edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That Part 4 be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.Noes 57New Zealand National 56; ACT New Zealand 1.Part 4 agreed to.Schedule 1 agreed to.Schedule 1B agreed to.Schedule 2The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 16 in the name of the Hon Stuart Nash to schedule 2 be agreed to.Amendment agreed to.Schedule 2 as amended agreed to.Clauses 1 and 2A party vote was called for on the question That clause 1 be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.Noes 57New Zealand National 56; ACT New Zealand 1.Clause 1 agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 16 in the name of the Hon Stuart Nash and the following amendment in his name to clause 2 be agreed to:in subclause (7) replace (2) to (4)" with "(3) and (4)".Amendments agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That clause 2 as amended be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.Noes 57New Zealand National 56; ACT New Zealand 1.Clause 2 as amended agreed to.House resumed.Bill reported with amendment.Report adopted."
Taxation (Annual Rates for 2017–18 Employment and Investment Income and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee
VoteKIRITAPU ALLAN (Assistant Whip—Labour): I move That the question be now put. Motion agreed to.The question was put that the amendments to Part 3 set out on Supplementary Order Papers 13 and 16 in the name of the Hon Stuart Nash be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That Part 3 as amended be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.Noes 57New Zealand National 56; ACT New Zealand 1.Part 3 as amended agreed to.
VoteThe question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Stuart Nash to Supplementary Order Paper 13 be agreed to:in SOP No 13 in proposed new clause 28E(2) replace ." with "receives the Royal assent.".A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.Noes 56New Zealand National 56.Amendment to amendment agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Now with the Minister's permission we are going to split the vote on the Supplementary Order Papers 13 and 16.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 13 as amended in the name of the Hon Stuart Nash to Part 2 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments as amended be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.Noes 56New Zealand National 56.Amendments as amended agreed to.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 16 in the name of the Hon Stuart Nash to Part 2 and the following amendments in his name to clauses 25 and 106 be agreed to:in clause 25 proposed new section CW 26G replace "section CW 26(7)" with "section CW 26C(7)".in clause 106(5) replace "(2) and (3)" with "(3) and (4)" in each place where it appears.Amendments agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That Part 2 as amended be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.Noes 57New Zealand National 56; ACT New Zealand 1.Part 2 as amended agreed to."
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That it be an instruction to the committee of the whole House to restrict consideration on Supplementary Order Paper 13 in the Minister's name for one month to allow the Finance and Expenditure Committee to seek public submissions on the Supplementary Order Paper's provisions.Ayes 56New Zealand National 56.Noes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.Motion not agreed to.
Taxation (Annual Rates for 2017–18 Employment and Investment Income and Remedial Matters) Bill — Instruction to Committee
11. Jobs—Work The Seasons WebsiteHon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō) to the Minister for Social DevelopmentJobs—Work The Seasons Website11. Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō) to the Minister for Social Development: Does she stand by all her statements?Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): Yes in the context in which they were given.Hon Louise Upston: Is it correct that there are over a thousand job vacancies registered on the Work The Seasons website that she launched on Friday?Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Yes.Hon Louise Upston: With the website operating for more than one month why are only 44 vacancies listed on the website?Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: My understanding is that there are over a thousand vacancies on the website.Hon Louise Upston: Is the Minister not sure that she's confusing the thousand training places with the number of job vacancies?Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: My understanding is that there are a thousand vacancies on the website.Hon Louise Upston: When will the Minister figure out based on the interview she had with Radio Live that if she's going to claim credit for the work done by the previous Government at a minimum she should do her homework and get her facts straight?Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: We're really proud of the Work The Seasons website that's been launched which I launched with the Minister of Employment Willie Jackson last week. Can I just say that this Government is committed to working with businesses to ensure that we provide options for New Zealanders opportunities for employment and that's what we're working hard towards.
9. Housing Auckland—Development and Response to Government ProgrammesMARJA LUBECK (Labour) to the Minister of Housing and Urban DevelopmentHousing Auckland—Development and Response to Government Programmes9. MARJA LUBECK (Labour) to the Minister of Housing and Urban Development: What response has he seen to Government initiatives that are intended to boost the supply of affordable housing in Auckland?Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Housing and Urban Development): I've seen an encouragingly positive response from the building industry and property developers to the Government's ambitious plans to build affordable housing in Auckland to deal with the national housing crisis. KiwiBuild will deliver affordable homes for Kiwi families by working with the private sector with iwi and with councils and other investors to establish major urban development projects across Auckland and across the country.Marja Lubeck: How important are urban development opportunities within Auckland to increasing the supply of affordable housing?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Building high-quality affordable townhouses terraces and apartments in medium-density developments will help meet demand in the city. Building large-scale urban development projects around transport connections is the sensible way to alleviate both the national housing crisis and Auckland's chronic traffic gridlock.Marja Lubeck: Is there any resistance to Government programmes intended to boost the supply of affordable housing in Auckland?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: There will often be a small group opposing new housing developments. Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: Only Labour MPs.Hon PHIL TWYFORD: On the North Shore currently a proposed apartment development in one of the former Government's special housing areas permitted under the unitary plan produced under the last Government's law is currently drawing some local criticism—surprisingly from someone who actually voted for both of those laws Jonathan Coleman.SPEAKER: I want to remind the Government that using Government supplementaries to attack the Opposition in that way is not permitted. As a result of that the Opposition will be granted two additional supplementaries.
6. Provincial Growth Fund—Decision MakingMARK PATTERSON (NZ First) to the Minister for Regional Economic DevelopmentProvincial Growth Fund—Decision Making6. MARK PATTERSON (NZ First) to the Minister for Regional Economic Development: Can he confirm that projects in Northland only receive Provincial Growth Fund support because he lives in Kerikeri?Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Regional Economic Development): A scurrilous and false allegation. As I recall the term 4.5 kilometres was used. As should be evident to anyone I have walked that distance on a regular basis. Kororāreka Paihia and Ōpua are well beyond 4.5 kilometres and it may only be as far as that Epsom-based member can see but the provinces are far more lively than that.Mark Patterson: Could he elaborate on why these projects were so desperately needed?Hon SHANE JONES: The projects that have been identified by the Mayor of the Far North District Council Mr John Carter and the recently appointed director Mr Murray McCully are of high quality—maybe in contrast to how we may view those personalities in another world but they came through a regional economic policy development process and not wanting to be capricious to the people of the north I have supported them and that has improved my popularity.Mark Patterson: Will the Minister have to move to other parts of the country before they can feel the benefits of provincial growth fund funding?Hon SHANE JONES: I hope to move with more efficiency after my observations about Air New Zealand but more on that at a later stage. I have recently come through the Murihiku the Southland area and there's a sense that the regional development fund will do great things there. The reality however is that they've heard a great deal of rhetoric and promise but I am a man of my word and I'll deliver to the deep south.Hon Paul Goldsmith: Can he understand why—given he rolls around the country climbing in and out of helicopters handing out cash like Pablo Escobar and emphasising his local region particularly—people are asking questions?SPEAKER: No. I mean I think the member—do I need to explain to the member? Hon Members: Yeah.SPEAKER: Right. We'll start with irony expressions of opinion—both of which are ruled out as part of questions both of which were involved in that question. Rt Hon Winston Peters: I wonder whether the Minister could tell us exactly how he has been received around the country and particularly up north by the people up there with respect to projects for which they have waited sometimes three decades? Hon SHANE JONES: Across the cold concrete of the Paihia wharf a literal red carpet was rolled out by John Carter.
3. Fiscal Strategy—Infrastructure Projects and New Capital InvestmentWILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) to the Minister of FinanceFiscal Strategy—Infrastructure Projects and New Capital Investment3. WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) to the Minister of Finance: How much is the coalition Government planning to invest in new capital over the next five years according to the Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update and how does that compare to the previous Government's plans?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): The Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update (HYEFU) shows that the Government plans to invest $42 billion in new capital over the next five years compared to the $30.5 billion that the previous Government had planned to spend. Of course we will continue to keep that $42 billion under review as we go through the Budget process.Willow-Jean Prime: What reaction has he seen to his comment on 9 March that the $42 billion might not be enough to fix the infrastructure funding deficit the Government inherited?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well for the most part there is a shared understanding particularly in Auckland of the need to find more creative solutions to the funding of infrastructure. This Government is actively engaged in continuing and building on the work of the previous Government on measures such as value capture benefits. I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his support for those ideas.Willow-Jean Prime: What expert advice has the Government received on this work?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well we are working with Treasury and other Government agencies to develop models that facilitate the use of private capital and ensure that those who directly benefit from ratepayer and taxpayer funded infrastructure projects make a contribution. I can confirm that I will not be taking the advice of one self-proclaimed expert who said that these ideas that are supported by the Leader of the Opposition amount to tax tax tax—or another self-proclaimed expert who said that they were about the politics of envy. In this instance I prefer to listen to the wisdom of Simon Bridges rather than the knee-jerk reactions of Judith Collins and Amy Adams.Hon Amy Adams: Can the Minister confirm that more than half the additional infrastructure funding he has outlined between what was in the Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Update under the previous Government and HYEFU under this Government is in fact funded by increasing the debt burden on future generations?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As I've said many times in this House we have a slower debt repayment track because we believe the time has come to invest in our housing and build up our infrastructure. I have said also in this House before that that party on the other side cannot lecture anybody about the growth in debt given the $50 billion they added to debt while they were in Government.
2. Budget 2018—Child Poverty New Spending Commitments and Operating AllowanceHon AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) to the Minister of FinanceBudget 2018—Child Poverty New Spending Commitments and Operating Allowance2. Hon AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) to the Minister of Finance: Is he committed to an operating allowance in Budget 2018 of $2.6 billion and does he agree with the Prime Minister's answer on The Nation from the weekend when asked whether the Government has extra money to reduce child poverty We don't"?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): In answer to the first part of the question final decisions on the Budget are still to be taken but I can confirm the member will know the exact operating allowance in just 58 more sleeps. In answer to the second part of the question I agree with the totality of what the Prime Minister said not the paraphrased interpretation of the member.Hon Amy Adams: So how does the Government plan to achieve further progress on reducing child poverty over the forecast period given the Prime Minister's weekend comments that no further funding will be available this term?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: That is not what the Prime Minister said. What the Prime Minister said was that this Government has put $5.5 billion into a Families Package that will lift 384000 families' incomes by an average of $75 a week twice—twice—the level that the previous Government was going to do.Hon Amy Adams: If the Government already doesn't have any money left for its so-called centrepiece policy how will he fund upcoming fiscal pressures such as promised teachers' pay rises nurses' pay rises or even the promised 1800 extra police officers?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: This Budget contains $5.5 billion for a Families Package that will deliver to low and middle income families. What this Government is confident of is that with the operating allowance that was in the half yearly update of $2.6 billion that's actually more than the $1.8 billion operating allowance the previous Government had put aside. So if she's concerned now about teacher pay why wasn't she concerned about it when she was in Government?Hon Amy Adams: How many more of the 51 new spending commitments contained in the Speech from the Throne is there now no money left to fund?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As I've said to the member she'll see the detail in the Budget but this Government has an ambitious programme and those 51 commitments represent us making up for nine years of neglect from that previous Government.Hon Amy Adams: Can the public expect the Minister to fund the 51 new spending commitments contained in the Speech from the Throne by increasing taxes by increasing debt by reneging on Labour's pre-election promises or all of the above?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: It's sad to see a member who was once ambitious for New Zealand rejecting the programme that's in the Speech from the Throne. You know what we will be doing? We will be growing the economy we will be increasing the prosperity of New Zealanders and we'll be making sure they get a fair share unlike the previous Government."
Strange Jamie; Williams PotoJAMIE STRANGE (Labour): Madam Assistant Speaker thank you for the opportunity to take what will likely be the final call this evening. I am still in a state of shock realising that my Hamilton-based fellow MP is leaving our committee the Education and Workforce Committee. I hope it wasn't something I said.Hon Tim Macindoe: I'll miss you too Jamie.JAMIE STRANGE: Yeah. We will miss you—we will miss you Tim—and we wish you all the best for whichever committee you are heading to.Now this bill was a National bill and it's now become a Government bill. So it was with the previous Government; it's now with this Government. Like many bills in the past few months it's been improved. It's sort of like taking a car putting some mag wheels on it and maybe a bit of a tinted paint job and basically improving the quality of this bill and I am going to go on to talk about how this bill has been improved but before I do—Hon Member: It's still a car.JAMIE STRANGE: With a better engine as well. But before I do I would like to pay tribute to some of the quality institutions that have had a big impact in my life. So I studied at Wintec in 2007 to 2009 I studied at the Waikato University in 2010 and after a stint in the education workforce I decided to go back to Waikato University and I finished my Master's in educational leadership which I finished about three weeks ago and I've just found out I passed so I'm very happy to announce that—only just but we'll take that.So I would like to pay tribute to the importance of our tertiary institutions. We're proud of these in our country. There's a high level of integrity respect and competency and as we've heard tonight these institutions provide our fourth-largest export industry so it's absolutely vital that we protect these industries that they keep their area of accountability—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I apologise to the member.Debate interrupted.The House adjourned at 10 p.m.
Yule LawrenceLAWRENCE YULE (National—Tukituki): It gives me pleasure to speak to this third reading of the Education (Tertiary Education and Other Matters) Amendment Bill and I do want to reiterate something I said in the House earlier today which was that actually it's nice to see National Party policy and bills making their way through the Parliament even if they're not completely intact. I acknowledge the Hon Paul Goldsmith for the work he has done on it and I also acknowledge Sarah Dowie but I do so in order to acknowledge my friend the Hon Tim Macindoe who's been left out of the acknowledgments so far because his work on the Education and Workforce Committee and the Education and Science Committee over several years has greatly improved the quality of this debate and this bill and his former knowledge as a teacher no doubt had a significant part to play in how this bill was considered. So I thank the Hon Chris Hipkins for picking this bill up and bringing it before the House. There's two parts I wish to particularly comment on because they haven't really been mentioned a lot so far in this reading. One is the false declarations provisions. We have heard this is a response to some abuse that's occurred in terms of how records are kept and used and certified and I think by lifting the level of fine up to $50000 that is a significant disincentive for people to breach that. The second one really is around international students. I think it's great that this House has acknowledged the importance of them—15 percent of the tertiary student population on average worth about $4.3 billion to the New Zealand economy—and it is important that the pastoral care and the activities of those students outside of the schools is able to be managed and monitored so the experience both for the students and for the school and for New Zealand can be as positive as possible. How we achieve that I think is clearly set out in this bill and I congratulate the Parliament on getting to this point.So that's all I wish to say. I think it's a significant achievement after a long and hard battle by the National Party in the first place and I'm grateful that's been taken up by the current Government. Thank you.
Macindoe Tim; Williams PotoHon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker. Kia orana to you tēnā tātou katoa e Te Whare. It's always interesting I find to speak after Mr Hughes and I have to say I often enjoy listening to him. I think he frequently talks absolute nonsense but he's extremely articulate and he always delivers his speeches with great passion. I have to say I found that a particularly entertaining contribution because he waxed eloquently over the fact that after nine years of a National administration he was delighted to be able to speak so enthusiastically about such a great piece of legislation.The only thing he omitted to mention was that of course it is a National Party bill. So for nine years he's apparently opposed everything that we were doing and now that he is part of a Government responsible for the same piece of legislation he's finally woken up to the fact that it's a really good piece.So I will keep my contribution fairly brief because others have already endorsed it. There's clearly great support for the bill across the House. I have to say I take great umbrage with both Mark Patterson and Denise Lee two members I used to consider to be mighty fine people. But for them to have paid such lovely tributes to the outgoing chair of the Education and Workforce Committee Sarah Dowie without mentioning the fact that I too am leaving the committee causes me great pain and suffering—ha ha! And if I can only ask them to take a point of order and correct that egregious oversight—Hon Michael Woodhouse: Haere rā.Hon TIM MACINDOE: Ha ha! Yes I'm being told by even my own colleagues that perhaps that's enough but let me just conclude. As others have noted this is an eminently sensible piece of legislation not least because of the greater flexibility that it introduces into the system. I'm delighted that it is so warmly welcomed across the House and for that reason I too have great pleasure in supporting it.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I call Marja Lubeck. I understand this is a split call.
Lee DeniseDENISE LEE (National—Maungakiekie): As my colleagues before me I'd like to confirm our support for this third reading of the Education (Tertiary Education and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. I too would like to take just a quick brief moment to acknowledge our outgoing chair of the Education and Workforce Committee of which I'm a member the honourable Sarah Dowie.Hon Michael Woodhouse: Soon to be!DENISE LEE: No? Sarah Dowie—she's honourable as far as I'm concerned. And from what I can see there are genuine accolades from both sides of the House for the role that she's undertaken.The bill that we are having our third reading for here tonight will update legislation that affects the day-to-day running of the tertiary education organisations (TEOs) and will help the system deliver the right skills for the 21st century. Like all entities that receive public funds it's important that TEOs are being held accountable and that they're delivering for students—actually all students students that may be in both private and public institutions. So it's a real shame—it'll be no surprise that I'm going to raise as other colleagues have before me tonight on my side of the House that the Hon Paul Goldsmith's amendment calling for equal treatment of all tertiary education providers didn't pass. That seems a no-brainer.International education is our fourth-largest export industry worth somewhere in the vicinity of $4.3 billion to our economy every year. So it's vital that this industry receives the support and the right support and this bill does go a good way to doing that. It is a shame that we can't see all providers in the same bracket but we do however confirm our support for this third reading. Thank you.
Dowie SarahSARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill): Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker. Well I rise to take a very short call in support of this Education (Tertiary Education and Other Matters) Amendment Bill and in support because of course this is a National Government bill. It was interesting that the previous speaker Kelvin Davis paid praise to the current Minister and Associate Minister of Education for shepherding this bill through the House but of course this was an Hon Paul Goldsmith bill from the National Government. It reflects the respect that this side of the House has for tertiary education and in particular international education not just because the sector is the fourth largest export industry generating $4.28 billion per annum but also because of the role that tertiary and international education play in regional development in diversifying communities and in adding to the vibrancy of provincial cities—and that's certainly the case in Invercargill in Southland. So what the Hon Paul Goldsmith wanted to do was to modernise the framework governing our tertiary institutions and private training establishments. He wanted to make the framework fit for purpose for the 21st century to allow institutions to innovate and to provide a better system for students to learn in and to gain qualifications that are fit for purpose in today's modern world. So what this bill does is of course create an accountability framework for tertiary organisations that ensures consistency across the board; obviously monitor performance of those tertiary institutions; introduce a code of conduct for international students that are coming to the country to study; and put in place standards that they must adhere to while they are here in New Zealand—as I said before evolving the system to make it better not only for New Zealanders but also for those international students.This is a good bill. Of course my colleague the Hon Louise Upston talked about one of the changes that the current Labour Government have made with respect to creating an uneven playing field between private providers and public providers relating to the fees structure. That is unacceptable on this side of the House and has resulted in the Hon Paul Goldsmith's Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 17 to challenge this. Apart from that change that the Labour Government have made regardless of Paul Goldsmith's SOP we do support this bill because it was a National Government initiative and we do need to make tertiary education and the framework of such fit for purpose in the 21st century. This is my last contribution as the chair of the Education and Workforce Committee. I'd like to finish by thanking the current members and saying that it is a very good committee and I wish them all the best moving forward with the work stream that they do have in the workforce section but also in the education sector.
Upston LouiseHon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker. National will of course be supporting this piece of legislation in the third reading. It was introduced in our time in office and does a few simple things that I want to just cover off in my brief address. I just do want to pick up on one point though and I want the House to reflect on that as we go through some of this discussion. The Minister in her speech outlined that the broad intent of this is about fair treatment and of course there is one considerable area where there is absolutely no fair treatment in a change that the Labour Government have made to this legislation.But in terms of the broad perspective of the legislation it was around making sure that tertiary education organisations (TEOs) were delivering for students first and foremost. So it was making sure that they were in a strong enough position to be delivering the skills that we need for the 21st century. It's also about making sure that they are run well day to day; have greater levels of accountability; and are delivering for each and every student. That's the expectation that taxpayers would have—that there are strong accountability measures but sufficient flexibility for the TEOs to deliver what students need and actually what our workplaces need in our employers of the future. So there were already significant improvements in terms of the monitoring of tertiary organisations that resulted in some of the investigations that took place and so the proposal in this bill also improves some of the information collection and oversight.But when it comes to fair treatment—I do want to come back to that point because there is one significant change that the Labour Government have made to this legislation that absolutely is unfair and that is around the fairness of funding. The intention was that there be fair funding equal funding irrespective of whether it's a for-profit or not-for-profit provider. The Minister of Education Chris Hipkins has actually been on the record stating that private training establishments often do better than the Government-owned public sector polytechnics. And yet even having said this even having said that the quality of delivery in the private training establishments is often better than the polytechs he's said no they're unwilling to fund them equally.There is no reason for doing this other than pure ideology so I do want to correct the Minister who made the first speech in this third reading because this is one component where there is absolutely not fair treatment. It is pure ideology. I think it's probably more spite from the Labour Government because they don't like anything that actually might turn a profit and so it was an ideological removal of that. When we put forward a Supplementary Order Paper in the name of the Hon Paul Goldsmith to correct this—to make it fair—of course they opposed it.So the broad objectives of this bill—it was our legislation so of course I'm very proud to support it in the third reading.
Health (National Cervical Screening Programme) Amendment Bill — First Reading
Tolley AnneHEALTH (NATIONAL CERVICAL SCREENING PROGRAMME) AMENDMENT BILLFirst ReadingDebate resumed from 1 March.DEPUTY SPEAKER: So when we were last considering this bill Harete Hipango was speaking and she has eight minutes remaining to speak if she wishes so. I take it she doesn't. So I call—Angie Warren-Clark my apologies.
Williams PotoPart 2 Amendments to Income Tax Act 2007CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Members we turn to the debate on Part 2 which is the debate on clauses 4 to 185B and schedules 1 and 1B.
O'Connor GregGREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): I rise to speak on Part 1 of the annual rates of income tax bill. Tax like death—a certainty in our life. And I might just start by taking this opportunity to note the passing of my uncle John O'Connor who is actually the father of the Minister of Agriculture the Hon Damien O'Connor and for him death in the last day has become very real. He was a well-respected man both within the West Coast and nationally and I do note the passing. And he was a man who often railed against tax. He was a man who was very quick to rise when the subject of tax came up so when I look at what we are now considering the annual income tax rates for the 2017-18 tax year which as laid out in the bill will be set at the rate specified in schedule 1 of the Income Tax Act.I go to that schedule 1 and I look at it as laying out to the extent to which a person does not have a basic rate under clauses 2 to 10—it outlines the formula by which people will be taxed. It is a relatively simple formula; certainly it's not in rival of Einstein's theory of relativity by any means. It's a tax under table 1 and is divided by the taxable income. Tax under table 1 means the total tax calculated for each dollar in the person's taxable income using table 1. Obviously divided by the taxable income" means the number of dollars in the person's taxable income. So then I look at just what those ranges are. In the range of the dollar in the taxable income for zero to $14000 0.105 percent is the tax rate which if you are on that income is still a big imposition on your income. For $14001 to $48000 it is 0.175. Above $48000 for $48001 to $70000 it is actually 0.3—30c in the dollar. And of course for over $70000 it is 0.33.So I think it's good that those listening understand. It's a reminder of just how our tax is calculated. Of course there's so much discussion we have on tax and we'll hear so much more later on today. It is important that this country is a good country is a fair country and the reason that it does thrive is because we have a fair tax system and what we will be debating later on is how we make sure that it does remain fair. Thank you Madam Chair.Part 1 agreed to."
Lees-Galloway Iain; Brownlee GerryHon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Deputy Leader of the House): I move That the question be now put.Andrew Bayly: You can't do that; it's debatable.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): There can be a closure motion. I will call Andrew Bayly but I just want to tell members—remind them again—that this is a narrow debate on the instruction. Most of the content has been OK although straying outside the boundaries of the instruction itself but relevant nonetheless but I want to make certain that members know that if they do continue to do that that will be the end of the debate.Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Is that a new ruling from you because it would seem to me that it's almost impossible to talk about the instruction without considering the reasons for the instruction. It would be ridiculous if all we could say is over and over The motion instructs the committee …" and then repeat it. It is a debate about whether or not the instruction should be given and therefore the merits of the intention behind the instruction can surely be debated. I have also had a look at the Standing Orders obviously in this case and I would have thought that you are relying on 176(6) which says that the "purpose of the instruction is to increase the number of questions" etc. etc. then there could be "no amendment or [no] debate". But there is no other restriction in here about what can be spoken of in an instruction. It would be unreasonable for the House not to hear the reasons for an instruction.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Yes within the boundaries of the instruction. So that's not a new ruling but this is not a full debate on Supplementary Order Paper 13.Hon Gerry Brownlee: No.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): No that's right."
McAnulty Kieran; Rurawhe AdrianKIERAN McANULTY (Junior Whip—Labour): I move That the question be now put.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): No. This is a debate.
Jones ShaneHon SHANE JONES (Minister of Forestry): The instruction has been ventilated. I put it to you Mr Assistant Speaker: put the motion to the House now.
Adams Amy; Rurawhe AdrianTAXATION (ANNUAL RATES FOR 2017-18 EMPLOYMENT AND INVESTMENT INCOME AND REMEDIAL MATTERS) BILLInstruction to CommitteeHon AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn): Under Standing Order 176(1) I move That it be an instruction to the committee of the whole House to restrict consideration on Supplementary Order Paper 13 in the Minister's name for one month to allow the Finance and Expenditure Committee to seek public submissions on the Supplementary Order Paper's provisions.This is an important Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) which changes a significant piece of the legislation in effect. It's come into this House post the return of the legislation back to the committee of the whole House and to this Parliament and there hasn't been an opportunity for the public to make submissions on this. It is important when you're dealing with a change of this magnitude and this effect particularly given the concerns that have been raised about the breadth of the SOP and the effect that it will have that there is the important opportunity for the public to give the matter proper consideration. And so the point of order that I have suggested—the motion that I am moving—is one that will allow this House to ask that that SOP not be considered further until there has been that opportunity for public input and for the Finance and Expenditure Committee to consider the matter and report back to this House so that when the committee of the whole House does consider the Supplementary Order Paper and the matters contained within it it does so with the benefit of understanding the potential impacts of the change the potential unintended consequences of the change and the public's very view on the change.None of those opportunities have been afforded to date and it is incumbent on this House in my view to ensure that when we debate such significant changes we do so in full knowledge and understanding of their impact and the public view on them. To date that has been denied to this House and I think it is important that this House turns its mind to the impact of that and takes the opportunity of this motion to remedy that situation.Hon Gerry Brownlee: Mr Speaker.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): There's no debate on—Hon Gerry Brownlee: Yes there is debate. It's a full debate.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): There is debate. My apologies.
Scott AlastairALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa): Thank you Mr Speaker. I am surprised slightly that I also agree with much of what the previous speaker Willie Jackson has spoken of—in principle at least.Hon Gerry Brownlee: Not about me trying to dominate the committee.ALASTAIR SCOTT: Well I was going to mention that I thought he'd have the confidence and mana to contribute to the committee despite Mr Brownlee's expertise and experience. So I'm sure he will contribute more going forward.I do want to agree alongside the previous speakers and just clarify for the benefit of the Greens; I'm sure no matter what I say it won't make any difference to their philosophy. And that is free trade is a good thing—free trade is a good thing for both parties. Free trade is a win-win situation. Free trade allows people to contribute to focus on what they are good at and to trade their expertise or their products with each other freely. The fisherman can focus on the fishing and the farmer can focus on the farming. The benefit of course is that they can have a balanced diet.But if there are barriers of tariffs in place one can only eat fish and the other can only eat red meat and that is not a good thing. So I really want to emphasise the benefits of free-trade agreements to the Green Party. In this I would also like to agree particularly with Minister Sio when he talked about the benefits of this agreement being another stepping stone in closer trade agreements and the free flow of people and goods and services between particularly this country New Zealand and the Pacific Island nations. I agree with the Minister that there is a huge potential—400000 I think was the number talked about. Whatever is good for the Islands is good for New Zealand and I absolutely agree with that sentiment.There is the untapped potential I agree in the point that we can see the benefits of the Chinese free-trade agreement that we've had with China for a number of years. We've seen a huge increase in trade between those two countries and a lot of that has to do with the New Zealand - Chinese community based here with connections back home back to their cousins back to their whānau. I think that this agreement will contribute to more trade more communication and to the free flow of trade and services between New Zealand and the Islands and I think that is a potential yet to be realised.So the free-trade agreement is part of it. The other part of it is the facilitation by using the aid money that is dedicated to aid to not be used as a handout but more as a facilitator to be invested—to be invested in trade facilitation to give people the education to allow market access. Market access is a huge part of that. Labour mobility is a huge part of that. Increasing the knowledge and capability of those small and medium sized businesses in the Pacific is a huge part of that. So that is a very useful and productive and constructive use of what is termed aid in my view.So two parts to the agreement. Both are very good and very positive and I look forward to all parties to the agreement benefiting from it.
Mitchell MarkHon MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): Can I firstly just acknowledge the previous speaker and I want to put on record that I was wrong. I was told when I came into this Parliament and we were doing a lot of work on free-trade agreements that New Zealand First were low-level flyers; they wouldn't support trade agreements they had a history of not supporting trade agreements and like I said they were just low-level flyers when it comes to trade. But I've been proven wrong because since they've gone into Government they're soaring like eagles. They're supporting the TPP they're supporting PACER-Plus they've got right in behind trade so I just want to congratulate and acknowledge to the Rt Hon Winston Peters that I was wrong that you weren't low-level flyers that actually you're soaring with the eagles.But in all seriousness the PACER-Plus is a very important agreement. We are a small trading nation in the Pacific as well and our interests must be bound with those of our Pacific cousins whether it be security whether it be our economic well-being whether it be our environment and the PACER-Plus agreement is just providing another very strong platform for us to be able to work together with our Pacific partners.On that note can I please acknowledge and congratulate them. We've got Australia the Cook Islands Kiribati Nauru New Zealand Niue Samoa the Solomon Islands Tonga and Tuvalu who have all signed the PACER-Plus agreement and the Federated States of Micronesia Palau the Republic of the Marshall Islands and also Vanuatu are still completing their domestic approval processes and will be joining the agreement also. So you can see just how strong and how important this agreement is.I just wanted to make one other quick observation which is that the Rt Hon Winston Peters Deputy Prime Minister was talking about a deficit. I'll acknowledge those comments that he was making but I'd also add that if you look at us as a nation and our trade—the countries that we actually have free-trade agreements with or a trading agreement with generally speaking annually we experience about 10 percent annual growth in that trade. The countries that we don't have free-trade agreements with it's quite the opposite: we're seeing a decline annually of about 10 percent in our trade. So it just highlights the importance of these agreements.Finally can I just acknowledge the Hon Todd McClay. Like he said when he became Associate Minister to the Hon Tim Groser he made a point of saying as part of one of his delegations could he please take on the PACER-Plus. Without a doubt it's been his commitment focus and energy that has driven this agreement through as quickly as it has—and of course with support from our Australian partners—and so I just want to acknowledge him and the work that he's done in getting this agreement across the line. Thank you very much Madam Deputy Speaker.
Motions — 2018 Winter Paralympics—New Zealand Team
Resignation — Hon Steven Joyce
Seymour DavidDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): On behalf of the ACT Party I join with other leaders in expressing tremendous congratulations for these three outstanding New Zealanders and the success that they have achieved in Pyeongchang. They set a target of winning two medals and they won a total of three. It's an outstanding performance that we can all be proud of and I hope that they enjoy their success to every extent possible. Thank you Mr Speaker.Motion agreed to.
Davidson MaramaMARAMA DAVIDSON (Green): The Greens are stoked to stand and add our support and congratulations to the winter Paralympics Team from the South Korean campaign 2018. Of course Adam Hall: gold in the men's slalom and bronze in the super combined; Corey Peters: bronze in the men's downhill; and Carl Murphy the other member of the Paralympics Team.David Seymour: Is this a ministerial statement?MARAMA DAVIDSON: I'll just wait for my colleague to stop talking in my ear while I continue to congratulate this amazing team. I had a fantastic watch of the documentary of their training and I want to acknowledge the huge emotional strain that the training has brought. Adam Hall in particular talks about and questions whether he will actually for example return to the next campaign in another four years because of the emotional strain the physical strain the spiritual strain that that takes on our Olympians—of course noting in this case that Adam Hall with his 16 consecutive campaigns and seasons for winter has gifted his skill to our nation. Corey Peters of course became a sit-ski Olympic athlete only two years after he became paralysed in an accident.So these are amazing feats for any human any human on this planet—certainly amazing feats for people who are more excluded from our community than we normally are. So go with appreciation of the nation. Whatever these athletes of our nation decide they can do and decide they are up for I hope they continue to get the support if they decide they want to continue. But go with the appreciation of our nation for what you have already given us and how you have represented us overseas. Thank you Mr Speaker.
Reti ShaneDr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): Thank you Mr Speaker. On behalf of the National Party we also would like to congratulate the 2018 New Zealand Paralympic Winter Games Team who represented New Zealand in Pyeongchang winning three medals as we've heard: bronze by Corey Peters and a bronze and gold medal by Adam Hall who was also awarded the Whang Youn Dai Achievement Award out of 650 competitors for his contribution to Paralympic sport. We congratulate and celebrate them for what they epitomise in sport. Thank you.