edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Williams ArenaARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you Mr Chair. I have 10 questions for the Minister about clause 3. I will take him through my first six questions and then I would really appreciate a short call after that about clause 3.Now as the Hon Kieran McAnulty explained there is a real purpose in spending some time within a select committee context or another group context to find a way through this where we're appealing some taxation principles that we actually all agree with. The Minister hasn't said that we do not all agree with these taxation principles. He has not said that he disagrees with sunlight as the best disinfectant to work through a bipartisan way forward on these tax principles and so I'm here to help. I have some suggestions.The first question that I have for the Minister is: will he be taking to Cabinet a proposal for a Cabinet committee to consider those principles within the Taxation Principles Reporting Act 2023 which should be given effect in policy?My second question is: would he consider a futures forum - like setting which is a tool of the Scottish Parliament to consider those principles of New Zealand's taxation reporting regime as it exists now particularly Schedule 1 and whether those are still relevant and how they should be given effect in policy regulation or secondary legislation which would be subordinate to the Tax Administration Act? A futures forum for the Minister's benefit is a tool which uses a cross-partisan approach alongside experts to conduct inquiries into issues which are long-term political issues for the good of a nation. Two examples from Scotland's Futures Forum are its inquiry into drug use in Scotland which was a cross-partisan approach to healthcare and an inquiry into their superannuation settings.The third question I have for the Minister is: would he consider that forum being chaired by a presiding officer of this House and it being a genuinely bipartisan forum where members of this House were represented in proportion to their party vote that they received or one representative per party? Because that would genuinely give us the opportunity to have a cross-partisan way of working most similar to the Business Committee.My fifth question for the Minister is: would he consider me chairing it? I would love to.And the sixth question that I have for him before I ask the further four is: would he consider Dr Dean Knight as a special adviser given his interest in this debate and the submissions that you have heard from my colleagues on this side of the House about his advice about how to proceed with this particular clause 3?
Russell DeborahHon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): Thank you Mr Chair. I don't like having to do this but I have still not received an answer from the Minister on the initial question I asked and this is starting to worry me. So let me reprise the question and I'll tell you why it's worrying me.All right. So we have three dates in play here. So first of all is the date for the repeal of the repeal so that's 1 January 2025. So this bill has a self-repeal clause in it that's set at 1 January 2025. The problem is that as I read the bill as a tax person I looked and I thought Hang on a second; what's that date and why?" I couldn't quite understand it so I went back to the original Act and I looked in particular at the date at which the first interim report is due under the Taxation Principles Reporting Act and I'm going to direct the Minister to it. It's section 10(1) where it says "The Commissioner must give the Minister an interim Commissioner's report annually before the end of a calendar year"—so that's the second date that's in play—"for the tax year that ends in the calendar year"—so that's the third date that's in play. As a tax person it took me a little while to sort that through but I got it. It just took a moment of reflection and I got there but I wanted the Minister to explain—he has not done this yet—the relationship between section 10(1) in the Taxation Principles Reporting Act and clause 3 of the Taxation Principles Reporting Act Repeal Bill.Now that's the question I've asked three times now and still have not received an answer. The reason I'm starting to get a bit worried is because I'm not sure that the Minister understands this. Now that's alarming because Ministers ought to understand the nature of the legislation they're putting in front of the House. In this case it's a repeal bill. I would anticipate that the Minister would understand the nature of the original bill the Taxation Principles Reporting Act 2023.Now these are common concepts in tax: tax year calendar year and how they relate. I would anticipate that the Minister of Revenue and his officials would be able to explain that to us and to the House. Now I'm happy to step outside and explain it to people but that's not my role in the House. But I would like the Minister to explain it to the House for the benefit of the House and for the benefit of people watching. So Minister the ball is in your court on that one. Answer the question and I'll stop asking it."
White HelenHELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): Thank you Mr Chair and I'd like to congratulate the Minister on his new role. I want to know about the report and the work that's been done pursuant to the bill that is going to be repealed and whether the Minister would look at really putting hard-working New Zealanders' money to good use in letting us see the work that's been done and perhaps consider an extension in terms of the repeal for a few years so that we can see this information and its value and then make a considered decision about whether in fact it provides value for New Zealanders.It does seem to me that the work that's been done—even if we may I disagree on whether in fact that is good value for money the money has now been spent largely. I would like the Minister to answer very plainly whether he has such a report already or if he does not how much work would be involved in getting that report into a position where we would be able to see it. If it involves particular people what happens to those people? Are they going to be made redundant? In which case it's on notice and actually they've got time on their hands that they might be able to finish this work. So what's the cost of retaining those people till they finish this time?And I guess my bigger point here—and I would like an answer to this and I am absolutely genuine about this—is the taxpayer is someone who we all know; it's us. We are all paying tax at the moment.CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Can the member bring the focus to clause 3 please?HELEN WHITE: Yes. Sorry. So in a situation is it really something where we want to repeal an Act if in fact we are about to see whether that taxpayer is being overtaxed? Given the position of the Government on the situation I'd like a genuine answer as to why we wouldn't wait and see whether in fact the tax balance is right even in this current work that's been done. Thank you.CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Just in terms of the next contributions they do need to be focused on clause 3. I do note that previous contributions have focused on clause 3 and have brought up new material but continuing on from here we need to keep that focus.
Watts SimonHon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Revenue): Thank you very much Mr Chair and thank you for those contributions.I'll start off with firstly the I think partial contribution by the Hon Kieran McAnulty—until his colleague interrupted and he sat down. But the reality is we won't be taking him up on their offer so I think we'll just cut to the chase on that.The other contribution from the Hon Barbara Edmonds was in regards to again the prioritisation between these clauses so let's work it through. The commencement date is the date that the Taxation Principles Reporting Act is repealed. That will be the date at which that actually occurs and it gets published. So that would be the date which follows post Royal assent.Then clause 3 which we've extensively been through over and over the eight words—at that point this bill on 1 January 2025 in effect will be repealed. Basically what happens with these bills is that they go on to the legislation website. Once they are repealed they go into another bucket of old bills that have been repealed. So from a point of process that's what's happening. It's no more complex than that. It's eight words in that clause. I appreciate there's a lot of interest in that but it is as simple as that.There were a couple of other questions from the Hon Duncan Webb that cover I think in terms of where there were examples of other bills where we've used that. I've given an example of the one that was being done in the last few days. And as I said why we're doing it is it does in effect clear up the statute book. So those are the three questions.
Edmonds BarbaraHon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana): Thank you Mr Chair. I'm just going to finish my contribution and it will be very short while we're waiting for the Minister to get some advice on it to be able to provide a response to the committee. What other tax bills has this precedent been used in? Not just other bills; I'm talking about tax bills because there are particular drafters that draft these tax bills which are different from the Parliamentary Counsel Office. I also want to know how many fulltime-equivalents will be used to maintain this repeal of a repeal bill over the next year up to January 2025 given that the purpose and intention of this repeal bill is to remove waste and bureaucracy. I'd be really keen to know what the Minister's response is in relation to that especially given we do not have a select committee process we do not have the ability for the public or for members of the Finance and Expenditure Committee the great committee that it is to be able to ask Inland Revenue officials or an independent adviser which we always have as part of tax bills these particular questions. Because even for myself who has practised in tax at my first blush at looking at this bill I too was confused. I do have confidence in the Inland Revenue drafters and I just want to understand if the Minister can provide those answers to those very different questions.
Webb DuncanHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you. Look in the spirit of the new committee stage and a conversation I just want to get an answer to my original question which wasn't answered at all which was: does a repeal of a repeal restore the original legislation; if not why not? If the Minister could respond to that that would be great.
Watts SimonHon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Revenue): Thank you very much Mr Chair. Look I do acknowledge the energy in the room as we head into Christmas for a clause which has eight words just for the record—eight words are in this clause and we've heard a lot of clauses inside it.As I outlined clearly in my first response to the questions in regards to that I've covered off why that clause is there. The question raised by the Hon Grant Robertson I think was in regards to the other bills that there were. We had the fair pay repeal legislation which included a clause similar to that within this. So just to reply to that question: different time duration acknowledged but the view is that 12 months is an appropriate time.The questions from Chlöe Swarbrick and also from the Hon Dr Deborah Russell: those are again consistent around clause 3 which I've already covered.Again going back to the amendment on the Table well the title of the clause is not part of the part that we're currently discussing. I think you can be pretty clear that the title on this bill is pretty clear on what it's doing and that's exactly what it says so anything other than that is not going to be accepted.
Russell DeborahHon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): Mr Chair we've had a lot of talk of repeal today and this is a really unappealing repeal of a repeal. I'm going to appeal the unappealing repeal of the repeal—there's a lot of peeling going on like Christmas bells. It's kind of like Ding Dong Merrily on High" around here at the moment isn't it.I just want to go back to the question I asked before because the Minister did not answer it. He just explained the nature of the repeal clause again but he did not answer the question that I asked and it's actually quite an important one because anyone reading this bill might look at that repeal clause and wonder what on earth is going on here because it simply refers to the Act. You have to go back through the definitions and things to find out what's going on. So I'm going to refer the Minister back to section 10(1) of the original Act the Taxation Principles Reporting Act and I still want that explanation from the Minister. It is for the benefit of other people in this Chamber who perhaps don't have the specialised tax knowledge that people like Nancy Lu Arena Williams and Barb Edmonds have. I'm assuming the Minister has this knowledge. I know he has been an accountant I think in his previous life so he's worked in that space. So I'm assuming he does actually know but I'd like him to explain it for the benefit of people who don't. The relationship between the repeal date in the bill 1 January 2025 and section 10(1) of the Taxation Principles Reporting Act—so that's the relationship between the calendar year the tax year and the repeal date in this bill. We haven't had that explanation yet so I'd like the Minister to demonstrate that he actually does know what is meant by the tax year and how it relates to the calendar year and how then that relates to the unappealing repeal of the repeal of the legislation."
Robertson GrantHon GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour): I thank the Minister for responding there but I do believe he's opened up a number of questions on this part. The first of those for me is the choice of one year for people to see that the Act has done its job." I think in the interests of transparency New Zealanders deserve to know for time ad infinitum what's happened in this House today because otherwise this fulfils the very thing that Opposition members spoke about in the first and second readings. That is that there seems to be a lack of transparency from the Government about tax policy. So the idea that clause 3 will make this entire debate that we're having this morning vanish. And magically on 2 January 2025 when someone perhaps Dr Russell's father wakes up and says "What did they do to that tax principles Act?" and they will go and look and there'll be nothing. In all seriousness if the Government is so proud and so urgently bringing this law to the House how on earth can clause 3 be the kind of thing that they would do for a matter that they considered to be so urgent?So I think the Minister needs to give a bit more of an explanation beyond the idea that it's just a time period chosen so that people for a short period of time can know that an Act existed as opposed for a longer period of time. I'm not aware of the precedents that the Minister has mentioned so I would also like him to tell us what precedents those are so that we can understand what the logic was for those laws because I'm not sure but I would question whether or not they were Acts that were for example repealing something that was in place for a very short time where the report in the case of this bill we know has been drafted and is ready to go. And it does beg that question that actually what the Minister is doing is trying to make sure this is scrubbed from history so that the questions won't continue to be asked about a report that clearly will have been finished and should be available to the New Zealand public. So I don't believe that the Minister has sufficiently answered the questions that I raised and I would like him to answer these two questions: firstly what are the other Acts that he's relying on for precedent? Secondly why does he feel that on the 2 January 2025 no one deserves to know that this Act passed through Parliament?"
Watts SimonHon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Revenue): Mr Chair thank you very much for the opportunity. I do appreciate a bit of time there; we had a little bit of an issue up here at the front desk but I'm glad that that's been resolved.What is clear from the contributions—I'll go through each of the members but we've obviously got a bit of duplication already on the same matter. Hon Grant Robertson in terms of clause 3 around why we've got that clause—similar to the Hon Deborah Russell's points around the repeal—member for Auckland Central Chlöe Swarbrick also noted around the repeal and the Hon Duncan Webb's question was around the repeal. So let's cover the repeal point in clause 3.So basically clause 3—and it is quite simple—of this Act is repealed on 1 January 2025. The purpose of that clause—and it's not the first piece of legislation that's had that in it; what it does ensure is that there is a period of time in which the bill and the legislation is and does remain within the public forum on the IRD website for about a year before it is moved off. This makes sure that just as a courtesy to people they can see that the bill has done its job for 2024 and before it is tidied away on 1 January 2025. So that's the purpose of the clause nothing more complex than that. There is precedent around that and that will cover off those four questions. In regards to the last question from Arena Williams in regards to her tabled amendment which is in regards to the same aspect the reality is that the first part of that clause which is basically changing the name—which doesn't seem aligned with the principles of the Act. Clause 2 in terms of adding an additional 18 months—as I've said there in clause 3 around deleting the words in terms of 1 January 2026" it's not necessary for having such an elongated time for that bill to be up. One year is about right based on the advice that we've got and so the suggestions in this amendment are something that we will not be supporting."
Webb DuncanHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Oh thank you. I think you're right Chlöe Swarbrick that they're simply covering their tracks here. But I guess mine's a technical question. I'm pretty sure but I'd like the Minister's assurance—and also kind of the authority for the point—because of course repealing a repeal: does that put you back essentially to the status quo ex ante? That is to say: does that un-repeal the Taxation Principles Reporting Act?Now I suspect that that's not the case—and I think somewhere in the mists of time I remember that the repeal of a repeal doesn't un-repeal the repeal—but I think it's quite important seeing that you are going to repeal a repeal that you explain exactly how it is that that doesn't put us back to the status quo ex ante and the Taxation Principles Reporting Act springs back to life? Whilst that would be a good thing I suspect that's unlikely. But I would like you to confirm exactly how that is the case. Let me know if you need a hand.
Swarbrick ChlöeCHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green—Auckland Central): Thank you Madam Chair. I just note that this clause 3 in Part 1 of the Taxation Principles Reporting Act Repeal Bill is of course a very narrow clause. But I think it is very important to take it into the full context of the legislation that we are speaking about. So just for those who are following along at home such as Dr Deborah Russell's father what this clause states is that this Act—this Act itself which the Minister is seeking to pass today will itself be automatically repealed from our statute book on 1 January 2025. It is effectively a repeal of the repealment Act. Which means if I'm to take it correctly they are here seeking not only to do the undoing of this legislation but to leave it without a trace on our statute book; to hide away the proof that they have repealed legislation which would have enabled New Zealanders to have consistent and clear reporting on the efficacy and operation of our taxation system.So my question for the Minister is: why is it that he is seeking to repeal the repealment legislation? Is it that my intuition on this point is correct that he is seeking not only to do this deed but to do it in such a way that it is now gone without a sense of any trace or any ability or any evidence—evidence and data mind that this had happened in the first place?
Russell DeborahHon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): I was interested in this repeal clause as well because as the Hon Grant Robertson says it states on 1 January 2025." It's interesting because reading through the bill I sort of said "Hang on a second why that repeal date?" It took me a while to sort it through because it is an unusual clause. The thing is that in the Act that this bill is repealing—so in the Taxation Principles Reporting Act 2023—in section 10(1) of the Act which is being repealed by this bill it says that "The Commissioner must give the Minister an interim Commissioner's report annually before the end of a calendar year for the tax year that ends in the calendar year using the best information that the Commissioner has on hand at that time."So that's all quite confusing because we've now got three dates in play: we've got a calendar year and we've got a tax year and then we've got the date that this bill is coming into the repeal. Now ordinarily I was thinking that if we're repealing an Act you'd expect to see a specific date for that Act. But instead we've got the tax year the calendar year interim reports—so a whole lot of stuff floating around. I could work it out—it took a while but I worked it out to see what was going on.Hon Grant Robertson: Don't do his work for him.Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: But it was confusing in respect to—no no I've got the tax year the calendar year and that repeal date. So I would like the Minister to explain it for the benefit of this House. I think he needs to explain to this House why we have those several dates in play to make it clear for all of us what we're actually talking about here. After all he's the one with the officials and he's the one who's promoting this. So I would expect him to be able to explain it for the benefit of those of us here in the House and also for those who are watching at home—hi Dad I know you'll be watching; daughter of a tax person it's genetic. So I would actually like the Minister to explain that to us.So that clause section 10(1) in the Act which is being repealed the dates in there how the calendar year and the tax year relate and then how that relates to this date of 1 January 2025 which is in the bill."
Robertson GrantHon GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour): Madam Chair I thank you for the call although it may not be in my long-term interests that you've given it to me. Part 1 of the bill repeals this Act and I want to start with a very simple question for the Minister and that is: why do we have this clause? We've been in the House over the course of the last—well it's three or four days and then last week with the Government's agenda of repealing anything it can find. None of the bills that have done that has included this type of clause. They've done repeals but they don't repeal the repeal. Just to be really clear that's what this clause is doing. What this clause does is repeal this bill. It's kind of remarkable in its own way. It does give a date for that which is 1 January 2025. I reckon I might know the answer to this question but it is actually a genuine question for the Minister because all the other bills that we've done that repealed all sorts of really good and important things that the previous Government did didn't have a clause that repealed themselves. I think we've just got an epidemic of repeal. The Government is so excited about repealing things that they're going to repeal their own bills as well as the Acts that they were repealing before. So that's exactly what clause 3 of the bill does. It repeals the repeal. Now we're going to get ourselves into some pretty farcical territory shortly so I would like to know from the Minister: why do we have clause 3?
Kuriger BarbaraIn CommitteePart 1 Repeal of this ActCHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members the House is in committee on the Taxation Principles Reporting Act Repeal Bill. I will start by reminding members that wording of the closure motion has changed in this Parliament. The new wording is That debate on this question now close." I refer members to Standing Order 137(1). Members we come first to Part 1. This is the debate on clause 3 "Repeal of this Act". The question is that Part 1 stand part."
MacLeod DavidDAVID MacLEOD (National—New Plymouth): Thank you Mr Speaker.Hon Kieran McAnulty: Here we go: 30 seconds of magic!DAVID MacLEOD: You know I was just closing my eyes just for a moment and I could have sworn that's what a speech from Karl Marx would have sounded like. I stand in support of this Taxation Principles Reporting Act Repeal Bill. This National-led coalition Government doesn't need a tax principles Act to tell us our principles of tax. Our principles on tax are very simple: Kiwis should pay less of it. And that's just what this Government is planning to do. And you're absolutely right—30 seconds. I stand here and I commend this bill to the House.
Lu NancyNANCY LU (National): I rise to support the second reading of this bill. Members opposite previously talked about a small amount of fulltime-equivalents being an insignificant cost to the Inland Revenue's total employees. However we are not just talking about the cost this year but actually going forward and we're repealing this bill to save cost and time going forward. This is what a National-led coalition Government is about: saving cost and reprioritising our service for the betterment of our country and our people.Kiwis don't need Inland Revenue to produce additional reports and so our focus should be on a higher-priority measures to address the cost of living pressures and get the Government's books back in order. So I commend the bill to the House.
Wedd CatherineCATHERINE WEDD (National—Tukituki): Madam Chair thank you. I support the second reading of this bill. On this side of the House we are focused on what truly matters to hard-working New Zealanders and that is less tax and a fair tax system. Requiring Inland Revenue to produce additional annual reports would take extra resources and we would be focusing on the wrong things. We need to get back to the priorities and that is reducing the cost of living and getting the Government's books back in order.The members on the other side of the House talked about how us as new members had little political experience in Parliament. But what I will tell you is that we have a lot of experience working hard in the real world running businesses working real jobs rolling our sleeves up in the orchards and on the farms being efficient but being challenged by paying more tax and having more bureaucracy. We understand that to strengthen our economy and reduce the cost of living we need tax relief and less bureaucracy and less redundant reporting. I commend this bill to the House.
Smith StuartSTUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you Madam Speaker. For the benefit of the new members in the House I thought it would be helpful to get an understanding of where this the original Act that we are now repealing came from. It was a genesis—an idea—from the Hon David Parker who is an enthusiastic follower of Thomas Piketty. He's the French economist and for those who don't know his work I suggest you look it up and it will explain all. So on that note I commend the bill to the House.
Lu NancyNANCY LU (National): I rise to speak on the first reading of the Taxation Principles Reporting Act Repeal Bill. I am in total support of this bill because it is truly a bureaucratic scheme by an Opposition member. I was from the profession of tax and accounting in my pre-Parliament life and so I know that in practice both taxpayers and tax services providers need a fair simple transparent easy and adequate tax system to service our country's revenue needs. Kiwis don't need another bureaucratic scheme so therefore I commend the bill to the House.
Wedd CatherineCATHERINE WEDD (National—Tukituki): I support the repeal of the Tax Principles Reporting Act because we don't need more bureaucracy more reporting more tax and as my colleague referred to redundant reporting—and as the member on the other side of the House also referred to redundant reporting. We don't need more time-wasting and wasteful spending. We need a fair tax system that is simple and efficient that supports hard-working New Zealanders.We don't need a tax principles Act to tell us our principles on tax. On the other side of the House they are obsessed with taxing hard-working New Zealanders and creating more bureaucracy and more rules. On this side of the House we are focused on getting things done delivering for New Zealanders and creating less bureaucracy. I commend this bill to the committee.
Smith StuartSTUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you Madam Speaker. Well there's certainly been some extra shots of coffee this morning by the sound of the energy in the House. Who knew people would get so engaged about tax? This is a very simple bill. It was in fact the Hon Grant Robertson who talked about the principles in the bill earlier. But in the select committee it was quite clear—it came out in the report—that there was a lack of common understanding on the principles. In fact the Inland Revenue themselves stated that in their view the anticipated benefits of the Act are unlikely to be fully realised for that reason. So it's an unnecessary bit of bureaucracy which we know that the former Labour Government loves. We don't; we're more efficient and we're getting on with it. I commend the bill to the House.
Foster AndyANDY FOSTER (NZ First): Thank you Madam Speaker. The passion around this bill is absolutely remarkable. I'm really impressed by the Opposition benches that they can keep going after the last two pieces of legislation and are still doing this in the last week before Christmas. Very impressive.What we've heard is that this is about understanding principles. No it's not about understanding principles; it's about whether you actually need to report on those principles in the way which is being suggested. This Government is very very clear that we want to reduce bureaucracy. What we have seen in the last few years is a burgeoning increase in the number of public servants required to do all sorts of reporting and compliance and all sorts of other things and what we want to do is to save some money and give that back to the people who have worked so hard to pay for it.Dr Russell said this is incredibly important information. Well it may be incredibly important but we've managed to cope for more than 180 years without that information and it hasn't done us too badly. Chlöe Swarbrick says she's given us the indication of how much is owned by various different parts of the community but how much is paid in tax? About half our population doesn't actually pay any net tax by the time they've interacted with the Government system. So I think we need to recognise that as well. Chlöe Swarbrick: So let's report on it.ANDY FOSTER: I think we already know that. We don't need a bureaucracy to report on that.What is very very clear is that this was clearly contested at the select committee stage. We've got the regulatory impact statement here something that the Opposition benches are very very keen on and you can see the Inland Revenue Department's advice there—that there are concerns about that they reflect the concerns about that and they can also report on some of these things in other ways as well. I commend this bill to the House.
McCallum GrantGRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland): Well it's a great privilege here to take the last call on this great bill the Employment Relations (Trial Periods) Amendment Bill which has given a great Christmas present to all the business owners of New Zealand where finally now they are going to have the opportunity to have great relationships with all their employees. One of the things that's really frustrated me as I've been sitting here listening to the other side of the House is they demonise employers like we're the devil incarnate. Well actually good employers build good businesses and they build them because they employ good people and they look after them. I'm very fortunate to be in a position here to be representing the people of Northland. One of the reasons I can do that is because I've got some very good staff that look after me and do a great job looking after my business and building the economy of this country and that's what enabled me to do this job and I look forward to doing it. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.
Wedd CatherineCATHERINE WEDD (National—Tukituki): I support this bill the Employment Relations (Trial Periods) Amendment Bill because this bill does support the workers. The other side of the House talks a lot about the workers but this bill supports businesses and workers and I'll give you an example. I'm the MP for Tukituki. In Tukituki we are the powerhouse of New Zealand horticulture. Horticulture provides thousands and thousands of jobs thousands and thousands of opportunities and this bill is an opportunity to not only grow our economy; it creates opportunities for workers. It is a win-win and we believe it supports the workers and businesses. I commend this bill to the House.
Butterick MikeMIKE BUTTERICK (National—Wairarapa): Thank you Mr Speaker. You could only but speculate about what they've had for breakfast over on the other side of the House there this morning. Perhaps I could actually return to speaking about the Employment Relations (Trial Periods) Amendment Bill. I reiterate that this bill is about creating opportunities—opportunities for both employers and employees including those that have or have had challenges—providing an opportunity for employment; an opportunity to have purpose; an opportunity for those that may not have the skills may not have the experience but want to be given the chance to learn. This bill provides exactly that. Therefore I'm pleased to support this bill.
Bates CarlCARL BATES (National—Whanganui): This is a great Christmas. We go into Christmas this year with a Government that is for all New Zealanders—employers and employees—a Government that believes in providing opportunities for businesses to grow and create economic growth to have the confidence that it is the right time to take on another an employee and to employees to put their best foot forward.I look forward to seeing the success and the opportunities provided to both employers and employees at both the Whanganui Regional Business Awards in 2024 and at the 2025 Te Manu Atatū Maōri Business Awards because this bill supports both and I commend this bill the Employment Relations (Trial Periods) Amendment Bill to the House.
Patterson Mark; O'Connor GregHon MARK PATTERSON (Minister for Rural Communities): New Zealand First also rises to support extending the availability of 90-day trials. New Zealand First has always been in favour of these 90-day trials. We think they do add flexibility in the labour market. They do give employers the opportunity to take a punt on an employee that they may not be 100 percent sure on. It does give better opportunities. What I did want to say though—really because this is something that I had something to do with in the last term in Parliament when we were in coalition with the Labour Party—is that we actually fought really hard to keep these 90-day trials for businesses with under 20 workers which is the issue here at play. For those hearty souls that are watching this morning for the gripping finale of this debate and had been watching through to midnight last night the protestations and the dire predictions and the desperate virtue signallings from the Labour Party the 90-day trials already exist for businesses with fewer than 20 employees. The Labour Party had three years with an absolute majority to take these mechanisms out but absolutely refused to. So if they are such a travesty to the working New Zealander—those New Zealanders in bakeries and dairies and local cafes are already subject to this legislation or this mechanism. The other thing I would be really tempted to do is a few Official Information Act (OIA) requests.Were the Green Party lobbying behind the scenes and protesting to their Labour colleagues who had an absolute majority who they were in confidence and supply with? Were they appealing? Were they appealing? I hope they were—I hope they were. Because the record will show that they within that governing arrangement failed to convince their colleagues that this was a travesty and should be repealed. Te Pāti Māori who I'm sure will get up and rail against this in the following speech—what did they do? Did they appeal? Is there OIAs there that would show that sort of course of action from Te Pāti Māori to suggest that they were so concerned about the 90-day trials that they would like to see them repealed. So New Zealand First see this—and always has—as a very sensible mechanism and balance between employees and employers and continues to support this bill. Thank you.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): A five-minute split call.
Nimon KatieTUESDAY 19 DECEMBER 2023(continued on 21 December 2023)EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS (TRIAL PERIODS) AMENDMENT BILLThird ReadingDebate resumed.KATIE NIMON (National—Napier): It's great to be speaking on the Employment Relations (Trial Periods) Amendment Bill in its third reading. I want to make it clear that the 90-day trial already exists and what we're seeking to ensure is that businesses can make use of it—all businesses. Much of what was raised by members opposite shows it's clearly their intention to call into question the entire Act not just the extension of this from small and medium businesses to all businesses.Now is not the time to be debating the merits of the trial itself but simply the difference between large and small to medium sized businesses and its application. Had we not introduced the repeal bill medium businesses of which there are many would be disproportionately affected. Medium business are businesses that are neither small nor large and don't have the budget to have HR departments as members opposite speak to so why is it that they should be excluded? This extension bill includes medium business and large businesses and the extension of the 90-day trial is simply to include them but members opposite are debating the purpose of the 90-day trial in its entirety. It is simply an extension.So the importance of amending the legislation to extend it to all employers is great but we are not required to discuss the importance of the 90-day trial itself. We wish to extend 90-day trials to all employers not just small businesses and that is what we are here to support. So with that I commend this bill to the House.
Tuesday 19 December 2023 (continued on Wednesday 20 December 2023) - Volume 772
VoteCHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that the Hon Ginny Andersen's tabled amendment inserting new clause 6 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 55New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.Noes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Amendment not agreed to.Bill to be reported without amendment.House resumed.CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The committee has considered the Employment Relations (Trial Periods) Amendment Bill and reports it without amendment. I move That the report be adopted. Motion agreed to.Report adopted.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): This bill is set down for third reading immediately.
Employment Relations (Trial Periods) Amendment Bill — In Committee—New Clause 6 (Ginny Andersen Tabled Amendment)
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 55New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.Motion agreed to.
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 55New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.Motion agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the amendment inserting new clause 6 set out on Amendment Paper 8 in the name of Ricardo Menéndez March be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 55New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.Noes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Amendment not agreed to.
Employment Relations (Trial Periods) Amendment Bill — In Committee—New Clause 6 (Amendment Paper No 8)
Employment Relations (Trial Periods) Amendment Bill — In Committee—New Clause 6 (Amendment Paper No 7)
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 55New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.Motion agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the amendment inserting new clause 6 set out on Amendment Paper 7 in the name of Ricardo Menéndez March be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 55New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.Noes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Amendment not agreed to.
Employment Relations (Trial Periods) Amendment Bill — In Committee—Clause 5
Employment Relations (Trial Periods) Amendment Bill — In Committee—Clause 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 clause 3 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. Clause 3 agreed to.
Employment Relations (Trial Periods) Amendment Bill — In Committee—Clause 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 55New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.Motion agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that the Hon Ginny Andersen's tabled amendment to clause 2 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 55New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.Noes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Amendment not agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Arena Williams' tabled amendment to clause 2 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 55New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.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 clause 2 stand part.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.Clause 2 agreed to.
Employment Relations (Trial Periods) Amendment Bill — In Committee—Clause 2
Employment Relations (Trial Periods) Amendment Bill — In Committee—Clause 1
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 55New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.Motion agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The Hon Dr Duncan Webb's tabled amendment to clause 1 is out of order as not being an objective description of the bill.The question is that Arena Williams' tabled amendment to clause 1 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 55New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.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 clause 1 be agreed to.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.Clause 1 agreed to.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Employment Relations (Trial Periods) Amendment 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.DEPUTY SPEAKER: The bill is set down for committee stage immediately. I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Employment Relations (Trial Periods) Amendment Bill.
Employment Relations (Trial Periods) Amendment Bill — Second Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Employment Relations (Trial Periods) Amendment Bill be now read a first 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 first time.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): This bill is set down for second reading immediately.
Employment Relations (Trial Periods) Amendment Bill — First Reading (continued)
12. Question No. 12—Workplace Relations and SafetyCAMILLA BELICH (Labour) to the Minister for Workplace Relations and SafetyQuestion No. 12—Workplace Relations and Safety12. CAMILLA BELICH (Labour) to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: Why did she decide to ignore advice by officials not to extend 90-day trials?Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): I didn't. I have considered it. This Government is extending 90-day trials because of our long-term commitment to improving labour market flexibility so that businesses can create more and better jobs. Extending the availability of 90-day trials to give more businesses confidence to take a chance on new workers should be welcomed by all parties in this Parliament.Camilla Belich: Why did she decide not to follow the advice commissioned by the Treasury that concluded there was no evidence that the ability to use 90-day trials significantly increased companies' overall hiring?Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: While the member may not see that there is significant benefit in extending the 90-day trials there is benefit to the number of businesses that we have spoken to across New Zealand who have said that this is a top priority to give them confidence to hire more and better workers.Camilla Belich: Why did she decide to ignore the Hon Chris Bishop who told New Zealanders on 29 November 2023 that We will introduce and refer to a select committee a bill to extend 90-day trial periods for all businesses" when she decided to introduce a bill under urgency to do this without a select committee process?Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: Cabinet made that decision and Cabinet has made the right decision.Camilla Belich: What does she say to the many thousands of New Zealanders who are likely to lose their jobs for no good reason due to the extension of this policy including unfair reasons like their weight having a bereavement or their hair colour?Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: Nobody currently employed will lose their job because of the extension of 90-day trials. Existing current employment terms remain. All this policy will do is give confidence to businesses who are looking to employ new workers—that gives them confidence to employ someone in the new year.Camilla Belich: What does she say to the employees who are moving into new work who are likely to lose their jobs for unfair reasons—for example their weight having a bereavement or perhaps their hair colour?Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: The member may wish to note that 90-day trials give the option for a new employment agreement. However anybody who believes that they have been dismissed unjustifiably can bring a personal grievance still under the 90-day trial for unjustified disadvantage discrimination or sexual harassment—those will still remain."