edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Russell Deborah; Watts SimonHon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): Look thank you to the Minister of Revenue for that explanation of why we're incorporating the legislation by reference. As a departure it is I guess a solution to try to amend our legislation ourselves all the time. If we tried to amend our legislation for every change in the OECD rules we would be for ever grappling with I think weighty tomes—you know who knows how fat the—Arena Williams: [Holds up a book] Like this one?Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: Oh weightier than that I think Arena. It would take a fair amount of work.But then that does create a problem for New Zealand taxpayers because we are asking them instead of being able to go to our own income tax legislation—so anyone who wants to look up tax law can go right now to  and pull up the Income Tax Act and some of the associated papers and work out what the law is right now and how they have to apply it. But as soon as we incorporate something by reference then even if it's by reference to another set of New Zealand legislation it takes at least two steps for someone to find their way through the particular piece of law. So we do try and keep our Income Tax Act fairly self-contained because that does mean that our taxpayers can find the information they need.So the question then becomes: how is some poor innocent little multinational enterprise in New Zealand going to be able to find out exactly what legislation applies to it? It needs to have a reasonably easy way to do that. We do try to minimise cost for taxpayers. Now multinational enterprises can probably manage those costs but even so it is a cost for taxpayers. So are those multinational enterprises going to have to go and hunt their way through the screeds of paper that come out of the OECD or are they going to be able to refer to something here in New Zealand as to what the tax law is at the date they are trying to apply it? So where can New Zealand taxpayers find the information that they need in order to comply with these global – anti-base erosion rules? I can see the Minister is rearing to answer that so I'll just sit down now and let the Minister have a turn.Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Revenue): Let's make the most of this interactive dialogue eh? So I'm pleased to let the member know that the Inland Revenue Department will be providing the guidance and links to the OECD website to the 25 entities that meet the criteria. I think if I quote—and I must say I haven't heard this quote from a member on that side of the House for a long time—the poor multinational organisations" I mean wow a lot changes in a week in terms of that! But in terms of that the 25 organisations that are headquartered in New Zealand that meet the definition of this are already case managed by Inland Revenue. So I can assure the member that they will be receiving or have already received no doubt the guidance in terms of how they find this information. Again this is driven—as I repeated before—by efficiency. I think we can talk around this as much as we like but the reality is that this is a complex area of taxation and simply by reference replication is the pragmatic way to deal with it."
Watts SimonHon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Revenue): Yeah thank you very much. For those that are tuning in at home wondering what pillar 1 and pillar 2 are in regards to the Income Tax Act you've joined at a good time.So in regard to the questions raised by the Hon Dr Deborah Russell just in respect of why it has been decided to incorporate these changes by reference versus I guess the alternative would be through replicating that within our legislation. It's simply just driven by an efficiency mechanism and the efficiency of referencing back to the overarching rules and commentary that has been agreed is the most simplistic manner in which we want to do that.It's important to recognise why we are doing this. This is because there are a number of countries that have agreed that in terms of the global base erosion risk that exists for multinationals we should be looking to ensure that there is a minimum taxation rule applied. I think that's pretty sensible. I think it's important that New Zealand participates in that and that's under what they refer to as pillar 2.Pillar 1 is another aspect where again a lot of this is through trying to get alignment across a number of countries. The reality is that hasn't been reached in that regard. And in regards to Pillar 2 we have the ability just to progress on that route as are a number of other jurisdictions and that is what we deem to be the most appropriate manner and actually what I think prior Governments in practice would have no doubt supported in principle as well.So I don't think what we're doing here is completely off-piste in terms of good taxation policy and procedure. I think what we've reflected and how we've done that just simply reflects an efficient way to do that.
Watts SimonHon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Revenue): Thanks very much to the member Arena Williams for those questions in regards to the amendment that has been tabled. The purpose of what we're doing in regards to clause 8 is to return the brightline test back to its original intent of two years and that's the position of the Government in regards to this. We don't support and will not be supporting the member's amendment in relation to what has been tabled and our position has been pretty clear in regards to our intent around returning back. Just one question before the dinner break from the Hon Dr Deborah Russell—I think it would be fair to say that there was a number of points that were brought up in terms of a number of the amendments that we were bringing as part of this legislation and touching on the commercial depreciation rates. Again this was an adjustment made during COVID and we're looking to return this back to what was the case previously. The gambling tax: well quite simply this is closing a loophole around overseas casinos that are able to operate without paying what domestic casinos pay in terms of their tax. I think that if you boil it down to quite a simple aspect levelling the playing field around that is something that we believe is pretty sensible and actually the broader industry's feedback as well is to say that they are comfortable with that. Again that's something that was included as part of the tax policy work that we took to the election. So there's a number of themes that are coming through in some of the contributions from members in terms of why we're not having a separate piece of legislation and why we're putting this as part of an Amendment Paper. Our position is clear on that: we are putting through the Amendment Paper aspects of policy that we campaigned on as part of the election and—as I've given a number of examples here—many are reverting back to our prior positions that were there in the past and that also includes around interest deductibility.
Tuiono TeanauTHURSDAY 2 MAY 2024 The 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. Amene.[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.]
Contracts of Insurance Bill — Instruction to Finance and Expenditure Committee
Bayly AndrewInstruction to the Finance and Expenditure Committee Hon ANDREW BAYLY (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): I move That the Contracts of Insurance Bill be reported to the House by 3 September 2024.Motion agreed to.
Contracts of Insurance Bill — First Reading
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 (Greg O'Connor): The question is that the Minister's tabled amendment to new clause 9(1E) in Amendment Paper 20 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment 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.Amendments agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that the Minister's amendments to Part 2 set out on Amendment Paper 20 as amended and the Minister's tabled amendments to clauses 9(2) and 18B be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments 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.Amendments agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Arena Williams' tabled amendments to clauses 8 and 9 are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.A party vote was called for on the question That Part 2 as amended 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.Part 2 as amended agreed to.
Watts Simon; O'Connor GregHon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Revenue): I thank the member for the question. So the flexibility that the commissioner is afforded in regards to the extension of time—the 30-day period is a minimum period of time. The commissioner can use their powers to impose a penalty but it has to be at a date that is later or further beyond the 30-day period so just to cover that aspect.I think the other component again is that these penalties that are being outlined in this part of the legislation are consistent with other penalty regimes that are applied to similar-sized entities in other aspects of the legislation. While the point is made that these global anti-base erosion rules etc. are what they are it is consistent in regard to that.The other aspect to acknowledge is that actually these penalties alongside any other penalties can be disputed by a taxpayer like any other assessment of tax. On that basis we're comfortable with the amendments.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The time has come for me to leave the Chair. The House is suspended until 9.00 a.m. tomorrow. Good night everyone.Sitting suspended from 9.59 p.m. (Tuesday) to 9 a.m. (Wednesday)
Potaka TamaHon TAMA POTAKA (National—Hamilton West): I move That debate on this question now close.
Russell DeborahHon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): Oh thank you Mr Chair. I have a couple more questions on trusts—probably about three actually quite detailed ones. I know that my colleague Rachel Boyack has some questions on the ACC lump-sum issue which hasn't been covered yet.Tom Rutherford: I've got a question!Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: I just want to go—and I would have welcomed the members to take a call—Tom Rutherford: Yeah well give me the chance and we'll see.Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: I'll just carry on Mr Chair—or try to carry on.Look I want to go back to something that the Minister of Revenue said in terms of trusts for disabled persons. In particular the suggestion was from the Minister—I gave an example of a trust for a person who was disabled who nevertheless was not receiving one of the benefits that are listed here. The Minister suggested that the way to deal with it would be for the trust to allocate the income so that it was taxed in the beneficiary's hands at the beneficiary's rate rather than taxed in the trustee's hands at the trustee's rates. Now of course that would deal with the problem. The problem is that when this person was a child that person would also have been subject to the minor beneficiary rule. So there would have been quite a complicated interaction between the minor beneficiary rule and now this disabled person's trust. I noticed that the member over there wanted to say something about it. I just wonder if the Minister could comment then—you know the suggestion was proposed that the way for that potential overtaxing of a person who was a disabled person that was not in receipt of one of these particular social security allowances was to allocate the trust income so it was taxed at the beneficiary's own rate but of course for a child that does then fall foul of the minor beneficiaries' rule. So I'd just like the Minister to sort of think as to whether or not that really is a solution or perhaps maybe this is an issue that we're going to have to come back to possibly not in the context of this debate but maybe as an issue that we need to follow up on or—of course it would be up to the Minister to that—perhaps we might be able to do it by way of a member's bill or something like that. But I do think there is a genuine issue there.Now I do have some more questions about the de minimis trust which are—but I'll leave that one with the Minister for a moment and perhaps his officials might have an answer as well.
Watts SimonHon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Revenue): Just quite quickly for the member the Emergency Alliance is a group of existing charities and therefore all of the individual members of that Emergency Alliance are already charities and therefore already have the status. So the simple fact by virtue of that deems them to be able to be captured and have benefits that have been analysed.
Wade-Brown CeliaCELIA WADE-BROWN (Green): Thank you Mr Chair. I hope that the Minister of Revenue might please explain why the Government is prioritising these late changes to Government tax cuts for landlords and other relatively minor amendments instead of addressing more ways that tax amendments could prioritise more productive investment. We have a very high level of investment in property largely driven by untaxed capital gains and there could be some more low-impact job-rich aspects encouraged by a more imaginative tax regime. The Productivity Commission—or should I say the late Productivity Commission—did criticise the fact that such a high proportion of this country's wealth whether it's investment funds whether it's private individuals is hugely based on property and land. Thank you Mr Chair.
Williams Arena; Watts SimonARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you Mr Chair. I have my follow-up questions. Given that the Minister has not answered my first question on deceased estates I will ask all of my questions on deceased estates now and I hope we can deal with this swiftly.So I'm speaking here about new section HC 8B inserted by clause 33. For the Minister's benefit I'm on page 49 of the bill. I want to understand if the Minister believes that three years is the appropriate period and why and whether he's had advice on that period applying in the bill as it is now.I also want to ask the Minister to explain the changes around the income year and in practice how many years a deceased estate could be treated at the rate in the particular income year before the higher rate kicks in.The third question I have for the Minister in this contribution is whether a trust can be both a de minimis trust—and that is dealt with in the Finance and Expenditure Committee's report—and a deceased estate. I'm asking that because if so the question is: could it continue to get the lower rate if the trustee income was below $10000?It's important to understand that that's not dealt with in the reporting by the select committee. We need to understand from the Minister now and it's our opportunity to debate now whether that is an appropriate tax treatment of a trust with that sort of income and is it in the opinion of the Minister sort of a double dipping or a reasonable consequence if that was the rule to apply?Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Revenue): So yeah just in regards to the member's questions in regards to deceased estates and again this was covered as part of the consideration that was made but in effect a deceased estate is taxed as a trust and there are circumstances in which under the old rules that would be potentially increasing up to 39.The decision that has been made is that for those trusts the amendments that we've tabled would provide that a deceased estate would be subject to a 33 percent tax rate on trustee income for the incoming year of death and the following three income years.The de minimis rule around $10000 would obviously still apply as well but it is the changes that have been noted based on the official advice and whether it's three or longer or less three years is deemed to be an appropriate period of time. But it is important to acknowledge that trustees of deceased estates might not necessarily know who the beneficiaries are and it obviously takes time—you know sensitive issues around management of deceased estates and the process in which that will be worked through. But the key issue that we need to mitigate is the over-taxation of those beneficiaries in effect and the changes that have been proposed will deal with it.
Watts SimonHon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Revenue): Thank you very much to the member for that question. The provisions that allow a trust to in effect distribute to a beneficiary of which they are taxed at their relevant marginal rate still exists. So irrespective of the point that the member's making that would be the pathway in which we'd ensure that the recipient of that income is taxed at the lowest rate. So I can't speak for the individual in fact but as I said the child disability allowance is the mechanism in which the Finance and Expenditure Committee assessed as the appropriate mechanism in order to deal with that.In regards to the questions around the brightline test—I think Rachel Boyack was asking in regards to the timing and the date aspects—it is technically possible that there may be individuals that are in receipt of a buy-out before 1 July 2024 which is when in effect the two-year rule will come in. So in those scenarios I think what the member was implying was saying Will they be caught or still subject to the 10-year rule?" Technically they will be hence why the rollover provisions are provided in that place in order to provide a facility to ensure that people in those circumstances are not inadvertently captured and therefore not face the—or are able to get the benefits of the changes that we've made. So just covering off that aspect."
Edmonds BarbaraHon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana): Thank you Mr Chair. I just needed to be able to go through—and it's a question around how the rollover relief provisions for the North Island severe weather events apply. When that Amendment Paper was introduced back in late 2023 it had the rollover relief because of the 10-year brightline. So basically it was to provide that if for any reason a person needed to be absent from their house because they needed to get it fixed basically it allowed them to have some relief from the brightline test at 10 years. But then with the new changes to the brightline test—and this is kind of why I had to pick up the commentary of the bill from the Table to try and understand—at what point does the new two-year brightline test apply and how does it apply to the North Island rollover events the relief that's provided in the Amendment Paper that was introduced at the end of 2023?I'd just like it if the Minister could clearly step it out because the brightline test has over the years changed from two to five to 10 and it's gone back to two. And this is really the opportunity because we haven't had a select committee process at all for that Amendment Paper. So it is all about—Dan Bidois: We didn't know about the 10 did we?Hon BARBARA EDMONDS: And the member can interject as much as they like around the 10 years but the member should know that when you have to basically litigate this if you are a lawyer for a taxpayer who has been possibly consequentially punished because of the change in the brightline the test dates are really important around the start dates.So I just want to ask the Minister: how does the rollover relief provisions which apply for a 10-year brightline which are covered in the Amendment Paper that was introduced last year in 2023 which is now in the revised track version of the bill align with the brightline test which is now in the Minister's name in the Amendment Paper? And if he can clearly just step out the start dates for each of those different tests and whether the rollover relief provisions apply or don't apply. And I think it's important because if in future there's litigation around this because we haven't been able to debate it at select committee the comments by the Minister today will provide really clear certainty for those future litigations by taxpayers.
Williams ArenaARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you Mr Chair. I'm seeking to open a new line of questions on the effect of the bill as amended on the deceased estates. I would like to ask the Minister of Revenue a question. Given that 84 percent of estates have trustee income below $10000 does this bill as amended reduce the administration costs of deceased estates and then if it does does it do that over the three-year period discussed by the Finance and Expenditure Committee for the administration of those estates?
Watts SimonHon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Revenue): Yeah thank you very much Mr Chair. In regards to the member's question around the capital gains aspect in regards to the interest deduction—I mean in effect what we're doing here in regards to allowing an interest deduction on residential property is no different to what is allowed by someone that undertakes an interest deduction on a commercial property which was allowed under the previous rules or likewise for a farm for example that is a similar entity that may be funded proportionately by debt and equity. So you know what we are simply doing here is driving a degree of consistency in regards to the overall way the tax system is so that allows that deduction to be taken. And I don't think the point that the member's noting in terms of the inconsistency is relevant. So I've given just two examples there of where the aspect is.I think it is also important to note that in regards to the ability to take that interest deduction under the prior Government's rules the deduction for interest in regards to residential property even in circumstances where the property did not achieve or obtain a capital gain was denied. So the inconsistency of that tax treatment is what this coalition Government are looking to resolve.I just wanted to go back to the different member's question—I think it was Helen White's—in regards to the storm implications. The Finance and Expenditure Committee (FEC) did agree as part of its deliberations—the question was Why" about the date and "Is the date adequate?" The FEC did deliberate and consider that date quite considerably. The position of 30 April 2024 was the position of the select committee that they determined was an appropriate date—hence I think I've covered those points and now I'm starting to repeat."
Williams ArenaARENA WILLIAMS (Assistant Whip—Labour): Thank you Mr Chair. Following on from the Minister's answers I have just some quick questions to follow up. The first is: what is a good proportion of first-home buyers in the market and what are his aspirations for the number of first-home buyers who can secure a first property under the legislative settings that he seeks to introduce tonight? My second question is: if it is as he says unclear whether the legislative changes in 2021 did not cause the number of property investors within the market to fall from the peak in 2021 down to 20 percent in 2019 then how will he continue on those factors in the legislative settings that provided for that slide in the proportion of property investors in the market?
Points of Order — Select Committees—References to Confidential ProceedingsDocument for deletingA document for getting rid of other documents by having its document id replaced with that of the document to be deleted. Then the date role=removed" field takes over to ensure the document is retired.Content:some content"
Simpson Scott; Tuiono Teanau; Brownlee GerryHon SCOTT SIMPSON (Senior Whip—National): I move That the committee report progress.Motion agreed to.House resumed.CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Mr Speaker the committee has considered the Appropriation (2022/23 Confirmation and Validation) Bill and reports progress.Motion agreed to.Report adopted.SPEAKER: The bill is set down for further consideration in committee next sitting day.
Brooking Rachel; Simmonds PennyHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you Mr Chair. Going back to my set of questions before one of them was on the Environmental Reporting Bill and what's happened on that—if the Minister could answer that. It seems that on the waste legislation issue the Minister has it on the radar and is having plenty of meetings and trips but this does seem to be one thing that has not been delegated to anyone else and does not seem to be under the purview of the resource management reform Minister. So I would encourage her to do more on that and make some decisions and get it into the House and if she could say what the timing for that would be I'd love to hear. Hon PENNY SIMMONDS (Minister for the Environment): Thank you Mr Chair. Thank you again to the member for that. I just thought it might be useful if I did read out for the member my responsibility. So yes indeed I have responsibility for the Environmental Reporting Act 2015 alongside the Minister of Statistics; for the Waste Minimisation Act 2008; for the Fiordland Marine Management Act 2005; for the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act 2012. I have responsibility for a number of functions under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 and I retain a range of functions under the Soil Conservation and Rivers Control Act 1941 and I share responsibility with Minister Bishop around some of the specific things in the Resource Management Act 1991. So I can assure the member there's still plenty of things that I have responsibility for and yes the Environmental Reporting Bill is on our radar. We understand very clearly and had discussions with the commissioner. This is an area where we can certainly improve what we are monitoring and improve then our spend on the environment and so we are certainly looking at the time frame for that.There had been some work on the bill but we are wanting to relook at that. There's no doubt whatsoever that better reporting more consistent reporting and being sure we're getting the information that we want will help us in in fact making sure we're getting the best outcomes from our spend on the environment. So I absolutely take the member's point that it is important that we ensure we get this consistency of reporting. One of the things that we do have to be very mindful of is the pressure the local authorities are under at the moment and ensuring that we do get the consistency of reporting but at the same time making sure the financial burden is not too onerous for some of those smaller councils. I have spoken with those councils just to ask them a little bit about how we might manage making sure we're getting the right information we're getting the consistency of information but we're not adding an overly burdensome financial requirement for them. So look it is a bit of a balancing act but I absolutely agree that we need to keep it on our radar. It's an important piece of work and it's something that will help us make sure that we are investing in the right places as we seek to improve environmental outcomes.
Pham Lan; Simmonds PennyLAN PHAM (Green): Thank you Mr Chair. I'm noting that time is quickly running out so I'm just going to get straight to my question for the Minister. I think we had really clearly outlined across the agencies that despite all the great work that's going on across iwi hapū farmers community groups—everything—biodiversity is still going backwards and is in decline. Does the Minister consider that addressing our biodiversity crisis is actually a priority issue for her and the environment and what is her view on the role or importance of the National Policy Statement for Indigenous Biodiversity in addressing that?Hon PENNY SIMMONDS (Minister for the Environment): Thank you Mr Chair. There's a lot of important work going on in terms of the national directions and certainly we are looking at ensuring that we are clustering that work so that we're not overburdening a range of community organisations in the consultation phase. I do want to make some special comment again going back to the question that was asked about the work that the farmers are doing and it ties in with the questions that the member has asked in terms of the fact that there is great work happening on the ground with hapū with iwi with catchment groups and with farmers. And I want to note that farmers consider that the war on farming now is over has stopped and that this Government is recognising that farmers are in fact environmentalists that changes to things like the stock exclusion regulations the repeal of the intensive winter grazing and the three-year suspension on identifying new significant natural areas of course related to the indigenous biodiversity—that we want to suspend while we go through that consultation phase again and ensure—I'm sorry; Mr Chair is indicating that my time is up. There is plenty of work under way in this area.
Cameron Mark; Hoggard AndrewMARK CAMERON (ACT): Very succinctly if I can: the Minister might want to bring the Associate Minister for the Environment forward to speak about very quickly to catch local nuances the good work at a local level to do with intensive winter grazing and farm practices—if he's interested to illuminate the committee on all the good work that rural New Zealand is doing.Hon ANDREW HOGGARD (Associate Minister for the Environment): Yes certainly. I mean this work probably would have begun about 5-odd years ago where many farmers in a number of catchments particularly in Southland realised that their practices were under intense—you know people were looking at it and not happy and there has been a lot of work done by numerous industry bodies around creating what we called at the time the farm grazing winter module where farmers would work out these plans for themselves and enact them. And you saw over the last few years much really improved change in farmer practices and outcomes. I recall seeing the previous Minister of Agriculture getting up and talking very highly of the good work that farmers had done in those catchments in terms of reducing the amount of sediment and you know any concerning pictures out there.So yes there has been a lot of great work that's been done by farmers. This was all well before any regulations came in probably proving that we didn't need the regulation to start with.
Simmonds PennyHon PENNY SIMMONDS (Minister for the Environment): I thank the Hon Marama Davidson for that question. Look I have read a number of the reviews on Jobs for Nature. Of course Jobs for Nature was set up as a result of COVID when unemployment was high and to assist people with employment. That was set up with finite funding ending 2025 but I agree with the member that there have been a number of those Jobs for Nature initiatives where we have seen great changes and also as you said great interaction between the people on the Jobs for Nature and particularly farmers around working with riparian plantings and fencing. I have met with Te Arawa Lakes Trust. I have also visited up in the Far North the work that has been done around one of the wetlands areas up there. And so both reading some of the reviews but also getting out and visiting them has been really useful—some of the pest eradication also. So look I am very aware of it. I'm also very aware that the funding was limited through to mid-2025.
Brooking RachelHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you Mr Chair. I've got a number of questions for the Minister in the chair the Hon Penny Simmonds. I'll start with a few of them and see how she wants to respond noting of course that there are other Ministers in the Chamber at the moment as well. I note that some of them are Associate Ministers who seem to be leading resource management reforms and she may want to comment on that—the first round of resource management reforms amendments to the Act that are all regulations and that the press release that came out last week did not have her name on it. Secondly I would like to ask the Minister about waste. There was a huge work programme at the time of this annual review period to overhaul or rewrite the Waste Minimisation Act as being out of date and not good enough for the compliance monitoring and enforcement functions but also for product stewardship and also the very old Litter Act. We were told in the hearing—this is at page 55 of the transcript—that there was a live conversation about waste. I would like to know what is happening with this and the associated investment that comes from the hypothecated waste levy.Also in this set of questions separately I'm interested in the environment reporting bill. We know that again during the phase of this annual report there was work being done and the decisions have been made and it has been referred to the Parliamentary Counsel Office to redo that environment reporting bill. It's something that the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment certainly brings to the attention of the Environment Committee members. Where is that at?Then for this set of questions I'm also interested in what's happening to highly productive land. We had a discussion at page 30 of the transcript with the Secretary for the Environment about the relationship between national direction and how often national directions can be inconsistent with each other. Of course that was a big part of the Natural and Built Environment Act to get that national direction to be all consistent with each other. That's since been repealed. But James Palmer has said that work is being undertaken that is supportive of our housing imperatives as well and all that nests together in relation to productive land. So does this mean that we will be seeing houses on highly productive land are there going to be changes to the rules around the importance of that highly productive land and what will farmers have to say about that? The Associate Minister might also want to comment.
Tuiono Teanau; Bishop Chris; Brooking RachelCHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Would the Minister like a repeat of the question?Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): Yes that would be good; thank you.CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Rachel Brooking are there RMA-specific questions that you have?Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): This is making me think back in time. I asked a range of questions. The first question was really about the other Ministers in the House and the role of the Minister for the Environment when the most recent Resource Management Act reforms that we've heard about—what you're calling RMA 1; the press release for that range of changes—are changes only to regulations. There's no change to the statute and the Minister's name was not on the press release about that. So the question is: how is it given that the Minister for the Environment is responsible for all those regulations—noting that some of them have been delegated to the Associate Minister for the Environment the Hon Andrew Hoggard—that none of them seem to be related to RMA reform? And the wider point on that is the Government's been here now for over five months and surely that work could have been done via the normal regulatory process rather than needing primary legislation.
Simmonds PennyHon PENNY SIMMONDS (Minister for the Environment): Thank you Mr Chair and thank you to the member. She had quite a lot there so I'll try and go through bits and pieces and if I forget any of it that I was writing down I'll come back to it. You did ask some quite specific questions about the Resource Management Act (RMA) reform which I will hand over in due course to the Minister responsible for that.First of all can I just note that the fast track does have a Ministers Group and I am involved in that. There is a process where written comments will be sought from the Minister for the Environment where they are the relevant portfolio Minister and I am confident that the environmental considerations across many stages will be considered by approving Ministers—in addition to the environmental protection that will be given through the expert-panel stage of any fast-track consenting. But I will hand over at the end of this to the appropriate Minister.You asked also about the waste-minimisation programme. Thank you very much for your questions on that. I know that that's an area of passion for you. It's also an area of passion for me and it was delightful to talk to the Hon Eugenie Sage yesterday and share some of that passion. So as you all know we have been left—or this country has been left—with a number of legacy landfills that are contaminated and are vulnerable to extreme weather events. I was very pleased I think in February of this year to be able to announce the $6.6 million of investment to the local authorities to address those sites in Tairāwhiti in Nelson in South Canterbury and also in Southland. We are certainly looking at the range of activities that were within that wider waste-minimisation programme things like the product stewardship programmes. And you'll have been very pleased of course to have seen the tyre programme started in February of this year with the second tranche of that occurring in September. There are a number of pilots that I have been interested in finding out the reviews of those. I visited very recently the palletiser plant for the balage wrap and had a look at the work that's going on there after they received funding to assist them in developing that. I note also that that palletiser can deal with construction wraps which is another area of priority for us in terms of looking at the waste that occurs from the construction and the demolition sector. So there is still a range of work being looked at in that space—product stewardship and container-return schemes—but of course no decisions have been made in those areas. But we certainly have those things on the radar.I think you may have also asked some questions about fresh water did you? I'm just trying to think back. Perhaps I'll pass over to the Minister for RMA reform if he wants to speak about the question around the fast-track consenting process.
Tuesday 12 December 2023 (continued on Wednesday 13 December 2023) - Volume 772
Fair Pay Agreements Act Repeal Bill — In Committee—Clauses 1 and 2
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That debate on the question now close.Ayes 67New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 54New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.Motion agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Rachel Boyack's tabled amendment to clause 1 is out of order as not an objective description of the bill. A party vote was called for on the question That clause 1 be agreed to.Ayes 67New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 54New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.Clause 1 agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Rachel Boyack'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 54New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.Noes 67New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Amendment not agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Camilla Belich's tabled amendment to clause 2 to require a referendum be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 54New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.Noes 67New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Amendment not agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That clause 2 be agreed to.Ayes 67New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 54New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.Clause 2 agreed to.Bill to be reported without amendment.
Fair Pay Agreements Act Repeal Bill — In Committee—Part 2
Fair Pay Agreements Act Repeal Bill — In Committee—Part 1
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the question be now put.Ayes 67New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 48New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14.Motion agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Debbie Ngarewa-Packer's amendments to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 2 be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 48New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14.Noes 67New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Amendments not agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Camilla Belich's tabled amendment to insert new clause 3 be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 48New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14.Noes 67New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Amendment not agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Arena Williams' tabled amendment to delete clause 4 be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 48New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14.Noes 67New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Amendment not agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Part 1 be agreed to. RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Point of order Mr Chairperson. Just checking that the amendment in my name—was that in Part 1? I'm pretty sure it was; it just didn't get a vote.CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Was it a tabled amendment? RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Yeah—I mean if it's not I'll live with it.CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): It's in Part 1 of Schedule 1 so you've got time.A party vote was called for on the question That Part 1 be agreed to.Ayes 67New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 54New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.Part 1 agreed to.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Fair Pay Agreements Act Repeal Bill be now read a second time.Ayes 67New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 54New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.Motion agreed to.Bill read a second time.SPEAKER: At this point we would normally be going into committee stages and that would be a little bit of kerfuffle just a few seconds ahead of an agreed time for a maiden speech. So we'll just take a moment and then I'll call the member for a maiden speech.
Fair Pay Agreements Act Repeal Bill — Second Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Fair Pay Agreements Act Repeal Bill be now read a first time.Ayes 67New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 54New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.Motion agreed to.Bill read a first time.DEPUTY SPEAKER: This bill is set down for second reading immediately.
Fair Pay Agreements Act Repeal Bill — First Reading
Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Economic Objective) Amendment Bill — Third reading (continued)
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Economic Objective) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.Ayes 67New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 54New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.Motion agreed to.Bill read a third time.
7. Question No. 7—TransportRYAN HAMILTON (National—Hamilton East) to the Minister of TransportQuestion No. 7—Transport7. RYAN HAMILTON (National—Hamilton East) to the Minister of Transport: What actions is he taking to repeal the Clean Car Discount scheme by 31 December?Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Transport): Our coalition Government committed to axing the ute tax and Clean Car Discount scheme by 31 December providing assurance to hard-working New Zealanders that they can purchase the vehicles that they need without being unfairly penalised; and ending what is a fiscally unsustainable scheme. Yesterday I introduced legislation to the House to axe the ute tax by 31 December and deliver on this commitment. This means that charges will end for vehicles after 11.59 p.m. on 31 December 2023 and buyers of low-emitting vehicles will no longer be able to apply for rebates.Ryan Hamilton: Why are these actions being taken? [Interruption]SPEAKER: Stop there. Sorry. Far too much talk while people are asking a question. Please ask the question again.Ryan Hamilton: Why are these actions being taken?SIMEON BROWN: A very good question. The previous Government promised the scheme would be fiscally neutral" but as at 30 November $579 million has been paid out in rebates and $13.5 million has been spent on administration costs while only $290 million has been received in charges. This has left taxpayers footing the bill for an eye-watering $302.5 million deficit.Ryan Hamilton: What subsidies have been paid out under the scheme with this $302.5 million deficit?SIMEON BROWN: Well the $302.5 million deficit hitting taxpayers' pockets has contributed to thousands of subsidies to high-end vehicles costing $70000 or more. In the last 18 months alone over $122 million has been paid out to those buying high-end vehicles under this scheme. Our Government does not believe that taxpayers should be subsidising those who can already afford to purchase these vehicles.Ryan Hamilton: What advice has he seen on the financial sustainability of the scheme?SIMEON BROWN: Well advice I have received shows the Clean Car Discount scheme will not survive past mid-2024 without substantial changes to how it operates. Continuing the scheme would likely require a combination of lowering and restricting rebates to electric vehicles; increasing charges and applying them to all petrol diesel and some hybrids; or providing more Crown funding. This will only worsen equity issues and could result in taxpayers footing an even bigger bill."