edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
District Court (Protection of Judgment Debtors with Disabilities) Amendment Bill — Third Reading
Mooney JosephJOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): I rise on behalf of the National Party to speak in support of the District Court (Protection of Judgment Debtors with Disabilities) Amendment Bill and I will take this opportunity to acknowledge and thank the member Anahila Kanongata'a-Suisuiki on bringing this bill to the House. It is a relatively short bill in that the main amendment to it comprises eight lines and then there's a definition of four lines in terms of defining what a disabled person is. But it's an indication that a short amendment to the law can make a big difference.I don't intend to spend too long speaking on this but I'll just say that this is an example of a piece of law that endeavours to achieve the right balance between competing interests. The interest here is the access of disabled people to credit—to lending—so they can purchase items between the recovery of that debt. And the right balance I believe has been struck here in that the debtor—i.e. a disabled person or a principal caregiver for a disabled person who is a judgment debtor—is protected from the recovery of items that are necessary for the care support or independence of that disabled person or principal caregiver for a disabled person and/or to promote the inclusion and participation in society of the judgment debtor who is a disabled person. It is an acknowledgment of the unique challenges faced by disabled people in our society. I certainly have had extended family members who have spent much of their life in a wheelchair. I've had enough accidents to spend time on crutches and know how tough it is to get around when you do have a disability—a physical disability let alone a disability with sight or mental intellectual or sensory impairments which are also acknowledged in this bill in the definition of a disabled person.This is a measure fundamentally to protect disabled people from the seizure of items which are necessary for their care or to support their independence. I note one particular item that is protected: adapted motor vehicles which are critical for the independence of many disabled people in our country. Across much of our country there is limited public transport and it is vital to have access to an adapted motor vehicle to be able to get to appointments to get to supermarkets to buy food to stay connected with whānau and family. So that is an important particular point that has been noted in this bill in the short eight words that have been used but it is of significant importance.Fundamentally as I've said this is a short bill but one that will make a big difference to people. I would also just note the recommendation that lenders and industry bodies be informed about the provisions of this bill and what the rights and responsibilities of creditors and debtors are so that there is good understanding across New Zealand's communities and the understanding that Parliament has sought to strike the right balance between access to credit and also the recovery of items being excluded those which are necessary for the independence of disabled persons or the principal caregivers for disabled persons. So with that I commend the bill to the House.
Mallard TrevorPETITIONS PAPERS SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLSSPEAKER: No select committee reports have been presented. No bills have been introduced. A petition has been delivered to the Clerk for presentation.CLERK: Petition of Ashley Jones requesting that the House review our current divorce laws and consider changing them.SPEAKER: That petition stands referred to the Petitions Committee. Ministers have delivered papers.CLERK: Department of Corrections Ara Poutama Aotearoa Statement of Intent 2021-22Stats NZ Tatauranga Aoteroa Statement of Strategic Intentions 2021-25Institute of Environmental Science and Research Statement of Corporate Intent 2021-26Manaaki Whenua - Landcare Research Statement of Corporate Intent 2021-26Government response to the New Zealand Productivity Commission Report on local government funding and financing.SPEAKER: I present the 2021/22 annual plan of the Controller and Auditor-General and the OPCAP COVID-19 report of the Ombudsman on inspections of aged-care facilities under the Crimes of Torture Act 1989. Those papers are published under the authority of the House.
Dean JacquiWEDNESDAY 30 JUNE 2021The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.KARAKIA/PRAYERSASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Almighty God we give thanks for the blessings which have been bestowed on us. Laying aside all personal interests we acknowledge the Queen and pray for guidance in our deliberations that we may conduct the affairs of this House with wisdom justice mercy and humility for the welfare and peace of New Zealand. Amen.
Debate By Leave — Ministerial Resignation—Minister of PoliceDocument for deletingA document for getting rid of other documents by having its document id replaced with that of the document to be deleted. Then the date role=removed" field takes over to ensure the document is retired.Content:some content"
Debate on Budget Policy StatementDocument for deletingA document for getting rid of other documents by having its document id replaced with that of the document to be deleted. Then the date role=removed" field takes over to ensure the document is retired.Content:some content"
Voting — CorrectionsDocument for deletingA document for getting rid of other documents by having its document id replaced with that of the document to be deleted. Then the date role=removed" field takes over to ensure the document is retired.Content:some content"
Tuesday 29 June 2021 - Volume 753
VoteCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the Minister's amendment to Part 1 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 44 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 75New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Noes 45New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Amendment agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That Part 1 as amended be agreed to.Ayes 75New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Noes 45New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Part 1 as amended agreed to.
Reserve Bank of New Zealand Bill — In Committee—Part 1
Gas (Information Disclosure and Penalties) Amendment Bill — In Committee (continued)
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That clause 1 be agreed to.Ayes 110New Zealand Labour 65; New Zealand National 33; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Noes 10ACT New Zealand 10.Clause 1 agreed to.Clause 2 agreed to.Bill to be reported without amendment.
VoteDr DUNCAN WEBB (Junior Whip—Labour): I move That the question be now put.A party vote was called for on the question That the question be now put.Ayes 77New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Noes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Motion agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That Part 2 be agreed to.Ayes 110New Zealand Labour 65; New Zealand National 33; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Noes 10ACT New Zealand 10.Part 2 agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Simon Court's amendment to the Schedule set out on Supplementary Order Paper 41 is ruled out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee. The question is that the Schedule stand part.A party vote was called for on the question That the Schedule be agreed to.Ayes 110New Zealand Labour 65; New Zealand National 33; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Noes 10ACT New Zealand 10.Schedule agreed to.
Gas (Information Disclosure and Penalties) Amendment Bill — In Committee
VoteDr DUNCAN WEBB (Junior Whip—Labour): I move That the question be now put.A party vote was called for on the question That the question be now put.Ayes 77New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Noes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Motion agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): The question is that Simon Court's amendment to insert new clause 11AA set out on Supplementary Order Paper 41 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Noes 75New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Amendment not agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): The question is that Simon Court's amendment to insert new clause 11AAB set out on Supplementary Order Paper 50 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Noes 75New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Amendment not agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That Part 1 be agreed to.Ayes 110New Zealand Labour 65; New Zealand National 33; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Noes 10ACT New Zealand 10.Part 1 agreed to.
11. Question No. 11—PoliceWILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour—Northland) to the Minister of PoliceQuestion No. 11—Police11. WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour—Northland) to the Minister of Police: What recent reports has she seen regarding Police's efforts to disrupt organised crime?Hon POTO WILLIAMS (Minister of Police): I've seen reports that police have met and indeed exceeded their target of seizing $500 million in cash and assets from organised crime in just the last four years. Gangs should not be making money out of exploiting our communities. This Government is very clear: we will not tolerate organised crime and gangs and I want to congratulate the police on their fantastic efforts to disrupt organised crime.Willow-Jean Prime: What impact will these seizures have on organised crime?Hon POTO WILLIAMS: Aside from taking over $500 million of ill-gotten gains out of the hands of organised crime we know that this has a wider impact on gangs. For every one dollar restrained $330 of crime is disrupted; for every one dollar forfeited $350 of crime is disrupted—meaning that in the last four years alone this Government has removed approximately $1.6 billion from the illicit economy.Willow-Jean Prime: What other reports has the Minister seen regarding police's efforts to disrupt organised crime?Hon POTO WILLIAMS: I've seen a report regarding police ongoing Operation Tauwhiro noting that as at 18 June police have seized $4.18 million in cash from organised crime groups seized 715 firearms seized 17.74 kilograms of meth and arrested 649 people. This is truly fantastic work from our police.Willow-Jean Prime: How is the Government continuing to support police's efforts to disrupt organised crime?Hon POTO WILLIAMS: This Government has put a record number of police on the front line including those with a specific focus on organised crime. As a result this investment continues to pay off. Recent weeks have seen police achieve New Zealand's largest ever forfeiture under the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act when the High Court approved a forfeiture settlement of over $70 million.
8. Question No. 8—TransportHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) to the Minister of TransportQuestion No. 8—Transport8. Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) to the Minister of Transport: What advice if any has he received on the impact of the Clean Car Programme on the price and supply of vehicles?Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Transport): I've received a range of advice on that matter—including this specifically on the Clean Car Standard: a meta-analysis of CO2 standards in OECD and non-OECD countries suggest they do not necessarily lead to noticeable price increases." The ministry's projections expect the price of electric vehicles and petrol hybrids to fall over the period. The risk of supply constraints and price rises is also mitigated by the design of the standard. Its design has been substantially modified from the standard that was consulted upon.Hon Michael Woodhouse: Has he seen reports that since the announcement of the Clean Car Subsidy the price of a used Nissan Leaf at a Japanese auction house has increased by $3000 in only three days? And does he agree that based on this the subsidy is simply going offshore?Hon MICHAEL WOOD: I've seen a report which makes reference to that but within the same report I have seen comment from people in the sector who have a different view on the issues around price and supply. The reality is that a range of countries around the world have used a discount scheme similar to the Clean Car Discount and it has resulted in lower prices for cleaner vehicles for their consumers. And we expect the same in New Zealand.Hon Michael Woodhouse: So does he believe that a 20 percent increase in the price of a vehicle only three days after an announcement affecting that market is a coincidence?Hon MICHAEL WOOD: I think the member is extrapolating significantly from one comment in an article noting that the discount has not in fact come into account so it would be impossible to say exactly what the price implication was for Kiwi consumers.Hon Michael Woodhouse: Is he aware that vehicle importers warned his officials that this was a likely consequence of the rebate scheme and was this advice ignored?Hon MICHAEL WOOD: No the advice wasn't ignored; in fact the scheme has been substantially supported by the vehicle sector. The AA and the Motor Industry Association have both come out in support of the scheme. And I quote directly from David Crawford who said "We are delighted that at last the Government has confirmed details of [a clean car incentive scheme]."—that's David Crawford from the Motor Industry Association.Hon Michael Woodhouse: Will he adjust his policy if it's apparent that people who need utes for work are simply being taxed and boosting the economy of Japan?Hon MICHAEL WOOD: We fully expect that the Clean Car Discount will allow more Kiwis to buy cleaner vehicles. That is what it is designed to do and that's what we expect it to do based on the international evidence."
6. Question No. 6—Social Development and EmploymentANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour) to the Minister for Social Development and EmploymentQuestion No. 6—Social Development and Employment6. ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What changes to social development and employment policies come into effect on 1 July 2021?Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment): From 1 July main benefits will increase by $20. This is the first stage of Budget 2021 increases which will see weekly main benefit rates increase by between $32 and $55 by April next year. These benefit increases will mean around 355000 families and individuals will be better off. These increases build on the other significant changes we have made to the welfare system since 2017.Angie Warren-Clark: What other policies come into effect on 1 July?Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Mr Speaker 1 July also marks the reinstatement of the training incentive allowance. This will help sole parents on benefits as well as carers and disabled people receiving the supported living payment to gain higher-level qualifications and improve their future job prospects. The training incentive allowance will be expanded to include qualifications at levels 4 to 7 on the New Zealand Qualifications Authority framework which includes of course degree-level study. This important change will support around 16000 people to upskill over the next four years. Not only is this good for individuals it is good for their whānau communities and the economy as well.Angie Warren-Clark: What changes to childcare assistance come into effect from 1 July?Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: From 1 July supplementary payments such as the accommodation supplement and temporary additional support will no longer be considered as income when assessing people's eligibility for childcare assistance. The immediate impact will be that 2100 people will be eligible for more childcare assistance. It's important to note that on 1 April 2022 we will be making further improvements to childcare assistance by indexing income thresholds to annual average wage growth. This was stopped in 2010 and has meant that over time less people have been eligible for childcare assistance. Out Of School Care and Recreation and childcare assistance play a vital role in supporting parents to gain and maintain employment.
3. Question No. 3—Energy and ResourcesGLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth) to the Minister of Energy and ResourcesQuestion No. 3—Energy and Resources3. GLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth) to the Minister of Energy and Resources: What steps is the Government taking to strengthen the decommissioning regime of oil and gas fields in New Zealand?Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Energy and Resources): We're moving to reduce the risks to taxpayers of having to pick up the tab of decommissioning petroleum fuel exploration and mining activities through the introduction of the Crown Minerals (Decommissioning and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. After the Tui oil fields owner Tamarind went into receivership and liquidation in December 2019 the responsibility for decommissioning the Tui oil field fell to the Crown and to the taxpayer. We made changes in 2019 to close the loopholes that allowed a poorly resourced company like Tamarind to buy a New Zealand asset. This latest bill includes provisions to further strengthen the petroleum sector's financial and legal responsibility for decommissioning.Glen Bennett: What penalties will there be for failing to fund and carry out decommissioning?Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The bill contains an explicit obligation on petroleum permit and licence holders to carry out and to fund decommissioning. Failure to fulfil the obligation will result in a civil pecuniary or criminal penalty depending on the circumstances which could be a fine of up to $500000 for an individual including directors and $10 million for a body corporate.Glen Bennett: And how will the bill increase the Government's ability to monitor decommissioning liabilities?Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The bill provides the Government with more powers to carry out more effective monitoring. It is designed to enable us to build a more accurate picture of a permit holder's decommissioning liabilities and the financial plans in place to meet these. A permit holder's financial position can change and better monitoring means that we can work with permit holders and better understand current or anticipate emerging risks.
Dean JacquiREPORT OF COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE HOUSECHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Mr Speaker the committee has considered the Gas (Information Disclosure and Penalties) Amendment Bill and reports it without amendment. The committee has also considered the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Bill and reports progress. I move That the report be adopted.Motion agreed to.Report adopted.The House adjourned at 9.56 p.m.
Robertson Grant; Dean JacquiHon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Broadly speaking I mean clause 24 tells the member what the board's role is and it is more of the nature of a governing board to answer his specific question. So I think he can read clause 24 for his own benefit.In terms of who should and shouldn't be appointed to it I do think that it is important statutorily to be clear about those who we are not comfortable having on the board. I recognise the point that the member's making but you could actually argue that for any Crown entity or any board. So I think it is important to be able to be clear about who we don't want.In terms of who we do want clause 28 covers those matters. And this is again common place to give the scope for the Minister to appoint people with a broad range of skills that allow the board to play its role in the bank meeting its objective. So clause 28(2) says The Minister may only recommend a person who in the Minister's opinion has the appropriate knowledge skills and experience to assist the Bank to achieve its objectives and perform its functions." And clause 28(3): "In recommending … the Minister must take into account the desirability of promoting diversity in the membership of the board." I think that is entirely appropriate to give the Minister the ability to make sure that we get the right balance of people on the board relating to the board's role and the objectives of the bank.The Supplementary Order Paper that the member has in this regard—I think it's No. 47—we won't be supporting. I think it is too prescriptive. I think it is far better to give the Minister the ability to find the right balance of people. Quite clearly if one looks at again the cascade of the law from the purposes to the objectives down to where we get to the membership of the board it is quite clear the kinds of people that we are looking for. And quite clearly financial stability prudential regulation—knowledge of those matters will be one of the aspects that is taken into account because they are the objectives for which the board is responsible for making sure that the bank performs or meets.So I think again having that level of flexibility for the Minister is important. But the Minister can only—only—recommend those who will help the bank fulfil its objectives.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members the time has come for me to report progress.Progress to be reported.House resumed."
Bayly AndrewANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): I was hoping now that the Minister was going to respond to Mr Michael Woodhouse's comments before—Hon Grant Robertson: No—if there was a question there. ANDREW BAYLY: Oh you don't think there was a question? Well I think there was a substantive question but anyway I will carry on with that issue which is talking about the governance arrangements. The interesting thing with the structure and I alluded to this in Part 1 is the structure we're ending up with now is as the Minister said the board's role has changed from a model—I forget exactly the words he used but they were disempowered to some extent; they weren't a powerful board. But now the current structure is very much one where board members play an integral part particularly around the financial policy side. And just to be clear what we're talking about we're talking about prudential policies that relate to banks non-bank deposit takers and also the separate but very technical issue of the insurance industry. I was just interested in clause 30 qualifications of members of the board. We're talking about the most pre-eminent financial institution; I think we've established that. What's been adopted is the Crown entity qualification for appointment to the Reserve Bank. I just think it's absurd that we've adopted a model that sets out the minimum standard and talks about people—these are the people who we're going to rule out from being a member of the Reserve Bank board: basically people who are undischarged bankrupts who are subject to the Protection of Personal and Property Rights Act people who've had a personal order made against them convicted of a crime—holy Toledo Minister why would we even contemplate having these sorts of people even being in the game? Hon Grant Robertson: I don't know who your friends are Mr Bayly!ANDREW BAYLY: I don't know why you would allow this to be the minimum requirement to be able to be appointed to the Reserve Bank—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Keep the Chairperson out of the conversation.ANDREW BAYLY: Sorry—that the Minister would allow anyone to be appointed to the Reserve Bank. Why did we go back to the proposal where we have a Crown entity model? Why don't we turn the thinking around to one where we actually recognise that this is a board that is incredibly instrumental in overseeing a key part of our financial institutions? There's been no discussion around what should be the required attributes which is something I think is actually vitally important to the Reserve Bank. I suppose the first question is: how does the Minister see the board operating and at what level? Does the Minister see the board acting in a non-executive capacity where it sets the direction and leaves it up to the Governor who as Michael Woodhouse noted also sits on the board and also is in charge of the executive? So does the Minister see the board working in an executive role or a non-executive role? Because if it's an executive role then I think that obviously gives rise to a question about what attributes and qualifications they should have.
Woodhouse MichaelHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): I thank the Minister for that explanation. I would make three quick points in reply. The Minister describes what he called a live debate between I think the Minister Treasury and other stakeholders in the question of this. I think that underscores the point that Mr Bayly was making at the end of Part 1 of the debate about the importance of actually not waiting for a bill to be introduced and referred to the select committee before he engages with other parties. That would have been an excellent example of where constructive engagement with the Opposition spokespeople on this point might have actually taken a little bit of the heat out of the situation and perhaps have given members of the select committee a better context to the change that frankly we didn't see coming until the end of the select committee process. The second thing is and I agree with this where he said the board didn't play that much of an active role. I think there's two things to say about that. One is that these are incredibly complex matters and indeed we need the board to be over the top of them. So I think that underscores the case for Supplementary Order Paper 47 in Mr Bayly's name around the skills and attributes of the board. I know Mr Bayly will be talking to that later in Part 2 but I think that underscores the case for actually making sure that the board has the requisite skills in order to be able to do more than it has in the past. Again the Minister acknowledges that more recently the board's role has started to change and if we get the right people—I should preface that by saying I don't want to suggest that any individual who's been a member of the Reserve Bank Board in the past was not the right person. But as the board's role starts to change and the oversight by the board has a higher level of acumen for these very complex issues then the case for the governor being on the board in my view is actually somewhat diminished. So it is a bit of a line-ball call and we'll go with it to the degree that we're not going to propose a change to that. But I think the stronger the board's skills in this area are the greater the oversight they're able to provide on these very technical issues and the less there is a need for the governor—if the governor is a member of the board and the board doesn't know what's being discussed or how complex these issues are then we've got a bigger problem than just the governor being on the board. And that's why I think Mr Bayly's amendment that would articulate the requisite skills that that board requires certainly warrants careful consideration.
Dean JacquiPart 2 Reserve Bank of New ZealandCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members we come now to Part 2. This is the debate on clauses 8 to 111 and Schedules 1 and 2 and Part 2 of Schedule 3 which provide for the continuation of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand. The question is that Part 2 stand part.
Bayly AndrewANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Madam Chair sorry—yes sorry Madam Chair. I'm used to you sitting down here—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Me too. ANDREW BAYLY: —and I'm used to seeing the Minister beside you but it's a very unusual arrangement. But of course this is COVID and that's why.I just want to respond in probably my last comment on this but I just note the Minister's comments before. If he believes that adequate consultation with the Opposition party is when a bill is introduced to the select committee and members of the Opposition propose a number of changes very few of which have been picked up and that is adequate consultation and that's a way to get cross-party or cross-House support I'm just putting on record that I think that it's actually a very disappointing approach.The potential that this will give rise to is that we do have some Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) and we do feel deeply about them. We think they're quite significant we're not putting up frivolous SOPs and I think that gives rise to the potential that the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act will need to be changed in the future. I think that's something that's very disappointing and something that's actually a bit of a lost opportunity for Parliament because as I've said before this is our pre-eminent financial institution and it's absolutely essential that whoever is in Government has the right framework to make sure that this institution operates effectively in the best interests of all New Zealanders.
McAnulty KieranKIERAN McANULTY (Chief Whip—Labour): I move That the question be now put.Andrew Bayly: Madam Speaker? Madam Speaker?CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Madam Chair"."
Bayly Andrew; Robertson GrantANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you. I just want to refer to Mr Smith's earlier contribution which is the substantive issue. Obviously with this bill the Minister and the Government's trying to set in place a new framework that hopefully will last for another 30 years. Given that it's inevitable there will be a change of Government and the need to make sure that we put in place a framework that is enduring can I ask during the process that the Minister outlined just before why did he not choose to involve members from the Opposition in that process at an early stage to ensure that we do actually come up with an enduring solution for an institution that I would suggest to the Minister is not equivalent to a Crown entity? It's probably our most pre-eminent financial institution and therefore vitally important for all of New Zealand that we get the framework absolutely correct.Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): A couple of points. The first of those is clearly it was open to the members opposite to be involved at any stage of this process should they have chosen to be but clearly the select committee is the process where they're mostly involved.Secondly with respect to the member I think by and large there is agreement. He's got half a dozen Supplementary Order Papers that he's put up which is absolutely in his power but actually I think generally speaking the agreement is across the House on the way we want the operational independence to work the way that we want to make sure that there's clear lines of decision making and accountability and that there are clear documents that show that be it the monetary policy remit the financial policy remit or anything else that we might decide in the future. So I think this is an enduring piece of legislation and I want to be really clear that the basis of the governance model is the Crown entity model but it has been tweaked to acknowledge the specifics of the work that a central bank does and that the Reserve Bank does. So I'm very confident that we've got robust legislation and we're making it more robust after this bill tonight.
Smith Damien; Robertson GrantDAMIEN SMITH (ACT): Just a quick question to the Minister of Finance. Does he believe that changing the bank's reporting requirements enables him to manage the fiscal risk associated with the Crown when the Reserve Bank's activities are at arm's length and independent or does it fall short of what you require to manage the Crown's financial position considering we're underwriting as a nation their activities?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I think New Zealand has the particular set of circumstances where the Reserve Bank is part of the Crown's overall balance sheet. That's not the case in a number of other jurisdictions. As a result we have to find a way of getting that balance of operating independence versus the point that the member's raising. That's done in this bill albeit not in this part by us setting the financial parameters and then operational decisions within that being made by the bank itself. To me that is a necessary compromise in order to protect the operational independence of the bank. I think if the Minister was able to too tightly control how the bank used its money that could undermine its position. It is important that we have transparency about that—and we'll come to this later—but that actually means that that will now be tabled in Parliament the way in which we do that. I think that's a useful step forward. It will enable more people to see it. We used to just do it after the fact essentially; now it'll come here and be tabled. So that will give all members of the House some opportunity to see that but again to me it's striking that balance between operational independence and us setting frameworks and parameters. We're at risk of me saying that a lot in the next few parts of this bill.
Rurawhe AdrianRESERVE BANK OF NEW ZEALAND BILLIn CommitteePart 1 Preliminary provisionsCHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Members we come now to the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Bill. First of all to Part 1. This is the debate on clauses 3 to 7. The question is that Part 1 stand part.
Court SimonSIMON COURT (ACT): That member Barbara Kuriger has proposed a wonderful transparent improvement to the bill: the Gas (Information Disclosure and Penalties for Industry Not Everyone) Bill". The ACT Party believes that that is a far more accurate representation of what this bill proposes to do because the disclosure requirements are all on the industry and not on the Government to tell us what they might want to do with the information or how they might use it or if they can protect it if there is going to be a cyber-attack where commercially sensitive information is going to be released. Given how important it is that energy security is protected from cyber-attacks—I mean imagine if there were an event like what happened at the Waikato District Health Board that befell our power grid. So the "Gas (Information Disclosure and Penalties for Industry Not Everyone) Bill" ACT believes is a totally appropriate transparent and sensible name for this bill. ACT would commend that to the House."
Kuriger BarbaraBARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): I'm just going to take a short call on this one and perhaps for the public who have been listening tonight just outline the fact that there were two parts to this bill and the Government chose to close down Part 1 and then the Minister actually decided that nothing in Part 2 related to the things that the Minister didn't want to answer in Part 1. So I was going to suggest a new name for this bill and it's called for the openness and transparency of the Government that we currently have—not—the Gas (Information Disclosures and Penalties for Industry and Everyone But Not Government) Amendment Bill" because I think it's appalling when we're talking about disclosures in the name of the bill and the Government actually shuts down the conversation. The Minister on several occasions tonight when I mentioned a plan around energy security for this country—and the Minister may sit there and laugh but—CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! Order! This is about the title and commencement—BARBARA KURIGER: Yes it is.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Absolutely. It's very narrow. The member should address that.BARBARA KURIGER: Yes it is. So I'm talking about information disclosure and penalties around gas—CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): It's not about relitigating Part 1.BARBARA KURIGER: I'm not relitigating; I'm talking about the name and the fact that—CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! My ruling is that you are and that you must address clauses 1 and 2. That's your second warning. If there's a third I'll terminate the speech.BARBARA KURIGER: So the only thing left that I want to propose is that a name change for the bill to the "Gas (Information Disclosures and Penalties for Industry But Not Government) Amendment Bill". Thank you."
Rurawhe AdrianGAS (INFORMATION DISCLOSURE AND PENALTIES) AMENDMENT BILLIn CommitteeClauses 1 and 2 (continued)CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Members we return to the Gas (Information Disclosure and Penalties) Amendment Bill. When we last considered this bill we were about to debate clauses 1 and 2.
Motions — Exposure Draft and Terms of Reference for an Inquiry on Natural and Built Environments Bill Parliamentary Paper — Referral to Environment Committee
Ngarewa-Packer Debbie; Dean JacquiDEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Paati Māori): I seek leave to speak to the motion.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Leave is sought for that. [Interruption] OK. All right so the member does not need leave.DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Paati Māori): Kia ora. Thank you e te Pīka. We agree that the reform is needed. To be honest it's never really worked for tangata whenua. We appreciate the work of the Iwi Chairs Forum of the Federation of Māori Authorities and many of the iwi Māori technicians who have worked with the Crown and got this mahi to the level that we've reached.We do want to mention notification of elevating Te Tiriti noting it's not principles; it's the article and text of Te Tiriti that the Crown is obligated to. We would like to see continued functions of the Resource Management Act to make sure that there is environmental protection and although we need to build houses this is something that is about an and/and" and not at the consequence of our environment tō tātou pūtaiao [our science]. We are concerned about the rights and interests of tangata whenua. This legislation more than probably most legislation impacts us as Māori hapū whānau in more ways than any. So we do want to make sure that there is a guaranteed explicit role for tangata whenua to be part of the decision-making position.One of the other things that we'd like to emphasise is that we do agree that the select committee and indeed the entire country and Parliament are given time to critique this in detail. So I'm pleased to say that Te Paati Māori supports that it goes to select committee. Kia ora rā.Motion agreed to.HOUSE IN COMMITTEEASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): I declare the House in committee for further consideration of the Gas (Information Disclosure and Penalties) Amendment Bill and the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Bill."
Simpson ScottHon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you Madam Speaker. Thank you Minister Parker for your patience this evening. It's been appreciated. The exposure draft that we've seen for the first time today is an interesting document partly because it's relatively light on detail and I know that that's part of the reason that it's going to the select committee for consideration before an eventual piece of legislation will be prepared and it will then go back to select committee for further consideration. So this is quite an unusual step but as Minister Parker has indicated I think that there is unanimity across the House that the existing Resource Management Act legislation has ceased to be effective. It has ceased to be fulfilling what was once a grand objective back in the early 1990s that would see it providing for our built environment and also for our natural environment and the sad reality is that after those years have transpired a document that originally was made up of about 300 pages of black-letter law now runs to something like 900 pages and has I think been amended substantially 18 or 19 times. It's practically incoherent and unintelligible to laypeople. It's time for this House I think to look carefully at future planning laws and also at how as a country we best protect our beautiful and natural resources. On this side of the House we'll be working diligently as the exposure draft is looked at by the select committee. We'll be interested in testing out the detail filling in some of the gaps and asking the questions about how this new piece of legislation will effectively overcome some of the challenges of the current existing legislative and regulatory regime that we find ourselves in because we aren't yet convinced that this process of what will effectively be three pieces of legislation is going to achieve that. We're willing to be convinced but we want to test it out and that's what we'll be doing at select committee. So thank you Minister for going through this process. It is a unique experience and it will be a process that hopefully will bring out the best of our parliamentary legislature and the system that we have but that doesn't mean that it gets a free ride. It means that it will be tested probed and analysed not only by the parliamentary Opposition but by outsiders: NGOs stakeholders developers and environmentalists around the country. Thank you.
Rurawhe AdrianCHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Madam Speaker the committee has considered the Gas (Information Disclosure and Penalties) Amendment Bill and reports progress. The committee has also considered the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Bill and reports no progress. I move That the report be adopted.Motion agreed to.Report adopted.
Rurawhe Adrian; Woods MeganClauses 1 and 2CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Members we now come to the final debate. This is the debate on clauses 1 and 2 Title and Commencement".Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Energy and Resources): I move That the committee report progress and sit again presently.Motion agreed to.House resumed."
Woods MeganHon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Energy and Resources): I will take a call on the several questions that the member has put there the one in terms of the decision that was made today on the 2019 block offer. So the result we are seeing is the 2019 block offer. That's actually a statutory decision that is clearly laid out in terms of the criteria that are used in terms of whether or not to award those permits. What we're talking about here is an entirely different regime than our permitting regime. There's different information that has to be disclosed through the process of putting in for a permit. But in answer to the question Why don't we just persevere with the voluntary code that is in place?" the member is suggesting that that is sufficient. What I'd like to draw the member's attention to and he may not have seen it is a document actually produced by the Gas Industry Company itself. This is of course the body which is essentially owned by the industry. It is the industry regulator—so in many ways is the voice of industry—which really clearly lays out what they see as the shortcomings with the current voluntary regime and makes the case of why there actually does need to be a mandatory code that is put into place. They talk about the arrangements "That are in place that ensure the effective and timely availability of gas production and storage outage information for all gas and related market participants." What they talk about is that a lack of credible compliance and enforcement mechanism in the voluntary regime means the costs of non-compliance with the upstream to disclosure code might not outweigh any benefits. What they talk about is the shortcomings and they list these out really clearly and why it is they do want to move to exactly what this bill is putting in place. The structure of the code as a multilateral agreement between producers and gas storage owners means that the code can only be enforceable between those parties and limits the role of the affected parties in changes of the code. The second reason and the second limitation that they see there is some of the information in the outage definition is private information making it difficult for third parties in the Gas Industry Company to review where the parties to the code have reported outage information consistent with the code's terms and the timing of notifications for unplanned outages and material changes to planned outages may not address issues with the information asymmetry. Then they go on—also another point: the provisions of the code do not override confidentiality obligations and current contracts held by gas producers and gas storage owners. I think one of the things that the voluntary code that was put in after the situation that we did have with the outage and what pre-empted this was always meant to be a stopgap measure. The industry themselves were telling us that there needed to be some longer-term more structural changes that need to be put in place and that is what we have in front of us in the Chamber tonight."
Court SimonSIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you Mr Chair. I'm sure there'll be plenty of opportunity for other members to contribute because this is a really really important piece of legislation and it's wonderful to hear so many members asking valid important and serious questions of the Minister. I have one which follows on from Mr Stuart Smith's question. We know the Gas Industry Company already produces information about projected outages—about when days and weeks ahead there will be outages. We know that the Gas Industry Company produces information about when gas is being stored and when it is being drawn down from facilities like Ahuroa. And we also know that they publish a fulsome series—now running into the 300 nearly 400 technical disclosures about outages and maintenance and all kinds of things that are relevant to decision making by their customers but also by Government agencies which do have a responsibility as does the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment for ensuring that New Zealand has security of supply with petroleum products. So given that we know all this information is currently being provided through a voluntary system and that information helps decision makers make the right decision about security of energy supply.Minister I do have a question for you a very specific question and that relates to today's wonderful news that two exploration permits have been issued for onshore natural gas exploration in Taranaki. That is the best news that the people of Taranaki have heard in years—Hon Member: And New Zealand.SIMON COURT: —and years and years—and New Zealand but primarily those people who live in Taranaki in places like Waitara which is not a wealthy community but where many many thousands of people enjoy the benefits of high-paid jobs in industries that contribute enormously to New Zealand's export revenues and also sustain many many other businesses and thousands of jobs in those supporting industries and manufacturing and so on. So given we know these two facts—these are not to be fact-checked these are not fact optional Minister these are facts. The Gas Industry Company already makes significant voluntary disclosures. Today an announcement of two exploration permits. Question for the Minister: did the information disclosed voluntarily by the industry players contribute or assist the decision making today to award those two permits?