edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Clark DavidHon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): I will address the question that the member Angie Warren-Clark has raised but I also do want to first put on record my thanks to the Health Committee who have worked on this bill and made quite a number of significant changes on the way through and for the better actually. This is a good example of what a good select committee process looks like in my view. The review work done of course which fed into this was work that came about under well actually the two previous Governments. There was a review in 2007 and a review in 2012 and that work has been put into the shape of a bill which makes things more transparent and gives the public confidence in an Act that is working well. So it brings it up into the modern age. It contributes electronic decision-making and so on to the process. The question the member asks is around the electronic certificate: when is it surrendered and what might happen if people fail to undertake counselling or other prescribed treatments? My understanding—and I'll ask officials to give me advice if I haven't got this in the right plain English—is that of course there could be recommendations made by the committee that provides guidance and the responsible authority could reach a different conclusion. This whole Act really—or great chunks of the changes we're making—is about instilling confidence in the public giving more feedback to the public about complaints they've laid and making sure that we actually have a fit for purpose Act that is relevant to modern-day practice. So alongside all of these changes I also want to acknowledge the constructive role that the responsible medical authorities have played in interacting with my office and with the select committee to make this bill fit for purpose. I do want to acknowledge that it is an Act that's largely working well and the regulations are largely working well as they stand. The short answer to the member's question is that if they refuse to surrender their certificate—if that's the recommendation—it is an offence under new section 33(4) in new clause 5C. So that's all I wanted to say at this stage for my early contribution other than to say that the public should have good confidence in the workforces represented here the steps that we're taking to make sure that they are encouraged to work together more that there's a more integrated workforce plan that there's going to be more transparent reporting and that as a result of the increased transparency in the mandate that the responsible authorities have we will also have better data collection for future workforce planning. So given all of those things we have a bill that's going to make the Act even better. It seems to have a good deal of agreement around it and I expect that this will be a friendly debate filled with bonhomie acknowledging the good work of those who work in our healthcare system and the way in which the regulatory authorities work to protect the interests of the public. Thank you Madam Chair.
Lees-Galloway IainHon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Minister for ACC): Just to speak very briefly to some of the matters that have been raised by members. A number of members have addressed the issue of bringing to an end the Accident Compensation Appeal Authority. The member Clare Curran is absolutely correct that it's something of a historical body that only deals with cases under the repealed Accident Compensation Acts of 1972 and 1982. Actually and I think importantly because most cases—in fact I wasn't aware that there were no cases before the authority at the moment so thank you for that. All cases currently really are being dealt with by the District Court but having two processes can lead to inconsistency and a very clear message that we heard through earlier submissions was that people want consistency in process and consistency in outcome. So removing the authority and having cases go before the District Court will certainly help with that consistency. On the question of whether there will be an increase in costs the advice I've received is that we could actually anticipate a decrease in cost and certainly no increase—and likely a decrease in costs—in appearing before the District Court rather than the appeal authority. Jenny Marcroft asked why two years: really it's aligning with the previous provision that you could have one plus one but the second year was elected. You had to elect between weekly compensation and superannuation. It will cover the vast majority of claimants: 68.4 percent of injured people return to independence within 10 weeks of being injured 80 percent within nine months and even of those who have more complicated injuries the vast majority are back at work within that two-year period. So it will cover the overwhelming majority of people who are injured in that circumstance. I thank members for their questions and queries about this bill. It is an important piece of legislation and I'm happy to be able to provide some context. The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 186 in the name of the Hon Iain Lees-Galloway to Part 1 be agreed to. Amendment agreed to. Part 1 as amended agreed to. Part 2 agreed to. Schedule 1 agreed to. Schedule 2 agreed to. Clause 1 agreed to. Clause 2 agreed to. Clause 3 agreed to. Bill to be reported with amendment presently.
Marcroft JennyJENNY MARCROFT (NZ First): Thank you Madam Chair. It's a pleasure to stand and talk to this Accident Compensation Amendment Bill now in the committee stage. I just note the work done through the Education and Workforce Committee on this amendment bill. Obviously I'm not on this committee but I do believe they have some fantastic members on it including my colleague Mark Patterson who is here in the Chamber tonight. I would just like to acknowledge the Minister in the chair the Hon Iain Lees-Galloway for the work he is doing on this particular bill. I acknowledge what he has said already tonight which is that this bill brings fairness back to those—and of particular interest to me are those close to the age of retirement when they've had an accident and require ACC but who are at that age of receiving their New Zealand superannuation at the age of 65 or so which is when they get the SuperGold card. I'm particularly interested in the clause which enables that instead of them having to choose between either having ACC for their injury or having their superannuation payment—and I am particularly interested in the fact that through this amendment they're going to be able to have that for a period of two years. I'm interested to hear from the Minister how the two-year period came to be because previously there was a much shorter period of time and they had to give up and had to elect which one they had so there was some discrimination on their hitting that age and having to give up either their superannuation or their accident compensation. So I am interested in that and in where the committee landed in terms of how they felt that it was a pretty fair place to land on that two-year period. Literally this is a very short call on my part but I'm interested to hear about that. Certainly it's a very sensible and timely amendment to this particular legislation. I'd also just like to quickly note too the honourable member from across the Chamber Tim Macindoe who was using the opportunity to not so shamelessly promote his member's bill. But certainly thank you very much and I look forward to hearing from the Minister.
Lees-Galloway IainHon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Minister for ACC): Just to very quickly address the questions raised by the member Jan Tinetti it is certainly unusual for legislation to be retrospective. However the advice that I received in drafting the bill was that we're essentially fixing a drafting error. So looking back at when the extension was made to people being posted overseas and whether or not that should apply to their families the best evidence that we could find was that it was actually a drafting error that it was not applied to families. Actually from memory—and I apologise if I get this wrong and if I do get it wrong I will correct myself—I think ACC was applying it to families for a period of time and then realised that the legislation did not match their practice so stopped covering the families and dependants of people posted overseas. What we are doing here is bringing the legislation back to what is believed to be the original intent when that was first brought about. As to the question of how many cases are before the Accident Compensation Appeal Authority currently I don't know the answer to that question right now. I may be able to source the answer to that question possibly not during this debate but I'd be very happy to come back to the member with the answer to that very reasonable question. Thank you.
Lees-Galloway IainHon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Minister for ACC): Well I just want to briefly respond to the comments made by Parmjeet Parmar the member who just spoke. I absolutely reject the assertion that I somehow attacked submitters. I understand why those submitters came to the Education and Workforce Committee and said that comprehensive change is required for ACC because that's the state that it was left in by the previous Government. I also look forward to—in the event that that legislation does come before the House in this term of Parliament—the National Party's support for the kinds of changes that those submitters sought during the submission process because they are exactly the changes that the National Party refused to make when they were in Government but now from the Opposition benches they're calling on the Government to make the change that they were not prepared to. They're taking an unusual approach of using the committee of the whole House on a bill that does not deal with those matters to raise these issues. So I do say to those members opposite that in the event that legislation comes to this House that addresses the matters that were raised by those submitters I ask of members opposite: will they support it?
Curran ClareHon CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): Thank you Madam Chair. Could I refer to the select committee process of this bill the Accident Compensation Amendment Bill where I think there were 25 submissions. There was oral evidence from 13 submitters but many of the submissions that were received by the Education and Workforce Committee—and I think the Minister for ACC has already referred to this—reflected issues that were out of scope of this particular bill. What that reflected was a huge degree of frustration with the previous administration and it was really interesting to hear Tim Macindoe get up and talk about that frustration as if his party had been in Opposition for years and that whatever the regime was that had been managing the ACC system it was not his own party and it was not his own Government. I think it's really important that we actually note that in addressing the committee stage on this bill. This bill deals with some important issues but alongside that the Government—the current Government—has actually been implementing changes and putting in place changes that were hard fought for by the sector and by the community that really needed to happen but didn't happen under that Government. So I think that when Tim Macindoe really does reflect on what he actually said in the committee that will become clear but I'm not sure—he lives in some kind of time warp. So I want to talk in this part of the debate around the series of changes to boundaries that this bill addresses particularly around the interface between weekly compensation and superannuation and how important that is. I'll refer to the National Council of Women of New Zealand's submission on the bill which basically said that those changes around people that are injured around the time of retirement and the relief on them rather than having to make a choice is that this provides for a fairer and more consistent relationship between weekly compensation and superannuation by allowing an injured person's financial situation to more closely reflect their income had they not been injured." They referred to Westpac New Zealand's survey in early 2018 which showed that New Zealand women were saving less than New Zealand men for retirement. This goes to the whole issue—wider issues—around the gender pay gap and the impact on women and how this bill when you think about the fact that it's making a series of changes to boundaries actually will have a material impact on people if they've been injured and they're entering into that retirement age. That's going to take away some of that stress and that is a really really critical thing which I'm sure that hopefully the whole of the Parliament agrees with tonight. Obviously there's a lot more to be done but this bill really does make some core differences. It is providing a fairer and more consistent situation for people who are entering into that superannuation period and I'm sure that I'll have more contributions as we go through the committee stage."
van de Molen Tim; Williams PotoACCIDENT COMPENSATION AMENDMENT BILLIn CommitteeDebate resumed from 12 March. Parts 1 and 2 Schedules 1 and 2 and clauses 1 to 3 (continued)TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): I seek leave for the remaining parts of this bill to be taken as one debate. Hon Tim Macindoe: Speaking to the point of order—CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Just answering that point of order the committee has already agreed to that course of action. So thank you for that.
Financial Services Legislation Amendment Bill — In Committee—Part 2
Webb DuncanPart 2 Amendments to Financial Service Providers (Registration and Dispute Resolution) Act 2008Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): One issue I would like to raise here—one matter one question one observation—is simply that of What is a financial service?" and really the point I have is the—Hon Gerry Brownlee: Thirty years a doctor of law and he asks a question like that! Unbelievable!Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Oh Mr Brownlee you should be so lucky. The question is relating to cryptocurrencies and we've seen in Christchurch recently the failure of a cryptocurrency firm and this is a grey area and it's one where the regulatory framework is not entirely clear. It's with some satisfaction that I look at the relatively broad definition of financial services and it appears to me that clause 61 which amends the meaning of financial services relates to the operators of financial product markets and I'm heartened that it would appear that bitcoins and cryptocurrencies and all of these strange and somewhat shady products would seem to be captured by that. It's a matter where it would appear that operators who might be on the fringes of the law—and in fact the difficulty I have with some of those cryptocurrencies is that they seem to see very little purpose other than transacting business outside of the eyes of the law. It seems to me that this bill would draw them at least within the purview of the regulation of financial services providers.My concern is that there are some innocent people who foolishly think that cryptocurrencies are some kind of investment option rather than some quasi-currency which is used by disreputable people to engage in transactions on the dark web and other places which is because of the blockchain framework where they're entirely untraceable. In respect of the recent failure in Christchurch what it has shown is that it's extremely hard to trace funds or assets—whatever you might call them—in respect of cryptocurrencies. So look really all I wanted to observe was that at least in this reform of the law cryptocurrencies seem to be drawn into the regulation and I look forward to seeing further work on this in this regard so that in fact these very unusual largely unregulated financial instruments or whatever we want to call them—which are really simply no more than codes no more than a series of encrypted codes—are being used as a means of exchange in an extremely volatile market which has no foundation and in fact very little foundation in law and certainly no foundation in respect of real assets. This is being drawn into the law here and I hope soon elsewhere as well. Thank you."
van de Molen Tim; Williams PotoTIM VAN DE MOLEN (Third Whip—National): I seek leave for the remaining parts of this bill to be taken as one debate.CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is objection. Unfortunately we will be taking it part by part.
Financial Services Legislation Amendment Bill — In Committee—Part 1
Coffey TamatiTAMATI COFFEY (Labour—Waiariki): Before we go back to the Minister and hear some of the answers to some of the questions that have been put forward I thought I may as well pop on the schedule. Just a little bit about the dispute resolution scheme: if I remember rightly it was Consumer New Zealand that came to the select committee and they identified the number of dispute resolution schemes that are out there. In their opinion there were too numerous and too many dispute resolution schemes. In their assessment they needed to be slimmed down quite a bit. So that was what they presented on.One of their submissions was that actually not all of the breaches of the Act actually were reported back and in their opinion they should be reported back. I know that in the select committee we did do a lot of debating around whether or not we should actually be reporting every single infringement back or whether or not we should just report the big stuff and leave the small stuff. So I'd be interested to hear from the Minister just exactly where we landed on that. Dispute resolution schemes are numerous and plentiful and we need to make sure that the mechanism is in place for those people that have got an issue when they go to see a financial services provider. But obviously that question still remains about whether or not we need to report everything or whether or not we need to just report some of them. Regulators regardless should be informed about infringements but should they just be significant breaches of the law?I noticed that in the commentary report back as well there was the view that reporting back about breaches should only apply when there are reasonable grounds to believe that the participant has breached or is likely to breach the law. So there were a couple of recommendations on just how we might be able to mitigate that and as I say I would be really interested to hear back from the Minister about exactly where he landed with that particular one. I remember in the select committee at the time we did have the discussion about whether or not everything should be reported back or just the big stuff but I'd be interested to hear regardless from the Minister about where exactly he landed on that. Thank you for that Madam Chair.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 195 in the name of the Hon Kris Faafoi to Part 1 be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.Part 1 as amended agreed to.
Faafoi KrisHon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Let me just deal with some of those questions directly because I think they are good ones. I think Mr Webb—well I know Mr Webb—that the details of the code of conduct which are yet to be released and which the sector itself is quite keen to see will have a lot more fleshed-out detail of a practical nature which will enable them to know how they should properly meet those obligations. It's fair to say I think—and I said in an earlier contribution—that the draft of the code of conduct was delivered to us on 28 February and it's fair to say that I think that the sector probably wanted to see it on 26 February. When I spoke to a group of advisers at the Financial Services Council of New Zealand this afternoon the detail of the code of conduct is really where the rubber hits the road for them.So I think the number of new sections that you alluded to will directly link to the code of conduct that will have some obligations in terms of the qualifications that advisers will have to have in a couple of years' time to ensure that they have the level of qualification and skill to offer advice in a way that meets the obligations under the bill. Again I'm not wanting to give too much detail away on the contents of the code of conduct; a lot of that practical detail will be fleshed out there. You're obviously keen to know that and the sector is too but I can assure the member and the sector that we'll get that detail to them in a timely manner once we've gone through the process of consulting with the likes of the Financial Markets Authority to make sure that they're happy with where that lands too.
Webb DuncanDr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you Madam Chair. Might I commend the Minister on the work around conflicts of interest which have for a long time been seen as a real issue in respect of financial services. I want to go back one step and just inquire of the Minister as to the workings of the various clauses around competence in particular. I'm looking at new section 431H Duty to meet standards of competence knowledge and skill." in clause 27. Now that section relates back to what must be delegated legislation in terms of a code of conduct. I'm just really inquiring as to the interface between the legislation and that code of conduct and also how that might relate to new section 431K "Duty to exercise care diligence and skill" which is perhaps a wider duty. In terms of legislative efficiency: competence knowledge and skill and exercising care diligence and skill seem to be somewhat redundant. I wonder if there is some explanation as to whether the need for both of those sections is warranted in particular.But also new section 431I "Duty to ensure client understands nature and scope of advice" is obviously very very important when we're dealing with what can be quite complex financial products and the fact that some people may not have good English may have English as a second language or may just be hard-working people with a bit of money in the bank but particularly astute. Exactly what the scope of that duty might be and whether in fact that duty—the duty to ensure the client understands—requires further filling out is another issue as is whether that will be done by perhaps regulations or in some other way. So those are a couple of issues that it would be useful perhaps if the Minister could respond to."
Faafoi KrisHon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Madam Chair I don't want to prolong the debate too much but a number of my colleagues raised questions which I think are probably worthy of a response. First of all to Kiritapu Allan around liability of advisers I just want to also point out her concern in this area should be allayed by the fact that advisers are still subject to disciplinary committees can be banned from the industry and can be fined up to $10000 if they're found to be in contravention of their own code of conduct or anything within the bill itself.Also raised by another colleague of mine was the issue of commissions. I just want to make sure that we address the issue because a number of submissions that came to the select committee were around commissions. I think putting all these issues together from the Financial Services Legislation Amendment Bill but also too the issues that were raised as part of the Financial Markets Authority and Reserve Bank reports and concern around commission structures they're certainly a part of commission structures that the Government does want to crack down on and this may have come up during the select committee and that is what is commonly known in the sector as soft commissions when advisers are churning life insurance policies just to get the likes of an overseas trip to Rome or that kind of reward from an insurance company. We certainly have made some clear statements that those types of commissions are going to be gone but also we said that we'd consult with the sector and look very closely at the other commission structures many of them that may be within the financial advice sector to make sure that any changes to commissions are done in a balanced way and also look at ensuring that any kinds of outcomes that aren't in favour of a good outcome for consumers are dealt with but we don't necessarily need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. So we will consult on that. I think we're getting some advice on that from the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment soon and we'll consult with the sector in May to make sure that we get the balance right with the industry on commissions as well.Clare Curran did talk about vulnerable consumers in her contribution as well. I guess I'd like this piece of legislation to be thought of in the context of some legislation we hope to introduce into the House soon and that is the amendments to the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act that the Government will be looking to introduce in cracking down on loan sharks. Again that is in the financial advice realm. We've seen plenty of examples where those vulnerable consumers have been preyed upon by the third-tier lending sector and they've got the most vulnerable consumers into huge debt spirals. I don't want to go too much into that because it's not a piece of legislation that is yet before the House but I did want to put this bill into the context of measures that we're taking to ensure that consumers are protected.
Prime Willow-JeanWILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour): Thank you Madam Chair for this opportunity to speak on the Financial Services Legislation Amendment Bill. If you'll just indulge me for 20 seconds I actually researched this for my speech tonight. I gave a speech on it in its first reading and I acknowledged my first financial adviser being my man who was here with the baby at the time and time has passed since then—a lot of time has passed since then. Thank you to the Economic Development Science and Innovation Committee that has worked on this and come back with the version that we've got today.In my original speech I actually talked about disclosure and I just want to refer to something that I said there and then come to the sections and the proposed wording and amendments for that and then I actually have a question for the Minister around that.So I put in there: Disclosure ensures that consumers have sufficient information about the person providing them with the financial advice before actually engaging these services. However current disclosure documents are too long they are too complex and they are too jargon-filled and so they often end up not even being read and even if the statement is read by consumers it is far too complex and for most it does not contain the information that consumers actually need to make informed decisions.Now I'm aware that there was a royal commission across the Tasman on this. My question for the Minister is: does he think the disclosure provisions in section 431—I was going to say new subsections "X Y Z"; it actually is W X Y Z ZA B C D E F and G—are actually in some way going to address the concerns that were raised on that? So if I could just get the Minister's views in particular on the disclosure obligations for services for retail clients—on page 3 you can see them outlined there. Thank you."
Faafoi KrisHon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Seeing as the Minister Iain Lees-Galloway has taken some interest in Supplementary Order Paper 195 and in particular in new section 403(4) of the Financial Markets Conduct Act I would like to just actually thank some of the advisers who we met during the process of consultation who raised the issue of advisers who may work for more than one financial advice provider—or FAP as they are known in the sector.There was some concern that those who are working for multiple FAPs might have conflicts in some of the advice that they are giving clients but also the concern was if something were to go wrong for a client of an adviser who worked for multiple FAPs—depending on the product and what product was being sold by which financial advice provider—where the accountability would lie.I think at the outset there was a move through the consultation and through the Supplementary Order Paper to essentially ban the ability of advisers to work for multiple FAPs. But given that this legislation will in a large way reorientate the environment that financial advisers are working in the Government decided to take a slightly different approach and while trying to address the issue leave some flexibility for the likes of advisers who might be working part-time and working for a number of financial advice providers. This was to ensure that that didn't restrict the ability for those who might be—and I think we're more concerned for those who are—working part-time and leaving the sector or on their way to leaving the sector from being able to work for multiple FAPs while still giving the ability to have some accountability as to when something might go wrong.So again good spotting because that is something that didn't necessarily come up as an issue and that made its way to that SOP because it actually came from the sector of itself and was not necessarily something that the officials highlighted during the process. I guess with just a minute to go in particular around new section 403—[Interruption] I'll talk very slowly!Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. Hon KRIS FAAFOI: Thank you Madam Chair. I only had a matter of seconds left in my contribution before we interrupted the debate for the dinner break and I was responding to a contribution from Iain Lees-Galloway around the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) which inserts new section 403(4) to the Financial Markets Conduct Act. And the only other contribution I was going to make in relation to that was to thank Nick Stewart who is a financial adviser out of the Hawke's Bay who alerted us to the issue amongst others and was quite forthright in his advocacy for us to do something about that within this piece of legislation.
McAnulty KieranKIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Mr Chair it is with some surprise but much delight to be standing here and speaking on the Financial Services Legislation Amendment Bill at the committee stage. I hear what the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs was saying in terms of lifting the financial capability of New Zealanders through this bill. I am intrigued because once again this is one of the many bills that I haven't actually had any involvement with despite being in my whips role. I go from select committee to select committee quite often and cover the position; however I haven't come across this one in my travels.I am intrigued though. As I was looking at the bill and leading up to this I'm particularly interested in what the Minister has to say in terms of the provisions around here more around financial capabilities. I want to hear what the Opposition have to say about this because I don't know what their position is. I'm not too sure whether they have voted in favour of this at this first reading or against it and of course we've seen many bills come through this House where the Opposition haven't supported it and because this is the Government with a majority it's carried through. But I am intrigued to know actually where the Opposition stands on this.I note that this particular bill has been in the mix for quite some time—around 2011 from what I gather. I was reading while the Minister was speaking and I note that there have been 72 written submissions in favour of this so I'm not surprised that he was able to stand up with much confidence. I mean he's been able to deal with any question that's been thrown his way thus far but in this particular bill I was intrigued by what he had to say and I am looking forward to hearing more. So on this side of the House we commend the Minister and the officials that have assisted him up to this point. Well done on getting to the committee stage. I'm very much looking forward to hearing what the National Party has to say about it.
Faafoi KrisHon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): I'd like to quote from a previous debate on this issue: I am delighted with this bill. It is clearly taking on the evils the worries and the concerns around hard-core cartel behaviour"—yeah it's guess who?—"it does address the negatives of cartel behaviour and it is important that it does so because if it did not we could end up with a terrible situation where the tiny minority—the nameless and the faceless—are controlling outcomes delivering things that many do not want."The person whose name is beside that quote from a parliamentary Hansard is Mr Brett Hudson himself back when the National Party had some bottle. Also another one of his colleagues and I'm going to quote Simon O'Connor here: "This [criminalisation of cartels] is ultimately … at the heart of what the National Party believes is the way forward for our economy." Mr O'Connor being probably a very good local member of Parliament said he was and I quote "I was talking actually over the last 24 hours with some people in this sector and they are very keen to see this bill progress. They are keen to see that that balance occurs here between allowing pro-competitive collaboration but also making sure that we are not going to have those sorts of hard-core cartel operations either."As I predicted the words of the National Party have come back to haunt them. And I'm looking forward to—I'm only going to take a short call because I would like to challenge them to keep taking calls because I've got a tonne of this stuff. Ha ha! And Mr Hudson it's not looking good for you. So you know whatever happened to the good old strong National Party who were taking proactive measures against hard-core cartel behaviour? So I would like to challenge—actually I'm looking forward to it. I'm looking forward to the many calls between now and probably 9 o'clock from the National Party to speak and oppose this piece of legislation because every time they say something negative on that side of the House I've got something to come back and throw back right in their faces."
Hudson BrettBRETT HUDSON (National): The Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs can say whatever he likes quite frankly. This bill and its Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 194 shows that we shouldn't be listening to a word of it. We do oppose this bill. We have since its introduction. We put in civil offences for cartel behaviour in the previous term. Our position has been that they are very onerous and they are a very strong deterrence. All through along with some submitters we have said that this attempt to put criminalisation provisions in will simply lead to uncertainty and the potential for otherwise fundamentally innocent people to be criminalised. The Minister has introduced an SOP and I'll just make a point that he's making a bit of a history now a bit of a trend of introducing significant SOPs just a few hours ahead of the bill being debated—this one and there'll be another one that we'll be debating when we move on to the next bill. And that SOP quite as clearly shows—or rather the regulatory impact statement that comes with it shows—that officials have realised lo the bill as it stands runs the very real risk of criminalising people whose behaviour is actually if not reasonable certainly not that of meeting the standard of criminal behaviour.Minister if you hadn't put this bill forward in the first place we wouldn't be trying to sort out the mess that your officials are trying to sort out for you with this SOP. It was never required and actually the argument they are using in the SOP is not even elegant; it's an absolute kludge it's a bodge to try and fix up inferior and unworkable provisions. They've not reached a solution. They've not come up with an elegant way of dealing with this problematic potential. They have said the best way we can possibly try to deal with it is here are three options—none of them are actually perfect. Let's go with this one—at least it's sort of the worst of the three. And yet the Minister should read his own officials' documents. He'd have a good read and a good chuckle—I certainly did.So we're still trying to go forward—the Minister is—with a flawed bill which is only marginally less flawed in fundamentally the viewpoint of his own officials. It's only marginally less flawed than it was on Monday. We opposed it beforehand for very good reasons. We will continue to oppose it. Minister the best thing you could do is one of two options: send this thing back to select committee to kick it around again where it should be or actually even better defer it until officials maybe one day can come up with a genuine solution with genuine practical workable provisions for these sorts of issues rather than the bodge you've brought to the House.
Faafoi KrisParts 1 and 2 and clauses 1 to 3Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): I'd like to get things ticked off in this committee stage of this bill and first of all thank the Economic Development Science and Innovation Committee for its consideration of sorts of this bill. The bill amends the Commerce Act to introduce a new criminal offence for cartel conduct. Cartels are agreements between competitors to fix prices restrict output or allocate markets. Cartels enable firms to charge more for less and cartel conduct obviously is widely regarded as the most egregious form of anti-competitive conduct.Can I move to clause 4 in Part 1 which is the main provision that introduces a new criminal cartel offence new section 82B in which there are two linked offences. Offence one entering into a cartel agreement: a person commits an offence if the person enters into an agreement that contains cartel provisions and intends at that time to engage in price fixing restricting output or market allocation" or (b) offence to giving effect to a cartel agreement.I would like to add that there is already a civil regime for cartel behaviour. I believe the previous Government also proposed a criminal regime for cartel behaviour but the record will show that they lost their ambition in that respect. I will point out that there is a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 194 for this bill. The first change in the SOP is to amend the category of offence for the purposes of the Criminal Procedure Act. After some discussion I think with the Ministry of Justice the change from the category 4 to category 3 offence means that these cases may be heard in a District Court or referred to the High Court as opposed to only being heard in the High Court and the lower category of offence is consistent with other similar commercial offences such as insider trading or market manipulation.I will just take a small call but pre-empt some of the debate that is going to happen today probably from the Opposition in opposition to the introduction of this new criminal regime to cartel behaviour and to also just forewarn the Opposition that I'm looking forward to rebutting some of that opposition with their own words in the previous Government."
McAnulty KieranCOMMERCE (CRIMINALISATION OF CARTELS) AMENDMENT BILLIn CommitteeKIERAN McANULTY (Junior Whip—Labour): I seek leave for all provisions of the Commerce (Criminalisation of Cartels) Amendment Bill to be taken as one debate.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.
Ross Jami-LeeJAMI-LEE ROSS (Botany): Thank you very much Mr Chair. I picked up on a word that Dr Smith used that was used in a previous debate on a previous bill in committee stage: inappropriate". I thought it was just an aberration. I thought Jacqui Dean was just saying Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) are inappropriate to get through a sticky situation but now that we have a second example of a member of the National Party saying SOPs are inappropriate I'm starting to wonder whether there's a new standard there where anything that is proposed by way of an SOP isn't something that should be considered by the Parliament. That's effectively what Dr Smith said—he said it would be inappropriate.When it comes to whether we consider matters in this Chamber and whether we consider matters in debate it shouldn't be a case of a select committee is looking at something by way of an inquiry. There's the opportunity to do something when there's a bill and it's a time-honoured tradition for members of Parliament to put up SOPs on things they are passionate about and things they care about. For goodness' sake the Opposition has done that the whole time this Parliament has been here and it will continue to do that.I absolutely reject the arguments from my old friends in the National Party who think putting up things by way of an SOP is inappropriate. It's inappropriate to suggest members of Parliament shouldn't raise issues and to try and get off the hook politically for the way in which they voted earlier this afternoon by saying "Oh we'd like to table some documents; it's going to show how seriously we're taking an issue." They voted against doing something. They voted against something which their leader has been in public saying they want to pursue. So I think the inappropriateness in this debate is for members of this Parliament to suggest moving SOPs and moving amendments—that members of Parliament doing that is wrong.It's wrong to suggest we can't raise issues it's wrong to suggest that these issues shouldn't be discussed and it's wrong to try and use points of order and tactics like that because they didn't want to vote for something and then they felt guilty about it afterwards. So I wholeheartedly disagree with what Dr Smith has said. We should have been debating and voting on these issues and I provided a mechanism for it. They chose to vote against it. They should own the fact that they voted against it and not come into this House and use that ridiculous "It's inappropriate to put up SOPs." argument."
Smith NickParts 1 and 2 and clauses 1 and 2Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): This is a very minor bill that makes some very narrow changes to provisions of the Local Electoral Act. The first issue is the issue of electronic voting. The bill proposes no more than extending the provision that exists in the law right now for there to be trials of novel voting and for it to be able to be done in a subpart of a district. In other words all it allows to take place is rather than a trial of for instance internet voting occurring in all of a district it could occur in just a ward or a local board area of a council. In anybody's terms that's a very minor provision. I commend the officials on the work that's gone into the technical drafting to enable that to occur in a sensible way as well as the other provisions.I do wish to make a brief contribution on the debate in respect of foreign interference in elections. It is National's view that this issue has raised its head internationally with the high-profile case of Hillary Clinton in the US and her emails being hacked allegedly by a foreign power. There has been a recent announcement last month by the Prime Minister of Australia about the potential for external powers to try and hack a Parliament. There has also been commentary around the issue of electoral donations. Now my view is the select committee is diligently going about its business of an inquiry into those matters as is evidenced by their work that has gone on since last November. It is not appropriate for a bill that has nothing to do with those issues to be trying to tag amendments on in the committee stage. But we as a party want to see through with the proper consideration and as much cross-party work as possible ensuring that both our local and parliamentary elections are protected from those potential risks.So while we have voted down the motion seeking to extend this bill and the Supplementary Order Papers that you have quite rightly ruled out of scope that is nothing less than taking this issue very seriously and having a robust process for dealing with those issues. Finally I say the select committee did a lot of work with officials on these quite detailed provisions around local elections. We think we have got them in good shape albeit we remain cautious as a political party as to whether internet-based voting is sufficiently secure and robust for New Zealand to be able to contemplate that at this stage. We should keep a watching brief of international developments. We should be cautious of ensuring the integrity of our electoral system which is consistent with the provisions in these parts of the bill.
SpeechHon Dr NICK SMITH: I seek leave of the House to table the letters from the Justice Committee to the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service (NZSIS) and the New Zealand GCSB into the issues of foreign interference in respect of the inquiry of the Justice Committee into the 2016 local election and the 2017 general election.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Can the member indicate whether or not that's still confidential to the committee or not?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: These are letters that the Justice Committee agreed to send and that have gone to the GCSB and the NZSIS. They are letters of invitation. They set out quite specifically the issues that the select committee is inquiring into.Jami-Lee Ross: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I can speak to the point of order. We're entering into this territory where effectively any member could front up here and utilise an I want to table a document" procedure to break the confidentiality of a committee and by describing the document and the very existence of those documents break the confidentiality of the committee. You are effectively establishing a precedent that any member could grab any document from any committee that isn't yet available and attempt to table it and utilise the describing to do so. Now the describing might be a political tactic to answer for having voted against doing something earlier this afternoon which is what is happening here but that is not a legitimate reason to get off the hook politically by breaking confidentiality of a select committee.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Speaking to the point of order.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): No I'm going to respond. No that's why I asked the question before the member took his point of order and the Hon Dr Nick Smith answered. My question now to the Hon Dr Nick Smith is: when is the report on this issue before the select committee due to come to the House or has it already come to the House?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: For guidance for the Chairman when a select committee conducts an inquiry as it is under the general election and for the local body elections there isn't a timetable of which it is required to report; it's when the House finishes its business. Can I also make plain to the Chair that the sole reason for having these documents released publicly is because in the interests of transparency—there being a substantive element of public interest in these issues—and there being no practical reason why this correspondence and information should not be in the public arena I think there is a public interest in transparency and disclosure.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I will put the leave for that document. Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is objection. Members we now come to the debate on the Local Electoral Matters Bill."
SpeechHon Dr NICK SMITH: I seek leave of the committee to table the letter from the Minister of Justice to the Justice Committee on including the issues of foreign interference in the Justice Committee's inquiry into New Zealand's electoral law.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is objection.
McAnulty Kieran; Rurawhe AdrianKIERAN McANULTY (Junior Whip—Labour): I seek leave for all provisions in the Local Electoral Matters Bill to be taken as one debate.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be not.
Rurawhe AdrianLOCAL ELECTORAL MATTERS BILLIn CommitteeCHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Before I give the call on Part 1 of the bill I want to advise that I have ruled that the Supplementary Order Papers relating to electoral donations in the name of Jami-Lee Ross are outside the scope of the bill as agreed at second reading and therefore are not available for debate and no vote will be taken on them.