edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
King MattMATT KING (National—Northland): It's a real privilege to speak on this Electronic Interactions Reform Bill. I just want to let you know that National supports this bill—just in case.It's fantastic to hear the commentary from the previous speaker—filled out the 10 minutes really well—and the previous speaker before that Paul Eagle; great to hear from him as well. I want to commend the Hon Tracey Martin for bringing this great piece of National Party legislation to the House. In this modern age it makes sense for this Government to be accessible to Kiwis online and for Government services to be available online.The National Government had a target of 70 percent of the most common transactions with Government to be digital by 2017. Well I can tell you 90 percent of births are now registered online 80 percent of tax returns are completed online and 50 percent of passport renewals are done online.Jamie Strange: Fascinating.MATT KING: Yes it is. These amendments work hand in hand with the National Government's game-changing broadband network expansion initiative begun back in 2011 and it directly benefits the people of Northland—that great electorate of Northland—especially in our numerous rural and isolated parts of this digital network expansion when it reaches them. Government departments that have contributed are DOC the Department of Internal Affairs and Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment to name a few. This has cross-party universal support and it is the third reading so this matter has been traversed thoroughly.We at National have taken the minimum time on our speaking slots to speed up this process and we wonder why this coalition Government is wasting valuable House time debating this bill further. Some Labour MPs have told me they don't know why they're doing this. I ask: why is this bill so important that it needs to be in the coalition Government's first 100-day action plan? So I've said enough. I commend this bill to the House.
Stanford EricaERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): I'm sorry; I didn't want to be rude. Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. I am pleased to take a call on this the third reading of the Electronic Interactions Reform Bill. This really is a Welcome to the Digital Future Bill" a sensible bill that helps Kiwis access Government and Government services online. It's a good bill introduced by the former National Government desperately awaiting its turn to be debated envious of all the other National legislation that got pushed ahead wondering when it would have its day to shine and I tell you its time is now because clearly this is a great bill.This is a classic Mighty Ducks story—the story of the little bill that could. [Interruption] It's made it to the big time—that is exactly right Mr Simeon Brown. It's been elevated to greatness recognised as a bill of such great significance it's been included in Labour's 100-day plan. It is so great in fact that last week in the committee stage members from the Government parties took a whopping 35 calls in the committee stage to speak on this bill which was over two hours of committee time. It was intense scrutiny from no less than eight Ministers and I think it's worthy of summarising some of the contributions of those Ministers that they made in the robust scrutiny of this bill.Hon Chris Hipkins: Please do.ERICA STANFORD: Yes Mr Hipkins. In fact you're up first. Mr Hipkins questioned the difference in the definition of "audio links" "visual links" and—wait for it—"audiovisual links".Hon Chris Hipkins: That's right. It was an important distinction.ERICA STANFORD: Ha! If only there was as much scrutiny on what's replacing national standards Mr Hipkins. Dr Clark talked about couriers receiving text messages. Mr Robertson wondered about how the Government would make sure that people's email addresses were kept up to date. We had some outstanding contributions from other Government members I wouldn't want to overlook. The member from Mt Roskill Michael Wood deliberated over the definition of the word "is" and let's not—it is a very useful robust bill.But I have to give the Government huge credit for their enormous scrutiny they've applied to one of their own pieces of legislation. I am looking forward to debating some of the coalition Government's own original bills. In the meantime I'd like to commend this bill to the House."
Hipkins Chris; Rurawhe Adrian; Kuriger BarbaraHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Where the call is a split call it does rely on somebody being willing to take the other half of the call. Otherwise the member who has the call can continue for the full 10 minutes.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Yes.BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki—King Country): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We do have someone.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Yes. I take the member's point but we have a call.
Smith Stuart; Rurawhe AdrianSTUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. It's a great pleasure to speak on the Electronic Interactions Reform Bill. There's been a lot of talk about the security aspects of this bill and also the access to the internet and good connections and with a large rural-based electorate that is certainly a great concern of many of my constituents to have fast and affordable—because often they have to access it via satellite which is quite a lot more expensive.But I want to touch on the security and also on the aspect of it not always working out. Last year I travelled through the United States to a conference. One of my colleagues that was travelling with me ended up in a small room with some undesirable people while they were sorting out his access into the country. It turned out that when the digital photograph that is taken when you enter the country was matched against his passport it didn't match.What had happened was a couple of months earlier he'd travelled through with his family who had all gone up to the desk at the same time and someone manually had transposed the wrong photo over on to his passport. It wasn't physically on the passport; it was digitally on the passport. And he ended up in some rather undesirable company until they got that sorted out. So there are some issues with it. It can actually be sorted in the long run but that's what happens.I think it's a fantastic bill and it's great to see the Government picking this up. I commend it to the House. Thank you.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): I call Paul Eagle.Hon Ruth Dyson: Well this'll be better.
Yang JianDr JIAN YANG (National): I rise to take a brief call on the third reading of the Electronic Interactions Reform Bill. This is a cross-agency omnibus bill and the purpose of the bill is to enable digital interactions between individuals businesses and the Government.We are living in a digital world and we need to adapt to this fast-evolving world. I still remember the Hon Paul Goldsmith's bill the Electronic Transactions (Contract Formation) Amendment Bill which was passed in 2014. That bill has enabled us to accept offers via email. We need to provide better digital services because we need to increase our productivity and also to provide convenience to various groups of people such as disabled people. So this bill is a good bill. I commend it to the House.
Bakshi Kanwaljit SinghKANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker for the opportunity to stand and support the Electronic Interactions Reform Bill at its third reading. We heard from the Hon Tracey Martin what this bill does a bill that was introduced by the National Government and it does a lot.When we came to Parliament in 2008 most of the things were paper based but today most of the things are online. Similarly this bill also helps the public of New Zealand to work online like applying for a passport death and birth certificates and marriage certificates. This bill is the result of the Department of Conservation the Department of Internal Affairs as well as the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment together contributing on this bill and this is the result of it.We heard from the Hon Peeni Henare about common sense. And common sense says that this bill is a very good bill. Both sides are supporting this; why are we wasting the time of this House? Conclude this debate and move further. I commend this bill to the House.
Hudson BrettBRETT HUDSON (National): Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a pleasure to rise in support of this the Electronic Interactions Reform Bill and I would like to thank the Minister of Internal Affairs for lauding this bill which was of course introduced and stewarded by the previous National-led Government.In many respects it puts in place some pretty small changes but those changes are particularly important if we all—and I think we all do—want to transform particularly our public services into a more digital era. There is simply no way that we could hope to achieve that if the likes of issuing notices and other things could be done only by traditional mail or what is often now referred to as snail mail. So we are making some changes to now enable these to be done via email.Actually I was reflecting this evening as to why this is so important. Right next door in the Grand Hall I'm hosting a year 8 leavers' dinner for students from St Brigid's School in Ōhāriu. Let me tell you those boys and girls are digital natives. To them the idea of notices from the Government or interactions with a Government through postal mail is anathema. They have grown up in a world where digital devices the internet are the norm. So we are slowly but surely helping to bring the Government and government processes into the world which they have inhabited. I'm taking this opportunity just to talk if I may seeing as they are here.I would just like to point out that Ōhāriu is the number one of all the electorates for internet connectivity. So it's not just the year 8s out there in the Grand Hall; it's actually the voters the constituents from across the electorate who are very strong internet users. I would just make the point for those of us that actually live in Ōhāriu we know the majesty the industry the beauty of the electorate. We would never underrate or undervalue it because we know that it is chief amongst all electorates. It is appropriate that we also as an electorate as a people lead internet use across New Zealand.This is a good bill for New Zealand. It's bringing us closer towards the 21st century for our Government services and I hope we'll continue to accelerate them through. I commend this bill to the House.
Maritime Crimes Amendment Bill — Third Reading
van de Molen TimTIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. Can I start by making an observation. It's fascinating how interested the new Government has suddenly become in the former Government's legislation. They're deep diving into all these pieces doing an amazing amount of research on all our former legislation. It's incredible. Thank you very much. Please progress it. Look it is great to see your enthusiasm for this because these are important pieces and as we heard it's not a waste of time. Any time you choose to debate a former piece of our legislation we welcome it. By all means continue. But I would suggest perhaps it's a lost opportunity. You have a 100-day plan and yet here we are debating the former Government's legislation—again—during this window so perhaps something for the new Government to review.I note that actually this item never appeared in a campaign recently from any of the Government parties. It hasn't been discussed at all. In fact the closest we got to anything maritime—and I'm happy to be corrected on this—was actually the Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary Bill. So perhaps we could be debating that one instead. I would welcome the debate on that and encourage the Government to do so although I suspect what we might see is disagreement from either side of the Government.Of course we don't shirk our responsibilities here in New Zealand. That's why this bill is important. We need to make sure that we are meeting our international treaty obligations given the size of our exclusive economic zone—over 4 million square kilometres one of the largest in the world. That's why these changes are important and I commend the bill to the House.
Hipango Harete; Tolley AnneHARETE HIPANGO (National—Whanganui): As I rise to speak to the third reading of the Maritime Crimes Amendment Bill I address this House again in terms of the sheer coincidence and similarities as to aspects around the bill and specifically counter-terrorism. The bill is premised on maritime counter-terrorism. This bill strengthens New Zealand's ability to deter and react decisively to terrorism on the high seas.This morning at 7.17 a.m. I received a message from my son who after spending three weeks back here at home in Aotearoa New Zealand had returned to New York and on his first day commuting to work at the United Nations via subway the text said FYI I'm all good—if you haven't seen the news already Mum." I hadn't seen the news and immediately I reacted and replied—bearing in mind that I'd received a similar text earlier this year from him in New York around a terrorist incident—"Bub what's happened?" He replied saying "Bomb subway Manhattan New York City."As a nation we here in New Zealand Aotearoa are not immune to the threats posed by international crime and terrorism. That's why this bill is important. It's a lot closer to home than many of us would think and it's not until one has really been in the personal situation to experience such acts that you really realise how much it can impact on your life personally but also as a nation.New Zealand has a reputation as a good global citizen. We were a founding member of the United Nations and have recently served with distinction on the Security Council. New Zealand doesn't shirk from its global responsibilities. We are an outward-looking country whether it be serving on the Security Council forging trade deals or sending peacekeeping troops across the world. Again personally I relate to this. I had a deceased brother Lieutenant Colonel Hipango who served with the United Nations peacekeeping forces in the Sinai in the late 1980s and early 1990s.We know that the risks facing the world are many: economic conflict and terror-related. That's why this Government is keen to forge international trade links and more importantly in relation to this bill to ensure that there are the safe mechanisms in place to deal with anti-terrorism. So in conclusion I commend this bill to the House noting that other speakers this evening have addressed the detailed aspects and elements of it. Thank you.Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: The next call is a split call. I call Jo Luxton."
O'Connor SimonSIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. I'm delighted to take a call on this Maritime Crimes Amendment Bill in its third reading. I didn't have the good fortune of sitting on the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee at the time but as has been well articulated in the House this is bringing into effect two pieces of international treaty effectively. It's nothing overly unusual. In fact some members of the House remember us bringing the bunker oil convention in a few months back—not one of the great highlights of the House per se but this is a fairly standard procedure including the select committee working through a number of issues including those being referenced by the last member who's just taken her seat Louisa Wall around protest. But it's very clear that this bill is talking about serious crimes on the sea and is not actually including protest vessels and the like.What I do find striking though and others have mentioned it is we're a few days into this Parliament and this is a previous Government bill which is being adopted by the new Government. It's relatively minor. It is a concern certainly to me that maritime crimes are sort of top of the agenda when you think of all the other issues facing New Zealand. I am concerned that this is one of many pieces of legislation we've been debating that is effectively legislation from the previous Government legislation worked on by the previous Parliament and as far as I understand supported by all the House. So in terms of this being a Maritime Crimes Amendment Bill I don't think the current Government are—well wasting almost the time of the House is a crime but in a maritime context it certainly shows that they're up the creek without a paddle.
McClay ToddHon TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua): Madam Deputy Speaker thank you very much. I am pleased to speak on this bill but golly gee I didn't think I would be here in the first 100 days of a new Government talking about this. Don't get me wrong there is nothing wrong with this legislation—of course we're here in the third reading. But the last speaker the honourable Minister Little—by golly haven't things changed. He used to be known as Angry Andy". Well now he's "Apologetic Andy" because he's—Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order!Hon TODD McCLAY: —going backwards as quickly—Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!Hon TODD McCLAY: —as he can. You see not a single member on the other side of this House—not in the Green Party not in New Zealand First certainly not in the Labour Party—campaigned on this bill. Not a single one of them said "We must do this within the first 100 days that we are in Government." Whilst I'm pleased to speak on it because it is a very important piece of legislation it is important that we meet our obligations internationally and that's why the previous Government brought it to the House and will see it through. But surely there are much more important things for this brand new Government to do—Hon Chris Hipkins: Ah just you wait—just you wait.Hon TODD McCLAY: —in their first 100 days in office. And they're saying we should wait. Well if I listened to them during the campaign they thought people had been waiting too long. But again not a single member of the Green Party of the New Zealand First Party or of the Labour Party campaigned on this piece of legislation. They say there's something more important to do; well let's get on with it."
Mitchell MarkHon MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): Mr Assistant Speaker thank you very much. It's a pleasure to take a call. To the Rt Hon Winston Peters I know he's heard this term: explaining is losing—explaining is losing. Can I just acknowledge him because I know that he's used his considerable influence to get this bill into the House. It is a very good bill and I appreciate the fact that he's acknowledged that. Can I just say that the one thing I was very disappointed about in all the statements that the Rt Hon Winston Peters made during the campaign period and after the campaign period was that he never restated his commitment to be the outstanding media liaison officer for the Parliamentary Rugby Team. That's one thing that we're still waiting to hear; we want to hear that restated commitment. He's an outstanding media liaison officer. We never get any media.Hon Kris Faafoi: No coverage.Hon MARK MITCHELL: No coverage—zero. You know Faaf" there's no coverage.But anyway I just wanted to say that this is a very good bill. In all seriousness when you look around the world and you see the types of terror attacks that we see almost on a daily basis and when you see the threat that's actually got closer to home with Abu Sayyaf which are now really trying to establish themselves in a caliphate in the Philippines you actually realise that this is serious business. I am sure that the Rt Hon Winston Peters has had briefings as the incoming Minister of Foreign Affairs. He understands this. I'd just like to say as the outgoing Minister of Defence that it's going to be critically important that our New Zealand Defence Force maintains the level of investment that it currently has to make sure that it's able to continue to operate at optimal levels and to have us actually going out and doing our bit in making sure that we address what is a growing terrorism threat around the world. So I am very happy to stand in support of this bill. Thank you."
Maritime Transport Amendment Bill — Third Reading
Smith StuartSTUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. It's a pleasure to speak on the Maritime Transport Amendment Bill. As my colleague said a little earlier it's quite strange that this bill covers things from a monopoly on the shipping service to the Chatham Islands to space launches—one of which has just occurred today I understand—across the water. You did mention that it was perhaps not your generation but I will point out that it was in 1969 that man walked on the moon; so space launches over water are not that new.The bill itself covers a lot of things and I will come back to the Chathams in a minute. The drug and alcohol thing's been fairly well explored but really in the mining industry in Australia it's mandatory to be tested breathalysed every day when you go to work. It's about people's safety. I think that while the risks might be relatively low the consequences of something going wrong at sea can be massive not only for safety but also for the environment. I think that's all I'll say on that matter but I think it's very important.It's quite interesting—the Rt Hon Winston Peters has just entered the House and I acknowledge him. When I was researching this I looked up how it might impact on my electorate. Of course the sinking of the Mikhail Lermontov in 1986 which I'm sure you'll remember very well Mr Peters—in fact I see you've been quoted a few times about advising the foreign policy arm of the Government to look at Jane's Fighting Ships to see what sort of equipment might have been carried on board the Mikhail Lermontov and Russian spies etc. Unfortunately there was the loss of one life on that ship but fortunately there was no environmental disaster because the oil was got off. But I'm sure some of the provisions in this bill—were they being carried out that accident would have been avoided.Going back to the Chatham Islands—I'd also like a trip over there by the way if Paul Eagle is listening.Hon Member: 36.STUART SMITH: It's filling up. It's going to be a big aircraft. Mr Faafoi are you on that trip?Hon Kris Faafoi: No. I've got other things to do sorry.STUART SMITH: Well we'd quite enjoy your company I'm sure. But it's interesting talking about that because one of the things about coastal shipping and the challenge that coastal shipping faces is competition. Its main competitor is heavily subsidised and that's not of course road transport; it's actually rail. How the shipping industry can survive and have an adequately provisioned and provided-for service by coastal ships requires them being a viable business. But unfortunately rail and coastal shipping are competing directly head to head against one another and unfortunately in the end the end result is that neither one is actually particularly viable. So that's something that I thought might have been attacked by the incoming Government in this bill but unfortunately it has not been addressed. Anyway I'll leave it there and I commend the bill to the House. Thank you.
Scott AlastairALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa): Thank you for the opportunity Madam Assistant Speaker. I'd also like to pick up where the previous speaker Shane Jones left off and talk about initiative. I also agree with that speaker that most people do the right thing: most people do show initiative; most people are concerned for the health and safety of their colleagues whether it's in a car or on a boat or in aviation—or a balloon as my colleague Jonathan Young mentioned. But there are idiots out there. There are a few bad apples that rot the rest of the cart and these are the people that we are concerned about. These are the people that cause the damage. These are the people that cause death at the end of the day.There is nothing like compulsory random drug-testing to put the fear of God if you like into those. It is a very good disincentive to participate in sly drinking or casual pot-smoking before they wish to go in their balloon or their aircraft or in this case in their boat conducting safety-sensitive activities. By not allowing random drug-testing the Government is putting at risk those others on board—those other seafarers on board with the numbskull with the idiot with the sly drinker. I'm disappointed that they've removed the compulsory nature of the random drug-testing. They say they can test after the event; well it's too late—it's too late after the event. The damage has been done. As I say there's nothing to disincentivise bad behaviour like a compulsory random test. We do it on our roads.We do it already on our roads when we can randomly be pulled up by the police to test for alcohol and that has brought about a culture that has seen a dramatic change in fatalities on our roads. We know looking at our parents and grandparents and at our children that the culture has certainly changed for the better. Random drug-testing random alcohol-testing is part of the reason that it has been so successful. We do it with the balloons after the Carterton event which Jonathan Young mentioned—so that's covered. The roads are covered. Why is there inconsistency with the maritime seafarers of our communities? Why are they able to not be put under the barrel if you like? As I say it's only a few so if there's no problem then there should be no issue.Don't give me this excuse that it's a whole layer of bureaucracy that needs to take place to make sure that this occurs. That's not the case—that's not the case; that's just an excuse to allow this piece of legislation to be propped up. With that though we do support the bill I'm disappointed that that drug and alcohol management plan aspect has been removed.
Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): I think it's the other member whom you should apologise to Madam Assistant Speaker. In any case thank you. It's a pleasure to rise to speak regarding Maritime Transport Amendment Bill. It's been noted already that my party having had some history with this particular piece of legislation in Government—namely having introduced it but not having supported Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 6 introduced by the Minister in the new Government. I'd like to make a couple of comments along those lines. First in a previous life I spent some years at sea as a naval officer. So I note that while the term safety-sensitive activity" is a defined one within the legislation it could be regarded as a pretty nice distinction in the sense that all activities—indeed the very activity of being at sea—are somewhat safety sensitive. So it seems to me that we should err on the side of measures that promote safety for those who are maritime operators again as defined by the legislation. The Minister has spoken regarding the amount of compensation that will be available—increasing that—and that seems to me very sensible. The double negative—that is excluding the limitation of liability in the event of claims relating to wreck removal and so on—seems to us positive and so I don't wish to traverse that subject any further. Instead I wish to focus on the area of the drug testing the randomness of which is a key element and not something that can be removed lightly notwithstanding some submissions that were made at the select committee along those lines—noting of course that other select committee submissions have been very much in favour of the bill as it then was. It seems to me that the Supplementary Order Paper or SOP might be read alternatively as a "sop" as written—that is something to placate persons. In this case it was the unions that opposed the alcohol and drug randomness testing regime. No doubt in their minds they were promoting the interests of workers by doing that—to avoid the imposition of non-notified testing. However I would urge all those in the House to consider that the interests of workers at sea and indeed elsewhere are most robustly promoted when the safety of those who are involved in the activities is promoted. Specifically in the case of a testing regime it is best to test in a way that is most likely to catch out illicit activity as opposed to merely shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted as the regime of testing following an incident would indicate. So that's the position of the side of the House and I look forward to others' comments on this bill. Thank you."
Taxation (Neutralising Base Erosion and Profit Shifting) Bill — First Reading
Points of Order — Speakers and Presiding Officers—Today in the House" Video"
Address in Reply — Presentation to Governor-General
Walker HamishHAMISH WALKER (National—Clutha-Southland): It's an absolute honour to rise for the Taxation (Neutralising Base Erosion and Profit Shifting) Bill—better known as BEPS—and when I read this bill a few hours ago it actually reminded me about beep tests in my former life as a rugby referee. You get to a certain stage and you just get out of breath you try and keep going and then you just can't go more. That sort of feeling—I look across the room here and I get that feeling when I look at the current Government. But one person that certainly isn't out of breath is Kiri Allan—ka pai. Five minutes to go and you thought you were done and you got back up—what a great speech. So well done Kiri.This is yet another excellent piece of National Government legislation being picked up by a new Government already out of ideas. To date in the 52nd Parliament the House has debated 13 pieces of National legislation with just two—yes two—Government bills from Labour and they were members' bills. That's about what 10 or 15 percent. So if you want to talk about a Government out of breath you only need to look at this.The other thing I'm learning pretty quick here is—I've only been here two or three months; since 23 September—talk is cheap. Someone wise once told me that actions speak louder than words. I just googled a few of the Labour press release statements from the last six months. The first one by Michael Wood is from 21 June: Government's multinational tax measures weak. The Government's proposals to crack down on multinational tax avoidance by its own admission only recovering one third of the missing money means hardworking Kiwis will bear more of the tax burden says … [Mr] Wood … It's time for a fresh approach. A Labour-led Government will establish a new Tax Working Group of experts"—not to mention self-appointed—"to examine how best to deliver tax changes that are positive for the economy". Well it's great to see that actions speak louder than words and they are picking up our bill which was first introduced a few months ago.What's this one here? From 20 June: "Labour labels Government action on multinational tax [weak]" and it goes on to say: "Labour revenue spokesman Michael Wood questioned whether proposals put forward by Collins in March to tighten multinational tax rules were a little [weak] at a select committee meeting on Tuesday." The one I got a bit of a laugh out of—the one I enjoyed the most—was on 3 August from Michael Wood: "Government's Johnny-come-lately approach to multinational tax won't wash … The Government's response remains unfair to all New Zealand taxpayers and the multinationals that pay their fair share and the response is years overdue. You've got to question National's credibility". Well if this is such a bad bill why on earth are they putting it forward? So I commend Minister Nash for putting this bill through. Well done."
Yule LawrenceLAWRENCE YULE (National—Tukituki): It gives me great pleasure to speak to the Taxation (Neutralising Base Erosion and Profit Shifting) Bill. This is all about multinational companies. This is about them ripping us off.Hon Shane Jones: What about the water?LAWRENCE YULE: There's some in front of you sir. It's probably got chlorine in it. You want to try some! Anyway this is really good. This is really good legislation and other members of this House—the only criticism I've heard is that it's taken too long. And do you know why it's taken too long? From 2013 when this was identified by the Inland Revenue Department and at the G20 we worked in a multinational environment to sort this out. And the former National Government had all this sorted and has brought it to this House. It's a rare feature I might say—it's a rare feature—that everybody in this House despite the interjections actually agrees with this bill and yet we're taking our time to get through it. Members on the other side are taking their total time when we actually all agree that this is a good bill and it should go to select committee. There are a number of members on the select committee sitting opposite me and we will look at that when it gets to that point.This is all about fairness: how we treat people how we look after people and how taxpayers that we represent when working really hard and who pay their fair dues are actually treated fairly with others. I looked up this morning—Facebook. They gave an example: $5.8 million in 2014 was the amount of earnings they were predicted to have earned. They didn't have exactly the numbers but that was predicted on the Asian experience. They declared income of $1.19 billion and then had costs of $1.187 billion. Their taxable income was around $12000. Now where you're talking mum and Joe Public" working hard at home and looking at Facebook and those sort of numbers it is patently unfair. And this whole House is agreed to that.Secondly the "Netflix legislation" that the last Government brought in—started in October 2017; became effective—is poised to save $300 million. As in it will bring $300 million of new revenue. And I look at Mr Jones over there who's trying to spend a billion dollars a year—a billion dollars a year he tells us; $300 million is a great start Mr Jones. So I am thrilled that the whole House is in support of this. Actually what I think we need to do instead of wasting time on unnecessary calls is put it to the vote and the whole House can get on and get it done. Thank you."
Bayly AndrewANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. It's a pleasure to be talking on this first reading of the Taxation (Neutralising Base Erosion and Profit Shifting) Bill.Madam Deputy Speaker I've got to say I'm feeling positively sorry for you. We have heard some very boring and tedious speeches. Of course I can understand why the Minister abrogated his responsibility and passed his speech on to Michael Wood who had that dreary unenviable task of delivering that boring speech. And then of course we've had Mr Fletcher Tabuteau. I do agree. I thought he lost his way but right towards the end he came right. And then we've just had the speech from the leader of the Greens who has got such a perverse sense of history and I will talk more about that.But of course this is a good piece of legislation. This is what our Government when we were in power—this is the type of thing we were doing and this is the type of thing that you guys want to nick. And when I say you" I'm talking about the current Government. But of course when we were trying to do this in the select committee and talking about it all we heard from you was the bleating that went on—Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: You didn't hear it from me.ANDREW BAYLY: That's right Madam Deputy Speaker. But I think it's rather rich that the Opposition are now standing up and claiming credit for this bill. As the Rt Hon Mr Carter said we have got a beautiful tax system; it has a lot of simplicity. But we were aware of this issue. In 2013—which is what the previous speaker James Shaw spoke of—the OECD started doing its investigation into this issue because it is a worldwide issue. And of course the people opposite all thought that we could just unilaterally impose some changes in our tax system and that would make it fine for New Zealand which of course it wouldn't.This is the difference about understanding tax. The issue about this is that we have had to work with the OECD and we have. The OECD presented its report at the end of 2015. In the middle of June 2016 we as a country presented our own inquiries and we've been working through that and this bill represents the fruition of this. There are some very good aspects of this bill. I've missed this. I am very much looking forward to talking about the elements of this bill because there's a whole stack of good stuff. I've heard the four mentioned but the fifth one which everyone seems to forget is that there is an increased power of the IRD to seek information from multinationals which no one yet has spoken about but you will find it at the tail end of this bill if you get the final part of it. Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker.Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I call Willow-Jean Prime. This is a split call—five minutes."
Kuriger Barbara; Tolley AnneBARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. It took a while and I did wonder whether Mr Tabuteau actually had any idea for the first eight minutes and 30 seconds of that speech what it was all about but at the end of it he started to make some progress on the points. Then he referred to Michael Wood's comments about the good old days. Well the good old days were when a good old Government called National in the 51st Parliament actually put some legislation on the table.If I look to some comments back from Michael Wood when the previous Government launched this piece of legislation he said However the changes announced today continue the same sluggish vein of Government inaction". Well I have to say the fact that this new Government has actually picked up this piece of legislation proves that it can't have been so sluggish at all because you're happy to put it in the House and you're happy to—almost—speak to it Mr Tabuteau. Michael Wood also referred in that same comment to "baby steps". Well "baby steps" is actually better than crawling so we're proud to at least have put some steps on the table.So getting to the bill this whole bill the Taxation (Neutralising Base Erosion and Profit Shifting) Bill yes it is designed to even the playing field and give New Zealand companies the opportunity because there are things out there happening with companies that are coming into New Zealand. Most of the companies will pay their fair share of tax but there are others who don't and a lot of it is related to either hybrid mismatching—and that description explains where they take what they perceive to be the best rules of one country and they take the best rules of another country and they put them together and they try to make a model that gives them the best tax advantage without actually paying their fair share of tax in the country where it's earned. The transfer pricing that often happens with these kinds of arrangements means that it doesn't reflect the actual economic activities in the country where the work was done.So it's really important that we get this right. A previous speaker the Rt Hon David Carter talked about getting this right because we are a trading nation who works with the world. Of course we want people to work with us but we don't want them to come and work with us and take their profits out of the country so that they disadvantage our country because we need the tax take to be able to provide our current services. What I hope from the somewhere $200 million upwards that we're going to achieve from putting this legislation in place is that we'll be able to use that money for some worthwhile projects.It's been a pleasure to take a call in the House today and with that I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.Hon James Shaw: Madam Deputy Speaker.Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Oh—Hon James Shaw: James Shaw Madam Deputy Speaker.Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: James Shaw—I do apologise. I call the Hon James Shaw."
Nash StuartTAXATION (NEUTRALISING BASE EROSION AND PROFIT SHIFTING) BILLFirst ReadingHon STUART NASH (Minister of Revenue): I move That the Taxation (Neutralising Base Erosion and Profit Shifting) Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Finance and Expenditure Committee to consider the bill.
Mallard TrevorMr SPEAKER: I want to thank the Hon Gerry Brownlee for his intervention which as I think he is aware is not a point of order because it doesn't relate to a matter of order in the House. The answer to the very real question that he gave me is of course not but I'm sure in one way or another members will show levels of excitement later in the week.
Brownlee GerryPOINTS OF ORDERSpeakers and Presiding Officers—Today in the House" VideoHon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have again today viewed your preamble to the House's proceedings today. I must say it is quite informative and there were a couple of bits that were a little bit surprising. One is that you suggested the Order Paper today and for the rest of the week pretty much has business that was started by the previous Government which you described as "unexciting". You then went on to suggest that later in the week it was the Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update and the mini-Budget that had everybody excited. Well I can assure you sir everybody is not excited but also it raises the question: do you know what's in that mini-Budget?"
Hipkins ChrisHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I move That Her Excellency's reply be entered in the Journals of the House.Motion agreed to.
Mallard TrevorTUESDAY 12 DECEMBER 2017Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.ADDRESS IN REPLYPresentation to Governor-GeneralMr SPEAKER: I have to announce that accompanied by members I attended upon Her Excellency the Governor-General with the Address in Reply agreed to by the House in reply to the speech at the opening of this Parliament. Her Excellency was pleased to make the following reply:MR SPEAKER AND MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:I receive with much pleasure the Address which has been adopted by the House of Representatives in reply to my speech at the Opening of the First Session of the Fifty-Second Parliament of New Zealand. I thank you for your assurance that the matters referred to in my speech will receive your careful consideration.Patsy Reddy Governor-General.
Thursday 7 December 2017 - Volume 726
10. Drinking-water Supplies—Contamination Havelock NorthVIRGINIA ANDERSEN (Labour) to the Attorney-GeneralDrinking-water Supplies—Contamination Havelock North10. VIRGINIA ANDERSEN (Labour) to the Attorney-General: What evidence did the Report of the Havelock North Drinking Water Inquiry: Stage 2 find regarding undue delay and prevarication in addressing poor drinking water quality?Hon DAVID PARKER (Attorney-General): The report finds that despite serious non-compliance with New Zealand water standards by many water suppliers the Ministry of Health did not issue one compliance notice or take one enforcement action anywhere in New Zealand in the last five years despite unsafe drinking-water causing many tens of thousands of New Zealanders to fall ill from drinking water that comes out of their tap each year.Virginia Andersen: What does the report say about the Ministry of Health's approach to the drinking-water regulatory regime?Hon DAVID PARKER: Paragraphs 332 to 334 of the inquiry record that in January 2012 the Mayor of Tasman on behalf of all South Island councils wrote to the then Associate Minister of Health the Hon Jo Goodhew seeking clarity on defining the affordability test in the drinking-water standards. The Associate Minister did not respond until February 2013 a year later then saying it was up to councils to decide whether they could afford to comply with the standards. This response exemplifies both the delays and the lack of care that have led to the situation that New Zealand now faces.Virginia Andersen: What evidence is there of local government representatives attempting to stall the implementation of drinking-water standards to protect the health of New Zealanders?Hon DAVID PARKER: In 2009 in his capacity as the President of Local Government New Zealand the Mayor of Hastings and Havelock North stated that the standards went well beyond the requirements needed for clean drinking-water and that the time frame to implement the standards was too fast. Sadly the last Government listened to Lawrence Yule.
4. Tertiary Education—Fees-free PolicyJO LUXTON (Labour) to the Minister of EducationTertiary Education—Fees-free Policy4. JO LUXTON (Labour) to the Minister of Education: What reaction has he seen to the Government's fees-free tertiary education policy?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Heaps including the fact that 33000 New Zealanders have already visited to find out more about that policy. New Zealanders are excited about this Government's commitment to cutting the cost for students and making education more affordable and more accessible for everybody.Jo Luxton: What other reactions has he seen to the policy?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I have seen responses from a number of groups including the Tertiary Education Union the New Zealand University Students' Association and others who believe that this policy is a positive step forward. But I was particularly taken by the comment from 17-year-old Denzell Christian from Aotea College who said Coming from a lower income family any financial help I can get is weight off my shoulders and my family's shoulders … this will be a huge help." This Government is committed to supporting people like Denzell Christian to further their skills to get a higher level of education and to get ahead in life. We are going to be right behind them.Hon Paul Goldsmith: What performance metrics will he put in place to ensure that he gets a significantly improved outcome for this major investment?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The performance metrics that are already in place will remain in place.Hon Paul Goldsmith: Of the $2.8 billion extra tertiary spending budgeted for the next four years how much extra money will reach tertiary institutions in order for them to continue to improve the quality of their offerings?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The Budget hasn't yet been delivered."
Lees-Galloway Iain; Rurawhe AdrianSITTINGS OF THE HOUSEHon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Deputy Leader of the House): The House has made excellent progress this afternoon and with it being 4 minutes to 6 I seek leave for the House to adjourn until the next sitting day. The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any member against that? There is.
Financial Services Legislation Amendment Bill — First Reading