edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
9. Inland Revenue Department—Families Package Administration and Business Transformation ProjectHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of RevenueInland Revenue Department—Families Package Administration and Business Transformation Project9. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of Revenue: What additional payments or changes to existing payments has his Government required Inland Revenue to administer?Hon STUART NASH (Minister of Revenue): We've asked IRD to administer elements of our Families Package as part of the existing administration of Working for Families tax credits the independent earner tax credit and paid parental leave.Hon Paul Goldsmith: What advice did he receive from the Commissioner of Inland Revenue on the ability of IRD's computer systems to cope with processing the Best Start tax credit payments?Hon STUART NASH: The commissioner of IRD assured both me and the Minister of Finance that the IRD computer system can handle all payments without any difficulty.Hon Paul Goldsmith: Is he concerned with Stuff headlines yesterday that Accountants fume over 'perfect storm' at Inland Revenue" and reports that many accountants are experiencing delays and issues logging on to the myIR tax system?Hon STUART NASH: I think that headline was slightly disingenuous. What I can tell the member is that last week 700000 people successfully logged on to myIR. The IRD processes 70000 calls a week and just yesterday 18000 people filed returns.Willow-Jean Prime: Is it unusual for IRD to manually process a new entitlement rather than automate during their peak season?Hon STUART NASH: No it isn't. A recent example is that in 2015 the child support changes were manually processed for a short period. Technology changes are not made during peak time and automated processing of Best Start is expected to commence soon after 7 July.Hon Paul Goldsmith: So is he saying that everything's fine in terms of IRD's computer system right now?Hon STUART NASH: In terms of IRD's computer system I'm assured by the commissioner that yes everything is fine. We are in the peak season at this point in time but the computer system—everything is fine.Hon Paul Goldsmith: How closely is he monitoring the implementation of the billion-dollar Business Transformation project at IRD and is he happy with progress?Hon STUART NASH: Extremely closely."
7. Mycoplasma Bovis—ResponseKIERAN McANULTY (Labour) to the Minister for BiosecurityMycoplasma Bovis—Response7. KIERAN McANULTY (Labour) to the Minister for Biosecurity: What recent announcements has he made regarding the response to cattle disease Mycoplasma bovis?Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister for Biosecurity): After listening to farmers in rural communities at Mycoplasma bovis information meetings around the country we are making immediate changes to help the tracking and tracing of animals. The changes are aimed at giving phased eradication the best chance possible for success. They include: neighbours of infected properties will now be informed; secondly National Animal Identification and Tracing (NAIT) numbers of infected animals will be published on the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) website; and thirdly MPI will ensure enforcement of the animal status declaration form. These measured steps balance individual privacy with the need for farmers to protect their farms. In partnership with the farming sector we are taking our one shot to eradicate Mycoplasma bovis to protect our national herd and our economic base.Kieran McAnulty: What next steps is the Minister planning for the response?Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: I have asked officials to draft changes to legislation to make the response effort more efficient. Those changes include firstly amending the Animal Products Act to add a new infringement offence for failing to use the animal status declaration form correctly; secondly amending the NAIT Act to bring its search powers into line with the Search and Surveillance Act; and thirdly new regulation to control the use of discarded milk. I'm hopeful these changes will receive support from across the political spectrum as we continue in our eradication efforts.Hon Nathan Guy: Is he satisfied there is enough funding that's been allocated to providers particularly around emotional support for farming families who are having to deal with their herds being culled; so is he satisfied there is enough funding available to the likes of rural support trust to support these farming families who are having to deal with their livestock being culled and it's causing a huge amount of anxiety in the family home and in rural communities?SPEAKER: The Minister can answer both those supplementaries.Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: Yes to both those questions. And I have informed rural support trust in particular and all the organisations—Beef and Lamb and others involved—that my door is open should they feel the need to come and request for more support or information.SPEAKER: I'll just make it clear that only counted as one.
4. Social Development Ministry—Service CultureANAHILA KANONGATA'A-SUISUIKI (Labour) to the Minister for Social DevelopmentSocial Development Ministry—Service Culture4. ANAHILA KANONGATA'A-SUISUIKI (Labour) to the Minister for Social Development: What recent announcements has she made about service culture at Work and Income?Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): Yesterday in New Plymouth I launched a package of changes that kick off this Government's commitment to improving the culture at the Ministry of Social Development (MSD). Changes include a new client commitment posted up in all offices and online; a new layout that includes more private spaces clearly marked spaces and a kids' play area; where possible access to toilet facilities; easy access to drinking water; a new online eligibility guide; and changes to the process of suspending and cancelling benefits which has already resulted in a reduction. This Government is committed to ensuring the welfare system is fair and accessible. Anahila Kanongata'a-Suisuiki: Why has she implemented these changes?Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Most New Zealanders will need the support of MSD at some stage during their life for a range of reasons: support while unemployed support while studying support due to disability or illness or support for superannuation. All of these people deserve to be treated with respect have their dignity upheld and be provided effective support. This Government is committed to making our welfare system work for all New Zealanders. Anahila Kanongata'a-Suisuiki: What feedback has the Minister received on these changes?Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: The feedback has been overwhelmingly positive; however some people have raised that there's more to do and I agree. This is just the beginning. Some people have raised that we need to move more quickly. I agree and we're going to do our best. I was heartened by a client at Work and Income yesterday who said that the changes made him feel human. Staff said the changes made the workplace a more positive working environment. Even David Tua added to the hundreds of messages I received on these changes stating This makes me so emotional. Thank you Minister for bringing back the love and kindness; it will make a significant difference.""
Marriage (Court Consent to Marriage of Minors) Amendment Bill — Second Reading
van de Molen TimTIM VAN DE MOLEN (Third Whip—National): Thank you Mr Chair. I move That the question be now put.
Warren-Clark AngieParts 1 to 5 clauses 1 and 2ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): Thank you Madam Chair. It's a pleasure to take a stand. I was just packing my desk up so it's a real pleasure to take a call in regards to this bill. Of course it's recognised that Jan Logie has worked really hard for a number of years across the House and I also recognise you for your commitment to this kaupapa.I would like to talk about—I hope I'm allowed to—Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 41 which has been put in and made in the name of the Hon Mark Mitchell. I'd like to talk about the proposal to amend clause 14 and basically the way that he has put this SOP in place is to say that—it's reverting it right back what actually exists currently which is that we essentially allow people to use their annual leave or their sick leave. It makes it clear and explicit that it's OK to use it when you're a victim of domestic violence.So I'd like to just address that in that what we do know is that this is currently what's happening. If you are lucky enough to have an employer who recognises domestic violence you might be able to have that conversation but if you're not if it isn't the case what then happens is people use their annual leave and they use their sick leave up. What we know is the intention of annual leave is to have holiday to have rest to recover from their workplace to be able to spend with family and to have an enjoyable—hopefully—time with that family. What we do know is that families who suffer from domestic violence and women who are needing to use this leave are actually going to be using their annual leave to take care of these matters. We know as well that unfortunately sick leave is also used particularly in the case of injury. But also really when people get to that point where they are out of any other leave then they actually need to use that sick leave. I believe that this SOP therefore is redundant. It doesn't actually address what this bill does and I would like to recommend that we don't follow through with this SOP.I also want to make it really clear that when we are talking about a workplace and I want to reiterate this statement productivity gains in the workplace for our victims of violence—this is actually a really positive thing. This is actually what's going to make or help make a real significant difference. So when we have a member put an SOP in that talks specifically to Well let's just give them what they've already got and let's just tell them that they can perhaps fib or they can use their sick leave."—they're not sick. They're not needing annual leave because they want to have some time with their family. They're actually needing help support and safety supports from their employer some specific time to address and help—try and get to a place of safety. I think we need to constantly remember that and remind ourselves. So accordingly I do not believe that this SOP has value in terms of—I get the intent I understand where the position has been placed but I do not believe that we should support this. Thank you."
Williams PotoDOMESTIC VIOLENCE—VICTIMS' PROTECTION BILLIn CommitteeCHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Members the House is in committee for consideration of the Domestic Violence—Victims' Protection Bill. In accordance with the determination of the Business Committee all provisions of the bill will be taken as one question.
Friendly Societies and Credit Unions (Regulatory Improvements) Amendment Bill — Third Reading
Hughes GarethGARETH HUGHES (Green): Kia ora Madam Assistant Speaker. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou kia ora. I rise to support this legislation. When you look at the last time New Zealand had a fundamental look at our friendly societies and credit unions legislation it was all the way back in the past in 1982. I mean Muldoon was stalking this House. His wage and price freeze was stalking the country. The All Whites were at the World Cup finals in Spain. And I just quickly checked what New Zealanders were listening to back then and the top single back then was Beautiful Woman" by Toots & The Maytals. I've never heard of them before but they must have been good. We saw David Bowie up there and Dexys Midnight Runners. Prince Tui Teka was sixth and the world and New Zealand has changed since 1982.I commend the member Stuart Smith for moving to modernise our friendly societies and credit unions legislation because as the member has pointed out credit unions up to this point as we pass this legislation are unable to incorporate to lend to small or medium sized enterprises. Currently loans have to be passed on to a business through a member. They couldn't incorporate. They had to have internal trustees to hold property and conduct business. This wasn't in line with the wider financial sector. And in fact for those 194000 credit union members that we know we have in New Zealand they weren't operating on a level playing field.So the Green Party supported this bill through all the stages. It's in our policy to support legislation such as this. We note it was improved in the select committee process and I acknowledge those who submitted and those who participated. Unfortunately I wasn't fortunate enough to be on the select committee for that process but I know there was that huge discussion of mutually which has been canvased in this debate and in previous ones. But you've just got to stop and think what a different country we would have if more companies and entities operated on the process of mutuality instead of competition red in tooth and claw as many of our corporate entities do.So I want to once again congratulate the member. It's a good spirit of a member's bill introduced to this House. A reasonable common-sense proposal to fix what I think many members would think is an oddity—just that the laws hadn't caught up to modernise those 82 laws and it's now being passed in a unanimous fashion. While we're doing this we also need to have a conversation about our wider banking sector noting the almost $5 billion from profits we saw basically sent across the Ditch. While we modernise our financial services legislation we also need to keep an eye on the wider sector as we modernise this to protect Kiwi markets and to protect Kiwi bank accounts. But look we're very happy to support this very sensible reasonable and effective legislation."
Member Sworn — Dan Bidois
SpeechWEDNESDAY 27 JUNE 2018The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.MEMBERS SWORNDan Bidois was called forward to the Chair by the Speaker took the Oath of Allegiance and took his seat in the House.
Thursday 21 June 2018 - Volume 730
Taxation (Neutralising Base Erosion and Profit Shifting) Bill — In Committee
VoteThe question was put that the following amendment in the name of Andrew Bayly be agreed to:After clause 53B insert new Part 3Part 3 - Parameters of Review54PurposeTo provide for a review of taxation practices in New Zealand compared to relevant international taxation schemes to ensure New Zealand taxation practices remain fit for purpose in protecting against base erosion and profit shifting.55ReviewThe Minister responsible for the Inland Revenue Department Revenue must commission a review into the functions and practices of this Act no later than five years after this Act receives Royal Assent.(1)The review must be administered by the Inland Revenue Department and;(2)Must include a review into the nature of base erosion and profit shifting behavioura.The provisions of this Act;b.Relevant changes in taxation policy in relevant OECD countries;c.Relevant reports by the OECD on tax base erosion and profit shifting;d.Any other matter deemed important by the Inland Revenue Department.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to:Ayes 55New Zealand National 55.Noes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.Amendment not agreed to.Schedule agreed to.
12. Trade Agreements—Negotiations with European UnionMARK PATTERSON (NZ First) to the Minister for Trade and Export GrowthTrade Agreements—Negotiations with European Union12. MARK PATTERSON (NZ First) to the Minister for Trade and Export Growth: What announcements has the Government made regarding trade with the European Union?Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for Trade and Export Growth): Today the Government officially launched negotiations for a free-trade agreement (FTA) with the European Union trade commissioner Cecilia Malmström. The EU is already the third largest trading partner with two-way trade worth more than $20 billion. A free-trade agreement will increase trade substantially bringing significant economic gains for New Zealand and the European Union. Wages business profits and the New Zealand standard of living will rise. Perhaps as importantly it's critical to our interests that New Zealand works together with like-minded countries to combat the rising tide of protectionism around the world and that's what this coalition Government is doing.Mark Patterson: How has the coalition Government got trade negotiations with the EU started?Hon DAVID PARKER: This coalition Government has for a start worked to rebuild public support and confidence in trade needed at home after the past Government abandoned bipartisanship. The Prime Minister deserves significant credit particularly in respect of land sales actually. The Prime Minister deserves significant credit for getting the negotiations across the line by advocating strongly for New Zealand's interest in her meetings with President Macron and Chancellor Merkel. European leaders were clearly receptive to our leader articulating the values that New Zealand shares with the EU. We're fortunate to have a Prime Minister who represents New Zealand so effectively on the world stage.Mark Patterson: How will a potential EU - New Zealand FTA benefit New Zealand's environment economy and workers?Hon DAVID PARKER: We expect a high-quality agreement which will give greater market access for New Zealand's exports both goods and services—Hon David Bennett: Except dairy and beef.Hon DAVID PARKER: —and that it'll include—he says except dairy and beef. Well let's just wait and see Mr Bennett. We might do better than your hapless crowd on that side. The EU itself forecasts the agreement could add $2 billion a year to the New Zealand economy—or billions a year to the economy—and increase wages for New Zealand workers. The launch of these negotiations with the European Union is yet another example of this coalition Government building the foundations for a sustainable fair high-wage high-value economy
9. Environment—OVERSEER ToolANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour) to the Minister for the EnvironmentEnvironment—OVERSEER Tool9. ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour) to the Minister for the Environment: Is the Government assisting the primary sector and regional councils in measuring nutrient use and greenhouse gas emissions; if so how?Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): In Budget 2018 the coalition Government announced we will work together with the primary sector by boosting funding by $5 million over the next four years to improve the OVERSEER tool that helps measure nutrient use and greenhouse gas emissions.Angie Warren-Clark: How will the increase in funding for OVERSEER improve farming practice?Hon DAVID PARKER: As the Minister for Primary Industries the Hon Damien O'Connor has emphasised improved—Hon Nathan Guy: He's Agriculture. He's Minister of Agriculture.Hon DAVID PARKER: —land management priorities. As the Minister of Agriculture the Hon Damien O'Connor has emphasised improved land management priorities are key to improving water quality. This funding opens up opportunities for farmers to utilise new technologies and techniques to improve water quality in our rivers and aquifers. The extra funding will enable quicker adoption of environmentally friendly and profitable farm practices the inclusion of a wider range of land types and farming systems and a more user-friendly interface for the software.Angie Warren-Clark: Why is the coalition Government backing practical science-based tools such as OVERSEER?Hon DAVID PARKER: Because the Government wants to help farmers and growers as well as councils to manage their respective environmental responsibilities by improving land use so that we can clean up our rivers to enable young and old to swim in them safely.
7. Families Package—ImpactPRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour) to the Minister for Social DevelopmentFamilies Package—Impact7. PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour) to the Minister for Social Development: Will low- and middle-income families be better off because of the Families Package; if so how?Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): People will be better off due to some of the changes already in place including the accommodation supplement increases and the reinstatement of the independent earner tax credit as of 1 April this year. Further changes effective as of 1 July that will support New Zealanders to be better off include the introduction of the winter energy and Best Start payments; increasing the Working for Families tax credit and abatement thresholds; increasing paid parental leave; and increasing the rate of the orphans' benefit unsupported child's benefit and foster care allowance. An estimated 384000 families with children will be made better off by an average of $75 per week because of this Government's Families Package.SPEAKER: I'm just going to say that that was a very extensive answer and I expect the supplementary answers if there are any to be short.Priyanca Radhakrishnan: How do these changes work in practice?Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: There are lots of scenarios that could be used to show how the thousands of families will be better off. Here is one. The changes mean that after 1 July 2018 a couple with a five-year-old and a newborn born after 1 July living in Nelson earning $58000 a year would be better off by $123.24 per week due to the Working for Families and Best Start changes even when taking into account that their 1 April 2018 granted accommodation supplement will decrease by $4 when the 1 July measures kick in; $123.24 extra a week would mean a lot to many New Zealand families.Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Has the Minister received feedback about the Families Package?Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Yes—lots of positive feedback on a range of the measures in the Families Package. One person wrote in saying I wanted to sincerely thank you for the energy payment being made to my family members. This makes an enormous difference and relieves some worry from my mind about them not using heating to save money. It's honestly incredible." People are doing it tough but are starting to see a tangible—SPEAKER: Order! I think we've got the general idea."
Hipkins Chris; Rurawhe AdrianSITTINGS OF THE HOUSEHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): In the last three or four hours good will seems to have broken out in the House and the House has made excellent progress on the business before it. I therefore seek leave for the House to rise early for the evening.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. The House adjourned at 5.46 p.m.
Goldsmith PaulHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you Madam Chair. Look I just wanted to say a few parting thoughts on this legislation as it works its way through. I think you could potentially use the words Counteracting Base Erosion and Profit Shifting". It might be more I think accurate than "Neutralising" but we could reflect on that over time.I was thinking particularly in terms of the commencement date being 1 July and I'm sure all members of the House will be aware that today is actually 21 June which is not far away from 1 July. We're on the committee stage of the bill. We have the third reading still to go and then the Royal assent so the only conclusion one can draw is that this Government is cutting it a bit fine. It points to a certain lack of skill in managing the work of the House that they've got themselves into this state which was indeed the point of the discussion in the debates that we had last night around the road taxing bill as well because it's all being done at a mad rush.So there is a theme emerging I think that we see reflected in the title and the commencement date of this bill that it's a Government that is a bit shambolic and just scrambling to get things done in the nick of time just before the legislation is meant to take effect. So we're seeing all of the other manifestations of that shambolicness this week. We've got Ministers not sure whether they're talking in private capacities or as Ministers we've got the Government making big decisions such as on oil and gas with no Cabinet process and—CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Order! Order! Just a matter of relevance.Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well the relevance is that it's a reflection on a Government that has been very ill-disciplined and shambolic in its nature. That is reflected in the fact that this bill is coming into the House and it is to take effect on 1 July as we see and we are here debating it on indeed 21 June. There's very little time and it just reflects on the fact that there's a lot of work to be done in terms of establishing good quality systems of Government.Now when you look at this bill this is a bill that is part of one of the most effective mechanisms of Government policy in this country in terms of the development of tax policy. It goes through a whole lot of hoops and this started a long time ago in the previous Government. It has been shepherded through by this current Minister of Revenue Stuart Nash who's done a good job and that is the way that policy should be developed.So the only point I would make is that it is a complex bill. It is going to be taking effect on 1 July. In every aspect of tax legislation it is complex and I've no doubt we will be revisiting aspects of this in time to come because we won't get it all perfectly right. I just hope as a parting thought that the Minister will after 1 July maintain his eagle eye on this area and be open to respond and adapt as the time comes. On that basis I just want to commend this bill.Clause 1 agreed to.Clause 2 agreed to.House resumed.Bill reported with amendment.Report adopted."
Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): It's with some trepidation that I offer some comments further to the Minister's response to Alastair Scott's comments on the title of the bill. Mostly by way of acknowledgment there is a certain rationale. I think however it's somewhat idealistic to think that we can completely eliminate all aspects and attempts to engage in such activities so perhaps reduction or mitigation might be more realistic and less idealistic but none the less congratulations to all those who have been involved in producing this bill from the previous Minister the Hon Judith Collins to the current Minister—now in the chair of course—the Hon Stuart Nash for having such lofty ideals. I wish them and all those involved in the administration of tax all the very best in meeting those goals.One other aspect of the title I thought might be worth mentioning quite briefly was the phrase Base Erosion" because I wonder if there might be some confusion because it sounds either a bit electoral or environmental. Base erosion might refer to the normal reaction of traditional Labour Party supporters in relation to legislation whereby their base might be eroded. In this case however because we have a sensible piece of legislation as originally proposed by the previous Government I suspect that won't necessarily be the case. Or it might be a bit environmental being base erosion and perhaps invoking shorelines and shifting sands other than in the metaphorical sense as it applies to tax. But I think perhaps those are not particularly worthwhile dwelling on any further.So finally in relation to the commencement date I would comment that it's slightly unusual for sections to come into force prior to the date on which the bill receives Royal assent. I refer specifically to clauses 4 subclauses (1) and (3) and clause 42 which we learn come into force on 1 April 2008—not an April Fools' gag I am sure but the Minister might have some comment there. The retrospectivity is justified somewhat by reference to the meaning and effect of those provisions such that "Interest paid by non-resident companies to non-residents" and also the application by a person for the 2008 and subsequent years does indeed need to be contemplated by this. So it's somewhat backward-looking in that regard. So that was the comment that I wanted to make just to place on record that it's somewhat unusual in our constitutional framework to have legislation that in effect has some manner of application prior to it having been passed by the House. Thank you Madam Chair."
Nash StuartHon STUART NASH (Minister of Revenue): I don't think in my time in the committee a Minister has stood up and talked to the title and commencement but after that I really can't help myself. What we've got here is a—[Interruption] Ha ha! In a way the bill should describe exactly what it is and the thing that I can see that the member Alastair Scott couldn't is the former Minister of Revenue and the former supporter of this bill sitting down here and going Oh goodness me! It doesn't get any better than this." There is a technical term and it is called base erosion and profit shifting. It's used throughout the world. It's used throughout the OECD. It's shortened to BEPS. There is no other way to describe it because this is how everyone describes it.This bill is about neutralising—we have a lot more aspiration. When the member said it should be "minimising"—no we want to get rid of it. We want to ensure that multinational organisations do not rip off our tax base and we also want to make sure that we maintain and enhance the integrity of our tax system. This is exactly what this bill is about and I think the title epitomises exactly what the bill does. "Taxation"—it's about taxation. "Base Erosion and Profit Shifting"—that is the globally accepted term for this.This is a complex piece of legislation—I acknowledge this; everyone acknowledges this. If you went down to—quote unquote—"the man in the street" and said "What's base erosion and profit shifting?" no one knows. But I'll tell you what though: if you went down there and said "Do you think that"—well not you Madam Chair; "Do we think that multinationals should pay their fair share?" everyone gets that. Everyone believes that everyone whether you're a large multinational operating in New Zealand or just a stock standard taxpayer—everyone believes we should pay our fair share of tax. What this bill does—it is ensuring that we are neutralising base erosion and profit shifting i.e. eliminating the ability of multinationals to rip off our tax system. It is hugely important in terms of the integrity of our tax system.In terms of the date it comes into force on 1 July. I mean I think I've spoken two or three times on why that date is important. We all know why it's important. But there is nothing you can say about this headline that doesn't describe exactly what the bill does and give it its technical term. I've nothing more to say."
Scott AlastairClauses 1 and 2ALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa): This gives us an opportunity to talk about the title of the bill and the commencement date of the bill if I'm not incorrect. I'd like to suggest—and I am a little bit disturbed about the title actually. I think it's inappropriately—or it could be better—titled in my view. Taxation (Neutralising Base Erosion and Profit Sharing) Bill: well we know that we can't completely stop people from avoiding or evading tax so neutralising I think is an inappropriate word. I think it should be minimising" or I prefer "shrinking"—shrinking base erosion and profit shifting—or two words "making smaller"—making smaller base erosion. Then we could even extend it to "putting cold water on" or even "neuting" but even those are a little bit weak. Maybe the goal if we're aspirational should be talking about "eliminating"—eliminating base erosion and profit shifting—"eradicating" or even "wiping out" base erosion and profit shifting.Now the next two words "Base Erosion" they're not very clear. It's not clear to me what that means—or the man on the street certainly would not be clear about what base erosion means. Is it tax minimising because tax minimising is perfectly legal. Tax avoidance: illegal. Minimising—perfectly within a taxpayer's right to minimise their tax liability. So base erosion seems—to me at least—to mean that one should be able to minimise the tax liability that one could be obliged to pay. So base erosion is quite an ambiguous phrase.Then of course "Profit Shifting": profit shifting is also ambiguous because profit shifting could be on the one hand avoidance which is illegal and then of course as I said earlier minimising or moving your profit from one entity to another—through obviously legal means—is a minimising exercise which is absolutely fine as well. So I'm thinking instead of profit shifting it should be tax avoidance or offshore tax avoidance.So we're getting to a situation where we could say "Taxation (Putting Cold Water on Tax Minimising and Eliminating Tax Avoidance where it's to do with Overseas Businesses) Bill". So that's my proposed title to the bill. I think it's a far more eloquent far more descriptive title than the current bill is named and I'd be interested to hear what the Minister in the chair Stuart Nash says about my very positive and constructive comments."
Heretaunga Tamatea Claims Settlement Bill — Third Reading
Hipkins ChrisBUSINESS STATEMENTHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I seek leave to make a minor correction to the Business Statement that I delivered to the House.SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that? There appears to be none.Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Apparently in the Business Statement I said that Wednesday the 28th would be a members' day. Of course members with a calendar will know that Wednesday the 27th next week will be a members' day.SPEAKER: That's a problem that Ministers have when they prepare Business Statements under urgency.Question time resumed.
Bennett PaulaQuestion No. 1 to MinisterHon PAULA BENNETT (Deputy Leader—National): I seek to clarify a previous discussion that we had if I may.SPEAKER: You seek to make a personal explanation in order to correct a previous statement.Hon PAULA BENNETT: Thank you sir—SPEAKER: Sorry—first of all is there any objection? There is none.Hon PAULA BENNETT: The first part that I said had been quoted in the newsletter had not. It is what the editor maintains Mr Wood had said to her. The second part that was in quotes was. I made an error and I apologise for it.SPEAKER: Thank you.
Hipkins ChrisTHURSDAY 21 JUNE 2018The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Karakia.BUSINESS STATEMENTHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): Thank you Mr Speaker. Consideration of legislation next week will include the first reading of the Local Government Regulatory Systems Amendment Bill the second reading of the Overseas Investment Amendment Bill the remaining stages of the Land Transport Management (Regional Fuel Tax) Amendment Bill and the Taxation (Neutralising Base Erosion and Profit Shifting) Bill. The remaining stages of the Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki Claims Settlement Bill will be completed on Thursday 28 June. All things going according to plan Wednesday 28 June will be a members' day.
VoteKIRITAPU ALLAN (Assistant 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 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.Noes 56New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1.Motion agreed to.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 38 in the name of the Hon Stuart Nash and the following tabled amendment in his name to Part 1 be agreed to.new section GC 13(6) in clause 36(4) after notifies the taxpayer that" insert "a tax audit or investigation has commenced and".Amendments agreed to.Part 1 as amended agreed to."
Thursday 14 June 2018 - Volume 730
Appropriation (2017/18 Supplementary Estimates) Bill — FIrst Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Appropriation (2017/18 Supplementary Estimates) Bill be now read a first time.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.Noes 56New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1.Bill read a first time.
12. Health Services—Conflicts of Interest and National Oracle Solution ProgrammeDr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei) to the Minister of HealthHealth Services—Conflicts of Interest and National Oracle Solution Programme12. Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei) to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by all his decisions and actions regarding the National Oracle Solution (NOS) programme?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): Yes in their context.Dr Shane Reti: Why did the ministry proceed with commissioning Deloitte as independent reviewers when Official Information Act (OIA) documents show the first words of Deloitte's own conflict of interest declaration state Deloitte has been involved in the National Oracle Solution" meaning they will be reviewing their own work?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I can't speak for why the ministry made that decision. The procurement process originally was done under the Government procurement rules that that Government set up and the conflicts perceived or real were declared in that piece of work as the member knows—the member's got the OIA release now. The ministry did though subsequently commission Audit New Zealand to undertake an assurance process on the process followed by the ministry in its engagement of a consultant to review the National Oracle Solution programme. Dr Shane Reti: Why did the ministry proceed with commissioning Deloitte as independent reviewers when OIA documents now show Deloitte and Deloitte-related entities provided 28 consultation services to the project from 2011 to 2017?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The project didn't exist in 2011.Dr Shane Reti: When was the Minister made aware that Deloitte or Deloitte-related entities have been "materially involved" in the majority of their services provided to the project since 2013 and what steps did he take?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I haven't been advised of that.Dr Shane Reti: Why did the Minister deny reviewer Thorsten Engel's 2011 conflict of interest in oral question No. 9 yesterday when it is now clear that Deloitte were providing significant services to the project in 2011?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The project didn't exist in 2011.Dr Shane Reti: I seek leave to table Deloitte's conflict of interest declaration for the independent NOS review and Deloitte's additional conflict of information statement for the independent review.SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that? There appears to be none. They can be tabled.Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House.Dr Shane Reti: I seek leave to table a 4 April 2017 email from Deloitte confirming that they have been materially involved in the project. It comes to me as an OIA.SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that document being tabled? There is an objection.Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I seek leave to table all of the OIA correspondence received by Mr Reti to provide the full context for all of those things and to provide a clear view of the history of this issue. There's one from 23 May—SPEAKER: No no—is there any objection to those documents being tabled? There appears to be none.Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House."
11. Drugs Illegal—Methamphetamine SmugglingRINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga) to the Minister of CustomsDrugs Illegal—Methamphetamine Smuggling11. RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga) to the Minister of Customs: What initiatives has the Government taken to curb the smuggling of methamphetamines into New Zealand?Hon MEKA WHAITIRI (Minister of Customs): This coalition Government is committed to stopping meth and other illegal drugs from coming across our borders. In Budget 2018 I secured an additional $58.1 million to help protect our borders which includes an extra 127 customs staff over the next few years.Rino Tirikatene: Why is the Government spending so much money on stopping the smuggling of meth?Hon MEKA WHAITIRI: The damage to our communities and our whānau is immense. The use of illicit drugs costs us $1.8 billion in social harm every single year. It impacts on our employment and our productivity and weakens the fabric of our society across all our regions. The extra $58.1 million will go a long way to addressing this matter.Rino Tirikatene: Is the Minister taking a cross-agency approach to preventing the importation of meth into New Zealand; and if so why?Hon MEKA WHAITIRI: Yes absolutely. We will continue building on the success of our joint work with police immigration and other agencies across Government and overseas by enhancing outreach campaigns sharing intelligence and increasing community engagement. Why? Because it's the smart thing to do.
8. Health Services—Funding for Drug and Alcohol TreatmentANAHILA KANONGATA'A-SUISUIKI (Labour) to the Minister of HealthHealth Services—Funding for Drug and Alcohol Treatment8. ANAHILA KANONGATA'A-SUISUIKI (Labour) to the Minister of Health: What is the Government doing to increase the number of alcohol and drug detoxification beds in Auckland?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): Yesterday the Government announced a one-off $16.7 million investment to build two floors at the Auckland City Mission's new HomeGround facility. When construction is complete in two years' time it will house 30 studio units for alcohol and drug detoxification. It's a 50 percent increase on the current 20 beds that are funded in Auckland.Anahila Kanongata'a-Suisuiki: How is this investment being funded?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The funding will be drawn from funding recovered under the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act. As the Prime Minister said it feels entirely appropriate that we use the money that has been accumulated through misery to end misery.Anahila Kanongata'a-Suisuiki: Why is this investment important?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: We know that demand for detox and treatment programmes is high. Too often people are waiting too long to get the help they need. Programmes like the one at Auckland City Mission make a significant difference—it is tried and true. This investment will help turn lives around.
5. Prisons—Waikeria Prison Announcement and Reoffending RatesGREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu) to the Minister of CorrectionsPrisons—Waikeria Prison Announcement and Reoffending Rates5. GREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu) to the Minister of Corrections: What recent announcements has he made to address the growing prison population?Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Minister of Corrections): Good news. Yesterday I was proud to announce that this Government is setting a new direction for prisons in New Zealand. We are building a 500-bed high-security replacement prison at Waikeria and alongside it we will be building a 100-bed mental health facility which will be the first of its kind—adding an extra 1500 beds to the system. Our commitment to reform our broken justice system and this Government's commitment to social investment will help to stop the growing number of people entering through our prison gates. Greg O'Connor: Why did he decide to build a small-scale prison over a mega-prison?Hon KELVIN DAVIS: American-style mega-prisons are crime-breeding factories. They swallow up young offenders and spit out hardened criminals—sometimes a fully patched gang member. They do not keep communities safe. We have chosen to build a smaller prison because international evidence shows smaller prisons work while mega-prisons—Hon David Bennett: How much protection does he need?Hon KELVIN DAVIS: —favoured by the Opposition—create better criminals not better people. SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. David Bennett will stand withdraw and apologise. Hon David Bennett: I withdraw and apologise. Greg O'Connor: How will his recent announcement address reoffending rates?Hon KELVIN DAVIS: We know smaller prisons are more effective in providing real rehabilitation and the 500-bed facility at Waikeria will be one of the smallest prisons in New Zealand. From the outset it was blindingly obvious that there is a massive problem with mental health issues in our prisons. What I can't understand is why no Government took serious action to address this until now. We need to address the underlying issues facing prisoners like mental health through the specialised mental health facility. Otherwise we will always struggle to address reoffending.
2. Tourism Minister—Statements on Funding and Freedom CampingHon TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) to the Minister of TourismTourism Minister—Statements on Funding and Freedom Camping2. Hon TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) to the Minister of Tourism: Does he stand by all the statements he made to the Economic Development Science and Innovation Committee last week?Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Minister of Tourism): I stand by the statements I made regarding the tourism portfolio.Hon Todd McClay: Following his statements at the committee last week what does he say to taxpayers who expect him to be on top of the detail of the $170 million allocated to tourism in this year's Budget or would he rather continue to be known as the vacant" tourism Minister?SPEAKER: Order! That's not a properly worded question. The member knows that. Hon Todd McClay: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That's been widely reported in newspapers—SPEAKER: Well the member should know that there is more than a slight difference in the standards required in newspapers and the standards required in this House. Hon Todd McClay: What does he say to tourism operators who have seen his select committee comments that his $75 million of new money previously promised for tourism for this year's Budget has in fact been replaced by a $6 million cut—that's an $81 million tourism broken promise?Hon KELVIN DAVIS: The member is sort of fudging the figures there. The advice that I received from the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment (MBIE) was that the 5 percent cut in funding to Tourism New Zealand would have no discernible impact on tourism numbers. In fact by 2024 we're going to have 1.4 million extra visitors to New Zealand. So I'm not concerned about tourism destination marketing per se. It's more about destination management now.Hon Jacqui Dean: How many meetings did he have with the Hon Nanaia Mahuta where freedom camping was discussed when he said at the Estimates hearing that "We talk about the issue all the time."?Hon KELVIN DAVIS: My colleague the Hon Nanaia Mahuta and I have a number of meetings both formally and informally. In fact that's what happens actually when you're related. We actually also talk as cousins for the member's information. So colleagues and I—all of us colleagues—discuss a whole heap of issues all the time.Hon Jacqui Dean: When he said at the Estimates that he "Just took the local government portfolio responsibility for dealing with freedom camping work off the Hon Nanaia Mahuta" did he tell her first?Hon KELVIN DAVIS: If I recall the conversation correctly the member asked me "Who is responsible for freedom camping?" and I said "Myself." And she said "Why isn't the Minister of Local Government in charge of freedom camping?" and I said "Because I am." Now I can't be any more straightforward than that."