edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Williams ArenaARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Rather than something divisive and discriminatory this bill supports fairness and inclusion. I want to acknowledge the comments of the member opposite the Hon Simon Bridges in the face of some of the advocates who have worked on this tirelessly for so long who have joined us in the gallery. When we talk about the need for urgency of this legislation in this House I want to think about those people in the gallery who have joined us today who have worked on this for more than 20 years. Advocates in our communities who have seen the repugnant racism that comes out of the poll requirement where councils want to advance Māori representation in their councils under their representation but cannot do that because of this poll requirement.In 2010 the Human Rights Commission published Māori Representation in Local Government: The Continuing Challenge. When noted that a key problem with current provisions is that the implementation of councils' decisions to establish Māori wards depends on the very shortcomings of the majoritarian process—which the Māori constituencies are designed to address—and citing Professor Janine Hayward the report noted that to a point irrespective of the wishes of Māori voters the provision has been rejected. Those who have power have been unwilling to share it." That is why I support this bill.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The House is suspended for the dinner break. We will resume at 7 o'clock this evening.Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7 p.m."
Coffey TamatiTĀMATI COFFEY (Labour): Thank you very much Madam Speaker. I've got to say as the new chair of the Māori Affairs Committee it was definitely the deep end this particular bill. But because it is something that is so urgently wanted out there amongst our communities actually it was my pleasure to chair what was an incredibly respectful process. I understood that there were people like the other side of the House who disagree with this bill. I understand that there were people who supported it. But everybody got their time to be heard and I'm proud that our committee sat through to be able to listen to the detractors and listen to the people that were in support as well. In terms of the detractors there was quite a lot of conversation around using urgency for this. But as the Leader of the House indicated there are definite time lines for local government to be able to take this on board and get things set up so that they can have their own local body elections next year. So when it came to urgency no apology. In fact one of the submitters that was in support said Hurry up"—"Ka tere" was what she said—and actually I support that as well. So that was the reason for urgency. Talking about division though which was another thing that came up—saying that this was going to divide everybody—well actually wake up and smell the roses everybody. This has been dividing people for quite some time. Since 2001 24 councils have tried to establish Māori wards in their areas and 22 have been knocked back. Only two have made it over the line and that's not good enough. When we're talking about a commitment to Te Tiriti and when we're talking about our Crown/Māori relationship we need to do better at every single turn and I'm absolutely surprised at some of the comments that came from the other side talking about and kind of almost ignoring the fact that we have a Treaty relationship and we need to be better Treaty partners. That's why we all come into this House—to be better Treaty partners—and it seemed to be quite a convenient fact that was ignored I believe from the other side. I know that we're going to talk a lot about this over the coming hours so I commend this bill fully—unreservedly—to this House."
Hipkins ChrisURGENCYHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I move That urgency be accorded the passing through the remaining stages of the Local Electoral (Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill.The urgency is done on two grounds. One is to ensure that local authorities that would otherwise have to hold referenda that will no longer be required under this bill will not have to do so. The second is to ensure—as the explanatory note in the bill explains—that local authorities have the opportunity to make decisions on Māori wards and Māori constituencies in light of these changes before the 2022 local elections.
Moriori Claims Settlement Bill — First Reading
Mallard TrevorPETITIONS PAPERS SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLSSPEAKER: No bills have been introduced. Petitions have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation.CLERK:Petition of Patrick Dingemans requesting that the House urge the Government to make mandatory that QR codes be displayed at all exits of workplaces and points of salepetition of Mona Sharma requesting that the House urge the Government to permit her family to come and live in NZ on humanitarian groundspetition of Dr Elizabeth Kerekere requesting that the House urgently prioritises banning conversion therapy and note that 157013 people have signed an online petition in support of this.SPEAKER: Those petitions stand referred to the Petitions Committee.Ministers have delivered papers.CLERK: Annual reports for 2020 of the Canterbury District Health Board Hawke's Bay District Health Board Health and Disability Commissioner New Zealand Conservation Authority Provincial Growth Fund Ltd and the Southern District Health Boardstatements of performance expectations for 2020-21 for Canterbury District Health Board Health and Disability Commissioner and Southern District Health BoardHealth and Disability Commissioner statement of intent 2020-24Hawke's Bay District Health Board annual plan 2020-21 incorporating the statement of performance expectations 2020-21Te Puni Kōkiri strategic intentions 2020-24.SPEAKER: Those papers are published under the authority of the House.Select committee reports have been delivered for presentation.CLERK: Reports of the Health Committee on the petitions of Chlöe Swarbrick Gary Chiles and Assil Russellreport of the Privileges Committee on the question of privilege arising from the use of official television coverage of the Housereport of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee on the petition of Pru Bowman for West Melton District Residents Association Inc.SPEAKER: The report of the Privileges Committee is set down for consideration.
Motions — Christchurch Earthquake of 22 February 2011—10th Anniversary
Severin ToniTONI SEVERIN (ACT): Thank you Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of the ACT Party in support of the Prime Minister's motion. The 22 February 2011 is a Cantabrian's darkest day a day for ever linked with great suffering tragedy and trauma but we should look back on the heroism displayed on that day 10 years ago with pride. Much of that city was lost: its landmarks the cathedral Lancaster Park and many more all in rubble. But on that day and in the hard weeks months years following the people of Christchurch came together united to go on with it. The loss of lives will never be healed and are a loss we will never forget; we will remember them. As a Cantabrian my husband's vehicle was crushed by a concrete beam 30 seconds after he got out of it. Myself I still suffer when buildings shake and there are loud bangs because you just do not know if it's another big earthquake.The years following the quake were hard. Many are still battering insurance companies and the Earthquake Commission and many are still hurting from their loss. However thanks to the determination and the relentless spirit of the Cantabrians which are more frequently displayed on a rugby field on a Saturday night the city is starting to revive. From the merest loss the city has recovered thanks to the work done by government led by Sir John Key Sir Bob Parker the Hon Gerry Brownlee and Sir Bill English. However the reason Christchurch stands as New Zealand's most modern most vibrant and most livable city is thanks not to the politicians but to the people and particularly the entrepreneurs. As Government councils and bureaucrats pushed paper a small number of Cantabrians got to work. They got out there—had a go. They battled the councils the insurance companies and regulations that got in the way and slowly created something worthwhile. A special thanks to the likes of Antony Gough Richard Peebles and Tim Glasson who did a lot of heavy lifting but for more frequently the small guys—it's not easy to run a business but thanks to their tireless work we have a city that we can be proud of once again. I walk down Oxford Terrace on a Sunday afternoon and the evidence is there to be seen: Rollickin Gelato the Bacon Brothers Bohemian Bakery—dozens of businesses in the Riverside Market and hundreds of other operators in the city getting out there having a go. It is to you we owe the city we have today and what a city it is. Thank you.
Wednesday 2 December 2020 (continued on Thursday 3 December 2020) - Volume 749
Taxation (Income Tax Rate and Other Amendments) Bill — Third Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Taxation (Income Tax Rate and Other Amendments) Bill be now read a third time.Ayes 66New Zealand Labour 64; Te Paati Māori 2.Noes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Abstentions 10Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Motion agreed to.Bill read a third time.DEPUTY SPEAKER: Members that concludes urgency. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m.The House adjourned at 11.37 a.m. (Thursday)
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the question be now put.Ayes 74New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Noes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Motion agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the Minister's tabled amendments to clause 33 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 86New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Noes 33New Zealand National 33.Amendments agreed to.The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 76 Noes 43.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The Hon Michael Woodhouse's amendments amending clause 32 and deleting clause 33 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 3 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee. The question is that the Hon Michael Woodhouse's tabled amendments to clauses 35 and 38 to delete new section 59BAB be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Noes 76New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10;Te Paati Māori 2.Amendments not agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That Part 2 as amended be agreed to.Ayes 76New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10;Te Paati Māori 2.Noes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Part 2 as amended agreed to.
Taxation (Income Tax Rate and Other Amendments) Bill — In Committee—Part 2
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the question be now put.Ayes 64New Zealand Labour 64.Noes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Abstentions 10Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Motion agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): The question is that Andrew Bayly's amendment inserting new clauses 15B and 15C set out on Supplementary Order Paper 2 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 33New Zealand National 33.Noes 84New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; ACT New Zealand 10.Amendment not agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): The question is that Andrew Bayly's amendment to clause 16 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 1 be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 33New Zealand National 33.Noes 84New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; ACT New Zealand 10.Amendment not agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That Part 1 be agreed to.Ayes 66New Zealand Labour 64; Te Paati Māori 2.Noes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Abstentions 10Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Part 1 agreed to.
Taxation (Income Tax Rate and Other Amendments) Bill — In Committee—Part 1
Taxation (Income Tax Rate and Other Amendments) Bill — Third Reading (continued)
Lubeck MarjaMARJA LUBECK (Labour): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. Thank you Mr Speaker. It's great to be the last speaker because you can be succinct and it's all been said in the previous debate. We made a campaign promise to increase the top rate to 39 percent and that's exactly what this bill achieves. It only affects a small portion of our income earners—those earning over $180000. It's consistent with a progressive tax system. It basically gives a very clear message: those who earn more pay a little bit more to help make Aotearoa New Zealand a better place. It seems fair and I commend it to the House. Thank you Mr Speaker.
White HelenHELEN WHITE (Labour): This is a progressive tax that was traversed with the public and got its mandate. This is a straightforward targeted tax contribution from the people who can afford it the most. The same bill makes sure that people at the bottom who can least afford it have an adjusted minimum family tax credit. It is mindful of possible avoidance in trusts and by adding transparency it may well put on notice people who attempt to do so and avoid such behaviour. I am proud to commend a bill that targets the top 2 percent of income earners in this country and lets them pay their fair share of tax. Thank you.
Webb Duncan; Rurawhe AdrianDr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Mr Speaker thank you for giving me the call. It's great to hear the new member for the ACT Party has been to the David Seymour school of shouty. But look I just want to address one point which is really the alleged New Zealand Bill of Rights Act issue and just note that the Minister has put a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) there to really make clear that the gathering of information is for a very limited purpose—for the purpose of developing policy and understanding the way the tax system works and not for any administrative or enforcement purposes. It's very clear that if the commissioner wants to inquire into a person's affairs for enforcement or administration purposes they'll need to use powers that currently exist elsewhere in the legislation. So it's very clear very fair and the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act issue really has been quite effectively dealt with by that SOP. So thank you Mr Speaker. This is a great improvement to our legislation one which means that those who can will help New Zealand a little bit more and New Zealand will be better for it. DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is a split call. I call the Hon Gerry Brownlee—five minutes.
van Velden BrookeBROOKE VAN VELDEN (Deputy Leader—ACT): Thank you Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of the ACT Party in opposition to this Taxation (Income Tax Rate and Other Amendments) Bill. There are many issues with this legislation. This bill should never have been put forward under urgency. There are many good reasons for using urgency and this is just not one of them. What could be so urgent about putting forward a new tax law before Christmas that we give up the normal checks and balances that we expect under our democracy such as the public having their say through public submissions on a proposed law? There isn't a good reason. The use of urgency can only have been political to give as little time for the ACT Party to scrutinise the proposed law before it was debated in the House. Unfortunately for this Government the ACT Party didn't need much time and it wasn't hard to notice the glaring issues with this bill.The reason why we oppose this bill is unintended consequences. It is not clear that there is any clear objective or outcome that this bill is hoping to achieve. It's unlikely to raise much revenue; so that can't be the Government's objective. The regulatory impact statement and the departmental disclosure statement say it will raise about half a billion dollars. That's not much when you compare that to the $140 billion that this Government has just borrowed. Even if it did make a noticeable impact I'd argue that this Government doesn't have a good history of spending taxpayer money; so it's clearly not for the revenue. It can't be putting forward the bill for outcomes because of course once people find out that they're liable to be paying more tax it's in people's interests to structure their affairs accordingly to avoid it. So will the fringe benefit tax rate have to be changed as a consequence? Will the trust rates have to be changed too? Unintended consequences.This is not a simple law that can be passed under urgency and without the due scrutiny that we expect under our democracy. The reason this Government has put forward this bill can only be ideology. This is the only reason that they have and this is why we oppose the bill. It is the message that it sends to New Zealanders. It says We don't want people to take risks. We don't want people to invest. And we don't want people to become highly skilled." The values of the ACT Party are in stark contrast. They are of aspiration and valuing success. They are that when you earn a little bit of money you put a little bit aside you save it and you invest carefully. Those are the values that we should seek to uphold in New Zealand. Labour says that if you do well we'll tax you even more we'll take it off you.Lastly there are New Zealand Bill of Rights Act issues that should once again be scrutinised fully in a select committee that doesn't exist under this urgency. I could go on but I think I've made my point. The ACT Party is opposed to this bill. Thank you Mr Speaker."
McAnulty KieranThird ReadingDebate resumed.KIERAN McANULTY (Labour—Wairarapa): Thank you Mr Speaker. Look I'm not going to take too long. It's going to be very brief call because we've spent quite some time discussing this. To me this is very simple that in New Zealand we have a principle that for many many decades we have had in place that we have a progressive tax system. The more you earn the more you are taxed and on the whole we accept that and we understand the reasons why. For me it's very clear cut. I don't believe that teachers and police officers should pay the same rate of tax as those earning $180000 or more. I support this move I think it's fair and given that it was in our manifesto and that the Labour Party received over 50 percent of the vote I'd say the majority of New Zealanders think it's fair also. I commend this bill to the House.
Voting — Correction—Taxation (Income Tax Rate and Other Amendments) Bill
Rurawhe AdrianVoting Correction—Tabled Amendment to Clause 33DEPUTY SPEAKER: Before I call the next speaker when the committee was considering the Taxation (Income Tax Rate and Other Amendments) Bill the result of the vote on the question that the Minister's tabled amendment to clause 33 was incorrectly recorded as Ayes 76 Noes 43. The correct result is Ayes 86 Noes 33.
Russell DeborahDr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn): Thank you Madam Speaker. One of the critical things about this excellent bill—this excellent bill—is that it quite straightforwardly fulfils a campaign promise a campaign promise that we made and that New Zealanders voted for: to increase the top income tax rate to 39 percent. So that's the basic concern of this bill and that's what it does and as appropriately done it propagates that rate through the various mechanisms we have for collecting income tax such as through the fringe benefit tax mechanism the resident withholding tax mechanism the employer superannuation contribution tax mechanism and so on. So this is what this bill achieves. It's been done with reasonable haste because in order to have sufficient time for systems IRD systems business systems and the like to be up and running by 1 April the rate needs to be confirmed now and this is why this bill has gone through with urgency—in order to get that rate into law which gives certainty to business certainly to the revenue department. So there are two straightforward things going on with that. When the new rate is in place it will affect 2 percent of income earners and it will only affect them if they earn more than $180000 a threshold that is higher than the incomes of many people in this House. It's a very small percentage of income earners. What it means is that if you earn over $180000—an income that's very high in comparison to the great majority of incomes in New Zealand. A person who earns that much will pay another $600 in tax for every $10000 they earn over $180000. It is a small extra contribution from our highest income earners and it goes to issues of fairness and equity in the tax system a tax system where over and over again New Zealanders have expressed the view that a fair income tax structure is a progressive income tax structure. This bill embodies that. There is one final further important measure in this bill and that is an increase to the minimum family tax credit which is required most years to ensure that people who are in work do get some reward for that and that in fact their income just exceeds similar families who are on benefit. So that is straightforwardly a fairness measure as well. This is an excellent bill and I commend it to the House.
Dean JacquiCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The committee has considered the Taxation (Income Tax Rate and Other Amendments) Bill and reports it with amendment. I move That the report be adopted.Motion agreed to.Report adopted.
Taxation (Income Tax Rate and Other Amendments) Bill — In Committee—Clauses 1 and 2
Russell DeborahDr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn): I move That the question be now put.Clause 1 agreed to.Clause 2 agreed to.House resumed.
Bayly AndrewANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you Madam Chair. Thank you for standing up—I think there was a little bit of confusion from both the Hon Michael Woodhouse and I as to your comment around the Attorney-General's—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): To the Minister of Revenue's comment.ANDREW BAYLY: Oh the Minister's comment; we didn't quite hear it. But anyway in terms of the start date the whole premise for putting this through for urgency the Minister told us that that was because principally one it was an election promise to put it in place early but secondly there were IT issues and if we didn't pass it through quickly there wouldn't be sufficient time for all the IT work to be done so that this could be actioned and implemented from 1 April 2021. So it seems a pretty interesting approach that we have been driven around IT for a date.In terms of the process of the bill passing through the House I think it's a real disappointment that Michael Woodhouse's amendment wasn't accepted because that would have given some latitude around maybe having a differential start date. At the moment we've got a hard start date of 1 April but I do note there is also a subsequent date of 1 April 2022 because during the course of 2021 it is proposed to go out and actually do some consultation around the integrity issues of this bill which is something some of the members from the Government side seem to just blush over. But obviously the Minister has regard for that and that's why he has set out a process for further integrity measures to be implemented during the course of 2021 with a commencement date for those of 1 April 2022.I just don't think that this issue around urgency for this bill has been proven. I think there is a lot of concern we've been hearing it and once this bill finally finds the light of day and people fully realise the implications of this from a technical and accounting perspective to try and do the accounting work to make sure that everything's in order we don't know how the commissioner's going to react and what she might do. I think given that uncertainty postponing the start date in my view would be not only advisable but preferable because that would give sufficient time for further consultation to make sure that there are no fish-hooks that have been embedded into this bill and I think we've talked about that long and hard during the course of the last 24 hours because there is a large potential for this. I think on those grounds there's a strong reason why the commencement date of the bill should be deferred for a later date.
Dean JacquiClauses 1 and 2CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members we now come to the debate on clauses 1 and 2 which are the title and commencement clauses. The question is that clauses 1 and 2 stand part.
Parker DavidHon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Revenue): I've already dealt with Nicola Willis' points earlier in my contributions so I'm not going to repeat those. In respect of the question from the Hon Michael Woodhouse as to whether the amendment proposed by me is sufficient were it to go further it would undermine the administration of the tax Act. I believe it does go far enough for the reasons that are set out in the Attorney-General report that I've tabled. If we don't put in subsection (3) which is shown in my tabled amendment I'm advised that some people—these are words that have been provided to me by officials—could aggressively argue that without subsection (3) the whole of the pool of IRD's information could be tainted and therefore they would be seriously stymied in their tax administration. So subsection (2) puts a limit on the use of the information collected under new section 17GB but then subsection (3) prevents the undermining of the whole of information that is held by the Revenue either earlier information or later information.In respect—[Interruption] Sorry there was one other point.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Can members wait till the Minister has sat—Hon Michael Woodhouse: He's kind of bobbing up and down.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Yeah but that doesn't constitute sitting so wait.Hon Michael Woodhouse: Doing his deep knee bends.Hon DAVID PARKER: Yeah that's right. I'm doing my pelvic floor exercises. In respect of clauses 35 and 38 and the amendments that Michael Woodhouse proposes in his most recently tabled Supplementary Order Paper the Labour Party will be voting against that and his other one because it would render what we want to do less effective.
Rurawhe Adrian; Penk ChrisCHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I call Chris Penk.Hon Gerry Brownlee: Point of order. I thought we were able to have an exchange where there was a response and otherwise. The Minister went on to answer another question but I did get an answer to a question that I asked and I didn't take the five minutes to get to that point—it was salient to where I was heading. I'd ask you to consider whether I could have the balance of my time perhaps just to take that next step.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): The problem is that I already awarded the call to Mr Penk. But if your colleague decides to sit down now I would actually give it to the honourable member.CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you Mr Chair. If it's acceptable to you I would yield the floor back to my colleague Gerry Brownlee to take another call.Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National): Thank you Mr Chair—thank you for resolving that. Thank you to my colleague too for that yield. Look the Minister's answer was interesting insomuch as it clearly hasn't been considered at this point what that threshold point might be but it does go to the heart of the reason why the bill is allowing the IRD to gather information about this particular level of compliance.So one would expect that the IRD does know what tax is being paid by trusts—that shouldn't be hard for them to assess. They would also know what individual trusts are paying. What the new bit will be is whether or not they now start digging into where does the income come from. And that's quite a different area for the IRD to be going into. They might at the moment investigate someone for example if they are selling a whole lot of properties and they're a trader and claiming capital gains when they should be paying trading tax—that would be quite legitimate. There would be lots of other things that they will do around that. But in this case they're going to a trust which might have an increased income for whatever reason to assess whether or not there is some kind of a dodging of the 39c tax rate. That is a bit of a worry and I think that is why we've seen the Privacy Commissioner reluctant to make any commitments around the validity of this particular piece of new law. It's also why the Attorney-General himself has expressed concern about the way in which that information might be sought and might be used.What I heard earlier this morning was that the IRD may be able to look at information through this particular provision but not use it for prosecution but then use another provision in the Income Tax Act to affect that prosecution. Well doesn't that make this particular provision just another aspect of collecting evidence?
Brownlee Gerry; Parker DavidHon GERRY BROWNLEE (National): First Mr Chair congratulations on your appointment as Deputy Speaker. I think your work in the last Parliament gives us all great confidence in the job that you're about to do for this Parliament. So congratulations sir for that. Look the discussion that's currently being had is sort of interesting insomuch as there are valid points being made by Opposition speakers and there are valid points in return being offered by the Minister. It does I think simply indicate that the Minister's statement that this is a complex area of tax law is correct. But what sits over the top of us is the Minister's position that the trust rate may in fact be lifted at some future time—not too far off we would assume—to capture all of the benefit of the 39c tax rate. So we know that if there is full compliance with the 39c rate the income over the four years to the Government will be something like $2.2 billion. We know also that if you add in the 39c tax that would come off trusts as currently assessed by the IRD you would add another considerable amount taking it to around about $3.7 billion a year. So the question that sits out there is: what would be the threshold for the Minister considering that there is a need to have a look at that trust rate? At the moment there is an acceptance that that gap between $2.2 billion and $3.7 billion—so about $1.5 billion—is kind of accepted it would seem. But if that $2.2 billion was to perhaps come in at $1 billion or $1.5 billion what would be the threshold trigger that would make the Minister say OK we're going to have to have a look at this. We're going to have to go for the doctor here. We're going to have to increase the trust rate to make this truly effective."? Of course I use that term "truly effective" somewhat euphemistically because we know that the value of this even on a good day is somewhere between 2 and 3 percent of the total debt loading that the Government is taking on as a result of COVID-19. So no answer to that problem or that challenge you would say in this bill but our real question that I would like the Minister to perhaps give an indication of is where is the trigger point: if the $2.2 billion's not coming in and you've given away the $3.7 billion what's the trigger point to go to that full 39 percent? Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Revenue): No decision has been made by Cabinet in respect of that nor asked for of Cabinet and no advice has been provided to me by the Inland Revenue Department as to what that threshold might be. Whilst I'm on my feet if I may respond to an earlier issue that Michael Woodhouse raised. The Revenue officials passed me a note in respect of why in their view subsection (3) of section 17GB which is referred to in the tabled amendment is necessary and I read out their note: "The Commissioner and her legal advisers considered that subsection (3) in the tabled amendment is critical to the existing administration of the tax Act.""
Bayly Andrew; Parker DavidANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): I just want to pick up on that last point because he raised that same example last night so it gives rise to what is a legitimate trust. I'm glad he's acknowledged that trusts are a legal structure and there are a lot of them and for legitimate purposes. So can I just put some scenarios to the Minister.What happens if I'm Mr O'Flaherty and I own a farm on the West Coast I've got family involved in it and I've got children involved in it and I am not working at that farm I have another job elsewhere and I put the farm in a trust because I don't know which of the children I want to give that farm to because I don't know which one will be interested because they're too young. Is that a type of trust structure that the Minister would be concerned about? That's the first example—the farm.The second example is that I'm a young man. I've done an engineering degree and I'm very smart. I've worked in Government and overseas in a couple of places. I've come back and I'm freshly married and I say to my new wife—we've just bought a house and we've got a mortgage—Hey guess what honey I'd like to set up a brand new business." and the wife says "Well actually I don't want you borrowing any money against the house. Therefore I'd like you to put it into a trust—the house—and you can go and borrow money from the bank separately for the business because you've never worked in the private sector before." So is that a legitimate purpose for a trust Minister?The third example is that I owned a house and my marriage broke up. Let's say the house is in Dunedin. I've now got a new girlfriend in a different place and I want to protect my house structure because I don't know whether I'm going to marry this person—I don't know what the situation is. I've got a daughter who is living in the house I've got a tenant and I've decided to put it into a trust. Is that a legitimate purpose for a trust and is that something that the Minister is worried about?So those are three examples. Each of those examples of trusts and how they are used—does he believe that they are an inappropriate use of those trusts?Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Revenue): Without going into the detail of those broadly no they're not. In respect of the last two examples they would be excluded from the obligation to even have an annual return for a trust. New section 59BA(3)(a) inserted by clause 35 says that a trustee is excluded from the requirement to make a return if it's a non-active trust. The trusts that he described which weren't being used for tax avoidance purpose were being used for different purposes which I accept are proper.In respect of the relationship property issues that the member referred to the third issue that's not really within the ambit of this; that's with property relationship legislation rather than tax legislation."
Bayly AndrewANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you Mr Chair; very generous of you. Yes we were having a very interesting debate last night and I just want to acknowledge that the Minister who is in the chair the Hon David Parker has returned from last night. So thank you very much.There are still quite a few issues we want to traverse but I want to particularly ask the Minister about the level of consultation in preparing this bill. From what I understand from reading the documentation it has been very very minor—there have only been two or three parties from what I understand that have been consulted and in fact not consulted on the whole of the bill. But I'm hoping the Minister will provide a more fulsome response. I understand the nature of the consultation that was involved was a sort of a general talk to people but without going through all the issues and particularly some of the issues that we're going to cover in Part 2.I wonder if this is the case—whether that absence of consultation has led to this requirement which is most unusual for Inland Revenue to conduct a post-implementation review of the proposed information requirements and all that sort of stuff in 2021. I would have thought that most bills if they'd gone through a consultation process prior to being introduced particularly in urgency would have had some of that work done. That of course is the advantage of taking it through the select committee but as the Minister said last night the reason for the urgency is the IT system that is required in various organisations to be able to meet the requirement to have this in place by 1 April.So if we accept the Minister's view that the IT is driving this urgency of the bill what is the nature of the consultation to date and what is going to be the consultation during 2021 and are we going to actually have a proper process where this bill is going to be reviewed and looked at? Thank you very much.
Rurawhe AdrianWEDNESDAY 2 DECEMBER 2020(continued on Thursday 3 December 2020)TAXATION (INCOME TAX RATE AND OTHER AMENDMENTS) BILLIn CommitteeDebate resumed.Part 1 Income tax rate amendments (continued)CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Mōrena members. When we suspended last night we were debating Part 1 of the Taxation (Income Tax Rate and Other Amendments) Bill and the debate was on clauses 3 to 31 Income tax rate amendments.
12. Question No. 12—ConservationJO LUXTON (Labour—Rangitata) to the Minister of ConservationQuestion No. 12—Conservation12. JO LUXTON (Labour—Rangitata) to the Minister of Conservation: What recent announcements has she made about the Milford Track?Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Conservation): Well I thank the member for that fantastic question. On 30 November I announced the full reopening of the iconic Milford Track. Hikers booked on the popular Great Walk are now able to complete the walk end to end for the first time since it was closed due to extensive flood damage in early February. The reopening is a milestone in the flood recovery work taking place in the Fiordland and Mount Aspiring national park areas and is a testament to the hard work achieved by both Te Papa Atawhai—the Department of Conservation—and the many many contractors involved in the rebuild work.Jo Luxton: How did funding allocated in Budget 2020 contribute to the reopening of the Milford Track?Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: Budget 2020 included $13.7 million for repairing vital conservation and visitor infrastructure destroyed in the February flood. I want to take a moment to commend and acknowledge my good friend and colleague the Hon Eugenie Sage for her work in securing that funding. Completing repairs and getting the Milford Track back up and running has been a priority for Te Papa Atawhai and it is pleasing—SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! That's enough.Jo Luxton: How will the reopening of the Milford Track contribute to the economic recovery from COVID particularly for the Te Ānau community?Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: The reopening of the track is absolutely fundamental and critical for the economic recovery of the people of Te Ānau. This community relies heavily on tourism and has had an extremely difficult year due to the downturn of economic activity as a consequence of COVID-19. The serviced track draws thousands of visitors to the region every year and the reopening sends a strong signal that the area is open for business and will be welcoming visitors throughout this summer season. [Interruption]SPEAKER: Oh surely not.Jo Luxton: Thank you Mr Speaker. What progress has been made on fully reopening the Routeburn Track?Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: Oh another fantastic question from the member—SPEAKER: Order! Order!Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: Mr Speaker—SPEAKER: No no the member will resume her seat. That concludes oral questions.
8. Question No. 8—EnvironmentTANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North) to the Minister for the EnvironmentQuestion No. 8—Environment8. TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North) to the Minister for the Environment: What actions is the Government taking to reform the Resource Management System?Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Improving our planning system is a priority for the Labour Government. The current system takes too long costs too much and has not adequately protected the environment. The Government will ensure that New Zealand's resource management system is fit for the future by repealing and replacing the Resource Management Act (RMA). The Randerson review provides a sound platform for the Government to advance this work. In the first six months of 2021 the Government intends to release an exposure draft of key elements of the first bill the Natural and Built Environments Act (NBEA). Tangi Utikere: What legislation did the Randerson review recommend to replace the RMA?Hon DAVID PARKER: The panel recommended the RMA be replaced with three pieces of legislation: firstly the Natural and Built Environments Act that would provide the framework for both built environments and regulation of the natural environment; secondly the Strategic Planning Act that would overlay the NBEA; and thirdly a Managed Retreat and Climate Change Adaptation Act that would seek to prepare us better for climate change.Tangi Utikere: How will the Natural and Built Environments Act and Strategic Planning Act differ from the existing RMA?Hon DAVID PARKER: The Natural and Built Environments Act will better protect environmental outcomes and limits via a mandatory set of national direction. At the same time there will be less emphasis on subjective amenity values to assist development in built areas. A single NBEA plan for each region will reduce the number of plans from over 100 to about 14. The Strategic Planning Act will sit above the NBEA and under it there will be long-term regional spatial strategies developed to help integrate decisions under the NBEA the Land Transport Management Act the Local Government Act and the Climate Change Response Act.Tangi Utikere: How will the exposure draft be progressed?Hon DAVID PARKER: To advance the NBEA I intend to request the select committee to commence a select committee inquiry on an exposure draft with refinements being made and further material added prior to the bill being formally introduced to the House. This will allow all parties in this House an opportunity to contribute to the policy process to ensure that the replacement for the RMA endures through subsequent Governments.Hon Scott Simpson: Does he agree with the Minister for Economic and Regional Development who recently said on Newstalk ZB of the Government's work on the RMA that by the end of next year it'll be done and dusted"?Hon DAVID PARKER: We'll be well under way by then."
5. Question No. 5—TransportHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) to the Minister of TransportQuestion No. 5—Transport5. Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) to the Minister of Transport: Does he agree with all the findings on the Auckland light rail City Centre to Māngere project reached by the Controller and Auditor-General as set out in his letter to the CEO of the Ministry of Transport dated 26 November; if not what findings does he not agree with? Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Transport): I respect the role and the function of the Auditor-General and while his report does not provide specific findings I note the views that he expresses and his intention to help inform any future procurement process for the provision of light rail in Auckland or other similarly complex infrastructure projects." In light of that I intend to take his views fully into account as the project moves forward. Hon Michael Woodhouse: Was the Government's request to pause market engagement on light rail so the NZ Infra proposal could be examined more closely made against the advice of officials? Hon MICHAEL WOOD: The report notes that there was differing advice on this matter. Hon Michael Woodhouse: Were the mandatory procurement rules that set out the standards of good practice for Government procurement breached by the decision to follow a twin-track process? Hon MICHAEL WOOD: The letter from the Auditor-General notes that this was a highly complex process and also notes that the rules need to be interpreted in a way that is sufficiently flexible to respond to innovative proposals. Hon Michael Woodhouse: Does he agree with the Auditor-General that a process that was not in compliance with the Government's own rules "puts New Zealand's reputation at risk domestically and internationally."?Hon MICHAEL WOOD: I agree with the views expressed by the Auditor-General that these considerations did open up areas of risk but given the significant market engagement the Government has with its transport programme I don't see that as a risk that is being borne out. Hon Michael Woodhouse: Well has that market engagement failed to the point that the Government will need to restart the procurement process as a consequence of those issues and does this mean we've wasted three years? Hon MICHAEL WOOD: The Government ended the twin-track process in July 2020 and because of that will be restarting any procurement process once further decisions have been made on this important project."
2. Question No. 2—FinanceHELEN WHITE (Labour) to the Minister of FinanceQuestion No. 2—Finance2. HELEN WHITE (Labour) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Today Treasury have released the Crown accounts for the four months to October. The operating balance before gains and losses deficit for the year to October 2020 was $3.8 billion but this is against a forecast deficit of nearly $9 billion at the recent pre-election fiscal update. Core Crown expenses were 4.3 percent lower than expected while core Crown revenue was 10 percent higher than forecast at the Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Update (PREFU). It's interesting to note that revenue was higher than forecast from wages company taxation and GST illustrating the stronger employment GDP and consumer confidence data we have seen in recent months. These figures show the continued resilience of the New Zealand economy despite the global COVID-19 slow-down. They also demonstrate the continued prudent management of the Government's books and careful control of Government spending.Helen White: What did the Crown accounts state about the levels of Government debt?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well I'm pleased to report that the net core Crown debt was $3.1 billion less than forecast at 31.5 percent of GDP at the end of October 2020. While this is larger than New Zealand is used to on an internationally comparable basis our debt is lower than Canada Ireland Japan the United Kingdom the United States Australia and others.Helen White: What did the Crown accounts state about debt servicing costs?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well I'm pleased to inform the House that for the year to October 2020 total Crown finance costs were 10 percent lower than forecast at PREFU. So debt servicing costs remain low and they are forecast to remain so.
Mallard TrevorSPEAKER: Right I think we have a changing of the guard that's going to occur and if the people who are going could go so the people who are coming in can come. I do want to if I can get Debbie started before we have to adjourn at 5 o'clock. Just to—Order! Order! To save us something at the end I'm going to indicate that at the conclusion of the next maiden statement the debate will be interrupted and it will be set down for resumption next sitting day and further that the House will stand adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday 8 December. I know there's a bit of changing round going on so if the changing round could go and when the next speaker is satisfied that it's occurred she will stand up and I will call her.New members will learn that there are some rules here which parallel with some of those of our national sports and one of them is that the Speaker is the sole judge of time and I'd probably indicate that like other historic timepieces politically these ones don't keep very good time. I call for her maiden statement Debbie Ngarewa-Packer.
Mallard TrevorSPEAKER: I now call for his maiden statement Rawiri Waititi. I just want to check that your family's here. I'm going to be guided by the member. If he's not happy that the people who he really wants in here are here he should sit down and he should stand up again when he is. I thought we had it organised.
Mallard TrevorSPEAKER: Order! Before I call the next speaker I'm going to repeat my reminder to those in the gallery about the photography rules and that is that accredited media people and a person from each party with whom there's agreement are the people who're allowed to take photographs. I now call on Camilla Belich to make her maiden statement.