edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Patterson MarkHon MARK PATTERSON (NZ First): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to also support the Land Transport (Repeal of Clean Car Discounts) Amendment Bill. Nothing—nothing—signals how out of touch the modern Labour Party is with its working-class heritage in this deeply regressive tax on working-class New Zealanders that sees them subsidising those in the leafy suburbs to buy their Teslas. It shows a lack of understanding for the necessity of utes in particular and the importance for our farmers and our tradies and the critical roles that they play in our economy. They simply do not have the alternatives at the moment as Simon Court has just outlined. Those alternatives are coming. The manufacturers are scaling up; they will become the tool of choice when they are available but they simply are not at this moment. Of course those big families that may have to get a van or whatever to get about they've also been heavily heavily punished by this. The answers are actually Mr Scott Willis in the macro and getting the amount of renewable energy coming through that actually drives the innovation it drives the uptake of the technology that is coming through in terms of electric vehicles and the like. That is the role of the Government not micromanaging and nanny-Stating this. It hugely disadvantages rural New Zealanders who simply don't have the option due to range to take up an electric vehicle.These reasons are why New Zealand First in our last term at Parliament pulled the handbrake on this. We didn't support it then we don't support it now. We support repealing this scheme. Thank you very much Mr Speaker.
Court SimonSIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you Mr Speaker. The ACT Party is proud to support the repeal of the clean vehicle discount scheme a scheme which submitters to the 53rd Parliament's Transport and Infrastructure Committee said was completely unnecessary. Vehicle manufacturers said quite clearly between 2025 and 2028 they're going to completely retool manufacturing in Asia South-east Asia and Europe to produce almost nothing but EVs and hybrids. So if you currently drive a Ford Ranger turbo-diesel you'll be able to get one—according to the manufacturers—in a hybrid in the next couple of years that will be very very low with any emissions.Now the previous Government having heard that proceeded to introduce a scheme which applied a whole lot of costs to tradies and farmers and large families who wanted to replace an older vehicle with a big van. They applied all of these costs and absolutely ignored the impacts on families and the productive sector. They were told this scheme was unnecessary and that all of the emissions reductions would be delivered between now and 2030 by a complete retooling of manufacturing and supply of light vehicles into the market.Hon Julie Anne Genter: Then why did the vehicle industry want the policy? The vehicle industry supported the rebate.SIMON COURT: There was a market-based solution available. Now to that member Julie Anne Genter heckling irrationally from the sidelines the member said it's time to confront reality. Well it is. This wild scheme has led to a $300 million deficit Julie Anne Genter—a $300 million deficit—between the amount of money recovered from long-suffering tradies farmers and big families who needed to replace a vehicle with a petrol diesel vehicle and the amount of money paid out to people who receive subsidies for Teslas and other very expensive EVs.Over $120 million was paid out to people to buy vehicles worth more than $70000. That statistic alone confirms what ACT what National and what submitters to the Transport and Infrastructure Committee told that committee. The scheme was unnecessary. It was fiscally irresponsible. It would lead to a massive transfer of wealth from some taxpayers and consumers to a very few who could already afford to spend $70000 on a new car and would receive a subsidy of up to $8000 from other taxpayers and consumers.It was bad policy it was bad law and the ACT Party is proud—proud—to see the end of the Clean Car Discount the ute tax and restore some sanity into climate policy and transport policy after the last three years of frothing and boiling nonsense from the Green Party and their woke mates in the Labour Party. It ends today. Goodbye Clean Car Discount. Goodbye ute tax. Goodbye Labour and Greens.
Butterick MikeMIKE BUTTERICK (National—Wairarapa): Congratulations on your new role. Despite the rhetoric from the other side of the House over there our business owners in the Wairarapa electorate take their responsibilities to their employees seriously in good times and bad. If they're forced to lay off staff reduce production or close their doors everyone suffers and the fair pay agreement will do nothing—nothing—to lift the productivity that New Zealand desperately needs. I look forward to seeing this Act repealed.
Simmonds PennyHon PENNY SIMMONDS (Minister for Disability Issues): Thank you Mr Speaker. I'll take this brief split call on the Fair Pay Agreements Act Repeal Bill. The public of New Zealand voted for change in the last election. They voted for change because unlike the previous Labour Government they knew what a mess our economy had been put into and they knew that we had to have change to get maximum flexibility in our businesses to get our country out of the mess that it had been put in by the previous Labour Government. This is a small part of making that change. I commend this bill to the House.
McCallum GrantGRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland): Firstly congratulations on your new role Mr Speaker.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): You too.GRANT McCALLUM: Thank you. Today is a great day for small-business owners around New Zealand. For those that are out there on the farms doing the work and actually risking their livelihoods and employing people and having great relationships with their employees and for the people of Northland and all the small-business owners round Northland and the tourism businesses in the Bay of Islands—it's a great day for them because this is one less layer of bureaucracy they have to worry about and deal with. I commend this bill to the House.
Bates CarlCARL BATES (National—Whanganui): Mr Speaker congratulations on your new role. This repeal bill is the freedom to decide on the relationships that you choose to have as either an employer or an employee. This year I door-knocked and called over 9000 people personally across the Whanganui electorate. It may surprise members opposite that this included thousands of workers and New Zealanders of every background. Let me tell you Mr Speaker that those workers and New Zealanders of backgrounds across the range overwhelmingly—overwhelmingly—wanted change and in my electorate and across New Zealand we delivered it. This repeal bill is part of that change and I commend it to the House.
Tuesday 12 December 2023 - Volume 772
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Economic Objective) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.Ayes 67New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 54New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.Motion agreed to.Bill read a second time.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): This bill is set down for committee stage immediately. I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Economic Objective) Amendment Bill.
Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Economic Objective) Amendment Bill — Second Reading
Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Economic Objective) Amendment Bill — First Reading (continued)
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Economic Objective) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.Ayes 67New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 54New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.Motion agreed to.Bill read a first time.DEPUTY SPEAKER: The bill is set down for second reading immediately.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That urgency be accorded.Ayes 67New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 54New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.Motion agreed to.DEPUTY SPEAKER: I understand it is the intention of the Government to introduce these bills.
10. Question No. 10—PoliceRIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini) to the Minister of PoliceQuestion No. 10—Police10. RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini) to the Minister of Police: What reports has he seen on policing in recent weeks?Hon MARK MITCHELL (Minister of Police): Very good question. Police have done some outstanding work recently. This has included Operation Shadow in Hamilton City and the wider Waikato region targeting illegal street racing offenders. Police have made 12 arrests issued 220 infringement notices and suspended three licences in response to road users blocking roads and exhibiting unsafe driving behaviours. There were seven arrests made for excessive breath alcohol two for disorder one for driving while suspended one for a breach of home detention and another had an existing warrant for arrest. I know and the police know that our communities are fed up with this behaviour and I congratulate police for their outstanding work. Police said—and I quote—We want to send a message to anyone involved in this type of behaviour that Police will work incredibly hard to hold you to account for any illegal activity".Rima Nakhle: What reports has he received from police on the policing of gangs?Hon MARK MITCHELL: I was very impressed by how police staff handled the recent gang tangi in Foxton. Police monitored the movements of gang members across the North Island roads and made it clear they had a strong presence and that law and order would be maintained. They made sure members of the public were able to go about their business freely and safely. I want to thank police for ensuring there were minimal disruptions to the public and that they were kept safe.Rima Nakhle: Given his focus on public safety is he concerned by any recent reports that he has seen on policing?Hon MARK MITCHELL: Yes I'm very concerned about a report that was released last week. The report was released by the Committee for Auckland with Deloitte and Auckland Unlimited. It says—and I quote—"Auckland ranks only 124th in safety marking a three-year decline and positioning it among the lowest-performing peer cities on safety and [the] bottom within Australasia." I am incredibly concerned that our biggest city and our economic centre is now one of the lowest ranked cities in the world for public safety. It is a stain on our nation and a terrible indictment on the record of the previous Government. This Government is committed to turning that around supporting police and improving public safety."
7. Question No. 7—Workplace Relations and SafetyTEANAU TUIONO (Green) to the Minister for Workplace Relations and SafetyQuestion No. 7—Workplace Relations and Safety7. TEANAU TUIONO (Green) to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: Does she accept the Treasury's advice that the removal of fair pay agreements would disproportionately affect women young people Māori and Pasifika; if not why not?Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): I have not received any advice from Treasury nor would I expect to.Teanau Tuiono: Does she acknowledge that Christmas is a particularly stressful time for low-wage workers and if so why is her first action as Minister to remove workplace rights instead of improve them?Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: I acknowledge that many Kiwis are struggling with a cost of living crisis and that's why this Government is focused on improving productivity reducing regulation and getting rid of inflation so that Kiwis have more money for them and their families. But I want to acknowledge when it comes to the fair pay agreements nobody will be worse off with the removal of the fair pay agreements because there have not been any fair pay agreements finalised.Teanau Tuiono: Does she know how many workers are in sectors that have already instigated bargaining under the fair pay agreements framework and if not why hasn't she asked?Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: There have been six fair pay agreements that are currently in a bargaining process. There are many New Zealanders who are being represented during that process. But of course I want to stress that not a single member involved in that process has a fair pay agreement because not a single fair pay agreement has been finalised or signed. So no Kiwis are worse off.Teanau Tuiono: Is she aware that bus drivers cleaners and early childhood education teachers earn at least 30 percent more pay in Australia where sector-based bargaining is in place and if so why should New Zealanders settle for less?Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: Workers in Australia across industries are better off. But that's why this Government is focusing on making sure that we have a flexible labour market where we increase productivity where we have businesses able to invest in their workers and invest in their businesses so workers and business are better off in our economy. That is the focus of our Government—to have a thriving economy where businesses have more money to pay their staff more.Teanau Tuiono: Has she sought advice from officials on their preferred option of minimum employment standards to ensure there is no race to the bottom for low-wage workers and if not is that because she is more interested in disproven right-wing ideology than in lifting wages?Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: I have not asked for any advice on alternative models. I am focused on delivering on this Government's 100-day commitment to repeal the fair pay agreements. I look forward to working with the member over the next three years in this portfolio. Clearly he's interested in where we get to.
6. Question No. 6—JusticeCAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour) to the Minister of JusticeQuestion No. 6—Justice6. CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour) to the Minister of Justice: What is the Government's position on sentencing and why?Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): The coalition Government will take a tougher approach to sentencing law so serious offenders face real consequences for their crime as part of our plan to restore law and order. The coalition Government will prioritise public safety and victims through a series of measures we have agreed to implement. These include limiting massive discounts that weaken offenders' final sentencing.Cameron Brewer: What recent estimates has he seen about sentencing discounts?Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: I've been advised by officials that for serious and violent offenders who pleaded guilty in 2021–22 their best estimate is that between 4600 and 7800 offenders were issued with a sentencing discount of greater than 40 percent.Cameron Brewer: Why is the Government concerned about large sentencing discounts?Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: The strong feedback we've received across the country this year is that many New Zealanders are concerned with increased violent crime and want to see tougher consequences for serious violent and sexual offenders. Part of the role of sentencing is to denounce the criminal act and to recognise the harm caused to victims.Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Does the Minister agree with the statement of Mr Penk of the Maxim Institute in an opinion piece in the New Zealand Herald that Serious crimes deserve serious punishment but three strikes is a blunt tool capable of doing serious injustice"; if not what advice has he received suggesting that a three-strikes regime is an effective sentencing approach?Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: No I haven't seen that report and I don't agree with the sentiments there. I think three strikes did send a very clear signal to offenders that serious consequences for crime are required. And I think we've seen right throughout the last year all around the communities that New Zealanders have been concerned about the rise of crime under the previous Government.Cameron Brewer: What progress has he made on implementing the Government's plan to take a tougher approach to sentencing?Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: I'm pleased to inform the House that the coalition Government is prioritising its plan to restore law and order after six years of a Government being focused on reducing prison numbers without reducing crime. As well as the measures listed in our 100-day plan we have committed to limiting total sentence discounts to 40 percent. This will ensure that serious offenders face real consequences for their crime.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is the Minister saying that the previous Government's policy with respect to serious crime is going to be consigned back to the fishing industry and that no longer for serious crime are we going to have catch and release?SPEAKER: No that's not a reasonable question."
5. Question No. 5—FinanceHon GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour) to the Minister of FinanceQuestion No. 5—Finance5. Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour) to the Minister of Finance: Does she stand by Nicola Willis' statement Coming back to those extra source of revenue and other savings areas that will help us to fund the tax reduction we have to remember that the changes to the smoke free legislation had a significant impact on the Government's books—with about $1 billion there."; if not why not?Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): Yes.Hon Grant Robertson: What is the source of her statement that there is a billion dollars a year impact on the Government's books from undoing the smoke-free changes?NICOLA WILLIS: The source was my answer to the question and I continue to seek advice from officials on the spending and revenue implications of coalition commitments. Many of those details are Budget sensitive and I will make announcements about them in due course. As the member well knows the statement he is referring to was made before I was sworn in as the Minister of Finance.Hon Grant Robertson: Has she been advised that there is a billions of dollars a year impact on the Government's books from undoing the smoke-free changes?NICOLA WILLIS: As I say I continue to seek advice from officials on the spending and revenue implications of coalition commitments. Many of those details are Budget sensitive and I will make announcements about them in due course.Hon Grant Robertson: Is she ruling out using the revenue from winding back smoke-free initiatives to fund tax cuts?NICOLA WILLIS: As the member knows the Government has multiple sources of revenue and multiple spending commitments. It is this Government's expectation that just as was the case with his outgoing Government tobacco will continue to be regulated and taxed. I note that during his time as finance Minister he collected hundreds of millions of dollars in tobacco tax revenue which was used for a wide range of purposes including health and education services and Working for Families payments.Hon Grant Robertson: Point of order Mr Speaker. I don't believe that question was addressed in that answer. I asked her whether she was ruling it out or not.SPEAKER: Well that's often the case. The question is asked; an answer is given; the question is addressed.Hon Grant Robertson: That's very philosophical Mr Speaker. Will she today rule out using the revenue gained from stopping the smoke-free changes for tax cuts in light of Sir Collin Tukuitonga describing doing so as "immoral"?Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Just as was the case with his Government tax revenue from a range of sources will be used to support the activities of Government including delivery of health services through to transfer payments and paying down debt. The member may not like the answers to my questions but in Opposition he's going to have to get used to it. And if I may say to the member Opposition does appear to suit him."
4. Question No. 4—TransportTOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty) to the Minister of TransportQuestion No. 4—Transport4. TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty) to the Minister of Transport: What announcements has he made on setting speed limits in New Zealand?SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Today I announced that the coalition Government is amending speed limit rules as part of our commitment to stop blanket speed limit reductions across the country. Kiwis have been faced with blanket speed limit reductions due to the previous Government's speed limits rule which fails to prioritise the economic impacts of slowing New Zealanders down and the views of road users and local communities alongside safety. Changes that I have announced today will remove deadlines for speed management plans and allow road-controlling authorities to stop blanket speed limit reductions on our roads while we write a new rule. Tom Rutherford: Why have these changes been made?SIMEON BROWN: These changes have been made to remove mandatory requirements set by the previous Government for road-controlling authorities to implement blanket speed limit reductions across the country. This coalition Government wants to see a transport system that boosts productivity and economic growth and allows New Zealanders to get where they want to go quickly and safely. Given our coalition Government has begun work on a new rule I wanted to ensure road-controlling authorities avoid wasting public money—something the Opposition doesn't care about—on finalising speed management plans only to have to revisit these plans under a new rule. Tom Rutherford: What are the next steps for ending blanket speed limit reductions?SIMEON BROWN: Very good question. The next step is to write a new rule that takes into consideration a wide range of factors including economic impacts including travel times and the views of road users and local communities alongside safety when setting speed limits. The National-ACT coalition agreement is committed to reversing blanket speed limit reductions where it is safe to do so and this will come as welcome news to Kiwis around the country who have been faced with unnecessary blanket speed limit reductions under the previous Government. [Interruption]SPEAKER: Just a minute. Just to remind members that when questions are being asked the questioner is given the courtesy of a quiet House. Tom Rutherford.Tom Rutherford: Thank you Mr Speaker. What requirements will the Minister set for speed limits outside of schools?SIMEON BROWN: This new rule that I will develop next year will require road-controlling authorities to implement variable speed limits on roads approaching schools during pick-up and drop-off times. This differs to the previous Government's rule which resulted in blanket speed limit reductions to 30 kilometres per hour on many urban roads. Our coalition Government's new rule will keep young New Zealanders safe while allowing Kiwis to get where they want to go quickly and safely.
2. Question No. 2—Acting Prime MinisterHon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green) to the Acting Prime MinisterQuestion No. 2—Acting Prime Minister2. Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green) to the Acting Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his Government's statements and policies?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Acting Prime Minister): With regard to evidence and information at the time of those statements yes. But of course where new information or evidence emerges we acknowledge that and don't just carry on like a bigoted lefty shill.SPEAKER: Can I just remind the member that the question is to the Acting Prime Minister and Hansard will record that.Hon Marama Davidson: Does he agree with the statement made by then Deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters in 2018 that the oil and gas ban makes sense" and that introducing the ban was the change that New Zealanders wanted?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Can I just say that the Prime Minister and this Government have its settings on the future and if the Prime Minister and that member with the question were to go back and examine the time and the place when that statement was made there was a ban on at the time. Does that member not remember that?Hon Marama Davidson: Is reopening the New Zealand coast to oil and gas exploration a contradiction to the Minister of Climate Change's call for a global agreement to phase out fossil fuels at COP28?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister: right now at COP 28 they are wrestling with that very issue and they'll be probably working days longer than that because they haven't come to an agreement. And the two representatives at that time—the previous member and Minister in charge of it and the present Minister—are doing a fine job to ensure that New Zealand's commitments remain the same going forward.Steve Abel: Does he agree with the United Nations Secretary-General that "the 1.5 degree limit is only possible if we ultimately stop burning all fossil fuels not reduce not abate?" and if not why not?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: With respect to that questioner the UN Secretary-General Guterres has made it very very clear that this is a subject for COP28 and he's awaiting the outcome for that and so are we as contributors.Steve Abel: Does he consider the repeal of the ban on oil and gas exploration to be a betrayal of our Pacific neighbours who today called for a global phase-out of fossil fuels as the only way to save the Pacific from going to "their watery graves?"Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: No we do not and the reason is very simple. We are in the middle of a transition and rather than bringing in a whole lot of inferior Indonesian coal which the previous Government was doing we're looking for safer products to take us—[Interruption] They might think this is a laughing matter. I hear them scoffing over here—brought in all that Indonesian coal trying to excuse themselves and not even using New Zealand coal which would have been a better cleaner substitute. And here we go now into a transition where gas will be very critical and when we get there we'll be able to face the Pacific nations and have done our duty to them as well."
Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Economic Objective) Amendment Bill — In Committee—Part 1
Willis NicolaHon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): In answer to the member's question: yes I did receive advice that the dual mandate could affect monetary policy decisions and in particular—as I have stressed—this is not just about the decisions the Reserve Bank makes but also the interpretation of those decisions. The Reserve Bank itself has supported the intention of clarifying its focus on inflation. And a further note that it is possible that some market participants will see the return to a single mandate as strengthening the Reserve Bank's focus on price stability that in turn will lead to an adjustment in their inflation expectations which have a direct impact on actual rates of inflation.
Swarbrick ChlöeCHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green—Auckland Central): Thank you Mr Chair. Appreciate the Minister's answer to one of the three questions that I put just there before but I would really appreciate her responses to those other two questions. Because I totally appreciate—as she herself alluded to—that the remit review in June 2023 spoke to the need for prioritisation of explicitly that dual mandate and particularly the foreshadowing or the primacy of the price stability focus. But again my point was that that could be achieved through a change to the remit as again was recommended by her officials.I also am left with the question of if the factual mandate is to be removed from the legislation how then is she to put forward the mandate to the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (RBNZ)? Is she going to include some form of consideration for maximum sustainable employment or employment in general? Is she going to retain that remit which currently has a focus also on house price sustainability? Is there going to be a hierarchy therein? Because these are all still questions that are yet to be answered because we haven't had the opportunity to go through a robust select committee process on this. So I appreciate that the Minister alluded to an answer around whether she considered the monetary policy committee remit avenue as was recommended by officials but we're still left really wanting for answers to those two questions of what the remit in general she intends to have contained whether there will be any reference there to maximum sustainable employment or employment in general whether there will be other variables in there such as for example sustainable house prices presently in there.Hon David Seymour: Why is the member asking this?CHLÖE SWARBRICK: You'll have your turn David. And also whether there will be any consideration of or any further outlining of the evidence that she has on whether there has been any meaningful impact on decision making by the RBNZ and the monetary policy committee.
Woods MeganHon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): Thank you Mr Chairman. One of the issues that I would like some information and some answers from the Minister in the chair on is what advice she's had around international best practice. The Minister has talked about price stability being the pre-condition for high employment but she hasn't addressed those questions that colleagues in the Chamber have been asking about the advice she'd got around that.So I'd like to extend that to what advice she took around which other countries are doing it. There's a small number of central banks that have price stability as their sole mandate and focus and their sole economic objective. But a larger number have a dual mandate that equally weights price stability and employment objectives. Of course this includes the US Federal Reserve. My colleague the Hon Grant Robertson talked about the way in which they're seeing very much those things that need to go together in that way.But the other thing that I'd like to ask the Minister is: if she didn't look at the dual mandate did she ask for any advice around having employment as a secondary objective within the legislation so that it wouldn't be that we're just giving up on a focus on jobs and wages for ordinary New Zealanders and retreating and being a bit of an outlier of the economies that we'd usually compare ourselves with? So did she seek that advice on international best practice and specifically whether she sought advice on having the secondary objective—if she was intent in this ceremonial act of repealing this piece of legislation solely because it had been enacted by a previous Government whether she'd sought advice around the secondary objective?
Robertson GrantHon GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour): Point of order. Well Mr Chair I'll take it as a call but I also will come back to this matter. I asked very clearly to the member Nicola Willis whether she had received any advice that at any point while the dual mandate has been in place this compromised the Reserve Bank's focus on inflation. I asked that question in my first call and I ask that question again now of the Minister. It's an important point because the Minister has spent a significant amount of time in this debate telling us that we need to be crystal clear and laser-focused on inflation and what we've heard consistently from the Reserve Bank Governor over the time that the dual mandate has been in place is that it has not caused him or the monetary policy committee or the Reserve Bank in general to take their eye off the ball of inflation.So I ask the Minister again directly: has she had any advice that the dual mandate has caused the Reserve Bank to compromise its focus on inflation? I will sit down now and I would like to hear an answer.
Willis NicolaHon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): Well look I'd say to the member's constituent that I share her desire to see high employment and have received advice that the pre-condition for that to occur is price stability which is the objective of this bill. Not only do I share that objective from the member's constituent but I too abhor unnecessary dependence and I would point to the fact that the previous Government managed the singular achievement of increasing dramatically the number of people on a jobseeker benefit even while unemployment fell. I would invite the member herself to explain that phenomenon to her constituents.The member prior to her asked why it is that we are amending the Act and whether we gave consideration to a change to the remit only. I would note that without amending the Act the monetary policy committee (MPC) would still be required to have regard to maximum sustainable employment. So that would not achieve the objectives that we have which is a single focus on price stability. And as I've noted to the House previously we have received advice that there is value in amending the Act to signal a greater focus on price stability than that which could be achieved through a new remit alone. I'd also note the Reserve Bank's findings in its review last year in which it said that a prioritisation of objectives was preferable. We believe that by having this single objective we achieve that prioritisation in the clearest way possible and that we provide benefits in clarifying not only how the MPC operates but we signal a greater focus on price stability for the future because circumstances could arise in which the objectives conflict and we wish to be clear about our priority on price stability.
Russell DeborahHon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): As I've alluded to before we haven't had a select committee stage in this bill but I have heard from a number of people so I do want to bring some of those letters to the House so that they at least inform the discussions as we go through this part of the bill.The first one is from Clare Hargrave and she writes to me: I understand the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Economic Objective) Amendment Bill is going through all stages in the House today which is unfortunate because such an important move must be discussed widely and carefully." I am looking forward to hearing what the Minister says about this. She says "I strongly oppose the bill to remove maximum sustainable employment as an essential consideration for the Reserve Bank when setting monetary policy. It may be considered that high unemployment is useful to keep inflation down but it is self-defeating in that high unemployment is bound to lead to increased expenditure on jobseeker benefits greater inequality and poverty with all its attendant damage particularly to children's development as productive members of society. The short-term objective of higher unemployment may have an economic effect but the long-term damage to society must result in a weaker economy particularly in reduced productivity."She goes on to say "Inter-generational benefit dependence is damaging as it reduces access to education at tertiary level. An educated population is a public good in every respect and anything that reduces that is damaging to society." She finishes off by saying "New Zealand is not a business aiming to sustain high profits to the owners and shareholders but a society whose aim should be to sustain a high standard of public benefit to all its members while retaining a healthy economy."Just for context this is someone I know in West Auckland. We were talking about this and I invited her to write to me about it and I did want to share this with the committee and I will share some other letters in due course. But because we didn't have a select committee process I think it is important to discuss some of these views from ordinary New Zealanders who are concerned about this bill. Thank you."
Swarbrick ChlöeCHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green—Auckland Central): I have said that I've been very much looking forward to this committee of the whole House stage to put a few questions to the Minister. So I'd just like to back up those sentiments from the former Minister because as we've well canvassed—and actually as is reflected in the monetary policy remit review from June 2023—it's pretty clear in black and white from the Reserve Bank of New Zealand that there hadn't been any meaningful impact or other decisions that would have been made had they not had that dual mandate and solely the focus on price stability. So I just really wanted to reiterate that call for the Minister to put forward any evidence that she may have seen that this did in fact impact their decision making in a way that they undertook different decisions than those that they did take if they did not have that dual mandate in the first place.Secondarily or a second question to put forward to the Minister because as is canvassed in the regulatory impact statement there are a number of different options before her—I believe three that her officials considered—and there are a number of pluses and minuses on page 7 for those who may be following along at home. I wanted to ask the Minister if she meaningfully explored any of those other options particularly on the monetary policy committee (MPC) remit only or the Order in Council but particularly on the remit given that that seemed to be the advice of officials in the consensus that they all came to.So the first question was on the impact on decision making of that dual mandate. The second is on whether the Minister considered meaningfully any of the other alternative routes so that we wouldn't have to spend a few hours in the House tonight going through this legislative amendment.The third is what all of this actually means for the remit in general for the MPC. Throughout the last term in the Finance and Expenditure Committee we spent a lot of time on particularly the remit and the remit's focus on sustainable house prices and the kind of ambiguity of that. So I just wanted to ask the Minister whether she had any consideration of—given the kind of sole focus that she seems to have on price stability alone—whether she intends to also drop that focus on sustainable house prices or insert any other variables. Because I've at least heard it alluded to that there's the intention to still have some form of consideration to maximum sustainable employment but it's not yet clear how that would take form.
Robertson GrantHon GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour): Thank you Madam Chair. I was just checking to see if the Minister wanted to take the opportunity to introduce this particular part to the House. I've got a number of questions for the Minister around why this particular part has come in front of us. The first of those I want to deal with is the question of whether or not there have been in the time that the dual mandate has been in place any times at which the Reserve Bank's focus on reducing inflation has in any way been impacted by the fact that there is a dual mandate. Because consistently in the time that I was the Minister of Finance and the time in which the Governor of the Reserve Bank has been in place he has stated repeatedly that the Reserve Bank has focused squarely on inflation and that they don't feel that at any point they have been compromised in that focus. The member is bringing a bill to the House. It's a serious matter. It's a matter of changing a law a law that is a significant part of our economic framework that is arguably part of our constitutional framework—hasn't gone off to a select committee hasn't had the ability to be scrutinised. And here we are because the Minister believes that somehow or other the Reserve Bank's focus on inflation has been diluted by the fact that we were asking them to also have a focus on supporting maximum sustainable employment.So my first question for the Minister is: what advice if any has she received that there was less of a focus on inflation because of the dual mandate in the time that it has been in place?
Kuriger Barbara; Simpson ScottIn CommitteePart 1 Amendment to Reserve Bank of New Zealand's objectivesCHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members the House is in committee on the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Economic Objective) Amendment Bill. I would start by reminding members that the wording of the closure motion has changed in this Parliament. The new wording is That debate on this question now close." I refer members to Standing Order 137(1). Members we come first to Part 1.Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): I seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one question.CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is objection. So this is the debate on Part 1. This is the debate on clause 4 "Amendment to Reserve Bank of New Zealand objectives". The question is that Part 1 stand part."
Nimon Katie; O'Connor GregKATIE NIMON (National—Napier): I am pleased to speak on this second reading of the amendment bill for the Reserve Bank objectives. I just want to talk about what happens when you try and do two things and don't do either well. The interesting thing I will speak on is public transport. We want to try and reduce inflation. We are not going to do it by also focusing on the jobs. We need to reduce inflation first. Now when you try to reduce emissions you don't do it by running a bus all around town trying to pick up every single person. You need to go somewhere faster so people actually get out of their cars. You've got to do one thing well and this is what we are here to do. We are here to do it quickly because we cannot go one more day without it but we need to do one thing well and that is our focus. We need to give the Reserve Bank one single mandate not two things that they can't do well. We need to do one thing well. So we are here to move this right before Christmas so that people can get to the new year with the best control over inflation that we have not seen for the last six years. It is time and I will say it again to do one thing well and that is what we are here to do as a Government first up: we are going to do one thing well—and I will say it again. So I commend this bill to the House.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): Hon Deborah Russell.
MacLeod David; O'Connor GregDAVID MacLEOD (National—New Plymouth): I sit here trying to listen to wisdom from all through the House here. And when the member across the aisle there the Hon Willie Jackson talks about a Māori's perspective boy oh boy I'm pleased he's on that side of the House and not this side of the House.Because no wonder it's such a mess and I tell you: I hear a number of members on the other side of the House talk about the problems that they believe this bill is going to present with employment particularly for Māori in there. Well it's exactly the opposite. This is exactly what's needed to actually get a great employment great economy going throughout our country. This is exactly what is needed. It's exactly the opposite of what they've been talking about. When inflation increases significantly a sensible Government would look at how its own spending would actually have an effect on it. But what we saw in the last term was a Government that had an increase of 83 percent over its two terms in Government—83 percent. That went from just north of $76 billion in 2017—ended up being at $139 billion. That had a significant effect on the inflation as well. We saw a Government that didn't understand what its purpose was in endeavouring to control inflation with what strings it could actually pull.So inflation is not only unnecessary for economic growth; as long as it exists it is the enemy of economic growth. So we need to make sure that we get everything pull all the levers that we can with regards to getting inflation under control. The—sorry—[member refers to notes]Hon Willie Jackson: Speak from the heart.DAVID MacLEOD: I'm learning Willie—sorry Willie Jackson. I believe that's Willie Jackson. If I'm speaking from the heart I would suggest: don't listen to that side of the House especially from that seat over there. It's a muddled mess as it is when the Reserve Bank is trying to serve two masters with the fact that they had these two objectives to serve. We need to get it back to one. I believe that the Reserve Bank can't wait for this to actually occur so it can get things under control. With that I commend this bill to the House.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): This is a split call—Helen White.
Wedd CatherineCATHERINE WEDD (National—Tukituki): Thank you Mr Speaker. I speak in support of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Economic Objective) Amendment Bill. It's time to focus on strengthening our economy. It's time we focus on hard-working New Zealanders and reducing the cost of living. This will be achieved through getting on top of inflation. Kiwis are struggling because the economy is damaged. The price of food rents and mortgages are at record highs while wages have struggled to keep up creating a cost of living crisis. Homeowners are scrambling to find the extra hundreds of dollars they need to pay their mortgage payment each fortnight. Across New Zealand families are feeling hardship in a way they have never experienced before. Christmas is just around the corner and we need to bring some light and cheer for people this Christmas and that is reducing the cost of living crisis getting on top of inflation and giving New Zealanders a brighter future. Interest rates have risen so fast that hard-working Kiwis can't keep up businesses can't keep up. Our economy has been going backwards; we need to drive it forward.The other side of the House might keep blaming COVID and international circumstances but on this side of the House we aren't blaming; we are acting. We are all about action—all about action getting things back on track. On this side of the House we aren't wasting any time in our fight to put the lid on inflation. We need price stability and low inflation. This is what will drive our economy forward. This will help improve the lives of New Zealanders who are currently wondering how they're going to pay their bills. This will help improve business farmer and grower confidence helping grow our economy.The member on the other side of the House spoke about productivity and creating jobs. The way to drive productivity is to support our businesses and our growers and our farmers by lowering inflation. Farm inflation is at all-time highs. Confidence is low. We need to enable businesses to get ahead enable businesses to create jobs enable families to get ahead. Inflation is eroding profitability. Businesses are tightening their belts. We need to get the wheels moving in the right direction now. The commitment to beating inflation starts with ensuring the Reserve Bank is returning to a single mandate of keeping down inflation. I commend this bill to the House.
Waititi RawiriRAWIRI WAITITI (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori): Thank you Mr Speaker. What we know—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): Sorry this is a split call shared with the Greens. Rawiri Waititi—five minutes.RAWIRI WAITITI: What we know is that this Government is rushing through legislation before Christmas that will see people lose their jobs. It will cut people's wages and working conditions. This is all being done to further enrich their already rich mates. It's heartless it's disgraceful and a Merry Christmas to you all! Shame on you—shame on you—and closing monetary policy should be making holistic decisions that consider everything that is relevant and not so easily sacrifice human lives at the altar of economic orthodoxy. Creating stable monetary policy conditions that balance inflationary pressures with employment is in the best interests of current and future generations.Monetary policy I heard from the finance Minister needs mates. It needs compassion. It needs heart. By removing the dual mandate will this Government push the official cash rate to an unachievable rate that the Governor can't achieve creating a forced recession? That's a question that should be asked. Is this setting the Governor up to fail? Is this the Government's way of getting rid of him? Will the removal of the dual mandates harm tangata whenua and I ask that of the Minister for Māori Development and what will he do to protect his people? Will it harm Pasifika finance? Because they are the people—we are the people who work in precarious temporary and seasonal work. This government is prioritising capitalism over workers. And like the great quotes of Morgan Freeman These walls are funny. First you hate them then you get used to them. Enough time passes; you get so dependent on them. That's institutionalisation."Te Pāti Māori oppose this bill and we call on the Government to rethink their priorities. Now is the time for compassionate economic policies that support our people through tough times. Kia ora tātou."