edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Bayly Andrew; Webb DuncanANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you for that. First of all I'd just like you to Minister let me know specifically where it provides for the code to be updated at an earlier date other than the two and five years specified in clause 14—that would be useful. Sorry I'm just missing that reference. So that's the first point.I suppose the related point is: if the Commerce Commission does decide to update it because it is a living document what would be the trigger for the commission to do that? Does it just come to a view and then it makes a recommendation to the Minister that it needs to be updated? The third point is—and this was an earlier point I made about ministerial oversight—that I find it slightly strange that the Minister has to sign off on a grocery supply code. Most commerce Ministers wouldn't know much about grocery specifics and particularly a supply code. Again my point—and this is my earlier point—is that there seems to be a lot of ministerial oversight in that. So those are three points there.I want to go back to clause 12 Power to make grocery supply code". Can the Minister confirm that the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment (MBIE) is preparing the first draft code? When he talked about how it is a Government code—I think those were the words he just used—is it MBIE doing the first draft and then the Commerce Commission doing subsequent drafts or is it the Commerce Commission doing the initial draft? I'll leave it there—that's enough—and then I'll come back. I've got some more.Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): I did hear Mr Bayly say "That's enough."; I tend to agree with him! This is about the code. The last question first: yes; it's by Order in Council and that will be done by the responsible Minister and the responsible department is the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment. So that's the answer there.In respect of amendments the review and the code amendments are two entirely separate things. So the review has its own special and separate cycle and that's important—that a thorough-going review occurs at the relevant intervals. But if a market behaviour emerges which clearly needs addressing then the commission may make a determination to amend the code. The process for amending the code is set out in clause 12A of the bill there that talks about a draft determination and consultation and the relevant steps to be taken."
Bayly Andrew; Webb DuncanANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): I was just giving pause to see whether the Minister was going to respond but OK.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): You either want the call or you want the call right?ANDREW BAYLY: I was just offering the opportunity for the Minister to respond; no doubt he will.I suppose the very good comment from my colleague Mr Watts very much related to that: how does he envisage the grocery supply code to operate? Is it a living document? Or does he expect that what the Commerce Commission will present ultimately is a document that deals more at a principle level as opposed to trying to deal with specific market practices? If it's the former then how does the commission react to changing market practices such as whether a duty is placed on supply arrangements that a supermarket might impose on a supplier or how they price their arrangements in the supermarket whether it's at the top of the shelf or at the bottom of the shelf or whether it might be a marketing fee. How does the Minister expect the Commerce Commission to reflect those ongoing changes in market behaviour as they occur? Is that outside the code or is it going to be part of the code? So I'm just going to stop there and hopefully the Minister might take the opportunity to talk.Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Thank you Madam Chair. In respect of Mr Watts' question obviously the market study which precipitated this legislation itself took some time and then of course it's taken some time to get to this point. So two years seems to be a reasonable period of time to gather data analyse it and provide a review of the grocery supply code. Similarly five years is a very common legislative cycle. I do note that clause 16 does provide that the commission may review the code at any time. So I think that's important as well that if information comes to hand or markets behave in a particular way which need some kind of addressing that can be done.In respect of Mr Bayly and the code I think it is important to note that it will be the Government that issues the first code so that will set the tone. However it's really important to recognise I think that it is a living document—to use your words Mr Bayly—and that if behaviours emerge perhaps in response to the regime that's imposed that need addressing they can essentially be addressed by the Commerce Commission who will have custodianship of this code making determinations through its own process as set out in the legislation. Whether it's a high-level code or a down-in-the-weeds regulation my hope is that it starts out as a high-level code and my hope is that it stays there because it gives the guidance necessary. But I would expect that if that doesn't work the Commerce Commission will do the work to make rules of a more detailed nature if needed.
Watts SimonSIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Thank you very much Madam Chair. I'd like to move to clause 16 Commission must review and report on grocery supply code" I think there is broad acknowledgment—including submissions to the Economic Development Science and Innovation Committee—of the support for the role of the Commerce Commission. This specific clause refers to the reviews that the commission must undertake in order to provide back to the Minister.My questions for the Minister are as follows: clause 16(1)(a) refers to a period of two years. So the first review that the commissioner undertakes is after a two-year period and I'd like the Minister to provide some context around how that specific period was determined taking into account the fact that this is quite a significant change to the nature of change and the speed of change of this industry and whether two years is potentially too long in the context of being able to get some initial feedback in order for potential remediation from that.And subsequent to that if you look at clause 16(2A) the ongoing interval for reviews is then set at five years. I guess again the conversation—and while the commissioner is going to have responsibility and obligations in terms of taking actions and remedial actions—and the integration with the viewpoint of the Minister; every five years—and again in an industry where well you just think about the technology changes that occur over that period. Again what is the rationale around that period of time? And is the Minister confident that reporting on that level of cycle is going to provide the frequency of review that will enable sensible changes to be reflected back in regards to that grocery supply code?"
Webb DuncanHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Thank you Madam Chair. The concept of related party is set out in the Act and in clause 14A(4) there you'll see it's an associated person which is in turn defined in subclause (2) of the interpretation clause and wouldn't capture your supplier. Then you've got paragraph (b) in subclause (4) there: a person over whose business the regulated grocery retailer has material influence." Obviously that's not a brightline rule but I'd be very surprised if you would say that the regulated grocery retailer has material influence over a supplier in the way intended there.In terms of Mr Bayly's sort of second crack at competitive neutrality—and he talked of a disrupter—I'd be very surprised whether a disrupter was subject to designation when its behaviour was in fact improving the competitiveness. I guess one of the level playing field points is that it could conceivably be the situation where you have a company with a turnover in groceries of less than $750 million but they are in fact making profits which are super-profits because they're not subject to designation and so their perhaps larger competitors might almost justifiably complain that the smaller entrant to the market has in fact got a benefit by falling just outside of the regulatory regime. That would in fact be anti-competitive because that party because of their non-designation could be doing things differently from someone just a little bit bigger than them. So it gives that ability to look not only at this brightline threshold but also at the market in real time as it is being conducted and saying "Well if we're going to make it competitive we need to draw that particular player in to make sure all participants are being treated equally and fairly.""
Lee MelissaMELISSA LEE (National): Hopefully I'm not throwing the Minister out of sequence in the way that he actually has to think about answers but I wanted to go to clause 14A Grocery supply code may extend to related parties of regulated grocery retailers". My thinking is that often grocery retailers—whether it's actually Countdown or New World—have suppliers who supply them goods and they have specific let's say vegetable growers who have a particular contract with one particular supplier. They may not wish for their produce to be shared with other grocery retailers—and I can't remember if we dealt with that specifically in the select committee. If that actually occurs are they in fact going to be pinged according to this? That is something that has been playing in my head. And I think when growers and retailers actually have an agreement to sell their produce at you know whatever are we actually imposing on the contract they already have with the grower in order to achieve the outcome of this bill? That's the question that I have for the Minister."
Bayly AndrewANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you Minister. I'm not quite persuaded by what you've just said there. I look at the three subparagraphs of clause 11(3)(b)—at one end of the spectrum you've got an absolute test that says if you hit $750 million you're automatically in the regulator conditions. The third subparagraph of that subclause (3)(b) says that if you are acting in a way that has the purpose effect or likely effect of unduly hindering or obstructing suppliers from participating" that is obviously a way to bring them into regulation. I understand why you might want to do that because we don't want people who are acting adversely and affecting the market and leading to higher prices potentially. So that's why you'd want to capture the two ends of the spectrum. One is size; one is bad behaviour.But the middle bit—subparagraph (ii)—is about promoting competitive neutrality. I saw it the other way actually. It's interesting how the Minister spoke of it in a negative sense. I saw it as: if they were promoting and achieving or were likely to achieve competitive neutrality then under this subparagraph (ii) that was a potential for that entity to be regulated. So I just want to get clarity around that. What side of the coin is that subparagraph (ii)? And I'd just say to the Minister that it's not necessarily that a business may disrupt the market because of size. For instance there is a company currently operating an online platform right? And disruptive market forces have a major impact and can have a major impact. If that were to occur would you see this as under subparagraph (ii) being a reason why they might be regulated? If they were a major disruptive cause to the market even if it brought beneficial benefits to consumers would that subclause mean that they potentially could be regulated?"
Bayly Andrew; Webb DuncanANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you Madam Chair. Obviously this part contains quite important elements. I suppose the first thing when you read through the different elements particularly clause 10 and then you go into the grocery supply code it always requires the Minister to have final sign-off. And I suppose the question is: why did the Government go down the route of politicising the operation of this bill or this Act as it will be by involving the Minister extensively in some of the decision making particularly for instance when you come to things like determining whether or not a company should be designated a regulated grocery retailer? Why was it felt necessary that that type of decision should come to a Minister as opposed to leaving it to the Commerce Commission who are not only experts in the sense of monitoring and overseeing that but obviously are used to making those types of decisions? And it's sort of a fundamental call because there's a lot of ministerial oversight and involvement in this bill and I just want to understand why the Government thought that was the best approach.Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Thank you Madam Chair. I will quickly answer that. Look there is a role for parliamentary oversight in such matters. Designation is a significant step. It's drawing a supermarket into the regulatory net or a grocery retailer into the regulatory net. And obviously the position of the Commerce Commission is of the utmost importance in that as the expert. And a Minister who chose not to follow that advice would have to have very good reasons for doing so and be prepared to defend that in a public forum such as this House. However it is effectively an extension of the legislation and I think ministerial responsibility for such an extension is constitutionally appropriate.
Dean JacquiPart 2 Grocery supply codeCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members we come now to Part 2. This is the debate on clauses 8 to 16 which is the grocery supply code. The question is that Part 2 stand part.
Smith DamienDAMIEN SMITH (ACT): Just back to clause 4(2)(d) one of the things that we found out is that one of the levers for actually reducing prices is to put some pressure on the big brands that are in stores which are stocked reasonably lazily by the duopoly to actually offer the customer better value. One of the things that is missing I think from this is the duopolies also searching for product development and new products to provide price competition. Has the Minister thought about how—I'll use soap powder as an example—if a New Zealand manufacturer wants to get involved with that game that there's a free and open market to do that?
Bayly Andrew; Webb DuncanANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): I just want to turn to clause 4(1)(f). I know the Commerce Commission had a view that it shouldn't be involved in making or providing advice on policy and that's why the word policies" has been struck out twice in that subclause.None the less I just want to get to the Minister's understanding of what might happen. Because in practice what's going to happen is hopefully we'll end up with a very experienced Grocery Commissioner who understands what current practices and trends are and that that may be an evolving process over time. But as a result of that obviously there'll be a lot of learnt experience that the commissioner will hold as a result of that experience.What I'm seeking from the Minister is: what might be his understanding whilst we obviously don't want the Commerce Commission to be determining policy—to what extent would the Minister engage with the Commerce Commission when considering new policies?Because otherwise it might run the risk of coming up with policies that are divorced from reality—and current reality or likely reality—and I think my question is: does he see a role of the Commerce Commission providing some input on policy albeit not being the primary driver of that development of new policy?Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): I'm very happy to go shopping with Damien Smith; I think that would be a fun outing. In terms of what I think was the thrust of his question which is: what about overseas investment coming into New Zealand—what barriers there are. My view is—and it's certainly the intention of this legislation to make it a more attractive place. What we can say is that for the past long time there have not been overseas entrants into the grocery sector. So this change will be a change for the better there.In terms of any amendment to the Overseas Investment Act that wasn't considered necessary. There is a balance to be struck. Supermarkets are important parts of our infrastructure as recent disasters in the East Coast have shown us and making sure that we have a responsible owner of a supermarket chain would be an important question. So that's why the Overseas Investment Act still remains important.In terms of Mr Bayly's point which relates to the function of the commission and keeping the law in practice under review clearly there is a relationship that any Minister in a role like I'm currently holding has in engaging with the commission. And the commission has a huge amount of expertise in terms of how law hits the ground so to speak and what effects it has and whether it's effective. It also has a huge amount of expertise in the practice of competition and in implementing competition policy overseas.Obviously those things inform the policy discussion because whether something can or can't be effectively implemented is an important part of that discussion and they will have expertise in that. But clearly the question of policy is a question for the Government of the day and that's why that really doesn't appear in that situation."
Smith DamienDAMIEN SMITH (ACT): Thank you. I'd like to invite the Minister to Costco with me and we can have a look around. Just on Part 1 clause 4(2)(d) which he mentioned which I think is very appropriate contributing to trading environments it seems to be that the current strategy is to just get existing box shops to add on extensions of their business models. But does the Minister believe that this function of the commission actually looks at innovation and allows new entrants to bring new business models to New Zealand which is packaged up with overseas investment sanction and local regulatory fast-track approvals? So I guess the question is if they are comparing to a trading environment if we want to bring in a Lidl here and they want to have two big stores and everything's ordered over the internet and it drops off at your house and it's all in different boxes does that get covered in that clause?
Penk Chris; Webb DuncanCHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much Madam Chair—only a short contribution from me. I was just interested in the Minister's statutory interpretation skills. I know that's something he'll be interested in engaging with me on. The definition of groceries" within clause 5 of Part 1 lists among other product categories "non-alcoholic drinks". I wonder if the Minister can just confirm that alcoholic drinks are deliberately and specifically excluded and I wonder if given the misleading name the item known as Pub Mix from Costco would be included or not noticing that it seems alcohol isn't included in that. And the other one—while I'm on my feet—I notice also within the definition of groceries product categories there's "meat seafood or meat-substitutes" and I just wonder if seafood substitutes would be included as well.Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): I'm not familiar with the products sold by Costco so I can't address that but alcohol is explicitly excluded. One of the things this Government certainly does not want—and I hope other members will agree—is to have price competition around alcohol and have a drive for people to find where they can get their cheapest drink. So that was explicitly excluded. It is however noted that if alcohol is being used in an anti-competitive way perhaps to draw consumers in it can be captured as part of the information study done by the Commerce Commission."
Bayly AndrewANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you Madam Chair. Thank you for the response. I suppose the overarching consideration: can the Minister just give us assurance that the monitoring powers and the recommendation powers that are laid out in these early sections are similar to or if not enhanced when compared to other functions that the Commerce Commission currently undertakes such as in respect of airports fuel and other such activities? So is this the functions and powers of being able to undertake inquiries—there's a list of them here reports etc.—are they exactly the same as the Commerce Commission has in other jurisdictions? That would be useful.The other thing is just moving on slightly around the issue of designated regulator grocery retailers. The issue around that which relates back to all this is how do we know when you're applying these powers that we have the right jurisdiction around who's to be covered by these aspects as they relate to the grocery trade going forward? Because one of the things about making sure when you're looking at these powers about understanding the current and emerging trends you have to have regard to where future competition's going to come into play. So that just comes back to my reference around particularly clause 4(2)(a).
Bayly Andrew; Dean JacquiANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Oh good—I'm just waiting for the Minister the Hon Dr Duncan Webb to gather his thoughts. But related to what my colleague Melissa Lee has just been talking about I suppose the overriding concern from market participants—and ultimately consumers—is what certainty or assurance the Minister can give that the Commerce Commission will have the proper skills and expertise to actually do the number of express purposes set out in clause 4 and more generally in clause 3 to ensure that best market behaviours are put in place and that adverse market behaviours do not occur and are stopped if they occur.So my question is about the resourcing and the appointment of a commissioner. What assurance can the Minister provide as to making sure that the commission appoints the right commissioner—and obviously the supporting staff that will underpin that function? We know that function is estimated to cost between $10 million and $12 million a year and so without a proper and well-experienced commissioner a lot of these reforms will be academic in nature—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! I'm just going to pull the member back a bit. I've just been having a quick look at the bill and the appointment of a grocery commissioner in my reading comes under Part 5. I'm very happy for the member to reference the Grocery Commissioner but the member has Part 5 to be more fulsome around the Grocery Commissioner.
Lee MelissaMELISSA LEE (National): Thank you very much Madam Chair. I actually echo my colleague Andrew Bayly's thanks to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs for laying out his vision. My question to the Minister is I guess in clause 3 in the purpose statement: The purpose of this Act is to promote competition and efficiency in the grocery industry for the long-term benefit of consumers in New Zealand." I mean that is a lofty goal and I think it's something that we should all aim for. But when you consider the fact that this basically gives powers to the Commerce Commission to monitor competition and efficiency in the grocery industry how quickly he actually believes this will have an impact for the benefit of the consumers considering the fact that there is a cost of living crisis at the moment. Every day when our families go to the supermarket and try and fill their trolleys—well actually they can't fill their trolleys because it is so expensive and grocery costs have gone extraordinarily high. Food prices even when you stick to food that is in season—for example the vegetables and fruit you buy it in season—it's supposed to be cheaper but the cost of grocery shopping is astronomically high. I often hear from constituents how expensive it is and how quickly does the Minister think that this bill will have an impact on the cost of doing our groceries and shopping to promote the so-called competition? How quickly will that have an impact on daily shopping?"
Bayly AndrewANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you Madam Chair. I just acknowledge the Minister's comments. I just think it's worthwhile—this is obviously a very important bill because getting better outcomes for New Zealanders when they go to buy their food and grocery items from the supermarket is really important. That's why there is agreement across the House to make changes to this bill with a view to trying to improve it although there are some elements of the bill that there's not absolute unanimous support on. None the less I think what's been achieved with the bill will go some way to trying to address some of the deficiencies that have been occurring in the industry.I think one of the things I'm just quite keen to get the Minister's view on is particularly around the commission's functions in this Act—well it will become an Act once the bill's passed of course but particularly with regard to clause 4(2) which is a whole stack of new arrangements or functions objectives that were put for the commission: understanding the current and emerging (or likely future) trends or issues in … the grocery industry … promoting transparency … supporting participants to understand and comply with [industry] regulation … contributing to a trading environment in which businesses compete effectively and consumers and businesses participate confidently … [and] improving awareness". So just nice to hear what the overarching view of the Minister is around those particular ones whether he thought there were others that we should be dealing with and where he perceives there might be deficiencies in the bill that may need to be addressed in time or in fact further improvements of the Act once it comes into play."
O'Connor Greg; Utikere TangiGROCERY INDUSTRY COMPETITION BILLIn CommitteePart 1 Preliminary ProvisionsCHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Members we come now to the Grocery Industry Competition Bill. We come first to Part 1. The question is that Part 1 stand part.TANGI UTIKERE (Chief Whip—Labour): I seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one question.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Henare PeeniHon PEENI HENARE (Minister for ACC): I thank the member and I do want to acknowledge the example he uses. As the former Minister of Defence he's right: I've spoken to a number of soldiers who continue to carry injuries or have been rehabilitated through injury in order to serve our country and I want to acknowledge that. And the answer to his question in short is no it doesn't exclude them. I think the opportunity here—and I made clear in the session before dinner—for Māori is because we as a Government feel there's an obligation for us to do that because of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. With respect to the classification of other" in this it will be up to ACC to continue to explore that as data comes in or submissions. As the member has rightly pointed out it might become more apparent that actually it does need to start looking into these factors a bit more deeper."
Henare PeeniHon PEENI HENARE (Minister for ACC): Just in response to the member's contribution as the Minister of Forestry I can say that yes it is a predominantly Māori workforce with yes a high rate of injury while I can also sadly acknowledge a high rate of death amongst Māori in that particular industry. It is a tough industry and even before my time as the Minister of Forestry I was a trustee of a Māori land forestry block in the Far North and the reporting to us on the numbers of injuries and serious injuries—which was of course graded on a scale—was actually quite mind-blowing. What we know is—and the member referred to it in Wai 2575. I'm glad he did a bit of research over the dinner break because what we know is that for those who access ACC it's predominantly through a medical referral. So if we are to use the basis of the discussion that the member is referring to there then already clearly the evidence made in the health sector is quite clear that those referrals that are made through the health sector generally don't mean better outcomes for Māori. We've got to explore why that is whether it's accessibility or whether it's the inability in places like remote areas to even receive the kinds of rehabilitation services that they might need. Now all I can sense in the member's contribution is a fear of doing what's right and why I say that is because what the member is offering is the status quo: letters of expectation—making sure that we can continue to gather the same data. Well ACC have made it clear that in order for us to understand these issues moving forward we must have a greater set of data. What this bill does is make it enduring across a period of time in order to get quality data and to allow that expert analysis of that data to make sure that the accident compensation (AC) scheme serves the people of New Zealand and that's one of the other matters that we're doing in this particular amendment. It is making sure and making it clear that we want the AC scheme to serve the people of New Zealand.
Henare PeeniHon PEENI HENARE (Minister for ACC): I thank the member for her questions. I mentioned earlier about this legislation giving impetus for ACC to be able to make sure that they collect the right data that they're able to address the disparities that as I've already mentioned Wai 2575—ACC has already presented evidence at that particular tribunal claim. I also know across my other portfolios that Māori are traditionally underserved by Government systems of which the ACC is one.So if there doesn't seem to be an apparent problem identified by my colleagues in the Opposition then what are we scared of? If indeed the analysis and the data gathering and the impetus we're providing through this legislation gives the opportunity to show those disparities which I'm going to suggest are there—and I suggest that because of the data sets that are quite clear in other spaces and the Hon Michael Woodhouse did mention that there are data sets in health there are data sets in other places. Well guess what we did with health in the reform! We passed the Pae Ora legislation put specifically in there a Tiriti o Waitangi clause to make sure that we do address those disparities that we do collect the data to ensure that Māori receive equitable health outcomes. That's a clear drive by this Government which is what we're doing with this particular bill making sure that that impetus is there in order for ACC to look into these matters. And it's the same to be said with other population groups which the member has asked about.What we do know for example and I've said it on a number of occasions recently as we look towards updating Schedule 2 of the Act is that women have been long underserved. The reason we know that is because when Schedule 2 was set it was set in a time where there were fewer women in the workforce where it only took predominantly the occupational diseases that were found in predominantly factory work and in areas dominated by male workers. What we now know though is the workforce has changed the nature of work has changed and it will continue to evolve into the future which is why we need to make sure that the system that we've set up in order to support workers around the country who are injured who need the support from the ACC scheme continues to serve them.
Simmonds PennyPENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill): Thank you Mr Chair. I am supporting my colleagues in this in that it does seem a slightly bizarre thing to be putting into legislation what has been able to be accommodated in letters of expectation. I've heard what the Minister for ACC said that this makes it more enduring but it also I would have thought takes the responsibility away from the Minister actually delving into that information and requiring ACC to provide that as required as specific matters of concern come to the Minister's attention.The other thing—I'm slightly perplexed by it—is that missing mail thing. We don't know if our mail is missing if we weren't expecting the mail. So how does the Minister know that there's missing data? How does the Minister know that there are disparities? And what information is the Minister going to expect the department to use? Because as he said the reports were transactional. People had to have applied to ACC to be able to then formulate reports. So how do reports get derived on what hasn't been reported? I'd like the Minister to explain to us just how ACC is going to be able to collect information that isn't there. It does seem a bit of an odd one for us.Also I suppose the other area that I was concerned about was the other communities and just who the other communities are. Is it women? Is it disabled? Just how is the Minister going to decide what other communities to target getting the information which hasn't come in on these communities? It just sounds very confusing about how we do get the information when as the Minister is saying he believes that these communities are not applying. And so therefore how will that information be gathered?So if the Minister could give us more information on how that's all going to occur that would be useful. Thank you very much.
O'Connor Greg; Henare PeeniCHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The committee is resumed on the Accident Compensation (Access Reporting and Other Matters) Amendment Bill.Hon PEENI HENARE (Minister for ACC): Thank you Mr Chair. Just in response to a number of the matters that were raised before the dinner break the reason for the legislation—and the Hon Michael Woodhouse pointed to the letters of expectation. Yes that is true; we write letters of expectation. He also pointed out that those letters of expectation—the ones he referred to—were in I think he dated them 2021 and 2022 if I recall correctly. In order for us to have an enduring capability or ability here to be able to meet those expectations we believe that putting it into legislation to hold all those in the system accountable to what we're trying to achieve here is the best mechanism to do it. We need certainty in order to build a proper time series in the data and to be able to have the analytical capability to make sure that we are addressing those matters of inequities and disparities that I've already highlighted in my contributions to this particular matter.The data that shows those disparities as I've already mentioned does exist. It exists not necessarily all at ACC but across different parts of the system and we've already had some discussion around my role as an associate health Minister. But we need to dig and dive a little bit deeper into these particular bits of data. I want to use a particular example: what we know through the ACC data is that Pacific people tend to return to work quicker. Now the challenge we have is that we can only guess why they do that but we can't be exactly sure. There could be a positive or a negative reason for why they return to work quicker. What the data suggests though more importantly is that it may be because 80 percent of them are on a low income and that means they've got to return to work sooner in order to be able to service their bills and their families. That's why they might be going back to work sooner and we want to make sure that we understand those matters. At the moment the data isn't there to inform those particular points which is why we need a richer set of data—greater analytics.More importantly though we need it to be enduring. Ministers come and go. Letters of expectation can continue to evolve and change. This piece of work is an evolution of the letters of expectation sent by my predecessor and it is my opinion that this particular mechanism by putting it into legislation gives it an enduring aspect to allow us all to continue to hold ourselves and the system to account in making sure that communities in this country aren't underserved by the ACC scheme. That's a key driver for why we're doing this.
Woodhouse Michael; Dean JacquiHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Well we have got a long way to go Mr Halbert. If that's the extent of the debate that he thinks we get in the committee of the whole House—when we combine parts and titles and commencement with the National Party's agreement—that we should then spend five minutes on this I think he's in for a bit of a surprise after dinner.Now I want to just touch on a couple of things that the Minister for ACC has said. Now in his rebuke of Mr van de Molen's comments about picking up the phone" he said "Well look we can't just pick up the phone as Ministers. They're independent Crown entities and they can't work like that." Well actually I consider the euphemism of "picking up the phone" to be met by the Minister's annual letter of expectations. The Minister's predecessor actually wrote in her letter of expectations for ACC in December 2021 I think it was that she expected that ACC continue to commission work and that the scheme settings that are "underserving women Māori Pacific peoples disabled peoples and ethnic communities" be addressed. "I look forward to continuing to work with you on these and other strategic developments in the year ahead."Now whatever the answer to the questions of whether the case for inequities has been made—and I want to ask the Minister questions about that—this bill as I said in my second reading is a well-meaning waste of time. The letter of expectations did everything that this bill did and more. So you could say pick up the phone write a letter—it's very clear that the Minister has the degree of influence over ACC's performance that he stated that he didn't.But I do want to come to what I think were pretty loaded statements by the Minister about under-reporting of injury by Māori and disparities and that the data does not exist. He talks about Wai 2575 and we'll get to that after dinner. He then said it's clear that there are holes in the data. "We found that Māori were underserved by the ACC scheme"; those were the Minister's words in his response to Mr van de Molen.So my question for the Minister which he can have an hour to think about and come back is: where is the case for change? He's asking this committee to accept proof of a negative—proof that there is no data. So if there's no data what's the case for change? Statistics New Zealand and ACC themselves have plenty of data on Māori injury serious harm and death rates compared with the population. It's an unfortunate reality that the Minister needs to address that actually Māori are overrepresented in too many of those statistics particularly young Māori men.So I think—regardless of whether or not we need this bill—we need to have the case for these disparities established because a Minister for ACC that wants to serve Māori should be looking for fewer claims by Māori because they are harmed at a lower rate than they currently are.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members the time has come for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break. The House will resume at 7 p.m.Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7 p.m."
van de Molen TimTIM van de MOLEN (National—Waikato): Thank you Madam Chair. Now again the Minister has misconstrued my comments. I wonder if it's becoming an intentional effort to try and cover for a terrible piece of legislation. There was no comment whatsoever from me about suggesting that people were ripping off the system" as the Minister put it.Indeed my comment was around the level of access as is required under this new piece of legislation—what happens in a scenario where they may be considering access for one particular group they've identified only to find out that that group indeed has access over and above what other groups may already have. This legislation specifically says they can only look to "further improve" access for those groups. So why would it be appropriate to improve access for a group that may already have access at a level above what other groups have? Surely the intent as the Minister indeed mentioned in his opening contribution is to improve access for all New Zealanders. So why would we want to distort that by having a scenario where one group who may already have improved access is only able to have that further enhanced under this legislation? It simply doesn't make sense."
Halbert Shanan; Dean JacquiSHANAN HALBERT (Junior Whip—Labour): Thank you Madam Chair. I move That the question be now put.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the question be now put.Motion agreed to.
Mooney Joseph; Henare PeeniJOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you Madam Chair. I just want to ask the Minister about clause 49 in the Supplementary Order Paper which does insert a new section enabling regulations to be made that prescribe levies to be paid by owners of motor vehicles with self-contained certificates.It's amended to ensure that in the first year the Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board sets levies and it can include in those levies any initial set-up costs incurred after the bill is enacted but before the amendments to the Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers Act 2006 come into force.So I'm just asking: are there any limitations to that regulatory power for the Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board to set levies that include any initial set-up costs? Because I would imagine that there is the prospect that those potentially could be quite high.Has the Minister set in place any limitations to ensure that any initial set-up costs aren't prohibitive; that the Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board can set a set-up that is prohibitive for those who have to comply with this and have to set this up? Because there is potentially a concern here that that could be quite significant.I would ask if the Minister has addressed that issue or has tuned his mind to it and what if any advice has been given to the Minister on this particular point. If the Minister is able to address that point it'd be helpful. Thank you.Hon PEENI HENARE (Minister of Tourism): I thank the member for his question. The expected cost is to be approximately $120 for the certification process. But I note the member's concern here and it's clear as we implement this particular framework that we'll continue to work with the regulator as those costs become very clear to us. But I want to be clear to the member that as we look towards this particular fee we don't want to be pricing our people out of paradise either.
McDowall James; Henare PeeniDr JAMES McDOWALL (ACT): Thank you Madam Chair. So if I can just get the Minister to confirm that under this law this legislation given the Supplementary Order Paper visitors tourists from Australia will be treated differently—very differently—to tourists coming from say the United Kingdom. Immigration rules aside I'd just like to know the justification behind that.Hon PEENI HENARE (Minister of Tourism): Madam Chair thank you again. Look I'm prepared to work with the member to clarify more of this particular matter with him. What became clear as we looked towards the impact on those who visit was the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. What we tried to do was make sure we've got balance here but if the member will indulge me I'll be more than happy to come back to him with a very specific way that the intention with this Supplementary Order Paper is looking towards those who visit the country from Australia and other places around the world. But I note the member's concern and question and I'll come back to him in the near future.
van de Molen Tim; Henare PeeniTIM van de MOLEN (National—Waikato): Thank you Madam Chair. That helps with one part of it but I did really want to get a gauge on how long he feels it will take and whether therefore it's likely to need that two-year extension or not but more specifically how many of these self-contained certification authorities he believes will be needed to meet that requirement and whether he has confidence that many of those can indeed be certified.Because we're talking here about setting up a new system and therefore having to find a whole group of people who can act as self-containment certification authorities. And I'm interested in whether he has confidence that there are enough people to fill those roles how many of those roles he thinks needs to be filled and not just for the initial period but also ongoing—obviously initially getting through that bulk load of vehicles will be a higher demand load but also to the point around the time frame for certification after the initial period. So renewals or for new vehicles down the track how long will they have to be certified and does he have confidence that the number of certification authorities will be sufficient for that purpose? Thank you.Hon PEENI HENARE (Minister of Tourism): I thank the member for his questions and I want to continue to reiterate that the register is a crucial part of the new system and it's that system that enables the enforcement officers and the public to determine whether a vehicle is self-contained or not. It talks about the displaying of a warrant to make sure that it is certified. I do have confidence in working with the regulator that we can within the two-year period probably do a really good job at making sure we can register and certify as many of these vehicles as possible.But as I mentioned we do reserve the ability to extend that for whatever reason and you know this country has seen those kinds of left-field situations—that were unexpected—impact on this country. We talk about severe weather events and the last time I checked Nostradamus wasn't in the National Party. So we can't predict weather events. We can't predict global pandemics. We can't predict many of the challenges that have impacted on global supply chains. And some of those matters were already canvassed in the submissions that were made to the committee which is why we've made it quite clear that we want to have the two-year transition period and of course we reserve the right to be able to extend that for a further two years if need be.But overall in response to that member: yes I do have confidence that we can have the workforce and that we have the capacity to be able to deliver this.