edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
O'Connor Simon; Faafoi KrisSIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Changing tack Minister to your Supplementary Order Paper 565 around the new section 55AA regarding termination if there's a physical assault by the tenant. Granted I've only literally had minutes to read it and I think the overall concept is good but the question is: does he think allowing 14 further days of a tenancy is going to work? In other words a tenant has assaulted the landlord and they've got to give 14 days' notice. Now at one level that makes sense but it's going to open up a potential problem that if that tenant's pretty annoyed already and has used physical violence things are only going to get worse either again with the landlord or to the property. Did he consider a shorter period of time?Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Associate Minister of Housing (Public Housing)): That was the amount of time that was suggested by officials was enough to do a couple of things. First of all it gives the tenant enough time to leave the property and also if the tenant wanted to challenge that at the tribunal—which they do have the right to do—to lodge an appeal without having to leave the property. I'm not imagining that many might do that given that it has to be a physical assault on the landlord their family or an agent but I think making sure that there is the means to be able to exit the property in a timely manner it takes some time to move out of a property but also give a right of reply or appeal through the Tenancy Tribunal is where we landed with the 14 days.
SpeechCHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I know that people are filing into the galleries and I just ask them if they could keep the chatter down to a minimum please because we are still debating in the House and it's quite hard for the person who's talking if there's other noise in the area.
O'Connor Simon; Faafoi KrisSIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Just a quick follow-up question: did the Minister in the chair the Hon Kris Faafoi consider the Crown if you will wearing the cost of this? I think no one in this House is going to disagree with the principle that we want family violence to end and that we want to get people into a safe space but in effect what this bill is creating is a cost on a landlord whose got in a sense nothing to do with it—they're not the cause they're not the agent and they're not the recipient. They're completely not at fault but now they're wearing the cost as small as it might be hence the question: did the Minister consider that the Government or the Crown would step in and pay the cost?Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Associate Minister of Housing (Public Housing)): In short no there was no consideration of that essentially because I think that would probably create bureaucracy that was probably unneeded in this situation and the tenants have a direct relationship with the landlord as well. Again when we were thinking through this we were trying to get the appropriate amount of time depending on how people might cycle their rent but we landed on two weeks as it is in the bill at the moment because we're trying to balance up the burden between the principle of safety for the exiting tenant and not again wanting to put any uneven or unbalanced burden on the landlord.
Faafoi KrisIn CommitteeHon KRIS FAAFOI (Associate Minister of Housing (Public Housing)): I move that this debate be taken as all parts in one debate and one question. CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): You're seeking leave for all provisions to be taken as one debate?Hon Kris Faafoi: That's correct.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is none.
Craig LizDr LIZ CRAIG (Labour): Thank you Mr Speaker. It's a real pleasure to stand in support of this bill which is going to make a huge difference to many New Zealand families. Over a million New Zealanders are actually in a rental and about 43 percent of New Zealand children are growing up in a rental home. In the context of the acute housing shortage that we've inherited what we find is a huge number of New Zealand families are paying a huge amount of their family income in rent. What we also know is that when a property is advertised we get many many groups turning up to view the property and that extra $10 a week $20 a week $30 a week that sometimes tenants have to commit to in order to secure the property then has to come out of the family income week after week as time goes on. I think in the context of families on low incomes with children what that means is that income has to come out of things like the food budget things like turning off the heater over winter and it has a huge impact on family wellbeing.So what this bill does is it basically provides more certainty for tenants because what it means is that they can only have a rent increase once every year. It also means that the landlord has to advertise what the cost of that rent is when they rent the property out and basically they're not allowed to encourage or invite people to enter into bidding contests which means that you can turn up to a property viewing and know the rent that would have to be paid for that property. So it's an important bill and I commend it to the House.
Lubeck MarjaMARJA LUBECK (Labour): Thank you Madam Speaker. The Hon Tim Macindoe quoted Duncan Garner as someone who has written in about this bill about his objection. Now let me say what Duncan Garner quoted this morning on The AM Show: Tenants will be able to pass their tenancy on to their friends or whoever is standing over them demanding the use of the house to set up a tinny operation and the landlord gets no say in the transfer." Does it sound like fearmongering? Perhaps the members opposite can refer him to clause 43B where that clearly says "prior written consent [needed] of the landlord" so the Opposition members are better at doing their homework and reading the Supplementary Order Papers reading the bill properly rather than getting their supporters to allow this fearmongering. I commend it to the house."
Coffey TamatiTĀMATI COFFEY (Labour—Waiariki): Thank you very much Madam Speaker. It's my pleasure to talk on the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill. Let's be very very clear here: one of the goals of the Labour Party of this Government is to make sure that we have people in their own homes. Ideally homeownership has got to be the goal for people to be able to have their own castle their own kingdom to be able to do whatever they want in them but unfortunately in this day and age homeownership is actually just a pipedream for many. Therefore we have to look after people that are in tenanted arrangements. We all know—many of us have been tenants before; some of us have even had the privilege of being landlords—for the majority of landlords in this country nothing will change. For the majority of landlords where there is nothing to worry about where there's a good convivial relationship between landlord and tenant they will have nothing to worry about. But there are some out there for whom we need to make sure that we're sharpening up our tools to make sure that we've got a fair balanced situation going on.So what does that mean? It means some good policies in favour of the tenants—absolutely. Let's make sure that we're looking after tenants that are in houses like this. Limiting rent increases to once every 12 months—that is absolutely fair. That is fair—one rent increase every 12 months. To improve tenant security by removing a landlord's ability to throw people out of their homes without giving them a valid reason—that there is incredibly fair; good for landlords as well giving landlords new tools to deal with antisocial behaviours and rent arrears. That was something that many landlords came forward and said We need a mechanism to be able to deal with this." That's what this bill does. And here's something that's actually good for both parties concerned: making rental properties safer making them more livable by adding minor fittings such as brackets to secure furniture against earthquake risks or even baby-proofing—putting up a baby gate. Many tenants live in fear of hanging a baby gate up in fear that they're going to get offside with their landlord.So that's exactly what this does and it's also going to improve compliance with the law by introducing new tools so that direct action can be taken against parties—either party—who aren't meeting their obligations. I absolutely commend this bill to the House."
Voting — Correction—Motions COVID-19 Public Response Act 2020 extension
SpeechVOTINGCorrection—COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020 ExtensionASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): Before I call the next speaker I have a correction to a vote. When the House was considering the Government motion relating to section 3(2)(b) of the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020 the result of the vote was incorrectly announced as Ayes 63 Noes 55. The correct result is Ayes 63 Noes 56. The record will be corrected accordingly.
Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill — Second Reading
COVID-19 Public Health Response (Maritime Border) Order 2020 — Approval
Woodhouse MichaelHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): I really wish the Minister had gone on just a little longer in his very informative speech. We have a short time before the adjournment and I'll just reflect on a couple of points but I say at the outset that the National Party will be supporting this motion as well. The Minister is quite correct that ships are in themselves bubbles. We know from the quite concerning revelations around cruise ships that very large passenger ships can be harbours for viruses—coronaviruses in particular and COVID-19 specifically. We've seen some pretty dramatic examples of where ships have been kept in harbours in say Tokyo and Sydney where there was widespread outbreak and that has caused particular problems. But on the other hand as the Minister points out they are indeed their own bubble. If there is no COVID on them then generally speaking the risk is much much lower for international arrivals transiting through that place. I do think there is a need to be very cautious around ship-to-shore movement and there have been concerns around the country. But this is an appropriate order in the circumstances and we will support it. Motion agreed to. Sitting suspended from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m.
Faafoi KrisHon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Broadcasting Communications and Digital Media) on behalf of the Minister of Health: I move That the House approve the COVID-19 Public Health Response (Maritime Border) Order 2020 in accordance with section 16 of the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020. This motion mirrors that to which the House has just agreed and puts in place an isolation and quarantine regime that applies to people who arrive in New Zealand by sea. The order came into effect a week or so later than that applying to air travellers but must also be confirmed before the election is held if it is to remain in effect. It is vital for the economy that some ships continue to arrive in New Zealand while COVID-19 restrictions are in force and the order allows among others cargo ships and fishing boats to continue to operate in and from our ports but it is essential that COVID-19 does not find its way back into New Zealand by this route. The order sets out isolation and quarantine requirements that are the equivalent of those that apply to air travellers taking into account that ships are by their nature subject to a degree of quarantine as they travel between countries and may themselves serve adequately as quarantine facilities. The number of people affected by this order is considerably lower than those arriving by air but it is essential that the maritime border is as tight as the air border. I ask that the House support this motion.
Woodhouse MichaelHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Firstly I think in terms of process this is actually a very good process. I like the idea that secondary and tertiary legislation does get referred back to the House for debate and consideration. There is an opportunity I think for the Government to do a lot more of this. We have the Regulations Review Committee but things like confirmable instruments or disallowable instruments I think are things that should be used a lot more. I must say I am confused by the fact that this order was first passed I think the Minister said in June. What date in June was it?Hon Kris Faafoi: 22 June. Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: 22 June. So we were actually quarantining and isolating people from 8 April. We had self-isolation up until then for returning people into New Zealand. Self-isolation simply did not work because police admitted that they weren't able to monitor it. There was no tracing system no movement management system and no technologies that were being used by other countries around the world here in New Zealand—they weren't being used here—so we actually went into a situation where the Government required people returning to New Zealand to go into managed isolation or quarantine from about 8 April. I remember that date well because from 8 April to about 9 June there was absolutely no testing going on and the Director-General of Health announced very proudly that they were going to test and then they didn't test and that was the subject of a criticism by the Minister that he was severely criticised for. The issue and my question is: if it were necessary to pass a piece of legislation on 13 May and give effect to an air border order in June and if the Government was so sure that this legislation and the order is necessary by what legal power were they requiring people to be in managed isolation or quarantine prior to that? Were they just asking them nicely because people who went into managed isolation from 8 April until this order came into force didn't believe they had a choice and if there was a legal power to be able to do that why do we need this? So this further underscores for me the pig's ear that's been made actually of a legal authority to be able to do certain things. On the one hand we're told We've acted lawfully all the way along." and on the other hand we hear that section 70 of the Health Act isn't fit for purpose. We have an order now that confirms a process that was in place for about six weeks before the order was actually made. So this is once again I think an example of yes the Government is doing the right thing but is it doing it in the right way and at the right time and in the right order? It doesn't appear to me to be the case. On the other hand and despite the fact that the order itself is made under the powers provided by an Act that we strongly disagree with we do support the concept of managed isolation and quarantine. As a consequence the National Party will be supporting this motion. Motion agreed to."
COVID-19 Public Health Response (Air Border) Order 2020 — Approval
Faafoi KrisCOVID-19 ORDERSApprovalHon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Broadcasting Communications and Digital Media) on behalf of the Minister of Health: I move That the House approve the COVID-19 Public Health Response (Air Border) Order 2020 in accordance with section 16 of the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020. The order that is the subject of this motion was made under section 11 of the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020. It came into effect on 22 June this year. Under section 16 of that Act it has to be approved by the House within 60 days of the order being made so that has to be done before the House rises. The order is critical to New Zealand's defence against COVID-19. It underpins the managed isolation and quarantine regime that has been successful in containing COVID-9 at our borders. It sets out the obligations for people arriving in New Zealand by air and this includes requirements around medical examinations testing isolation and quarantining. It covers the required period and place of isolation and quarantine and it sets out the circumstances under which people are allowed to leave that place. The managed isolation and quarantine system established in part by this order has proved an effective defence against COVID-19 at the border. It enabled us to live our lives in a way that is very near to normal—something that has made us admired and envied across the world. It is right that the executive has to seek parliamentary approval for these powers which are unusual and far-reaching in a parliamentary democracy like New Zealand. I ask the House to support the motion.
COVID-19 Response (Further Management Measures) Legislation Bill (No 2) — Third Reading
SpeechAGNES LOHENI (National): Thank you Mr Speaker. It's a pleasure to take this call for the third and final reading of the COVID-19 Response (Further Management Measures) Legislation Bill (No 2). The National Party supports this bill because ultimately we support any kind of relief to small businesses at this time even though I do think this is light relief in terms of the scale of devastation that has hit many businesses in our country which has resulted in thousands losing jobs. As I said there is no way that businesses could have anticipated or planned for what would happen to them under lockdown having those four to seven weeks of no revenue—absolutely no revenue—coming in. Whilst as I've said in this House businesses have appreciated—and of course New Zealanders have appreciated—the support that comes out of a wage subsidy that ultimately was not going to save many businesses. Timing is also important in terms of support. For many businesses who have complex supply chains cash flow is king. Ultimately getting support further down the track is probably too little too late for many businesses.Ultimately as has been traversed in this House not every business can be saved and that is the tragedy of this time but we do support the measures that have been included in this bill around taking off some of the burden for small businesses—relieving some of that pressure at this time. I'm hoping that more businesses will be able to survive the next six to 12 months which is really really crucial. National supports this bill. Thank you Mr Speaker.Bill read a third time.
SpeechKANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): Thank you Mr Speaker. It's my pleasure to take a brief call on this COVID-19 Response (Further Management Measures) Legislation Bill (No 2). As the Minister of Health in his opening remarks mentioned there have been a lot of effects on businesses and all New Zealanders and this bill will bring some relief to the businesses in the short term.As has been mentioned by the previous speaker from our side Dan Bidois it would have been good if the Minister could have considered National's proposal for a GST cash refund scheme. That would have given up to $100000 to the businesses in their pockets which could have gone a long way. It is what is required at this time. I go out and about in the community and meet a lot of the small businesses. They are really struggling for cash because what happened in lockdown in levels 3 and 4 is there were no sales for them. They could not do anything because everything was under lockdown and everyone understands that. I commend the Government for bringing this bill. But some more may have been done to better improve this and which could have made a lot of differences for the businesses. I hope that in the next few months after the elections the Government of the day will consider revisiting this bill and making more provisions for small businesses to ensure that they have got more opportunities for how they can survive and hold on to jobs.Mr Speaker I thank you for forgetting to start the clock. I close my speech here commending this bill to the House.
SpeechDAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): It's a pleasure to rise and take a call at the third reading of the COVID-19 Response (Further Management Measures) Legislation Bill (No 2). As we have traversed in this debate in this short time today National will be supporting this legislation through because we support anything that helps businesses cope with the lockdown and the effects from COVID-19. As has been raised of course we would have liked to have seen more changes in this around the capital asset depreciation requirements and the GST refunds—would have been a start. But nevertheless this piece of legislation will help ease the burden for businesses who are struggling through COVID-19 with respect to the ACC regulations with respect to making sure that businesses who do have legitimate R & D expenditure can apply for the tax credit and also allowing for greater discretion with IRD to change the due dates and deadlines and also extensions as well.So of course it's been a tumultuous time for many in the past few months with the lockdown and everything that's happened since then and this piece of legislation is a small step to help ease the burden. All we've talked about is that the fight is not over. We've got a challenging situation in the next 24 to 36 months in this country and we're going to be supportive of any piece of legislation or any policy that makes a difference to help ease the burden for businesses to help provide a circumstance where these businesses can stay in business but also have a sense of security and incentive to hire new staff because that's what's really going to matter.So look without really diluting the impact of this legislation I do want to say thank you to the Minister for addressing some of these issues that in fact go a long way to easing the administrative burden for businesses. But we do look forward to seeing far more ambitious plans around how we're going to keep businesses in operation to keep them aspirational for the next few years and to give them the confidence that they can go out and employ staff and conduct their business in a way that is going to improve our economy. So I won't take much more of the House's time. National commends this bill to the House.
Hipkins ChrisThird ReadingHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I move That the COVID-19 Response (Further Management Measures) Legislation Bill (No 2) be now read a third time. We've already canvassed the content that's in this bill quite well during the first reading and the second reading and very briefly during the committee stage of the bill. I do want to thank members of the House for their goodwill towards this process. The bill is unanimously supported across the House and I welcome that support. We do have to acknowledge—and I do just want to take a moment to do that now that we're through the technicalities of the bill—the significant effect that COVID-19 has had on so many New Zealanders up and down the country: on our business community our local government and on all of the other organisations that are going to be affected by the changes that are outlined in this piece of legislation the House is now passing. Sometimes we forget the lockdown period. It seems like a long time ago now though it was not actually that long ago where the country did effectively go on hold for a period of a month for most people and then for two months for a significant proportion of our population as we moved through level 4 and then level 3 lockdown. We can all be very proud of the results that we achieved through that period but we also have to acknowledge that that came as a result of a lot of sacrifice by many many New Zealanders and there are some simple things that we can do as a Parliament to ease a little bit of that burden. Making sure that the administrative processes of Government are able to continue and that businesses are not unduly penalised for not being able to meet the timetables set out in law because they were unable to do the things they would normally do during that lockdown period—these are sensible and pragmatic changes that we can make as a Parliament. So this will be the last time I get to speak on this particular bill so I just want to acknowledge again all those who were affected by the COVID lockdown and the effect that it had on their businesses their livelihoods and their way of living and I hope that these small changes—and they are just small changes they are part of a much broader package of measures the Government is taking to support people through the COVID-19 recovery phase—I hope that these changes will at least make a little bit of a difference to those who are affected by them.
SpeechAGNES LOHENI (National): Thank you Mr Chair. I'd just like to add further to the points made by my colleague Dan Bidois. I don't think it's unreasonable to have this amendment in terms of actually just setting down a reconfirmation day. I don't believe that it is actually going to add more bureaucracy. As my colleague has stated we know that actually there could be some changes in any of these areas in terms of Inland Revenue or ACC and having the ability to have that date down just to come back and to reconfirm that in this Parliament is actually very reasonable. Thank you.
Hipkins ChrisDAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): Thank you Mr Chair for allowing me to take a call in this committee of the whole House debate. I don't intend to ask too many questions but I want to ask the Minister directly about an amendment here in the name of my colleague the Hon Gerry Brownlee. It has just been tabled. I'm not sure exactly of the number of the amendment but essentially the it relates to the fact that because we are dealing with this in urgency we haven't had any select committee process and we haven't had time to really process the implications of these we in fact insert clause 2A which essentially makes sure that any amendments to this bill should be reconfirmed by Parliament before April next year. I think that this is an important thing to talk about because we've got a lot of changes in this legislation but the situation will look very different in six months' time when the wage subsidy will be off. So I think it's more appropriate to be able to come back to Parliament within the six months and to reconfirm that in fact these changes are still valid but possibly look at other changes too. And we've talked in the first and second readings about some that we would have liked to have been considered in respect to the tax changes in depreciation. But the situation will look quite different so I think it's not unreasonable to ask that in the dying days of this Parliament—Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi: Dying hours.DAN BIDOIS: —dying hours of this Parliament—we in fact ask that the next Parliament reconfirm these changes and potentially look at other changes that can help reduce the compliance and burden for small businesses throughout New Zealand. I do have a question for the Minister as to whether we can insert clause 2A which essentially gives effect to the provision that would mean that Parliament must reconfirm these changes by 1 April next year.Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I think there's a certain irony in the Opposition tabling an amendment that creates more bureaucracy into a bill that is designed to help people navigate the bureaucracy as a result of COVID-19. The Government doesn't support the amendment. It is unnecessary. It will result in an additional parliamentary process to do something that everybody around the House including the Opposition thinks is a common-sense change. All of these changes are designed to simply provide a little bit of greater flexibility for a defined period of time. This bill doesn't have an ongoing effect. It is only as a result of the response to COVID-19. So for example in the time frames we're talking about by the time they're seeking reconfirmation of the bill most of those time frames will have already passed or we would have already gone past those time frames. So it would be completely unnecessary to reconfirm the bill.Of course the Parliament at any point in the future has the opportunity to revisit these matters if the Parliament chooses to do so.
Hipkins ChrisClauses 1 to 3 and Schedules 1 to 4Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): Thank you Madam Chair. We had a brief debate on the first and second readings of this bill the COVID-19 Response (Further Management Measures) Legislation Bill (No 2) and in my first reading address of course I set out what the bill does. There were a few questions raised during the run up to this committee stage which I thought I'd address now particularly around why the necessity for some of the time frames that have been provided for.The bill provides to extend certain deadlines for the 2019-20 financial year by up to two months including those for annual reporting and auditing by public sector agencies local entities local authorities council-controlled organisations; amending the Public Finance Act the Crown Entities Act the State-Owned Enterprises Act the Local Government Act 2002 and the Crown Research Institutes Act; and it extends from November 2020 to no later than September 2021 the deadline under the Public Finance Act 1989 for Treasury to appear before the Minister of Finance and for the Minister to then present to the House of Representatives the statement of the long-term fiscal position.Taking that last one first I think the reasons for that are obvious. Our long-term fiscal position has changed quite dramatically as a result of COVID-19 and some more time to digest that and to make sure that that plan is as robust as possible is required. In terms of extending the deadline by two months the issue was raised by Michael Woodhouse where he said surely big organisations like State-owned enterprises should be able to adapt. Of course many of the functional activity that is undertaken within them—they lost two months' worth of time for that if you combine level 4 and level 3 together. That was about two months of time that they lost. It wasn't just the enterprises themselves but the others that they rely on including those who conduct the audits for example.The Office of the Auditor-General has indicated support for this because the office itself won't be able to complete all of the audits that they are required to do by the time frames that they are required under the current law to do them. So this basically just reflects the reality that having lost two months to the lockdown we're simply extending the deadlines out by two months.
Hipkins ChrisIn CommitteeHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): In order to allow there to be a reasonably constructive debate I seek leave for all of the provisions of the bill to be debated as one question and put as one question at the end. CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): So you're seeking leave for all provisions to be taken as one debate—Hon Chris Hipkins: That's correct. CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): —and one question. Leave is sought for that. Is there any objection? There appears to be no objection.
COVID-19 Response (Further Management Measures) Legislation Bill (No 2) — Second Reading
SpeechAGNES LOHENI (National): Thank you Mr Speaker. It's a pleasure to make a final contribution to this COVID-19 Response (Further Management Measures) Legislation Bill (No 2). We support this bill because the National Party supports jobs. We know how important jobs are to our communities to our families and it is the businesses that have been impacted that create those jobs. So we of course will support any measures that will go into giving them some extra support.As I've noted earlier in my contribution businesses needed the support a lot earlier and of course we welcome the changes that are in this bill in terms of taking off some of the pressure in terms of the auditory reporting and also in terms of the ACC regulations. But ultimately businesses did want some support earlier and they wanted some support in terms of what would have been helpful. Instead of giving them support with getting more into debt they actually wanted some support just to cover that period.The wage subsidy I have noted—and as a previous Government member has said there were other supports that were put in place and I did acknowledge the wage subsidy. Of course business owners were very grateful for that but again if you understand how a business works the wage subsidy is there to ensure that the employee is looked after but there are also a significant raft of other costs that the businesses have to cover as well that are not covered by a wage subsidy. So as I said also it would have been a sign of support for businesses to have done some other things like delay the increase of the minimum wage just to give them some breathing space and allow them to just get back up and to recover. Sadly a lot of businesses haven't been able to recover and we have seen in recent weeks more businesses folding and significant job losses.So again it would have been good to have some support earlier but we do welcome some of the changes that have been included in this bill around tax around ACC and around reporting just to take some added pressure off but we believe that there could have been more done to support businesses. Thank you Mr Speaker.Bill read a second time.
SpeechDAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): It's a pleasure to rise and talk to the COVID-19 Response (Further Management Measures) Bill (No 2) and here we are on the second reading. As has been traversed already throughout this debate in the previous reading we support this bill and we support the measures that this bill seeks to outline in the eight pieces of legislation that it seeks to address. I do just want to touch on a couple of issues of course from the Green Party—you know what else we could have considered. Well I think in this bill again looking at the GST refunds which would've made a dramatic difference to the business community—up to $100000 based off the GST that they were paid in the six months to January. The other thing which Alastair Scott my colleague in one of his final addresses talked about was the depreciation of fixed assets. I think actually that's a really important issue—to encourage businesses to continue to invest to continue to upgrade at a pretty tumultuous time. The depreciation of fixed assets could have been another measure where we could have looked at the way in which that depreciation was depreciated over the lifetime of that asset. Those were a couple of things that we would have liked to have seen addressed that relate directly to the bill. Now also on the other side they talked about the other measures and Deborah Russell talked about the other various measures that have been implemented by this Government to address issues for small business. She talked about the wage subsidy. Well that comes off this time next month. So as far as we can see—and we were absolutely supportive of that wage subsidy—but in one month's time that is a policy that's going to be no longer in effect. The second is around the support for the export and tourism support package. Well Mr Speaker I don't know if you have gone and spoken to a tourism business but I've got many in my electorate and they've told me that the support's not been enough. And we've heard there's just been a petition that was submitted on behalf of the many thousands of people that were caught up in the changes that were made in the lockdown who are directly affected in the tourism sector particularly the travel and tourism operators. And they are calling out for more support and more help during these tough times. So to say that the Government's actually done a lot for business well we haven't quite seen it in the real world. So those are the remarks that I have. As I said we support the changes that have been proposed but they don't go far enough to addressing some of the deep-seated challenges that the business community will face over the next 12 to 24 months and we're going to need to see a lot more from this Government on that. So we commend this bill to the House.
Hipkins ChrisSecond ReadingHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I move That the COVID-19 Response (Further Management Measures) Legislation Bill (No 2) be now read a second time. I don't intend to go through all of the arguments again that I made in my first reading contribution about why the bill is necessary or what it does. I'm happy to answer any questions during the committee of the whole House stage should there be any further questions.
O'Connor GregGREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): Oh Madam Speaker—the same anticipation we have of Mr Woodhouse coming back into the House—very little. I just rise to take a brief call. I'm just reading some comments by an ex - Prime Minister of New Zealand who was just saying that one of the first rules in a situation like this is that you throw out the rule book. What we are determined to do is to ensure that business along with the rest of New Zealand recovers and thrives in lieu of this COVID crisis. It's legislation like this which is an enabler to do just that. To ignore what this once-in-100-year event is would be folly and foolish. So I have no hesitation in recommending this to the House.Bill read a first time.
COVID-19 Response (Further Management Measures) Legislation Bill (No 2) — First Reading
Russell DeborahDr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn): The Opposition might have a point if this bill was the Government's only response to business but in order to make their argument go through they simply have to ignore the wage subsidy the wage subsidy extension the small-business loan scheme the extra depreciation write-off the tax carry-back scheme the support for New Zealand exporters and the extensive tourism relief package. This Government has put a great deal of effort into supporting business and it will continue to do so. We cannot save every business but by golly we can make a jolly good effort at doing the best we can to help as many businesses as possible to get through. So in the light of that—all the work that this Government is doing to support business—this bill contains a suite of tidying-up measures measures to enable the business of Government to continue given the slowdown posed by COVID-19 and some important legislative requirements on various Government entities which they simply could not meet because of the COVID shutdown. This bill enables them to meet that as a one-off with a special extended deadline. But it's also got some measures that do help businesses very directly. An amendment to the Tax Administration Act enables Inland Revenue to have a lot more discretion with respect to deadlines for filing for paying taxes and so on—a measure that takes the worry and stress off business alongside all the other excellent measures we have in place for business. It also has in this bill a change to the ACC rules so enabling the ACC levy for the next year to be held at the same rate as the current year. That's an important measure as well giving business certainty in uncertain times and we anticipate keeping their costs at a reasonable level. So this bill along with the many many many other measures that Government has put in place to support business works to ensure that everything keeps ticking over. It's an excellent bill and I commend it to the House.
SpeechALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa): Thank you Madam Speaker. I think this will be the last time I speak in this House. Like Chlöe Swarbrick—she's pretty sure that this will be her last time. I thought I had my last time earlier in the week but you can see me standing here being whipped to speak for a few minutes on this bill. But I'm very pleased to have this opportunity to have another crack at the Government—any chance I get it's very welcome and I'm very happy to take that opportunity. I also wish you well Madam Speaker in the time ahead of you outside of this House and I look forward to seeing you out there in the real world.This bill as has been mentioned is a bit of a lost opportunity. It does some certain things it extends some time limits and it tinkers around the edges really. There was an opportunity here to for example do something about the minimum wage—postpone that or extend that rather than increase it. We could have introduced some tax breaks to support those earners those taxpayers and of course we could have increased and changed some stuff in the Income Tax Act relating to depreciation rates because depreciation rates are very important when it comes to people's decisions around what they might or might not invest in and investing is what needs to happen. Confidence of the investor is so important in this time when interest rates are so low people continue to save money. In an economic crisis we need people to reach into their pockets feel confident about themselves and invest which will eventually create more jobs and have this country on a road that we will be very proud to walk on.So Madam Speaker thank you for the opportunity. Tim van de Molen I do expect this to be the last time I get up to stand in the House. I wish all members well in the future. Thank you.DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is a split call.
McClay ToddHon TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua): National is supporting these changes albeit they are so very very modest. I wonder whether there's any business person in New Zealand today who has read that the Government is doing this and put it on the Order Paper or who is listening to this debate who is saying Hallelujah! They've saved my business." I really don't think that's that case. Whilst there is some assistance here it's actually just extensions and a bit of tinkering.What would have been much more worthwhile is a bill before the House that actually addressed the significant harm that's been done to so many businesses in New Zealand as a result of the lockdown and the Government having closed the economy down. The reason we should be looking at that and doing that for these businesses—it's about the people that work for them. We know that so many of them are only there because the wage subsidy has a few more weeks to run and there are businesses up and down New Zealand today who are not sure how they will keep their employees on. They're having to talk to them about redundancy and tens of thousands—in fact Treasury says hundreds of thousands—of them are about to lose their jobs and nothing in this—nothing in this—actually helps one of those businesses keep a single employee on. We are supporting it because actually it does relieve some of the burden and give a touch more certainty to companies but ultimately what really is necessary is some real action—not policies to keep pushing the problem further down until after the election when the roosters will really come home to roost but something that will deal with these challenges right now.I tell you what I really would have liked to have seen in this bill is something actually for the tourism industry and all parts of the tourism industry at least to give them some hope if nothing more. We heard in the House yesterday the tourism Minister blaming travel agents—blaming travel agents—for the plight they find themselves in and accusing them of not being good New Zealanders because their job is to help New Zealanders go overseas and take money away. How naive that is—how short-sighted. I guarantee that the emails I'm getting thanking the National Party for raising the case and the challenges of travel agents are very different from the ones he's getting in his inbox—I'm quite quite sure of that. He has a chance to come back to the House and fix this because I know we're going through very quickly. What about a Supplementary Order Paper in later stages that fixes this bill that we see in first reading that actually does something for these businesses to give them hope? So we're supporting it because actually at the moment any hope at all any help at all for businesses to keep going so they can keep people employed is worth considering but actually it falls woefully short of doing anything that's going to make any material difference for our businesses in New Zealand who continue to struggle and are facing redundancies and unemployment for their workers and in many cases mounting debt and finally businesses that will close."
SpeechMARK PATTERSON (NZ First): Thank you Madam Speaker. I too rise on behalf of New Zealand First to support this COVID Response (Further Management Measures) Legislation Bill (No 2). Of course—this has been noticed—it's an omnibus bill with a series of technical amendments but they are actually really important amendments and there is some urgency in bringing them forward particularly at this stage of the parliamentary cycle. So whilst this is not some of the big announcements around infrastructure and the like in terms of the Government's overall COVID response it is a tidy up to the primary part of this legislation. It has been such a massive and complex response on such an unprecedented level both within the business community but also within the machinery of Government and there are several Acts that we just need to provide some clarification on particularly around the reporting deadlines and audits for the likes of our State-owned enterprises and local authorities. It gives the Auditor-General some ability to have some flexibility or extension of time lines which is absolutely pivotal. They don't have the option of just ignoring the law; they've got to keep within deadlines to make them more user-friendly and workable and appropriate given the circumstances. It is a very important function that this bill provides.I also note as the previous speaker Agnes Loheni said the R & D tax clarification is there. IRD is able to share information with Callaghan Innovation to ensure that loans aren't treated as a Government grant for tax purposes and to ensure that the loan doesn't prevent that businessperson claiming the R & D tax credits that this Government brought in which is a very important part of driving innovation in research and development which we know is such a critical part to raising the productivity of this country's economy which of course has lagged many of our OECD peers. One of the more important things I think we've done economically is to give those tax incentives to lift R & D up towards 2 percent of GDP. So that is important within this bill. But most of these measures are pretty uncontroversial. They're sensible they're necessary and they're common sense. So New Zealand First will support this bill. Thank you.
Webb DuncanDr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): That was a very long speech by Mr Bidois that didn't really touch on the bill—a nice list of if I was on the other side of the House". But the fact of the matter is that what this bill does is really important and it shows how—what appear to be minor rules throughout the administrative system in relation to deadlines tax and the tasks that our bureaucracy must undertake in a timely and effective way—important in fact they are. Of course they've all been disrupted. Of course we need to make sure that the important functions of reporting are still discharged in a timely way but one which takes into account all of the disruption that has been caused. That's simply what this bill does. It's an administrative response to the disruption that's been caused. It's highly effective. Of course it's going to be supported. I commend this bill to the House."