edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Luxton JoHon JO LUXTON (Labour): It's a pleasure to take a call on this bill. Can I first acknowledge my colleague Dr Duncan Webb for bringing this legislation to the House and seeing its passage through. Can I acknowledge the select committee; my colleague the Hon Willow-Jean Prime mentioned before that they spent quite a long time really looking hard and working on this bill to make it what it is that we have before us today. I'm not part of the select committee but I have enjoyed listening to the contributions that have been made this afternoon and hearing the pretty amazing and powerful back-story of Mr McLean and what brought his vision to life.Mr Speaker it is nice to have some collegiality in the House. Can I say it's actually quite refreshing for a change; we haven't heard that a lot of late. Oh sorry Madam Speaker—sorry Madam Speaker.From what we have heard across the House what this bill does is it just simply seeks to bring the purpose back that was envisaged by Mr McLean which is simply to support women and children in need of welfare assistance. It does make another change as Mr Costley referred to before where the trust board can make changes or through the High Court rather than them having to come back here and have it made through an active Parliament. So without further ado Madam Speaker I commend this bill to the House.
McKee NicoleHon NICOLE McKEE (ACT): I stand on behalf of the ACT Party to speak to the McLean Institute (Trust Variation) Bill. This will be a short call because we're looking at agreeing with some of the changes that have been made to the 1909 original trust deed that was implemented. Basically this bill is looking to modernise the charitable trust and some of the clauses that are within it. It includes flexibility on trustee criteria and being able to remove some trustees if need be.The welfare and the wellbeing of disadvantaged women in Canterbury will now be captured and it will be captured because they are stated within the amended bill as being eligible to be able to participate with the trust as opposed to what was and I quote gentlewomen or women of refinement" and with children under the age of 10 years old.Allan McLean's will did want to make sure that we looked after those disadvantaged women and children in Canterbury. By modernising the terminology within the trust it means that we'll be able to give more access to more women and more children and on that basis we do support the bill."
Cameron MarkMARK CAMERON (ACT): Thank you Mr Speaker and good morning everyone. Thank you so much to speak to this legislation I'm grateful to speak to it. I think we've canvassed and litigated the issues well.Māori holds significant interest in New Zealand fisheries and the former member—or sorry the member of the Green Party—has just illuminated that point. As Minister Jones noted previously in his remarks in his third reading some 40 percent of catch entitlement is through the Quota Management System. We would all argue that is significant in value. This bill as it passes through into law will only embolden that reality and I think we all agree that is certainly what the industry would want.This legislation will afford Māoridom greater autonomy—which it deserves—better investment surety opportunity and an industry which is worth billions will only grow out of the back of that certainly helping Māori communities in doing so.I want to acknowledge the Māori Affairs Committee for diligently shepherding this piece of legislation through the House congratulate them on their work their diligence their accomplishments and what I see is good lawmaking. I've heard from the constituency they've understood and reconciled those issues and out the other side we see this kaupapa has certainly created an environment which will help Māoridom and investment surety.I don't see any point to further litigate nor debate this issue. This is a wonderful piece of legislation. Great work everyone ACT fully supports this bill.
Webb DuncanMCLEAN INSTITUTE (TRUST VARIATION) BILLThird ReadingHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Kia orana Mr Speaker. I move That the McLean Institute (Trust Variation) Bill be now read a third time.It's a pleasure to discharge my duty as a local MP and to marshal this bill through the House. The McLean Institute is a charitable institute established in Christchurch in accordance with the will of Allan McLean who actually passed away in 1907. He was a generous advocate for women supporting them and their children to be housed long term and assisted beneficiaries to ensure that they had daily necessities.The aim of this bill and the McLean Institute is to continue Mr McLean's legacy. The difficulty has been that with the passing of time the purposes set out in Mr McLean's will have become difficult to give effect to. They've become dated the language wasn't appropriate to modern times and the original charitable objectives don't really fit with modern societal norms and language.So the bill really just needed an update to the terms of the trust allowing the board to continue to support women and children in need of welfare assistance in a way that takes into consideration today's social challenges and it also returns the institute's assistance to the original charitable purpose as envisaged by Allan McLean.The bill is entirely appropriate and obviously I very much support it. It supports the institute to provide temporary emergency and transitional housing for women and their children who are in need and provides women with housing at an affordable cost where they require assistance to locate or retain suitable housing within their financial means.It also enables the institute to provide accommodation and other support for young women transitioning out of foster care and their children. It also provides support for women in distress due to mental health or addiction issues disability trauma violence homelessness poverty illness or long-term disabilities. It's really seeking to enable women to live independently and to participate in their communities and to promote awareness of family violence and the abuse of that nature which is entirely unacceptable.At its core the bill changes the purposes in the trust deed by confirming that any woman and child can be assisted by the trust making it more accessible and by removing any suggestion that the previous wording had that women had to be of particular standing or from a particular social class. It also broadens the purpose of the trust to support women who need support for assistance with financial health or other situations.It's members' day today. This bill is not a contentious bill. It's supported across the House and I don't propose to dwell on the bill any further other than to say it has been a privilege to make sure that this bill does progress that the charitable purposes of Allan McLean are furthered and that the assistance rendered to women and their children will continue as originally contemplated in 1907. I commend the bill to the House.
Brownlee Gerry; Swarbrick ChlöeQuestion No. 5 to MinisterSPEAKER: Can I just go back to the leave request from Chlöe Swarbrick. Under Speakers' rulings 165 you can say the document is not available to all members and if you have permission of the writer to table it in this way you can put the leave.CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Co-Leader—Green): I seek leave of the House to table a letter to the Prime Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs from a number of NGOs academics and other community organisations calling for this Government to do everything it can to act for Palestine.SPEAKER: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is none. The document can be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Brownlee Gerry; Stephenson Todd; Seymour DavidQuestion No. 2 to MinisterSPEAKER: I would just remind members that yesterday I reinforced with whips and others who were at the Business Committee that the display of party logos in the House in any form is not a permitted activity and hasn't been for some time. There are people displaying party logos at the moment. My advice is that they should remove those logos in any form that they might have them in order that I don't have to take stronger action to raise the standards that so many in this House want to see raised. Question No. 2 in the name of Todd Stephenson. TODD STEPHENSON (ACT): Thank you Mr Speaker—SPEAKER: Good and I'll stop him right there. You can go ahead with your question when you've got rid of the logo. Todd Stephenson: Well Mr Speaker a point of order then. SPEAKER: It's not a point of order; I'm ruling. Todd Stephenson: We'll I would just refer you to a ruling Speaker Mallard made in relation to pins in the House. SPEAKER: That's good. I've made a ruling a new one yesterday—nothing. So if you want to deliver your question to the House remove the pin. Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Point of order Mr Speaker. Mr Mallard clearly ruled that pins were exempt from that ruling in 2018. If you are seriously saying that you're not going to let people ask and answer questions in this House because they're wearing a pin—as they've been allowed to for year after year—I think more and more people are going to ask what your priorities actually are. SPEAKER: They may well ask all sorts of question about priorities. All I'm saying is that I've been put under the pump today being told that I need to maintain standards here in the House. One of them is the ruling that I made yesterday that we don't wear party logos of any type in the House. So there's an obvious next step in this. I don't want to take it but that's up to the members. Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Point of order Mr Speaker. Are you seriously saying that under Standing Order 90(1) you are going to kick a member out of the House for being highly disorderly for wearing a lapel pin? SPEAKER: No it would be for challenging the Chair or the Speaker which is quite a different matter as has been pointed out by others in the House already today. So look if the member thinks the wearing of his pin is more important than the delivery of his question that's his choice but it's the way things are going to be. So we'll move on to question No. 3 in the name of the Rt Hon Chris Hipkins. Todd Stephenson: No sir—sorry sir. I've taken my pin off. SPEAKER: Well you're a bit slow. Todd Stephenson: No you didn't call me. SPEAKER: Well I didn't—listen don't make things worse. So in my extreme good nature I'll allow you to ask the question but I notice that others in your party are not following your example and I would suggest that they should start. And if they don't well then I've got to go back to where I was before—question No. 3. Question No. 3: I call the Rt Hon Chris Hipkins.
9. Question No. 9—JusticeTOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty) to the Minister of JusticeQuestion No. 9—Justice9. TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty) to the Minister of Justice: What actions is the Government taking to ensure real consequences for crime?Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): This Government is taking a range of actions to restore real consequences for crime. We know that in recent years those consequences have diminished. And with tougher laws and by bolstering the resources for the front line and by setting defined targets New Zealanders now have a Government that is taking the safety of the public and the needs of victims seriously.Tom Rutherford: What progress has been made on the Gangs Legislation Amendment Bill?Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well yesterday the Gangs Legislation Amendment Bill was progressed by Parliament through the second reading. Gang membership has increased by 51 percent in the previous six years and in the same time violent crime has gone up by 33 percent and retail crime by 110 percent. This is a significant piece of legislation that provides police with more tools to deal with gangs who have been allowed to peddle misery in our communities for far too long.Tom Rutherford: What commentary if any has he heard on the Gangs Legislation Amendment Bill?Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well I was astounded to hear this comment: I want you to ask yourself: would you rather be walking down a dark alley and see a patched member or a police officer? For many people in New Zealand they would feel safer alone with a patched member than the police." And that comment was made by a Green MP in the House last night. And to our police who put their lives on the line to protecting our communities that comment must feel like a kick in the guts.Tom Rutherford: Does he believe that police are a greater menace to society than gangs?Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: No I do not. And the very suggestion is repugnant. And apparently the Green Party aren't sure.Tom Rutherford: What impact will the Gangs Legislation Amendment Bill have on restoring real consequences for crime and when?Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well the Gangs Legislation Amendment Bill does four things: it creates a criminal offence for displaying gang insignia in public which often causes fear and intimidation; it gives the police the power to stop gang members gathering in public; it creates a non-consorting order that can be imposed by the court; and it gives greater weight to gang membership in sentencing. The Justice Committee recommended the commencement date of 21 November and the impact of this will be felt well before Christmas."
1. Question No. 1—FinanceKATIE NIMON (National—Napier) to the Minister of FinanceORAL QUESTIONSQUESTIONS TO MINISTERSQuestion No. 1—Finance1. KATIE NIMON (National—Napier) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has she seen about tax relief for New Zealanders?Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Associate Minister of Finance) on behalf of the Minister of Finance: This morning I saw a report that tax relief is finally arriving for hard-working New Zealanders who've waited 14 long years. The good news is that tax relief arrives today. The report goes on to say Overall 83 percent of Kiwis—94 percent of households—will benefit from the tax package" which comes into effect today. The report is titled "Promised Cost of Living Relief is Here" and it came from the Minister of Finance's office this morning. On this side of the House we're very pleased to be making sure Kiwi workers can keep more of what they earn.Katie Nimon: What other reports has the Minister seen about tax relief?Hon CHRIS BISHOP: On behalf of the Minister of Finance I've seen another report this morning which outlines that voters in Northland and Christchurch are pleased to be pocketing a bit more of their hard-earned cash through tax relief. The Radio New Zealand report quotes a woman as saying "Every little bit helps." and another woman saying "I think anything that puts more money into New Zealand families' pockets is a good thing." It goes on to quote a man as saying "I see it was targeted at the right people." These people are right. Responsibly funded tax relief is needed and it is targeted at low and middle income workers.Katie Nimon: Has the Minister seen further support of reports about tax relief?Hon CHRIS BISHOP: On behalf of the Minister of Finance yes. I've seen another report this morning from a commentator talking about tax who said "Bracket adjustment is a legitimate thing to do and I think it's a sensible thing to do."—a very wise and sensible comment a view that I think the House would do well to listen to. That supportive comment was made this morning on Breakfast TV by none other than the Leader of the Opposition Chris Hipkins.Katie Nimon: Has the Minister received any fresh updates on how much interest there is from hard-working New Zealanders in tax relief?Hon CHRIS BISHOP: On behalf of the Minister of Finance yes indeed I have. More good news. I received an update this morning from the Treasury which shows the tax calculator has hit a new high of 591414 visits as Kiwis find out how much they will be getting in long-overdue tax relief. The numbers are going up every minute. New Zealanders are clearly very interested in tax relief which is very unsurprising given they haven't seen it for 14 long years. We are delivering on what we promised as part of this coalition Government."
Brownlee GerryPETITIONS PAPERS SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLSSPEAKER: A petition has been delivered to the Clerk for presentation.CLERK: Petition of Kevin Moran requesting that the House urge the Government not to list Sams Creek Mine in Schedule 2 of the Fast-track Approvals Bill.SPEAKER: That petition stands referred to the Petitions Committee. A paper has been delivered for presentation.CLERK: Network for Learning Limited Statement of Intent 2024-28 together with Statement of Performance Expectations 2024/25.SPEAKER: That paper is published under the authority of the House. No select committee reports have been delivered for presentation; no bills introduced.
Tuiono TeanauWEDNESDAY 31 JULY 2024The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.KARAKIA/PRAYERSASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): E te Atua kaha rawa ka tuku whakamoemiti atu mātou mō ngā karakia kua waihotia mai ki runga i a mātou. Ka waiho i ō mātou pānga whaiaro katoa ki te taha. Ka mihi mātou ki te Kīngi me te inoi atu mō te ārahitanga i roto i ō mātou whakaaroarohanga kia mōhio ai kia whakaiti ai tā mātou whakahaere i ngā take o te Whare nei mō te oranga te maungārongo me te aroha o Aotearoa. Āmene.[Almighty God we give thanks for the blessings which have been bestowed on us. Laying aside all personal interests we acknowledge the King and pray for guidance in our deliberations that we may conduct the affairs of this House with wisdom and humility for the welfare peace and compassion of New Zealand. Amen.]
Taxation (Budget Measures) Bill — In Committee—Part 2
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That debate on this question now close.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 49New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.Motion agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That Arena Williams' tabled amendments to replace section MD 13(3)(i) and (ii) be agreed to.Ayes 49New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.Noes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Amendments not agreed to.A party 1vote was called for on the question That Arena Williams' tabled amendments to replace section MD 13(3) and delete clauses 12 14 to 16 and 18 be agreed to.Ayes 49New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.Noes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Amendments not agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the Part 2 be agreed to.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 49New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.Part 2 agreed to.
Boyack Rachel; Watts SimonRACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Thank you Mr Chair. I'm delighted to be able to take my first call on the Taxation (Budget Measures) Bill and I do appreciate Mr Chair your providing me with that opportunity to take this call. I wanted to begin just by reminding the committee that as we are in urgency we do expect to have answers to those questions that colleagues have put forward and I want to touch quickly on a couple of the questions and contributions from my colleagues because obviously we don't have the opportunity as members to engage through that select committee process. So I do just want to begin my call by really asking the Minister to engage and to respond to those questions. The first was around the contribution from my colleague Dr Deborah Russell—which Tangi Utikere touched on—about the analysis around fraud and I just don't believe we've had a response yet from the Minister. So I'm looking forward to the Minister hopefully taking a call—are you going to take a call? Great! Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Revenue): Yeah thank you very much. I'll take a call in response to those questions. So in regards to the abatement rate and the effective marginal tax rates the modelling will depend on the ability to get the respective data from the relevant players including the early childhood education sector. That's not information that the IRD currently holds so that modelling—for the member's question—has not been undertaken but as and when that data starts to flow through we'll be able to do it. There was a question before around the four-year period in terms of why it's four years. Four years is a standard period in regards to the way in which—time-barred for Inland Revenue's products. So that's the basis for those two.
Williams Arena; Hernandez FranciscoARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you Mr Chair. I want to give the Minister an opportunity to answer at least one of the eight questions I have put to him about what is an incredibly important part of this part. This is the only part where we can discuss a promise that the National Party campaigned on and costed in an operating allowance that we could have relied upon until just two days ago an operating allowance which included a change to the family tax credit abatement threshold. That would have been the bigger change; it's not in here. We don't know the fiscal cost of it. We haven't been told how many people that affects. And so the Opposition is struggling to be able to decode why the Minister wouldn't accept my amendment to Part 2.The amendment to Part 2—the only answer that the Minister gave me then was that he couldn't tell where my Amendment Paper was. I hope the Clerk can help him find the amendment that was tabled. One was tabled at 7.20 p.m. last night and I believe the other one was tabled at about 1.20 p.m. yesterday. So the Minister and his officials have had time to consider this. You know why they've also had time to consider this? Because it was fully costed in the National Party's fiscal plan. It is in their operating allowance and it wasn't there until two days ago.Why can't the Minister tell me what the fiscal cost of the amendment on the Table is today when he thought there was value in introducing it because he campaigned on it? Why can the Minister in the chair not answer one of the eight questions I have put to him about this amendment? Why isn't the Minister considering it? Is it the case that he has told the backbenchers on that side that he will be voting for my amendment? Because this amendment is in line with his values—it's not what I would do but it is what he would do. It is what he told the electorate he would do. So let me help you Minister.FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ (Green): Just a very quick question a very quick contribution. I'm curious to hear the Minister's explanation about why a four-year period was picked instead of any other time frame. That seems to be quite a short time frame. This is new section 41C subsections (9) and (10). They refer to the four-year period in both (9) and (10) and so I'm just curious what the rationale was for picking a four-year period. I want to also know if other kinds of year periods were explored and what the kind of shake-up of that was. Thank you.
Utikere TangiTANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Kia orana. Thank you Mr Chair. I'm yet to receive a response from the Minister to a question that I put to him. It's largely framed around the support and how Pacific communities as a family unit can function. So I would be very interested for the Minister to at least address the question if he's not able to provide a fulsome response. Just to remind him the data indicates that just under a quarter—around 24 percent Minister—of children are looked after or cared for in informal arrangements that involve grandparents or potentially extended whānau or anau. Now in a Pacific context that could again mean an aunt an uncle an older sibling or perhaps someone much older and so I am interested in hearing an answer from the Minister given that we are an urgency given that we have not had an opportunity to put this in front of the very people who would be impacted by this potential change.I referenced the change in new section MH 3(5) inserted by clause 14 because my read of that section indicates that those that might fall within that Pasifika context and the definition of that would not necessarily be eligible even though they would be seen or perceived as the primary person that is responsible for the children even though many of them will be 65 or over and what they would be getting in terms of proposed additional support is $2.25 a week. I'm interested to have a response from the Minister around that.I'm also interested in the Minister commenting on or at least addressing what has been raised by my colleague Dr Russell and that's around the fraud aspect. So I think this is really important because it is a new process it is a new opportunity and I'd like to hear from the Minister please: where is the integrity within the process particularly in the context of a Budget that potentially provides less for prosecution and more for enforcement? So where there might be family units and others that may find it difficult to engage with the administration requirements and the criteria of getting this in on a quarterly basis—or indeed whether it's the early childhood education (ECE) provider that may be held up and not able to so it's not actually the fault of the parent or the family unit to get the information but the additional responsibilities on the ECE provider—where is the integrity in the process in terms of addressing the potential for fraud so early on in this process?
O'Connor Greg; Watts SimonCHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Just before—for the Hansard—I was not referring to this Minister in the Chair being on his cell phone. I want to clarify that you've been very attentive Minister Watts.Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Revenue): Thank you Mr Chair. The member Arena Williams doesn't have an Amendment Paper on the Table so I'm not sure what her contribution was referring to. But in regards to the question in regards to a circumstance where there may be a separation during the quarter there is no appropriate pro rata or apportionment process. The decision around eligibility is a point-in-time decision at the end of the quarter and so quite simply that's how that process would work in regards to that question.
Williams ArenaARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you Mr Chair. My question is about my question about the fiscal cost of the abatement is something that I acknowledge the Minister has been asked a couple of times and he hasn't been able to answer so what I might do is clarify why that is important while he considers with his officials.So this question is because there are two changes being made to the family tax credit regime that were being considered only two days ago before the introduction of this bill. One was increasing the rate to $25 a week. That has been done in this bill—that is a good change. That is a change we can all support because it means that low-income families are getting $25 extra a week in the hand through the family tax credit and that is both an efficient way to distribute that money and it is a targeted way that goes to the people who need it.But the second change that was being considered prior to the introduction of this bill was the bigger change. It was the bigger fiscal impact that affected more people—we're talking in the number of tens of thousands of people. That hasn't been done. That was the change to the abatement threshold and it was from $42000 to $50000. So the reason I'm asking the Minister is about the fiscal cost of that which is not being done. Then I want him to help us understand how big that is for the families who have been affected by the decision to not make that change.I ask it because I'll bring the Minister back to Part 2 of my Amendment Paper.James Meager: Are we still on Part 2? Been here for a while.Carl Bates: Are we on Part 2?ARENA WILLIAMS: It's on the Table for the members who are a bit confused about where we are—I hear their interjections.James Meager: Oh what clause?ARENA WILLIAMS: It's Part 2 clause 3A on my Amendment Paper. It inserts a new clause 3A which reads ND 13 Calculation of family credit abatement."James Meager: Not Part 2. Part 2 is clause 8.ARENA WILLIAMS: I think the member is a bit confused because he might be looking at the Minister's Amendment Paper. My paper seeks to amend the Minister's amendment and so where we are is we're amending in the Minister's Amendment Paper the Income Tax Act 2007. This Amendment Paper would seek to insert a change to that principal Act the Income Tax Act 2007. The reason it is here is this part is the only part in which I could amend it for the Minister because he promised to do it before we got here with this bill."
O'Connor Greg; Xu-Nan LawrenceCHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): I'm going to indicate that I'm going to go back to Lawrence Xu-Nan—I noticed when you were asking your questions the Minister in the chair at the time was on a cellphone for the whole time. So while the Minister's fully entitled to be out of the Chamber I would expect the Minister in the chair to show a little more attention to the Chair while he's in that position. So Lawrence Xu-Nan we'll go back to you for your speech. And Arena Williams if you would like some of those earlier questions you're welcome to them as well. Lawrence Xu-Nan.Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you so much Mr Chair. I will keep this brief because—if I can find the section. This is around new section MH 4—I have lost it. This is around subsections (5) and (6) of new section MH 4 in new Subpart MH inserted by clause 14. The question I have to the Minister is: if the Minister wouldn't mind providing a clarification of subsection (7) of new section MH 4 where it says that subsection (5) does not apply if the main income tax holder has a partner and has split up and they no longer have a new partner by the end of that quarter. So clarification is needed as to whether it meant that that main partner would be considered single for the entire duration of that quarter—because it says Subsection (5) does not apply"—or if it's going to be pro rata as in they will only be counting depending on the date of separation or the precise month. So I think that clarification will be quite helpful."
Xu-Nan LawrenceDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you Mr Chair. I have more of a question of clarification. This is with regard to a section that we haven't discussed yet and this is clause 14 inserting new Subpart MH new section MH 4(5) and (6). So for new subsection (5) it talks about the question of If the person has a spouse civil union partner or de facto partner". This is something that is going to be really crucial when we're looking at something that is retrospective in nature of people getting a tax credit quarterly. So in this case it says that the personal tax income takes into consideration the person's tax credit income and the tax credit income of their partner for the quarter.But I have a question of what happens if the couple separates. So luckily this was mentioned in subsection (6) which says "Subsection (5)"—which is the previous subsection—"does not apply for a quarter if the person is separated from their partner and does not have a new partner at the end of that quarter." So my question here is: when subsection (6) is triggered does it encompass the entire duration of the quarter as indicated in subsection (5) or does subsection (6) only consider pro rata the period of time where the main person with the tax credit income no longer has a partner? I think this is a really important point of clarification for in this case—in more cases or not as we see in the regulatory impact statement—it affects women and particularly solo mothers with young children. So I think that clarification of whether subsection (6) encompasses the entire quarter or if it's going to be pro rata when the partner is separated is going to be a really important clarification for the people of Aotearoa.So if the Minister wouldn't mind just clarifying whether subsection (6) applies to the entire quarter or just for the period that the person no longer has a partner. That would be really good if he could answer that."
Watts SimonHon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Revenue): Just working through some of those questions the answer is $180000 for the last aspect which was the maximum income threshold.Reportable income includes salary wages interest dividends scheduled payments and employee share incomes—and that is a defined term.The abatement question in regards to the National Party policy: it is something that wasn't proceeded on raising it from $42000 to $50000 but it relates to the Working for Families tax credit not the FamilyBoost conversation that we are having at the moment.In regards to why the numbers decrease on page 79 the summary of initiatives in terms of the cost it is because there is an understanding that household incomes are expected to increase in time and those aspects will always be subject to review by Government in regards to its broader tax policy.
Twyford Phil; Watts SimonHon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): Thank you Mr Chairman. My question for the Minister in the chair is: what is the percentage of eligible families expected to take up the childcare-fee refund option based on the modelling that I assume was done to inform the Government's policy choice in this area? The Minister said in an earlier intervention that he had answered Jan Tinetti's question on this. I don't believe with respect that he did. I have to assume that modelling on uptake was done. It would be negligent I would think if it wasn't. And I would ask the Minister to comment on what that modelling says in terms of breaking down projected uptake on the basis of income ethnicity and one- and two-parent households for example which I think would be helpful to the debate that the committee is having. It's clear from the regulatory impact statement that the Government opted to go for the quicker option instead of the option that would have put in place a system that would have less compliance burden on families. As Deborah Russell has commented it would have taken maybe a couple of years to put that in place. And I'm interested to know what the Minister's rationale was and what Cabinet's rationale was for going for the shorter-term option—Hon David Parker: Or transitioning.Hon PHIL TWYFORD: —or transitioning or going for the shorter-term option but actually putting in place the better option over time and transitioning to what is described as option three in the regulatory impact statement.Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Revenue): The modelling that we undertook assumed 100 percent uptake.
Watts SimonHon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Revenue): Just in regards to the member's questions around consultation I outlined a process. In addition to that Inland Revenue is also consulting with early childhood education providers directly in terms of some of the language considerations and that depending on what is applicable. So in addition to the services that they already provide there will be services and documentation in different languages provided for those individuals which covers off some of the points around consultation.The question around when the money would actually go into one's bank account: I mean technically and assuming that an individual—the father in the case that was raised from Rotorua—did an application that met all the criteria in effect they could submit that on 1 October and they would be paid due to overnight processing on 2 October; hypothetically assuming that everything else was appropriate. So that would be my message and that would be backdated to 1 July.
Genter Julie Anne; Watts SimonHon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai): Sorry I can't quite hear you Mr Chair. Just on the third question about it being capped at $75 a week though does that mean it will be less than 25 percent of the total cost for those families that have two children in full-time care?I do just want to come back to the question Minister Watts—I think maybe you haven't quite answered it yet—which is about this Figure 1 in the distributional analysis of options. It does seem to indicate that households with the highest incomes in New Zealand benefit much more than the middle and low income households from the total package including the FamilyBoost. Last night the Minister indicated that this was only an analysis of the personal income tax changes. However the annex of the regulatory impact statement on the personal income tax relief does seem to indicate this is the entire package. So even with the transfers that the Government's announced it does seem to disproportionately benefit the highest-income families. Is that correct?Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Revenue): Yeah I'll just clarify that point. So the graph that the member's referring to in the regulatory impact statement for personal income tax in the graphs is reflective of the four elements of the initiatives not the individual components. It actually does encompass all elements. So just to correct that point. There isn't any separate analysis of each bucket that we have but what you're seeing there is a combination of all of the policies.
Genter Julie Anne; Watts Simon; Tuiono TeanauHon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai): That's me? Oh great. Mr Chair thank you. I have a series of questions for the Minister. I would really appreciate an answer—I can't find it in either the specific regulatory impact statement for the FamilyBoost or the more broad one. How many families are expected to receive the full benefit of the FamilyBoost? That's the full $75 per week. Did he seek or receive any advice on how to ensure more families get the full support?Then why is it capped at $75 per family when a family with two children in full-time care—$75 a week will be less than 15 percent of the total cost rather than the 25 percent I know that the Government and the Minister have said they they're really hoping to achieve.Finally about the rules—I guess I'm interested in the relationship rules. So how does the FamilyBoost work for single parents? If we imagine a single mother who's paying all of her children's early childhood education costs is eligible for the FamilyBoost based on her income but she ends up with a new partner—a de facto partner—after a couple of years who's not contributing to her childcare costs because it's not their child but that partner earns above the threshold will the single mother still get the FamilyBoost and if not why not?Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Revenue): So just in response to that question around 21000 families will get the full impact of the FamilyBoost policy; around 100000 families will be able to get some benefit from the overarching policy. Consideration was put in terms of single-parent families and the way in which the mechanics of that will work including those that are with children in foster care and other considerations like that—all of that thinking was put through. The quite simple reality is that they will be able to claim the benefit through that process and guidance around how they do that is included in the supporting material online on the IRD website.CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The Hon Julie Anne Genter.
11. Question No. 11—Commerce and Consumer AffairsGREG FLEMING (National—Maungakiekie) to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer AffairsQuestion No. 11—Commerce and Consumer Affairs11.GREG FLEMING (National—Maungakiekie) to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: What changes to the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act affordability regulations are coming into effect this week?Hon ANDREW BAYLY (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Thank you Mr Speaker. Good news too: from tomorrow 31 July 11 pages of overly prescriptive affordability regulations will no longer be part of the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act—commonly referred to as the CCCFA. Primarily the change will allow Kiwis to get access to the finance they need when they need it. Many borrowers have been locked out due to the excessive regulation that stopped lenders offering small loans and made it more difficult for families looking to buy their first home. What hasn't changed is the requirement for lenders to act in a responsible manner and they will still be liable if they don't.Greg Fleming: So why did the regulations need to be changed?Hon ANDREW BAYLY: The regulations treated borrowers like children. Borrowers were required to explain why they did things like buy an occasional coffee join a gym or treated the family to fish and chips every now and again—even when they clearly could afford to. Lenders had to do things like check whether the information provided by the applicant regarding their personal expenses was for example in line with the living data held by Stats New Zealand.Greg Fleming: So what protections remain for borrowers under the CCCFA?Hon ANDREW BAYLY: Let me be clear: the protections of the CCCFA remain in place. Lenders still have to properly assess loan affordability. Only the 11 pages of overly prescriptive lending regulations are being removed. We have also updated the responsible lending code. There are still stiff penalties for people who do not comply under the CCCFA—including $200000 for individuals or up to $600000 for other entities.Greg Fleming: What can a borrower do if they have been subject to poor lending practices?Hon ANDREW BAYLY: There are financial dispute resolution services available for all Kiwis. As part of this package of reform we're considering ways to improve these services. We have standardised the rules—for example all schemes are now able to award damages up to $500000. We want Kiwis to be able to resolve their disputes quickly and easily.
7. Question No. 7—HealthHon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour) to the Minister of HealthQuestion No. 7—Health7. Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour) to the Minister of Health: Does he agree with the Prime Minister's statement that there are 14 layers of management at Health New Zealand? Hon Dr SHANE RETI (Minister of Health): Yes I agree with the Prime Minister particularly when he said it's actually been a botched restructuring and a botched merger that actually hasn't delivered an efficient operating model." and that's obvious when you talk to the front-line staff—the doctors and the nurses at the front line. Whether it's patients or front-line staff there was too much distance between them and Health New Zealand leaders. That's why this Government has taken decisive action by appointing a commissioner to turn around Health New Zealand and to put patients and front-line workers front and centre. Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Is it correct that he advised the Prime Minister there were 14 layers of management at Health New Zealand? Hon Dr SHANE RETI: Yes it is correct. I received that advice from Health New Zealand. Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Did he or his office create or change the list of 14 layers of management within Health New Zealand that he supplied to the Prime Minister or media last week? Hon Dr SHANE RETI: We collaborated with Health New Zealand and we produced the table that was then published in public domain which we stand by. Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Isn't it a bit rich to accuse others of being poor governors when one week after his announcement he's still not really clear what the management structure of Te Whatu Ora really is? Hon Dr SHANE RETI: What is not rich is Health New Zealand because of the deficit that member left. Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Does his private health insurance cover injuries sustained while being thrown under the bus by the PM? Hon Dr SHANE RETI: Mr Speaker—SPEAKER: No you don't—we move now to question—Hon Chris Bishop: Supplementary question. SPEAKER: A point of order? Hon Chris Bishop: A supplementary question. SPEAKER: Oh a supplementary—the Hon Chris Bishop. Hon Chris Bishop: How many layers are there between Dr Ayesha Verrall and Kieran McAnulty in the Labour Party—SPEAKER: No that's not a question. I'm just going to have to generally warn members about those sorts of questions. They'll just lead to the curtailing of other questions."
4. Question No. 4—FinanceSTUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura) to the Minister of FinanceQuestion No. 4—Finance4. STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura) to the Minister of Finance: When will personal income tax thresholds be increased?Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Acting Minister of Finance): Income tax thresholds are being increased tomorrow. The in-work tax credit for low and middle income working families is being increased tomorrow. The independent earner tax credit is being extended to $70000 of income tomorrow. New Zealanders and their families will keep more of their hard-earned income and members on this side of the House are proud to have voted for it.Stuart Smith: What has been done to prepare employers and payroll providers for these changes?Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Delivering tax relief to employees requires more than 242000 employers and more than 120 payroll providers to be ready. The IRD has been working with these providers Government agencies large entities tax intermediaries and employer associations to ensure they have the right information to update their payroll systems. Inland Revenue has ensured they know what to do and are ready to go tomorrow.Stuart Smith: How much tax relief will people receive?Hon CHRIS BISHOP: People's circumstances vary. To see how an individual or family will benefit from tomorrow I strongly encourage people to go to budget.govt.nz and check out the tax calculator. But on average households will benefit by $60 a fortnight and households with children by $78 a fortnight. This tax relief as the Prime Minister has said has been targeted at ordinary hard-working families. On this side of the House we're proud to stand up for workers.Stuart Smith: How many people have now used the Budget tax calculator?Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well more good news. The Minister of Finance told the House last Thursday that 517000 people had used the tax calculator. I'm now happy to update members. The number of people using the calculator has now risen to 561000 people—up almost 45000 since the statement last week. Kiwis can't wait for tax relief because they haven't had it in 14 long years. And I just remind the House members opposite voted against it.
Gangs Legislation Amendment Bill — Second Reading
Local Government (Water Services Preliminary Arrangements) Bill — Second Reading
Resource Management (Extended Duration of Coastal Permits for Marine Farms) Amendment Bill — Second Reading
Taxation (Budget Measures) Bill — In Committee—Clauses 1 and 2