edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Kuriger Barbara; Leary Ingrid; Doocey MattClause 4 Section 234 amended (Levies may be collected by instalments) CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members we come now to clause 4 the debate on the amendment to section 234—basically that levies may be collected by instalments. The question is that clause 4 stand part.INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): Madam Chair thank you very much. I just want to ask the Minister about section (1B) in particular which seems to be really broadly worded. First it says The Corporation must consult levy payers on the proposed rate of interest" which seems fair but then it goes on to say "or the proposed method by which the rate is to be calculated". They are two quite different scenarios and I'm just wondering about what informed the looseness of that provision. We know that laws around levy making need to be very tight and predictable and clear and yet we have two very different methodologies by which the corporation can consult. I would wager that the one way of consulting with the actual numeric value would be a much fairer way to consult than to simply propose a methodology. So if there is to be a methodology which is much more difficult I would wager for levy payers to understand what is the reason behind that? There may be a good reason. The second part of that is that then the corporation can recommend to the Minister that regulations be made prescribing both of those things again—either a rate or a methodology. But what's missing from this is that it doesn't link the consultation with the recommendation to the Minister. Now I know that I've sat on select committees where officials have tried to say "Oh but it's good practice and that's what happens." But actually we know that if it's not prescribed in law it is the letter of the law and so there seems to be a disconnect in section (1B) between the consultation and the Minister having to take that into account in some shape or form. Otherwise there could be a scenario where consultation is done on a methodology a recommendation is made and then the Minister goes and does something completely different. As I say that may not be so important in other legislation but when it relates to a fee a levy or a tax it's incredibly important that we're clear and precise. So I would like to hear the Minister's answer on that.Hon MATT DOOCEY (Minister for ACC): The reference to the words "proposed method" is because there will be a public consultation."
Tuesday 19 March 2024 - Volume 774
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Misuse of Drugs (Pseudoephedrine) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.Ayes 117New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 6Te Pāti Māori 6.Motion agreed to.Bill read a second time.DEPUTY SPEAKER: Members the time has come for me to leave the Chair. The House will adjourn until 2 p.m. tomorrow.The House adjourned at 9.57 p.m.
Misuse of Drugs (Pseudoephedrine) Amendment Bill — Second Reading
12. Question No. 12—Health (Pharmac)TODD STEPHENSON (ACT) to the Associate Minister of Health (Pharmac)Question No. 12—Health (Pharmac)12. TODD STEPHENSON (ACT) to the Associate Minister of Health (Pharmac): What recent announcements has he made about improving New Zealanders' access to medicines?Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Associate Minister of Health (Pharmac)): Thank you to the member for his question. Pharmac is changing its processes so that it can assess a funding application at the same time Medsafe is assessing an application for regulatory approval of the same product. This means that medicines will be able to be considered sooner for funding in New Zealand. Access to medicines is a crucial part of many Kiwis' lives and this Government is speeding up the process so that more people have access to the medicines they need quicker and sooner.Todd Stephenson: How will the parallel assessment process that the Minister has outlined improve access to medicines?Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Well currently Pharmac waits until Medsafe has completed its assessment before it begins a funding assessment unless the treatment is in relation to cancer. Doing both the regulatory assessment to see if it's safe at Medsafe and the funding assessment to see if it is a good use of taxpayer funds at Pharmac at the same time is common sense. It's a change that costs nothing but it will help Kiwis in need by shaving up to nine months off the approval process. It will also bring us into line with countries such as Australia and Canada which do it and have been doing it exactly the way that we now will.Todd Stephenson: Has he seen any reports of any risks to access to medicines for New Zealanders?Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Yes. In fact I have been looking at Budget documents that show that Pharmac's funding over the next three years was left by the previous Government as reducing by several hundred million dollars each year for the next four years. In total to maintain the level of pharmaceutical funding that New Zealanders are used to the Government would have to find nearly $2 billion of extra funding over four years and that is something that this Government is now working very hard to do in challenging economic conditions.Todd Stephenson: What steps is he taking to ensure even more access to medicines for New Zealanders?Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: The coalition Government is based in part on an ACT-National coalition agreement which contains a commitment to updating the rules for Medsafe to speed up the processing of new medicines for regulatory approval to within 30 days if two recognised overseas regulators have already approved it. It is to design and publish a medicines strategy and to update Pharmac's decision-making model to ensure that it appropriately accounts for patient voice.
10. Question No. 10—PoliceSAM UFFINDELL (National—Tauranga) to the Minister of PoliceQuestion No. 10—Police10. SAM UFFINDELL (National—Tauranga) to the Minister of Police: What recent results has he seen from Operation Emerald?Hon MARK MITCHELL (Minister of Police): Today Police announced outstanding results including in the member's electorate. In a recent five-day operation Bay of Plenty police have delivered a massive blow in stopping a major source of funding for organised crime groups. The execution of 39 search warrants saw 29 firearms seized and 25 arrests made. Additionally police seized more than 80 grams of methamphetamine over $7000 in cash two stolen vehicles and a stolen motorbike. During the operation 11372 cannabis plants were destroyed. Operation Emerald targets the back pockets of gangs and organised crime by targeting the large-scale commercial cultivation of cannabis and I'm proud of the work that police have done around the country to keep their communities safe.Sam Uffindell: How much money did Operation Emerald prevent going into the hands of gangs last year?Hon MARK MITCHELL: Police destroyed over 35000 cannabis plants and prevented $128 million going into the pockets of gangs through Operation Emerald. Based on the drug harm index the estimated social harm prevented by Operation Emerald last year was $127 million.Sam Uffindell: Does the Minister agree with the characterisations of Operation Emerald as ineffective" and "police playing tin soldiers in the sky"?Hon MARK MITCHELL: Comments like that show a lack of respect or understanding for the outstanding job our police officers do in often difficult situations and circumstances keeping our community safe and slowing down and disrupting the flow of harmful drugs into our communities.Sam Uffindell: What is the Minister's message to criminals taking part in large-scale cultivation of cannabis?Hon MARK MITCHELL: My message is quite simply this: if you choose to cultivate a drug that remains illegal and if you use it to fund your criminal lifestyle and perpetuate misery in our communities you can expect police to hold you to account and to seize illegal firearms drugs and ill-gotten gains. I'm proud of the police and the work that they do in targeting organised crime and I back Operation Emerald 100 percent."
8. Question No. 8—HealthDr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula) to the Minister of HealthQuestion No. 8—Health8. Dr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula) to the Minister of Health: What steps has the Government taken to deliver better health outcomes for all New Zealanders? Hon Dr SHANE RETI (Minister of Health): The Government recently announced that we are putting health targets at the forefront of our health policy. We are introducing five key targets that clearly spell out faster cancer treatment improved immunisation for children shorter stays in emergency departments and shorter wait times for both first specialist assessments and planned care. We are an outcomes-driven Government and these health targets show that. Dr Vanessa Weenink: Why was it so important to shift health targets to the forefront of the Government's health policy? Hon Dr SHANE RETI: This Government believes that health targets help direct attention and resources and sets a clear agenda for where our health system should be heading. That is why it is important to have targets at the forefront of decision making. Targets are also accountability and transparency at all levels of our health system which is vitally important for ensuring the delivery of timely access to quality healthcare for all New Zealanders. Dr Vanessa Weenink: How will the Government ensure that the health targets are robust and will deliver better outcomes? Hon Dr SHANE RETI: I am aware of the potential for gaming targets and will keep a close eye on this. There will be mechanisms to ensure that our health targets will remain robust. These include quality assurance processes to validate data clinical engagement with discussions on emerging concerns and the use of independent agencies such as the Health Quality and Safety Commission to support reviews as needed. Dr Vanessa Weenink: Why has the Government chosen immunisation for children as a key target? Hon Dr SHANE RETI: In 2015 when targets were still at the forefront of Government policy the immunisation rates for children stood at just over 93 percent. Today that number is worrisome at 83 percent. This is well behind countries like the UK Australia and Canada. We should be doing much better for our children and this target is one step to enable that.
7. Question No. 7—Prime MinisterHon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime MinisterQuestion No. 7—Prime Minister7. Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his Government's policies and actions?Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Absolutely—in the context that they were made.Hon Marama Davidson: Does he stand by his Minister Responsible for RMA Reform's statement about the fast-track approvals bill that people who are keen on having the projects inserted into the bill will be able to submit them to the expert panel" and if so will experts local communities and iwi Māori groups concerned by these proposed projects also be able to submit to the panel?Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well we've got a very good process that involves Ministers expert panels and decisions by Cabinet.Hon Marama Davidson: What advice if any has he received on the constitutional appropriateness of adding a list of projects into the legislation after the select committee stage and the ways in which this could undermine public input scrutiny and transparency?Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Completely appropriate but what I'd say to you: the purpose of fast-track consenting is it's taking too long to get anything done in this country. We have built an obstruction economy. We are here to get things done. That's why we're taking fast track introduced by David Parker beefed it up put it on steroids and are actually going to get some outcomes for some people.Hon Marama Davidson: Does he stand by his statement that he will "ensure the fast-track consenting legislation upholds Te Tiriti" and if so can he guarantee that his Government will not fast track any mining consents that may impact Treaty settlements?Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: In answer to the first part of the question yes.Hon Marama Davidson: Does he agree with former chief press secretary for the National Party Janet Wilson that "the fast-track consenting bill is not an act of political alliance so much as pork barrelling at its finest providing a new golden age for National and New Zealand First's backers" and if not why not?Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Absolutely rubbish. I mean the bottom line here is that we have an obstruction economy. We've actually taken an awful long time to consent something and it's costing a huge amount of money. We want to actually deliver on our climate goals something that I think the Green Party would want to identify and align with us around but you can't take eight years to consent a wind farm and two years to build it. Why don't we just take one year to consent and build renewable energy and then two years to build it and get the benefit in three years not 10 years?"
6. Question No. 6—PoliceHon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) to the Minister of PoliceQuestion No. 6—Police6. Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) to the Minister of Police: Does he stand by all his statements and actions?Hon MARK MITCHELL (Minister of Police): Yes.Hon Ginny Andersen: Does he stand by his statement regarding the police pay offer: No we are not offering less than what Labour offered. That's not true at all."?Hon MARK MITCHELL: Yes.Hon Ginny Andersen: Does he agree with the president of the New Zealand Police Association Chris Cahill "It's like a slap in the face. It's like saying how dare you turn us down we're going to give you an even lower offer. They just misread the room. They've misread it badly."; if not why not?Hon MARK MITCHELL: I respect the role of the president of the Police Association and he respects our role. The police and the Police Association are engaged in good-faith negotiations and they carry on.Hon Ginny Andersen: Is the real reason the police pay offer is not backdated and contains three significant clawbacks due to funding now going to tax cuts for landlords?Hon MARK MITCHELL: No.Hon Ginny Andersen: Which is correct: the coalition agreement that promises 500 new police in two years or Christopher Luxon's statement that it's "a clear goal that we are heading towards"?Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well we've been very clear that the coalition agreement says that we will deliver 500 additional police officers in two years and the Prime Minister is absolutely right in restating that.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I ask the Minister whether he's actually dealing with pay for the police from last year and why would that be?Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well the offer made by the previous Government was rejected by the police—[Interruption]—that's right and they failed to really act on that quickly. Whereas the incoming Government—we take it seriously we've acted quickly and we negotiate in good faith.Hon Nicola Willis: Can the Minister confirm that where the previous Government was very flinty our Government has come in and agreed on this issue to provide more funding so that a more generous offer could be made to front-line police officers?Hon MARK MITCHELL: Yes I can confirm that and I can also confirm that probably under the previous Minister that the Labour Government—against convention—asked the police to provide within baseline the competency service increments payment which is a very important payment that goes to police officers to recognise their progression through the ranks and that is something this Government has reinstated.SPEAKER: Yeah just to remind people that asking questions of a Minister about the responsibility of a previous Government's Minister is not within Standing Orders. It might be fun but it's not helpful.Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order Mr Speaker. Thank you for that and it is indeed consistent with other rulings that you've made. It would be helpful to the order of the House if that direction was given before the Minister had the opportunity to answer given that it was the question that was against Standing Orders not the response.SPEAKER: Yeah. Thank you for your advice and I'll take it on board."
4. Question No. 4—FinanceHon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) to the Minister of FinanceQuestion No. 4—Finance4. Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) to the Minister of Finance: Kia orana kātoatoa Mr Speaker. Does she stand by all her statements and actions?Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): Yes in the context in which they were given. I particularly stand by my commitment to give tax relief to hard-working New Zealanders in the upcoming Budget in May.Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does she stand by both her statements that she knows a front-line service when I see it" and that there would be no cuts to front-line public services?Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Yes.Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does she see front-line services when she looks at Customs staff police officers firefighters free school lunches and carers funded through Whaikaha and if so why is her Government cutting the support for these front-line services?Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well what a gift of a question! This is a Government that sees police as front line and is increasing the number of police. This is a Government that wants to continue the school lunch programme that the other Government didn't leave any budgeted funding for so we're prioritising it in our upcoming Budget.Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does she stand by her statement that she is committed to delivering tax cuts without borrowing a cent?Hon NICOLA WILLIS: That's right.Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does she agree with the Prime Minister when he committed to no new taxes or increasing existing taxes; if so how does she reconcile that with breaking her promise to axe the app tax increasing petrol taxes by 22c a litre and introducing an additional $50 tax on every New Zealanders' vehicle?Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I'll give the member a little instruction on coalition Government because the Government's tax and fiscal plans reflect coalition negotiations which resulted in a number of amendments to the proposals that National and other parties campaigned on. And I'd just reassure the member that we will be delivering tax relief to the hard-working Kiwis who missed out on her Government's watch and who haven't had a tax reduction since 2010.Hon Barbara Edmonds: Why is she introducing at least three new taxes she promised not to cutting funding for wheelchair servicing refusing to commit to funding school lunches as set out in her fiscal plan and is she worried she will run out of election commitments to break?Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Look the member can list a bunch of assertions that are completely incorrect but it doesn't reflect well on her. Because we are committed to funding the school lunch programme we are committed to funding disability services we are committed to sustaining good front-line services—our Budget will reflect that. And here's the thing: when you're actually careful about eliminating waste in the back office when you actually drive down the amount wasted on consultants and contractors and ridiculous processes and low-value programmes that frees up more cash for front-line services that New Zealanders rely on. Our Government's doing it; their Government should have—sorry about that."
Weenink VanessaDr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula): I rise in support of this Misuse of Drugs (Pseudoephedrine) Amendment Bill. I'm delighted to be able to support it given that I remember as a doctor how incredibly frustrating it was when my patients could no longer access this medication. Also I was very concerned when the effective ban came in that there would be no access to the only really scientifically validated treatment to prevent barotrauma to the tympanic membrane for those who are flying frequently like pilots. Some of my patients had to end up sourcing pseudoephedrine from overseas to be able to protect their ears when they were constantly going up and down and getting different pressure changes in their ears. So this is the only medication that has ever been shown to be effective in adults at reducing that risk and the thing that prevents complete rupture of the tympanic membrane—that's been shown on systematic review. So it is a very effective medication.As a lot of people have noted around the House there are potential problems of course and we have to look at the potential mitigations that we can go through for that. I note that the idea of the register is a very useful one. I also have been one of those people who've seen the effects of meth in family members and it is a scourge on our society. That being said this is a very sensible approach to something that hadn't made any difference to that scourge and I commend the bill to the House.
Lu NancyNANCY LU (National): I stand in front of you today to support the second reading of this amendment bill for three reasons. One I support this bill because it addresses the current challenges faced by New Zealanders who really just needed to get some effective and easy and fast-acting medicine so that they can manage their general health and wellbeing. Secondly I also support this bill because it's actually very straightforward: it's just restoring the settings and matches a range of other countries—such as the UK US Canada and Australia. It's very straightforward because ultimately it is still the pharmacies who have the ultimate choice to stock or not to stock this product. They decide whether it's based on economical welfare safety business or operational reasons whether they will stock it. And my third reason to support this bill is there is evidence that we've seen that it has limited scale of risk even if the products are made available over the counter. So with those three reasons I support this legislation to the House.
Pugh MaureenHouse resumed.CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The committee has considered the European Union Free Trade Agreement Legislation Bill and reports it with amendment. I move That the report be adopted. Motion agreed to.Report adopted.
European Union Free Trade Agreement Legislation Amendment Bill — In Committee
Twyford Phil; McClay Todd; Pugh MaureenHon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): Thank you Madam Chair. I have a detailed question for the Minister about the animal welfare provisions in the agreement. I'm interested to know the Minister's view about whether a move to reinstate the live animal trade which has been subject to much criticism over the years because of the standards or lack of them in relation to animal welfare would risk being in breach of the provisions in the agreement which say that neither party will lower standards or trade benefit.Hon TODD McCLAY (Minister for Trade): The answer to that is: no. Governments on both sides have reserved the writing of the agreement to legislate in the interests of and in desiring to have the highest standards. It doesn't mean that actually we must do the same as what others do; it just means that any decisions this Government makes around animal welfare issues or anything else has to be the equivalent. The Government's very mindful of its obligations the responsibilities when it comes to all the agreements that are signed including trade agreements. So the answer to your question is: no I don't believe it will put it in jeopardy.CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is That the Minister's amendments set out on Amendment Paper 21 be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.Parts 1 to 5 Schedules 1 to 3 and clauses 1 and 2 as amended agreed to.Bill to be reported with amendment.
Kuriger Barbara; Simpson ScottIn Committee Parts 1 to 5 Schedules 1 to 3 and clauses 1 and 2CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members the House is in committee on the European Union Free Trade Agreement Legislation Amendment Bill. Members we start with the debate on Part 1.Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (Senior Whip—National): Point of order Madam Chair. I seek leave to debate the European Union Free Trade Agreement Legislation Amendment Bill as one question.CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Leave has been sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is not. The question is that Parts 1 to 5 Schedules 1 to 3 and clauses 1 and 2 stand part.
European Union Free Trade Agreement Legislation Amendment Bill — Second Reading
McClay ToddEUROPEAN UNION FREE TRADE AGREEMENT LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILLSecond ReadingHon TODD McCLAY (Minister for Trade): I present a legislative statement on the European Union Free Trade Agreement Legislation Amendment Bill.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.Hon TODD McCLAY: I move That the European Union Free Trade Agreement Legislation Amendment Bill be now read a second time.Motion agreed to.Bill read a second time.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): In accordance with a determination of the Business Committee this bill is set down for committee stage immediately. I declare the House in committee for consideration of the European Union Free Trade Agreement Legislation Amendment Bill.
Road User Charges (Light Electric RUC Vehicles) Amendment Bill — Second Reading
Campbell HamishDr HAMISH CAMPBELL (National—Ilam): I rise in support of this bill. Let's be very clear this bill is about road-user charges. Let's be really clear what that means: roads are long hard surfaces that are built for vehicles to travel along; a user is a vehicle of the said road; and the charge is a fee for that said user to use said road. Now cars use roads regardless of their fuel source whether it's electric it could be hydrogen or it could even be ammonia which Toyota is actually working on. And so this is all about transitioning to a fair and equitable system so that all road users are contributing to the upkeep and maintenance of roads irrespective of the type of vehicle that they use.We're discussing this bill now because of course there's a bit of urgency because there's an exemption currently in place which is going to expire. The previous National Government they put that exemption in place to encourage EV uptake which of course it did and it was successful. But it always was designed to end and in the long run all vehicles need to be part of a road-user charge system so we can have suitable upkeep of our roads. I haven't been on the Transport and Infrastructure Committee but reading the report there has been over—Hon Member: It's their loss.Dr HAMISH CAMPBELL: —yeah it is their loss—over 500 submissions and most of them pretty much all agreed that vehicles EVs and the like should pay a road-user charge and pay for road maintenance. Now there's been a lot of debate about how much that should be and of course we have a road-user charge currently but of course plug-in hybrids have a mix of fuel and electricity so there has been a technical modelling and a lot of debate about what it should be. I will just point out that the Labour Government in 2022 put out a figure of the 20 percent discount. That went nowhere but luckily we have settled through the select committee process on a figure which is 15 percent which I think is a fair amount. I appreciate there's going to be winners and losers but we do need to kind of remember the fact that this is a transition and eventually all vehicles will need to be in some sort of system to pay for the use of the roads.Looking forward we don't want just to limit ourselves to vehicles that are electrical or petrol or diesel. There are other fuels coming along the pipeline and I think we really need to be mindful of that. Just on Friday I was in the mighty Ilam electorate and visited a company that helps repair roads and you look at the effort they put in—we need to make sure we can support them to make sure we have safe roads. So therefore I commend this bill to the House.
McCallum GrantGRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland): I rise to proudly support this bill because we're actually a Government that was faced with a problem and we had to fix it. The previous Government hadn't gotten around to actually solving the problem of what was going to happen when the electric vehicle (EV) subsidies finished and suddenly they were going to go to 76c. That's where they were going to sit. According to the other side that seemed obviously to be the solution: leave them at 76c. So we inherited this problem and we have solved it. We've put a bill together which is a transition bill to allow for plug-in electric hybrids to receive a discounted rate because they use two sources of power and also for EVs to contribute something to the roads that they drive on.It was interesting the submitters we received—and thank you to the submitters. Yes they didn't have much time but the reason there was not much time is that we had to get a solution so this could be enacted by the 1 April and that's what we did. This is why we're in this position. They also said We're happy to contribute towards maintaining the roads." Well that's great. I applaud them for that particularly as somebody who's had to drive around the roads of Northland which have suffered through lack of maintenance from the previous Government and had to put up with extra potholes and the member opposite—Damien—would have had to dodge them on his motorbike. Because of that it's great to suddenly have an opportunity to have more income to actually help fix the roads because people using the roads should help pay for it.The reason that this is only a transition is because we're going to be moving to a fairer system as more and more people buy EVs—and they will because the price of EVs surprise surprise is coming down. So there's no need for us to actually subsidise people who can afford to buy them themselves right? So we've got to transition to a system whereby you don't fund the roading maintenance and building of new roads—you don't fund it through the energy source; you fund it through weight and distance travelled which is a fair system. That is what we've got to move towards—Hon Damien O'Connor: Where's the incentive to be more efficient?GRANT McCALLUM: —and that is the direction. The incentive is there because actually with an electric vehicle it is cheaper to run—they're actually cheaper to run than a petrol vehicle and a diesel vehicle. Believe me I know—I drive a diesel vehicle and pay plenty for the road-user charges going around. So I commend the Government for actually acting on this and getting a solution.So I'd like to say finally that the people of Northland will really be very happy to finally have a bit more money spent on the roads so that we can have better roads to drive on and the other rural people in New Zealand the same right. That's really really important. So I commend this bill to the House."
Taxation (Annual Rates for 2023-24 Multinational tax and Remedial Matters) Bill — Second Reading
Abel SteveSTEVE ABEL (Green): Kia ora. I appreciate that Mr Speaker. I'd be very willing to take a shorter call if it was permitted. I mean we all love taxation but taxation does have a real effect on people's lives; it does very much determine the fairness of our society. What this current version of the bill before us does is it makes a fairer taxation system therefore we will be supporting it at this reading. But as has been articulated by other members from this side of the House the proposed changes in the lodged Amendment Paper—which we're not discussing right now—will reinstate interest deductibility reduce the brightline test from 10 years to two years and remove depreciation deductions for commercial and industrial buildings.Now I want to speak to why a brightline test at 10 years is such an important thing and why it shouldn't be moved to two years; that would be a terrible amendment. What we currently have with a brightline test at 10 years—in the current proposal it means that sellers if they had a shorter time frame which they used to would be required to pay income tax on profits from the sale of residential properties when they are sold within two years of purchase and don't qualify as the main home. That is why it was moved to 10 years. The objective in doing that was to incentivise development and put downward pressure on rents.Now this change is essentially retrospective as investors who may have previously been willing to wait five years or 10 years to sell their property will now be able to sell much sooner and pay no additional tax—that is if it is to be amended and changed. A fair taxing tax system is—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): Mr Abel the rules of the second reading are: you can refer to possible amendments at the committee but not discuss them in detail—just for your information.STEVE ABEL: OK. Thank you Mr Speaker. So we do not want legislation in our tax system that constitutes a significant tax break for property investors. That is why the current formulation of this legislation does make a fairer tax system. That is what we should be endeavouring to do because fairness is a core principle of our society; that is agreed to by members of the public. We want a fairer system and that is why we commend this current version of the bill to the House and we will be debating at further readings the harms done to this bill by the proposed amendment. Thank you Mr Speaker.
Unkovich TanyaTANYA UNKOVICH (NZ First): Thank you. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First and the challenge to make this exciting. I will do my best. As they say to become good at speaking in the House one needs to keep speaking in the House so I will do that. I apologise if there is repetition and I will completely understand if there are more cellphones being lifted up but it is a very good bill to speak on.Now it's called the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2023-24 Multinational Tax and Remedial Matters) Bill. That was a bit of a mouthful. Now this omnibus bill introduces amendments to a number of Acts with the addition of proposing amendments to the Income Tax Act 2004. One of the purposes of this bill is to set the annual rates of income tax for this 2023-24 financial tax year. Another purpose of this bill is to improve the current settings within a broad based - low rate framework for income tax. Also this bill aims at improving settings for tax administration KiwiSaver and child support rules administered by the Inland Revenue Department. Now to speak on some of the items of the bill which I know have been spoken on but I will once again speak about the increase of the tax rate from 33 percent to 39 percent: when originally drafted this bill would have required many lower-income trusts to pay this top rate of 39 percent or 39c in the dollar but thankfully the Finance and Expenditure Committee has accepted the Government's advice that a $10000 trustee income de—my Latin's not that good—minimis be introduced. So that has been done and this is excellent as it will stop people trying to set up multiple trusts and avoid taxation.The other part that I will speak about is the disabled beneficiary trust. To mitigate over-taxation this bill proposes—maybe I'm not going to repeat myself too much there because otherwise I will see a few more cellphones coming up but in short it is recommended that a 33 percent flat tax rate is applied to beneficiary trusts as well. Also deceased estates—trustee income of estates would continue to be taxed at 33 percent. There are many other areas that I could speak on. I will touch on the energy consumer trusts. Submissions were received that trusts with beneficiaries representing a wide range of the public such as trusts that own electricity distribution companies should be excluded from the 39 percent trustee tax rate due to the risk of over-taxation. So again it is agreed that a 33 percent rate should remain.Also legacy superannuation funds—they will be excluded from the 39 percent trustee tax rate. They will be subject to the same tax treatment as widely held superannuation funds currently at 28 percent. Now I won't touch on a couple of items that I feel might change the mood of the House. Just in short New Zealand First will happily recommend this bill to the House. Thank you.
Stephenson ToddTODD STEPHENSON (ACT): Thank you. I rise to speak in support of the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2023-24 Multinational Tax and Remedial Matters) Bill which is—yes it's not very exciting but I did think that the Hon Dr Deborah Russell did do a good job of trying to make it exciting. I just want to join with her and Chlöe Swarbrick in just acknowledging Therese Turner. Obviously I'm a first-term member of both this House and of the Finance and Expenditure Committee—Chlöe Swarbrick: Great committee!TODD STEPHENSON: Thank you it is a great committee—and I do want to thank Ms Turner for her contribution. Obviously 25 years of providing advice to the select committee is quite an achievement and she again delivered when giving advice to the select committee on this bill.This was I think a process where we actually did improve the bill at the select committee. A lot of that has been touched on but I just do want to mention that we actually did listen to submitters and some of the you know—Chlöe Swarbrick: De minimis.TODD STEPHENSON: Yeah—the problems that were raised and the issues they saw as problematic and we actually did address them. And yes the de minimis tax threshold for trustees rates is one such issue where we ensured that some common sense was applied so that people wouldn't actually be making decisions regarding their trusts which could be detrimental but also ensuring that they were being taxed at the correct rate.Another one was the deceased estates. Again we had a lot of submissions talking about how one year would be too short a period to make sure that deceased estates could actually be wound up. Again we reflected on that we took advice and we arrived at the three-year position—which again I think is a really sensible one to make sure that in this important area the affairs of a deceased estate can be properly wound up but done so in a timely manner but one which also doesn't disadvantage those taxpayers.I think—again it's already been touched on—the lump-sum payments and ACC and making sure again we delivered some fairness to taxpayers when they receive a lump-sum payment. Again this can often be where it takes a number of years for a complex ACC case to be worked out and actually for someone to receive their lump-sum payment and again making sure that they weren't disadvantaged by the time taken. I think again we arrived at a really pragmatic and sensible solution to that issue.For me it was obviously interesting watching all parties represented on the select committee actually working together—and again there were some very experienced members on the select committee and I think it was really useful to have their insights and knowledge as we worked through the issues and tried to find pragmatic solutions. So I really want to say thanks to my fellow select committee members. I think there will be a lot more discussion and obviously further readings on this bill but I want to commend this bill to the House. Thank you.
Appropriation (2022/23 Confirmation and Validation) Bill — First Reading
Willis NicolaAPPROPRIATION (2022/23 CONFIRMATION AND VALIDATION) BILLFirst ReadingHon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): I move That the Appropriation (2022/23 Confirmation and Validation) Bill be now read a first time.Motion agreed to.Bill read a first time.
Urgent Debates Declined — Disability Funding—Purchasing Rules
Brownlee Gerry; McAnulty KieranURGENT DEBATES DECLINEDDisability Funding—Purchasing RulesSPEAKER: I have received a letter from the Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan seeking to debate under Standing Order 399 an announcement about purchasing rules for disability funding. This is a particular case of recent occurrence for which there is ministerial responsibility. However I've listened to the answers to questions asked today and considered the matter because I have an interest in it but I am not convinced that the time of the House should be set aside today to debate the matter. The annual review debate would be an appropriate vehicle to debate this matter since it covers the performance and current operations of departments. The Leader of the House has indicated that that debate will start in April and has called for parties to nominate which Ministers will appear before the committee of the whole House during the debate. The application is therefore declined. I call on order of the day—Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Point of order Mr Speaker. Thank you Mr Speaker. We accept that. The concern that I have however is that there is still no requirement for the Government to accept the proposals from the Opposition on the topics and portfolios which will be debated during the annual review debate so this House can't be assured that the opportunity to debate this will be given during the annual review debate. SPEAKER: Well that's true. But the member knows also that the Business Committee will be involved in that process and I would certainly be an advocate for the Opposition having the opportunities that they seek.
Brownlee GerryPETITIONS PAPERS SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLSSPEAKER: Petitions have been presented to the Clerk for presentation.CLERK: Petition of Louise Bint requesting that the House make available low-interest loans or force mortgagors to reduce interest rates for property owners displaced due to the North Island weather eventspetition of Brian Webb requesting that the House pass legislation to allow all those on benefits to earn an amount equivalent to eight hours at the minimum wage a week before any deductions to their benefit and to reduce reduction ratespetition of Focus on Iran requesting that the House urge the Government to consider and take appropriate action to expel the Iranian ambassador. SPEAKER: Those petitions stand referred to the Petitions Committee. Ministers have delivered papers.CLERK: Government responses to the report of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee on its inquiry into illegal unregulated and unreported fishingreport of the Justice Committee on its inquiry into the 2022 local electionsreport of the Primary Production Committee on its inquiry into the future of workforce needs in primary industries in New Zealandreport of the Regulations Review Committee on its inquiry into bylaws2023-24 statement of performance expectations for Te Taura Whiri i te Reo MāoriReserve Bank of New Zealand Monetary Policy Statement.SPEAKER: Those papers are published under the authority of the House. Select committee reports have been delivered for presentation.CLERK: Report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2023-24 Multinational Tax and Remedial Matters) Billreports of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee on the2022-23 annual review of the Ministry of Defence and the New Zealand Defence ForceEuropean Union Free Trade Agreement Legislation Amendment Billreport of the Health Committee on the Misuse of Drugs (Pseudoephedrine) Amendment Billreports of the Justice Committee on the2022-23 annual reviews of the Criminal Cases Review Commission Crown Law and Electoral Commission; Executive Board for the Elimination of Family Violence and Sexual Violence HRC and IPCA; Judicial Conduct Commissioner Law Commission and Parliamentary Counsel Office; Privacy Commissioner and Serious Fraud OfficeElectoral (Lowering Voting Age for Local Elections and Polls) Legislation Billreport of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee on the Road User Charges (Light Electric RUC Vehicles) Amendment Bill.SPEAKER: The bills are set down for second reading. No bills have been introduced.
Kapa-Kingi Mariameno; Brownlee GerryMARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI (Matarau—Te Pāti Māori): Tēnā koe. Waimarie ana au ki te tū ki te mihi atu ki tēnei tōku nei rangatira e Kiri tēnā koe e te Speaker tēnā koutou katoa. Tēnā koe e Kiri i tēnei rā whakanui i a koe kua eke ki te 80 tau. E te kura wahine o Ngāti Maniapoto and Willie's crew tēnā koutou.[I am honoured to stand before you and acknowledge our esteemed leader Kiri. Greetings to you dear Speaker and everyone present. Greetings to you all. Acknowledgments to you Kiri on this special day of yours turning 80. Dear madam of Ngāti Maniapoto and of Willie's crew warm convivial greetings.]A woman of many accolades that of course would not fit into this brief address to the House hui anō. What I can and do admire the most is your significant and sustained effort to foster the talent of the younger generations particularly through the Kiri Te Kanawa Foundation. You've inspired as well as helped young Māori invoke the ancestral magic that lies in their whakapapa and provided the platform to expose that to the world. That is mana tuku iho [handed down] and that is also what we stand for as Te Pāti Māori: creating a mokopuna-centric world where we can be whole as opposed to lesser than. Of course we need look no further than our darling of Te Tai Tokerau Kawiti Waetford who will be gracing us shortly with his Māori magic. Nāu ia i ako i poipoi nō reira tēnā koe hari rā whānau e Kiri tēnā koutou katoa.[You nurtured and mentored him and so thank you. Happy birthday Kiri. Thank you everyone.]SPEAKER: The question is That this House recognise the achievements and career of Dame Kiri Te Kanawa and congratulate her as she celebrates her 80th birthday.Motion agreed to.Waiata—Pōkarekare Ana"[Applause]"
Motions — Dame Kiri Te Kanawa—80th Birthday
Marcroft JennyJENNY MARCROFT (NZ First): Thank you Mr Speaker. I begin my contribution on behalf of my leader the Rt Hon Winston Peters and the New Zealand First caucus in joining the House in celebrating Dame Kiri Te Kanawa's 80th birthday acknowledging you here today. We are blessed to have you amongst us.I begin with this whakataukī Ko te pae tawhiti whāia kia tata ko te pae tata whakamaua kia tina—seek out distant horizons and cherish those you attain. Today as we celebrate your birthday of the legendary New Zealand soprano who has made a remarkable rise to global fame and started with your very first public appearance at the age of six years old on Gisborne's radio station—boy the careers that radio has launched! You sang an 1892 ditty called Daisy Bell". I don't think anyone knows it but once I say these lyrics I'm sure many of us know the song:Daisy DaisyGive me your answer doI'm half crazyAll for the love of youYou also went on in terms of music and your career receiving New Zealand's first ever gold disc for music sales—what an achievement. Others in this House have acknowledged those incredible tohu those attainments you achieved in your career but one for me really stands out. This is my most favourite period drama ever created for television: Downton Abbey. You performed in that just so beautifully playing the Australian soprano Dame Nellie Melba so I think it's appropriate that we also acknowledge your film and stage performances alike. Not only that you had all the cast and crew in tears throughout your practices for that show. That's the power of your voice to bring people to an emotional place in themselves. Not only that you had two little dogs that you took on set and then your third little dog was named Abbey once she was born after Downton Abbey.Kiri Te Kanawa you have enjoyed one of the longest careers in operatic history—we acknowledge you for that—but you continue to make a difference by nurturing new talent dedicating your time to training and the next generation of singers. As one of the world's greatest opera singers the iconic New Zealander of the Year in 2012 you never forgot where you came from. As a Māori opera singer you brought a piece of New Zealand to the world in a vehicle that wasn't Māori. We congratulate you for that.So to conclude I'll finish with a whakataukī from a beautiful book titled Mauri Ora: Wisdom from the Māori World "Tohaina ō pāinga ki te ao"—share your gifts with the world. Those gifts we receive and the impact that these gifts can have on the world are amplified when we share them when we share our knowledge with a new generation. So today in this House of Parliament we celebrate our Dame our Kahurangi on her 80th birthday."