edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Bishop ChrisCHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South): Well that was a classic example of a New Zealand First speech at 9.45 p.m. at night because it's pretty clear that Ron Mark has not read this bill. This bill's got nothing to do with localism. It's got nothing to do with empowering local governments to come up with their own solutions—some grandiose phrase. This bill makes very small amendments to the Local Electoral Act and the Electoral Act 1993 to allow a specific ward within a local body to trial internet voting right? A specific ward because you can already do online voting and local government can already do online voting. It was not clear from Mr Mark's contribution—and I hesitate to use the word contribution because it was more of a sort of stumble through his prepared notes—if he actually supports the bill. The bulk of the speech was about the problems of internet access 11 minutes away from Carterton where he lives and about Pongaroa where he says the rural broadband's crummy. So—Hon Ron Mark: You don't even know where it is.CHRIS BISHOP: I know exactly where Pongaroa is because the local—Hon Ron Mark: Well I'll see you out there.CHRIS BISHOP: I know exactly where it is Ron Mark because the local cop's been removed from Pongaroa and not replaced despite the 1800 extra police and rural cop—Hon Ron Mark: We had that under your time.CHRIS BISHOP: No no Mr Mark. It's happened in the last 12 months. The locals of Pongaroa are very upset and have asked me to go to their town and run a public meeting about the removal of their local policeman. So I know exactly where Pongaroa is Ron Mark. You should acquaint yourself with the electorate that you're trying so inadequately to win.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! Don't bring me into the debate.CHRIS BISHOP: Sorry Mr Assistant Speaker. I was just responding to an interjection from a loud noise over the other side of the Chamber.It's not clear that New Zealand First actually supports this bill. Most of the speech was about the problems of doing things online. What does this bill allow? For people to do online voting. But they're going to vote for it because they've become quiescent creatures of the Government. Whatever the Labour Party says they want to do they will do like they're doing with police like they're doing with firearms like they're doing with everything else.We just note the threats made to our former Minister of Defence Mark Mitchell. We note that the actually not so veiled threats from Ron Mark in that contribution to the House. We just note them and they've been filed away. You know at some point Mr Ron Mark is going to get his comeuppance.But for now the House is going to pass this bill. It's a sensible piece of legislation. We remain sceptical about online voting like Ron Mark is. We remain sceptical about online voting. But it's a sensible piece of legislation and we support it.
Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you very much Mr Assistant Speaker for the opportunity to speak to the Local Electoral Matters Bill at this the second reading. It's been noted I think on both sides of the House that in terms of voter participation this won't be a silver bullet. Indeed it won't be a silver ballot I suppose you could say and in fact pretty modest change is even attempted here. It's transformational in the sense that the Government itself is transformational which is to say Not achieving very much indeed." And if we're talking about the trials of the new methods of voting let us hope that it's a trial and the sense of a pilot and not in the sense of tribulation as we've seen with other debacles or shemozzles as we might otherwise describe for example the recent census.Other members on this side of the House have noted the New Zealand National Party view as expressed in the select committee report and we noted in that a report by the National Academies of Sciences Engineering and Medicine—I think not perhaps a submission before the select committee. Although I have to say it wasn't part of that process but it emphasized the need for human readable ballots to be able to maintain and guarantee the security and verifiability of the vote. So a couple of different aspects there: electoral integrity—to use that phrase in a more pure way than has often been used in the last 18 months—must be not only done but also be seen to be done. So it's the ability to understand that we have a system with integrity—to be able to verify that that's the case as well as in fact for that to be the case.I'm not one to speak longer than is necessary on any bill so therefore I conclude with the comment as with others that we support the bill with some reservations as noted and we look forward to seeing what further if any the Government might come up with in this regard as they have indeed promised."
Mitchell MarkHon MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): I've got to be honest: I'm not even really too sure what the last speaker Greg O'Connor said other than the fact that I got building blocks" out of it. The reason for it is—he put up a gallant effort I'll give him that but this is a lightweight bill. This is a lightweight bill. We saw the new Government come in and they made big promises about online voting but what did we get? We got this bill instead. We had poor old the Hon Kris Faafoi come down and again put up a sterling effort to make it look like there was some heavy lifting being done by the Government but there's not much; they're low-level flyers at the moment because really all this bill does is put up some trials. But you know what? I was reflecting on it and I was thinking that's probably a good thing because we trusted the Government with our census and that didn't go too well. We're still trying to get that fixed. Hon Tracey Martin: Who signed off on it?Hon MARK MITCHELL: What was that? We've got the Hon Tracey Martin in here. Boy that's surprising. New Zealand First—I thought they'd be off sorting out all their problems and trying to get their probity integrity and all those sorts of issues sorted out. But as they start to find their voice here—we'll have to sort that one out.This is a lightweight bill. They are trying to make some changes on the fringes so we'll give them that but actually it doesn't go anywhere near close to the promises that were made at the last election and that was quite simply this: that there'd be an online voting system delivered.So we do commend the bill to the House—we will support the bill—but we feel like there could have been a lot more substance to it. Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker."
Dean JacquiHon JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. It's a bit of a worry when a couple of minor clauses—a couple of minor changes to the Local Electoral Act and the Electoral Act—deserve such fulsome praise from Government backbenchers. It is a bit of a worry when you consider that those two minor changes to clauses one of which—so the existing law does allow online voting and all this one does is to allow online voting to be trialled in a ward rather than in a local authority area. Then the other part of the bill is to make age-related data available to be provided in a statistical format by age band to a local authority—oh my goodness me! It deserves its own bill and it deserves fulsome praise and exposition by Government backbenchers because quite frankly they need to show that this Government is doing something when in fact this Government isn't doing anything. Or—or—my other theory here is that the Three Waters Review reforms being cooked up by the Minister of Local Government Nanaia Mahuta are going to be so unpopular that they are just trying to lull the local government sector into believing that Oh yes we've got a Government that's supporting us. We've got a Government that's doing things for us."—that's what they're saying. No just wait—just wait until Nanaia Mahuta brings her proposals for compulsory aggregation of water services to this Parliament and then watch the fallout. But anyway in the meantime we're dealing with this most worthy bill which makes the two most minor changes to clauses known to mankind. Back in the day back when the last most excellent National Government was in these two minor clauses fell across my desk as I was the Associate Minister of Local Government. I had a couple of options but my preferred options—well let's go through them. So they could have gone into a regulatory systems bill just about. They just about would have fitted into a regulatory systems bill. There is one. The Labour Government have brought one into the House. It's sitting on the Order Paper. It could have gone into a statutes amendment bill. It could have fitted there very well but no it needed its own bill. Well how exciting for them and how underwhelming for the rest of us."
McKelvie IanIAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): Well the only thing that Shakespearean performance of note failed to recognise was that we on this side of the House believe that people are better at spending the money themselves than the Government is at spending their money and that is the critical reason we oppose this bill. But I want to take my short time rather than talking about that because enough has been said on that tonight to talk about a couple of other things in the bill.One is the racing industry and we had great hope for the changes in the racing industry of course. Unfortunately they did not work out as they were intended and our mutual concerns were I guess recognised when in fact I don't think one single thoroughbred qualified for the benefits of the tax changes made. Ironically a number of harness horses may well have qualified and the interesting thing about it of course is that if in the future those price thresholds are changed it may well have some benefit.KiwiSaver has been talked about at great length tonight and I think those changes are very positive particularly opening that up to people over 65 years of age. I agree with my friend Mr Hudson who said that it doesn't make it any easier at all to join KiwiSaver because there's nothing I've seen that makes it any easier. The only thing that will make it easier is if they reintroduce the $1000 and put it in the account before people start. That will certainly make it easier. It leaves it up by a thousand dollars.And finally I want to talk briefly about the transformation project which I think is very positive. It will be intimidating for some people as we work into it and it won't be quite as easy as Government members have alluded to to change the secondary tax situation because in fact the secondary tax will still be paid on this. The only difference will be that people will have the ability to calculate those rates and the IRD will help them to do that midway through a tax period. So instead of paying too much or too little tax they should end up paying the same amount. So I dispute the fact that secondary tax will disappear; it won't. It will just make it more equitable in some cases.So we certainly don't support the bill but there's only one reason we don't support it and that is as I said at the start of my little contribution that we believe individuals are better at spending their money than the Government is.
Hudson Brett; Tolley AnneBRETT HUDSON (National): Oh it's a pleasure to rise and speak on this the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2018-19 Modernising Tax Administration and Remedial Matters) Bill. This is an opportunity lost for New Zealand. I just want to take up on comments Mr Shaw made. Fairness—how many times did he say fairness"? Yet he voted against Amy Adams' Supplementary Order Paper that would have indexed tax thresholds to inflation ensuring that we wouldn't be increasing the tax burden on people by stealth through increasing taxation through inflation. He thinks that's fair. He's voting for a bill that's going to retain tax rates that take more tax by stealth. He calls that fair. But then there's Mr McAnulty. He said KiwiSaver—it's going to make it easier easier for people to join. Mr McAnulty there are two new rates in this bill for KiwiSaver both of them higher than the minimum. There is nothing in this bill that is going to make it easier for people to join KiwiSaver and start contributing—not a single thing. In fact the other thing Mr McAnulty fails to mention is while there are 2.9 million people enrolled in KiwiSaver there are 1.2 million of them that are not making contributions. What they should have been doing is looking at a lower threshold maybe 2 percent. They could have been looking at maybe having employers still make contributions when employers are on contributions holidays. I swear I looked over at Mr McAnulty wondering where the wires join at his wrists because whatever this bill is doing it certainly is not making it easier for people to join KiwiSaver. This is an opportunity lost. We oppose it.DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can I just make it clear to this next speaker that she has the full 10 minutes because we do not have anyone else. So I call Dr Deborah Russell."
Scott AlastairALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa): This bill is a missed opportunity an opportunity that a lazy Government could have taken up to reward taxpayers who deserve to have more of their money in their pockets. After nine years of real growth in the economy it would only be reasonable to allow the tax rates to be adjusted to enable Kiwis to have more money of theirs in their pockets. That is what we proposed despite Mr Tabuteau's assertions in 2017 when we wanted and legislated for a change in the tax brackets. Those tax bracket changes would have enabled $1000-plus to be in taxpayers' pockets.Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Which ones?ALASTAIR SCOTT: In every taxpayer's pockets over a minimum amount—an average income earner was going to take home $1000. But no this Government has missed the opportunity and has set the tax rates unnecessarily high because they are a lazy Government who does not do the thinking before just saying Let's just keep the tax rates the same. We've got no interest in being innovative. We've got no interest in giving to Kiwis more money in their taxpayer pockets".The other opportunity that was missed was in KiwiSaver. Again speakers across the House have acknowledged the KiwiSaver changes were done from this side of the House. Nothing new from that side. Another example of a lazy Government: not thinking about the opportunities that existed to do something more for KiwiSavers. There are not enough people in KiwiSaver. We know that. The Government had an opportunity to do something about it and they did not. Those two reasons are why we are not supporting this bill."
Collins JudithHon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura): Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. Hey isn't it wonderful the way that Fletcher Tabuteau who's resumed his seat gave a big shout out to us for the great work we did in Government to actually bring about the opportunity for inland revenue to work with people so that they can where they have more than one taxable income work out what their tax should be so they don't have to pay a secondary tax as well. And that is something which over some years and with different ministers we were able to do. It's good to see it's finally going to come into law. That is the best thing of course out of this particular bill. Obviously I'd like to acknowledge that the Hon Stuart Nash—who's now the Minister of Revenue following on a particularly fine couple of Ministers of Revenue—was able to continue with these changes and did not cut the funding or cut any let's say drive and impetus that inland revenue had for this change. Because unlike some ministers I have to say who have done silly things like just cut programmes because they weren't that particular person's name—and I'm not looking at the Hon Phil Twyford that much when I say that.I would like to say that we are not going to support this bill in the end That's not about the good things in it which obviously also include the changes to KiwiSaver that increase flexibility. We think that's a good thing. We think that the removing of the five-year look-in period opening up KiwiSaver to over 65s—which I have to say was a National Party Papakura electorate remit at a conference just a couple back—that was a good thing and also increasing the number of contribution rates. We think that's all good.What we do not think is good and we cannot vote for is the increase and cementing of the higher tax rates that New Zealanders need to be paying. We see a lot of nonsense talked about energy payments winter energy payments to millionaire retirees. At the same time this Government took away the thousand dollars extra that people were going to get because of the tax cuts that we legislated for. So in essence we do not support this bill even though there are parts of it which do have the genesis in our work and that we do agree with. But ultimately no the tax is too much and we should have less of it.
Tolley AnneDEPUTY SPEAKER: Just before I call the next speaker the last two speakers have brought to my attention the contributions to KiwiSaver for those over the age of 65. Just because I've had a birthday that does not mean I need that sort of advice.
Nash StuartHon STUART NASH (Minister of Police) on behalf of the Minister of Health: I move That the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill be reported to the House by 22 July 2019.
King MattMATT KING (National—Northland): Thank you very much Mr Assistant Speaker. This bill it's the good the bad and the ugly. It's good in one respect but why is it before the Health Committee and not the Justice Committee? It's all about criminality drugs and giving police codifying instructions. It should be before the experts on the Justice Committee. But for some reason they've slipped it through into health. But the good the bad and the ugly. The good part of it—the good part of it is Simeon Brown's contribution to this bill about psychoactive substances. That's the scourge on society that's the killer. So that part of the bill we support so don't get us wrong.The part of the bill that I have concerns about—the bad part of it—is the way that clause 6 inserting section 7 has been snuck into this bill. This should be a stand-alone part of it and I've heard speakers from the other side of the House talk about how the police have discretion—and yes we do have discretion—but what this is doing is it's creating a document that a defence lawyer is going to pull out in court and point to and get every one of his clients off. It's going to be a defence lawyer's dream and I am dead against that—I'm dead against that.So what we've got is a bit of legislation here that is de facto decriminalisation. It's a poorly thought-out law. I've seen a few poorly thought-out laws brought before this Parliament by this Government. A 500-page Supplementary Order Paper after select committee just before we decide what the bill's going to be—I mean this is crazy. So this is the sort of thing they're doing. So it says here affirm the existing discretion to prosecute for possession … for all drugs"—for all drugs. That is de facto decriminalisation and hey if that's where we're going where's your mandate? This is a big deal. Take it to the people and have a referendum on it. But this Government is just sneaking this through and this is going to have unintended consequences. Dealers are going to roll around town—because dealers and users are interchangeable—and they'll have small amounts in their possession to avoid prosecution. The police will not be arresting—it will get around amongst people that the police won't arrest for possession of drugs basically. It's going to be de facto decriminalisation. It's wrong. We don't support it. The consequences haven't been thought through. I advise caution."
Points of Order — Psychoactive Substances (Increasing Penalty for Supply and Distribution) Amendment Bill—Leave
Bennett Paula; Williams PotoPOINTS OF ORDERLeave for Setting Down as Government Order of the Day No. 2—Psychoactive Substances (Increasing Penalty for Supply and Distribution) Amendment BillHon PAULA BENNETT (Deputy Leader—National): I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I seek the leave of the House for the Psychoactive Substances (Increasing Penalty for Supply and Distribution) Amendment Bill in the name of Simeon Brown to be set down for third reading as Government order of the day No. 2.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? Unfortunately leave is not granted for that purpose.
Robertson GrantAPPROPRIATION (2017/18 CONFIRMATION AND VALIDATION) BILLFirst ReadingHon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I move That the Appropriation (2017/18 Confirmation and Validation) Bill be now read a first time.
Urgent Debates — Hon Shane Jones—Conflict of Interest
Hughes GarethGARETH HUGHES (Green): Kia ora Madam Deputy Speaker. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. Look it's not my job to defend Shane Jones. He's called me plenty of names over the years including that squawking mollyhawk from the Greens" but this isn't about our colourful relationship; it's about the important issue in front of the House and I would like to outline the Green Party's perspective on the issues. Now first at the highest level we absolutely support the investment in our regional economies. For too long we weren't investing in regions that were really struggling like my home region of Tai Rāwhiti.I want to put on the record the Green Party's acknowledgment of the Speaker's decision to grant this urgent debate. I think it is important that these issues are given a transparent hearing in Parliament. I think it's important we get to canvass the issues but I think what's most important for anyone watching for the media is the opportunity to hear from the Ministers who have outlined their role their experience the time line. What this Parliament and what this country has heard is that there was no conflict of interest as the Hon David Parker said. What we heard from the Hon Grant Robertson is that it didn't influence the decision.Now I acknowledge those members for their contribution. The fact is that we heard from the National members "Well why?". Now I think every member in this House probably has examples where they've used the term "conflict of interest" without actually meaning the technical term. It's quite a cut and dry legalistic term "conflict of interest"—you have it or you don't—but I think many of us actually want to go above and beyond the requirement because you simply want to publicly acknowledge a relationship and that's what the situation is. The Minister simply knew people in the room. He didn't influence the decision and we've heard that from the Minister. So Minister Parker is correct: there was no conflict of interest.Now why I said it's important we have this debate is that this is one of our strongest strengths as a country which is the institutions which mean we don't experience the corruption we see in many other countries. Kiwis can trust Government institutions and it's important that we have this opportunity to put it on the record. The Green Party is glad that these facts have been outlined and we stand by the comments we've heard that there was no conflict of interest."
Parker David; Mallard TrevorHon DAVID PARKER (Minister for Economic Development): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I said during my contribution that I would seek leave to table the document that I signed out on 7 February before the meeting that is contentious.SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that process? There is none. It will be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.SPEAKER: I'm going to call Andrew Falloon but just to indicate that according to the agreed rosters there is not a position for the ACT Party as part of this debate. Of course if other members don't take a call then I'm sure the Speaker will recognise Mr Seymour.
Visitors — Australia—Senator John Williams and Senator Gavin Marshall Senate Committee on Regulations and Ordinances
Mallard TrevorURGENT DEBATESHon Shane Jones—Provincial Growth Fund Conflict of InterestSPEAKER: I've received a letter from the Hon Paul Goldsmith seeking to debate under Standing Order 389 the involvement of the Hon Shane Jones in a decision to fund a project in which he had identified a conflict of interest. This is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility. It is very important that the public has confidence in the conduct of Ministers and to this end that any conflicts of interest they have are well managed. Answering for the management of such conflicts is at the core of executive accountability to the House. In considering this application I took account of the fact that Mr Jones identified the conflict of interest in the project funding application gave undertakings including to this House that he would not and had not been involved in meetings that involved decisions on the project but did in fact participate in a meeting about the application. At that meeting he reportedly gave an assurance about the governance of the project. I make no judgment about whether that assurance influenced the decision of other Ministers. In making this decision I'm applying as precedent the decision of my predecessor the Rt Hon David Carter on the application by Grant Robertson exactly five years ago today. Having carefully considered the application I have decided to allow the debate. I therefore call on the Hon Paul Goldsmith to move that this House take note of an urgent matter of public importance.
Mallard TrevorTUESDAY 12 MARCH 2019The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.VISITORSAustralia—Senate Committee on Regulations and Ordinances Senator John Williams and Senator Gavin MarshallSPEAKER: I'm sure that members would wish to welcome Senator John Williams and Senator Gavin Marshall from the Australian Senate Committee on Regulations and Ordinances who are present in the gallery.
Thursday 14 March 2019 - Volume 736
Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Amendment Bill — In Committee
EventHEALTH PRACTITIONERS COMPETENCE ASSURANCE AMENDMENT BILLIn CommitteeDebate resumed from 13 February.Part 1 Amendments to principal Act (continued)The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 190 in the name of the Hon Dr David Clark to Part 1 be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.Part 1 as amended agreed to.Part 2 agreed to.Schedule 1 agreed to.Schedule 2 agreed to.Clause 1 agreed to.Clause 2 agreed to.Clause 3 agreed to.House resumed.Bill reported with amendment.Report adopted.
12. Question No. 12—Housing and Urban DevelopmentGARETH HUGHES (Green) to the Minister of Housing and Urban DevelopmentQuestion No. 12—Housing and Urban Development12. GARETH HUGHES (Green) to the Minister of Housing and Urban Development: Is he committed to energy efficiency in KiwiBuild and State homes?Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Housing and Urban Development): Yes. Gareth Hughes: Does the Minister agree with Judith Collins that it's ridiculous that LED bulbs are not mandatory? Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well I think—knowing Mrs Collins—that if they were mandatory she'd criticise that too. If she really—Hon Judith Collins: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. If I can have your guidance—I've actually said that in relation to KiwiBuild homes not—[Interruption] Authentication would show that I did not say that for all homes. SPEAKER: I think that's what the question was—KiwiBuild and State housing. That's what the member was responding to. Rt Hon Winston Peters: Come down prepared—a bit of research first. Hon Judith Collins: Thank you Mr Speaker. I just wanted the opportunity to speak—SPEAKER: Order! Order! The pair of you—come on! I know it's Thursday but we can settle down. Gareth Hughes: Will the Minister work towards overturning the decision that doesn't require LED lights in all new KiwiBuild and State houses because they use 85 percent less power and last 15 times longer? Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well the first thing to say is that there wasn't a decision not to require LED lights in KiwiBuild homes but I'll say this: LED lights are rapidly becoming the industry standard. The great majority of both new State house builds—which we do have some now—and KiwiBuild homes do have LED light bulbs. I've got work under way that's setting standards for all Government-backed home building programmes including KiwiBuild and State housing. It will include energy efficiency and undoubtedly will include the use of the LED bulbs. Gareth Hughes: Does the Minister agree that energy efficient KiwiBuilds and new State homes create a massive opportunity to drive better design practices and lower costs for everyone in New Zealand? Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Yes actually one of the great opportunities offered by a Government house-building programme is the chance to use Government procurement to set standards—whether it's for energy efficiency whether it's for universal design high quality architecture and urban design it's a chance to build stronger communities and warm dry homes. Gareth Hughes: Does the Minister agree that energy efficient KiwiBuilds could not just provide 100000 houses they could also deliver 100000 cheaper power bills? Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Yes. Reducing the operating costs of houses for the people who live in them is one of the best things we can do. The Government's commitment to the healthy homes guarantee and warmer Kiwi homes—these are also very important public health reforms.
10. Question No. 10—Regional Economic DevelopmentHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister for Regional Economic DevelopmentQuestion No. 10—Regional Economic Development10. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister for Regional Economic Development: Does he stand by all of his statements and actions?Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Regional Economic Development): Yes.Hon Paul Goldsmith: On reflection does he think it was appropriate for him to call journalist Hamish Rutherford a bunny boiler?Hon SHANE JONES: I have been counselled about my relationship with the fourth estate. Obviously references colourful they may be offered in the robustness of exchanges that one has with the media—I don't think anyone should be offended. And I understand the man wears that badge with an element of pride.Hon Paul Goldsmith: How does he think his message to corporate New Zealand" yesterday which included criticisms of Spark CEO Simon Moutter will help improve business confidence levels throughout the regions?Hon SHANE JONES: Strangely enough my remarks are based directly on feedback from senior commercial leaders from the export community. They observed their understanding of the statutory obligation that that CEO was under. They described his reaction as going straight to the nuclear button and I suspect an agenda.Hon Paul Goldsmith: Who does he plan to attack next?Hon SHANE JONES: I do not go around examining reviewing inspecting or investigating; it's his leader who is being investigated."
9. Question No. 9—Commerce and Consumer AffairsDr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central) to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer AffairsQuestion No. 9—Commerce and Consumer Affairs 9. Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central) to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: What recent legislative measures has the Government taken to ensure continued access to key global financial markets?Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Recently the Financial Markets (Derivatives Margin and Benchmarking Reform) Amendment Bill passed its first reading—Hon Member: Say that again.Hon KRIS FAAFOI: It's a snappy title. The amendments in the bill will align us with recent changes to international regulations designed to strengthen the resilience of global financial markets and reduce risk. By aligning our financial markets legislation with international best practice New Zealand will help make aspects of the global financial system more resilient and more resistant to manipulation. The Government is committed to improving the integrity of our financial system and ensuring New Zealand entities continue to access important international financial markets.Dr Duncan Webb: What does the bill implement?Hon KRIS FAAFOI: Thank you—an excellent question. The bill has two parts each of which respond to different international developments. The first responds to G20 requirements related to over-the-counter derivatives. Part 2 of the bill responds to a separate international development around a new regulatory regime for financial benchmarks. While the changes are technical this is however a critical piece of legislation that will allow major New Zealand financial institutions to continue to transact with important overseas parties in order to manage financial risk raise capital and continue to effectively engage in international financial markets.Dr Duncan Webb: How will this bill benefit New Zealand?Hon KRIS FAAFOI: Thank you—another sharp question. Without these amendments New Zealand's financial institutions could lose access to offshore funding markets because they don't comply with new requirements that have resulted from overseas reforms; therefore these changes ensure we avoid potential damage to the economy. Not having access to these markets could also see an increase in the cost of raising capital leading to higher interest rates and this would affect all New Zealanders directly or indirectly potentially costing millions of dollars to the economy. It could also have a negative impact on financial stability if it meant New Zealand entities were raising funds from riskier sources or were no longer able to hedge certain risks. The Government is futureproofing a significant part of our financial markets for the benefit of all New Zealanders.
7. Question No. 7—Small BusinessHon JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) to the Minister for Small BusinessQuestion No. 7—Small Business7. Hon JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) to the Minister for Small Business: Has he undertaken any formal consultation with any small businesses on a capital gains tax since last Thursday; if not why not?Hon STUART NASH (Minister for Small Business): No because if the member is referring to the recommendations of the independent Tax Working Group then I can remind the member of my answers of the last two sitting weeks the answers from the Minister of Finance the Deputy Prime Minister the Minister of Agriculture the Minister for Economic Development and the answers from the Prime Minister that no decisions have been made and the Government will respond to this report in April. So I'm hardly likely to formally consult when there is nothing to consult on.Hon Jacqui Dean: Wouldn't it be prudent to be talking with small business to inform the Government's response to the Tax Working Group?Hon STUART NASH: I speak to many small businesses most weeks about measures that the Government is bringing in like R & D tax credits like the Provincial Growth Fund like a whole lot of measures we are bringing in. But one thing I will say: when I said I'm not consulting on a capital gains tax I'm also not consulting on the 19 measures that the Tax Working Group considers would reduce compliance cost to small to medium enterprises.Hon Gerry Brownlee: Why not? [Interruption] SPEAKER: Jacqui Dean.Hon STUART NASH: Because—can I say this again—there have been absolutely no decisions made on this so why would I formally consult when there's absolutely nothing to consult on.Hon Jacqui Dean: Does the Minister for Small Business support small business?Hon STUART NASH: Unequivocally and I am part of a Government that I think is doing a hell of a lot for small business as mentioned: the billion dollar R & D tax credit the Provincial Growth Fund putting GST on low-value goods imported from companies offshore. We are supporting small business in a way that the previous Government never did.Hon Jacqui Dean: Does the Minister not wish to hear the views of small business on the capital gains tax?Hon STUART NASH: Mr Speaker I know that you don't like hearing repetition however there is nothing to consult small businesses on when it comes to a hypothetical capital gains tax because there is nothing out there. Let me say once again: we are open-minded we are listening it was an independent Tax Working Group report we are working through the recommendations and as the Minister of Finance has said probably about 800000 times we will present our recommendations in April. Until that point in time there is nothing to consult on.
6. Question No. 6—RevenueDr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn) to the Minister of RevenueQuestion No. 6—Revenue6. Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn) to the Minister of Revenue: What recent steps if any has he taken to help combat international tax evasion?Hon STUART NASH (Minister of Revenue): I'm happy to inform the House that we are expanding our global information-sharing network by adding 30 jurisdictions to our current list of 60 to help combat tax evasion.Kieran McAnulty: Well done.Hon STUART NASH: Thank you. The addition of 30 new territories which includes Panama Nigeria and Switzerland reflects increased international cooperation by OECD and G20 countries to crack down on tax evasion. This Government is committed to ensuring that everyone pays their fair share of tax including those who have financial interests in other countries. It shines a spotlight on those who try to evade tax obligations by hiding their assets offshore.Dr Deborah Russell: How does the automatic exchange of information ensure that all New Zealanders and foreign tax residents pay their fair share of tax in New Zealand and overseas?Hon STUART NASH: Globalisation has made it easier for people to invest money outside of the tax residence jurisdiction and this has provided opportunities for offshore tax evasion. The automatic exchange of information enables information sharing about details of accounts of New Zealand taxpayers in overseas financial institutions such as banks private equity funds and trusts. Inland Revenue will review the information and verify that the correct tax is being paid on offshore investments. Since our first exchange in September 2018 New Zealand sent information on just over 600000 accounts to 52 jurisdictions and we received information on just over 724000 accounts from 66 jurisdictions. The issue of multinational tax avoidance and evasion is a global issue and New Zealand is proud to be part of the global solution.Dr Deborah Russell: What other measures is he taking to ensure multinational companies and individuals pay their fair share of tax?Hon STUART NASH: This Government has an intensive work programme as we actively seek to tighten our international tax laws. Last year we ratified the multinational instrument and passed the base erosion and profit shifting bill which modified thousands of existing international tax treaties to incorporate the OECD treaty recommendations on anti-abuse transfer pricing dispute resolution and the rules on hybrid mismatches. We've a bill in the House that proposes GST on imported low-value goods to even the playing field for New Zealand retailers and we wish the Opposition would actually support this measure. We are also looking to consult on the design of changes to tax rules which currently allow multinational companies in the digital services field to do business here without paying income tax. This Government is focused on strengthening our international tax laws. This should give New Zealanders confidence that our tax system treats everyone the same whether an individual or a large corporate. We all have to pay our fair share.
Huo RaymondRAYMOND HUO (Labour): Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. Isn't it wonderful to conclude the busy sitting week by supporting the third reading of this relatively small but important bill concerning local body elections. The Local Electoral Matters Bill seeks to modernise two pieces of legislation—namely the Local Electoral Act 2001 and the Electoral Act 1993. The purpose of the bill is to provide greater flexibility to enable local electoral arrangements to adapt to changing circumstances and one of the measures is to develop new voting methods for the future. The bill is one component of a broader effort to improve civic participation in our local government.The busy Justice Committee received and considered 27 submissions from interested organisations and individuals and we heard oral evidence from 10 submitters. We also heard from submitters who shared at the Justice Committee their experience their international experience in relation to online voting such as in Australia Switzerland and other countries. The Justice Committee is currently conducting an inquiry into the 2017 general election and the 2016 local body elections.I acknowledge the Minister of Justice who last year sent a letter to the Justice Committee inviting the committee to look at the resilience of our electoral system against foreign interference risks. We then invited the Electoral Commission to appear before the Justice Committee and then had them again as part of their annual review hearings. The commission duly advised the Justice Committee and the committee then resolved to invite the SIS the GCSB and the National Assessments Bureau to advise the committee as part of the inquiry and specifically with regard to that particular new angle as outlined in Minister Little's letter to the Justice Committee before Christmas.The Justice Committee has so far considered 19 bills and this particular bill must be one of the 14 bills that the Justice Committee has sent back to the House for their second reading. In 2018 alone we had 340 hours of meeting time—just to show how busy the Justice Committee has been over the last 1½ years.The reason why I listed all of these sorts of steps is simply to try to demonstrate that in terms of this inquiry the committee has been on the right track until last Thursday when we had 13 agenda items over five hours and 50 minutes. But the most important business last week was to consider and deliberate on the Privacy Bill because the report-back date is due and also we were to consider two more important bills—namely the Administration of Justice (Reform of Contempt of Court) Bill and also the End of Life Choice Bill.The committee last week received a letter from Professor Anne-Marie Brady requesting to make a late submission. So one of the business matters for the committee is to consider whether we should accept a late submission and the rest will be widely reported in the media. I look forward to further debate on this bill. Debate interrupted. The House adjourned at 6 p.m.
Local Government Regulatory Systems Amendment Bill — Third Reading
Pugh MaureenMAUREEN PUGH (National): Thank you very much Mr Assistant Speaker. I too have pleasure in standing and speaking to the third reading of the Local Government Regulatory Systems Amendment Bill today. This bill has been well canvassed; the details have been well debated even today—the good contributions from all parties—and why not because this is another piece of fantastic legislation that was initiated under the former National-led Government. I take note and acknowledge the contribution of the Hon Ron Mark—as he pointed out a former colleague in the local government world. As he will well remember every time central government imposed new legislation on to local government it did create some inconsistencies. There are a myriad of Acts that local government works under and so inevitably—Hon Ron Mark: Not to mention the cost.MAUREEN PUGH: —there are some inconsistencies that come out of that—and I do acknowledge that the cost was always borne by the ratepayers for the central government legislation. As a demonstration of the complexity of some of that legislation coming down into local government a software package that was in use in the council that I was involved in was the finance package and following the introduction of several pieces of legislation it required adjustments to the financial package that councils used. At six years ago I can tell you that there were 52 add-ons to our financial package simply because of legislative changes so who knows what that is up to now. It certainly won't have become any easier. But a piece of legislation like this that actually does simplify things that does get rid of some of that inconsistency is always going to be welcomed by the local government family. With that I have great pleasure in commending this bill to the House.
Lee DeniseDENISE LEE (National—Maungakiekie): Tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakawā. I really appreciate the chance to give a short call on the Local Government Regulatory Systems Amendment Bill and appreciate the contribution of the last member Paul Eagle. He probably deserves to have put in Hansard one more time that he called himself a handsome man. I think that's what took place. I'm not sure.I think he might recall the previous speaker that it was myself—have others used the term repairs and maintenance"? Because that's exactly what we're doing which is why we need to pass this bill and get on to hearing more Government members who are not taking up their full allocation of speaking for reasons which are surprising and unbeknownst to us. So what I would like to do is commend the bill and then highlight one particular part that I did in the second reading following the select committee process. It was a curiosity to me and it was simply that there's a lot of talk about online digital access but the Governance and Administration Committee felt that they should get down to the details of what should be published in a good old-fashioned newspaper. So I'm going to use this chance to do a shout-out for good old-fashioned printed newspapers and the fact that the committee wanted to talk about getting plain language into the subject matter of a newspaper print-out and that they wanted a reference source for more detailed information. So that's the type of fantastic contributions that the select committee made to this bill and for that and many other reasons—not least that National began this bill—I support this bill and so does the National Party. Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker."
Bakshi Kanwaljit Singh; Rurawhe AdrianKANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker and it's my pleasure to stand in support of the Local Government Regulatory Systems Amendment Bill. There were many passionate speeches today in the House. In particular I would like to acknowledge the Hon Ron Mark for his speech and his passion about local government. His 10-minute speech was totally dedicated to the local government. I think he is very passionate about it and local government elections are around the corner. In his role as Minister for Veterans he did not touch upon Part 7 of this bill which says about the winter energy payment and he did not mention it—this was a little bit disappointing. Before I conclude I would like to suggest the honourable Minister—Hon Members: You only just started!KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI: Yeah yeah. We are going to support this bill. We are not filibustering like you people are doing. So you have to consider this. So the Hon Ron Mark I have got a suggestion for you: local government elections are around the corner; I think you should go back to the Wairarapa and take a role over there. Leave this role. This is not for you. Thank you very much.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): This is a split call—five minutes.