edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
9. Question No. 9—Foreign AffairsHon DAVID PARKER (Labour) to the Minister of Foreign AffairsQuestion No. 9—Foreign Affairs9. Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: Does he accept the International Court of Justice ruling that Israel is acting illegally as an occupying force in Gaza; if so why has he not said so?Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction) on behalf of the Minister of Foreign Affairs: I refer the member to my post on X on 20 July in which I said The International Court of Justice has issued an advisory opinion ruling that Israel's presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territories is unlawful and must end as rapidly as possible. Continued settlement expansion makes a two-state solution the only way for Israelis and Palestinians to live side-by-side with security and dignity more difficult. Israel must honour its international legal obligations."SPEAKER: I'll just ask the Minister to move the microphone a bit closer the next time you speak.Hon David Parker: Point of order. I understand the quote and I know that I can't expect a yes/no answer but I wondered whether the person speaking was intending to say yes or no.SPEAKER: Well that is not a point of order. That is a point of disturbance in many facts. Does the member have another question or are we finished?Hon David Parker: I do indeed: aren't the long term and ongoing breaches of international law in Gaza so obvious that indecision by New Zealand is unworthy notwithstanding that the USA takes a similar position?Hon CHRIS PENK: On behalf of the Minister: the Government of New Zealand takes the position that in accordance with the preliminary finding of the International Court of Justice certain actions must be taken. In particular I refer the Minister—excuse me the member—to the longstanding position of successive New Zealand Governments which is that a two-State solution is to be sought and the Government's position has not changed in that regard.Hon David Parker: Does he agree with the statement recently by Janet Wilson a former adviser to the current Minister of Defence when she said "While the shifting sands of geopolitics need to be considered so too does the fact that for New Zealand this recent shift on decades-old independent foreign policy has been quietly executed without any electoral mandate."?Hon CHRIS PENK: On behalf of the Minister: I don't think that is an accurate characterisation of the position of the New Zealand Government either in relation to the issue that was the subject of the primary question or indeed any other aspect of our foreign policy.Hon David Parker: Well then does he agree with Janet Wilson's further statement that "Luxon and Peters need to drop the smoke-and-mirror obfuscation when it comes to foreign policy and have a straight up conversation about their intent."?Hon CHRIS PENK: On behalf of the Minister: of course I reject the characterisation of the Government of New Zealand policy position being anything of that nature so it's a moot point as to whether it should be dropped or otherwise discarded."
8. Question No. 8—Social Development and EmploymentPAULO GARCIA (National—New Lynn) to the Minister for Social Development and EmploymentQuestion No. 8—Social Development and Employment8. PAULO GARCIA (National—New Lynn) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What steps is the Government taking to reduce the number of people receiving the jobseeker support benefit?Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): We are resetting the welfare system because too many people were on the Jobseeker benefit when we came into Government and the economic mess we inherited meant those numbers were always going to get worse before they got better. That's why job seekers with work obligations must now meet with the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) within the first two weeks of being on benefit to create a plan for finding a job and if they're still on a benefit after six months they'll need to check in with MSD again to talk about what support they might need. We are also helping 4000 more job seekers aged 18 to 24 by providing them with case management over the phone because the number of 18- to 24-year-olds who shifted on to the Jobseeker benefit unfortunately increased by 58 percent under the last Government. We've got more positive changes to come.Paulo Garcia: Why is the Government making the welfare system more proactive by requiring job seekers to meet with MSD more regularly?Hon LOUISE UPSTON: This Government is not content just to leave people on the Jobseeker benefit to their own devices without getting the support they need to get a job. While 60000 people have a case manager this leaves 135000 job seekers without one so we've established two new check-ins to create more opportunities to provide job seekers the support they need to check they are fulfilling their obligations to become work ready and of course to find a job.Paulo Garcia: Why are young people the focus of the new phone-based case management service?Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Because for young people on a benefit they are estimated to spend in future years on average 21.3 years throughout their lifetime. Our Government wants a better future for young people and to break the vicious cycles of intergenerational dependency. That's why we're providing young people more support earlier starting with an extra 4000 being case managed over the phone.Paulo Garcia: Why is the number of people receiving the Jobseeker benefit expected to increase before decreasing?Hon LOUISE UPSTON: The economy has been weak for the last two years which inevitably means there are fewer job vacancies. It is forecast that jobseeker numbers will continue to increase until January 2025. That's why we're acting immediately to help more job seekers so that they and their children experience the greater independence and opportunities that come from work.
3. Question No. 3—FinanceRYAN HAMILTON (National—Hamilton East) to the Minister of FinanceQuestion No. 3—Finance3. RYAN HAMILTON (National—Hamilton East) to the Minister of Finance: When was the last time personal income tax rates or thresholds were adjusted?Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): The last time personal income tax rates or thresholds changed was on 1 April 2021 when the top tax rate of 39 percent was introduced. However this was of course a tax increase. Finance Minister Steven Joyce did announce personal income tax relief in Budget 2017 but this was reversed later in the year by Grant Robertson so personal tax rates and thresholds have not in fact been adjusted since 1 October 2010 14 long years ago. That will change next Wednesday.Ryan Hamilton: How much will people get in tax relief?Hon Peeni Henare: Bugger all.Hon NICOLA WILLIS: To the member opposite who said a phrase that is not very parliamentary I'd say that they'll get a lot more from us than you were promising them. It does of course depend on individual circumstances.Glen Bennett: What are you taking away?Reuben Davidson: How much has the rent gone up?Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well what you were promising them was zero. And what you did was vote against every dollar of tax relief. I actually encourage people to go to budget.govt.nz check the tax calculator to see what tax relief is coming their way. As the Hon Barbara Edmonds was keen to quote me saying the rising number of visitors to our tax calculator reflects Kiwis' keen interest in understanding how the Budget will personally benefit them through the savings we've achieved and the tax relief we're implementing.Ryan Hamilton: How will households benefit?Hon NICOLA WILLIS: As I said people and families are in a wide variety of circumstances; hence the calculator. But in summary I can tell the member that an estimated 727000 households will benefit by at least $75 a fortnight; 187000 will benefit by at least $100 a fortnight. On average households will benefit by $60 a fortnight and households with children by $78 a fortnight.Ryan Hamilton: How many thousands of people again have now used that Budget tax calculator?Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Obviously I was asked this patsy question earlier. As I told the House yesterday that number was 513000 yesterday. It has risen overnight. I'm sure it will rise overnight again the more we talk about it but actually the number of visits to the website has increased several more than that because that is the number of individuals users as opposed to the number of visits which has been a much larger number. My reflection would be that New Zealanders are very interested in tax relief because they haven't seen it for 14 long years.SPEAKER: Before I call the next member I just want to say in this question interjections are supposed to be rare and reasonable but they're part of the general sort of interaction that occurs in this House but on this particular question and the one that will follow I'm playing particular attention to those interjections.
Papers — Presentation of Final Report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Historical Abuse in State Care and in the Care of Faith-based Institutions
Brownlee Gerry; van Velden BrookePAPERSFinal Report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Historical Abuse in State Care and in the Care of Faith-based InstitutionsSPEAKER: In accordance with a determination of the Business Committee I call on the Hon Brooke van Velden to present the report of the royal commission of inquiry.Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Deputy Leader—ACT): I present the final report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Historical Abuse in State Care and in the Care of Faith-based Institutions.SPEAKER: That paper is published under the authority of the House.
Taxation (Budget Measures) Bill — In Committee—Part 4
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That debate on this 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.A party vote was called for on the question That Part 4 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 4 agreed to.
Kuriger Barbara; Russell DeborahCHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Hon Dr Deborah Russell you said to me that you had one set of questions that was going to be relayed in your five-minute call—this is it right? So I'm going to give you another call.Hon Dr Deborah Russell: Yep. Thank you.CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Thank you.Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): So I am focusing very specifically on clause 39 and I just want to express my shock at what the Minister has just said. The decision this Government has made is to ensure that low-income people people who are on the lower tax thresholds—their marginal rates are 10.5 or 17.5 percent. The Minister has just confirmed that they are going to tax them more. That is appalling.
Watts SimonHon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Revenue): Thank you very much to the member Deborah Russell for that question. The member is correct that the implications around the portfolio investment entity rates will not change until 1 April 2025 and the rationale again is consistent with the other concession tax rates that we've outlined today. To be more specific the implications around that will be in regards to the managed funds entities and the compliance burden that will fall upon them. The reality is that again you know this Government on this side of the House is implementing and putting in place tax relief and personal tax reductions; on that side of the House they're opposing that. So to be talking about a concept of not having increasing tax the status quo of the rate in which someone is paid today versus where they'll be in 2025—they're not getting over taxed; that concept is just simply not correct. And I hope the member through the process of what we've been through in this committee of the whole House stage may be at a point of deciding Actually maybe we should support this bill because actually we do want to support hard-working Kiwis with tax relief." That would be a really good outcome from this committee of the whole House stage but I'll leave that with the member."
Hernandez Francisco; Kuriger Barbara; Russell Deborah; Watts SimonFRANCISCO HERNANDEZ (Green): Thank you Madam Chair. I just want an elaboration of the Minister's answers to me about the deficit. If you'll forgive me I'm new to this place so I'm still learning how it all works. If the projected Government deficit is $13.4 billion how does the Minister's assertion that there is not any borrowing for the tax cuts align with that kind of reality? Is it coming from the so-called magic money tree that members from the opposite money benches like to refer to? Is it not being borrowed? I have no idea.I have a second question as well which relates to all the acronyms that were being thrown out here. Can you tell me what the acronym RESPCT" stands for?CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I call Dr Deborah Russell and specific to something that hasn't been answered please.Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): I'm just going to say Madam Chair I do—Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order Madam Chair. Thank you very much. We acknowledge your direction to the committee in terms of questions the issue being though as the Hon Dr Deborah Russell pointed out the line of inquiry she has is regarding an area that is specifically complex and her follow-up question was as a result of the response from the Minister that then drew other questions.CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I accept that.Hon Kieran McAnulty: But the direction that you just gave was that you're seeking questions in a different area. So what I'm seeking to clarify is: if there are follow-up questions within the same area—CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Follow-up questions are fine as long as they're not the same questions.Hon Kieran McAnulty: So the issue isn't so much around relevance as repetition? Fair enough. Thank you.Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: Madam Chair?CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The Hon Simon Watts just wants to take a call and then I'll come back to you.Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Revenue): I'll disregard the member's last statement which was not a question. It was quite irrelevant. But RSCT is "retirement scheme contribution tax"; RWT is "resident withholding tax". So that's the definition around that.The question before previously around modelling and consultation—Budget secrecy a number of restrictions around the ability to consult specifically with these impacted aspects around fringe benefit tax (FBT). But what we do know from historic terms—and the member will no doubt be aware of that from their prior experiences—is that any introduction of changes part year brings high degrees of complexity and compliance. That aspect is what has been the basis in regards to the decision.No specific modelling was undertaken as a result of that but we do know from the evidence that we've seen over many many years that part-year adjustments do bring compliance and complexity and the sector feedback consistently is that their preference is to start the year off clean versus doing part-year. So that's why the FBT changes are what they are."
Hernandez Francisco; Watts Simon; Kuriger BarbaraFRANCISCO HERNANDEZ (Green): Thank you Madam Chair. Just a couple of questions to the Minister. They relate to clause 34 all the way to clause 39. We know that from the tax cuts that result from this some of it will probably have to be funded from borrowing which will result in future taxpayers funding these short-term sweeteners while also taking on additional burdens due to the social and physical infrastructure deficit. These tax cuts will lead to about $17.1 billion of extra borrowing. The tax package costs $4.17 billion which means that future taxpayers will be paying for them in terms of the deficits not to mention the infrastructure and Public Service deficits. So what advice have you had on the impact on future borrowing and is this perhaps why they are not indexed to inflation things like the pay rates? Because we won't be able to keep paying for them in the future. And if we're wanting to be providing services just at the same level of today—not even talking about improving services for the future which is what we on this side of the House want—without raising any new revenue-raising measures and given that the operating allowance that the Minister announced yesterday is not even enough just to keep pace with current levels of service delivery—$13 billion of the $17 billion announced for the health spending is just to preserve existing services—what sort of analysis has been done on what the impact of these changes might be? We're really concerned that the impact of the changes that are happening in this bill will actually undermine the ability of future Governments to actually deliver on core public services not even to improve them. What advice have you received specifically on the impact of the lost revenue from this tax package on future operating allowances? Thank you.Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Revenue): Well thank you very much Madam Chair. I'm just going to help the member a little bit in regards to this question because the information is clearly available that the tax relief that we've outlined as part of this bill is fully funded. The tax relief is fully funded through both savings and revenue initiatives. The Government is not borrowing to fund this tax relief so it won't have implications around inflation. So the whole premise around the point of that question is not based on the fact and the reality. The fact sheet provided with this Budget outlines a clear articulation of the annual average both tax relief and savings that adds up to the total cost of the package which is circa $3.7 billion per year.CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I want to make it clear to those who are asking questions that we're looking for questions now rather than speeches or assumptions so we're really sticking to the questions.
Taxation (Budget Measures) Bill — In Committee—Part 3
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That debate on this 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 (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Arena Williams' tabled amendment to amend clause 27 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 3 stand part.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 3 agreed to.
Wedd Catherine; Pugh MaureenCATHERINE WEDD (National—Tukituki): I move That debate on this question now close.CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I think there is still a bit of scope for interrogation of this part but I am aware that we have started to get some repetition.
O'Connor Greg; Watts SimonCHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): I'm going to call the honourable Minister but just before I do that if you would indulge me please Minister I'll just make a comment in relation to the discussion we've just had on yielding. When a member invites a member on the opposite side to yield or offers to yield it is actually part of that member's call. So that is why that precludes a member from taking a closure motion during the middle of a call. So if members intend to yield it would be useful to actually use the word yield". It would just be useful because then we know.So as far as the members on my right go—there was a question in relation to the debate about whether the fact he's used a closure motion precluded him from another closure motion. That is not the case. It was only in the case of that particular call. So Mr Bates you're welcome to continue your vigorous efforts at closure motions.Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Revenue): Thank you very much Mr Chair. In regards to the member's question in regards to the issue that has been highlighted in terms of the overlap between the minimum family tax credit threshold and the general Working for Families tax credit abatement threshold look this is an aspect of—technical in nature obviously. It is an element which will in terms of scenario come into play forecasted by IRD on 1 April 2027. That overlap consideration is an issue and it is an issue that I'm aware of obviously. I have asked officials to provide us with some advice later this year about how we look to address it. So that is an ongoing aspect and it is due to the uniqueness of some of the changes.There was another question also in regards to tax codes and how IRD identifies the appropriate tax codes. IRD will use the appropriate and existing systems and processes in order to determine those tax codes. Obviously if IRD is aware that employees may be using the wrong code etc. which occurs occasionally then it will be up for the employees to inform them. This is a standard practice nothing sort of out of the ordinary in regards to this restoration to this bill."
Hernandez Francisco; Russell DeborahFRANCISCO HERNANDEZ (Green): Thank you Mr Chair. I'm taking a short call quoting some of the regulatory impact statement (RIS) that's been published about Part 3 and some of the changes around the tax brackets. I just want to quote a section of it because I'm curious to see the interpretation about the effective marginal tax rate (EMTR). So the RIS Annex 1 page 18 says that The personal income tax threshold changes and extending the income range of the Independent Earner Tax Credit reduce EMTRs for 335000 people (positive impact on work incentives) and increase EMTRs for 85000 people (negative impact on work incentives). Adding the proposed family-based tax credit changes (the In-Work Tax Credit and FamilyBoost) increases the EMTRs for a further 45000 people (negative impact on work incentives). These people are in coupled families with children and are spread across the first 4 income tax bands ($0 to $180000). Modelling did not indicate an increase in EMTRs for sole parents."I'm curious about the 130000 people who have been negatively affected by the changes in EMTRs. Does the Minister in the chair have specific analysis about who the people who have been negatively affected are? Like is there a specific breakdown in terms of perhaps income quintiles or specific breakdowns in terms of ethnicities or even specific breakdowns in terms of geographic region or electorates for example? Thank you.Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): Thank you Mr Chair. That is an excellent series of questions that has been raised by my colleague in the Green Party having a look at the effective marginal tax rates because there's quite an interaction between—James Meager: Oh it's a love-in. He's well educated that's why. Otago graduate.Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: I'm willing to yield the floor if the member would like to make a call."
New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income (Controlling Interests) Amendment Bill — Third Reading
Utikere TangiTANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Meitaki maata Mr Speaker. Look I thank the member for putting the House into a state of relaxation at this point in the evening. But for the benefit of those who may be watching we are now debating the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income (Controlling Interests) Amendment Bill. It's a pleasure to rise in support of this bill a bill that enjoys cross-party support in Parliament because this is a bill that will change the law and that will allow the New Zealand Superannuation Fund colloquially known as the Cullen fund to take an interest in an entity—but not just any old interest a controlling interest at that. That's because the time has come—it marks the next step in the growth and development of the Cullen fund. But it also allows for the fund to play its part in doing its bit towards the future in terms of preparing the country in meeting the costs of superannuation.I note that we on this side of the House want to always give Kiwis certainty around their retirement and so that's why we have in terms of addressing this legislation maintained the super age at 65. It is unfortunate that some members of parties in this House have not perhaps done the same because it does assist in the sustainability of the fund and in the many years ahead.The Act as it currently stands does direct the Guardians of New Zealand Superannuation to do what they can to actually avoid funding—in the sense of a controlling stake in an entity. The reason as to why that is in place is because the original purpose of the fund was to get exposure at the time rather than to own businesses or have a controlling aspect in businesses or entities. So removing this limitation which is exactly what this bill does this evening will allow the Cullen fund to access a broader group of investment opportunities including here in New Zealand.Earlier Mr Foster talked about the independence from political influence. The good thing about this bill is it doesn't make any changes in that regard so Mr Foster is quite right.But this is a bill that will provide flexibility moving forward and it will allow investment decisions taken by the Guardians to be a little bit more flexible which is what we are wanting to achieve. It's wonderful that this does enjoy cross-party support. It is a bill that was introduced by the Labour Government. It's wonderful to see it through third reading. I commend this bill to the House.
Wade-Brown CeliaCELIA WADE-BROWN (Green): Thank you Mr Speaker. It's a pleasure to support the third reading of this bill and in broad terms to agree with my colleague across the House. Superannuation is the only benefit that's not means-tested. Its near universality is admirable but it's not perfect. But we're talking about widening the power of the Guardians of New Zealand Superannuation not about eligibility today. It's strange—almost an anomaly—to do a better job within the existing economic system without a capital gains tax a wealth tax nor an inheritance tax. None of those are changes we're going to see on Thursday so I don't have to worry about how many sleeps it is till Budget day.But I would like to disagree with the points made about leaving it totally up to the Guardians. At the moment there are a number of existing excellent exclusions. Despite the connections with the tobacco industry I have not seen any member of the coalition arguing that we should get rid of the exclusion that stops the New Zealand Superannuation Fund Guardians investing in the tobacco industry. I have not even seen Ministers from parties that are not particularly keen on frogs trying to get rid of the exclusion on companies processing whale meat.Tom Rutherford: All right come back to the bill.CELIA WADE-BROWN: These are exclusions that exist now and we would have liked to have added more exclusions. That is absolutely the topic of the bill and it could have been the topic of improved amendments. I haven't even noticed people bringing forward the idea that it's radical that the Guardians do not invest in developing settlements in Israeli occupied territory nor—and I wonder maybe. I just think it's completely inconsistent to say we want them to do the total judgment we don't want any thought about investment in fossil fuels or more renewable energy when we've already got some really strong exclusions. My suggestion is that certain members on the other side of the House have not read the existing bill.I do think it's important that we get the best return and like reinsurance councils I'm sure that these long-term investment funds will not wish to invest in stranded assets and will almost certainly continue their very good returns by not investing in coal or gas or oil. We also understand that the New Zealand Super like most benefits although super is not being cut superannuitants are not being asked to prove that they're still over 65 every year as people receiving disability benefits are. We think it is useful that increasing the effectiveness of the Super Fund may go a little way towards in the long term improving the options for increasing superannuation.It is a pleasure for once to speak to a bill that is going to have unanimous agreement if not unanimous comprehension in this House. Thank you.
Local Government (Electoral Legislation and Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill — Second Reading
Tuesday 23 July 2024 - Volume 776
Regulatory Systems (Social Security) Amendment Bill — Discharge
Parker David; Watts SimonHon DAVID PARKER (Labour): Thank you Mr Chair. I have two questions the first of which should be relatively easy and quick for the Minister of Revenue to answer. This part and the next part both make changes to the Tax Administration Act. It is impossible for us to check through the Tax Administration Act and check every section against amendments. In the last Government we changed the Tax Administration Act to give the Inland Revenue Department the power to collect information for policy purposes not just tax administration purposes. It was that power that was used in order to inquire into the effective distribution of wealth tax paid and economic incomes of the very wealthy.That led to the Taxation Principles Reporting Act to report on those issues into the future. The Government under urgency repealed the tax principles Act. I know there are many people in society that didn't like the scrutiny that came upon the actual state of affairs in New Zealand through the information collection powers for policy purposes. My first question is: I want confirmation from the Minister that nothing in this part or indeed other parts—otherwise I'm going to have to ask the question again in respect of other parts—repeals or amends the section relating to the collection of information by Inland Revenue for policy purposes. That's my first question.My second question sir because I do believe in the to and fro on—well actually if the Minister is ready to answer.Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Revenue): No.Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): Thank you for that confirmation. My second question relates to the fiscal consequences of the change to the FamilyBoost package. I can't find the cost of this measure to gauge its effectiveness in the Budget documents. The summary of tax initiatives on page 49 of the Budget Economic and Fiscal Update includes global figures for changes to personal income tax and the independent earning tax credit and some other things but doesn't list it. So it's not significant enough to make that page. I've gone through the summary of initiatives which goes through the Votes or changes to Votes by ministry. I've checked for revenue; it's not separately listed there. I've checked the pre-Budget announcements; it's not there. I've checked the Ministry of Social Development; it's not there. And I've checked Education and I can't see it there.Now it is possible that I'm missing something but I would like to know—and I think it's fair of the committee to want to know—what is the fiscal consequences of the FamilyBoost package? And why is that relevant? Well we ought to know that as we pass legislation that changes these rules but also we know from other documents released in the Budget that the overall effect of this Budget is to increase the number of children below the poverty line. I think it's relevant for us to know whether some other change to the FamilyBoost payment would have had a greater effect on child poverty. And we can't tell if we don't know how much the cost of this initiative is. So I would like to know what the fiscal cost of the FamilyBoost package is.
Watts SimonHon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Revenue): Well Madam Chair I thought we were doing quite well with the quality of questions until the last contribution. What I'll remind the member Ingrid Leary is that about 96 percent of the New Zealand population has access to the internet and then when you throw in the ability to use one's phone in that I'm sure access to the internet in that member's electorate in regards to be able to claim this is not going to be a significant issue. However if there are individuals who do not have the internet the ability to access Inland Revenue's myIR website is through public libraries and other assets like that. There are mechanisms through which people can deal with this but the whole fact is I think a lot of people have access. So I'll leave it at that.In regards to the questions raised in regards to the fiscal implications or trade-offs in regards to Arena Williams' questions around the aspect around FamilyBoost there was a consideration around that point. We've had to make trade-offs in regards to a number of aspects of policy. The fiscal considerations of increasing that abatement threshold was at a degree that we chose not to do and that's a decision that the coalition Government has taken. But what is clear is that the benefits versus the status quo are significant for a large number of New Zealand households with children and that benefit will flow through as soon as practical.
Customer and Product Data Bill — First Reading
11. Question No. 11—Internal AffairsMARK CAMERON (ACT) to the Minister of Internal AffairsQuestion No. 11—Internal Affairs11. MARK CAMERON (ACT) to the Minister of Internal Affairs: What recent announcements has she made about lotteries for charitable purposes?Hon BROOKE van VELDEN (Minister of Internal Affairs): Yesterday I announced that fund-raising lotteries run by not-for-profits such as the Heart Foundation the Coastguard the Auckland Rescue Helicopter Trust and many more throughout New Zealand will be able to operate online permanently. During 2020 a temporary exemption was granted but only until October of this year after which charities would be required to return to selling tickets via the post or in person. I am pleased to say this Government will now be making the exemption permanent so charities can continue to fund-raise effectively for causes that benefit the community.Mark Cameron: What impact will this change have for non-profit organisations who fund-raise using lotteries?Hon BROOKE van VELDEN: Allowing charities to advertise and run their lotteries online will allow them to reach a wider audience as well as saving time and money in selling tickets to participants. It is also safer for their staff and volunteers to not have to sell tickets in person. These lotteries are a significant source of funding for well-loved Kiwi charities and this change ensures they are not forced to use increasingly outdated systems such as bank cheques and the postal service.Mark Cameron: What impact will this change have for communities?Hon BROOKE van VELDEN: Many communities throughout New Zealand benefit significantly from the services provided by charities that fund-raise through lotteries such as large organisations like the Heart Foundation through to your local hospice in regional New Zealand. This change means charities can continue to fund-raise to provide these services to the community.
10. Question No. 10—Building and ConstructionCAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour) to the Minister for Building and ConstructionQuestion No. 10—Building and Construction10. CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour) to the Minister for Building and Construction: What announcements has the Government made about remote inspections?Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction): The Government is progressing work to require building consent authorities to use remote visual inspections as the default approach so building a home in New Zealand can be easier and more affordable. It is an exercise in increasing productivity.Cameron Brewer: Why is the Government progressing this work?Hon CHRIS PENK: Well a constant frustration getting in the way of those doing the building work is a cumbersome consenting system and an inconsistent one including as to building inspections. Some councils typically conduct these in person but others are much more forward-looking in using remote visual inspections. Where there are massive delays in consenting this forces builders and other tradies to delay their work in turn pushing up the costs for the end-user and making it difficult for our already struggling building and construction sector to get on with the work that they need to do.Cameron Brewer: What benefits do remote inspections have compared to traditional in-person inspections?Hon CHRIS PENK: Remote visual inspections including through various apps that are already available offer significant productivity gains making it easier and cheaper to build. These include lowering costs by removing the need for inspectors to travel to site reducing delays by enabling more inspections per day and allowing inspectors to work in other regions remotely and reducing transport-related costs and emissions. The use of remote visual inspections is currently inconsistent across the country and so it's our intention to consult on ways that we can ensure we have an efficient productive system by ensuring that these are used as the default method and determining exactly the circumstances in which they shouldn't be.
2. Question No. 2—FinanceNANCY LU (National) to the Minister of FinanceQuestion No. 2—Finance2. NANCY LU (National) to the Minister of Finance: How many people have used the Budget 2024 tax calculator?Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): Since Budget day when the Government announced its programme of tax relief the Budget website has hosted a tax calculator. This calculator shows how much tax relief people will get based on their personal and family circumstances. It has been very popular. I am happy to tell members that the number of people using the tax calculator has recently reached half a million—to be precise 513000 people have used the calculator to see what they will be getting in long overdue tax relief that the other side of the House voted against. [Interruption]Nancy Lu: Supplementary.SPEAKER: Wait.Nancy Lu: When will tax relief be delivered?Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Income tax relief will be delivered in one week's time. Changes to personal income tax thresholds the in-work tax credit and the independent earner tax credit will apply from next Wednesday 31 July. On top of those changes the new FamilyBoost payment which reimburses families for a portion of their early childhood education fees was launched on 1 July.Nancy Lu: What are the different elements of tax relief?Hon NICOLA WILLIS: From next Wednesday personal income tax thresholds will rise from $14000 to $15600 from $48000 to $53500 and from $70000 to $78100. The effect of these increases—these long-overdue increases in thresholds—is to reduce a person's income tax by up to $40 a fortnight. In addition the in-work tax credit which helps support low to middle income working families with children will increase by $50 a fortnight; and eligibility for the independent earner tax credit which is for people who don't receive a benefit or Working for Families has been extended from $48000 a year to $70000 a year of income. Parties on this side of the House are backing the workers.Nancy Lu: How much will people get in tax relief?Hon NICOLA WILLIS: That depends on a person's individual and family circumstances. These circumstances differ widely which is the whole reason for the Budget tax calculator. I would encourage New Zealanders who haven't already done so—and half a million people already have—to go to budget.govt.nz and check out their own situation in the tax calculator.
Brownlee GerryPETITIONS PAPERS SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLSSPEAKER: A petition has been delivered to the Clerk for presentation.CLERK: Petition of Peter Knighton requesting that the House urge the Government to ensure that people with disabilities are always involved in Government decision-making that affects their lives; and note that 520 people have signed a similar petition.SPEAKER: That petition stands referred to the Petitions Committee. No papers have been delivered. A select committee report has been delivered for presentation.CLERK: Report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the 2024-25 Estimates for Vote Audit.SPEAKER: No bills have been introduced.
Tuiono TeanauWEDNESDAY 24 JULY 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.]
Williams Arena; Sepuloni CarmelREGULATORY SYSTEMS (SOCIAL SECURITY) AMENDMENT BILLDischargeARENA WILLIAMS (Assistant Whip—Labour): Madam Speaker I have a point of order. There is no Minister here. You must ring the bells. Tim van de Molen: There is a Minister right here.ARENA WILLIAMS: The Minister who's responsible for this bill is not here to give the reading so I'd suggest that it would be worth the House's time to set this bill aside and move to the next order on the agenda.TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Speaking to the point of order Madam Speaker you cannot refer to a member being absent from the Chamber. It's clearly out of order.Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Deputy Leader—Labour): Speaking to the point of order Madam Speaker clearly the other side of the House is not organised. There was no Minister in the House to take the call for the first speech of the first reading of the Regulatory Systems (Social Security) Amendment Bill and so I support my colleague's recommendation that we move on to the next piece of business on the Order Paper.TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Speaking further to that Madam Speaker that is entirely inaccurate to say that there was no Minister in the House.Hon Carmel Sepuloni: I didn't say no Minister.TIM VAN DE MOLEN: The member did clearly say that and this is a point of order; it should be heard in silence.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Sorry we won't have a conversation across the House. I understand that the Minister responsible—TIM VAN DE MOLEN: There is clearly a Minister here who is able to take a call.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): There is a Minister; different points of order.TIM VAN DE MOLEN: Yes but I'm happy for us to continue with the planned businesses as it was. If the House would appreciate the anticipation that was being built by the Minister she sought to ease into this important piece of legislation by taking this upcoming call. I'm sure we will be happy to continue with the business as it's scheduled.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): I'm just going to get some advice from the Clerk. Just a moment. Thank you. Members as the Minister was not here to take the call I'm recommending that the bill be discharged and I call on Government order of the day No. 7.TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Point of order. Madam Speaker it is entirely within the Standing Orders for any Minister to take a call on a bill. There is a Minister in the House who is happy to take the call on the bill so to say that we need to discharge this bill because a specific Minister is not present I would suggest is entirely outside the Standing Orders.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): I would agree with you had the Minister sought the call; however the Minister did not seek the call.Arena Williams: Thank you Madam Speaker. Seeking call No. 2 on the Māori Fisheries Amendment Bill—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Just a moment. We call on Government Order of the Day No. 7.
Bidois DanDAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): Madam Speaker it's a pleasure to rise and tautoko the previous comments from members across this House to support the Customer and Product Data Bill in the name of my very good friend and colleague Andrew Bayly.Information asymmetry creates market power and anti-competitive behaviour and it's in that vein that this bill seeks to address these key issues in some of our biggest and most important sectors in the domestic economy in New Zealand. As my colleague Dr Vanessa Weenink said quite aptly this is about choice and competition in those particular sectors whether it is telecommunications banking or electricity providers. As a member of the Economic Development Science and Technology Committee I'm very very excited about this bill. This bill is a bill as Helen White mentioned that will make a significant difference to the competitive nature of those sectors. I welcome the introduction of this bill from the Minister and I commend this bill to the House. Motion agreed to.Bill read a first time.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The question is That the Customer and Product Data Bill be considered by the Economic Development Science and Innovation Committee.Motion agreed to.Bill referred to the Economic Development Science and Innovation Committee.
White HelenHELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): Thank you. I'm pleased to support the Customer and Product Data Bill. This bill came through with strong intellectual vigour that was given to it by David Clark and then given to it by Duncan Webb and it's come through with the full support of the House as I understand it today.I'm extremely pleased to see a bill like this because I think it makes a practical difference. But I also think it's really nice to see a positive bill come through this House. This makes a difference. It's not cutting down it's not—at the moment—subject to lobby groups; this is a bill that actually will support ordinary New Zealanders. In my experience they have been woefully supported in this area.So I agree with my colleague across the House who is also on the economic development committee that those experiences that we've probably all had with the lack of transparency on data are serious. It builds into a few things that need to go on in a complex society. This is a new area. This is something where there has been a gap and unfortunately we've been actually put in a situation where really we have had people take advantage of that; not everybody takes advantage of that but certainly big sophisticated organisations do. So our job as a Parliament is always to be looking for those vulnerabilities and making sure that we're looking after people.So I am thrilled to see this bill come through. I will be on that committee and I'll be zealously guarding the needs of the ordinary New Zealanders when we look at the detail because we sure as eggs have all had people lobby us on that committee to try and water it down to try and say it's too hard. And it's just not acceptable. We need to stand up to that. Part of our job as a Parliament is to be savvy about that to not actually look at the lobbyist in a naïve way and to be using our judgment about whose interest the people that give us submissions serve. We need to make sure that this is something that we hold the feet to the fire of those groups on hold the banks to account on and hold to account other groups that have that kind of capacity to use data in a way that supports them not consumers. We have to hold them to account.So I am thrilled to see this bill and I am hoping that we'll do everything and it will be the beginning of a recognition of the need to proactively and positively protect New Zealand citizens from the kind of abuse that can happen if you're a powerful group with a lot more power than the average consumer. That's our job as a Parliament. And that's actually the job of the Government but it's also the job of the Opposition so I'm pleased to see that this is something that we've come together on today and I'm absolutely thrilled to see the first piece of legislation I can remember actually in this term of Parliament that's a positive step to protect consumers. So thank you; I am pleased to commend this to the House.