edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Dyson Ruth; Williams PotoIn CommitteeHon RUTH DYSON (Senior Whip—Labour): I seek leave for this bill to be taken as one question for the purpose of debate.The CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.
Hipkins Chris; Williams PotoProcedureHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I seek leave for the committee stage if interrupted and the third reading of the Christ Church Cathedral Reinstatement Bill to be set down as Government order of the day No. 1 on Wednesday 20 December.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.
Christ Church Cathedral Reinstatement Bill — Second Reading
Tirikatene RinoRINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker and I too am delighted to speak at the second reading of this bill. We are putting in place what would be—well they are extraordinary powers but it's all in aid of giving momentum and giving some fast-forward impetus to this project which is to reinstate the Christ Church Cathedral. They are extraordinary powers that we are granting but I'm delighted that the Environment Committee has put in place many checks and balances and processes to ensure that the Orders in Council that are ultimately promulgated will achieve the objective and have the buy-in from and a sufficient engagement with the local community because that's what this legislation is all about. It's about reinstating the cathedral reinstating the heart of Christchurch that symbol that every Cantabrian holds dear.Whether it's Māori or Pākehā everyone from the South from Christchurch has a connection to that cathedral. I'd like to acknowledge my whanaunga Tutehounuku Korako who reminded me that there are also our forebears that are buried in the vicinity of the cathedral as well. So the connections to the place and to the cathedral itself do run deep and I'm delighted also that with that engagement in the Orders in Council I'm sure there will be participation from Ngāi Tahu. Likewise on the technical review group there is provision for someone of the mana whenua as well.This is a great piece of legislation. I am delighted to support it. I won't prolong my contribution other than to acknowledge the Hon Nicky Wagner and the Hon Megan Woods for ably leading this waka and ensuring that we get everyone on board. The funders will be doing their bit and we're doing our bit as a Parliament to ensure that we get the legal framework in place to really get this project underway. We've got a 15-year time frame—a 15-year time frame—to make this happen to complete the—Dr Deborah Russell: Reinstatement.RINO TIRIKATENE: —re-establishment of the cathedral. So I'm really looking forward to the time when I can climb back up that steeple and gaze back out and see the wizard still on his ladder casting his spells and doing his wizardly work and be able to behold that beautiful sight that I hold so dear taking in the beautiful surroundings of Christchurch City from its heart the cathedral. Kia ora tātou.
Webb DuncanDr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): I really want to address only one thing but I think it's a matter of some importance. There were a number of submitters who raised considerable concerns around the measures in this bill. Indeed this is extraordinary legislation but I would say it is extraordinary because of extraordinary circumstances. Certainly it does give the Minister the power to essentially suspend legislation and also indeed to add through Order in Council to the list of legislation that can be suspended and those provisions are well recognised as being quite out of the ordinary and to be used with the utmost caution. I recognise the considerable skill and knowledge of many of the submitters in the area of constitutional law and legislative design that raised these issues and indeed the Regulations Review Committee of this House advised the Environment Committee of its concerns—Chris Bishop: Not a patch on you Duncan.Dr DUNCAN WEBB: There's some great membership in both of those committees if I might say—ha ha! But having said that there are significant limits on these powers and I just want to touch on those. Firstly this legislation relates only to a relatively small parcel of land in Cathedral Square. It's also limited by time. This legislation will indeed expire and of course the rules—the Orders in Council—may be made only for limited purposes as set out in the bill. There's also a very rigorous process by which those Orders in Council can be made. They can be made only by the appropriate proponents and with an appropriate consultative procedure as set out in clause 9.Probably more important are the protections in place including once again the Regulations Review Committee and indeed this House. It's also worth noting that the right of judicial review was preserved and that is really important because ultimately what that means is any decision of the Minister is subject to the law and the fact is that government always must be according to law and that will remain the case. And of course there is the review panel which plays an important role in advising the Minister in respect of those orders and ultimately an annual report to the House in respect of any steps taken.So I want to acknowledge the very important and well-founded concerns and the debate in this House that has recognised them and I commend the Minister for being here and taking note of those concerns. I'm sure she'll take them into account when she comes to exercise those powers. But this is an extraordinary building. I hope that this building will like the Arts Centre be deserving of Unesco awards and architectural awards because the restoration of this building will give back to Christchurch one of its greatest monuments. Thank you.
Sage EugenieHon EUGENIE SAGE (Minister of Conservation): Thank you very much Mr Assistant Speaker. What we're hearing from the Opposition is a whole lot of excuses as to why they don't want to protect the sovereignty of New Zealanders by ensuring that this bill goes through and that we make the most of the opportunity we have before the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement (CPTPPA) comes into effect. That is the reason—as the Minister explained at the start—why there needs to be a truncated select committee process because otherwise we lose that right. Now I would think that most New Zealanders would want to ensure that overseas speculators can't continue to do as they've done under the former National Government. They would want to—Hon Todd McClay: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You said earlier that it was a very narrow debate and I accept that on the edges of that when people are giving reasons why the time frame needs to be shortened it's important. But the bill doesn't actually mention speculators and therefore the member is going way outside justification of why a short time frame is needed. Indeed actually two extra months would not change anything that she has said so far and she needs to come back to the point. The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): I thank the member for his intervention 45 seconds into the honourable member's speech. There has been—it's not the only contribution that has gone outside of the motion and I'll go back to the Hon Eugenie Sage and ask her to come to the motion. Hon EUGENIE SAGE: Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. So there is a good solid reason why this bill must go through a truncated select committee process. That reason has been clearly explained. We will shortly be dealing with a bill on the Christ Church Cathedral reinstatement. That also has gone through a short select committee process but there have been some significant changes made to the bill as a result of submissions. Last year when we considered the Hurunui/Kaikōura earthquake sequence the legislation around that also went through a truncated process and that resulted in changes too. I am confident that because of the significant national interests at play here in this bill and the fact that New Zealand is constrained by the CPTPPA that is a good reason to go through a truncated process. Ordinarily of course a six-month period would apply. That would allow much more time for people to make submissions but if people are encouraged to recognise the significance of this bill then I think New Zealanders generally would understand the need for a shortened process. It is going to select committee. There is an opportunity to make submissions and I think the Opposition is just trying to drum up a whole lot of arguments as to why they actually oppose the bill.
Dyson Ruth; Rurawhe AdrianHon RUTH DYSON (Senior Whip—Labour): I move That the question be now put.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): I won't accept the closure motion at this time thank you. This is a narrow—Hon Gerry Brownlee: There's no such procedure in this. It's not a committee.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): There is. I understand it to be that in fact a closure motion can be moved. It's also correct that if the Minister wants to respond to the amendment that has been made he can do that as well. I am going to take the next speaker. But this is a narrow debate as we have said. There is no scope for talking about other political parties and their poll results.
Visitors — Australia—Chair and Deputy Chair House of Representatives Health Aged Care and Sport Committee
Obituaries — O'Brien John Gerald
Adams AmyQuestion No. 9 to MinisterHon AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn): I apologise to the House. I meant to raise this at the end of my question but I didn't want to interrupt the flow of that one. I seek leave to table the 2011 report of the Inter-Parliamentary Union The impact of political party control over the exercise of parliamentary mandate.Mr SPEAKER: Is that available on the web?Hon AMY ADAMS: I can't confirm that. I didn't get it on the web. It was supplied to me so I can't confirm whether it's there but I don't think it's freely available to members given that it's not a New Zealand organisation.Mr SPEAKER: Oh well we'll put the leave. Is there any objection to that document being tabled? There appears to be none. It will be so tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Mallard TrevorVISITORSAustralia—Chair and Deputy Chair House of Representatives' Health Aged Care and Sport CommitteeMr SPEAKER: I'm sure that members would wish to welcome the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Australian House of Representatives' Health Aged Care and Sport Committee Trent Zimmerman and Steve Georganas who are present in the gallery.
Mallard TrevorTUESDAY 19 DECEMBER 2017Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.OBITUARIESJohn Gerald O'BrienMr SPEAKER: I regret to inform the House of the death on 13 December 2017 of John Gerald O'Brien who represented the electorate of Island Bay for the New Zealand Labour Party from 1969 to 1978. Mr O'Brien was the chairperson of the Finance Committee from 1969 to 1976.I desire on behalf of this House to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the late former member. I now ask members to stand with me and observe a period of silence as a mark of respect for his memory.Honourable members stood as a mark of respect.
Thursday 14 December 2017 (continued on Friday 15 December 2017) - Volume 726
Families Package (Income Tax and Benefits) Bill — Third Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Families Package (Income Tax and Benefits) Bill be now read a third time.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.Noes 43New Zealand National 43.Bill read a third time.The House adjourned at 8.14 p.m. (Friday)
Families Package (Income Tax and Benefits) Bill — In Committee (continued)
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That clause 1 be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.Noes 46New Zealand National 45; ACT New Zealand 1.Clause 1 agreed to.The question was put that the following amendments in the name of the Hon Steven Joyce to clause 2 be agreed to:replace clause 2(2) with: Subpart 1 of Part 1 (Best Start tax credit) comes into force on 1 April 2018.replace clause 2(6) with:Subpart 1 of Part 2 (winter energy payment) comes into force on 1 April 2018.replace clause 2(7) with:Subpart 2 of Part 2 (rates of orphan's benefit and unsupported child's benefit) comes into force on 1 April 2018.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 45New Zealand National 45.Noes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.Amendments not agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That clause 2 be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.Noes 46New Zealand National 45; ACT New Zealand 1.Clause 2 agreed to.House resumed.Bill reported without amendment.Report adopted.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That new Part 4 be agreed to.Ayes 45New Zealand National 45.Noes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.New Part 4 not agreed to.The CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): OK members Barbara Kuriger's amendment inserting a new Part 3 amending the Children Young Persons and the Families Act 1989 now named the Oranga Tamariki Act 1989 is out of order as being outside the scope of the bill. Sarah Dowie's amendment inserting a new Part 3 amending the Family Proceedings Act 1980 is out of order as being outside the scope of the bill. Nicky Wagner's amendment inserting a new Part 3 providing funding for IVF treatment is out of order as being outside the scope of the bill. The Hon Jonathan Coleman's tabled amendment inserting a new Part 3 extending the eligibility of the community services card is out of order as being outside the scope of the bill. The Hon Louise Upston's amendment inserting a new Part 4 creating a Better Public Services bill is out of order as being outside the scope of the bill.Schedule 1A party vote was called for on the question That schedule 1 be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.Noes 46New Zealand National 45; ACT New Zealand 1.Schedule 1 agreed to.Schedule 2The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Maggie Barry to schedule 2 be agreed to:in Schedule 2 Part 1 new Part 7 delete clause 30(2)(e) and (f).A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 45New Zealand National 45.Noes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.Amendment not agreed to.The question was put that the following amendments in the name of the Hon Steven Joyce to schedule 2 be agreed to:in schedule 2 Part 1 new Part 7 replace clause 30(1) with:For the purpose of Part 1KA and Schedule 18A winter period for the 2018 calendar year means (despite section 61FF) the 22-week period starting on 1 May.in schedule 2 Part 1 new Part 7 delete clause 30(2).A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 45New Zealand National 45.Noes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.Amendments not agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That schedule 2 be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.Noes 46New Zealand National 45; ACT New Zealand 1.Schedule 2 agreed to.Schedule 3A party vote was called for on the question That schedule 3 be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.Noes 46New Zealand National 45; ACT New Zealand 1.Schedule 3 agreed to.
VoteThe question was put that the following amendment in the name of Ian McKelvie to insert new Part 3 be agreed to: After clause 78 insert:Part 3 Changes to the age of eligibility for New Zealand Superannuation79Principal ActThis Part amends the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001 (the principal Act).80PurposeThe purpose of this part is to require the Retirement Commissioner to report on the impact of the Families Package (Income Tax and Benefits) Act 2017 on the wellbeing of retired persons.81Section 83 amended (Functions)After section 83(h) insert:to provide an annual report on the impact of the Families Package (Income Tax and Benefits) Act 2017 on the wellbeing of retired persons.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 48New Zealand National 48.Noes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.Amendment not agreed to.
Families Package (Income Tax and Benefits) Bill — In Committee
Hipkins ChrisHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Thank you Mr Speaker. It's with great pride and humility that I rise as I think the last speaker for this bill and the last speaker in this urgency motion. I'd like to begin by noting what a strong and cohesive Government has been able to achieve in this period of time.I would like to congratulate the Ministers that worked together on bringing this package together—particularly the Minister of Finance Grant Robertson; Carmel Sepuloni; Stuart Nash; our great Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern; and Tracey Martin from New Zealand First who worked cohesively together to pull this package together and to shepherd it through the House over the last—just over—24 hours. We were expecting it to take longer. I'd like to acknowledge the contributions of the Green Party and the work that they have also put in to making this a reality. It is a very good day for New Zealand families as we pass this into law—lifting 88000 New Zealand children out of poverty instead of giving $440 million to the top 10 percent of income earners. We make no apology on this side of the House for providing universal entitlement to public services and to family support.I say to the members opposite I look forward to campaigning against them in the next election when they pledge to remove universalism. Are they going to do it with superannuation? Are they going to do it with education and with healthcare? If they're that opposed to universalism let's have that debate at the next election because I know that this side of the House will come out even more triumphant than we did in the last election campaign.Mr Speaker finally I'd like to acknowledge you the Deputy Speaker Anne Tolley and the two Assistant Speakers Poto Williams and Adrian Rurawhe for your presiding over these proceedings and particularly the members who presided over the committee stage of this debate who did so with enormous humility and dignity and patience.I have to say—I'll leave the Opposition with this one final thought. I've enjoyed many urgencies during the nine years that I was in Opposition—it's much more fun to be on this side of the House—and I have to say that through that I learnt that it is possible to be passionate and it's possible to give the Government a run for its money whilst still preserving the dignity of the House. Over the next few years I hope that all of the members on the other side will reflect on that.
Kanongata'a-Suisuiki AnahilaANAHILA KANONGATA'A-SUISUIKI (Labour): I am absolutely happy to speak on the third reading of the Families Package (Income Tax and Benefits) Bill. We know that Labour always is at the forefront of change. Fifty-two years ago on 1 April 1939 under the leadership of the late then Prime Minister Michael Joseph Savage the first Labour Government's Social Security Act of 1938 came into force. It came into force because the then Labour Government listened with our heart and enacted action in legislation. The then Labour Government listened—they listened.Fast track that to now—fast track that to now. After nine years of a National Government we find children are hungry the elderly are cold and they are doing it tough. So how did we get here? How did we get to a point where a roof over our children's heads and food in their bellies became a luxury? Well it didn't happen overnight. Nine years it took us to get here. This does not happen overnight. The working poor is something new that we now hear about. Thank goodness—thank goodness—that the Labour values are enduring that the Labour coalition Government are listening with their heart and putting these ideas into legislation because we have heard the pleas from the families from the children and from the elderly that they are hungry that they are cold and that they need help.Today one of my favourite four-letter words starts with F. It drives through my blood. It is called fair". Is it fair that we spent the whole day today hearing the other side moaning about "Oh why isn't there a summer payment? Oh doesn't winter start in May? Oh why don't we wait for this? Oh is it fair that I receive it?" Is it fair that we had a whole day—a whole day—of listening to some fancy words? Is it fair? No. Last night—[Interruption] OK I'm coming to an end. Last night I attended the graduation of Vaka Tautua in financial management with the Pacific EFKS church in Westmere Auckland. Women: 51 percent of the population are women. Women live longer than men. When we look at pay inequality which the Minister for Women talked about the brown women are at the bottom. I'm telling you this: with this Labour-led Government bill the women will not only be warm; they will outlive you men but we will be warm in winter. Mr Speaker I'm coming to my point because I know—I'm coming to my point. This bill is transformational for families. I like to call this bill the "Bill of Love"—the "Bill of Love". Labour is caring for New Zealanders by taking action—taking action—and legislating it; not just fancy words.I wish everybody a merry Christmas and a happy New Year and I commend this bill to the House. Malo."
Woods MeganHon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Energy and Resources): Mr Speaker this is a proud day for this Parliament. This is a proud day when we can stand here and say that we have made law that is going to deliver for 384000 New Zealand families $75 extra a week. This is the kind of thing that makes a difference and is why many of us come here.Steven Joyce in his previous speech said that we hadn't given any reason why 1.2 million people were going to miss out; well all of those people are in the top five deciles. We make no apologies for the fact that what we are doing here in this House tonight is redistributing money to where it is needed—to families—and supporting those families. The fact that I will forgo a tax cut and that will contribute to lifting 88000 children out of poverty is something I am happy to do—and something that I am proud to be part of a party that has come to this Parliament to make that kind of change. It is my absolute pleasure to be part of a party that supports this and to take a call on it.I would like to congratulate my colleague the Hon Grant Robertson; our Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern who has led on this as well; and my colleagues Carmel Sepuloni and Stuart Nash who have worked hard on this legislation. This is the kind of thing that makes a difference. This isn't tinkering around the edges; this is making people's lives better and I am proud of that.
Robertson GrantHon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the new Part 3 in Mr McKelvie's name. I've listened very carefully to the contributions from Ian McKelvie Amy Adams and Louise Upston. They're all very similar so I think I can make a judgment from that on what is being attempted here with the new Part 3.We're certainly very interested to judge the outcomes of the work that we're doing with the Families Package that's coming through. The Retirement Commissioner already makes a number of reports each year on the well-being of elderly New Zealanders. This Government isn't interested in waste. The Opposition might be interested in waste and producing more unnecessary reports but we're not. We know that the Retirement Commissioner when they go through their normal reporting process on the well-being of older New Zealanders will undoubtedly reflect upon the package that's going through the House today. So this is an unnecessary report and the Government will not be supporting Mr McKelvie's new part as a result.
McAnulty Kieran; Hipkins Chris; Upston Louise; O'Connor Simon; Tolley AnneKIERAN McANULTY (Junior Whip—Labour): I move That the question be now put.Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I just want to draw your attention to Speaker's ruling 113/3 which says An amendment must be drafted with some precision in a form of words that may be embodied in law." I note that the amendment by Mr McKelvie as tabled has a heading "Part 3—Changes to the age of eligibility for New Zealand Superannuation" and then his new provisions clauses 79 80 81 and 83 in fact bear no correlation to the heading that he has inserted. So clearly it should be ruled out of order on the basis that the words could not be embodied into law in the form in which they have been presented to the committee.Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): One of the challenges obviously is the time frames in which we're trying to put these issues forward. The copy I have in front of me clearly has the comment in the purpose "to require the Retirement Commissioner to report on the impact". So while I accept there may be a typo on this particular copy it is very much about the purpose requiring the Retirement Commissioner to report on the impact of the package.SIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): If I might speak further to the point of order the clarity of the Speaker's ruling—while I acknowledge the Leader of the House it does continue on to say which is rather important "An amendment that is merely an attempt to criticise the provision will not be accepted." I think that actually puts that entire Speaker's ruling into context that an amendment that is designed to merely criticise a provision shouldn't be accepted. I think this is a contributory not "criticisory" dynamic.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Yes. Look I thank the members for their well-made and eloquent points. However this has been accepted as a valid amendment and we have commenced debate on it."
Hipkins Chris; Adams Amy; Tolley AnneHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. The amendment in question changes the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act or the principal Act which was not part of the original bill. The bill as the purpose clause points out makes changes to income tax and benefits and it is clear that the principal Acts being amended are in fact the Income Tax Act another tax Act and the—Hon Grant Robertson: Social Security Act.Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: —and the Social Security Act. So this does seem to stray well beyond what is a fairly clear general policy statement at the beginning of the bill.Hon AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn): I am somewhat puzzled by the point of order raised by the Leader of the House. There is no purpose clause to the bill and the general policy statement makes it very clear that the objectives of the bill are to raise incomes to alleviate child poverty and to provide targeted assistance. Clearly this is an amendment that has been accepted by the Clerk. There have been numerous that haven't been. I would argue that it's been quite a narrow interpretation but I think that this absolutely sits within those and I would question that there is a purpose clause as the leader has suggested.Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I don't need any further help. I have heard both members. Actually this amendment is requiring the commissioner to report on the impact of the Families Package itself on the well-being of retired persons. That is a major target for the package and therefore it is reasonable to have that reporting. So it is in order. It is still quite a tightly focused debate.
Hayes JoJO HAYES (National): Thank you Mr Chair. I'm pleased to take a call on this bill. Now I've been listening to all the discussions in the debate in the Chamber today about those that are actually missing out on this winter payment—those that are in rest homes—but I want to talk about those who are actually living with their families where the family is actually looking after their elderly parents. They will miss out on this winter payment. They will miss out because that's not their home; it's the home of their daughter or their son and there are a number of families in New Zealand that look after their families at home. Don't sit there Minister and go No there isn't." There are a number of people that actually look after their families in their homes. So these people their elderly parents will miss out on the winter payment.One of the questions that I want to ask the Minister is: will he consider letting those people have their winter payment so they can pass that on to their families to help pay for the increased electric power costs that it will take as part and parcel of their care? It is very similar to those in rest homes but this is people who are living with their families in their homes and are consuming the additional power. If we're going to give our superannuitants winter payments let's give it to all of them regardless of where they live or who they live with. They have to have this. This is about equity and this bill especially this part has no equity for those people in rest homes and those people who are living with their families in their homes in their son's or daughter's home.I want the Minister to say why these people don't qualify. It's there as an equity issue here. It needs to be answered. Sitting there saying "Oh no there's not that many."—there are people that actually come in under this category and I'd love the Minister to actually say why he is turning his back on those superannuitants that need to have that winter payment added to their superannuation. It has been spoken about so many times in this House about the inequality of this bill.Simon O'Connor: Who will think of the elderly?JO HAYES: That's right—who is thinking about the elderly? Obviously not that side not the Government in this bill.So as I go to sit down I do want the Minister to get up and answer: why is he cutting these superannuitants out? Why doesn't he give them that winter payment?Brett Hudson: Mean-spirited.JO HAYES: Exactly—and it's Christmastime. Come on Government give them their winter payment—something that they've worked hard for over the years. This is their right to that winter payment. Mr Chair thank you."
Adams AmyHon AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn): Thank you Mr Chairman. Mine won't be a long call in Part 2 at this stage. There's just a question I do want to put to the Minister and I'll simply put the question and leave it for him to answer. It is one—I've been listening to this debate all afternoon—that I really don't think we've got clear and that's just understanding how the winter energy is paid.The reason I ask the question is that we know that when a superannuitant or a beneficiary is out of the country for more than four weeks at a time then they are not eligible for the period they're out of the country. We've raised many concerns about that—the application and the equity and the like. But the question I wanted to put to the Minister is simply this. If the payment is not payable if they're out of the country it implies to me that the payment is made retrospectively once we know whether or not they've been in the country and for how long. The alternative I imagine is that the payment is made proactively and then there is a claw-back system should they be out of the country—when they haven't been here.The simple question I want to have cleared up by the Minister is: will the payment be made proactively on a weekly basis on an auto-enrolment basis with some sort of checking and claw-back? If that's the case is it intended that there will be a penalty system in place for the use of money interest or is it the case that the payment is made at the end of the winter and at the end of the eligible period once the system can check how long someone's been out of the country in which case it's not available for them to pay their energy bill? So it's a very straight question. I haven't been able to get that answered through this debate and as I promised it will be a short call simply to put that question to the Minister.
Robertson GrantHon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Thank you very much Mr Chair. I've been listening very closely over the last as Mr Macindoe helpfully informed the committee 2¼ hours to the repetitive statements from the National Party members failing completely to actually do what they say they're going to do. But I thought I would respond to the questions that I have been asked here.To reiterate—and this is in specific reference here to Steven Joyce's amendment around removing the winter energy payment and increasing superannuation rates instead—that fails a pretty fundamental test of this piece of legislation. But perhaps it is not unsurprising that Mr Joyce has forgotten that the winter energy payment is also for people in receipt of a main benefit. It isn't surprising to me that Mr Joyce may not actually care about those people but that would fundamentally fail the purpose of the bill if that was to be undertaken and so it won't actually happen.I'd also note that increasing superannuation rates directly is not what the National Government was going to be doing in its previous package; they were consequential increases as a result of the tax cuts that they put in place. So neither of those things is going to happen.We also had a question put forward by Amy Adams around the accommodation supplement issues and the date of 26 June 2017. This is to confirm the Government Statistician boundaries used for the accommodation supplement. This is exactly as per the previous Government's changes and this was to avoid the need for an update on 1 January 2018 which actually would potentially have disadvantaged accommodation supplement recipients. So that answers Amy Adams' question.In terms of the amendment by Tim Macindoe to allow a lump-sum payment it is very unclear how this would operate. We have had some criticism of the idea that people might be offshore—on the Gold Coast or somewhere—sunning themselves and still getting this payment. This would make that problem much worse. This would actually create that problem because you would be giving them money and then not be able to find out when it would be. I'm also advised that there'd be huge administration costs created by this given the large number of recipients. So we want to get this work done but do it in the most efficient way possible.Going back some distance to a question that was asked earlier on around the number of people who are eligible for New Zealand Superannuation but do not take it up I can confirm the advice that that is 6 percent.So thus far in this debate on this reasonably narrow Part 2 on this winter energy payment we've answered the questions that have been asked. I think we all understand on this side of the Chamber by the repeated commentary from those in the Opposition that they would rather we didn't do this—I think we understand that—and that they would rather we simply went back to the previous Government's package. Amendments around that kind of approach I want to flag are unlikely to get the support of the Government.
King MattMATT KING (National—Northland): I want to talk about the winter energy payment. This winter energy payment in Part 2 of this bill is a random plucked out of the air nonsense payment. Let's be honest here: when they cancelled the tax cuts as the legislation does the vulnerable members of our community found out they'd be out of pocket. They thought Oh there's a lot of votes there. We better sort that out." so the brains trust at Labour dreamt up a winter energy payment because it sounds good. It's a bit of fluff. So let's now look at the specifics of this fluff.Hon Member: Oh he's got the fluff out.MATT KING: Ha! The winter energy payment is there for those in receipt of a main benefit New Zealand superannuation or veterans pensions to heat their homes in winter. With all due respect it's not about winter it's not about energy and it bears no relationship to the underlying winter energy costs. It is simply a stopgap measure contained in the provisions of this bill. That coalition Government is all about fluff. It feels good it sounds good— good intentions but no substance.In schedule 18A of the bill they made it $700 a year for superannuitant married couples which is a cynical attempt to beat our change which was worth $676 per year in our tax package. Creating random payments like this just adds another layer of bureaucracy that bleeds the system dry.But back to the relevant parts of the bill: this will make superannuitants have to go cap in hand to Work and Income to get their winter energy payments. It's ad hoc policy. It feels good. It just adds complexity to the tax and transfer system—for example in the regulatory impact assessment: this payment "creates a situation where some beneficiaries become worse off when they earn additional income in a particular income range creating disincentives to moving into work or increasing hours of work." The payment mainly affects job seekers who have no children. This is especially relevant to my electorate of Northland—the great Northland—where we have a higher number of beneficiaries than the national average. Any disincentives to encouraging people into work I oppose.This bill has provisions that say: if recipients of this payment are out of the country for four weeks they don't qualify. Who polices this? Is it the Customs Service? Is it IRD? Is it in Work and Income? That's the question I'd like the Minister to answer. It just adds another layer of bureaucracy to the system.This is a tax and spend Government which we differ philosophically and fundamentally with. We believe in working hard allowing people to keep to keep more of their hard-earned money because it's their money. So that's why we resist the moves by this bill to cancel the excellent tax package relief we put in. This coalition Government is replacing this with an unclear ad hoc measure like a winter energy payment in Part 2 of this bill. Of course we oppose it."
Tolley AnneHon ALFRED NGARO (National): I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. My point of order is in regards to scope. In the response from the Minister he included comments in regards to the healthy homes package that the Minister was talking about in regards to the upcoming Budget and the package that was soon to be released—potentially in 2018. I take it then that we've been quite clear in our directions from the Speaker around scope but because the Minister has entered this comment into his reply can I take it that we can make comment on the comment of the Minister?The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): No because we are in the committee of the whole House and we are examining part by part.
SpeechThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I'm going to call Ian McKelvie and before I do I'm just going to say to him I think he has already talked with the Clerks but he has two amendments in place. One is to insert new clauses 79 to 81 to increase the age qualification for superannuation. He was hoping that that would be a new Part 3. The form of the bill means that it's more appropriate to be a subpart of Part 2. However his second amendment that's on the Table inserting a new Part 3 requiring the Retirement Commissioner to report on the impact of the bill on the well-being of retired persons is acceptable as a new Part 3. If I give the call to the member he can talk to that first amendment as a subpart of Part 2.
Speaker Recalled
Robertson GrantHon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Thank you very much Mr Chair. I will now repeat the point I made—for the benefit of members who have already been responded to around the Best Start criteria and what the criteria should be. And I take the point that the Chair has made that simply introducing different versions of health checks doesn't actually introduce new material. We have been very clear. Those matters are best dealt with through their primary legislation. This is not the place for it. It's actually foreign to the Income Tax Act to be introducing material like that into the Income Tax Act. So that point has been made. That applies to all of the amendments which are in fact of a very similar vein.The other question that I have been asked since I've been sitting here does come from Mr Seymour. I do want to say to him firstly at the outset that I have no intention of being a finance Minister like Roger Douglas. He can be absolutely confident of that question that he asked me. I also need to tell him as I'm sure he well knows and understands that the powers that he is looking to bestow upon a Minister of Finance in his amendment are ones that I suspect he might on reflection think are ones that he wouldn't want a Minister of Finance to have. In fact Parliament would be the best people to make such a decision as they do now when it comes to whether or not income tax rates should be indexed.The Government has no intention of supporting Mr Seymour's amendment. I understand that philosophically it is most definitely one that he will support but I will be interested to see if other members across the committee support an amendment like that. The opportunity to have indexation of tax has been around for a long time. Governments have not taken it up because of the restrictions that it would apply upon taxation. I think to answer Mr Seymour's questions there will not be support for this but good on him for having a go.
Dyson Ruth; Seymour David; Ross Jami-LeeHon RUTH DYSON (Senior Whip—Labour): I move That the question be now put. [Interruption]The CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I'm going to repeat what I said before and there are a number of new amendments on the Table. The last two speakers have spoken to tabled amendments that they have made. I am not accepting the closure motion right now but the debate is narrowing down and I would suggest to the members that tabling new amendments hasn't actually introduced new arguments; just it put a different way on to the Table.DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I seek your assistance. I understand that it's incumbent upon members to bring up new arguments and that eventually the debate may narrow to a point where there's no longer a need to proceed. However I also understand that one of the purposes of the committee is for the Minister to satisfy the committee that there is workable legislation so that we can detect faults that might cause us all harm later on.The CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): So can you come to the point please.DAVID SEYMOUR: Yes I was just getting there. The question I have for you is: if a Minister after being repeatedly asked refuses to answer a question what do the people have—The CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): No the member will be seated thank you. I've listened to almost the entire debate and questions have been answered. They may not have been answered to the member's satisfaction but it is up to the committee to decide that.JAMI-LEE ROSS (Senior Whip—National): I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I just wish to seek your assurance on one matter when it comes to your decision making about seeking a closure. We have had a call from Jan Logie—The CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I have not accepted a closure motion. [Interruption] Be seated. I have not accepted the closure motion. I have given my reasons for not accepting it and I have given some guidance to the committee around my decision.JAMI-LEE ROSS (Senior Whip—National): I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I just want to seek your assurance when you do eventually come to make decisions as we had a call from Jan Logie and it's important that we get to respond to that call.The CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! The member will be seated. Members will have to trust my judgment. You are seeking my assurance. That would tend me to think that the member isn't trusting of my judgment. It is my judgment. My judgment was that I was not accepting the closure motion.
Ross Jami-Lee; Joyce StevenJAMI-LEE ROSS (Senior Whip—National): I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I respect that it is for your judgment to determine when we take closure. However I do want to make the point very strongly on behalf of this side of the Committee that there are amendments that have been placed on the table somewhat recently that have not been debated and there are members here that wish to do so.The CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I don't need any additional help. And that would come under the category of bringing out new arguments and not going back to re-asking questions that have already been asked in a different way. Now is the time to bring that out.Hon STEVEN JOYCE (National): I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I appreciate that guidance. I think one of the reasons though that members are seeking to re-raise or if you like elucidate further on previous arguments is because these are quite substantive amendments proposed to the bill and they're not getting any response from the Minister of Finance or any member of the Government at all so members feel the need to continue to raise those points again and expand further in the hope that they can actually be seriously addressed. There are some very significant proposals. I've seen some very positive proposals that have been raised so perhaps to help with the process and I appreciate that you want to make sure that the debate brings up new material perhaps we could address some of the material that's already in front of us. [Interruption]The CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): No I don't need any more assistance thank you. I thank the member for his contribution. As I said before—and I accept what the member is saying but now is the time to bring those arguments in. Kia ora.
SpeechThe CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Members I won't accept the closure motion at this point. But I will say to members that I've sat here from 9 o'clock till 10 o'clock and I've been watching the debate throughout. There have been certain points within the bill that had been debated extensively and simply asking a question in a new way giving a different example does not make it a new question. So if there are any new arguments to be had now is the time to have them.
Robertson Grant; Dyson RuthHon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Just to repeat some of the explanations that have been given particularly on the last points that the member Alfred Ngaro raised—which I explained in an earlier call—there is only a single child rate. It is now the same. It's the same approach that the previous Government took.Also to repeat the point that there is no one that the officials can find at the moment in the situation that Dr Nick Smith raised. The Government has a commitment to undertake a review of the tax and transfers system overall as we go forward and we'll be able to identify any other potential things that came from arrangements that the previous Government might've had in place. So that question has indeed already been answered.I can reassure both the member who's just sat down and Louise Upston that children who are adopted are considered to be the dependent children of their principal caregiver and so will qualify for Best Start just as they qualify for other Working for Families tax credits. Again to reiterate something that's been said a number of times during this debate the orphans benefit the unsupported child benefit and the foster care allowance have been increased to match the family tax credit changes and those people who are in receipt of those benefits are indeed able to get Best Start—something that has been mentioned in the first reading and second reading and has also been mentioned in this committee stage.Hon RUTH DYSON (Senior Whip—Labour): I move That the question be now put.
Lees-Galloway IainHon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Thank you Madam Chair Williams. I've heard one novel question since I last answered questions from members which is the one from David Bennett regarding Sarah Dowie's amendment. Why no requirements? Because this Government trusts parents.