edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
11. Question No. 11—RevenueNANCY LU (National) to the Minister of RevenueQuestion No. 11—Revenue11. NANCY LU (National) to the Minister of Revenue: What announcement has the Minister made on the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2023-24 Multinational Tax and Remedial Matters) Bill?Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Revenue): Thank you very much Mr Speaker. Last week I announced with the Minister of Finance that the coalition Government would be introducing an Amendment Paper to the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2023-24 Multinational Tax and Remedial Matters) Bill. The Amendment Paper enacts several changes to the tax system to keep good on our coalition commitments to ensure New Zealanders can keep more of what they earn. These changes include restoring interest deductibility for residential investment properties and reducing the brightline test from 10 years to two.Nancy Lu: What other changes are included in the Government's Amendment Paper?Hon SIMON WATTS: The Amendment Paper closes a loophole that enables offshore online casinos to pay less tax than New Zealand operators. Currently the only tax that applies to offshore online casinos is GST where casinos in New Zealand are facing much higher taxes. From 1 July offshore operators will be required to pay a gambling duty of 12 percent on gross betting revenue therefore closing this loophole.Nancy Lu: When will the other changes come into force?Hon SIMON WATTS: Changes to the brightline test will come into force from 1 July 2024 alongside the gambling duty changes. Interest deductibility will be restored in stages with 80 percent of a deduction allowed from 1 April 2024 and 100 percent from 1 April 2025.Nancy Lu: Has the Minister seen any reports on the bill's treatment of trust tax?Hon SIMON WATTS: Yes. Originally the bill required many lower-income trusts to pay the top tax rate of 39c in the dollar. However I'm pleased to see that the Finance and Expenditure Committee accepted the Government's advice for a $10000 trustee income de minimis to be introduced. This means that around 87 percent of all trusts in New Zealand are unlikely to be impacted by the change to the top tax rate. This is a sensible and pragmatic change and I thank the committee for their work.Chlöe Swarbrick: Why is his Government prioritising a $2.9 billion tax cut for landlords over other election promises that would have helped middle-income families and cost less from Crown accounts like raising the Working for Families abatement threshold?Hon SIMON WATTS: What is a priority for this Government is actually delivering on our coalition agreement and putting downward pressure on rent and this is what these changes will do.
10. Question No. 10—Prime MinisterDEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori) to the Prime MinisterQuestion No. 10—Prime Minister10. DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his Government's policies and actions?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes.Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: What is his response to the Mana Mokopuna report commissioned by the Ministry of Justice and the National Iwi Chairs Forum and the rangatahi surveyed called for harsher consequences for racism?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The Government's position and my position as the Prime Minister is that I agree with that entirely. When people are racist they should be called out for doing it because it's a disaster for democracy. And you know what it looks like and it means don't you?Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Point of order Mr Speaker. Can I please seek clarity on what the last comment from the Prime Minister meant when he said I know what it looks like"? From my perspective I didn't understand that they're allowed to ask me questions or answer questions with a question.SPEAKER: Sorry it's not appropriate to go that way. Ask another question or ask the question again.Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: What does he see is his role in combating increased racism being experienced by rangatahi according to the Mana Mokopuna report?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well the most critical thing that's involved in terms of combating racism is to point out the fallacy and the deceit and the lie of one people being superior in their DNA to another.Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Point of order Mr Speaker. I'd like to bring in Speakers' rulings 59/2 59/4 and 121—the personal reflections. Distasteful and disorderly as far as not addressing the real issue here which is our mokopuna wanting to see a Government that addresses racism not to hear from a Prime Minister who believes that it is his role to tell the person asking the question what a racist is. I don't think that's what the mokopuna in this report were seeking. If we can just say focused as the Prime Minister said and keep the decorum to the kaupapa.SPEAKER: Stay on the point OK? So your point essentially—well the point you quote is not something I can rule favourably on. The Prime Minister in this case answered the question.Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Point of order. The personal reflection is about a reference that was neither made from this person asking the question or this party and that is the point that I'm making.SPEAKER: I know that. But my point to you is that he did not make a personal reflection; he made a statement in an answer and that's what the Hansard will show.Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Does the Prime Minister agree that education-based solutions are key to combating the increase of racism being experienced by rangatahi at school and if so what is his Government doing to improve education in this space?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: It is the Government's position that education and every other utility should be used to combat racism in our society and we're going to go to the ends of the earth to ensure that that happens."
8. Question No. 8—CourtsTODD STEPHENSON (ACT) to the Minister for CourtsQuestion No. 8—Courts8. TODD STEPHENSON (ACT) to the Minister for Courts: What recent policy statements has she made?Hon NICOLE McKEE (Minister for Courts): I recently announced the introduction of the Courts (Remote Participation) Amendment Bill to Parliament contributing to the Government's 100-day commitment to enable more virtual participation in court proceedings. This bill enables the use of audiovisual link technology which proved invaluable during the COVID-19 pandemic to support access to justice and a safer option to attend court for victims.Todd Stephenson: Will introducing audiovisual-link courts contribute to more efficient court proceedings?Hon NICOLE McKEE: Yes. Enabling audiovisual-link technology in court proceedings offers increased efficiency by providing flexibility in how parties participate. This flexibility may reduce the time and cost associated with attending court in person including travel expenses and transport security costs.Todd Stephenson: Will the introduction of audiovisual in court support victims?Hon NICOLE McKEE: Yes. The use of audiovisual links in our courts will enable victims of crime to remotely observe criminal trials if suitable technology is available and remote viewing is deemed appropriate by a judicial officer or a court registrar. This will allow victims to avoid potential re-traumatisation and intimidation often associated with attending court in person.Todd Stephenson: What will this Government do to ensure the use of audiovisual links in New Zealand's courts is fit for purpose for the future?Hon NICOLE McKEE: Cabinet has endorsed a first-principles review of the Courts (Remote Participation) Act 2010 given the significant advancements in audiovisual-link technology since the Act was passed in 2010. This review will inform possible ways of enhancing and updating audiovisual link capabilities within our court system. The results of this review will be assessed later on this year.
6. Question No. 6—HealthHon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour) to the Minister of HealthQuestion No. 6—Health6. Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour) to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by all his statements and actions?Hon MATT DOOCEY (Associate Minister of Health) on behalf of the Minister of Health: Yes in the context in which they were given including his action of congratulating the new Minister for Mental Health on his great announcement this morning of rolling out mental health peer support workers in emergency departments.Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Why did he issue a statement on 29 November that said Labour's smoke-free changes would have resulted in an illicit market for tobacco when he had been advised that the evidence did not support that statement?Hon MATT DOOCEY: On behalf of the Minister of Health I take a range of advice and if that member had read her own regulatory impact statement from the legislation she passed in 2021 she would have seen that advice.Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Can the Minister recall that the regulatory impact statement said that the illicit market in tobacco was decreasing at a time when New Zealanders had one of the highest prices of cigarettes in the world and if so how can he justify his decision to make a statement that the smoke-free laws that Labour put in place would increase the illicit market?Hon MATT DOOCEY: On behalf of the Minister of Health I can justify that statement from the advice in her own regulatory impact statement in 2021 that said Any additional actions that will reduce the supply availability and appeal of smoked tobacco products will add to the incentives to import illicit tobacco products."Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: How is it truthful to repeatedly claim that the legislation will grow the black market when subsequent to the regulatory impact statement and before the Minister made his statement on 29 November he had been advised that there was no evidence to support that claim?Hon MATT DOOCEY: On behalf of the Minister of Health I receive a range of advice including another statement from that regulatory impact statement in 2021 that said organised syndicates were involved in illicit tobacco trade.SPEAKER: I'll just make the point that it's not appropriate in a question to infer that any member of the House is less than truthful. There is another process for that.Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Is it correct that documents reveal his office has been involved with undermining smoke-free policies while he has said to health workers this policy has nothing to do with him?Hon MATT DOOCEY: On behalf of the Minister of Health what is correct is that I've received a range of advice from many different stakeholder groups including submissions from stakeholders during the process when that bill went to select committee such as the Food and Grocery Council who submitted to the Health Committee that limiting retail could create significant additional opportunities for organised crime including gangs."
Special Debate — Petition of Claire Dale—Report of the Petitions Committee
Garcia Paulo; Brownlee GerryPAULO GARCIA (National—New Lynn): I'm lucky last. Firstly thank you to Claire Dale for her initiative and taking the time to bring this petition to the House and to the Petitions Committee—thank you for taking it through up to this point.I echo the words of the chair of the Petitions Committee honourable Greg O'Connor when he said at the start of this debate that we would all be using mobility spaces at some point some probably earlier than others in this House clearly. So I'm pleased that this is happening now.In this joy of being able to discuss this petition I am saddened actually that we are here having to discuss how best to get people who do not deserve or are not eligible to park in mobility spaces from parking in mobility spaces. We are having to enforce this requirement—it's a sad day. But the facts are there: the spaces are few they are very attractive and we want to park where we want to park and we want to be up close. But the fact is that the cost of infringement is also very low making it all the more tempting. But the object of this petition is clearly to ensure that people with disabilities have the opportunity to park where they are supposed to park. Unfortunately we have to regulate this. I commend this petition to the House.Motion agreed to.Report noted.SPEAKER: Members that concludes business as set down by the Business Committee. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday 26 March 2024.The House adjourned at 5.50 p.m.
Simpson ScottHon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you very much Mr Speaker. I too want to congratulate and thank Claire Dale who happens to be a constituent of mine in the Western Bay of Plenty part of the very beautiful Coromandel electorate and I've had the opportunity to spend time with Claire talking about her petition.I want to just acknowledge the petition process because here we are in the Parliament of New Zealand discussing and debating an issue that a citizen decided was important enough to raise to gather together signatures to present a petition to the Petitions Committee and here we are ending up debating seriously that issue. Now to me that speaks of participatory democracy in action and I think that's an important part of what we do here as legislators. And it's I hope something that will encourage others to equally petition the Parliament on issues that they think are important to them their neighbours their communities and their families.I want to—sorry Mr Speaker other participants in this debate have covered off some of the detail of Claire's petition but I particularly just want to remind the House of what was I think in essence the simplicity of her petition. The intent of her petition was simply this: to increase the fine and standardise the final penalty for using a mobility parking space no matter whether on public or private property.Now it's this distinction on what happens between private and public property that is actually quite a stumbling block when it comes to mobility parking. Because if you are a private property owner—let's say that you are a big box retailer Mitre 10 or Bunnings or Countdown or one of those sorts of organisations—the parking facilities that occur on those sites are privately owned. Yet there is no standardisation of how those private property owners should actually apply any rules at all other than maybe perhaps marking out as is required by the consenting territorial authority a number of mobility parking spaces when the supermarket or the hardware store is built. But after that there's actually no compulsion then or ability for the landowner the retailer to actually consistently and appropriately then apply any kind of rules or regulation around that private property stuff.So most of the debate today has been in relation to mobility parking that occurs in public places—parking provided by councils or that sort of thing. So this issue of consistency I know is important to Claire who is watching this debate this afternoon. I know that she would want me and others to make that point. It's as much about the fine and the actual appropriateness of the fine and the sort of discipline of having a mobility space but it's about the consistency between public parking mobility spaces and those that occur on private property as well that are often administered by big box retailers nationwide.So on that note I want to thank again Claire; I want to thank members on her behalf for participating in this debate; and to wish Claire well and to let her know that the Government response has been I think quite fulsome and will be taken seriously. Thank you Mr Speaker.
Bates CarlCARL BATES (National—Whanganui): Thank you Mr Speaker. I'd like to firstly thank the work of Claire Dale in putting this petition together and for the work of the previous Petitions Committee—and of course the work of the current Petitions Committee—as we stand here in the House today and speak on the action being taken on the recommendations out of this petition.It's pretty unfortunate and interesting to hear the focus of Labour this week on disability issues when in July 2023 the then Prime Minister Chris Hipkins said that the Government had stopped work into the parking offence review because they had other issues that had taken priority. I stand here today thinking about people like my grandfather who's a regular user of mobility parks; and my dad who had a major stroke 12 years ago struggles to walk and uses mobility parks on a regular basis; and all mobility park users. And I am excited that the Government has made a commitment to take action. The Minister of Transport will direct the Ministry of Transport to undertake a full review of parking fees and fines. This Government is a Government that will get stuff done.The Government's response also notes that the cost of parking fines is insufficient. We've heard that—that they're insufficient—so I thought I'd just take a look at what insufficiency meant in 2024. And so I took the time period 2017 to 2024—I thought that was an interesting period to look at in terms of what the value of these parking fines has essentially gone down by—and in that period which happens to be the period of the last Labour Government a $150 fine would have had to go up to $187.94 due to outrageously high inflation to have the same value. So I'm excited by the fact that this Government has made a commitment to ensure there is a good full review of parking offence costs.It's also great to see recommendation 3 which says the Government is also exploring general options for new enforcement technologies. Not only does this look to ensure the safety of the parking officers and workers who go around our cities—middle-income New Zealanders that voted overwhelmingly for a Government that would get stuff done and ensure they had tax relief as well—but we are looking after their safety at the same time as thinking about the idea of localism and rather than prescribing what these enforcement technologies could be allowing local councils and private parking spaces to adopt these technologies to ensure that there is a more immediate and reactive approach—or immediate and active I suppose approach—to ensure that people who park in these spaces get held accountable for not taking personal responsibility.It is great to see the action being taken by this Government and I have to thank as I say the Petitions Committee for their work in bringing this before the House and highlighting again for us—once again for us—that inflation kills the value of the dollar and we need to change these parking offence rates in order to keep up with that sort of hectic inflation we've had in the last six years. Thank you Mr Speaker.
Pugh MaureenCHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): My apologies for interrupting the member but the time has come to report progress.Progress to be reported.House resumed.CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Mr Speaker the committee has considered the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2023-24 Multinational Tax and Remedial Matters) Bill and reports progress. I move That the report be adopted.Motion agreed to.Report adopted.
Taxation (Annual Rates for 2023-24 Multinational Tax and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee—Part 1
Leary IngridINGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): Thank you Madam Chair. I'm really just taking note Madam Chair of the interjections and the enthusiasm of the Government members to continue this debate—it's great to see them so engaged in it and I'm really looking forward to you allowing this to be free-range. I'd like to ask three questions if I may; two of them have come from the Minister of Revenue's own comments actually. One is around capital gains. He has raised the issue of capital gains and so I'm wondering how he can reconcile the fact that landlords would be able to get interest deductibility and get the interest deductibility off the interest but then also not pay any tax on the capital gain—It would appear that it either has to be one scenario or the other—so I do hope the Minister can just tell us when he's been thinking about the fairness of the tax system how he reconciles that.
Watts SimonHon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Revenue): Well I could not but help myself to make some comments in regards to what I think was a question there around capital gains tax. It was interesting I was reflecting on the Labour Party leader's comments on 12 July 2023 when he said that with so many households struggling with the cost of living crisis now is not the time for a shake-up of the tax system and ruled out the implementation of a capital gains tax. But it seems that maybe that message hasn't got through in regards to the question that I was being posed by the member at that point.The point raised in regards to the sufficiency of revenue that the tax system derives—well as of 2022 the tax system collected just over $120 billion of tax. As many people will know there's two ways to close a gap: one is to increase revenue through taxation; the other way is to reduce expenditure. On this side of the House this coalition Government is absolutely committed to reducing wasteful spending cutting expenditure and not taxing New Zealanders more. That's the pure difference. You've seen this play out. The question just asked reinforces that not only is there fragmentation on that side of the House around what they're planning to do but actually the ideological point around how we get ahead as a country is not through taxing more; it is through growing our economy and reducing wasteful spending.
Watts SimonHon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Revenue): I'm happy to answer a few of those questions. The first question from the Hon Dr Deborah Russell in regards to the IMF report which the Hon Barbara Edmonds also referenced in terms of her report—if I look at the IMF report what it actually says as well is it informs and suggests to Government to ensure that it gets its spending under control. What I can say is that this coalition Government is very focused in order to remove wastage of spending and that was in the IMF report. We've got a large-scale programme in order to do that and ensure that we have fiscal sustainability in order to fund our programme of changes that we will be undertaking.The reduction in spending that the IMF report indicates will obviously help us to get inflation under control and other economic factors and so we're working through that in a very careful and diligent manner but also at a degree of pace because this has a big impact.The second question in regards to the annual rates in any Budget changes will obviously as the Hon Barbara Edmonds has noted—I'm not going to be talking about any aspects in regards to that. The practicality of considering or using this bill to actually put in place any of those personal income tax changes which will really benefit middle-income New Zealand will be an announcement that we will be doing as part of the Budget process and it wasn't timely or appropriate for us to put it into this bill because it's already a very very comprehensive bill. It's got a lot of elements to it and I do acknowledge its source of where it's come from. I think in this case we have been reasonably considerate around the fact that the elements within this bill are areas that we believe will bring more certainty to the overall tax system and hence why we've incorporated many of the changes that we did inherit. That's pretty much all I want to say around the IMF report.I thought the member might have asked—and I'm not wanting to probe any questions—why we didn't have any capital gains tax included in the tax bill. And then I remember that this is actually a bill that was put on the Table by the Labour Party and I didn't see anything about capital gains in here which is an interesting signal itself. Of course we don't support capital gains tax but I thought that was also something that the IMF referred to.
Russell DeborahHon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): This is always an interesting debate the annual rates debate and although the Minister of Revenue has said that it's a relatively narrow part of the bill of course by tradition the debate on the annual rates clause is actually quite an important constitutional debate. It's a free-flowing debate in which a large number of tax issues in relation to the levels that we set our tax at in this country may be raised. So even though it looks like it's a very small clause and a very small part of this bill we anticipate a number of speeches on it from all sides of the committee. It's actually a constitutional requirement not just a technical nicety. So I'm looking forward to hearing what members on the other side of the committee have to say about our tax system in general and in particular our income tax system.So let me begin and let me begin by asking—well actually I'm going to begin with something that's quite important to the annual rates and it's something that has been discussed in this House in the last day or so and that is the IMF's recent report on New Zealand. I wish to draw the Minister's attention in particular to the discussion of the tax system. I'll read out the paragraph so that the Minister doesn't have to go and hunt it out for himself. It's headlined in bold: New Zealand would benefit from a more efficient equitable and sustainable tax system. New Zealand already has one of the most efficient goods and services tax systems globally. However tax policy reforms are needed to promote investment and productivity growth increase the progressivity of income tax and mobilize additional revenue in response to long-term fiscal challenges. To achieve these objectives reforms should combine comprehensive capital gains tax land value tax and changes to corporate income tax."Now that is quite a challenge that has been issued to the Government of this country and quite a challenge that has been issued to the Minister of Revenue. In fact it will rest on the Minister of Revenue's shoulders to respond to some of the issues raised by the OECD. So in the context of this debate where we actually really do need to engage in discussion about how our tax system works overall where we do need to engage in discussion about the progressivity of the income tax scale where we do need to engage in discussion about what is taxed and what is not where we do need to think about the sustainability of our tax system—and these are things we ought to consider anyway but especially in the context of the IMF; that well-known left-wing organisation the IMF telling us that we need a more progressive tax scale—I'd like to hear from the Minister how he thinks that our income tax scale responds to that. Now I'd just invite the Minister to perhaps give us a little bit of a kōrero on that."
Watts SimonHon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Revenue): Well thank you very much Madam Chair. I'm looking forward to the opportunity to have a good free-flowing dialogue and debate in regards to the tax bill. So Part 1 of this bill deals with the annual rates of income tax for the 2023/24 tax year in reference to Schedule 1 Part A table 1 of the Income Tax Act which outlines the rates of tax. It's reasonably narrow in that regard but I'm looking forward to dialogue in this area.
Pugh MaureenTAXATION (ANNUAL RATES FOR 2023-24 MULTINATIONAL TAX AND REMEDIAL MATTERS) BILLIn CommitteePart 1 Annual rates of income taxCHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Members the House is in committee on the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2023-24 Multinational Tax and Remedial Matters) Bill. For your information in accordance with a determination of the Business Committee the committee will suspend at 4.55 p.m. for the special debate on the report on the petition of Claire Dale. Members we come first to Part 1. This is the debate on clause 3 Annual rates of income tax". This is where the debate on the tax rates should take place but the vote on any proposed amendments to the tax rates will take place in Part 2 which amends the Income Tax Act of 2007. Standing Order 352 requires that the annual taxing provision be considered separately. The question is that Part 1 stand part."
Henare PeeniHon PEENI HENARE (Labour): Tēnā koe Madam Speaker and thank you very much for the opportunity. I of course stand in support of this particular bill. We've heard reasons across the House of the need for its haste and I agree wholeheartedly—the opportunity for our traders to be able to get into the market sooner rather later is important.The other important factor which I think maybe has only been mentioned once is that of course the EU is coming into its election in June which is why it's really important to make sure we ratify this before those elections take place. We know that elections can be radical change or upheaval for such a diverse EU which is the market that we're looking to enter into.So with that in mind my job here is to endorse the words of thanks right across the House. I sat on the committee—even disclosed that I'm allergic to onions but we had a great submission from the onion sector and how important that was. But the point was that it's urgent that we ratify this particular bill so that those hard-working Kiwis who do export and those who do import into this country can feel the full benefit of what's been negotiated and what's been included in this bill. I endorse this bill in the House.
Anderson MilesMILES ANDERSON (National—Waitaki): I'm pleased to be taking this call on the European Union Free Trade Agreement Legislation Amendment Bill and I'm really pleased to see that common sense is residing throughout the House and that most members of the House will be supporting this bill. This bill gives enormous benefits to New Zealand and the economy. As a representative of an electorate that relies heavily on our primary production sector the feedback that I've heard has all been positive.National has always supported our exporters and recognises that one of the best ways to support the primary industries is through free-trade agreements. We're a small trading nation that relies on our food and fibre sector for 82 percent of our export receipts. I'd like to acknowledge the efforts of successive Governments who have fought hard to open the world to New Zealand to our produce and to promote our leading food and fibre sector. I'd like to thank the Minister the Hon Todd McClay and I'd also like to acknowledge the Hon Damien O'Connor for his work in getting this across the line. I'd like to thank the previous Government as well for recognising the importance of the EU market and free trade in general and to the hard-working Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade staff without whose efforts none of this would have been possible.There has been some commentary about what wasn't in the agreement but I say that perfect is the enemy of good. It's hard to get anything perfect and the EU is a challenging environment to develop a free-trade agreement (FTA) given that they're made up of a large number of independent States. In the Waitaki electorate we produce world-class wines. The wine and spirits annex to the agreement will help reduce regulatory burdens and costs including the labelling requirement for wine winemaking practices and certification and certain labelling provisions relating to spirits. So it's a great thought that through this bill it will be easier than ever for my son who resides in Europe to sip on a Central Otago pinot noir.Hon Todd McClay: He won't be sipping.MILES ANDERSON: No he might not be! The FTA will encourage an increased trade in services increased access to the Government procurement of contracts across EU member States and reduced barriers to trade which will be of enormous assistance to service providers both within and outside of the primary sector. So with that I commend this bill to the House.
Xu-Nan LawrenceDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you Madam Speaker. I would like to mark that this is my first speech in the House so please do bear with me. The Green Party has been clear about principles that we think underpin any free-trade agreement which includes strong safeguarding for human rights labour rights environmental protection climate justice and Ti Tiriti o Waitangi. The provisions that we see in the EU free-trade agreement (FTA) are all significant steps towards these principles compared with previous trade agreements. Like the Hon James Shaw has mentioned before this is something that the Green Party supports.In particular there are few additional points that I would like to highlight. The EU FTA is the first trade agreement to be negotiated under the Trade for All agenda and this is something that I would like to echo the Hon James Shaw in commending the work of the Hon David Parker as well as the Hon Damien O'Connor. The Trade for All agenda includes the democratic scrutiny of trade agreements and in fact democratic scrutiny overall. Isn't it amazing the kind of collective agreement that we can achieve as Parliament as the House when we allow for public consultation?In this particular case we are looking at from a process perspective the regular engagement that we see that the EU FTA includes a new mechanism for public consultation and engagement on matters related to the implementation of the agreement. That is something that we are hoping to see carrying forward. And that includes the creation of the domestic advisory group as well as a civil society forum.Particularly when we're looking at something like this I would also like to echo what others have mentioned in terms of the benefit that it provides to Aotearoa from the primary sectors. However I would also like to mention that it also provides opportunities for trade diversification particularly when it comes to new and improved access for education service providers including language education.So with that the Green Party has been incredibly vocal about the need for Aotearoa to ensure that our trade policies put people and planet at its centre. We would hope that this free-trade agreement will in particular uphold our commitment to human rights and labour standards to indigenous cultural values for both Aotearoa and those in the European Union for animal rights and welfare as well as continuing to uphold the importance of food sovereignty and food security. With that we look forward to how this agreement will eventuate that. Thank you.
Brownlee Gerry; O'Connor DamienURGENT DEBATES DECLINEDBanking Sector—CompetitionMinistry for Primary Industries—Proposed CutsSPEAKER: I've received a letter from Arena Williams seeking to debate under Standing Order 399 the lack of competition in the New Zealand banking sector. An ongoing situation such as the one the member has asked to debate does not constitute a particular case of recent occurrence. I refer to Speakers' rulings 221/2 and 221/3. The Commerce Commission's draft report was released today requesting feedback on its preliminary findings. Such a report does not meet the exceptional standard required for an urgent debate—Speaker's ruling 225/7. Should the Government announce a response to the final report in the future it may warrant a debate by this House but that point has not been reached today. The application is therefore declined. Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Labour): Point of order Mr Speaker. I seek leave to hold an urgent debate on the proposed cuts to Ministry for Primary Industries staff announced close to noon today that will affect Biosecurity New Zealand as one of many agencies and its ability to eradicate Mycoplasma bovis and to protect our primary industries from foot and mouth disease and from fruit fly. I put to you that it is a recent event it is one that involves ministerial responsibility and it is important so therefore I seek leave to hold an urgent debate.SPEAKER: It is a matter for leave to be put and I will put the leave but I would point out to the member that the timing of that announcement would have allowed for an urgent question and it would have allowed for the submission of an urgent debate letter. I'll put the leave. Is there any objection? There is objection. Leave is not granted.
Goldsmith PaulTAURANGA MOANA IWI COLLECTIVE REDRESS AND NGĀ HAPŪ O NGĀTI RANGINUI CLAIMS SETTLEMENT BILLReferral to Māori Affairs CommitteeHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I seek leave to move a motion without notice regarding the discharge of the Tauranga Moana Iwi Collective Redress and Ngā Hapū o Ngāti Ranginui Claims Settlement Bill its referral to the Māori Affairs Committee and the instruction to the committee.SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course of action? There appears to be none. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: I move That the order of the day for the second reading of the Tauranga Moana Iwi Collective Redress and Ngā Hapū o Ngāti Ranginui Claims Settlement Bill be discharged and the bill be referred to the Māori Affairs Committee for consideration of Amendment Papers Nos. 18 and 19 in my name and that the committee report back to the House by 8 April 2024 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 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.SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to.Motion agreed to.
Tauranga Moana Iwi Collective Redress and Ngā Hapū o Ngāti Ranginui Claims Settlement Bill — Referral to Māori Affairs Committee
Brownlee GerryPETITIONS PAPERS SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLSSPEAKER: A petition has been delivered to the Clerk for presentation.CLERK: Petition of Jennifer Bolton requesting that the House require police to contact mental health services for advice when a person expresses suicidal intentions.SPEAKER: That petition stands referred to the Petitions Committee. No papers have been delivered for presentation. Select committee reports have been delivered for presentation.CLERK: Reports of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the:2022-23 annual review of the Government Superannuation Fund Authority2022-23 annual reviews of the Office of the Controller and Auditor-General and the NZ Green Investment Finance Ltdreport on the Agreement between New Zealand and The Slovak Republic For the Elimination of Double Taxation with Respect to Taxes on Income and the Prevention of Tax Evasion and Avoidancebriefing on the December 2023 mini-Budget; Half-Year Economic and Fiscal Update 2023 andSecond Protocol to the Agreement between New Zealand and the Republic of Austria with Respect to Taxes on Income and on Capital Done at Vienna on 21 September 2006reports of the Social Services and Community Committee on the 2022-23 annual reviews of:the Ministry for Ethnic Communitiesthe Arts Culture and Heritage sectorthe Broadcasting sectorthe Children's sectorthe Social Services and Community sector andthe Sport and Recreation sector.SPEAKER: The reports on international treaties and the December 2023 mini-Budget statement are set down for consideration. The Clerk has been informed of the introduction of bills.CLERK:Insurance Contracts Bill introductionIncome Tax (Clean Transport FBT Exclusion) Amendment Bill introductionCrimes (Increased Penalties for Slavery Offences) Amendment Bill introductionPae Ora (Healthy Futures) (3 Day Postnatal Stay) Amendment Bill introduction.SPEAKER: Those bills are set down for first reading.
Resignations — New Zealand Labour—Hon Grant Robertson
Willis Nicola; Webb DuncanBUSINESS STATEMENTHon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance) on behalf of the Leader of the House: Next week the House will consider the remaining stages of the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2023-24 Multinational Tax and Remedial Matters) Bill and the Road User Charges (Light Electric RUC Vehicles) Amendment Bill; the first reading of the Fisheries (International Fishing and Other Matters) Amendment Bill; the second readings of the Appropriation (2022/23 Confirmation and Validation) Bill and the Regulatory Systems (Education) Amendment Bill; and the committee stage of the Misuse of Drugs (Pseudoephedrine) Amendment Bill. If debate on the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2023-24 Multinational Tax and Remedial Matters) Bill is not completed on Tuesday there will be extended hours on Wednesday 27 March to complete this bill. There will be a maiden statement on Tuesday.Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you Mr Speaker. I wonder if the member can tell us when we can see some legislation around the Local Water Done Well proposals given the parlous state of water in Wellington and elsewhere.Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): Well the member will have to wait and that legislation will come through in due course and it'll be a much better solution to water issues than the widely condemned three waters proposal of the previous Government.
Brownlee GerryRESIGNATIONSHon Grant Robertson New Zealand LabourSPEAKER: Members I wish to advise the House that I've received a letter from the Hon Grant Robertson resigning his seat in this House with effect at 11.59 p.m. on Friday 22 March 2024.
Tuiono TeanauTHURSDAY 21 MARCH 2024The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.KARAKIA/PRAYERSTEANAU TUIONO (Assistant Speaker): 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 Kīngi 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. Āmene.[Almighty God we give thanks for the blessings which have been bestowed on us. Laying aside all personal interests we acknowledge the King and pray for guidance in our deliberations that we may conduct the affairs of this House with wisdom and humility for the welfare peace and compassion of New Zealand. Amen.]
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That Part 1 stand part.Ayes 102New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 14Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14.Motion agreed to.Part 1 agreed to.
Forests (Log Traders and Forestry Advisers Repeal) Amendment Bill — In Committee—Part 1
Weenink Vanessa; Kuriger BarbaraDr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula): I move That debate on this question now close.Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Point of order Madam Chair. Point of order Madam Chair.CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the debate on this question now close. All those in favour say Aye; to the contrary No. The Ayes have it—Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: No. No.CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): —the motion is agreed. I had already called the Ayes had it before I got objections.Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Point of order Madam Chair. I had a point of order before. Oh that's why—the mike wasn't on. My apologies.CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I'm sorry I've taken a vote. We had a vote in progress. There was no party vote called for and I have approved the vote and we are now going to move on Part 2. Thank you.Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: OK. Can I please make sure that the mike is on next time?CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yeah.
Pham LanLAN PHAM (Green): Thank you Madam Chair. I wanted to pick up specifically on clause 7; this is the aspect of the bill that repeals the log trading forestry adviser regulatory regime. The system assures that anyone dealing with these log traders and forestry advisers—it assures people that they're actually getting that impartial and expert advice from people with the right knowledge and experience and this sounds like what was a really positive part of this previous bill which has now been repealed. I'm really keen to hear from the Minister what will replace this or be the interim measure? I'm noting that you're saying that the sector is going to be taking you know much greater ownership of what this looks like but I'm really interested as to what are the actual steps that they're going through and the process that they're going through to actually establish what that is. I'm noting that there were also some really key things like about the forestry advisers actually passing a background check including a criminal conviction check and even evidence of their qualifications and experience—which seems extremely vital when you are someone out there in the public who is wanting to turn to the forestry industry to contract or anything and you want to make sure that they're credible they have that impartial advice and they actually know what they're doing.I also want to pick up on the advice to Cabinet which came in the 2022 decision when they actually bought this in because they specifically identified—and I want to quote them—Without specific regulation there's a risk that the practice of log traders and forestry advisers will allow poor performance to go unchecked." So I'm really interested to know Minister in your conversations with the sector are they taking this really seriously? What are the implications of this poor performance from their perspective and what are the checks and balances that they're wanting to introduce to actually ensure that core performance is picked up within what you're proposing that the sector's going to undertake now? I also wanted to know not only from I guess the operational perspective how they're going to do that but does it also include environmental poor performance and checks and balances around that—CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): It's not in the scope. LAN PHAM:—or the health and safety aspects?CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Environmental is not part of the scope of the bill. It's regulated—LAN PHAM: Well I'm asking about the sector and how they're interpreting this. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): It's not part of the bill. LAN PHAM: OK thank you. Well it was a question to the Minister and I'm hearing that the—[Time expired]"
Xu-Nan LawrenceDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you Madam Chair. Firstly I just want to kind of pick up what our colleague mentioned before in terms of polluter pays. I'm mainly kind of interested to hear from the Minister regarding the interaction when we're looking at something like slash and polluter pays and the interaction that will have with the bill that was recently passed in the House around the waste minimisation levy and how that potentially—CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Sorry to the member but we're not discussing the Waste Minimisation Bill. I want to keep this very close to the regulations that are involved with this piece of legislation and it is also not the emissions trading scheme bill either.Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: Thank you Madam Chair. If I may there are two questions regarding the relationship with Part 1 and also Schedule 1 with the primary legislation that I would like some clarification from the Minister on. So if I could ask sort of that relationship but two separate questions. If the Minister wouldn't mind responding that would be greatly appreciated.So the first question is around you know we did talk about the repeal of the definition but when we are looking at the primary legislation in the Forests Act 1949 under both the code of ethics as well as forestry practice standards it talks about the definition in relation to another section within the primary legislation. So for the code of ethics it talks about the relationship that that particular clause has with section 63ZZM and for the forestry practice standard the relationship with that and also the definition in section 63ZZL. So the first clarification I want from the Minister is whether the repeal of the definition is just the definition or the subsequent clauses have also been repealed as a result. So that's my first question if the Minister wouldn't mind responding.