edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Bayly AndrewANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): Well thank you very much and what is happening this afternoon Madam Speaker? Again we're privileged to have three Ministers in the House to hear about this bill as it works its way through. It's lovely that all these Ministers are down in the House making a contribution. I don't know what's going on in the Beehive—obviously not enough—but why are we taking so long to wind our way through? We agree with this bill. We agree with it—it is our bill. By the way I want to take a little bit of credit because some of the elements include my member's bill that I introduced about three years ago and so I—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): Sorry to interrupt the member. I'm just letting him know—he may not be aware—he does have a live microphone in front of him. ANDREW BAYLY: Thank you. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): It does amplify the voice so there's no need to raise his own voice. It's quite well amplified just by the technology. ANDREW BAYLY: Thank you for those kind words Madam Speaker—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): You're welcome. ANDREW BAYLY: —but when you sit and listen we're just impatient for change to bring about the right things the good things. We know what you've said. Everyone has said the same thing. Let's bring it on. Let's see it happen. Let's make it happen today. This is a good bill. We agree with it. Pass it.
Taxation (KiwiSaver Student Loans and Remedial Matters) Bill — Referral to Finance and Expenditure Committee
Yang Jian; Rurawhe AdrianDr JIAN YANG (National): I rise to speak briefly on the bill and firstly I would like to acknowledge the Hon Nick Smith for introducing this bill and also I acknowledge the work of some other members including Andrew Bayly who contributed to this bill through his member's bill and also acknowledge the chair of the Governance and Administration Committee Brett Hudson. He chaired the committee when this bill was in the committee. So this bill largely is about the balance—the balance between protecting the rights of landlords and protecting the rights of tenants. For instance landlords have the responsibility to make sure the properties are suitable for tenancy. Those who tenant unsuitable properties will be prosecuted. On the other hand tenants have the responsibility to look after properties. Those who intentionally damage properties will be liable for all the damage or cost. So this is a good bill and I commend it to the House.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): I call Paul Eagle—five minutes.
Hudson BrettBRETT HUDSON (National): Thank you Mr Speaker. I rise—like my colleagues across the House—in support of the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill (No 2). It's good to see that it is passing. It's taken 18 months in this term to get it to this point but here it is. It's a bill that will make clear to tenants their financial obligations in case of damage in properties. It makes it clear and unambiguous that the Tenancy Tribunal has jurisdiction over matters of tenancies and unlawful properties or parts of properties. But I just wanted to touch on this matter of meth contamination and standard because there's a bit of what I consider to be misinformation flying around the House this afternoon and indeed yesterday.The situation with the meth contamination ratings—as some members across the other side of the House suggested—was an industry-led thing. Had New Zealand First shown any interest in being on the Government Administration Committee last term or the Governance and Administration Committee this term they would know that the committee sought advice from a toxicologist—that's a scientist; a subject-matter expert in this very field—from the United States during the committee proceedings. That toxicologist was unequivocal—unequivocal—in their position as to what should be the threshold for contamination. The committee took that advice because that is what one does when faced with the advice of a scientist in the specific field.Now one can only hope that in the advice the Government has been relying on the people within that report can point to the same level of expertise in reaching their conclusions because it's not immediately apparent. None the less they hold the keys at the moment and they will make that decision. What is more important is the bill that was introduced by the Hon Dr Nick Smith and shepherded in this term by the Hon Kris Faafoi is finally passing its third reading which it deserves to do. I commend it to the House.
Dean JacquiHon JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): Thank you Mr Speaker. I want to indicate National's support of this bill. After all it was a National bill and thanks must go to the Hon Dr Nick Smith who was the architect of this bill but also to the Hon Kris Faafoi who has brought it through the finishing gate.I just want to focus on the methamphetamine contamination and note that members opposite have utilised the tool of the retrospective scope having a look back with the wisdom gained since then to say that in the term of Government National was absolutely committed to the safety of tenants in houses and so needed to—and was compelled to and must do because it was the right thing—set a methamphetamine standard. Now with the eyes of the wisdom of hindsight which we've seen plenty of it's all very well to perhaps pooh-pooh the previous Government for taking a position on methamphetamine but I would contend that the Government of the day had absolutely no choice in the matter. Our intention was to keep people safe.One concern with this bill around meth testing is the widening of the definition to other substances and what that might do in terms of cost and also the impact of regulation on the housing sector. It is something that I know my colleagues will be keeping a close eye on as this bill is enacted and comes into law and the Government finds itself in the position of using its fine words during the debate but actually having to come up with a workable way of dealing with methamphetamine and other drugs contamination. Well let's just see how that plays out.
O'Connor SimonSIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Thank you very much; it's good to call me that otherwise it would be very confusing to everybody.It was an honourable effort by that honourable Minister. The National Party does support the bill overall for the primary reason that it's our bill. We in fact are surprised it's taken the Government so long to get this through. It's one other reason actually that the House is progressing so fast through its legislation at the moment with the support of National—because again they're our bills.Look the primary reason is the result of a court case around landlords not being able to get money back off their tenants. In principle we agree with that and the aspect that they can take up to effectively their insurance excess so long as it doesn't go beyond four weeks. So all of that makes perfect sense. I noted in the House yesterday my particular issues around the meth contamination—well it's contamination in general but particularly around meth contamination—that what this House is arguably signing off today is a blank cheque to the Government to create regulations without this House actually knowing what those regulations are. And once again I put it to the Minister we have conflicting scientific information or conflicting standards already in play particularly around the meth standards New Zealand has set and considered. We now have a contrary report from another quarter. We are very keen on this side of the House to understand where the Minister's going so we encourage them to look at that.
Mallard TrevorWEDNESDAY 24 JULY 2019The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Karakia.TAXATION (KIWISAVER STUDENT LOANS AND REMEDIAL MATTERS) BILLReferral to Finance and Expenditure CommitteeSPEAKER: Members last night when the House agreed to the first reading of the Taxation (KiwiSaver Student Loans and Remedial Matters) Bill the question was not put as to which select committee the bill will be referred. The question therefore is That the bill be considered by the Finance and Expenditure Committee.Motion agreed to.
Tuesday 23 July 2019 - Volume 739
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Taxation (KiwiSaver Student Loans and Remedial Matters) Bill be now read a first time.Ayes 118New Zealand National 55; New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 1ACT New Zealand 1.Bill read a first time.
Taxation (KiwiSaver Student Loans and Remedial Matters) Bill — First Reading
12. Question No. 12—PoliceDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT) to the Minister of PoliceQuestion No. 12—Police12. DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT) to the Minister of Police: Would the proposed changes to gun laws announced yesterday have prevented the Christchurch terror attacks; if so how?Hon STUART NASH (Minister of Police): We cannot turn back time but we can act to lessen the risk of similar events happening again. We have already moved to remove the most dangerous weapons from our communities. We are now moving to lessen the risk of other firearms falling into the wrong hands.David Seymour: Does the Minister acknowledge that the answer he just gave did not in any way directly answer the primary question?Hon STUART NASH: As I said we can't turn back time. What I will say is the royal commission will examine events leading up to the attack. I will not pre-empt its work but what I will also say is it's public knowledge that we are introducing flags around warning behaviour. For example encouraging or promoting extreme or violent behaviour would be a warning flag and a register would allow us to track the accumulation of large volumes of weapons and ammunition over a short period of time as occurred prior to the Christchurch attack.David Seymour: Does the Minister agree that this legislation—again with a shortened public consultation—is not about public safety but is about providing a distraction for a Government that is failing in every other area of policy?SPEAKER: Order! That—David Seymour: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I asked a question. Normally they answer.SPEAKER: Yes and I didn't call the Minister to answer it because it was out of order.David Seymour: Well I don't understand why.SPEAKER: Well I'm not going to be responsible for the member's failure to understand.David Seymour: Well you could help by explaining for the public watching why that question is not in order.SPEAKER: The member might in fact like to look at Speakers' Rulings and the Standing Orders and understand it for himself so that he doesn't make errors like that in the future.
11. Question No. 11—PoliceBRETT HUDSON (National) to the Minister of PoliceQuestion No. 11—Police11. BRETT HUDSON (National) to the Minister of Police: Does he stand by all the Government's statements policies and actions in relation to firearm law reform?Hon STUART NASH (Minister of Police): Yes apart from a mistaken comment when I said you need to be a New Zealand citizen to apply for a firearms licence under the proposed law. You don't but I will be interested in hearing public submissions on the topic.Brett Hudson: What specific changes announced yesterday target illegal firearm use by gangs and violent offenders?Hon STUART NASH: The aim of this legislation is to make it a lot more difficult for guns to fall into the hands of those who would use them to create harm.Brett Hudson: Will being gang-affiliated be a warning flag the police take into account to intervene if they have concerns about a licence holder's behaviour?Hon STUART NASH: Yes.Brett Hudson: Why is the Government rushing to impose more costs and red tape on law-abiding firearms owners yet doing more consultation on stopping violent gang members using guns?Hon STUART NASH: These changes should not come as a surprise. The Arms Act has not seen substantial reform in the last 36 years and it is no longer fit for purpose. The changes proposed will establish a system that strikes a better balance with the safe use of firearms and the need to manage the risk to personal and public safety. We want to make it harder for firearms to fall into the wrong hands. The changes establish that possessing a firearm is a privilege and not a right and will better reflect the harm that firearms can cause.
8. Question No. 8—HealthHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) to the Minister of HealthQuestion No. 8—Health8. Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by his statement that National Health Targets created perverse incentives"?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): The previous Government's narrow set of targets produced perverse incentives and resulted in what were traditionally cheaper surgeries being performed in more expensive environments. I do not want the numbers pumped up by counting Avastin injections and skin lesion removals that could've been done in primary care as surgeries only if they're done in the most expensive environment possible. The answer to the member's question is yes.Hon Michael Woodhouse: Could the experience of Winton farmer Blair Vining who was told he would wait eight weeks with his cancer diagnosis for his first appointment and then spent 13 hours in Christchurch Hospital's emergency department be described as "perverse"?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I think the care Mr Vining has received has fallen short and I have made that clear.Hon Michael Woodhouse: Is the dramatic drop in childhood immunisation rates to as low as 61 percent for Māori babies an example of a "perverse" outcome?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Our immunisation rates for children have been hovering just above 90 percent for a long time and it's proved difficult to reach that last few percent of the population. I know that our clinicians and public health staff understand full well the importance of immunisation and are working hard to ensure that more people benefit from the protection offered by immunisation. Unfortunately that target set by the previous Government has never been achieved and it's incredibly important that people do get immunised and appreciate the importance not only to protecting themselves from potentially deadly diseases like the measles but also to protect their loved ones elderly children and other vulnerable members of society. So I encourage all who are able and fit to please get immunised.Hon Michael Woodhouse: Does he expect the final figure for elective surgery excluding Avastin injections and skin lesion treatments in 2018-19 to be higher or lower than the previous year?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The important point here is that electives are not the only form of planned care. I would remind the member again that we are seeing more acute surgery and more non-admitted procedures completed which means more people are getting care that they need in the most appropriate cost-effective and convenient setting. I have been advised that as at the end of May district health boards were reported to be at 99.4 percent of planned levels.Hon Michael Woodhouse: Isn't it the case though that de-emphasising the very targets that are so important to New Zealanders has resulted in those important health outputs going backwards on his watch?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: No."
7. Question No. 7—HealthDr LIZ CRAIG (Labour) to the Minister of HealthQuestion No. 7—Health7. Dr LIZ CRAIG (Labour) to the Minister of Health: What progress if any is being made on the design and development of new front-line mental health and addiction services?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): The Wellbeing Budget included investment of $455 million to create new front-line services for people with mild to moderate mental health and addiction needs. These free services must be easy to access easy to navigate and they must work for the people that need them. To make sure that they do just that we need to listen to those with lived experience and those who work in the sector. We took an important step in that process today with the first of five Ministry of Health workshops with mental health and addiction leaders NGOs and community organisations.Dr Liz Craig: How will the Government ensure that these new front-line services meet the needs of different communities?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: One of the clear messages out of the inquiry into mental health and addiction was the importance of working with communities when developing these services. We can't assume that a service designed in Wellington will necessarily work in the Far North or rural Canterbury. We need a range of services—kaupapa Māori services youth services Pacific peoples services and programmes for rural communities. The best way to design those services is alongside those communities and that's why today's workshop and the four others around the country are so important.Dr Liz Craig: So how long will it take to develop these services?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Transforming our approach to mental health and addiction will take time. We know we need more trained mental health workers and peer support people—Hon Simon Bridges: He can't even answer a patsy.Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: —and have invested $80.1 million in workforce development over the next four years. That's a pretty desperate interjection from the Leader of the Opposition. The new front-line service is being rolled out over five years but now—SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member will resume his seat. I'm just going to ask the Minister to focus on his answer and not be diverted by the quality of interjections.Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Thank you Mr Speaker. The new front-line service is being rolled out over five years but there are already services that are doing good work and can be expanded in relatively short order. I expect to have further announcements about this in coming months.
5. Question No. 5—FinanceHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of FinanceQuestion No. 5—Finance5. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of Finance: Are the Government's economic policies delivering a stable and growing economy which is fair for all New Zealanders"?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Yes after nine years of the Government failing to deliver an economy that is fair for all New Zealanders over the last 20 months we are making good progress on turning that around.Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he think a 70 percent increase in hardship grants under this Government to almost 500000 is a sign of an economy that is fair to all New Zealanders?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well one of the things that the Prime Minister's already mentioned is that we as a Government over here are not hiding away figures like that. We've actually encouraged staff within Work and Income to give people what they're entitled to while we turn around the economy to deliver the jobs that they so desperately want.Hon Paul Goldsmith: So is it a sign that things are getting better under this Government or worse?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: There are many many signs that things are getting better under this Government and I include in that the fact that I'm happy to purchase for the member a pair of cufflinks.Hon Paul Goldsmith: Has his Cabinet colleague Andrew Little told him that the 70 percent increase in hardship grants is a "damning indictment" on their Government?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I think the Leader of the Opposition must have handed Mr Goldsmith his notes since he's now repeating all of his questions. What I would say to that member is that on this side of the House—if we get to the end of Mr Little's quote which we heard before—we actually have a plan to make this economy not only stronger but fairer unlike the last Government.Hon Paul Goldsmith: He is aware that Mr Little—Andrew Little—thought a 40 percent increase under National was an indictment. Does he now accept that judgment against his Government now that it's much much worse?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No. What I do think is that on this side of the House we have actually got a plan to build an economy that's fairer for New Zealand. So when we lift the minimum wage to $17.70 an hour and that party opposes it does that make it fair? When on this side of the House we index main benefits to the average wage and that side of the House oppose it—we know what's fair on this side of the House."
4. Question No. 4—FinanceKIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour) to the Minister of FinanceQuestion No. 4—Finance4. KIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Last week's BNZ-Business New Zealand Performance of Services Index showed that the New Zealand services sector continued to grow and expand in the month of June. While its expansion was slightly slower than in May it is important to note that our services sector—particularly relating to tourism and trade—is connected to the global economy. The uncertain economic backdrop and slowing global growth will have an impact on this sector. But it is encouraging to see that New Zealand's expansionary services index of 52.7 for June was higher than in Australia the UK China Japan and the United States—demonstrating the continued strong performance of the New Zealand economy compared with our peers.Kiritapu Allan: What reports has he seen on the manufacturing sector?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The recess also saw the release of the BNZ-Business New Zealand Performance of Manufacturing Index (PMI) showing the manufacturing sector expanded faster in June than in May. The June PMI reading of 51.3 was up from 15.4 in May. This stands in contrast to manufacturing sectors in other countries which contracted in June—that being in Australia the UK Japan China and the eurozone. And even while the United States expanded at 50.6 percent it was lower than New Zealand's reading. This data represents more evidence that the New Zealand economy continues to grow solidly and outperform our international peers.Kiritapu Allan: What reports has he seen on inflation?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Last week Stats New Zealand released Consumers Price Index data for the June quarter showing inflation at 0.6 percent in the quarter and 1.7 percent annually in line with Treasury's forecast. This compares favourably with the latest data showing hourly wage growth of 3.4 percent in the March quarter and Treasury's forecast showing wage growth around this level over the forecast period. This is good news for New Zealand households and workers at a time when the economy is growing solidly compared to the rest of the world and the unemployment is at record lows. The Government is keeping the cost of living under control on this measure.
2. Question No. 2—Regional Economic DevelopmentJENNY MARCROFT (NZ First) to the Minister for Regional Economic DevelopmentQuestion No. 2—Regional Economic Development2. JENNY MARCROFT (NZ First) to the Minister for Regional Economic Development: What recent Provincial Growth Fund announcements has he made?Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Regional Economic Development): Over the past three weeks from Foveaux Strait to Kaitāia the first citizen of the provinces has been active. Each region is different. Each requires a particular mix of policy and intervention to boost productivity but the announcements have covered manufacturing tourism forestry mineral extraction roading horticulture and for the edification of the Opposition biogas.Jenny Marcroft: What are some specific projects that were supported?Hon SHANE JONES: The Invercargill Airport air cargo—a neglected part of New Zealand over the last nine years—terminal development. We have turned it around so that terminal" only applies to the physical infrastructure not the aspirations of that region as they've been saddled with over the last nine years; $500000 to upgrade the first direct-check connection between Auckland and Invercargill; and one other—just to show that we have our eye on the more forgotten parts of New Zealand—the one billion trees investment of $5 million to address a promise made by the former Treaty Minister to that tribe to deal with the Waiapū catchment challenges showing that we fly high and we also deal with things on the ground.Jenny Marcroft: What progress did he observe on some Provincial Growth Fund projects already under way?SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. There's a very fundamental requirement for supplementary questions and that is that they have to relate to the primary question and that one didn't."
Luxton JoJO LUXTON (Labour): Thank you for the opportunity to begin my contribution this evening; I don't know that I'll get through the whole entire amount but I am pleased to stand and take a call on this piece of legislation. This piece of legislation I believe is about accessibility and it is better accessibility for people in New Zealand who do face considerable challenges in their everyday life. As the Minister said earlier less than 10 percent of all written materials published are in an accessible format. That is actually potentially affecting an estimated number of up to 168000 New Zealanders. That is 168000 New Zealanders where a lack of access is potentially creating a barrier for them to participate fully in work and education. We're striving for a more inclusive society one without barriers where people can actually participate fully and have equitable opportunities by amending the Copyright Act to allow New Zealand to accede to the Marrakesh Treaty. It is one way of working towards that by facilitating the access to published works for people who are blind visually impaired or otherwise print disabled.This bill provides for an international framework for the production and dissemination of copies of books and other literary works in an accessible format including Braille large print and audio books. It requires members to sign up to provide copyright exemptions that allow authorised entities to make accessible format copies without permission of the owner and allows for the ability to import and export accessible copies with other members which is something that we currently don't have. It does not allow for that import/export between countries. So when countries sign up to this treaty—as the Minister said 55 members actually have signed up including Australia Canada Chile Singapore the US the European Union. They've all signed up and what we also found out during our time on select committee hearing submissions listening to evidence was actually that the majority of these countries did not have the commercial availability test which is something I will come to a little bit further on in my contribution.So we had a number of submissions both oral and written submissions that came from members of the public—librarians universities and actually people who are visually impaired.Debate interrupted.The House adjourned at 10 p.m.
Hudson BrettBRETT HUDSON (National): Thank you Madam Speaker and likewise allow me to congratulate you on your ascension" as it has been termed tonight. It sounds almost like ascending to heaven your ascension to the role of Assistant Speaker. I am sure that you will conduct yourself in this role in the same even-mannered and I would say very respectful way you did as chair of the Government Administration Committee in my first term in the last Parliament. So congratulations.It's a pleasure to stand in support of this bill which will help to implement the obligations that we have signed up to as part of the Marrakesh Treaty in order to make print works more accessible to those with print disabilities. As the Minister has said I'd also like to congratulate the work of the members of the Economic Development Science and Innovation Committee. I did sub on for this particular item of business. Clearly it's a committee that works very constructively on matters such as these.The one item of contention really to be discussed was this issue of the commercial availability test. I think there are out of about 55 countries that have implemented legislation or have signed up to the Marrakesh Treaty perhaps only four others that had a commercial availability test and members of the committee weighed up the pros and cons of retaining versus removing it. It was our view that removing it actually helps to create a good market tension for these sorts of works and accessibility versions—that the publishers or copyright holders have a natural incentive to want to provide print accessible copies because there is a market for them and those authorised entities that are seeking to obtain them to provide them to people who need them have a natural incentive to want to see if there are well-priced commercial versions available because there is a significant—a not insignificant cost—in creating them.So we looked at that on balance and found that removing the test not only will keep us in step with so many other countries signed up to this treaty but would actually create the right sort of tensions in what is a marketplace that would ensure protection for copyright holders and ease of availability speed of availability and lower cost for consumers. I commend this bill to the House."
Bidois DanDAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): Madam Speaker thank you very much and may I congratulate you on your ascension to Assistant Speaker. I hope that goes well. I had to clean my ears out because it's not that often you hear David Seymour quoting a left-wing economist and particularly one such as Tim Hazledine.We're here today to support the Taxation (KiwiSaver Student Loans and Remedial Matters) Bill. A lot has been said on this side of the House so I'll keep this call very brief. It is an omnibus bill that is basically trying to simplify the system and also make sure we maintain the overall principle of our system which is a broad-based - low rate system and that we encourage and further encourage R & D expenditure in New Zealand which I might add is still very low both from a public lens but also from a private sector lens as well.So we support these changes. This bill makes a whole bunch of recommended changes to KiwiSaver to the student loan scheme and a whole raft of other changes as well. I do hope that by sending this to the Finance and Expenditure Committee we're able to iron out some of those details but also keep in mind some of our foundation principles of our taxation system here in New Zealand. The first is around making sure that people pay their fair share of tax—no more no less. The second is that we maintain our broad-based and low-rate system. The third is a taxation system that's easy to administer. The fourth and final principle that I want the select committee to look at and uphold is about borrowing funds. That is if you borrow funds from the State that you in fact repay those funds in full.I know that we're going to be discussing in select committee a whole bunch of changes to the student loan scheme for those that are overseas and I was one of those and duly repaid my loan—must've been a couple of years now. But I think that that's really important; that if you do take a student loan out you repay that in full. So it's a pleasure to support this bill in the House and I look forward to watching it progress through to select committee.
McKelvie IanIAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): Thank you Madam Speaker and congratulations to you on your new role—the only role I guess you haven't fulfilled in your time in the Parliament. It gives me a great deal of pleasure to follow the previous speaker the outstanding spin bowler from Ōhāriu. He surprises me somewhat that he's back here—I thought he would've got a contract in England.This bill is one of many many tax bills that fulfil the insatiable appetite of this Government to spend more money but none the less it's a very complex area taxation and the number of tax bills that we have going through the select committee never ceases to amaze me.All that I need to say on this has been said and I'm a great believer in the fact that if one doesn't have anything useful to say then say nothing so I will commend the bill to the House and wish it all the best as it goes through the select committee process.
Goldsmith PaulHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): I'm fascinated to hear the full 10-minute speech by the Minister there James Shaw. This is a Government that has a very short Order Paper and is filibustering on a bill that most New Zealanders will understand is primarily a detailed tax bill with a number of specific provisions is supported on both sides of the House and we want to get on with the task at hand.The primary point I would like to make about this bill of course it being a tax bill: its main deficiency is that it is not dealing with the matter of inflation eating into the tax bills of all New Zealanders every year by not adjusting for the inflation rate. So the absence of that somewhat drains away from my enthusiasm for this bill but nevertheless there are some other things that we are looking forward to considering at the select committee—can't say we agree with everything but we're happy to have it discussed and submitted upon.One of the interesting ones is renaming the student loan repayment holiday. That's a symbolic thing just to not give the impression somehow that stopping contributions to KiwiSaver should be regarded as a holiday which goes on for a long period of time but merely as an opportunity to refer to a student loan temporary repayment suspension so as not to encourage people to take too long out of their working lives from contributing to KiwiSaver and building up a nest egg to help them in their retirement.It's interesting however that the Government appreciates the importance of getting the naming right with these sorts of things but they haven't quite grasped the fact that the jobseeker benefit which we had renamed for people who were seeking jobs is now becoming a little bit out of sync with the way that they've gone about that piece of important benefits because they are no longer requiring people to be seeking the jobs. So I suppose if they follow the logic that is outlined in this bill to other areas of Parliament they might be thinking about how they go about naming things.But all in all we're very much looking forward to looking at the details of this bill in the select committee over the next coming months. Thank you very much.
Woodhouse MichaelHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you Madam Speaker. I must say I haven't agreed more with the member who's just resumed his seat than when he said he had spoken for far too long on the bill although it is quite a rare feat to get to see such alliteration coming out of what is a revenue bill a tax bill—talking about tapestries and so forth—so I do commend the member for that.I will take a short amount of time in support of this bill but I do caveat that by saying there are some concerns that I am confident the Finance and Expenditure Committee will dive deeply into. The last thing one needs is a former revenue Minister to critique the next revenue bill that comes off the factory floor and I would sound like the grumpy uncle at Christmas dinner. But there are a couple of things that I think can be improved and I'm looking forward to the select committee scrutinising them.Now the Inland Revenue Department used to have a strap-line. Those of my age or thereabouts will remember they used to say It's our job to be fair." Now there was one area in this bill that I don't think is remedied that is not fair and that is the interest of the overpayment of portfolio investment entity (PIE) tax. And we have heard the Minister of Revenue say that if somebody underpays PIE tax or undersets their PIE rate of tax they will be required to repay that pay use of money interest and penalties and so on. But if by chance that is overpaid then the same treatment is not regarded to be appropriate. I don't think that's fair and I will encourage members—on this side at least if not the whole select committee—to actually assess whether or not that is appropriate.Now that I think distracts from the fact that most of the things here are very very good improvements made possible because of the significant Business Transformation project that has been going on for quite some period of time. It started with my predecessor Todd McClay and was continued by me and then Judith Collins and the Hon Stuart Nash. That has enabled a lot of the sensible things that are going on in this bill to take place.I would make one comment though. When I was Minister I thought it ridiculous that it was necessary to change primary legislation in order to give charities from overseas donee status and I note that that is still necessary—where there are four charities that are through primary legislation having to bother this House with what is something that I believe should be appropriately delegated by Order in Council. I would be interested in the committee actually having a look at that. Rather than approving these four I'm sure quite noble organisations actually what we should be doing is changing the legislation to enable the Minister by Order in Council with an appropriate consultation process to do that without troubling the House. That said I'm very pleased to support the bill."
Collins Judith; Dyson RuthHon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura): Thank you Madam Speaker. What a delight—what a delight. It's so wonderful to see so much interest and excitement about this bill in the House tonight. The National Party will support this bill to select committee at which we will no doubt want to suggest some very good amendments to make it better. It's hard to go past the fabulous contribution of our colleague Andrew Bayly who just gave such a fantastic speech.Hon Member: Energised.Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Very energised and actually full of information; he didn't need everyone else's notes to do it either—so it was a great contribution. One of the things that I think it's good to remember is that when we were in Government—and several of us are here tonight—we actually funded the IRD to be able to bring in the computer systems to be able to bring this new simplified version in for collection of tax. I'd like to put a big shout-out—in the few moments that I will still want to talk about this excellent bill at this stage—to all the employers who every pay day collect tax for Parliament who collect child support who collect student loan payments and who even sort out all sorts of court orders around payments that are due to the courts. Employers do this for free and we never thank them enough. The inland revenue Department in my opinion has never thanked them—and they should do because for lots of countries people don't have employers that do that there's not a PAYE system and people have to go and organise their own tax payments. I think it's really important that we thank employers for that job that they do for free for Parliament because it's Parliament's money that has to then be appropriated. I think it's really important to understand that we have technology changes happening within IRD and also in businesses. It's important that we look forward to making better use of those so that we can increase productivity in business—and I think that's crucial.Thank you Madam Speaker. I think in the select committee we'll have a great time on this bill looking for all sorts of ways that we can improve it.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ruth Dyson): The Hon Fletcher Tabuteau.
Bayly AndrewANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): Thank you Madam Speaker. First of all I'd like to congratulate you Madam Speaker on your elevation and promotion and it's nice to see you in the Chair. The other thing is I'd just like to acknowledge the six Ministers in the House tonight. It is lovely to see them all here. You know after our three-week recess I'm sure there's not much to be done up in the Beehive tonight because obviously they all want to come down and learn a little bit about tax and I think that should be welcomed—welcomed—because some of these people need to learn how to spend money more wisely and in some cases how to make it first of all. It's easy to spend it unwisely isn't it Mr Nash.Now this is a comprehensive taxation bill and I think the Minister covered it adequately but in my mind it's got five key aspects. First of all it changes the KiwiSaver provisions largely to be ahead of the game when the KiwiSaver—which is the next roll-out of the business transformation programme which when it will occur next year is looking forward and planning for that. It also makes some changes to the student loan and employees' share schemes R & D tax credits as we heard rather torridly just before and then a raft of other changes.I just want to say that the main thing in general is we support most of what's in this bill and we will be supporting this bill. But the point I want to make and I heard the Minister just before is I think it is outrageous that here is another bill—here is another tax bill—and this is another opportunity where the Government could have dealt with the issue where people who have paid too much tax on their portfolio investment entity income their investment income have not been and will not be paid their money back by the IRD. They could have addressed that in this bill—Dan Bidois: Shameful!ANDREW BAYLY: —and I think it is shameful. This is a huge bill and it would have been very easy for a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) on that. Because the Minister doesn't seem to know how we're going to go about it I think we're going to have to write the SOP and put an addendum to this bill when it comes back into the House because we need to address this issue where people have paid too much money to the IRD. The IRD should pay it back and the Minister who has just spoken should make sure that happens because it's not right.
Little AndrewPart 9 Amendments to other ActsHon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): This is a very important Part; it lists the other pieces of legislation that are consequentially amended as a consequence of this bill. Now I'd be happy to go through each and every one of them but I understand that every member of the House has in fact read this Part of the bill and is fully conversant with it. It doesn't require any further explanation except to say that it once again underscores I think the comprehensive piece of work that has gone into creating this bill which will I think be of inordinate assistance to trustees to settlors to beneficiaries and indeed to their professional advisers. I think the House can be very thankful for the quality in which this bill has arrived at the House and which I'm sure it will enter its third reading.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 255 in the name of the Hon Andrew Little to Part 9 be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.Part 9 as amended agreed to.Schedule 1The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 255 in the name of the Hon Andrew Little to Schedule 1 be agreed to.Amendment agreed to.Schedule 1 as amended agreed to.Schedule 2 agreed to.Schedule 3The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 255 in the name of the Hon Andrew Little and the following amendment in his name to Schedule 3 be agreed to:in Schedule 3 in clause 4(1)(a) replace section 21(2)" with "section 36A". Amendments agreed to.Schedule 3 as amended agreed to.Schedule 4The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Andrew Little to Schedule 4 be agreed to:in Schedule 4 in the amendment to Thomas Cawthron Trust Act (1924 No 6)(P) new section 12(1)(e)(iv) replace "Board" with "Board:". Amendment agreed to.Schedule 4 as amended agreed to.Schedule 5 agreed to.Clause 1 agreed to.Clause 2The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 255 in the name of the Hon Andrew Little to clause 2 be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.Clause 2 as amended agreed to.House resumed.The Chairperson reported the Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill without amendment the New Zealand Public Health and Disability (Waikato DHB) Elections Bill without amendment the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill (No 2) with amendment and the Trusts Bill with amendment. Report adopted."
Trusts Bill — In Committee
Little AndrewPart 8 Miscellaneous provisionsHon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): It's been a great pleasure to take a slow canter through this bill this evening with the assistance of Mr Penk who has provided a great complementary commentary to this. This Part 8 deals with as it itself describes miscellaneous provisions. So this deals with a range of things: what happens if trust property has to be left to or handed over to the Crown—how the Crown has to handle it—because there's no question that the grasping hands of Treasury gladly reach out—Hon Tracey Martin: Grasping heads?Hon ANDREW LITTLE: —hands of Treasury—and relish the prospect of any trust that reaches its end without any beneficiaries there to pick up the slack. So there's a provision here for how that can be managed and dealt with. Some costs of course are borne by the trust when the State gets involved and indeed that is provided for there as well. There is as you would expect the ability to make regulations on matters relating to relevant parts of the bill as well. So all that is laid out in appropriate fashion as you would expect in this part of the bill.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 255 in the name of the Hon Andrew Little to Part 8 be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.Part 8 as amended agreed to.
Little AndrewPart 7 Court powers and dispute resolutionHon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): I don't want to take too much of the House's time unnecessarily given the level of interest in this bill but I know that this was a provision that excited the interest of some members of the Opposition—and I think of Mr Bayly in particular whom I earlier described as having enough enthusiasm and energy for this area of the law to power a small town. I've had to make a downward revision of my metaphor and say that he brings enough enthusiasm to power a small EV. But these provisions deal with what happens when there is a dispute and how that is resolved and if it goes to the court how the court is to resolve a dispute. It is sadly the case that there are trusts where the trustees do not function particularly well and they have fallings out or they have disagreements—sometimes over trust objectives sometimes over trustee decisions for example on investments—and we've seen some very sad cases recently usually in relation to family trusts where the decisions or the relationships have become so toxic so embittered that matters end up in court.Well I'm pleased to say that this part of the bill—Part 7—provides the courts with very good guidance and very good rules and principles for the resolution of those disputes. So the court if called upon to do so can look into the actions of trustees—their acts omissions any decisions—and can resolve those disputes. The court has a number of powers to vary or extend trustees' powers in relation to property. A court can relieve a trustee of personal liability for something that has happened or a decision that has been made. A trustee can apply to the court for directions and in applying for a direction the trustee may get the protection of the court for actions that it takes following the direction of the court. So there are a number of rights of trustees in relation to disputes to go to court to get disputes resolved. In the end the court's principal objective is to preserve the objects of the trust and to make sure the trustees are discharging their responsibilities fully and properly. The court has the power to remove trustees and to appoint its own trustees to provide supervision of a trust.So all of that is laid out there in Part 7 as with the other provisions of the bill—very clearly laid out—and I think once again like so many parts of this bill it will provide very good guidance and a very good lead to the many trustees who depend on good legal principle and good quality legal precedent to guide them in their decisions and to discharge their responsibilities.