edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
6. Question No. 6—Public ServiceGINNY ANDERSEN (Labour—Hutt South) to the Minister for the Public ServiceQuestion No. 6—Public Service6. GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour—Hutt South) to the Minister for the Public Service: What pay and employment relations expectations has the Government set out for the public sector?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for the Public Service): Last year the Public Service Commissioner issued guidance to Public Service agencies asking them to have nil or minimal pay increases for public servants until June of this year. Today the Public Service Commissioner is updating that guidance to make it clear that pay restraint will need to continue to be exercised across the Public Service for the next three years. The updated guidance will continue to mean that there should be no pay increases for those earning over $100000 and senior leaders within the Public Service. Any increases should be targeted to those lower-paid public servants largely those earning below $60000 a year who account for about 25 percent of the public sector. We want those on the lower wages to be the focus of any increases in pay.Ginny Andersen: How would the Minister respond to concerns about this pay restraint raised by the Public Service Association?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: This is ultimately about prioritising Government spending. I would say to the Public Service Association that we'll continue to work closely with them on issues around gender and ethnic pay gaps on issues of pay parity and on issues around terms and conditions as we have been doing over the last three years where we're making progress and we know more progress is required. I'd also say to them that the guidance is consistent with the decision last year by the Remuneration Authority that Ministers and MPs would not be getting any pay rises for the next three years because of COVID-19 and the decision by the Public Service Commissioner who sets the pay of Public Service chief executives who will also not be increasing any of their pay.Ginny Andersen: What other expectations has the Government set out for the Public Service workforce?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: We want the Public Service to use modern progressive employment practices to be a good place to work. We also want a productive unified workforce which is grounded in the spirit of service. To achieve these goals we've set four key workforce priorities for the Public Service: employ people fairly equitably and in a way that allows them to live good lives and participate in the economy; work collaboratively with unions and other groups to achieve those shared goals; create an inclusive environment for all workers with the aim of achieving a diverse workforce; and achieve all of those goals within the fiscal context of the Government.
4. Question No. 4—HousingDr ANAE NERU LEAVASA (Labour—Takanini) to the Minister of HousingQuestion No. 4—Housing4. Dr ANAE NERU LEAVASA (Labour—Takanini) to the Minister of Housing: What progress if any has been made on accelerating the build of public housing?Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Housing): We are on track to deliver on our promise of over 18000 new housing—public and transitional—places by the end of 2024. We now have a fully funded public house building programme right through to 2024. To date since we took office we have delivered 7631 net new places of which 5848 are brand-new builds. I am focused on rebuilding the institutional muscle memory of the State to provide public housing at a scale we have not seen in decades as Kāinga Ora is now well positioned to continue this momentum.Dr Anae Neru Leavasa: Are there instances where public houses are bought in from the private market?Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The practice of buying in more houses than we are building that had been developed over the previous decade needed to stop and we have done that. Since we took office we've seen the proportion of houses bought in from the private market drastically reduce. For example in 2012 63 percent of all new State houses were buy-ins. This compares to an average around 23 percent under this Government. In limited circumstances we continue to buy in houses where there is a clear requirement such as to address urgent demand in locations where stock is limited or where a property is strategically located and beneficial to acquire. We expect the proportion of buy-ins to continue to decline as our public house build programme ramps up.Dr Anae Neru Leavasa: Are there instances under this Government where Kāinga Ora sells houses?Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Our Government came in with a policy to stop the mass sell-off of State houses and that is exactly what we did. However as we've stated numerous times there will always be instances where there is a need for Kāinga Ora to sell houses. These reasons include where it may be the wrong house in the wrong place—where it does not match demand in that area and it is surplus to requirements. To give perspective the number of State houses sold between November 2017 and January 2021 was 190 compared with 1300 sold between 2014 and 2017.Nicola Willis: Can she confirm there are currently 22803 New Zealanders on the social housing register and will she seek assistance from the deliverology unit to help address this?Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: In answer to the first part of the question yes I can confirm there are 22000 people on the State housing register. This is largely the result of a decade of inaction from that member's party when they were in Government—not only their failure to build houses but the fact that they ended up with 1500 fewer public houses than they started Government with.
2. Question No. 2—FinanceBARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) to the Minister of FinanceQuestion No. 2—Finance2. BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Today Statistics New Zealand released the job figures for the March 2021 quarter. The data showed the unemployment rate dropped again to 4.7 percent from 4.9 percent in December with 5000 fewer people classed as unemployed over the quarter. The unemployment rate is now the same as it was in September 2017. Stats New Zealand said the economy continued to add jobs at the start of the year with people in employment up 15000 over the March quarter from December. This meant people in employment is up by 32000 since the September 2020 quarter and it highlights the strength of the economy under the Government's recovery and jobs plan. Barbara Edmonds: What reactions has he seen to the positive jobs data? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The consensus among economists had been that the unemployment rate would stay at 4.9 percent. The result is also well below Treasury's forecast at the half-year update in December which had unemployment to be 6.5 percent in the March 2021 quarter. In their review of the data ANZ's economists said New Zealand's labour market was undeniably stronger" and that the employment numbers demonstrated "the remarkable resilience of the New Zealand economy and the success of the Government's COVID response at keeping workers connected with jobs". The success of that response can be seen in the data for the Auckland region which during this quarter was affected by alert level 3 restrictions. Employment in the Auckland region hit a record high during the March quarter. This shows that the Government's focus on protecting jobs and businesses with the wage subsidy and resurgence support payment continues to be the right approach. Barbara Edmonds: What other recent reports has he seen on the stability of the New Zealand economy? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Today the Reserve Bank released its May Financial Stability Report. The Reserve Bank says its assessment shows "New Zealand has coped with the COVID-19 pandemic better than initially feared". The report said that "The spread of COVID-19 in New Zealand has been supressed by border restrictions periodic Alert Level changes and an effective public health response." The bank added that "Business activity has been able to recover and confidence in the economic outlook has increased." The report also warned that some vulnerabilities and risks do remain and—I'll quote—"New Zealand's economic prospects ultimately depend on the global containment of the pandemic and on the recovery of trading-partner economies." That's why it's important for the Government to continue supporting the economy with our investments: to secure the recovery while tackling long-term issues like housing affordability which have built up over decades."
Financial Market Infrastructures Bill — Third Reading
Willis NicolaNICOLA WILLIS (National): In rising to offer the final contribution in this debate I'm reminded of that reality which is that we politicians in this House do an important job but we would be absolutely nowhere without the highly informed and educated officials and public servants behind us who do much of the detailed difficult work on bills like this and do so with a level of expertise that is as I think it is fair to say and with all due respect to all of my colleagues to a level that is beyond the comprehension of anyone who's contributed to this debate.Because we do have in front of us a very complex piece of legislation that relates to an area of law that is acknowledged by all members as fundamentally important yet is difficult to understand and opaque to most of us. But what it is is the regulatory regime for financial market infrastructure. And what we know here is that getting the regulation right in this area is vitally important. It's not just Duncan Webb's Uber Eats that is at stake. It is the very health of our economy. It is the wages entering the bank accounts. It is financial transactions being able to take place. It is the water running through the pipes.So it's vitally important. And as with any regulatory regime it is important that it keeps pace with technology and the reality of how our money systems have evolved over time. In this area as in so many other areas of regulation New Zealand needs to strive to keep up with best practice to allow for innovation but also to protect from risk. In this area we are doing a bit of catch up with the rest of the world. In doing that catch up as contributions throughout this debate have acknowledged we do need to note that we are interdependent here. We can regulate our own financial system in our little corner of the world as well as we like but we are ultimately very dependent on what is happening elsewhere in the world and there are various aspects of this regime that highlight that reality. I do think that it's important that we note this for the House.So National rises to support this bill. We commend the officials and the experts behind the scenes who have put the effort into producing this bill who understand it better than all of the politicians here tonight. It's an important piece of catch up. It's an important piece of regulatory work. I commend this bill to the House.
Halbert ShananSHANAN HALBERT (Labour—Northcote): Tēnā koe Madam Speaker and good evening to you and everyone in the House. Tonight I'm rising in support of the Financial Market Infrastructures Bill a bill that establishes a new regulatory regime for the regulation and oversight of the financial markets infrastructure. I take my two points from previous speakers tonight: first from my colleague Barbara Edmonds and the acknowledgment of a very practical part of our day-to-day lives an EFTPOS card. I think back to the past 12 to 18 months and the life of COVID-19 and we think to our small businesses across Auckland and across New Zealand who have had to pivot and adjust and adapt their business models to work within our new world and keep afloat essentially. And at the other end our customers have had to change what they purchased and adapt to those evolving markets too not only because they're consumers but also because they want to support local business and that was something special of that last 12 months throughout COVID-19. But what this bill does essentially is it upgrades I guess the plumbing—we've called it this evening. Barbara Edmonds: It's necessary. SHANAN HALBERT: It is necessary now. What we experience is that we have financial infrastructure systems regulatory systems that are incredibly out of date. It's important as we rebuild our economy post - COVID-19 that we support our local businesses that as consumers we go out and buy the things that we want to that it's as easy as possible for all involved it's as simple as possible. On that basis I would like to commend this bill to the House. Tēnā koe.
Woodhouse MichaelHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): That's OK—I won't be needing the five minutes Madam Speaker. In my second reading contribution on the Financial Market Infrastructures Bill I think it's fair to say it's probably one of the least esteemed speeches of my political career where I admitted to nearly no technical expertise in the areas which this bill seeks to improve. But I was fortunate enough to hear from a member of the Finance and Expenditure Committee who said this about the bill: he said It's a good bill. We need a good credit card system. Goodness knows where we would be if that system collapsed. My Uber Eats might not get delivered." That happened to come from Dr Duncan Webb chair of the Finance and Expenditure Committee in a weak moment. But he actually had a point flippant though it was which was underscored I think by Dr McDowall's and Ms Edmonds' contributions around the importance of what Barbara Edmonds calls "the plumbing" and what the Minister referred to in his speech as "the important electronic movement of currency through our financial system". Actually James McDowall talked about cryptocurrency and I think one of the things that we can say about a modern financial system is how incredibly quickly things change. My first job after school actually was in the National Bank stamping cheques and folding bank statements and that was before the first ATM was introduced into New Zealand in about 1983 or 1984 but we are fast adaptors. We are fast takers-up of technology. EFTPOS is another very good example of the way in which our financial systems have changed over the years. Indeed we're now at the point where cheques are not being issued by banks any more. Very little cash comparatively speaking—certainly in most parts of the economy—is being used now so electronic transactions are literally the circulatory system of our economy and our financial system. Therefore it is important that the regulatory framework continues to keep up with those fast-paced changes. But it's also fair to say that for many people including myself the technical aspects of this bill have been somewhat beyond even a chartered accountant and lapsed banker. The importance then of officials who are advising the committee and able to articulate to the previous Parliament's committee in plain English the very very complex technical aspects of this is absolutely vital and I think it speaks to the quality of the public sector that we have in this country that we are able to rely on them to the degree that we have. So I want to commend them together with the submitters who have also helped us make improvements to the bill. We've got some others. We're already doing the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Bill which is before the select committee which I—I'm pleased to say—know a lot more about and understand even better. It is nevertheless still being supported by those submitters and our officials. So I want to commend them and thank them and I commend the bill to the House."
Edmonds Barbara; Salesa JennyBARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana): Madam Speaker thank you very much. It's a privilege to take a call on the third reading of the Financial Market Infrastructures Bill. It's been a long time coming to get to this point where we're in now at the third reading—eight years actually; eight years of policy development consultation—and to the point where we've finally got to a bill that is so important because everybody in this House today I am pretty sure has used their EFTPOS cards. An FMI or a financial market infrastructure is the payment system that underpins an electronic funds transfer at position of sale. So to anybody who's used an EFTPOS card this bill is increasingly incredibly important to you. The bill as previous speakers have said provides a regulatory regime for FMIs and for someone like Aotearoa who uses EFTPOS—we're one of the highest users in the world. For example Payments NZ in 2019 cleared $6.9 trillion through their FMIs with the FMIs being settlement before interchange or high value clearing systems. An FMI as the Minister of Finance in the second reading—he likened it to a plumbing system. You know it's just like a plumbing system in a home and if you've got plenty of children there you know how important the plumbing system is. So when you're an in-house lawyer or you're a lawyer and you're doing submissions for court one of the really important things is for a piece of policy that's taken eight years to develop in order to help do your submissions to court you need to track through the Hansard and track through how you got through to the policy development. So I just want to quickly touch on the history of this bill to help that future in-house lawyer or that lawyer in the future from the Reserve Bank or Treasury who needs to look back into how we got to this position today. So in March 2013—as I've said this has taken eight years—the Reserve Bank began its first round of consultation by releasing a proposed new regulatory regime. Then in April 2015—two years later—they then did another round of consultation and they released a consultation paper to modify the existing statutory framework. Then in March 2016 the Reserve Bank issued another consultation paper and that was around the proposed crisis management powers which are covered within this bill. Then in August 2019 the Reserve Bank published the exposure draft which previous speakers have spoken to. In that exposure draft it also had a covering note which now led to what is the regulatory regime which is in here. Then finally in December 2019 we have the bill that is before us today that was introduced with the first reading on 12 February 2020 the second reading was on 16 March and then the committee stage was here in 2021. So I want to commend the Minister the Reserve Bank officials and Treasury officials for the robust sound and well-analysed bill that we have before us today. Good things take time. This bill has taken time so I commend this bill to the House. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): The next call is a split call.
McDowall JamesDr JAMES McDOWALL (ACT): Thank you Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of the ACT Party to support the Financial Market Infrastructures Bill. As previous members have stated this is a fairly technical bill but important to the healthy functioning of New Zealand's economy. The proposed regulatory framework allows our exporters to trade with certainty and to manage their risk. It is incredibly important to the financial security of New Zealand as was painfully evident in the global financial crisis. Generally speaking ACT typically does not support additional regulation with great enthusiasm; however we also feel that fixing a potential market failure is perfectly justifiable and reasonable. We favour an efficient financial system in New Zealand particularly in times of crisis. This bill provides a regulatory framework to insulate financial markets during periods when the markets can become illiquid and it's difficult for trades to occur. This bill will assist in providing certainty in such times. When I lived in London in 2007 just as the global financial crisis was unravelling I saw the significant impact on financial markets the economy people's businesses and not least of all the devastating human cost including on my own family. So anything we can do to insulate ourselves when such global events crop up is a good thing. We have recently seen issues such as the trading of game stock shares on novel electronic platforms where investors were exposed to significant losses because of the lack of liquidity in those platforms. We've also witnessed a similar series of events with the volatility in the movements of cryptocurrencies. This bill could reduce the impact of these events on New Zealand investors. ACT also favours this bill because it is largely an opt-in system for non-designated financial market infrastructures; however it is prudent that institutions deemed too big to fail are also mandated to be part of this regime. ACT supports the quest for a more efficient and stable financial system. Supporting this bill would reflect a long consultation period which has been conducted across the world by organisations such as the International Monetary Fund and will ensure consistency with our trading partners. I commend this bill to the House.
Shaw JamesHon JAMES SHAW (Minister of Climate Change): Thank you Madam Speaker. It's often said that in financial services regulation follows innovation and there have been extraordinary amounts of innovation in the financial services and financial markets sector over the course of the last few years—things like trading clearing settlement services reporting services for payments securities derivatives and so on. It's an incredibly fast-moving area. If these services take hold which is starting to happen in Aotearoa New Zealand that provides huge opportunity competition to banks new levels of financial services and secondary and tertiary products and industries that can trail off the back of it. But it is one of those things where in the absence of an effective regulatory regime that actually tends to dampen innovation because there's a level of uncertainty about the operating environment for those services. This is particularly true in financial services. So this is an area in New Zealand which has had a very light level of regulation and obviously the regulation is also old and because the innovation is moving so quickly it needs to be updated. So on that basis this is a very good bill. It's a timely bill and it's an important part of the regulatory infrastructure to support the financial markets infrastructure that the bill is intended to address. I wanted to say that I think it's had a good process this particular bill. There was an exposure draft in advance of the bill coming into the House. It attracted very little public comment which shows that it's not terribly controversial. It's had support throughout its process and so I think we're probably at the point where we can say we've done our job and been thorough about it. I do want to say that I think the intention of the bill is important. That is to protect New Zealand's financial markets and the participants in it from significant damage to increase fairness to increase transparency and to ensure that good practices are followed in the financial services sector all of which are consistent with the principles that my party puts forward when it comes to monetary policy or financial services policy as well. So on that basis we support this bill and we're looking forward to its passage into regulation.
White HelenHELEN WHITE (Labour): I rise to take a short call on this matter. I'm absolutely delighted to do so. I spent 27 years as an employment lawyer and this is not a change that is one that I look at in terms of COVID. I think COVID is the lesson about how valuable people are in our society and we should have learnt it a long time ago.When I was an employment lawyer I had one big employer who at that point in my career distressed me because they actually started to performance manage their staff because they were taking the minimum entitlement in sick leave. Now that was one of our bigger richer employers and it was one that actually employed a lot of men and I wondered how much it actually encouraged a mentality in that workplace that was machismo that treated people like they were machines. They're not machines; they're human beings and when we employ human beings we need to accept that they have families that they get sick and that they're valuable in themselves and that they shouldn't be at work when they're sick and they shouldn't be at work when they need to stay home and look after their children. I remind the last speaker that in COVID we actually had a situation where most workers in this country whose employers took the wage subsidy from the Government also took a reduction in wages of 20 percent. They were in there boots and all helping. Actually this is another form of partnership that perhaps the National Party might get its head around. This is actually about us all working together us all having a stake in things and us all producing in this country including the workers of this country. So I am absolutely thrilled at this legislation. I also wanted to point out that it's probably worth a thought that there are employers out there many employers out there who pay 10 days' sick leave—lots of them. They are actually not in an even playing field when they are competing with people who are cutting back entitlement to such unrealistic levels. I want to see a place in New Zealand for employers to be actually patted on the back and encouraged and supported when they do the right thing and that means that all the employers who are already paying 10 days' sick leave are actually going to feel supported when this legislation comes through.I'm absolutely thrilled to see a change in mentality in this country. It's been a long time coming and a lot of people have suffered while we waited for this kind of legislation to recognise that workers are human beings. And that is the end of my call. Thank you. I commend this bill to the House.
Waititi Rawiri; Dean JacquiRAWIRI WAITITI (Co-Leader—Te Paati Māori): Oh what?! Tēnei te mihi atu ki a tātou i tēnei pō. Tēnā tātou e te Whare. We acknowledge that the impetus of this bill was based on the horrific terrorist attack on the Muslim communities in Christchurch on 15 March 2019 and our aroha and solidarity remains with our Muslim whānau always. However despite this context we strongly oppose this bill which seeks to make our already flawed counter-terrorism legislative framework even worse. It would widen the net of potential terrorist activities even more making it even more likely that Māori and others are wrongfully accused under these laws.Planning and undertaking terrorist attacks is already illegal under standard laws. Additional anti-terror laws are unnecessary. We also know that security agencies such as the SIS and the GCSB have traditionally been far more focused on Māori activists and peaceful Muslim citizens rather than actual terrorists such as white supremacist groups. Changing this would be the single best thing the Government can do to prevent any future attacks. It's pretty simple really: focus on the right people and use the laws we already have to protect our communities. Instead of pushing for more Draconian laws bureaucrats in our security agencies should be reflecting on why they were targeting completely the wrong people.The Crown has weaponised fears around terrorism to target and vilify tangata whenua and has used anti-terror laws to criminalise our people as we saw with the Urewera raids. As the MP for Te Waiariki I am reminded often of the terror that was instilled in Tūhoe from those raids. Young children had their school bus boarded by heavily armed officers and whānau were locked in garages without food and water. The elderly were made to lie on the floor for hours on end. In another display of State aggression the Crown wrongfully tried to prosecute the Urewera Four with anti-terror laws. In the end the Crown failed in using those laws and instead drummed up firearms charges. It's likely that the Crown would have tried to use the new provisions in the bill relating to weapons training and planning preparation which may have ensured their success in demonising Tūhoe whānau who were only practising their mana motuhake on their land on their whenua as they have done since time immemorial.Te Paati Māori opposed the Search and Surveillance Act 2012 despite being in Government and have a strong track record in opposing policies dressed up as anti-terrorism measures that undermine the human rights and civil liberties that all parties in this House claim to hold dear. We are proud to continue that track record of opposition tonight and vote against this legislation. The Government needs to refocus on the drivers of violence and hate in our communities such as white supremacy racism and bigotry in all its forms. Te Paati Māori do not support this bill. Tēnā tātou.Motion agreed to.Bill read a first time.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is That the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Bill be considered by the Justice Committee.Motion agreed to.Bill referred to the Justice Committee.
Counter-Terrorism Legislation Bill — First Reading
Walters Vanushi; Dean JacquiVANUSHI WALTERS (Labour—Upper Harbour): Tēnā koe Madam Speaker and thank you for the opportunity to take a short call in relation to this bill which is a very important bill but also one that is clearly borne from tragedy. I do want to acknowledge the 51 shuhada who were lost on 15 March 2019 but also those who are injured and for ever changed both physically as well as emotionally. I want to acknowledge their whānau and all those who continue to be affected by the loss.Ko tō tātou kāinga tēnei is a response and report to the royal commission of inquiry terms of reference in to the terrorist attacks and the meaning of that is this is our home". The purpose as the report itself said: "The country needed to know what had happened and why and what should be done to reduce the risk of future attacks."I want to speak very briefly to a few parts of this bill which respond in part to recommendation 18 of that report—firstly the clarifying of the definition of "terrorism" or a "terrorist act". The new definition proposed by this bill is one that advances an ideological political or religious cause carried out to induce fear in a population. So this is rather than using language of "terror in a civilian population". This is important because using "terror" as part of the definition itself is recursive or circular.When we look to other jurisdictions what we see is more akin to what's been proposed in this bill. For example in Australia they define in part a terrorist act as "intimidating the public or a section of the public"; the word "intimidating" is used. The UK also includes the word "intimidates" in its definition. In the US they use language of "intimidate or coerce". So this will help our law become more clear.The creation of a new offence to criminalise planning or preparation for a terrorist attack is another element of the bill. This remedies a gap in the law that was referred to in the case of R v S. Now a few people here have mentioned or made the argument not tonight but in statements before this debate that section 175 of the Crimes Act already in part addresses this issue. Section 175 is about conspiracy to commit murder and I suspect that most of us in this room would agree where actions are planned and prepared for that are similar to those carried out on March 15 that signifies something significantly more than murder. There is an intent to induce terror and the purpose of advancing an ideology or political or religious cause. I am a member of the Justice Committee so I won't take up more of the House's time tonight. I am looking forward to receiving some submissions as part of that committee. I commend the bill to the House.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Rawiri Waititi—five-minute call."
Mallard TrevorCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Mr Speaker this committee has considered the Immigration (COVID-19 Response) Amendment Bill and reports it without amendment.Motion agreed to.Report adopted.SPEAKER: The House is now adjourned for the dinner break.Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7 p.m.
McAnulty Kieran; Salesa JennyKIERAN McANULTY (Chief Whip—Labour): I move That the question be now put.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that clause 1 stand part. Matt Doocey: A point of order Madam Chair. I'm just wondering if you could repeat that because I was slightly distracted.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the question be now put. The question is that clause 1 stand part.
Faafoi KrisHon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Immigration): I might just take a quick contribution to address the question that's been afforded of us in this very narrow debate. Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Make it 2½ minutes.Hon KRIS FAAFOI: I'll try my best. If you do some of the maths on some of that process this bill extinguishes mid-May. If we were to have a select committee process whether it be four to six months you'd take us roughly to January or December of last year. Now something happened late last year it's called an election and coming into Government and making sure that we were progressing priority legislation was what the new Government wanted to do. We always knew that this piece of legislation would need to be updated in order to allow the officials to have the lead-up and do the policy work to get it to that stage and the period where there was an election being held obviously affected that. It helps us that the election result is what it is because we are able to get this piece of legislation through now. So if that answers the question in this very narrow part of this debate I hope that suffices the Opposition.
Goldsmith Paul; McAnulty KieranHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Well while the Minister sits there impassively and declines to trouble himself with answering that question it is a question that I think New Zealanders want an answer to. What we have here is a perfectly predictable issue that these powers that Parliament granted to this Minister at an extraordinary time under a pandemic were about to expire. He had plenty of time to work out that this was going to happen and the proper thing to have done would have been to have introduced this legislation earlier in the process so that we would have had a proper amount of time to debate it to consider it and to fully understand the implications of it. That's how Parliament works in this country. So for the benefit of people who are tuning in on their crystal sets to this publication here how bills—legislation—are normally passed in this country is that the Government proposes a bill and then it's sent off to a select committee which calls for submissions and then there are several months so that New Zealanders have an opportunity to comment on it. One thing that I learnt as a—Kieran McAnulty: Point of order Madam Chairperson. This is a very narrow debate about the commencement date for this bill. So far we have had one and a half contributions that have talked about the select committee process and sunset clauses but not commencement date. CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The member has a point. This is about the title and the clause of commencement. The Hon Paul Goldsmith can you make it relevant please. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Thank you Madam Chair. I'm very grateful for your comments but of course the commencement date is only the commencement date because of the timing of this bill. The point I was making was that—Kieran McAnulty: It was out of order. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: And I don't need any comments from the member from over there. I can handle this myself thank you very much. Now the proposal around the commencement date of this piece of legislation and the point I was making was that the normal process—and I was doing it for the benefit of people who might be listening in—is that New Zealanders have an opportunity to talk about it. Now because we haven't had that opportunity we're left here with what is an inadequate scrutiny of this legislation because of this Government's laziness when it came to introducing this legislation and that is relevant to the time notwithstanding the fact that it will be passed because this Government has the numbers in this House. We agree with the basic proposition of these powers being extended; the question is how far and for how long. So my only point to the Minister is I'd just expect a little bit more humility I suppose when dealing with the processes of Parliament.
Salesa Jenny; Stanford EricaClauses 1 to 3CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members we come now to the debate on clauses 1 2 and 3 which are the title commencement and principal Act clauses. The question is that clauses 1 to 3 stand part.ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): I would like to talk to the Minister about the commencement date of this bill. I want to know from the Minister why it is that—Madam Chair I'll take your guidance on this if it's out of scope—all of this was done in such a rush. The reason that I want to bring this into the commencement is because we've had very very little time to hear from all of the submitters that we wanted to hear. We had a very short time to consider what is a doubling of the extension of the powers. As the New Zealand Law Society said the truncated nature of this bill meant that actually the one-year sunset clause that we had was a really good safeguard but the Minister wanted two years. So the fact is that we've had a very truncated select committee process both in the first time we passed this bill and the second time we passed this bill yet we're asking for two years. So my question to the Minister is why is it—because he's actually never answered this question—that this bill wasn't brought last year when we would have been able to have a proper long process especially given that he wasn't asking for one year? In fact he originally wanted three years but he's actually asking for two years. So my question to the Minister is: what happened? Why do we have this short time frame given that he's known about the sunset clause in this bill for a year?
Stanford EricaERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): That's an explanation of sorts for work visa holders but if we take visitor visa holders—nothing to do with their ability to work because they're not here on a work visa; they're here via visitor visas. For the most part they are older people. Earlier this year in February they were all sent a letter to say You need to leave." Five days later the Minister told them that they had an extension. Is that acceptable and did he in fact learn the lessons from last year? The New Zealand Law Society made a very good recommendation for a longer period of time not only because of these issues we've just been speaking about but also because of the fact that this disallowable instrument the special direction is only disallowable after it's been made. If there was an ability before that to have some notice then this would be an extra safeguard in the bill. Now I know that the Minister wants to be flexible and nimble but in most cases he's been giving three days five days and in one case a week's notice which he admitted they're going to learn from and hopefully move on and get better processes in place. But actually a notice period fixes so many problems and anxieties that these migrants are feeling. Other than "We'd like to work-test." there has been no explanation from the Minister as to why he can't give more notice period. Given the fact that we all agree that there will be some extraordinary circumstances where he will need to be a little bit more flexible and nimble he can have the ability to make a decision in three days or five days or a week if that's what is necessary. But actually especially for those people who are here on visitor visas why is it that they can't have a far greater notice period rather than being told as short a time ago as February this year when they thought they'd have to leave the country in a week that the Minister turned around and changed his mind after they'd all been sent a letter and said "Actually no you can have your extension for three months."? These are the kinds of things that are happening. People are losing their jobs. Kids can't go to school. Older people are being stressed out and buying flights and having to reschedule them. They're all living on a knife edge because this Minister is making decisions at the last minute and hasn't been able to explain why it is that he can't give more notice to these people especially those people who are here on visitor visas who are mostly older people."
Faafoi Kris; Stanford EricaHon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Immigration): I might quickly just address that question from Erica Stanford by well just saying some of the factors that go into consideration when we're looking at using these powers to extend the period of visas for classes. When we consider that it is taking into consideration obviously their visas but also the labour market tests and issues that we're also trying to manage within New Zealand. I can stand up quite happily and say that we've had good news in terms of our unemployment record today but that doesn't mean that we're not without challenges in New Zealand to get New Zealanders into work. Something that always is a test when we're looking at visas and the ability to approve a visa especially for those who are working is: is there somebody else in New Zealand available to do that work? We've during this period tried to make sure that we get that balance right of making sure that we give New Zealanders opportunities to work when the chips have been down but because of the response that we've had the economy is actually going quite well. But again I would reiterate that there are still challenges that we have to meet in balancing that decision about extending visas—and labour market tests are something that we take into consideration. I would also remind the member that these people are on temporary work visas or temporary visas. So at some stage they also have to do a calculation as the member said about whether or not they should stay here in New Zealand and I acknowledge some of the difficulty that they would have in any case if they were to face that situation. I think everything's been a learning curve over the last 12 months. I think certainly some of the communication to visa holders Immigration New Zealand and I would say could have been better and we've learnt a lot of lessons over the last 12 months as to how we can do it. But I can assure the member that the intent has always been trying to balance some of those competing factors to make sure that we keep the safety intact of New Zealanders and make sure that those businesses who want to be able to keep their workers here in New Zealand can also do that. I think we've done that to good effect over the last 12 months. ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Is three days an acceptable notice period to give work visa holders? Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Immigration): I can't recall the case and the decision which the member talks to. Again as I mentioned in my previous answer there have been lessons learnt both in communication and in timing and as one who likes to take lessons when they are offered in front of them if we are afforded the opportunity to pass this bill we'll continue to make sure we learn from them.
Salesa JennyPart 2 Modifications of principal Act in connection with temporary powersCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members we come now to the debate on Part 2. This is the debate on clause 17 Modifications of principal Act in connection with temporary powers". The question is that Part 2 stand part."
Faafoi KrisHon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Immigration): I might just begin by saying I'm the one in the chair so I would appreciate it if the member could leave the officials out of it actually—I don't think that's appropriate—and I thank him for his earlier kind words. It means a lot to me. I find it difficult that the Opposition—I won't label the whole Opposition—or that member hasn't quite grasped the seriousness of the COVID pandemic. So to ask the question What is COVID?"—maybe that member should go away and probably watch the news in about 35 minutes and look at what is happening around the world. The simple fact is we don't want that happening here. It's that simple. That's why the border restrictions are in place and Mr Stuart Smith if you don't get that then that's on you."
Faafoi KrisHon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Immigration): I hate to burst the member's bubble but she may want to go look at the explanatory note and I think in the version of the Act as it is now because it says the Act as currently drafted—and this is the original Immigration Act—has a very limited ability to deal with applicants as a class or groups of individuals. In emergency situations this creates challenges and constrains the Government's ability to respond flexibly where for example large numbers of visas need to be changed or extended at once. So to cherry-pick one of the reasons as to why this piece of legislation was brought in in the first place because of closures under either level 4 or level 3 I believe is disingenuous. The explanatory note also goes on to say—and it's pretty obvious—that at the time the immigration system was facing unprecedented challenges in managing a large number of migrants who practically are unable to leave New Zealand due to COVID-19 outbreaks. Ordinarily temporary migrants are required to submit individual applications for a new visa or to vary its conditions where circumstances change and for example they need to be redeployed by their employer into a different role or different region. Now the reality of what the Opposition is asking us—and if I can take an example of the Recognised Seasonal Employer scheme (RSE)—is that if we wanted to change the conditions of some of those visas the 4500 RSE workers that were here before we allowed the extra 2012 in would've had to put their applications in to vary or change a circumstance on their visa whenever that may have come up on an individual basis. Now if we allowed that to happen I can bet quite a lot of money that the Opposition would be in this House saying This is taking too long. What is happening? This is not happening at a fast enough pace." I have been on that side of the House when you have to try and find something wrong with a piece of proposed legislation and this is what the Opposition is focusing on but in order for us to have the flex and the ability to move swiftly in order to benefit—benefit positively—large cohorts of visa holders these are the powers that are within this bill. So to answer the question this bill was brought in so we could deal with classes of visas and our ability to deal with individual changes would be very difficult for the immigration system and I think we'd be here having another conversation which would be remarkably different because things wouldn't be moving fast enough."