edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Penk ChrisHon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction): Thank you very much Madam Chair. Taking the last question first I'm grateful to Tracey McLellan for posing that question as to whether the Government's contemplated how things might play out in terms of revenue if that were to fall. Obviously you know these are shifting sands always in terms of Government revenue and there will be factors that will be positive and factors that will be negative. Overall however I think we can agree—or certainly the colleagues on my right-hand side would agree no doubt—that by growing a strong economy and increasing the opportunity for revenue for the Government as well as well as for those businesses community organisations and individual households is the way to guard against those external fluctuations as best we can.In terms of the invitation that the Hon Dr Deborah Russell has given me to set out from memory the tax rates I think I'm going to decline that. She's concerned that New Zealanders might not know off the tops of their heads what the tax rates are. I'm more concerned that I might not know them and if we think about certainty being an important principle of the tax system the last thing we need is me making educated guesses or even uneducated guesses at that. So for anyone who wants to know those I invite them to look them up. I could look them up myself and the member herself could look them up too for what that's worth.The questions actually that the Hon Barbara Edmonds has asked—and I was remiss by the way in not having previously responded to that question particularly as I've got the benefit of some really helpful advice in this space. So please allow me to articulate that as clearly as I can. In relation to Working for Families in the March year 2022 some 265000 families received a Working for Families tax credit. This amounted to an average payment of $7432 per family. Again that year ending March 2022 in terms of the tax credit cumulatively being $1966 million—or close as anything to $2 billion from that Working for Families tax credit in-work tax credit $502 million or so roughly speaking half a billion dollars adding up to obviously $2.5 billion again roughly speaking. And in the spirit of helpfulness as best that I can understand it—this may be helpful too—in the 2023 fiscal year core Crown tax revenue was $112 billion or 28.4 percent of GDP and comprising various proportions on a consolidated basis of which 52 percent was from individuals. I genuinely hope that's helpful. If I've missed the mark there in terms of any of the specific questions I'm happy to go back to those with the indulgence of the Chair obviously. I'd hate for her to cut off this great conversation.But in terms of who decided the timing well clearly that's a Cabinet decision and collective Cabinet decisions are entitled to remain as such so I can't be more specific than that.In terms of the criteria quite simply again from the Government's point of view in terms of what it was both willing and able to bring forward ahead of what would otherwise be a normal Budget process it was that which was possible and desirable within the available time frame.
McLellan TraceyDr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour): Thank you Madam Chair. Look I'll just ask a really quick question because I think that if I'm kind of hearing this debate correctly there are just a couple of things that I thought were interesting contributions that were made earlier on. I'm not sure that we've necessarily addressed it per se and I know that my colleague the Hon Dr Deborah Russell has another suite of questions that she wants to get to. So before we do that if I could just kind of circle back a little bit and ask this. I heard Arena Williams mention to the Minister in the chair Chris Penk not that long ago the difference between the forecast revenue of $122 billion versus $112 billion. I'm not sure that the Minister necessarily addressed that but it made me think about this concept of tax revenue forecasts and the fact that New Zealand obviously is in a technical recession and we need to think about encouraging growth. Certainly from my perspective I would have thought therefore that we have to be really mindful of not engaging in austerity measures as a means by which to deal with the potential of those drops in tax revenue given that we've got this $10 billion discrepancy sitting there. So I just wondered if the Minister could circle back round to provide a little bit more clarity about that or whether there was some sort of thought advice be it—not necessarily economic theory tax theory or anything along those lines but some sort of means by which to show that there's been some contemplation of how when revenue drops do we make sure that we're still looking after our economic growth and not looking at austerity measures.
Russell DeborahHon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): Thank you Madam Chair. It's quite a treat. Look this has just intrigued me because we've been talking about Part 1 of the bill and Part 1 of the bill is the bit that reinstates Schedule 1 of the Income Tax Act 19… or 20…—I've lost track now; the Income Tax Act 2007. So this Schedule 1 is sort of existing there somewhere. It's not in any of the pieces of legislation that are right in front of us. It's not in the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2023-24 Multinational Tax and Remedial Matters) Bill the bill that's sitting there and it's not in the Amendment Paper. So from the point of view of people who are listening at home we keep on referring to the income tax rates and the income tax threshold and what's in Schedule 1 but there is nowhere that it can be found in the material that's actually in front of the House. It just raises the interesting point: does the Minister know what the tax rates and tax thresholds are and could he perhaps tell everyone in the House so that people here and people at home know what we're talking about?
Penk ChrisHon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction): Thank you very much Mr Chair. Can I just acknowledge the work of Arena Williams but also the Hon Dr Deborah Russell for preparing an amendment that would split the bill. On behalf of the Government I guess we could do a deal which is to say that if we need to do that and we're not finished in time for the Easter weekend then we'll contemplate that. I'm sure that that will be given just as much consideration as Opposition Amendment Papers always have had in the committee of the whole House stage. I would just say Easter is a time for miracles so all the best.As for Ms Williams' points around compliance costs we do think that the degree of breadth is appropriate. We think that there is you know horizontal equity to use her very elegant phrase for that discussion. Of course there are different philosophical or policy approaches in relation to tax—it's famously an area in which world views may dictate an approach albeit that certain fundamentals I think are broadly agreed in this country and we should be pleased about that. But to her point around the question of what might change and how we weigh up the sometimes competing values of certainty and predictability on the one hand versus flexibility and adapt—adaptability on the other. I'm just trying to adapt my tongue to that phrase. I think that the bill that's before us represents a willingness to be flexible a willingness to adapt—specifically to respond to the mood of the electorate as expressed through the general election but also to provide maximum certainty that obviously we need in time for the tax year that is upcoming: a known set of circumstances a known set of tax rates a known set of mechanisms such as this bill does achieve.In relation to the other point that the Hon Dr Deborah Russell made about whether anything will change I can do no better than to highlight the advice of noted tax specialist David Brent that everything will stay the same if nothing changes quite literally. I think that therefore we can say things need to change further than what's within the bill—obviously such changes would be outside the scope of the bill by definition. But the objective of the tax system as she described is to raise sufficient revenue for Government. We believe that that is the case and are preparing a Budget accordingly even as we speak. So fuller details will be out there and available for public consumption and consideration and scrutiny by this House in late May in the form of the Budget.
Russell DeborahHon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): Mr Chair thank you. I want to thank the Minister for his good-hearted response around the contingency planning. He will be eating humble pie—he will be. So I do suggest that he takes up my colleague Arena Williams' very—you know it's really good of her to do that work to provide the contingency that that side of the House is not prepared to so thank you to my colleague Arena Williams for doing that.I just want to go back to some of the issues around the income tax scale and the sources of income tax. My colleague Helen White raised some very good points about how the Income Tax Act does not tax all income. In fact a whole lot of income is simply left out of the Income Tax Act and I guess that points us to some name changes we might suggest for the Income Tax Act in the final stages of this debate when we get to it on you know Friday night. However aside from that—Hon Barbara Edmonds: There's a Standing Order about that; we can't sit—Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: Oh we can't sit—well it'll be Saturday morning then won't it? We'll all be back here debating tax on Saturday morning. Look I want to go back just to reference that IMF report again because it does point to both what Helen White talked about and just one of the issues around the Income Tax Act. It talks in the IMF report about mobilising additional revenue in response to long-term fiscal challenges. Now the Schedule 1 as it sits at the moment changes nothing. It changes nothing. Now of course the Amendment Paper does introduce some changes into Schedule 1 which we'll debate in Part 2 of this debate but it changes nothing. Now that leaves a consistent worry about one of the other objectives of the tax system because one of the objectives of the tax system is to raise sufficient revenue for what the Government wants to do. It's a longstanding objective of a standard way of judging tax systems: do they do what they need to do which is to raise sufficient revenue for Government?So we've got sitting here in Part 1 confirming the tax rates that are sitting there and there is no change to them. In fact coming up in the next part is a substantial change to who pays tax in this country but none of it is addressing those long-term fiscal challenges of where we raise revenue from. So I want to know what work the Minister has been doing with respect to ensuring the long-term sustainability of our income tax system. It's the kind of question we don't get to talk about very often but this is the place to do it. So I would like to hear from the Minister just what advice he might've received what queries he might've put in place what discussions he might've been having with officials around the long-term sustainability of our tax system as signalled in the IMF report as signalled in the Treasury briefing to the incoming Minister this year. There is a challenge there; this Schedule doesn't address it. Where is it going to be addressed?
Swarbrick ChlöeCHLÖE SWARBRICK (Co-Leader—Green): Thank you Mr Chair. I didn't get a response to my previous line of questioning and noting that the Minister has now manifested in another form I will try once again but perhaps articulate these as coherently as I possibly can to lay it out for the Minister in the chair. So there's three key questions that I would really like an answer to here.The first is the one of logical consistency. Just to foreshadow this argument we have an Amendment Paper on the table which addresses changes to tax deductibility for landlords. We do not see the same promises that we were signalled throughout the election campaign put in here with regard to the income tax changes. So we've heard from the Minister previously that this is because these changes around tax deductibility were signalled at the election yet the same could be said of those promises when it comes to income tax rate changes so again that logical inconsistency is abundantly apparent. I'd like the Minister to address it.The second point is that the Minister said that tax or income tax changes are subject to Budget processes. But of course that remains the case—if the argument is to be consistent—for these tax deductibility changes where the Government has to find $2.9 billion to pay for their tax deductibility changes for landlords. So the first one is on logical consistency: why is it the case that we have an Amendment Paper that allows the bypassing of the select committee process and of democratic engagement on tax deductibility for landlords but they're deciding not to go down that route when it comes to income tax changes. I'd make the side note that the Greens think that neither of them should bypass that opportunity for public input. The second question is: are we to take this as a signal that the Government can say whenever it wants that it campaigned on something and therefore it is able to bypass the select committee process—the democratic processes of this institution? The third question which I believe bears reiterating is whether the Minister received any advice with regard to this Amendment Paper and making amendments to this bill at this stage when we've been through the select committee and where these are substantive changes about legislative quality? Did the Minister receive any advice whatsoever that making changes at this late stage through an Amendment Paper will impact legislative quality?So just to reiterate Mr Chair and hoping for responses from the Minister here. Logical consistency: is this a signal about the Government choosing to not engage where it believes that it's won the mandate at the election? Thirdly has there been any advice on legislative quality through using this Amendment Paper vehicle?
Edmonds BarbaraHon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana): Thank you Mr Chair. I do want to ask a question to the Minister in relation to an answer that he provided as part of my questions around the forecasted tax collected for individuals because if I heard correctly when I said I think it was $56 billion for the previous income tax year the Minister responded that the forecast was going to be $50 billion. If that is correct I want to ask the Minister how much of those individuals—because almost half of the total tax collected is actually just via the collection of individual taxes; so wages and salaries. How much is the Minister expecting tax transfers such as Working for Families—how much is he expecting Inland Revenue to be paying out to those individuals in the sum of a Working for Families entitlement such as an in-work tax credit the family tax credit? The reason why I am trying to just distil from the Minister is that it's quite clear that individuals do pay the bulk amount of tax in our country—individuals through wages and salaries. I just want to understand how much of that do they actually get back through a tax transfer such as Working for Families and then I probably will have another question to the Minister as a response to his response.
Leary IngridINGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): Thank you Mr Chair. I'd like to ask the Minister in the chair some questions about the average tax rate. We have heard about that in relation to high - net-worth individuals paying 8.9 percent versus an average annual tax rate of around 22 percent.When I look at the thresholds they seem to follow a logical sequence. So we know for example people earning between $0 and $14000 pay 10.5 percent. At the top end those on $180000 and above they pay 39c in the dollar. And there are kind of incremental jumps in the band so it goes 10.5 percent 17.5 percent 30 percent 33 percent 39 percent. That will be very familiar to a lot of people I'm sure. We know for example that sometimes people will try to stay within a tax band because if they earn too much money they might want to reduce their hours because otherwise they're going to jump up into the next tax bracket and actually it sort of shoots them in the foot. So that has been one of the arguments that has been levelled against increasing wages although it doesn't generally play out because usually those who are needing higher wages are not anywhere near the top of their bracket.But to the Minister when we look at the average tax rate in those bands it follows a different pattern. So if we look at those who are earning $50000 who pay an average tax rate of 16 percent there's a 5 percent gap between them and those earning $75000 then a 3 percent gap between those earning $75000 and $100000 a 1 percent gap between $150000 and $180000 and then a 3 percent gap between anyone up to $250000. Now my question is: why are there incremental jumps on average tax rates of around 3 percent 5 percent but between $150000 where the average tax rate is 27 percent we jump to $180000 and it only goes up to 28 percent? So how does that seem fair or equitable? Is there something in the way that this jumps incrementally that I'm missing or is the average tax rate just a pure consequence of the application of the thresholds? What I'm trying to fathom is whether average tax rates have actually been considered by the Minister and by officials. Have they looked at the thresholds looked at the increments done the maths and extrapolated it out and realised that there is this tiny 1 percent gap in quite a significant salary gap between $150000 and $180000. It may be historical it may be something that the Minister has inherited yet if the Minister was diligent in looking at the average tax rates and looking at the thresholds and answering questions around fairness and equity which have come up because at the moment we don't have a common way of understanding what is fair and equitable then I would like to know what is the algorithm that has produced this? Or if the Minister is really honest is it just that the average tax rates kind of end up like that and no further thought has been given because that's how they've always been done? Keen to get an answer to that.
Russell DeborahHon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): I have a number of questions now based on things that the Minister in the chair Chris Penk has said but in the spirit of keeping things a little bit short and sweet and getting an answer from the Minister I do want to go back to this idea of splitting out the annual rates because it strikes me that there's a real risk here. There is a substantial bill here that we need to discuss at the committee stage—a really substantial original bill sitting here. There's a lot in here that we will want to talk about. But on top of that there is a really substantial Amendment Paper—it's 39 pages of Amendment Paper—so there's a lot for us to talk about. Of course the Amendment Paper is stuff that hasn't gone through a select committee so there is a lot that we will be wanting to talk about as the Opposition and getting clarification on and that does put the annual rates bill at risk.Now there is a limited amount of sitting time in this House until the long weekend. You know Monday is 1 April. Now for this bill to go through this House needs to get through the committee stage needs to get through the third reading and it needs to get the Royal assent all before 1 April. We've got Tuesday Wednesday and Thursday in this House. Now there's a lot of work for us to get through. I know I've got about 3 pages worth of questions that I want to ask during the committee stage—I'm happy to share those out with my colleagues.But you know I am very serious about this. We are at constitutional risk; that Government is at constitutional risk. It needs to think really hard and really quickly—now—about whether or not it ought to split out the annual rates component of this bill. If it's not prepared to do that what is its contingency plan? The responsibility is the Government's I'd like to hear how the Government is going to take that responsibility up.
Swarbrick ChlöeCHLÖE SWARBRICK (Co-Leader—Green): I appreciate the ability to potentially pick back up the line of questioning that I previously had with the Minister of Revenue here. So we've just heard that the Minister was saying that the reason as to which we have the Supplementary Order Paper or rather the Amendment Paper as it's now titled in his name with regard to tax deductibility is that these promises were well campaigned on and well signalled early on. Yet we're still left with a situation whereby we know that the promises as were made at the campaign have blown out in reality to the tune of a better part of a billion dollars. So I think that the question remains outstanding to the Minister: why is it the case that these changes to tax deductibility are not due public scrutiny meanwhile the well-signalled and well-campaigned-on signalled changes to income tax rates are not also included with an Amendment Paper? I'm just here trying to tease out the lack of logical consistency from the Minister because we're hearing on one account that the changes to tax deductibility were campaigned upon and therefore they deserved to be in this Amendment Paper and bypass the opportunity for a select committee process and public participation in legislative processes but changes to income tax rates which the National Party the ACT Party and New Zealand First also campaigned on somehow are not due the same level of bypassing that legislative process and therefore the public scrutiny as due.So I guess I just have a few things to unpick there. The first is that question to the Minister: what's up with the lack of logical consistency? The second question to the Minister is that he just said that—and he's aware—the tax changes per clause 3 in this bill as we're currently debating under Part 1 are subject to Budget processes. But why is it the case that the tax deductibility changes for landlords are not subject to those Budget processes? Again a secondary point to this one of logical consistency. Why is it the case that these interest deductibility changes are considered to be able to bypass the select committee process while it's the fact that income tax changes are going to be subjected to the next iteration of this legislation following the May Budget?The second sphere of questions that I'd like to probe is a very specific one about whether the Minister received any advice whatsoever from officials that progressing in the way that he has chosen to with this Amendment Paper has meant that he has received advice from officials that there is a degraded quality of legislative standard.
Williams ArenaARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you Mr Chair. A brief question to the Minister of Revenue given his answer about confirming that for the 12-month period to June 2024 it is forecast to raise $112 billion: why is that different to the forecast to raise $122 billion and what is the difference between the forecast and the number he has just given the committee and why is it different?
Watts SimonHon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Revenue): Thank you very much Mr. Chair. I'll work my way through the questions that have been asked. In regards to the question firstly by Arena Williams in regards to how much tax was collected if you just bear with me I'll give you the overview—and this is for the year ended 30 June 2023. Core tax revenue was $112 billion or 28.4 percent of GDP made-up of individual tax of $58 billion which is 52 percent; GST of $28 billion; corporate tax of $20 billion; and customs and excise of $7 billion.In regards to the question from the Hon Barbara Edmonds in regards to clause 3 in terms of the whether Schedule 1 is normal and the point of clarification. I can reassure the member that this is a normal process. Clause 3 is correct in setting out the rates for 2023/24 in line with those currently in Schedule 1. As the member will no doubt remember—those very heavy income-tax legislation books that one used to carry around when in practice—the annual rates are set out in Schedule 1 of the Income Tax Act 2007. So we can have a look at that if we wish.In regards to the question from the Hon Dr Deborah Russell in regards to the idea around maybe doing a separate bill we have to disappoint the member to say that we won't be doing a separate bill for that portion. As said we've taken a decision around including interest deductibility as part of this bill. It was something that was well signalled and well campaigned on. It's actually just simply a reversal of the decision made by the prior Government. I won't get into the rationale or that around that it's simply that this coalition Government campaigned on reversing that and we have delivered that—that is in effect simplistically going through this piece of legislation. There will obviously be a further piece of legislation as part of the Budget process which will deal with the other components that I discussed with the other questions that I noted around the personal income tax rates.
Williams ArenaARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you very much. Following on from that question from Barbara Edmonds because it fits neatly within my line of questioning to the Minister of Revenue I would seek to ask the Minister another question before I ask the next five questions which is: how much as a proportion of what the Government is forecast to spend in that period which my colleague Barbara Edmonds spoke to will go to health education social security and welfare payments of which the largest cost is the New Zealand Superannuation Fund? I ask that because I'm seeking to understand of a proportion of the taxes levied under those three major taxes how much will go to core Crown spending.
Edmonds BarbaraHon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana): Thank you Mr Chair. It's probably a much briefer question this particular question. It's around actually how much tax the Minister is forecasting to collect for the 2023-24 year. Again the reason why we're here for this bill was to be able to confirm those tax rates. I note from—I think it's from—the Inland Revenue annual report that—I think it was the 2022-23 year—we were looking at around $56 billion through individuals $18 billion through companies $3 billion through resident withholding tax $28 billion through GST and $7 billion through other. So just to make the point that individuals have paid $56 billion worth of tax which has been confirmed by previous annual tax rate bills. So my question is a really brief question to the Minister: can he please provide a breakdown for what the forecast amounts of tax that will be collected for the 2023-24 year which this bill seeks to confirm?
Williams ArenaARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you Mr Chair. My questions for the Minister of Revenue are about clause 3 in Part 1. There are ten of them and I will ask him the first two now. What proportion of all taxes will be levied from the taxes imposed by section BB 1 Imposition of income tax" of the tax Act 2007? And the second question is: what proportion of all taxes will be levied from personal income tax corporate tax and goods and services tax for the 12 months to June 2024 period? My reason for asking those two questions to the Minister now is that I need the answers to those before I can ask the next five questions."
Russell DeborahHon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): Mr Chair thank you. It's great to be able to take another call on this because there is a lot to discuss in this rather small part of the bill. Look I'm just going to endorse what my colleague the Hon Barbara Edmonds has said and I just want to pick up on something the Minister was saying which was that the Government has had a very busy legislative programme which was why this particular bill has been left pretty much to the last moment. But it does worry me because we do need to have this debate on the tax rates—it's an important constitutional part of our process—but it has been left to the last moment. Now the Minister of Revenue has said that it's because of the busy legislative schedule but I'm curious as to why given that this is a constitutional necessity that we have this debate on Part 1 on the annual tax rates the Minister didn't consider splitting that out into a separate bill. It could have been done. It could have been done as a separate debate entirely on its own as a bill that was just the annual rates bill for 2023-24. Instead—and this has been a pretty usual practice—that particular clause has been included in another tax bill. So if there was a real urgent need and there is now an urgent need to get those annual rates through—and it's on that Government if it doesn't happen. If it does—you know perhaps we're all going to be here through until Thursday night between us. Hon Member: We can't sit on a Friday. Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: We can't sit on Friday. So I want to know why the Minister hasn't considered taking the very sensible and reasonable precaution of splitting out the annual rates clause—just one clause—putting it in a separate bill and at least being sure that that particular bill would get through. Of course that would have enabled us to have added quite a bit more time to look at some of the changes in the other parts of this bill. So Minister if you could clarify why you didn't just take that rather sensible course of action?
O'Connor GregHon SIMON WATTS: Thank you very much for those questions. I'll work my way backwards in order.The first one from Chlöe Swarbrick in regards to the Supplementary Order Papers. I mean the reality is that we have a very busy programme within the coalition Government in the large number of actions that we are working our way through and the decision around the way in which we wanted to proceed those through the House is a decision that we have made. The personal income tax changes that we have signalled very clearly that we are going to make are subject to the Budget process and hence will be coming through that process. The other aspects from our assessment were appropriate to go through this bill and we're comfortable with that.The first question from the Hon Dr Deborah Russell in regards to the IMF report: we last had a discussion in the committee of the whole House around this report quite extensively and there's not much more I want to say in regards to that report other than the report did indicate that there needs to be a significant focus around Government expenditure and ensuring that the Government expenditure is appropriate and that's the something that the coalition Government are working through. A question from the member Ingrid Leary in regards to fairness compliance tax principles and also the high-wealth individuals research project—have I reviewed that report? Well the member will be aware that in the prior Government when that report came out there was a lot of questions about that. In my capacity as a MP I requested the Government of the day to actually get the IRD in to explain that report and the methodology and ideology that was used to prepare it and that was voted down and declined by the Labour Government. So I think for me to—sort of—have more questions around that report that maybe gives you a sense of where the prior Government thought the quality of the report was.In regards to fairness and other aspects around tax principles: again if you look at my Hansard from the Taxation Principles Reporting Bill which is in the context of the conversation we are having today; again my Hansard in regards to views around tax principles are well documented. In regards to the compliance aspects one of the clear priorities that Inland Revenue are working on under this coalition Government is a focus on ensuring that the reduction of taxpayer compliance costs and the burden of compliance that faces tax payers and reducing that burden is a key area of focus for this coalition Government; looking forward to seeing that coming through. CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Just before I take the next call I'll just optimistically remind members of the change in the way we do business. Certainly while I'm on the Chair I'm very happy to accommodate short sharp questions to the Minister aware that it takes two to tango—if we can try it and see how it works. Otherwise the members are free to do their own calls. The Hon Barbara Edmonds.
Swarbrick ChlöeCHLÖE SWARBRICK (Co-Leader—Green): Thank you Mr Chair. What we're dealing with in this part of the debate just for those following along at home is Part 1 of the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2023-24 Multinational Tax and Remedial Matters) Bill. We're dealing particularly with clause 3 which pertains to income tax rates. This is really important to lay out because the substantive part of the debate and discussion will come in at Part 2 where we are dealing with the interest deductibility changes for landlords that have been in the headlines recently.With that context as laid out I have a few questions which I'd love to get the Minister of Revenue's response on particularly because what we're seeing with the Amendment Papers in the Minister's name are amendments primarily to Part 2 of this legislation with regard to the commitments that were made throughout the election process and that we'll obviously see reflected in the upcoming Budget in May. But my question to the Minister is: why is it that an Amendment Paper was used to manifest those commitments from the election as a precursor to the Budget with regard to tax deductibility but not those changes that relate to income tax changes? This is a really salient and important point because obviously an Amendment Paper particularly one that proposes quite substantive changes has not been before a select committee process and this bill largely operates retrospectively because of course for those again following along at home it was introduced by the last Government subsequent to the last Budget.So what we're dealing with here is a vehicle a piece of legislation which was supposed to operationalise the changes in Budget 2023 but what we're seeing is that the Minister now at committee of the whole House stage is making amendments through a Supplementary Order Paper—now titled an Amendment Paper per Standing Orders changes—which are primarily related to those interest deductibility changes I note but why is it the case that the Minister is picking and choosing where he'd like to see those changes made as Minister of Revenue?So that direct question to the Minister is: why is it that the Government chose to use the vehicle of this Amendment Paper and this committee stage on this bill to make those changes to interest deductibility per Part 2 but are not going through the committed to income tax changes in Part 1 which we are again likely to see reflected in the Budget which again we'll also see be the case with the $2.9 billion-odd that this tax deductibility for landlords change will bring about?
Kuriger BarbaraTAXATION (ANNUAL RATES FOR 2023-24 MULTINATIONAL TAX AND REMEDIAL MATTERS) BILLIn CommitteeDebate resumed from 21 March. Part 1 Annual rates of income tax (continued)CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members the House is in committee on the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2023-24 Multinational Tax and Remedial Matters) Bill. When we were last debating this bill we were debating Part 1 the debate on clause 3 Annual rates of income tax". This is where the debate on tax rates should take place but the vote on any proposed amendments to the tax rates will take place in Part 2 which amends the Income Tax Act 2007. Standing Order 352 requires that the annual taxing provision be considered separately. The question is that Part 1 stand part."
Appropriation (2022/23 Confirmation and Validation) Bill — Second Reading
Watts Simon; Brownlee GerryAPPROPRIATION (2022/23 CONFIRMATION AND VALIDATION) BILLSecond ReadingHon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Revenue): I move That the Appropriation (2022/23 Confirmation and Validation) Bill be now read a second time. Motion agreed to.Bill read a second time.SPEAKER: This bill is set down for committee stage on the next sitting day. I declare the House in committee for further consideration of the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2023-24 Multinational Tax and Remedial Matters) Bill.
Watts SimonSITTINGS OF THE HOUSEHon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Revenue): I move That the sitting of the House today be extended into tomorrow morning to complete the remaining stages of the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2023-24 Multinational Tax and Remedial Matters) Bill.
Urgent Debate — Gaza Crisis—Government Response
Collins JudithHon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Defence): Thank you Mr Speaker. I rise to speak on the appalling situation in Gaza. No one can see the daily images of death and destruction and remain impassive but nor can we overlook the truly disgusting events of 7 October where close to 1200 people including babies were murdered where women were subjected to rape and mutilation and the medieval attack then sparked a retaliation that has been devastating for the people of Gaza. Both people need to come to the party. There must be an immediate ceasefire. Hamas must release all hostages—130 hostages remain unaccounted for and they must be released—and Israel must play its part enabling a rapid massive and sustained increase in aid into Gaza. The loss of life is appalling and the humanitarian situation in Gaza is deteriorating further every day. We have been clear for months about Israel's obligations to protect civilians and the cost of this conflict is far too high. The images on our screens are harrowing. Safe haven and the basics for survival—food water and fuel—are still desperately needed. The latest reports are that famine is imminent as more than 1 million people—half the population—have little or no access to food. New Zealand is committed to supporting the critical humanitarian response in Gaza and to date we have channelled $15 million through the International Committee of the Red Cross the World Food Programme and the United Nations Children's Fund.The way the conflict is unfolding has the potential to make Israel less secure and will fuel the cycle of radicalisation and division and that is why we have repeatedly said that there can be no military solution to this conflict. A lasting solution to the conflict will only be achieved by peaceful means. We continue to strongly urge Israel to do everything in its power to facilitate rapid safe and unimpeded humanitarian access into Gaza including lifesaving food medicine and other aid. New Zealand also remains deeply concerned by indications from senior Israeli officials that it may soon launch a military offensive into Rafah. Israel must not take this action. It must listen to the international community to meet its obligations under international law.New Zealand has long advocated for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire in Gaza and will continue to do so. We welcome the UN Security Council's resolution overnight demanding an immediate ceasefire. We call on all parties to immediately comply with this resolution. There must be an immediate ceasefire. Hamas must release all hostages and Israel needs to step up and enable the aid into Gaza that is so desperately needed.In conclusion I would send a message out to our New Zealanders of Palestinian and Jewish descent and say that we feel for you. It is not you that has done this. It is not you that undertook the attack on 7 October. It is not you who has continued the work into Gaza. We care for you and we worry that you yourselves are under attack from people who should know better. So this just simply has to stop.
Bishop ChrisSITTINGS OF THE HOUSEHon CHRIS BISHOP (Leader of the House): Point of order. I move that the sitting of the House today be extended into tomorrow morning to complete the remaining stages—SPEAKER: Yeah that's right. You should move that at the end of the debate that I've previously announced. Sorry we've got to get this procedurally—[Interruption] Why are you looking so upset? The House survives on procedure. As much as you may not like it sometimes I don't but I've got to sit here and put up with it! So before I call on the Rt Hon Chris Hipkins to move the urgent debate can I ask that members who have to leave the House do so as quietly as they possibly can.
Fisheries (International Fishing and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — First Reading
Belich CamillaCAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you Mr Speaker. It's a pleasure to take a call on this excellent bill—probably only the second call that I've been able to take in my time in Parliament on something which addresses the law of the sea which I know is particularly an area of interest to some of my legal colleagues. This is an excellent bill. I want to commend the Minister that first brought this to the House and the Minister who's now progressing it. It's fantastic to have a bill which looks to protect our seas protect against illegal activity and also has such an abundance of information as to the effectiveness of the bill: an amazing regulatory impact statement 48 pages long going through all of the aspects that the parliamentarian could want to know around this particular bill; also a departmental disclosure statement; a legislative statement—all of the things that we have got used to not seeing on the Table. So excellent to have those in the House to help us with our deliberations on this first reading.I also wanted to—I won't go over everything that the bill does as that's been widely canvassed by many members of this House so far but just to emphasise the fact that it is good to see New Zealand passing legislation which is not directly because we have to because of our international obligations but to help us better align with our international obligations and also keep our fisheries regime which was established in the 1990s up to date with the latest regulations that need to be in place in order to keep our seas and our precious kaimoana and fish and biodiversity in the seas safe.So I'd just like to end there and just note that it is slightly ironic for people who come from Catholic families like myself that we're spending the last minutes of this House talking about two fisheries bills just before Good Friday. I'd like to take the opportunity to wish everyone in the House a happy Easter.
Brooking RachelHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you Madam Speaker. Very happy to hear the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries say that New Zealand should be a positive global citizen and I am in fact delighted to be speaking on this bill—which was of course introduced by someone called the Hon Rachel Brooking as you'll see on the bill here. It's nice—I think this is the first time that I've ever spoken when my name has been on the bill. Now it was a very good process that went into the creation of this bill that we have in front of us. That is because it involved the public servants who are involved in the international agreements and regional fishing bodies such as SPRFMO. SPRFMO stands for the South Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Organisation and you talk about the Convention Area. These officials have been looking at our legislation and there was a review of the Fisheries Act undertaken in 2020. There was then—and new members of the House might be particularly interested in this—a regulatory impact statement and there were no redactions to that regulatory impact statement. Then there was a departmental disclosure statement. That records consultation and you can see that at page 7—an extensive consultation it was.Now we've just heard from the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries that this is going to go to select committee and it will go through the normal—because I didn't hear anything else—Standing Orders process of six months at that select committee. So it can hear the submissions from the people who are interested in IUU—that being illegal unreported and unregulated—fishing and the in and outs of what is quite a technical bill. Now it is amending the Fisheries Act. The Fisheries Act is an important piece of legislation for New Zealand that includes regulations in it for our quota management system for permits and registration of fishing and of vessels. This bill also relates to the high seas. So the high seas are where there is no exclusive economic zone (EEZ) and that is where you have international fishing. But there's a change here that high seas" is replaced with "international fishing" so it's a bit broader and can include States where New Zealanders can fish. As mentioned there are international agreements which New Zealand has signed up to where New Zealand can regulate other countries' vessels when they're outside of our EEZ. If a ship has no nationality then it's a Stateless vessel and is unregulated.So I just really want to commend this bill to the House. It's gone through a very good process. It's about a very serious topic which is illegal unreported and unregulated fishing and I hope that the members of the select committee enjoy getting into the detail of it and talking to the officials who have done so much work on it. I commend them for their work. Thank you."
Annual Review Debate — Disability Issues
Sepuloni Carmel; Upston LouiseHon CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston): I raise a point of order Mr Chair. I was just reflecting and spoke with a colleague just to check the Minister for Disability Issues previously stood up and said she wouldn't respond to the Hon Priyanka Radhakrishnan's questions because they have previously been answered in the House. That is not the case. We did not get any answers to those questions previously. And the question I asked was not answered. There was no attempt and the Minister is supposed to attempt to answer the questions despite the fact that there was a reflection on the annual review and it is in the public interest that that question is answered. I would like the Chair to consider the role of the Minister in her chair and what she is supposed to be doing in this debate.CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): I just wonder if the Minister wanted to answer some of those questions.Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Disability Issues): Yes; thank you Mr Chair. I'm very conscious that the National Party has already been granted an extension so actually I'm very conscious of time. So I want to address the questions that were asked by the member the Hon Carmel Sepuloni who's resumed her seat just to say that the scope of this annual review is the Ministry for Disabled People. I just do want to put on record that there are a number of—Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Why can't she say Whaikaha"?Hon LOUISE UPSTON: —Māori groups that have been set up. I can say "Whaikaha". I'm sorry I can't say it in sign language. It is also the Ministry for Disabled People. There are three official languages. So I want to address that member's question. I do fully accept and I fully understand that member's deep concern about double disadvantage for Māori disabled people. So there are a number of groups that have been set up with or aligned to the ministry including the Disabled People's Organisations Coalition and one is Te Ao Mārama Aotearoa. I would be happy to provide the member with additional information in writing about the organisations that are representing and making sure that Māori disabled people are represented.The other point you make about the lack of te reo Māori sign language interpreters was very evident at the New Zealand Sign Language Awards that were held here in Parliament on Monday night. I will undertake to ensure that that is an issue that is addressed in the upcoming review of the New Zealand Sign Language strategy because I fully appreciate and understand that access to language is so critical whether in te reo whether in English or whether in sign language.CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): I'll give this call to the Hon Priyanka Radhakrishnan but if you could repeat the questions that you posed previously but keep them really succinct and clear so that we can hear them and make a determination whether they had been asked and answered before. Thank you."