edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Menéndez March RicardoRICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) (remote): Tēnā koe Madam Speaker. It's a pleasure to speak on the first reading of the Companies (Levies) Amendment Bill and just noting that this bill is coming after the Companies Office Registers Funding Validation Bill and this kind of ties everything together by effectively amending the Companies Act of 1993 to create a new regulation-making power that will enable regulations to be made that impose levies on certain users of the register administered by the New Zealand Companies Office. I think what it is important to note here is that these powers will expressly provide that the money collected in levies can only be used to fund the registry system as a whole rather than on a register-by-register basis.I note that the Minister has had several bills come today. I also wanted to acknowledge his comments around the lack of public consultation prior to this bill coming forward. I do think the select committee stage will provide an opportunity for public scrutiny and for some of the concerns raised by the members of the National Party to be addressed around whether this bill actually creates inequities within the systems and perhaps puts some companies at the disadvantage. I think this is what the select committee is there for. Otherwise for us it's a common-sense bill and a relatively minor technical bill to tie the validation bill together. So we commend this bill to the House.
McLellan TraceyDr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour—Banks Peninsula): Thank you Madam Speaker. The New Zealand Companies Office as we've heard tonight administers the corporate registry system of 16 registers—and supports other statutory functions as well I think it should be noted—and this bill the Companies (Levies) Amendment Bill simply amends the Companies Act 1993 to create a new regulation-making power essentially providing for levies to be paid by users. That makes it fairer.Our Companies Office has been a critical part of our economy and our society for many years and I think it's well known that the office maintains a register that it's made public and that it's part of something that builds the trust and confidence of people in the economy because it makes sure that that information is transparent and fair and that people can understand it. And certainly with the passage of the validation bill that passed on Budget night this levies bill will allow for the introduction of levies that can be used as has been said across the 16 registers that the Companies Office operates which is a good thing. For that purpose I commend this bill to the House.
Bennett GlenGLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth): Kia ora Madam Speaker. I'm not sure if Mr Bayly was listening to our busy Minister Clark who has this as his third piece of legislation as you said tonight. But I think he made it very clear in his opening remarks about why this is important.This legislation since its conception in 1993 has been flawed. There have been issues with it and even looking back in 2012 when the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment was established there were challenges that our officials have been trying to figure out on this. Now with our modern IT systems putting things in place this very much is a process of unders and overs and looking at it. It's not as the previous speaker said about being unfair; I think it's finding a way that we can actually I have a fairer system. I want us to trust the public on this one and to take it obviously to select committee to hear what the public has to say because I think we can trust them and Mr Bayly I hope you can trust them too. I commend the Companies (Levies) Amendment Bill to the House.
Ngobi Terisa; Salesa JennyTERISA NGOBI (Labour—Ōtaki): Mālō 'aupito Madam Speaker. As always it's a privilege and an honour to take a call in this Fale of change.It's been some time since I've been able to take a call in the Chamber. Some of that was due to illness but some of that was also due to the weather events that have been happening throughout Aotearoa but also hitting the Ōtaki electorate quite bad—not just in terms of the flooding but also we had hurricanes something that we have very rarely seen in the Ōtaki electorate. This is evidence that Papatūānuku and Ranginui are not happy. This is evidence that climate change issues are real. This bill supports the need to make sure that we get our actions in terms of climate change right by stopping illegal logging.As has been said already by many throughout the House this bill also ensures that timber that is being imported to Aotearoa as well as the home-grown timber here in Aotearoa is legally harvested. This we know will uphold the mana—or the reputation—of our forestry industry here in Aotearoa. For that reason I commend this bill to the House.Motion agreed to.Bill read a first time.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is That the Forests (Legal Harvest Assurance) Amendment Bill be considered by the Primary Production Committee.Motion agreed to.Bill referred to the Primary Production Committee.
Forests (Legal Harvest Assurance) Amendment Bill — First Reading
Coffey TamatiTĀMATI COFFEY (Labour) (remote): Thank you Madam Speaker. The previous speaker was right: in terms of this bill global consumers really want those assurances about our high-quality primary products. I live in Rotorua. We're on the doorstep of the Kaingaroa Forest. We need to have absolute certainty that our forest products that we have in New Zealand but also things that we're domestically importing from overseas are harvested in the right way. The illegal harvesting of wood is a significant problem globally as previous speakers have gone and said. They contribute to deforestation the degradation of ecosystems and damaging economic and social impacts. In New Zealand we have to be committed to trade only in legally harvested timber and this bill looks to do that today. So I commend this bill to the House.
Utikere TangiTANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Thank you Madam Speaker. It's a pleasure to take a brief call in support of the Forests (Legal Harvest Assurance) Amendment Bill in the name of the Minister of Forestry the Hon Stuart Nash. Can I thank him for bringing the bill to the House because we all know that forestry is absolutely important to our primary sector and the success of that sector but so too is the reputation around timber harvesting here domestically but also the products that are imported into this country as well. So that sense of global confidence in the systems that we have here and those elsewhere around the world leads to that integrity within the forestry supply chain which obviously is an advantage.I know that members of the select committee—we've heard from many of them this evening—obviously are really looking forward to engaging with a number of submitters as part of this process and I certainly wish them well for that. I commend this bill to the House.
Lorck AnnaANNA LORCK (Labour—Tukituki): Thank you Madam Speaker. We've heard tonight that the scale of illegal logging across the world is enormous. As a member of the Primary Production Committee I'm looking forward to hearing more through the submissions process around the import of illegal logging materials into New Zealand and the scale of that and how we measure it.I'd just like to acknowledge the Green Party member Eugenie Sage for the passion that she spoke with tonight. And listening to the significant issues that she has raised I think it's imperative for us as a select committee to listen to those issues that have been brought up. I recommend this bill to the House. Thank you Madam Speaker.
Roberts AngelaANGELA ROBERTS (Labour): Kia ora Madam Speaker; thank you. It is a pleasure to take a call on this bill the Forests (Legal Harvest Assurance) Amendment Bill. I just want to take a moment to acknowledge the broader context within which this bill sits—that is helping us to secure our future. Te Uru Rākau the New Zealand Forest Service is in the process of developing a forestry and wood-processing industry transformation plan. This bill will support the aims of this plan. It's a fantastic process. Collaboration is always messy and time-consuming but they're getting there and there's some really exciting stuff coming out as a result of the collaboration.One of the aims that this bill will contribute to is that forestry will be able to contribute more to the New Zealand economy by ensuring access to markets—specifically the growing number of markets that are requiring us to demonstrate the legality of our timber products. As we've already heard tonight this is a significant and growing industry—a 70 percent increase in the last decade alone—and so it's really really important that we protect and futureproof our export markets. Another aim of the industry transformation plan is that we unlock the sector's potential to support our climate change goals. Our historic emissions reduction plan talks about how we can better prepare for a low-emissions future and protect our economic security and forestry covers so many bases when it comes to meeting those obligations. We've heard about illegal harvesting globally and the contribution it makes to deforestation degradation of ecosystems and the damaging economic and social impacts.This is an important piece of legislation and we really look forward to it coming to select committee. It's great to hear the support from across the House which means we'll be able to put all of our energy into making this a great piece of legislation. I recommend this to the House.
Luxton JoJO LUXTON (Labour—Rangitata): Thank you Mr Speaker. I'm really pleased to rise and take a call on the Forests (Legal Harvest Assurance) Amendment Bill as the chair of the select committee that will be looking after this piece of legislation. As the Minister outlined in his contribution the economic and ecological losses from illegally harvested forests have massive impact right across the world. We heard that for our economy it's worth $6.7 billion and we employ 35000 people within the forestry sector so it makes absolute sense that we would look to bring this piece of legislation in. I just want to acknowledge the contribution that the previous speaker Todd Muller made and I do look forward to the committee being able to further investigate and address some of the issues that he raised. He is right in the fact that the Primary Production Committee works in a pretty bipartisan way to get the best outcomes for legislation that comes before us. We heard from the Minister that this piece of legislation is about protecting the integrity of our export forestry and I think that's really important for New Zealand. The purpose of the bill though is to ensure that timber that is grown in New Zealand and imported into New Zealand is legally harvested. The definition of legally harvested" is going to be a key concept under this bill. It's about ensuring that the person who harvests it has the right to harvest it has the necessary legal authority to exercise that right and does not contravene the harvest laws of the place or country of harvest when carrying out the harvest and the member previously talked about the rules and obligations for harvest in other countries. So that's a really interesting point that the member did make and one that I'm sure that the select committee will look to delve into a bit further. Again I'm looking forward to having this bill before our select committee looking forward to hearing submissions on it and shepherding it through the House. So I commend this bill to the House."
McKelvie Ian; Bayly AndrewClauses 1 and 2CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): Members we now come to our final debate clauses 1 and 2. This is the debate on clauses 1 and 2 Title" and "Commencement". The question is that clauses 1 and 2 stand part.ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): I suppose the first question is on the commencement date. The bill provides for a dual commencement date. Sections 16 and 17 come into force immediately but the rest of the bill basically comes in—and it's been changed from the second to the third anniversary of the date of Royal assent. So the first thing we'd like to say is: we don't think it should come into force at all—it shouldn't come into force. This is a wasted bill that is going to impose millions of dollars' worth of additional cost and compliance costs on banks and make it harder for them to lend. It's going to drive up their prices and also make it worse for ordinary New Zealanders trying to access credit. This bill should have been captured under the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act (CCCFA) and we should have done that properly rather than muck that up. And so our first point is it shouldn't have taken place. We shouldn't even be discussing this. But I suppose the issue about extending the date from the second to the third—I know this was sort of a poisoned chalice from the financial institutions' perspective because they don't want to see this come in but they did try and get to a point of if they had to have it come in what would be an appropriate date to give time to put all these arrangements in place. But I suppose it gives an issue about if we're waiting for three years for this bill to come into effect—and the Minister couldn't even answer some of the issues that will be covered by regulation which he was asked about tonight—then I think: why the dickens are we doing this bill? Why doesn't the Government take it back fix it up and deal with the regulations so that there's absolute clarity? The regulations and the compliance involved in this is significant. It will require a lot of additional people. Why doesn't the Minister actually go away do the homework get it in place make it clear as to what's going to come in place make sure it doesn't overlap or conflict with the CCCFA changes and actually then put through a good piece of legislation? If he did that I would think that we may possibly support a bill of that ilk. But what we've ended up with is a double-headed monster for financial institutions with competing regulatory bodies that are going to have to be accountable for—and I don't think this will make a jot of difference to people trying to get a loan trying to buy a house; all it's going to do is make their loan harder to get and more costly to get. One of the questions I did ask the Minister which he refused to answer was: how much additional costs is this going to take and impose on financial institutions who in the main do a pretty good job in New Zealand? But we don't know what it is. It's certainly more than $1.4 million. Financial institutions do make mistakes. It could have been adequately catered for in the CCCFA. This is a bit of a clown of a piece of legislation."
Clark David; Bayly AndrewHon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): I do need to apologise to the member because the copy of the bill that's on the Table of course doesn't take into account the changes in Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 173 and that section is actually deleted from the final bill. So my answer to him: I hadn't appreciated that. That was the original mitigation but it's deleted in the SOP 173 because a similar provision in the Commerce Amendment Act 2022 already exists so that protection is already provided.ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you and I appreciate the Minister helping with that. The other one I just want to turn my mind to is Schedule 1. This is dealing with provisions relating to the Financial Markets (Conduct of Institutions) Amendment Act 2019 which we're talking about—clause 91. This deals with the transfer of the licence for a financial institution from existing banks insurers and non-bank deposit takers. So there's quite a few organisations involved in this and what this does is it sets out that the clause means that basically the licence should be transferred provided that the Reserve Bank actually agrees to it.What subclause (3) talks about: The Reserve Bank may withhold its consent only if the Reserve Bank is satisfied" that the financial institution should not have the consent "for maintaining a sound and efficient financial system:" which means basically it's going broke or trading inappropriately or "(b) in a case where [a non-deposit taker or a licenced insurer] that withholding the consent is necessary for maintaining [for the insurance sector] a sound and efficient insurance sector." That all makes sense but the next clause says "If the FMA has asked for the Reserve Bank's consent but the Reserve Bank refuses to give its consent the FMA must accept the application"—must accept the application—"even if it does not consider that 1 or more of the requirements referred to in section 396 or 400 are satisfied."So this just seems weird that on the face of it—and hopefully the officials can help here—the Reserve Bank might say "Look don't transfer this organisation."—and I don't know why it would only happen in a transition anyway because the Reserve Bank would normally have stopped—Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Point of order. Checking my facts before I brought up the point of order but this part of the Schedule actually relates to Part 1 section 18. So it's not in the current part that we're debating; it's already been passed. I'd just draw the member's attention to that.Andrew Bayly: So would you like to answer the questions?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Good try.ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Point of order. It may relate but it's still set out in Schedule 1 of Part 2."
McKelvie Ian; Bayly Andrew; Clark DavidPart 2 Other amendmentsCHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): Members we now come to Part 2. Part 2 is the debate on clauses 19 to 21 and Schedule 2—other amendments. The question is that Part 2 stand part.ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you Mr Chair. We're having a great night aren't we? I thought I'd look at new section 113A in clause 20 which deals with sharing of information and documents with the Financial Markets Authority. It states here that (1) The Commission may provide to the Financial Markets Authority any information or a copy of any document that the Commission—(a) holds in relation to the exercise of the Commission's powers or the performance of its functions and duties in respect of this Act; and (b) considers may assist the Financial Markets Authority in the exercise of its powers"—and this is the important part—"(2) The Commission may use any information or a copy of any document provided to it by the Financial Markets Authority under section 30 of the Financial Markets Authority … in the Commission's exercise of its powers or the performance of its functions and duties in respect of this Act." So I suppose this is an issue about privacy. It's about making sure that Government agencies don't pass over information they shouldn't pass over and retain what should be kept confidential as confidential information. What assurance can the Minister give the committee that that broad power in new section 113A is actually appropriate and doesn't actually end up granting the commission—and actually the Financial Markets Authority as the recipient—undue access to information that it should not otherwise hold?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): I appreciate the member reading through the bill. If he reads two paragraphs further on also under new section 113A in clause 20 he will see that nothing in this section limits the Privacy Act 1993.ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): That is true—the Privacy Act is one issue around privacy of client information—but that's not my point. My point is: there are different types of commercial information and what this doesn't do is provide even a clarity that only information that is most relevant to the situation should be provided. What this is is an open-ended power for the commission to grant that information to the Financial Markets Authority. So it's not about the general Privacy Act because that underpins all legislation—that's like 101 in the first year of university—but what I'm getting at is: what makes sure that information that should not otherwise be provided from one entity to another isn't actually provided? So that's the point of nuance I'm asking."
Bayly AndrewANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Well apart from saying that that answer is thoroughly unsatisfactory not just for me and members of this House but if you're a financial institution—and there are many many covered by this—if you're listening to this you must be wondering what the dickens is going to happen. Because we know how damaging regulations can be as we saw with the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act regulations that came out and stunned everyone and led to between 6 percent and 10 percent of loans not now being approved that otherwise would have been approved until the change was brought in on 1 December last year.So why don't we try another one I'll give the Minister another chance. We'll go back to the primary legislation clause 6A: Section 389 amended (Exemptions from need for market services licence). After section 389(3) insert: Exemption for service of acting as financial institution (4) A person is exempt from the licensing requirement under section 388(ca) in respect of a service to the extent that the service is a prescribed exempt service."So my question to the Minister: what organisations are proposed to be excluded under clause 6A primary legislation?"
Clark David; Bayly AndrewHon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): A prescribed activity" will be set under regulation and will be duly consulted on to make sure that it's appropriate definition for the industry. ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Please! This is your Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) Minister—sorry this is the Minister's SOP. I would dearly like—and it's a genuine question right? I've got to suggest on the first blush—and I did read it through most of the dinner break trying to get to grips with what is the definition of an "intermediary"—you've set out there there are certain exemptions for not being involved and deemed an intermediary which obviously has a huge impact. It's quite clear that you're not distributing an advertisement. I'd presume if you're doing administration you're not going to be captured under these rules. I presume if you're running a website on behalf of a bank you're not going to be captured under these rules. But if you're managing the website and using it to gather revenue then you would. But it says expressly "carrying on a prescribed occupation" or "carrying on a prescribed activity"—these are two exclusions. Surely the Minister must be able to give a couple of examples of each of those.Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Sorry Mr Chair I'm just wrestling with my mask. As I said to the member these things will be worked through in regulation if needed. The intention here is to create the space should there be activities that emerge that are contrary to the purposes of the Act. Rather than spelling out in red tape or creating an Act that is no longer fit for purpose the day it's printed there is room to create regulation should it be required to ensure consumer protection without trying to prescribe every kind of future behaviour that might be contrary to the purposes of the Act."
McClay ToddHon TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua): Mr Chair thank you very much. I'm trying my very best to find the reason for this legislation other than a Minister who is busy who wants to look busier in a Government that actually is not doing that very much at all. Sadly I can't be kind because this does feel like as the last speaker said a solution looking for a problem. It's easy Minister when you've got lots of officials paid for by the taxpayer to say I've got this legislation. I'm coming under abject pressure from Andrew Bayly and what I need you to do is to go and find for me a few reasons why actually this is a good idea." I've got to ask the Minister—and I think in the new process we have in the committee we're allowed to ask questions and occasionally they'll answer without us using up all of our time. My question is: Minister on how many occasions in New Zealand in the last decade have banks sold life insurance to people who are dead and wouldn't you then be able to claim upon that life insurance? In fact my great-great-grandfather is no longer with us. Can you find me a bank Minister that I can go in and take an insurance policy on his life? I'll happily pay it now and therefore be able to claim it. Because actually unless it is endemic in the system along with all of the other examples you gave then merely there is a cost to this. Yep banks make lots of money and others do but the last time we were before this House Minister when you said "We are here to do what's right for the poor old consumer because there are lenders out there who take advantage of them; let's pass this piece of legislation the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act"—well then all of a sudden we're reading in our newspapers over Christmas that banks are asking you about whether you're having fish and chips or what you spent money on and not lending. That wasn't the intention of that legislation. I know it wasn't the Minister's intention for banks to decide that because of the way the regulator would interpret his legislation they had to delve into the deepest part of people's lives. If you happen to watch a movie on Sky TV and pay extra for it or as some Labour MPs do in Opposition watch movies in hotel rooms well ultimately the point here is that it shouldn't get in the way of your enjoyment of a house. So Minister will you give us an assurance that there won't be extra costs imposed through bureaucracy on businesses on banks that are always passed on to the consumer? And why are we dealing with this legislation today? Because it's not obvious that there are as many problems endemically as he says. And why don't we have a quick fix before us so that banks realise that they don't have to look at whether people are having fish and chips watching movies or doing other things to enjoy themselves so that actually they can get loans and buy houses?"
McKelvie Ian; Webb DuncanCHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): Members the House is resumed. We are in committee.Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Chief Whip—Labour): Point of order. Mr Chair I seek leave that this bill be taken as one part.CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): The question is that the bill be taken in part. Is there any objection? There is objection. [Interruption] Order! Who's seeking the call? So no one's taking a call? I call Andrew Bayly.
McKelvie IanFINANCIAL MARKETS (CONDUCT OF INSTITUTIONS) AMENDMENT BILLIn CommitteePart 1 Amendments to Financial Markets Conduct Act 2013 CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): Members the House is in committee on the Financial Markets (Conduct of Institutions) Amendment Bill. We come first to Part 1.
Dean JacquiASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Financial Markets (Conduct of Institutions) Amendment Bill.
Halbert ShananSHANAN HALBERT (Labour—Northcote): Mānawatia a Matariki Madam Speaker. Can I round this debate off by acknowledging the Hon Dr David Clark for his work in the Commerce (Grocery Sector Covenants) Amendment Bill. This bill demonstrates the value of extra powers the Government gave to the Commerce Commission in 2018 to undertake market studies in areas where there are demonstrable failures in the market.To round it off also can I acknowledge the Opposition for supporting this particular bill. A lot of their big talk this evening has been about the cost of living. In fact I'm happy that you're supporting this bill because where it makes real change for families in New Zealand you haven't supported those bills out of Budget 2022—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! The member won't bring the Speaker into the debate. Thank you.SHANAN HALBERT: Apologies Madam Speaker.Supermarket chains have been able to act against the interest of consumers and ordinary families for far too long. This bill sets out to change that and I commend this bill to the House.Motion agreed to.Bill read a second time.
Commerce (Grocery Sector Covenants) Amendment Bill — Second Reading
Henderson EmilyDr EMILY HENDERSON (Labour—Whangārei): Kia ora Madam Speaker. This bill demolishes a barrier to the availability of land for grocery retailers and increases the ability and the likelihood that we're going to get some real competitors to the current duopoly. It is extremely heartening to take part in the first stage of busting this duopoly the duopoly currently holding customers and would-be retailers to ransom.I was not on the select committee but it is heartening to also note that the Economic Development Science and Innovation Committee has reported back unanimously including agreeing a number of improvements. These are improvements that Minister Clark has of course endorsed. In particular I was heartened to see the rescue of the interim information-gathering powers by Supplementary Order Paper.It is quite staggering to understand the scale of the covenants that supermarkets have managed to wheedle out of landowners. It is very concerning to know that and it is chilling. And the people of course most affected by the cold wind are the consumers that we are here to protect who have been forced into dependency on our duopoly. We campaigned to bring fairness to the sector. Minister Clark is here to deliver. I commend it to the House.
Belich CamillaCAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you Madam Speaker. It's a pleasure to stand in support of this bill—the Commerce (Grocery Sector Covenants) Amendment Bill. This is a bill that was introduced around about the time of the Budget and addresses some of the issues that we have with the duopoly in the supermarket sector.There seems to be general agreement as to the need for this particular piece of legislation and also that it is a good idea. So I commend the select committee for its quick work on this bill and also the Supplementary Order Paper as introduced by the Minister.This bill will address the current duopoly that we have in the supermarket sector and address some of the higher prices that New Zealanders are facing when paying for groceries. It's the Government recognising that and making sure that we secure our recovery and provide a better deal for all New Zealanders when they're doing their grocery shopping. I commend it to the House.
Leary IngridINGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): I'm not sure what bill that member Damien Smith was speaking on but I'd like to bring us back to this bill if I may which is a clear and simple case of market failure—which I think the member got to at the end of his speech—and the need for the Government to intervene. In the brief time that I was able to sit on the Economic Development Science and Innovation Committee as a guest it was really great to see the rigour which all the committee members applied to what things supermarkets might to do in order to get around the legislation. I'm not saying they're wrong to do that—that is how markets work—and the contributions of people like Andrew Bayly were really helpful.I'd like to commend the Minister for the changes that he has made in the Supplementary Order Paper that he is introducing which takes those comments into account and also giving thought to the Commerce Act and the Fair Trading Act and their application to compensation and saying No we don't need to do anything additional." So it's a great piece of legislation and I commend it to the House.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Joseph Mooney—five-minute call."
Menéndez March RicardoRICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) (remote): Tēnā koe Madam Speaker. I'm privileged to be speaking in the second reading of the Commerce (Grocery Sector Covenants) Amendment Bill. I want to mihi the Economic Development Science and Innovation Committee. I met some of the members who have spoken in today's reading and acknowledging that the history of this bill comes from an extensive report by the Commerce Commission and actually people on the ground who have been signalling for many years that the supermarket industry is broken that the duopoly is taking advantage of ordinary people and that there needs to be urgent changes to the legislation that enables this anti-competitive behaviour. So we welcome the introduction of this bill.We of course would have liked a much more robust and thorough select committee process but I also want to acknowledge that sense of urgency by Government to address some of these issues. I echo the sentiment that while this bill is really needed we need more reforms to address those immediate needs that families are facing when it comes to meeting the cost of living. This bill may not have an immediate impact on people's ability to provide for their families but it is so important that we address what is effectively corporate greed via the use of land to prevent competitors from being there to help lower food prices. This kind of use of land for the purposes of basically preventing competition should have no place in Aotearoa but I do also want us to look beyond the idea of simply increasing competition as a way to ensure that everybody has access to kai. As part of the Government's overhaul of the legislation that dictates how supermarkets can operate I think it's also important that we look at supporting many indigenous practices that have been here for centuries that have provided food for their communities. So I look forward as well to commitments around increasing funding for papakāinga. In relationship to the select committee's recommendations I wanted to particularly welcome the recommendation to broaden the scope of the proposed new section 28A to ensure that basically the intent of the bill is met. I think as others spoke about there were some really important issues being raised at the select committee particularly on issues of compensation. As one of the previous speakers—Melissa Lee—noted it does seem like the issue of compensation between effectively commercial landlords and supermarkets will often be fought between two big players. I do think it's interesting that supermarkets could be raising the issue of a loss of revenue as a result of this change of legislation when the reports have told us that supermarkets are making massively excessive profits. So I think this is a price that supermarkets should be ready to pay and in fact I think part of the aim of this will be to reduce the excessive profits that this sector is making at the expense of ordinary New Zealanders. So the Green Party is happy to support this bill through this stage and we look forward to the Supplementary Order Papers being introduced later.
McLellan TraceyDr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour—Banks Peninsula): Thank you Madam Speaker. As a relatively new member of the Economic Development Science and Innovation Committee I also wanted to thank submitters and acknowledge the collegial and really valuable contributions made by members across the House—in particular Andrew Bayly. The bill focuses on covenants and it is being progressed quickly because the bill signals this Government's commitment to responding to the Commerce Commission's grocery retail market study. It's relatively straightforward it has the support of the major grocery retailers and further reforms—as we have heard—will be considered later on this year. In a nutshell anything that we can do to improve competition by enabling new entrants or by the expansion of smaller players will provide consumers with greater choice whether that be range of goods or whether it is in relation to quality but most importantly it will impact price. It's difficult to assess the impact on any one element of this reform programme but as a package this Government is really confident that the reforms will deliver change and make things fairer for people at the checkout. So I'd like to thank Minister Clark and commend this bill to the House.
Bennett GlenGLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth): Kia ora Madam Speaker. Thank you for this opportunity to speak and to acknowledge the previous speaker Andrew Bayly. It's nice to see some cross-party support for this the Commerce (Grocery Sector Covenants) Amendment Bill. In the 2020 election Labour campaigned on ensuring that shoppers pay a fair price at the checkout and this piece of legislation is a small piece that goes towards ensuring that we fulfil that promise.Now in the first reading I remember the Minister Dr David Clark spoke around good quality services and that has four factors around price quality range and service. Looking at what is going on with the duopoly the fact that they are often able to have a monopoly over the range is a challenge for those often in communities that are in my electorate of New Plymouth where people have to use the service near them—in terms of what they've been able to do around these covenants. So this is a simple but good piece of legislation and I commend it to the House.
Seymour DavidDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of ACT in support of the third reading of this Medicines Amendment Bill (No 2). I think it's been an interesting process particularly an interesting discussion at the committee of the whole House stage and in particular the question of whether or not this legislation will not only allow a fourth dose but also allow those parents of six-month-old to five-year-old New Zealanders with the agreement of the Director-General of Health to be able to immunise their young ones against COVID-19 as young American children are now able to thanks to developments from the Food and Drug Administration and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention over the past week.As we've traversed it's also instructive that New Zealand's regulatory systems are at a stage where we have to do these kind of truncated half-arsed—that's a parliamentary term Mr Speaker!—legislative manoeuvres in order to—I'm sure it is in Rangitīkei Mr Speaker!—get through an impasse where people can't get access to a vaccination because of the regulatory situation. I think that's possibly the beginning of a much more sophisticated and very necessary debate about the duplication of our regulatory systems. These are the regulations that are passed in other countries.But in the meantime this is absolutely the right thing to do. It is absolutely a choice. It was absolutely reassuring to hear from the Minister that the Government has not considered and will not make it in any way compulsory for anyone for any condition for any reason to have a fourth dose. But what it will do is allow people who might not have the time or capacity to get to their GP who do want a fourth dose to have one and possibly for more younger New Zealanders whose parents want it to be able to get that protection for them as well. I think that's a very positive development for our country and the ACT Party stands in favour of this legislation. Thank you Mr Speaker.Motion agreed to.Bill read a third time.
Medicines Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Reading
Tuiono TeanauTEANAU TUIONO (Green): Thank you Mr Speaker. It feels like an age since we were last here reading the second reading of this bill approximately about an hour and a half.The Greens will be supporting this bill. It would insert a section 34A into Part 2 of the Medicines Act which relates to medicines and medical devices". This will allow COVID-19 boosters to be rolled out for those who are of high risk for COVID-19. I appreciate the conversations that we've had around the House this afternoon around ensuring that we are mindful of the information that we get from people. So making sure of the source that we get that information from and having experts come in and give us that advice is really important.I attempted a plumbing analogy which fell flat with a few members around the House as well but it just reminds me that I should try to think carefully before clogging the drains with any metaphors. It is also great to see the bipartisan support for this bill as well; often that's just a pipe dream. It would be good to see that across the House.But also there were a number of questions that were raised around the committee stage and different points that members have raised which I think is really important that when experts and advisers come to us that we have that time to actually go through it and ask those questions that our constituents and interested parties would ask those experts as well. But it's important that we don't get any Tom Dick and Harry with a YouTube account showing up to the select committee; that we get those people that have the background expertise in that and we put those questions to them as well.So the select committee process was short. I do understand the motivation for why it was truncated but it was also incredibly important to get those perspectives on paper as with the contributions made by members around the House as well.I guess the thing for me that lands most that I am learning and continue to learn and I hope others around the House are learning that as well is that when we get leaders from our communities—from impacted communities—that empowers appropriate decision-making because people are more likely to take on board those messages when you have leaders from those communities. I was reflecting in my second reading speech around some of the lessons learnt around the Delta outbreak: how when Māori and Pasifika leaders particularly health leaders say certain things that the Government should actually be engaging with those and prioritising those voices—particularly our immunocompromised and disabled whānau.And also being mindful I guess for many of us who are both parents or grandparents uncles and aunties about the winter of infections along with COVID coming in from our schools and the importance of having a school plan in place to help to support our school communities because they're asking for that. I hope that's on the agenda for the Government. The Greens will be supporting this bill."
McLellan TraceyDr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour—Banks Peninsula): Thank you Mr Speaker. The COVID-19 pandemic—the tricky sort of pandemic—has highlighted several things but among them it's highlighted that provisions in the Medicines Act were not designed to be particularly sort of rapid certainly not very flexible and not designed to be particularly equitable in terms of our response that we find ourselves in in emergency situations. Specifically the Act doesn't facilitate a very timely or a very efficient roll-out of already consented vaccines and the types of things that we use to manage evolving public health risk. As has been mentioned in a previous stage of this bill the changes that we've made prior to this to the vaccine schedule—such as reducing the dose interval for that third dose—have been enabled through immediate modification orders under the Epidemic Preparedness Act but it's certainly our belief on this side of the House that it's now necessary to enable enduring mechanisms that don't specifically rely on the use of emergency powers. And on that basis I commend this bill to the House.
Watts SimonSIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): I rise on behalf of National as the member of Parliament for North Shore on the Medicines Amendment Bill (No 2) third reading.I just wanted to make three key points really. As has been articulated before this is a reasonably simple bill which is in effect going to provide a remedy in terms of the problem that's been articulated around access to this vaccination. The second element is in regard to I think highlighting the complexity in the regulatory burden and the complexity around the Medicines Act; I think that is something that is coming through via this process. I think the learnings that we have taken on board as we've gone through the COVID response phase also has highlighted some of the aspects around getting that balance between regulatory oversight and feedback from experts and the ability to move fast and be agile. I think that will no doubt be a key element in terms of any subsequent review that is undertaken in terms of the Government's response to COVID in this country and hopefully a process that will be initiated as soon as practicable.I think the third point I want to recognise and the Minister Andrew Little has clarified this very clearly in the House today is that there will be no mandating of a fourth dose of vaccination. The Minister said that in his remarks today and I think that was a point that was raised in the first and second readings in terms of clarity on that. So for those out there who have that question it provides that aspect. I think the conversation more broadly around that that only 42 percent of our health workforce are currently vaccinated for the flu—that is a key contributor in terms of hospital admissions or presentation admissions at the moment—is obviously a significant issue. When I was part of the health system before this role we had numbers in the region of 70 to 75 percent that were getting vaccinated for flu and influenza at that point and so 52 percent is quite a considerable decrease versus where we have been previously. So obviously that's part of this broader conversation. We've covered elements lastly around the sunset clause and the Minister's provided some confirmation around the therapeutic products bill and no doubt that shines a little bit of light for the member of Parliament for Bay of Plenty in terms of his contribution in regards to that very bright and positive bill. So with no further ado I will commend this bill to the House.
Utikere TangiTANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Thank you Mr Speaker. I don't intend to take the House's time this afternoon except to say that in the first reading my contribution was around the hope that this would be a bipartisan or multipartisan approach of supporting this piece of legislation and what we are experiencing in the House this afternoon is exactly that because there are many tools in the tool kit when it comes to tackling the pandemic and vaccination is a pretty crucial one around that. And what we have at the moment without this piece of legislation is a requirement for anyone who wishes to obtain a fourth dose to make arrangements to go and see a GP to get a script in order to receive it. And what this particular bill does is it makes it easier; it makes it more accessible for whoever may wish to access the fourth dose. And on that basis I commend this bill to the House.