edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
7. Question No. 7—Social Development and EmploymentANAHILA KANONGATA'A-SUISUIKI (Labour) to the Minister for Social Development and EmploymentQuestion No. 7—Social Development and Employment7. ANAHILA KANONGATA'A-SUISUIKI (Labour) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What changes to welfare settings took effect on 1 April?Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment) on behalf of the Minister for Social Development and Employment: On 1 April the 369000 people who receive a main benefit saw their payments increase by 3.1 percent. This was the second rise in main benefits under the historic indexation to wage rates introduced by this Government. Under the previous indexation to the Consumers Price Index beneficiaries would have only received a 1.15 percent rise. This is an important structural change and one that will mean benefits don't continue to fall further and further behind the average wage. April 1st also saw the largest—SPEAKER: Order! The member has answered the question.Anahila Kanongata'a-Suisuiki: How much are those receiving a main benefit better off by following these changes?Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: On behalf of the Minister there's a range of changes to income. For example couples with children receiving a jobseeker benefit will be receiving an extra $13.24 while individuals receiving jobseeker support will receive an extra $7.76 per week. But these changes haven't happened in isolation. Since 2017 the jobseeker support rate for couples with children has increased by $61.96.SPEAKER: Order! The Minister has answered the question.Anahila Kanongata'a-Suisuiki: What other changes to settings took effect on 1 April?Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: On 1 April 830000 people receiving the New Zealand superannuation and veterans pension received a 3.1 percent increase to their payments due to its linkage to the average wage; 60000 students receiving student allowance will see increases of 1.15 percent indexed to the Consumers Price Index (CPI); 70000 people receiving supplementary assistance only will see increases of 1.15 percent indexed to the CPI. All up when we include the changes to minimum wage 1 April saw incomes rise for 1.4 million New Zealanders.
4. Question No. 4—HousingGINNY ANDERSEN (Labour—Hutt South) to the Minister of HousingQuestion No. 4—Housing4. GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour—Hutt South) to the Minister of Housing: Will the measures in the housing package announced on 23 March help increase the supply of new builds; if so how? Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Housing): Yes. Our housing package is consciously tilting the balance towards new builds. Amongst other things there will be no change to the brightline test for new builds. It will remain at five years. Interest deductibility will continue to apply to new builds and there will be a larger increase in price caps for first-home grants and loans for new builds compared to existing homes. Ginny Andersen: Will interest deductibility for new builds be available for the build-to-rent sector? Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Yes. Build to rent is a missing piece of the New Zealand rental sector. As with new builds more generally the details will be finalised through the interest deductibility consultation being carried out by Inland Revenue. Ginny Andersen: Why is it so important to tilt the balance towards new builds? Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: New Zealand simply needs more houses. We need policies and levers that prioritise house-building over investment in existing stock. Our package is aimed at helping mum and dad investors avoid competing with their kids for a first home in the suburbs and instead prioritising new builds. Rawiri Waititi: Will the housing package announced on 23 March help increase the supply of new builds for Māori; if so how? Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: As I've previously answered in the House the housing package that we announced on 23 March will increase the supply of housing for Māori by the very fact that the housing acceleration package in terms of infrastructure being available to both iwi developers and also for whenua Māori land. It is the need to have the infrastructure in place that will allow the building of more houses. Rawiri Waititi: Point of order Mr Speaker. I don't think she answered the question. It was about how many new builds for Māori; if so how—new builds. We didn't hear anything about new builds. SPEAKER: Well I might be over-interpreting but I would have thought that if you're putting in a pile of new infrastructure it might be for houses. Rawiri Waititi: Point of order Mr Speaker. SPEAKER: A further point of order Rawiri Waititi. Rawiri Waititi: Yes. SPEAKER: I just want to warn the member that I've ruled the question has not only been addressed it's been answered and ongoing litigation is not a good thing. Rawiri Waititi: Well we could end up with social housing; old social houses being given to Māori—that's all. SPEAKER: Well I tell you what. At some stage in the future the member might be in a position to answer questions and at that stage he can do it. Nicola Willis: When will she release the policy advice she is basing these comments on and that she claims she had proactively released last week? Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: As I outlined in the correction to my answer at the beginning of this question time it will be in the coming weeks.
2. Question No. 2—FinanceBARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) to the Minister of FinanceQuestion No. 2—Finance2. BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): New Zealand's economic recovery from COVID-19 continues to be reflected in the Government's books as indicated in the Crown accounts for the eight months to February released by Treasury last week. The accounts show that the stronger than expected economy has flowed through to the Government's books with both the operating balance before gains and losses deficit and net core Crown debt lower than forecast at the half-year update in December. This follows GDP data for the 2020 year released in recent weeks that also shows the economy was larger than expected during the past year and that activity has returned broadly to pre-COVID levels.Barbara Edmonds: What do the Crown accounts show about the underlying conditions in the New Zealand economy?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well they show the underlying activity in the New Zealand economy has been stronger than expected. Tax revenue in the eight months to February was $2.3 billion above Treasury's December forecast due to these stronger conditions. Treasury reported that the strength in consumption meant that GST was 5.8 percent above forecast. Corporate tax revenue was 11.6 percent above forecast due to strong provisional tax payments. Treasury has said that this indicates that current year taxable profits are higher than was assumed back in December. Source deductions—that's what we take from people's pay packets through PAYE—were 1.9 percent above forecast due to the stronger than expected labour market.Barbara Edmonds: What reports has he seen on the international context for the New Zealand economy?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: While these are strong results for the New Zealand economy we need to remain aware that we are still in a volatile and uncertain global economic environment. There are reports of third- and fourth-wave infections in our trading partners with new restrictions being imposed in countries like France and Germany. This is a reminder that our stronger than expected economic performance is set against the backdrop of an ever-changing global pandemic. There will be further challenges ahead this year and some sectors and regions will be particularly tested in New Zealand due to these global economic conditions. But we are in a strong position and the Government will continue to invest to accelerate our recovery.
Incorporated Societies Bill — First Reading
Smith DamienDAMIEN SMITH (ACT): First of all we're not going to go back through the history of the bill; we're just going to try and go forward. ACT's going to support this bill on the first reading so we have clarity about that but there will be a few challenges in the select committee. We certainly agree with the Green Party member Dr Elizabeth Kerekere in terms of hearing from the legal profession.What happens in the accounting profession because a lot of people on these boards are actually doing it as professional accountants and lawyers but not really actually charging. But there's one thing that we have observed which goes back to the society's powers in an administrative and financial sense and you know there's some simple questions about what happens when you buy sell or exchange property or you enter a lease. I think under this new format that's not quite—the arc hasn't quite been drawn where it matches up. That also begs the question is that surplus assets—if a club sells land let's say it's got a car park or a building or a farm then what is it that happens to that asset? At the moment the law proposes it requires surplus assets to be pointed towards a charitable trust. I mean that's their property right and it should be respected. So in that sense we see that as a step backwards because the individual society should be able to decide where money should go under its constitution.So if you look at Part 3 Administration of societies and you look at the examples of the society's powers in a financial sense I don't think the implications of that on a practical day-to-day level have really been thought through and what the directors and executors and employees of those organisations would have to face in terms of trying to implement this document. So in the select committee we're looking forward to hearing from the professionals around that area.I also think that there's a horses-for-courses scenario to be built into this which is you know some of the examples that have been raised are very small or they're very big and there needs to be some more thought put into that particular part of the process.So ACT will be supporting the bill on its first reading. But we look forward to a really rigorous analysis in the select committee stage. Thank you.
Strange JamieJAMIE STRANGE (Labour—Hamilton East): Thank you Mr Speaker. I appreciate the opportunity to take a call on the first reading of the Incorporated Societies Bill. I'd like to acknowledge the Minister the Hon David Clark for bringing this to the House. The previous speaker from the National Party Todd McClay spoke about the Law Commission report coming back in 2013 and he had a little bit of a dig at this current Government for taking a few years to get to this bill. I would just like to remind the member that the National Party were in Government between 2014 and 2017 and that was even under the glory years of Key and English but even under the glory years they weren't able to get this through. I'd just like to highlight that for those listening at home.This is certainly an important piece of legislation and I'd like to just put the context around it for those members who weren't here in 1908. Just a couple of things: 1908 the first Model T car the Henry Ford came out—the first Model T car. In New Zealand actually in 1908 New Zealanders competed at the Olympic Games for the first time as part of the Australasian team which is fairly apt today with the announcement of the trans-Tasman bubble. But just to note that and to give that context because it has taken quite a long time for us to do a review a revision of this bill but certainly very important.I'd also like to acknowledge the various societies and sports clubs that we have in our community.Chris Bishop: Are you ready for Friday?JAMIE STRANGE: They really are the fabric of our community—yes and we do have a cricket match coming up which the member opposite is alluding to and there are many cricket clubs who are incorporated societies. In fact my children play football basketball and are involved in gymnastics. I don't try the gymnastics myself but this is very personal for all of us in terms of our families being involved in these societies.The Minister went into all the detail around the bill so I really just wanted to highlight the aspect there around the key role these societies play. I commend this bill to the House and I look forward to it coming through the Economic Development Science and Innovation Committee. Thank you.
Dean JacquiMotion agreed to.Bill read a first time.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is That the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Amendment Bill be considered by the Health Committee. Motion agreed to.Bill referred to the Health Committee.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The House is suspended for the dinner break and will resume at 7 o'clock this evening.Sitting suspended from 6.01 p.m. to 7 p.m.
Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Amendment Bill — First Reading
Leavasa Dr Anae NeruDr ANAE NERU LEAVASA (Labour—Takanini): Thank you Madam Speaker. It is a privilege to take this short call and the last call of this first reading of the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Amendment Bill. I just want to acknowledge again as everyone has the He Ara Oranga work done in 2018 and I just want to acknowledge them for the equity lens that they provided as well in their consultations—Professor Ron Paterson Sir Mason Durie Dean Rangihuna Dr Jemaima Tiatia-Seath Josiah Tualamali'i and also Dr Barbara Disley.Hon Member: They did a good job.Dr ANAE NERU LEAVASA: Amen; amen to that. When we clinicians start off our careers in the health workforce we swear an oath that says first do no harm." I think this bill adds to that where we are trying to get to the stage where we minimise that and do no harm to our patients.What they found in that inquiry was to again look at the human rights approach promote supported decision-making and a recovery and wellbeing model and it is all about the equity and holistic approach to this bill. So I'll be brief. I support this bill into the House. Thank you."
Sharma GauravDr GAURAV SHARMA (Labour—Hamilton West): I rise today in the House to take a call on the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Amendment Bill. As a medical doctor who has had part of his training in both inpatient and outpatient clinics I do support the bill introduced by the honourable Minister Andrew Little. I want to start first of all by acknowledging the many people who work in the mental health workforce as well as those who are the consumers of the mental health services. It's not easy working in the sector and it's even harder being a patient and being a consumer of these services.This bill picks up some of the recommendations that were made as part of the He Ara Oranga: Report of the Government Inquiry into Mental Health and Addiction. What it does is it empowers patients and their families as well as the workforce involved in mental health services. First of all for the patients and their families it ends the widely criticised indefinite treatment which is a serious breach of human rights. The bill requires that the orders be reviewed every 12 months for as long as the duration of compulsory treatment. Secondly for the patient's family what it does is it allows for family members and their caregivers to be present via a video link or an audio link which means that the family can be involved in their care and also be involved in the decision making which wasn't the case previously. And thirdly for the staff members as my colleague Sarah Pallett has mentioned it also has a provision for the use of reasonable force or restraint when required to protect patients and public safety and to enable transport. This is quite key for people who work in mental health services because it makes sure that their lives are not endangered as well as the lives of the patients and the public. So I think on all three fronts whether it's the patients their whānau or the staff this bill is really good and I would like to support it. Thank you.
Halbert ShananSHANAN HALBERT (Labour—Northcote): Tēnā koe Madam Speaker. I take this call this evening in the absence of the Māori Party. We've heard vibrantly tonight that Māori are an important part of this conversation and we know—and as a Māori man I stand here this evening knowing that me and my whānau are twice as likely as non-Māori to suffer from poor mental health—that we are overrepresented that we are disadvantaged within the system and that we need help. What I don't want to hear this evening is when politics comes into the discussion that we are having in mental health. Now is the time to get on with it. Now is the time to make a difference. I remember very fondly the 2017 election. It was my first election against Minister Coleman at that time and the challenges that he faced. But as we move forward the difference that this bill does and it is a step in the right direction after multiple announcements—and just going back to my colleague the last speaker discussing the announcements. I say: does the Youth Mental Health Group feel any differently to the $1 million that the Minister has announced towards their mental health support and running a better system? What about the $4 million dedicated to Rainbow youth mental health services? Yes they do feel different. It's about us making steps and more steps and more steps to ensure that we address the challenges within our mental health system that we face. We're going to get on. We want to get on with this. So what this bill does is it starts to make three particular steps. And the one that I find most important this evening is the elimination of the indefinite treatment orders that are outlined within this bill the changes that it makes. It means each Māori male that is out there that is within an indefinite treatment order have hope that they can be reconsidered every 12 months that they can be reviewed and that hope is really really important. When you're in a situation of difficult mental health you already feel hopeless and this is another step to give them hope. So this evening I commend this bill to the House.
Simmonds Penny; Dean JacquiPENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill): I am pleased to be speaking in support of this Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Amendment Bill. In doing so I'm particularly mindful of the sensitivity of this legislation in that it deals with people when they're at their most vulnerable and so it's vitally important that the amendments have the right balance between protection of individual rights as well as the safety of patients and the public. When looking back on the history of the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992 I note that there have been a number of serious concerns raised in 2014 in 2016 and again in 2017 regarding the lack of alignment with the Act and the rights of persons with disabilities. When I looked at some of the consultation that had taken place in the build-up to this bill I again note that those that had been consulted with have been NGOs clinicians academics researchers and mental health professionals and I'm reminded that the hīkoi for hope for disabled people which came to Parliament quite recently stressed the need for nothing for us without us". So I would hope that the consultation process as it proceeds through the select committee stage will indeed ensure that the consultation is taken to people who have been subjected to the mental health Act and as our colleague Dr Reti noted there are 10000 people per year. Given how incredibly topical and important mental health issues are for our communities and the comments that our colleagues have spoken about with the skyrocketing numbers of New Zealanders who are finding it hard to access the support they need this amendment is particularly timely. We've already spoken today about our concerns around mental health reporting being sanitised to remove negative statistics and where the excitement seems to be mainly around Budget allocations and announcements rather than actual outcomes or improvements being measured we should perhaps be at least pleased that this is something tangible that is going to occur. So given that we are particularly pleased to see the amendments around eliminating indefinite treatment orders. We are mindful of the changes that need to occur around minimising the risk of harm to patients and public and of course COVID has given us all the opportunity to see how we can make much better use of audiovisual links so that amendment is also supported. So I'm pleased to speak in support of the amendment. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): I call Shanan Halbert—a five-minute call."
Pallett Sarah; Dean JacquiSARAH PALLETT (Labour—Ilam): Thank you Madam Speaker. I rise to speak in favour of the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Amendment Bill. This bill is aiming to address some pressing issues as we move to repeal and replace the mental health Act. The initial amendments are obviously intended to improve the protection of individual rights the safety of patients and the public; and to enable the Act to work more effectively. What we're seeing here is—a few main points—as we've heard from colleagues in the House one of the key points is it will eliminate indefinite treatment orders which will require courts to review the situation of the patient or person concerned every 12 months. We have agreement across the House that this is something that's long overdue and necessary.The second point of importance is the transporting of forensic special patients and I just wanted to explain a little bit about the forensic special patient. These are people who have been potentially acquitted of the crime on insanity grounds or found unfit to stand trial or perhaps prisoners transferred to hospital for mental care. They obviously do deserve effective and ethical care and management but what we're looking at is that these are patients who from time to time do need to be transported and from time to time they may need to be restrained or in some way supported in order to keep themselves or the public safe. It's really important that this is not related to their mental health condition but it's related rather to their offending behaviour and the potential for them to potentially attempt to escape for example. As I've said a small number of these patients do pose a risk to the public safety and as a result I do commend this bill to the House.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The next call is a five-minute call.
van Velden BrookeBROOKE VAN VELDEN (Deputy Leader—ACT): Thank you Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of the ACT Party in support of the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Amendment Bill at its first reading. We support the intention of this amendment which is as follows: to improve the protection of individual rights and the safety of patients and the public and enable more effective application of the [Act]". So I think it's important to outline what the change is supposed to be doing—what problem it is to be solving—but importantly to step back and ask: what is the Act that it is actually amending? It's amending the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act.Now that Act was introduced in 1992 and the Associate Minister of Health at that time said that this was an honest attempt to achieve more regularity in the admission of people with mental disorders who themselves in a very rare circumstance seek committal but it is rarely for those who pose a serious danger to the health and safety of themselves or others and who have a seriously diminished capacity to recognise that. We're talking about very vulnerable people. So that is what we are debating today.When we change a law I think it's always good practice to ask what we are actually seeking to solve. One of the amendments that the ACT Party supports is one that was brought in under COVID which is this idea that you're able to enable patients and family members people concerned with someone's care to have the admission looked at via audiovisual link not needing to be done in person. I think that was a very good change to make at that time and it's something that we should seek to continue and that's what that change is about because it looks like it's supposed to expire; so really we're just extending it.There is always though an issue when an Act looks like it is to breach or come close to breaching someone's rights under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and so ACT always takes seriously a change to a law that would limit the right that "Everyone [who is] deprived of liberty shall be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the person." I note that that was outlined in the Attorney-General's report on this bill. And that's because this amendment also apart from audiovisual links seeks to make a change that a person while they're being transported could be restrained with reasonable force.We'd like to note that during the select committee process we'd like the definition of reasonable force to be tested. I think it's very very important that when we're talking about vulnerable people we are standing up for their rights and their inherent dignity. It's the inherent dignity of every individual. So we'd like to see what that use of reasonable force would look like. But while we were reading through the Attorney-General's report we did note that the Attorney-General had consulted on that matter and had deemed that the rights of the individual would still be upheld even with that change to use reasonable force. So on those grounds we'd like to make our concern noted but we do support the intention of the bill. Thank you."
McLellan TraceyDr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour—Banks Peninsula): Thank you Madam Speaker. I rise in support of the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Amendment Bill. I really want to acknowledge Minister Andrew Little for his genuine commitment I think to making the changes that are necessary so that as a society we can start conceiving and perceiving of and orient ourselves towards a much more health recovery and social wellbeing model of mental health. The discourse our expectations and the importance that we place on health and wellbeing have changed over time and it is time therefore to make those legislative changes to reflect a more contemporary kind of definition.So the amending bill here before us tonight goes some way to doing that and it does so in three specific ways—all of which have been mentioned but each one has an element that I'd like to emphasise. When we talk about eliminating indefinite treatment orders it also includes really importantly the right to refuse medical treatment. That's no less important when a person may be experiencing a period of mental unwellness but is nevertheless competent than what it is for any other person. Secondly when we talk about minimising the harm to the patient or public when transporting forensic patients I think it's really important to note that this amendment allows for the least restrictive restraint only when absolutely necessary and it's not related to whether a person has a mental health condition but it's related to their offending and their risk of escape and posing a safety risk.Thirdly clause 5 which amends section 9 to provide for a family member or another person connected with the welfare of that proposed patient the ability to link in by audiovisual link is incredibly important. Currently unless a family member is able to be there in person that proposed patient isn't able to have that support or a second person isn't able to be cognisant of what's going on and of that process. So I think those are three really important aspects.So again the bill before us tonight takes an important step. It's congruent with this Government's commitment to mental health. I commend this bill to the House.
Craig LizDr LIZ CRAIG (Labour): Thank you Madam Speaker. Early in my first term in Parliament the inquiry into mental health and addiction visited us in Invercargill and I can still remember quite vividly the stories people and families told about their contact with the mental health system. So when the inquiry's report came out one of the recommendations that they made was that the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act be repealed and replaced. What they were suggesting was that it be replaced with something that was much more modern in its approach to human rights and it raised a whole lot of issues around consent and people's ability to participate in decisions about their care. While it is going to take some time to work through those—because it's really important we get them right—one of the things that's really really important is that there are two or three urgent issues that we need to address right now and that's what this bill is about. The first one is about indefinite treatment orders. These have been widely criticised because of the issue of somebody being detained and treated potentially against their will for long periods of time without the right to be able to be seen before a court.So just going through what actually happens in terms of these treatment orders what normally happens is a relative or the police or some other person will put in an application for a compulsory treatment order and a judge will need to consider that application and talk with that person within ideally about 14 days about their care what their views are but also listen to the views of the person's doctor and other health professionals. And if it is indeed deemed that they do need to have compulsory treatment then a hearing is heard where basically the medical team as well as the patient get to be there to consider and talk about what needs to happen. The issue is that the maximum duration of one of those treatment orders is six months but it can be renewed for a further six months. The issue of concern is that after those six months it can be continued indefinitely and what this legislation does is require that the order be reviewed at the end of each 12-month period instead of having somebody under compulsory treatment for a very very long period of time.So it's an important bill. It makes a small change but is incredibly important for sustaining the human rights of those that are under compulsory treatment. I commend this bill to the House.
Smith DamienDAMIEN SMITH (ACT): Thank you. Because they're non-cash payments there is a scenario where these things can get too big to fail pretty quickly and it affects the consumers and it affects the market and that cuts across things like Afterpay or something that goes large privately funded over a short period of time across two jurisdictions. I just wanted to point out that with the plumbing sometimes there's a lot of stuff that gets pushed through it and it would be good to know in advance as opposed to when it comes out the other end.
Smith Damien; Robertson GrantDAMIEN SMITH (ACT): Yeah I guess it's important to note that no financial market infrastructures actually failed during the global financial crisis and that this is more about the plumbing around that system. But there's a lot of oversight around the Financial Markets Authority and the Reserve Bank on the sort of doomsday scenarios of what happens if there's failure what happens if there's—you know these are not banking structures per se but the banking industry has a good discipline in the sense that they're asked to report quarterly and annually on the state of their risk management. I just noticed in the bill—do you think it's a positive addition to maybe have a clause which actually finds the needs of those two regulators to get information back from the market place as opposed to just waiting for something drastic to happen?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I think in general both the Reserve Bank and the Financial Markets Authority are forward-leaning into the organisations that they are required on our behalf to monitor and regulate. You know I take the member's point firstly that in financial market infrastructures we're dealing with a hypothetical in a sense because this has not occurred in New Zealand. But we were certainly given strong advice by the IMF when they came out and did their assessment that we needed regulations and laws because the significance of a failure would be so high that we actually should do this. So I think on that point I accept what the member's saying.I don't know that a specific provision is required in the law to require them to seek information. I think the framework gives them the tools they need and their mode of operation is to lean into the sectors that they monitor. I think the point the member might be making is this is different from a bank and it is not necessarily easy to see from the outside. I guess my response to that would be to say we need to let the Act operate and ensure that we're keeping an eye on that and if we have a concern then perhaps we could come back to it. But I believe that we should have confidence in the regulators to do their job.
Bayly Andrew; Robertson GrantANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you and I acknowledge the Minister's response. Thank you for that. I think of one of the issues with all bills that pass through the House: what happens with the regulations that follow that are not subject to parliamentary oversight? There is an issue around clause 31(2)(b) which is the scope of compliance costs and it says that the regime will be largely determined by the standards set by the regulator under that provision and the requirement to have a financial market infrastructure (FMI) contingency plan in clause 48. So I suppose the big thing about this is the actual costs that will be levied on FMIs and to what extent we can be assured that they're going to be reasonable constrained but still meet the requirements of making sure that we've got an active robust market.Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Thank you Madam Chair. Yes and that comes back to the impact assessments I mentioned earlier on. This is exactly why the regulator has to bear in mind take into account costs that will fall on people. Again this is an example in our system of Government of where we have these regulatory bodies. They have a job to do. It is important when they undertake that work that they understand Parliament's intention. I think the bill does that. But we don't have a system whereby we go into each and every one of those regulations and so this is a fairly standard approach one where we have a model where the regulators are allowed to get on and do their job.
Bayly Andrew; Robertson GrantANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you Madam Chair. Just in that same vein the bill provides for a financial market infrastructure (FMI) operator to be placed into statutory management under certain conditions. I suppose my question is: the bill goes on to allow for what is called the new operator scheme which basically means that the business of the FMI can be transferred to a new operator—so I suppose it's a pretty Draconian measure that's the last resort—so I'd be keen to know from the Minister you know what are the parameters around that on what basis and when it would take place what would happen to the existing rights of the directors and what would happen to the liabilities that were transferred? So they're quite big issues because at that point you're really talking about something quite significant.Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Thank you Madam Chair. Look I understand the point that the member's making and I think the first issue to understand is that it is very much a last resort situation and the bill in fact outlines the fact that you would take some time to get to this point. But what we've lacked from our legislative regime up to this point is the ability to deal with these in such a clear and consistent way.So I note that—I think it's clauses 92 to 97 that run through the duties around statutory management. It includes dealing with problems as quickly and efficiently as reasonably practical conducting it in a way that best protects the interests of the participant and the creditors and the statutory manager is also required to consult the regulator and comply with the regulator's direction. So again you've got quite a clear set of principles by which someone would be operating in the unlikely event that we ended up here.This also comes back to an earlier comment I made when we were discussing appeal rights: that there are legislatively prescribed things that in this case a statutory manager would have to have regard to when exercising their powers. That includes the importance of minimising costs and uncertainty and the importance of ensuring that any losses are allocated fairly and efficiently. The principles also include the importance of consulting the participants—the financial market infrastructure participants and indirect participants—on decisions wherever reasonably practicable.So I feel like that actually does put some limits—for the member's word that he used within his question—around the work of a statutory manager. Quite clearly it's a last resort option but I think it's important that it's there so all participants have absolute clarity with what they're working with.
Smith Damien; Robertson GrantDAMIEN SMITH (ACT): Just to add Minister to the point about alignment a lot of financial market infrastructures operate on a trans-Tasman basis and obviously the Australians have got some pithy work done in this area. Do you think that this bill allows us to honestly say that those things have been aligned for those operators?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I certainly don't have any advice to the contrary and again we have sought through this legislation to align ourselves with international best practice across all of the different aspects of the bill. So obviously Australia is involved in those international organisations and discussions and I have not had anything drawn to my attention. We have regular dialogue with our Australian colleagues; this has not been raised. I'm not aware of it being raised by the Reserve Bank's or Financial Markets Authority's equivalents either. So to the extent that I'm aware of it I think we've got good international alignment and I would certainly hope that that would mean we've got good trans-Tasman alignment.
Bayly Andrew; Robertson GrantANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you. So just in light of what we were talking about before clause 78 sets out certain powers to maintain and protect financial market infrastructures (FMIs) and specifically the ability for regulators to issue directions to operators and the removal of directors. It gives two scenarios when that can occur. One is when the FMI is distressed and the other one is when it's appropriate given the jurisdiction of the FMI. So I suppose just in light of that appeal process what are the specific times that a direction can be issued which as you will know is very confrontational when standard FMIs' contingency plans are inadequate to deal with the situation?So this becomes a point of judgment so I come back to this earlier question. I know you gave me a response before Minister but there are times when it is an absolute point of judgment and these organisations are not insignificant—when I talk about the FMIs they're not insignificant. They're large financial institutions carrying a lot of risk. So again I'm just highlighting actually that the bill already identifies one of the potential areas where we could have an issue. The other—I might let you discuss that.Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I take the member's point and again this is probably the balance between Damien Smith's question and the question that the member is asking: how do we get sufficient flexibility to be able to deal with any unforeseen way in which there is an issue for a financial market infrastructure (FMI) versus giving a framework to the regulators and I would note for the member that both the purposes and the principles of how a regulator behaves are outlined in the Act. So should there be a concern from an FMI they do actually have something to point to and it might be useful for the benefit of members to note that as the member has noted clauses 77 and 78 deal with the purpose being maintaining continuity of activities dealing with threats to stability ensuring a wind-down of a systemically important FMI is orderly and then the regulator is given a set of principles that they have to use and these include the need for an FMI's rules to provide certainty and predictability the need to protect the interests of an FMI's participants and creditors and the importance of avoiding financial risk to the Crown.So there is actually a set of principles under which the regulators have to operate and I think that the way in which we have drafted this legislation is so that that is flexible enough but gives everyone good guidance as to how to operate.
Smith DamienDAMIEN SMITH (ACT): Thank you Madam Chair. Thank you Minister. Just on the time frame because it relates to a couple of questions I have I believe this began what 2015-16 as a process?Hon Grant Robertson: Yeah.DAMIEN SMITH: Yeah and obviously the payment system's changed pretty dramatically since then—like there's no regulation or registration requirements for something like Apple Pay as an example. So do you think the bill addresses (a) access for new entrants (b) that international entrants are regulated and that the Financial Markets Authority and the Reserve Bank were sort of totally up to speed with that sort of dynamic?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Yeah I thank the member for his question. Just on the time frame my history on this bill doesn't go back quite as far as 2015 or 2016 but I do know that Cabinet made its initial decisions in April 2017 and then there was a change of Government. Obviously we took another look at it in part because we were wanting to make sure that it was keeping up with changing processes. So on December 2018 we made some further decisions. It took a little bit of time to get its place on the Order Paper then COVID happened and now we find ourselves here in March 2021. So the wheels of good legislation have turned slowly here; I do acknowledge that.In terms of whether or not we're putting ourselves in a position of being able to cope with new and emerging forms of financial market infrastructures (FMIs) that is one of the essences of the bill: a flexible legislative environment that means that actually we can apply these to whatever FMI. So we're not deeply prescriptive here. We've just had that conversation with Mr Bayly around what we consider to be a systemically important FMI. We've given ourselves the flexibility to be able to have the regulator effectively decide that.One of the issues for example is when you look at some of the potential provisions in here. It has been raised—it might've been raised in the select committee process: cryptocurrencies and how the exchange of cryptocurrencies potentially could work. We've tried to create a bill that can deal and cope with that if it's needed to rather than dropping down to very very detailed descriptions now. We're providing the regulators with the space and the power to be able to regulate those without having to prescribe in law individually how those particular FMIs might work. So I think it's a good bill in that regard in that it gives the policy and regulatory space for new FMIs to be included within the framework.
Bayly Andrew; Robertson GrantANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you. Thank you for the answers. I suppose it gives rise to two issues. The first one is given the scale and significance for the financial markets of financial market infrastructures whether in fact there should be a mechanism—and I'm just very keen to understand from the Minister why there is no direct mechanism for complaint. Because whilst I have a great deal of respect for the Financial Markets Authority (FMA) and the Reserve Bank I don't need to remind the Minister that there have been issues for instance of differences of opinion between the Reserve Bank and certain insurance companies and that has led to a long-running issue that has only recently been dealt with. So there are from time to time quite significant issues that arise. So my question is: why not? Why not have the ability to have some appeal right as happens in many institutions?The second thing is I'd quite like to understand from the Minister what the expected criteria are if the Reserve Bank or the FMA designate someone in a certain tier or systemically important—what are the criteria they're going to use? Other than obviously scale and history are there any other criteria that have been designed and when might we see those criteria?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): As the member will well be aware the independence of the Reserve Bank would mean that they will go through that process. It is our job to set the framework. He has already identified the areas in his own statement around scale influence on the financial system and the importance that the regulators themselves put on those particular financial market infrastructures in their own work. So that will be their job; it is not in my opinion the job of politicians to create that. That's what we do when we give the regulators the powers that they have.On the point of appeal—I was just again checking with officials—there isn't a large precedent around the world for the kind of appeal rights that the member is talking about. I think that is because there are regulatory review mechanisms and there are ways that this Parliament reviews its work; there are ways that we review the activities of the Financial Markets Authority and the Reserve Bank. So I think probably it's simply not a system that has seen itself go through the courts. Bear in mind that the basis of this legislation comes from for example the International Monetary Fund and their appraisal that they did of our system three or four years ago and we've used a lot of international norms—and so I suspect for the member's benefit that is where this has come from. Obviously we'll see how the regime works and if there is a need to come back one day I look forward to the member's member's bill to put in process something of this sort.
Bayly Andrew; Robertson GrantANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): I thank the Minister for that answer which was very good. I suppose it gives rise to two issues. One is the capability of both the Financial Markets Authority (FMA) and the Reserve Bank. As we all know this is a very detailed technical issue that most people don't understand well. So first question I suppose is to what extent can the Minister assure us that (a) there is sufficient capability and capacity in both those organisations to deal in this very technical matter. And the second question relates to his answer just before does that mean if I'm a financial market infrastructure (FMI) and I've got a dispute can I go to the Council of Financial Regulators? Is that the independent? Is there a way for an FMI to appeal to seek redress to deal with that issue if that arises from time to time?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Thank you for that Madam Chair. I'll take some advice on the second point of the member. There isn't a direct route to the Council of Financial Regulators (CoFR) so that's the first thing I can say. But that as I said is a potential future role of CoFR. Its statutory recognition could potentially pick something up. In terms of what they do in terms of rights of appeal and so on I will get some advice on that and come back to the member in short order.On the member's first question my answer is simply to say I think both the Reserve Bank and the Financial Markets Authority do a very good job on behalf of New Zealanders. We recently had the new funding agreement for the Reserve Bank which I can't quite remember the member's position on actually but if I do recall there might have been some concerns raised by the member about the fact that the Reserve Bank's budget and staffing have increased. I believe one of the reasons for that was in order for them to be able to fulfil their roles under this very piece of legislation. So I can thank the member for his rapid conversion to the importance of this piece of legislation for them. Similarly we've increased funding last Budget to the Financial Markets Authority. They both perform important roles.