edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
SpeechBIOSECURITY (INFORMATION FOR INCOMING PASSENGERS) AMENDMENT BILLSecond ReadingDebate resumed from 2 March.SIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Sorry I was expecting that someone else was going to complete their call rather than jumping straight into it.Look the biosecurity information bill it's been well traversed in a number of ways.David Seymour: Tell us some more.SIMON O'CONNOR: Well we could but you know it could be an element of security.David Seymour: What does the bill say? SIMON O'CONNOR: Well Mr Seymour it begins with the definite article the" so it's probably useful for you and we can move on from there. Look National's well traversed this bill. Put really simply it's about—I suppose part of the reason I'm struggling is it's a good bill— Hon Kris Faafoi: You started.SIMON O'CONNOR: —in its intention. No I know I do but in fact it's so exceedingly simple that all it's really doing is asking that biosecurity information be provided across multiple mediums at the border. That's a good thing. I really want to say that to the person putting forward the bill and to the House. But as I say part of the reason I've been hesitating tonight is that really there isn't too much more to it than that. I suppose it does highlight to us in the House an aspect of why these things were missed if you will in the first place. I suppose it's a humble option for all of us to reflect on the fact that you know even with the best of intentions the work of ourselves and officials and others things can slip through. So this is again a good bill. It's fixing up a particular aspect that needs tidying. Being able to have information around the biosecurity of New Zealand presented both visually and aurally makes a lot of sense so that it extends that protocol that it tidies things up—that's a really really positive thing. And hopefully it's a no-brainer to people in the House that we want to continue to protect our biosecurity. We've had issues in the past we'll have issues in the future and to the extent that this bill enables our biosecurity to improve I'm delighted to therefore commend it to the House. Oh and if in the spirit of this it had been in both forms I'm more than happy to provide a written copy of my speech as well."
Chhour KarenKAREN CHHOUR (ACT): Thank you Mr Speaker. I just wanted to take a call on this from the point of view of a parent. I have two daughters and I would like to know that when they grow up and if they have to make a difficult decision like this they will feel safe and they will feel like they are not going to be intimidated harassed or made to feel shame for what can be a very difficult time in life.Women do not make these decisions lightly but these are decisions that can affect us for the rest of our life no matter which way we decide to go. If we decide to keep a child that's a lifetime decision. If we decide not to keep a child that can also be a lifetime decision in our minds. We never forget; we just learn to live with the decision we've made.I think we hear and we see people in the public that make assumptions about a decision we're making without the full facts of why that decision has been made. Putting your opinions on to others may be your right but just remember: with your right comes responsibility—comes the responsibility of understanding the damage that could be done to the person that you are obstructing intimidating and forcing your opinion on. They also have a right to make a decision about their body about their future and about their lives and how it affects the people around them. So we need to find a middle ground where both parties can have their right to freedom to make a choice and to decide how they feel about something without interfering and without stopping one or the other's right.I have seen the effects that this has had on some women. We have a huge mental health issue in this country. When you're dealing with a decision like this it can affect a woman's mental health for a very long time. They can be down on themselves they can be questioning the decision right up to the moment they walk through that door. Who are we to interfere with that? Who are we to tell this person You're wrong."? Who are we to ask somebody to justify their decision to a stranger—to a person that has nothing to do with them?So I would just like to remind people: yes you have the right to disagree with abortion. But you do not have the right to abuse my daughter to abuse me to abuse my future grandchildren because you don't agree with them. They have a right to freedom of movement without obstruction and without being harassed and that's what this bill is about. It's not about the abortion; it's not about that discussion any more. It's about freedom of movement and freedom from harassment. And with that I would like to support this bill."
Bishop ChrisASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ian McKelvie): Members I've got one 10-minute call left; I have two speakers wishing to speak. So I propose to offer Karen Chhour five minutes and Dr Gaurav Sharma five minutes but go second. So I call Karen Chhour.CHRIS BISHOP (National): Point of order Mr Speaker. I move that the debate be extended by 10 minutes to allow both speakers to make a 10-minute call if they so desire. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ian McKelvie): Is there any objection? There being none I call Karen Chhour—10 minutes.
SpeechDr EMILY HENDERSON: Kia ora Mr Speaker. For the reasons discussed prior to the dinner break I commend this bill to the House.
SpeechDr JAMES McDOWALL (ACT): Thank you Madam Speaker. This is a beautiful time in the House a beautiful day in the House and I appreciate all of the support and the comments from my colleagues and I know the family appreciates it and the work that's been done. So just my love to the family and I won't make them wait any longer. I commend this bill to the House.Motion agreed to.Bill read a third time.
Paige Harris Birth Registration Bill — Third Reading
Tuiono TeanauTEANAU TUIONO (Green): Kia ora Madam Speaker. There has been some great kōrero going around the House tonight. It's my privilege and my honour to join with colleagues around the House in support of this bill. And yeah I've got a kōrero for future Paige as well. Two-year-old Paige probably wants to play with Duplo but future Paige I hope will look back at this time at this night at this particular time in the Parliament where the love of her parents made this Parliament stop that the love of her parents and her wider whānau made this Parliament actually take a step back and really think about that. So future Paige you will hopefully go back in the Hansard and you will note that the love that your mum and dad had for you and the love that Josh and Renee and your whānau had for you made us all take a step back made us all really reprioritise and think about those things that are really really important: te aroha o te māmā ki te pēpi te aroha o te pēpi ki te whānau te whānau ki te hapori whānui [the love of a mother for her baby the love of the baby for the family and the family for the wider community]—that love and connection that parents have for their children that connection that parents have with their whānau and also that wider village.I'd also like to support the kōrero around all the hard work that went into this. I haven't been here that long and the 34 days seems like a long time but my short time has shown that that has been a very very quick time. So I would once again like to commend Louisa Wall for her mahi around the House getting to talk to all of us getting us up to speed showing the massive hypocrisy—if I can put it that way—looking at the way that the legislation was put together without knowing that the fluid nature of family and whānau would change in ways that we should really think about how families have always been different and diverse.So I have no more to add to that. Heoi anō me pēnei ana te mihi e mihi ana ki te ōhākī o Katherine ki tōna pēpi ki tōna hoa rangatira ki a Kyle. Nō reira Paige i a koe e pānuihia tēnei o ngā kōrero nā te aroha o tō whānau nā te aroha o te hapori nā te aroha o tēnei o ngā Pāremata māhau e arataki i tēnei wā ki roto in ngā āhuatanga o te aroha te manaakitanga. Otirā tēnā koe otirā tēnā tātou katoa.[However my acknowledgment should be this: I acknowledge the dying wish of Katherine to her baby and to her partner Kyle. So Paige when you read this story because of the love of your family because of the love of the community because of the love of this Parliament you will be led at this time in love and care. Therefore I acknowledge you I acknowledge one and all.]
SpeechNAISI CHEN (Labour) (remote): Thank you Madam Speaker. This whole entire afternoon I've been thinking about what else I could say to add to this debate already. And I think apart from echoing everything that my colleagues have said—all of the facts that they've given—I would like to add my own I guess well wishes to the family as they begin the next part of this journey as well.I know that there will always be a hole in everyone's heart in the shape of Paige's mother and I think it's always got to be something that—she'll always be dearly missed and it'll be something that will always bring about pain. But also I hope that this bill will bring a bit of healing will be the start of that journey to healing but also to finding a different way of remembering Paige's mum as well through her birth certificate and through all the speeches that we've given here this afternoon in the House.Can I just please add my admiration to Josh and Renee for everything they've done for the Harris family—and everything especially that Josh has done in terms of advocating of speaking to our select committee. I was extremely humbled to be able to take part in this legislation process through the Governance and Administration Committee. I was very humbled to be able to talk to Josh and ask him questions and hear his stories from his mouth and be able to just kind of feel what he has felt as a surrogacy dad in this whole situation. All I have felt is just pure love for his friend and for his friend's family.To little Paige I just wanted to add my well wishes to you. Just know that the whole nation is behind you and at this moment—as representatives here in Parliament—all our love goes to you. And just know that you're always loved and supported. If you need anything else please we're always here for you and we're always rooting for you. So on that note I commend this bill to the House.
Collins JudithHon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura): Thank you Mr Speaker. I'll just take a short call on this. I think we've got overwhelming and fierce agreement right across Parliament. I often to say to people that Parliament is best in select committees because we knuckle down we get down to it and we sort things out—and we so often agree. But actually on days like today when we have wild and fierce agreement across the House with everyone saying Go little Paige—you're going to get your mum's name on your birth certificate your dad's going to know he's fulfilled his promise you are going to be acknowledged as someone who had a mum." I can't think of anything much worse than to be born without your mum—it's just totally unacceptable that we could ever have little Paige to have a birth certificate without her mother being acknowledged.It is a joyful moment not only for Paige and her family but I think for MPs who come to Parliament to do their very best; even if we often disagree we try to do our best and it is wonderful to see that this has come to pass. So again a big acknowledgment to the family of Paige Harris and to her very close friends and also Renee for the work that she's done to help allow Paige to have a life. What a wonderful thing. And a big thankyou to all the MPs involved.I'd also like to acknowledge Ian McKelvie for the work he did in the National Party bringing this bill to us as an issue and obviously encouraging our support for it. I believe it's the right thing to do and I've already acknowledged Louisa Wall this afternoon—thank you for making this happen—and a big thankyou to Parliament for being at our very best. Thank you Madam Speaker."
SpeechHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you Madam Speaker. I'll just take a moment; I cry at sad movies. In the interests of not blubbing in the House and expediting this process I want to associate myself with all of the thanks and congratulations that Louisa Wall has mentioned. I was going to mention Paddy Gower in my second reading speech and I forgot so I will just make a mention of that. Many of us those who were here from when he was in the press gallery will have fond and not-so-fond recollections of him. I used to refer to him as Bruce the shark from Finding Nemo—Politicians are our friends." I think I could imagine him saying in the press gallery corridor. But when he took on an issue he did so with a gusto that was tenacious and to generate an interest in an issue around an individual that created a petition of 50000 signatures is indeed quite some feat in highlighting the folly I guess of the law and the fact that we have to be here to make things right. But we will and I'm sure Paige Harris will live a happy—I hope a long—life surrounded by loved ones but in the knowledge that her mum Katherine Harris is on her birth certificate. I'm sure there'll be stories told of her every day. This is a good day."
Paige Harris Birth Registration Bill — In Committee
Salesa Jenny; McAnulty KieranIn CommitteePreambleCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members the House is in committee on the Paige Harris Birth Registration Bill. I remind members that they are able to participate remotely. If you're on the Zoom and want to take a call please type call" into the chat. You should also use the chat if you would like to raise a point of order. We come first to the debate on the preamble. The question is that the preamble stand part.KIERAN McANULTY (Chief Whip—Labour): Point of order. Thank you Madam Chair. I seek leave for all parts to be taken as one debate.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Is there any objection to that motion? The question is that the preamble and clauses 1 to 5 stand part. Preamble and clauses 1 to 5Preamble and clauses 1 to 5 agreed to.Bill to be reported without amendment.House resumed.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Mr Speaker the committee has considered the Paige Harris Birth Registration Bill and reports it without amendment. I move That the report be adopted. Motion agreed to.Report adopted.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ian McKelvie): In accordance with a determination of the Business Committee the bill is set down for third reading forthwith."
SpeechDr JAMES McDOWALL (ACT): Thank you Mr Speaker. It is my pleasure to take a call on behalf of ACT in support of the Paige Harris Birth Registration Bill in its second reading. First and foremost I want to acknowledge Kyle Harris and his family. Not only have they suffered a terrible loss when Katherine passed away but they have had to overcome significant hurdles to get to this point. I spoke to Kyle this morning and for him the passing of this bill as I'm sure members can imagine is a huge relief. It's the end of a two-year process that has been mentally exhausting but at long last Paige's birth certificate will have her mother's details listed. I hoped—I really hoped—that the Harris family and close friends could have been here in the gallery today to witness the proceedings but unfortunately with the restrictions on visitors that isn't possible. Nevertheless this is a significant moment for the family and I wish them well for the future.This private bill although highly targeted really puts the spotlight on the need to modernise our surrogacy laws and the laws surrounding adoption in New Zealand. I imagine that many people including politicians possibly didn't fully appreciate just how clunky the system is. So I really thank Kyle for putting his story out there for raising awareness and to all of those who signed the petition and helped the bill along its way. The Adoption Act 1955 is obviously outdated and inadequate especially given the advent of surrogacy and because it will no doubt be something that is used more in future. The fact that parents have to legally adopt their own biological children if born via surrogacy is just so out of step with common sense and when a situation like this arises it really emphasises the problem.I thank Louisa Wall for her work on this bill and I thank the committee officials and other MPs for being on board with what needs to be done not only in this case but for wider reform as well on these issues. Finally I once again wholeheartedly wish Kyle Paige and the whole Harris family and their close friends all the very best for the future. Thank you. I commend this bill to the House.Motion agreed to.Bill read a second time.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ian McKelvie): In accordance with the determination of the Business Committee this bill is set down for committee stage forthwith. I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Paige Harris Birth Registration Bill.
Paige Harris Birth Registration Bill — Second Reading
Boyack RachelRACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson) (remote): Thank you for the opportunity to take a short call on the Paige Harris Birth Registration Bill. I will keep these comments brief as our goal tonight is to pass this legislation to ensure that Paige's birth record may be corrected enabling a new accurate birth certificate to be provided to her as soon as possible.The passing of this legislation will also give Kyle Paige and their friends and whānau their privacy back. I want to acknowledge Kyle and his friends and family especially Josh for their bravery and tenacity in raising this issue—first in the public domain and then through the Parliament. In doing so they have corrected a wrong and highlighted that our adoption and surrogacy laws are not fit for purpose.It was upsetting that Kyle Harris had to go through two adoption approval processes where his suitability to adopt his own biological daughter was assessed twice. Mr Harris completed these assessments with his wife and Paige's mother Katherine before she passed away. After Paige was born Kyle had to complete the entire assessment again while he was grieving his wife and raising his young daughter. He also had to jump through extra hoops as our adoption policies do not allow single men to adopt female children even though Paige is Kyle Harris' biological daughter.The select committee was united in its view that our adoption and surrogacy laws need to be updated for modern times and we look forward to Tāmati Coffey's bill progressing through this House so that situations like this never happen to any other families in Aotearoa again. As you know the select committee did make some minor technical amendments to replace the words registration of birth" with "birth record" to more accurately reflect the official record that needs to be amended in order to produce an accurate correct birth certificate.It was a privilege to help guide this bill through the select committee and now through the Parliament for Paige Kyle and their family. Today our Parliament speaks with one voice to pass this bill and right a wrong for Paige Kyle and Katherine. I commend this bill to the House."
SpeechPETITIONS PAPERS SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLSSPEAKER: A petition has been delivered to the Clerk.CLERK: Petition of Grey Power Hastings & Districts Association Incorporation requesting that the House urge the Government to keep water assets owned and managed by local councils.SPEAKER: That petition stands referred to the Petitions Committee. Ministers have delivered papers.CLERK: Government responses to the referral of the petition from Juliana Carvalo and referral of the petition of Esther Hansen.SPEAKER: Now those papers are published under the authority of the House. Select committee reports have been delivered for presentation.CLERK:Report of the Education and Workforce Committee on the inquiry into school attendancejoint reports of the Environment Committee and the Economic Development Science and Innovation Committee on the report of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment Te Kaitiaki Taiao a Te Whare Pāremata: A review of the funding and prioritisation of environmental research in New Zealand andthe reports of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment: Pristine popular... imperilled? The environmental consequences of projected tourism growth and Not 100%—but four steps closer to sustainable tourismreports of the Intelligence and Security Committee on the:2020-21 annual review of the Government Communications Security Bureau and2020-21 annual review of the New Zealand Security Intelligence Servicereports of the Petitions Committee on the petition of Sophie Handford and the petition of Linda Manning andreport of the Social Services and Community Committee on the Human Rights (Disability Assist Dogs Non-Discrimination) Amendment Bill.SPEAKER: The bill is set down for second reading.The report of the Education and Workforce Committee and the joint reports of the Environment Committee and the Economic Development Science and Innovation Committee are set down for consideration. The Clerk has been informed of the introduction of a bill.CLERK: Natural Hazards Insurance Bill introduction.SPEAKER: The bill is set down for first reading.
Speaker's Statements — Parliament Grounds—Reopening Ceremony
SpeechSPEAKER'S STATEMENTSParliament Grounds—Reopening CeremonySPEAKER: Before we move on to petitions I want to apologise to the members who were not invited to the ceremony this morning. That was my responsibility in that we were limited to 100 people and I felt that it was better to invite members of the community who had been locked out as well as members of Parliament and staff to that ceremony. I will place on my record my thanks to Te Atiawa - Taranaki Whānui for the work that they did and helping us with the spiritual or emotional cleansing that goes along with the major physical decontamination of the site that has occurred. I will note that it is my intention to hold a grand reopening of the grass" or something similar possibly in early June leading into Matariki to which all members—COVID willing—will be invited."
Ngarewa-Packer DebbieDEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Paati Māori) (remote): Tēnā koe e te Pīka. Tēnā tātou e te Whare. Te Paati Māori support this motion to congratulate the New Zealand Winter Paralympic Team for their outstanding achievements at the Beijing Winter Paralympics. E mihi ana ki tā tātou tīma i kōkiri i te mana o Aotearoa i ngā Hākinakina o te Ao. [I acknowledge our team who bolstered the prestige of Aotearoa at the Winter Olympics.]I want to join by acknowledging our three sportspeople from Aotearoa who completed in this year's Paralympics: Aaron Ewen Adam Hall and Corey Peters. All three of our athletes competed in alpine skiing. I mihi to Corey Peters for winning both the gold and silver medal and to Adam Hall for winning two bronze medals—a small delegation with a tonne of physical mental and X-factor talent. You have all done Aotearoa proud presenting our people on the global stage. You inspire us and you make us scared—a fear of the speed that you went by as well—but it was absolutely motivational. Hoki mai ki ō kāinga. [Return to your homes.]Te Paati Māori support the calls for the Paralympics to be held alongside the Olympics to increase the visibility and profile that it receives. All of our athletes deserve the same recognition praise and support. It is well past time that organisational structure coverage and institutional support reflected that. We also acknowledge that athletes with more severe impairments or disabilities face greater barriers to participation in sports that athletes with less severe impairments need. At the Paralympics the event viability rule often prevents those with more severe impairments or disabilities from competing due to a range of barriers. This needs to change. We need to do better. We must work together towards a world that is inclusive accessible and empowering for all people whether it is in sports or any other field. Let us commit to that. Tēnā tātou katoa.Motion agreed to.
Motions — 2022 Winter Paralympics—New Zealand Team
SpeechTONI SEVERIN (ACT): I'm proud to rise on behalf of the ACT Party as the disabilities spokesperson to congratulate our Winter Paralympic team and support staff. Welcome home. As well I'd like to thank their family and friends who were unable to attend the Games because they are usually their biggest supporters but they were unable to attend due to our COVID times. Firstly Adam Hall five-time Paralympic medallist: gold in 2010 Vancouver; gold and bronze in 2018 PyeongChang; now adding two new bronze medals to his tally. An interesting fact I found out about Adam Hall is he is actually a snowboarder at heart but switched back to skiing to compete in the Paralympic Games in 2006. Corey Peters four-time Paralympic medallist: silver in 2014 Sochi; bronze in 2018 PyeongChang; and now he's added a gold and silver. Aaron Ewen competing in his first Paralympic Games was unable to compete in 2018 due to an injury. However we cannot take the pride away that he achieved two ninth places and an 11th place—well done.You have made us all proud and I hope you have inspired many able and many disabled New Zealanders to achieve goals that you think are out of your hands. But we can all achieve; we just have to set those goals. Thank you.
Menéndez March RicardoRICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Tēnā koe Mr Speaker. It's a privilege to rise on behalf of the Green Party to congratulate our athletes who participated in the 2022 Winter Paralympics. Like many I want to note that this was a very successful Winter Paralympics for our athletes who brought home four medals. I want to pay tribute to Aaron Ewen Adam Hall and Corey Peters for their amazing their performances as well as their coaches support staff and whānau who worked with them along the way.Like many disabled people have told us across the years it's important that alongside congratulating our athletes we also look at the narratives that centre the Paralympics and as part of that I wanted to take some inspiration from a piece from S E Smith who wrote a blog—which I'd love to call but it probably has unparliamentary language in the title. But they wrote The Olympic Paradigm: How the Inspiring" Narrative Restricts and Fetishizes Disabled Athletes. I want to echo their calls about the language that we use when we talk about the Paralympics and how we must continue supporting disabled people who are constantly advocating to have equitable platforms in terms of coverage with the Olympics.And so as in my previous speeches on behalf of the Greens I resume the calls to have the Paralympics happening at the same time as the Olympics so that they get equal coverage and that we continue advocating for the rights of disabled people so that the narratives about success are not limited to high-performance sports but are taken outside into everyday life. I hope that our future athletes are as successful as this lot and that we all continue working alongside our communities so that they can thrive. Kia ora."
Salesa JennyWEDNESDAY 16 MARCH 2022The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.KARAKIA/PRAYERSHon JENNY SALESA (Assistant Speaker) (remote): Ke tau lotu. 'E 'Otua Māfimafi kuo mau taa'i mālie 'i ho'o 'ofá mo e ngaahi tāpuaki hono kotoa. 'Oku tuku homau lotó ka mau hū atu ke malu'i ange mu'a 'a e Kuiní mo tataki ange 'emau fua fatongia 'i he Fale Aleá 'aki 'a e poto Faka-e-'Otua 'ofa pea mo e 'ulungaanga malū ko e 'uhí ko e mo'ui mo e melino 'a e fonuá. 'Oku mau kole atu 'a e ngaahi me'á ni hono kotoa 'i he huafa ho 'aló pē 'e taha ko Sīsū Kalaisi ka ko homau fakamo'uí. 'Emeni.
Voting — Correction—COVID-19 Response (Courts Safety) Legislation Bill Instruction to Committee
SpeechVOTINGCorrection—COVID-19 Response (Courts Safety) Legislation BillASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ian McKelvie): Members before I adjourn the House—prior to the committee stage the House considered the instruction to the select committee on the COVID-19 Response (Courts Safety) Legislation Bill. The result of the vote was announced as Ayes 108 Noes 10. The correct result is Ayes 110 Noes 10. The House is now adjourned till 2 p.m. next sitting day.The House adjourned at 9.58 p.m.
Parker David; Salesa JennyHon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Revenue): Thank you to the member Andrew Bayly for that question. This was something that I didn't know was a problem until I became Minister of Revenue that there is software which I think originally originates from overseas but is now being modified for use in New Zealand that enables someone who is collecting GST effectively on behalf of the Government because they've got a GST-inclusive sale to use a computer programme to effectively corrupt their own computer records so that when the revenue goes and does an audit of the firm the computer record appears to show lower receipts and therefore lower GST due. What this change to the law does is to create an offence to use that software and also to supply that software or to— CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): My apologies Minister. This debate is interrupted. It is time for me to report progress on this bill.Progress to be reported.House resumed.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The committee has considered the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2021-22 GST and Remedial Matters) Bill and reports progress. I move That the report be adopted.
Salesa Jenny; Bayly AndrewPart 4 Amendments to other enactmentsCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members we come now to Part 4. This is the debate on clauses 134 to 204 and Schedule 1 amendments to other enactments. The question is that Part 4 stand part.ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you Madam Chair. Interesting part of the bill this. There's three or four areas that we'd like to canvas with the Minister so appreciably he's still in the chair.I think the first one we're going to pick up on is clause 135 (2) and (3) which is civil penalties in relation to electronic sale suppression tools. And again for people listening this is software that's designed to falsify basically the receipt and how it folds back into the company's or business's revenue systems so it's a way to minimise tax. So there's quite a section here that defines that you cannot … hide conceal modify falsify destroy or prevent the creation of a record that—" the person's required under a tax law to make or keep. Of course earlier tonight we talked about the "under $1000 test" and the "greater than $1000 test"—or "is or would be created by a system that is or includes an electronic point of sale system;".And of course this also under proposed new section 141EE—there we are I'm just finding it here which I thought I had but I can't. Excuse me Madam Chair I'm just trying to find the clause I was looking for. I know what I was going to refer to. So this is obviously quite a significant issue but my first point to the Minister is: how significant is this? This is obviously something that's been inserted into his bill. So what's the IRD been saying about this issue? Is it now becoming increasingly widespread at point of sale? Is it only a point-of-sale issue or is it something that is now we're seeing other mechanisms or methodologies to try and undermine the tax system? I think in proposed new section 141EE if this is a significant issue why there is only a $5000 penalty? Where did that come from? Whether that's changed or not. Depending on the answer to the first one the first part of that whether it's a significant issue or not whether in fact $5000 which is an all-encompassing fee is actually appropriate? What consideration was given to whether or not to change that fee? So very interested just to hear from the Minister on that particular issue."
Parker DavidHon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Revenue): Can I begin by saying that you know that's a heartfelt story that was told then and I'm sure I speak for other members on my side—I won't speak for other members on the Opposition although I'm not suggesting they would have any other sentiment—of course we respect the difficulty of raising and looking after disabled family members and have the utmost respect for people who do that.In respect of some of the underlying issues that the member Brooke van Velden mentions I would say that on this side of the House we don't think we get wealthier as a nation by bidding up the price of existing houses and selling them to each other at ever higher prices. It doesn't generate any productive increase in productive output.And as to the suggestions that this is going to increase rents the statistics that were put by the Leader of the Opposition for example to the Prime Minister today said that rents have gone up I think the figure was 16.4 percent in the period from October 2017 to December 2021. Interestingly during the period from August 2013 to October 2017 the rate of increase in rents was exactly the same: 16.4 percent. Interestingly in the StatsNZ rental price index for the year annually in New Zealand January 2021 to January 2022 rents went up by 4.6 percent nationally which is pretty much the rate of inflation. In respect of Auckland the increase was 2.7 percent and we on this side of the House say that's because in the end the driver of prices is the cost of new housing and the supply of new housing and because we've got building activity strongly outpacing population growth in Auckland now—something that the last Government never achieved; they went backwards—we've had Auckland price increases of 2.7 percent year on year. In terms of the national statistics in February 2022 the national rental price index fell by 0.6 percent from the prior month.So I don't think the statistics bear out the dire predictions that are being made by the Opposition and I think they do tend to support the view that the key to slowing rent increases is new supply which we're seeing in Auckland which is why Auckland rent increases have been at a lower rate than in the rest of the country. I would also note that in respect of our efforts to intervene we have deliberately skewed the field towards investment in new housing and so the brightline test is softer in respect of new houses and the interest limitation rules don't apply to them for the first 20 years of the new build.So we think we've got the balance right and we think the stats will bear that out and we don't think that the underlying trend of decreasing homeownership that we have been seeing in our country is desirable socially or economically. I heard the members saying that they like the fact that people are encouraged to save and put away a nest egg. I agree with that and I think that is most important for the home occupier and I am happy on this side of the House to be preferring the interests of the home occupier over those who rent other properties.
Parker DavidHon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Revenue): The trend in New Zealand over recent decades is that a declining percentage of our population owns their own home. More homes are owned by landlords owning multiple homes and fewer as a percentage—Andrew Bayly: Well that's not what this says.Hon DAVID PARKER: The trend is quite clear. The trend is clear that over recent decades the proportion of New Zealanders who live in their own home has decreased and the proportion who are renting has increased. In respect of the breakdown of those between landlords who own lots and lots of properties and who own one extra as Mr Bayly was talking about there was an interesting article by Valocity reported in a Stuff series based on their data that they gathered. And one of the more astounding stats there was that Over 22000 homes"—and I'm quoting from them—"are owned by an elite class of large investors who each own more than 20 properties". That's the equivalent of Invercargill or Nelson—all of the houses being owned by 906 people whose portfolios continue to grow. How do they do that? Well we know that they're able to outcompete over time first-home buyers really because they're the ones that are dropping out of the market by leveraging their existing asset plus the asset that they're purchasing effectively often borrowing 100 percent of the cost of the new property with the debt spread over the new property that they're purchasing and the old property that they already—not the old property but the properties that they already own. The effect of which has been putting upward price pressure on properties. It's been one of the contributing factors to house price inflation. I know there are a lot of other factors in there including the lowest interest rates that the world's ever seen that have been visited upon the world probably by Mr Greenspan and his mistakes prior to the global financial crisis in monetary policy around the world since. But against the background that there's a decreasing number of people living in their own home this side of the House believes that the tax advantage that comes from tax deductibility of those high rates of leverage that can really only be obtained as an investment methodology from this class of investment is undesirable socially and we believe that justifies the measures that are proposed."
Parker DavidHon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Revenue): Dealing with Brooke van Velden's question in respect of new section 19N in clause 19 of the bill I'm advised that the provision at subclause (4) is a replication of an existing provision in the Goods and Services Tax Act so it needs to be restated in accordance with the new more flexible rules as to tax invoices or their equivalent supplier information. The existing law has an exception in respect of rebates—the amount that's being rebated under a Pharmac agreement to Pharmac—and that's just being carried forward in this provision. So there's no substantial change.
SpeechDAMIEN SMITH (ACT): Thank you. This bill has three main purposes. It is supposed to strive to improve the current tax settings by ensuring that the current tax rules work as intended but it also seeks to modernise tax settings with regard to the administration of KiwiSaver and Working for Families. Then the bill sets the annual rates of income tax for the 2021-22 tax year. What I'd like to do with regards to GST is talk about a tax on a tax. My favourite document at the moment is the Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update and it seems that tonight there hasn't been a lot of conversation about actual numbers. If you look at GST as a major tax it is actually going to in terms of forecasts be an average $2.6 billion higher each year compared with the Budget update with the biggest drivers being an increase in the forecast for private consumption and residential investment and a small contribution from the opening of the borders in terms of migration. If you look at core tax revenue you take it up a level. This is where Minister Parker could be accused of being Mr Scrooge. It's going to be an extra $2.2 billion per year on average. That's $48.6 billion higher by 2024-25. There's no mechanisms in here with regards to management of inflation around GST corporate tax source deductions and other withholding taxes. So one of the things that has slipped by—and it's not too late because the petrol tax was changed in a matter of days—is to actually look at the overall inflationary effect that the Government is benefiting from in terms of its GST intake. Irrespective of cryptocurrencies which is a long-term strategy generally more and more money's going to be pulled out of the economy from businesses and personal households for consumption. That is having an extra kicker being placed on top of it. I'd like to ask the Minister: when we spoke about this at the Finance and Expenditure Committee seven or eight months ago these figures as they've developed weren't as progressive for the Government if you'd like to call it that. Today should have been the day that we all came together to look at the overall taxation strategy and whether giving New Zealanders a break or their businesses a break were an essential thing to do. If you look at that quantum of money that's going to be taken in over the next five years everybody does talk about GST being sacrosanct and a simple system but in the wider context there's a hell of a lot of money going to be collected and we'd like to make sure that there is some empathy towards the people of New Zealand and the businesses of New Zealand with regards to the GST component of the bill as well as the income tax component.
Parker DavidHon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Revenue): If a developer is involved in a transaction then they can't pick and choose and say that for part of the transaction they're not a developer because they're in the business. All of their revenue is related to a taxable activity and therefore is caught. If they are not a developer then different rules apply. If the member has a more specific question than that in respect of wanting to dig into that second category I'm happy to answer further questions.
SpeechHon DAVID BENNETT (National): The other issue with that is if the tax rate changes within the transaction period. For example if the Labour Party put up GST to 17.5 percent which is completely likely and someone had purchased at 15 percent how does that work then?
Bayly AndrewANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Madam Chair thank you for that. I'll let Mr Watts just review that.I just want to go back—just to talk about these apportionment rules. I think the Minister the Hon David Parker had a valiant attempt at talking about these beastly apportionment rules but I'm not quite sure he showed the clarity that we're actually searching for. So I want to maybe just push it back to the Minister and see whether what I'm saying is maybe a better description of these apportionment rules. Does it mean that where you have a private interest or you're not a developer then you won't have to pay GST but if you are conducting a taxable activity such as property development you will have to pay GST but there's a cap on how much you can claim which is limited to the amount that you've originally deducted or claimed so the total at the end is the same? Is that correct?
Watts Simon; Parker DavidSIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Thank you Madam Chair. I appreciate the Minister's engagement with us on these questions; I appreciate that some of them probably are for those at home extremely thrilling but the GST Act in all the main is important.So what I want to refer to is around new sections 19E and 19F and there's some changes that have been made in regards to the GST legislation around information-gathering requirements. There seems to be—and it was noted through the submission process—an inconsistency of the different information requirements for suppliers and recipients respectively that is required in the new taxable supply information" definition that's come into play and that's specifically under new section 19K(8). I'm interested in a little bit of consideration around why we're seeing potentially some different requirements around the information requirements in those portions of the Act whether that's intentional or whether it's more so an oversight in terms of drafting it would be good just to get a little bit more detail in regards to that. Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Revenue): Well my reading of the bill—and I might misunderstand the question—but there is now no 19K(8)."
van Velden BrookeBROOKE VAN VELDEN (Deputy Leader—ACT): Thank you Madam Chair. I wanted to go back to a topic that my colleague Andrew Bayly was talking about with the Minister before about the supply correction information under new section 19N inserted by clause 19 and I note that the section applies where a registered person has previously issued taxable supply information that includes an inaccuracy." But there is a subclause (4) which states that "a registered person is not required to supply correction information under subsection (2) for a supply because part of the consideration shown in the taxable supply information for the supply has been rebated under a Pharmac agreement to Pharmac whether Pharmac is acting on its own account or as an agent for a public authority." And I just wondered if the Minister would be able to provide some clarity around this sub-clause about the benefit of it being added what the hope was behind it and why Pharmac itself has been singled out with its own subclause because I know there will be a lot of people who have interest in medicines access. But I've tried to look around the report that came back from the Finance and Expenditure Committee and I noted in that report there was no reference to Pharmac. So I wondered if the Minister could provide a little clarity about its addition into this new section 19N."
Parker DavidHon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Revenue): Responding to Andrew Bayly's earlier question I'm advised that the intention here is that people who are not property developers do not get overtaxed by the apportionment rule that does not apply to property developers. I think I've got that right.In respect of the allied services in respect of cryptocurrency yes a boundary has to be drawn somewhere. If the service that is being provided is for example a brokerage service then as would be the case for a broker selling shares or servicing a share transaction who charges brokerage that would attract GST and so would the brokerage on a cryptocurrency transaction.
Watts SimonSIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Thank you very much Madam Chair. Crikey! Look I was thinking about that good contribution from my good colleague Andrew Bayly and I know the Minister is conferring at the moment with officials and so I thought while we're doing that we would buy a little bit of time just to talk about a slightly different topic while we come back to the very important points that have been asked. I want to go to clause 5 (2) and (3). It is in relation to the changes that have been brought into play in the GST legislation around cryptoassets. And I think those on the Finance and Expenditure Committee will remember probably this conversation—that the changes made under the Goods and Services Tax Act 1985 relate to the exclusion of cryptoasset" from the definition of "goods and services" and in effect moving it to the definition of "currency". And I guess what we discussed at the committee—and I'd be interested to just get the Minister's perspective on it—is the unintended consequences of that change of definition for cryptoassets because while we're acknowledging the fact that they aren't going to be subject to GST the unintended consequence of that change in definition—which may seem subtle but actually is significant—is the other associated services such as brokerage on those type of transactions may therefore be captured.So I'm interested for the Minister just to provide a little bit of perspective—and I appreciate he might want to have a chat with his officials which he's currently doing so I'll continue just to add a little bit more context to my points while we're doing that—I'd appreciate if the Minister could come back and give us a little bit more clarity around clause 5 (2) and (3) on cryptoassets. Thank you Minister."
Bayly Andrew; Salesa JennyANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): So if that is the case the purpose of clause 25 is really to say that the disposal of land that the person has acquired is a zero-rated supply. So that is the non-taxable element—that is the private-use component of it. But in terms of the component that is taxable there is now a new definition in subclause 6(b) which says for a disposal to which paragraph (a) does not apply"—that's the paragraph above—"the amount that when added to any deduction already claimed produces a total amount equal to the amount of the full input tax deduction on acquisition …". So maybe the Minister can just explain the new cap rules on that total amount of GST that is payable or claimable.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): I call Simon Court—sorry; Simon Watts."