edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
O'Connor GregGREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): Thank you Madam Speaker. I was fortunate enough with this bill to sit through the vast majority of the submissions and I'd actually describe it as a little bit of a ramble through the New Zealand legislative system: 16 Acts and one set of regulations. A great learning experience. But I'd just like to concentrate on the Property Law Act which seems to have so aggravated and excited speakers on the opposite side of the House. I would just say to the Hon Simon Bridges that far from Tauranga being unknown to the rest of New Zealand in fact people like yourself have put it on the map. In fact finally it's good to see that it took an ex - National Party politician to actually try and bring the place together—a well-thought-out appointment I would have thought. So the Property Law Act: one advantage of sitting through the submissions is that you get a feel for New Zealanders and how they're being impacted and I can't help but be moved by one particular submitter who had an Airbnb in downtown Auckland and who was looking at losing his house. He was on a personal guarantee. He had sought relief from his landlord. Not only had he not received that relief he had actually had a rent rise imposed on him. And for any member of this House who had the opportunity to hear from that member of the public they could hardly help but be moved and would understand just what the intent of this bill is. All it will mean is that the landlord must enter into negotiations with that tenant and that there will be available to them some form of arbitration and that's really all it does. This is a very humane piece of legislation because most landlords have behaved very well but like with most legislation that we look at in this House it is designed for those who ignore it—those who need to be legislated just to be humane. So I have no hesitation in recommending and commending that particular part of the bill and the rest of the legislation to this House. Thank you Madam Speaker.
Utikere TangiTANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Fakaalofa lahi atu Madam Speaker. It's a pleasure to take a call on this bill and to follow the next mayor of Tauranga City in that sense. I think that's part of the reason as to why he is so keen to see an alternative view with a local election just around the corner in the city that he so much loves.I just want to reflect on a couple of contributions from Mr Seymour. I want to thank him for outlining that this is in fact an omnibus bill. My analysis of the bill indicated that but I want to thank him for his confirmation in that space. Secondly it's also no wonder that he was not able to recall the name as he said of the new Labour member who suggested that this was a policy decision that was concocted in the Koru Club because it came from Mr Bishop rather than actually any member on this particular side of the House.When we look at this bill essentially it is seeking to extend some statutory time frames and also allow some flexibility in terms of regulations as well. While I'm not a member of the Finance and Expenditure Committee that looked at this the select committee's report is a very good one. It clearly articulates the various issues and contributions that were made as part of that process. So I want to thank the select committee for looking at what is a very broad opportunity in terms of some of the issues that were raised.I want to very briefly touch on the proposals as they relate to the local government sector. I actually agree with the Hon Julie Anne Genter in that the fact that both Local Government New Zealand and Taituarā previously known as SOLGM—the NZ Society of Local Government Managers—have lent their support to this indicates that there is an independent lens that suggests that this is the right thing to do in a context-dependent environment. So it's pleasing to see that they have effectively lent their support to this and on that basis I commend this bill to the House.
Leary IngridINGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): Fakaalofa atu Madam Speaker. I'd just like to pick up on a couple of points relating to retrospectivity and sanctity of contract referred to by the members Chris Bishop and David Seymour and also the alleged transfer of responsibility from Government to business alleged by Andrew Bayly. There was a lot of discussion actually about retrospectivity. The lawyers of us who sat in the Finance and Expenditure Committee are well aware of the sanctity of contract but sanctity of contract is not absolute and the courts historically have intervened in cases where there is a need to balance between freedom of contract and social duty. That happened in the 1940s when good faith and conscionability came into play. It happens in marriage contracts; I don't think anyone would dispute that. And it happens where there is material unfairness and extraordinary circumstances.Nobody can dispute that COVID is extraordinary because what it has done is it has made businesses legally unable to operate. That is extraordinary. It was not envisaged. It would not have been envisaged by many of those signing contracts. If it was they would have opted to contract out specifically as some did with the Auckland District Law Society clause. But for many many of them they didn't and that is why we need this clause why we need this amendment to the Property Law Act 2007. The question actually is: how retrospective should it be? Should it go back to the introduction of the bill? Or actually should it go back to the beginning of lockdown? There was some discussion about that as well with many submitters saying that the legislation the omnibus bill would be a toothless tiger in this respect if it didn't go back. I now refer to what Andrew Bayly spoke about which was the peak body for retail Retail New Zealand. It has 27000 members 95 percent of whom employ less than 20 staff. He was saying that there was a transfer of responsibility from Government to business. But what he failed to say is that 70 percent of their members have sought rent relief and 50 percent of those are in dispute with their landlords. It's my contention that if this bill was legislated already they would have that relief and that cash flow that they need to do business. If we look at the impact of what will happen when this goes through it is that the fair players will actually have nothing to worry about. So the legislation only captures those who have not been playing fairly. That is the intention of this bill. It is to create fairness in unprecedented circumstances in circumstances that weren't envisaged at the time contracts were entered into. So for that reason I commend this bill to the House. I think this is a great piece of legislation to be able to provide more fairness and certainty and also more economic stability for our business sector.
Lorck AnnaANNA LORCK (Labour—Tukituki): I rise to speak on the COVID-19 Response (Management Measures) Legislation Bill and I'll pick up on what the other side of the House said in talking about the Local Government Act. An example that I can use is that during the recent lockdown Hawke's Bay Regional Council had a by-election that was to be undertaken during this time and because of that it had to extend its election time to enable people to be able to vote to be able to legally post their ballot papers and of course to enable the people that were standing for election to be given the opportunity to campaign which is quite difficult during the level 3 restrictions that were faced in Hawke's Bay at the time. So this bill looks to enable the extension of elections beyond a six-week by six-week date. I think it's important to stand in this House and say that there is absolutely no intention on this side of the House to delay local government elections. It is to enable elections to take place to enable voters to have their democratic election process and to ensure candidates are elected fairly. On that I would like to congratulate our new regional councillor Jacqueline Taylor on her election. Thank you Mr Speaker.
Edmonds BarbaraBARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana): Thank you Madam Speaker. It's a privilege to be able to talk on this bill particularly because I was a member of the Finance and Expenditure Committee that scrutinised the bill and listened to the numerous submissions that had come through over that two-week period. And as Chris Bishop the previous member who has just sat down says: it's anecdotal—well clearly he was not in the submission hearing period where you had business after business after business say It's not anecdotal. Our business is being affected because our landlord is not willing to give us a fair proportion of rent reduction." That is not Koru lounge discussion; those are actual businesses on the ground in New Zealand who are coming to the select committee saying "We support this."What that member also fails to recognise is the bill has a gate; the gate is that if you have this clause you don't need this implied clause. There was no reference to that by the previous member in his conversation and that's why when the committee reviewed those particular rent relief provisions we thought about the retrospectivity aspect of it and there were a number of submitters who said to us—including Retail New Zealand including hospitality the association—"It needs to be retrospective back to when lockdown was actually announced." So that's why the Labour and the Green members in our report back for this committee report have asked the Minister to give it serious consideration. This is not Koru lounge discussions. These are actual businesses small business—businesses like Acquisitions across the country businesses like Butlers Chocolate across the country—who are asking us as parliamentarians to give them some relief.So that member also said we've given them no relief we should try and give them some other sort of relief—$4.4 billion of relief has gone through the wage subsidy and the COVID resurgence payment. That's all I'm going to say on this particular aspect of the bill because I think it speaks for itself. Had that member been a member of the committee and sat through the hours and sat through with those submitters he'd understand that there is pain on the ground by those businesses. They've asked us for help; they're looking for retrospectivity. So I look forward to the Minister coming back to the House with a Supplementary Order Paper on that point."
Motions — Sir David Amess—Death
Obituaries — Hon Sir Michael Cullen KNZM Taito Phillip Field Jenny Kirk MNZM John Murry Rose QSM
Hipkins ChrisSTANDING ORDERSSessionalHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I move That the following rule be adopted and come into effect on 28 October 2021:Time for presentation of secondary legislationFor the purposes of section 114 of the Legislation Act 2019 the relevant Minister must present secondary legislation to the House within 16 sitting days after the day on which the secondary legislation is made.Motion agreed to.
Hipkins ChrisSITTINGS OF THE HOUSEHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): Thank you Mr Speaker. I move—Hon Member: Slowly!Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Slowly! I move That the sitting of the House today be extended into tomorrow morning for the committee stages of the Financial Sector (Climate-related Disclosures and Other Matters) Amendment Bill and the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) Legislation Bill; the second readings of the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Amendment Bill and the Films Videos and Publications Classification (Urgent Interim Classification of Publications and Prevention of Online Harm) Amendment Bill; the first readings and referral to select committee of the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill and the Digital Identity Services Trust Framework Bill; and the second readings of the Education and Training (Teaching Council Fees and Costs) Amendment Bill the Education and Training Amendment Bill the Commerce Amendment Bill the Crown Pastoral Land Reform Bill the Organic Products Bill and the Financial Markets (Conduct of Institutions) Amendment Bill.
Collins JudithHon JUDITH COLLINS (Leader of the Opposition): Thank you Mr Speaker. I move That this House express its sympathy to the family friends and colleagues of British member of Parliament Sir David Amess who was attacked and killed as he went about his duties as a local MP on 15 October and to pass its condolences to the Westminster Parliament.Motion agreed to.
Hipkins ChrisSir David AmessHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I seek leave for a motion without notice or debate to be moved on the murder of British MP Sir David Amess.SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that process being followed? There appears to be none.
Mallard TrevorSPEAKER: Thank you members. I further regret to inform the House of the death on 5 August 2021 of John Murray Rose QSM who represented the Otago Central electorate between 1969 and 1972.I also regret to inform the House of the death on 23 September 2021 of Taito Phillip Field who represented the Ōtara electorate between 1993 and 1996 and the electorate of Māngere between 1996 and 2008. He was New Zealand's first member of Parliament who was of Pacific Island descent. Taito Phillip Field was the Minister of State Associate Minister of Justice Associate Minister of Pacific Island Affairs and Associate Minister of Social Development and Employment from 2003 to 2005. He was awarded the 1990 Commemoration Medal for services to the community.I also regret to inform the House of the death on 30 September 2021 of Jenny Kirk MNZM who represented the Birkenhead electorate between 1987 and 1990. She was awarded the New Zealand Suffrage Centennial Medal in 1993. I desire on behalf of this House to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the late former members. I now ask members to stand with me and observe a period of silence as a mark of respect to their memories.Members stood as a mark of respect.
Mallard TrevorOBITUARIESHon Sir Michael Cullen KNZMTaito Phillip FieldJenny Kirk MNZMJohn Murray Rose QSMSPEAKER: Members I regret to inform the House of the death on 19 August 2021 of the Hon Sir Michael Cullen KNZM who represented the electorates of St Kilda and Dunedin South between 1981 and 1999 and continued to serve as a list member until 2009. Sir Michael was Deputy Prime Minister from 2002 to 2008. During his membership of this House he held a number of ministerial positions including Minister of Social Welfare Minister of Finance Minister in Charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations Minister of Tertiary Education Attorney-General as well as Leader of the House. I desire on behalf of this House to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the late former member. I now ask members to stand with me and observe a period of silence as a mark of respect to his memory.Members stood as a mark of respect.
Rurawhe AdrianTUESDAY 19 OCTOBER 2021The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.KARAKIA/PRAYERSADRIAN RURAWHE (Deputy Speaker): Ā kāti rā kia tau anō te rangimārie. Kia inoi tātou. E te Atua kaha rawa ka tuku whakamoemiti atu mātou mō ngā karakia kua waihotia mai ki runga i a mātou. Ka waiho i ō mātou pānga whaiaro katoa ki te taha. Ka mihi mātou ki te Kuīni me te inoi atu mō te ārahitanga i roto i ō mātou whakaaroarohanga kia mōhio ai kia whakaiti ai tā mātou whakahaere i ngā take o te Whare nei mō te oranga te maungārongo me te aroha o Aotearoa. Amene.[And so may peace be with us. Let us pray. Almighty God we give thanks for the blessings which have been bestowed on us. Laying aside all personal interests we acknowledge the Queen and pray for guidance in our deliberations that we may conduct the affairs of this House with wisdom and humility for the welfare peace and compassion of New Zealand. Amen.]
Deposit Takers Bill — In Committee—Schedules 1 to 3
Thursday 19 May 2022 - Volume 759
Taxation (Cost of Living Payments) Bill — In Committee—Part 1
VoteCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March's tabled amendment to clause 4 replacing subclause (2) to amend the definition of a cost of living payments scheme be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 12Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Noes 107New Zealand Labour 65; New Zealand National 32; ACT New Zealand 10.Amendment not agreed toCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Members will be silent during the vote. [Interruption] Right that member will stand withdraw and apologise.SIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): I withdraw and apologise.A party vote was called for on the question That Part 1 be agreed to.Ayes 67New Zealand Labour 65; Te Paati Māori 2.Noes 42New Zealand National 32; ACT New Zealand 10.Abstentions 10Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Part 1 agreed to.The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 77 Noes 42 Abstentions 10.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the question be now put.Ayes 67New Zealand Labour 65; Te Paati Māori 2. Noes 42New Zealand National 32; ACT New Zealand 10.Abstentions 10Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Motion agreed to.The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 77 Noes 42 Abstentions 10.
Taxation (Cost of Living Payments) Bill — Second Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Taxation (Cost of Living Payments) Bill be now read a second time. Ayes 67New Zealand Labour 65; Te Paati Māori 2.Noes 42New Zealand National 32. ACT New Zealand 10.Abstentions 10Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Motion agreed to.Bill read a second time.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): This bill is set down for committee stage forthwith. I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Taxation (Cost of Living Payments) Bill.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Taxation (Cost of Living Payments) Bill be now read a first time.Ayes 65New Zealand Labour 65.Noes 42New Zealand National 32; ACT New Zealand 10.Abstentions 10Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Motion agreed to.Bill read a first time.
Taxation (Cost of Living Payments) Bill — First Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That urgency be accorded.Ayes 75New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Noes 42New Zealand National 32; ACT New Zealand 10.Motion agreed to.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the motion be agreed to.Ayes 75New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Noes 44New Zealand National 32; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Motion agreed to.Debate interrupted.
Taxation (Cost of Living Payments) Bill — In Committee—Part 2
Dean JacquiA party vote was called for on the question That Part 2 stand part.Ayes 67New Zealand Labour 65; Te Paati Māori 2.Noes 42New Zealand National 32; ACT New Zealand 10.Abstentions 10Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10Part 2 agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members the time has come for me to leave the Chair. The House will resume at 9 a.m. in the morning. Good evening.Sitting suspended from 9.56 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Friday)
Edmonds Barbara; Dean JacquiBARBARA EDMONDS (Associate Whip—Labour): I move That the question be now put.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that Part 2 stand part—sorry; a bit of late-night confusion. I was putting the question; so I will continue putting the question. The question is that Part 2 stand part.
Court Simon; Parker DavidSIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you Madam Chair. So would the Minister care to explain in terms of Part 2 clause 8(cb): a payment under the cost of living payments scheme as defined in section 3(1) of the Tax Administration Act 1994:" which he described as not being subject to taxation for those who receive it does not have a tax implication for all New Zealanders who will have to pay back the debt that this Government has incurred the debt that the COVID-19 response fund represents which the Minister has called on to use not to save New Zealand from COVID-19 not to protect us from COVID-19 coming across the border or to make sure that freight and logistics can move stuff in and out of the country—would the Minister care to explain how while taxpayers who receive this payment are not required to pay tax in fact they don't have any future tax obligation to pay for this one-off payment? Minister could you please explain that in terms of Part 2 of the bill? Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Revenue): The clause is very clear. It means what it says which is that the payment when received by someone is not taxable."
Parker DavidHon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Revenue): It might assist the House if I explain this short part. It has two provisions. One is to say that the cost of living payment when received is tax-exempt; so there's no tax charged on the payment received. That's clause 8 of the bill. And then clause 9 says that it doesn't affect other payments like Working for Families.
Dean JacquiPart 2 Amendments to Income Tax Act 2007CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members we come now to Part 2. This is the debate on Clauses 7 to 9 Amendments to Income Tax Act 2007". The question is that Part 2 stand part."
Smith DamienDAMIEN SMITH (ACT): Thank you Madam Speaker. I listened with interest to the Minister's response in terms of how this figure was ascertained and it was explained that it was the difference between wage increases and inflation and we just settled on a figure. When I asked Treasury today how they defined lower and middle income wage earners they did not have an answer for me. It's not in the appendix of any of the documents I've read today. So I ask the question again: was any modelling done to say this would be 250 350 450? And is there any sensitivity analysis about how you've linked this to the cost of living scenario that people are facing out there?Secondly the question again is: was it appropriate to appropriate the $1 billion from the COVID fund when COVID hasn't been totally wound down to this programme as it's a cost of living crisis programme not a COVID fund programme?Hon David Parker: Madam Speaker.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The Hon David Parker.Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Revenue): Madam Chair" I should have said; sorry about that. As to the appropriateness of deciding that it was timely to bring back some of the COVID recovery fund payment into the core and use some of it we thought it appropriate.In respect of the issue as to the wage threshold or the $70000 threshold that was based on the average wage being around $65000 and we thought that that was slightly above that. It was an appropriate cut-off point."
McKelvie Ian; Parker DavidIAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): Madam Chair thank you. I've listened to this debate from the start with particular interest and it occurred to me that there's a sector of our community that has been left out of all the Government initiatives that have taken place since COVID began. Those are the people I can easily relate to—although I don't claim to need the payment—and they are our superannuitants. If we look at what's happened to our superannuitants since COVID began they've effectively been protected but in a lot of ways that protection hasn't helped their cause from a mental perspective or a financial perspective. And the interesting thing about the financial perspective is that that one sector of our community other than their normal increase or annual adjustment—I suppose you'd call it an inflation adjustment—have had no particular attention paid to them at all by this Government in the form of increased payments of any sort. The winter energy payment came in some four years ago and was welcomed by those who didn't opt out of it. Some opted out it—and it's an odd way to do something isn't it when people opt out rather than opt in. I'll get to my question in a minute but if you look at the average income of a couple on superannuation Government superannuation it's not going to amount to anywhere near $40000 including the winter energy payment. Yet here we are making a payment to people on an income of less than $70000 but we haven't included our superannuitants in this payment. My question to the Minister is: why have we not considered them? I understand the issue with respect to means testing—we don't do means testing in New Zealand but I understand the issue that you could raise with respect to this. But there are a lot of superannuitants the vast majority of superannuitants in fact who live on that $35000 to $40000 a year. Why weren't they considered for a payment as part of this bill?Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Revenue): Because the annual adjustment of superannuation is the higher of inflation or wage increases. So if we look back in recent years—and again the table on page 158 the economic indicators records that in recent years—and I'll just go back to say 2018. In that year average wages increased 2.8 percent inflation increased at 1.5 percent so the increase of super was well ahead of inflation that year. The following year inflation was 1.7 and average wages increased 4 percent. Again superannuitants would have had an increase based on wages which would have been ahead of inflation. Similarly in 2020 their increase would have been based on the wage increase of 3 percent relative to inflation of 1.5 percent. Last year it was closer: 4 percent wage increase still ahead of 4.3. This year inflation is forecast to be higher than wage growth and therefore superannuitants will get the higher of those two figures: the inflation figure of 6.7. So they're not in the same position as low to medium income wage earners in respect of the cost of living pressures. That is not to say that they do not face cost of living pressures—they do but the situation is slightly different.
McLellan Tracey; Dean JacquiDr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour—Banks Peninsula): I move That the question be now put.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): I still have a number of members who are seeking the call in this Part 1 of this committee stage. I'm very mindful that this debate is in the context of a committee stage under urgency. The matters in this bill are substantial and the contributions thus far are relevant and I don't believe I'm quite ready to take that call. Thank you very much.
Doocey Matt; Parker DavidMATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): Thank you very much Madam Chair. Excellent choice.I just wanted to spend just a brief time if I can to ask the Minister a bit more about the cost of this scheme. So it is said in the paperwork if I'm correct $16 million but then there is the reference to needing the full-time equivalents (FTEs) for 750 and there is a reference or a statement in there that Inland Revenue (IR) has sought funding. So I'm just getting some clarity: is the $16 million excluding the 750 FTEs or is it inclusive of that $16 million? And when it says that IR has sought funding how much funding has it sought and then I suppose what would be the outcome if the funding was denied? Does that mean there wouldn't be anyone to administer the programme? So it would be helpful to understand the true cost of what the $16 million is and how much on top of that may be paying for the 750 FTE which does seem a lot considering we do know the bureaucracy has grown by 10000 under this Government—so you would argue there's probably someone with a bit of time around the beltway. So it would be helpful for us to understand the overall figure a bit more.Just coming back to an original question where I asked the Minister about the exclusion of under-18s I respect his comment that that is the floor I suppose or the minimum age but I would just ask if he could tell the committee the reason why they've decided to keep it at 18 and not take it down to 17 or 16.Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Revenue): In respect of the question as to administrative costs the member is correct that the total is $16 million. Of that $2 million is being funded by the department out of baselines. Therefore there is $14 million additional. That $14 million funds the additional costs that the ministry will face through the taking on for example of the temporary staff. And it also includes a component for the ministry to catch up on some of the work that may be delayed as a consequence of this programme.
Menéndez March Ricardo; Parker David; Dean JacquiRICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you Madam Chair. Just backtracking to the answer from the Minister regarding the exclusion of people on the benefit.The Minister was drawing on I guess the fact that people on the benefit already receive the winter energy payment and I've heard arguments around the fact that there's other lifts to incomes for people on a benefit. But I was wondering if as part of the analysis of creating and designing this bill and the intent of this bill the Minister sought any information around shortfalls that people on a main benefit have when it comes to meeting the cost of living. I know that there was no external consultation but we do have research that does show that people on the benefit have pretty significant shortfalls when it comes to making ends meet.I'm interested to know whether he believes that the winter energy payment allows low-income people to genuinely meet the cost of living and if he believes that's why they were excluded—because the evidence tells us otherwise—and if so I simply do not understand how the fact that people on very low incomes who may get a top up but yet somehow are still struggling to survive are excluded from this payment that while modest will make a difference. For people on a main benefit it is the difference between often surviving like being able to keep a rental. For people on closer to $70k a year it's a much different impact having an extra $350.So if we're genuinely concerned about the wellbeing of low income people I just want to know what analysis was done around the ability for low-income people on a main benefit or people under 18 to actually be able to meet the cost of living.Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Revenue): The analysis by Cabinet included the other measures in the Budget for beneficiaries people on main benefits including the pass through of child support payments and the extension of longer-term public transport subsidies for those on the community services card.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Matt Doocey.
Smith Damien; Parker DavidDAMIEN SMITH (ACT): Thank you Madam Chair. To the Minister was any modelling conducted to assess the dollar per day per person rate for this cost of living payment subject to taking into consideration inflation? Does the Minister agree with Treasury? It warns that after this Budget the tax increases or spending cuts pressures are inevitable. And will the management of this system by the IRD blow out the key performance indicators that I understand the IRD have from my observation of them on the Finance and Expenditure Committee?Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Revenue): Dealing with a question first from a prior questioner in respect of—a farmer I think was the example given by the member from the West Coast. The last date for applications from people who were—not applications. The last date when eligibility will be determined will be in March 2023. For people to be eligible by then they will have had to have filed their tax return for the year ended 31 March 2022. If they haven't and they are late by that amount of time then they will be too late to get the payment. In respect of the ACT member's question as to whether this will affect delivery of other services by Inland Revenue they will be juggling between their different priorities as they have often had to do during COVID periods and they will use their judgment as to the prioritisation they give to their different functions. I'm expecting that their core functions will by and large remain unaltered but there will be some reprioritisation. I am aware for example that they have put aside some of the compliance work they were planning early on in respect of the brightline test that was introduced by the previous Government and extended by us and that has already been delayed because of priorities for other work like administering COVID support payments. Those sorts of trade-offs have to be made within departments and will continue to be made over the coming years.
Doocey Matt; Parker DavidMATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): Thank you very much Madam Chair. I think that was a very good choice personally.Look I'm sure you'll agree that without having the select committee stage there would have been a number of questions we would have liked to have asked the advisors so I'm hoping I can take an exploratory route into some of the key areas especially that are coming up in this first stage with the supplementary analysis. I think I want to take the opportunity with the Minister for Youth in the Chamber as well to understand what discussions went on about why under-18s who are living independently and working were excluded from this payment. I'm sure the Minister for Youth would have advocated for them to be included so it would be interesting to work out why that was not agreed with because of course there will be a number of young people under 18 who will be in the position where quite rightly they should be entitled but they're 16 or 17 and maybe not 18. Looking at some of the advice in this document it does say inflation has risen over the past year and is expected to be widespread and to persist in the future. This makes a one-off payment a poor mechanism for supporting households with a longer-term problem. So I'd be interested to hear from the Minister why they are pursuing against the advice. There's an interesting comment under the executive summary where it talks about other Government priorities that could be pursued using the funding for this payment—for example initiatives that more directly impact on the interim child poverty targets. So again that would be interesting just to hear a bit more about the conversations behind that of why they didn't pursue something that maybe was more targeted and linked in to child poverty targets as well. As has been referenced in previous discussion but just to hear from this Minister why it was continued with the Inland Revenue as the delivery agency considering they weren't that interested in doing that. And if I may the final comment is under Limitations and constraints of analysis". It says "There is a risk that significant issues with the resulting proposal have not been identified." And this is to do with the compressed time lines. It would be interesting to hear from the Minister about how he's going to mitigate those significant issues so we don't have any problems with implementation.Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Revenue): It is a deliberate design of the scheme to have it for people who are 18 or over and not younger and we're not proposing to change that. I don't know if the member has a tabled amendment to that effect but if he did have it we would oppose it. In respect of the issues as to whether there are outstanding issues that are unforeseen that's always possible as was outlined in the document that the member quoted from but we're confident that there are no major issues that we've overlooked."
O'Connor Simon; Parker DavidSIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Thank you Madam Chair. Always a welcome chance to take one's mask off. Let's see what happens from here shall we?A couple of questions for the Minister. I'm interested actually to pick up on a question of Chris Bishop's from earlier on. I'm wondering whether the Minister in the chair has spoken to the Minister for the Environment to understand how many more trees have had to be culled tonight in order to provide paper-only copies when we could have—people like myself; I'd love to have gone online—I'd love to know if he's had a conversation with that Minister and in particular what the Minister for the Environment said to the Minister in the chair.Secondly I'd be really interested—and it's always to do with Part 1 but it's in the policy background. He notes to get this payment you are not to be incarcerated". Always really useful. The only problem what does "not incarcerated" mean? I'm not actually trying to be stupid. There's multiple elements to this. Does that include people in remand? Is that people who are sentenced? Does that include or exclude people who are on electronic bail or people who have been bailed?Finally I'd like to know: it's not quite a constituent but a Donna Summer has written and she says she works hard for her money—she says once again she works hard for her money. And does he believe that he's treating her right?Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Revenue): I'm not going to respond to that last flippant remark. In respect of the question is did I ask the Minister information about the number of trees? No that would have been a stupid question because it's obvious the answer is zero. I didn't need to ask the Minister for the Environment.In respect of the question which is a proper question about what does "incarcerated" mean it means people who are in custody. That could be someone who is on remand in custody. If they're not in custody on remand then they wouldn't be included in the incarcerated. If they're in prison yes; if they're on home detention no.Chris Bishop: That's going to be easy to work out.Hon DAVID PARKER: Well that information is already shared by Corrections with Inland Revenue."
Menéndez March Ricardo; Parker DavidRICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you Madam Chair. So my questions to the Minister arise from the intent of the bill as laid out in the general policy statement as well as some of the speeches we've heard from Labour Party MPs. It has to do around the intent of providing relief for people facing cost of living pressures and specifically the mention of eligible low-income individuals. It's clear that the bill doesn't set clear criteria about who this bill is supposed to get the $350 and that's going to sort of be decided outside of the bill. But it is clear to me reading the explanatory note in the bill that the Government intends to exclude people on the benefit as they already receive the winter energy payment. What I want to understand is: does the Minister believe that people on the benefit are not facing cost of living pressures? Despite the increases to benefit they continue facing those cost of living pressures. I'm also thinking about under-18s who may be in paid employment. The way that the explanatory note is set out in the intent of the bill seems to be to exclude under-18s who may be doing paid work. So I want to understand what the Minister's intent is regarding (a) the exclusion of people on main benefits the exclusion of under-18-year-olds who may be doing paid work and what the reasoning was to aim to exclude those groups. Does he not think that they're facing cost of living pressures and whether broadening perhaps the intent of the bill to include them would support more New Zealanders as spoken about by many of his colleagues? So this is why we've put a tabled amendment around making it really clear that this bill should actually be including people on main benefits and also people who may be superannuitants who may be struggling. I want to note as well that many of our over-65s who may be in rentals are facing massive cost of living pressures and those pressures exist despite the winter energy payment. So is it his intent to exclude those people and why?Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Revenue): Yes that is the design of the scheme. The view of the Government is that this was properly targeted to those that aren't on benefits. The member will be aware that in addition to inflationary increases of adjustments to benefits there have been increases to benefits a number of times under this Government. At this time of year also those people are entitled to the winter energy payment. This is struck on the basis of half the rate of the winter energy payment for a couple and is directed to those people who don't get it. As a consequence we won't be voting for the member's tabled amendment in respect of a bill in which they're abstaining.
Bishop ChrisCHRIS BISHOP (National): Well thank you very much Madam Chair. I've got another question but I want to return to the point I made before which is—it's sort of neither here nor there whether the material was supplied to the Bills Office. The point is the bill—which as I say we got a copy of at 4.30 p.m. If you watch the video you can see the Minister move the urgency motion and the Clerk came in and put the bills down and we all went and raced to see it because you know we had literally six minutes to read it. I'm not making a point about that because successive Governments have done that since time immemorial and it would be churlish to complain about it. But I just make the simple point that the bill explanatory note—[Interruption] What's that? Hon David Parker: You are whinging about it.CHRIS BISHOP: No I'm not. I'm whinging about the fact that I don't think it's unreasonable as a Parliament—Hon Members: He's whinging. CHRIS BISHOP: Well OK. Well this is a serious point—members might want to laugh but this is a serious point. It is not unreasonable as a parliamentarian to expect that when you read an explanatory note of a bill which you have seven minutes to read that if you go to the websites that the bill directs you to the things that are meant to be on the website that the bill says are on the website are there. That is a simple proposition; it's not unreasonable and I just make that point. I won't belabour the point any more but I hope the Minister takes it on board because it's poor decision-making and poor policy-making. The question I wanted to ask was—this basically defers the decisions as to eligibility to the Commissioner of IRD. And it's a simple question which is: what if the commissioner decides that the eligibility threshold's not 70000 or below? It's Government policy that it be that but what if it's not what the commissioner decides? So how does that work? Because this is a highly unusual way of implementing a Government policy-making decision. There may be a simple answer to that and it may be that I've just overlooked it but I'd just welcome the Minister's guidance on that.Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Revenue): In respect of the timing of that document that the member wanted to see on the web not being available on the web—I hear his complaint. It has been tabled on the floor of the House the whole time so it was available to members in the House. And I suspect that the reason why the exact timing doesn't line up on the web compared with in the House is that the department would not have wanted to put it up early accidentally and break the Budget—Chris Bishop: It's still not online now—it's still not online now.Hon DAVID PARKER: Well that is of no moment to the member because he's got the physical copy that he's read—Chris Bishop: What about people watching? What about the public?Hon DAVID PARKER: Well actually they're not debating the bill. [Slamming sound] Oh literally throwing his toys there! In respect of the idea that the commissioner might somehow change the criteria the commissioner has no such discretion. These things are set by the Government.
Watts Simon; Parker DavidSIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Madam Chair thank you very much for the opportunity to take a call in regards to this bill. I know my colleague Chris Bishop is no doubt going to come back and ask a few more questions in regard to the point that was just raised. I want to ask some questions and I actually have a series of 10 or so questions so I'll take your advice the way in which we do that. I'm referring to new section 7AAA Administration of the cost of living payment scheme" inserted by clause 5. My question relates to subsection (3) which specifies that "The commissioner must publish on an internet site … the eligibility requirements". My question to the Minister is: when can taxpayers expect to see that information published. So that's the first question and I'll go on for a couple more and then we'll go from there.The second element is in regards to the explanatory note of the bill. The explanatory note contains the term "main eligibility criteria." So my question to the Minister is: what else is missing? "Main eligibility criteria" implies that there are elements outside of that. So my question quite simply is: what else is missing from that?For this series I'll finish off on this last question: can the Minister confirm that the income amount is $70000 or less? In the Budget speech that the Minister of Finance gave today he said that this payment will be available to people aged 18 and over who earn below $70000 per annum based on last year's tax data and who are not eligible for the winter energy payment.I want to note—and members may think this is quite a small detail but it goes along with the theme that it is our belief based on the information we've got in front of us that this bill has been pulled together at late notice and on the hoof. So I ask again: who is qualified to get this payment? Is it those on an income amount of $70000 or less or is it as the finance Minister quoted today below $70000? I'll leave it at that series of questions.Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Revenue): I'm advised that the criteria will be published shortly after enactment—so very close to enactment. On the question as to what's left what's left is minor administrative detail and the example that officials have given me is that what might be the date that's chosen for assessing whether someone is a resident or not for tax purposes to qualify or what might be the way administratively they choose to define when someone's going on or off benefit. It is that level of administrative detail rather than the level of the payments."
Parker DavidHon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Revenue): In respect of Chris Bishop's question about the time of tabling of the disclosure statement I'm advised that the documents were provided to the Bills Office—Bills Office or the Clerk—yesterday and that there's been no attempt to delay the tabling of that document on the floor. So it wasn't because it wasn't provided late by the department.