The House: Parliamentary week achieves two out of three goals
Still, two out of three isn't bad.
Photo:
123RF
While Parliament's week was dominated by its final event - Thursday's debate on the
report from the Privileges Committee into a haka performed in the chamber
- the rest of the week focussed on other business that, while more mundane, was still worthy of note.
The Government appeared to have three objectives for this week in the house. Crucial to the administration's continuance, the first goal was to successfully complete the initial debate on the budget.
The long initial budget debate could no longer dribble on over weeks, so the house spent six hours of the week completing the second reading debate, which is the first debate a budget gets. The reading was accomplished and so the Government continues.
This may sound silly, but a Government cannot survive, if the house votes against its budget. Agreeing to vote for budget and taxation bills are the 'supply' portion of the 'confidence and supply' agreement that is the foundation of any coalition agreement.
The budget focus now turns to select committees and what is called 'Scrutiny Week', when ministers appear before various subject committees to defend their budget plans. Scrutiny Week begins on 16 June.
A second objective was possibly not in earlier plans for this week - to finally polish off the bills originally slated for completion two weeks ago during budget week urgency.
Then, the Leader of the House had asked the house to accord urgency for 12 bills the Government hoped to progress through 30 stages of parliamentary debate.
The plan was ambitious and it did not succeed. Despite day-long sittings until midnight Saturday (when urgency must end), only two bills were completed, others were untouched, and 13 stages were unfinished or unstarted.
This week's plan for the house had MPs returning to the well for more of the same. Just like last time, progress was at a snail's pace.
After quite a few hours, the Government had slugged its way through just a few more stages. The plan was slowed to a crawl by bills' committee stages (formally known as the Committee of the Whole House).
Committee stages are a crucial way for MPs to publicly interrogate the minister in charge of a bill. With patience, they can tease out a lot about both a government's development of legislation and its intended real-world impacts.
Te Pāti Māori co-leader Rawiri Waititi moved the vote on his own punishment.
Photo:
RNZ/Mark Papalii
Because the committee stage has no set duration, it is also a way for the opposition to make the Government really work for progress.
The Government did achieve progress on the bills left incomplete from budget week, but again, it was probably not what was hoped for. They will need to come back yet again in three weeks to have a third crack.
The Opposition is showing itself to be quite effective at the filibuster.
The Government's third objective was to have the debate on the recent Privileges Committee Report on three Te Pāti Māori MPs done by the week's end.
As Leader of the House Chris Bishop said in re-initiating the debate: "My encouragement would be for everybody to finish this debate today.
"Have a robust debate, but let's end this issue once and for all, and deal with the issue and get back to the major issues facing this country."
That wish was fulfilled with apparent agreement from across the house. As 6pm neared, the MP who eventually moved that a vote be taken was Te Pāti Māori co-leader Rawiri Waititi.
The frankly fascinating debate on the report will be reported separately.
- RNZ's The House, with insights into Parliament, legislation and issues, is made with funding from Parliament's Office of the Clerk. Enjoy our articles or podcast at RNZ.
Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero
,
a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsroom
40 minutes ago
- Newsroom
Jones says he wants to break up DoC
Twice in the last week, minister Shane Jones has said he'd like to 'break up' the Department of Conservation. He said so once during Scrutiny Week hearings, and again at a local government conference in Wellington when he said he wanted 'all of that gone'. Now, the pro-mining, 'Make New Zealand Great Again'-wearing resources minister says there will always be a place for conservation in the government, but he wants to see the department's extensive land estate dismantled and opened for development. Jones' support for mining projects has been constant and consistent. During an appearance at Scrutiny Week, the minister once again donned his 'Make New Zealand Great Again' cap with 'Drill Baby Drill' written below the slogan. When asked by National's Vanessa Weenink about the prospects of future gold mining in the South Island, Jones lamented that the Department of Conservation had 'weoponised and catastrophised' preservation and endangered species. This focus on preservationism had cost the country whatever profit it might have made mining its mineral wealth, including from gold. Earlier in the week Jones presented at Wellington's Local Government New Zealand conference, where he told a room of regional government representatives that his party didn't see the need for local government as we know it. Incoming changes to the Resource Management Act meant the justification for local government would not 'continue to exist', said Jones. The minister then took aim at the Department of Conservation. Because the Wildlife Act enabled it to be a 'major impediment' to development, Jones said 'I want all of that gone'. But speaking to Newsroom, Jones clarifies that what he really means is the department's land holdings. In his eyes, Jones is actually seeking to liberate the department 'from the statutory riddle they're having to live in' as a consequence of being made responsible for stewardship land – land he says was put under their care decades ago because it simply had nowhere else to go. Jones does not think the department is capable of – nor should even be responsible for – legislative matters like 'making expeditious decisions that open up the DoC estate to a variety of other uses'. With legal responsibility for nearly a third of the country's land, the conservation estate includes areas containing gold and rare minerals like antimony. Jones says New Zealand 'cannot afford' not to mine these resources. Even so, Jones does not believe the department should go the way of the Archey's Frog – a native, endangered New Zealand species found atop a rich gold deposit, to which the minister was willing to say 'goodbye, Freddie' last year. 'There will always be a need for an agency that represents conservation and national parks and other rare blocks of land,' Jones says. 'But we cannot have a situation where nearly a third of the country's landscape is managed for preservation purposes. New Zealand cannot afford that.' Jones feels 'some sympathy for the DoC workers', as he sees them pulled in opposite directions by the dual agendas of economic development and preservationism. The Department of Conservation has faced litigation from 'a whole variety of stakeholders, including hapū', says Jones, which does nothing to increase its efficiency. The department is best-suited to looking after national park land and 'catching rats and killing cats and stray dogs and various other critters that are undermining biodiversity'. Much of the tension hinges on the status of stewardship and conservation land, technically under the department's purview but never intended to be permanently so. Jones says it was just 'parked there as a part of Rogernomics'. 'There's nothing to stop us from exploring the creation of a Public Lands Commission, and that commission can hold land that isn't actually required for Department of Conservation purposes,' Jones says. Green MP Steve Abel, who followed Jones' original remarks in the select committee hearing, disagrees. Abel says stewardship land ought to be gazetted as conservation estate. Among it is 'some of the most extraordinary ecological values, of the highest ecological worth that we have in the whole conservation estate – it just hasn't been designated yet as that'. Jones' description of stewardship land as unworthy of conservation 'misleads people to think that stewardship land hasn't got huge ecological value, which much of it does'. Jones' remarks probably wouldn't wash with majority sentiment, Abel says. 'I don't believe New Zealanders want to see our environment pressed for the profits of some Aussie gold miners.'
Newsroom
40 minutes ago
- Newsroom
$170m promised for EV chargers yet to materialise
In a windswept car park during the 2023 election campaign, Christopher Luxon vowed to tackle a major barrier to electric vehicle buyers. The National Party leader, and soon-to-be Prime Minister, was in Christchurch to unveil a $257 million pledge to 'supercharge' EV infrastructure through seed funding to private firms. 'National will deliver a comprehensive, nationwide network of 10,000 public electric vehicle chargers by 2030,' the policy document said. Flanked by future ministers Simeon Brown and Simon Watts, Luxon said: 'We've got to get our emissions down, and the way we do that is we accelerate the transition to EVs.' National was walking a fine line. Luxon said range anxiety was a major barrier to potential EV buyers, and New Zealand had the worst rate for public chargers among developed countries – which was true. At the same time, however, it was scrapping the EV-subsidising clean car discount (and associated 'ute tax'), which had cost hundreds of millions of dollars but encouraged the purchase of thousands of battery electric and plug-in hybrid cars. (Since then EV owners have been slapped with road user charges and a hike in ACC levies.) The supercharged part of National's EV infrastructure promise was an extra $170m. Now, more than halfway through the National-led coalition Government's term, how much new money has it spent, or earmarked, for EV-charging infrastructure? Zero. This situation is confirmed by Budget documents, and by Energy and Climate Change Minister Watts, who says there's $69m remaining from the original appropriation (under the previous Labour government) for building more EV chargers but none set aside in subsequent years. 'Any future funding will be sought in the context of future Budget cycles,' Watts says. Barring an electoral surprise, the next Budget will be delivered in election year. Kirsten Corson, chair of lobby group Drive Electric, says the Government isn't on track to meet the 10,000 charger target, it has 'decelerated' the electric vehicle sector, and is missing a massive economic opportunity to decarbonise transport. 'We're far from supercharging,' she says, adding later the Government's 'definitely trickle charging'. Transport Minister Chris Bishop says the 10,000 figure is an ambitious stretch goal. 'EVs are an important part of New Zealand's transport future and the Government is backing them through a cost-effective scheme to roll out a charging network around the country.' His National Party colleague Watts, meanwhile, says EV charging infrastructure remains a high priority, and the Government is committed to the 2030 target. 'As we have less than six years, we have taken the time to ensure that we have a structured, effective scheme that will be successful in getting the infrastructure built.' Officials aren't as bullish, however, as revealed by comments in more than 200 pages of advice and Cabinet papers released to Newsroom by Bishop's office under official information laws. The transport minister has been warned more money will be needed to hit National's goal – and there might still be a need for grants, or suspensory loans. It's not clear how much more needs to be added because estimates were redacted. In April, Bishop said it would be less than $100m. The final amount will depend on the proportion of AC chargers built, which are much cheaper than DC ones but charge at a slower rate. There's also ongoing work to lower electricity network connection costs, and simplify consenting. Certainly, the pace needs to speed up. Chart: EECA In September 2023, when Luxon made the 10,000-charger pledge, the number of EV chargers around the country was estimated to be about 1200. At the end of last year it was 1378. Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority (EECA) figures, released to Newsroom, state a further 136 charge points have been completed so far this year. If the 10,000 charger goal is to be met by 2030, 157 chargers will need to be finished every month for the next 54 months. A 'request for proposals' for public EV-charging infrastructure loans was only issued this month. EECA's general manager of delivery and partnerships Richard Briggs says the initial focus was having at least one fast charger every 75km across the State highway network. 'The momentum of charger installations, and charging providers in the market, has accelerated rapidly in recent years.' Corson, Drive Electric's chair, says the Government has over-promised and under-delivered. 'This is National's KiwiBuild project.' Relative go-slow While the Government is adept at using urgency to pursue its legislative priorities, the EV charger policy has been on a relative go-slow. A Cabinet paper from April last year noted the next update would be in October, after which the industry was consulted. But it appears decisions had already been made. In April this year, Bishop (who replaced Brown as transport minister in January) and Watts announced the Government would change the way its funds EV infrastructure, using concessionary loans instead of grants. A Ministry of Transport briefing paper from last July said: 'You have indicated that a concessional loan approach is your preferred way of financing co-investment in charging infrastructure.' Grants are the dominant approach for funding EV chargers internationally. A transport ministry paper from June last year said: 'The use of grant funding (at least when used on its own) is inconsistent with your objective to recycle Crown capital to support further investment over time.' Recycling capital is shorthand for loan repayments, which could be used to fund more EV chargers – should Cabinet decide that's the best use of funds. Transport officials said last July: 'The move from grant funding to concessional loans will be a significant shift, and the response from the market is uncertain.' A switch to loans fulfils the National-Act Party coalition agreement, which mandated the programme 'specifically take into account Act's concern that there be robust cost-benefit analysis to ensure maximum benefit for government investment'. A paper to Cabinet's economic policy committee, from last September, said cost-benefit analysis principles and a value-for-money approach, used in procurement design and criteria for assessing proposals, were developed with Act's Simon Court, the parliamentary under-secretary for infrastructure. Loan applicants have to demonstrate the benefits outweigh the costs. The value-for-money approach will 'favour applications requesting low percentage Crown contributions, shorter loan tenures, and earlier repayments', a Cabinet paper from April last year said. We asked Act's Court if his party, and the coalition agreement, was a handbrake on the EV infrastructure scheme. 'Act is proud to have pulled the plug on Labour's 'climate change ATM',' Court says. 'We've insisted on robust cost-benefit analysis before any further taxpayer funds are committed. If something stacks up, great, but the default should not be subsidies.' The Government is shifting management of the EV-charging infrastructure programme from EECA to National Infrastructure Funding and Financing, the successor organisation to Crown Infrastructure partners, which managed the rollout of ultra-fast broadband. Court says the broadband programme is an example of disciplined public investment. 'A small amount of Crown capital helped crowd in massive private investment, delivered huge gains for New Zealanders, and is now being fully recycled for other infrastructure priorities. That's what a sound business case looks like and it's the kind of approach Act could support.' Transport Minister Bishop says: 'Concessionary loans will bring forward private investment in public EV-charging infrastructure by lowering the cost of capital. They will also provide better value for money by maximising private sector investment while keeping the taxpayers' contribution to a minimum.' Hitting the 10,000 charger target would require 'regular refinement of the co-investment model', officials said, including the 'limited use of grants or suspensory loans' to build chargers in remote or rural locations, and holiday hotspots. (Given the expanding range of new electric cars, it's fair to assume the target might be re-assessed.) A hypercharger for electric cars – New Zealand's fastest – south of Auckland in the Bombay Hills. Photo: ChargeNet Luxon's lament in that Christchurch car park in 2023 was that New Zealand languished at the bottom of the OECD table, with one public charger for every 95 EVs. That was based on the International Energy Agency's Global EV Outlook 2023. There's good news and bad from the 2025 edition. It says New Zealand's ratio has improved to 82 EVs per charger – but we've maintained our bottom rank. (Australia is second on 76, while third-placed Mexico's ratio is 41.) Fundamentally, though, will the 'rapid rollout' of EV charging stations make any difference to EV sales? According to April's Cabinet paper, access to public EV charging is a 'key factor' in enabling faster uptake and while more chargers will give 'greater confidence', any surge in EV sales is 'difficult to quantify'. In 2024, EVs were 6.7 percent of new light vehicle registrations, and 2.6 percent of the total light vehicles. 'Ministry of Transport modelling suggests that by 2030 the share of light EVs could be expected to be around 7.2-11.2 percent of the fleet.' What about Luxon's comment, two years ago, that the way to reduce the country's emissions was to 'accelerate the transition to EVs'? Climate assessments state the EV charger policy doesn't meet the 'threshold for significance', and is expected to deliver only 0.21 million tonnes of emissions reductions between 2026 and 2035. In 2023, New Zealand's gross emissions were 76.4 million tonnes of carbon dioxide-equivalent gases. Without a drastic reduction in emissions, the country will likely have to buy billions of dollars' worth of overseas carbon credits to meet our Paris Agreement targets. New Zealand's rating on Climate Action Tracker is 'highly insufficient', and the Government's approach is being challenged in a world-first legal challenge.
RNZ News
43 minutes ago
- RNZ News
David Seymour defends social media posts accusing Regulatory Standards opponents of 'derangement syndrome'
David Seymour has made a series of social media posts in recent days singling out opponents of the Regulatory Standards Bill. Photo: VNP/Phil Smith The Deputy Prime Minister is rubbishing claims that social media posts he has made about opponents of the Regulatory Standards Bill are a breach of the Cabinet Manual. In recent days, David Seymour made a series of social media posts singling out prominent opponents of the Bill, and accusing them of suffering from "Regulatory Standards Derangement Syndrome." Wellington's mayor, Tory Whanau, accused Seymour of setting a "dangerous precedent" for how dissenting voices were treated, and laid a formal complaint with the Prime Minister over the posts. The Regulatory Standards Bill aimed to ensure regulatory decisions were "based on principles of good law-making and economic efficiency," according to Seymour, who had introduced the Bill as Minister of Regulation. Opponents criticised it as advancing corporate interests, and an attack on nature and Te Tiriti. Seymour's targets included academics such as Dame Anne Salmond, Dr George Laking, and Metiria Turei, as well as Labour MP Willie Jackson. Dame Anne Salmond was referred to as the "victim of the day" by Seymour. Photo: Claire Concannon / RNZ Newsroom published an opinion column by Dame Anne, in which she called the bill a "dangerous piece of legislation" and said its principles were "largely inspired by libertarian ideals." In the posts, Seymour called the figures the "Victim of the Day" and set out why he believed their arguments against the Bill were wrong. In Dame Anne's case, Seymour said her "real objection seems to be that the Bill sets limits on arbitrary power. That it dares to elevate individual rights, due process, and cost-benefit analysis over ideology. That's not a weakness, it's the point." He said Turei was "spinning conspiracies" and that Jackson had a "wild imagination." The posts prompted Whanau to write to the Prime Minister, accusing Seymour of orchestrating a "campaign of online harassment and intimidation." Whanau's letter said the posts were a "blatant attempt to stifle academic opinion and any dissenting opinion," and a breach of Sections 2.53 and 2.56 of the Cabinet Manual. Tory Whanau called on the Prime Minister to investigate the matter. Photo: RNZ / Samuel Rillstone Section 2.53 called on ministers to "conduct themselves in a manner appropriate to the office," while Section 2.56 said ministers were expected to behave in a way that upheld the highest ethical and behavioural standards. "This includes exercising a professional approach and good judgement in their interactions with the public, staff, and officials, and in all their communications, personal and professional," it says. Whanau, who at this stage has not been the subject of one of Seymour's posts, called on Christopher Luxon to investigate the matter. CHECK HIS FACEBOOK IN THE MORNING TO SEE IF HE'S MADE ONE ABOUT HER "For the Deputy Prime Minister to lead this online harassment campaign is quite concerning, as such actions could incite behaviour that spills into real-world violence. "This is irresponsible and a clear breach of public trust. We expect our leaders to keep us safe, not throw us into harm's way," she wrote. On Monday, standing in for Luxon at the post-Cabinet press conference, Seymour dismissed the criticism, and accused the opponents of the bill of making incorrect statements. "There's no such breach. If people want to go out and make completely incorrect statements, then I'm going to get a bit playful and have some fun with them." He argued that pointing out there was a "curious syndrome that is causing people to say untrue things" was different to outright calling them deranged. "I could say that their incorrect statements are deliberate, and therefore they're lying. I could say they're incapable of understanding what they're saying. "I'm not saying that, I'm being a bit playful saying the only reason I can think of for all these totally factually incorrect statements about the Regulatory Standards Bill is that there's some sort of sinister syndrome out there." Labour leader Chris Hipkins said Seymour's behaviour was "inconsistent" with what was expected of MPs, particularly Ministers of the Crown. "When you're putting photos of people up with the derogatory sorts of claims that David Seymour is, that is online harassment and I don't think it's acceptable," he said. Hipkins said singling out members of the public was different to the cut and thrust of political debate between politicians. "Attacking other politicians is one thing. Attacking members of the public is something entirely different." In a follow-up column, also on Newsroom, Dame Anne said Seymour's campaign was "lame, even laughable" but also an abuse of high office, and she would formally lodge a complaint with the Cabinet Office. The Regulatory Standards Bill passed its first reading in May. Submissions on the Bill closed on Monday. The Finance and Expenditure Committee will consider the submissions, with its final report due by November 22nd. Labour has pledged to repeal the Regulatory Standards Bill in its first 100 days in office, should it return to government next year. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
