edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Davidson MaramaHon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green): As my first call with Mr Chair in the Chair and in the seat I do want to congratulate the wisdom of this choice in having Mr—Hon Kieran McAnulty: What a greaser!Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON: I am happy to spend some of my precious time to acknowledge some history. Thank you Mr Chair.I would like to ask of the Minister and what I want the Minister to come back with is mitigating the disproportionate impact of stagnant lower wages for youth—so rangatahi is a focus that I'm wanting to pick up on—without fair pay agreements. I have noticed throughout the discussion in the House from the Minister she constantly uses the word believe"—"We believe that this will be the case" "We are doing this legislation because we believe it will be better". Believing and having actual grounded evidence are two different things. So in light of the fact that it has long been recognised—and Mr Chair I am trying my hardest to respect the bounds of the Part 1 legislation that we are on right now. I will take guidelines from you to keep me on that. But in Part 1 "Consequential amendments to Acts" I think this is called—OK. "Replace section 132(2) with:" what this legislation is proposing and again in "Replace section 224(1)(a) with:"—there is a different proposal. What those two particular repeals and replacements highlight is a returning of the onus to the worker. Now fair pay agreements and especially on rangatahi—how confident or how strong is your belief that rangatahi young people in an employment situation are going to feel supported in an imbalanced power situation to raise any issues? This one particularly relates to the claims regarding "wages actually paid to the employee" and "hours days and time" and also leaving it up to rangatahi to make a complaint to a labour inspector.So I would love the Minister please to give something beyond her belief and actually provide evidence provide statements and provide a fulsome analysis that shows that rangatahi who are going to be severely disproportionately impacted by the lack of fair pay agreements are going to be able to have the onus that is going to be placed back on their individual shoulders. See the purpose of fair pay agreements was collective bargaining. It was to be able to try and correct some of the power imbalance that is especially felt by young people and I'm not even going to go into the level of exploitation that young people including young women—young women who I have had come to me about the way that they have been treated and the way that they have been exploited including in sexual harassment situations. We know this is true; we know this happens. So please would the Minister go beyond her belief and instead put up some analysis some evidence and some hard-line research that talks about the ability of keeping the onus on young people's shoulders to raise these inequities and these injustices to their employer with power."
Ngarewa-Packer DebbieDEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori): Look I want to be able to advance some of the discussions because we're quite an advanced-thinking party. In Part 2 and I'm talking to my Amendment Paper we see that the Ministry of Businesses Innovation and Employment has identified the implications of the repeal of the fair pay agreement legislation on Māori. And obviously to be supportive to the Minister in making sure how else for example the Government would be consistent with Treaty of Waitangi obligations my amendment is ensuring that we identify those who are disproportionately affected—and remember that there has been no consultation with iwi Māori no representation groups. We've had advocacy after advocacy from those who have said that this is not supported by us. We have not had enough time. The New Zealand Council of Trade Unions Rūnanga also have supported and stated that they are really concerned for Māori and particularly how they're going to be affected by a lack of standards and that they would benefit from a system that we have seen here in fair pay agreements.So my amendment is again a solution to a problem that is before us. It is looking to ensure that you are considering an opportunity to continue the Act in areas where Māori workers will be disproportionately affected. And this amendment would provide an exemption for Māori workers who will be harmed by the repeal of the fair pay agreements.For the Government whose Prime Minister has assured us that he's got the best interests of Māori at heart this would be one way of considering again how we could be making amendments to pull off I guess what has been really forced on us in a concerning urgent way.The question I would have is: why wouldn't you support my Amendment Paper? Kia ora.
van Velden BrookeHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Thank you Mr Chair. I'd like to take the chance to answer a few questions that have come already. Firstly from Helen White—and apologies because I'll paraphrase in the interest of time—talking about why would we not allow initiated fair pay agreements to conclude. And the reason behind that is because we are committed as a Government to repealing the Fair Pay Agreement Act which means that we're committed to repealing the bargaining process that allows for the fair pay agreements. So that is why we are repealing the Act in totality: because we're repealing the bargaining process that sits behind the Act. When we look at the question from the member Camilla Belich about why there are no transitional clauses in the bill: this is because for the bargaining of all the initiated fair pay agreements they are in very early stages which means that there will be no fair pay agreements that have been finalised before the legislation is repealed.Talking also to Camilla's other question about the legislation—CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Camilla Belich.Hon BROOKE van VELDEN: —Camilla Belich; my apologies—there are rights that could be exercised under the legislation following a repeal. That is because the effect of the legislation of 2019 is that a party can pursue a right or action in relation to something that occurred while the Act was in force. That is under the legislation.Talking to the member Ricardo Menéndez March's question about why we would not allow those that have already been initiated as fair pay agreements to continue through the process: well the answer is quite simple. It's because we want a flexible labour market where employers and employees can agree to terms that suit their own unique situations. We don't believe in having a blunt tool like a fair pay agreement which affects all employers and employees within an occupation or an industry which is why that goes right to the heart of why we're repealing this Act and the bargaining process underneath it. Speaking to the member Helen White's latest question on productivity: that question is surely directed to the Minister for Regulation. I'm sure you can have many many in-depth conversations with Minister Seymour about how we will improve productivity in New Zealand by removing unnecessary red tape and regulation which is holding back our economy and holding us back against other countries around the world. But that's not within this bill; this is quite a specific bill about how we will be repealing the bargaining process sitting behind the fair pay agreements.
Menéndez March RicardoRICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you Mr Chair. Following on that line of questioning and in the Minister's previous comments in relationship to the aim of the repeal—Camila Belich: Point of order Mr Chairperson. I understand that it's important in the committee stage to always have a Minister in the chair. Hon Brooke van Velden: I am. CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): She's in the chair. Camila Belich: Sorry you weren't when I raised the point of order. Hon Brooke van Velden: I was talking to my advisers.Camila Belich: Point of order Mr Chairperson. I understand that that's not permitted. That's my understanding. CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): OK that's understood now. Ricardo Menéndez March.RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: Thank you Mr Chair and congratulations on your ascension to your new role. This is the first time I get to speak actually while you're in the Chair. So following on the previous line of questioning from the Labour Party member Camilla Belich around the lack of transitional savings for related provisions in this Act as enacted it's worth contextualising that a few sectors have initiated the process to get to a fair pay agreement and one of the things that we wanted to speak of is the Amendment Paper under my name to carve out those sectors that have already started that process of initiating a fair pay agreement.If the Minister is so confident around fair pay agreements having a negative effect on our economy would it not actually make the case to test out those fair paying sectors which actually have initiated the process to see the impacts of those considering the likes of proper consultation and evidence-gathering when it comes to the repeal and also putting into context that international evidence we do have that does show that there have been benefits overseas? Would it not be worth letting those sectors continue with that process and to treat it as some form of trial—to then actually have evidence available domestically on those impacts? Because otherwise what we have is a vibe-based policy where there hasn't been domestic evidence on the impact of those sector-based agreements. So yeah I was just wanting to get some clarity of why we're not just allowing those sectors to continue with that process.
Belich CamillaCAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you Mr Chair. It's a pleasure to take a call in this committee stage of the Fair Pay Agreements Act Repeal Bill. I say a pleasure"—it's always a pleasure and honour to speak in this House—but obviously there are a lot of issues in this bill that we disagree with on this side of the House. I have looked at the bill and even though it is a short bill I consider that there is quite a bit that we would want to raise. So in this debate on Part 1 I'd like to ask the Minister why there are no transitional savings and related provisions in this bill. That's the first question I'd like to ask her.The second question I'd like to ask her is whether she has considered the departmental disclosure statement which was released recently in relation to the publication of the bill and which discusses on page 7 that "The Bill repeals the Fair Pay Agreements system which provided the Employment Relations Authority and Employment Court with jurisdiction in relation to obligations and rights under the Fair Pay Agreements Act" but then makes what I consider to be quite an interesting point in relation to the Legislation Act 2021 "where if an existing right or legal position exists before the FPA Act is repealed a party can still exercise their legal rights as though the FPA Act had not been repealed." Does that in fact in the Minister's view mean that any right that exists in an initiated fair pay agreement could continue under the Act even though this repeal bill is passed?"
Tuiono TeanauFAIR PAY AGREEMENTS ACT REPEAL BILLIn CommitteePart 1 Preliminary provisionsCHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Members the House is in committee on the Fair Pay Agreements Act Repeal Bill. I would start by reminding members that the wording of the closure motion has changed in this Parliament. The new wording is That debate on this question now close." and I refer members to Standing Order 137(1). We start this debate with Part 1. The question is that Part 1 stand part."
Brewer CameronCAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour): I rise in support of the repeal of the fair pay agreements. This legislation will hit small businesses after three years of agony and angst. This bill is what is driving us; this bill is about reducing the costs on business—small businesses. The Opposition says it's all about the rich and powerful. Well can I remind them that 97 percent of businesses in New Zealand are small businesses—those that employ fewer than 20 people. There are 546000 of them. This is a key part of our 100-day action plan. And if they'd gone campaigning in small town New Zealand or in and around small businesses they would be feeling that in the last three years small businesses have been living off dignity doggedness.Hon Phil Twyford: Your constituents will suffer because of this bill.CAMERON BREWER: Oh look at this. These are the very people—the people that they purport to represent are the ones that they've hurt the most in the last six years and now they're trying to retrospectively fix it. They have got survivor's guilt; they kept their jobs and their voters haven't and so they're now coming back in Opposition and trying to do everything that they didn't. But it's too late—it's too late. We are the party of small businesses we are former small-business owners and after six years of destruction we're going to get this country back to where it is. It's a country of small business—that's who we're backing. I commend this bill to the House.
McCallum GrantGRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland): Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker O'Connor. I'll just take this opportunity to commend you and congratulate you on retaining your role—your new role. It's interesting listening to the other side of the House. There seems to be this grand assumption that all employers are bad. It's really really frustrating. As an employer myself from the Northland electorate where I've employed people for many many years guess what—guess what! My manager has been with me for 16 years. Do you think he'd be hanging around if I didn't do a good job and he wasn't on a fair pay arrangement—and he damn well is. He didn't need to be part of a union to achieve it at all and my other workers including a number of Māori who have worked for me still to this day also keep in touch. Believe me I support this bill and I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.
Bates CarlCARL BATES (National—Whanganui): Thank you Madam Speaker and congratulations on your new role. There's a lot of talk in this House this afternoon about Christmas and maybe so given the Christmas parades I've been at recently in Hāwera in Pātea and in Whanganui. But it's a falsehood that there's a massive present being taken away. Indeed we are giving the present of confidence this Christmas—a confidence in a new 2024. Confidence that there will be a job for that young person wanting someone to take a risk on them and confidence to the employer to take that risk. Confidence to the food market owner in Whanganui who said she would have to close if fair pay agreements went through. And with that closure the jobs would go with it. To give confidence to employers deciding if they want and will take another risk and to the young person looking for someone to take a risk on them I commend this bill to the House.
Patterson Mark; Kuriger BarbaraHon MARK PATTERSON (Minister for Rural Communities): Thank you Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to continue to support this Fair Pay Agreements Act Repeal Bill.All I'm hearing from the other side of the House is catastrophising. I mean this bill hasn't even kicked in yet this mechanism. It's not as though we're tearing up a workers' utopia. This is a bill that hasn't even taken effect yet. So we're just getting rid of it before it takes effect and cripples the flexibility in our labour market. And I will not be lectured or New Zealand First will not be lectured by the Labour Party. We have a track record in three consecutive coalitions that we've been involved in; having a rise to the minimum wage has been part of that. Extraordinarily in 2017 we had to bring them kicking and screaming to the table to do that.Camilla Belich actually made the actually obvious point that union members probably wouldn't be affected by this because they collectively bargain anyway. So where is the problem? If that is what people want to do they have a solution there already. And of course we totally respect—as I said earlier—that people that risk their own capital to provide jobs and to grow the economy need the flexibility to be able to do that. Last time we were in Government with Labour and they tried to bring this forward our real concern about this and why we did pull the handbrake on this was particularly around the regional employers. There's different cost structures in different regions of New Zealand. It's a different cost of living in Auckland than it might be in Balclutha. So the complexity of bringing these things together is a lot more challenging than the members opposite would make out. But it is typical of them and their one-size-fits-all approach to almost everything.New Zealand First will support this bill in the second reading. Thank you.DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is a split call. I call the Hon Marama Davidson—five minutes thank you.
Nimon KatieKATIE NIMON (National—Napier): I'm offended that the Hon Willie Jackson and members opposite suggest that we don't care about bus drivers. Unlike members opposite who operate in theories and ideals I have successfully employed and retained over 100 staff many of whom were bus drivers. My husband has been a bus driver. My father has been a bus driver. My grandfather has been a bus driver. Many of my family and friends are bus drivers and to intimate that we in the National Party do not care about bus drivers is incorrect.In fact like my friend James Meager—DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order! Just a moment—interjections are fine but there's too much shouting.KATIE NIMON: —said the members opposite do not own workers and for that matter neither do their unions. Staff across the country are worried about division that the fair pay agreement (FPA) will bring. There is no question. As I mentioned earlier I have successfully employed and retained hundreds of employees none of which was done through an FPA. So in the second reading of this bill I commend it to the House.
Butterick MikeMIKE BUTTERICK (National—Wairarapa): Thank you Mr Speaker. I'm particularly pleased that my first opportunity to speak in this Chamber is in support of the removal of regulations that will hinder the community that I represent; that's the Wairarapa electorate. Businesses across the districts of Central Hawke's Bay Tararua Masterton Carterton and South Wairarapa are struggling under the weight of legislation that the last Government introduced. My electorate is driven by farming and multiple small and medium family-owned businesses that are often operating on very small margins. They're much more vulnerable to ill-thought-through legislation than larger businesses. Small businesses in our electorate are embedded in their local communities employing local people supporting local. The cost of living crisis is driving them into the ground. When they suffer the wider community suffers. I urge all members of this House to support the repeal of the Fair Pay Agreements Act.
McCallum GrantGRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland): Madam Speaker I'd just like to first of all start off by congratulating you on taking your role. It's great to see someone from the rural sector in such a fine position. Thank you.The reason this Act needs to be repealed is very simple—the fair pay agreements—all it does is take us back. I've sat in this House for the last few days and all I've heard is about going back. Well if anything's going to take us back to the 1970s and 1980s it's this Act because all it's going to do—the long game here is very simple. It's to create a situation whereby we end up with nationwide strikes and very little productivity because nothing gets done. And those of us who lived through those times remember the damage that did to our businesses particularly the farming businesses and the freezing works you talked of because ultimately they couldn't produce because no one was at work. So I would commend this bill to the House. Thank you.
Bates CarlCARL BATES (National—Whanganui): Thank you Madam Speaker. This bill is of particular interest to me given my actual experience in supporting employers to grow and employ more people throughout my career. During the campaign I spoke to many concerned employers and employees about the impact of fair pay agreements (FPAs) on business sustainability and employee opportunities. FPAs are a blunt tool initiated by unions and a small number of employees yet they apply to every employee and employer in an industry or occupation regardless of whether or not they want it or want to be included. Businesses need flexibility to innovate and FPAs restrict the flexibility both employers and employees want. As part of this Government's 100-day plan to get New Zealand back on track I commend this bill to the House.
Patterson MarkHon MARK PATTERSON (Minister for Rural Communities): Thank you Madam Speaker. Congratulations on your appointment to the Chair too—my first chance to have a contribution under your stewardship.New Zealand First rises to support the Fair Pay Agreements Act Repeal Bill. New Zealand First has always taken a very balanced view on employment relations. In the last two coalition agreements that we've been part of forming increases to the minimum wage have always been a feature that we have stuck out for. We do recognise the work especially of those blue-collar workers that do the hard yards and they deserve to have a fair minimum wage.But the issue around that balance is that you have to have someone that's prepared to employ you. You have to have someone that's prepared to risk their capital risk their house risk their livelihoods and put it all on the line to take someone on and have that responsibility of providing a living for someone else. We think this is quite a nuanced debate; this is kind of a circular argument. We actually will only drive wages if we can build our economy. The reason why we're slipping so far behind Australia is because of our productivity—because we have wrapped ourselves in red tape and will not allow ourselves access to our natural resources in many cases. So that is the bigger question at play here but we will support this bill through the first reading. Thank you Madam Speaker.
Nimon KatieKATIE NIMON (National—Napier): I am pleased to be speaking on the Fair Pay Agreements Act Repeal Bill. I'd first like to take the opportunity to congratulate the Minister the Hon Nicola Willis on her appointment to her role as Minister. I'm proud to be a member of the National Party and this coalition which is acting at great pace to repeal many expensive and complex Acts that we have not seen make a great deal of difference and that would go on to overcomplicate relationships between employers and employees.Members opposite are forgetting that we represent the majority and we also speak to our constituents. I speak to our constituents all the time many and most of whom are workers and I can tell you whether it's hospitality workers or bus drivers they are not looking forward to losing the relationship they have with their employer and having that taken away and put into the arms of a union.We need to repeal this Act so that we can leave flexibility with the employer and the employee and give them greater control over the relationship they have. I can tell you that staff are very worried about this and I look very much forward to supporting this through. I say on our behalf that we commend this bill to the House.
Mooney JosephJOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you very much Madam Speaker. It's a pleasure to rise and speak in the very final speech on this bill before it will pass into law. I could take a lot of time to speak on this but I won't. I've had a chance to speak yesterday on it in some detail. But I'm just going to make a very brief riposte to what we just heard. This bill is actually about fixing the economy which is what we went into the election on and what people voted for the coalition Government to do. This is about helping all New Zealanders particularly poor New Zealanders who inflation hits the hardest and it's the thief in the pocket. We're here to fix that to make sure we can look after New Zealanders. That's what this bill is about. I'm proud to be a part of a Government that is going to deliver on its election promises and fix this economy for all New Zealanders. I commend this bill to the House.
Nimon KatieKATIE NIMON (National—Napier): I am pleased to be speaking again on the third reading of this bill. I could speak at length about the benefits of this bill but I'm not going to. The affirmative points have been plentiful and all I need to say is that I commend this bill to the House.
MacLeod DavidDAVID MacLEOD (National—New Plymouth): Thank you Madam Speaker. To allow the Reserve Bank of New Zealand to fully focus on achieving and maintaining price stability in our economy this bill removes the maximum sustainable employment objectives. This move was strongly campaigned on during our most recent general election and because we sit on this side of the House one could say that the majority of those who voted agreed with the move.This bill is the first order of business for this National-led coalition Government and demonstrates the importance and priority we place on getting our economy under control. This bill provides the much-needed relief to all from the cost of living pressures each and every one of us are exposed to—and when I say each and every one of us I mean just that. I don't buy into the rhetoric that exudes out of the Opposition members conveying that this bill will result in worse outcomes for Māori and Pasifika communities. I don't see it as a cause of mass unemployment like they say. In fact I strongly believe that this bill will deliver exactly the opposite.Businesses have struggled right throughout this high inflation era with numerous having to cut jobs or even worse close down completely all due to the challenging economic climate that has existed over at least the last few years. No one wants to see this outcome especially when these unemployed people still have to pay their bills. Abating the escalation of food prices petrol prices insurance costs rates rents or even the very heavy burden of increasing interest rates for home mortgages is so critical in easing the challenges for hard-working Kiwis right across the whole of our country.Persistently high inflation is the tyranny of any country. We must do all we can to get inflation under control. It makes absolute sense for the Reserve Bank to have one focus and one focus only. By returning to a single objective the task of the monetary policy committee is clearer it is simpler and therefore more likely to be met. Having a single mandate also allows it to be more easily determined when the monetary policy committee has or indeed has not fulfilled its primary function. Let's get it so that the Reserve Bank of New Zealand has a singular clarity of purpose—a purpose that will ultimately deliver far better outcomes than what we're currently experiencing a purpose that will drive a strong economy a purpose that will ease the cost of living and a purpose that will deliver the future we all aspire to.I stand and speak to this item with hope enthusiasm and optimism and it gives me great pleasure to commend this bill to the House.
Wedd CatherineCATHERINE WEDD (National—Tukituki): I support the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Economic Objective) Amendment Bill because it is time to bring back aspiration bring back confidence and bring back economic stability. It's time to strengthen our economy and reduce the cost of living and it's time to get on top of inflation.This bill is the first step towards reducing the cost of living crisis for hard-working New Zealanders. On this side of the House we care about the fact that people are struggling we care that businesses are struggling and we care about our damaged economy. Because we care and because we want to support hard-working New Zealanders to get ahead we are going to repair this economy. Let's give some optimism to businesses. Let's put some confidence back in our primary sector with our farmers and our growers so we can create employment and opportunity so we can bring down inflation so we can provide relief for many families out there struggling who are wondering how they're going to pay their grocery bill their rent their mortgage their petrol for the week.This struggle is real and this Government is getting real by focusing the Reserve Bank solely on controlling inflation. Our economy is driven by agriculture but our farmers are dealing with the highest inflation in 40 years. Our food producers and exporters are facing tough times. They aren't growing and creating the jobs that we so desperately need. Without aspiration without confidence and without the wheels moving in our economy we are letting down the people of our country. This bill is a move to a better future for many Kiwis who are doing it tough. This bill is a solid start to tackling inflation and reducing the cost of living for everyday Kiwis and businesses. I commend this bill to the House.
Bishop ChrisQuestion No. 11 to MinisterHon CHRIS BISHOP (Leader of the House): Thank you Mr Speaker. Just before we move on I wanted to ask you sir to just reflect on question No. 11 and the primary wording of that. If it is now the practice that Ministers can be asked to stand by statements made by spokespeople in Opposition or in other roles that will significantly widen the potential ambit of questions to Ministers. That would be quite a change to the way question time has worked. So we let question No. 11 go and you know it was fine. It is what it is. But I think it would be helpful if you would maybe reflect on that and provide some clarity for the whole House.SPEAKER: I think I should also be absolutely certain that any adjustments that are made to questions are reflected in the sheet. The words stand by the statement" could well have been "agree with" in which case it would have brought it totally in order."
Points of Order — Question No. 11 to Minister 12 December
McAnulty Kieran; Seymour DavidPOINTS OF ORDERQuestion No. 11 to Minister 12 DecemberHon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Point of order. Thank you Mr Speaker. Yesterday at question time in response to a question from the Hon Willow-Jean Prime the Minister for Children provided an answer where she stated that it was in the negative. Now subsequently she's come to correct that which is great. But in a series of points of order after that answer was given the Hon David Seymour stated that the answer that was provided was in the positive. So it's the view of the Labour Party that if the Minister has subsequently come down to correct her answer perhaps Mr Seymour should also be asked to correct his statement given he was speaking on behalf of the Minister's response. SPEAKER: Does Mr Seymour have any response to that? Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Minister for Regulation): My statement was based on the facts as I believed them at the time. It's clear from the Hansard record that those facts have changed and people might imagine that I've changed my view too and it doesn't in any way invalidate the record of what I said at that time. SPEAKER: Well I think he could do a little better than that because if the Minister has made a correction perhaps it would be a good idea to indicate to the House that you accept the correction.Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: It would be extraordinary if I didn't. I'm obliged to take all members at their word and I certainly take the honourable Minister at her word in issuing the correction.SPEAKER: Thank you.
Brownlee GerryPETITIONS PAPERS SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLSSPEAKER: I present the report of the Controller and Auditor-General entitled Making infrastructure investment decisions quickly. That paper is published under the authority of the House.
Speaker's Statement — Simultaneous Interpretation of te reo Māori in the Chamber
Brownlee GerrySPEAKER'S STATEMENTSTe Reo Māori—Simultaneous Interpretation in the ChamberSPEAKER: Members the House is resumed. The Business Committee yesterday essentially convened for a discussion on the use of te reo Māori in the House during oral questions. I want to reiterate the right of every member to use any official language of New Zealand in the House. To ensure that members do hear the interpretation of anybody's contribution it was agreed at the Business Committee yesterday that the interpreters will take around about 15 to 20 seconds' pause while they begin that particular translation. I think this will assist members in using the earpieces that are currently provided. There's also some investigation going on into the quality of the earpieces we've got. Quite clearly moving forward we're going to need better—I see all the heads nodding; that's great. It's like being back in the classroom—it's fantastic. Quite clearly we're going to need to have a better audio system available to members.
Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Economic Objective) Amendment Bill — Third Reading
Patterson MarkHon MARK PATTERSON (Minister for Rural Communities): New Zealand First rises to support this bill in its third reading probably in fewer words than the previous speaker but we do endorse Mr Seymour's comments.We have recently had an election. The wheels were falling off everywhere in New Zealand but essentially the biggest issue was the cost of living. We as a coalition Government if we have one job it is to get on top of inflation. Kiwis have found this in their back pocket: it's their groceries it's their rent it's their rates—it is all pervasive. Inflation has impacted everyone at an individual level to businesses in employment the ability to pass on wages etc. This is foundational in terms of engineering our recovery out of the dire situation we found it in.The Reserve Bank of New Zealand (RBNZ) in this is being sent a very clear signal that we want inflation under control. The RBNZ also sent the Government a clear message recently—in fact Governor Orr telling the Labour Government that monetary policy needs mates". So it's not only about this; it's about making sure our fiscal policy is matching and that we're not pouring petrol on the fire. We're very confident that Minister Willis will take heed of that advice and that she will get her arms around this problem.The target is unambiguous it is clear it is direct and we are confident that the RBNZ will pick up on that and act. It's also a signal to the markets it's a signal to businesses and it's a signal to the public that we mean business. We will banish inflation and we believe in New Zealand First that this is a foundational step. We support the Minister of Finance in bringing this forward so we'll support this bill to the House."
Campbell HamishHAMISH CAMPBELL (National—Ilam): I move That debate on this question now close.
MacLeod David; O'Connor GregDAVID MacLEOD (National—New Plymouth): I move That debate on this question now close.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Just a couple of things. Decisions around closure motions have been around two things. One is getting the wording exactly right to the closure motion. The other is the Minister's participation. The other is of course the relevance and repetition. So all three are probably failing at the moment so I'll go to the Hon Grant Robertson.
Penk ChrisHon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction): I move That debate on this question now close.
Willis NicolaHon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): To save members their time we will not be changing the commencement date. This is a Government that is getting on with it. After six years of dithering delay working groups task forces hot air talk good intentions and no delivery New Zealanders have elected a Government with a mandate to get the cost of living under control to put price stability back as the core objective for the Reserve Bank. This bill does it and we're getting on with it.
Wedd Catherine; Williams Arena; O'Connor GregCATHERINE WEDD (National—Tukituki): I move That debate on this question now close.ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Point of order Mr Chair. Thank you Mr Chair. We've come to some trouble Mr Chair. I'll take you to Standing Order 137(1) which is the closure motion clause. I'll just read it for your benefit—CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): I think you've been very quick off the mark Ms Williams. Just please allow the Chair to ensure—at this stage look the debate has been going for an hour and a half on this part. I will remind those seeking closure motions that the wording must be correct so I'll invite them to ensure that the correct wording is used. So to that extent was that a call? Arena Williams.
Willis Nicola; O'Connor GregHon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): It would not be appropriate to add a new economic objective in the remit. This is not secondary legislation. Legislation is the proper place to set out the objectives which this bill does. There was one objective: price stability.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Katie Nimon.Catherine Wedd: Catherine Wedd.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Sorry have I got the wrong one?Catherine Wedd: Yes! Ha ha!CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Could you just identify—I will struggle like the Speaker himself at this stage. Catherine Wedd.
van de Molen TimTIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): I move that the question be now put.
Willis NicolaHon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): As I have now repeatedly said what this bill does is it makes clear the key operational objective we wish the Reserve Bank monetary policy committee to pursue. We believe that clarity has a number of benefits which I have canvassed extensively. We believe that that is consistent with the purpose of the Act in that without price stability all of the other good things that the Opposition seeks cannot be achieved. Price stability is the foundation on which employment and good economic conditions sits.Finally all of the discussion about all of the things that could be added to the Act to require the Minister to do actually there is nothing to preclude these matters from being in the remit as things that the monetary policy committee should have regard to in pursuing the clarity of objective that the Act provides.
Willis NicolaHon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): Can I first reassure the member that there will continue to be opportunities for her to question the Reserve Bank Governor through the Finance and Expenditure Committee process which is an incredibly important part of our monetary policy framework and the accountability of the Reserve Bank under the Act.Look members have tabled a number of amendments and are having an ongoing rather circular discussion about all of the things that the Reserve Bank will consider. Let me say again: the purpose of this Act is to give crystal clarity of the objective of the monetary policy committee (MPC) which is to ensure price stability. None of that precludes the matters that are set out in section 123 and section 125 whereby the remit may specify the matters the monetary policy committee has regard to in pursuing that one clear objective. So there are other matters that they can have regard to but they must pursue the one clear objective. I will be publishing the remit upon passage of this Act.I'd also note that section 119 is very specific that the MPC must have regard to the importance of stability in the financial system.
Willis NicolaHon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): The irony of that contribution is not lost on me—as a member of a Government that repeatedly denied the Finance and Expenditure Committee the opportunity to review the economic decision-making by her Government in the period after COVID where mass levels of fiscal and monetary stimulus led not only to massive asset price inflation widening the gap between those in assets and those without but also led to extraordinary inflation. In specific reference to member Woods' proposal to review the Act there is already a post-implementation review of the Act due by 2027.
Willis Nicola; Pugh MaureenHon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): I just want to respond to a question put by the Hon Megan Woods which I think illustrates just how far the Labour Party is now prepared to stray from economic orthodoxy because what she asked is whether a union rep could be appointed to the monetary policy committee. Now this represents a significant departure from the Reserve Bank as it was presided over by the former Minister of Finance the Hon Grant Robertson in which he oversaw the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act 2021 that in Schedule 3 clause 20 says that A person [may] not be appointed on the basis that the person represents a particular industry sector."In fact when Grant Robertson back in the days when he used to do the make-believe that he believed in economic orthodoxy and he was responsible he presided over an Act in which Schedule 3 clause 20 specifically required the Minister to appoint only "a person who in the Minister's opinion [had] the appropriate knowledge skills and experience"—the appropriate knowledge skills and experience—"to assist the monetary policy committee [in] its functions". So I think what we can see members is that just as they strayed away from economic orthodoxy and threw new objectives at the bank and threw it at the wall and failed to actually achieve anything so they will continue for the next couple of years straying from the orthodox path being prepared to put the economy at risk. And what a concern that is.CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I call Dr—sorry the Hon Dr—Hon Members: Deborah.CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Deborah Russell. Thank you."
Willis NicolaHon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): Returning the Reserve Bank to a single mandate is by no means out of step with international best practice so long as a flexible approach to inflation targeting is maintained—which is allowed for by this Act—which means that the monetary policy committee can still have regard to the impact on the real economy in determining how quickly to achieve their primary goal of sorting out inflation. I would note that members are asking a number of questions that relate to the monetary policy committee remit which the sooner we get this debate done the sooner I can publish.
Pugh MaureenPart 2 Related amendments CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Members we now come to Part 2. Part 2 is the debate on clauses 5 to 13 Related amendments". The question is that Part 2 stand part."
Bayly AndrewHon ANDREW BAYLY (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): I move That debate on this question now close.
Willis NicolaHon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): It would be useful if members in making contributions at this committee stage had read the bills. The purpose of the bill already promotes the prosperity and wellbeing of New Zealanders and contributes to a sustainable and productive economy so that is made clear.
Bidois Dan; Pugh MaureenDAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): I move that the debate on this question now close.CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that debate on this question ends.Hon Grant Robertson: Point of order Madam Chair. Two points. The first is that the member incorrectly stated the motion to close debate so therefore it was not in order. Secondly Madam Chair you'll be very well aware with the bill not going to select committee and a large number of my colleagues wanting to take a call about the concern we would have. But my primary point is the member did not close the debate correctly.
Simpson ScottHon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): I move That debate on this question now close.
Kuriger BarbaraTUESDAY 12 DECEMBER 2023(continued on Wednesday 13 December 2023)RESERVE BANK OF NEW ZEALAND (ECONOMIC OBJECTIVE) AMENDMENT BILLIn CommitteeDebate resumed.Part 1 Amendment to Reserve Bank of New Zealand's objectivesCHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members the committee is resumed on the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Economic Objective) Amendment Bill. When we suspended overnight we were considering Part 1. Once again the question is that Part 1 stand part. Members before we begin I will inform the committee that we have received a number of tabled amendments on this part of the bill. Some are in order and will be voted on. A number of amendments are contrary to the objectives and principles of the bill. The bill has a specific intention that is to narrow the Reserve Bank's economic objectives to a single focus on price stability. I have considered some amendments in the name of the Hon Grant Robertson that would expand the Reserve Bank's economic objectives and are therefore out of order.
Tuiono TeanauANNUAL REVIEW DEBATEIn CommitteeDebate resumed from 1 May on the Appropriation (2022/23 Confirmation and Validation) Bill.CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The House is in committee for further consideration of the Appropriation (2022/23 Confirmation and Validation) Bill. This is the debate on the financial position of the Government and the annual reviews of departments Officers of Parliament Crown entities public organisations and State enterprises as reported on by select committees.There are five hours and 16 minutes remaining in this debate. New Zealand National has one hour 30 minutes remaining. New Zealand Labour has one hour and 46 minutes remaining. The Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand has 41 minutes remaining. ACT New Zealand has 39 minutes remaining. New Zealand First has 28 minutes remaining. Te Pāti Māori has 27 minutes remaining.The Government has indicated that the Minister for the Environment will be available today to respond to members' questions. Each debate will be led off by the chairperson or another member of the committee that considered annual reviews most closely related to the Minister's portfolios. These speeches should be a non-political report back to the committee of the whole House from the select committee. The Minister for the Environment is here for 30 minutes to respond to members' questions.