edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
O'Connor SimonSIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Fleeing" seems to be the word of the day. And initially I thought it was about MPs fleeing their parties. I thought it was also maybe about how much money flees Kiwis wallets because of the cost of living. But no when I looked at the bill this is actually about land transport not about MPs or the cost of living. It's about those who flee police and the consequences that this bill tries to address. Unfortunately fleeing drivers is well-known in my electorate of Tāmaki. We've had over 40 ram raids in the last year and I've been able to visit just about all if not all those businesses. And as many I think have indicated in the House often it's young people in stolen cars. Actually kudos to our local police; they've caught most of those young people. But fleeing drivers is a major issue not just with the ram raids—in fact our Eastern Bays Community Patrol the other week identified a fleeing car in Glendowie and were part ultimately of the result where the vehicle—actually riding on its rims of all things—was caught by police in Ōtāhuhu. Again fleeing drivers is well-known so look National supports this bill but it doesn't go far enough by any means. First and foremost it doesn't address the very fact that people are fleeing the police already which tells you they are not as afraid if you will of police as people should be. Secondly we also know that the police don't have the same operational powers ultimately to actually pursue. As many people have noted once someone decides to put their foot down the police effectively rely on the Eagle helicopter or others in Auckland to work out where the vehicle is going to stop. They do not pursue as frequently as they used to. That's a fundamental problem. The second thing that I also alluded to very early on is that these cars are stolen. So it's all well and good to talk about "We're going to impound the vehicle."; well OK but they're usually stolen—and that's multiple vehicles by the way; certainly with the ram raids in Tāmaki we're talking two or three cars—so there's no point in impounding the stolen vehicle. And I would just hope that the select committee addresses this in some ways to go "Actually the person who has done the thieving or the fleeing—let's take their car not the one that they've already stolen." So that's something we need to address. But as I say unfortunately fleeing drivers' criminal behaviour is well-known in my electorate. It's something which I will continue to push against and demand more action from this Government. And while I support this bill the Labour Government needs to do much much more to restore law and order to this country."
Ngobi TerisaTERISA NGOBI (Labour—Ōtaki): Thank you Madam Speaker and I rise to take a very short call on this bill today because it's a no-brainer. This bill backs police and it backs New Zealanders and it keeps us safe on our roads. The Land Transport (Road Safety) Amendment Bill reduces unsafe behaviour on our roads. In particular it is in response to the unsafe behaviour exhibited by fleeing drivers as we heard already. We also heard the Minister the Hon Andrew Little talk about this and the sad statistics around this. So in particular this bill will expand the period the police may seize and impound the vehicle from 28 days to six months which is good. It also gives the police new powers to be able to impound that motor vehicle for 28 days if the owner of the vehicle fails to give the name of the person who fled. There are many more really good pieces in this legislation. It's a no-brainer. I commend this bill to the House.
Sosene Lemauga LydiaLEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE (Labour): Thank you Madam Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to do a short contribution on the Land Transport (Road Safety) Amendment Bill.As a list member from South Auckland there is a huge problem of young drivers specifically in our area. To address that huge problem this bill is common sense to help keep communities safe. This is one of the enforcement tools that is required by police to strengthen their needs in terms of police having to spend valuable police time unnecessarily chasing fleeing drivers.On this side of the House this bill will crack down on fleeing drivers' bad behaviour who make reckless choices in putting innocent lives at risk. Those fleeing drivers as you've heard from other speakers need to be held to account. Police will have this lever will have this tool in its necessary kete so that those fleeing drivers can face stronger consequences.It also promotes better road safety that is required to reduce serious road deaths to help to keep our community members alive. I commend this bill to the House.
Nash Stuart; Dean JacquiHon STUART NASH (Labour—Napier): Thank you Madam Speaker. I stand to support the Land Transport (Road Safety) Amendment Bill. Paul Goldsmith in his contribution suggested that Labour's tough law and order stance has meant that there are more fleeing drivers. That is absolute rubbish. Let me tell the House from experience that politicians are not allowed to call the police commissioner and tell him what to do. We did not call the police commissioner and suggest in any way shape or form that he should change the policy. In fact I was the Minister of Police at the time and I can assure the House and the Ombudsman that I did not call the commissioner at all. In fact Labour did not decide to change this policy. It is the police who make these decisions around whether to pursue or not and it's actually done after a reasonably robust real-time process that is based on a risk assessment. And there is no doubt about it: the police should pursue when they believe based on their experience—and not just the experience of the officers chasing but the experience of the men and women who are following the situation from the station. It's a risk-based approach. Then they either go hard or they pull back. But it's a risk-based approach taking into account a whole lot of factors including and actually most importantly the health wellbeing and safety of the officers and the innocent. The last thing we want to see is these people taking off being chased by police at high speed through suburban streets crashing and killing innocent bystanders. So it is a risk-based approach. But one thing we can do as politicians is back the police in terms of penalties dished out to those who think that they can get away with it. They can't. The police will find them—and the majority of the time they do. Just because someone flees that is not the end of the case by any stretch of the imagination. With 1800 more police—that's 1800 over and above the numbers that were there when we came into Government—and with greater technology more resources and tougher laws for those who break the social contract that exists between members of our communities we will hold those who break the law to account. And I tend to disagree with the Greens on this one. If members of our community break the rules then they will be held to account. These tougher penalties will ensure that those who flee will feel the full force of the law. I commend this bill to the House.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Harete Hipango—a five-minute call.
Walters VanushiVANUSHI WALTERS (Labour—Upper Harbour): Thank you Madam Speaker. I just first want to acknowledge my National Party colleague Chris Penk for the invitation for the Justice Committee to consider whether we might want to soften some of the provisions in light of human rights law. He is more than welcome to substitute in for his colleague Paul Goldsmith should he wish to.I want to start by commending the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Police who are focused on community safety. On this side of the House we know that securing community safety means using all the levers of justice available to us.What that means is ensuring that we're preventing where we can. What that means is fair wages wellbeing free lunches making apprenticeships available. What that means is rehabilitation which put into place through the circuit-breaker programmes that we're now expanding. What that means is police presence and we're growing our police force to 1800—to I suspect the annoyance of Mr Goldsmith who seemed to be annoyed by the police helicopters that are out monitoring community safety in Auckland. And yes that does mean punishment as well.This is merely one of the levers that we are using but it is a lever that we are taking very seriously. It goes alongside the changes that we've made in terms of tackling gang crime as well.As chair of the Justice Committee I do look forward to a constructive discussion with colleagues to submissions and to bringing this bill back to the House. I commend this bill to the House.
Halbert ShananSHANAN HALBERT (Labour—Northcote): Thank you Madam Speaker. Can I just start this afternoon by acknowledging all of our colleagues wearing pink shirts today to support the cause; thank you very much.This particular bill—it's interesting because the Opposition is supporting it but will challenge us on our stance of crime. The reality is that fleeing drivers aren't a new thing; it's something that has been going on for decades. In particular this bill is actually about taking action improving our response to policing offenders and the Government delivering on its promise to crack down on dangerous and reckless drivers who flee police and put innocent lives at risk.This will allow police to seize and impound a vehicle for a period of six months if it fails to stop. It will allow police to seize and impound a vehicle if the registered owner fails to provide information about a fleeing driver and impounding the vehicle is necessary to prevent a threat to road safety. So it's a bill very clear about its intention and I commend it to the House.
Bayly AndrewANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): I'm just responding to Minister Little and his contribution there. Either the Minister of Revenue has got it totally wrong because he was the one who would have made sure that the bill actually said that the commencement date is 1 July—so the bill is in his name. It's in Mr Parker's name this bill and it states categorically in the commencement clause at clause 2 that The Act comes into force on 1 July 2023." Now the Minister has just been talking about this as if it is a bill; it's not. When it comes into force it is an Act—right?—and it specifies that it comes into force on 1 July 2023 which means that that is before the date for the select committee to report back on it. So can I suggest to the member that his logic is absolutely flawed."
Little AndrewHon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Defence): Speaking to the amendment proposed by the ACT Party member the arguments advanced by the members opposite are a contrivance. The reality is that the bill is not law. A bill is not law; it is a proposal for a statutory change or addition for consideration by the House and normally consideration by a subcommittee of the House in the form of a select committee. My colleague the Minister of Revenue has introduced a bill as part of the Budget measures which is a bill that has a commencement date—as part of the draft bill—but that is up for consideration by the select committee and what is being moved now is a select committee with a slightly truncated time frame which is ordinary for the consideration of that bill. It will be a matter for members of the select committee to recommend any changes to the bill including the commencement date and it's ultimately for this House in the second reading the committee of the whole House and the third reading to determine the commencement date of that bill having gone through public submissions and a consideration process in the truncated select committee process. There is no clanger. There is no contravention of basic constitutional principles when it comes to revenue statutes. It is entirely proper and appropriate and the time frame proposed by the Minister of Revenue is an absolutely proper time frame in the circumstances.
Bayly AndrewANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Yeah thank you Madam Speaker. I know that the whip is doing a valiant attempt to try and justify something which I'd suggest respectfully that maybe he doesn't understand the realities of what this meant whether it's an intentional or unintentional—I suspect very much unintentional—mistake by the Minister. But you cannot have an Act come into force before you've had the report-back date from the bill being considered by the select committee because for it to be considered by the select committee you've got to then come into this Chamber it's got to go through the process of a second reading then the committee of the whole House and then the third reading all of which takes some time. But if you've got a report-back date of 27 July inevitably we're going into August and of course the House finishes at the end of August. So it's logistically illogical and inappropriate and I think it's a genuine mistake. I know the whip's trying to support his Minister but this is a clanger—it's an absolute clanger of process.
Utikere TangiTANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Speaking to the proposed amendment the Government is not in support of Mr Damien Smith's suggestion. The reason is that the Minister had articulated very clearly in his justification for the referral motion for the time frame. It is over to the House to determine whether it is a suitable time frame; the Government's position is unchanged in that respect.
Upston LouiseHon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you Madam Speaker. We would support the motion put by the member of the ACT Party. In support of the fact that the bill is wrong—the dates are wrong and the report back is after the time frame of when the legislation would start—the amendment to 1 September would make sense.
Smith DamienDAMIEN SMITH (ACT): I move That the motion be amended by writing so that the 27 July date is replaced with 1 September 2023.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): You're welcome to give your speech to that motion that you just gave—whatever speech you were going to give.DAMIEN SMITH: The significance of this bill is such that it requires the industry and anybody who is involved with the tax code to reply in a sensible and a well-thought-through fashion. We don't believe that the time frame that's been proposed can be met and the Finance and Expenditure Committee will struggle to actually do its work in a proper fashion hence the extension of the date.
Watts SimonSIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Look in response to this point there is just one short aspect I want to comment on and that is in regards to the fact that this is an indictment on our democracy in regards to the shortened report-back. We have already articulated this afternoon around the fact that this Labour Government have already blocked the transparency required in order to bring the IRD in to talk about the exact report that underpins this bill. And now what we're seeing is a Government rushing this through without allowing due public consultation or public input into a significant tax principles bill. What is that side of the House scared of? Why will they not allow the public to be involved in consultation on a bill that may lead to more taxation out of their back pockets? Well I can tell you why: it is because they do not want to talk about this bill. The shortened report-back option is on the table. Not only as the member Andrew Bayly has articulated is the report-back date after the commencement date of the bill—and I'm looking forward for the Minister to comment and provide an explanation of why that is the case because it seems completely at odds with any logic but very consistent with that side of the House in terms of how they operate. Why are we not allowing due public consultation? Why are we blocking New Zealanders being able to input and go through a normal standard consultation around this? Why are we not letting Kiwis' voices be heard in regards to what is significant underpinning legislation around our taxation system? Why? People need to question: why is this Government pushing this through? I think it's absolutely unacceptable. I think Kiwis need to absolutely open their eyes to what this Government is trying to do. They are simply not a Government of transparency. They want it all for themselves.
Smith Damien; Salesa JennyDAMIEN SMITH (ACT): Point of order Madam Speaker. Thank you Madam Speaker. We have grave concerns that the Finance and Expenditure Committee won't be able to meet this time frame so we will be moving a motion for an extension of time on the basis that the date in the bill is wrong and we will also be looking at the actual submission process very closely and who's invited to that. We encourage the industry to actually get together very quickly—even this weekend—to meet these time frames because this is a quintessential bill. It's not necessary. We believe it should be put in the shredder and we will be—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Order! Order! The point of order that the member is actually trying to raise here about a select committee is not a valid point of order.
Parker DavidInstruction to Finance and Expenditure CommitteeHon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Revenue): I move That the Taxation Principles Reporting Bill be reported to the House by 27 July 2023 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions) during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House and outside the Wellington area despite Standing Orders 193 195 and 196.The Taxation Principles Reporting Bill needs to be passed by the end of the year to ensure that that the requirement outlined in the legislation to provide its first report at the end of 2023 is met. The legislation empowers Inland Revenue to achieve this. In order for that to happen there's also a two-month lead-in period for the report to allow the commissioner to publish new measurements referred to under clause 14 of the bill. That's why in order to facilitate this I'm moving that the select committee meet at other times to properly consider the legislation and ensure that the committee process is fulsome but completed in an appropriate time. It's a relatively short bill—it's five pages in length. There's sufficient time for public submissions and consideration of that by the committee. The interruption caused for the House by rising due to the election and the requirement for this legislation to be in place by the end of the year makes a shorter select committee process appropriate. Finally before I hear the howls of outrage from the Opposition I would note that in 2015 when National introduced the brightline test they gave a six-week select committee period which took from 8 September to 20 October 2015. In contrast this period is 10 weeks.
Leary IngridINGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): As I listen to speakers on the other side I keep wondering: why are they afraid of this bill? Why are they afraid of putting sunlight on to data unless it is because they are scared that it will change the status quo?What is the status quo? Well until recently there was a sense of growing inequality an understanding of massive inequality in this country. And then recently now we have the high-wealth report which has evidence and that is a masterful project that I think will be the signature project of our Minister Parker for actually getting data into the tax system to say let's get some principles that we can all agree on so that we can have a fair playing field.I am shocked that the previous member would question tax principles that are almost universally accepted around horizontal equity; vertical equity; revenue integrity; certainty; predictability; the ability for a system to be flexible for it to be adaptable for it to be efficient. These are well-established principles that are in every tax regime worth its salt around the world. What is being proposed is that these are accepted and they benchmark so that we can have data that is fair that is open and I certainly think that it is very fair as a taxpayer to know whether other taxpayers are paying their fair share or not.So the only conclusion I can draw is that the resistance from the Opposition is because they are fearful of this legislation they do not want to see the status quo change they like to see the inequality in this society and they are afraid of the sunlight that this bill will put on to our tax system. It's an excellent piece of work I commend the Minister and I commend this bill to the House.
Utikere TangiTANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Tēnā koe Madam Speaker. Thank you. It's a pleasure to rise in what will be a brief call on the Taxation Principles Reporting Bill and the reason for that is I want to commend the Minister Minister Parker for bringing this bill to the House. His comments earlier were around In the absence of facts about actual outcomes those half-truths can be … easily manipulated to suit political objectives and vested interests." And haven't we heard a wee bit about that from members opposite today?This is a bill that is based on evidence and what is fundamental is this issue of fairness. Kiwis all around Aotearoa New Zealand in communities up and down this country expect fairness when it comes to the principles of taxation. And that is why I commend this bill to the House."
Boyack RachelRACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Thank you Madam Speaker. It's a pleasure to take a short call on the Taxation Principles Reporting Bill. Just in response to Sam Uffindell the former speaker about the bill's purpose: the bill's purpose is very clear. It actually states in the general policy statement that The reporting framework is intended to increase the availability of information about the operation of the tax system and contribute to an improved understanding of tax policy among the general public." That is the purpose of the bill. It is about providing information to the public about how New Zealand's tax system operates in line with New Zealand's tax principles. It's a very straightforward non-political bill. It's quite bizarre that the other side thinks there's some kind of conspiracy theory going on about this bill—because that's exactly what it is. It is literally a conspiracy theory from a party that thinks its answer to supporting working people is to give working people $2 a week in a tax cut. On this side of the House we have a bill that is about ensuring we have a good line of sight over our tax system and how it is operating and I commend the Minister of Revenue for his work on this bill. I look forward to hearing on it as it reports back from the select committee and I commend it to the House."
Clark David; Dean JacquiHon Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin): Every year we come to this House to set or adjust the tax rates for this country and we come here with some information but not the ideal information that we would want to have when we're having these debates in the House about how best to reflect the interests of our whole country. The Taxation Principles Reporting Bill is there setting out a range of principles that we want to have in our tax system. They're internationally well-recognised. Horizontal equity—people with similar incomes should pay similar amounts of tax. Vertical equity—the system should be progressive; people on higher incomes pay a higher proportion of their income in tax. And then principles around collection of revenue efficiently; principles around minimising compliance and administration costs; and making sure that the revenue that we're getting to buy the things that we need for public services is predictable each year so that we can have a system set up to support New Zealanders; and of course the system has to be flexible and adaptable—those principles are well understood internationally. They are not particularly new; though bringing them into this kind of bill would be new for New Zealand—bringing them into a reporting regime which is precisely what this legislation does.It is a fantastic piece of legislation that will collect data to make informed decisions in this House every year when we change the tax rates. Every year in this House when we debate what our tax rates in this country should be we want to be informed by the best information. Here is a bill that seeks to do that to actually gather the data to make informed choices on behalf of New Zealanders. I think we'll continue to see through this debate National arguing against transparency. They simply do not want a light shone on what is going on in the tax system because they're afraid it will show where people are being advantaged and where people are being disadvantaged. We on this side of the House think the tax system needs to be fair and principles-based and so we will defend this legislation and I really want to commend this bill to the House.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members the time has come for me to leave the Chair for the lunch break and the House will resume at 2 p.m. this afternoon.Sitting suspended from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m.
Twyford PhilHon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): On this side of the House we stand for transparency facts data and an informed national conversation about tax. On that side of the House they stand for obfuscation. They want to confuse the public. In fact it was very very telling in that last contribution from Michael Woodhouse when he said that everybody knows that the top 20 percent pay the most in tax. Yeah; everybody does know that. But the real question is: how progressive how fair how logical is our progressive tax system? What David Parker's trying to do here is actually bring some structure to this debate and shed some light on it. I want to thank David Parker for his work on this. He's demonstrated not only with this bill but also with the work that he had the Inland Revenue do recently looking at how much tax drawing on real data—a world-leading study that generated facts and real information for this debate. The Minister demonstrated an actual commitment to transparency but on that side of the House they talk about transparency except when it comes to their rich mates. When it comes to that they don't want to shine a light on tax. They don't want facts. They don't want the public to know what's really going on. I commend this bill to the House.
Russell DeborahHon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Associate Minister of Revenue): I want to speak about this Taxation Principles Reporting Bill and I want to refer to the speech of the previous member Andrew Bayly because it was misleading and obfuscating and that is precisely what this bill is setting out to fix.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): No no no. The member—Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: I withdraw and apologise Madam Speaker.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Good call.Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: I wish to refer to the previous member's speech in which he left out an important aspect of Adam Smith's principles of taxation. It shows exactly why this bill is needed; we actually need a full and transparent discussion about how we go about taxation in this country and which principles it should be based on. We need that clear and transparent discussion and this is what this bill will facilitate. So it is gobsmacking that other parties in this House would oppose it.I wish to go back to Adam Smith's principles of taxation which the previous speaker said their party thought were important. I got a tax system should be fair simple transparent easy to administer adequate" and a couple of other words—in fact all concepts that are imbedded in the taxation principles in Schedule 1 of this bill. This bill does set out to ensure that those principles enumerated by that speaker will be discussed and reported on in a transparent way so that this country can engage in a well-informed debate about how much taxation there should be and where it should be levied.However the speaker left out one very important principle from Adam Smith and it is a principle that is nevertheless sitting in this bill. Adam Smith's four canons of taxation in his great 1776 work The Wealth of Nations set out four principles of taxation. The first one is fairness. Now the previous speaker said that related to people in the same position paying the same amount of tax—agreed horizontal equity. What he left out was vertical equity and this is something that Adam Smith in that book advocated for. He said that those who are in a position to pay more tax should do so. That's vertical equity. That is what we do not understand in New Zealand's taxation system at the moment. Until very recently we did not have good data on whether that principle dating back to Adam Smith in 1776 was being embodied by our tax system.So I invite the National Party to reconsider its position. These principles are exactly what Mr Bayly said the National Party wanted in a tax system. But he left out that one thought from Adam Smith that vertical equity must too be considered in our tax system and that is embodied in these principles too.If the National Party genuinely wants to have a fair simple transparent easy-to-administer and adequate tax system then I suggest that they support this bill forthwith."
Rosewarne DanDAN ROSEWARNE (Labour): Kia ora. Thank you Mr Speaker. It's my pleasure to take this last call on the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2023-24 Multinational Tax and Remedial Matters) Bill. This bill addresses various tax-related issues with the aim of making our tax system fairer. And one thing I just want to touch on today is one of the features of the bill the introduction of the global minimum tax of 15 percent for large multinational enterprises. This is an initiative developed by the OECD and endorsed by more than 130 countries. Its aim is to reduce the ability of large multinationals to make different Governments compete against each other to lower their tax rate and leading essentially to a race to the bottom. A recent Oxfam report found that tax competition among countries and the growth in the use of tax havens has meant that States find it increasingly difficult to tax income from capital. Consequently either tax revenue has declined or the burden of tax has shifted more heavily on to labour.Andrew Bayly: Say it like you mean it.DAN ROSEWARNE: Ultimately the most harm falls on to the public Mr Bayly which has faced the triple impacts of a higher tax burden declining public goods and services and having to subsidise corporate profits and private wealth. So it's a good bill and I commend it to the House.
Lorck AnnaANNA LORCK (Labour—Tukituki): Thank you Mr Speaker. We've heard that the National Party is opposing this bill. There is an important part of this bill which talks about the tax rollover relief in response to recent flood events. The bill would mean that the rollover would ensure relief for assets destroyed or made economically useless by the flood and by the cyclone. Now this bill the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2023-24 Multinational Tax and Remedial Matters) Bill ensures that the proposed rollover relief will be to defer the recognition of income from the receipt of insurance proceeds for destroyed assets provided that there is a commitment to rebuild or replace the destroyed revenue account buildings or depreciable assets.So for the National Party to stand here today and say they oppose this bill when this is something that is so significant for Hawke's Bay it just shows how much noise and negativity the National Party is prepared to play for politics. Now this noise that's been coming from the National Party reminds me more that actually the National Party loves tax. They love tax so much and talking about tax so much. And as a business owner I can remember very very well when the National Party said they would not increase tax and they came straight in and increased GST. That's what the National Party does. You can never ever trust the National Party on tax. They love tax and they'll tax New Zealanders till the cows come home. Thank you; I commend this bill to the House.
White HelenHELEN WHITE (Labour): I'm pleased to take a call in support of this bill. I'm going to just focus on one issue and that is the support to Kiwis wanting to take parental leave. It was described by Sam Uffindell the last speaker as a female space but I'm not quite sure that that's entirely what it is any more. I hope that all parents will take the opportunity for parental leave. When I was having my own children there was absolutely no support. I got no support because I'd moved into a job and it meant that we were absolutely—we had no money in the bank account. When I had my first baby we had to borrow $500 and so I'm really pleased to see this happen. The stats show that at the moment the average savings for a male at 40 in the KiwiSaver scheme is $43000 and the average savings for a female at the same time is $36000. There it is—a stark contrast. Once you start seeing where that money goes it's a significant gap at that point when you retire and I'd just remind the public that the New Zealand National Party would like to move that retirement date up and so people would actually have longer until that time happens. They'll be working longer and that is also something that our party—the Labour Party—is committed not to have happening. We're actually keeping that at 65 years which makes a big difference if you're in work and in manual work etc. So I just wanted to focus on that one thing—that's the gap. That gap will be closed by this. This will be a big help in terms of closing that gap. That's incredibly important for people who take on the parental leave responsibilities for their children and that's better for our children and our families and New Zealand.
Leary IngridINGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): As the chair of the Finance and Expenditure Committee I really welcome this bill because it is about fairness. I know all New Zealanders share the belief that the tax system should be fair. That is what makes for economic stability. It is what makes for social cohesion. It allows us to get on with having a First World country where everybody knows that the tax system that is treating them in a particular way is treating their neighbour and their neighbour's neighbours and people in other suburbs the same way. That is the basis of our tax system.But what is particularly good about this bill is it is great news for women. It is great news for women because it is enabling women who are choosing to stay at home look after their children and provide around reproduction not just production—they are able to contribute to their KiwiSaver and the Government will now top them up by 3 percent. That is going to have a massive impact on women and even better if we think about it in the context of the early childhood education changes that have been announced in the Budget that means that when they do choose to go back to work they will save up to $133 per week if they put their children in childcare from the age of 2 due to those extensions.The second reason this is good for women is because of the changes to the trust tax laws—mainly because the 311 families that the previous speaker Chlöe Swarbrick alluded to the beneficiaries of those very very wealthy trusts are mainly men. So it is good for women to know that the increase of what should be taxed flowing through to trusts in order to avoid the 39 percent threshold—it is good for women to know that that will now be taxed fairly.The third reason is around the Global Anti-Base Erosion (GloBE) rules. Now this is only going to bring in a small amount to New Zealand because we already have a 28 percent corporate tax rate. But the benefit of this is around the coalition of the willing globally to ensure that it is not a race to the bottom and that race to the bottom affects women more. The opportunity cost for women in the countries where that tax is not collected is that those countries tend to use consumption tax. Consumption tax is regressive and it impacts more on women in a double-edged sword because women are more likely to be purchasing for their families as well. So by New Zealand playing its part in the global economy and ensuring that our GLoBE rules accord with the OECD we are not ceding sovereignty as Damien Smith so bizarrely alluded to; we are actually ensuring that there is an ethical framework globally around tax which doesn't disadvantage poorer countries and which particularly doesn't disadvantage the women in those countries. This is a great bill. It is about fairness and it is particularly good news for women. I commend it to the House.
Doocey MattMATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): Point of order. I seek leave for Simon Watts to take another 10-minute call.DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'll take that as a frivolous point of order.MATT DOOCEY: I'm putting it to the House Mr Speaker.DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is there any objection?Hon Members: Yes.
Menéndez March RicardoENERGY (FUELS LEVIES AND REFERENCES) AMENDMENT BILLThird ReadingDebate resumed.RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you. I have yet to master the art of being tangential enough to fill a whole slot and today won't be the day. Look the Green Party supports this bill the Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Amendment Bill because we believe that meeting our goals to decarbonise our economy and secure a livable planet does not have to be a conflict with ensuring that we have energy resilience in the case of emergencies. The purpose of being able to apply the levy under the Petroleum or Engine Fuel Monitoring Levy for things like emergencies is a good thing. As the previous speaker from the Greens the previous call has said as we see the passage of this bill it is important that the Government maintains a strong focus on continuing to decarbonise our economy and build that resilience so that we rely less on fossil fuels in order to be resilient when it comes to energy. So we look forward to the passing of this bill and the Government introducing further legislation to meet our climate goals.
Voting — Correction—Energy Resources Levy Amendment Bill
Salesa JennyVOTINGCorrection—Energy Resources Levy Amendment BillASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members before I call the next member last night when the House adopted the report of the committee on the Energy Resources Levy Amendment Bill the results of the vote were incorrectly announced as Ayes 116 and Noes 3. The correct result is Ayes 106 and Noes 13. The record will be corrected accordingly.
Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Amendment Bill — Third Reading
Potaka TamaTAMA POTAKA (National—Hamilton West): It's unfortunate that the Minister has departed so early without listening to one of my brief tomes.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Order! The member cannot refer to other members who are not in the Chamber. Go ahead Tama Potaka.TAMA POTAKA: I withdraw and apologise. OK kia ora. Thanks to the National and ACT speakers for raising relevant observations today. Now New Zealand is at the end of the global supply chain and our country exists with the tyranny of distance but enjoys also the strength of solitude.It actually reminds me of a sentence from a book called 100 Years of Solitude by Gabriel García Márquez the famous Colombian writer who spoke about the Buendia whānau in Macondo. The secret of a good old age is simply an honourable pact with solitude." Folks the secret of a good country is simply an honourable pact with reality.The reality of this bill is that it's run faster than my escaped ginger cat chasing skinks while the next atmospheric river abates. It's been a real eye-opener for a fresh parliamentarian to see the pace of legislative change and gives me some pause to evince my concern about the meanderings of the Government. Ultimately the National Party supports this bill. What we don't want to do is to make poor decisions only to spend an inordinate amount of energy to fix up problems caused by those poor decisions—this case in point being Marsden Point.The bill is less about continuity and it's more about control of the narrative and we've dealt with this matter for now. But the long-term question remains: do we want to live in a country that relies on an honourable pact with one another in reality or one that does not? We support this bill. Kia ora."
Chen NaisiNAISI CHEN (Labour): Thank you Madam Speaker. It's always good to recognise that it's a cross-partisan effort in trying to secure the security of our fuel supply. It is really important that this bill the Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Amendment Bill really helps our country keep moving. There are big events happening around the world right now. There's lot of incidents and lots of disruption in the day and age we live in and we're making sure that the Government plans for those unexpected events and disruptions that we know will start to occur more and more frequently especially on the weather side. This makes sure that New Zealand has the confidence to see this country through those rainy days and it makes sure that we have the responsibility and the planning ahead. This is what this Government does and that's why I'm proud to commend this bill to the House.
Smith StuartSTUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you Madam Speaker. Well I think the Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Amendment Bill has been well traversed in the readings to date. We do support this bill. We do have concerns post the closure of Marsden Point which we think should have been more carefully approached than it was—bit of a cavalier approach from the Government. Fuel security is paramount for us as is energy security. We are transitioning to a lower-emissions economy but we cannot put fuel security aside cavalierly. We need to actually be very careful about security both for the energy system as a whole but particularly for fuel security now that we are not able to refine fuels here in New Zealand. I have identified a rich vein for written parliamentary questions during this process and I know the Minister loves answering my written questions. It occupies a bit of her time but I know the passion she puts into the answers is much appreciated and so I look forward to getting those answers back on particularly the work that has been done or not done to ensure that we are not breaching the sanctions that we have on Russia. We found out today fortunately that the Government is not importing any oil or fuels refined in North Korea which is a great relief to us all. So with that I commend the bill to the House.
Woods Megan; Salesa JennyThird ReadingHon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Energy and Resources): I move That the Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.This is a bill that has a very narrow scope of focus but it is a bill that is incredibly important to ensuring that we have fuel security in New Zealand. It is about ensuring that we have the ability to use our levy for domestic onshore stockholding of diesel to ensure that we do have that resilient supply of fuel should we require it. It is part of a suite of policies that this Government has been putting in place to ensure that New Zealand does have fuel resilience. This is one small part of it; there is more to come. This is work that began a long period ago and has been working through the system with good consultation. A number of people have given some very very good input and I am confident that we are getting to a place where New Zealand's fuel security can be assured. New Zealand needs to ensure that as the world changes around us with mega-refineries coming to the fore we are ensuring that we always have the ability to have the fuel that we need. This is a critical part of that. I commend this bill to the House.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the motion be agreed to.
Salesa JennyHouse resumed.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Mr Speaker the committee has considered the Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Amendment Bill and reports it without amendment. I move That the report be adopted.Motion agreed to.Report adopted.
Woods MeganHon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Energy and Resources): Sorry for the excitement Madam Chair that I caused. Of course New Zealand is not importing diesel from North Korea. I misspoke; that is South Korea. In answer to the second question that the member re-asked—which I've already addressed—Has work been done?" I gave quite a lengthy answer. The answer is "Yes a lot of work has been done examining supply chains.""
Smith StuartSTUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Point of clarification from the Minister. She just stated that we are importing refined fuel from North Korea—that would also be in breach of our sanctions so I'd just like that to be clarified.Hon Dr Megan Woods: Madam Chair—STUART SMITH: I'm still making a point here. While I gave the example of two refineries that was not the only way around these things. I just gave two examples and I still haven't really had a direct answer. Has there been any work done to check the provenance of imported fuels into New Zealand to ensure that there is not a switch around—as is the case in Saudi Arabia that I gave—or that the fuel has been refined from Russian crude? Thank you.
Smith Stuart; Woods MeganSTUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you Madam Chair. We obviously support this so we're not going to take a lot of time on it but I would like seeing we don't have a select committee process for the Minister to answer the question of whether she has had officials look through to ensure the provenance of the diesel that we are importing into New Zealand that it has not been a source—that the crude oil that it's been refined from does not come from Russia which would breach our sanctions. Now I gave in my speech in the second reading two examples of the sanctions being breached in the US by a roundabout way where diesel has been imported into Saudi Arabia and diesel that has been manufactured or processed in Saudi Arabia from their own crude oil was actually exported to the US thereby getting around that sanction. I also gave the example of the refineries in India that are sourcing crude oil from Russia and refining that into diesel and exporting it to the US.So are we in that similar situation not just with diesel—jet fuel Jet A-1 and petrol and the like? Are we actually supporting the Russian regime? Has there been any work done on that? If there hasn't we should know that. If there has been a cursory look that's OK but we actually really need to go right into this. It's not a simple thing of asking where the diesel came from; we need to know what the provenance of the crude oil is that that diesel was refined from.Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Energy and Resources): In answer to the question that the member put the member might recall that there was quite a lot of discussion and in fact the Government spoke about this at the time that the sanctions were put on. So this is not a new question and there's a lot of information in the public domain about this. Yes the supply chains of refined product all around the world have been the subject of a great deal of scrutiny. The New Zealand agency that is responsible for that is no different than its counterparts in countries that have put sanctions on. And those questions are being looked at. There has been a lot of work internationally that has been happening around supply chains to ensure that there aren't inadvertent back doors for sanctions to be broken. In terms of the refineries that the member talked about in terms of where he might have a concern about where that diesel is coming from by and large New Zealand diesel does not come from refineries in those countries. Our diesel—the New Zealand import—largely comes from the Asian refineries in Singapore and North Korea. Of course the fuel companies who do import the diesel are also doing a huge amount of work around their supply chain because they also want to ensure that they are upholding global sanctions that have been put on for a reason.
Salesa Jenny; Belich CamillaIn CommitteeClauses 1 to 4CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Good morning members. The House is in committee on the Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Amendment Bill.CAMILLA BELICH (Junior Whip—Labour): Point of order. I seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one question.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection. The question is that clauses 1 to 4 stand part.