edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
2. Question No. 2—FinanceTIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato) to the Minister of FinanceQuestion No. 2—Finance2. TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has she seen on interest rates?Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): As I said yesterday the Reserve Bank's monetary policy committee last week cut the official cash rate (OCR) by 25 basis points to 5.25 percent. Reductions in the official cash rate and expectations about its future path affect both short-term and longer-term market interest rates. These include mortgage and business lending rates which have a direct impact on New Zealand families and businesses. And through interest rates the exchange rate and a number of other channels a reduction in the OCR provides a boost to the economy which is positive for all New Zealanders. That's why last week's cut was a significant turning point for the economy.Tim van de Molen: What is the expectation for future OCR cuts?Hon NICOLA WILLIS: In last week's Monetary Policy Statement the Reserve Bank issued its own forecast for the future path of the official cash rate. This shows steady reductions from the current rate of 5.25 percent to a 3 percent OCR by mid-2027. The financial markets are more forward leaning than this. Currently the market is pricing in a faster pace of interest rate cuts and expecting that the OCR will reach 3 percent in February 2026.Tim van de Molen: How have banks responded to the OCR cut?Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well I'm advised that all major banks have cut their mortgage rates following last week's Monetary Policy Statement. In some cases that will take time to flow through to people's mortgage payments depending on whether and for how long they have fixed their mortgages. In other cases it will flow through straight away. In any event Kiwis can look forward to paying less interest on their mortgages and on their personal loans and together with tax relief which came in on 31 July this will be a big help with the cost of living for New Zealand families.Tim van de Molen: How do lower interest rates affect people's mortgage repayments?Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Individual circumstances vary a lot and if people are interested in how things could change for them I'd recommend they look at a reputable mortgage calculator like that on the Sorted.org.nz website. But to give one example a drop from a 7 percent mortgage rate to 6 percent for a family with a 25-year $500000 mortgage means their repayments would reduce by $145 a fortnight. They of course could use that money elsewhere in the family budget or simply pay their mortgage down faster. Either way they are significantly better off.
Education and Training Amendment Bill — Instruction to Education and Workforce Committee
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That debate on this question now close.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 49New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.Motion agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the motion be agreed to.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 49New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.Motion agreed to.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Education and Training Amendment Bill be now read a first time.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 49New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.Motion agreed to.Bill read a first time.Bill referred to the Education and Workforce Committee.
Brownlee GerryREPORTSSPEAKER: I present the report of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment entitled A review of freshwater models used to support the regulation and management of water in New Zealand.
Sentencing (Reinstating Three Strikes) Amendment Bill — First Reading
Williams Arena; O'Connor GregARENA WILLIAMS (Assistant Whip—Labour): Point of order Mr Speaker.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): Before I call the next call just now that we've had two quite full speeches on this and provided a lot of context. From henceforth I'll be looking for some very narrow arguments around the timing. So I am calling Arena Williams.Arena Williams: For a call or for a point?ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): Sorry calling Arena Williams.ARENA WILLIAMS (Assistant Whip—Labour): OK. Briefly on—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): Oh sorry. Was that a point of order?Arena Williams: I would like a call though Mr Speaker.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): Oh you're seeking the call?Arena Williams: I am seeking the call.Katie Nimon: Point of order. Point of order Mr Speaker. The member called a point of order.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): OK so the member is—Point of order.ARENA WILLIAMS: Mr Speaker I acknowledge your guidance there and that was something that I was listening for. I just want to be helpful to the House and bring your attention to Speaker's ruling 115/3. I'd invite you to consider the Minister's speech—that's on page 115 Mr Speaker—where he provided the House with some further context as you say.The reason why members on this side of the House have been debating that context is because the Minister didn't actually provide a reason for his use of urgency. So in Speaker's ruling 115/3 it's about the Speaker not accepting a closure motion when a Minister has not provided a reason for the need for use of urgency.In that case we are still interested in hearing from the Minister and we have a Minister here in the House who might be able to provide a reason but we haven't heard that yet. So that is why Opposition members have spoken quite widely to the context because we're still waiting for the Minister's use of urgency reasoning.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): Yes that's why I've allowed the debate to actually be wider than I may have otherwise. But at this stage we also move to the repetition stage so I just indicate now that I'll give the member a call—indicating too that we're looking for new material.
Seymour DavidInstruction to Education and Workforce CommitteeHon DAVID SEYMOUR (Associate Minister of Education): I move That the Education and Training Amendment Bill be reported to the House by 5 September 2024 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions) during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House and outside the Wellington area despite Standing Orders 193 195 and 196.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): The question is that the motion be agreed to.Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: This legislation brings into effect policies that have actually been introduced in New Zealand before. It is certainly true that there are some modifications and improvements that will mean that charter schools as we propose them today will be even better than the pilot of charters that was run in New Zealand from around 2012 to 2017. However that does not mean that there is an extensive need to consult on something that we effectively ran a five-year pilot of—very successfully I might add—in New Zealand.The network provisions are simply removing something that has had no positive effect is openly criticised by the sector and will return to the status quo ante that all parties appear to have been happy with for a long period of time.Finally the power of the Secretary to require attendance rules be made in schools is simply enabling the Secretary to make a rule—not any particular rule—and one would hope that allowing the Ministry of Education to make rules about children having to attend school and schools having to report that they've attended would be relatively uncontroversial across most parties in the House.
Bates CarlCARL BATES (National—Whanganui): Improving educational achievement in this country is critical. I'm particularly interested as a member on the Education and Workforce Committee in when we get into the early childhood education and the removing of red tape particularly around the network approval requirements introduced by the last Government. I'm looking forward to getting into the work and getting this bill passed through the House. I commend this bill to the House.
Butterick MikeMIKE BUTTERICK (National—Wairarapa): Thank you Mr Speaker. The three objectives in the Education and Training Amendment Bill are ultimately driven by this coalition Government's commitment to drive improvement in our children's education and achievement to help set them up with the skills they'll need out in the real world to help them with the skills they'll need to have a chance to be successful. Anything that helps contribute to those objectives such as this bill should be supported as a priority by everyone in this House. I commend it.
McCallum GrantGRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland): Unlike the people on the other side of the House we trust the professionals out there to do their job and this bill will give them the opportunity and the freedom to get on and do it right? But ultimately this is about the children who desperately need a great education and charter schools will certainly help with that. I commend this bill to the House.
Foster AndyANDY FOSTER (NZ First): Madam Speaker thank you. I want to start by just congratulating the honourable Minister for this bill. This is about again this coalition Government keeping our promises. Charter schools to me are about recognising as the Hon Duncan Webb said in the last debate that one size does not fit all. I think there is a very logical set of criteria there a logical set of expectations on charter schools and I think they will make a significant improvement to our education system.When I listened to what the Opposition was talking about it's as though our education system is working brilliantly at the moment. The reality is that we know it is not—we know it is not. We have a terrible attendance rate at the moment and you cannot teach children who are not at school. Therefore I'm particularly pleased also to see the enablement of the Secretary for Education to collect really good data so that we know exactly where our students are and we can get them back to school get them back to learning because that's what we need to do for their future and for the future of this country. I commend this bill to the House.
Nimon KatieKATIE NIMON (National—Napier): It's a pleasure to speak on the bill the Education and Training Amendment Bill. I will just remind all those watching that it is not just about charter schools. There are important administrative regulatory changes also on early childhood centres to enable rules and also daily reporting of attendance. So with that very important point we need to tighten up regulation offer more choice to parents and I commend this bill to the House.
Nakhle RimaRIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini): It's a pleasure to rise and speak in the second reading for the Courts (Remote Participation) Amendment Bill. But before I get into the nitty gritty of this bill I would also like to say happy birthday to our excellent chair of the Justice Committee James Meager who received a lot of lovely support around the Justice Committee today. I'd also love to say to my mother happy birthday Mum. [Arabic language text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]and I love you so much. I'd also like to say a happy birthday to my niece Silia happy birthday to my sister Nagewa for tomorrow and happy birthday for Rima Luti two days ago.But getting back to this bill as I am surrounded by a number of Ministers and talking about this bill to these Ministers—the Minister of Climate Change over here Simon Watts the MP for North Shore. I know there's a climate of change coming with respect to remote video access for our courts. As I'm surrounded by the Minister of Statistics Andrew Bayly I know the statistics of completed court cases in a certain time frame may well change for the better. I'm surrounded also by the Minister for Land Information Chris Penk and the information in the departmental report is that this will help victims.So anything to get our justice system back on track—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): But is it their birthday? That's what we want to know. Continue.RIMA NAKHLE: Anything to get our justice system back on track. I—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): Back on track—back on the bill. Back on the bill. RIMA NAKHLE: —commend this bill to the House. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): The next call is a split call.
van de Molen TimTIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Thank you Mr Speaker. Look this bill has been well traversed and in the efforts to enable Mr Meager to celebrate his birthday more fulsomely I'm happy to commend this bill to the House and get on with it. Thank you.
Brooking RachelHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you Mr Speaker. Now I've spent a lot of time in this Chamber this week and I can tell you I have not been happy about it. There has been bill after bill just wanting to destroy our environment and it's been an awful time for me someone who cares about the environment and doesn't want to increase pollution.But here we are on Thursday afternoon and we seem to be having a birthday fest. So happy birthday to Mr James Meager the chair of the Justice Committee. And I have to say I'm very pleased to be speaking on a bill that everybody agrees about and can—Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Nobody cares about Freddy the Frog's birthday.Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Aw! My colleague is saying that nobody cares about Freddy the Frog's birthday but I can tell Dr Ayesha Verrall that I care about Freddy the Frog every day of the year—David MacLeod: Which one?Hon RACHEL BROOKING: All the Freddies. All the Freddies David MacLeod all the Freddy the Frogs.Right. So happy birthday to James Meager the chair of the Justice Committee and well done to all members of that select committee whether or not it is their birthday today or yesterday or sometime last week. Well done to them too for working through what my colleague has described as quite a simple bill". These are small changes but they're good for victims. They're good for efficiency. And so well done for having some common-sense legislation."
Brewer CameronCAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour): It gives me great pleasure to rise in the second reading of the Courts (Remote Participation) Amendment Bill and it's great that uniformity and support has broken out on this Government bill across the House and around the House Minister Watts. It's great to have Minister Watts and Minister Bayly here to witness this historic moment where everyone is in support of a Government bill.Thinking back and looking back on where this has come let's have a look at the New Zealand Herald story Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith on reducing court delays as Government key priority." The first opening line of this New Zealand Herald story in January: "Justice delayed is justice denied: 500 days for a jury trial 18 months for victims of serious crime for their day in court."—and wait for it—"The new Government is taking a laser focus on improving the timeliness of the system." The New Zealand Herald by an objective journalist. We are delighted that that laser focus is turning now into a Government bill it's got its second reading and it has support around the House.And just to reiterate the key features of this: this is where going forward the justice ministry and our court system is going to use audiovisual technology where appropriate to ease the pressure that we've talked about extensively this afternoon on courts and increase access to justice. It means more options for attending court for victims and other participants such as lawyers. The proposed measures—and this is an important one; I know it's very important to Rima Nakhle who is our No. 1 advocate for victims on our Justice Committee—will also help reduce the risk of victims being intimidated or revictimised which can happen as we know and examples have been given when they are having to attend court in person.The Justice Committee has worked very diligently and conscientiously under the leadership of Justice—James Meager—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): He got promoted for his birthday!CAMERON BREWER: Well the only way we're going to get him out of Rangitata is to promote him! So I commend the second reading of this bill to the House."
Lyndon HūhanaHŪHANA LYNDON (Green): [Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.][Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]
Ferris TākutaTĀKUTA FERRIS (Te Pāti Māori —Te Tai Tonga): [Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.][Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]
Rutherford TomTOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you very much Mr Speaker. It gives me great pleasure to rise as the final speaker on the second reading of the Firearms Prohibition Orders Legislation Amendment Bill. I just want to acknowledge firstly the chair of the Justice Committee; it's his birthday today. I'm sure he got plenty of well wishes from around the House this morning on the Justice Committee plenty of nice words and kind remarks.In the second reading it's really important to focus on what took place at the Justice Committee on this bill as it went through—remembering that it was introduced on 1 March this year referred to the committee on 5 March and reported back on 26 July. The committee received 40 submissions—15 on behalf of organisations;20 as individuals. There was a real split on the submissions that were received some in favour; some against. It was really good for the committee to work through and iron out those details as they worked through the business of this legislation.Let's be really clear: this bill is about reducing firearms crimes in New Zealand and the impacts it has on the community by enabling firearm prohibition orders to be made and monitored against the wider group of persons whose behaviour and actions pose a high risk of violence. I commend the bill to the House.
Costley TimTIM COSTLEY (National—Ōtaki): Well there it is. If we hadn't heard enough rubbish from the other side this bill is now an attack on the vulnerable—those poor vulnerable violent criminals. Those poor violent vulnerable gang members. That's what this bill is an attack on according to them. We heard it from the Green Party Leave the gangs alone; it's not fair". They actually doubled down on their comment that they'd rather see the weapons with gang members than with police members. And that's the attitude that we're up against. That is what we had six years of. That's how we got to this position.I'm proud that we're actually doing something practical about it supporting our police who are out there making our communities safer. And this bill—there's two key parts. The first part is about who can be subject to a firearms prohibition order. There's been a lot of discussion on that. I don't want to dwell on that too much but I'm OK with us targeting them towards people who have been convicted of serious violent crimes people who are associated with criminal gangs.The second part that's had a lot of discussion is around the ability for police to conduct warrantless searches. I have to start by coming back to the bill itself. It would be nice if someone from the Green Party read it but if you read section 18AA it is where a constable has reasonable grounds to believe that a person is subject to such an order not who suspects which was the entire substance of the last Green Party contribution; it is where they are believed to do it. And then we had some contradictory position from Labour around "Well they're going in at 3 o'clock in the morning and they won't have time to research it". But these are deliberate operations. They do have time to prepare. Yes police have to make difficult decisions in the operational environment. That relies on us enabling our police to make decisions to act in the best interests of our community. I for one completely back our police to do that. But they can't do it unless we give them the framework unless we give them the tools and the legislation. That's what this bill is doing. It is enabling police to go out and target the people who need to be targeted the most.Because this should not be about the rights of convicted criminals the rights of members of criminal gangs but the rights of every member of our community to live in a safe community to live free from fear of violent crime of illegal use of illegal firearms. That's what this bill is doing. So I commend it to the House."
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Firearms Prohibition Orders Legislation Bill be now read a second time.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 49New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Tana.Motion agreed to.Bill read a second time.
Nakhle Rima; Salesa JennyRIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini): Madam Speaker thank you for allowing me to take this call on the Firearms Prohibition Orders Legislation Amendment Bill. We're in the second reading.I'd like to start my contribution today talking about warrantless searches that the previous speaker Duncan Webb was mentioning. I respect the fact that we need to ensure sure that people's privacy and protections are indeed protected. But in this instance if you don't mind Madam Speaker I'd just like to turn our memories back to 2020 to a bill by the name of COVID-19 Public Health Response Bill that was pushed through the House where it allowed for a private dwelling or marae—for police to enter on reasonable grounds to believe that people gathered there in contravention to the COVID rules. I don't know why it's OK for public health to have warrantless search powers but not for public safety. So I just want to remind us about what happened back then. Terms like window-dressing—also it was referred to by someone across the House that this law will make our society so much less safe and that it's virtue signalling instead of gun control. Yes if you don't believe it please go back and watch the recording. All I'd like to ask the House is: what's so wrong about restricting illegal access to guns? I'd like to ask the House: what's so wrong with trying everything that we can to keep our neighbours safe? I'd like to ask the House: what is so wrong about sending a strong message to gangs that intimidation and gun violence is not OK? Because that's what we're intending to do with this bill amongst other bills. I have no shame in commending this bill to the House.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Jenny Salesa): The next call is a split call. I call on Glenn Bennett for five minutes.
Kuriger BarbaraPetitions Papers Select Committee Reports and Introduction of BillsDEPUTY SPEAKER: A petition has been delivered to the Clerk for presentation.CLERK: Petition of Denis Orme requesting that the House urge St John Ambulance to keep the current ambulance and Lifepak defibrillator at Rawene.DEPUTY SPEAKER: That petition stands referred to the Petitions Committee. No papers have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation. Select committee reports have been delivered for presentation.CLERK: Reports of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee on the:International treaty examination of the agreement on the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework for Prosperity the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework for Prosperity Agreement Relating to Supply Chain Resilience the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework for Prosperity Agreement Relating to a Clean Economy and the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework for Prosperity Agreement Relating to a Fair EconomyInternational treaty examination of the Second Protocol to Amend the Agreement Establishing the ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Area and of the Exchange of Letters reaffirming the Agreement between the Government of New Zealand and the Government of Australia on the Application of the Agreement Establishing the ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Area.DEPUTY SPEAKER: Those reports are set down for consideration. No bills have been introduced.
Bishop Chris; Webb DuncanBUSINESS STATEMENTHon CHRIS BISHOP (Leader of the House): Next week the House will consider the first reading of the Social Workers Registration Amendment Bill continue the committee stage of the Corrections Amendment Bill and consider the third readings of the Local Government (Water Services Preliminary Arrangements) Bill and the Resource Management (Extended Duration of Coastal Permits for Marine Farms) Amendment Bill. On Tuesday we start the Estimates debate with the debates on finance and the children's portfolio.Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): I wonder if the Leader of the House could let us know what he proposes doing with the Treaty principles bill when introduced. In particular will it be referred to a select committee and if so for how long?Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Leader of the House): It's difficult to comment on a bill that is not on the Order Paper.
Kuriger BarbaraTHURSDAY 22 AUGUST 2024The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.KARAKIA/PRAYERSDEPUTY SPEAKER: Almighty God we give thanks for the blessings which have been bestowed on us. Laying aside all personal interests we acknowledge the King and pray for guidance in our deliberations that we may conduct the affairs of this House with wisdom justice mercy and humility for the welfare and peace of New Zealand. Amen.
Thursday 30 May 2024 (continued on Saturday 1 June 2024) - Volume 776
Accident Compensation (Interest on Instalment Plans) Amendment Bill — In Committee—Clause 5
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That debate on this question now close.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 49New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.Motion agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That clause 5 be agreed to.Ayes 102New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 15Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.Clause 5 agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Ingrid Leary's tabled amendment inserting clause 5A is out of order as being outside the scope of the bill.
Accident Compensation (Interest on Instalment Plans) Amendment Bill — In Committee—Clause 4
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That clause 4 be agreed to.Ayes 102New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 15Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.Clause 4 agreed to.
O'Connor Greg; Brownlee GerryCHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Mr Speaker the committee has considered the Accident Compensation (Interest on Instalment Plans) Amendment Bill and reports progress. I move That the report be adopted.Motion agreed to.Report adopted.SPEAKER: This bill is set down for further committee consideration next sitting day. The House stands adjourned until Tuesday 25 June 2 p.m.The House adjourned at 11.55 p.m. (Saturday)
Boyack RachelRACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Thank you Mr Chair. This is an opportunity to come back to some of the questions I asked about clause 5 which actually are part of clause 6. [Interruption] I'm very happy to yield if someone would like to take a substantial call—we had a discussion on this the other day.Simon Court: Point of order Mr Chair. I'm just seeking clarification. The member quite clearly alluded to the fact that she was speaking to a previous clause. Would you be able to provide the member some direction about which clause we're debating.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Just let things settle and I'm sure the experienced member will know to come very quickly back to clause 6.RACHEL BOYACK: I'm coming straight back to clause 6 which inserts new Part 5 into Schedule 1AA. It relates to the questions I asked on clause 5. Funnily enough—and something Mr Court might not be aware of—clauses in legislation often interact with each other The specific question I had was around the levies that will be set on three-month and six-month instalment periods. If you read Part 5 in the Schedule specifically clause 17 Rates of interest payable on levies collected by instalments:" it specifically states "Until regulations made under section 329(1)(hb) come into force the following interest rates apply for the purposes of section 234(1A) (as inserted by the 2024 Act): (a) 0% on the total amount of levy collected over a 3-month instalment period: (b) 0% on the total amount of levy collected over a 6-month instalment period: (c) 2.73 percent on the total amount of levy collected over a 10-month instalment period."My question to the Minister before which I didn't receive an answer to—but I think it's an important question because he talks about flexibility. We do have this certainty for people on those shorter payment plans that they won't have a zero percent payment added but what is clear here in this reading is that that's until regulations are made but once regulations are made these rates could change. So I think it's a fair question to the Minister and it actually looks like we may need to reconvene this committee of the whole House and so at that point I'm quite keen to potentially look at putting some further amendments forward so that we could permanently ensure that people on a three-month instalment period could retain that zero percent interest debit charge. So that is my question to the Minister. [Interruption] Well if others want to take a call—CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Members I will put you all out of your misery. The time has come for me to report progress.House resumed."
O'Connor Greg; Edmonds Barbara; Doocey MattClause 6 Schedule 1AA amended CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Members we come now to our final debate. Clause 6—this is the debate on the amendment to Schedule 1AA of the principal Act and the Schedule. The question is that clause 6 stand part.Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana): Thank you Mr Chair. This will actually be a short call because I can see that a number of members behind me would also like to ask the Minister a question and it's in relation to—[Interruption] Would you like to take a call after me? So I'll continue—thank you for the interjection. So it's actually in relation to the disclosure statement on page 8 and 4.3 refers to clause 3 of the new Part 5 will retrospectively allow ACC to charge debit interest on instalments. So it's talking to the ability to look back and make sure that the interest that has been accrued on those instalments can actually apply which is the purpose of this bill.But the difficulty I have is that in new Part 5 inserted into Schedule 1AA there is no clause 3; it just has the new Part 5 section 16 section 17 section 18. I'm guessing there is a minor drafting issue where it should have said clause 3 which is actually a reference to new section under Part 5 inserted in Schedule 1AA a new section 18 subsection 3. And I think that is possibly just a drafting error perhaps in the disclosure statement and so there is nothing here saying that there is clause 3. Have you actually looked at the bill yourself Minister?So I'll read it for you again. So clause 6 Schedule 1AA amended which is the subheading for the heading of that clause in Schedule 1AA (a) insert the Part set out in the Schedule of this Act as the last Part" and (b)—which is line 26 of this bill—"(b) make all necessary consequential amendments." So therefore you look to the Schedule New Part 5 inserted into Schedule 1AA and then it just goes through Part 5: new section 16 new section 17 new section 18 but the disclosure statement of the bill says "Clause 3 of the new Part 5 will retrospectively allow ACC to charge debit interest". And I think that is right because that is the empowering provision in Part 5 new section 18 subsection 3.So I just want to ask the Minister: I believe the disclosure statement is wrong. It should have said new section 18 subsection 3 of new inserted Part 5. So to the Minister if he can just answer that basic question: is it the disclosure statement that is wrong or is it the bill?Hon MATT DOOCEY (Minister for ACC): Yes I can confirm that is a drafting error in that statement. It should have been 18 but I suppose the problem we have is so many of these papers were written in a year ago."
Boyack Rachel; Doocey MattRACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Thank you Mr Chair. Thank you. I just note I thought those were some excellent questions from my colleague Camilla Belich and I'm looking forward to the Minister giving a response. We're also still I believe waiting for a response from the Minister on whether he will support my colleague Ingrid Leary's excellent Amendment Paper which is to add a new clause 5A which is ACC to provide instalment payment—ACC must provide instalment payments to levy payers on request."But my specific question to the Minister—before I do that though I did have some questions earlier about the flexibility and whether there'd need to be a definition in the Act and a new clause inserted around that flexibility and—Hon Member: Repetition.RACHEL BOYACK: —well the reason we're raising this is we haven't had an answer. And so I'm just reminding the committee that under urgency we do need those answers because we don't have the opportunity to scrutinise through a select committee. But where I just wanted to make another question to the Minister is if you look at section 329 being amended and inserting after section 329(2B) it does state here—and I've raised this concern earlier but I just wanted to bring it into the legislation—that regulations made under subsection (1)(hb)(i) may prescribe different rates of interest. And that is actually of concern because we do have a practice here where the three-month has a zero percent rate the six-month has a zero percent rate and the 10-month has a 3.73 percent rate of interest. So we do want to actually have some certainty that there isn't that intent to start adding interest to those lower rates because actually I think that's a matter that levy payers would want to actually be able to submit to the whole House on for a select committee process. But further what interested me were the different methods by which rates are to be calculated. So I'm quite interested to know what those different methods could be because obviously we have a specific rate being put into the legislation tonight that is coming off the back of a retrospective application. But I'm very interested to know if the Minister's received specific advice and what that advice is around the different methods that could be used to determine how to calculate those rights. Thank you.Hon MATT DOOCEY (Minister for ACC): In response to Rachel Boyack's question around the three and six months I just assure her that this bill is about validating past and current practice."
Belich CamillaCAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you Mr Chair. It's great to finally get to be able to take a call. I'm very enthusiastic about scrutinising this legislation in the time we have available. The question I have for the Minister is really in relation to the existing powers which are referred to in clause 5. So I've gone back to the primary piece of legislation and I've had a look at the existing fee and collection powers that can be made by people already under the existing ACC legislation. It does come back to something that I didn't get an answer to before which was the nature of the legal advice. I felt that when I read through that there was already an ability to collect a fee in the legislation and there's quite a lot of detailed sections there about how exactly that can be done within the existing law. So I wanted to know from the Minister: did he consider maybe changing the interest on instalment plans into some sort of fee when payments were made late? Because that already exists within the legislation. You wouldn't need to use urgency. We wouldn't need to waste Parliament's time. It might be that that answer is in the legal advice that I did ask for the Minister to provide to the House. It's not too late Minister. Hon Member: He didn't say no?CAMILLA BELICH: He didn't actually answer specifically about legal advice. I would like to put that question to him again. It seems to me there is a power for ACC to charge a fee. Why not let them do that and if you've had advice to suggest that that's not the correct way to do it can we please see that advice because I think that would be quite important to check. In terms of the details on the other sections of this I think people have asked can we have more details on what exactly would be likely to be remitted or waived in this particular section. I think that is really important to know because the other thing I saw when I looked at the sections which are in the section we're debating—which I know is limited but it is in clause 5—is that there is an existing requirement for payments to be made within the month that they are due. My question is: if there's an existing duty for payments to be made in the month that they are due within the existing legislation has the Minister received any advice essentially implying that their inability to make these instalment plans might undermine the collection of the amounts that are payable? There is a clear duty currently. What you're suggesting here as we all know is essentially making something which may or may not be currently legal legitimate under this piece of legislation that does have retrospective effect. I do have a question about that—just to let the Chair know—specifically about retrospectivity in the next section. So I'll leave that to that because I think it's more appropriate for there. But I do want to know from the Minister if he has received advice on that point. Is this in any way undermining the general payable within the month that they payment is due section which exists within the current ACC legislation.
Hernandez Francisco; Doocey MattFRANCISCO HERNANDEZ (Green): Thank you Mr Chair. Thank you for allowing me to take my first call on this bill. I just have a very quick question around clause 5(1)(hb)(ii) and then I'd like to ask for some clarifications around the regulatory impact statement (RIS) which I would have been able to do if this were a normal select committee process. So my quick question around clause 5(1)(hb)(ii) is: can I invite the Minister to elaborate on what are the circumstances in which the payment of the whole or any part of the interest may be remitted or waived?" Because it would be very good you know to have it in Hansard just to know what those circumstances might be for anyone that this legislation might apply to and sort of what the criteria might be.The clarification that I'm seeking for the RIS is I guess on page 8. It kind of says—well it literally says that there's about 32000 people that are in that kind of 10-month period in 2021. There is a breakdown which seems to apply across all the categories. So my question is: is there a more granular breakdown of that 10-month category across the 32000 people around like what the exact figure amounts are and what component of that is the interest?I just want to raise a little concern that I had when reading the RIS. Page 3 of it says that "Administrative limitations particularly a series of IT changes since 2004 mean that ACC does not have clear and accessible information regarding the debit interest component of the instalment plan fees it charges." So does that mean that that 32000 figure is unreliable or—I mean I could just be totally misunderstanding this. What is the kind of accuracy of that actual figure? So thank you for allowing me the opportunity to ask these questions and take this call Mr Chair.Hon MATT DOOCEY (Minister for ACC): Thank you Mr Chair. Just while I'm seeking advice on that last question from the advisers that member raised his first question around potentially what might trigger a waiver and that would be around hardship and an application of hardship to ACC."
Leary Ingrid; Boyack Rachel; Doocey MattINGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): Yep and in the spirit of the back and forth—having heard the Minister's answer to my question about consultation which was really useful—I just want to clarify if I've heard correctly what he said and then also propose a drafting change if I may sir because we don't have the opportunity to do that in select committee.So am I right—through you Mr Chair to the Minister—that the consultation will be both on the methodology and the quantum of the levy? If that is the case then may I suggest that the drafting should say instead of levy collected by instalments or the proposed method" there should be "and" rather than "or" in that first reference.Then equally in the second half of section (1B) prescribing the rate of interest once again strike out "or" and input "and" so that it's unequivocal—people won't have to go to the Hansard to hear the Minister's statement on that. But I just want to check with the Minister if I've heard that correctly that there will be consultation on both of those elements.RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Thank you Mr Chair. Look I'm coming back just on a question that I asked the Minister earlier because it was actually a very specific question that I haven't yet had an answer to. It was in relation to—and I will keep it quick in the interests of trying to get an answer but I just note that the Minister is getting some advice from officials so he may wish to just ask officials.As well I ask specifically about which levy payers. Because my pure reading of the new clause which is being inserted after section 234(1) inserting (1B) "The Corporation must consult levy payers". My specific question was: is this all levy payers? Levies that are paid by employers and employees. It was a very specific question and I think it would be useful for that to be recorded in terms of the response from the Hansard.Hon MATT DOOCEY (Minister for ACC): Well thank you Mr Chair. There was a question around the word "or". I've been advised by the advisers that is so the ability to put the formula in for the levy rate."
Doocey MattHon MATT DOOCEY (Minister for ACC): The answer to one of those questions around the time frame of consultation would be four weeks. The other question about the proposed rates I suppose is an important part of why we do go out and consult and there was a question earlier about public consultation versus consultation of people who pay levies and both would occur.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Ingrid Leary. We are on a very narrow clause.
Boyack RachelRACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Thank you Mr Chair. Thank you for an opportunity to take a call. My question draws a little bit further on the question around the public consultation. Just looking at clause 4 where we amend section 234 inserting subsection (1B) The Corporation must consult levy payers on the proposed rate of interest payable on a levy collected by instalments" and it goes on further. I'm quite interested in the Minister's comments earlier around public consultation and I'll get to that in a minute. My question is: what is going to be the methodology for this consultation? Who out of all levy payers? What I'm quite interested to know from the Minister—because obviously there are thousands of levy payers; we all pay levies—is: does this particular clause refer also to employees who pay levies. Even though they're not necessarily affected the broad reading of this clause could suggest that they actually do need to be consulted because it says "must consult levy payers". So my question is: is it specific just to employers who pay levies? Again this is the type of question that would have come up in a select committee process so it will be very useful to get advice from officials through to the Minister. How will the ACC actually determine who needs to be consulted—who is affected? My blunt reading of this would say the corporation must consult levy payers. It doesn't actually go on to state which levy payers. So my reading of it would be all levy payers and that would be employers and those who pay levies as employees. I think it's quite an important question. It would be useful to get on the Hansard because obviously if this did come to a court process whereby people said "I've been required to pay a levy. I haven't been consulted because I wasn't considered to be needed to be consulted." I think if there has been a response from the Minister in the record of our debate tonight that would be really really useful.I just then bring in that second piece about public consultation that the Minister noted. I would have thought that actually reaching out directly to levy payers—we should know who they are—would be a more useful way of engaging so that we can engage more directly with levy payers as opposed to a kind of broad-brush public consultation that may or may not miss people. Obviously we are talking about the way this gets operationalised but it is important because if we are going to operate under a process of consultation so that people are comfortable with the payments that are being made in terms of interest then I do hope that the Minister is seeking some advice from officials because I think it's a really critical question to ask. So I'm looking forward to getting the Minister's response."
Henare Peeni; Doocey MattHon PEENI HENARE (Labour): Tēnā koe. Thank you Mr Chair. In light of the answer given by the Minister about public consultation I'm curious as to whether or not the Minister has any view as to the uptake of this particular bill once it's passed whether or not it's been based on data and whether or not it will be actively promoted or discussed openly when the public consultation happens.And I'm really curious because the data is really important as we look towards what ACC needs to do and how they will interact with the businesses the data was collected about. We know the data of how many clients there are how many businesses there are. But I'm curious Mr Chair through you whether or not the Minister can describe the expectation or if he has any expectations of the uptake of this particular bill once it's passed and once again whether or not it will be actively promoted with respect to making sure that those who are struggling out there or those who look towards ways to make their payments through instalments will be actively engaged as the consultation goes out or if it'll just be a broad-sweep consultation process which generally tends to skim over the top and doesn't actually get to many of the people that it probably should get to.Many of the people who are busy running businesses don't get the opportunity to get out there to be able to engage through this consultation. So if through you Mr Chair I can ask the Minister to consult with the advisors there to make sure that we know as we all return to our homes and we go out and we talk about what we did here through urgency whether or not they can wait to expect active engagement and promotion from ACC or whether or not they have to go looking for it. Those are my questions to the Minister.Hon MATT DOOCEY (Minister for ACC): Thank you very much Mr Chair. And just to acknowledge the Hon Peeni Henare with his contribution I agree with him that the engagement needs to be active—just to acknowledge the work when that member was the Minister around looking at it through an access lens as well and I think it's important—clearly organisations and entities can be awash with data; there's no shortage of it—to ensure that we engage in good faith.