Parliamentary debates: Wednesday, 5 March 2025

E te Atua kaha rawa, ka tuku whakamoemiti atu mātou, mō ngā karakia kua waihotia mai ki runga i a mātou. Ka waiho i ō mātou pānga whaiaro katoa ki te taha. Ka mihi mātou ki te Kīngi, me te inoi atu mō te ārahitanga i roto i ō mātou whakaaroarohanga, kia mōhio ai, kia whakaiti ai tā mātou whakahaere i ngā take o te Whare nei, mō te oranga, te maungārongo, me te aroha o Aotearoa. Āmene.

[Almighty God, we give thanks for the blessings which have been bestowed on us. Laying aside all personal interests, we acknowledge the King and pray for guidance in our deliberations, that we may conduct the affairs of this House with wisdom and humility, for the welfare, peace, and compassion of New Zealand. Amen.]

Members, I’m sure you’ll want to join with me in welcoming Mr Ray Stevens, chair of the Queensland Parliament Ethics Committee.

Two petitions have been delivered to the Clerk to present.

Petition of Danny Tahau Jobe requesting that the House acknowledge Mahuru Māori as the concentrated celebration and promotion of te reo Māori, replacing Te Wiki o Te Reo Māori

petition of Juliana Carvalho, on behalf of Access Matters Aotearoa, requesting that the House pass a new bill to provide for accessibility for New Zealanders.

Those petitions stand referred to the Petitions Committee. No papers have been delivered. A select committee report has been delivered for presentation.

Report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the international treaty examination of the agreement between New Zealand and the Republic of Slovenia for the elimination of double taxation with respect to taxes on income and the prevention of tax evasion and avoidance.

No bills have been introduced.

Point of order. I seek leave to make a personal explanation to correct a statement I made in an urgent debate on Tuesday, 4 March.

Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.

In the urgent debate yesterday, I misspoke when speaking about former Minister Michael Wood. I said that the Minister was told 17 times by the Cabinet Office to sell his Auckland Transport shares; I should have said “16 times” for his Auckland Airport shares.

Thank you.

to the Minister of Finance

What are the Government’s priorities for Budget 2025?

The Government’s four priorities for Budget 2025 are: lifting economic growth through measures to address long-term productivity challenges, implementing a social investment approach, keeping tight control of Government spending while funding a limited number of policy commitments and cost pressures, and developing a sustainable pipeline of long-term infrastructure investments.

What are examples of policy commitments that will be funded in the Budget?

The Government has already announced a significant policy commitment for Budget 2025. That is the commitment of $1.37 billion a year from 2025 onwards to meet demographic, volume, and price pressures for front-line health services. In total, that comes to an additional $5.48 billion for Health New Zealand over the forecast period. Agreeing this very significant increase in funding ahead of time gave Health New Zealand certainty in its planning and demonstrates the Government’s commitment to delivering the healthcare New Zealanders need.

Has the Government announced any other funding for health ahead of Budget 2025?

Yes. Budget 2025 provides just over a billion dollars of extra funding over the forecast period for additional medicines, including cancer treatments. On Monday, the Government announced measures to boost primary care, including increasing the number of doctors and nurses in primary care and a new 24/7 digital healthcare service for online appointments. These new measures will also be funded from Budget 2025. There is a myth propagated by the New Zealand Public Service Association and others that health funding is being reduced. Nothing could be further from the truth. Billions of dollars of additional funding are going into health to help ensure Kiwis have more access to the care they need where they need it.

How will this additional health funding fit within the Government’s operating allowance?

The Government has set an operating allowance for Budget 2025 of $2.4 billion. That is a tight allowance aimed at restricting growth in expenditure and reducing New Zealand’s structural Budget deficit left to us by the last Government. It is important to remember, though, that allowances are a net concept. They encompass savings and revenue initiatives as well as new spending. More savings, therefore, in the Budget equals more opportunity to invest in front-line services. That is called reprioritisation, for the benefit of members who did not experience this concept when they were last in office.

Point of order, Mr Speaker. Yesterday, you asked members on this side of the House to show a little more restraint. We have done so today. That would also involve you requiring Government members—[Interruption]

There is a requirement that you’re quiet during a point of order. Start again.

I think, yesterday, you asked us to show more restraint on this side of the House, and you’ll note today we have done exactly that. I think a reciprocal expectation is that Ministers will actually stick to the rules around Government questions and not use them to attack the Opposition. Almost every one of the answers delivered by Nicola Willis did exactly that. You didn’t get a reaction from us, because you asked us not to do that, but there should be some reaction to that.

Yes, I did certainly take note of it, and I think, as I’ve said before, where there is a reference to something from the past that affects the policy today, that’s reasonable, but I do think that the commentary that suggests otherwise and questions the motives of the other side of the House are unacceptable, and I’d ask all other Ministers who are about to answer questions today to bear that in mind.

Speaking to the point of order.

I presume there’s a new point of order, given I’ve just ruled on that one.

Speaking to the point of order, politics is about comparing—

Well, hang on. It has to be a new point of order. I’ve just ruled on that one, so a new point of order.

Point of order. Sir, politics is about comparing and contrasting. It is very difficult to answer questions as a Government without drawing some comparison to what has gone before or indeed what is coming into the future—

I’ll stop you there, because the last part of the last answer referred to something the previous Government had not done. I don’t think that’s particularly reasonable in the circumstances.

Because we had.

Well, hang on. That didn’t help either.

No one believes you.

No, that didn’t help at all, so we’re now going to go to question No. 2.

Point of order. The rightful complaint from Mr Parker is that he’s put the very issue back at the centre of this parliamentary behaviour, and he’s quite right. What you’re saying is no criticism at all can happen. What happened to “Sticks and stones can break my bones, but names will never hurt me.”? Over there, they’re so sensitive to every little issue.

That’s not the issue. With all due respect—[Interruption] Just a minute. With all due respect, that completely misses the point I was making.

to the Prime Minister

E tautoko ana ia i ngā kōrero me ngā mahi katoa a tōna Kāwanatanga?

[Does he stand by all of his Government’s statements and actions?]

Yes, and especially our action to make it easier for Kiwis to get access to the healthcare that they need. This morning, our excellent Minister of Health, Simeon Brown, announced more support for nurses so they can play a greater role in primary care. That comes off the back of action yesterday to train more doctors here at home, including in primary care. On Monday, we announced action to support more nurses into primary care, making it easier for international doctors to practise here, and introduce a whole system of digital 24/7 care. Kiwis deserve to be able to see a doctor as quickly as they can. We’re working hard to make that a reality. I would have thought the Opposition would want to support that.

Does he agree that, regardless of socio-economic status, a meal at lunchtime is a basic level of collective care that should be afforded to all tamariki?

What I believe is that we need to help kids who are coming to school with no lunches, and that’s why we saved the school lunch programme that was unfunded. We’ve got some challenges, but we’re working our way through them.

Does he agree that providing school lunches is an important collective response and one that is far more helpful than vilifying parents and families doing it tough?

What I’d say is in the last 24 hours the vilification from Labour and the Greens, who are telling working parents across New Zealand who happen to give their kids a Marmite sandwich and apple each and every day that they are bad parents, is not acceptable.

Does he agree with Mana College principal Jeff Chapman that the previous school lunch programme “was a nice little circular local economy, and it was working great. The contractor was providing local employment and using local food.”; if so, can he tell the House how many people have lost their jobs as a result of his Government’s changes to Ka Ora, Ka Ako?

Well, what I can say is that we are actually funding the school lunch programme. We are feeding more kids than the previous Government did. We are doing so, more efficiently, having saved $130 million, which has been put back into health and education for our kids. So I think it’s a win-win. We’ve got some challenges to work through. The Minister, David Seymour, will deal with that.

Is the Prime Minister also—

Hang on.

Beg your pardon, Mr Speaker.

Your own side was pretty rowdy then, so we’ll start again.

Sure. Is the Prime Minister also aware that the previous Government had left no money in the Budget for that nice little circular economy from 2025 onwards, and how has this Government responded to that fiscal cliff?

Well, I thank the member for his excellent question because that is exactly the case. The parties that claim to advocate for those that most need food didn’t fund the programme. We funded the programme, and we extended it to more kids.

How many free school lunches programmes could be funded for the cost of the tax cuts the Government gave to landlords?

Well, I think the member is conflating two very different issues. What I’m proud about is that, actually, rents under this Government are stable, not up $180 per week. What I’m comfortable about is that house prices didn’t increase 40 to 50 percent, and what I’m comfortable about is that, actually, social housing wait-lists are going down and kids in emergency housing are out of motels—nothing that the Labour Government could sort out, despite the much-vaunted equity of housing, which they don’t own anymore.

That question demonstrates how difficult it is at times to work out both the value of a question or the intent of a question and the likely answer.

Point of order, Mr Speaker. I think the mike for the Prime Minister is actually not on, so most of the MPs sitting here cannot hear him at all.

Well, some people might thank the Lord for small mercies, but I will ask the technicians to have a bit of a look at what’s going on.

Point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you. There has been much discussion in this House about truth, and we are not allowed to say the word that denotes the opposite of that, but I am requesting your guidance. When the Prime Minister is stating things on the record such as “Rents have been stable.” when the facts demonstrate the clear opposite of that, what are we to do?

The member knows that, if there is a concern about that, there is a remedy for her in the Standing Orders, and that would be the best way to deal with it.

Will he stop pointing fingers at his Ministers and take responsibility, as Prime Minister, to feed our tamariki?

Well, we are. We have a school lunch programme. Look, we have said that—and the Minister has said himself that—the food is in some cases not up to scratch. He’s making sure he holds those contractors to account, he’s working through the issues, and I’ve got every confidence that he will do so.

What happened to personal responsibility?

I do take responsibility, and I have clear accountabilities on my Ministers, and that’s what I’d expect to happen.

Is it the view of his Government that good words and good wishes must be backed up by a fiscally sustainable plan to actually pay for the Government’s programmes, and does he believe it’s credible to have all those good words and good wishes but no plan to afford them?

It is something that we have inherited: a Government previously that didn’t fund Pharmac, a Government that didn’t fund school lunches, and a Government that had billions of dollars of blowout on ferries and on Dunedin Hospital. Make the list; we’re fixing it.

Yeah, I’d just make the point that that’s—we’ll move on.

Will he commit to continuing Ka Ora, Ka Ako?

I commit, and the Minister is very committed, to making sure we make the school lunch programme work and we get what we contracted for. But, as I have said before, we will continue to provide children who need lunches with a school lunch programme. It’s important, because we know the evidence is that, if they don’t have food, they don’t learn and they end up on welfare—that’s not great.

Question—

You know the majority of kids in poverty have working parents, eh?

Yeah, when you’re ready, we might move on.

to the Prime Minister

Does he stand by all his Government’s statements and actions?

Yes, and especially our action to support Kiwis with the cost of living. Two years ago, inflation was running at 7.2 percent; today, it’s 2.2 percent. Two years ago today, the official cash rate was 4.75 percent, and today it is 3.75 percent. Two years ago, food inflation was 10.3 percent, and today it’s just 2.3 percent. You know, it’s an encouraging sign that we’re making progress. We know there’s a lot more for us to do, and the best thing that we can do is grow the economy so that we can create those jobs, lift incomes, and actually create opportunities for more Kiwis so they’ve got more money in their pocket. That’s important.

On what day and at what time did he first discuss allegations that Andrew Bayly had a physical altercation with a staff member, with Andrew Bayly?

As I have previously said, I was made aware of the issue on Thursday, and Andrew Bayly resigned very late on Friday.

Point of order, Mr Speaker. I didn’t ask him when he was informed or when Andrew Bayly resigned; I asked him when he first discussed those allegations with Andrew Bayly.

Ask the question again.

On what date and at what time did he first discuss allegations Andrew Bayly had a physical altercation with a staff member, with Andrew Bayly?

My office had conversations with Andrew Bayly on the Wednesday and the Thursday, and I discussed it with Andrew Bayly on the Friday.

When did he formally receive Andrew Bayly’s resignation as a Minister, and in what form was his resignation delivered?

It was a phone call very late on Friday evening.

Did he indicate to Andrew Bayly that, if he didn’t resign, he would be dismissed; if so, when did he do that?

No. As I have said publicly, Andrew Bayly resigned, and he made the right decision.

If Andrew Bayly resigned on Friday, why didn’t he inform the Governor-General of that resignation until Monday, and does he believe that fulfils his legal obligation to “keep the Governor-General fully informed about the general conduct of the Government”?

Yes.

Did he ask Andrew Bayly what he did to the staff member who made the complaint, and was Andrew Bayly’s account consistent or different from the account of the staff member?

Andrew Bayly talked in his statement about the incident, and I’ve got nothing further to add to that.

Point of order, Mr Speaker. This is a serious matter in which the Prime Minister has indicated that if Andrew Bayly hadn’t resigned, then he would have fired him. I have asked him whether he asked Andrew Bayly what he actually did in order for the Prime Minister to lose that confidence in Andrew Bayly, and whether that is consistent with the victim of Andrew Bayly’s physical altercation. This is a fairly important matter of public importance where a Minister has lost their job. I don’t think it’s unreasonable that the Prime Minister actually addresses that question.

In answer to the first part of the question: yes.

Prime Minister, will you explain to Mr Hipkins that the constitutional connection of the Governor-General only happens when he as Prime Minister first accepts the resignation?

I’m comfortable that we have handled the constitutional arrangements well.

Is there still an open investigation into the complaint about Andrew Bayly’s physical altercation with a staff member; if so, who’s conducting that investigation?

Well, there were concerns raised, the Minister reviewed the incident, it didn’t meet his expectation, and he has resigned.

Point of order, Mr Speaker. Can I repeat the question: is there still an open investigation into the complaint about Andrew Bayly’s physical altercation with a staff member; if so, who’s conducting that investigation?

Andrew Bayly has relayed the incident in public statements, he has apologised to the relevant staff, and he has subsequently resigned.

Point of order, Mr Speaker. Again, it’s a fairly significant matter of importance to the public when a Minister resigns in the circumstances that Andrew Bayly did. If there is an ongoing investigation into this matter, then the Prime Minister has a duty to tell the public that. It’s a fairly straight question.

That is a fair point.

Well, I’m not going to comment on individual employment matters; it’s a privacy issue, and, actually, it’s up to Ministerial Services to take it forward from there.

to the Minister of Health

What recent announcements has he made on improving access to timely, quality healthcare for all New Zealanders?

Good news for Kiwis this week: our Government is delivering on our commitment to improve access to timely, quality care for all New Zealanders. This week, I have announced a significant healthcare boost to ensure Kiwis see a GP faster, including a range of actions to ensure overseas-trained doctors can work in New Zealand. I also announced more locally trained doctors in general practice, including increasing the total extra medical school placements to 100 each year over the course of this Government. We’re also boosting our nursing workforce by training more nurse practitioners and supporting advanced education for nurses in general practice. These initiatives will help strengthen the healthcare workforce, reduce wait times, and ensure Kiwis can receive the timely, quality healthcare they need.

Why is the Government increasing the number of overseas-trained doctors working in primary care?

Well, we recognise the need for more doctors working in our healthcare system, which is why we are funding a new two-year primary care training programme for up to 100 additional overseas-trained doctors. It doesn’t make sense that overseas-trained doctors living in New Zealand are keen to work in primary care but lack the training opportunities to do so. By funding 100 clinical placements, we will offer the necessary support to help them work in general practice, where they’re needed to help give Kiwis the timely, quality access to the healthcare they need.

What is the Government doing to increase the number of placements at New Zealand medical schools?

Well, to reduce wait times for New Zealanders, we can’t just rely on sourcing our doctors from overseas. We must also ensure a sustainable pipeline of New Zealand - trained doctors. Under our Government, medical school placements have already increased by 75 places each year. Increasing this to 100 places will provide more opportunities for talented Kiwis to train as doctors and help ensure New Zealanders have access to the timely, quality healthcare that they need.

Why is the Government increasing the number of training places for nurse practitioners in primary care?

Well, nurse practitioners are highly skilled professionals who can diagnose conditions, prescribe medicines, and develop treatment plans for patients. By increasing the number of training places to 120 a year, we’re empowering more nurses to work alongside our hard-working GPs and deliver timely, quality healthcare in local communities. This investment will ensure more patients are seen sooner, easing pressure on the system and reducing wait times for New Zealanders.

to the Minister of Finance

Does she stand by her statement that she is looking at “changes to strengthen transparency and fiscal responsibility”; if so, is she confident that the fiscal risks in Budget 2024 are manageable?

Yes. I was shocked, on becoming Minister of Finance, at the magnitude of unfunded fiscal risks left by the previous Government, such as Lake Onslow, the income insurance scheme, and Auckland Light Rail. I was also shocked by the large number of fiscal cliffs left in the accounts, where funding for an initiative had only been provided for a limited period despite a clear public expectation of it continuing, like Pharmac essential medicines. And, to the second part of the question, fiscal risks are by definition uncertain; they may or may not occur. If they do, they will be managed, and the Government has choices about how to do that.

Does she stand by her statement, in relation to the Cook Strait ferries, that “costs are expected to be much less than would have been the case with Project iREX”; and, if so, what will the cost of the fiscal risk of Cook Strait resilience be?

In answer to the first part of the question, yes, and in answer to the second part of the question, that depends on the procurement approach and commercial negotiations yet to occur.

How can she be confident that the alternative will cost less than the previous project when her Cabinet paper said the required port infrastructure “cannot be confidently costed”?

Because the point of comparison is Project iReX, the biggest dog of an infrastructure project New Zealand has seen in many years, that blew out, members, from $750 million to $4 billion and climbing, with only 21 percent of the costs actually being for the core project of replacing the ferries. That project was terrible and was getting worse, and, by stopping, it we have saved New Zealanders money.

Supplementary question.

Supplementary question.

Supplementary question—we’ll go three over here. We always do three.

Three what?

Three supplementaries for the primary questioner.

Why?

Well, because it’s a little rule I’ve brought in.

When?

About a year ago.

Does she agree with the Minister for Rail, who said the break fee “costs us way less than 300 million”?

I find it is wise to agree with the Minister for Rail.

Is the finance Minister confident that, when this is all resolved, the savings to the New Zealand taxpayer, based on Treasury’s latest prediction, will be in excess of $2 billion?

Well, I’m delighted to hear that the Minister for Rail has these matters in hand, and I would acknowledge that even Grant Robertson was concerned by the ballooning cost of Project iReX. In fact, in a letter he sent to the KiwiRail chairman in 2023—

Just a minute. It might be all right in response from an Opposition question, but Speaker’s ruling 181/3 is very clear: it is not reasonable for a Government question to be asked that leads to an attack upon a previous Government. It’s not my ruling; it’s one that’s been there for a long time.

It wasn’t going to be an attack; it was complimenting him.

Well, I could feel it coming.

It wasn’t an attack. We’re praising him.

I beg your pardon?

We were praising him—he saw the risk.

Yeah, well, I’m sure they are well aware of the comment.

Does she agree with the Minister for Rail that Treasury’s prediction is that this will save $2 billion; can she confirm that?

Well, as I’ve just said, I find it’s always wise to agree with the Minister for Rail.

How can she be confident the fiscal risk is manageable when she has no idea how much the new project will cost, she got a new figure during question time from the Minister for Rail, and she has no control over what the Minister for Rail will do?

Because—and forgive me for the repetition—the point of comparison was such a dog of a project that, actually, we just need to do simple things well, to do better, and to save New Zealanders money. I want to share with you a characterisation of Project iReX by someone that I think members across the House know: “KiwiRail under-scoped the landside infrastructure in 2021 meaning the decision to procure two large rail-enabled ships at that time was premature. To date, we are yet to see a satisfactory explanation for why this was the case.” That is a quote from the Hon Grant Robertson.

to the Minister of Education

What steps have been taken to improve the delivery of school property for students across the country?

After a ministerial inquiry found the Ministry of Education’s school property function was not fit for purpose, this Government has been driving for stronger performance and efficiency by investing far more into maintaining existing school buildings and delivering more new classrooms for less through the use of standardised, repeatable designs and offsite manufactured classrooms. In this financial year, we’ve already increased the number of cost-effective off-site manufactured buildings delivered—a 35 percent increase on the last financial year—and we’ve still got a long way to run. In 2023, only 433 new classrooms were built; in 2024, 581 were built—a 30 percent increase on the year before because we are driving efficiency, delivering results, and building more classrooms.

How is she able to build more classrooms?

Well, as previously mentioned, we’re delivering more off-site manufactured buildings. The average cost per classroom when we arrived in Government was $1.2 million. This is now down to $870,000—nearly a 30 percent reduction. And we are still driving this down so that more students can benefit from safe, warm, dry learning environments that support them to achieve. With our drive to use standardised designs and off-site manufacturing, we’re significantly reducing construction time and costs so more classrooms can be delivered more quickly and more efficiently.

What examples has she seen that show an improvement in the delivery of school property?

Well, one example is Wellington Girls’ College, just up the road here, where 14 classrooms over four two-storey modulars were delivered in just 12 weeks, at a cost of around $550,000 per classroom, representing a 35 percent saving on the current value-for-money cost per classroom. This is just one example of delivering efficiency and results, using standardised designs and off-site manufacturing to significantly reduce construction time and costs so more classrooms can be delivered more quickly and more efficiently.

What feedback has she seen?

Well, a school in my electorate, as it turns out, where the ministry drove great value for money by retrofitting an existing building rather than building new, wrote to the ministry to say, “We want to express our deepest gratitude for the exceptional and efficient work you’ve done over the Christmas period to ensure the successful completion of our interim seismic property project through four of our whānau buildings.” This is just one example of many of driving value for money so we can deliver more upgrades to more classrooms and more schools across New Zealand, because we are a Government that delivers.

to the Minister for Children

What changes, if any, does she intend to make in response to the Aroturuki Tamariki | Independent Children’s Monitor’s Experiences of Care in Aotearoa 2023/24 report that found that Oranga Tamariki social workers are under significant pressure?

Firstly, I just want to take this opportunity to say thank you to Oranga Tamariki social workers for what they do and also to the Independent Children’s Monitor (ICM) for what they do. I regularly talk with social workers across the country and I’ve personally visited at least 29 Oranga Tamariki sites since becoming Minister, and I’m constantly impressed by their dedication and commitment to caring for children. I know it takes a special kind of person to do the work that they do. This Government did not need to wait for this fourth report from the ICM. We already, amongst other things, secured funding of $68.5 million through Budget 2024 to upgrade the outdated case management technology system so social workers can have the tools they need, which means they can spend more time with the children and family that they work with. We’ve also recruited 33 allied support workers, which is a front-line role to support social workers by taking on tasks that don’t require a social work qualification, freeing up social workers to focus on core work.

How does she expect social workers to collect data when their workloads prevent them from visiting all tamariki assigned to them, and what does she say to the 63 percent of tamariki that aren’t receiving the minimum standard of care under the national care standards regulations?

I absolutely agree that it’s difficult to collect data around young children. That is why we invested the $68.5 million into an updated case management system, which will allow them to collect that data better. And it’s why I also, in August 2024, set key performance indicators on the chief executive around the frequency of visits of children in care, timeliness around reports of concern, and supporting caregivers, because this means a lot to me and to the staff looking after our young people.

What does she say to the Public Service Association’s (PSA’s) national secretary, Fleur Fitzsimons, who has highlighted: “Decades of reviews and inquiries have consistently identified high staff workloads as a barrier to Oranga Tamariki consistently delivering on its purpose. The Government’s reckless spending cuts have seen Oranga Tamariki lose over 400 workers, meaning those remaining shoulder even higher workloads.”?

I’m sure the PSA is entitled to their opinion, but, at the end of the day, this Government is committed to making sure that every dollar we spend goes towards our young people, and we are prioritising our front-line staff to make sure that they do have the tools that they need to do their job and do their job well.

In line with MP Kahurangi Carter’s recent select committee request, if she offers the issue a hug, will it go away?

Yeah, that’s not something that the Minister has direct responsibility for.

to the Minister

how many additional social workers did Oranga Tamariki recruit last year?

Last year, Oranga Tamariki recruited 463 field social workers—410 of these were permanent roles. With attrition, this means that the number of field social workers has increased by more than 200 in the last year. We have also trialled and now implemented—as I said in the primary answer—allied support worker roles. This is 33 support workers working alongside front-line staff to free them up to do their role.

Can she confirm that she thinks the previous statement is factually incorrect, or is she dismissing it because of who the quote comes from?

I never said it was factually incorrect; I said she’s entitled to her opinion.

What does she say to the 507 tamariki and rangatahi that were abused or neglected in State care, about the hope for their future when there has been little improvement for them in the last four years, and the report stating that it is unlikely to change in the next report?

Since becoming the Minister for Children, and even before being the Minister for Children, I’ve always advocated for the safety and wellbeing of our children in care. This is why I set it as a priority for Oranga Tamariki to get back to their core focus, which is the safety and wellbeing of our young people in care and those that come to the attention of Oranga Tamariki. No abuse is OK, but what I would say is I’ve spent the last year going around the country encouraging people that if they see something, say something. This report shows that we now have staff that feel they can speak up when they see something’s going wrong, and we can finally deal with the problem.

Does she agree with the Independent Children’s Monitor, who is reported as saying that recent internal restructuring of Oranga Tamariki had pulled focus away from front-line work while scarce resources were even harder to secure following the changes to the commissioning and contracting, and, if not, why not?

Look, change is always hard, but what I can tell you, going up and down the country since becoming Minister, is that the culture and the way staff are dealing with our young people is showing a real, positive turn-around. This has been an issue for a very long time. This is a four-year report; I’m responsible for this year that has come by. I’m not happy with that report, and I am making sure that we do better in the future.

Point of order, Mr Speaker. She didn’t answer my question about whether she agreed with the monitor or not.

Well, I think she did by saying that she was responsible for one year of the four, and that she was doing her best to improve on the matters raised. I think that certainly addresses the question.

to the Minister of Education

Is she confident that her actions will improve education achievement for all rangatahi?

I am absolutely confident in that, and I stand by my actions to build a world-class, leading education system that delivers excellent and equitable outcomes for every child, including tamariki Māori. Right now, this term, every child learning in te reo Māori has access to high-quality, nationally consistent structured maths books benefiting 27,000 ākonga across the country. We’ve refreshed Te Marautanga o Aotearoa to be knowledge-rich year by year in te reo Māori. We’ve launched a structured programme to teach reading, writing, and speaking in te reo. We’ve developed purpose-built phonics check tools to monitor student progression in te reo. We’re delivering free decodable books that we have created in te reo Māori. We’re progressing my Māori education action plan, and I’ve established my Māori education advisory group.

Does she stand by her new NCEA reading, writing, and maths tests when these tests are failing students in low-income schools and principals at these schools have warned that these changes will create a generation of school leavers with no qualifications, most of whom will be Māori or Pasifika?

Those assessments—literacy and numeracy assessments—are not failing the students. The students are failing the assessments, and it is upon this Government to make sure that every single one of those students gets the assistance that they need to get a base level of literacy and numeracy so that they can live the life that they want. If we don’t do that, we are pushing the problem down the road, and we all know what happens to young rangatahi who do not have good literacy and numeracy. This Government will not stand by and let that happen.

Does she agree with New Zealand Educational Institute President Ripika Lessels that “The evidence shows tamariki Māori succeed best in Kaupapa Māori Kura where te reo me ngā tikanga is supported. Resource teachers of Māori play a key role in supporting teachers and children in these schools.”?

I agree that children should have choice. There are many families who would like to send their children to a kura kaupapa and there are many families who would like to send their children to an English-medium school. The purpose of this Government and the drive that I have is to make sure that, no matter where tamariki Māori end up, they have an excellent education and equitable outcomes.

What message is the Government sending to young Māori when they stress the importance of literacy, on the one hand, while considering defunding expert teachers who support literacy and te reo Māori, on the other?

Well, we are out for consultation around a role, the resource teacher (RT) Māori role. The reason that we’re out for consultation is that there have been multiple evaluations that have said that this particular service delivery model is inequitable and is not optimised. I’ll give you one example of that. In Southland, there are five RTs Māori; in Northland, there are only three. Yet rangatahi Māori predominantly are in Northland, in far greater numbers than in Southland. That is the reason why we need to take a look at this resource and work out exactly how we can optimise it so more young people have access to that specialist help.

to the Minister of Health

Does he stand by his statement, “my focus is and always will be on improving patient outcomes. Patients will be my number one priority”, and what is the role of health workers in achieving those outcomes for patients?

Yes, I stand by my statement in the context it was made. My focus is and always will be on patients and improving patient outcomes. That’s why we are refocusing the healthcare system on delivering access to timely, quality healthcare for all New Zealanders through our Government’s health targets. Our Government knows that front-line health workers are critical in delivering these services. That’s why our front-line workforce—Health New Zealand—is the largest and strongest it has ever been, with over 2,000 more nurses employed at Health New Zealand since 2023, earning, on average, a salary of $125,000, comparable now with nurses in New South Wales. On this side of the House, we are unashamed that it is the patients who will always be at the heart of every decision we make, and it is the healthcare workers who are critical to delivering those services.

Does he agree with Christopher Luxon, who said, with respect to nurses, “Whether they’re in aged care, whether they’re at GP community practices, or in the DHB-equivalent system they should be paid the same”, or Simeon Brown, who said nursing wages are “not my job”?

Look, I agree with the Prime Minister, and the quote that was taken out of context by The Post this morning was in regards to contractual negotiations between doctor clinics and their staff. That was a quote taken out of context, but I absolutely agree with the need to make sure that there is pay parity between nurses working in our hospitals and in our primary care areas. Ultimately, we know it will take time to deliver that, but that’s why we’re focusing back on primary care, which was something the last Government didn’t.

Are the dietitians, the mental health nurses, the pharmacists, and the public health nurses represented by the Public Service Association (PSA) “bureaucrats”?

Well, I’m very happy to talk about the PSA union, led by a failed Labour Party candidate who couldn’t even win her seat, and ultimately the union’s doing what the union does: when the National Party’s in Government, they attack the Government. That’s what they’re doing, and I completely get what they’re trying to do, but, ultimately, my focus is on the patients and getting better outcomes for them. That’s what this Government is unashamedly focused on.

Why did he attack Fleur Fitzsimons rather than respond to the contents of the PSA report; couldn’t he be the bigger man, at least metaphorically? [Interruption]

I think you just turned it into a free-for-all.

Look, I’m open to the low blow from time to time, but what I would say is that this Government is focused on patients. They’re focused on the unions. They got rid of the health targets, they ran down our health system, they restructured it during the pandemic, and they forgot about the patients. We will stand on the side of the patients while they stand on the side of unions—and shame on them. [Interruption]

Hold on for a minute. OK.

Why, if he’s so committed to patient outcomes, won’t he respond seriously to a report that documents delays in rehab for stroke patients, malnourished cancer patients, and untreated babies left with cleft palates because of his Government’s cuts?

Well, if she’s talking about the PSA union’s report, which she’s talking about again, well, I’ll tell you what: the PSA union member, who is clearly leading that organisation, who failed to win her seat—

No—hang on, no.

Clearly, all she’s trying to do is get a high list ranking at the next election.

I think we’ll have an answer to the question, rather than a political statement. Nothing further to say?

Can she repeat the question?

Repeat the question, then—without the end barb, might be a good idea.

Why, if he’s so committed to patient outcomes, won’t he respond seriously to a report that documents delays in rehab for stroke patients, malnourished cancer patients, and untreated babies left with cleft palates?

Well, I acknowledge that there is a need for greater investment in our health system, and I’m proud of the investment this Government has made. We have increased health funding by $16.68 billion over three Budgets. We are focusing the system back on front-line service delivery. That is the focus this Government is bringing in putting the patients back at the heart, not the bureaucratic change which the last Government was focused on.

Will he take up the invitation posed by professionals struggling with the hiring freeze in Health New Zealand: “We’d love someone to come to our team meeting and explain why we do not have approval to advertise for the current vacancies we are holding.”, and, if not, does he worry that he is out of touch with the reality of healthcare in New Zealand?

Well, there are hundreds of jobs advertised at Health New Zealand, currently online and available for people to put their names forward. There is no such thing as a hiring freeze. We are focused on front-line service delivery. As I said in my primary answer, we have the largest healthcare workforce ever in New Zealand. We have over 2,000 more nurses employed, under this Government, in Health New Zealand. We are focusing back on the delivery of services for New Zealanders, and those members should look in the mirror. When they got rid of the health targets, they saw the outcomes reduced for patients, and then they decided to restructure during a pandemic—shame on them.

Can the Minister confirm that the survey that the Opposition member keeps referring to as gospel was actually sent to more than 24,000 union members, and yet only 1,287 chose to reply, meaning it only had a 5.3 percent response rate from its own members?

Well, that is 100 percent correct, and what I’d say to the PSA union is to start focusing on the patients rather than just trying to get a high Labour Party list spot at the next election.

No, no, that last part—it’s a bit of a shame when you make the point, and then lose it with that sort of stuff.

to the Minister of Police

What recent announcements has he made about Police’s work to tackle gangs?

Last week, the Minister of Justice, and I, announced that police have done outstanding work in enforcing the Gangs Act, laying charges and seizing insignia. The Gangs Act has proven to be an enabling piece of legislation as well, providing a vehicle for police to cause further disruption to gangs through a raft of other changes, including firearms. Contrary to all the commentary prior to the implementation of the legislation, compliance has been high, and it is obvious to the public that our police are controlling the streets again, not the gangs.

How many charges have police laid under the Gangs Act?

As of yesterday, police have laid 385 charges under the Gangs Act 2024, and 3,546 other charges overall against individuals on the National Gang List. This Government is committed to giving police the tools they need to significantly disrupt gangs.

How many patch and firearm seizures have been made?

As at 19 February, police have seized 76 patches and 67 firearms from gang members since the new legislation came into force. It has proven to be a valuable tool for police to find further evidence of offending and lay more charges.

What recent examples of great work and tackling gangs can he share?

On Tuesday, 14 January, Napier police executed a search warrant and found a loaded firearm, ammunition, cannabis, methamphetamine, and $3,900 in cash, laying multiple charges. In the Central Hawke’s Bay, on 30 January, police arrested an Outlaws gang member and seized three firearms, including a fully loaded pistol, which was in the same bag as a quantity of methamphetamine. I want to thank all our police, who are doing an outstanding job in cracking down on gangs and organised crime.

to the Associate Minister of Justice

How are firearms prohibition orders intended to make New Zealand safer?

Last year, Parliament passed the Firearms Prohibition Orders Legislation Amendment Act to keep firearms out of the hands of gang members and other high-risk offenders. Last Sunday, that legislation came into force. This means police have more powers to search individuals subject to a firearms prohibition order, along with their vehicles and premises, to ensure that they are not in possession of firearms.

How will improvements to firearms prohibition orders ensure future offenders can’t access firearms?

Previously, firearms prohibition orders were limited to offenders convicted of specific violent offences like murder, serious assault, sexual violence, and aggravated robbery. I have expanded the qualifying criteria, allowing firearms prohibition orders to be issued to gang members and criminals convicted of drug, firearms, and other violent offences. This means senior gang members can no longer avoid firearms prohibition orders by having their prospects commit offences on their behalf.

What will improved police search powers mean for offenders subject to firearms prohibition orders now that the new regime is in force?

Police now have the power to search gang members and serious offenders subject to a firearms prohibition order at any time. They do not need to suspect they’re breaching their firearms prohibition order or that they are committing any other offence. Firearms prohibition orders are only effective if police have the power to enforce them, and I have made sure that they do. Criminals are now on notice. Illegal firearms possession will not be tolerated, and they will be held accountable for their actions.

What does the improved firearms prohibition orders regime mean for this Government’s commitment to restoring law and order?

I’m delivering on this Government’s commitment to crack down on crime and restore law and order. Last year, reported violent crime dropped for the first time since 2018. With these improved firearms prohibition orders now in force, I am confident this downward trend in violent crime will continue, making our communities safer, and ensuring criminals are held to account.

to the Minister of Justice

Does he stand by his statements and actions in respect of extended powers of arrest and detention for ordinary citizens?

Yes, in the context in which they were given. I particularly stand by my statement yesterday that “New Zealanders are fed up with the level of retail crime that they are experiencing in our communities. That’s why this Government has considered proposals to change the rules, because if you want to have a different outcome, sometimes you have to change things, and that is what we’re proposing.”

Did he consider the opinion of Hospitality New Zealand, who told the Ministerial Advisory Group for Victims of Retail Crime that Hospitality New Zealand would consider it a significant health and safety risk to both staff and customers if we start advocating for stronger detaining abilities, before he announced extended powers of citizen’s arrest?

Yes. I mean, I think the member is pointing to the fact that there is a widespread variety of views on this matter, but the point I would make is that, in the hospitality context, we have laws in place after 9 p.m. where a citizen’s arrest can be conducted, but before 9 p.m. it can’t be, and so, fundamentally, it’s about trying to rectify that situation. Of course, no hospitality worker is obliged to do anything by these proposals; it is an option that is available and can be used if the circumstances are appropriate.

Why did he announce proposals for extended powers for citizen’s arrest when the only written submissions to Sunny Kaushal’s Ministerial Advisory Group for Victims of Retail Crime that clearly supported increased powers of arrest for ordinary citizens was the submission of Sunny Kaushal in the name of the Dairy and Business Owners Group?

Why? Well, because we believe it’s a good policy. The ministerial advisory group led by Sunny Kaushal has a variety of people in it, and they all have their different views. We fully expect that they will come up with proposals which are bold and which may well be pushing the boat out, but we need to experiment and come up with different approaches, otherwise we’re going to have the same outcome. I think all New Zealanders are fed up with the level of retail crime that they’re seeing in our communities. We’ve had a very significant increase over the past few years, and if the member wants to argue for the current arrangements being perfect and everything being fine, well that’s up to him, but I think we need to do something different.

Did he or his ministerial advisory group for victims of retail crime consult with the Police Association, whose president, Chris Cahill, said, “The idea that the public can do this safely is just putting them at risk that isn’t necessary.” before he announced his powers of citizen’s arrest?

Well, I’d be interested as to how the Police Association consider it is OK at 9.05 p.m. to do something and not OK at 8.55 p.m. to do something. Anyway, that’s part of the ongoing discussion, and this legislation, when it’s introduced, will come into the House. We are sure that we’ll get a wide variety of views in the select committee process, but this is a Government that is prepared to do different things to get different outcomes, and we’re not satisfied with the situation on our streets right now. We’re not satisfied with the level of retail crime. This is one of many things that we’re considering in order to improve the situation, alongside bringing in real consequences for crime with our sentencing regime, the return of three strikes, and many other things, such as giving the police extra powers to deal with organised crime.

Is it the fact that he or his ministerial advisory group consulted with Destiny Church leader Brian Tamaki, who suggested his thugs, who have disrupted lawful activities, will use power of arrest and detention when he said, “How Excited i am That MAN UP Is about to Recieve Increased Powers to Police.. Where Law and Order has Failed”, and is he concerned that new citizen’s arrest powers may be misused by such malicious actors?

Well, I did think it was a cheap shot by the New Zealand Herald to refer to Destiny being in support of this proposal. Nobody asked Destiny. Nobody is particularly concerned in the views of the Destiny Church on this matter, and we certainly don’t make our decisions as to whether to progress law and order policies based on the opinions of the good bishop, and I’d encourage that member not to pay too much attention to his views either.

Is he concerned that Sunny Kaushal, the chair of the ministerial advisory group, had a deep and significant conflict of interest when he, essentially, made a submission to himself when he submitted in his capacity as chair of the Dairy and Business Owners Group and then largely adopted the recommendations he had made to himself?

Well, of course, we did appoint Sunny Kaushal because of his wide-ranging experience on the front line, dealing particularly with the dairy owners who have to deal with a horrendous level of abuse and violence in our communities. We have thoughts very much in mind, particularly for husband and wife teams working very hard in the small retail sector, trying to make a living, often coming from other countries, trying to settle in New Zealand and make a living and struggling with the level of violent and ongoing retail crime. We want to offer them solutions rather than just continuing on with the same approach that we’ve had for such a long time.

Can I ask the Minister as to whether or not he’s seeking cross-party support to promote shoppers, not robbers—why are we being naive?

I would like to extend the opportunity for the other members of this House to reach across the divide and approach this in a bipartisan manner, because I think all New Zealanders and all members of this Parliament should be focused on improving the situation that people experience in our community and to restore law and order in this country.

I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business.

Last week, the Government’s slogan was “Everyone must go.” Andrew Bayly finally got the memo and went. But this week, they’ve changed their slogan, and it seems to be “Let them eat Marmite”, because this is a Government that have absolutely trashed the school lunches programme. They seem to think that kids should settle for lunches with burnt plastic in them, lunches that are barely edible, lunches that don’t show up at all, halal lunches with ham in them. Then they think that laying off local workers and cutting funding contracts from local businesses to give contracts to multinational corporations who fail to meet their performance measures is a better way to go.

School lunches are an investment in our future. Kids going to school hungry won’t be focused on their learning, and this Government—instead of fixing the mess they’ve made of school lunches—this week, has decided to attack parents, instead. They’ve chosen, instead, to say that the kids who are receiving lunch at school are receiving it because their parents simply are irresponsible. How out of touch with working New Zealand families can this Government get? Half the kids in New Zealand who live below the poverty line have working parents. How out of touch for this Government to simply say, “Well, those families should just front up with the lunches.”

The Government here does not understand how hard it is for working New Zealand families. They also don’t understand the consequences of their own decisions. This was a Government that decided to increase the minimum wage by less than the rate of inflation. For those working families that are now being attacked, their incomes have gone backwards because of decisions that this Government took.

Then, having attacked kids, having attacked low-income working families, the Government then turned their attention to vigilante justice. Having said, when they were in Opposition, that they didn’t want to see a system of vigilante justice emerge in New Zealand, they have now embraced it and they want to make it the law. Interestingly, no one in this Government really wants to talk about that any more. Mark Mitchell certainly doesn’t want to talk about it. The Prime Minister certainly doesn’t want to talk about it; only poor old Goldsmith. He’s the only one who actually is willing to talk about that policy—and then he has to admit that he’s absolutely messed it up because the only person who actually argued in favour of this particular change was Sunny Kaushal when he was submitting to the review, led by Sunny Kushal.

Nobody else thinks this is a good idea. There’s been overwhelming opposition to it from the very people this Government seems to think they’re going to be supporting—shopkeepers saying that they feel this law change is going to make them less safe, not more safe—and yet the Government ploughs on ahead, completely oblivious to the opposition. It would be like Christopher Luxon saying, when at Air New Zealand, “We’re a bit short of pilots, let’s just let the public fly the planes.” I don’t think it’s going to work and I think New Zealanders can see that it’s going to make them less safe.

Then of course we had the complete debacle—the train wreck, you might say—of the interisland ferries and Nicola Willis’ decision to cancel them despite the fact that it’s going to cost New Zealanders more, and Kiwis are going to end up paying more to get less. We have the bizarre situation, now, where the Government’s conducting parallel negotiations with Hyundai, or they’ve got a negotiation to cancel the ferries, on one hand, and then another negotiation to build some other ferries, on the other hand. It is beyond farcical.

But it gets worse, because then we’ve got the situation with Richard Prebble and the Waitangi Tribunal. Turns out Richard Prebble didn’t read any of the reports of the Waitangi Tribunal until he joined it, and then he read a couple of them and says, “Oh, I don’t think I like it. I don’t think I agree with this organisation that I have signed up to be part of.”

Clearly, he hadn’t been thinking.

He clearly hadn’t been thinking. Well, Richard Prebble’s written two books—I’ve Been Thinking; I’ve Been Writing—and all he demonstrated was he can’t do both at the same time. But, clearly, this Government didn’t do their due diligence and homework when they appointed Richard Prebble to that job.

What they have shown this week is they’re not focused on what matters to Kiwis. They’re not focused on the rising cost of living, rates going up, electricity bills going up. They still haven’t taken real action on supermarkets, they’re not fixing the health system as it descends further into crisis, more Kiwis are losing their jobs, and house building has collapsed. That’s what they’re focused on—well, that’s what they should be focused on. Instead, they’re focused on all the wrong things.

Well, what an interesting speech there from the Opposition. The problem is there weren’t many very interested people standing behind him, the most bored people on Planet Earth, sitting in the Labour Party backbenches, as he had his little moan for the week about the things that he’s been watching on Twitter—you know, moan about this and moan about that. Well, that was an interesting little moan from the Leader of the Opposition. While they’re moaning, we’re doing. We’re getting things done. We’re actually getting things done for New Zealanders. We’re focused on the issues that matter and we’re delivering for New Zealanders.

What an interesting question from the Labour Party’s health spokesperson today, asking whether or not I stood by a statement that I believe that patients should be put first in our health system. What’s the health system there for?

Patients.

Patients—patients. It’s like that Yes, Minister film, isn’t it? Where there’s an empty hospital, no patients, and everything was running smoothly and no one was complaining. Well, we’re actually focused on the patients. That’s what we’re focused on, and while “Yes, Minister, Ayesha Verrall” on the other side is chirping away, actually we’re focused on putting patients first in our health system.

Actually, that question says everything about what the Labour Party actually thinks. They think unions come first when it comes to our health system. They think, actually, it’s the unions which matter first, because what were all the supplementaries about? Unions, unions, unions—nothing about the patients. We are focused on the patients and that is exactly what we’re doing.

This week, it’s been a pleasure to be talking about healthcare and the things that this Government is doing and putting the focus back on primary healthcare and the important—critically important—role that primary healthcare plays in our community. Of course, it’s all part of this Government’s record investment in healthcare—record investment—$16.68 billion more put into our health system over three years; $16.68 billion put into our health system.

That is a record investment. There are more front-line workers in our health system. There are thousands more nurses being employed at Health New Zealand. We are focused on front-line service delivery. That is our priority. Of course, what was the last Government focused on? Bureaucracy?

Themselves.

Restructuring? Themselves, yes, absolutely, Judith Collins—themselves. They were focused on themselves rather than on the patients. What did they decide to do? Get rid of the health targets, which actually were about demonstrating whether or not the system was actually working for Kiwis. They decided then to restructure the entire system during a pandemic.

During COVID!

During COVID, the worst time to restructure. And, of course, outcomes went down. Emergency department wait times increased, wait times for elective operations increased, everything went back. Immunisations for our children went backwards—appalling—and it became harder to get a GP appointment. We are fixing those issues and addressing those issues by putting the focus back on the patients.

What a great week it’s been to be able to talk about some of the new announcements this Government is doing: increasing funding for general practice—our doctors on the front line serving thousands. Over 50,000 people see their GP every single day—50,000 people see their GP every day. We are putting the focus back on our general practice practitioners.

We’re investing in making sure we have more doctors: 100 doctor training spaces for internationally trained doctors who are living here in New Zealand unable to work in general practice because there are no training spaces. We are fixing that and making sure they’ve got training spaces. We are increasing the number of doctor training spaces at our universities. Over the course of this Government, 100 more doctors are being trained every year in our universities. That is real results for Kiwis. Also, our nurses: we’re going to be making sure that we can help support general practice to take nurses straight into general practice through incentivising them at $15,000 in urban areas and $20,000 in rural communities.

More investment and particularly for our regions: there’s a deliberate decision here to help support our regions, because we know how important our healthcare is in our regions—a 24/7 digital service so that wherever you are, any day, anytime you’ll be able to access a doctor or a nurse practitioner. This is about making sure there are choices and more access available for Kiwis to access those services.

So, look, we’re focused on delivery. We’re focused on those services that actually matter to New Zealanders. If we invest in primary healthcare, if we invest in our GPs, our doctors, and our nurses on the front line, we know we can reduce the cost on our health system, we know we can keep people out of our emergency departments, we can help make sure we look after the health of New Zealanders far, far better. We are delivering the results for New Zealanders and we’re getting health back on track.

I stand on behalf of 14,000 New Zealanders who signed a petition coordinated by the Endangered Species Foundation against sand mining in Ruakākā Bream Bay, Whangārei. These 14,000 voices stand opposed to the fast track in our rohe, and I’m really clear after hearing from community, from hapū and iwi, that it can’t happen. We’ve done too much in our rohe already with the impact of development that we need to see taiao at the centre of what we do within our communities in terms of environmental planning, business, and development.

The voices of 14,000 New Zealanders all stand united saying no to the fast track in Whangārei, no to sand mining in Bream Bay.

The conversation that’s going on there, take it outside. It’s too loud.

Must be Matua Willie. Thank you. Kia ora. I’ll get back to it. Thanks, Matua Willie, for your support on behalf of our community and Whangārei, because we don’t want to see McCallum Brothers in their fast track coming into Whangārei, to Bream Bay. It’s a significant issue for our community after they have already been sent packing from Pākiri. We have to learn from our communities and what the impact has been in Pākiri and now sending them north into the Whangārei rohe.

You can’t build houses without sand.

No. There are other options in terms of what we can do to provide concrete into our community. There are land-based options that exist already. The issue is that we’re going to see legislation in place that will shut out the community. It will shut out hapū and iwi. In particular, in southern Whangārei, we’ve got six projects coming—six projects, and more to come, because the fast track is the issue. You’re opening it up for big business. You’re saying nau mai, Northport. You’re saying nau mai, dry dock.

We’ve got 14,000 community members from hapū, iwi, and residents and ratepayers, who are saying, “No, not in my backyard, because sand mining is going to affect our ākau. That’s our coastline.” I invite you to come up and face our community and say, “It’s good for you. It’s only going to impact your taiao. It’s only going to impact the pātaka kai. You won’t be able to go fishing or have your mokopuna swim in the moana.” I can tell you after being in Pākiri and hearing and listening in the Environment Court to the local haukāinga who said, “No more. No more.”—hapū, marae, community stood together and said, “No more McCallum Brothers.” But no, no, the fast track’s opening up the door for more. Because what is it? The fast track to destruction. That’s what this Government’s opening up the door for our people in Whangārei.

We’re going to roll out with the big flotilla on 16 March and get those boats in the water. They’re going to go out large and say, “No, not in our backyard. Not in our moana. Not in the takutai moana o te ākau ki Paepaeroa [the foreshore of the coast at Paepaeroa]. No, absolutely. We don’t want to see sand mining.” In fact, we have to think about our tomorrow. That’s one of the issues: that we’re only worried about today and how much concrete we can supply into community—

Oh, there’s a novel idea, concrete.

—or into business—no, no, no, no, no. No, this is about our tomorrow. Where is our thinking for the taiao, and where is the thinking for our mokopuna who will inherit the decisions of today?

When we think about our sand birds, te tara iti, do you know how many tara iti we have? Oh, like 14. That’s how few we have in New Zealand, and we have members in this House that are in Mahurangi. You know. We have endangered species on our ākau who will be impacted by sand mining. That’s what happened, and that’s what we heard in Pākiri, and that’s what you’re going to bring into our communities of Whangārei with McCallum Brothers being unleashed for 35 years: 9 million cubic metres to be taken from our ākau. That will change our moana, that will change the pātaka kai, and that will impact on the taiao and our community.

I pause because I think it’s really important for us to think about, “Well, what if it came into our backyard?” What if it came into your coastal communities? What would you say then? You wouldn’t be happy, because it’s going to impact on the way that you can harvest, you can swim, and actually, are our jobs going to really grow from McCallum Brothers coming into our community, or are they going to be importing kaimahi from Auckland? Is it really going to grow employment opportunities for us or are they going to import from other communities and bring them into Whangārei and take from our takutai moana?

These are issues that are serious for our community, and the 14,000 voices that supported this petition say no. We will go out on the boats on 16 March, and we will have a flotilla. You will see our people on waka, on boats out there saying, “No, not in our takutai.” Whangārei Harbour is too beautiful to see sand mining and dredging for 35 years, six days a week, 9 million cubic metres of Te Ākauroa taken. Kia ora.

How good is health Minister Simeon Brown? How good is our health Minister? More doctors, more nurses, quicker access to primary care—that is a health Minister who’s laser focused on responding to the needs of many Kiwis; they’ve called for better healthcare and that’s what this Government is responding to.

I must say, I’m also very envious of the health Minister, Simeon Brown, because he got to, in this general debate, talk about being questioned by the Labour Party health spokesperson. I’m very envious because I never get questioned by any of the Opposition mental health spokespeople. You would have thought, in the past 18 months of this Government, they’d bother to get on their legs and ask a question about mental health, but very rarely they get up and ask questions, and I wonder why mental health is not a priority for them any more.

I tell you what, under this Government, we’re laser focused on mental health: we’re reducing waiting times, training more mental health workers, and investing more in prevention and early intervention. Unlike the last Government, who came in and cancelled all the health targets—because, let’s be clear, they didn’t want to be held to account for the wrecking ball they took to the health system in the middle of a pandemic.

Not only have we brought back health targets but for the first time in New Zealand, we’ve brought in mental health targets to hold us to account, as a Government, on delivering better mental health. Three targets on access: those who want primary mental health services, to be seen in one week; for specialist mental health services, to be seen in three weeks; accessing emergency departments (EDs) within six hours, that will deliver timely access to mental health support; for mental health workers, to train 500 mental health workers a year; and to invest 25 percent of the $2.6 billion we spend every year on mental health and addiction, into prevention and early intervention. We’ll be reporting on those access targets, not only nationally but also in the four regions—the regionalisation of the new health system.

Unlike the last Government, that wanted to centralise everything under their failed socialist experiment, we know Wellington doesn’t know best. We’re pushing out the decision making closer to the front line, but we’re also reporting those access targets to the 20 district levels, so every person in their district will know how they benchmark themselves in those access targets of one week for primary mental health, three weeks for specialist, and six hours for ED.

We’re also committed to training 500 mental health professionals. We published the first mental health workforce plan. It beggars belief—the Auditor-General was scathing of the last Government for not having a mental health workforce plan. We published that in our first year: increasing psychiatry registrar places by 50 percent; doubling the number of clinical psychology interns by 100 percent; a new registration—next year, associate psychology students will be turning up in our universities, and in 2027, they’ll be entering the workforce; a new registration. But what I’m most proud about is a quiet revolution: the peer support lived experience workers. We’ve announced a $1 million fund that will train 100 new peer support workers to go out and provide lived experience peer support work.

We came into Government saying we’ll get more money out of Wellington to the front line. That’s what we’ve had with the Mental Health and Addiction Community Sector Innovation Fund—already six announcements; we’ve given more money to the Mental Health Foundation, to Youthline, and to Sir John Kirwan’s school mental health education programme. Yesterday, I announced money for the Wellington City Mission to scale up their Crisis Café with peer support workers. That’s what we said we’d do. The other side of the House left money sitting in the bureaucracy of Wellington; we got the money out to the front line, to the grassroots—they know best, and they’re responding and we’re backing them.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Well, what a shameful day for this Government and for—

You always say that.

—I always say that because it’s true—the Minister for Māori Development, Tama Potaka, when we hear of the resignation of Richard Prebble from the Waitangi Tribunal.

Richard Prebble, apparently, can’t read the fine print before he goes on to the tribunal. It’s a shameful, shameful stunt from Mr Prebble in terms of promoting the filthy, rotten Treaty principles bill. That’s what’s driving this. It’s an embarrassment for the Minister for Māori Development and it’s an embarrassment for this Government that they were tricked into appointing someone who has used the Treaty principles bill as his stage to support that filthy bill and, of course, the ACT Party.

Getting tricked by David Seymour into allowing this appointment was so opportunistic that it is something that we should never forget. How many times—the question is—will the National Party allow the ACT Party to ankle tap them and play them for fools? Is Erica Stanford still waiting in the office for David Seymour to explain the terrible garbage he’s feeding the kids? Is the Prime Minister still doing nothing to hold David Seymour to account? Why has David Seymour been allowed to play Minister Potaka like this?

The resignation by Prebble is just another shameful, bad-faith political stunt designed to cause racial-baiting divisiveness. Whether he was on it or not, Prebble was always going to cause a scene to further the embittered, anti-Treaty agenda of the ACT Party. David Seymour applauded Prebble’s appointment when it happened last year. He applauded it and he thought it was wonderful, but he tricked the Minister for Māori Development into appointing this member. I’m sure he did, because it’s the same bad-faith argument from Prebble that we see with the Treaty principles bill and the same bad-faith argument that we see with school lunches. Everything ACT touches is bad faith.

Prebble has quit the Waitangi Tribunal because, apparently, the tribunal has turned the Treaty into a socialist manifesto—a socialist manifesto. If only—if only! Prebble has detonated this self-sabotaging stunt so he can smear the tribunal with the two words ACT Party supporters get most frightened by: “socialist” and “manifesto”. We all know Prebble’s background. We know his background, and it’s the same background as ACT. He was the leader of Rogernomics, he oversaw mass privatisation, and he helped create and then lead the ACT Party, and so everything to the left of Caligula is considered a socialist manifesto.

Minister Potaka has been tricked into appointing a right-wing agent provocateur to cause an embarrassing stunt to smear the tribunal, and, sadly, Minister Potaka fell for it. I warned him. I told him it was a mistake that Prebble had talked about the tribunal being racist and apartheid. I tried to help Tama Potaka, but he wouldn’t listen. This stunt smells as bad as ACT’s school lunches and is a waste of time to undermine this Parliament’s important work. We hear rumours that the numbers are being taken on the Prime Minister, and, hopefully, whoever the National Party’s next leader is will rein in the ACT Party from their embarrassing acts—particularly this one, in terms of Richard Prebble.

I want to finish by clearly advocating our support for the tribunal and their chair, Caren Fox, who has been a tremendous advocate, and who has put out a statement today. We’re in the 50th year, in terms of their celebration, and I want to compliment them for what they’ve done in terms of this nation. It’s been magnificent—they’ve changed the conscience of this country.

I want to congratulate them and also put this to people today: who would you believe with regard to tino rangatiratanga? Richard Prebble or my uncle Moana Jackson, who said that we would never give away our independence? Eighty thousand Māori giving away their tino rangatiratanga to 2,000 settlers—come on! He said that that “flies in the face of … human history, let alone … Māori history, where the notion giving away the authority to make independent decisions is not just culturally inconceivable; it was”—

Mr Speaker.

When you’re called.

—“politically impossible.” I know who I would believe.

Just be aware that it’s the Chair that runs the debate, not the floor.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. The ACT Party doesn’t need to be reined in, because we’re a constructive part of this Government. I want to just reflect on what the health Minister, the Hon Simeon Brown, said today: patients must be at the forefront of everything we’re doing in health. In ACT, we totally agree with that. I really want to congratulate the Minister on some of the announcements this week he’s made around health and the timely and quality healthcare for New Zealanders he is trying to deliver, with the uplift in funding for GPs and the real focus on that primary practice, more places in medical schools, and, of course, supporting our very important nursing community.

What I want to talk about today is what the consequences are when you actually do decide to divide New Zealanders by their ethnicity and actually decide that there are different rights and privileges based on ethnicity. What I’m talking about specifically is the health regulatory bodies in this country who are using the Treaty to justify their ideology ahead of patient wellbeing and valid science. That is extremely concerning to me. These bodies have decided how they are going to treat New Zealanders. It will be based on ethnicity—Māori versus non-Māori—and that is just not good enough.

First, we have the Nursing Council of New Zealand. Now, they put out some standards of competency last year. There’s two of them, depending on whether you’re a registered nurse or an enrolled nurse. They have either six or four standards of competency, but the first two competencies are entirely related to ethnicity and the Treaty. Before you even get to patient care, how you actually should be looking after your patients is entirely based on ethnicity.

Some of the nurses have told me—they’ve come to me directly and said—they are not looking at staying in nursing because of these competencies. It’s requiring them to know te reo, tikanga, describe the impact of colonisation, and actually advocate for culture and spiritual health. Now, look, I don’t think that’s actually what nurses should be focused on. We actually think of nurses as having the right skills to treat the patients in front of them and actually having a big heart, and now these bodies are requiring nurses to have the right and correct views on the Treaty.

Then we’ve got my other favourite, the Chinese Medicine Council. This was set up in 2021 by Labour, and it’s to regulate the Chinese medicine providers here in New Zealand. Now, this council requires Chinese medicine practitioners to honour the Treaty as tangata whenua, challenge the biases of their colleagues, and enact the principles of the Treaty and involve bicultural principles. Well, bicultural principles—which culture are we talking about here? Chinese culture? Māori culture? I mean, really, this is crazy stuff. It’s absolutely absurd.

Then we’ve got the psychologists. The New Zealand Psychologists Board—now, I actually was a representative. Some psychologists came to me late last year very concerned about this. They were so concerned that their voice would be shouted down and they wouldn’t be listened to. They actually couldn’t write directly to their own professional board, so I took up their case and actually wrote to them in September of last year—a very reasonable letter outlining their concerns—and said, “Look, actually, some of your members have got concerns and we just would like you to reopen consultation, have it open longer, actually do something.”

They just acknowledged my letter and just pushed on. They didn’t actually listen to their members. What that tells me is we’ve got a professional body—this is the New Zealand Psychologists Board—who are actually not providing a safe board for their members or a safe council for their members to actually have their views. That is very, very concerning.

I will go on. We’ve got the Midwifery Council, who have embedded principles of self-determination, equality, and partnership. Again, luckily Minister Brown is actually looking for some new appointments.

I wonder if either of them has actually ever had a baby—I’m just wondering.

Just wondering—yeah, worried about the Treaty, then.

I mean I can tell you—you don’t really care about that; you just want to get it out.

No. Then the Pharmacy Council—again, pharmacists need to embed the Treaty in everything they do, which is very, very concerning. But we have some good news—we have some good news. Minister Seymour is getting some new pharmacists.

What I’ve got to say is, we’ve got to stop this woke madness. Kiwis engaging in our health system deserve confidence that they are being treated foremost as humans with individual needs and that their needs will be met on valid science. That’s what they’re wanting. I would ask parties to support the Treaty principles bill because it actually stops this divide by race.

Excellent, thank you, Mr Speaker. It is a great honour to rise in this general debate, and we’re going to be talking about health. We had a previous speaker that said, “How good is the Minister of Health?” I think everybody agrees we have a great Minister of Health, but I also want to say: how great is our Minister for Mental Health, the very first mental health Minister, getting the money out of Wellington and getting it to the front line?

I’ll give you a big cuddle.

Excellent, brilliant—I’m even going to get a big cuddle from him later. That’s great.

Anyway, we are in the middle of a big turnaround job. We are putting more money than ever into our healthcare system. The other side will say it’s cuts. They don’t understand that $16 billion extra is actually a boost; it is not a cut. This is extra money above inflation and above population growth, because we are turning around this healthcare system.

Last year, in the Health Committee, which I am the deputy chair of, we heard that the combined DHBs have a lower output than the individual DHBs. That is surely a sign of a complete failure of a reform when that actually happens. But don’t worry: we are going to fix that. We are driving a patient-centred healthcare system, and I do want to acknowledge the great work that the healthcare professionals do in delivering that. I’ve had a number of constituents over the last week in our recess who have come to me and explained how great the treatment is that they have had at the Christchurch Hospital, including a lady called Margaret, who had a pacemaker put in in under 48 hours.

Of course, we’ve reintroduced healthcare targets because we actually want outcomes from our healthcare system, and those outcomes are better health for all New Zealanders. These include faster cancer treatment, so 90 percent of patients will receive cancer treatment within 30 days of the decision to treat. We want improved immunisation for our children. We want 95 percent of our children fully immunised by 24 months of age. We want shorter stays in the emergency department (ED). We want 95 percent of patients to be either admitted to, discharged from, or transferred from ED within six hours. We want a shorter wait time for first specialist appointments, and we want shorter wait times for elective treatments.

Now, who would actually put our healthcare system through a reform during a pandemic? Probably those people that are shouting at me right now, but we are going to make sure we get better outcomes. Data shows we’ve already put the brakes on the decline that the other side drove through their reform. It does bring to mind a saying: if you don’t have a goal, you’ll spend your time running up and down the field and you’ll never score. Probably quite apt for the other side—they’ve never scored. Anyway, we have seen reduction in the time for cancer treatment; we’ve seen the increase in time as people move through the ED, but I’m not standing up here claiming that we’ve cleaned up all the mess that was left to us.

I want to change tack a little bit. I appreciate I only have limited time this afternoon to run through all the boosts that we have made to our healthcare system, whether that be in primary healthcare—we’ve already heard about that—whether it’s the boost that we’ve done with mental healthcare, including training more workforce and actually having a workforce plan—absolutely amazing that the previous Government didn’t do that—or our boost to Pharmac, that has led to up to 26 more cancer treatments, or our work to modernise our Gene Technology Bill, which will significantly streamline the development of new medical treatments, including lifesaving treatments such as chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell.

Actually, just last week, the Malaghan Institute have announced they’ve expanded their clinical trial into their groundbreaking CAR T-cell therapy. That’s going to include cancer patients in Christchurch and Auckland, meaning that we can actually have access to some of these treatments. I also wanted to give a shout-out to BioOra, a biotech company which is developing, in conjunction with Malaghan, an automated system to actually be able to deliver CAR T-cell cheaper and more efficiently. This is why we do need to modernise our Gene Technology Bill, so we can have more of this.

I’ve already talked about Pharmac; let’s talk about primary healthcare. We’ve had a huge focus on it this week. We’ve got more clinical placements for overseas-trained doctors, we are training more doctors, we’re up to an extra 2,000 nurses, and we’ve got 100 more places for new medical students. These are all things that are going to shorten the wait for a GP. I can tell you, the mums and dads of New Zealand, they want to be able to take their children to see the GP when they have issues. We are focused on the patients; we’re not focused on the unions.

Mr Speaker, thank you. When I get up in the morning, I often look out the window and I think of the state of New Zealand as it is right now, with kids getting served up slop for lunch; more New Zealanders homeless; billions going to landlords; citizens’ arrest laws from back in 1893, when women got the vote, being resurrected; division over Treaty principles bills; and still no ferries. It’s kind of like a bad fairy tale, except it’s true.

The more I got thinking about it, the shoe fitted pretty well, just like the slipper fit Cinderella. Then it occurred to me what a wonderful Cinderella Mark Mitchell would make! Desperately he wants to go to the law and order ball, because all his friends are at the law and order ball. There’s Casey Costello, who’s stepping in and answering those tough questions on how the Government’s going to find 572 police officers in just nine months. Nicole McKee’s there too, and she’s stepping in to assure the front line that all’s going to be sweet as when the firearms registry gets disestablished and military-style semi-automatic weapons find their way back into New Zealand. Paul Goldsmith is there too, answering those tough questions in the House about how people are going to detain under citizen’s arrest provisions and how that’s going to impact on the front line.

The problem was that Mark Mitchell had nothing to wear to the law and order ball and he really wanted to impress the prince, so he shut his eyes and he thought of happier times in the Lulu lounge and the Foxtrot Parlor—no, he shut his eyes and he wished for his fairy godmother to appear. In a poof of smoke, Sunny Kaushal appears in front of him. Mark Mitchell says, “Sunny, help me out—help me out here, buddy.” And Sunny says, “It’ll cost you. It’ll cost you $920 a day, with a total cost of $3.6 million over two years. Throw in a flash office in central Auckland and you’ve got a deal.” Mark Mitchell says, “I like my boss. I’m sorted. I’ll take the deal.”

He waves his wand and he transported him to the law and order ball, looking absolutely spectacular. The only problem was the prince wasn’t paying him much attention. He wouldn’t give up too easily. Technically, Mark thought, “The prince has stolen my heart, and that’s definitely worth under $1,000. That means I can do a citizen’s arrest.” So he went in, got him in a headlock, but Paul Goldsmith popped up and went, “That’s not ideal—that’s not ideal. You just need to hold him steady until the police arrive.” Then Casey Costello said, “You might be waiting some time—you might be waiting some time—because we’ve got a problem. We’ve only got 72 fewer police than when we started. Most of them are tied up looking for gang patches. And to top things off, methamphetamine has gone through the roof. But don’t stress. We can just blame Labour.”

Mark Mitchell says, “That’s a great idea, Casey Costello. I’ve been so worried with the likes of no one liking our citizen’s arrest powers. Sunny promised they would but they’re just not. Retail crime is still going up and violent crime has gone up as well and it’s not looking great either. But I’m sure New Zealanders will believe me if I just say it enough. And if they don’t, I’ll find a Twitter handle that proves it anyway.”

Well, the trumpets blew and the floor parted and in entered the emperor Christopher Luxon. As he paraded through the ball, everyone exclaimed how fine his clothing was, how well tailored it was, except for one little boy with his mouth agape, by the name of Mike Hosking. He’d done a few interviews lately with the emperor and loudly he proclaimed, “The emperor has no clothes on.” And he was right. People from across Aotearoa finally saw that the emperor in fact did have no clothes on. Sorry for the bad visuals, Mr Speaker—I promise to stay classy here.

While all fairy tales end with themes of unity, truth, and courage, sadly not this one. The land of Aotearoa will need to get more than what they voted for, because they’re not, because National and this Government is taking us backwards. They have the wrong priorities and they are way out of touch with the New Zealand public. They are shambolic, incompetent, and divided. For if the land of Aotearoa is going to get its wish and have outcomes that provide a stronger, more stable, and united community, they are going to have to change this Government and all of the fairy tale characters within it.

Resisting all temptations to say anything else—Vanessa Weenink.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a real pleasure to rise and speak in this general debate, and our theme on health this week is really appropriate. I’m very proud to be part of a Government that recognises the importance of general practice and primary care in our health system. We’ve made a number of announcements this week about how we can help the sector, and I believe they’ve been very widely welcomed.

The digital health service that we’ve spoken about is not going to be something that disrupts but something that actually supports the business case for general practice. In the UK, they had a disastrous service called Babylon. We’ve learnt the lessons of that and we don’t need to see the same outcomes in this country. We know that we need to have a system that is integrated and complements and is not undermining of general practice. The emphasis needs to be on paid consultations to project the sustainability of GP practices.

We’ve also acknowledged that we need to point out that we understand and value the fact that general practice is predominantly privately owned. Therefore, we need to actually support those services. That’s why the GP boost increases the funding to general practice and encourages them to target the immunisations and expand their offerings and to keep their books open. This is incredibly important.

We’ve acknowledged the cries that have been going on for generations of doctors for an increased workforce. We know that the ageing workforce, as well as the ageing population, the increasing complexity of both the health challenges and the complexity of the health that we can provide to people means that demands on the system have outstripped the ability for us to supply. That’s why we’ve expanded the number of places for doctors in training; that’s why we’ve increased the number of places for early postgraduate doctors.

I was part of the pilot programme, nearly 10 years ago, that actually had young postgraduate year two and three doctors coming into practices. We had quite a few that came through and eventually one of them was my registrar and then later became a partner in the practice. It was really successful and it really helped to build up the GP workforce. It was cancelled under the previous Government. It’s one of those things where the previous Government had no idea of the importance of general practice. They talked a big game about how they were going to change the system and improve the outcomes but, actually, everything went backwards substantially. Without focusing on wait times, we saw an over 2,000 percent increase in the wait time for a first specialist assessment. That’s absolutely shameful.

By acknowledging the fact that we have a whole ecosystem in our healthcare system, we need to take into account all of the different parts of that. Where there’s hold-ups in the secondary system to get planned care done, that leads to further backlog in primary care because those people then go back to their GPs repeatedly—more than they would otherwise have had to. It all is connected, so we can’t just tackle one part at a time. It’s important for our primary care sector to be able to refer people in, for them to be able to be seen in a timely manner, and so for planned care to be done more in the private sector makes sense.

We’ve also announced that we’ll be increasing the number of places for nurse practitioners, and I welcome this because nurse practitioners are a really valuable part of our medical workforce, of our health workforce. It’s important to highlight to GPs out there that we know that nurse practitioners are not a substitute for GPs; they’re a complement for GPs. They work together well but with one working without the other, neither is efficient.

We need to make sure that we’ve got more of everyone. That’s why we’re training more doctors; we’re making more places for graduates. That’s why we’re allowing people who have done the primary membership examination to be able to do their two-year placement under supervision in general practice. It makes absolutely no sense that GPs are crying out for extra help and workforce and we can’t have those overseas-trained doctors who are able to be trained further. Why can’t they train in general practice? It’s been absolutely ridiculous that they can’t, and now we’re making that change happen.

This is all about continuing integration with GPs into multidisciplinary workforces. It’s about emphasising and creating an effective, collaborative, and efficient healthcare system so that we can improve the public access to our healthcare system, improve the whole ecosystem, and improve healthcare outcomes and delivery.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Every morning, at the moment, when we look at the news, it’s like Groundhog Day. We see more cuts, we see more shambolic practices from this Government every single day, and no more so than when we look at the media around the school lunch programme.

I thought that I would start with some of the greatest hits of the media. I thought, “Let’s look at the last week.”, but that would have taken maybe 10 minutes. I thought, “Let’s just look at the last couple of days.”, but that would have taken about five minutes of the whole of the speech. So I’ve chosen just a couple to read out to you, Mr Speaker. Yesterday: “Children eat burnt plastic in appalling school lunch.” Today: “Too hot to hold, children left with steam burns from lunches, school says.”

These issues were predictable and avoidable and, unfortunately, this has been a shambolic start to this lunch programme. Every day, every single day, there is a new issue and sometimes it’s not even one; sometimes it’s many new issues that come through every single day. We’ve seen enough, the principals have seen enough, and they’ve called for a restart. They’ve called for a return to the healthy lunch programme. It’s time to front up and return, but instead of taking responsibility, this Government likes to vilify and blame parents, because they are the ones that are living in poverty because of their policies.

Ka Ora, Ka Ako was launched in 2020 under the Labour Government. It was launched because, as a Government, we wanted young people to be the best that they can be, to be in the best place for learning. We knew the pressures that families were under and the programme was designed to ensure that those families had some ability to alleviate those pressures. We got told by parents along the way that it was saving them quite a lot a week, that they could put that money back into food at home or into other aspects that they could see at home to improve their lives as family and to ensure that their young people didn’t go hungry. We believe our young people are an investment for the future. We know that feeding our kids ensures that they are in the best possible place for learning, and we are not going to vilify their parents and we are not going to blame them because they are living in poverty.

Unfortunately, this Government is ripping the heart and soul out of the programme. They took a programme that was working really well and they let David Seymour run his ideological scissors right through the middle of it. We are hearing feedback that that this programme is just creating bad outcomes across the country.

Oh, we’re getting a lot of feedback about this speech.

Well, here we go. We’ve got the other side talking about the feedback, but how would they know? There is no formal feedback loop.

I’ve solved that problem for them, because yesterday I sent out a survey to all schools involved in the lunch programme. Now, about 10 percent of those that returned said, “Actually, the lunch programme is working quite well.” When I looked into it and said, “Why is it working quite well?”, it was because they haven’t actually gone into the new lunch programme yet. That 10 percent are still working with providing their own lunches, and they’re absolutely worried with what they’re seeing, of what the other schools are starting to show them, and what we’re seeing in the media. Again, it was working well for those schools because they’re providing it themselves and it hasn’t changed for them at this point in time.

But, for the 127,000 kids who are now getting lunches under the new programme, the feedback is really damning. Principals are saying this is a shocker. We are seeing plastic being fed to our kids. We are seeing them too hot. We are seeing them not being delivered. It is absolutely shocking. David Seymour doesn’t want to provide a service to provide highly nutritious and tasty meals to kids. He campaigned to cut this programme. His commitment to ideology is far stronger than the evidence of the difference this programme makes. He isn’t fronting up because he wants to see this programme stop.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Let me begin by acknowledging all the performers on the Matatini stage. I note that although many of us go to the Matatini stage, very few of us actually make it on the stage. Very few of us have the vocal range or the necessary coordination to make it on the stage, so this is my Matatini. I’m going to sing you a bit of a song and, hopefully, MP Lan Pham will back me up. It goes like this:

Ngā iwi e, ngā iwi e

Kia kotahi rā Te Moana-nui-a-Kiwa

Ngā iwi e, ngā iwi e

Kia kotahi rā Te Moana-nui-a-Kiwa

E i a i e, whakarongo, tautoko

[To the people, to the people

Let the Pacific Ocean be united

To the people, to the people

Let the Pacific Ocean be united

E i a i e, listen, support]

OK, that’s enough of the singing. I start with that song because it has a very, very clear message in it and a message I think—[Interruption] Oh, is that 10 out of 10? Thank you, Mr Speaker. It has a very clear message in that song. Those of us that grew up going on the nuclear-free marches would remember that song, because it talks about Pacific unity. It talks about unity across the Pacific. I think that is incredibly important if we think about the context of the times that we are living in.

I’m mindful that just on Saturday, 1 March, it was the Nuclear Free and Independent Pacific Day, where we acknowledge and commemorate that this is the 71st year that bombs were dropped in the Marshall Islands and acknowledge the nuclear legacy, the problematic nuclear legacy that we have here in the Pacific. Whether it’s at Mururoa, whether it’s in the Marshall Islands as well, I think that is incredibly important for us to remember that history and for our young people to remember their history, because we are at a crossroads.

Aotearoa is at a crossroads. We talk about the geopolitical tension playing out within the Pacific and it looks like one of the sides of that geopolitical tension has just basically given up and is busy berating the President of the Ukraine in an appalling display of terrible diplomacy. I’m sure we saw it all across our news feeds as well, causing issues for both Canada and Mexico wanting to buy Greenland, Finland—wanting to buy something there as well. That is why it’s really important for us to really think about what our place is in all of this, what would be best for all of us, for those of us that live in the neighbourhood, acknowledging that we are part of a family of Pacific nations, something that we are well known for, and it is important for us to continue to weave that in.

I’m talking about AUKUS. It is time for us to walk away from AUKUS. It’s time to walk away from that deal. Now, the Government has been flirting with AUKUS for quite some time. For those people that don’t know about this deal, Google is your friend. It is a $200 billion, $300 billion nuclear submarine deal, and there will be other things that are attached to it as well. We’re talking about Pillar 2 as well. The issues here with Pillar 2 as well is that it pulls us into alignment with that incredibly problematic administration. It is the position of the Greens that we should steer clear of AUKUS, regardless of who is in the White House, but Trump’s transactional and hyper-aggressive foreign policy makes the case incredibly clear and stronger than ever that we should walk away from this.

What we should be putting our focus on is those things that we do well. The things that we do well: relationship diplomacy, building on those connections, making sure that we do everything that we can do to strengthen those connections. For those of us from te ao Māori, it’s about whakapapa, it’s about building on those connections and just reflecting back on the issues around nuclear-free and independence. Despite all of the militaries being in the Pacific, there are actually only four sort of island nations that actually have those types of militaries.

It is important for us to recognise our place in this whole narrative, our place within the Pacific, and it starts with diplomacy, it starts with manaakitanga, it starts with recognising those long historical links, and it starts with our young people remembering and learning that history about the legacy of nuclear-free policy here in New Zealand. When we often talk to our young people, they don’t know that. This is an important part of our identity. This is what we should be leaning in on in this time of turmoil. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker—

Yes?

—this Government is committed to improving our healthcare system. We are focused on patient outcomes. We make sure Kiwis have access to timely, quality healthcare. This is the reason why we invested a record amount in health: to make sure our Kiwis can have quality and timely healthcare. We set ourselves five health targets, including faster cancer treatment, increased childhood immunisation, shorter stays in emergency departments (EDs), and shorter waiting times for assessment and treatment. To achieve these targets, we actually implement policy at different levels: prevention, primary care, workforce, medicine, and infrastructure. We ensure all Kiwis receive quality healthcare.

Let’s talk about prevention—what’s happened? Let’s talk about immunisation. Under the previous Government—

It was a shocker.

—we know; it was shocking—we’ve got a record of poor immunisation rates. This is why this Government will invest $15 million, for two years, for Māori health providers to help lift immunisation rates. Madam Speaker, I’m very happy to report to you that only in the first 10 months, we already have a huge increase in vaccination rates, with over 69,000 vaccinations being delivered.

Let’s talk about the breast cancer screening age extension. We know that breast cancer is one of the most common cancers in women, affecting one in nine Kiwi women. This is why this Government invested $30.2 million to extend free breast-screening for women aged 70 to 74; we make sure they can accept treatment as early as possible.

We also initiated a new campaign to promote alcohol-free pregnancy. We’re actually investing $4.85 million in a package of initiatives aimed at understanding the prevalence of fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, promoting better education and supporting women to stay alcohol-free during pregnancy.

We’ve also got some new AI programmes coming up in health as well. We are actually setting up an AI diabetes screening pilot programme. We’ll make sure to reduce the risk of people with diabetes developing sight-threatening diseases. This is game-changing for waiting times.

As we’ve talked about prevention, let’s talk about primary care. As our Minister mentioned before, we’re actually putting in a lot of policy, including 100 clinical placements for overseas-trained doctors to work in primary care, an incentive for primary care to recruit up to 400 graduate registered nurses per year for three years, and we also have a new 24/7 digital service for all New Zealanders to be able to be assessed by online medical appointment. We actually provide a $285 million uplift for general practitioners over three years.

You may ask us: how can we actually have the workforce to do that? Firstly, this Government actually refunded almost $20 million to enable the employment of 15 new senior doctors, and nurses as well. We’ve also made a fast track for overseas doctors to come here, making it easier for them. They can be registered to be assessed within 20 working days.

We also want to train doctors locally as well, so we also increased funding. Under this Government, we have already increased placements in our medical schools by 75 each year for our medical school. But it’s not enough. We think we can do more, so we added another 25 this year so we can actually increase to 639 annually from 2026. We’ve also given a pathway for internationally trained doctors to boost our health workforce as well. What an excellent policy.

I just want to spend a little bit of time on the infrastructure as well. We also got $28.3 million for a new in-patient unit built at Hawke’s Bay Hospital. We also gave another $14 million to maintain the infrastructure at Auckland City Hospital as well. You know that this Government is doing everything to make sure Kiwis have a timely, quality healthcare system.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move, That the sitting of the House today be extended into tomorrow morning for:

the remaining stages of the Te Korowai o Wainuiārua Claims Settlement Bill; and

the third reading of the District Court (District Court Judges) Amendment Bill: and

the second reading of the Social Workers Registration Amendment Bill.

I present a legislative statement on the Term of Parliament (Enabling 4-year Term) Legislation Amendment Bill.

That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

I move, That the Term of Parliament (Enabling 4-year Term) Legislation Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Justice Committee to consider the bill.

The bill is an omnibus bill that amends the Constitution Act 1986 and the Electoral Act 1993 to enable a four-year parliamentary term. Under this bill, the standard maximum term of Parliament will remain three years, with the potential to extend the term of Parliament to four years at the start of each parliamentary term if a specific condition is met. The specific condition is that the membership of a subject select committee is proportionate to the non-executive party membership of the House. In effect, the bill creates a variable term of Parliament.

A proposal to extend the term of Parliament to four years has gone to referendum twice before, once in the late 1960s—and, curiously, I’ve written a couple of books about participants in that debate—and the last time was in 1990, where voters chose to retain a three-year parliamentary term. Time has passed since then and New Zealand has changed significantly in the intervening 35 years, particularly with the introduction of MMP. The coalition Government has, in introducing this bill, decided that it’s time at least to consider having that debate again.

Now, the arguments for and against a four-year term are reasonably well canvassed. The primary argument in favour is the hope and expectation that a longer term will lead to improved lawmaking. A four-year term would provide a longer period of effective decision-making and legislating before the political challenges of the election year come around. Quite often, first-term Governments will spend a portion of their first year establishing themselves and then a significant proportion of their third year preparing for re-election, and the time of effective decision-making is relatively limited. A four-year term would allow for a longer period.

It also has the potential to reduce the disruption caused by more regular changes of Government, which would benefit longer-term policy projects, such as infrastructure, where the cost of change can be high. New Zealand is relatively rare as one of only three nations with similar systems with a three-year term. The Australian Federal Parliament has a three-year term but, interestingly, all of the states have over the past few decades shifted to a four-year term, and some will argue that that works well.

The primary argument against is that the New Zealand Parliament faces relatively few checks and balances, and that argues for more regular opportunities for the electorate to pass judgment on the Government’s success or otherwise and, if they’re not happy, to throw them out. The bill as introduced addresses that concern by strengthening the checks and balances on the Government through the select committee requirement to help balance the effect of a longer term. In practice, this would typically result in Opposition parties having more seats on the subject select committees and, quite likely, having a majority on those committees, and that is intended to enable stronger accountability and increased scrutiny on the Government. The trade-off would be a longer period but increased scrutiny through the select committees.

Key provisions in the bill allow the term to be extended by a proclamation issued by the Governor-General. A proclamation could only be issued if the House of Representatives has passed a resolution confirming that the proportionality required is satisfied. The resolution of the House would need to be passed within three months of the first sitting of Parliament, which means that this process can only occur once in the parliamentary term.

It’s also important to note that, even if the select committee condition was met, it’s up to the members of Parliament to choose whether to move or support any resolution to extend the term. The current three-year maximum term is entrenched, recognising the constitutional significance of this, and so the bill proposes to entrench key settings enabling a four-year term alongside this. If passed, this will protect the key constitutional changes provided for in the bill in the same way that the existing provision provides for the current maximum three-year term.

Given the constitutional significance of the term of Parliament, it’s appropriate to give the public the choice to vote directly on the matter in a nationwide referendum. This means that key provisions of the bill would only come into effect following a referendum where the majority of voters supported the change. To this end, the bill sets out the proposed referendum question and two options for response that voters must decide upon. It’s possible that a referendum could be held alongside the next general election in 2026; however, any final decisions on the timing of a referendum will depend on what comes out of the select committee process. Future decisions will also need to be made by the Government as to whether the bill proceeds as introduced or whether it should be amended.

Both the National, ACT, and New Zealand First coalition agreements include supporting a bill to the select committee that would enact a binding referendum on a four-year term. At this stage, I want to make the point: no decisions have been made on whether the bill will proceed beyond this point, and the intention is that we want to hear what New Zealanders think during the select committee process, and so all New Zealanders will have an opportunity to have their say.

We think it’s important for New Zealanders to consider this from time to time, and then, ultimately, the Government has to make a judgment in Parliament as to whether we think it’s time to press ahead and actually have a referendum on this, and exactly what the referendum should be. To allow for the possibility of a referendum on this matter, the Referendums Framework Bill is also being progressed to provide a generic framework for the conduct of a referendum.

The select committee process is very important to discuss this fundamental constitutional issue. I encourage members of the public to have their say when the Justice Committee calls for submissions. On that basis, I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It may be indeed that this is a rare case of a genuinely open select committee process, because we on this side of the House are taking a similar approach. We think it’s a fair question and we look forward to a select committee process which explores not only the core question of whether this is a matter to be put to referendum but exactly what that question should be. In principle, yes, that’s what first readings are all about.

We accept that the time is probably about right to ask the electorate whether they would think it a good idea to give this lot an additional year in Government. [Interruption] This lot widely—this lot widely; us lot. I do note that there has been already some criticism. I just want to identify that very eminent person who’s suggested that there should be an overarching review. There is always space for a constitutional review, and other things that have been going on in this House and elsewhere would indicate that might be a good idea, but we tend to think that this is an issue which is sufficiently discrete that it is appropriate to consider it alone.

As has been noted, this is a Parliament without a huge amount of checks, other than mixed member proportional representation and the coalition arrangements that that brings. At the same time, Governments—of all colours—have routinely been criticised for short-term decision-making and pressured decision-making and rushed decision-making. There is at least an argument that this will lead to higher-quality decisions with a longer time horizon.

We have reservations about the need to start meddling through legislation with Standing Orders and recognise that this is a relatively unusual thing to do. By and large, the House itself manages its Standing Orders. Whilst it’s not unknown—I think it’s done in respect of some regulations review and disallowance—it’s very unusual for legislation to dictate back to the House what its Standing Orders should be and, therefore, in a sense, in a backdoor kind of way, bind future Parliaments. So, yep, we’ve got some concerns around that.

Also, we are not excited about the idea of no one being quite sure how long Parliament will be until a decision has been made by the Prime Minister. That’s a kind of uncertainty which I’m not sure the electorate would be happy with. I guess the other thing is that the question then lacks clarity. A clean question is a good question. If the question is “Four years or three years—yes or no?”, that’s a question that’s very easy to communicate and to discuss, whereas talking about—and it’s pretty arcane stuff to ordinary New Zealanders—how many seats on select committee an Opposition party should have, that’s not something that’s going to be very exciting. It might be a good idea, but we’re not sure that the two things need to be closely linked.

The other thing I’d just identify is this process—the process of forming a Government—can take long enough. The additional wrangling of select committee positions and whether or not this proceeds may extend that and, in fact, have an obtuse effect of making it more difficult to form a Government once the election decision has been made.

Look, let’s go and have a look. It may go no further. It may be that the National Party doesn’t support it but we do—who knows? That would be an exciting day. But let’s wait and see how it goes.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. I seek leave to move a motion without notice and without debate to establish an ad hoc committee to consider the bill.

Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be so.

Tēnā koutou katoa. I stand before you with ambivalence about this bill, which proposes changing Aotearoa’s electoral term from three years to four but only sometimes and with no certainty in advance for voters. Today, I’m going to highlight three points underpinning that ambivalence: the need for true long-term planning, lessons from the recent independent electoral inquiry, and the importance of broader constitutional reform.

Look, many people advocate for more time to plan for complex issues. Addressing human health, particularly preventative measures, restoring nature, maintaining infrastructure, they’re 30-, 40-, 50-, 70-year projects, and, really, whether it’s three years or four years makes very little difference when you ought to be thinking several generations in advance. If we had that kind of inclusive, long-term, multi-party planning, we might not face issues like the flip-flopping on the ferries that risks isolating communities, undermining tourism, and cutting supply chains. To leave a better future for generations to come, we need policies that extend beyond electoral cycles. Let’s get rid of that rush—undone by the next Government.

My colleague across the House may recollect that one of our most effective processes was Our City—Our Future, which was a citizens’ participatory process that actually shaped many aspects of council decision-making for several decades. A local example of long-term thinking is Zealandia’s 500-year vision. Now, there’s a challenge: think what’s going to happen in 500 years, not five months. The recent independent electoral inquiry raised some critical issues about New Zealand’s electoral system, including the need to rethink citizen engagement to make democracy more responsive. Does this three- or four-year term maybe or maybe not address those deeper concerns?

It’s also extraordinary that no thought seems to have been given to extending local government terms to match, given that was recommended by the recent Local Government New Zealand task force. It is extraordinary that sometimes you’d clash: sometimes you’d have elections in the same year; sometimes you wouldn’t. I don’t think that that’s an organised way to improve the partnership between local and central government, but it’s typical of the current Government’s disregard for local democracy. Real reform should focus on strengthening citizen engagement through participatory democracy at both local and central levels.

Thirdly, addressing the broader issue of constitutional reform, we want a more comprehensive discussion. I appreciate my colleague’s point that maybe this little point can be pulled out, but I would much prefer to value the work of Matike Mai, the 252 hui held across the motu. Moana Jackson set a high bar for constitutional reform, and this bill doesn’t really meet those standards. There was far more public support for lowering the voting age, improving civics education, and limiting donations to political parties than there is support for changing the term. We will be cautious. We will support it to select committee and maybe it can be sufficiently improved. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of ACT in support of this four-year term bill. I want to start by conceding that I suspect we’re on a hiding to nothing when this bill goes to referendum. The simple reason is that this is a time when, around the world, people’s trust in politicians is in decline, and, yet, what people will see is politicians asking to be trusted for an extra year. I think that’s why it’s on a hiding to nothing.

I’m proud to be supporting it and I’m proud to have had some involvement in the creation of this bill, because I believe it is the right thing to do for New Zealand. I’m thinking about a time when I’m not a politician, perhaps when the voters have retired me, and I’ll be living my life, and I would rather live in a New Zealand with a longer parliamentary term. The simplest reason for that is that I believe we need more stability. We’re an outlier globally. There are about 180 countries that have some form of Parliament; we’re one of nine that has a three-year electoral term.

It’s not just three years to four, because, as Paul Goldsmith mentioned, with election campaigns and the bedding in an establishment of new Governments, three years is really two of effective debates and policy making and thinking. If we go to four years in total, we’re really going from an effective two years to an effective three years. It’s not a 33 percent increase; it’s a 50 percent increase in the effective length of a Government.

I think that’s critical for reasons that other members have touched on. As parties as diverse as the National Party and the Greens have said, actually, we need to give more stability for developing things like infrastructure, for making policies, giving people confidence, whether they’re from inside New Zealand or outside New Zealand. This is a place with a stable policy environment to invest in. In many ways, it is about our maturity as a country. I think our current constitutional set-up could perhaps unkindly be described as a sort of teenage set-up. We have no Upper House. We have no states or provinces. We have no written constitution. What we have is this three-year term, and it leads to erratic lawmaking.

There’s a second part to this proposal which I think is important, and that’s why I’ve called it, in the past, a four-year term with a twist. It also involves changing the way that this place operates to be slower, more accountable, more sober, and, ultimately, a better place to make laws with more participation from all of the people in this Chamber, not just those who are Ministers. That change is simply to ensure that most of the time the Opposition will be running the select committees—the smaller versions of Parliament that scrutinise new laws, that call in public officials to hold them accountable, that can run inquiries. That will be run by Opposition while the Government will still have a majority in this Chamber and make the ultimate laws.

The effects of that, I believe, will give more voice to New Zealanders through their elected representatives because select committees, and the committee of the whole House stage, for that matter, will be more of a contest with more debate about policy, with more voice. I believe it will also improve the esteem of parliamentarians, because, in some countries, to be a member of Parliament is a very respectable thing. Here, people really want to become a Minister. I think having backbench MPs with more power in this place will actually be good for the esteem of the profession and, ultimately, the quality and competence of people who join it—no offence to anyone currently here.

I think that if we’re prepared to have a mature discussion about this change, then we will lead ourselves to a place where we have a more stable policy environment, a higher quality of debate, people feeling that their voices are heard better through stronger select committees, more trust in our democracy, and, ultimately, the progression of what might be called a teenage constitutional country into maybe just a young adult with a bit more surety and confidence in itself—more stability, more investment, more infrastructure, higher wages, and, ultimately, a country that we can be even prouder of. I’m glad so many parties are supporting this bill. I look forward to supporting it further. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Thanks, Madam Speaker. I welcome this conversation and I welcome the bill being introduced. As we’ve heard, we’ve got a very short term of Parliament. We are a bit of an outlier there, and that does have implications. This bill introduces a four-year term—sort of—because it’s a conditional four-year term, and I think that that’s a real complexity in the bill. The bill only introduces that four-year term if the conditions around the way in which select committees are organised are met, and this bill suggests entrenching this model through a referendum.

Look, over the years, well before coming into this House, I’ve asked many people about the idea of having a four-year term, or possibly even a five-year term, and, almost unanimously, the politicians and the leaders—business leaders, community leaders—have said that, actually, that’s a good idea but that there is this need for some checks and balances. But this is not ours to determine. Ultimately, it is for the people to determine it. It’s the people’s electoral system and they should be the ones to determine that, and that is why a referendum is attached to this proposition, as well.

New Zealand First, as members know, has always been very keen on referenda, because we believe in the wisdom of the people to make choices. As diverse as we are, we’re diverse in this House and on policy and we are diverse as a people.

We’ve already heard that a four-year term, in theory, will make decisions less rushed and more considered, and that’s good. It’s an opportunity, potentially, for better-quality engagement. Perhaps we won’t have short turnarounds for bills to be sent through select committees and then back again. Hopefully, there might be less urgency used and in much more limited circumstances.

I think that the most important thing—and I think we’ve already heard this before—is that it might give us the opportunity of having more strategic thinking, and, I’ve got to say, New Zealand Government for decades have been very, very poor at that. It doesn’t matter what the colour of those Governments was, we haven’t done that very well. There are some opportunities, I think, and we’ve had some good conversations across the House around infrastructure planning. If we could do some of those long-term things and do them together so that they are multipartisan and will survive changes of Government, that would be a really, really good thing for New Zealand.

Our coalition agreements actually aren’t quite the same. The National-ACT agreement says, “Pass the Constitution”—well, that was what it was originally entitled. It says, “Pass the Constitution (Enabling a 4-Year Term) Amendment Bill through first reading in the first 15 months of the term.” Well, we’re actually about 16 months in, but never mind. That’s what the National-ACT agreement said. The National - New Zealand First agreement is actually broader. What it says is to “Support to select committee a bill that would enact a binding referendum on a four-year term of parliament.”—so, in other words, it didn’t put conditions around that. That’s the conversation that we’re having, I suppose, as a coalition. We’ve actually got two different parts to the agreement, but both of them do say that we should take this through a select committee process and that we should allow the people of New Zealand to have a say.

The bill, rightly, proposes that any change should be a decision for the people, and I think that what that says is also that New Zealanders recognise the need for checks and balances. If people can remember the title of Unbridled Power—you know, going back to the Roger Douglas days—it was actually that that encouraged me to get involved in politics, because I saw a Government doing what it did—

Really? Neo-liberal reforms.

—for good or for ill—the colour of the Government didn’t matter. But it was the nature of the unbridled power which was the critical thing. In fact, the explanatory note to this bill actually recognises that. It says, “The intention of this”—the proportionality requirement—“is that the term of a Parliament could only be extended if there are improved checks and balances on the Government”. The bill itself recognises the need to do that. It proposes a particular way of doing that, but that’s only one way of doing it. There are multiple different ways of doing it.

There are other things which are missing in this bill, and one of those is this. We will all be aware that Local Government New Zealand has said—as my colleague over the way there has said—“Well, what about a four-year term for us?” This bill is missing any reference to local government, because otherwise there would be clashes when elections are held, effectively, at the same time, and that is going to confuse people a lot. I think that that is something that needs to be considered, and I would encourage submissions along those lines. It’s a lot harder for us to put checks and balances on Parliament than it is to put them on local government, but it is possible.

If I may just finish off by saying that, as we know, we don’t have a second Chamber. We do have the courts, but the courts are subject to the decisions that the Government makes, and, in fact—

Are they—are they?

—on visiting the Supreme Court—no, they did say that quite explicitly. If we don’t like what the courts do, we can change those things, and we should do that. What about the role of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act? What about the role of referenda? There are a lot of things that I hope that the public of New Zealand will engage in. I’m going to commend this bill to the House, and I’m going to be really, really interested in the discussion, going forward.

Checks and balances. Look, once upon a time, I probably would have supported a bill like this, but I tell you what, you’re asking for four years. I can tell you what you’ve done in 16 months.

In just over 16 months—just over a year—this Government has dismantled the Māori Health Authority, scrapped smoke-free targets, whitewashed the school curriculum, cut $300 million off targeted Māori funding, cut Matariki funding, cut school lunches, rejected the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, defunded section 27 reports, banned gang patches, enabled the police to terrorise our communities, whitewashed the Waitangi Tribunal and undermined the courts, and demoted te reo Māori to a second-class language.

They have brought back three strikes and boot camps for children. They are throwing families out of emergency housing, and building a mega-prison. They are repealing section 7AA of the Oranga Tamariki Act, displacing another generation of our mokopuna. They are ram-raiding our environment with fast-track legislation, reversing oil and gas bans, and privatising freshwater management. They are entrenching the confiscation of our coastline through the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act. They have gutted our health system, they are cutting benefits at record numbers after cutting 10,000 jobs, and, right now, they are debating our very existence as Māori with the Treaty principles bill.

Sixteen months—shocking. Sixteen months, and you want four years? I tell you what, four years has been a hate campaign against Māori. We cannot stand another four years. I’ll tell you what, it has been three terms for a Government over the last few Governments. Nine years. You add four years, that’s 12 years of terrorising our people. Absolutely not.

I’ll tell you what, it’s bigger—the agenda is bigger. There is a global agenda happening here. The Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill was about removing Te Tiriti o Waitangi to allow international corporations and corporate greed into this country. I’ll tell you what, a four-year term will allow a Government to run rampant over our people. Let’s just put it out there—let’s just put it out there. Let’s go out and look at the ongoing world issues at the moment. I hear just in some of the speeches the Americanising of our country. States, all of that type of speak—

Trumpet.

—making our country like a Trump-type nation. I’ll tell you what, the ongoing world issues: the Russian war with Ukraine, the uprising global strikes, continuing warzones in the Middle East, Israel versus Gaza, supply line delays in the Red Sea, China surging into the Pacific, high interest rates worldwide now falling slowly, inflation not under control, and Trump stirring up the world trade by tariff increases and crazy, outlandish statements. This Government needs investors to mine—

Point of order, Madam Speaker.

—to buy properties, to exploit us, and only by providing certainty through a four-year policy in Government terms—

I have a point of order, Mr Waititi. I’m calling a point of order.

You’re going to interrupt my flow.

I’m not sure how this is relevant to the bill that we’re discussing.

That’s actually the Speaker’s call.

This Government is cruel. Doesn’t care about ordinary families struggling to get ahead who are here forever. Our whānau and our people are here forever, to look after our beautiful nation, and you want to open it up and exploit it. This is what a four-year term will do with that type of Government in control.

Now, if there was a three-term Government, you’re going to get 12 years of that—absolutely not. You’re going to be lucky to get this three years. I tell you what, you’re going to be gone after that. We are absolutely against a four-year term, and if you’re going to repeat it—eight years, 12 years—oh, cripes’ sakes. Where does that leave our people? I tell you what. Just in 16 months the damage that this Government has done, and you want four years? Absolutely not. Once upon a time, I may have supported a bill like this, but after your actions and after the way you’ve run this country, absolutely not.

Please don’t bring the Speaker into the debate.

We are absolutely against this particular bill. Everything I have said is exactly what this bill talks about.

We’re not talking about the real issues here. This is the reason why you want four years. It’s not just about four years of strategic planning and infrastructure. What a whole lot of rubbish—what a whole lot of rubbish. You want more time to unravel decades of development. You want to continue to crush—

Please don’t bring the Speaker into the debate.

—people who are living in poverty, crushing Māori in terms of the way you run this Government. Absolutely not. It’s got everything to do with four years because look what you did in 16 months. We do not want a four-year term. This bill should be thrown in the rubbish, along with this Government. Kia ora tātou.

Unfortunately, the debate about the value of a four-year term I think might come down to a clip of Rawiri Waititi’s speech justifying why this Government needs 12 years, and why this Government should continue to be in power to make sure that sort of thing is not in the Treasury benches. As much as I was looking forward to a considered select committee process about this bill—and may not exactly support it, or not at this stage, personally—that speech, “that rubbish” to quote the last speaker, Rawiri Waititi, is going to make people want this Government having four years for terms to come.

When we look at this bill and this bill talks about going to select committee—I will note that it was Dr Duncan Webb who brought politics into this first reading right at the beginning. The Opposition has made a lot—

Point of order, Madam Speaker. Just seeking clarity from the Speaker. Is it acceptable for a member to call another member’s speech rubbish? Just seeking clarity. I don’t want to interrupt your compelling speech.

Speaking to the point of order.

No, because it’s not a point of order.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. As I was saying, it was the Hon Dr Duncan Webb who brought politics into this discussion early in the first reading. I just wonder in the context of this bill, and particularly the component that talks about the Opposition having control, essentially, of the select committees, whether New Zealanders that voted this Government in would want to see any of that side of the House in charge of any of the select committees dealing with the rubbish that we took over and had to sort out under this term.

I’m sure there will be lots of New Zealanders that will submit on this bill and raise those points as part of the select committee process. As a member of the Justice Committee, I look forward to interrogating those questions, interrogating those submissions, and looking where we take this when it comes back to the House for a second reading. I commend the bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s an honour to be able to take a short call on this important bill which is of constitutional significance, the Term of Parliament (Enabling 4-year Term) Legislation Amendment Bill.

I do have some specific thoughts about this piece of legislation, which I will share with the House, but in response to some of the previous speakers, Mr Bates, this is a political issue. Of course it is. It happens in Parliament, and definitely the support of the Labour Party is certainly not an endorsement of anything that this Government is doing. I think what we’re looking at when we’re looking about constitutional change is, from a bipartisan or non-partisan perspective, what is the best thing for New Zealand in terms of the way that New Zealand is governed and the constitutional arrangement that New Zealand has.

Obviously, from our perspective, the next election couldn’t come soon enough, but, at the same time, we’re able to take a wider view of this and look at comparative jurisdictions and also acknowledge our own experience in relation to having three years in order to achieve what I think all parties in this Parliament have, which has a high level of ambition to make New Zealand a better place, no matter what the political leanings are.

As my colleagues have said, we will be supporting this bill to select committee, but that does not mean that we support all of the provisions in the bill or that we don’t have some very serious thoughts which do require due consideration at select committee. Those are mainly to do with what I would describe as quite an odd way that this bill has been drafted.

The fact that the fourth year is reliant on changes to select committee membership is highly unusual, and I think highly problematic. That is not at all to say that I don’t think there are good discussions that can be made, helpful discussions that can be made, about the effectiveness of select committees and how a greater Opposition role in select committees might aid our democracy. I think those are valid questions, but I think the way that this bill is set up is incredibly odd and will be confusing to most New Zealanders. I understand it as someone who has been here now for four years—I don’t think most Kiwis would.

The second issue that I wanted to raise was the question that is being put to referendum. Now, I haven’t had the opportunity to go back and look at some of the questions that have been put in referendums in the past, but I intend to do that as this bill progresses through the House. My memory and understanding of that is the simpler the question, the more likely it is to be a correct reflection of the desire of New Zealanders responding to that referendum.

This question, “Do you support the Term of Parliament (Enabling 4-year Term) Legislation Amendment Act coming into force?”, is not a simple question. The question should be, “Do you support a four-year term of Parliament?” Full stop. And we can provide additional information for that. If that is the will of New Zealanders in a referendum, then the Parliament should be able to enact that in a way that is fair and reasonable and consistent with our constitutional requirements. This question will call into play every detail of the bill which accompanies it, and we’ve seen how that hasn’t worked in very recent referendums in the past.

I would like to flag those two issues, and I would also like to encourage those on the Justice Committee to look to the examples of our near neighbours in Australia who we’ve been recently discussing the experience that they’ve had in Queensland—with some visiting members to the New Zealand Parliament—of going from a three-year term to a four-year term. In fact, in Australia, many of the jurisdictions apart from the Federal Parliament have moved to a four-year term. We should be looking to see what was effective in those very near neighbours of ours, making it a large constitutional change like we are considering and making sure that that is done in an effective way.

I think all parties are approaching this with good faith. I wish the select committee very good luck in their deliberations—I think this is important—and perhaps, for many of us, if this does end up becoming law, it could be one of the most significant constitutional changes that we would be involved with during our time in Parliament. Please, take it seriously, do due diligence, think of the future of New Zealand, think about what’s best for New Zealanders and the type of Government and the type of change that we want to see happen for New Zealanders.

It’s a big job and there’s a high likelihood that the referendum, even if it does go through, may not be successful. I commend the bill to the House.

Madam Speaker, I wish to raise a point of order. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Just in relation to your previous ruling that the member Debbie Ngarewa-Packer’s point of order was not in fact a point of order, I’m just wondering if the Speaker might like to consider Speaker’s ruling 22/4: “If members are making a point of order, they should indicate to the Chair where there has been a breach of order in the House.” I would contend that that member did not do that.

Thank you, Mr Court.

And one further matter, Madam Speaker, I would like you to consider whether raising trifling points of order is itself disorderly, because I didn’t see any evidence that that member actually pointed out where there was a breach.

Thank you, Mr Court.

Speaking to the point of order, actually it was Standing Order 120. Specifically, thank you for reminding me to be more certain and more orderly through you, the Speaker. In fact, Standing Order 120 says, “If any [offence] or disorderly words are used,”.

I took offence to the co-leader’s speech being called “rubbish” by National. He may disagree with the content of it—that’s absolutely within his right—but to be dismissive and disgraceful, calling it rubbish, is what I took offence to. I’m very clear, just to read it so that ACT is able to take it on a little bit better next time: “If any [offence] or disorderly words are used, whether by a member who is speaking or by a member who is present, the Speaker intervenes.”

That is what I was speaking to. I’m happy to help show the member of ACT which page that it is on—page 34, Standing Order 120.

Can I just point out to the member that that is around offence to the House. Thank you—the point’s noted.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m grateful to be able to stand up and add my kōrero in the first reading of the Term of Parliament (Enabling 4-year Term) Legislation Amendment Bill. It is part of our obligations with our ACT coalition partners, part of the ACT-National coalition agreement.

I do reference the Hon Paul Goldsmith in his first reading speech moments ago, how he said, essentially, those arguments in favour of making this change here in Aotearoa New Zealand are, essentially, that, hopefully, a longer term will lead to improved lawmaking and also prevent the disruption, as he put it—and I’m paraphrasing—to implementing long-term projects like in the infrastructure realm.

I do think of Mill Road in the Takanini and Papakura electorates, where we were ready to go in 2017. It was shovel-ready, as we said. Unfortunately, a big stop was put to that, even though it was promised by the Opposition parties at that stage, and then the Government in 2020, that Mill Road would go ahead, but they reneged on that promise. I think of that when I am thinking of what I support in this bill.

We had the fortunate situation, as the member before me said so eloquently, of speaking to a member from the Queensland Parliament—Mr Ray Stevens, the MP for Mermaid Beach. He shared with us his journey and their journey with respect to going to a four-year term over there in Queensland and how he played a strong role in that. He clearly was very much in favour of it. I do look forward to going through the due diligence, as was said, with respect to this bill in the Justice Committee. For now, I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on a bill where I know the conversations I’ve had in the many communities I’ve been a part of have regularly asked the question about whether or not the current term of Parliament of three years is the right length of time. What is often missed in these conversations is whether or not there’s any evidence to suggest that four years makes the policy decision-making process better. There’s always—often—a lack of evidence with respect to whether or not an analysis of why New Zealand rejected this same question or very similar question in previous times in the past.

If I can capture the sentiment of a previous contribution in the House today on this particular bill that expressed, “No wonder New Zealanders have a lack of trust in our democracy and in our democratic institutions.”—that’s why they suspect that this bill will fall over as it progresses through the processes of the House. Well, one only needs to look at the number of instances mentioned by my colleague Mr Waititi on why people have lost faith in democratic institutions in this country because of the challenges that have been put towards certain sectors of our community, tangata whenua in this instance, but other parts of our community. That’s the challenge that must be debated, must be brought forward in a sensible way, which is why, of course, the due diligence throughout this process is going to be really important.

If we look towards some of the initial analysis of these particular matters—and, as you know, Madam Speaker, the regulatory impact statement that’s tabled here for all of us to read sets out a number of those matters really well: what does this mean for Te Tiriti o Waitangi? What does this look like in terms of the many court judgments that have been passed in this country that have continued to help our democracy evolve and come to a space where, yes, still challenging, but there has been progress? These are questions that must be asked.

They must be put to a wider perspective on debate that doesn’t simply look towards “Well, what does a four-year term mean?” because there are other things in this bill, and the members on the other side of the Chamber have mentioned it, around the make-up of select committees—what does it mean for the democracy in this House? That’s simply saying—or at least putting to the New Zealand public—that if the select committee process changes under a new regime, if you will, or a four-year regime, does that necessarily mean that we’ll get better process in policy and better lawmaking? Well, the evidence just simply doesn’t suggest that. To simply try and experiment in the hope that four years is the best thing for our country moving forward and we’ll tinker with some of our democratic institutions in order to get that across the line, the evidence just simply does not back that up.

There’s a reflection I have when I talk with my adult son about this matter, because he’s one that says, “You should have a four-year term, Dad.” Well, if a Government is good enough, and we’ve seen many examples of both Labour-led and National-led Governments that have continued to have a nine-year term in office—that’s three three-year terms, they’ve managed to do really well. Two four-year terms is eight years, yet Governments have been able to manage to hold on to power for three terms. And you know what? For me, that feels about right. Kiwis actually sit back and say, “Maybe we should go for a bit of change.”, despite how things might have looked, despite how outcomes might have been for them in their particular community. It was the case in 2017 when Labour came into power, it was the case when National came into power after the Helen Clark administration, and of course there is the odd, rare phoenix, if you will, in this debate, and that was good old “Kiwi Keith” who managed to do it for four terms in this country.

It’s doable if the Government is leading the country correctly. We don’t need to change legislation to do that. However, I acknowledge that there is a debate to be had about whether or not these things have to change, because the common view of the public of this place is that it takes one year to get your feet under the desk, one year to make any change, and then one year to campaign to try and get back in for another term. Well, I get why the public are asking the question, and the public should have the opportunity to say that, but we’ve got to do it in a way that makes—like the question suggested by my colleague here—it very clear on what it is the public are set to debate.

It’s amazing to think that we’re nearly halfway through the parliamentary term already, which is a reminder to us all just how quickly three years goes.

I also want to reflect on the fact that we have had referenda on this exact issue. In fact, if you’re six months older than me, you would have at least had your say on a referendum. That is because in 1990—when I was 17½—they had a referendum, and the results were this: 69.3 percent of Kiwis supported three years, and 30.6 percent of Kiwis supported four years a term. That was 35 years ago. More than two to one supported a three-year term, but 35 years is another generational shift, and perhaps we need to test them. If we reflect, as Minister Goldsmith said, on the first referendum, it was a similar result—a similar result—68.1 percent in favour of a three-year term, so I think it’s worthy to test the tenure of the parliamentary term. It is well worth the test.

There’s also others that would like us to look at a four-year term. I think fondly of Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ), who conducted a poll as to whether local councils should have a four-year term. Again—a significant poll by Curia—47 percent last year on the LGNZ poll said yes to a four-year council term; 18 percent said yes as well, if the local government’s going to four years; 22 percent said no. So maybe there’s been a shift. We know through submissions that the LGNZ Electoral Reform Group, and the likes of Nick Smith, would welcome dialogue on this issue, so it is timely to have this debate.

National is very happy to support it to select committee, and then let’s open it for public submissions and let’s see what the public thinks, let’s see what the stakeholders think, let’s see what local government think, and then let’s report it back to the House. I commend this first reading.

The question is, That the Term of Parliament (Enabling 4-year Term) Legislation Amendment Bill be considered by the Justice Committee.

Point of order, Madam Speaker. My apologies. I think I missed the first vote, which should be recorded as opposed, if it’s possible to. If it’s not, that’s OK; you just know how we feel. I did miss the first vote, so I seek leave to correct it, please.

That is the proper process, so leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no leave granted.

Now I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Regulatory Systems (Immigration and Workforce) Amendment Bill, the Regulatory Systems (Economic Development) Amendment Bill, the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2024-25, Emergency Response, and Remedial Measures) Bill, and the Sentencing (Reform) Amendment Bill.

Members, the House is in committee on the Regulatory Systems (Immigration and Workforce) Amendment Bill, the Regulatory Systems (Economic Development) Amendment Bill, the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2024-25, Emergency Response, and Remedial Measures) Bill, and the Sentencing (Reform) Amendment Bill.

We come first to Part 1. This is the debate on clauses 3 to 7, “Amendments to Electricity Act 1992”. The question is that Part 1 stand part.

Thank you, Mr Chair, and thank you to the Minister for Social Development and Employment for being in the chair for this bill, acknowledging that she has taken—actually, I’m not aware if she has conduct of this bill, but the Minister with conduct has changed, so thank you to the new Minister for taking this on.

I do have some questions around Part 1, in relation to the Electricity Act, specifically in relation to WorkSafe and their functions. It’s a particular interest of mine through my work as our spokesperson on workplace relations and safety. Obviously, these bills are not particularly controversial, many of them. We just had the second reading yesterday, so we should all be very familiar with them. They do seek to make pragmatic changes to existing legislation that should, in general, be bipartisan. In fact, I do believe—I could be corrected, but I do believe it did attract support of the majority of the House yesterday, so I won’t attempt to filibuster any of these questions, but just to ask some genuine questions that the Minister may be able to answer in relation to some of these sections and parts.

The first question I have is in relation to new section 169E, inserted by clause 7, in relation to the Minister’s delegations in this section. I understand, and it’d be helpful if the Minister could provide clarity, that these types of delegations are relatively common to WorkSafe. I just wanted to know of the Minister, in respect of this new delegation, what kind of checks and balances there are to make sure that that has been conducted to the Minister’s satisfaction by WorkSafe. We have had WorkSafe in front of our select committee—the Education and Workforce Committee. We are currently due to shortly put forward our report on the annual review that we did, which is of course not public yet, so I won’t go into any of those details, but I think I can safely say that there has been a number of concerns around the way that WorkSafe has been able to discharge its functions in the recent future.

One of the ways that that is seen is through the unfortunate high levels of fatalities that we do have in New Zealand. I know that this isn’t a wide-ranging Act that looks at the functions of the workplace in its entirety, but if the Minister has, as she has outlined in this clause 169E, decided to ask WorkSafe to do a job that otherwise the Minister would have to do herself, I just wondered if there were any particular checks and balances that she had brought to put in place in order to satisfy herself that those duties that have been delegated will be done with the utmost care and with the utmost expertise.

I should probably say that it is in all of our interests that this is done in the best possible way, and I believe it is in all of our interests that WorkSafe functions effectively, so I do hope that the Minister has been able to satisfy herself and I do hope that the answer was that it’s been done to the best of their abilities. In relation to the scrutiny of this Act, I’m just wanting some commentary or assurances from the Minister on that particular point.

I seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one question.

Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is no objection. The question is that Parts 1 to 8, the Schedule, and clauses 1 and 2 stand part.

Thank you, Mr Chair, and I’m grateful to the Minister for Social Development and Employment for her motion, which I also agree to. I think there are quite a lot of provisions in this bill and perhaps we don’t need to go through them all in order. I do want to ask specifically in relation to an amendment that we did pay particular attention to during the select committee process, which I was a part of, in relation to Part 2, and the section that relates to the retention of an employer of an individual employment agreement, and terms and conditions of that employment.

Now, when I was going through the updated legislative statement from this bill, I didn’t see some of the changes that you can see in this bill that have been made due to the underlining at the Education and Workforce Committee. I didn’t see those referenced in the legislative statement, and I wanted to know if that was simply because the Minister didn’t want to highlight all of the particular changes that were made and only wanted to focus on the Immigration Act changes—which I appreciate are probably the more substantive changes—or if that was just an oversight and maybe it should have been included in the legislative statement. That’s probably my first question in relation to that.

The other point was that we did have a significant debate at select committee, and I did mention this in my second reading speech yesterday, about the desire for terms and conditions of employment to be reciprocally held between employer and employee. We did make some changes in relation to that, but there was a little bit of concern that the fact of making sure that an employer retains a copy may put extra emphasis on the employer holding a copy and not the employee. We did discuss additionally the way that employment agreements might be shared in this day and age. For example, in the past, it might be that people only had paper copies, and usually you’d have two, one for each party—that would be best practice—but these days perhaps people are sharing employment agreements electronically more.

I had another thought—I wondered if there was any consideration to how this might be managed and, effectively, if any information will be going out to employees about this additional obligation as well. I think it’s something that we all support—both parties having a copy of the employment agreement—but it is a slightly new change to our legislation. There will probably need to be some education for employers about that additional duty and whether there will be any monitoring of that, and, of course, my original questions around the legislative statement.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the member for raising the questions. These regulatory systems bills, for those who are watching the committee, are unanimously agreed and are non-contentious. I thank the member for her question around education, and I’ll take that back and ask the Minister in charge to consider that.

I do have some other issues that I wanted to discuss with the Minister. Yesterday, when we had the second reading, the main parts that I was interested in, in this bill, were the changes to employment contracts, which we’ve already covered. I also was interested in amendments to the Health and Safety at Work Act.

The reason that I was interested in that is obviously, as previously mentioned, the scrutiny that I perform in my role as Opposition spokesperson in relation to WorkSafe, but these particular changes to the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015, which was brought in by the National Government after the Pike River tragedy that occurred—and interestingly, and perhaps also relevant to that tragedy, is the fact that there are changes in relation to mining in this. These changes, as I understand, are mainly in relation to clarifications of the difference between a tourist mining operation and other types of mining operations.

I think it’s worth just if the Minister had any thoughts around these particular changes and the improvements that it would make—the Minister will be aware that her colleague is doing a review of health and safety that’s fulsomely of the Act, so it may be that some of these provisions are looked at as part of the Minister’s review. I’m interested if she has any views that she can share, maybe she can’t because of the fact that it hasn’t been released yet, on how these will interact with that review.

Additionally, a question in general is these regulatory systems bills make sensible changes to Acts that help them to work more effectively, and I, in fact, wondered if the review that the Minister is undertaking in this area could perhaps, in many ways, be dealt with through a regulatory systems bill because of the fact that, in my view—and I’d be interested if the Minister shares this view, which I expressed yesterday—the health and safety in New Zealand should be ideally approached in a bipartisan manner. These are bipartisan bills that obtain support from parties, ideally, across the House and make sensible, pragmatic changes.

I personally think that is a really good place to start, in relation to health and safety. In relation to that part, I wondered if the Minister had any reflections that she wished to make on how this type of review of this very important Act would be able to maintain its bipartisan support moving forward, and any reflections or discussions she’s been able to have with the Minister on her work in this particular area. That’s in relation to Part 4.

I’m sure every member in this committee shares the member Camilla Belich’s interest in health and safety, but the review is out of scope of this regulatory systems bill, so I won’t be commenting on that.

The other matter which I would be interested to find out some additional thoughts from the Minister on is in relation to Part 7, which is the section that talks about pre-term baby payments. Now, the Minister—and I thank the Minister for this—answered favourably in relation to the idea of education following this bill, but I think that perhaps this section is even more important.

Just to sum up, essentially, Part 7 of this bill makes it clear that a pre-term baby payment will be available to those parents who have a baby prior to 37 weeks and that that is in addition to the parental leave that they’re entitled to. Although it’s a change that is, I think, appropriately made under a regulatory systems bill, it is actually something that I think would benefit from having some education and some publicity around the fact that this is actually the case.

I reflected yesterday in the second reading—and I’m sure everyone agrees—that when you have a pre-term baby, it’s an extremely stressful time. I think we can all be very proud that we are supporting legislation to make it clear that 13 weeks, at maximum, in addition to your paid parental leave payments will be available for pre-term babies. That’s for, I think, babies as small as 24 weeks, which is a very, very early baby to be born, but of course, through the incredible health professionals that we have who work with pre-term babies, they are able to have very successful outcomes with some of these very early babies.

Of course we all acknowledge that parents need support, and this is a very good policy, I think. The fact that it clarifies that it is in addition to and not kind of coinciding with parental leave is really important, but I do want to ask the Minister how we will best be able to tell New Zealanders about this. I think it’s something that’s positive and I think it should be information which is available to people in hospitals, perhaps. Perhaps that would be the best way for people who are in neonatal intensive care units, if there’s information available. It may be—as this is a clarification of, I think, something that should have already been the case—that this information is currently available to people, but if that’s not the case, then the Government, I believe, should be providing information to people to make sure that they are clear about their entitlements.

I just acknowledge the incredibly difficult time that a lot of people who have pre-term babies go through, which I’m sure is shared with everyone. It’s great that we’re doing something about it and that we can all agree—everyone agrees with that. It’d be great to have some clarification from the Minister whether she has any thoughts on that, and about further education on the pre-term baby intersection with parental leave under Part 7.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a question for the Minister with regards to Part 5 of this bill, if I may, on the amendments to the Immigration Advisers Licensing Act 2007. I’m specifically looking at clause 25 on the replacement of section 9 of the Act, and I want to home in on section 9(1)(b).

The reason I mention this, and I mentioned this in my second reading, is the fact that if you’re looking at section 9(1)(b), which is those who are exempted from the requirement to be licensed under section 11 of the Act, it specifically refers to—and this is section 11 of the Immigration Advisers Licensing Act 2007, section 11(h)(i) and (ii). The reason I want to ask the Minister whether the Minister or the officials have considered making an amendment to this is because, for section 11 of the bill, (h)(i) and (ii) talk about those people who are exempted being “persons who provide—(i) immigration advice offshore; and (ii) [the] advice only in respect of applications made under the Immigration Act 2009 for a temporary entry class visa—temporary visa—student visa:”.

Now, one of the things I highlighted in the second reading is the fact that we do see this loophole in our immigration system where unlicensed immigration advisers offshore are able to provide advice to potential international students when they are coming onshore to study. This has been also highlighted in media a number of times, where we do see international students being exploited as a result of having unlicensed immigration advisers offshore. My question to the Minister is: if we are making these sorts of technical changes, which is what the regulatory bill is doing, was there any consideration being given when we are looking at potentially amending section 11?

I can see that clause 26 does, in fact, amend section 11 of the Immigration Advisers Licensing Act—so, whether that has also been considered when it comes to amending section 11(h); if not, has there been any advice the Minister’s received or been given on why that part wasn’t amended? Noting that we do have quite a serious issue around international student exploitation by offshore unlicensed advisers. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and I thank the member for his question. This was a matter that was raised in the select committee consideration of the bill, but it was considered to be outside of the scope of this regulatory systems bill. They’re very tight in scope in nature and are non-controversial, so it wasn’t able to be considered as part of this bill.

Parts 1 to 8, the Schedule, and clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.

OK, members, we now come to the Regulatory Systems (Economic Development) Amendment Bill, Part 1. Part 1 is the debate on clauses 3 to 6, “Amendments to Auctioneers Act 2013”. The question is that Part 1 stand part.

I seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one question.

Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is not. OK, so now the question is that Parts 1 to 24, Schedules 1 to 10, and clauses 1 and 2 stand part.

Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s been interesting picking up this piece of legislation and trying to work my way through and understand. It’s also interesting as we look at this in terms of, I guess, these kind of pieces of work which are often, I guess, rats and mice type of things. I’m looking at this and I’m just trying to flick through to find the right place. It’s around Part 4 and the amendments to the Charitable Trusts Act of 1957.

Just to the Minister, I’m looking at this and just wanting to understand in terms of the insertion of new section 2B, and it’s around the transitional savings and related provisions. The new addition is: “The transitional, savings, and related provisions set out in Schedule 1AA have effect according to their terms.” I get a bit confused from time to time, to be honest, to connect the different schedules and understand it, so I’m just wanting to sort of get a little bit of clarity on that.

Also, in terms of clause 31, in terms of new section 10(2)(d) “an electronic address for the purposes of any communication with the board.”—this happens so regularly, I guess, within the process that we go through that it is completely standard for this to happen. Are there ways or means in terms of if we look at this legislation, the previous legislation, and more legislation to come, where there is a way or a process that can actually—I guess what I’m trying to say is that this kind of thing is just a no-brainer. I guess we don’t need to be debating it. It’s how do we ensure that we do these things fast and quickly.

The next part I wanted to speak to was around clause 32, new section 15(1), “Name of board”, which is the addition that “The Registrar must refuse to incorporate a board under a name if, in the Registrar’s opinion,”—and it goes to list them on. I just want to understand where those paragraphs (a) to (e) points came from, in terms of it’s not overly fulsome. It’s just five points. I guess any advice in terms of was that thoroughly thought through in terms of what names aren’t able to be used in terms of a board, and was it given full consideration in terms of should there be other clauses added to that? That’s a couple of things to get us started.

Members, we now turn to the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2024-25, Emergency Response, and Remedial Measures) Bill. We come first to Part 1. Part 1 is the debate on clause 3, “Annual rates of income tax”. This is where the debate on the tax rates should take place, but the vote on any proposed amendments to the tax rates will take place in Part 2, which amends the Income Tax Act 2007. Standing Order 352 requires that the annual taxing provision be considered separately. The question is that Part 1 stand part.

Happy to take a call on Part 1, which is, of course, the part that sets out the annual rates in this legislation. This is an important pace of legislation that comes to this House every year, because, really, it’s in this setting out of the annual rates that you really do see the priorities of a Government and what a Government is making sure that it is supporting. But, importantly, it’s what is not being supported as well.

While we support some of the various technical tax measures that are carried out later in the bill—and I’m sure my colleague the Hon Deborah Russell, who can speak about tax like nobody else in this House, will talk to the technical nature of those later provisions—we do oppose this bill because of the tax rates that are set out here in Part 1 of the bill. We oppose it for a very simple reason: because of the failure to address the annual rates in a meaningful way to ensure that the tax system generates sufficient revenue to support all of the activities of the Government.

If we think back to discussions that we’ve had in this House today, we can see the failure of Part 1 of this bill. We can see the failure of the Government to generate sufficient revenue to adequately fund a school lunch programme. We’ve heard from the Prime Minister in question time in this House today ludicrous suggestions that somehow it’s the fault of the previous Government because we hadn’t gone through and funded for what this Government should have funded in this very Part 1 of this bill. It is a choice that that Government has made.

My question for the Minister in the chair, Simon Watts, is: given we’re seeing on a daily basis the fact that there is not adequate revenue to fund all the activities of Government that New Zealanders expect and New Zealanders deserve, are they considering any alternative revenue measures? We’ve heard some suggestions from the Minister of Finance at the Finance and Expenditure Committee that there could be some under consideration, so I ask the Minister in the chair to elucidate to the committee what some of those alternative tax measures might be.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I do have questions for the Minister on Part 1, clause 3 of this bill, which specifically talks about the basic rates specified in Schedule 1 of the Income Tax Act. I guess my question is seeking the Minister’s clarification, because what we’re seeing as part of the regulatory impact statement for this is that, with the changes to the income tax bracket as set out in Schedule 1, we are seeing the fact that 130,000 New Zealanders will get no tax break, 8,000 New Zealanders would be worse off with the tax break, and the top 40 percent will, in effect, get 55 percent of the tax break, equating to $1.6 billion. That is in the regulatory impact statement.

I guess the question for the Minister is: if that is a known quantity, was there any consideration on whether to adjust some of that so that the lowest-earning New Zealand households and people will actually get more? Was there consideration around a tax-free bracket, for example, which we have seen working in Australia, where people on the lowest income will get more money as a result of that? All these, in terms of the tax bracket, are laid out in Schedule 1 of the bill but, again, the evidence and information that we are getting from the officials and what is considered best practice for other countries doesn’t really reflect the practice we are seeing here. If the Minister wouldn’t mind clarifying the rationale, that would be great.

It’s always good fun, this part of the debate every year on the annual tax rates bill. For the edification of the still somewhat new members across the other side of the Chamber, it’s the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2024-25, Emergency Response, and Remedial Measures) Bill. By tradition, as we debate Part 1, this is the time when we have the rather free-ranging debate about tax rates in this country, about fiscal strategy, about how the Government is choosing to collect its revenue, about whether or not it has chosen to make changes to tax rates.

We don’t have that debate at any other time; the Part 1 debate of the annual tax bill is the time we do have this debate, so I would invite the members on the other side of the Chamber to consider participating in it. It is the one time you have in the House this year—speaking to the members on the other side of the House, of course; not you, Madam Chair—the one time that is available for people to stand up and say what they think about the current tax rates. I’m inviting especially the chair of the Finance and Expenditure Committee, Mr Cameron Brewer, to have a few opinions about it, too. There has to be some fun in being a Government backbencher—this is it, and I’m sure the Minister would agree with me about that. It’s time to talk about tax rates, and I would certainly invite all members of the committee to participate in this. I know that my colleagues from the ACT Party will have some particular views about tax rates as well, and I’m hoping, gentlemen, that you might consider standing up and participating in this debate, too.

The annual tax rates bill is required by law. Every year, the House actually has to set the tax rates for the year. It does this via the annual rates bill, and if you look at the clause that’s sitting in the bill itself, it doesn’t look particularly exciting.

Oh, come on, Deb, it’s tax law!

It’s not that exciting—I promise you, Megan, it’s not that exciting. All it says is that “Income tax imposed by section BB1 [which is the] (Imposition of income tax) of the Income Tax Act, 2007 must, for the 2024-25 tax year, be paid at the basic rates specified in schedule 1 of that Act.” Now, that’s quite interesting in itself. It’s for the 2024-25 tax year, and, of course, that tax year ends on 31 March 2025, so it ends in just a few weeks, and here we are, only at the end of the year, setting the tax rates for the year.

I guess most people won’t know this: all this year, as people have been receiving their pay packets, if they’ve been getting paid each week, their employer has been deducting—or perhaps, if they’re self-employed, they’ve been putting away—money each week at a specified amount; it’s just taken out of the pay packet by the PAYE system. The hope is that employers will have taken out the correct amount so that, come the end of the year, when this House finally gets around to setting the income tax rates for the year, the amount that has been deducted from salary and wages during the year will be enough to cover a person’s tax liability.

Of course, that tax liability is measured at 31 March, and that’s why we’ve got to set the tax rates by then and it’s incumbent on the Government to do that. All this year, as each of us has received our own pay every fortnight for the job we do in this House, some money has been deducted, and we better hope that the Parliamentary Service has gotten that right; otherwise, we’ll have a tax bill to pay. It does beg a little bit of a question about the tax system: why are we setting these rates so far after people have already made the deductions? I suppose there’s a chance that the Government could change the tax rates, but it doesn’t do that. That’s one of the curious things about it.

Aside from that, it’s really important to note that Governments make choices about tax rates. They make choices about how much tax revenue to collect. Even when there is no change to Schedule 1 of the Income Tax Act, when, in effect, the Government is just confirming those tax rates from year to year, that is still a choice. Choosing the status quo is a choice, and it is a choice that has impacts on ordinary New Zealanders. Of course, the obvious impact is how much tax each of us pays and contributes to the wealth of this nation, but there is another choice that the Government is making there.

Now, the Government chooses how much tax to collect, and part of the role of the Minister of Revenue is to ensure that the revenue system generates sufficient revenue to meet the Government’s needs. If the revenue system does not generate enough revenue to meet the Government’s needs, then services get cut—services get cut. Actually, we’re seeing that in place at the moment. We are seeing the health system under strain. We are seeing that no provision has been made for increases to the education Vote. We are seeing the absolute tawdry mess of the lunches that are being served to our children in schools. We are seeing the increasing fees elsewhere in the system, the little chisellings away of grabbing more money out of people’s pockets quietly, quietly, quietly, without doing it explicitly through the Income Tax Act. Despite the former Minister of Transport’s protestations, we are still seeing potholes on the roads. We are seeing a looming bill for the ferries that we need to get from one island to the other.

We are living in an increasingly uncertain world: a world where the European Union has just made a major commitment to increase their defence funding, a world where our Minister of Defence has said that we need to increase our defence funding up to about 2 percent of our Budget—it’s only about 1 percent of it at the moment. That’s a lot of money and it’s got to come from somewhere, and where it comes from is from the revenue system. Yet this Government has chosen to make no changes to the revenue that we collect. What they are choosing is the cuts, and that Minister of Revenue has not notified any new measures that he is going to take in order to increase revenue.

Now, there are some interesting ones out there. There’s a discussion paper out there at the moment on the taxation of charities. Of course, many of us think that perhaps charities should be taxed to the extent to which they are running businesses, those businesses are competing with other businesses, those businesses are maybe making profits that are not then being deployed into charity work. That’s a good thing for us to look at.

It’s the other sneaky little tax grab in that discussion paper that’s interesting, and that’s around the taxation of not-for-profit entities, the small clubs and associations which now look like they might be hit with a tax bill because the way the law has been interpreted is going to change, according to that discussion paper. I find that’s a very sad way to get revenue, because these are the small guys. The big guys will be able to get some advice, pay for it, but it’s going to be the small neighbourhood associations who are suddenly going to have tax bills.

I’m just going to interrupt the member. I understand it’s your portfolio and you’re very passionate about this, but we’re on our second speech of the committee stage and I haven’t yet heard a question. The purpose is for the member to ask the Minister some questions on the views that he has.

Here is the question for the Minister, the question in this usually free-ranging tax debate at the start of the annual rates committee stage—

It’s all context.

—it’s all context—what is that Minister going to do to ensure that the revenue system, for which he is responsible, is going to generate sufficient revenue for the Government to do the things that New Zealanders want to do—the things, like more healthcare; the things, like better education; the things, like feeding children in schools? What is that Minister going to do?

Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s always a privilege to be able to stand and take a call and to ask the Minister of Revenue questions in relation to taxation bills, in particular this committee of the whole House stage of the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2024-25, Emergency Response, and Remedial Measures) Bill.

As the previous speaker, the Hon Dr Deborah Russell, just talked about, the particular context in relation to this bill is that there is a number of—actually, probably what’s more missing is revenue measures to help the Government balance their books, and I do understand the Government is taking a sort of cut across the board in order to bring in that type of revenue—or “savings”, as they would say—very similar to the fiscal savings programme that our Government ran of 1 to 2 percent just before the election.

The question that I have for the Minister, and for him to have some consideration, is that there have been some media statements which have been made by the Minister of Finance in relation to corporate tax cuts. Now, I do note that Part 1 of this particular bill does not make those changes to the schedules within the tax Act but, in particular, just whether the Minister has any comment in relation to the current Minister of Finance’s comments around a corporate tax cut and, in particular, whether there is any evidence of economic rents which, in layman’s terms, is similar to what we’re doing with the banking inquiry—trying to figure out whether there are excess profits within different particular sectors which would therefore mean that, actually, if you give a corporate tax cut that means you’re giving more corporate tax cuts to, say, banks, power companies.

Has the Minister received any advice from officials in relation to that? Do we expect to see any corporate tax cuts come through the latest stages of this particular bill or anything further through the committee of the whole House stage? I just wanted to ask him that question quickly before I continue. I will continue, then.

Again, I’ll go back to what Part 1 is about for this particular bill: it’s about setting the annual rates for the 2024-25 year. Changes to tax rates or confirmation of tax rates must come through Parliament every year. That is constitutional. Even though we don’t have a written constitution, it goes back to the 1600s: if Parliaments, if Governments, want to tax people, if they want to raise revenue, there needs to be legislation which underpins that. Obviously, this legislation which the Minister has brought to the House, which we did have a good ability to be able to scrutinise at the Finance and Expenditure Committee—and I do want to thank the Minister for that; not every Minister has given select committees the privilege and the time to be able to assess particular bills.

In this particular bill around the tax rates, very much picking up on some of the comments that the previous member talked about, there are measures in here which don’t point to the digital services tax, which is currently on Parliament’s Order Paper but obviously is still counted within the books by the Government. My question to the Minister is: will he be bringing forward that digital services tax cut as part of this bill, or are there no changes to the Digital Services Tax Bill, particularly in light of what’s happening in the US and particularly in light of the executive orders which the new President has been signing off regularly?

That has an impact on New Zealand, because the digital services tax, which was a bill that I introduced—and this Government has every discretion to be able to withdraw it—points to US domiciled companies who trade in New Zealand and, basically, being able to tax them a certain percentage of those profits that they raise here in New Zealand. Has the Minister come any further in relation to the digital services tax; if so, why are we not seeing it in this particular bill?

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Good evening, everyone. It’s great to be here to be able to talk about what is a very exciting and thorough piece of legislation, the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2024-25, Emergency Response, and Remedial Measures) Bill—and what a good bill it is.

I want to acknowledge the Finance and Expenditure Committee members across the House for their very studious work in regards to this piece of legislation. I was pleased and I was a bit hopeful—maybe a bit too hopeful—when I saw it was unanimously supported by all sides of the House at first reading. I thought maybe this might be the first tax bill that goes through this House with that. Sadly, that wasn’t the case last night, even though the bill’s been improved through the select committee process from what went in there.

It’s an important bill because it does have a number of aspects and a number of changes that I think are important to New Zealanders. Obviously, the emergency response aspects within the legislation are very important, and we know that that is important following the impacts of Cyclone Gabrielle and the other aspects. There’s plenty of portions within the bill dealing with remedial changes, which many submitters made as part of the broader process—and I do acknowledge all of those submitters who did do that through the select committee process: thank you.

I’m just going back to a number of the questions that have been asked by members so far. Firstly, the question by the Hon Dr Deborah Russell in regards to what the Minister is going to do to ensure that the tax system is delivering, or something along those lines. Well, the thing that the Minister of Revenue is doing, and what all Ministers in this Government are doing, is focusing on increasing economic growth. Quite simply, there’s a good correlation between increasing economic growth and more tax receipts coming into Government, and that’s what we are focused on—not increasing taxes, which, obviously, is not going to increase the broader size of the economy and help us pay for those services.

There are some questions here in terms of some comments made around company tax and corporate tax. I think I would refer all members to the Tax and Social Policy Work Programme that the Minister of Finance and I released late last year. It provides a very clear signal of the areas of priority by this Government in this area.

As you will be aware, we are consulting on a large amount of policy in the tax space, and we’ll be consulting on more areas of that as we go through. It is fair to say that the corporate tax contribution in terms of the broader economy is significant, but as a Government we are, obviously, continually looking to identify areas of opportunity where we can ensure that we can grow our economy. Any changes across the board will be coming through, no doubt, in the Budget process. I can’t say anything more in terms of detail, but we are looking at a wide range of options in that space to increase economic growth.

We had another question, I think by the Hon Barbara Edmonds, just in regards to the digital services tax. I think it is an absolutely fair question. We’ve got a degree of focus across the world at the moment. We do have that bill sitting on the Order Paper. It’s under active consideration by the Government in terms of what we do in that respect, and you will be hearing more from us on that in due course, in terms of clarity around what will be happening in that space.

Those are the three questions we’ve had so far. I’m very much looking forward to engaging dialogue on what is a very important bill. With that, I look forward to members’ questions.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just have a question for the Minister of Revenue in terms of how it was that the distribution of the tax cuts that are set out in Schedule 1 have fallen, because, of course, it’s only once we get into the tax share that we can really see the true numbers of people. Of course, Inland Revenue does its estimates of the number of people that will benefit.

Of course, at the election, we had National coming out and talking about the number of people that would be eligible for $250 a fortnight in the tax cuts that were laid out in their plan. How is that translated into the legislation, and how many New Zealanders or New Zealand families have received $252 or more from the tax measures laid out in this piece of legislation?

I want to pursue something that the Minister of Revenue spoke about just a few moments ago when he took a call to answer some of the questions. I’d raised the question in my opening speech about looking after the revenue system and ensuring that it did raise the revenue needed for the Government. I’m paraphrasing here, Minister, but I’m sure you’ll be happy with this. More or less, they said that the strategy was to go for economic growth and that would grow the revenue base. I trust you’re happy with that gloss on that.

I have to say that, in terms of going for economic growth, that Government isn’t doing very well so far, is it? It’s kind of in a bit of a hole over there. I think the economy has been in recession, negative growth—we politely call it “negative growth”—for two quarters in a row now. That’s a recession. And the indicators—people talk about “green shoots”; they look pretty damn shrivelled to me, so we’ll see what happens with that.

It does raise the question—because the Minister said that the strategy is to go for economic growth; there’s a good question around that, Minister—and that is: which measures in this bill are going to generate the economic growth that you say will look after the revenue system? Now, there’s not any in particular that I can see that actually go towards economic growth, per se. I’m sure we’ll discuss them all as we go through Part 2 of this bill, but in discussing Part 1 and asking the questions, what are we going to do to ensure that the revenue base is protected and that the revenue base grows to meet the needs of New Zealanders? The answer from the Minister was “Economic growth”, so the question is: what measures in this bill look to economic growth? More importantly on that one, given that economic growth isn’t delivering so far, what else is he going to do to generate the revenue that New Zealanders need?

Now, traditionally in Keynesian economics, the usual strategy is that, in times of economic recession, in actual fact, that’s the time when the Government needs to support the economy, needs to do things that make the economy grow. We’re not seeing a lot of that. It hasn’t taken any effect yet. Minister, it is a very serious question and it was an answer you gave, so I do want the answer to it: what measures in this bill are actually going to ensure that we get some economic growth?

Thank you, Madam Chair. Because I know that there was a change in the Minister in the chair, just to remind the Minister that I did ask a question earlier on, around clause 3, which is with regard to the fact that we have seen in the report that the way that the tax adjustment has worked in Schedule 1 of this Act meant that 130,000 households are going to get no tax relief, and 8,000 households are going to be worse off as part of this. With that being a known quantifier, what is the rationale with going through and pushing through this particular tax bracket that is in the Schedule 1, and whether the Minister considered alternative options such as having a tax-free bracket. That’s kind of my question that I would actually like the Minister to respond to.

The second part of that is that, as we have seen in the latest Child Poverty Report, one in eight children in Aotearoa is living in material hardship: one in five for Māori and one in four in Pasifika. All of these would undoubtedly—you know, this is not a new issue. We’ve known some of these—and the latest report confirms—that our child poverty data is not actually getting better. I wanted to check with the Minister whether, as part of this tax reset, a child impact statement was also produced alongside everything else, the regulatory impact statement, to say that the changes in the tax system is indeed going to lift these children out of material hardship and out of poverty. I’m hoping that the Minister is able to answer those two questions.

Thanks very much, Madam Chair. Thanks to the member for just letting me pop in. Just letting you know, members, just in terms of some of those specific questions around the number of taxpayers impacted, we’re just getting some of those numbers. There are some complexities in terms of the quarterly reporting process, but I have asked officials to get us the latest information that we’ve got in that regard.

This question earlier on around one of the policies in here that does support economic growth—we’ve got the approved issuer levy as one example of legislation. The member’s going, “Come on.”

The retrospective legend. Oh, come on. Let’s go.

Well, no, no. Well, you asked for one example and so I’m giving you one example. There will be a lot more examples, no doubt, coming through in the future, but we are working through that at the moment, not too far away from the Budget.

The point raised by the member down the back, Lawrence Xu-Nan, in regard to consideration around the tax-free rate or in terms of the process—so, look, the wide range of assessment in terms of when setting those personal income tax rates and how do we derive the appropriate benefit, our policy position was that the counterfactual on those type of tax-free bands has unintended consequences on certain taxpayer groups. The broad based - low rate model that we have in terms of the bandings is an area in which, as a Government, we felt was the most appropriate manner. We’ve obviously increased the thresholds in regards to that, which provided a broader range of benefit, but we didn’t proceed or we weren’t considering what the member is referring to.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Minister, for your response. I just want to have a very quick follow-up question regarding this having unintended consequences. I want to just check again with the Minister of Revenue that, when we are looking at those personal tax rates, the Minister has received any advice around the fact that, in Australia, they do have a A$15,000 tax-free bracket, and whether that has been taken into consideration on the rate of emigration out of Aotearoa New Zealand as a result of the fact we have unfavourable tax conditions for people who are at the start of their career or earning lower salaries. We are seeing over the last few months greater emigration than we have seen in previous years. I just want to check with the Minister—because this is something Australia’s doing—if the emigration potential of us not being competitive has been taken into consideration.

Just to the member Lawrence Xu-Nan’s question in regards to the comparatives between Australia and New Zealand, I think it’s a fair question. What we do know is that, when you compare a like-for-like example in terms of salary between New Zealand and Australia, while there are some points of differential in the thresholds as you proceed through different income levels, actually in the main, there is a degree of where the New Zealand taxpayer actually starts to move ahead of the Australian taxpayer, particularly at the upper ends of the income threshold. We have had a broader look at that model.

The point to the question is around the benefit of having a tax-free rate at the lower end of the income frame. I think, when you think about a counterfactual on that, you could think around a number of areas where that has unintended consequences. What I mean by that is that there are some individuals, because of that, that may not be contributing into the tax base. Also, New Zealand’s broader tax and social policy work programme is different to the Australian model. We have a number of abatements and also social policy programmes, such as the Working for Families tax credit, etc., which means that a true comparison, like-for-like is different between the jurisdictions.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just have a question for the Minister in the chair. Of course, the taxation rates that are laid out in Schedule 1 are the result of decisions made, and, of course, Governments receive multiple strands of advice about what different revenue measures are open to it in terms of setting taxation. I just wonder if the Minister could tell us whether or not the Government—he as Minister; or the Government more broadly—received advice on raising tax revenue from sources other than taxing income and salaries, what other measures was the Government given advice on in terms of that, particularly advice from Treasury, and whether or not the Government has given any active consideration to that.

The time has come for me to leave the Chamber for the dinner break. The House will resume at 7.30 p.m.

Members, the committee is resumed. We are on Part 1 of the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2024-25, Emergency Response, and Remedial Measures) Bill.

Thank you. I’m delighted to have a call just to remind the committee that what we’re doing is debating Part 1 of the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2024-25, Emergency Response, and Remedial Measures) Bill, and it’s the clause in the bill that sets the annual tax rates for the year. By tradition, this is the debate in which we have a pretty free and frank exchange across the Chamber on tax rates, on the amount of revenue that’s collected—it is the debate for the year on tax, tax policy, how we raise revenue, and, of course, the flow-on consequences from all of that.

It’s actually quite an important debate, and it’s an important debate constitutionally as well. This is when Parliament debates taxes, and I’d just like to note that so far it has been the Opposition that has mostly been debating this issue. We’ve had some good responses from the Minister, but we’ve yet to see any of the Government parties actually take part in this very, very important constitutional debate. I do invite the members across the other side of the Chamber to participate in this debate as well. It is something we need to take seriously. The nature of taxation is that people in this country, in virtue of living in this country and earning income here, are required to pay taxes here. Of course, they do that because that’s the way the law works, but we need to justify that to people—

And the question is?

—and this debate is part of that justification for people. I do invite you, Mr MacLeod, if you’d like to do that, please stand up and take a call. If you don’t want to, that’s one of those things.

We are concerned about the tax system. We are concerned about the extent to which it is not generating sufficient revenue to pay for everything that Government needs to do. We’re seeing the effect of that in the health system and the education system. We’re seeing it in the lunches in schools. We’re seeing it everywhere where services are being cut, where New Zealanders can no longer get the services that, actually, we kind of all agree on. There’s broad-based agreement in New Zealand that we have a decent health system. There’s broad-based agreement we have free public education. There is broad-based agreement that we have a welfare system. There is broad-based agreement that we need to provide housing, that we need to provide roads, that we need a police force, that we need a defence force. There are all these things that we kind of, by and large, agree on as New Zealanders, and we need to ensure we fund them. This Government’s revenue system is not doing that. That’s the sort of issue we want to discuss in this debate.

There is a particular thing I would like to direct to the Minister. I may need to ask for a second call on this, but, hopefully, not too much of it. In his last call just before the dinner break, maybe the second to last call—the Minister’s talk just before the dinner break—he described our taxation system as being “broad based - low rate”. Those were the exact words he used. He said that we have a broad based - low rate system and he wants to maintain that kind of system. But, colleagues, we do not have a broad based - low rate system. It is simply not the case that our system can be fairly described as broad based and low rate. Now, the rates are low enough, as it turns out; our top tax rate is well below the top tax rate charged in other countries. As the Minister said, “It kind of levels out, off and on, they kind of add up”, but it’s what those rates are charged on that makes all the difference. And that’s that broad base. Now, we charge income tax on all sorts of income. We charge on every dollar.

I was wondering if we could move it to a question.

Yeah, I’m getting there. I promise you, I’m getting there. We charge on every dollar that a cleaner earns, that a security guard earns, that a teacher earns, that a nurse earns, but we do not have what the Minister described as a “broad based - low rate system”—his words just before the dinner break. I think the Minister needs to defend that, because we do not tax all the income that is earned from buying and selling houses in this country. We do not tax capital gains in this country. In fact, we have very few taxes on capital income at all. To describe us as having a “broad based - low rate system” is just not correct.

Now, if we did have a broad-based system, if we did have a genuine broad-based system, then we might have the revenue to support the expenditure we want to make. But we do not have that broad-based system. I want the Minister to justify why he called it a “broad based - low rate” system.

Thank you, Mr Chair—I’m sorry to head off my colleague Glen Bennett, who is dead keen to take a call. I’m actually interested in the Minister of Revenue’s comments around the revenue cliff we have ahead of us. I understand that tax rates are set annually, and I’ve heard in this House a lot about fiscal cliffs—where there’s been Budget often set on a three-yearly cycle—and the suggestion that in some way that leaves us in abeyance. It just strikes me that this tax system where we set our tax rates on an annual basis is going to leave us in a parlous situation. How can it be that we’ll have no tax next year? Or is it in fact the case that there are no such thing as revenue and fiscal cliffs, just Budget cycles, and the revenue cycle happens to be a 12-monthly one?

I’m also interested in the Minister’s thoughts about whether the revenue stream generated is enough for the costs which the Government is facing, because it’s pretty clear the Government has made some decisions which have reduced revenue over time, including brightline and interest deductibility—that obviously has shrunk the revenue pool. I’m wondering what revenue measures, and if there’s any measures in this bill, which will make that up, because clearly there’s some spending needed in health and for his lunches—or David Seymour’s lunches, in any event.

There’s some big questions in there, but I am particularly interested in him explaining to us the revenue cycle. I get it that Parliament has to authorise taxation, and any taking of wealth from citizens—appropriating it for the use of the greater good—should absolutely be authorised by Parliament, but I’m just curious about this idea that it’s an annual cycle, and whether he’s going to be as alarmed at this revenue cliff as his colleagues are with the suggestion that Budget cycles don’t provide for spending into the infinite future. There’s a few questions for you just to start us.

Thank you very much, members, for those questions. I guess one context that has been raised is: have we got a tax system that is able to deliver upon the revenue required in order to fund our public services? The reality is, for those who are watching at home, there’s a correlation between the size of the economy and the tax on that economy and how much tax we collect. Surprisingly, when the economy is in recession and is smaller, the tax take is smaller, and I appreciate that that might be enlightening for many, but, actually, that’s the reality.

What we’ve recognised on this side of the House is that instead of sort of taxing more of that bucket, you’d probably be better to increase the bucket—make the pie a little bit larger and increase that through economic growth.

Oh, what a revolution!

Again, this may be a bit enlightening for some of those around the Chamber! If you’re thinking about trying to get ourselves away from the situation we’re in, while simply taxing harder is, in one ideological position, admirable, it’s not going to lead to the outcome that we need as a country.

Look, we are focused on ensuring and maintaining New Zealand’s broad based - low rate tax system. It was good to see, actually, that the members of the Opposition supported the first reading of this bill, in which, I understand, table 1 of the tax rates are unchanged following the select committee process—but now they oppose it.

We have a broad range. We have taxation that applies from 1c, through the continuum. We don’t have a tax-free threshold in that context, and so it is broad-based. In the context of overarching rates, when you look at the around about $120 billion of revenue that’s brought in through the tax system, it’s about the equivalent of 28-and-a-bit percent or so of GDP, and within the broadness of that 50 percent or so from individuals, about 25 percent, give or take, is around GST, and then it is in the context of around 17 percent from companies and 6 percent from other indirect taxes.

There is a broad range of that, really, and what this side of the House is focused on is actually, like for many households in New Zealand, surprisingly—you know, you sort of cut your cloth to meet the revenue that comes in, and that’s what we’re doing. We don’t apologise for that; I think that’s pretty prudent fiscal management. But, at the same time, it’s making sure that we’re spending within our means—which, again, may be enlightening for some in this Chamber—and that we are focused on growing the economy, and I think that that’s the most sustainable place that we can take our country, going forward.

Meitaki maata, Mr Chair. I want to actually pick up a couple of responses to questions, and, again, I thank the Minister of Revenue for responding to three of the questions we had before the dinner break. It was, in particular, a reference to his response around my questions around whether they are actively considering lowering corporate tax rates, to which the Minister responded that, yes, they accept that if you did, hypothetically, lower the corporate tax rate, that there would be a revenue loss, however, the Government’s focus on growth means that they would be looking to, as the Minister just said, grow the pie.

My question is around growing that particular pie. The Minister did reference the approved issuer levy as a potential growth policy which was in this bill. I’m a little bit perplexed as to why the approved issuer levy (AIL) would be a growth policy for this bill. If the Minister would like to just perhaps expand on why AIL is a growth measure, given that it’s something that’s currently there and it’s the difference between that and paying non-resident withholding tax.

In particular, based on Inland Revenue’s annual report—and I just want to thank Inland Revenue for their annual report, and just to assure them that people, particularly in Parliament, particularly on this side of the House, do actually read the annual reports when they come through. The last annual report for the last financial year said that Inland Revenue collected $18.7 billion worth of corporate tax.

Now, there has been some commentary around how, if you were to halve the corporate tax rate, currently at 28 percent, to, say, 14 percent or 15 percent to match, in particular, Ireland, which this Government has talked a lot about, about the growth in Ireland—never mind the fact that Ireland actually still has a capital gains tax, still has an inheritance tax, also gets eurozone subsidies, and also, because of geographics, they’re actually quite close to other countries, so hence that would, in some respects, pad some of their growth figures. Say, hypothetically, it was a $9 billion revenue loss if the Government decided to go down the pathway of Ireland with a 15 percent corporate tax rate, putting aside the economic rents argument and our concerns on this side of the House that, actually, you’d be giving tax breaks to banks, to power companies, to large sectors—good luck to the Government trying to get that particular motion through.

The question I have in particular, to the Minister, is because he said it’s about growth for the Government. As part of the Finance and Expenditure Committee, as part of the Budget Policy Statement and the Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update, we asked Treasury officials around their forecasts for growth, the forecasts which are in the Government accounts looking forward, and how much they’re expecting for annual growth, based on, basically, the Government’s forecasts.

I just want to quote it for the committee, particularly given the Minister’s comments earlier in the Chamber tonight. They said that they take into account that there has been a change between what they had estimated in the Budget Economic and Fiscal Update last year and then what was released in the half-yearly update was actually revised down, the growth figures. They said that it resulted in roughly 0.7 percent downward revision in the level of nominal GDP over four years. They said the reason why that is is because they’re taking into account not just things like lower interest rates but the lower exchange rate, recovering commodity prices, and the economy sort of returning to a stable operating level with lower inflation. That’s from the chief economist at the Treasury.

Basically, despite the Government’s narrative around going for growth, the actual accounts and the forecast looking forward actually shows that, yes, there is a small bump in recovery. Roughly, it goes up to about 3 percent in the next financial year, but then it drops back down to around 2 to 2.5 percent. When I asked the chief economist in particular, “Well, given the Government’s mandate and what they’re trying to do about going for growth, wouldn’t you have expected those forecasted growth figures to take into account fiscal decisions?”, basically, if I can quote, the chief economist said, “Yeah, we take a very wide range of evidence into account and a very wide range of literature and overseas evidence into account when we come to what our growth number is. So, yeah, the historical evidence and global trends around the world were the reason that we have slightly downgraded our longer term growth.”

Actually, what’s on the Government books is showing no matter what this Government’s mandate is around growth, the actual accounts for growth are affected more by what’s happening overseas, and it hasn’t really been taken into account in the fiscal policy by this Government. Therefore, my questions to the Minister are, working backwards from what we heard from the chief economist of Treasury, what we’ve heard from the Minister’s response tonight around that corporate tax, and how there may be a revenue loss if there was to be a cut in corporate tax: (1) where else in this particular bill do we see growth policies that will help to plug in that revenue loss; and (2) if their accounts are showing, actually, there’s not much growth to be predicted in the future, what is the Government doing in order to grow the economy in the way that we’ll have to plug potentially a $9 billion revenue loss? Again, I go back to my earlier question: is the Minister concerned around economic rents?

Thank you very much, Mr Chair, and thank you to the member the Hon Barbara Edmonds for the question. I want to come back, in terms of the question, in regards to the approved issuer levy, because it is important. While in the detail in terms of the tax legislation, the change that we’re making is, in effect, allowing people to undertake retrospective registration in areas where they’ve made a mistake. The result of that is that the approved issuer levy, in effect, is designed to lower the cost of capital for New Zealand borrowers who have got arrangements in terms of foreign lenders. The approved issuer levy (AIL) scheme allows them to use a rate in the region of 2 percent versus the non-resident withholding tax rate of 10 to 15 percent. Quite simply, two is less than 10 to 15. There is an economic benefit in allowing them to do that—it does flow through in terms of that broader benefit—and that’s included within this bill.

Thank you, and I guess as I listen to the Minister of Revenue—his previous call, one before that—I feel like he’s really opened up the debate this evening in terms of the conversation and the debate around the annual rates of income tax and what it looks like. He’s been talking a lot about this Government and their obsession with economic growth—growth, growth!—and my question is around that because I don’t feel like he’s actually addressed the question.

The question I have is because, if I look at where things are at in terms of revenue—and we fully understand, on this side of the House, as he said, the size of the economy determines the size of the revenue. Then he talks this big growth game—but I’m unsure. I need a more tangible answer from the Minister around what that looks like, because I’ve travelled the country in the last year; I’ve met with every economic development agency in the country; I’ve been from the Far North, down to the deep South; I’ve been on the West Coast and the East Coast; I’ve been to the central North Island, the central South Island. I’ve been everywhere, man, and it’s been really interesting to meet with economic development agencies and to get an understanding of what the Government that you are a member of is actually doing around growth. There’s been questions around that, and I feel like—well, I know we need answers in the Chamber tonight, and because you’ve opened it up for us to discuss it, I think it’s really important.

I really want to focus on some of the activities that have been stopped, which were around economic development, which were around growing our workforce, which were around growing our regions, which were around growing our economy. The industry transformation plans were an initiative that the previous Government had in place, working with industry, working with business, working with iwi, working with unions, working all around, in terms of developing a plan forward. A plan for what?

Growth?

A plan for growth; a plan for economic development. What has happened? It’s been crushed, it’s been squashed, and it’s absolutely terrible. If you look at the industry transformation plan for the digital economy, I mean, there’s open letters they’ve written to the previous Minister for Economic Development, Melissa Lee, saying this is absolutely absurd.

What’s the question?

You’ve heard my question already, and so I’m going to continue, because we need context on this—we really need context.

The second part is around the regional skills leadership groups and, again, what were they about? They were about building capacity in our regions. They were about looking at the different sectors and what does the future look like? It’s around economic development and the future, but they’ve been crushed, they’ve been wiped, and they’ve been ignored. Look at things like the Productivity Commission, which is around our investment in terms of how we actually do things properly. The Minister has said that this Government is committed to economic growth. In fact, he said “Growth, growth, growth, growth.” at one stage—and that’s verbatim—but we still have not heard what that actually looks like.

We understand that the size of the economy is what obviously dictates our tax take—that’s hard to say—and I think, as I look and listen to the Minister, I just feel that we need answers, which he opened us up to talk about around the space, because I listen and we hear about things like coal mining, we hear about things like gold mining, we hear about the reintroduction of oil and gas, and it feels, to me, like that’s all short-term sugar hits. If you want to do economic growth, then that’s actually long-term investment into the future of Aotearoa New Zealand. I’m not seeing it with a quick bit of coal here and a quick bit of gold there. That might do for today, but tomorrow is what we must be looking at.

I know this piece of legislation is the annual rates, and we need to consider that, but I really want to ask the Minister to be really clear with us when he says we’re committed to economic growth, which will grow the tax take, which will ensure that we can invest in Kāinga Ora housing in New Plymouth, that we can invest in that, which has actually gone backwards under the Government that he is a member of. I want to understand how we can see that this Government actually is serious about economic growth, because what I’m hearing is there’s nothing in this that is actually serious about growth. It’s actually just about platitudes; it’s about putting words out there. It’s just like the key speaking notes of the National Party, and we need answers, and I ask the Minister to give them to us this evening.

Before I take the next call, I just wanted to note that I have been going through the notes and we have talked about economic growth quite a bit and just to note that maybe the Minister did nudge the doors a bit but they’re not that wide open. If people can actually contain them to this particular Part, I would appreciate that.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Under the departmental disclosure statement—I’ve been having a look at this, and my question, and I’ll start with it, is whether the Minister had sought a child impact assessment when it came to this piece of legislation. I think part of it is because, if I pick up on previous contributions from the Minister in the debate, in particular the comments around growing the economy and the tax base, one of the questions that remains unanswered from the Government side is in relationship to how this bill will actually materially impact children, because, actually, I don’t think we should be looking at economic growth in a vacuum.

One of the questions that hasn’t been answered is: who’s benefiting from this growth? When we have statistics from other parts of Government telling us that material hardship for children is actually set to increase and that we continue having a lot of people going without a home, I guess I’m concerned about the potential notion that a child impact assessment may have not been done for this bill. I’m interested to hear from the Minister about what analysis was done in relationship to, for example, settings in regards to our income tax system—would have affected other areas and programmes of Government.

Why this matters is because, if we look at history, we have had periods of Governments trying to once again go for changes to the tax base that end up benefiting high-income earners disproportionately. We have gone through periods where we have seen GDP growth and, yet again, the material realities for children doing it the toughest actually do not improve. I go back to my initial question, which is whether a child impact assessment was done. I couldn’t find that in the papers in front of me, and so I’m curious to know: if that wasn’t the case, why?

Thank you, Mr Chair. This part of the bill confirms income tax rates at the same rate as last year on the same narrow definition of income. I want to ask the Minister of Revenue: what is the most up-to-date information that he has as to the distribution of income at the top end, and how much of the income of high-income and wealth holders in New Zealand is taxed?

One of the first acts of this Government was to repeal the Tax Principles Reporting Act, which would have enabled—indeed, almost required—the Inland Revenue Department to, in future, carry out repeat iterations of some work that was done by the last Labour Government interrogating the effective tax rates of the super-wealthy. My understanding is that since that legislation was passed, the best information that the Minister will have as to the rate of tax effectively paid by the super-wealthy is the studies that were done by Inland Revenue and the Treasury in the 2022-23 period. For the benefit of the Minister, why this is important is that those studies, in the way which I will, I hope, have time to describe to the committee, showed that the rate of tax paid by the very wealthy in New Zealand is about a third of what the middle class pay.

The first of those studies was by Inland Revenue. It had a cohort of between 300 and 350—I think the actual number that eventually completed the surveys was 311—who had an average net wealth of $258 million each. In respect of the income in their lives, 93 percent of their income was in the form of returns on investments rather than salaries and wages. That study showed that the effective tax rate, through a full economic cycle of six years, for those taxpayers—and I’ll come to GST next, because this is one of the things that we need to take into account—their effective income tax rate was under 9 percent—under 9 percent for people who had fortunes of an average of $258 million each.

Now, the proportion of total taxes paid by New Zealanders coming from GST is amongst the highest in the OECD because our GST is broad-based, and just about everything that people consume, excluding rent and mortgages, includes GST. The effective rate of GST for most people is they spend roughly two-thirds of their income every year on GST—GST’s 15 percent, so roughly two-thirds of that. People pay out of their income the equivalent of about 10 percent of their income on GST every year, in addition to the income tax they pay. In fact, that’s mildly regressive. Decile 1 pays about 11 percent of their income out on GST. Get to decile 9 and you’re down to about 7 or 8 percent of income being spent on GST. For this cohort, the people right at the top who’ve got such an enormous investment surplus that they are reinvesting most of their massive incomes—they are not spending on them—their effective GST rate was 0.5 percent.

The income tax system somewhere should be adjusting for that so that the wealthiest people in society, across their GST and their income tax, are at least paying the same rate as the middle class already do. The total rate of tax, including GST and income tax, as I understand it—and the Minister can tell me if he has any later information than the information in that IRD study that I’m quoting—was under 9 percent, plus 0.5 percent. The total including GST and income tax was still under 10 percent.

Now, in addition to that study, in a companion piece of work, the Treasury did an analysis of what everyone else pays—and there’s good data on that, accurate data, and surveys for the rest of the population. Surveys don’t work amongst the 1 percent, but they do provide accurate information for the rest of the population. The Treasury did an enormous piece of work showing what were the effective tax rates of people in so many different circumstances: people who had only salaries; people who had some capital gains on their own house, which, in my opinion, should never be taxed; people who had some capital gains on share investments or residential property; some people who had only ACC income; some people who had superannuation or other transfer payments.

All of these different circumstances were divided by ventile, 20ths. Every 5 percent of the population, for each of these scenarios, was calculated looking at them both on the basis of their income and their wealth. Those examples showed that the middle-class person in New Zealand whose income comes from salaries is paying an average—not a marginal tax rate, but an average—tax rate of probably around 25 percent plus that 7 or 8 percent GST, so they’re paying a total of 30 percent or so, including across income tax and GST. I’m asking the Minister to confirm that that is the latest information that Inland Revenue had—that, as I quote, the effective tax rate of the super-wealthy in those surveys, as I’ve said, is about a third.

Now, the other question I’d like the Minister to acknowledge is: does he acknowledge that, once wealth inequality is that large in New Zealand, those inequalities grow every year because the rate of growth of those investment portfolios of the very wealthy grow faster than the average rate of growth in the economy after tax and inflation? It’s an arithmetic truth that that 1 percent—that 1 percent who, according to those Treasury studies, already have 26 percent of all of the assets in New Zealand, and in some asset classes, like direct investments and shares, the top 1 percent own an incredible 65 percent of all direct investments by New Zealanders in public and private New Zealand companies. My question is: does the Minister accept that those vast inequalities that I’ve already mentioned are growing and capitalising year on year on year?

My final question for the Minister to answer is: is it correct that there is no other country in the OECD that does not have either—normally more than one of these, but there’s no other country in the OECD that doesn’t have a capital gains tax or a wealth tax or a tax on deemed income or stamp duties or inheritance taxes or death duties, and that we are a country that is, effectively, a tax haven for the super-wealthy?

Oh, it’s going to be a long night if we’re going to be talking about the desires of the Labour Party for a capital gains tax in New Zealand. There’s a reason why they’re on that side of the House and we’re on this side of the House, and that’s because of the election.

The high-wealth work that the member the Hon David Parker is referring to was a piece of work undertaken by the last Government in 2023. This has not been further investigated since that point, and the reason, for a little bit more history on why—you’ll recall that the calls by the Finance and Expenditure Committee of the time to call in IRD to be able to discuss the integrity and the substantiation in that report were blocked by the Government members of that time. That report was politicised, and that is why that data and that analysis has no place in the tax system going forward.

The point which the member raises in the context of broader integrity is a major focus for this Government. We saw significant funding investment, increased investment under the last Budget, to increase integrity and compliance activities by IRD in order to ensure that the system is fair and that we are collecting taxes that are owed across the economy. That includes a broad range of individuals, from organised crime to high-net-worth individuals, to people who have structural entities that they use to potentially avoid tax, to those across the broader spectrum. That activity is undergoing. When we came into Government, we inherited $8 billion of outstanding tax debt—

Wow.

Yeah, $8 billion, and that includes the social debt in regards to child support and other aspects. That was up 40 percent in the last three-year period. The efforts by this Government to actually collect the tax that is owed by individuals to this Government have been fast and furious, and are a major focus for us.

We take a position that everyone needs to play by the same rules, and we need to make sure that the Government departments are playing their part to ensure that collects, but doing targeted work that is politicised, that isn’t willing to be open to any scrutiny and any robust conversation, is not the way we do business, and nor would we.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

Thank you, Mr Chairman. The Minister of Revenue has acknowledged that the last information that he has available to him from the Treasury and from Inland Revenue in respect of these issues as to effective tax rates paid by the very wealthy, is the information to which I have just referred. Minister, can I catalogue to you the efforts that were made to make sure that that study was robust and not at all politicised—and it is, with respect, doing a disservice to his own department to suggest otherwise.

That information was gathered pursuant to a law that this Parliament passed that said that that information had to be held confidential to that project, could not be used for tax enforcement or administration purposes, and had to be destroyed at the end of the study. In addition to that, there was a private sector reference group, including tax experts from the big firms and tax academics, in addition to OECD input, to provide guidance to Inland Revenue to guarantee that they were using proper methodologies in their calculations. The idea that that was a politicised report is farcical and an insult to the ministry—the Inland Revenue Department—because it wasn’t a report that the Labour Party prepared or that any politician prepared; it was a report that Inland Revenue prepared.

It is the same in respect of the Treasury analysis. Those reports still sit there. They have never ever been critiqued in a way that is negative, until I’ve heard that suggestion there, that they were politicised. I ask the Minister to tell the committee what evidence he has from his own department or the Treasury that those were political reports rather than pure data-analysis.

Thank you, Mr Chair. It’s a pleasure to have an opportunity to take a call on Part 1 of this bill, which specifically looks at annual rates of income tax. I want to take a slightly different line of questioning to the Minister and ask him about the relationship between the annual rates of income tax and the predictors and drivers of that in terms of how much tax is collected and then the impact of some of the changes that were made under the previous Government in some big areas of spending, particularly related to multi-year funding.

The Minister has mentioned already in the committee in answer to questions that this bill specifically looks at annual rates of tax, but one of the challenges that that does present is that through the Budget process—and I’ll take health as a really good example—in 2022 multi-year funding was introduced to allow for cost pressures in health, so you could look out over the next two years in terms of expenditure. Then, in 2024, that was extended out to be three years’ worth of multi-year funding. Through the Budget process, there have been commitments made to budgetary pressures and to ensure that we have enough put into the appropriation side, but my question is: how can we ensure, if we’re looking at this on an annual basis, that we’ve actually got enough money coming through the tax system on an annual basis to allow for that?

I just add to that some further context, specifically around the health expenditure, which has some extra elements around health. How can we be sure that the annual setting of tax is sufficient to provide for the multi-year funding? Alongside those cost pressures in multi-year funding that have been appropriated for, there are other cost pressures that are going to emerge in areas like health. I’ll name some. I’m sure the Minister will be mindful of this in his role as the Minister of Revenue, but Labour would argue that the current provisions don’t adequately provide for some of those cost pressures in the system. Some of the drivers of those cost pressures are involved in an increasing population, so to ensure that health is actually having an appropriate amount of expenditure added to allow for an increasing population and an ageing population.

I come back to Part 1, which has the limitation of only looking at one year’s worth of revenue gathering and whether, actually, a bill like this may be better to look out in future years, but also to be broader around the type of provision for tax collection in the bill. I also note there are other pressures that we will see in health—for example, things like staffing costs—increased expenditure and holiday pay, the need to hire more nurses and doctors, the need for pay increases, not to mention the need for more capital infrastructure in areas like ensuring we can rebuild Nelson Hospital, Dunedin Hospital, Whangārei Hospital—all of these cost pressures.

I come back to Part 1. The Minister has talked specifically about these being annual rates of income tax, but the challenge is that the Government, through its appropriation, is moving to multi-year funding through that Budget process. How can these interrelate together in a better way so that we can ensure we’ve got the right amount of revenue coming through the door? And it’s not just around what might come through economic growth; it’s actually around how are we planning forward for cost pressures that we can see out. In areas like health, it’s a really good example to ask that quite specific question about that relationship. I’d be really keen to hear from the Minister on that.

Before I take the next call, I just want to remind people that this isn’t a broader Budget debate, so I’d ask members to narrow up their questions. This shouldn’t be about whether there should be rates or not. I get that is an important question for some of us, but this part is about what those rates are.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to go back to this issue of economic growth that the Minister of Revenue raised. In particular, I want to talk about the economic growth measures that he asserted were in this bill. Well, actually, I asked him if there were economic growth measures, and he came back—

Probably the issue was that it’s not actually in this part.

Yeah, he came back with one. He said we’re going to get an adequate tax base not by changing around the tax rates but by ensuring there was going to be economic growth. I asked the logical question, “What are the economic growth measures in this bill?”

I’m going to foreshadow a question that I will be asking the Minister again later, so it will maybe give him—

No need to foreshadow; just ask it.

It’s relevant to this; it’ll give him some time to get his officials on to it, because there are two questions I want to ask. One is that he said that the change to the approved issuer levy (AIL) was an economic growth measure. Now, that’s quite an extraordinary thing to assert, because it’s actually a very small change that just fixes an administrative problem for some people, and it doesn’t particularly change the amount of tax they pay. It’s quite an extraordinary thing to assert, so I will be coming back to him and asking exactly the impact on economic growth there was of the change to the AIL.

In the meantime, given that the Minister had said that the way we grow our tax base is by growing the economy, I want to know what other growth measures are there in this tax bill? What are the measures that actually ensure that we get the economic growth that the Minister has assured us will fix the woes of the tax base, the tax base that we know is heading towards a real problem this year. The Minister himself said it just a couple of calls ago. He said, as though we couldn’t work it out, that because the economy is smaller—and on whose watch has that happened?—the tax take is smaller as well. Now, that’s pretty plainly obvious. He said that the economy is smaller, the tax take is lower—the implication is what is he going to do—

I’m wondering if these questions are better parked for a later part of the bill.

—to get that growing to get those tax rates up? That’s what we need to do to ensure that we can actually have a decent tax base. He has that responsibility as the Minister of Revenue; I would like to see him addressing it.

Thank you, Mr Chairman. The Minister made the proper point that the Government wants to have a tax system that promotes growth, and I think we all want that. My question of the Minister is: what advice has he received as to whether the current tax settings promote investment that is in new plant and investment and jobs, compared with investments that are in speculative asset classes, the income from which is not taxed?

It seems to me that before the Minister could, or should, bring a bill to the House which just rolls over the existing tax rates, he should have up-to-date advice on this issue, given that reports from the OECD and the IMF and the Treasury all say that New Zealand’s tax system has imperfections that mean that renters subsidise their landlord’s taxes and that the economy over-invests in residential rentals as an asset class at the cost of investments in the productive economy—factories, new goods and services that could be sold to the rest of the world, which face a capital shortage relative to the situation were it such that those speculative asset classes paid a fair amount of tax. And, as a consequence of that capital shortage, the cost of funds for those sorts of enterprises is also higher than it would otherwise be.

Has the Minister received any recent advice from Inland Revenue prior to setting these rates that would justify him ignoring the advice of the OECD, the IMF, and the Treasury?

Thank you, Mr Chair. I mean, it would be fair to say that I receive a wide range of advice in regards to the broader tax settings. In the context of the priority for this Government, around economic growth, we are very much looking at what opportunities in terms of tax settings changes would enable us to fuel that economic growth that is required within our economy. That is work that has continued and is now ongoing, and we’ll be having more to say around that in due course.

I agree with the member in the context of the ability to how do we increase the amount of investment and assets which are going to derive value and revenue and income for New Zealanders. Obviously, that’s a key component in terms of our broader system, and we are continually looking at settings for that. This bill in itself is dealing with a number of components—as we know, as members have been part of that select committee—but very much it is part of the focus that we will be continuing on as we are now focused on economic growth this year.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to pick up a point that the Minister of Revenue discussed in relation to debt. He spoke about the Government’s compliance focus and around an $8 billion debt—basically to try and attack that $8 billion debt. I want to ask the Minister if he can provide a breakdown of what that $8 billion debt is—like, the different tax types there are. Is it student loans? Is it corporate tax? Is it Working for Families tax debt?

The reason why I want to know what the breakdown is is because it was quite an interesting discussion that we had very recently with the Commissioner of Inland Revenue at the annual review for Inland Revenue by the Finance and Expenditure Committee (FEC). We had asked the commissioner specifically around this compliance question because they had received additional money during Budget last year, so we wanted to make sure where that money was being spent. The interesting thing that the Commissioner of Inland Revenue spoke about—and I appreciate not everybody in the House has time to watch Finance and Expenditure Committee public hearings—

They’re missing out—they are missing out.

Really missing out—that’s a really good point; they’re really missing out. When we had asked the Commissioner of Inland Revenue around this debt compliance, he actually brought up a really interesting issue. He said that during the COVID period—and I quote—“we pulled resources away from some of our compliance activity into supporting both the delivery of some of the COVID-support products and supporting companies and individuals through that period.”—really interesting that he raised that, because that is the bar by which they are going to measure the return on their investment in relation to that debt collection.

The Minister did say there’s $8 billion worth of debt that’s just sort of—I don’t want to put words in his mouth, but there’s $8 billion of debt that needs to be collected. The Commissioner of Inland Revenue actually said that, during that COVID period, we had Inland Revenue staff working towards the Small Business Cashflow (Loan) Scheme. If members can recall that time, the Small Business Cashflow (Loan) Scheme provided a loan to small businesses. That had to be done through Inland Revenue, and no other Government department had the business transformation or the computer system to be able to do it, so Inland Revenue supported during that time. They also did the COVID Resurgence Support Scheme. That was another measure which Inland Revenue had to do at the time.

Three, four years ago.

The other thing that Inland Revenue—and the member over there interjects and says that was, like, four years ago, but it’s important to understand that that’s the basis of the return on investment, and it goes directly to the Minister’s comments about $8 billion of debt being left around. It was because, during that period, resources with Inland Revenue were pulled away, as the commissioner said, into supporting activities, compliance activities, to help businesses and to help individuals get through COVID. We can totally understand why the Commissioner of Inland Revenue did that, because if the members would like to see under the Tax Administration Act—it’s the Tax Administration Act, I’m sure it is?

Yeah.

In the Tax Administration Act, there is a section around maximising revenue. At the time, the Commissioner of Inland Revenue used their discretion under care and management to focus their attention on investigations and auditing around supporting taxpayers through a one-in-100-year pandemic.

Then the Commissioner of Inland Revenue continued to say, “From about halfway through 2022-23, we started to move back into a stronger focus on compliance. Now, it does take time. When I go and talk to staff, there are two things that I observed, and one is that from an individual confidence level, it takes staff a little bit of time to get back to the levels of confidence they had in doing some of those investigations and audits. Secondly, it is a pipeline, so it takes time before things sort of get towards the end of that pipeline and we start to see, perhaps, some of the outcomes.” I think that’s important context for this committee to understand the $8 billion of debt.

First of all, still I would like the Minister to break that down so we can scrutinise that response a bit more. It’s an important context to understand—that, yes, the Government has put additional funding around compliance and audit activity; however, we were coming from a very different period in time because of the pandemic.

The Commissioner of Inland Revenue confirmed to the select committee that resources were pulled away from the normal day-to-day investigations, audit activity, into other parts of the tax system to deliver tax relief to taxpayers and to help with the Small Business Cashflow (Loan) Scheme and to help with the resurgence payments. These are all important factors and contexts that the committee and that the New Zealand public need to know, because not everybody gets a chance to watch the FEC. If the Minister can provide a breakdown, I’d be really appreciative of that.

Thanks to the member the Hon Barbara Edmonds for the question. The breakdown in terms of the $8 billion—this is as at 30 June 2024—and these are rounded numbers just for the context of the discussion, but $2 billion of that relates to individuals; $1 billion of that relates to companies; $3 billion relates to GST; $1.5 billion to employers, so PAYE; and then half a billion of others, such as Working for Families. That $8 billion excludes student loan debt and excludes child support debt; if you add those in the context, it’s probably around the quantum of an estimated $3 billion in addition to that, so $11 billion in totality.

I mean, no one’s arguing with the member in the context of the challenges that New Zealand went through at that time; I’m simply recognising the fact that, as a Government, that’s the situation in which we’ve inherited, and for every dollar that we don’t collect in tax debt, that’s a dollar that needs to be borrowed. I don’t think it’s unreasonable, at a Government level, that we want to ensure that we resource the department appropriately moving forward to increase their compliance activity to collect the tax that is owed to the Government and ensure that that’s being done as well.

The IRD also plays an important role in our economy, because without the IRD enforcing compliance for businesses that are in financial stress, then the consequence of that is that other parts of our economy—employees—if that business goes under and gets liquidated, then other creditors and employees will lose out. IRD does play an important role in that compliance activity, and I think it’s just recognising that as a Government we’ve recognised that, we’ve invested in that, and we’re supporting the department, and they’re doing a very, very good job of collecting the tax that’s owed to the New Zealand Government.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

I’ve got a question about the income tax rate for companies. There’s been a bit of discussion in the media and from the Minister in the chair, I think, as well as contributions from other members, with some people speculating that it might be a good idea for New Zealand to drop the company tax rate, and I’m not expressing an opinion for or against that. I’m wanting to understand what advice he’s had as to what would be the effects of that, and whether he would be contemplating or has had advice about whether the dividend imputation credit scheme would be ditched and company tax would become a final tax at a lower rate.

I think that most members will understand that these niceties are almost an irrelevance to small businesses, because small businesses owned by one or two people working in them can, effectively, strip out all of the income from the company in the form of payment of salaries to themselves, which means that they can bring, if they want, the company profit to zero and there is no company tax. This issue really applies to larger companies that have multiple shareholders, and I’m interested in what advice the Minister had before confirming rates this year with the dividend imputation credit regime as to what would be the effect on the revenue base of moving to a lower-rate final tax without dividend imputation credits.

My question to the Minister is about whether he had any advice on that before setting these rates, because it seems to me that it’s both important to the question as to the revenue base that the Minister needs to collect for his colleagues for their expenditure requirements in Government, but also, I’m somewhat interested in the distributional effect. I think we’d need to be very careful in this space. I trained at a time when corporate tax rates were 45 percent and marginal tax rates were 66 percent, and so the effective tax rate on company profits other than those that could be stripped out via salaries was well over 60 percent in the total, because the 45 percent company tax was a final tax, and then dividends were taxed at marginal tax rates of up to 66 percent. That was excessive.

I’m not saying that there isn’t room for improvements, but I am interested in whether the Minister can tell me whether he’s had any analysis done by the ministry as to what would be the distributional effects and the fiscal effects of moving from a dividend imputation credit regime such as that which is carried forward in this bill, compared with having a lower-rate final tax rate.

Thanks to the member the Hon David Parker for the question. There are no elements within the current bill that we’re discussing that relate to any changes of the corporate tax rate. In that context, there’s nothing further to add.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I just want to follow up a little on the figures that the Minister of Revenue gave to us for debt before: $2 billion for individuals, a billion for companies, $3 billion on GST, $1.5 billion on PAYE—presumably that’s owed by the employers rather than the individuals—and $0.5 billion on Working for Families. The Minister said, earlier in this debate, that they had made a deliberate choice that they weren’t going to move the tax rates around, and said their choice was to pursue collecting the debt that was owed.

Fine, it’s a choice, but the interesting thing is: just when is the Government revenue from that debt booked? Is it booked at the point at which the return is made, so that the debt is created because a person does a tax return; or is it booked when it’s collected, on a cash-flow basis? It’s an interesting question because, of course, the Minister made the point that collecting a dollar of money owed was perhaps one less dollar that needed to be borrowed. I’m not quite sure it’s quite such a simplistic relationship but, I take the point. But it won’t have any impact on Government revenue, because that has presumably already been booked in previous years. It won’t affect the operating balance—the net operating balance—that the Minister of Finance is working with for her Budget this year.

I would just like to understand exactly how that $8 billion of outstanding debt in various forms is accounted for, and also the extent to which some of it might get written off over time. Of course, if it’s already been counted as revenue, then that gets counted as an expense, as any good accountant knows. I know the Minister would know that himself. I’d just like a little bit of information about that, please, Minister.

Mr Chair! Mr Chair!

Mr Chair, I was hoping to get an answer to that question.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I too was standing to ask the Minister whether he could provide a breakdown as to when that return on investment will be booked. As the Commissioner of Inland Revenue said, he had provided a whole bunch of figures at the annual review report, and I can find his quote again if the Minister would like me to go through it. Effectively, what the previous member who did actually have a question—the question that the Hon Dr Deborah Russell had asked is: when exactly will that debt, when it’s been recovered, actually be accounted for within the Government’s books? Is it on an accrued basis? Is it on a realisation basis?

Yes, it’s very much an accounting figure. However, it’s important for the context of this debate, in order for us to understand that return on investment, when the Government wants to book it in, because it goes back to the earlier point which members on this side of the committee have discussed quite broadly, and also in response to the Minister’s opening of some parts of the debate. It goes back to: if you do not have sufficient revenue to cover the really key things in this country which a Government should be paying for—and we have seen cuts right across the board—for example, school lunches. Again, I don’t want to rehash the school lunches, the ferries, or the landlord tax breaks. I don’t want to have to go through that, because I know I’m going to be pushing it in relation to this speech.

It really is a question about the investment and that actual return on the debt and when it comes in: at what point is the Government putting that into the books?

I move, That debate on this question now close.

Members, we now come to Part 2. This is the debate on clauses 4 to 115, “Amendments to Income Tax Act 2007”. The question is that Part 2 stand part.

Mr Chair, thank you very much. There’s a lot in this part, and I think we’re going to spend a wee bit of time working through it. What I propose that we do is we work through it in a pretty methodical fashion, just clause by clause. Some of the clauses are pretty unexceptional—clause 7 introduces a cross-heading above section CB 23B, so I think we might forego discussion on that clause—but I do want to discuss quite a number of the clauses in this part of the bill.

Now, look, the most interesting set of proposals in here are the proposals for which this bill is also named: the emergency response measures. They’re sitting in this part of the bill and I do want to talk about them when we reach them, but just before we reach those, there are actually a series of amendments which are around land disposals in various ways. If I go to—I’ve just got to make sure I’ve got the one that we’re reporting from, so let me make sure I’m working with the correct copy of this bill.

I want to start with clause 5. Clause 5 amends section CB 6A, and it may ensure that a disposal by an executor, an administrator, or a beneficiary of an estate to a third party—so someone working in that space—is exempt from the brightline test. There’s probably a good reason for that. It does make sense in some ways. But exactly why should some disposals of assets be excluded from the brightline test? I’m not familiar with this part of the law. I assume that when something goes on with the brightline rules—the brightline is now set at two years, not 10 or five—when an estate, a property, is inherited or something like that, then that creates some sort of event. I’m just curious as to why, if an executor or beneficiary disposes of it, that doesn’t count within the brightline test.

I get that estates need to be wound up and people like it to be wound up in a prompt fashion. Obviously, you deal with any difficulties that might be there. If I could have from the Minister of Revenue, please, an explanation as to why that disposal by an executor, administrator, or beneficiary of an estate to a third party is actually exempt from the brightline test, it would be helpful to know that, just to make sure that we’ve actually got the right sort of rule in there.

I’m just going to note that we didn’t particularly discuss this at the Finance and Expenditure Committee, so I would like to hear what the Minister has to say about it now.

Just to provide the Minister of Revenue with some time, as he considers a response in relation to that previous question by the member the Hon Dr Deborah Russell, is to actually jog the committee’s memory back to when the brightline test actually came in. I think it was, what, 2015? It was under a John Key Government, and the purpose of the brightline was that, under section CB 6 of the Income Tax Act, there was already a provision whereby, basically, if a person acquired land with the purpose of disposal, any profit made on that would be taxable. Actually, that’s what section CB 6 acquired, but the issue with that section CB 6 is that it was a subjective test; it was an intention test. So the question you ask is: well, when did they acquire the land? The way that the courts had interpreted it was: when they acquired it, what was their intention at the time of acquisition?

As part of some reforms under a previous National Government, they decided to remove the obscurity by providing what is, effectively, called a brightline. Basically, from this date forward, from two years on, if you dispose of the land before that two years, then you will be taxable on the gain from the date of acquisition; or if it was after two years, you wouldn’t be subject to the brightline test.

It’s quite important to understand that there was that shift in the brightline—which, obviously, the Labour Government afterwards extended, from two to 10 years—and now it’s come back to the two years. That is why I have questions around that clause 5, and also, in particular, in relation to clause 16, which is slightly jumping ahead but still in relation to the similar question as to why, the policy intent of why an executor or administrator who acquired the land in the circumstances described in section FC, which is disposals to which that particular subpart applied—what was the intention behind that particular change?

Again, this was a really large bill and we didn’t get to scrutinise these particular land remedials as much as we intended to, because, actually, the bigger part of the bill—which we will cover a little bit later on as we get through those clauses—if I understand correctly, I mean, if you look at the way that it was initially drafted and then you compare it to what’s now in the bill, it looks like it may be to correct a particular drafting error. That’s my guess in relation to it.

The reason why we need just a little bit of clarity as to whether it was an actual drafting error back when the brightline test was removed down from 10 to two, or was it from a drafting error from before that particular period, is that when you have a disposal of a residential land that’s been acquired by an executor or an administrator or a beneficiary of an estate following the death of a person, generally there’s some roll-over relief, particularly when a person has died and it’s carried through to the estate. Usually, that’s excluded from the brightline test, and that was the original intention when the brightline test was introduced—I think it was 2014 or 2015; I am a slightly, a little bit, a year older, so I might have forgotten that. That was achieved through sections 6B, 6A, and I think it was 2B of the Income Tax Act, and that was the way it applied for the 10-year and then the five-year rule. Then there was another section, somewhere in section CZ, which applied for the five-year brightline test.

The question to the Minister is: what was the policy intention around this particular remedial? The second question is: was this because of the change from the 10-year to the two-year brightline test that was brought through this Government; or, actually, was it a drafting error that actually occurred before, when we increased it from two to 10?

Thank you very much to the members. We’re really getting into this, aren’t we? I think we do enjoy clause 5 in regards to that, so let’s get into it, because I know everyone’s getting excited. For those that have tuned in, we’re looking at the Taxation Act and we’re getting right in.

This actually is a remedial matter to correct a drafting error. The context of this is that obviously when someone inherits land, that’s not planned in that context, and hence why we’ve used the opportunity to ensure that there is an exclusion for transfers of inherited land. That means, in effect, that land that is inherited will not be subject to the brightline test.

That’s the background on what’s going on. This is a remedial matter—probably not the most exciting thing that’ll keep you up tonight—but for those for whom it is relevant, it is important.

I want to continue on. The drafting error getting fixed—that makes good sense, obviously. It does beg the question of what happened to the people who were affected by it while the drafting error was in place. Obviously, there were some people then who would have perhaps gotten taxed outside the rules. Well, it’s hard to know what I should think here, because, obviously, people should be taxed according to the letter of the law, but when a mistake is made in drafting, it seems that they weren’t taxed according to the intent of the policy.

If the Minister could clarify for the committee but also for, I think, the hundreds of people who, I’m sure, are watching at home, because they’ll be worried about this and they’ll go, “Oh my goodness. Am I going to get caught by the law?” Not even just this particular case, Minister, but also other cases where there’s a drafting error and it could have resulted in very unfair tax consequences for people.

I think the member is underestimating the audience that will be watching. It will be far in excess of 100 people, the Hon Dr Deborah Russell. It’s a retrospective change going back to 1 July 2024, which was when the two-year brightline test comes into effect, for those individuals that are watching this evening, because we did think about that and that’s why we’re doing a retrospective change.

Thank you for that clarification, Minister. I’m sure people will be relieved to know that they’re not going to have a sudden and surprising tax bill arrive; though that, of course, does happen from time to time for some people.

Minister, I want to move on to clause 6, seeing as we’ve just done clause 5—we’re making steady progress here. In particular, I want to understand what is going on here in this section, section CB 15E. Some of it is quite complicated in the way that it is written. It says to replace CB 15E(1)(a) with “the person derives income from the disposal” and then it just goes to sort of this, “(b) had the person disposed of their interest in the land that was partitioned or subdivided immediately before the partition or subdivision, section CB 15(1) would not have applied to the disposal.”

I mean, having worked in tax myself, I know that the income tax law, the way it is written, can be pretty complicated at times and it has to be written in a very curious way, but I wonder if the Minister could just unpack that a little so that we can understand it. It does seem to me it’s hard to understand exactly what that is trying to achieve. I think it is something to do to make sure that people who are developing land—I guess, people may not understand. Obviously we have the brightline test with respect to taxing the sale and acquisition of residential rental properties, but we also have sitting in the Income Tax Act, which a lot of people are not aware of, a whole series of rules around the acquisition and disposal of land, particularly where development activities have taken place. That’s a trigger for it.

I wonder if the Minister could just sort of unpack that clause a little to explain what the effect of the amendment to section CB 15E is and how it actually achieves a common-sense purpose. I’m not going to ask the Minister to explain every clause of the bill, because I’d rather talk to the policy intent, but if he could unpack that kind of quite complicated wording, that would be very helpful.

Thank you. I’m glad that the member doesn’t want to go through every clause, clause by clause, because we’d be here for a long time.

Well, we could!

We could, but we won’t.

No, I don’t think we will. I think that those watching at home are wanting to see a substantive conversation, but I’ll answer this for the benefit of that, and then we’ll move on.

The amendment ensures that the brightline period does not restart where land is acquired as co-owners and is subsequently subdivided. I think you would get that it would make sense that the fact that the land is being subdivided subsequently shouldn’t automatically trigger the brightline test coming into play. It was never intended from the brightline test period that it should, in effect, restart in periods such as a subdivision, for example. Hence this amendment is making sure that it merely aligns with the original policy intent, which was that the brightline test should not apply in those circumstances.

Just a question to the Minister of Revenue, in relation to his response. There are particular rules within that—the land rules in the Income Tax Act—whereby if you are in the business of developing and subdividing land, then I would assume that the extension of this—the sale of subdivided land acquired from a co-owner—would actually be very different from that particular scenario where it’s a property developer. Can the Minister just clarify from his response: will this new extension of the scope—which, basically, as I understand it, is to assure that the rules applied when the land was acquired on a subdivision between co-owners and then subsequently disposed of are operating as intended—actually apply to actual property developers? I would have thought that that would be covered under a different set of rules. Could the Minister clarify that or get some advice on it?

The reason why I asked that—as the Minister gets some advice in relation to that—is that currently, under the brightline rules, if co-owners acquire a plot of land and then they decide to subdivide it, they then become owners of different plots of what was a whole land. I understood that the way the rules worked, under the land rules with the brightline test, is because there wasn’t a huge shift or a transactional change between owners. Effectively, they’ve just gone from a bigger parcel of land to a smaller parcel of land. They should be exempt—well, basically, the brightline test should be almost turned off. However, if they’re in the business of developing land, as opposed to just these co-owners, that should be treated differently. I just need to understand from the Minister: does this apply to property developers and to those where there has been a substantial change in ownership, or is this just for those where it’s the bigger plot of land that’s been subdivided into smaller plots but is actually not a significant shift in ownership?

The example that we’re referring to here is land that is co-owned. If the three of us at the top table here own a section of land and we’ve purchased it, what we are saying is that, if we subsequently then subdivide that land for our own purpose, the mere point of subdivision isn’t a trigger point for the brightline test having to reset again, OK? That’s the context which this specific point of tax detail is relevant to, and it’s not anything broader than that.

Thank you for that answer, Minister. I want to go to clause 8 and then, after that, in the next call, I think we need to start discussing some of the matters in the Minister of Revenue’s Amendment Paper.

Clause 8 inserts new sections CC 2B and CC 2C, and they’re really to do with insurance receipts—you know, it’s when people get compensated under insurance receipts in terms of damaged property or so on, so it counts as a disposal; you can earn some income out of it. Certainly it’s a fairly straightforward idea, but what it does, section CC 2B, is it actually refers to the new section FP—oh, what is it?

FP 5(2).

It’s 5(2)—it’s all good. That FP 5(2) is the bit that I do want to get towards discussing soon, because it really is the most interesting part, which is the emergency relief measures.

Under FP 5(2), when there is a property that’s been affected in what we are now going to call an “emergency event”, the way the rules work, you can basically suspend the recognition of the income. A person’s going to get some money in; ordinarily, it would be recognised as income under the emergency provisions because we’re trying to help businesses and people through an emergency period. The recognition of the income gets suspended, and then flipping back to sections CC 2B and CC 2C, it’s got a couple of provisions in there that make it really clear that this is actually income and it is going to get counted, at some stage, as income.

It strikes me as a little bit curious. I know—is it Part C?—of the Income Tax Act is all about income and it starts with the basic rules about what income it is and then goes on to talk about how a lot of various interesting items are actually counted as income, as sort of anything that kind of isn’t income under ordinary concepts gets counted as income because it gets caught in this way. This ordinarily would be counted as income. We don’t even need a special rule for this. This is just income according to ordinary accounting concepts and so on. Why the need to put sections into the Income Tax Act to say something is income, which according to ordinary accounting concepts—which I know the Minister is familiar with himself—would actually be counted as income anyway?

The Income Tax Act is a long and dense piece of legislation and this just seems to add to the complexity of it. I suppose it’s a belt and braces sort of approach, but if the Minister could just confirm that that is what’s going on, that would be helpful. [Bell rung] OK, Mr Chair, I do have another question I’d like to move on to.

Yes.

I just want to confirm the Minister has introduced an Amendment Paper to the committee—Amendment Paper 247—and that Amendment Paper amends whole lots of this bill and it applies to different parts of the bill. I just want to clarify: I should discuss the clauses in the Amendment Paper that relate to Part 2 in this discussion of Part 2? Thank you, I appreciate that, Mr Chair.

Useful to sort of clarify, too. The member’s obviously got very good knowledge of the bill, so it’s useful to assist the Chair with that.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Well—

We’re still at the start.

We’re still at the start; we’re working our way through.

I’m sure the Minister’s very pleased he has two women who know tax inside out to be able to assist with this.

He’s smiling, he’s a happy man there—he’s a happy man. Minister, you’ve introduced an Amendment Paper—and that’s, of course, a common enough procedure—but one of the difficulties here is we didn’t actually get to discuss this at the Finance and Expenditure Committee, this Amendment Paper, and some of it’s just fairly technical stuff, just tidying stuff up in the legislation. But there are actually some substantive clauses in here.

In the Amendment Paper, you’re going to introduce new clause 8B, and 8B is going to introduce new sections into the Income Tax Act, section CC 9B and CC 9C, and they are to do with resale royalties. Because we didn’t get to discuss this at select committee, I’d like to understand the policy intent behind these two clauses to understand how it fits with the other legislation around this. [Bell rung] Thank you, Mr Chair. If we could just get an explanation from the Minister—

Deborah Russell.

—about those two brand new clauses, in particular, that would be very helpful if someone could carry on with that. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I actually have quite a simple question and it’s actually in relation to Part 2, clause 7B. It’s around the addition to section CB 36, “Disposal of emissions units”, inserted by clause 7B. There was a tracked-change version that was reported back from the Education and Workforce Committee, in particular in paragraph (ii) or—it’s quite late at night, Mr Chair; it’s paragraph (c) in new section CB 36(6)(2), and it’s around “for ceasing an activity in relation to post-1989 forest land”.

Now, Inland Revenue officials are very good. They are very good when they do tax bills—and this is probably a tip for any member of this House—if you ever want to know kind of what’s happening in the tax bill, Inland Revenue officials provide to the select committee a commentary on the bill. They’re actually one of the very few Government departments that do this, and that’s because generally this is what you get, quite a large bill.

The commentary on the bill generally sets out some of the reason for the changes. I couldn’t find in the commentary on the bill—and my apologies to the Minister of Revenue, and to Inland Revenue officials, if I have missed it. I’m just trying to understand what it is that new section CB 36(6)(c), inserted by clause 7B, is trying to do in relation to post-1989 forest land, in particular in relation to disposal of emission units? I just can’t seem to find the commentary that accompanies such changes to understand what the policy intent of that particular provision is.

Thank you very much, Chair, and I thank the members for the questions. The Hon Dr Deborah Russell’s point in regards to Part C of the principal Act in terms of new sections CC 2B and CC 2C, inserted by clause 8—they are primarily, I think as the member noted, about the need to include those aspects of income under Part C or under ordinary concepts in the Income Tax Act. Hence as a result of this new legislation that we’re putting in place to deal with emergency events and the response to that, the income, accordingly, needs to be put into Part C, and that’s what’s happening in that regard.

There was another question from the member in regards to the artist resale royalty tax implications, which is in the Amendment Paper. In effect, this is ensuring that there is no over- or under-taxation of parties involved in the artist resale royalty scheme. That obviously kicked in and started on 1 December 2024, so why was this not included in the bill itself or consulted on? Well, as I said, the scheme came into play on 1 December 2024. The tax implications of that scheme were not considered until shortly after it was implemented and the tax outcomes have now been subsequently put through as an Amendment Paper in this legislation. Those changes are retrospective and that coincides with the fact that the bill came in on 1 December 2024.

The question, I guess, is: does that retrospectivity disadvantage anyone? The short answer is: a very small number of people are involved as art market professionals in regards to the implications around GST, so our assessment is that that won’t have a significant implication, but, hopefully, that answers for the member what’s going on in regards to that adjustment.

Just carrying on from the Minister of Revenue’s commentary in relation to new section CC 9B, “Resale royalties”, in clause 8B on Amendment Paper 247, as the Minister has confirmed, it does go back to the start date of that particular Act when it came in, in 2023—or that’s actually the year of the Resale Right for Visual Artists Act. The question I have, therefore, is that the Minister has said that only a small amount of people will be affected by this. How much revenue does the Minister expect to collect from this particular new income tax—because it’s a new tax, or it actually just clarifies that royalties from artists’ resale rights are, basically, taxable. The question is: if it’s a small amount, do those taxpayers that now will have an assessment which is backdated—what is the impact of interest and penalties on those taxpayers?

The reason why I ask that is because it is still a small amount of people, which is what is happening in this particular case, where the Government is now saying, “Well, actually, the royalties that you got from that resale are now income and they are backdated to the application date of that Act.”. If the taxpayer fails to return the income, and now the law has changed and so they’re going to return that income because “Oh, OK, now it’s taxable.”, what’s the implication for them from interest and penalties? Will the Commissioner of Inland Revenue just use some of their discretion, which is very rare when it comes to interest and penalties? Is the return date—have we not even got through to that, and so it should be covered so that there should be no interest or penalties, or shortfall penalties?

I’m just wanting to understand, because this is a change by statute. It’s not a change due to the taxpayer just all of a sudden forgetting that they have to return this income, but, actually, it’s because the Government is changing the law.

I thank the member the Hon Barbara Edmonds for the question. I think, in the context of Estimates, it’s within a quantum of $150,000. It’s not a material amount of money. It impacts, I think, of latest stats, probably less than 100 individuals, or 100 sales of qualifying artwork have occurred since the scheme came into play, from 1 December 2024.

There’s plenty of stuff we could carry on and talk about, and I do want to get through it. There’s just one little bit that’s a little bit interesting in clause 11B, which amends section CE 5—it’s expenditure on account of an employee, is the particular.

Section CE 5 spends a lot of time defining payments or things that are spent on employees and saying what is expenditure on account of an employee. Of course, you know, if an employer gives something to an employee or refunds some money, it looks pretty much like a payment, pretty much like a salary, and could get taxed and so on. It just says here in this clause that it’s going to insert a section CW 17D, and so payments related to health or safety are going to be counted, as I understand it, as expenditure on account of an employee.

Actually, I’d probably have to look at the actual original section—it’s one of the difficulties with tax law. I’d just like to actually look at the section. Could the Minister of Revenue explain how that fits into the definition of that particular section—how it works? As you can understand, as the Labour Party we get quite concerned about health and safety, so I want to understand if this should be triggering any of our concerns for our employment specialists as to whether or not this is a particular piece of expenditure that should be subject to income tax or not subject to income tax. Just a little bit of clarity around that would be helpful.

Now, I can see that he will need to get some assistance there, perhaps, from his officials. I think it might be worth just starting to focus a little bit on what I have said is, I guess, the most interesting part of the bill. I’ve said it several times and it’s taken me an hour to get here—or, I don’t know, about half an hour to get here. I do really want to talk about the emergency provisions, and I’m going to invite some of my—so this is a wee way through. It’s a new, entirely new, subpart that is getting inserted into the Act.

That’s quite a big thing to do, to insert an entirely new subpart into the Act, and it’s the emergency response provisions. Just for context as to what happened, over the last few years, as a nation, we’ve had some pretty amazing emergency events, emergency events which have meant that we’ve actually needed to put in place some support for businesses—[Bell rung]—quite properly, because we knew if we just supported them—

Is the member seeking a further call?

Oh, yes, please, Mr Chair. We knew if we just supported—

Deborah Russell.

Thank you, Mr Chair. We knew that if we just supported them through that period of time, the business would be viable, whereas if they didn’t have that support, they might not. Those measures were put in a number of times, and eventually it was suggested that we really needed to have an off-the-shelf solution. That work was started under the previous Government and, obviously, has continued with the current Government.

What I’d like to understand from the Minister is just how much—it’s really saying, how much of the stuff that was already being done—the work was under way, so how much of the previous work done under the previous Government did he pick up and carry on with? How much of this is new under his Government—whether he introduced any novel aspects into this set of rules around the tax relief for emergencies, or whether in fact the particular tax relief measures that are available were all measures that were developed, one by one by one, as we went through those emergencies, so they’ve all been deployed at least once and now they’ve just been pulled into a package. If the Minister could just give us a little bit of background on the development of that and talk us through it there.

Thank you very much to the member the Hon Dr Deborah Russell for those questions. There was a question earlier around clause 11B, and I actually think this is quite a—well, it’s an innovative and a positive change in the tax legislation; this is in regards to employer-funded flu vaccinations. The amendment that’s being proposed here is to ensure that employers are no worse off if they reimburse an employee for the benefit relating to a specific workplace health and safety risk. Obviously, getting a flu vaccination is a positive thing, and, in effect, we’re ensuring that there is a fringe benefit tax exemption for the non-cash benefits for health and safety related to that. This makes sure that, in effect, the exemption is eligible for the employer. I think that’s pretty sensible because that’s going to apply a benefit through to employees for doing what they do in that regard.

The other question is, more broadly, as the member has highlighted, that there is a significant change in this bill, which relates to emergency events. Obviously, the process and protocol which, historically, until now, has meant that legislative change was required in order to effect those changes under an emergency event situation. What we’re doing is moving this so it can be done through an Order in Council. That obviously allows us to move much more rapidly and faster to implement the measures required in those emergency events—the aspects of which were heavily consulted upon and built upon. I’m sure the Finance and Expenditure Committee did very diligent work in regards to ensuring that those clauses were appropriate, and I thank them for that, but the reality is that we as a Government want to be implementing that and it is a priority for us to do so, hence why it’s in the legislation that we’re passing through today.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I find it interesting that there are going to be closure motions but we’re only on Part 2, page 20 of the bill, and just if anyone wanted to know, the bill is 174 pages. As we’ve indicated, we’re going to go through—we’re not going to cover every particular clause, but we are going to cover the parts that we do have questions on.

I’m looking now at clause 10 of the bill, which inserts amended section CD 44, and that’s around the available capital distribution amount. In the bill—and it’s a revised part that came through the select committee process—it talks about, in clause 10(1), “Replace section CD 44(7)(dc) with: (dc) an amount is derived by a company that is subject to section HC 38(3) (Beneficiary income of certain close companies), in which case the capital gain amount is [the] amount less than the tax paid by the trustee in respect of the amount under section HC 24 (Trustees’ obligations)”.

Now, as I understand it—and, again, unfortunately, during parts of the select committee, we weren’t able to scrutinise officials on everything, but, again, we were very grateful for officials’ advice during the time. My understanding of this amendment is that it would clarify when a company derives beneficiary income subject to the corporate beneficiary rule, and so the capital gain included in that calculation of the company’s available capital distribution amount, or the ACDA—we love acronyms in tax, don’t we?—is the after-tax amount.

Can I just check with the Minister of Revenue: we’re looking at the ACDA as the after-tax amount, but what was the alternative to the interpretation of that? When you think about this particular provision and where it sits in the Income Tax Act—like, generally how it works is that a transfer of a value from a company to its shareholders is taxable as a dividend; however, some amounts can be distributed to shareholders tax-free when a company is liquidated. That, basically, is almost a wash-up effect, but we know that when the trustee rate was changed, it was not clear, as I understand—which is why I think submissions had come through about this—whether that capital gain amount included in the company’s ACDA is the after-tax or the pre-tax amount.

I think what the Minister’s trying to do with this particular provision is clarify that it’s the after-tax amount, but I just want to make sure: what were the considerations about it being pre-tax, which is the amount of the beneficiary income? Why had officials advised him, or why did they not fall on the pre-tax amount rather than this, the after-tax amount? The Minister may need to get some advice on that.

Then I’d go back to just my earlier question which hasn’t yet been addressed, and that was in relation to clause 7B and that’s around the disposal of emissions units—still was trying to find within some of the bill advice that we got from officials or submissions, just again trying to understand the intention of that remedial change within clause 7B, and that’s, again, for “ceasing an activity in relation to post-1989 forest land.”

Two questions: one is just the repeat of 7B, understanding the policy intent behind that, because I couldn’t find the commentary in relation to that—and my apologies again to officials and to the Minister if I’ve missed that somewhere in the hundreds of papers that we have. Then, the second question is in relation to clause 10 and that’s in relation to the corporate beneficiary income in ACDA: why is it the after-tax amount rather than the pre-tax amount of beneficiary income?

Thank you to the Minister of Revenue for the explanation around getting refunds for getting a flu vaccination—excellent move. As is the introduced instruction of the emergency measures, also an excellent move.

A lot of the time, we do oppose stuff across the House, but as I’ve said in earlier speeches, by and large, we support the measures in this bill. We don’t support Part 1 and, for that reason, we can’t vote for the bill overall, but we do support the individual measures in this bill. I can see the Minister sighing there and, trust me, I’ve seen those sighs on the face of previous Ministers as well.

Sometimes even colleagues, eh?

Ha, ha! Goodness, I have to speak to you, to the Chair, about that matter.

I want to return to the Minister’s Amendment Paper that he tabled. I’m not sure when it was tabled, it certainly arrived in my hands today, so it hasn’t been through a select committee process. So, first of all, thank you for the explanations around the resale royalties and the further explanations around how many people would be affected.

I want to go to section CW 39B, because there are some rules there around income related to the Auckland Future Fund. Again, we know that the Auckland Future Fund—I don’t think it exists as yet, does it? I think the legislation for the Auckland Future Fund has been introduced to the House and is now, I think, going through a select committee process. But the Auckland Future Fund itself—

Private trust.

Yeah, it’s a member’s bill, isn’t it, that’s going through the House, so it’ll take a wee while to get through.

Here we have, sitting in the tax bill, a set of tax rules relating to the Auckland Future Fund which does not yet exist. I get that there’s a degree of coordination required in these activities, that we do like to line our ducks up in a row and kind of get them all sorted out, but it’s quite interesting that this would, as I said, set up rules for something that doesn’t exist yet.

The legislation here, the amendments here, they contemplate that there will be trustees of the Auckland Future Fund, and it says that “An amount of income derived by a trustee of the Auckland Future Fund is exempt income.” Well, that’s quite interesting, because, typically, the income that a trustee earns ought to be taxed. Now, I’m assuming that’s the amount of income derived by a trustee of the Auckland Future Fund in respect of their activities associated with the Auckland Future Fund, because otherwise, you could have someone who is a trustee of the Auckland Future Fund and they might earn a salary or they might be involved in a business, and just being a trustee of the Auckland Future Fund shouldn’t excuse them from being taxed on those amounts of incomes. I’m assuming, and I’m sure the officials can clarify: so in the Amendment Paper “CW 39B Auckland Future Fund”—so CW 39B (1) states “An amount of income derived by a trustee of the Auckland Future Fund is exempt income.”

I wonder if the Minister could clarify all that, as to how that is actually going to work. It says the “Auckland Future Fund” in the prior part of it. I know that the Auckland Council has resolved to set it up, but I also know there’s a member’s bill going through to set it up. If the Minister could just explain a little bit as to why we’re putting tax rules in place for an entity that does not really exist yet?

Thank you very much to the member the Hon Dr Deborah Russell for those two questions. First one, in regards to the question regarding clause 7B on the emissions unit: in effect, this is, I guess, what you’d define as the legislative clean-up clause; it simply covers the surrender of emissions units because of being no longer involved in forestry under the emissions trading scheme—i.e., the forestry exit—the ETS. That’s the purpose of that clause 7B.

The points raised by the member in regards to the Auckland Future Fund (AFF) income tax exemption: in effect, the proposed amendments that are in this—so it’s a local bill. The member’s right to note that this is ensuring that the amendments would provide that the Auckland Future Fund is subject to GST, and the proposed amendments would provide that the Auckland Future Fund is deemed to have a taxable activity for GST purposes, similar to other local authorities. That is the purpose of that clause.

Obviously, it’s a local bill with the purpose of fostering public confidence in the administration of the AFF, and that’s the purpose of what that clause is doing.

I’m sorry, I have found that explanation quite confusing because new section CW 39B is a section that will fit within Part C of the Income Tax Act. I’m not sure then how it relates to the GST, which is the Goods and Services Tax Act. That was just a little bit confusing. In fact, this new section CW 39B is talking around all the ordinary concepts of income. I appreciate that there will be some GST-type—I’ll have to look through. As I said, I only got this probably a few hours ago, really, so we haven’t really had a chance to have a look at it.

I can see where there are changes going through to the Goods and Services Tax Act, but the particular clause I was referring to—it’s new clause 21BA, which is going into Part 2 of the tax bill. That part of the tax bill deals with the Income Tax Act, so I don’t quite understand how an explanation which references GST and the need to clarify something with GST is clarified by this section CW 39B—the section inserted by that clause. To me, that relates to income.

I wonder if we could just get a bit more of an explanation. I appreciate it might take a moment to get that clarified, but I hope to have that clarified now, please.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I am going to bounce to the Minister of Revenue’s proposed amendments to this bill, set out on Amendment Paper 247, and actually just carry on from the questions that the Hon Dr Deborah Russell had.

If I understand and read this correctly—again, we haven’t had an opportunity to scrutinise this at the select committee process. New section CW 39B, which is about exempt income, says, “(1) An amount of income derived by a trustee of the Auckland Future Fund is exempt income.” My question is: if a trustee is sitting on the Auckland Future Fund—so they’ve been appointed as a trustee. They may have received distributions from the trust—for example, for their time, for payment for them, as some trustees do; professional trustees get paid for the time that they sit on a trust and for the work that they do. I just don’t understand why this is being treated differently from normal income basis, because it would appear to be regular, it would appear to be that it’s a payment from the same source, which is the Auckland Future Fund. I just would like to understand a bit more from the Minister: why is that exempt income, but yet, in other cases, trustee income or payments from a trust to a trustee is deemed income of the trustee and therefore has to be returned? I don’t understand why this has a particular exemption.

I look to subsection (2) of CW 39B, and it says that subsection (1) doesn’t apply to the amount of income that is derived by a trustee of the Auckland Future Fund from a council-controlled organisation of the council, or an organisation linked by ownership or control to the Auckland Council that is a port company, a subsidiary of a port company, or an energy company, etc., etc, and per paragraph (b): “is not—(i) rates; or (ii) a dividend.” Again, if you read those two sections together, I still don’t quite understand why it’s exempt income that’s for the trustee, given it’s derived in their professional role as a trustee of the Auckland Future Fund. My apologies to the Minister if I’ve misinterpreted it, but, again, as we haven’t had a chance to review it under the select committee, I am reading this as it has appeared on the Table today.

I’ll help with the context of where it is. The Auckland Future Fund does exist; it was established in September 2024.

With regard to the clause reference, if I heard it right, I think that the member said it was new section CW 39B, in new clause 21BA on Amendment Paper 247, and I’m pretty sure that’s what we’re looking at. You’re right that that is in the context of the income exemption only. In the context of the overview that I was providing, I was giving a more encompassing aspect in terms of including the GST elements.

The member is right to say that the GST components are part of the GST components of the bill, but I was providing a more rounded context. In addition to the income exemption under new section CW 39B, there are also the aspects that relate to GST as well within the bill.

I still don’t know the answer to this, as to why an amount of income derived by a trustee of the Auckland Future Fund is exempt income. I wonder if the confusion is arising because—it is a long time since I looked at the trust. If it’s derived by a trustee, is that—it’s actually the trust’s income rather than the trustee’s personal income? I’m sure one of the Minister of Revenue’s officials should be able to clarify this for us.

This is the sort of thing we could have teased out in select committee, or just—it’s a little, actually, faintly embarrassing to be asking this question, but I am struggling with this little bit of the law. I am hoping that one of the officials can give us the explanation. When we’re talking about the amount of income derived by a trustee, is that the actual income of the trust? Because it’s all sort of handled through the trustee, trustee tax is complicated at times. I could do with a clarification there, because I just want to understand this—what on the face of it looks like a good thing? I do want to understand exactly why this amount of income derived by a trustee of the Auckland Future Fund is exempt income.

No problem; that’s why we’re here, so let’s engage in a little bit more dialogue on what is a very important clause in this very important bill. The income of the trustee is the trust’s income, not the income of the person doing the role. The purpose of this legislative change is just simply recognising that point of detail and ensuring that the overarching trust is taxed appropriately.

Mr Chair, thank you. It took me a while to figure that out. I’m glad I was getting to the explanation myself, because I knew there was something weird going on which I wasn’t quite getting. We’ve got that clarified now.

The income that’s being earned, we use that term “derived” but the plain, ordinary language is that income earned by the trust is exempt income. Now, that’s curious. Again, it’s a good thing, from the point of view of the Auckland Future Fund, that amounts of income earned there are exempt from income. It does mean that the future fund will accumulate its funds a little faster, and as an Auckland resident myself, I’m pretty pleased about that, as I’m sure other Auckland residents are. I notice Mr Cameron Brewer nodding his head wisely over there.

It just begs the question here, and that’s the comparison with the New Zealand Superannuation Fund. The New Zealand Superannuation Fund pays tax. Basically, it’s a capital wealth fund. This Auckland Future Fund is a sovereign wealth fund for Auckland, just as the New Zealand Superannuation scheme is a sovereign wealth fund for New Zealand. Members on the opposite side of the House, the newer members there, will learn that the New Zealand Superannuation Fund often approaches Ministers and MPs on the Finance and Expenditure Committee, people involved in the tax space, to make the argument that it should be exempt from taxation. If I were the trustees of the New Zealand Superannuation Fund, I’d be looking at this exempt income for the Auckland Future Fund and asking, “Why have they got this exempt income and why has the New Zealand Superannuation Fund not?”

Now, that’s actually quite an important policy question, and, again, it’s one that we could have examined in the select committee, so I really would like to understand why—

You didn’t mention it at the time.

—one fund—we didn’t get this in the select committee; we only got this today. It’s new. The Minister of Revenue’s Amendment Paper arrived today. Why is the Auckland Future Fund getting this, frankly, rather special treatment? If the Minister could answer that—no?

This is the interesting thing around tax bills and, as we’ve been traversing this, we’re still only up to page 21 of the actual substantial revised track version of the bill. We’ve gone through clauses 4, 5; we have looked at clause 6, 7B, 9, 10, 11B. I’m going to spare the Minister of Revenue and not go through restrictive covenants as part of clause 12.

We will get to clause 13 as part of the wider discussion on foreign superannuation schemes because it’s actually quite a big part of the bill, which I think we need to spend some more time on, so I’m going to avoid that. Also, in relation to clause 14, which is around some of the platform economy rules and the GST rules—we can talk about that a little bit more—but, actually, I am skipping a little bit to clause 16 of the bill.

It was clause 16 of the bill that, during the Finance and Expenditure Committee, we had made a number of changes to it, which you can see on page 23; it’s set out there. Clause 16 of the bill is, again, around certain partitions or subdivisions of land. Again, it goes back to an earlier question I had with the Minister around the impact of that because, effectively, it’s the same parcel of land, it’s been subdivided but the co-owners don’t change. Effectively, the way that the land rules in the tax Act—it treats it like it hasn’t actually been a disposal within the brightline test, which is fair because, actually, it’s still the same co-owners, it’s still the same parcel of land; it’s just been subdivided.

The question that I have in relation to clause 16 is that I just need to understand whether—because I understand when this came in or when the application date—I think the application for that will be effective for disposals of land as part of partitions or subdivision transactions on or after 27 March 2021. That’s the application date for this clause 16, which we just spent a bit of time fixing up the drafting of it because it was a little bit unclear and some of the submissions were coming through to say just to clarify it a little bit.

Again, if we go back to the history of it, I understand it’s to clarify that the brightline period should not restart when land is allocated to each of the co-owners as part of a partition or subdivision arrangement, but I just want to check with the application date of being 27 March for that particular clause: why is it to 27 March 2021? I’m assuming that must have been the date, 2021. That might have been the date that it was extended to 10 years. I just need to ask the Minister why this application date and also what is the impact of those disposals that were done before 2021 in relation to previous brightline periods, which is, again, back from 2015. What’s the treatment of that or are we just replacing it back to the original treatment, given these changes which are in the bill, because the brightline test has been reduced to two years?

Thank you very much. Just going back to the member Deborah Russell’s point around the Auckland Future Fund and the question of whether they’re receiving special treatment in the context of the New Zealand Superannuation Fund. Well, as the member will be aware, councils are exempt from most income tax. In the context, Auckland Council is exempt from income tax, and the Auckland Future Fund will also receive the same treatment as other councils. Just to give comfort to all those that are watching this evening, there isn’t special treatment being provided. There is no special treatment being provided. It’s simply consistent tax policy with the entity of which it’s part of.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

The main reason that you can get a closure is for repetition. If you’ve been following closely, there has been none. In fact, the fact that the member was nodding for any other reason on a tax bill shows that there’s still interest in this bill.

I might have been asleep!

So carry on.

We are doing our best to ensure that at least some people in this Chamber might be sleeping!

I want to go back to this Auckland Future Fund, and I take the Minister of Revenue’s point that local bodies, councils are not by and large subject to taxation. That’s a very good point. Of course, this is assets that are going into the Future Fund—assets that have been owned by Auckland Council through various mechanisms going into this fund to create the equivalent of a sovereign wealth fund for the future. It’s not special treatment in comparison to other councils or, indeed, to the council itself, but it is still, I think, special treatment in relation to the New Zealand Superannuation Fund.

Now, I’m assuming the Minister has already been approached by the New Zealand Superannuation Fund CEO, chief executives, trying to argue for the New Zealand Superannuation Fund to be tax-free. I think the Minister hasn’t quite explained why the difference with the New Zealand Super Fund. I will just move on from that, I guess, because it’s not going to change, but I’m just going to leave that as a question for the Minister to consider as a policy point in the future rather than as something in relation to this particular Auckland Future Fund, and we’ll take it from there.

Very wise.

Ha, ha! Just moving on a little bit from here, I want to move on to new clause—again, in the Minister’s Amendment Paper. If we go on to page 4 of the Minister’s—well, mine is no longer bright and shiny; it’s getting a bit crumpled, but his bright and shiny new Amendment Paper, new clause 29B, about “Deemed payments for services”. It’s an amount of resale royalty retained by a collection agency—again, hasn’t been through the Finance and Expenditure Committee.

Again, I appreciate it’s only going to affect, as the Minister explained before, a very small number of people, but could the Minister please explain the policy intent behind this deemed payments for services relating to resale royalties, in particular the policy intent but also whether it has any noticeable tax impact—obviously, for the individuals concerned, but I’m assuming it doesn’t have a particular revenue impact from the Government’s point of view because of the small number of people involved in this activity. If the Minister could have an explanation for that, that would be very helpful. I’m looking forward to hearing just that last little bit on that.

I thank the members for their questions. Going back to clause 16B, which is referencing section CW 3C, the question was in regard to the date and the timing of that. In effect, what this remedial is doing is it’s applying from the date that the section was originally applied for—i.e., that the change came into effect on that date—and we’re making sure that the legislation is aligned and refers to the date on which it came into effect.

The second question, in regard to the points around royalties, is the section which I provided a context for earlier this evening, in the context of the number of individuals that are impacted and the quantum of impact. We’ve covered that.

I want to move a little further through on to clause 20—you see my colleague and I just taking different clauses of this. I’m looking at it and clause 20 inserts new section CW 19B, which is about amounts derived by employees during emergency events, and that it becomes exempt income.

This, again, seems like a pretty sensible thing to do, but mostly the way that we’ve worked with the tax measures that assist during emergency events has been around assisting businesses. We’ve assisted businesses to continue; we’ve helped them try to find ways that don’t necessarily mean they pay less tax but it gets deferred, it gets spread over a certain amount of time, it creates options, and so on, so that it just eases the immediate burden on businesses. But CW 19B is amounts derived by employees during emergency events.

I guess what I want to understand here is—and those amounts are treated as exempt income—if these are amounts that the employee receives because perhaps the employee’s doing something that helps the business to keep going or if it’s just kind of gratis payments to employees which end up as exempt income. I appreciate that employees, just like anyone else, are affected by an emergency event, but it seems that this might be—is it here so that, if an employer decides to help out her or his employees, that income just becomes exempt? Again, a good measure, but exactly what is the policy intent here? Is it to ensure that a business could provide accommodation for an employee in order that that would help the business get back going? Or is it just gratis assistance to the employee?

Similarly, it says an amount “equal to $5,000”. Is it to help out the employee so that the employee can work in the business, or is it just, again, gratis assistance to the employee? They’re slightly different things, so I’d just quite like to understand the policy intent behind that. It is a good thing—I’m glad to see it in the bill—but I wonder if the Minister of Revenue could explain the policy intent a little there.

Well, the member the Hon Dr Deborah Russell’s very right. It is as good thing. It’s a shame that that side of the Chamber aren’t supporting this bill—

No, we’re going to vote for this part.

—these clauses—because they are very, very important clauses.

The member’s right: new section CW 19B refers to the provision of funding relating to an emergency situation to an employee to the extent that it relates to both accommodation, which I think would be pretty reasonable and sensible. Also, in the context of non-accommodation funding, which is under a threshold set of $5,000, that means that, obviously, those individuals under those circumstances can do what they need to do. Obviously, it’s an emergency event, and we’re simply acknowledging that it’s sensible that, in that context, the amounts in question are exempt from tax.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Riveting stuff on a tax bill night. I now go back to clause 16B, which, as I previously noted, the Finance and Expenditure Committee had done some substantial changes. I just want to acknowledge the Minister of Revenue for answering my earlier question around the application date, which advised us of the date that change was originally made, which was on the 27 March 2021.

Again, if we look at the revision-tracked version of the bill—we’re looking specifically at clause 16B—that is actually a really significant drafting change from what was initially introduced in the bill, which you can see in clause 16, which is about—one, two, three, four—four subclauses that have been crossed out and now replaced with one, two, three, almost four pages of redrafted legislation. I just want to pick apart a number of elements of this amended clause which came through the select committee. Again, we remember that the purpose of, I understand, these particular remedials is just to clarify that the brightline period should not restart when land is allocated to the co-owners as part of a petition or a subdivision arrangement—again, because, economically, same land, same co-owners.

However, the question that I have in relation to this is that, if you actually step through the amendments to it, it actually becomes very complicated. If you look at clause 16B, which replaces and amends section CW 3C, it’s, effectively, rewritten that whole subsection. New section CW 3C: “Certain partitions or subdivisions of land: Exempt income when no more than minor economic disposal of land”—so it’s exempt if it’s no more than minor, which, again, whole land, same owners; partition land, same owners. The redrafted clause provides some proportionality tests in it, around 95 percent. It says in subsection (1): “An amount that a person who is a co-owner of land derives from disposing of land to another co-owner on a partition or subdivision is exempt income if the person’s end value proportion is no less than 95% of the acquisition proportion.” Rereading that again, it is no more than minor if the end value proportion is no less than 95 percent of their acquisition proportion.

Then the bill continues with “Partially exempt income when more than minor economic disposal of land”. It sets out that if it’s no less than 95 percent of their acquisition proportion, then that’s OK. Except it then qualifies that with “If subsection (1) does not apply, an amount that a person who is a co-owner of land derives from disposing of land to another co-owner on a partition or subdivision”—so, again, another co-owner, same block of land, but another co-owner because it’s been subdivided—“is exempt income to the extent given by the following formula:”. Very unusual. Again, like, there’s lots of different formulas in the Income Tax Act, but what was a very simple couple of provisions or sections has now become a formulated provision—so 95 percent in subsection (1). Then subsection (2) provides a new formula: “amount derived - (total land value × (acquisition proportion - end value proportion)).” That is really complicated stuff that a new tax practitioner would have to work through, particularly as it’s a brand-new redrafted section of CW 3C.

Then there’s another third qualifier in it, which is the “Acquisition date for land provisions when no more than minor acquisition of land”. I’m going to save the Minister some time, and rather than go through all the different qualifiers, because then it goes on to, I’ll just highlight the subheadings. “Acquisition date for land provisions when more than minor acquisition of land”—that’s subsection (4). Subsection (5): “Bright-line acquisition date when no more than minor acquisition of land”. Subsection (6): “Bright-line acquisition date when more than minor acquisition of land”. Then, in subsection (7): “Meaning of end-value proportion”. Then, in subsection (8): “Meaning of acquisition proportion”. Then, in subsection (9): “Meaning of co-owner”. Subsection (10): “Definition of items in formulas”. Then it goes through the formulas in those different subsections (2), (4), and (6), and then it provides the different definitions and then it provides an example.

The reason why I have briefly gone through all those new subsections is because you are replacing what was, effectively, one, two, three, four subsections with over two pages of new draft legislation.

Oh, detail.

And again—yeah, “Details, details!” I love that saying by the Hon Shane Jones, because I am a details person and he knows that.

He would’ve loved this bill.

Yeah, he would’ve absolutely loved it. He would’ve been wide awake during this whole process, and he would’ve been encouraging me to keep looking at the details, because that’s how we balance, myself and Minister Jones, and we’ve had that discussion before. You can go ask him about how “Details, details!” went when we had a Budget debate.

Therefore, just my question to the Minister is: has he received advice from officials as part of this drafting process? Yes, I accept it had to be a recommendation through the Finance and Expenditure Committee because it is in the revised tracked version of the bill, but has the Minister received advice around simplifying that, because they were some very simple clauses. It was to clarify, because it was a remedial that clarifies that the brightline should not restart when land is allocated to each of the co-owners as part of a partition or subdivision arrangement, but now there are two, three, four pages of draft legislation.

My question to the Minister is: does he feel confident with the revised draft of this bill that it still meets the original intent to ensure that the brightline period does not restart when land is reallocated to the co-owners as part of a partition or subdivision, or do we need to go again through those clauses in a bit more detail? I’m just slightly concerned that the revision that’s been put through, again, is quite fulsome, and I just wanted to just get a reassurance from the Minister that he’s confident that this actually makes sense.

Well, it’s very important for me to ensure that people don’t leave this debate this evening before they go to bed and not have the reassurance there. I want everyone to sleep well tonight, because I’m sure they will after listening to this dialogue!

The general point I want to make is that this bill—like many tax bills that have come before it—includes a large number of remedial matters which are designed to ensure that the law aligns with the policy intent. Importantly, in the context of what the member is referring to, I am comfortable that the drafting is appropriate to ensure that taxpayers can interpret and apply the law as easily as possible. That’s always a fine balance in tax legislation, but, in this case, I feel like we’ve got the balance right.

I do need to take a second call on new section CW 19B. Now, that’s the one that means that amounts earned by employees during emergency events are exempt income—so not taxed. There’s two questions I want the Minister of Revenue to clarify on this. The first one is a fairly straightforward one. Does the employer get a tax deduction? If the employer pays for accommodation for the employee to the tune of whatever it is or pays an amount of up to $5,000, is that tax deductible for the employer? Normally, salary and wages, the expense is deductible for the employer, assessable for the employee. In this case, it’s exempt income, and typically with exempt income you’re normally not able to claim expenses in relation to it. I just want to understand—if I could understand that—the exempt income versus where the employer gets a deduction there.

Look, the other one is a little bit trickier, because that’s just a straightforward technical question. In terms of the slightly trickier issue, it’s just to do with whether or not this could be gamed. Now, I think it possibly could be. We know that emergency events affect a region but, if we think about the way that the Auckland Anniversary weekend floods affected Auckland and the way that Cyclone Gabrielle affected the East Cape and Hawke’s Bay, some people were very badly affected, but their neighbours a few—

To the great dismay of the committee, I’m sorry to interrupt the member but the time has come for me to report progress.

Progress to be reported.

Madam Speaker, the committee has considered the Regulatory Systems (Immigration and Workforce) Amendment Bill and reports it without amendment. The committee has also considered the Regulatory Systems (Economic Development) Amendment Bill and reports it without amendment. The committee has also considered the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2024-25, Emergency Response, and Remedial Measures) Bill and reports that it has made progress on the bill. The committee has also further considered the Sentencing (Reform) Amendment Bill and reports it has made no progress on the bill. I move, That the report be adopted.

The House is suspended, and it will resume at 9 a.m. tomorrow. Have a good sleep.