edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
12. Question No. 12—Commerce and Consumer AffairsHon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū) to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer AffairsQuestion No. 12—Commerce and Consumer Affairs12. Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū) to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: What action is the Government taking to ensure Kiwi consumers are treated fairly by their banks insurers and credit unions? Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Well this week the Financial Markets Authority (FMA) opened for applications from financial institutions to become licensed. All registered banks insurers and non-bank deposit takers such as credit unions will need to become licensed to provide financial services to consumers and have a fair conduct programme. It covers about 100 institutions in all. They have until 31 March 2025 when the regime comes into effect to get their new fair conduct programmes up and running. Hon Phil Twyford: Where has the decision to require financial institutions to be licensed come from? Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Since 2019 the Financial Markets Authority working with the Reserve Bank have reviewed the culture and conduct of banks and insurers. This showed institutions were not doing enough to put systems in place to ensure customers were treated fairly. The conduct of financial institutions Act was passed in 2022 which puts consumers at the forefront of institutions' decisions and actions. This Act requires licensing for institutions providing financial services to consumers. Hon Phil Twyford: What principles underpin the new conduct requirements? Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Firms selling financial products will need to adhere to a new fair conduct principle by establishing a fair conduct programme within their organisation. Fair conduct principles will apply in the design of financial products at the point of sale during claims or complaints and throughout the life cycle of a product. Hon Phil Twyford: What is at the heart of the fair conduct principle? Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Putting consumers' interests first is at the heart of the principle. It's the right product for the right person at the right time that should govern how a product is sold and to whom not an incentive for a salesperson. The Government continues to make progress on protecting consumers of financial products and I thank the FMA for their leadership in this area. SPEAKER: That concludes oral questions. Would some honourable member care to move—
11. Question No. 11—CorrectionsHon MARK MITCHELL (National—Whangaparāoa) to the Minister of CorrectionsQuestion No. 11—Corrections11. Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Whangaparāoa) to the Minister of Corrections: Does he stand by his statement we have safely reduced the prison population"; if so why?Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Minister of Justice) on behalf of the Minister of Corrections: In the context in which it was made yes. When we became Government there was a prison population crisis. There were approximately 11000 people in prison and there was talk of triple-bunking beds in hallways and repurposing old boarding houses. Those options were not safe for communities or for Corrections staff. Corrections does not decide who is sent to prison or for how long; their contribution to the reduction of the population is through improving the efficiency and administration of processes. As a Government we have not significantly changed sentencing laws except for removing the flawed three-strikes because there was no real evidence that it increased public safety.Hon Mark Mitchell: What is the Minister's definition of "safely"?Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: I encourage the member to pick up a dictionary.Hon Mark Mitchell: Point of order Mr Speaker. I know what the definition of "safely" is. I'm asking the Minister what her definition of "safely" is. That was the question.SPEAKER: It is an answer. This is not quiz time; it's question time."
8. Question No. 8—Child Poverty ReductionHon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō) to the Minister for Child Poverty ReductionQuestion No. 8—Child Poverty Reduction8. Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō) to the Minister for Child Poverty Reduction: Does growing up in a benefit-dependent home contribute to child poverty; if so is she concerned by the increase in children living in benefit-dependent homes under this Government?Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister for Child Poverty Reduction): A range of factors are associated with the risk of experiencing child poverty over the short and long term. Poverty and living in a benefit-dependent household are correlated but there is no clear evidence that benefit receipt is causally related to child poverty. I am concerned about any child who lives in poverty but the Government has a strategy to address the contributing factors and lift children out of poverty and we are doing just that.Hon Louise Upston: How will the Government reduce the number of children living in poverty when there are now one in five New Zealand children growing up in a benefit-dependent home?Hon JAN TINETTI: As the Minister for Child Poverty Reduction I'm responsible for the Child Poverty Reduction Act that gives effect to a suite of measures and reporting. Before Labour came into office we had no strategy no reporting no measurements and no appetite to address the causes of child poverty. I'm proud to be part of a Government that has delivered a child poverty reduction strategy to create positive and transformative change and I am proud to be part of a Government who through Budget 2023 delivered targeted support to reduce household costs and support children in families that are struggling.Hon Louise Upston: How can she reduce the number of children living in poverty when there are now over 211000 children living in benefit-dependent homes a 39000 increase since when you took office?Hon JAN TINETTI: Those numbers are portfolio-specific questions for the Minister of social development. But what I can tell the member as the Minister for Child Poverty Reduction who monitors the data is that this Government has made historic moves to address child poverty by tackling the causes of deprivation head on. What I can tell that member too is that 77000 fewer children are living in low-income households on the after-housing-costs primary measure since Labour took office and 28700 fewer children are experiencing material hardship since 2018.Hon Louise Upston: Will the Minister admit that this record number of children living in benefit-dependent homes just shows how Labour is failing to lift children out of poverty?Hon JAN TINETTI: What I will admit is that eight of the nine child poverty measures have seen statistically significant reductions since 2018 and all nine have reduced. I am proud of the work of this Government in lifting children out of poverty.
Tuesday 25 July 2023 (continued on Wednesday 26 July 2023) - Volume 770
VoteCHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that the Minister's amendments to Part 7 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 389 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 72New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere.Noes 44New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.Amendments agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That Part 7 as amended be agreed to.Ayes 72New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere.Noes 45New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10; Whaitiri.Part 7 as amended agreed to.
Natural and Built Environment Bill — In Committee—Part 7
Natural and Built Environment Bill — In Committee—Part 6
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the question be agreed to.Ayes 72New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere.Noes 44New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.Motion agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the Minister's tabled amendments to clauses 164 223 and 276 of Supplementary Order Paper 389 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 72New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere.Noes 44New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.Amendments agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the Minister's amendments to Part 5 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 389 as amended be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 72New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere.Noes 44New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.Amendments agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Simon Court's amendment to clause 276(3)(b)(vi) set out on Supplementary Order Paper 387 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.The question is that Simon Court's amendment to clause 276(3)(c) set out on Supplementary Order Paper 388 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 44New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.Noes 72New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere.Amendment not agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That Part 5 as amended be agreed to.Ayes 72New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere.Noes 47New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2; Whaitiri.Part 5 as amended agreed to.
Natural and Built Environment Bill — In Committee—Part 5
Natural and Built Environment Bill — In Committee—Part 4
VoteCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the question be now put.Tama Potaka: Madam Chair!CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The member will not interrupt the Chair when I am ruling. Tama Potaka will stand withdraw and apologise.Tama Potaka: I withdraw and apologise.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): I'll put it again: the question is that the question be now put.A party vote was called for on the question That the question be now put.Ayes 72New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere.Noes 44New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.Motion agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the Minister's amendments to Part 4 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 389 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 72New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere.Noes 44New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.Amendments agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That Part 4 as amended be agreed to.Ayes 72New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere.Noes 47New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2; Whaitiri.Part 4 as amended agreed to.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the question be now put.Ayes 72New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere.Noes 47New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2; Whaitiri.Motion agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that the Minister's tabled amendments to clauses 44 and 75AB of Supplementary Order Paper 389 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 72New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere.Noes 44New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.Amendments agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Simon Court's amendment to Part 3 of Supplementary Order Paper 389 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 392 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 44New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.Noes 72New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere.Amendment not agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that the Minister's amendments to Part 3 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 389 as amended be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 72New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere.Noes 44New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.Amendments agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That Part 3 as amended be agreed to.Ayes 74New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Te Paati Māori 2; Whaitiri.Noes 44New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.Part 3 as amended agreed to.
Natural and Built Environment Bill — In Committee—Part 3
Tuesday 25 July 2023 - Volume 770
Natural and Built Environment Bill — In Committee—Part 2A
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the question be now put.Ayes 72New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere.Noes 44New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.Motion agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that Simon Court's amendment to Part 2A of Supplementary Order Paper 389 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 392 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 44New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.Noes 72New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere.Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the Minister's amendments to Part 2A set out on Supplementary Order Paper 389 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 72New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere.Noes 44New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.Amendments agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That Part 2A as amended be agreed to.Ayes 72New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere.Noes 47New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2; Whaitiri.Part 2A as amended agreed to.
VoteCHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that the Minister's amendments to Part 2 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 389 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 72New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere.Noes 44New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.Amendments agreed to.Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Point of order Mr Chair. It's really just to get some clarification from you in the Chair. Part 2A has some subparts as well. Is it your intention to take all of Part 2A or are you going to take it by subpart?CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): No. It will be all Part 2A so everything that—Hon Scott Simpson: Including the subparts?CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): —comes under that section; yes.A party vote was called for on the question That Part 2 as amended be agreed to.Ayes 72New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere.Noes 47New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2; Whaitiri.Part 2 as amended agreed to.
Natural and Built Environment Bill — In Committee—Part 2
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the question be now put.Ayes 72New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere.Noes 44New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.Motion agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that the Minister's tabled amendments to clauses 3A 5 and 7 on Supplementary Order Paper 389 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments to the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 72New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere.Noes 44New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.Amendments to the amendments agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Simon Court's amendments to Part 1 of Supplementary Order Paper 389 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 392 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments to the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 44New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.Noes 72New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere.Amendments to the amendments not agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that the Minister's amendments to Part 1 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 389 as amended be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 72New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere.Noes 44New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.Amendments agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Simon Court's amendment to the definition of infrastructure" in clause 7(1) set out on Supplementary Order Paper 386 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 44New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.Noes 72New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere.Amendment not agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That Part 1 as amended be agreed to.Ayes 72New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; KerekereNoes 47New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2; Whaitiri.Part 1 as amended agreed to."
Natural and Built Environment Bill — In Committee—Part 1
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the committee be instructed to consider and if it thinks fit adopt the amendments to the Local Government Electoral Legislation Bill set out on Supplementary Order Paper 367 in the name of the Hon Kieran McAnulty. Ayes 72New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere.Noes 44New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.Motion agreed to.DEPUTY SPEAKER: I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Natural and Built Environment Bill the Spatial Planning Bill and the Local Government Electoral Legislation Bill.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the motion be agreed to.Ayes 72New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere.Noes 44New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.Motion agreed to.
11. Question No. 11—Oceans and FisheriesRACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson) to the Minister for Oceans and FisheriesQuestion No. 11—Oceans and Fisheries11. RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson) to the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries: What recent announcement has she made regarding a new food industry for New Zealand?Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Minister for Oceans and Fisheries): On a recent visit to Nelson I was pleased to announce $750000 to help scientists and businesses look at which strains of microalgae might be suitable for including in foods like protein bars and shakes. Microalgae include single-celled organisms such as diatoms and dinoflagellates. They have caught the attention of scientists around the world for their extraordinary properties and potential to create an abundant high-quality natural protein source using only a fraction of the water land and time of other types of farming.Rachel Boyack: How will the funding announced by the Minister assist in development of this new industry?Hon RACHEL BROOKING: This funding is going towards a $1.5 million project with the Cawthron Institute marine engineering company Kernohan Engineering and biotechnology nutrition start-up NewFish. The project will see around 100 strains of microalgae from Cawthron's globally significant culture collection investigated for nutritional properties and ease of production that could open up new sustainable protein industries across Aotearoa New Zealand. NewFish will work with Kernohan Engineering to take the best microalgae strains and grow them at a commercial scale.Rachel Boyack: Why is this such an exciting announcement as a potential development for our food industry?Hon RACHEL BROOKING: What is so great about this project is that it brings together science food innovation and engineering to develop future food solutions. This collaborative approach can help provide nutritional and accessible food for everyone. Global food demand is expected to increase by 60 percent by 2050 and food security is threatened by issues like climate change geopolitics and pests and diseases. The most exciting part of this announcement is that it is a low-carbon protein which can be grown sustainably in bioreactors on land. It doesn't compete with other types of farming for arable land and grows fast with some doubling in size every day.Rachel Boyack: How does this announcement fit within other Government initiatives currently under way?Hon RACHEL BROOKING: The national Aquaculture Strategy aims to grow our aquaculture and to do more aquaculture on land. The Draft Fisheries Industry Transformation Plan highlights the importance of collaboration across the sector environmental sustainability and innovation. This project will be another step towards turning the industry transformation plan into action. The microalgae funding has come from the Sustainable Food and Fibre Futures fund. It is the Ministry for Primary Industries' flagship fund for the food and fibre sector. Since the fund was established in late 2018 the Government and sector have collectively invested almost $560 million in 263 projects across the supply chain.
9. Question No. 9—HealthDr SHANE RETI (National) to the Minister of HealthQuestion No. 9—Health9. Dr SHANE RETI (National) to the Minister of Health: How many times has her office requested officials delay the release of information as she described in the correction to her response to oral question No. 8 last Wednesday and when did she first receive any communication suggesting the answers she gave to question No. 8 were not accurate?Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Minister of Health): In answer to the first part of the question my staff member did not request the delay to the release of the information; my staffer asked the publication not to occur in the week of 5 July. In early June officials advised me that the due date for the release was to be 30 June. Towards the end of June officials asked for an extension of time because they could not meet the due date of 30 June. When advised it would be 5 July my staff member asked for it not to be that week. To the second part of the question as I already said last week in this House at approximately 4.30 p.m.Dr Shane Reti: Was one of the reasons the report was delayed because of observations that reporting of the performance data was poorly thought out badly executed and provided … little [information] … to the public anyway."?Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: No. As we canvassed in the House on Thursday last week it was because of the busy week of that week for which the release was—busy week that that office had in the week that the release was proposed for.Dr Shane Reti: Did other people in her office have knowledge of the request to delay the data release beyond the person she says contacted her at 4.30 p.m.; and if so how many people?Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: That relates to the delay in which that question was asked and the response was corrected in the House. Other political staff in my office would have known about the reply—about the correction—as we prepared to make it.Dr Shane Reti: Has she or her office also worked on delaying the release of the Ernst & Young review into the Māori Health Authority that she received over two months ago on 5 May?Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: No. That report as I have mentioned multiple times is under consideration. It will be released shortly.Dr Shane Reti: Can she give an assurance that all health performance measures will be regularly and accurately reported as we move towards an election campaign?Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: Yes. And that is why Te Whatu Ora went to such great lengths to make sure that their review into the issues that led to incorrect data being reported went into such detail and depth. It is a very good report and I hope the member is reassured there is a better platform for the provision of health data now."
Thursday 20 July 2023 - Volume 769
Legal Services Amendment Bill — Second Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Legal Services Amendment Bill be now read a second time.Ayes 85New Zealand Labour 62; ACT New Zealand 10; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Te Paati Māori 2; Kerekere; Whaitiri.Noes 34New Zealand National 34.Motion agreed to.Bill read a second time.
Lorck AnnaANNA LORCK (Labour—Tukituki): Thank you Madam Speaker. As a business owner I find it intriguing that there is an Opposition who thinks it is reasonable to not be able to attract good experienced people to your business because a competing business has a restraint of trade on workers who are earning less than $120000—where we have workers who are earning the minimum wage all the way through—and are unable to be attracted to a job because another business won't let them go. To me that is unreasonable. I find it insulting that the Opposition members think it's laughable.So the reason that I think we will see this bill proceed with such strength is that when we come to listening to submissions through this bill process we are going to hear some absolutely fascinating stories about where businesses have constrained people from working; where a business can employ someone for three months let them go and they can't go and do that same job for somebody else for six months. What is reasonable and fair about that?So the Opposition talk about business but they don't talk about growing business. They don't talk about how people learn and develop and upskill and go from job to job and keep growing. They don't talk about how businesses need to be able to attract staff. If you are a good employer you can retain staff. But you are also a good employer when you let staff go to jobs that they might want to go to—you should not hold them forever. Actually people advance through their careers when they are able to get new jobs. Sometimes those people actually come back after they've gained skills somewhere else. It's those sort of things that we can do to actually improve career development; where we can do more for helping and supporting competition which is great for business.But when I listened to the member who brought this bill Helen White and when I talked to her about it today I learnt so much more from her experience in dealing with clients who are in these situations. To think that a qualified early childhood education teacher is working for one company and she cannot—or he cannot—then go on to work for another company for six months. What's good about that? It's not about growing the business that's trying to hold the person back. It's about growing the person in a thriving way for a career that will in turn educate and grow the growing young minds of our nation.There is nothing wrong with competition. There is everything right in being able to support people to grow and develop in their career pathways. That reason is why I as a business owner will take absolute interest in this bill and also hearing from other businesses and other employees who have experienced this. I'm sure we will hear from those businesses that want to be able to protect confidentiality. Absolutely this bill still will protect confidentiality. But what it will do is enable people on lower wages to advance and not be inhibited from an employer they leave. With that I commend this bill to the House. Thank you Madam Speaker.
Omer IbrahimIBRAHIM OMER (Labour): Thank you Madam Speaker. It's great to rise in support of the Employment Relations (Restraint of Trade) Amendment Bill. Just to mention some of the comments that Mr Baillie made he said that the bill is if challenged in the courts unenforceable then he comes back and he says the new bill is unnecessary it's not going to doing anything—a bit controversial there.The restraint of trade in an employment agreement is a provision that stops an employee from working in their field in their area for a competitor after their employment has ended. In some jurisdictions this restraint of trade is known as a non-compete clause. Just for context the competition is where an employee is prevented from working in a similar field to their former employer's business. Non-solicitation is where a former employee is allowed to pick another job in the same industry but is restricted from contacting their former employer's clients about their new businesses. This is unjust it's unfair and it needs to go.This is what this bill is all about: it seeks to amend the Employment Relations Act 2000 to include a restraint of trade provision that will prohibit the use of restraints of trade in employment agreements for lower to middle income employees. For me this is the heart of this bill. This bill defines restraint of trade" broadly to include both non-competition clauses and non-solicitation clauses.The reality is restraints are usually made by people at the beginning of an employment relationship before they have an idea what they're signing up to which could turn out to be a nightmare. They sign whatever is put in front of them because they need to earn a living they need a job—they're desperate. This ends up disadvantaging them.It's hard to measure the true impact of this rule or this law in New Zealand due to the lack of data but we know many employees on a modest income choose to stay in low-paid work in order to abide by the restraint. This in turn depresses the wages and thieves innovation.To me Labour is all about protecting workers' rights and Labour will always make sure that workers get a fair deal by strengthening employment laws. This bill is part of the broader strategy to stand up for workers unlike the other side—it's always about business. Actually some of the things that you're arguing conceptually disadvantages businesses—[Interruption]ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Calm it down! Order!IBRAHIM OMER: It is in in the public interest that lower-paid employees should be free to take a job whenever they want however they see it and without any restriction.I want to commend Helen White for bringing this tonight. A lot of working people will be looking up and will be saying "Thank you Helen for bringing this for doing this." because this is going to mean a lot for a lot of employees—Hon Member: Are you talking to the House?IBRAHIM OMER: —and it's going to change—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Order! The member is addressing the House through the Chair.IBRAHIM OMER: Sorry Madam Speaker. In a nutshell this is a good bill. I commend it to the House."
Dean JacquiBill to be reported with amendment.House resumed.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Mr Speaker the committee has considered the Companies (Directors Duties) Amendment Bill and reports it with amendment. I move That the report be adopted.Motion agreed to.Report adopted.
Bayly AndrewANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Right last contribution. This bill has had widespread opposition and given that it costs $200 a minute to debate any bill in the House and particularly one that results in this level of change—which is virtually nothing—I'm going to close down and stop my contributions. But I just make the point: I think we're absolutely wasting our time. Virtually everyone who has been a participant in this process believes the same and has come to the same conclusion.
Smith Damien; Dean Jacqui; Belich CamillaDAMIEN SMITH (ACT): Madam Chair a point of order. I totally agree with the—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): No no no. Thank you. We are descending very quickly into disarray which I don't like. So I'm going to address the question is that the question be now put. Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is objection.CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you again to the members for their contributions. I'd just like to note for the member who said Why are we doing this?" and "We need to move on to something else." it is in fact the member's contributions that are preventing that very thing from happening.In terms of Mr Bayly's contribution which I feel I've addressed in some detail already in this committee stage the National Party who Mr Bayly is a member of has said in their very report in this very bill "we agree that there is benefit in corporate leaders taking into account ESG factors" This bill provides clarity and avoids doubt that they are able to do that."
Bayly AndrewANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Well I'm just fascinated with that member's contribution and I'm looking around and saying Who is this famous capitalist?" And I'm looking over—there's Mr Nash over there he looked like he was going to stand up. And now I look over to the other side and I see Andrew Little—I didn't think that was the case. Oh there's people on the backbench they're burying their heads over there; maybe a couple of them have changed their pecuniary interest. And then I spy someone over there—is that who you are referring to? The good member from Mt Roskill is it not?Hon Michael Wood: Yes and he'll be here after the election unlike that member.ANDREW BAYLY: Right. Oh that's good that the member for Mt Roskill acknowledged himself as a capitalist. Thank you.Hey so I want to go back. You're saying that you've made these changes—and I'm saying this to the member who's sponsoring the bill. Well I don't know whether you have sought—and now I'm using the word "sought" and I'm looking at the member—whether the member has actually sought independent advice on the proposed change that she put in her Supplementary Order Paper (SOP). But I actually overnight—because the member's SOP got lodged late last night I think or first thing this morning—went to a very well-known legal firm to ask their view of whether the change that you're proposing in your SOP what it meant for people. And the view comes back: this strengthens the virtual signalling—slightly comma slightly—and all the advice of the Office of the Clerk and all the recommendations of the Legislative Design and Advisory Committee these criticisms still remain valid. That was the view of a very senior partner in a very well-known law firm.So the member has dismissed the legal and all the people that made submissions. The other side of the coin did she have regard for the NZX—which has been developing a code of corporate governance which again the issues around having regard for a wider set of factors such as ESG factors which she's talked about. It is already embedded in good corporate governance so it is already there.So I keep asking the member why did she want to sponsor this bill and why has she made these changes when clearly the law already provides for it and permits directors to have regard for much wider issues or factors in making their decisions. There is good work being done in institutes like the institute of governance and also the NZX. So all that is already in place. And so I fail to understand why the member thinks this wording which talks about "may have regard to other factors" is so vitally important and why that is such a game-changer."
Smith DamienDAMIEN SMITH (ACT): This is a rubbish bill. This is unnecessary and I wonder if our greatest capitalist on the Labour side has been consulted on this bill because he knew that buying shares in the company at Auckland Airport was the right thing. It had nothing to do with stakeholder capitalism it had nothing to do with socialism it had nothing to do with environmental social and governance—and this isn't even effective in law. So why is this going through the House?I said to Duncan Webb right at the start this is the worst bill I've ever seen with regards to directors' duties. Every director in the country must be laughing at the Labour Party with this—must be laughing. What is the point of this bill? Let's move on to something more substantive and let's just get this rubbish out because it is a rubbish bill.
Belich CamillaClauses 1 to 4CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you to the member Andrew Bayly for that question. It is actually not one that I had considered may be put to me but I enjoyed considering the reasoning behind that while I had the opportunity as that member put the question to me. My response to the member would be that I don't think it is inconsistent with the idea of a duty to propose and clarify the matters that directors may consider and I think it is quite proper that title remains the same. And for that reason I didn't consider putting in a Supplementary Order Paper to change the title of the bill.
McLellan Tracey; Dean JacquiDr TRACEY McLELLAN (Junior Whip—Labour): I move that all provisions be taken as one question.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is none. In that case I will re-put the question. The question is that clauses 1 to 4 stand part.
Companies (Directors' Duties) Amendment Bill — In Committee—Clause 1
Dean Jacqui; Belich Camilla; Bayly AndrewCOMPANIES (DIRECTORS' DUTIES) AMENDMENT BILLIn CommitteeClause 1 TitleCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members the House is in committee on the Companies (Directors' Duties) Amendment Bill. We come first to clause 1 this is the debate on the title. The question is that clause 1 stand part.CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you Madam Chair. I'd just like to make a few brief comments on this committee stage of this member's bill the Companies (Directors' Duties) Amendment Bill. Just to acknowledge a few people that got this bill to where it is today: the original mover of the bill Duncan Webb; Rachel Brooking who had custody of this bill for a short period of time before entering the ministry; and also the Economic Development Science and Innovation Committee who worked very hard on this bill—and I want to acknowledge the work that they did and also the submissions that they heard which led to some substantial changes to the bill that members would have seen and that we debated in the second reading. Members will see that there is a Supplementary Order Paper in my name on this bill that just clarifies the matters that may be considered along with the very short bill that this is. So I'm happy to take any questions that members may have about the bill which as members will be able to see will be a very brief one—but I think an important one in terms of clarifying that directors are able to take into account other matters apart from profit in their duties. Members may ask what the purpose of this bill is and I would say the purpose is in the very first three words: To avoid doubt". So I look forward to answering any questions members may have.ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you Madam Chair. Just to be clear we are debating the title clause 1. Can I ask the member why on earth did we call it the Companies (Directors' Duties) Amendment Bill? Because with the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that's been proposed by the member which changes the purpose and the requirement on the directors away from a requirement because it talks about "may" and so let me just be clear about what her Supplementary Order Paper 396 says—I'm just going to read it in the proper context of what's written here: "To avoid doubt in considering the best interests … [that] a director may consider matters other than the maximisation of profit." That means it's not a duty it's not an obligation and therefore the heading is totally inappropriate because it doesn't talk about a duty. It may have when the bill was first introduced by the Hon Dr Webb but of course now we've ended up with a virtue-signalling bill that talks about an intention or a consideration that a director may have regard for and therefore it's not a duty as the title specifies. So I would love to know why the member didn't put up an SOP to change the title."
Annie Oxborough Birth Parents Registration Bill — Third Reading
Penk Chris; O'Connor GregThird ReadingCHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): I move That the Annie Oxborough Birth Parents Registration Bill be now read a third time. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to.Motion agreed to.Bill read a third time.DEPUTY SPEAKER: I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Companies (Directors' Duties) Amendment Bill.
Penk Chris; Dean Jacqui; O'Connor GregCHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you Madam Chair. I thank the member for his engagement earlier and I wish to assure the committee of the whole House that I don't intend to take many more opportunities to speak on the debate but I did want to put on record at least one more point. And obviously I'll engage with any other questions that come. That's just to acknowledge from the point of view of emphasising the point that this is a difficult and onerous process not only for the applicant herself but also it's absorbed a lot of time and energy and resources. Of course that's been perfectly appropriate but I would be remiss if I didn't acknowledge the work of certain colleagues including Jo Irain and also the staff in my electorate and community office Cheryl and Emily; those who have drafted the bill and worked with us in quite an iterative way to ensure that it was as good as possible; the policy advisers; those who provided procedural advice in terms of how the bill might be passed in this House. I acknowledge and thank them all.I also thank those whose advocacy has allowed this matter to come to my attention. There was a media piece by Duncan Garner and he noted that a contact of his—Mr Todd Muller—might be interested in taking on the matter. My colleague Mr Muller in turn got in touch with me and suggested that I may wish to take it on because Ms Oxborough was living—remains living in fact—in my own electorate of Kaipara ki Mahurangi. I do want to acknowledge all of those—and of course Annie herself. If this is the last opportunity that I have to speak on the matter then I do want to place on record my thanks to Annie. The courage that she has shown has been very impressive. I don't think it is an easy matter at all for some actually to approach their local MP about a matter that is important to them. In any case I think others in this House would agree that we should not be regarded as intimidating persons to approach regarding any matter of politics or policy. But the reality is that if there is a sense in which we are less accessible than we might be then I hope those listening will know that every member of this House I am sure would be grateful to have a conversation that is respectful and in good faith about things that are important to them whether locally or as a matter of national policy—that is to say nationwide". And certainly that's been my case my experience with this. Annie has come forward with courage she's allowed us to tell her story on her behalf and I thank her for it.Preamble and clauses 1 to 6 agreed to.Bill to be reported without amendment.House resumed.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Mr Speaker the committee has considered the Annie Oxborough Birth Parents Registration Bill and reports it without amendment. I move That the report be adopted.Motion agreed to.Report adopted.DEPUTY SPEAKER: In accordance with a determination of the Business Committee this bill is set down for third reading immediately.Chris Penk: Without debate Mr Speaker?DEPUTY SPEAKER: Without debate."
Annie Oxborough Birth Parents Registration Bill — In Committee
McDowall JamesDr JAMES McDOWALL (ACT): I move That the question be now put.
Boyack Rachel; Penk ChrisRACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Thank you Madam Chair. Thank you to the member in charge of the bill for introducing us to the committee stage and again I just wish to congratulate him on the work that he does to progress the bill through the House. I do have a couple of questions for the member because we have had some quite wide-ranging discussion in the second reading earlier today.One of the matters that has come to the attention of the House and that came to the attention of the select committee is about the application of this bill—and I note the comments that the member has just made—to other members of New Zealand and people who may have been affected in a similar way and who may wish to follow a similar approach.The question I had for the member is whether this bill also has the potential to apply to other people and any comment the member may wish to make around those who could also be seeking similar redress through the Parliament or through another process.CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you Madam Chair. It's a very helpful question. The member herself having participated very thoughtfully in the select committee process will be aware that this was a major point of discussion. We were careful not to imply that there was any greater direct significance to the case of others but she'll recall that we discussed—and I think it's helpful to put on record now hence my gratitude for the question—that it would be only in an indirect way that this would be useful for others which is to say that if this puts on the political agenda—or the policy agenda I should perhaps say—the idea that this is an area in which we need to pay some attention as a country I think that will be useful. Not only does the bill itself not apply to others it is a private—in that sense a private bill". It is also the case that even in terms of Annie Oxborough's own situation it is narrow in the sense that it is only to amend her birth record from which a birth certificate could be made and it doesn't affect for example any rights of succession that she might have or any other legal rights in relation to family links and ties.I suppose while I'm on my feet again in the committee stage I should point out that the motivation for different people in this situation will be different. We heard as a committee for example that for some people it is the much more practical reality that would drive them towards such a solution were that generally available. I refer specifically to the gentleman who noted that he himself had been adopted that he has a child now who was diagnosed with a life-threatening genetic condition and he made the point to us quite movingly that had he known his own biological links and history—or whakapapa as we might say—then he would have been able to seek medical help for his son sooner understanding more fully the implications of that lineage literally in the blood sense knowing where had come from and what that might mean for his own offspring medically speaking."
Dean Jacqui; Bennett DavidIn CommitteePreamble and clauses 1 to 6CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members the House is in committee on the Annie Oxborough Birth Parents Registration Bill. First we come to the preamble. This is the debate on the preamble. The question is that the preamble stand part.Hon DAVID BENNETT (National): Point of order. I move that the provisions be read as one. CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is none. The question is that the preamble and clauses 1 to 6 stand part.
Annie Oxborough Birth Parents Registration Bill — Second Reading
Sosene Lemauga LydiaLEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE (Labour): Thank you Mr Speaker. I rise to make a short contribution to the Annie Oxborough Birth Parents Registration Bill and I am really pleased that I'm able to take this opportunity. I begin my short contribution by thanking the member Chris Penk for bringing this matter to the House. I am not a member of the Governance and Administration Committee and I do thank and acknowledge the select committee for their work. I also want to thank Annie Oxborough not just for her determination and her perseverance but her aroha in wanting to know her whakapapa which is really important as a New Zealand citizen—it is her birthright to know and to have the accurate records in terms of her birth certificate reflect it. And I really support her journey through that because under the current law as we've heard from our colleagues it does not reflect that.So respectfully we've heard contributions from our members across the House that adoption—it's actually quite a huge topic. In this day and age we are in quite a different circumstance in terms of whānau and families and especially individuals such as Annie who want to have the rightful words on their birth certificate.Just lastly this is a huge issue for Pasifika communities who have not had the courage or not had the education in terms of this issue on their birth certificates. So respectfully the Adoption Act does need to be updated. And I want to congratulate Annie Oxborough for her courage in bringing this to the House via Mr Penk. On that note I commend this bill to the House.