"\u003C!DOCTYPE html\u003E\u003Chtml xmlns:xlink=\u0022http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink\u0022 xmlns:xsi=\u0022http://www.w3.org/2007/XMLSchema-instance\u0022 xmlns:mml=\u0022http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML\u0022\u003E\n  \u003Chead\u003E\n    \u003CMETA http-equiv=\u0022Content-Type\u0022 content=\u0022text/html; charset=utf-16\u0022\u003E\n    \u003Cmeta name=\u0022viewport\u0022 content=\u0022width=device-width, initial-scale=1\u0022\u003E\n  \u003C/head\u003E\n  \u003Cbody style=\u0022font-family:sans-serif; font-size:100%;\u0022\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000001\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00225116fe127df946b5a2126961440fbd8e\u0022\u003ETUESDAY, 5 MARCH 2019\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000003\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00220dd1c8bcb7dd4e19a7fde4f2725988b0\u0022\u003ETUESDAY, 5 MARCH 2019\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000002\u0022\u003EThe Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000004\u0022\u003EPrayers.\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000005\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00227a3fc39dfcff48f2b083c46639b0bc52\u0022\u003EVisitors\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000006\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00227e38edef58b94f7b85369687db77d4c2\u0022\u003ECanada\u2014Commonwealth Parliamentary Association\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002279db8b64-1f9b-4416-9b81-a12963db9cbf\u0022 data-id=\u002291f4c483852e48d1949ec32f19fc0a1e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000007\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002279db8b64-1f9b-4416-9b81-a12963db9cbf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002291f4c483852e48d1949ec32f19fc0a1e\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019m sure that members would wish to welcome the honourable members of the Canadian Branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, led by Yasmin Ratansi MP, who are present in the gallery. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000008\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00220c4097972d0f4cd4a0763c342b79335f\u0022\u003EOral Questions\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000009\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00222779856c8c0d4ff5afa8b079ff89a5e3\u0022\u003EQuestions to Ministers\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000010\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00225a482ba79ca94758adeec57d3378ad0d\u0022\u003EQuestion No. 1\u2014Prime Minister\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022badb0a39-849c-462a-b32f-77fc017c9fc2\u0022 data-id=\u00221519113c6510404e98a8aa2e75d17af1\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000011\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022badb0a39-849c-462a-b32f-77fc017c9fc2\u0022\u003E1. \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221519113c6510404e98a8aa2e75d17af1\u0022\u003EHon SIMON BRIDGES (Leader of the Opposition)\u003C/span\u003E to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by all her Government\u2019s statements, policies, and actions? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022aa2209f1-1889-4c24-b51d-cb2aedc7aa93\u0022 data-id=\u0022b7bf9862838f401181d807f209ad963d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000012\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022aa2209f1-1889-4c24-b51d-cb2aedc7aa93\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b7bf9862838f401181d807f209ad963d\u0022\u003ERt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister):\u003C/span\u003E Yes. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000013\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022badb0a39-849c-462a-b32f-77fc017c9fc2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002239368ed9d304411b883f4a2f972a1aa7\u0022\u003EHon Simon Bridges\u003C/span\u003E: Is it fair that Kiwis on the average wage will lose $64,000 from their KiwiSaver over their lifetime due to the proposed capital gains tax? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000014\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002279db8b64-1f9b-4416-9b81-a12963db9cbf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022136f4a88f87b4efabb2a16f9b18001ff\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Order! Order! No, the Prime Minister will resume her seat. The question must be related to the original question. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000015\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022badb0a39-849c-462a-b32f-77fc017c9fc2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d801133a5f6e42578353dca46b64163a\u0022\u003EHon Simon Bridges\u003C/span\u003E: When she said that capital gains tax will be fair, is it fair that the Kiwis on an average wage will lose $64,000 from their KiwiSaver over their lifetime due to the proposed capital gains tax? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000016\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022aa2209f1-1889-4c24-b51d-cb2aedc7aa93\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ccbe243f52cd40f19d6451303b9598da\u0022\u003ERt Hon JACINDA ARDERN\u003C/span\u003E: Look, this is an assertion that has been made by the Leader of the Opposition, and yet he is unwilling to release the calculations that he claims he is making, because I am told that the advice from IRD and Treasury is that someone earning $62,000 a year would be better off by $33,000 under the Tax Working Group\u2019s package as it relates to KiwiSaver. So, by all means, I am happy to debate the member, but I want to debate him on the facts. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000017\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022badb0a39-849c-462a-b32f-77fc017c9fc2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d1accfbe460c4ab2809070a0eed35b1a\u0022\u003EHon Simon Bridges\u003C/span\u003E: Does that include all of Michael Cullen\u2019s option one offsets, and can she commit to offsetting any capital gains tax with tax cuts for KiwiSavers? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000018\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022aa2209f1-1889-4c24-b51d-cb2aedc7aa93\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002290100f011c4a44c28949e802b6acff69\u0022\u003ERt Hon JACINDA ARDERN\u003C/span\u003E: It includes the offsets within KiwiSaver because the Tax Working Group did not just make one single recommendation; it recommended a suite of changes to KiwiSaver. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000019\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022badb0a39-849c-462a-b32f-77fc017c9fc2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224f1fae7f29d54638864f714ad2e944d8\u0022\u003EHon Simon Bridges\u003C/span\u003E: In light of Michael Cullen accepting $64,000 as accurate, how on earth can\u2019t she? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000020\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022aa2209f1-1889-4c24-b51d-cb2aedc7aa93\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002256539abae3744c4ea9a70344102394db\u0022\u003ERt Hon JACINDA ARDERN\u003C/span\u003E: I absolutely disagree with the member\u2019s assertion. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000021\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226007dc96-f459-4cdd-9972-4fde2c994088\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022febcc5a285fb4d1a9a78a71370e5ad7d\u0022\u003EHon Grant Robertson\u003C/span\u003E: Is the Prime Minister aware that this figure of $64,000 was shopped around the press gallery by National last week and no one would pick it up? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000022\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002279db8b64-1f9b-4416-9b81-a12963db9cbf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002223e4fc7b688a467f96c7b9cf72500671\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Order! And a warning to this side: I\u2019ve already cut out one question here. The Minister of Finance knew that question was out of order. He was therefore disorderly and will stand, withdraw, and apologise. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000023\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226007dc96-f459-4cdd-9972-4fde2c994088\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002285003705053b414b86f4e4baf2d9b6e9\u0022\u003EHon Grant Robertson\u003C/span\u003E: I withdraw and apologise. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000024\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227e22bb95-9afb-449c-bcd2-de9fd4f2277c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002270a37b4a74664ad79443db7ca333ad14\u0022\u003EDavid Seymour\u003C/span\u003E: Is it possible that a proposed capital gains tax could be revenue-neutral? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000025\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022aa2209f1-1889-4c24-b51d-cb2aedc7aa93\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226196d61a72f448e99a81e228f4d65541\u0022\u003ERt Hon JACINDA ARDERN\u003C/span\u003E: That is certainly the request that we made of the Tax Working Group. It was to consider options around making the package revenue-neutral. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000026\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227e22bb95-9afb-449c-bcd2-de9fd4f2277c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229c09de535a7a4fa9b7044986af4464c9\u0022\u003EDavid Seymour\u003C/span\u003E: Why would a Government request advice that would make a tax system more complicated to get the same amount of revenue? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000027\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022aa2209f1-1889-4c24-b51d-cb2aedc7aa93\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022436b6981d9e44ea391f837cf6883f089\u0022\u003ERt Hon JACINDA ARDERN\u003C/span\u003E: Two points: firstly, to make the tax system fairer\u2014which seems like a pretty good reason to members on this side of the House\u2014and, secondly, almost every member of the OECD manages to deal with what is being asserted to be complicated. Why can\u2019t we? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000028\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022badb0a39-849c-462a-b32f-77fc017c9fc2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b3ebab11ff334f11b6ba18ae46295b33\u0022\u003EHon Simon Bridges\u003C/span\u003E: Will she commit to offsetting any capital gains tax with tax cuts for KiwiSavers? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000029\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022aa2209f1-1889-4c24-b51d-cb2aedc7aa93\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022abcf947f6ec94f80a6d84d1cea57df00\u0022\u003ERt Hon JACINDA ARDERN\u003C/span\u003E: The member well knows that the Tax Working Group\u2019s report is currently being considered by the Government. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000030\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022badb0a39-849c-462a-b32f-77fc017c9fc2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022613b1fa881874b24877474098f301afa\u0022\u003EHon Simon Bridges\u003C/span\u003E: Does she agree with what she\u2019s previously said in this House: \u201CThe difference is that we have prioritised things differently on this side of the Chamber. We have said, \u2018Yes, we need more revenue. We\u2019ll bring in a capital gains tax.\u2019\u00A0\u201D? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000031\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022aa2209f1-1889-4c24-b51d-cb2aedc7aa93\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224676816294694eba802ef6dfc8b5e6db\u0022\u003ERt Hon JACINDA ARDERN\u003C/span\u003E: The reason we undertook this work was because we believed we needed more fairness in our system. That is why we undertook this work in the first place, and now we, as a Government, are considering the findings of the Tax Working Group. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000032\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022badb0a39-849c-462a-b32f-77fc017c9fc2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022564fba14e4dc4a2eb6dd92edfa398224\u0022\u003EHon Simon Bridges\u003C/span\u003E: In light of the comments on fairness, is it fair to impose a capital gains tax on every KiwiSaver account in New Zealand? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000033\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022aa2209f1-1889-4c24-b51d-cb2aedc7aa93\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022347092d23be944e4b2f8f5921210eeee\u0022\u003ERt Hon JACINDA ARDERN\u003C/span\u003E: Again, if he has read the report, he will have seen the recommendations adopted by the Tax Working Group mean that people earning less than $70,000 a year end up being better off as a result of those changes. I again reiterate, though, that the Tax Working Group made their recommendations and we are considering them all. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000034\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a308f8fc3f5b4002a8a1fd3af4d3f952\u0022\u003EHon Gerry Brownlee\u003C/span\u003E: Put it on the Table. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000035\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002237a99b65-4919-4800-830d-3dd7c920d5cd\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002275950a6e7acc4a02812fc48b05780c91\u0022\u003EHon Dr Megan Woods\u003C/span\u003E: It is on the Table. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000036\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228b102a5d15554a3bb2f23c688185f2f2\u0022\u003EHon Gerry Brownlee\u003C/span\u003E: It\u2019s not on the Table. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000037\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022badb0a39-849c-462a-b32f-77fc017c9fc2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228ce9834d1f914fae9aeea3f833428423\u0022\u003EHon Simon Bridges\u003C/span\u003E: So is she explicitly committing to the offsets\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000038\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002279db8b64-1f9b-4416-9b81-a12963db9cbf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022713f31194ae54b6ea0a232ba7c17eb18\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Order! The member will resume his seat. Dr Woods and Mr Brownlee\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000039\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b59b686eb0f141b49e31b1484b253cbe\u0022\u003EHon Gerry Brownlee\u003C/span\u003E: Good friends. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000040\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002279db8b64-1f9b-4416-9b81-a12963db9cbf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b6557257ebbd48098b9023c39e58fdd7\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019m sure that\u2019s the case\u2014and almost neighbours, I understand\u2014but that means that you should probably carry on your conversations in some other place. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000041\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022badb0a39-849c-462a-b32f-77fc017c9fc2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225cada1649a31437e89f4fe3640ad903c\u0022\u003EHon Simon Bridges\u003C/span\u003E: Is she, in her answers, explicitly committing to the offsets of KiwiSaver that Sir Michael Cullen has set out in the first of his three fiscal-neutral proposals? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000042\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022aa2209f1-1889-4c24-b51d-cb2aedc7aa93\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002267502e8ead5a406fa267f28cd7462d95\u0022\u003ERt Hon JACINDA ARDERN\u003C/span\u003E: No, I am simply correcting the member because he is factually incorrect. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000043\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022badb0a39-849c-462a-b32f-77fc017c9fc2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d994ae432219476fa78ed636b86f8996\u0022\u003EHon Simon Bridges\u003C/span\u003E: Is it fair that under the proposed capital gains tax, the small-business owner\u2014for example, a hairdresser or a plumber\u2014who works hard to build up their business\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000044\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002279db8b64-1f9b-4416-9b81-a12963db9cbf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ecce54f8e8424248989a97fcf54eed13\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Order! The member will resume his seat. The member knows that questions and supplementary questions do not contain any superfluous wording. I was prepared to let the member have one set of superfluous wording\u2014one phrase\u2014but the member was on to a second. He will rephrase the question. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000045\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022badb0a39-849c-462a-b32f-77fc017c9fc2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022089717695d954225b23322d4215dd74f\u0022\u003EHon Simon Bridges\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I was seeking to put a particular scenario to the Prime Minister, to understand her position on that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000046\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002279db8b64-1f9b-4416-9b81-a12963db9cbf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d3885e8406cb43c6aec4a96574835656\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: And there was more than was necessary to build that scenario. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000047\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022badb0a39-849c-462a-b32f-77fc017c9fc2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022dd03c8dbdb8a406e879aca4e57e71def\u0022\u003EHon Simon Bridges\u003C/span\u003E: In light of her comments on fairness, is it fair that under the proposed capital gains tax, the small-business owner will have to pay tax on a third of their business when they sell up for retirement? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000048\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022aa2209f1-1889-4c24-b51d-cb2aedc7aa93\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022355ba463b4cb4ed48aad2c6ea4f2f65d\u0022\u003ERt Hon JACINDA ARDERN\u003C/span\u003E: Again, alongside the recommendations around a comprehensive capital gains tax, we\u2019ve acknowledged that for simplicity, that was what the Tax Working Group suggested. They also put alongside that increasing the threshold for provisional tax from $1,500 to $5,000, increasing the closing stock adjustment, an increase in the automatic deduction for legal fees, a reduction in the number of depreciation rates\u2014so there was a suite of options in there. Again, Mr Speaker\u2014as I know you know, but as I wish the Leader of the Opposition would hear\u2014we have not settled on any of the final recommendations of the report. We are still considering them as a Government. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000049\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022badb0a39-849c-462a-b32f-77fc017c9fc2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f14db90cc3f1451ba7551be696319fcc\u0022\u003EHon Simon Bridges\u003C/span\u003E: Can she not say whether it\u2019s fair that when a small-business owner takes all the risk to start their own business and when they sell up that business for retirement, the Government takes a third? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000050\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022aa2209f1-1889-4c24-b51d-cb2aedc7aa93\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223b6838c18ce4443c8ee4f8420282dbf4\u0022\u003ERt Hon JACINDA ARDERN\u003C/span\u003E: The Tax Working Group considered all income in the same way, including the way that it is treated by tax. So that\u2019s what they have put into the Tax Working Group\u2014consistent treatment around all forms of income. We, of course, as a Government have to make a judgment over the consensus that we form over the Tax Working Group\u2019s recommendations. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000051\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022badb0a39-849c-462a-b32f-77fc017c9fc2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002257fddee18317467eb0de93b5f2271d5c\u0022\u003EHon Simon Bridges\u003C/span\u003E: Is the problem with answering my questions that she doesn\u2019t understand small business very well? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000052\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022aa2209f1-1889-4c24-b51d-cb2aedc7aa93\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b9ac619361b247ad8649b32a244e0e3c\u0022\u003ERt Hon JACINDA ARDERN\u003C/span\u003E: No. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000053\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022badb0a39-849c-462a-b32f-77fc017c9fc2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002240a5e92391744146a64edd6a6902b104\u0022\u003EHon Simon Bridges\u003C/span\u003E: When she told Mike Hosking last week and this morning that she\u2019d run a small NGO that helped her understand small business, what was that NGO? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000054\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022aa2209f1-1889-4c24-b51d-cb2aedc7aa93\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c8adc21e85504e6e9f7f997fcc4b3d1e\u0022\u003ERt Hon JACINDA ARDERN\u003C/span\u003E: I did not tell him that this morning. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000055\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022badb0a39-849c-462a-b32f-77fc017c9fc2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226e10c846a7e7499c818d082b099a9328\u0022\u003EHon Simon Bridges\u003C/span\u003E: When she said last week on Mike Hosking that her running a small NGO had helped her understand small business, what was that NGO? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000056\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022aa2209f1-1889-4c24-b51d-cb2aedc7aa93\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227a71cbc299ef498ba81bc68dca45d6bf\u0022\u003ERt Hon JACINDA ARDERN\u003C/span\u003E: Actually, I spent more time talking about the fact that my first jobs were all in small businesses. The point that I was making at that time\u2014and, actually, that I continue to make\u2014is that as a Government, we are considering all of the issues that have been raised. That includes whether it be residential rentals, whether it be small business, whether it be KiwiSaver. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000057\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022badb0a39-849c-462a-b32f-77fc017c9fc2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224cfc540bbd7d4cfd8062086e52dfe42b\u0022\u003EHon Simon Bridges\u003C/span\u003E: Is the NGO she spoke of the International Union of Socialist Youth? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000058\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022aa2209f1-1889-4c24-b51d-cb2aedc7aa93\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002239b1d8e2f60b49b89bc12406eb64281b\u0022\u003ERt Hon JACINDA ARDERN\u003C/span\u003E: The member knows how to use Wikipedia\u2014well done. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000059\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022badb0a39-849c-462a-b32f-77fc017c9fc2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002266c43a95534c4c0b96778fb3a849e8ba\u0022\u003EHon Simon Bridges\u003C/span\u003E: Has talking to international comrades helped her with her small-business policy development in New Zealand? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000060\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002279db8b64-1f9b-4416-9b81-a12963db9cbf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cb9383dc155348b898b08fd2aa2bfc2c\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Order! Order! No, the Prime Minister will sit down. We\u2019re not going to have that sort of seal-like approach in this House. It\u2019s a final warning, and I think Mr McClay will be the first out. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000061\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022aa2209f1-1889-4c24-b51d-cb2aedc7aa93\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c39909a8303a42808aeb597f6c4cdcad\u0022\u003ERt Hon JACINDA ARDERN\u003C/span\u003E: I stand by the fact that I have worked in small businesses and that I have been in charge of hiring and firing, and I\u2019d be interested in how many times he\u2019s had to do that as a Crown prosecutor. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000062\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b4985fc0bd9d42bfb27a0ba1ff296e2c\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: Given all the\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000063\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022aa095e912d6d4216a1c3c5dcdc676902\u0022\u003EHon Gerry Brownlee\u003C/span\u003E: Ah, the businessman. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000064\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002279db8b64-1f9b-4416-9b81-a12963db9cbf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002294e429ea8d484903a8d54cb2ce7d433b\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Order! The member will resume his seat. Mr Brownlee will now stand, withdraw and apologise. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000065\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f28dc37eae6747beb7b782e92594323b\u0022\u003EHon Gerry Brownlee\u003C/span\u003E: I withdraw and apologise. What was the problem there? I called him a businessman; I apologise for that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000066\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002279db8b64-1f9b-4416-9b81-a12963db9cbf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224fb0b75b40634734b0019b60946c758a\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: The member knows well that he interjected while a member was asking a question. He will now leave the Chamber. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000067\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002279db8b64-1f9b-4416-9b81-a12963db9cbf\u0022\u003EHon Gerry Brownlee withdrew from the Chamber. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000068\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ad9b312a7cc54b8d9b5bfc5f65a18a43\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: Given all the speculation since 21 February, when the Tax Working Group\u2019s report was put to the public, is it the Government\u2019s position to consult with all sectors of New Zealand and by the end of April, or thereabouts, come to a decision as to what we will do with that report? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000069\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022badb0a39-849c-462a-b32f-77fc017c9fc2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fc714a259070445ba80939431a02692d\u0022\u003EHon Simon Bridges\u003C/span\u003E: End. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000070\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002279db8b64-1f9b-4416-9b81-a12963db9cbf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022be3f23582ef7470a9fdc4779f335f7dc\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Right. Who\u2014no, who made that interjection? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000071\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022badb0a39-849c-462a-b32f-77fc017c9fc2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229896439c984344f9b7fc4b1e1cd846d6\u0022\u003EHon Simon Bridges\u003C/span\u003E: I withdraw and apologise. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000072\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022aa2209f1-1889-4c24-b51d-cb2aedc7aa93\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229cb99feea1204d9f9540eaa708843c16\u0022\u003ERt Hon JACINDA ARDERN\u003C/span\u003E: Yes. Then, of course, after a decision is made, if there is a need for any legislation, that too will go through a full consultation process. There will be no lack of input from the New Zealand public. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000073\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022badb0a39-849c-462a-b32f-77fc017c9fc2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002259fd0de821884f9cb2ace3c3abdc76b4\u0022\u003EHon Simon Bridges\u003C/span\u003E: Is it all getting too hard, and is that why the timetable\u2019s now slipped until the end of April? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000074\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022aa2209f1-1889-4c24-b51d-cb2aedc7aa93\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022dce1a9b00a90437791be87315b083d55\u0022\u003ERt Hon JACINDA ARDERN\u003C/span\u003E: No. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000075\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022c60c4785c202485dbd7720aa1b83cfe0\u0022\u003EQuestion No. 2\u2014Finance\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002212d74f81-b1f7-4b51-9fb4-8f9481477192\u0022 data-id=\u00227599f93deda24f028041245fa06b5819\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000076\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002212d74f81-b1f7-4b51-9fb4-8f9481477192\u0022\u003E2. \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00227599f93deda24f028041245fa06b5819\u0022\u003EDr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour\u2014New Lynn)\u003C/span\u003E to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00226007dc96-f459-4cdd-9972-4fde2c994088\u0022 data-id=\u002292d5c14ccf6f4c8aa6cd86e435e5c1e6\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000077\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226007dc96-f459-4cdd-9972-4fde2c994088\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002292d5c14ccf6f4c8aa6cd86e435e5c1e6\u0022\u003EHon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance):\u003C/span\u003E Last week, the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research (NZIER) released its quarterly predictions for the March 2019 quarter, showing a solid domestic outlook. The NZIER said global volatility in the form of the US-China trade dispute, slowing growth in the Chinese economy, and uncertainty over Brexit could weigh on export demand. The risks posed by the international situation continue to demonstrate the importance of our commitment to working on more diverse trade opportunities and agreements and to responsible fiscal management so that we are in a position to respond to any shocks. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000078\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002212d74f81-b1f7-4b51-9fb4-8f9481477192\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002298edf5648e2c41cabd26432a9e897a3b\u0022\u003EDr Deborah Russell\u003C/span\u003E: What did NZIER say about the domestic outlook? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000079\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226007dc96-f459-4cdd-9972-4fde2c994088\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fddee7608705468291054adc568d0fb4\u0022\u003EHon GRANT ROBERTSON\u003C/span\u003E: NZIER said that despite some of the global developments clouding the growth outlook, there remain many positive domestic factors underpinning growth in the New Zealand economy. Consumer spending is forecast to pick up on the back of rising wages as a result of a solid labour market, and there is steady consumer confidence. This is backed up by the ANZ-Roy Morgan Consumer Confidence survey for February, which showed confidence at 121\u2014around its historical average. The proportion of consumers who feel more better off financially than a year ago lifted by 2 percentage points, and the proportion who think it\u2019s a good time to buy a major household item was also up 3 percentage points. This confident domestic outlook shows that the economy has solid fundamentals as we continue to transition to a more productive, more sustainable, and more inclusive economy. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000080\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002212d74f81-b1f7-4b51-9fb4-8f9481477192\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022febdb1d024574e09896f83d905f1e804\u0022\u003EDr Deborah Russell\u003C/span\u003E: What reports has he seen on other indicators of the strength of the economy? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000081\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226007dc96-f459-4cdd-9972-4fde2c994088\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022165ef21a7de14d0f964e0806eca5a8c6\u0022\u003EHon GRANT ROBERTSON\u003C/span\u003E: ANZ noted in its business outlook survey released last week that \u201Cregional economy is booming\u201D. This is backed up today by the regional round-up from Westpac, in which it pointed out that a number of regions have built up quite a head of steam and are expected to roll through 2019 in fine form. We do acknowledge that some regions are not growing at such a pace, and that is why we have committed to growing jobs and business in regions through initiatives such as the Provincial Growth Fund. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000082\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u002274c350e9c07b471686992d35d69136cf\u0022\u003EQuestion No. 3\u2014Finance\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022dc6c0f88-e781-476d-bca1-d1bf9b69302b\u0022 data-id=\u0022622b778dc5a9479aa6c292c80df4413f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000083\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022dc6c0f88-e781-476d-bca1-d1bf9b69302b\u0022\u003E3. \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022622b778dc5a9479aa6c292c80df4413f\u0022\u003EHon AMY ADAMS (National\u2014Selwyn)\u003C/span\u003E to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement in relation to the Government\u2019s Tax Working Group report: \u201CI\u2019m sure there are things in there that we will be able to accept and adopt\u201D? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00226007dc96-f459-4cdd-9972-4fde2c994088\u0022 data-id=\u0022c85166eac513460a845238774ade1a56\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000084\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226007dc96-f459-4cdd-9972-4fde2c994088\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c85166eac513460a845238774ade1a56\u0022\u003EHon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance):\u003C/span\u003E Yes, I stand by my full quotes in that article. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000085\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022dc6c0f88-e781-476d-bca1-d1bf9b69302b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002233ec962d7a5e4802b971a0d85e708ef1\u0022\u003EHon Amy Adams\u003C/span\u003E: Having previously refused to commit to a tax-neutral package, is having a capital gains tax on KiwiSaver schemes that leaves the average income earner worse off than they otherwise would have been at retirement one of the things he plans to adopt? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000086\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226007dc96-f459-4cdd-9972-4fde2c994088\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c919abcb0b9041fe9beb8a560c7072fe\u0022\u003EHon GRANT ROBERTSON\u003C/span\u003E: I reject the premise in that question. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000087\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022dc6c0f88-e781-476d-bca1-d1bf9b69302b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b276138a61714f4489240068bd4b61df\u0022\u003EHon Amy Adams\u003C/span\u003E: Is imposing a capital gains tax on the family home if deductions are made for its use as a home office something he plans to adopt, despite having told New Zealanders their family home would be exempt? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000088\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226007dc96-f459-4cdd-9972-4fde2c994088\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022282bc8e050e84e36855df749465b0003\u0022\u003EHon GRANT ROBERTSON\u003C/span\u003E: We haven\u2019t made any final decisions on those matters. I would note that, currently, there are deduction rules around the use of parts of your family home as an office, so the member is probably going down a path she doesn\u2019t want to in that area. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000089\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022dc6c0f88-e781-476d-bca1-d1bf9b69302b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002291a6b5fd644e42feaf92cf6caee063db\u0022\u003EHon Amy Adams\u003C/span\u003E: Is imposing a capital gains tax on 160,000 lifestyle blocks despite them being people\u2019s family homes something he\u2019s planning to adopt? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000090\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226007dc96-f459-4cdd-9972-4fde2c994088\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a0548c71bb564730aa96580ceb5e9ee2\u0022\u003EHon GRANT ROBERTSON\u003C/span\u003E: We have not made any final decisions on those matters, but I would note that the rules around the question of what defines a family home and the land around it are actually currently in operation, and were in operation under the previous Government as well. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000091\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022dc6c0f88-e781-476d-bca1-d1bf9b69302b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228b65ab238d734a86831e9789f667fee3\u0022\u003EHon Amy Adams\u003C/span\u003E: So, having said that he plans to adopt some of the recommendations in the Government\u2019s Tax Working Group report, doesn\u2019t he think that the 2.9 million New Zealanders with KiwiSaver accounts, the 500,000 small-business owners, the 160,000 lifestyle block owners, the 120,000 family bach owners, and the 50,000 farm owners who are right now staring down the barrel of a capital gains tax deserve to know exactly what it is that he plans to adopt? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000092\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226007dc96-f459-4cdd-9972-4fde2c994088\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002262986972bba246378c572c1afeb6df33\u0022\u003EHon GRANT ROBERTSON\u003C/span\u003E: That\u2019s precisely the process that the Government is going through to work through all of those recommendations, and I think New Zealanders respect and understand that this is a Government that doesn\u2019t hide away from difficult issues and that faces up to the big challenges of our time. What I would say to the member specifically in respect of KiwiSaver is I also don\u2019t believe that New Zealanders will have forgotten the $2.6 billion gutting of KiwiSaver balances caused by that Government when the member tax credit was cut by her Government and the employer contribution tax exemption was removed\u2014$2.6 billion taken away from KiwiSaver. We\u2019re proud of KiwiSaver on this side of the House. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000093\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002236bbac7ac2ec4ff6a36c7073b7c8df3d\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: Just for the clarity of the Government and the public\u2019s understanding, does he regard\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000094\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022badb0a39-849c-462a-b32f-77fc017c9fc2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b5c6a1476c1e41c3b8f281523d736812\u0022\u003EHon Simon Bridges\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That was entirely superfluous. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000095\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002279db8b64-1f9b-4416-9b81-a12963db9cbf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225004f37be9b5493bb7ab30ab126ccfdc\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Sorry? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000096\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022badb0a39-849c-462a-b32f-77fc017c9fc2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e66c5150881e4ef6944531b396b5ba9c\u0022\u003EHon Simon Bridges\u003C/span\u003E: That was entirely superfluous from the Deputy Prime Minister. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000097\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002279db8b64-1f9b-4416-9b81-a12963db9cbf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bd8a6605514a403b80259ed483f21c77\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: That might be your opinion. The Rt Hon Winston Peters will start his question again. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000098\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002201ae0a5bc3f54ca29777151f28e86ca4\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: Can I ask the Minister, for the purpose of public understanding, does he regard the brightline test introduced by the National Party as being a capital gains tax? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000099\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226007dc96-f459-4cdd-9972-4fde2c994088\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022414c3797d6774ee7a8b773803a7c013f\u0022\u003EHon GRANT ROBERTSON\u003C/span\u003E: Well, it\u2019s not\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000100\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002279db8b64-1f9b-4416-9b81-a12963db9cbf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228bf2658e9d6645e79aa9f5511a581c84\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Order! The member can answer the question with the deletion of the reference to the Opposition. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000101\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226007dc96-f459-4cdd-9972-4fde2c994088\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002295653bbe3f3c4d12a97703fe0842e08d\u0022\u003EHon GRANT ROBERTSON\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019m not the only person who believes that and, in fact, interestingly, there has been a lot of commentary recently about the place of the family home and whether or not a big family home should be exempted. The brightline test exempts the family home. It\u2019s an interesting thing, isn\u2019t it? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022d417279ab30f4c1a9334452ebe32a2b4\u0022\u003EQuestion No. 4\u2014Housing and Urban Development\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022 data-id=\u0022c61b5731218746c5b945490682a09de0\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000103\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022\u003E4. \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c61b5731218746c5b945490682a09de0\u0022\u003EGREG O\u2019CONNOR (Labour\u2014\u014Ch\u0101riu)\u003C/span\u003E to the Minister of Housing and Urban Development: Will the healthy homes standards reduce hospitalisations for housing-related illnesses; if so, how? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022 data-id=\u0022bb79d56d750c42cc814fb447ac38e474\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000104\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022bb79d56d750c42cc814fb447ac38e474\u0022\u003EHon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Housing and Urban Development):\u003C/span\u003E Ministry of Health data shows that at least 6,000 children are admitted each year for what they call housing sensitive hospitalisations. Otago University recently found that homes that are damp or mouldy cause more than 35,000 nights in hospital, and report problems with damp or mould. The study found that the statistics are worse the lower the income of the household, and rental properties are the most problematic. The healthy homes standards will set minimum standards for insulation, heating, ventilation, moisture, and draughts so that rental homes are warm and dry. They\u2019re part of the Government\u2019s plan to improve the health and well-being of children. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000105\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fb7da24c6de5436bb589e678fec66dd3\u0022\u003EGreg O\u2019Connor\u003C/span\u003E: Why is the Government focusing on rental homes? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000106\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022694fef18062a4562b7bdcaa5e9cd15cf\u0022\u003EHon PHIL TWYFORD\u003C/span\u003E: What we\u2019re doing is lifting standards to stop the bottom end of the market undercutting decent landlords. A report from Otago University highlighted that 15 percent of owner-occupied homes were reported to be cold, compared to 35 percent of rental homes. Only 3 percent of owner-occupied homes were damp or mouldy, compared to 12 percent of rentals. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000107\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022dcc0bf7b8ba547cfbad450ef98192cca\u0022\u003EGreg O\u2019Connor\u003C/span\u003E: Will the healthy homes standards reduce the health costs of tenants? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000108\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d55adfa6b94b47dda55b6ac288cec720\u0022\u003EHon PHIL TWYFORD\u003C/span\u003E: Well, the heating standard alone is predicted to reduce the costs incurred by tenants because of ill health by $129 million over the forecast 15-year period. That excludes non-quantifiable benefits such as increased school attendance, greater educational attainment, mental health well-being, and comfort. This is all additional to the predicted $476 million in energy savings. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000109\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d10c3b953bee42ef883413de9f801788\u0022\u003EGreg O\u2019Connor\u003C/span\u003E: How do the healthy homes standards fit in with other policies aiming to reduce hospitalisations for housing-related illnesses? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000110\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002233f8bfca86224a299bde2a73b1e29f74\u0022\u003EHon PHIL TWYFORD\u003C/span\u003E: The healthy homes standards are just one part of the Government\u2019s plan to improve the well-being of New Zealanders, particularly children. Warmer Kiwi Homes provides grants covering two-thirds of the cost of installing ceiling and underfloor insulation, topped up wherever possible by third-party funding to make insulation as low cost as possible. The winter energy payment provides $450 for a single person and $700 for a couple over the five months of winter to make sure that beneficiaries and those on super can afford to turn the heater on. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000111\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022996d95f0425c4df7b9552dc5e59c52a5\u0022\u003EQuestion No. 5\u2014Economic Development\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002253f86481-33c1-48b2-893b-c11cc0bd673d\u0022 data-id=\u0022af83f0f2887042bab7b82bfb467d1229\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000112\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002253f86481-33c1-48b2-893b-c11cc0bd673d\u0022\u003E5. \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022af83f0f2887042bab7b82bfb467d1229\u0022\u003EHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National)\u003C/span\u003E to the Minister for Economic Development: Does he think that increasing the tax burden on productive businesses would help or hinder New Zealand\u2019s economic development? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022f44431ef-b505-4e94-9f57-a60b0a569bf7\u0022 data-id=\u0022c13bbc0ef3f94b1d86dfb72e38d925ac\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000113\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f44431ef-b505-4e94-9f57-a60b0a569bf7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c13bbc0ef3f94b1d86dfb72e38d925ac\u0022\u003EHon SHANE JONES (Acting Minister for Economic Development):\u003C/span\u003E The connection between tax burden and productive businesses is a complex matter. I would say, however, that in cases where a Government seeks fairness and identifies productive businesses that might be multinational, a better tax burden shared with them is probably a better societal outcome. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000114\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002253f86481-33c1-48b2-893b-c11cc0bd673d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002202d936cc4c484ef9bddd7c101ecf2abb\u0022\u003EHon Paul Goldsmith\u003C/span\u003E: When he told the House on 31 July 2008 \u201Cwe\u2019re changing the investment signals so that more capital goes to the productive export economy rather than unproductive speculation;\u201D\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000115\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022be35e7da08dc482abb759bbf94056130\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can I just make it very clear that while we take responsibility for a lot of things in politics, the year 2008 is surely not the responsibility\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000116\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c687b0784e1b48998589e91c1da1f010\u0022\u003EHon Member\u003C/span\u003E: 2018. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000117\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002201cc8511c3814b48b50625eb140dc2eb\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: That\u2019s what he said\u20142008. Words matter. Thank you, Mr Speaker. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000118\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002279db8b64-1f9b-4416-9b81-a12963db9cbf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226815dea54cd544b4b37c2617fa234f82\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: He did. We would have got to it. Start again, please. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000119\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002253f86481-33c1-48b2-893b-c11cc0bd673d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022727a58d69a844dc5abc13af17fca65e5\u0022\u003EHon Paul Goldsmith\u003C/span\u003E: When he told the House on 31 July 2018 \u201Cwe\u2019re changing the investment signals so that more capital goes to the productive export economy rather than unproductive speculation;\u201D, how does he intend to engineer this change? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000120\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f44431ef-b505-4e94-9f57-a60b0a569bf7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220b80d7f6ebed4273875f356f467ebfd7\u0022\u003EHon SHANE JONES\u003C/span\u003E: Well, obviously, in terms of effecting the transfer of capital from speculative assets to productive assets, we have already supported the former Government in terms of the brightline test. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000121\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002253f86481-33c1-48b2-893b-c11cc0bd673d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b71eb9e3a77342279e577e4a9c610221\u0022\u003EHon Paul Goldsmith\u003C/span\u003E: Does he accept that the country\u2019s economic development depends in large measure on private sector investment\u2014someone somewhere deciding to put their money into starting a business and building it? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000122\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f44431ef-b505-4e94-9f57-a60b0a569bf7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022507f56a9d4f94f40942934df753e2512\u0022\u003EHon SHANE JONES\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, indeed, people do take risks. Up and down the country, people are assessing opportunities. For those reasons, those are the very people that our Government is consulting with and discussing the proposals from Dr Cullen\u2019s committee. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000123\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002253f86481-33c1-48b2-893b-c11cc0bd673d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002285a5bcd91ab74d85928c7d1ee20e12c2\u0022\u003EHon Paul Goldsmith\u003C/span\u003E: Does he expect that increasing the tax burden on investment would lead to more investment? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000124\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f44431ef-b505-4e94-9f57-a60b0a569bf7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cc7ae9ff416940f09feed7da9ab5fdd3\u0022\u003EHon SHANE JONES\u003C/span\u003E: As I\u2019ve said, there are a myriad of taxpayers in New Zealand, and if I can identify one segment who might be called part of the productive taxpaying base\u2014multinationals\u2014it may very well come to pass that they are not paying their way. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000125\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002253f86481-33c1-48b2-893b-c11cc0bd673d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002265ae9e4a374244b2ab097b9958e53c4a\u0022\u003EHon Paul Goldsmith\u003C/span\u003E: What fault can he find with Peter Beck\u2019s view that taxing the capital gains on intellectual property and stock \u201Cwill decimate the already fragile New Zealand start-up industry.\u201D? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000126\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f44431ef-b505-4e94-9f57-a60b0a569bf7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022557783d057ad49888137777647516ac5\u0022\u003EHon SHANE JONES\u003C/span\u003E: Obviously, that inventor, that entrepreneur, and his efforts should be celebrated, and he\u2019s being supported by the public with the allocation of public funding. His warning is a sensible admonition, but he is not the exclusive authority on matters to do with tax. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000127\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022820cc9158fa54e089a2321aa9694c15f\u0022\u003EQuestion No. 6\u2014Agriculture\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002223de6bd3-0482-495d-88f4-7cc3f75d8442\u0022 data-id=\u0022a5df6da232f44594b48994f3b1e86fba\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000128\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002223de6bd3-0482-495d-88f4-7cc3f75d8442\u0022\u003E6. \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a5df6da232f44594b48994f3b1e86fba\u0022\u003EHon NATHAN GUY (National\u2014\u014Ctaki)\u003C/span\u003E to the Minister of Agriculture: Does he stand by all his statements? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022471dee54-f59e-4497-b3d3-c39044ce7169\u0022 data-id=\u0022a0e95a98225b462b8f69c20ad709b78e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000129\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022471dee54-f59e-4497-b3d3-c39044ce7169\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a0e95a98225b462b8f69c20ad709b78e\u0022\u003EHon DAMIEN O\u2019CONNOR (Minister of Agriculture):\u003C/span\u003E Yes. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000130\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002223de6bd3-0482-495d-88f4-7cc3f75d8442\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cb4177f1f6f24a52b570d5958f203b77\u0022\u003EHon Nathan Guy\u003C/span\u003E: Does he stand by his statement last year to Rural News that when it comes to increasing costs on farmers, they should\u2014and I\u2019ll quote\u2014\u201Cget used to it\u201D? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000131\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022471dee54-f59e-4497-b3d3-c39044ce7169\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fd2aafc286ce41bf8f08a9dad7a6fd6f\u0022\u003EHon DAMIEN O\u2019CONNOR\u003C/span\u003E: Our Government is clearly committed to increase water quality, to commit to climate change international obligations, and to put farmers in a more sustainable space for their production. I have been honest with them and said some of those things may cost farmers, but what we will do as a Government is assist them get more for everything that they produce and sell. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000132\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002223de6bd3-0482-495d-88f4-7cc3f75d8442\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002212cc3f5ffd79466ea9c765d23d87a4b8\u0022\u003EHon Nathan Guy\u003C/span\u003E: Does he stand by his statement on Radio New Zealand on 22 February that \u201Ccapital gains is the ultimate goal of a farmer\u201D, and was that based on any official advice? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000133\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022471dee54-f59e-4497-b3d3-c39044ce7169\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d348f4a41c804d0cb7b9b2885ec13275\u0022\u003EHon DAMIEN O\u2019CONNOR\u003C/span\u003E: What I did say\u2014and I\u2019d need to clarify what the member has said\u2014is that for many farmers, it has been the ultimate goal that they have been prepared to work for a 2 percent return on their equity in the hope that at the end of the day, when they finish their 20- or 30- or 40-year farming career, when they sell up, they\u2019ll have enough money to retire. In the 1980s, when one of the previous National Governments was highly subsidising the productive sector, the farmers, they were capitalising into the value of the land all of those subsidies, and farmers were advised at that point to stop farming for capital gains. A brave Labour Government took off subsidies. If that member is now proposing to put subsidies back on to farmers, he should front up with it. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000134\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002223de6bd3-0482-495d-88f4-7cc3f75d8442\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a7157322786844c2b1e8d3edebeb4ff5\u0022\u003EHon Nathan Guy\u003C/span\u003E: When he said on Radio New Zealand last night that \u201Cfarming for capital gains is flawed and it\u2019s something that needs to be looked at\u201D, does he support implementing a capital gains tax? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000135\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022471dee54-f59e-4497-b3d3-c39044ce7169\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221d62aa3162994d7a8e2174949421b9f9\u0022\u003EHon DAMIEN O\u2019CONNOR\u003C/span\u003E: I won\u2019t get into the detail of what is an independent report that Government is currently considering and will be consulting on across the sector. I stand by my statement that if farmers are farming for capital gains, it is a flawed approach. The biggest challenge in agriculture at the moment is succession, and that is the ability to pass farms on into the hands of young New Zealand farmers. That is getting increasingly difficult, and what might happen, were a capital gains to be brought in, is that it may mean that farms are more affordable for young New Zealanders, and that would be better for New Zealand. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000136\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002223de6bd3-0482-495d-88f4-7cc3f75d8442\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022db97403cdce245b5bd8b34aa7f35c44f\u0022\u003EHon Nathan Guy\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you for that. How will the Tax Working Group recommendations of a capital gains tax, a water tax, a fertiliser tax, a nitrate tax, and an agricultural emissions tax have an impact on already low\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000137\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226007dc96-f459-4cdd-9972-4fde2c994088\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225f7af163d5ad4d14b68c64182ace929a\u0022\u003EHon Grant Robertson\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That list of things in the member\u2019s question is simply not\u2014a number of them are things that are not in the Tax Working Group report. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000138\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002279db8b64-1f9b-4416-9b81-a12963db9cbf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002254937cf1bfef48cbb41a7fdb27f15a28\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: As long as I have the assurance of the Hon Nathan Guy that they are all recommendations in\u2014[Interruption] No, I\u2019m prepared to take the member\u2019s assurance. It would be very serious if it was breached. He can rephrase his question if he wants to, but he will ask his question again, and I will accept him at his word. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000139\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002223de6bd3-0482-495d-88f4-7cc3f75d8442\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e91e2335b0ac4706a5c835b5f3f3721a\u0022\u003EHon Nathan Guy\u003C/span\u003E: How will the Tax Working Group discussion points and recommendations of a capital gains tax, water tax, fertiliser tax, nitrate tax, and animal emissions coming into the emissions trading scheme impact on farmer confidence, that is already at an all-time low since 2009? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000140\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022471dee54-f59e-4497-b3d3-c39044ce7169\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022324be7c26e5840fa9a96a5463fb6c041\u0022\u003EHon DAMIEN O\u2019CONNOR\u003C/span\u003E: The independent Tax Working Group has put out a report that we are considering comprehensively. Can I say that farmers will look with some concern at some of those recommendations. That\u2019s why the Government will work through it carefully. If it\u2019s anything to go by, the huge crowd of about 15 people who turned out to that member\u2019s meeting yesterday indicates that there\u2019s not a huge amount of concern out there. What I would like to do and request is that that member tables the calculations upon which he based his ridiculous assertions around the cost to individual farmers. What the Tax Working Group hasn\u2019t specifically recommended is an increase in GST, a brightline on capital gains, taxing employer KiwiSaver contributions, a border tax, tobacco tax rises, digital purchase tax, and numerous increases in petrol taxes. They were all taxes imposed on the rural sector by the last National Government, and it didn\u2019t ruin the rural sector. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000141\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022b2f622c42040417eac204deff8e66cd0\u0022\u003EQuestion No. 7\u2014Agriculture\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002255bb390e-f6c3-498c-bbf6-ea1a8fc993c7\u0022 data-id=\u0022739b93bce29a4e93835971d8d98ca27e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000142\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002255bb390e-f6c3-498c-bbf6-ea1a8fc993c7\u0022\u003E7. \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022739b93bce29a4e93835971d8d98ca27e\u0022\u003EGARETH HUGHES (Green)\u003C/span\u003E to the Minister of Agriculture: Does the Minister have any plans to review the use of farrowing crates? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022471dee54-f59e-4497-b3d3-c39044ce7169\u0022 data-id=\u0022213f8816806a43989f1fc5f0cdf6798a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000143\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022471dee54-f59e-4497-b3d3-c39044ce7169\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022213f8816806a43989f1fc5f0cdf6798a\u0022\u003EHon DAMIEN O\u2019CONNOR (Minister of Agriculture):\u003C/span\u003E Look, as that member is aware, the use of farrowing crates and mating stalls are subject to court proceedings, which would be inappropriate for me to comment on in detail. I do, however, acknowledge the petition before the Primary Production Committee and will consider and act on any recommendations if presented. That member will also be aware that the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee\u2019s last review of the use of farrowing crates in 2016 advised that crates currently provide the best balance between sow and piglet welfare and acknowledged issues with alternative systems. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000144\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002255bb390e-f6c3-498c-bbf6-ea1a8fc993c7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022aaba68b106df4d8b88a84a0204e32f29\u0022\u003EGareth Hughes\u003C/span\u003E: In reference to that 2016 report, does he agree with the view of the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee from last year that \u201CCurrent approaches where farrowing crates are used for up to four weeks post farrowing do not provide for every behavioural need of sows.\u201D and that \u201CSows have their activity restricted for a longer period than is necessary.\u201D? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000145\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022471dee54-f59e-4497-b3d3-c39044ce7169\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022826dc176822e403ab9977b92309ac7b7\u0022\u003EHon DAMIEN O\u2019CONNOR\u003C/span\u003E: Look, given the report is currently, it may form a part of evidential basis on which the court\u2014I\u2019m reluctant to make any comment, given that I\u2019m one of the defendants, I understand, in the court proceedings. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000146\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002255bb390e-f6c3-498c-bbf6-ea1a8fc993c7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c892e9ec9b934a209cbe87316bd1ecf9\u0022\u003EGareth Hughes\u003C/span\u003E: Well, does the Minister have any welfare concerns about farrowing crates, given a 2018 report from Professor Andrew Knight that describes the practice as \u201Cconfined within [spaces] barely larger than their own bodies\u201D with \u201Cminimal amounts of straw (if any), sows are unable to forage, to root within natural substrate\u201D\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000147\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002279db8b64-1f9b-4416-9b81-a12963db9cbf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d18123e7aa444e01adc333ae8b21fa34\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Order! Order! That quote is, again, longer than necessary for the question. Do the question bit. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000148\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002255bb390e-f6c3-498c-bbf6-ea1a8fc993c7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224d48b463bee94ffa93bff248b9fef6a3\u0022\u003EGareth Hughes\u003C/span\u003E: Does the Minister have any animal welfare concerns, given the expert advice of Professor Andrew Knight? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000149\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022471dee54-f59e-4497-b3d3-c39044ce7169\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227c252701a7e94ff2994c1c241134f9d4\u0022\u003EHon DAMIEN O\u2019CONNOR\u003C/span\u003E: Once again, I won\u2019t comment on what might form evidence in a court case. I will say, though, that I\u2019m prepared to listen to the petition that\u2019s currently before the Primary Production Committee and look at it at that time and work with the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000150\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002255bb390e-f6c3-498c-bbf6-ea1a8fc993c7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a7c2b4c502da41f298b41d476a5a949d\u0022\u003EGareth Hughes\u003C/span\u003E: Separate to that court case, does he agree with the concerns of numerous experts in New Zealand that the codes of welfare, including for farrowing crates, are acting as inferior minimum standards not actually consistent with our Animal Welfare Act? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000151\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022471dee54-f59e-4497-b3d3-c39044ce7169\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002267d9d0ec9b584352b384bc8bb06b345c\u0022\u003EHon DAMIEN O\u2019CONNOR\u003C/span\u003E: While I have been involved in pig farming in my early, early years on the home farm, I\u2019m not an expert and I do rely on the advice of the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000152\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002255bb390e-f6c3-498c-bbf6-ea1a8fc993c7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220a11ecedbbe44d7f853a6ec866d01c6e\u0022\u003EGareth Hughes\u003C/span\u003E: What is the Minister\u2019s message to the 15,000 people who signed a Labour Party petition in 2014 to \u201Cend cruel farming practices like farrowing crates\u201D? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000153\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022471dee54-f59e-4497-b3d3-c39044ce7169\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224f1be38e987440759937ca06e2f93422\u0022\u003EHon DAMIEN O\u2019CONNOR\u003C/span\u003E: Look, our agenda as a Government is already set out in four public-facing documents: the Speech from the Throne from my Prime Minister, the coalition agreement with New Zealand First, the confidence and supply agreement with the Greens, and our plan. Between them, these documents set out our key policy areas that we\u2019ll be focusing on that the Government also will progress over this term. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000154\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u002225373abeea8a46ea816edb060a8ce2aa\u0022\u003EQuestion No. 8\u2014Education\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022ed2d10c1-43b7-41d9-9f5c-0c313f70e625\u0022 data-id=\u0022462f052ab56a4b65bb53580edd29d8b5\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000155\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ed2d10c1-43b7-41d9-9f5c-0c313f70e625\u0022\u003E8. \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022462f052ab56a4b65bb53580edd29d8b5\u0022\u003EHon NIKKI KAYE (National\u2014Auckland Central)\u003C/span\u003E to the Minister of Education: Does he have confidence in the current consultation process around the Tomorrow\u2019s Schools Review? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022530ce0c4-c977-40cb-90fb-754f54931ff1\u0022 data-id=\u0022dacd563488c74251a57b10645cc5fdbe\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000156\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022530ce0c4-c977-40cb-90fb-754f54931ff1\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022dacd563488c74251a57b10645cc5fdbe\u0022\u003EHon TRACEY MARTIN (Associate Minister of Education)\u003C/span\u003E on behalf of the Minister of Education: Yes. I support the work that the independent task force is doing over the four-month consultation period with the draft recommendations from the report and the consultation that they had with the stakeholder groups since April 2018 that led to the creation of the draft recommendations currently being discussed. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000157\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ed2d10c1-43b7-41d9-9f5c-0c313f70e625\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f6cf6e90d84b41ce99e7685c821bc51a\u0022\u003EHon Nikki Kaye\u003C/span\u003E: Does he believe that for the biggest education reform in 30 years, there should be only 3\u00BD weeks between when the consultation closes on the current proposals and the report back to the Minister? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000158\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022530ce0c4-c977-40cb-90fb-754f54931ff1\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225d0f531679fd4f0f9fa71e9a3d5c0967\u0022\u003EHon TRACEY MARTIN\u003C/span\u003E: On behalf of the Minister, at this stage our understanding is that that time is adequate, considering the at least year-long process that the task force has already taken to form their draft recommendations and the number of groups that they have spoken to during that period of time. Of course, it is always an option for the task force to come back and ask the Minister for more time, should they need it, before they provide their final recommendations. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000159\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ed2d10c1-43b7-41d9-9f5c-0c313f70e625\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224c2011fd93ce4cfbad4f00e622b7f9c4\u0022\u003EHon Nikki Kaye\u003C/span\u003E: Has he received any estimate of the potential cost of the Tomorrow\u2019s Schools reform and, if so, what is that estimate? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000160\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022530ce0c4-c977-40cb-90fb-754f54931ff1\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bb183d37691a4c98b117f6020b8e59d0\u0022\u003EHon TRACEY MARTIN\u003C/span\u003E: On behalf of the Minister, I\u2019m not aware of any estimates of cost being provided to the Minister, because no final decisions have been made. That is the purpose of the consultation process on the draft recommendations that will lead to final recommendations that will then require the Government to consider those recommendations before making any final decisions. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000161\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ed2d10c1-43b7-41d9-9f5c-0c313f70e625\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222d88ea0439ba4174ac85885cf9fcf8c1\u0022\u003EHon Nikki Kaye\u003C/span\u003E: Will he agree to give the task force additional time, given that the Cabinet paper requires a report back by 30 April, and will he ensure that there is an estimate of costs provided publicly prior to the consultation closing, given this is the largest education reform in 30 years? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000162\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022530ce0c4-c977-40cb-90fb-754f54931ff1\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002289694a31eb9d45659a031d3fde2c5af6\u0022\u003EHon TRACEY MARTIN\u003C/span\u003E: On behalf of the Minister, in answer to the first part of the question, the Minister\u2019s door is always open to the task force whenever they would like to walk through it and have a discussion with him about the time frames that have been put into place. With regard to the second part of the question, considering these are draft recommendations that will lead to final recommendations that will need to be considered by the Government before they make any decision, it would be inappropriate to put any money around them. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000163\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u002238ca64ca92e8452e950e535d626461d2\u0022\u003EQuestion No. 9\u2014Research, Science and Innovation\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002226b88bf1-f634-40e7-8019-e75cc483ace7\u0022 data-id=\u0022711a453ce24e47e5b2fd79fddcfb8985\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000164\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002226b88bf1-f634-40e7-8019-e75cc483ace7\u0022\u003E9. \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022711a453ce24e47e5b2fd79fddcfb8985\u0022\u003EJO LUXTON (Labour)\u003C/span\u003E to the Minister of Research, Science and Innovation: What recent reports has she seen about the growth of R \u0026amp; D spending across New Zealand? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002237a99b65-4919-4800-830d-3dd7c920d5cd\u0022 data-id=\u0022b5d74c774ae9446284f025c0edf94604\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000165\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002237a99b65-4919-4800-830d-3dd7c920d5cd\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b5d74c774ae9446284f025c0edf94604\u0022\u003EHon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Research, Science and Innovation):\u003C/span\u003E I\u2019ve seen the report of the 2018 R \u0026amp; D survey results released by Statistics New Zealand on 28 February 2019. It showed that total R \u0026amp; D spending grew by $758 million to $3.9 billion since the last survey, in 2016. This Government has set a goal of reaching 2 percent of GDP as R \u0026amp; D by 2027. The survey shows an increase from 1.23 percent to 1.37 percent. While this is certainly encouraging progress, there is still plenty to do. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000166\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002226b88bf1-f634-40e7-8019-e75cc483ace7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002299c5606ac0574c1a91a2b383b27c4fee\u0022\u003EJo Luxton\u003C/span\u003E: What is the Government doing to build on the results outlined in this report? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000167\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002237a99b65-4919-4800-830d-3dd7c920d5cd\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221468d60830fe47d69c20138295af4e8d\u0022\u003EHon Dr MEGAN WOODS\u003C/span\u003E: Despite this progress, we\u2019re still near the bottom of the OECD rankings when it comes to R \u0026amp; D spending, and that\u2019s why this Government is introducing the R \u0026amp; D tax incentive on 1 April. This will mean even more companies will be able to access R \u0026amp; D support, which will help them lift their spend on science and innovation. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000168\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002226b88bf1-f634-40e7-8019-e75cc483ace7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b5e250bfbaa84ddcbb0453935d61f1fb\u0022\u003EJo Luxton\u003C/span\u003E: How does increasing R \u0026amp; D spend contribute to the Government\u2019s overall economic goals? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000169\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002237a99b65-4919-4800-830d-3dd7c920d5cd\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022dd14b44039784a09ae3c557547a05d71\u0022\u003EHon Dr MEGAN WOODS\u003C/span\u003E: High levels of R \u0026amp; D spend are linked to higher levels of productivity. New Zealand has struggled with how to increase our productivity for a long time. Introducing the tax incentive will help alleviate this issue by helping more businesses invest in R \u0026amp; D. This is part of our Government\u2019s plan to transform the economy to be more productive, sustainable, and inclusive. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000170\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00220b20fd2def4d48fc8356a98f60e35680\u0022\u003EQuestion No. 10\u2014Education\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022861a1798-a396-4a6c-b9e2-7d2f15d4a001\u0022 data-id=\u0022f676fc72c82e4c759d7cea784bd3c4e9\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000171\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022861a1798-a396-4a6c-b9e2-7d2f15d4a001\u0022\u003E10. \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f676fc72c82e4c759d7cea784bd3c4e9\u0022\u003EDr SHANE RETI (National\u2014Whangarei)\u003C/span\u003E to the Minister of Education: Does he stand by all his policies and actions around the review of vocational education and his work in the portfolio? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022530ce0c4-c977-40cb-90fb-754f54931ff1\u0022 data-id=\u002235ef54c48af04e2091122eee73d4e448\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000172\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022530ce0c4-c977-40cb-90fb-754f54931ff1\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002235ef54c48af04e2091122eee73d4e448\u0022\u003EHon TRACEY MARTIN (Associate Minister of Education)\u003C/span\u003E on behalf of the Minister of Education: Yes, in the context in which they occurred. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000173\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229884e8e8-651f-4f48-a429-70b72d5e2821\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226aae90335c4a4874bbbcb99c1c3dd9ad\u0022\u003ESarah Dowie\u003C/span\u003E: Will he give the hundreds of Southlanders who met him last Friday in Invercargill what they want and not include the Southern Institute of Technology (SIT) in the polytech mega-merger? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000174\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022530ce0c4-c977-40cb-90fb-754f54931ff1\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002254e9da3dfd764ee5b0810d1408230144\u0022\u003EHon TRACEY MARTIN\u003C/span\u003E: On behalf of the Minister, it is interesting; I\u2019m not quite sure that\u2019s actually what SIT has asked for. I am aware that the Associate Minister of Education has met with Penny Simmonds and had a conversation, one on one, about the concerns that they have with regard to the vocational training discussion document, and they have not yet put their submission in writing. They have not yet made clear, and Ms Simmonds is working to do that so that the Government can consider all the challenges raised by SIT and by other polytechs throughout New Zealand while we have this discussion. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000175\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022861a1798-a396-4a6c-b9e2-7d2f15d4a001\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002290e7e0a79d134cc0adbfc1b361c9c585\u0022\u003EDr Shane Reti\u003C/span\u003E: When he replied to a large Invercargill audience last Friday that, yes, he would resign if the reforms were not successful, what specific criteria will be used to assess a resignation? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000176\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022530ce0c4-c977-40cb-90fb-754f54931ff1\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fe32882148e04a54bd09ae1fdecae257\u0022\u003EHon TRACEY MARTIN\u003C/span\u003E: On behalf of the Minister, first of all I would have to check the validity of the statement by the member, as I do not have a transcript of the actual statements made by the Minister at that meeting. With regard to the criteria, again, I would have to go and seek advice about what those criteria might look like, because success is different for different people at different times. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000177\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002279db8b64-1f9b-4416-9b81-a12963db9cbf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c8d56323aa5647aca6644ae2a86975c3\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Order! I let the Minister run, but I just want to make a brief comment about concerns that I have that happen both in questions and in answers, where assertions are made that members either answering or asking questions are not factually accurate. When a member is reading something like that out, we have to work on the assumption that they are factually accurate, and to do otherwise is to doubt their word. The problem that I have\u2014it\u2019s been the long tradition of Speakers not to refer people to the Privileges Committee for deliberate errors, or what are perceived as deliberate errors, made either in a response to a supplementary question by a Minister or in a supplementary question from a member. I must say that I\u2019m getting quite tempted to move away from that practice because I have seen evidence, from both sides, of gross inaccuracy, bordering on incompetence\u2014either incompetence or deliberate misleading of the House\u2014as part of the supplementary question process, and, frankly, it\u2019s not good enough. So it\u2019s a warning to both sides: be accurate. Don\u2019t make assertions unless you can back them up. Thank you. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000178\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022861a1798-a396-4a6c-b9e2-7d2f15d4a001\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f7521e8cc827455f9da6f594a0f3ffe2\u0022\u003EDr Shane Reti\u003C/span\u003E: How can the Minister present major reforms for industry training and polytechnics without doing any modelling on the cost of the reforms, as confirmed in written question No. 4689? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000179\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022530ce0c4-c977-40cb-90fb-754f54931ff1\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002212217bfa0ec44d45abf38e58ddc4c67a\u0022\u003EHon TRACEY MARTIN\u003C/span\u003E: On behalf of the Minister, again, this is a discussion document. The actual final form of the reforms will not be known until we have taken on board the comments from exactly people like SIT and Otago. To do so before that would suggest that the Government has predetermined an outcome, which it has not. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000180\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022861a1798-a396-4a6c-b9e2-7d2f15d4a001\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e3c59d78163f495bb3eb651d11819a30\u0022\u003EDr Shane Reti\u003C/span\u003E: By what specific measures does the six-week vocational education consultation period align with Treaty of Waitangi and M\u0101ori time frames for consultation? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000181\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022530ce0c4-c977-40cb-90fb-754f54931ff1\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022501c11ce985a421c8e917ddd461d64d0\u0022\u003EHon TRACEY MARTIN\u003C/span\u003E: On behalf of the Minister, I\u2019m afraid I\u2019m unable to answer that question. If the member would like to put it down in writing, I\u2019ll make sure the iwi office responds. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000182\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022e139adeba7744eff9b3183eda2b7492b\u0022\u003EQuestion No. 11\u2014Prime Minister\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002263776108-58dc-4cab-baf1-95282c61d0de\u0022 data-id=\u002291854215b15843fcaaaca26350cb330e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000183\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002263776108-58dc-4cab-baf1-95282c61d0de\u0022\u003E11. \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002291854215b15843fcaaaca26350cb330e\u0022\u003EHon PAULA BENNETT (Deputy Leader\u2014National)\u003C/span\u003E to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by all her Government\u2019s statements, policies, and actions? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022aa2209f1-1889-4c24-b51d-cb2aedc7aa93\u0022 data-id=\u0022fc363cf968f34cb49d6fc60ec0938e5c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000184\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022aa2209f1-1889-4c24-b51d-cb2aedc7aa93\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022fc363cf968f34cb49d6fc60ec0938e5c\u0022\u003ERt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister):\u003C/span\u003E Yes. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000185\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002263776108-58dc-4cab-baf1-95282c61d0de\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022596837cd7137446da223e952d7b99bbb\u0022\u003EHon Paula Bennett\u003C/span\u003E: By what date can the public expect to know the question they are voting on to legalise recreational marijuana? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000186\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022aa2209f1-1889-4c24-b51d-cb2aedc7aa93\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002289ff4b7c111449a5a8803b728569c9bf\u0022\u003ERt Hon JACINDA ARDERN\u003C/span\u003E: I do not have a firm date, but it will be in good time. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000187\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002263776108-58dc-4cab-baf1-95282c61d0de\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002247b9cbd72f16470aa5f6a025b17caf30\u0022\u003EHon Paula Bennett\u003C/span\u003E: In light of her saying \u201Cit will be in good time\u201D and, last week, saying \u201CWe will ensure that there\u2019s enough time for the public to properly engage\u201D, how much time is enough? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000188\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022aa2209f1-1889-4c24-b51d-cb2aedc7aa93\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226d262060e471403ca96bd07b21c4e826\u0022\u003ERt Hon JACINDA ARDERN\u003C/span\u003E: Perhaps I would be well advised to go back and look at some of the time frames around the flag referendum, but we\u2019ll make sure that people have enough time to engage in the question. We\u2019re flagging well in advance, obviously, that this will be put in 2020, so people are already aware that the question will be asked. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000189\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002263776108-58dc-4cab-baf1-95282c61d0de\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225b0f45ccb55c4392aab1e2d6f84e4ea3\u0022\u003EHon Paula Bennett\u003C/span\u003E: Will the cannabis referendum bill, set to be enacted by December 2019, simply enable the referendum, or will it also outline the regulated framework for recreational marijuana use? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000190\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022aa2209f1-1889-4c24-b51d-cb2aedc7aa93\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a66ec3af7a254ec8948d64057af2ff08\u0022\u003ERt Hon JACINDA ARDERN\u003C/span\u003E: These are all things that we will announce once Cabinet has finalised its decisions. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000191\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002263776108-58dc-4cab-baf1-95282c61d0de\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f4a0dad03e6946fd91cd7b6fb01c917b\u0022\u003EHon Paula Bennett\u003C/span\u003E: Will the Government have drafted any legislation that will regulate the market for recreational marijuana use which the public will see before deciding their vote at the referendum? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000192\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022aa2209f1-1889-4c24-b51d-cb2aedc7aa93\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fdb241fcecaf4067b90f699b61cfaf30\u0022\u003ERt Hon JACINDA ARDERN\u003C/span\u003E: These are all details we\u2019ll announce once Cabinet has made decisions. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000193\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00222682e36f1d3640dcaa0d57e0791a9136\u0022\u003EQuestion No. 12\u2014Commerce and Consumer Affairs\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00226590faa0-f76b-4386-84f3-9b06296cc772\u0022 data-id=\u00223183565bfcca4e4b87707167f14e8b81\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000194\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226590faa0-f76b-4386-84f3-9b06296cc772\u0022\u003E12. \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223183565bfcca4e4b87707167f14e8b81\u0022\u003ETAMATI COFFEY (Labour\u2014Waiariki)\u003C/span\u003E to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: What measures is the Government considering to protect consumers from ticket scalpers? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002290ea1538-43e8-4257-bd80-df3ccd1e5f27\u0022 data-id=\u00228472afbf36e141279f668440634a0448\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000195\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002290ea1538-43e8-4257-bd80-df3ccd1e5f27\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00228472afbf36e141279f668440634a0448\u0022\u003EHon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs):\u003C/span\u003E The Government wants to stop the practice of ticket scalping in New Zealand, which is harming Kiwi consumers and the creative and cultural sector. The measures we have planned include a price cap on resale tickets, enforcing rules around the information that needs to be disclosed to better inform consumers, and banning ticket-buying bots. We are concerned to hear that a growing number of Kiwis are missing out on events or being ripped off because of ticket scalping. We will ensure this will stop. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000196\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226590faa0-f76b-4386-84f3-9b06296cc772\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b3aada3d5ddc4ceb9103b31bd37392b9\u0022\u003ETamati Coffey\u003C/span\u003E: What advice has he seen on how bad the harm is in New Zealand? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000197\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002290ea1538-43e8-4257-bd80-df3ccd1e5f27\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022257b2d9a6f304707a5be245d00069e97\u0022\u003EHon KRIS FAAFOI\u003C/span\u003E: Work undertaken by officials has shown that the profit margins on the resale of tickets are reaching 205 percent, although I have heard reports of mark-ups of up to 400 percent. Research undertaken by Consumer New Zealand showed that 54 percent of people who responded had paid more than the face value for tickets, 38 percent were charged hidden fees, 13 percent had paid for tickets that never arrived, and 6 percent paid for tickets that were fake. This extra money goes to scalpers instead of going to the event\u2019s creators or remaining in the pockets of consumers. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000198\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f44431ef-b505-4e94-9f57-a60b0a569bf7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ffa013b04f5049858a0529babaebcd00\u0022\u003EHon Shane Jones\u003C/span\u003E: Blues tickets\u2014what about Blues tickets? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000199\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226590faa0-f76b-4386-84f3-9b06296cc772\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c568f2ab98f041c6a64374fd7e638c29\u0022\u003ETamati Coffey\u003C/span\u003E: What sort of ticket reselling activity does the Government want to target? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000200\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002290ea1538-43e8-4257-bd80-df3ccd1e5f27\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ee2642f5158b430e80b433ace512bb30\u0022\u003EHon KRIS FAAFOI\u003C/span\u003E: It is important to differentiate between ticket scalping and ticket onselling. When people can no longer attend the event they purchased the tickets for because of unexpected events, they should be allowed to resell their tickets and recover the money. Ticket scalpers, on the other hand, purchase tickets specifically to resell them and make an exorbitant profit, taking advantage of vulnerable consumers who may not know who the official ticket reseller is and exploiting their willingness to pay by overcharging them. The Government is committed to protecting consumers and ensuring that markets are working fairly and competitively. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000201\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002279db8b64-1f9b-4416-9b81-a12963db9cbf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225521a0ac921b4ba89840721eb421cace\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: That concludes oral questions. I will say to the Hon Shane Jones that there\u2019s no market for scalping Blues tickets at the moment. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000202\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002279db8b64-1f9b-4416-9b81-a12963db9cbf\u0022\u003E\u003Cbr\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022\u003EBills\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000203\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00220d07e0ef3dc74700aa80eec6aceea2b6\u0022\u003ETaxation (Annual Rates for 2018-19, Modernising Tax Administration, and Remedial Matters) Bill\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000204\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u002266658286a8cf4661a3fddb3755dd87a0\u0022\u003EIn Committee\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000205\u0022\u003EDebate resumed from 20 February.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000206\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022405fc3be75f344ca948233011ec2704f\u0022\u003EPart 1  Annual rates of income tax (continued)\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00225e6b7aaa-8157-4d5e-9940-1bdbcd61ae95\u0022 data-id=\u002244367efd7bb845e794e2e24deafc269b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000207\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225e6b7aaa-8157-4d5e-9940-1bdbcd61ae95\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002244367efd7bb845e794e2e24deafc269b\u0022\u003EALASTAIR SCOTT (National\u2014Wairarapa):\u003C/span\u003E I\u2019m not going to go through the title of the bill again. Mr Chair, you\u2019ve eloquently outlined the title of the bill\u2014long as it is. There\u2019s a lot in the bill, and we are here at the committee stage during the first call. The last time I stood I was talking on the KiwiSaver enhancements: the lost opportunity that this bill has not taken up, by doing something that should have been done or could have been done in this amendment bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000208\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225e6b7aaa-8157-4d5e-9940-1bdbcd61ae95\u0022\u003EThere have been a couple of things that are good. I particularly like the holiday period being reduced from five years to one year, and the renaming of it to talk about a saving suspension, and that\u2019s all about getting people involved in KiwiSaver. KiwiSaver is a good platform and it encourages people to save for their superannuation, and their first home, in fact. But I think there has been a lot of opportunity that could have been taken up. As we know, not enough people are in KiwiSaver. In fact, the people that should be in KiwiSaver many, many, many of them are not in KiwiSaver, and that\u2019s simply because there is an option for them not to participate. It\u2019s almost too easy to opt out and thereby not save for their future retirement needs.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000209\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225e6b7aaa-8157-4d5e-9940-1bdbcd61ae95\u0022\u003ESo there could have been more work done on the KiwiSaver enhancements. I\u2019ll give you an example: let\u2019s just talk about the five-year lock-in period. So a couple of things the KiwiSaver enhancement also does is remove the five-year lock-in period\u2014that\u2019s a good thing. It allows the over-65s to opt in to KiwiSaver\u2014that\u2019s also a very positive change\u2014and then it allows larger contributions to be made to the KiwiSaver: the 6 percent and 10 percent contributions. But that\u2019s only going to be used by those that can afford to put in the 6 percent or 10 percent contribution, and that\u2019s all very well and good, but I\u2019m more concerned about those people who are not even in the KiwiSaver scheme. I\u2019m concerned about those people who despite a legislated minimum wage increase, for example, are still not putting funds into the KiwiSaver.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000210\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225e6b7aaa-8157-4d5e-9940-1bdbcd61ae95\u0022\u003EBy not putting funds toward or participating in the KiwiSaver, they are leaving money on the table. They\u2019re leaving money on the table for the employer to keep for themselves. The business is not obliged\u2014if the KiwiSaver participant does not join in, then obviously the employer has got the anticipated contribution of that KiwiSaver participant ready to be put into the scheme. But if the individual is not participating, then of course there is no obligation for the employer to put that anywhere except in his bottom line.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000211\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225e6b7aaa-8157-4d5e-9940-1bdbcd61ae95\u0022\u003ESo there\u2019s a missed opportunity here for participation rates to be increased in KiwiSaver, and there\u2019s a lot of work that could be done around that. I\u2019m not suggesting a $1,000 rebate or a $1,000 incentive, which the previous Government took away, because that was, again, not targeting the people that are most in need\u2014the people that should be in the KiwiSaver programme that are not in the KiwiSaver programme. So, you know, for example, hypothetically, if the KiwiSaver was compulsory, that would enable\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000212\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a434482b-7ac1-4862-9ce7-13e63289dee3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b77251482a3440fea16190e943c7cfad\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe)\u003C/span\u003E: Can I just ask the member to come back to Part 1 of\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000213\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225e6b7aaa-8157-4d5e-9940-1bdbcd61ae95\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cf0e17679b0848e9a939fa45cdc74e3d\u0022\u003EALASTAIR SCOTT\u003C/span\u003E: Well, I\u2019m talking about the KiwiSaver opportunities\u2014the KiwiSaver enhancements\u2014that are available to this bill. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000214\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a434482b-7ac1-4862-9ce7-13e63289dee3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221e0581a301d245f4b9c6738ece5361ff\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe)\u003C/span\u003E: We are debating the rates. I mean, that\u2019s in Part 4, but if you can\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000215\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225e6b7aaa-8157-4d5e-9940-1bdbcd61ae95\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002294098c9c80584d35b1b911e116369332\u0022\u003EALASTAIR SCOTT\u003C/span\u003E: All right, I\u2019ll come\u2014OK. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000216\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a434482b-7ac1-4862-9ce7-13e63289dee3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002232db2592113d46319a40ac71fffc7510\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe)\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014at least relate those comments to Part 1. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000217\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225e6b7aaa-8157-4d5e-9940-1bdbcd61ae95\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221b68ed3910774b589f21dedefd6c9e39\u0022\u003EALASTAIR SCOTT\u003C/span\u003E: All right. Well, I think I\u2019ve made my point. There\u2019s a missed opportunity here for the KiwiSaver to be enhanced further than this bill has done. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000218\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225e6b7aaa-8157-4d5e-9940-1bdbcd61ae95\u0022\u003EThe next point, obviously, is the setting of the income tax rates. This bill sets the rates for the year, and, again, it\u2019s a missed opportunity. There was an opportunity for the Government to back up, to reinforce, and to adopt the thresholds that we had initiated, but the Government did not. The Government did not. They maintained the old, old rates. That, essentially, has taken away $1,000 out of taxpayers\u2019 pockets. So that\u2019s another missed opportunity. So, again, this bill\u2014though it does some good things\u2014is a bill of missed opportunity. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000219\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225e6b7aaa-8157-4d5e-9940-1bdbcd61ae95\u0022\u003ENow, there\u2019s an amendment, I believe, under the name of Amy Adams, which I won\u2019t go to, but I\u2019m sure other members will. But my second point here is around the rates that are actually being set. They are, effectively, higher than they would otherwise be. They are, effectively, higher than they need to be, because there are surpluses up the wazoo for this Government to go and spend, invest, or waste without having these rates that are in place and that are being set by this amendment bill today. There was an opportunity to give taxpayers money\u2014their money; remembering that it\u2019s their money\u2014for themselves to spend as they wish. As I say, the Government of the day\u2014the Labour Government\u2014has not taken up the opportunity to change the thresholds that were in place prior to this bill. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000220\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225e6b7aaa-8157-4d5e-9940-1bdbcd61ae95\u0022\u003EThe other parts of the bill that I\u2019d like to just touch on very briefly relate to the Working for Families abatement rates and thresholds\u2014again, another missed opportunity. Abatement rates, as we know, are a massive disincentive to work. They incentivise people to remain in the status quo\u2014the situation that they find themselves in\u2014because for every dollar that they earn, the abatement rate is so high that it sort of says to them, \u201CWell, I\u2019m not even going to bother getting out of bed.\u201D In fact, you can paint a situation where an abatement rate is actually where you earn a dollar and you owe the Government more than the dollar. There are situations where abatement rates are so aggressive that it encourages people to stay in bed or on the couch, and that is exactly what we don\u2019t want to do. We want to have abatement rates and\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bbded2ec-ac25-4a73-a380-3f4d87693084\u0022 data-id=\u0022738a06319a624aadb3c5b03c0a5c6748\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000221\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bbded2ec-ac25-4a73-a380-3f4d87693084\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022738a06319a624aadb3c5b03c0a5c6748\u0022\u003EHon STUART NASH (Minister of Revenue):\u003C/span\u003E Mr Chair, thank you very much. It was interesting hearing Alastair Scott talk about KiwiSaver. I look forward to his contribution on Part 4, which I think deals with KiwiSaver, and in terms of abatement rates, that was quite interesting, as well. But that\u2019s also another section of the bill. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000222\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bbded2ec-ac25-4a73-a380-3f4d87693084\u0022\u003EMy understanding is that we\u2019re doing this part by part. If they wanted to do the bill as a whole, then I\u2019m sure we can consider that. But this is just about the annual rates that Mr Scott said were outdated. Well, they have been there since 2010, so if the Government of which Mr Scott had been part of, the previous Government\u2014if they had wanted to change it, you had a long time to do it, son. You didn\u2019t do it. They haven\u2019t been done. We think they\u2019re pretty good at the moment, but what we have done is we have asked the Tax Working Group to take a look at this and take a look at the fairness, the balance, the integrity, and the structure of tax in general. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000223\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bbded2ec-ac25-4a73-a380-3f4d87693084\u0022\u003ESo, as it is\u2014where it stands at the moment\u2014is that these are the rates. It\u2019s one clause. A simple clause\u2014very easy. Let\u2019s keep the debate on to that, or we\u2019ll have to close this down. Thank you very much. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022859e13f9-33bb-41bb-b2f0-d848eaf25407\u0022 data-id=\u00228281b0dd975c4eed8ced22c02ce94127\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000224\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022859e13f9-33bb-41bb-b2f0-d848eaf25407\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00228281b0dd975c4eed8ced22c02ce94127\u0022\u003EANDREW BAYLY (National\u2014Hunua):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Mr Chair. That\u2019s very helpful of Minister Stuart Nash to tell us what to do. I\u2019ve got to say, it\u2019s a pleasure to be talking on the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2018\u201319, Modernising Tax Administration, and Remedial Matters) Bill, in my first opportunity. Yes, we are talking about tax, and we\u2019ve got a Government that loves taxing people. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000225\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a6c42c44-3622-4c9c-98b8-793fb5ec15cc\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e0c3548cd27e49ada51404740cb92514\u0022\u003EIan McKelvie\u003C/span\u003E: They\u2019re loving it\u2014love it. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000226\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022859e13f9-33bb-41bb-b2f0-d848eaf25407\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002296da18d4c3834dbba56dc996dae49756\u0022\u003EANDREW BAYLY\u003C/span\u003E: Loving it. So it\u2019s great what the Minister just said, because he thinks the tax rates are OK. Well, I don\u2019t think they are, actually. The tax rates enshrined in this bill are higher than what we would have done if National tax rates were absolutely implemented after the 2017 election promise. So it\u2019s interesting. What is enshrined in this bill? So, the tax rates are set for 10.5 percent up to $14,000; $14,000 to $48,000, 17.5 percent; $48,000 to $70,000, 30 percent; and thereafter, 33 percent. So, if we\u2019d gone back and done what National should have done, and which all New Zealanders would benefit from, we would have had much more leniency for people who are subject to increasing wages\u2014that actually happened under a National Government.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000227\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022859e13f9-33bb-41bb-b2f0-d848eaf25407\u0022\u003EThe abatement rate, or the threshold at which the increased taxes would have occurred, is not $14,000; it would have been $22,000 for the first rate of 10.5 percent. That\u2019s quite a significant increase. That\u2019s actually an $8,000 increase. So for that first threshold\u2014all those people in New Zealand who earned up to $22,000, rather than $14,000, would have been much better off. Then, the second rate, where you tipped up to the next rate of 17.5 percent, rather than it being $14,000, it would have been extended to $22,000 to $52,000. So for many people\u2014and the Labour - New Zealand First Government loves talking about these lower-paid people, and we do need to look after them. That\u2019s why we would have said that for the majority of those people, they would have had to pay only a marginal rate of 17.5 percent, versus the lower rate of $48,000, under these current proposals put in this bill. And, of course, it cascades right to the top.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000228\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022859e13f9-33bb-41bb-b2f0-d848eaf25407\u0022\u003ESo if you asked me about tax rates and about improving the lives of New Zealanders, Minister Nash, it is about these things. These are the things that would have been better for New Zealand: $1,000 for all those New Zealanders would have been much better. Then, of course, we talk about accommodation, Working for Families, and all those other things that are the real things that help people. But what we ended up with in this thing\u2014enshrined in this legislation and this is why we oppose it\u2014is actually a higher rate of tax for those people. That\u2019s why we didn\u2019t want it. Then, on top of that, we\u2019ve had the Government\u2014New Zealand First - Labour - Greens\u2014impose $2.6 billion of new taxes since they\u2019ve come into office. It\u2019s taken only 15 months for them to do that, even though they campaigned on not introducing a new tax during their first term of Government. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000229\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022859e13f9-33bb-41bb-b2f0-d848eaf25407\u0022\u003EThen we\u2019ve heard today at question time about the other ranges of tax currently being thought about. You know, we talked about the agricultural taxes, the emission taxes, the fertiliser taxes\u2014all those just go on. I think there are six of them. And then, of course, the capital gains tax. This is a Government that loves to tax\u2014loves to tax. That is the problem with this situation and that is why Part 1 of this bill is so patently wrong, because it\u2019s unfair for New Zealanders. It\u2019s unfair for those vulnerable New Zealanders who are earning the lower amount of income in New Zealand. We actually wanted to do something concrete about it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000230\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022859e13f9-33bb-41bb-b2f0-d848eaf25407\u0022\u003EThen, also, if you look at the people like those students trying to earn their bit of money to go to university, those young families who haven\u2019t yet got a family and who therefore can\u2019t access Working for Families, and those superannuitants who don\u2019t get any tax breaks, they are the people that are disadvantaged under these new tax arrangements being proposed in this bill, because they\u2019re the people that don\u2019t get any credit. They\u2019re the people that miss out on these so-called tax breaks. We heard about the superannuitant winter tax payment of $800 that was promised under National. The Government tried to put in place new arrangements and $230 went through in the year just gone by. But the fact is, they\u2019re already in\u2014we\u2019re going to see a bill coming into the House. It was noted earlier before question time: that, in fact, we\u2019re already going to have another go at trying to get the winter payment legislation correct, because it was hurriedly put through. It\u2019s inappropriate\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a434482b-7ac1-4862-9ce7-13e63289dee3\u0022 data-id=\u002278038e6a63cd470e980f4a70019e99d3\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000231\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a434482b-7ac1-4862-9ce7-13e63289dee3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002278038e6a63cd470e980f4a70019e99d3\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe)\u003C/span\u003E: No, we\u2019re on the taxation bill, not that bill. You can\u2019t anticipate what\u2019s coming up. So carry on with the taxation bill. [Bell rung] \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002253f86481-33c1-48b2-893b-c11cc0bd673d\u0022 data-id=\u00225d5285729325437e8ba2bca4f04be715\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000232\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002253f86481-33c1-48b2-893b-c11cc0bd673d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00225d5285729325437e8ba2bca4f04be715\u0022\u003EHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Mr Chair, for an opportunity to speak on this bill. Normally, in the normal course of events, the Opposition would support these annual tax rates bills. We\u2019ve usually got a large number of little technical tax matters that need to be dealt with across the House. But these are not normal times, sadly, because we won\u2019t be supporting this bill, because the main thing it does is it sets the tax rates for this year and they are not the tax rates that New Zealand would have had if the National Government had been re-elected and the adjustments of the thresholds had been made. So, as we had legislated, the income tax thresholds would have changed so that the average New Zealander would have paid about $1,000 a year less tax. So, instead of only the first $14,000 of income attracting 10 percent tax rate, we would have extended it to $22,000. So for the entire first $22,000 that anybody earned they\u2019d be paying a tax rate of only 10 percent. Then we extended the next rate up as far as $52,000, so for that next $30,000 you earned, from $22,000 to $52,000, you\u2019re only paying 17.5 percent. That\u2019s good low taxes, adjusting for inflation, and we haven\u2019t seen that because of this bill. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000233\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002253f86481-33c1-48b2-893b-c11cc0bd673d\u0022\u003EThe first thing that this Labour - New Zealand First - Greens coalition Government did\u2014or the New Zealand First and Labour coalition Government with the support of the Greens\u2014was cancel those tax cuts and stick with these meaner adjustments that they have put in at the moment. Why did they do that? Well, the first reason was they said that the last thing they wanted was for rich New Zealanders or wealthy New Zealand families to get a tax cut. Funnily enough, the second thing they did was give those very same wealthy New Zealand families $6,000 worth of free university education, which seemed to me to be somewhat contradictory in stance. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000234\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002253f86481-33c1-48b2-893b-c11cc0bd673d\u0022\u003EI suppose that is the key issue here: that we are not getting the tax cut because this Government has not got in control of its spending. It keeps spending\u2014wants to spend more and more on very poor quality spending decisions. So we\u2019ve got the free fees at the university, which has led to no more students going to university. So you\u2019ve paid an extra $2.6 billion or whatever it is to buy something that you\u2019re already getting\u2014which are students going to university. In the meantime, all that money going into student support is not going into the quality of institutions, and our universities are falling down the international rankings accordingly. So we\u2019ll all have free access to third-rate universities if we\u2019re not careful. And so those sorts of poor decisions are what are driving this tax bill that we\u2019re talking about here. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000235\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002253f86481-33c1-48b2-893b-c11cc0bd673d\u0022\u003EOf course, the other area of loose spending is presided over by my colleague on the other side of the Chamber, Shane Jones and the Provincial Growth Fund\u2014the $3 billion that they are flinging around the countryside in a rush to get it all out the door before the next election. In terms of quality of spending, what we\u2019ve seen is that it\u2019s turned into the second sort of cut if you missed out on the Budget. What I\u2019m focused on here is the quality of spending which is driving the desire for more tax, which has driven the fundamental decision of this bill, which is to deprive New Zealanders of the tax cut that they were going to be getting and to repeal those tax cuts and put in these\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000236\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a434482b-7ac1-4862-9ce7-13e63289dee3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221300a19aae864e02b37d440e82a124a6\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe)\u003C/span\u003E: Order! If the member can concern himself with the tax rates\u2014the annual rates\u2014rather than what it\u2019s being spent on. That will come up in later parts of the bill\u2014unless you relate what you\u2019re saying to the annual rates in Part 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000237\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002253f86481-33c1-48b2-893b-c11cc0bd673d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002207327a34be1844c3827537b4127cb1a6\u0022\u003EHon PAUL GOLDSMITH\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. The only point I\u2019d make is that you only need to have these rates brought in because of decisions made by this Government. So I\u2019m just explaining the existence of these rates that we are debating at the moment. These rates wouldn\u2019t be as they were if it weren\u2019t for the fact that this Government has got a very poor control of its spending and that has led to the decisions that we have confronted in this bill, which is why our hearts are broken that we can\u2019t support this bill that in many other respects is doing worthy things, and the Minister can no doubt point at a number of little issues around the role of tax intermediaries and everything else in this bill which will make a slight difference to make the lives of taxpayers easier.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000238\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002253f86481-33c1-48b2-893b-c11cc0bd673d\u0022\u003EBut we can\u2019t support it because, at its core, it\u2019s more proof of the rapacious nature of this Government in terms of collecting tax. So, on that basis, we do not support this bill, and we\u2019re very much looking forward to hearing from the Minister as to how he justifies not adjusting for inflation in the tax rates that we are debating here today. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a6c42c44-3622-4c9c-98b8-793fb5ec15cc\u0022 data-id=\u00227ebc79a95ee1418d9c817c6f133b5a2f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000239\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a6c42c44-3622-4c9c-98b8-793fb5ec15cc\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00227ebc79a95ee1418d9c817c6f133b5a2f\u0022\u003EIAN McKELVIE (National\u2014Rangit\u012Bkei):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Mr Chair. I was going to say it gives me pleasure to take a call on this bill, but it doesn\u2019t really. The Taxation (Annual Rates for 2018\u201319, Modernising Tax Administration, and Remedial Matters) Bill\u2014it\u2019s a fairly big title for a very small bill. I wanted to make a few comments on the tax rates, because I\u2019m certainly a little disappointed that the Government has changed a policy that the previous Government had in place to give every New Zealander approximately $1,060 in tax relief. I was thinking to myself that there was a little irony in Minister Jones barracking my former colleague\u2014my present colleague. I was going to say \u201Cmy former colleague\u201D, but he\u2019s still here. Ha, ha! I haven\u2019t got rid of him yet. But I thought there was some irony in him barracking my colleague about his comments on the tax rates because, actually, tax rates have a great incentive on people. I have noticed a lot of comment from this said Minister with respect to having difficulty getting people into work or to go out to work. Of course, if you disincentivise people from going out to work by taxing them too much, they certainly won\u2019t go out to work.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000240\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a6c42c44-3622-4c9c-98b8-793fb5ec15cc\u0022\u003EI think that people have a much better feel for themselves when they go out to work and they know they\u2019ve earned the money they\u2019re going to get in their pocket and not been given it by the Government. The essence of the changes to the annual rates of taxation brought in by this Government were that they were, effectively, swapped for a different form of paying a person but using the Government purse to pay them as opposed to letting people earn their own money by operating on a much higher tax rate. I think tax rates are absolutely key to giving people the incentive to get out to work. And certainly, in those lower-income areas, a little tax break goes a long, long way.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000241\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a6c42c44-3622-4c9c-98b8-793fb5ec15cc\u0022\u003EI don\u2019t accept the argument that the Government put up around the tax rates where they talked about people on very high incomes\u2014in fact, they used MPs\u2019 incomes most of the time\u2014as the opportunity. The MPs, of course, only got the same tax break as a person on a much smaller tax rate because inevitably, with a scaled tax system like we have, you\u2019re going to have that sort of effect that\u2019s going to impact on every taxpayer, and you can\u2019t do anything about that. That\u2019s just how it works. Of course, that is the fairest type of tax system to operate under. So because we operate in what I think is a pretty good tax system, it does give people incentive to work. It does operate in a manner that\u2014at the lower ends of income\u2014gives everyone the same amount of tax back.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000242\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a6c42c44-3622-4c9c-98b8-793fb5ec15cc\u0022\u003ESo I was a little disappointed when the Government changed those tax rates. I do think that there\u2019s a lot of things in this bill that are certainly worth supporting. But, of course, in Part 1, we\u2019re talking about those annual tax rates. I certainly can\u2019t find my way clear to support it on that basis. There will be one or two other bits later in the bill that I will find difficulty in supporting too, but that\u2019s for very different reasons.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000243\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a6c42c44-3622-4c9c-98b8-793fb5ec15cc\u0022\u003ESo I\u2019m very disappointed that we\u2019ve seen the annual tax rates change. I\u2019m also very nervous about some of the things the Government are looking at with a view to what they call \u201CMaking the tax system a fairer system.\u201D I think the fairest system we can have, with respect to tax, is the less taxation we have the better. I\u2019m sure that the ultimate aim of this side of the House is to make sure people take home as many dollars as they possibly can. And it\u2019s important that they do, because it does incentivise them to get off the couch and go out to work. If we want to get our young people out to work, the better we can pay them, the more likely we are to get them out to work, and particularly when you get to\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000244\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022dbaac12b-3efa-4d95-a08d-f0f637a48bab\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b02a71492de049fa8749122e58e738e3\u0022\u003EChl\u00F6e Swarbrick\u003C/span\u003E: That\u2019s why we\u2019re raising the minimum wage.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000245\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a6c42c44-3622-4c9c-98b8-793fb5ec15cc\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f6ceabff834c447198fbd6a108cfe4a9\u0022\u003EIAN McKELVIE\u003C/span\u003E: No problem with that\u2014and particularly when you get to some of the more challenging, I suppose, work that we do in New Zealand, particularly our rugged, rural lifestyle because, whether we like it or not, our environment is pretty rugged. So every incentive we can give those young people to get out to work is most important.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000246\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a6c42c44-3622-4c9c-98b8-793fb5ec15cc\u0022\u003ESo with those few words on the annual tax rates, I\u2019ve probably made my contribution to Part 1 of this bill, and later in the discussion I look forward to making some further significant inputs to that discussion. So thank you, Mr Chair.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022098b8334-57f8-4062-bac6-bfbc3474e88e\u0022 data-id=\u00227acd39e483b4462a99b276370acb95a7\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000247\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022098b8334-57f8-4062-bac6-bfbc3474e88e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00227acd39e483b4462a99b276370acb95a7\u0022\u003EMICHAEL WOOD (Labour\u2014Mt Roskill):\u003C/span\u003E Mr Chair, thank you for the opportunity to make a brief comment. I think the debate is moving along and we\u2019re receiving a lot of similar material, but there are some points I want to make. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000248\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022098b8334-57f8-4062-bac6-bfbc3474e88e\u0022\u003EThe first is I want to affirm the point made by the Hon Paul Goldsmith earlier on in the debate where he said it was important that we focus on low-quality, public expenditure, and I think the public who are viewing this debate might be asking that very same question after listening to the previous three Opposition speeches, because those speeches displayed absolutely no understanding of actually why this part of the bill is important. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000249\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022098b8334-57f8-4062-bac6-bfbc3474e88e\u0022\u003EPart 1 of the annual rates bill sets and validates the annual rates for the year up to 1 April, and as such they are a critical part of the Government\u2019s revenue stream, and for any member to come to this House and make an argument against the annual rates that are set out in that bill, but to actually make no suggestion as to what they would do differently were that revenue to be changed, is not only a hollow argument it is an irresponsible argument. So members on the opposite side of the Chamber who have argued with some passion and ideological fervour that the rates should be lower would have been responsible members had they stood up and then said what they would cut when they cut that revenue. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000250\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022098b8334-57f8-4062-bac6-bfbc3474e88e\u0022\u003EThat would be the responsible thing to do, because here\u2019s something that members of the Opposition need to actually know: there isn\u2019t literally a Scrooge McDuck - style vault that sits there underneath this House after the revenue has been collected and just builds up and builds up. Every single dollar of tax revenue that is collected through this annual rates bill gets used. It gets used in our justice system, our transport system. It gets used to build our schools, it gets used to build our hospitals, and it gets used to build houses. It also gets used for things like\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000251\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022df205539ec714fc5ac517283de5816b5\u0022\u003EHon Dr Nick Smith\u003C/span\u003E: And slush funds.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000252\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022098b8334-57f8-4062-bac6-bfbc3474e88e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022525850d1923e4a1eb451162ad61520fd\u0022\u003EMICHAEL WOOD\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, that\u2019s right, Mr Smith\u2014developing our provincial economies that were run down for so many years, and I look forward to members on that side of the House in rural electorates campaigning against the projects funded by the Provincial Growth Fund in their districts in the election next year. I look forward to seeing that happen. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000253\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022098b8334-57f8-4062-bac6-bfbc3474e88e\u0022\u003EAnd the other thing that the revenue that is drawn down from the annual rates set in this tax bill goes to achieving is things like investing in the New Zealand Superannuation Fund and things like paying down New Zealand\u2019s debt. For those members who argue against these annual rates, if they want to argue with any real conviction or any real consistency, they need to stand up in this Chamber and tell us what it is they would cut. Would they repay debt at a slower rate? Would they cut housing? Would they cut education? Would they cut health, because every single\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000254\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227940e9f2-9cea-43d5-8f16-3b470e34f47f\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022828a827b40f14d378925de8dca09a63f\u0022\u003EMatt King\u003C/span\u003E: Fees free.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000255\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022098b8334-57f8-4062-bac6-bfbc3474e88e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227549c1d33e9445e0ba303e7a9aabc970\u0022\u003EMICHAEL WOOD\u003C/span\u003E: Fees free\u2014what an excellent example from the member from Northland, because, despite all of their protestations, that party has not yet made any commitment to actually remove the policy should they have the choice were they in office. They are all care and no responsibility.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000256\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a434482b-7ac1-4862-9ce7-13e63289dee3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cddc4329dcfe458997dcb44bcb895bd0\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe)\u003C/span\u003E: Order! I\u2019m on my feet. Thank you. I\u2019ve given warning to the Opposition side. Now I\u2019m going to give the same warning. You can argue about the annual rates. You can mention, in passing, about what the Government intends spending it on, but getting into detail from either point of view around the expenditure is not part of Part 1. We\u2019re talking about the annual rates, so to both sides of the committee\u2014if we can concern ourselves with the annual rates in Part 1. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000257\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022098b8334-57f8-4062-bac6-bfbc3474e88e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022716b2e6761294293ae3fcea0d9e1f121\u0022\u003EMICHAEL WOOD\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Chair. So in respect of the annual rate, I think probably the points that I\u2019ve made stand on their own merits and I think the argument from both sides of the committee may well have gotten to a point at which we\u2019ve covered much of the material. I will conclude simply by saying that the annual rates set out in this document support extremely important areas of expenditure and investment from the Government. They are set at a responsible level to build an economy that can be conclusive. And I commend this part of the bill to the committee. Thank you, Mr Chair.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022 data-id=\u0022ddae8b9d15f24344bbb37a80a93f5d25\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000258\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ddae8b9d15f24344bbb37a80a93f5d25\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH (National\u2014Nelson):\u003C/span\u003E I\u2019m going to join with my National colleagues and question why this Parliament would want to impose the level of income tax that is proposed within Part 1 of this bill. I\u2019d, firstly, remind the committee that this bill in this part proposes an income tax rate of 33c in the dollar for those earning over $70,000. Do members opposite really believe that $70,000 is a high income that warrants the highest rate of tax in New Zealand? We\u2019ve got many nurses, doctors, policemen, very average hard-working New Zealanders\u2014in fact, we are approaching the ridiculous position in New Zealand where people earning the average income are having imposed the highest tax rate, and members on this side of the committee say that is wrong. What is wrong with this part is that the Government is benefiting from fiscal drag\u2014that is, that with inflation in our economy running at about 2 percent per year, even people when their standard of living is static are facing the prospect of more and more of their income being taken in taxes by this Government. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000259\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003ENow the member Michael Wood challenged National members in saying that the only way that you could agree to lower rates of tax would be lower levels of expenditure. That is incorrect. National left this Government with a legacy of huge surpluses. There is not a Government in the history of New Zealand that has been bequeathed a set of Government books as good as what National left for the incoming Government: surpluses looking out into the future of $8 billion a year; in this financial year over $3 billion. So for members opposite to argue that none other than these tax rates are appropriate for the workers of New Zealand is factually wrong and is around the Government building up a war chest to be able to buy votes rather than being genuinely concerned with our position on this side of the House\u2014and that is that Government should in tax take no more money than what is absolutely needed to provide good quality public services for New Zealanders. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000260\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EI look, for instance, at the rates that are being confirmed in Part 1\u2014clause 3\u2014of this bill, where a New Zealander who is earning just over $21,000 a year is being proposed to be hit with a tax rate of 30c in the dollar. I remind the Parliament that the very first thing that this Government did when it came to office was remove the tax relief that members on this side of the House had passed in Budget 2017, and I believe the onus is on the Minister in the chair and on members of the Government to justify why people earning those very modest incomes should be having to give up 30 cents in the dollar on their income when the Government has the fiscal room to be able to provide tax relief. We say let those hard-working, ordinary Kiwi families keep more of what they earn; that before we start doling out a whole lot of benefits\u2014a whole lot of bribery to try and get voters suckered on to support the current Government\u2014shouldn\u2019t we just let Kiwi families and Kiwi workers keep more of what they earn?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000261\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EI also draw attention to that lowest rate\u2014the 10.5c rate\u2014that, again, members on this side of the House supported changing and lifting that income threshold to take into account inflation, so that Government is not benefiting from fiscal drag. So my question for the Minister in the chair is: why not adjust these rates relative to inflation? We insist on benefits being adjusted for inflation, we insist on all sorts of Government funding being adjusted for inflation, why not give the average Kiwi battler, the hard-working Kiwi, a break on their tax and ensure that those thresholds that are provided for in this clause\u2014that threshold at $14,000, that threshold at $48,000, that threshold at $70,000\u2014why should that not be adjusted for inflation so that the average Kiwi worker is not being socked with more and more tax, as is the habit of this Government?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a8cab3e3-b023-4ce7-9f4b-2c4137029057\u0022 data-id=\u00224b71cfc6d2314d7380cf8bb6ea3d3d62\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000262\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a8cab3e3-b023-4ce7-9f4b-2c4137029057\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224b71cfc6d2314d7380cf8bb6ea3d3d62\u0022\u003EKIRITAPU ALLAN (Assistant Whip\u2014Labour):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022859e13f9-33bb-41bb-b2f0-d848eaf25407\u0022 data-id=\u00221907552310bc497a96cd575c9ed6b0fc\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000263\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022859e13f9-33bb-41bb-b2f0-d848eaf25407\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221907552310bc497a96cd575c9ed6b0fc\u0022\u003EANDREW BAYLY (National\u2014Hunua):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Mr Chair. I listened to that speech by Mr Wood and I just thought it was a bit rich when he talked about the Opposition not being prepared to put up an alternative case, because I thought I had outlined what we did propose, and which was overturned by the Government when it came into power, with regard to changes to the personal tax rates.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000264\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022859e13f9-33bb-41bb-b2f0-d848eaf25407\u0022\u003EJust talking about tax, the thing that most worries me is the lack of imagination shown by the Labour - New Zealand First Government, because we\u2019ve heard ongoing comments about increasing taxes\u2014and we already know that the Government have imposed $2.6 billion of new taxes since they came into office\u2014and the second thing is that they haven\u2019t been clear about the debt levels, other than saying that they want to keep them at 20 percent, even though they at one point dropped to 19.9 percent just last year. So the way that Governments get out of that sort of spending bind\u2014and we\u2019ve got a free-flowing Government spending a billion for the provincial fund and a billion dollars for Winston Peters\u2019 foreign affairs portfolio to name just two\u2014is either to increase taxes or to increase debt, and that is the travesty we\u2019re talking about.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000265\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022859e13f9-33bb-41bb-b2f0-d848eaf25407\u0022\u003ESo, to the personal tax rate. We have been very clear. We have already come out as an Opposition\u2014and our leader, Simon Bridges, has been exceptionally clear\u2014around the thresholds, and that is a $600 million package. But we believe it\u2019s right, by making sure that the thresholds at which increasing levels of tax are paid by individuals are indexed to the Consumers Price Index, and that is a very clear statement from us and one very unusual for an Opposition only 14 months into Opposition, but we believe it is that important at a personal level that people aren\u2019t automatically being shifted into higher income tax brackets just through inflation and that that is patently unfair, and that is the imaginative thing that we\u2019ve already talked about.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000266\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022859e13f9-33bb-41bb-b2f0-d848eaf25407\u0022\u003EThe thing about this tax package\u2014and this is why we don\u2019t support it\u2014is that it is unimaginative; it\u2019s very unimaginative. For instance, where is the conversation around tax on companies? There\u2019s just been nothing about tax. All we\u2019ve done is continue the same debate at 28 percent, and the issue about that is that companies are the driver of the economy of New Zealand. They are the employers and the future employers of young people and older people who want to work, who want to have a secure lifestyle, who want to be able to borrow money to buy a house, and who want to have all the benefits of being able to afford to pay for their families, and all those associated benefits that you get from having a secure job. And the thing that worries me most about the tax arguments that\u2019ve been going on\u2014not only the one we\u2019re having today but also in the wider context of all the tax debate that\u2019s been going on\u2014is the inability of the Government to recognise what is the driver of economies, and that is businesses.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000267\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022859e13f9-33bb-41bb-b2f0-d848eaf25407\u0022\u003EWhen you say the word \u201Cbusinesses\u201D, what you are talking about are individuals who are prepared to take the risk of investing in businesses, whether start-ups or buying businesses, or even buying new pieces of equipment or taking on new staff, and that drive around that at a personal level also comes back to personal tax rates. So you can overlay all the business risks, and you can do all those sorts of things, which are naturally part of the assessment of whether you\u2019re going to mortgage your house and take on debt to be able to buy businesses and employ people, but the core is that the tax issue is quite important not only at a company level but at a personal level, and that\u2019s the thing that worries me most about this New Zealand First - Labour - Green Government\u2014that they seem to be oblivious of the importance of these people who take on the risks. We\u2019ve got 530,000 businesses in New Zealand. You\u2019d think we might have had a conversation around company tax rates. That\u2019s been absolutely silent and, unfortunately, we\u2019ve got a Government made up of people with probably very few members who have actually worked and owned their own business, put their own money on the line, gone through the process of understanding what it is like to pay wages, deduct all the taxes that need to be paid to the IRD.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000268\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022859e13f9-33bb-41bb-b2f0-d848eaf25407\u0022\u003EAnd this is all part of what\u2019s in this bill, because another part of this bill, when we move on to it, is all about the complications of the new PAYE system that this bill is introducing. And I\u2019m going to return to this as part of this tax conversation, because it\u2019s vitally important and I think one that\u2019s been very, very much missed in the conversation to date.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022dc6c0f88-e781-476d-bca1-d1bf9b69302b\u0022 data-id=\u002247568560573949638adde92bb0d46126\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000269\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022dc6c0f88-e781-476d-bca1-d1bf9b69302b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002247568560573949638adde92bb0d46126\u0022\u003EHon AMY ADAMS (National\u2014Selwyn):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Mr Chairman. Good to take a call on this Part 1 of this Taxation (Annual Rates for 2018-19, Modernising Tax Administration, and Remedial Matters) Bill. Often, these bills come to the House and they\u2019re reasonably non-controversial affairs, picking up a number of bipartisan changes that need to be made to tax administration and reconfirming the rates, and quite often you will see Opposition support for them. But with this bill, we can\u2019t do that because there are a number of quite serious changes, and my colleague Andrew Bayly has discussed some of those, and, as he says, there are others that we\u2019ll discuss when we get through to the significant restructuring of the PAYE system and how that will work.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000270\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022dc6c0f88-e781-476d-bca1-d1bf9b69302b\u0022\u003EBut the piece that I wanted to particularly raise in this first contribution comes back to what should be a reasonably formulaic part of the bill, which is confirming the annual tax rates. Now, in National we have a very strong and simple view that people should keep as much of what they earn as they can, and the Government shouldn\u2019t be taking any more out of people\u2019s pockets than it actually needs to effectively and efficiently provide the services to the public. Now, we can all debate exactly what that amount is, but one thing that I think this House should be able to agree on is that those tax rates, and the thresholds at which they apply, can\u2019t be fixed in stone for all time. Like every figure in our economy or every figure in our society\u2014whether it\u2019s the price of a loaf of bread, your rent, your car insurance fee, your wages, the cost of a cup of coffee\u2014everything moves, over time, with inflation. It\u2019s well understood that for any cost to maintain its relativity, it has to move with inflation, and this House recognises that in almost everything it does. Almost every Government payment is linked to the Consumers Price Index and adjusted, whether that\u2019s benefit rates or the superannuation rates or Working for Families\u2014any number of payments, we make sure they\u2019re updated for inflation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000271\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022dc6c0f88-e781-476d-bca1-d1bf9b69302b\u0022\u003EYet when it comes to tax rates and when it comes to tax brackets, the Government won\u2019t move them for inflation. Now, why won\u2019t it do that? Well, it\u2019s pretty simple: because every year the effect of inflation means the Government takes a little bit more tax without anyone noticing. So rather than turning around and saying \u201CDo you know what? We want to take more money out of your pocket, and we\u2019re going to be honest about that and put up the taxes.\u201D, they just say, \u201CWhy don\u2019t we just let those figures stay frozen in time and then every year as the costs around us go up and the inflation pushes up wages and inflation pushes up costs, we\u2019ll be taking a little bit more tax and a little bit more tax?\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000272\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022dc6c0f88-e781-476d-bca1-d1bf9b69302b\u0022\u003EI want to explain very briefly what I mean by that. When the existing tax thresholds were last adjusted, in 2010, there was about a $24,000 gap between the average wage and the top tax bracket. The top tax bracket at the moment is at $70,000; there was about a $24,000 gap, which meant that the average worker was well inside that. Now we\u2019re down to a $7,500 gap, and, actually, in just a couple of years, the average wage earner will be on the top tax bracket because the Government has refused to move those tax brackets for inflation and refused to link them to inflation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000273\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022dc6c0f88-e781-476d-bca1-d1bf9b69302b\u0022\u003ENow, National was the party that last adjusted the tax brackets. National actually legislated to adjust them again in 2017, but the first thing this Government did when it took office was cancel that. They said, \u201CNo, no, no, tax brackets shouldn\u2019t keep up with inflation, because if we leave them frozen in time then we can take more money every year by stealth, without New Zealanders being aware that every year we\u2019re taking more and more of their real spending power.\u201D Now, that is just wrong.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000274\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022dc6c0f88-e781-476d-bca1-d1bf9b69302b\u0022\u003EIn fact, the World Bank recently has come out in its report into Australia and said they should link their tax thresholds to inflation. I agree with them, National agrees with them, and we\u2019ve announced, earlier this year, that our policy would be to do that. So when we are confirming the annual rates in this bill, this side of the House won\u2019t agree to leave them frozen at 2010 rates and have the Government let inflation take more tax out of people\u2019s pockets.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000275\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022dc6c0f88-e781-476d-bca1-d1bf9b69302b\u0022\u003EI\u2019ve got an amendment in my name on the Table for this bill, looking to amend clause 3, which does the very smallest of adjustments and says, \u201CLet\u2019s adjust them for the last three years of inflation, let\u2019s move those tax rates.\u201D It\u2019s only the beginning; fiscally, it\u2019s not a huge amount, but when it becomes important is when that becomes the system under which we operate. Every three years, the tax thresholds should be adjusted to take account of inflation. If the Government is being honest with the people of New Zealand about what it is taking, the tax thresholds should automatically move with inflation, and then the Government can have an upfront discussion about what extra tax it wants to take.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000276\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022dc6c0f88-e781-476d-bca1-d1bf9b69302b\u0022\u003ESo the amendment in my name would allow this Government to show good faith and say, \u201CWe should adjust those tax thresholds for inflation, we should move them up on a regular basis so that we\u2019re not helping ourselves to more and more by stealth.\u201D If the Government and the party on the Treasury benches want to give truth to their promise to be the most honest and transparent Government, well, here\u2019s a great example of how they could do it. Be honest and transparent when you want to take more tax. Don\u2019t freeze numbers at a 2010 level and let inflation do the work for you. We wouldn\u2019t allow wages to be frozen at a 2010 level. We wouldn\u2019t allow benefits to be frozen at a 2010 level. We wouldn\u2019t allow the costs of anything we do to be frozen at that level, and yet this Government is happy to leave those tax thresholds frozen. If they don\u2019t move, if they don\u2019t accept my amendment to this legislation, then they are, effectively, saying to someone on the average wage that the Government thinks they should be paying the top tax rate in just a year or two\u2019s time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000277\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022dc6c0f88-e781-476d-bca1-d1bf9b69302b\u0022\u003ENow, I don\u2019t think that\u2019s right. I don\u2019t think the average wage earner should be facing the top tax bracket. They wouldn\u2019t have under National, they weren\u2019t under National, and we\u2019ve made it very clear that our policy would make sure that every single parliamentary term, tax thresholds are adjusted. Now, of course we can have a discussion, and we will, and we\u2019re having them at the moment around what taxes should be, but they should be discussed and debated and put honestly in front of the people of New Zealand, not by freezing a rate because you don\u2019t have\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000278\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f44431ef-b505-4e94-9f57-a60b0a569bf7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022919c2849462144668e8fffd9d8f0256c\u0022\u003EHon Shane Jones\u003C/span\u003E: No, we\u2019re investing in the regions: billion trees, jobs.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000279\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022dc6c0f88-e781-476d-bca1-d1bf9b69302b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fb97a4e225084a45933d0cfa634ba131\u0022\u003EHon AMY ADAMS\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014the openness to actually say to New Zealanders what the tax rates will be. Now, Mr Jones over there is barracking away, which I find somewhat amazing, because it\u2019s his wasting of money which is one of the core reasons this Government wants to take more tax off New Zealanders; $3 billion of pork barrel from that man is one of the main reasons this Government is looking to take more tax. If they just spent the money they had well, and didn\u2019t have Mr Jones mulching seedlings because he can\u2019t organise himself to even plant a few trees, then we wouldn\u2019t need to take more tax.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000280\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022dc6c0f88-e781-476d-bca1-d1bf9b69302b\u0022\u003ESo my challenge to the Government is this: how about you rein in the loose spending? How about you rein in the pork-barrel politics of Mr Jones, the failed fees-free tertiary policy, the 250-odd working groups that have cost hundreds of thousands of dollars? How about you rein that in, get a bit of competence in your management, and then let New Zealanders keep the money that they work hard for. Don\u2019t sit there and let inflation put up tax every year by stealth, because they don\u2019t have the honesty to be upfront with New Zealanders and say, \u201CWe want a bit more tax to fund Shane Jones, so we\u2019re going to take it from you.\u201D Be honest; put indexation into the legislation. My amendment is a very small step towards that, but without some signal in this legislation that the tax rates need to change for indexation, this is a bill we can\u2019t support.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000281\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022dc6c0f88-e781-476d-bca1-d1bf9b69302b\u0022\u003EI just want to finish by saying this in respect of tax rates: if National was the Government right now, and the legislation we passed in 2017 hadn\u2019t been cancelled to fund Shane Jones\u2019 questionable spending habits around the country and his handing out of secret loans to private companies, New Zealanders now would be paying a lot less tax. What are they facing under this Government? More tax, higher rents, higher petrol taxes, impending capital gains taxes, and inflation eating away the core value of what they earn. That is not right, and that\u2019s why this side of the House cannot support the annual rates in this bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a8cab3e3-b023-4ce7-9f4b-2c4137029057\u0022 data-id=\u0022039e04b383904e5db58fb204aedf9797\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000282\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a8cab3e3-b023-4ce7-9f4b-2c4137029057\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022039e04b383904e5db58fb204aedf9797\u0022\u003EKIRITAPU ALLAN (Assistant Whip\u2014Labour):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022859e13f9-33bb-41bb-b2f0-d848eaf25407\u0022 data-id=\u0022e9ca2289d73f4814b0f6180405cfc28d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000283\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022859e13f9-33bb-41bb-b2f0-d848eaf25407\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e9ca2289d73f4814b0f6180405cfc28d\u0022\u003EANDREW BAYLY (National\u2014Hunua):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Mr Chair. The Government seems intent on closing down this debate. Tax is something that\u2019s vitally important to everyone, as we all know, and what\u2019s interesting is we\u2019ve covered a little bit about personal tax rates, we\u2019ve just touched on corporate tax, but very little conversation about other aspects of our tax system. This is the thing I find so unimaginative about this Government, that when you start to look at the provisions in the Working for Families tax package, and also all the other aspects of tax and provision around that for those families, the thing that strikes you most, when you look at it, is how complicated it is.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000284\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022859e13f9-33bb-41bb-b2f0-d848eaf25407\u0022\u003EVery few people, in my view, actually understand what those arrangements are. I think, again, here we\u2019ve got a Government who hasn\u2019t had the time to think about it, who has just simply rolled through with an existing sort of arrangement. The only thing that\u2019s happened is that the current Minister of Finance has made the system even more complicated, and I think that was a bad move, actually. It was a very bad move because the arrangements now are complicated and complex. Most people don\u2019t understand it and, in many cases, are not able to work out what their tax position is and what they\u2019re entitled to do.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000285\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022859e13f9-33bb-41bb-b2f0-d848eaf25407\u0022\u003EBy way of example, the first one is the minimum tax credit. As some might know, this is to help families who don\u2019t have an income or who have an income below $26,000. The thing about this particular one is that it\u2019s not available to students and it\u2019s not available to superannuitants. You\u2019ll recall in one of my earliest contributions I\u2019ve talked about the impact of the tax system at the moment and how it disadvantages students, it disadvantages young couples without a family, and it disadvantages the superannuitant, and here we are: we\u2019ve got a family tax credit trying to work with those people earning less than $26,000 but one of the first exclusions are students and superannuitants, and I think that\u2019s wrong. I\u2019d think that if you\u2019re talking about fairness and equity in the tax system\u2014and we\u2019ve got a Government great on rhetoric but low and slow on actual implementation around these issues\u2014this is the first part of it. Those lower-income people in New Zealand, the most vulnerable people\u2014this tax system should be designed to do more about it, and, of course, there\u2019s been nothing stated about it and no one wants to talk about it at a Government level.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000286\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022859e13f9-33bb-41bb-b2f0-d848eaf25407\u0022\u003EThe second one is actually the family tax credit that applies where you\u2019ve got children. Again, the rates\u2014if you\u2019ve got a child between just a baby and 16 years, you\u2019re entitled\u2014your first child\u2019s about $4,800; it increases to $5,300 for the 16 to 18 years, at which point it cuts off, and, of course, it\u2019s a slightly lower rate for your second child.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000287\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022859e13f9-33bb-41bb-b2f0-d848eaf25407\u0022\u003EBut it\u2019s interesting, going back to what we were going to implement back in 2017, what we were trying to do is get rid of the complications round this, because there\u2019s all these different thresholds at which the rate applies depending on how old your oldest child is, and all that sort of stuff. We were simply just going to take the highest rate and, basically, say that applied for the number of children and make it very easy so people could understand it, because not everyone\u2019s an expert on tax. It meant that those families could actually go and be able to budget very clearly, and it\u2019s something that\u2019s just easy to implement. The complication around the implementation issue is massive.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000288\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022859e13f9-33bb-41bb-b2f0-d848eaf25407\u0022\u003EBut the one wonderful contribution that Mr Grant Robertson made in the Budget last year, of course, was to introduce the Best Start tax credit, which is just another layer. It deals with your first baby up to three years. It\u2019s just another level of complication. What we need is actually a Government that\u2019s going to be more imaginative about these aspects, and this whole issue is paramount, in my view. If you want to deal and help with families, this whole area needs to be de-cluttered, not made so complicated and people can therefore understand it and know what they\u2019re entitled to. At the moment, we\u2019ve just got a Government sleeping at the wheel. All they want to do is impose more taxes, and I think that\u2019s wrong.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a8cab3e3-b023-4ce7-9f4b-2c4137029057\u0022 data-id=\u0022c014624426df4e58be50df0c1a1938fe\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000289\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a8cab3e3-b023-4ce7-9f4b-2c4137029057\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c014624426df4e58be50df0c1a1938fe\u0022\u003EKIRITAPU ALLAN (Assistant Whip\u2014Labour):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00220d8b7856f3744e1d952782c758031f4b\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 63\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 56\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 55; Ross.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000290\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Amy Adams to clause 3 be agreed to: \u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000291\u0022\u003Einsert new clause 3(1):\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000292\u0022\u003E(1) \tAmend table 1 of schedule 1 of the Income Tax Act 2007 to be:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000293\u0022\u003ETable 1\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000294\u0022\u003ERow\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000295\u0022\u003ERange of dollar in taxable income\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000296\u0022\u003ETax rate\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000297\u0022\u003E1\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000298\u0022\u003E$0 \u2013 $14,700\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000299\u0022\u003E0.105\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000300\u0022\u003E2\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000301\u0022\u003E$14,701 \u2013 $50,400\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000302\u0022\u003E0.175\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000303\u0022\u003E3\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000304\u0022\u003E$50,401 \u2013 $73,400\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000305\u0022\u003E0.300\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000306\u0022\u003E4\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000307\u0022\u003E$73,401 upwards\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000308\u0022\u003E0.330\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022b6bba3c1c30447a1a73e00b1a92d9191\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 56\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 55; Ross.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 63\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022c55655221d5f42afb854122dba838e7b\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That Part 1 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 63\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 57\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EPart 1 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000309\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022ac0e5b7db3144c599b6e07aaefa8c7b7\u0022\u003EPart 2  Amendments to Tax Administration Act 1994\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000310\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022aa109ac4665548e48bd5d4beb34650e7\u0022\u003EAmendments to Tax Administration Act 1994\u201D, and Schedules 1, 3, 4, and 5.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a434482b-7ac1-4862-9ce7-13e63289dee3\u0022 data-id=\u00224f83d92f670e48e7ad013b197dd57be1\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000311\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a434482b-7ac1-4862-9ce7-13e63289dee3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224f83d92f670e48e7ad013b197dd57be1\u0022\u003EASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe)\u003C/span\u003E: We now come to the debate on Part 2, the debate on clauses 4 to 103, \u201C\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022859e13f9-33bb-41bb-b2f0-d848eaf25407\u0022 data-id=\u0022fd22828d90f84ccfb08b2350fc987e91\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000312\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022859e13f9-33bb-41bb-b2f0-d848eaf25407\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022fd22828d90f84ccfb08b2350fc987e91\u0022\u003EANDREW BAYLY (National\u2014Hunua):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Mr Chair. I just want to start talking about pre-population of accounts, which is a crucial aspect of making sure that this legislation actually comes into account and can actually operate. The thing about this\u2014I don\u2019t know if everyone understands the importance of it, but we have a situation in New Zealand where we have a million taxpayers who\u2019ve previously had a relationship with the IRD. We\u2019ve got roughly a million that have had a relationship with an intermediary\u2014and they\u2019re called personal tax summary intermediaries, or PTSI. There are about 30 of them in New Zealand, who have been managing the accounts for New Zealanders with regard to their interactions with the IRD. Then we\u2019ve got a million people in New Zealand who\u2019ve had no dealings with the tax department. We\u2019re now going and implementing a system, which the Minister\u2019s overseeing, whereby we are going to see some fundamental changes in terms of the relationship that taxpayers have with the IRD. But more worrying in some ways: whilst we expect about 1.6 million taxpayers to get a refund, 263,000\u2014this is the estimate\u2014will be getting a tax bill, and of that 263,000, about 115,000 will never have received a tax bill from the IRD before.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000313\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022859e13f9-33bb-41bb-b2f0-d848eaf25407\u0022\u003ENow, the issue with that million that I said have had no relationship with or have had anything to do with tax is: how do you get them to pre-populate their accounts with the IRD, and how does the IRD have a relationship with them if they\u2019ve never had a relationship? Now, one of the things we know is that the budget for IRD that they\u2019ve allocated for trying to get these people on board is about $4 million, but the ability for this legislation actually to work depends on the relationship of the IRD with the taxpayer. Unfortunately, and I haven\u2019t seen it to date, the marketing of it and just the general awareness of the requirements for taxpayers to actually go in and have a relationship on their MyIR account\u2014and it will only be activated if someone logs in, and at that point the IRD can actually start to form a relationship. Because there\u2019s been so little advertising around that, the issue about these people not knowing about it\u2014because not everyone reads the paper, not everyone listens to National Radio and Morning Report\u2014is that those people are likely to be at risk of not fulfilling their tax obligations and also, probably in some cases, not being able to get the tax refund that they\u2019re actually entitled to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000314\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022859e13f9-33bb-41bb-b2f0-d848eaf25407\u0022\u003EI think there\u2019s an element\u2014and one of the things I\u2019d like the Minister to answer is about how the department is getting on in terms of obtaining those contacts and whether it\u2019s going to rely on section 17. It is good that Mr Willie Jackson\u2019s in the chair, because I think whether there is a compulsory element to the obligation to require or provide that information to IRD is crucially important.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000315\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022859e13f9-33bb-41bb-b2f0-d848eaf25407\u0022\u003EThe other thing I\u2019d like him to speak to\u2014and he may not be able to, and at some point I\u2019d like to press the Minister for a response\u2014is, actually, how many contact details the IRD has got at the moment\u2014or, more importantly, how many they haven\u2019t got. I think the issue about this\u2014just given the timing perspective\u2014is that this bill comes into force on 1 April. That\u2019s not long away. Normally, refunds for the 2017-18 year, or for any year, to that effect, will be paid out by June of the following year. So if we\u2019re finishing our March year at the end of this month, the IRD would normally be paying out our refunds by June. Whether or not there are, in fact, any key performance indicators (KPIs)\u2014and I don\u2019t think we\u2019ve seen anything about the KPIs\u2014the obligation to refund taxpayers the money that they are due from the tax system is crucially important, and people will be wanting it, and they are entitled to it. So that\u2019s one issue around the refunds.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000316\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022859e13f9-33bb-41bb-b2f0-d848eaf25407\u0022\u003EThe other side of the coin is the need to be able to make your payment if you\u2019ve got a tax bill. Of course, if you\u2019re not aware of your tax bill, you don\u2019t know that you have to make that obligation. But the cut-off time for making your final tax payment is actually February next year for the year that finishes 31 March this year, and so it is absolutely vitally important that the IRD has the contact details to be able to go and do that, to make the refunds, but also to tell people about their tax obligations.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000317\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022859e13f9-33bb-41bb-b2f0-d848eaf25407\u0022\u003EAs I said, 115,000 people will be receiving a tax bill for the first time. Now, with regard to this, we understand that the IRD have taken on 300 more people in the call centre. That is an increase, obviously, but there are many hundreds of thousands of calls that were not taken during the 2017-18 year\u2014the current year. All that\u2019s going to escalate\u2014all that\u2019s going to be even worse as we move to this new system, which, whilst we are very supportive of the idea, in the way it\u2019s been managed and the way the Minister\u2019s looking after it, it needs to be seriously questioned. I think, whilst you might have call centres, if people don\u2019t actually understand how they\u2019re going to\u2014or that they have a requirement to\u2014call the call centre, it actually raises some significant issues.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000318\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022859e13f9-33bb-41bb-b2f0-d848eaf25407\u0022\u003EI think the other aspect to this is the reliance on, as I said before, the personal tax summary intermediaries, the PTSIs, which are the intermediaries\u2014the 30 companies that have been acting for a million taxpayers. At the moment, I understand that many of them supplied the information, but what is the requirement for them to provide all that information\u2014and whether in fact they have. So I\u2019d like the Minister to talk about that aspect.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000319\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022859e13f9-33bb-41bb-b2f0-d848eaf25407\u0022\u003EI think the issue around the portal\u2014just returning to the original idea around the pre-populated account. So in the pre-populated account, there are two crucial aspects. One is your contact details\u2014obviously, name, email address, and mobile, but probably most importantly their email address, because that\u2019s the mechanism that in many cases will be the primary mechanism for communication. But there\u2019s also the physical address, because in many cases the IRD send physical letters to taxpayers. I think the issue is getting the pre-population around this for people: older people in rest homes, older people generally\u2014and my mother\u2019s 92, and she doesn\u2019t have a computer and is unlikely to at her age\u2014and just generally non - computer users. The system, and the ability to be able to interact with the IRD, which is primarily being now driven towards a digital platform, makes it increasingly difficult.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000320\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022859e13f9-33bb-41bb-b2f0-d848eaf25407\u0022\u003EI think this is a big issue, because if you\u2019re a taxpayer and you are not aware of your tax obligations or you\u2019ve just assumed that you haven\u2019t had to do anything for years\u2014which is a reasonable assumption\u2014and you have a debt that the tax department has assessed, then, of course, the use-of-money interest rates are significant, and the rates of penalties build up very, very quickly, and the financial cost of that is quite significant. The bill actually covers, if you do pay off some of your penalties, the order in which it gets paid off, and the last bit that gets paid off is actually the original tax obligation. So you\u2019ll have to go through all the use-of-money penalties, all those sorts of things. So that debt balloons very, very quickly. I think those aspects to it\u2014how the IRD is actually going about doing its job, getting all those contacts, those million contacts, and how it\u2019s going to do that in the time frame, its KPI\u2019s of delivering that\u2014are all questions that I\u2019m just hoping that the Minister will answer, because, without these, this piece of legislation\u2019s not going to work. You can look at the various aspects to it, but it\u2019s a crucial part of the success of this whole bill. Thank you, Mr Chair.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a6c42c44-3622-4c9c-98b8-793fb5ec15cc\u0022 data-id=\u002218f7fa785954468b9f8ddee63d1695a8\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000321\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a6c42c44-3622-4c9c-98b8-793fb5ec15cc\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002218f7fa785954468b9f8ddee63d1695a8\u0022\u003EIAN McKELVIE (National\u2014Rangit\u012Bkei):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Mr Chair. I just wanted to take a call on this, Part 2 of this bill. Actually, I want to follow on from the member for Hunua, because he raised some issues\u2014I won\u2019t be quite as eloquent or academic as he was\u2014that I think are of significant challenge. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000322\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a6c42c44-3622-4c9c-98b8-793fb5ec15cc\u0022\u003EFirst of all, I must say that I think most of the pieces in Part 2 are perfectly logical changes to a piece of legislation. Of course, they arise as a result of the Inland Revenue Department\u2019s transformation project, which I think is a pretty exciting project that\u2019s massively ambitious. Of course, as you go along with these ambitious projects, there are always casualties, and that\u2019s what I want to touch on here.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000323\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a6c42c44-3622-4c9c-98b8-793fb5ec15cc\u0022\u003EThe previous speaker did touch briefly on them, but I think the challenge that I have with this part of the legislation, quite aside from the fact that there are probably almost millions of people who have never had direct contact with the Inland Revenue Department, is the fact that the methods of communication with these people are going to be very challenging\u2014well, with many of them, they\u2019re going to be very challenging\u2014for two reasons. One is that we are far from perfect with our coverage, or technology coverage, in New Zealand, and internet contact with these people is going to be very difficult. So a lot of people are either not going to have the ability to communicate with the IRD in this manner or are not going to want to communicate with them in this manner. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000324\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a6c42c44-3622-4c9c-98b8-793fb5ec15cc\u0022\u003EThat\u2019s the first challenge I think we\u2019ve got, and that will be, I imagine, the generational change. So that will change in time, but it\u2019s a challenge that all Government departments, and any entities for that matter\u2014particularly banks, actually\u2014wanting to deal with their customers through this mode are facing at the moment, and that\u2019s what happens at a time like this.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000325\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a6c42c44-3622-4c9c-98b8-793fb5ec15cc\u0022\u003EThe other issue I want to touch on is the mail system. When you do what we do in life, you spend a lot of time walking around streets. I reckon you could easily find streets in New Zealand where 20 percent of the mailboxes are never looked into. In fact, you\u2019ll find the stuff down the street\u2014you find it everywhere. So there\u2019re a large number of people who never bother to go to their mailbox and never bother to take the letters out of it\u2014I suspect because they\u2019re mostly bills, and I also suspect that they get them\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000326\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002202e74c40-9529-4e15-adc2-c032eadc2205\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002295967b5c11964013b37df1789d00dffb\u0022\u003EGreg O\u2019Connor\u003C/span\u003E: Sounds like National Party brochures to me.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000327\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a6c42c44-3622-4c9c-98b8-793fb5ec15cc\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ba57c3464da642ee9451808173601e55\u0022\u003EIAN McKELVIE\u003C/span\u003E: Well, I have to say, I have had to try and stuff mine on top of a couple of red ones in my time, but I\u2019ll forgive them for that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000328\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a6c42c44-3622-4c9c-98b8-793fb5ec15cc\u0022\u003EI think that the challenge of this is quite significant, because most of these people\u2014as, again, Andrew Bayly said\u2014have never received communication from the Inland Revenue Department, and when they do get one, they\u2019ll be terrified by it, I would have thought. So that\u2019s quite a large challenge, and I think it will take time to work its way in, and they\u2019re going to have to have a significant amount of tolerance in dealing with this issue as it slowly is implemented. There are one or two good parts to that, in that some of the smaller tax refunds and tax demands will disappear, because if it\u2019s under $50 they\u2019re not going to persevere with that. That will make a difference and will lessen the communication that is required, hopefully. So that\u2019s a bit of a challenge.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000329\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a6c42c44-3622-4c9c-98b8-793fb5ec15cc\u0022\u003EThere are some other parts to this bill that I also think are challenging, but then all this stuff\u2014almost everything we do in this House, actually\u2014has unintended consequences, and certainly consequences that we can\u2019t foresee at the time. I think that simple things that we might have envisaged when they came through this House would not cause significant problems\u2014like anti - money-laundering, for example\u2014have created significant costs for small business in New Zealand, and some of the changes proposed in Part 2 of this bill will inevitably lead to those same significant increases in costs to small business. That\u2019s one of the things that\u2019s hugely frustrating for business in New Zealand, and it\u2019s hugely frustrating\u2014well, I think it\u2019s probably frustrating\u2014for most politicians, because it\u2019s not something that we intend as a Parliament to impose on business, but it happens almost every time we try to change compliance schemes and rules relating to tax and other things that the Parliament deals with.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000330\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a6c42c44-3622-4c9c-98b8-793fb5ec15cc\u0022\u003ECertainly, taxation is a very complex issue for most people, and it is an issue that most people\u2014well, a large percentage of New Zealanders\u2014never deal with personally. They are now going to have to deal with that personally, and I think that will be a challenge for them. There are also changes that are happening in the course of that legislation that are going to put more compliance on businesses, and so they are going to have to have much more frequent contact with the Inland Revenue, which also is going to be a significant challenge for them. There are plenty of other issues I will take up in the course of this bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022695678cf-542a-4616-9e0a-86990caec192\u0022 data-id=\u00229ab6cd33cd3745e4ad7a00b7b372828f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000331\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022695678cf-542a-4616-9e0a-86990caec192\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229ab6cd33cd3745e4ad7a00b7b372828f\u0022\u003EHon ALFRED NGARO (National):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Mr Chair. I rise to take a stand in this committee stage on the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2018-19, Modernising Tax Administration, and Remedial Matters) Bill. It probably is the first time I have actually spoken on a tax bill in this House, over a period of nearly eight years. I do so, though, because in Part 2 of this bill, it raises a number of questions that I would like to pose to the Minister of Revenue, especially in regards to Part 2, clause 77, \u201CNew section 120VD inserted (Interest on tax credits for charitable or other public benefit gifts)\u201D, inserted after section 120VC. It\u2019s inserted as new section 120VD, \u201CInterest on tax credits for charitable or other public benefit gifts\u201D. It says \u201CNo interest shall be payable by the Commissioner under section 120D(3) on an amount of tax credit calculated under section LD 1 of the Income Tax Act 2007.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000332\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022695678cf-542a-4616-9e0a-86990caec192\u0022\u003EI specifically note that, and I would like to pose a question to the Minister in regards to this, because as I read it and as I understand it, if a refund is due to a charity, then the IRD won\u2019t have to pay interest on the refund. If that\u2019s the case, then why is it that when we are wanting to support charities\u2014and we enforce the law to ensure that they pay on time, but if there is a refund that is due, then the fact is that the Inland Revenue Department won\u2019t pay interest if they had to hold that payment over a period of time. That\u2019s my understanding. I would like to clarify that with the Minister, if that\u2019s the case. Why is it, then, that these trusts\u2014and I\u2019ve also run an NGO myself for nearly 20 years, the Tamaki Community Development Trust out in Panmure and Glen Innes, so I know what it takes to ensure that when we process our tax through with our accountants, if we are late and due in our payments, then we get penalised. In that case, over a period of time, there\u2019s interest that\u2019s compounding. So in this case, I would like to pose a question to the Minister: surely, if we\u2019re making this amendment, could we not then see the need to be more lenient to those in those charitable organisations?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000333\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022695678cf-542a-4616-9e0a-86990caec192\u0022\u003EWe have 27,900 registered charitable trusts. We have 114,132 not-for-profit organisations in New Zealand. The charities are the backbone of our country. They service something like 44,000 hours a day up and down this country. So my question to the Minister: surely, it wouldn\u2019t be too hard to show a little bit of lenience in this case. Could there be a way in which they could understand, if they\u2019ve had that over a period of time\u2014it could be four, maybe six months. In regard to clause 77, the introduction of 120VD, could they show some discretion, over that period of time, where they could actually pay some interest if they\u2019ve had to hold that amount? If those trusts, in their accounting, have actually paid the amounts that were due, and there is seen to be a discrepancy in that amount\u2014in other words, they paid more than what they were due\u2014and now that we\u2019ve got the Minister in the chair, I hope that he\u2019s heard the question that I put through, which is: could there be some discretion? Sorry, Mr Chair\u2014to the Minister. Part 2, clause 77 is the question that I\u2019m posing to the Minister.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000334\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022695678cf-542a-4616-9e0a-86990caec192\u0022\u003EThe feedback that I get from a number of our charities at times is that, at the moment, it is always difficult and a struggle to be able to make ends meet. Often, you\u2019re looking at philanthropic funding. You\u2019ve got contracts that you have there, there are charitable organisations, and there are donations that are given over that period of time. So they\u2019re very frugal in the amounts that they have to deal with and administer throughout their operations, and in this clause 77, it\u2019s quite particular. So the question, again, to the Minister, who is now here, for this bill: if a refund is due to a charity, then IRD won\u2019t have to pay the interest on the refund\u2014if that\u2019s correct, I wonder if he could confirm that to me. If that\u2019s the case, then my question to the Minister: could he show some discretion to that?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000335\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022695678cf-542a-4616-9e0a-86990caec192\u0022\u003ENow, inside of that, in this bill\u2014I know that part of the bill will also talk further on in Part 3, but it does mention other charities which deal with this. And then, will this also relate to the 32 new charities that also, too, have an overseas donee status? That\u2019s covered in clause 32\u2014I know that\u2019s in Part 3, but the question is related to Part 2. That\u2019s in regards to the schedule for 32 overseas donee status trusts\u2014the Books for Cambodia trust, the Children of the Light, Effective Altruism New Zealand Charitable Trust. There are a number of them that are there, so I\u2019m wondering whether that could do\u2014[Time expired]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022f96cdca1-b63c-4602-b2b3-276f58ebb518\u0022 data-id=\u0022280719af369b4fbbb42088efa4421e8d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000336\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f96cdca1-b63c-4602-b2b3-276f58ebb518\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022280719af369b4fbbb42088efa4421e8d\u0022\u003ECHRIS PENK (National\u2014Helensville):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you very much, Mr Chair, for the opportunity to address the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2018\u201319, Modernising Tax Administration, and Remedial Matters) Bill. I join others in discussing Part 2 of the bill. In particular, I would actually like to focus on new subpart 3A, inserted by clause 15, headed \u201CCollection, use, and disclosure of revenue information\u201D. I would like to start by looking at the purposes of the subpart, because that will inform some discussion that I would like to have and, ultimately, a couple of questions to pose to the Minister of Revenue about the way that the powers are exercised in this piece of legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000337\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f96cdca1-b63c-4602-b2b3-276f58ebb518\u0022\u003EI might start, if I may, in a reasonably general way, if you\u2019ll indulge me for a moment, by noting that revenue information is the centrepiece of this part of the Act, and information is, of course, knowledge, and knowledge is power, as Francis Bacon wisely observed many years ago. It\u2019s the exercise of power by the State in collecting that information that affects the lives of individuals and other legal persons that is really very important for us to consider as we just check, ourselves\u2014and no doubt with the officials, if you do wish to confer with them\u2014that the powers given are appropriate.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000338\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f96cdca1-b63c-4602-b2b3-276f58ebb518\u0022\u003ESo looking at new section 16, the purpose would be to provide the commissioner\u2014of course, the commissioner of Inland Revenue\u2014with powers to enable the collection of all taxes or duties imposed by Inland Revenue Acts. I won\u2019t go through all of those; they\u2019re defined elsewhere. That would be overly taxing. Instead, I\u2019ll simply note that the functions that are referred to in there are those \u201Clawfully conferred\u201D on the commissioner. So I suppose we have a test there, a threshold in which the behaviour of the commissioner, whoever she or he may be at the relevant time, is judged to be legitimate or not\u2014namely, that the powers and the functions that that person already has under existing legislation must be duly followed and complied with and not exceeded in the exercise of the power that\u2019s set out in this new legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000339\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f96cdca1-b63c-4602-b2b3-276f58ebb518\u0022\u003ESo moving then to what the actual power will entail, but remaining on the purpose section, we see that the commissioner can collect revenue information by gaining access to property or documents, removing documents to make copies, and removing or retaining them, also, for the purpose of review. We see, as well, that the idea of the particular provisions will be partly to allow access to that information to the commissioner, at the time that documents are removed or, indeed, retained, notwithstanding that copies might be provided back to the person from whom they are removed. Nevertheless, there is, at least temporarily, a denial of that information to a person, so just to ensure that the power isn\u2019t exercised in a way that\u2019s inappropriate, my first question\u2014and it\u2019s a reasonably general one, I do appreciate\u2014to the Minister in the chair, Stuart Nash, nevertheless, is just to query whether he is satisfied that there are appropriate safeguards around the procedures that are put in place for the State, effectively, to deprive a person of information under this Act.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000340\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f96cdca1-b63c-4602-b2b3-276f58ebb518\u0022\u003ENow, looking at the particular ways in which that can take place and the limits placed on those powers, I would turn the attention of the committee to new section 17I in clause 15, headed \u201CCommissioner may conduct inquiries\u201D. Just as a heads-up, I note that this is whereby the commissioner himself or herself can conduct inquiries, as opposed to a practice of applying to a District Court judge to conduct inquiries, which is in the following clause. New subsection (1), then, just to set it out clearly, is: \u201Cin relation to a tax liability of a person under an Inland Revenue Act\u201D, noting that it must be \u201Cfor the purposes of administration or enforcement\u201D of such a piece of legislation, and also, again, to carry out \u201Ca function lawfully conferred on the Commissioner\u201D. It probably goes without saying that things that are within those Acts shouldn\u2019t be anything other than what the commissioner is lawfully conferred to be able to carry out, but, nevertheless, for the sake of clarity, I think it\u2019s a good piece of drafting that the legislation reflects that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000341\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f96cdca1-b63c-4602-b2b3-276f58ebb518\u0022\u003EUnder the heading of \u201CInquiry by Commissioner\u201D, there is an instance of a couple of words that I\u2019m a bit uncertain of, so I\u2019ll just raise it for the attention of the Minister\u2014and it might be quite deliberate, but, in any case, I ask the question\u2014the phrase \u201Cattend and\u201D provides me with a bit of difficulty. The sentence that I\u2019d like to draw to the attention of the Minister is as follows, in 17I(2): \u201CThe commissioner may notify a person that they are required to attend and provide information to the Commissioner or to produce documents\u201D, etc. I wonder if the words \u201Cattend and\u201D have a particular meaning. Reading the sentence from start to finish, it looks rather as though the person might be required to attend to the commissioner, perhaps. I don\u2019t know if that means to attend in person at a meeting with the commissioner or if, perhaps, that\u2019s the result of drafting that previously indicated such a meeting might be needed, and then that was removed. I don\u2019t raise it as a major issue, but, nevertheless, for the sake of clarity if nothing else, if a change by way of Supplementary Order Paper is not practical or, indeed, needed, then to at least, maybe, have some clarity for the sake of future interpretation might, I suggest, be helpful.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000342\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f96cdca1-b63c-4602-b2b3-276f58ebb518\u0022\u003ETurning then to the second of the two sections that I\u2019ve highlighted that I\u2019d like to talk about, this one, at 17J, is where the \u201CCommissioner may apply for District Court Judge to conduct inquiries\u201D. This is going somewhat beyond the previous section whereby we heard about the ability of the commissioner to conduct inquiries himself or herself. Here, instead, what we have now is for a District Court judge to have the ability to obtain information at the petition, I suppose\u2014just to use that term reasonably broadly\u2014of the commissioner. So it is appropriate that with a quasi-judicial function, certain limits are prescribed on those powers. The first thing to note\u2014and I\u2019ll just do so very quickly, because it\u2019s, essentially, a duplication from the previous section\u2014is that for the purpose of obtaining information, it has to be in relation to a person\u2019s tax liability under an Inland Revenue Act and for the purposes of administration and enforcement thereof, and to carry out a function lawfully conferred elsewhere.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000343\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f96cdca1-b63c-4602-b2b3-276f58ebb518\u0022\u003EI note that when a judge is called upon to exercise these powers and chooses to do so\u2014and, in passing, I would note that it would be a choice of the judge, because the legislation expresses that a judge \u201Cmay\u201D do these things, as distinct from a judge \u201Cmust\u201D do these things\u2014a couple of things can be carried out by the judge at that time. The first is to summon a person whom the commissioner or another interested person requires to be examined. I suppose that the phrase \u201Cother interested person\u201D would be read in the context of the legislation. I must be honest and say that I don\u2019t know whether that\u2019s the case, that elsewhere in the legislation there is such a definition, or if that would just be a matter of statutory interpretation. I don\u2019t suppose that\u2019s unreasonable, but I note it in any case.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000344\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f96cdca1-b63c-4602-b2b3-276f58ebb518\u0022\u003ESo having summoned such a person, then the judge may\u2014again, I emphasise \u201Cmay\u201D\u2014examine the person on oath in chambers regarding any matter relevant to the subject matter of the inquiry. So that\u2019s pretty broad, to be able to examine a person regarding any matter relevant to the subject matter of the inquiry. It could be a matter that\u2019s indirectly relevant, I suppose, but it would be the discretion of the judge, or rather the judgment of the judge\u2014if you\u2019ll excuse the tautology\u2014that would be exercised in such a case. The person being on oath obviously is a significant safeguard, I suppose, in the administration of justice\u2014obviously, determined and designed to obtain the truth of the matter as readily as possible.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000345\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f96cdca1-b63c-4602-b2b3-276f58ebb518\u0022\u003EOne slightly interesting point\u2014well, a very interesting point, actually, to me\u2014on which I\u2019d seek the Minister\u2019s guidance before closing this contribution relates to subsection (4), which talks about the judge\u2019s jurisdiction and the way that such an examination would take place. I note that it would be the rules that would be relevant to a witness in a civil action that would apply, as distinct from criminal procedure. I suppose I\u2019m right in saying\u2014although, no doubt, I\u2019ll be corrected by others in the House who are more knowledgeable in taxation matters, of whom there are at least a couple\u2014that it might be that the answers a person gives in such a context might, ultimately, give rise to criminal liability, I suppose, depending on what they were acknowledging or disclosing. So I wonder if the rules of criminal procedure, as opposed to civil procedure, might not be more appropriate in the way that a witness is called upon to respond in examination. On that, I leave my contribution for now.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bbded2ec-ac25-4a73-a380-3f4d87693084\u0022 data-id=\u0022df7e559c96784b65b99f607639ab4f60\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000346\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bbded2ec-ac25-4a73-a380-3f4d87693084\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022df7e559c96784b65b99f607639ab4f60\u0022\u003EHon STUART NASH (Minister of Revenue):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you very much. Just answering a couple of questions that have come up in the, sort of, five or 10 minutes I\u2019ve been here. Mr Alfred Ngaro: no, I won\u2019t be using my discretion at all to charities, but what I would say is there is a review of charities law at the moment. If you are interested in submitting, then I recommend you do. It is a fulsome review and it may well address some of the concerns you have and that you\u2019ve brought up with regard to this piece of legislation. So have a go there.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000347\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bbded2ec-ac25-4a73-a380-3f4d87693084\u0022\u003EWith regard to the last speaker: yes, I am very, very comfortable with the commissioner\u2019s role. The commissioner will not be breaking the law in any way, shape, or form. I am very comfortable with the safeguards in place and, certainly, now knowing how Inland Revenue operate, of course they will operate well within the bounds of the law. You did point out yourself, sir, that the word \u201Cmay\u201D is here, which does not compel the commissioner in any way, shape, or form to undertake any course of action. The commissioner may apply to a District Court judge\u2014well, I suppose that is if the commissioner feels that that would add value to an investigation or they need someone more independent than the commissioner herself or himself, or whoever is the commissioner at that point in time. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000348\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bbded2ec-ac25-4a73-a380-3f4d87693084\u0022\u003EThat the judge has the jurisdiction of a civil court action\u2014at this point in time, I would suggest that it is civil; it\u2019s not criminal. You may find that out of any investigation or out of any inquiry there comes a criminal investigation, but my understanding in reading this is that it is an inquiry at this point in time; it is not a trial, and no one has been determined to have done anything wrong, hence the reason for civil. That would be my reading of it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000349\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bbded2ec-ac25-4a73-a380-3f4d87693084\u0022\u003EYou are right. We have given the judge certain powers. But, again, I would suggest that the judge will use his or her powers with discretion in determining the best course of action to undertake and complete an inquiry. Again, there\u2019s no compulsion here, and hence\u2014and you yourself mentioned this\u2014we are not compelling the judges by saying that they must do this. It is really saying that if the judge feels that in the course of the inquiry they need to bring interested parties in or they need to take this course of action, then they have the ability to do that, as opposed to a compulsion saying they must do this. But back to the commissioner\u2019s powers: the commissioner does have wide-ranging powers in terms of investigation, as should be the case. But I am very comfortable\u2014having sat on the Finance and Expenditure Committee for a number of years and had a look at this legislation\u2014with the powers that we have conferred upon the commissioner to undertake investigations, and, in fact, I\u2019m very comfortable with the powers we conferred upon the commissioner to undertake her job, full stop. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022 data-id=\u0022907410c239934835a3deeaed7aa3d70a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000350\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022907410c239934835a3deeaed7aa3d70a\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH (National\u2014Nelson):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Mr Chairman. It\u2019s a pleasure to take a call on Part 2 of this Taxation (Annual Rates for 2018-19, Modernising Tax Administration, and Remedial Matters) Bill. We\u2019re dealing with over 100 clauses in this part, and there are two that I want to particularly focus on. I come to this bill from the values perspective that we want New Zealanders paying less tax. We want them to keep more of what they can earn. I also think it\u2019s really important in tax legislation that we focus on a less complex tax system. There are a number of provisions in this part that actually add to the complexity and add to the compliance costs of our tax system. I particularly want to focus on new section 91EK in clause 61 that deals with the questions of rulings by the Inland Revenue commissioner. Now, I think the mechanism of a taxpayer being able to apply to the commissioner\u2014and saying \u201CHey, look, under these circumstances\u201D and getting a binding ruling about the impact on their tax affairs\u2014is a good thing. I also think it\u2019s a good thing that that is time-constrained. In subclauses (1), (2), and (3) of section 91EK there is quite a big out clause; that is where the Inland Revenue commissioner can decline to give a ruling under a number of grounds, and I have some concerns that those grounds are so wide.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000351\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003ENow, the reason I\u2019m so interested in these provisions is that we\u2019ve seen some quite big changes by this Government to the broader tax code. So, for instance, we\u2019ve had the Government introduce their so-called research and development tax reclaim system. The billion dollar question is whether a whole lot of activity out there that\u2019s been going on anyway that\u2019s got little to do with research and development is going to be redesigned by accountants into being a refundable activity. Members on this side of the House are highly doubtful that those measures are in fact going to result in New Zealand improving its investment in research and development. It was fascinating last week to see that over National\u2019s term in Government, there was a big increase in the matter of both public and private sector research and development, and I fear that these provisions are simply going to result in creative accounting and a more complex tax system. So my question for Willie Jackson, the Minister in the chair, is: are the provisions around the rulings provided in section 91EK now required because of that R \u0026amp; D tax deductibility?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000352\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EI also note that in this bill we\u2019ve got these ridiculous provisions where if you\u2019ve got a good-looking racehorse, then you\u2019re now going to be able to get a tax reduction. We\u2019re highly doubtful of the merits of that. We know that members of New Zealand First have been very well endowed by those in the racing industry. We know that some of them broke the electoral laws in their contributions to the New Zealand First Party. So my question to the Minister in the chair is: are these new processes all designed around defining and getting rulings on what a good-looking racehorse is so that those benefactors of New Zealand First might get their tax refund? If you look at the substance of the law that is providing for this tax break for a very, very small group of New Zealanders, it seems to me that the law is incredibly vague, and, in fact, this rulings process that\u2019s provided for.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000353\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EOf course, what will be on the minds of hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders as they work through the complexity of the proposals around a capital gains tax are, really, these provisions around providing a commissioner ruling. Is this the new mechanism that\u2019s going to be required around the huge complexity that\u2019s going to be added to literally over a million taxpayers with the proposals for a capital gains tax? I\u2019d love for the Minister in the chair to answer those questions around the relationship of this new rulings process around the proposed capital gains tax with respect to the new, good-looking racehorse tax deductibility and with respect to the R \u0026amp; D tax liability.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000354\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EThe second set of issues that I want to ask the Minister about are those that are provided in respect of new section 16, carrying through to new section 17, in clause 15. This is with respect to the quite extensive provisions that are proposed in the sharing of information. Every member of this Parliament will know that there is a huge sensitivity around the confidentiality of information that is provided to our Inland Revenue Department, and what we have in these provisions is the capacity for the far greater sharing of information with a whole range of different agencies. So there\u2019s going to be more extensive sharing of information with ACC, with the New Zealand Superannuation Act, and with other Government agencies, including the National Provident Fund board. I really want the Minister in the chair to answer the question as to whether all of these provisions are indeed required\u2014indeed, do these provisions comply with the new Privacy Act that Parliament is currently considering\u2014and whether they are consistent with the commitments that were made by the Government in respect of the extent to which information is shared between different Government agencies.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000355\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EThe third point I\u2019d like to make is in respect of the fixing up of a number of mistakes that were made by the Government in last year\u2019s tax changes. So what we have here is the Government making tax changes only last year and then rolling into the Parliament this year and saying \u201COops! We messed up this bit.\u201D or \u201CWe messed up that bit, and we have to patch it up.\u201D So the question I\u2019ve got for the Minister in the chair, given that this part contains over 100 clauses, is: will he take responsibility for any errors in this law? I remember when Parliament was sitting just two weeks ago, we had a Minister blame officials, blame the Parliamentary Counsel Office, and all sorts of other people for the error, and, actually, we were challenged for even daring to question the sorts of provisions that I just have in three particular parts of this bill\u2014only to have the Government come back the next week and say, \u201COops! We stuffed up. Actually, the Opposition were correct.\u201D Actually, National was right; the Government was wrong and they embarrassingly had to come back to the House and patch up their mess.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000356\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003ESo the reassurance that I am seeking from the Minister in the chair is whether he will accept responsibility for these 100-plus changes. Again, I emphasise that whether it\u2019s been in terms of extending the tax base to overseas entities, whether it\u2019s been some of the other tax changes that were made last year, even things like the winter energy payment\u2014the Government screwed up. They made serious mistakes in the law. They\u2019ve had to come down to the Parliament and patch them up. Will the Minister that\u2019s sitting in the chair accept responsibility for the detail of these 100-plus provisions that are contained in Part 2 of this bill and that are extensively detailed?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000357\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EI\u2019m particularly looking forward to an answer from the Minister of Revenue around those questions of the interaction of this law around the R \u0026amp; D changes I\u2019ve mentioned, in respect of the good-looking racehorses tax provisions, and in respect of the other tax increases that this Government has imposed, and what their relationship is with those new rulings that are going to be provided by commissioners. I\u2019d like the Minister in the chair to deal with the information-sharing questions that I\u2019ve raised that are covered on pages 22, 23, and 24 of the bill. Is the Minister absolutely satisfied that those information-sharing provisions are absolutely required, and can assure us on those? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000358\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EAgain, I draw attention, and I\u2019m looking for that reassurance from the Minister that he will accept responsibility for these 100-plus clauses in Part 2, given the Government\u2019s got a pretty poor record of getting the detail\u2014[Time expired]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022859e13f9-33bb-41bb-b2f0-d848eaf25407\u0022 data-id=\u0022c2a72137d9574b75a38c7fc8494306cf\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000359\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022859e13f9-33bb-41bb-b2f0-d848eaf25407\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c2a72137d9574b75a38c7fc8494306cf\u0022\u003EANDREW BAYLY (National\u2014Hunua):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Madam Chair. I was speaking a bit before about the pre-population of accounts and how that drives this bill and whether it can actually be implemented, and I think one of the most important aspects of it is actually the computer system itself. Obviously, it\u2019s part of a very large roll-out of a new computer system that\u2019s going to revolutionise tax in New Zealand and the way it\u2019s accounted for and how people interact with the IRD. The issue around the system, though, is that it was intended to be functional from 23 April, and bear in mind that this bill comes into force on 1 April\u2014effective 1 April\u2014which is in a few days\u2019 time. So it\u2019s already been delayed to later in April, when this migration is going to take place from the traditional or existing software system called FIRST to a new software system called START. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000360\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022859e13f9-33bb-41bb-b2f0-d848eaf25407\u0022\u003EOne of the issues I\u2019m very concerned about, and I\u2019m hoping the Minister of Revenue will talk about and come and address us about it, is the issue around, first of all, why this delay\u2014and this is after the start date of this bill\u2014but, secondly, the level of testing that\u2019s gone on in terms of making sure that it is running operationally and it\u2019s got rid of all of its bugs from a computer perspective. I know there\u2019s been some batch processing of it and, in fact, the IRD are reasonably confident. They\u2019ve done a significant amount of testing, but they haven\u2019t completed the testing, as I understand it. So what I\u2019d like to hear from the Minister is, in fact, what is the state of the IT system, because without having an operational system, those refunds I was talking about before that are required and are normally paid back by June\u2014or even just letting people know about the obligations\u2014are a crucial aspect. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000361\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022859e13f9-33bb-41bb-b2f0-d848eaf25407\u0022\u003EThat brings me on to the issue of, if you\u2019re going to pre-populate the accounts with your contact details and all that sort of stuff, the next thing is to make sure that the IRD is getting the right information. The issue that drives this bill is an issue called reportable income. That is part of the system trying to make it easier for interaction between the IRD and taxpayers, and, to some extent, it is trying to reduce the levels of involvement required. If a taxpayer only receives reportable income, then the requirement to do tax returns and all that sort of stuff, basically, falls away. The obligation falls away. But that assumption\u2014that premise\u2014means that you\u2019ve got to have proper provision of information around the elements of reportable income. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000362\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022859e13f9-33bb-41bb-b2f0-d848eaf25407\u0022\u003EMadam Chair, I\u2019m referring specifically now to new section 22D in clause 21, as I know that you\u2019re keenly following the debate. But \u201Creportable income\u201D is defined as, first of all, PAYE income\u2014so the wages and salaries that most people earn\u2014or the payment of resident passive income, and that would be dividends from New Zealand shares and interest from banks. Then there\u2019s an element of a payment of non-resident passive income\u2014so, again, this could be income from a US company claiming a dividend to New Zealand, or it could be a foreign bond that someone\u2019s invested in and is getting a return on that bond. It may be an element of capital or it may be an element of interest, which is interesting from a tax perspective. Or, fourthly, it could be a benefit under an employee share scheme, described in Schedule 4. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000363\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022859e13f9-33bb-41bb-b2f0-d848eaf25407\u0022\u003ESo if someone has just reportable income within that context, then that makes it much easier for that individual to be able to account for their tax and meet their obligations. But the issue is: how does the IRD get this information? I\u2019m sure, as you will know, there are about 330,000 businesses in New Zealand\u2014sorry, 530,000 businesses in New Zealand. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000364\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002298dbeffa-e059-49d5-8bbf-579cbaead9a3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f189f1363934451fa669e3905bb74701\u0022\u003EHon Scott Simpson\u003C/span\u003E: All going to be capital gains - taxed. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000365\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022859e13f9-33bb-41bb-b2f0-d848eaf25407\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002266832783df784f57b1682edf107b6be8\u0022\u003EANDREW BAYLY\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, I know there\u2019s going to be an element, but, of course, I\u2019m confining myself to this topic. But the issue is that of those, there are about 200,000 that have employees. These are the mums and dads that we talk about in this House, and that that group across the other side of the aisle seem to forget about, but those 200,000 employers, made up of mums and dads who put their money on the line\u2014[Bell rung] Madam Chair. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000366\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c0e0c86e-e14d-4daa-9bc8-1b5a3d7defeb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227a50c0a2fbc74975a239611b2be48cee\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams)\u003C/span\u003E: Andrew Bayly\u2014this is your fourth call in this debate. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000367\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022859e13f9-33bb-41bb-b2f0-d848eaf25407\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220113acd37fa648b9aa6955013f5e4a85\u0022\u003EANDREW BAYLY\u003C/span\u003E: Oh, OK. So of those, as at 8 February\u2014not that long ago\u2014only 21,000 had actually logged on and started to provide the IRD with the information they need on the salaries and the wages they are paying to their employees. So the issue we\u2019ve got\u2014actually, I\u2019m sure the number\u2019s increased since then, and I hope the IRD\u2019s made headway\u2014is that we know there are 70,000 businesses out of that 200,000 who use paper-based systems. They don\u2019t use Xero because they are just used to doing PAYE on a paper-based system. It works well for them. They mightn\u2019t have many employees, and that is the issue about how the IRD is going to get this information. It\u2019s going to be provided on a paper-based system. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000368\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022859e13f9-33bb-41bb-b2f0-d848eaf25407\u0022\u003EBut the issue in this bill that is driving it forward is that, previously, they only had to provide their paper-based system information to the IRD monthly, but now they will have to provide it every pay day. That means that the level of resourcing within the IRD to be able to handle that level of returns could be up to four times the existing level of information coming into the IRD, and I think that is quite something. That\u2019s quite something, and I\u2019d like to hear the Minister talk about the staffing of the IRD and how it\u2019s going to meet those requirements. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000369\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022859e13f9-33bb-41bb-b2f0-d848eaf25407\u0022\u003EThe other part of the reportable income that I\u2019ve talked about was interest and dividends. Of course, this also requires the goodwill of banks and also share registrars. At the moment, banks have been providing information on interest that income earners receive annually, and now there is a requirement to provide much more reporting regularly to the IRD. The issue I want to understand is to what extent are those banks required to do that and to what extent are they actually complying with the requests to do that, because if the IRD does not get that information, it runs a serious risk of not being able to determine the income of people, and the intent of the Act is for the IRD to have a better measure, a better assessment, of people\u2019s income and the appropriate tax so that we\u2019re not getting into the situation where we have refunds or, even worse, taxpayers having to make tax payments at the end of the year. So that is quite something, and I think how the share registrar is going to do it\u2014the basis for doing it is really important. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000370\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022859e13f9-33bb-41bb-b2f0-d848eaf25407\u0022\u003EBut, of course, what this issue doesn\u2019t deal with\u2014which is the third part of that reportable income\u2014is the income that people receive from overseas jurisdictions. So if you own shares in the US or the UK, how\u2019s that going to be captured as part of your affordable income? That is quite a crucial aspect, again, because if you are inside that reportable income group, then\u2014as I keep saying\u2014the idea is that there should be much fewer interactions with the IRD. To the extent that that\u2019s happening and what provision is taking place at an implementation level\u2014which, effectively, needs to come into place in the next 23 days, from 1 April\u2014is a crucial part for this issue. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000371\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022859e13f9-33bb-41bb-b2f0-d848eaf25407\u0022\u003ENow, the other thing I just want to turn to is the one around debt forgiveness. The issue around the debt forgiveness\u2014and this is covered in new section 22IB, just for your interest. The idea is for the IRD to be able to deal with the substantial issues of tax, and for those people who are entitled to refunds to get them seamlessly, and for those who don\u2019t pay a lot of tax to not have to file tax returns. At the moment, there\u2019s a rule that if a taxpayer earns less than $200, then there\u2019s an exclusion around that, which helps to some extent. But the debt forgiveness has been set at $50, provided the taxpayer\u2019s been on the right tax code, which comes back to my earlier point that if the information\u2019s not been provided to the IRD, how do you know what tax code you\u2019re going to do, and whether the IRD\u2019s properly assessing it? If the IRD wants to reduce the tax code, then it\u2019s up to the company and the people in these companies and businesses that we talk about\u2014they will have to go back and change the tax code for that individual. Without that, it never takes places. It\u2019s a very important aspect. It\u2019s all about compliance. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022f96cdca1-b63c-4602-b2b3-276f58ebb518\u0022 data-id=\u0022fc438f8ef1064e56a4814e03730c65c3\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000372\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f96cdca1-b63c-4602-b2b3-276f58ebb518\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022fc438f8ef1064e56a4814e03730c65c3\u0022\u003ECHRIS PENK (National\u2014Helensville):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Madam Chair, for the chance to follow such a comprehensive dissertation on the subject of the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2018\u201319, Modernising Tax Administration, and Remedial Matters) Bill. I\u2019ll continue in Part 2, of course, but, actually, I\u2019d like to draw the attention of the committee instead to flow chart 1, which\u2014for those following along at home\u2014is on page 62 of the bill, for what that\u2019s worth. What we\u2019ve got there is a flow chart which sets out the scheme of Subpart 3B. That seems to me a very helpful bit of drafting, because it sets out with great clarity and simplicity the way that a person\u2014and I\u2019ll qualify that word \u201Cperson\u201D in a moment\u2014can regard their obligations in terms of whether they qualify and in relation to their pre-populated accounts, and so forth. Others have mentioned some of the detail around the pre-populated accounts, so I won\u2019t trouble the committee further with any of that now. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000373\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f96cdca1-b63c-4602-b2b3-276f58ebb518\u0022\u003EThe way that this is set out does, I think, allow individuals to know how the law might apply to them, and for that reason it seems to go to the rule of law\u2019s emphasis on accessibility of the law. It\u2019s axiomatic, I suppose, that those who have the ability to understand the law have some sort of chance of complying with it, and certainly, if we\u2019re to say that ignorance of the law is no excuse, then we owe it, as a legislature, to provide information that\u2019s reasonably understandable to them. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000374\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f96cdca1-b63c-4602-b2b3-276f58ebb518\u0022\u003ESo it is that what we have in the first instance is a question mark next to the word \u201Cindividual\u201D, and we have an opportunity to say that, yes, a person\u2019s an individual, or, no, they\u2019re not. For a bit more guidance than is able to be provided in a single cell within a flow chart, we\u2019ve got the meaning of \u201Cindividual\u201D just across the page\u2014as it happens, conveniently enough, under the new section 22D heading of \u201CKey terms\u201D, which, of course, provides definitions, as you would expect, including for \u201Cindividual\u201D. That one itself is actually quite interesting, so I\u2019ll just pause briefly to note that it means a natural person, as opposed to a legal person who\u2019s not a natural person, noting that every natural person is a legal person but not every legal person is a natural person. \u201CNatural person\u201D here includes the \u201Cnatural person who is non-resident\u201D, meaning, of course, in relation to tax residency, but it excludes a deceased natural person. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000375\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f44431ef-b505-4e94-9f57-a60b0a569bf7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220a7c7707d7f84e2b83050452c4ac1725\u0022\u003EHon Shane Jones\u003C/span\u003E: How many of them in National are natural?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000376\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f96cdca1-b63c-4602-b2b3-276f58ebb518\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002288a05dbf1dc1442a811a8c7676b7ae46\u0022\u003ECHRIS PENK\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019m sure it\u2019s occurred to everyone in this committee that a deceased natural person isn\u2019t in fact a natural person. I\u2019m hearing from some unnatural persons at the moment, but I\u2019ll avoid being derailed by them, because, of course, the deceased\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000377\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c0e0c86e-e14d-4daa-9bc8-1b5a3d7defeb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d8f32bee07544d9a8d29898f94679255\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams)\u003C/span\u003E: Don\u2019t rise to the bait, Mr Penk.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000378\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f96cdca1-b63c-4602-b2b3-276f58ebb518\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a832651114974096a2456d51bd8db0c5\u0022\u003ECHRIS PENK\u003C/span\u003E: Good advice, Madam Chair. I\u2019ll be sure to take it. So a deceased natural person is, of course, not a natural person at all. But, in any case, for the sake of clarity, the bill sets that out\u2014again, clarity and simplicity being a good thing in the law. I think we can safely move on from there. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000379\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f96cdca1-b63c-4602-b2b3-276f58ebb518\u0022\u003EThe flow chart that I\u2019ve been referring to, with some degree of approval, includes a number of different options where we\u2019ve got yeses and noes to answer certain questions, if we\u2019ve determined that an individual is indeed an individual, and that they are a qualifying individual. Again, that definition is given, and I won\u2019t trouble the committee with any belabouring of that point. We then talk about the amount of income they might have and the implications for whether a person has a pre-populated account that is correct or not.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000380\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f96cdca1-b63c-4602-b2b3-276f58ebb518\u0022\u003EThere are more layers to this than an onion, and I draw on the great economic philosopher Shrek, who noted that onions have many layers and that also, in accordance with his sidekick Donkey\u2019s advice, they make one\u2019s eye water. I think that the structure of this flow chart should have both qualities as well. Hopefully, this speech is not having the same effect, although I fear that it may. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000381\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f96cdca1-b63c-4602-b2b3-276f58ebb518\u0022\u003ELooking then at various other elements of the flow chart, one that I did want to highlight for the committee\u2019s attention, and in particular in the hope that Minister Faafoi might be able to turn his mind to it, perhaps with the assistance of officials, is the phrase \u201Cdefault assessment\u201D. It\u2019s somewhat in the middle of the flow chart\u2014or the onion, if you will\u2014in the middle of those layers there. The word \u201Cdefault\u201D I think in this context means the presumptive assessment\u2014the assessment that would apply unless there is some sort\u2014[Bell rung]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a1f7bbd1-b6ae-41c0-963b-dbe1251f5540\u0022 data-id=\u002278840e9b4ffb4842951959ebe4c81414\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000382\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a1f7bbd1-b6ae-41c0-963b-dbe1251f5540\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002278840e9b4ffb4842951959ebe4c81414\u0022\u003EKIERAN McANULTY (Junior Whip\u2014Labour):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a6c42c44-3622-4c9c-98b8-793fb5ec15cc\u0022 data-id=\u002299612c0d05fc40c08ed9aafc3998544f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000383\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a6c42c44-3622-4c9c-98b8-793fb5ec15cc\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002299612c0d05fc40c08ed9aafc3998544f\u0022\u003EIAN McKELVIE (National\u2014Rangit\u012Bkei):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Madam Chair. Now, this will not be quite as eloquent as the previous speaker, or the one before him, because I don\u2019t have quite the same tone to my comments. But other than commenting on the Minister in the chair\u2019s cricketing ability, I wanted to comment on what happens when you get into trouble with the Inland Revenue Department\u2014and that\u2019s no place to be, I can assure you. There\u2019s quite a piece in the bill about the court procedures and what happens when you don\u2019t do what you\u2019re supposed to do in accordance with tax laws. Of course, there are so many tax laws that to follow it logically would be quite difficult, but clause 15 in the bill details how you apply for court orders and how the commissioner goes about effectively getting the court involved in the process of, I suppose, at the end of the day, collecting tax. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000384\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a6c42c44-3622-4c9c-98b8-793fb5ec15cc\u0022\u003EIt also details how the commissioner conducts inquiries. Of course, one of the great concerns of this Parliament\u2014in fact, of New Zealand\u2014is that we need to have people paying their tax. It\u2019s essential that they do pay their tax and it\u2019s essential that they pay their tax in the manner prescribed. I guess one of the great challenges for many taxpayers is actually understanding the manner prescribed. I talked about that in an earlier contribution I made to this bill, because many people do have difficulty understanding that, and I think it\u2019s important that through the use of tax agents and people like that, you have the opportunity to get a much better understanding of what your responsibilities are and how they apply.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000385\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a6c42c44-3622-4c9c-98b8-793fb5ec15cc\u0022\u003EClause 15 in Part 2 goes on to detail how inquiries are operated. It\u2019s quite detailed in what it talks about, interestingly. It details how those inquiries are held and what happens when you appear before the District Court judge. It goes as far as even detailing what you might claim expenses for. In other words, if you\u2019re summoned to appear at an inquiry, you can claim your travelling expenses. I would\u2019ve thought that would be the last thing on your mind if you were summoned to appear in an inquiry before the Inland Revenue Department. But none the less, that\u2019s what happens. So, it just shows, though, the detail that the Finance and Expenditure Committee get taken to, I guess, by advisers and certainly by the tax experts that advise the committee on how this stuff works, because it is very complicated. For us who are elected to Parliament\u2014other than Andrew Bayly; he, clearly, has a penchant for tax\u2014we don\u2019t come here to discuss tax bills, and so it is a very complicated issue for us to get our heads around.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000386\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a6c42c44-3622-4c9c-98b8-793fb5ec15cc\u0022\u003ESo I think the detail that is put into these bills is amazing and, certainly, when you consider the transformation project that the Inland Revenue Department has under way at the moment, legally, the amount of detail that\u2019s required to enable that transformation to take place and to be put into place is pretty significant. So I think that this part of the bill is important. No one would wish to appear in any of these kinds of circumstances, but none the less\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000387\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f44431ef-b505-4e94-9f57-a60b0a569bf7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229ac7be5a19674de9a01edd0ec80d430e\u0022\u003EHon Shane Jones\u003C/span\u003E: Hear, hear!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000388\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a6c42c44-3622-4c9c-98b8-793fb5ec15cc\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022356e0c59cd8d498cae9afe2b67ad3ea0\u0022\u003EIAN McKELVIE\u003C/span\u003E: Exactly, Minister. But none the less, the bill details\u2014in quite pedantic detail\u2014what happens in the course of this, and it\u2019s pretty well legislated for. So I think we can have a fair bit of confidence in Part 2 of this bill. As the Inland Revenue\u2019s transformation project continues, I think we\u2019ll get to see much more change made to these Acts, because it will be required as that transformation\u2019s implemented.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000389\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a6c42c44-3622-4c9c-98b8-793fb5ec15cc\u0022\u003ESo I think that Part 2, on the whole, is a pretty good piece of legislation, and we certainly support most of the changes made in there. We, obviously, can\u2019t support this bill, because there\u2019s one or two\u2014Part 1, particularly around the tax changes, and there\u2019s another part in Part 3 that we don\u2019t really support. So that\u2019s my contribution to Part 2. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220c51564f-6c6e-45cc-adab-f15b6c831fce\u0022 data-id=\u0022ebdf5777f2f0406b916d1f0d9370fc88\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000390\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220c51564f-6c6e-45cc-adab-f15b6c831fce\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ebdf5777f2f0406b916d1f0d9370fc88\u0022\u003ELAWRENCE YULE (National\u2014Tukituki):\u003C/span\u003E Madam Chair, I wish to thank you for the call, and I wish to speak to clause 17 of the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2018\u201319, Modernising Tax Administration, and Remedial Matters) Bill, which is around the commissioner\u2019s ability to obtain information by accessing properties and documents. This is a pretty amazing clause because, as my learned friend Mr McKelvie has just said, you do not actually want to get into trouble with the Inland Revenue, and the last thing you want is them coming on to your property to access information or data or documents.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000391\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220c51564f-6c6e-45cc-adab-f15b6c831fce\u0022\u003EIf you go to clause 17(2), where it says \u201CThe Commissioner must not enter a private dwelling to access any property or documents except with the consent of an occupier or under a warrant issued under section 17D.\u201D, you understand that there are two courses of action here: one where agents of the Inland Revenue can turn up, have a conversation, and ask to access various documents. I do notice that under clause 17(5) in this clause\u2014and under clause 16, 16B, and 17D\u2014\u201Cproperty or documents includes\u2014(a) all lands, buildings, places, or other premises:\u201D and \u201C(b) a document, whether in the custody or under the control of a public officer, or a body corporate, or any other person\u201D. A private dwelling goes on to be defined as \u201Ca building or part of a building occupied as residential accommodation and includes\u2014(a) a garage, shed, and other buildings used in connection with a private dwelling; and (b) any business premises that are, or are within, a private dwelling.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000392\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220c51564f-6c6e-45cc-adab-f15b6c831fce\u0022\u003EThe reason I spelt that out is that that is a pretty significant ability for officers of Inland Revenue to go into somebody\u2019s private property or business interests. I think we need to be really clear that in many of the cases that we\u2019re going after here\u2014and I think our side of the Chamber supports the Government\u2019s wish for this transformation project and the things we want under this section to make sure the taxation collection system is fair and reasonable. If we go there, then we have two options. First, the person is going to agree. Inland Revenue turns up; they have a warrant. They\u2019re going to agree: come, have a look, and take whichever documents or copies of the documents you wish. Or what is more likely is, on legal or other advice, they are going to say, \u201CWhere\u2019s your warrant? What right have you got to be here?\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000393\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220c51564f-6c6e-45cc-adab-f15b6c831fce\u0022\u003EThat is where we get into clause 17D(1)(a): \u201Can application [needs to be] made for a search warrant under Part 4, subpart 3 of the Search and Surveillance Act \u2026 for [the] warrant to enter a private dwelling [and] to remove and retain a document from this place\u201D. I\u2019ll remind this committee of the conversations we had late last year in terms of some of the biosecurity changes in New Zealand brought about by M. bovis. While I\u2019m generally supportive of these provisions, I think we need to make sure that whatever those warrants are issued for and the process that\u2019s being followed is fair and reasonable. I remind members of this House that in many cases, people will not be compliant. They won\u2019t want this to happen.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000394\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220c51564f-6c6e-45cc-adab-f15b6c831fce\u0022\u003ESo I\u2019m seeking some clarification from the Minister as to how easy it\u2019s going to be for these warrants to be obtained, because I read under 17D(1)(b) that \u201Can issuing officer [needs to be] satisfied that the issue of the warrant is required for the exercise of a function lawfully conferred on the Commissioner.\u201D So what is the requirement and what does satisfaction mean? I think that is a very high threshold. I\u2019ll ask the Minister, if he would\u2014and Minister Faafoi is generally very obliging in these cases\u2014to answer the question: what do they mean that \u201Can issuing officer is satisfied\u201D, and what is the test for that? Because, in my view, entering someone\u2019s home, shed, property, farm, whatever, is a high threshold. If a warrant\u2019s to be issued, I need to understand what needs to be satisfied before that occurs.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002255d0b7a4-a2c9-4c38-9b77-475311a48a89\u0022 data-id=\u002290afcd106025485baac17516f5ccd5ff\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000395\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002255d0b7a4-a2c9-4c38-9b77-475311a48a89\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002290afcd106025485baac17516f5ccd5ff\u0022\u003ESIMEON BROWN (National\u2014Pakuranga):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Madam Chair, and I also rise to take a call on the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2018\u201319, Modernising Tax Administration, and Remedial Matters) Bill. I\u2019d like to take a quick call, talking in regards to clause 18F of Part 2, which is the \u201CRegulations for information-sharing for public services purposes\u201D. I noted in clause 18E(4) that the definition for public service \u201Cmeans a public function or duty that is conferred or imposed on an agency described in subsection (5)\u2014(a) by or under law; or (b) by a policy of the Government.\u201D So that context does say that a public service has quite a broad meaning.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000396\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002255d0b7a4-a2c9-4c38-9b77-475311a48a89\u0022\u003ESo when we come to clause 18F, we note here that this allows the Minister of Revenue the ability to make regulations in order to be able to require public services to share information in order to be able to enforce the law, to make sure that the information that they have is correct, and a range of other purposes. I understand that the purposes which are put down here are good. They are in order to ensure that the Minister of Revenue or the Inland Revenue Department is able to enforce the law to be able to gather the revenue which is required. I guess my questions relate to how the Government is going to ensure that people\u2019s information\u2014which may have been given to one Government department or one public service\u2014is going to be kept private.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000397\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002255d0b7a4-a2c9-4c38-9b77-475311a48a89\u0022\u003EI note, in making these regulations, that under 18F(2)(b) the Minister of Revenue must prescribe \u201C(i) the classes or types of revenue information that may be shared: (ii) how the information is to be provided or accessed: (iii) how the information is to be used: (iv) how the information must be stored, kept secure, or disposed of;\u201D. Then new subclause (bb) is being added, which says \u201Cproviding \u2026 the information-sharing arrangements under the regulations are monitored by the Privacy Commissioner;\u201D. I\u2019d like the Minister to take a call and just discuss in further detail what this monitoring by the Privacy Commissioner might mean.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000398\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002255d0b7a4-a2c9-4c38-9b77-475311a48a89\u0022\u003EI note in the previous clause, 18E, \u201CThe Commissioner may enter into an agreement to share certain information\u201D\u2014this is under 18E(3)\u2014\u201C(a) [this] agreement\u2014(i) is made for public services purposes; \u2026 (ii) relates to the disclosure of sensitive revenue information\u201D, and this is to do with disclosures of information. It says there that the commissioner has consulted. So he may enter one of these agreements if he\u2019s consulted the Privacy Commissioner on the terms of the agreement and the Commissioner agrees that the disclosure is appropriate. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000399\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002255d0b7a4-a2c9-4c38-9b77-475311a48a89\u0022\u003EI guess what I\u2019m trying to point out between these two clauses is that in one there is a requirement for the commissioner to consult the Privacy Commissioner on the terms of this disclosure agreement, and the Privacy Commissioner has an obligation to agree that the disclosure agreement is appropriate. Then in the next clause, where the Minister of Revenue, through the Governor-General, has the power to make regulations, they must only ensure \u201Cthat the information-sharing agreements under the regulations are monitored by the Privacy Commissioner\u201D. There doesn\u2019t seem to be any requirement here to consult with the Privacy Commissioner in setting up these regulations, or an order for the Privacy Commissioner to have to agree to\u2014or give some sort of approval to\u2014the regulations which are being set up to allow for the sharing of information between public services. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000400\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002255d0b7a4-a2c9-4c38-9b77-475311a48a89\u0022\u003EI guess the concern that I have here is around the privacy of people\u2019s information. People go to different public service departments or organisations to share information for different purposes, and then the tax authority\u2014the Inland Revenue Department\u2014is being given powers here to be able to use this information to match it and then to ensure that they can enforce the law and ensure that people are paying their fair share, a purpose which we agree with. But what I\u2019m wanting to ensure is that there are appropriate safeguards, and I understand that, of course, that is part of the regulation-setting powers that the Minister must take into account: appropriate safeguards, etc. But where is the check and balance by the Privacy Commissioner in regards to the information sharing for public purposes and the regulation-making power compared to the disclosures in the previous clause? I\u2019d like the Minister, if he can, to take a call on that matter. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a1f7bbd1-b6ae-41c0-963b-dbe1251f5540\u0022 data-id=\u002266cdd88972104ef7b1a95553cec6d231\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000401\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a1f7bbd1-b6ae-41c0-963b-dbe1251f5540\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002266cdd88972104ef7b1a95553cec6d231\u0022\u003EKIERAN McANULTY (Junior Whip\u2014Labour):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022f18bb62c8aa74132a9ac26750d90e381\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 63\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 56\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 55; Ross.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000402\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 188 in the name of the Hon Stuart Nash to Part 2 be agreed to.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00227789ec97ba614208b25c3b052e1028c1\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 63\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 57\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00226b6a4817b9de4b5fa084c583b681fea1\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That Part 2 as amended be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 63\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 57\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EPart 2 as amended agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000403\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022663032cdaeb14985b8ede19b818b3da2\u0022\u003EPart 3  Amendments to Income Tax Act 2007\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022c0e0c86e-e14d-4daa-9bc8-1b5a3d7defeb\u0022 data-id=\u002243fa81ac3ba04fb0ad5321e16fd594b8\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000404\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c0e0c86e-e14d-4daa-9bc8-1b5a3d7defeb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002243fa81ac3ba04fb0ad5321e16fd594b8\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams)\u003C/span\u003E: Now we come to the debate on Part 3, which is clauses 104 to 222, \u201CAmendments to Income Tax Act 2007\u201D, and Schedules 1B, 2, and \u00A03.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022f96cdca1-b63c-4602-b2b3-276f58ebb518\u0022 data-id=\u0022eb3cf34ea6cd4025a9557b248dd0311d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000405\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f96cdca1-b63c-4602-b2b3-276f58ebb518\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022eb3cf34ea6cd4025a9557b248dd0311d\u0022\u003ECHRIS PENK (National\u2014Helensville):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Madam Chair. If you\u2019ll allow me to start at the beginning of Part 3, \u201CAmendments to Income Tax Act 2007\u201D, clause 104B, amending section CB 6A, provides clarity about what is now meant by the phrase \u201Cbright-line test\u201D and how that would be applied. We can\u2014and, in fact, do\u2014have debates and discussions across the House about the appropriate period of time for that test to apply, but I thought I might begin my contribution by just outlining for the sake of anyone who is unclear within or without the Chamber what it is exactly that the brightline test does. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000406\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f96cdca1-b63c-4602-b2b3-276f58ebb518\u0022\u003EIt\u2019s a popular misconception that the brightline test is some kind of tax. In fact, a tax applies on the sale of land in certain ways that we will soon see, and really the point of the brightline test is actually a way of understanding how that tax is to be applied in a situation where the intention of a person who has bought and then disposed of land cannot be gauged very easily. Of course intention is somewhat subjective and so it\u2019s been difficult to determine historically and so it is that previous parliaments to this came up with the idea that within a certain period of time\u2014two years originally and soon to be five, it seems\u2014if a person were to buy and then onsell the land, then it would be deemed, effectively, that their intention all along had been to buy and sell for profit, and so the income that they would gain from that profit would be taxable. So it\u2019s an exercise in certainty and it\u2019s an exercise in providing clarity as well. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000407\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f96cdca1-b63c-4602-b2b3-276f58ebb518\u0022\u003EThe phrase \u201Cresidential land\u201D is used in that, I presume, but I must confess I don\u2019t know whether that\u2019s previously already being clarified in the legislation. If it\u2019s anything like the use of \u201Cresidential land\u201D in similar phrases within the Overseas Investment Act then it will be somewhat messy and difficult to determine in certain cases. But I take it that there isn\u2019t any particular contention or debate about its meaning in relation to the legislation brought forward before the House today. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000408\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f96cdca1-b63c-4602-b2b3-276f58ebb518\u0022\u003ESo looking then at the way that clause 104B would operate, in amending section CB 6A(4) the subsection heading would change. Well, that\u2019s fine because that\u2019s not a substantive change in itself; merely an aid to interpretation. But we do see that the phrase \u201Ca freehold estate\u201D would be replaced by the phrase \u201Can estate or interest\u201D. \u201CAn estate or interest\u201D is a broader conception of how one may relate to land because an interest in land might be something that is broader than simply owning and, certainly, having a freehold estate. So the intention there I presume is to have somewhat broader capture of those to whom the brightline test would apply. That\u2019s a policy direction that the current Government has indicated that it is intending to make, and in that sense I suppose we can observe at least that the legislation will reflect that desire that they have.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000409\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f96cdca1-b63c-4602-b2b3-276f58ebb518\u0022\u003EIn particular, I wanted to have a look at clause 108 as well, which talks about \u201CSection CB 15 amended (Transactions between associated persons)\u201D. The reason that this is significant is because it sets out the time frame within which a person can dispose of land and still be treated as under the 10-year time frame there, as opposed to five years, which we\u2019ve seen previously. What\u2019s going on here is that we\u2019ve got a situation where two different persons are contemplated: a transferor and a transferee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000410\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f96cdca1-b63c-4602-b2b3-276f58ebb518\u0022\u003EWhat we are saying, effectively, in this legislation, or the committee, in general, is saying\u2014whether or not we on this side of the House agree with it; if we are in the minority, I suppose that\u2019s all academic\u2014collectively, is that the person who has acquired the land from someone who is associated with them has, effectively, acquired it at the time that the first person acquired it and so the second person won\u2019t be penalised by something of the nature of an entity change that might be perfectly innocent, not designed to defeat the taxation legislation, not an evasion, and not an avoidance either for that matter. But it might be that a single trust remains continuously in ownership or holding an interest but the trustees may change, so the legal ownership might technically change albeit that the beneficial or equitable ownership doesn\u2019t.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000411\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f96cdca1-b63c-4602-b2b3-276f58ebb518\u0022\u003EAnother example might be that land is transferred by way of a matrimonial property change\u2014or relationship property change, I suppose we should say\u2014and so there are good reasons that it might be that land transfers from one person to another and that the second person who owns it might legitimately be considered not to have owned it as recently as that transfer, but, instead, going back to the original acquiring of the land. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000412\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f96cdca1-b63c-4602-b2b3-276f58ebb518\u0022\u003EThe significance of that of course is that in this case what we\u2019re actually talking about is a scenario where it\u2019s to the benefit of those persons for tax reasons, because a period of five or 10 years, as the case may be, commences at an earlier point, and if one is selling or disposing of the land outside that period then one will be able to\u2014I say \u201Cget around\u201D the tax and I use the term very loosely and it\u2019s not the right term. I\u2019m trying not to use \u201Cavoid\u201D or \u201Cevade\u201D; I\u2019m trying to avoid \u201Cavoid\u201D, so to speak. So it might be that, for perfectly legitimate and innocent reasons, such a transfer takes place and the tax is not incurred at that point.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000413\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f96cdca1-b63c-4602-b2b3-276f58ebb518\u0022\u003EBefore I finish my contribution, I\u2019ll just step back in time briefly, sort of jumping a bit to clause 107, which amends section CB 11. That\u2019s talking about a situation of building business, and that\u2019s where disposal takes place within 10 years of improvement. So whereas previously we\u2019ve seen a section that talks about the acquisition and the disposal of land, here what we\u2019re actually concerned with is a time frame that\u2019s triggered by improvements being made to the land. Reading the legislation at face value and without having had the benefit of attending the select committee in which it was discussed and examined, but having some experience in these matters from a previous professional life, the improvements that are completed trigger a time frame of 10 years, and it\u2019s the time at which the improvements are completed, as distinct from having merely begun, that the clock starts ticking, so to speak.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000414\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f96cdca1-b63c-4602-b2b3-276f58ebb518\u0022\u003EWe\u2019re talking about the beginning of the improvements as well, but that\u2019s actually in relation to the person carrying on a business of erecting buildings, or an associate of the person carrying on a business of erecting buildings. The significance of the business aspect, as I understand it but I\u2019ll invite the Minister to correct me if I\u2019m wrong, is that we\u2019re talking about a business as opposed to being resident in the home in a way that we might regard as being consistent with having that as one\u2019s family home. The subject of family home is coming up in debates and discussions in this House in other contexts and I won\u2019t go there, so to speak, but I did just want to highlight that it seems there\u2019s a consistent theme running through, more or less, that a family home is to be regarded as somehow separate or different from those who are in the business of conducting improvements for the purpose of building, and elsewhere we see, similarly, a subdivision business is to be treated in a particular way.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000415\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f96cdca1-b63c-4602-b2b3-276f58ebb518\u0022\u003EFinally, within my remaining time, I would just like to note that the legislation makes a deliberate effort to distinguish the situation that was previously the case, where the brightline test would apply in relation to an interest being acquired that is contingent. In other words, an interest that relied on another thing happening at new section CB 6A(4)(d), in clause 104B, and what we now have is a situation that contemplates an agreement being entered into under which the person acquires the estate or interest. So I suppose the obvious question there, which is on everyone\u2019s lips, is whether this characterisation of the acquiring of the land is broad enough, and if the answer is yes, then I suppose it\u2019s clear enough that the interest being acquired\u2014that is, the purchase\u2014more or less is captured by the provision, and I suppose that\u2019s what\u2019s intended by the Government in that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000416\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f96cdca1-b63c-4602-b2b3-276f58ebb518\u0022\u003EIf the Minister cares to correct me on any of these assumptions and presumptions that I\u2019ve made, then I would welcome that, but if not, then I suppose I shall leave it as a record for this committee that that is my understanding of those particular sections and their import, and I look forward to hearing more debate and discussion and, indeed, contributing to it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022859e13f9-33bb-41bb-b2f0-d848eaf25407\u0022 data-id=\u00221e49a068108e48c58b5ca5e92207a8ec\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000417\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022859e13f9-33bb-41bb-b2f0-d848eaf25407\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221e49a068108e48c58b5ca5e92207a8ec\u0022\u003EANDREW BAYLY (National\u2014Hunua):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, and I\u2019m sure the Minister in the chair, the Hon Kris Faafoi, being a very skilled business practitioner, is going to take the opportunity to address those questions that my good colleague Chris Penk has just raised, because they are a very important feature of this bill. I\u2019m just looking forward to his contribution when he has a moment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000418\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022859e13f9-33bb-41bb-b2f0-d848eaf25407\u0022\u003EI just thought I might move on to something a little bit different. This is about portfolio investment entities, commonly referred to as PIEs. I know that\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000419\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002298dbeffa-e059-49d5-8bbf-579cbaead9a3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022085a0ccd1a1b45f2872ccb89da801f2d\u0022\u003EHon Scott Simpson\u003C/span\u003E: The Minister knows a bit about those too!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000420\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022859e13f9-33bb-41bb-b2f0-d848eaf25407\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002259b554b5dada48d3b80fb8ab735816b9\u0022\u003EANDREW BAYLY\u003C/span\u003E: Yeah, the Minister is very experienced with these. Of course, the reason I\u2019m raising this is that these are very fundamental entities that help KiwiSaver accounts. They are the way that many people invest their KiwiSavers, and what a debate we\u2019ve been having more generally outside this Chamber about another tax, which, of course\u2014what\u2019s this bill called? The Taxation (Annual Rates for 2018-19, Modernising Tax Administration, and Remedial Matters) Bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000421\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002255d0b7a4-a2c9-4c38-9b77-475311a48a89\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002268ef7a27556e44138f0c2bed3f68cf95\u0022\u003ESimeon Brown\u003C/span\u003E: What\u2019s the other tax, Andrew?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000422\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022859e13f9-33bb-41bb-b2f0-d848eaf25407\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220df4cdd93a1c402195da41131f85d178\u0022\u003EANDREW BAYLY\u003C/span\u003E: Well, I daren\u2019t mention it, because Madam Chair might give me a hard time, but the issue around PIEs is fundamental for people who want to invest in listed companies.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000423\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022859e13f9-33bb-41bb-b2f0-d848eaf25407\u0022\u003EJust so we all understand what a PIE is, a listed PIE is an entity that, basically, invests in a whole lot of companies on a recognised exchange, particularly the New Zealand Stock Exchange, and provided it meets other requirements, it is in a situation where it has preferential tax treatment. So rather than paying 33 percent, it might be 28 percent, and there\u2019s a lower threshold as well depending on the type of investment and the scale of it. And that\u2019s why it is so vitally important to KiwiSaver investors, and we have a lot of KiwiSaver investors; we\u2019ve got about $40 billion in the KiwiSaver accounts, ACC\u2014through those types of accounts. It\u2019s very important for the future of New Zealanders to be able to invest using these structures, and that\u2019s why some of the other murmurings that we\u2019ve heard in public that talk about what might happen to these PIEs has got to be treading on very fine ground, because we do not want to disincentivise people from investing in good quality New Zealand businesses listed on the New Zealand Stock Exchange, because we need capital coming into those businesses. We\u2019ve got a stock market worth only $100 billion, we\u2019ve got a housing market worth a trillion, and we need more people investing in them, perpetuating and sustaining our New Zealand businesses.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000424\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022859e13f9-33bb-41bb-b2f0-d848eaf25407\u0022\u003ESo to the rules here, and it relates to clause 167, one of the things that this bill does is make two changes to the arrangements. The first one relates to the wind-up provisions of listed PIEs, and what it does is give some transitional arrangements for an entity intending to become a listed PIE. It allows an entity that is not listed on a recognised exchange to become a listed PIE provided that it has a minimum of 100 shareholders or more; has resolved to become a company listed on a recognised exchange in New Zealand if it were to obtain the required consents; has applied to the Financial Markets Authority for an exemption from disclosing in a product disclosure document\u2014this is a normal type of document that companies do when they have to list on any stock exchange\u2014the full documentation around the nature of the company\u2019s activities, its directors, all those aspects and financials of course; and, the fourth thing, that it satisfies the commissioner that the company would apply to become a listed company if it were to obtain the required consents.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000425\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022859e13f9-33bb-41bb-b2f0-d848eaf25407\u0022\u003EWhat this does is give a provision for a listed PIE delisting as part of the process of winding up. And what we put in place as part of this are some transitional mechanisms to allow it to happen over a period of time, and it doesn\u2019t cut to the core of the integrity of that PIE. And it has some aspects to it. For a PIE status for a listed PIE using this method, it must have two years or longer from the date the listed PIE is delisted, it must have a date specified in its election clause, and it must specify when the number of shareholders reduces below 100. So I\u2019m highlighting this issue because New Zealanders saving for their future is a fundamental issue for New Zealand. We need people to do it. PIE status is an important element in achieving that, and we need to protect that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00225b6b1d74-9e5e-42ba-a922-85b0ea7f5ab6\u0022 data-id=\u0022e970a50604304a589a6b503bb206acf4\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000426\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225b6b1d74-9e5e-42ba-a922-85b0ea7f5ab6\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e970a50604304a589a6b503bb206acf4\u0022\u003ESIMON O\u2019CONNOR (National\u2014T\u0101maki):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Seeing we\u2019re heading towards the dinner break and the speaker who\u2019s just taken his seat, Andrew Bayly, was talking about PIEs, I\u2019m feeling mildly esurient now. However, I think he was discussing something far more complicated than mince and cheese.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000427\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225b6b1d74-9e5e-42ba-a922-85b0ea7f5ab6\u0022\u003EI\u2019m obviously going to confine my discussion to Part 3 of this Taxation (Annual Rates for 2018-19, Modernising Tax Administration, and Remedial Matters) Bill, in particular to address what are exclusions for Housing New Zealand. I do not presume to be any expert in tax, to the degree that the Minister of Revenue and his officials can be very relaxed about my contribution and any insight therein.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000428\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225b6b1d74-9e5e-42ba-a922-85b0ea7f5ab6\u0022\u003EFundamentally, tax rules have been designed, particularly around land tainting, as I understand it, to make sure that as people are looking to sell their properties, so mainly those who are working in development, can, in effect\u2014well, have sought to prevent, if you will, arranging one\u2019s financial arrangements in such a way that if you were to dispose or subdivide a piece of land, make improvements, there\u2019s always been an attempt in the past to separate that out so that you could, in effect, avoid tax obligations. There have been changes to tighten that up to make sure that, actually, if someone is rearranging through trusts, through the erection of extra dwellings, or so forth, even if it\u2019s done by association, a person or developer is still required to pay the rightful amount of tax. I\u2019m more than happy for the Minister to correct me. In fact, it would be fantastic if the Minister takes a call and educates this member on the 101 of land tainting, if he so chooses.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000429\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225b6b1d74-9e5e-42ba-a922-85b0ea7f5ab6\u0022\u003EWhat this particular bill is seeking to do, in this particular section, is to allow an exception for Housing New Zealand so that they are able to get on with the process of building. As we see particularly in clause 109\u2014if I have it right here in front of me; yeah, in 109\u2014as it says quite specifically in new section CB 15D, there\u2019s an exclusion to \u201Cnot apply to [the] Housing New Zealand Corporation\u201D, and, importantly, as well \u201Ca company in the same wholly-owned group of companies\u201D. So this is an exception from the rules for Housing New Zealand. As I understand things, it\u2019s an opportunity, therefore, for Housing New Zealand to get on with its business, which is to build more houses. I know, on this side of the House, we do remain disappointed at the progress that is being made around housing. Obviously, there\u2019s the question around KiwiBuild, but I think the intention of exclusion here is a prudent one. If this enables Housing New Zealand to be more effective, that\u2019s a positive. Obviously, if it enables it to be more effective, prudent, and right when it comes to its tax to the Crown, that is an excellent thing. So I think, overall, it\u2019s a good provision. I don\u2019t think, from this side of the Chamber, there are any major concerns.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000430\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225b6b1d74-9e5e-42ba-a922-85b0ea7f5ab6\u0022\u003EWe would certainly encourage, after some committee stages we\u2019ve had, that with the complexity of some of these clauses, they be triple-checked. We had a situation two weeks ago where a commencement clause had some, effectively, wrong numbers; certain cross-references were not correct. When I look at CB 15D(1), it\u2019s referencing one, two, three\u2014at least four, five other references. It\u2019s a very minor point, Minister; you\u2019ll have excellent officials, but to make sure that they run through and make that correct. We don\u2019t need, as we did two weeks ago, to return to the House and reopen a committee stage to make sure one thing is inserted.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000431\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225b6b1d74-9e5e-42ba-a922-85b0ea7f5ab6\u0022\u003EFundamentally, where we sit here is that there\u2019s a whole way that land developers are able to arrange, or have been able to arrange, their affairs to, obviously, maximise, I suppose, their profit and minimise, where they can, their tax payments. There has long been concerns about these; there have been a number of changes that have been brought to this House, and this particular one, as I say, and from the social housing perspective\u2014what enables Housing New Zealand to get on with its job effectively, to look after New Zealanders, is a positive thing, as I say. I\u2019m very keen to make sure that this does actually bring about some better progress than we have seen to date in the building of homes. But, Minister, to the extent that that little contribution in this rather large bill, again, helps those Kiwis most in need, we\u2019re happy to support that aspect on this side of the Chamber.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a6c42c44-3622-4c9c-98b8-793fb5ec15cc\u0022 data-id=\u002263a8fcee78314812bc20086baf338636\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000432\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a6c42c44-3622-4c9c-98b8-793fb5ec15cc\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002263a8fcee78314812bc20086baf338636\u0022\u003EIAN McKELVIE (National\u2014Rangit\u012Bkei):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to take a call on Part 3 of this bill, particularly relating to Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 135, the Government SOP concerning the bloodstock industry. I suppose, when this was mooted in the Budget, I thought, well, that\u2019s quite exciting for the industry, and I thought, well, maybe we\u2019re going to see some real positive progress here with respect to enabling people to break into an industry that\u2019s not exactly cheap to get into. So when this came to the Finance and Expenditure Committee\u2019s notice, you can imagine I was quite disappointed when I saw the numbers they\u2019d put round it, because the figures they\u2019d used to encourage people into the industry were\u2014well, by anyone\u2019s standards\u2014astronomical. In other words, you had to have $404,000, I think it was, to buy a colt and about $460,000-odd to buy a filly, if it was a thoroughbred. Now, the standard breeds are a little cheaper and they\u2019re more in the $100,000 and $150,000-odd range.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000433\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a6c42c44-3622-4c9c-98b8-793fb5ec15cc\u0022\u003EObviously, from my perspective, it was never going to be a winner, because imagine someone starting a new business\u2014and we\u2019ve talked a lot about business in the House today\u2014and needing half a million bucks to kick it off; it\u2019s unlikely to happen, I think. And so it proved, because we\u2019ve had the first of the sales at which this measure would have been implemented. I was quite keen to ask the Minister in the chair, Kris Faafoi\u2014I\u2019m sure he will have a pretty good grip on this given his sporting prowess; he was very good on the weekend\u2014just how many thoroughbreds might have qualified for that tax relief at the recent Karaka sales. I suspect the answer will be about as many runs as I made on Sunday, which was zero. But I also wanted to just add to that that, interestingly, this was very strongly advocated for by the thoroughbred industry, and, ironically, the standardbred industry looks to be the potential beneficiary of it, because I think there were, by my reckoning, a number of horses that potentially could have qualified for this tax relief depending on where they go to in the end, because, of course, only horses bought by New Zealanders and initially raced in New Zealand and eventually settled in New Zealand qualify for this tax relief.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000434\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a6c42c44-3622-4c9c-98b8-793fb5ec15cc\u0022\u003ESo it was disappointing, I think, to see the numbers that were put round this. There was an estimation that it would cost, I think, $4.8 million in the first year of its implementation. I think it\u2019s going to be nearer $48,000 than $4.8 million, but that\u2019s something\u2014to be fair to the people who put this SOP together, it would be very hard to understand what the outcome might be unless you understood what the level of sale was going to be. Interestingly, in the thoroughbred case, the sales average was slightly back on where it\u2019s been; in the standardbred case, it was 30 percent up. You could never have predicted that, I don\u2019t think, were you trying to put a piece of legislation together like this, and you probably couldn\u2019t have predicted where those horses might go and who might buy them either. So it was probably a very difficult prediction to make, but, none the less, it could\u2019ve been, in my view, an exciting opportunity for the industry had it been set at a level that encouraged new people into the industry. It certainly didn\u2019t enable that to happen, because, as I said earlier, it\u2019s highly unlikely new people are going to come into an industry with half a million dollars to spend on a horse.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000435\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a6c42c44-3622-4c9c-98b8-793fb5ec15cc\u0022\u003ESo whilst we initially, on this side of the House, looked to this SOP with some enthusiasm, when we saw what was going on was clearly not going to work\u2014and I think we got to the point where we opposed it simply because it didn\u2019t enable the engagement of people in the industry that probably had been foreseen by both the industry and maybe even by the Minister who introduced the SOP, Stuart Nash. So a bit of a disappointing piece of legislation I think, from everyone\u2019s perspective, for an industry that I think needs every bit of encouragement it can get. I think Governments have got to be very careful when they get into encouraging industries, because we\u2019ve seen too many times in the past where we\u2019ve encouraged industries with bits of legislation that have turned out to have quite the opposite impact to that which was intended. We certainly have seen that, I think, with this little piece of Part 3 of this bill, which is disappointing because I think, as I just said, it would\u2019ve been really good to have attracted a whole lot of new people into this industry by using this bill. It used to be the case, of course, and the reason it was done away with was probably the reason there was some suspicion around its implementation on this occasion.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022859e13f9-33bb-41bb-b2f0-d848eaf25407\u0022 data-id=\u0022314457b06f124154b8a257d1b8f02c8c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000436\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022859e13f9-33bb-41bb-b2f0-d848eaf25407\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022314457b06f124154b8a257d1b8f02c8c\u0022\u003EANDREW BAYLY (National\u2014Hunua):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Madam Chair. I just thought I\u2019d now talk about the accounting income method for businesses, and we\u2019ve been talking about businesses a lot today, because they are the key driver of wealth in New Zealand and they are also the people who employ most people in New Zealand. So the importance to us in terms of creating the right framework in which they can flourish, in which they can grow, and in which they can continue to employ people but, more importantly, take on new people and also drive intellectual capital and create a more dynamic economy generally is just so vitally important.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000437\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022859e13f9-33bb-41bb-b2f0-d848eaf25407\u0022\u003EThe National Party was very good when it was in power, if I may say so, in terms of introducing the accounting income method for a way that businesses accounted for their tax. I\u2019m not sure everyone understands the arrangements for tax for businesses, but they\u2019re a lot different from personal tax. The requirement to pay provisional tax on a number of occasions and then to pay a terminal tax payment, which is a bit of a wash-up, has traditionally always created problems for businesses that do not have strong cash-flow. That might be for quite legitimate reasons. They may be quite sound and sustainable businesses, but they\u2019re very seasonal, as an example, so they get all the money up front, and then for the last six months, there\u2019s no money, as it goes through a period of\u2014you know, maybe for climatic reasons; whatever, do not have the access to revenue. Accounting for your provisional tax as you go through the year and paying it out at a time when you\u2019ve got no money coming in, or very little money coming in, traditionally has been quite a problem. As a result, many companies have actually ended up being late paying their provisional tax, and the fees for being late are 1 percent for the day that it takes place\u2014if you were due to pay a payment and you don\u2019t pay it by that due day, you get 1 percent, and thereafter you get charged 4 percent, so a 5 percent tax rate or penalty rate. Of course, what happens with penalties is they grow rapidly with time and, in many cases, they can blow out to be very large balances even though the original payment that was required actually was low.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000438\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022859e13f9-33bb-41bb-b2f0-d848eaf25407\u0022\u003EThe other thing about provisional terminal tax is it requires the entity to have a very good view on its profitability going forward. It\u2019s based on last year\u2019s, and often there\u2019s a 10 percent rule where if your profit was $100,000 last year, you will aim to pay $110,000, and you will pay your provisional tax based on that and do the wash-up as terminal. But the issue with that is that many companies do not have that line of sight around either their revenue or their cost structures, and the ability to be able to manage that and then actually pay the provisional tax on the due date is actually really, really difficult and, in many cases, just an outright guess. I think the issue with this around the accounting method was a way of dealing with it. The traditional method was called the standard or the GST ratio method, which is those payments, but under the accounting process, what happens is that you will pay it on a monthly basis, if that\u2019s the way you want to pay it, and you will pay it based on your actual profit\u2014the tax that you will pay on that profit, on a month-by-month or whatever basis you choose, so that you can coincide your cash outlay with the money that you are receiving at the time. That means you don\u2019t have to get into the forecasting ability that\u2019s such a bane of many small businesses in New Zealand, and you don\u2019t potentially get into a situation where you are late in paying your provisional tax. I think that\u2019s a crucial aspect of trying to help and support our businesses.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000439\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022859e13f9-33bb-41bb-b2f0-d848eaf25407\u0022\u003ENow, this bill has some remedial aspects around it, and I think one of the big things is when you could elect to join the AIM, or accounting income method. Under the previous rules, what it did is you had to make that decision, basically, for the next financial year, and under the rules that we brought in\u2014and it\u2019s something that the Finance and Expenditure Committee has worked very strong and hard on, and I think that we came with the right conclusion. It is to allow businesses to make that election during the course of the financial year, provided, of course, that they\u2019ve paid their provisional tax, or, if they\u2019ve used a pooling account, a third party who pays that tax on your behalf\u2014which is quite a normal method; using an intermediary account\u2014then they could convert to an AIM method, and, again, this is about making it good for New Zealand businesses.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220c51564f-6c6e-45cc-adab-f15b6c831fce\u0022 data-id=\u00228498bb4594324c6db877095d5c3a3762\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000440\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220c51564f-6c6e-45cc-adab-f15b6c831fce\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00228498bb4594324c6db877095d5c3a3762\u0022\u003ELAWRENCE YULE (National\u2014Tukituki):\u003C/span\u003E I wish to come to clause 111, in Part 3, which deals with, really, the exclusion for the dwelling, or the main house exclusion. I wish to ask the Minister in the chair, Kris Faafoi, in particular, under clause 111(1), where there is a replacement section CB 16(1)(b) where it says it\u2019s replaced with \u201Cthe dwellinghouse was occupied mainly as a residence by,\u2014(i) the person: (ii) if members of the person\u2019s family live with them, the person and members of the person\u2019s family living with them:\u201D and \u201C(iii) if the person is a trustee, 1 or more beneficiaries of the trust.\u201D Now, I struggle to understand what the third one means, really, because what that really says is if a person is a trustee, then somehow they can be excluded from the residential provisions, and then it goes on: \u201C1 or more beneficiaries of the trust.\u201D Now, bearing in mind this is a new section, or an amendment, and then it\u2019s left to further parts in clauses 112 and 113, in which, really, the same wording is used, I\u2019d like the Minister to explain exactly what they mean\u2014\u201Cif the person is a trustee, 1 or more beneficiaries of the trust.\u201D\u2014and whether that actually makes sense.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000441\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220c51564f-6c6e-45cc-adab-f15b6c831fce\u0022\u003EI say that because as we go into these provisions and as we look at and the Government looks at what the tax working party has come up with in terms of capital gains, these types of provisions and the wording and understanding of them will form the basis on which a lot of New Zealanders make decisions on property investment and their taxation affairs. I\u2019d like the Minister to explain how that clause 111(1)(b)(iii) actually reads and is meant, because as we go through this\u2014and I\u2019ve already been in contact with some lawyers and accountants who are relishing the opportunity of finding workarounds, particularly in the capital gains tax.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000442\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002298dbeffa-e059-49d5-8bbf-579cbaead9a3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002278e4652ee5394078b6beb0242d001270\u0022\u003EHon Scott Simpson\u003C/span\u003E: Huge business opportunity.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000443\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220c51564f-6c6e-45cc-adab-f15b6c831fce\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002270221855705944a6b20c736f952f824d\u0022\u003ELAWRENCE YULE\u003C/span\u003E: A huge business opportunity. We need to understand what this means, and I must confess I don\u2019t, at this point. If you then go on to look at further provisions under the bill which deal with exclusions, then you\u2019ll see that they\u2019re mentioned in 112 and 113, as I\u2019ve said, but the same clause is not mentioned in 111. If you then look at 110, which deals, really, with the brightline test within five years, and then you go further down to the 10-year test, which is mentioned in other parts of this bill, we need to be really careful that we get the definitions right. If I look at 110, it says that \u201CIn section CB 16A(2)(b), [we\u2019re going to] replace \u2018residential land\u2019 with \u2018residential land described in subsection (1)\u2019.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000444\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220c51564f-6c6e-45cc-adab-f15b6c831fce\u0022\u003EThen I go down to the next part, which says, \u201CSubsection (1) applies to a person\u2019s disposal of residential land if the date that person first acquires an estate or interest \u2026 is on or after 1 October 2015.\u201D That is when the first brightline test was introduced by the previous Government, and then it was carried on and extended by two years under this Government. So what I\u2019m really seeking assurance\u2014and I know the Minister doesn\u2019t really want to answer questions in this House because it\u2019s not necessarily his area of expertise, but what I\u2019m saying is this same legislation will be repeated in future taxation legislation should a capital gains tax come in, and I think it\u2019s really important that under clause 111(1)(b)(iii), we understand what a trustee\u2019s roles are in an exclusion process and what \u201C1 or more beneficiaries\u201D means. We need to get it right because it will make a fundamental difference to tax planning matters for New Zealanders. Thank you, Madam Chair.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022c2e823af-22b7-4411-8b12-14d7b43680ea\u0022 data-id=\u00227b506bac996441a690336911c55ade02\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000445\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c2e823af-22b7-4411-8b12-14d7b43680ea\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00227b506bac996441a690336911c55ade02\u0022\u003EJAMIE STRANGE (Labour):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022f96cdca1-b63c-4602-b2b3-276f58ebb518\u0022 data-id=\u00228f4787a0848842c3adbdacf4d068cf2f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000446\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f96cdca1-b63c-4602-b2b3-276f58ebb518\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00228f4787a0848842c3adbdacf4d068cf2f\u0022\u003ECHRIS PENK (National\u2014Helensville):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you very much indeed. I\u2019m grateful to have the chance to speak on Part 3, particularly because there\u2019s a really interesting provision concerned with the arrangements involving tax credits for charitable or other public benefit gifts. The reason that this is really interesting is that in the whole area of charities and institutions that provide what\u2019s known as a public benefit, we\u2019ve decided, specifically by designating them as such, that they provide a benefit to society that we don\u2019t want to minimise, and we don\u2019t want to limit their effectiveness by way of taxation. So there is some significance to society as a whole, and, of course, there is a significance to those organisations themselves in the way that they operate and in the way that they structure themselves. Accordingly, what we have here is a provision which, understandably, seeks to limit the ability of such organisations to structure their affairs in a way that would unreasonably get around the taxation laws.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000447\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f96cdca1-b63c-4602-b2b3-276f58ebb518\u0022\u003ESo within Part 3, I draw your attention to section GB\u2014that\u2019s golf bravo\u201455 in clause 157, headed \u201CArrangements involving tax credits for charitable or other public benefit gifts\u201D. So the first thing to note is that the section will apply when a person enters into an arrangement that has the purpose or effect of defeating the intent and application of section LD 1, which is to do with tax credits for charitable or other public benefit gifts. I\u2019d like to draw the attention of the committee to the phrase \u201Cpurpose or effect\u201D because I wonder if this is exactly what the Minister and his Government is intending by adding this. What we have is a situation where, by saying that it would be the purpose or effect of defeating, essentially, the tax credit law, that would be captured. Now, if you have a purpose but without an effect, then what we have is a charitable entity that is trying to get around the law but unsuccessfully so. That makes a nonsense of the next provision, which sets out the consequence of such an attempt\u2014or, indeed, a successful attempt\u2014to defeat the tax laws. So we\u2019ll jump ahead to that before we come back to the purpose or effect provision. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000448\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f96cdca1-b63c-4602-b2b3-276f58ebb518\u0022\u003EThe effect, the outcome, and the consequence would be that the credit would be reduced. So the tax credit under section LD 1, elsewhere in the law, would be reduced to the amount that the commissioner considers would have arisen but for the arrangement described above. So we\u2019ve potentially got a situation\u2014that I would seek ministerial clarification on\u2014whereby someone might intend to get around the law and might intend to gain for themselves a tax credit to which they\u2019re not entitled and be unsuccessful with it, and yet the commissioner would then somehow attempt, I suppose, to reduce the credit to an amount that they would say would apply if the thing that hasn\u2019t occurred had not occurred. And, of course, the reduction would be zero in that case. So I think that\u2019s a slight logical absurdity. It may be a relatively small one, but seeing we are in the business of considering the tidying-up exercise that the committee of the whole House stage represents, I think it\u2019s worth the Minister turning his mind to, if I may say so. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000449\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f96cdca1-b63c-4602-b2b3-276f58ebb518\u0022\u003EThere\u2019s another question regarding purpose, which is, of course: who gets to decide that such an arrangement has that purpose? Given that elsewhere within that same section it will be the commissioner who will be making a determination, I would guess\u2014but, again, I welcome clarification and confirmation\u2014that it would be the commissioner himself or herself that would make a decision that the purpose or effect of the charitable entity was as described.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000450\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f96cdca1-b63c-4602-b2b3-276f58ebb518\u0022\u003EI suppose for the sake of completeness we should consider that the fact that the defeating of the intent is described as either being in relation to purpose or effect might mean that someone, a charitable organisation, does something that has the effect of defeating the intent but didn\u2019t have that purpose. Well, that seems to me pretty reasonable for the legislation to deal with such an organisation in that way because, really, what would be happening under the following provision is that, simply, the credit would be reduced to what it would be but for that accidental case.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000451\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f96cdca1-b63c-4602-b2b3-276f58ebb518\u0022\u003EWith the reduction of a tax credit, I suppose it\u2019s a double negative, whereby, of course, the tax would go up because the credit would go down. But what we\u2019re saying, of course, is really that\u2019s the default arrangement, which is that legal persons who are resident, and so forth, must pay tax unless they\u2019ve got some particular reason not to do so. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000452\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f96cdca1-b63c-4602-b2b3-276f58ebb518\u0022\u003EOne item I would like to bring to the attention of the Minister before I conclude my remarks\u2014and I think I\u2019ll be able to do that easily within the time that\u2019s accorded to me; I say in case any colleagues should wish to accept the baton at that point\u2014is that what we\u2019ve got with the credit reduction that the commissioner is invited to undertake given such an arrangement is that we\u2019re simply told that the commissioner considers such a situation in relation to what the taxation situation would have been had the arrangement not occurred. So what we don\u2019t have is that the commissioner must in his or her reasonable discretion make such a determination, nor were we told that such a consideration would be based on generally accepted accounting principles, for example, or in accordance with Inland Revenue Department Acts, a phrase that\u2019s defined elsewhere in the legislation. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000453\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f96cdca1-b63c-4602-b2b3-276f58ebb518\u0022\u003ESo I wonder if the Minister could provide some advice about whether there could be a bit of clarity around that, given how significant the powers of the commissioner would be in that situation. If we are going to say to him or her that they have the ability to undo the damage that they\u2019ve identified and turn back the tide, then I think it\u2019s probably pretty fair that we ask him or her to do so in a way that is consistent with some sort of external or objective standard by which that can be calculated, measured, and, of course, if not reasonable in its application, then be challenged. I won\u2019t belabour that point any further, and I simply observe that these matters are pretty important in a way that charitable and public benefit entities do have certain rights. But with those rights come responsibility, and the relationship between society and the State in that way is worth us considering clearly in this legislation, and, if we\u2019re going to consider it, we might as well make it as clear as possible and as straightforward as possible.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000454\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022071f7800-2755-41b6-83df-07ebaf867ae2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022474c3c3aaa2d49cbb31cde8423673ea2\u0022\u003ETim van de Molen\u003C/span\u003E: Does it impact on the surf lifesaving?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000455\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f96cdca1-b63c-4602-b2b3-276f58ebb518\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227fa7efab130b4b1facf995a4c2c76457\u0022\u003ECHRIS PENK\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019m sorry, Madam Chair. I\u2019ve been asked the relationship between this and some other matters that I\u2019ve recently been speaking about in another forum, and I have to advise Mr van de Molen that, in fact, this has very little to do with those. So, moving on, and I\u2019ll conclude my contribution at that point but with the hope and expectation that the Minister will address those points.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022490ccdbf-7c22-4e12-98f2-f3aa08f8e676\u0022 data-id=\u0022c9e443747a924ab190697671866334c4\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000456\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022490ccdbf-7c22-4e12-98f2-f3aa08f8e676\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c9e443747a924ab190697671866334c4\u0022\u003EHon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Deputy Leader of the House):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00223f962c4c6fab43d594e12253eeab4d4e\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 63\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 56\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 55; Ross.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022c0e0c86e-e14d-4daa-9bc8-1b5a3d7defeb\u0022 data-id=\u0022310003ce33584f699d9f44be330dc120\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000457\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c0e0c86e-e14d-4daa-9bc8-1b5a3d7defeb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022310003ce33584f699d9f44be330dc120\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the Hon Stuart Nash\u2019s amendments to Part 3 set out on Supplementary Order Papers 188 and 189 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000458\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002255bb390e-f6c3-498c-bbf6-ea1a8fc993c7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022535fc89b9a744d37a50525d881235b93\u0022\u003EGareth Hughes\u003C/span\u003E: Point of order.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000459\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c0e0c86e-e14d-4daa-9bc8-1b5a3d7defeb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223281eb10fbb94397a6305ed5af7da5f6\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams)\u003C/span\u003E: We\u2019re in the middle of a vote.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000460\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002255bb390e-f6c3-498c-bbf6-ea1a8fc993c7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221c20164b4bbd4ceeaa25752ae5a80022\u0022\u003EGareth Hughes\u003C/span\u003E: It regards the vote, Madam Chair.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000461\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c0e0c86e-e14d-4daa-9bc8-1b5a3d7defeb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a50224aa7e72468a9c01e56b346e38f8\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams)\u003C/span\u003E: Can we just complete\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000462\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002255bb390e-f6c3-498c-bbf6-ea1a8fc993c7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f6f4273e6edd4a7baea9d5391c4c1bd9\u0022\u003EGareth Hughes\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I was just under the understanding that Supplementary Order Papers 188 and 189 would be voted on separately.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000463\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c0e0c86e-e14d-4daa-9bc8-1b5a3d7defeb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cca29a77504d48339405b9b39e235515\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams)\u003C/span\u003E: Just let me take some advice on that. OK. We will do that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000464\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c0e0c86e-e14d-4daa-9bc8-1b5a3d7defeb\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 188 in the name of the Hon Stuart Nash to Part 3 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022b8bbd12c475041d4bbaf500cfab9bf65\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 63\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 57\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000465\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 189 in the name of the Hon Stuart Nash to Part 3 be agreed to.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00223cbe8d4078a44977aaf4e3c2fd548d21\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 111\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 55; New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Ross.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 9\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EGreen Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8; ACT New Zealand 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00225814a1efd01d48d39e78501e1a9a9d91\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That Part 3 as amended be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 63\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 57\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EPart 3 as amended agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000466\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022bc18df40151949bc937f540eef486476\u0022\u003EPart 4  Amendments to other enactments\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022c0e0c86e-e14d-4daa-9bc8-1b5a3d7defeb\u0022 data-id=\u002247034461021b455a8813fbbd3a689195\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000467\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c0e0c86e-e14d-4daa-9bc8-1b5a3d7defeb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002247034461021b455a8813fbbd3a689195\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams)\u003C/span\u003E: We come to Part 4\u2014the debate on clauses 221 to 276, \u201CAmendments to other enactments\u201D, and Schedules 3 and 6.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022859e13f9-33bb-41bb-b2f0-d848eaf25407\u0022 data-id=\u00225fd35f864088403d91df57ef9816cedb\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000468\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022859e13f9-33bb-41bb-b2f0-d848eaf25407\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00225fd35f864088403d91df57ef9816cedb\u0022\u003EANDREW BAYLY (National\u2014Hunua):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Madam Chair. There\u2019s a lot in Part 4, and there\u2019s some quite important stuff. I think perhaps the most important bit is around the KiwiSaver enhancements. As we all know, KiwiSaver is a vital part of that picture towards New Zealanders saving for their retirement. So we have got the New Zealand Superannuation Fund\u2014about $39 billion in its accounts, and obviously being managed incredibly well. The average return is, I think, about 10.3 percent since it was established, and it\u2019s doing a great job in terms of helping the Government meet its requirements for paying out New Zealand super. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000469\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022859e13f9-33bb-41bb-b2f0-d848eaf25407\u0022\u003EThe other side of that, of course, is the KiwiSaver accounts that, hopefully, virtually everyone has. Of course, we had the incentive to incentivise people to join KiwiSaver accounts, that if people put in enough money, they would get $1,000 on the initial joining fee, and, of course, people are entitled to just over about $1,059, from memory, provided that they meet the minimum contribution every year. So that contribution that the Government provides to KiwiSavers in New Zealand is a very, very important tenet. Again, the KiwiSaver accounts\u2014roughly a $40 billion account, and growing, and we need to get people to save.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000470\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022859e13f9-33bb-41bb-b2f0-d848eaf25407\u0022\u003EThe simple fact is that not enough New Zealanders are saving. In fact, there are from memory about 2 million people involved in KiwiSaver, of which about 500,000 are not contributing or, in broad terms, are on a contributions holiday, and that is simply not good enough. In the work that I\u2019ve done, I think that the average balance sitting in KiwiSaver accounts is about $26,000. That, as an independent piece of wealth that people can access when they retire, is simply not enough, and we need to do more, and part of this bill is about dealing with that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000471\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022859e13f9-33bb-41bb-b2f0-d848eaf25407\u0022\u003EThe Retirement Commissioner\u2019s work on this issue was fundamental. She looked at a couple of scenarios under the current payment of what you\u2019re entitled\u2014roughly, about $23,000 for a single person, rising to $28,000 for a couple\u2014and said, \u201CCould you live on that, and what more would you need to live on to live in different scenarios?\u201D One of the scenarios was a very modest living standard, obviously with no overseas trips\u2014very modest living standards\u2014and that showed that, basically, you needed about another $100 a week. That was a \u201Cno-frills budget\u201D, I think she called it, and then there was another category, which was a more generous lifestyle, if I can use that term.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000472\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022859e13f9-33bb-41bb-b2f0-d848eaf25407\u0022\u003EWhat it showed is that, for most people, they need between about a couple of hundred thousand and up to $700,000 of additional assets to be able to live comfortably in their retirement. That\u2019s a substantial amount, and I think the average was closer to about $360,000. Of course, with New Zealand, with its trending population, we\u2019ve got the baby boomers hitting that retirement age\u2014or if they haven\u2019t already, they\u2019re certainly getting very close to it\u2014and the demands that will have on the New Zealand Government to be able to meet future superannuation payments and also to make sure that those people going into retirement can actually pay and have a quality of life that we in New Zealand expect.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000473\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022859e13f9-33bb-41bb-b2f0-d848eaf25407\u0022\u003ESo with that KiwiSaver, as I said, the balance is very low, and it\u2019s very important that we actually get people turning their minds toward this whole issue. Personally, I don\u2019t think New Zealanders are focused enough on it. I think that with that sort of liability that\u2019s coming towards us, overlaid with health costs that are very significant\u2014and our current health budget is about $16 billion at the moment. As people move into retirement, the last two years of their lives are when, by far\u2014and I forget what the percentage was; I think it was something like 80 percent of your total health spend occurs in the last two years of your life. So these changes around KiwiSaver enhancements are vital, and these are covered in clause 216 and clauses 231 to 237.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000474\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022859e13f9-33bb-41bb-b2f0-d848eaf25407\u0022\u003EI think probably the most important thing\u2014there were five actual elements that were incorporated in the changes that we want to do to KiwiSaver, and I\u2019ll just go through them. I think the best thing is introducing to KiwiSaver alternative contribution rates. So I think most people will be aware that 3 percent is the current contribution rate. We have 3, 4, and 8\u20148 is the max\u2014and so what this bill does is it introduces a category of 6 percent and 10 percent. So now you\u2019ve got an entire suite that takes you from\u2014and this is a choice for individuals\u20143 percent to 10 percent of your contribution from your salary.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000475\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022859e13f9-33bb-41bb-b2f0-d848eaf25407\u0022\u003EWe\u2019ve filled in the gap because the gap between the lower band and the higher band was too big, and so, by far, most people invested at the lower rate of 3 percent, and by the time you get to 8 percent, there is a very, very small portion of people who are taking that from their earnings and putting it into their KiwiSaver. Of course, there\u2019s a contribution required from employers, matching that contribution, which is very, very important. So that 6 to 10 percent is a fundamental change and, I think, a very good change.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000476\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022859e13f9-33bb-41bb-b2f0-d848eaf25407\u0022\u003EThe second thing is reducing the holiday\u2014and I talked about this just a moment before, about the maximum contributions holiday. At the moment, the legislation has always assumed that you could opt out from contributing to your KiwiSaver for a maximum period of five years, and in most cases, many people have opted out for five years\u2014and I talked about those 500,000 who are not currently contributing. What happens is they just get into a zone. They don\u2019t think about KiwiSaver, and suddenly time has passed and they haven\u2019t contributed. The thing about saving for your retirement is that the earlier you start doing it and the more consistent you are in terms of saving, the better the outcome through just the compounding impact of money through earning interest on interest, and that is the essential stuff.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000477\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022859e13f9-33bb-41bb-b2f0-d848eaf25407\u0022\u003EI think one of the other categories that\u2019s probably missing in the KiwiSaver debate is business people. In many cases, they are owner-employers. They own their own businesses and they\u2019re their only employer\u2014and employee, in that case. Many of them are not contributing to KiwiSaver, and it\u2019s quite a hole in terms of the whole debate. But this contribution holiday is now going to be set at a year, so if you want to roll it over, you\u2019ve got to make a conscious decision at the end of the 12 month period whether you want to take another year\u2019s contribution.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000478\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022859e13f9-33bb-41bb-b2f0-d848eaf25407\u0022\u003EI think the whole thing about a contribution holiday is wrong\u2014it\u2019s wrong. It\u2019s not a holiday at all, because you\u2019re actually saving for your own future, and so some of the nomenclature has been changed. We\u2019re now talking about a \u201Csavings suspension\u201D, which really means that you\u2019re not saving for your future. It\u2019s a small change, but it\u2019s very, very important, and I think it\u2019s one that sort of recognises that the real issue is that you need to save for your future. If you\u2019re going to have a meaningful and worthwhile lifestyle that you want and anticipate when you\u2019re in your retirement\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022c0e0c86e-e14d-4daa-9bc8-1b5a3d7defeb\u0022 data-id=\u0022398dfd93338d4150a473e12b2a5ba7ef\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000479\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c0e0c86e-e14d-4daa-9bc8-1b5a3d7defeb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022398dfd93338d4150a473e12b2a5ba7ef\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams)\u003C/span\u003E: I apologise to the member. The time has come for me to leave the chair for the dinner break.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000480\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c0e0c86e-e14d-4daa-9bc8-1b5a3d7defeb\u0022\u003ESitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000481\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022859e13f9-33bb-41bb-b2f0-d848eaf25407\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bd3ad3743ec24d34bca42564b4e49b46\u0022\u003EANDREW BAYLY\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you very much, Mr Chair. Just before the break I was, obviously, going through the changes to KiwiSaver, and they\u2019re quite significant. I identified there are five substantial changes in the amendments or enhancements to the KiwiSaver arrangements. The first one was including a new contribution rate of six, and also 10, percent; reducing the maximum contribution holidays from five to one year so it forces people who want to stop contributing to their KiwiSaver to actually have to make that election to not do that every year, rather than every five years; and changing the name from \u201Ccontribution holiday\u201D to \u201Csavings suspension\u201D because, effectively, people are stopping actually providing for their future retirement. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000482\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022859e13f9-33bb-41bb-b2f0-d848eaf25407\u0022\u003EThe other thing I just now wanted to touch on, in the last little bit of my speech, is the issue around the 65-year-olds opt-in clause of KiwiSaver. I think I\u2019m going to have a colleague who\u2019s going to follow me on this\u2014but it\u2019s vital; if you look at New Zealand, we need people who can invest in vehicles that can help them continue to grow their investments right through their retirement. And the issue around KiwiSaver; it is a cost-effective way to do that and the amendments facilitate that for over-65s. In my view, it\u2019s a great thing, and, hopefully, my colleague\u2019s going to pick up on this. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a6c42c44-3622-4c9c-98b8-793fb5ec15cc\u0022 data-id=\u00227c0b2df663734033889bb1f5db09fbfb\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000483\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a6c42c44-3622-4c9c-98b8-793fb5ec15cc\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00227c0b2df663734033889bb1f5db09fbfb\u0022\u003EIAN McKELVIE (National\u2014Rangit\u012Bkei):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Mr Chair. Well, I\u2019ve been told what to talk about, so that\u2019s easy. I wanted to add to the time that Andrew Bayly\u2019s been talking about KiwiSaver, because it\u2019s an interesting issue, and the issues raised in the changes are also interesting.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000484\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a6c42c44-3622-4c9c-98b8-793fb5ec15cc\u0022\u003EBut just before we get on to that, I want to talk about a side issue, really, in that during the course of the submissions on this bill, we had a youngish man and his mother come and talk to us about, in essence, the disability community and the fact that they may not live for ever and the ability of that person to then withdraw funds early. I know it\u2019s not part of this bill right now, but it very much applies to what was talked about here, and it is an issue that I think\u2014it\u2019s a difficult issue, but it\u2019s an issue that we\u2019ll have to address as a Parliament in due course. His submission was really around the fact that he\u2019d put money into KiwiSaver, he wanted to do some things in his life, and he felt he may not live till he was 65 to withdraw it. That\u2019s quite a challenge. Interestingly, through our electorate offices we get a lot of inquiries about KiwiSaver and the ability of people to be able to, I guess, take some funds and use them to keep themselves alive. My colleague Andrew Bayly talked about it briefly before, and I think it\u2019s probably a rule that needs to be upheld very strongly, because things that happen to you short term change, and they change quickly, and I think it\u2019s essential that people build up savings for later in their lives.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000485\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a6c42c44-3622-4c9c-98b8-793fb5ec15cc\u0022\u003EYou see often in life people who have opted out of superannuation schemes, or, in this case, KiwiSaver, and then later on in life have no option but to live on whatever the Government provides them with, and I think that\u2019s a little bit tragic. I\u2019m very keen on allowing over-65s to opt in to KiwiSaver. It would\u2019ve been quite good if this had been around right from the start, actually, because it would have made a difference\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000486\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bbded2ec-ac25-4a73-a380-3f4d87693084\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002256b7c67ce4184762a4602c2ca6274af9\u0022\u003EHon Stuart Nash\u003C/span\u003E: Bit of self-interest there.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000487\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a6c42c44-3622-4c9c-98b8-793fb5ec15cc\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221c2232967c0940c6b3d04c6c7c4d8480\u0022\u003EIAN McKELVIE\u003C/span\u003E: Well, to be fair, I\u2019m a little bit past that, but, none the less, I do have a KiwiSaver account, and I\u2019m very pleased I do. So I think that\u2019s a very good option as well, and, of course, we\u2019ve got people over that age who work for years and years after that, and we\u2019ve got employers who value the contributions that those people make to their businesses and certainly will continue to pay their share of that contribution. That was an issue that was also discussed in the select committee stage of this bill. It wasn\u2019t made compulsory, as it turns out, but I think it\u2019s an option for later on as well. So there are some issues with that that I think are very positive. I won\u2019t talk about the contributions holiday, although I have talked about it briefly, because my colleague Andrew Bayly talked about that for quite a while during his comments on the bill. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000488\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a6c42c44-3622-4c9c-98b8-793fb5ec15cc\u0022\u003EI\u2019m also very keen on the additional KiwiSaver employee contribution rates, because I think that\u2019s an option, again, that people can use, and it\u2019s a very valuable option to have. I think, interestingly, I\u2019ve always been a bit of the view that I kind of like compulsory superannuation, or a sensible compulsory superannuation. I go back, and I would be one of the few left in the House who would remember the days of\u2014well, it was almost a day actually. We had only a couple of days of compulsory superannuation, but we had the option to run private schemes or public schemes in those days. When that was cancelled, most people cashed up and went. Imagine what New Zealand would look like now had a different decision been made at that time, because it would have been very significant. I think the great value of KiwiSaver or whatever might be introduced in the future is that it encourages people to save and it makes quite a significant contribution to our economy from an investment fund point of view. Again, Andrew Bayly mentioned the amount of money that was involved in that, and it\u2019s very significant.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000489\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a6c42c44-3622-4c9c-98b8-793fb5ec15cc\u0022\u003EI think the other thing that lots of KiwiSaver investors talk about and probably don\u2019t really have a good understanding of is the risk of the drive to get more and more money invested in New Zealand through the KiwiSaver schemes. That actually is quite a high risk, because we do have to have a diverse investment portfolio to make sure that in times of difficulty\u2014and they come about pretty frequently\u2014that investment is protected, because I think it\u2019s most important that we put as much protection around KiwiSaver schemes as we can without, I guess, being too arbitrary about them.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000490\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a6c42c44-3622-4c9c-98b8-793fb5ec15cc\u0022\u003ESo I\u2019m very keen on the KiwiSaver changes and that would be my contribution to that part of the bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002203fd985b-4fb8-4111-ba38-5033a254d962\u0022 data-id=\u0022764860a0f0364ad09177f00b11dc4a75\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000491\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203fd985b-4fb8-4111-ba38-5033a254d962\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022764860a0f0364ad09177f00b11dc4a75\u0022\u003EBRETT HUDSON (National):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Mr Chair. I have a question for the Minister specifically on the KiwiSaver contributions. I refer back to the fundamental intention of even having a KiwiSaver in the first place. It\u2019s that with people saving for their retirement, principally they are the beneficiaries of those retirement savings but society also gains some benefit from reducing pressure on potential top-ups and other supports that people might otherwise require in their retirement if they didn\u2019t have enough of their own resources to spend. So I commend the Minister for adding the 10 percent contribution level in there, because if people are able to put aside that much of their pre-tax income every pay cheque, then I think it\u2019s a very good thing, should they choose to want to do that, that the State makes it easy for them to do so, and ultimately they will benefit incredibly well, one would expect, from that and the State also gets some level of benefit out of that too.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000492\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203fd985b-4fb8-4111-ba38-5033a254d962\u0022\u003EThen I look at the 6 percent, which is clearly a newly added piece, and the natural interpretation one would make is it\u2019s there for someone who can\u2019t quite afford 8 percent but could afford more than 4 percent. Again, that seems extremely reasonable. The extra contribution they make will provide benefit principally to them but also, we can argue, to some extent to the State and other New Zealanders. But that leads then to a question, and the question is: if the whole principle of KiwiSaver is we want people saving for their own retirement because of the personal benefits but also societal benefits, wouldn\u2019t it be better for us to be able to have a regime where as many people as possible have the confidence that they could participate and did so? So the simple question there would be: why, Minister, did you not introduce a 2 percent contribution level?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000493\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bbded2ec-ac25-4a73-a380-3f4d87693084\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022178ddbae43734418a34cb1df5984b989\u0022\u003EHon Stuart Nash\u003C/span\u003E: There is already.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000494\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203fd985b-4fb8-4111-ba38-5033a254d962\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ecc328954ab34f2f80ac35ad4db78199\u0022\u003EBRETT HUDSON\u003C/span\u003E: Well, not according to this legislation, Minister, there isn\u2019t. So if people can\u2019t afford a lower level but could perhaps stretch themselves to 2 percent, that could be the difference between a contributions holiday and making a small contribution into their KiwiSaver. We could all argue, therefore, that we would expect that more New Zealanders would be likely to actually take up the option and to continue to contribute because the legislation in clause 234 points out that \u201CIn section 64(2), replace \u20183%, 4%, or 8%\u2019 with \u20183%, 4%, 6%, 8%, or 10%\u2019.\u201D\u2014because, clearly, 2 percent is not currently an option. But I think it would be a good thing. I\u2019d love to hear the Minister\u2019s view on this, but I think it would be a good thing if we could find a way to accommodate those people for whom 3 percent or more seems a stretch to them, possibly due to other commitments they have, possibly due to some uncertainty about future mortgage rates, or some uncertainty about costs of living or costs of raising children\u2014whatever their particular circumstances may be. If we have a situation where there are New Zealanders who are simply saying, \u201CWell, 3 percent is a little bit of a stretch for me.\u201D, wouldn\u2019t it be a good thing for them and a good thing for New Zealand if we could find a way to bring them into the scheme as active participants, particularly people who might currently be on a long-term contributions holiday\u2014or even if they were, with this law change to therefore have to revalidate that holiday each year, they could still do so.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000495\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203fd985b-4fb8-4111-ba38-5033a254d962\u0022\u003ESo, Minister, I\u2019d like to hear from you whether you would consider that change. It\u2019s a pretty easy Supplementary Order Paper, I would think, to add even at this late stage. We could just add it in. A few more people on the scheme is a good thing. Obviously, I would suggest that the Minister would want to limit the employer\u2019s contribution under the scheme. They wouldn\u2019t be expected, I think, to contribute more than that; although he might have comment on that as well. He might actually feel that there is an argument that could be made that just because the employee is in circumstances that would permit themselves contributing only 2 percent of their pre-tax salary that perhaps their employer\u2014because they won\u2019t change their employment conditions; they won\u2019t change their wage packet. If the employee can\u2019t afford the extra amount, there is potentially an argument that the employer still could. So, Minister, I leave my contribution at this stage at that. I\u2019d love to hear from you on that idea.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022 data-id=\u0022183a3a521f1b4db5894d67d2faf14286\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000496\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022183a3a521f1b4db5894d67d2faf14286\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH (National\u2014Nelson):\u003C/span\u003E It\u2019s a pleasure to take a call on Part 4 of this Taxation (Annual Rates for 2018-19, Modernising Tax Administration, and Remedial Matters) Bill. The issues that I want to raise in some questions to the Minister of Revenue are in respect of the changes that are being made to certain Crown companies and identities with respect to tax application. It may interest the House that the Clerk of the House\u2019s and the House of Representatives\u2019 status in terms of tax is being changed alongside a series of entities in clauses 222 and 224 of the bill. Now, the really important principle that we need to be cautious of in respect of these tax changes is that we ensure that we are not giving public entities some advantage in tax. Now, I\u2019m pleased to advise you that the Clerk\u2019s Office in the House of Representatives doesn\u2019t face too much competition from other activities, and that doesn\u2019t particularly concern me. What does concern me, both in terms of State-owned enterprises, Crown-owned companies, and the changes as they relate to local government companies, is that we\u2019re not providing any tax advantage for a company that is owned by a Crown or local authority in taxation terms as compared with a private company.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000497\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003ECan I give some practical examples: we\u2019ve got councils that are extensively involved in providing water services and in providing rubbish services. We\u2019ve got Crown companies providing services like postal services and courier services, many of which are also provided by the private sector. So if you take my particular community in Nelson, I\u2019ve got a council rubbish service that\u2019s available to ratepayers in my area, but there are also private companies that offer those services. We\u2019d all be familiar that, in the electricity sector, you\u2019ve got Crown-owned companies that provide electricity services, but you\u2019ve also got a large number of companies that are privately owned, and that applies to a huge amount of economic activity that occurs in the community.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000498\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003ESo what I\u2019m interested in is in terms of the changes proposed in clause 222 of this bill but also in terms of clause 224, \u201C(Meaning of term taxable activity)\u201D, to ensure that this Parliament is not giving some advantage to its own companies over those in the private sector. What I want to be assured of by the Minister in the chair, Stuart Nash, is that if you\u2019re a council entity or you\u2019re a Government entity and you\u2019re providing a service out in the public, the changes that are being made to both provisions\u2014the likes of goods and services taxes and other sorts of taxes\u2014are such that you\u2019re not screwing the scrum in favour of the public entities. What I think this Parliament wants to do is ensure that, sure, you can have a council trading entity\u2014for example, take a big company in my own area, Nelmac, which is a local government trading entity that provides all sorts of contracting services\u2014but that is not being treated any differently for tax purposes, income tax, or GST for that matter, as compared with a private sector company, or an electricity company, or any of those sorts of entities. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000499\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003ESo, in clause 222, we were dealing with the question of interpretation. It\u2019s proposed that there be a new schedule of qualifying public-purpose, Crown-controlled companies. The really crisp question that the Minister needs to address in this Part 4 of the bill is to reassure the Parliament and to be absolutely clear that we are not providing any direct or opaque tax advantage for those businesses that happen to be either owned by Government or owned by council activities. When I look at the changes that are being made around the meaning of the term \u201Csupply\u201D and around the issue of what is a \u201Ctaxable activity\u201D, what we want to make sure as a Parliament is that there is that equivalence, whether it be a water service\u2014and, actually, you\u2019d be surprised, Minister, by the number of communities in New Zealand that have a private water company providing water services as well as those that are obviously council and, indeed, some of those that are owned by the State. The issue of tax neutrality as it applies to those trading entities is very important, and with the intention to establish a new schedule in the bill, we would like those questions addressed by the Minister.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000500\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EThe second part of my questions in this very extensive Part 4 are around the points that have been raised by my colleagues in respect of the changes around KiwiSaver. A number of my colleagues have raised concerns, particularly in respect of clauses 230 through to 237, which make changes to the way in which KiwiSaver operates. National is quite supportive of the amendments that enable, for instance, a person to be able to continue to be a member of KiwiSaver after the age of 65. It\u2019s fascinating in an electorate like mine, actually, the number of people that are continuing in employment in that area, but there are issues around the contribution rates, issues around the non-deduction notices, and issues also in respect of the rules of those KiwiSaver schemes that my colleagues have raised questions about, of which we would like answers.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000501\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EThen the last bit that I would really like to focus on is in respect of the changes in Part 4 around the changed tax status of child support. Now, we\u2019ve got over 200,000 New Zealanders who are making contributions around child support. We as a party are very strongly of the view that if you are a parent of a child, then you need to meet your obligations and ensure you provide support for that child up to the age of 19. What I\u2019m interested in is to get some reassurance from the Minister around the sections covered from clause 238 through to clause 242 as to whether this means that the parent that\u2019s receiving the child support payment from the other parent is going to have their tax liability increased. This is quite a complicated area, because you have the income earner paying income tax before they make their child support contributions to their partner. The other partner may well consider the income they receive from their colleague as income for taxable purposes, but, actually, it would work out as a double tax if we then have the receiving parent also having to pay income tax on those.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000502\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E What I\u2019d like to hear from the Minister is some reassurance that through these changes to the Child Support Act, we\u2019re not having the Government taking a greater share of money that is intended for the benefit of the children, particularly with respect to the changes to section 35 of the Child Support Act and the definition of what is a taxable income. The simple question for the Minister: is there going to be any reduction in the amount of net child support that is being received by parents that are receiving funding from a liable parent? We would be disappointed if the taxman was getting in the middle and stopping the money that was intended for the benefit of the child\u2014money on which the earner has already paid income tax\u2014to then have any additional liability as a consequence of the adjusted taxable income that is being amended in that clause. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000503\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EThen, my very last set of questions for the Minister is just in respect of the student loan scheme. It\u2019s an incredibly important scheme that affects over 300,000 New Zealanders. Getting the codes correct in respect of the changes to the student loan scheme is something that needs to be done with care. Again, I would like some reassurance from the Minister that those provisions in this bill, from clause 243 to 249 and the application of the PAYE rules as they affect those students that have got a student loan and that are now earning\u2014that those workers are not going to be disadvantaged. In effect, I\u2019m wanting to know: does this mean that those workers who are having their student loan contributions deducted from their weekly earnings\u2014are we going to see as a consequence of those changes a reduction in those people\u2019s net income? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00228a1cb04e-8a86-44d1-9004-6e158e220339\u0022 data-id=\u0022804bf56defa947afbffe17b0a47bb4c0\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000504\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228a1cb04e-8a86-44d1-9004-6e158e220339\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022804bf56defa947afbffe17b0a47bb4c0\u0022\u003EHon TIM MACINDOE (National\u2014Hamilton West):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Mr Chair, for this opportunity. I must admit that I was a little bit slow in rising to my feet then, not because I didn\u2019t want to take the call, but because I was hoping that the Minister of Revenue would get to his feet and answer some of the questions. He\u2019s just been asked a significant number of important questions on a wide range of topics by my colleague the Hon Dr Nick Smith, but he\u2019s also had a number of questions put to him earlier by other members on our side of the Chamber on important aspects of Part 4. I\u2019d like to make a couple of general comments to give some context and then focus in on another aspect of Part 4 that hasn\u2019t yet been dealt with in relation to ACC. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000505\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228a1cb04e-8a86-44d1-9004-6e158e220339\u0022\u003EI think for those who are listening, it would be a fair observation to say that while there have been some very intelligent and thoughtful contributions, you can hardly call this a debate, because a debate, by its very nature, suggests a level of engagement. I wasn\u2019t able to be in the Chamber for long before dinner, but I was following what I could via the TV when I was in my office and I\u2019ve been in here since the dinner adjournment, and I have yet to hear a single Government contribution on any aspect of this important matter. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000506\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228a1cb04e-8a86-44d1-9004-6e158e220339\u0022\u003EWell, this is important. Tax is the issue du jour for New Zealanders right now. They are deeply concerned in all of our electorates and are talking about tax levels and tax implications, as this Tax Working Group\u2019s proposals are, frankly, causing huge consternation the length and breadth of the country. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000507\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228a1cb04e-8a86-44d1-9004-6e158e220339\u0022\u003ESo I say to the members opposite that it is time that you took a few calls\u2014particularly on this aspect of this bill\u2014and gave us some of your thinking. We are struggling to get any clarity, and while there is a lack of clarity on the future of our tax system\u2014and, in particular, the tax imposition on Kiwi households\u2014that has a very detrimental impact on business confidence and on investment confidence, and, long term, that leads to a real problem in job security and other things that matter for the livelihoods of New Zealanders. So I really implore members opposite to realise how important this is and to get to their feet. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000508\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228a1cb04e-8a86-44d1-9004-6e158e220339\u0022\u003EIf I could just make one other comment on that line, I was hugely proud, as a National member of Parliament, when the Leader of the Opposition earlier this year announced a commitment from the National Party that a future Government will end this long-held grievance that New Zealanders have with bracket creep and that we will index taxation thresholds to the rate of inflation. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000509\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a434482b-7ac1-4862-9ce7-13e63289dee3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229a55f408aa2a4ea4bbc47786e66c541c\u0022\u003ECHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe)\u003C/span\u003E: We actually dealt with that in Part 1. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000510\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228a1cb04e-8a86-44d1-9004-6e158e220339\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226aa64727146d4c6884bfbbcaca68c999\u0022\u003EHon TIM MACINDOE\u003C/span\u003E: Well, I realise that, sir. But, as I say, I\u2019m trying to put some context around this debate because these are important matters. So, anyway, let me get on to Part 4, and\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000511\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002236c8c596-d890-4cca-9767-1eeb5c9ce710\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022493d77af49c44fdf93efd6033e6b0190\u0022\u003EDarroch Ball\u003C/span\u003E: Back to the subject. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000512\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228a1cb04e-8a86-44d1-9004-6e158e220339\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226c03668f0215480d9c52bb9a2c60f757\u0022\u003EHon TIM MACINDOE\u003C/span\u003E: Well, I just say to the members who are interjecting that the approach of Government members at the moment reminds me of the innkeeper in Victor Hugo\u2019s Les Mis\u00E9rables, who is constantly looking for new ways of trying to extract money out of hard-working Kiwi taxpayers and workers, and they, over that side, should be doing their level best to help them. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000513\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228a1cb04e-8a86-44d1-9004-6e158e220339\u0022\u003EBut let me get on to Part 4. One of the aspects is that it deals with\u2014well, we\u2019ve been hearing about KiwiSaver enhancements and child support measures, and the student loan scheme, which Dr Smith has just concentrated on, which is hugely important. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000514\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022919a8e8d-afaf-4342-ad6f-71cbb6024544\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f1629b89ad8940b4907c1620b8927fd7\u0022\u003EClayton Mitchell\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019m glad you spent 3\u00BD minutes talking about everything else. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000515\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228a1cb04e-8a86-44d1-9004-6e158e220339\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228d3aa9535fa84a6c8dc06522be76a85a\u0022\u003EHon TIM MACINDOE\u003C/span\u003E: Well, it\u2019s 3\u00BD minutes so far, Mr Mitchell, that we have failed to hear from you, and I\u2019m very happy to take a further call\u2014very happy to take a further call\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000516\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bfc59a4c71d24209bef5806cd95cdb81\u0022\u003EHon Dr Nick Smith\u003C/span\u003E: You could yield. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000517\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228a1cb04e-8a86-44d1-9004-6e158e220339\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221c285b41cf00471bb055f30c4ea31204\u0022\u003EHon TIM MACINDOE\u003C/span\u003E: I could yield. If Mr Mitchell would like me to, I\u2019d be happy to yield. But I would like the Minister\u2014because I know he\u2019s been taking a few notes, and he is the Minister of Revenue, so we\u2019ve got the right Minister in the chair right now\u2014to discuss some matters of concern to Kiwi taxpayers, such as anomalies around the tax treatment of backdated payments from ACC for attendant care. Now, this is a huge issue out in the population. There are many wonderful people looking after long-term ACC clients who, in many cases, are absolutely dependent on care from other people. Therefore, it\u2019s in everybody\u2019s interests to ensure that the tax regime that surrounds the payment for those providing that attendant care is fair and appropriate. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000518\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228a1cb04e-8a86-44d1-9004-6e158e220339\u0022\u003ENow, when we look at the bill, we see that there are some remedies to issues that have been identified, and let me just focus on them. There\u2019s a new clause 123B, which would mean that reimbursement payments for attendant care are considered exempt income, including those covering an earlier income year. Possibly a little bit difficult for the average punter listening to understand, but maybe the Minister would like to explain exactly how that position has been\u2014[Time expired]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bbded2ec-ac25-4a73-a380-3f4d87693084\u0022 data-id=\u0022f54a51c820714c4faad9ddaa95a37cfa\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000519\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bbded2ec-ac25-4a73-a380-3f4d87693084\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f54a51c820714c4faad9ddaa95a37cfa\u0022\u003EHon STUART NASH (Minister of Revenue):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you very much, Mr Chair. First of all, Mr Tim Macindoe, Part 1, clause 123B\u2014clause 123B is actually in Part 3 and it\u2019s been dealt with, and the reason that we haven\u2019t got members on this side of the Chamber standing up and debating this is because we agree with it. There\u2019s nothing to talk about. Of course, the members aren\u2019t going to talk about what might be going forward, because what might be going forward isn\u2019t part of this bill, and the debate around the bill at committee stage has to be on the part in question. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000520\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bbded2ec-ac25-4a73-a380-3f4d87693084\u0022\u003ESo, to answer a couple more questions, Brett Hudson talked about\u2014he asked why we couldn\u2019t go down to 2 percent. So we\u2019ve got \u201C3%, 4%, 6%, 8%, or 10%\u201D. Well, there are about 2.8 million Kiwis in KiwiSaver at the moment, so I think there\u2019s a vast majority of Kiwis who have actually made a conscious decision to invest in KiwiSaver. Keep in mind the employer contribution sits at 3 percent, and we think that the minimum amount that an employee should contribute is the same as the employer contribution\u2014hence 3 percent. So we\u2019re going to leave it at that. I think including the 6 percent and the 10 percent\u2014you know, that\u2019s a good move that was supported by the Finance and Expenditure Committee, and that\u2019s the reason we\u2019ve done that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000521\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bbded2ec-ac25-4a73-a380-3f4d87693084\u0022\u003EDr Smith, clauses 222 and 224\u2014this isn\u2019t about providing any form of competitive advantage in any way, shape, or form to any particular entity over another. The policy intent here is about public entities, so there\u2019s no competitive advantage in that space. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000522\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bbded2ec-ac25-4a73-a380-3f4d87693084\u0022\u003EChild support\u2014I can give you an unequivocal answer that this will not mean any reduction in child support payments in any way, shape, or form. In fact, under the Labour Party\u2019s Families Package last year, there were about 375,000 families who were, on average, about $75 a week better off. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000523\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b4c16c470d7e43b4a5300a09c1e2da30\u0022\u003EHon Dr Nick Smith\u003C/span\u003E: Child support? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000524\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bbded2ec-ac25-4a73-a380-3f4d87693084\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f61a2c7f7b254a46acc87ad0d325fd8c\u0022\u003EHon STUART NASH\u003C/span\u003E: No, no\u2014just generally. So we are not in the habit of taking money off those who are the most vulnerable. I would agree with you, Dr Smith, I think, when you said that often those receiving child support are the most vulnerable in our community. So, no, no\u2014you can have my absolute assurance that this is not about taking money off those who would have received it anyway. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000525\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bbded2ec-ac25-4a73-a380-3f4d87693084\u0022\u003EThen you also talked about student loans. All this is doing is it\u2019s changing the definition of \u201Cspecial tax code\u201D to \u201Ctailored tax code\u201D. This is part of the Inland Revenue Department\u2019s Business Transformation programme. What a tailored tax code is is that an individual, in fact, can call up and can outline the amount of income they\u2019re getting\u2014and this is certainly the case if you work in two or more jobs\u2014and you will get a unique or a tailored tax code for your specific situation. So it\u2019s bringing the tax system into the 21st century around business transformation. It won\u2019t make any difference. In fact, it\u2019ll go a long way to ensuring that those who have got a student loan, who are now working and have repayment obligations, are actually repaying the right amount. So it\u2019s all good from that respect.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000526\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bbded2ec-ac25-4a73-a380-3f4d87693084\u0022\u003EYou had one other question. I can\u2019t remember. Was that all the questions? I think that was all the questions.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000527\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002236c8c596-d890-4cca-9767-1eeb5c9ce710\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f53c4da3c02e4edd90bd25687a31634c\u0022\u003EDarroch Ball\u003C/span\u003E: Well answered. Very thorough.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000528\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bbded2ec-ac25-4a73-a380-3f4d87693084\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002287f0bd6357fa459d94c0cdd2051a90a1\u0022\u003EHon STUART NASH\u003C/span\u003E: Very thorough. But I must admit it was disappointing when we had a former Minister stand up for five minutes and not talk about the bill at all. Maybe they\u2019ve run out of things to say\u2014maybe they\u2019ve run out of things to say. But anyway, that\u2019s my contribution.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224d83c8a5-2f48-4991-9c45-b1a6060daedd\u0022 data-id=\u0022094340f1701249b7923fba7af43b1b5b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000529\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224d83c8a5-2f48-4991-9c45-b1a6060daedd\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022094340f1701249b7923fba7af43b1b5b\u0022\u003EMAUREEN PUGH (National):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you for the call, Mr Chair. I take the opportunity to stand and speak to the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2018-19, Modernising Tax Administration, and Remedial Matters) Bill in its committee stage this evening. I think my contribution is probably going to be shorter than the title.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000530\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224d83c8a5-2f48-4991-9c45-b1a6060daedd\u0022\u003EWe all know that this bill is an omnibus bill, and it does impact on several Acts. There\u2019s no argument on this side of the Chamber that we do need to modernise our taxation system and deal with the taxation rates for the year. As many of my colleagues have mentioned this afternoon, we actually do believe that there has been a lost opportunity in this bill to leave money in the pockets of Kiwis rather than adopting the tax and spend policies that this Government is so set on. But we are not supporting this bill from the Government, which does tax hard-working Kiwis as though they\u2019re a bottomless piggy bank and then goes on to fund untargeted and ill-thought-through policies.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000531\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224d83c8a5-2f48-4991-9c45-b1a6060daedd\u0022\u003EBut I\u2019m going to turn my attention, also, to Part 4, which relates to the Child Support Act 1991, and in particular to clause 239, section 35(6), where the proposed bill talks about the role of the commissioner. Now, the section 35 amendment replaces (6) with \u201CIf a person\u2019s taxable income for a tax year has not been assessed, the Commissioner must determine the person\u2019s taxable income on the basis of the income and any other particulars known to the Commissioner.\u201D So my question to the Minister in the chair tonight is: what are those other particulars likely to be, and how will they come to the commissioner\u2019s attention if they are not recorded as income that is available to the commissioner? The reason that this is important is because those assessments that are made can have quite dire impacts on a liable parent who is liable for child support payments. I think I can safely assume that there would be very few MPs in this Parliament that have not had a constituent case where child support payments have had a crippling impact on a parent and they are seeking some relief. So, with this in mind, it would be helpful if the Minister in the chair could comment on whether he believes there is an adequate process for an appeal around these determinations that can be made by the commissioner, and that they are made under this clause 239. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000532\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224d83c8a5-2f48-4991-9c45-b1a6060daedd\u0022\u003EMy other point I\u2019d like to make regarding this proposed replacement to section 35(6) relates to the commissioner making determinations on a person\u2019s taxable income. Is this an activity that is likely to be delegated, and if it is to be delegated, what are those delegations likely to look like? I imagine that they will have to be, because it\u2019s unlikely that the commissioner himself will be able to manage this without the delegations being in place. But it\u2019s important that we\u2019re clear about who will be making those determinations and undertaking that role on behalf of the commissioner, because the flow-on effects of that are life changing for a liable parent. Now, I\u2019m not suggesting for one minute that we soften up on the approach to child support payments but, in the Government\u2019s own words, we do need to be fair. If it\u2019s not deemed to be fair by the liable parent, then there does need to be a suitable process that can be followed to reach resolution, especially when that outcome is determined by the commissioner, and that determination has been made.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000533\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224d83c8a5-2f48-4991-9c45-b1a6060daedd\u0022\u003EI think it\u2019s also appropriate that I use the opportunity to mention the huge investment in technology that\u2019s been made\u2014billions of dollars, in fact\u2014that has gone into the Business Transformation programme that has allowed the treatment of tax to be easier for users and to allow people less time for compliance and costs, and certainly less time in settling their tax bills. We, certainly on this side of the Chamber, support the introduction of the automatic tax refunds. Thank you, Mr Chair.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022859e13f9-33bb-41bb-b2f0-d848eaf25407\u0022 data-id=\u002296489eb9d27e48808abf368bf07a8abb\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000534\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022859e13f9-33bb-41bb-b2f0-d848eaf25407\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002296489eb9d27e48808abf368bf07a8abb\u0022\u003EANDREW BAYLY (National\u2014Hunua):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Mr Chair. One of the important parts of Part 4 deals with securitisations. I know members of the committee were very vexed about this issue because it is an important funding instrument for businesses and also for people to be able to invest in those types of businesses to enable them to fund their operations. I know some people are not aware of securitisations\u2014what they entail\u2014so it might be worthwhile just recapping that. I\u2019m hoping I\u2019m going to get someone to actually stand up on the other side and talk more about this because we, on this side, are just poised to hear from the Government on these matters.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000535\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022859e13f9-33bb-41bb-b2f0-d848eaf25407\u0022\u003EA securitisation is where you take an asset\u2014and it might come with an income stream\u2014and you put that asset into a separate vehicle, and then, basically, you can sell off the rights to that income stream. The way that the Act is currently written, it allows those types of arrangements for financial institutions\u2014so banks are a classic. They might have a motor car loan book, as an example, that has an income stream from the interest it earns from those people who\u2019ve bought cars, and those types of instruments can be set up, and that\u2019s, effectively, what securitisation is. But where the Act is quite deficient is it doesn\u2019t allow for non-financial institutions. I\u2019ll give you the reference if you\u2019d like, Minister. So this is clause 213\u2014there\u2019s a whole lot of subclauses in there\u2014and it actually covers some other clauses as well.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000536\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bbded2ec-ac25-4a73-a380-3f4d87693084\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e3b6cdd4917a4fb1a8dca85d2fa7c30d\u0022\u003EHon Stuart Nash\u003C/span\u003E: It\u2019s Part 3.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000537\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022859e13f9-33bb-41bb-b2f0-d848eaf25407\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002247f44fe262c84ac890ff3cb6e0084b18\u0022\u003EANDREW BAYLY\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, I\u2019m very glad to help you\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000538\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bbded2ec-ac25-4a73-a380-3f4d87693084\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225d717e0ce24d4b37ba245e674ef622a5\u0022\u003EHon Stuart Nash\u003C/span\u003E: That\u2019s Part 3.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000539\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022859e13f9-33bb-41bb-b2f0-d848eaf25407\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c25ebcc93508483297052dfec94fdf83\u0022\u003EANDREW BAYLY\u003C/span\u003E: No, it\u2019s not. It carries on through.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000540\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022859e13f9-33bb-41bb-b2f0-d848eaf25407\u0022\u003ESo the securitisation issue\u2014how this is dealt with is important because, without the ability to do this and allow companies to fund those types of operations, it becomes an impediment, and because non-financial institutions are currently precluded from doing it, this Act allows this to take place. The big impediment to it is making sure that these securitisation vehicles remain tax neutral, and at the moment they\u2019re not. So part of the changes were, basically, to allow the deductibility of it to stay within the group. And, in terms of the tax position, if, on the sale of the assets, which is normally set up into a special purpose vehicle that will be separated from the income flow that is sold and from the parent company so that if there\u2019s a bankruptcy or any other things like that, then you couldn\u2019t have recourse\u2014it was a non-recourse type of funding.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000541\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022859e13f9-33bb-41bb-b2f0-d848eaf25407\u0022\u003EThat type of structure is what is envisaged, but the Act was very much around making sure that the tax consequences of that were actually tax neutral. I think the key thing about this is\u2014the most relevant situation is\u2014around trade receivables, which often want to be used by corporates who are using this mechanism out and about to actually fund their operations. I\u2019m talking about large corporates that often may be listed on the stock market. Therefore, by doing this, it provides a mechanism whereby our companies can access additional financial markets and also support their operations.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000542\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022859e13f9-33bb-41bb-b2f0-d848eaf25407\u0022\u003EI think, overall, the issue around this\u2014and, I think, the prime thing\u2014is to make sure that we\u2019re not creating a tax advantage for these types of instruments, which are, obviously, very complicated instruments. But, at the same time, we are ensuring that there\u2019s flexibility around those structures. There was a whole stack of submissions on the issue from a whole range of professional firms. They all agreed with the changes. We probably landed in a good place, but I think, from the general public\u2019s perspective\u2014and I\u2019d like assurance from the Minister that where we\u2019ve landed in terms of coming up with a tax-neutral situation is actually of paramount importance, and we\u2019ve actually arrived at that position.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000543\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022859e13f9-33bb-41bb-b2f0-d848eaf25407\u0022\u003EThe other stuff I want to just talk about is the issue around land tainting rules of Housing New Zealand. This is very important because this is part of the Government\u2019s drive with KiwiSaver, and without these rules KiwiSaver is under significant threat, if it\u2019s not already. Of course, we know KiwiSaver is well behind its own target of building 1,000 homes this year. I think it\u2019s 54 at the moment. But that\u2014[Time expired]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002203fd985b-4fb8-4111-ba38-5033a254d962\u0022 data-id=\u002204d072fc542f44e688a59e84406e1e26\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000544\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203fd985b-4fb8-4111-ba38-5033a254d962\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002204d072fc542f44e688a59e84406e1e26\u0022\u003EBRETT HUDSON (National):\u003C/span\u003E Mr Chair, thank you. This is going to be a very brief call. I thank the Minister for answering the question I put to him a little while earlier about KiwiSaver contributions and why not a lower threshold at 2 percent.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000545\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203fd985b-4fb8-4111-ba38-5033a254d962\u0022\u003EThe Minister, in his answer, said\u2014and I have to paraphrase a little as, of course, the Hansard isn\u2019t out yet. But the Minister, in his answer, said that at the moment there are around 2.9 million people in KiwiSaver and, therefore, that appeared to evidence that the 3 percent threshold was fine. Well, I believe the rough number the Minister used of 2.9 million people is the number of people enrolled in KiwiSaver. And we well know that the number of people enrolled in KiwiSaver is not equal to the number of people making regular contributions to KiwiSaver. If the number of people not making regular contributions to KiwiSaver were significant, that would in itself\u2014I would contend\u2014be a very good sign that, perhaps, the current lowest threshold at 3 percent is not low enough.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000546\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203fd985b-4fb8-4111-ba38-5033a254d962\u0022\u003ESo my question to the Minister is quite simple: if there are around 2.9 million people in KiwiSaver, how many of them are not making regular contributions at this point in time? Thank you, Mr Chair.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a1f7bbd1-b6ae-41c0-963b-dbe1251f5540\u0022 data-id=\u0022d1add4008d0e4d729a9ee0f061e3a5d5\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000547\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a1f7bbd1-b6ae-41c0-963b-dbe1251f5540\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d1add4008d0e4d729a9ee0f061e3a5d5\u0022\u003EKIERAN McANULTY (Junior Whip\u2014Labour):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u002245a7047c4190403f86590fa915fa3af4\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 63\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 57\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000548\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 188 in the name of the Hon Stuart Nash to Part 4 be agreed to.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00228a10089e953945a5996149fa93c7135b\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 63\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 57\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00221b7e5ecade974cd3b838f57a85113bb1\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That Part 4 as amended be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 63\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 57\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EPart 4 as amended agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000549\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 188 in the name of the Hon Stuart Nash to Schedule 1 be agreed to.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u002276cc1ae4c74e45659c0d6d78c6a6b5cd\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 63\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 57\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00226311d7f8cfa24d6abfbc6379ee7aed59\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That Schedule 1 as amended be agreed \u00A0to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 63\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 57\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESchedule 1 as amended agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022b06af44b93f74a9781f7305e14c2d015\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That Schedule 1B be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 63\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 57\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESchedule 1B agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00228695c4f4638345b28af46e5d6e16b495\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That Schedule 2 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 63\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 57\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESchedule 2 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022e5ae6759e2144bbfa98bf9b169d1afa0\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That Schedule 3 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 63\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 57\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESchedule 3 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u002211eeba88c3334f53834d5859526e2c2c\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That Schedule 4 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 63\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 57\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESchedule 4 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022fa09fe3cb9ce4fed81d61dc394983d44\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That Schedule 5 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 63\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 57\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESchedule 5 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000550\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 188 in the name of the Hon Stuart Nash to Schedule 6 be agreed to.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022a31e1c9535204c7a96420345c41590ce\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 63\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 57\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u002272ef7aaf83534923843e28229fde3c4c\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That Schedule 6 as amended be agreed \u00A0to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 63\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 57\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESchedule 6 as amended agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000551\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022a25c1fcfe6d64cb08982aa8297e16601\u0022\u003EClauses 1 and 2\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022859e13f9-33bb-41bb-b2f0-d848eaf25407\u0022 data-id=\u00224efc60190bf14639a342d42fac68e225\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000552\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022859e13f9-33bb-41bb-b2f0-d848eaf25407\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224efc60190bf14639a342d42fac68e225\u0022\u003EANDREW BAYLY (National\u2014Hunua):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you very much, Mr Chair. While the title\u2019s self-explanatory, albeit rather long, the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2018-19, Modernising Tax Administration, and Remedial Matters) Bill 2018\u2014anyway, I\u2019m not going to go on about the title; it is as it is. I think the much more significant issue is around the commencement date, and, obviously, clause 2 sets those out, and there\u2019s a myriad of them, going over a couple of pages. But I think the context for the commencement date of this legislation is actually quite important, because while some of the matters covered in this bill, and it is an omnibus bill, cover aspects such as fixing up old pieces of legislation, etc., the key part of it is around what\u2019s going to happen with the new tax arrangements with the IRD as the IRD is rolling out its new system. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000553\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022859e13f9-33bb-41bb-b2f0-d848eaf25407\u0022\u003EAs I\u2019ve spoken about before, I think the key issue, in the context of this discussion around the commencement date, is that we\u2019ve had one million taxpayers who have had a relationship with the IRD, and we have all their contact details and, principally, their emails, their addresses, and their phone numbers so that if the IRD wants to contact them, they\u2019ve got the option of an email or they can actually send a letter or, in the last situation, that can actually call them, and that\u2019s good\u2014that\u2019s fine and dandy. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000554\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022859e13f9-33bb-41bb-b2f0-d848eaf25407\u0022\u003EThe second thing is, though, we\u2019ve got one million of these taxpayers who have up to now been principally serviced by 30 personal tax summary intermediaries (PTSIs), and they\u2019ve always had the relationship with the intermediary not with the IRD system or the IRD department itself. And that information needs to be transferred across to the IRD, and no doubt that is taking place. Whether that will have occurred at all by this commencement date for this component, 1 April, is another question and something I\u2019d like to hear from the Minister. But there are 30 of those PTSIs in place, and some are big and some are small. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000555\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022859e13f9-33bb-41bb-b2f0-d848eaf25407\u0022\u003EBut the most worrying component is the million taxpayers who\u2019ve never had any dealings with the IRD\u2014or actually, in fact, with anyone\u2014because they\u2019ve never really had to file a tax return, and that\u2019s the issue that worries me about the commencement date in this piece of legislation, because the IRD, the department, has actually estimated that about 1.67 million people will get a refund. And that\u2019s great. But if you can\u2019t send the refund to the right people or the right address or whatever, that\u2019s going to sit in abeyance, held by the IRD, and there\u2019s an obligation to pay that to taxpayers.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000556\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022859e13f9-33bb-41bb-b2f0-d848eaf25407\u0022\u003EBut the more important side is on the debt, the issuing of the\u2014well, the situation where about 263,000 taxpayers are going to get a bill for the first time, will get a bill for tax for the current year. But of those it\u2019s estimated about 115,000 will be receiving a tax bill for the first time. And I think here is the issue about putting this in place. We\u2019ve got a computer system that\u2019s coming into play now. It was due to start the transfer from FIRST to the new system called START on 23 April. That\u2019s already been delayed. There\u2019s been some testing of that system, as I understand, but using a sort of a batch system, but the metal is going to hit the road from 1 April. And when you put that in the context of when these refunds should be paid back by the IRD to taxpayers\u2014normally by about June; in just a few months\u2019 time\u2014the capability of the IRD to be able to do that is of concern. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000557\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022859e13f9-33bb-41bb-b2f0-d848eaf25407\u0022\u003EAnd I think, just going forward in terms of that tax liability that\u2019s going to be incumbent on taxpayers to meet, if they\u2019re not aware of their obligations\u2014and many don\u2019t read papers, don\u2019t read emails, and don\u2019t have contact, and are simply out of the system\u2014they will be building up penalties, and we know they become very significant: 1 percent after the first day and 4 percent rising thereafter. And those over time become very, very significant. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000558\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022859e13f9-33bb-41bb-b2f0-d848eaf25407\u0022\u003ESo I think the question around the capability to service this\u2014we know that there\u2019s a bigger call centre; over 300-odd people, but is it enough? And are there enough people in the IRD to be able to handle the incredible amount of additional information that\u2019s going to come\u2014not monthly from employers, but from now on out weekly, because most people pay salaries and wages weekly\u2014a big concern.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a6c42c44-3622-4c9c-98b8-793fb5ec15cc\u0022 data-id=\u0022352f5c716da64d39be2291068bf74bb8\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000559\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a6c42c44-3622-4c9c-98b8-793fb5ec15cc\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022352f5c716da64d39be2291068bf74bb8\u0022\u003EIAN McKELVIE (National\u2014Rangit\u012Bkei):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Mr Chair. I just want to take a brief call, not so much on the title, because it would be hardly likely to name the title of this with anything other than what it is, but I did want to take a call on what is a slightly unusual\u2014well, in my experience, a little bit unusual, in that the commencement date is the commencement date, but interesting, there\u2019s a retrospective piece in this bill, which deals with the prospective of purchase of bloodstock. It\u2019s quite an unusual addendum to the legislation in that respect in that it allows, irrespective of the commencement date of the bill, that these are treated retrospectively back to, effectively, the date of purchase prior, provided it is after 1 January 2019. I thought it was worth mentioning in this brief call I\u2019m going to take on this part of the bill because it is a bit unusual and, as I said\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000560\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022859e13f9-33bb-41bb-b2f0-d848eaf25407\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b3c9bba271c045729d0969ba9482ea44\u0022\u003EAndrew Bayly\u003C/span\u003E: Call it a Winston Peters special.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000561\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a6c42c44-3622-4c9c-98b8-793fb5ec15cc\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022806a5f7502a641e1abb4fed922e5af78\u0022\u003EIAN McKELVIE\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, you could do too. But as I said earlier in a contribution to an earlier part of the bill, it was a piece of legislation that was designed to achieve something which it clearly hasn\u2019t achieved initially. It may well do in the future, but we\u2019ll see. But I just thought I\u2019d take a very brief call to just point out the fact that it is unusual and that that part of the legislation\u2014in fact, clause 133B and from there on\u2014would have become, I guess, effectively, treated as retrospective legislation, and anyone who purchased a yearling prior to the implementation of this bill could have worked to claim that tax exemption on it. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000562\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a6c42c44-3622-4c9c-98b8-793fb5ec15cc\u0022\u003ESo Mr Chair, that was just the brief contribution I wish to make to that part of the bill. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002203fd985b-4fb8-4111-ba38-5033a254d962\u0022 data-id=\u0022a5c2996cafbf4c42831d5faf4c81261c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000563\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203fd985b-4fb8-4111-ba38-5033a254d962\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a5c2996cafbf4c42831d5faf4c81261c\u0022\u003EBRETT HUDSON (National):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Mr Chair. Unlike my esteemed colleague Mr McKelvie, I think this bill does merit a name change because the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2018-19, Modernising Tax Administration, and Remedial Matters) Bill 2018 may seem applicable to some, although as Mr McKelvie has just pointed out, with all the retrospective elements of the commencement date it doesn\u2019t seem quite right\u2014that 2018-19 doesn\u2019t describe the effect of the bill. But, actually, I think there\u2019s an opportunity here. We could rename this the \u201CTaxation (Simplification of Taxation) Bill 2018\u201D, because I am aware\u2014I am aware\u2014that there is a Standing Order that does prevent irony in question time in questions, but I\u2019m not aware of a Standing Oder that prevents irony in the naming of bills, because if there\u2019s one thing that this monstrosity\u2014I mean, carefully crafted document\u2014is not, it is not a simplification of our taxation system. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000564\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203fd985b-4fb8-4111-ba38-5033a254d962\u0022\u003EAnd, after all, if we want compliance both in personal income tax and business tax and all the vast and myriad ways that taxation touches on the lives of people, of businesses, of trusts, then surely simplification would be a goal that we should set ourselves to, and particularly we should set the Inland Revenue Department to? Certainly their Business Transformation programme was supposed to be all about that simplification. Perhaps we could send a message? I think the Rt Hon Winston Peters once used that term\u2014\u201Csend a message\u201D. We could rename this bill the \u201CTaxation (Simplification of Taxation) Bill 2018\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000565\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203fd985b-4fb8-4111-ba38-5033a254d962\u0022\u003EThe other part that is very relevant, and Mr McKelvie did raise this, looking through this, there are just so many different commencement dates here. For a member of the public\u2014and, let\u2019s face it, they are the people who will actually be affected by this if it is enacted, and based on previous votes tonight it looks like that is a danger for them\u2014when, and if, this is enacted, it is poor old New Zealanders who will have to deal with this, and the only ones who are going to win out of this particular commencement clause are accountants and lawyers.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000566\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203fd985b-4fb8-4111-ba38-5033a254d962\u0022\u003EMy guess, as Mr McKelvie noted, and if it wasn\u2019t for a case of certain retrospectivity\u2014by the way, Mr Chair, having spent a short but very interesting four and a bit years in this Chamber, I can well recall when members of every other party would scream blue murder at the merest hint of retrospectivity in legislation that the Government brought before the House. Like sheep, mild; not a mutter, not a murmur, not a thing. I mean, this is an absolute myriad of strangeness to try and work through. I think, as Mr McKelvie pointed out, maybe some of it has got to do with making sure that good-looking horses that were good looking a little while ago are still going to give their owners some sort of tax credit.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000567\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203fd985b-4fb8-4111-ba38-5033a254d962\u0022\u003EI think there is still time. The bill is not through the committee stage; the Minister could support an amendment to change the name to the \u201CTaxation (Simplification of Tax) Bill\u201D and perhaps something\u2014anything, quite frankly; it\u2019s such a mess\u2014to simplify these commencement clauses, because I\u2019d argue that this is a difficult thing for New Zealanders to try to get their heads around, unless they are charging by the hour as tax consultants, accountants, or lawyers.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022394bbfc98144423d839b908b34121d6d\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That clause 1 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 63\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 57\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EClause 1 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000568\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 188 in the name of the Hon Stuart Nash to clause 2 be agreed to.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022d351b6bbc9b4471bb73fb010ddc92087\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 63\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 57\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000569\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 189 in the name of the Hon Stuart Nash to clause 2 be agreed to.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00221986f2b1fd49467fb7aa150407cb1462\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 111\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 55; New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Ross.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 8\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EGreen Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022d298c6876c3447cbba4781c502dd7668\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That clause 2 as amended be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 63\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 57\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EClause 2 as amended agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000570\u0022\u003EHouse resumed.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000571\u0022\u003EBill reported with amendment.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000572\u0022\u003EReport adopted.\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022\u003EBills\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000573\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022c59cb274e5364d1f84acaf602a2a0874\u0022\u003ECrimes Amendment Bill\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000574\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022edc692c9e79e44edbbef7faa873f3204\u0022\u003EThird Reading\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000575\u0022\u003EDebate resumed from 21 February.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022c0e0c86e-e14d-4daa-9bc8-1b5a3d7defeb\u0022 data-id=\u00227d134822ca624a2ebe3fa3c63a57b6e5\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000576\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c0e0c86e-e14d-4daa-9bc8-1b5a3d7defeb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00227d134822ca624a2ebe3fa3c63a57b6e5\u0022\u003EASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams)\u003C/span\u003E: When we were last reading the Crimes Amendment Bill, Greg O\u2019Connor had nine minutes and 16 seconds remaining to speak. It appears that the member will not take his call.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002257e41e9d-285b-4fb3-847d-a63820ae7137\u0022 data-id=\u00226083bd908b134b8eb1fead3a3907441f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000577\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002257e41e9d-285b-4fb3-847d-a63820ae7137\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226083bd908b134b8eb1fead3a3907441f\u0022\u003ECHRIS BISHOP (National\u2014Hutt South):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you very much, Madam Assistant Speaker.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000578\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022dbaac12b-3efa-4d95-a08d-f0f637a48bab\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ba69bc4e268749d6a1a74522e35f7891\u0022\u003EChl\u00F6e Swarbrick\u003C/span\u003E: Go, Bish!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000579\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002257e41e9d-285b-4fb3-847d-a63820ae7137\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b94ac2e7e47c4023979b10e7ba3a0954\u0022\u003ECHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: I hear the good member Chl\u00F6e Swarbrick saying, \u201CGo, Bish!\u201D I intend to go, and I intend to go quickly, because this is a sensible piece of legislation that the National Party has supported the whole way through. We\u2019ve canvassed in the committee stages, both at the Justice Committee and also the committee the whole House, the changes around blasphemous libel, which, of course, is outdated and archaic. We support its repeal. Frankly, I think Parliament could have moved a bit quicker in the past to get rid of blasphemous libel from the statute book; although, having said that, the last prosecution, I think from memory, was in 1907\u2014so one could say that after 112 years, it was not going to be used any more.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000580\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228a1cb04e-8a86-44d1-9004-6e158e220339\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228c42af209f6b4b5f98a91f17fdf0717d\u0022\u003EHon Tim Macindoe\u003C/span\u003E: Was Mr McKelvie in the courtroom?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000581\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002257e41e9d-285b-4fb3-847d-a63820ae7137\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022dce733f7b82e466495aba48cab305f72\u0022\u003ECHRIS BISHOP\u003C/span\u003E: Mr McKelvie was not in the courtroom. That\u2019s a gross insult to Mr McKelvie, Mr Macindoe. You\u2019re going to live to regret that remark. The manager of the parliamentary cricket team does a superb job.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000582\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002257e41e9d-285b-4fb3-847d-a63820ae7137\u0022\u003ESo we support the blasphemous libel changes, and we also support the other changes around the year and a day rule. My colleague Nick Smith has, I believe, attempted unsuccessfully to move some changes around that at the committee of the whole House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000583\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002257e41e9d-285b-4fb3-847d-a63820ae7137\u0022\u003EWe support the sensible changes around spousal immunity from being an accessory to a crime after the fact. This is one of those, I was going to call it, \u201Ctidy-up\u201D pieces of legislation; I think that\u2019s a bit unfair. It is a piece of legislation that does a bit more than tidying up; it does make some relatively minor but chunky changes to the Crimes Act.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000584\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002257e41e9d-285b-4fb3-847d-a63820ae7137\u0022\u003EI think it\u2019s good that our criminal law is passed with unanimity or at least some cross-party consensus. It\u2019s the criminal code for New Zealand\u2014or, at least, the partial code for the criminal law. The National Opposition supports the bill, and we commend it to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002236c8c596-d890-4cca-9767-1eeb5c9ce710\u0022 data-id=\u0022ef713f88281e45e6bbbe8fec4ce82835\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000585\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002236c8c596-d890-4cca-9767-1eeb5c9ce710\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ef713f88281e45e6bbbe8fec4ce82835\u0022\u003EDARROCH BALL (NZ First):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. It\u2019s a pleasure to rise on behalf of New Zealand First in support of the Crimes Amendment Bill in this third reading. The bill does three main things. It repeals three provisions, and those provisions are repealed because\u2014and it has been canvassed widely over the past three readings and committee of the whole House\u2014they are outdated, and one of the important things within a robust democracy is that the population and the country and the people of the country have trust in the justice system. One of those things, in order to have that, is that they understand and they trust that their justice system is modern, up to date, and applicable.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000586\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002236c8c596-d890-4cca-9767-1eeb5c9ce710\u0022\u003EThe three provisions that this bill will be repealing are no longer applicable within modern-day society. Those three things are removal of the provision of a spousal or civil union immunity from prosecution for accessory after the fact, blasphemous libel, and the year and a day after rule. I also want to add that there was an amendment Supplementary Order Paper added that creates two new offences to address livestock rustling, which was added in the committee of the whole House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000587\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002236c8c596-d890-4cca-9767-1eeb5c9ce710\u0022\u003EI\u2019d just like to say, in this short speech, that, unfortunately, this was intended to be a non-controversial piece of legislation and moved through the House, but, unfortunately, there was an individual that decided to take a very serious matter, which was the one year and a day rule, and try and gain some political points and political manoeuvring out of it. It\u2019s unfortunate that that occurred. I\u2019d like to say, for people that have been following this bill through the House, that Minister Andrew Little actually not only handled that issue well but also gave a very impassioned speech directly to the families of the victims who died in the CTV Building. Exactly why that individual was taking a political stance and not a practical one nor a right one\u2014because if one looked at what that individual was attempting to do, even in its basic form, it would not work. The emotive arguments that were used to try to push that one person\u2019s agenda were, in my opinion\u2014and I think it\u2019s safe to say everyone on this side of the House\u2019s opinion\u2014an utter disgrace.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000588\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002236c8c596-d890-4cca-9767-1eeb5c9ce710\u0022\u003EI would just like to finish on that note, but New Zealand First will be supporting this bill. It\u2019s a common-sense bill. It really does a simple thing, which removes those provisions which are outdated. Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022 data-id=\u0022de1b5f7d0a32452ab9d121a2ddf2bb08\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000589\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022de1b5f7d0a32452ab9d121a2ddf2bb08\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH (National\u2014Nelson):\u003C/span\u003E The National Opposition supports this bill. It has four important Crimes Act amendments that address long-term issues that are important to improving our justice system. The first of those repeals blasphemy, and in this age when we put a high value on the issue of freedom of speech, we do need to be able to differentiate between what is inappropriate and might not be the social custom and that which is criminal. I strongly support the repeal of blasphemy as a criminal offence.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000590\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EThe second important change of this bill is repealing the exemption that applies for a partner or spouse in respect of accessory after the fact\u2014that is, a crime has been committed; a partner or spouse tries to protect the offence that that person has committed. We are rightly removing that provision off our law books.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000591\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EThe third package of changes in this bill was, unusually, introduced as a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP), but with National support, and that is the serious issue on which I want to compliment my colleague Ian McKelvie and the work of the Primary Production Committee for dealing with the very serious issue of stock rustling, because in rural parts of New Zealand, taking that issue of the protection of livestock and its thievery is something that needs the sort of reform that\u2019s provided in this bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000592\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EI want to focus my contribution on this third reading around the repeal of the year and one day law. This is a very old law that goes back many hundreds of years, and its repeal is something that National strongly supports. What we do not support is the loophole of the one year, one day law in relation to killing\u2014that loophole being able to be, under this bill, continued to be used for many decades to come.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000593\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003ENow, it is something of the ugly face of this Government that when members of the Opposition challenge the Government or question its approach, there is a ferocious dose of nastiness. There\u2019s an attitude from members opposite that if we ask legitimate questions about the law, suddenly there is a whole range of personal attacks, of questioning people\u2019s motive, and I invite the House this afternoon to actually focus on the justice and what is right in respect of the application of that one year and one day rule.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000594\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EI don\u2019t think there is a New Zealander or a member of Parliament who is satisfied that justice has been done in respect of the CTV Building and the 115 people that lost their lives when that building pancaked on 22 February 2011. Subsequent to that collapse, our National Government commissioned a royal commission of inquiry. That inquiry concluded that there were such basic design flaws in that CTV Building, that the engineering was wrong, and I don\u2019t think there is a member of this House that believes it was just that the engineers responsible for the flaws in that design were not able to be prosecuted because of the presence of the one year and one day rule.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000595\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EBut here is the part that Parliament and the Government is getting it wrong on: what we are saying is that that loophole is going to continue to apply, and the part where we are doing a grave disservice to the 115 New Zealanders who lost their lives in the CTV Building\u2014New Zealanders as well as overseas people\u2014is that if exactly the same circumstance occurred into the future, then exactly the same injustice would be repeated. That is, if there is a major earthquake in 25 years\u2019 time and one of those 4,000 buildings that have been constructed in Christchurch collapses, that it pancakes and kills a hundred people, this Parliament is saying that those engineers, again, will be able to walk free, and I do not believe that is a practical sense of justice. I do not believe that Parliament is taking a fair view on that. Members opposite have never answered that question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000596\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002236c8c596-d890-4cca-9767-1eeb5c9ce710\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220179a030b57d4f5aba53ef893068032a\u0022\u003EDarroch Ball\u003C/span\u003E: Oh, nonsense\u2014what nonsense.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000597\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228a606a54217a442aa171a7c8d2a7d044\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: Members opposite\u2014well, I invite that member who\u2019s interjecting: I\u2019d love you to take a call. I\u2019d love the member\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000598\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002236c8c596-d890-4cca-9767-1eeb5c9ce710\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ec4f543037ca4af0842168611539171b\u0022\u003EDarroch Ball\u003C/span\u003E: You got lectured on it\u2014you got lectured on it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000599\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c0e0c86e-e14d-4daa-9bc8-1b5a3d7defeb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022eaf61def531c4a2489edd6ad45c61d1c\u0022\u003EASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams)\u003C/span\u003E: Order! [Interruption] Order! Carry on, Dr Smith.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000600\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022eae0c160078f4d9a9c4da4e2c5538a3e\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014who\u2019s interjecting to take a call and explain this to me: in 30 years\u2019 time, a building pancakes because of flawed engineering fault. Why does that member think it\u2019s just that those engineers, just as for the CTV Building\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000601\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002236c8c596-d890-4cca-9767-1eeb5c9ce710\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f1518785984c4cd1ba1d65788e4f91f9\u0022\u003EDarroch Ball\u003C/span\u003E: Your SOP would not work.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000602\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022829967ae01914d468b564aa7cf46e71a\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014will be able to walk free? Now, the member says that my SOP would not address that. Absolutely it would\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000603\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002236c8c596-d890-4cca-9767-1eeb5c9ce710\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223be03d3037af4c0aa187fef33b20d020\u0022\u003EDarroch Ball\u003C/span\u003E: It wouldn\u2019t. It would not.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000604\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f0a002afaac441e385879aeaee5ff954\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014it would\u2014and the member has made no attempt to correct that injustice. What I say to members opposite is just what the CTV\u2014this is not me saying it; this is the CTV families saying it, that this Minister and this Government has badly let down the CTV families\u2014badly let down the CTV families. Now, listen to the interjections opposite. Somehow, raising questions of whether we\u2019re going to allow a repeat of the legal scenario that occurred over the CTV Building\u2014and we have members opposite shouting personal abuse but not prepared to answer the fundamental question as to whether they think that is just. It\u2019s ironic that we\u2019ve just passed a bill where members are applying, retrospectively, particular provisions. National has never proposed that this bill, as members opposite have suggested, would enable the prosecution of Dr Reay or others involved in the CTV Building.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000605\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EBut what we do say is this: for any death that occurs after the passage of this bill, those responsible should not be able to use this loophole to avoid prosecution. There is a fundamental issue here of public safety, and this is the question I would put to the House: wouldn\u2019t it be better for us to send a very clear signal to the engineering profession that if you have been part of designing a building that\u2019s got a flaw or a fault, you will not have the benefit of this loophole; you will be held responsible, and the incentive that goes with that, for us to ensure that there is never ever a repeat of the sort of tragedy that we saw with that CTV Building. The crunch really comes down to this: the crunch comes down to members opposite believing that in 30 years\u2019 time, an engineer should be able to hide behind the one year, one day rule to avoid accountability, that somehow that is just, rather than the needs of families and victims, when we have any sort of repeat of that tragedy. What has happened to members opposite is that they have become slaves to the law and not to justice. They are not thinking about what the consequences of the detail of this provision is, and that is what has caused such deep anger, such disappointment, from those CTV families.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000606\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003ESo, again, I say I am very proud that National is saying this is a loophole, it should be blocked, and it should be blocked now, and it will not be on our conscience that at some time in future years, if\u2014and I hope, more than anybody, nobody ever has to witness a tragedy again like CTV, but at least members on this side of the House will know that we backed a law that would ensure accountability, that would ensure justice, whereas members of the Government were more interested in legal purity than actually blocking this loophole and ensuring that justice in future would be properly served.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022abf27403-4392-47c9-9af0-6773753e95cb\u0022 data-id=\u002210fa2eeb657e466fad953d5f73a70952\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000607\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022abf27403-4392-47c9-9af0-6773753e95cb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002210fa2eeb657e466fad953d5f73a70952\u0022\u003EGOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN (Green):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. I rise in support of this bill, and I would say I probably will take a very short call, because it does take care of some overdue changes to our criminal code in just bringing it up to the 21st century.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000608\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022abf27403-4392-47c9-9af0-6773753e95cb\u0022\u003EThe first change that I would address is the removal of blasphemous libel, and I\u2019d like to acknowledge my friend and Labour Party MP Angie Warren-Clark for first introducing her member\u2019s bill to do this, and the Government has made us all proud by picking it up in this Government bill. Of course, in any modern secular democracy, it would be bizarre and a little bit perverse to have the crime of blasphemous libel. It breaches our New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, it creates discrimination, and it sends the wrong message about the kinds of values that we\u2019re upholding in our justice system. In fact, happily, it hasn\u2019t been prosecuted since 1922, so this bill, this change, really just reflects modern practice in New Zealand and our proud culture of secularism in our democracy. I\u2019m particularly happy to see this removed given I\u2019ve lived under a theocracy in Iran and seen the very damaging effects of this kind of religious law leaking into especially the criminal justice system, where sanctions are so serious for individuals being prosecuted\u2014shouldn\u2019t really hang over anyone\u2019s head.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000609\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022abf27403-4392-47c9-9af0-6773753e95cb\u0022\u003EThe second change is about spousal immunity in terms of giving evidence, and that\u2019s another one that\u2019s really amusing, almost, in its outdatedness, and something that I remember used to come up in films where people would quickly get married\u2014or join in civil union, as it might be now\u2014where then you would be free from prosecution or free from being made to give evidence against your partner, and that, of course, impedes the work of police in taking away their ability to sanction someone for being an accessory after the fact, for example, to a crime. So it\u2019s time to probably clean that up.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000610\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022abf27403-4392-47c9-9af0-6773753e95cb\u0022\u003ELastly, the big other change is removing the year and a day rule, which prevents prosecution for death caused more than a year and a day after the charge would be brought\u2014again, an incredibly outdated time frame, though, of course, we do need some acknowledgment in our law, and we do have it, that very lengthy delays in prosecution cause unfairness. That\u2019s where this law comes from; it\u2019s the idea that no one should have prosecution hanging over their heads for many years. Of course, we have undue delay as a defence now, where, for example, witnesses could\u2019ve died or evidence destroyed when a very lengthy amount of time passes, but with the kind of evidence that\u2019s available now to our courts with DNA evidence, other scientific types of evidence\u2014and we\u2019ve seen in very recent cases: the horrific case of Malcolm Rewa that just went through the courts now, and the exoneration of Teina Pora, who\u2019d been wrongfully imprisoned for that murder for over two decades. We only have that now with evidence that\u2019s been able to be preserved and analysed so many years later. So this law really is not only outdated but, again, would impede the proper administration of justice in New Zealand, and so we are removing it, again to reflect modern-day reality.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000611\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022abf27403-4392-47c9-9af0-6773753e95cb\u0022\u003EOf course, we also have had some impassioned talk of the effect this could\u2019ve had or did have on the CTV tragedy prosecutions. It did stop them at the time, and it is a shame that this law wasn\u2019t changed over the nine years of the National Government, as we might have seen other prosecutions go ahead. Of course, the suggestion that we pass law now to apply retrospectively would breach a fundamental constitutional norm which says that no one can be liable for a crime\u2014especially a crime, but any type of legal liability\u2014that didn\u2019t exist at the time that they did the act for which we are holding them accountable. So that really is some perverse politicking from the Hon Nick Smith just now. We won\u2019t do that because we do respect the rule of law, fundamental human rights, and our justice system. They didn\u2019t change the law when they had the chance, and they want us now to change it in this very perverse way. What we\u2019re doing is securing the rights of New Zealanders in securing prosecutions in future, in the way that lawmaking should work. So I commend this bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002248a02a21-c1ac-4159-8789-485ad614bd01\u0022 data-id=\u0022bc0ae6d96ed24b3fb98e3864061a0211\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000612\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002248a02a21-c1ac-4159-8789-485ad614bd01\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022bc0ae6d96ed24b3fb98e3864061a0211\u0022\u003EHon MARK MITCHELL (National\u2014Rodney):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. I\u2019m very pleased to stand and take a call on this third reading of the Crimes Amendment Bill. We are supporting this bill. This was a bill that was started whilst we were in Government. It was good to see that it was picked up by the incoming Government. Can I acknowledge the chairman of the Justice Committee, Raymond Huo, and the committee themselves that worked on this bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000613\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002248a02a21-c1ac-4159-8789-485ad614bd01\u0022\u003EThere are just a couple of issues in the bill that I wanted to address. The first one was actually an amendment that was put in during the committee of the whole House by Ian McKelvie. Of course, those that know Ian McKelvie would know that he\u2019s from a very strong rural, primary industries farming area of the country. He\u2019s a farmer himself, and he\u2019s very much in touch with and understands the challenges that our farmers and those in the primary industries face, and he wanted to deal with livestock rustling. It\u2019s not something that we always see in the media or in the news much, but it\u2019s something that does happen, and it actually has a massive negative impact on the farmers that fall victim to unscrupulous and dishonest cattle rustlers or stock rustlers. The fact of the matter is farmers are not flush with money. Cash is king for them. They run very, very tight budgets, and, often, they\u2019re reinvesting and putting money back into the farm\u2014whether it be fertiliser or fencing or upgrades on materials and equipment or whether it be replacing stock. So although we may think that the loss of even two or three cattle or a dozen sheep may not impact them, it actually does.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000614\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002248a02a21-c1ac-4159-8789-485ad614bd01\u0022\u003EI had my own very direct experience of this when I was policing up on the East Coast of New Zealand, out of Gisborne. I remember clearly one night stopping a vehicle that there seemed to be very unusual movement inside the vehicle. It was a station wagon.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000615\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220e3db717698a46ff8283c3908adb8511\u0022\u003EHon Member\u003C/span\u003E: Well, you\u2019d have seen a lot of that done!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000616\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002248a02a21-c1ac-4159-8789-485ad614bd01\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ed315e74030d4656b44c8a33e62c6a76\u0022\u003EHon MARK MITCHELL\u003C/span\u003E: That\u2019s right! No, no. It was a station wagon. There was a fair bit of movement inside it, and so I pulled it over and there were a couple of gang members inside it. But in the back seat\u2014they\u2019d laid the back seat down\u2014there were half a dozen sheep. What they\u2019d been doing\u2014it was really the first indicator that we had that the Gisborne branch of the Mongrel Mob had decided that they would start to steal stock out of farmers\u2019 roadside paddocks.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000617\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002248a02a21-c1ac-4159-8789-485ad614bd01\u0022\u003EAnd, although it was only a dozen sheep, in actual fact there was an investigation initiated by the crime control unit, and they went back and they found out that there were large numbers of cattle and stock being taken, and, actually, it had almost sent one farmer to the bank\u2014the amount of stock losses. It hadn\u2019t been big stock losses; it had been over a long period of time. So it had been two or three cattle, half a dozen sheep\u2014and, actually, it does have a real genuine impact on their business and on their livelihoods and on their families. So this is actually a very good Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that was brought by Ian McKelvie.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000618\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002248a02a21-c1ac-4159-8789-485ad614bd01\u0022\u003EI think the other thing that we have to think about at the moment, which has been a massive threat to our dairy industry, has been M. bovis. I want to acknowledge, again, the Government have picked up a programme that our Minister for Primary Industries, the Hon Nathan Guy, had already put a lot of work into along with the Ministry for Primary Industries and are rolling out a very, very big, expensive programme in terms of trying to eradicate M. bovis. Well, you can imagine the controls that are put in place to try and deal with that. And, if you\u2019ve got people that are rustling or stealing stock and moving those stock around, especially livestock, then, of course, you risk breaching all the protocols that are being put in place to actually try and contain something that would have a massive, negative economic impact on New Zealand if there was a breach due to some livestock rustling.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000619\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002248a02a21-c1ac-4159-8789-485ad614bd01\u0022\u003EThe other issue that I just wanted to very quickly touch on in the bill, because the Hon Nick Smith has done a very, very good job and delivered an impatient plea speech tonight, is around his SOP on the year and one day rule. I completely support him. As he said, God forbid that we ever have to deal with another issue like the CTV building, but the reality of it is New Zealand is on a fault line\u2014it\u2019s on several fault lines\u2014and it\u2019s possible that we may have another earthquake or another incident like that in the next 10, 15, 20, or 30 years. Actually, I would say that the people involved or the families involved, if there is a loss of life or serious injury, want to feel that there is the ability to be able to go back and actually deliver some justice. So I support his speech and the work that he\u2019s done on that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000620\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002248a02a21-c1ac-4159-8789-485ad614bd01\u0022\u003EThe other issue that I really wanted to talk to was, quite simply, the removal of the spousal immunity for accessory to a crime after the fact. I\u2019m just going to talk to this in somewhat of a broader context. I\u2019d be surprised if all members in the House tonight didn\u2019t agree with me when I say that one of the big challenges that we\u2019ve had is offending against our children, against babies. We\u2019ve seen many cases in this country where there\u2019s been terrible offending. I remember a case clearly in Rotorua where a young child, 18 months old, was subjected for weeks to ongoing physical abuse\u2014burnt with a cigarette, put into a clothes dryer, and having the clothes dryer turned on. And, finally, of course\u2014it was inevitable\u2014the child died from internal injuries that had been sustained over a long period of time. The issue with that is that the family and friends and wh\u0101nau all decided to circle the wagons and not cooperate with a police investigation. And, actually, in a police investigation in New Zealand, we have a standard\u2014it\u2019s called beyond reasonable doubt\u2014when they take a case to the criminal court. For the police to be able to put a case together that strong, that puts it beyond reasonable doubt so that you can deliver justice for a baby like that, means that they have to have\u2014or, if it\u2019s available, they can have\u2014good strong witness testimony.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000621\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002248a02a21-c1ac-4159-8789-485ad614bd01\u0022\u003ESo we think that this is a very good move in repealing this part of the bill because we consider that there\u2019s no justification that exists for protecting anyone who interferes with the execution of justice as an accessory after the fact. It wasn\u2019t clear in terms of who was actually protected under this Act anyway\u2014whether it was a de facto spouse. So we think that the repealing of this section under the Crimes Amendment Bill is actually a very, very good piece of the bill, and I\u2019m very happy to commend the bill to the House. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022c0e0c86e-e14d-4daa-9bc8-1b5a3d7defeb\u0022 data-id=\u0022a8721853d1024437b0044d8ab1f48e91\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000622\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c0e0c86e-e14d-4daa-9bc8-1b5a3d7defeb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a8721853d1024437b0044d8ab1f48e91\u0022\u003EASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams)\u003C/span\u003E: I understand this is a split call. Dr Duncan Webb.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022f7fc7ac3-5ce1-43ca-8cd6-dbb0941bf3ae\u0022 data-id=\u00226f4d4e3d2830494798c08218ab3f791c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000623\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f7fc7ac3-5ce1-43ca-8cd6-dbb0941bf3ae\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226f4d4e3d2830494798c08218ab3f791c\u0022\u003EDr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour\u2014Christchurch Central):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. There are two things I would like to touch on in my contribution on this bill. The first is the repeal of blasphemous libel that Angie Warren-Clark\u2019s bill first dealt with, and it was taken up by the Minister in this amendment bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000624\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f7fc7ac3-5ce1-43ca-8cd6-dbb0941bf3ae\u0022\u003EObviously, the House thinks that this is an appropriate repeal. I just want to recognise and acknowledge that there were a small number of submitters who opposed it, and they did oppose it on grounds of their own personal faith. I just want to make an observation that we should, quite appropriately, defend people\u2019s right to have religious views, and it\u2019s something which this House sees on a number of occasions. But those views, whatever their religion may be, should not influence the content of the law itself. That\u2019s a separate thing altogether. So whilst I utterly respect the right of those submitters to their religious views, there is no place in our law for the enforcement of religion through the arms of the State.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000625\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f7fc7ac3-5ce1-43ca-8cd6-dbb0941bf3ae\u0022\u003EThe other thing I want to do is touch on the year and a day rule. Obviously, the House is unanimous in agreeing that it should be repealed. But I want to address squarely the objection of Dr Smith\u2014his view that it should be retrospective in application. I want to say right away that it was not accurate. He must have misheard, because there was no personal abuse hurled across the House, but there was considerable disappointment in his view. He asked: should it be the case that for a person who builds a building today or yesterday and it falls down in 30 years\u2019 time, the engineer should be able to avail themselves of the year and a day defence. And I say quite clearly yes, because what we are not in the business of doing is making something a crime tomorrow in respect of which the act occurred yesterday. If you did the act yesterday, you are subject to the law that was in place at the time you committed the act. The crime and the defences at the time the act was committed are applicable. To do otherwise would be to take rights\u2014vested rights\u2014away from people retrospectively, and there is no place in the law for that. Madam Assistant Speaker, that is my contribution.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a6c42c44-3622-4c9c-98b8-793fb5ec15cc\u0022 data-id=\u0022445f340afb4f47c4846d83a04f630457\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000626\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a6c42c44-3622-4c9c-98b8-793fb5ec15cc\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022445f340afb4f47c4846d83a04f630457\u0022\u003EIAN McKELVIE (National\u2014Rangit\u012Bkei):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. It gives me pleasure to take a short call on the Crimes Amendment Bill and to support the bill and support the work of both the current Minister of Justice and those Ministers of the previous Government who put some work into this bill as well.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000627\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a6c42c44-3622-4c9c-98b8-793fb5ec15cc\u0022\u003EInterestingly, this bill was designed to repeal a whole lot of stuff, and it\u2019s ended up adding a whole lot of more important stuff, which I\u2019ll get on to in a minute. But it does repeal blasphemous libel, and, if you go on to what now is section 220A and 231A, I\u2019ll bet there was a fair bit of blasphemous libel that took place around stock rustling in the early days\u2014and it probably still does. None the less, it\u2019s no longer prosecutable\u2014well, it won\u2019t be when this is finished. The other two are, of course, spousal immunity and the repeal of section 162, and much has been said about that tonight, and I don\u2019t need to add to that discussion, because I think the merits of that discussion or otherwise have been well documented in the House and certainly were well covered by Mark Mitchell.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000628\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a6c42c44-3622-4c9c-98b8-793fb5ec15cc\u0022\u003EI want to now just briefly talk about, though, what was Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 185 introduced in Minister Little\u2019s name, which has now become new section 220A and 231A. I just wanted to compliment the Minister\u2014or thank the Minister, I suppose\u2014for picking that piece of work up, and also Kieran McAnulty, and the Primary Production Committee, actually, who got this piece of what was a member\u2019s bill introduced into this bill as an SOP, and now it becomes those sections.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000629\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a6c42c44-3622-4c9c-98b8-793fb5ec15cc\u0022\u003EInterestingly, it introduces two new crimes, as I said: 220A, for theft of livestock, and 231A, which is entry on to agricultural land with intent to commit an imprisonable offence or a crime. The interesting thing about that is that that has never been a crime that you could very easily get a prosecution for before\u2014in fact, you couldn\u2019t, really, unless you trespassed or had a massively complicated system that would\u2019ve been to trespass people as well\u2014but it now enables both of those crimes to be prosecuted, and prosecuted at a level that is much more serious and severe than it was previously when it was included in the Sentencing Act. So it\u2019s been introduced to the Crimes Act, and that\u2019s made a big difference to it, and I think it will give the police many more tools in their pursuit of these people.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a6c42c44-3622-4c9c-98b8-793fb5ec15cc\u0022\u003EBut it also gives us more protection, or our communities more protection, in the instance of livestock rustling or theft of livestock or even illegal activities on agricultural land with respect to the Biosecurity Act. That\u2019s hugely important for New Zealand and I guess became much more pronounced with the outbreak of M. Bovis and the potential outbreak of any other infectious diseases that might attack livestock in New Zealand, because the theft of that livestock when it\u2019s infected, and taking it down the road and putting it on someone else\u2019s land, is certainly a big risk to New Zealand\u2019s biosecurity system. So I think the addition of this piece of the bill is quite an exciting opportunity for rural New Zealand, for provincial New Zealand, and for our farmers of New Zealand, whether they farm bees, trees, or whatever.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000631\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a6c42c44-3622-4c9c-98b8-793fb5ec15cc\u0022\u003EIt also, interestingly, brings to bear a new, I guess, thought around the treatment of animals and what animals might think about being stolen. I know that\u2019s a slightly odd thing for someone like me to say, but if you think about it, and someone steals your pet dog or your cat, I guarantee they get much more upset than we believe they do. That becomes a crime, in a way. So it adds to the crime, I suppose.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000632\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a6c42c44-3622-4c9c-98b8-793fb5ec15cc\u0022\u003ESo it is quite interesting, and I think a lot of discussion has taken place on this particular piece of this bill in the last 18 months in this House, and probably for a lot longer than that in our farming community\u2014well, our agricultural community\u2014and even in this Parliament. To get a result through the Minister inserting it into this bill is, I think, a great result for rural New Zealand, and it\u2019s very exciting. I have a great deal of pleasure in commending this bill, and I look forward to its implementation. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e77494a0-1be1-432f-b492-fd160f4c119d\u0022 data-id=\u00224806fdddfc2f487c993a862c2619f365\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000633\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e77494a0-1be1-432f-b492-fd160f4c119d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224806fdddfc2f487c993a862c2619f365\u0022\u003EHon PEENI HENARE (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector):\u003C/span\u003E T\u0113n\u0101 koe, Madam Assistant Speaker. Thank you for this opportunity. I too wish to rise and take a short call in support of this bill. I do want to acknowledge the member Ian McKelvie, who has been, I guess, honoured by many speakers in the House for his tenacious will to bring to the fore the agenda of cattle rustling. I recall that in my first term of Parliament, when I saw that bill, I sort of laughed, but as the issues have been highlighted and the Primary Production Committee has considered that particular piece of work, this Government has picked it up and, I think, made it into a strong piece of legislation. I want to commend Ian McKelvie for continuing that fight, and, of course, the Minister of Justice and the Primary Production Committee for picking up that piece of work.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000634\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e77494a0-1be1-432f-b492-fd160f4c119d\u0022\u003EThe House has really touched on a lot of the key facets of this particular bill. As we know, in social democracies and modern civilisations, the norms change regularly, and what seemed OK 20 years ago now, with today\u2019s generation, is simply laughable or a distant memory. So this particular bill will, obviously, bring archaic laws in line with our social norms and in line with the contemporary values of this country. I think it\u2019s timely. The law around blasphemy\u2014I\u2019m sure my grandmother will be turning in her grave, but her great-grandkids certainly don\u2019t see a need for it, and I think this is a move in the right direction.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000635\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e77494a0-1be1-432f-b492-fd160f4c119d\u0022\u003EThe member the Hon Mark Mitchell also mentioned in his contribution the importance of making sure the repeal of spousal immunity. He highlighted a really good case there that I think really shows the importance of this particular piece of work, to make sure that in circumstances like the one he described, we don\u2019t protect those who perpetrate crimes, and to make sure that, in fact, those who in the eyes of the court have a case to defend\u2014I think they should be able to be brought in front of the court to defend that case. He highlighted a particular case of importance to the entire country, which I\u2019m sure has left a scar on the memory of our country, and I want to commend him for using that example, and, of course, the Minister for making sure that that particular part of the Act no longer applies\u2014is repealed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000636\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e77494a0-1be1-432f-b492-fd160f4c119d\u0022\u003EJust in conclusion, I thank the Justice Committee for the work that they have done on this particular bill, the Minister, and the previous Minister for continuing the work that\u2019s done in this space. As we look towards many of the more contemporary issues that confront us\u2014and the biosecurity issue was mentioned\u2014I think this is a move in the right direction that best reflects where our country is headed to and where we like to see ourselves. In actual fact, when we look across much of the law and legislation in this country, it isn\u2019t in line with that. So without further ado, I commend this bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022f96cdca1-b63c-4602-b2b3-276f58ebb518\u0022 data-id=\u0022c3084801f194437ab281e7425006df78\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000637\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f96cdca1-b63c-4602-b2b3-276f58ebb518\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c3084801f194437ab281e7425006df78\u0022\u003ECHRIS PENK (National\u2014Helensville):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker, for the opportunity to contribute to the Crimes Amendment Bill. I acknowledge, but not by name, the various who have been involved in its passage from start to finish. I\u2019ll highlight a couple of those individuals on the way through, but to briefly wrap up from this side of the House in this, the third and final reading, please allow me to touch on each of the four significant points within the bill that is shortly to be passed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000638\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f96cdca1-b63c-4602-b2b3-276f58ebb518\u0022\u003EThe first is blasphemous libel. On this side of the House, we support its repeal. I would like to propose, on my own account, a short three-stage test of considering such matters. The first stage is that there should be a presumption in favour of free speech. I note merely as a footnote that in our society today, we are becoming more precious in many regards regarding free speech, but I think the appropriate starting point is that we should be free in our speech and that we must be able to offend and to risk causing offence, as a starting point.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000639\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f96cdca1-b63c-4602-b2b3-276f58ebb518\u0022\u003EThe second stage of the test that I propose would be that there could be a rebuttal. There could be a reason to rebut that initial presumption in favour of free speech, and so, for example, we have defamation to protect individual reputations, we don\u2019t allow incitement to violence\u2014the sticks and stones that may break bones, according to the old proverb\u2014and so forth. Then a third stage might be that if we decide that speech is able to be limited in that way, then we would deal with that in some way that\u2019s appropriate. Civil versus criminal sanctions might be available. In this case, we are saying collectively that it is not appropriate to have the crime of blasphemous libel on the book, and, therefore, it will be removed from our criminal statutes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000640\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f96cdca1-b63c-4602-b2b3-276f58ebb518\u0022\u003EA brief note on retrospectivity, because it\u2019s a theme to which I would like to return, if time allows, in another context: one of the problems with a crime such as blasphemous libel is that if you don\u2019t have an exhaustive list of all the things that might be deemed to be blasphemous, then it\u2019s impossible to be certain, at any point at which you utter such words, that you are committing a crime. So to find out retrospectively that you\u2019ve committed a crime is an offence against the rule of law, in the way that Dr Duncan Webb and others have described in another context.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000641\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f96cdca1-b63c-4602-b2b3-276f58ebb518\u0022\u003EThe second of the four main points is in relation to spousal immunity. Of course, this is to protect, historically, a person who\u2019s giving refuge, essentially, from prosecution or even to evade capture to a person who has assisted in the commission of crime or, perhaps more likely, committed the crime themselves. I would sound a note of caution, however, which is to say this is analogous to some other situations in which we do protect particular relationships where a person has committed what would be a crime, if it were found to be such\u2014for example, confessionals, maybe with a spiritual person or a guidance counsellor, or even legal privilege. It\u2019s too easy simply to say that we don\u2019t allow people to be assisted after having committed a possible crime and to be advised, because, of course, we do. And if we\u2019re going to make such blunt statements as we\u2019ve heard on that subject across the House today, then a principled approach on that, in my view, would compound the error, but at least should be considered from a principled basis. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000642\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f96cdca1-b63c-4602-b2b3-276f58ebb518\u0022\u003EThird: livestock rustling. As has been noted on both sides of the House\u2014with a certain amount of graciousness, for which I am grateful\u2014this has arisen from a Supplementary Order Paper in the name of \u201CLord Ian McKelvie\u201D of Rangit\u012Bkei, and I join with others in expressing somewhat disbelief that it\u2019s not already on the\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000643\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203fd985b-4fb8-4111-ba38-5033a254d962\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226dc7055ba9f646fc95f1aec7fcea225a\u0022\u003EBrett Hudson\u003C/span\u003E: Chief of Rangit\u012Bkei. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000644\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f96cdca1-b63c-4602-b2b3-276f58ebb518\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002248fb16b98f8a4d4294946fa7838fd66a\u0022\u003ECHRIS PENK\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019ve been having further possible suggestions for the elevation to the peerage, and beyond, of Ian McKelvie\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000645\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224a25943b-cb3b-49c3-bd10-74316fae17f1\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220ed529a44fcf401ea7e93829552a687e\u0022\u003EHon Jacqui Dean\u003C/span\u003E: Why not. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000646\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f96cdca1-b63c-4602-b2b3-276f58ebb518\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d452d3ed967d49af83a60eed20b52934\u0022\u003ECHRIS PENK\u003C/span\u003E: Why not, indeed, as Jacqui Dean says. It\u2019s an idea whose time has come. It\u2019s an idea whose time, in fact, had come many years ago. So it\u2019s righting a wrong, I suppose, in legal or legislative terms, that we are catching up now and making that very clear indeed. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000647\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f96cdca1-b63c-4602-b2b3-276f58ebb518\u0022\u003EFinally, I wish to touch on the so-called year and a day rule. Much has been said about this in the context, first, of what is in the bill itself, but also in relation to a Supplementary Order Paper, proposed amendment, by my colleague the Hon Dr Nick Smith. I\u2019ll just start off by noting that the nature of the rule, so-called, in the Crimes Act is actually in the nature of a limitation or might actually be viewed as a brightline test. In this House, we\u2019ve been talking earlier today about a brightline test in connection with tax so that we say\u2014while it\u2019s difficult to gauge intention, it might be that we can say within the period of two or five years, as the case may be, that we deem that someone has bought property with the intention of on-selling. Well, there\u2019s a brightline that can be drawn at the hundred-year mark\u2014traditionally, a nice round century\u2014that would say, well, if you\u2019ve committed an act or, perhaps, an inaction such that a person loses their life, for example, outside that period of time, we\u2019ll be drawing a bright line there and saying that you\u2019re outside that now. So because it\u2019s difficult to prove causation so long after the event, we are saying that that person should be found not guilty of what would, otherwise, be the crime. So that\u2019s the intention. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000648\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f96cdca1-b63c-4602-b2b3-276f58ebb518\u0022\u003EAs for the question of retrospectivity, I believe there\u2019s a bit of a misunderstanding or at least the opportunity for education\u2014and I say that with some humility\u2014but across the House a number of speakers have indicated that they have a particular view of retrospectivity in the criminal law that I believe deserves challenge. In the committee stage of the debate, Minister Andrew Little made a statement not unlike that of Dr Duncan Webb\u2019s tonight, which was along the lines that a person should not be found guilty of a crime, let us say, tomorrow in respect of an action that he or she committed today if it were not a crime at the time that it was committed. So far, so good. I believe we can all agree on that. So much is well established in our rule of law, and that\u2019s to protect the idea that a person shouldn\u2019t be found retrospectively guilty, for the reason that they must be able to rely on the law as being certain at that time. The criminal law is a code and people should not be found guilty retrospectively. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000649\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f96cdca1-b63c-4602-b2b3-276f58ebb518\u0022\u003EHowever, what that ignores is the clear wording of the relevant sections within the Crimes Act and also within the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act that talk about a thing being done or not done, the element of the crime, as it would be, being committed at a time that the act would not be regarded as a criminal action. So, in other words, the explicit words actually protect against the action and the actus reus, as we would say within the criminal language, as opposed to the availability of a defence. And if the defence is, essentially, a spurious one, and I say \u201Cspurious\u201D because it\u2019s been acknowledged across the House as being nothing more or less than that, then it seems to me a nonsense that we should have such a narrow and, dare I say it, legalistic view of what retrospectivity actually means. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000650\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f96cdca1-b63c-4602-b2b3-276f58ebb518\u0022\u003ESo my challenge across the House before my time is up is that if that\u2019s the genuine belief of those who have offered that opinion tonight, then I would encourage them to consider amending the words of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and, indeed, the relevant section of the Crimes Act to ensure that that actually says that every defence that is available, including the so-called year and a day rule, should be available and not merely the fact that something which is done which is already unlawful should not see a person being able to escape prosecution merely because they have the good fortune that someone dies a considerable period of time after. Put around another way, it seems absurd to me that if you do a thing that is so negligent or so unlawful that it causes death that much more quickly, effectively you should be rewarded. It seems to me illogical absurdity that the treatment of a person\u2019s actions rely on the luck or bad luck, the misfortune or fortune, of the victim and the particular circumstances of something so capricious as an earthquake. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000651\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f96cdca1-b63c-4602-b2b3-276f58ebb518\u0022\u003EOn that note, perhaps unfortunately, because overall our support for the Crimes Act amendment is complete\u2014we support all those four different amendments, so I close my contribution on this side of the House by saying that we support it and we congratulate those involved in its passage throughout.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a1f7bbd1-b6ae-41c0-963b-dbe1251f5540\u0022 data-id=\u0022b0976c9572694ac1b9d5cd5d79217025\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000652\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a1f7bbd1-b6ae-41c0-963b-dbe1251f5540\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b0976c9572694ac1b9d5cd5d79217025\u0022\u003EKIERAN McANULTY (Labour):\u003C/span\u003E Today\u2019s a great day because we get to pass a law that should have been passed a long time ago, but we also get to demonstrate to the New Zealand public that at times this House can work together. Now, I am a very proud product of a farming family\u2014on both sides, actually\u2014and I\u2019m very proud to come from the rural area of Wairarapa. I am no stranger to the issue of livestock rustling, so I do remember when I spoke in favour of this when the issue was first raised in front of the House, when Ian McKelvie brought forward his member\u2019s bill to us all last year. We did vote in favour of it, because it is very clear that this is an issue that is facing rural communities. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000653\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a1f7bbd1-b6ae-41c0-963b-dbe1251f5540\u0022\u003EFederated Farmers estimate that livestock rustling costs our rural communities $120 million a year, and it is also estimated that one in four farmers have suffered from livestock rustling at some stage in their life. Now, we all know farmers, probably many, and it is quite phenomenal to think that 25 percent of our farmers have suffered from livestock rustling. So good on Ian McKelvie, whom I\u2019ve got to know quite well over the last few months, whom I consider to be a gentleman, not only because we play on the same parliamentary cricket team, and I\u2019m standing there on the cricket pitch and I\u2019m fielding the area in front of me and the area behind me\u2014he\u2019s such a gentleman that he lets me field the area behind him as well. The thing is that we work together on the cricket pitch and we work together in Parliament, and this bill contains the inclusion of two crimes: the theft of livestock or other animal, carrying a maximum penalty of seven years\u2019 imprisonment, and, of course, the unlawful entry to land used for agricultural purposes where the offender intends to steal livestock or act unlawfully against specified things, such as buildings or machinery, on that land. That offence carries 10 years\u2019 imprisonment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000654\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a1f7bbd1-b6ae-41c0-963b-dbe1251f5540\u0022\u003EThis is actually an improvement of what was originally proposed. Unfortunately for Mr McKelvie, when he brought his member\u2019s bill to the Primary Production Committee, the advice that we got at the committee was that this was not workable. I don\u2019t blame Mr McKelvie for that; it was just the way that it was. The rules of Parliament said that we couldn\u2019t make the changes to it that we wanted to. Submitter after submitter after submitter said that we just simply needed to include a crime of livestock theft into the Crimes Act and we would achieve what Mr McKelvie wanted to achieve, but unfortunately, because of the rules of the way that they were, we couldn\u2019t continue\u2014we couldn\u2019t progress. The options that were in front of us were that we bring it to the House\u2014because that was the advice\u2014and it gets voted down, or that the bill be withdrawn and then it goes back to the luck of the draw into the ballot.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000655\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a1f7bbd1-b6ae-41c0-963b-dbe1251f5540\u0022\u003EI had a bit of a thought, and I was only new and I wasn\u2019t all that confident, but I thought why don\u2019t we try and include this in a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) into the Crimes Amendment Bill? I did it on the quiet, because I didn\u2019t want to make a fool of myself at the select committee. I got really excited. I drew it up, and I went to the people that give us advice, and I said, \u201CCan we do it?\u201D And they said no, because the Crimes Amendment Bill is about withdrawing things; it\u2019s not about including things. If there was a provision within it that included the inclusion of a new law, a new crime, then we could\u2019ve, but it didn\u2019t, so we couldn\u2019t. However, if we got the approval from every party in the House, then we could do it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000656\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a1f7bbd1-b6ae-41c0-963b-dbe1251f5540\u0022\u003EI put this to Ian McKelvie. He thought it was a great idea, and both of us went to the Minister of Justice and put it to him. It was ultimately his call\u2014it\u2019s his bill. He didn\u2019t have to approve it, but he did. So not only do I want to acknowledge Ian McKelvie; I want to acknowledge the justice Minister, Andrew Little, for seeing that this was an issue and seeing that, in a roundabout way, we could include this as a law into this bill, which in a few minutes time, hopefully, will likely pass.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000657\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a1f7bbd1-b6ae-41c0-963b-dbe1251f5540\u0022\u003EAnd so what it says to rural communities and anybody out there that\u2019s watching and listening at home is that with issues that are important to rural communities, the parties are working together. I know members opposite, like Barbara Kuriger, Ian McKelvie, Hamish Walker, Lawrence Yule, and all those over there that live and represent rural areas, will celebrate this fact as well, because back home, people see this House arguing and bickering and carrying on, and too little do we celebrate the times that we come together and actually work together to achieve something that\u2019s important to this country. This is an example of that. I\u2019m pleased to be a part of it. It was an honour to work alongside Ian McKelvie, and I\u2019m very pleased that Andrew Little, the justice Minister, allowed us to do it. I very strongly commend this bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000658\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a1f7bbd1-b6ae-41c0-963b-dbe1251f5540\u0022\u003EBill read a third time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022\u003EBills\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000659\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00223d0a9876340e410fb3c1fa49d4245203\u0022\u003EFinancial Markets (Derivatives Margin and Benchmarking) Reform Amendment Bill\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000660\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022befd0d3a89ac44b0a647576450861ce1\u0022\u003EFirst Reading\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002290ea1538-43e8-4257-bd80-df3ccd1e5f27\u0022 data-id=\u0022c9371533b11248c5914a779eb81ca99d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000661\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002290ea1538-43e8-4257-bd80-df3ccd1e5f27\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c9371533b11248c5914a779eb81ca99d\u0022\u003EHon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the Financial Markets (Derivatives Margin and Benchmarking) Reform Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Finance and Expenditure Committee to consider the bill. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be reported back to the House by 22 July 2019. This will allow the bill to be passed in time to meet deadlines for the relevant international reforms that are driving the amendments in this bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000662\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002290ea1538-43e8-4257-bd80-df3ccd1e5f27\u0022\u003EThis bill amends various pieces of financial markets legislation to bring New Zealand into line with international best practice. Importantly, the bill will also allow New Zealand entities to continue to access important international financial markets. In recent years, various reforms have been introduced internationally to address significant risks in global financial markets. These reforms are intended to reduce risk and improve the integrity of how certain financial contracts are traded and the processes by which they are set. They will help make aspects of the global financial system more resilient and more resistant to manipulation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000663\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002290ea1538-43e8-4257-bd80-df3ccd1e5f27\u0022\u003EThe amendments in the bill will bring New Zealand into line with these international reforms and improve the integrity of our financial systems. The amendments in the bill are also critical to ensure New Zealand entities can continue to access important international financial markets. Without these amendments, New Zealand entities would not be able to comply with the relevant requirements imposed by the new reforms, and this would mean that they may not be able to enter into critical financial contracts with international counterparts\u2014for example, the big four banks in New Zealand, directly through their clients, are estimated to have a gross exposure of $1.1 trillion to parties of the European Union through particular types of financial contracts affected by one of the recent international reforms. If New Zealand\u2019s regulatory regime is not brought into line with the new reforms and the banks were shut out of the key international financial markets, the disruption to businesses and the increase in funding costs would have a marked effect. This would not just affect the banks but also see interest rates increase for New Zealand consumers and businesses.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000664\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002290ea1538-43e8-4257-bd80-df3ccd1e5f27\u0022\u003EOver the past year, the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE), the Reserve Bank, and the Financial Markets Authority have undertaken a comprehensive review of what is required to bring New Zealand into line with international reforms. The result is a robust piece of legislation\u2014while technical, it also sets out to improve the integrity of our financial system and resolve what could potentially constitute a significant risk to the New Zealand economy.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000665\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002290ea1538-43e8-4257-bd80-df3ccd1e5f27\u0022\u003EThe bill has two parts, each of which responds to different international developments. Part 1 of the bill responds to G20 requirements related to over-the-counter derivatives. These requirements were announced in 2011 following the global financial crisis, which identified risks in the market for over-the-counter derivatives, and the requirements are currently being phased in across G20 nations. The global market for over-the-counter derivatives is worth trillions of dollars, and the G20 identified that there were systemic risks in this market. Requirements were therefore introduced for parties to exchange collateral\u2014also known as a margin\u2014to prevent these risks being spread across financial institutions. The G20 rules required this margin to be available immediately in the event that a party defaults under a contract. Certain features of New Zealand\u2019s insolvency law, however, prevented affected entities from complying with these requirements.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000666\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002290ea1538-43e8-4257-bd80-df3ccd1e5f27\u0022\u003EThis bill will allow New Zealand entities to meet those requirements by making technical amendments to the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act, the Corporations (Investigation and Management) Act, the Companies Act, and the Personal Property Securities Act. The effect of these amendments is to allow certain qualifying parties to exercise rights over the margin that they hold immediately and to have priority over other parties with an actual or potential claim on that margin. The amendments are tightly confined to limit any potential impact on current insolvency law and non-derivative creditors. Analysis by MBIE and the Reserve Bank has shown that it is very unlikely that these changes will ever disadvantage a party which would otherwise have a priority. They have engaged with New Zealand\u2019s banks and with other interested parties, such as insolvency practitioners\u2019 industry bodies, to ensure that the proposed changes are proportionate and fit for purpose. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000667\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002290ea1538-43e8-4257-bd80-df3ccd1e5f27\u0022\u003EPart 2 of the bill responds to a separate international development. The European Union recently introduced a new regulatory regime for financial benchmarks. These benchmarks are referenced in many financial contracts and they underpin important factors such as mortgage interest rates. The intent of the EU benchmarking regime is to avoid potential manipulation of benchmarks and other events which could destabilise national and international markets. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000668\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002290ea1538-43e8-4257-bd80-df3ccd1e5f27\u0022\u003ETo trade with EU parties, New Zealand needs a financial benchmark regime which the EU formally recognises as equivalent, and one of the ways of achieving this is to require parties that administer financial benchmarks to be licensed and subject to supervision by a regulator. To meet those new EU requirements, Part 2 of this bill amends the Financial Markets Conduct Act to create a licensing regime for New Zealand benchmark administrators. This new regime allows the administrator of a financial benchmark to opt in to obtain their market services licence under the Financial Markets Conduct Act and to meet certain governance requirements. Supervision and enforcement of licence obligations will be carried out by the Financial Markets Authority and detailed licensing requirements will be set in regulations. These requirements will largely reflect what is required by the EU regulations in order for New Zealand\u2019s regulatory regime to achieve formal equivalent status. MBIE has been consulting officials in the EU to ensure that the regime is designed in a way that will meet the requisite standards. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000669\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002290ea1538-43e8-4257-bd80-df3ccd1e5f27\u0022\u003EThe new licensing regime for administrators of financial benchmarks will do three things. Firstly, it will provide additional assurance around the accuracy, integrity, reliability, and continuity of New Zealand\u2019s benchmarks; secondly, it will ensure continued acceptance of New Zealand\u2019s benchmarks within the EU markets; and, thirdly, it will avoid significant costs to the New Zealand economy that could arise if our benchmarks were not able to be used in the EU. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000670\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002290ea1538-43e8-4257-bd80-df3ccd1e5f27\u0022\u003EThe licensing regime also provides new powers for the Financial Markets Authority to direct contributors to and administrators of benchmarks to continue to maintain a benchmark for a specific period of time. The purpose of these powers is to ensure the continued reliability and availability of financial benchmarks for a period of time in the case of a potential disruption to that benchmark. Such disruptions may occur when the licensed administrator intends to stop administering a benchmark that is important for trade with EU parties. This will promote market stability while a smooth transition of a benchmark to another administrator or an orderly cessation or generation of a benchmark is being arranged. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000671\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002290ea1538-43e8-4257-bd80-df3ccd1e5f27\u0022\u003EThese changes are technical. However, this is a critical piece of legislation that will allow major New Zealand financial institutions to continue to transact with important overseas parties in order to manage financial risks, raise capital, and continue to effectively engage in international financial markets. This will bring us into line with international standards and will proactively avoid potentially substantial economic damage. I commend this bill to the House. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002203fd985b-4fb8-4111-ba38-5033a254d962\u0022 data-id=\u0022b3b40a527c62415688391d6741a10117\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000672\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203fd985b-4fb8-4111-ba38-5033a254d962\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b3b40a527c62415688391d6741a10117\u0022\u003EBRETT HUDSON (National):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. I rise in support of the Financial Markets (Derivatives Margin and Benchmarking) Reform Amendment Bill in this, its first reading, and I congratulate Minister Kris Faafoi for his stamina and endurance. He\u2019s been in the House for quite some time this evening, waiting to deliver that eight-minute speech to the House. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000673\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203fd985b-4fb8-4111-ba38-5033a254d962\u0022\u003EWe do support this bill. It relates to linkages between our financial markets and international financial markets, which are a critical source of funding for the lending that New Zealand banks do. We support reforming legislation to achieve the outcomes for this bill because, fundamentally, it\u2019s the only way for us to keep some of these markets open to our banks. It\u2019s important that we don\u2019t have laws that are impeding the access to those international markets, particularly in this specific case of over-the-counter derivatives. They are, therefore, needed to ensure the ongoing soundness and efficiency of our banking systems. Our banks need access to capital, principally, because they need to be able to lend to New Zealanders\u2014New Zealand consumers and businesses. Along with continuing to permit access into EU markets for derivatives, we also support the licensing regime, as well. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000674\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203fd985b-4fb8-4111-ba38-5033a254d962\u0022\u003EIt is a simple fact that, in New Zealand, a great deal of our lending is sourced from overseas borrowing. It is a fact that New Zealanders either\u2014well, it leads to the same outcome. Either, they don\u2019t deliberately save sufficiently or they spend so much of their incomes that our banks cannot source the capital they need to permit borrowing from domestic markets alone, so banks will seek to borrow money from offshore. Now, that has a flow-on effect that moneys are often borrowed in multiple currencies, and our banks use derivatives to protect, or to hedge, against exchange rate risk from them borrowing in those foreign currencies. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000675\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203fd985b-4fb8-4111-ba38-5033a254d962\u0022\u003ESo it\u2019s a very important\u2014well, the banks would consider it critical for them and, ultimately, it\u2019s most important to New Zealand consumers and businesses, because it\u2019s those dollars, those loans, that they need access to, whether it\u2019s to build the home or buy the home they want to raise their family in, or, indeed, if they are looking to expand their business. Expansion will lead to more people being employed and to more incomes, and therefore, it is of benefit to all those involved. So it\u2019s important to look at this. While talking about the legislation, the language is, principally, about financial markets and banks, but we shouldn\u2019t lose sight of the ultimate beneficiaries of these changes\u2014should they be enacted\u2014and those are New Zealand consumers and New Zealand businesses. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000676\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203fd985b-4fb8-4111-ba38-5033a254d962\u0022\u003EThese are being, in effect\u2014shall we say\u2014gently persuaded upon us. These have been forced upon us through changes in international markets. In the case of this first part\u2014the derivatives piece\u2014they are the changes to the G20 rules. So they now require that parties to what they call over-the-counter, uncleared bilateral derivatives provide security\u2014also known as margin\u2014under that contract to support it. If one party fails to honour its obligation under the contract, the other party can call on margin to shield it from any losses that might result, and it\u2019s that certainty that allows the two parties to the contract to enter it with confidence that not only allows the contract to be undertaken in the first place but helps to keep the costs of the contract and then, ultimately, the costs of borrowing to New Zealand businesses and consumers down. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000677\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203fd985b-4fb8-4111-ba38-5033a254d962\u0022\u003EThere were some reforms introduced by the G20 as a way of reducing systemic risk as a result of what they\u2019ve learnt from the global financial crisis, particularly in these derivative markets. But there are certain features of our current domestic law\u2014particularly around insolvency, statutory management, and personal property securities laws\u2014that could impede the banks\u2019 ability to comply with the margin requirements, or with these new rules from the G20. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000678\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203fd985b-4fb8-4111-ba38-5033a254d962\u0022\u003ESo the option to us, obviously, is we continue to maintain our laws as they currently are, but the most likely consequence of that is either the exclusion to New Zealand banks for these sorts of contracts or, with the uncertainty that might be deemed to exist there, an increased cost of borrowing. The last thing we need to do to New Zealand businesses as we\u2014well, certainly we on this side\u2014seek to wish to continue to grow the economy, grow jobs and incomes in New Zealand, the last thing we want to do is to be abetting by not passing such legislation the increase in borrowing costs for those New Zealand businesses. Of course, also, when we see news, especially also from the Council of Trade Unions around Christmas time, evidence of rising costs of living to New Zealanders, the last thing we want to be doing is exacerbating that by refusing to take action which would ultimately see the borrowing costs for those New Zealanders, whether it\u2019s borrowing costs\u2014most likely mortgages but potentially also other borrowings\u2014increase. So it is important, we argue, that we agree to these reforms, and that we make sure that those derivatives are still accessible or derivatives contracts are still cost-effectively accessible to our banks.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000679\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203fd985b-4fb8-4111-ba38-5033a254d962\u0022\u003ENow, there was some talk about what the value of these might amount to. The information I have is a little different, but it could\u2019ve been using a different source or a different representation. If we look at the gross flow of cross-currency basis swaps transacted by the four big banks against international counterparts, we see the total of that annually is as high as $8.7 trillion. But the risk element, the part that would be where the margins could or this could come into play, is about $90 billion for those four big banks. And by anyone\u2019s reckoning, in this country at least, that is a great deal of money. I don\u2019t think it would take too difficult a leap for New Zealanders to see a risk of that size as very readily potentially leading to interest rate impacts on them if the banks weren\u2019t able to continue to access these moneys in foreign markets. So we certainly support Part 1, we think it\u2019s an extremely good idea even if, obviously, the idea was somewhat imposed upon us through the actions of a global community. But as a community we wish to participate, and we need to, and we support it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000680\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203fd985b-4fb8-4111-ba38-5033a254d962\u0022\u003EThe licensing regime for administrators of financial benchmarks is also something in this first reading we are supporting. Although we always like to question, and actually this question is, unfortunately, so much easier to answer, but we always like to question the need for such regimes: to what level do they add in terms of process and compliance? Well, in this case, quite frankly, it\u2019s as simple as if we wish to still access EU financial markets for these derivatives contracts we really have no choice but to accede to the changes that are being made in the EU, and to ensure that we have a proper licensing regime for administrators of financial benchmarks. The financial benchmark for New Zealanders, there may be a few listening, is a reference index or indicator used to determine the price value or performance of financial instruments like derivatives\u2014for example, interest rate swaps and cross-currency basis swaps. The EU was somewhat concerned about potential benchmark manipulation, and those countries made a decision to prescribe new standards around the process for setting the benchmarks which administrators must meet if the benchmarks they set will be accepted by the EU. Those new regulations will take full effect on 1 January 2020.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000681\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203fd985b-4fb8-4111-ba38-5033a254d962\u0022\u003ESo intervention\u2014or the Government\u2019s intervention, it\u2019s their bill; but Parliament\u2019s intervention\u2014is necessary to avoid loss of access to those EU financial markets. A non-regulatory response is simply not possible because of the certainty and the measures that the EU requires, which is through a European Commission - equivalence decision based on our legislation. So we can\u2019t simply say we\u2019ll do something; we\u2019ve actually got to evidence it through our law. On that basis, as we\u2019ve said for Part 1, although the language of the bill and much language around the debate, and possibly the submissions, will be about financial markets and it will be about banks, ultimately, the result of all of that, the true end points are New Zealand consumers and New Zealand businesses and their ability to access borrowing for home, family, or, indeed, more importantly, some would argue, for the ability to support economic growth through the continued expansion of New Zealand businesses employing more people and, therefore, raising incomes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000682\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203fd985b-4fb8-4111-ba38-5033a254d962\u0022\u003ESo we do support this bill in the first reading. We look forward to the debate\u2014I guess, in the Finance and Expenditure Committee\u2014in select committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022098b8334-57f8-4062-bac6-bfbc3474e88e\u0022 data-id=\u0022a3b6c587483343ac8ef23aadc0407636\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000683\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022098b8334-57f8-4062-bac6-bfbc3474e88e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a3b6c587483343ac8ef23aadc0407636\u0022\u003EMICHAEL WOOD (Labour\u2014Mt Roskill):\u003C/span\u003E Can I, first, acknowledge the Minister Kris Faafoi for bringing this bill to the House\u2014the Financial Markets (Derivatives Margin and Benchmarking) Reform Amendment Bill. Can I thank the Minister for forwarding the bill on to the Finance and Expenditure Committee. All committee members are quite excited by this prospect and really keen to get our teeth into this bill in all of its detail. Can I acknowledge the previous speaker, Brett Hudson; that was a passionate and very focused speech. I think he\u2019s really found his niche in terms of the legislative agenda today. So thank you, Mr Hudson.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000684\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022098b8334-57f8-4062-bac6-bfbc3474e88e\u0022\u003EThe thing about this bill is that while it seems pretty technical, it is actually\u2014as the previous member outlined\u2014quite an important bill in terms of the functioning of our economy. It\u2019s a bill that ensures that New Zealand firms can continue to be active in terms of securing credit and engaging in international financial markets. It\u2019s a bill that ensures that we are complying with international standards in respect of those financial markets, particularly standards that have been set by organisations like the G20 and the EU. In a sense, really, it\u2019s a case of New Zealand being a pretty small player, and these being the rules that big global players have set. The reality of the situation is that if we don\u2019t ensure that we have a legislative environment that aligns with those rules, it will\u2014as the previous two speakers outlined\u2014make it very difficult for New Zealand firms to engage in those financial markets and access the credit that they require to function and that, ultimately, our economy requires to function as well.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000685\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022098b8334-57f8-4062-bac6-bfbc3474e88e\u0022\u003EI think the other thing that\u2019s worth pointing out at the outset is that, really, these rules are in some respects the wash up of the financial scandals that were exposed at the time of the global financial crisis, and a little bit later in the London Inter-bank Offered Rate (LIBOR) scandal of 2012, which I will come to later on. So really what we see is a bit of a delayed regulatory process of international regulators looking back on those calamitous events in the world economy, and resetting the regulatory legislative environment to minimise the risks of those kinds of calamities happening again. Let\u2019s remember that that global financial crisis stalled worldwide economic growth for several years and wiped hundreds of billions of dollars off global capital markets, caused huge unemployment, created instability in parts of the world, and to a large extent you can sheet home the trigger point for that global financial crisis to unregulated capital markets where the controls were too lax and where the big boys played hard and loose and engaged in greedy and unscrupulous behaviour because there was no one really looking. These rules are partly a response to that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000686\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022098b8334-57f8-4062-bac6-bfbc3474e88e\u0022\u003EIt does impact upon New Zealand in a significant way. It\u2019s estimated that our major trading banks have over $1 trillion of exposure just in the EU to financial markets which will have to comply to these new rules. Major public entities like the ACC fund and the New Zealand Superannuation Fund also have significant exposure. Ultimately, if we don\u2019t have a legislative environment that is compliant, the ability of those entities to engage in those markets will be cut off, and that would be a very serious problem. The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, the Reserve Bank, and the Financial Markets Authority have been working on these issues for some time to ensure that we have rules that are fit for purpose, that minimise risk, and ensure our compliance to those markets.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000687\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022098b8334-57f8-4062-bac6-bfbc3474e88e\u0022\u003EThere are two key areas in which the legislation enacts reform. The first I want to talk about is around the issue of benchmark rates. People might have a little bell ringing in their head when I talk about the LIBOR scandal of 2012. Now, the LIBOR is the London Inter-bank Offered Rate. It is, effectively, the average of the interest rates offered by the major trading banks in London, and it, effectively, became the default rate that interest was offered at. What emerged in 2012\u2014through a scandal that erupted in Barclays Bank, but spread through many others\u2014was that, effectively, unscrupulous traders had been fiddling with the rates, pumping them up or down at different times in order to create margins that they could make profit on. Sometimes they tried to pump up the creditworthiness of their particular institution. It was a massive abuse of the system that enriched a number of people within that system but created chaos throughout the rest of the system and disadvantaged ordinary people, ultimately. And so a series of reforms arising out of that LIBOR scandal centred in Europe ensure that there is far greater regulatory oversight of those who set what are called those benchmark rates. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000688\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022098b8334-57f8-4062-bac6-bfbc3474e88e\u0022\u003ENow in New Zealand, we have had a different system for determining benchmark rates, but what the new EU regulations say is that if you\u2019re going to have your own local system for setting benchmark rates, then you have to have what\u2019s called equivalence with the EU regulatory framework and so, ultimately, that is what this piece of legislation does. It ensures that we have equivalence so that we are able to ensure that we have benchmark rates that are considered to be valid and ensure that our entities can continue to engage in global financial markets. So that\u2019s really, really important. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000689\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022098b8334-57f8-4062-bac6-bfbc3474e88e\u0022\u003EThe second issue is around the issue of requiring margins and derivatives transactions. Now derivatives are financial instruments that sort of derive out of some kind of a real asset. So the financial instruments that are traded\u2014they might be based on the value of certain commodities or they might be based on a real asset such as mortgage debt. These were commonly sort of sliced and diced and traded in that period leading up to the global financial crisis and what is being required under the new regulatory framework to mitigate some of the risks that arise out of derivatives trading, which is a huge financial industry\u2014hundreds of trillions of dollars of money involved; so if something goes wrong there are huge effects across the economy. What the regulations from the G20 ensure\u2014to avoid that sort of house of cards effect so that if one transaction goes wrong it flows on across all of the others\u2014is that we have, effectively, some money on the table, what we call margin in those transactions. So if something goes wrong, there is actually some real money to fall back upon. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000690\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022098b8334-57f8-4062-bac6-bfbc3474e88e\u0022\u003EThe issue we have is that within the New Zealand legislation certain bits of our legislation would not allow for that to happen, particularly our insolvency legislation, which for very good reasons has rules about who has first right of call on money if something goes wrong in certain situations. So this piece of legislation ensures that we can be compliant with the new regulations set by the G20 around margins so that our financial institutions can engage in the financial markets, particularly in respect of derivatives, and that ensures that they can access the credit and the capital that we need. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000691\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022098b8334-57f8-4062-bac6-bfbc3474e88e\u0022\u003ESo those are the two key changes introduced by this bill: the changes around the regulation of margins and also around benchmark rates. These changes will ensure that we minimise some of the significant risks that are a reality in the modern financial markets and which caused so much damage in that period between about 2008 and 2012 as we reeled from the global financial crisis. And they will ensure that, going forward, New Zealand entities are able to engage with international financial markets, which we require to keep our economy moving forward. So it\u2019s pleasing to see that these changes seem to be supported on both sides of the House. It\u2019s a bit of a no-brainer really, and I certainly commend the bill to the House and look forward to considering it further on the Finance and Expenditure Committee. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002253f86481-33c1-48b2-893b-c11cc0bd673d\u0022 data-id=\u002275f2651352eb4fa8a813176f731e3ff9\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000692\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002253f86481-33c1-48b2-893b-c11cc0bd673d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002275f2651352eb4fa8a813176f731e3ff9\u0022\u003EHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National):\u003C/span\u003E Well, I too rise to support the first reading of this bill, the Financial Markets (Derivatives Margin and Benchmarking) Reform Amendment Bill. People who are tuning in to Parliament will be aware that quite often members on both side of the House support legislation and, in essence, it\u2019s being covered\u2014this bill is about ensuring that New Zealanders continue to have access to global capital through the EU by being up to speed with EU regulations and requirements around a particular element of the financial markets in the financial benchmarks. And so we need to get our law in shape by 1 January 2020 so as to enable continued access by New Zealand banks and major financial institutions to European funds. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000693\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002253f86481-33c1-48b2-893b-c11cc0bd673d\u0022\u003EI suppose the only point I\u2019d make is that when we talk about access to global capital that is a highly topical issue at the moment. And this bill shows that the Government is prepared to do what needs to be done in order to maintain that access to global capital. But they seem to be totally blind at the same time to the effects of other Government policies which are actually reducing our access to global capital whether it\u2019s our foreign investment rules or whether it\u2019s the introduction of a major new tax on investment, the capital gains tax. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000694\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002253f86481-33c1-48b2-893b-c11cc0bd673d\u0022\u003ESo we support this bill. This is logical, sensible stuff that needs to be done to ensure that we have access to global capital, but we do lament the fact that the Government is asleep at the wheel when it comes to the impact of the other pieces of legislation that they are considering.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000695\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002253f86481-33c1-48b2-893b-c11cc0bd673d\u0022\u003EDebate interrupted.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000696\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002253f86481-33c1-48b2-893b-c11cc0bd673d\u0022\u003EThe House adjourned at 10 p.m.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id201903052e3b68ad543c435cb3812709db0e71f2000697\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002253f86481-33c1-48b2-893b-c11cc0bd673d\u0022\u003E\u003Cbr\u003E\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n  \u003C/body\u003E\n\u003C/html\u003E"