edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Dean Jacqui; Coffey TāmatiASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The House is resumed. Members when the House broke for the dinner break we were considering the third reading of the Business Payment Practices Bill.TĀMATI COFFEY (Labour): Thank you Madam Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to stand and talk on this very important bill which is before the House. It's great that it's come to the third reading and great that we've been able to shepherd it through. Thank you to everybody that's put in a lot of time and a lot of effort to get to this point.This is all about making sure that small businesses know good players to play with. We are doing something that is going to make sure that we're improving that information that transparency around business-to-business practices here in New Zealand to make sure that things are done in a good old fair dinkum Kiwi kind of way. For that reason we on this side of the House are completely supportive of it. We know the benefits that it's going to bring to those people that are in business especially the small businesses. And if there's something that we've learnt during COVID-19 it's that actually we have a lot of small businesses here in New Zealand. Ninety seven percent of the country are made up of small businesses and we need to do everything that we can to ensure that small-business owners have absolute confidence about who they are interacting with who they're transacting with and making sure that they are in the best possible position to be able to contribute to the economy. When we support them they support other New Zealanders and the whole economy works. For that reason. I support it to the House.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): I call—Andrew Bayly: Andrew Bayly.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Andrew Bayly. Apologies Andrew; I do know you perfectly well.
Roberts Angela; Salesa JennyANGELA ROBERTS (Labour): Thank you Madam Speaker. It's a pleasure to rise and take a call on this bill. It's really disappointing—so many of us have been involved with small businesses throughout our lives and we know the impact the precarious nature the constant conversation about cash flow. It's really disappointing to hear time and time again how out of touch the other side of the House is when they constantly say that the problem doesn't exist and it's not important. It's not this Government that decided that; it is in response to 2019—the Small Business Council saying that of issues facing small businesses timely payment was a top priority. It is really disappointing to hear time and time again how out of touch the Opposition is.What we are doing is ensuring some transparency and those who believe in the market know that perfect information is something that is required all right? We back you small businesses. This Government delivers for small businesses. We aren't out of touch. I commend this bill to the House.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members the time has come for me to leave the Chair. The House is suspended until 7 p.m. I repeat 7 p.m. not 7.30 when I resume the Chair. Ka kite anō.Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7 p.m.
Lorck AnnaANNA LORCK (Labour—Tukituki): Thank you Madam Speaker. As a small-business owner for 20 years I rise proudly to speak and support this bill. I know how important it is for small businesses to be able to be paid on time and this will make a significant difference. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.
Swarbrick ChlöeCHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green—Auckland Central): E te Māngai tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e te Whare.Hon David Bennett: This will be good economics.CHLÖE SWARBRICK: I have just heard from a member of the House from the Opposition who has made a name for himself by yelling out socialism" every opportunity that he has who's asked me to explain economics. Well sir let's talk about economics. Let's talk about what it is that we're trying to achieve out of our economy because this is actually one of my favourite yarns. It's what is the economy and what is it that we're trying to achieve out of the rules the regulations the legislation that we put in place?ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Order! The member can have that discussion with the member of the Opposition at a different time but come back to this bill. Thank you.CHLÖE SWARBRICK: Thank you Madam Speaker. It's a shame to return to this bill but none the less it is a good bill. It is a good bill—a simple bill—which interestingly enough has been the point of members of the Opposition and the ACT Party member Chris Baillie who just resumed his seat. It is a simple bill because it doesn't purport to fix all of the issues in the economy the unfairness the inequity and otherwise. It is not an inherently transformational piece of legislation but it doesn't pretend to be that. It does what it says on the tin which is to provide greater transparency and therefore some consumer choice for small businesses or small-business consumers who may be choosing who they engage in business with.We've traversed this substantially at all of the other readings throughout this bill's progression and in the words of Jeanette Fitzsimons "Sunlight is the best disinfectant." And in fact when we have that data that information and those details we can make better informed decisions about the kind of business that we want to do in this country. As far as the Greens are concerned that is good for the economy. So the Greens are proud to support this bill. Of course it's not transformative but let's do that in the election hey?"
Verrall Ayesha; Salesa JennyAMENDED ANSWERS TO ORAL QUESTIONSQuestion No. 8 to MinisterHon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Minister of Health): Point of order. Thank you Madam Speaker. I seek leave to make a personal statement to correct an answer to an oral question.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Leave is sought for that purpose. Are there any objections? There are none.Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: In response to question No. 8 today I said that the role of my office was to request that Te Whatu Ora publish the correct data. I have since been advised by my office that Te Whatu Ora reported a provisional date for the data to be released on 5 July and a staff member said that it should not be released that week due to other announcements. Upon learning this information I have told my staff that they should not have given that direction and it is my expectation that it does not happen again. The final date that the data was released was determined by Te Whatu Ora based on when the information was ready.
Business Payment Practices Bill — Third Reading
Bennett GlenGLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth): Kia ora Madam Speaker. I'd like to thank the Hon David Bennett for that 10-minute speech that he just gave! It was reflective and thoughtful; I appreciated all those quips and moments. I don't think the Hon David Bennett sat on the committee but obviously he has a lot of information to share with us in this House and I appreciated that speech very thoughtful—almost like an autocue machine running in the background. What's the voice version of that in the back of your ear?But in all seriousness I want to say that as has been mentioned small and medium enterprises (SMEs) make up 97 percent—almost 550000 companies and businesses throughout Aotearoa New Zealand. And when companies are slow payers this creates stress this creates uncertainty and when small businesses can be on a financial knife-edge like some of those small and medium businesses are that is make or break time not only for them as a business but also the stress and the mental health and those type of things that are challenged there.So I was on the committee. I support this piece of legislation and I'm glad that we as Government are making true on announcements we've made and what we're going to do. We've heard some barbs across the floor this afternoon around what we are or aren't doing but when I reflect on SMEs here I think that what we've been doing for new business grows funds and supports small and medium sized enterprises to grow putting money into that. We fully funded the Regional Strategies Partnership Fund unleashing the regional economy and meeting what opportunities we have. I experienced that in my own electorate of New Plymouth. We've put money into the tourism industry programme that supports SMEs; also into the Industry Transformation Plans which is working with industries with workers and with iwi ensuring that our SMEs are fit for purpose are supported are not only—can I mention also the investment in our gaming and tech sector. We're doing so much and therefore I commend this bill to the House.Debate interrupted.
Chen NaisiNAISI CHEN (Labour): Thank you Madam Speaker. It's been a real privilege to be able to chair the Economic Development Science and Innovation Committee during the process of this bill. I have thoroughly enjoyed the conversations we've had in teasing out some of the real details that the Minister has covered in her speech—the ones about the payment threshold the conversations around which payments that we need to be excluding and the kinds of businesses that we want to capture. And I'm very comfortable in the place that we've landed which is to make sure that those businesses we capture—with over $33 million with a payment threshold of $10 million. It's actually something that really captures the businesses who have already a very well-established accounting department within their companies who will already know their own business payment practices also relating to the stats on late and overdue payments and also around the payment terms that smaller businesses when they become their suppliers and engage with them want to know. And also society including us including media will be able to actually have an overview in transparency so that we can all make sure that New Zealand truly becomes the best place in the world for small and medium businesses.I started my very own business at 21 years old as a sole practitioner doing events management and when we became the supplier to big events companies we made sure that we had to pay our other staffers as well. Those were all university students and that was hard being the small player the small fish in the pond. And so by having gone through that we know now who to engage with and where we need to be careful and it doesn't waste my own time in trying to get to those phone calls that the Hon Michael Woodhouse has just mentioned. This is efficiency for the whole economy. That's why I commend this bill to the House.
Salesa Jenny; Woodhouse MichaelClauses 1 and 2CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members we come now to our final debate. This is the debate on clauses 1 and 2 the title and commencement.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you Madam Chair. Before I ask my questions I'll just summarise the discussions the Economic Development Science and Innovation Committee had about when this bill should come in to effect because as it was introduced and referred to the committee it had effectively the ability to come into effect on the day after it received Royal assent. There were concerns expressed by submitters that the reporting entities did need time to prepare. So with the exception of some of the set up requirements that the registrar needs to do the bill itself according to clause 2 substantively won't come into effect until six months after the day on which it receives Royal assent which is in my view the minimum amount of time that the reporting entities will need in order to develop systems for compliance.My question—noting that the External Reporting Board's conventions for the introduction for example of new accounting measures is that there be a 12- to 24-month lead-in to changes of that nature—is: is the Minister confident that the reporting entities who are subject to infringements if they don't comply will have sufficient time to comply? And secondly what has she done to have that confidence; and has she ascertained that given the submissions that the select committee heard six months will indeed be enough time for them to prepare?
Business Payment Practices Bill — In Committee—Schedule
Salesa JennyScheduleCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the Minister's amendments to the Schedule set out on Supplementary Order Paper 363 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 72New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere.Noes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Amendments agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the Schedule as amended stand part.Ayes 72New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere.Noes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Schedule as amended agreed to.
Watts SimonSIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Thank you very much Madam Chair. My question is in relation to clause 54 of Part 5 of the bill and this clause is amending section 48 of the—Hon Michael Woodhouse: Financial Reporting Act?SIMON WATTS: —Financial Reporting Act—thank you—2013.Hon Michael Woodhouse: We put that in don't you know?SIMON WATTS: Yeah! Interestingly in regards to that. So my question in regards to this is that under the Financial Reporting Act there is section 48(2) which requires that specific legislation—this clause is putting this the Business Payment Practices Act within that financial reporting legislation—then requires under section 48(2) of that Act that the first review of the numbers occur eight years after the bill is put into play. And then section 48(3) of that Act says: in every six years subsequent to that.I guess my question to the Minister in regards to the decision for this bill to be put under that is: what is the rationale and specific points and reason why this bill is deemed to be appropriate to fall within that guise? I note that the questions that I raised around clause 47 in the prior section in regards to the amount of infringement fees went unanswered. But I guess maybe this is an opportunity. I was just doing a bit of the back-of-a-packet exercise and God forbid if inflation continues at 6 percent over the next eight years $100 today in eight years' time at 6 percent inflation is $160. Just a little bit of—Hon Michael Woodhouse: Compounding it would be even more.SIMON WATTS: Compounding interest there. I thought you'd appreciate that the Hon Michael Woodhouse—a little bit of accountancy late in the day on a Wednesday. But anyway it's quite a lot of money quite a lot of growth. Eight years is a long time. A little bit of context on that clause would be appreciated Minister.
Woodhouse MichaelHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): I thank the Minister for that answer which comforts me not one bit because we are remember talking about organisations with quite high levels of turnover—$33 million I think at the start and then it goes up even higher than that. All of those organisations will have tax agents tax accountants and lawyers who would be able to advise them on all of their obligations. But what we are talking about now is the breach of that strong convention under the Tax Administration Act that information be disclosed to a third party—the Minister says to assist them in their obligations.Well they don't get that sort of information on other issues—I'm talking about the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment here. They don't get that information that revenue might hold for their compliance on other issues—number of staff number of people who might be working under the table or on visa conditions that are different. All of these things could be information held by Inland Revenue but somehow their turnover information—which is only one metric in the qualification under this bill—can be got from other sources. And the Minister says Well we think we're helping the business"; I think this reflects a lack of trust in businesses to understand and comply with the expectations under this bill and that's rather unfortunate.But the most unfortunate thing about this clause is that it breaches that strong convention: Inland Revenue is a sealed unit for almost all pieces of information and the idea that we would so flippantly breach that convention for this bill I think is a bit sad."
Woodhouse MichaelHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you Mr Chair. I think that in the Minister for Small Business' response to my commendation of Mr Bayly's Supplementary Order Paper the Minister said that it was unnecessary because there was an obligation on the registrar to report to her every six months. I wonder if she could for my benefit—and I apologise if it's obvious—point out the clause in the bill that provides for that requirement.
Watts SimonSIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Thank you very much Mr Chair. Let's move now to clause 47 Regulations" Part 4 of this bill. This regulations section actually relates to a question that I've asked previously in regards to the rates at which infringement offences and the amount for the prescribed fees or fines and what they have been set at and clause 47(1)(b) refers to "prescribing fees for infringement offences … must not exceed $3000" and then 47(1)(c) then says that the "maximum fines for infringement offences under this Act … must not exceed $9000". I think the context for the question around the amounts that have been noted here is relevant in the context of again going back to the Minister's comments around ensuring that there are appropriate consequences here for in the Minister's words "the big fish" or the big businesses. I'm interested in whether the Minister remains confident that a $3000 fine or even a $9000 fine is actually going to be of the level that is going to be appropriate to actually change the behaviour of say a large Government department that pays millions and millions of dollars—maybe the New Zealand Police potentially if you look at their accounts payable department and think about the amount of invoices that they pay to a number of small suppliers. And I'm sure they always pay those invoices on time pay them accurately of course—no doubt they do—Hon David Bennett: Especially overpay.SIMON WATTS: —or maybe they don't but again you know is the Minister confident those amounts are appropriate?"
Andersen GinnyHon GINNY ANDERSEN (Minister for Small Business): Thank you Mr Chair. I do feel like some of these questions are a little bit circular but I will play ball. We've I think been through some of these issues before.In terms of what feedback whenever I speak to small-business owner either groups—there is strong demand for this bill. So the feedback I get when out speaking with whether it be businesses at chambers of commerce or other groups that come together and represent small-business owners the feedback I get from those small businesses is that this legislation is long overdue and they are eagerly waiting for it to be enacted.In terms of some of the other questions I've received the issue of the Supplementary Order Paper put forward in the name of Andrew Bayly which specifically asks for a review in the first year and then subsequent every two years thereafter—so presently what occurs is officials report to the Minister on a six-monthly basis. So providing that in legislation I would particularly argue that—for a party that's all for removing bureaucracy and red tape and unnecessary I guess hoops to jump through—that providing that in legislation is actually adding to cost within the Public Service unnecessarily when there's already a six-month reporting regime that's built in as part of keeping the Minister informed of what's going on.That is already done to parliamentarians through the normal reporting regimes and available to those members on all sides of the House through the select committee process as well and annual reviews. So I would argue that putting it in statute is onerous and heavy in compliance and it would tie up the bureaucracy in simply reporting not getting the work done.In terms of the issue raised under Part 4 Miscellaneous" clause 46 "Exemptions". So this was the point raised in relation to the ability of "The Minister may exempt … a class of entities from [some or] all of [the] obligations under the Act." having regard obviously "to the purpose of the Act" and being "satisfied that there [are] good [reasons] … [that] the exemption is not broader than … reasonably necessary".So while I've asked for some examples it's interesting that I'll provide you with some examples as requested of what those exemptions may well be. It's interesting to note that there's not been one of these to date where such of those actually would happen.So here are some hypothetical examples where you would have a class of entities where to disclose would be unnecessarily onerous—so if it goes if it's able to be shown. Another area of an example would be that entities must disclose their payment practices as part of another regime already. So if they're already doing so in a similar jurisdiction such as Australia then that would not be required. Finally another example would be entities that make limited business-to-business payments. So if in their regular course of business they're not doing that type of payment then that potentially may not be an exemption as specified under clause 46 of Part 4 of the Act."
Uffindell SamSAM UFFINDELL (National—Tauranga): Thank you Mr Chair. I just wanted to add a couple of comments around that in support of the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) put forward by Andrew Bayly. It's been noted around how it should be more focused on the reporting times and I want to agree with that. But I think when we're putting forward—as we are with this bill—something that is going to put time and cost impediments on businesses it's really important that we do have that regular review mechanism in place or something in there like the SOP would allow for because we are putting further compliance and time costs on business and we need to know how successful the new legislation has been and is the cost of it better than the benefit or does the benefit outweigh the costs? So that's important for us to know. And it also gives us the opportunity then to test what the different users notably businesses going into it—to look at someone else's payment times and what their feedback is on this. And I don't think it's just a set and forget thing where we say you know This is all perfect and it's going to be wonderful." I think having that mechanism in there to review gives us the opportunity to go back out to market and then get that feedback and you know look to sharpen or perhaps focus some areas of this going forward.So I would like to see that side of the Chamber really consider that and the Minister for Small Business and the officials consider it because ultimately we want this if it is implemented to be something that works in the best interests of the people that are using it—also to test how many people do use it. It has been noted—and I noted it when I spoke earlier in the Chamber on this—that you're reporting on this two times a year. It's not always going to be up to date. It's not going to be real time. It may be 5½ months out of date when someone goes in there to check on that. So yeah I just wanted to put my voice to the support of that Supplementary Order Paper. Thank you."
Woodhouse MichaelHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you Mr Chair. I want to take a call briefly to add my commendation to the committee for the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) in the name of my colleague and friend Andrew Bayly Supplementary Order Paper 365. The reason this is really important is twofold. One is that we are trying to create a reporting regime and a review regime that enables the public and the House to test whether or not the purpose of the Act is being achieved. But I would also add that clause 3 the purpose clause is actually pretty amorphous. It says The purpose of the Act is to (a) improve transparency … and (b) to enable members of the public … to access information about … [these] payment practices". Well actually I would have thought that the Government in believing that this was necessary and appropriate would say that the purpose of the Act is to improve payment timeliness ultimately and to reduce the number of late payments and defaults and credit problems for the businesses affected by them. So transparency is important but it's only a means to an end and the bill doesn't even set out that end as its purpose.So Supplementary Order Paper 365 I think is extremely important. And I think that the Minister if she sees the merits of it should instruct her officials to make sure that data is collected—regardless of whether this Act is going to be reviewed in the manner in which Mr Bayly would like it to be—that data is actually collected; not that measures transparency because we'll know that by the number of people that have to comply but that collects data to monitor payment timeliness. Because one of the reasons the National Party is opposed to this bill is that we still haven't established the case for it being necessary. The best data is actually the payment timeliness in this country is better than in other countries but also that those other countries who put similar legislation in place did not see an improvement in that key metric: payment timeliness. And I think we should all agree that if legislation doesn't work we should either amend it or repeal it. But the only way to be able to do that is to collect information useful for making that decision. The bill doesn't have that in its reporting requirements and Mr Bayly's SOP will add that. If the Minister isn't satisfied with a one-year review I think perhaps it could be longer and it says that subsequent intervals of not more than two years. I think that's probably a better duration but review it we must to ensure whether or not we're wrong in our belief that we're wasting the House's time and the time effort and money of businesses that will need to comply with it. If that's the case then a review will reveal that. But at the moment that option that requirement isn't in the bill and it should be."
Woodhouse MichaelHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you Mr Chair. Part 4 is the Melissalla—Miscellaneous Provisions"—the "Melissallaneous Provisions" of this billChlöe Swarbrick: Melissa Lee!Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: That's a new girl's name! And the first of those is "Exemptions". Now the Minister in the passage of this bill will be given pretty broad powers which don't have too much guidance on why the Minister might actually exercise it. It says at clause 46(1) that the Minister may exempt classes of entities from the requirements of this Act if the Minister is "satisfied that there is good reason for granting the exemption that outweighs the interests of the public in having the obligation met."So I have two questions for the Minister. The first is if she could give an example perhaps of what good reasons there might be for granting exemptions that outweigh the interests of the public particularly given the very strident purpose of this bill as stated by the Government that this is so necessary.The second question in relation to clause 46 is: can she give a commitment that those exemptions will not apply to Crown entities who have—in my view I can't think of any good reason why a Crown entity would be granted an exemption from the obligations of this Act as distinct from other organisations. So there's my opening bat—what's an example of good reasons for granting the exemptions and indeed why do we need the exemptions regime at all? And secondly can she rule out that the Crown will not be exempted from those obligations?"
O'Connor GregPart 4 MiscellaneousCHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Members we come now to Part 4 the debate on clauses 46 to 48. The question is that Part 4 stand part.
Uffindell SamSAM UFFINDELL (National—Tauranga): Thank you Mr Chair. I was just looking at here where it talks about—just following on from what my colleague Simon Watts was saying before—around infringement notices and looking for a bit more detail around that and the fees and seeing where that is set out. Noting in clause 37 there it says the fees must be paid into a Crown … Account."I was wondering whether the Minister had any more details around that; around when they must be paid. What is the time period? What is the amount of the fees? It would be quite good practice if in here—and this is something that the Minister and the officials may want to consider as in this part here "Payment of infringement fees"—you could then connect that up to the Schedule that listed what the fees are and what the payment dates are and what penalties may be applied if those times are not met."
Watts SimonSIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Minister good to see you thank you for your contribution. Clause 31 Part 3 deals with the infringement notices aspects and the related offenses in regard to those points. And in particular clause 33 is in regard to the terms and the nature of when these infringement notices will be issued. I guess my point around this is in regards to the points made by the Hon Michael Woodhouse in terms of the—while the intent of the bill is trying to target is using the Minister's language of the big fish" how in which those infringement offences in terms of the amounts that have been landed upon have been determined. If the Minister could provide some clarity around that and in particular dealing with the fact that as again the Hon Michael Woodhouse has noted around the Crown in particular being one of the biggest examples of potentially a failure to meet obligations around payment on a timely basis. What if any forecasts have been undertaken in regards to how much infringement notices or the value of those will potentially be issued under this legislation and whether any forecasting in that nature has been undertaken?"
Woodhouse MichaelHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you Mr Chair. The Minister is correct in so far as a $33 cheque may not reveal the actual days to pay because that isn't part of the credit check but what it would reveal very clearly is whether or not creditors have had to take action against that organisation. That is a much much larger signal to the market about the reliability of the company that one might be doing business with. The second thing to say is that the Minister's answer suggests that there is a high level of correlation between the size of the organisation and their propensity to pay. This was examined by the Economic Development Science and Innovation Committee and the officials did not have data to confirm that size is not always—in fact in my experience it can be quite the opposite that the larger firms are much better at paying. The one large organisation that actually has an occasionally poor track record of payment is the Crown. And if the Government wanted to ensure better cash-flow for small businesses dealing with the largest organisation in the country—that is Crown entities—then perhaps it should put its weight behind increasing the expectations on the Crown to do a better job of paying its bills on time.
O'Connor GregBUSINESS PAYMENT PRACTICES BILLIn CommitteeDebate resumed from 20 June.Part 3 Compliance enforcement and offences (continued)CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Members the House is in committee on the Business Payment Practices Bill. When we were last debating this bill we were debating Part 3 the debate on clauses 25 to 45. The question is that Part 3 stand part.
Roberts AngelaANGELA ROBERTS (Labour): Thank you Madam Speaker. It is a great pleasure to rise and take the final call on this bill the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Rugby World Cup 2023 Extended Trading Hours) Amendment Bill. I want to acknowledge all of the officials and the members who have efficiently and effectively shepherded this balanced bill through the House. I just want to reflect for a moment that this is a reflection that it isn't an unusual experience for a New Zealander to be participating and cheering on a team globally at really odd hours. I can remember I was in Canada in 1987 for the very first World Cup up in the middle of the night with a Canadian family who had no idea about the game at that stage—it was quite a lonely experience—and I was in France in the 1990s in Les Deux Alpes in a ski resort where I was working and I was up watching the America's Cup and again a fairly lonely experience in that landlocked place. So it's wonderful that this bill means that we can stand together in solidarity in odd hours and so I'm really pleased to be able to support this. I feel pretty confident in suggesting that I can speak on behalf of everybody in this House in wishing our fabulous All Black squad all the best—they're off to France so bon voyage. They're leaving home so kia kaha kia ū kia mārama nui. I guess all that's left to be said is Bring it home.""
Lubeck MarjaMARJA LUBECK (Labour): Thank you Mr Speaker it's a pleasure to take a very short call being number 10 in a long line-up of previous speeches. But just really to reiterate that this is a particular piece of legislation that fixes something that was previously fixed. It is similar to temporary changes that were made in 2015 and 2019 but with some added amendments as the chair of the Justice Committee spoke to—some added amendments based on experience and feedback from the Police and other stakeholders.Now I was juggling a couple of other commitments during this debate and I'm not sure if it was pointed out yet but I do remember that my colleague the now Hon Kieran McAnulty pointed out in the 2019 debate something else that is very important in this piece of legislation. So in the back of the bill there is a schedule of games for the World Cup. It's not easy to find so all people have to do is go to the back of the bill and there's all the games listed there. In bold are the New Zealand games and also any of the semi-finals and finals. So that's just an interesting piece of information people might want to put in their back pocket. But it's a good bill I was pleased to be part of that select committee that worked on it and I commend it to the House. Thank you.
Belich CamillaCAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you Mr Speaker. It's a pleasure to take a short call on the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Rugby World Cup 2023 Extended Trading Hours) Amendment Bill. I wasn't on the Justice Committee that considered this but it's been a pleasure to hear during these readings of this particular bill of the attention that was given to this bill which is quite a discrete area that it covers. It's mainly due to as the last member the Hon Michael Woodhouse referred to the time difference between where the Rugby World Cup is being held and the time that it will be in New Zealand. So quite a practical bill that looks to allow our really important hospitality industry to be able to support one of our national teams fighting in the World Cup which I'm sure the All Blacks will be successful in.And I just want to note that although this bill is about the ability to provide alcohol at those licensed venues it is also about them continuing to trade in the way that they normally would. Having worked as a hospitality worker in the past I know that simply changing your business model to one which only provides a certain section of the beverages you usually produce is actually quite difficult for those businesses to actually adapt to.So I think this is a very practical bill. I do note the comments that other members have made about the nature of alcohol—the fact that it does cause a lot of damage within our society. And I don't think any member of the House would deny that. This is not a bill though that looks into those wider societal issues. And I agree with other members when they say that that's perhaps a topic for another day.But I do want to commend the Minister of Justice and the Justice Committee and members of the House for supporting this bill. I think that we can sometimes underestimate the importance of sport and supporting our national teams. But we've seen I think in recent events—including the Women's Rugby World Cup where our Black Ferns team was so successful—how important those can be for the nature of how the nation is feeling and also to empower our women and girls and also our boys as well to aspire to greatness within sport. I commend it to the House.
Woodhouse MichaelHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you Mr Speaker. I strongly support the comments of Arena Williams about balance and I also want to acknowledge Chlöe Swarbrick's comments. Chlöe Swarbrick is nothing if not consistent and clear in her view about the risks and the inconsistencies between how we regulate for alcohol as opposed to other mind-altering substances and so I commend the consistency even though I don't agree with it. I heard Chlöe Swarbrick say The purpose is to enable people to drink" and that's one way we could describe this. My view—and this is based out of well some years of experience of being at licensed premises during sporting events—is that it actually enables people to gather. They can gather anywhere that's true; they can gather at the local Scout hall. But our licensed premises are good safe effective places where people can go and enjoy the sports and recreation activities they love when they are broadcast. They are free to—she's right they don't need to drink; many of them don't. They could open and not offer alcohol; some of them do just that. But as Ms Arena Williams said this is about striking the balance between enabling people to enjoy themselves in licensed premises while at the same time acknowledging that the licence holders have serious obligations for host responsibility. And those obligations will be greater when those games are at 1 or 2 in the morning because they may have patrons who have already been drinking for a time and will need to be vigilant that they don't put their licences at risk by their failure to control and moderate excess. And I would encourage those listening who are going to take advantage of this legislation to do just that. My last comment—and I trust you'll indulge me Mr Speaker—is slightly wide of the mark because we are 51 days away from the Rugby World Cup but we are 27 hours away from the kick off in the FIFA Women's World Cup. Thankfully there's no change to licences and no need for change to licences because in Australia and New Zealand they are in much more civil hours. But I just want to encourage people to support our New Zealand women's team support the tournament and I'm absolutely confident that it's going to be a spectacular showcase for New Zealand. All the best to the New Zealand women's team."
Williams Arena; O'Connor GregARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this bill. The speeches around the House I've listened to carefully; the work of the select committee as well. It was really useful for me in crystallising my thoughts around this bill which is a good bill. It's a simple bill and like the member before me Chlöe Swarbrick who drew on the comments of the Hon Paul Goldsmith I will too. He did put it very succinctly when he said this was about enabling things New Zealanders want to do and expect to be able to do. This bill is about balancing those things like going to the pub to watch the game against things that New Zealanders expect to do like sleeping if you're a neighbour of a pub that's open early in the morning or using your town centre the next morning after a game has been on late at night or using the public playground when you live next to an area where people go to drink after a game. This is exactly that. This is about striking a balance between what we as New Zealanders expect from the Government to regulate something which is fun but make sure that it's fun for everyone. I think this bill does that.But that is why the Labour members of the committee spent a lot of time speaking with the submitters who chose to submit to us on this and the advisers who mounted swathes of evidence around the need for further reform in this area when we asked them about the reform that was needed to make a logically consistent piece of legislation. In our committee report if anyone cares to read it we recorded those comments around the need for recommendation as part of further reform for the Government to consider suggesting amendment of the principal Act to provide stricter controls on advertising sponsorship or promotion of alcohol including in relation to sports because that will end up giving us a piece of legislation which makes sure that alcohol is fun for everyone and continues to be fun for everyone. That's the goal here. This bill does that but there's more work to do.DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is a split call. Five minutes—the Hon Michael Woodhouse.
Smith DamienDAMIEN SMITH (ACT): Thank you Madam Speaker. It's encouraging in the third reading to understand that the police will be keeping records of scale and demand which will be good for the future event management of these plans.One of the questions I do have however is that under new section 45F in clause 4 the compliance in the last Rugby World Cup of people displaying the correct notifications was abysmal and we would suggest from the ACT Party that potentially the police force trusts enough the hospitality owners to actually potentially take photographs and send them to the police officer in the station so that they can concentrate on crime and other activities. One of my concerns is that during these events the opportunity to go and burgle someone's house is high so we'd rather have them out on the beat.In terms of the legislative scrutiny and proposed amendments I think it all stacks up now. I think it's non-problematic. One of the things that I do believe which was slightly discouraging was the Labour Party's view in terms of sliding in the whole concept of wider alcoholic reform at this moment in time around this piece of legislation. That's another agenda that's another conversation and that's another philosophy I guess in terms of how you compare it to other legislation like for smoke-free New Zealand and it smacked of an agenda that—with the Green Party—potentially these special licences and the use of sport sponsorship and other related activities may be coming to a close.So in terms of wider alcoholic reforms I think they should have been parked. I think we should have just concentrated on this bill. We shouldn't have passed it under urgency but we do get to the point where we're glad that we can bring it through the House today and let the industry get on with its work.
Henderson EmilyDr EMILY HENDERSON (Labour—Whangārei): I rise in support of this bill in this third reading. I would just like to acknowledge that I have been somewhat schooled by my rugby-loving colleagues and it has been pointed out to me that I am taking this event—the Rugby World Cup—far too lightly. I would like to say I was raised by—Hon Louise Upston: Go Nash!Dr EMILY HENDERSON: And Mr Eagle also has been educational. I would like to therefore restore a little family honour and say that I was raised by a staunch rugby-playing father and weekend afternoons—I can't remember if they were Saturday or Sunday because it's rugby—were spent in front of the television watching games. We were deeply engaged even in the Springbok Tour protests—and we were the protestors—my dad still came home and watched the games. So it is a massively important thing that we enable Kiwis to watch our national game which is not just the FIFA world cup.I therefore commend this bill to the House. It is a bill we worked on carefully despite my facetiousness in this moment. It is a bill where submitters came and made sensible suggestions and we took them up. It is a bill where we considered the potential alcohol harm and the strong advice to us after repeated questioning was that no there is no proof that this small bit of permission is going to make any difference or create any further harm. And I stand here as a teetotal non-sporting person and I commend this bill to the House.
Walters VanushiVANUSHI WALTERS (Labour—Upper Harbour): Thank you Madam Speaker for the opportunity to make a brief contribution. I just wanted to respond to the issue of consistency which a few members have raised in terms of this bill versus the bill that we will be talking about in terms of community engagement. I do think we're taking a consistent response—we're having a consistent response. One is about setting policy and guidance for permanent situations. The other is about when we make exceptions to that policy and there are exceptions made to many different policies for a number of different reasons. Research tends to guide and should guide our permanent policy but there can be public interest reasons business reasons and others which might justify an exception from time to time. I did reference in my second reading speech that there were a number of submitters who spoke to issues outside the scope of the bill that I do think are important. One was reviewing the special licensing regime which all members agreed should happen. The second was implementing a permanent legislative solution for similar events and the committee as a whole recommended that that be the case. But I do think interesting arguments have been made about the utility of having a discussion up in front of us every couple of years. And I as many people in the House will know am a proponent for clauses which allow a piece of legislation or a clause within legislation to sunset or end to ensure that Parliament's mind is turned to a particular area. So should we move to a more standardised regime? I do think that members ought to consider changing circumstances. What we saw with submitters this time around were submitters who raised issues of compliance with the law that did lead to us tweaking some of the provisions in the bill. So that rehashing of those issues is really valuable. And with that I commend the bill to the House.
Goldsmith PaulHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you Madam Speaker. I want to speak in favour of this bill which seeks to do a very simple thing which is to say that when the Rugby World Cup's on in France and games are being played in the middle of the night or early in the morning people can have the opportunity or the choice to go to a local pub or restaurant or club and get together with a whole bunch of people and watch a big screen and have a bacon butty or whatever it is and a beer and a glass of wine and watch the show. It shouldn't be difficult to understand and I don't think it sort of traverses the great depths of drug policy or any requirements of that—it's just a simple thing that New Zealanders want to do and expect to be able to do. The laws that we have around liquor licensing however make that difficult to achieve and cumbersome. And so this legislation is being passed like previous pieces of legislation in previous Rugby World Cups to ensure that this can happen in a relatively straightforward way. On that basis we support it because we acknowledge that people like to do this sort of thing and communities are drawn together when people—Chlöe Swarbrick: What about the 635000 people who used cannabis last year?Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: —can enjoy a whole lot of things. I'm getting heckled by a member of the Greens who is opposed to this legislation and I'll let her explain why she is such.Look we can have a long debate about liquor licensing law and there's another piece of legislation in the House—that we'll be debating possibly later today or tomorrow—where we don't think the Government has got the right balance and has made things very difficult and very hazardous for people who are running small businesses and who could find their small businesses shut down effectively overnight through what we think is a very arbitrary process.So there's not a consistent approach to dealing with these matters across the House in a bipartisan way. But in this instance this is a relatively straightforward thing and we support it. We're not going to I suppose extend it into a great sort of political battle because it isn't. The only battle that people are interested in in relation to this is the battle on the playing field and we of course hope that the All Blacks will do well. But we're looking forward to a great contest and a great competition and it's always a special time every three years where our hopes and dreams as a nation are built up and sometimes we succeed and sometimes we don't. But we certainly hope that we'll see an All Blacks victory alongside a National Government victory in October. And that'll be a good time for all. On that basis I commend this bill to the House.