edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Meager James; O'Connor GregJAMES MEAGER (National—Rangitata): Yeah thank you Madam Chair. Maybe I could clarify my possible slight concern. It's not that I don't believe that agencies would apply this section correctly and would release information where they are entitled to. My concern would be that if an agency requests the information and another agency which might not be as much of an expert in this area—and I'm trying to think of a good example off the top of my head. But say if the police requested information held by the health department for the most recent address of the offender and in that instance the second agency or the requestee is not obliged to provide the information despite the fact that those other qualifying criteria are met the agency may provide it but they are not obliged to provide it even if requested to. So I wondered—and hopefully the member has some advice there—because I wouldn't want to get into a situation where agencies are trying to obtain information for the purpose of managing risks and threats to public safety and another agency declined them not because they didn't think that it was possible to meet that end but because they're not required to. GREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): Thank you Madam Chair. In regard to my personal information I'm wary of musts" because "musts" means lots of information which means that it's more likely something pertinent will be lost. My personal preference in these things is to make sure that you're going to get the relevant information and as soon as you start putting "musts" in there then you come into a whole different criteria. You've got a whole different monitoring regime but lots more information which when there is probably an operation failure—again my experience is that those operational failures go looking for where there's been a breach and that's where it will become the end in itself rather than the protection. So again look there is no right answer to these things. Don't lose sight of what we're trying to achieve here. We just want to make sure and certainly in relation to that that there is the ability—and this is why I think the Justice Committee chaired by yourself Mr Meager actually did some very good work on that. In incorporating that you referred to the fact that the Hon Erica Stanford had an amendment which was more specific than it needed to be and so I believe that you were the chair of the committee that made the decision that these provisions would actually be sufficient to cover that. Part 1 agreed to."
Meager James; Kuriger BarbaraJAMES MEAGER (National—Rangitata): Point of order Madam Chair. Thank you. I can't remember the Standing Order that we're supposed to refer to but I understand that all members are entitled to five-minute calls and I wondered whether you wanted to grant the Opposition a chance to take some of their five-minute calls because they haven't had a chance to contribute yet. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Well I think that this part of the debate so far—if you don't count the bit before dinner we've been going for close to 50 minutes now and I think it has been a relatively good question and answer session rather than a five-minute call session. As Chairs we are encouraging people to get into the question and answer so I think we'll stick with the question and answer and now I'm going to take a call from Rachel Boyack.
Unkovich Tanya; O'Connor GregTANYA UNKOVICH (NZ First): Thank you Madam Chair. Thank you sir for the work you do. Having worked with many victims of sexual violence it is a part of their life that stays with them for a very long time. And so often as you have rightly said the perpetrator was someone very close to them someone whom you would never think would do that. And so for me I always focus on the victim. And whilst someone may not go overseas with the intention of doing this it may just happen. Whatever we can do as a deterrent I feel is important.Rachel Boyack: Repetitive.TANYA UNKOVICH: And I will get to my point. So when I look at what the information is that they have to give over it is their address each address. I suppose I'm wondering: is there any more information that can be asked of them as a further deterrent? For example do they have to give names of whoever they will be staying with? Do you have to cite travel documents? Do you have to actually physically go to the Commissioner of Police to give that information? Anything that maybe was reversed during this process in the amount of information that had to be given just to pose as an additional deterrent to stop someone who makes a really bad decision and affects the life of an innocent child or person. Thank you.GREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): I think again additional information I mean the information of pretty much where they're going to be staying given that what I'm trying to achieve with this amendment is to essentially give to children living in their family home in Queensland or Apia the same protections as someone living in Napier or in Oamaru has which currently is the whole intention of the bill.I think we could sort of put more reporting requirements on but again in my experience the more you ask for the more it's likely to be in the breach. Whereas never forget what we're trying to achieve here—well certainly what I'm trying to achieve here—which is granting overseas children in particular the same protections that New Zealand children get from people who are on this register. That's the essence of this bill.
Webb DuncanHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Kia ora Madam Chair. I move That debate on this question now close.
Mitchell MarkHon MARK MITCHELL (Minister of Police): Thank you Madam Chair. Look I feel fortunate that I happened to be in the Chamber when the bill came up because in the last term I was on the law and order select committee that dealt with this bill.The reason why I wanted to take a call is to acknowledge Greg O'Connor. Greg and I don't always agree on everything but if there's one person in this Parliament that understands the risk that children face with these types of offenders it is Greg O'Connor. He was a highly respected police detective with an outstanding career and he specialised in this area. In fact I think—I may need to be corrected—had he been required to give evidence in court his evidence would be considered expert evidence. So when he stands in this House he stands from a place of deep knowledge and understanding in terms of the threats and he's brought this bill because he understands that—he knows that.It's not a frivolous bill; it's an extremely important bill in my view. I'm pleased to see that it is passing through the committee. It was nice to see that the Greens member Kahurangi Carter indicated that they may even support this bill and I would encourage them to do that.I think that one of the questions that was put to Mr O'Connor was What evidence does he have in terms of how many children could be affected or impacted by this?"Hon Karen Chhour: If it saves one.Hon MARK MITCHELL: Minister Chhour makes a very good point—it's the same one with me. Is one enough? Is just one enough? Because I think it is. I think that if all his bill achieved was saving one child from being subjected to a sexual predator that is enough. And that should be enough for all of us in this Chamber.So I just want to acknowledge you Mr O'Connor in bringing this bill and I feel fortunate that I could actually take a call on it. I know that this actually a bill that is going to make a difference and I believe personally that it is going to stop offending against our kids—and our kids are the most vulnerable people in our society. Thank you Madam Chair."
Stephenson Todd; O'Connor GregTODD STEPHENSON (ACT): Thank you Madam Chair. I want to thank again the member Mr O'Connor for bringing this bill to the House. As Mr Meager said I think New Zealanders would be somewhat surprised that this regime doesn't exist. I think this is a very important bill to actually close a gap in our criminal justice system and bring protection to these children or ensure increased protection for children in these sex offender cases. I also was lucky enough to be on the Justice Committee that inherited this and I hope the member thinks that we did his bill justice in our consideration. I also just want to talk a bit about Part 1. Obviously we've talked quite a lot about the requirements that are going to be put in place for when sex offenders travel overseas and the kind of information they're going to have to provide. I'm interested in hearing from the member—because I think this will be interesting for people—how this is similar or different to the requirements when sex offenders travel within New Zealand. I note that we did actually discuss that in the committee and kind of contrasted the obligations for a sex offender travelling within New Zealand. It's important because we acknowledge that there was some enforcement—and we were just talking about enforcement earlier. We noticed that there were some enforcement difficulties for cases of offenders travelling in New Zealand. So when we obviously considered the kinds of obligations we were going to be putting on people and the types of information and then this very important discussion about enforcement I think it is interesting to hear how it contrasts these new provisions with what exists currently. So thank you—that's my question.GREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): The whole point—thank you Madam Chair. The whole point is to align with overseas. So the whole point of the bill is to take what we currently do have and to ensure that it is actually used internationally. That's the whole point of the bill.
Thursday 15 February 2024 - Volume 773
Social Security (Benefits Adjustment) and Income Tax (Minimum Family Tax Credit) Amendment Bill — In Committee—Clauses 1 and 2
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That debate on the question now close.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 55New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.Motion agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That clause 1 be agreed to.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 55New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.Clause 1 agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That clause 2 be agreed to.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 55New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.Clause 2 agreed to.Bill to be reported without amendment.House resumed.
VoteCHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March's amendment to insert new clause 9A set out on Amendment Paper 13 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 55New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.Noes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Amendment not agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March's amendments to insert new clauses 9A and 11 set out on Amendment Paper 15 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 55New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.Noes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Amendments not agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March's amendments to clause 10 and to insert new clause 11 set out on Amendment Paper 16 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 55New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.Noes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Amendments not agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That Part 2 be agreed to.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 55New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.Part 2 agreed to.
Social Workers Registration Legislation Amendment Bill — In Committee—Clause 4
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That debate on this question now close.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 55New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.Motion agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Minister's amendment to clause 4 set out on Amendment Paper 12 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 55New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.Amendment agreed to.Clause 4 as amended agreed to.Bill to be reported with amendment.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the committee report progress on the Social Workers Registration Legislation Bill.Ayes 55New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.Noes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Motion not agreed to.
11. Question No. 11—Building and ConstructionTOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty) to the Minister for Building and ConstructionQuestion No. 11—Building and Construction11. TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty) to the Minister for Building and Construction: What reports has he seen on the cost of building in New Zealand?Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction): I thank the member for the question. The latest inflation data from Stats New Zealand shows that the price of building a new house has increased by 41 percent as compared with 2019 prices. This massive increase in the cost of building over the last four years has made housing even more unaffordable for Kiwi families.Tom Rutherford: Are building costs higher or lower in New Zealand than other countries?Hon CHRIS PENK: Analysis shows that building costs are generally higher in New Zealand than in comparable overseas jurisdictions. In Australia for example the cost of building a stand-alone house is some 50—five-zero—percent higher in New Zealand. Clearly this is not good enough and we're working to resolve that problem.Tom Rutherford: What impact do high construction costs have on New Zealanders?Hon CHRIS PENK: Another great question—I couldn't have written it better myself. Not only do high building costs make it harder for families trying to purchase their first home but they also have far-reaching economic and social consequences such as higher mortgage repayment costs higher rents and increased demand for social housing.Tom Rutherford: Does the Government have any plans to change this?Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Does the Government have any plans?Hon CHRIS PENK: Yes we certainly do—we certainly do. I'm pleased to inform all members that we most certainly do have plans in this regard. For example our coalition agreement with our New Zealand First friends sets out that this Government will amend the Building Act to make it easier to build granny flats—smaller structures up to 60 square metres—and in addition our coalition agreement with the ACT Party also states that the Government will explore allowing builders to opt out of needing a building consent provided they have long-term insurance for the building work. So again we will explore that.Tom Rutherford: What else is the Government doing?Hon CHRIS PENK: Another good question. The Government is focused on slowing the rise of construction costs so that we can make it more affordable to build a home. Kiwis pay too much for building materials for example and ensuring more high-quality building products are approved for use in building sites across the country will increase competition lower building material costs and support our resilience in the event of supply chain disruption.
5. Question No. 5—Local GovernmentDAVID MacLEOD (National—New Plymouth) to the Minister of Local GovernmentQuestion No. 5—Local Government5. DAVID MacLEOD (National—New Plymouth) to the Minister of Local Government: Does he stand by his statement The Government will restore council ownership and control of water assets"; if so what actions has he taken to fulfil this commitment?Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Local Government): Yes. Yesterday the coalition Government delivered on its promise to repeal the divisive three waters programme that would've taken local decisions away from communities. The vast majority of councils were opposed to Labour's three waters. This Government is delivering on our commitment to restore local council ownership and control of water assets.David MacLeod: Why was it necessary for the Government to repeal the Water Services Entities Act 2022?Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well communities throughout the country made it clear that the previous Government's plans to mandate 10 mega-bureaucracies taking local control of water assets and prescribing co-governance was hugely unpopular. We're asking councils to lead the way in developing local solutions to our water services challenges. This includes requiring them to provide water service delivery plans that outline how they will deliver on outcomes for water quality infrastructure investment and financial sustainability.David MacLeod: Why is it important for councils and communities to have local ownership and control of water assets?Hon SIMEON BROWN: Because councils know what is needed for their communities when it comes to water infrastructure in their communities unlike the previous Government which wanted to mandate—SPEAKER: No that's enough—that's enough.David MacLeod: What are the next steps in making sure that local water is done well?Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well the Government will be implementing Local Water Done Well through two further bills. The next bill will be passed by the middle of 2024 setting out provisions relating to council service delivery plans and transitional economic regulations. A next bill to provide for the long-term replacement scheme will be introduced in December 2024."
3. Question No. 3—FinanceNANCY LU (National) to the Minister of FinanceQuestion No. 3—Finance3. NANCY LU (National) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has she seen on the Crown accounts?Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): This morning Treasury released the Government's financial statement for the six months ending 31 December 2023. These show that most of the key fiscal indicators are slightly stronger than expected in the Treasury's half-year forecasts before Christmas. However saying they are slightly stronger than expected is damning with faint praise. It does not disguise the fact for example that the accounts show an increase in core Crown expenses of around 10 percent since the same statement a year ago.Nancy Lu: Do these results change the outlook for the next six months?Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Unfortunately I don't think they will make the outlook any rosier. Data revisions in recent outturns since the half-year update indicate that the economy is likely to be in a weaker position than understood before Christmas. For example GDP growth was weaker than expected in the September quarter of last year contracting 0.3 percent and growth in the preceding two quarters was revised down. Looking ahead while business confidence has picked up a prolonged period of pressure on household budgets means growth is expected to remain weak and high migration means GDP per capita is expected to continue to decline. Inflation however is expected to continue falling reducing cost of living pressures for New Zealand households.Nancy Lu: What will this outlook mean for the Government's fiscal position?Hon NICOLA WILLIS: We won't know for sure until the Budget update on 30 May. The Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update forecasts before Christmas were for three more years of operating deficits followed by a wafer-thin surplus of $100 million in the 2026-27 financial year. However a combination of slower-than-forecast growth and lower-than-forecast inflation may result in weaker tax revenue placing further pressure on the pace of fiscal recovery. Put it this way: I think it is highly unlikely that the full set of forecasts in May will deliver any upside surprises.Nancy Lu: When will the Government set out its fiscal objectives?Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The Government is required to set out its long-term objectives for fiscal policy in the annual Budget Policy Statement (BPS). The Budget Policy Statement will also set out the Government's priorities for this year's Budget. The BPS will be released on 27 March.
Pugh MaureenREPORT OF COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE HOUSECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Mr Speaker the committee has considered the Social Workers Registration Legislation Amendment Bill and reports it without amendment—with amendment; my apologies. The committee has also considered the Social Security (Benefits Adjustment) and Income Tax (Minimum Family Tax Credit) Amendment Bill and reports it without amendment. I move That the report be adopted.Motion agreed to.Report adopted.
Redmayne SuzeSUZE REDMAYNE (National—Rangitīkei): I move That debate on this question now close.
Bayly AndrewHon ANDREW BAYLY (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Thank you Madam Chair. Thank you for the two contributions about the title. Look my reaction to this is that it's based on a false premise. Both members referred to the issue of increasing poverty. I remind the members of the House that what this bill does is it returns the situation back to what the situation was since 2011 in which the benefits were and have been linked to the Consumers Price Index (CPI) and not to wage inflation. And as all the members know in this first year or the next financial year there actually will be additional benefit.Hon Grant Robertson: No.Hon ANDREW BAYLY: There is an additional benefit—$38 million it's going to cost extra if we were to change. But the big issue I would also suggest to the members is that there is an issue about getting people back into work. There is a minimum requirement for Governments to make sure that people who can't work and who are on benefits get recognised and get a permit paid by the Government and this is what this bill does and continues that whole thought. But we do want to encourage people back into work and the premise around increased poverty is not what the bill is about; it is about making sure that we move back to what was the original situation for a long long period of time. And that does not necessarily lead to increased poverty. And furthermore one of the premises that the members keep referring to is the issue around the projections around what will be the increased CPI rate and what will be the increase in the wage rate. As everyone knows in this House not even the former finance Minister sitting to my left here would be able to project with some certainty what will be higher over time and what will be lower. There are point estimates in the regulatory impact statement or the analysis of the bill but the long-term issue is that we want to return the basis for payments back to the cost of living CPI rather than having it based on wage inflation.
Menéndez March RicardoRICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): So we're getting into a discussion on what title would be most appropriate right and I don't want to indulge the committee in more scapegoating off more people on the benefit and talking about how people on the benefit don't have dignity but I do think the previous member has a point. But if we were to go by the evidence that was provided to the Minister around the impacts of this bill and we were to be guided by the only reports that this Minister has been able to produce about the impacts of this bill then yes indeed something like the Increasing Poverty and Retaining the Status Quo for the Family Tax Credit Bill" could be an appropriate name. Again I think there is a lot in a title and why we actually should have titles that are not so boring as the Minister described them is that it helps people understand what this bill aims to do which is not just to amend a piece of legislation; it's to create a difference for our communities. Based on the reports that we have there's actually nothing here—no report—that talks about what the previous member from the National Party said that this bill will support people into employment. We have to call it out for what it is which is simply an assumption that if you punish people on a benefit that they'll enter work and yet despite those assumptions there's nothing in this bill to adequately even change how support is provided to people who enter employment despite parts of the legislation that touch the Working for Families package which as the Minister in the chair previous to him being there alluded to are not being addressed. So indeed a name that actually describes what this bill does which is increase poverty would be far more suitable than what we have right now.I wasn't going to take a call on the title until actually the National Party member decided to lay bare the truth of what this bill is about. It's about an assumption that people are not worthy or treated with respect and dignity when they are on a benefit. If the member spoke about dignity and work there's a gross gross implication here about what they believe people on the benefit experience and how they should be treated. It also assumes that people on the benefit are not doing work. So I'd like to get a reflection from the Minister about why he thinks having a title of the bill that reflects the data and evidence that has been provided to the Minister—which so far has nothing to do with employment outcomes and actually only talks about increasing poverty—wouldn't be a better title for this piece of legislation."
Bayly AndrewHon ANDREW BAYLY (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Thank you Madam Chair. First of all I've got to thank the member Dan Bidois for his very courageous suggestion there. It's pretty unusual particularly at this late stage. But I've got to say I fully appreciate what he's endeavouring to do which is: we've got what might be called a very boring bill title I think: Social Security (Benefits Adjustment) and Income Tax (Minimum Family Tax Credit) Amendment Bill.Yes I understand if you're listening in from Kaitāia or something and watching this fantastic debate that's going on you might wonder what the dickens we're talking about. So I do appreciate the sentiment—Mana in Mahi or whatever his suggestion. But I have to say to the member at this stage that it's probably passed the point. If that recommendation had been made earlier I think it might have fallen on very receptive ears with the Minister but at this stage I think it's very unlikely that we would change this bill title at the moment. But I'm looking forward to his next contribution.
Bidois DanDAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): It is a fantastic privilege to get up and speak in this title and commencement debate because I actually have some really good ideas around what we could change the title. And I know that's very bizarre—Hon Nicola Willis: You're an ideas man.DAN BIDOIS: Yeah exactly. One thing we would do is the Back to Work Bill"—getting beneficiaries into work. We could call it that because that's what it's all about: encouraging people that—was it 67000 people extra on a jobseeker benefit under that Government? We want to get them into work because that's the way that they will make a better life for themselves and their families. That's the way that they will have mana motuhake. That's the way that they will restore their own dignity and have dignity. That is the way that they will realise tino rangatiratanga.So I think that actually changing the title of this bill—I haven't spoken to the Minister about it but I'm sure she may be open to the idea of changing it to the "Into Work Bill". Let's call it that because that's what it's about under this Government: actually encouraging people into work and encouraging them to live happy independent lives independent of the State.Stuart Smith: What about mahi—"Into Mahi"?DAN BIDOIS: Mahi? Oh yes. That's another good title actually from the honourable member from Kaikōura Stuart Smith. We could call it the "Into Mahi Bill". I'm sure maybe that side may be open to that idea—into mahi. "Mana in Mahi" we could call it. We could call it Mana in Mahi. I think we might have unanimous consent to just all of a sudden change the title of this bill and I'm sure the Minister will be open to that. So I really would love a discussion in the Chamber today. I know we've all got things to do but let's create a bit of a vibe in here about what this bill could do to really bring out the ethos of what we're trying to do here. So I'd love to get the Minister in the chair's position on this about amending it to talk about the essence of what we are trying to do in this Government bill today."
Menéndez March RicardoRICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): We have a formula right as it is and so not having this bill commence by that date still means that benefits will get indexed just by the previous formula. I guess what I was trying to ascertain was just around allowing for more time to actually gather that evidence—that is in the coalition agreement—to back the legislation that is being introduced.
Bayly AndrewHon ANDREW BAYLY (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Thank you Madam Chair. I thank the member Ricardo Menéndez March for his contribution. As my good colleague on the left here the former Minister of Finance Grant Robertson will know every benefit is adjusted on 1 April. It's an absolute standard date. It would be inconceivable to contemplate—and I see I think Mr Robertson agreeing with me—not adopting 1 April as the commencement date.
Menéndez March RicardoRICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you. So just on the time line and commencement of this bill I guess I'm interested to get a sense of whether the April deadline was the key consideration that was made and particularly with inflation projected to eventually go down whether there had been any considerations of any reviews to make sure that the current decision formula was working as projected and to adequately support people and whether the Minister at the time thought that perhaps evaluating the commencement more in detail could have resulted in better evidence and data being gathered? Because at this point the commencement date and the lack of any reports and research to support this bill is concerning and I'm just wondering whether anything like that had been considered at any point?
Pugh MaureenClauses 1 and 2CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Members we come now to our final debate clauses 1 and 2. This is the debate on clauses 1 and 2 Title" and "Commencement"."
Menéndez March Ricardo; Upston Louise; Pugh MaureenRICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): So I think both the member and the Minister just almost got to the point of this issue right? The member was asking about issues around the mission to support people into employment; I hear that. At the same time you know while I would dispute what Part 1 is doing in relationship to actually meeting those goals Part 2 as the Minister alluded to speaks to the broader Working for Families package which as she said is intended to support people into employment. And when people transition from a benefit into employment they may incur additional costs right? They may incur childcare costs transport etc. Now the Working for Families package is supposed to assist with those things but the Minister talked about the need to change the threshold and just in the previous call. That's not necessarily what Part 2 is doing in any way that actually adjusts for inflation. And by not changing the abatement threshold in line with inflation what that means is that the amount that people receive will start being eaten away a lot faster because we haven't changed those settings effectively undermining the things that both the member and the Minister have just outlined.I think this is what I'm getting at with my amendment and those contributions and the continued goal around supporting people into employment because Part 1 certainly does not do that. Part 2 changes and slightly tweaks a package that is supposed to support working families but not in any way that actually updates the threshold at which it starts abating in a meaningful way.So I just would like the Minister to help me understand how the settings and the way that she's tweaking them right now actually will support families entering work. And if not can she give us assurances that she will look at those abatement thresholds? Because in a vacuum I know that she's talked about how this bill will be part of another range of interventions but in a vacuum as it stands we're not doing anything to support people who are entering work by leaving things as they are.Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): I thank the member for his persistence and I can give him every confidence that we will absolutely as a Government be looking at those pieces to ensure that it is—we want to encourage more people into work and there will be barriers currently but today is not for debating that; that is for another occasion.CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Ricardo Menéndez March—this is new material isn't it? RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Yeah. So did she seek any advice at any point around the thresholds then or was this not considered by the Minister at all in the process of introducing this legislation? So the thresholds at which it starts abating the minimum family tax credit—did she seek any advice and relationship to it or no? Was this considered at any point in creating this legislation?Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): It's not in the scope of this bill.
Upston LouiseHon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): I thank the member for his question. So the minimum family tax credit is actually part of the Working for Families suite. What we want to ensure is that there are incentives for people to work so lifting the threshold provides that opportunity for people to be in work and not be penalised and for it not to then be a choice between working or not.In terms of the impact on tax I mean obviously what we'd like to see over time is that with more people being in work taking on more work obviously that's lifting their incomes—and the Minister of Finance would also like over time some of the income tax that generates.But the two pieces—so the second part fits very importantly with the first part that we've already talked about. So anytime that there is the ratio to increase benefits we must also then look at the threshold for the minimum family tax credit to ensure that it is in balance. That is quite simply a very small piece in Part 2. We've debated it at length but it is about making sure—and our Government is very focused on how we support more people into work. This is a small measure of a suite of measures that our Government will progress in terms of making it beneficial for people to be in work.
Bidois DanDAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): Madam Chair it is an absolute privilege to contribute to this debate. We are on Part 2 of the Social Security (Benefits Adjustment) and Income Tax (Minimum Family Tax Credit) Amendment Bill. Part 2 is a pretty narrow part of the bill looking at the changes that are made to benefits and the impact that it has on tax credits.I do have a question around the tax implications of such a move and whether the Minister has in fact investigated any of the tax implications and the fiscal implications for such a change because of course greater tax credit to families will of course impact the fiscal envelope and the fiscal financials for the Government. So I'd be curious to know if the Minister has received any advice around the likely tax implications. I think that would be something we'd want to consider in terms of the overall cost of such a change to the Government's books.Overall there have been some discussions around the abatement changes and the impact of those and I think there are legitimate questions around making sure that we're not discouraging those families from working and not discouraging those families from getting ahead. On this side of the House we certainly want to encourage those families to get ahead through work and through less time spent on a benefit. So am curious about the Minister's perspective on this. I know it is in Part 2 and we look forward to traversing this topic in more detail.
Menéndez March Ricardo; Upston LouiseRICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): I take the Minister's point. And to that I guess I'm asking whether the Minister realises that because of the current abatement thresholds it actually eats up what they could be getting from the minimum family tax credit at a much faster rate than would have done say in 2006. And when that happens it actually creates a situation where the so-called gap that she seeks to widen between wages and the benefits actually is narrowed by the fact that people are not able to keep as much as they could from the minimum family tax credit when they enter employment due to those abatement thresholds not being updated effectively undermining the goals that she has talked about time and time again of relentlessly supporting people into employment.The abatement threshold as it is right now actually undermines people receiving adequate support when they enter employment. And I just really wanted to ask the Minister to look at updating it because otherwise she seems to be contradicting herself by pushing people further into poverty by what she's doing in Part 1 and not adequately supporting people who are entering employment by updating that abatement threshold. So again looking at the Minister's comments in relationship to how the current settings that she's only very very very very marginally tweaking are actually supporting families entering the workforce.Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): I have said I'm not going to talk about things that are not in this bill and the abatement rate and abatement thresholds are not in the bill. So no I'm not going to answer questions on that.Ricardo Menéndez March: Madam Chair.CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Ricardo Menéndez March—just in the nick of time.
Upston LouiseHon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): I want to just come back and answer the question from Mr Menéndez March and the question around part-time work. In terms of the minimum family tax credit work-hours test full time" is actually defined as 20 hours or more per week for a sole parent and 30 hours or more combined for a two-parent family. So you could potentially have each parent working less hours than that for a combined total of 30 and we're not proposing any changes in this bill."
Sepuloni CarmelHon CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston): I really would like some more clarification from the Minister around the way in which the minimum family tax credit is adjusted. In the clause by clause analysis of Part 2 it states For the tax credit system to work as intended the minimum family tax credit must be increased whenever main benefits go up. Clause 10 therefore increases the minimum family tax credit effective from 1 April 2024 in line with the adjustment to the main benefits that is due to happen from 1 April 2024 under section 453 of the Social Security Act 2018".If it's in line with the adjustments to benefits that are going to be made on 1 April then how can we have this figure already in legislation given that recently the number has changed from the modelling for wage growth or Consumers Price Index—the comparative at least—and/or how come we've got that figure in the legislation but we don't have the figure for the changes to benefits in the legislation? Surely if a minimum family tax credit is being adjusted in line with the changes that are going to happen on 1 April then we would have those changes in the bill as well. So I just want to know from the Minister what is the case there?Just going back I think it was a really good point that Duncan Webb made and that was the point around whether or not there are going to be projected increased fiscal savings with the minimum family tax credit given that the modelling that the Minister has now shows that the inflation number did outstrip or will outstrip for the 1 April adjustments the actual—no wage growth will outstrip inflation which is a change from the modelling that we received before.Also in the supplementary analysis report that we received for this bill we do have the modelling around the indexing of benefits and we do have the number of $670 million fiscal savings from this piece of legislation. Is the $670 million just on benefits or does that include savings to the minimum family tax credit because of these changes? If not are there other savings that will be made from the minimum family tax credit?"
Upston LouiseHon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Thank you Madam Chair. I'm not going to traverse issues from Part 1 in this contribution. So the specific questions around the minimum family tax credit: there's been no change in the way it is calculated it has been calculated the same way for quite some time. The only change in this legislation is the threshold and there's—for members' benefits I'm sure some are well aware of it but I'll go through it anyway. The calculation considers a range of factors: the rate of income taxes main benefits and the minimum wage and the approach to calculating it as I have said in earlier contributions in this debate ensures that sole parents are better off working and receiving the minimum family tax credit than they would be receiving a benefit on an annual basis. In terms of timing it comes into effect at the start of the tax year.
Prime Willow-Jean; Webb DuncanHon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour): Thank you Madam Chair. I can see that the Minister isn't yet ready to answer that question. Once again for fear of the debate collapsing because the Minister is not responding to the questions what I would like to know further to the questions asked by the Hon Carmel Sepuloni is—hers was about the formula and how you arrive at those figures. Given that the number that we have been using in the supplementary analysis report and so on has subsequently been updated will that affect the numbers that are hard here in legislation? It doesn't just say it will be according to the formula that's used but actually gives the prescribed amount in the legislation so are we passing something that really should be updated? Has it been updated according to that or is it working off some different type of formula? My next question is: how many people does this apply to?Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): I have I think a relatively brief question. Because as I understand Part 2 the framework is about when the tax credits kick in to make sure that families are in fact better off in work than not in work. Given the change to the indexation of main benefits to track inflation rather than wages or inflation will this in fact have a projected fiscal saving to the Government? Because benefits are going to increase at a slower rate I'm assuming that will also mean that the family tax credits will increase at a slower rate as well. And has there been work done to understand that because this increases at a slower rate because it tracks main benefits; whether there's fiscal savings to the Government in the forecast?
Sepuloni Carmel; Webb DuncanHon CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston): Madam Chair I believe the last time we were debating this we were having discussions around the minimum family tax credit and the Minister was asked—and I'm not sure if we actually received a response so this is where I'd like to start—whether or not there would continue to be a differential between those on the lowest income who are getting the minimum tax credit versus those that are on benefit. There was also a question raised about whether or not the numbers of those receiving the minimum tax credit will increase or decrease because of the changes to this particular piece of legislation. Those were the first two questions I could remember on the minimum family tax credit and there were others but I will ask the Minister to answer those ones first.Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you Madam Chair. Look I'm interested in this bill and the minimum family tax credit. In particular I'm interested to know exactly how it is going to address the cost of living issues that the new Government is so committed to. I appreciate it's an indexing issue and obviously this House has seen considerable debate around indexing over the past week or so. I'm interested to understand exactly how this bill will relate to the other debate we've been having and whether in fact it's taking the same approach or whether it's taking a more generous approach given that it's a tax credit framework.Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston): One of the issues that came up with Part 1 that is relevant to Part 2 was we were trying to ascertain what the adjustment would look like what the differential was between inflation and our wage growth and so what the point of difference would be there. At the last committee stage we did have it clarified that net wage growth was going to be 5.3 percent versus the Consumers Price Index which is 4.7 percent. I just want to know how the Minister is able to make the adjustment known in Part 2 for the minimum family tax credit when we haven't yet got the figures for benefit in terms of the 1 April adjustment. I thought that the minimum family tax credit adjustment was made in line with the shift that benefits receive on 1 April but that doesn't seem to be the case if they are already able to state what the adjustment for the minimum family tax credit is but they're not yet able to state what the adjustment for the actual benefits are going to be. I think that that is a valid question. I think that the Minister may be seeking advice on that one. However I'm going to give the Minister a little bit of time so that she can seek that advice because I'd be really interested actually: why do we have the numbers for minimum family tax credit but we don't have them for what it will mean for indexation to benefit?
Kuriger BarbaraSOCIAL SECURITY (BENEFITS ADJUSTMENT) AND INCOME TAX (MINIMUM FAMILY TAX CREDIT) AMENDMENT BILLIn CommitteeDebate resumed from 13 February.Part 2 Amendments to Income Tax Act 2007 (continued)CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members we come now to the Social Security (Benefits Adjustment) and Income Tax (Minimum Family Tax Credit) Amendment Bill. When we were last considering the bill we were debating Part 2. Part 2 is the debate on clauses 9 and 10 amendment to the Income Tax Act 2007. The question is that Part 2 stand part.
Prime Willow-JeanHon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour): Thank you Madam Chair. My earlier questions were about whether she's received it whether she's read it and whether she's understood it or sought advice on it—her subsequent decision.This contribution I'm making now is to support the points that have been made by Te Pāti Māori and Mariameno Kapa-Kingi. It is specifically relating to our Māori social workers. Is the Minister rejecting the letter and the plea from the Tangata Whenua Social Workers Association to allow four years as opposed to two which is in the tabled amendment? Is she rejecting their request?The Minister said in her earlier answers that she had other considerations outside of just what was in the select committee process. What specific considerations has she given for Māori social workers in making this decision to introduce an amendment—two years instead of four years? Because as we understand it from the Māori social workers from somebody here with professional and lived experience the two-year time frame will simply be too tight for them to be able to do that.So in the Minister's opinion what advice has she received that she has taken and considered that supports her decision to reduce it from four years to two years and my question is specifically about Māori social workers and their pathway to registration.