edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
O'Connor Greg; Simpson Scott; Court SimonSPATIAL PLANNING BILLIn Committee Debate resumed from 1 August.Part 2 Regional spatial strategiesCHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Members we come now to the Spatial Planning Bill. When were last considering this bill we had concluded the debate on Part 1. We now come to Part 2. This is the debate on clauses 12 to 57 Regional spatial strategies" and Schedules 3 and 4. The question is that Part 2 stand part.Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Well thank you Mr Chair. It's good to be picking up this committee of the whole House debate again on the Spatial Planning Bill which is of course the second leg of the three-part trifecta of the Government's proposed plans to reform our resource management legislative regime.Now the Spatial Planning Bill effectively sets out the process by which regional planning committees will be established and also what will be in the regional spatial strategies. Now that's Part 2 of this piece of legislation and I want to talk at this juncture about subpart 1—clause 12 of the bill on the Table. Clause 12 is quite simple. It says "Every region must have regional spatial strategy". Then clause 12(1) says "There must at all times be a regional spatial strategy for each region."So my question initially to the Minister in the chair is: what happens if there isn't? What guarantees or what assurances can the Minister give that there will be at all times a regional spatial strategy for each region?SIMON COURT (ACT): Mr Chair I'm assuming—CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): We like a voice appeal. Thank you Mr Court.SIMON COURT: Thank you Mr. Chair. I'm assuming the Minister is just gathering her thoughts. Further to that question Minister I have a question on clause 14 "Geographical boundaries of regional spatial strategies". Now the Minister the Hon David Parker has told us that there will be I understand 15 regional spatial strategies to replace the potentially 67 district and city council plans and the 12 or so—maybe 14 or so—regional council plans. But the geographical boundaries of regional spatial strategies don't always line up with some of the other provisions in the bill—in particular the provisions that apply to the water services entities Minister.So Minister would you be able to explain for the committee and for those people who might be listening at home fascinated about how this will work where we have a Natural and Built Environment Bill or Act assuming it's enacted which establishes a national planning framework; and then a Spatial Planning Bill or Act which provides for regional spatial strategies; and where all types of other infrastructure providers—transport through the Land Transport Act water serviced entities local government—where those regional boundaries don't align?So Minister would you please be able to provide us with your understanding about how regional spatial strategies will apply across geographical boundaries where they do not align between different asset operators and different local government areas?"
Belich CamillaCAMILLA BELICH (Junior Whip—Labour): I move That the committee report progress presently and move to consider the Spatial Planning Bill.Motion agreed to.Progress to be reported.
Willis Nicola; Robertson GrantNICOLA WILLIS (Deputy Leader—National): Why when the spending picture has been out of control for several years—as measured by Government expenditure to GDP as measured by increases in operating allowances as measured by increases in deficit as measured by increases in debt—why against that backdrop has the finance Minister continued to add spending fuel to the fire has watched the House burn and is only now reaching for the savings hose?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): The member is just wrong. What we have done consistently over the Budgets that I have been here is respond to the circumstances that are in front of us. When we got to Budget 2019 we saw ourselves with a level of debt—using the old measure—around 19 percent of GDP under the target that we'd set for us. We had the books in surplus.COVID came along. Now the member might want to write that out of history. But quite simply she can't. The Government responded; we did what we had to do to get New Zealanders through the situation and now we're returning ourselves to a more sustainable fiscal position while balancing that against the needs of public services. I believe that in these Estimates—in the documents in front of us—we have done what we needed to do to keep that balance.
Willis Nicola; Robertson GrantNICOLA WILLIS (Deputy Leader—National): Have there Minister been recent changes in the Crown borrowing programme?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Not beyond those that were signalled at the Budget.NICOLA WILLIS (Deputy Leader—National): Thank you Mr Chair. Minister have there been changes in Treasury's forecasts that have led the Minister to believe that there is a declining fiscal position?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Treasury's forecasts are updated at the Budget Economic and Fiscal Update at the Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Update and at the Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update.NICOLA WILLIS (Deputy Leader—National): Has the Minister received any information or indications in advance of the Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Update which would lead him to believe the Crown's fiscal position has deteriorated beyond that updated in the last set of Crown accounts?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): The Crown accounts to the end of May have been discussed. They show a picture of the New Zealand economy and a picture of the revenue side of the forecast from Budget that has not kept pace. We all await the next set of those but the job of the Minister of Finance is to look across the forecast period to look across the macro-economic indicators and to do the right thing by the New Zealand economy. From my perspective we've done that by getting the balance right. We will always continue to work towards our fiscal rules while supporting and providing what we need to do. These are challenging times for many New Zealanders for many households and indeed for the world as we look at the global economic environment. We need to react and respond to that responsibly and in a balanced way and that's what I intend to continue doing.NICOLA WILLIS (Deputy Leader—National): What was the purpose of the meeting with the Public Service Commissioner and Public Service heads today?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I don't go around talking about every detail of my diary. What I do do as I've done throughout my time as Minister of Finance is meet regularly with the heads of Public Service agencies to talk about the way in which our programme develops. The member will be well aware that if the Government wants to achieve its goals it needs the Public Service to be working alongside it so all the contact that I have with the Public Service is in that context.But I repeat what I said earlier: we do here have a situation where people like the National Party are promising all kinds of things to the electorate with no idea how they are going to pay for them. As a Government what we are showing is that actually our expenditure is coming in under where it has been forecast. There are challenges to the revenue side of the ledger as outlined in the May accounts. We will continue to monitor that and deal with it as appropriate.
Clark DavidHon Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you Madam Chair. I have several questions—and I think things that I would like to see on record if the Minister will indulge me. First can I congratulate him for his balanced approach in the Budget and for the maintenance of that low debt that successive Governments have sought to achieve. And indeed I think actually Labour Governments have a far better track record than other Governments. I do note the irony in the member opposite commenting on ratings agencies when perhaps her fear is that the ratings might drop to what they were under the last National Government when this Minister of Finance has actually seen some of those ratings rise. But let's put that to one side—Nicola Willis: Oh the next National Government: it's on its way!Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: It's a long way away we all hope. The reprioritisation in the Budget: I wonder if the Minister could tell us how much that's been this time because I know significant effort went into that reprioritisation exercise and it was larger than—I don't know perhaps just about any that I'm familiar with. And could the Minister also confirm that the economy is actually bigger now than it was prior to COVID? Because we've had questions about debt servicing which seem to be ignorant or not addressing the fact that the economy has grown and therefore that we can continue to invest in infrastructure to address the infrastructure deficit through the effect of having a larger economy—an economy that's actually grown as I understand it under this Government if the Minister can confirm that. My final question for him is if he would be willing to elaborate a little bit on the Budget themes and how these were arrived at: the focus on the cost of living things like the free public transport measures. I guess the public's familiar with the removal of prescription fees on medicines and so on. If he could talk a little bit about how he arrived at the themes of the cost of living—public services maintaining public services and how those will support New Zealanders and you know the services they rely on—and how recovery and resilience was added in. I think that has been touched on a wee bit but I'd appreciate any further elaboration. And fiscal sustainability and whether fiscal sustainability in his mind involves striking a balance there and addressing the infrastructure deficit through continual capital investment? Thank you.
O'Connor GregESTIMATES DEBATEIn CommitteeDebate resumed from 1 August on the Appropriation (2023/24 Estimates) Bill.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Members we come first to the Appropriation (2023/24 Estimates) Bill. The Business Committee has determined to organise the debate by portfolio so there will be no sector specific debates. All votes are available for debate but only specific Ministers will be available each day to speak to the indicated portfolios only. The Government has indicated that the Minister of Police and the Minister of Finance will be available today. Each debate will be led by a call from the chairperson or member of the committee that considered the Estimates most closely related to the Minister's portfolios.This debate expires after 11 hours at which point questions will be put that the votes stand part of the Schedules and on the provisions of the Appropriation (2023/24 Estimates) Bill. There are six hours 58 minutes remaining in this debate. New Zealand Labour has three hours 18 minutes remaining. New Zealand National has two hours 11 minutes remaining. ACT New Zealand has 42 minutes remaining. The Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand has 32 minutes remaining. Te Paati Māori has 11 minutes remaining. Dr Elizabeth Kerekere has six minutes remaining and the Hon Meka Whaitiri has six minutes remaining.The Estimates debate should be relevant to the Government's current spending plans as contained in the Estimates of Appropriations. A compendium of the reports of select committees on the votes is available on the Table.The question is once again that the votes contained in the Estimates of Appropriation for 202324 stand part of the Schedules. Members we start with the Minister of Police. The Minister is available from 3.55 p.m. to 4.55 p.m.
O'Connor GregHOUSE IN COMMITTEECHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The House is in committee for further consideration of the Appropriation (2023/24 Estimates) Bill and the Spatial Planning Bill.
Robertson GrantSITTINGS OF THE HOUSEHon GRANT ROBERTSON (Leader of the House): I move That the sitting of the House today be extended into the morning of 3 August for the continued committee stage of the Spatial Planning Bill; the second readings of the Water Services Entities Amendment Bill the Education and Training Amendment Bill (No 3) the Land Transport (Road Safety) Amendment Bill and the Sale and Supply of the Alcohol (Community Participation) Amendment Bill.
O'Connor DamienQuestion No. 9 to Minister—Amended AnswerHon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister for Biosecurity): Point of order Mr Speaker. Look thank you. Look I just stand to correct an answer I've just given in the House. I've just realised—SPEAKER: You're seeking leave to do that? Leave is sought for that. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: Look thank you. In the answer to my first question I said that M. bovis was detected in New Zealand five years ago. That's not correct: it was actually six years ago—in 2017—under the previous Government. Action began five years ago—[Interruption]SPEAKER: Order!Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: —under this Government.
Rurawhe AdrianPETITIONS PAPERS SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLSSPEAKER: A petition has been delivered to the Clerk for presentation. CLERK: Petition of Trevarr McCarthy requesting that the House allow parents with shared care the same entitlements under the Social Security Act.SPEAKER: That petition stands referred to the Petitions Committee. Ministers have delivered papers.CLERK: Report of the royal commission of inquiry into abuse in care Stolen Lives Marked Souls July 2023 2023-24 statement of performance expectations for the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority.SPEAKER: Those papers are published under the authority of the House. Select committee reports have been delivered for presentation. CLERK: Reports of the Environment Committee on the: petition of David Famularopetition of Erica Rowlandspetition of Hannah Blumhardtreport of the Social Services and Community Committee on the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development Long-Term Insights Briefing 2023.SPEAKER: The briefing is set down for consideration. No bills have been introduced.
Salesa JennyWEDNESDAY 2 AUGUST 2023The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.KARAKIA/PRAYERSHon JENNY SALESA (Assistant Speaker): E te Atua kaha rawa ka tuku whakamoemiti atu mātou mō ngā karakia kua waihotia mai ki runga i a mātou. Ka waiho i ō mātou pānga whaiaro katoa ki te taha. Ka mihi mātou ki te Kīngi me te inoi atu mō te ārahitanga i roto i ō mātou whakaaroarohanga kia mōhio ai kia whakaiti ai tā mātou whakahaere i ngā take o te Whare nei mō te oranga te maungārongo me te aroha o Aotearoa. Āmene.[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 and humility for the welfare peace and compassion of New Zealand. Amen.]
Lorck AnnaANNA LORCK (Labour—Tukituki): Thank you Mr Speaker. I am a mother of five daughters and my oldest daughter Tabitha turned 27 yesterday. When I was thinking and hearing about what people were talking about it took me back to what it was like when Tabitha was born 27 years ago. We didn't have paid parental leave 27 years ago and I went back to work when she was six weeks old. We were a young couple who had a mortgage to pay my husband was a freezing works worker and we couldn't afford to have me at home looking after my first baby. I can remember the challenges I had even then trying to establish breastfeeding and 27 years ago it was pretty much OK: I popped her on the bottle went to work and Mum came in and helped look after Tabitha.I then had Brittney and Augusta and they too weren't at a time when there was paid parental leave. By the time I got to have Livia who is now 14 there was paid parental leave. Having that time with my youngest baby made me realise then how significantly important it is for a mum to be able to spend time with their baby and to be able to breastfeed for six months. The greatest gift we can give a child is time—it's time. This bill the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Shared Leave) Amendment Bill will actually take a length of time away from the one-on-one attachment between a parent or a caregiver and the baby in those first six months.Nobody knows how significant it is for a child to have that time which all the research shows and so I have spent some time thinking about this bill and looking at what it would really achieve. What it would achieve is—yes it might enable two parents to be together and to be with their young baby but that will take time away from the length of time for which at least one parent doesn't need to return to work during those first six months.We wouldn't even be talking about this bill if it hadn't been for the Labour Party and being able to introduce paid parental leave—something that I've already said was never available to me as a young mum; it wasn't available to my mum and it certainly wasn't available to my grandmother. To think now as we go forward that all five of my daughters will have that time with their children while they are first-time second-time third-time or maybe five-time mums—I can't wait to have grandchildren by the way.I just think that we need to look at how we can enable something that is better than what's on offer in this bill. If we can come up with a way that does enable us to give the most time we can give for newborns to be with their parents then I think we should. The main reason why I can't support this bill is that the greatest gift we can ever give a child is time. Thank you Mr Speaker.
Baillie ChrisCHRIS BAILLIE (ACT): Thank you Madam Speaker. It's a pleasure to rise to speak to the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Shared Leave) Amendment Bill. It's a pleasure because to me it is just a no-brainer that we support this. When I looked at it I thought What am I actually to say about it?" I couldn't think of much because it was so sensible and so fair. During the debate on the last bill the gift card bill I heard a Labour member say that Labour is a party of fairness and I think we're absolutely proving now that Labour is a party of petty politics. To bring up past vindictive-type behaviour is I think quite unfortunate.The policy statement says the bill amends the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Act 1987 to ensure that paid parental leave can be split between spouses or partners who are caring for the child and can be taken at the same time. The paid parental leave as has been indicated is not going to cost anything. It is a choice that the couple make. The couple are not forced into anything; it's their choice. The flexibility that that will allow will just make many families quite happy that they can choose to bring up their kids the way they want to and not the way the Labour Party thinks they should. Having both parents bringing up those young kids is really important in brain development social development and forming habits and the health outcomes are known to be better. It's just a no-brainer in terms of the first few years of a baby's life. It's certainly not up to the Government a political party to decide how parents are going to bring up their kids as far as the leave goes—I think that's quite despicable. There will be a time in the future to discuss the Family Court and some of the decisions they make based on whether the parties are male or female and we could discuss the fairness of a lot of those decisions. But that is for another time not for this bill.It's an absolute pleasure to support this bill and I'm really disappointed in the attitude that Labour has taken."
Lee MelissaMELISSA LEE (National): Thank you very much. I think there is a saying along the lines of three times the charm". This is my third member's bill that has actually been drawn and I'm so pleased that this will finally get to select committee and have the public submit on it.I'd like to thank all of the members who have actually spoken for their considerate speeches and giving out anecdotes and examples of their personal experience which is actually really wonderful. In terms of the Hon Stuart Nash who actually talked about how he mulled over too long to find at least three gift cards in his office desk. I just say maybe he shouldn't have mulled over it too long but most of us tend to do that. When we get a gift card we actually put it away because it is valuable and is something that someone has considered to give us a meaningful thing. They couldn't quite figure out what exactly to get for us so we actually get the gift and we think about it and you forget about it. It's in the wallet or it's in the back drawer or it's in the desk drawer and sometimes you forget.In an example that I gave earlier there was a family member who had actually received a gift card from a store and the family member had since died and the store closed. That actually means that the gift card has since expired and it has been many years since that gift card has expired.To the question of Anna Lorck who wanted to know if vouchers for services were what we are actually talking about: in the actual bill at clause 24A(4) and (5) it says "gift card means a card or voucher (in hard copy or electronic form) that is redeemable for goods or services but does not include—(a) a card supplied in substitution for goods returned to the supplier of the goods; or (b) a prepaid card or voucher redeemable for phone credit internet access or other similar services; or (c) a debit card credit card prepaid travel card or any similar products supplied by a financial institution; or (d) a card or voucher supplied as part of a customer loyalty programme. (5) This section only applies to a gift card sold after the commencement of this section."—of the Fair Trading (Gift Card Expiry) Amendment Bill.Consumer organisations have actually been very very active in wanting to protect our consumer rights and having more than $267 million worth of gift cards not being used is completely unfair when the businesses have in fact received the money and the purchaser or the giftee of the gift cards cannot actually use it because of the expiry date.I look forward to the select committee process where I will have an opportunity to listen to all of the submissions. Thank you to everyone for sending this to a select committee. I commend the bill to the House."
Bayly AndrewANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Sorry Madam Speaker obviously there's a bit of hesitation from the Government side there on taking a call so I thought I might quickly jump up and take this call.First of all I just want to congratulate Melissa Lee who's had 15 proud years serving this Parliament. I think this is her third member's bill. Hopefully with the support of Government this will pass. But it's a pretty outstanding result to get to this stage.Of course we've heard this bill is about expired gift cards. It's interesting looking at this that's roughly a quarter of a billion dollars' worth of value left on unused cards at present. On average consumers have three of them—which I find surprising. And there's an estimated $10 million of outstanding or wasted gifts that are not redeemed within time. When you hear that sort of estimate it's quite staggering. I've got to say that I find the comments that men lose cards more often than women slightly disconcerting. I'm not sure where the basis came from for that that the previous member spoke about.But I think this is an interesting bill. It's obviously one that has a financial cost to consumers. It's good that the House is supporting it—other than our friends from the ACT Party. I think Ingrid Leary spoke about the contribution of Consumer New Zealand—that is right; they certainly have done some work around it. I think it should pass through; I hope it does. I'm keen to support it.
Menéndez March RicardoRICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): I'm pleased to support the Fair Trading (Gift Card Expiry) Amendment Bill and want to commend the member Melissa Lee for bringing this forward. I think Mt Albert candidates have had pretty good luck with members' bills being drawn this term.For the Greens this is a common-sense bill that would benefit consumers and address what is inherently an unfair arrangement with gift cards that does mean consumers are missing out on being able to cash them in due to the fact that many of them have very short-range expiry dates. So for the Greens this makes absolute sense in terms of prohibiting basically expiry cards that have an expiry date of less than three years being sold. I want to acknowledge Consumer New Zealand for their advocacy on this issue and for raising this to the public and politicians then acknowledging that there is an equity issue in terms of low-income communities ultimately losing out the most when their gift cards expire and they're not able to cash them in.I also want to acknowledge that for many volunteer organisations gift cards actually are one of the ways in which they recognise the contributions that volunteers have made and so this also will help better support people who are part of that sector. So we're looking forward to having a good discussion with the select committee process particularly around whether it should be three years whether it should be longer. But I think the nature of better protection for consumers is something we can absolutely get behind. So I'm pleased to support this bill and to vote for it in later stages. Kia ora.
Smith DamienDAMIEN SMITH (ACT): Thank you. Congratulations to the member for bringing the bill to the House. The objective of the bill is to extend the period in which a recipient can redeem their gift cards to avoid consumers missing out on potentially purchasing goods with their gift card because the credit expired before they used it. The bill seeks to prohibit the selling of gift cards with an expiry date of less than three years after the initial sale date giving the recipient a more reasonable period in which to redeem its full value. This will apply to vouchers redeemable for goods and services and retailers but will not include prepaid cards for phone credit or internet access or any cards provided as part of a customer loyalty scheme. It also excludes any cards issued by financial institutions such as credit debit or prepaid travel currency cards.The position of the ACT Party is that the Government should have no role in dictating the time periods which private businesses must make their gift cards available for or viable for. The bill is not a good use of Parliament's time. The objective of this bill is worthy; however ACT will not be supporting it at its first reading but will await what is produced by the select committee to cover those areas of concern. Thank you.
Smith StuartSTUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Well thank you Madam Speaker. It appears no other Labour speakers want to take a call so I will round things up and thank all those members for their support. I also acknowledge those members within the Labour caucus that are treating this as a conscience matter. It quite rightly should be a conscience matter if people feel that way. We don't feel that way within the National Party on this particular bill anyway but I do acknowledge their right to have their view.I think it's been highlighted quite well—Rachel Boyack my neighbour from across the hill very proudly spoke about the wineries that are within her electorate. I think that is what the wine industry has on its side that actually those small businesses—and sometimes large—bring an extra thing or an extra colour to their tourism offering and a great part of the community. I think this bill goes a long way to helping those businesses operate within the law but in a much more simple way.I take Chlöe Swarbrick's point about alcohol and the laws around that but I also thank her for her support. As she quite rightly knows she's got a number of cellar doors in her electorate on Waiheke Island and as most of the members will know—who read their email anyway—the number of electorates that have wineries within them is quite surprising. I was surprised at the extent of that.So I'll take no more time from the House but I do thank everyone for their support and I commend the bill to the House.
Utikere TangiTANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Kia orana Madam Speaker. It's a pleasure to take what will be a brief call on this bill and in doing so can I acknowledge the member who has had the luck of the draw Stuart Smith in having this bill drawn in and for bringing it to the House. On this side of the House we are treating this as a matter of conscience. However I can inform the House that I intend to support the member's bill through first reading and probably likely beyond that.In Palmerston North we do not have any wineries within the electorate; as Mr McKelvie and Mr Tuiono will know the closest one is actually in the Pohangina Valley and has been for quite some time. It doesn't mean however that Palmerston North is boring for its lack of wineries. In fact I think at many of the cafes in Palmerston North you would find Mr Smith's electric wines on the menu and I'm sure if you looked hard enough you'd probably even find a Spanish wine there as well. The point of this particular bill is that it does allow for a little bit more consistency and some ease when it comes to those establishments and locations that are effectively identified or defined as a cellar door operation and that the bill also identifies a definitional aspect around that as well. But it also does permit the payment of some money in exchange for sample consumption. So this is just one element that I think makes a lot of sense it'll obviously go to select committee if it clears the hurdle today. But many of these establishments do have a restaurant or cafe on site and it just makes logical sense to tidy up this anomaly. I am happy to support this past first reading.
Strange JamieJAMIE STRANGE (Labour—Hamilton East): Thank you Madam Speaker. I think we need to bring a little bit of clarity to this debate in the House here. The bill makes clear that a company director in acting as the mind and will of the company may take actions that take into account wider matters other than the financial bottom line. This is not command and control. This is not disregarding the bottom line. This is saying May also take into account other matters."Now in terms of clarity I thought I'd have a look at the Oxford Dictionary to see what the word "may" means and actually compare the word "may" with the word "must" because it sounds like the Opposition are a bit confused; I think the Opposition are believing this is "must". This is "may" take into account. So "may" means "expressing possibility".So if the House will indulge me let me give a little anecdote. Somebody visits someone's house. They knock on the door: "May I come in?" "You may if you wish.""May I have a cup of tea?" "You may if you desire.""May I have a scone?" "You may if you are hungry."And finally: "May I depart?" "You may but please return again."The word "may" is very different to the word "must". The word "must" in the Oxford Dictionary is defined as "something is necessary often involving a rule or a law". This piece of legislation does not use the word "must"; it uses the word "may". So hopefully that brings some clarity to this debate because I sensed there was a little bit of confusion there. Hopefully that anecdote was helpful. I commend this bill to the House."
Grigg Nicola; Salesa JennyNICOLA GRIGG (National—Selwyn): Thank you Madam Speaker. Look like my colleagues and other parties on this side of the House I'm opposing this bill obviously. It is a pointless bill. Look I have to say I feel for Camilla Belich; this really is a hospital pass that has been given to her. But if we look at the purpose of the bill it allegedly makes clear that a company director in acting as the mind and will of the company can take actions that consider wider matters other than the financial bottom line. Can someone explain to me what is wrong with a company making a profit? What is wrong with considering the financial bottom line? That is the question that the Government members have failed to answer. This Government seems to purport that making a profit in New Zealand is suddenly a cardinal sin. And yet if you ask any person on the streets of New Zealand most of them hold business in high regard because it is business that employs people. It is business that allows people to earn money to feed their kids to pay their mortgages to send their kids to school to live a purposeful life. There is nothing wrong with business. It defies logic that the new section being added to the current legislation is To avoid doubt in considering the best interests of a company or holding company for the purposes of this section a director may consider matters other than the maximisation of profit".Again what is wrong with considering the maximization of profit? This is a typical daily occurrence within a business operation. Of course they account for profit. Of course they account for the wellbeing and safety of their staff. Of course they account for environmental implications and impact. This is a typical "we know best" piece of legislation from Labour. It is a typical command control centralise piece of legislation from this Labour Government. It is typical arrogance displayed towards business owners who go out on a limb who take a risk who want to employ other New Zealanders to ensure their wellbeing to ensure their financial gain to ensure their children are fed and housed and clothed. This is a piece of legislation that is once again coming down hard unnecessarily on the businesses of New Zealand. It is totally pointless. It is a solution looking for a problem. It is well meaning but it is totally misguided. It has not identified a problem to solve. In fact if one were to actually look at the Companies Act 1993 it already states this bill's intention. The Companies Act 1993 states that a director of a company "must act in good faith and in what the director believes [is] the best interest of the company."So again I put to the House: this is a pointless bill. It is yet more regulation on businesses that are already struggling enough after six years under a Labour Government. We oppose this bill.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): I call on Jamie Strange for five minutes."
Chen Naisi; Salesa JennyNAISI CHEN (Labour): Thank you Madam Speaker. It's a great pleasure to have had this bill in the Economic Development Science and Innovation Committee during the select committee stage and for me it was really interesting hearing the different stakeholders that came in and submitted on the bill. Some of the people who were I think obviously the natural supporters of the bill as we would anticipate would be the environmental groups and some of the different legal entities but then some of the companies as well who themselves have gone on a journey of really following their environmental social and governance (ESG) commitments and making sure that their directors are no longer faced with a potential risk of being caught out under this phrase. As I read the bill for the first time—and obviously it was in quite a different form than it is now presented to the House today—I was reminded of my colleague Rachel Boyack. I remembered when Rachel first came into caucus one day holding her soy-printed collateral and showing that off and saying Yes it does cost a little bit more but I think it shows our campaign's commitment to the environment." and I think of that and I think it's similar. When we look at companies and they choose to spend a little bit more on something that is much more environmentally friendly will they be caught out under this Act—have they acted in the best interests of their company? Those are the moments that I think about in terms of being out there in the real world where we actually want company directors to have that faith and to have that reassurance that we want to encourage them to do something that is not only profitable and good for their bottom line but also takes all other matters into consideration. I do disagree with the ACT member who said that this bill puts New Zealand up as an anomaly. The United Kingdom has its Companies Act 2006 which also kind of gives the same provisions in terms of allowing company directors to consider ESG matters. I think about the social enterprises. That is now—in a woke term—trending at the moment and is making sure that companies are set up not even for the purpose of profit but the profit-making is for another bigger purpose in our society and community. I want to make sure that this bill enables more and more social enterprises so that our charity sector can really look after themselves and be self-sustainable as well. So that's why I commend this bill to the House. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): The next call is a split call. I call Nicola Grigg—five minutes."
Menéndez March RicardoRICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): I'm going to play the smallest violin ever to the poor company directors who the ACT Party thinks are being victimised by a bill that simply clarifies that they may consider—may not even must; but that they may consider—things other than maximising profit. I mean this is like not even a socialist bill honestly; it simply clarifies what company directors may do. So I really really enjoyed listening to the theatrics of National and the ACT Party who were talking about how this bill would victimise those hard-working company directors. And to put it on the record despite what the ACT Party member may have said actually it is the workers who create the profits for those company directors. The company directors depend on those workers and actually yes this bill will enable the few company directors who do want to actually consider things other than maximising profits to do so without having to worry about whether the law is clear enough. Submitters and some of those who supported this bill did say that we should have gone further and that we should have made it mandatory for company directors to consider other things other than maximising profit. I do want to commend the different members who have shepherded this bill and particularly Camilla Belich who brought forward a Supplementary Order Paper to add further clarification about what it is that company directors may consider. But the Green Party once again reiterates our call that for this bill to actually have teeth the language should have been must" and unless we actually start twisting capitalism's arm we're never going to actually unshackle ourselves from what has been a broken system that has done nothing but increase wealth inequality and the concentration of power in the hands of a few. The Green Party supports this bill but calls on the Government to have more ambition and for their backbenchers to be more ambitious in the bills that they put forward. Kia ora."
Omer IbrahimIBRAHIM OMER (Labour): Kia orana Madam Speaker. I rise in support of the Companies (Directors' Duties) Amendment Bill.The previous speaker Damien Smith has been talking a lot about capitalism and been claiming that probably they are the ones the only people who understand capitalism. Well there are good aspects of capitalism but blindly being dependent on capitalism got us in the mess that we are in today—it created classes created inequalities made very few rich people richer and hard-working people poorer. Just to put it out there.This bill is all about striking the balance between maintaining the ease of doing business and protecting New Zealanders from illegal activities something that the speakers on the other side of this House are missing. We know it's quick and simple to establish a company or limited partnership in New Zealand which is great for business for doing business but also opens doors for criminals to take advantage. For example the Pandora and the Panama Papers highlighted some key vulnerabilities which need to be addressed and New Zealanders deserve to know who they are doing business with.While the bill that's going to crack down on global and domestic criminals who use business to hide money laundering tax evasion and the financing of terrorism will be introduced later in the year these changes we are making sit in line with the Government's national security priorities to help identify threats risks and challenges to New Zealand security and wellbeing. It will also help bring us in line with other jurisdictions. It will include changes to rules around the financial beneficial owners to make it easier to see who owns and controls a company. When searching for the company on the register it can be difficult to see the complete picture of the company's ownership structure. The new measures would make it a requirement to provide secure accurate information about who the beneficial owner is.As the previous speaker indicated there are a lot of entities who spoke against this bill opposed this bill but also a lot of others who support it as well. The Council of Trade Unions for example said that The nature of work is changing which means that the way businesses operate are also going to have to change. This Bill helps to ensure that New Zealand heads in the right direction on these counts." It's a good bill. I commend it to the House."
Watts SimonSIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): A small and mighty bill—well what a way to start the morning under urgency than going through the Companies (Directors' Duties) Amendment Bill which is a complete waste of time. Ten days of Parliament left and the member of Parliament gave to me the most unnecessary bill that I ever did see and that is what we've got on the table. The member referred to Gordon Gekko. Now has anyone ever heard of Gordon Gekko? That is as good as it gets. Well I tell you what Gordon Gekko was a fictional villain. And I tell you what there are a few fictional villains that are standing up here today talking a big talk about this bill and if Gordon Gekko—as I understand from my deep research I undertook from listening to the prior member's speech—had a saying Greed is good." Well I tell you what these Labour members are saying—their fictional villain status is around "waste is great." That I think personifies what is a bill coming up under the auspicious idea of Dr Duncan Webb; an epiphany that he had at one point in time. I do feel sorry for the good member Camilla Belich in regards to taking on this bill because what a hospital pass; what a hospital pass to take this bill. No one believes that this is going to add any value. For the prior member to say this bill is going to help young people it's going to help the environment—where in the bill? The only thing that this bill—this bill is a solution looking for a problem. It is well meaning but it is misguided and that is the great shame around the opportunity cost. Where this Government this morning could be passing legislation that could truly deal with some of the most significant issues our country faces today they have decided to use this Parliament's time to pass this bill which is unnecessary misguided and not supported by many many stakeholders across this country.This bill will result in unintended consequences and implications on directors and probably end up—the only ones who will benefit are lawyers with more legal fees and more court action around the indecisive aspect that this bill will bring.I'm not going to waste any more time in regards to this bill. It is a bill that is destined to the waste bin as Andrew Bayly has noted. We strongly oppose this bill and it is the last thing that I think is necessary at this point."
O'Connor Greg; Dean JacquiREPORT OF COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE HOUSECHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Madam Speaker the committee has considered the Appropriation (2023/24 Estimates) Bill and reports progress. The committee has also further considered the Natural and Built Environment Bill and reports it with amendment. The committee has also considered the Spatial Planning Bill and reports progress. I move That the report be adopted.Motion agreed to.Report adopted.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members the House is suspended and I will resume the Chair at 9 a.m. tomorrow for the extended sitting to consider members' orders of the day.Sitting suspended from 10 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Wednesday).
Utikere TangiTANGI UTIKERE (Chief Whip—Labour): I move That the question be now put.Motion agreed to.
Court Simon; Parker DavidSIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you Mr Chair. Minister I don't feel that the committee and people listening at home have received a sufficient explanation as to why clause 7 is required. My parliamentary colleague Tama Potaka raised a very good question: what is the meaning of tikanga". This clause 7 will apply to all people subject to the plans made under the Spatial Planning Bill should it become law—all people; not just iwi and hapū. It will apply to all. If we look at the precedence of the clauses here before we get to the clauses about how plans are made and what matters must be taken into account we have this clause 7.So Minister I want to ask you: do you consider do officials consider—since they're offering you assistance—whether beliefs and principles of a spiritual nature which might be encompassed by kawa or tikanga or mātauranga do they take precedence over people's private property rights over the right to use their land and over those who would be developing infrastructure or pretty much anything a quarry any type of building a distribution centre a road network that links customers to goods? Will upholding or providing for the responsibility and mana of each iwi and hapū in accordance with clause 7 take precedence over the needs of communities to provide for their infrastructure?Minister how could it be that beliefs and principles of a spiritual nature which cannot possibly be law a way of life that a group of people in our society believe wholeheartedly but which cannot possibly become law that applies to the rest of New Zealanders—how is it possible that in clause 7 here these concepts are incorporated in a way that would mean anyone exercising powers performing duties and functions under this bill must have regard for these spiritual matters when they're making decisions about planning resource management and environmental matters? Minister would you care to explain how on earth this has happened?Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): "Tikanga" is defined in the Natural and Built Environment Bill and carried through and there's also carry-over from the Resource Management Act.In respect of the focus of these legislations it is on the physical not the religious. That is made clear by the scheme of both bills."
Simpson Scott; Parker DavidHon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you Mr Chair. I'm hoping that the Minister will take the opportunity to give a considered response to my colleague Tama Potaka's very worthy dissertation and good questions because I thought that Tama Potaka asked some very pertinent points that I think are deserving of a response from the Minister.I want to go back to clause 3(b) and clause 4 in this Part 1. The Minister in an earlier contribution in the debate made it clear why the water services entity legislation was not included at that point. But at select committee there were a number of submitters who thought that it would be good to include the Climate Change Response Act 2002 in clauses 3(b) and 4. I'm keen to know from the Minister why that option wasn't taken and whether he would consider doing so at this late stage.Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Clause 3(b) lists what are essentially infrastructure management statutes: the Natural and Built Environment Bill the Land Transport Management Act the Local Government Act and the Water Services Entities Act. The zero carbon Act and related legislation is much broader and touches amongst other things those Acts but also a lot of other things so we thought the list is best left as in clause 3(b).