edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Webb Duncan; Salesa JennyDr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Tēnā koe e te Mana Whakawā. I agree with the previous speaker Damien Smith on one point and that is that we need to direct investment to the productive economy and that is what this reform this brightline reform is aimed at—because we don't create jobs products services innovation and ideas by directing investment to investment properties.We know that for many years there has been a tilting of the tax system in favour of residential investment properties and so this extension of the National Party's brightline rule simply adjusts exactly that. It says there is plenty of capital about but don't put it into residential property and if you earn—over the course of eight or nine years on an investment property—$100000 $200000 $300000 then you should be taxed on that because that is income that is an increase in wealth which you should properly share you should properly be taxed on. So look the other thing I want to point out: New Zealand does not have—by international standards—a high tax rate. It is quite erroneous to stand up as the last member did and suggest that one single sliver of our tax system—income tax—is reflective of the overall tax burden. If we're going to talk about overall tax burdens let's talk about—in other countries—the State and provincial tax the sales taxes and the plethora of other taxes. The elegance and simplicity of our tax system is one of its great strengths and the brightline test is another thread in that saying here it is there is an irrebuttable presumption that if you sell an investment property within a given period of time it is taxable because the intention is clear it's a statutory presumption of intention that you intended to make money by that increase in value. And I want to point out that this reform was one that was prompted by the International Monetary Fund pointing out the risk of instability in our financial system because of a rampant housing market driven by investment.So this is a prudent reform it's one to strike balance it's one to direct investment in the right place and it's entirely appropriate at this time because this Government is one which will take action on the housing market.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): The next call is a split call.
Tuesday 23 March 2021 - Volume 751
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the question be now put.Ayes 75New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Noes 45New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Motion agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That clause 1 be agreed to.Ayes 75New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Noes 45New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Clause 1 agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the Hon Michael Woodhouse's tabled amendments to the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 23 amending clause 2(22BA) and inserting new clause 2(22BAA) be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments to the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Noes 75New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Amendments to the amendments not agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the Minister's amendments to clause 2 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 23 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 75New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Noes 45New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Amendments agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Hon Michael Woodhouse's tabled amendments to clause 2 deleting subclause (10) and amending subclause (23) are out of order as 24 hours' notice was not given for an amendment that may have impact on the Government's fiscal aggregates.A party vote was called for on the question That clause 2 as amended be agreed to.Ayes 75New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Noes 45New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Clause 2 as amended agreed to.House resumed.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Mr Speaker the committee has considered the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2020-21 Feasibility Expenditure and Remedial Matters) Bill and reports it with amendment. I move That the report be adopted.Motion agreed to.Report adopted.DEPUTY SPEAKER: As we have reached the five-minute discretion that the presiding officer has the House is suspended until 9 a.m. tomorrow. Sitting suspended from 9.56 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Wednesday)
Taxation (Annual Rates for 2020-21 Feasibility Expenditure and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee—Clauses 1 to 2
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That Part 3 as amended be agreed to.Ayes 75New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Noes 45New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Motion agreed to.Part 3 as amended agreed to.Schedule 1A party vote was called for on the question That Schedule 1 be agreed to.Ayes 75New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Noes 45New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Motion agreed to.Schedule 1 agreed to.Schedule 2A party vote was called for on the question That Schedule 2 be agreed to.Ayes 75New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Noes 45New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Motion agreed to.Schedule 2 agreed to.
Taxation (Annual Rates for 2020-21 Feasibility Expenditure and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee—Part 3
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the question be now put.Ayes 75New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Noes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Motion agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): The question is that Brooke van Velden's tabled amendments to the amendments in Supplementary Order Paper 23 relating to Part 2 be agreed to.Amendments to the amendments not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): The question is that the Minister's amendments to Part 2 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 23 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 75New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Noes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Amendments agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That Part 2 as amended be agreed to.Ayes 75New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Noes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Part 2 as amended agreed to.
Taxation (Annual Rates for 2020-21 Feasibility Expenditure and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee—Part 2 (continued)
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That Part 1 be agreed to.Ayes 75New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Noes 45New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Part 1 agreed to.
Taxation (Annual Rates for 2020-21 Feasibility Expenditure and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee—Part 1
Taxation (Annual Rates for 2020-21 Feasibility Expenditure and Remedial Matters) Bill — Referral to Finance and Expenditure Committee
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the motion be agreed to.Ayes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Noes 77New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Motion not agreed to.SPEAKER: I declare the House in committee on the Taxation (Annual Rates 2020-21 Feasibility Expenditure and Remedial Matters) Bill.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question that urgency be accorded the passing through the remaining stages of the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2020-21 Feasibility Expenditure and Remedial Matters) Bill and the Regulatory Systems (Transport) Amendment Bill. SPEAKER: Order! I'm going to warn the shadow Leader of the House. He knows what the rules are. He is not allowed to interject during the voting process. He is especially not allowed to comment on parties' votes during that process. He will cease and desist. A party vote was called for on the question That urgency be accorded the passing through the remaining stages of the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2020-21 Feasibility Expenditure and Remedial Matters) Bill and the Regulatory Systems (Transport) Amendment Bill.Ayes 77New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Noes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Motion agreed to.
12. Question No. 12—Small BusinessJO LUXTON (Labour—Rangitata) to the Minister for Small BusinessQuestion No. 12—Small Business12. JO LUXTON (Labour—Rangitata) to the Minister for Small Business: What reports has he seen on the take-up by small businesses of Digital Boost?Hon STUART NASH (Minister for Small Business): I receive regular reports from the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment (MBIE) on the performance and rate of uptake in the Digital Boost educate programme. Support to small businesses to adapt recover and grow is a priority in our COVID recovery plan. The $20 million Digital Boost programme was announced in Budget 2020 and got under way in December. MBIE have advised me that 9272 users from 8992 businesses have registered for support with training and to improve their digital skills and their use of technology—57 percent of the businesses were sole traders or have one employee 19 percent have between two and five employees 8 percent have between six and nine employees and 9 percent have more than 10 employees. Feedback continues to be strongly positive with almost 75 percent of participants rating the programme four or five out of five. Research from MBIE also shows that businesses who are more digitally enabled demonstrate more resilience and are 18 percent more likely to have financial reserves to survive for several months. Jo Luxton: What are examples of small businesses who have digitally boosted their businesses? Hon STUART NASH: The examples are numerous but I can quickly give you three: Te Koha Aotearoa—they are a family-run tourism business based in Franz Josef that enables visitors to make their own pounamu and by participating in Digital Boost they have built a website for domestic tourists as well as selling their carvings directly online—FIT60 former All Black Keven Mealamu developed a strong web and social media presence as well as a community forum for his fitness business and all of these skills developed from participating in Digital Boost; and Aligned Movement a Kerikeri-based boutique fitness and dance studio that has positively benefited by delivering classes via social media a direct benefit from participating in Digital Boost. Jo Luxton: What feedback has been received from businesses using Digital Boost? Hon STUART NASH: Two pieces of feedback come to mind. One user said—and I quote—I have felt very depressed since COVID hit. Came to the realisation that e-commerce site is the best option for me at this time. I am stoked at these valuable tutorials being available online. They are so inspiring and have lifted my spirit immensely." while another said—and I quote—"Thanks and I sincerely appreciate all of the fabulous tutorials that you have posted. I have already learnt so much over the past couple of weeks since signing up." SPEAKER: That this time concludes oral questions."
11. Question No. 11—TourismHon TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) to the Minister of TourismQuestion No. 11—Tourism11. Hon TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) to the Minister of Tourism: Why did he not announce any new support for tourism when in Queenstown last week?Hon STUART NASH (Minister of Tourism): I did. I suggest the member read my speech I delivered to the Otago Tourism Policy School conference last Friday in Queenstown as it outlined both a clear vision for the tourism sector in a post-COVID world and a proposed work programme from now until the borders open. The speech is online and freely available.Dr Duncan Webb: Had too many long words.Hon Todd McClay: Does he agree with Queenstown—SPEAKER: Order! Order! It was before the member started but I think it was a demeaning comment and the interjection should not be made. Dr Webb will withdraw and apologise.Dr Duncan Webb: I withdraw and apologise.Hon Todd McClay: Does he agree with Queenstown tourism operator David Lynott who said after his visit—and I quote—We want some definite answers not just … if[s] buts or maybes. … as anyone knows you need [a] plan." and if so why after six months as Minister didn't he announce new support and an actual plan to help the struggling tourism businesses last week?Hon STUART NASH: First of all I don't agree. Second of all I said I did.Hon Todd McClay: Is he aware yesterday's announcement of a date for an announcement for a date for the trans-Tasman bubble creates greater uncertainty and means that under-pressure tourism businesses have greater need for new support not less?Hon STUART NASH: I disagree.Hon Todd McClay: Is the reason that he didn't announce new support for the tourism sector on Friday because he agrees with his senior ministerial colleague Damien O'Connor that—and I quote—"COVID-19 has taught the tourism sector not to be so cocky." and does he think tourism businesses that are closing this week are being cocky?Hon STUART NASH: At the risk of throwing my good friend under a Kiwi Experience bus I speak for the Government in terms of tourism not Minister O'Connor.SPEAKER: That concludes oral questions. I have received a letter from the Hon Judith—Hon Stuart Nash: Point of order Mr Speaker.SPEAKER: Sorry? Oh we've still got one more have we? Sorry I apologise. It felt like we'd had enough."
10. Question No. 10—HealthDr ANAE NERU LEAVASA (Labour—Takanini) to the Minister of HealthQuestion No. 10—Health10. Dr ANAE NERU LEAVASA (Labour—Takanini) to the Minister of Health: What recent announcements has he made on mental wellbeing telehealth supports for youth?Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): On Sunday I announced $1 million of funding for Youthline services. Youthline manages more than 240000 contacts from young people and last year supported more than 26000 young people across New Zealand. This $1 million a year of recurring funding will enable Youthline to bring on additional clinical support which will allow it to provide support to thousands more young people in New Zealand. Youthline provides services across Aotearoa utilising its phone email web chat and text channels. It's exactly the sort of flexible and people-centred approach that we're aiming to develop across the entire mental health system.Dr Anae Neru Leavasa: Why is it important for young people to have access to mental wellbeing telehealth supports?Hon ANDREW LITTLE: It's critical that young people have a broad range of support that they can access that's youth-friendly and reflects their specific needs and the ways that they communicate. The ages of 12 to 24 are a time of rapid change and development for young people. During this time they are at the highest risk for the onset of mental health problems and psychological distress.Dr Anae Neru Leavasa: What difference will this funding make to vulnerable young people?Hon ANDREW LITTLE: This funding will mean that there is free mental health support available to young people across New Zealand when and where they need it and they'll be able to talk to someone via phone web chat email or text. We saw the number of calls to Youthline increase during the COVID-19 lockdown period last year. We want to make it easy for young people to access that support and to keep encouraging young people to reach out for help if they need it. They shouldn't wait until they are in distress or that they reach crisis point to do so.
9. Question No. 9—CorrectionsDEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Paati Māori) to the Minister of CorrectionsQuestion No. 9—Corrections9. DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Paati Māori) to the Minister of Corrections: Does he have confidence in the Department of Corrections and its CEO?Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Minister of Corrections): Yes and yes.Rawiri Waititi: Why did the Minister not support the justice system when Judge David McNaughton determined the Department of Corrections acted inhumanely to wāhine Māori at Auckland women's prison?Hon KELVIN DAVIS: I sought more information from Corrections; I received an interim report last week. I wasn't happy with what I read what I received and I have directed Corrections to make a number of changes.Rawiri Waititi: Did the Minister choose to ignore the ruling of Judge David McNaughton highlighting the inhumane treatment of wāhine Māori at Auckland women's prison by putting bureaucracy the inspectorate report above the ruling of the judicial system?Hon KELVIN DAVIS: No. Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: You are quoted as saying—SPEAKER: Order! Order! Order! I think it's pretty unlikely that I was.Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Right no not you Mr Speaker; to our Minister of Corrections—apologies. You are quoted as the Minister of Corrections as saying—SPEAKER: Order! Order!Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: —get rid of the you"? The Minister of Corrections thank you—"It's inappropriate for wāhine in prison to be treated as if their needs were the same as male prisoners."; if the Minister accepts that this is true does it also follow that inhumane conditions are unacceptable for tāne Māori such as in Waikeria as well?Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Yes.Simeon Brown: When he said on Morning Report this morning "Corrections officers in the front line were let down by people higher up the chain" was he referring to himself?Hon KELVIN DAVIS: No."
7. Question No. 7—EducationMARJA LUBECK (Labour) to the Minister of EducationQuestion No. 7—Education7. MARJA LUBECK (Labour) to the Minister of Education: What is the Government doing to extend its current level of support to meet the skills needs of the construction industry and other trades? Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): The Government is extending the very popular Apprenticeship Boost initiative by a further four months to provide extra support to trades and trades training. Through the Apprenticeship Boost employers can access a subsidy of $1000 per month for their first-year apprentices and $500 per month for their second-year apprentices. Extending the boost to run through until August 2022 means that employers can keep getting the subsidy for apprentices who are in their first two years of training but it also means that employers who have apprentices starting over those extra four months can get some of the Apprenticeship Boost as well and that could benefit up to 5000 additional apprentices. Marja Lubeck: Why is the Government taking this action now? Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: This is part of a suite of measures that we are putting in place to help address the housing crisis. We know that the workforce shortages in building and construction that this Government inherited is having an effect on housing supply. Extending the Apprenticeship Boost will encourage more people into the building trades and will assist employers to keep their apprentices on making sure that the workforce is out there and ready to get building. Marja Lubeck: Why has the Government chosen to address these challenges by extending Apprenticeship Boost? Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Because it works. Since launching in August 2020 more than 10000 employers have signed up and received almost $97 million in subsidies for more than 21000 apprentices. All industries with formal apprenticeships training programmes are taking up this support with 32 percent of the Apprenticeship Boost apprentices enrolled with the Building and Construction Industry Training Organisation and a further 22 percent with the Skills Organisation which includes building and construction - related apprentices like plumbing gasfitting drainlaying electrical roofing and scaffolding.
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: Does he stand by all his statements and actions?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Yes subject to any clarifications that I have made. In particular I stand by my statement that this Government was elected to deal with important issues like the housing crisis and that we will help tilt the market in favour of first-home buyers.Andrew Bayly: Why has he announced the raft of tax changes including a tax on capital gains for housing when as he noted this morning less than six months ago he stated that there would be no changes to tax beyond the higher-income tax rate?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I reject a number of the premises in that question particularly in the first part of that question. It may have escaped the member but in the last few months we've seen rampant out-of-control house price inflation and the Government is moving to act on that.Andrew Bayly: Why has he rejected official advice that extending the brightline test to 10 years risks increasing rents by reducing the supply of rental accommodation while rents have increased by $120 per week since he's been the Minister of Finance?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: This was covered in an earlier question. Alongside the change we're making to the brightline test we are exempting new builds from that. This is an opportunity for those people who want to invest in building new homes and adding to our stock to effectively get a tax advantage.Andrew Bayly: Will increasing taxes and costs on mum and dad investors who own a rental property increase the supply of housing?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As I've just said in the answer to that member's question this is a whole package; it includes increases to supply. What really interests me is we hear from the National Party that there's a housing crisis but they don't want to back anything that will actually change it. That is exactly the approach we saw for nine years. I'm proud that we're addressing it.Andrew Bayly: Has he sought advice from officials on any other countries that have taxed their way to more affordable housing and if so which are they?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: What I sought advice from and what the Government sought advice from officials on was how we could actually address a housing crisis. The member is characterising that completely incorrectly. What we have seen today from this Government is a package that will increase supply and dampen demand. We're actually prepared to take actions to back first-home buyers unlike the member over there.
3. Question No. 3—FinanceBARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) to the Minister of FinanceQuestion No. 3—Finance3. BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) to the Minister of Finance: What actions is the Government taking to support stability and fairness in the economy by managing demand for housing?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): House price increases of the magnitude that we have seen in recent months are not only harmful to affordability they also represent a risk to economic stability. The changes announced today include measures to tilt the balance towards first-home buyers including reducing the competition that they face from speculators for typical first homes. None of the measures today affect the family home. There is no one single measure that will turn around a housing crisis of this magnitude but a combination of all the measures we have announced today will make a difference.Barbara Edmonds: Will today's announcement support stability and fairness by incentivising the building of new homes?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The Government wants to turn around the sale of existing homes to speculators so that first-home buyers have a fair shot in the market. We also want investors and developers to keep building new homes—not just for sale but also for rent—so we have exempted new builds from the changes announced today. The extension of National's brightline test from five years to 10 years will not apply to new builds. We are also exempting new builds from the changes to interest deductibility with the exact details of that to be consulted on.Barbara Edmonds: What reactions has he seen to today's announcement?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Many and varied. ANZ chief economist Sharon Zollner says the bank expects today's announcements to have a meaningful impact on investor housing demand and to make a decent start on the complex question of improving house supply." Infometrics economist Brad Olsen says "The Government has been told there was a problem … and has acted on it." I've also received several emails today including one from a member of the public that I'll quote briefly: "Dear Ms Ardern and Mr Robertson I am delighted to see the measures you have announced this morning to finally tilt the housing market away a bit from those investors who have been writing off interest costs against rental income and making untaxed profits for so long at the expense of struggling home buyers. The adjustment has been needed for a long time and I am thrilled that finally my youngest son along with so many young people may have a chance in the next few years to contemplate purchasing his own home.""
Webb Duncan; Salesa JennyDr DUNCAN WEBB (Junior Whip—Labour): I move That the question be now put.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that clause 1 stand part. All those in favour say Aye.Tim van de Molen: Hang on—point of order. The question has to be put that he's seeking the closure.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the question be now put. The question is that clause 1 stand part.Hon Members: No.Hon Gerry Brownlee: We've got to vote on it.
Bayly AndrewANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you Madam Chair. Look I thank the Hon Gerry Brownlee who is one of the elder statesmen of this House because he knows what procedural matters need to take place and the importance of what we're talking about here. And I think we are at risk of being misleading to the public. When Mr Brownlee is saying that this bill's title should actually reflect the reality of what it is we need to consider that carefully. I think you know you've spoken Mr Brownlee very clearly about the brightline aspect. Interest deductibility is the other crucial bit in this bill.So from that perspective the title is in my view very deeply misleading and I think we need to enable people who will not have heard about this bill will not have heard about these changes—because after all they were only announced at 9 o'clock this morning unless you're the media who got it at eight. They will not have heard. Not everyone is there. What happens if you're away on a hunting trip or a tramping trip or whatever? You're on holiday; you're out of cell phone coverage. So even though your accountant is ringing you desperately today tomorrow you cannot be contacted. In that situation you cannot sign the forms whatever and so therefore you're in a position where as the Minister said earlier tonight in some cases you do have to make an election. I think those sorts of situations mean that if we're in a situation where people are going to be disadvantaged like that they need to have that clarity around that. We need to have the rules. We should have provided more time. That's one issue.But I think also in time people will want to look for the bill and they'll go looking for the bill—the few who actually know how to navigate their way around Parliament and Parliament's website—and they'll be looking for a bill that talks about capital gains tax" or "brightline test" or whatever. It simply won't be there. And I think Minister you've had time—you've obviously been working on this Supplementary Order Paper for some time. This is a long document; it's had a lot of forethought put into it. To slap it down on the day of this and to put this through urgency I think doesn't do you any justice as a Minister and I think we do need to reflect on the title—and certainly the commencement period as we've noted before—but there is just a sense of injustice with this bill which I think as I've said before many New Zealanders are going to feel very very angry about it."
Woodhouse MichaelHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): I thank the Minister in the chair the Hon David Parker for that. Actually I was diving deeply into the documents to look for a reason as well—and actually I draw his attention and officials' attention back to the substantive bill that we discussed at second reading—clauses 17 20 and 27 were amended to apply to agreements that were entered into on or after 1 July 2021; whereas the bill as introduced had that effective 1 April 2021. So the change that we made at second reading actually had the same effect as what the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) is doing to clause 40.So the reason it was deleted from SOP 23 as the Minister has just said was that it was unnecessary. It was unnecessary because it was actually changed before in the bill. What I am not sure that I understand—and the central point that Mr Bayly was making I think very much applies in this case—is why the change was made to clauses 17 20 and 27 but not clause 40 because the same principle would have applied. Even if clause 40 came in on 1 April if we had amended the bill to say that it only applied to agreements entered into on or after 1 July it would have had the same effect. So it does perplex me why we treated three clauses one way and the fourth clause the other. But I now understand that the effect of it is the same: all of the clauses will be amended from 1 July assuming the Minister is right and we don't accept my SOP. I'm just not sure why we did it that way.
Parker DavidHon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Revenue): I heard the member Andrew Bayly but we disagree. I won't convince him to the contrary.In respect of the point raised by the Hon Michael Woodhouse I think the answer at least in respect of clauses 17 and 20 where they're no longer listed in the commencement date clause—that's because if you look at page 15 of Supplementary Order Paper 23 clauses 17 and 20 are deleted. I've got it before me here on page 15. Therefore they no longer need a commencement date. But in respect of the member's amendment to one of the remaining clauses 40 we will be not agreeing to his amendment.
Willis NicolaNICOLA WILLIS (National): This is a really clear case where the title of this bill misleads he or she who goes to look in the statute as to what it actually does. The Taxation (Annual Rates for 2020-21 Feasibility Expenditure and Remedial Matters) Bill sounds like your typical annual tax bill that simply resets the tax rates and has some other minor adjustments. In fact what we know is that following the inclusion of Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) No 23 what this actually is is the Taxation (Introduction of a Capital Gains Tax for New Zealand Properties) Bill". What the Government has done is it's snuck in a very significant change to our tax system in the form of an SOP jammed it into an existing bill under urgency without reference to select committee. If you were to look in the statute book to the future and you were to look for OK when was it that the New Zealand Parliament determined that it would include a new capital gains tax that it would have this extension this 10-year capital gains tax you'd expect to find that somewhere in the title. You'd expect something like the "Taxation (Capital Gains Tax) Bill" but in fact you would have to go and look for the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2020-21 Feasibility Expenditure and Remedial Matters) Bill. Quite clearly the title of this bill should be amended to better reflect its contents.The most far-ranging aspect of this bill that will have an impact on thousands of New Zealanders who own a second property is the fact that it includes an extension a new capital gains tax. This is specifically something that the Government had previously said it would not do. It's not something that was foreshadowed in the earlier version of this bill but it is now absolutely a primary part of what this legislation will do. It should be included in the title and I would ask the Minister to address whether he has considered tweaking the title to reflect the contents of his legislation."
Woodhouse MichaelHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you Madam Chair. I appreciate the Minister's clarification. In the amended bill that we considered at second reading clause 2(22BA) actually had a number of other sections—17 20 27—as well which are not mentioned in Supplementary Order Paper 23 which suggests that whereas the intention was for them to come into force on 1 July 2021 they are now not mentioned at all but there doesn't appear to be an amendment deleting those which I take it then means that those sections are covered by the catch-all commencement provision saying that they'll come into force on the day on which it receives Royal assent. I'm not even sure what those sections are but if there was an intention to delay by three months it's now being removed. I'd be interested in knowing why.
Woodhouse Michael; Parker DavidHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): This is the issue that I've been discussing with the Clerks. Their suggested tabled amendment of mine is a proposed amendment to Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 23 because on page 2 of that SOP in the second paragraph it says Replace clause 2(22BA) (page 9 lines 8 and 9) with: (22BA) Sections 40 and 58(6) and (13B) come into force on 1 July 2021." So whether clause 40 was already covered by the amended bill that we considered at second reading it's certainly in the SOP.Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Revenue): I think the easiest way through that because I see the—it looks like it's been done twice actually. Belts and braces! How I'm going to propose to—Hon Michael Woodhouse: Yeah pretty much. Will I put two SOPs in then?Hon DAVID PARKER: Well the later one would take effect. Subject to advice from the Clerks assuming it's in order the way it's currently done it seems to me you end up with clause 2(22BA) in the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) saying that clause 40 of the bill comes into force on 1 July 2021 in which case the member's Supplementary Order Paper is in order and doesn't infringe the 24-hour rule because it's an amendment to the SOP rather than to the primary bill. We will none the less be voting against it and you'll get to the same answer."
Woodhouse Michael; Parker DavidHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you Madam Chair. I appreciate the Minister's clarification that indeed my reading of the amendment was correct. I would make two comments about his case for haste because I still believe that even a three-month delay is a very short period of time. One is that by his own admission if the costs of the delay are so high we've had no provision like this in terms of the framework for the punitive aspects of failure to agree a purchase price allocation methodology for years. So what's another nine months? The second point I would make is that the very transactions that would be caught by this provision even if it were delayed until 1 July are being negotiated right now. So the sale and purchase of businesses is not something that we do like the sale and purchase of a house. They are often very complex and they involve the calculation of after-tax rates of returns for the potential buyer that would be significantly affected by the failure to agree a purchase price allocation methodology. And if they were to be agreed even say in the next four or six weeks the settlement on the sale and purchase of these taxable assets by 1 July means effectively they are caught then as if it was 1 April.Now there will be some people that were negotiating some months ago that may not be caught in that net—I accept that—but I don't think that's a compelling enough reason to say three months' notice is sufficient. And I appreciate that the Minister will ask his members to vote the Supplementary Order Paper down but I think careful consideration should be given to it.Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Revenue): If I could just correct my last intervention I said that it was being done by the Supplementary Order Paper—officials correct me—it is actually being done in the version as reported back by select committee on page 9 in section 22BA in clause 2(22). Section 22BA lists section 40 in the middle of that list of sections that come into force on 1 July 2021. So the—Hon Michael Woodhouse: So why is it in the SOP then?Hon DAVID PARKER: Well I'm advised by officials that it's not. So if the member sees otherwise feel free to raise that again and I'll check that.
Seymour David; Salesa JennyDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Point of order Madam Chairperson. Sorry I may have misheard. I heard the Noes were 35 on that last amendment. Did I hear that correctly because I understood that ACT and National both opposed it and you should have had 45?CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Apologies. I read out the sheet as it was given to me. The Ayes are 75; the Noes are 45. The Ayes have it. The Hon Michael Woodhouse's tabled amendments—sorry that was what we've just voted on. The question is that Part 3 as amended stand part.
Woodhouse MichaelHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Point of order Madam Chairperson. Dr Webb moved that the question be put and the question wasn't put. I just wonder if you could clarify whether or not that was the preceding motion which would certainly have been opposed by the National Party and we didn't have the opportunity to record our vote on that motion.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): When Dr Webb sought the closure motion nobody else from the Opposition side sought another call. I declined the motion and because no one else from your side of the House asked for a call that's why we went on. The question is that the Minister's amendments to Part 3 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 23 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 75New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Noes 45New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Amendments agreed to.The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 75 Noes 35.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The Hon Michael Woodhouse's tabled amendments to clauses 85 to 89 are out of order as 24 hours' notice was not given for amendments that may have impact on the Government's fiscal aggregates.
Salesa JennyCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that Brooke van Velden's tabled amendments to amendments in Supplementary Order Paper 23 relating to Part 3 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments to the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 10ACT New Zealand 10.Noes 108New Zealand Labour 65; New Zealand National 33; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Amendments to the amendments not agreed to.
Woodhouse Michael; Parker DavidHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Just a brief intervention following up from my earlier intervention. The Minister challenged my assessment that the costs on the telecommunication industry for the GST on roaming charges would be much higher than he thought and he's right in terms of the submissions that were made—at least that I can see and I've got plenty of them in front of me. It was initially estimated to be $1 million. I have a recollection that the select committee did actually hear from a submitter in the telecommunication industry that suggested that was a very very low estimate but I cannot find the written version of that submission so I have to accept the point. But I also add my support for the view that Mr Bayly put in that the $7 million of revenue was also significantly exaggerated in the context of COVID and submitters did acknowledge that because of a significant reduction in the amount of people travelling to New Zealand that revenue was likely to be heroically overstated. Nevertheless my substantive point is actually on the principle not the costs and those principles still apply. He mentioned the OECD and indeed we heard quite a bit about this from submitters particularly the EU and the EU is different. The UK and the EU are quite different where essentially they are domestic providers for the purposes of roaming where one can actually take their own telecommunications provider with them from one country to the next. That's not the case and it's not possible to do that in New Zealand or for New Zealanders to do that overseas. They have to hook in to a local telecommunications provider. It is still a service being provided to a person overseas by an overseas organisation and for that reason it should not be subject to GST. Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Revenue): I've been handed by officials the submission from Deloitte to the select committee where on behalf of Vodafone Spark and 2degrees they estimated the upfront cost of implementing the systems changes to capture GST on outbound roaming would cost approximately $1 million.
Willis Nicola; Parker DavidNICOLA WILLIS (National): I wish to return to this issue in Part 3 around the GST treatment of mobile roaming services because this was something that we explored in the select committee and we weren't really able to get to the bottom of the rationale for the changes. Essentially this imposes GST on roaming services in a way that it hasn't been done previously. It's a new tax and what I want to understand from the Minister is what work if any he or his officials have done to judge how much revenue this new measure will bring in and how that marries up versus the additional compliance costs that will be created in chasing that revenue and specifically where those compliance costs will fall because it has been my understanding that the compliance costs in order to gather that GST will in fact fall particularly on telecommunications providers so that the people who are going to have to chase this revenue on behalf of the taxpayer are actually the private companies whose customers are affected by it. I think it's important that we have an understanding of whether or not the Minister sees there being a threshold here where the revenue being obtained would be so little as to outweigh the benefit of having this clause at all—that is potentially having some sort of a review mechanism to allow for the fact that if the telecommunications industry has to undertake incredibly costly upgrades in order to chase what may be a small amount of revenue the Minister or IRD would admit at that point that this is a poor idea. National Party members expressed in our minority view that we don't believe that the existing rules are inconsistent with best practice as has been claimed and we believe that mobile roaming charges should continue to be zero rated. They are exported services consumed by New Zealanders overseas and applying GST to such services we continue to believe is inconsistent with the Goods and Services Tax Act. So it is in that context that I ask: how much revenue will this get how much will it cost to get that revenue and who bears the cost of gathering that revenue? Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Revenue): I've previously addressed both of those points.
Edmonds BarbaraBARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana): Thank you Madam Chair. A lot of the detail sometimes is in the definitions of the bill and I note that in Part 3—I'm looking specifically at clause 67 Minister—the definition of tax" in subclause (4)(e) looks at "replace 'for the purposes of sections 6 6A' with 'for the purposes of Part 10B' ". Now if you look at Part 10B of the Tax Administration Act I understand that's in relation to the Small Business Cashflow (Loan) Scheme. So is what the Minister's proposing to do with this particular clause—Hon David Parker: Which clause sorry? BARBARA EDMONDS: So it's clause 67 and it's the widening of the definition of "tax" and it's in relation to the Small Business Cashflow (Loan) Scheme. My assumption is that obviously it's a remedial. So if I look at what it's intending to do is it correct to say that that particular provision in Part 3 is looking to widen the definition of tax to allow a tax refund owed to a taxpayer—to allow them to directly transfer that to their outstanding Small Business Cashflow (Loan) Scheme or the amount that is underneath their loan? My assumption is understanding the tax Acts it's possibly for compliance reasons because if I understand how tax refunds—well I understand how tax refunds work. The taxpayer has to go to IRD. Unless it's automatically offset against other tax types then the taxpayer has to go to IRD and has to request that it be offset to a particular tax type if it's not within the definition of tax. So if my reading is correct this remedial which is in clause 67 page 56 of the bill and around widening the definition of tax in Part 10B to include the Small Business Cashflow (Loan) Scheme—I just want to clarify with the Minister: is it the intention of that particular remedial to allow the taxpayers to avoid tax compliance costs for it to be automatically offset against their Small Business Cashflow (Loan) Scheme amount that is due? Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Revenue): Yes at the election of the taxpayer. So yes the member is correct that a member could elect that their tax refund is applied directly to repayment of a loan of that type. Referring again to the matters raised by the two prior speakers as to why wouldn't we delay the provisions in relation to GST on outbound roaming services: in addition to the fact that businesses get it back I'm advised that the proposed change doesn't come into effect until 1 April 2022 anyway which is over 12 months from now. A further delay of another two years which would be a total delay of 3½ years is in our view not justified and it would also come at a revenue cost. On that basis I'll also be seeking that the Chair rule that amendment out which would delay its coming into force."
Smith Damien; Parker DavidDAMIEN SMITH (ACT): Thank you very much Madam Chair. I think we recall from the last debate that this was an area where suddenly COVID and its application and its effect on markets and commerce is being discounted. We clearly know that for the next couple of years we're not coming on stream the way we were before and that there was a simple solution to this part of the bill which was to delay this and have more consultation with the industry to May 2024 or scrap it altogether—scrap it altogether—because the fiscal benefits and the monetised costs and the non-monetised costs don't make any sense. I'll call this a stealth tax as well because businesses—and it'll be spread across ordinary New Zealanders as well—will not even see this or register this but it's our job to pick it up and make some sense out of it. So one of the proposals that I have to the IRD and the Minister and the advisers is to go down those two channels and let's take it back and make some sense of it. We delay the implementation date or we scrap it altogether. Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Revenue): I appreciate the member's concern for the effect of this on business. There is no net effect for business because they of course would be able to claim this GST back in their own GST returns as an input.