edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
VoteCHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question that the member's amendment to Part 1 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 361 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 109New Zealand Labour 62; New Zealand National 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Te Paati Māori 2; Kerekere; Whaitiri.Noes 10ACT New Zealand 10.Amendment agreed to.Part 1 as amended agreed to.
Deposit Takers Bill — In Committee—Part 1
11. Question No. 11—EducationPENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill) to the Associate Minister of EducationQuestion No. 11—Education11. PENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill) to the Associate Minister of Education: Is she confident that the Government's early childhood education announcement on Monday has adequately responded to the concerns of the sector who had previously described it as unworkable" and if so why?Hon JO LUXTON (Associate Minister of Education): Yes. I have met with sector representatives three times since Budget day. They made clear that the funding condition of particular concern was the requirement for services to allow enrolment for only 20 early childhood hours if parents requested this. This has now been removed.Penny Simmonds: Is Early Childhood NZ chief executive Kathy Wolfe correct when she said of the Government's alleged solution on Monday that "their solution is partial and clear as mud." and the sector needs "certainty not vagueness"; if not why is Ms Wolfe incorrect?Hon JO LUXTON: As I said in my answer to the first question I have met with sector representatives three times since Budget day. At the second meeting I asked them to clarify to me what the particular sticky issue for them was and it was the requirement to enrol for 20 hours if requested by parents. They said that some of them already do publicly provide their fees and they were willing to work with the ministry to allow greater transparency around that. So it was purely the 20 hours that was the main sticking point for them and they confirmed this to me at the second meeting I attended.Penny Simmonds: Does the Minister understand that the 20 hours free policy has never worked for home-based early childhood education (ECE) providers as it directly contradicts the role of an educator as a self-employed contractor and it leaves their income level not viable without optional charges?Hon JO LUXTON: I've also met with the home-based sector who shared their concerns with me and have asked officials to go away and do some work on that which the Minister and I will be taking into consideration.Penny Simmonds: Why is the Minister ploughing on imposing this ill-thought-through policy that 90 percent of the ECE sector opposes at a time the sector is chronically short-staffed thousands of children are stuck on wait-lists and many ECE providers are on the brink of closure?Hon JO LUXTON: This Government is committed to reducing financial pressures on families during this tough economic time and the way to do that was to reduce fees in the early childhood sector and reduce barriers to early childhood education."
10. Question No. 10—ForestryANGELA ROBERTS (Labour) to the Minister of ForestryQuestion No. 10—Forestry10. ANGELA ROBERTS (Labour) to the Minister of Forestry: How is the Government empowering communities when it comes to the planting of forests?Hon PEENI HENARE (Minister of Forestry): Last week this Government delivered on its 2020 election commitment to tighten up rules on farm to forestry conversions by giving communities greater control over the planting of forests. We are empowering local councils who will work alongside their community to decide which land can be used for plantation forests which are forests that are intended to be harvested or carbon forests which are forests that the landowner intends to farm for carbon. This moves away from a system where councils and communities had limited tools to deal with farms being purchased explicitly for conversion into forestry. I believe forestry has a role in our economy and environmental measures to address climate change and this announcement ensures that the forestry sector maintains its social licence working alongside our communities.Angela Roberts: What's the significance of this announcement for rural communities?Hon PEENI HENARE: The devastation that unfolded at Te Tairāwhiti and Hawke's Bay during Cyclone Gabrielle was a stark reminder of what can happen if we get land-use settings wrong. Today's changes help us towards addressing the findings and recommendations of the recent ministerial inquiry into land use and these changes are about getting the right tree in the right place for the right reason. I have seen fewer pine forests planted on high-productivity farmland and more pine forests being planted on less productive land. It is the view of this Government that we have got the balance right. This Government acknowledges that both farming and forestry have a bright future under this Government.Angela Roberts: How will this change benefit the environment?Hon PEENI HENARE: Climate change is here. Amendments to the National Environmental Standards for Plantation Forestry otherwise known as the NES-PF will see the environmental effects of carbon forests being managed the same way as plantation forests. This means many standards such as ensuring rules around riparian planting will now be required for any new forestry conversions which will include carbon forests. We have heard and acted on the real concerns especially from regions such as Te Tairāwhiti Wairoa and the Tararua district about the scale of exotic carbon forestry happening and the potential impact to the environment and on rural communities.Angela Roberts: How is this announcement being received around the country?Hon PEENI HENARE: On Wednesday last week I attended Fieldays 2023 at Mystery Creek where the general response to the announcement was very positive. In fact in their words we took the wind out of National's sails and they're looking forward to National revisiting their policy on forestry—SPEAKER: Order! Order! The Minister ought to know that he can't use supplementaries to criticise the Opposition.
9. Question No. 9—PoliceHon MARK MITCHELL (National—Whangaparāoa) to the Minister of PoliceQuestion No. 9—Police9. Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Whangaparāoa) to the Minister of Police: Does she stand by her statement It is my view that New Zealanders feel safer"; if so why?Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Minister of Police): I stand by my full statement at the time it was given: "It is my view that New Zealanders feel safer with a Government on track to deliver 1800 extra Police." This includes approximately 270 authorised officers who work in specialist areas tackling crime. Authorised officers have been counted in constabulary numbers since the introduction of a Policing Act in 2008. The inclusion of authorised officers in the 1800 was made by the police Minister at the time of the announcement and was included in the proactively released Cabinet paper. To the second part of the member's question I quote the National Party: "Authorised officers in the right areas will speed up and make our criminal justice system more effective efficient and put the right resources in the right places at the right time."Hon Mark Mitchell: So in light of that answer does the Minister now want to correct her answer to the House that there were 1800 new front-line beat officers?Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: I refer the member to my primary question. SPEAKER: Do you want to correct that?Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: Sorry. I refer the member to my primary answer.Hon Mark Mitchell: How does the Minister define a "beat officer"?Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: The front line of crime has changed over time and I consider chasing the money taking assets off criminals and crippling criminal networks to be an effective tool; and that is exactly what these authorised officers are able to do. I'm sure it's for this reason that National propose to expand and increase the use of authorised officers in this document [Holds up document].Hon Mark Mitchell: Can the Minister tell us where she found the definition of a beat officer or is it her own definition?Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: If the member would like to refer to the Policing Act where constabulary numbers were defined and counted for the nine years that member was in Government under the same definition."
7. Question No. 7—HealthDr SHANE RETI (National) to the Minister of HealthQuestion No. 7—Health7. Dr SHANE RETI (National) to the Minister of Health: How many people on surgical waiting lists have had the equity adjuster applied and how many received an improved prioritisation with a contribution from the ethnicity component?Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Minister of Health): I am advised that all specialities in the Auckland district have been using the algorithm tool since February 2023 for treatments. It is estimated that over 10000 patients will have had the equity adjuster applied. I am also advised that due to the complexity of the algorithm being made up of clinical priority and time spent on the wait-list rurality ethnicity and deprivation level Te Whatu Ora is unable to estimate how many patients have received an improved prioritisation just due to the ethnicity component alone. However it is important to note as we canvassed in the House yesterday that the most influential factor on how a patient is scheduled is how sick they are as determined by their doctor and clinical priority remains a primary element.Dr Shane Reti: Have clinicians discriminated against Māori and Pasifika on surgical waiting lists given the Prime Minister's assertions that for the same clinical need Māori and Pasifika have waited longer and that is discrimination"?Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: I refer that member to the press release put out yesterday by the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons who are obviously intimately involved in this area and it does mention that unconscious bias can affect how patients are assessed and how long they spend on the wait-list.Dr Shane Reti: Are wait times deprivation levels and rurality collectively better measures of inequity than ethnicity; if not why not?Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: I believe there is decades of evidence that shows that ethnicity is an independent predictor of health outcome in New Zealand.Dr Shane Reti: What factors will she take into account to determine if the equity adjuster is creating new discrimination as requested of her by the Prime Minister?Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: I have asked officials to prepare a plan for how that evaluation will be undertaken.Hon Kelvin Davis: Does she agree with the statement that "to the entitled equity looks like discrimination"?Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: It is clear to me that for decades we have had inequitable healthcare in this country and that we have been working on this problem for decades. In fact multiple Governments have been working on this problem and yet we have not been able to fix the issue and more needs to be done.Hon Marama Davidson: What is the Minister's response to a quote from a health expert who says "But more to the point some of the health gaps are not explained by socio-economic status or any other factor other than ethnicity. Māori experience systematic health disadvantage because of their ethnicity."?Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: That is also my understanding of the evidence and that is what I mean by my response to the previous question—that ethnicity is an independent and strong predictor of your outcome in the New Zealand health system."
5. Question No. 5—Energy and ResourcesNAISI CHEN (Labour) to the Minister of Energy and ResourcesQuestion No. 5—Energy and Resources5. NAISI CHEN (Labour) to the Minister of Energy and Resources: What actions is the Government taking to drive the uptake of hydrogen?Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Energy and Resources): In Budget 2023 our Government introduced a $100 million contract for difference to stimulate the production of hydrogen at point of consumption. This will allow the growth of a hydrogen industry in New Zealand.Naisi Chen: How will the $100 million hydrogen rebate support the uptake of green hydrogen?Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The Government's green hydrogen consumption rebate will bridge the price gap between fossil fuels and green hydrogen to support the early adopters to reduce their emissions by 150000 tonnes of carbon equivalent to cancelling out the emissions of hundreds of trucks. This initiative will help make green hydrogen a financially viable option as the industry develops and drives down emissions in our hard-to-abate sectors as part of the Government's broader plan to decarbonise the New Zealand economy.Naisi Chen: How will the Government's hydrogen rebate support New Zealand's just transition regions?Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Our just transitions regions Southland and Taranaki will directly benefit from the Government's hydrogen rebate. Hydrogen businesses will be required to build partnerships in these regions to create good jobs build skills and develop local supply chains. This will support regional resilience. It will also enable decarbonisation in hard-to-abate sectors and the development of new renewable generation supporting a just transition.Naisi Chen: How else is the Government driving the uptake of green hydrogen?Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The Government is committed to working closely with innovative New Zealand businesses to test trial and build out the kit needed for a hydrogen economy. Examples of these partnerships include working with HW Richardson to convert six trucks to dual-fuel hydrogen vehicles and supporting Hiringa Energy to develop a hydrogen refuelling network covering the routes taken by 80 percent of freight volume.
McKee Nicole; Dean JacquiNICOLE McKEE (ACT): Thank you Madam Speaker. ACT stands in support of Simon Watts' amendment to the motion that has been put extending the report-back date from 27 July to 19 November. When we look at the days between now and 27 July it's actually 34 days. I do dispute what the honourable member from Labour Dr Duncan Webb has just said to us: that it's a minor adjustment to the number of entities. Actually going from four to 10 is not minor. When we're looking at assets that belong to the people of New Zealand one would think that they actually deserve the time to be heard. I believe as I presume my ACT colleagues will as well as National have that that is not sufficient time. We are having a number of bills come through the House that have been truncated and this is another one. Because we are talking about issues that belong to the people they deserve to have that full time.It is confusing after all. We now have three bills going through the House and if it's confusing for those in the House it's got to be doubly confusing for those at home who do not understand what is going on. Having a continuation of bills going through the House with shortened periods of debate time and submission time and hearing time for those people is unethical in some respects because we're not allowing those people to have a voice. We really need to have true public consultation when we're looking at confiscating public assets.We are looking to implement this within two years so to actually make this bill go through in a quicker time does not make sense as one of my colleagues has said before. By moving it out to 19 November we can get through the election we still have the bill sitting on the Order Paper and we can still work through the process while paying respect to the people of New Zealand who will look to have their assets being seized. So it's a quick call from me but I do want to say that on behalf of the ACT Party we do appreciate the initiative of our colleague Simon Watts and the National Party. We do get in behind and fully support them and believe that this is something that the people of New Zealand would also expect from the parliamentarians that are representing them and that is the ability for all of their voices to be heard in a reasonable time in a reasonable way and in front of the proper select committee to deal with it. ACT does support the amended motion that has gone through and we hope that other parties will stand in support as well. Thank you.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members this debate is interrupted and set down for resumption next sitting day. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday 27 June 2023.Debate interrupted.The House adjourned at 5.57 p.m.
Webb DuncanHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Thank you Madam Speaker. I just want to make clear the reasons why this truncated select committee process is sought by the Minister. First of all these are not wholesale changes. It's a very similar framework with some relatively minor adjustments including to the number of entities and some representative body matters. There is a need to get on with this. We want to see this implemented and it's absolutely necessary that the local bodies understand exactly what the rules are as they transition and the new entities are stood up. The Minister in this case the Hon Kieran McAnulty has very widely and in an exemplary manner consulted on the proposals and therefore the select committee process which is proposed is more than satisfactory to address the issues that will be before the committee. Thank you Madam Speaker.
McAnulty KieranInstruction to Governance and Administration CommitteeHon KIERAN McANULTY (Minister of Local Government): Thank you Madam Speaker. I move That the Water Services Entities Amendment Bill be reported to the House by 27 July 2023 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions) during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House and outside the Wellington area despite Standing Orders 193 195 and 196.The shortened select committee report-back date will ensure that we are able to provide legislative certainty to the local government sector around long-term planning in particular.
Bennett GlenGLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth): Kia ora Madam Speaker. Well this evening I have heard nothing from the National Party about what they are going to do when they talk about repealing and this bonfire they plan to have which I don't think they're going to have around what they are going to do in terms of what we're going to do with the three waters—nothing. All they've presented is negativity and what they're against not what they stand for and that's all we see time and time again. That's why we have a plan and we plan to implement it. I commend this bill to the House.
White HelenHELEN WHITE (Labour): Thank you. It's been a pleasure to be involved in the process of listening to the other submissions etc. and dealing with the other water entities bills on the Finance and Expenditure Committee. I'm actually very pleased to see it move to another committee as it's time we had a fresh set of eyes on this one. Share the love I say! This is the Water Services Entities Amendment Bill and it's actually really simple. It's a case of the Minister listening to the communities taking into account the misgivings over the amount of entities changing the number to 10 so that there can be more involvement by the local bodies and making sure that that representation is the expectation. That's a really good thing because it's making sure that that balance is right. When we had the floods in Auckland—I live on a park and the park is about 10 acres and it is a zone where floods are supposed to come into the park. I've lived there for about 29 years and I have never seen that happen but when I woke up that morning it was actually a proper lake and there were people who came to the park to swim in that water. I really worried about what was going to happen next because the sewage is not dealt with appropriately there and so they were swimming in water that was really suspect. So this isn't just a problem for Hawke's Bay; this is a problem throughout our country and it remains a problem for Auckland despite having a much better system in Auckland than elsewhere. So the best of the model of water care comes across here to a water reform which we do sorely need. I think that was conceded today by Chris Bishop who actually accepted there needed to be change. Sometimes these changes are rough: there are misgivings; there's fear. Hopefully this amendment means that people feel that they are actually more involved than they had felt and it strikes the right balance. I commend the Minister for his efforts here and speaking to his community and coming back and I support this bill.
Boyack RachelRACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): We have heard it all today from the National Party. First of all we've had Chris Bishop stand up and say The National Party supports reform and believes in reform." Then we've had Sam Uffindell stand up and say—and I quote—"a strange thing to hang your hat on" and then talk about his community and why his community doesn't require reform.Throughout this entire debate around water infrastructure over the past couple of years the National Party have done two things: they have flip-flopped on their position back and forth—back and forth—and then they have stoked misinformation and fear amongst our communities about what the reform programme is seeking to achieve. So I'm going to talk about my community of Nelson because my community of Nelson has done an excellent of job of investing in water services. But—and I'm going to say "but"—a lot of that infrastructure was invested in a very very long time ago. We saw the impact of that last year in the Nelson floods where some of our infrastructure failed and continues to fail when we have heavy weather events. It's not to say that we haven't invested; we have. However the cost of continuing to sweat that asset will be far too great for our community and for the people who come in the generations after us.What this bill seeks to address is one of the issues that was raised around the nature of the entities. We will be moving from four large entities down to 10 entities. One of the critical pieces of this reform is the need—which is something that the National Party have not addressed—for us to have balance sheet separation so that we can actually have a step removed from the councils who are unable to invest. It's not that a lot of them haven't wanted to invest; it's that the system has not been set up in a way to enable them to do so.This bill continues our good work of reform to ensure that we do address the thing that we do need to hang our hat on and that is that people in this country have died from drinking poor quality water. That is actually fundamentally what is at the heart of it: affordable water that is safe to drink and that supports our communities. I commend this bill to the House."
Rosewarne Dan; Dean JacquiDAN ROSEWARNE (Labour): Madam Speaker thank you very much. It's my pleasure to speak and take a call on the Water Services Entities Amendment Bill. I just want to thank the Hon Kieran McAnulty for bringing this important piece of legislation to the House because this bill is all about improving infrastructure across New Zealand.Especially after decades-long underfunding our water network is in a poor condition and Dr David Clark in his contribution raised the point around people getting sick as a result of poor water quality. In 2020—Matt Doocey: Green sludge coming out of the taps—remember?DAN ROSEWARNE: Well I see the member for Waimakariri there has woken up. While he's been sleeping in the Waimakariri electorate I've been mowing his grass like a Masport lawnmower picking up all his constituency work.I just want to raise the point that I live in Woodend which is in Waimakariri—just for the member of Waimakariri there it's just north of Kaiapoi. In my home of Waimakariri rates would have gone up by as much as $4900 by the year 2054—$4900. But under this new system we will save $2470 so it's going to be half the cost if we go through with these reforms. This is a fantastic bill and I commend it to the House.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Sam Uffindell—a five-minute call.
Twyford PhilHon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): Thank you Madam Speaker. That was the longest definition of a Clayton's policy—a policy that's not actually a policy. I've never heard so much hot air put out into the debating chamber in the explanation of a policy that is essentially a defence of the status quo. Christopher Bishop claims to support all the underlying imperatives the policy drivers of reform but actually National doesn't want to do anything. I'm sorry; I should be surprised by this but it's happened too many times. I want to credit Kieran McAnulty for the refocus that this bill actually brings to the policy. Kieran McAnulty listened to what the public was saying. He listened to what local government was saying. This bill contains some important changes: 10 entities instead of four; longer lead times for all the entities except for Auckland; regional representative groups that will now be able to accommodate every district council in New Zealand; and a locally led streamlined merger process. This bill contains some important tweaks to the affordable water reforms. I want to say as an Auckland MP that these reforms cannot come fast enough. Where I live in West Auckland every time there's heavy rainfall raw sewage is pumped into Te Wai-o-Pareira the waterway that runs right through the middle of my electorate. Why? Because for decades successive councils simply haven't invested in enough waste-water infrastructure. Why did thousands of people in Auckland get hit by catastrophic floods on the anniversary weekend earlier this year? Because our stormwater completely failed because successive councils have not invested adequately in stormwater infrastructure or the designs and the modern approaches to stormwater management that are necessary.Under this bill we will see specialist water entities with more robust balance sheets and the ability to borrow nearly three times as much to make the investments that are necessary. There's a strong legislative mandate to deal with these issues—all three of the waters—and with a regulator looking over their shoulder to keep them honest and keep them focused on the job at hand. I commend this bill to the House.
Clark DavidWATER SERVICES ENTITIES AMENDMENT BILLFirst ReadingDebate resumed.Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin): In 2017 together with the Hon David Parker I received the second Havelock North report which had been commissioned by the previous Government—I believe by the Hon Chris Finlayson. It told a story of tens of thousands of New Zealanders getting sick every year from preventable causes indeed through being exposed to drinking water that was not up to scratch. One of the things that I found most shocking when I read that report was actually getting into the appendices where there were lists of headlines from exposure cases to poor drinking water that had occurred during the period in which the report was written. This is a very real issue that we have in New Zealand and this Government's reform programme is one that I am proud to support. We're facing a $185 billion bill to bring our water services infrastructure up to the required standards and achieving scale is an important part of that reform programme.This bill is a bill which shows the Government has listened to communities as a result having 10 entities rather than four. It will mean that every council will also have representation in the entities' regional groups and voices will be heard. So it strikes a balance making sure that local voices are heard and also achieves scale sufficient to make sure that the bills that will otherwise occur are at a local level not so extreme as they would be under for example the proposal that the National Party has brought forward. Moving from 67 different water service providers to just 10 means the new entities will have the increased size necessary to improve access to funding and management of water services to secure the benefits of reform for New Zealanders including affordability. I do want to say that this listening is important. That is something that the Hon Kieran McAnulty has led and I find it shocking when the other side of the House argues that we should maintain the status quo. They argue against this bill and their approach really in my view has absolutely no credibility. It is the status quo. There is no council in the country that thinks the status quo is a good idea. National seem content to leave New Zealanders facing rates rises in the thousands while a 67-entity structure is incapacitated by debt and that is something that no New Zealander wants. I think ultimately—[Interruption] You can hear them; they are so out of touch. They're like a bunch of middle-aged bald men driving around in their wives' Government-subsidised Teslas looking for an opportunity to reintroduce charges for contraception. I commend this bill to the House.
Davis KelvinAMENDED ANSWERS TO ORAL QUESTIONSQuestion No. 12 to MinisterHon KELVIN DAVIS (Minister for Children): I seek leave to make a personal explanation to correct an answer to a supplementary question that I gave today in answer to oral question No. 12.DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is there any objection? There is none.Hon KELVIN DAVIS: I advised the House that on 8 June the chief executive of Oranga Tamariki told my adviser who then told me about an incident in an Oranga Tamariki residence. This is accurate for the incident I was notified of on 16 June but not 8 June. I'd therefore like to correct the statement and advise the House that on 8 June my office and I were informed of this incident at the same time directly by the chief executive of Oranga Tamariki in a joint phone call.
Water Services Entities Amendment Bill — First Reading
Parker DavidHon DAVID PARKER (Attorney-General): Thank you Mr Speaker. I have followed some of this debate from my office and there's really not much more to be said. So I'll just emphasise a small number of points and leave it at that. I think it is true that members on all sides of this House and the New Zealand public expect high standards from Ministers of the Crown and we uphold them in New Zealand and that's one of the reasons why New Zealand ranks highest in the world in the anti-corruption—or you know lowest levels of corruption index for the world. We maintain that ranking by when we find examples of behaviour that doesn't meet those high standards people pay a high price for them and that has occurred here. So whilst we don't believe that Michael Wood acted in any of his decisions in a way that was intended to profit himself or his family personally and indeed these shareholdings are at a level where it's hard to think that one would be influenced in that way—and I'm grateful that other members in the House in the Opposition have acknowledged that point. I think it's important to Michael Wood that we don't overstate what has happened here to the extent of inferring that he did act with personal gain but he did not act appropriately in respect of his conflicts of interest. Final thing I would say is that I've taken over the transport portfolio and I've already had quite a large number of meetings with senior people involved in the quite complex structures that we have around transport and without fail all of them have noted to me that they take no pleasure in this because they have found him a competent and hard-working Minister as the Prime Minister has said.But that said that doesn't excuse the events that brought this to a head and led to proffering his resignation in the light that his position had become untenable. And with those remarks I will take my seat.The debate having concluded the motion lapsed.
Urgent Debates — Ministerial Resignation—Hon Michael Wood
Rurawhe AdrianURGENT DEBATESMinisterial Resignation—Hon Michael Wood SPEAKER: Members I have received letters from David Seymour and Christopher Luxon seeking to debate under Standing Order 399 the resignation of the Hon Michael Wood as a Minister. The applications were received on Wednesday 21 June but I indicated that I would consider them today in light of giving priority to another urgent debate application yesterday. This is a particular case of recent occurrence for which there is ministerial responsibility. The resignation of a Minister will not always lead to an urgent debate—Speakers' ruling 207/5. After weighing up the circumstances and the public interest in ministerial probity I have decided to grant the application. David Seymour's application was received first. Therefore I call on David Seymour or another member on his behalf to move that the House take note of a matter of urgent public importance.
Rurawhe AdrianPETITIONS PAPERS SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLSSPEAKER: A petition has been delivered to the Clerk for presentation.CLERK: Petition of MyMahi requesting that the House take action to make opening a bank account more accessible for people aged under 18 years old.SPEAKER: That petition stands referred to the Petitions Committee. No papers have been delivered for presentation. Select committee reports have been delivered for presentation. CLERK: Report of the Education and Workforce Committee on the Education Review Office Long-Term Insights Briefing 2023report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the Supplementary Estimates of Appropriations for the year ending 30 June 2023report of the Health Committee on the 2021-22 annual review of the Hawke's Bay District Health Boardreport of the Intelligence and Security Committee on the Supplementary Estimates of Appropriations for Vote Communications Security and Intelligence and Vote Security Intelligence for the year ending 30 June 2023report of the Social Services and Community Committee on the Accessibility for New Zealanders Bill.SPEAKER: The bill is set down for second reading. The Long-Term Insights Briefing is set down for consideration. No bills have been introduced.
Robertson Grant; Woodhouse MichaelBUSINESS STATEMENTHon GRANT ROBERTSON (Leader of the House): Legislation to be considered next week will include the remaining stages of the Appropriation (2022/23 Supplementary Estimates) Bill together with all stages of the Imprest Supply (First for 2023/24) Bill the first reading of the Ngāti Tara Tokanui Claims Settlement Bill second readings of the Therapeutic Products Bill and the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill the committee stage of the Fuel Industry Amendment Bill the third readings of the Charities Amendment Bill and the Worker Protection (Migrant and Other Employees) Bill and the remaining stages of the Deposit Takers Bill. Wednesday will be a members' day and as advised to the Business Committee there will be an extended sitting of the House on Thursday morning.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): I thank the Leader of the House for that update. I know we started this year one members' day shy given the events of December and I'm not entirely sure we have caught that up. So notwithstanding that and knowing that the Government has an ambitious plan to get its legislation through before 31 August can he reassure the House that there will be the requisite number of members' days between now and then?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Leader of the House): I thank the shadow Leader of the House for his intervention. I'll certainly go back and check where we've got to and I'm happy to have a discussion about that matter at the Business Committee next week.
O'Connor GregTHURSDAY 22 JUNE 2023The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.KARAKIA/PRAYERSGREG O'CONNOR (Deputy Speaker): Almighty God we give thanks for the blessings which have been bestowed on us. Laying aside all personal interests we acknowledge the King and pray for guidance in our deliberations that we may conduct the affairs of this House with wisdom justice mercy and humility for the welfare and peace of New Zealand. Amen.
Report of the Committee of the whole House
O'Connor Greg; Salesa JennyREPORT OF THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE HOUSECHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Madam Speaker the committee has considered the Deposit Takers Bill and reports progress. I move That the report be adopted.Motion agreed to.Report adopted.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): The Deposit Takers Bill and the Fuel Industry Amendment Bill are set down for further consideration in committee next sitting day. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow. Pō mārie.The House adjourned at 9.56 p.m.
O'Connor GregCHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The time has come for me to report progress on this bill.Progress to be reported.House resumed.
Smith DamienDAMIEN SMITH (ACT): I'd like to refer the Minister to clause 79 Part 3—the examples on convertible debt securities. I don't want to read out the whole definition because it's quite extensive but in terms of that billion dollar figure how is the maths done on that from a bail-in standard point of view?
Smith Damien; Robertson GrantDAMIEN SMITH (ACT): Minister do you think it's worth including that definition extension in the bill?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): No I don't.
Smith Damien; Robertson GrantDAMIEN SMITH (ACT): On clause 74 Minister of Part 3 I just wanted to ask you some advice on the example that's contained within the bill that differing lending standards may apply to lending to customers in different geographical areas. What exactly does that means?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I will get some advice from officials just to make sure I do get this right but I'm currently involved in an interesting situation around this which is the impacts of Cyclone Gabrielle and the Auckland anniversary weekend floods. And from time to time circumstances arise where you will see different treatment of different customers in different parts of the country depending on what they've been going through. And that I can see right now as I'm working with banks and others around how we find our way to a position where we can support all of the rebuild and recovery that that would be an example but I will check with officials just to confirm that is an example of what they meant.
O'Connor GregPart 3 Regulation of deposit takersCHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Members we come now to Part 3. This is the debate on clauses 59 to 94 Regulation of deposit takers". The question is that Part 3 stand part."
Halbert Shanan; O'Connor GregSHANAN HALBERT (Junior Whip—Labour): I seek leave for the remaining provisions to be taken as one question.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Bayly Andrew; Robertson GrantANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you but I think that's a flying good leap of an answer. But if we're talking about conduct you've got Conduct of Financial Institutions (CoFI) and you've got the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act (CCCFA). As the Minister of Finance knows very well CCCFA is administered by the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment and the Commerce Commission and then the CoFI is administered by the Financial Markets Authority (FMA). So both of them are conduct ones. I can understand if it's in relation to CoFI but that doesn't then pick up why the CCCFA. And I'm not sure that's a reason why they would be actually seeking advice from the FMA. I don't know whether you've got an answer.OK well I'll just carry on with the second one while the Minister's getting that answer. The second one is in Subpart 4 clause 26 Licenced deposit taker must obtain Bank's approval before new director or senior manager is appointed". That's all pretty clear but what's a senior manager? Is a senior manager a CEO or does it go down a level? If we take a large bank one of our top four you know senior management might be a head of institutional banking and there might be seven at that level—retail banking whatever if you look at a general banking structure. But in a non-bank deposit taker you might find there's a much more streamlined simplified management structure. So just quite keen to understand: what is "senior manager"?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I'm pleased Mr Bayly—you know he's worked on this bill for a while but if he just takes a little time to go to page 29 of the reported-back bill he'll find quite an extensive definition of the term "senior manager" there. I don't propose to respond to all of Mr Bayly's questions about definitions that already exist in the bill and I can confirm to him that the reason that the Financial Markets Authority is there is because the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act really doesn't apply so the Commerce Commission wouldn't be interested in being there."
Bayly Andrew; Robertson GrantANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you Mr Chair. You're very generous tonight.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): You're very eager Mr Bayly!ANDREW BAYLY: Ha ha! On Part 2 obviously it really deals with the issue of issuing of licences and then an issue around validating and making sure that directors and senior officers are appropriate people.The first thing I just want to ask—it's just a technical point. Clause 20 just to help the Minister Consultation requirements". I think it's in relation to overseas people applicants because it all seems to be in that relation—clause 18 is all about overseas applicants. First question: is it written in relation to overseas—or whether it's domestic applicants?But the "Consultation requirements": "The Bank must before making a decision under section 17 consult—(a) the FMA; and (b) the applicant about the conditions and standards that the Bank proposes to impose in relation to the applicant (if the Bank issues a licence)."Anyone in this sector is designated or regulated financial institutions and of course the Minister will know what that means being a technical term. As regulated financial institutions all everyone in this group who would be applying for a licence here would be under the jurisdiction and auspices of the Reserve Bank. So my specific question is: what would be the objective and requirements of consulting with the Financial Markets Authority (FMA)? What information would the bank be seeking from the FMA in terms of this consultation? So there's two little parts to that if that's OK. The first one: is it domestic or is it just overseas? And then: what is the type of information that will be sought from the FMA and why would they be making a recommendation?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): In answer to the first one I think if the member looks he'll see that clause 20 refers to section 17. Section 17 is everyone; section 18 is the bit where we start talking about overseas people. So that's the answer to that part of the member's question.In terms of why one would be talking to the Financial Markets Authority well the Financial Markets Authority are in charge of the conduct of financial services activity in the country. They are responsible for certain standards within the sector and I imagine in order to make a decision about the granting of licences they would want to make sure that there was no reason within that kind of conduct area that they would want—but I'm happy to check with officials to see if there's anything more they need Mr Bayly."
O'Connor GregPart 2 Licensing of deposit takersCHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Members we come now to Part 2. This is the debate on clauses 10 to 58 Licensing of deposit takers". The question is that Part 2 stand part."
Watts SimonSIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Thank you very much Minister. My questions are in regards to I guess the context in which this bill has come about to this House and in regards to the elements of the bill that deals with the risks of the stability—the financial system at a more macro level. The implementation of the depositor compensation provisions for the loss of deposits that people would have within a bank is in reality in circumstances that I think one would agree would be very rare. So the context in which potentially those that are watching this and trying to understand why have we got this bill in the reality of actually the challenges we face within our current banking sector. I think it probably might be helpful to provide context in that actually the reality is that the scenario in which would mean that this—some of the provisions of this bill would actually come into effect would be reasonably catastrophic scenarios in the context of not only New Zealand but probably a broader Australasian implication and implications on our banking sector. So interested from the Minister in terms of in that context and in terms of the priorities that face us what was the consideration around why the Minister has driven the implementation of this type of legislative change? Acknowledging that the circumstances in which it would be deployed would be very very rare.
Smith Damien; Robertson GrantDAMIEN SMITH (ACT): Do you think that if in a scenario where the Reserve Bank had to put someone under that this would leave it with egg on its face?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Sorry could you just repeat that Mr Smith?DAMIEN SMITH (ACT): Yeah. Do you think Minister if the Reserve Bank had to put somebody under would this leave them with egg on their face as managers as well?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Well it's always very important to acknowledge that the Reserve Bank operates independently of the Government. We set the rules; we set the framework. For the most part I think people would see the framework in which non-bank deposit takers operate in New Zealand is a strong framework and I certainly know the member and others would have heard from constituents when we had the problems with banks in the United States earlier in the year—you know Could this happen in New Zealand?" Actually the whole process of establishing a bank or indeed a non-bank deposit taker in New Zealand is quite a rigorous and a strict one. So the rules that have been laid out here are absolutely in many cases worst-case scenario and are unlikely to come into force or be used very often but I think it would be highly irresponsible not to have those and so no I don't agree with the member that it would be representative of them "having egg on their face". Whenever there is a situation where a bank or a non-bank deposit taker might get in trouble people will undoubtedly look and say "Was the bank doing its supervisory job?" but they can't be held responsible for every single thing that occurs and every element of the banking or non-bank deposit-taking sector.We need good rules. They generally operate very well in my opinion but from time to time things go wrong and that's why we have these frameworks."
Smith Damien; Robertson GrantDAMIEN SMITH (ACT): For the Minister the bill barely mentions efficiency. You've not mentioned it and the bill sort of sidelines it. Do you not think that the Reserve Bank of New Zealand's (RBNZ) undistracted focus should be on systemic risk and price stability in managing its affairs and that the need to strengthen out from the RBNZ role makes it responsible for ensuring that the known collapse of any individual deposit takers or insurance companies is not really part of their core activities? I'd just like your views on that.Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): The Reserve Bank has had a range of roles for some time and it has been added to iteratively over the years. Obviously if we go back to 1989 and the very central and core focus on monetary policy alone and obviously on price stability alone but the role of the bank in the financial stability space has evolved over time and so it does have that role as the prudential role the supervisory role that it now has and so we need legislation that governs that.The bank I think has proved over a long period of time that it is capable of doing the many and different tasks that it is now asked to do. The whole purpose of the review that we did was to make sure that the bank itself was organised in such a way that it could fulfil those roles. So we had the three bits of legislation: one that dealt with monetary policy objectives; one that dealt with the institutional framework of the bank the board and so on; and one that deals with these specific tasks here that are mainly in the financial stability realm.So it would be quite a significant and big change for the Reserve Bank not to be involved in those areas and I think as long as we give them the right framework and the right tools to do the different parts of their job I think we're on the right track.