edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That debate on the question now close.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 49New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.Motion agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Dr Deborah Russell's tabled amendment to clause 3 be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 49New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.Noes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Amendment not agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Arena Williams' tabled amendment to clause 3 be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 49New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.Noes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Amendment not agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That Part 1 be agreed to.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 49New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.Part 1 agreed to.
12. Question No. 12—RevenueDAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote) to the Minister of RevenueQuestion No. 12—Revenue12. DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote) to the Minister of Revenue: What announcements has he made regarding the Taxation Principles Reporting Act?Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Revenue): This week I have announced that the Government will be repealing the Taxation Principles Reporting Act. This Act requires IRD to report against a set of principles as decided by the previous Government. Unfortunately this Act is little more than a make-work programme using valuable IRD resources on producing reports rather than focusing on core business. Repealing this Act will allow IRD to deliver on the real priorities for our tax system.Dan Bidois: What are the principles this Government does support for the tax system?Hon SIMON WATTS: This Government is committed to making sure that the tax system is as simple as possible to navigate. Making it easy for individuals and businesses to interact with the tax system is good for them and better for the system as a whole. The Government is also committed to delivering tax relief for Kiwis and the boost in their back pocket to those who need it most. We'll do a whole lot more on a yearly basis than such reporting proposed under this Act.Dan Bidois: What feedback has he seen from the sector on the Taxation Principles Reporting Act?Hon SIMON WATTS: The previous Government received extensive feedback on the Act from stakeholders when they passed it into law earlier this year. The message from them was clear: this Act provided no benefit to the tax system—SPEAKER: Yep that's enough. Thank you. That's enough. Is there another supp on that? OK.
10. Question No. 10—Māori DevelopmentHon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour) on behalf of Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central) to the Minister for Māori DevelopmentQuestion No. 10—Māori DevelopmentSPEAKER: Moving now to question No. 10 in the name of the Hon Dr Duncan Webb but I think may be asked by the Hon Willie Jackson.Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour): Kia ora Mr Speaker Meri Kirihimete to you—SPEAKER: Yeah yeah it's good. Do you mean it?Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Oh do you want a translation? Merry Christmas.SPEAKER: No I asked if you mean it.Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Absolutely. All the best to you and your whānau Mr Speaker.SPEAKER: Oh thank you—thanks very much and the same compliment back to the member. How long is this going to go on for?Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Ngā mihi o te Kirihimete ki a koe Mr Speaker.SPEAKER: Kei te pai. 10. Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour) on behalf of Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central) to the Minister for Māori Development: Does he stand by all of his statements and actions? Hon TAMA POTAKA (Minister for Māori Development): Ngā mihi o te tau hou pōhutakawa ki a koe. At the time and in the context of making those statements ana particularly the statements that I have made that this coalition Government will be ruthlessly focused on delivering on the needs of Māori and all New Zealanders particularly in housing health and education—unlike the previous Government.Hon Willie Jackson: Has the Minister indicated that the funding of the Waitangi Tribunal will be reduced either directly or indirectly and if so is he using a reallocation of resources to help fund tax cuts?Hon TAMA POTAKA: Kāore au i te paku mahara ki tērā kōrero i kī mai ai au ki te marea. [I don't recall at all that statement that I made to the public.]Hon Willie Jackson: Then why has the Waitangi Tribunal senior leadership team informed the tribunal officers of cost cuts and Judge Wainwright of the tribunal has stated that cost cuts are necessary across all inquiries in the current financial year and that financial constraints are expected to continue and possibly intensify?TAMA POTAKA: I have not spoken to Judge Wainwright in many many years.Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Has he considered access to justice issues that arise for Māori claimants from budget cuts and how does he expect to resolve these issues when he cuts funding designed to address claims brought in relation to Crown breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi?TAMA POTAKA: I have not asked for any budget cuts in the Waitangi Tribunal. I have no recollection of the comments that have been made. Hon Willie Jackson: Is the Minister along with the Prime Minister prepared to front up at Waitangi in February 2024 to discuss why he is looking at cutting funding to the Waitangi Tribunal and if not why not?TAMA POTAKA: As I have mentioned before in this Whare I look forward to the manaakitanga and the hospitality of our Ngāpuhi relatives in the motu at Waitangi 2024 and I do not have any recollection of talking to anyone about cutting the funding of the Waitangi Tribunal. Tīhei mauri ora!
9. Question No. 9—HealthGREG FLEMING (National—Maungakiekie) to the Minister of HealthQuestion No. 9—Health9. GREG FLEMING (National—Maungakiekie) to the Minister of Health: Tēnā koe e te Māngai. Meri Kirihimete. What recent announcements has he made on uplifting immunisation rates for vulnerable population groups?Hon Dr SHANE RETI (Minister of Health): I'd firstly like to thank the health sector for keeping us safe over this past year and for their care and attention over the upcoming holiday period. Thank you. This morning the Prime Minister Minister Potaka and I visited Porirua to announce a $50 million package to help local providers to lift the immunisation rates for the most vulnerable in their communities. Low immunisation rates put children at risk of life-threatening and in some cases deadly illnesses such as whooping cough and measles. It is critical that we take preventative health steps such as immunisation to protect those most in need and to drive better health outcomes.Greg Fleming: What feedback has he received about this announcement?Hon Dr SHANE RETI: I was very pleased to be joined at this event by local providers iwi partners and of course hard-working community-based health workers. It was great to hear from these providers on the work they do. We all have shared determination to make a difference for those with the greatest need and who have the highest risk. Delivering healthcare in communities helps relieve the burden on our under-pressure hospitals and this Government looks forward to supporting local organisations who do such outstanding work for their people.Greg Fleming: What other steps will the Minister take to lift immunisation rates?Hon Dr SHANE RETI: National campaigned on improved immunisation rates and these will feature as part of our health targets which will be announced as part of our 100-day plan. I look forward to 2024 and a new year when this Government will continue working to deliver timely access to quality healthcare for all New Zealanders.
8. Question No. 8—Health (Pharmac)TODD STEPHENSON (ACT) to the Associate Minister of Health (Pharmac)Question No. 8—Health (Pharmac)TODD STEPHENSON (ACT): Thank you Mr Speaker and merry Christmas.SPEAKER: Thanks very much. Merry Christmas to you too Todd. Are we going to go around the whole House because it could take a while? But actually—TODD STEPHENSON: Just a special merry Christmas for you Mr Speaker.SPEAKER: —we'd all like to get home for Christmas. 8. TODD STEPHENSON (ACT) to the Associate Minister of Health (Pharmac): Why is the Government planning to change rules relating to the availability of pseudoephedrine?Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Associate Minister of Health (Pharmac)): Mr Speaker merry Christmas. The Government in its coalition documents has a commitment to make pseudoephedrine-based cough and cold medicines available again after over a decade of New Zealanders being denied these medications. The simple reason is because when you've got the winter ills you need the good stuff that works. People agree that pseudoephedrine medicines are more effective and unfortunately the original purpose of restricting them—that was to stop the supply of methamphetamine—has completely failed as the price of that drug has sadly gone down and it has become more available. So the ban didn't work; let's get the good stuff back for the winter.Todd Stephenson: Will the increased access to pseudoephedrine put us out of step with the rest of the world?Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: No it will not. Countries such as Australia the United Kingdom the United States and Canada all have pseudoephedrine-based medications which are able to be purchased without a prescription. This change will move New Zealand into line with countries that we generally like to compare ourselves with.Todd Stephenson: Does the Minister think the removal of the ban on pseudoephedrine could inform his approach in other areas of regulatory reform in New Zealand?Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Well I think it's right across Government that we intend to take a very responsible approach to regulation. We don't want to make rules if they don't have a clear problem to be solved or if the benefits of the rule don't exceed the cost. And clearly in the case of banning pseudoephedrine the benefits have been trifling the cost to people's welfare have been large and so the rule will go. And yes in conversation with the Government's dynamic young Minister for Regulation I've learnt that that's going to be our approach to many matters.
6. Question No. 6—FinanceHon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram) to the Minister of FinanceQuestion No. 6—Finance6. Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram) to the Minister of Finance: Does the Government intend to implement the National Party's climate dividend policy; if so will all the funding currently tagged to the Climate Emergency Response Fund be used to pay for it?Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): In answer to the first part of the question yes and consistent with our coalition agreements this will be subject to final consideration and decision making by Cabinet. In answer to the second part of the question the mini-Budget yesterday confirmed decisions to enable the climate dividend including returning funding from the Climate Emergency Response Fund returning funding from the Government Investment in Decarbonising Industry Fund (GIDI) and the National Land Transport Fund. Hon Dr Megan Woods: Will every household receive an equal split of the total dividend funding pool adjusted for household size?Hon NICOLA WILLIS: As the member would know if she had read the climate dividend policy which she referred to in her primary question it is our intention that the climate dividend be used to support income tax reduction.Hon Dr Megan Woods: Will the climate dividend scale with the carbon price?Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The member would have to repeat her question.Hon Dr Megan Woods: Certainly. Will the climate dividend scale with the carbon price?Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I'm not sure what the member is referring to. The climate dividend is intended to be the proceeds of the emissions trading scheme and we intend that those proceeds will be used to support income tax reduction.Hon Dr Megan Woods: Does she agree with the Treasury: over the long term the total cost of achieving emissions reductions targets and addressing the impacts of climate change will be significant and is likely to exceed provisions made in the forecasts"?Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The Government is committed to meeting our climate change commitments and as part of our mini-Budget we considered the climate implications of returning funding from different initiatives including GIDI and the Clean Car Discount. We also considered how decisions might impact our ability to meet future emissions budgets. From the advice I have received I do not expect mini-Budget decisions to pose a significant risk to achieving our first emissions budget. Hon Dr Megan Woods: Isn't it true that she has no intention of meeting any recognised criteria of a climate dividend with her so-called climate dividend and what it is is no more than a raid on funding for emissions reductions spending to fund her tax cuts?Hon NICOLA WILLIS: No and I'll tell you what I won't do either: raid money from hard-working New Zealanders to give big cheques to profitable businesses like BlueScope Steel and Fonterra. Hard-working Kiwis deserve that money."
5. Question No. 5—HousingJAMES MEAGER (National—Rangitata) to the Minister of HousingQuestion No. 5—Housing5. JAMES MEAGER (National—Rangitata) to the Minister of Housing: What recent announcements has he made regarding Kāinga Ora?Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Housing): Today I have released the terms of reference for the independent review into Kāinga Ora - Homes and Communities which was announced earlier this week. As a Government—[Interruption]Hon Grant Robertson: He's been demoted—there's been a reshuffle. SPEAKER: It is the last question time of the year—Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I'm just pondering the number of jokes I could make about demotions on the other side.SPEAKER: While I'm speaking you're not. It is the last question time of the year. Just try and keep it a little bit seemly. [Interruption] Well you know what I mean: less noisy.Hon CHRIS BISHOP: As a Government we are deeply concerned about the performance of Kāinga Ora - Homes and Communities. Their operating deficit is already at $520 million and is forecast to continue to increase. This hits the Government books directly and so it's important that Kāinga Ora's financial position is sustainable. The terms of reference announced today will allow us to get answers to these crucial questions on their finances.James Meager: What are the terms of reference he announced earlier today for the Kāinga Ora review?Hon CHRIS BISHOP: The terms of reference include the financial viability of Kāinga Ora - Homes and Communities asset procurement and management engagement with communities and tenants tenancy management their remit and the current institutional arrangements and whether they incentivise better performance. The scope we've set will allow us to really get under the hood of Kāinga Ora and see what's working and what isn't. It will look at financial performance the efficiency of their building and construction practices as well as the things that impact Kiwi communities like how they manage badly behaving tenants. I'm looking forward to seeing their findings and recommendations so we can get Kāinga Ora back on track.James Meager: What do his recent Kāinga Ora announcements mean for hard-working New Zealanders like those in mid- and South Canterbury?Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I thank the member for that very good question and admire his advocacy for those people. Kāinga Ora's performance impacts every New Zealander including those in mid- and South Canterbury those who need support or who may be looking for support in the future. It also impacts every New Zealander who pays tax and they deserve to see their hard-earned tax dollars spent wisely. That's why we are very focused on getting Kāinga Ora back on track.
2. Question No. 2—FinanceHon JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister of FinanceQuestion No. 2—Finance2. Hon JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister of Finance: Does she stand by the principle in her Government's coalition agreements that decisions will be based on data and evidence"?Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): Yes. I stand by the full principle in the coalition agreements which is that "decisions will be based on data and evidence with programmes regularly assessed to see if they are delivering results."Hon James Shaw: In that case does she stand by her statement that she has "seen evidence that the living costs of lower-income New Zealanders are based on a range of things" and if so what data and evidence has she seen that increasing bus fares will lower the living costs of low and middle income New Zealanders?Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I have seen information—which I would hope the member would also have access to—which shows that living costs consist of a range of things. Bus fares are one of those things. A very important factor is also what people's after-tax incomes are. This is a Government that is committed to lifting after-tax incomes including by delivering income tax reduction next year.Hon James Shaw: So is she saying that increasing bus fares will decrease the cost of living for low-income New Zealanders?Hon NICOLA WILLIS: That is not what I said. What I said is that we are a Government that is committed to addressing the cost of living across a range of factors including ensuring that people have higher incomes—including those who use buses.Hon James Shaw: What data and evidence has she seen on how much rents will decrease by and when as a result of the changes to the brightline test?Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The brightline test having been extended to 10 years has had the effect of stopping some people selling their properties because they are trying to avoid that tax. I've not seen any evidence that extending the brightline test to 10 years lowered rents.Hon James Shaw: What data and evidence has she seen on how much money will be returned to the pockets of New Zealanders by reducing the transparency of our tax system by repealing the tax reporting Act?Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I reject the assertions in the member's question. We have a very transparent tax system. We don't need a silly Act that makes IRD write silly reports.Hon James Shaw: So how much money will each New Zealander receive as a result of the repeal of the Act?Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The purpose of the repeal of the Act was not to deliver direct money to New Zealanders. It was consistent with our coalition's view that the Government should be focused on priorities. That member was a member of a Government that wrote endless reports about everything—and very little was delivered. We're going to be quite different."
1. Question No. 1—Prime MinisterRt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime MinisterORAL QUESTIONSQUESTIONS TO MINISTERSQuestion No. 1—Prime Minister1. Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by—I better make sure I get the wording right! Does he stand by all of his Government's statements and actions?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Acting Prime Minister): In the context in which they were said and with the facts that were then known yes.Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he agree with Todd McClay that Winston Peters is fast earning himself an international reputation as an apologist for Russia"; if not why not?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Because that statement was made without any relevance to the new circumstances that member finds himself in. He's in Opposition. Ask questions that represent the Opposition not when he was in Government.Hon Grant Robertson: What?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: It means ask questions that were relevant after this Government was formed and not before. He should know that. That's why he's sitting over there.Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: He didn't say he didn't disagree with it! Does he agree with Chris Bishop that Winston Peters often "makes false claims to the media and the public."; if not why not?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: This may be a slow constitutional lesson but the questions that we are required to answer pertain to when we formed this Government and thereafter and probably for the next 25 years. In his case he should be explaining who his possible unlucky successor is.Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he agree with Paul Goldsmith that "Peters' big mouth is harming Kiwi businesses"; if not why not?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: This is another lesson that's going to take a long time to sink in and that's why we would like to relieve this Parliament for a few days and for a few weeks for them to lick their wounds because they are not learning the lesson that they lost. As their former deputy leader Michael Cullen said "We won. You lost. Eat that!"Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he agree with the Rt Hon Sir John Key of Winston Peters "Historically he has always been sacked by prime ministers. It's a very different style to mine and it's rearward-looking."?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: As everybody knows Mr Key made a lot of statements but privately he's a secret admirer of mine.Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he agree with David Seymour that Winston Peters has "fallen out with National twice with half his own colleagues within New Zealand First even though he hand-picked them. I mean he can't work with anybody. I think you'll find that Chris Luxon is ultimately far too principled to try and work with them too." and if not why not?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: They say that all is fair in love and war and—dare I say it—politics. Those things that are said on the campaign—some are meant to be true some are slightly inflated and some are sometimes wrong. However those words again said by Mr Seymour and Mr Luxon's actions and mine as well—we're off to form a long-term safe successful Government."
Taxation Principles Reporting Act Repeal Bill — Second Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Taxation Principles Reporting Act Repeal Bill be now read a second time.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 55New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.Motion agreed to.Bill read a second time.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): This bill is set down for committee stage immediately. I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Taxation Principles Reporting Act Repeal Bill.
Taxation Principles Reporting Act Repeal Bill — First Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Taxation Principles Reporting Act Repeal Bill be now read a first time.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 49New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.Motion agreed to.Bill read a first time.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Employment Relations (Trial Periods) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 55New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.Motion agreed to.Bill read a third time.
Employment Relations (Trial Periods) Amendment Bill — Third Reading
Brownlee GerrySPEAKER: This is the one time of year that the Speaker gets to make a speech. I'm tempted to spend some time talking about the challenges that come with the joy the disappointments the exhilaration of the year etc.—all that the country has been through but like many of you who are still here I've got a taxi waiting. So I simply want to acknowledge my fellow presiding officers: Barbara Kuriger Teanau Tuiono Maureen Pugh and Greg O'Connor. They certainly are doing a good job and I'm sure that you all appreciate that.I want to particularly acknowledge the Rt Hon Adrian Rurawhe who might have been here and giving you much longer and more learned speech had it not been for different circumstances changing all of that. Sir I said it a couple of weeks ago you brought a calm and a dignity to this House that was very much appreciated. I think the way in which the House has been substantially self-managing in a way over the last three weeks—no well by and large it has. It is in no small way due to the legacy that you have left and I thank you very much for that and wish you personally all the best for the Christmas season and the new year. Thank you.Could I acknowledge the Clerk David Wilson and his staff—there are hundreds of them; they do a great job keeping us all on track; the Parliamentary Service CEO Raf Gonzalez-Montero and the nearly 700 staff I think both in Parliament and out of Parliament that keep us working as well.To all the groups that have been mentioned by the previous speakers. There've been lots of thankyous lots of salutations—I simply stand by all of that.So all I need now do is thank my own staff Felicity Cuzens in Christchurch Laree Taula here and all the families of all the MPs for all that they have to give up in order for all of us to be able to do the job that we're elected to. My sincere thanks. Again I echo the sentiments expressed by many other previous speakers.Finally can I just wish all members of Parliament a very happy Christmas a happy New Year and all the best for whatever their wishes are in 2024.Motion to adjourn House and sitting days agreed to.SPEAKER: The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. Tuesday 30 January 2024.The House adjourned at 5 p.m. (Thursday)
Edmonds BarbaraHon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana): In the spirit of Christmas A Christmas Carol comes to mind today and when I think of Ebenezer Scrooge I'm not going to cast aspersions on the misers on the other side of the House. When I think of Ebenezer Scrooge he saw the light and the ghost of Christmas Past which is that this Government brought in the principles to make the tax system fairer. But the Christmas present that that Government is giving is basically removing the transparency that the New Zealand public can depend on to ensure that the incidence of tax is fair.Therefore I do not commend this bill to the House. But I do want to wish you Mr Speaker manuia le Kerisimasi ma le tausaga fou. That's the end of this speech.
Lu NancyNANCY LU (National): This is an excellent bill and I commend the bill to the House.
White HelenHELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): Thank you. What I've watched over the last day is what I would describe as wilful blindness. What we are going to have is the non-information of people in an area where we desperately need information. But also we have a responsibility to the New Zealand public to make sure that if we're taking their hard-earned money we know that we are doing so fairly. That is what the Government is turning its back on today. What a sad day it is and what a lot of work we're going to have as Opposition and what a lot of fun we're going to have pointing out what a lacklustre Government we have one that does not give us vision does not give us hope. We'll see you here in the new year. Happy New Year.
Wedd CatherineCATHERINE WEDD (National—Tukituki): I'd like to commend this bill to the House.
Robertson GrantHon GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour): I'll just take a short call in this third reading to say that there's nothing that quite sums up this Government but to be finishing with a petty backward-looking piece of legislation that does the opposite of what it purports to do.So throughout the quite long debate that we've had on this bill what we've been able to establish is that the Minister of Revenue thinks that there should be some principles doesn't quite know what they are thinks that they're in the annual report—which they're not—and opposes a bill that actually outlines some principles.We believe that a tax system should be fair. We believe that a tax system should be progressive. We believe that a tax system should be open and transparent. And that's what the National Government is finishing their time with in this year—is to take away transparency. We will see more of that I'm sure. I oppose this bill.
Smith StuartSTUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you Mr Speaker. There must have been some really bad lobster over in Doha. This is a great bill and I commend it to the House.
Foster AndyANDY FOSTER (NZ First): There's been a lot of hyperbole and tilting at windmills here but one of the things about select committee of course is that the legislation which is being repealed has effectively just been through select committee earlier this year. So there have been submissions on it. Those submitters have had different views and obviously there was a minority opinion from what is now the Government side saying we don't like that piece of legislation.IRD are quite clear that they started off saying that they thought the legislation makes sense and then they've come to the view that maybe it doesn't make sense and they can actually do it a different way. If you look at the regulatory impact statement that is exactly what they say.I just want to finish off by saying that the issue of trust members raised—and I think James Shaw misquoted what I was trying to say. The key point here is that what people really want to trust is how we spend their money and how much Government reaches into their pockets to take their hard-earned money and spend it on something the Government thinks is a good idea. That really is the key issue. It's not so much about understanding the tax system; it's understanding how we spent their money and knowing that we spent their money well. I guess that is the challenge. I commend this bill to the House.
Cameron MarkMARK CAMERON (ACT): Thank you Mr Speaker. Well you've taken my momentum away about all the oxygen and theatricality of the former member's speech. I just want to congratulate her on all of her efforts and highlight the fact that fallacies don't cease to be fallacies just because they're the fashions of the left—the green and the red team that we've had now six years of. I commend the bill to the House. I think it's a good piece of legislation and I want to congratulate the former Minister or the said Minister for all his endeavours. Thank you very much.
Russell DeborahHon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): Thank you Mr Speaker. This week under urgency we have had fair pay agreements taken away. We have had 90-day trials put back in place. We have had the Clean Car Discount taken away. The Government has not proposed any new or original policies. It has not come with anything positive to this House. Instead it has taken away removed repealed destroyed. That's their agenda—that's their agenda. Hon Grant Robertson: That's all they've got.Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: It's all they've got. And now they've done it on this bill. This bill takes away the Taxation Principles Reporting Act an Act which would simply have given us more information about our tax system so that as citizens we can make good judgments. You know the previous speaker the Minister Simon Watts said that the descriptors were restrictive" that Governments should be allowed to "set principles for themselves"—that's an astonishing thing to say—and that it would "free" Governments to set their own tax policies. Let's work through that. Governments are still—always have been—free to set their own tax policies. What this bill would have done would have enabled some judgments to be made about those tax policies using descriptors that are long established and widely agreed as the appropriate descriptors and the appropriate principles to use for assessing a tax system. But this Government is too scared to allow that to happen.It is a real shame that this bill is going through. I'm going to end with a quote from the submissions on the original bill from a submitter who actually said this would be a good policy to pursue. This submitter said—I'm going to reveal the name at the end; this is a surprise for the end of the year—the organisation "has a keen interest in tax policy including a comprehensive submission to the 2018-19 Tax Review as well as submissions and feedback to Inland Revenue on more technical consultations" on the area. This submitter "supports the concept of increased information about the operation of the tax system and reporting of tax information against core taxation principles. We also broadly agree with the list of seven principles listed in Schedule 1 of the Bill." This submitter agreed with the Taxation Principles Reporting Act.The chair of that submitter is now in this House as an ACT MP. Federated Farmers thought this was good policy and that Government has rejected it. What a sad note on which to end the year."
Watts Simon; Brownlee GerryThird ReadingHon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Revenue): I move That the Taxation Principles Reporting Act Repeal Bill be now read a third time. Madam Speaker honourable members I thank you for your time in considering this bill under urgency. As we're under urgency I will provide a very brief recap of the bill that we are considering today.The Taxation Principles Reporting Act Repeal Bill does what the name implies. It has a simple purpose and once that purpose has been fulfilled it writes itself out of the history books by repealing itself.But as humble and self-fulfilling as it is it is a very useful bill with some noble objectives. It frees future Governments from the restrictive descriptors of tax principles set out in the Act and it allows them to describe for themselves what they see as good tax system. It allows them to pursue the tax policies they were elected to carry out. It is saving taxpayers money and compliance costs by stopping them from having to provide unnecessary information to Inland Revenue and it will stop Inland Revenue from having to devote precious resources to preparing reports on the tax system in relation to certain tax principles. Those resources could and should be better used including actually collecting tax. This then is a very worthwhile bill.I would like to thank the tax policy officials and legislative drafter for all their work in preparing this bill so quickly. I commend the Taxation Principles Reporting Act Repeal Bill to the House.SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to.
Pugh Maureen; Kuriger BarbaraCHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The committee has considered the Taxation Principles Reporting Act Repeal Bill and reports it without amendment. I move That the report be adopted.Motion agreed to.Report adopted.DEPUTY SPEAKER: The bill is set down for third reading immediately.
Kuriger Barbara; Watts SimonPart 2 and clauses 1 and 2 CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): So the question is that Part 2 and clauses 1 and 2 stand part.Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Revenue): Thank you Chair. Acknowledging the question from the Hon Barbara Edmonds the point that I was referring to in regards to principles being included within the annual report is that the elements of tax principles are embedded within a whole variety of information within the annual report. What we acknowledged on a prior question around a succinct list or categorisation of that that does not exist. But the inherent nature of tax principles as it is was embedded within that report. If the member wants to propose any other ideas on how they believe that might be useful as I indicated to the prior speaker in the member's party then they're most welcome to get in touch.
Edmonds Barbara; Kuriger BarbaraHon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana): Thank you Madam Chair. This is just a really quick question actually of the Minister's commitment in his previous response that there will be some reporting in the annual report. My question to Minister is: whereabouts in the annual report? Because the current annual report has some information about organisation and capability it has some of the statement of performance and it also has the auditor's report. So I just want to have it crystal clear for this committee: whereabouts in the annual report is the Minister committing to including some reference to the principles and an assessment of it?Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Point of order.CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Just before I take the Minister point of order from Dr Duncan Webb.Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): I seek leave for all questions to be taken as one debate.CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Leave is sought. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is not.
Taxation Principles Reporting Act Repeal Bill — In Committee—Part 2
Kuriger Barbara; Russell Deborah; Watts SimonPart 2 Repeal of Taxation Principles Reporting Act 2023 CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members we now come to Part 2. Part 2 is the debate on clause 4 Repeal of Taxation Principles Reporting Act 2023" and clause 5. The question is that Part 2 be agreed to.Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): Thank you Madam Chair. We have had an extensive debate on this already—on Part 1 of this bill. I do want to talk just briefly on Part 2 of the bill. It has the operative clause in it the one that actually does the repeal work of the Taxation Principles Reporting Act.The Taxation Principles Reporting Act asks for Inland Revenue to prepare a report—an interim report some years and a triannual extensive report—reporting on how the tax system does against some key principles. The principles are listed in Schedule 1 of the Act. The principles are: horizontal equity efficiency vertical equity revenue integrity compliance and administrative costs certainty and predictability flexibility and adaptability. Reasonably well-agreed principles.However in his first speech on this bill in the first reading of the bill the Minister of Revenue said that the Act serves no purpose because it just was an exercise in—and I quote—"redundant reporting". Look that redundant reporting implies that this information on these principles is available elsewhere and in a form that is readily available to New Zealanders to citizens. So I would like to hear from the Minister where else we can get a coherent and easy-to-find easy-to-access piece of reporting on the New Zealand tax system that encompasses those key principles or even if not these particular principles the generally agreed principles that tax experts use when assessing tax systems.So if the Minister could let me know where else we can find this information that makes the Taxation Principles Reporting Act something that engages in redundant reporting.Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Revenue): Yeah in the interests of good back-and-flow as I've noted before the Inland Revenue's annual report does include significant amounts of information in a variety of areas. I acknowledge the member's point in terms of a concise table of principles but the report does include a comprehensive nature of those elements within that report. On that basis I'm comfortable that that information will cover and suffice the member's request."
Kuriger Barbara; Swarbrick ChlöeTAXATION PRINCIPLES REPORTING ACT REPEAL BILLIn CommitteeDebate resumed.Part 1 Repeal of this Act (continued)CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Can we have more quiet in the Chamber please. Those that are leaving do your talking out in the Ayes and Noes lobbies. Thank you. Members the committee is resumed on the Taxation Principles Reporting Act Repeal Bill. When we suspended for the lunch break we were considering Part 1. Once again the question is that Part 1 be agreed to. Now I just did want to make the point that this is a very small piece of legislation. The committee stage on Part 1 has already traversed about an hour and 10 minutes from my estimation. So we need to make sure that any points that are made need to be extremely close to the mark.CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green—Auckland Central): Point of order. Sorry Madam Chair we can't quite hear you and I'm not sure if your microphone is on.CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Oh thank you.
Resignations — Hon Kelvin Davis
Brownlee GerryRESIGNATIONSHon Kelvin Davis New Zealand Labour PartySPEAKER: Members I wish to advise the House that I have received a letter from the Hon Kelvin Davis resigning his seat in the House with effect at 11.59 p.m. on 6 February 2024.
Leary IngridINGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): I have a new question and it follows from comments made by my colleague the Hon Barbara Edmonds but also following from the answer that the Minister gave to my question about the release of any work done. I want to thank the Minister for engaging so authentically and directly with that very authentic and direct question. If I recall his answer correctly he said that there was no magic report on his desk or whatever. My colleague didn't ask this question but I'd like to pick up on her train of thought where she said she didn't know if the Minister had proactively asked for information. She's talking about the cost of full-time employees and the cost of gathering the data.So my question to the Minister in response to what he told me and in the spirit of this engagement as a debate Minister: will you proactively get some of the data collated for us even if it's not in a final form? I hear you when you say that you haven't been given any advice by your officials. The question is really not only have you proactively asked for it—which my colleague asked—but my question to you is: will you proactively ask for this information? Not how much the reporting of it would cost or the full-time employees—all of that. This is a new question around: will you actually give us some substantive data—CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The member is starting to repeat.INGRID LEARY: —could you please collate some of and proactively ask your officials to collate what they have even if it's not in a perfect final form so that we can make an assessment about what work has been done. So I'll ask that also because the Minister did raise that when he was answering my question. Thank you.CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The time has come for me to leave the Chair. The House is suspended and will resume at 2 p.m. Sitting suspended from 12.58 p.m. to 2 p.m.
Taxation Principles Reporting Act Repeal Bill — In Committee—Part 1
Edmonds BarbaraHon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana): Thank you Mr Chair. Always charitable this time of the year and a really great contribution there from the MP for Manurewa.We're going to clause 3 in response to a question that I gave to the Minister and he addressed it in the sense that the maintenance of this particular repeal bill will go into a bill box. Now my—Hon Grant Robertson: Bucket.Hon BARBARA EDMONDS: Oh sorry—bill bucket. My bad—a bill bucket. The reason why I question this in relation to clause 3 is because clause 3 provides the date in which that particular bill bucket closes or gets filled up or disposed of or whatever which is in January—Hon Simon Watts: Comes in a sleigh.Hon BARBARA EDMONDS: What was that Minister sorry? I didn't hear you.CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): He said Comes in a sleigh."Hon BARBARA EDMONDS: Oh OK. So January 2025 which goes to clause 3. But again the reason why—and I understand from various speakers across that side of the House and the Government side of the House—this bill needed to be repealed was because of the wastage and the bureaucracy. Therefore the bill bucket which will be filled up by January 2025—I'm trying to get through my train of thought here—how many fulltime-equivalents will be required to maintain that bill bucket given that the purpose and intention of this repeal bill is wastage and bureaucracy? I think that is a valid question in relation to clause 3 because clause 3 is when that bill bucket closes—in January 2025.So my question is to the Minister: does he have any advice as to how much that bill bucket maintenance is going to cost? Has he received any information as to how many full-time employees will be required for the maintenance of that? And if he hasn't why has the Minister not asked for that information given the purpose and intention of this bill which clause 3 brings into effect? Then my second question—and this is in relation to again another response by the Minister around clarifying how this interacts with the Taxation Principles Reporting Act which is going to be repealed. I thank the Minister for providing that clarification because he said the reporting time frame is for the tax year ended 31 March and I'm assuming 2024.So in relation to that does that mean that there's been seven months that the Inland Revenue has been able to develop a report? The Minister has confirmed that he has not seen the report. I'm not sure whether he's asked for the report. But within that seven-month period has he got any advice from his officials as to what they've done in that seven months how much that has cost for that seven months of work so that we here on this side of the House can be able to assess that? Because again this bill and the foundations on which this bill are predicated are according to the Government wastage and bureaucracy.So those two relative questions in relation to clause 3 given that's when this repeal bill is coming into effect. Again I just acknowledge the Minister and thank him for clarifying the time frames in relation to 31 March 21st and I think when this bill comes into force so it's not delivered on 31 December 2023."
Williams Arena; Tuiono TeanauARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Point of order Mr Chair. Thank you Mr Chair. I hope to seek your guidance on Speakers' ruling 79/4 which sets out at (1)—and I will read it to you—it was ruling of Speaker Tolley in 2020. I encourage you to keep your contributions focused"—which is what I did in my last contribution; I did not use my full five minutes which she refers to there—"and [it is] relevant to promote good interaction with the Minister in the chair. We have the ability then to take short calls and have a series of questions and answers between members and … Minister[s]." Her ruling there was that someone in my position could be confident that they would receive the next call after the Minister had answered a short series of questions. As I've indicated to the Minister I have 10 questions to ask him and a further four given what he has told me and I'd like to take the next call.CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): I shall take some advice. In your following contribution I do want you to focus on clause 3 and I acknowledge that the Hon Barbara Edmonds will allow me to give you the call."