edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Bayly Andrew; Parker DavidANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Sorry I'm just seeking a bit of clarification. Are we talking about the land the subdivision component of the land only or are we talking about the component of the house? Because I heard Minister Parker talk about subdivisional components. So that's the first and maybe the Minister might take the opportunity to talk to the good official there.The second thing I suppose is: how do you determine this? How do you determine the two components between taxable and non-taxable? Do you have to go and get independent verification or do you just make an assessment subject to the IRD coming back and maybe asking you to clarify that? What is the formal process for actually getting through this process?Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Revenue): I'm advised that that apportionment has to be done anyway because there is part of this activity that is taxable as a subdivision and part of it that is not from the GST point of view because it's a personal residence. So that need to distinguish between the two already exists at law so there's not an additional compliance cost; it's just trying to make clear the apportionment rules.
Bayly Andrew; Parker DavidANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you Madam Chair and I just acknowledge the Minister. It's good that we've clarified that it only relates to property developers. The second part of the question before—and maybe he's just reflecting on it—was that it would be useful to have an example of how this might work. For instance if someone owned a property and on it was a building where some of it was used for private purposes—the developer lives in it—some of it was used for an office and then there is the issue of the land we've actually got three parts to this title that the developer owns: the private-use part the office and then we've got the land underneath it. So in an apportionment first of all it would be good to understand what is the basis for the apportionment between the private use and the business or taxable component of the house and also at the same time how the land component comes into play. I'll ask him that question first and then we can go into the next bit. Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Revenue): If the member wants to be getting more precise answers than this then I'll have to go to officials. But what the tax system's trying to do is to differentiate between the parts of the use of that land asset part of which is subdivisible land and part of which is a residence to make sure that the part that is related to residential use—which is not a GST-able activity—doesn't attract GST and that's achieved through apportioning value as between that part of the property and the part of the property that is being subdivided which does or may attract GST.
Bayly Andrew; Parker DavidANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Well the Minister is a former lawyer—and it's good that he can follow his own bill. So the next thing I think—and I thank the Minister for doing that because I think people need to have clarity around these new rules. Of course we're going to have 375000 business owners tonight going Gee I may have to ring up my provider my point-of-sale provider or whatever they may be and get on to that tomorrow because it will take some time for me to put in place a new system."The other issue I just want to turn to now is clause 25 which is about apportionment rules and obviously this is quite a reasonably sort of complex tax issue. But under clauses 7(4) and 25 it would basically amend the GST apportionment rules in the GST Act. And the first thing is I just want to make sure that this only applies to property developers this clause. It appears to but again I want to make sure that the Minister is clear with people who are watching tonight that clause 25 regarding enforcement rules only relates to property developers. That's the first thing.I think the big issue here—and it may be worthwhile for the Minister to explain what we mean by apportionment rules but basically it means the difference between taxable activity and non-taxable activity. Again maybe he can give us an example if it is relating to property development how that would work and just in respect of this type of apportionment rule there's obviously been a change. And again I'd just ask the Minister to sort of highlight what those key aspects are.Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Revenue): Thank you Mr Chairman. My understanding is that yes it is dealing with subdividers or developers of land who are furthering a taxable activity of developing land or dividing land into lots which is the description at clause 25 of the bill if I'm referring to the clause that the member's interested in. I think I am but if I've got the wrong clause let me know. And in respect of the apportionment to ensure that people are not overtaxed then there's a division or an apportionment between input tax deductions so that the disposal of a mixed-use asset which is one that's used for both taxable and non-taxable purposes that have appreciated—that they're not overtaxed. The cap will continue to apply to the land disposed of by the property developers as an increase in the value of which they dispose of is connected to their taxable activity which is property development."
Bayly Andrew; Parker DavidANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Yeah people probably didn't hear but I did ask the question whether it would apply from 1 April 2023. Very good questioning from my colleague Mr Simon Watts. It was an issue that we considered at the Finance and Expenditure Committee. Whilst in some cases for larger companies—because they've got bigger systems they've got bigger IT departments—actually to comply with invoices over a thousand dollars becomes very very easy—well easier—because they've capacity and capability to make those changes what many of us were concerned about at committee level was changes for smaller businesses. Ninety-seven percent of small businesses employ 20 or fewer people in New Zealand and so they don't have large IT people sitting around. Obviously sometimes they have systems that are white label that are not easily able to be changed even at a point-of-sale system. And they're costly to change in the time it takes to change. So there was significant talk about this at the committee and I know Mr Watts is referring to that in an oblique way. But the strong desire was that it should be delayed until 1 April 2023 and again we did come to a resolution on it but I'd be very grateful if the Minister of Revenue has got an answer on that.Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Revenue): New clause 19E nests within clause 19 of the bill and the commencement date for that is found at clause 2(28B) which lists clause 19 of the bill as coming into force on 1 April 2023.
Watts Simon; Parker DavidSIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Thank you very much Mr Chair and thank you to the Minister for engaging in conversation around the points that my colleague Andrew Bayly raised. I want to refer now to Part 2 new sections 19E to 19P set out in clause 19 in regards to the removal of the words tax invoice"—a term that has been in use for nearly 30 to 40 years a lot longer than some members have been in this House. I'm interested particularly from the Minister around the implications of that because you know the feedback received from the select committee process said that a number of contracts and elements such as that use that term throughout so there actually is a process of unwinding the removal of that term. I'm interested from the Minister's point of view what if any assessment has been undertaken in regards to the potential compliance costs or time around that and the implication of that change in the bill. The other aspect I'd like to ask the Minister around is the lead time in order to implement the changes. My colleague Andrew Bayly just spoke about a number of questions in regards to clause 26 replacing section 24 with regards to the changes around the tax invoice portion. Again my question here is around the timing of the implementation of these changes which I think we would agree on both sides of the Chamber are modernisation changes to the GST scheme which were not in play in 1985. But with changes comes a time required for that lead-in to convert from one process to another and for those taxpayers I think that will in effect click in on 1 April then that time line isn't that long. So I'd appreciate a little bit of feedback around that process and whether any consideration would be given to provide some extension of time for those taxpayers to meet what for some of them will be reasonably significant compliance obligations. Thank you Minister. Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Revenue): In respect of the member's question about new section 19E set out in clause 19 that's the new form of a credit note. For example if you're take some goods back and you're getting a credit note then the replacement for that is what's called here "supply correction information" and the requirements of that are set out in new section 19E(1) and for example a name and registration number of the supplier have to be included on the till docket if you like if that's the form of it.In respect of the implementation date some of the taxpayer-friendly changes take effect from the enactment of the bill. Some of the others that require some systems changes on the part of taxpayers come into effect on 1 April 2023 in order for those systems changes to be made by those—Andrew Bayly: And so does this one apply then?Hon DAVID PARKER: I'll check that issue. The member—for those that didn't hear that Mr Bayly just asked in respect of the supply correction information whether it's from enactment or 1 April 2023 and I'll check on that."
Parker DavidPart 2 Amendments to Goods and Services Tax Act 1985 CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): Members we now come to Part 2. Part 2 is the debate on clauses 4 to 45 Amendments to Goods and Services Tax Act 1985". The question is that Part 2 stand part. Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Revenue): Thank you Mr Chairman. It's somewhat ironic given the claims from the other side that we never reduce any taxes but the two points I would highlight in respect of Part 2 relate to amendments to the Goods and Services Tax Act 1985: a number of remedial provisions two of which are the zero rating of cryptocurrencies—treating it like a financial service rather than a GST-able service—and also the removal of GST on the internal part of an international part domestic transport service. Currently there's some lack of—well there's actually quite a difficult regime for taxpayers to comply with and this simplifies it to expand zero rating to accommodate subcontracting arrangements for the transport of goods in New Zealand where this is part of the international transportation of goods."
Parker DavidHon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Revenue): Those that are listening to the debate will know that this is a debate about the tax rates for the year not wage rates.
Cameron MarkMARK CAMERON (ACT): Yeah look again Minister with the greatest respect this third iteration where we ask the same question we routinely seem to have you obfuscate that reality—we've talked about productivity we've talked about wages offshore relative to tax you still haven't answered the question. I believe you made iterations about nurses etc. offshore. We said hey look the deputy leader of the ACT Party made inference to the fact that people were leaving New Zealand to get jobs overseas. You then inferred that they were paying higher rates of tax. Now that is not contestable. What is contestable on this House by this side by both myself and Mr Bennett was what they were actually earning and what was relative to that. You haven't answered it and I think anyone who was on Parliament TV tonight and God bless them might actually want to have an answer for that.
McAnulty KieranKIERAN McANULTY (Chief Whip—Labour): I move That the question be now put.
SpeechHon DAVID BENNETT (National): Just going back to those questions that we asked Minister Parker before would he like to actually answer them? They weren't actually that difficult. You know as somebody that represents himself in this House as understanding the details to give a childish answer and try to go back to look at percentage increases over the last decade or so as an answer for what real New Zealanders are making a choice about—what are the income differentials in Australia against New Zealand for those kinds of jobs? What are the cost differentials in New Zealand against Australia for those kinds of jobs? Give the public a fair perspective and not the slant that the Labour Party wants to put on this issue. Is the Minister going to answer or is he just going to look at his phone and hide and not going to reply?
Cameron MarkMARK CAMERON (ACT): Thank you Mr Chair. Just for the sake of the argument Mr Bennett's question wasn't actually answered by the Minister at all. Minister Parker alluded to the fact that other jurisdictions in terms of the tax that they were paying were significantly higher than here in New Zealand. But equally when asked by the member Mr Bennett what they were actually earning relative to that tax he didn't answer it and I think this committee deserves to know—or perhaps he simply doesn't.
Parker DavidHon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Revenue): I won't go too far into this because it's straying a fair way from the bill. But I would say that the rate of increase in salaries for nurses and teachers since we came to office exceeds what occurred during the nine years prior in the National Party.
SpeechHon DAVID BENNETT (National): We had the Minister speak before about tax rates relative in other countries so would he just like to expand on that with relative income rates for say a teacher a nurse a doctor in Australia for example and give New Zealanders a fair estimation of the income levels that somebody if they were a truck driver in Australia would get compared to a truck driver in New Zealand so that it can be a relative discussion rather than the tax rates necessary as part of the income for those things. Then you can add on the housing cost in Australia as well—what's the cost of a house compared to the cost in Auckland which has gone up horrendously under his watch.So would the Minister like to give a fair representation of the income and expenses of somebody moving to say Australia or those other countries that he wanted to acknowledge rather than trying to purport to just give one view of what the economic cost may be?
Webb DuncanDr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central) (remote): Kia ora Mr Chair. Thank you for that and look I want to absolutely endorse the comments of Minister Parker in this matter. I heard Brooke van Velden speaking before about the average New Zealander and of course the danger with the average New Zealander is that if we have a small amount of very wealthy people then it skews entirely what the average is. I want to talk about people who are earning under $48000 a year of which there are many and of course the tax proposals put forward by the ACT Party would do absolutely nothing for them—but everyone over that including the people who would benefit most? Those earning over $180000 a year. It's absolutely extraordinary to me that Brooke van Velden can come to this committee and talk about the costs of her $150 shopping bag when some people are struggling to feed many children on that. Yet she's trying to create tax breaks through her Supplementary Order Paper for people who are earning even more than she is. Truly extraordinary. And of course the cost of living crisis: we know the costs are real. We know there are difficulties there. But the ACT Party's proposals do nothing at all. As for the suggestion that people are going to leave for lower tax rates: well over in Australia the top tax rate's 47 percent; Canada 53; the UK 45; and even the United States is 43 percent on those top income brackets. So it is absolutely fictitious to suggest that there is some kind of El Dorado" out there. As the Minister said you might want to escape to the United States if you've got lots of money but you won't be getting State-funded healthcare. You won't be getting a consistent education system. And as for the National Party saying that the Government's engaging in wasteful spending and that they can somehow make up the $3 billion hole of tax revenue that they would see I'd like to know: other than cameras on fishing boats no one yet has said what they would cut. Are they going to cut nurses' salaries at this time? Are they going to cut teachers' salaries? Are they going to address care workers? Are they going to lower the minimum wage? We are yet to see a single meaningful suggestion. Even from here from 400 kilometres away I can hear Andrew Bayly yapping in the background there but he's got nothing to say. He should get up now and he should tell us right now what the National Party will cut. What is this alleged wasteful spending in this time of crisis? The budget is better than the Treasury has projected. We have lower debt than projected we have lower unemployment than projected and we have a better fiscal outlook than projected. And yet the National Party says they can do better. I challenge them to stand up and say: what will they cut? Where will they find the money to cut? Thank you Mr Chair."
Parker DavidHon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Revenue): Thank you Mr Chairman. These people that the last speaker for the ACT Party Brooke van Velden said would move overseas because of tax rates—well they're not going to move to the United Kingdom because that would be to a country that has taxation that's a higher proportion of the economy nor France nor Italy nor Canada. Maybe they'd go to the United States but of course there they'd face state taxes as well as central government taxes and of course they wouldn't have a decent health system funded out of their taxes and they'd have to get private health insurance to cover their health costs if they could—if they could—and they might not be able to as many people in the United States can't. So I think those apocryphal stories that we're somehow going to lose people to New Zealand because they can go to countries with lower tax rates are not going to come to pass. So we will be opposing the Supplementary Order Paper from the ACT Party and I would again note that the majority of the tax cuts that they propose compared with the status quo—because all this bill does is carry on with the status quo—would be going to wealthy people and people who are middle-income earners and lower would get less.
Davidson MaramaHon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green) (remote): Thank you—this is my first remote call and I am hoping that I am now unmuted because I might have stuffed that up. Thank you everyone for letting me know.Thank you Mr Chair. So this is the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2021-22 GST and Remedial Matters) Bill and as has been traversed we the Green Party are going to abstain on this legislation. It was a massive missed opportunity for far more progressive change that really could have seen a tax system that finally—finally—starts to acknowledge that for far too long the way that we redistribute and hold wealth has been completely unfair unsustainable continues to benefit the wealthy few and pays little attention to those who are struggling the very most.So in my contribution at this stage I wanted to again remind us—and I'll be going to some of the Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) as well—that we've recently seen the wealthiest in this country gain nearly $1 trillion in wealth not through hard work as far too many of the members in this House like to pretend but simply through benefiting from the system that is rigged simply through having capital and wealth already and that is all.The current policy settings continue to treat housing as a tradable commodity as opposed to what we should be doing which is first and foremost housing are homes for people to live in are public good for the wellbeing of all and our community. We have missed the opportunity to make some real difference in this legislation. That is why we will be abstaining. We have continued to give high trust and support to businesses through this legislation but not to people who receive a benefit people who are on the lower incomes. We right now especially need bold policy that properly redistributes that wealth and this bill does not get us there. It instead tinkers with the brightline test when we could instead just introduce capital gains and wealth taxes. It tweaks tax deductibility rules which mean even less opportunity to treat housing the way that we should be and instead upholds treating housing like a pyramid scheme; it does not de-commodify the way that we look at housing and treat housing right now including in our tax system.So in that—I'm keeping an eye on time with the SOPs that both the National Party and the ACT Party are putting up those SOPs from the National Party undo even the small attempts at trying to tilt the scales back to any sort of justice balance and even the small attempts the National Party wants to undo. The ACT Party as always doesn't even pretend to care about anyone on the lower incomes and continues to uphold a much-debunked trickle-down theory about tax cuts. So their SOPs are in fact not for anyone earning under $48000 per year. So Mr Chair thank you for the time. We will be abstaining and we will absolutely be opposing the National and ACT SOPs.
Salesa JennyTAXATION (ANNUAL RATES FOR 2021–22 GST AND REMEDIAL MATTERS) BILLIn CommitteePart 1 Annual rates of income taxCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): We come to the first debate on Part 1 which is the debate on the annual rates of income tax. I'm aware that members have tabled amendments proposing different tax rates. These amendments will be voted on at the end of the debate on Part 3 because they amend the Income Tax Act 2007 and Part 3 deals with amendments to that Act. However members should discuss their proposed amendments to the tax rates as part of this first debate because the focus of the debate is the tax rates for 2021-22. Standing Orders require that the annual tax rates have a debate of their own each year. Part 1 is the debate on clause 3 Annual rates of income tax for 2021–22 tax year" and any proposed amendments to those tax rates. The question is that Part 1 stand part."
Salesa JennyASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ian McKelvie): I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2021-22 GST and Remedial Matters) Bill and the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Amendment Bill.HOUSE IN COMMITTEECHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members the House is in committee on the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2021-22 GST and Remedial Matters) Bill and the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Amendment Bill. I'll 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'd like to raise a point of order. If I receive new tabled amendments I'll advise members so that they can refresh the House papers page to see the new amendment. Finally it would be helpful for members to ask multiple questions if they have them of the member in charge during their call."
SpeechCOVID-19 RESPONSE (COURTS SAFETY) LEGISLATION BILLInstruction to Justice CommitteeDebate resumed from 10 March.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ian McKelvie): When last on this debate Toni Severin had the call and has 8 minutes 33 seconds remaining to speak and I just remind speakers this is a very narrow topic.TONI SEVERIN (ACT): Thank you Mr Speaker. I've only just got a few points to finish off on the COVID-19 Response (Courts Safety) Legislation Bill—the instructing the committee to put this through fast tracking.My biggest concern is like a lot of businesses these days they are suffering from a lot of people with COVID. I just feel it's very unfair that we're given a very short time frame for submitters to be able to submit on this bill because of the numbers down with COVID. And the other thing is: how can New Zealanders keep trusting this Government if we keep fast tracking these bills and they're not getting their say? That is just not fair on our justice system as well.The last thing of all is: I know this is going to go through which is very sad but I would just like to thank the Justice Committee staff for the hard work they're going to be doing in the next week or so. Thank you to the select committee and we oppose this bill. Thank you Mr Speaker.
Ngāti Rangitihi Claims Settlement Bill — Third Reading
McKee Nicole; Salesa JennyNICOLE McKEE (ACT): Thank you Madam Speaker. I stand to rise on behalf of the ACT Party to share in support for this bill going through its third and final reading the Ngāti Rangitihi Claims Settlement Bill. I've been moved by the history of redress sought by Ngāti Rangitihi over many decades since the 1860s and I recognise the knowledge that I learnt today of the separation of Ngāti Rangitihi from other iwi in order to bring this settlement to a conclusion and seeing as it's been going since the 1860s I commend them for their efforts.I'm moved by the stamina of the people to not only give their physical being by way of military support to the Crown but to do so while trying to seek adequate redress for the claims of the confiscation of some of their lands.I note also the rise in those who have identified themselves of Ngāti Rangitihi descent with 5657 people registered claimants for the settlement process up from 2298 members recorded in the 2013 census. I admire the way that iwi and hapū have been able to interact and consider how they will have ownership and transfer of land specifically at how Tūhourangi are being gifted land at Waimangu valley by agreed post-settlement resolution. I understand that this is something that is very rare but a significant effect of this settlement. I acknowledge Ngāti Rangitihi and Tūhourangi for their efforts here.Having spent many years growing up in Rotorua swimming the lakes especially Tarawera—that was my home away from home—bathing in the hot pools walking the tracks living in and around the extended rohe learning the history. As an example as I mentioned in my second reading speech the impact of Tarawera's eruption on 10 June 1866 where she blew her top creating nine craters with the loss of Te Wairoa village and also the historic pink and white terraces. What I did not learn was the plight of Ngāti Rangitihi and other iwi; the land losses that had occurred. We did not learn about that history at Rotorua Girls' High School—the land that was taken from iwi and how it was taken. The redress for this claims settlement bill like so many others is a long time coming.As this bill concludes and is soon to become an Act it is important to acknowledge the years of work in making this settlement happen the six years of negotiations. My colleagues around the House have named people whom they wish to acknowledge and ACT gets behind those acknowledgments and shares those wishes and thanks that our colleagues have given.I think it's also very important to acknowledge the iwi and hapū who have strived to bring this settlement to conclusion. To Ngāti Rangitihi: may your mauri grow as strong as your numbers are growing; may Tarawera your awa flow securely with the wairua of your tīpuna rather than being thick with pollution; may this settlement bring closure to the many decades of sought redress the six years of negotiation and the over 100 years of having your complaints trying to be heard. ACT continues to support this bill. Nō reira tēnā koutou tēnā koutou tēnā koutou katoa.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Our next call is a split call. I call on Simon Watts—five minutes.
Little AndrewNGĀTI RANGITIHI CLAIMS SETTLEMENT BILLIn CommitteeCHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): Members the House is in committee on the Ngāti Rangitihi Claims Settlement Bill. I'll remind members they are able to participate remotely. If you are on Zoom and want to take a call please type call" into the chat. You should also use the chat if you want to raise a point of order. We come to Part 1.Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): Mr Chairman I seek leave for all questions to be taken as one.CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): Leave has been requested for all sections to be taken as one. There's no objection? There is none. Parts 1 to 3 Schedules 1 to 4 and clauses 1 and 2Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): Thank you Mr Chairman. What is before the House for the purposes of this committee is Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 139 which is in my name. It is there to make some technical and minor amendments for the Ngāti Rangitihi Claims Settlement Bill. The proposed amendments are incorporated into the following clauses in the bill: clause 56 clause 89(3) and 89(10) clause 90(6) and in Schedule 3. These changes come about as a result of land surveying and the SOP proposes to make the following changes. Firstly updating the definition of Part Matata property in relation to the joint advisory committee. Secondly updating the definitions of—quotes—"Waimangu Volcanic Valley" and "reserve"—end quotes—in relation to the vesting of Waimangu Volcanic Valley. Thirdly updating the descriptions and interests of 12 cultural redress properties. The SOP also corrects a technical error and in this respect the SOP proposes to change the territorial authority reference for one cultural redress property. The changes made by the SOP are consistent with the standard technical approach for Treaty settlement bills. All relevant parties have agreed to the surveys which is the basis for the proposed changes in the SOP. And really that is what the SOP is about. For those looking on—because I know there will be members of Ngāti Rangitihi who are watching remotely—this is a technical process to make sure that the bill is absolutely perfect in every respect so that when we get to the third reading and most importantly to the end of it and the bill finally gets its Royal assent then the bill is good to go. It has the force of law and there is no need to correct any aspect of it. So on that basis I look forward to any questions but hopefully we can get through this period very quickly."
Speaker's Statements — Question Time—Remote Participation
SpeechSPEAKER'S STATEMENTSQuestion Time—Remote ParticipationSPEAKER: Members before we move to oral questions I just want to give members participating remotely three reminders. First could members please use their first name and last name in Zoom so that the Clerk's operators can identify them. The operators can't admit people to the meeting if they do not know who they are and using full names makes it faster to find members and unmute their microphones. With the exception of whips who have special accounts members need to be either in the Chamber or on Zoom. If they do both it causes confusion. A reminder that unmuting and muting is controlled by operators. When I give the call the member is unmuted. There is no need for the member to do anything and trying to unmute themselves can cause the member to mute again.
SpeechPETITIONS 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 Arthur Yeo requesting that the House ensure that Governments are required to consider equestrian users' needs in the design of all roading pathways reserves and parks petition of Rosemary Penwarden requesting that the House require KiwiRail to cease transport of coal and re-establish KiwiRail as a Government department petition of Jamie Crook requesting that the House reverse COVID-19 mandates and traffic light system and petition of Ian Meredith requesting that the House urge the Government to increase the amount of funding for fibre-optic communication network.SPEAKER: Those petitions stand referred to the Petitions Committee. Ministers have delivered papers.CLERK: Annual Reports for 2021 for:Export Education Levy Education New ZealandAuckland DHBBay of Plenty DHBCounties Manukau DHBHawke's Bay DHBSouth Canterbury DHBTairāwhiti DHBWairarapa DHBWhanganui DHBNew Zealand Health PartnershipsHealthSource andhealthAlliance New Zealandannual plans for 2021-22 for:Auckland DHBBay of Plenty DHBCounties Manukau DHBHawke's Bay DHBWairarapa DHBWhanganui DHB andHealthSourcestatement of performance expectations 2021-22 for:South Canterbury DHB andTairāwhiti DHB andstatement of intent for 2021 to 2025 New Zealand Health Partnerships.SPEAKER: I present the report of the Controller and Auditor-General entitled Commentary on He Tirohanga Mokupuna 2021. 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 petition of Simone Hamiltonreport of the Environment Committee on the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Hazardous Substances Assessments) Amendment Billreport of the Governance and Administration Committee on the 2020-21 annual review of the Office of the Clerk of the House of Representatives and the Parliamentary Servicereports of the Justice Committee on the 2020-21 annual reviews of:the Department of Correctionsthe Ministry of Justiceand the New Zealand Policereports of the Māori Affairs Committee on the 2020-21 annual reviews of:the Ministry of Māori Development—Te Puni Kōkiri andthe Office for Māori Crown Relations—Te Arawhitireport of the Petitions Committee on the petition of Olivia Rollo.SPEAKER: The bill is set down for second reading.
Motions — Christchurch Terror Attacks—Third Anniversary
Ngarewa-Packer DebbieDEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Paati Māori) (remote): Tēnā koe e te Pīka tēnā koutou e te Whare. Te Paati Māori support this motion marking the third anniversary of the Christchurch terror attacks and remembering the 51 whānau people who lost their lives the more than 40 people who were injured and all the whānau who are impacted by this evil attack. Te Paati Māori's aroha remains with Christchurch masjidain the Canterbury Muslim community and Muslim New Zealanders today and all days. We had a doctor Amjad Hamid who worked in our local hospital. He is a very kind compassionate man who reached out to tangata whenua here. He was received with all the aroha that you can expect in a community like ours that struggles to get doctors. At a personal level he helped many of our kaumātua and helped heal my māmā. Islamophobia is deeply rooted in this country and feeds off the same white supremacy that targets tangata whenua and black and brown peoples right across Aotearoa and the world. This nation and this House must be 100 percent committed to smashing white supremacy and dismantling its colonial power structures once and for all. Rather than being responsive to the increasing concerns of our Muslim and tangata whenua communities our security and intelligence agencies—including the SIS—were focused entirely as my Green sister said on the wrong people. In fact they were targeting the same people who the white supremacists were targeting: tangata whenua activists environmentalists and peaceful Muslim citizens with no history of violence. The misplaced and racist approach which failed to protect our communities will rightly be remembered as a stain on the integrity of our intelligence apparatus in Aotearoa. We need assurance that this has changed.This week we also marked the 157th anniversary of when our tūpuna were murdered from white supremacists in Te Ngaio our Ngāti Porou hapū in Taranaki which goes to show how horrific white supremacy is. This is backed by the Crown. In fact its own leader General Cameron had driven the colonial agenda and the colonial agenda has continued to be driven in this country. We must be brave enough to defend our homes and we must stop the suffering that happens from those who are marginalised. Let us commit to ending it once and for all. We owe that to the fallen. We must be focused on eradicating the hate crimes. It is not only enough for us to be sitting here today mihi-ing to those who are reaching the pains and continuously living the suffering but we must also encourage peace and all it takes to enact peace. Nō reira tēnā koutou katoa.
Seymour DavidDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of ACT to join with other speakers in offering our sincere and ongoing condolences for the victims of our nation's tragedy in Christchurch just three short years ago.I note that some other speakers have used the opportunity to promote their policies and make political points. I don't think it's the right day for that. What I would say is that the Prime Minister at the time of our tragedy had some very fine words that I completely agree with: they are us. She said to the terrorist You chose us but we utterly reject you." and said that we would never use that terrorist's name again. It was very fine leadership that I think embodies the values that our country should take forward out of this tragedy—that we celebrate a universal humanity and resist the urge to commodify each other into identities which can only be a precursor for more hate and violence. We should stand proudly in the world as a country that is a place of peace and love and non-violence and acceptance on the basis that everybody is human.We should never forget those 51 who lost their lives those victims who survived but continue to carry injuries for their rest of their lives and those who survived them and deserve our sympathy and condolences but we should also honour our police force who were on the scene and apprehended the offender as rapidly as they could under those circumstances. We should most certainly honour those medics who were first to the scene and those hospital heroes who worked so hard to help those who had been injured in these brutal attacks. And we should bear in mind all of the good things that were on display in the New Zealand character and society in the days after our nation's tragedy. I thought Golriz Ghahraman from the Green Party put it very well when she said that Dunedin ran out of flowers because they were all at the mosque. In the days after that attack we saw an outpouring of the best of our country. It brought out the best in nearly every single New Zealander as they spontaneously reacted to an act that we as New Zealanders utterly reject because it is not part of our national character and has no place in this country.To those who were lost al salam alaikum. We will not forget what has happened and we will strive to be a better place and a better society in your honour."
SpeechTUESDAY 15 MARCH 2022The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.KARAKIA/PRAYERSIAN McKELVIE (Assistant Speaker) (remote): Almighty God we give thanks for the blessings which have been bestowed on us. Laying aside all personal interests we acknowledge the Queen and pray for guidance in our deliberations that we may conduct the affairs of this House with wisdom justice mercy and humility for the welfare and peace of New Zealand. Amen.
Wednesday 21 September 2022 (continued on Thursday 22 September 2022) - Volume 762
Taxation (Annual Rates for 2022-23 Platform Economy and Remedial Matters Bill (No 2) — First Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2022-23 Platform Economy and Remedial Matters) Bill (No 2) be now read a first time.Ayes 77New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2; Sharma.Noes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Motion agreed to.Bill read a first time.DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is That the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2022-23 Platform Economy and Remedial Matters) Bill (No 2) be considered by the Finance and Expenditure Committee.Motion agreed to.Bill referred to the Finance and Expenditure Committee.Instruction to Finance and Expenditure CommitteeHon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of State for Trade and Export Growth) on behalf of the Minister of Revenue: I move That the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2022-23 Platform Economy and Remedial Matters) Bill (No 2) be reported to the House by 2 March 2023. A party vote was called for on the question That the motion be agreed to.Ayes 75New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Sharma.Noes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Motion agreed to.
Salesa Jenny; Rurawhe AdrianHouse resumed.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Mr Speaker the committee has considered the Accident Compensation (Maternal Birth Injury and Other Matters) Amendment Bill and reports progress. I move That the report be adopted.Motion agreed to.Report adopted.SPEAKER: The bill is set down for further consideration in committee next sitting day. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. today.The House adjourned at 12.56 p.m. (Thursday)
Accident Compensation (Maternal Birth Injury and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee
Salesa JennyHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you Madam Chair. I'll try and get a few questions in before the lunch break. They're a bit pointy-headed and financial so I might be leaving some of my former officials with some work to do. But can I first begin by reassuring the Minister that the National Party will be continuing to support this bill through its passage and like Jan Logie I agree very much that this is a significant advance in providing the right care for traumatic birth injuries and I applaud Jan Logie for her passionate support of equal rights for women. I agree with some of the rest of the things she said but by no means all.On the question of retrospectivity I think the Minister has quite clearly articulated the reasons why that's not an appropriate amendment that we should be making. It is always the case when a new policy comes in that somebody in the past might have benefited from it and won't and I would just rebuke Ms Logie a little bit on the financial strength of ACC—the idea that because they have such a significant holding of reserves they can pay for anything without any impact on levies is particularly retrospectively just not consistent with reality frankly. We struggle to maintain a fund that matches its outstanding claims liability—that is enough money in the bank to pay for all of the future costs of claims that are already on the books much less going backwards and adding what would be several tens of thousands of claims. And it is in that spirit that I would like to know a little bit more about the costs of the changes that were made at select committee and endorsed in the second reading. We got a regulatory impact statement that provided I thought at the time somewhat heroic assumptions as to cost—I think it was about $25 million per year—and that that's what would be being considered to add on to levies.The changes that the select committee made and that this House agreed to pretty substantially expanded the range of injuries that were going to be covered. But as far as I can recollect we didn't get an accurate estimate of what that means for cost and levies and I'd like that to be explored. I had a bit of a duh moment when I was reviewing my papers for this committee of the whole House in the sense that I think there's also some questions around funds because current injuries that occur in childbirth that are accepted by ACC are currently considered to be treatment injuries. Now it seems to me from the regulatory impact statement that the plan is for all traumatic birth injuries covered by ACC to then when this bill is passed be considered to go into either the earners account—if the mother is on maternity leave or is in work—or the non-earners account if they are not which begs a couple of questions. One is: what happens to those claims that would have been eligible for a claim under the treatment injury provisions prior to the passage of this legislation? Are we actually going to then lift all of the—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Order! My apologies to the member but I must report progress at this time.Progress to be reported.
Sepuloni CarmelHon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for ACC): Firstly I just want to acknowledge all of the political parties in the House for their support up until now for this particular bill—and I'm hoping that that continues. Acknowledging the member's comments and the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that she has put forward we have discussed this particular point and certainly as Minister I try and go as far as what I possibly can. I absolutely am on the same page with that member with empathising and with that strength of feeling for all the women that have had to endure this type of injury. That is what has led us here to be in a place where we have this legislation in the first place so that women moving forward are able to access support from ACC when they suffer from those types of injuries.The retrospective point that the member has raised in her SOP is something that I did ask about quite early on. The reality is that retrospectively applying this would be problematic for a number of reasons. Firstly no funding was received or costed or granted to provide retrospective cover and it would really jeopardise the fiscal credibility of ACC if we were to say Even though this wasn't costed we'll just use money over here to pay for this. We don't know how much it will be but we will just do it anyway." It's really important that New Zealanders have trust and confidence in ACC and that it retains the I guess fiscal financial credibility that it has built up over the 50 years that it has been in place. I certainly don't want to be the Minister that jeopardises that.It also was raised with me about what instances that retrospectivity for legislation is used and where it isn't. Generally it's used to apply where there was an error made and so therefore something needs to be fixed and so the right and fair thing to do is to retrospectively apply a decision through legislation. But this is not one of those cases because the policy was clear that there was no cover provided for women who have had to endure this injury and so this is a completely new policy.Again I absolutely share in the strength of feeling that the member has expressed for all women who have had to endure this and in many instances have had to suffer the impacts of the injury not just for a short term but over many many years. It is however the reality that they have led to this change they have informed us making this decision but the reality is it is forward-looking it is prospective it is women moving forward that will be covered from this bill and it in my mind as Minister cannot be retrospective."
SpeechGLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth): Kia ora Madam Speaker. I commend the previous speaker Jamie Strange and the Te Huia bus service—about which there was some raruraru from the other side of the House coming on. But I'm definitely envious as the member of Parliament for New Plymouth. Trains are constantly talked about in my electorate. We seem to be constantly having meetings of people about how actually could we continue to decarbonise; how could we continue to get trucks off the road; how could we actually get passenger services back? Te Huia is a good example of something that's slow and steady wins the race" I say—that's my mantra in my life.But anyway we're focused on this bill here around taxation this afternoon and I just wanted to focus really briefly on that appropriate tax treatment when it comes to making it fairer. As someone who ran an accommodation business for about four years it was always frustrating as we used the traditional means—advertising through websites online through the local information centre—and the regulations and things we had to follow as an accommodation business. Whereas we had Airbnb come along we had Bookabach come along who in many ways—when it comes to Airbnb obviously it wasn't a fair and reasonable service in terms of the regulations. We have the councils but of course then there were the GST and the tax challenges.So this piece of legislation talks about creating that appropriate tax treatment when it comes to ride sharing when it comes to food and beverage deliveries when it comes to visits and accommodation and services provided through apps. Obviously the world is changing and changing rapidly; we need to ensure that we are changing with it.So that's my simple contribution this afternoon because we just want to get on the select committee and do the work."
Maniapoto Claims Settlement Bill — Third Reading