edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Watts SimonSIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): I rise on behalf of the National Party and as a member of Parliament for North Shore in support of the Customs and Excise (Tobacco Products) Amendment Bill. We've heard from prior speaker Dr Shane Reti the importance of this bill in terms of putting in place assessment criteria to ensure that the appropriate quantity of tobacco is within a product and that assessment is done in a way that can substantiate that in a more accurate manner than what is currently available—will lead to the avoidance of excise tax under the current model.Obviously the consumption of these products is something that is a burden on our society. We are obviously in support of ensuring that excise tax in regards to these products is proportionate and appropriate. It is our belief that what this bill will achieve is changes that will achieve that outcome. On that basis we support this bill.
McDowall JamesDr JAMES McDOWALL (ACT): Thank you Mr Speaker. Well the ACT Party will go into a slightly different direction here because I think we are in different territory compared to previous bills this afternoon. Here we believe we've got a slightly inappropriate use of urgency. The objectives of this bill may be perfectly well intentioned but frankly if the under-declaring of water pipe tobacco products was such a big deal one would assume that the Government would want to go through a full select committee with submissions and a full consultation so they could really get a grip on all of this. We would ask what evidence exists to show that this bill is needed under urgency following the Budget—what's the rush what are the costs and benefits? And it would have been nice to have had the regulatory impact statement released in good time. But you know there are some interesting points in the documents leading up to this. There has been no stakeholder consultation and the regulatory impact statement mentions the limitation on analysis—the lack of quality data and evidence used in developing the proposal—and Customs acknowledge that the data limitations were significant. Assuming this is part of the Smokefree Aotearoa 2025 scheme or objective the evidence around taxation as a disincentive—or an effective disincentive—to reduce smoking is slightly marginal. In fact skyrocketing prices through taxation has had mixed results—it works for some communities but for others it actually causes quite a lot of harm. It certainly hurts the poorest communities the most. I wonder if this bill will increase the black market sale of water pipe tobacco and we just ask: are these regulations actually well designed or will they make things worse? Will people find other ways to bring things in? I assume they will because they bring all sorts of things in that they're not supposed to. So in this case the objectives of the bill as I said may be well intentioned but the process by which the Government is doing this is not good enough especially given the lack of data analysis and consultation. So for those reasons we oppose this bill.
Reti ShaneDr SHANE RETI (National): Thank you Mr Speaker. National will be supporting this amendment to the Customs and Excise Act a bill that fundamentally is trying to deal with two problems: first of all the avoidance of excise tax on tobacco products and secondly to standardise the tobacco in flavoured tobacco with other tobacco products. The use of flavoured tobacco is very common—also known as water-pipe tobacco—and we've heard some of the names. It's also known more commonly as shisha hookah nargile goza and hubble-bubble—is how you might hear it certainly through the Middle East. I was very familiar with this where it's a common practice.The difficulty that we've got is that the tobacco in the flavoured tobacco product is also bundled together with glycerol and aromatics and molasses and you can't tell the weight of just the tobacco content the KTC or the kilo tobacco content. In fact the regulatory impact statement describes the challenge and the difficulty in trying to determine that. You'd think you could just send it to a laboratory or do some sort of test but it's not quite how it is. In 2016 Customs engaged Company A to test an importation to determine the tobacco content. Company A had to clean the samples with a bleaching treatment followed by water washes as the leaf material was deeply coloured by other materials that are added to the leaf fragments during manufacture and the samples then had to be dried to allow microscopic examination. The result they came up with was about 4 to 5 percent kilo tobacco content which they suspected was substantially less which is the problem we're dealing with than what the tobacco content actually was. The regulatory impact statement also talks about the high index of suspicion of avoidance where manufacturers or importers actually—of which there's about 15 it turns out—commercial importers are reporting 0.4 percent KTC as a self-declared importer where in fact the suspicion is that it's at least up to the 10 percent if not the 15 percent level. The excise over the past two years the excise tax on these products has been $5 million. The suspicion is that there may be $31.5 million of excise avoidance over that two-year period and so the suggestion is that it move to a total weight and then a percentage of that total weight—and a threshold analysis was done as to what that percentage should be 15 percent 20 percent and 30 percent and 15 percent was thought to be a fairer proportion and probably more representative of the true KTC component. So this bill tries to simplify—it's a bit of a guess but it's as much of a guess as any other jurisdiction as well—the mechanism and get some more accuracy as far as possible into assessing the true tobacco content of flavoured tobacco or water pipe tobacco. And it suggests this be done just by the total weight times the 15 percentage points. The second thing it does is to standardise the reference to tobacco across these products with the rest of the tobacco framework. So National will be supporting this bill. Thank you.
Cameron MarkMARK CAMERON (ACT): Oh for the sake of good virtue in this final reading and I think we've canvassed it well in the House I congratulate the bipartisan nature of the support for the Companies Office Registers Funding Validation Bill. It is a shame that we are having a very truncated process under urgency and you know as legislators I think it's incumbent upon all of us to have proper and honest scrutiny about legislation. This withstanding this is a good piece of legislation. It mitigates the problems that we have all canvassed through the various speeches today and the ACT Party supports it in this third and final reading.Motion agreed to.Bill read a third time.
Companies Office Registers Funding Validation Bill — Third Reading
Bayly AndrewANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato) (remote): Thank you Mr Speaker. It's a pleasure to be speaking on this third reading. Yes I do acknowledge the Minister. It's important that we do proceed with this bill quickly and shortly it'll be an Act which is better. I think the one thing we haven't had a debate on—it didn't come up—was the operative clauses around how this comes to pass. There's a new section new section 84A which provides that a fee to which the section applies is and always has been validly imposed."—that's the validation of fees component. "Money received by a Registrar of any register maintained by the Companies Office"—and we know there's 16 of them—"in payment of the fee is declared to be and always to have been lawfully collected and applied."And so the other second component of that is it defines the Companies Office as the "division or part of each of the following departments" or agencies. As I alluded to in my first reading speech the amendments are to the Building Societies Act 1965 the Companies Act 1993 the Financial Markets Conduct Act 2013 the Financial Services Providers (Registration and Dispute Resolution) Act 2008 the Friendly Societies and Credit Unions Act 1982 the Incorporated Societies Act 1908 the Insolvency Practitioners Regulation Act 2019 the Limited Partnerships Act 2008 the Personal Property Securities Act 1999 and the Retirement Villages Act 2003.So just for completeness for people listening—if they were on a Friday afternoon—but they are the operative elements and of course that's the reason this bill is broken up into the components—because each of those 13 pieces of legislation will have the same clauses inserted in them. So on that note I certainly commend this bill to the House."
Clark David; McKelvie IanThird ReadingHon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): I move That the Companies Office Registers Funding Validation Bill be now read a third time. The bill as outlined in the various stages in the debate so far is the Government's first step in the implementation of a better and more fit for purpose model for funding the New Zealand Companies Office. The model will reflect the modern realities of running the corporate registry system. It'll allow the Companies Office to leverage information technology developments and realise efficiencies. The bill that we are passing now through the House validates the past collection and use of fees collected by the Companies Office across all of its 16 registers it maintains and also expressly allows existing surpluses within the Companies Office to be used to meet funding deficiencies on some of its registers while the new funding model is implemented. I do want to thank the members across the House for their cooperation and thoughtful comments through the passage of this bill. I have appreciated the quality of the debate. I mean that quite earnestly Mr Penk because the contributions certainly the early ones canvassed the issues involved I thought quite thoroughly including the speech by Mr Bayly. And I have also appreciated the brevity of the latter speeches. So the bill forms a package with the Companies (Levies) Amendment Bill which lays out the legislative framework for the new Companies Office funding regime. That's a bill that I will introduce to the House before too long and refer to the Finance and Expenditure Committee. But for now I commend this bill to the House.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ian McKelvie): The question is that the motion be agreed to.
McKelvie Ian; Rurawhe AdrianParts 1 and 2 Schedule 1 and clauses 1 and 2CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): The question is that Parts 1 and 2 Schedule 1 and clauses 1 and 2 stand part.Parts 1 and 2 Schedule 1 and clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): I will report this bill without amendment.House resumed.CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): Mr Speaker the committee has considered the Companies Office Registers Funding Validation Bill and reports it without amendment. I move That the report be adopted.Motion agreed to.Report adopted.DEPUTY SPEAKER: The bill is set down for third reading forthwith.
Companies Office Registers Funding Validation Bill — In Committee
Penk Chris; McKelvie IanCHRIS PENK (Senior Whip—National): Excuse me—point of order. I seek the leave of the House that all provisions within the bill be taken as one debate.CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): Is there any objection? There is no objection.
McKelvie IanIn CommitteeCHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): Members the House is in committee on the Companies Office Registers Funding Validation Bill. I remind members that they are able to participate remotely. If you are on Zoom and want to take a call please type call" into the chat. You should also use the chat if you wish to raise a point of order. If we receive new tabled amendments I will advise members so that they can refresh the House papers page to see the new amendments. Finally it would helpful for members to ask multiple questions if they have them of the member in charge during their call. Members we now come to Part 1."
Henderson Emily; Rurawhe AdrianDr EMILY HENDERSON (Labour—Whangārei) (remote): Tēnā koe Mr Speaker again and any visit from you is of course a welcome one especially in this House. I rise to speak in support of this Companies Office Registers Funding Validation Bill again. The Companies Office fulfils a vital function in New Zealand life providing the authoritative source of information about New Zealand businesses and it is absolutely vital we keep it running. However under current legislation each individual register is supposed to be funded from fees charged to users of that register. Some run at a surplus others run short and in those case the Companies Office has understandably been applying the excess funds from one to the support of the other. This in fact ultra vires the legislation and thus we gather today to make this small but vital fix. I commend this bill to the House.Motion agreed to.Bill read a second time.DEPUTY SPEAKER: I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Companies Office Registers Funding Validation Bill.
Companies Office Registers Funding Validation Bill — Second Reading
McDowall James; McKelvie IanDr JAMES McDOWALL (ACT): Thank you Mr Speaker. What a privilege being the second speaker on a bill. This is certainly a slightly unusual situation. This is like the Diet Coke version of lawmaking.I thank the Minister for at the very least providing the House with a legislative statement in both readings so far. I'll note that this is an omnibus bill. There's a lot of aggregation being made in the law in a heartbeat. Note we'll have no submissions from the stakeholders so we can't particularly terse out the unintended consequences in advance.We just have to hope that the Government has done its homework with this one and that the regulations work as expected. The fact that they're doing this in Budget week in the traditional urgency segment it kind of—the reasons given for using urgency were not overly compelling but at least it's something that has cross-party support.The Minister said New Zealand wants it to be a fair transparent and easy place to do business. In the global context that's quite true. You know New Zealand is a relatively easy place to start a business. Those of us that have done that before know that.But lawmaking like this can cause a bit of uncertainty sometimes with the levies that were mentioned in the forthcoming bill. You know when we're talking about enabling—like this bill does—a future unknown law we really should ensure that the first one goes through a proper process not just the second one.But in any case with some reservations—certainly some reservations about the process and this frankly very unusual and strange way of making laws on a Friday afternoon—we are going to support the bill.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ian McKelvie): Our next call is a remote call. The question is that the motion be agreed to. In going to the remote call I call Dr Emily Henderson—I suspect the first of three doctors I'd want to visit.
Clark DavidSecond ReadingHon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): I move That the Companies Office Registers Funding Validation Bill be now read a second time. As I've said already in the House during the first reading this bill validates the past collection and use of fees collected by the Companies Office on all of the 16 registers it maintains. It seeks to rectify past issues of cross-subsidisation within the Companies Office ahead of the implementation of a new funding system. It allows the Companies Office to spend its existing surplus to fund shortfalls while we put the longer-term regime in place. The legislative framework for the new funding system is the forward-looking Companies (Levies) Amendment Bill—look out for that one coming around the House. I hope it will be introduced to the House before too long. This bill is the first step in the Government's legislative package to modernise Companies Office funding and with that I commend this bill to the House.
Henderson EmilyDr EMILY HENDERSON (Labour—Whangārei) (remote): Tēnā koe Mr Speaker. I am delighted to bring in the end of the first reading of the Companies Office Registers Funding Validation Bill and it is good to do so in a spirit of amity around the House. This is a small but necessary fix for a very important part of our economic life covering the gamut from the Companies Register to the incorporated societies to the retirement villages to the charitable trusts. It is important that this office continues to work smoothly. This piece of legislation is going to make that possible and I commend it to the House.Motion agreed to.Bill read a first time.
Companies Office Registers Funding Validation Bill — First Reading
Smith StuartSTUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Well thank you Mr Speaker. I don't intend to take very long. This is a necessary piece of legislation I think it's been said by all. I'd particularly like to acknowledge Chris Penk's contribution regarding the regs review aspect and view on the bill. I think that really says it all. I'd like to just commend the bill to the House.
Utikere TangiTANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Tēnā koe Mr Speaker. Happy to take a short call.This is a necessary piece of legislation to be in place as it acknowledges and rectifies previous and current practice of the Companies Office and makes what has been prior practice permissible moving forward.We've heard already in the House this afternoon that the Companies Office is responsible in this regard for the regulatory or registrar functions for 16 Acts—the earliest in 1908; the latest in 2019.The Minister himself referred to the economic and community development aspects in New Zealand. That's why it's important that this is a piece of legislation before the House. I commend it.
Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much Mr Speaker. The Minister and others have outlined clearly the purpose of the legislation and why it's needed including the reason that the passage of it will be so quickly conducted through the House. So I do acknowledge those points and acknowledge on behalf of National—as others have done already—that we support it.Only a couple of brief points from me. One is that the effect of the bill is retrospective; often times that's a red flag for us as lawmakers where we're looking back making something right that was wrong. In this case it's worth noting I think for the record this is not a criminal matter. So we're not retrospectively making something a criminal offence or even the other way around and even if it were it would be in the nature of what's colloquially referred to as a victimless crime. There's no harm being done here that should not be undone.The other point was just around the incorrect use of levies. The Minister has outlined why and how that's the case from quite a technical legal perspective. That's not uncommon actually within our various Government agencies so I think there's probably a wider systemic issue here and it's something that the Regulations Review Committee takes very close interest in as part of our remit so we'll look forward to that next bill coming through and with the fuller process the Minister has highlighted will take place in that.So those were my particular points that I wanted to make. I emphasise that we continue on this side of the House to support the bill and we'll do so through further stages today.
Bennett GlenGLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth): Kia ora Mr Speaker. I rise to take a call on the Companies Office Registers Funding Validation Bill. I want to thank the Hon Dr David Clark for bringing another piece of legislation to this House and just working hard to ensure that things are in place that things are getting sorted—and it's more than tweaks but it's getting things in a better place. As was said earlier by a previous speaker pieces of legislation like this are just common-sense approaches in terms of what's going on.So as others have said the Companies Office is a registry service it's got the 16 different registers each governed by a separate Act of Parliament. Basically this piece of legislation enables the funds to be moved between the registers as at the moment they are not. Pretty much that's it in a nutshell. I'm sure as we move the legislation through the second reading third reading I'm sure there'll be far more information that I can share then but I commend this bill to the House.
Genter Julie AnneHon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green): Tēnā koe Mr Speaker. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare. I'm taking a very short call on behalf of the Green Party. We are supporting this bill. As all the other speakers have already mentioned the rationale for it—there were some mistakes made in terms of the ways the Companies Office has collected and used money that was not intended by Parliament when it passed the original Act and this needs to be cleaned up. So the Green Party is going to be supporting this bill.
O'Connor GregGREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): Thank you Mr Speaker. This bill could well be called The Economies of Scale Bill" because that's simply what it's doing.We have all these different registers it was envisaged they would all collect their own money have their own bureaucracy around it and have their own little jam jars to store it. That wasn't what occurred and it shouldn't have been what occurred.We've now got the economy of scale of probably one set of accounts around these and it just means that now instead of the extra funding going with each of those different registers we can now take a common-sense approach and of course have the retrospectivity on this to make sure that anyone alerted that might take some mischief or try to place a mischief with will be prevented from doing so.So a very sensible piece of legislation good to see the support around the House and I commend it."
Watts SimonSIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Thank you very much Mr Speaker and I rise as the member of Parliament for North Shore and as a member of the National Party in support of the Companies Office Registers Funding Validation Bill. I join with prior speakers to acknowledge the Minister for working proactively with the Opposition in order to have discussions before this bill was brought to the House. That is appreciated and is representative of a good process and in this case a bill that is going to deal with some significant issues. National supports this bill and we're looking forward to seeing it pass its way through this House.
Strange JamieJAMIE STRANGE (Labour—Hamilton East): Thank you Mr Speaker. Delighted to take a very short call on the Companies Office Registers Funding Validation Bill. I'd like to acknowledge the Minister the Hon David Clark—a very busy hard-working Minister bringing multiple pieces of legislation to the House; doing an excellent job. I'd like to acknowledge the support of the National Party and echo the words of the previous member. The previous member Andrew Bayly spoke about you know with bills it's important that we do work hard to get a consensus across the House. So I'll be watching with interest in terms of the further speakers hoping for support.Simply put the Companies Office has collected and used money in a way that was not intended by Parliament when it passed the Act. It is clear that this has been occurring at least since the formation of Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment in 2012 but it is likely to have been occurring for some time longer. I'm very pleased to see the Minister bring this bill to the House in terms of rectifying the situation we have. I commend it to the House. Thank you.
Smith DamienDAMIEN SMITH (ACT): The process for a select committee is absolutely essential and the questions that we pose from the ACT Party absolutely are fundamentally necessary for the protection of businesses in New Zealand and new entrants to New Zealand.We would like that full process to be honoured in the select committee and to take the time to get this right. We would like to make sure that this process isn't just used as a legal tool; that it's actually used as a tool that the industry understands and we expect submissions from the industry.
Clark David; Rurawhe AdrianInstruction to the Economic Development Science and Innovation CommitteeHon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): I move That the Commerce (Grocery Sector Covenants) Amendment Bill be reported to the House by 16 June 2022 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting except during Oral Questions during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House and outside the Wellington area despite Standing Orders 193 195 and 196.I consider that there is urgency—just by way of reason—in addressing competition in the grocery retail sector. It is a key driver of the price quality and range of grocery services offered to New Zealanders because high grocery prices contribute to food insecurity particularly for lower-income New Zealanders. By rapidly considering the bill the Government is clearly signalling our intention to improve competition and outcomes for consumers.It's a very discrete element of the reform programme. It can be dealt with reasonably quickly. Exclusive and restrictive covenants will be prohibited immediately once the bill comes into effect. I anticipate the competitors will begin to consider new sites shortly thereafter.It is well-considered. The major grocery retailers have already signalled that they intend to remove restrictive covenants. In fact Foodstuffs North Island has already removed—it's stated publicly—over half of its restrictive covenants.But it is important to get right. That's why we are recommending this go to a shortened select committee process to address any loopholes that might inadvertently prevent a competitor from accessing land for new stores. Following the select committee's report back I intend to pass this bill swiftly thereafter.So it's relatively straightforward it can be progressed within a shorter time frame it's a discrete proposal and it situates the change in the Commerce Act under Restrictive trade practices" which means that the changes are nestled within existing process remedies and compliance measures which the sector is familiar with and have all been well-tested.DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to."
Commerce (Grocery Sector Covenants) Amendment Bill — First Reading
Bennett GlenGLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth): Kia ora Mr Speaker. I rise in support and it's always encouraging to hear my colleagues across the floor supporting this as well. As the MP for New Plymouth I know this too well. In fact in my own suburb of Marfell and of Westown this is actually an experience in terms of the two supermarkets fighting it out. The Hon David Clark talked about those supermarket wars and we saw that in my very own suburb a number of years ago when one of the main chains bought out a piece of land and pretty much drove the other supermarket to move and build in a place out of our suburb. So suddenly us up in Westown and Marfell had no supermarket to go to. We had to drive and for many people in my community driving wasn't an option. They may not have owned a vehicle or they may have had limited access to public transport. As the Minister spoke about earlier good quality services are about price about quality about range and about service. And so this piece of legislation is going to support that because in many of our communities around Aotearoa it is actually about accessing those supermarkets. What happened in my community was there was a small corner store where the price of a tin of baked beans was five or six dollars or a roll of toilet paper came singularly and was very expensive because they didn't have access to services. So this is a good piece of legislation. This is moving it forward because we need to get this right and as a member of the Labour Party our commitment in the last election is around ensuring that customers have fairer prices at the checkout. I commend this bill to the House.
Watts SimonSIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Well as we've heard this morning we're going to be supporting this bill. While we've obviously got a number of concerns in terms of this bill obviously the select committee process will work through those.I myself—big supporter in terms of New Zealand - owned businesses. We can't underestimate the fact that actually a number of our grocery sectors are 100 percent New Zealand - owned and attacking Kiwi-owned businesses is not in the DNA of where I want to be. When you say that we need more competition and you bring in overseas providers to strip profits out of New Zealand I do think we need to consider that.So I'm really looking forward to a robust select committee process on this bill getting a lot of perspective from a lot of stakeholders and I'm sure we'll work through the detail. Thank you very much Mr Speaker. We support this bill.
Strange JamieJAMIE STRANGE (Labour—Hamilton East): Mr Speaker thank you for an opportunity to take a brief call on this bill. I'd like to begin by acknowledging the Minister the Hon David Clark for extending a listening ear to New Zealanders. He has certainly heard that some people are struggling with the cost of living and inflation pressures; and as a Government he's taking a lead in this area to bring about some changes. I'd also like to acknowledge the contribution of the previous member—a very thoughtful contribution from Andrew Bayly—and I acknowledge the support of the National Party and I hope that other parties will also support this bill.The Commerce Commission report into the retail sector as the Minister outlined clearly identified some issues around a lack of competition. New Zealand is a very small market and in a small market it is common to have areas where there is a lack of competition and where it tends towards monopolistic or a duopoly behaviour which in this case we have seen in a very small market. We have struggled to attract overseas investment to New Zealand in this area and this piece of legislation will certainly have an impact in that area. I was particularly pleased to hear what the Minister was saying in terms of his desire to see more competitors in this market in order to bring down grocery costs.So look as this fits into the wider Budget this is a Budget in terms of listening to New Zealanders and responding to the needs of New Zealanders both now and into the future. I commend this bill to the House.
Severin ToniTONI SEVERIN (ACT): On this beautiful Friday afternoon I'd like to oppose the Income Insurance Scheme (Enabling Development) Bill. I know it's only a framework bill. I understand that. However this is the setting-up bill for what we're all saying is the if" bill but "probably will be" bill. There is $2.2 million to set up the framework privacy sharing—I know there are a few concerns there that will have to be rattled out but again we're just concerned about the fast way these measures are getting put through. Yes you may have consulted with Business New Zealand and trade unions but that's not necessarily all the businesses and all the workers out there. There is a point here that I'd like to raise from Retail New Zealand. They've just said to us they do not support imposing another cost on businesses and their employees without a corresponding offset in tax. So I'm just putting this out there—maybe you want to think about that if you want to put on more costs in the future with the "possible" bill and then we have to remember that this is supposed to be a Budget to help those that are struggling but all it will possibly do in the future is take more money out of the pockets of hard-working—Matt Doocey: That's right. They don't care.TONI SEVERIN: Exactly. They say that over there that we're representing rich people but I would like to dispute that. Many of us within the ACT Party and our friends have done some of those low-end jobs because we knew that we had to do those low-end jobs to feed ourselves. And you've got to remember that they're not horrible—yes for some people I think but any job can be a good job and it can be a stepping-stone job as well. A lot of employers love to see people who can actually do their job. Also we do have stuff in place already to help people that fall on hard times and this is not the time to do this while we're right in the middle of cost of living crisis. Even if it is 6 months or 16 months down the track we don't know what the future's going to bring and we need to support people by giving them a tax-bracket break now. Drop the taxes.There is also the question of consultation. It's about the everyday New Zealanders who don't necessarily sit and watch Parliament TV. A lot of them don't know about these bills and how they're going to affect them until they see it in their pay packet. They don't know why they have $3.50 less until they see such-and-such a levy or a "dollar for this". Every frigging dollar counts for everybody in this reaction. Now this is true—somebody just told me today that a Tasty block of cheese is $21.50—$21.50 for a block of cheese. I know that not everybody eats the expensive cheeses—they might eat the Tasty cheese—so I would hate to think how much the other cheeses are costing. I'm not a big cheese eater so I can't testify on that one. But there are those who do like to make toasties and a lot of families love to make cheese sandwiches.But we do not agree with this bill this framework to set up an "if" bill. It is just taking more taxpayers' dollars away from where they should be going and that is to hard-working Kiwis. So ACT opposes this bill."
Simpson ScottHon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you Madam Speaker. People listening to this debate know that they can't trust Labour on tax. This is a Government that is being particularly sneaky in trying to use the cover of urgency the cover of the Budget debate to bring into New Zealand a regime that will tax hard-working New Zealanders even more than they are already taxed. The Minister spent a long time talking about what would happen if when maybe might be they could be going to introduce this tax and very little time talking about this particular piece of enabling legislation that enables the Government to instruct and set up ACC to develop the framework that would allow for the tax to be put in place.National opposes the concept of the tax that the Labour Government is proposing. We oppose this piece of bridge-building initiative that will lead to the tax further imposed on hard-working New Zealanders. We oppose this legislation.
Luxton JoJO LUXTON (Labour—Rangitata): Thank you Madam Speaker. I commend this bill to the House.
Goldsmith PaulHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Look this bill is one that brings in or lays the path for the development of a new tax—a jobs tax—that this country can't afford. I'd invite people who are listening in to this debate to cast their mind back to the 2020 election. Did they ever hear the Government talking about bringing in a new tax? A jobs tax? An income insurance scheme? Was it ever talked about? No. In fact what they said is that they would bring no more taxes through. So that was the promise in 2020—no more new taxes apart from the higher income tax rate they'd already brought through for top income earners. Hon Dr David Clark: It's not like the increase in GST—we keep to our word. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Oh and the Minister's response is to revert to a past issue. Take responsibility for your own Government's decisions. Anyway so did you hear it in the 2020 election? No you didn't. Did you hear much about it in the Budget? No. We had Grant Robertson deliver a long and tedious speech yesterday and did he refer to the jobs tax? No. He talked about giving some New Zealanders 350 bucks as a one-off payment to help with the cost of living crisis. But he didn't mention the fact that oh by the way those same New Zealanders on the average wage who won't get a single thing from the cost of living crisis payment will also have to shell out about a thousand dollars a year year in year out every year for the new jobs tax and there's more on the way. So it's interesting isn't it? It's interesting—Hon Poto Williams: Prove it. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Prove what? This is the Government's bill; they brought it in. They're laying the path for a new jobs tax which they never talked about in the election and they didn't talk about in the Budget. They don't because they know that this is the Budget taking New Zealanders backwards and this won't help New Zealand families deal with the cost of living crisis that they're dealing with today. And on that basis without further ado we oppose it.
Dean Jacqui; Rurawhe AdrianHouse resumed.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Mr Speaker the committee has considered the Income Insurance Scheme (Enabling Development) Bill and reports it without amendment. I move That the report be adopted.DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the report be adopted.
Logie Jan; Sepuloni CarmelJAN LOGIE (Green): This might be my final question you'll be relieved to know and it was relating to the sharing-of-information provisions in the bill and I'm just wondering if the Minister can talk us though a bit more of the detail around that. I was pleased to see the provision in here around the checks with the Privacy Commissioner and that before a Government agency provides information it will first consult with the Privacy Commissioner. I was very pleased to see those checks in place. But it was a little uncomfortable for me to read some of the papers talking about the privacy protections as they are in place within ACC as if that would give us confidence around this while we're waiting for a report to let us know whether ACC will be addressing the public concerns around privacy particularly in relation to sensitive claims. So I assume the Minister has seen the privacy report which we haven't had the chance to and I'm wondering if she would like to make any reflections and give us some assurances around that.Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for ACC): I won't go into more extensive discussions around privacy. However I will just state that of course ACC must—it is legally required—consult with the Privacy Commissioner over this and the changes they're making. There will be the need for information sharing. The most obvious one I can think of is perhaps Inland Revenue and ACC and we need to make sure that we get that right. So in developing the scheme further once we pass the enabling legislation those are going to be the areas that they will need to traverse and work out with regards to how they do that safely and how they do that in a way that will uphold the integrity of the scheme if we choose to go ahead and so this is part of the preparation. It's just working out what fundamentally that would look like and how they would do that and of course we would want to get that right from day one if we were to go ahead with the implementation of the scheme.
Logie JanJAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you Madam Chair. Another area of questioning and it's—I feel as if I'm being a bit nerdy.Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Never!JAN LOGIE: That's right. But looking at the departmental statement—this is on a completely different point—the clause that I was very happy to see it was co-developed with the iwi leaders group and ACC around the co-design work with Māori.I noticed in the departmental report and the general policy statement it said that the bill requires ACC to engage with and reflect the views of Māori and to be purposeful in developing a scheme platform that will contribute to improving Māori economic and labour market outcomes including revitalising mātauranga Māori and tikanga. Sounds awesome—it's not actually in the bill that specificity. So did that get taken out or is that just inherent in the labour market and economic outcomes?Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for ACC): I actually didn't hear the first part of the member's question so if she could repeat that that would be great.JAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you Madam Chair. In the departmental disclosure statement on page 3 around the general policy statement where it's talking about the bill requiring ACC to engage and reflect the views of Māori and to contribute to improving Māori economic and labour market outcomes." the sentence continues on to say "including revitalising mātauranga and tikanga." but that's not in the bill. In the bill it ends at "economic and labour market outcomes." So I'm wondering whether actually there was a version of the bill where it was specific around mātauranga Māori and tikanga and it got taken out or is that just inherent but it's not mentioned anywhere else?Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for ACC): I think the reality was as we were developing this that again we realised that the scope of this is quite narrow. Some of the more extensive wording that the member referred to I think would be better suited to the actual legislation if—when—we decide to go ahead.Certainly I can say with confidence that the particular iwi leader who on behalf of the Iwi Leaders Forum has been engaged with us—because of the narrow scope of the bill and because of the fact that it's enabling legislation; it's not actually determining the scheme—was indeed quite content with where we landed with the language."
Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (Senior Whip—National): Point of order Madam Chair. I seek leave of the committee that all the parts in the bill be taken as one debate.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): All provisions to be taken as one question?CHRIS PENK: Yes ma'am.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Is there any objection? There is none.
Dean JacquiIn CommitteeCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members the House is in committee on the Income Insurance Scheme (Enabling Development) Bill. I will remind members they're able to participate remotely. Simply if you want to make a call please type Call" into the chat so I can see it. You should also make a call if you want to raise a point of order. If we receive new tabled amendments I'll let members know so that they can pick them up from the Table. We come now to Part 1."
Eagle PaulPAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai): Kia ora Mr Speaker. It's a pleasure to speak on the Income Insurance Scheme (Enabling Development) Bill. Look it's always good to speak last. You hear the emotion and the punches being pulled. But can I say that really what this is about is under the current Act it's difficult for the Accident Compensation Corporation to take on a role in the preparation process that it needs to as a proposed service delivery agency. This bill recognises the need to listen to workers and employers when designing the scheme required by the corporation to engage with such groups while putting in place protections. So should we decide to establish an income insurance scheme it will ensure that this is done in the right way and able to deliver to the hundreds of thousands of Kiwis who are made redundant each year. I commend this bill to the House.
Watts SimonSIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): It is a pleasure to take a call on the second reading of this bill and I must acknowledge—I see the Minister Carmel Sepuloni sitting on the other side there and I listened to her contribution on the second reading. She actually called me out personally and said that I was out of touch. Well I can tell you what: I'm not a betting man—I'm not a betting man—but I will bet on the table here today that a thousand-dollar tax on 3 million hard-working Kiwis in this country and standing up for those Kiwis in this House is not out of touch.What you see on that side of the House is a Minister and a Government who are out of touch. This policy will impact less than 50000 Kiwis less than 2 percent of New Zealanders and burden them with a thousand dollar tax per annum that will not deliver the benefits that they require. It is a solution looking for a problem and that is a grave problem. When you listen to these speakers saying it'll deal with an economic shock in the future well what about the economic crisis that Kiwis are facing today? We've got a cost of living crisis. They're paying more and more they're paying 20 bucks for a block of cheese at the supermarket and we're navel gazing about some economic shock that may or may not happen in years to come when unemployment is running at 3.2 percent. We have not got a major problem in terms of people becoming unemployed and not being able to get a job; what we've got a problem with is that people are sitting on the unemployment benefit who can work who aren't working. We haven't got an aspirational Government that is putting the investment into those individuals to help them get back into the workforce and grow our economy and grow our country. National opposes this bill.
Boyack RachelRACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Madam Speaker thank you. It's a pleasure to take a short call on the Income Insurance Scheme (Enabling Development) Bill. I just want to make a particular point about this bill in that it is an enabling bill. The bill gives ACC the opportunity to continue work investigating whether a scheme of this nature is needed and how it would operate.So I just want to be very clear particularly for members opposite who may be trying to suggest that we're rushing a bill through without consultation that it's actually going to implement such a scheme; that it's not the case. But on that note there has already been significant consultation with both Business New Zealand and the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions and an opportunity for public to comment and provide feedback to Government prior to the introduction of this bill.This bill gives the opportunity for ACC to do their work and determine whether the scheme is needed and if it is what it would look like. On that note I commend this bill to the House.
Andersen GinnyGINNY ANDERSEN (Labour—Hutt South): Thank you very much Madam Speaker. It's a pleasure to take a short call on a great bill. A short succinct bill that provides the necessary framework for us to give more security to our workers our employers at a time when the global economic conditions are uncertain and volatile. It's good for workers to be able to know that if there is a short sharp shock to the labour market there is some reassurance that they continue to pay their mortgage pay their school fees put petrol in the car and to keep working at the standard they have in the past.This is an important assurance not only for those workers but also of employers so they can retain high-skilled quality hard-working people and pay them a fair wage. This is a good bill that contributes to more security in our workforce and provides a good pathway forward for both workers and employers. I commend it to the House.
Simmonds PennyPENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill): Thank you Madam Speaker. Well my first speech on this bill brought attention to how out of touch this Government was when they felt that this was the time for this bill. My second speech is going to show how beautifully the Minister illustrated how this is a Government who can't get things done who can only make announcements about spending through their expensive PR consultants.The Minister in her second speech on this explained to us that this was an enabling development bill for considering possible planning for pre-implementation. I'm prepared to give a chocolate fish to anyone who can find anything that might be in any danger of actually getting done from an enabling development bill for considering possible planning for pre-implementation. We oppose this bill.