edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Leary IngridINGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): I'd like to leave the House with this thought: that Countdown recently announced a net fall of 12.5 percent; Consumer New Zealand has said that is the early effect of moves to tighten regulation of the industry. This bill is about correcting market failure. It is the next step in that process. I commend it to the House.
Goldsmith Paul; O'Connor GregHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you Mr Speaker. Look this is straight out of the standard playbook of a Government that is struggling with out-of-control prices. What do they do? They certainly don't take any responsibility for Government actions; they look for scapegoats and the supermarket duopoly in New Zealand is certainly not blame-free and it's a good target for the Government to go after. And look there are elements of this bill that we support in terms of the code of conduct that makes sense. There are other elements of this bill that we're a bit anxious about a bit worried about. Because fundamentally the Government needs to be focused on the many drivers of costs across the economy and while they're doing this and sort of coming up with complicated arrangements to try and lead to greater competition which may or may not work it could very easily have the opposite outcome to what is intended. They are still passing many pieces of legislation which are continuing to add cost and that actually benefit the big players. So the fair pay agreements for example; it won't be the small retailers that have an influence on how it's shaped up it will be the duopoly that controls it. So that legislation will certainly make things relatively easier for the big companies. And you go through the COVID reaction where the big supermarkets were left open but the small competitors were closed down for months on end. So half of what the Government does makes it easier for the big players to do well and then the other half of the time they're bringing in legislation to try and make it more difficult—and they wonder why things are confused and complicated. So we look forward to the select committee discussion around this legislation. There are parts of it that make sense. There are parts of it which we need to look at very closely. But one thing is for certain: the Government needs to take its responsibility for the cost of living pressure that New Zealand families are facing right here and right now and they haven't been doing that.DEPUTY SPEAKER: This call is a remote call. Rawiri Waititi five minutes.
White HelenHELEN WHITE (Labour): Thank you. I am always perplexed by ACT's position on things like this because they're supposed to be a party about competition and freeing things up. What I've seen in my career is the squashing of the little fledgling suppliers by the current regime and the hiking up of prices to the consumers.Recently we have had a real challenge to our way of life because of the price of things. This is actually an incredibly creative and brave move. It goes further than the Commerce Commission went in terms of recommendations. It's not pussy-footing around the issue. We're going to free up this market. We're going to get it right. We're going to respond. I am proud of this bill and commend it to the House.
Lorck AnnaANNA LORCK (Labour—Tukituki): Thank you Mr Speaker. The Grocery Industry Competition Bill will trigger an unprecedented shake-up of the grocery sector and deliver New Zealanders a fairer deal at the checkout and help tackle the cost of living pressures. If there was ever a bill that everybody should be taking note of it is this one. Every household every family everybody who goes to the supermarket knows when they go in there that there's not enough competition and that prices are being driven up. I was absolutely astounded when I found out that $1 million a day in extra profit—$1 million a day extra profit—is what the supermarket industry is making that they don't need to. This bill will go through a four-month submission process. We are making some world-leading legislation through the backstop regulatory law we're putting through and the backstop regulator is something that's going to be of real interest to New Zealanders and I absolutely hope that lots of people take notice of this. It's good to see this Government getting on with the work that needs to be done. Thank you Mr Speaker.
Tuesday 22 November 2022 (continued on Thursday 24 November 2022) - Volume 764
Companies (Levies) Amendment Bill — Third Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Companies (Levies) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. Ayes 83New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; ACT New Zealand 9.Noes 26New Zealand National 26.Motion agreed to.Bill read a third time.
VoteCHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that clause 1 stand part.A party vote was called for on the question That clause 1 be agreed to.Ayes 83New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; ACT New Zealand 9.Noes 26New Zealand National 26.Clause 1 agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that clause 2 stand part.A party vote was called for on the question That clause 2 be agreed to.Ayes 83New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; ACT New Zealand 9.Noes 26New Zealand National 26.Clause 2 agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that clause 3 stand part.A party vote was called for on the question That clause 3 be agreed to.Ayes 83New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; ACT New Zealand 9.Noes 26New Zealand National 26.Clause 3 agreed to.Bill to be reported with amendment.House resumed.
Companies (Levies Amendment) Bill — In Committee—Clauses 1 to 3
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That Part 2 be agreed to.Ayes 83New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; ACT New Zealand 9.Noes 27New Zealand National 27.Part 2 agreed to.ScheduleCHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): We come to the Schedule. The question is that the Ministers amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 308 be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 83New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; ACT New Zealand 9.Noes 26New Zealand National 26.Amendments agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the Schedule as amended be agreed to.Ayes 83New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; ACT New Zealand 9.Noes 26New Zealand National 26.Schedule as amended agreed to.
Companies (Levies) Amendment Bill — In Committee—Part 2
Companies (Levies) Amendment Bill — In Committee—Part 1
VoteCHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that the Minister's amendment to Part 1 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 308 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the Minister's amendment to Part 1 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 308 be agreed to.Ayes 76New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Noes 36New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 9.Amendment agreed to.Part 1 as amended agreed to.
Climate Change Response (Extension of Penalty Transition for Forestry Activities with Low Volume Emissions Liabilities) Amendment Bill — In Committee
VoteClause 1 agreed to.Clause 2 CommencementCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members we come now to clause 2. The question is that clause 2 stand part.Clause 2 agreed to.Clause 3 Principal ActCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members we come now to clause 3. The question is that clause 3 stand part.Clause 3 agreed to.Clause 4 Schedule 1AA amendedCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members we come now to clause 4. The question is that clause 4 stand part.Clause 4 agreed to.Bill to be reported without amendment.House resumed.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Madam Speaker the committee has considered the Climate Change Response (Extension of Penalty Transition for Forestry Activities with Low Volume Emissions Liabilities) Amendment Bill and reports it without amendment. I move That the report be adopted.Motion agreed to.Report adopted.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Barbara Kuriger): The Climate Change Response (Extension of Penalty Transition for Forestry Activities with Low Volume Emissions Liabilities) Amendment Bill is set down for third reading immediately.
Dairy Industry Restructuring (Fonterra Capital Restructuring) Amendment Bill — Third Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Dairy Industry Restructuring (Fonterra Capital Restructuring) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.Ayes 102New Zealand Labour 64; New Zealand National 29; ACT New Zealand 9.Noes 12Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Motion agreed to.Bill read a third time.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Climate Change Response (Extension of Penalty Transition for Forestry Activities with Low Volume Emissions Liabilities) Amendment Bill.
Dairy Industry Restructuring (Fonterra Capital Restructuring) Amendment Bill — In Committee
VoteCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Madam Speaker the committee has considered the Dairy Industry Restructuring (Fonterra Capital Restructuring) Amendment Bill and reports it without amendment. I move That the report be adopted.A party vote was called for on the question That the report be adopted.Ayes 101New Zealand Labour 64; New Zealand National 28; ACT New Zealand 9.Noes 12Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Maori 2.Motion agreed to.Report adopted.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Barbara Kuriger): The Diary Industry Restructuring (Fonterra Capital Restructuring) Amendment Bill is set down for third reading immediately.
VoteANNA LORCK (Labour—Tukituki): I move That the question be now put.A party vote was called for on the question That the question be now put.Ayes 101New Zealand Labour 64; New Zealand National 28; ACT New Zealand 9.Noes 12Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Motion agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That Parts 1 and 2 the Schedule and clauses 1 to 3 be agreed to.Ayes 101New Zealand Labour 64; New Zealand National 28; ACT New Zealand 9.Noes 12Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Parts 1 and 2 the Schedule and clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.Bill to be reported without amendment.House resumed.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the COVID-19 Public Health Response (Extension of Act and Reduction of Powers) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.Ayes 92New Zealand Labour 64; New Zealand National 28.Noes 21Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; ACT New Zealand 9; Te Paati Māori 2.Motion agreed to.Bill read a third time.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Diary Industry Restructuring (Fonterra Capital Restructuring) Amendment Bill.
COVID-19 Public Health Response (Extension of Act and Reduction of Powers) Amendment Bill — Third Reading
COVID-19 Public Health Response (Extension of Act and Reduction of Powers) Amendment Bill — In Committee—Part 1
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That Part 1 be agreed to.Ayes 94New Zealand Labour 64; New Zealand National 30. Noes 21Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; ACT New Zealand 9; Te Paati Māori 2.Part 1 agreed to.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the COVID-19 Public Health Response (Extension of Act and Reduction of Powers) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.Ayes 94New Zealand Labour 64; New Zealand National 30.Noes 21Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; ACT New Zealand 9; Te Paati Māori 2.Motion agreed to.Bill read a second time.The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 94 Noes 22.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Barbara Kuriger): I declare the House in committee for consideration of the COVID-19 Public Health Response (Extension of Act and Reduction of Powers) Amendment Bill.
COVID-19 Public Health Response (Extension of Act and Reduction of Powers) Amendment Bill — Second Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the COVID-19 Public Health Response (Extension of Act and Reduction of Powers) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.Ayes 96New Zealand Labour 64; New Zealand National 32.Noes 21Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; ACT New Zealand 9; Te Paati Māori 2.Motion agreed to.Bill read a first time.
COVID-19 Public Health Response (Extension of Act and Reduction of Powers) Amendment Bill — First Reading
Land Transport (Clean Vehicles) Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Reading (continued)
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Land Transport (Clean Vehicles) Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a third time.Ayes 99New Zealand Labour 64; New Zealand National 33; Te Paati Māori 2.Noes 19Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; ACT New Zealand 9.Motion agreed to.Bill read a third time.The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 99 Noes 20.
11. Question No. 11—Research Science and InnovationDr ANAE NERU LEAVASA (Labour—Takanini) to the Minister of Research Science and InnovationQuestion No. 11—Research Science and Innovation11. Dr ANAE NERU LEAVASA (Labour—Takanini) to the Minister of Research Science and Innovation: How is the Government supporting a future-focused research system?Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Minister of Research Science and Innovation): As part of the Government's work to build a future-focused research system we're making research more accessible for everyone with a new open research policy. The policy requires all publications from new research projects funded by the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment (MBIE) to be made free to access online for everyone. Open access to research increases its impact by enabling more people to access scientific information and engage with research. This in turn increases the innovation potential of our research and maximises the return on public investments in science.Dr Anae Neru Leavasa: Who will benefit from open research?Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: Open research is about making publicly funded research available to everyone that could benefit from it. From our innovators and entrepreneurs to students and research collaborators there are many people who will benefit from accessing the outcomes of research efforts.Dr Anae Neru Leavasa: How does this policy change meet international expectations?Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: Open access requirements are increasingly becoming the norm internationally. With this move we are taking a similar approach to Australia United States the European Union and the United Kingdom.Dr Anae Neru Leavasa: What other actions will further support researchers?Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: In addition to open research this week MBIE has launched the option to use a new narrative CV template for funding applications. The alternative approach reflects the increasing diverse range of contributions that researchers bring to their work and provides a more rounded picture of an individual scientist's career their achievements and overall contributions to research and enables a broader definition of an academic for Māori and Pacific peoples. Scientists applying for grants will be judged on a more meaningful assessment of their skills and experience and of course the strength of their ideas.
9. Question No. 9—Digital Economy and CommunicationsDr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour—Banks Peninsula) to the Minister for the Digital Economy and CommunicationsQuestion No. 9—Digital Economy and Communications9. Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour—Banks Peninsula) to the Minister for the Digital Economy and Communications: What recent announcements has he made about improving rural connectivity in some of New Zealand's most remote locations?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister for the Digital Economy and Communications): More good news. I recently had the pleasure of announcing that the Remote Users Scheme has started taking applications from eligible households. This scheme will target some of New Zealand's most remote communities and connect them with broadband for the first time. These are places where there is currently only access to voice calling and text services. Homes and communities where the internet is very slow and its use is limited will also be targeted. This is all thanks to an allocation of $15 million in Budget 2022 and was part of a broader $60 million fund for rural connectivity. Dr Tracey McLellan: How many households will this benefit? Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Crown Infrastructure Partners are mailing forms with return envelopes to over 3000 households with very poor or no coverage. They have also engaged with community groups who are helping to spread the word and are putting posters up in libraries supermarkets Farmlands stores and other community hubs. Just because you live off the grid it doesn't mean you can't be connected; it's just that sometimes it takes a bit of tailored thinking. Dr Tracey McLellan: Why is this scheme important? Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: As the global cost of living crisis puts pressure on New Zealanders and their families a reliable connection will make it easier for remote businesses to operate and pay invoices and to network. From a social standpoint this scheme will also help connect people to online health services and education tools. Dr Tracey McLellan: What reaction has he seen following the announcement? Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Federated Farmers is urging its members to sign up to the scheme. In fact Richard McIntyre the Federated Farmers telecommunications spokesperson called it a great initiative from the Government and something they've been advocating for. This Government knows the importance of having reliable connection in rural New Zealand. We're listening to communities and delivering solutions. Melissa Lee: Point of order Mr Speaker. I seek leave to table the Federated Farmers of New Zealand rural connectivity survey of 2022 outlining the poor state of digital connectivity for rural New Zealand households which said that only 1 percent of farmers in New Zealand have access to high-speed—SPEAKER: Is that publicly available? Melissa Lee: No sir. You have to literally request the document. There is PR available. SPEAKER: OK. Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is none. It may be tabled. Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
6. Question No. 6—ConservationARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) to the Minister of ConservationQuestion No. 6—Conservation6. ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) to the Minister of Conservation: What announcements have been made about supporting community-led conservation projects?Hon POTO WILLIAMS (Minister of Conservation): Earlier this month we announced that the Department of Conservation Community Fund—Pūtea Tautiaki Hapori opened for applications. The fund will support community-led efforts to protect threatened species and to promote Te Mana o te Taiao by providing community groups with grant payments. These payments will enable grassroots projects to continue their work in helping us resolve the biodiversity crisis and help us achieve our conservation commitments. Applications are open until Tuesday 31 January 2023 and I encourage anyone who wants to help us support our conservation estate to apply.Arena Williams: How much funding is being made available?Hon POTO WILLIAMS: This round of community fund will make a record $9.2 million available for community groups iwi hapū and private landowners who are supporting our conservation efforts across the country. The grants typically range from $5000 up to as much as $100000 for localised projects.Arena Williams: What type of projects will be considered?Hon POTO WILLIAMS: This year's fund is divided into two streams: $7.2 million for biodiversity projects that reduce the extinction risk of priority threatened species or protect priority ecosystems and $2 million to protect cultural sites and maintain visitor infrastructure. Projects funded in the past have included intensive and focused predator control programmes to protect endangered species significant weed removal projects as well as fencing and riparian planting on lake edges and in wetlands.Arena Williams: When will the successful applicants be announced?Hon POTO WILLIAMS: Applications for the fund close on Tuesday 31 January 2023. Those who wish to apply can do so via the Department of Conservation website. The Department of Conservation will consider all applications and inform successful applicants in April 2023.
4. Question No. 4—EducationANGELA ROBERTS (Labour) to the Minister of EducationQuestion No. 4—Education4. ANGELA ROBERTS (Labour) to the Minister of Education: What reports has he seen about trends in the number of New Zealanders in apprenticeships?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): I've seen a report that the number of Kiwis learning on the job as an apprentice has increased from 29965 to 57105. That's an increase of 91 percent or over 27000 more apprentices training today than there were 5 years ago.Angela Roberts: Has the number of women apprentices kept pace with the overall increase?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Actually no. The growth for women has significantly outpaced the growth for men albeit from a low base. The number of women in apprenticeships has more than tripled—a 224 percent increase from 2540 to 8240.Angela Roberts: What industries have seen the largest growth in apprenticeships?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The construction sector has been the biggest contributor to overall apprenticeship growth. Construction apprentices have increased by 105 percent from 12755 to 26150. That's more than 13000 more construction apprentices. Another significant area of growth has been healthcare and social assistance which has had 400 percent growth from 455 to 2275 apprentices 74 percent of whom are women.Angela Roberts: Has the growth in apprenticeships been primarily amongst young people?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: No. There has been a 78 percent growth in the number of apprentices under the age of 20 but there has been even bigger growth in older age groups. There has been a 189 percent growth in the number of apprentices aged 40 and above.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That clause 1 be agreed toAyes 107New Zealand Labour 64; New Zealand National 33; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Noes 10ACT New Zealand 10.Clause 1 agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That clause 2 be agreed to.Ayes 99New Zealand Labour 64; New Zealand National 33; Te Paati Māori 2.Noes 20Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; ACT New Zealand 10.Clause 2 agreed to.Bill to be reported with amendment.House resumed.
Land Transport (Clean Vehicles) Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee—Clauses 1 and 2
Land Transport (Clean Vehicles) Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee—Part 2
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That Part 2 be agreed to.Ayes 107New Zealand Labour 64; New Zealand National 33; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Noes 10ACT New Zealand 10.Part 2 agreed to.ScheduleCHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): We come to the Schedule. The question is that the Schedule stand part. A party vote was called for on the question That the Schedule be agreed to.Ayes 99New Zealand Labour 64; New Zealand National 33; Te Paati Māori 2.Noes 20Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; ACT New Zealand 10.Schedule agreed to.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the question be now put.Ayes 74New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Noes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Motion agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That Part 1 be agreed to.Ayes 99New Zealand Labour 64; New Zealand National 33; Te Paati Māori 2.Noes 20Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; ACT New Zealand 10.Part 1 agreed to.
Land Transport (Clean Vehicles) Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee—Part 1
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Land Transport (Clean Vehicles) Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a second time.Ayes 99New Zealand Labour 64; New Zealand National 33; Te Paati Māori 2.Noes 20Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; ACT New Zealand 10.Motion agreed to.Bill read a second time.
Land Transport (Clean Vehicles) Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading
Land Transport (Clean Vehicles) Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Land Transport (Clean Vehicles) Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a first time.Ayes 97New Zealand Labour 64; New Zealand National 33.Noes 20Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; ACT New Zealand 10.Motion agreed to.Bill read a first time.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.Ayes 107New Zealand Labour 64; New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Noes 12Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Motion agreed to.Bill read a third time.
Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Amendment Bill — Third Reading
Bennett Glen; Dean JacquiGLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth): Kia ora Madam Speaker. Thank you for indulging me this evening to reflect on this important piece of legislation as the previous speaker spoke about. I want to thank the Hon Dr David Clark for his thoughtfulness in much of the legislation that he's brought into the House not only today but in recent weeks and months. I know it is late and I'm not sure if you want me to go down this path but I'm sure we all know about Maslow's hierarchy of needs. I'm not sure we want a social work lesson at this time of night but I'm willing to give it because that's the sort of person I am! The importance of physiological care in terms of that pyramid it's around air it's around water it's around shelter and it's around food. This piece of legislation is saying we need to look at how our homes how our whānau are fed and cared for. This is why it's important that we reflect on our supermarket industry in Aotearoa New Zealand and reflect on how we ensure whether you live in the leafy suburbs whether you live in the provinces or whether you live with very little that when you go to a supermarket or corner store you have access to quality products but quality products that are of value and that haven't been overinflated because of that duopoly that the Minister has already talked about this evening. I am excited to be on the select committee that will consider this piece of legislation and I look forward to hearing from submitters around how we as a nation ensure Maslow's hierarchy of needs: that people have shelter and are fed clothed and well looked after. I commend this bill to the House. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members this debate is interrupted. But before we go I want to extend our thanks to the Chamber staff who've looked after us so well for three days—one to go guys!—the Office of the Clerk as always Office of the Speaker and of course the techies up in the booth and everybody else on the precinct who has been supporting our work. There we are. The House will resume at 9 a.m. tomorrow.Debate interrupted.Sitting suspended from 11.56 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Friday)
Halbert ShananSHANAN HALBERT (Labour—Northcote): Thank you Madam Speaker. We've traversed this bill in the House this evening and I'd like to commend it to the House.
Lorck Anna; Dean JacquiANNA LORCK (Labour—Tukituki): Thank you Madam Speaker. As we've said this bill needs to be done—needs to be fixed. We're getting on with it. I commend this bill to the House.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Shanan Halbert—five-minute call.
Watts SimonSIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Thank you. I rise on behalf of the National Party as the member of Parliament for North Shore to speak on the Companies (Levies) Amendment Bill third reading. National oppose this bill.
McAnulty Kieran; Dean JacquiHon KIERAN McANULTY (Minister for Emergency Management): Thank you very much Madam Speaker. It's a pleasure to stand here and speak in favour of the Companies (Levies) Amendment Bill.Hon Gerry Brownlee: You've got to wake up before you speak.Hon KIERAN McANULTY: That was—not all of us yell every time we communicate Mr Brownlee. Sometimes we want to sit and think about the last speech which was—it takes quite a bit of skill I think to deliver a 10-minute speech which I will point out is only a suggestion; you don't have to do a full 10 minutes and speak in favour of the bill but then complain about it for 10 minutes. At least the National Party is standing up for what they believe in.This bill is very straightforward. It corrects a mismatch in the Companies Office which has existed over successive Governments. It should've been fixed but you know in fairness it might not have been noticed. The point is it has been noticed now; we're going to fix it. We're getting on with it. There's no point mucking around—I commend the bill to the House.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Simon Watts—five-minute call.
Smith StuartSTUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you Madam Speaker. We oppose this bill as you've heard from my colleagues. Dumping a schedule on here saying that the climate-related disclosures have to be included I think is outrageous and they should take more care with these sorts of things rather than trying to virtue signal with every bit of legislation that they bring in. We oppose this.
Leary IngridINGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): It's really difficult to listen to the Opposition going on and on about this legislation where they are mixing up cross-subsidisation for efficiency. Basically what has happened is there have been 16 registers that have been operating in effect and what has been happening is the system itself has actually rationalised and the law is now catching up to say what is happening needs to be lawful. So this is about efficiency; it's about flexibility. And as the Minister has quite rightly said there will be full consultation impending.Actually if we were going to split hairs the most important question on this particular bill is whether it is fees or levies and there are really good governance reasons for why we need to be very careful about fees or levies. We have taken advice as a committee from the Regulations Review Committee to ensure that we got that right. So I think that the Opposition needs to perhaps focus on things that require a bit more scrutiny than this particular bill which is a very operational rationalising bill around efficiency; it is not around cross-subsidisation. I recommend it and commend it to the House.
Lee MelissaMELISSA LEE (National): Thank you very much Madam Speaker. The call that I was going to take was very quickly taken by Toni Severin. I think I just got told off by my senior whip sitting in the chair. On this side of the House—Maureen Pugh: Tough loveMELISSA LEE: Tough love—that's right. It is almost 11.30—not that I was half asleep but I was engrossed in a conversation and completely missed it so my apologies to my team on this side. I would actually like to start off my contribution by saying exactly we he said"—exactly what Andrew Bayly said. So that will make my speech a little bit shorter—a little bit of a joke there! National opposes the bill because of the way that Andrew Bayly has laid it down during the committee stages. One of the things that I believe is that fairness is something that we support on this side of the House. One of the reasons why we have passed under urgency a previous bill related to this is that since the 1990s we have been collecting levies and the Government has been doing it wrong through many different hues of Government. The levies were collected and it was supposed to have been used by the groupings of different collected levy groups that were supposed to spend it and not actually to collect it all as one and cross-subsidise each other.When we are collecting money some registrars collect lots of money and others don't actually do their due diligence and collect as much as they can. When they're supposed to be collecting two-point-something million dollars and they don't I think we should make sure that they do so. That is the reason. The unfairness of it is the reason why we oppose this bill."
Shaw JamesHon JAMES SHAW (Minister of Climate Change): Thank you Madam Speaker. I'd just like to say on behalf of the Green Party this is an entirely sensible bill. It should pass very quickly despite the bloviating temporising by the ACT member during the committee of the whole House.
Severin ToniTONI SEVERIN (ACT): Thank you Madam Chair.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Madam Speaker.TONI SEVERIN: Madam Speaker sorry. Long night—many committees. Sorry Madam Speaker. The Government introduced the Companies (Levies) Amendment Bill back in June 2022 which was considered by the Finance and Expenditure Committee which had our own Damien Smith who sits on that committee. We're sort of here supporting him with this bill. Throughout the process we have been guaranteed that the changing within this bill is going to make things a lot more cost-efficient and a lot more streamlined. So we hope that will be upheld with what has been told to us so that we will continue to be able to support this bill. We're all in for making sure that things are working right and money is not wasted and that also things run efficiently so that people know what is going on. Understanding if you're looking after 16 different registries—it is a huge out-take there for things to happen. Having things cross-credited—and it sounds like this problem has been going on for quite a few decades or close to and hadn't been picked up until recently. So in general we will be very happy if the new bill does what it is intended to do to make things a lot more streamlined and that also for the Companies Office to manage the registries as the portfolio with collecting the administration fees. Also it still has other businesses—like those of us who own our own businesses and every year we have to file our annual returns. So I will be watching this very carefully myself because again being a business owner and seeing levies go up because something may not be as cost-efficient or not as streamlined we would be very disappointed if that doesn't occur. So ACT supports this bill.
Utikere TangiTANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Thank you Madam Speaker. I rise to take a brief call in support of this piece of legislation. I want to acknowledge the Minister for State Owned Enterprises for his leadership in this space because it's a bill that relates to the role of the New Zealand Companies Office and in particular its oversight over the administration of a number of registers and the approach in collecting levies that are effectively attached to that. As I understand it this bill actually corrects a little bit of a mismatch in previous approaches in that it will enable a move away from a register-to-register funding model to one that permits levies to be applied a little bit more liberally and collected as part of a single operating system. So on that basis I'm delighted to be able to commend this bill to the House.
Bayly AndrewANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you Madam Speaker. Yeah we are drawing to a close on this bill. This bill came about as a result of a discovery a few months ago that a number of registers had been incorrectly costed and there was in effect cross-subsidisation across a whole stack of registers. The House came together to address that issue which was a retrospective issue which is pretty unusual to do that; that was a wrong that was corrected. This bill is a further enshrinement of that incorrect principle that took place—and we amended only a few months ago—that is namely about cross-subsidisation. And that's the principal reason why we oppose it. As the Minister has said on a number of occasions he believes there's going to be cost savings. Obviously we heard in the debate before it's pretty unclear how that's going to be achieved. They are anticipated. But there's obviously no clear plan how they might be achieved. And secondly if cost savings had been achieved they should have already been captured in the lower costs because the costs should reflect the costs of delivery and no more—no profit. So we just think it's wrong to be enshrining a principle of cross-subsidisation especially when this came about through poor practices over many many years. And on that basis we are opposing the bill.
O'Connor GregCHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Madam Speaker the committee has considered the Companies (Levies) Amendment Bill and reports it with amendment. I move That the report be adopted.Motion agreed to.Report adopted.
Halbert ShananSHANAN HALBERT (Labour—Northcote): I move That the question be now put.Motion agreed to.
Court Simon; Clark DavidSIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you Mr Chair. I just want to offer a perspective on the title the Companies (Levies) Amendment Bill. If we think about the proposal that was brought to the Finance and Expenditure Committee only a few short months ago which apparently was intended to correct a longstanding issue where the Ministry of Business Employment Immigration—have I got that right Maureen Pugh? The MBIE—CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): It's traditional that you ask the question of the Minister Mr Court.SIMON COURT: Mr Chair for a moment I thought I was being offered advice by Maureen Pugh.Maureen Pugh: No it's above my pay scale.SIMON COURT: That would have been really stretching it. So if we think about the title of this bill previously many of these registers they collected fees. And what we understood was that the fees could only be applied to the administration of each of the 21 individual registers which as I mentioned before included things like building societies charities and—my favourite—Coastguard which I'm a member of and donate to. And there are many that are actually very very successful membership-based organisations and others such as the union-based organisations which will also collect dues and then be required in the past—CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Mr Court we're going two minutes; I can usually get some direction you might be going towards. This is a very narrow part of this bill which is the title commencement and principal Act. So perhaps we could steer ourselves towards there.SIMON COURT: Thank you Mr Chair. So the title the Companies (Levies) Amendment Bill correctly identifies what the function of the Companies Office will be with respect to these 21 different registers in future. But Minister I'd like to ask you a question. Is it correct that it could have been called something like the Companies (Not Just Levies But Fees) Amendment Bill"? Because actually some of the organisations could have preferred to continue paying a fee knowing that they were getting direct value for the fee whereas now they'll be paying a levy which actually could be used to cover the costs of say administering the climate-related disclosures or actually a very complex and mushrooming union movement which has been legislated into being through the fair—or unfair depending for an employer or a union rep—pay agreements. So Minister would you tell us: were any other titles considered apart from the Companies (Levies) Amendment Bill for this bill?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): No."
O'Connor GregClauses 1 to 3 CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Members we come now to our final debate clauses 1 to 3. This is the debate on the title commencement and principal Act.
White HelenHELEN WHITE (Labour): I move That the question be now put.Motion agreed to.
Halbert ShananSHANAN HALBERT (Labour—Northcote): I move That the question be now put.
Smith StuartSTUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Oh thank you Mr Chair. I've got a very quick question of the Minister. I just wonder Minister if the climate-related disclosures are going to be in a format easily accessible for a savvy investor to ascertain what companies are likely to have a higher price-earnings ratio given that they will have higher climate-related emissions and be likely to scare off investors and therefore have a higher price-earnings ratio. Was that ever considered? It could be an effect of this legislation. I think it's quite a serious thing that should have been considered.
Watts Simon; Clark DavidSIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Thank you very much Mr Chair. Just building on some further questions in regards to this addition by the Minister of climate-related disclosures. I've got four questions in particular related to New Schedule 14 and also New Schedule 15 particularly Part 1 (db) climate reporting entities". I'd like the Minister to outline to us what he foresees to be the nature of the disclosures that will be provided in regards to this climate-related disclosure. What is the estimated impact in terms of compliance costs and regulatory burden on businesses as a result of implementation of this step because as a prior colleague said—Simon Court from ACT—I mean this is a pretty significant addition and these things don't come without cost and at the end of the day business will feel the burden of that cost. I take the Minister's point around how we need somewhere to get transparency and all that and that's all nice. But in this current climate any additional red tape and regulation brings cost to business and that's a cost that businesses cannot afford at the moment.The third question I've got is in regards to—so what other considerations did you place around where these disclosures could have been made or how that could have been undertaken? What sort of assessment or evaluation have you undertaken that ends up that this is the optimal place for those disclosures—minimising costs but also maximising the outcomes you were referring to around transparency etc.?The last question is in regards to: what other things are on the list that are going to get added in? We're talking—you know here's an addition of climate-related disclosures that are getting added in in sort of the last hour while we're in urgency. But what else is in the pipeline? That's all I've got to say for the moment.Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Just in respect to the member's question around the climate-related disclosures Act I would refer him to the Act itself. It was recently debated in this Parliament and if I recall correctly I think he was in the House when that debate was happening. It's not so long ago. It's all laid out in there how that regime will operate.What Acts might get added to these schedules in the future—that will be for future Parliaments to determine."
Clark DavidHon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): The Schedule will be in Schedule 14(h). It's administered by the Financial Markets Conduct Act. It's a Financial Markets Authority regulated disclosure regime.In respect of questions that the member asked during the course of his contribution—why should we have in this Act the provision for such reporting—it's because in the Labour Party we believe in making it easy for businesses to comply with the law. Why do we believe in having such a regime in place? Because we believe in transparency and the benefit of information for efficient market outcomes. I hope those are sentiments the ACT Party could agree to.
O'Connor Greg; Clark DavidPart 2 New Schedules 14 and 15 inserted CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Members we come now to Part 2. Part 2 is the debate on clause 5—New Schedules 14 and 15 inserted". The question is that Part 2 stand part.Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Part 2 of the bill contains two schedules setting out which Companies Officer registers and users the levies can be applied to. I'm tabling a short Supplementary Order Paper with some minor amendments to the bill. The purpose of those amendments is to take account of a new register to be added to the Companies Office group of registers for climate-related disclosures.Starting at the end of 2024 this new register is where the public will be able to find the climate statements from around 200 of New Zealand's largest financial entities that disclose the risks and opportunities climate change presents to their business. This register will support investors and other stakeholders to assess the merits of how these financial entities are considering those risks and opportunities by making these disclosures publicly accessible.So that is an important new function for the Companies Office and the amendments will bring that new register within the new funding model provided for by this bill. I wanted to draw the attention of the House to that matter."
Webb Duncan; O'Connor GregDr DUNCAN WEBB (Chief Whip—Labour): I move That the question be now put.Simon Court: Oh Mr Chair. I've got a couple more questions if that's OK.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Simon Court—just a simple call will be sufficient.
Bayly Andrew; Clark DavidANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you Mr Chair. Well I've got to appreciate my comments from Simon Fox—Simon Watts. Ha ha! But look I just do want to attend to this question. Minister Clark I've just got to say to you you cannot have it both ways. Either savings have occurred and the Companies Office the manager of these registers hasn't actually passed on the cost savings and that's why you're going to see a reduction in costs relating to this or you are clearly anticipating that there's going to be some further investment that would lead to it. But you can't just say there's going to be further savings. Have you got a business case? Have you got anything to support that Minister? Could you outline all that or what? Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): I mean I have entertained the member's questions though they don't really pertain to the principles in the bill that we're discussing. I guess I have struggled to cope with the idea that you could get some efficiency gains and then never look for any more in the future which the member Andrew Bayly seems to be suggesting: that once you've captured some efficiency gains in a process you should just stop. Modern manufacturing would suggest otherwise—that you know we do things differently to how we did them in World War II. Manufacturing is now more efficient and we anticipate that it will get more efficient still over time. I don't think that that fundamental premise somehow is flawed. That is a premise I have made in answering the member's more general questions that don't pertain directly to the bill. The bill is setting out the principles which we are trying to achieve with the system that is in place and I would anticipate that those principles will translate well to any future system where future efficiencies are also anticipated to be gained.
Watts SimonSIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Thank you very much Mr Chair.Andrew Bayly: Simon who?Hon Member: Watts.SIMON WATTS: Thank you very much Mr Bayly. It's a pleasure to rise—CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Mr Bayly if you'd like to come sit here you're welcome but otherwise just allow the member to have his speech please.SIMON WATTS: Thank you very much Mr Chair. Just following on from the thematic that was raised by my colleague Andrew Bayly in regards to the cost savings the question I have for the Minister is: can he outline to us as part of the assessment for this solution that's on the table here under clause 404 what assessments of alternative options were undertaken in order to come up with this solution? Were other systems and other registries considered overseas? Were there considerations of technology solutions that may have been able to achieve the same outcome? Because I think it links back to the conversation that my colleague Mr Bayly was referring to around whether there were any cost savings. So I'm interested in that process around the system asset. The Minister also mentioned in his statement in terms of the fact that the system costs of this integration would actually lead to a reduction in costs. And he's made the assumption that just by simply centralising something or consolidating it you would derive savings. Well that's not always the case. Actually sometimes that can be the opposite in that regard. So again what is the substantiation or consideration that justifies the point that the Minister's making in that regard? Thank you.
Webb DuncanDr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you. I'm not sure I guess what part of the bill Mr Bayly was referring to. But I'm wondering if the cost efficiencies perhaps are partly there in new section 404 in clause 4 where rather than running separate levies for each register—which would be the alternative case—in fact those efficiencies are there in new section 404(1)(c) having a single levy that is administered across all of those registers.