edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Dean Jacqui; Bishop Chris; Seymour DavidCOVID-19 RESPONSE (MANAGEMENT MEASURES) LEGISLATION BILLIn CommitteeCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members the House is in committee on the COVID-19 Response (Management Measures) Legislation Bill. You'll be aware members that this is a wide-ranging bill covering many principal Acts so to enable more focused debate I want to indicate that we have a number of Ministers available to answer the questions on the amendments that they're responsible for. I'm referring of course to the debate on clause 3. It would help the quality of the debate if members on all sides could as far as possible focus their questions for the Minister in the chair before we move on to the next Minister. The reason for that is that Ministers can only have one adviser at any one time in the Chamber and if we mix the questions up too much then we waste a lot of time swapping out advisers. Having said all that I am here to adjudicate not to tell you what to do.CHRIS BISHOP (National): Point of order. Thank you Madam Chair. Look I just wonder if it might be helpful to the thorough examination of the various parts of the bill if you could indicate how it's proposed that we go through the various schedules. This is an unusual bill in the sense that there's only I think four clauses but a lot of schedules. It might just be helpful if we know exactly how it's going to roll over the next however long.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Thank you for that point of order. When we are addressing the issues raised in clause 3 we will be debating the amendments to the enactments and the debates on Schedules 1 to 8. So it may be the will of the committee that we move through schedules from 1 through to 8. Thank you for that.DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Point of order. I seek leave in light of the unusual structure of the bill for it to be divided into schedules so that each schedule be debated. I think that might make it much easier to know which Minister's in the chair which officials need to be here and so on.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Well leave is sought for that course of—just a moment I'll consult.Thank you for that point of order just to further clarify the House is to debate in the committee stage the order in which the bill is written. Under clause 3 the schedules move from 1 through to 8. I'm proposing and it is logical that that is the way the debate will proceed but thank you for that.Now I need to be reminded of where I was. Clause 1. So we move now to clause 1. This is the debate on the title clause. The question is that clause 1 stand part.
Faafoi KrisSITTINGS OF THE HOUSEHon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Justice) on behalf of the Leader of the House: I move That the sitting of the House today be extended into tomorrow morning for the committee stage of the COVID-19 Response (Management Measures) Legislation Bill the third readings of the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Amendment Bill the Films Videos and Publications Classifications (Urgent Interim Classification of Publications and Prevention of Online Harm) Amendment Bill and the Maritime Transport (MARPOL Annex VI) Amendment Bill; the first reading and referral to a select committee of the Data and Statistics Bill; and the second readings of the Commerce Amendment Bill the Crown Pastoral Land Reform Bill the Organic Products Bill and the Financial Markets (Conduct of Institutions) Amendment Bill.
Utikere Tangi; Mallard TrevorTANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): I move That the question be now put.SPEAKER: Yes I think the House is in a position now to decide the question.
McAnulty Kieran; Mallard TrevorKIERAN McANULTY (Chief Whip—Labour): I move That the question be now put.SPEAKER: I see there's a very senior member who's seeking the call. I call the Hon Simon Bridges.
Mallard TrevorSPEAKER: I am going to rule on the motion that has been put before me. This motion is to set up a committee to consider a specific bill and related matters. It gives it a name a purpose and powers to that committee and my ruling is that any amendment to it should not go completely outside as this proposed amendment does and to set up a committee to consider a completely different matter as the member's amendment does. If it for example changed the name changed the membership changed the powers then that would be allowable as an amendment. But to set up something which is designed to deal with a bill and something to do with a pandemic is in my opinion just too far away. So I'm ruling the amendment out of order.
Kerekere ElizabethDr ELIZABETH KEREKERE (Green): Tēnā koe e te Māngai. We strongly support the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) Bill and its efforts to uphold the Government's obligations to Te Tiriti o Waitangi through a complete restructure in the establishment of a Māori health authority. So we get on the one hand the creation of a new select committee as part of that kaupapa especially that goal to have 50-50 Māori membership on that.On the other hand though this is an administrative process and so the question is: where is this really special bill going to be best looked after? So I stand here less to oppose the motion—although I'm sorry I have to—but more to uphold the mana of the Health Committee. It is often said in this House how hard the Health Committee works. We do this under an incredibly good chair and we work really collaboratively across all of our parties. We have a strong culture and the Green and Te Paati Māori reps are already Māori. So we've got two already in there if you're trying to get those numbers right there. And of course the rest can sub in as we do already with any number of other bills that we have to deal with.Also it already is a 50-50 model and if we don't have a majority in the decision then changes don't matter—not that they don't matter but they don't get voted. So we work primarily through consensus and I think that it's a—I really really enjoy that work and the people that are there I know are there because they're really really committed to health. The bulk of us come from health backgrounds.I guess I'm wondering why you would take away the biggest health bill that may come in any of our lifetimes away from the group that's set up to deal with it. Even though technically if it happens I will still be the Greens rep on it but for me it comes down to mana—the mana of the Health Committee the work it has always done the work that we will always do and I hope that it would still come back to there. And if not I will put a plug in that it should still be primarily led by the Health Committee leadership.Nō reira I don't have any quotes from leaders overseas. Hon Meka Whaitiri: Do your mana wahine one whanaunga.Dr ELIZABETH KEREKERE: Yeah mana wahine Māori women and just shout-out to all the people though who work for health. It is a big deal this bill. It is a huge huge thing for all of our people. We want the best people on that and I'm just here to say I think the Health Committee is the best place to start. Kia ora.
Urgent Debates Declined — ACC—Privacy Protections
Mallard TrevorURGENT DEBATES DECLINEDACC—Privacy ProtectionsSPEAKER: I have received a letter from Jan Logie seeking to debate under Standing Order 399 the privacy protections of ACC in light of revelations that ACC staff have shared clients' details in a private social media group. A proposal to discuss a continuing problem or an accumulation of information is not one contemplated by Standing Order 399 in that it is not a particular case of recent occurrence—Speakers' rulings 204/4-5 refer. The privacy protections of ACC appear to me to fall into this category in that they are an ongoing matter. An urgent debate is a means by which the actions of a Government are examined. To date the Government has not made any announcements in relation to the matter raised in the application—Speakers' ruling 205/5 refers. The only action announced to date has been the ACC standing down 12 staff and beginning an investigation. It would not be appropriate to debate a staffing matter which is a responsibility of the chief executive in this House. The application is therefore declined. Should the Government announce some further action in relation to the matter I would consider a further application from the member.
Mallard TrevorPETITIONS PAPERS SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLSSPEAKER: No papers have been presented. No bills have been introduced. A petition has been delivered to the Clerk for presentation.CLERK: Petition of Meridy Boyd-Clark requesting that the House ensure that all allied health professionals are included in the essential workforce and are therefore allowed to operate at all COVID-19 alert levels and note that 12879 people have signed an online petition in support of this.SPEAKER: That petition stands referred to the Petitions Committee. A select committee report has been delivered for presentation.CLERK: Report of the Business Committee on the recommended sitting programme for 2022.SPEAKER: The report is set down for consideration.
Dean JacquiWEDNESDAY 27 OCTOBER 2021The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.KARAKIA/PRAYERSHon JACQUI DEAN (Assistant Speaker): Almighty God we give thanks for the blessings which have been bestowed on us. Laying aside all personal interests we acknowledge the Queen 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.
Tuesday 26 October 2021 - Volume 755
Retail Payment System Bill — First Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Retail Payment System Bill be now read a first time.Ayes 110New Zealand Labour 65; New Zealand National 33; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Noes 10ACT New Zealand 10.Motion agreed to.Bill read a first time.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is That the Retail Payment System Bill be considered by the Economic Development Science and Innovation Committee.Motion agreed to.Bill referred to the Economic Development Science and Innovation Committee.Instruction to the Economic Development Science and Innovation CommitteeHon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): I move That the Retail Payment System Bill be reported back to the House by 3 March 2022.A party vote was called for on the question That the motion be agreed to.Ayes 75New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Noes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Motion agreed to.
VoteDr DUNCAN WEBB (Junior Whip—Labour): I move That the question be now put.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Anyone else want a call—no? We'll go to the question eh? The question is that the Hon Ayesha Verrall's amendment to the amendments on Supplementary Order Paper 38 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 76 be agreed to.Amendment to the amendments agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): The question is that Dr Shane Reti's amendment to clause 4A in Supplementary Order Paper 38 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 79 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Noes 75New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): The question is that the Minister's amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 38 as amended be agreed to.Amendments as amended agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): The question is that Part 1 and 2 the Schedule and clauses 1 to 3 as amended be agreed to.Part 1 and 2 Schedule and clauses 1 to 3 as amended agreed to.Bill to be reported with amendment.House resumed.
Health (Fluoridation of Drinking Water) Amendment Bill — In Committee
VoteClauses 1 and 2CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Tēnā rā tātou katoa. The committee is resumed. Members before the dinner break we had just arrived to the debate on clauses 1 and 2 of the Maritime Transport (MARPOL Annex VI) Amendment Bill. Therefore the question is that clause 1 stand part.Clause 1 agreed to.Clause 2 agreed to.Bill to be reported without amendment.
Maritime Transport (MARPOL Annex VI) Amendment Bill — In Committee—Part 2
Films Videos and Publications Classification (Urgent Interim Classification of Publications and Prevention of Online Harm) Amendment Bill — In Committee—Part 2
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That Clause 1 be agreed to.Ayes 110New Zealand Labour 65; New Zealand National 33; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Noes 10ACT New Zealand 10.Clause 1 agreed to.
Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the bill be reported to the House by 2 December 2021 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 and 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.Ayes 98New Zealand Labour 65; New Zealand National 33.Noes 20Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; ACT New Zealand 10.Motion agreed to.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply and Other Matters) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.Ayes 110New Zealand Labour 65; New Zealand National 33; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Noes 10ACT New Zealand 10.Motion agreed to.Bill read a first time.DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is That the Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply and Other Matters) Amendment Bill be considered by the Environment Committee.Motion agreed to.Bill referred to the Environment Committee.
Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — First Reading
11. Question No. 11—ConservationRACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson) to the Minister of ConservationQuestion No. 11—Conservation11. RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson) to the Minister of Conservation: What recent announcement has she made regarding Jobs for Nature funding for the Sustainable Business Network?Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Conservation): More good news with respect to Jobs for Nature. Last week I announced further Government support for New Zealand's longest-standing sustainable business organisation the Sustainable Business Network to open up opportunities for workers impacted by COVID-19 to jumpstart a nature-based career. The Partnering to Plant Aotearoa project involves collaboration with local community groups to undertake small-scale but valuable ecological restoration supporting projects which provide positive impacts on conservation keep boots on the ground and aid in our economic recovery is what our Jobs for Nature programme is all about.Rachel Boyack: What has the Partnering to Plant Aotearoa project achieved to date?Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: Since September 2020 the three earlier phases of the project have delivered $2.5 million in Jobs for Nature funding to 10 community-based conservation partners across the country including in areas where there were significant jobs losses. More than 120 people have been employed through the project to date connecting businesses struggling to keep their staff employed as well as unemployed workers to nature-based employment opportunities.Rachel Boyack: What will the next phase of the project aim to achieve?Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: Mr Speaker fantastic question. A further $2.5 million in Jobs for Nature funding announced last week—SPEAKER: It almost got ruled out.Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: Well I think it's—yes. Thank you Mr Speaker. A further $2.5 million in Jobs for Nature funding announced last week will allow the Sustainable Business Network to provide two more partner groups on board opening up 60 jobs across the country delivering formal training outcomes and generating more than 53000 hours of conservation work. This work includes extensive planting weeding and fencing to improve habitat and food sources for native species—SPEAKER: Enough.
5. Question No. 5—Small BusinessBARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) to the Minister for Small BusinessQuestion No. 5—Small Business5. BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) to the Minister for Small Business: Mālō ni Mr Speaker. What announcements has he made about advice and mental wellbeing support to help Auckland businesses during the transition to the new COVID19 Protection Framework?Hon STUART NASH (Minister for Small Business): Last Friday along with the Minister of Finance I announced a $60 million package for business advice and mental health support to be made available to help Auckland small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) through the transition period to the new COVID-19 Protection Framework. There are three parts of this package: firstly a $20 million business advisory service of up to $3000 per business with no co-payment from the business to enable them to receive expert advice and support; secondly $30 million in grants for SMEs to implement business advice with up to $4000 per business and again with no co-payment from the individual business. These two parts will be delivered by the Regional Business Partner Network run by Auckland Unlimited the Auckland Council's economic development agency. The third part is up to $10 million additional funding to support mental health and wellbeing initiatives for business owners and employees. This will be co-designed with the Auckland Chamber of Commerce and the Employers and Manufacturers Association.Barbara Edmonds: What are the benefits of this package?Hon STUART NASH: The package is what the Auckland business leaders and representatives told us they required to help deal with the uncertainties caused by the Delta outbreak. This package will help better position SMEs to seize future opportunities and productivity gains when restrictions reduce and improve their ability to operate in the meantime. We estimate that up to 10000 Auckland SMEs will be assisted by the business and advisory support and that up to 7500 Auckland SMEs will be supported by the implementation assistance. By delivering the package through the Regional Business Partner Network run by Auckland Unlimited the Government is partnering with existing proven providers on the ground so assistance can be delivered far sooner than if we had to start from scratch.Barbara Edmonds: What feedback has the Minister seen on this package?Hon STUART NASH: Brett O'Riley the chief executive of the Employers and Manufacturers Association has said—and I quote—The $50m for the RBP to provide 10000 businesses with mentoring and advice to help them recover and grow into the future is an excellent practical step to support our businesses and economy." Michael Barnett the chief executive of the Auckland Chamber of Commerce has said—and I quote—"The $60 million package for the Regional Business Partner Programme including $10 million for mental health support will be a lifeline for many and help build resilience and a recovery strategy.""
3. Question No. 3—COVID-19GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour—Hutt South) to the Minister for COVID-19 ResponseQuestion No. 3—COVID-193. GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour—Hutt South) to the Minister for COVID-19 Response: What recent announcements has the Government made on the management of COVID-19 in New Zealand?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): Last week the Prime Minister announced the new COVID-19 Protection Framework and shared the plan with New Zealanders that will help to keep us safe from COVID-19 into the future. The new protection framework sets a pathway forward that rewards the rapidly growing number of New Zealanders who have been vaccinated with more freedom to go about their lives safely. The simplified framework has three levels: green orange and red. Vaccine certificates will provide greater freedoms at each of the levels. There will be extra public health precautions built in at higher levels to minimise the impact of COVID-19 and suppress the spread of that virus. Our current alert level framework and an elimination strategy have kept us safe and our economy functioning while we got vaccinated but now as more Kiwis are protected by the vaccine we need a new plan that moves away from lockdowns as the primary defence against the virus.Ginny Andersen: What will the new protection framework mean for people and businesses in New Zealand?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: For individual New Zealanders it will mean more freedom. For businesses it will mean being able to open up and get back to doing what they love doing with a greater degree of freedom. Businesses that choose to open to the unvaccinated will face greater restrictions in order to suppress the virus amongst those most likely to have it. Fully vaccinated people will be able to reconnect with their friends and their families they'll be able to go to bars and restaurants and do the things they love with greater certainty and confidence.Ginny Andersen: When can New Zealanders expect to transition to the new framework?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: We've set a target of 90 percent fully vaccinated across each district health board region as the milestone to trigger moving the country into the new system. That target ensures a good regional spread across the country and it will help us to address equity issues within each region. Our modelling shows that having 90 percent of eligible people fully vaccinated provides a high level of coverage and that will help us to keep New Zealanders safe slow and control outbreaks and assist public health authorities to do their jobs. Auckland will be able to move sooner; the plan provides a clear path for Auckland to move out of lockdown as soon as 90 percent of the eligible population are fully vaccinated across the three DHBs. There are around 11000 vaccines to go for every DHB to hit the target for their 90 percent first doses in Auckland. When that turns into double digits that's when the new framework will kick in.
Remuneration Authority Legislation Bill — First Reading
Henderson EmilyDr EMILY HENDERSON (Labour—Whangārei): Kia ora e te Māngai o te Whare. I rise with great enthusiasm possibly even equal to the enthusiasm of my colleague Mr Bridges to speak on this bill tonight because this is a really important piece of legislation. There is nothing more important than the separation of powers and the fact that there are people out there in the world holding the people in this room to account and the people in the executive to account. There is nothing more important than the independence of the judiciary in the operation of our democracy or at least it's at least as important as the other things that hold our democracy together. I remember nearly a year ago sitting over there in the very very backbenches when Black Rod banged on the door. It took me straight back to my years in Tikipunga High School in Whangārei and the teachings of the now Dr Brent Mawson when he described the beginnings of the code of judicial independence in the years leading up to the English Civil War and the brave brave work of judges like Sir Edward Coke who took on King James a despot and a tyrant if there ever was one and refused to cede him absolute power. It was in those moments that we began to become a democracy that endures to this day and will be considerably strengthened and protected again by what might seem a small matter but is never a small matter when it comes to the protection of our democracy. I commend this bill to the House.
Andersen GinnyGINNY ANDERSEN (Labour—Hutt South): Thank you very much Madam Speaker. It's a pleasure to speak on the Remuneration Authority Legislation Bill. When Simon Bridges gets up to start a speech you think Is he actually going to do 10 minutes on this?" and he nearly made it I was impressed. I wasn't quite sure what the position was but it's a pleasure to hear that National will be supporting this bill and it will be going through to the Justice Committee. I look forward to hearing those submissions. I can see from the speech before that the other member is also very excited.So in a nutshell what does this do? Well there's two ways you can get paid in terms of some of these key roles that have been discussed. The first one is the Cabinet Fees Framework and the second is the Remuneration Authority. Essentially what this bill does is it makes a swap for a number of key entities. You may well ask "How did that come about?" Well there was a review. An independent principles-based review was undertaken by a chap called Martin Jenkins in 2018 and it was established that there were some key roles that—the principal difference between the Remuneration Authority and the Cabinet Fees Framework is the degree of independence from the Government on those remuneration decisions.So on the basis of that review there are six entities there are six areas that will be transferring in order to have greater transparency and for the members of the New Zealand general public to have a greater level of understanding that it's an arm's length from Government. So those six entities are: disputes tribunal referees community magistrates of the District Court the chairperson and deputy of the Human Rights Review Tribunal the deputy and the members Immigration and Protection Tribunal the environment commissioners and deputy of the Environment Court and finally Tenancy Tribunal adjudicators.So in a nutshell what this does is it transfers over to those entities and it basically enhances public confidence in our judicial system by making those changes. I look forward to it coming to the Justice Committee and hearing the numerous submissions that we'll receive on this."
Leary IngridINGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): It was interesting to listen to the speech of Michael Woodhouse and at around five minutes I was able to work out that he was actually supporting the bill and his reasons for it. And I did get a good lesson in cheque writing and student behaviour so thank you for that. But Andrew Bayly talked about this bill as being a small affair and I think that's really indicative of the attitude that the other side of the House shows to small business in New Zealand. They're suggesting that $74 million doesn't mean much. Actually the Stuff website has done an analysis that shows that small businesses stand to save around $13000 difference in fees each in the hospitality business compared to their Australian counterparts. That's a significant amount of money for businesses that operate on small margins. And if we look at how many small businesses there are in New Zealand according to the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment 97 percent of our businesses in New Zealand have 50 employees or under. So this is not a small deal to them and they make up a third of New Zealand employees. Lots and lots of people stand to benefit from this legislation. This is not a small deal.Chris Baillie I couldn't quite understand his logic around the wage subsidy not helping businesses but the workers. On this side of the House the workers are the business. When there are 50 employees or less in a business those people make up that workforce. It is their sweat that makes up those businesses. And that wage subsidy that this Government has introduced is not only helping those workers and the business it's helping cash flow and getting cash flow into the economy is helping the economic recovery. And can I just remind the House that the economy expanded 2.8 percent in the June 2021 quarter and 12 of the 16 industries recorded growth in the June quarter. So this is not a small deal. I also don't think it's fair to my friend and colleague and fantastic MP for Dunedin David Clark to say that this is the bill that he's standing on. Minister Clark has introduced a suite of measures around unfair competition including the section 36 amendments in the Commerce Amendment Bill. He's done the reports into the dominance of the food and grocery sectors and a number of other things that look specifically at anti-competitive behaviour. So this is a fantastic bill. I am really thrilled to be supporting my friend and colleague Dr Clark and I commend this bill to the House.
O'Connor GregGREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): It's often said that the less you believe what you're saying the louder you say it and certainly some of the speeches we have heard from the opposite side of the House would be an indicator of that. But I say good on them because when you are confronted with a very good piece of legislation like this there's really nowhere else to go but to actually support it. And so support it the Opposition generally have done.Anyone who goes around their electorate over the next few days and explains what's happening here to their local dairy owner to any other small retailer will get nothing but praise for this. Because you've only got to have a look at some of the figures we're talking about here: average of 1.6 percent per transaction when it's done with a credit card 1.2 percent with a debit card. Often we're told here that we should be doing it more like the Aussies more like the English. Well perhaps in this case we could because in England it's a 0.2 percent fee on average; in Australia 0.6. This piece of legislation is designed to bring us in line with those two countries certainly and most others because our retailers and as a consequence our purchasers are paying far more than they need to.Some of my colleagues have already spoken about the profits being made by banks. This will come off their bottom line not off the bottom line of those small to medium businesses and not off the bottom line of consumers. Therefore it is a very good piece of legislation which this whole House should support. Thank you Mr Speaker.
Boyack RachelRACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): It is a pleasure to take a short call on the Retail Payment System Bill. I just want to make the point that—because members opposite have been claiming that this somehow is regulating small business—this isn't a bill that regulates small business; it is a bill that regulates the merchant service fees charged by banks.Just in the short amount of time I had to do some research on this bill I just want to note that a KPMG report from June this year showed that in the March quarter banks made an increased profit of 20 percent on the previous December quarter. Banks are the ones who are charging these fees and they are making billions of profits at the expense of small businesses.I've visited a number of small businesses in my electorate and often if I go to pay and they don't have payWave they're incredibly apologetic and they say to me I really would like to have payWave. I'd really like to be able to use it but I can't afford it because the fees that are charged to me are just far too high. They stop me from being able to offer the technology that I know customers like." and also the Government wishes for them to use it in order to protect customers from touching buttons and the like.So look this is an excellent bill. It is disappointing to hear pot-shots about it being regulatory against small business—it is not. I note it has gone very quiet on the other side there. This is a bill designed to support small businesses—our cafes our restaurants our accommodation providers and our retail sector—so that they can offer a technology that is safer for customers and safer for their staff so that they are not continuing to be stung by outrageous fees that make that technology unavailable. So on that note it is a pleasure to take a call and I commend this bill to the House."
McAnulty KieranKIERAN McANULTY (Labour—Wairarapa): Thank you Mr Speaker. I'm intrigued—I'm intrigued by the contributions of that last speaker Chris Baillie and I'm intrigued by the contributions of the National Party. You would have thought by listening to Andrew Bayly that they oppose this bill but in fact they agree with it. And you would think from the party that's supposedly anti-regulation apart from when of course that impacts on those living in Epsom—they don't want to see regulation on their flash neighbourhoods—that they would support this too. Well we've just heard a contribution saying how we need to support small business. Well this bill does exactly that because what we found is that merchant fees are a disproportionate cost particularly on small business where they don't often have an alternative way to accept transactions. And this fee this regulation that they may hate actually will help the people that they stand and advocate for because it is without regulation—the supposed free market—that is imposing costs on small business. And I note that Chris Baillie has nothing to say. He had a lot to say in support of small business. And I think it might grate him—it might grate him to know that perhaps his business and the businesses of those that support his party will benefit from this bill. It makes absolute sense.There is no rationale to allow high unjustified costs on merchant transactions particularly in the COVID era when many businesses who want to do the right thing—in terms of a public health response they are limiting or restricting cash transactions—get stung by this because there is no alternative. This Government is acting on it. We campaigned on it. And I can say with the utmost sincerity and honesty that when this policy was announced I was contacted by local business owners in Wairarapa who said Good on you. This will make a big difference for us." Small business: this Government is delivering on it. We are being consistent in our support for small business. And Chris Baillie may laugh but he wants to support small businesses. The wage subsidy has supported small businesses the Government continues to support small businesses and this bill will do exactly that."
Tuiono TeanauTEANAU TUIONO (Green): Kia ora Mr Speaker. I just wanted to acknowledge the verbal Berocca that we got over there from that corner of the House. I won't need my credit card for that one but I believe that will keep me going for the rest of the night.This bill will create a regulatory system for merchant fees for debit and credit networks payWave and other similar service fees which are increasingly used more than EFTPOS and this delivers on a Government commitment made in 2020. So good on them. We will be supporting this bill because we know that credit card transactions are the main method of retail payment in Aotearoa New Zealand and are routed through either the switch to issuer" or the "switch to acquire" systems and so ensuring those technologies and systems work for everyday people is critical.We heard about the carnage—they used the word "carnage" in the corner there as well. It's so good to hear that passion about merchant service fees. I would like to see that passion sometime around climate change or the COVID crisis and all those other sorts of crises in front of us.The Greens support reducing compliance costs for businesses. We know—and I'm taking this from the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment (MBIE) March 2021 regulatory impact statement—that our payment systems are not fully working for consumers and merchants. Merchants end up paying a disproportionate cost of retail payment systems which end up being passed on to the consumers and for too long we've relied on voluntary industry initiatives to address these issues without meaningful outcomes.Just going back briefly on the issue of costs of merchant service fees being passed on to consumers through the price of goods and services we know this disadvantages low-income people while only occasionally benefiting high-income earners. Some of the retail payment cost that is passed on to consumers is used to fund rewards and other inducements for using credit cards. MBIE estimates merchants have to increase their prices to all consumers by around $187 million per year to fund rewards paid to certain credit card users. Due to the way credit card rewards schemes are structured this leads us to an annual regressive cross-subsidy of $59 million from low-income to high-income households. This is effectively a trickle-up scheme where some of our lowest-income people are subsidising a system that only works for those with the means to reap its rewards. That's why we are supportive of this bill the Government's intent to create a regulatory system for merchant service fees for debit and credit networks. On that we support this bill. Thank you Mr Speaker."
Lorck AnnaANNA LORCK (Labour—Tukituki): I rise to speak but I must say that on the other side of the House the volume seems to have been getting louder. There is a microphone there. We can hear you. The emotion that is coming from the other side of the House is just unbelievable—he might need a bit of Berocca!Anyway back to the bill—back to the bill. This bill is actually a very very practical bill; a practical bill that is going to have an immediate impact on the shoppers the people the customers saving money—$74 million. Apparently that is not even worth it on the other side of the House. This side of the House believes that every dollar is a dollar well spent. It goes round and round into the economy. That's what is important and that is why this legislation is so critical for just keeping things going for small businesses as well.How many of us have gone into a shop and gone to use the card and the business owner says Oh no we don't have payWave because they're charging us too much."? Those little transactions those quick things and in a COVID world where we want to make sure that we have every safety mechanism possible.The other thing I would like to say is businesses are resilient. I've been a small-business owner. In fact I might be one of the only small-business owners that are in the House speaking tonight. I can tell you that I know what it is like—20 years in small business. People are innovative. We work through things like this. That is what makes small business the big part of the economy that will keep going strong and we'll keep going for it. That is why I commend this bill to the House."
Bennett GlenGLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth): Kia ora Mr Speaker. Thank you for allowing me to move beyond our previous speaker. The previous speaker did mention something several times around this tiny piece of legislation. He mentioned only several million dollars of money that was going on on this side of the House but I did look it up: this is going to save merchants $74 million a year. We know where that goes. It gets passed on right? Seventy-four million gets passed on. So I'm really proud to be standing and supporting this piece of legislation this evening. I look at the different systems around credit cards and fees and to be honest you know there's early adopters there's the early and late majority and there's the laggards. For many things I'm a bit of a laggard to be honest but for many things I'm an early adopter when it comes to social change when it comes to technology and systems. I do remember particularly payWave when it was introduced and thought What a ridiculous stupid weird idea. It's fast enough doing your four digits and pressing your buttons—that type of thing." But now I can't do without payWave. It's just something we use all the time. It's been great that we have ensured that we froze payWave fees at this time obviously in a global pandemic to ensure the safety of our people. But this piece of legislation is ensuring that we get it right when it comes to merchant fees.Now I won't go into too much detail but many years ago I actually owned a coffee cart. I was a small-business owner myself and so I know the challenges when it comes to what types of cards because of the fees that I had to pay and that I wasn't able to provide for my customers because I had a very small but effective business. So I'm really glad to be supporting this legislation. As a member of the select committee of the Economic Development Science and Innovation Committee I look forward to hearing submissions on this and to supporting this piece of legislation through to the next stage."
Rurawhe AdrianREPORT OF COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE HOUSECHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Madam Speaker the committee has considered the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Amendment Bill and reports it with amendment. The committee has also considered the Films Videos and Publications Classification (Urgent Interim Classification of Publications and Prevention of Online Harm) Amendment Bill and reports it with amendment. The committee has also considered the Maritime Transport (MARPOL Annex VI) Amendment Bill and reports it without amendment. The committee has also considered the Health (Fluoridation of Drinking Water) Amendment Bill and reports it with amendment. I move That the report be adopted.Motion agreed to.Report adopted.
Simmonds Penny; Verrall AyeshaPENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill): Thank you Mr Chair. I am interested also in taking the questioning of my ACT colleague Mark Cameron a little further. When the Minister replied that the fluoridation was only for reticulated supplies and not private supplies and indeed the Water Services Act has the last person standing" clause in it that requires that if a water supply is going to be abandoned by private suppliers then in fact the local authority does have to take up the provision of that supply. So it may well be that the rural water supplies that my colleague was referring to might fall within this having been taken over by a local authority.I guess one of the concerns that we have is that it's a bill with very good intent: we all want particularly for our children to have better oral health and what we don't want is for it to be put at risk by a lack of plan or a lack of education or a lack of information or a lack of consultation. Therefore my questioning really is around that provision of ensuring that the notion of fluoridation in drinking water—that is not now in at the moment—is well sold to the public and that the good intent of the bill isn't lost by it not being well sold and people being well-prepared for it. So if you could expand on what is being done there thank you Minister.Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Associate Minister of Health): Clearly permission to start on implementation on the bill will be given when Parliament passes the bill. But I am comfortable undertaking to that member that being able to communicate clearly to the country the benefits of fluoridation and why these decisions are made will be ongoing work for the Ministry of Health. In addition I've already cited the Prime Minister's Chief Science Advisor's report which is a definitive piece of work that reflects several decades of scientific research on this matter. So I don't believe that there's any lack of activity on the Government's part in terms of making sure that the basis for these decisions are clear."
Verrall AyeshaHon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Associate Minister of Health): Thank you for that question. It's always good to be able to talk more about the financial benefits of public health measures. The answer is no. That cost-benefit analysis has not been revisited. That cost-benefit analysis was part of what kicked off this bill in the first place. But I think the member is correct to think that if there was any change the change is likely to be in the increasing cost of dental services over that time so I can only imagine more benefits would accrue to the community than was originally expected.
Bishop ChrisCHRIS BISHOP (National): Thank you Mr Chair. I actually am interested in the answer to the question raised by my colleague Mr Cameron down the back—down the back both in terms of the country but also in the Chamber. But I am also interested in and I've been reading—Mark Cameron: I'm up the top. CHRIS BISHOP: Oh I mean in terms of Northland. I suppose you're up the front in some ways. Anyway it's a long way away from here is the key point. I wasn't meaning to be pejorative Mr Cameron—far from it. It's been so long since we've considered this legislation. As I said earlier in my contribution it was two parliaments ago and I for one am a strong believer in fluoridation. I wonder if the ministry or the Government has conducted an updated cost-benefit analysis (CBA). I'm reading the regulatory impact statement which is from 2016—in fact March 2016—which notes that there was a CBA done in 2014 by Sapere Research Group which found that extending water fluoridation to those areas that do not currently have fluoridation would be associated with net savings of over $600 million over twenty years" which is obviously a sizable sum of money if you think about that. That's $30 million per year times 20 with most of those savings to consumers and a small amount to Vote Health and I actually was just reflecting on that. I found that interesting because I thought it would be the other way around. I actually thought the majority of the savings would accrue to Vote Health in terms of better oral health outcomes for the kids for example—so less demand on the public purse for childhood dental services—and I suppose also adults as well. Having just had a wisdom tooth extracted last week and endured the pain of that mainly fiscally I know that dentistry can be very expensive and so I was surprised to see that—Ian McKelvie: Fluoride wouldn't have fixed it though.CHRIS BISHOP: What's that—fluoride wouldn't have fixed it no. There's too much sugar in my diet. But I was intrigued to see that the cost-benefit actually shows that the majority of benefit is for consumers. So I just wonder if there's been an updated cost-benefit since 2014. It's now seven years on and perhaps the Minister could advise the House if that's the case. If it's higher than that then that's a wonderful thing and if it's lower than that then well that's interesting as well I suppose. Thank you Mr Chair."
Cameron MarkMARK CAMERON (ACT): Minister would you be so obliging: when you just made the iteration about a reticulated supply in the Water Services Act it very specifically talks about a reticulated supply and more than one family or dwelling off that supply is deemed a system and by virtue of that it is a reticulated supply. So you can see going back to my previous remarks about having a caveat for 30 end users or less in the Water Services Act by virtue of what you've just said it would actually encapsulate everyone other than a single dwelling. Do you want to speak to that perhaps?
Verrall AyeshaHon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Associate Minister of Health): Thank you Mr McKelvie for that important question. Look I'm an optimist about the issue of acceptance and I think one of the things is that 50 percent of our population already live in places with a fluoridated water supply and day to day most people think nothing of it to be honest and people who visit for example Wellington from around the country where they don't have fluoridated water don't seem to raise it as a concern when they visit this great city.I wanted to address the question about what if a community was to decide they want to fluoridate their own water independent of a direction from the Director-General of Health. While there's nothing in this bill to stop that; that would still be able to occur as it currently has and indeed a number of cities and towns have rolled out fluoridation on that basis. To my colleague from ACT the questions about supplies in rural New Zealand are very good ones. Firstly this bill only applies to reticulated water supplies and it excludes private supplies. I'd also point to one of the requirements for the director-general to consider the cost. Modelling done—an assessment done a few years ago now suggests that the cost-effectiveness of fluoridation gets lower the smaller the population that is served by the water supply. It starts to look to be of lower value at water supplies that serve fewer than 500 people. Now that isn't the only factor that the director-general has to consider but for small water supplies there may be a discussion about whether or not the costs of fluoridation are in fact worth the oral health benefits.