edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
VoteCHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that the Minister's amendments to Part 6 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 361 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 107New Zealand Labour 62; New Zealand National 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere; Whaitiri.Noes 10ACT New Zealand 10.Amendments agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That Part 6 as amended be agreed to.Ayes 107New Zealand Labour 62; New Zealand National 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere; Whaitiri.Noes 10ACT New Zealand 10.Part 6 as amended agreed to.
Deposit Takers Bill — In Committee—Part 6
Deposit Takers Bill — In Committee—Part 4
VoteCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): There being no other calls the question is that the Minister's amendments to Part 4 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 361 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 106New Zealand Labour 62; New Zealand National 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere.Noes 10ACT New Zealand 10.Amendments agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That Part 4 as amended be agreed to.Ayes 106New Zealand Labour 62; New Zealand National 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere.Noes 10ACT New Zealand 10.Part 4 as amended agreed to.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Corrections Amendment Bill be now read a first time. Ayes 107New Zealand Labour 62; New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10; Whaitiri.Noes 10Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere.Motion agreed to.Bill read a first time.DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the Corrections Amendment Bill be considered by the Justice Committee.Motion agreed to.Bill referred to the Justice Committee.
Water Services Entities Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the motion be amended so that 27 July 2023" is omitted and replaced with "19 November 2023".Ayes 54New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere.Noes 63New Zealand Labour 62; Whaitiri.Motion not agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the Water Services Entities Amendment Bill be reported to the House by 27 July 2023 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions) during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House and outside the Wellington area despite Standing Orders 193 195 and 196.Ayes 62New Zealand Labour 62.Noes 55New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere; Whaitiri.Motion agreed to."
Imprest Supply (First for 2023/24) Bill — Third Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Imprest Supply (First for 2023/24) Bill be now read a third time. Ayes 72New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere.Noes 45New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10; Whaitiri. Motion agreed to.Bill read a third time.
Appropriation (2022/23 Supplementary Estimates) Bill — Third Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Appropriation (2022/23 Supplementary Estimates) Bill be now read a third time.Ayes 72New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere.Noes 45New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10; Whaitiri.Motion agreed to.Bill read a third time.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Appropriation (2022/23 Supplementary Estimates) Bill and the Imprest Supply (First for 2023/24) Bill be now read a second time.Ayes 72New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere.Noes 45New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10; Whaitiri.Motion agreed to.Bills read a second time.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): I declare the House in committee for consideration of amendments to the Appropriation (2022/23 Supplementary Estimates) Bill.
Appropriation (2022/23 Supplementary Estimates) Bill and Imprest Supply (First for 2023/24) Bill — Second Readings
Imprest Supply (First for 2023/24) Bill — First Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Imprest Supply (First for 2023/24) Bill be now read a first time.Ayes 72New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere.Noes 47New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2; Whaitiri.Motion agreed to.Bill read a first time.
12. Question No. 12—HealthSTEPH LEWIS (Labour—Whanganui) to the Associate Minister of HealthQuestion No. 12—Health12. STEPH LEWIS (Labour—Whanganui) to the Associate Minister of Health: What recent measures have been put in place by the Government to help increase vaccination rates and accessibility to healthcare for mums and babies? Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Associate Minister of Health): Last Friday I was excited to launch alongside Uri Ririki - Child Health Connection Centre a new hauora van in Tāmaki-makau-rau which will help protect hapū māmā their pēpi and tamariki from preventable diseases such as the flu and whooping cough. Being immunised is one of the best things we can do to protect ourselves our whānau and our communities. To lift our vaccination rates our health services should be accessible and take different approaches to overcome potential barriers and that's what the hauora van does. It takes immunisation to where the people are and even lets vaccinators park outside a home allowing hapū māmā to access the services right on their doorstep. Steph Lewis: How will these measures increase accessibility to healthcare and vaccination rates?Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: Mobile health vans provide an accessible and convenient way for hapū māmā to provide antenatal immunisations which is a key priority in Tāmaki-makau-rau in particular right now. There are several barriers to getting antenatal vaccinations including time pressures due to work as well as some hapū māmā who may feel anxious about getting a vaccine while pregnant. Our caring health kaimahi know how to engage and answer these concerns and the hauora van means they are right there in our neighbourhoods to work their magic. Along with the mobile clinic that was launched on Friday a sister van will be launched next month with similar details promoting immunisation to our tamariki.Steph Lewis: What other services will the hauora vans be able to provide?Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: Beyond being a moving billboard for immunisation these vans are multi-use purpose-built health units. They have features like handwashing stations and electric chilly bins for vaccine storage. The vans can also be used for cervical screening and health checks and will be able to be present at local events in conjunction with community providers. They'll also be used to support immunisation in our secondary schools as well.Steph Lewis: Why is it important to increase access to antenatal immunisations?Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: The evidence is clear that antenatal vaccinations keep pēpi and māmā safe from serious diseases—for example pregnant people can be three to five times more likely to be hospitalised with influenza than those who are not pregnant. However as of December 2022 the antenatal influenza vaccination rate was only 38 percent across Auckland region. Measures such as these hauora vans are a further example of how the Chris Hipkins Government is focused on the fundamentals by increasing access to healthcare and investing to improve health outcomes for all families.
11. Question No. 11—HealthBROOKE van VELDEN (Deputy Leader—ACT) to the Minister of HealthQuestion No. 11—Health11. BROOKE van VELDEN (Deputy Leader—ACT) to the Minister of Health: What options is Te Whatu Ora considering for the repurposing or alternative use of the more than 17839000 rapid antigen tests (RATs) that as of 12 June had either expired or will not be dispatched because they are nearing expiry and what does it cost Te Whatu Ora each month to store these expired or expiring RATs? Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Minister of Health): There was no crystal ball when the pandemic hit New Zealand. Minimising waste in the health system is always a priority. At a time of uncertainty and short global supply it made it necessary to purchase large orders. This Government made the decision to be as prepared for the ongoing pandemic as possible and stock was purchased to prepare us in the face of significant risk and uncertainty. Stockpiling is routine in pandemic preparedness and management. In answer to the first part of the question I'm advised Te Whatu Ora are considering a range of options to mitigate product waste through expiry date extensions and deferring orders where possible. Te Whatu Ora continue to investigate ways to minimise the environmental impact of waste and provide a sustainable approach to the disposable COVID-19 products. They are actively scanning the market for these solutions. In answer to the second part of the question I am advised that Te Whatu Ora does not have specific information on the warehousing costs of the expired component of the stockholding.Brooke van Velden: Where are the rapid antigen tests being stored and by which organisations?Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: Te Whatu Ora has stored the rapid antigen tests in a warehouse that they have contracted. I'm happy to give the member the name of the supplier if they put it on notice.Brooke van Velden: Who owns it and how much are they spending on the contract?Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: I'm happy to provide the cost of the warehousing overall for the member if the member puts that question on notice.Brooke van Velden: Is she seriously saying she cannot answer how much they're spending on storage of the expired or expiring RAT tests and does not know where they are being stored or by whom?Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: No I am saying that Te Whatu Ora does not have specific information on the warehousing costs of the expired component of the stockholding.
9. Question No. 9—ChildrenHARETE HIPANGO (National) to the Minister for ChildrenQuestion No. 9—Children9. HARETE HIPANGO (National) to the Minister for Children: Is he confident children in the care of Oranga Tamariki are safe; if not why not? Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Minister for Children): The allegations that recently came to light are of grave concern to me and as I have said previously are totally unacceptable. Oranga Tamariki has appointed Mike Bush to undertake a rapid review of the specific allegations as well as a broader review of how residences are operating. Oranga Tamariki has made the right call and he will get to the bottom of what's going on. I have a clear expectation that young people in any type of facility are supported and safe. Harete Hipango: How many allegations has he been made aware of since the beginning of the year involving Oranga Tamariki staff acting inappropriately in residences? Hon KELVIN DAVIS: I can't give an exact number but what I can say in terms of children in Oranga Tamariki care—so that is all children including those in the community and with families—there have been 453 children who have findings of harm. Unfortunately we can't go back beyond 2019 because the previous Government didn't collect that data so we are not able to compare the numbers through now and previous to this Government. Harete Hipango: Will the rapid review into Oranga Tamariki's community-based homes also consider the actions of the four employees who remain suspended on paid leave from an Oranga Tamariki care and protection residence in Christchurch closed two years ago as a result of the investigation into the use of excessive force by Oranga Tamariki workers; if not why not? Hon KELVIN DAVIS: So the circumstances around that investigation are Sir Wira Gardiner at the time who was the acting chief executive immediately implemented the child protection protocol. That involved police doing an investigation which took over a year. The situation around the now three workers is currently before the Employment Relations Authority and that process needs to be allowed to happen. Harete Hipango: Does he think it acceptable for an Oranga Tamariki employee to continue working at the Oranga Tamariki facility where and when there has been an allegation of sexual abuse made by a teenage resident against that staff member? Hon KELVIN DAVIS: That allegation was made and police were involved in the investigation and they did not come to a conclusion around that. Harete Hipango: Does he accept that the youth residents in Te Puna Wai ō Tuhinapo the youth justice facility at Rolleston Christchurch are safe and properly supervised when there have been at least two reported separate incidents in just four months of youths taking to the roof of the facility? Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Every child deserves to feel safe and secure in these residences. The incident that occurred at Te Puna Wai over the weekend was attended by police with the safety of the other children in residence and of staff the top priority. Obviously this incident and the response will be looked into and if anything needs to change it will.
8. Question No. 8—Social Development and EmploymentSARAH PALLETT (Labour—Ilam) to the Associate Minister for Social Development and EmploymentQuestion No. 8—Social Development and Employment8. SARAH PALLETT (Labour—Ilam) to the Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment: What recent announcements has she made about Peke Waihanga?Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment): Last week I announced the opening of the new state-of-the-art Peke Waihanga - Artificial Limb Service facility in Christchurch. I was pleased to open the new facility alongside their chief executive Sean Gray and board chair George Reedy. The new facility features seven new clinical spaces including three purpose-built rehabilitation areas. It also includes specific manufacturing technology for prosthetics and orthotics to be made in-house. Importantly patients and amputees have had direct input into the design of Peke Waihanga and that has led to this facility being truly designed around the needs of its users. This is a big step forward for an organisation that does extremely important work and I am proud that this Government has been able to support it through a $6.1 million investment. Sarah Pallett: How will the new centre support amputees and those at risk of amputation?Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: This facility will support over 600 amputees and nearly 3000 others. In addition to providing high-tech prosthetics Peke Waihanga also supports patients through a peer-support service that provides support to those adapting to limb loss by matching them with trained supporters who have themselves adapted to limb loss. The centre also supports those who are at risk of needing an amputation due to conditions like diabetes through the provision of preventative measures such as orthotics. The advanced technologies in this centre such as high-tech 3D printers will also mean I'm told—when I visited the centre—that wait times for prosthetics will generally reduce from what used to be about a full day to just 90 minutes. Sarah Pallett: How will this new facility support South Island communities?Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: The new Peke Waihanga facility is a great addition and it will future-proof the region and the South Island to respond to the increasing demands of the ageing population and the implications of chronic disease. The development of the new centre builds on our Government's investment in the disability sector alongside other investments like the additional $863 million in Budget 2023. Sarah Pallett: How will this new facility help to advance medical practice in prosthetic and orthotic care?Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: Medical students in their final year at Otago University will now be able to co-locate at the centre. This will enhance the students' understanding of prosthetic and orthotic care and will provide research opportunities to improve patient care in the future. This is a truly exciting initiative and I'm proud to be part of a Government that has supported it.
6. Question No. 6—HealthTANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North) to the Minister of HealthQuestion No. 6—Health6. TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North) to the Minister of Health: What is the Government doing to reduce the cost of healthcare from 1 July?Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Minister of Health): This Government is proudly reducing the cost of healthcare for New Zealand households by removing the $5 copayment on prescription medicines. Removing the $5 charge will make it easier and cheaper for New Zealanders to access the medicines they need having a meaningful impact for many households particularly those with multiple prescriptions to fill on a regular basis. This Government is committed to ensuring our health system provides equitable access for New Zealanders so they can have the health services when they need and where they live.Tangi Utikere: How many people will benefit from the removal of the $5 prescription fee for medicines?Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: An estimated 3.5 million New Zealanders will no longer have to worry about having enough money in their account when they collect their medication. This will also benefit more than 800000 New Zealanders over the age of 65 who received prescription medicines in the community last year and will no longer have to cut their pills in half or take it every second day. Last year over 440000 prescriptions for oral contraception were dispensed. From 1 July that will be free.Tangi Utikere: Why is the Government removing the $5 prescription fee for medicines?Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: The $5 charge is a barrier to some New Zealanders getting the medicines they need. Removing the charge makes it easier and cheaper for New Zealanders to access medicine having a meaningful impact for many households particularly those with many prescriptions to fill. By removing the $5 co-payment on medicines we're investing in the simple treatments that can prevent chronic conditions becoming emergencies that need hospital treatment.Tangi Utikere: How will the policy be implemented on Saturday?Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: From 11.59 p.m. on 30 June 2023 no standard $5 prescription co-payments will be charged to people who collect their prescription from a pharmacy. People don't need to do anything different from what they usually do—just turn up for the pharmacy and get their standard medicines for free.
1. Question No. 1—HousingTERISA NGOBI (Labour—Ōtaki) to the Minister of HousingORAL QUESTIONSQUESTIONS TO MINISTERSQuestion No. 1—Housing1. TERISA NGOBI (Labour—Ōtaki) to the Minister of Housing: What progress has the Government made rebuilding New Zealand's public housing stock?Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Housing): I'm pleased to report that this Government has now delivered over 12000 public housing places since October 2017. As of May 2023 this also includes over 10000 public housing new builds. Our pace of delivery means this Government is delivering the most public homes since the second Labour Government under Walter Nash in the 1950s.Terisa Ngobi: How has delivery improved in the regions?Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: We've made good progress in terms of regional delivery. In Gisborne for example there was a decrease of 33 Housing New Zealand homes between 2008 and 2017. Since we came into office in 2017 Gisborne has seen an increase of 71 public homes to May 2023. On the Kāpiti Coast there was a decrease of 14 Housing New Zealand homes between 2008 and 2017. Since we came into office in 2017 we've seen an increase of 24 public homes to May 2023. We are committed to public housing delivery across New Zealand especially in our regions. Regional delivery will be a particular focus in the updated public housing plan which I hope to announce in the coming months.Terisa Ngobi: How have the recent severe weather events impacted delivery?Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Prior to the severe weather events Kāinga Ora was on track in January to meet the Government's ambitious public housing plans of delivering 3400 gross homes by June 2023. However as mentioned previously in the House several projects have been impacted by these weather events—along with construction projects across those regions—which have caused delays. By the end of June we will have delivered a gross of 2600 public homes with the additional 800 homes experiencing an eight-week construction delay. Kāinga Ora has been focusing hard on delivering in spite of the weather events and remains on track to meet this new date. Terisa Ngobi: What further work is the Government doing to support public housing? Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Additional investment announced as part of Budget 2023 will fund 3000 additional public housing places to be delivered by June 2025. This builds on the significant and ongoing investment in public housing. There are currently over 4500 public homes under construction today. There will be a particular and continued focus on delivery in regions new build supply and partnerships with community housing providers Māori and iwi.
Salesa JennyASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): The Deposit Takers Bill is set down for third reading next sitting day and the Fuel Industry Amendment Bill is set down for further consideration in committee next sitting day. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow. Pō mārie. The House adjourned at 9.59 p.m.
Report of Committee of Whole House
O'Connor GregREPORT OF COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE HOUSECHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Madam Speaker the committee has further considered the Deposit Takers Bill and reports it with amendment. The committee has also considered the Fuel Industry Amendment Bill and reports progress. I move That the report be adopted. Motion agreed to.Report adopted.
Smith StuartSTUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Point of order. Thank you Mr Chair. We did not object when they moved to take the whole bill as one part and—CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Mr Smith are you predicting what I was going to do? STUART SMITH: No I wasn't. I was just going to say that in the spirit of an informed decision we did that on the basis—CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Well Mr Smith I don't need any advice thank you. I will say to Ms Lee that coming in late doesn't mean that a question hasn't already been asked which it has. However the time has come for me to report progress on this bill. Progress to be reported.House resumed.
Fuel Industry Amendment Bill — In Committee
Lee MelissaMELISSA LEE (National): Thank you very much Mr Chair. I've been sitting here listening to some of the pertinent questions that my colleagues have actually asked the Minister. I'm just a little bit baffled. In relation to new section 29C it is about terminal gate prices only if it is satisfied that the relevant wholesale supplier has posted terminal gate prices for the relevant specified engine fuel and bulk storage facility that were above what would be expected in a competitive market." So it could potentially be one supplier out of the five major ones—and there are a couple of others who actually do in fact supply—and I'd have thought that we wanted competitive pricing. If one goes over doesn't the market actually fix that anyway? The wholesale market would actually decide that they're not going to purchase a very high-priced wholesaler. I thought the market actually fixes that problem. Why are we wasting time wanting to make an inquiry? The Minister potentially could actually on 29D have an inquiry triggered. I know that my colleagues have talked about the trigger and the measurement but I just don't understand where this is actually going. I just thought if you leave it to the market it'd be sorted. It's not like we have two wholesalers one who is going higher. Well good luck to the one who's actually supplying it cheaper because they'll get all of the customers. If one of them is actually selling it for a much much more expensive price that's called market pricing. So if the market pricing is not complied to and with we're going to trigger an inquiry by the Commerce Commission or the Minister writing.So I'm just trying to understand what the Minister's reasoning is for actually doing this because I am still really really baffled. It's sort of like saying "Oh well if you own a house—one in Christchurch and one in Auckland—the same house but one of them actually happens to sell at a much more higher price let's do an inquiry." Well it is the market that determines the price. If someone actually decides to sell it for a much much higher price the customer base would decide not to do it.So I think it would be very very pertinent if the Minister could actually tell us the answer in terms of how the Minister on 29D will decide—(1)(a)—where she says "The Commission … must hold an inquiry if required to do so by the Minister in writing". I'm trying to understand what will trigger the Minister to write to the commission to do the inquiry and what will be the reasoning behind it."
Woods MeganHon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Energy and Resources): I will take a quick call to again address questions posed by Mr Court and Mr Smith around what is prescribed in new section 29C of the bill inserted by clause 4 about when and the test of when the terminal gate price may be regulated—what is the trigger for that happening? One of the things that I do point members to is that this is actually a recommendation of our market study into fuel pricing to protect consumers. I'm hearing a whole lot of arguments coming from that side of the Chamber about how we have to protect the oil companies and the fuel companies. What I've really considered is how we ensure that consumers are getting a fair deal when they go to the pump. So prices that are not consistent with what is expected in a competitive market are terminal gate prices that are higher than would be experienced if competition were causing downward pressure on those prices. Since we began monitoring—and the Commerce Commission has the tools and the powers to begin monitoring this because of changes that we made—what we've seen is that early analysis indicates that terminal gate prices are being set higher than expected compared to average fixed wholesale contract prices and terminal gate prices in Australia. That's when you adjust for all the differences. So I think what we're seeing is that there needs to be vigilance there needs to be the transparency around the pricing so it can be monitored and if consumers are not getting a fair deal then there needs to be a way to deal with that.I will also just answer Mr Court's questions around whether or not the Government will be supporting his Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 364. And I thank the member for taking the time to put the work in to put up an SOP but we won't be supporting it on this occasion and there's some good reasons for that. The member is suggesting that we add into that the GST and the emissions trading scheme charging. This would not be meaningful in terms of the transparency. There are a number of other costs if you were looking for full transparency that you'd want to put in there. Some members have alluded to some of these as the complexity and I think Mr Bayly talked about this and this is something of course that the Commerce Commission has the powers to take into account which is the full context—the operating costs of the terminal in its particular location. We also have the capital costs and the way in which they can be fairly attributed in a working competitive market. These are all things that you would not be—you would not be displaying all of this. You also wouldn't be putting in place the profit margins. So I'm sorry Mr Court but the advice that I've got is that although you could argue that there could be greater transparency by displaying all of these things this would cause an increase in the regulatory burden on these businesses and not something this Government is prepared to do.
Court SimonSIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you Mr Chair. Just following on from my colleague Stuart Smith's comments—Minister I'm really really puzzled as to how a lack of competition in terminal gate pricing could possibly even be determined by the commission. When I look at the terminals shown here [Holds up an electronic tablet]—and this is available for download; this is available online right now—there is only one terminal in Northland at Marsden Point; there is one in Auckland at Wiri; one in Napier Nelson Christchurch Dunedin; two in Timaru Wellington and Tauranga. Most of the country the major metros have only one terminal—how is it possible to determine whether the price posted at the gate doesn't reflect a competitive wholesale market? There's only one terminal—I can't send my truck and trailers down the road to fill up at someone else's terminal. I can't drive past the terminal and compare it to the next one down the road to get a feel as if someone's paying too much. It just sounds completely impractical Minister. It sounds like a response to the wrong problem.Now Minister I don't think it's worthwhile really debating the merits of the bill because if there's a change of Government the ACT Party will act to repeal it because we're fundamentally opposed to the Government setting prices. But I do want to offer you an opportunity to comment on the Supplementary Order Paper on the amendment to the bill that ACT has proposed that the terminal gate price [Refers to electronic tablet]—and here we have an example of terminal gate pricing: premium 95 $2.32; regular 91 $2.09; diesel $1.59. That's at Marsden Point. What ACT is proposing—in an amendment to clause 6 in Part 2 of the bill—is that the terminal gate price must publicly list as part of the overall price the total excise duty and excise equivalent duty included in the price and cents per litre. That's the amount of fuel tax that people will pay on that product and the total amount likely to be paid at the current market price of New Zealand units under the emissions trading scheme. It's the total cost per litre that Kiwis will pay if they buy that fuel at a wholesale price on top of the wholesale price and the importers margin.So Minister could you just firstly give your perspective: how are we to know whether competition is in fact insufficient when there is only one terminal in most of the metros? And secondly Minister will you support ACT's proposed amendment that terminal gate pricing should include excise duty fuel tax and the emissions trading scheme cost? Thank you Minister.
O'Connor Greg; Halbert ShananFUEL INDUSTRY AMENDMENT BILLIn CommitteeParts 1 and 2 the Schedule and clauses 1 to 3CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Members we come now to the Fuel Industry Amendment Bill. We come first to Part 1.SHANAN HALBERT (Junior Whip—Labour): Point of order Mr Chair. I seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one question.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is none. The question is that Parts 1 and 2 the Schedule and clauses 1 to 3 stand part.
Deposit Takers Bill — In Committee—Clauses 1 and 2
O'Connor Greg; Bayly Andrew; Robertson GrantClauses 1 and 2CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Members we come now to our final debate: clauses 1 and 2. This is the debate on clauses 1 and 2 title and commencement. ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): It would be useful for the Minister to just identify why under clause 2(3) the commencement date for Any part of the Act that has not come into for by"—originally it was the fifth and now it's been amended to "the sixth anniversary of Royal assent". Maybe it would be useful just for the Minister to state why that has occurred because that's obviously important in terms of its implementation date. Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): We'll let you know. Clause 1 agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that the Minister's amendments to clause 2 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 361 be agreed to. Amendments agreed to.Clause 2 as amended agreed to.Bill to be reported with amendment."
O'Connor GregSchedules 1 to 3CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): We come to Schedule 1. The question is that the Minister's amendments to Schedule 1 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 361 be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.Schedule 1 as amended agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that the Minister's amendments to Schedule 2 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 361 be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.Schedule 2 as amended agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): We come to Schedule 3. The question is that the Minister's amendments to Schedule 3 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 361 be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.Schedule 3 as amended agreed to.
Bayly Andrew; Robertson GrantANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Yeah thank you Minister—that was very useful. Maybe just a slight elaboration: could the Minister contemplate given the history of New Zealand what circumstances he may have applied it? For instance when Bank of New Zealand was in trouble back in the 1980s I presume that may have been one where we may have applied this. Certainly where the continuity of systemically important activities like the payments in New Zealand was to have trouble—I imagine that would probably lead to this power being exercised. But when you look at the make-up of the banking sector in New Zealand and the deposit-taking sector—obviously we have four or five very significant banking operations and then we have a number of smaller deposit takers. Would he envisage exercising these specific rules for a deposit taker who might have less than 1 percent of the market share? So I'm just trying to understand where his views would be that you would cut in and where it might be and using history to maybe demonstrate that wisdom that he may have to display—hopefully not in the next three months—but if he were.Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I don't think there's a need to stretch this particular part of the debate out. The clause that I read out 25B(2) is very clear on the extent of the kind of issue here. It is not a minor or trivial matter; it is a matter where there is a systemically important entity involved or where the entire stability of the financial system is involved. Any Minister would take advice on where that kicks in but it's clearly not a minor matter. I'm not going to choose to speak about any specific event at this time.
Deposit Takers Bill — In Committee—Part 8
O'Connor GregPart 8 MiscellaneousCHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Members we come now to Part 8. This is the debate on clauses 422 to 471 and Schedule 2 Miscellaneous". The question is that Part 8 stand part.The question is that the Minister's amendments to Part 8 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 361 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 73New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere; Whaitiri.Noes 44New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.Amendments agreed to.Part 8 as amended agreed to."
Robertson GrantHon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Both of the questions asked by Mr Bayly and Mr Watts are in fact laid out in the bill. I just take Mr Watts' last statement: it's very very clear when one reads clause 346 exactly when this would apply. It wouldn't be a matter of choice for the Minister at the time if they thought that this was something that they should do; it actually follows on very strongly that this is around public money. It's the use of the word and" that will help everyone follow clause 346 through. It has to involve public money and indeed that there would be a material risk to the prudent management of public money. That is the circumstances in which a Minister would be involved. Similarly the role of the resolution authority and the resolution manager are laid out in a variety of clauses in the bill which are quite easy to read and follow.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that the Minister's amendments to Part 7 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 361 be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.Part 7 as amended agreed to."
Deposit Takers Bill — In Committee—Part 7
Robertson GrantHon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Well I mean a range of issues could occur but the point is that we're trying to strike a balance here between confidence that people's deposits are safe that they know that if the worst thing happens they can get at least up to a hundred thousand dollars back. The Reserve Bank's overall regulatory policy framework and supervisory framework should be giving us confidence that the moral hazard is unlikely to take place or to occur and people will need to monitor their risk particularly if they're outside of what is regarded as the Reserve Bank's—you know a deposit taker that is covered by the Reserve Bank's core functions. But moral hazard exists simply by the nature of the scheme existing. What we're trying to do is find a balance so that it doesn't encourage or incentivise risky behaviour.What would go wrong to answer the member's question would be if the supervisory and conduct work that the bank does hadn't worked up until that point at which point we would have highly risky entities which would then likely see the scheme utilised more often. I don't think that's what will occur because of the mitigation put in place by having those conduct and supervisory provisions that are earlier in the Act.
Smith DamienDAMIEN SMITH (ACT): Thank you Madam Chair. It's a question with regards to the use of the Silicon Valley Bank as an example. That was technically a wholesale banking run right? That's where it started and that's where the bailouts occurred. So we've obviously got examples closer to home in our recent history that fits these criteria better.But I just have one question on moral hazard. As long as depositors are confident in choosing how our depository interests that the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (RBNZ) has their back what could go wrong in terms of financial stability and risk? Should I repeat that?Hon Grant Robertson: Yeah I'm sorry.DAMIEN SMITH: As long as depositors are confident when choosing higher deposit interests that the RBNZ has their back what could potentially go wrong in terms of moral hazard?
Bayly Andrew; Robertson GrantANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you for that response Minister. I suppose it's the way that the clauses are worded. If the assertion of what the Minister's just said that the Reserve Bank can redact under the current provisions of the oversight of the Official Information Act then that's fine. Because any entity has to comply with the Official Information Act and there are reasons why you can redact some.But the way that this is worded in Subpart 6 maybe—and maybe this is what I'm trying to understand—implies that the Bank actually has a discretion even outside the Official Information Act requirements. Because it says the Bank may redact any information from the final report if the Bank considers there's a good reason" not as allowed for or provided for under the Official Information Act.So that's the bit that I'm getting at. If it can redact because it's currently allowed under the Official Information Act I get it; and I think that was the Minister's assertion before. What this is saying—and it seems to suggest that the Reserve Bank has a discretion even outside the Official Information Act to redact any information. That's a bit I'm seeking clarification on and I'm just conscious he may need to talk to officials but I—Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): No no I don't. The point I make here is the member needs to go back and read what 233 is about. The person being appointed here is in fact independent of the Bank. So what the clause is trying to do is ensure that any actions from a report undertaken by someone who's independent would also be covered by something akin to the Official Information Act (OIA).Actually I think when the member takes the time to read that clause he will see that the linkage actually makes it very strong that it would need to be a good reason for withholding information as if it was under the OIA. So I think it achieves the goal that we both want there."
Bayly Andrew; Watts SimonANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Yeah that was a useful introduction. I suppose I'm interested in the issue around the $100000 and what it covered and particularly in clause 191. As the Minister was aware there's a great deal of debate around whether a New Zealander holding currency deposits offshore should be covered or not or if an offshore entity has currency deposits sitting in New Zealand whether those are covered. And it might be useful for the Minister just to help anyone who is listening as to whether which of those two are covered under the deposit scheme set out in here.The other thing clause 191(2) refers to protected deposit" and does not include a debt security and that's a defined term at the front. But again it would be useful for the Minister just to identify whether that covers a debenture a bond a commercial paper or any of those types of instruments which in some cases could move into quasi-equity debt instruments quasi-equity debt—mezzanine equity instruments is probably the better term to use. Which of those might be covered? Again it would be very useful for the Minister just to help us all understand exactly what's in and what's out.SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Yeah thanks Madam Chair. Just following on from that contribution I'm interested in regards to Subpart 2 around the "Depositor Compensation Fund" and in particular if the Minister could provide some context in terms of the funding profile which will be funded through the levy and at which point the appropriateness or the target fund value will be reached and over how many years potentially that will take in order to get to a point where the fund reaches a threshold which is deemed adequate for a stress event that may trigger that—acknowledging there's quite a significant range in terms of what those events could look like. But is there any consideration around that point and over what time period would that look like and in the interim period in the initiation phases of the bill and while that is building up what the funding dynamic looks like. I guess assuming that the Crown would write a cheque but I just want clarity around that. The other aspect I know the Minister is very supportive of inflation adjustment but there's 100 grand that we refer to—was any consideration given around a mechanism to review and adjust particularly around the inflation aspects? Because you know the reality is if we're standing here in five years' time what is appropriate particularly under the current inflationary environment will no doubt be higher than the current numbers in there. And just what if any consideration has been given to ensuring that the numbers within that keep pace with the economic reality that we face here in New Zealand?"
Deposit Takers Bill — In Committee—Part 5
Salesa Jenny; Robertson GrantPart 5 EnforcementCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members we come now to Part 5. Part 5 is the debate on clauses 147 to 188 on enforcement. The question is that Part 5 stand part.Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Just to briefly introduce Part 5 this is around enforcement. Essentially the framework that we've set up here is to provide a range of options to allow for a proportionate response to misconduct in line with the approach and other comparable enforcement regimes. Obviously the most serious offences are reserved for serious misconduct. The question of enforcement follows on from the question of supervision that we dealt with in Part 4.There are three tiers of offences under the bill. The least serious offences are tier 1 offences which essentially are things like failing to notify the bank on becoming aware of fit and proper concerns—that carries a fine of up to $500000 for a body corporate or $50000 for an individual. The most serious offences are tier 3—for example carrying on a deposit-taking business without a licence that would carry a fine of up to $5 million for a body corporate or in the case of an individual a fine of up to $500000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or both.Throughout Part 5 you'll see a variety of enforcement-related provisions including the power to accept undertakings pecuniary penalty levels the procedure and related provisions to how that works in relation to criminal offences and infringement offences. It is an attempt to be proportionate which is one of the concerns of the committee and I think the part strikes that balance.It's worth noting that there is Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 361 in my name amending clause 177 which is intended to ban persons who engage in serious misconduct from participating in the deposit-taking business including ownership. Given that many deposit takers are owned by a holding company the ban would be ineffective and so the SOP proposes to expand clause 177 to authorise the District Court to issue a banning order in relation to a licensed deposit taker and any holding company or subsidiary so just to reflect the nature of the ownership of many deposit takers.
Smith Damien; Salesa JennyDAMIEN SMITH (ACT): I'd like to refer the Minister please to clause 146(2) in Supplementary Order Paper 361 that the court in its discretion can order any information or copy of any document from a document that instead of being destroyed be retained by the bank or an investigator subject to terms and conditions that the court imposes. It was interesting to note this week that JP Morgan's retail division lost 50000 emails on their clients' activities. I just wondered in this clause if the advisers would take on board that maybe an overnight data feed between the bank and the deposit takers would make sense in terms of (a) protecting the integrity of the data and secondly if any fast decisions have to be made on the banking scenario that this data was instantly there instead of just being passive and waiting for it and waiting to go through the court system that everybody was fully prepared.Andrew Bayly: We are poised with expectation hoping the Minister's going to stand and actually answer one of our I think six questions.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Are you taking a call though Andrew or are you still waiting?Andrew Bayly: No I'm just giving the Minister every opportunity.