edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
3. Question No. 3—Social Development and EmploymentTĀMATI COFFEY (Labour) (remote) to the Minister for Social Development and EmploymentQuestion No. 3—Social Development and Employment3. TĀMATI COFFEY (Labour) (remote) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What changes to income support come into effect on 1 April?Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (remote): This Friday will see a raft of changes come into effect including the continuation of the biggest lift to main benefits in decades. For many years the rate of main benefit has fallen further behind the average wage and it's placed many people including children in undue hardship. In addition to indexing main benefits to wage growth we are further lifting main benefits so they don't fall further behind. The Ministry of Social Development's analysis shows that from 1 April a couple on a benefit with children will now be on average $237 a week better off than they were when the Government took office in 2017. As a Government we have worked hard to lift as many children out of poverty as possible and while raising the level of main benefit is only one way to achieve our goal it is an incredibly important step in the right direction. Tāmati Coffey: What changes to income support will help working families? Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: In addition to main benefit increases childcare assistance income thresholds will also begin to increase annually in line with net average wage growth. Income thresholds for eligibility for childcare assistance have been frozen since 2010. The growth in wages in the last 12 years has meant that the number of low-income parents and caregivers who can access childcare assistance has been steadily declining. This change is the right thing to do and will support low-income working families who need to access childcare. Working for Families tax credit Best Start tax credit and family tax credit will also increase from 1 April providing 346000 families with an average of an extra $20 per week. This is a Government that is targeting support at families who need it most to support with key costs of living like childcare. Tāmati Coffey: What changes will be happening to the rates of superannuation? Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: The superannuation annual general adjustment comes into effect from 1 April. Single superannuitants living alone will see a rise of $52 per fortnight and couples who both qualify will see an extra $80 per fortnight in total from 1 April. On top of that as of 1 May people on superannuation will receive extra every week thanks to our winter energy payment which provides extra income for over 1 million New Zealanders.
Thursday 17 March 2022 - Volume 758
Taxation (Annual Rates for 2021-22 GST and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee—Clauses 1 and 2
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the question be now put.Ayes 77New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Noes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Motion agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the Minister's amendment to clause 2 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 134 and the Minister's tabled amendment be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 67New Zealand Labour 65; Te Paati Māori 2.Noes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Abstentions 10Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Amendments agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): David Seymour's amendment to clause 2 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 140 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.A party vote was called for on the question That clause 2 as amended be agreed to.Ayes 67New Zealand Labour 65; Te Paati Māori 2.Noes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Abstentions 10Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Clause 2 as amended agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That clause 1 be agreed to.Ayes 67New Zealand Labour 65; Te Paati Māori 2.Noes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Abstentions 10Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Clause 1 agreed to.Bill to be reported with amendment.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the question be now put. Ayes 77New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Noes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Motion agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): The question is that the Minister's amendments to Part 4 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 134 and the Minister's tabled amendment be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to. Ayes 67New Zealand Labour 65; Te Paati Māori 2.Noes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Abstentions 10Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Amendments agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): The question is that Part 4 as amended be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question That Part 4 as amended be agreed to. Ayes 67New Zealand Labour 65; Te Paati Māori 2.Noes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Abstentions 10Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Part 4 as amended agreed to.Schedule 1ACHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): Brooke van Velden's amendment on Supplementary Order Paper 135 and Andrew Bayly's amendment on Supplementary Order Paper 137 both delete Schedule 1A and they are out of order as a direct negation of a question. The question is that Schedule 1A be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question That Schedule 1A be agreed to. Ayes 67New Zealand Labour 65; Te Paati Māori 2.Noes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Abstentions 10Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Schedule 1A agreed to.Schedule 1CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): The question is that Schedule 1 be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question That Schedule 1 be agreed to. Ayes 67New Zealand Labour 65; Te Paati Māori 2.Noes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Abstentions 10Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Schedule 1 agreed to.
Taxation (Annual Rates for 2021-22 GST and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee—Part 4
11. Question No. 11—PoliceNICOLE McKEE (ACT) to the Minister of PoliceQuestion No. 11—Police11. NICOLE McKEE (ACT) to the Minister of Police: Does she stand by all her statements and policies regarding firearms?Hon POTO WILLIAMS (Minister of Police): Yes in the context they were made and undertaken. Nicole McKee: Is she confident that New Zealand Police can process 80 percent of licence applications within 12 months considering only 6 percent have been processed as at December 2021? Hon POTO WILLIAMS: Police remain committed to the completion of the licence applications in a timely manner and ensuring only those who are fit and proper are being granted a firearms licence. That's why the police have created a dedicated team to reducing licencing delays focusing on the oldest applications first and that's why they have brought on more staff. Nicole McKee: Will she grant an extension for firearms licence application renewals similar to that done last year to reflect the delays caused by the Omicron variant and if not why not? Hon POTO WILLIAMS: We will continue to closely monitor the situation. Should the delays in processing of licence applications occur as a direct result of COVID-19 - related illness and associated isolations we will consider a new extension using the regulation-making power under the Arms Act. Nicole McKee: Why should New Zealanders have confidence in her to keep communities safe when gun crime—specifically that associated with gangs—is significantly worse under this Government?Hon POTO WILLIAMS: I reject the premise of that question. This Government has invested $450 million into the police and increased the police workforce by 15 percent. We have given police the tools that they need to combat organised crime. We have raised the number of police including 700 dedicated to organised crime alone. I reject the premise of that member's question because that is clearly not the case and I point to Operation Tauwhiro as one such example.
Cameron MarkMARK CAMERON (ACT): Thank you Mr Speaker. Look I apologise my colleague has been waylaid. ACT won't be supporting this piece of legislation. I think it's clearly obvious the world is moving on and yeah look I have got nothing further to say on that matter. But yeah so we won't be supporting this piece of legislation. Thank you very much.
SpeechANNA LORCK (Labour—Tukituki) (remote): Thank you Madam Speaker. I'm speaking on the third reading as a member of the Finance and Expenditure Committee.This Government is on the side of renters first-home buyers owner-occupiers and investors in new builds. Some people say housing costs too much but then oppose every move to fix it. What is disappointing but not surprising is that tonight we have continued to hear the same deflating rhetoric from the Opposition who claim to be business smart and yet are not smart when it comes to the business of investment—because the legislative changes this bill provides are a huge opportunity for property investors in modernising their portfolio. The more supply we have the better we are at addressing housing shortages. So let's build and better still invest in new for the rental market: grow the rental portfolio.It's working already and it's sending a very strong signal—a message that the Opposition refuses to talk about because members of the National Party don't want anyone to know about it. One of the best things this bill actually does is encourage investors to build more and more new houses and new homes to rent. If you are planning to invest in housing for the rental market: build new. Build new and help contribute to the housing supply. Because the more we build the more affordable housing becomes for more people. Even if you are a mum or dad investor who has a rental property that you are renting out and may well have had for more than a decade here is an opportunity to take advantage of interest deductibility by building new and investing in new and selling your old one. Be part of fixing the housing crisis by selling your existing rental and having a modern investment by investing in a new build for the rental market.Now in Camberley a suburb in the electorate of Tukituki where I am the local MP I recently visited a new development of 10 three-bedroom warm affordable dry rentals. All the interest is deductible for this investment and also because it's a new rental development if sold after five years it will not be subject to the brightline test. Affordable rentals are critical in dealing with the housing crisis. This Government recognises that new rentals play an important part: so that families wishing to rent can. When I see these positive investments happening like they are in Camberley I know that this legislation is sending the right signals to investors: build new. I commend this bill to the House.
Ngāti Maru (Taranaki) Claims Settlement Bill — Third Reading
Simmonds PennyPENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill): Thank you Madam Speaker. It's a privilege to give a short but heartfelt speech in support of the Ngāti Maru (Taranaki) Claims Settlement Bill in this its third reading and although I can't see you up there I want to acknowledge and welcome Ngāti Maru iwi representatives who are here today. I also want to acknowledge and thank members of the wider iwi who have shown such tremendous perseverance resilience and fortitude over what has been almost 40 years securing this settlement. Can I particularly acknowledge your hard-working negotiators. Physically Ngāti Maru will receive financial and commercial redress valued at $30 million but as my colleague has said that is a drop in the ocean. Cultural redress includes the vesting of 16 sites of cultural significance including Purangi Domain and Tarata Domain. The legislation records the acknowledgment and apology given by the Crown to Ngāti Maru in the deed of settlement which was signed just over a year ago on 27 February 2021 and the legislation gives effect to provisions of the deed of settlement that settles the historic claim of Ngāti Maru. I want to acknowledge the beautiful lands the rohe centred on the inland Waitara River valley east to the Whanganui River and its tributaries and west to Mount Taranaki. We know that for generations this land was where Ngāti Maru cultivated fertile soils and got resources from the area's forests rivers and wetlands. We also know that Ngāti Maru were not involved in the land dealings which led to the war in Taranaki in 1860 and were not directly involved in the subsequent fighting. Despite this when the Crown confiscated huge tracts of Taranaki land to punish so-called rebels approximately half of the traditional lands of Ngāti Maru were included. Many of your sacred cultural sites were taken and some have never been returned. The extensive loss of Ngāti Maru lands impacted so significantly eroding tribal structures creating severe poverty and damaging the physical cultural and spiritual health of so many generations of Ngāti Maru people. This settlement recognises the wrongs of the past and seeks to strengthen partnerships between Crown and iwi. We hope that this settlement will help iwi to unlock the economic potential that we know is there to provide employment opportunities and to boost regional and provincial areas. While no redress will ever fully compensate for the destructive and demoralising effects of the Crown we must have hope that this settlement will allow Ngāti Maru to realise their aspirations for that vibrant economic and cultural future restoring the relationship with the Crown. While the previous speaker spoke of restoring their mana I acknowledge that their mana has always been held intact. This gives a future going forward. Thank you Madam Speaker.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Making a remote contribution I call Debbie Ngarewa-Packer—five minutes.
Appropriation (2020/21 Confirmation and Validation) Bill — First Reading
Robertson GrantAPPROPRIATION (2020/21 CONFIRMATION AND VALIDATION) BILLFirst ReadingHon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I move That the Appropriation (2020/21 Confirmation and Validation) Bill be now read a first time. Bill read a first time.
SpeechRESIGNATIONSHon Simon Bridges TaurangaLouisa Wall New Zealand LabourSPEAKER: Members I wish to advise the House that I have received a letter from the Hon Simon Bridges resigning his seat in the House with effect from 5 p.m. on Friday 6 May 2022.I also wish to advise the House that I have received a letter from Louisa Wall resigning her seat in the House effective on Sunday 1 May 2022.
Motions — Academy Award Congratulations—Dame Jane Campion
Sepuloni CarmelMOTIONSAcademy Award Congratulations—Dame Jane CampionSPEAKER: I'm going to call the Hon Carmel Sepuloni but remind her that she must use the chat function in order to seek the call in future.Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage) (remote): Point of order. I seek leave to move a motion without notice and without debate to congratulate Dame Jane Campion.SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is none.Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I move That this House congratulate Dame Jane Campion on receiving the Academy Award for Best Director for The Power of the Dog.Motion agreed to.
SpeechTUESDAY 29 MARCH 2022The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.KARAKIA/PRAYERSHon JACQUI DEAN (Assistant Speaker): Almighty God we give thanks for the blessings which have been bestowed on us. Laying aside all personal interests we acknowledge the Queen and pray for guidance in our deliberations that we may conduct the affairs of this House with wisdom justice mercy and humility for the welfare and peace of New Zealand. Amen.
9. Question No. 9—Māori DevelopmentSHANAN HALBERT (Labour—Northcote) (remote) to the Minister for Māori DevelopmentQuestion No. 9—Māori Development9. SHANAN HALBERT (Labour—Northcote) (remote) to the Minister for Māori Development: What reports has he seen on cadetships?Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Minister for Māori Development): I've recently received a report that since its inception cadetships through Te Puni Kōkiri (TPK) have reached over 5000 cadets. In 2021 TPK supported programmes for 1287 cadets with 128 employers more than double the previous year. Eight-six percent of participating employers were Māori owned and we are seeing the programme reach a wider range of industry sectors than previously including: healthcare and social assistance 20 percent; and information media and telecommunications 12 percent. Over half of the cadets in 2021 were wāhine Māori helping to tackle the disproportionate impact on wāhine from the economic shocks of COVID-19.Shanan Halbert: What benefit is the cadetship programme providing for employers?Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Cadetship participation has significantly improved Māori staff retention rates at participating employers reducing their costs and improving productivity. Over 90 percent of cadets were still at their firms after the cadetships had concluded and 88 percent received a pay rise; 58 percent of cadets received a promotion within the organisation demonstrating the improved capability and productivity of the employees kaimahi. Programmes are often tikanga based benefiting both the cadets and the employers and enhancing links to Māori communities.Shanan Halbert: What have employers said about the programme?Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Sixty-nine percent of employers said the proportion of Māori employed had increased since participating in the programme while 94 percent of employers said that participating in the programme has prepared cadets for their careers in the long term. Seventy-four percent said their organisation had benefited as a result of participating in cadetships.
7. Question No. 7—Broadcasting and MediaNAISI CHEN (Labour) (remote) to the Minister for Broadcasting and MediaQuestion No. 7—Broadcasting and Media7. NAISI CHEN (Labour) (remote) to the Minister for Broadcasting and Media: What recent announcements has the Government made about strengthening public media?Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister for Broadcasting and Media): The Government recently announced that it will create a new single independent public media entity. Internationally traditional media is under pressure as it competes for audience and revenue with multinational content and social media providers. Public media in New Zealand is no different and that is why the Government is acting to futureproof New Zealand's public media. The new entity will provide many of the current services of TVNZ and RNZ but be built for the 21st century so it will be digitally focused and multi-platform. It will have a strong public media focus and more options and greater flexibility to respond to change and to deliver what audiences want. It will ensure that the quality local content that New Zealanders have relied on for decades will continue to be available in the fast-changing media environment.Naisi Chen: What will the benefits be to New Zealand audiences?Hon KRIS FAAFOI: New Zealand's audiences are changing the way they consume their media as younger audiences and some parts of our communities turn increasingly to online platforms and overseas-produced content. The entity will be better shaped to deal with these challenges. It will have greater scale more flexibility to respond to the change and be focused on new ways of delivery to reach local audiences and compete for their attention. Importantly though it will ensure our culture will be better reflected our democracy will be better supported and our public media system will be fairer with a wider range of New Zealanders including young people having access to relevant content that reflects our communities personalities and our diversity.Naisi Chen: What does the establishment of the new public media entity mean for Radio New Zealand and TVNZ?Hon KRIS FAAFOI: The new public media entity will be set up alongside business-as-usual work for RNZ and TVNZ and until it is established TVNZ and RNZ will continue their current roles. However they will also be closely involved in the establishment and change process and will have a representative on the establishment board including a representative from staff on the shop floor. The new entity will continue the current platforms used by RNZ and TVNZ and will build on the skills and experience of those staff. Importantly it will have a strong public media focus but will also have a responsibility to ensure its actions ensure a stronger wider media environment.
5. Question No. 5—TourismJO LUXTON (Labour—Rangitata) (remote) to the Minister of TourismQuestion No. 5—Tourism5. JO LUXTON (Labour—Rangitata) (remote) to the Minister of Tourism: What announcements has the Government recently made about supporting the tourism sector?Hon STUART NASH (Minister of Tourism): Today I announced that the South Island tourism regions most impacted by the absence of international tourists are getting support to gear up for the return of visitors through our $49 million kick-start fund. Tourism operators in five key South Island tourism regions have worked extraordinarily hard to stay connected with the visitor economy in the travel culture hospitality and recreation sectors. Yesterday the Prime Minister and I announced that international tourists will be welcomed back to New Zealand earlier than expected as the Government accelerates the country's economic recovery. This additional investment to support businesses will help scale up operations for the much-anticipated return of international visitors.Jo Luxton: Why is the Government supporting the tourism sector?Hon STUART NASH: Tourism's highly important to the economy. Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic we remain committed to ensuring the immediate survival and long-term transformation of the tourism sector. Our announcement today builds on the millions we've already invested into the sector and will help those businesses who are ready to come out of hibernation and scale up operations for the return of international visitors. The kick-start grants could be used to refresh facilities or marketing or training and hiring new staff or source new stock in readiness for their opening. It will take time and money and is exactly what the Tourism Kick-start Fund is for.Jo Luxton: What feedback has he received about the announcement?Hon STUART NASH: Welcoming back tourists is a significant moment for New Zealand and welcome news for the tourism sector. I acknowledge that this has been an incredibly hard two years. Closing our borders was one of the first actions we took to stop COVID-19 but welcoming tourists back will bring much-needed relief to the sector and provide an important boost to our economy. Matt Wong iFLY Queenstown owner said now … we've got some assurance that the market is coming back we can start building our businesses back up so that they're in a position where they can accept those customers and deliver that great service.""
1. Question No. 1—EnvironmentTĀMATI COFFEY (Labour) (remote) to the Minister for the EnvironmentORAL QUESTIONSQUESTIONS TO MINISTERSQuestion No. 1—Environment1. TĀMATI COFFEY (Labour) (remote) to the Minister for the Environment: What changes has the Government made to urban planning rules in Rotorua?Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Thank you Mr Speaker. This week the Hon Megan Woods and I announced that Rotorua Lakes Council will join tier 1 major urban centres to be covered by the medium-density residential standards which are enabled by the upzoning Act that this House passed last year. Rotorua has recently experienced strong population growth but house supply hasn't kept pace. This change will allow the council to significantly increase supply by properly updating their plan to allow medium-density housing—that is up to three homes up to three storeys will be able to be built on most residential sites without a resource consent. Site coverage limits of 50 percent and standardised boundary recession planes will apply. This inclusion of these standards in the area was requested by the Rotorua Lakes Council and its partners Te Arawa Lakes Trust and Te Tatau o Te Arawa and they've welcomed the decision of the Government.Tāmati Coffey: Why does Rotorua Lakes District need better planning standards?Hon DAVID PARKER: Among tier 2 authorities in New Zealand Rotorua has one of the lowest number of housing consents per head of population: 3.8 per thousand people compared with 7.9 in New Plymouth 23 for Queenstown and over 28 per thousand in Auckland. Rotorua also has one of the highest numbers of people on emergency housing special needs grants and on the public housing register. It's almost 1½ times worse than other perhaps comparable provincial cities. Planning restrictions in Rotorua are also currently limiting the ability of Kāinga Ora to deliver public housing. This move will significantly increase the number of public and private houses that can be built in the city.Tāmati Coffey: What effect will the new planning standards for Rotorua have on future rents?Hon DAVID PARKER: There's no doubt that an increase in supply will have a moderating effect on rent increases. It's interesting that data for rents on new tenancies in the North Island is divided into Auckland Wellington and the rest of the North Island and notably Auckland rents increased by 2.7 percent in the year to February this year—a lower increase than for the rest of the North Island which includes Rotorua. Auckland's housing supply's going gangbusters growing from around 10000 houses consented in 2017 to over 20000 per annum now most of which is medium density.DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think the Minister's addressed that question.
Wednesday 16 March 2022 - Volume 758
Contraception Sterilisation and Abortion (Safe Areas) Amendment Bill — Third Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Contraception Sterilisation and Abortion (Safe Areas) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.Ayes 108New Zealand Labour 62 (Allan Andersen Ardern Belich Bennett G Boyack Brooking Chen Clark Coffey Craig Davis Eagle Edmonds Faafoi Halbert Henare Henderson Hipkins Jackson Leary Lewis Little Lorck Lubeck Luxton Mahuta Mallard McAnulty McLellan Nash Ngobi O'Connor D O'Connor G Omer Pallett Parker Prime Radhakrishnan Roberts Robertson Rurawhe Russell Salesa Sepuloni Sharma Sio Tinetti Tirikatene Twyford Utikere Verrall Wall Walters Warren-Clark Webb Whaitiri White Williams A Williams P Wood Woods); New Zealand National 24 (Bayly Bennett D Bishop Bridges Brownlee Collins Dean Doocey Goldsmith Grigg Kuriger Luxon McClay McKelvie Mitchell Mooney Muller Reti Simpson Smith S Stanford van de Molen Watts Willis); Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Noes 12New Zealand Labour 3 (Kanongata'a-Suisuiki Leavasa Strange); New Zealand National 9 (Brown Hipango Lee O'Connor S Penk Pugh Simmonds Upston Woodhouse).Motion agreed to.Bill read a third time.
Salesa JennyJAMIE STRANGE (Labour—Hamilton East) (remote): Thank you Madam Speaker. I appreciate the opportunity to take a brief call on the third reading of the Commerce Amendment Bill. As the chair of the Economic Development Science and Innovation Committee I'd like to also thank all of those who have contributed to this bill: the officials the Minister the select committee members and those who made submissions on this bill.The Commerce Amendment Bill amends the Commerce Act 1986 to improve the reach and functioning of competition law consistent with the Act's purpose of promoting competition in markets for the long-term benefit of consumers within New Zealand. The reality is we do have a small market here in New Zealand and at times we do need the Government to offer support to the market because it can be susceptible to anti-competitive behaviour. We've already heard in the speeches on this third reading some examples of that. So this is legislation that is certainly needed and is certainly important.The reality is that we need to have effective protections against firms with substantial market power who may be engaging in anti-competitive conduct and the Commerce Commission needs this legislation in order to enforce that. I commend this bill to the House. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): This debate is interrupted and is set down for resumption next sitting day. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday 29 March 2022.The House adjourned at 4.55 p.m.
Salesa JennyREPORT OF COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE HOUSETEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON (Andrew Bayly): Madam Speaker the committee has considered the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2021-22 GST and Remedial Matters) Bill and reports it with amendment. The committee has also considered the Māori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Amendment Bill and reports it without amendment. I move That the report be adopted. Motion agreed to.Report adopted.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): The Taxation (Annual Rates for 2021-22 GST and Remedial Matters) Bill is set down for third reading next sitting day. The Māori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Amendment Bill is set down for third reading the next sitting day.
Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Amendment Bill — In Committee
Smith Stuart; Salesa Jenny; Parker DavidClauses 1 to 8STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you Madam Chair. It is a pleasure to have a call on the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Amendment Bill. I note from the select committee report that there were quite a few submissions on clause 4—in particular to widen the definition of what defines a relevant iwi and that was to include hapū and whānau in its interpretation. When I read clause 4 it says In section 4 insert in its appropriate alphabetical order: relevant iwi in relation to an allocation of assets means those iwi in a region who in the trustee's opinion are directly affected by the allocation". I think to say that is a broad definition is a pretty fair statement. That doesn't really define it at all. All it actually means is it swings completely on the trustee's opinion. There is no direction to the trustee. It is merely their opinion and yet it was quite clearly an intention from submitters to have a wider definition to allow iwi and hapū. So my question to the Minister is: is the advice that that definition does in fact include whānau and hapū in that definition or what does it actually mean and is the potential here for actually muddying the waters—no pun intended—quite substantially in that this could in fact cause more claims to be lodged in the future as a result of the opaqueness of this particular clause? So I really look forward to hearing from the Minister.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that clauses 1 to 8 stand part. Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for Oceans and Fisheries): Responding to the member the bill is as it went to select committee. It came back without amendment because the select committee having heard all of the submissions thought that no amendment to it was necessary. The member is correct in the reading of amended section 4 set out in clause 4. As he says it defines relevant iwi in relation to the allocation of assets being "those iwi in the region who in the trustee's opinion are directly affected by the allocation" and I don't understand there to be any change in the way in which subgroupings with Māori are being dealt with in respect of their settlement of Māori commercial aquaculture claims in that regard.The bill is very simple and narrow in that it is trying to create a mechanism where iwi within a region have reached agreement as to what is an appropriate settlement for them and Te Ohu Kai Moana agree—everyone agrees—but there is an inability to reach unanimity within a region because there may be for example an unsettled iwi. There is agreement amongst Māoridom that that circumstance ought not to prevent settled iwi whose entitlement is uncontroversial from receiving it and so this bill attempts to remedy that problem and doesn't change those underlying relationships.Clauses 1 to 8 agreed to.Bill to be reported without amendment.House resumed."
Salesa Jenny; Webb DuncanMAORI COMMERCIAL AQUACULTURE CLAIMS SETTLEMENT AMENDMENT BILLIn CommitteeCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members we come now to the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Amendment Bill. I remind members that they're able to participate remotely. If you're on the Zoom and want to take a call please type call" into the chat. You'll also be able to use chat if you'd like to raise a point of order. If we receive new tabled amendments I'll advise members so that they can refresh the House page to see the new amendment. Finally it would be helpful for members to ask multiple questions if they have them of the member in charge during their call. I call on Duncan Webb who is joining us remotely.Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Junior Whip—Labour) (remote): Thank you Madam Chair. I have a point of order. I seek leave that all parts be taken as one question in this debate.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the motion be agreed to. All those in favour say Aye; to the contrary No. The motion is passed."
White HelenHELEN WHITE (Labour) (remote): I move That the question be now put.
Leary IngridINGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri) (remote): Thank you Madam Chair. I move That the question be now put.
Court SimonSIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you Madam Chair. Just want to return to the title of the bill and the false premise that this is a remedial matters bill. And I want to use an example here of a clause relating to research and development—clause 142 which proposes an extension of time for businesses or a person to file a supplementary return for the 2019-20 income year—that it is extended to 31 August 2021.Now I thought that must have been a typo. I thought that somebody drafting this bill must have been looking at last year's calendar. And then I thought Crikey! Maybe this is remediating something that a whole of people don't realise needed remediation but that the Minister's worked out if he doesn't cover this one off maybe the Government or Inland Revenue will be liable to pay people back."So when we're thinking about remedial matters if you're going to be remediating things so that that was going to give taxpayers a chance to put their affairs in order—because the last couple of years have been extremely disruptive for families—for people whose income is taxed through the PAYE system and who get their pay cheque every two weeks and don't have to worry about filing a tax return a lot of this stuff doesn't have too much of an impact on them although obviously they'll see a lot less money in their bank account as the tax rates go up but they don't have to do much about it—it's just taken from them.But if you say were a business and you wanted to claim research and development tax credit under new section 33F in clause 142 it turned out that the extension of time was to 31 August last year; not this year. It doesn't give people more time to put their affairs in order and remediate matters—as the bill said remediate matters; remedial matters—that might have got a bit out of order during the period where people were in lockdown.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Order! I'd like to remind the member that this was the point he made in his first contribution on this title and commencement discussion debate. Please keep it to title and commencement otherwise we can allow other people to make speeches on this.SIMON COURT: Thank you Madam Chair. So in terms of the title and commencement it's very unfortunate that there are many provisions in the commencement part of the bill which actually relate back to backdating. However once this bill is passed organisations and individuals won't be able to take advantage of the backdating because in fact the time for using that provision will have passed. So by the time this bill comes into effect and gets the Royal assent potentially in the next weeks or months the time that people could have actually gone back and claimed for research and development tax credits will have long passed potentially six or eight months in the past.So the reason why this is called a remedial matters bill is still a mystery—it doesn't seem to remediate anything. And in terms of the timing—the commencement date of the bill—it appears to be at odds with some of the provisions of the bill that allow for backdating and for extensions of time. Thank you very much Minister; appreciate a response to that question."
Cameron MarkMARK CAMERON (ACT): Thank you Madam Chair. Just for the sake of talking about the bill's name the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2021-22 GST and Remedial Matters) Bill I think the member Mr Court alluded to the word remedial". He is quite right when he references this and I go back to and I will contextualise why I'm going to bring clause 202 in. When it speaks to that regulations provide for the establishment of powers and procedure of the cooperative dairy companies income tax appeal authority—well that gives them the right to appeal parts of that legislation and by the very nature of the word "remedial" it seems that this piece of legislation removes that reality."
van Velden BrookeBROOKE VAN VELDEN (Deputy Leader—ACT): Thank you Madam Chair. I'm happy to take a call on the title and commencement clauses of this bill. I would question why it's been called the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2021-22 GST and Remedial Matters) Bill because it clearly feels like there has been something of importance left out and that is that a substantive part of this bill is anti-landlord. This is the Anti-landlord Bill". This is not just the taxation annual rates GST remedial matters and everything else; this bill is specifically anti-landlord of the Government and that's what they should be upfront about and call it the "Anti-landlord and Anti-renters Bill".The changes that are in this bill don't just go some way to imposing more costs on landlords who provide rental accommodation up and down New Zealand but they also hurt the people that the Government says will be helped with this law change which is directly the renters. I noted that IRD when they were tasked with advising the Minister on these changes last year said that these changes will impose up to $4000 of added cost on landlords per year and they'll put upward pressure on rents and will stifle future growth and development in property.For that reason this bill shouldn't read: the "Taxation (Annual Rates for 2021-22 GST and Remedial Matters) Bill. It should be quite clear that the purpose behind a lot of what this bill was was to scapegoat landlords blame the housing crisis on them and not the insane amount of regulations that this Government puts through which doesn't help building and development in New Zealand.We should actually be upfront with the problems that we face in New Zealand and the problems that are caused by this Government and bad regulation and bad lawmaking and just say it for what it is: this Government is failing at problem definition. It's passing laws that don't make for better public policy or a better New Zealand. It's passing laws that are divisive and hurt a group of people who are trying to make a nest egg for their own future financial security and in the meantime they're going to be hurting the renters they'll be hurting the first-home buyers that this Government says it will be tilting the housing market towards and we should just say what this bill really is: it's anti-landlord it's divisive and it hurts renters. And that's what this bill should actually be called."
Court SimonSIMON COURT (ACT): Point of order Mr Chairperson. I just want to go back to before I had to leave the Chamber briefly. The Minister answered a question and I think he may have made an error. I'd just like him to clarify it before we go to the vote.CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): Well that's not a point of order. The question is that the question be now put.
Edmonds BarbaraBARBARA EDMONDS (Associate Whip—Labour): I move That the question be now put.
Parker DavidDAMIEN SMITH (ACT): Thank you Mr Chair. One of the amendments to the COVID payment scheme which business need more than ever now—it's a question for the Minister with regards to would he reactivate it within the tax framework for this year? Is that the tax loss carry-back scheme where people didn't use a lot of it numbers-wise because of timing when it was announced—I nevertheless thought it was a really great initiative to bring forward. Our research is showing and that of Deloitte's that it's needed even more than ever this year and it's a simple tick on the IRD box to reactivate it. It's a money-go-round anyway but it would really help business to get through this next financial year. So I would like to find out from the Minister whether that's possible. It already exists in the IRD system and it would be very easy to reinstate it as opposed to suspend it as it is at the moment.And the second question I've got is last week on the desks and letterboxes of people who are principled parents they suddenly found a 7 percent loading—I take that being inflation—on their child assessment maintenance bills. I was wondering did he realise it was that significant and that everyone's scrambling because they're not earning as much this year to reassess expenses and reassess the contributions they need to make to childcare and it advantages the people who aren't paying and disadvantages the people that are maintaining and looking after their children?So those are the two questions I have for the Minister.Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Revenue): Loss carry-back is not in Part 4 nor in any other part of this bill and neither is the other matter that the member raised addressed by Part 4 of the bill.
Parker DavidHon DAVID BENNETT (National): Thank you Mr Chair. Thank you Minister for responding to that last question I asked of you. The 2 percent—you basically said it was a hard and fast rule. So anything above that you have to redo your return and basically adjust it. That seems rather unfair for taxpayers that just—say they had a marginal—they might have had $100 out on a reasonably small return and that could actually be well over the 2 percent if it was on a small taxpaying amount. Are you telling me that they then have to file an amended return before the next return? So if they're on a two-monthly taxpaying basis for example and so you don't have to the official advice basically—he's looking like he's shaking his head saying you don't have to. But from what the Minister said he indicated that they may have to remedy that immediately. And if it is in such a case then that would be I think quite unfair and quite difficult for a lot of small GST payers if they've got to have that kind of regulation on them.And then if they don't do it what would be the consequences for that? Are they going to be liable for further tax or penalties or how does that work? And how would that complicate the system? And also you're probably looking at your end-of-year balance dates when there is a bit of a GST wash-up. Is this going to apply to that as well? If there's a 2 percent rule is it theoretically on your last return or is it on the full year's returns? So I guess when you have a hard and fast rule like 2 percent in any tax legislation it does create a lot of dilemmas around actual practicalities of how it works. And maybe it's better to have some flexibility in there where you have 2 percent and/or the department can use its discretion just for the sake of the department actually having to waste resources on small GST returns that may be incorrect and also for the sake of taxpayers so they don't feel that the IRD's chasing them up all the time for minor errors because 2 percent can be quite a minor error for a lot of taxpayers.Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Revenue): I'm advised that there is no change to the underlying rules in that regard and that the existing rule is that if the amount is under $1000 for a small business they don't have to necessarily file a return they can fix it up in the future. The only change I'm told that is occasioned by clause 153 is to make section 113A(4)(b)(ii) broader in that until this passes there is an upper maximum that caps the 2 percent at $10000 which is a small amount for a large business and this therefore is a taxpayer-friendly change.
Parker DavidHon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Revenue): In response to Andrew Bayly I would quote Lewis Caroll who says It says what it means and means what it says." Just means something slightly different to what it used to mean because it says slightly different things. So if I read from the section clause 144 I think it's absolutely clear because it means what it says and it says what it means. What it used to say was if I read clause 144(1): in section 68CB(2) replace what it currently says which is "income year (the first income year) and up to 2 further consecutive income years" with "income year (the first income year) the income year immediately before (the prior year) and up to 2 income years immediately after)". It's very clear."
Cameron MarkMARK CAMERON (ACT): Minister if I may for the sake of—I'm not being belligerent; I'm just trying to understand. Going back to clause 202 in Part 4 about cooperative dairy companies' income tax regulations being revoked in the actual piece of legislation it speaks to and I quote The regulations also provide for the establishment of powers and procedure of the cooperative dairy companies' income tax appeal authority which is to hear and determine objections to any decisions of the commission under the regulations or under section 146 of the Land and Income Tax Act 1954." Can you kind of try for the sake of the committee and myself—I am quite ignorant of all this—to explain how that doesn't create further uncertainty. You talked about outdated legislation. Arguably it seems a protective mechanism to the industry."
Bayly AndrewANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you Mr Chair. I've got to say I thought my colleague the Hon David Bennett was laser sharp in his questioning. I think it's showing his background as an accountant. What was it KPMG? Gee no one knew that about the Hon David Bennett. But it was a very good question and I'm looking forward to a more fulsome answer from the Minister.The question I want to turn to is relating to research and development—clauses 144 and over the page 145. As the Minister will know the country spends about $4.5 billion on R & D in New Zealand which interestingly compares with about $32 billion in Australia. I know it's a much bigger economy in Australia but it just shows how we're just over 10 percent of what's spent in Australia. It is vitally important that we do spend money on R & D. Of course that's why I think the announcement by the Minister responsible for research and development the Hon Megan Woods late last year that the Government's spend on R & D was going to be reshaped to have more regard for the cultural values of Māori was a very interesting announcement late last year that many people missed. Because of course R & D is about creating value and it's important that we do make sure that certainly the Government's spend on R & D is very much focused towards creating new markets etc.But in relation to clauses 144 and 145 there is a change in the wording and this is the first bit—it's really just to try and understand it. From my reading of it there has been a change which inserts the income year immediately before" defined as "the prior year". I think that's the only difference of it in terms of when the grant can be applied for. There's obviously a break between the expenditure up to $2 million and then clause 144B deals with over $2 million and we know there's that differential approach. So one is just to understand it.The second question which I'm interested in is: what does this apply to in terms of R & D? Obviously we have the research and development tax incentive which is the major part of the way the Government funds R & D in New Zealand. As we know you've got to have a minimum expenditure of $50000. There's certain classes of expenditure that are deductible including depreciation and direct costs. But of course once you breach the $2 million of annual R & D obviously you fit into the higher bracket. So does it only apply to the R & D tax incentive? Does it also apply to the Callaghan approach which in my understanding is a much bigger threshold? So just having an understanding around how this works and obviously what it really means for our people that are funding R & D in New Zealand."