edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That debate on this question now close.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 49New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.Motion agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Arena Williams' tabled amendment to clause 1 to insert the words OE Tax" be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 49New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.Noes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Amendment not agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Arena Williams' tabled amendment to clause 1 to insert the words "broken promises" is out of order as not being an objective description of the bill.The question is that clause 1 stand part.A party vote was called for on the question That the clause 1 be agreed to.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 49New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.Clause 1 agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Arena Williams' tabled amendments to clause 2 to adjust the commencement dates to 31 July 2024 31 October 2024 31 October 2024 31 April 2027 and 31 July 2040 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 49New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.Noes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Amendments not agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that clause 2 stand part—I've missed an amendment to put to the vote and I'll go back to that now.The question is that Arena Williams' tabled amendments to clause 2 to adjust the commencement dates to 1 July 2024 1 October 2024 1 October 2024 1 April 2027 and 1 April 2040 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 49New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.Noes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Amendments not agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I'll put then the last question again. The question is that clause 2 stand part.A party vote was called for on the question That the clause 2 be agreed to.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 49New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.Clause 2 agreed to.Bill to be reported without amendment.House resumed.CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Mr Speaker the committee has considered the Taxation (Budget Measures) Bill and reports it without amendment. I move That the report be adopted.Motion agreed to.Report adopted."
Russell DeborahHon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): Thank you Madam Chair. I do want to speak to the commencement clause and in particular I want to speak to this because—well I think we really need to understand what's going on here.We had a discussion when we were on Part 4—now Part 4 comes into force on 1 April 2025 and it's the part that contains all the measures around taxes like employer superannuation contribution tax and fringe benefit tax and so on; compared to Part 3 which comes into force on 31 July 2024 and of course again various clauses and things like that. There's all sorts of different dates floating around in this bill. I think because of the complexity of all the different sorts of dates floating around in this bill we had this quite extraordinary way of structuring the bill. And it really comes into close relief when you look at this commencement clause.The bill was structured in this extraordinary way where instead of structuring it as is usual in a tax bill with Part 1 dealing with amendments to the Income Tax Act and Part 2 might be the amendments to the Tax Administration Act and Part 3 might be—all those sorts of things which would be a pretty standard way of dealing with a tax bill kind of thematically—this bill is structured in a way I've never seen a bill structured. It's structured according to the commencement dates. So Part 1 is all the amendments which come into force on 1 April 2024. Part 2 is all the amendments which come into force on 1 July 2024. Part 3 is 31 July 2024. Part 4 is 1 April 2025—so a really interesting set of commencement dates and a very interesting way of structuring the bill. Now Madam Speaker I'm sure you've seen commencement clauses for tax bills before. You've sat in that Chair for long enough to see some tax bills go through—well in this House certainly—and they are deeply deeply complex clauses. Other members of the House will have seen tax bills as well. They are very very complex clauses. I guess that's why this bill was structured that way. But I do want to ask the Minister if the Minister could clarify why not just the standard commencement clause that goes through and lists each part part by part?It's an extraordinary way to structure a bill. It may be an effective one. Does the Minister intend to do this with future tax bills or is it just that there's a particular reason for doing it with this tax bill to have this very unusual way of structuring the bill itself? And it does as I said earlier become highlighted when we look at the commencement clause—so just a word from the Minister on his intentions with respect to future tax bills and why this one was done this way.
Xu-Nan LawrenceDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you Madam Chair. First of all I would like to thank the Minister of Revenue for being able to be available through this whole process. I have a question around the commencement date and I know that we talked about it before as part of Part 5. But I want to just check in terms of the commencement date—and this is clause 2. I've got two questions. Let's start with clause 2(6) which says Sections 41 42 and 43 come into force on 1 April 2021." So my question to the Minister of Revenue is I guess two-pronged—one and one. It's the retrospective nature of this clause coming in and I guess No. 2 is more around the semantics of whether it is general practice for us to use a simple present tense in that case and not a past tense—a simple past or a present perfect. So I would like to get some clarification on that from the Minister. The second question I have is around—Hon Jan Tinetti: They don't teach grammar in schools these days! Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: My background is in linguistics—I'm sorry! The second question is around subclauses (7) and (8). As part of Part 5 we talked about the fact that the student loans are going to be for a five-year period. I would like to have some clarification from the Minister—and in particular for subclause (7) where it says that it comes into force on 1 April 2025—on whether there has been any discussion or any modelling done on why that was pushed out to 2025 as opposed to 2024 or 2026 or any of the other dates. So clarification on those two points would be great."
Garcia PauloPAULO GARCIA (National—New Lynn): Thank you Madam Speaker. The member opposite has just described a situation that she is observing now which is a situation that is clearly the result of the past many years where the gangs have gained ground and have boomed. It's been said many times over this debate that numbers have grown—a 51 percent increase. This didn't happen in the last nine months alone; this is the result of a few years of momentum that the gangs have gained.At the same time there has been significant violence. In New Lynn where I am the MP youth violence and assaults are rife. It's happening; steps are being taken to deal with that. But what this bill seeks to address is specifically the behaviour that gangs are putting into the public space. The bill specifically deals with the situation where gangs need to see consequence arise from behaviour that they've been escalating over time. We are nine months in. We are going through legislation that will address that very specific circumstance of the behaviour of gangs in public. The bill seeks to reduce that behaviour engaged in by gangs and to disincentivise gang membership because as it seeks to deal with the elements that make gang membership exciting probably and alluring to many they will be dampened down.It is a new offence—so new it has never been an offence—to wear gang patches and to display specific gang insignia in public places. The object of that is to reduce the incidence of menacing behaviour in public that makes people feel threatened. There is also the opportunity for police to intervene in situations where three or more are gathered which again is there to seek to put some confidence in the public that police are looking into and preventing threatening behaviour. It's the behaviour and the consequence of that behaviour that this bill seeks to address. And we can all argue about the causes of why people are susceptible to and attracted by gang membership. We can talk about how people have in their life circumstance been disadvantaged so that gang membership seems to be the only opportunity for them to gain involvement in a familial space but that is not what this bill is about and we are here to debate the bill that seeks to address the misbehaviour.In addition to the new offence of wearing gang patches and displaying insignia also with the gathering together there will be the opportunity for police to ask the courts to issue non-consorting orders to prevent the long-term association of people who are clearly of a menacing and dangerous association. I commend this bill to the House.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Gangs Legislation Amendment Bill be now read a second time.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 55New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6; Tana.Motion agreed to.Bill read a second time.
Nakhle RimaRIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini): It's both a pleasure and a shame that I have to stand and speak about this bill the second reading of the Gangs Legislation Amendment Bill. It's a pleasure in the sense that I'm thinking about how many people in my patch also in south and east Auckland that the implementation of this bill will help to feel a lot safer—feel a lot safer whether or not it achieves all the goals that the Opposition is trying to say that it should achieve it will make them feel safer; absolutely 100 percent.But it's a shame that we have to talk about laws like this and work on laws like this because of the fact that—friendly reminder—as was mentioned by a number of my colleagues over the past five years gangs have recruited more than 3000 members. That's an increase of 51 percent. And we're not talking about members to a knitting club or members to a poetry club or members to a potluck club—no pun intended—we're talking about as Dr Duncan Webb said gangs at their core are organisations living outside the law. Absolutely they're normal people. Absolutely my heart goes out to them for what many of them have experienced—absolutely. But they're normal people that have chosen to live outside the law. Now what are we trying to do here? We're trying to implement changes that are going to ban gang insignia in public forfeit insignia to the Crown dispersal notices for seven days non-consorting orders and amends the Sentencing Act to make it an aggravating factor to be part of a gang. Why? Why are we doing this? Well there's a number of reasons why but it's not just about crime. Actually when we talk about taking off that jacket it's about the fact that them wearing that jacket is brandishing their gangs to show that they are above the law. Not above the law for merely jaywalking we're talking about family violence blatant assaults drug dealing. So this is part of what we're trying to do here.We're trying to say the fact that you are brandishing these patches is glamourising gangs. The National Party and the Government is not glamourising gangs by passing this Gangs Legislation Amendment Bill. The patches are glamourising gangs. The Harley-Davidsons bought by the proceeds of crime are glamourising gangs. So this is what our kaupapa is about and this is what we're trying to achieve. We're trying to say that brandishing and glamourising gangs through the patches is not OK and it's causing extreme intimidation. And we're trying to say Absolutely yes we are getting tough on crime but 100 percent we need to address the core problems as well." The core problems are not going to be addressed with this law alone; it's with other measures that our Government is taking. But at this stage yes I commend this bill to the House. We're not going to glamourise patches."
Stephenson ToddTODD STEPHENSON (ACT): Thank you Madam Speaker. I rise this evening to speak in support of the Gangs Legislation Amendment Bill. I actually was enjoying the first few minutes of the Hon Ginny Andersen's contribution when she actually outlined what a scourge gangs are in New Zealand and the damage and harm they cause. This coalition Government has promised a crackdown on crime and that is what we are delivering. Over the past five years gangs have recruited more than 3000 members—that's a 51 percent increase. And we've seen a significant escalation in gang violence crime public intimidation and shootings.Nothing was done under the previous Government so we are bringing a different approach where we are actually tackling head on the issue of gangs and a number of other criminal justice issues. Police will be able to issue dispersal notices and they will be able to enforce gang patch bans. We want to put these tools in place because we do actually want to focus on cracking down on these gangs which are causing a lot of misery and crime.We'll be doing some other things as well as a Government. We'll be putting a cap on the discounts around sentences. We'll also be doing some things to ensure that the victims of crime are prioritised. And importantly we are actually delivering 500 more front line police by the end of 2025. So we want to actually see a reduction in the victims of crime in New Zealand.Now just turning to the bill I do want to thank my fellow members of the Justice Committee. Actually all of the amendments that the Minister spoke to and accepted were actually passed unanimously by members of the Justice Committee. The Justice Committee actually has representatives from all of the parties and they unanimously recommended the amendments that we are speaking to tonight.As has been outlined by the Minister we will see with this bill the prohibition of gang insignia or gang patches and some fines and imprisonment time for gang members who breach that—that'll be enforceable by the police. We have these dispersal orders to stop gangs actually gathering in public and intimidating people and police will be able to intervene and actually break up these groups of gang members. And then we'll also have these non-consorting orders; again stopping gang members associating with each other.So this is a very important piece of legislation but it is just one piece of this Government's law and order plan to actually turn New Zealand around. One of the more interesting things—and the Minister did reference this—was this bill actually has a fixed date which it will come into effect and that was so that the police could actually be prepared and ready to implement these laws and that was something the committee took on board. So with that I want to conclude my comments and I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.
Hamilton RyanRYAN HAMILTON (National—Hamilton East): Thank you Madam Speaker. The former speaker was entertaining albeit a little bit incorrect because whilst council-controlled organisations (CCOs) do exist and can and in fact are encouraged under this bill what this does is this is only bill two out of three so I can tell you the trilogy is not yet complete; wait for bill three. Just like the CCO in Auckland called Water Care which now has a separate debt-to-revenue cap which is one of the options available to us because you asked about finance and also infrastructure funding and financing. So there's a whole raft of tools that are coming.One of the former speakers on this bill MP Cushla actually talked about a children's song as well and I actually felt like breaking into children's song a little bit too; it's called the Hokey Pokey" dance. It was on this bill or a separate bill. But you know when you put your right arm in and you put your right arm out you put your right arm in and you shake it all about you do the hokey pokey you turn yourself around. That's what it's all about. That's what it felt like if you think back to the three waters debacle when it was opt in opt out opt in opt out no council would be worse off. But you remember there was actually you may not even—Tom Rutherford: Just shake the money tree.RYAN HAMILTON: The money tree that's right. You may not actually remember but there were 30 options modelled around the water infrastructures throughout the councils throughout New Zealand—30 models. Do you remember how many councils got to see or got to implement? One; it was one. That's so much for localism. And do you know what? The Labour Government was actually very creative with those bills as well with those entities. They came up with four names: the first one was called Entity A; the second one was called Entity B. It was ludicrous.The other thing which was flawed and why we've had to bring in good water done well is because of the disproportionality. So for example where I live in the Waikato and Hamilton City Council there were 24 entities or 24 councils that would make up Entity B even though Hamilton City Council's water assets are around $2 billion there was a district council and their assets were worth about $50 million—so 40 times the magnitude—and yet do you know what the voting proportionality was going to be in Entity B? One each; how is that fair? How is that equitable when a $2 billion asset and investor and ratepayer legacy has one vote to a $50 million harmonisation—Entity B as it was called. It was terrible. Not to mention co-governance not to mention unelected representation with no accountability.We had 14 layers of bureaucracy mentioned today through the Ministry of Health. There are three or four already just in the three waters proposal. No localism no control no certainty; central government knows best and we're in here to clean up the mess.I could go on about what's good about this bill Madam Speaker but I think it's best just to get on and commend it to the House. Thank you."
Simpson ScottHon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Look thank you very much Mr Speaker. I'm standing to support the second reading of this bill and I do so having not sat on the select committee so I wasn't part of that process. But listening to speeches in the House today members of the public who might be watching this debate on television or listening on their wirelesses would be thinking that actually this was about the difference between a Government that wants to get things done to get things moving to get growth in the economy to make it easier to create jobs and business and opportunity for people in a sector like aquaculture that has become so important to not only our nation but to regions like mine in the beautiful Coromandel; then to hear Opposition members talking about why they can't do things. We're a Government that can do things and wants to do things. We're a can-do Government. We're not a can't Government. We're not a Government that says You can't do this you can't do that." and find every reason in creation not to do things.I invite members of the Opposition to start thinking more broadly about how to do things. How can they help contribute to the urgent need for our country to be back on track to get back into some sense of fiscal sensibilities? I think when I'm speaking on this piece of legislation of the wonderful aquaculture sector in the beautiful Coromandel the electorate that I have the privilege to represent in this House. I think of people like Gilbert James who was one of the founding fathers of today's modern aquaculture sector who through his imagination inspiration and gritty determination was actually really the founding father of what we now know as the muscle farming sector not just in the Coromandel but using his processes throughout the entire muscle-growing sector whether that be in Marlborough or in any other part of the country. It's people like Gilbert James that are actually the inspirations for this Government wanting to get things done because we know that people like Gilbert James have an inspiration have an idea and they want to see growth and development. Actually on this side of the House we don't see the environment and the economy as necessarily being binary or mutually exclusive. We think that actually if you have a strong and growing economy then you can better protect the natural environment by maintaining enhancing and protecting it. But you can only do that if you have an economy that is big and bold enough to allow you to do that because we all know on this side of the House that it's very difficult to be green if you're in the red. So we support this bill on this side of the House and I do commend it to the House."
VoteASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The question is That the amendments recommended by the Finance and Expenditure Committee by majority be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed toAyes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 48New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14.Amendments agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the Local Government (Water Services Preliminary Arrangements) Bill be now read a second time.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 55New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6; Tana.Motion agreed to.Bill read a second time.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Resource Management (Extended Duration of Coastal Permits for Marine Farms) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 55New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6; Tana.Motion agreed to.Bill read a second time.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): Members it is time for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break. The House will resume at 7.30. Sitting suspended from 5.57 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.
Brownlee GerryPETITIONS PAPERS SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLSSPEAKER: A petition has been delivered to the Clerk.CLERK: Petition of Kath McDonald requesting that the House change Standing Orders to allow the removal of petitions that would hurt groups protected from discrimination under the Human Rights Act 1993 from the Parliament website. SPEAKER: That petition stands referred to the Petitions Committee. Ministers have delivered papers.CLERK: 2024/25 Statements of Performance Expectations for Fire and Emergency New Zealand Predator Free 2050 Limited and the Takeovers Panel.Report of the Attorney-General under Section 7 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 on the Land Transport (Drug Driving) Amendment Bill.Climate Change Commission Monitoring Report: Emissions Reduction. SPEAKER: Those papers are published under the authority of the House. Select committee reports have been presented for presentation. CLERK: Report of the Health Committee on the Review briefing on the 2022/23 annual review of the Mental Health and Wellbeing CommissionReports of the Justice Committee on theCourts (Remote Participation) Amendment Bill Firearms Prohibition Orders Legislation Amendment BillReports of the Petitions Committee on the petitions of Anita Ye Huck Smith-Haeata and Jian Guo YangReport of the Regulations Review Committee on the Complaint about the Arms Amendment Regulations 2022Report of the Social Service and Community Committee on the 2024/25 Estimates for appropriation within Vote Education Review Office related to the Independent Children's Monitor.SPEAKER: The bills are set down for second reading. The reports of the Health Committee and Regulations Review Committee are set down for consideration. The Clerk has been informed of the introduction of a bill.CLERK: Land Transport (Drug Driving) Amendment Bill introduction. SPEAKER: That bill is set down for first reading.
Brownlee GerryTUESDAY 30 JULY 2024Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.KARAKIA/PRAYERSSPEAKER: Almighty God we give thanks for the blessings which have been bestowed on us. Laying aside all personal interests we acknowledge the King and pray for guidance in our deliberations that we may conduct the affairs of this House with wisdom justice mercy and humility for the welfare and peace of New Zealand. Amen.
Thursday 30 May 2024 - Volume 776
Taxation (Budget Measures) Bill — In Committee—Part 1
Watts SimonHon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Revenue): Thank you Mr Chair—sorry Dr Lawrence but I thought I'd better answer this question because the member was raising it at such a significant potential opportunity or issue. I just draw the member's attention to the date in the regulatory impact statement which was finalised which is 24 April 2024. Today is 30 May. In that six-week period subsequent work was undertaken in regards to consultation with payroll providers which provided the degree of confidence that I've articulated today.So while it was noted there that that was the effective date and six weeks is quite a long period of time we appreciate the reality of how budgets work and that's why there is point of difference. So there is nothing sinister as the member is trying to imply. It is simply a timing difference in regards to that and hopefully that clarifies that point in particular.In regards to the questions from the Hon David Parker around the gross debt considerations those are probably best suited to the Minister of Finance. However I do acknowledge that we are under urgency and we're just going to have a little bit more time before I provide a comprehensive response to that member's question.
Parker DavidHon DAVID PARKER (Labour): Thank you Mr Chairman. I note that the Minister hasn't responded to my questions on debt. I would reinforce the point by noting that gross Government debt which he criticises from the last Government increased over a six-year period from $88 billion to $174 billion including the enormous cost of COVID which was the major contributor to that. Yet from here forward we go up from $174 billion to $243 billion an increase of—what's that? That's about $70 billion extra in debt.It seems to me that that is reinforced lower down on the same table on fiscal indicators when that is expressed as a percentage of GDP and indeed gross Government debt which is currently at 42 percent of GDP continues going up for the next years to peak at 49.9 percent of GDP.How can that be prudent given the criticisms that that Minister and other members of the Government have made of the prior Government in respect of that debt track? I would like to hear from the Minister on that point.
Genter Julie AnneHon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai): Tēnā koe Mr Chair. Thank you very much. I've been waiting for a while to try and ask my questions. But I wanted to dig into again the regulatory impact statement on the distributional analysis of the options. It's just because we haven't had a select committee process for this bill and we only received these documents a short time ago. So I've just been trying to understand. It seems to me that in the analysis of the options—and there were six options analysed—that option two is the option implemented by the bill. But I guess I'd like to ask the Minister that. Like is option two the one that is implemented by the bill or is it different to option two? There's more information given about the distributional impacts of option two and a very helpful figure one which I think is really useful because it shows what the impact is on household incomes by equivalised income quintile. What it does show is that—if it is option two and there isn't a comparable figure for the other options—the lower-income households get less money from these tax changes per week than the highest-income households; and significantly less.So when the Minister and the Government say that these tax changes are aimed at low and middle income earners I just wonder how that squares with this distributional impact analysis if indeed option two is the one being implemented. I would note—and I know my colleague brought this up as well but I think because the Minister spoke to it I would just go a bit further—it does say Compared to the overall population relatively fewer Māori Pacific peoples and women benefit from the package." I think that analysis is really important. While the Minister and the Government want to say "Our tax settings just have to do with income nothing to do with your demographic background." the whole point of this analysis is to point out that the current society and structure that we live in right now isn't fair and it's disadvantaging certain people. So the point of the distributional analysis and the analysis on how it's going to impact Māori Pasifika people and women is relevant because what it's saying is "Well they're going to benefit less than other people." That's kind of important; if we want a fairer society how are we going to address that when we continue making changes that entrench the existing inequality that exists because of centuries of racism and patriarchy and colonisation? Like let's just own that history and say that the point is if you want a level playing field and an equal society you have to make some changes to how things are done otherwise you just entrench the existing inequality.I'm very interested in the Minister's answers about the distributional impact analysis of options and which option actually is the one implemented in Part 1 of the bill clause 7(1)."
Parker DavidHon DAVID PARKER (Labour): Can I thank my colleague Damien O'Connor for the assistance to get this call. I didn't need it. Hon Dr Megan Woods: He's always kind.Hon DAVID PARKER: He's always—that's right. He's always got my best intentions at heart. I would like to ask the Minister whether he's comfortable with the effect of this on Government debt. These provisions are one of the biggest contributions to the deficit as a consequence of the Budget and my understanding—and the Minister can tell me if I've got this wrong but in order to drill down on what the effects are on gross and net debt and the OBEGAL deficit we have to turn to the Budget documents. I just want to check that my understanding of the effect on this on debt over time is significant and that the effect of this on the OBEGAL deficit is also significant.I want to draw the Minister's attention to page 156 of the Budget Economic and Fiscal Update 2024 which shows that Government debt or gross debt in 2019 which was just before of course the COVID epidemic hit us was $84 billion. It rose steeply through that period so that now it has increased to $174 billion. That has been of considerable concern to the National Party according to the statements I heard both at the election and since then and yet if I'm reading the Budget forecasts correctly from now on gross debt increases from $174593000 forecast for the end of this Budget year 2024 increasing to $243 billion in 2028. So am I correct that according to his own Budget documents including the effect of these tax cuts gross Government debt increases from $174 billion to $243 billion in 2026? That is my first question.
Williams Arena; O'Connor Damien; Tuiono TeanauARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you Mr Chair. Well we're into the guts of it now discussing clause 7 which amends Schedule 1 of the Income Tax Act. This is where the bulk of the heavy lifting in the Government's taxation bill is and it's really useful for members around the Chamber to be able to ask questions about how the redistributive decisions that the Government has made are reflected in this clause 7. So I need to ask the Minister of Revenue some of the questions about the values that have gone into this bill and I want to contrast his bill with the Taxation (Budget Measures: Family Incomes Package) Bill from 2017. That was a comparable bill to this one because it was attempting to do similar things but it was from a previous National Government that was at pains to talk about the values and the trade-offs in policy that were being made in similar legislation in that bill. If you turn say to the description in that bill's explanatory note of a similar section it says The tax and transfer system is redistributive and is designed to provide assistance to those in financial hardship." and that speaks to the values of the legislators who were making those decisions in 2017. Not one time in this bill are those kinds of values outlined and so my first question to the Minister is given the rates that he has set out in Schedule 1 which is amended by clause 7 does he still believe that the tax and transfer system should be redistributive and designed to provide assistance to those in financial hardship and are the rates that he has set designed to provide assistance to those in financial hardship? A further question is: why then if that was a principle that the 2017 National Government signed up to did this Government repeal the Tax Principles Reporting Act? Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Labour): Point of order Mr Chairperson. Look I've only been in the Chamber a short time I know but I'm speaking on behalf of my colleague the Hon David Parker because I know he's down there. He's at a slight disadvantage because he is disabled at the moment with a leg injury. I know he's a little slow to get up and I'm just concerned that he may miss his call because he's too slow to get up. So that's just a point for you to note Mr Chairman. CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Thank you the Hon Damien O'Connor. I will keep an eye on him."
Russell DeborahHon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): I want to follow on from my colleague the Hon Dr Megan Woods' contribution just now and actually it is drawing a little bit on the contribution that was made in the second reading of the Taxation (Budget Measures) Bill by my colleague the Hon Willie Jackson when Mr Jackson raised a really valid concern around the impact of this Budget on Māori and to what extent this Budget had a Māori focus to it—a Māori budget. In previous years we've had a Māori budget. We've had analysis that shows the impact on Māori and we don't seem to have had this time. There is clearly going to be an impact on Māori from these changes to the incomes tax thresholds and from the change to the independent earner tax credit and from the changes to the family tax credit.What I'm interested in knowing is along with those distributional analyses of households and how households have been affected—and the Minister has just told us that this work does exist and so we will be seeking that work. If the Minister is able to table it at some stage—obviously not now but in the next day or two—that would be fantastic; otherwise at some stage soon. What I want to know from the Minister is: if there was an analysis done of that distributional impact to show whether there is a differential impact for Māori households as opposed to other households I think that's quite important for us to know. We know that there is a long history of Māori being treated unequally in this country ranging back to the Depression when Māori weren't eligible for a lot of the relief that was on offer then and were told to go back to their marae. So it remains an important question for us to understand whether these changes will equally benefit Māori. In addition to that I think it would be useful to know whether there was an analysis of Pasifika families.Now one of the difficult things around this is of course I'm not sure that Inland Revenue (IR) collects ethnicity data but there will be nevertheless analyses drawing on the data we have from Statistics New Zealand and the data we have within IR that should be able to give us some sort of understanding of the differential impact if any of the changes to the tax thresholds and the changes to the independent earner tax credit and the changes to the family tax credit on Māori and Pasifika households as opposed to other households in our economy. I think it is quite important for us to understand that. At this stage I guess the Minister certainly won't have that in the Chamber but if he could let me know whether or not that kind of distributional analysis exists—and if not why not? I would be curious to know about this. So that's one for the Minister.
Rutherford Tom; Tuiono TeanauTOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): I move That debate on this question now close.CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): There is quite a lot of material that still needs to be covered so I will not be taking a closure motion at this time.
Russell DeborahHon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): A couple of questions following on there. I just want the Minister to clarify because I'm assuming it was a slip of the tongue because he said those fringe benefit tax rates—if we check the Hansard you'll see that this is what he said—was that applied from 1 April 2025. But I would like to clarify that that was just a slip of the tongue because the bill commentary that I was discussing in relation to clause 6 does say 1 April 2024. So I'm hoping that was just a slip of the tongue. So that was a very simple question. So just that very simple question there please.
Williams Arena; Watts Simon; O'Connor GregARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Mr Chair thank you. Given the Minister's answer to my question—yes people will receive this benefit from 31 July—and he also elaborated a little in his answer on his preparations with payment providers. My second question is: given that he said it's three months but that doesn't seem to allow three months for the passage of this bill should he not accept my amendment which would extend this for another month?Then my next question for him is: if people do not receive the benefits on 31 July will they be eligible for back payments? So I guess my fourth question for the Minister is: has he done any thinking around how people will receive back payments and whether it will be necessary to prepare his officials to engage with something like that being needed given that his dates are incredibly tight in the legislation he's introduced to the House today?Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Revenue): Well thank you very much Mr Chair. Look I hear the member but as I've articulated the coalition Government's priority is to actually deliver tax relief to hard-working New Zealanders as fast as practical. An amendment which is going to look to extend that time in order to provide that tax relief doesn't seem to correlate with the intent of getting those payments out there as fast as practical.What I've outlined there clearly is we have undertaken assessment of the time it would take to practically make those payments. We've got an assessment around that time. That date is as of 31 July; that is practical. We've got confidence that we can deliver upon that and we will deliver upon that. So I'm not going to be accepting an amendment that looks to extend that further out into time. That just simply wouldn't make any sense.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The Hon Megan Woods. Sorry she didn't stand up. The Hon Deborah Russell.
Watts Simon; O'Connor GregHon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Revenue): Thank you very much members for those questions. I'll come first to Arena Williams' question. The answer is yes to your point around 31 July. The Hon Dr Deborah Russell and the Hon Dr Megan Woods both had questions in regard to dates. The key objective of this coalition Government is to effect and implement the changes in the income tax rules as soon as practicable but one of the practical considerations around that is the time that it would take for payroll providers and other large entities that play a role in regards to that because of obviously the Budget sensitivity considerations—to ensure that they were set up to be able to effect those changes. The practical time period which we felt was appropriate in conjunction with feedback from them was the period of three months and hence why it is the date of 31 July. So it's simply a reflection of the practicality of allowing the broader system to be prepared to implement the change while acknowledging that the key objective of providing tax relief to hard-working New Zealanders is to deal with and provide them with that relief as soon as possible to alleviate the issues that they're facing under the cost of living crisis and so the balancing of those two aspects was pretty central. In regards to questions from Ricardo Menéndez March around the child poverty reduction impacts the modelling—Ricardo Menéndez March: Child impact assessment. Hon SIMON WATTS: Yep yep—Ricardo Menéndez March: It's its own thing. Hon SIMON WATTS: Oh child impact—OK right. Well I'll come back to the member in regards to that. The Treasury's model cannot forecast the material hardship considerations but there was a broader assessment which the Minister of Finance noted today. I think another question was in regards to distributional impacts as well and Treasury have made some broader comments around that. There were also some questions in regards to some of the abatement rates I think. I wasn't necessarily sure exactly what the member was referring to but in regards to the practical considerations around how the abatement thresholds would operate they are consistent conceptually with the prior way in which abatement thresholds operate—i.e. they abate the closer one gets to the maximum threshold. That is consistent; we've simply just moved the threshold numbers around. So the overall methodology of an abatement has not changed; it is just the base numbers which we have utilised. That's pretty much the questions that I've got. I think there was one more from the Hon Dr Megan Woods and I'll come back to you now that I've just thought of it. CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): I'd just remind all parties that the preferred but not mandated way of doing this is to do a question and answer as indicated by Arena Williams. However I am aware that it takes all parties to indulge in that.
Woods MeganHon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): Thank you Mr Speaker. I've got two quite specific questions for the Minister in the chair Simon Watts that and it would be useful for us to get an answer reasonably early on so we can get on to further lines of questioning. The first that I want to ask the Minister—and apologies if it is in some of the regulatory impact statement work and we haven't had a chance to uncover it yet but of course any tax changes that have the impact of effectively raising people's incomes will have flow-on Government savings in terms of the eligibility for other benefits for example. So across Government spending what other incomes that are assessed after tax income will there be savings on and has it been calculated what the net cost to Government will be with those savings factored in?The other question I have for the Minister relates to clause 7(1) of the bill with Table 1 which has some very unusual tax rates through there—nothing that meshes with what our effective tax rates are in New Zealand or indeed our marginal tax rates. We're seeing some tax rates of things like 12c—that is not a tax rate in New Zealand so I would like to know from the Minister why it is that these have been calculated in this way and why they're appearing in this table with these very unusual rates that don't correlate to the New Zealand tax system. Is it something to do with the date of introduction? Is it an averaging out because this is coming in? As my colleagues have pointed out there's some unusual dates that we're not used to seeing in tax legislation in this bill. So is there something to do with the fact that it's needing to smooth out what isn't correlating to what we'd see as the normal run of a tax year? Very interested to find out the answer to that and also what the effective savings to Government are.
Williams ArenaARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you Mr Chair. I'm seeking to engage with the Minister of Revenue in a back-and-forth line of questions about this Part 1 particularly clause 4 and the dates in that clause. May I first ask the Minister: will people receive this benefit on 31 July?
Menéndez March RicardoRICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you Mr Chair. I appreciate the opportunity to take a call on Part 1 of the Taxation (Budget Measures) Bill. Mr Chair I know this is in urgency and we haven't had a select committee so you'll forgive me for asking questions that also would have been of the nature that we would have had answers to in a select committee process. First of all I was interested in in Part 1 whether a distributional impact analysis had been done around the changes to independent earners. This is something that I'll seek answers to in other parts of the bill but if there's anything to the provisions in Part 1 that would be quite useful. The reason why I'm asking is because this bill altogether has been touted as a cost of living relief bill and I think it's important to get a sense of what level of analysis the Minister received when it came to the distributional impacts. I know that in Part 1 we're mostly talking about independent earners and the changes around that but at the end of the day that is still a section of the population that is worth considering.Also around the changes to the abatement rate I did want to get a sense of whether any exploration had been done around other parts of the system and how those interact—say for example if somebody's receiving an accommodation supplement. Then the other thing on Part 1 that I want to test is whether there had been anything in relation to a child impact assessment. We have received in the overall Budget information regarding child poverty levels but obviously as part of any legislation process there is the ability to seek advice on how a piece of legislation may impact children very specifically. I'm curious to know whether a child impact assessment—which is a tool that could be used for example at a select committee stage—was used and if so I'm keen to get the Minister's analysis around exactly how he thinks Part 1 would impact children specifically. I know that we can use this tool for any type of legislation but obviously legislation that has to do with income and tax has quite a direct impact on children's livelihoods.Then the other thing I'd like to ask is in relation to distributional analysis. I'm keen to get a sense around whether he received advice around how many people in the country are within that range of that $0 to $14000. I did want to check whether for example he received any advice from Whaikaha around disabled people with carers or people who may not even be eligible to income support who are disabled—for example people who are in a relationship with someone who has an income yet will not be eligible to any income support and therefore won't necessarily receive an income. I wanted to check whether he sought any advice from Whaikaha around how disabled people would feature alongside these changes.
Thursday 25 July 2024 - Volume 776
Brownlee GerryPETITIONS PAPERS SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLSSPEAKER: There are no petitions to be presented. Ministers have delivered papers.CLERK: Ngāi Tahu Ancillary Claims Trust annual financial statements for the year ended 30 June 20232024 to 2029 statement of intent for the Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand and the Aviation Security Service2024-25 statements of performance expectations for Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand and Aviation Security Service Airways Corporation of New Zealand Commerce Commission and Te Māngai Pāho2024 to 2028 strategic intentions for the Public Service Commission.SPEAKER: Those papers are published under the authority of the House. Select committee reports have been delivered for presentation.CLERK: Report of the Economic Development Science and Innovation Committee on the review briefing on the 2022/23 annual review of AgResearch LtdReport of the Health Committee on the review briefing on the 2022/23 annual review of the Health and Disability CommissionerReports of the Social Services and Community Committee on the 2024/25 Estimates for Vote Arts Culture and Heritage and the 2024/25 Estimates for Vote Sport and Recreation.SPEAKER: The reviews are set down for further consideration. No bills have been introduced.