edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Carter David; Rurawhe AdrianRt Hon DAVID CARTER (National): It's a pleasure for me to take a brief call on Part 2 of the Taxation (Neutralising Base Erosion and Profit Shifting) Bill. I want to talk specifically to two provisions new section 78G Country-by-country report from large multinational group" in clause 52 and new section 139AB "Penalty for members of large multinational group failing to provide information" in clause 53.The reason I raise those two is I've been worried—very very worried indeed—since we completed the select committee process because collectively we put a lot of work into Part 1 and I'm just wondering now whether we did delve into Part 2 deeply enough to fully understand the implications. But I know that the Minister will give us some good answers and I want to congratulate the Minister again for the way he handled his questions through Part 1 on Tuesday night.The first one new section 78G talks about the requirement for a large multinational with an ultimate owner—that is a New Zealand resident—to provide the commissioner a report on tax information etc. etc. So does this apply to the likes of Google and Facebook? I assume the answer to that is that it definitely does. Then I just want the Minister to think about what's the likely reaction to a chief executive in Palo Alto Silicon Valley getting a letter from the Commissioner of Inland Revenue saying "Please supply us with this sort of information." which looks to me like it's fairly broad-based. It could be information as to the tax structure they have established in any of the 50 or 100 other countries they operate in. What's going to be the likely first response? If he or she takes it seriously he or she may get involved and make sure the answer's given but that leads me to the second point that's raised—CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I'm sorry to interrupt the right honourable member but it has come time for me to report progress. House resumed.The Chairperson reported progress on the Taxation (Neutralising Base Erosion and Profit Shifting) Bill and no progress on the Social Security Legislation Rewrite Bill. Report adopted.The House adjourned at 5.56 p.m."
Nash StuartHon STUART NASH (Minister of Revenue): I will answer a couple of the questions that have been asked but I would like to say that a number of the questions that have been asked this afternoon already I did actually answer on Tuesday night and I'm not going to repeat those. The permanent establishment (PE) anti-avoidance rule is very similar to Australia's multinational anti-avoidance law and one aspect of the UK's diverted profits tax. It's also based on a permanent establishment definition—the 2017 OECD model double tax agreement—and New Zealand would not look to widen the scope beyond the OECD definition.Revenue from the PE anti-avoidance rule and changes from the transfer pricing rule would raise about $50 million per year once fully implemented. The Tax Information Bulletin—of course the officials will publish administrative guidance in a tax information bill shortly after the legislation is enacted. They do this for every single piece of legislation. Mr Bayly's not here. Well I will just mention—Hon Andrew Little: Answer the question anyway.Hon STUART NASH: Yeah I'll answer the question anyway. The amendment in the bill makes New Zealand's thin capitalisation rules consistent with Australian rules and as we know Australia has a major mining industry. And I would just say to the member who spoke last David Bennett and the one before then Nicola Willis that to all questions that you asked about whether the officials were right in their advice my answer to that is of course yes they are. As we know you had plenty of time in the Finance and Expenditure Committee to test the veracity of the officials' advice. So please don't expect any questions to be answered if you ask me Are the officials right?" because as mentioned this went through a long involved select committee process. There were a number of highly complex submissions which I think the officials did a brilliant job of distilling down into official reports—which I read and I know the members have read as well—and I think you've come to a very good spot in this bill. It is a piece of legislation that obviously we all support right across this House.The officials I think have done a sterling job. I'll reiterate something again that I said on Tuesday night and that is that in terms of our contribution at the OECD around base erosion and profit shifting measures and legislation and guidance we absolutely box above our weight. In fact we are recognised as having experts in certain areas on this.So I don't think anyone can be concerned about the measures in this bill. They have been tested and tested again and—as mentioned—put in front of the select committee and I know from the chair of the select committee and also the members that there were very robust discussions. Some of the parts of the bill were changed because of those discussions but as a consequence of the select committee process I think we've ended up exactly where we need to be with a very good piece of legislation that will go a long way to mitigating avoidance by multinational organisations operating in this country. Thank you."
Subordinate Legislation Confirmation Bill — First Reading
Report of Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee — International Treaty Examination
Urgent Debates Declined — Waikeria Prison—Government Announcement
Subordinate Legislation Confirmation Bill — Third Reading
Hipkins ChrisThird ReadingHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I move That the Subordinate Legislation Confirmation Bill be now read a third time. Motion agreed to.Bill read a third time.
Subordinate Legislation Confirmation Bill — Second Reading
Brownlee GerryHon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. I think the Leader of the House has well outlined the purpose of having a bill like this. It contains a number of other things that are sort of interesting but not quite so pressing as the aviation fee structure. I think it's worth noting that a lot of that fee structure is not just about commercial aircraft that cart people from one end of the country to the other or from our shores to other destinations; it's also about all of the categories of aviation—adventure tourism various commercial activities like top-dressing or aerial photography or whatever it might be. Of course we know—as I mentioned with adventure tourism—there are a range of things that people now engage in because of their desire to have the adrenaline rush I suppose that require aircraft to be involved. So the main reason for the confirmation is it should have been included earlier—that's acknowledged—but it would be unfortunate if we went through a stage where there was no oversight of some of that activity which of course is very visible because of the requirement that they pay their fees and therefore come under the purview of the Civil Aviation Authority. Bills like this don't come before the House very frequently and I think it's important to recognise that when they do there is generally a large amount of goodwill expressed from both sides of the House generally. There are moments of course when that looks like it's waning but I think we can all get over that and move forward. The bill of course in this case has got that you would say catch-up position in it but one that I think is necessary. I wouldn't want anyone to think that there hadn't been appropriate scrutiny of that. It's interesting actually that the levies have been subject to a complaint that's been brought to the Regulations Review Committee and that the committee has considered a lot of that and will be shortly engaging with those people who brought along that concern about where to progress from here. But what was interesting in that was the recognition by all of those people that these regimes are necessary although no one likes to think that there is unreasonable impost being put into the economy by way of these sorts of fees. I think most of those who are operators recognise that there is surety in their organisation or in their activity when it comes to public scrutiny of that activity which can be encapsulated in their being able to point to a particular authority that sits on the wall of the office or wherever they might like to keep it.So this legislation the Subordinate Legislation Confirmation Bill is one that we do support on this side of the House.Bill read a second time.
Hipkins ChrisSecond ReadingHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I move That the Subordinate Legislation Confirmation Bill be now read a second time. Subordinate Legislation Confirmation Bills are passed by the House each year so as to validate confirmable instruments—the category of secondary legislation that requires annual approval by the House to remain in force. These bills are typically pretty uncontroversial and they're reflected in the fact that the Standing Orders only provide for their second readings to be debated although they do normally have a select committee hearing in the intervening period.The purpose of this bill is to confirm the Civil Aviation (Safety) Levies Amendment Order 2017 confirmation of which should have been included in the Subordinate Legislation Confirmation Bill (No 3) which was introduced in May 2017 and reported to the House by the Regulations Review Committee just before the election. The order will be revoked on 30 June unless it is confirmed by an Act of Parliament before then. The Civil Aviation (Safety) Levies Amendment Order 2017 changed the basis on which levies are recovered from the aviation industry to pay for the functions of the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA). It implemented the outcome of the funding review and focused on recovering the CAA's funding more appropriately from the people who benefit from their services and those whose actions give rise to it. The revocation of the order would create considerable administrative difficulties for the Civil Aviation Authority given that systems and processes have been set up for the new scheme and would create significant confusion for operators in the aviation industry which is why I have agreed to set aside House time for the bill to be passed.
Hipkins ChrisSUBORDINATE LEGISLATION CONFIRMATION BILLFirst ReadingHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I move That the Subordinate Legislation Confirmation Bill be now read a first time. Motion agreed to.Bill read a first time.
Hipkins ChrisAPPROPRIATION (2017/18 SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES) BILLFirst ReadingHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House) on behalf of the Minister of Finance: I move That the Appropriation (2017/18 Supplementary Estimates) Bill be now read a first time.
Mallard TrevorURGENT DEBATES DECLINEDWaikeria Prison—Government AnnouncementSPEAKER: I have received a letter from the Hon Paula Bennett seeking to debate under Standing Order 389 the announcement of the Government's plan to build a new prison at Waikeria. This is a particular case of recent occurrence and it does involve ministerial responsibility.Urgent debates are held on matters that require the immediate attention of the House. It is incumbent on the applicant to make out a case for an urgent debate including reasons why the matter must be debated immediately. It is not for the Speaker to discover one—Speakers' ruling 190/3 refers. On the information presented to me I am not persuaded that the matter requires the urgent attention of the House. It could be addressed in the upcoming Estimates debate. The application is therefore declined.
Hipkins Chris; Mallard TrevorBUSINESS OF THE HOUSEHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): No. Following discussion at the Business Committee I seek leave for the Subordinate Legislation Confirmation Bill to be set down for second reading forthwith after its first reading and for the third reading forthwith following its second reading.SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There appears to be none.
Hipkins Chris; Brownlee GerryTHURSDAY 14 JUNE 2018The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.BUSINESS STATEMENTHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): Next week the House will complete the remaining stages of the Land Transport Management (Regional Fuel Tax) Amendment Bill the Taxation (Neutralising Base Erosion and Profit Shifting) Bill and the Appropriation—SPEAKER: Order! I think we might just be having a slight problem with the microphones and I am going to ask the Minister to start again and we'll see if they're working now.Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Thank you Mr Speaker. Next week the House will complete the remaining stages of the Land Transport Management (Regional Fuel Tax) Amendment Bill the Taxation (Neutralising Base Erosion and Profit Shifting) Bill and the Appropriation (2017/18 Supplementary Estimates) Bill and associated Imprest Supply Bill. On Thursday 21 June the Heretaunga Tamatea Claims Settlement Bill will receive its third reading. Other business for the week will include the second reading of the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Amendment Bill.Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): In the context of that last bill that the Leader of the House just mentioned will it also be the Government's intention to parallel the effects of that bill by moving the Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary Bill at the same time?
Wednesday 13 June 2018 - Volume 730
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Domestic Violence—Victims' Protection Bill be now read a second time.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.Noes 56New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1.Bill read a second time.
Domestic Violence—Victims' Protection Bill — Second Reading
VoteThe question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 40 in the name of David Seymour to replace clause 4(3) and to insert new clause 42A be agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): A party vote is called for. The Clerk will conduct a party vote. [Interruption] It will be done in silence. [Interruption] Order! Votes will be conducted in silence. A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to. Ayes 1ACT New Zealand 1.Noes 118New Zealand National 55; New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.Amendments not agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 40 in the name of David Seymour to insert new clause 7 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 1ACT New Zealand 1.Noes 118New Zealand National 55; New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.Amendment not agreed to.Parts 1 and 2 schedule and clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.House resumed.Bill reported without amendment.Report adopted.
Friendly Societies and Credit Unions (Regulatory Improvements) Amendment Bill — In Committee
VoteA party votewas called for on the question That the House take note of the report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on He Puna Hao Pātiki 2018 Investment Statement: Investing for Wellbeing.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.Noes 56New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1.Motion agreed to.
Debate on Investment Statement
12. Housing—Funding for Transitional and Emergency HousingMARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister of Housing and Urban DevelopmentHousing—Funding for Transitional and Emergency HousingSPEAKER: Question No. 14—question no. 12. It just feels like 14.12. MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister of Housing and Urban Development: What steps is the Ministry of Social Development taking to ensure community housing providers including marae are able to access funding for transitional and emergency housing for people who are homeless this winter?Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Housing and Urban Development): Thank you Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister has announced a $100 million investment to tackle homelessness. The Ministry of Social Development is proactively reaching out to the housing sector to community organisations to marae and to the general public encouraging them to approach the ministry with any opportunities to provide more housing for people in need this winter. One hundred and sixty-four people have come forward since the Prime Minister made that call and now 44 households have a place to stay over winter that is warm dry and safe that otherwise would not have been. That includes three seasonal worker accommodation facilities in Hawke's Bay that were empty during winter and are now providing accommodation for 27 families.Marama Davidson: Given we know there are still too many people struggling to find affordable warm safe housing this winter—SPEAKER: Order! The member cannot start a question with a statement. So the member must start with a question which generally means a question word and without a statement. Thank you.Marama Davidson: Thank you Mr Speaker. Is he confident that the funding is sufficient to provide adequate housing for those who need it?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: We're doing everything possible to ensure that everyone has a roof over their heads. The $100 million investment package that was announced will fully fund programmes that were promised under the former Government but not properly funded. It will extend emergency and transitional housing and extend the Housing First programme for dealing with chronic homelessness. We are doing everything we can to ensure that no one this winter needs to be sleeping in a car.Marama Davidson: Is the Minister on track to meet the target of 1500 extra transitional public and Housing First places by the end of this winter?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Since the start of this year the Government's been doing everything we possibly can to bring on more housing supply. Since the start of the year an additional 542 transitional and public housing places have been brought on board and I want to note the special contribution made by iwi and marae. They have come forward since early May and of the more than 160 contacts that we've had there have been six from iwi groups and marae who have offered accommodation.
10. Business—E-invoicingTAMATI COFFEY (Labour—Waiariki) to the Minister for Small BusinessBusiness—E-invoicing10. TAMATI COFFEY (Labour—Waiariki) to the Minister for Small Business: What recent announcements has he made in relation to e-invoicing?Hon STUART NASH (Minister for Small Business): As part of Budget 2018 I announced new operating funding of $5.8 million over two years to support the einvoicing project. E-invoicing is the ability to directly exchange an invoice document between a supplier's and a buyer's online accounting software. E-invoicing is a significant modernisation of the way we do business which is a priority for this Government.Tamati Coffey: How does e-invoicing advance the trans-Tasman single economic market agenda?Hon STUART NASH: Good question. In March of this year our Prime Minister and the Prime Minister of Australia committed to advancing work on a common approach as to e-invoicing as part of the trans-Tasman single economic market agenda. I've been working with Australian Ministers—the Hon Kelly O'Dwyer Minister for Revenue and Financial Services; the Hon Craig Laundy Minister for Small and Family Business the Workplace and Deregulation; and the New South Wales Minister of Finance the Hon Victor Dominello—to progress this work. The commitment by the Australian Government and our Government confirms that we are on track to fundamentally change the way Government to business and business to business connections are made.Hon Members: Good work!Hon STUART NASH: Thank you.Tamati Coffey: So what advice has the Minister seen on the benefits of e-invoicing?Hon STUART NASH: Another good question. E-invoicing creates economic benefits through faster payments and reduced transaction costs. My officials advise me based on comparable Australian research that they estimate that a 15 percent uptake of e-invoicing by New Zealand businesses and Government agencies could save up to $500 million a year—Hon Gerry Brownlee: How much?Hon STUART NASH: —$500 million Mr Brownlee. It's a lot of money—it's a lot of money. E-invoicing can deliver significant productivity improvements and savings from fewer invoice errors and less time spent resolving errors.Hon Shane Jones: Can the Minister explain how long this has been in gestation and why does he think it never happened prior to his arrival?SPEAKER: The first part of the question can be answered.Hon STUART NASH: Well what I can say is this is the first Government to fund this initiative and the reason we have funded it is because it's vitally important that we drive business productivity right across the sector.
8. Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill—Submissions of Experts and Parliamentary SupportHon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) to the Minister of JusticeElectoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill—Submissions of Experts and Parliamentary Support8. Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) to the Minister of Justice: Does he agree with the statements by Professor Janet McLean in respect of his Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill that The foundational principle of New Zealand's constitution is that the government of the day may continue in office for only as long as it continues to enjoy the support of the House of Representatives" and "This bill gives a Parliamentary leader of a party (including the Prime Minister) the power to sanction MPs who by their actions indicate they intend to cross the floor of the House including in a possible vote of no confidence. This would be a serious change to the New Zealand constitution and undermine one of its central democracy-protecting mechanisms"?Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): In respect of the first quote yes. In respect of the second quote of my very good friend Professor Janet McLean no because the fundamental premise in that statement that a leader has those powers is wrong. Hon Dr Nick Smith: Can the Minister cite any constitutional law expert who disputes Professor McLean's key point that his bill undermines New Zealand's parliamentary democracy and key constitutional conventions? Hon ANDREW LITTLE: No I can't principally because every academic and constitutional expert who has submitted on the bill has submitted on a fundamentally flawed premise that the leader has the power to remove a member of Parliament. That is not what the bill provides for and I hate to say it but they are all wrong. Hon Dr Nick Smith: Why is the Minister so keen to quote university academics in respect of his criminal law reforms but so keen to dismiss them with respect to his electoral law changes? Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I'm not quite sure what that member is referring to but he is the one who has quoted at length academics on the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill. But I stand by the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill. Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does the Minister have the parliamentary support for this bill given his recent failings in coalition management over the three-strikes law? Hon ANDREW LITTLE: A sad reflection on that member—I wonder why it is that he is so concerned about MPs being kicked out of his party but then that's a matter for him and his future prospects. But no—Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister made no attempt to answer my question and simply chose to try and have some cheap shot at me. My question was very simple: does the Minister have the parliamentary support for the bill? SPEAKER: That wasn't what the member asked. He had a cheap shot himself. He got one back but the Minister will now answer the question. Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The answer to the principal question is yes."
7. KiwiBuild—Construction Sector Response and Effect on Auckland Housing SupplyPRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour) to the Minister of Housing and Urban DevelopmentKiwiBuild—Construction Sector Response and Effect on Auckland Housing Supply7. PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour) to the Minister of Housing and Urban Development: What has been the reaction of the construction sector to the KiwiBuild Invitation to Participate?Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Housing and Urban Development): There has been an overwhelming response to the KiwiBuild buying off the plans" tender. There's no shortage of stalled developments—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! Order! One member answering at a time.Hon PHIL TWYFORD: There's been an overwhelming response to the KiwiBuild "buying off the plans" tender. There's clearly no shortage of stalled developments looking to build homes for first-home buyers. Almost 100 proposals have now been received from developers which could result in the building of several thousand KiwiBuild homes. That is a bigger response than we'd hoped for and a vote of confidence in KiwiBuild.Priyanca Radhakrishnan: How will these proposals build affordable homes for Kiwi families?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well KiwiBuild will allow homes that otherwise would not be built or would be delayed to be built and built faster. It also guarantees the supply of houses young families starting out can afford. At the moment only 5 percent of new homes are affordable for first-home buyers; KiwiBuild will underwrite or buy off the plans affordable homes that otherwise would very likely not be built.Priyanca Radhakrishnan: How will KiwiBuild address the current slow-down in building activity in Auckland?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: A recent report by Colliers said that the Auckland housing market was in a hiatus because of slowing pre-sales rising construction costs and high land costs. I note that Colliers said they considered a fully operative KiwiBuild is needed to really change the game."
4. Families Package—Winter Energy PaymentWILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) to the Minister of FinanceFamilies Package—Winter Energy Payment4. WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) to the Minister of Finance: Will the Families Package help New Zealanders meet the cost of living; if so how?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Yes through the Families Package the Government will introduce a winter energy payment to help New Zealanders on fixed incomes meet the extra cost of heating their homes through the winter months. The winter energy payment amounts to $450 a year for single people and $700 per year for couples with dependent children when fully rolled out. After 1 July everyone receiving superannuation a main benefit or a veterans pension will start receiving this assistance—approximately 1 million people.Willow-Jean Prime: Why is the winter energy payment necessary?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: We can see why the payment is needed in recent research and statistics. According to research by the University of Otago about 1600 additional people die each winter mostly from respiratory and circulatory problems and in many cases because of cold housing. The research shows that the risk of dying in winter is increased for those who have low incomes and are living in rented accommodation. What's more according to Statistics New Zealand's latest household living-costs price index since June 2008 the increase in the cost of living for beneficiaries has been 61 percent higher than for the top 20 percent of earners and for superannuitants the increase has been 75 percent higher. The winter energy payment is necessary because this Government does not accept that in a country like New Zealand people are sick and dying because they live in cold damp houses.Willow-Jean Prime: And what other announcements has the Government made that complement the winter energy payment?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The winter energy payment is just one of the Government's policies that will help people who are living in cold and damp homes. As part of our 100-day plan the Government passed the Healthy Homes Guarantee Act enabling the Government to set minimum standards for the quality of rental housing. We're currently consulting with the public on the healthy homes standards which will cover heating insulation ventilation draught-stopping drainage and moisture. For too long too many Kiwis have had to deal with substandard housing that damages their health. This Government believes that every New Zealander deserves a warm dry healthy home to live in and we are acting to make that a reality.
Mitchell MarkHon MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. It's a pleasure to take a call on this the Marriage (Court Consent to Marriage of Minors) Amendment Bill. I'd just like to acknowledge the sponsoring member Jo Hayes. She has done an outstanding job of shepherding this bill through the Justice Committee. I've only recently come on to this select committee but Jo has been at every meeting and she's done an outstanding job of explaining the bill—DEPUTY SPEAKER: Full name.Hon MARK MITCHELL: Jo Hayes—sorry Madam Deputy Speaker. So I just want to commend her for bringing this bill to the House.Can I just say that the only real issue that I had with it—and there was a fair bit of debate on the committee about this—was around de facto relationships and whether or not we were going to require 16- or 17-year-olds to have their de facto relationship approved and recognised by a judge. Initially when I looked at this I was against it because what I was concerned about was that if a young lady entered into a de facto relationship that wasn't approved by a judge and then for some reason the relationship fell apart she would lose any rights in terms of property rights or legal rights because the de facto relationship would not be legally recognised. So we had quite a big debate around this and where we landed on it was that—and Priyanca Radhakrishnan was actually very good at pointing out the fact that in some cultures they could actually use a de facto marriage as a vehicle to having and recognising it as a type of formal marriage. They were going to find a way to get around the spirit of what the bill was actually trying to achieve and so I personally recognise that. We landed I think in a very good place where ultimately we decided actually that to protect the young people their marriage and their de facto relationship should go in front of a judge and the judge should sign off on that and authorise it. But we had a fair bit of debate on it. It went back and forward and through quite a few of the meetings. We had the advisers come to us I think on two or three different occasions so that we could really test it but I'm very happy with where we've landed on this. So overall the bill is a very very good one. It puts in place the protections that we as a country and as a nation should feel very proud that they have been put in place and I recommend this bill to the House.
Tolley AnneDEPUTY SPEAKER: Just before I call the next speaker I just remind members that this is a second reading debate and according to Speakers' rulings 108/4 and 108/5 we are discussing the bill that is before the House. The fact that there is a Supplementary Order Paper can be referred to but the contents of that Supplementary Order Paper cannot be debated in detail. We are on the second reading. The Supplementary Order Paper comes in at the committee stage.
Little Andrew; Tolley AnneHon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The exercise that was engaged in just then did not seem to me to be a personal explanation correcting that member's statement on the record. What it was was her affront at an inference that another member drew and her further inference that she drew about what that member herself was saying.That contribution from the Hon Maggie Barry just then as a point of order seeking a personal explanation did not conform with the Standing Orders. It was not a personal explanation on a so-called misrepresentation.Matt Doocey: Speaking to that point of order Madam Speaker.DEPUTY SPEAKER: Look I don't need any help. As the Speaker I have accepted that. I have attempted to get the member to stick to what she sought the leave to do and I'm satisfied that we now have an end to it.
Barry MaggieHon MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore): I seek leave to make a personal explanation.DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that? [Interruption] Sorry did I hear someone say Yes there is objection."? No go ahead.Hon MAGGIE BARRY: In an earlier call that was taken by the Hon Tracey Martin as a result of an interjection I made when that member was speaking that member misrepresented my position and I took offence at that. I would like the record to state what my real beliefs are which are that domestic violence is a problem that we all have to—DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can I just remind the member that she's sought leave to correct that. So it's not about making a speech. You made an interjection that was misrepresented so this is your opportunity to correct that interjection.Hon MAGGIE BARRY: The Hon Tracey Martin after my interjection then went on to misrepresent my position. So—DEPUTY SPEAKER: That's right. That's what I'm saying so it's about your interjection that you've sought leave to correct.Hon MAGGIE BARRY: So my interjection was around a separate matter. The member the Hon Tracey Martin then went on to misrepresent my position and everything that I had said for the purpose of getting it in the Hansard. I want to get the record straight.DEPUTY SPEAKER: I understand. I'm trying to be helpful to the member. She has sought leave from the House to correct that misinterpretation of her interjection which she's perfectly entitled to do under the Standing Orders. But she must keep to that misrepresentation of the interjection.Hon MAGGIE BARRY: So the misrepresentation of my interjection was to expand the notion that I was in favour of domestic violence and not in favour of taxpayers' money being—[Interruption]DEPUTY SPEAKER: Excuse me but this is heard in silence.Hon MAGGIE BARRY: The member was misrepresenting my position on domestic violence and the relationship between taxes by taxpayers being paid to help victims.DEPUTY SPEAKER: Your personal explanation is not about the previous speaker's misrepresentation; it's about your interjection—that's what you sought permission from the House to correct.Hon MAGGIE BARRY: So the interjection which was around the tragic circumstances of domestic violence was then misrepresented in a way that was not true. My beliefs are that domestic violence is a tragic situation and that I believe that we should do everything that we can to relieve the victims from their suffering and that is the position that I hold and the one I wish to make clear and to stand on the record for Hansard. DEPUTY SPEAKER: That will now stand on the record. Thank you."
Collins Judith; Mitchell MarkHon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura): I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The Standing Orders which certainly have precedence over Speakers' rulings say at Standing Order 110(1) A member who has spoken to a question may speak again to explain some material part of the member's speech which has been misquoted misunderstood or misrepresented in the same debate." Are you saying that that Standing Order no longer applies to the Hon Maggie Barry? ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Is the member choosing to do so as a point of order or as another debate call?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Well it says here that she can do that and that she cannot introduce any other matter other than the correction of the misquotation misunderstanding or misrepresentation. I think that's very clear. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Just a moment. Now I'm just going to respond to that point of order by the Hon Judith Collins. Miss Barry if you were standing to make a correction to something that you had made within your speech rather than an interjection you would be given leave to do so—you would be given the call to do so. However what you are attempting to do is to correct something that was made by interjection by another member. That is not permitted by that Standing Order. [Interruption] Now I've—yes. If you're attempting to correct something in your interjection that's—Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Quite simply—and we are seeking your guidance on this genuinely—what happened was that while the Hon Tracey Martin was making her speech she stated clearly that she wanted to put on the Hansard some interjections that the Hon Maggie Barry had had and then she proceeded twice to misquote her and misrepresent her with the single purpose of putting her on the Hansard. All the Hon Maggie Barry is doing is requesting through the Chair or through you Madam Assistant Speaker to be able to stand in this House and correct the misrepresentations that were made by the Hon Tracey Martin. Hon Andrew Little: Speaking to the point of order.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Just a moment. Look I have already given my ruling. I will refer the members to Speakers' rulings 38/5 and 38/6. Now please this is going to be the end of the matter. There is a process which the member can engage in. I'm not going to take any further rulings on it and I am going to call the next member."
Doocey MattMATT DOOCEY (Junior Whip—National): I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Just looking at this Speaker's ruling 37/5 When arising" it says "A member who has been misrepresented must wait until the end of the speech of the member concerned before rising to make an explanation".ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I'm referring to Speakers' rulings 38/5 and 38/6 when I make that ruling. Miss Barry has been given a course of action which she can undertake. She is going to avail herself of that course of action. I'm not going to rule on this again. I've already given Miss Barry an opportunity do so if she would refer to Speakers' rulings 38/5 and 38/6."
Barry Maggie; Williams PotoHon MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore): Madam Assistant Speaker.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): You are calling?Hon Maggie Barry: I'd like to take a call in the debate according to Standing Order 110 Misrepresentation" under "General Procedures". ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Now I just want to clarify with the member. You're seeking another call; you've already had a call in this debate. If you're seeking it you are not permitted to seek a call if you are wanting to correct or—I'm assuming you're wanting to do this in terms of the point of order you raised before about misrepresentation. Is that correct?Hon Maggie Barry: Under 110.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Yes—you are unable to do that according to the Standing Orders. You've already taken a call in this debate."
Hayes JoJO HAYES (National): I move That the question be now put.Motion agreed to.
Smith StuartSTUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you Madam Chair. I thank all of the contributors to this debate. It has been a very enjoyable and rewarding piece of legislation to work on and the select committee stage was very collegial as has already been mentioned. But I want to turn to Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 40 in the name of David Seymour. I won't go there in terms of what ACT policy is and ACT Party principles; I will stick to the SOP.In terms of the cost which has been referenced by several people and particularly Mr Seymour I have had some quotes not from Lane Neave but from other legal firms and I'm assured that the costs that Lane Neave have come up with are pretty much the costs that were quoted back to me as well. However what I want to point out is I don't want to spend other people's money for them unnecessarily but I would like to point out that this bill will actually lower credit unions' costs in the long run because of the unnecessary need for trustees. So it will be a much more efficient process for them and that will quite quickly save them more than that money and so I don't accept the member's point.I would also like to point out that other pieces of legislation—and all pieces of legislation that have come in in that sector—had a one-off cost when they were implemented and particularly the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Act the Financial Markets Conduct Act and the Non-bank Deposit Takers Act all had far higher one-off costs on the introduction of those pieces of legislation. This is much smaller than that but I do accept the point that we should not impose costs on people and sectors unnecessarily—and this one shouldn't.I think having a 26-page SOP dumped on the committee at this point without an opportunity for really close analysis of that SOP is really fraught with danger. I would like to point out that proposed new Part 3A has many cross-references that won't work and so that's an example of something that's not going to work in the bill. Provisions in new Part 3A conflict with provisions in Part 3 so if this whole piece of—David Seymour: Well that's the whole point.STUART SMITH: No it's not the point in fact. The legislation wouldn't work. So if the point of the SOP is to make the law unworkable then it would get a pass mark with probably an A+ but unfortunately that's not the point here.So I think the SOP may well be well intentioned to placate some credit unions that are unhappy with change but change happens all over sectors and around New Zealand and people do have to change with it because the world has changed. Under the provisions in the SOP it's not clear how these credit unions would ever be able to incorporate in the future nor is it clear how they would be able to amalgamate with other credit unions. So those credit unions would be damned to a small cul-de-sac in a legal sense and it would be the end of them in the not too distant future. So thank you Madam Chair.
Smith Stuart; Williams PotoSTUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): I seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one debate.CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.
Webb Duncan; Williams PotoDr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): I seek leave to table a document. It's a letter from the law firm of Lane Neave outlining the legal costs which would be likely incurred when incorporating a credit union.CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. It can be so tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Points of Order — Tabling of Documents—Local Government Official Information and Meetings (Rights of Members) Amendment Bill
Mallard TrevorDEBATE ON INVESTMENT STATEMENTSPEAKER: We come to the debate on the Investment Statement He Puna Hao Pātiki 2018 Investment Statement: Investing for Wellbeing. There has not been one of these debates in the last eight years. The previous one wasn't debated and I'm not sure that in fact there has been one before. This is a tight debate on the assets and liabilities of the Government and the management thereof.
Lee Denise; Mallard TrevorPOINTS OF ORDERTabling of Documents—Local Government Official Information and Meetings (Rights of Members) Amendment BillDENISE LEE (National—Maungakiekie): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Given a letter of no confidence has been sent by councillors to the Mayor of Auckland I seek leave to table a bill in my name which would provide a greater degree of transparency and flow of information to councillors. It's titled Local Government Official Information and Meetings (Rights of Members) Amendment Bill—SPEAKER: That's enough. The member seeks leave for that. Is there any objection? Yes there is.
Mitchell MarkQuestion No. 6 to MinisterHon MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I thought we were finished for the day with question time but can I take a point of order. I'm actually seeking leave to table a copy of an answer provided by the corrections Minister's office on 22 March—SPEAKER: Order! It's not an answer to a parliamentary question is it?Hon MARK MITCHELL: Yes it is.SPEAKER: Oh sit down.
1. Regional Economies—Northland and Bay of PlentyCLAYTON MITCHELL (NZ First) to the Minister for Regional Economic DevelopmentWEDNESDAY 13 JUNE 2018The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.ORAL QUESTIONSQUESTIONS TO MINISTERSRegional Economies—Northland and Bay of Plenty1. CLAYTON MITCHELL (NZ First) to the Minister for Regional Economic Development: What recent announcements has he made regarding regional economies?Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Regional Economic Development): With a suitable level of modesty I can report to the House that an investment package for Northland announced on 1 June was not only robust but new levels of bandwidth have been required and I'm assured by the local media that litres of ink have been ordered. Not only is the $46 million going to give arms and feet to the promises made by the last regime; this time round a party with heart is delivering the fiscal fuel.Clayton Mitchell: What reports has he seen recently regarding regional economies?Hon SHANE JONES: To the House I can report—I was not expecting it so soon—that the ASB regional economic scorecard gives Northland top marks. I can assure you that not only has that region achieved top marks but another surge region which enjoys my focus and attention—the Bay of Plenty. Key indicators show that those regions are warming the investors are confident and the populations see no longer vacuous language but genuine action. And as befits the regent of the regions I'll take what's coming my way.Clayton Mitchell: Is this Government's Provincial Growth Fund biased towards Northland?Hon SHANE JONES: Right. Look there's been some tawdry attempts to characterise these announcements as some sort of political gratuity. These announcements are based on the longstanding promises that were made to a region that has been neglected. As a consequence of the arrival of this Government Northland led I must say—I never thought I would say it—by two fine former MPs has put forward proposals. And I've encouraged other regions to emulate the qualities certainly in terms of advocacy of Mr Carter and Mr McCully—not all qualities where the latter is concerned.Hon Paul Goldsmith: To the Minister when he announced to the Economic Development Science and Innovation Committee There's rule No. 1 in politics: to the winner goes the booty." in what way was he thinking that the tax New Zealanders pay is his booty?Hon SHANE JONES: Well obviously the fund was created with the development of the first genuine MMP coalition Government. As a key personality in one of those parties whose mission is to show heart out in the regions I would remind the member that the word "booty" has multiple meanings and it reflects the fact that key regions around the country who have given up waiting over the last nine years realise this time round that not only is the rhetoric robust but the purse is rich.Hon Paul Goldsmith: Why is he of all people talking about booty?Hon SHANE JONES: Part of my whakapapa is belonging to a pirate."
Tuesday 12 June 2018 - Volume 730
Land Transport Management (Regional Fuel Tax) Amendment Bill — Second Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the amendments recommended by the Finance and Expenditure Committee by majority be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.Noes 56New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1.Question agreed to.Bill read a second time.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That all the words after That" be omitted and the following words inserted: "this House has no confidence in the Government led by Winston Peters and Jacinda Ardern because this Budget shows they are a Government that is borrowing more taxing more and spending more—but has no plans for how we as a country can earn more."Ayes 55New Zealand National 55.Noes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.Amendment not agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the Appropriation (2018/19 Estimates) Bill be now read a second time.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.Noes 56New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1.Bill read a second time."