edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Stanford EricaERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you Madam Chair. I want to move on to getting towards the—I am anyway—end of the section. I want to go on to a new part we haven't talked about yet clause 129 which is the delayed commencement provision.This is an unusual provision and I wanted to ask the Minister to give us some examples of when this might apply. It's not something that came up in detail in select committee but I'm interested to know because in clause 129(1)(a) the bargaining sides must be satisfied that declining the employer's application would result in a less favourable overall outcome for the employer's employees when approving the application;" so under what circumstances would that happen? Under what circumstances would we find that by not implementing the fair pay agreement (FPA) which has just been negotiated the employees would be worse off than if it was implemented immediately? This is not something that came up and I'm interested in a situation where this could possibly happen so that that the FPA for that particular employer can be delayed—you can see potentially a number of employers wanting to have the provisions of the FPA delayed for their own purposes—but in terms of the employees being in a less favourable situation: if it was employed right now compared to if it was in place later on.So I'm not aware of any situation where that might be the case and I was hoping that the Minister could give us some examples of when that might possibly happen in relation to clause 129 "Delayed commencement provision" so that we can better understand that clause. I've got more questions around that but I want to make sure that I'm on the right track before I ask them. Thank you."
Wood MichaelHon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Working backwards I'm happy to assist the members with their questions. In respect of Ms Simmonds' previous question the answer to this is in Part 1 of this bill which we dealt with extensively last week and that confirms that only one fair pay agreement (FPA) can apply to a worker based on the FPA which covers the largest part of the work that they do. That is covered in Part 1 of the bill which we had a good debate on. In terms of the broader question about the future of the minimum wage exemption scheme that is a question for Government Cabinet and the Parliament later. That scheme currently applies so it needs to be reflected in the FPA legislation because the FPA legislation deals with minimum entitlements. In terms of Mr Goldsmith's questions around variants based on size there are really two responses there: the first is to remind the committee of the fact that FPAs set minimum terms and conditions in the same way that the Government currently sets minimum terms and conditions across the minimum wage and minimum statutory entitlements. There's still then flexibility for parties to agree different terms and conditions over and above that to reflect size complexity and capability. And that will still be the case with FPAs. In addition within FPAs there is no constraint on the bargaining sides agreeing for there to be different provisions which apply to different groups within that FPA provided that's not inconsistent with other legislation.
Edmonds Barbara; Dean JacquiBARBARA EDMONDS (Junior Whip—Labour): I move That the question be now put.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): No no this is a substantive part of the debate. I'm not hearing anything in the way of repetition. There are a number of members seeking the call so I call the Hon Paul Goldsmith.
Severin Toni; Wood MichaelTONI SEVERIN (ACT): Thank you Madam Chair. I'm just a little bit concerned around these fair pay agreements because as you can guess you're going to be lumping many sectors together and a lot of small businesses can fall into multiple sectors. I've just got a little concern here and am asking for clarification because at the moment a lot of the small businesses are under ACC as part of this. If you have maybe say admin people and you have construction people and you're in a small business and your admin people decide they'll go with the administration fair pay agreement and your construction people decide they want to go with this but the small business' ACC levy is based on the company not on what the people do. So even though you're offering probably better wage systems for these people but their ACC—so I don't know if anybody has asked this question: how is this going to affect the individuals' ACC levy if you have multiple people in industries? Because ACC has been done under what the business does rather than what the person does within that industry.As I said like Sam Uffindell mentioned within the financial sector there are many different roles within that big sector so it's going to be quite confusing. I'm just concerned that people are going to end up still paying more money and losing money under these fair pay agreements because some of these older systems may not have been necessarily looked at.Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): The Fair Pay Agreements Bill will not have any impact on the ACC levies that people pay. That will be based on the type of work that people do as assessed by ACC.
Wood MichaelHon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Happy to answer the member's question. The starting supposition of the member is an accurate observation that for some—but not all—migrant workers there will be a wage requirement that is a condition of their visa. So the member refers particularly to the median wage requirement which is a requirement under the Accredited Employer Work Visa. There will be other categories of migrant visa where there is not that requirement in place but many will come in on that rate.The observation she makes is relevant now before fair pay agreements (FPAs) have taken effect. There will be workplaces where a migrant worker enters under the Accredited Employer Work Visa on that median wage requirement and that wage rate might be different to other workers who are within that workplace right now. That will be the case across workplaces where everyone is on individual employment agreements and it could be the case if that workplace has a collective agreement that is in place. So it's not a new and distinct issue to consider. It might have slightly wider application to a slightly bigger group under FPAs but it's not fundamentally different from what we deal with now.The answer to the first part of the question is that that migrant worker to be able to get that visa to work in New Zealand has to be paid at the rate that is specified in instructions for that visa. That's the entry point. If they then work in an area that is covered by an FPA they will have to be paid at the minimum rate that is in that FPA. So if the minimum rate in the FPA is higher than the rate that was required for their visa then they will have to be paid at that higher rate effectively.How that might affect bargaining: if there are migrant workers who have that rate and other workers who are at different rates—that will be for the bargaining parties to determine amongst themselves in the bargaining process as it would be under a collective agreement bargaining process now. In fact it will be—that will be playing out as we speak across collective bargaining processes. It will up for the parties to work through as they understand what is happening in that particular labour market.Then in respect of clause 119(3) which relates to the fact that certain terms and conditions under FPAs are minimum entitlements the member asks what happens if the migrant worker is on a higher rate than those. Well the migrant worker is not affected they are above those entitlements. If the migrant worker's rate is lower than those minimum entitlements they will have to be brought up as a minimum to those minimum entitlements.
Woodhouse MichaelHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you Madam Chair. I just want to make a brief comment in support of the intervention by Penny Simmonds but also in response to the Minister's two answers—very thoughtful answers; thank you Minister—to this important issue. When he answered my question he talked about the scenario of 80 percent of the minimum wage. Now my experience of the enterprises like Abilities Southland disAbility Enterprises and Cargill Enterprise is that if somebody was at 80 percent productivity they'd probably be on full minimum wage. That's the way that these guys operate. I'm sure the Minister is familiar with Marxist theory of surplus value in labour. Well actually this works in reverse where it's quite often the case—even with a labour inspector's assessment of the productivity of the employee—that they're paid more than their productive output. The organisations that run these schemes are perfectly happy to accept that negative dividend if you like on their productivity because of the other value that is provided by the meaningful nature of the work and the enthusiasm with which these people—some of them are severely disabled blind or intellectually disabled but they live to come to work to be and feel productive. So we're more likely to have percentages that are lower than that. I know of percentages—well I should restate it. In my time as Minister there were percentages as low as 15 percent of the minimum wage and there was very little productivity involved but the value was exponentially greater than that. My point is this: if there's a high proportion of those 800 or 900 minimum wage exemptions that are related to a percentage automatically with the passage of this legislation their rates of pay will go up from the minimum—rather when a fair pay agreement is set if one is then their rates of pay go up. They're already probably above the productivity that is created. That tipping point where it becomes uneconomic—just simply not able to continue—I think is very real. That risk is real so I would encourage the Minister to be cognisant of that as this bill progresses and as fair pay agreements progress because I think I heard him say that he doesn't see a time when these minimum wage exemptions wouldn't be around and Penny Simmonds has got a much better memory of the Clark Government's attempts to do that. I don't think they were ignoble attempts but they had just so many unforeseen consequences for vulnerable people that wiser heads prevailed in the end. I hope that wiser heads will prevail here but also that the mathematics doesn't get in the way of an excellent scheme that won't benefit the employee bearing in mind that the other income supports available through the Ministry of Social Development would be abated and the in-pocket earnings of these employees would probably only marginally go up if at all. So I'd just encourage the Minister but I'd also encourage the Minister to go to these workshops if he hasn't already. He may well have. They are uplifting places places that I think have a great future for the wellbeing of our vulnerable New Zealanders.
Wood MichaelHon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Briefly in response to the member's question there is nothing qualitatively different that will apply here as compares to what qualitatively applies outside of the fair pay agreement (FPA) regime. I don't imagine that the employee that Ms Simmonds has described who might do different types of work depending on their circumstances will have different rates of pay at the moment. They'll probably have one rate of pay that the employer pays to that person and the minimum wage exemption process might apply a percentage of the minimum wage to that person. That is likely to apply in the same way under an FPA; it's just that the base starting position for what the wage is rather than being the minimum wage will be the minimum rate that is specified in the FPA.
Simmonds PennyPENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill): Thank you very much Madam Chair. I want to carry on a little bit from the questioning by my colleague the Hon Michael Woodhouse around the minimum-wage exemption permits. This is particularly pertinent for me. I served on the Southland disAbility Enterprise board for a number of years and I was there when Helen Clark sought to get rid of this in the early 2000s which caused a lot of consternation obviously to that organisation. I very recently visited Abilities Group in Auckland Attainable in Auckland as well as Altus—they are three enterprise entities that serve a similar purpose and of course my colleague has talked about Cargill Enterprises in Dunedin.I heard the Minister's answer to the questions about the minimum-wage exemption but I am still a little concerned about the level of flexibility that is needed for the staffing or for the staff involved in these enterprises. If I can give some examples because the Minister talked about how it would relate to the fair pay agreements set for that work—but in in the case of these enterprises they are constantly looking for different work to attract into their enterprise. It may vary from untangling the headsets from Air New Zealand one week to the packing or repackaging of spices another week or to dealing with recyclables particularly around e-recycling. So they are within these enterprises moving across different types of work week to week and in fact sometimes day to day particularly when these enterprises have to take cognisance of the skill level of a person on any one day.I think of a young gentleman that I know well in Recycle South previously Southland disAbility Enterprises who from time to time suffers from very bad epileptic fits. When that occurs he will be very sleepy and very difficult to motivate for the rest of the day so he may well be moved from working on the MRF—the material recovery facility—which is the big conveyor belt that does all the sorting of the recyclable materials. He may be moved into a much more repetitive and mundane task that requires less from him during the rest of that day. So I can see there being difficulties if the minimum-wage exemption is set against one particular negotiated fair pay agreement for a specific type of work and yet the people within the enterprise are working perhaps across different types of work within not only a day but across of course a week as different types of work comes in for them. So I'm still not clear how the minimum-wage exemption permits will work for those enterprises. And I hope that they are not going to be struck with the administrative burden of having to try and make proportions of the day in one type of work that has one fair pay agreement minimum wage set and then having to look at other rates for the rest of the day. Being very cognisant of how little administrative support they have in these enterprises I'm just not convinced—from the Minister's answer—that they are not going to be heavily burdened with a lot of extra administration within this. Thank you.
Goldsmith PaulHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you Madam Chair. Well I will just finish my speech and as I recall I was surrounded by a very large crowd supporting Trevor Mallard for his valedictory. I sensed that quite a few of them were union supporters and not particularly keen on my particular insights on that matter so it's nice to have a clear audience here. What I was trying to say and what I'd like to just come back to in slightly more detail if I get a chance is that we're at Part 6 of the Fair Pay Agreements Bill which is misnamed in our view because it's not fair and it's about mandatory union deals. But Part 6 is the important part of the bill which focuses on what needs to be included in the fair pay agreements and there is a list under clause 114 of things that must be in the agreement: the date on which it comes into force the coverage the type of work covered the minimum base wages the rates of payment for overtime penalty payments—[Time expired]
Dean JacquiFAIR PAY AGREEMENTS BILLIn CommitteeDebate resumed from 20 October.Part 6 Content of fair pay agreements (continued)CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members the House is in committee for further consideration of the Fair Pay Agreements Bill. When we were last debating this bill we were considering Part 6 of the debate on clauses 114 to 129 which is the content of fair pay agreements. The question is that Part 6 stand part and the Hon Paul Goldsmith has the call. He has one minute and 12 seconds remaining should he wish.Hon Paul Goldsmith: Twelve seconds?CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): One minute and 12 seconds.
Fisheries Amendment Bill — Third Reading
Roberts AngelaANGELA ROBERTS (Labour): Thank you Mr Speaker. It is my pleasure to rise and take a final call on the Fisheries Amendment Bill. I think as my colleague Anna Lorck reflected getting to this point shows there's been a lot of complexity and ongoing changes right up to the last minute reflect the fact that this Government is prepared to tackle some really really wicked problems. As Barbara Kuriger pointed out it can be really difficult when you have multiple stakeholders who have different priorities.I want to acknowledge some of my local fishers inshore fishers including Keith Mawson from Egmont Seafoods who was one of those people who constantly came and talked to us and really helped us to grapple with the issues. Hon Member: Oh grapple"!ANGELA ROBERTS: Oh I didn't notice that.The inshore fishers have a shared vision with us in this House about the desire for transparency accurate information-gathering and improved fisheries and environmental outcomes and this is where some of the changes are really going to help with that. We are so data-poor in our ability to be really responsive in a really accurate and useful way to the fluctuations and the changes that happen out there on the ocean. It's going to be really helped by things such as cameras and that is why the inshore fishers are really supportive of the opportunity that cameras will really enable.It's great to hear that everybody in this House is going to continue to monitor. It isn't just the data that is going to be really important but what has been acknowledged with the most recent changes is that we need to rebuild relationships. We cannot make changes and have a really great fishery and ecosystem and ocean without everybody being involved in the decision making. So it is going to be great to have everybody on board to make sure that the changes are useful and really help to protect our fishery. We want our fishery sector to survive and we want our biodiversity to be restored. Just one final quote as an artist we always had to go back to the musicians and we want to make sure that in the future we have not just the biodiversity but fishers who want to be there in the future. As Split Enz said "That's the life for me living on the sea." With that I commend the bill to the House.Motion agreed to.Bill read a third time."
Lorck AnnaANNA LORCK (Labour—Tukituki): Thank you Mr Speaker. It's interesting the process that we go through in passing legislation and I think in reflection of where we got to in this bill in the pre-set decision rules it is an example of how we have a Government who is listening. I have to say that when I was at the Hawke's Bay A&P Show on People's Day—on People's Day; a fabulous day at the Hawke's Bay Show—I got to catch up with the members of LegaSea recreational fishing and they were very complimentary of this Government and how we do continue to listen.During the submission process we had many many submissions on those pre-set decision rules—which yes would have enabled more streamlined decisions on sustainability measures including catch limits. They have now been removed from the bill because it remains clear that there is concern over the use of those tools. It became clear with the stakeholders concerned regarding this proposal that we have to rebuild trust in the fisheries management system which is needed before considering such changes.So I find it really ironic that the National Party is deeply disappointed in this decision because there are thousands of amateur people who go out and fish—mums and dads and many like the members I met at the Hawke's Bay A&P Show—and they are pleased with where this legislation has got to and I am pleased to be able to commend this bill to the House. Thank you Mr Speaker.
Leavasa Anae NeruDr ANAE NERU LEAVASA (Labour—Takanini): Mālō ni. Fa'afetai Mr Speaker and happy Tokelauan Language Week. It is a pleasure to take a brief call on the Fisheries Amendment Bill in its third reading. I haven't had the privilege to speak in the last two readings nor to sit on the select committee but I just want to acknowledge Minister Parker and also the chair of the Primary Production Committee Jo Luxton the members and the officials for their work on this important bill. What does this bill do? It amends the Fisheries Act 1996. It helps to redesign the fisheries system and also simplifies the landing and discard rules for commercial fishers but what I like about this bill is that it helps to incentivise the behaviour of our fishers in order to target the fish that they need and also minimise the fish wastage and also the discard of dead fish at sea. It also allows the return of catch to safeguard marine mammals and protect ray and shark species and that's all about protecting the ecosystem and the environment but also the health and wellbeing not only of the environment but of our whānau who also fish as well. So—straight to the point—I commend this bill to the House.
Luxton JoJO LUXTON (Labour—Rangitata): Thank you Mr Speaker. It's a pleasure to take a call on the Fisheries Amendment Bill as the chair of the Primary Production Committee. Before I begin my contribution can I please take time to thank the officials we worked with during this process and the other select committee members. We spent quite some time on this piece of legislation during sitting hours and quite often in recess weeks.What this piece of legislation proposes to do is to improve and incentivise better commercial fishing practices. We've heard quite a lot about the removal of the pre-set decision rules. That was a decision that was made through the committee of the whole House. There has been continued concern expressed over the use of the pre-set decision rules and it seems that the rebuilding of trust is something that is quite important and needed before we can include rules such as this. There were changes made around graduated offences and the penalties regime and we've heard quite a lot about the 50 fish number and I know that the Minister acknowledged that perhaps it seems arbitrary but there has to be a starting point somewhere. Previously there was just simply a maximum penalty of a $250000 fine no matter the offence and what this piece of legislation does is amend that somewhat to make the penalty fit for purpose the type of offence committed and thinking about any previous offences that may have been committed by the fisher prior. So it's proportionate to the offence.This also goes to improve the effectiveness of cameras on boats. As well as them currently being used for observing fishing it now extends to the observation of fishing-related activities such as sorting processing and the discarding of fish. So again I just thank the members of the committee. It is a split committee—each side has the same number so there is no party that has more votes than the other so I'm unsure why the member who spoke previously mentioned that they didn't have the numbers. It is a split committee. It is a committee that works very well and I commend this bill to the House.
McAnulty KieranSITTINGS OF THE HOUSEHon KIERAN McANULTY (Acting Leader of the House): I move That the sitting of the House today be extended into the morning of 26 October for further consideration in committee of the Fair Pay Agreements Bill; the third reading of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Hazardous Substances Assessments) Amendment Bill; and the second readings of the Māori Purposes Bill the Oranga Tamariki Amendment Bill the Organic Products Bill the Civil Aviation Bill and the Statutes Amendment Bill.
Rurawhe AdrianURGENT DEBATES DECLINEDMinistry of Education—NCEA Literacy and Numeracy Pilot Release of ResultsSPEAKER: I received a letter from Erica Stanford seeking to debate under Standing Order 399 the release of results of the 2022 NCEA literacy and numeracy pilot. The release of results by the Ministry of Education is a particular case of recent occurrence for which there is ministerial responsibility. An urgent debate is a way of holding the Government accountable for an action—Speaker's ruling 200/4. Ms Stanford stated in her application that the Government has made no formal statements around the release of the results. While the release of the report may warrant an urgent debate this must be exceptional especially where working through a report's recommendations may take some time—Speaker's ruling 208/6. I do not consider that the release of the results itself warrants the immediate attention of the House by way of urgent debate. The application is therefore declined.Christchurch Hospital Emergency Department—Death of IndividualSPEAKER: I have also received an application from Dr Shane Reti seeking to debate events surrounding the death of the person attending Christchurch Hospital Emergency Department on Sunday 16 October 2022. An urgent debate is a way of holding the Government accountable for an action it has taken—Speaker's ruling 200/4. While a review into the death is under way it is not clear from the application that the Government has announced that it will take any particular action arising from the individual case. The application is therefore declined.
Rurawhe AdrianPETITIONS PAPERS SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLSSPEAKER: A petition has been delivered to the Clerk for presentation.CLERK: Petition of Niranjan Herath requesting that the House urge the Government to increase aid to Sri Lanka and encourage the Sri Lankan Government to repeal the Prevention of Terrorism Act and release those jailed under it.SPEAKER: That petition stands referred to the Petitions Committee. Ministers have delivered papers.CLERK: Ministers' reports in relation to selected non-departmental appropriations for the year ended 30 June 2022 for:Vote JusticeVote CourtsVote Te ArawhitiVote Arts Culture and Heritage andVote Business Science and Innovation emergency management portfolio2022 annual reports for:Crown LawMinistry of Housing and Urban DevelopmentMinistry of Justice Te ArawhitiStatistics New ZealandDepartment of Internal AffairsMinistry for Culture and HeritageEarthquake CommissionSouthern Responsestrategic intentions for 2021 to 2026 for the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development andstatement of performance expectations 2022-23 for the Tāmaki Regeneration Company.SPEAKER: I present the 2021-22 annual report and the 2022-27 strategic intentions of the Office of the Ombudsman. Those papers are published under the authority of the House. Select committee reports have been delivered for presentation.CLERK: Report of the Governance and Administration Committee on the Te Kawa Mataaho Public Service Commission Long-Term Insights Briefing 2022reports of the Petitions Committee on the petition of Ian Meredith and the petition of New Zealand National Party.SPEAKER: The report of the Governance and Administration Committee is set down for consideration. The Clerk has been informed of the introduction of a bill.CLERK: Ngāti Tara Tokanui Claims Settlement Bill introduction.SPEAKER: That bill is set down for first reading.
Rurawhe Adrian; Peke-Mason SorayaLIST MEMBER ELECTEDNew Zealand Labour—Soraya Peke-MasonSPEAKER: Members I have received from the Electoral Commission a return declaring Soraya Peke-Mason to be elected a member of Parliament to fill the vacancy created by the resignation of the Rt Hon Trevor Mallard from his list seat. I understand that Soraya Peke-Mason is present and wishes to take the Oath of Allegiance. Would she please come forward to the Chair to my right.MEMBERS SWORNSORAYA PEKE-MASON (Labour): Ko ahau ko Soraya Peke-Mason e oati ana ka noho pūmau taku pono ki a Kīngi Tiāre te Tuatoru me tōna kāhui whakaheke e ai ki te ture. Ko te Atua nei hoki taku pou.[I Soraya Peke-Mason swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles III His heirs and successors according to law. So help me God.]WaiataSPEAKER: A petition has been delivered for the Clerk for presentation.Waiata continuedSPEAKER: Ā kāti rā ka mutu tēnei wāhanga ka huri au ki ngā pitihana.[Well then that part is concluded and I will now turn to the petitions.]
Dean JacquiTUESDAY 25 OCTOBER 2022The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.KARAKIA/PRAYERSHon JACQUI DEAN (Assistant Speaker): Almighty God we give thanks for the blessings which have been bestowed on us. Laying aside all personal interests we acknowledge the King and pray for guidance in our deliberations that we may conduct the affairs of this House with wisdom justice mercy and humility for the welfare and peace of New Zealand. Amen.
Thursday 20 October 2022 - Volume 763
Fair Pay Agreements Bill — In Committee—Part 5
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Minister's amendments to Part 5 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 264 be agreed to.Ayes 74New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Noes 40New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 7.Amendments agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That Chris Baillie's amendment to clause 92D set out on Supplementary Order Paper 268 be agreed to. Ayes 40New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 7.Noes 74New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Amendment not agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That Chris Baillie's amendments to clause 92F set out on Supplementary Order Paper 269 be agreed to.Ayes 40New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 7.Noes 74New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Amendments not agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Chris Baillie's amendment to delete clause 92G set out on Supplementary Order Paper 270 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee. Chris Baillie's amendment to Part 5 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 266 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.A party vote was called for on the question That Part 5 as amended be agreed to.Ayes 74New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Noes 40New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 7.Part 5 as amended agreed to.
Fair Pay Agreements Bill — In Committee—Part 4
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the question be now put.Ayes 74New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Noes 40New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 7.Motion agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the Minister's amendments to Part 4 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 264 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 74New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Noes 40New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 7.Amendments agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the Hon Paul Goldsmith's tabled amendments to clauses 86 and 87 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 40New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 7.Noes 74New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Amendments not agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That Part 4 as amended be agreed to.Ayes 76New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Noes 40New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 7.Part 4 as amended agreed to.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the question be now put.Ayes 74New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Noes 40New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 7.Motion agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That Part 3A be agreed to.Ayes 74New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Noes 40New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 7.Part 3A agreed to.
Fair Pay Agreements Bill — In Committee—Part 3A
12. Question No. 12—WomenCAMILLA BELICH (Labour) to the Minister for WomenQuestion No. 12—Women12. CAMILLA BELICH (Labour) to the Minister for Women: What reports of recent progress towards gender equality has she seen?Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister for Women): Today marks 50 years since the Equal Pay Act 1972 was passed and I'm pleased to inform the House that we are celebrating this anniversary with the milestone of a record low gender pay gap of 7.7 percent in the Public Service. The number of women in leadership continues to trend upwards with women now holding 55.8 percent of senior leadership positions. However while a gender pay gap exists in the country there's no time for complacency and we need to continue to work towards full elimination of workplace inequality.Camilla Belich: What progress has she seen on reducing the Māori and Pacific pay gaps in the Public Service?Hon JAN TINETTI: In the Public Service the Māori pay gap has fallen to 6.5 percent from 8.3 percent and is now the lowest it has been. The Pacific pay gap has fallen from 17.9 percent to 17.7 percent. Concerted effort by the Public Service to continue to see these track down is continuing as well as stepping up efforts to close ethnic pay gaps.Camilla Belich: How has the Equal Pay Act 1972 delivered for New Zealand women?Hon JAN TINETTI: The Equal Pay Act was a huge achievement for women but despite enshrining in law a legal right to equal pay for equal work any substantial progress stalled until the passing of the amendments to the Act in 2020. These amendments have enabled the settlement of historic pay equity claims in female dominated industries. With seven pay equity settlements so far these settlements remove gender discrimination from pay for more than 104000 people with an average pay correction of 33 percent.Camilla Belich: What action is being taken to reduce the overall gender pay gap in New Zealand?Hon JAN TINETTI: The overall pay gap in New Zealand is 9.2 percent and has been stagnant for far too long. Evidence shows that one of the tools that could support businesses to shine a light on gender and ethnic pay gaps is mandatory pay transparency reporting. This is why my colleague Priyanca Radhakrishnan and I have announced that the National Advisory Council on the Employment of Women will act as a national advisory on pay transparency.SPEAKER: That concludes oral questions. I declare the House in committee for further consideration of the Fair Pay Agreements Bill.
10. Question No. 10—Economic and Regional DevelopmentSHANAN HALBERT (Labour—Northcote) to the Minister for Economic and Regional DevelopmentQuestion No. 10—Economic and Regional Development10. SHANAN HALBERT (Labour—Northcote) to the Minister for Economic and Regional Development: What announcements has he made to support regional economies?Hon STUART NASH (Minister for Economic and Regional Development): Over the weekend I attended the celebration of the restoration of St Michael's Church on the Ōhaeāwai pā and battle site an historically important restored battle site in the context of the 1845-46 northern land wars. After undergoing $1.79 million in Government-backed restoration it is now a fully-fledged cultural heritage tourism experience. In my opinion the Battle of Ōhaeāwai pā deserves to rank up there with battles like for example Agincourt in 1415. The reason I say this is because this battle involved around 615 British troops against around 100 Māori. The British casualties numbered in the hundreds and there were less than five Māori killed. After the battle the British made a couple of models of this pā site and used the Māori tactics to completely rethink their approach to close-contact trench warfare. Chiefs like Pene Taui who was the architect of this tactic deserve to sit in the pantheon of great military commanders innovators and strategists.Shanan Halbert: How is the Government supporting historic sites of national importance?Hon STUART NASH: Ōhaeāwai located near Kaikohe in Te Tai Tokerau Northland is the second project completed from a $20 million historic sites of national importance allocation from the Provincial Growth Fund (PGF) which is administered by Kānoa - Regional Economic Development and Investment Unit.Shanan Halbert: Why is it important to restore these sites?Hon STUART NASH: The restoration of battle sites like Ōhaeāwai allows the descendants of those involved in the war and the wider public to learn about this significant battle as well as the wider community to benefit from the restored infrastructure. Project coordinator Raima Redden said that the restoration of the church was the realisation of a long-held dream" for the community.Shanan Halbert: What other benefits will these investments provide?Hon STUART NASH: Ōhaeāwai is part of a family of projects that our Government has funded to boost Māori economic development and tourism and to generate employment growing the local and regional economy. These projects offer a unique tourism activity supporting Māori development and storytelling and promoting a shared understanding of history.Shanan Halbert: How else is the Government supporting the Northland economy?Hon STUART NASH: The Government has provided a range of support to strengthen regional economies like Northland including investing nearly $800 million from the PGF and other funds across 230 projects. We have invested more than any other recent Government in building the capability infrastructure and economic capacity of the regions. That's a record I'm incredibly proud of."
9. Question No. 9—TransportSIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga) to the Minister of TransportQuestion No. 9—Transport9. SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga) to the Minister of Transport: Does he agree with NZTA's statement that Kiwis should slow down and maintain a safe following distance between their vehicle and the one in front to maximise their chance of seeing and responding to a pothole in the road"; if so why?Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Transport): Well as the late great Peter Brock once said "Only a fool breaks the two-second rule." so yes I do agree with Waka Kotahi's advice to keep a safe following distance. Neither of us would want to be a fool when it comes to road safety Mr Brown. I also agree with Waka Kotahi's statement that expenditure had been held "at a constant rate between 2009-10 and 2016-17 by constraining growth in the funding range for State highway maintenance in the GPS meaning that the strong condition of road surfaces and road pavements that existed in 2009 had been consumed and network condition has declined to a point where increased investment is now critical." This is typical of the National Party. They run down our public assets and then whinge about the inevitable results. Fortunately our Government has increased road maintenance funding by 50 percent since we came into office to clean up their mess.Simeon Brown: What speed should Kiwis drive at to dodge pot-holes and is dodging pot-holes the reason why the Government has lowered speed limits on hundreds of kilometres of our State highways in the past five years?Hon MICHAEL WOOD: New Zealanders should always drive at a safe speed on our roads. I would have encouraged the National Party to have thought about that more carefully when they froze road maintenance funding for eight years across our State highway network.Simeon Brown: How far behind another car should Kiwis follow in front of them to maximise their chance of dodging a pot-hole?Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Only a fool breaks the two-second rule.Simeon Brown: How many pot-holes could the New Zealand Transport Authority have fixed with the $30000 spent on the five big red zeros the Minister was so proud to stand next to? Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Well they fixed about 45000 last year and interestingly the biggest number of increased pot-holes occurred between 2016 and 2018 at the end of the last National Party term."
6. Question No. 6—PoliceCHRIS BAILLIE (ACT) to the Minister of PoliceQuestion No. 6—Police6. CHRIS BAILLIE (ACT) to the Minister of Police: How many ram raids have been reported since May 2022 and how many offenders have been arrested in relation to these reported ram raids?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Police): I'm advised that since May 2022 there have been 215 ram raids recorded nationally. Police have made 347 arrests on these kinds of incidents in the Tāmaki Makaurau and Waikato districts in the last eight months. The number of arrests specifically relating to ram raids across the rest of New Zealand isn't readily available but I can confirm that a total of 315 prosecutions and 115 youth referrals have been made relating to ram raids since the beginning of the year.Chris Baillie: Is the Minister considering changing the police pursuit policy to account for the surge in ram raids considering that only 17 percent of fleeing drivers were subsequently apprehended in 2021 compared to 41 percent in 2017?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The fleeing drivers policy is a matter for the police. It's an operational matter. But the Commissioner of Police and I have had conversations about it and I do expect that there are going to be changes to that policy.Chris Baillie: What percentage of ram raid offenders have been identified as youth offenders and will the Minister consider adopting ACT's policy to introduce ankle bracelets for serious repeat youth offenders?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I don't have a specific percentage but the vast majority of ram raids are being undertaken by young people. That's not to say that there aren't some older people involved but the advice that I've had from police is that this is predominantly a young people issue including some very young offenders—some below the age of 10 for example. In terms of the ankle bracelet policy the issue of removing some of the repeat offenders from circulation and keeping them out of circulation is something that the Government is very focused on. I'm not convinced that extra use of ankle bracelets would necessarily achieve that but we're keeping all options on the table.Chris Baillie: Does the Minister think we're in a crime crisis?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: It is very clear that there is an escalating level of youth offending particularly in the upper half of the North Island. I've also acknowledged that for the businesses who are victims of that it is a crisis-like situation. We need to work hard to make sure that there are fewer businesses who find themselves in that position in the first place.Hon Mark Mitchell: What changes have been proposed by the Police Commissioner in relation to the pursuit policy as discussed between the Minister and the commissioner?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: That's a matter for the Police Commissioner to announce.
2. Question No. 2—PoliceGINNY ANDERSEN (Labour—Hutt South) to the Minister of PoliceQuestion No. 2—Police2. GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour—Hutt South) to the Minister of Police: What recent reports has he seen of New Zealand Police responding to youth offending?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Police): Police have made hundreds of arrests and laid thousands of charges for offending at retail businesses in Auckland and the Waikato in recent months. Provisional figures show how hard police staff have been working to identify offenders and to hold them to account. Yesterday I met with the Dairy and Business Owners Group and I recognise how tough it has been for them to be the targets of this criminal offending. Police focus continues to be on working to try and prevent this type of offending and to hold to account those responsible whilst also ensuring that the necessary supports are in place for victims to prevent this happening again.Helen White: What steps have police taken to respond to youth crime in Tāmaki Makaurau?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Across Tāmaki-makau-rau police have arrested 129 youth offenders and laid 1036 charges since May. Those charges across both regions relate to burglary robbery and unlawful taking offences. In many instances individuals have been charged with more than one offence on more than one occasion. I was advised this morning that just last night police across Tāmaki-makau-rau arrested 15 young people aged between 11 and 16 following fleeing-driver incidents involving stolen vehicles. Further investigations are ongoing and more arrests and charges will be made.Ginny Andersen: What steps have police taken to respond to youth crime in the Waikato region?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: In the Waikato 205 offenders have been arrested a total of 307 times for ram raid and smash and grab - style offending. Some of those arrested have been repeat offenders. Overall those charged are now facing or have faced a total of 1229 charges that have been filed in the Youth Court. This data relates to the period from 1 February to the end of September.Ginny Andersen: What insights has he seen from police on the nature of this offending and on how the Government is working together to respond?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: It is clear from my conversations with police that police alone will not be able to solve the level of offending that we are currently seeing amongst young people. The complex social issues that sit underneath this need to be addressed in a whole-of-Government manner. As the Minister of Police and as the Minister for the Public Service I have been convening regular conversations across Government to make sure that we are doing everything we can to get these young people off the streets and back on to the straight and narrow.
Rurawhe AdrianVALEDICTORY STATEMENTSSPEAKER: Members I will indicate now that at the conclusion of the Rt Hon Trevor Mallard's valedictory statement the House will adjourn until 2 p.m. on Tuesday 25 October 2022 so that I don't have to interrupt the celebrations that will occur at the end of that speech. Members in accordance with a determination of the Business Committee I call on the Rt Hon Trevor Mallard to make his valedictory speech.
O'Connor GregCHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Mr Goldsmith enchanting as we are unfortunately the time has come for me to leave the Chair and report progress.Progress to be reported.House resumed.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Mr Speaker the committee has considered the Fair Pay Agreements Bill and reports progress. I move That the report be adopted.Motion agreed to.Report adopted.
O'Connor GregPart 6 Content of fair pay agreementsCHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Members we now come to Part 6. This is the debate on clauses 114 to 129 Content of fair pay agreements". The question is that Part 6 stand part."
Lubeck MarjaMARJA LUBECK (Labour): I move That the question be now put.Motion agreed to.
Baillie ChrisCHRIS BAILLIE (ACT): Thank you Madam Chair. I'd also like to go back to clause 92D Minister in relation to my Supplementary Order Paper (SOP). While I do agree with a lot of what Mr Smith said I accept that it might have been pushing it a little bit far for this Government at the moment.My SOP would just like to replace where it states Māori employees" to "employees who have identified themselves as Māori". I think it just makes a lot of sense. A lot of businesses especially small businesses don't carry that information and finding out whether or not—how do you do that? Do you go round and ask? It's just fraught with issues that I don't think employers should have to face.Also in relation to a similar thing clause 92G identifying representatives of Māori employers we'd just like that deleted. Identifying what are undefined as Māori employers will again prove difficult and potentially be used to gain an advantage in the bargaining.While I'm here can we look at clause 92F(2)(f): "if the proposed FPA covers employees of a private sector employer and an employer bargaining party on the bargaining side is aware that the private sector employer regularly receives [funding from either local government or central government]". We believe that "significant funding" is more appropriate in that area otherwise we'll be dealing with just lots of little wee contracts that the Government departments and local bodies deal with. So if you can consider that it'd be appreciated. Thank you."