edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Ghahraman GolrizGOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN (Green): Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker. I do believe in fact—to respond to Mr Bishop's point—that this is urgent. It's certainly urgent at the front lines of our criminal justice system. I know the courts in Auckland—so Waitakere Auckland City and Manukau District Courts—regularly sit well beyond their daily 9-5 time slots into 6 or 7 o'clock at night just for lack of courts available to get through the workload—Chris Bishop: The hardship—6 o'clock. They have to work till 6!GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN: —particularly in the family violence court. Well it does mean something Mr Bishop to court staff who have to stay longer just to get through their workloads because there are not enough judges. So it is urgent for those workers in our District Courts at the front lines and it does mean something to the victims waiting for their case to come to court to trial or to hearing. It does mean something for people waiting to have access to justice as accused persons.So this is something that we commend. The criminal justice system is certainly the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff and we do need to invest in all of the things that in fact keep our communities safe. That is mental health care and domestic and sexual violence prevention measures and we need to invest in eradicating poverty. We are doing some of those things and we will continue to invest in those in future wellbeing Budgets. But I do commend this particular bill to the House today because it is urgently needed. Thank you.Bill read a first time.
Bishop ChrisCHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South): Thank you very much Madam Assistant Speaker. I want to thank the Attorney-General for that erudite explanation as to why this bill is needed. The National Party supports the bill. I agree with him that temporary judges are constitutionally suboptimal and it's good that we are increasing the number. As the Attorney-General has rightly highlighted the volume of work going through the District Court is increasing at pace and is likely to continue to do so. It's appropriate that Parliament responds by increasing the number of full-time judges that can be appointed.I do want to make a point about why we are here on a Saturday morning doing this because frankly although this bill is needed and important I'm not sure it warrants the use of urgency post the Budget. If I may be so bold as to suggest this is an example of the Government making use of the ability to just quickly slip something through so that they don't have to waste ordinary House time on a Tuesday Wednesday or Thursday. I won't belabour the point too much because past Governments of both stripes have utilised the opportunity of post-Budget urgency to do that but I have to say this would really—Hon Andrew Little: At least this relates to the Budget.CHRIS BISHOP: Ha ha! The Minister of Justice says it would be a waste of a Budget otherwise.Hon Andrew Little: At least it relates—relates"—to the Budget.CHRIS BISHOP: Well sort of relates to the Budget. On that basis everything relates to the Budget. On that basis you could pass whatever you like in the sense that the Budget appropriates money for literally the entire realm of Government expenditure. So I'm not really sure that's the greatest excuse: on the basis that it "relates to the Budget". Literally everything the Government does relates to the Budget. That's the whole point. But the point is whether or not this is actually needed in the short term and is urgent. I do not believe that it is. We do support the bill anyway but I hasten to add that I think it could have been put through its ordinary parliamentary process. It's a sensible bill and we support it. Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker."
Huo RaymondRAYMOND HUO (Labour): Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker. It's a great pleasure for me to rise to take a call following my learned colleague Chris Penk to support this bill. First of all this bill is about numbers. This bill seeks to increase the maximum number of District Court judges from 160 to 182 fulltime-equivalent judges. There are good reasons behind this bill. This is not only about numbers; the bill helps to ensure that victims achieve justice sooner and criminals face their day in court quicker. The coalition Government's justice package will ensure that we have less offending less reoffending fewer victims of crime and victims are better supported and protected. I commend this bill to the House.
Tabuteau FletcherFLETCHER TABUTEAU (Deputy Leader—NZ First): It's a pleasure to take a call on this—where are we up to?—the third reading. Ha ha!ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): It is third reading if the member needs help.FLETCHER TABUTEAU: I apologise. I just wanted to address the comments from the previous speaker Andrew Bayly. Credit where credit's due—let's acknowledge the mistakes made by the previous chairman of the Commerce Committee and the member himself. This is requiring this parliamentary process to go—Hon Shane Jones: The leaker—the leaker's arrived.FLETCHER TABUTEAU: —into urgency to fix up a mistake from the previous Government.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! Order! Mr Jones it's not needed. Carry on Mr Fletcher Tabuteau.FLETCHER TABUTEAU: Thank you. So in conclusion I'd just like to stand in support of the legislation itself not only having to fix it up—but yes the original legislation New Zealand First did stand in support of the intent of that work because we do want to see the ability for business to do business in a smoother and easier way and we agree that that's what this legislation will do. With those words I thank you in the House.Bill read a third time.
Bayly AndrewANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): Madam Assistant Speaker I'm sure you'll agree that there's been a wide-ranging debate on this bill. Dr Duncan Webb: Misleading the House.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! Dr Webb that's not needed.ANDREW BAYLY: Thank you for making some of these members more confined in their comments. I thought it might be useful just to re-summarise—oh the other point. I find some of the comments from the Government members very uncharitable—very uncharitable particularly that deputy leader of New Zealand First. When this very good piece of legislation was originally passed and everyone now is claiming credit for it and saying what a great thing it was—and it is. It is. But there are things sometimes in bills and we've seen it many times before where there are errors made and people take responsibility for the errors. But this was an administrative oversight and I think some of those comments particularly from Mr Fletcher were unkind and uncalled for. In the light of a wellbeing Budget I think he should reflect on those comments that he's made. We on this side we're generous to people; we want to look after them. That's why we want thriving businesses and that's why this bill is so good.So just to recap it's got three things to it. First thing: it retrospectively validates the imposition collection and use for NZBN register and related functions of fees prescribed and collected under the Companies Act". That's what we're talking about—that's the error that we've got to try and address. It "amends the Companies Act 1993 to provide that regulations under that Act may authorise fees collected under the Act to be used to fund the NZBN register and related functions". So now that's giving the power to do it under that mechanism.But this is the third thing and I must admit I was very disappointed that I didn't hear from the Minister on this issue because I thought it was a very important thing: it "amends the NZBN Act to insert a regulation-making power". That means the Minister has the ability to do this of his own volition without oversight of Parliament. He can insert a regulation-making power that will enable the New Zealand Business Register and related functions to be funded from fees charges or levies payable by entities that have been allocated a New Zealand Business Number.Now if it was a National Party Cabinet Minister maybe some of us would have more sort of comfort in that thought. It's a warm feeling. But because we do not know the Minister's future intent—and that's why I thought it was very important to take the opportunity when it was asked. He chose not to and I'm very disappointed. But I think it's important that the principle is that these fees must be the minimum possible and the imposition of any future fees by the Minister should be in a way that does not make an increased administrative burden on our fantastic 530000 small businesses in New Zealand—the backbone of our economy and the people that employ the vast majority of all people including some of the members of this House."
Russell DeborahDr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn): I rise in support of this excellent bill the New Zealand Business Number Funding (Validation and Authorisation) Bill which supports an excellent piece of business apparatus that enables business to be conducted with ease in this country. For that reason it's important to have the New Zealand Business Number properly supported and this is what this legislation does. I commend this bill to the House.
Hudson BrettBRETT HUDSON (National): Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker. I rise to continue our support in this rather shortened debate on the New Zealand Business Number Funding (Validation and Authorisation) Bill. It has been acknowledged through the course of this debate that there was an error in the mechanism for collecting the levy. It was an absolutely valid levy. This bill takes care of that. That is the action of the bill but it isn't actually the import of the bill.The truly important part of this bill is it validates and ensures that the New Zealand Business Number will continue to be in force continue to be able to be used by about half a billion companies—half a million companies sorry; we haven't got that many companies in New Zealand. Half a million companies—500000 companies in New Zealand. It will help and continue to ease transactions in business between small business in particular and Government. In the future one can hope that it might also expand to help ease transactions between businesses and between businesses and customers.It has always been a very good idea. Its implementation was important for New Zealand. Its objectives and the benefits it can deliver for the country and for the businesses that are part of it remain valid and the actions we are taking today the true import of them go beyond fixing an administrative error and makes sure that the New Zealand Business Number can continue. We commend this bill to the House.
Nash StuartThird ReadingHon STUART NASH (Minister of Revenue): I move That the New Zealand Business Number Funding (Validation and Authorisation) Bill be now read a third time.As I have mentioned this bill fixes a structural problem within the New Zealand Business Number Act. It was a problem that we inherited under the previous Government and one that requires urgent legislation. In the short term it provides a clear legislative signal to companies that the fees they are being charged under the Companies Act are being used to pay for the New Zealand Business Number. This bill also resolves the uncertainty over how the New Zealand Business Number has been funded in the past and draws a line under it.In the longer term this bill provides a legal framework for how incorporated businesses will be charged for the New Zealand Business Number. The exact amount businesses will be charged will be set after a transparent and principled consultation with businesses. This will provide businesses with greater transparency about how the Government is spending the money it collects from them and the value of the money being provided. Because companies are already charged for the New Zealand Business Number separating this out into a discrete fee should not impact on the overall amount that businesses are charged.I thank my officials for their work on this bill and my good colleague and mate the Hon Kris Faafoi for his support in getting this problem fixed. I commend this bill to the House.
Bayly AndrewClauses 1 and 2ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): Thank you—Brett Hudson: Andrew you don't want to go home yet.ANDREW BAYLY: No. We're back on to the—Hon Ruth Dyson: Clause 1 and 2.ANDREW BAYLY: Yeah—1 and 2. I think the very important thing here is about the date the actual name of it and also the date that's been—Dr Deborah Russell: Wake up Andrew.ANDREW BAYLY: I am here with us. Of course that is very very important and that's why I think the Minister for Small Business spent a lot of time considering these aspects about when it is going to commence. I think that is the point I was making before about the due date when it's going to commence. I think part of that as I said before this date—actually one of the provisions in this bill expires today—expires today. I would love the Minister to stand up and actually take a call and also talk about some of those matters that I have just raised previously.Clause 1 agreed to.Clause 2 agreed to.House resumed.Bill reported without amendment.Report adopted.
Bayly AndrewPart 2 Amendments to New Zealand Business Number Act 2016ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): Thank you Madam Chair. I think one of the important things about this bill is the actual revenue-making power—the ability to charge entities a fee for obviously being able to access the New Zealand Business Number mechanism and for its maintenance. I think just in terms of its general overreach or the extent of this bill this bill has obviously got three elements to it. One of the primary aspects is it amends the NZBN—the New Zealand Business Number—Act to insert a regulation-making power that will enable the New Zealand Business Number Register and related functions to be funded from fees charges or levies payable by entities that have been allocated a New Zealand Business Number.I think the regulating powers—and I'm talking specifically here about clause 9 new section 37A. One of the things I would like to ask the Minister is I think it's very important for businesses in New Zealand to have clarity around what sort of fee they are likely to have imposed on them in the future. One is the quantum of fee which is obviously very important because that should be no more than what the system is required to operate on—and be kept to a minimum of course. But I think obviously we've been using a mechanism through the Companies Act and that's one of the reasons why we're putting through this validation and authorisation bill but I'd quite like to know from the Minister for Small Business what the future intent is.I know this gives a regulation-making power which is a very wide power. It basically means the Minister can make changes without having to come back through Parliament. What is the likely form of those charges? Is it going to be a levy of some sort or is it going to have some other sort of aspect to it as noted before? I think that the mechanism is really important because the whole intent of this was to make sure—not only is the business number very useful for people to be able to interact with the 60 Government departments but also we don't want to now impose another imposition in terms of how they pay for it.The simplicity of the model as it is at the moment is that it is charged under the Companies Act even though it relates not only to companies but also to partnerships and sole traders. So perhaps the Minister could provide us with some more clarity around the future levy- or fee-making mechanism that he's intending to pursue. Of course there is some time but one of the things about today and the reason why there is urgency is because in the bill itself there is a requirement to make sure that we only—we have to make a change. This bill has to go through today because some of the powers expire at the end of today and so it's very important that this happens today. But just that clarity around the future revenue-making power and the mechanism would be very helpful. I look forward to the Minister's contribution on that matter.Part 2 agreed to.
Hudson BrettIn CommitteePart 1 Amendments to Companies Act 1993BRETT HUDSON (National): Thank you Madam Chair. It's a pleasure to rise and speak on Part 1 the part that will despite one of the members opposite—the deputy leader in fact of the New Zealand First Party—wanting to make a mountain out of a molehill validate the collection of levies up until this point which as we have discovered and the Minister of Revenue was advised late last year do not fit within the legal realms or constructs of the Companies Act.We have an opportunity which we're taking in Part 1. Obviously the bill itself is going to not only make sure that the levies are correct going forward but in this Part 1 make it clear that although there was an error the error itself didn't invalidate the purpose of that levy that was collected and didn't invalidate the reasons nor the actions that were taken with it in terms of instituting and running the New Zealand Business Number. But it does of course just give legal certainty. In fact it could be no more certain in what it does to set out in legal stone that the levies that have been collected to date are deemed legal.I do have a question for the Minister and it may actually be under Part 2 so I'm going to hold it back for that but I'll flag the question now so that the Minister can consider it. That is: why didn't he just choose to continue and make this a levy that would continue to be collected under the Companies Act into the future? Why a New Zealand Business Number Act levy?Part 1 agreed to.
Tabuteau FletcherFLETCHER TABUTEAU (Deputy Leader—NZ First): I put it to people who watch the parliamentary debate to listen to the previous contribution given by the Opposition member Brett Hudson and I put this to the House: all morning we have been regaled with comments about the process of urgency and what a travesty it is and how terrible it is but when we're fixing up the mistakes of the previous Government it's a case of It's not a problem and I think people won't have an issue with it." It's quite an interesting juxtaposition of two lines of thought.With that I just need to make mention that whilst this did come in under the previous Government—New Zealand First supported it then—it is a sensible measure that needs fixing and we continue to support it now. With that I recommend the bill to the House. Thank you sir.Bill read a second time."
Hudson BrettBRETT HUDSON (National): Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker. I rise to continue our support of the New Zealand Business Number Funding (Validation and Authorisation) Bill. It would be customary particularly under an urgency motion at this time to rail against the lack of a select committee process and the voices of New Zealanders and interested parties not being heard and we have in fact done this on this Budget day on several occasions. But in this instance we are firmly of the view that this is a very appropriate measure. In fact as I said in my first reading speech this is the first time in this Budget urgency that we have a bill that very legitimately does deserve the treatment of going through all stages under urgency.It is regrettable that in good faith Government and indeed Parliament at the time in the last term sought to institute the New Zealand Business Number and to fund it through the levies under the Companies Act believing at the time that that was a completely legitimate way and legal way of going about that. It certainly did reflect the reality and the fact that businesses themselves are the ones who benefit very much most from the efficiencies and gains that come from the implementation of the Business Number. So it is and remains absolutely appropriate that they pay the lion's share of the cost of the systems in regime.Regrettably though it has been determined—and as the Minister of Revenue said late last year he received advice that the Companies Act does not actually legally permit the levies that had previously been raised to be used in the way they had been for the New Zealand Business Number. So particularly in Part 1 of this bill we will validate the levies that have been charged and so with the power of sovereignty of Parliament we will actually make legal that which technically hasn't been up until the final passage of this bill. But it is the right thing to do.I don't even believe that we will hear much in the way of comment at all from businesses or people in New Zealand. I think they can acknowledge that it was an error—although completely unintentional—that it is the right thing to do to correct it that it is not harming anyone in the correction. No one is losing anything. No one is being charged more than they would otherwise have been charged. It is in a sense in a way a little bit more than a typographical error but it is still in the nature of a small administrative error that needs to be tidied up and it is appropriate that we do tidy it up through this urgency process. We continue to commend this bill to the House.
Nash StuartSecond ReadingHon STUART NASH (Minister of Revenue): I move That the New Zealand Business Number Funding (Validation and Authorisation) Bill be now read a second time.This bill does three things. First it amends the Companies Act to provide that regulations under that Act can authorise fees collected from companies to be used to fund the New Zealand Business Number Register. Secondly it amends the New Zealand Business Number Act to insert a regulation-making power to enable fees and levies to begin being charged under that Act. Thirdly it validates the past use of fees charged under the Companies Act to fund the New Zealand Business Number Register.Part 1 of the bill amends the Companies Act to expressly provide that the fees collected from companies can be used to fund the New Zealand Business Number Register. The vast majority of entities which have been issued with a New Zealand Business Number are companies. The fees that these businesses are being charged under the Companies Act already factor in an amount for the New Zealand Business Number. These amendments will not lead to any changes to the fees obtained from companies to meet the cost of the New Zealand Business Number; it will simply make transparent to businesses what they are paying for. It will continue to be possible to use the Companies Act fees to fund the New Zealand Business Number through to 30 June 2023.Part 2 of the bill will amend the New Zealand Business Number Act to insert a regulation-making power to enable fees and levies to begin being charged under that Act. Charging businesses for the New Zealand Business Number in this way will not mean businesses will need to pay more than they otherwise would have but it allows those charges to be set in a transparent and principled way. Businesses will be able to see what they are charged and the bill requires that they are consulted before any fees charges or levies are set. Fees will need to be set under the Business Number Act by 1 July 2023. After this date the ability for fees charged under the Companies Act to be used to fund the New Zealand Business Number will fall away.The bill will also retrospectively validate the historical collection and use of fees set and charged under the Companies Act to fund the New Zealand Business Number Register. Validating the practice of using Companies Act fees in this way avoids the risk of the way the companies' regulations have been set being challenged and money used to fund the New Zealand Business Number Register needing to be refunded.This bill is validating something that was understood and intended to be lawful but was not because of a technical error. If this issue had been identified as part of the development of the New Zealand Business Number Bill I expect that the same businesses would have ended up being charged roughly the same amount. I commend this bill to the House.
Coffey TamatiTAMATI COFFEY (Labour—Waiariki): Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker. I just rise to take a very short call on this bill. It's a good bill two parts to it—very simple. I commend it to the House.Bill read a first time.
Genter Julie AnneHon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Minister for Women): Tēnā koe Madam Assistant Speaker. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare. The Green Party supported the New Zealand Business Number when it was introduced by National. The reason we're here today is unfortunately they didn't do all their due diligence didn't do the legislation right so now we have to pass this legislation under urgency to fix a problem around fee collection to ensure we're not charging fees in an illegal manner.The bill will also create a framework for future funding of the New Zealand Business Number which is essential as it has the potential to revolutionise the way in which New Zealand businesses interact with each other and the Government. I think that's something that we can all agree on. This Government is here to carry on the work to do it properly and to fix the mess that we inherited from National because they're so often so ideological. They don't realise that all New Zealanders whether they're in business whether they're employees whether they're carers whether they're volunteers whether they're young people or old people—they all benefit from infrastructure and services which are funded by taxes. They should be proud to pay tax because that's how we invest in our infrastructure. That's how we invest in education healthcare and the services and infrastructure that New Zealanders actually want and believe in because they are not selfish and ignorant like the National Party members.
Tabuteau FletcherFLETCHER TABUTEAU (Deputy Leader—NZ First): Members do you realise what we just heard in that contribution from that member opposite? I'd just like to point out to the House that that member had the gall to stand up in front of this House and admit to everyone in here that he was the chair of the committee that oversaw this piece of legislation.Brett Hudson: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I was the deputy chair of that committee; the member could at least try to be correct.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): That's not a point of order.Hon Kris Faafoi: Oh so no authority then.FLETCHER TABUTEAU: Ha ha! So the deputy chair. If I were the members opposite I would be embarrassed. I would not be standing up talking about how wonderful this legislation is which New Zealand First voted for and supported. If you go back and look at the notes we were concerned about the funding funnily enough and here we are quite frankly on this side of the House fixing up their mess. We're happy to do it because we know it'd be good for business. Therefore we support it. Thank you very much.
Faafoi KrisHon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Broadcasting Communications and Digital Media): It's a pleasure to rise on the New Zealand Business Number Funding (Validation and Authorisation) Bill. I think the initial two speakers have spoken a lot in detail with varying degrees of success about what the New Zealand Business Number sets out to do. Seeing as the previous speaker Jacqui Dean wanted to take credit for some things I think they should probably take credit for this piece of legislation actually having to go through the House because essentially the New Zealand Business Number which we have no qualms with was set up but the previous Government didn't set up a mechanism in order to pay for its administration.So we are validating some of the expenses that have been expended to date and making sure that we can pay for those functions going forward in order to make sure that the Business Number is a success—something that the previous Government should have done. We are validating the expense and we are making sure that there is money to make sure the administration of the number is done. So they can take credit for some of the success but they should also take some of the responsibility for us having to be here this Saturday morning because they didn't have a mechanism in order to pay for it. So credit where credit's due. We are here doing this because the previous Government couldn't do that but you know that's what happens.So I'm glad that the New Zealand Business Number will be funded in the future. If I were the Opposition I wouldn't worry too much about the New Zealand Business Number. I would be worried about their polling numbers which would see some of them disappear very soon at the next election. Thank you very much Mr Speaker.
Craig LizDr LIZ CRAIG (Labour): Thank you Mr Speaker. It's a pleasure to rise in the third reading of this bill. Down South we've got a lot of iconic destinations. We've got Queenstown we've got the Catlins and we've got Milford Sound but we've also got thousands and thousands of visitors a year and so what this bill will do is it will assist those communities that are really struggling to keep up with the basic infrastructure that those international visitors need. What it means is that those visitors will contribute their fair share to the infrastructure they use but it also means that we can invest in our conservation estate and in protecting our unique biodiversity. So it's with pleasure that I commend this bill to the House.
Dean JacquiHon JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): Thank you Mr Speaker and good morning. I just want to make a couple of final points I think. All the points from the National Party have been made very well. I just want to add one last perhaps plea to the Government. The only reference in any of the debates—there is no reference in the bill—and the only reference in the whole passage of this bill to the Minister of Local Government has been made by members on this side of the House and yet half the money raised from this tourist tax will be potentially allocated to local authorities to disburse. So the question I have for the Minister and he might want to take it away and think about it over the weekend—unlikely—and the question I would dearly love to have answered is: why then rush this through?The Productivity Commission is not far away from releasing its report into local government funding and financing. Surely given the fact that local government is going to be in receipt of a moderate amount of money for expenditure on tourism infrastructure—unspecified and undefined—it would make good sense in a policy setting to have a look at that and regard the two—[A member's cellphone rings] That was—yes. SPEAKER: Well Stuart Nash is shouting. Hon JACQUI DEAN: Yeah—scones and cream I think—tea. Surely it would be a better process for this Government to look at those two things together and then come up with a decent piece of legislation.
Tirikatene RinoRINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): I just wish to add my support to this bill and to our Government. Can I acknowledge the Ministers Minister Iain Lees-Galloway for immigration Minister Kelvin Davis the Minister of Tourism and Minister Eugenie Sage for their fantastic work with this bill. This bill is all about making those on a visitor experience pay for their way in terms of the use of our infrastructure and assets—$450 million collected over five years will take the pressure off Kiwis. So this is a fantastic piece of legislation. It's going to do wonderful things for my electorate right across the magnificent taonga that we have in Te Wai Pounamu. I wholeheartedly support it and I commend this bill to the House. Kia ora.
Hipango HareteHARETE HIPANGO (National—Whanganui): Thank you Mr Speaker. I will keep this brief. I sum this bill up with the following questions around: does it have integrity does it pose a risk and what is the compromise? In terms of the integrity there's a real concern around the lack of due process and we've heard that repeatedly in the House. So I leave it with the Government and the members there: does this bill stand the test of integrity?The risk that is being posed to the tourism industry as we've heard about the compromise with the numbers of our tourists is whether that flow will continue. Coming back also to the risk associated with the bill the purpose of the Immigration Act makes no mention whatsoever of tourism. The purpose of the Immigration Act is to manage immigration. There is no amendment within this amendment bill that addresses the purpose of tourism. The risk to this bill is that it does not stand the test of integrity.Finally the compromise—the compromise in the promises that this Government has made in terms of the sustenance and the sustainability of our tourism industry here in Aotearoa New Zealand. The tiaki promise to care has been compromised. Its integrity the risk posed and the compromise to our New Zealand tourism industry is most definitely compromised by the lack of substance and the flaws that are within this bill. The National Party continues to maintain its opposition to this bill and the risk that it poses to our tourism market.
Warren-Clark AngieANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): Thank you Mr Speaker. In response to that speech I did not hear the Hon Nick Smith say that he would repeal this legislation.It's a pleasure to rise and speak to the Immigration (International Visitor Conservation and Tourism Levy) Amendment Bill—a bill that takes care of the infrastructure and takes care of the conservation reserves. It is a pleasure to commend this bill to the House.
Dowie SarahSARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill): Thank you Mr Speaker. I rise in Opposition also to this tourist tax bill to take a short call. But before I go on to my particular abhorrence with this bill I say that we rise in support of the tourism industry and we rise in support of conservation. I categorically reject what the Minister of Tourism had to say about this National Party's record and the fact that he believes that we would simply rape and pillage the conservation estate. That is absolutely nonsense and evidenced by our investment in the conservation estate.Coming back to the bill I think that with respect to the Conservation Act and this poor piece of legislation there is a stark difference. When we look at Part 3B for example under the Conservation Act it is quite prescriptive as to how we go about authorising commercial activities on the estate. In contrast this bill holds absolutely no detail about how this tax is going to be administered or distributed and it gives the Minister Henry VIII" powers to arbitrarily decide that.It is a very poor piece of legislation and I believe that if this Government had gone out and properly consulted with the tourism industry and disclosed what was in the regulatory impact statement that meant the fiscals didn't add up—with an estimated revenue of $80 million coming in and discouraging around about $70 million worth of our tourism attraction and spending to these shores—it would not be supported. Certainly the uncertainty with how it is going to be distributed and what projects are going to be prioritised—this is just simply a bad bad piece of legislation.So while we are in support of the tourism industry and conservation—and a National Government has in the past and will in the future do everything it can to support that industry because we understand that tourism helps grow the regions and helps grow New Zealand and produces many jobs and opportunities for New Zealand—another tax is not going to encourage growth in a sustainable way. It is not going to provide further opportunities for New Zealanders. With that I simply oppose this bill."
Tabuteau FletcherFLETCHER TABUTEAU (Deputy Leader—NZ First): Now this seems to be more than opposition for opposition's sake. I say that because this is kind of upsetting. You go into any one of their electorates in the regions and you know that their tourism operators want this need this. The industry supports what we're trying to do here. The industry supports the fact that international tourists are going to pay a levy when they come into our beautiful country to help keep it clean and green and to help unblock those infrastructure pressures.Here's the kicker—and this is why I know there's a problem in the Opposition benches. One of the best Ministers of Tourism—this is the only credit I can give the guy. One of the best Ministers of Tourism this country has seen in recent history—and actually to be fair I best describe him as the one of the former Leaders of the Opposition there—Sir John Key has come out publicly in support of this levy on international visitors to New Zealand. And on that I say they are lost and confused and we are doing a good thing here today. Thank you very much.
Rurawhe AdrianCHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): The question is that the Hon Jacqui Dean's tabled amendment to replace 1 July 2019" with "1 July 2020" in clause 2 be agreed to. All those in favour say aye to the contrary no. The noes have it.Hon Members: Noes have it!CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Can I the chairperson of the committee warn the junior whip of the Government that she only calls out if she opposes the ruling of the Speaker or the Chair. OK? Thank you."
McClay ToddClauses 1 to 3Hon TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua): I have an amendment on this and so I'll speak very briefly on it. My colleague Erica Stanford was talking about it late last night. It's good to see that on this side all members have been off and got enough beauty sleep. I think the Ministers were up very very late by comparison.But I want to give them an early present and I think that the title should be changed so that international visitors and New Zealanders are very very clear about what this bill is and what it does. We said earlier in the first and second reading and certainly during the committee stage that there isn't a problem that this Government doesn't think a new tax can solve and equally already $1.6 billion is collected from international tourists every year. This Government could deliver significantly more money for the tourism sector in this Budget or last year's Budget should they wish and they haven't done so. Instead they're dressing up their commitment to the tourism industry under the guise of a new tax.My amendment which was tabled earlier offering me the opportunity to speak to it proposes to change the name of this bill the title from the Immigration (International Visitors Conservation and Tourism Levy) Amendment Bill to what this actually is and I propose that it should be renamed the Immigration (International Visitors Conservation and Tourism Tax) Amendment Bill. That will bring great warmth to the members opposite because there is not a tax they have seen they don't like; there is not a problem they don't believe a new tax will fix.
Rurawhe AdrianCHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): The question is that Erica Stanford's tabled amendment to clause—sorry we've just got some new tabled amendments. So the first question—Hon Todd McClay: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I've already started putting the question.Hon Todd McClay: But the member moved a closure motion and you haven't taken that vote yet.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): No I didn't accept it and no one sought the call so I'm obliged to put the question.
Lees-Galloway IainHon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Minister of Immigration): Thank you very much Mr Chair. There have been a number of questions about the operation of the regulations that can be made under new section 399A. There are two types of exemptions for the levy; both are quite normal in the immigration system. The principal Act the Immigration Act 2009 provides for special directions that allow the use of exemptions from immigration requirements in special or unusual circumstances. The special direction provision in this amendment bill is consistent with and is in fact modelled on those existing provisions. Standard practice is that the decision is delegated to an immigration officer so individual exemptions will largely be delegated to an immigration officer. The regulations also provide for exemptions for groups or classes of people. Again this is a normal part of the immigration system. For example refugees do not pay fees for the immigration system. It could be possible for instance to determine that people who were coming to New Zealand for medical purposes that were legitimate medical purposes may not be charged an international visitor levy. That's the way in which the exemptions will operate. I know members were interested in that last night. Just picking up on some of the comments that Erica Stanford just made questions about why the Government has chosen to exempt Australians from paying a levy rather than setting a lower levy for Australians. That was feedback that we received from the industry during the extensive consultation that occurred in the lead-up to this legislation—that you know they would prefer that Australians were not charged because of their proximity because their airfares are cheaper and therefore as a cost of the overall spend in New Zealand it would be a larger proportion. Also of course there is the point that James Shaw made that we have reciprocal arrangements with Australia and we need to make sure that we are consistent in our treatment of Australians. Australians of course when they come to New Zealand actually are provided with a residence visa upon arrival in New Zealand and have freedom of movement just as we have freedom of movement in and out of Australia. So it's consistency—it's a consistent approach. By and large Australians are treated the same as New Zealanders for movement across the New Zealand border and we would want to do the same with this international visitor levy. Again I thank members for their questions and comments and hope they found my responses useful.
Rurawhe AdrianTHURSDAY 30 MAY 2019(continued on Saturday 1 June 2019)IMMIGRATION (INTERNATIONAL VISITOR CONSERVATION AND TOURISM LEVY) AMENDMENT BILLIn CommitteeDebate resumed.Part 2 Main amendments (continued)CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Talofa lava manuia le aso manuia Samoa. Members when the committee suspended last night we were considering Part 2 of the Immigration (International Visitor Conservation and Tourism Levy) Amendment Bill. Erica Stanford had the call and has four minutes and 30 seconds remaining if she so wishes.
Thursday 30 May 2019 (continued on Friday 31 May 2019) - Volume 738
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the question be now put.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 47New Zealand National 46; Ross.Motion agreed to.The question was put that the following amendment set out in the name of the Hon Todd McClay to clause 5(1) be agreed to:insert after the definition of international visitor conservation and tourism levy" the following definitions: tourism is defined as an organisation event activity business or facility where the primary purpose is to facilitate international recreational visitors in New Zealand; and tourism infrastructure is defined as those facilities or capabilities that deliver the objectives as outlined in the definition of tourism.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 47New Zealand National 46; Ross.Noes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Amendment not agreed to.The question was put that the following amendment set out in the name of the Hon Todd McClay to clause 5 be agreed to:insert after subclause (2) the following new subclause: (3)In section 4 definition of Department—(a)after "Department" insert " in relation to a provision of or made under this Act (or to such a provision for particular purposes)"; and(b)replace "of this Act" with "of the provision (or for its administration for those purposes)".A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 47New Zealand National 46; Ross.Noes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Amendment not agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That Part 1 be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 48New Zealand National 46; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Part 1 agreed to."
Immigration (International Visitor Conservation and Tourism Levy) Amendment Bill — In Committee—Part 1
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Immigration (International Visitor Conservation and Tourism Levy) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 48New Zealand National 46; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Bill read a second time.
Immigration (International Visitor Conservation and Tourism Levy) Amendment Bill — Second Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Immigration (International Visitor Conservation and Tourism Levy) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 48New Zealand National 46; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Bill read a first time.
Immigration (International Visitor Conservation and Tourism Levy) Amendment Bill — First Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Social Assistance Legislation (Budget 2019 Welfare Package) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 48New Zealand National 46; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Bill read a third time.
Social Assistance Legislation (Budget 2019 Welfare Package) Amendment Bill — Third Reading
VoteA 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 of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 48New Zealand National 46; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Clause 1 agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 245 in the name of the Hon Louise Upston to clause 2 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 47New Zealand National 46; Ross.Noes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Amendment not agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That clause 2 be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 48New Zealand National 46; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Clause 2 agreed to.Bill reported without amendment.Report adopted.
Social Assistance Legislation (Budget 2019 Welfare Package) Amendment Bill — In Committee—Clauses 1 and 2
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That Part 2 be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 48New Zealand National 46; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Part 2 agreed to.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 244 in the name of Maureen Pugh to the Schedule be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 47New Zealand National 46; Ross.Noes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Amendments not agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the Schedule be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 48New Zealand National 46; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Schedule agreed to.
Social Assistance Legislation (Budget 2019 Welfare Package) Amendment Bill — In Committee—Part 2
Social Assistance Legislation (Budget 2019 Welfare Package) Amendment Bill — In Committee—Part 1
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Social Assistance Legislation (Budget 2019 Welfare Package) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 57New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Bill read a second time.
Social Assistance Legislation (Budget 2019 Welfare Package) Amendment Bill — Second Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Social Assistance Legislation (Budget 2019 Welfare Package) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 57New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Bill read a first time.
Social Assistance Legislation (Budget 2019 Welfare Package) Amendment Bill — First Reading