edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
2. Question No. 2—FinanceBARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) to the Minister of FinanceQuestion No. 2—Finance2. BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Recent reports we have seen on our economic support programmes show that the sectors that have received the greatest support from the Government over the course of this outbreak are the construction industry and the accommodation and food services sector. Over time the amount paid under the wage subsidy for the accommodation and food services sector since 17 August has been $624 million compared with $577 million for the construction sector. For the Resurgence Support Payment the same two industries were the largest recipients with accommodation and food services over time accounting for a greater percentage of payments. As would be expected over time the payments have gone progressively more towards the Auckland region with the latest Resurgence Support Payment having 71 percent of recipients in the Greater Auckland region with the next highest being Hamilton making up 8 percent. Barbara Edmonds: What other reports has he seen on the economy?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The economic consultancy Infometrics' September 2021 quarterly economic monitor has reported that New Zealand regional economies were solid despite the setback of the Delta outbreak. The monitor shows economic activity dipped 3.7 percent in the quarter according to provisional estimates as Delta temporarily brought parts of the economy to a standstill. However Infometrics notes that economic momentum has returned as most of the country has moved down alert levels with people buying and backing local again. Looking ahead it reports that regional economies remain well positioned to recover from Delta with more spending and activity set to be unlocked in 2022. Nevertheless the ongoing and uneven impact of COVID-19 means that the environment will remain volatile for some time.Barbara Edmonds: What reports has he seen on how New Zealand has adapted to the constraints of the pandemic on the economy?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: New Zealand Post's eCommerce Spotlight shows that New Zealanders have moved online during the pandemic spending $765 million online in October an increase of 71 percent on October 2020 and 89 percent on the same period in 2019. This does show that businesses are also adapting during the current Delta outbreak by improving the online function of their websites and introducing delivery and click and collect options. The Government has contributed to this with support programmes for people to move themselves online.
COVID-19 Response (Vaccinations) Legislation Bill — In Committee—Clauses 1 and 2
VoteHouse resumed.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): The committee has considered the COVID-19 Response (Vaccinations) Legislation Bill and reports it with amendment. Mr Speaker I move That the report be adopted.A party vote was called for on the question That the report be adopted.Ayes 75New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Noes 45New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Motion agreed to.Report adopted.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the question be now put.Ayes 75New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Noes 45New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Motion agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): The question is that Chris Bishop's tabled amendment replacing clause 1 to change the title to the COVID-19 Response (Traffic Light Framework) Legislation Bill be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Noes 75New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Amendment not agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That clause 1 be agreed to.Ayes 75New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Noes 45New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Clause 1 agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That clause 2 be agreed to.Ayes 75New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Noes 45New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Clause 2 agreed to.
VoteDr DUNCAN WEBB (Junior Whip—Labour): I move That the question be now put.A party vote was called for on the question That the question be now put.Ayes 75New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Noes 45New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Motion agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That Part 2 be agreed to.Ayes 75New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Noes 45New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Part 2 agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That Schedule 1 be agreed to.Ayes 75New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Noes 45New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Schedule 1 agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That Schedule 2 be agreed to.Ayes 75New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Noes 45New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Schedule 2 agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That Schedule 3 be agreed to.Ayes 75New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Noes 45New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Schedule 3 agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): The question is that the Hon Michael Wood's amendments to Schedule 4 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 100 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 75New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Noes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Amendments agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): The Hon Scott Simpson's tabled amendment to Schedule 4 to amend new clause 3(7) relating to prohibiting personal grievances is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.The question is that the Hon Michael Woodhouse's tabled amendment to Schedule 4 to insert new clause 3(7)(c) relating to prohibiting personal grievances when the assessment tool is not used be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Noes 75New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Amendment not agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That Schedule 4 as amended be agreed to.Ayes 75New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Noes 45New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Schedule 4 as amended agreed to.
COVID-19 Response (Vaccinations) Legislation Bill — In Committee—Part 2
COVID-19 Response (Vaccinations) Legislation Bill — In Committee—Part 1 (continued)
White HelenHELEN WHITE (Labour): It's a pleasure to rise and to end this debate. I think we all actually deserve to go home at this point. What I wanted to say finally is that I see this bill the Taxation (COVID-19 Support Payments and Working for Families Tax Credits) Bill as one I support because it comes out of a united Government that actually has managed to have a very coherent philosophy. And that philosophy is one that has got a sound moral basis. This package—this piece of legislation—will support businesses as we move into a framework where in fact they are open and that's a good thing. We're beginning the end of something that has been very traumatic for the country. But at the other side of this bill is a piece of work which is about bringing children out of poverty and I remind the Opposition that those children were in poverty when this Government took over. Thank you. I support the bill.
Lorck AnnaANNA LORCK (Labour—Tukituki): I rise to bring this bill of urgency home. As I do I would actually like to acknowledge Mr Bayly on the other side of the House. Throughout the entire time of urgency I have to say Mr Bayly you have shown a lot of energy from the beginning—a lot of energy. But I'd have to say by the end you have been rather flat.Now I think that we need to make it absolutely clear that this is a necessary piece of urgency as we prepare to go to the new framework where the entire country will be able to move into this new framework where we'll enable the opportunity for businesses who need resurgence support to have that delivered. This is why I will commend this bill to the House and thank everyone here who has been supporting it. Thank you Mr Speaker.
Halbert ShananSHANAN HALBERT (Labour—Northcote): Tēnā koe Mr Speaker. In one week's time this country will transition into the COVID-19 Protection Framework and for Aucklanders that is incredibly welcome but it does mean that some technical changes need to be made to current legislation to enable continued support to take place. Can I start by acknowledging the Minister of Revenue for his work but also the Government for the support packages that they have put in place to Auckland businesses. The businesses that I speak to speak very highly of the Resurgence Support Payments that have been in place and the $1.4 billion that has backed local businesses throughout this very very difficult period.But there are two particular elements to this bill—the changes to the family tax credits that will allow increases from 1 April next year. If we don't make this change now then that is not able to happen. This is why this particular bill needs to happen along with continuing the COVID support payment system. It needs to match up with the protection framework that we move into in one week's time. I commend this bill to the House.
Leary IngridINGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): There's been a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth about urgency from the other side of the House but can I remind this House that during National's time in Government urgency was used no less than 53 times. The principle of not using urgency in ordinary times is absolutely correct but these are not ordinary times as Mr Seymour has said. Delta is swift and nimble and we need to be able to respond.As the Otago University law professor Andrew Geddis who has already been named in the House tonight says the perfect can be the enemy of the good. I'm sure our business community would rather have us pass this legislation than be stymied by a select committee process that can't be in on time. I invite anybody who is watching this debate who wants to know the reasons why the process requires urgency to look at the excellent speech from my colleague Barbara Edmonds in the second reading.This legislation as pointed out by the Minister has two key components. One is to support families especially those who are earning below $40000 a year to take them with us. They have been very hard hit by COVID. Everybody has but they have especially. Secondly it is to allow the framework to support business as we change from the current framework to the traffic light system. It's pretty simple. There's no need for all the drama. I commend this bill to the House.
O'Connor GregGREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): That previous speaker reminds me of Donald Trump's standing saying: COVID COVID COVID I'm sick of it can't we talk about something else?" Well the reality of it is that I think when we are doing an archaeological dig of our society in some time they'll say this time that COVID changed everything that the world will never be the same again. So we can't get over it. We have to ensure that those changes—and they're very unpredictable; it was only this time last year we were predicting unemployment figures in double figures. We were predicting all sorts of catastrophes in our economy. Well they didn't come about. It has been an unpredictable outcome I suppose where we are now.The one thing that's incredibly important is that whatever happens—and we're not quite sure what's going to happens—we bring the least advantaged with us. The mere fact that we're talking about $20 a week for families and that will make a difference shows just how many families have to exist on very little. Twenty dollars a week; most of us will have spent that on a meal tonight just to put that into perspective. It's incredibly important we bring people with us. We don't know what's going to happen in the future. This bill allows us to at least ensure hard up families do get considered in the future. I commend the bill to the House."
Edmonds BarbaraBARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana): Thank you Mr Speaker. I'd like to be able to first of all thank the Minister the Hon David Parker for futureproofing the ability for there to be support for businesses during the COVID protection framework when it comes in in seven days' time. I acknowledge the Inland Revenue officials and the drafters for their work on this bill. The member that just sat down on the other side of the House Andrew Bayly said Why did it take a month for this bill to come to the Table?" The member obviously not being a Minister before doesn't realise that there are policy reports Cabinet papers regulatory impact statements and then you have to do drafting instructions and then you have to draft and then you have to review before it even gets tabled. So the fact that Inland Revenue managed to be able to do that amount of work within about a month's time is actually impressive.I said it once in the first reading and said it twice in the second reading and now I'll say it three times in case the volume of some of the speakers on the other side of the House was so loud that members didn't hear me before: the purpose of these rules—and if the members on the other side of the House want to oppose this bill which quite clearly they've done right throughout the stages—it means they do not support businesses receiving support from the Government if necessary when we move into the COVID protection framework in two weeks' time. It also means that members oppose as set out in the regulatory impact statement the disproportionate benefit that this bill delivers to Māori Pacific women families and children. So on that note I commend this bill to the House."
Parker David; Mallard TrevorThird ReadingHon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Revenue): I move That the Taxation (COVID19 Support Payments and Working for Families Tax Credits) Bill be now read a third time.Mr Speaker members of the House can I thank members for working on this under urgency. It's not a long bill—six pages long including a one-page index. It's been well traversed in the stages that we have just been through. There are two main aspects to it. The first is increasing the family tax credit by almost $15 per week for the eldest child in the family and around $13 per week for subsequent children—also some Consumers Price Index - indexed increases for the Best Start payment and an increase to the minimum family tax credit threshold that have also been explained.The other main part of the bill relates to amending the legislative framework governing the resurgence support payments. This change ensures that future activation of the scheme is not dependent on a change to alert levels as is currently stipulated in the framework. And this change is necessary because of the shift from the alert level framework to the COVID-19 Protection Framework.In addition to thanking members of the House for working on this under urgency can I thank officials for their work on this bill and commend it to the House.SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to.
Salesa JennyCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Mr Speaker the committee has considered the Taxation (COVID-19 Support Payments and Working for Families Tax Credits) Bill and reports it without amendment. I move That the report be adopted. Motion agreed to. Report adopted.
Wood MichaelHon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Transport): I move That the question be now put.
Parker DavidHon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Revenue): Thank you Madam Chair. The difference between the two figures as to the number of children lifted out of poverty being either 5000 or 6000 children depends on which measure is being used. Both figures were calculated by the Treasury. The 5000 children lifted out of poverty is based on the before housing costs measurement of poverty and the 6000 children lifted out of poverty is on the calculation after housing costs.
Upston LouiseHon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you Madam Chair. I think there's still quite a lot around the concept if the clear intention of this bill is around the reduction of child poverty. I don't think we've heard enough from the Minister in terms of the justification for why he thinks that will occur particularly given the very different numbers that we heard from members of the Labour Party in the first reading speeches. I also haven't heard any response in terms of the justification of how those numbers are derived. So I am looking forward to an answer to that.The other questions I have relate to why it is that when Labour announced these changes they weren't up front with the New Zealand public about the fact that the actual increase that was included in this package of legislation was only $5 a week. Actually the National Party had its own solution to this for a similar amount which would have been to actually allow people to keep more of what they earned themselves. I'd be interested to hear from the Minister of Revenue about the churn the cost of churn and the difference between taking tax off people and then returning it to them in another format through transfers called Working for Families and the efficiency of actually just allowing people to keep their money in the first place. Because at the end of the day that would have the same result in terms of money in people's pockets.The other part that I don't think has been addressed much at all in this debate although I know my colleague Andrew Bayly has raised it on a number of occasions is the fact that increases in the cost of living really have been an area that the Government could have focused on. Instead of focusing on this miserly $5 a week which they sold as $20 a week and why instead—if the focus was on targeting support what the alternatives were that were considered in terms of for example supporting those on benefit long term that could have been supported with a very intensive case management into employment which would of course provide three times as much income into that household and would have lifted far more children out of poverty.
Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much Madam Chair. I've got some questions tonight; some of them are relating to the bill and I'm going to ask those of the Minister because that's what I have come to this place to do.My questions are in relation to a number of the timings to which the bill applies and I do want to acknowledge that the Minister engaged with a related question that I had before. I was asking about whether it would not be better to have certain sections that will apply indefinitely tied to COVID legislation. The Minister pointed out quite rightly that a number of these provisions aren't anything to do with the COVID framework. So for example I had cited clause 14 which was in relation to the Best Start tax credit. So fair enough as far as it goes.But it does beg the question—in light of the fact that some of the provisions in Part 2 do relate to the COVID-19 support payments and the similarly named resurgence payments but others do not. So my question to the Minister is quite simply: why is this legislation—which I understand mostly will come into effect in April of next year—being put through the House now when obviously there will be many more opportunities to legislate those between now and that new tax year and to be able to do it in an environment that's not urgency and to allow for example a select committee process? Other colleagues have mentioned the desirability of that more generally and of course I would always agree with that and particularly to thrash out some of the technical issues as to whether the increased amounts are appropriate and even the design of the system more generally.So a reasonably narrow question in terms of why it should be that we are discussing this tonight in urgency as opposed to in a more measured way that's likely to produce good sound legislation and I refer to the bits that are not COVID-related within that Part 2 of the bill.
Upston LouiseHon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you Madam Chair. I've just had a wee chat to the Green member and I think on this occasion—there wouldn't be many—she's done more homework than I have. So I do want to come back to the point about the abatement rate.I think the Minister said that the cost was $90 million which is why that won't be happening. But I'm somewhat surprised because on the one hand the Government is crowing about a really generous package and how this going to be the answer to lifting children out of poverty and yet $90 million is an amount to quibble over. This year alone Ministry of Social Development underspent twice that amount $180 million on employment programmes. So kind of interesting that $90 million to families when it's keeping more of what you earn and reducing the effective marginal tax rate I would have thought would be quite useful.But anyway another question I've got for the Minister is the projections of the number of children that they will lift out of poverty and this is on the background to a promise in 2017 of 100000 children being lifted out of poverty when on that same measure actually there are 1500 more children. So I want to ask the Minister based on the regulatory impact statement that clearly talks about data uncertainty and the fact that there hasn't been sufficient time to consult on phase one so first of all what is the figure? Because we've heard 3000 6000 10000. Can he point to the section in the regulatory impact statement or any other evidence as to how those estimates have been derived?
Parker DavidHon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Revenue): Referring to the point that Mr—Andrew Bayly: Bayly.Hon DAVID PARKER: Bayly thank you.Andrew Bayly: I remember you too David.Hon DAVID PARKER: Ha ha! Yeah thank you—sorry about that. The point as to the difference in two of the calculations by the department as to the cost of this policy arises from the flow-on impact of other Government assistance—all of which is interconnected—and the difference between the annual cost under the two measures that they did was $2 million. That in the scheme of these sorts of numbers is almost margin of error. They do recalculate these figures periodically and when they did the numbers a second time and factored into account some of the interconnections with other Government assistance they came up with that minor difference.
Parker DavidHon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Revenue): Thank you Mr Chairman. Can I thank Jan Logie and the Hon Louise Upston for their contributions. I accept that their amendments proposed are similar. We will be voting against both of them. The additional fiscal cost of those measures would be $90 million per annum and we think the money is better directed in the fashion that we have proposed in this legislation rather than as has been proposed by those members.In respect of the efforts that we have made to lift children out of poverty that is one of the cornerstones of the Prime Minister's commitments to this country that she was elected to pursue. Through a myriad of changes to the Best Start payment—or the introduction of the Best Start payment—which is being increased by $5 per week per child through this bill but also through benefit increases the winter energy payment and changes like the change that we are now making to the family tax credit thousands of children have been lifted out of poverty; progress continues to be made.But not all of the recommendations of the expert advisory groups have yet been actioned and we're not supporting that amendment tonight.
Rurawhe AdrianPart 2 Amendments to Income Tax Act 2007CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Members we now come to the debate on Part 2. This is the debate on clauses 8 to 15 Amendments to Income Tax Act 2007. The question is that Part 2 stand part.
Parker DavidHon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Revenue): In respect of Chris Bishop's comments and questions this bill doesn't set up the COVID-19 Protection Framework or the traffic light system and so I can't answer those questions in the light of this particular bill because they are irrelevant to it.In respect of Christopher Luxon's questions he would be interested to know that the support of Auckland through the resurgence payments system under the current legislative framework has meant that 71 percent of the latest resurgence support payments has gone to Auckland and if the National Party doesn't vote for this bill suggesting as they have said that they don't want this to continue for the future then that level of support could not continue into the future which I find difficult to reconcile with earlier comments from Erica Stanford who wanted more information as to what the details would be but still doesn't seem to be willing to support the legislative framework that is necessary for resurgence support payments to continue under the new framework.Finally I would say that yes I am respectful of Thomas Piketty but I'm also quite interested in the works Esther Deflo Nobel Laureate at the moment.
Strange JamieJAMIE STRANGE (Labour—Hamilton East): I move That the question be now put.
Grigg NicolaNICOLA GRIGG (National—Selwyn): Thank you Mr Chair. It would've been a travesty to have shut this down too early. There's a lot of questions to be asked.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! The member shouldn't comment on such things.NICOLA GRIGG: I beg your pardon Mr Chair. It wasn't directed at you. To the Minister—CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Or comment on the ruling. NICOLA GRIGG: I'm still learning—like the Government I make it up as I go along. I just would like to return to the comments that I made earlier to the Minister around the South Island and the ongoing confusion. Look I do acknowledge the Minister of Revenue for at least answering most of our questions because other Ministers that have sat in the chair have tended to ignore them. But Minister you said earlier that the enforced lockdown the protracted period of level 2 that the South Island's been under was because of COVID. Well Minister as you well know there have been virtually zero cases of COVID in the South Island for a year. We've had two recently. It wasn't COVID Minister; it was a Government-enforced lockdown.I refer to the explanatory note of the bill here Minister where it talks about the framework to provide the Government with flexibility to continue supporting businesses" under a variety of circumstances including the move to the traffic light system. The variety of circumstances is what interests me here Minister and if I take the Canterbury DHB for example we have just 25 ICU beds. In Selwyn we have 92 percent double vaccination—Chris Bishop: How much?NICOLA GRIGG: —92 percent double vaccination—Chris Bishop: He said it was 100 percent last week.NICOLA GRIGG: That was single Christopher Bishop.Chris Bishop: Oh sorry sorry—100 percent?NICOLA GRIGG: Can I please get on with my comments? Thank you Mr Bishop. Minister how are these circumstances that I've outlined accounted for when assessing applications for future support payments that are outlined in this bill? We still haven't really had much of an explanation as to what level 2 as we know it now will become. Is it amber? Is it red? Is it green? What does it mean for businesses? Given the protracted period of level 2 most businesses are now really starting to suffer. Is there a clause in this bill for them to seek some redress from the Government?We are asking these questions Minister because as has been well canvassed the public has not been allowed to ask them because of this very very truncated process. There is no select committee process and we would like these questions answered on behalf of our constituents and business owners around the South Island. Thank you."
Parker David; Rurawhe AdrianHon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Revenue): I think the irony for listeners hearing this debate tonight would be that when they reflect that the earlier version of the Resurgence Support Payment that this replaces it's in virtually identical form except it links through to the COVID protection framework rather than the alert level system the National Party voted for.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Oh I think we'll have a kaumātua view—Ian McKelvie.
Grigg Nicola; Parker DavidNICOLA GRIGG (National—Selwyn): Thank you Madam Chair. I rise to ask a couple of questions of the Minister on behalf on behalf of South Island business operators but I'm sure the MP for Waitaki will understand why I'm doing this.Minister I spoke earlier this morning in the first part of this bill about the deep deep ramifications that this protracted period of alert level 2 has had on South Island businesses. If you wouldn't mind I want to run you through a couple of scenarios that I've got in my own electorate. One is a health-based business that deals primarily in elderly clientele. She has not been able to have her clientele through her doors but by definition of an alert level 2 she has to remain open. This woman has been paying her staff and her rent out of her life-savings for the past 12 months.Another example I have is what was once formerly an inbound tour operator who dealt with high-end clients from India had a range of Mercedes-Benz vans bought in high-end clients took them on luxury tours around the South Island—a really good little business. Overnight when our borders were closed that business ceased to exist effectively. This person paid for all of his drivers to go and get their Uber licensing to try and keep their heads above water. He has on periodic occasions sold off his vans one by one by one—I think he's now down to one van left—just to pay his own rent and live his life. He hasn't been able to apply for any form of Resurgence Support Payment under this alert level 2.So what we in the South Island want to know is: where does this bill provide for what was once alert level 2 what is that going to become and what is the payment support framework that will be attributed to these new red amber green - type alert levels? Let's for argument's sake say that what was once the alert level 2 framework now becomes the amber light framework but that those businesses did not meet the criteria or standards to get any form of Government support. If we are to remain in a protracted period of the amber colour for sake of argument how are these businesses supposed to survive? Is there any discretion within this bill for these people to be able to get some kind of Government support? Minister when these people come back to me next time and when this tour operator says I've sold my last van. I've got nothing left." what do I say to them?Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Revenue): I think we're all sympathetic for the plight of people who are adversely affected by the virus. Some of those people have suffered terrible consequences for their businesses and that's caused by the virus; not by what the Government has done."
Woodhouse MichaelHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you Madam Chair. I don't want to get in the way of my learned colleagues but I appreciate being able to take a call to clarify the question that I asked and I apologise if it wasn't clear to the Minister. It was not whether the Government envisaged never making resurgence payments or whatever the current nomenclature is—I think that's an R" word so it probably isn't in the new bill—but whether it envisages a scenario where we get to 3 December the start line for the traffic light system and there is a scenario where support payments would not be required on that day because that was the argument that Mr Bayly was putting up for having clarity for business by the end of play tomorrow and the Minister's answer implied or at least I took the implication that that meant that the Government was contemplating no support payments at that time.I absolutely understand that the circumstances with the virus and with the need to further constrain businesses in the future even under the traffic light system may warrant the creation of a support payment framework after that when circumstances change. But the way the Minister was describing it suggested a lack of urgency because actually the Government wasn't contemplating business not needing that from next Friday and I think that if that's the case well at least let's be honest with business about that because what I have been asking for is actually some clarity about what we can see in the way we got it in February. If that clarity involves "OK business you're opening up. You're not going to get support from the taxpayer. That's where we going to have the start line. If things change we'll change."—if that's the message we're sending to business that's fine. But I apologise if I wasn't clear in my initial question. It wasn't that there wouldn't be support for all time; it would be the envisaging of no support on 3 December."
Parker DavidHon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Revenue): If I could respond to a number of the questions that have been raised the Hon Michael Woodhouse asked me to confirm whether we thought it would ever be necessary to use this new framework—Hon Michael Woodhouse: No no it's not ever" but next week.Hon DAVID PARKER: No you asked me to confirm if we thought it would ever be necessary—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Not the Speaker though.Hon DAVID PARKER: —sorry; not the Speaker but the member did—and obviously we wouldn't be passing this legislation if we didn't think it might be necessary to use it.In respect of the Hon Gerry Brownlee's question before he took his seat the main change here is to enable a similar scheme to the Resurgence Support Payment scheme to be activated under the traffic light system should it be needed. It cannot be activated for the traffic light system unless these amendments are passed because the current legislative code ties it to changes in alert levels. It was designed to be an instrument in respect of the resurgence of COVID associated with alert level changes. That now changes as we have moved from elimination to minimising the virus through the traffic light system. As other members have already referred to the Prime Minister confirmed on a number of occasions today that under the traffic light system businesses can operate albeit in circumstances that they can't under the alert level system; albeit with vaccine certificate requirements on occasions. So these changes need to be accommodated in the compensatory payments that can sometimes be made by Order in Council by changing the legislative framework to allow that in the future."
SpeechIn Committee
White HelenHELEN WHITE (Labour): I rise in support of this bill. One of the things that I've heard repeatedly today is that the Government got it right a year ago but it's not getting it right now. It's the very same philosophy that's the essence of this bill. So rest assured too New Zealanders who are listening tonight this is a response to a change in a system which is changing because the vaccination numbers are up as high as they are. It means that we have another tool in the toolbox. From the end of this week we're going to be in a position where actually businesses mainly stay open.Now some of those businesses will be affected in some more subtle ways. This system that we're introducing tonight means that those people in those businesses can have a response. Without it actually the support that the Government could give would all be hedged around an old system and an out-of-date linguistics. So right now this bill is really important to put through to support the businesses that are suffering the most. I recognise that those businesses support workers. I'm very proud of the fact that we have maintained our employment in this country. I support the bill.
Henderson EmilyDr EMILY HENDERSON (Labour—Whangārei): Kia ora e te Māngai o te Whare. I am delighted to stand up take a very short call and bring this bill home in its current reading. For the members opposite to suggest that this means nothing to the average parents trying to make a living it shows just how out of touch they are. This is incredibly significant. As my colleague Liz Craig has just said this is one more of the small incremental changes we are making that make a big difference to the average small New Zealand family. And what's more it makes one heck of a difference to our average employer because I just on Monday night got off a phone call with about 18 of my local businesses and this is exactly what they were asking for. This is exactly the certainty they wanted. I commend this bill to the House.
Craig LizDr LIZ CRAIG (Labour): Thank you Madam Speaker. Reducing child poverty is a big priority for this Government. If you look back what we see is that child poverty really really increased really rapidly in the early 1990s and it's been slow to come back down. But once we got into Government we started to turn that around. Just thinking through the things that we've done since coming into Government: Best Start payment for newborn babies which was $60 a week and this bill will bring it up to $65 a week; increases in Working for Families; we've looked at putting in place the winter energy payment which means that families can afford to turn the heater on in winter; and we've increased benefits and we're going to do that again with further increases next year.So this bill here actually just increases more in terms of extra little bits for family income because I think each little bit—what we used to see historically is that gradual erosion of family income with a bit taken off here or there. What we've been doing since coming into Government is putting extra in across a whole range of areas which will make a big difference in terms of having enough money in the pocket to put food on the table to pay for the heater. So I'm really happy to commend this bill to the House.
Leary Ingrid; Dean JacquiINGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): I'm rather surprised to hear from that member Damien Smith who I enjoy sitting on the Finance and Expenditure Committee with telling our Prime Minister off for her ambition to lift children out of poverty. I do not apologise for absolutely supporting that ambition; that is why many of us on this side of the House are in Parliament. That member knows as well that Treasury has spoken to us recently in very glowing terms about the Government's handling of the pandemic and the economic response.This piece of legislation must be considered in terms of the trends and what this Government has done over a period of time to support our most vulnerable. It is not about the small incremental changes; it is about what has happened since we've been in Government. Since 2017 changes to the welfare payments and tax credits have lifted the incomes of 100000 families and whānau with children by $175 a week. That is no small measure. That makes a real difference and I absolutely commend this bill to the House.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The Hon Todd McClay—five minutes.
Edmonds BarbaraBARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana): Thank you Mr Speaker. I'm going to spend my time to answer a couple of the questions that the other members on the other side of the House were firing at us on this side. I'm sure the Minister will also cover a lot of it in the committee of the whole House. I don't need to shout to make my point across. Perhaps if they spent more energy actually reading the bill the Taxation (COVID-19 Support Payments and Working for Families Tax Credits) Bill the Tax Administration Act (TAA) the documents that came with the bill then their own questions would be answered if they actually read it.So to their question What does the grant look like? Who receives it? When do they receive it?" the Tax Administration Act that this bill is changing Section 7AAC that particular section never had that information. In the primary legislation it allows for an Order in Council which then covers that information. So therefore Treasury said that this bill for those changes didn't need a regulatory impact statement (RIS). The reason why it didn't need a regulatory impact statement was because it was minor—it was technical. So therefore the policy hasn't significantly shifted. Therefore those questions about the "who what when why" will still be covered in an Order in Council just like it is currently under the TAA.The second question around urgency "Why do you need urgency?" it's right throughout the disclosure statement. It says on the back page—easily said on the back page—it needs the preferred option to include an urgent primary legislation prior to December 2021. That is to allow for sufficient time for the IRD and the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) to implement the necessary system changes. Why do you need the urgency for the COVID protection framework? It comes in two weeks' time. So if you don't put this legislation in if you don't have it ready for the COVID protection framework businesses will have nothing—absolutely nothing. Because there is no grant framework that comes with it.So therefore if you don't support this bill you don't support businesses you don't support Māori Pacific people women family and children and that's why I commend this bill to the House."
Webb DuncanDr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Tēnā koe Mr Speaker. I've got really one thing to say to Mr Bayly about that speech: please don't shout so much. Your colleagues need hearing protection; it's quite harmful. But look the fact of the matter is that this bill is going to enable this Government to continue to support business the way that it has to date. The fact is that we want to be able to remain nimble and alert and so this is exactly the right situation to create powers so that we're not constrained that we don't have to follow a strict constrained regime of payment. We can look where they're needed when they're needed and how they're needed and that's what we've done to date. So we've been able to adapt the Resurgence Support Payment so that it's not a one-off; it's regular. We've been able to extend the wage subsidy and increase it and a whole lot of other measures which have supported all of those businesses which are so important to our economy. This bill is an important part of moving that forward into the traffic light framework. It's absolutely going to work it's the right thing to do and I absolutely commend it to the House.
White HelenHELEN WHITE (Labour): I rise in support of this bill and I'm just going to take a short call because it's all it requires. This is a bill that supports at both ends. This is a Government that has recognised the need for resurgence payments and it has made sure that when it has changed its system it has made that system even more flexible. So this is a system that will allow the Governor-General by Order in Council to authorise grants that will be able to make the system that we now have respond to the needs of our small businesses. As an Aucklander I know how much of a crisis they are in and I know that this Government will recognise and support those areas where there needs to be the most support at this stage. That might be called by some a handout. I do not believe it is. I think we're all the team and what we're doing here is we've got one side of the equation with those businesses but we've got the other with beneficiaries and I'm absolutely proud at the real work we are doing in the area. I commend this bill to the House.
O'Connor GregGREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): I presume that members opposite like members here are out and about in their electorates and that they're speaking with tradies in particular and business owners. One of the biggest problems they all have is that they're not complaining about no money no work no orders; what they're complaining about is an inability to get workers. That's the one common denominator which would certainly make a lie of much of what we've heard from the opposite side today. So the country is actually doing particularly well when we get to that stage with this being evidenced by the unemployment rate. However there are always going to be those that are left behind and left behind" means we will never fill those vacancies because of a lack of education or a lack of opportunity. The fact I would like everyone here to reflect on is that this is actually only going to add $20 a week to the budgets of many of these families. Well that you can be in a position where $20 a week will make so much of a difference just shows that there are those that do need all the help that they can get so that they can be part of this country's move to ensuring that we do get the workers we need. This is a bill that's needed and I commend it to the House."
Halbert ShananSHANAN HALBERT (Labour—Northcote): Thank you Mr Speaker Amongst all the yelling and shouting this afternoon we have a very important bill that does change the lives of many New Zealanders and unlike the former speaker I'm very very keen to talk very briefly on the taxation bill that's before the House this afternoon. We know that COVID has been difficult for many and we've heard lots of discussion and we've talked about the needs of businesses and I absolutely agree; I've seen it firsthand myself. But at the other end while over the three months of lockdown and our challenging times in Auckland while delivering food packages and getting out and supporting our vaccination effort we've seen the bottom end of town and the needs the desperate needs that are in front of us. That is what this bill is about.Mr Seymour referenced a song about not many if any. Mr Seymour I will stand by the Government's record on supporting our most vulnerable and doing what is needed. One year into the game and we have done an incredible job under the most difficult circumstances and when we look at such bills like this 346000 families will be better off. I stand by that Mr Seymour and am incredibly proud of the work that this Government does and I commend this bill to the House.
Leary Ingrid; Rurawhe AdrianINGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): I had hoped to speak about the most exciting part of this bill which is raising 3000 more children out of poverty and that's on top of the 33000 that were raised out of poverty earlier this year with the changes we made. However it would be remiss of me not to respond to the comments from Mr Bayly and Mr Seymour regarding inflation—inflation that they know is temporary because in fact we have one of the strongest economies in the world. The Reserve Bank in its snapshot this afternoon in fact talked about the strength of the economy and the fact that our relatively high inflation is expected to drop incrementally as our borders reopen. Today we heard the reopening announcement. We heard the reaction from Export New Zealand who said today's announcement will allow exporters to start reconnecting to their customers get back out into the world and win more work. And may I remind the House that fully vaccinated Kiwis will be able to travel to and from Australia from 16 January to other countries from 13 February and all other countries to and from New Zealand from 30 April with a reopening staged over time. So the inflation we know is temporary. It is a direct result of COVID. COVID is why we are introducing family credits to support our lowest-income families and the only divisiveness that is being created in New Zealand is coming from opposite benches in the House. We have a very high approval rate thanks to the team of 5 million. A recent survey showed that 70 percent of New Zealanders agree with the direction of travel—that's 70 percent advantage points. So I will look forward to speaking about lifting children out of poverty the next time we speak on this in the House.DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is a split call. I call the Hon Todd McClay.