edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Prime Willow-JeanJAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you Mr Chair. I'd like to ask some questions around workplace health and safety of the Minister particularly in relation to upstream responsibilities in the health sector; noting how disturbed I was to hear the reality that WorkSafe is focusing on three sectors in our country where they have the most concerns around the health and safety of workers. Those sectors are forestry and construction—possibly two sectors we've come to expect to be focusing on—but the third is our health sector which is primarily Government-funded and where Government has primary responsibility for and they have been having some significant conversations with the Ministry of Health and DHBs around funding as an upstream decision that leads and has an impact in terms of levels of staffing that impact on safety of workers.I'm aware that right at the moment Allied Health workers are balloting to strike and they're calling on the Government to extend the mandate to ensure that the DHBs are able to come to the table with an offer that will address the very significant health and safety concerns of those workers. I'd love to know if the Minister is taking his role in terms of advocating around the Cabinet table for that extension of that mandate to protect the health and safety of those workers and to protect the Government from potential upstream enforcement.Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Obviously I don't have responsibility for funding which comes out of other Votes to fund—for example the health system. What the member is referring to is WorkSafe's approach which is to engage with employers to make sure that health and safety responsibilities are being considered upstream. This is a shift from the old-school approach—which was more about the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff—to actually engaging with employers engaging with boards engaging with funders to make sure that health and safety considerations are looked at much further upstream; we consider that to be a much more effective approach in terms of preventing harm to occur to workers.So WorkSafe is shifting in that direction and they do believe in a free and fearless way and in that respect engage with both private and public sector employers to that extent. In respect of the particular issues that come up say in the Allied Health bargaining I will let the parties work through those issues themselves in what is a sensitive and sometimes challenging collective agreement negotiation. But the member can rest assured that the Government does want to see a fair and equitable settlement in place there that deals with the legitimate issues that have been raised by that workforce and which frankly have been ignored for too long.WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Assistant Whip—Labour): I move That the committee report progress on this bill presently.Motion agreed to.Progress to be reported.
Annual Review Debate — Workplace Relations and Safety
Brown Simeon; Salesa JennySIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you; I'll be very quick. So we've just heard that that business case won't be completed before the election which means it'll be over six years since that was first promised and they're trying to rewrite history as if the last three years or the previous term didn't even happen—didn't even happen. Well the reality is this Government can't be taken seriously on transport because they just spend time talking and talking and nothing is actually being delivered. In what year will construction begin under this Government's plans on the Auckland light rail?Hon Scott Simpson: Which generation?SIMEON BROWN: Which generation?Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Transport): The Government has already put on record that we expect early works to begin in 2023.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members our time with the Minister of Transport has ended. The Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety is now available for 30 minutes to respond to members' questions.
Simpson Scott; Parker David; Salesa JennyHon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): For the full nearly five years of this Government's term there has been a commitment to standardise kerbside recycling and the Minister made a passing reference to it in his introductory comments. What time frame does he have for actually concluding that piece of work and what guarantees can he provide ratepayers that there will not be added cost in terms of a cost of living crisis to a standardised kerbside recycling programme?Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): There's a consultation document out amongst members of the community including the waste industry at the moment. I suspect that's got about another month to run and then we'll take decisions following that. As to whether this will increase costs actually I think it'll be the reverse. I think if we've got less waste getting into recycling bins that will ease the cost of recycling and improve its viability. If we've got less good stuff getting into the waste then that will actually improve the waste end of it as well.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Final question the Hon Scott Simpson.Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): In regard to the Government's plan to introduce a container recycling scheme the further consultation document is in the public arena at this stage. What are his proposed time frames for concluding that piece of work? And again what does he see as protections for not adding to the cost of living for consumers by implementing a scheme that on the face of it adds cost at point of retail? I understand obviously the return scheme does that but there are high administrative costs in a scheme that is on the face of it potentially largely administratively expensive and relatively cumbersome.Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Well there is no short-term effect on the cost of living because the container deposit scheme takes quite a while to stand up and indeed wouldn't be stood up I think until about 2025 after the next election. So it's not a present issue. In respect of net costs after people get their deposits back they're quite a bit lower than was forecast in Queensland pursuant to a report that's been done of their recently introduced scheme by their Productivity Commission.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Thank you Minister. Members our time with the Minister for the Environment and for Oceans and Fisheries has ended. The Minister of Transport is now available for 30 minutes to respond to members' questions.
Annual Review Debate — Environment and Oceans and Fisheries
Parker David; Simpson ScottTODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): Well we'll see; maybe one day. Through you Madam Chair to the Minister: do you support the continued bottom trawling of deep-water seamounts? Do the proposed changes to the Fisheries Act announced today in effect act as a disincentive on inshore trawling as the various compliance requirements will make it uneconomic for many of those vessels to continue operating? Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for Oceans and Fisheries): We have a working group being established with the industry and also NGOs to look at what we do in respect of bottom trawling in the exclusive economic zone. It's a difficult issue; we're not proposing to ban it totally but we are looking to make progress to minimise the environmental harm that it causes. Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you Madam Chair. Is it the Minister's Government's intention to introduce reformed marine protected areas legislation and if so when and in what form?Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for Oceans and Fisheries): We haven't made decisions as to date we still do intend to progress marine protected area reform. Whether that results in legislation this term is not yet clear. TODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): To the Minister can he outline his expectations on the next steps on revitalising the Hauraki Gulf? Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for Oceans and Fisheries): Implementing the Sea Change report in the manner that was announced last year.
Salesa Jenny; Parker DavidHon EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Returning to fresh water the Minister will be aware that there was a significant Environment Canterbury report on nitrate levels in groundwater going back over 30 years and 10 years. That report concluded that over the past decade nitrate levels were likely or very likely increasing in 51 percent of the wells tested and showed a decrease in only 24 percent. The report concluded if there had been widespread changes to land-use management happening around the region over the past five to 10 years that we would expect to be seeing some improvements in groundwater quality. Now the Government has amended the national environmental standards (NES) for fresh water has the Minister in preparation for the review of the NES for fresh water in 2023 asked the ministry to do any work about the effectiveness of those regulations to date and whether further changes are likely to be needed—in particular a reduction in the cap on the use of synthetic nitrogen fertiliser which is currently at 190 kilograms per hectare per year?CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Before I call the Minister a reminder that we have around about five minutes left in this session. I call on the Minister the Hon David Parker.Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Thank you Madam Chair. I mean I would say that two of the most pressing issues in Canterbury are nitrate levels in groundwater and problems which are partly nitrate-related in the Ashburton lakes area which are at risk of tipping into a state which will see them severely degraded to the extent that they're not already. The member's quite right that the national policy statement (NPS) on freshwater management includes new attributes in respect of these issues which have to be met by new water plans. I'm also aware that the NPS on drinking-water sources is of relevance which is a matter which is under the control of the Hon Kiritapu Allan.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): I call on honourable—not honourable sorry Todd Muller.
Parker DavidTODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): Fantastic. I thought we were going to prune juice for a moment. So if I may I think it's far more enjoyable Minister when it's calmer and back-and-forth like we had before. Can I return to that and ask you please when is it your intention to make public the Government's decision around the 2016 Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary Bill and is it his intention to send it back to the select committee to reflect on the various changes that no doubt he has made?Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): In the fullness of time.
Parker DavidHon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Thank you Madam Chair. Can I thank the chair of the Environment Committee the Hon Eugenie Sage for those introductory comments and the members of the committee for their examination of the Estimates.I won't cover all of the issues that have been raised but the member the Hon Eugenie Sage is correct that in terms of additional funding there is quite a lot that's come into the Ministry in respect of Resource Management Act (RMA) issues where we're proposing to repeal the RMA and put in its place the Strategic Planning Act and the Natural and Built Environments Act—the NBA. That's a big piece of work necessary because the RMA really hasn't met its purpose which was to protect the environment—but also to enable development. Neither of those outcomes have been properly achieved because the processes under it take too long and they cost too much and they actually haven't protected the environment across a number of domains including water and climate-changing emissions.In respect of waste the member herself led a lot of this work in the last Government of which she was in part as the Associate Minister for the Environment responsible for waste issues. The big changes coming through there are a container deposit scheme that we're currently consulting upon; a standardisation of kerbside collection so that we've got standardisation around the country because at the moment far too much waste ends up in recycling bins contaminating the good stuff degrading it and making it more expensive to recycle and conversely too much good stuff that is recyclable is ending up in the waste bins so that's the second main part of that strategy; and the third part is that we've had advice from the Climate Commission that in order to meet the methane reduction targets necessary to meet the targets that we've set as a Government we do need to separate food waste and have that collected separately because if you just put it into a landfill by the time a landfill is capped and methane is collected in a landfill it's already produced a lot of methane.Final point I'll make just briefly is in respect of fresh water. We're continuing on with the implementation of the reforms that we legislated for during the last term of the election. I'm happy to answer questions on that or some of the other issues that have been raised by the member.
Salesa JennyCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Good evening members. We now have the Minister for the Environment and for Oceans and Fisheries in the chair.
Annual Review Debate — Social Development and Employment ACC and Disability Issues
Pugh Maureen; Sepuloni CarmelMAUREEN PUGH (National): Thank you Mr Chair. I'd just like to turn the conversation to the disability sector please and ask the Minister: what has she done to improve the situation for access to respite care given how difficult it's been to find caregivers that are prepared to provide care for 24 hours for $80?Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Disability Issues): This is actually not something that comes under the purview of the Office for Disability Issues. It certainly is something that is the responsibility of the Minister of Health and so I wouldn't want to overstep the mark by responding to something that is in his delegation. Although I will say that respite is something that is raised often. It has also been an issue that I think has been exacerbated through COVID because of the options with regards to respite with COVID restrictions and other things in place. So as the Minister for Disability Issues I am cognisant of the issue that the member raises but I don't have responsibility or levers with regards to the actual respite system that is in place. MAUREEN PUGH (National): So the question Minister was what have you as the Minister done to provide that support. Have you in any way lobbied or approached the appropriate Minister to improve that access to respite care?Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Disability Issues): I would need to go away and check when was the last time that I'd had a meeting that specifically discussed that issue and I wouldn't want to say when that might have been because I can't remember off the top of my head but I'm happy to do that.
Upston LouiseHon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): We look forward to some answers from the Minister. I thought this was meant to be sort of a quick-fire round so I'm going to move on to another part of my questions and that is whether or not she is concerned that now one in five New Zealand children are being raised in a benefit-dependent home? And is she aware of the evidence that shows that the life outcomes of a child raised in a benefit-dependent home are worse in terms of health education as well of course as their income? And at the very same time that there are 36000 more children living in benefit-dependent homes I'm interested in her decision as to why she would pick this time to gut the Children's Commissioner?
Chhour KarenKAREN CHHOUR (ACT): Thank you Mr Chair. I would just like to point out that the $154 million I was speaking about is on page 9 of the annual review Ministry of Social Development. It states personnel costs were $154 million higher than expected due to needing more staff to support improved employment and social outcomes.""
Menéndez March RicardoRICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you. Just following on from my previous questions I just wanted confirmation that people going into jobs through the Mana in Mahi scheme are being paid a living wage and if not why not during the period we reviewed?Also following up on the benefit sanctions conversation I'm really pleased to hear that the Minister shares my concerns and that we seem to be on the same page. But considering that she agrees the sanction isn't great and that it's harming people and that during the period we reviewed over 75 percent of the people sanctioned were Māori I just wondered if she could elaborate why no work has been done to remove that specific sanction despite her party being in opposition to it since 2013 and the Welfare Expert Advisory Group being very clear that it needed to go since 2018.
Upston LouiseHon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you Mr Chair. I want to continue on with the conversation around supporting people into employment because National of course believes that employment is the best way out of poverty and we back New Zealanders to overcome the range of challenges that they face in life and the Ministry of Social Development absolutely must be there in their time of need—which is why it is distressing when people have been waiting on the phone for three hours or more and actually despite the doubling of the number of staff in the call centres the actual number of calls hasn't increased over the four-year period.So I've got a couple of other questions. How many working-age beneficiaries are being work tested? And if someone isn't looking for work are they classified as unemployed and if not why not?
Rurawhe AdrianANNUAL REVIEW DEBATEIn CommitteeDebate resumed from 12 April on the Appropriation (2020/21 Confirmation and Validation) Bill.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): We come first to the Appropriation (2020/21 Confirmation and Validation) Bill. This is the debate on the financial position of the Government and the annual review of departments Officers of Parliament Crown entities public organisations and State enterprises as reported on by select committees. There are seven hours and one minute remaining in this debate. New Zealand Labour has three hours 49 minutes remaining. New Zealand National has one hour 59 minutes remaining. The Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand has 38 minutes remaining. ACT New Zealand has 35 minutes remaining. Te Paati Māori has 10 minutes remaining. Members will recall that Standing Orders 356(2) and (3) have been set aside so there will be no sector-specific debates. All annual reviews are available for debate but only specific Ministers will be available each day to respond. The Government has indicated that the Minister for Social Development and Employment Minister for ACC and Minister for Disability Issues; the Minister for the Environment and Minister for Oceans and Fisheries; and the Minister of Transport and Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety will be available today. Each debate will be led off by the chairperson or another member of the committee that considered the annual reviews most closely related to the Ministers' portfolios.A motion to report progress on a bill must be moved on a call not a point of order—Speaker's ruling 80/1. At the conclusion of the debate questions will be put noting the committee reports on annual reviews and on provisions of the Appropriation (2020/21 Confirmation and Validation) Bill. There is no amendment or debate on these questions. I'll remind members that they are able to participate remotely. If you're on the Zoom and want to make a call please type call" in the chat. You should also use the chat if you want to raise a point of order. Finally it would be helpful for members to ask multiple questions if they have them of the available Minister during their call.Members we start with the Minister for Social Development and Employment Minister for ACC and Minister for Disability Issues who is available for one hour to respond to members' questions. When the committee was last considering the bill the question was that the report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the annual financial statements of the Government for the 2019/20 financial year be noted."
Rurawhe AdrianHOUSE IN COMMITTEECHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Members the House is in committee for further consideration of the Appropriation (2020/21 Confirmation and Validation) Bill and for consideration of the COVID-19 Response (Courts Safety) Legislation Bill.
Statement on the Long-term Fiscal Position
Motions — Poppy Day—Centenary
SpeechMOTIONSPoppy Day—CentenaryHon MEKA WHAITIRI (Minister for Veterans): Point of order Mr Speaker. I seek leave to move a motion without notice and without debate to mark the centenary of Poppy Day. SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is none. Hon MEKA WHAITIRI: I move That the House note the RSA's Poppy Appeal on Friday 22 April 100 years after the first Poppy Day was held in New Zealand thank the teams of volunteers who will line the streets in towns and cities across New Zealand collecting donations and support this year's focus on raising awareness of New Zealand's 30000 younger veterans.Motion agreed to.
SpeechPETITIONS PAPERS SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLSSPEAKER: No petitions or papers have been presented. Select committee reports have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation.CLERK: Reports of the Regulations Review Committee on:the examination of COVID-19 orders presented between 1 and 7 March 2022 and the examination of COVID-19 orders presented between 16 and 29 March 2022.SPEAKER: Those reports are set down for consideration. The Clerk has been informed of the introduction of a bill.CLERK: Fisheries Amendment Bill introduction.SPEAKER: That bill is set down for first reading.
Salesa JennyWEDNESDAY 13 APRIL 2022The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.KARAKIA/PRAYERSHon JENNY SALESA (Assistant Speaker): Ke tau lotu. 'E 'Otua Mafimafi kuo mau taa'i mālie 'i ho'o 'ofá mo e ngaahi tāpuaki hono kotoa. 'Oku tuku homau lotó ka mau hū atu ke malu'i ange mu'a 'a e Kuiní mo tataki 'emau fua fatongia 'i he Fale Aleá 'aki 'a e poto Faka-'Otua 'ofa pea mo e 'ulungaanga malū ko e 'uhí ko e mo'ui mo e melino 'a e fonuá. 'Oku mau kole atu 'a e ngaahi me'á ni hono kotoa 'i he huafa ho 'alo ka ko homau fakamo'uí 'Emeni.
Salesa JennyCHRIS BAILLIE (ACT): I rise on behalf of ACT to take a short call in support of the Protected Disclosures (Protection of Whistleblowers) Bill. It's a bill that replaces the Protected Disclosures Act 2000 which was introduced to address a number of issues that were going on at the time. It wasn't used very often back then but probably because it just wasn't user-friendly enough and we think that these issues are dealt with in this bill by its providing protection for employees and other workers who have those concerns and who report those concerns. The bill recognises and clarifies the definition of serious wrongdoing" for which the threshold is high and quite rightly so. There should be no confusion on what is serious wrongdoing and what are those issues that should be dealt with or can be dealt with through the personal grievance process. It adds specific reference to the use of public funds and the serious risk to health and safety of an individual to show that situations that were raised in the select committee such as the neglect or abuse of the vulnerable individuals in care are covered by this bill. It enables people to report serious wrongdoing directly to an authority and that authority will know what to do with those complaints. There is much more clarity as to the appropriate authorities and the ability of those authorities to decline or to refer the disclosure. It strengthens the protection for disclosers by specifying what a receiver of a disclosure should do including the requirements for protecting the identity of the discloser. It clarifies the protection as applicable of supporting disclosers and it is removing the caveat in the current Act restricting protections to those who volunteer the information. It enables disclosers to make a complaint to the Privacy Commissioner if the confidentiality requirements are breached and it really clarifies the internal procedure requirements for the public sector organisations so that they have to state they will provide support in the form of practical assistance and advice to those disclosers. Not everyone is happy and I read a report just recently about the Green Party amendment which read "when problems arise people frequently don't know who to turn to or if they do they do not trust the processes that follow. The amendment would have helped make it clear where to turn to and develop that much-needed trust." We feel that this is covered in this bill. ACT believes this bill does strike a balance that will allow disclosers the security of reporting issues and being confident that they will be dealt with appropriately and that they will be protected from any recourse. There's a review after five years which will show up any flaws or unintended consequences and that can be sorted then. So we support the bill. Thank you. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): This debate is interrupted and is set down for resumption next sitting day. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow. Pō mārie. The House adjourned at 9.56 p.m."
Protected Disclosures (Protection of Whistleblowers) Bill — Third Reading
Belich CamillaCAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you Madam Speaker. It's a pleasure to be able to speak on this the third reading of the Protected Disclosures (Protection of Whistleblowers) Bill. As we've heard from other speakers this bill is in fact a replacement of the Act that was passed in the year 2000 which coincidentally was my last year of high school. So we can all agree that many things have changed since then but the importance of investigating wrongdoing in workplaces hasn't. So that's why these types of protections that are introduced by this very good bill are so important. This is a very straightforward bill and that is one of the improvements it offers in relation to the law that's currently in place. There have been special changes made to this bill to make sure it's accessible and usable for people so that they can tell whether they're covered by other protected disclosures legislation and I would commend a close reading of this bill to the members on the other side of the House. I'm sure that once they go through it they will clearly see that the example that they were previously referring to is clearly not covered by any section of the bill—most notably the first one: clause 8. We've heard from other speakers that New Zealand is one of the least corrupt countries in the world and it's often recognised by very independent organisations like Transparency International as one of the least corrupt countries in the world but it's very important that as legislators we don't just seek to implement new ideas. It's very important that we also look to existing legislation to make sure it's achieving the aims and purposes that we seek from that particular piece of legislation. So I think the select committee process—and I was a member of the Education and Workforce Committee—was particularly important and a lot of the reflections that submitters brought up have been incorporated into this piece of legislation. I thank the select committee members my fellow people on the select committee and also all of the submitters for sharing their expertise with us. Madam Speaker this bill is important. It is an improvement on the existing Act but there is more work to do as the Minister has said and I look forward to seeing the work that comes forward. So I won't take any more of your time but I would like to commend this bill to the House.
O'Connor Greg; McClay Todd; Salesa JennyGREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): I just want to give an illustration to those at home about how this might work. Recently I helped a gang member out of a gang and this gang member told a story of taking $650000 in cash wrapped in cellophane from Wellington to Auckland. He then changed that money on behalf of the person he was prospecting for and brought an equivalent amount of dope back to Wellington. When I mention dope I'm not talking about the previous speaker of course; I'm speaking about the illicit substance methamphetamine.So the transaction cost of that was actually the petrol in the car and the cost of the car to drive to Auckland and the cost of bringing it back. Ironically that member had to borrow money to drive home because he didn't have any. But if that was a legal transaction there would have been a considerable amount of additional cost: the cost of legally sending that money to Auckland. There would have been a considerable amount of cost in that—all sorts of interchange fees coming back the distribution of the—as it was illegal—substance. If that had been a legal substance people would have gone to the dairy people would have gone to various retail outlets and each time there would have been an added cost to all of those transactions. So you can imagine how much more money would have been generated how much more money would have needed to be generated to actually allow those transactions to take place.What this bill is about is ensuring that the amount of costs in a legal transaction going through a system like that where a product a raw product through its various stages is turned into the legal product that people use—there will be a less reduced cost as a result of this bill along the way whether it be going to the local dairy to buy the product or wherever you go along the way. So this bill is a way of ensuring that there is simply less cost in the system of doing business something that on this side of the House we are very proud to be part of doing. I have no hesitation in commending this bill to the House.Hon TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua): Point of order Madam Speaker. I move a motion without debate that that member tell us some more about his gang interactions.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): That is a disorderly point of order the Hon Todd McClay. The question is that the motion be agreed to.
SpeechGLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth): Kia ora Madam Speaker. I am glad to rise and take a call talking about easing the burden and fees for merchants ensuring it goes through to customers. We've talked a lot about Andrew Bayly tonight which I'm never that comfortable about but I don't think it's passion; it's actually just shouty-shouty that seems to come this way and I actually have removed my earplugs now.But it has been interesting listening this evening—and these contradictions and this sort of to-ing and fro-ing. We heard from the Opposition they're the party of small business but they never got around to doing this when they were in Government so I'm glad that we are the party of small business who are ensuring that this does happen. This bill will help and $74 million—it is a small amount. We've never talked about it being humungous but it's those small steps that are significant and as a member of the Opposition who just sat down said every little bit counts and that's why they support this piece of legislation.I was also concerned by Damien Smith—that he talked about the breadth and scope of intrusion which I thought was a bit rough. One of the submitters—this is what they had to say in submitting to this piece of legislation. They said As a small-business owner we have for years faced price gouging from the banks over merchant service fees. The only tool at our disposal has been to on-charge these increasing fees to our customers through repricing our products or transparently surcharging." They talked about wanting to get rid of this and move it forward so it is going to get passed down to the customer and business people—small business—who we serve in part of our manifesto as Labour we said we'll do this. We are doing this and so I'm really really proud that we can move another step forward and I thank you for the support from across the floor and I just hope that we can get the ACT Party there very shortly—and I know they may."
Webb DuncanDr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you Madam Speaker. Look this is a good—very excellent—piece of legislation because merchant fees and surcharges are a classic economic problem where there is no actual distinction between the product of one bank and another. So there is actually an incentive to drive the cost of the service up across the board and no incentive to lower them. It's what is known as sticky pricing". It happens with petrol as well because we don't mind where we go to. So it encourages what looks a bit like cartel behaviour but you don't need to communicate to actually achieve what is essentially a kind of price fixing because everything is so blindingly obvious.So what we've got is essentially monopoly pricing for these banking services. It's absolutely appropriate for the Commerce Commission to come in and I'm surprised at the ACT Party because I'd have thought that they would want to have competitive and not monopoly pricing so that the industry is efficient and innovative. That's what this bill is aimed at—an efficient and innovative and effective banking service—and that's what this bill will deliver. I absolutely endorse it and commend it to the House.DAMIEN SMITH (ACT): Point of order Madam Speaker. It is the Labour Party that has brought up the issue of price fixing and cartel behaviour—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): The member will take his seat.DAMIEN SMITH: No no it's a very important construct because there's nobody on this side of the House who has said that.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Yes the member has had a chance to give his speech. I call on Glen Bennett."
Leary Ingrid; Salesa JennyINGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): I'm not sure if I'm speaking on the same piece of legislation as that member because this bill is all about competition and it's about levelling the playing field and making sure that consumers and small businesses are able to be competitive in an environment where there are some really big international global players such as Mastercard Visa and so on. As we've heard tonight the changes in this bill will save small businesses—and ultimately consumers—$74 million. It's another piece of legislation brought to this House by my friend and colleague Dr David Clark which is all about making sure that more money stays in the pockets of New Zealanders by supporting the small businesses who run our country. We know that New Zealand is made up mainly of small business. This is a great piece of legislation. What it does is it enables the Commerce Commission to recommend changes to retail payments including transaction fees. Rather than wait for a comprehensive review of the retail payment systems the Minister in his wisdom has said Let's look at Visa. Let's look at Mastercard. We know that these are the two dominant players in this market. Let's get money into New Zealanders' pockets now. We can look at the price signals that come from that. We can look at whether they try to do anything underhand to avoid competition and we can adjust our response to that based on what we do with these two players."It's fantastic to see a nimble piece of legislation like this that puts consumers first that makes sure that we have an environment going into our COVID recovery that really builds on the small businesses that need support that makes sure that they can do business and that gets money into New Zealanders' pockets. It's a great piece of legislation. I commend it to the House.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): The next call is a split call. I call Melissa Lee for 5 minutes."
Menéndez March RicardoRICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Green Party to speak on the Retail Payment System Bill's second reading partly supporting this common-sense bill. Making the reflections after my colleague on the left Naisi Chen who spoke about coming to New Zealand and realising I guess the differences in the payment methods that we experience here. One of the reflections when I came to Aotearoa almost 16 years ago was the technologies that we used—and I grew up in a very cash-based society and realised that New Zealand was one of the guinea pigs where EFTPOS as a technology was being used. But I didn't realise until quite later in life just how regressive some of these fees incurred to low-income people were when contactless systems came about.I think COVID-19 has pushed us to be a more contactless society for public health reasons; it also showed us that these regressive fees needed to be addressed. So it's really nice to see that after an extensive select committee report we're going to continue seeing this bill addressing things like a limit on fees for payment services requirements for participants to disclose information relating to the network or payment services and more. I'm really glad that the select committee report was quite clear on just how regressive these fees are particularly on how small businesses are impacted.While $70 million or so in savings in the scheme of the broader economy isn't massive in the context of who are the groups that are going to be impacted—which again are those that have been struggling the most during the pandemic—I do think it is meaningful and as legislators we should always be striving to ensure that these interventions in the economy are as progressive as possible. I'd wish to end on a note on something that the select committee touched on about the way in which these higher fees are passed on to consumers by small businesses often engaging in reward programmes. And it really struck me to see the very clear reflection of just how we've been caught in a perverse system where effectively low-income people who cannot necessarily make multiple purchases in a business or participate in a reward system end up subsidising these high costs for high-income earners who can participate in reward programmes. And I think reward programmes are a really good indication of costs being passed on to consumers that ideally should be regulated and so I'm really glad to see this bill continuing to progress and we look forward to supporting it to the further stages so that this change sees much-needed money into the hands of some low-income people and small businesses. Kia ora.
SpeechNAISI CHEN (Labour): Thank you Madam Speaker. I rise in this House incredibly proud knowing that after we pass this bill $74 million will be saved for New Zealand businesses—$74 million a much-needed saving right now in this climate. When I was preparing for this bill today I thought about telling you guys about my history with contactless payment and then I realised I probably would start the speech sounding like the confessions of a shopaholic. I won't. I'll briefly just tell people that in 2012 I remember that in the summer holidays of uni I was in Sydney. That was probably the summer that contactless payment—Visa and Mastercard payWave—was introduced into the New Zealand economy. I still remember very vividly that I was in Australia. Over probably the course of that one summer the whole entire Australian economy had almost entirely shifted to contactless. They were going through the queues faster they were going through the shops needing less assistance and everything was being done at a much faster pace. Then I came back to New Zealand and I realised even though the technology was here in New Zealand many of our shops still did not offer contactless payment payWave. I found that incredibly strange until I realised that we were paying so much more—our New Zealand businesses are paying so much more—than our Australian counterparts. I thought that something needed to be done and so I'm glad that on our campaign trail last election our Government had announced that if we were re-elected we would be reducing the merchant fees for our small businesses. We are now one step closer tonight to achieving that promise.This is infrastructure building. This is making sure that we have the right cogs in our wheel. If you look at the economy as a machine this is the right oil in our machine—that's what payment systems are—and the right cogs to help our economy turn. This is the stuff that we're doing—the real foundations of our economy—to make sure that we've got a good retail system and that we support businesses. On that note I commend this bill to the House.
SpeechJAMIE STRANGE (Labour—Hamilton East): Thank you Mr Speaker. What an exciting night we're having in the House tonight and what a bombshell that was dropped by the previous speaker Andrew Bayly where he said that the National Party will remove the increased sick leave and holiday pay that's come in recently. Well there we go. I look forward to seeing that in the National Party election manifesto next year. We also heard something else from the previous speaker. The previous speaker said the Retail Payment System Bill is an insignificant bill"—$74 million per year is not insignificant. That's going to make a significant increase to small businesses in New Zealand. I'm thinking of a small business literally down the end of my street a small dairy. I went in there recently and I spoke to the dairy owners and I explained this bill to them and they were incredibly excited. And I said "Will this make a difference?" And they said "This will make a big difference for our small business." And there's a number of small businesses in that same space. I'm just going to take a short call tonight—the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs clearly outlined what's been happening through the process and you know shepherding this bill through. And on behalf of the Economic Development Science and Innovation Committee I would like to thank all of those who made submissions on this bill I'd like to thank the select committee members for their work and I'd like to briefly highlight a submission from the Restaurant Association of New Zealand who said "Ultimately the Association believes that regulating merchant fees will go some way in supporting the revitalisation of small businesses particularly those in the hospitality sector"—we know the hospitality sector have been hit hard through COVID. And the Restaurant Association said that this bill will provide important support for "those in the hospitality sector who have faced exorbitant merchant fees for far too long." This is an excellent piece of legislation supporting New Zealand's small businesses—I commend it to the House."
Halbert ShananSHANAN HALBERT (Labour—Northcote): Tēnā koe Mr Speaker. I'm privileged to be able to speak and take the last call on this particular piece of legislation. But I would think that the last speaker Joseph Mooney my very good friend and colleague across the way—we work and appreciate a lot of things together—but my friend on this one isn't quite correct. What he says is that this isn't needed any more. On my last check in the last 48 hours 11000 cases of COVID-19 have been reported to the Ministry of Health. We currently have 68000 active cases of COVID-19 in our country. This pandemic is not over and while I appreciate we all feel that we would like to move on and for things to go back to normal our reality is somewhat different.So this piece of legislation does ensure that we are able to continue to operate to provide the access that we need to and it's this very sensible piece of legislation.But I also want to acknowledge our chair Ginny Andersen for the work that she does in the Justice Committee and our mana wahine on this side of the House in Labour who staunchly represent wonderful pieces of legislation like this one. So can I thank you Mr Speaker and I commend this bill to the House.
Prime Willow-JeanWILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour—Northland): E te Māngai o te Whare tēnā koe. If I can perhaps start my contribution by assisting the member on the other side Simon O'Connor I think he was going to say kanohi ki te kanohi". I might just pick up on that point of as the pandemic moves on the key point that the Minister made is that the pandemic is not over. And in fact this legislation will empower the courts to be able to design and to implement the appropriate measures to ensure ongoing health and safety in our courts. If we are to engage kanohi ki te kanohi the Minister said the requirements could encompass testing and masking for example.So while there has been a lot of emphasis on the use of audiovisual links courts do continue to meet kanohi ki te kanohi. And through this legislation the courts will be able to put in place safety measures as the pandemic continues to evolve. I know that there has been mention of courts in the Far North in the debate this evening—and as many of you will probably be aware unfortunately in Northland we do have some of the lowest vaccination rates in the country; we have not passed our peak yet. So I am 100 percent supportive of the legislation as it is proposed tonight to be able to give the courts the ongoing ability to implement measures which are going to ensure maximum health and safety for all of those participants within the process.So with that I do not want to prolong this speech. I commend the bill to the House."
White HelenHELEN WHITE (Labour): I'm pleased to rise in support of the COVID-19 Response (Courts Safety) Legislation Bill. I just want to clear up a little bit of a misuse of the word urgency". I understand that to be something very specific here and this is not an urgent—it's not actually being made under urgency. It's an expedited bill and it's a very simple bill but it's not a bill that is being called under urgency and it may confuse people.I also just want to talk about the issue that my colleague Emily Henderson talked about the comity of the courts and the separation of powers. This is something where there is an inherent judicial discretion and it's been used very effectively. People have used all sorts of tools to make our courts work in a really difficult time where things have very very much changed but actually they have asked for back up from this legislature and I think we need to give that to the people who actually are working in our courts. I accept that a lot of those people are vulnerable. They are there because they are essential workers. There are people there because they're compelled. There are victims. There are defendants. There are all sorts of people that need a deft approach and this has happened here. So I look through this and I see a really clear balance. Things like the requirements must be consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. These are important and sensible amendments and they're important balances in our system. I commend this bill to the House."