edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Henare PeeniHon PEENI HENARE (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector): Thank you Madam Chair. There was a flurry of activity from the Opposition with regard to the number of pieces of paper handed to me on the questions being asked and all the papers say the same thing: we won't lose the election in 2020. But I digress. There are a couple of things I do want to touch on and one of them is the contribution by Mr Scott around a P90 forest. As a former trustee of a P90 forest the particular change proposed in the bill here is an important one. As a former trustee of a P90 forest many of those forest trustees felt hamstrung by much of the carbon credits that were allotted to those particular forests and the ability to securitise them and utilise them to grow and develop the forest is an important thing. So with my experience as a former trustee of a P90 forest I think that is an important move. One of the challenges however is that many of them in the previous regime reacted to a lack of movement in this space and many had already sold plenty of those shares off but we'll deal with those issues as they come to hand. I think that as we look forward to the future of P90 forests and their management of carbon credits we can look forward to a far more vibrant forestry sector which is a significant plan of this Government. There are a couple of questions that were asked and there are some I think reasonable and sound answers here—one from Mr Bayly. The answer to one of his many questions is that buyers and sellers of main homes will be required to provide their IRD number and indicate that the transfer is of a main home. Now these proposed requirements are relatively minor. For example there is a box for providing the buyer and seller's IRD number and they currently don't need to fill in this box if the transfer is of a main home. This simply now requires that the IRD number box be completed and it helps with a heck of a lot of work around enforcing exactly what was the intention in the brightline test. It's easy to respond to many of the questions around the housing crisis and simply applying a brightline test but to actually make sure that we collect the right data so that we can enforce it is an important step of that. So doing it properly is an important one. Supplementary Order Paper 248 doesn't change the application of the brightline test; it only changes the information that is provided. This is an important step to make sure that we apply the law correctly and this is evident by the change being made to the Land Transfer Act rather than to the Income Tax Act. I think that's pretty sensible to me. Many of the proposals that are put forward in this particular bill are sensible. They are well in line with the work plan of the Government and I look forward to the progression of this bill.
Martin TraceyHon TRACEY MARTIN (Minister for Children): Thank you Madam Chair. I'll just take a short contribution just to ask for some clarity for the committee from the Minister if at all possible. I think the Rt Hon David Carter has raised a really interesting point. He's provided a possible scenario of how the Opposition believes that there may be some unintended consequences of the Minister's Supplementary Order Paper 248. I just wonder if the Minister in the chair could perhaps highlight—I'm aware that for example in some areas that I do work in which is around citizenship that there is the possibility to put in front of officials an explanation why an individual perhaps hasn't met the number of days that they are required to meet due to work obligations for example. So over a five-year period there's a certain number of days that a person needs to be in New Zealand to be able to be considered that they have met the criteria for citizenship but if they show the Department of Internal Affairs that their work obligations require them to be outside of the country so that they are unable to meet those number of days then it's no problem at all and generally that is proven through work records testimonials from employers and other things like that. Obviously in the scenario provided by the Rt Hon David Carter I would imagine that there are diary entries that are being proactively released by those Ministers showing where they are around New Zealand on certain days. So I just wonder whether the Minister would be able to clarify that with circumstances such as those the extreme concerns raised by the Rt Hon David Carter might be able to be addressed.
Parker DavidHon DAVID PARKER (Attorney-General): I want to make three points in response to the member Andrew Bayly and I thank him for his comments. The first is the underlying policy rationale that lies behind this ring-fencing of losses. [Interruption] Andrew Bayly: It's very hard to hear. CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! Thank you. Hon DAVID PARKER: Thank you Mr Chair. The underlying policy rationale is that we want to direct more of the investment that there is in the housing market to new housing rather than bidding up the price of existing houses. Secondly we want to encourage investment in asset classes other than rental housing in that we want more investment to be directed towards the productive economy rather than speculating in housing which pushes up housing prices. We're seeing some outcomes of that already in New Zealand. With the combination of this plus the extension to the brightline test plus some incentives to R & D tax credits we are actually seeing I think a movement of investment towards the productive sector and this is starting to flow through I think in exports and particularly technology exports. In respect of the issue as to retrospectivity the main feature of the rules—and they would apply at the start of the 2019-20 income year—was announced and consulted on in an issues paper that was released in March 2018 which was 12 months before the start of the 2019-20 income year with those standard balance dates and it's not unusual for tax policy to take effect after the date of a consultation document but prior to the date of the passage of the legislation. In terms of the effect on people the deadlines for filing income tax returns for the 2019-20 income year will be well after the enactment date. Taxpayers with an earlier or standard balance date will have until 7 July 2020 to file their tax return for the 2019-20 income year and this is expected to be approximately 12 months after the bill is enacted. Then the third point I will make is a process point. Because all three Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) from Andrew Bayly have significant fiscal implications and they were tabled with less than 24 hours' notice they're out of order under Standing Order 330 and I suspect that the member Andrew Bayly knows that. The cost of these amendments that Andrew Bayly has—Andrew Bayly: How much? Hon DAVID PARKER: Well it's a significant cost. But Andrew Bayly has provided no estimate at all which is somewhat surprising given that he wants the House to pass his amendments and he hasn't even put a finger in the air and said whether it's $1 million tens of millions or hundreds of millions. I can advise the member that it's more than tens of millions of dollars but the reason that we have Standing Order 330 is to make sure that we don't have reckless behaviour from members of Parliament tabling very expensive SOPs without even attempting to cost them.
Nash StuartHon STUART NASH (Minister of Revenue): Thank you very much Mr Chair. First of all we all agree with this. We all agree it's a good idea and it should be implemented so the only thing we disagree on is the application date. I'd like to inform both members who have spoken on this part Ian McKelvie and David Carter that the fiscal cost of moving it from 1 December to 1 April is about $30 million. It's about $30 million that in fact we wouldn't collect but we can collect it if it is 1 December. Now what I can say as the Minister of Revenue is I'm not going to put our revenue at risk or New Zealanders at risk by imposing a date on these large companies that I do not think they can meet. The other thing I would like to say is that I actually would like to defend Michael Wood. I think he does a fantastic job of chairing the Finance and Expenditure Committee. He's fair he's reasoned he reads all his papers and I think he does a very good job and he's a knowledgable member. I don't like to hear criticism of a person certainly when he's not in the Chamber to defend himself. But that aside as mentioned I would not put the revenue streams of this country at unnecessary risk if I didn't need to. The 1 December date we are absolutely clear we can meet. The other thing as well that's important is we talked about the high street. We talked about the retailers and how important they are to our communities whether it's provincial rural or the big city communities. If we can get this implemented by 1 December and we can—we know we can—then why would we go for another retail season? Why would the National Opposition want our retailers to go through another high season at an economic disadvantage at a competitive disadvantage as Kiwis can still buy stuff online 15 percent cheaper than they can on the high street? Why would you want to do that to the retailers of this country when we know that we can do this well by implementing it on 1 December? It just makes no sense to me. So it's not about the revenue; for me it's about the integrity of the tax system. It's about making sure we get it right—it's always been about that—but it's also about ensuring that we level the playing field. That is incredibly important for me. Now I'm not saying that because we're going to bring in GST on low-value goods people are going to stop buying things off the internet—of course that's not going to happen. But what it does mean is that at least the men and women the Kiwis who own the retail stores—the bricks and mortar—actually are not at a competitive disadvantage to an overseas multinational based wherever but not here. So 1 December is the date because it can be done and it's fair and it's actually the right thing to do for the tax system but also for our retailers.
Dyson RuthHon RUTH DYSON (Senior Whip—Labour): I move That the question be now put.
Racing Reform Bill — Second Reading
Thursday 13 June 2019 - Volume 738
VoteThe question was put that the amendments recommended by the Finance and Expenditure Committee by majority be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 57New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Amendments agreed to.Bill read a second time.
Taxation (Annual Rates for 2019-20 GST Offshore Supplier Registration and Remedial Matters) Bill — Second Reading
VoteHon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister for Māori Development): I move That this debate be now adjourned. A party vote was called for on the question That the motion be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 56New Zealand National 55; Ross.Motion agreed to.Debate interrupted.
12. Question No. 12—Housing and Urban DevelopmentDENISE LEE (National—Maungakiekie) to the Minister of Housing and Urban DevelopmentQuestion No. 12—Housing and Urban Development12. DENISE LEE (National—Maungakiekie) to the Minister of Housing and Urban Development: Does he stand by all his statements and actions in relation to the meeting he had with Hon David Parker and Auckland Mayor Phil Goff on 2 March 2019?Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Housing and Urban Development): Yes I do particularly my statement that my office made a mistake in leaving out a meeting with the mayor and Minister Parker when my more than 1700 meetings were published on the Beehive website.Denise Lee: When he requested the meeting with David Parker and Mayor Goff to discuss Auckland's rural-urban boundary why did he specifically state it was to be a political meeting with no officials?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well I would say to the member that it is common for politicians to meet without officials present just as it was under the previous Government. The main purpose of the meeting was to gauge what the likely concerns of Aucklanders may be and what the political response would be.Denise Lee: How can he stand by his statement to Newshub yesterday I'm not aware that my office did refuse to release information." given he personally signed the Official Information Act response saying no information about the meeting existed?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Because at the time that release was responded to my office had overlooked emails that had been generated setting up the venue and the time of the meeting. In retrospect I acknowledge that those emails should've been included in the response. When I was asked a question by Newshub yesterday I didn't have the documents in front of me and I wasn't able to answer the question.Denise Lee: If the failure to disclose the meeting was simply an administrative oversight as he claimed yesterday why did he refuse to release the official information that Minister Parker released which proved not only was the meeting held but further information about it did exist?SPEAKER: I'm going to ask the member to consider carefully the question and whether the word "refuse" is there as opposed to "fail" because otherwise she's got to show some evidence that he did refuse. He "failed to release" I think you mean.Denise Lee: Would you like me to—SPEAKER: No I'll substitute it and then the Minister can answer if you like.Hon PHIL TWYFORD: First I'm not responsible for Minister Parker's release of the documents and in my earlier answer I explained why that information wasn't released at the time.Denise Lee: What is his definition of a political meeting and how is it different to meetings he organises in relation to his ministerial responsibilities?SPEAKER: OK and because there were two interjections from this side and only one from that side I'm going to let the Minister answer but I want to warn people that they are not to interject while questions are being asked.Hon PHIL TWYFORD: In this instance I would define a political meeting as one where politicians are present discussing politics."
10. Question No. 10—Māori DevelopmentRINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga) to the Minister for Māori DevelopmentQuestion No. 10—Māori Development10. RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga) to the Minister for Māori Development: What are the social and economic benefits she expects to result from the funding of whenua Māori in Budget 2019?Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister for Māori Development): Thanks for the question. Thanks to the Wellbeing Budget we've made an investment for whānau to become more involved in developing their whenua. The investment of approximately $56 million will go towards providing a package of whenua Māori reforms that will provide updated information and data improved Māori Land Court processes targeted amendments to Te Ture Whenua Māori Act and a regional advisory service to help whānau succeed connect and utilise their whenua for their own future wellbeing. Now a study showed that underutilised land had the potential to yield over a 40-year period around about $440 million if there was improved development. That is the benefit of a wellbeing Budget that focuses on whenua Māori as a targeted initiative. Rino Tirikatene: What is the biggest hurdle for Māori wanting to develop their whenua?Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: A hurdle for many Māori land owners is succeeding to their land interests. We want to improve the legislative and court-related aspects to this. That's why in the package of reforms that we're introducing in line with the $56 million whenua Māori investment a series of targeted amendments will help to improve the succession process and pack in better information and advisory services so whānau can make informed decisions about the best governance structure and the benefits of a collective approach to optimising their development aspirations. This approach will enable whānau to connect back to their whenua build their shared aspiration for the future and has the potential to create enterprise opportunities employment and training outcomes. It's a real positive step forward for whānau.Rino Tirikatene: What type of improvements should owners see in the information that they will have access to and why is this important?Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: The investment we're making through Vote Justice to update Māori land online and in partnership with Te Puni Kōkiri Te Tumu Paeroa and Manaaki Whenua through WhenuaViz—whānau will have access to better landowner title information and their land capability profile to make some really good decisions about the suitability of their land for varying purposes. Improved access to better information is a positive gain for all Māori land owners so that they can have an informed and strategic conversation about the future use of their whenua. There's also an ability to access finance capital through the $100 million whenua Māori land fund ring-fenced for the purpose of creating value uplift for Māori land owners already on their development path. But what I'm most pleased about also—I hear it anecdotally—is that there is a high conservation ethic amongst many Māori land owners and their desire to keep whenua in its natural state has definite indigenous biodiversity advantages for them and many others.
9. Question No. 9—HealthHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) to the Minister of HealthQuestion No. 9—Health9. Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by his statement yesterday that it was not realistic to expect all DHBs to break even in the coming year"?Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Associate Minister of Health) on behalf of the Minister of Health: On behalf of the Minister yes because it will take more than one or two Budgets to make up for nearly a decade of under-funding in health. Hon Michael Woodhouse: Does he think the fact that the Minister has failed to approve the annual plans of the district health boards (DHBs) that make up 54 percent of the projected deficits for this year even though this year has just two weeks to go is emblematic of a sector that lacks direction from him and can't possibly be expected to break even?Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: On behalf of the Minister no. Hon Michael Woodhouse: Does he agree with his Director-General of Health who described his own ministry's and Treasury's projected DHB deficits of $390 million in Budget 2019 as "speculation"?Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: On behalf of the Minister we must recognise that the issues with ongoing deficits of DHBs started in 2013. It's an ongoing problem. At the root of it is under-funding of health under that last Government who didn't increase funding commensurate with population growth and a population that has increasing needs. We're working closely with DHBs to make sure that they can meet both the services that New Zealanders want and expect and be on a pathway to financial sustainability. Some DHBs lack the resources to invest in new models of care. We're going to support them so that they can get on that long-term track to sustainability. Hon Michael Woodhouse: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. An interesting answer but it did not go anywhere near addressing the director-general's comments.SPEAKER: Have another go.Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: All of this is forecasts so it's entirely possible there'll be small surpluses balanced budgets or small deficits all according to circumstances.Hon Michael Woodhouse: Which of the statements he made yesterday is correct: his comment in the morning that "last year for example an additional 331000 patients benefited from increased access to medicines" or his statement in the afternoon that "I do stand by the statement that last year over 100000 gained further access to medicines"; and if not which figure is correct?Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: On behalf of the Minister I think you'll have to put that down in writing."
6. Question No. 6—Housing and Urban DevelopmentHon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura) to the Minister of Housing and Urban DevelopmentQuestion No. 6—Housing and Urban Development6. Hon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura) to the Minister of Housing and Urban Development: Will he meet all of his commitments in relation to the KiwiBuild programme; if not which commitments will not be met?Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Housing and Urban Development): I've been clear that the Government will not meet its interim targets. That's why we're working on changes to the KiwiBuild programme as part of the reset.Hon Judith Collins: Why has he withdrawn from his commitment to speak at the Property Institute of New Zealand conference on 20 June?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Because I have two papers at Cabinet that day.Hon Judith Collins: How can he have papers at Cabinet that day when he's also got Cabinet papers on 24 June?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I'm a busy Minister.SPEAKER: Sorry can I suggest it might be a good idea unless Cabinet's changed its day of the week that the member adds committee" into his answer?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Because I have two papers at Cabinet committee that day.Hon Judith Collins: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Do you think given that—SPEAKER: You can have another supplementary as a result of that.Hon Judith Collins: Thank you so much. Will he be meeting the commitment he previously made to be the keynote speaker at the KiwiBuild summit on 24 June?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: No because I have two papers at Cabinet committee that day.SPEAKER: No it's the same answer the other way around. Scrub the word "committee" OK? Thank you.Hon Judith Collins: If he's pulled out of the conferences because he is preparing papers on the KiwiBuild reset why can't he ask a colleague to present them to Cabinet allowing him to front to the building and construction industry leaders and stakeholders?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well as the member probably knows from the diary that's been released I front constantly publicly on KiwiBuild and all of the other matters I'm responsible for.Hon Judith Collins: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Do you think the Minister could actually answer the question—address the question?Hon Grant Robertson: Speaking to the point of order the question went to whether or not the Minister fronts to the building and construction industry and he addressed that question.SPEAKER: He did address part of the question if not the first part and that's all you have to do with those two-legged supplementaries.Hon Judith Collins: Thank you Mr Speaker. So is he at all worried that he won't be the Minister of Housing and Urban Development at the time of these conferences?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Not at all.Hon Judith Collins: Sorry?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Not at all.Hon Judith Collins: Ha ha! Is he perhaps hopeful he won't be the Minister of Housing and Urban Development at the time of these conferences?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Not at all."
5. Question No. 5—Research Science and InnovationTAMATI COFFEY (Labour—Waiariki) to the Minister of Research Science and InnovationQuestion No. 5—Research Science and Innovation5. TAMATI COFFEY (Labour—Waiariki) to the Minister of Research Science and Innovation: What announcements has she made about investment in innovation as a result of Budget 2019?Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Research Science and Innovation): Yesterday I announced that the Government is investing $75 million into the redevelopment of the Gracefield Innovation Quarter through Budget 2019. This investment will mean that New Zealand's top scientists engineers and researchers will have the modern facilities needed to help transform our economy and grow research and development.Tamati Coffey: What will this investment deliver?Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The redevelopment will transform the site into a world-class modern research campus. It will allow for three new buildings extensive refurbishments to four buildings site-wide lab upgrades and critical health and safety improvements such as asbestos removal seismic strengthening and dangerous goods storage.Tamati Coffey: When will the redevelopment of the site be complete?Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Work to redevelop the site has started with the new measurements standards laboratory building and the rest of the programme is expected to be completed by 2023.
4. Question No. 4—Prime MinisterDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT) to the Prime MinisterQuestion No. 4—Prime Minister4. DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT) to the Prime Minister: Why did the Prime Minister say in her answer to written question 19455 that GJ Thompson took a leave of absence from his roles as a director and shareholder of lobbying firm Thompson Lewis while he was employed as her acting chief of staff when the Companies Register shows he continued to be a director and shareholder during this period?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: Because it was and is a fact.David Seymour: Does the Prime Minister stand by her answer to written question 19452 which states that Mr Thompson was provided with access to all Cabinet papers while he was her acting chief of staff?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister yes. To wit the member had by written question asked if Mr Thompson had taken leave of absence from numerous roles. He actually referred to those roles because on the company website they were very clear. Mr Thompson did take a leave of absence from these roles as set out in the member's question. This included Mr Thompson standing down from various roles as described on the Thompson Lewis website—the company of course that Wayne Eagleson the former National Party chief of staff is a member of.David Seymour: Is the Prime Minister saying that GJ Thompson failed to properly update the Companies Office with his arrangements in that company?SPEAKER: Order! Order! That's not something the Prime Minister has any responsibility for.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well I can answer that one.SPEAKER: Well—Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I can with the greatest amount of ease.SPEAKER: I want to say to the Prime Minister to resume his seat because I have ruled that that question is not the Prime Minister's responsibility.David Seymour: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I did not plan to ask that question but it was a supplementary to a matter that the Prime Minister had raised in Parliament. The Prime Minister had specifically described the arrangements Mr Thompson had taken. Now if I can't question him about statements he's made in Parliament well what is he responsible for?SPEAKER: It's not that hard—as I've worked with another relatively senior member this week—to get a question that is in order. It shouldn't be beyond the member's wit. It's just in this case he didn't.David Seymour: In that case can I ask—SPEAKER: No. The member's used up his questions.David Seymour: Oh Mr Speaker are you sure you wouldn't like to give us another one?SPEAKER: The mike's turned off so you're not quite coming down yet because the member hasn't got the floor.David Seymour: Oh well it appears to be working.SPEAKER: If I need to stand up and ask the member to sit down I'll do it.
2. Question No. 2—FinanceDr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central) to the Minister of FinanceQuestion No. 2—Finance2. Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central) to the Minister of Finance: Does Budget 2019 support New Zealand businesses; if so how?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): The Wellbeing Budget supports New Zealand businesses through a number of targeted investments to help them become more productive and make the most of the opportunities created by the future of work and our move to a low-emissions future. These investments are led by the Government's $300 million fund to bridge the venture capital gap something that entrepreneurs have been calling for the Government to support. The Wellbeing Budget also makes investments to support the commercialisation of research and science boost skills and training and increase international opportunities alongside the significant infrastructure investment that the coalition Government is making.Dr Duncan Webb: How does Budget 2019 support businesses to access the skilled workers they need?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The main issue highlighted by businesses to me is access to skilled labour. This is particularly significant at the moment with unemployment near record lows. The Wellbeing Budget boosts the Mana in Mahi apprenticeship programme to nearly 2000 places on our way to 4000. There is increased funding for He Poutama Rangatahi and we're putting aside nearly $200 million to reform vocational education so that we have more people in apprenticeships and trade training and there is more investment in innovative industries and the future of work. These investments will see the Government take a more active role in supporting businesses to get the skilled workers that they need.Dr Duncan Webb: How does the Budget help New Zealand's rural businesses and farmers?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The Wellbeing Budget's $229 million sustainable land-use package includes a number of investments to provide farmers with the on-the-ground support they need to lift their environmental sustainability and unlock more value from their hard work. We've allocated about $43 million to support farmers to upgrade important tools like OVERSEER which help them make decisions for their businesses and $35 million to support practical advice information and tools for farmers and growers to improve their operations on the ground. I'm particularly pleased to see Federated Farmers especially welcoming" these investments as we work together to create an economy that is both environmentally sustainable and generates high value for its people."
Hipango HareteADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE (REFORM OF CONTEMPT OF COURT) BILLSecond ReadingDebate resumed from 29 May.HARETE HIPANGO (National—Whanganui): I seek to resume and continue the debate where I left off last time in addressing the House and it will be a brief call so that we may expedite this through to the third reading. The National Party supports this bill and when I last addressed the House I was sharing the experiences that I had had as a practitioner in the court with the contempt proceedings and how the judicial bench delalt with such matters.Just in summary as is known this is a bill that had been put up and drawn as a member's bill in the name of the Hon Chris Finlayson now adopted by the Government to advance in the name of the Hon Andrew Little the Minister of Justice. In saying that the National Party supports this bill the particular provision that I was addressing the House when the proceedings were last disrupted—and are about to be again—was on the very point around disruption to court proceedings. It appears that this may occur again. I'm going to wrap it up. I would like to share with the House—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I apologise to the member. The time has come for me to leave the Chair.Debate interrupted.The House adjourned at 6 p.m.
Webb DuncanDr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Well it gives me great pleasure to rise and speak on this bill. It's a great example of a tax tool being used not only to raise revenue but also to change markets. We know that the rental market has been one where people have been investing on the back of capital gains making paper losses but real money and getting subsidised by the Government whilst they're doing it and that's not right. So this ring-fencing proposal is fantastic. It's part of an excellent package of reforms around the property market that this Government is implementing. Only today I read that at last first-home buyers are dominant buyers in the market in New Zealand today and that is due to a Government that's committed to making houses available to genuine hard-working New Zealanders wherever they may be. That is absolutely fantastic. Levelling the playing field as well are our GST reforms. I think it's fantastic that at last as my colleague Kiritapu Allan said small retailers are now not disadvantaged because overseas suppliers have a 15 percent head start on them. We now have got a very workable very simple system for any overseas retailer whose turnover is $60000 or more. Look I must say some of the large suppliers came in and said Look you can't rush us. Don't impose it before Christmas because we can't possibly get our systems up to speed by then." I must say we were very sceptical of that. Now the committee did recommend pushing the date to 1 December rather than 1 October—that's going to be very carefully considered. It has an $18 million revenue impact using some rough figures so let's think about that. But I don't for a moment accept that these large internet suppliers are going to exit our excellent market our profitable market simply because they're asked to put some systems in place. So this is yet another excellent piece of legislation making the playing field both in respect of rentals and tax and in respect of GST and retailing fair equal and also revenue-positive for the Government so we continue with the great project of making New Zealand a better place. Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker."
Dean JacquiHon JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): Thank you very much. Just a couple of matters I wanted to refer to in the debate on this bill. First of all introducing a GST component on low-value imports—when this was looked at in the past it was deemed that the cost of recovering that GST made the exercise not worthwhile. While that looked like a pretty Government-centric type of policy it just seemed that adding compliance cost into the economy made it not worthwhile; however the significant investment that has been made into Inland Revenue's data systems has made it now possible for a GST regime to be introduced on low-value imports. Of course that should be and is welcomed by small business. I've had a number of constituents small-business owners discuss this with me over the years and it is good to see that now due to the investment largely started by the former Government this regime is now coming to pass. I can't and won't speak more favourably though around the ring-fencing of rental losses because there is only one impact on rising costs in any business be it a landlord in a rental situation or any other type of business. There's only one way—two ways—to deal with rising costs. In this instance either exit the rental market which is happening with a lot of landlords—I also talk to a lot of real estate agents and a lot of landlords are now selling out because the return is simply not worth it. So you can exit the market or you can do what is happening here in Wellington and we are seeing a lot of that: the cost of rentals goes up. So I fail to see—and I would love to know the rationale apart from blind ideology coming from the Government—why in the context of wellbeing which they seem to be pushing with every breath they take on the one hand they talk about wellbeing and yet knowingly against the advice of Treasury and against the advice of the Inland Revenue Department are introducing a regime into the taxation system which has the impact of raising yes $190 million in extra revenue a year from landlords. But as I've said you put the costs up either the housing stock available for rental is reduced—yes that's happening—or rents rise. It's simple. It's very very simple. So I do fail to see and I am interested in the views of members opposite how they can justify a regime which raises a not considerable amount of taxation revenue against the social cost the wellbeing cost of people who are in the rental market who then find their rents going up or the landlord selling the property while they are still renting. So you know it simply doesn't—Dr Duncan Webb: We're winning.Hon JACQUI DEAN: Winning? The member opposite says winning". Who's winning? Certainly not people in the rental market because in Wellington where we are here the rents are at an all-time high. Why? Why? A number of impacts of policy—the capital gains tax certainly put the wind up the sails of landlords and now to introduce ring-fencing of tax losses is simply the icing on the cake if you like. The only loser—the only loser—are those people who the Labour Government purport to support."
Oranga Tamariki Legislation Bill — Third Reading
Sio Hon Aupito WilliamHon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO (Minister for Pacific Peoples): I'm happy to rise to support the Oranga Tamariki Legislation Bill at its third reading and acknowledge the hard work of the Minister Tracey Martin who has enabled the legislation to go through its full process to its finality and it is for us to simply now implement it. I acknowledge also all of those who have been involved in it.The bill gives full effect to policies that were being enacted by the Children Young Persons and Their Families (Oranga Tamariki) Legislation Act 2017. The expansion of the youth justice jurisdiction to include 17-year-olds is the most significant of these policies that the bill provides effect to. The bill will ensure the intent of the expanded youth justice jurisdiction is applied consistently from 1 July 2019. The bill in its final form will give clear guidance on procedure within the youth justice system including for related charges.This bill will support the judiciary the New Zealand Police and other key stakeholders to treat 17-year-olds consistently through all parts of the youth justice jurisdiction including for example bail laws sentencing laws and aspects of criminal procedure. The bill also clarifies the operation of urgent interim orders that may be required in court proceedings under the Oranga Tamariki Act 1989. The processes surrounding urgent interim court orders were developed to serve the best interests of the child and should be maintained. This bill makes sure these processes will continue to operate effectively from 1 July this year. On those grounds I'm happy to stand with others to commend this bill for support.
Hayes JoJO HAYES (National): Tēnā koe. It is my pleasure to stand and support the Oranga Tamariki Legislation Bill in the third reading. The contributions that I have been privileged to hear today have been very thoughtful. The purpose of the reason that we are here today as members have said is around tightening up some technical errors within this bill. I too want to aid my congratulations to Tracey Martin for shepherding this part of the bill through the House and to all of the members of Parliament for supporting the bill because it is always a great day when all the members of Parliament can see the value in supporting a bill especially one as important as this particular one. I just want to focus my contribution on the areas around the bill that talk about the capability and capacity issues and ensuring that they are being met within community providers to keep our rangatahi safe—to actually help them through to be able to contribute to our society fully and also to help them to address their offending and to either stop their offending or to reduce any forms of reoffending. I understand that in order to do that community providers do need to be supported fully. It is a tough world out there for them. It is tough because the issues that rangatahi face—as adults we might think we know where they're at but in many cases they move around a bit. You need to have diverse workers in behind the scenes who can actually address the needs of these rangatahi. I just want to say congratulations that there will be some recognition I guess of capacity and capability issues within that particular area of this bill.In closing I want to acknowledge the former Minister the Hon Anne Tolley who took the Child Youth and Family services restructure by the horns and did an amazing job within Oranga Tamariki. This today is really just as I said in my opening kōrero a tightening up of technical changes. So again without any further ado I commend the bill to the House. Thank you.
Points of Order — Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary Bill — Leave to Progress to Third Reading Vote
Dyson RuthHon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): There are many big things that we do in this Parliament there are many important things that we do. But it's hard to think of what would be more important than using our opportunity and privilege as members of Parliament to turn around in a positive way the lives of young people so that they might get back on track and be able to contribute fully in our society rather than going down the path of leading a life of crime. This bill even though it's primarily technical in its nature contributes to that goal. It's really refreshing to hear the whole of Parliament's view in support of this because that gives us a much more solid platform to go forward on in our youth justice system because there's still a lot to do in this space.So the bill clarifies the operation of urgent interim orders that may be required during the proceedings of the Act. It fixes some drafting errors—they happen—in the 2017 changes and particularly the cross-referencing with the Children's Commissioner Act. It ensures that the expansion of our youth justice system—which the member who just resumed her seat Maureen Pugh noted—to include most 17-year-olds is implemented efficiently and effectively. It supports the judiciary the police and other key agencies to ensure that 17-year-olds are treated consistently through the youth justice system by the variety of agencies that they might come in contact with. So it's not a big policy shift. This is primarily a technical bill but it is reflective of some very significant changes that have been made in the past. I want to commend the leadership the vision the passion and the sheer hard work of the Minister responsible for Oranga Tamariki the Hon Tracey Martin. It isn't an easy space to lead work in—I can attest to that myself—but I think she's doing a magnificent job and it's great that we're going to get near the end of this parliamentary week on such a note of unanimity around such an important issue.
Personal Explanations — Oral Questions — Correction
O'Connor GregGREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): Just those closing comments by the speaker opposite Simon O'Connor regarding his intention or his teasing of the whip about whether he would speak for 10 minutes—I was afraid he would and I'd have to be nudged by one of my fellow MPs to awake for my turn to speak. Well I'm pleased that 6 minutes and 43 seconds was the length of the speech. This whole concept around this legislation which is that 16-year-olds and 17-year-olds will now come under the youth justice legislation—there's a moment that relates to the relevance of this. I remember sitting in a briefing of police officers about to go on duty at Auckland Central and the intelligence officer was briefing the staff and he announced that one of their prolific offenders who was a 16-year-old would be turning 17 at the end of the month. That news was met by a cheer from all the police officers present because their concept was that all of a sudden this person could be dealt with in the adult jurisdiction and there would be some meaningful sanctions applied. So with this legislation that's why this bill actually becomes very important and what we're doing the work we're doing today becomes very important because if we don't get it right it will simply move that situation to 17 to 18 and those same cheers will come up when someone turns 18. Looking at this I think there are some safeguards in here that put some more strength in this to achieve what it sets out to achieve. Previous speakers on both sides have spoken about the mistakes that people make deliberately or they end up in bad company but things go wrong when they're youths and it's important that those mistakes those actions don't put them on the escalator which means that they will never be able to get off. Of course what we've seen is the older you are when you get into the system and the longer you are in the system the more difficult it is to get off that escalator. So in terms of things in the bill like Schedule 1A offences people who are 17-year-olds who are committing adult offences will now be dealt with in the general court the adult court but they can also be dealt with as youths. So I think that the basis of this bill gives the youth offenders one more year to actually get themselves off the escalator of crime off the escalator of a life that will end up going down a path where nobody wants them to go. So that's why I look at this bill and I'm quite happy to commend it the House because I think it does do those things that it intended to do. So I commend this bill to the House Madam Deputy Speaker.
Radhakrishnan PriyancaPRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. It is with pleasure that I rise to make a short contribution to the Oranga Tamariki Legislation Bill particularly with pleasure having been part of the select committee that considered this bill the Social Services and Community Committee—a select committee that works very well together but as the Hon Alfred Ngaro alluded to does talk about paper clips an awful lot.Anyway this bill the Oranga Tamariki Legislation Bill will when it's passed give full effect to the policy to expand the youth justice jurisdiction to include 17-year-olds. It is an omnibus bill that will make amendments to 11 Acts to ensure that the intent of that expanded youth justice jurisdiction is applied in a way that is consistent across all criminal justice processes from 1 July 2019 through changes that are consistent. As members have said before it makes some very technical but very important changes to ensure that our criminal justice system can work well when it comes to 17-year-olds and the change that was made by a piece of legislation in 2017.There were some changes that were worked on and were recommended by the select committee that have been included since into this bill and those are changes around managing the process for related charges for 17-year-olds. These were quite technical changes that officials sort of walked us through. There were different permutations and combinations that we worked through but ultimately they've been included to reduce costs by avoiding inefficiencies in the legal system and not wasting court time and resources. So there were quite a few technical changes that we considered through the process at select committee and so I want to thank officials who took the time and made the effort to step through those changes with us. I also want to thank submitters who took their time to put in written submissions to this bill to improve it. With that I commend this bill to the House.
Brownlee GerryKERMADEC OCEAN SANCTUARY BILLProgress To Third Reading Vote—Leave DeclinedHon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek leave of the House for the House to progress to the third reading vote on the Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary Bill No. 23 on the Order Paper forthwith.SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that? There is objection.
Twyford PhilAMENDED ANSWERS TO ORAL QUESTIONSQuestion No. 6 to Minister 9 MayHon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Transport): I seek leave to correct an answer. [Interruption]SPEAKER: Is that an objection? No just a noise—OK.Hon PHIL TWYFORD: On Thursday 9 May in answer to a supplementary to question No. 6 from the Rt Hon Winston Peters I said Wellsford" when I meant to say "Warkworth". I'm taking the opportunity to correct that answer."