edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
6. Question No. 6—TourismRACHEL BROOKING (Labour) (remote) to the Minister of TourismQuestion No. 6—Tourism6. RACHEL BROOKING (Labour) (remote) to the Minister of Tourism: What announcements has he made about supporting communities to develop local tourism facilities?Hon STUART NASH (Minister of Tourism): Last week Associate Minister Henare and I announced a further $16.5 million funding round through the Tourism Infrastructure Fund. As we prepare for the return of international tourists and increasing numbers of Kiwis coming home we are aware of the pressure many communities faced with visitor numbers prior to the global COVID-19 pandemic. The Tourism Infrastructure Fund supports local councils especially those with small ratepayer bases to develop much-needed tourism infrastructure. These sorts of tourism assets and facilities are vital if we want to protect and enhance our 100% Pure" brand and our reputation for offering quality experiences.Rachel Brooking: Why is the Government investing in councils' tourism infrastructure?Hon STUART NASH: Tourism is hugely important to the economy. We need quality infrastructure and facilities so all can enjoy our wonderful country. Our investments are proof of our commitment to stand beside local communities to co-fund important tourism infrastructure that many small towns and districts cannot afford by themselves. To date the Tourism Infrastructure Fund has helped to fund more than 200 projects from boat ramps to scenic coastal walkways essential waste-water plants wharves and more. The last funding round had a particular focus on the five South Island regions most affected by the absence of international tourists: Queenstown Wānaka Fiordland Aoraki / Mount Cook Mackenzie district Kaikōura and the West Coast and its glacier region.Rachel Brooking: How will this funding round help New Zealanders celebrate Matariki?Hon STUART NASH: This year's funding round will have a special emphasis on physical infrastructure to support our unique new mid-winter public holiday marking Matariki. Matariki will be our first public holiday that recognises Te Ao Māori and will be an occasion that is uniquely ours starting this year on 22 June. Now is the time to start planning to promote Matariki to the world. Councils are encouraged to put real thought into infrastructure they want as part of a growing focus on the significance of Matariki celebrating our newest public holiday."
2. Question No. 2—FinanceBARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) to the Minister of FinanceQuestion No. 2—Finance2. BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): The Crown's accounts released last week continue to reflect the resilience of the economy and the Government's balanced financial management. For the seven months to the end of January the operating balance before gains and losses deficit was $8 billion $3.7 billion below the forecast in December's Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update. Net core Crown debt stood at 34.5 percent of GDP—$600 million less than had been predicted and significantly below the countries with which we compare ourselves. New Zealand is in a strong fiscal position as we deal with the impacts of the Omicron outbreak and other challenges and it is this that gives us the ability to particularly support low and middle income earners at this time.Barbara Edmonds: What is the impact of the economy on the country's tax take?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The economy's strength is shown in tax revenue being $1.4 billion above forecast at $59.7 billion. This is largely due to better than expected corporate profits and a strong jobs market with more people in work. This better than expected result reflects the resilience of the economy despite the volatility and uncertainty surrounding the ongoing pandemic. We will continue to take a balanced approach to this response and invest in the longstanding challenges that we have while carefully managing our resources for the long term.Barbara Edmonds: What other reports has he seen on the economy?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The strength of the jobs market is continuing to support New Zealand's economy. Stats New Zealand reported last week that filled jobs in January rose at a faster pace of 0.5 percent or 10630 jobs on December to reach a new high of $2.3 million. This marks 14 months of continuous job gains despite the effects of the pandemic. The robust jobs market shows the Government's actions in response to COVID-19 since the start of the pandemic to protect lives and livelihoods has proved to be the best economic approach. The way for us to support New Zealanders and get more money in their pockets is to have people in work with decent wages and that is what we are working on.
SpeechHouse resumed.REPORT OF COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE HOUSECHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Madam Speaker the committee has considered the Commerce Amendment Bill and reports it with amendment the committee has also considered the Protected Disclosures (Protection of Whistleblowers) Bill and reports it with amendment the committee has also considered the Incorporated Societies Bill and reports it with amendment the committee has also considered the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Amendment Bill and reports no progress. I move That the report be adopted.Motion agreed to.Report adopted.The House adjourned at 9.57 p.m.
SpeechDAMIEN SMITH (ACT): Thank you Madam Chair. The Incorporated Societies Bill—I looked at the Cabinet minutes from when the Minister put together the original framework. And it's taken obviously a while to get there and congratulations to the committee. The amendments seemed extensive and long and at a practical level inside the societies themselves it's caused massive consternation in terms of a period of inertia really about what is coming up what isn't included and hopefully this will go a long way to deciding that. The differentiation with sports societies the All Blacks your local rugby club it's going to take a while for this to bed through and it's going to take some time to actually be interpreted properly. It's going to be difficult for a committee to interpret this without any external advisers and it'll probably fall on their accountants to take a view on this and to comply with the Companies Office which I see there's already a section up there to have them fulfil that and to do the paperwork.So I just wanted to—it's not often you go from 1908 to 2022 but that's what's happened here. And I think the acid test will be whether this causes more administration or it makes people happy. So I'd like to one day see a survey of that for people who have to use this legislation. But in the meantime congratulations to the House and we'll be supporting this bill.
SpeechHon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): I just want to pick up some of the points raised in the debate so far. I do want to acknowledge the Hon Judith Collins' gracious speech acknowledging National's support for the bill and the bipartisan approach taken and the way in which the Parliament can work together to pass good law for the benefit of incorporated societies—and actually for the benefit of the society that they serve.In terms of the contribution by the member Andrew Bayly perhaps—obviously the member's new to the bill and perhaps encountering the Supplementary Order Paper for the first time certainly and maybe the bill as well. And I guess he highlights that perhaps I've been unnecessarily modest in terms of the bill. It is indeed actually me that brought it to the House. He raises the question Why has it taken so long?" Actually the truth is the prior Government did not seem to progress this at great speed. Now I don't wish to introduce partisan debate here but the actual process of considering what would make the bill better was progressed in the first term of this Government. And then when I became the Minister—Andrew Bayly: What happened then—four years ago?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK:—very quickly it was introduced and it's going through to law. So I'm only answering the member's question. I was in my speech very careful to say that this was kicked off—the questions were kicked off—under a National Government. But since the member is actually asking the actual grunt work of getting this done was done by my predecessor the Hon Kris Faafoi and through to the bill which I then picked up and introduced to the Parliament and had brought through the legislative process. So I do want to acknowledge the Hon Kris Faafoi.I still do also want to acknowledge right back when the Minister of Justice Simon Power made a referral in 2010 asking the Law Commission to review incorporated societies law. It slowed down a little after his time perhaps but this is perhaps part of why we have got a bipartisan approach in the House. This is something that the whole House is concerned about and members of Parliament encounter incorporated societies with issues coming into their electorate offices. And it is time to put all of this right.Todd McClay also—I do want to acknowledge his contribution. There weren't perhaps questions raised in there but there was an acknowledgement of the chair of the select committee Jamie Strange for his work. I want to acknowledge the Hon Todd McClay's work on that committee. I understand it was a very constructive engagement between members of the Opposition and members of the Government to make that law the best it could be after hearing all the submitters and some of the concerns that were raised.This is how the Parliament should work at its best—working together to get the very best law that we can together. And as Hon Todd McClay said the sooner we can get this through the better for these societies; the sooner we can get this law through the House the sooner they can get on and be subject to a clearer law that supports them better in their endeavours in wider society."
Webb DuncanINCORPORATED SOCIETIES BILLIn CommitteeParts 1 to 6 Schedules 1 to 4 and clauses 1 and 2CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members we come now to the Incorporated Societies Bill.Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Junior Whip—Labour): Point of order. Thank you Madam Chair. I wonder given the bill is uncontentious has six parts and a number of schedules whether we could take all parts as one question by leave?CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Is there any objection? There appears to be none. The question is that Parts 1 to 6 Schedules 1 to 4 and clauses 1 and 2 stand part.
Protected Disclosures (Protection of Whistleblowers) — In Committee—Clauses 1 and 2
Penk ChrisClauses 1 and 2 CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you Madam Chair. I was hoping to take a call on all the different parts but Part 4 would have been rather strange so I'll give a strange one instead on the title and commencement.Really briefly actually though just in terms of the commencement the version of the bill as it sort of sits in front of us says that the Act comes in force on 1 July 2021. I've avoided embarrassing myself by trying to make a meal of that by seeing that the Government Supplementary Order Paper in fact will change that commencement date to 1 July 2022. Missed an opportunity for a Richie Benaud there—22—which in the week of Shane Warne's passing is dear to my heart. Anyway I see obviously the Minister's changed it so we're not sort of trying to do something retrospective but by doing that rather than use that normal formulation of X number of days perhaps even one day after the Royal assent we've missed the excellent benefit of this within our statutory framework by some months. So if the Minister's got any comment on that I would be interested to hear it. But failing which I will not delay further the passage of the bill after this excellent committee of the whole House stage we've enjoyed tonight. Thank you.Clause 1 agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is That the Minister's amendment to clause 2 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 131 be agreed to. Amendment agreed to.Clause 2 as amended agreed to.Bill to be reported with amendment.
SpeechVOTINGCorrection—Commerce Amendment BillCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members before we proceed with this bill I do need to correct the result of a party vote announced earlier this evening where the committee was considering the Commerce Amendment Bill. On the question that the Minister's amendment to Part 1 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 81 be agreed to the result was announced as Ayes 65 and Noes 53. The correct result was Ayes 98 Noes 20. The record will be corrected accordingly. Debate resumed.
Voting — Correction—Commerce Amendment Bill
Protected Disclosures (Protection of Whistleblowers) Bill — In Committee—Part 2
Mitchell Mark; Watts SimonHon MARK MITCHELL (National—Whangaparāoa) (remote): Yeah thank you Madam Chair. Firstly can I acknowledge and thank the Minister for the Public Service who is standing and responding—the Minister in the chair—to the questions; they are important ones.I'd just like to carry on with the theme that my friend and colleague Chris Penk opened around section 11 and that is—the Minister's just highlighted in his last contribution that the threshold has been lowered in terms of the protections around whistleblowers then giving them confidence to come forward. I think that is a very good thing. But I'd just like to ask the Minister especially in terms of public funds taxpayers' money that's being used by Government departments appropriations through a Cabinet and through a Minister and if there was an employee or someone inside one of those Government departments that found that felt like the funds were not being used properly there was no way of measuring outcomes or where the money was ending whether it was being used unnecessarily in admin or procurement and exactly what the new threshold would be in his view in terms of an employee in that situation being able to come forward and use the protection of whistleblowers bill legislation?SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): I know that the Minister was just actually about to raise just to come back on Mark Mitchell so I'll just add another question just to that. It actually is linked to what member Jan Logie asked before in regards to clause 10 around the definition of serious wrongdoing". I guess what I'm interested in from the Minister and I guess potentially wearing his other hat is that subparagraph 10(b)(i) relates to a serious risk to public health and as we've just discussed the period of duration for this bill has been you know from in effect the last four years to five years. As we know I guess that risk matrix around what is defined as serious risk to public health has significantly changed. I think it would be fair to say that the paradigm around assessment of risk in public health has changed. And I'm interested for a perspective—I know the Minister mentioned that you know we've got to get it right and I think we were on the same page around that but what assessment if any has been thought about the changing paradigm around what is the threshold for serious risk? And I guess my underlying concern is to Mark Mitchell's point as well just before is around that as a result of how things change that that risk I guess ceiling potentially is increased as a result of what we've seen through the impact of COVID-19 and as a result we may be potentially unintentionally of course blocking people from utilising this portion of the Act."
Brown SimeonSIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you Madam Chair. I've just got a quick question about clause 12 which relates to the guidance of what the receiver should do. It says in clause 12(1) Within 20 working days of receiving a protected disclosure the receiver of the disclosure should—" and then it talks about the different steps that may be made: acknowledge receipt consider check deal with and then inform the discloser with reasons. Then in clause 12(3) it says "This section is guidance only. It does not confer a legal right (apart from the entitlements under sections 13 and 30) or impose a legal obligation on any person that is enforceable in a court of law." and my understanding would be and it'd be good just to get some clarity from the Minister that this legal—well in fact it does not confer a legal right as regarding time frames and also I would guess the actual steps that need to be undertaken. So the question I have is: is this guidance to the body which is receiving the protected disclosure and if you were someone who had been a whistleblower is this going to be something which is going to be measured at all to sort of try to ensure that there is some degree of consistency around the steps that are being taken in these particular guidances that need to be done? I guess the concern here is that the legislation sets up a relatively good regime with some steps which need to be undertaken by the receiver of the information but I guess the concern would be that there may be a lack of consistency. So it would be good to get some sort of information—or it's probably outside of this piece of legislation but in terms of what the Minister's intention would be in terms of ensuring that there is a relative degree of consistency around how this process is undertaken throughout the Public Service."
Brown SimeonPart 2 Key concepts and what to do CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members we come now to Part 2. This is the debate on clauses 7 to 15: key concepts and what to do. The question is that Part 2 stand part. SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you Madam Chair. I couldn't resist taking a short call on the key concepts and what to do section of this piece of legislation. I just thought it was very helpful that in clause 7 the bill even includes a flow chart which helps people to understand how to make—Hon Chris Hipkins: We're making legislative history. SIMEON BROWN: Yeah well I'm not sure. It would be interesting if the Minister could take a call and explain what other legislation he's aware of that has flow charts in it to try and explain how the piece of legislation actually works. But for people who are needing to whistle-blow or make a disclosure under this piece of legislation it is very helpful to have a very clear way of knowing how the legislation may work and also to help people understand whether or not the particular issue that they are keen to raise may or may not actually be protected under this piece of legislation. So I just want to acknowledge the Minister for drawing that on his whiteboard and then putting it together in legislation. I'm really pleased that—Hon Chris Hipkins: All my own work—all my own work. SIMEON BROWN: All his own work as he says. I'm sure it was. But I think acknowledgment where it's due Minister for that. In terms of this particular part which deals with a number of definitions clause 10 is probably one of the most significant: the meaning of serious wrongdoing. There have been a couple of changes there and I do just want to ask the Minister if he could outline why the inclusion of the health and safety of any individual has been included. It would be good to get some further explanation to that. Also some of the other changes to this particular part have been I think relatively minor but also just again they deal with definitional sections around how the particular process goes. I think that on this side of the House we in the National Party have obviously been through this piece of legislation with the committee. This Supplementary Order Paper and the changes I think pretty much respond to the Education and Workforce Committee report and sort of make some good suggested changes. There's nothing too radical from our perspective and so I guess from my perspective it's good to get this piece of legislation progressed as quickly as possible as it makes this very important reform to the public sector to ensure that people who do whistle-blow have a very clear framework and a very clear process as to how they can do that under the legislation. Thank you Madam Chair.
Protected Disclosures (Protection of Whistleblowers) Bill — In Committee—Part 1
Hipkins ChrisPROTECTED DISCLOSURES (PROTECTION OF WHISTLEBLOWERS) BILLIn CommitteePart 1 Preliminary ProvisionsCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that Part 1 stand part.Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for the Public Service): Thank you Madam Chair. Just some very brief introductions to the committee stage of the Protected Disclosures (Protection of Whistleblowers) Bill and can I thank parties across the House for the constructive way that they have approached this legislation.The existing Protected Disclosures Act has served New Zealand well but I think there is an acknowledgment that it isn't accessible it isn't well understood and it hasn't been as widely used as we might have anticipated over the last 20 years. So this bill is designed to basically pick up the easy or the easier amendments that we can make to that legislation in order to make it more accessible in order to make it clearer in order to have the Act functioning in the way that it was intended by Parliament back in 2000 when it was first put in place.It does throw up a number of more complex issues including some big issues around how the private sector should factor into a protection of whistleblowers regime that are not the subject of this bill. Further work I think is justified in those areas and there are some amendments that have been raised by the Green Party for example that highlight some wider issues which I do think in due course Parliament should give some attention to. But I think that we need to do some fuller policy work around those. We need to do some fuller consultation around those before we as legislators make further decisions on those.So this set of amendments that's before the committee now is really about making the legislation more accessible and more usable. In due course I think that there is an opportunity to go further but I think that we should do that in the fullness of time once a proper process has happened around some of those wider changes that could be possible.
Watts SimonSIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Very sensible questions from my colleague there Chris Penk. I want to just go into another related area around the commencement date which links again to the questions that I raised before around the penalties which were in new section 83(3) in clause 28 of Part 1. What we're referring to here is in the commencement of those penalties under clause 2 of the bill and I'm interested in regards to the timing of those changes coming into effect. Obviously the maximum penalty now being $500000 for an individual is significant and there is a period of time no doubt that would be needed in order to—a lead-in time in regards to that. I'm interested in the Minister providing context and comfort around why the commencement time line is what it is within that section. Thank you.Clause 1 agreed to.Clause 2 agreed to.Clause 3 agreed to.Bill to be reported with amendment.
Penk ChrisClauses 1 to 3 CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much Madam Chair. A reckless call on my part but luckily for us all you've accepted it. Just a quick one on the commencement provisions of this bill. I note that there are a number of different time frames for the bill to come into effect a number of sections and I'll do everyone a favour and not read them all out. But within clause 4 are a number of subclauses to commence one month after Royal assent and the Minister was good enough to engage in a discussion with me earlier about the fact that originally the bill had that at a 12-month mark for one of those. It was in relation to the penalty for anti-competitive behaviour and he let me know that that was reduced. He agreed essentially. The Government agreed on the recommendation of the select committee.But there was another provision namely clause 38(1) which commences six months after the Royal assent and the remainder of the Act on the first anniversary—so that's obviously 12 months. So I'm just wondering if the Minister can explain just for the sake of the record and not because I'm doubting particularly the appropriateness of the time frame but just to sort of ventilate for the public record that the purpose of that staggered introduction including in relation to—I think I'm right in saying there's some timing that relates to an epidemic notice. So any guidance the Minister can give on that is much appreciated.
Bayly AndrewANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): I was waiting for the Minister to take a call but I don't think he actually heard your questions Mr Watts. So the first thing: you found another typo. And I'm referring to Mr Simon Watts when I say that. So in that light my first question I suppose is to the Minister: would he like to amend his Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 81 and to include a further change? Because obviously all these SOP changes relate to typos and final further amendments and gee there are a fair few of them. Ha ha! Wow this is a Minister who's very much across his bill! That's why the Minister's having to put it up during a committee of the whole House discussion. So there's another one for you Minister. I suggest you should listen to Mr Simon Watts because he was trying to help you because we do not want bills going forward with typos—it's not a great thing.So in the light of what Mr Watts was saying I thought it was an interesting discussion he was having there. What other consequential amendments to the Fair Trading Act the Takeovers Act and the Fuel Industry Act—well we know what the Fuel Industry Act is it's a big blah. That's not going very far. What's petrol today? Three dollars. But if you go down to Pōkeno in my electorate it's about 20c cheaper which I found on Saturday night. That's because it's in the mighty Waikato not in Auckland.Hon Gerry Brownlee: It's old stock. They can't move it. There's no one there.ANDREW BAYLY: Ha ha! Mr Gerry Brownlee suggesting something. No it's because that Labour Government hasn't yet put its hands around the Waikato and said We're going to impose another tax on you." That's why it's cheaper and that's why we want to know what the consequential impact is on the fuel industry.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): I invite the member to come back to the bill.ANDREW BAYLY: But what I'd really like to know from the Minister is with all these wonderful changes in the bill—and he still hasn't answered my question on whether he's spoken to the gaming industry and what the financial impacts are on the various portfolios or industries that are going to be effected by this—what will it mean when the Commerce Commission comes to assess takeovers mergers applications for fair trading? What will be the impact and how will it improve the lives of New Zealanders? Because we know one thing: it won't improve the situation for those who've gone about their business created intellectual property paid for it and dispensed or shared it with many people or businesses around the country because we know that potentially this bill will have a chilling impact on them. So what is the impact particularly in relation to takeovers? I am waiting and hopefully the Minister will answer my question—I've asked four times—did he speak to the gaming industry and what is the financial consequences of this bill on those screenwriters the New Zealand Writers Guild the gaming industry and all those different ones?Part 2 agreed to.Schedule agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members we now come to our final debate which is on clauses 1 to 3 the title and commencement debate."
Watts SimonPart 2 Transitional related and consequential amendments SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Thank you very much Madam Chair and I appreciate the opportunity to speak in regards to Part 2 of this bill. Actually it's somewhat related and linked to the points that I've raised earlier this evening but I'm referring in this contribution to clauses 35 to 37 of Part 2 of the bill in which there will be what are referred to as consequential amendments" to the Fair Trading Act 1986 the Takeovers Act 1993 and the Fuel Industry Act 2000 I think—Hon Member: 2020.SIMON WATTS: Bit of a typo in page 10 there: it says "the Fuel Industry Act 2000" so—crikey I didn't realise such legislation was so old in this House. But obviously another of what we'd refer to as a "slight admission"—it's another one that we've noted there. That's page 10 just for reference section 3.5 of the departmental disclosure statement.So what I'm interested in—the question really Minister Clark is in regards to those changes. This is in regards to again the sharing of personal information which is an important aspect that we should be you know conscious of. What are the main considerations that were given there? Also in terms of consideration for the Privacy Commissioner as well just in regards to the implications on those three pieces of legislation noted there."
SpeechHon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): No. The supplementary disclosure statement relates to the Government Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) re the technical amendment to the New Zealand Police. The amendment in clause 28 to amend section 83 regarding the penalty was done in committee not by SOP. In respect of the member Ricardo Menéndez March and his question topically about competition in the grocery sector what I would say as an overall comment is that it has been very challenging to—well it has been hard for the Commerce Commission to challenge anti-competitive behaviour in my view. Since 1986 there have been five cases taken and only two have been successful. I think this highlights that it has been very very difficult to take successful cases for anti-competitive conduct and what we're doing today in moving this bill through the committee stage—notwithstanding some of the theatre along the way—is that we are bringing our law more into line with what they have in Australia. Whether it's intentional or not requiring large well-resourced businesses to manage their own actions in terms of whether they're causing harm in the market and harm to competition is entirely appropriate.
Watts SimonSIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Thank you very much Madam Chair. I didn't get a response from the Minister in regards to the points that I raised in regards to clause 28 inserting new section 83(3) in terms of the rationale around how we reach those levels of maximum penalties. The reason why I'm asking that is I want to understand. One of the concerns that National has with this bill is the detrimental outcomes potentially that could fall on consumers as a result. Obviously those clauses impact both individuals but also business. So that's the first question that I asked before that I still have not got a response.The second question quite simply is: is there an error in the departmental disclosure statement clause 1 subsection (a) where it states no" to the fact that there were no proposed amendments to create amend or remove penalties and offences based on clause 28 inserting new section 83(3) which actually changes and amends the penalties? Is there an error in the departmental disclosure statement: yes or no?"
Menéndez March RicardoRICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) (remote): Tēnā koe Madam Chair and just wanted to get a bit topical I guess. I've been reflecting on one of the submissions in this bill and their concerns around the supermarket industry and this is the Food and Grocery Council. I wanted to sort of get a reflection from the Minister on how he envisions this bill having an impact into what some people perceive to be anti-competitive behaviour in the supermarket industry.
SpeechDAMIEN SMITH (ACT): Thank you. Intellectual property (IP) and competition law have historically been uneasy bedfellows. IP looks to reward creativity and innovation and commercialisation and leads to productivity uplift. There's no doubt about that and there's enough studies to prove that. Competition law within markets ensures prohibiting monopolistic behaviours and activities. And the impact is likely to mean that IP owners will need to be more careful when looking to commercialise and enforce their IP. In a way it could effectively discourage investment. So this issue's sort of never been totally addressed. It's sort of been buried because the focus has been on the proposed changes to section 36 which is the competition element. So we believe that the safe harbour should be reinstated to give business confidence in investing in their IP and licensing it as well.So can the Government give that investment confidence? Can it manage the productivity around competition law and enforce IP rights and IP sanctions when it needs to? It's a big area of work. So in terms of giving business confidence I would ask tonight that we create some positive outcomes for New Zealand both businesses and consumers and nothing should be in the bill that encourages disinvestment. Thank you.
Bayly AndrewANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Well thank you. I'm glad the Minister's taken his first contribution. With all due respect to the Minister I don't think just saying It's outdated thinking. That's why we're going to remove it."—that doesn't really explain why the Government is so keen to do it. And just to add a little bit more colour to what I'm talking about I thought it might be useful to just quote from a letter that I received from Australia New Zealand Screen Association Writers Guild Screen Production and Development Association Interactive Games and Entertainment Association.So to put this in context the games industry in New Zealand from memory is worth about $300 million and growing rapidly. Of course the Minister is also in charge of technology and I know he loves talking about these things in his other capacity. So now we're talking about intellectual property which cuts to the heart of one of his other portfolios and yet he just says "It's outdated thinking and let's move on." Well I'm not so sure about this. As this letter says "We thoroughly agree with National's concern that repealing the intellectual property exemptions in the Commerce Act was chilling investment in New Zealand. Given international film studios and investors scan the globe for potential investment and licensing opportunities this is likely to discourage overseas film studios discourage international investment in the New Zealand film industry discourage local film makers and writers."Then this letter goes on to say it may discourage international video game companies from licensing their intellectual property to New Zealand video game distributors and developers and it may also discourage them from publishing New Zealand made games. So next time I hear the Minister standing in his other capacity talking about the gaming industry and how it's a vibrant industry and that technology is going to drive the economy forward can he please before he does that—tonight please—explain to anyone listening and certainly to the Madam Chair why it is necessary to get rid of these provisions when the industry many parts of the industry are against it."
SpeechHon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Thank you Madam Chair. I'll deal with the three issues that have been raised so far. First to acknowledge Chris Penk's question: indeed the committee itself recommended one month. That has been adopted and I thank the committee for its work on that. In respect of the question from Andrew Bayly I did cover that in some detail in my introductory comments but I'm happy to repeat for the member. Basically the argument that intellectual property rights shouldn't be subject to scrutiny in a competitive context is an outdated idea and so we're essentially repealing that. That is what's happening. Now robust intellectual property rights incentivise innovation as the member well knows and really arguably they're complementary rather than—yeah well they are complementary to competition law. So we're removing the safe harbour provisions and making them susceptible to the same scrutiny that we would expect of any other similar thing—Andrew Bayly: But why—but why? Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: —because it is outdated thinking that needed to be updated and changed. In respect of Simon Watts' point—which was the third one—around the New Zealand Police there was an error noted after the bill was reported back from select committee. The bill inserts new sections 99AA and 99AB into the Act as he's noted which should provide a legislative basis for the Commerce Commission to exchange information with other regulators and Government agencies when necessary for the performance of statutory functions and basically because the Police are a different kind of organisation they fell between the cracks here. They're neither a Public Service agency nor a statutory entity but instead are an instrument of the Crown and this corrects for that error which was overseen in the bill at the committee stage.
Watts SimonSIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Thank you very much Madam Chair. I'm just taking that mask off which takes a wee bit of time and I appreciate the Minister—I'm looking forward to his contribution to a number of very good questions that have been raised by my colleague Andrew Bayly. I want to move to clause 32 of Part 1 of the bill and this is in regards to two new sections that have been implemented or introduced: sections 99AA and 99AB. I refer to the supplementary department disclosure statement under Privacy issues" section 2 in which it notes these two new amendments in terms of Part 1 and their impact by adding in the New Zealand Police to an organisation that the Commerce Commission is allowed to share information with. What I'd like from the Minister is to provide a little bit of context and information in terms of how he foresees that engagement with the New Zealand Police and what types of information he believes will be shared through this arrangement. I'm interested particularly around the safeguards around the provision of that information and also I guess consideration around unintended consequences and implication in terms of other criminal matters and civil matters as well. So a little bit of clarity and context in regards to clause 32 of the bill by the Minister would be appreciated."
Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much Madam Chair. No doubt the Minister will be pleased to engage in discussion on this as is the spirit of committee stage and we look forward to that. And no doubt colleagues of mine on this side of the House who quite probably know more about the bill than I do will look forward to engaging with him likewise.I was curious to know first of all looking at the commentary that has been provided by the Economic Development Science and Innovation Committee the Minister's view of a number of the recommendations that have been made one of them being the new maximum penalty to be created under new section 83 set out in clause 28. I wonder if the Minister can explain his response to the recommendation that the select committee made around the timing of which that penalty would come into play. For those who haven't followed the bill closely before or perhaps are even very new to it a position which I have some sympathy with being pretty new to it myself they may not be aware that section 83 contains a penalty for anti-competitive acquisitions and mergers. So obviously the name of the game is to allow competition. We have a fundamental view—I think when I say we it's probably shared across the House and I know that the relatively orthodox position of the Labour Party in this would presumably support the idea—that more competition is good. Indeed I should acknowledge there's been a review into supermarkets' pricing and competition and so on.So obviously it can be understood that while the parties do sometimes have a different view about the way that competition should be encouraged and how interventionist the Government might be in relation to creating that or allowing that competition nevertheless we do share that basic view in this essentially market-led democracy and economy whereby we want to encourage competition. So the penalty for anti-competitive behaviour is no small thing and the suggestion of the select committee members might recall was that the penalty shouldn't be delayed from coming into force some 12 months after the bill came into effect or after the Royal assent because they point out that with such a long lead time as a year it would mean that it wouldn't have its effect. And believing it to have a useful effect of course is the whole purpose of it being in there in the first place. So the recommendation from the select committee was that only one month rather than 12 be the period of time before that would come into force. And as I say through you Madam Chair I would be grateful for the Minister's response to that and how he thought that maybe the original time frame was justified or perhaps that he thought it would be appropriate to reduce that time frame as the select committee has recommended.
SpeechCOMMERCE AMENDMENT BILLIn CommitteeDebate resumed from 17 November 2021.Part 1 Amendments to principal Act (continued)CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): So we start with the interrupted debate on the Commerce Amendment Bill. When we were last considering this bill Part 1 was being debated and the Minister Dr David Clark had the call. He may resume his contribution if we wishes. The question is that Part 1 stand part.
SpeechHOUSE IN COMMITTEECHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members the House is in committee on the Commerce Amendment Bill Protected Disclosures (Protection of Whistleblowers) Bill Incorporated Societies Bill and the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Amendment Bill. I will remind members that they are able to participate remotely. So if you're on Zoom and you want to put a call in please do so by calling call" into the chat function. You should also use the chat if you want to raise a point of order. If we receive new tabled amendments I will advise members so that they can refresh the House papers page to see the new amendment. And finally it would be very helpful for members to ask multiple questions if they have them of the member in charge during their call."
Salesa JennyGLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth): Kia ora Madam Speaker. Thank you for letting me take a call in this hybrid Parliament. I just want to basically sum up everything that's gone on this afternoon and this evening for the Statutes Amendment Bill. It's short it's about stuff that's technical and it's non-controversial.Now when we say short" in this Parliament sometimes I'm not sure if we quite get that but it's—several paragraphs isn't short. Getting to the point keeping it simple and short is something that we need to learn. So that's one of them.Secondly around it being technical: so in terms of it being technical if you're making massive changes or you're messing with a principle of the Act it's probably a little bit—you know it affects it.And finally non-controversial: so if someone's maybe tried and failed to pass an amendment in the past then that's probably controversial. So it's something as we can across the House we can reach across the aisle and support this. So very simple: the Statutes Amendment Bill first reading is around short changes it's technical and it's non-controversial. For that fact I commend this bill to the House.Motion agreed to.Bill read a first time.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is That the Statutes Amendment Bill be considered by the Governance and Administration Committee.Motion agreed to.Bill referred to the Governance and Administration Committee."
Statutes Amendment Bill — First Reading (continued 2)
SpeechANGELA ROBERTS (Labour) (remote): Thank you Madam Speaker. I would like to challenge some of our previous speakers this evening who say that this bill is dull as dishwater. For those of us who are social scientists we can see some little pieces of history being recognised tonight. We've already heard about the removal of some concepts that are beyond their use such as registered post but something that has happened is to establish and recognise some of modern living. There is the enabling of body corporate meetings to be attended via audiovisual link or by audio link because as we know as we're experiencing right now things have changed because of COVID. So everyone has said it's a tidy-up bill but I'd like to think that actually there's an opportunity for historians as they go through as check these statutes over the years to recognise Governments who pay attention take note and help to ensure that we've got a coherent set of legislation that is fit for purpose especially in 2022. I am pleased to commend this bill to the House.
Webb DuncanDr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Well there you go: a speech just about as dull as this bill. It's not a particularly exciting bill but listen it is an important bill—Hon Gerry Brownlee: This is going to put us all to sleep.Dr DUNCAN WEBB: —and I can just—Gerry we've been trying to put you to sleep for quite some time but we'll get there eventually.This is a bill which touches on some important points. I mean the amendments that apply to the Canterbury Earthquakes Insurance Tribunal is as good an example as any making it clear what the rules around limitation are. I mean you could call it a technical amendment but if you're in front of that tribunal and whether you win or lose depends on whether limitation applies or not it's absolutely critical and life-changing. So this is a bill full of changes of that nature making sure that the statute book is consistent and that it hasn't got any lose ends.I thank the Opposition for coming through and agreeing that these are tidy-ups that are appropriate for a statutes amendment bill. I entirely commend this bill to the House.
Utikere Tangi; Salesa JennyTANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Mālō e lelei Madam Speaker thank you. It's a pleasure to take a brief call on the Statutes Amendment Bill this evening. I understand that this is unlikely to be contentious given the unanimous support it seems from members around the House.This will effectively give effect to a number of amendments across a number of Acts through many different Government agencies. Many this evening have cherry-picked particular parts so in that vein I will do the same. I will refer to Part 17 in the bill which will seek to amend the Fire and Emergency New Zealand Act 2017. There are eight changes within that Act but one of them actually relates to section 42(2)(c) which relates to an emergency situation where a person can take or send equipment or machines into through or upon any land buildings or structures but not over any building lands or structures. So things like helicopters drones and the like—this will be an opportunity to allow Fire and Emergency New Zealand to go about their business in an emergency by that particular way.So that's just one example; there are many others. It will go to select committee and the community can have their say. I'm delighted to commend this bill to the House.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): The next call is a split call. But before I call the next speaker can I just remind those who are participating remotely that if you want to take a call please type in call" on the chat. I call Simon O'Connor."