edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Parker DavidHon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Revenue): Thank you member for that contribution and you know some credit where credit's due: the Hon Julie Anne Genter has been pushing this hard for a while and convinced the Government.In respect of the journey that we're on as a country to reduce carbon emissions it is very complex and there are lots of little steps each of which seems relatively insignificant in the great scheme of things the sum of which however is significant and this is one of those initiatives. I think I should also give a bit of credit to the prior Prime Minister the Hon John Key who stopped the sneering at cycleways that we suffered until that point in New Zealand and gave recognition to the fact that there are many modes of transport that can have better health and environmental effects as the Hon Julie Anne Genter has already mentioned.Now the emissions reduction plan that we've signed up for as a Government has got many components and somewhat ebbs and flows a little bit. We recently decided that we weren't going to proceed with the biofuel sales obligation—there were mixed views about that in society. So we've lost that contribution to our emissions reduction. We pick up a bit here through encouraging more active forms of transport which as the member has said has a health benefit in that there are reduced particulate emissions. It's a more active form of transport so there's a health benefit to the person who's actually being more active as they go to work—that has a personal health benefit for them. There's also of course a congestion benefit and a reduction in carbon emissions. So we're pleased to be supporting that initiative.
Bayly Andrew; Parker DavidANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): I just want to ask the question—clause 7 and clause 8 around residential land transfers. This is about defining the brightline rules when land is transferred from a trust to a trustee and sets it out and basically defines when that land becomes subject to the brightline test and it refers to transfers of land on or after 1 April 2022. I just have a very simple question: clause 7 deals with residential land and clause 8 deals with residential land transferred in relation to certain Māori trusts as opposed to just being general family trusts. Can the Minister confirm that they are the same provisions and if they are not why would there be a difference between residential land transfers to ordinary"—if I can use that word—family trusts than those to a Māori family trust?Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Revenue): I'm not aware of the answer to that question but I will check with officials—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Poto Williams): The Hon David Parker.Hon DAVID PARKER: —and return to the—sorry Madam Chair.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Poto Williams): No worries.Hon DAVID PARKER: I'll check that with officials and get back to the member."
SpeechPart 2 Amendments to Income Tax Act 2007CHAIRPERSON (Hon Poto Williams): Members we now come to Part 2. This is the debate on clauses 4 to 101Amendments to Income Tax Act 2007". The question is that Part 2 stand part."
Parker DavidDAMIEN SMITH (ACT): Question for the Minister: does the Minister accept that 98 percent of New Zealanders under these income tax rules are receiving no benefits and that in a cost of living crisis and the greatest inflationary period we've had in recent history it's been a mistake not to be more flexible in his approach?Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Revenue): That's an easy answer to that. The answer is obviously no. The benefits that New Zealanders receive from these tax rates include a health system an education system more police and many other benefits. In terms of Mr Bayly's assertion that the COVID recovery fund was a slush fund that is the fund that paid the income supports via businesses to many millions of New Zealanders who remained attached to their employment during COVID as a consequence of which the upturn from the economic consequences of COVID were far better than anyone predicted. Because we managed the economy so well coming out of COVID New Zealand had amongst the lowest rate of unemployment in the world.
Swarbrick Chlöe; Parker DavidCHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green—Auckland Central): Really appreciate the engagement from the Minister on that broader philosophical question which of course was raised by the comments of the Opposition around where tax burden can and perhaps should lie in this country particularly his comments on that tax burden on wealth versus work and the research that he's undertaking which of course will help us to have a far more informed debate moving forward.Just reflecting on those answers there are two key questions that fall out of those answers. The first is whether in his statements we can expect to see that research published in full in the next two months—for clarity's sake the first question whether we can expect that to be published prior to the Government's Budget being debated in this House.The second question is whether we can expect to see this term of Parliament prior to the election the introduction of the bill on tax principles which I understand was a piece of work occurring in line with that broader piece of research.Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Revenue): The information on the high wealth inquiry that Inland Revenue are conducting—which is anonymous by the way I never see no one ever sees who the people involved are. Indeed there are very strict security protocols around that information so that it cannot be used for tax administration purposes. It's an inquiry for tax policy purposes not any enforcement reasons. That information I expect will be out before the Budget.In respect of the question on the tax principles Act a final decision hasn't been taken by Cabinet on that matter yet.
Parker DavidDAMIEN SMITH (ACT): Just on the current situation would the Minister accept that one of the reasons why wages after tax didn't keep up with inflation in 2022 is because the Government is actually taxing more? And on the 98 percent of low and middle income earners who want to keep their wages and manage inflation why has there been no conversation to pull the additional lever to cut wasteful spending in Wellington and make sure all workers have more money in their hand after tax—wouldn't that be a better bread and butter solution?Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Revenue): As the Prime Minister said just yesterday we of course always review expenditure. We reprioritise spending initiatives within Government departments every year and the Budget exercises how that is controlled by the Minister of Finance. So the idea that we don't reprioritise expenditure is just nonsense.It is true that there are some of the major cost centres in New Zealand cost yet more year on year. The most obvious example of that is in health: health technology improves and therefore there are more treatments that are available to assist people in their health needs. The demographic of the population also changes through age. As a consequence the costs of servicing the health needs of not just the New Zealand population but every wealthy population around the world—the cost of health services increases as a percentage of the economy year on year in just about every country in the world.Of course if you don't fund those costs increases properly then you squeeze things like the amount of money that's available to Pharmac for drug expenditure which is one of the reasons why when we came into Government—because there had been such miserly increases in the Budget for Pharmac—there were a lot of drugs that could save lives that weren't being funded and we're making progress in ensuring those drugs are funded. How do we do that? We actually do that through the taxes that we collect from New Zealanders and New Zealanders value that when they have health needs that the public system provides for.
Swarbrick Chlöe; Parker DavidCHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green—Auckland Central): E te Māngai tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e te Māngai. It appears as though this debate this afternoon has descended into a discussion on the philosophy behind tax and what the outcomes are that we're trying to incentivise in our economy. So with all of those contributions particularly from members of the Opposition I thought it timely to raise the spectre of the research that I know the Minister in the chair has been undertaking within the broader revenue portfolio because of course in this platform economy and remedial matters bill we will be touching on some of those tax burdens and where they perhaps could be alleviated.I note in early 2020 that he delivered a speech to the University of Auckland and said—and I quote—What's hidden is that the effective marginal tax rate for middle income kiwis is generally higher than it is for their wealthier co-citizens. Indeed some of their wealthier Kiwi compatriots pay very low rates of tax on most of their income." Of course then it was followed up by Official Information Act requests to Treasury and the IRD as published by Thomas Coughlan in our press gallery where it was found that the wealthiest New Zealanders on average tend to pay a lower rate of tax than essential workers in our economy.So as a follow-up question to the Minister actually based off some of the interactions that we've had in annual reviews and otherwise where he noted that we could perhaps have expected there to be some initial research published at the end of last year—where that research is.Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Revenue): A couple of Budgets ago Parliament authorised the collection—or Budget night legislation—of information on a survey basis from the highest wealth holders and income earners in New Zealand. Until that legislation was passed there was a dispute amongst some taxpayers as to whether Inland Revenue was entitled to that information. Some taxpayers and their agents said that the only information that Inland Revenue was entitled to was information for the administration of tax that was payable rather than for the administration of the tax system. So this Parliament changed the law to make it clear that the Commissioner of Inland Revenue has the ability to collect information for policy purposes not just for tax administration purposes.In the same Budget the Parliament gave another Budget line to the Inland Revenue Department. The Commissioner of Inland Revenue was authorised to do a survey to find out how much tax is in fact being paid by the wealthiest New Zealanders as a proportion of their economic income which is a different question to taxation as a percentage of taxable income because we know from overseas studies that the wealthiest cohort earn a lot of their income in non-taxable forms even though it's economic income. That information is expected to be published in full within the next two months."
Parker DavidHon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Revenue): Once again listening to the Opposition you would think that they are the vanguard of tax cuts for the middle-income New Zealanders when their actual record when they were last in Government was that 40 percent of the income tax cuts went to the top 10 percent of income earners.Indeed it was only just before Christmas that again the National Party was saying their core tax policy would be to get rid of the 39c rate. In respect of these assertions that according to the Opposition taxes are somehow out of control and burgeoning in a way that is improper in New Zealand I would note that core Crown tax revenue in 2008 was 30 percent of GDP and the actual figures for 2022 were 30.2 percent of GDP. In the intervening period it did drop by 1 or 2 percent of GDP under a National Government because of course that's what they always do: they cut services in order to reduce taxes. Who gets the benefit of those tax decreases under National and ACT administrations? Well as I said the facts speak for themselves. Their major change to thresholds was when they increased GST to pay for a decrease in income tax 40 percent of which went to the top 10 percent. Always has been that way always will be that way; some things never change.
Parker DavidDAMIEN SMITH (ACT): To the Minister does he recognise that 98 percent of New Zealanders have been punished with his tax policies and have received no benefits under this Government and are unlikely to and that the word Labour" now is a word that does not make sense any more because the hard-working people of New Zealand are being taxed perniciously at an income level? And also economically from a worldwide perspective that his figures on the OECD per capita are incorrect and that we are actually going backwards in this area?Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Revenue): Well if our system is described by the member as "pernicious" in its tax rates how does he reconcile that with the fact that the highest income tax rate in Australia is 45c on the dollar whereas the highest it is here is 39c?"
Willis NicolaNICOLA WILLIS (Deputy Leader—National): I wish to return to my question because that was a cute response from the Minister and I know he can do better. This is an opportunity in this bill to allow for some facts which I know that he will not have argument with. Some facts one: the tax take as a proportion of GDP is the highest it has been in more than 17 years. Fact two: this Government has increased the tax take by many billions of dollars and as a proportion of GDP it is up. Fact three: the effect of inflation has been to increase New Zealanders' nominal incomes such that average wage workers have been pushed into higher tax brackets and are now paying a higher proportion of their income in tax. So if we were to keep tax at stable levels that would require an adjustment to the levels at which tax thresholds kick in. My question for the Minister is why won't he do that and given the admission in the past 24 hours by this Government that there is a bonfire of wasteful spending going on why hasn't there been an effort to prioritise taking the Government's own belt in so that it can deliver tax relief to working New Zealanders?
Parker DavidHon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Revenue): Answering that question there is no increase to income tax rates for any New Zealander in this bill. They are being set at the rate that they were last year.In respect of the earlier question from another National Party member there is no increase to the trustee rate in this bill either.
Willis NicolaNICOLA WILLIS (Deputy Leader—National): Implicit in those remarks by the Minister of Revenue is something he keeps hinting at which is his view that a tax swap is the way to deliver tax reduction. My question is: why is he waiting to deliver lower income tax for New Zealanders when he could do it in this bill today; and which part of the productive economy—and which talented and skilled New Zealanders—is he planning to slap yet more taxes on to pay for it?
Parker DavidHon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Revenue): Thank you Madam Chair. The first point I would make is that implicit in the questions from the Opposition is the underlying assertion that New Zealanders are highly taxed and therefore taxes should be lower overall in New Zealand.Hon Member: No.Hon DAVID PARKER: Well that is the implication that I take from the questions that are asked by the Opposition—that every time we come to this House they're saying tax cuts tax cuts tax cuts."The reality is that the OECD keeps statistics on the amount of taxes as a proportion of the economy for all OECD nations and New Zealand sits in the lower half of those OECD nations for taxation as a proportion of the economy. Taxes of course are needed to pay for services like health and education. Those costs particularly in the health field have been high in recent years. Every New Zealander knows that; we've all been through COVID. And now we're also facing the costs of dealing with the storm events that we've had in the last month or so in New Zealand. So New Zealand is not highly taxed. We do not see a case for significant tax cuts.In respect of the idea that we adjust thresholds or that we never adjust thresholds: the last time Labour was in Government when we also had a 39c top income tax rate that kicked in from memory at $69000; when we reintroduced the 39c rate during this term of Government it was introduced at a $180000 threshold so that incomes over $180000—not the tax up to $180000 but the tax over $180000—is taxed at 39c in the dollar and I contrast that with the threshold for that same rate in the last Labour Government which is $69000.In respect of alternative ways in which you could cut the pie I would note that the last National-ACT Government chose to increase GST into fund a decrease in income tax is typical of the last National and ACT Government and prior iterations of that. Of course 40 percent of the income tax cuts went to the top 10 percent of income earners."
SpeechHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you Madam Chair. Despite being a very small part in words of the overall bill the taxation rates are really the lion's share of what we're doing here. Now we had an answer from the Prime Minister to Nicola Willis' question around tax threshold changes that makes me wonder—in fact I'm pretty sure I know the answer but it's worth putting it to the Minister of Revenue—whether the New Zealand public will ever see tax threshold changes under a Labour-led Government. Because the track record is pretty clear.Remember the bubble gum tax? Because I do. I remember that after about seven or eight Budgets where Michael Cullen steadfastly refused to adjust tax thresholds he bent under the weight of public pressure and threw crumbs at the New Zealand taxpayer—well actually he didn't he threw bubble gum at the New Zealand taxpayer—and then he took it away again. They never actually got it. So if you count let's be generous and say that it was only seven Budgets and we're now approaching the sixth Budget of the fifth Labour Government. So you've probably got a dozen or 13 times when a Labour Government in modern times could have adjusted tax thresholds. And not only did they not but the Prime Minister said in question time today and has many times said: It ain't going to happen." Why? Because it's not possible to give a tax threshold change to a low-income worker without giving a tax threshold change to David Parker. So they are prepared to put low-income New Zealanders through the pain of having to pay more tax because of an envy from someone who earns more than they do. That is letting low and middle income New Zealanders down. And what happens is middle income New Zealanders become low income - New Zealanders by the theft—through inflation and through tax. I talked in the second reading about this—Chlöe Swarbrick: And a disproportionate tax burden on work over wealth.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Oh well OK we can have that discussion but it's a moot point because the Government won't even entertain it. And I want to get the Minister to confirm that it simply won't be possible for New Zealanders to get any sort of tax relief under this Government because they won't change the thresholds. They're certainly not going to change the rates because that would also benefit people who are in upper incomes.But I talked about registered nurses that when I left the hospital I managed one would have to be a quite senior registered nurse to be on the 30 percent tax rate. Because of the failure of this Government to change tax thresholds somebody working a bit of overtime and weekends could be on the 30 percent rate in their second year after graduating. They don't feel any better off but they're paying a 30 percent tax rate where 10 15 years ago they'd have only been paying 17.5. That's what we're talking about. It really hurts New Zealanders. So my question to the Minister is: is the Prime Minister's answer indicative of an attitude and is the track record indicative of an attitude that no New Zealander will ever see a tax threshold change and tax relief under a Labour-led Government?"
Bayly AndrewANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you Madam Chair. It's a pleasure to be speaking on this bill and obviously we're dealing with Part 1. As my good colleague Nicola Willis has just said the issue with this is that this bill enshrines the current rates of tax and the thresholds at which you pay the higher rates of tax. Of course as we know this Government has been raking in additional tax revenue; an increase of $42 billion from when I first came into office 5½ years ago. So first of all let's get some confirmation because I know the Minister is very aware of tax revenue. Can he confirm that the Government has increased its revenue by $42 billion since it first came into office? The second thing is: can he confirm whether or not that equates to $15500 per family—which is not an insignificant amount of money? As I was talking about the other night at the first reading that equates to quite a nice car that hard-pressed families could go and buy. That's the scale of the additional tax that has been levied against New Zealand families and it is just something that—as Nicola Willis has identified—in a period where we've just had rampant inflation that additional cost could not have come at a worse time for New Zealand families. The third thing I want to just touch on is that with the move to a 39 percent tax—and obviously this is about tax income rates and different personal tax rates. I would be interested to know whether the Minister would comment on whether in fact he's going to move the trust tax rate to somewhere closer to 39 percent in line with personal tax rates that are set out in this bill because he's now I believe found himself in a conundrum where we've got a company tax rate at 28 percent you've got tax on unit rates at 28 percent you've got the top personal tax rate at 39 percent and of course trusts are now taxed at 33 percent. So given that the Minister and the Government want to enshrine these existing rates of personal tax rate—whether in fact he wants to or feels the need to increase the trust rate because I think it is inevitable that the longer that the Government enshrines this differential—which is actually one of the highest differentials since 1997; a long time ago—it means that there is now an incentive for people to restructure their affairs particularly using company trusts etc. That's come about through this rise in the top tax rate. So that's the third question that I'd like to put to the Minister and then we can maybe talk about specific thresholds after this.
Willis NicolaNICOLA WILLIS (Deputy Leader—National): What this part of this taxation bill represents is a significant missed opportunity by the Government to adjust tax thresholds to account for some of the extreme inflation that has beset New Zealand workers over these past few years.What we are experiencing as a country is a prolonged cost of living crisis. There has been an admission of that via the Government an admission that for the first time in many many years real wages are now trailing the inflation rate so that in real terms many New Zealanders are going backwards. While their nominal incomes are increasing their actual ability to get ahead is reducing. It is that fact that has led the Government in recent times to make specific inflation adjustments to the rates of benefits student payments and superannuation payments paid to New Zealanders out of recognition that tagging those to wages no longer suffices because inflation has become so out of control under this Government.So it has been National's consistent contention that it is very wrong in the midst of a cost of living crisis for the Government to persist with a rate of income taxation that is punitive. The rates that are in this bill mean that in real terms New Zealanders are paying a higher proportion of their income in tax than they have in many many years. This is even while the Government's tax take is upped by billions and billions of dollars as they are committed to a clutch of new taxes and allow fiscal drag to push people into higher tax brackets. It has been National's consistent view that if the Government could only be disciplined about its own spending then adjusting these tax rates for some of the inflation that has occurred in recent years would be possible.So my question for the Minister in the chair is a simple one. It is: why won't you simply adjust the tax thresholds to allow for this inflation so that New Zealanders can keep more of what they earn and pay a fairer rate of tax?
SpeechTAXATION (ANNUAL RATES FOR 2022-23 PLATFORM ECONOMY AND REMEDIAL MATTERS) BILL (NO 2)In CommitteePart 1 Annual rates of income taxCHAIRPERSON (Hon Poto Williams): Members the House is in committee on the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2022-23 Platform Economy and Remedial Matters) Bill (No 2). Members we start with Part 1. This is the debate on clause 3 annual rates of income tax. This is where the debate on the tax rate should take place but the vote on any proposed amendments to the tax rates will take part place in Part 2 which amends the Income Tax Act 2007.Nicola Willis: Madam Chair.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Poto Williams): I call Nicola Willis.NICOLA WILLIS (Deputy Leader—National): Madam Chair—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Poto Williams): Apologies apologies. Standing Order 352 requires that the annual taxing provision be considered separately. The question is that Part 1 stand part.
Rurawhe AdrianSPEAKER: I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2022-23 Platform Economy and Remedial Matters) Bill (No 2).
Robertson Grant; Rurawhe AdrianAPPOINTMENTSAssistant SpeakerHon GRANT ROBERTSON (Leader of the House): I seek leave to move a motion without notice on the appointment of Assistant Speakers despite Standing Order 29.SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course being taken? There is none.Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I move That this House appoint the Hon Poto Williams and Barbara Kuriger as Assistant Speakers until the end of Thursday 16 March 2023 despite Standing Order 29. The House has a busy week ahead but two of our panel of Presiding Officers are absent so it's necessary to appoint two temporary Assistant Speakers for this week only. We are fortunate that we have two experienced members who have agreed to step in. Poto Williams served as Assistant Speaker for almost two years from 2017 to 2019 and I know has the respect of the House for her calmness authority and fairness. Barbara Kuriger has stepped in as a temporary Assistant Speaker before and performed the role most capably and is highly valued across the House. We are grateful to both members for agreeing to take up the role of Assistant Speaker for this week only and I commend their appointments to the House. Motion agreed to.
Rurawhe AdrianPETITIONS PAPERS SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLSSPEAKER: No petitions have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation. Ministers have delivered papers.CLERK: 2021-22 annual reports for the Auckland District Health Board Bay of Plenty District Health Board Canterbury District Health Board Counties Manukau District Health Board Lakes District Health Board Nelson Marlborough District Health Board Northland District Health Board Southern District Health Board and Wairarapa District Health Board and the Human Rights CommissionLong-term Insights Briefing of the Education Review Office Education for All Our Children: Embracing Diverse Ethnicities.SPEAKER: Those papers are published under the authority of the House. Select committee reports have been delivered for presentation.CLERK: Reports of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee on the:International Treaty Examination of the Side Letter to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) to exclude Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) between New Zealand and Chilereport of the Ombudsman report on OIA compliance and practice in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Tradereport of the Ombudsman report on OIA compliance and practice in the New Zealand Customs Servicereport of the Ombudsman report on OIA compliance and practice in the New Zealand Defence Force.report of the Health Committee on the petition of Matty Angelreport of the Justice Committee on the Counter-Terrorism Acts (Designations and Control Orders) Amendment Bill reports of the Petitions Committee on the petitions of Ana Briggs Anna Hodgkinson and Michiel Badenhorstreport of the Primary Production Committee on the petition of Shengjun Jin.SPEAKER: The bill is set down for second reading the reports of the Ombudsman and the report of the international treaty are set down for consideration. The Clerk has been informed of the introduction of a bill.CLERK: Severe Weather Emergency Legislation Bill introduction. SPEAKER: That bill is set down for first reading.
SpeechTUESDAY 14 MARCH 2023The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.KARAKIA/PRAYERSHon JACQUI DEAN (Assistant Speaker): 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 9 March 2023 - Volume 766
New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income (Controlling Interests ) Amendment Bill - First Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income (Controlling Interests) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.Ayes 110New Zealand Labour 64; New Zealand National 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Noes 10ACT New Zealand 10.Motion agreed to.Bill read a first time.DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is That the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income (Controlling Interests) Amendment Bill be considered by the Finance and Expenditure Committee.Motion agreed to.Bill referred to the Finance and Expenditure Committee.
12. Question No. 12—Broadcasting and MediaMELISSA LEE (National) to the Minister for Broadcasting and MediaQuestion No. 12—Broadcasting and Media12. MELISSA LEE (National) to the Minister for Broadcasting and Media: Does he stand by all of the Government's views and actions regarding the proposals to merge RNZ and TVNZ into Aotearoa New Zealand Public Media?Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Minister for Broadcasting and Media): Yes at the time they were made.Melissa Lee: Does the Minister stand by his statement When we don't have a cyclone and we don't have the floods of the century [who knows] we might be able to roll that merger out."Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Oh the member needs to put that in context in terms of the merger. The merger is well and truly over and yesterday we were talking in a different environment. The reality is that the merger is finished; the merger is over. We will not be bringing it back not now and not in the future and not in the upcoming campaign.Melissa Lee: Can he confirm that the Government is paying on the $1.19 million lease for empty office spaces in Wellington for the cancelled RNZ-TVNZ merger while overly generously paid consultants continue to assist his $8000-a-day board for a wash-out report?Hon WILLIE JACKSON: The establishment board has met 1½ times in the last month. We have to get a report; that's the professional thing to do. And when you enter into lease agreements the New Zealand law is you must pay them.Melissa Lee: Is the reason the Minister only found out the RNZ-TVNZ merger "will stop on the day of the announcement which is 8 February 2023" because he hadn't read his Cabinet papers or that the Cabinet paper was only tabled at the meeting?Hon WILLIE JACKSON: No.Melissa Lee: Who is correct: the Prime Minister saying the merger will stop or the broadcasting Minister saying that "Well we might be able to roll out the merger."?Hon WILLIE JACKSON: I 100 percent support the Prime Minister. The reality is that the merger is over. I'm not sure how many times we need to say that. The Prime Minister announced that on 8 February and I'll announce it now just for that member: the merger is over."
10. Question No. 10—Public ServiceSIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga) to the Minister for the Public ServiceQuestion No. 10—Public Service10. SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga) to the Minister for the Public Service: Does he stand by his statement we now engage in active monitoring of the Public Service's use of contractors and consultants"; if so when did the active monitoring begin?Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister for the Public Service): Yes and I refer the member to my primary answer to his question yesterday.Simeon Brown: As part of his active monitoring of the Public Service's use of contractors and consultants will he be sending a memo to the Minister of Transport who spent over $51 million on contractors and consultants on the now cancelled Auckland cycle bridge?Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I refer the member to the answer to the supplementary question along the same lines that the member asked yesterday and I invite him to listen.Simeon Brown: As part of his active monitoring of the Public Service's use of contractors and consultants will he be sending a memo to the Minister for Broadcasting and Media who has so far spent $10 million on contractors and consultants on the failed TVNZ-RNZ merger which he still says he wants to progress?Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I am satisfied in the work of the Public Service Commission in continuing to monitor the use of contractors and consultants including in the field of broadcasting.Hon Grant Robertson: As part of his monitoring of contractors and consultants will he be sending a memo to the Leader of the Opposition about their use of consultants in their first—oh sorry Mr Speaker.SPEAKER: No that's completely out of order—I think the member knows that.Simeon Brown: As part of his active monitoring of the Public Service's use of contractors and consultants will he be sending a memo to the Minister for the Public Service whose department's spend on contractors and consultants increased from $1.4 million in 2018 to $3.4 million last year?Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I refer the member to his media release of Sunday just gone where he acknowledged that it is appropriate for all Government departments at some point to use contractors and consultants.Simeon Brown: As part of his active monitoring of the Public Service's use of contractors and consultants will he be sending a memo to the Minister of Education where expenditure on contractors and consultants was over $600000 per day last year up from $100000 a day when Chris Hipkins used to complain about that in Opposition?Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I remain satisfied in the work of the Public Service Commission in its monitoring function of the use of consultants and contractors and I'm pleased to see the member is taking good use of the information that that is yielding."
9. Question No. 9—Small BusinessJAMIE STRANGE (Labour—Hamilton East) to the Minister for Small BusinessQuestion No. 9—Small Business9. JAMIE STRANGE (Labour—Hamilton East) to the Minister for Small Business: What recent progress has been made on the roll-out of the Government's fog cannon subsidy scheme for New Zealand small businesses?Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Minister for Small Business): Thank you Mr Speaker. Last week I visited the One Stop Shop convenience store in central Wellington to see a fog cannon installed and tested after having received a voucher from the Government's subsidy scheme. The scheme which went live on 1 February of this year has already seen over 500 applications approved across the country. I'm advised that 88 fog cannons have already been installed with another 168 booked in for installation over the coming months. People deserve to feel safe in their workplace and the Minister of Police and I are determined to make it as easy as possible for small businesses to take part in this scheme.Jamie Strange: What is the criteria of the scheme and how many small businesses are likely to receive support?Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: To qualify for this scheme the retail business' main purpose must be to sell finished goods to the public such as a dairy bottle store jeweller clothes shop or service station. Retailers will need to meet certain criteria to be eligible including having no more than two outlets five or fewer paid staff and a street frontage. While it is difficult to accurately estimate the demand for the rest of the financial year we are forecasting up to 1500 vouchers being issued to small businesses around the country.Jamie Strange: What has been the regional distribution of vouchers and installations to small businesses?Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: Auckland and Christchurch have been in the majority of the approved applications to date but there have been a regionally diverse range of installations including 21 in Waikato 13 in Auckland 19 in Canterbury four in Whanganui-Manawatū seven in the Bay of Plenty and 18 in Wellington.Jamie Strange: Is it too late for small businesses to participate in the scheme; if not how can they do so?Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: Not at all. For small-business owners to participate in the scheme—not at all. It takes approximately 15 minutes to complete an online application and if the applicant provides all of the eligibility and declaration information the approval is instantaneous. To date 70 percent of applications have been automatically approved. The business will immediately be emailed a voucher and a contact list of one of the 18 approved providers.
8. Question No. 8—JusticeHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of JusticeQuestion No. 8—Justice8. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of Justice: Does she stand by all of her statements and actions?Hon DAVID PARKER (Attorney-General) on behalf of the Minister of Justice: Yes in the context in which they were given and taken.Hon Paul Goldsmith: How does she stand by her statement last October on TVNZ regarding hate speech: I guarantee that I'll be introducing a law that I intend to have concluded and put into law by the next election."?Hon DAVID PARKER: Well that confirms that these matters must be taken within the context in which they are given. Of course the Government has since said that all of those issues are now going to be considered by the Law Commission.Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does she think it's a good look for the country when guarantees given by its justice Minister aren't worth anything and cannot be relied upon?Hon DAVID PARKER: Oh but that's just not correct as I have already explained.Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does she agree with the Prime Minister that her proposed hate speech legislation "would have consumed the government's time and energy at a time when it needed to focus" and that in justice the Government should be focused on combating the 33 percent increase in violent crime the 500 percent increase in ram raids and long delays to the courts?Hon DAVID PARKER: I can confirm for the member that ram raids are down by two-thirds which is very good news.Hon Paul Goldsmith: Tell that to the people of Long Drive. Supplementary—SPEAKER: Order! Hon Paul Goldsmith: Why—SPEAKER: Order! Was that your supplementary that comment that you made because really—you know I think the member has been here long enough to know that you don't start off a supplementary by giving a narrative on the previous answer; you ask a question. I'm just considering whether I should count that as the question. I think that in this case I'll let you ask the question.Hon Paul Goldsmith: Thank you Mr Speaker. My supplementary question is: why when the Government still hasn't effectively addressed the 33 percent increase in violent crime is her Government still devoting the Government's time and energy to introducing legislation to lower the voting age to 16?Hon DAVID PARKER: Well—as followers of the cricket might appreciate—in the style of Geoffrey Boycott and Mark Richardson I can confirm that Cabinet has taken no such decision."
7. Question No. 7—Emergency ManagementNAISI CHEN (Labour) to the Minister for Emergency ManagementQuestion No. 7—Emergency Management7. NAISI CHEN (Labour) to the Minister for Emergency Management: What announcement has he made on further support for the cyclone and flooding recovery?Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Minister for Emergency Management): Today the Government announced a contribution of $15 million to help local councils remove rubbish from cyclone-affected areas. Local authorities need to make urgent rubbish collections from residential properties. We've heard from some that they don't have the financial capacity to deal with the issue given the scale so it's important we support them to take immediate action. I note from my regular conversations with affected councils that further support will be required but this funding is a welcome relief to those communities that are heading towards recovery. Local councils are having to face unprecedented damage from the cyclone so I'm glad that we're able to contribute funds that will enable them to help their communities as fast as possible.Naisi Chen: How will this support work?Hon KIERAN McANULTY: This funding will provide immediate financial support to the councils for the rubbish collections caused by cyclone damage. Councils are best placed to determine priority based on the worst affected areas and those that pose a higher public health risk. The funding also covers transport and disposal. This support is provided as an addition to the council's own waste management funding streams as well as insurance and Earthquake Commission arrangements.Naisi Chen: How will the Government support the affected communities to deal with silt?Hon KIERAN McANULTY: We've announced a $55 million primary sector support package that will help farmers and growers remove silt but we've also directed officials to urgently provide advice on a long-term plan for the silt clean-up. This plan has been based on the most up-to-date environmental science so that our efforts are effective.Naisi Chen: What other announcements has the Government made to support cyclone recovery?Hon KIERAN McANULTY: Today the Minister for Social Development and the Associate Minister for Cyclone Recovery announced a $15 million reimbursement package for marae iwi and recognised rural and community groups. These groups have used their own resources to provide welfare support to people affected by the cyclone. There is existing provision in the emergency management system for this kind of support but it can take time to distribute and normally doesn't extend to the community groups who have stepped up in the wake of Cyclone Gabrielle. We've streamlined this process and made more groups eligible so that they can be appropriately reimbursed for essential support that they have provided people.
3. Question No. 3—HealthDr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour—Banks Peninsula) to the Minister of HealthQuestion No. 3—Health3. Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour—Banks Peninsula) to the Minister of Health: What recent announcement has she made regarding pay increases for nurses?Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Minister of Health): Yesterday I announced a historic $540 million bump in pay for nurses. Backdated interim payments have now been completed across the Auckland region and nurses throughout the country have received a much deserved increase. Although how much extra each nurse has received depends on their current rates the increases range from 4.5 percent to 17 percent but a large proportion of registered nurses are receiving an increase in base pay of around $12000. This Government backs our nurses and has delivered a significant pay increase for them.Dr Tracey McLellan: What does this mean for a nurse just starting out in the profession and how has that changed since 2017?Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: Newly qualified nurses in 2017 started work on $49449 a year before overtime and allowances. This figure is now $66570 a year. That is a considerable increase for our workforce overwhelmingly female that has traditionally been undervalued.Dr Tracey McLellan: What does the payment mean for nurses represented by the New Zealand Nurses Organisation?Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: Although further litigation has arisen it was sensible that the Employment Relations Authority allowed Te Whatu Ora the ability to make interim pay equity payments while still awaiting a final result. This means nurses are able to have that money in their pockets now. I continue to urge parties to resolve the outstanding issues.Dr Tracey McLellan: How do these interim payments deliver on the Government's commitment to pay equity?Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: What this payment does is ensure that nurses are getting more money in their pockets while they are feeling the pinch of the cost of living. While there is still more work to do in negotiating further on pay equity this is an important step in showing our Government's commitment to valuing nurses and paying a female-dominated workforce what they're worth.
1. Question No. 1—FinanceSHANAN HALBERT (Labour—Northcote) to the Minister of FinanceORAL QUESTIONSQUESTIONS TO MINISTERSQuestion No. 1—Finance1. SHANAN HALBERT (Labour—Northcote) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Thank you for the question. The resilience of the economy has been reflected in the Crown accounts. For the seven months to the end of January the operating balance before gains and losses (OBEGAL) recorded a deficit of $2.4 billion. This was close to the forecast at December's Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update and $5.6 billion lower than for the same period a year ago. The Government's sound management of our finances shows that we are well placed to respond to the cost of living pressures and the impact of Cyclone Gabrielle and the flooding in January.Shanan Halbert: What else did the report say about the impact of the economy on the Government's books?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Core Crown tax revenue was $430 million or 0.7 percent below forecast at $64.7 billion. This was mainly due to lower-than-forecast GST returns. Core Crown expenses were $164 million or 0.2 percent below forecasts at $71.7 billion.Shanan Halbert: What did the report say about the Government's debt position and its impact on the economy?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Net debt stood at 18.9 percent of GDP below the forecast of 19.8 percent of GDP mainly due to market conditions affecting the financial portfolio of entities such as the New Zealand Superannuation Fund. Our debt levels are among the lowest in the OECD and well below the Government's debt ceiling of 30 percent of GDP. This ensures we are well positioned to handle the impacts of Cyclone Gabrielle and future economic shocks.Shanan Halbert: What reports has he seen on the international context for the New Zealand economy?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The International Monetary Fund's World Economic Outlook updates projects that global growth will slow from 3.4 percent in 2022 to 2.9 percent in 2023 and 3.1 percent in 2024. These are well below the historic averages for global growth. New Zealand is well positioned to face these global challenges and the recent extreme weather events with a solid balance sheet near-record low unemployment growing exports rising tourist numbers and an increasing number of overseas workers arriving to fill vacancies. The Government will continue to take a balanced and responsible approach in managing our finances.
Wednesday 8 March 2023 - Volume 766
Civil Aviation Bill — Second Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Civil Aviation Bill be now read a second time.Ayes 110New Zealand Labour 64; New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10;Te Paati Māori 2.Noes 10Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10. Motion agreed to.Bill read a second time.
Taxation (Annual Rates for 2022-23 Platform Economy and Remedial Matters) Bill (No 2) — Second Reading
VoteASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): 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 to.Ayes 76New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Noes 44New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.Amendments agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2022-23 Platform Economy and Remedial Matters) Bill (No 2) be now read a second time.Ayes 76New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Noes 44New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.Motion agreed to.Bill read a second time.