edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
6. Question No. 6—FinanceHon GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour) to the Minister of FinanceQuestion No. 6—Finance6. Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour) to the Minister of Finance: What is the total cost to the Government of the tax relief" outlined in the Policy Programme of the Government as expressed in the coalition agreements?Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): The Government stands by the commitments set out in our coalition agreements. The advice I have received on the potential fiscal impact of tax relief is obviously Budget sensitive and I look forward to updating the House on details in due course.Hon Grant Robertson: Does she stand by the answers she's given in this House that she does not know what specific revenue initiatives will fund the tax relief programme?Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I would have to see that comment in context to believe it is being fairly represented in the House.Hon Grant Robertson: How can she say that she will deliver fiscally neutral tax relief when she doesn't know how much it's going to cost?Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Because I do know how much it's going to cost but I am not sharing with that member the information when it is Budget sensitive. I can also be confident about delivering tax relief because unlike the member opposite I actually believe New Zealanders deserve to keep more of what they earn and they deserve a Government that won't waste their hard-earned wages on boondoggles like he did.Hon Grant Robertson: Why has the member changed her position on the app tax?Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I am not responsible for commitments made in party manifestos.Hon Grant Robertson: Can the Minister confirm that the National Party's position before the election was to reverse the app tax and it is now the position of a National-led Government that it will keep the app tax in place?Hon Chris Bishop: Point of order Mr Speaker. I think you know what I'm going to say: the Minister is not responsible for statements made by political parties before elections.Hon Damien O'Connor: Just like GST.SPEAKER: Yeah—good. The member might like to try another way of asking the question.Hon Grant Robertson: Does she agree with Nicola Willis the National Party finance spokesperson who said that the app tax was an outrage and should be reversed?Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I do agree with Nicola Willis. And what I also agree with Nicola Willis on is that it is time for a Government that stops tax grabbing and should start by prioritising income tax relief for working people. We have been left with fiscal constraints by the previous Government that are extreme and in that context our priority must be letting New Zealanders keep more of what they earn with personal income tax relief.Hon Grant Robertson: In light of that answer that she agrees that the app tax was outrageous and should be reversed—she agrees with Nicola Willis on that—how can she continue to be the Minister of Finance in a Government that is now imposing the app tax?Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I agreed with the statements of Nicola Willis in the context in which they were given. As the Minister of Finance I am responsible for the policy commitments of our Government and its decisions."
5. Question No. 5—Regional DevelopmentJENNY MARCROFT (NZ First) to the Minister for Regional DevelopmentQuestion No. 5—Regional Development5. JENNY MARCROFT (NZ First) to the Minister for Regional Development: What updates can he provide of any regional development investments?Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Regional Development): It's my pleasure to announce to the House that as a consequence of a far-sighted politician six years ago making an investment on behalf of the Government in the Snowy River goldmine the entirety of the $15 million has been paid back. This goldmine in Te Tai Poutini the West Coast enjoyed the upside of employing 50 people. Another 140 are on the way as they seek to raise $100 million—a great example of central government collaborating with industry in regional New Zealand.Jenny Marcroft: Is he confident that seabed mining will feature in regional development investments?Hon SHANE JONES: Yes. Seabed mining has a legitimate place in New Zealand's regional economy. Sadly a number of pixie-like hapū in Taranaki have sought to undermine this legitimate industry. I can assure you though that the Environmental Protection Authority legislation if it needs to be changed to give certainty to investors—and we will not have tikanga Māori mangled and distorted 37 kilometres off the coast of Taranaki.SPEAKER: Just before the member speaks I'll just say that we can't on one hand demand a degree of decorum in the House and then bring in expressive language like that that can be a little inflammatory. The member's very good at it there's no question about that—most entertaining but not particularly helpful.Jenny Marcroft: How will oil and gas investments located in regional New Zealand feature in regional development?Hon SHANE JONES: I brought this document here with me today which contains an assertion aspirational in nature that by 2030 all sources of energy to maintain security of supply in regional New Zealand will be renewable. Oil and gas will play a key role and when that legislation is changed in regional New Zealand it will offer certainty to the investment community. And then the grown-ups will ensure that there is security and manageable risk in our energy sector unlike what we hear from the other side of the House. I look forward to providing that educational service to other members of Parliament.
2. Question No. 2—Prime MinisterRt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime MinisterQuestion No. 2—Prime Minister2. Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all of his Government's statements and actions?Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes and particularly the Government's statement that we will be a Government that gets things done for New Zealand. That starts with our 100-day plan which includes a number of changes to make it easier for Kiwis to be able to get ahead make our communities safer and deliver better health and education for our young people. This is a Government that's got a mandate for change and its focus is on delivery for New Zealanders unlike the previous Government.Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he stand by his Government's commitment in the National-ACT agreement to Review whether the Firearms Registry is effectively improving public safety" or does he agree with Mark Mitchell that the registry was justified as the country without a doubt has an issue with licensed firearm holders going in and buying—on order—for people who don't have licences mostly gang members and organised crime?Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We agree with the decision to review the gun register.Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why?Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Because we want to make sure that it is working effectively and delivering public safety.Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Has he told Mark Mitchell he's wrong?Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: He's not wrong. We support the gun register. We want to make a review to make sure that it's working effectively.Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he agree with David Seymour that ACT's proposal to have a debate and referendum on the Treaty—"you know the coalition Government has agreed to go halfway with that and then re-evaluate and perhaps proceed further and it will actually enhance the mana of the Treaty"—or does he agree with Christopher Luxon that "we will pursue a Treaty principles bill to select committee and that is as far as it will go."? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: The position of the Government is that we will support the bill until select committee through its first reading and that's as far the comment goes at this stage.Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: What's the point of sending a bill to a select committee that the Government intends to vote down other than to waste thousands of hours of people's time and a lot of taxpayers' money? Hon Shane Jones: Democracy.Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: It's a democracy. And as part of our coalition agreement with National and ACT that is our commitment that we have made.Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Is this the first example of the Government's reduction in waste—that they're going to vote in favour of a bill going to select committee that they have no intention of passing into law?Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Look I think it's a bit rich for that member to talk about wasteful Government spending. He led a Government that undertook so much wasteful Government spending it drove domestic inflation drove interest rates up slowed our economic growth up and put at risk employment. So no disrespect not taking any lectures from that member."
Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Economic Objective) Amendment Bill — In Committee—Clauses 1 to 3
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That debate on this question now close.Ayes 67New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 54New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.Motion agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Arena Williams' tabled amendment to Part 1 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 54New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.Noes 67New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Amendment not agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That clause 1 be agreed to.Ayes 67New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 54New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.Clause 1 agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that the Hon Damien O'Connor's tabled amendment to clause 2 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 54New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.Noes 67New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Amendment not agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The Hon Grant Robertson's tabled amendments to clause 2 are out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation. The amendment proposed is to create an uncertain commencement date.A party vote was called for on the question That clause 2 be agreed to.Ayes 67New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 54New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.Clause 2 agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That clause 3 be agreed to.Ayes 67New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 54New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.Clause 3 agreed to.Bill to be reported without amendment.House resumed.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The committee has considered the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Economic Objective) Amendment Bill and reports it without amendment. I move That the report be adopted. Motion agreed to.Report adopted.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): This bill is set down for third reading immediately.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That debate on the question now close.Ayes 67New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 54New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.Motion agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Arena Williams' tabled amendments to Part 2 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 54New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.Noes 67New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Amendments not agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that the Hon Damien O'Connor's tabled amendment to Part 2 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 54New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.Noes 67New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Amendment not agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The Hon Dr Megan Woods' tabled amendment to Part 2 amending clause 6 is out of order as being out of scope of the bill.The Hon Dr Megan Woods' tabled amendment to Part 2 amending clause 10 is out of order as being contrary to the objects and principles of the bill.The Hon Dr Deborah Russell's tabled amendment to Part 2 inserting new clause 10 is out of order as being contrary to the objects and principles of the bill.The Hon Dr Deborah Russell's tabled amendment to Part 2 inserting new clause 12 is out of order as being outside the scope of the bill.The question is that Part 2 stand part.A party vote was called for on the question That Part 2 be agreed to.Ayes 67New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 54New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.Part 2 agreed to.
Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Economic Objective) Amendment Bill — In Committee—Part 2
VoteCHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Arena Williams' tabled amendments to Part 1 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 54New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.Noes 67New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Amendments not agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Grant Robertson's tabled amendment to clause 4 to include in section 9(1)(a) the words supporting the economic policy of the New Zealand Government including its objectives for growth and employment" be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 54New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.Noes 67New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Amendment not agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The Hon Grant Robertson's remaining tabled amendments to clause 4 are out of order as being inconsistent with the objects and principles of the bill. The Hon Grant Robertson's tabled amendment inserting new clause 4 to amend the purposes of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act 2021 is out of order as being outside the scope of the bill. The question is that Part 1 stand part.A party vote was called for on the question That Part 1 be agreed to.Ayes 67New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 54New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.Part 1 agreed to."
Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Economic Objective) Amendment Bill — In Committee—Part 1 (continued)
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That debate on the question now close.Ayes 67New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 54New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.Motion agreed to.
Fair Pay Agreements Act Repeal Bill — Third Reading
Ferris Tākuta; Kuriger BarbaraTĀKUTA FERRIS (Te Pāti Māori—Te Tai Tonga): Tēnā koe tēnā koe te māreikura. I find it infuriating but not surprising that this House and this Government can move a piece of legislation through like this in one day without any accord or regard or consultation with the Tiriti partner. No regard to the Maōri economy—no regard to the Maōri economy and without any understanding of the profound impact that this bill will have on the vast majority of Maōri who are employed in the low to minimum wage segment of this economy.Those families have kids youth rangatahi—they live in Aotearoa. They're the principal partner into Te Tiriti o Waitangi. I haven't heard them talked about or even given regard to have their opinion counted once and this is all pushed through in one day. And this team over here they have the capacity to draw this. I know it it's in their team but they have failed to do so.So it's not surprising the words I used earlier this morning from one of te ao Māori's leading economists of this generation Whatarangi Winiata. Hey Maōri had consistently been the shock absorber of the New Zealand economy—the last to be gainfully employed first to be dismissed and this will ensure that that's their fate for three more years. And when you compound that with a cost of living crisis and an attitude from a Government that seeks to give no voice to their partner then you can expect them here outside.Dan Bidois: Why do you set such low expectations for us?TĀKUTA FERRIS: The expectations set in the Maōri economy and within te ao Maōri are anything but low—anything but low. But hey we'll be back tomorrow and we can talk again. I'll leave it at that.DEPUTY SPEAKER: The time has come for me to vacate the Chair. The House is adjourned until 9 a.m. tomorrow morning.Debate interrupted.Sitting suspended from 11.56 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Thursday)
Patterson Mark; Kuriger BarbaraMARK PATTERSON (NZ First): New Zealand First supports the Fair Pay Agreements Act Repeal Bill for the reason that the Fair Pay Agreements Act is bad legislation—it's the reason why we put the handbrake on it when we were last in Government and didn't let it see the light of day. Despite the protestations of the members opposite these are highly complex agreements that severely disadvantage regional employers. It was actually illuminating that Minister van Velden notified the House that very few of these agreements were actually started. That shows that either it is not a priority or they were just too hard to get off the ground. Make no mistake though New Zealand First has always been in favour of steady rises to the minimum wage. Every time we have had a chance to be in a coalition agreement we have always used that leverage to advocate for our lowest-paid workers and we believe that as a Government we should put pressure on the lower end of the market. But we have a track record of delivering for those workers and we are proud of that. Camilla Belich inadvertently let the truth slip out in her second reading speech when she reflected that unionised workers were actually unlikely to benefit from this because they could already collectively bargain—so mechanisms are already in place for workers in those industries.Arena Williams: 80 percent are not unionised. What about them?MARK PATTERSON: Well that's the union's problem; it's not the Government's problem to deal that out. These are overly complex agreements and they are superfluous. Those of us that have been out in the real world know that anyone that is a good worker is highly valued at the moment. We have low unemployment and employers are screaming out for those good workers and if not here we have the competition from Australia. So market forces are actually fully in action. This was a solution looking for a problem; it would stifle flexibility in our labour market it would decrease the appetite for employers to take a risk and employ people. This is bad legislation and we are proud to put it to bed. Thank you Madam Speaker.DEPUTY SPEAKER: The next call is a split call and Te Pāti Māori has five minutes.
Nimon KatieKATIE NIMON (National—Napier): Today is a great day. It is the day of the liberation of New Zealand from the Fair Pay Agreements Act (FPA). The FPA is simply a mandated union bargaining tool and we will not stand for it. So with that I commend this bill to the House.
Kuriger Barbara; O'Connor GregHouse resumed.CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The committee has considered the Fair Pay Agreements Act Repeal Bill and reports it without amendment. I move That the report be adopted.Motion agreed to.Report adopted.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): This bill is set down for third reading immediately.
van Velden BrookeHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Thank you Madam Chair. Look I wanted to take the opportunity to answer the member's question. My understanding is that Royal assent will happen as it does for all other bills that leave this House in the normal process but I also want to make it very clear that my purpose in bringing this bill to the House is for all bargaining processes to stop and cease and that the law itself ceases and the bargaining process thereunder ceases.
Abel SteveSTEVE ABEL (Green): Thank you Madam Chair and congratulations on your appointment to the role. I appreciate being able to speak on the name of this bill. It seems to me that the most appropriate name would be the Poor Pay Promise Bill" because it is indeed the fulfilment of a commitment to industry that they will be allowed to continue to exploit workers continue to not guarantee basic wages—livable wages—and fair pay. The name of the Fair Pay Agreements Act speaks for itself—the name of the legislation that you are repealing—and you're making it through this repeal the poor pay promise.I want to speak specifically to the impact on our disabled community. We want our disabled community to live dignified rich and satisfying lives. What we know is that currently under the status quo they do not. The thing that the fair pay agreement would have done is it would have improved conditions for all workers including our disabled.One piece of evidence that was not presented in the case made for this repeal is how does the supposed flexible labour market which I would say is a synonym for the flexibility of employers to exploit workers—how did you seek evidence on the impact on disabled workers who currently have three times the unemployment rate of non-disabled workers and an average median income of $255 less per week than non-disabled workers?It is the poor pay promise to all workers—a promise a commitment to those in industry and business who are willing to exploit for their profits.Hon Scott Simpson: Tell us about the title.STEVE ABEL: The "Poor Pay Promise Bill"—that is the title. It is a commitment to industry who wish to exploit and we will oppose it. Thank you Madam Chair."
Menéndez March RicardoRICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you Mr Chair. Just in regard to the title I appreciate the amendments put by the Labour Party around the change of name. I would probably propose something around Vibes-based Unfair Pay". But in relationship to the commencement reflecting on some of the previous contributions from the Minister I hear that she has been saying that this is part of the coalition agreement and that the intent is to pass it before Christmas. Throughout the debate there also has been a lack of ability to produce evidence as to why this must be repealed; yet there's a sense of urgency around the commencement—basically this Act coming into force on the day after the Royal assent. I just wondered if at any point the Minister had considered delaying the introduction of the bill to actually then do some evidence gathering. Or I guess I want to test whether Brooke van Velden candidate for Tāmaki had presented or researched any evidence during the campaign trail. Because if there was no exercise in evidence documentation gathering consultation with workers—I guess whether the people who campaigned did any of that exercise and whether she as Minister is leaning into that.Otherwise what I'm reading here is a rush to put in place this repeal without having any ability to produce any evidence in relationship to the impact that it will have other than the limited stuff that we have had from the leaked documents that have come out. So once again I'm just checking if there is going to be any intent at all from the Minister to produce evidence on how this will benefit the economy. She has otherwise stated predominantly the words "I believe" over and over and over and over—not "I know" or "as the evidence points out" or "evidence shows". It's "I believe". And I think the hundreds of thousands of workers impacted by this bill who won't have the opportunity to then see those fair pay agreements come to fruition deserve more than a Minister telling them "I believe". They deserve a Minister who can back a piece of legislation with evidence with solid arguments and so this is why I'm testing whether she would be open to delaying the commencement of the bill to allow for her arguments to be backed up by actual solid figures and facts rather than just vibes."
van Velden BrookeHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Speaking to the member's question no. The policy intent is quite correctly captured by the title of the bill. It's pretty plain and simple and we have a coalition commitment to repeal the fair pay agreements by Christmas which is what we intend to do.
O'Connor GregClauses 1 and 2 CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Members we come now to clauses 1 and 2. This is the debate on the title and commencement.
McCallum Grant; O'Connor GregGRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland): I move That debate on this question now close.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that debate on this question be now put.Hon Member: Point of order.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): It won't be in relation to my decision to put this question. I'll take a point of order on anything else. Right.
van Velden BrookeHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): I thank the Chair. I wanted to respond directly to the question from Debbie Ngarewa-Packer. Talking about her Amendment Paper—she's requiring a review of the repeal after three years and for that review to consider the impacts of that repeal on the specific sectors within the fair pay system that were initiated. It just would not make sense in practice for that review because there have not been any fair pay agreements finalised. There is nothing to compare the impact of that review to. So the whole concept of the Amendment Paper does not work in practice. To the question of Ginny Andersen asking for comment about Nicola Willis's comments—I haven't heard those comments directly—specifying that workers needed to belong to a union for the fair pay agreement. The fair pay agreement system does actually specify that the only entities who could represent employees in bargaining are entities and not employees themselves and so in effect no the person doesn't have to join a union but they can only be represented by a union in that bargaining process.Where there was a bit of discussion about international obligations the fair pay agreement system does engage our international obligations relating to strikes freedom of association and voluntary collective bargaining. But repealing the fair pay agreement system will actually avoid us engaging our international obligations.
van de Molen TimTIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): I move That debate on this question now close.
van Velden BrookeHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Thank you Madam Chair. I'd like to go right back to the question from Rachel Boyack. She has a number of Amendment Papers that she's brought to the committee—specifically one she touched on would allow the supermarkets to conclude their fair pay agreement. While I acknowledge she may have brought this in good faith to the committee we have made a commitment as a Government to repeal the fair pay agreement legislation. Allowing the system to continue for one sector would go against the commitment that we brought to this House but also our commitment to New Zealand voters who are expecting us to deliver on our commitment from the campaign.I'd like to touch on the question from the Hon Willie Jackson about consultation that's done with bus drivers and I'm loving the questions about bus drivers who are wonderful people. We discussed the repeal of the fair pay agreements with the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions who represent unions across New Zealand. The bus drivers had an opportunity to comment on the introduction of the fair pay agreements system during the consultation of the original fair pay agreements system. Based on what we heard there were people who were for and people who were against and as a—Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Point of order please Madam Chairperson. My apologies—we can't hear. Sorry but we can't hear you Minister.Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: Thank you very much Debbie. I will speak up for you. So talking to the consultation that occurred when the original Fair Pay Agreements Act went through we heard comments in opposition and comments for. That was quite extensive and at the time the National Party and the ACT Party opposed that bill and we continue to oppose it now. We went into that election clearly indicating that we would repeal this law and the voters responded in kind.To the questions from the Hon Barbara Edmonds—she talked about things specifically in pages 58 and 59 of the regulatory impact statement from 2021 speaking about an inherent imbalance of bargaining power. I'd just like to remind the member that the Employment Relations Act provides a legal backdrop for all relationships between employees employers and unions. She also then touched on what costs we'd received advice on—to do with the repeal. The cover sheet refers to the costs and benefits described in the 2021 regulatory impact statement. So I'd refer the member to the tables on pages 42 to 50 of the 2021 regulatory impact statement.To the question from Ginny Andersen specifically taking about the amendments that she would be looking to take about market flexibility and studies I'm delighted to tell the member I expect to do my own advice and information on the market independent from the member and that does not need to be in this bill.
Willis ScottSCOTT WILLIS (Green): I hardly believe my ears. Thank you Madam Chair and congratulations on the new role and congratulations Minister. I want to also acknowledge the Opposition for their support for this important discussion; it's really really heartening actually to have that support from the opposite side. One of the things that I've really come to love about Wellington is the great public transport. It's not perfect and we do need more cycle lanes and we do need to get Wellington moving but public transport is going to play a really vital role in our lives in the years ahead and it's vital to our economic and environmental future.It was also really nice to hear about Katie Nimon's family bus business during her maiden speech. I know that we have some common interest in public transport across the Chamber but buses won't move without skilled and considerate drivers to drive them—they won't move. Buses are no good if we don't have drivers.I live in Ōtepoti—Dunedin—and for years bus companies have been engaged in a race to the bottom in terms of wages with drivers working split shifts and often engaging in second jobs just to put food on the table. Dunedin bus drivers have even had to pee behind bushes and limit their water intake—not like in the Chamber—so that they can keep at work because there are no toilets. So the Minister might argue that repealing fair pay is just tidying things up but I'd argue that it's far tidier and healthier to provide good conditions and support bus drivers in Aotearoa rather than encouraging them to head to Australia.So my question to the Minister is: does the Minister acknowledge that bus drivers in Australia who have benefited from sector-based bargaining are paid 40 percent more than here in New Zealand and if so how will she bridge the gap without sector-based bargaining here? And does she have any evidence to back how she aims to close the gap? Kia ora.
Carter KahurangiKAHURANGI CARTER (Green): First may I congratulate the Chair Maureen Pugh on her new role and of course congratulate the Minister Brooke van Velden as well. Our daughters are looking to you.Before I ask my question I would like to remind us that we're here representing the New Zealand public and the people of Aotearoa believe in a fair and a just society. Equal pay for work is fair and just. We have evidence and advice from the Ministry for Women who tell us the gender pay gap is an indicator of the difference between women's and men's earnings. We can be proud in New Zealand that we have reduced this gap from 16.8 percent in 1998 through concerted efforts. Unfortunately this has fluctuated over the years. The gender pay gap for women compared to men is 8.6 percent; 8.6 percent matters. This effectively means that women work without pay for one whole month of the year. The gender pay gap for wāhine Māori Pacific and Asian women and disabled women is significantly higher than 8.6 percent. Minister I think you would agree that Kate Sheppard is a revered New Zealander. We celebrate women suffragettes. In select committee room 5 we have a whole camellia on the wall to show our respect for women who fought for women's rights. New Zealand is so proud of Kate Sheppard in fact fighting for a fair and just society that she is on our $10 note. Kate Sheppard fought for women's rights and would be appalled that we are still fighting for equal rights and pay for women.Fair pay agreements (FPAs) are a key lever to reduce the gender pay gap. The new generation of women deserve equal pay for work. The gender pay gap will not close itself. We cannot become complacent because the gap will not close without sustained and intentional actions. How will the Minister mitigate the disproportionate impact of stagnant lower wages for women without FPA?
Tana DarleenDARLEEN TANA (Green): Thank you. Tēnā koe Madam Chair and I am joining the rest of the Whare in congratulating you in in your new role and tēnā ra tātou katoa e te Whare.I want to pick up very much on something that the member Adrian Rurawhe has talked to. I stand here as—well in a previous life—a small-business owner here in Aotearoa. After 20 years away living in Europe I returned home to Aotearoa 10 years ago and we started our new business. I was really stunned to be very honest at the low level of pay and conditions for so many workers. So in establishing our own business here one of the things that we learnt about very quickly was minimum wage but we also heard about living wage and we strove to pay our employees just that little bit extra. And I admit that it was really really hard. We all know as small-business owners that cash flow is king. We look at our cost drivers. Yes for corporates—having come out of that sphere—we are looking at headcount fulltime-equivalents human capital. But for small-business owners and particularly here in Aotearoa and we felt it was exacerbated during COVID it was the cost of rentals and it was the cost of leasing in our properties. During COVID too even though it was even tougher I think one of the things that buoyed us—being able to offer our employees above minimum wage and very close approximated to living wage—was the notion that these were all essential workers. All of our cleaners all of our mechanics all of our bus drivers everyone was an essential worker and for the first time I felt that actually we recognised these people. We started to say hello to these people. I recall one of the cleaning women—I think it was in a police station—was on the news. Prior to that—entirely invisible to everyone but thanks to that time we understood that actually essential workers everybody is pulling their weight.In te ao Māori we talk about te hāpai ō": it's not just about leadership in the front but it's also those in the back who are nurturing us who are caring for us filling our bellies cleaning up after us and getting us from A to B to where they need to get to. I will come to my question in a minute. Because we recognise as small-business owners that these costs are for naught I want to acknowledge the reality that there are many small-business owners who run their businesses not just for rofit in spite of the added cost. These are people who are the true entrepreneurs the true innovators within our community looking to make sure that everybody in the community has a fair share.My question goes to: what evidence does the Minister have that small-business owners do not want to sign up to something that is better than the minimum wage and that indeed sets minimum standards across their industries? Thank you."
Tuiono TeanauPart 2 Repeal and revocations CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): We now come to Part 2. This is the debate on clauses 5 to 7—repeal and revocations—and Schedule 2. The question is that Part 2 stand part.
Chhour Karen; Tuiono Teanau; Belich CamillaKAREN CHHOUR (ACT): I move That debate on this question now close.CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that the motion be agreed to.CAMILLA BELICH (Junior Whip—Labour): Point of order Mr Chair. Unfortunately there is one amendment in this part in the name of my colleague Arena Williams that she hasn't had the opportunity to speak to yet.CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): There's been plenty of opportunities. We've been taking calls. What's been happening is that people have been drifting into Part 2. I've been trying to bring people back to Part 1 and there's been ample opportunities for people to take a call and to focus on that part.
van Velden BrookeHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): I thank the member Camilla Belich for asking why we are all here. What is the purpose for us being here tonight? It's within the bill and it's our reason for being here which is that we are here to repeal the Fair Pay Agreements Act. She asks why that purpose is not explicitly written. The Parliamentary Counsel Office have advised that it's not standard practice in drafting a repeal bill to include a purpose clause because the purpose of a repeal bill is to repeal a bill.Grant McCallum: Pretty obvious really.Hon BROOKE van VELDEN: So that's pretty obvious.There was also a question from Ricardo Menéndez March. Did we consider overseas evidence of what other countries do with collective bargaining? There are no fair pay agreement systems that we've established here based on any international system—it is very much a unique design—and so in this regard we consider that many of its features are unnecessary and negative for the employment market especially the requirement that all employers and all employees would be drawn into a fair pay agreement if they chose not to be part of it especially because it could be initiated by a tiny minority 10 percent or 1000 workers for all. It is quite a blunt tool. But there is no international consensus on the best mix of bargaining systems. There is no one-size-fits-all—even different parts of the OECD have different models.
McAnulty KieranHon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Thank you very much Mr Chair. I refer in my contribution specifically to Part 1 and the part that proposes that we replace section 224(1)(a) in the Employment Relations Act 200 with (a) an employee makes a complaint to the Labour Inspector" and it goes on. When I read that I went to the bill and looked at that part—224(1)(a) of the Fair Pay Agreements Act—which says "(a) decide how to provide the bargaining support services required under section 222;". So I moved on to that and it lists a couple: "(a) a union: (b) an employer association: (c) a bargaining party: (d) a bargaining side."So what we are seeing here proposed is that instead of an organisation that employees and employers can associate to they are proposing to replace it with the Labour Inspector. My concern being of course is that is one moving from organisations that are self-funded—through members; through associations—to one that is funded by the State. When we propose that something is replaced by the funding of the State it's important—CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Could the Hon Kieran McAnulty let us know which provision he's talking about?Hon KIERAN McANULTY: I'm talking about under Part 1 the proposal to replace section 224(1)(a) as it's outlined.CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): That's in Part 2."
Menéndez March RicardoRICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): I think I heard my name. Acknowledging because there was no select committee report—I'm just wanting also to unpack the rationale and arguments that were given by the Minister which we would have otherwise had an opportunity to do more broadly at the select committee stage. So I wanted to pick up on the flexibility arguments the Minister has presented because to me it sounds like it's flexibility to pay poor wages and to have a race to the bottom. I guess in unpacking that argument which as I said we would have had the chance to do in select committee otherwise if there hadn't been urgency—when she talked also earlier about the lack of evidence did she draw at any point on the evidence overseas on wage increases as a result of fair pay agreements and the rationale—Hon David Seymour: Which countries? RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: —particularly in the OECD support for sector-wide bargaining? I can hear the member at my left challenging but there is OECD support for the sector-wide bargaining and so I'm just checking on those rationales. The reason why this relates to Part 1 is because we are not allowing for a transition period right? So we are not allowing for us to test the impact domestically which means we have to then draw on overseas evidence for their sector-wide bargaining and if we had given ourselves the chance of having at least a transition period or having a carve out for specific industries as my amendment would have proposed then we would have had I guess the ability to have evidence domestically as well.But I just wanted to once again reiterate: did she use international evidence and impact overseas of sector-wide bargaining to inform the arguments or was it just because she campaigned on it based on vibes and without any evidence prior to coming to forming this legislation?
van Velden BrookeHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Thank you Mr Chair. I wanted to talk to three members and their questions. The first is Rachel Boyack—the member Rachel Boyack. She talked about the Privacy Act and the need for employees' information to be kept private. I absolutely agree with that member. Where people's information has been collected it has been for a specific purpose and now that that purpose no longer exists or will not at the close of this bill that information should not be used for any other purpose not by an employer and not by a union. And I note that the Privacy Act 2020 will apply in this case. Principle 9 of the Privacy Act specifies that an agency that holds personal information must not keep that information for longer than is required for the purposes for which the information may lawfully be used. So once the fair pay agreement legislation is repealed unions will no longer have a lawful purpose for retaining this information and it will need to be deleted. The Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment is developing guideline and guidance materials to make this obligation very clear to the unions that were part of the bargaining parties.To the member Camila Belich she's talked about the self-repeal provision that's within this bill. This is a fairly standard provision for a repeal bill to keep our statute book nice and tidy. If we have a law and then we have a repeal of that law there's no need for that repeal of law that no longer exists to be on the statute of books. So it just tidies it up within a few days after the repeal—and that's pretty plain and simple.To the member Hūhana Lyndon I'm talking a little bit about the path to mitigate any impact on Maōri. I thank the member for her question. I believe it's in good faith. However I do want to stress that this bill will not make Maōri worse off because there have not been any fair pay agreements that have been finalised. So every employee whether they're young whether they're Maōri Pasifika—throughout our economy if they had been part of this bargaining process they are not worse off. The current wage that they currently have will be the current wage they go into Christmas and into New Year. Nobody is going into Christmas with a lower wage because of the repeal of this fair pay agreement.
Lyndon Hūhana; Tuiono TeanauHŪHANA LYNDON (Green): Tēnā koe Mr Chair. E mihi ana ki a koe mō tēnei tūranga hou te Heamana tuatahi nō roto i Te Uri o Roroi Ngāi Takoto e mihi nei ki a koe.[I congratulate you for this new role the first Chair from Te Uri o Roroi Ngāi Takoto I congratulate you.]Just in reflecting on the discussion that we've heard tonight I want to hoki whakamuri—take a step back—and think about the voices of those that met with us on the steps of Parliament today. When I saw the babies roll out with their early childhood education (ECE) teachers those that worked at Countdown—Connor who addressed us a young man trying to get by and pay his bills. Then thinking about our bus drivers that provide transport now from the airport to Parliament. The new system that's available you know through fair pay agreements would have enabled them to all have a really good Christmas.The backs of Parliament are built off those who serve us right now—our cleaners and our security guards—they are all impacted by this legislation and the repeal is an injustice for our people. I have a mother who has worked in early childhood education since the 1990s—I think I was still at high school—and they have battled for fair pay for far too long. And the collective bargaining that was provided through these avenues—oh and I recognise our unions the power the strength that they have given to sectors who have had no voice is an important space for all New Zealand.As Māori we are gravely impacted in this space and I'd like to remind the House that we are often the buffer of all of the lowest statistics in Aotearoa. Lest we forget about tobacco impact and the health and wellbeing of our people I'm bringing us back to the kaupapa as I refer to the fact that te iwi Māori are overrepresented in the workforce that we're talking about. So the question for the Minister tonight is about mitigation. What is the path to mitigate the disproportionate impact that this legislation—or what's going to happen to te iwi Māori? What is your plan? And then in fact when I heard you speak earlier Minister about Actually maybe te iwi Māori may not be so impacted." what is the evidence base behind that? Because from my perspective as a mokopuna of an ECE teacher and with whānau who clean hotels right now and the cousins who serve me at Countdown—I'm here as their voice from Tai Tokerau to share my grave concerns for those who have no voice. Kia ora.CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): I just wanted to acknowledge the newness of some of the members and remind members to come back to the relevant part that we are discussing."