edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Mooney Joseph; Webb DuncanJOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you Madam Chair. Minister I want to ask you about a point raised by the High Country Accord in their submissions regarding new section 100 where they said it's inherently discriminatory and contrary to the principle that all are equal before the law. They made the point that the fact that the offence provisions in new section 100 apply to just 150 properties and families is egregious. All New Zealanders should be equal before the law. The criminal law should be of general application and should not single out a group purely on account of their contractual relationship with the Crown. And they made the point that the fact that the lessee can be issued with an offence notice for removal for a wilding pine without consent while his freehold neighbour cannot or that the Department of Conservation as a neighbour simply chooses not to do so and is not accountable for the spread of the resulting seed is submitted to be contrary to accepted principle of law. They made the point they're not aware of any other example of the Crown choosing to impose offence provisions upon those with whom it is in a contractual relationship for matters arising from that contract.Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Junior Whip—Labour): I move That the question be now put.
Court SimonSIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you Madam Chair I do appreciate the call and the challenge with so many Simons in this 53rd Parliament—and the challenge that brings everybody.Minister I put two questions to you before. They're serious questions. They're questions that are not just for the people affected by this bill the lessees and those who assist them with preparing for and applying for resource management consents—which they are already required to do under the Resource Management Act. I'm talking about those farm consultants those legal advisers those technical experts in soil science who have to put applications for resource consents together who will now actually be tapped out having to put consent applications on behalf of lessees to Land Information New Zealand (LINZ) and the Commissioner of Crown Lands.So my question to you Minister is: look do you think any of this is actually necessary? And do you think that if it is necessary to have a parallel consenting regime of course as the landowner the Crown of course should have final decision-making over what goes on on their land if it is going to seriously devalue or damage the land? That should be the right of every property owner and any property owner engaging in a commercial leasing arrangement—which is what this is—would of course have those clauses in the lease which set out their decision making. But Minister the level of decision making that LINZ and the Commissioner of Crown Lands are required to undertake under this bill is quite extraordinary and it essentially mirrors the type of consent consideration and processing under the Resource Management Act which these farmers and operators are already required to undertake.So Minister my two questions are: is this necessary; do LINZ and the Commissioner of Crown Lands have any more capability to make a decision about environmental management than the farmers who run the land and their expert advisers? And secondly does this legislation give decision making to unelected iwi Māori groups which it appears to say under Māori interests in clause 5(1)(a) recognise and provide for". Minister that's an important question. I would appreciate it if you answer it for the benefit of the committee tonight. Thank you."
Simpson Scott; Salesa JennyHon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you Madam Chair. I would like to address the amendment in the name of my colleague Nicola Grigg—Nicola Grigg: Cool—that'll be good. Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: —yes it's a very good amendment—and it relates to clause 8 of the bill and new section 11(3)(aa). The amendment proposes to delete paragraph (aa) and replace it with a new paragraph (aa) which reads: may consider any offsetting proposed as a way of counterbalancing adverse effects on inherent values when determining the level of adverse effects on inherent values;". This is designed specifically so that environmental offsetting done on the pastoral lease property can actually be taken into account when the commissioner considers decisions relating to the mitigation of any adverse effects from a proposed discretionary activity. Now it seems to me to be utterly logical that if in cornerstone legislation such as the zero carbon legislation and other climate pieces of legislation and indeed other environmental pieces of legislation offsetting is permitted—indeed encouraged—then why would it be excluded from this piece of legislation other than simply to further reinforce the narrative that this is a Government that actually does not want these farmers to succeed in any possible way because the practical effect of this position is to ensure that farmers do not undertake any discretionary activity which will produce a net benefit to the inherent values of the pastoral lease. Surely that kind of activity that kind of environmental offsetting—for instance it might be the development or the maintenance or the enhancement of a wetland area on the property. Now why wouldn't that restoration programme of a wetland area which would by definition perhaps inherently involve earth disturbance requiring the commissioner's consent—why would not that good environmental work be allowed for and provided for? So I'm keen to know why the Minister has excluded that possibility and why he's already indicated that his party using their absolute majority in this current Parliament will not accept the provisions of the very sensible amendment that Nicola Grigg has put before this committee for its consideration. CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): I call—Chris Penk: Simon Court. CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): —Simon Court."
Court Simon; Webb DuncanSIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you Madam Chair. Speaking to Part 1 and speaking to Barbara Kuriger's amendment which amends clause 8 of the bill and it relates to Government policy that relates to nationally applicable environmental standards Minister such as national policy standards and national environmental standards. Now this comes back to the heart of decision making at the centre of the bill Minister. So Minister I have two questions for you as I realise we're getting to the point of the debate where it's important that there's absolute clarity for those watching and for those who'll be affected by the legislation. So the first question is Minister do you consider that Land Information New Zealand (LINZ) officials and the Commissioner of Crown Lands are better equipped to make decisions about how to manage ecosystems under Crown pastoral lease than the farmers who manage that land and depend on that land to actually produce a living for their families? That's question one. Do you believe that LINZ and the Commissioner of Crown Lands are better equipped to make decisions about environmental management than the people who actually live on the land?The second question is around clause 5 around decision making. It says that the Crown must recognise and provide for the [interests] of Māori" when it is making decisions about discretionary consents for pastoral activities commercial recreation permits any easements or operation of stock. That is of great concern to many people in New Zealand at this time—that unelected iwi Māori interests will also have decision making over resource consents for farming activities. It's explicit in the bill Minister. It's explicit in the bill. So Minister my second question is will you rule out that iwi Māori groups will not have decision making over consenting for Crown pastoral land consent applications? Because Minister if you won't rule it out then that's another can of worms that your Government has ripped open. You're going to have to explain not just to the farmers on Crown pastoral leases you're going to have to explain to all the farmers of New Zealand what's coming for them next. Should they expect this to be a part of the Natural and Built Environments Bill that your Minister David Parker is bringing to this House this week?Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Junior Whip—Labour): I move That the question be now put."
Mooney JosephJOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you Madam Chair. I want to ask the Minister the Hon Damien O'Connor about the amendment in my name which would propose to amend the amendments section 2 in clause 6 regarding inherent values. In the current amendments to section 2 inherent value" means "a value that arises from an ecological a landscape a cultural a heritage or a scientific attribute or characteristic of a natural resource that—(i) is in or forms part of the land or exists by virtue of the natural character of the land; or (ii) relates to a historic place on or forming part of the land;" but as one of my colleagues earlier said strangely "does not include a pastoral farming activity". The amendment in my name would amend the definition of "improvements" by inserting after "includes" "the managed regeneration of indigenous vegetation". This would insert a new defined term in its appropriate alphabetic order: "managed regeneration of indigenous vegetation means regeneration resulting from active"—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): We are still considering Part 1 of the bill. The amendment the member is speaking to is contained in Part 2."
Simpson ScottHon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you Madam Chair. Well look I want to pick up where the member Mark Cameron left off in speaking about the amendment in my name labelled (C) on the Table. This relates to clause 8 of the bill and the proposed new section 12(3) and my amendment would delete the proposed new section 12(3) and replace it with clause 12(3) in the words that Mark Cameron read out. So I'm not going to repeat them for the benefit of the committee but they are there on the tabled amendment. What's really at the nub of this amendment is uncovering the deeply cynical sinking-lid policy that this Government and particularly the Green Party who were the genesis of this piece of legislation want to impose on the lessees of high-country pastoral Crown leases. And it's to do with this Madam Chair: the bill as drafted operates as a sinking lid on these lease operations and over time the plan buried deep in this section is to actually undermine the viability of the very farming operation that the leases provide the leaseholders with. So the results of this bill by precluding the commissioner from considering the economics of farming except to the extent that the benefits relate to the ongoing financial viability of the farming enterprise—what that really means is that the farm actually has to be going broke or bust before the economics of the farm can even be considered.Now that's the secret hidden agenda of this legislation. The Greens in particular supported by the Labour Party in this Parliament who have an absolute majority actually don't want these leaseholders on the Crown pastoral-lease land; they want them gone. They want them gone and the real time bomb in this legislation is within that clause because that's the sinking lid. So in order for the considerations to be undertaken by the commissioner it's very apparent that the economics of the farming operation have to be so dire so bad and so concerning that they must be literally on their last legs before the economics of the farm can be considered. And that's just absolutely an abomination.So all the fine words that the Minister has put into his contribution actually belie what is buried deep in the fine print of this legislation. And so my question to the Minister is: why can't the economics of the farming operation be taken into account at an earlier stage and why is it that this sinking-lid policy has been hidden—buried—in the fine detail of this legislation hoping that nobody would discover it until it was far too late?
Cameron Mark; McAnulty KieranMARK CAMERON (ACT): Thank you very much Madam Chair. Very quickly this speaks to the amendment in the name of Scott Simpson and I think it's a good amendment and I want some clarity on behalf of the Minister. I think this House deserves it and I am going to read it verbatim: For the purpose of deciding whether the activity is necessary to enable the lessee or licensee to exercise their rights and obligations under the lease or licence the Commissioner may consider the extent to which granting consent enables the lessee or licensee to maintain the historical financial performance of the pastoral farming enterprise." For that express purpose I go back to my previous question which was talking about inherent value. Minister can you please for the sake of everyone in this Chamber and those that would choose to be listening at home explain what "inherent value" means? KIERAN McANULTY (Chief Whip—Labour): I move That the question be now put."
Sage EugenieHon EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Thank you Madam Chair. Speaking to the amendment in the name of Barbara Kuriger could the Minister confirm that the Environment Committee considered quite carefully this whole issue around what constituted Government policy? One of the reasons that this clause in the bill refers specifically to national environmental standards and policy statements is that the select committee desired that there was a degree of clarity around exactly what national policy the Commissioner of Crown Lands would refer to and the fact that it was a national environmental standard that had been signed off by Cabinet in the same way that the National Environmental Standards for Freshwater have been would give certainty to the commissioner when he or she was making decisions around discretionary consent and had to bring national policy to bear. What exactly was that Government policy—and the clause was intended to make that clear. The other thing that I wondered if the Minister could elaborate on was that the Opposition has repeatedly given the suggestion that all pastoral lessees are family operations that have been on the land for generations. Could the Minister confirm that there are a number of overseas residents—absentee owners—and companies who own pastoral leases and that it is not all this image we have of generations of one family owning the lease? Further could the Minister in terms of the partnership relationship that he talked about—that the bill through the regulatory regime that it implements is all about ensuring that things like pests are controlled. Could he elaborate on the significant Government investment that this Government has made in things like wilding pine control and wallaby control and on Land Information New Zealand's involvement in rolling out that pest management work?
Kuriger BarbaraBARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): Thank you Madam Chair. In light of the explanation that the Minister the Hon Damien O'Connor just has given around a letter that he thought was a bit weak in terms of whether people could dig in post holes and other relatively minor things I've actually got two questions in relation to what he said. One of those is: why did they not just actually put that in a regulation to say that was a permitted activity instead of saying that someone could actually just withdraw the letter at some point in time? The second thing is: when the Minister gave his explanation around Land Information New Zealand (LINZ) not being able to go into those farms or being able to have certain authority over those farms why then does this bill then relate a clause which I'm trying to take out and replace that brings Cabinet into the decision? How many other decisions that Government agencies take do Cabinet Ministers go and put their fingers into? Why will the amendment I've got here not be taken up and put into this bill as a change? Why does Cabinet need to have a role in doing this when as the Minister describes it's something that he expects that LINZ will be able to do? Thank you.
Grigg NicolaNICOLA GRIGG (National—Selwyn): Thank you Madam Chair; you read my mind. I was just wanting to jump up to speak to a Supplementary Order Paper so thank you for the opportunity.I think the quote of the night would have to go to the Minister in his first contribution where he said We won't be making any changes to this bill." which I think speaks volumes of this Government and indeed this Minister. Time and time and time again submitters experts in the field leaseholders and high country run holders who have been working in this industry and on this land for centuries have tried to persuade this Government to revisit this daft idea. And actually so much of this sheets back to the fact this Government has been led by the nose by the Greens on this particular bill. Many submitters this evening have talked about the changing nature of the relationship between the Crown and the leaseholder. So I would like to turn the Minister's mind to the amendment in my name where we talk about Schedule 2 of the bill and the proposed new Schedule 1AB Part 1 where we talk about activities: permitted discretionary prohibited. I would like to ask the Minister: considering he said he won't be making any changes to this bill what consultation was carried out with leaseholders as to what permitted discretionary and prohibited activities might look like? Because the way I read it so much of this is already business as usual: pine control gorse control broom control crack willows grey willows you name it. One of the speakers earlier on this side of the Chamber referred to the debacle that is going on up in the Marlborough region when one looks at the Muller Station versus St James one very clearly well looked after the other left in Crown hands and looks like an absolute disgrace. So to the Minister: what consultation was carried out particularly around these activities? What consideration was given to business as usual? The Minister also mentioned in his contribution just a short while ago that we were pushing boundaries of environmental management. So that leads me to ask the Minister my next question: what consideration has been given to legally binding farm environment plans to prevent the pushing of boundaries of environmental management? Because this has even been raised in the regulatory impact statement that the Minister or indeed the Crown should consider those recommendations to work with lessees on the likes of farm environment plans. I would like an answer to that Minister thank you."
Smith StuartSTUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you Madam Chair. I'd like to turn to new section 8 in clause 8 in Part 1 where it lays out in subsection (2)(a) may undertake the pastoral activity or cause it to be undertaken if the activity is classified as a permitted pastoral activity in Part 1 of Schedule 1AB:". Well when I turn to new Schedule 1AB in Schedule 2 under subclause (1)(c) in particular it says "the invasive exotic pest plants comprise no less than 90% of vegetation cover;". It has other qualifications in that as well but on that 90 percent I have a question. Does that mean that if the pastoral farmer has a few wilding pines that he's going past and he pulls them out of the ground he should have had a consent for that? But if they're as thick as the hairs on a dog's back then he can go for it—he can do what he likes. But if there's only one or two which would be good practice—it would be good practice to get ahead of the problem by hitting it when it's very early stages and that's what good farmers do. They do this sort of thing all the time. But to me it looks like they'd have to get a consent. I'd really like the Minister firstly to clarify that particular section. There are a number of others like where the by-kill must not exceed 200 metres square in the hectare or the area involved doesn't exceed 25 hectares in any five-year period. When we're talking about small areas we could have quite a thick patch but no we're covering 90 percent of the area so how do you interpret that? Are we talking 90 percent of a small area or 90 percent of a specific paddock 90 percent of the whole pastoral lease—it doesn't say that there. So perhaps the Minister could get on his feet and tell us the specifics of what that particular clause in the schedule means—that is Schedule 1AB(1)(c) in particular. Thank you."
McAnulty Kieran; Dean JacquiKIERAN McANULTY (Chief Whip—Labour): Point of order. Thank you Madam Chair. At the start of each committee stage you remind the committee that this is an opportunity to ask questions. Now—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): OK. Thank you. I'm going to thank you for your point of order. You've gotten in just ahead of me because I wish to say the following things to the committee. Part 1 of this bill has now been running for half an hour. There are a number of Supplementary Order Papers which are on the Table and that I have here. I need the committee of the whole House to start focusing on Part 1 of the bill more closely. It's sounding more like a third reading debate—this is not what we are considering tonight; we are in the committee of the whole House stage. So I invite the members if they wish to keep this debate lively and focused they will do just that.
Bennett DavidHon DAVID BENNETT (National): Thank you Madam Chair. It's good to be able to speak after the Minister Damien O'Connor because when we had the Minister he talked about the quaint lifestyle of hill country farmers. That's that Molesworth Street attitude to that farming and to farmers in general. And my colleague is completely right: this is an asset land grab taking away the power of people that have for generations thought they had a right in that land—and they actually do have a right in that land because it's a perpetual lease. It is not a lease for 100 years; it is a perpetual lease. The Labour Party are using a small group of farmers about 100 farmers to take away the rights to use that land. That is effectively what is happening here and all the farmers in New Zealand all asset holders in New Zealand should be backing these people today because this is the start of what the Labour Party wants to do. This isn't just about those farmers there. This is taking away the rights to farm your farm. Basically they believe that they should tell you how to farm and what you can farm and how to do it. This is a precursor to their agenda.Now the Minister has been very careful to paint this as some picture of Look at the saviour of the Labour and Green parties. Aren't you so lucky that we're going to iron out any problems here?" That is completely at odds with anybody that's in that sector. Those hill country farmers when you go to their houses they are effectively crying at the dinner table. Their life work is going out the window. Their kids will not come home and be part of the next generation of farmers that we need as a country. And it is not that these are the hard cases. This is the Department of Conservation that has made it so hard for some of these deals to be done. The reality is that if these deals could be done they would be done by those farmers. But they found that they have been hamstrung in their negotiations. I say to the Minister: don't treat farmers like fools. Don't try and come in here and mollycoddle us and tell us how great you are trying to save us. The reality is we see through your agenda. We know what you're doing.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Order! [Interruption] Order! The member will not bring the Chair into the debate.Hon DAVID BENNETT: Yes Madam Chair. It's not cheap politicking. It is the reality of an agenda that needs to be stopped. I want the Minister to stand up now and give a commitment to every other farmer in New Zealand that they won't be told how to use their farm. Can he do that? I don't think he can. He won't tell anybody that because he knows that's their agenda. He looks all around the room won't look straight won't tell you the answer because he knows that's the agenda of the Labour Party. All farmers need to be aware of that and learn from this legislation tonight. This is the start of what Labour and the Greens want to do to our agricultural sector and it should be stopped now."
Sage EugenieHon EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Kia ora Madam Chair. Thank you very much. I guess I am surprised by some of the comments coming from the National Opposition because they seem not to recognise the difference between the Crown Pastoral Land Act the Resource Management Act and the number of submissions that the select committee heard that the Acts have a different purpose. The Crown Pastoral Land Act is about managing the Crown pastoral estate to protect the Crown's interests. That's why it's not duplication as some members of the Opposition are suggesting to have two regimes. I was pleased that the Minister highlighted the considerable liaison that had gone on with leaseholders in the development of this legislation and would remind the Opposition that there was a discussion document and public meetings which were well attended by leaseholders and that contributed to the development of the bill. There was a regulatory impact statement that also contributed to the development of the bill which highlighted as National members seem to overlook that there has been quite considerable change in the high country from burning from overgrazing and from cultivation that has led to the destruction and loss of inherent values. What this regime in this bill does is modernises the Crown Pastoral Land Act regime. With the large schedule of permitted activities as the Minister noted it means that there won't be a need for consent. Those activities were discussed with the High Country Accord with the High Country Committee of Federated Farmers. They were developed in the bill with that input and there have been a number of changes made through a very thorough select committee process which sought to take on board the submissions that were made that sought to improve the purpose of the bill and to actually change some of the definitions. Those changes mean that we've got a robust bill and you have this bill and a regime which Land Information New Zealand and the Commissioner of Crown Lands have adopted of having much more regular engagement with leaseholders and visits and engagement on the land—that's been affected by COVID. But this is about a regime which continues pastoral farming on Crown pastoral lease land seeks to protect the Crown interest in those lands and ends tenure review because the bulk of the properties that wanted to go through tenure review have progressed through it and it's the more difficult ones that are left now. People have had an opportunity since the mid-1990s to go through tenure review. It is time that process ended because there are a number of reports which showed that it wasn't delivering good outcomes to the Crown and the regime that the bill sets in place is a modern regime that protects the Crown interests protects inherent values but recognises and promotes a sustainable future for farming.
Cameron Mark; Grigg NicolaMARK CAMERON (ACT): Thank you Madam Chair. Well look at all the political pontificating in this piece of legislation. Further erosion of the trust that 150 years Minister of farming in the high country has created—a dash and it's all gone. The Rt Hon Scott Simpson pointed out—oh the Hon; I apologise. All in short order—the Hon Scott Simpson.Inherent value. How do you Minister reconcile 150 years of farming breaking in the land the asset investment the back-breaking work that went into reconciling and making this land profitable for rural New Zealand? This process erodes that trust. How do you reconcile that? Because this to me and my party and the parties on the right is an absolute disgrace—and most of the landowners that this piece of legislation seems to erode all their trust in agree with me.NICOLA GRIGG (National—Selwyn): Thank you Madam Chair. Just speaking to Part 1 of this bill. Last time I spoke on this I was interrupted by the dinner break so the Minister didn't get an opportunity to answer my questions. So I thought Minister I'll give you another shot if you don't mind.But the fundamental basis of my question is: how does one design a system that will cater to 1.2 million hectares of incredibly diverse environment and ecology of extraordinary landscape topography weather systems? More importantly when we drill down into that what is the review mechanism looking like? What safeguards will we put in place to address failures of the system; failures that this legislation will inevitably turn up? How does one resolve issues within a one-size-fits-all approach?When we think about it even more the cumulative impact of these various different regulations that are being bestowed upon the high country farming sector what will that cumulative impact be that will ensure we do not work against the objective of this bill? We've heard a number of concerns raised by leaseholders particularly the High Country Accord that this piece of legislation is going to add layers and layers and layers of complexity and bureaucracy and that this will largely duplicate regulation that's already been foreshadowed in the likes of the national policy statement (NPS) on freshwater the NPS on indigenous biodiversity. So I would like to know from the Minister a further question: what cross-referencing has been done or what work has been done by officials to identify any of these double ups or crossovers? What efforts will be made to ensure that these double ups are actually alleviated to prevent further burden on these lessees?
Simpson ScottHon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you Madam Chair. It's good to be finally back on this piece of legislation even if it's very poor legislation. This has been a slow drawn-out painful exercise for the leaseholders who maintain their responsibilities under the Crown pastoral land reform Act of 2020. They've been literally dragged through the high hills of the South Island on this journey of this piece of legislation and all for nothing because as people who have been listening to the previous debate on this piece of legislation will know a re-elected National-led Government is going to repeal this legislation at the first possible opportunity. We want to make that again very clear at this committee stage: a National-led Government will repeal this legislation at the first possible opportunity. It is poor legislation it is bad legislation and it is not in the best interests of New Zealand the Crown pasture lease area or indeed the families and businesses that operate those leases.I want to turn particularly to the amended purpose in the bill. The bill talks about at new section 1A in clause 5 The purpose of this Act is to provide for the administration of pastoral land in a way that seeks to achieve the following outcomes: (a) maintaining or enhancing inherent values across the Crown pastoral estate for present and future generations while providing for ongoing pastoral farming of pastoral land". What it doesn't say is anything about supporting the relationship between the land the Crown and the leaseholders who are stewards of this land and have been in many cases for generations. The clause goes on to say that the Crown supports its relationships with Māori under Te Tiriti and enables the Crown "to get a fair return on its ownership interest in [the] pastoral land". So again there is no mention of the inherent value or enhancing the inherent value of the existing relationship with the leaseholders who by dint of the lease that they have with the Crown effectively have a treaty in their own right—a treaty in their own right—with the Crown. Doesn't that sound a little bit familiar to those who often talk about Treaty obligations that the Crown has in other matters? So why is it I'd like to know from the Minister in the chair that there is a lot of talk in new section 1A in the purpose section of this new bill about maintaining and enhancing inherent values across the Crown pastoral estate supporting the Crown in its relationship with Māori but zero mention of the inherent value of the relationship—let alone enhancing that relationship—with the leaseholders? I'm interested to know what the Minister's rationale is for that frankly insulting omission from the purpose of this legislation."
Dean JacquiCROWN PASTORAL LAND REFORM BILLIn CommitteeDebate resumed from 16 February.Part 1 Amendments to Crown Pastoral Land Act 1998 (continued)CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members we return now to the interrupted consideration of the Crown Pastoral Land Reform Bill. When we were last considering this bill Part 1 was being debated. The question is that Part 1 stand part.
Retail Payment System Bill — In Committee—Schedule 1 and Clauses 1 and 2
Dean JacquiSchedule 1CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): We move now to Schedule 1. The question is that Schedule 1 stand part.Schedule 1 agreed to.Clauses 1 and 2CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): We now come to our final debate. This is the debate on clauses 1 and 2 the title and commencement.Clause 1 agreed to.Clause 2 agreed to.Bill to be reported without amendment.
Bayly Andrew; Clark DavidPart 3 Merchant surcharging monitoring and enforcement and miscellaneous provisionsANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Well let's start at the beginning Madam Chair clause 29. So this deals with merchant surcharging standards and the Economic Development Science and Innovation Committee made a change. I just want to understand what this means and the Minister's perspective on it because what subclause (1) states is The purpose of this subpart is to ensure that [the] payment surcharges for payment services"—and this is what was removed—"are not excessive and reflect"—and instead inserted—"are no more than the cost to the merchant of the payment services used for accepting retail payments." So can I ask is it the Minister's understanding that this new definition which removes or changes from "… not excessive and reflect the cost …" to "… are no more than the cost …"—does that mean that the service can not include any profit element at all? It is a straight cost aspect cost transfer and there cannot be the possibility of any profit being included in the surcharge?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): The way I read this change is a clarification from the select committee and I thank them for it.Andrew Bayly: Just to give the Minister a bit of time because I know he's got his advisers there—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Order! Would you like to seek the call or?Andrew Bayly: Thank you Madam Chair.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Andrew Bayly.ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): May I seek a call Madam Chair? Fantastic. Well just to give the Minister a little bit of time because I know he's got some advisers sitting beside him perhaps he could just lean over and ask the officials if he doesn't know the answer himself whether in fact this revision of clause 29(1) actually enables the possibility of any profit element or whether it has to be strictly on a cost basis. And what does that mean?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): We'll try again. I see this as a clarification of the wording that was put forward originally and it says "… no more than the cost to the merchant of the payment services used for accepting retail payments." I think it's pretty clear."
Lee Melissa; Clark DavidMELISSA LEE (National): Thank you Madam Chair. I'd like to refer to clause 19 where it talks about Process for issuing network standards". It actually talks about—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Order! Part 2—correct me if I'm wrong—is the debate on clauses 10 to 28 and is the member addressing clause 29?MELISSA LEE: No. It's 19.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Nineteen. Thank you.MELISSA LEE: I did say 19 Madam Chair.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Thank you.MELISSA LEE: Thank you Madam Chair. I shall clarify. It is actually Part 2 clause 19 "Process for issuing network standards". It talks about how the commission must make a proposed standard publically available and also talks about how it will—in (b) it says "consult affected persons or persons that the Commission considers to be representatives of affected persons" and I'm wondering if the Minister has a standard for the commission on who the commission should consult with and how widely the commission should consult.Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Ultimately these are the kinds of decisions that the commission has expertise in and I would expect them to apply appropriate judgment in the exercising of these particular responsibilities."
Lee Melissa; Clark David; Bayly AndrewMELISSA LEE (National): Thank you Madam Chair. In relation to the question that my colleague actually asked in similar vein in terms of designation I do realise that there are many different ways that people now make payment with technological advancement particularly using new digital wallets that we actually have through our smartphones and often social media platforms also provide payment systems through their apps. These are done through those digital wallets whether it's actually Alipay whether it's actually Kakao Pay or Apple Pay for example. Often these are done you know connecting through the bank accounts but it also uses other forms of cards and I'm wondering why some of those have not been designated.Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): So the standards for example for the interchange fees for the designated networks will apply only to domestically issued cards in New Zealand only to non-commercial credit cards and to any payment instrument not just physical cards including virtual cards using methods like Apple Pay and Google Pay. So they are indeed captured within that framework.ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Just moving on this issue of issuing network standards and also in terms of the commission giving directions around network rules there was quite a significant concern by some of the network operators that a network that operates across the world and it just so happens that they also choose to operate in New Zealand—that the commission might try and unilaterally impose specific rules to New Zealand that couldn't easily be put in place by the networks either because they cut across all the other operations across the 192 countries in the world or in fact just the time delay to do that. So can the Minister provides some assurance to the committee and I presume the network operators listening to this conversation that replaced clause 19(b) that has been inserted which reads consult affected persons or persons that the Commission considers to be representatives of affected persons about the proposed standard code including the Commission's reason for issuing the proposed standard." or equivalent wording for directions that the commission might give—can the Minister just provide some certainty to the network operators that we're not going to have a New Zealand Government or New Zealand Minister putting unnecessary constraints on those network operators?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Thank you Madam Chair. I would observe that the schemes themselves already have different rules for operating in different jurisdictions that they themselves operate. And as I noted in my introductory comments these directions do not have extraterritorial effect. They would only affect network rules in New Zealand."
Dean Jacqui; McAnulty KieranPart 2 Designated networksCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members when we rose for dinner break the committee had just considered Part 1 of the Retail Payment System Bill. We now come to Part 2. This is the debate on clauses 10 to 28 designated networks. The question is that Part 2 stand part.KIERAN McANULTY (Labour—Wairarapa): I raise a point of order Madam Chair. I seek leave for all parts to be taken as one question.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Is there any objection? There is.
Clark DavidHon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Thank you Madam Chair. In response to the member I'm not sure where he's plucked $7 million from. As I said in my initial contribution the very conservative estimate is $74 million per annum—a little different to six. That has been canvassed across the various readings of this bill to date.I would also note that it falls very unevenly because it's the small merchants that benefit disproportionately from capping these fees.Andrew Bayly: How many might that be?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: As the member knows a large number of New Zealand businesses are small businesses. But the access to priority or lower fees tends to dominate amongst the very large businesses currently. So this bill will disproportionately benefit small business as opposed to the bigger businesses that the member might want to support.In respect of the growing economy I mean he will repeat his assertions; I'll repeat mine. New Zealand's economy has been growing at a remarkable rate considering the COVID period we've been through. It's a better position than most economies around the world. In fact many others acknowledge that; the ratings agencies give it a triple A rating for New Zealand. That's very rare around the world but two agencies have recently given New Zealand that rating saying that we're on very sturdy sound financial grounds and the conditions for growth are there in the recovery from COVID-19.The member did ask I thought quite a good question around how competition will be achieved. If a network is designated the network can be required to allow other competitors to access its infrastructure and services. And that is effectively the way into ensuring competition through that mechanism.Melissa Lee asked how the bill will interact with the digital identity bill. I'd make the initial observation that that bill—the digital identity trust bill—has an important role to play in building trust in online services transactions and amongst our population more broadly. We want a population that can take advantage of the advantages that come with digital and can trust and securely transact online. So that bill goes to trust and confidence and that all underpins a successful economy.This bill too goes to having a reasonable and fair economy where people can transact fairly where we can have competition in the market. A lot of this does go to ensuring we live in a country where everyone who wants to get involved in business can have a crack and can participate on a level playing field in a trusted environment. So I guess I'm extrapolating on the fly on that but I do see those kinds of connections existing in response to the member's question.
Bayly AndrewANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you. I see the Minister scrawling furiously. I'm just hoping he's got sufficient time to answer this question because I'd hate to think that we're going to move through Part 1 without having a response.So on my reckoning if it's $6 million saving per annum and there's 536000 businesses that would be a benefit of $11 per business per annum. But of course all businesses won't use these types of facilities. So (a) I really would like to know whether $6 million is the estimated saving and secondly how many businesses might benefit from this because I'd quite like to know what the contribution—given as I said in my opening remarks the Government has imposed $3.5 billion of additional costs on small businesses to date.
Lee MelissaMELISSA LEE (National): I completely agree with my colleague who just sat down Andrew Bayly. In terms of the purpose in this part the bill actually does talk about promoting competition and efficiency in retail payment systems. But I just want to add and ask the Minister specifically: what benefit what long-term benefit this actually has on the merchants and consumers? I know that you know when consumers go shopping or whatever and use their cards they want to actually not have to pay the extra 2 percent or extra 3 percent that the merchants actually put on for the privilege of using the credit card or whatever payment methods. I guess one of the issues that I actually foresee is what it does actually provide—long-term benefit—for the merchants. By reducing the interchange fees does it really promote competition for the merchants for example? And how will this bill interact with the digital identity bill is another question that I would actually like to ask the Minister—which is awaiting the second reading. As we transition into a different digital world how will this bill interact with the digital identity bill?
Bayly AndrewANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you Madam Chair. I see the Minister's starting out in the normal vein—he normally does something very dismissive. So first comment can he confirm the annual savings this will have for all the small businesses he's reputedly standing up for whether in fact it is $6 million a year because the figure was quoted before. That would be nice if he could confirm that this is a $6 million saving to the roughly 530000 small businesses across New Zealand.The second thing in relation to my question—it was quite a specific question it was actually related to clause 3 the purpose—and I've read it out to him just to be very helpful to him. My question was: how does this Act promote competition efficiency? Not in the general economic or New Zealand Inc." perspective which he responded to around what Labour was doing to help New Zealand businesses—but the purpose relates to the retail payments system. So what does it do to promote competition efficiency? I understand where the bill seeks to reduce the cost of certain elements but that's different from promoting competition and efficiency. And how does this go about actually allowing other network operators to come into New Zealand and making sure that we are ending up with an even lower cost that is driven by the market rather than through regulation which is the chosen method that the Minister always likes to take in relation to the financial markets industry: regulate rather than allow the markets to operate more efficiently?"
Smith DamienDAMIEN SMITH (ACT): Thank you Minister. It really is great to see that the Labour Party is embracing competition and it's essential this process to the economy and we hope to see more of that. But as we discussed we still have a couple of concerns around the competitive landscape in this bill. In the ACT Party we like to promote a transparent market with a level playing field so one question I have which we'd like clarification on is that the bill only regulates MasterCard and Visa and not other card payment systems such as American Express or Diners Club. Just to declare an interest I do have an American Express card and a MasterCard but with an American Express card as an example there is a higher cost to small business. Leaving them outside the payment system regulation increases the cost to small businesses especially if their usage grows and it's not just one card but there are a series of companion cards you can get as well. So we'd just like to ask the question that the Minister will ensure a level playing field just like other jurisdictions in Europe and Australia that have included American Express in their regulatory frameworks. The bill also calls out MasterCard and Visa for regulation where other existing players are not included in the proposed initial regulation so we're trying to get the commission to make sure that there are no regulatory gaps and imbalances. International experience does show gaps and imbalances will be exploited with potentially poor outcomes for consumers and businesses. The final part of our question set is that the interchange flows between the merchant bank the cardholder's bank. In other markets which have regulated a reduction in the interchange it has not been clear that the savings have actually been passed on to the merchant banks or to other participants in the ecosystem. So actually being confident that retailers and consumers will get that is questionable and in terms of the cost-benefit analysis there seems to be a lot of money to set up the administration of this whereas if you take the millions of transactions that are out there the savings are relatively low. All of the main issuing banks in New Zealand are also acquiring banks so they're all superior to just issuers or just acquirers. So the final part of the question is: what guarantees do we have that the proposed $74 million will not get stuck in the system and will get to businesses and consumers? Thank you.