edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
2. Question No. 2—FinanceGREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu) to the Minister of FinanceQuestion No. 2—Finance2. GREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Today ASB have produced their quarterly economic forecast for New Zealand entitled A demonstration of resilience. It states that they now expect that the economic decline as a consequence of COVID-19 to be around half the decline we anticipated". They state that this reflects the level of Government support the quick exit from lockdown and continued consumer spending. As ASB has put it "Fear of losing jobs has quickly given way to fear of missing out on a bargain or some fun." Their quarterly report also states "[New Zealand's] economic activity bounced back remarkably quickly once alert level restrictions were gradually eased through May and June and by July the [New Zealand] economy almost felt like business as usual." While there are many New Zealanders who continue to struggle with the impacts of COVID-19 the New Zealand economy is recovering.Greg O'Connor: Has the Minister seen any reports on small-business activity?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well yes I have. I've seen data from Xero's Small Business Insights report that analyses trends from small businesses across New Zealand. Their latest data shows the number of jobs in small businesses across Aotearoa grew 1.4 percent during the month and they're now above pre-crisis levels. Craig Hudson from Xero noted that "With the exception of hospitality jobs in all industries across the country have recovered to at or above pre-crisis levels. The manufacturing and retail industries in particular have seen good recovery during the month."Hon Julie Anne Genter: Is he concerned by reports from Westpac chief economist Dominick Stephens that suggest putting up the top tax rate to 39 percent without implementing a capital gains tax will further increase house prices and thereby inequality?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I've seen a range of views on that matter including from Dominick Stephens. What I can say is that on this side of the House we believe that it is the right measure to see those who earn the most in our economy pay a little bit more to ensure that we can go on with our COVID recovery and continue to provide health and education services.Hon Julie Anne Genter: Has he seen data from the OECD that house price increase over the past year in New Zealand has been many times higher than in comparable countries that also happen to have capital gains taxes or other types of asset taxes?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well I've actually seen conflicting advice on that matter particularly in terms of recent months."
Rurawhe AdrianCHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Members I'm going to refer to the new Standing Orders that we can finish up to five minutes early. Therefore the time has come for me to leave the Chair. The committee is suspended until 9 a.m. tomorrow morning. Debate interrupted.Sitting suspended from 9.57 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Thursday)
Bayly Andrew; Parker DavidANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you Mr Chair. I just want to turn to the question of the $180000. First of all we really never had a proper explanation around why $180000 and a tax rate of 39 percent was decided on and put forward in this bill and so it would be useful to have the context of why the rate of 39 percent—why it wasn't 37 percent or why it wasn't 40—and why it was struck at $180000. But just on the issue of the $180000 I have put forward a Supplementary Order Paper because one of the issues that we're worried about in the National Party and we proposed it privately last election is this issue of fiscal creep or tax bracket creep where people end up being pushed into higher tax rates as a result of inflation.So my Supplementary Order Paper deals with this issue. If there's to be consistent practice then it would be appropriate that not only are other lower forms of personal tax subject to a Consumers Price Index - type index so that they're increased—otherwise hard-working New Zealanders will inevitably end up getting into a higher tax rate merely through the impact of inflation. I think it's important that we make sure that hard-working New Zealanders aren't subject to unnecessary tax just because of inflation. It should be as a result of genuine increases in their wages and salaries other than through the impact of inflation over time.Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Revenue): Just before I reply to that officials have just passed me a note in respect of minor beneficiaries as opposed to adult beneficiaries. There is already a provision that allows the Revenue to move against payments to minor beneficiaries to prevent that being used to pay out income at a low rate but the rule doesn't apply to adult beneficiaries. In respect of the issue as to inflation adjustment of the different thresholds at which different tax rates apply we will be voting against that amendment also and we would note that in the nine years of the prior National Government of which the member was part they never introduced that rule when they had the opportunity to do so if they thought it being wise.
Bayly Andrew; Parker DavidANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): So can Minister Parker just clarify what he means by that statement about tax avoidance? Does he agree that using a trust structure where money is paid out to beneficiaries albeit maybe at a lower tax rate—is that legitimate that practice? But secondly what would stimulate the Minister contemplating an increase in the tax rate on trusts as a result of tax avoidance? What does he mean by the statement tax avoidance" other than the practice that would generally happen in a trust?Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Revenue): I've already listed in detail the legitimate reasons why you can have trusts and have income being attributed to beneficiaries who pay a lower rate of tax than 33c in the dollar for good and proper reasons. In truth I think most people in this country would be surprised that the Inland Revenue Department doesn't really know the extent to which trusts are being used for tax avoidance purposes. It's notable that in a lot of other countries Revenue does have that information. After tomorrow after this legislation passes the revenue authorities in New Zealand will be able to be in the same position as revenue authorities in other countries."
Willis Nicola; Parker DavidNICOLA WILLIS (National): Mine is a very brief question. I know that there are members with a lot of questions to ask. My question is simply around this issue of the trustee rate and how much revenue that would increase. What I note in the documents is that there's an estimate that increasing that rate would generate $1.5 billion in additional revenue. Obviously that stands out as a particular temptation for any Minister that enjoys the revenue that comes from tax. The Minister of Revenue will be looking at that number and thinking How do I get my hands on it?" potentially and I invite the Minister to disabuse me of that notion if it's incorrect.So my question is simply: at what point or what factors would lead the Minister to believe that the information he's collected suggests there's such a pattern of behaviour that he would be justified in taking that additional $1.5 billion in revenue and increasing that top tax rate? Can the Minister outline for us and illustrate more specifically what factors would be at play for the Government to choose to increase that trust rate?Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Revenue): Trusts have many legitimate purposes. Tax avoidance is not one of them.In respect of David Seymour's points in respect of Mr Bayly's Supplementary Order Paper 1 well that's not for me to argue for that on behalf of Mr Bayly suffice to say that the Labour Party will be voting against that Supplementary Order Paper 1."
Bayly AndrewANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): I want to return to what you were talking about before—I don't think the Minister is suggesting this but I want to check. Does the Minister have concern with trusts being used as a conduit where money is being paid into the trust or incomes directed through the trust and paid out to beneficiaries at a lower rate of tax? I'd just like him to first of all confirm whether or not he has concerns with that practice at the moment. But my second question given his comments before: what then is his concern about the way that trusts are going to be used in the future that would give rise to the Minister contemplating increasing the trusts rate of tax?
Shaw James; Parker David; Rurawhe AdrianHon JAMES SHAW (Minister of Climate Change): Thank you Mr Chair. Just a brief question to the Minister. In relation to the earlier line of questioning he was talking about the powers that are in the bill to keep an eye on what's happening in terms of behaviour change as related to people diverting income towards trusts and so on. The thing that I'm most worried about is actually the effect of that on asset values. So whilst keeping an eye on what's going on in terms of behaviour is useful it's somewhat too late if by the time it's happened people have diverted some of their remuneration package into trusts which then inflates property and other asset values and further increases the gap between people who have wealth on the one hand and people who earn a living but don't have wealth on the other. So I just wanted to ask for his thoughts on I guess the lag effect between being able to get the information using the powers that are in the bill and the actual effect of that on asset prices and asset value inflation and the potential then for that growing gap between people who have wealth on the one hand and people who work but don't have wealth on the other.Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Revenue): These things are very hard to quantify to the extent that there are investment signals that are imperfect in New Zealand based on tax signals for certain forms of investment compared with others. My own view is that the change from 33c to 39c for incomes over $180000 won't have much of an effect on that. Those background issues are not resolved through this but I don't think they're made much worse in it. I give the example of someone who earns $200000. That would be $20000 that would attract 6c higher tax which would be $1200 a year which is $23 a week. I don't think it would change investment behaviour much. Andrew Bayly: Mr Chair?CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! Members shouldn't seek the call until the person with the call has actually sat down.
Bayly Andrew; Parker DavidANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): I was just fascinated with the Minister's comments before. So the Minister of Finance said two months ago that there would be no new increases in tax other than the 39 percent change that we're debating tonight. What I just heard from the Minister was his concern that trusts are being used so that money is diverted—using his words—or sent via a trust and then that is used as an arrangement to pay beneficiaries at a lower rate. Is he now saying to the House that that approach which is legitimate at the moment is very much of concern and he will seek to change the trust tax rate and the trust rules to stop that practice from occurring in the future?Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Revenue): Dealing with Nicola Willis' question—and I apologise again for forgetting your surname. I sometimes I think do it with my own children just about. I'm terrible with names. The revenue varies from year to year in part because of provisional terminal tax payments. I think it peaks at about $800 million is the prediction but the average over the longer term is expected to be $550 million per annum which is why that number's been used by other members.In respect of the trust issue the Minister of Finance when he was asked these questions during the election campaign said we're not campaigning on increasing the rate of the trust tax rate but we will look at the issue if there's a lot of tax avoidance. The advice that we got from the Commissioner of Inland Revenue and the department after we won the election—and this is disclosed in these papers—is that there is a heightened risk that they're more worried about than perhaps we were. Therefore they say that we need to keep an eye on it and they need the powers that are in this bill in order to keep an eye on it. So we've got no current plan to increase the trust tax rate but we're not promising that we won't. We're just going to see what's happening. Whilst I'm on my feet I want to deal with the amendment that sits in my name as having been filed at 12.21 p.m. It hasn't got a number on it. It's an amendment to clause 33.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! That's in Part 2.Hon DAVID PARKER: Oh sorry Mr Chair.
Willis NicolaNICOLA WILLIS (National): I welcome this back and forth. It's actually very important for this bill where there has been an absence of a select committee process and where by Minister Parker's recent admission there are significant matters relating to the way in which trusts pay tax that have not previously been canvassed in the public domain or in Labour Party manifesto policy. So it is very appropriate that we use this committee process to ask questions about those clauses.Before I move to a question I want to ask I do just want to address a comment that the Minister made where he talked about me saying that cutting taxes is more fun. I'll remind the Minister—who I remember going to a shared dinner with Al Gore almost a decade ago; so I certainly remember his name—that having been a member of the National Party for a very long time it should come as no surprise to Minister Parker that I enjoy letting people keep more of their money far more than I do confiscating that money from them and that is a principle that I hold dear to.But moving to my question on the bill my first is a technical question and it relates to the revenue that this new tax rate will raise. The reason this is important of course is we only need to go back to the purpose statement of the bill which is explicit that the reason that we are here under urgency passing this bill is that this is all about raising revenue. So it is of some issue that the estimated revenue that the Inland Revenue Department have shared with us is incredibly lumpy. We're looking at $95 million in revenue this next year increasing to $160 million in 2021-22 then leaping up in the 2022-23 year to $830 million and then dropping back again the next year to $540 million. I just invite the Minister: would he please address for me—would he elucidate explain to this member—why we're seeing such a lumpy pattern of revenue and whether the Minister can explain why that is.
Parker DavidHon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Revenue): The issue of revenue was first and foremost in the Government's mind. A secondary consideration that I think I've already covered quite well—or it's not for me to say whether I've covered well but I've attempted to cover—is the issue of tax fairness.In respect of trusts while I'm on my feet I'll address something that Nicola Willis raised in her second reading contribution which she said she'd like me to address during the committee stage which is why we have these powers to get further information from trusts. We've had very strong advice which we've disclosed to the House in the associated documents that there is a significant risk that trusts will be used increasingly as an avoidance mechanism. The advice that we had from revenue officials which we have accepted is that we should be looking into that. In order to look into that we need the ability to gather the information which is not gathered retrospectively; it is gathered prospectively. But the information that is gathered prospectively includes information from yesteryear to compare with current and future practices so that you can see whether there was a pattern of changed behaviour.Where do the avoidance risks lie? Well it's not just in the fact that income could be earned through an alternative vehicle paying a lower rate than the 39c rate namely the 33c in the dollar tax rate paid by trusts. It's also the ability for trusts to declare some income to be beneficiary income rather than trustee income. Trustees under the tax Act can nominate that income that is earned through the trust is attributed to beneficiaries of the trust in that income year which then flows that income through to the beneficiary of that trust at the tax rate payable by the beneficiary. Now that's often very proper; there are some very good and proper reasons to have trusts for example for the protection of a disabled child or for the delay in paying money to a child under an estate—for example if their parent dies while they're still young it's quite proper that the income accrued to the benefit of a child beneficiary until they gain a later age. Those are very proper uses of trusts and we're not concerned about that.But it is also possible and this is a pattern that's not really a pattern of behaviour except for very wealthy people to use trusts to effectively divert income from the primary taxpayer through a trust to a beneficiary on a lower tax rate. If that becomes a prevalent form of behaviour—it's already possible to do that for reasons of tax advantage even with the tax rate at 33c in the dollar for trusts. It does become a greater incentive to do that if you like at a higher marginal tax rate elsewhere in the tax system of 39c in the dollar. If that behaviour is prevalent we want to know about it. We want to know how much that's currently happening in respect of this differential between a 33c in the dollar trustee rate and maximum income tax rate and some beneficiary trust rates. We're pretty blind as to what is happening now. We think for tax policy reasons we need to know that.
Woodhouse MichaelHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you Mr Chair. Just a quick supplementary—firstly a comment on that and then a question about the estimated revenue from the new tax rate. The Minister in the chair David Parker is right that the previous conversation about this had a 5c differential between the company tax rate and the top personal income tax rate. We're now talking about potentially 11c to 13c. Is the company tax rate still 28c or has it gone to 26?Hon David Parker: 28.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I think we looked at it but—so it's an 11c differential which is a significant difference more than double what the current differential is. The Penny and Hooper case was an extreme one—there's no doubt about that—where surgeons were actually paying themselves the sorts of salaries a senior house officer or a junior registrar would get and that was despite them having been consultants in private practice for a considerable period of time. But even so there was a dissenting view by Justice France I think in that case and the question of whether that case will apply in all circumstances is an open one.We're not talking about orthopaedic surgeons earning a million dollars a year; we're talking about Joe and Jill the plumber the garden maintenance person the electrician who may have been in a sole trader situation and had been given advice by their accountant or lawyer to say well look that could lead you to a couple of situations not the least of which is a personal liability that might accrue which wouldn't be the case under a limited liability company but the effort that would be gone to which would also have the secondary impact of a lower year-on-year tax rate may now become very much in focus. I have no doubt that it's not an avoidance strategy but simple tax planning and personal estate planning that the Minister himself I'm sure embarked on from time to time in his practice as a lawyer in Dunedin. That was just the observation; it went longer than I thought it would.The question is this: if we can't get the exact degree of analysis by officials on the degree to which the estimated revenues were calculated and in what scenarios can we reverse the question say to what degree did that matter to the Government? To what degree was the collection of revenue a material factor in the increasing of the top personal tax rate? Might if the advice from IRD had been that it was under a hundred million dollars a year under $50 million a year would the Government have turned around and said You know what? It's not worth it."? We may as a consequence of increasing the top personal tax rate earn less revenue than we would otherwise because of the entity flipping that the Minister is so concerned about particularly with trusts. So was revenue in itself a material factor in the decision to introduce this bill or—and I believe that this is the case in any event—is this a matter of principle that those who are earning over $180000 should pay a top marginal tax rate of 39c regardless of whether the Crown benefited from it or not?"
Rurawhe AdrianIn CommitteePart 1 Income tax rate amendmentsCHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Members the House is in committee on the Taxation (Income) Tax Rate and Other Amendments Bill. Members we come first to Part 1. This is the debate on clauses 3 to 31 Income tax rate amendments. The question is that Part 1 stand part.
Dean JacquiASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Taxation (Income Tax Rate and Other Amendments) Bill.
O'Connor GregGREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): Again a lot of the arguments we're hearing from the other side of the House are not against this legislation; they're against tax full stop. I look at the timing of this bill and it couldn't really be better. I think while the previous speaker Damien Smith spoke of combing the country and finding no one who was going to be affected by this tax being in favour of it he's not speaking to the same people that I am because actually many of the people—in fact most of the people—I've spoken to who are going to be affected by this tax actually agree with it because what they've seen is how New Zealand has succeeded through a very collective approach through COVID. The countries that haven't succeeded—and we don't have to look very far across the Pacific to see one where what the very individualistic approach—low tax devil take the hindmost approach—has seen is I think the death score up to about 250000 and climbing. Because it's only through this sort of co-operative society where those who actually—we understand that we all benefit. Again in my first reading speech I mentioned the quality of the speakers we'd heard during their maiden speeches tonight who invariably spoke of their journey from immigrants to being able to be highly productive members of New Zealand society through the investment that was made in their families through the tax system. I have absolutely no hesitation in commending this bill to the House.
Smith DamienDAMIEN SMITH (ACT): Thank you very much—yes that is. Congratulations on your role. It's amazing to be here a couple of weeks and listen to all the schools of economics that have been purported tonight. I'll introduce a new one which is the Lenin school of economics and that's pretty last century as well OK? You know this is a bit of an overreach in several areas and I think it should be recommended to the Finance and Expenditure Committee. I think also the issue about the IRD having to have it all ready—we know it can be switched on pretty quickly but we've got a couple of points that we wanted to make from the ACT Party which is that we've been up and down the country as well talking to these people who are actually getting this tax applied to them and they don't want it. So I know you're saying you've got a mandate but you've got a mandate by a popular vote of people who wanted to drive this into a minority group and it is a minority because it's a small amount of people. We think that that isn't going to play well with the productive side of the economy.We've been listening to the people out there and we're now 20th in the global setup for GDP. We're now introducing a sort of low-in-innovation R & D approach and now a high-tax economy and that's not right. So what is the marginal incentive to this because we know that this is five days of income for the Government's books—what happens for the rest of the 360-so-odd days? So we want to actually incentivise people. We think this is a side goal. We don't think it's got legitimacy. It's not fair and it's an imposition to taxpayers.I caught Grant Robertson saying that it will improve the wellbeing and living standards of all New Zealanders to produce a sustainable and productive and inclusive economy as we deliver jobs with high wages and deliver an exciting and expanding economy. From ACT's point of view we see this is quite a different approach that you're taking to this versus the approach that you took to Pharmac today as an example. So we don't support this. The Government's moves to increase taxes we believe is—[Interruption] When you've got productivity higher and growth higher we believe that you can talk about fairness but there's also another word: it's called vindictiveness right? So we want to balance out this whole fairness thing with actually giving people a fair go and that includes people that are the most productive people in the economy as well. Why shouldn't they get that?So in terms of this tax reform we think at a time that we're trying to grow the economy this Government's got its priorities all wrong. People are productive assets too. The people that we're talking about—and I'm relating back to the bill—who are getting punished for this are productive people and we want to see them getting a fair go with a fair standard. They already pay most of the tax—you seem to forget that.So what we'd like to do is ask the Government to consider taking this back through the proper processes really addressing the issues on privacy. You know the Finance and Expenditure Committee's actually meeting in the morning so we can get it on the agenda and do some work. Thank you.
Webb DuncanDr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you Madam Speaker. Well what a shambles they are on the other side floundering around fishing for things to point out. This is a perfectly valid well-drafted bill; a simple piece of tax legislation. Andrew Bayly there was trying to pretend that these tweaks were new taxes. We know that if you change the income tax rate you've got to change fringe benefit tax and resident withholding tax. It goes as night follows day.Andrew Bayly was talking about interest rates. Allegedly he was once an international financier. He couldn't even tell us what our own Reserve Bank could borrow money at. He does really need to do a little bit more research before he stands up. This is a bill we went to the electorate on. It's a bill we have a mandate to pass. We would be dishonest and in breach of our election commitments if we didn't do exactly this. This is a bill that makes New Zealand fairer and I'm very proud to support it in this House.
Russell DeborahDr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn): Thank you. I just want to address some of the issues very briefly which the previous speaker has raised. He raised a worry about people finding New Zealand less attractive because of the change in the income tax rate and raised that issue. That's normally a worry that's associated with the company tax rate rather than the individual income tax rates and I just note that there is no change to the company tax rate. He raised a concern that this tax rate would in fact be applied to a whole lot of different taxes" he called them in the Income Tax Act. In fact fringe benefit tax and employer superannuation contribution tax and resident withholding tax and the like they are all mechanisms for collecting income tax in various forms. In order to keep the integrity of the 39 percent rate it simply needs to be spread across the different mechanisms for collecting tax and that is all that is going on in that space. So it just keeps that 39 percent rate consistent across all the collection methods for tax. There is no worry with that. Inland Revenue and legislative drafters are quite used to putting through tax rate changes—it's been done many many times before—so the number of schedules in here is nothing complicated. That is well rehearsed and well achieved previously and it's something that does not really add to any complexity. It's just a simple method for getting the 39 percent rate into the legislation.I wanted to note just two further points. During the election campaign when we campaigned on a 39 percent rate and New Zealand voted for a 39 percent rate that's what it means when you have an outright majority in the House. It was clearly endorsed by us. We also made it clear at that time that we would keep an eye on what was going on with other entities and if necessary revisit the issue of doing something in respect of those. So that's a matter where we have a watching brief and that is exactly what we are doing with the provisions in this bill. This is an excellent bill and I commend it to the House."
O'Connor GregGREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): It was a real shame that there weren't a few more people on the opposite side of the House tonight when we had some maiden speeches. There were some very moving speeches made tonight. We had my new colleagues from Sri Lanka the Cook Islands three from Samoa and there was a consistency that ran through those speeches—they were all families that arrived—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! I do hope the member is going to come to the bill very soon.GREG O'CONNOR: Oh Madam Speaker it will become very obvious if Madam Speaker would just take a little patience.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Well very soon.GREG O'CONNOR: What became very obvious was that the reason that these people were here their families were able to succeed was because of taxation because the redistribution that taxation is—many of the arguments we've heard whether it be Mr Seymour or the previous speaker Nicola Willis they're really arguing against tax. They're not arguing against this particular segment of the bill; they're arguing against any tax in the first place.What is important to understand is that we all benefit when those who are at the bottom as these people's families began through a redistribution that tax is are able to contribute fully with their families and individually to this country. So those who are so outraged by this provision which will see those who earn over $180000 a year pay 39c in the dollar might just be drawn to the fact that without a fair tax system we will end up with the very part of the world we all escaped from which is somewhere where there was absolutely no equality or no equal distribution of wealth. So I have no hesitation in standing and arguing and recommending this bill because I think as most of us have just come off the hustings will have seen there is very little opposition to it among those who will actually be those who will be paying the money. So I recommend this bill to the House.
White HelenHELEN WHITE (Labour): It's a very interesting and perverse thing to hear the use of terms like minority" and "privacy" and see some sort of suggestion that there's persecution in a bill like this. This is a bill which is designed to tax people who earn over $180000 39c in the dollar—they are well able to actually pay that and they're willing to do so and they voted to do so in their droves. That's because it is the right thing to do. That is because most of us have moved on from Churchill and in fact Adam Smith; we are right up to date at the moment and we are reading Stiglitz. We are talking about how we have a gap between rich and poor and this tax targets the top 2 percent. We have a gap which is all about the top 1 percent so this is bang on the money for where it should be.Hon Member: Well said. HELEN WHITE: Thank you."
Strange Jamie; Dean JacquiJAMIE STRANGE (Labour—Hamilton East): Madam Speaker thank you for the opportunity to take a call on this bill. My wife and I have four young children and if there's one thing that our children understand it's fairness and if they feel something is not fair they certainly tell us in quite loud language at times. If we go back a couple of months ago the Labour Party took a manifesto document to the election—they took a manifesto document to the election—and part of that manifesto was this policy here which is to increase the tax rate for people earning over $180000 to 39c—now only for those earning over $180000. Now the previous speaker David Seymour talks about those being successful people; I'm not sure how he defines success because I would also say that teachers and nurses are also successful but that's up to the member to make that definition for himself. But the key aspect around this bill here is around fairness.The country voted for this bill. The Labour Party took the manifesto—and this was an integral part of the manifesto—and one of the key arguments was the fact that we have increased debt to support the country during COVID and this is a key aspect: the money that this bill raises supports the paying down of debt.Now I won't go into the details because the Minister of Transport spoke earlier on about this bill but I just wanted to raise a couple of those key points there: that this is a Government who believe in fairness. This is a Government who believe in being fiscally responsible. We acknowledge that we have increased debt just like the previous Government did through the global financial crisis and they paid it down; just like we have during COVID and we're starting to pay that debt down.So it is an excellent bill I commend the Minister of Revenue and I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): I call the Hon Gerry Brownlee—five minutes.
Hipkins Chris; Mallard TrevorURGENCYHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I move That urgency be accorded the passing through all remaining stages of the Taxation (Income Tax Rate and Other Amendments) Bill.I canvassed the reason for urgency in this when we moved urgency last time which has now been interrupted so I won't re-canvass that again now.SPEAKER: So ditto—good on you. The question is that the motion is agreed to.
Address In Reply Debate
Mahuta Nanaia; Mallard TrevorHon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Foreign Affairs): I move That this debate be now adjourned.Motion agreed to.SPEAKER: This debate is set down for consideration next sitting day.
Mallard TrevorWEDNESDAY 2 DECEMBER 2020The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.PETITIONS PAPERS SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLSSPEAKER: No bills have been introduced. Petitions have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation.CLERK: Two petitions of Toni Boynton requesting that the House amend the Local Electoral Act 2001 to make the process for the establishment of Māori wards and constituencies for district and regional councils the same as the process for establishing general wards and constituencies petition requesting that the House conduct an inquiry into bullying within the medical sector with reference to any disproportional application of the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act 2003 by the Medical Councilpetition of Richard Edward Stein requesting that the House urge the Government to fund ustekinumab for New Zealanders with severe Crohn's and ulcerative colitispetition of Anmar Taufeek requesting that the House urge the immigration Minister to increase resourcing so that the time taken to process visitor visa applications for culturally arranged marriages can be reducedpetition of Claire Bleakley requesting that the House urge the Minister for Food Safety to advocate for regulation safety trials and full labelling of GM and gene-edited food in the review of the Food Standards Australia New Zealand Actpetition of Diane Hunt requesting that the House urgently amend the Sentencing Act 2002 and the Parole Act 2002 to automatically decline parole eligibility for offenders convicted of the murder of police officers andpetition of Olivia Rollo requesting that the House urge the Government to extend the roll-out of free period products in schools to include reusable period products.SPEAKER: Those petitions stand referred to the Petitions Committee. Ministers have delivered papers.CLERK: Minister of Climate Change Vote Environment report in relation to selected non-departmental appropriations for the year ended 30 June 2020 Minister for the Environment report in relation to selected non-departmental appropriations for the year ended 30 June 2020 Accident Compensation CorporationAnnual Report 2019/20 and Service Agreement 2020/21 report of the Attorney-General under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 on the Taxation (Income Tax Rate and other Amendments) Bill.SPEAKER: I present the 2019-20 parliament sector annual account of the Office of the Clerk of the House of Representatives and the Parliamentary Service. Those papers are published under the authority of the House. A select committee report has been delivered for presentation.CLERK: Report of the Business Committee recommended sitting programme for 2021.SPEAKER: That report is set down for consideration.
Tuesday 1 December 2020 - Volume 749
Drug and Substance Checking Legislation Bill — Second Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Drug and Substance Checking Legislation Bill be now read a second time.Ayes 86New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Noes 33New Zealand National 33.Motion agreed to.Bill read a second time.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Drug and Substance Checking Legislation Bill be now read a first time.Ayes 86New Zealand Labour 64; ACT New Zealand 10; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Noes 33New Zealand National 33.Motion agreed to.Bill read a first time.
Drug and Substance Checking Legislation Bill — First Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That urgency be accorded.Ayes 76New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10;Te Paati Māori 2.Noes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Motion agreed to.
10. Question 10—Housing (Public Housing)Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō) to the Associate Minister of Housing (Public Housing)Question 10—Housing (Public Housing) 10. Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō) to the Associate Minister of Housing (Public Housing): What is the total number of applicants on the Social Housing Register and how does this compare to September 2017?Hon POTO WILLIAMS (Associate Minister of Housing (Public Housing)): Housing is and has been a top priority for the Labour Government. That's why Labour has pledged to build 18000 public and transitional houses and over the last three years we've already delivered 6000 public homes. The Government wants to make sure people in need get access to warm safe accommodation and we've encouraged people to come forward and ask for help. As of August 2020 there were 20385 people on the housing register. In September 2017 there were 5844.Hon Louise Upston: What does the Minister consider to be an acceptable number of people on the social housing register by September 2022?Hon POTO WILLIAMS: While I can't speak forward to those numbers what I can say is that we want to make sure we get people in need into safe accommodation and we will help and encourage people to come forward when they ask for help. This is one of the reasons—one of the motivating factors—behind the register increase.Hon Louise Upston: Does the Minister accept if the number goes up that it's a failure of this Government to support those who need housing?Hon POTO WILLIAMS: No I do not accept that. What I do accept is that if the National Party in Government were to have built the numbers of houses that we are currently building—6000 houses we have built already in the previous term—then our housing register waiting list would not be as high as it is.Hon Louise Upston: What is the Minister's response to Bernie Smith who is the chief executive of the Monte Cecilia Housing Trust who says if the wait-list continues to grow by over 6000 per year the Government aren't even meeting the growth in demand"?Hon POTO WILLIAMS: The increase in the public housing wait-list shows that there is a community expectation on us to deliver—and we are—but the reality is that we are playing catch-up. Where National sold off State houses for nine long years we are building them and building them at pace.Hon Louise Upston: What is the current median wait time for the over 20000 people on the social housing register and does she consider this acceptable?Hon POTO WILLIAMS: What I can tell the member is that the average time spent on the social housing register before someone is homed is 241 days."
8. Question No. 8—COVID-19 ResponseCHRIS BISHOP (National) to the Minister for COVID-19 ResponseQuestion No. 8—COVID-19 Response8. CHRIS BISHOP (National) to the Minister for COVID-19 Response: Does he agree with the statement from Professor Nick Wilson of Otago University's Department of Public Health on 25 November 2020 Well I am concerned that unless we rapidly improve things we are going to have more border failures because the system has just got too many persisting weaknesses"; if not why not?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): I disagree with the assertion in that statement that every recent case of COVID-19 we've dealt with is a sign of border failure. Our protective measures at the border continue to strengthen rapidly every day. Every incident or event is carefully reviewed to identify where further improvements could be made. It's worth recalling that since March 79000 people have come through the border 920 have tested positive for COVID-19 and in all but a handful of cases that is where the matter has ended. Only a handful of close contacts have ended up being infected and in every one of those cases we've looked to identify where further improvements can be made. The one outlier was the August Auckland cluster where we've still been unable to identify the source.Chris Bishop: Will he introduce mandatory pre-flight COVID-19 testing as a further tool for all those coming to New Zealand from high-risk countries as recommended by public health experts; if not why not?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: That's not recommended by all public health experts and I'd point out that some of the highest concentrations of positive COVID-19 cases that we have dealt with in our managed isolation facilities are amongst people who were tested before they departed and came to New Zealand. Chris Bishop: Do all staff working in managed isolation and quarantine facilities have access to an N95 mask if they wish to wear one?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The Ministry of Health has just issued new guidance on this which will ensure that those who need N95 masks because the environment that they are working in justifies it will have access to it.Chris Bishop: Will there be a Bluetooth option for contact tracing in place before the busy summer holiday period when Kiwis will be moving around the country?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I'll have more to say around Bluetooth very shortly. We have not made any announcements on that yet.Chris Bishop: Has the COVID-19 Surveillance and Testing Strategy Group led by Sir Brian Roche and Heather Simpson reported back to him and if so when will that report be made public?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Yes and once the recommendations have been considered by Cabinet."
4. Question No. 4—FinanceANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato) to the Minister of FinanceQuestion No. 4—Finance4. ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato) to the Minister of Finance: Is he considering further extending the bright-line test to have an effect upon house prices?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): As I noted last week I've asked officials for advice on the existing settings and on measures to address the demand side of housing. We are yet to receive that advice and no decisions have been made so it is premature to say we are considering any particular response. However I would like to thank the National and ACT parties for passing the brightline test into law in 2015.Andrew Bayly: Does he agree with the Labour finance spokesperson Grant Robertson's comment on Newstalk ZB on 9 September that there will be no extension to the brightline test?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I find the Labour finance spokesperson Grant Robertson to be a man of immense wisdom kindness and compassion. I refer the member to the Labour Party's policy on taxation that was released on 9 September. I note that as I've said we are looking to Treasury for some advice on the current settings in the housing market in response to the rapid escalation in house prices.Andrew Bayly: Will he rule out an extension to the brightline test?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: We have asked Treasury officials for advice; it would be premature at this stage to say anything about that. But I would note that some learned commentators have spoken about the importance of the brightline test including one who said It's important that everyone is paying their fair share of tax particularly property investors are also paying their fair share of tax." That was one Andrew Bayly.Andrew Bayly: Why was extending the brightline test off the table two months ago and now back on the table?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The member is getting ahead of himself. We are still to receive advice from officials.Andrew Bayly: Would he consider it to be a broken promise to extend the brightline test considering the Government's position has been that there will be no other changes to tax beyond the new 39 percent income tax change?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As is consistent with the member's portfolio title he's jumping at shadows."
3. Question No. 3—EducationJO LUXTON (Labour—Rangitata) to the Minister of EducationQuestion No. 3—Education3. JO LUXTON (Labour—Rangitata) to the Minister of Education: What response has he seen to Government initiatives to support training and apprenticeships?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): I'm pleased to report that the number of New Zealanders enrolling in apprenticeships has increased by approximately 85 percent and that the number of women signing up for apprentices has more than doubled. Since we made all apprenticeships free in July this year there have been almost 14000 new apprentices signing up nationwide which is an increase from about 7500 in the same period last year. In particular I want to acknowledge that we have had 1785 women signing up for apprenticeships compared to 845 in the same period last year. It's good to see women signing up for these roles. We're making progress but of course we still do have a way to go.Jo Luxton: Have numbers also increased in other forms of training and if so why?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Yes the Targeted Training and Apprenticeship Fund doesn't just make all apprenticeships free. It also makes certificates diplomas and programmes in targeted industries free until the end of next year and people have certainly responded warmly to that. Since July more than 17000 learners have started a programme that is covered by this in industries that are critical to our economic recovery. That's an increase of around a third compared to the same time last year.Jo Luxton: What else is the Government doing to encourage people into vocational education and training?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: We know that one of the things we have to do is turn around the profile of trades and vocational education. We need to make sure that young people see these as the incredibly desirable careers that they are. So we have begun a substantial campaign to change public perception. It starts with a primarily social media campaign moving into a more traditional media campaign as well targeting a variety of different audiences to ensure that people understand the roles that are available and how many opportunities there are in those fields. That builds on the work that we've done over the last year to get around the country with trades expos and so on to ensure that young people know about the jobs that they could aspire to.