edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Lorck AnnaANNA LORCK (Labour—Tukituki): I rise to speak on the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill and I look back to the early to mid-1990s when I was a rural reporter for the Hawke's Bay Herald-Tribune—I was actually the agricultural editor—and I used to go out and cover the live export trade that was actually booming in Hawke's Bay at the time. They had massive feedlots out at Tikokino and it was a pretty booming industry but I can recall also then that there was a bit of controversy around it as well because I used to get quite a few front pages. When I look back and I look to now I think really the time has come when the banning of live ship exports of animals for breeding is coming to an end.Unlike the negative side the other side of the House where they seem to think the poor farmers won't survive over a two-year transition period out of live exports I have far greater confidence—far greater confidence—in our farmers and when I'm going to be sitting on the select committee listening to submissions I'm going to ask a lot of questions from farmers about Really do you think this is something for the future or do you think that we can do more with our livestock and grow our rural economy better and stronger with better reputation without the need for live sheep exports?" Thank you Madam Speaker."
Lewis StephSTEPH LEWIS (Labour—Whanganui): Thank you Madam Speaker. I want to begin by touching on a point Mr McKelvie raised when he said that we have relied on the importation of livestock to kick-start I guess our agricultural sector way back when and he's not wrong. But history also shows us quite clearly that thousands of people and animals died on those ships to New Zealand. I would like to think I hope that we have come a long way in terms of our knowledge of animal rights animal welfare and animal safety. He also talked about New Zealand's way and our place in agriculture in the world. Well the point behind this bill is that we are in a time where we're facing increased scrutiny of animal welfare including from the countries that we export to. The continued export of livestock may be a risk to New Zealand's brand. So the time has come to have this discussion and to reconsider whether this is something that fits within our brand as a country. It's about our reputation including as seen by our exporters.I've also seen since the sinking of Gulf Livestock 1 stories from farmers who previously exported livestock on ships overseas and they acknowledged that it was quite distressing not being able to know once their livestock left their farm whether or not their livestock were on those ships or not. They found that incredibly distressing and that led them to looking further into the exporting of livestock.Since 2015 we've exported close to 200000 cattle which have been shipped to countries including Mexico the Philippines and Sri Lanka. The majority though 94 percent go to China. All farmers care about their animals and to not know where the animals have ended up they've acknowledged is actually something that they find quite distressing. While there are rules about the welfare and conditions of livestock on export ships including the space per animal the amount of water required there are still livestock that die. So excluding those who died on Gulf Livestock 1 70 cattle died between 2019 and 2020 and after arrival there were 39 deaths recorded. That is why I commend this bill to the House.
Luxton JoJO LUXTON (Labour—Rangitata): Thank you Mr Speaker. It's a pleasure to rise and take a call on this Animal Welfare Amendment Bill. The previous speaker did talk about the fact that this is something that has been happening for some time and she is quite correct in that. But it doesn't make it right. Just because it's something that we've always done doesn't make it right.It's not as simple as the cows—let's say we're talking about cows cattle—being walked off the paddock and on to a ship for a lovely cruise. They do spend quite some time having to be fed certain foods and getting ready to be able to adapt to the ship. And yes the travel on the ship. But yes the member was right—you know there are procedures in place there are checks and balances in place. But we in New Zealand here we pride ourselves we pride ourselves on our clean green image. We pride ourselves on the way that we farm our animals. They're pasture fed they're this they're that and the other thing and we do look after them. I just don't see how this fits into that picture.You know the member previously did talk about the people who lost their lives. And actually I think that's a really important thing that we do acknowledge here tonight. She was right that that hasn't been talked about enough. It's been mostly about the animals and their welfare. So I do also wish to acknowledge those that lost their lives on that particular ship.But we've deliberately put in place a transition period where this won't come into effect until 2023 to allow those that are going to be impacted—and there is definitely an impact a cost for some farmers exporters importers etc. But that's why this two-year period has been put in place: as a transition so people can adapt their business models and look to do other things whether it be different types of farming or something else that doesn't include sending animals off for live export. So I commend this bill to the House.
Warren-Clark AngieANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): Thank you Mr Speaker. It is a real pleasure to stand and take a call on this very long-named bill which I will not repeat because I want to say a couple more things first before we carry on.First of all to my colleague the Hon Jan Tinetti this has been a difficult piece of legislation to think through and I really want to commend my Minister for the work that she has progressed and her determination to fix something that needed to be fixed. I really appreciate that she has done that. I'd also like to acknowledge the 163 submitters—22 of whom gave oral evidence—and the Governance and Administration Committee and the officials etc. etc.Now I was not a member like many of tonight's speakers on this bill. However I had a really good read of the legislation and this is my understanding: objectionable publications have a very high bar and definition. So this bill has brought to balance I believe the freedom of expression and speech versus the harm that objectionable material may give and I think that that is very important. Of course we all each and every one of us recall the events of March 15th 2019. We also recall the harm that occurred when people saw and watched live and then had it relayed time and time again around the country. It was horrific.I do want to acknowledge however that prior to that event there was all sorts of harmful digital exposures occurring. My own daughter was at school some 12 years ago and had the experience of someone showing her someone being murdered on social media. They thought it was very funny. It was incredibly harmful for my daughter; I had to go and pick her up and take her home from school at the time. So this is a matter that has needed to be looked at for quite some time and I'm really pleased and grateful that we have actually got to the point where most in this House have supported this bill at second reading. I commend the bill to this House.
Coffey TāmatiTĀMATI COFFEY (Labour): Thank you Mr Speaker and thank you to the member for Christchurch Central. He's so wise—very wise—and the people of Christchurch Central are well served by that member right there. Can I say having not sat on this committee that this is one of the first times that I've seen this bill but I must say that I've been convinced by the various arguments around the House tonight—especially from our main parties—on the justification for it. If I was on the Governance and Administration Committee I probably would have argued to rename it. But actually this name made it through—let's have a go—the Films Videos and Publications Classification (Urgent Interim Classification of Publications and Prevention of Online Harm) Amendment Bill. After all of that select committee process that's where they've landed—good on you. The law often chases advances in technology. In the short time that I've been a member of Parliament what I've noticed is that often we've stood in this House and we've talked about how technology is running away and actually we as lawmakers need to try and catch up with that and that's exactly what this bill has gone and done. The World Wide Web has very few controls. It's up to each country to decide how they implement those controls and having gone through a select committee process having had this brought to the House by the Hon Jan Tinetti who is also a brilliant member of Parliament and a Minister our Minister of Internal Affairs—she has brought this forward because she believed it was something that needed to be talked about. It's been through a select committee process. We do have the numbers around the House to be able to support it. So for that reason I commend it to the House.
Webb DuncanDr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Tēnā koe e te Māngai Whakawā. I rise to speak on this bill and I must say that was an excellent speech by the member for Selwyn touching on the main points. I do want to essentially just emphasise that it's an excellent thing that we agree that there should be reasonable limits on freedom of speech and unlike the member for the ACT Party who would apparently have people able to share pretty much any information without any constraints most of us in the House—the vast majority—agree that reasonable proper constraints which are correctly tailored are absolutely appropriate constraints on freedom of speech in a free and democratic society. That's what this bill achieves it's what the select committee has refined and that's always been the intention of the Minister. For that reason I commend this bill to the House.
Roberts AngelaANGELA ROBERTS (Labour): Thank you Mr Speaker. I'm grateful to rise and take a call on the Films Videos and Publications Classification (Urgent Interim Classification of Publications and Prevention of Online Harm) Amendment Bill.I'd just like to first of all thank the Minister and the Governance and Administration Committee and acknowledge that they remained focused on the original intent that was expressed by the previous Minister Tracey Martin that this bill is about protecting New Zealanders from harmful content they can be exposed to on their everyday social media feeds. The innocence of our young people as they're scrolling through their virtual lives and coming across such horrific images is something that is a really really valid pursuit. So I thank them for staying focused on the prize and acknowledge the changes that they made to ensure that this goal is met.They have enabled with the changes with this bill to allow those involved to be more effective in playing their part; both the Chief Censor's abilities to respond more nimbly and the obligations for those who host content to ensure swiftly and effectively to minimise the impact—the negative impact—of such content.In my previous life as an educator and as a mother I am very very aware of the profound scale and pace of reach—something that's already been referred to in the House this evening—of social media and it changes every day. Many of us have acknowledged tonight that it's really hard to keep up with the technology. So I'm really pleased that this is able to help us to better respond and it's an ongoing piece of work about making content a safer place to be in the future and I commend this bill to the House.
Utikere TangiTANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Kia orana Mr Speaker. It's a pleasure to take a call on this bill and I do recall actually sitting in Barbara Kuriger's office and I think we actually did it in two or three takes—getting the name of the bill out—which I thought was OK but clearly this has got to be one of the longest titles of a bill in history.But I do want to acknowledge the members of that particular committee. I'm no longer a member of it but I know my colleague the member for Nelson Rachel Boyack has taken on the mantle as deputy and will do a fine job there. The bill itself we did hear from 22 submitters orally and the majority of those concerns were around the filter provision and so I do want to acknowledge the Minister the Hon Jan Tinetti for working closely with the select committee. I found it to be a very collegial opportunity for members of the select committee alongside the responsible Minister and what we have in front of us is a testament to that. So thank you to the Minister for her efforts in that space. I also want to acknowledge the hard-working officials. This is—as I think the speaker who spoke before me referred to it—a potential minefield in terms of a digital environment where many things can mean many things to different people and so time after time officials were tasked with providing responses to some tricky questions. So I do want to acknowledge the work that they have done. But I also want to acknowledge the hard work of the Department of Internal Affairs but also the New Zealand Classification Office because as Barbara Kuriger has already mentioned the select committee did go on somewhat of a couple of site visits and were able to see behind the scenes the hard work in trying circumstances in terms of content that those officers and officials have to deal with. So I'm delighted that the select committee process has actually delivered to this House a bill that is workable a bill that responds to the concerns that were raised by the Minister initially and through the public opportunities as well and I'm delighted to be able to commend it to the House.
Bennett GlenGLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth): Kia ora Mr Speaker. Thank you to the previous member my colleague Barbara Kuriger for your support and for the National Party's support. When I came into this House a year ago—today actually was my first day here—it was very much around How do I be constructive? How do we work together for the betterment of New Zealand?" Hearing those conversations that we've just had hearing Melissa Lee's critique and work and hearing the hard work of the select committee very much shows me how we can work together and make our nation a better place.I want to say a thankyou to our Minister of Internal Affairs the Hon Jan Tinetti for bringing this piece of legislation forward and as someone who's worked for many years with young people it's really important to me and for me to ensure that we protect our rangatahi and knowing the content that is out there—not even objectionable but just stuff that's unhealthy and not good for young minds—I'm glad that we can come to a place where we can ensure that it is an offence to make possess supply or distribute objectionable publications such as this.For me I've been paying attention over the last few weeks to what's been going on in America around Facebook and Frances Haugen and the fact that they talked about—it really pricked my ears up when they mentioned "It's easier to inspire people to anger than to any other emotion." and creating anger creating division is something that social media is an expert at and we want to stop that. So I'm glad that we've made it through to this reading we've had the select committee and I commend this bill to the House."
Craig LizDr LIZ CRAIG (Labour): Thank you Mr Speaker. One of the most important recommendations arising out of the Government's inquiry into mental health and addiction was that New Zealand's mental health Act which is now about 30 years old be repealed and replaced and be replaced with something that reflected modern approaches to human rights - supported decision-making and informed consent. The issue is that given the complexity of these issues it's important that we take the time to get this right but there are a number of issues that we do need to address now and this bill makes a number of these changes. One of the most important is eliminating indefinite treatment orders because I think these are seen widely as a serious breach to human rights because people can be detained indefinitely without access to the justice system. Basically what the bill does is it requires courts to review the treatment orders every 12 months and certainly the majority of submitters that discussed this when they presented their submissions to the Health Committee were in support of this change. One of the other important things it does is it makes permanent some of the changes that were brought in in response to COVID-19 and one of those was the use of audiovisual (AV) technology for making patient assessments and examinations. Basically this legislation is due to expire shortly but it's really important that we continue it because I think it's important for where the physical presence of a patient is not deemed to be practicable. But a number of the submitters raised concerns about the fact that if you just have a default of audiovisual technology that may mean that many people miss out on some of the benefits of an in-person examination and so what we've put in as a select committee is just a number of protections wrapped around that. So the first one is that practitioners actually have to record why it wasn't practicable for the patient to be physically present and then secondly is that if you're going to be using the AV technology then you need to report back to the director of area mental health services. In that way we can actually as a country keep an eye on the use of AV technology and detect any trends if there are any concerns. So this is a really important first step in ensuring that our mental health legislation is fit for purpose and I commend this bill to the House.Motion agreed to.Bill read a second time.
Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Amendment Bill — Second Reading
Pallett SarahSARAH PALLETT (Labour—Ilam): I have earrings to contend with not hearing aids so thank you Mr Speaker. I rise to speak on the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Amendment Bill. I was a member of the Health Committee which worked hard on this piece of legislation and I just want to take a second to add to the thanks of my colleague Mr Utikere to thank the ministry officials and clerks of the committee for all their hard work. I'd also like to thank the 53 submitters and 15 of those we heard from orally some of whom have actually been subject to indefinite compulsory treatment orders themselves so their bravery in coming forward can't really be understated. So I would like to just acknowledge and thank them.Of course one of the key amendments of this bill is the elimination of indefinite treatment orders which are widely seen to be a significant breach of human rights. Instead we will be requiring that those are reviewed every 12 months and that will go some way towards addressing these concerns. Another small amendment I'd just like to quickly nod to is the concerns that were raised by submitters that audiovisual link technology would be seen as the default mechanism and might be used to alleviate pressure on services when staff resources are limited. This has been addressed in this bill and we've also required that reporting will be taking place to the director of mental health services—yes I'm just checking that I've got that correct. I would like to just end by commending this bill to the House. Thank you.
McKelvie IanIAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): Got to get these [Struggles to remove face mask] off without losing my hearing aids Mr Speaker—SPEAKER: I know the problem.IAN McKELVIE: —because they're worth a lot more than what you pay me! If I can get it off—ha ha!SPEAKER: Yeah I don't have the specs—IAN McKELVIE: You'd sympathise with me no doubt Mr Speaker.SPEAKER: You don't need to listen to yourself I find.IAN McKELVIE: Ha ha! Well that's a very interesting point because of course God gave us two ears and one mouth so that we can hear twice as much as we can speak. That's a famous old saying.It gives me a deal of pleasure to take a very short call on the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Amendment Bill second reading. It's a bill that I didn't sit on the select committee of—haven't sat on the Health Committee I don't think in my time in Parliament so an interesting little issue for me to deal with. But none the less mental health really for electorate MPs and for all of us in fact is an extraordinarily I guess testing issue because in New Zealand for a number of years now we've struggled as a country to come to grips with how we manage many issues round mental health. This Government came to the Government benches in its first term in Government with a promise I guess to fix this issue and they found it more difficult than most as indeed a lot of Governments have. So the issues that come to us through our electorate committee are directly related to a lot of the issues that are proposed in the course of this bill.It's a bill we support but interestingly for me the critical issue in this bill is how you get into the mental health system and how you get out of it I guess. It's a real challenge I think for people in the mental health area for people who are operating our mental health facilities and for people who need to access those facilities. If you think about the fact that currently in New Zealand many people enter the mental health system via the police which I think is extraordinarily unfortunate because we should have ways of identifying the challenges that these people face and being able to get to them and manage them in a much better manner than we have—and this bill sets out to some extent to try and achieve that.I think from that perspective any progress is good progress. But of course the real issue we've got in this sector is getting as we have in many other sectors in New Zealand at the moment and particularly in the health sector people who are competent and able to deal with the issues that the mental health and those types of—what would you call them?—issues that are caused by mental health challenges raise and to get the people that are able to deal with those and manage effectively those patients in a 24-hour-a-day manner. Whether they're in a facility or whether they're out in the community they certainly need to be managed and looked after. It's a great challenge for us as a country and a challenge that this bill at least starts to I guess—what would you call it?—address. So with those few words I'm happy to say National supports this bill.
Utikere TangiMENTAL HEALTH (COMPULSORY ASSESSMENT AND TREATMENT) AMENDMENT BILLSecond ReadingDebate resumed from 30 September.TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Fakaalofa lahi atu Mr Speaker. Thank you. I rise to take a call on this bill. As a new member of the Health Committee I have to say that I entered at the time when deliberations in terms of finalising the select committee report were taking place. However fundamentally what this bill does do is in essence it eliminates the need for—and practice of—indefinite treatment orders which I think is actually a really good thing. I think all members of this House will suggest that as well because fundamentally this piece of legislation deals with a number of vulnerable individuals and members within our society.There is one particular part of this bill that I do want to reserve my comments for and it relates to the ability for notices to be served and for communication and hearings to take place by way of audiovisual link (AVL). This bill does remove the sunset clause that exists for that particular provision. While I guess like other members in this House I've had an experience in terms of conducting hearings via AVL they can be very efficient and indeed in certain circumstances they can be very appropriate but the existing law as it currently stands in this particular field actually does not allow for patients in terms of whānau support and encouragement to be supported. So the changes outlined in this proposed piece of legislation do in actual fact introduce a sense of flexibility to allow exactly that.It's worth noting through the deliberations and questions from officials—and I want to thank the officials for their advice to the select committee. They mentioned that justices of the peace do fulfil some role in some circumstances often because some individuals simply don't have the whānau support that's available to them. But ensuring that this provides for the capacity and indeed the capability to have whānau alongside vulnerable members of our community actually means that this field this practice is moving in a positive space. So while that's one component of the bill I think it's indeed a very important one and I commend it to the House.
Rurawhe AdrianREPORT OF COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE HOUSECHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Mr Speaker the committee has considered the Financial Sector (Climate-related Disclosures and Other Matters) Amendment Bill and reports it with amendment. The committee has also considered the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) Legislation Bill and reports it with amendment. I move That the report be adopted.Motion agreed to.Report adopted.
Grigg Nicola; Whaitiri MekaNICOLA GRIGG (National—Selwyn): Thank you Mr Chair. To the Minister in the chair Meka Whaitiri just a resumption of the questions prior to the dinner break if you wouldn't mind. I was just reading through an ANZ benefits analysis of the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) agreement and it reports that the manufacturing sector will be worse off. I just wondered what knowledge the Minister has of that assessment and could you outline any details for any mitigation plans?Hon MEKA WHAITIRI (Minister of Customs): To the member that's just resumed her seat and through the chair I think I've indulged the member prior to the dinner break in terms of her questions going outside the gambit of the bill. The bill has three parts the title and the commencement. I am more than happy to answer questions that relate to the bill in terms of the three parts the title and the commencement and I look forward to the member's questions in relation to the bill.NICOLA GRIGG (National—Selwyn): To the Minister then could you please detail the reduction of non-tariff barriers—which member States and on what products?Hon MEKA WHAITIRI (Minister of Customs): As I said in my opening remarks I described what this piece of legislation is attempting to do which includes reduction of some tariff barriers to member States who sign up to this. It also in terms of preferential tariff rates—I've also mentioned transitional safeguard measures under appropriate circumstances. I've also mentioned the issue of New Zealand certificates of origin in respect of goods for export to the RCEP parties. I've also indicated that through this piece of legislation—the implementation through the legislations which will amend the tariff to enable application for preferential tariff reports for imports and I've also indicated the amendment to the Customs and Excise Act 2018 to give effect to the rules of origin. I think in my opening statement I have addressed those questions.NICOLA GRIGG (National—Selwyn): To the Minister my understanding is when this bill is passed we will be the sixth member State to ratify this agreement. Could the Minister outline her understanding of what progress is being made by Australia and South Korea towards ratification?Hon MEKA WHAITIRI (Minister of Customs): I understand that in the bill we indicated as discussed at the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee the commencement date which goes to the heart of the question around particular countries that are part of this agreement. We suggest that it goes in Order in Council simply to recognise that different countries will be at different timelines in terms of utilising their domestic processes. And so in terms of the countries that we have got signed up and countries that are still working on their internal ratification processes I am more than happy to get that note from officials and give that to the member.NICOLA GRIGG (National—Selwyn): To the Minister could she outline the Government's programme of works to enter into force this RCEP agreement?
Grigg Nicola; Whaitiri Meka; Dean JacquiNICOLA GRIGG (National—Selwyn): Just to the Minister again further to my previous question as I don't know whether it was covered. Outside of any discussions with other regional comprehensive economic partnership trade Ministers what direct communication is the New Zealand Government having with India to advance a free-trade agreement? Hon MEKA WHAITIRI (Minister of Customs): Madam Chair let me just get the answer to that question momentarily please. CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Sorry to interrupt the member but the time has come for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break. This debate will resume at 7 o'clock this evening.Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7 p.m.
McClay Todd; Whaitiri MekaHon TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua): I thank the Minister in the chair Meka Whaitiri for her response in as far as India is concerned but is she aware that New Zealand wine exporters to India can pay hundreds of percent in tariffs over the export price? Our kiwifruit producers that want to sell Kiwifruit into India pay a very very high tariff. Does she think it's good enough to New Zealand producers to say Well India left—it's a shame but the door's still open to them." Is that what she means by the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) that New Zealand's trade policy now is: where a country doesn't want to talk to us they can come back if they want to but in the meantime our exporters actually are not competitive in those markets and they can't do well? If that's the case this would be one of the worst trade policies this House has ever seen.Hon MEKA WHAITIRI (Minister of Customs): Remiss of me to say that we continue to engage with India on our aspirations to improve the economic and trading relationship at a bilateral level. So we have not departed from engaging with India. I can report that the Indian Government has been signalling in recent months in line with its self-reliance campaign launched in May 2020 that it will prioritise partnerships and in the long run grant preferential market access to those partners making significant contributions to its development including through foreign direct investment. As such key New Zealand companies in India have been exploring how New Zealand can expand its investment footprint in India. Like I said the door for bilateral agreement remains open should India choose to remain outside the RCEP."
Dean JacquiREGIONAL COMPREHENSIVE ECONOMIC PARTNERSHIP (RCEP) LEGISLATION BILLIn CommitteeCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members we now come to the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) Legislation Bill.Barbara Edmonds: I seek leave for all questions to be taken as one debate.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is objection.Part 1 Amendments to Customs and Excise Act 2018CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Part 1 this is the debate on clauses 3 and 4—Barbara Kuriger: Point of order. Sorry Madam Chair I've just clarified on what I was told before but we will take it as one question thank you. We don't object anymore.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): So leave is sought for that purpose is there any objection? There is none.Parts 1 to 3 and clauses 1 and 2CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that Parts 1 to 3 and clauses 1 and 2 stand part.
Dean JacquiPart 2 Amendments to Financial Reporting Act 2013CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members we now come to Part 2. This is the debate—Andrew Bayly: Madam—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): —on clauses 21 to 35 and Schedule 2 amendments to the Financial Reporting Act 2013. The question is that Part 2 stand part.
Dean JacquiPart 1A Amendments to Financial Markets Conduct Act 2013 to come into force by third anniversary of Royal assentCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members we now come to Part 1A. Part 1A is the debate on clauses 20A to 20J in Schedule 1A Amendments to Financial Markets Conduct Act 2013 to come into force by third anniversary of Royal assent. The question is that Part 1A stand part.
Bayly Andrew; Clark DavidANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you we're just about there. What about the unlisted components? So we've got a classic example New Zealand super that obviously has I think $59 billion of investments but is now increasingly investing in private sector so in the unlisted. And also related to that I keep talking about quasi-equity instruments—are they part of the $1 billion are they part of that calculation?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): I'm advised that they're not.
Bayly Andrew; Clark DavidANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you Mr Chair. I just remind the Minister that I'm still waiting for some answers that were to be provided and I appreciate the officials who are out the back doing their bit. But there was a difference between—I gave him a scenario about the value changing over the course of a year and at what point is it valued. It's the same with the fund manager the $1 billion one. There's a fundamental question about when do you assess the value and the second element of that was if you're a fund manager for instance do you have to value non-listed investments as part of getting to your total of $1 billion. So hopefully we're going to hear a response on that and hopefully we're getting a response back now. But in the meantime I did ask about the assurance practitioner arrangements. I think from the Minister's response all this is to be decided in due course and maybe he can confirm that but who's going to be deciding? Is it the Financial Markets Authority or was it going to be a recommendation and to what extend can the Minister assure businesses that they're not going to be lumped with exaggeration and excessive requirements around regulations imposed on businesses—so that we actually get to an outcome that means that the practitioners who can operate and have due skill are not exposed unduly to liability because frankly trying to quantify climate change impacts on certain industries and businesses would be a pretty heroic mission in some cases. So I'm just understanding the framework that's being proposed and when might the framework be available because given the due date—and I just acknowledge my colleague's suggestion which on the face of it sounds a good one which is to delay the commencement date for three years rather than one year. That might give sufficient time to put those arrangements in place because if people do want to become a climate change assurance provider then obviously they've got to set up the processes get the right skills in place talent and all that sort of stuff and you don't do that overnight. So again those two key questions. Hopefully we're going to get a response. Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): I'm happy to answer those two specific questions. Working through I confess I misheard the member's example the first time and the officials have rightly—because I couldn't make his numbers add up but the officials tell me they do. So—Andrew Bayly: They do add up. Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: So they do add up on this occasion. So in respect of the equity securities listed of investment $50 million equity $9 million debt a portfolio of $9 million and huge bank borrowings the company goes over $60 million. So the entity must be above one of the thresholds is the answer: $60 million equity debt or $1 billion assets under management at their balance date for two consecutive years. The second question was around who can be a climate-related disclosures assurance practitioner. Anyone who is independent from the entity may assure their disclosures as long as they assure against the Expert Reporting Board's standards for auditing and assurance.
Bayly AndrewANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you Mr Chair. Hopefully we're going to get some answers before this debate gets closed down unless the honourable members opposite are hopefully standing up to ask some questions which they haven't to date. CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): That's entirely the Chair's decision so you should carry on. ANDREW BAYLY: I just don't understand the explanation the Minister provided before; I'm grateful he attempted to. So let me give you a scenario. There's a listed investment company. It has $50 million of equities on the market and it has $9 million of debt securities on the market. It actually has a portfolio of investments that have a value of $900 million but alongside it outside the listed debt bonds that are issued on the market it has a huge amount of bank borrowings. During the course of a year the value of the business goes up. The value of the equities goes up from $50 million to $60 million; therefore breaching the $60 million test—if I understand it—but by balance sheet it comes down to being within the $60 million cap. Is that company captured under the rules? That was my point before around at what point in a year over the two-year period—is it a balance date or is it at a different date because the value of the assets not only its own value of its equity or debt instruments but also the value of its investments might have gone up and down during the course of the year. So hopefully we're going to get an answer.
Bayly AndrewANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): OK so I don't quite understand that and I'd be hopeful that the Minister might be a little bit—when you talk about the net assets presumably is that total investments and is it total market investments or does it include non-market related investments? Secondly does it include non - quasi-equity instruments such as warrants options whatever that do have a true value but are not readily valued? So again I'd be keen for some update on that.OK well while we're waiting for that the issue—just going back to our $1 billion because hopefully we're going to have some answers soon on this. The issue around the fund manager: I've put up a proposition where you've got a private fund manager with a range of investments both listed and unlisted—so I see the adviser's come back so maybe I'll just wait for a response before I carry on.
Bayly Andrew; Clark DavidANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): I must admit Mr Chair I've only spent the past 15 minutes looking at the bill. I don't proclaim to be an expert but it was an issue that sort of seemed blindingly obvious to me. So hopefully we're going to get an answer quickly.So the second aspect I was going to talk about is we've now got a $1 billion threshold. So we've got the change that Supplementary Order Paper 63 put up by the Minister—that was talking about $60 million. Then we've also got this issue around a $1 billion which I think assumes that relates to fund managers. I don't know and I'm hoping I'm going to get clarity from the Minister on that.Again it is interesting from a fund manager's perspective. First of all maybe we'll just clarify some scenarios. So if I'm a private fund manager but I have $1 billion and $1 in listed entities am I captured? Secondly am I going to be captured if I'm still that private entity with a mixture of investments in equities listed on the stock exchange and a mixture of bonds listed on the stock exchange and then a range of private bonds and private equities which are not listed and obviously there's not a readily available market price for? So again I'd be quite interested in that scenario.Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): For listed debt issuers the current test is based on the net assets of the issuer and its subsidiaries.
Bayly Andrew; Clark DavidANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you. Well I am a little bit surprised because the Supplementary Order Paper is in your name. So let's maybe go back. First point is why $60 million which is the—and I see that you've changed that clause in the bill. You've replaced new section 461OA in clause 7 which previously just talked about a large issuer and now you've defined it as being $60 million.So the second question while we're waiting for an answer from the Minister: the big question I've got around the use of value is at what point is the value determined? Because as we all know listed companies and with all companies have to value their assets and normally on a mark-to-market basis. Is this only at the end of the financial year? Or what happens if the value of the assets goes up during the course of the year but declines and therefore it'd be under the threshold at say 31 March which is the normal balance sheet? So how are those inconsistencies or irregularities or increases and decreases in value actually accounted for?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): I want to make sure that I come back to the member with the appropriate technical answers to his questions. I imagine the normal process will apply as with other accounting provisions but I will come back to him with the further technical advice on that. I expect that's what he expects too but it's always good to have these things clarified.
Bayly Andrew; Clark DavidANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you Mr Chair. Well the first thing I would say is—I think my learned colleague has just raised the issue of consistency and I think that's a fundamental principle that should be adopted: what is good for the private sector should be good for the Government sector. I think the argument that if you're going to make a distinction then the best way to do that is to make the legislation which we are talking about today consistent and it's not. I think he makes a very valid point.I haven't sat on this committee so I'm a little bit new to it but I was just looking at the new Supplementary Order Paper 63 that the Minister's put up which is the one that deals with the issue of value of $60 million which from what I understand less than 1 percent of companies have on market listings so the proposition's been that a small number of companies will be affected by that. The first thing is I'd just be keen to get some clarification from the Minister: when the figure of $60 million is quoted what does that include? Is it merely equities and does that mean share capital? Does it mean debt? Does it mean pseudo or quasi-capital—auctions warrants? Are they part of that valuation? That's my first point. So maybe we'll deal with that and then we'll deal with the billion-dollar question in a minute.Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): I'll come back to the member with more detail on that point. I'm happy to deal with his next question.
Shaw JamesHon JAMES SHAW (Minister of Climate Change): Thank you Mr Chair. I wonder if I may assist in this and perhaps accelerate moving through this point by talking about the relationship between the Carbon Neutral Government Programme and the legislation that's being debated today. So as the Minister has said the Carbon Neutral Government Programme includes reporting requirements for all public entities. Those reporting requirements are intended to be similar to or as close as possible to those that will be the reporting requirements under this legislation. However as the member who's been on his feet a lot recently has mentioned you know private entities do have slightly different requirements. They have shareholder requirements and allocation of capital requirements that are different from public entities and so the precise nature of the reporting won't be you know a perfect apples for apples comparison. But the intention is that all Public Service departments—all departmental agencies the New Zealand Defence Force the Police the Parliamentary Counsel Office etc.—will be required to report on their metrics and targets from 2021-2022 which is a year ahead of where the private sector will be required to report under this piece of legislation here.Now entities under this amendment bill of course are required from 2023 according to the standards in the External Reporting Board. Now it may be that the member would be more comfortable if the Carbon Neutral Government Programme itself had legal backing and so it would be good to hear if they would support legislation that essentially took what is currently a governmental requirement on every single Public Service agency to report to a similar standard—if they would be prepared to support legislation that would require that of the public sector so that the public sector entities are required under the law just as these large reporting entities are under this legislation.The member has put forward a Supplementary Order Paper. I think it's good that he's thinking this way that it's obviously important for the public sector and publicly owned funds and other entities to take the lead. That is why under the Carbon Neutral Government Programme we said that they had to report earlier than under this programme because we agree with the member on that point and look forward to his wholehearted support for the Carbon Neutral Government Programme and the reporting requirements therein.
McClay ToddHon TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua): Look I thank the Minister but this legislation has nothing to do with the Government's target of being carbon neutral by a certain date. It doesn't do that; it asks the private sector to report upon climate change upon their balance sheet and risk to them. It doesn't make a single private sector company change how they act just report and so they are two very different things.So the Government may in their letters of expectation to these Crown institutions say to them We want you to be carbon neutral by a certain date." but they don't get to say to the superannuation fund "And we want all your investments to be carbon neutral or to be the following to do with climate change." unless they change the law. They don't get to direct them in that way because it's important there is independence in as far as the super fund and ACC and how they go about their investments. There are times when this House has passed a law that says "We don't want these entities these Crown entities to invest in a certain way." That has happened previously around weapons and so on. But the Minister is trying to confuse things by saying that the Government has a target of all Crown entities or the Government being carbon neutral by a certain date and suggesting that that is the same here. It's not.Ultimately what the Government is doing is putting a legal requirement upon businesses a number of businesses to report the impact of climate change upon their business not what they're doing about climate change but upon their business. In the same breath they're saying that businesses that are the same with the same size assets that invest in the same ways but are owned by the Government don't have to do that and this Government knows better and will just direct them themselves.The case that I'm making is that that's not right. If it is good enough for the private sector in this case there should not be an exemption from this legislation for certain Crown financial institutions. The Minister has mentioned that you know my arguments are repetitive. It's because he hasn't actually addressed the reason that there isn't a difference yet."
Rurawhe AdrianFINANCIAL SECTOR (CLIMATE-RELATED DISCLOSURES AND OTHER MATTERS) AMENDMENT BILLIn CommitteePart 1 Amendments to Financial Markets Conduct Act 2013 to come into force by first anniversary of Royal assentCHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Members we come first to the Financial Sector (Climate-related Disclosures and Other Matters) Amendment Bill Part 1. This is the debate on clauses 3 to 20 and Schedule 1—Amendments to Financial Markets Conduct Act 2013 to come into force by first anniversary of Royal assent. The question is that Part 1 stand part.
Rurawhe AdrianHOUSE IN COMMITTEECHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Members the House is in committee on the Financial Sector (Climate-related Disclosures and Other Matters) Amendment Bill and the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) Legislation Bill.