Tuesday, 15 March 2022

TUESDAY, 15 MARCH 2022

TUESDAY, 15 MARCH 2022

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

KARAKIA/PRAYERS

IAN McKELVIE (Assistant Speaker) (remote): Almighty God, we give thanks for the blessings which have been bestowed on us. Laying aside all personal interests, we acknowledge the Queen and pray for guidance in our deliberations that we may conduct the affairs of this House with wisdom, justice, mercy, and humility for the welfare and peace of New Zealand. Amen.

Motions

Christchurch Terror Attacks—Third Anniversary

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): I seek leave to move a motion without notice to mark the third anniversary of the Christchurch terror attacks.

SPEAKER: I’m just going to warn people, I’m going to take a little longer, as far as waiting for objection, because of the fact that we’re working remotely, to give people the opportunity to do it. It was pointed out to me that I didn’t previously. Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is none.

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I move, That this House remember that three years ago today, 51 people lost their lives and more than 40 were injured in the terror attacks on Christchurch masjidain, that it acknowledge the continuing impact on the Canterbury Muslim community and Muslim New Zealanders, reassert the promise we made as a House to protect Muslim New Zealanders and their right to be safe from fear, and thank all those who have worked so hard to rebuild the impacted communities.

Today, I stand here on behalf of New Zealand to acknowledge those who lost their lives in the terrorist attacks of March 15. We remember the 51 who were killed. We remember the injured. We remember the families who suffered such all-encompassing loss, the communities that embraced them, and we remember the moment where we felt like everything changed around us in an instant.

March 15 is a date in our collective national history where we learnt about the very worst and the very best of humanity. I have many reflections from the days and weeks following the attack. Almost every single one of them is a memory, or a lesson, from our Muslim community. We were reminded, not just in the aftermath of the attack but across the course of the sentencing process, of the strength of courage, unity, and determination of our Muslim community.

After the sentencing of the perpetrator of this horrific act, the Imam who stood at the front of Al Noor mosque, who watched his own community gunned down in the midst of prayer, who that night was in such shock that I recall when I spoke with him, he uttered but two words. That same man stood outside the court in Christchurch and said: “Extremists represent hate. We represent love and compassion. Muslim and non-Muslim, people of faith and no faith. That is us, New Zealanders. We are very proud to be Muslims in New Zealand.”

I will never fathom how it is in the wake of such hardship that our Muslim community have never shown disdain for their home, only pride and endless hope that it will be better. And that is what we owe them: better. Better comes through the systemic changes we make, like the changes to our laws. Six days after the attack, we announced the ban for all military-style semi-automatic weapons and assault rifles. This took 61,000 over-powered firearms, 2,800 modified firearms, and more than 200,000 firearms parts and accessories out of our communities. We have also established a dedicated firearms unit within Police to take over firearms regulatory activities, as well as a firearms registry to be set up from June 2023, which will address the 30-year deficit of information when it comes to knowing what legal firearms are out there in our communities.

Ten days after the attack, a royal commission of inquiry was set up. It provided 44 recommendations to help our country to become the diverse, safe, inclusive country we hope for it to be. And, as such, a Ministry for Ethnic Communities is in place. Last year was the first annual hui on counter-terrorism and countering violent extremism. A national centre of research excellence for preventing and countering violent extremism is under way, and a Master’s scholarship programme has launched.

In September last year, our Counter-Terrorism Legislation Bill passed into law, giving enforcement agencies greater powers to protect New Zealanders from terrorist activity and, in particular, ensuring the planning and preparation for a terrorist act is now a criminal offence—a long outstanding gap in previous laws that has now been fixed.

But the work continues. “Better” means changing more than the law. The 17 minutes of terror that was live streamed on social media on March 15 remains available on some parts of the web despite measures to take it down. It’s clear the terrorist had spent a great deal of time in the deepest recesses of the web, spiralling into extremism. And so two months after the attack, alongside France, we brought together heads of State and Government, and leaders from the tech sector, to adopt the Christchurch Call, to eliminate terrorist and violent extremist content online.

The Christchurch Call community now includes the member States of the European Union and the European Commission, the United States, Japan, Korea, and many others—55 countries in total—and UNESCO, and the Council of Europe. Ten online service providers have joined the call. The call’s civil society advisory group represents more than 50 different organisations and individuals from around the world. We pledged to work with each other and with civil society to tackle the underlying causes of terrorism and violent extremism and to develop technical solutions that improve the online environment and make social media platforms less hospitable to terrorists and violent extremists. We have made substantial progress but the work continues, including on our own social cohesion agenda.

So we honour the memories of the 51 Shaheed who were killed with the actions we have taken to make our country a better home for all who live here. We acted as a country to deny infamy to the one who craved it, we acted as a country to cloak our Muslim community in love, and we acted as a country to strengthen tools both at home and around the world to violent extremism. But we must all, every day, work hard to do better, including to combat Islamophobia in Aotearoa New Zealand.

Three years on, we turn to our Muslim community for inspiration to remain resolute in our task to protect one another, to better understand one another, to work together towards a safer, kinder New Zealand. Assalamu alaikum.

CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Leader of the Opposition): Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Opposition joins in remembering, with heavy hearts, the 51 people who tragically lost their lives in the Christchurch mosque shootings three years ago today. We honour their memories, we send our love to the families and friends they left behind, and to the 40 people who sustained serious injuries that day.

The profound sense of loss felt by the families and survivors will, sadly, endure as they carry on rebuilding their lives. The events of March 15 2019 are a permanent stain on our country. That day, we saw an atrocity unfold in our streets, of a nature that had always seemed so distant and so unlike us. The terrorist’s cowardly actions do not bear repeating, other than to say they were so repellent to everything we stand for as New Zealanders. Such senseless violence committed against innocent people in their places of worship, where they were entitled to feel free and safe, is so incongruous with our values and our way of life. Those values we hold dear include our embracing of diversity, tolerance, and understanding. Our diverse, multicultural society is New Zealand’s strength and a point of pride. We cannot let those values fray; we must give nothing to extremism.

Today is also an opportunity to acknowledge the contribution of our first responders: the extraordinary bravery of our police, who threw themselves into the unknown and whose speed and courage led to the swift apprehension of the attacker, undoubtedly saving more lives; and the dedication of our paramedics, nurses, doctors, and hospital staff, who, in a mass casualty event, saved lives and treated the wounded under unprecedented pressures. And we remember the compassion and the love shown by New Zealanders, who opened their homes and their hearts to the survivors and families, who adorned our streets and our mosques with flowers, and who stood in unity alongside our Muslim community.

It is incumbent on us as parliamentarians to do all we can to keep New Zealand safe. As the royal commission of inquiry’s report acknowledges, no country will ever be immune from violent extremism and terrorism, but there is much that the Government can do to minimise that risk. Implementing the royal commission’s 44 recommendations is a good start, and particularly the most important of those, like having a new Minister responsible for leading and coordinating the counter-terrorism effort. The Government has national support in delivering on these vital recommendations at pace.

The events of March 15 2019 left an indelible imprint on all of our minds, and, like all of us, I remember that day very well. I was driving between meetings in Auckland when I heard the news, and I immediately headed to the airport to travel to Christchurch, where I remained for several days to support Air New Zealand staff in operations. I was so incredibly proud of all Air New Zealand staff who played their part and worked so tirelessly in those immediate days and weeks to connect impacted whānau, to ensure a smooth-running operation, and to support our community in what was a highly emotional and extremely sad day for New Zealand.

Sadly, one of our Air New Zealand family lost their life in those terrible events in Christchurch on that Friday afternoon. Lilik Abdul Hamid was an aircraft maintenance engineer in Christchurch and was in the Al Noor Mosque on Deans Avenue. Lilik was part of our engineering team in Christchurch for 16 years, but had first got to know the team even earlier when he worked with our aircraft engineers servicing customer aircraft in Indonesia over a period of eight years. The friendships he made at that time led him to apply for a role at Air New Zealand, and he and his wife, Nina, packed up and left everything they knew behind them to come to Christchurch.

Lilik was a great testament to why New Zealand is infinitely stronger and better because of diversity, and it was a real privilege to meet with Lilik’s gracious and incredible family in their home, and it was a special time marked with both tears and laughter. He made a tremendous contribution to New Zealand. He was a hard worker, both well liked and well respected, and Lilik was also quite a character, with a terrific sense of humour and a love of outdoors, especially fishing.

Today, my thoughts, prayers, and love remain with Lilik’s family, as they do with all of the families of the 51 whose lives were taken, and with all Muslim New Zealanders. Assalamu alaikum—peace be with you.

GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN (Green) (remote): Al salam alaikum. We remember today that day three years ago when our nation’s heart was broken—my heart was broken. The wound is still fresh as we remember the 51 shuhada, all those still living with the harrowing injuries of that day, their whānau, and their loved ones. We wrap our arms around the survivors, our Muslim community across the whole of Aotearoa and Ōtautahi Christchurch.

I want to remember that we did that immediately as the terror happened, as we found out. I want to remember those vigils across Aotearoa where we all held our little ones a little bit tighter as we remembered little Mucad Ibrahim—at three years old, the youngest victim of the attack. We all remember one or two special victims as we learnt all of their stories, and we sat together, we came together. I remember, as well, that the city of Dunedin ran out of flowers on Saturday the 16th because they were all at the mosque.

That is the New Zealand who welcomed my family and I here as refugees when I was just nine years old. We were fleeing oppression, the risk of torture. We’d lived through a war. I’ll never forget coming down that escalator at Auckland Airport with my terrified parents, wondering if we would be allowed in. We were welcomed here.

So I want to thank and remember every single New Zealander who stood for our values as this terror attack unfolded and for the past three years. You are on the right side of history, and it matters to our frightened communities.

I’ll never forget that a Syrian family were amongst the victims of the mosque attacks. They had fled a harrowing war and violence, they’d found safety here, but they died in Christchurch, New Zealand. The terrorist who murdered them hated refugees and he hated Muslims. We owe those victims that truth. We owe them more than remembrance.

We now have an opportunity to act beyond our gun laws, beyond talking about terrorism. We have had a royal commission report, and the focus of that report, beyond stopping violence, is stopping hate. We know that this was an act of terror. We know it was committed by a white supremacist. It went unchecked because police and national security here didn’t see white supremacy, white nationalism, as enough of a threat, as they surveilled the Muslim community itself, as they surveilled Māori activists. We know that the SIS still continues to list any white nationalist group on its watch-list outside of the terrorist of the Christchurch mosque shootings himself. Our justice system, we know, is policing and operating on a target of Māori and Pasifika men rather than far-right violence.

We know, as well, because the royal commission told us, that this hate began with hate speech. It was allowed to spread online. History has taught us, as well as this terror attack, that atrocity begets atrocity, and it starts with hate speech.

We know that our Muslim and ethnic communities have been reporting hate crimes and hate speech for years. The Muslim council of New Zealand told us that. But there was no way for police to track it, because hate crimes aren’t clearly defined in our Crimes Act—even real targeted threats of gun violence that are motivated by hate. I know that as my daily truth, as a politician who is perceived to be Muslim and known to be a refugee, and I’ve spoken about the threats I get of gun violence, death threats, rape threats, of shotguns to be loaded, based specifically on those characteristics. Every minority in New Zealand knows that threat in online spaces and bleeding into our everyday lives. Our Muslim whānau, Māori—our East Asian and Pacific communities saw it with the racist threats after COVID—our rainbow community, trans women. And it spreads online. As leaders, we have to stop and listen.

The truth is that this is a global phenomenon—disinformation deliberately spread, eventually radicalising and making us all unsafe. We can no longer depend on the goodwill of online platforms to police themselves. Facebook doesn’t care about our marginalised communities. Twitter doesn’t care. Google and YouTube only took down that video on the day because they were forced. The violence and vitriol of the recent protests outside Parliament with elements of far-right hate, with signs of white supremacy, taking advantage of disillusion, grifting disinformation, is a perfect example of that. The royal commission told us we need hate speech laws. We need hate crimes to find. The New Zealand Police wants that. It’s time to act. That is what compassion would look like.

We know, too, that what allows hate against our Muslim community or ethnic and indigenous communities is more insidious. It’s in media portrayals. It’s even in our own responses as politicians, when war or crisis happens, in who we sanction and who we shelter and help. Our refugee quota has been mostly closed for the duration of the pandemic. Refugees and the family reunification programme haven’t been filled. It’s time for that to begin.

Today, our Green call to Government is to commit to filling our refugee quota, including the numbers left behind since 2020, including families ripped apart by war. Today, as New Zealand stood with Ukraine—as we should—by allowing 4,000 families of refugees in Ukraine to be reunited, we need to remember that March 15th and the shuhada deserve the same. Treating all refugees and migrants the same matters. I see the Opposition even supported that Ukrainian visa. So today, on March 15th, let’s also remember Afghanistan, Palestine, Myanmar, Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Hong Kong, and Eritrea. COVID has only made the plight of refugees more dangerous, including refugees of colour.

Aotearoa, with that commitment, could say again that refugees are welcome here. That is what inclusion could look like. The truth is that, as politicians on both sides of this House, we are responsible for humanising our ethnic communities. Our most vulnerable communities are hurt. The people at those incredible vigils across Aotearoa three years ago are watching. They will hold us to account. Their acts of love, their resolve, is the standard we have to hold ourselves to.

We must show the rest of the world, as they are watching too, that love, peace, and compassion is a far stronger force than the forces of hate and division. We must shine a light bravely on the shadows of racism and hate that exist in pockets here and act, really act, against them. Then—only then—can we weave that incredible outpouring of love for our Muslim and migrant communities that we have seen over the past three years into the enduring fabric of our society.

Kia hora te marino

[May peace be widespread]

Kia whakapapa pounamu te moana

[May the ocean become like pounamu]

Aroha atu, aroha mai

[Give love, receive love]

Tātou i a tātou katoa.

[Let us show respect for one another.]

Thank you.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of ACT to join with other speakers in offering our sincere and ongoing condolences for the victims of our nation’s tragedy in Christchurch, just three short years ago.

I note that some other speakers have used the opportunity to promote their policies and make political points. I don’t think it’s the right day for that. What I would say is that the Prime Minister, at the time of our tragedy, had some very fine words that I completely agree with: they are us. She said to the terrorist, “You chose us but we utterly reject you.”, and said that we would never use that terrorist’s name again. It was very fine leadership that I think embodies the values that our country should take forward out of this tragedy—that we celebrate a universal humanity and resist the urge to commodify each other into identities, which can only be a precursor for more hate and violence. We should stand proudly in the world, as a country that is a place of peace and love and non-violence and acceptance on the basis that everybody is human.

We should never forget those 51 who lost their lives, those victims who survived but continue to carry injuries for their rest of their lives, and those who survived them and deserve our sympathy and condolences, but we should also honour our police force who were on the scene and apprehended the offender as rapidly as they could under those circumstances. We should, most certainly, honour those medics who were first to the scene, and those hospital heroes who worked so hard to help those who had been injured in these brutal attacks. And we should bear in mind all of the good things that were on display in the New Zealand character and society in the days after our nation’s tragedy.

I thought Golriz Ghahraman from the Green Party put it very well when she said that Dunedin ran out of flowers because they were all at the mosque. In the days after that attack, we saw an outpouring of the best of our country. It brought out the best in nearly every single New Zealander as they spontaneously reacted to an act that we as New Zealanders utterly reject because it is not part of our national character and has no place in this country.

To those who were lost, al salam alaikum. We will not forget what has happened and we will strive to be a better place and a better society in your honour.

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Paati Māori) (remote): Tēnā koe e te Pīka, tēnā koutou e te Whare. Te Paati Māori support this motion marking the third anniversary of the Christchurch terror attacks, and remembering the 51 whānau, people who lost their lives, the more than 40 people who were injured, and all the whānau who are impacted by this evil attack. Te Paati Māori’s aroha remains with Christchurch masjidain, the Canterbury Muslim community, and Muslim New Zealanders today, and all days.

We had a doctor Amjad Hamid, who worked in our local hospital. He is a very kind, compassionate man who reached out to tangata whenua here. He was received with all the aroha that you can expect in a community like ours that struggles to get doctors. At a personal level, he helped many of our kaumātua and helped heal my māmā. Islamophobia is deeply rooted in this country, and feeds off the same white supremacy that targets tangata whenua and black and brown peoples right across Aotearoa and the world.

This nation and this House must be 100 percent committed to smashing white supremacy and dismantling its colonial power structures once and for all. Rather than being responsive to the increasing concerns of our Muslim and tangata whenua communities, our security and intelligence agencies—including the SIS—were focused entirely, as my Green sister said, on the wrong people. In fact, they were targeting the same people who the white supremacists were targeting: tangata whenua, activists, environmentalists, and peaceful Muslim citizens with no history of violence. The misplaced and racist approach which failed to protect our communities will rightly be remembered as a stain on the integrity of our intelligence apparatus in Aotearoa. We need assurance that this has changed.

This week, we also marked the 157th anniversary of when our tūpuna were murdered from white supremacists in Te Ngaio, our Ngāti Porou hapū in Taranaki, which goes to show how horrific white supremacy is. This is backed by the Crown. In fact its own leader, General Cameron, had driven the colonial agenda, and the colonial agenda has continued to be driven in this country. We must be brave enough to defend our homes and we must stop the suffering that happens from those who are marginalised. Let us commit to ending it once and for all. We owe that to the fallen. We must be focused on eradicating the hate crimes. It is not only enough for us to be sitting here today, mihi-ing to those who are reaching the pains and continuously living the suffering but we must also encourage peace and all it takes to enact peace. Nō reira, tēnā koutou katoa.

IBRAHIM OMER (Labour) (remote): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Assalam alaikum alsalam ealaykum wa rahmat allah wa barakatuh. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou katoa. I rise in support of the Prime Minister’s motion to remember the March 15 attacks on Christchurch masjidain. I speak for you all. I’ve noted the third anniversary of the March 15 terror attacks on Christchurch masjidain. Three years ago, we witnessed the painful and dark day in our nation’s history. It’s a day that featured so deeply into the memories of all New Zealanders. I think back to the moment the news broke out and I remember sitting in front of the TV and watching the Prime Minister’s press conference. And I also remember, amongst the chaos, the sense of relief I felt witnessing the swift action of this Parliament as the legislation was fast tracked and passed to improve public safety. We have also seen strong leadership from this Government through the community consultations and the commitment to implement all 44 recommendations of the royal commission’s report, and its continued prioritisation.

In the Qur’an, it’s stated that whoever unjustly kills one person, it’s as though he kills the whole of humanity. This small passage captures just how precisely the 51 lives, shuhada, are regarded and remain to us all. As we continue to heal, we will be thinking of the victims and their families today. We will be honouring them in our hearts and prayers. We will ask Allah, the almighty Allah, to ease our collective pain and to bless those who were martyred in this sinister terror attack.

There is also another verse from the Qur’an that states, “Whoever saves life, it’s as though he has saved all mankind.” When I think of this verse, I think of those brave Cantabrians who heard the commotion and jumped in to help those on the scene. I think of our emergency responders. I think of our community organisations who dropped everything they were doing and rushed to offer their services to the impacted communities. Finally, I think of all New Zealanders who were at home and went out into their local communities and wrapped their arms around their neighbours and communities.

It’s important to remember that the terrorist utterly failed. The plan to turn the whole country against each other was fruitless. The terrorist obviously underestimated his understanding of Islam. Our Islamic faith centres on values such as charity, forgiveness, honesty, patience, and—the most important—kindness. In response, we, the Muslim community, opened our homes and our hearts and we embraced people as we continued to grieve our loss. The terrorist has shown us our similarities and the extent of the empathy and selflessness and kindness we as a nation are able to tap into.

It is important for ever that we remember the legacy of our nation’s response and that we continue to hold on to those values close. And March 15 will always continue to be a day where we renew our commitment to make Aotearoa better for all of us no matter where we come from, no matter what faith we follow, or no matter what we look like or what ways we dress. It will be a day we renew our commitment to make sure that what happened on March 15 will never happen again in our country. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa. Salaam.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National): It is quite appropriate that the House takes time today to remember the tragedy that occurred just three years ago. It is a day that will live in the memory of anyone who was in Christchurch at the time, for all of their life. We used to ask the question, “Where were you when the earthquake struck?” A whole new generation of kids will be asking, “Where were you when the Al Noor Mosque was attacked, and those 51 people lost their lives to the bullets of a deranged gunman?” They’ll remember it because schools were locked down, business places were locked down. The city was, for a time, almost under siege. I’m sure it’s nothing like what is being experienced by others in other parts of the world at the moment, but it was a frightening time for everyone. And while it’s not possible to fully empathise with the emotions that come with the loss of loved ones, with the injuries to loved ones, and to the disruption, terrible disruption, to families who were deeply affected by this—the victims of that gunman—it is possible to empathise with, in a shared way, the violation that that act caused to our otherwise peaceable community.

There have been some remarkable responses from those who are leaders in the Muslim community. I think particularly of Gamal Fouda, who led that wonderful reflection, I suppose you’d say, one week after, when he spoke to a very large gathering on Hagley Park. It was ahead of the official recognition, where he also spoke brilliantly and generously, and with a great deal of love and forgiveness for the circumstance that had occurred. And I’m sure that in the living memories of anybody who was part of the Christchurch community at the time, the deep respect for the way in which he represented the views of his, I suppose you’d say—I was going to say parishioners, but that’s probably the wrong word—fellow Muslims who were so deeply affected by the event.

The support that’s needed for those families continues to this day. And it’s not so much support that’s found in anything that we might do legislatively, because I think the initiatives that the Prime Minister outlined earlier in her speech were the right ones, and have been widely supported by Parliament. But there is this ongoing worry for many of those families who do need ongoing support and, while it’s there, I hope that there is no point where it might be in any way withdrawn.

There is a question about do we do more, in a security sense—should our agencies have known more—all of those sorts of things. They’re appropriate to ask, but I think we do need to remember that many of the people who were affected by the events that day came to live in this country because they wanted to live a life that was free. It was dreadfully disruptive, dreadfully—I suppose you’d say—shattered the dream by the events of that day. But for their families, none the less, the goals that they had in coming here remain true. And so we need to remember that, for all of the security measures that we might put in place, they have to be measures that are acceptable inside a free society, and we cannot completely rearrange everything to affect other people’s freedoms, simply on the back of the activities of, as I said before, a deranged gunman.

Mr Seymour spoke of the heroes on the day; there were many of them. Firstly, all of those people who were in the mosque, who had to face the prospect of assisting others who were shot, or got shot themselves. There were the families of those victims—not only those of the deceased but also those who suffered pretty horrendous injuries as well. They were alongside, as heroes, the police, the medical people that were so good—having a trauma centre so close was, perhaps, helpful—but also I wanted to say I think the media did a very good job at that time as well. Everyone wanted to know what happened. Everyone wanted to know what was going on, and I think they handled it with remarkable respect. The Christchurch news team initially and then, later on, some of the more headline presenters from inside the networks. And it’s important that they do that because, at a time when the city was facing an uncertainty over fears—was it one gunman, was it multiple gunmen etc.—it was very important that their work continue.

I just want to conclude by recognising the efforts of Temel Atacocugu. He’s been walking from Dunedin to Christchurch—he would have arrived at Al Noor about an hour or so ago—retracing the steps that that the gunman took on that day, before that horrible event. He’s a man who was shot, I think, nine times, who continues to have a battle with his recovery from those events, but he’s undertaken this effort in what he calls a “walk for peace”, and I admire him enormously for what he’s done, because he is making a very, very practical, easily understood statement for his fellow New Zealanders to get alongside, and I wish him very well for what will be, I think, a recovery from some of the pain that he’s experienced on that particular walk.

It is a day where we might remember the tragedy of it. Before that, or over the top of that, I think we need to remember that the message that came out of it was one of love and forgiveness. That is a remarkable thing and really augurs very well for a diverse New Zealand community, moving forward. Salam alaikum.

Motion agreed to.

PETITIONS, PAPERS, SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS, AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

PETITIONS, PAPERS, SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS, AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

SPEAKER: No bills have been introduced. Petitions have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation.

CLERK:

Petition of Arthur Yeo requesting that the House ensure that Governments are required to consider equestrian users’ needs in the design of all roading, pathways, reserves, and parks

petition of Rosemary Penwarden requesting that the House require KiwiRail to cease transport of coal and re-establish KiwiRail as a Government department

petition of Jamie Crook requesting that the House reverse COVID-19 mandates and traffic light system, and

petition of Ian Meredith requesting that the House urge the Government to increase the amount of funding for fibre-optic communication network.

SPEAKER: Those petitions stand referred to the Petitions Committee. Ministers have delivered papers.

CLERK:

Annual Reports for 2021 for:

Export Education Levy

Education New Zealand

Auckland DHB

Bay of Plenty DHB

Counties Manukau DHB

Hawke’s Bay DHB

South Canterbury DHB

Tairāwhiti DHB

Wairarapa DHB

Whanganui DHB

New Zealand Health Partnerships

HealthSource, and

healthAlliance New Zealand

annual plans for 2021-22 for:

Auckland DHB

Bay of Plenty DHB

Counties Manukau DHB

Hawke’s Bay DHB

Wairarapa DHB

Whanganui DHB, and

HealthSource

statement of performance expectations 2021-22 for:

South Canterbury DHB, and

Tairāwhiti DHB, and

statement of intent for 2021 to 2025, New Zealand Health Partnerships.

SPEAKER: I present the report of the Controller and Auditor-General, entitled Commentary on He Tirohanga Mokupuna 2021. Those papers are published under the authority of the House. Select committee reports have been delivered for presentation.

CLERK:

Report of the Education and Workforce Committee on the petition of Simone Hamilton

report of the Environment Committee on the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Hazardous Substances Assessments) Amendment Bill

report of the Governance and Administration Committee on the 2020-21 annual review of the Office of the Clerk of the House of Representatives and the Parliamentary Service

reports of the Justice Committee on the 2020-21 annual reviews of:

the Department of Corrections

the Ministry of Justice

and the New Zealand Police

reports of the Māori Affairs Committee on the 2020-21 annual reviews of:

the Ministry of Māori Development—Te Puni Kōkiri, and

the Office for Māori Crown Relations—Te Arawhiti

report of the Petitions Committee on the petition of Olivia Rollo.

SPEAKER: The bill is set down for second reading.

Speaker’s Statements

Question Time—Remote Participation

SPEAKER: Members, before we move to oral questions, I just want to give members participating remotely three reminders. First, could members please use their first name and last name in Zoom so that the Clerk’s operators can identify them. The operators can’t admit people to the meeting if they do not know who they are, and using full names makes it faster to find members and unmute their microphones. With the exception of whips, who have special accounts, members need to be either in the Chamber or on Zoom. If they do both, it causes confusion. A reminder that unmuting and muting is controlled by operators. When I give the call, the member is unmuted. There is no need for the member to do anything, and trying to unmute themselves can cause the member to mute again.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Prime Minister

1. CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by all of her Government’s statements and actions?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Yes, particularly the Government’s consistent efforts to increase wages and support for low and middle income earners. We cannot control the war in Ukraine, nor the continued volatility of fuel prices, but we can take steps to reduce the impact on New Zealand families. That’s why we have reduced fuel excise duties and road-user charges by 25c and halved the price of public transport. This builds on a comprehensive package due to come into play on 1 April, which increases Working for Families for 346,000 families, ensuring they are better off by, on average, $20 a week. Of course, that coincides with further benefit increases and increases for superannuitants and also student support. On 1 May, the winter energy payment restarts again, benefiting over a million New Zealanders during the winter months, including superannuitants. There is no silver bullet that will fix the cost of living, but we have a plan and are implementing a range of measures that together will help to make a difference. That stands in stark contrast to the idea from the Opposition of reducing taxes for those earning over $180,000 a year.

Christopher Luxon: Does the Prime Minister accept that with weekly rents up a staggering $150 a week under Labour, the largest four-year increase in New Zealand’s history, her Government’s housing policies have made the cost of living crisis much, much worse for the one in three Kiwi households who rent?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: First, if I could just give the context that according to Stats New Zealand rental price index, the rental increases we’ve seen from, for instance, 2013 to 2017 in terms of percentages, is actually the same as, for instance, the period that we’ve seen while we’ve been in office. Where there is a difference is the approach that we as a Government have taken relative to the previous Government. We have worked hard to try and tip the balance in favour of renters and first-home buyers. The combination of interest deductibility, the extension of the brightline test, the work that we have done to incentivise new builds to increase housing stock has led to, for instance, record consents. We know that this is an issue of supply and demand because in those areas where we have increased supply, we’ve seen lesser increases in rents relative to those areas of constrained supply. The big difference is we are working hard to build houses, whereas on the opposite side, they worked hard to sell off Government houses.

Christopher Luxon: Why did she introduce additional taxes on rental housing last year, despite Inland Revenue Department officials clearly warning her it would drive up rents?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As has been the case time and time again in this House, I do want to correct the member. The member is referring to advice that was provided before the additional changes that we made. That’s meant that we are phasing out interest deductibility over a four-year period—

Nicola Willis: You were warned.

SPEAKER: Order!

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: —and importantly, including an exemption on new builds. The whole goal is twofold. We want to make it easier for first-home buyers to buy. On the opposite side of the House, they are proposing to remove the brightline test and interest deductibility, which would not improve the housing market for first-time buyers; and secondly, to improve supply, we’ve created a carve-out for new builds, to incentivise the building of houses. This stands in contrast with the Opposition, who actually have no proposals whatsoever.

Christopher Luxon: So why have rents increased by an additional $50 since she introduced those taxes?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: There is no evidence to suggest it has been as a result of those changes, and I remind the member again, the increases that we’ve seen actually mirrored the increases we saw from 2013.

Nicola Willis: Incorrect.

SPEAKER: Order!

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: That demonstrates—that is a statement of fact based on Stats New Zealand—that we’ve got a decades-old problem that in contrast to the Opposition, we have policies that are working hard to solve the problem. On the opposite side, they intend to get rid of everything that will make it easier for first-home buyers.

David Seymour: Can the Prime Minister explain to the people of New Zealand just why she thought raising taxes on landlords in a tight rental market wouldn’t lead to an increase in rents?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The CoreLogic data shows that investors still remain active in the market: 36 percent of transactions are going to multiple property owners. What we want to do for those investors is steer them towards new builds so we can expand supply, rather than operating in the same market as first-home buyers.

Christopher Luxon: Does she accept that with rents up an additional $50 a week since she introduced those taxes—the largest one-year increase in rents we’ve ever seen in this country—her tax increases have clearly made the cost of living crisis much worse, just as she was warned they would?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Here, again, I will point the member back to what the increases have shown. However, the contrast that exists between this side of the House and the opposite is, rather than just seeing those increases and doing nothing, we have invested heavily in supporting low and middle income earners: first, the package of changes we’ve made to try and improve the housing market for first-home buyers and renters—and there is still more to do—secondly, lifting the incomes of low and middle income earners, and on 1 April, we have another tranche of changes again. That stands in contrast with the members opposite, who want to get rid of all of those tax changes to try and help first-home buyers, who stood opposed to some of our measures to stop increases on more than an annual basis for renters, and who want to give those low and middle income earners $2.16 as a solution to the cost of living. We have a much more substantial package.

Christopher Luxon: Does the fact she is now resorting to re-announcing policies that were already announced months ago show that her Government is simply running out of ideas?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Two points I would make there: firstly, of course what we announced yesterday—the 25c reduction in excise—was in direct response to the war in Ukraine and the impact it is having on New Zealanders at the pump, as was the 50 percent reduction in public transport to encourage and support those who do have the choice of public transport to adopt it. It was not a policy developed last year, because there was no war last year.

Christopher Luxon: Can the Prime Minister explain why someone should pay more tax because of inflation?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As I have already highlighted in the House, our primary focus has been on giving back to low and middle income earners at a much larger rate than the tax cuts proposed by the member. It is because our long-term measures to support living cost impacts are long term and targeted. By being targeted, they can be more generous, and, again, I contrast what someone on $45,000 would receive: over $20 on this side versus $2 from that side.

Christopher Luxon: What is her response to ANZ economist Miles Workman that “Inflation is now running laps around wage growth, meaning households are going backwards at an alarming rate.”?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I’m sure that commentator would also reflect that that has not been the case since this Government came into office, and—as I’ve said many times—since 2018, wages have increased at, roughly, 3.5 percent; inflation has been at 2.2 percent. We are in extraordinary times. We have the wicked perfect storm of a pandemic, the impact on supply, and, add to that, a war. It is having an effect, and that is why we have both the changes we announced yesterday to ease the pressure at the pump, and also the 1 April changes, both of which amount to a significant increase for low and middle income earners that is vastly different than what’s being proposed by members opposite.

Hon Chris Hipkins (remote): Can the Prime Minister confirm that the last time New Zealanders experienced a significant increase in the cost of living, they also ended up paying significantly more tax because the then Government decided to increase GST?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I can confirm that the last time New Zealanders were experiencing food price increases was in, from memory, 2011, when the then National Government decided to increase GST, which we know is regressive and hits those who can afford it the least the most. That is fairly consistent with their most recent tax policy, where they have proposed to cut the top tax rate of those who earn—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! The question itself was at the edge of the margin, and I think the Prime Minister has taken it beyond.

Christopher Luxon: Is she honestly saying that Kiwis who have seen their real incomes fall over the past year shouldn’t be concerned because inflation four years ago wasn’t as bad?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: No.

Christopher Luxon: How does the Prime Minister think Kiwis struggling with the cost of living feel when they see a Government that’s increased spending by more than $50 billion a year but has still somehow failed to make progress on any of its signature promises, and in areas like housing is actively making things worse?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: By making that statement, I can only assume the member does not support the measures that the Government took in the face of the pandemic to support businesses and keep people in employment, the most significant of which, of course, was the wage subsidy to keep people connected to employment. Just as it was our job to help support New Zealanders through the pandemic, it is our job to help them through the economic impacts that we’ve seen as a result: keeping unemployment at 3.2 percent, as we have done, and debt relative to other countries as low as we have; and, now, supporting them through the cost of living impacts of the pandemic and the war. We demonstrated that we could respond quickly in the face of a pandemic; we are doing the same now in the wake of the Ukraine war.

Chlöe Swarbrick (remote): Is there any evidence tax cuts for landlords will pass on to rent cuts for renters?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: We have consistently heard claims that when you increase, for instance, accommodation supplement, that immediately is taken up in rental increases. We’ve consistently heard that making our homes warmer and drier will negatively impact on tenants, rather than actually keeping them warm, dry, and healthy. There is no evidence to suggest the changes that we’ve been making in the areas the member has indicated and, in fact, all of those other areas have necessarily directly translated in the way the members across the House suggest. Again, it tells me that they actually have very few solutions on how to make the housing market more affordable and to support first-home buyers.

Question No. 2—Finance

2. BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): In response to the Government’s announcements yesterday to support New Zealanders through the global energy crisis with a temporary reduction in tax on fuel in New Zealand, ANZ bank economists reported that it would reduce inflation. By cutting the fuel excise duty and road user charges by 25c per litre for the next three months, they estimate that the direct impact of the change could reduce inflation in the June quarter by 0.5 percentage points. ANZ noted that the reduction will cause a one-off drop in prices, as well as a second-round impact, as most goods and services rely on fuel somewhere in the supply chain. They said, “the impact is small in the context of the current levels of high inflation we’re experiencing, but every little bit helps.” We know there is no one answer, or easy answer, to addressing costs of living issues, but we are also continuing to act to support those most affected by cost of living increases, particularly through the packages that will come through on 1 April to support low- and middle-income households, superannuitants, and students.

Barbara Edmonds: What other impacts will the Government’s announcement have for the economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The advice that we have received is that the decrease we have announced will save New Zealanders $17.25 every time they fill a 60-litre tank, and $11.50 every time they fill 40-litre tank. We recognise that fuel prices are expected to continue to rise due to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine destabilising global energy markets, and we will continue to monitor the situation over the coming months and respond as required. I’d also note that Treasury and the Ministry of Transport have estimated that the cost of the changes announced yesterday will be about $350 million for the three-month period. As this funding from the fuel excise duty goes directly into the National Land Transport Fund that pays for roads, public transport, and walking and cycling infrastructure around New Zealand, we have committed to top up that fund to recognise the critical importance of meeting the country’s transport needs following decades of under-investment.

Barbara Edmonds: What steps is the Government taking in Budget 2022 to improve the resilience of the economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The global energy crisis highlights the importance of the move to energy security and independence for New Zealand. Budget 2022 will focus on investing in initiatives to reduce emissions and meet our climate goals. This will include moving away from volatile global oil markets by decarbonising our vehicle fleet and supporting public transport, cycling, and walking. To respond effectively we need to make significant investments across multiple Budgets. The new Climate Emergency Response Fund will invest the proceeds of our Emissions Trading Scheme to combat climate change and support the transition to a more resilient economy with investments that will create sustainable jobs and boost productivity.

Question No. 3—Finance

3. Hon SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree that New Zealand’s cost of living crisis is wider than simply an energy crisis; if not, why?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Can I begin by acknowledging the member’s announcement that he made earlier today and to congratulate him on his political career and also on taking up the opportunities ahead of him, and wish him and his family all the very, very best. As I’ve noted a number of times in this House, I do agree that many New Zealand families are facing significant costs of living increases as a result of factors such as global inflation and the war in Ukraine, and that this represents a crisis for many of them. That’s why the Government yesterday announced a 25c per litre cut to the fuel excise duty and equivalent reductions in road-user charges. It’s also why we have our focus squarely on those most affected, which is why there is a package of income support for middle and low income families from 1 April. This package stands in contrast to the member and his party, who are touting the same old National Party policies of giving tax cuts to the richest New Zealanders while giving $2 a week to those earning $45,000 a year.

Hon Simon Bridges: Does he agree that we also have a food cost crisis, for example?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: What I agree is what I said in my primary answer—that for many New Zealanders the pressure that they are facing from rising prices is indeed a crisis for them. When it comes to the cost of food, I would note two things. The first is the importance of fuel in the food supply chain and the cost that it adds, and how that will be reduced by the announcement that we made yesterday. Secondly, we are continuing to focus on low and middle income earners, who have the hardest time when food prices rise. That’s why the family tax credit going up by $20 per week matters so much. That’s why the increases in benefits matter so much. It’s just a pity that the member in his time here didn’t support those changes.

Hon Simon Bridges: What does he say to struggling families around New Zealand dreading their grocery shopping, given that under his watch, food prices have increased by the highest amount in a decade in the last year, with essentials like fruit and veges up 17 percent, and tomatoes, for example—

SPEAKER: Order! The member—

Hon Simon Bridges: —now at $7.29 a kilo.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: What I would say to those people is that on this side of the House, we understand the pressure that rising prices mean. It’s the reason why we’re putting significant money in the pockets of low and middle income New Zealanders, as compared to that member and his party putting $2 a week in the pockets of someone on a low or middle income.

Hon Simon Bridges: Does he fully accept and understand the wide-ranging nature of New Zealand’s cost of living crisis—whether it’s energy, food, housing, or other price increases—and isn’t the answer to adopt a meaningful tax relief programme in Budget 2022, as Chris Luxon has suggested?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I simply disagree with the member that it is meaningful for someone on $45,000 a year to be given $2 a week while members of this House would get thousands of dollars a year from Christopher Luxon’s proposal. On this side of the House, we will continue to focus on low and middle income New Zealanders whilst also addressing the fuel issue that affects all of us.

SPEAKER: Order! Before the member takes that, there was, during the asking of that question, a fairly consistent interjection from my right, and as a result of that Mr Bridges will get an extra supplementary.

Hon Simon Bridges: Will I always be his favourite National finance spokesperson?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I’ve been giving significant thought to this question, and I can confirm for the member that among the six National Party finance spokespeople I have faced, he’s in the top half.

Hon Simon Bridges: What will he miss most about me?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: What I will miss about the member is his ability found latterly in his political career to not take himself too seriously, and I look forward to his hosting of the Country Calendar yak special.

Question No. 4—Energy and Resources

4. ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour) (remote) to the Minister of Energy and Resources: What actions is she taking to give New Zealanders confidence that they will receive the full benefit of the Government’s 25 cent reduction in fuel excise duty and road-user charges announced yesterday?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Energy and Resources): Last night, I wrote to fuel companies to confirm that the Government’s 25c per litre reduction in fuel excise would be passed on to consumers from 11.59 p.m. I also further outlined information disclosure that would be required, and I’d like to thank Z Energy, who have already confirmed that they will voluntarily provide this information. In the coming days, I will propose changes to the Fuel Industry Amendment Regulations 2021 to compel the provision of daily rolling seven-day average margin information so we can monitor this. This information will be made publicly available. The Government’s clear expectation is that fuel companies will pass on the full 25c per litre reduction plus the GST component to consumers. These changes will give New Zealanders confidence that the prices that they pay at the pump reflect our decision to reduce petrol excise duty.

Angie Warren-Clark: When can New Zealanders expect to see a reduction in the prices they pay at the pump, as a result of these measures?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Following yesterday’s announcement, fuel companies began responding by 5 p.m., dropping their prices by 25c per litre. This means people are already saving $11.50 in excise on a 40-litre tank, and $17.25 on a 60-litre tank. I’m pleased to see that fuel companies acted quickly to pass on savings to consumers, but the Government will continue to monitor prices to ensure that consumers get a better deal at the pump.

Angie Warren-Clark: What can New Zealanders do if they’re concerned that savings are not being passed on?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: In addition to proposing changes to the Fuel Industry Amendment Regulations 2021 to increase monitoring of fuel company margins, I’ve asked officials at the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment to follow up on concerns with prices. Of course, we will be collecting data at the company level, not the station level, but I encourage consumers to shop around. If people are concerned that the Government’s reduction in fuel excise is not being passed on, they can email pricewatch@mbie.govt.nz. Emails will be followed up by officials to ensure that people get a better deal at the pump.

Question No. 5—Prime Minister

5. DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by all her Government’s statements and actions?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Yes, particularly the Government’s actions to increase incomes from 1 April, including increases to Working for Families, which will make around 346,000 families better off by an average of $20 a week—adjusting the income thresholds for childcare assistance annually, in line with average wage growth, benefiting 1,000 families, or around 1,500 children, after this was something frozen by the previous National Government in 2010. Benefits are to increase by up to $35 a week, bringing the total increases for beneficiaries with children, over the time we have been in office, to an average $175 per week, increasing to $207 per week during the 2022 winter period. In addition, on 1 April, student allowances will increase by $25, superannuation will increase by $52 per fortnight for a single person and $80 for a couple. There’s no silver bullet that will fix the cost of living but we have a plan and are implementing a range of measures that together will help to make a difference.

David Seymour: Why did every single policy she just listed to increase incomes involve handing out taxpayer money, and what does that say about her level of aspiration for New Zealand?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: If the member is opposed to universal superannuation, then that is a matter for the member. If the member does not believe in Government support through sole parent support or jobseeker support, that is, I think, an additional step even for the member. If the member doesn’t believe in student support, again, that is for him to defend. And, again, if the member chooses to get rid of Working for Families, again, that would be a policy that I know the majority of New Zealanders would be very disappointed to hear.

David Seymour: Why didn’t the Prime Minister understand that was not an opportunity to talk about ACT’s policies but to explain to New Zealanders what policies her Government has to raise real productivity, wage growth, and economic growth in this country, and why didn’t she have anything to say about that?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I think it’s only on this side of the House where we stand to gain from New Zealanders hearing more about ACT’s policies. ACT’s policies, which, if I were to simply touch on a few—if we were just to look at the tax programme from ACT, they are proposing, for instance, tax cuts, that would essentially mean $11.85 billion, a hole in future Budgets, in order to give those on over $300,000 a $10,000 tax cut, and those on $45,000 or less absolutely nothing. Right now, the difference between this side of the House and that is that we have chosen to make targeted investments to support lower-middle income New Zealanders and make sure that we’re investing in the services that they view as critical: health, education, and other investments that lessen the cost of living. On the other side of the House, they want tax cuts for the wealthy.

David Seymour: Does she stand by her statement that New Zealanders face an energy crisis, and, if so, will the Government’s response to this energy crisis be more successful than its response to the housing crisis, where the median house price has gone up $355,000, or 67 percent, on her watch?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I traversed earlier in question time what we have seen in the housing market, be it the rental market or for homeownership more generally, in the past several years, dating back to well beyond even 2013. In answer to the first half of the member’s question, I stand by those statements, which is why yesterday, as a Government, we moved swiftly to ensure that New Zealanders at the pump were seeing a 25c, and in many cases more, reduction in fuel as a result of the war in Ukraine. We stand by the quick and nimble response there shown to try and ease the pressure, and although it won’t solve everything, our hope is combined, when the 1 April changes, it will make a difference for many.

David Seymour: Does she stand by her earlier statement to this House that the policy to reduce petrol prices by 25c wasn’t ready last year because there was no war and is a response to the war; and if she does stand by it, which budgetary appropriation is she using to fund it, or will this be like Ihumātao, where she spent $30 million illegally and got rapped over by the Auditor-General?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I totally reject the second part of the question. But I will be generous to the member and answer the first part of the question. As the Minister of Finance already demonstrated yesterday, our ability to fund the $350 million that the excise reduction would mean comes from underspend as a result of, primarily, underspend on COVID spending, particularly managed isolation. This is a key difference. The likes of the Automobile Association have supported the initiative, primarily because unlike some of the proposals from the Opposition, we have said that we will not only see the reduction at the pump but we will keep funding critical transport projects and maintenance, which is not what we’ve seen from other members in this House.

David Seymour: Will the Government’s response to the energy crisis be more successful than its response to what it’s called a climate emergency, when emissions, according to Statistics New Zealand, have “shown no obvious sustained reductions compared to 2005”—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! I’ve been thinking about this line of questions. The member is not relating the primary question or subsequent supplementaries to the subsequent supplementary questions, and he is being ironic. I rule that question out.

David Seymour: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, the Prime Minister has led off talking about her energy policy. There’s no irony in comparing it with the performance of other policies.

SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member will resume his seat. I’ve ruled the question out. Does the member want a further supplementary?

David Seymour: Why did it take three months from when ACT said there was a cost of living crisis in December for the Prime Minister to admit that there is a cost of living crisis, when Kiwis have known it all along?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Actually, at the end of last year, the Government made the decision to put in place the Working for Families changes that come in on 1 April, at a cost of $270 million, which we took in advance of the Budget, because we anticipated exactly what we are seeing now, as part of the COVID response and recovery globally, causing significant cost of living increases.

David Seymour: Did the Prime Minister hesitate to agree there’s a cost of living crisis because usually when she declares there’s a crisis in an area, that’s a prelude to things getting much worse?

SPEAKER: Order! No. Order! The question was ironic, the member knew it was ironic—

David Seymour: No, I didn’t.

SPEAKER: Yes he did.

David Seymour: Mr Speaker, point of order.

SPEAKER: No, I’ve ruled the question out, but point of order, David Seymour.

David Seymour: Mr Speaker, the question’s only ironic if you agree the Government’s policies have failed—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member’s arguing with me again. He will cease now if he wants to stay here and if he wants his party to have any further supplementaries.

Mark Cameron: Does she stand by her Minister Stuart Nash’s statement that “I’m not … sure what Groundswell stands for these days”, and that “what I have read on their website [is] a mixture of racism [and] anti-vax, etc.”; if not, will she apologise before meeting with them?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The member that the member across is referring to, the Minister Stuart Nash, has already addressed those comments extensively in the public. The one thing I would say in addition to that is that I have met consistently, perhaps more than with any other sector, with our farming leaders. We have worked constructively together on a range of significant issues, and may I put on record the disappointment in the fact that across the vast majority of parties in this House, there is clear support of initiatives around climate change and emissions reduction, including to ensure that we maintain our reputation abroad, which we trade on on behalf of our primary producers, and instead, unfortunately, those members want to repeal the zero carbon Act, which would take us backwards and make us less competitive as primary producers on the world stage.

Hon Michael Wood: Does she stand by the Government’s actions in securing a free-trade agreement with the United Kingdom?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Absolutely, and I can do no better than reiterate the statements made by seasoned trade officials, who said that this is the best agreement in their memory that New Zealand has achieved, and I want to thank all members in this House who supported and worked so diligently, alongside our excellent trade officials, to deliver that deal, which will make a huge difference for our primary producers, who have carried much weight during the course of this pandemic and pandemic recovery.

Question No. 6—Education

6. MARJA LUBECK (Labour) (remote) to the Minister of Education: What response has he seen to Government initiatives to support training and apprenticeships?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education) (remote): I’m pleased to report that New Zealanders are continuing to flock to the trades since we introduced the free vocational training and apprenticeships fund, or the Targeted Training and Apprenticeships Fund (TTAF). The latest enrolment data shows that 188,090 people have been supported through the fund since we introduced it in July 2020—that includes more than 88,000 apprentices. The fund is making a range of qualifications in key targeted areas—and all apprenticeships—free until the end of this year.

Marja Lubeck: Has TTAF supported a diverse range of New Zealanders to undertake vocational education and training?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Yes, the Targeted Training and Apprenticeships Fund are supporting—32 percent of the learners supported by that fund are under the age of 25 years old, and 26 percent of them are over the age of 40. Twenty percent of the learners are Māori, 14 percent are Asian, and 9 percent are Pacific peoples—these three groups collectively accounting for more than 40 percent of all those receiving support under the fund. Thirty-one percent of people supported by the fund are women, and that is significant given the historic under-representation of women in trades. We can still do better and we’ll still keep pushing to do better.

Marja Lubeck: What support have employers received from the Apprenticeship Boost initiative in relation to vocational learners in their workplaces?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The Apprenticeship Boost is part of our COVID-19 support initiatives that helps employers to keep early-stage apprentices employed and training towards their qualification. Since it started in August of 2020, nearly 17,000 employers have been supported to retain over 42,000 first- and second-year apprentices and to take on new apprentices. We now have an unprecedented number of apprentices. In the first two months of this year, we’ve funded over 56,000 apprentices—that’s compared to 48,000 in the same period last year, 2021, and just 37,000 in 2020. So it’s an increase of 18 percent over last year and 55 percent over 2020. As a Government, we’ve been focused on rebuilding our trades and vocational education and training systems, and that work is really delivering results.

Question No. 7—Transport

7. RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) to the Minister of Transport: What steps, if any, will he take to ensure people have access to free, frequent, and accessible public transport?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Transport): The Government is committed to supporting more people to travel by public transport and to ensuring that public transport is frequent, reliable, and accessible to support mode shift and our emissions reductions goals. The member will be familiar with announcements that were made yesterday that will assist significantly there over the next three months. In addition, we have, over the course of our time in Government, increased public transport funding in the National Land Transport Fund from $336 million to $636 million. This has supported better outcomes, such as new public transport services in places like Timaru, which now has an on-demand public transport system; $2 fares for buses in Queenstown; major new infrastructure such as the Puhinui train station in Auckland, partly funded by the regional fuel tax; and the Eastern Busway. I also announced earlier this year a pilot Community Connect card to provide half-price public transport to low-income earners in Auckland. I would note that while affordable fares are an important part of ensuring an accessible public transport system, they’re not the only part. Making public transport completely free would reduce the revenue coming into the system, and much international evidence suggests that factors such as the frequency and reliability of services are actually more important in terms of driving patronage than free fares.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Why not both increase the frequency of public transport services and make fares free?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: As I’ve outlined in my primary answer, the Government is focused both on improving services—also on improving infrastructure—and on making sure that fares are as affordable as possible. I’ve noted the introduction of the Community Connect card on a trial basis in Auckland from 1 July, which will halve fares for people on a community services card. That’s a trial that we want to examine to see if it can be expanded further out. And, of course, as of yesterday, the Government has announced a half-price public transport fare system for the next three months to assist people with cost challenges.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Why did the Government yesterday not make public transport completely free in the same way it did in March 2020, which would allow people to better participate in their communities, further reduce the cost of living, and be quicker to implement?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: The Government announced a significant package of initiatives which will assist New Zealanders to meet cost challenges and to be able to connect in a more affordable way, including significant reductions to the fuel excise duty and road-user charges, and the half-price public transport fares over that period. As ever, we have to consider carefully the priorities that we have, where expenditure will go, and what will achieve the best effect. I do note that there are some complexities involved in shifting towards a fare-free system. One that has been raised with me by local government, for example, is that one of the benefits of people having to pay fares, whether it’s via ticket or whether it’s via card, is that we collect good patronage data, which enables services to be better planned, and that would be potentially lost if there were free fares. So it’s about priorities, it’s about where the investment best goes to get the outcomes we want, and it’s about some of these complexities that aren’t always obvious on the surface.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Will he commit to extending the discount on public transport fares beyond three months to address inequality and help reduce emissions; if not, why not?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: This is a Government which has done more than any other to improve public transport services and to make fares more affordable. As I’ve outlined, we have made a decision to provide funding to local authorities and Waka Kotahi to reduce those fares by half over the next three months, and that is the commitment that we have made. Beyond that, the Government has agreed that we will move forward with the Community Connect pilot in Auckland from 1 July. But, as we move through the Budget process and into the future, including our response within the emissions reduction plan, we’ll continue to look at what we can do to support more Kiwis into high-quality, frequent public transport.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Does he agree with Labour Party - endorsed Auckland mayoral candidate Efeso Collins, who said, about free public transport, that “If we are going to address our climate emissions this is the first and best way to do it.”?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: As I’ve outlined, there are a range of factors which have been shown to improve public transport patronage. Fares clearly have a place within that, but, actually, much of the evidence is that the quality and the frequency of services is actually more significant. So there are choices for both central and local government leaders to make in terms of where resources go to get the best outcomes for the public transport system. As I always say to local government figures, they also have a part to play here. If local government wants to put additional funding into the system to reduce fares, they can do that in the same way that central government currently is.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Does he think it would be easier to deliver frequent and good-quality public transport if our infrastructure and services were publicly owned?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: The Government is currently reviewing the public transport operating model, and, as a part of that process, which is reaching its conclusions before coming to Cabinet, the set of questions around the appropriate ownership and operations of public transport infrastructure are being considered. So that’s something that I hope to have more to say about in the coming months.

Question No. 8—Environment

8. RACHEL BROOKING (Labour) (remote) to the Minister for the Environment: What steps is the Government taking to improve recycling in New Zealand?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Every year, New Zealand generates more than 17 million tonnes of waste and sends two-thirds—almost 13 tonnes—of that to landfill. Just one-third is recycled. Other developed countries do twice as well, recycling two-thirds. Here, too much rubbish ends up in recycling bins, degrading the good stuff. Too much recyclable material goes into the rubbish bin and is wasted. Too much litter ends up on the streets. We’ve announced a plan to improve recycling with three main parts: standardising kerbside recycling; secondly, a container deposit scheme to incentivise people to return their empty drink containers; and, thirdly, separation of business food scraps from general waste to reduce greenhouse gases and recycle the nutrients. These actions will make a difference and we look forward to Kiwis submitting on the plan.

Rachel Brooking: Why is the Government standardising kerbside collection?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Standardising kerbside recycling will reduce confusion and help businesses design packaging that is recyclable anywhere in New Zealand. This will make it simpler and easier for people to recycle. Councils and their contractors have asked for these improvements. Food scraps make up more than a third of a typical household’s rubbish each week, and rotting waste overall accounts for about 9 percent of New Zealand’s biogenic methane emissions. I’m advised that landfill gas capture is unable to meet the methane reduction targets recommended by the climate commission. Accordingly, separating food scraps for collection is necessary to reduce those emissions and return the nutrients to the soil.

Rachel Brooking: Why is the Government proposing a container return scheme?

Hon DAVID PARKER: About two and a half billion drink containers are sold every year in New Zealand. Less than half of these containers are recycled, meaning that over a billion containers end up as litter, is stockpiled, or is sent to landfills every year. With a container return scheme, we can increase our recycling for beverage containers to between 85 percent and 90 percent. People will return empty drink containers in exchange for a refundable deposit. This will also increase the supply of recovered materials for our onshore recycling system and for our container manufacturers, and it will also help sustainably underpin the economics of many community recycling facilities.

Question No. 9—Transport

9. SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga) to the Minister of Transport: Does he have confidence taxpayers are getting value for money with Government transport spending; if so, why?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Transport): Yes, across over $5 billion of annual expenditure in the transport system, I believe that there is significant value for money for New Zealanders. Some recent examples include the Maintaining International Air Connectivity scheme, which has enabled nearly $19 billion of New Zealand exports to get to markets. The opening of stage 1 of the Eastern Busway, which is providing the people of Pakuranga with frequent and reliable public transport services for the first time, and the reopening of the Napier to Wairoa rail line, which has taken hundreds of logging trucks off regional roads. While not every decision about the use of taxpayer money has or will always meet my expectations, particularly given the devolved nature of decision making to Crown agencies and State-owned enterprises, I will continue to ensure, where I have responsibility, that the spend of taxpayer money is responsible and proportionate and should, at all times, consider what is good value for money.

Simeon Brown: What is his response to Treasury’s advice regarding Auckland light rail that “We have low confidence that these benefits will be realised, resulting in poor public value.”; and does he think spending up to $29.2 billion for light rail is justifiable to taxpayers?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: I think the member needs to read the comments in the full context of Treasury’s advice on this project, including Treasury’s gateway review of the Auckland light rail unit’s business case, which came through with very positive advice for the Government. I think the member also has to be a little careful with the figures that he is using. The cost of the Auckland light rail project, as assessed by the Auckland light rail unit, is $10.4 billion at net present value; $14.6 billion at an inflated value. The figure that the member is using is simply taking those figures, reducing by 50 percent to get a possible lowest cost, and increasing by 100 percent to get a possible outlying cost—those are not actually projections that are based on costings that have been done by the unit.

Simeon Brown: When Kiwis are facing a cost of living crisis, does the Minister think it is acceptable to spend up to $29.2 billion on his Auckland light rail project at a cost of almost $16,000 per New Zealand household?

SPEAKER: Order! Before the member answers, I’m going to give the member one more chance to ask the question in a way that’s in order.

Simeon Brown: Does the Minister think it is acceptable to spend up to $29.2 billion on his Auckland light rail project, at a cost of almost $16,000 per New Zealand household?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: I reject the premise of the member’s question.

Simon Court: Does he agree with Treasury on light rail that “There is an emerging risk that the costs will be significantly higher than the previous estimates”, and can he guarantee that the benefits of light rail will exceed the costs?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: I always value the advice provided by Government departments, including Treasury, but, no, I don’t always agree with them, and the job of Ministers is to consider that advice and then to make considered decisions, and that’s what we’ve done in this case. I note that the formal advice that was presented to Cabinet through the indicative business case, provided by the light rail unit, which went through a Treasury gateway process, showed that all of the options before us—including the one that we have selected—have positive strategic cases, positive economic cases, a positive business case, and a positive benefit-cost ratio.

Simon Court: Will he rule out an annual thousand-dollar tax on properties along the light rail route, as proposed in the light rail indicative business case?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: The light rail indicative business case does not make a proposal of that kind, and no such proposal is before the Government. The light rail business case and report to the Government suggests that value capture can be an important part of how the project is funding—something that has received support, for example from Simon Bridges, across the House. Further work will have to be done to develop a scheme that is fair and equitable.

Simeon Brown: What value have Aucklanders received from the $50 million he spent on the Auckland cycling bridge, which he then cancelled, and is he confident this doesn’t amount to wasteful spending?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: The Northern Pathway project, as the member is well aware, has been reallocated so that funding allocated to that project is going to a range of important projects, including stage 2 of the Eastern Busway. To the extent that expenditure was spent that has not resulted in the particular outcome there, that is a matter of some disappointment, but we move forward to deliver the outcomes that Aucklanders need—outcomes that were ignored for many, many years under that previous Government.

Simeon Brown: What value have Wellingtonians received from the $35 million spent on consultants for Let’s Get Wellington Moving, when only $253,000 has been spent on actual construction?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Wellington was let down for too many years, including by a former Prime Minister who wrote it off as “a dying city”. Our Government disagrees with that assessment and is finally making the investments in a transport system fit for a first world, thriving capital city. Anyone who actually knows anything about how major transport programmes work, including how one might go about establishing a mass rapid transit system, will understand that before construction can occur, there needs to be investment in design, planning, and consenting, and that is what we are getting on with.

Question No. 10—Health (Māori Health)

10. ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) (remote) to the Associate Minister of Health (Māori Health): What recent announcement has he made regarding the interim Māori Health Authority?

Hon PEENI HENARE (Associate Minister of Health (Māori Health)) (remote): Thank you, Mr Speaker. This morning I was at the Takapūwāhia Marae with my colleague the Hon Andrew Little to announce the interim Māori Health Authority’s first commissioning budget, totalling just over $22 million in funding. This first commissioning budget is a notable further step forward in delivering Pae Ora or Healthy Futures for whānau across New Zealand. I am pleased that the interim Māori Health Authority is getting to work quickly to commission providers to deliver services that will make a huge difference in the lives of Māori whānau.

Arena Williams: Why is this funding necessary?

Hon PEENI HENARE: For too long, the health system has failed to address the disproportionate health outcomes that Māori face. On average, Māori die seven years younger than other population groups, and this situation cannot be allowed to continue. The initial investment we outlined today will start to lay the foundation for the authority’s ongoing role supporting kaupapa Māori health services to improve outcomes for whānau and I can’t reiterate enough that this Government is serious about improving the health outcomes for all New Zealanders. The funding announcement today will not only support Māori whānau, it will also improve the overall health outcomes for Aotearoa New Zealand.

Arena Williams: So how will this funding help improve health outcomes for whānau?

Hon PEENI HENARE: Through its first commissioning budget, the interim Māori Health Authority has outlined its first commitments to embed and expand Te Ao Māori solutions across our health system, including in areas such as mātauranga Māori initiatives and the further development of the Māori health workforce. The interim Māori Health Authority will now work with iwi-Māori partnership boards to create services that could include health education, pūrākau, resource development, and models centred on addressing the wider social and environmental detriments of health in their communities. This is about putting whānau first and supporting new and different approaches that work for Māori, whānau, and their communities.

Question No. 11—Local Government

11. SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore) to the Minister of Local Government: Does she stand by her statement on the Three Waters reform that “There are two areas of the Three Waters reform programme that I underestimated, and I acknowledge that’s my responsibility”, and is she confident it is only two areas she underestimated?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Local Government) (remote): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Yes, and to elaborate further I stand by my comment that it is not widely understood by the public just how bad the situation in relation to the current performance and future challenges of Three Waters is. It shouldn’t take burst pipes, waste-water overflows, or unsafe drinking water with boiled water notices for us to take notice and care about water infrastructure and service delivery. After three years of review the evidence was so overwhelming there was no other option than to proceed with reform. Continuing to ignore the problem in the face of now compelling evidence would be irresponsible and the status quo is not an option.

Simon Watts: Does she stand by her statement that “I underestimated that the public really knew what was happening with pipes under the ground, and they had a lot more knowledge about the trade-offs that councils were always making”; and if so, will she now give actual consideration to the alternatives like those proposed by Communities 4 Local Democracy?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Yes, I stand by my statements that the public did not know the trade-offs that councils were continuing to make between what was being spent above the ground and below the ground. And in addition to that, I consulted with local government to ensure the approach to reform of the Three Waters infrastructure and service delivery arrangements were one that kept the affordability issues for ratepayers in front of our opportunity to reform, as well as Treaty settlement obligations—which was a matter raised by the sector—as well as separating balance sheets to enable a financially sustainable model for the ongoing investment in waters infrastructure.

Simon Watts: Does she stand by her statement that “the advertising campaign wasn’t the best way to tell the message”; and if so, will she apologise to local councils for spending $4 million in taxpayer dollars on a campaign blaming them for water infrastructure failures?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: As referred to in my response around a miscalculation of the sensitivity around the advertising campaign, I want to draw a line under the criticism on that issue because it was one where the sector felt that they were being blamed for decades of under-investment in waters infrastructure. But if we look at the budget that was appropriated—and that was around about $3.5 million—$2.8 million was spent in advertising, including TV advertising, print advertising, and social media advertising. I still stand by the view that we need to do more to educate the public with facts around the parlous state of the waters infrastructure network, and the need to invest more.

Simon Watts: Has she also underestimated the ability of her water entities to achieve balance sheet separation and financial benefits; and if not, how can the public be confident given her recent underestimations?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: I think the member might be conflating a number of things, because I’d like to acknowledge the contribution of the governance working group who recently, in their recommendations, identified a number of areas where we can strengthen the governance, representation, and local voice aspects of the Government’s reform programme to ensure that there is greater line of sight between the aspirations of community and the ability to invest in waters infrastructure. At the end of their recommendations, they go on to say that the Government will need to test those recommendations in relation to credit rating and the ability to separate balance sheets.

Simon Watts: Given she now acknowledges she underestimated the public’s understanding of water infrastructure and trade-offs, will she recognise that the majority of the public rejects her reforms and so it’s time for her to rethink Three Waters?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: I join with the local government sector who admit that further work needs to be done to ensure that the public gets good information about the parlous state of waters infrastructure and the need to invest more in that area. The modelling that we have done proves that there is around about $125 billion to $195 billion needed over the next 30 years to ensure greater resilience in our waters infrastructure. We need to find a financially sustainable way to achieve that. At the heart of our reform programme, we are trying to separate balance sheets between councils and the ability to invest in water infrastructure. The model that we have in front of us seriously enables that opportunity, and it will be a total sum benefit to the affordability aspects that ratepayers are currently challenged with.

Question No. 12—Transport

12. SHANAN HALBERT (Labour—Northcote) (remote) to the Minister of Transport: What recent steps has the Government taken to support New Zealanders to use public transport in response to the global energy shock?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Transport): Yesterday, the Government announced that, in response to the global energy shock we are experiencing, public transport fares will be halved for a period of three months to give commuters more options to change the way they travel. At a time of rising fuel prices, brought on in part by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the Government has acted swiftly to encourage uptake of public transport by making it a more affordable alternative. It’s expected that this initiative will commence from approximately 1 April, working aside our local government partners, alongside a suite of other measures which will see significant increases in the take-home income of Kiwi families.

Shanan Halbert: What are the benefits of reduced public transport fares for passengers?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Primarily, the reduced fares will place a lesser burden on those who might already be making use of the public transport system and make public transport a more viable alternative for families and those who otherwise might find the cost a barrier. Additionally, increasing uptake of public transport and changes in the way that we travel had been identified by the Climate Change Commission as a key factor in reducing emissions from the transport sector.

Shanan Halbert: What are the flow-on benefits, if any, that this will have for public transport in the coming months?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: The last two years have been a challenging time for public transport operators in New Zealand. With a reduction in patronage, we’ve dealt with the impacts of COVID and now the Omicron wave. This initiative has the dual benefit, therefore, of incentivising those who would otherwise be using their cars to use a bus or a train or a ferry, and also supports potentially greater farebox revenue for local authorities and Waka Kotahi to make the services more sustainable.

Simeon Brown: Will the half-price public transport announced yesterday include the Te Huia train service between Hamilton and Auckland, which already receives a subsidy of over $280 per passenger?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Yes, the service is covered as a public transport service. The point of the announcement yesterday was to ensure that more Kiwis have access to more affordable transport options. That is the direction that this Government believes that we need to move in, and it’s disappointing but not surprising that the member opposite doesn’t seem to support that.

Bills

Ngāti Rangitihi Claims Settlement Bill

In Committee

CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): Members, the House is in committee on the Ngāti Rangitihi Claims Settlement Bill. I’ll remind members they are able to participate remotely. If you are on Zoom and want to take a call please type “call” into the chat. You should also use the chat if you want to raise a point of order. We come to Part 1.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): Mr Chairman, I seek leave for all questions to be taken as one.

CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): Leave has been requested for all sections to be taken as one. There’s no objection? There is none.

Parts 1 to 3, Schedules 1 to 4, and clauses 1 and 2

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): Thank you, Mr Chairman. What is before the House for the purposes of this committee is Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 139, which is in my name. It is there to make some technical and minor amendments for the Ngāti Rangitihi Claims Settlement Bill. The proposed amendments are incorporated into the following clauses in the bill: clause 56, clause 89(3) and 89(10), clause 90(6), and in Schedule 3.

These changes come about as a result of land surveying, and the SOP proposes to make the following changes. Firstly, updating the definition of Part Matata property in relation to the joint advisory committee. Secondly, updating the definitions of—quotes—“Waimangu Volcanic Valley” and “reserve”—end quotes—in relation to the vesting of Waimangu Volcanic Valley. Thirdly, updating the descriptions and interests of 12 cultural redress properties. The SOP also corrects a technical error, and, in this respect, the SOP proposes to change the territorial authority reference for one cultural redress property. The changes made by the SOP are consistent with the standard technical approach for Treaty settlement bills. All relevant parties have agreed to the surveys, which is the basis for the proposed changes in the SOP. And, really, that is what the SOP is about. For those looking on—because I know there will be members of Ngāti Rangitihi who are watching remotely—this is a technical process to make sure that the bill is absolutely perfect in every respect so that when we get to the third reading, and, most importantly, to the end of it and the bill finally gets its Royal assent, then the bill is good to go. It has the force of law and there is no need to correct any aspect of it. So on that basis, I look forward to any questions, but, hopefully, we can get through this period very quickly.

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): I just support what the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, Andrew Little, just said. These are proposed minor amendments that are non-contentious, that are necessary, and they are supported by the National Party. Thank you, Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): The question is that the Minister’s amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 139 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): The question is that Parts 1 to 3, Schedules 1 to 4, and clauses 1 and 2 as amended stand part.

Parts 1 to 3, Schedules 1 to 4, and clauses 1 and 2 as amended agreed to.

Bill to be reported with amendment.

House resumed.

CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): Madam Speaker, the committee has considered the Ngāti Rangitihi Claims Settlement Bill and reports it with amendment.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): In accordance with a determination of the Business Committee, this bill is set down for third reading forthwith.

Third Reading

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I present a legislative statement on the Ngāti Rangitihi Claims Settlement Bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I move, That the Ngāti Rangitihi Claims Settlement Bill be now read a third time.

Tākiri mai, anā te ata, ki runga o ngākau mārohirohi. Kua rere ana te manu kaupapa, ka ao, ka ao, ka awatea. Tihei mauriora.

E mihi ana ki a koutou kua tau mai nei i runga i te karanga o te kaupapa o te rā. Tēnā koutou katoa. E mihi ana ki te hunga mate, haere, haere, haere atu rā. Ki a tātou te hunga ora, tēnā tātou.

Kia whakamānawatia ngā mana o ēnei whenua e tū āhuru nei, he uri Pākehā au i tupu i te aroha o Taranaki maunga, o Taranaki whenua, o Taranaki tangata. Tēnei au, otirā mātou te Kāwanatanga e mihi nei ki te kaupapa o te wā. Tēnā koutou, kia ora huihui mai tātou katoa.

[Dawn breaks, a new morning and a dauntless heart. This issue has taken flight, a new dawn leads to the full light of day. I now begin.

I greet you all who have arrived here in response to the call of the issue of the day. Greetings to you all. I acknowledge those who have passed; may you rest in peace. And to us who remain, welcome one and all.

To pay tribute to this comfortable land, I state that I am a descendant of Pākehā who grew up under the protection of Taranaki maunga and Taranaki land, surrounded by the love of Taranaki people. I stand here, we the Government stands here acknowledging the issue of the time. Greetings, be well, all of us who have gathered here today.]

It’s a great privilege to stand here today in this House to support the third reading of the Ngāti Rangitihi Claims Settlement Bill. I’d like to extend a warm welcome to the members of Ngāti Rangitihi who, while not in the House, are still able to be at Parliament this afternoon to witness this very significant historic occasion, and they’re watching this debate this afternoon remotely, but within the precinct of Parliament. I greatly appreciate all Ngāti Rangitihi representatives who were able to travel here today so that we may mark this occasion together, and it was indeed a delight and a privilege to welcome them at a pōwhiri earlier this afternoon. I also wanted to welcome Ngāti Rangitihi members who, because of COVID-19 restrictions, are having to watch this third reading online. E te iwi Ngāti Rangitihi, tēnā koutou.

I particularly thank Te Mana o Ngāti Rangitihi Trust and the Ngāti Rangitihi negotiations team—Kenneth Raureti, Stephen Tipene Perenara Marr, Delwyn Rondon, Peri Perenara, and Ngāti Rangitihi lead negotiator and chairman, Leith Comer—for their extraordinary dedication in reaching this significant milestone. I also wanted to thank Anthony Olsen, who, with the support of Bruce Stirling, worked tirelessly with officials on the historical account. I’d like to acknowledge the work of their support team, Ian Dickson, Roger Drummond, Alana Hunter, Dougal Stewart, Darcy Stoneham, and Donna Semmens.

Ngāti Rangitihi have endured a long wait to settle their historical claims, and I acknowledge their patience, commitment, and fortitude. This settlement is a testament to the years of Ngāti Rangitihi’s hard work in negotiating a deed of settlement with the Crown. I acknowledge the work of the Crown’s chief negotiator, Katherine Gordon, and the officials at Te Arawhiti and partner agencies who led and supported the negotiations. Reaching the third reading of this bill is in no small part due to their ongoing and steadfast commitment to achieving a Treaty settlement between Ngāti Rangitihi and the Crown.

I’d also like to thank my ministerial colleagues, past and present, for their support. I particularly acknowledge my predecessor Chris Finlayson, who, as Leith Comer acknowledged in the pōwhiri earlier this afternoon, managed to get the Ngāti Rangitihi claims settlement process up the queue from where it had been knocked back in earlier years because of the decision of Ngāti Rangitihi to separate out from other iwi in order to get their own settlement.

I also want to acknowledge the former Minister of Conservation, the Hon Eugenie Sage, too for her work, because a lot of the redress negotiation was around conservation, the conservation estate, and conservation issues, and led to many discussions with the Hon Eugenie Sage. In the end, we got there: we got an agreement that I think has not only enriched Ngāti Rangitihi and its cultural needs but has enriched the Crown, as well.

I know that all of the parties involved have worked extremely hard to support Ngāti Rangitihi in their journey towards settlement, and will continue to provide assistance in the post-settlement phase. I want to acknowledge also the Tūhourangi Tribal Authority for engaging with Ngāti Rangitihi and the Crown throughout the settlement process. In particular, I appreciate the steady leadership of the former chair of Tūhourangi, Alan Skipwith, for the contribution that he made in working with Ngāti Rangitihi chairman Leith Comer to reach agreement between the two iwi that supports this settlement and provides a fruitful and positive future partnership together in the Waimangu Valley. Alan passed away in February last year and, I know, is deeply missed by many.

Significantly, I wish to acknowledge those from Ngāti Rangitihi who are not with us today to witness the outcome of years of hard work, courage, and commitment. We cannot and do not forget those who have suffered at the hands of the Crown and those who initiated the claims process for Ngāti Rangitihi. They are in our thoughts today.

I acknowledge one other person, and that is the person who accompanied me to Matatā on the occasions I visited to initial the deed of settlement and then sign the final deed of settlement. That is Stephen Ihaka, who was working for Te Arawhiti, who was such a workhorse in that respect and is somebody who I miss deeply to this day. Moe mai, moe mai, moe mai rā e ngā rangatira.

Today marks the final stage in the progression of the Ngāti Rangitihi Claims Settlement Bill. This has been a long and arduous process for generations of Ngāti Rangitihi, who, through petitions, submissions, and claims from at least the 1860s, have sought acknowledgment of the Crown’s breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi that have caused immeasurable harm. Although no settlement can truly atone for the past injustices or compensate for the hurt that Ngāti Rangitihi have suffered, it is my hope that we can look forward to a future where Ngāti Rangitihi and the Crown will work in close partnership with each other to the benefit of future generations.

It’s now time for the Crown to acknowledge and provide redress to Ngāti Rangitihi. With the passing of the Ngāti Rangitihi Claims Settlement Bill, it will give effect to the deed of settlement between Ngāti Rangitihi and the Crown. I was privileged to be able to sign the deed with Ngāti Rangitihi at the Rangitihi Marae in Matatā on 5 December 2020. The deed we signed acknowledged historical Treaty of Waitangi claims relating to Ngāti Rangitihi. In this bill, the Crown acknowledges the injustices of its past acts and omissions. It breached the Treaty of Waitangi and recognises the resulting pain caused.

Ngāti Rangitihi have suffered severe and lasting effects as a result of the Crown’s breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi, causing them to endure significant social and economic deprivation. The interests of Ngāti Rangitihi were not protected by the Crown when the Crown leased and purchased Ngāti Rangitihi land blocks. The Crown did not consider the impact of the native land laws, where factors such as high survey costs led to major land loss for Ngāti Rangitihi. This was then compounded by the Crown taking an excessive amount of land at Te Ariki for public works.

The Crown failed to ensure Ngāti Rangitihi had sufficient land to support themselves after the Tarawera eruption on 10 June 1886, which had a devastating effect on Ngāti Rangitihi. With their interior lands unusable, the survivors became virtually landless, their tribal structures were undermined, and Ngāti Rangitihi were severed from their own whenua.

Environmental degradation facilitated by the Crown has been the source of great distress for Ngāti Rangitihi over the years. In the 1910s, the Crown was involved in draining the Rangitaiki swamp, which depleted Ngāti Rangitihi food sources. Most significantly, the Crown promoted legislation in 1954 that enabled the discharge of industrial waste into the Tarawera River and Lake Rotoitipaku, resulting in heavy pollution. I remember working up in that area in the 1990s, and going past the Tarawera River and seeing it running red with pollution from the industrial plants that sat on its edge.

Despite the many challenges the iwi have faced, Ngāti Rangitihi have a long and proud history of military service in New Zealand and across many parts of the world, and I wanted to particularly acknowledge that service today.

As I’ve noted, no settlement package can ever fully compensate Ngāti Rangitihi for the enormous hurt and suffering they have endured across generations. It’s a testament to the extraordinary grace and kindness of Ngāti Rangitihi that they have chosen to accept the current package and have decided to move towards a period of reconciliation with the Crown.

The Ngāti Rangitihi Claims Settlement Bill seeks to give effect to the Ngāti Rangitihi settlement package as outlined in the legislative statement. The settlement package provides for the transfer of 19 sites of deep significance to Ngāti Rangitihi as cultural redress. These include two properties at Te Tapahoro Bay, the beating heart of the Ngāti Rangitihi rohe; two properties in and around the Waimangu Volcanic Valley; and five properties at Matatā.

It’s my hope that through the acknowledgment of the historical Treaty claims of Ngāti Rangitihi, today will signal the beginning of the newly strengthened relationship between Ngāti Rangitihi and the Crown, one based on cooperation, mutual trust, and respect. I am hopeful that this spirit of partnership will continue to grow through the years to come. I commend this bill to the House. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia hohou te rongo ki a tātou katoa.

[Therefore, greetings. May peace prevail for all of us.]

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ian McKelvie): The question is that the motion be agreed to.

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): I rise on behalf of the National Party to speak on the third reading of the Ngāti Rangitihi Claims Settlement Bill. Tēnā koutou katoa e koro mā e kui mā, e rau rangatira mā. E Ngāti Rangitihi, tēnā koutou. Nau mai, haere mai ki te rā whakahirahira.

[Greetings to all the female and male elders, to the many leaders. To Ngāti Rangitihi, greetings. Welcome, welcome to this important day.]

It is a privilege to speak on the final reading of the bill, which will bring finality to Ngāti Rangitihi’s settlement with the Crown for historical grievances. It is a sign of the times and perhaps a unique distinction for the Ngāti Rangitihi Claims Settlement Bill that it is the first set of Treaty settlement legislation that has been passed in this hybrid configuration of the House of Representatives.

I’d like to extend a very warm welcome to everyone from Ngāti Rangitihi who is watching virtually, both here and around the country, and tuning in to witness this historic occasion. This legislation, which we are about to read for the final time, is about the hapū and whānau of Ngāti Rangitihi. It is about Ngāti Rangitihi tūpuna and uri. Every time we gather to progress a Treaty settlement, we look to the past in reflection, we acknowledge the resilience and generosity of tangata whenua, and in the spirit of kotahitanga and reconciliation, we look to our nation’s future with optimism, knowing that our best days as a nation lie ahead of all of us.

Arama Karaka Mokonuiarangi, the renowned Ngāti Rangitihi chief in 1884 lamented that “During the days of the Ancestors our people were numerous and the land was held against all comers.” Today, as in Arama Karaka Mokonuiarangi’s day, Ngāti Rangitihi remain, effectively, a landless people, dispossessed of their tribal lands, with now an interest in less than 4 percent, approximately 9,000 hectares, of their original 250,000-hectare tribal rohe. Forced out of the inland rohe land by the eruption of Mount Tarawera, Ngāti Rangitihi relocated into what was left of their limited coastal rohe lands at Matatā and Hauani. By the time their inland rohe was again fit for human habitation, the Crown had taken over almost all of it as public conservation estate and forestry.

Today, many Ngāti Rangitihi who choose to remain on their traditional lands lack employment opportunities and exhibit poor health, low levels of education, and poor housing. For generations, the people of Ngāti Rangitihi have sought redress for breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi by the Crown that have had significant impacts on them. From the 1860s, they have made petitions, submissions, and claims to seek redress for Treaty breaches. In recent decades, Ngāti Rangitihi have filed more than 20 Treaty of Waitangi claims with the Waitangi Tribunal over various Treaty breaches, some of which have, finally, been addressed in this settlement legislation.

Against this background, this bill re-orientates the relationship between the Crown and Ngāti Rangitihi towards the future. Through this legislation, the Crown recognises and apologises for the many historical injustices brought upon Ngāti Rangitihi for its failure to uphold its obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi. Crucially, the Crown commits itself to a renewed and strengthened relationship with Ngāti Rangitihi. Moreover, on behalf of all New Zealanders, in this bill the Crown acknowledges its failure to protect the tribal structures of Ngāti Rangitihi, to act in good faith when leasing and purchasing Ngāti Rangitihi land blocks, to protect Ngāti Rangitihi from becoming virtually landless, to protect the Tarawera River from pollution, to actively protect te reo Māori and encourage its use, and to protect Ngāti Rangitihi from excessive survey costs, and it failed to act in good faith by taking excessive land at Te Ariki for public works purposes.

The Ngāti Rangitahi settlement package includes total financial and commercial redress of $11,334,820, plus interest, which comprises a share of Crown forest land in the central North Island valued at $7,334,820 plus $4 million in financial redress. Nineteen sites will be transferred in the iwi’s cultural redress settlement, and three place names will be changed through the settlement legislation. The deed of settlement also provides for the establishment of the Tarawera Awa Restoration Strategy Group, which will operate as a permanent joint committee of the Bay of Plenty Regional Council. The group will support, coordinate, and promote the integrated restoration of the mauri and well-being of the Tarawera River catchment. I will just say that I spent some of my childhood in this region and remember well going to Tarawera River as a child. I look forward to the future growth and wellbeing of that river, which is a very important part of the settlement.

The deed of settlement includes a range of relationship redress to foster a good working relationship between Ngāti Rangitihi and Crown agencies. And to the hapū and whānau of Ngāti Rangitihi, it is not possible to fully compensate for the loss and prejudice that generations of Ngāti Rangitihi have suffered. However, I hope and trust that this settlement will forge a new relationship between the Crown and Ngāti Rangitihi and will be a real catalyst for positive change for present and future generations of iwi.

I’d like to make some brief acknowledgments to those who have gone before and have done the hard work all the way back to centuries past, through till more recent times when the previous Treaty negotiations Minister, Chris Finlayson, began this process, through to the present Minister, Andrew Little. I also want to acknowledge all of the negotiators from Ngāti Rangitihi and also from the Crown, who worked tirelessly and in good faith to get us to where we are today. I would like to acknowledge, as Minister Little did, the military service of Ngāti Rangitihi in the past. We are in a House which recognises those who have sacrificed for our nation, and I want to specifically thank Ngāti Rangitihi and their tūpuna who have sacrificed for all of our nation, and that is something that is dear to me as someone who has also spent some time in the armed services.

In conclusion, today is an important day for Ngāti Rangitihi and the Crown. Again, I reiterate that no settlement can ever atone for wrongdoings of the past. However, this is a very good and very positive step forward for our combined peoples. I sincerely hope that this legislation will be a new starting point that will lead to a strengthened relationship between Ngāti Rangitihi and the Crown, based on cooperation, mutual trust, and true respect for the Treaty and its principles.

Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa. I commend this bill to the House.

TĀMATI COFFEY (Labour) (remote): E te Māngai o te Whare, tēnā koe.

Te riri o te atua i whiua ki te tangata

I whiua ki te whenua

E hora noa mai rā i te pōuriuri, te pōtangotango

Waiho nei te aroha, waiho nei te mamae

Ka tae ki ngau i taku kiri

I maringi a-wai te roimata i akū kamo

Ki te iwi, ka wehe.

—It was thus the anger of the god who destroyed the people and the land

The people lie scattered in the world of darkness and the world of the dead

Leaving anguish and pain

To gnaw unceasingly within

And the tears drop copiously from my eyes

For those who have departed this life.

Ngāti Rangitihi, karanga mai. Ki o iwi, ki ō hapū, ki ō whānau, ki ō tūpuna, ngā kuia, ngā koroua kua whetūrangitia, ki ngā tamariki, ngā mokopuna kei te heke mai. Ko tēnei tō rā i tēnei Whare, nō reira ka tika me mihi. Ko au tētahi o Tūhourangi e mihi atu, e tangi ana ki a koutou. Ka tika me waiatatia te waiata mamae rongonui o Tūhourangi ki a koutou, “Ōku Hoa Moenga.”

[Ngāti Rangitihi, welcome. To your tribe, to your sub-tribes, to your families, to your ancestors, to the female and male elders who have become stars in the heavens, to the children and grandchildren yet to come, this is your day in this House, therefore it only right to pay tribute to you. I am someone of Tūhourangi who greets and mourns with you. It is appropriate that we should sing the famous lament of Tūhourangi to you, “Ōku Hoa Moenga.”]

The Māori Affairs Committee examined the Ngāti Rangitihi Claims Settlement Bill and recommended that it be passed with all amendments, which were minor and technical, unanimously. E te Minita mō tēnei kaupapa, Anaru Iti, ngā kaimahi o Te Arawhiti, ngā mema o te Komiti Whiriwhiri Take Māori, me ngā āpiha o te komiti he mihi anō.

[To the Minister responsible for this work, Andrew Little; to the staff of Te Arawhiti; and the officers of the Māori Affairs Committee, thank you again.]

Te Mana o Ngāti Rangitihi Trust, I apologise for not being able to travel to your only marae, Rangiaohia, in our beautiful coastal township of Matatā, the gateway to the Eastern Bay of Plenty, and I apologise for not being there with you today. Thankfully, we live in the future, enabling me to be able to sit here at home in Ōwhata, and some of you there in Te Whanga-nui-a-Tara, with everybody else sitting back home in Matatā.

To those that don’t know, the Ngāti Rangitihi rohe stretches all the way up the Tarawera Awa, across Ruawāhia at Tarawera, and out into Kaingaroa. It’s where the deed of settlement was signed, as mentioned by our Minister, in December 2020. The coastal settlement is the location of Te Awa o Te Atua, the former outlets of the combined flows of the Rangitaiki, the Tarawera, and the Orini rivers. The township is surrounded by large reserves featuring nationally important flora. Historically and contemporarily, Te Awa o Te Atua is historically significant to both Ngāti Rangitihi and to Te Arawa whānui; neighbours Ngāti Awa, Ngāti Tuwharetoa ki Kawerau. It was the landing place of many waka, including Mātaatua waka and the Arawa waka as well.

In pre-European times, and into the 1800s, Matatā was the food basket of the Tarawera valley. Te Awa o Te Atua was a significant port, shipping food and flax to markets both in New Zealand and in Australia. Te Awa o Te Atua was also significantly a highway connecting Ngāti Rangitihi at the coast with its whenua inland. In particular, Ngāti Rangitihi see the mauri of the Tarawera Awa as a reflection of iwi members’ wellbeing.

Crown actions in the early and mid-20th century destroyed the place. The cutting of the Tarawera and the Rangitaiki awa directly out to sea, and also enabling the mill at Tarawera to discharge anything it wanted into the Tarawera River were the acts that caused the destruction. The Crown has taken the first step in righting these wrongs by acknowledging that it breached its Treaty obligations to Ngāti Rangitihi. But, let’s be honest, it’s never enough. I’ll say it again: it will never be enough. The Treaty settlement does provide final closure for past grievances, yes, but, at the same time, it opens a big, wide open door for the Government. For many iwi, it’s been firmly closed for many years.

So, Ministers, Ngāti Rangitihi is ready to take their seat, and we owe it to every Treaty settlement to do better for them, through protocols and partnerships. And if co-governance and co-management are what iwi want to be able to provide for their own rangatiratanga, then let it be.

And, on that note, we must also do better to take New Zealanders on that journey, because once these settlements pass, historical amnesia has a tendency to set in, and sometimes the general public forgets. We must keep reminding New Zealanders that at the end of a settlement, it’s merely the start of a long journey for iwi, and today, Ngāti Rangitihi, we wish you well on your journey, and may this House never forget what you lost because of actions of the Crown.

As I’ve come to understand about Treaty settlements, financial redress is important, but one of the biggest things that allows the healing process to begin is the Crown acknowledgments and the Crown apology. That said, I want the rest of my time to be dedicated to the Crown apology directed for all uri of Ngāti Rangitihi:

“The Crown makes the following apology to Ngāti Rangitihi, to your tūpuna and to your mokopuna, and recognises your arduous journey in pursuit of justice. This apology is long overdue. The Crown is profoundly sorry for the many hardships and tribulations that Ngāti Rangitihi have endured, and unreservedly apologises for its failure to fulfil its obligations to you under Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

“The Crown sincerely apologises for its aggressive acquisition of Ngāti Rangitihi lands, even when Ngāti Rangitihi were dealing with the tragic consequences of the Tarawera eruption. The Crown deeply regrets that, in the aftermath of the eruption, and despite recognising that Ngāti Rangitihi were a ‘wandering landless people’ suffering deprivation and uncertainty, it still took almost 30 years to provide Ngāti Rangitihi with the secure title for the Hauani land. The Crown apologises for failing to ensure that Ngāti Rangitihi had sufficient land for your present and future needs. The Crown’s failure to protect the Tarawera River, a taonga of immense economic, cultural and spiritual significance for Ngāti Rangitihi, left the river defiled, degraded and polluted.

“The Crown’s acquisition of Ngāti Rangitihi lands, combined with environmental damage, has had a devastating social economic impact on Ngāti Rangitihi, undermined your cultural hauora, and left you feeling as strangers in your own rohe. For this the Crown apologises.

“It is the Crown’s wish that through this settlement it can restore its sullied honour and atone for the past injustices it has inflicted on Ngāti Rangitihi. The Crown pays tribute to your proven loyalty, including your long and honourable record of military service in many countries and your resilience in the face of great adversity.

“The Crown hopes that this settlement will be a starting point rather than an end, and will signal the beginning of a new, strengthened relationship between Ngāti Rangitihi and the Crown based on cooperation, mutual trust and respect for the Treaty of Waitangi.”

I commend this bill to the House.

HARETE HIPANGO (National): Ka karanga au ki a koe ki te pānuitanga tuatoru o tēnei Pire, Ngāti Rangitihi Claims Settlement Bill—I seek the call for the third and final reading of this Ngāti Rangitihi Claims Settlement Bill.

Ka karanga au ki ngā uri o Ngāti Rangitihi. Ko au he uri nō W’anganui. Ka nui te mihi ki a koutou e huihui mai nei i tēnei W’are Pāremata. E ngā mana, e ngā reo, e ngā kārangatanga, e rau rangatira mā, tēnā tātou katoa.

[I call to the descendants of Ngāti Rangitihi. I am a descendant from W’anganui. I extend warm greetings you all of you who have gathered in this House of Parliament. To the authorities, to all the voices, the various groups and to all the esteemed leaders, greetings one and all.]

Ngāti Rangitihi, it is a privilege to take this call in the passage of your bill into law at this third reading. Finally, this day, long awaited by Ngāti Rangitihi uri and tūpuna no longer here, long in waiting, long in tolerating, long in longing, long in grievance. Today is a day of memory and I stand in this Chamber, a place of commemoration. Today is a day also to acknowledge those who have departed, those who started this journey, and those of you gathered here in the precinct of Parliament, who continue and carry that journey from the past, here now, to the present, a gift for tomorrow, your future. Today is a day to put aside the grievance and to celebrate the opportunity moving forward into the future, to celebrate the opportunity for prosperity, Ngāti Rangitihi—the people, the place, the potential, the relationships, the partnerships, and the prosperity from opportunities now to be gained.

When I last addressed you all, those who were accessible virtually in this place of Parliament but those from further afar, at the first reading, in my acknowledgment, I extended reference to—should I have the privilege to address the House and you all here and from afar today—the significance of the apology. I turn to clause 10 of the bill, which will be enshrined into law: “The Crown makes the following apology to Ngāti Rangitihi, to your tūpuna and to your mokopuna, and recognises your arduous journey in pursuit of justice. This apology is long overdue. The Crown is profoundly sorry for the many hardships and tribulations … unreservedly apologises for its failure, … sincerely apologises for its aggressive acquisition of Ngāti Rangitihi lands … The Crown apologises for failing to ensure that Ngāti Rangitihi had sufficient land for your present and future needs. … The Crown’s failure to protect the Tarawera River, a taonga of immense economic, cultural, and spiritual significance to Ngāti Rangitihi, left the river defiled, degraded and polluted. … For this the Crown apologises. … The Crown’s wish is that through this settlement it can restore its sullied honour and atone for the past injustices … The Crown hopes this settlement will be a starting point rather than an end, and will signal the beginning of a new, strengthened relationship based on co-operation, mutual trust and respect”. This formal apology, conveyed by Minister Little at the signing of the deed of settlement at Rangitihi Marae, Matatā on 5 December 2020, will, in the passage of this bill into law, be forever scripted there.

I now turn to some appropriate acknowledgments: Minister Little in continuing the journey that had been commenced by my former colleague Christopher Finlayson as the Treaty settlements Minister then, of the day. I also acknowledge the negotiators of Ngāti Rangitihi. I also apologise, Leith Comer, and your people gathered here today. Had I known about the pōwhiri, I would have been there. So I extend an apology from the National Party for the absence of us being there in support. I acknowledge you, Leith, as lead negotiator, as chair of Te Mana o Ngāti Rangitihi Trust, also as a former military leader. So when I saw the provision within the bill, with reference, my thoughts, my whakaaro, turned, of course, to tūpuna of Ngāti Rangitihi but also for your former status as a leader, as a senior military army officer, as a strategist and a negotiator in helping lead your people through this arduous journey. To the trustees also, who were part of that journey—and I will name you so that your name is forever inscribed in the Hansard record: Donna Semmens, Merepeka Raukawa-Tait, Tia Walbrick, Melanie Cheung, Taichi Playle, and Cathy Dewes. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou.

I look at the time and quickly time passes when we address the House, but how slowly it takes to arrive here. So with the rest of the time, what has been spoken to and addressed by the Minister for Treaty settlements, Minister Little, I endorse and acknowledge. Also to my colleague Tāmati Coffey, as the chair of the Māori Affairs Committee, I listened keenly to your kupu, to the words of your pātere, waiata. I acknowledge you, e hoa. I also acknowledge the negotiators for the Crown: Catherine Goulden, Te Arawhiti, and special mention made of Stephen Ihaka, and to the officials who have been involved in the passage of this bill through into law, soon to have its Royal assent received.

When the bill came before the Māori Affairs Committee—again, a privilege to be able to serve at the table there, and, again, a privilege to be able to listen to the stories—there were some 20 written submissions and seven oral submissions heard. There was still mamae that was imparted and shared with us by those who had a differing view to the majority of Ngāti Rangitihi who endorsed the settlement with a considerable percentage of support. And we made it clear as members on the Māori Affairs Committee that it is not for us to determine whakapapa, genealogy; it is for the people amongst yourselves. We acknowledge those who shared the mamae, but we acknowledge also that those of us who live amongst our own, we know our grievance; we also know the solutions.

The Māori Affairs Committee—best laid plans were put aside with this imposition on all of our lives called COVID. Our intention was to travel and to be amongst the people of Ngāti Rangitihi at the marae at Matatā. When COVID lifted and the restrictions permitted, I seized the opportunity in my role as spokesperson for Māori development with the National Party to travel through the motu and to travel for my first time through the coastal region of Matatā. I observed where the marae is and I look forward to the day that I will be able to stand on the marae ātea. I was not able to, with my colleagues, be present amongst that, but we felt the mamae, we felt the grievance, and we paid due to ensure that this bill passes through into law. I also seized the opportunity in my Māori development role to travel to the—I will reference and turn to the brochure—the Waimangu Volcanic Valley, where I was accompanied by Tania Tapsell to meet with Leith Comer, kaumātua Kenneth Raureti, and general manager David Blackmore, to be present on the area in the rohe and on the whenua and to feel and to hear the stories.

Time has elapsed quickly. It is a privilege to stand and to acknowledge all those past, present, and moving into the future who will give due service to prosperity of recognition of opportunity that arises and will pass through with the third reading of the Ngāti Rangitihi Claims Settlement Bill. Ka nui te mihi ki a koutou katoa.

[Warm greetings to you all.]

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Conservation): Karanga mai rā Te Arawa waka, karanga mai rā Ruawāhia Maunga, karanga mai rā Tarawera awa. Nau mai, haramai, whakatau mai rā ngā uri o Ngāti Rangitihi kei roto i tēnei Whare.

Ka huria mātou nei ki tō koutou hītori kei roto i tēnei Whare i tēnei ahiahi. Me noho a mātou mai i te Karauna kei waho rā i te ahiahi nei ki te whakarongo i a rātou i raro i te raukura o Te Ati Awa mō te whakatau i a koutou o Ngāti Rangitihi kei roto i te Whare Mīere i tēnei ahiahi. Kua rongo a mātou ki a koutou, ko te mea tino whakahirahira ki a koutou ki te whakamana i ngā pūrākau o tō koutou whenua ki te whakahokia te mana o te whenua ki te mana whenua. Me haere tonu tātou te Karauna me te hau kāinga te iwi o Ngāti Rangitihi i raro i tēnei kawenata mō te ara ki mua. Heoi anō, kei a koutou ngā uri o Ngāti Rangitihi kei roto i te Whare nei, kei a koutou ngā uri o Ngāti Rangitihi kei te kāinga i tēnei wā he rerekē i raro i te taumahatanga o te mate urutā, kei te mihi, kei mihi, kei te mihi.

[I call to the peoples of Te Arawa, I call to the mountain Ruawāhia and to the Tarawera River. Welcome, welcome, welcome to the descendants of Ngāti Rangitihi in this House.

We shall turn our attention to your history this afternoon in this House. Some of us on the Crown side have to be outside the House this afternoon to listen to you of Ngāti Rangitihi being welcomed into the Beehive under the feather plume of Te Āti Awa. We have listened to you, and the most important things for you are that your ancient stories of your land are validated and that the authority of the land is returned to those with traditional authority over that land. The Crown, the local people, and the people of the Ngāti Rangitihi tribe need to continue on this path forwards under this covenant. However, to you of Ngāti Rangitihi in the House, to you of Ngāti Rangitihi at home at this strange time, under the burden of the pandemic, greetings, greetings, greetings.]

It’s an absolute privilege to be able to speak in this third reading. Today it marks the end of a six-year journey between Ngāti Rangitihi and the kāwei of people that have been mandated by the people of Ngāti Rangitihi to engage with the Crown to acknowledge the historic wrongdoings that have been made over the past 200 years since the Treaty of Waitangi was signed.

Outside this House this earlier afternoon, we had the privilege of welcoming those that could come this afternoon from Ngāti Rangitihi into this Whare Mīere and what I heard was that the journey to this point—it was long, it was arduous, but one thing that Leith Comer said in his contribution was that while some things like these settlements can often leave a lasting imprint that tear the people apart, this settlement and today is a day of unification for Ngāti Rangitihi, and I acknowledge those rangatira amongst them that have pulled the people together. I want to acknowledge my colleague the Hon Andrew Little for his stewardship. I too want to acknowledge that the journey was commenced six years ago under the maru, under the helm, of the Hon Christopher Finlayson. I want to too acknowledge my predecessor, the Hon Eugenie Sage, of whom Ngāti Rangitihi made comment and asked me to please pass on their regards for her work that she did whilst she was the Minister of Conservation.

Treaty settlements are a unique kind of Parliament. It’s a time when we across the House can come to acknowledge our history, our collective history. We can acknowledge those people of a place—and in this instance from my own home, the mighty fine electorate of the East Coast, Ngāti Rangitihi. I acknowledge the peoples of Matatā and that they have been tireless in their advocacy for the mana of their people there in Matatā. And I too share the Rangitihi plains with the people of Ngāti Rangitihi—a little over, closer to Edgecumbe and Te Teko but we share a shared sense of history, contemporary and historical, so I acknowledge my friends and my relations under that hat as well.

But why I particularly want to take a call today is in my capacity as the Minister of Conservation. We’ve heard—and, actually, I want to acknowledge Joseph Mooney in his contribution, which acknowledged some of the conservation elements to this particular Treaty settlement. One of the comments that Leith Comer also made outside was that this settlement isn’t just about dimes and money; it is about the restoration of the mauri to the whenua, to the awa, and, in particular, Tarawera Awa, which has had a long and sad history.

It is today that we mark a turning point. It’s not the end of a journey; it’s an end of a particular aspect of a journey which is the negotiation point that gets us to this place, where we agree that from henceforth we, the Crown, and they, the people of Ngāti Rangitihi, engage on a new frontier in a mana to mana relationship that upholds the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, that upholds the promises that are made in this settlement that has been hard fought for as a consequence of Crown breaches to the people of Ngāti Rangitihi. It is something that I have become very familiar with as the Minister of Conservation. It is the opening of a new dawn and a new day, because whilst we acknowledge the historical wrongs of yesterday, yesteryear, tomorrow we have to implement with honour and integrity the promises made in this settlement. That can be a hard journey as well and I want to acknowledge that because things will not be perfect. I’ve learnt in my short tenure that we often will stuff up but what this kawenata—what this settlement—provides for is an enduring promise to act with integrity and it sets out how we will do that.

I wanted to make particular acknowledgment of some of the conservation components to this settlement, which is what I think makes it incredibly unique. Fourteen sites, 14 areas of whenua that have not been in the hands of Ngāti Rangitihi, will be returned as a consequence of this settlement. These will comprise of pā sites, wāhi tapu, some sites where there are kōiwi, and we’re going to do that in a number of different ways—some in scenic reserves. Scenic reserves are where we agree that there is incredible indigenous biodiversity or something specific about the flora and the fauna of the environment but the ownership transfers back to Ngāti Rangitihi. They managed that whenua in a way that upholds those biodiversity aspects. In particular, I just want to acknowledge a site of significance is Waimangu Volcanic Valley where 80 hectares surrounding the unique geothermal attractions will be transferred.

There are also historic sites—historic sites which can be comprised of things like pā sites, for example, or significant wāhi tapu, where Ngāti Rangitihi will say that this is a culturally significant site for these archaeological—for these whatever reasons that they deem are significant to the peoples of that place and the Crown mai rānō will have to acknowledge what Ngāti Rangitihi set down. They have the mana to say that these are the things that are important to those areas and, in particular, I just to acknowledge a couple of those places: Moura, Ongarara, which cover a strategic and significant headland over on Lake Tarawera.

Recreational reserves are another type of land, you can say, that have been handed back to the mana whenua. These are open space areas and there was a bit of controversy that I won’t delve into but I will acknowledge that Te Tapahoro is a site of significance that is going back to the peoples of Ngāti Rangitihi today.

The kawenata that we engage and that we sign off today is significant for so many reasons. It acknowledges the history and the past but it sets forward a new pathway by which Ngāti Rangitihi will be at the helm of some of the places that make them who they are. There is a shameful history that we all acknowledge in this House. But today signifies a new dawn and if I can acknowledge the leadership of those that have been at the helm: Leith Comer, Ken Raureti, Tiipene Marr, Cathy Dewes, Merepeka Raukawa-Tait, Donna Semmens, Tia Warbrick, Delwyn Rondon, Anthony Olsen, Dougal Stewart, Peri Perenara, and the many others that have come before. May I thank them for their service and acknowledge that this is, indeed, a new dawn, a new day. Tēnā koe.

TEANAU TUIONO (Green): Tēnā koe e te Māngai. Ngāti Rangitihi, tēnei te mihi atu ki a koutou. Kei te tihi o ngā whakaaro koutou i tēnei wā, nō reira e mihi ana ki runga i te tika me te pono, i runga i te manawanui, te manawaroa o ō tūpuna kia tae ki tēnei pānuitanga tuatoru o tō koutou nei pire, o tō koutou nei ture. Nō reira koutou anō i tae pōhiri mai ki tēnei Whare Pāremata i tēnei ata, tēnei te mihi atu. Tēnei te mihi atu ki a koutou, otirā ki a koutou ngā whānau noho ki raro o te whakaruruhau o te Zui. Mā tērā hangarau matihiko e whakahaere ana tō tātou nei ao i tēnei wā, tēnei mātou ngā Kākāriki e mihi ana ki a koutou mō tēnei rā whakahirahira mō koutou.

Ngāti Rangitihi, ahakoa e kore rawa e tētahi tahua pūtea e tētahi pire pēnei te āhua te whakatika hapa i te mate me te mamae i pā ki a koutou, ka whakatakato te whakataunga i tētahi tūāpapa e pakari ai te anamata o tou hoko ahurea hoki o tō koutou nei iwi. I a au e whakarongo ana ki ngā kōrero o tō tātou nei tiamana i te mea ko au anō tētahi o ngā mema o te Komiti Whiriwhiri Take Māori, i tae mai te kōrero a tō mātou nei tiamana a Tāmati—ōna hononga mai i Tūhourangi, ōna piringa ki a Arawa waka me te kōrero o te oranga o te pai o tērā whenua o koutou. I rongo au i te ingoa o te awa, Te-Awa-o-Te-Atua. I rongo au i tae a Mātaatua, i tae hoki a Te Arawa. He wāhi anō i tae anō ngā atua me taku nei whakaaro i taku nei pīnati ka whakaaro ake au, e hia kē nei ngā atua i tae atu ki tō koutou nei rohe. E hia kē nei ngā tipua i tae atu ki tō koutou nei takiwā ki te aro ki ōna oranga, ki te aro ki ōna hītori, kia aro ki ōna kōrero o nehe. Nō reira, ā, ngā tīpuna i whakatakoto kē i ēnei o ngā kaupapa, koutou ki a koutou. Heoi anō, te manako nei kei te whai ō koutou nei uri whakatipu ki roto i te ngākau i riro iho mai i ō koutou kōrero tuku iho.

Ki tō mātou nei whakaaro ko tēnei mea Te Tiriti o Waitangi, ehara i te mea he kirimana noa haere ki te hokomaha ki te hokohoko rare rānei. Kāo. Ko tēnei mea Te Tiriti o Waitangi he mea pūmau, he mea oranga. Mai i te wā i hainatia, i tāmokohia e ō tātou nei mātua tīpuna ki Waitangi i te tau 1840 tae noa ki tēnei wā, tae noa i a tātou i matapakihia ngā kōrero, ngā kaupapa kōrero. He pono, he pūtake tōna mai i taua wā tae noa ki tēnei wā hei oranga, hei arahi i ō tātou nei Pāremata i ō tātou nei iwi katoa e noho ana kei raro o te maru o Aotearoa. Me pēhea te kōkiri whakamua o tō tātou nei oranga mō te katoa? Nō reira me mihi atu au ki Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Tē taea te whakatau ko Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

Me mihi atu ki ngā hapū, ki ngā pūkōrero, koutou anō i takahia ki runga i te haerenga kia tae ki tēnei o ngā wāhi me te whakaaro anō, ko tētahi oranga i rongo au i ēnei momo pire i whai wāhi ngā kaumātua, ngā kuia, ngā koroua, ngā pakeke ki te kohikohi i ngā whakaaro, ki te kohikohi i ngā pūrākau, ā, ka toha atu ki ō koutou nei rangatahi, ki te toha atu ki ō koutou nei tamariki. Hei aha? Hei oranga kia hoatu i ērā mōhiohio, o ērā kōrero i roto i tētahi pātaka kōrero. Hei oranga, hei oranga mō ā koutou nei tamariki mokopuna, nō reira i tautoko katoa au i te kōrero o te Minita Kiritapu Allan nāna noa i kōrerotia rā ōna whakaaro. Me pērā hoki tērā kokonga o te Whare hoki.

Hei oranga anō tērā ko te piringa o te tangata ki te whenua. Ehara i te mea he māmā tēnei mea te hīkoi ki roto i ēnei ture, heoi ko te manako anō kia tiro tātou whānui o tō tātou nei hapori ka whai ngā hapori whānui i ēnei kōrero anō hoki i te mea me haere tahi anō tātou i runga i te tika me te pono kia kaua ētahi o tātou nei whanaunga Pākehā e noho kūare ki waho i ō tātou nei takiwā Māori nei. Nō reira, kei te mihi atu au ki tēnā o ngā āhuatanga. Ko te āhuatanga o te pire e pā ana ki a Ngāti Rangitihi ko tōna piringa ki Te Arawa e tau ana ki ōna whenua ki tōna whenua i Rotorua, i Kaingaroa, i Matatā anō hoki, i rongo au i te pai, me te pai o ō koutou nei whenua, heoi, nā te āhuatanga o te mate urutā, tē taea e mātou o te Komiti Whiriwhiri Take Māori te tae atu ki tō koutou nei marae, te tiro, te tūhura te whenua i pupu ake ēnei o ngā whakaaro nā koutou.

Ko ētahi o ngā nawe hītori o Ngāti Rangitihi ki te Karauna ko te korenga ōna e kawe i ana mahi i runga i te pono nōna i rīhi, nōna i hoko atu tētahi poraka whenua o Ngāti Rangitihi. Ko te tangohanga o ngā whenua nui rawa atu i te ariki mai i Te Mahinga Tūmatanui. Mōhio kē tātou ngā iwi Māori ki tērā, ki tērā o ngā ture, Te Public Works Act me ōna kia huna anō tērā taniwha ki te haere mai ki te whanoke, ki te tāhae i ō tātou nei whenua, nō reira Ngāti Rangitihi me mihi atu au ki a koutou i te mea kua pāngia tērā āhuatanga ki a koutou. I rongo au i ngā kōrero i te wā i rū te whenua, i hū te maunga puia a Tarawera me te tauira anō i te wā i rū te whenua, i puia te maunga i noho marara koutou nā te raru i tētahi o ngā takiwā. I a au e whakaaro ake mō te taha o te Karauna, mō kei hea te Karauna i taua wā. Kei hea rawa te Karauna i taua wā. I rongo i noho mokemoke koutou. Kei whea te ringa āwhina nā te Kāwanatanga? Kei whea te ringa tautoko nō te Kāwanatanga? Nō reira, ko tēnei pire ka whai wāhi anō ki te whakatakoto i tērā hītori kia mōhio mai tātou katoa, pēra ana te āhua, pērā ana ngā hapa, ngā hara i tau anō i a koutou, i te mea ko te nuinga o ngā tāngata i parekurahia i mate i tērā o ngā rautau nā koutou, nā koutou tērā, nā koutou.

Heoi rā, e te iwi, i rongo katoa au kei te whai ara anō koutou. Kei te noho koutou me Te Kaunihera ā-Rohe ki te whai i tētahi ara koiora, tētahi ara whakarauora i ō koutou nei wai māori ki runga i te tika me te pono, nō reira i tautoko ana au i ngā kōrero ki tō mātou nei Minita o mua, Eugenie Sage, nā te mea i kaha ngākaunui ana ki ngā āhuatanga o te taiao. Heoi, i a au e whakaaro ana ki Te Tiriti o Waitangi ko te horopaki e noho ana nei tātou i tēnei wā ko te mōrearea o te huringa o te āhuarangi, te matemate haere o ngā kararehe, ngā moroiti ki roto i ō tātou nei awa. Heoi ko tēnei ara i kitea nei koutou i whakatau koutou ki roto i tō koutou nei pire he ara anō kia ora tēra mauri anō ki roto i te awa, kia ora tēra mauri anō ki roto i ngā whenua kei te hoki mai anō ki a koutou.

E mihi ana hoki ki ngā āhuatanga o ngā whenua kei te hoki anō ki ō koutou nei ringa ki roto i ngā āhuatanga. Me whakarite anō tātou te Pāremata i tērā o ngā āhuatanga. Hoki anō taku maumahara ki tērā anō o ngā whakataukī “Mēnā ka riro whenua atu me hoki whenua mai.” Nō reira Ngāti Rangitihi, anei anō mātou ngā Kākāriki e tautoko ana i tēnei o ngā pire. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tērā kōrero o ngā mātua tīpuna, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Greetings, Madam Speaker. Ngāti Rangitihi, greetings to you all. You are at the forefront of our minds at this time, therefore I greet you in justice and truth, acknowledging the patience and forbearance of your ancestors, as I welcome you to the third reading of this bill, of your law. Therefore, to you who have made it to the pōwhiri in the Houses of Parliament, welcome. Greetings to you all, including those by way of the safety of Zoom. This digital technology helps us manage our lives at this time, and we of the Greens acknowledge you all on this very special day of yours.

Ngāti Rangitihi, although financial redress via a bill of this sort can never correct the mistakes or the calamities, nor relieve the pain that has impacted you, the settlement lays down a foundation to strengthen the future cultural wealth of your tribe. While I was listening to what our chairperson said, as I myself am a member of the Māori Affairs Committee, the story of our chairperson, of Tāmati came up—his connections to Tūhourangi, his relationship to the Te Arawa peoples and about the health and the quality of your land. I heard the name of the lagoon, Matatā Lagoon. I heard about the arrival of Mātaatua, and Te Arawa. In every place another god seemed to arrive, and the thought arose in my mind, goodness knows how many gods arrived in your area. Goodness knows how many ancestors arrived in your region to take heed of its health, its history and its ancient stories. Therefore, to the ancestors who have already set in place this issue, may you rest in peace. However, the desire is that the descendants growing up will follow on with the heart inherited from your oral traditions.

To our way of thinking, the Treaty of Waitangi is not just a contract to simply head off to the supermarket to buy lollies. No. The Treaty of Waitangi is a permanent living document. Since its signing by our ancestors at Waitangi in the year 1840 right up until today it is still the subject of debate. It has been a valid foundation since that time that provides benefit in guiding our Parliament and all the peoples residing in Aotearoa New Zealand. How should we move forward in a way beneficial to all? Therefore I have to acknowledge the Treaty of Waitangi. The Treaty of Waitangi can’t be settled.

I acknowledge the sub-tribes and the orators, you who have travelled this path to arrive at this point. I thought that one of the benefits of this type of bill is that the elders, both female and male, and other adults have the opportunity to gather the thoughts, ideas, and traditional stories, and to share these with the young people and children. What for? So that the benefits of the knowledge in those stories can be saved, as a benefit for your children and grandchildren. So I fully support the thoughts of Minister Kiritapu Allan when she spoke. And it should be the same on that side of the House.

Another benefit is the connection of people to the land. It is not as if it is an easy thing to navigate these laws, but the desire is that everyone in our communities can follow these processes, because we must work together in justice and truth so that our Pākehā relatives are not left in ignorance outside of our Māori settings. Therefore, I applaud this function. Regarding the aspect of the bill relating to the relationship between Ngāti Rangitihi and Te Arawa concerning its lands in Rotorua, Kaingaroa, and Matatā, I heard about the quality and advantages of your land, however, due to the effects of the pandemic we, of the Māori Affairs Committee, were unable to visit your marae, to see and explore your land from where your thoughts and ideas have stemmed.

One of the historical grievances of Ngāti Rangitihi against the Crown was the absence of fairness when it leased out, or sold off blocks of land belonging to Ngāti Rangitihi. The taking of vast tracts of land was done under the auspices of public works. Māoridom already knew of that law, the Public Works Act, which allowed the stealing of land by stealth, so I lament for you, Ngāti Rangitihi, that these abuses happened to you.

I heard the stories of the time of the earthquake and the eruption of Mount Tarawera and the example that, at the time of the earthquake and the eruption you were living away from the area due to the problems in that region. As I was thinking about the Crown’s part, about where the Crown was at that time—where the hell was the Crown at that time? I heard you were left isolated at that time. Where was the helping hand of the Crown? Where was the supporting hand of the Crown? Therefore, this bill is an opportunity to lay out the history so that we can all know that this was how it was, these were the mistakes, the transgressions that affected to you, because the majority of people who died in battle, died in the last century were you—you.

However, to the tribes, I heard that you are pursuing a way forward. You are working together with the regional council to pursue a regeneration plan for your waterways based on justice and truth, and so I support the words of our previous Minister, Eugenie Sage, for she was one committed to environmental issues. As I think about the Treaty of Waitangi, today’s context of climate change is a cause of concern, with the continuing loss of fauna and microbial contamination of our waterways. However, the plan you have envisioned and laid out in this bill is one that will enliven the life force in the rivers and on the lands, the lands that are being returned to you.

I acknowledge you in the circumstances of your land being returned to your hands. This is a process that Parliament should repeat. I am reminded of the proverb “If land is taken away, it must be returned.” Therefore, Ngāti Rangitihi, we Greens stand again in support of this bill. Greetings, greetings, in the language of the ancestors, greetings one and all.]

NICOLE McKEE (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I stand to rise on behalf of the ACT Party to share in support for this bill going through its third and final reading, the Ngāti Rangitihi Claims Settlement Bill. I’ve been moved by the history of redress sought by Ngāti Rangitihi over many decades since the 1860s, and I recognise the knowledge that I learnt today of the separation of Ngāti Rangitihi from other iwi in order to bring this settlement to a conclusion, and seeing as it’s been going since the 1860s, I commend them for their efforts.

I’m moved by the stamina of the people to not only give their physical being by way of military support to the Crown but to do so while trying to seek adequate redress for the claims of the confiscation of some of their lands.

I note also the rise in those who have identified themselves of Ngāti Rangitihi descent, with 5,657 people registered claimants for the settlement process, up from 2,298 members recorded in the 2013 census. I admire the way that iwi and hapū have been able to interact and consider how they will have ownership and transfer of land, specifically at how Tūhourangi are being gifted land at Waimangu valley by agreed post-settlement resolution. I understand that this is something that is very rare but a significant effect of this settlement. I acknowledge Ngāti Rangitihi and Tūhourangi for their efforts here.

Having spent many years growing up in Rotorua, swimming the lakes, especially Tarawera—that was my home away from home—bathing in the hot pools, walking the tracks, living in and around the extended rohe, learning the history. As an example, as I mentioned in my second reading speech, the impact of Tarawera’s eruption on 10 June 1866, where she blew her top creating nine craters, with the loss of Te Wairoa village and also the historic pink and white terraces. What I did not learn was the plight of Ngāti Rangitihi and other iwi; the land losses that had occurred. We did not learn about that history at Rotorua Girls’ High School—the land that was taken from iwi and how it was taken. The redress for this claims settlement bill, like so many others, is a long time coming.

As this bill concludes and is soon to become an Act, it is important to acknowledge the years of work in making this settlement happen, the six years of negotiations. My colleagues around the House have named people whom they wish to acknowledge and ACT gets behind those acknowledgments and shares those wishes and thanks that our colleagues have given.

I think it’s also very important to acknowledge the iwi and hapū who have strived to bring this settlement to conclusion. To Ngāti Rangitihi: may your mauri grow as strong as your numbers are growing; may Tarawera, your awa, flow securely with the wairua of your tīpuna, rather than being thick with pollution; may this settlement bring closure to the many decades of sought redress, the six years of negotiation, and the over 100 years of having your complaints trying to be heard. ACT continues to support this bill. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Our next call is a split call. I call on Simon Watts—five minutes.

SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I arise on behalf of National and as the MP for North Shore on the Ngāti Rangitihi Claims Settlement Bill in its third reading. It is my pleasure to stand here on the third reading of this bill to talk about what is a very important settlement and one which the National Party is very pleased to support.

The key settlement outcomes, which have been canvassed by a number of speakers this evening already, are $11.3 million of financial redress comprising of $7.3 million through the Central North Island Forests Iwi Collective settlement, and an additional final redress of $4 million plus interest of $390,000 from their date of agreement as well. There’s also a right of first offer over the Rotomahana farm currently owned by Landcorp, and the right to buy the land under the Matua School and the school health site, with a lease to the Ministry of Education. Lastly, and importantly, the settlement outcomes include cultural redress, which include acknowledging the statutory area of Ngāti Rangitihi, and reflects this in relation to the Crown Minerals Act, the Resource Management Act, and the Fisheries Act. So this settlement will, in effect, provide the vesting of 19 key sites transferred to this iwi as part of that cultural redress process.

National has always, and continues, and has a long and proud history, of supporting our Treaty settlement processes under the Hon Chris Finlayson previously, and we are continuing to support—in a bipartisan manner—this settlement process. The history and the impacts on Ngāti Rangitihi have been canvassed widely by the speakers this afternoon, and while this settlement can never be a full compensation in terms of the impacts that were felt by members of the iwi and hapū in this regard, it does go some way in order to reflect the impact that it’s had, and in effect to provide a pathway forward for that and those people to move forward into the future. The settlements process—as we know in this House—recognises and rights the wrongs of the past, and strengthens the key partnership between both Crown and iwi, and this is something that the National Party fully support.

I guess the opportunity as a result of this settlement process is for the iwi to unlock some of the economic potential and boost regional and provincial growth in areas which will benefit from that aspect, and that is important in terms of their ability, particularly in the central North Island where this will impact. The Crown has provided unreservedly an apology in regards to hapū and whenua as a result of failing to uphold the principles of the Treaty, and again that is recognised. I want to, obviously, acknowledge members of the Māori Affairs Committee who contributed to this bill, and I know that members on this side of the House who are with me this evening played a key role in that, alongside other members around this House as well.

That is pretty much all that I’m wanting to talk about this evening. I send my best thoughts and wishes to all the members of the iwi who will be watching this online this evening. It is a shame that you can’t be here in this House to share this very special occasion with us, but we feel you here in spirit and we know that you are watching, and I send my best wishes to you and your whānau. I commend this bill to the House.

RAWIRI WAITITI (Co-Leader—Te Paati Māori) (remote): Auē, kua moata kē taku karanga. Kia ora tātou. Kia ora tātou i tēnei rā. Tēnā tātou i a tātou e whakawhāiti nei i tēnei ahiahi. Tēnei tātou i ō tātou tini mate, ngā mate huhua o te wā, ngā mate kei runga o Te Arawa waka i tēnei wā, ngā mate kei runga o Mātaatua, o Te Waiariki whānui ki tērā kuia ki runga o Ruatāhuna, arā ki a Hokimoana, rātou, haere, haere whatungaro atu rā. Hoki mai rā ki a tātou ngā mahuetanga iho, ngā toenga iho, e hika mā tēnā koutou. Ngā pakeke, ki te iwi, ki ngā mokopuna kua tae ki Pāremata, ngā mihi nui. Aroha mai ki tēnei kua rāhuitia ki te kāinga ko te mea kua pā te ngāngara taikuhu kaihuna nei ki āku tamariki. Nō reira aroha mai kāore e taea ki tō koutou pōwhiri i tēnei rā me te hākari anō ki tō koutou taha engari anei rā te mihi atu rā ki a koutou.

Ngā uri o Tama-te-Kapua, kua tātou tēnei. Ko tātou tēnā o ngā uri o Tama-te-Kapua, arā i ū mai ki Whangaparāoa, arā ki te take o Tihirau kātahi anō ki roto o Maketū, ā, tae ake rā ki ngā tōpito katoa o tēnei motu. No reira ko Tama-te-Kapua, ko Tawaki- moe-tahanga, ko Uenuku mai i Rarotonga, anā, ko Rangitihi. Rangitihi upoko whakahirahira. Nō Rangitihi, te upoko i takaia ki te akatea. Ehara mā te Aitanga a Tiki. Nei rā te mihi atu rā ki a koutou e ngā whanaunga, anei rā tō koutou mokopuna e mihi nei. Nā reira e ngā karangaranga hapū, kei a koutou, nā koutou te rangi nei. Ngāti Hinehua, Ngāti Hinerangi, Ngāti Ihu, Ngāti Mahi, Ngāti Whareiti, Ngāti Tionga, Ngāti Tutangata, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou.

Kua kōrerohia te nuinga o ngā kōrero a wētahi kei roto i te Whare i tēnei rā, engari kei te mihi atu rā ki a koutou, ā, i whakamanahia hei tēnei kaupapa ka aroha nei koutou e whai. He aha ngā hua ka puta kāore anō kia whai ki ngā whakatipuranga o Rangitihi te tipu mātoro ki runga i tōna ake whenua kia pūāwai anō te reo o Rangitihi kia tarea anō ki te whakarite rautaki mō te tiaki i te taiao me te whakahoki i ngā ingoa tūturu o ngā wāhi katoa o Rangitihi, kia whai oranga te iwi i roto i te mātauranga i te ōhanga, i te hauora, āhuatanga toko te ora me wēra atu āhuatanga katoa. Ko te whakahokitanga mai o ngā awa, ngā whenua rotarota, ngā roto, ngā wāhi kōreporepo, ngā ahi tipua, ngā ngāwhā nā te mea he wāhi mōmona i ngā rawa, i ngā kai, i rongoā Māori, i te mahana mō te iwi.

Arā, inā te kōrero ka tiki ake au i ngā kōrero a te waka, te waiata “Ka Eke ki Wairaka”—kāti au ki taku whenua tipu. Ki te wai koropupū e heria mai nei i Hawaiki rā anō e Ngātoroirangi me ōna tuahine a Te Hoata a Te Pupu e hū rā i Tongariro ka mahana i taku kiri. Ka roa a Rangitihi āmiomio haere ana pērā anō i te āmiomio o tā tātou tīpuna a Tama-te-Kapua i te korokoro o Te Parata. Ko tā Rangitihi ko te korokoro o te Kāwana. Te Kāwana apo whenua, arā 240,000 heketea. He Kāwana apo kāinga, nā te kanukanu o ngā kāinga o Rangitihi i roto i ngā tau maha. He Kāwana apo tangata, nā te kore mahi, ā, me te hunga i mate i ngā Pakanga o Aotearoa me ngā Pakanga o Te Ao. He Kāwana apo tikanga, te mimiti haere o tō tātou reo, ngā tikanga me ngā kōrero. Ahakoa kāore e whakahokia mai te katoa i te tīmata he tīmatatanga noa iho tēnei. Me waiho ake ngā mokopuna te 99 ōrau e toe ana e pakangatia ana.

Nā reira e hika mā, kua pakupaku te wāhanga ki a au engari koia hoki te kā, te pai o te kaupapa e herea ai e Te Paati Māori. Me whai wāhi ngā iwi katoa ki te relativity pērā anō i a Kai Tahu me Waikato. Ā, me te Waitangi Tribunal hoki. Me whakamahia ngā tohutohu a te taraipiunara, ā, ngā tohutohu i tohungia ki te Minita, ā, me whakamanahia. Ā, me whakakorengia anō hoki ngā full and final settlements, me ngā large natural groupings, kia tarea anō hoki ngā hapū te whai waiho ki roto i te āhuatanga nei. Ā, me te whakahoki atu i ngā whenua o Te Papa Atawhai ki a Mana Whenua.

Nā reira e hika kua pau te wāhanga mā Te Paati Māori. Ka mihi nui ki a koutou e ngā kaiārahi o tēnei kerēme ki Leith, Cathy, Merepeka, Tia, Melanie, Taichi, Donna, koutou rā, ngā mihi nui ki a koutou.

[Oh, my call has come early. Greetings, everyone. Greetings, everyone, on this day. Greetings, everyone, as we gather together this afternoon. We mourn the many deaths, the innumerable deaths of the Te Arawa peoples, of Mātaatua as well, of the wider Te Waiariki, to the female elder of Ruatāhuna, Hokimoana. May they rest in peace. Turning to us, to those left behind, to those remaining, greetings to you all. To the elders, to the tribe, to the grandchildren who have come to Parliament, I acknowledge you. My apologies for being in isolation at home due to my children being affected by this stealthy beast, COVID-19. So my apologies for not being able to be by your side for the pōwhiri and the feast but none the less, this is my acknowledgment to you.

To the descendants of Tama-te-Kapua, I am one of you. We are the descendants of Tama-te-Kapua, who landed at Whangaparāoa—that is, at the foot of Tihirau—landing then at Maketū, and then spreading out to all corners of this land. So it was Tama-te-Kapua, then Tawaki-moe-tahanga, then Uenuku from Rarotonga and Rangitihi. Rangitihi of the proud and lofty brow. Rangitihi whose head was bound up with bushvines. That is not for a mere mortal. This is my greeting to you, my relations. This is your grandchild who greets you. Therefore, to the many groups of subtribes, this is your day. Ngāti Hinehua, Ngāti Hinerangi, Ngāti Ihu, Ngāti Mahi, Ngāti Whareiti, Ngāti Tionga, Ngāti Tutangata, greetings to you all.

Most of what needs to be said has been said by others today in the House, but I wish to acknowledge you and to enable this issue that you are wanting to pursue. What will be the fruits not yet obtained by the generations of Rangitihi on their own land so that the language of Rangitihi can flourish, so that they can create strategies for care of the environment, and return original names to all the places of Rangitihi, so that the tribe can benefit from traditional knowledge, from economic control, from health, from social support and many other things? The return of the rivers, of the wild areas, the lakes, the marshes, the geothermal areas and hot springs is because this is a fertile place full of resources such as food, traditional medicines—a source of warmth for the tribe.

Then there is the story of the waka, the song “Ka Eke ki Wairaka” with the line—but now I go back to my own country. The story of the hot springs brought from Hawaiki by Ngātoroirangi and his sisters Te Hoata and Te Pupu, so that Tongariro could erupt and warm my skin. It has been a long time that Rangitihi has been spun round and round, just like our ancestor Tama-te-Kapua was in the throat of the whirlpool of Parata. According to Rangitihi it is the throat of the Government—the Government who grasps land, 240,000 hectares of it. The Government that appropriates villages, shown by the dilapidation of the villages of Rangitihi over many years. A Government that exploits people through lack of work, and those that died in the New Zealand Wars and the World Wars. A Government that destroys customary practices, the loss of our language, practices and stories. Although not everything has been returned it is a beginning—it is just a beginning. Let the remaining 99 percent be left for the future generations to fight for.

Therefore, there is little time left for me but this is the point, the good thing about the policy which the Māori Party supports. All tribes should be able to achieve relativity like Kai Tahu and Waikato. And, to the Waitangi Tribunal as well. We should enforce all the tribunal’s recommendations made to the Minister; they should be validated. We should abandon the concept of full and final settlements, and large natural groupings, so that hapū can participate in the process. Furthermore, all Department of Conservation land should be returned to those with traditional authority over that land.

Well, then, the Māori Party’s time is up. Thank you to all the leaders in this claim, to Leith, Cathy, Merepeka, Tia, Melanie, Taichi, Donna, to all of you, an immense thankyou. Be well one and all.]

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) (remote): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Ki Te Arawa Waka, tēnei te mihi. Ki ngā uri o Ngāti Rangitihi, tēnā koutou i tēnei ahiahi. Ki ngā pakeke, ki ngā tamariki mokopuna, tēnā koutou.

[Greetings, Madam Speaker. To the peoples of Te Arawa, greetings. To the descendants of Ngāti Rangitihi, greetings this afternoon. To the elders and to the children and grandchildren, greetings.]

I first want to acknowledge my colleagues from around the House who have spoken to recognise and celebrate Ngāti Rangitihi today, and the long-established principle in New Zealand that the Crown owes to Māori the duty to act in good faith, according to the Treaty of Waitangi. That duty is recognised by MPs with different backgrounds and different ideologies, and it’s such an important part of giving effect to the vision our ancestors had for Aotearoa when they made agreements with one another in 1840.

This legislation gives effect to the deed of settlement between the Crown and Ngāti Rangitihi, which acknowledges both instances where the Crown did not fulfil that duty of good faith, and I’m proud to be a part of a Parliament that does not erase the wrongs that the Crown has done but, instead, comes together in this way, like we are today, in acknowledging those wrongs, and looking forward to setting them right. I want to echo what the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations said in his opening remarks this evening, about it being a privilege to stand in support of this legislation, and his words of appreciation for the Ngāti Rangitihi representatives who are in Wellington, and those who are watching online due to the COVID-19 restrictions.

Ngāti Rangitihi have endured a very long wait to settle their claims, and this is a significant milestone today. It represents a huge amount of work and commitment by the negotiators, those mandated by Ngāti Rangitihi, those who have gathered the stories and the histories and told them, and brought people together because of them, and the wider whānau—all of you have a place in this, all of you are celebrated today, and all of your work is recognised. Today is also an opportunity to look to the future as an iwi, to continue to build your modern identity, and flourish collectively. It is a day of unification for Ngāti Rangitihi and that’s something to be very proud of by everyone who’s been involved in this process.

I want to thank everyone who submitted on this bill, and the diligent advisers, and our clerks, and my colleagues on the Māori Affairs Committee for their work and considering the views of submitters, and advice in depth—largely by Zoom, as we are now. And it wasn’t light work, learning the history of the tīpuna of Ngāti Rangitihi. It is a history of excessive land takings by the Crown, under the guise of public works, and not having sufficient land in the aftermath of the Tarawera eruption to keep people well and to support the future of the iwi. As previous speakers have noted today, Ngāti Rangitihi are, effectively, a landless people, and they have been dispossessed of their tribal lands. They now have interests in less than 4 percent of their original 250,000 hectare tribal rohe, which included Kaingaroa, and much of that land interest which they do have is unable to be used for economic benefit due to its status as conservation or reserves land.

But, looking forward, there are two main ways of addressing those injustices, in this piece of legislation and in all Treaty settlement legislation. There is, first, the financial redress, and many before me have touched on that, and it is significant, but it is the cultural redress that I want to touch on again, because we’ve heard from speakers about the importance of conservation in that and what the iwi has agreed with the Crown, and that is important and an exciting part of this to celebrate.

It includes the settlement of 19 sites of deep significance to be transferred to Rangitihi as cultural redress on the settlement date, and that includes two properties at Te Tapahoro Bay, which are known as the beating heart of the Rangitihi rohe; two properties in and around the Waimangu Volcanic Valley, and the former site of the Pink and White Terraces; and five properties at Matatā. But they mean more than the land, and they are more than the sum of their parts: they represent relationships with neighbouring iwi and Tūhourangi, in particular.

They represent relationships with local government, and the ability to come to the negotiating table as equals in the local government sphere. They represent relationships with arms of Government like the Department of Conservation, and the Ministry for Culture and Heritage, and those culture and heritage acknowledgments are an opportunity to build on the rich history and culture, and to tell those stories to a wider New Zealand audience. Some of those relationships will be held at the marae level, some at the hapū level, and they allow for the growth of leadership, and a pipeline of young leaders in Rangitihi who will become ready to take on the leadership mantle that those negotiators watching today have taken so well, and have set an incredible example.

Cultural redress represents an opportunity to move forward as kaitiaki and as a partner to the Crown in the rohe. It is truly about nation building for Ngāti Rangitihi, and it is an exciting thing to be able to do. It’s also for the tamariki and mokopuna who will be future leaders, and it guarantees ownership of assets of significance in the rohe which are important to that question of who we are and what we stand for as Māori. This cultural redress sets Ngāti Rangitihi up to stand strong in their rohe as kaitiaki and rangatira, where they should be. May this House never forget what was lost because of the actions of the Crown. I commend this bill to the House.

SHANAN HALBERT (Labour—Northcote) (remote): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Mihi ki ngā rangi, mihi ki te whenua, tēnā koutou katoa. Me mihi au ki te iwi o Ngāti Rangitihi. Kei te mihi ki a koutou, ki tō iwi, ki tō hapū, ki tō whānau, ki ō mokopuna hoki. Tēnā rawa atu ki a koutou i tēnei rā.

[Greetings to the skies and to the land, greetings one and all. I must acknowledge the Ngāti Rangitihi tribe. I acknowledge you all, your tribes, your hapū, and your families and grandchildren as well. Warm greetings to you all on this day.]

It is always an honour to speak on settlements and to be a part of the Māori Affairs Committee, where we get to hear directly from rōpū, from iwi, from hapū, and then we get to travel the journey with them, in some sense, to hear the history and, in this sense, the historical grievances of Māori, and, in this instance, of Ngati Rangitihi. This bill settles historical Ngāti Rangitihi claims with the Crown today. Through this settlement, the Crown seeks redress for the past injustices that have been inflicted upon Ngāti Rangitihi and provides opportunities for Ngāti Rangitihi and our Crown to move forward. This settlement lays the cultural and economic foundation for Ngāti Rangitihi, their rangatahi, their mokopuna, and future generations.

Our Labour Government is committed to completing all historic Treaty settlements in our manifesto, and this bill is yet another step towards completing that commitment. I follow my own journey in Mōkai Pātea in our own Treaty journey, and I understand fully the hurt and the grievances that Māori has suffered over many, many years since colonisation. And today, I acknowledge Ngāti Rangitihi for getting to this part of the journey, and some would present this particular day as a way forward and, in many respects, a starting point.

I want to acknowledge our Minister, Andrew Little, for the work that he’s done on this particular bill, but also our Māori Affairs Committee, chaired by Tāmati Coffey, who is a part of our team and continues to work tirelessly to support particular kaupapa like this. I want to acknowledge also to Te Arawhiti and the mahi that they’ve done to progress this particular bill, to support Ngāti Rangitihi, and also the officials that have worked tirelessly alongside this particular kaupapa.

Part of our job as members of Parliament is to hear the stories, to learn from them; more so that we don’t make similar mistakes. In this particular bill, we heard from a number of submitters and I want to acknowledge them today. Particularly to matua Leith Comer. Mihi atu kia koe, Leith. Thank you for your contribution that you made to our Māori Affairs Committee. The reflection that you gave on Ngāti Rangitihi’s journey to settlement—that it has largely been cohesive and unifying. We take your point, however, that the Treaty relationship with the Crown does not end at settlement, but rather signifies the beginning.

I also want to acknowledge other submitters throughout this journey: Craig Atkinson, Rex Bunn, Allan Clarke, Dean Foster, Rea Martin, Lianne Mylie, matua Patrick Nicholas, Tania Rangiheuea, and the Matata Action Group. Like any journey, there’s a number of stories that contribute to this particular outcome. I’m proud of this piece of work that our Māori Affairs Committee have proceeded through, but I’m equally proud of the opportunity that, in some senses, this sets up for Ngāti Rangitihi.

The summary of the bill—Part 1 sets out the purpose of the bill. It provides the provisions of the bill that take effect on the settlement date unless a provision states otherwise, it specifies that the bill binds the Crown, and it defines terms used in the bill, including Ngāti Rangitihi and their historical claims. Part 2—and I acknowledge the kōrero from my tuahine Arena Williams—“ deals with cultural redress and the provision for the cultural redress to be provided to Ngāti Rangitihi. Tuatoru, Part 3, “Commercial redress” provides for the commercial redress to be provided to Ngāti Rangitihi, and what excites me about that particular part is that it provides a certain amount of pūtea for Ngāti Rangitihi to determine the future of how their iwi operates and what that money is used for, for the social, the cultural, and the economic development of their whānau and their tamariki mokopuna.

There are four schedules to this particular bill. Tuatahi: “Statutory areas” that define and will be subject to a statutory acknowledgement or deed of recognition. Tuarua: “Whenua rāhui area” that defines the area; and tuatoru: “Cultural redress properties and Te Ariki site”, and this defines the properties themselves and includes the interests that they’re subject to. Tuawha: “Notices in relation to RFR land” sets out the notice provisions for rights of first refusal.

I just want to acknowledge mostly Ngāti Rangitihi, and this sets a way forward for their iwi, their hapū, their whānau, and their mokopuna, and that they get to determine the way forward for themselves. But I take matua Leith’s points on board: that this is the beginning of a relationship with the Crown, and I wish them incredibly well in the way forward. Today, we make another apology, to settle the historical grievances for Ngāti Rangitihi with our Crown, and I acknowledge that today. Without further ado, I’d like to commend this bill to the House. Tēnā tatou.

Hon MEKA WHAITIRI (Minister of Customs): E te Māngai, tēnā koe. Otirā ngā mema katoa o te Whare nei, tēnā tātou katoa. E ngā mate huhua kua wehe atu ki te pō, ko Marina Sciascia nō Ngāti Kiri, ko Miriana Hammond nō Te Wairoa, ngā mate katoa o te motu nei, haere, haere, haere atu rā.

[Greetings, Mr Speaker, and to all the members of the House, greetings one and all. To the many who have passed into the night, to Marina Sciascia of Ngāti Kiri, to Miriama Hammond from Wairoa, to all the deaths around the country, may you rest in peace.]

It is indeed an honour for me to stand and contribute in the third and final reading of the Ngāti Rangitihi Claims Settlement Bill. Can I acknowledge all our Ngāti Rangitihi visitors who are here in the House today and all those who are watching this online. It is hugely significant that we get to the third and final reading, but it really does not go far enough in acknowledging the years and the hours of struggle that the people of Rangitihi have first lived through and also have pursued in the final settlement of their claims.

It is an honour to speak and acknowledge the perseverance, firstly, of the iwi of Ngāti Rangitihi. I want to acknowledge the hard work of the negotiators, particularly acknowledging Leith Comer as the chair. I’ll have something more to say about the negotiators later in my contribution. Very top line-up of negotiators, I must say. I want to acknowledge the Crown negotiators, I want to acknowledge our Ministers of Treaty settlement, the Hon Andrew Little, and, of course, the former Minister, Christopher Finlayson. I want to acknowledge all the officials, Te Arawhiti, the submitters who examined the bill, the Māori Affairs Committee—who took the process and opened it up for public scrutiny. I thank all those that have helped. But, like I said in my earlier opening statement, it pales in comparison to the sacrifice and, I guess, the patience and the tenacity of the Ngāti Rangitihi people whose experience in the breach of the Treaty we have found ourselves here today.

Each Treaty settlement has a very unique set of qualities distinguishing them from each other settlement, and, in reflection of earlier contributors in this House, I want to acknowledge the unique qualities in this settlement around whenua, awa, and, of course, people. And in this comprehensive settlement, I particularly want to draw—as I did in the second reading contribution I made on the cultural redress—on the settlement of the Tarawera Awa restoration. In the bill, which other members have talked about in terms of the various parts, it is a significant part of this bill that we are debating as the third and final reading—the Tarawera Awa Restoration Strategy Group, which is in Part 2, clauses 121 to 143. But the technical part that we are talking about here in the third and final reading of this bill, again there is a long leeway into why this has ended up in this Treaty settlement, and I want to acknowledge all the hapū who have lived along the Tarawera River.

Some members in this House have shared their own stories of growing up along it, but I want to acknowledge the many hapū whānau that have lived along that particular awa, and it has created their identity. And I guess I want to acknowledge it has been probably a sad thing for them to see the degradation of their awa over the many years. This particular clause, the Tarawera Awa restoration part of this bill goes somewhat to restoring the awa, the mauri of the awa, and that’s why I wanted to acknowledge it in my contribution today. Particularly, I want to acknowledge both how we talk in this bill about establishing and the purpose of the strategy group. And in clause 121, particularly, we talk about the permanency of this committee—the permanency of this committee—and it cannot be discharged unless all appointees agree to it being discharged. So this is putting a stake in the ground that this committee is a permanent committee committed to the restoration and the return of the mauri of the Tarawera River for those who have inhabited it, the hapū up and down it, but, actually, for all people who have enjoyed the beauty and the sustenance that this particular awa has given to all those people in this area. I want to acknowledge that.

I also want to acknowledge the membership of this particular group because it makes for good reading as to who actually gets on this strategy group. So you see we have one member appointed from Te Mana o Ngāti Rangitihi Trust, one from Ngāti Mākino Iwi Authority, one from Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Awa, one from Ngāti Tūwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Settlement Trust, one from the Bay of Plenty Regional Council, one from Kawerau District Council, one from Rotorua Lakes District Council, and one from Whakatāne District Council. So this cause that I’m referencing to has all the major players. You have all the regional council, all the district council, but, more importantly, you have the hapū and iwi who call the Tarawera Awa their own—at the table with a commitment to cleaning up the awa. I think that is worthy of acknowledgment in this third and final reading.

I said I was going to talk about the negotiators and I do want to take the time in the acknowledging, at this third reading, of both Leith Comer, Ken Raureti Tia Warbrick, Merepeka Raukawa-Tait—and I’m sorry, I know there were some other negotiators but I don’t have the names in front of me, but I just want to congratulate you. You are a fine bunch of individuals who have a lengthy experience that I know that you’ve leaned on really hard with your settlement. Your negotiators reflect what you have achieved and we are honoured to acknowledge your presence.

So three of those negotiators all have Public Service experience, and so I want to say: the Public Service has an amazing way of growing future leaders that eventually go back and awhi their iwi. And in Leith, obviously, his military background—I’m hoping going forward in Rangitihi that we may see an academy of some sort for all those young men that have come through Ngāti Rangitihi. And, of course, Ken Raureti; I worked with Ken back in the Department of Labour days—a fantastic employment adviser, and then I’m looking forward to some far-reaching employment laws and, of course, conditions there for Ngāti Rangitihi because Ken has an amazing background in labour relations. And, of course, Tia Warbrick, who does also have a paid job in Stats New Zealand, and I’m hoping that there’s some investment in growing data capability for the Ngāti Rangitihi, with Tia’s background. I know it will position the iwi particularly strong going forward. I say that in jest, but it’s an honest reflection of the skill and capability of the Ngāti Rangitihi negotiators, what they’ve been able to achieve. And I know going forward with their leadership, their combined leadership, and, of course, with Merepeka’s leadership there and the role that she plays in looking after families, particularly, I know Rangitihi are in good hands. I have nothing but admiration for this bill that we are passing in the House.

And with those few words, I commend it to the House.

PAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. It’s a real honour to be taking the last call in this, the Ngāti Rangitihi Claims Settlement Bill. E te iwi Ngāti Rangitihi, tēnā koutou katoa.

Can I acknowledge all the speakers who have spoken previously, right through the process to bring this to a conclusion and, therefore, some happiness for our iwi, Ngāti Rangitihi. Can I start by acknowledging the Minister for Treaty settlements, the Hon Andrew Little. I know in December last year he travelled to Matatā to sign the deed of settlement, and his words—I remember him saying that he was humbled to stand there on the marae and to apologise. I think as I have learnt about these claims settlement bills that come through the House and being a member of the Māori Affairs Committee, the importance of getting the apology right means a lot. The words that are crafted carefully and put into the bill take some time to ensure that they accurately reflect the horrific acts and the deeds that were done to the iwi of the time, many years ago. I remember the Minister talking about his apology on behalf of the Crown for its acts and omissions that prejudiced Ngāti Rangitihi.

There are some acknowledgments I want to make and just reinforce. I talked about the Māori Affairs Committee. Can I acknowledge the chair, Tāmati Coffey and the whole committee, of which we had members here today, in Harete Hipango and all of those who have spoken. Because it is a committee where we do work together strongly as a team and get a thorough understanding of each of these iwi’s settlements.

But in terms of the members of Ngāti Rangitihi, it is some shame that they’re not here this afternoon to share with us this third reading. One of the great traditions, as has been said previously, is that there would be a waiata following the last speech, and usually there’s some whanaungatanga, manaakitanga, together to actually put that kanohi ki te kanohi in action and understand and see the people who have been—and for some it’s been many, many years in the making—bringing this to a conclusion.

I want to acknowledge their lead negotiator Leith Comer. Tēna koe, Leith. I know you’ve put in a lot of work personally to this point. There are some people past and present who’ve really kept the fires burning, who have made sure that what’s being put forward and what’s here today—and I mentioned the word “accurate”—is accurate and is fulsome, to ensure that the acknowledgment of the tīpuna of Ngāti Rangitihi who are no longer with us are respected.

I also want to acknowledge the chief Crown negotiator in Katherine Gordon. I’ve learnt that the structure of these arrangements is such where they work alongside each other. And, of course, there is also Te Arawhiti, the Māori Crown relations Government agency, who put staff in and ensure that we get these settlements shaped up in the way that they are.

I did want to just finish the acknowledgments by just signalling two rangatira who are no longer with us. One, and it’s been mentioned earlier, was Stephen Ihaka, who was the cultural adviser to the Crown for many, many years. He was involved in that facilitation and cultural support through the settlement. I know the Minister spoke fondly of him in the first reading to say, “Look, this is a person who was involved at those more difficult times, which often these settlements have.” He certainly led that party on to Rangitihi marae in December for the deed signing. And I want to mihi to Stephen and the whānau.

Also there’s Allan Skipwith, the chair of Tūhourangi Tribal Authority, close neighbours to Ngāti Rangitihi. Throughout the settlement, I think the words were “tested and strained”, and those are fair words because too often these things are not brought to the surface early enough. I know with some of the hearings we had, those raruraru are aired there, but I admire the late Allan Skipwith for the mahi that he did, his firm and measured leadership in bringing this to the conclusion. I did not meet him. I wish I had because there are great words said about him. So I want to acknowledge those two gentlemen. Moe mai rā e ngā rangatira, moe mai, moe mai.

If I move on to the settlement itself, I know in particular for this one, since the ‘60s, they have certainly made petition, submissions, and claims to seek that redress for breaches. For this, the Crown acknowledges those well-founded breaches in its obligations, and the failure to protect those tribal structures, for example, to act in good faith in terms of leasing and purchasing land, those land blocks, and really, at the end, failing to protect Ngāti Rangitihi from becoming virtually landless. That’s something that’s been hurtful across many settlements but I acknowledge it here also. Also, the failure to protect the Tarawera awa and te reo and to encourage its use. There’s a number of things there that culminate in the—I guess it’s summed up as the taking of excessive land for public works purposes. I want to acknowledge those issues there. The settlement, however, does provide for 19 sites—those have been mentioned previously—of deep significance to Ngāti Rangitihi, and those are part of that cultural redress. There are two properties there, and they are in the Waimangu Volcanic Valley and five properties at Matatā.

One of the things I’ve enjoyed seeing as part of this settlement, however, is the establishment of a restoration strategy group, and that’s a permanent joint committee with the regional council there, the Bay of Plenty Regional Council, and there’ll be some funding. There was half a million, $500,000 in terms of making sure that that will be set up and can be coordinated and do the promotion work that needs to be done and summed up by, you know, enhancing the mauri of the relationship between Ngāti Rangitihi and the Tarawera awa.

There are those statutory acknowledgments that come through this and some deeds of recognition over four various areas, and the amount for that commercial redress that covers those has been said is just over $11 million. There is also some shares in the Crown forest land within that central North Island, and, of course, an additional financial redress as part of the overall settlement. I do want to just take a moment to say that, however, it’s never, I don’t think, enough to fully compensate an iwi, in this case Ngāti Rangitihi, for their loss that they have endured; the mamae of the tīpuna, their ancestors. However, I do hope that this settlement, does forge a new relationship, a new pathway forward, between Crown, the iwi, the iwi and its whānau, hapū, to ensure that we can, or they can start once again. I know that they are ready to go. That’s the great thing—they have got their structures in place, their relationship is strong, and I know that, as I said in this speech, if they had the opportunity to be here we would hear the strong melody and the waiata of Ngāti Rangitihi beat with pride this afternoon. It’s a pleasure to be the last and final speaker of the Ngāti Rangitihi Claims Settlement Bill for its third reading. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

COVID-19 Response (Courts Safety) Legislation Bill

Instruction to Justice Committee

Debate resumed from 10 March.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ian McKelvie): When last on this debate, Toni Severin had the call and has 8 minutes 33 seconds remaining to speak, and I just remind speakers this is a very narrow topic.

TONI SEVERIN (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’ve only just got a few points to finish off on the COVID-19 Response (Courts Safety) Legislation Bill—the instructing the committee to put this through fast tracking.

My biggest concern is, like a lot of businesses these days, they are suffering from a lot of people with COVID. I just feel it’s very unfair that we’re given a very short time frame for submitters to be able to submit on this bill, because of the numbers down with COVID. And the other thing is: how can New Zealanders keep trusting this Government if we keep fast tracking these bills and they’re not getting their say? That is just not fair on our justice system as well.

The last thing of all is: I know this is going to go through, which is very sad, but I would just like to thank the Justice Committee staff for the hard work they’re going to be doing in the next week or so. Thank you to the select committee, and we oppose this bill. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the COVID-19 Response (Courts Safety) Legislation Bill be reported to the House by 31 March 2022 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions), during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, despite Standing Orders 193 and 196.

Ayes 110

New Zealand Labour 65; New Zealand National 33; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.

Noes 10

ACT New Zealand 10.

Motion agreed to.

The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 108, Noes 10 to include Te Paati Māori’s votes.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ian McKelvie): I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2021-22, GST, and Remedial Matters) Bill and the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Amendment Bill.

House in committee

House in committee

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members, the House is in committee on the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2021-22, GST, and Remedial Matters) Bill and the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Amendment Bill. I’ll remind members that they are able to participate remotely. If you’re on the Zoom and want to take a call, please type “call” into the chat. You should also use the chat if you’d like to raise a point of order. If I receive new tabled amendments, I’ll advise members so that they can refresh the House papers page to see the new amendment. Finally, it would be helpful for members to ask multiple questions, if they have them, of the member in charge during their call.

Bills

Taxation (Annual Rates for 2021–22, GST, and Remedial Matters) Bill

In Committee

Part 1 Annual rates of income tax

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): We come to the first debate, on Part 1, which is the debate on the annual rates of income tax. I’m aware that members have tabled amendments proposing different tax rates. These amendments will be voted on at the end of the debate on Part 3, because they amend the Income Tax Act 2007, and Part 3 deals with amendments to that Act. However, members should discuss their proposed amendments to the tax rates as part of this first debate, because the focus of the debate is the tax rates for 2021-22. Standing Orders require that the annual tax rates have a debate of their own each year. Part 1 is the debate on clause 3, “Annual rates of income tax for 2021–22 tax year”, and any proposed amendments to those tax rates. The question is that Part 1 stand part.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker, and thank you for that introduction to this debate. It is right and proper that New Zealand has in its Parliament each year a debate on the rates of tax—how much of people’s money does this Parliament allow that Government to take out of people’s income? The ACT Party—the Association of Consumers and Taxpayers in its full name—says that that the Government is taking too much tax out of hard-working families’ incomes and, in particular, it is taking highly progressive taxation that means that some people pay too much tax and many pay none at all, or very little.

Even putting that aside, the overall amount of tax has increased dramatically under this Government. How much? Well, if we take the amount of tax that the Government was collecting at the start of its term in October 2017, and we ask ourselves how much more tax it’s taking for every person—and there are no tricks here. We’re adjusting for the growth in population. There are more people now, and that’s good. We’re adjusting for inflation—that’s been rapid. The price of everything is going up—we know that. But if we adjust for population growth and if we adjust for inflation, then this Government is taxing $2,138 more off every man, woman, and child, every human, in this country—even babies just being born. On their behalf—the average New Zealander—this Government is taxing more than ever before, and $2,138 more for every person than it did when it took office in October 2017.

The other problem is: who it’s being taken off. I want to put a thought in the minds of people at home: how much of the income tax should be paid by the 12 percent who pay the most income tax? Should it be 12 percent? Should they pay as much as they earn, in proportion? Should they pay 24 percent? Should they pay twice as much tax as the number of people? Should it be 36 percent? How many people at home think, “Let’s soak the rich people. They can pay three times more tax than the number of people.”? How many think they should pay three times as much? Well, now, many people would be surprised to know that the top 12 percent of income tax payers in this country, according to the Inland Revenue Department, are paying 48 percent of all the income tax—12 percent of the taxpayers are paying half of all the income tax. So if people think that there is some sort of system where the rich get richer and aren’t paying their share and get away, well, that just is not supported by the facts.

And you go to the other side—and I think every party in this Parliament, including ACT, wants to help people who maybe have had a tough time or are at a stage of their life when they need more help. Maybe they’re very young or they’re older, and they don’t pay as much tax, and they get more. But let me ask you this question: how much tax do the 48 percent who pay the least—how much of the income tax do they pay? Well, do 48 percent of people pay 38 percent of the tax? Do they pay 24 percent of the tax? No; 48 percent of taxpayers are paying only 8 percent of total tax. That is the system we have today.

So there’s two things here so far. Number one: the amount of tax that this Government is taking across all the different taxes has gone up $2,138 under this Government. Adjusted for population, adjusted for inflation, they’re taking more money than ever and it’s very unclear what results they’re getting for it. The second thing is that when we look at who’s paying the tax, we have a very small group of people, 12 percent, paying half of all the income tax, and we’ve got a very large group of people, half of all the taxpayers, paying only 8 percent. What that looks like is a small group of people being picked on by a large group of people, and that is what brings division.

Now, I would like to talk to a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that I’ve put on the Table, that I think would go some way to improving the situation. Supplementary Order Paper 140 would go a long way to making our tax system fairer and flatter and giving people back the opportunity to earn money and keep more of it. And that’s what I’m urging my colleagues on the National Party side to support. This is where you get down to the nitty-gritty of tax policy. You see, my good friend from down in South Auckland Andrew Bayly has an amendment that would adjust the tax thresholds. But do you know what that really means? I like the fact that it gives some money back, but here’s the problem with it: if he adjusts the tax thresholds for inflation the way he’s proposing, what he is doing is he’s making sure that more of the tax burden falls on higher incomes and less of it falls on lower incomes. What he’s really saying is that he wants to perpetuate the idea that half the people pay 8 percent of the income tax, and 12 percent of the people pay half the income tax.

The ACT Party says that if we want a culture of aspiration and a united country, then we cannot have a tax system that is filled with tall poppy syndrome, where the majority of people vote at the ballot box to take money off the minority, where they’re less concerned about the quality of Government spending—because, hey, it’s only this little group that we’re taking all the money off. And we have, fundamentally, division and exploitation, and tall poppy syndrome in our tax code. That’s why ACT can’t support Andrew Bayly’s amendment to adjust those thresholds. It’s one way of giving money back to people—or letting them keep it, to put it more accurately—but it is not the best way, because it perpetuates that tall poppy syndrome in the tax code. What the ACT Party is proposing—and we hope that our colleagues around the House will join us—is a fairer, flatter, more consistent tax policy that will allow people to keep, on the average wage, around about $2,000 more of their own money.

How does that work? Well, we’re going to get rid of the 39c envy tax that this Government has put in place. Why? Are they going to get more money? No, they’re not. They’ll be lucky if they get a few hundred million dollars more when this Government has already started spending tens of billions more than when it came into office. So the amount of tax it gets by putting on this 39c rate is immaterial. It makes no difference in the context of this Government’s taxing and spending. But what it does do is it just sends a little message.

It sends a little message to every child in this country: “If you work hard, listen to your teacher, get good grades, turn those into skills that turn into qualifications, that turn into jobs and careers, and put a little money away and invest it carefully, you know, if you do all that and it works out for you, guess what! We’re going to take it. Not because it makes a big difference to how much money the Government has to spend; just because we can, because there’s not many of you and there’s lots of us, and, in democracy, you’re outvoted and we’re going to take your money.” And that is wrong. It is morally wrong to pick on small groups of people and take their stuff just because you can. Just because a Minister has a chip on his shoulder for whatever reason, it is wrong to go and take people’s money just because it’s possible to do it. So we’ll get rid of that 39c rate. It needs to go for the culture of aspiration and unity in this society and in this country.

Then, the Government says, “What’ll we do with the middle income tax rate, the rate that you pay between $48,000 and $70,000?” Well, you know, if someone on the minimum wage put in a few extra hours, half an extra shift, 44 hours a week, they can find themselves paying the 30c tax rate on their next dollar. We think that 30c in the dollar on an average wage is too high. So the next thing that these amendments on SOP 140 do is they drop that 30c tax rate down to 17.5. So from $14,000, the 17½ kicks in. You pay that all the way to 70, then you pay 33c after that—there’s no 39 rate.

It’s good we have a debate about taxation in our Parliament, because there’s no proper taxation without representation, and the ACT Party speaks for those who are tired of having their money taken away just because this Government thinks it can. We stand for fairer, flatter tax rates where we don’t have one group of people picking on another and taking their money because they can. We stand for giving genuine relief, around $2,000 to the average earner back on their tax bill, with a generous middle-income tax reduction, and if people think that that sounds like a good future for our country, they should vote for ACT’s amendments.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’d just acknowledge my colleague David Seymour there for his passionate speech about tax. He is quite right: tax is the issue we should be talking about today.

I would just preface my comments with what we heard at question time, when the Prime Minister was asked about the issue of cost of living increases. Of course, we do have a cost of living crisis. Her response was that we should be increasing benefits. She was very proud about what’s been done with benefits. Of course, it’s all about the Government taking money from taxpayers—from hard-working New Zealanders—and reinjecting it, putting it through the big mincing machine called the Government, and then repaying it out to people that they decide are the most worthy of that benefit.

But, of course, as Mr Seymour has quite rightly pointed out, taxes come from hard-working New Zealanders, and that is the central issue. That’s why we will be opposing this bill: because we’re fundamentally opposed to a Government that thinks that it has a right to continue to increase taxes—which this Government has, and I’ll talk about that shortly—and then to pay it out the way it should do. The principle we should be trying to do to drive New Zealand forward is to increase real wages—not by artificial means of paying benefits to support people or to reduce bus fares or whatever but by actually creating wealth through better jobs, better economic outcomes, and, as a result, real increases in wages.

As Mr Seymour alluded to, the Government is raking in tax at the moment. This year, we’re, basically, talking about $100 billion. Over the next four years, it will take in roughly about another $24 billion of additional tax. Just to be clear: what I mean by that is that by 2026, it will be not taking in $100 billion but, in that single year, will be taking tax of about $124 billion. Of course, that is a massive increment of tax—because you’ve got increases next year and the year after, ultimately to get to that figure. The only reason I quote four-year figures is that is what the Government’s projections are always about: four-year cycles. We have got a Government that is just continuing to rake in huge amount of tax, and that is principally because of inflation. There have been a whole stack of other taxes that have been imposed, but I’m principally talking about personal tax. The other taxes, as we all know, that the Government has put in place—there’s a whole stack of them; we’ve been talking about the fuel tax today—are just driving up the cost of living for people.

Here is a Government that is very happy to spend money. We’ve got the $15 billion light rail project. We’ve got the $500 million that’s going to be spent on the health reforms, and that’s only a part down payment. We’ve got the $1 billion that’s going to be set aside for the three waters change. Of course, that is about taxing people to fund that.

That is why we oppose the tax rates that have been put forward in this bill: because, fundamentally, we don’t believe that they are justified. That is why we have put up an amendment in my name which is about reducing tax rates. Of course, this was announced by our leader, Christopher Luxon, not long ago, and is actually a core part of what the Hon Simon Bridges has been talking about for a long time, which is adjusting tax rates to take into account inflation.

If we look back, for instance, and say “What has been the net inflation over the last four years, under the Labour Government?”, it’s been about 12 percent—just slightly under. So what we’ve proposed—and this is what the amendment deals with specifically—is that we should go back and adjust the threshold at which point people enter into the higher tax bracket.

For instance, at the moment New Zealanders pay tax at 10.5 percent on the first $14,000 of income. Under the proposal that we’re talking about, we would increase that to $15,600 because that is the inflation, taking into account the 11.5 percent that I talked about over the past four years. Conversely—just working through the next arrangement—at the 17.5 percent tax rate, we’re suggesting that that cut in at $15,600 and would increase to $53,500. At present, that rate stops at $48,000. There is a $5,500 increase in the threshold. Of course, that would mean, for people earning an average wage, they would still be paying tax at 17.5 percent rather than, as currently, flipping into the next tax rate of 30 percent. The next rate would be increasing from $53,500 to $78,000 for the rate of 30 percent. The 30 percent at the moment goes up to a maximum of $70,000; we’re increasing that to $78,000. The final adjustment is that all tax from $78,000 onwards would be paid at the 33 percent tax rate. Of course, what all this does, and what the proposals are around this, is put more money back into Kiwi pockets.

I know that the Government, particularly the Hon Grant Robertson—and it would be interesting to see what the Hon David Parker says—characterise this as a tax cut. They’re not tax cuts, actually. What they are is stopping the Government and reversing the Government’s tax take that has been imposed on New Zealanders over the past four years. It’s reversing that and giving it back to New Zealanders. It’s like saying, “Let’s go back to the status quo, before the Labour Government came into office four years ago.” That is hardly a tax cut. What it is is saying, “New Zealanders, you should keep what you should have been entitled to back in 2017, and we’re going to reverse it back there.”

What it means, ultimately, is that New Zealanders will have more cash in their pockets and more money to spend on vital things for their families. Of course, this is at a time when we’ve got these massive cost of living increases. We’ve been talking about fuel, about housing costs—rent’s up by $150 a week since the Labour Government’s come into play—and about all those increases around fruit and vegetables. That is making it so much harder for New Zealanders and New Zealand families to just be able to pay for the necessities of life. For the lower-income people, they are the ones who have little discretionary income, and this is about helping people on those lower incomes.

To put it in context, for an average wage, they would be getting about $870 extra per annum, and for someone earning over $78,000—which the Government loves to focus on—they’d be roughly about the same: about $1,000 extra. What these broad changes will mean is that every year people are about $800 better off. For superannuitants—which is a very important component—they’d be about $540 better off as a couple. Giving money back to them that the Government has otherwise taken off them over the past four years will allow them to meet their commitments and to look after their lives and to actually try and deal with this massive cost of living explosion that we’ve had.

Now, these tax cuts will cost about $1.7 billion, and I think what this will mean is that we move back to a situation where we stop taxing and taxing people and the Government taking that, putting it through all the administration that the Government has, and spending it on a lot of bureaucratic processes to get to a point where the Government then pays it back to New Zealanders. That is just a way to circumvent that, so that people keep the money at the time that they earn it and so that they can prioritise how they want to use it. It is about allowing New Zealanders to get on with their lives with less input and influence from the Government.

This is what my amendment is about, and I think—if I may say so—this is something that we’ve been talking about for some period of time as the National Party. It is an excellent idea. It has got good outcomes for all New Zealanders. It’s fair and equitable. There are further amendments that I’m going to talk to on this matter, but I know my time is drawing to a close. I think this is an excellent start in terms of the tax debate.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Revenue): Thank you, Mr Chairman, for the opportunity to take the first call from the chair.

Now, listening to the last two contributions, you’d think that New Zealand’s an overtaxed country, that we’ve somehow got swingeing rates of taxation, and that the overall wedge of taxation, as a percentage of the economy, is high by the standards of countries with which we compare ourselves. There are 38 countries in the OECD. New Zealand, in 2020, was 24th of those 38 countries in the OECD for taxation as a percentage of GDP. Not 24th highest, but—yes, 24th highest. Of the 38 countries, we’re the 14th or 15th lowest as a percentage of GDP that goes to taxation—24th. I suspect, when those statistics come out in the next few years, looking at other countries, we’ll look even better compared with other countries, because, of course, since COVID hit, New Zealand’s actually, overall, had GDP growth compared with the European countries, United States, and the likes.

Where do we sit on that table? Our tax as a percentage of GDP in New Zealand is lower than the UK and slightly higher than Japan, not too different from Japan. The countries that have higher percentages of GDP collected in taxation include countries that we traditionally compare ourselves with, like Canada, most of the European countries that we compare ourselves with, and certainly the Scandinavian countries. All liberal democracies have taxation needed to fund the services that people desire from their Government and vote for them to fund. Health, education, and superannuation are the largest cost centres, justice is obviously also important.

In respect of the statistic that we heard from David Seymour, about 12 percent of taxpayers paying 48 percent of the income tax, it brings to mind that saying, “Lies, lies, damned lies, and statistics.”, because that’s true as a statistic but it’s really a misrepresentation of the underlying facts. So 12 percent pay 48 percent of the income tax, and I haven’t checked his number, but I’m accepting that that’s true. But, of course, in his population, he forgets to say, “Well, that includes children, that includes people who are out of the workforce raising children, that includes superannuitants.” He also conveniently overlooks the fact that GST, as a proportion of income—which is a regressive tax—is a higher proportion of income for lower-income earners than it is for higher-income earners, because lower-income earners consume all of their earnings, whereas higher-income people save some of theirs and don’t spend as much as a proportion of their income on GST-inclusive services. So, again, his statistics exclude the fact that GST is a higher share of the income of a lower-income person than it is of a higher-income person.

Final point I’ll make on that is that, if we compare ourselves with the Australians across the Ditch, their top marginal tax rate is higher than the 39c rate in New Zealand, it’s 45c in the dollar. So we compare pretty well on that one as well.

In respect of the amendments that are proposed by the ACT Party and the National Party to get rid of the top tax rate of 39c over $180,000, and the other rate adjustments, we will be opposing those. And we do make the point that it really does show where both the National Party and the ACT Party sit, that they would give thousands of dollars of tax cuts to the highest income and $2 a week to someone on $45,000 per annum. So, for those reasons, the Labour Party will be opposing those amendments.

CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): Members, the time has come for me to leave the chair. The House will resume after the dinner break at 7 p.m.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7 p.m.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you, Mr Chair. I thought my colleague Mr Watts was going to get the call, but anyway. Hey, I just want to respond to Minister Parker, and I thank the Minister for standing up just before we had our dinner break. I suppose the first question is, we were talking about the tax take and how this year the Government’s going to rake in—oh, I should acknowledge the members on the other side of the Chamber, as well. I’ve got the Hon Kris Faafoi here. I hope he’s going to make a strong contribution to this tax debate. The Hon Willie Jackson—he’s here. I’m sure we’re going to have an enlivened tax debate, because these guys are expert at these matters, and I’m looking forward to—Ginny Anderson, of course. So, hopefully, we will have a good conversation tonight.

Anyway, the Minister—

Hon Kris Faafoi: While you talk, someone’s doing the numbers.

ANDREW BAYLY: Yeah, we’re doing our numbers. The thing about tax, Mr Faafoi, is that, this year, the Government’s going to take in $100 billion of tax. In four years’ time, it will take in about $124 billion of tax: an extra $24 billion in one year. And, of course, under current scenarios, that is going to increase. The Hon David Parker spoke about the Government, saying we’ve got a reasonable tax base, and therefore—I think his argument was—“Hey, that’s fine, because we seem like we’re OK compared to most other people.”

I suppose the first question is: at what point do you think the Government should tax its population? At what point is it reasonable to say, “Gee, that’s enough. We shouldn’t take the money off hard-working New Zealanders, because it’s better that they keep it.”? That is the issue. I think, from the comments the Minister said before, my inference was, “Look, we’re OK—we’re reasonably OK compared with the rest of the world, and therefore we can continue to tax a whole lot of New Zealanders a whole lot more tax.” And, of course, we’ve seen all of the new tax that the Government’s trying to do. Obviously, we’re talking about them tonight: the imposition of the new 39 percent tax rate. We’ve seen the brightline tax rate. We’ve seen the loss of interest deductibility. We’ve seen a fuel tax. All these new taxes of the Government have come into play. I would say to Mr Parker, I think it’s really important that the Government is—

Hon David Parker: The fuel tax just came off.

ANDREW BAYLY: Sorry, the Minister’s saying the fuel tax has come off. Yeah, that’s right: it’s come off. That’s because there was a poll last week. That’s the only reason that tax has come off. The Labour Party are reacting to what Kiwis are finally saying to them, which is, “We’ve got a cost of living crisis.” That’s why we need to remove the fuel tax, Mr Parker—and I note it’s only for three months. And, of course, what I’ve heard a number of people say to me today: “What about my diesel tax?” Haven’t seen any changes to the diesel tax. I understand there’s regulations that have to be followed—45 days’ notice—before anyone who drives a diesel car’s going to get any relief. Wow, that’s a fast-moving Government! So, yes, the fuel tax is coming off, but only for a matter of three months.

This huge increase in tax raises a much more significant issue, and I think you need to see it in the context that, over the last 22 months, Mr Grant Robertson has doubled the debt in New Zealand to $60 billion to over $120 billion. That has got to be some record over 22 months—less than two years—and that is why the Government is keen to keep taxing people. That’s why it’s keen to take another $24 billion of additional tax in four years’ time. That’s why Mr Robertson keeps going on a spend-up.

I think we heard from Mr David Seymour before, talking about trying to keep tax to a minimum. We all understand the requirement to make sure we’ve got good health services, good education, all that sort of stuff. What we don’t want to hear from the Government is the wasteful spending that’s been going on—the huge amount of wasteful spending and, of course, the $6 billion that Mr Robertson’s set aside in his Budget, over atop of all the other allowances. So we need to make sure that we’ve got reasonable tax. This is why we need to change the tax rates, because Mr Seymour is correct: the top 12 percent of tax earners pay, roughly, about 48 percent of all tax. And, of course, if you have a family, Working for Families, many people who are on the lower income rates don’t pay any tax at all, after you net off the benefits. That’s why we need to—

Hon David Parker: That’s not correct. What about GST?

ANDREW BAYLY: They pay tax in stores, but after you deduct benefits—[Time expired]

Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green) (remote): Thank you—this is my first remote call and I am hoping that I am now unmuted, because I might have stuffed that up. Thank you everyone for letting me know.

Thank you, Mr Chair. So this is the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2021-22, GST, and Remedial Matters) Bill and, as has been traversed, we, the Green Party, are going to abstain on this legislation. It was a massive missed opportunity for far more progressive change that really could have seen a tax system that finally—finally—starts to acknowledge that for far too long, the way that we redistribute and hold wealth has been completely unfair, unsustainable, continues to benefit the wealthy few, and pays little attention to those who are struggling the very most.

So, in my contribution at this stage, I wanted to again remind us—and I’ll be going to some of the Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) as well—that we’ve recently seen the wealthiest in this country gain nearly $1 trillion in wealth, not through hard work, as far too many of the members in this House like to pretend, but simply through benefiting from the system that is rigged, simply through having capital and wealth already, and that is all.

The current policy settings continue to treat housing as a tradable commodity, as opposed to what we should be doing, which is, first and foremost, housing are homes for people to live in, are public good for the wellbeing of all and our community. We have missed the opportunity to make some real difference in this legislation. That is why we will be abstaining. We have continued to give high trust and support to businesses through this legislation but not to people who receive a benefit, people who are on the lower incomes. We, right now especially, need bold policy that properly redistributes that wealth, and this bill does not get us there. It instead tinkers with the brightline test, when we could instead just introduce capital gains and wealth taxes. It tweaks tax deductibility rules which mean even less opportunity to treat housing the way that we should be, and instead upholds treating housing like a pyramid scheme; it does not de-commodify the way that we look at housing and treat housing right now, including in our tax system.

So, in that—I’m keeping an eye on time, with the SOPs that both the National Party and the ACT Party are putting up, those SOPs from the National Party undo even the small attempts at trying to tilt the scales back to any sort of justice balance, and even the small attempts the National Party wants to undo. The ACT Party, as always, doesn’t even pretend to care about anyone on the lower incomes and continues to uphold a much-debunked trickle-down theory about tax cuts. So their SOPs are, in fact, not for anyone earning under $48,000 per year. So, Mr Chair, thank you for the time. We will be abstaining, and we will absolutely be opposing the National and ACT SOPs.

SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Mr Chair, thank you very much for the opportunity to talk at this committee stage of the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2021-22, GST, and Remedial Matters) Bill. I was actually hoping—listening to that last contribution, it sounded like a party that were opposing this legislation, but, no, they’re going to be abstaining. So what that says is a vote for the Greens is a vote to sit on the fence, and that is completely opposite.

But I want to talk about Part 1, “Annual rates of income tax”, because that’s what we’re here to talk about. I think, listening to the Minister’s contribution just before, the Hon David Parker, he gave us a bit of a lecture in terms of how lucky—how lucky—Kiwis are to live in a country that were 24th on the list in terms of taxation, like some sort of—you know, the people sitting at home are going, “Jeez, I’m lucky to be getting more tax out of my hard-earned income that I do and contribute to this country every day.” And that’s sort of what we heard from that.

What wasn’t recognised is that what we’ve seen, and what we’re seeing as part of this bill, is an increase in taxation on hard-working Kiwis and the opportunity, really, in terms of what’s available for this Government in terms of the huge amount of tax take that they are going to be taking in the next three to five years. There’s actually the ability to spread that benefit back to Kiwis and, I guess, that the ideological difference between National and Labour primarily is that National trusts individuals to spend their own money better than this Government. And that is key and a fundamental ideological difference. That’s why National opposes this bill, particularly because all it does is it increases the amount of taxes.

Yeah, don’t get me wrong. There’s some remedial actions around GST, etc., that, you know, is part impartial and partly is sensible. But the key elements of this, the three elements that make up this bill, are really around increasing taxes. And you can’t take your way out of a deficit, right? You can’t take your way out of a hole, and you can’t expect that this is going to create more economic value and more economic benefit for this country. Actually, our view is it’s going to do the complete opposite.

So, look, the annual rate element, I guess we’ve talked and we will talk a lot more about some of our changes that we want to see made in this bill. But the 39c tax rate is one element that’s going to be coming in, in terms of Part 1; we are obviously strongly opposed to this. We see that that is not going to create the benefit that this country needs. Actually, you know, as a result, I think what we’re really going to see is just a burgeoning of the benefits for tax accountants out there, and other compliance matters—of people just getting their way out of it. And, you know, that’s just a complete waste of time. There’s been a lot of commentary from members, including those that presented at the select committee, that the payback on that isn’t going to be there. And, you know, that’s a great shame.

But, I guess, in terms of tax rates, National has proposed a number of pragmatic solutions in terms of what we would do differently around the way in which people are taxed, and, right at its heart, we believe that the rate at which people are taxed should take into account the impact of inflation, and haven’t we seen the impact of inflation, and Kiwi households have seen the impact of inflation, in the past year. And I think what this shows is a Government and a Minister that are out of touch with hard-working Kiwis out there in New Zealand at the moment. They’re seeing a Government that’s simply saying, “Look, the only solution that we see for you is to increase taxes.” and what people out there, I think, in hard-working Kiwiland are saying is this, “Look, we’re doing it tough. Times are tough. Costs are going up across the board.” And, you know, at the end of the day, what they are looking for is a little bit of relief to allow them to do what Kiwis want to do and that’s, you know, live aspirational lives in this country. And I think this bill, and particularly Part 1, “Annual rates of income tax”, is going against it.

So, look, overall, National will be opposing this bill. We don’t believe that, as I said, it’s going to make any significant difference; actually, quite the contrary, and we will look to hear a little bit more about that soon.

BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Deputy Leader—ACT): Thank you, Mr Chair. It’s my pleasure to rise to take a call in the committee of the whole House on the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2021-22, GST, and Remedial Matters) Bill. I wanted to talk about the tax take and, in particular, what it means for the country that we want to live in. I—and, I know, the rest of my ACT Party colleagues—want to live in a country where people don’t feel bad for wanting to work hard, where people get rewarded for their efforts and they know that the money that they’re putting aside and setting aside and saving responsibly is actually going to go some way to helping them feed their family and set up some financial security for the future.

It’s really unfortunate that over this term of Government, and since the Government was elected, New Zealanders are now paying around $2,000 extra or more than they were four years ago. It’s a frustration that I’m hearing up and down the country. It feels as though people are working harder and feeling even more tired, especially through this COVID pandemic, and yet it feels harder and harder to actually get ahead, and more of the money that people are earning is going to the Government and not to their own pockets—not to their children to help pay for their uniforms and pay for food on the table, but going into the Government to be spent on stupid projects and getting wasted. We know that there has been a huge amount of Government wasteful spending, and that’s a real tragedy when, you know, New Zealanders should actually have a little bit more of the money that they earn for themselves and their families going back to them, so that they can actually provide for themselves.

We are living in a cost of living crisis. You know, you only have to go to the supermarket to see the cost of fresh fruit and vegetable going through the roof. And if you’re like me and you’re just buying for one person, it seems remarkable that you can just take one bag to the supermarket and, before you know it, you’ve spent 150 bucks just walking out with one bag. I hate to think how that feels when you’ve got children that you’re providing for too, and you’ve, you know, got a growing kid and they’re wanting to go through half a box of Weet-Bix in the morning. It’s just incredible how much money people are needing to spend every week at the supermarket, and that’s on top of the cost of petrol going up. You know, there are so many outgoings that people need to set aside their own money for and, since this Government was elected, $2,000 extra per year is going to the Government. What are they actually getting back? There hasn’t been any significant improvement from what we’re actually seeing being spent by this Government that would actually contribute to it being worthwhile.

I’m constantly hearing from people who feel like they have a good income, but the pull to go overseas is getting stronger and stronger, and a lot of people talk about wanting to go to Australia because they know that their wages will be higher over there, and that’s a real shame because it’s about the type of country that we want to live in, and we should be rewarding people with aspiration for their hard work, the dedication for wanting to get up in the morning, earn a living for themselves and their families. Instead, the type of situation that we’re in in New Zealand is more and more people are saying, “You know, I actually think another country would reward me for my efforts and would be more welcoming for that type of person.”

We want to make sure that we’re keeping people who want to work hard, and so Supplementary Order Paper 140 that’s been put forward in David Seymour’s name would go some way to helping make sure that that would be a reality. And that would be by reducing the income tax bracket down from the $48,000 to $70,000 bracket to 17.5 percent. So that would mean that any bit of money between $14,001 to $70,000 would be taxed at a rate of 17.5 percent, and that would mean that the average person would get another $40 in their pocket per week to help pay for their groceries, to help pay for their kids’ extracurriculars—making it that much easier, when they say that they want to join a rugby team this year and they actually need some new boots, to say, “Yep, you know what? We can actually, as a family, afford that.” And it’s a real shame that people are actually having to struggle to make those changes to their own lives.

This Government’s borrowing, spending, taxing, and regulating has added to the cost of everything. There’s so much wasteful spending. We need to give New Zealanders a break, give them more of the money that they earn for themselves, and the ACT Party has a solution that would actually help the middle-class battlers who are being squeezed in every direction. Thank you, Mr Chair.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Revenue): Thank you, Mr Chairman. These people that the last speaker for the ACT Party, Brooke van Velden, said would move overseas because of tax rates—well they’re not going to move to the United Kingdom, because that would be to a country that has taxation that’s a higher proportion of the economy, nor France, nor Italy, nor Canada. Maybe they’d go to the United States, but, of course, there they’d face state taxes as well as central government taxes, and, of course, they wouldn’t have a decent health system funded out of their taxes, and they’d have to get private health insurance to cover their health costs if they could—if they could—and they might not be able to, as many people in the United States can’t. So I think those apocryphal stories that we’re somehow going to lose people to New Zealand because they can go to countries with lower tax rates are not going to come to pass.

So we will be opposing the Supplementary Order Paper from the ACT Party, and I would again note that the majority of the tax cuts that they propose compared with the status quo—because all this bill does is carry on with the status quo—would be going to wealthy people, and people who are middle-income earners and lower would get less.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central) (remote): Kia ora, Mr Chair. Thank you for that, and, look, I want to absolutely endorse the comments of Minister Parker in this matter. I heard Brooke van Velden speaking before about the average New Zealander, and, of course, the danger with the average New Zealander is that if we have a small amount of very wealthy people, then it skews entirely what the average is. I want to talk about people who are earning under $48,000 a year, of which there are many, and, of course, the tax proposals put forward by the ACT Party would do absolutely nothing for them—but everyone over that, including the people who would benefit most? Those earning over $180,000 a year. It’s absolutely extraordinary to me that Brooke van Velden can come to this committee and talk about the costs of her $150 shopping bag, when some people are struggling to feed many children on that. Yet she’s trying to create tax breaks through her Supplementary Order Paper for people who are earning even more than she is. Truly extraordinary.

And, of course, the cost of living crisis: we know the costs are real. We know there are difficulties there. But the ACT Party’s proposals do nothing at all. As for the suggestion that people are going to leave for lower tax rates: well, over in Australia, the top tax rate’s 47 percent; Canada, 53; the UK, 45; and even the United States is 43 percent on those top income brackets. So it is absolutely fictitious to suggest that there is some kind of “El Dorado” out there. As the Minister said, you might want to escape to the United States if you’ve got lots of money, but you won’t be getting State-funded healthcare. You won’t be getting a consistent education system.

And as for the National Party saying that the Government’s engaging in wasteful spending and that they can somehow make up the $3 billion hole of tax revenue that they would see, I’d like to know: other than cameras on fishing boats, no one yet has said what they would cut. Are they going to cut nurses’ salaries, at this time? Are they going to cut teachers’ salaries? Are they going to address care workers? Are they going to lower the minimum wage? We are yet to see a single meaningful suggestion.

Even from here, from 400 kilometres away, I can hear Andrew Bayly yapping in the background there, but he’s got nothing to say. He should get up now, and he should tell us right now what the National Party will cut. What is this alleged wasteful spending in this time of crisis? The budget is better than the Treasury has projected. We have lower debt than projected, we have lower unemployment than projected, and we have a better fiscal outlook than projected. And yet the National Party says they can do better. I challenge them to stand up and say: what will they cut? Where will they find the money to cut? Thank you, Mr Chair.

Hon DAVID BENNETT (National): We had the Minister speak before about tax rates relative in other countries, so would he just like to expand on that with relative income rates for, say, a teacher, a nurse, a doctor in Australia, for example, and give New Zealanders a fair estimation of the income levels that somebody, if they were a truck driver in Australia would get compared to a truck driver in New Zealand, so that it can be a relative discussion, rather than the tax rates necessary as part of the income for those things. Then you can add on the housing cost in Australia as well—what’s the cost of a house compared to the cost in Auckland, which has gone up horrendously under his watch.

So would the Minister like to give a fair representation of the income and expenses of somebody moving to, say, Australia or those other countries that he wanted to acknowledge, rather than trying to purport to just give one view of what the economic cost may be?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Revenue): I won’t go too far into this, because it’s straying a fair way from the bill. But I would say that the rate of increase in salaries for nurses and teachers since we came to office exceeds what occurred during the nine years prior in the National Party.

Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn) (remote): Thank you, Mr Chair. It’s a delight to speak on this bill, albeit remotely. I want to just add a little bit of clarity to some of the numbers that have bandied about here, especially by members of the Opposition parties.

We had the leader of the ACT Party, David Seymour, standing up and ranting and raving, telling us that it was horrendous that 12 percent of individuals in this country paid 48 percent of the income tax. I checked the numbers out; indeed, those are correct. There’s a table on the Treasury website, and if you go to that table and look through the numbers, indeed, 12 percent of income earners do pay 48 percent of all the income tax. However, there is no table on the Treasury website which talks about the amount of income they earn in the first place. But if you dig a bit further and do your homework properly and head through the IRD website, you can find a table there which will give you an estimation of income distributions in this country. So, if you’re sitting there and crunching through the numbers and working with them a bit, and it doesn’t even take a lot of effort to do it, what you do find is that 12 percent of income earners in this country earn 38 percent of all the income. A huge proportion of the income is earned by just a small proportion of people in this country. That’s not even taking into account people who don’t earn any income at all. The particular spreadsheet I’m working off only works with people who are aged 16 and older, and does not include people who earn no income at all. So, in actual fact, that 38 percent of income is likely a lot higher.

So if we’re talking about a fair distribution of income tax, then it turns out that the fairness we need to speak in terms of is fairness in relation to the income earned, not just the single headcount—the single individualistic headcount that the ACT Party relies on. Tell the story, but tell the whole story, and that is what the ACT Party neglected to do; they neglected to look at income distributions. We have a long-established principle in this country that if you earn more income, then you pay more income tax. This is a principle that goes way back to Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations, writing about the principles of fair taxation. Adam Smith said that the more income a person earns, the more that person ought to contribute to the general good—to the general good. So I think we can ignore the stats—the dubious stats—that the ACT Party have presented us with, with only a partial view.

And then from the National Party we had the idea that, in fact, we’re all paying outrageously high income taxes in this country. That is just not the case. The Minister presented it early on in this debate; he pointed out that in terms of the 38 OECD countries, in terms of what our overall tax take is as a percent of GDP, we are 24th. That is, that there are 23 countries that have higher tax takes than we do—23. And that’s countries like the United Kingdom and Canada, and the Scandinavian countries; places where it’s actually good to live. So other countries have higher tax takes than us. And, of course, Mr Bayly also ignored—by concentrating only on income taxes, he ignored the other taxes that are in our system, things like GST and company tax and the like. So, again, only a partial story; a partial picture of what was going on.

I put it to you and to the members of the House that, in actual fact, we could debate about tax rates all we like, but I think we should talk about other principles. Mr Bayly has suggested that our income tax thresholds should be indexed to inflation, but that suggests that they are already at the right level. It suggests that no Government should have a very careful think about the overall structure of our income tax rates; we should just leave them permanently indexed and set in relation to what they are now. Who knows what the future may bring? We need to remain flexible, we need to have the flexibility to adjust income tax thresholds as we need for the benefit of all New Zealanders, because we are all in this together. Thank you, Mr Chair.

Hon TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua): Mr Chair, thank you very much. I was thinking that there would not be a reason to speak in this debate, because members would see common sense, but I couldn’t help it, having listened to the anaemic speech of the last member, Dr Deborah Russell, calling from somewhere else in the country. You see, for every single member of the Labour Party, the mantra that they teach them before they become MPs is “There is not a problem that can’t be fixed with a new tax.” And that’s what we’ve seen over 4½ years. You know, Minister Parker can be quoting other very high tax jurisdictions around the world and patting himself and his colleagues on the back for being better than them, but this is a high-tax Government at a time when Kiwis are doing it hard. What we’ve seen this week, in a reaction to ongoing pressure from the Opposition, from the National Party, about cost of living, is, finally, the Prime Minister said, “Well, I suppose there’s a little, tiny bit of a crisis, and we’re going to give a little bit of the extra, extra, extra tax we’re getting, because fuel rates have gone up so much, back to you for just three months, and could you be grateful to us, please.” That was the message that was delivered to Kiwis.

Then we saw, in the House today, Minister Woods, who is completely out of touch with what the energy companies are doing, saying that, actually, the announcement yesterday of 25c a litre that’s being given back—well, it’s not being given, because it’s actually already been taken. So they’re taking it with one hand and giving it back with the other. The 25c tax per litre is being given back. The oil companies have already applied that. Well, of course they have, and the reason for that is—and this is a problem with Labour Party members of Parliament: they fundamentally don’t understand business. Of course the petrol companies had to implement that straight away, otherwise few people would buy petrol until the Government gave the tax back at midnight last night. And that’s the thing about a business: when you have costs, you have to meet them. On the forecourt of a petrol station, you have costs when you’re sitting there, whether you’re selling gas or not, and, because of the Government’s announcement, they wouldn’t have been. So they have forced them to implement it straight away.

The Government cannot take credit for what the fuel companies did—taking a cut, waiting for them to get around to it. And, by the way, that cut to petrol tax should have taken place a long time ago. In fact, if they really believed there was a crisis, they would take the extra tax [Interruption] that they have placed—well, this is a debate about tax, Mr Chair—but they would have given—

ASSISTANT CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): Not this broad.

Hon TODD McCLAY: I’m coming to the point very quickly: they would have taken that extra Auckland tax off a long, long time ago, and not kept it in place, asking people to be grateful.

We should be seeing changes to the tax system in New Zealand, and this isn’t a philosophical debate. Kiwis are taxed too much. You know, when somebody on the minimum wage who works 44 hours a week pays a 30 percent tax rate—well, that’s just ridiculous. It’s crazy. It’s a Government that’s out of touch. When the middle-income earner is on the 33 percent tax rate—remember when that used to be the top tax rate? Well, what the Government is saying is, actually, if you are an average earner in New Zealand, you have to pay the top tax rate, except we don’t want you to, so we’re going to create a whole other, higher tax rate, to take some more off people. But when the average income earner is paying the 33 percent tax rate, the system is not working. And don’t get me started when they go out there with what, in the end, for some, would be an “envy tax”, a 39 percent tax rate—not because, actually, they’re making the case of fairness in the tax system; because they need as much as they can get to spend on projects that are not delivering for Kiwis at all. Fifty million dollars on a bridge for cyclists that’s never going to be built: well, that was a great use of somebody’s tax! Put the tax rate up a bit higher, so you can spend more money on more bridges you’re never going to build, I say to the Labour Government!

New Zealanders are overtaxed. There is a cost of living crisis. Twenty-five cents a litre of tax being handed back at a time when the Government doesn’t need it because they’re getting more tax from fuel than they ever have before, than they dreamed of, actually speaks to the challenge here. This isn’t a philosophical debate. It’s not about the practicalities; it’s about a Government, the Labour Party, that believes—entrenched deep in their DNA, their psyche—that there isn’t a problem that can’t be solved with a new tax. And there are many, many problems in New Zealand today, up and down the country. That means many, many more taxes from the Labour Party.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you, Mr Chair. Wow, we’re having a good time tonight. I just did want to, first of all, respond to Dr Duncan Webb, because he challenged me to say what has been wasteful spending of this Government, and, of course, you know, this is a Government that has spent $60 billion over the last 22 months, and so I just wanted to respond to that because it was raised in the debate. So, obviously, Dr Duncan Webb wasn’t watching before tea but, of course, we’ve talked about the $500 million that’s been set aside for the health reforms. We wouldn’t be doing that. We wouldn’t be spending the $15 billion on the tram down through Mt Roskill, and we wouldn’t be spending the $1 billion that’s just been the down payment for the three waters. Those are obvious examples. We certainly wouldn’t be spending the $51 million that the Hon Michael Wood spent on the Auckland cycle bridge, which is going nowhere—

Simeon Brown: How is that going?

ANDREW BAYLY: Going nowhere, Mr Brown. And then we certainly wouldn’t spend $50 million—actually up to now—doing the investigation in the Auckland tram which, of course, is going to go nowhere, because when will that be finished, Mr Brown?

Simeon Brown: Oh, 2090-something.

ANDREW BAYLY: 2090 was the suggestion. And, of course, we wouldn’t be spending the $35 million on the Let’s Get Wellington campaign moving again, so called; $35 million on consultants and, what, not one piece of work—

Simeon Brown: They want to build a pedestrian crossing.

ANDREW BAYLY: Want to build a pedestrian crossing. And so there are six examples, but I can say to Dr Webb that we’ve got 149 projects that we know have been examples of wasteful spending of this Government. So the other contribution, of course, came from our resident tax expert, and I was watching the Hon David Parker’s face very carefully during the last speaker’s contribution, and I just don’t think Mr Parker was agreeing with what Deborah Russell was saying and, to be honest, I had trouble understanding it. But, the reality is, Mr Seymour is right: 48 percent of tax is paid by the top 12 percent earners and, in fact, when you get to over $100,000—and there are very few people earning over $100,000 currently—actually, they still pay a significant contribution. So the issue that Dr Deborah Russell was talking about is you’ve got to take into account their income. Well, the tax does take into account their income. I found the argument very, very confusing, and I don’t think it helped assist anything in the debate tonight.

The sheer fact, the simple fact is, this Government loves—in the words of the deputy leader of ACT—to borrow, spend, tax and regulate, and that’s what they’re doing. They’ve been borrowing $60 billion over the last 22 months, they’ve been spending something chronic—and we don’t mind good quality spending—but the reality is there has been truckloads of wasteful spending and, of course, when you do that, what is your option? You can either try to grow the economy. That’s a difficult thing and, actually, this Government hasn’t really focused on growing the economy, improving the incomes of New Zealanders; what they’ve done is gone for the easy answer, which is simply to tax more. And this is why we do not support this bill, and this is why we’re opposing it.

Mr Parker said, “Well, you know, all it is is the status quo.” Well, it’s not the status quo. The status quo—what we want to return to—is what the tax situation in New Zealand was prior to this Government coming into power in 2017 and before they started imposing all these new taxes. And that is why we oppose this. That is why we want to return to the original tax rates. That is why the Supplementary Order Papers are on the table, because that means, at the end of the day, hard-working mum and dad looking after their families are going to keep more money at source, rather than being collected by this Government that just loves spending it on wasteful stuff, and actually leaving it in their wallet before you nick it to spend it on some Government project.

MARK CAMERON (ACT): Thank you, Mr Chair. Just for the sake of the argument, Mr Bennett’s question wasn’t actually answered by the Minister at all. Minister Parker alluded to the fact that other jurisdictions, in terms of the tax that they were paying, were significantly higher than here in New Zealand. But, equally, when asked by the member Mr Bennett what they were actually earning relative to that tax, he didn’t answer it, and I think this committee deserves to know—or perhaps he simply doesn’t.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’d like to talk a little bit about these tax rates, from the point of view of small business. The Mt Eden Village is one of the life centres of the Epsom electorate that I’m proud to represent. I think a lot of people would say that the life centre of the Mt Eden Village is the iconic cafe of Frasers. Anyone who’s been to Mt Eden will know the place that I’m talking about. Mt Eden Village is reeling, at the moment, on the news that Frasers may close. I happen to know the proprietors of Frasers—as a good local MP should know the people that are trying to do business and serve their customers and employ people and make the place a little bit vibrant. What they’ve said to me repeatedly is that they have been beaten down by four years of anti-business sentiment by this Government. The relevance of that to this particular piece of legislation is that income tax—a lot of people miss this, but income tax is a cost that businesses pay, because they are desperate to get people—hasn’t helped that this Government closed the border for two years. They’re desperate to get people in a tight labour market, and one of the costs that business faces when they try to employ people is that they have to pay those people, and those people have to pay income tax.

So every time you go to Frasers and you order a coffee or a piece of toast, or any other small business at Mt Eden Village or in the wider Epsom electorate or anywhere up and down from Cape Reinga to Bluff, part of the cost of everything you pay is the income tax that is taken out of people’s pockets by this Government. People forget that; they think income tax is something that you pay when you earn money, but, actually, it’s something that you pay when you spend it. I’d just put it to this Government that by keeping the income tax rates they have, particularly that punishing middle income tax rate of 30 percent as soon as you hit $48,000, they are not only taxing people who are trying to make ends meet, they are actually taxing the businesses that are trying to employ them and the customers who are going to buy things at those businesses. After two years of COVID restrictions, with global shocks, we are starting to see those costs actually knock off iconic and beloved businesses up and down New Zealand.

One of the most powerful reasons why this Government should support Supplementary Order Paper 140 that I have put on the Table—to cut that top 39c envy tax and to drop that middle income tax rate from 30c down to 17½ on all income, from $48,000 per year to $70,000 per year—is to give relief to those businesses that are struggling, because we can’t afford to keep seeing the life centre of the villages and suburbs that make up this country being decimated and pushed over the edge, and having proprietors, when their lease comes up, say, “I just don’t want to sign up to another lease. There’s too much cost. There’s too much uncertainty.” One of the biggest costs that is being put on to people like that is the income tax that their staff are forced to pay.

But here’s another aspect of income tax that some people don’t think of. We are told that when you buy a litre of petrol, around about $1.40 of that is excise tax and GST and emissions trading scheme levies and a couple of other minor levies that are put on to a litre of petrol; they add up to $1.40. But what they don’t tell you is that if you do a full economic analysis of what people are paying in terms of total tax to buy a litre of petrol, you’ll also have to go out and earn the money, and when you do that, you pay income tax.

If I can go back to the heady days through the mists of time, when a litre of petrol 91 was only $3, I’m talking about, sort of, last week, before the latest increases, think about what it actually means to go out and earn a dollar so that you can fill up the tank and actually pay to take the kids to hockey practice or rugby practice. I’ve heard from people having to decide which kids to take to practice, because they just can’t afford to go anywhere. I’m getting on social media, young people sending pictures of their whole flat sitting around at home because they can’t afford to go anywhere. I’m hearing from people who are saying, “We are not going to work anymore because by the time you factor in all of the costs, including petrol, we can’t afford to do it.”

But let’s go back to that full analysis of how much tax people are paying to get a litre of petrol. Well, it’s not $3—if we just take round numbers—and then $1.40 on tax, and $1.60 for the oil and the refining and the retailer. By the way, does anyone remember when, “We’re going to reduce the price of petrol by having a market study.”? I think that was Kris Faafoi. I think he said that the 18c importer margin was going to go down 32c. He actually believed that BP and Mobil and Z Energy, they were all going to pay 14c a litre for the pleasure of selling it to you.

But the thing is, it’s not just that $1.40 of tax that you’re paying. Actually, if you’re paying a marginal rate of 33c on the dollar, and if you’re on the average wage, you almost are, actually, to spend $3 at the pump, you have to earn $4.50, then you pay 33c in the dollar in income tax. And you’ve got $3, and then you buy a litre of petrol from BP or Mobil or wherever—I hear it’s cheaper at Waitomo—then you pay $1.40 of that in tax. So the total tax that people are being hit with, when you talk about the income tax, is not just the $1.40; it’s the $1.50 of income tax, then the excise tax, then the GST, then the levies. Actually, you’re paying $2.90 of tax, in order to buy 1 litre of petrol. People don’t often say this; they just focus on what you pay at the pump. But, actually, when you buy a litre of petrol, you have to earn $4 50, if your marginal rate is 33c, pay $1.50 in tax, $1.40 in taxes that are in the petrol, and to get $1.60 litre of petrol, you pay $2.90 in petrol.

Now, of course, that was back through the mists of time, you know, two weeks ago, when you could actually get a litre of 91 for three bucks, that’s no longer the case. But it makes the point that these income tax rates that we are debating make a very real contribution to what people are paying at every stage of life. It has a huge impact on the cost of living crisis that people face, because it’s not just petrol. People are finding that if they want to buy a 2 litre bottle of it—

CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): Can I just remind members that if I have to wear a mask, it’d be good if everyone in the Chamber wore a mask. Sorry.

DAVID SEYMOUR: No problem, Mr Chair. It’s good to see everyone observing the COVID restrictions.

If you want to buy, for example, 2 litres of milk, and if you think you can get it very cheap for $4, but let’s be realistic, it’s actually, for most people, $5. And the thing is, of that $5 they’re paying, well, there’s 15 percent GST in there. So that’s about 70c of GST they’re paying. But what people miss is that if you’re over $70,000, you have to go along and earn an extra $7.50 to pay for that milk and pay the income tax that comes with it. So, really, when you buy a $5 bottle of milk, you’re paying $2 50 income tax, then 70c of GST, you’re actually paying $3.20 of tax to get a 2-litre bottle of milk.

We need to reduce these tax because it’s everywhere.

Hon DAVID BENNETT (National): Just going back to those questions that we asked Minister Parker before, would he like to actually answer them? They weren’t actually that difficult. You know, as somebody that represents himself in this House as understanding the details, to give a childish answer and try to go back to look at percentage increases over the last decade or so as an answer for what real New Zealanders are making a choice about—what are the income differentials in Australia against New Zealand for those kinds of jobs? What are the cost differentials in New Zealand against Australia for those kinds of jobs? Give the public a fair perspective, and not the slant that the Labour Party wants to put on this issue. Is the Minister going to answer, or is he just going to look at his phone and hide and not going to reply?

SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you, Mr Chair. I think those are some very good questions from my colleague the Hon David Bennett, asking questions about whether Minister Parker is actually going to give the public transparency around the actual tax rates that we are paying in comparison to other countries. It’s one thing for the Government to come in here and try to confirm the tax rates and say that, “Oh, we’re paying low taxes here in New Zealand,” but he continues to hide the fact that in New Zealand, it’s not just the income taxes: it’s the GST, it’s the fuel excise, it’s all of the other taxes and regulations and the impact that they have on New Zealanders which actually need to be compared if he’s going to be open and transparent in this debate here in this committee.

I come here as the member of Parliament for Pakuranga and the hard-working people of my community who are facing a cost of living crisis here in New Zealand. Members on that side of the House might say, “Oh, well, the people out there, they earn plenty of money.” Well, I’m sorry, someone earning $70,000, $80,000, $90,000, on average wages in New Zealand, is actually struggling with the cost of living crisis that we are facing in New Zealand. Average rents: up $150 under this Government. Petrol prices: over $3 a litre. Food prices: up 14 percent. And we have not seen any tax relief ever given by this Government when it comes to our income taxes. I actually don’t remember ever—yesterday was probably the first time in my life that a Labour Government’s actually ever cut any form of tax that I can recall.

Andrew Bayly: That’s how desperate.

SIMEON BROWN: That’s how desperate they must be: first time I’ve ever seen it. But the point about it: it’s only temporary. It’s for three months. That’s as much as they could give: a three-month temporary cut to the excise for fuel.

The point I’m making here is that what we’ve seen over the last number of years is the increase in inflation and how that continues to put pressure on people’s real incomes after tax, and pushes people up into higher tax brackets, and means that, effectively, they go home with less in their back pockets, less to spend on the necessities that they need to pay, less that they need to be able to pay the bills and do all of the things that they need to be able to do. So the question that the Government needs to answer is: are they ever going to consider any form of indexation of the tax brackets? Are they ever going to think about any form of trying to shift the tax brackets to take into account the effect of inflation, or is this Government going to sit on the side and constantly let inflation eat into the back pockets of New Zealanders, eat into their after-tax income, meaning that they’re, effectively, left poorer under this Government?

I can tell you, I get the sense this Government is, rather, going to sit on the side, where they are going to take as much as they can, because they like doing three things. They like taxing. Tax, tax, tax—any tax that they can try to take, and any amount of money, they will do it. They spend like drunken sailors. I just listened to my colleague Andrew Bayly listing off just a few examples of some of the absolute wastage of money under this Government. Tens of millions of dollars—they just blink an eyelid.

The Minister of Transport stood up this afternoon, and he said, in response to $50 million being spent on the Auckland cycle bridge, “Oh, well, I’m a little bit disappointed we didn’t quite get the outcome that we were after.” Fifty million dollars: for most New Zealanders that is an eye-watering sum of money. The people on the other side, the Government members on the other side, need to remember: that is not your money. That is taxpayers’ money. They are the ones who work hard every single day, and they pay their taxes expecting some benefit for it, not for it to be thrown down the drain in some form of experiment, which is what we’re seeing far too often. Fifty million dollars! Let’s Get Wellington Moving—$35 million, I heard Andrew Bayly say; $35 million for consultants. Let’s Get Wellington Moving sounds like it’s “Let’s Get Wellington Consulting”. Well, there’s probably already too much consulting happening and not enough doing, and that’s another problem, that we can discuss on another day, with this Government.

The reality is New Zealanders are facing a cost of living crisis. There is a need to adjust those tax brackets in a way which gives New Zealanders some tax relief at this incredibly challenging time—not what we just saw from the Government yesterday, which was a small concession that there’s an issue, but, actually, addressing the question and the issue properly.

KIERAN McANULTY (Chief Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you, Mr Chair.

Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, Mr Chair. Thank you, Mr Chair. I apologise to the member. However, this is a debate on Part 1, and that was the fourth member in a row where you did your signal to keep to the bill. We’re more than happy to have the debate, but it should just be relevant to Part 1 of this bill.

CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): Thank you for your advice, Mr McAnulty.

DAVID SEYMOUR: Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I apologise. I didn’t realise that was the signal that you were making; I thought that you were resisting the urge to clap through my speech. I thought, “He agrees with me, but he’s too professional to show it audibly.” But now that I know that you were talking about narrowing the debate, it will certainly be clear that my contributions are about this very important topic. It’s the only real debate that this Parliament has all year about the most important thing it does, which is pass laws so that taxation is done with representation, and the amount of money taken out of people’s income is at least debated in this House, even though many people don’t agree with it.

I want to talk a little bit about the implications of these tax rates in relation to administration and compliance costs. Now, it was very interesting to hear Simeon Brown, from Pakuranga, get up and say that the Labour Party in Government has never cut taxes in his lifetime. I thought that’s interesting, because in 1986, with Sir Roger Douglas as finance Minister, the Labour Party in Government halved the top tax rate from 66 percent to 33 percent.

Simeon Brown: I wasn’t here in 1986, my friend.

DAVID SEYMOUR: He’s just corrected us. He wasn’t born in 1986. I was worried that he might have been misleading the House, but, actually, he is just too young to remember a Labour—

Simeon Brown: I raise a point of order, Mr Chair. I wasn’t misleading the House. I wasn’t born until 1991. I just want to correct that. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): That, I’ll remind the member, is not a point of order.

DAVID SEYMOUR: Mr Chair, I’ll tell you what: he’s older than he looks, then.

In any case, that was an important period in New Zealand history, because, by halving the top tax rate, the amount of revenue collected off the top tax rate actually increased. The reason for that is that when Governments have a wide range of rates of tax, it creates more and more opportunities for people to change the incidence of their tax—to change how they pay it, what entity pays it, and in what time period. If they can shift some of their income into another time period, then they can reduce the amount of income tax paid. Now, to some extent, that’s an inevitable result of any tax system, but the more complex our taxation system gets, the more difficult it is for Government to collect tax and the more difficult it is for citizens to comply with tax law. The net result is that New Zealanders spend more time on administering tax, from the IRD side, and complying with tax, from the citizens’ or the taxpayers’ side. That leaves less time to do the kinds of things that make life worthwhile. Nobody, as far as I’m aware, actually enjoys tax compliance or, even in the case of Inland Revenue staff, tax administration.

This is a very important feature of this debate that is often missed. We have an increasingly steep and complex tax structure that leads to more time spent on administration and compliance, and that is the reason why we should be trying to have lower, flatter, fairer taxes: so we spend less time on administration and compliance. This 39 percent rate is going to raise very little revenue, but it will mean that, for a whole range of people, it’s worth—for 6 percent of your income over a certain level—paying accountants more to avoid it. That creates a cat and mouse game between the Inland Revenue Department; the Finance and Expenditure Committee, which oversees tax lawmaking, which I used to sit on; the tax accountants; and the taxpayer. It’s wasteful behaviour.

You only have to look at other countries to see how bad it can get. You look at the proportion of New Zealanders who can fill out their tax return without a tax accountant, and we’re actually one of the best systems in the world. You go over to Australia: most people need a tax accountant to do their returns because their system is complicated, it has more rates, it has more exemptions, and they just spend more time paying tax. That is not helpful. You go to Canada, or, worse still, you go to the United States, where their levels of taxation have more rates, more exemptions, and more complexity—a tax system like Swiss cheese—and people spend an enormous amount of time on tax administration and compliance.

That is one of the reasons why I’ve put amendments on the Table for this legislation that would go some way to improving the simplicity of our tax system by getting rid of that 39 percent rate and dropping the 30 percent rate. So instead of having five different rates of tax, we’d have three. Up to $14,000, you pay 10.5 percent. From $14,000 to $70,000, you pay 17.5 percent. Above $70,000, you’d pay 33 percent, up to the sky. If we had that system, we would just be moving a little bit closer to the ideal of a low, flat tax system that does not have all sorts of incentives for people to come up with trusts and schemes and arrangements to try and avoid paying tax—because that’s no longer profitable when you have fewer rates—or less profitable. And it means that tax law is less complicated and we can get on with being productive and making stuff and doing stuff that makes life worth living.

Now, actually, we really need to go further, because even with the proposals that ACT has on the Table, that are fiscally affordable under the current circumstances—the Government just borrowed 60 billion bucks, and so on; closed the border and decimated the economy; and printed a lot of money and can’t know what to do with it—even then, there’s still a lot of work to be done. For example, we have a trust rate of 28 percent, a company rate of 28 percent, and three different income tax rates above that. ACT would take that to one tax rate above that. But you’d still have a 5 percentage point gap between the top income rate and the trust and company rate.

The place we’d like to get to is actually to say we have one top rate, and the incentive of that is that suddenly it’s not profitable to get your accountant to try and change the kinds of arrangements that you have. We have a simpler tax system. We spend less time administering and complying tax; more time doing stuff that makes life worth living.

If we were to go that extra step, then we would find ourselves in a position where, actually, we started to be looked at like we once were: as a country that had policies that led the world; instead of a has-been policy environment that is slowly degrading into all the problems that were got rid of just in time for Simeon Brown to be born. We were clearing the way for you, mate!

Simeon Brown: Thank goodness!

DAVID SEYMOUR: Yes, I know. If only you’d made more of it. That is what we could be doing. We could be having that debate about New Zealand being the best in the world—about having the simplest, fairest, flattest tax structure. Instead, we have a Government that wants five different income tax rates, plus another different rate for companies and trusts and a growing amount of administration and compliance opportunities that are not actually good for New Zealand’s future as a place where people have time to get on with making life worthwhile.

That will probably be my final contribution on this part—unless, of course, we get some answers from the Minister, and hope springs eternal. But I think people need to consider, first of all, the culture that you get from your tax system. If a large group of people pay little tax and vote for a small group of people to pay most of it, I don’t think that’s good for cohesion in our society. When we have a Government that’s taken $2,138 more per person, adjusted for inflation, in the last 4½ years, that leaves a hole in household budgets, and that’s why people are struggling at the supermarket checkout and the petrol pump. Income taxes are not just a cost that you pay after you get paid and buy stuff; they’re also a cost that increase the prices that businesses charge, and they’re also something that you have to factor in when you look at the true cost of things you buy. It’s not just the price that you pay at the pump or the checkout; it’s the money you had to earn to pay the income tax to get there to pay that price. When you look at it that way, the amount of money that the Government is taking out of New Zealanders’ real resources to provide for themselves and their families is actually greater than is commonly believed.

Those are all reasons why I hope this House will support the amendment I’ve put forward to drop that 39 percent rate down to 33 percent and drop that 30 percent rate down to 17.5 percent and go from an increasingly complex system of five different tax rates down to a system with three rates that is flatter, fairer, and simpler for the prosperity of all New Zealand. Wouldn’t that be something to get behind and something we could be proud of as a country? Thank you, Mr Chair.

MARK CAMERON (ACT): Yeah, look, again, Minister, with the greatest respect, this third iteration where we ask the same question we routinely seem to have you obfuscate that reality—we’ve talked about productivity, we’ve talked about wages offshore relative to tax, you still haven’t answered the question. I believe you made iterations about nurses etc. offshore. We said, hey look, the deputy leader of the ACT Party made inference to the fact that people were leaving New Zealand to get jobs overseas. You then inferred that they were paying higher rates of tax. Now, that is not contestable. What is contestable, on this House by this side, by both myself and Mr Bennett, was what they were actually earning and what was relative to that. You haven’t answered it, and I think anyone who was on Parliament TV tonight, and God bless them, might actually want to have an answer for that.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Revenue): Those that are listening to the debate will know that this is a debate about the tax rates for the year, not wage rates.

BARBARA EDMONDS (Associate Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): Members, I just remind you that the amendments to the rates of income tax were put at the end of the Part 3 debate. The question is that part 1 stand part [Interruption]—apologies, I’m out of order.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.

Ayes 77

New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): Members, I just remind you that, as I was doing before—I remind you that the amendments to the rates of income tax were put at the end of the Part 3 debate.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 1 stand part.

Ayes 67

New Zealand Labour 65; Te Paati Māori 2.

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Abstentions 10

Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.

Motion agreed to.

Part 1 agreed to.

Part 2 Amendments to Goods and Services Tax Act 1985

CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): Members, we now come to Part 2. Part 2 is the debate on clauses 4 to 45, “Amendments to Goods and Services Tax Act 1985”. The question is that Part 2 stand part.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Revenue): Thank you, Mr Chairman. It’s somewhat ironic given the claims from the other side that we never reduce any taxes, but the two points I would highlight in respect of Part 2 relate to amendments to the Goods and Services Tax Act 1985: a number of remedial provisions, two of which are the zero rating of cryptocurrencies—treating it like a financial service rather than a GST-able service—and also the removal of GST on the internal part of an international, part domestic transport service. Currently, there’s some lack of—well, there’s actually quite a difficult regime for taxpayers to comply with, and this simplifies it to expand zero rating to accommodate subcontracting arrangements for the transport of goods in New Zealand where this is part of the international transportation of goods.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you, Mr Chair. I acknowledge those challenges that the committee considered those issues carefully, as the Minister will be well aware. Particularly around cryptocurrency, as the Minister is also aware, the use of hybrid instruments around cryptocurrency, we thought it was appropriate that it should remain as it would with shares or some other hybrid or derivative, so the issue around cryptocurrency was an important issue that the committee considered, and we think that was useful. The other one is, as the Minister quite rightly points out, the domestic lag of an international transaction, and the committee found that it was an appropriate amendment because of, as he said, the complications around that.

I just want to talk now about the records of taxable supplies and, for people who are listening in, there is a change to the requirements around records for taxable supplies and it might be just worthwhile the Minister talking a little bit about this. So, at the moment, when people go to buy an item like a power tool from, let’s say, Mitre 10, a good New Zealand company, they will get issued a receipt at the till. That, surprisingly, what most people don’t understand is it doesn’t actually constitute a taxable invoice, because, under the current Act, that does not have all the necessary information.

So what I was hoping the Minister might do is just elaborate a little bit more around the new arrangements around the invoice, because there is now a cut-off, and the committee talked about this at length, around if you are buying an item up to the value of $1,000. Then, as I understand—and this would be useful for the Minister to confirm—that till receipt, in effect, will become legitimate because there is a de minimis, or minimum value, that’s now been applied. And for an item that you acquire for more than $1,000, then there is a greater level of disclosure. I suppose the question I really want to ask, because I’m hoping the Minister will inform the audience, is: will a point-of-sale document other than a handwritten invoice—because a lot of small businesses, and we’ve got 350,000 of them, don’t want to be sitting there writing out hand documents—still be deemed appropriate, or what are the rules around that? So it’ll just be helpful if the Minister could elaborate on that particular issue.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Revenue): I’m happy to assist the member, who was on the committee and, I’m sure, understands these issues well. These issues are dealt with in clause 19 of the bill. The member is quite correct that the practice in commerce has overtaken the old rules, and the terms “invoice” and “tax invoice” are being replaced with “supply information” and “taxable supply information”, which are simpler and can better accommodate the till receipts that the member refers to as meeting the obligations needed to be valid tax records. So there’s less specificity as to the form of what used to be a tax invoice; more flexibility—

Andrew Bayly: So will a point of sale work?

Hon DAVID PARKER: I will check that with officials, but I would except that a till receipt from the likes of Mitre 10, as the member said, would qualify as a record of a sale for GST purposes if the GST number is on it. I’ll check that with officials, but that’s my understanding—yes, up to a thousand dollars, that’s correct.

SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Thank you very much, Mr Chair, and thank you to the Minister for engaging in conversation around the points that my colleague Andrew Bayly raised. I want to refer now to Part 2, new sections 19E to 19P, set out in clause 19, in regards to the removal of the words “tax invoice”—a term that has been in use for nearly 30 to 40 years, a lot longer than some members have been in this House. I’m interested, particularly from the Minister, around the implications of that, because, you know, the feedback received from the select committee process said that a number of contracts and elements, such as that, use that term throughout, so there actually is a process of unwinding the removal of that term. I’m interested, from the Minister’s point of view, what, if any, assessment has been undertaken in regards to the potential compliance costs or time around that and the implication of that change in the bill.

The other aspect I’d like to ask the Minister around is the lead time in order to implement the changes. My colleague Andrew Bayly just spoke about a number of questions in regards to clause 26, replacing section 24, with regards to the changes around the tax invoice portion. Again, my question here is around the timing of the implementation of these changes, which, I think we would agree on both sides of the Chamber, are modernisation changes to the GST scheme, which were not in play in 1985. But with changes comes a time required for that lead-in to convert from one process to another, and for those taxpayers, I think that will, in effect, click in on 1 April, then that time line isn’t that long. So I’d appreciate a little bit of feedback around that process and whether any consideration would be given to provide some extension of time for those taxpayers to meet what, for some of them, will be reasonably significant compliance obligations. Thank you, Minister.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Revenue): In respect of the member’s question about new section 19E, set out in clause 19, that’s the new form of a credit note. For example, if you’re take some goods back and you’re getting a credit note, then the replacement for that is what’s called here “supply correction information”, and the requirements of that are set out in new section 19E(1) and, for example, a name and registration number of the supplier have to be included on the till docket, if you like, if that’s the form of it.

In respect of the implementation date, some of the taxpayer-friendly changes take effect from the enactment of the bill. Some of the others that require some systems changes on the part of taxpayers come into effect on 1 April 2023 in order for those systems changes to be made by those—

Andrew Bayly: And so does this one apply then?

Hon DAVID PARKER: I’ll check that issue. The member—for those that didn’t hear that, Mr Bayly just asked, in respect of the supply correction information, whether it’s from enactment or 1 April 2023, and I’ll check on that.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Yeah, people probably didn’t hear, but I did ask the question whether it would apply from 1 April 2023. Very good questioning from my colleague Mr Simon Watts. It was an issue that we considered at the Finance and Expenditure Committee. Whilst in some cases for larger companies—because they’ve got bigger systems, they’ve got bigger IT departments—actually to comply with invoices over a thousand dollars becomes very, very easy—well, easier—because they’ve capacity and capability to make those changes, what many of us were concerned about at committee level was changes for smaller businesses. Ninety-seven percent of small businesses employ 20 or fewer people in New Zealand, and so they don’t have large IT people sitting around. Obviously, sometimes they have systems that are white label, that are not easily able to be changed, even at a point-of-sale system. And they’re costly to change, in the time it takes to change. So there was significant talk about this at the committee, and I know Mr Watts is referring to that, in an oblique way. But the strong desire was that it should be delayed until 1 April 2023, and, again, we did come to a resolution on it, but I’d be very grateful if the Minister of Revenue has got an answer on that.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Revenue): New clause 19E nests within clause 19 of the bill, and the commencement date for that is found at clause 2(28B), which lists clause 19 of the bill as coming into force on 1 April 2023.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Well, the Minister is a former lawyer—and it’s good that he can follow his own bill. So the next thing, I think—and I thank the Minister for doing that, because I think people need to have clarity around these new rules. Of course, we’re going to have 375,000 business owners tonight going, “Gee, I may have to ring up my provider, my point-of-sale provider, or whatever they may be, and get on to that tomorrow, because it will take some time for me to put in place a new system.”

The other issue I just want to turn to now is clause 25, which is about apportionment rules, and, obviously, this is quite a reasonably sort of complex tax issue. But under clauses 7(4) and 25, it would, basically, amend the GST apportionment rules in the GST Act. And the first thing is I just want to make sure that this only applies to property developers, this clause. It appears to, but, again, I want to make sure that the Minister is clear with people who are watching tonight, that clause 25, regarding enforcement rules, only relates to property developers. That’s the first thing.

I think the big issue here—and it may be worthwhile for the Minister to explain what we mean by apportionment rules, but, basically, it means the difference between taxable activity and non-taxable activity. Again, maybe he can give us an example if it is relating to property development how that would work, and just in respect of this type of apportionment rule, there’s, obviously, been a change. And, again, I’d just ask the Minister to sort of highlight what those key aspects are.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Revenue): Thank you, Mr Chairman. My understanding is that, yes, it is dealing with subdividers or developers of land who are furthering a taxable activity of developing land or dividing land into lots, which is the description at clause 25 of the bill, if I’m referring to the clause that the member’s interested in. I think I am, but, if I’ve got the wrong clause, let me know. And in respect of the apportionment, to ensure that people are not overtaxed, then there’s a division or an apportionment between input tax deductions so that the disposal of a mixed-use asset, which is one that’s used for both taxable and non-taxable purposes that have appreciated—that they’re not overtaxed. The cap will continue to apply to the land disposed of by the property developers as an increase in the value of which they dispose of is connected to their taxable activity, which is property development.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you, Madam Chair, and I just acknowledge the Minister. It’s good that we’ve clarified that it only relates to property developers. The second part of the question before—and maybe he’s just reflecting on it—was that it would be useful to have an example of how this might work.

For instance, if someone owned a property and on it was a building where some of it was used for private purposes—the developer lives in it—some of it was used for an office, and then there is the issue of the land, we’ve actually got three parts to this title that the developer owns: the private-use part, the office, and then we’ve got the land underneath it. So, in an apportionment, first of all, it would be good to understand what is the basis for the apportionment between the private use and the business or taxable component of the house, and also, at the same time, how the land component comes into play. I’ll ask him that question first, and then we can go into the next bit.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Revenue): If the member wants to be getting more precise answers than this, then I’ll have to go to officials. But what the tax system’s trying to do is to differentiate between the parts of the use of that land asset, part of which is subdivisible land and part of which is a residence, to make sure that the part that is related to residential use—which is not a GST-able activity—doesn’t attract GST, and that’s achieved through apportioning value as between that part of the property and the part of the property that is being subdivided, which does or may attract GST.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Sorry, I’m just seeking a bit of clarification. Are we talking about the land, the subdivision component of the land, only, or are we talking about the component of the house? Because I heard Minister Parker talk about subdivisional components. So that’s the first, and maybe the Minister might take the opportunity to talk to the good official there.

The second thing, I suppose, is: how do you determine this? How do you determine the two components, between taxable and non-taxable? Do you have to go and get independent verification, or do you just make an assessment, subject to the IRD coming back and maybe asking you to clarify that? What is the formal process for actually getting through this process?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Revenue): I’m advised that that apportionment has to be done anyway, because there is part of this activity that is taxable, as a subdivision, and part of it that is not, from the GST point of view, because it’s a personal residence. So that need to distinguish between the two already exists at law, so there’s not an additional compliance cost; it’s just trying to make clear the apportionment rules.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): So, if that is the case, the purpose of clause 25 is really to say that the disposal of land that the person has acquired is a zero-rated supply. So that is the non-taxable element—that is the private-use component of it. But, in terms of the component that is taxable, there is now a new definition in subclause 6(b), which says, “for a disposal to which paragraph (a) does not apply,”—that’s the paragraph above—“the amount that, when added to any deduction already claimed, produces a total amount equal to the amount of the full input tax deduction on acquisition …”. So maybe the Minister can just explain the new cap rules on that total amount of GST that is payable or claimable.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): I call Simon Court—sorry; Simon Watts.

SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Crikey! Look, I was thinking about that good contribution from my good colleague Andrew Bayly, and I know the Minister is conferring at the moment with officials, and so I thought, while we’re doing that, we would buy a little bit of time just to talk about a slightly different topic while we come back to the very important points that have been asked.

I want to go to clause 5, (2) and (3). It is in relation to the changes that have been brought into play in the GST legislation around cryptoassets. And I think those on the Finance and Expenditure Committee will remember, probably, this conversation—that the changes made under the Goods and Services Tax Act 1985 relate to the exclusion of “cryptoasset” from the definition of “goods and services”, and, in effect, moving it to the definition of “currency”. And, I guess, what we discussed at the committee—and I’d be interested to just get the Minister’s perspective on it—is the unintended consequences of that change of definition, for cryptoassets, because while we’re acknowledging the fact that they aren’t going to be subject to GST, the unintended consequence of that change in definition—which may seem subtle but actually is significant—is the other associated services, such as brokerage, on those type of transactions may therefore be captured.

So I’m interested for the Minister just to provide a little bit of perspective—and I appreciate he might want to have a chat with his officials, which he’s currently doing, so I’ll continue just to add a little bit more context to my points while we’re doing that—I’d appreciate if the Minister could come back and give us a little bit more clarity around clause 5, (2) and (3) on cryptoassets. Thank you, Minister.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Revenue): Responding to Andrew Bayly’s earlier question, I’m advised that the intention here is that people who are not property developers do not get overtaxed by the apportionment rule that does not apply to property developers. I think I’ve got that right.

In respect of the allied services in respect of cryptocurrency, yes, a boundary has to be drawn somewhere. If the service that is being provided is, for example, a brokerage service, then, as would be the case for a broker selling shares or servicing a share transaction who charges brokerage, that would attract GST and so would the brokerage on a cryptocurrency transaction.

BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Deputy Leader—ACT): Thank you, Madam Chair. I wanted to go back to a topic that my colleague Andrew Bayly was talking about with the Minister, before, about the supply correction information under new section 19N, inserted by clause 19, and I note that the section applies “where a registered person has previously issued taxable supply information that includes an inaccuracy.” But there is a subclause (4), which states that “a registered person is not required to supply correction information under subsection (2) for a supply because part of the consideration shown in the taxable supply information for the supply has been rebated under a Pharmac agreement to Pharmac, whether Pharmac is acting on its own account or as an agent for a public authority.” And I just wondered if the Minister would be able to provide some clarity around this sub-clause about the benefit of it being added, what the hope was behind it, and why Pharmac itself has been singled out with its own subclause, because I know there will be a lot of people who have interest in medicines access. But I’ve tried to look around the report that came back from the Finance and Expenditure Committee, and I noted in that report there was no reference to Pharmac. So I wondered if the Minister could provide a little clarity about its addition into this new section 19N.

SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate the Minister’s engagement with us on these questions; I appreciate that some of them probably are, for those at home, extremely thrilling, but the GST Act, in all the main, is important.

So what I want to refer to is around new sections 19E and 19F, and there’s some changes that have been made in regards to the GST legislation around information-gathering requirements. There seems to be—and it was noted through the submission process—an inconsistency of the different information requirements for suppliers and recipients, respectively, that is required in the new “taxable supply information” definition that’s come into play, and that’s specifically under new section 19K(8). I’m interested in a little bit of consideration around why we’re seeing, potentially, some different requirements around the information requirements in those portions of the Act, whether that’s intentional or whether it’s more so an oversight in terms of drafting, it would be good just to get a little bit more detail in regards to that.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Revenue): Well, my reading of the bill—and I might misunderstand the question—but there is now no 19K(8).

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Madam Chair, thank you for that. I’ll let Mr Watts just review that.

I just want to go back—just to talk about these apportionment rules. I think the Minister the Hon David Parker had a valiant attempt at talking about these beastly apportionment rules, but I’m not quite sure he showed the clarity that we’re actually searching for. So I want to maybe just push it back to the Minister and see whether what I’m saying is maybe a better description of these apportionment rules. Does it mean that where you have a private interest or you’re not a developer, then you won’t have to pay GST, but if you are conducting a taxable activity, such as property development, you will have to pay GST, but there’s a cap on how much you can claim, which is limited to the amount that you’ve originally deducted or claimed, so the total at the end is the same? Is that correct?

Hon DAVID BENNETT (National): The other issue with that is if the tax rate changes within the transaction period. For example, if the Labour Party put up GST to 17.5 percent, which is completely likely, and someone had purchased at 15 percent, how does that work, then?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Revenue): If a developer is involved in a transaction, then they can’t pick and choose and say that for part of the transaction they’re not a developer, because they’re in the business. All of their revenue is related to a taxable activity, and therefore is caught. If they are not a developer, then different rules apply. If the member has a more specific question than that, in respect of wanting to dig into that second category, I’m happy to answer further questions.

DAMIEN SMITH (ACT): Thank you. This bill has three main purposes. It is supposed to strive to improve the current tax settings by ensuring that the current tax rules work as intended, but it also seeks to modernise tax settings with regard to the administration of KiwiSaver and Working for Families. Then the bill sets the annual rates of income tax for the 2021-22 tax year.

What I’d like to do with regards to GST is talk about a tax on a tax. My favourite document at the moment is the Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update, and it seems that tonight there hasn’t been a lot of conversation about actual numbers. If you look at GST, as a major tax, it is actually going to, in terms of forecasts, be an average $2.6 billion higher each year compared with the Budget update, with the biggest drivers being an increase in the forecast for private consumption and residential investment, and a small contribution from the opening of the borders in terms of migration. If you look at core tax revenue, you take it up a level. This is where Minister Parker could be accused of being Mr Scrooge. It’s going to be an extra $2.2 billion per year, on average. That’s $48.6 billion higher by 2024-25. There’s no mechanisms in here with regards to management of inflation around GST, corporate tax, source deductions, and other withholding taxes.

So one of the things that has slipped by—and it’s not too late, because the petrol tax was changed in a matter of days—is to actually look at the overall inflationary effect that the Government is benefiting from in terms of its GST intake. Irrespective of cryptocurrencies, which is a long-term strategy, generally, more and more money’s going to be pulled out of the economy from businesses and personal households for consumption. That is having an extra kicker being placed on top of it.

I’d like to ask the Minister: when we spoke about this at the Finance and Expenditure Committee, seven or eight months ago, these figures, as they’ve developed, weren’t as progressive for the Government, if you’d like to call it that. Today should have been the day that we all came together to look at the overall taxation strategy, and whether giving New Zealanders a break or their businesses a break were an essential thing to do. If you look at that quantum of money that’s going to be taken in over the next five years, everybody does talk about GST being sacrosanct and a simple system, but, in the wider context, there’s a hell of a lot of money going to be collected, and we’d like to make sure that there is some empathy towards the people of New Zealand and the businesses of New Zealand with regards to the GST component of the bill, as well as the income tax component.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Revenue): Dealing with Brooke van Velden’s question in respect of new section 19N in clause 19 of the bill, I’m advised that the provision at subclause (4) is a replication of an existing provision in the Goods and Services Tax Act, so it needs to be restated in accordance with the new, more flexible rules as to tax invoices, or their equivalent supplier information. The existing law has an exception in respect of rebates—the amount that’s being rebated under a Pharmac agreement to Pharmac—and that’s just being carried forward in this provision. So there’s no substantial change.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 2 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 134 and in the Minister’s tabled amendments be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.

Ayes 67

New Zealand Labour 65; Te Paati Māori 2.

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Abstentions 10

Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 2 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 67

New Zealand Labour 65; Te Paati Māori 2.

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Abstentions 10

Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.

Ayes 67

New Zealand Labour 65; Te Paati Māori 2.

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Abstentions 10

Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.

Motion agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Part 2 as amended agreed to.

Part 3 Amendments to Income Tax Act 2007

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members, we now come to Part 3. Members’ amendments to adjust rates of income tax were debated under Part 1 of the bill but will be voted on at the end of this debate. Part 3 is the debate on clauses 46 to 133 and Schedule 1A, “Amendments to Income Tax Act 2007”. The question is that Part 3 stand part.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you, Madam Chair. Moving on to new ground and I think this is the substantive part of the bill, as, no doubt, the Minister is well aware of it, in terms of what it means for property owners. And so the first bit I want to talk about is my Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 137, which is the issue of deductibility of interest. What the Labour Government is proposing here is a fundamental shift from a well-established principle, which I don’t think has been ever broken before, which is that expenses that relate to a taxable activity are deductible against the taxable income, and, of course, what this bill does is do away with the ability of property owners who may own a rental property, who are paying tax on the rent—and yet cannot deduct the interest. It is a fundamental change to the strong principle of matching deductibility against accessible income, and that is why we absolutely disagree with the Government on its approach and that is why my SOP 137 goes through and highlights all the relevant clauses of this bill and deletes them, which would mean that it would limit the interest cost deductibility for investment properties.

I suppose the interesting thing is just how significant an issue this is. We spent some time in the committee looking at this very issue and it is significant when we asked the officials to go away and look at the numbers about how many people actually are getting a deduction against their rental properties, because I know the Government loves to characterise these mum and dad investors as rapacious investors—use the term “investors” but often with the implication that they are rapacious—they are only there to further their own interests, they’re such a bad thing, they’re cutting everyone out of the market. So I said to the officials, “Tell us how many there are.” Well, that was a first issue. The officials actually had a great deal of difficulty actually determining how many of these so-called rapacious investors there were. So they did come back, only after we asked them specifically, and they came back with an estimate. They had to base it on the 2019-20 year and the 2020-21 year, and they did it off the data returns.

What staggered me is that this information actually wasn’t known before the Government actually started talking about this so publicly, and pushing—and I see the Minister of Housing in the Chamber tonight, which is good to see—absolutely denigrating these mum and dad investors and saying how bad they were. I would have thought that they’d actually have a handle on it and it wasn’t until, really, in the Finance and Expenditure Committee. We said, “Go away and give us some numbers.” So they came back with an estimate and they said that there is a population pool of approximately 350,000 landlords who could potentially be affected. That was their best estimate: 350,000. So that’s the total pool of these mum and dad investors.

So the next question was, “OK, how many of those have some borrowing against their rental property?” And so they went away and they did some more work. “If the number of potentially affected landlords is limited to landlords that have claimed interest expenses, the number of landlords potentially affected by the proposed interest under the new rules is approximately 258,000.” I’m hoping you’re going to allow me to carry on here. And so 258,000. So the next question was, “So we’ve got a quarter of a million mum and dad investors who have these properties and who have got some form of borrowing on them: in some cases very little, in some cases, not much.” And that was the next question.

So then we said to the officials, “Out of those 258,000 rapacious investors, how many—or what sort of portion of income were they making? How much money were they making off these people?” So it’s a pretty important thing, right? So they came back—again not definitive. And again, I was staggered that we didn’t have this information prior to the Government making its wonderful pronouncements here in the House and elsewhere. But officials said that approximately 75 percent of landlords have gross rental income of less than $30,000 per annum right away and just under 60 percent—to be precise, for the record, 58 percent—have gross rental income of less than $20,000 per annum. Now, the Hon David Bennett here is a very smart numbers man, accountant, and he will know: if you’re earning less than $30,000, what is your weekly rental? What’s the weekly rent will you be charging?

Hon David Bennett: 700 bucks.

ANDREW BAYLY: No; just under 600 bucks. What’s the average rent in New Zealand? I’m looking around the Chamber. Maybe the Minister can tell the Chamber why I’m asking them, posing this question. We do know rents have gone up by 150 bucks under Labour, right? So if you go to Auckland, actually, if you look at the summary for rentals in Auckland, somewhere between $650 and $800. If you go to Invercargill, it’s obviously less. So what this is saying, by implication—the extrapolation of this figure of $30,000 rent a year, and most people, 75 percent of landlords, earn less than $30,000—is that they only have one house. So of the 258,000 people that own a rental, 78 percent owned one rental.

Now, I put it to you that they are not the rapacious investors that the Minister of Housing and the Labour Government have continuously maligned and slighted and been dreadfully harassing. This cuts to the core of what the Government is trying to achieve in this piece of legislation. It is wrong to suggest that these rapacious investors—so-called mum and dad—who have chosen to invest in one property should be now subject to a tax regime that cuts across the core of what it is, that if you run a commercial enterprise you have to pay tax on the revenue, on the $30,000, but you cannot deduct the interest costs. As it’s been pointed out quite recently, with these tax changes, which will come into effect over the next four years—right now many of these mum and dad investors who have been putting their money into these rentals to provide a house for those many thousands of people who cannot afford a house, or those people wanting to buy their first house, they cannot claim that money, and therefore they are losing money this year.

It’s interesting, you know, as mortgage rates increase—and we’re likely to see 6 percent, 7 percent by the middle of next year—many of these mum and dad investors will be losing up to $7,000, $8,000 a year, on the current estimates. So, far be it from these people being seen as rapacious investors ripping people off; these are people who invested in a house, often for their retirement purposes, who provide a good standard of living. Not all mum and dad investors are great landlords, but the vast majority are. This is why we absolutely oppose this interest deductibility part of this bill, and that is why we put up Supplementary Order Paper 137. I think the Government actually needs to stand up and explain very cogently why they see this as such a bad aspect, because I don’t think the facts stand up for it.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Revenue): The trend in New Zealand over recent decades is that a declining percentage of our population owns their own home. More homes are owned by landlords owning multiple homes and fewer as a percentage—

Andrew Bayly: Well, that’s not what this says.

Hon DAVID PARKER: The trend is quite clear. The trend is clear that over recent decades the proportion of New Zealanders who live in their own home has decreased and the proportion who are renting has increased. In respect of the breakdown of those, between landlords who own lots and lots of properties and who own one extra, as Mr Bayly was talking about, there was an interesting article by Valocity reported in a Stuff series based on their data that they gathered. And one of the more astounding stats there was that “Over 22,000 homes”—and I’m quoting from them—“are owned by an elite class of large investors who each own more than 20 properties”. That’s the equivalent of Invercargill or Nelson—all of the houses being owned by 906 people, whose portfolios continue to grow.

How do they do that? Well, we know that they’re able to outcompete over time first-home buyers, really, because they’re the ones that are dropping out of the market, by leveraging their existing asset, plus the asset that they’re purchasing, effectively often borrowing 100 percent of the cost of the new property with the debt spread over the new property that they’re purchasing and the old property that they already—not the old property, but the properties that they already own. The effect of which has been putting upward price pressure on properties. It’s been one of the contributing factors to house price inflation. I know there are a lot of other factors in there, including the lowest interest rates that the world’s ever seen that have been visited upon the world, probably by Mr Greenspan and his mistakes prior to the global financial crisis in monetary policy around the world since. But against the background that there’s a decreasing number of people living in their own home, this side of the House believes that the tax advantage that comes from tax deductibility of those high rates of leverage that can, really, only be obtained as an investment methodology from this class of investment is undesirable socially, and we believe that justifies the measures that are proposed.

BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Deputy Leader—ACT): Thank you, Madam Chair. I rise on behalf of the ACT Party to talk about the interest deductibility changes that this Government is proposing. I believe that they are divisive changes. When the Government and the Minister proposed them last year, it was stated that these interest deductibility changes were supposed to help tilt the market away from speculators and tilt them towards first-home buyers. The ACT Party did what the Government should have done, and we actually went out and we talked to people who would be affected by this change. There are a lot of people whose financial security is now in jeopardy because of these divisive changes. But the real issue here is that it’s not actually going to make people better off. This doesn’t help build more homes for first-home buyers to actually live in. In the meantime, it actually pushes up rents. We saw from the advisers’ own advice last year that the average landlord is going to have an imposed cost of about $4,000 extra per year because of these changes. It shouldn’t be a surprise to anybody who would be able to realise that that cost has got to go somewhere. Most landlords don’t want to put up their rents on good tenants, but they will be forced to.

I’ve gone around the country, and I’ve spoken to a lot of property investors and mum and dad landlords who have said that they’ve intentionally kept their rents below market rates because they have good tenants, and they know that they should be charging them more but they like their tenants and they want them to stay, but, because of limiting interest deductibility, they will be forced to put up rent on people that they never wanted to put it up on. For that reason, it’s divisive.

It also tries to scapegoat a class of people who are actually providing accommodation in New Zealand—a job that the Government doesn’t do very well on. It should actually be the role of private investors to help supply rental accommodation in New Zealand. There is a place for that, and it’s very unfortunate that this is even happening.

I want to take the opportunity to share a couple of examples, because the ACT Party reached out to people who would be affected by this law change, and we had 15,000 people sign a petition asking for this not to happen. There were really, really heartbreaking examples. There are a few that kind of spring to mind to give a little bit of balance to this debate.

This woman says, “I would prefer if this letter could please be read out in Parliament. My husband and I both have disabilities. My husband can’t work, because of his back injury, and I have diabetes and PTSD. Now, the reason we bought a property was in order to support ourselves and our two adult sons who have a disability. We accept the minimum rent to cover the mortgage and miss out on charging market rent for both of my two older sons. One of my adult sons has schizophrenia, and the other has a head injury and dyspraxia. We are constantly busy working with mental health, WINZ, network personnel, and social workers, acting as their advocates. Everybody is very supportive, but my husband and I are nearly 60 years old, and we have put our retirement on hold so that we can ensure our sons live in safe, dry, and secure accommodation. These two properties are plain bedroom flats. They are warm and safe. We don’t get paid to support our adult sons. They’re 28 and 30. Nor do we expect any additional support on top of what we already receive. We are very grateful for what we do receive. But the Government is relentless to try and make our lives even more difficult. I’ve made two suicide attempts in the last 12 months and ended up in hospital. Everything is related. I see more people like me in my situation who are overlooked. I’ve asked Grant Robertson to make an exception for people like us in this policy, but it was fallen on deaf ears.”

It is an absolutely tragic situation. There are people in our society wanting to do the right thing and support their own families. They don’t want to rely on Government support, but they are being forced to sell the homes that they bought, to help support their own family members to make sure that those children would have a stable home to live in. I think we should admire people like that, and it is a real tragedy that this Government—and the changes made to limiting interest deductibility—will mean that those two disabled sons may be forced into Government-run accommodation rather than being able to live in a home owned by their parents.

The second is a lady who lives in Porirua, and she has a home that she rents out. It’s pretty nice. Her tenants wanted to rent that home for another four to five years, because they’re well-settled in the area with work and school for their boys. But now they’re going to be moving out in three days. This person had to ask them to move out because they knew that these changes were happening. Before that, they offered to sell them the house, but these tenants said that they could not afford it because it would cost them an extra $400 a week in a mortgage repayment, the rates, and the insurance. This landlord felt very bad and had to apologise to them and explain to them that they just cannot simply continue to keep this house, because they will end up having to pay $150 extra a week from their salary, just so that they can live in it. That $150 per week is not something that they can actually afford. This home that has been a stable, secure home for a family and kids going to the local school will be sold, and likely that person who was living there will have to move on.

There’s also another example: somebody who has four dwellings that are specifically designed as student accommodation—because they’re a block of flats. It’s unlikely that a first-home buyer is ever going to want to buy this block of flats. What’s going to happen? They’re going to have to end up either putting up rent on students who will live in these flats, or selling an entire block of flats. You know what? No first-home buyer is going to be buying a block of flats. That is just not something that they would do. The Government did not exempt blocks of flats from the interest limitation rules that they’re putting in. There will be people in small, little units in shared titles who will have their rents increased because the Government decided that first-home buyers should buy them. There is no market for that.

The ACT Party opposes this bill because it’s divisive and because the changes that it will make to people’s lives are so negative, the costs outweigh the benefits. But there is also an element in my Supplementary Order Paper (SOP)—because I drafted this SOP to scrap these interest deductibility changes—of the brightline test. The brightline test should also be scrapped completely. It was an acorn that has grown into a fully-fledged tree. It was two years, it’s gone to five years, and it’s gone to 10 years. There is no need for us to take it back to two years. It should be scrapped completely because you need to cut it from the root, otherwise it will spring forth into another tree again. It is an acorn that has grown.

We need to get rid of it, in particular for the types of people that have been emailing me, like a man who lost his job in Auckland and managed to find a job on a farm where the home was supplied for him. He’s now renting out his primary residence in Auckland, but, because he’s now got this job in another town, he’s going to be captured by the brightline test. That’s really unfortunate, because he says, “All I can do is sell, and maybe never get back on the market—never be able to afford another one—or just acknowledge that I am not going to be able to get the capital gains that everybody else would be able to get.”

It is a divisive law. It’s not going to work. It’s going to push up rents for people who could least afford it, and we need people to supply rental accommodation in New Zealand. There is a place for landlords. They shouldn’t be vilified for actually wanting to do the right thing, and we should actually be proud of people who want to put aside a nest egg for their own financial security.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Revenue): Can I begin by saying that, you know, that’s a heartfelt story that was told then, and I’m sure I speak for other members on my side—I won’t speak for other members on the Opposition, although I’m not suggesting they would have any other sentiment—of course we respect the difficulty of raising and looking after disabled family members, and have the utmost respect for people who do that.

In respect of some of the underlying issues that the member Brooke van Velden mentions, I would say that, on this side of the House, we don’t think we get wealthier as a nation by bidding up the price of existing houses and selling them to each other at ever higher prices. It doesn’t generate any productive increase in productive output.

And as to the suggestions that this is going to increase rents, the statistics that were put by the Leader of the Opposition, for example, to the Prime Minister today, said that rents have gone up, I think the figure was 16.4 percent in the period from October 2017 to December 2021. Interestingly, during the period from August 2013 to October 2017, the rate of increase in rents was exactly the same: 16.4 percent. Interestingly, in the StatsNZ rental price index for the year annually in New Zealand, January 2021 to January 2022, rents went up by 4.6 percent nationally, which is pretty much the rate of inflation. In respect of Auckland, the increase was 2.7 percent, and we on this side of the House say that’s because, in the end, the driver of prices is the cost of new housing and the supply of new housing, and because we’ve got building activity strongly outpacing population growth in Auckland now—something that the last Government never achieved; they went backwards—we’ve had Auckland price increases of 2.7 percent, year on year. In terms of the national statistics, in February 2022, the national rental price index fell by 0.6 percent from the prior month.

So I don’t think the statistics bear out the dire predictions that are being made by the Opposition, and I think they do tend to support the view that the key to slowing rent increases is new supply, which we’re seeing in Auckland, which is why Auckland rent increases have been at a lower rate than in the rest of the country. I would also note that, in respect of our efforts to intervene, we have deliberately skewed the field towards investment in new housing, and so the brightline test is softer in respect of new houses, and the interest limitation rules don’t apply to them for the first 20 years of the new build.

So we think we’ve got the balance right and we think the stats will bear that out and we don’t think that the underlying trend of decreasing homeownership that we have been seeing in our country is desirable, socially or economically. I heard the members saying that they like the fact that people are encouraged to save and put away a nest egg. I agree with that, and I think that is most important for the home occupier, and I am happy on this side of the House to be preferring the interests of the home occupier over those who rent other properties.

Hon DAVID BENNETT (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. I hope New Zealanders have listened carefully to that Minister tonight, because he’s, basically, said that the Government will intervene in this market because they don’t like the results of the market. He’s saying that there’s 906—I think that was the number he used—large-scale rental owners that dominate the market and that’s why the Government has to stop it.

Hon David Parker: That’s not quite what I said.

Hon DAVID BENNETT: That’s exactly what he said.

Hon David Parker: No.

Hon DAVID BENNETT: Well, let’s go to any other industry in New Zealand; the steel industry. Let’s go to any other part—that’s part of the building industry. Should we break up Mitre 10 and Bunnings Warehouse because they’re too big? Shouldn’t we have a little store on each corner where you can get one plank of wood and one nail? That’s the theory that he is using.

He doesn’t want to have a business of rental houses. They do not believe that that is a legitimate business. And if you take that to the necessary extreme, then let’s go into other parts of the building and construction industry. If you want to reduce the price of houses, let’s do that, why don’t we do that? This isn’t market failure—that’s what he’s arguing. This is actually a market showing what actually needs to be done. Market failure is when Government’s intervene, thinking they know best. He is, essentially, nationalising the New Zealand rental market by this kind of programme. That’s his plan. Let’s go nationalise the New Zealand energy market! Let’s go nationalise New Zealand steel market! Let’s go nationalise it all!

Because in that great socialist utopia that exists, if Government can control it, it will be right. That is his plan. And he’s saying, “Oh no, rents won’t go up, there’s no chance that’s going to happen.” Well, if people can’t earn an income where they can take off the deduction for the interest, they’re going to have to put more income in there, aren’t they, to pay to mortgage? They still have a mortgage. They still are in the market. There’s nobody going to the banks and saying, “Oh, you only own one house, so you don’t have to pay this interest rate and if you had 900 houses you have to pay much, much more.” That’s not how the real world works. This is doomed to failure because it is the Government putting its hands into the market. It has never worked in New Zealand’s history and it will never work now.

Now, that Minister will pat himself on the back and say, “I’m here for those people that can’t get there and you trust me because my decision tonight will change it all.” There’s no way in hell he’s going to make any judgment tonight that’s going to make any difference. If anything, it’s going to consign the people at the bottom to higher rents and when they’ve got higher rents they have less income that’s disposable, when they’ve got less disposable income they have less savings, and when they have less savings they can’t buy a house, so they have to keep renting and renting, paying more and more rent, and the circle keeps going on.

So it’s brilliant economics, Minister; it’s going to fail, but we wish you all the very best in your little dream world, and we look forward to you actually explaining to New Zealanders why you don’t think somebody should be able to own more than two houses in New Zealand, why you think it’s a bad thing for somebody that’s got capital to use it for somebody else that hasn’t got capital to have a roof over their head, or do you know best, and if you limit it to one or two houses [Interruption] and take away—and you said you do.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: No, I said you shouldn’t say you.

Hon DAVID BENNETT: Well, that’s the answer. The Minister of Housing says she does—she says she does. She said, “Yes, I do.” Well, there we go. We know their answer, and it will be a failure just waiting to happen. So all those Kiwis out there that genuinely want to get a house should be listening to the failure that is this Government and their silly economic policies.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Revenue): I found that intervention from the Hon David Bennett illustrative of the difference in values, one side of the House to the other. He explicitly said then that he doesn’t mind dominance in the housing sector as you find in every other sector. I think that shows a difference between this side and that side, because for us on this side, actually, homes are not just another asset class, and we think that it is desirable to have higher rates of homeownership. We don’t see it just as another asset class to allocate, like shares or steel or the other industries that he mentioned. He then also, ridiculously, said that we’re nationalising the housing market.

Hon David Bennett: You are.

Hon DAVID PARKER: We’re not.

Hon David Bennett: You are.

Hon DAVID PARKER: The Government’s not purchasing these houses. These houses aren’t coming into the ownership of the Government. They’ve been purchased by other people.

In respect of another issue, we certainly do not have perfect tax settings around housing in New Zealand—we don’t. And it’s been one of the reasons why house prices in New Zealand are amongst the least affordable in the world: it’s because of the tax bias in favour of that asset class, and that partly relates to interest deductibility, because interest payments are not wholly an expense. Even if I was to accept the National Party logic here—and I don’t—and even if I was to accept the theory that housing is like any other asset class and all related costs should be deductible, that’s only true of real costs, and it’s not true of the inflationary component of an interest payment. If members want me to go into this in more detail—

David Seymour: Oh, please. Second call.

Hon DAVID PARKER: I’m happy to, because an interest payment is not all a real cost, because part of it is compensating the lender of the money for inflation, and—

Andrew Bayly: How much is that of it?

Hon DAVID PARKER: It’s roughly half. Over time, if you go over a period of 20 or 30 years and you say that inflation over a longer period averages 3 percent per annum, let’s say for this sort of asset class there’s a margin above inflation of 3 percent. The real interest rate that is being paid by the borrower is only 3 percent, even though they’re paying a nominal rate of 6. And they get a deduction, effectively, from the inflationary component of their interest payment to the lender, which is compensating the lender for the diminishing value of the loan. At the end of the year, the real debt of the borrower has decreased by 3 percent in after-inflation terms.

At the moment—

Hon David Bennett: Rubbish.

Hon DAVID PARKER: What’s that? Rubbish?

Hon David Bennett: If that is the case, then how come—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The Minister is still in the middle of his speech. If the member would like to ask a question—

Hon David Bennett: He was asking a question. I was replying.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): If the member would like to ask a question, he can do so later.

Hon DAVID PARKER: We know, particularly for many properties, that their pattern is that they experience an inflationary gain in their property, they re-leverage their property to buy another property, and they maintain their level of debt in respect of their property portfolio at high levels, and they forever, essentially, for many decades, get a tax deduction for the inflationary component of their interest payment, which is not a real cost, and they pay nothing on either the inflationary or the real gain.

So there is an economic illiteracy on the part of people who say that we should persist with tax settings that reward speculative investment, and to the extent that you take a tax deduction for an inflationary part of your interest payment and you pay no tax on either the inflationary or the real part of your gain, you do have a distortionary tax setting, which is one of the reasons why house prices are so inflated in New Zealand and one of the reasons why residential rental owners have multiple properties and can outbid a first-home buyer, and that sits behind one of the reasons why, over recent decades, we’ve got declining homeownership rates.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salsa): I call Simon Court—I’m sorry; Simon Watts.

SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Thank you, Madam Chair. Twice in one night, and I appreciate that humour—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): My apologies.

SIMON WATTS: —because listening to that last contribution from the Minister, I was starting to get a little bit worried about some other thing. I think, for those five or so people that are still watching this at home and haven’t gone to sleep after listening to that, I think they will be significantly disappointed because what we’ve just heard, really, is the difference around ideology, around driving the denial of interest deduction on the mortgages for rental income versus the case where interest deduction is allowed on any other form of business income. Right? So we’ve got a complete inconsistency that’s being created within the tax system. And one of the benefits of the New Zealand tax system is that, actually, we’ve got a reasonably fair and broad-based system, right? But what is happening as a result of this specific change in Part 2 is the denial of interest deductibility, based on an ideological view that this is going to have some miraculous impact in terms of improving the issue that impacts pretty much the majority of Kiwis and is the most significant issue facing Kiwis—which is around housing affordability and housing access—which is an absolute fallacy.

And it’s not just me saying that. Can I quote to you from KPMG’s submission to the Finance and Expenditure Committee in regards to interest deductibility—and maybe KPMG are also believing that this is that, but I will quote from the front page, and it says “We understand that standard economic approaches would suggest the above propositions generally do not hold.” What they were referring to there is the concept that this denial of interest deductibility will actually have an effect around decreasing the ability for property investors to pay less when they purchase properties, in effect, trying to bring back the price of houses, and the other aspect is around a reference around the change in rents.

So what the difference is, I think, and as the Minister tried to look at the difference between, you know, this side of the House—and that side of the House, actually—when we think about taxation, we think about how do we use taxation in order to deal with factors that are true market failure. And what we’re trying to deal with here through this is an ideological tax that makes the members on that side of the House, and a small number of supporters in this country, think, “Oh, that feels good, that’s going to deal with the problem.” Well, it’s not, and it’s not going to deal with the problem. That’s the shame about this aspect of Part 2 of the bill.

The analysis to support the anticipated effect on the housing market of not allowing interest deductibility is pretty much sparse, if not available, and that was also commented for a number of submissions through the Finance and Expenditure Committee process. The other aspect that we haven’t—and I’d be interested to hear the feedback from the Minister around, is the complexity that this change brings into our tax system. As I said before, we have a simplistic, a reasonably simplistic, tax system. But what we’re bringing in play now is a complete inconsistency that will bring complexity which, really, again, will only probably derive benefit for those advisers out there.

Lastly, it is interesting to note that both the IRD and Treasury also advised the Government against the denial of interest deductibility. So it’s not just this side of the House at this time of the night saying that this is a completely ridiculous idea and hearing the other side of the House saying that, actually, “Government knows best and Kiwis don’t quite understand.” Well, I’m sorry, it doesn’t work like that. And that is backed up by a number of advisers, a number of people around this country. I back Kiwis, I back smart, sensible Kiwis out there that know what they’re doing with their own money and know that this is an absolutely an ideological tax that will not benefit and not bring any change to the housing market that so significantly needs change in order to make sure that our future generations have a house to live or to rent and to live a great life in this country.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Junior Whip—Labour) (remote): I move, That the question be now put.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I’d just like to quickly refer back to the contribution to this committee stage by Brooke van Velden, because I think she highlighted graphically, and in a way that clearly moved the Minister, one of the central problems with this policy of removing mortgage interest deductibility from landlords renting out homes. You see, the Minister of Revenue stands up and he says, “Our goal is to make sure that more people are owner-occupiers and fewer people are landlords with tenants.”—that’s their goal—and the problem with that is that the people who are currently tenants are collateral damage, and some of them are very vulnerable people in very difficult situations. That’s the central problem.

When the Prime Minister introduced this policy and said that her Government wanted to “tilt the playing field towards first-home buyers”, what she didn’t say—what she didn’t say—was that she would be tilting it away from anyone who was a tenant, and I can’t work out if this is wilful ignorance or her just having made a political call. I asked the Prime Minister in question time today why did she think that adding extra tax to landlords in a tight rental market wouldn’t be passed on in rents, and she couldn’t explain why she thought that, but I think most people can figure it out.

If you put an average of $4,000 extra tax on to a landlord and the market’s tight—and it’s not as though tenants can go elsewhere—guess where that cost is going to end up! Paid for by tenants, some of the most vulnerable people.

Here’s the next irony, which is that most people who are tenants actually do—as the Minister said—want to become first-home buyers, and that means they’re saving for a deposit. But if you put a tax on the housing sector and increase the tax on the housing sector, then of course you’re taking away from their ability to save to be depositors who buy a first home. There you see the own goal of epic proportions that comes from failing to properly understand the situation and the problem, and it’s worth just stopping to think about what sort of extra cost is going to be put on to landlords and passed on to tenants.

Well, at the moment, if you have an interest cost, you can deduct it, and if you have a mortgage, say, on a home of half a million dollars and you have income of $48,000 or above, then you’re going to be paying 30c or 33c—so about a third is your tax rate—and if you have a 3 percent mortgage and you’re paying about a third tax that you can no longer deduct, then you’re paying 1 percent. That’s what it costs now because of no more interest deductibility from this legislation. So 1 percent of your mortgage—that’s what you’re paying. But remember, I said that that’s with 3 percent mortgage rates.

Now, I listened carefully to Adrian Orr. It’s not always in the best interests of my welfare and health to hear what that guy’s on about, but the thing he says is that we’re going up with interest rates. If you imagine 6 percent interest rates, then all of a sudden it’s 2 percent of the cost of your mortgage, and if you’ve got a half-million-dollar mortgage, then it’s not $5,000 or $100 a week; it’s $200 a week that you have to pass on to tenants. This has got to be the biggest rent-increasing policy that a Government has ever brought through, and the problem is that in the rush to help first-home buyers, people who are tenants are collateral damage, and, ironies of ironies, people who are tenants often want to be first-home buyers and are saving for a first home.

That’s why I support the amendments on Supplementary Order Paper 135 put on the Table by Brooke van Velden, but that’s just one reason. The second reason I support that is actually the changes that are proposed to the brightline test, and when I say “changes”, I mean “Get rid of it.”

I should say a little bit more about mortgage interest deductibility, because these two policies that Brooke van Velden’s amendments would get rid of from the tax law have something in common: a failure to define the underlying problem. You see, the problem with falling homeownership rates—and on that we have common ground with the Minister; it has got harder for Kiwis to own their own home—is not the tax treatment. The reason that there is inflation and the reason that people are finding it harder to afford a home is because there are too many people chasing not enough homes. Until you’ve solved that fundamental problem, then these changes to taxes, whether it be mortgage interest deductibility or having the brightline test at 10 years or five years or two years or any length of time, the only thing you’re going to do is redistribute a shortage of houses and change the people who don’t have housing, based on who the Government’s favoured political group is at any time. That’s not real problem-solving. That’s not real change and solutions. That’s politics, and that does not make New Zealanders better off.

If you come back to this question about mortgage interest deductibility, well, actually, the Minister is right that inflation is not deductible. But you have to ask yourself: why is there so much inflation in housing? Well, because there’s a shortage. That’s the real problem. He’s not solving the real problem; he’s trying to treat the symptoms of it.

Why is it that we have a shortage of housing? Well, land-use planning and infrastructure funding, building regulations, making councils the building regulator—those are the problems that need to be solved. This will not solve them at all.

The problem could have been seen from another angle, which is that income tax—I claim no expertise in these matters, but it appears to be on income, and income is revenue minus expenses and interest is an expense. So if having income tax on income, which is revenue minus expense, with interest being an expense, hasn’t created a bubble in the price of Toyota Corollas or desks or chairs or anything else that is freely available—and when the price goes up, people create more of them—maybe the problem with housing is not the tax treatment that applies to everything the same, but maybe the problem with housing was the supply of housing, or, to be really precise—because I know that the Minister loves to nerd out on this stuff—the supply elasticity of housing, and maybe if we fix the real problem, we’d be in a better space.

But the other reason I think we should support Brooke van Velden’s amendment is that it gets rid of the brightline test. I know there’s another amendment that I can’t support that reduces it to two years, and that amendment is also guilty of a failed problem definition. You see, the problem with housing in New Zealand is not the length of time that people own them. It’s not people that own houses for less than two years or less than five years or less than 10 years. The problem with housing in New Zealand is just there are more people than there are houses, and because people are bidding them up, the price goes up, and they become unaffordable, and that destroys a lot of the opportunity that New Zealanders should have. And when the National Party comes along and says, “Oh, we’re going to stop people flipping them.”, that’s not the problem.

The length of time people own a house is not the problem here, and, by the way, the problem is not tax treatment, because here’s another problem with failing to define the problem. You see, the problem is there are not enough houses for the number of people, and when supply doesn’t match demand, prices go up. Well, in putting Government taxes on rising house prices, the prices still rise, but it’s just that the Government becomes a silent partner in the speculation, and we don’t want the Government to be a silent partner in the speculation. We want to build more houses and not have a problem with the prices going up, so that people can afford them.

So getting rid of the brightline test is the right thing to do—not make it two years so Labour can put it back. Labour, National, Labour, National; two-year, five-year, 10-year—depending on who’s in power. We actually want to get rid of it. As Adam Smith said, an income tax is intolerable interference into the affairs of people, and this brightline test is actually one of the worst because you have to prove where you live for 10 years and it’s outrageous. So we want to get rid of that brightline test altogether, and we want to restore mortgage interest deductibility for housing, because that is allowing us to focus on the real problem.

Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn) (remote): I move, That the question be now put.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the Minister’s tabled amendment to the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper 134, amending clause 80C, be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 67

New Zealand Labour 65; Te Paati Māori 2.

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Abstentions 10

Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.

Amendment to the amendment agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 3 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 134, as amended, and in the Minister’s tabled amendment, be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments, as amended, be agreed to.

Ayes 67

New Zealand Labour 65; Te Paati Māori 2.

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Abstentions 10

Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.

Amendments, as amended, agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Brooke van Velden’s amendment to clauses 48, 56B, 64BB, 64DB, 64E, and 80C, set out on Supplementary Order Paper 135, are out of order as inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The question is that Brooke van Velden’s remaining amendments to Part 3 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 135 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.

Ayes 10

ACT New Zealand 10.

Noes 108

New Zealand Labour 65; New Zealand National 33; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Andrew Bayly’s amendments to Part 3 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 137 are out of order as being the same in substance to amendments on Supplementary Order Paper 135.

The question is that Andrew Bayly’s amendments to Part 3 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 136 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.

Ayes 33

New Zealand National 33.

Noes 85

New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; ACT New Zealand 10.

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that David Seymour’s amendments to adjust tax brackets and remove the 30 and 39 percent brackets set out on Supplementary Order Paper 140 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.

Ayes 10

ACT New Zealand 10.

Noes 108

New Zealand Labour 65; New Zealand National 33; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that Andrew Bayly’s tabled amendment to adjust tax brackets by the rate of inflation be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 33

New Zealand National 33.

Noes 85

New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; ACT New Zealand 10.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that Andrew Bayly’s tabled amendment to remove the 39 percent tax bracket be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Noes 75

New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.

Amendment not agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 3 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 67

New Zealand Labour 65; Te Paati Māori 2.

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Abstentions 10

Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.

Part 3 as amended agreed to.

Part 4 Amendments to other enactments

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members, we come now to Part 4. This is the debate on clauses 134 to 204 and Schedule 1, amendments to other enactments. The question is that Part 4 stand part.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you, Madam Chair. Interesting part of the bill, this. There’s three or four areas that we’d like to canvas with the Minister, so appreciably he’s still in the chair.

I think the first one we’re going to pick up on is clause 135, (2) and (3), which is civil penalties in relation to electronic sale suppression tools. And, again, for people listening, this is software that’s designed to falsify, basically, the receipt and how it folds back into the company’s or business’s revenue systems, so it’s a way to minimise tax. So there’s quite a section here that defines that you cannot “… hide, conceal, modify, falsify, destroy, or prevent the creation of a record that—” the person’s required under a tax law to make or keep. Of course, earlier tonight, we talked about the “under $1,000 test” and the “greater than $1,000 test”—or “is, or would be, created by a system that is or includes an electronic point of sale system;”.

And, of course, this also, under proposed new section 141EE—there we are, I’m just finding it here, which I thought I had but I can’t. Excuse me, Madam Chair, I’m just trying to find the clause I was looking for. I know what I was going to refer to. So this is obviously quite a significant issue, but my first point to the Minister is: how significant is this? This is obviously something that’s been inserted into his bill. So what’s the IRD been saying about this issue? Is it now becoming increasingly widespread at point of sale? Is it only a point-of-sale issue, or is it something that is now we’re seeing other mechanisms or methodologies to try and undermine the tax system? I think in proposed new section 141EE, if this is a significant issue, why there is only a $5,000 penalty? Where did that come from? Whether that’s changed or not. Depending on the answer to the first one, the first part of that, whether it’s a significant issue or not, whether, in fact, $5,000, which is an all-encompassing fee, is actually appropriate? What consideration was given to whether or not to change that fee? So, very interested just to hear from the Minister on that particular issue.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Revenue): Thank you to the member Andrew Bayly for that question. This was something that I didn’t know was a problem until I became Minister of Revenue, that there is software which, I think, originally originates from overseas but is now being modified for use in New Zealand that enables someone who is collecting GST, effectively, on behalf of the Government, because they’ve got a GST-inclusive sale, to use a computer programme to, effectively, corrupt their own computer records so that when the revenue goes and does an audit of the firm, the computer record appears to show lower receipts and therefore lower GST due. What this change to the law does is to create an offence to use that software and also to supply that software, or to—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): My apologies, Minister. This debate is interrupted. It is time for me to report progress on this bill.

Progress to be reported.

House resumed.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The committee has considered the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2021-22, GST, and Remedial Matters) Bill and reports progress. I move, That the report be adopted.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the report be adopted.

Ayes 77

New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

Voting

Correction—COVID-19 Response (Courts Safety) Legislation Bill

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ian McKelvie): Members, before I adjourn the House—prior to the committee stage, the House considered the instruction to the select committee on the COVID-19 Response (Courts Safety) Legislation Bill. The result of the vote was announced as Ayes 108, Noes 10. The correct result is Ayes 110, Noes 10.

The House is now adjourned till 2 p.m. next sitting day.

The House adjourned at 9.58 p.m.