been granted and it’s no longer an application. That is why I’m asking these questions. Back to clause 18B, about the sequencing of when the councils are going to be able to do these amendments to their development contribution policies.

Committee of the whole House

In regards to clause 18C, no, and clause 198A(1) are standing drafting legislation.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m just going to move on to clause 21. Obviously, my Labour colleague may still be on clause 18, as well; I’d note that.

I have a couple of amendments. Obviously, we’re stepping into regulations here, and these are pretty simple ones as well. I guess it’s a little bit disappointing that the Minister is just refusing to actually give any consideration to these amendments when we’re trying to actually improve this bill and iron out some of the wrinkles. Like, it’s a bad bill, but let’s get a couple of improvements along the way. It would be really good if the Minister could take a little bit of time to actually consider these in good faith and actually potentially see the merits of some of the amendments that we’re putting forward.

I just want to quickly talk to the first one. This one is actually in the name of my colleague to my left: Celia Wade-Brown. Once again, we’d like to do simple amendments that are actually easy to understand and actually improve the bill for people that actually read it when it becomes legislation. This one is timestamped 16 September 2026, 9.09.14. It deals, in clause 3(1) to new section 259(4)(aa). If you read that section, it gives an example to differentiate between particular local authorities or types of classes of local authorities—for example, regional councils and territorial authorities.

I find this puzzling because, obviously, a lot’s changed since this was originally done. Like, this was obviously, before I actually came into Parliament. I wasn’t part of the select committee process, so that’s going back over around a year, now, that this happened. But obviously, since then, there’s been a clear desire to remove regional councils from existence. Therefore, we’re about to pass legislation that still refers, as an example, to regional councils that won’t exist soon.

Therefore, Celia Wade-Brown has a simple amendment that will actually just remove the word “regional” and replace it with “unitary”. That just actually clears it up so that actually, no one goes back and goes “Why are we talking about regional councils? What is a regional council?” Like I said, it’s a very simple, simple amendment, that actually makes it just a little bit more common sense, easy to understand.

The other amendment that we have is on clause 21 and this is to replace new section 259(4)(b).

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Have you got the time and date stamp?

Time stamp? Yes, thank you, Mr Chair. That is 16 September 2026, 9.09.15. The amendment is to replace new section 259(4)(b)(aaa) with “consult all local authorities impacted by the regulations”.

And this is just to ensure that all local authorities that would be impacted by your proposed regulations are consulted instead of “all relevant local authorities”, which is technically up to interpretation—what you, the Minister, would consider to be relevant. I think it’s really important that we just remove that which is subject to interpretation and just basically put in the words “all local authorities that are impacted by that regulation”, which is a straightforward amendment. But it just removes some of that uncertainty—something that’s up for interpretation—you know, as to what is the relevant local authority. I think if we actually drill down and go “all local authorities”, it’s a straightforward easy amendment that actually does make the bill a lot clearer when it becomes legislation.

So just a couple of amendments that I’d like the Minister to consider.

Committee of the whole House

I’m still on Amendment Paper (AP) 803. The Minister of Local Government gave some answers there. I think he said “18B, no”. I’ve got no idea what one of my questions on clause18B the “no” relates to.

💬 Hon Simon Watts: C, sorry; 18C.

It was 18C.

💬 Hon Simon Watts: Any policy changes.

OK. No policy changes on 18C. Thank you. It’s helpful to talk in full sentences when we’re here, for the Hansard.

So 18C—there’s no policy changes. Is that the same for the preceding sections? Clauses 19B, 19C; I’ve discussed 19D. I did not hear an answer about clause 18B, and that is the sequencing and if the fast track has to be granted rather than being an application.

Does the Minister understand what I am asking in terms of the timing?

💬 Hon Simon Watts: I’m just looking at the clock, sorry.

The Minister is looking at the clock. Wow.

💬 Hon Simon Watts: Ask the question.

This is a terrible, reckless way to make laws.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): I’m going to ask people just to talk through the Chair.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I would encourage the Chair to encourage the Minister to focus on the questions being asked and to answer questions so that it can be on the Hansard, noting that this amendment has not gone through a select committee process. The people who know about this sort of law have not had time to make any submissions on it, and so I am trying to go through it to ask the Minister what it means, and he seems to be refusing to do this, which is outrageous.

If the Minister can please explain the sequencing in clause 18B, noting the difference between an application for a fast track—because, of course, these can be referred or they can already be on the list—and the granting of that approval. Does it have to be granted? The Minister said “application”; the words in the bill: “is granted”. There is a difference between an application and something that is granted. That is the question I’m asking the Minister. Did he misspeak? Did he mean granted, or is there something else in here that is not apparent to me asking these questions?

Going through then, I don’t think I heard an answer on the use of “basis” at clause 19E inserting new section 198A. Again, if the Minister wants to take us through what is happening at section 198B.

Also at clause 19E—looking at page 4 of the AP here—is the power to require development contributions in relation to resource consent approvals under the Fast-track Approvals Act. There’s a lot here that it seems to be a discretion on the council. The territorial authority “may require a development contribution” after the territorial authority has adopted or amended their plans. And, of course, that contribution must then be consistent with the content of that development contribution policy.

And then we go through to clause 19F, which is new section 199AA inserted. This is the “Basis on which development contributions may be required in relation to the Fast-track Approvals Act”. Again, it refers to “a development” at subclause (2) and at (1). At subclause (2), it refers to “a development”—not a development contribution; just a development—“if the effect of the development”. Again, these are singular terms, which is why I was asking before if every amendment made under these sections has to be discrete—its own fast-track approval. And then going further down to new section 199AA(7), it says, “This section does not prevent a territorial authority from requiring the development contribution that is to be used to pay, in full or in part, for expenditure already incurred by the territorial authority or a service provider in anticipation of the development.” I presume that is the normal development contributions clause, or the normal language, but it would be useful if the Minister of Local Government could confirm that what is outlined in these subsections of new section 199AA, in clause 19F, is what would normally happen in a development contributions policy; or if there is any difference from the primary legislation in its development contribution provisions to this legislation, that would then be specific to these fast-track approvals. Is it different or is it just simply the same terms rejigged a wee bit because we’re talking about these Fast-track Approvals Act again? That’s a question there.

That same question applies to the next paragraphs that all look to me like normal development contributions sections, in the legislation, that are simply amended for this fast-track process. I would, rather than going through them one by one, invite the Minister to tell us if there are any differences in these, that go to some policy that mean that a development contributions amended policy for a fast-track approved project will be different somehow from a development contributions policy that would apply to a normal non - fast-track project. That’s a series of questions.

My last question on this Amendment Paper, before we get to Part 2, is that I see in the Minister’s tabled amendment this morning—I think it was tabled around 11.30 a.m.—he’s deleted clause 22A, which is the last clause before we get into the schedule in Part 2, and that is clause 22A, “Section 290 amended (Development contributions)”, and it’s about transitional provisions. I’m wondering if the Minister can explain why this Amendment Paper 803, which is an amendment to Amendment Paper 565, which is an amendment to the amendment bill, has now been amended with a tabled amendment at 11.30 a.m. this morning, and if it’s significant or not.

Committee of the whole House

In regards to clause 18B, I was referring to the word “granted”. In regards to clause—

💬 Hon Rachel Brooking: Sorry, Minister, I can’t hear.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): He said “granted”. He was referring to the word “granted”.

It seems to be we’re both having a bit of challenges hearing each other. Clause 18B, I was referring to the word “granted”. In regards to new section 199AA, inserted by clause 19F, it is predominantly what normally happens. There is no difference with the exception in the interests of cross-boundary, which is new. The Amendment Paper placed on the table today relates to technical drafting issues identified by the Parliamentary Counsel Office.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you. Mr Chair. While understanding that there may be some more questions on the development contributions areas, I want to ask some questions on clause 21(2), first of all, where it talks about inserting after section 259(1)(dd) and talks about “prescribing the groups of activities that … must [be included] in the long-term plan, annual plan, and annual report:”. I wonder whether the Minister of Local Government could clarify, because I was on the Governance and Administration Committee at the beginning, but it has been a wee while since then and there have been amendments floated around and maybe you could clarify: do you also mean the asset management plans? Because they may be as important as the annual plans. And do you also mean the drafts, or is it only the final that you’re prescribing the groups of activities for? So that’s one on that particular section.

I think my colleague has mentioned some concerns I have in that amendment we put forward about taking the word “regional” out. That’s not because we don’t love regional councils; it’s just that we’re trying to clarify what does the Minister mean by “types or classes of local authority”. Do you mean that there might be different regulations depending on the size, and that might be geographic or it might be population size? Do you mean that it might be different regulations for rural and urban? Which would make some sense, but the example doesn’t really clarify that at all.

I do also have some questions on new subsection (4AB), inserted by clause 21(4), where you’re saying it must not relate to water services. My particular interest in water services is where we’re using natural processes to either reduce the risk of flooding or to protect headwaters. So you’ve got the natural environment, and maybe you’re saying it would make more sense to plant up the banks of this river than it would to do concrete down the side, for example. Now, as I recollect, from looking at the Local Government (Water Services) Act, natural infrastructure was potentially included but it wasn’t very explicit, so, presumably, we can still talk about protecting headwaters and reducing flooding by planting, maybe by the community, maybe by contractors, maybe by staff, but I would like some clarification on that, please.

Committee of the whole House

Kia orana. Thank you, Mr Chair. I have a number of questions. They actually also relate to clause 21 as well. When we’re looking at the groups of activities—which is very common in local government circles to understand what they are—I guess my question for the Minister of Local Government is: with this change, which will allow regulations to, effectively, be much more direct around what those activity groups will look like, why is it that he believes that Ministers are better placed to determine those sorts of things rather than local communities, who elect people around decision-making tables to make those decisions? Because that is exactly what clause 21 is seeking to do. It is essentially seeking to put into regulation-making powers an ability to describe how particular groups of activities could actually work out. The groups of activities have been with local government for a very long time, so my first question is why he believes that Ministers in central government are better placed to determine what those might be and how they might work, and just also on what principle that is justified as well.

There is a new provision here in the Minister’s Amendment Paper 755, which just landed on 15 September—and I look at the clock over there that has the date, so it landed today—and it does have a few changes in here, but this does propose a new clause 21A. While most of that Amendment Paper relates to Part 2, my understanding is that Part 1 comes into play here because the new clause 21A is, effectively, standing up the regulation-making powers for Orders in Council to be made around exceptions here. My question for the Minister, and this is in relation to new section 260A, inserted by clause 21A, is that this will provide an ability to exempt some from the application of three clauses: clauses 23(4), 30A(6B), or 31A(1) of schedule 7, and they’re related to three things there. I’m not going to go through all of them, but the one that is perhaps of relevance is the “any class or type of non-elected member”. Now, we will get to the specifics of that in Part 2 for sure.

There is an ability there for an order, on the recommendation of the Minister, to do a couple of things: one is time bound, either an unspecified period of time or a specified period of time, and the other, new section 260A(2)(b), is “with or without conditions.” What does the Minister see some of those possible conditions might be? It clearly is not related to the timebound nature of it, because that is captured by new subsection (2)(a), but new subsection (2)(b) is there.

A question for the Minister: what is this new regulation-making power seeking or intending to cover, particularly those three clauses that I have identified? Further to that, what are some of the possible conditions, or what might be envisaged as the types of conditions, that could or could not be applied, in terms of the Minister recommending to the Governor-General that an Order in Council may or may not be made?

Committee of the whole House

Thank you very much, members, for those questions. In regards to Celia Wade-Brown’s questions around the groupings of activities, the question in regards to whether they apply around asset management plans: no. There was a question around whether they apply to draft plans: yes. Do they apply to different types of councils? Again, the answer is yes.

In regards to questions relating to the centralised reporting, by Tangi Utikere, in regards to, and also including, clause 2(b), councils are still primarily responsible to their communities and ratepayers and should be reflecting their needs and wishes in their planning and reporting. Across the country, councils provide similar services and facilities, and plan for and report to their communities, and providing consistent information that is easy to access and helps increase the transparency and accountability of councils to ratepayers is a way in which we will ensure that localism remains.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Mr Chair. Actually, I just have a couple of questions. This is on the Minister of Local Government’s recent Amendment Paper 755, which is, obviously, an amendment to Amendment Paper 565. It’s in relation to clause 21A, inserting new section 260A. I have a couple of questions on that, because, obviously, this has been very recent and there has been no real time to scrutinise these new clauses.

I’m just curious: “New section 260A inserted (Order in Council may specify exemptions in relation to non-elected member provisions)”—how will the Minister make the decision on when to recommend that an Order in Council be made under proposed new section 260A(1), exempting non-members from clause 31A(1) of Schedule 7 and enabling them to vote on council committees?

My other question in relation to new clause 21A: will an Order in Council under the proposed new section 260A(1) be able to be made in regards to those specifically excluded from voting by new clause 31A(4) of Schedule 7, to enable them to vote? It’s some, really, quite technical questions around this new clause 21A and this new section 260A. I think it’s really important, because we haven’t had time to scrutinise it, that we get a fulsome answer on how this is actually going to work, especially when we have seen a committee be excluded in a later part of this bill. Thank you.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you. I just wanted to make sure I had the opportunity to comment on Amendment Paper 755, following on from the discussion that my colleagues have had on this Amendment Paper. It’s a very specific question in relation to the changes that the Minister of Local Government is bringing in and the definition in clause 5(1A)—not as we originally discussed but as amended by the Amendment Paper—of “non-elected member”.

The reason I am asking this is that it is a commonly utilised provision to allow for, if there is a vacancy within 12 months of a local body election, the first non-successful—arguably, non-elected—member for a local board or for a council to be able to take up the position on the governing body of that authority, in the instance of a vacancy within that 12-month period. My question for the Minister is: as this is a very common occurrence, would that person who was co-opted on be considered a non-elected member under his Amendment Paper 755, or not?

Committee of the whole House

Just in regards to that last point, just to clarify: when that occurs, it is not a co-option mechanism; it’s generally as a result of the candidate ceasing to be a candidate and therefore the need to re-appoint, and they take the next person on the list, who has been voted in and who has a position on the list that is second after the one that is in place.

💬 Mike Davidson: That’s incorrect.

No, it is correct. In regards to clause—

💬 Tangi Utikere: It’s an appointment.

Are we doing a question and answer?

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Communicate through the Chair, thank you very much. I can give that side a call if they want some clarification.

Thank you, Mr Chair. In regards to the questions relating to new clause 21A, the Government’s clear expectation is that non-elected members will not vote. We haven’t made decisions around what types of exemptions will be made at this point, but the key premise underlying this is that there should not be responsibility without accountability.

Committee of the whole House

Point of order, Mr Chair. Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m very concerned because the Minister of Local Government just gave us an answer that is not correct. It’s really important that that gets clarified, so it’s actually in the Hansard as the correct answer. Elected members on councils—if they step down, there is a by-election; they do not come back from the next off a list. It would be great if we could actually get a proper answer to that question.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): I think what we will do is, if you put those questions again—and I suspect Mr Utikere wants to do that—that might give the Minister further time to reflect, or actually to reject what is being said by members around the committee. Is that OK? I was going to go to Tangi Utikere.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Mr Chair. My question to the Minister of Local Government is on what basis he reaches that determination, because my understanding is that that is not correct. Where there is a vacancy—and, I mean, we had the situation where Mr Arbuckle himself vacated his local government seat—

💬 Tim Costley: Or Mike Davidson’s community board role.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Excuse me, I do not want people communicating across the Chamber.

💬 Tim Costley: They just did it for the last 10 minutes.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Communicate through the Chair.

What’s going on here? Where there is a vacancy at a local government level, if it falls within 12 months of the scheduled date of an election, there is the ability for the local authority, if it chooses to, to fill that vacancy by appointment.

Now, it might be a common practice that the successful person who is appointed to take that role may very well be the next highest-polling person, but history will show that in this country that is not always the case. It is entirely within the purview of the council to determine who is going to be appointed—if they choose to do that at all. I am, along with Mr Davidson, concerned that the Minister is giving advice to the committee saying that it is always going to be the next highest-polling person. Our understanding is that that is not the case.

The question from Camilla Belich is still there, around what role that person then takes. Does the Minister’s Amendment Paper cover the appointment of a member, who then becomes an elected member by definition, in relation to clause 5(1A), or not? It’s important to understand whether or not the Minister’s intention is that someone who is now appointed to fill a role is going to be captured by an inability to vote on matters, because they are not deemed as elected.

Committee of the whole House

To clarify the question—the example that is being given by Tangi Utikere—where that individual is appointed, they will be able to vote. A person who is appointed to a vacancy in the 12 months before an election is treated as a councillor under the law. Hopefully that clarifies the point that is being asked.

Committee of the whole House

I move, That debate on this question now close.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’ve just got a few questions, one going back to Amendment Paper 803.

I thank the Minister for his answer that proposed clause 18C is not a policy change. I think that’s what he said. The Minister said in his answer that there is this cross-boundary change at proposed clause 19C, but can he just confirm if there’s anything else in there that is a policy change. I take his point that proposed clause 22A, the change in his other paper is a drafting change, not policy change. So just if he can confirm that there’s nothing else that we haven’t covered in here that’s a policy change—he’s shaking his head, so we’ll get that on the record, and he’s shaking it in the “no”, sideways. It is a horizontal rather than a vertical shake.

Now, going back to the bill as reported back from the select committee, I was wondering if the Minister—I’ve just got three small questions on this. One is at clause 20. That is “Section 200 amended (Limitations applying to requirement for development contribution)”. There are words in this about third-party provision, so I’m wondering, again, similar to my other questions: is this a policy change to enable more third-party provision of the infrastructure that would normally be charged for or could often be charged for by development contributions, or is it simply some sort of rewording? That’s my question. That’s at clause 20: is that a policy decision to enable more third-party work, or is it simply some other reason?

Then if we move on to clause 21, the “(Regulations)” clause that’s been mentioned a wee bit, I have a couple of questions there. One at new paragraph (dc) is “prescribing parameters or benchmarks”. I’m wondering how those two things are different—a parameter versus a benchmark. Does the Minister imagine that a parameter is a specific measurement and a benchmark could be a more quantitative statement? Is that the difference between the two of them? And then I note that there is “(ii) performing specified activities or groups of activities in accordance with best practice:”. Does that “best practice” mean that the regulation will prescribe what the best practice is, or does the best practice come from somewhere else?

Then my last question on this is at clause 21(3)—so still on clause 21, subsection (3). There is a new regulatory power to “prescribing processes, time frames, and other matters relating to a request for access to documents under clause 26A(2) of Schedule 7:”. I haven’t looked at what that reference is there, but I was wondering if the Minister can let me know if this is different from a requirement under LGOIMA, under the—now I can’t remember what LGOIMA stands for, the Local Government Official Information—

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): I think we all know what you mean.

Yes. However, that is the LGOIMA. This is what happens when you say a word for 20 years and then you forget that it’s actually got proper words inside it. If this is in addition to LGOIMA—or what is the interaction with the time frames that are already prescribed in LGOIMA at new paragraph (fa). Thank you, Mr Chair.

Committee of the whole House

In regards to questions on clause 20—is it a policy change?—no. In regards to the point of clarification around parameter versus benchmark, parameter—I think, as the member outlined, parameter is a range and benchmark is a target.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m still waiting for a response from the Minister around the items contained in his Amendment Paper in terms of various conditions that may or may not be imposed as part of the regulation-making powers.

I want to ask the Minister about clause 22. This is the next step from the performance measures and activity groups that have been identified in clause 21. It actually introduces a role for the Secretary for Local Government to make some rules or to define some parameters around performance measures.

Very first question: why is it that the secretary is being seen as the appropriate vehicle to, essentially, impose upon local councils what it is that they should be doing in terms of the performance measures? Is this not just an attack on the very localism that the Government sought to get elected on at the last election, removing the ability for local councils to be making some of those determinations themselves? Certainly, on face value and even at a more basic level, that’s exactly what it looks like. My question to the Minister is: why is it that the secretary is being asked to have not just a role but a fundamental role in terms of setting the performance measures for councils all around the country?

In terms of the particular process that the secretary must go through before making these rules, which is defined in replacement section 261B(3)(b). This is where the secretary, firstly, must consult with all relevant local authorities. But the second one specifies whoever the secretary considers to be appropriate. This is putting into that person’s domain quite a significant level of influence in that particular space, so why is it that this Government, who apparently hail on the issue of localism and yet all their actions certainly indicate and show something quite different, is seeing the secretary as the appropriate vehicle to undertake that work?

Committee of the whole House

I move, That debate on this question now close.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Mr Chair. There’s still no response in that particular space, but maybe we’ll just keep asking questions. I mean, let’s not forget that some of these changes were only tabled in the Parliament on 15 September—so not that long ago, really, in terms of that.

Is it that the position of the Government is such that there isn’t going to be any communication between the Government and the Secretary for Local Government? The suggested changes that have been made through the select committee process talk about the connection between the Minister providing some advice to the secretary, but, actually, reference to the Minister seems to no longer exist, in terms of that part of the clause. Originally, it had that “the Minister advises the Secretary that the Minister considers it appropriate to consult”, so this is removing that responsibility from ministerial purview into a completely different area. It would be helpful for the Minister to provide a little bit of clarity around that.

I also think that it is still important, given that his Amendment Paper is new and it does give the regulation-making powers, which are, as we know, secondary legislation, so this does provide a limitation on, in this sense, an elected member’s or a committee’s or a local territorial authority’s ability to either do certain things or not do certain things. I don’t think it’s unreasonable for the Minister to explain to the committee or to, indeed, guide the committee through his thoughts around what that will mean in terms of the imposition of regulations for elected members who are duly elected by their communities—whether they are elected or appointed, they are none the less elected.

Committee of the whole House

Thanks for that question. In regards to replacement section 261B(3) and the role of the secretary, as the member will be aware, the secretary is probably the most senior public servant within that department. This is not some new element in the context that this is amending an existing section, which makes it more flexible. The secretary already has similar powers to make performance measures. While the member is trying to imply that this is something new, that is not the case.

The question around clause 21(3), again, in regards to prescribing regulations around the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act process—to clarify, this is separate to that process. That covers off all the questions that are outstanding.

Committee of the whole House

Point of order. I’m getting the feeling that we will move on from Part 1 soon. I just want to confirm with you, while you’re in the Chair, that Schedule 2 for Amendment Paper 803 is related to Schedule 2 which is in Amendment Paper 565 and will be considered in the Part 2 debate.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): That’s a lot of numbers!

I’m just asking that because it says, “in Schedule 2, after new clause 70, insert”, but, in fact, in Amendment Paper 565, in Schedule 2, it goes to 69, not to 70. So that’s why I’m just double-checking that—

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): That it’s in this debate and not somewhere else?

That it’s in the next debate—it’s in Part 2.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): That it’s in the next debate. Oh, hold on a sec—I’ll just have a quick read.

Yep, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): It’s definitely in the debate.

In this debate—in Part 1?

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): In Part 2—Part 2.

In Part 2. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): I feel we are naturally coming to a close.

Committee of the whole House

Yeah, and actually, you might have just answered my question. I was just checking if Schedule 2 is in Part 1 or Part 2.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Part 2.

Part 2. Thank you.

Committee of the whole House

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 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that the Minister’s tabled amendments to Amendment Paper 803 amending Part 1 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments to the amendments be agreed to.

Ayes 88

New Zealand National 48; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 34

New Zealand Labour 34.

Amendments to the amendments agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Amendment Paper 565 amending Part 1 set out on Amendment Papers 755 and 803 as amended be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments to the amendments as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Amendments to the amendments as amended agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 565 as amended be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Amendments as amended agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Tangi Utikere’s amendment to delete clause 4 set out on Amendment Paper 651 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Mike Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 4 replacing new section 3(d) be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Tangi Utikere’s amendment to delete clause 5(1) set out on Amendment Paper 652 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Celia Wade-Brown’s tabled amendment to clause 5(1) replacing the definition of “community outcomes” be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment to clause 5(1A), paragraph (a) in the definition of “cost-effective” be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Mike Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 5(1A), paragraph (b) in the definition of “cost-effective” be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Mike Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 5(3) replacing new paragraph (a) be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment to clause 7 new section 11A(1)(e) inserting “public places” be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Steve Abel’s tabled amendment to clause 7 new section 11A(1)(e) inserting “and activities” be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 7 new section 11A(1)(e) inserting “art galleries” be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Mike Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 7 new section 11A(1)(e) inserting “heritage” be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Mike Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 7 inserting new section 11A(1)(f) relating to natural hazards be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Celia Wade-Brown’s tabled amendment to clause 7 inserting new section 11A(1)(f) relating to community support be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Mike Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 7 inserting new paragraph (f) relating to environmental enhancement and protection is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

The question is that Mike Davidson’s tabled amendment deleting clause 8(2) be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Mike Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 9(3) inserting “delivery and” be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Mike Davidson’s tabled amendment inserting new clause 9A be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment to clause 10 new section 39(1)(f) inserting a reference to the code of conduct be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Mike Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 11 new section 40(2)(fa) be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment to clause 12 replacing new section 42(2)(i) is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The question is that Lemauga Lydia Sosene’s tabled amendment deleting clause 16 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Celia Wade-Brown’s tabled amendment deleting clause 16 is out of order as being the same in substance as a previous amendment.

The question is that Mike Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 16 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Mike Davidson’s tabled amendment deleting clause 18(2) be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Celia Wade-Brown’s tabled amendment to clause 21 new section 259(4A)(a) replacing “regional” with “unitary” be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 1 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Part 1 as amended agreed to.

Committee of the whole House

Part 2 Miscellaneous provisions, and Schedules 1 and 2

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, we come now to Part 2. This is the debate on clauses 23 to 30—“Miscellaneous provisions”—and Schedules 1 and 2. The question is that Part 2 stand part.