Category: New Zealand Parliament – Hansard

Source: New Zealand Parliament – Hansard

Source: New Zealand Parliament – Hansard

Source: New Zealand Parliament – Hansard

Source: New Zealand Parliament – Hansard

STEVE ABEL (Green): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. Mōrena, Aotearoa New Zealand. It’s Saturday morning, you’d like to be watching your kids playing football. Because we are human beings, we’re not just ciphers for capitalist annihilation, but this crackhead coal-ition Government smashing through—[Interruption] That’s right, That’s right. You said it. You named yourselves the coalition Government. They are wanting to—

Simon Court: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Point of order. Point of order. Mr Speaker—

SPEAKER: I heard the comment.

Simon Court: Yeah, I think the comment is unhelpful to maintaining order in the House at this time in the morning.

SPEAKER: It was, and I’ve had discussions about this very matter with whips at the Business Committee, so I would ask the member to reconsider the use of that term in the House. It’s unacceptable to make blanket allegations against other parties. Carry on.

STEVE ABEL: Thank you, Mr Speaker, I’m presuming I can call them the coal-ition Government, though? That’s OK? Yeah. Because, you know, they’re barking coal from the other side of the House, proudly, all the time. That is relevant to this bill because whilst we may be wasting our time and wasting nature and indeed—

Tanya Unkovich: It’s called democracy!

STEVE ABEL: —wasting democracy, that’s right. Wasting democracy because the public don’t get a say on this, but this Government listens intently to its lobbyists. One of the interesting cook-arounds on this particular piece of legislation—one of these interesting factors here—is that they’ve been listening well to the big polluting lobbyists. So, yes, as my colleagues to that side of me—on the left side of the House, but on the right side of me—point out, rightly, we need a waste levy. A waste levy is a good thing—that is broadly supported—but it should be a waste levy.

When the minister says that it’s for improving and protecting the environment from harm, in fact, what this Government is doing is removing tens of millions of dollars in this Budget that are there for protecting the environment from harm. To protect the environment for harm is not remediating previous harms or existing harm, and this waste levy that people are paying to reduce waste—they say it’s for waste minimisation—is, in fact, going to be used for cleaning up the mining industry’s mess.

It says here from mining and industrial sites decontaminating. That is not what a waste levy is for. If we are to accumulate the necessary funds that we need to rightly build the infrastructure to deal with waste, which is a cost burden to our society and to our environment, we should be putting that money towards reducing waste, not to cleaning up industrial contaminated sites. But, of course, what the very effective lobbyists from the mining industry say to this Government and whisper in their ears—and this Government does listen intently to its lobbyists—what they say is, “You can spend that money that people think they’re spending on cleaning up waste. You can spend it on cleaning up our mining mess that we left behind; our acid mine drainage; our massive cyanide-laden tailings dams in Waihi. And when an extreme weather event causes that tailings dam to fail, you can take money from the waste levy to clean that up.”

Absolutely we should be cleaning up contaminated mine sites. Absolutely we should be cleaning them up, but we should be making the industry most closely associated with that mess pay for it, not the construction industry. So when someone dumps their landfill and they’re going to get charged more for the levy, they’re thinking, “Why am I paying more for this?” “Because we’re trying to reduce waste. Oh, but also, we’re actually going to use the money you’ve just paid on that levy to clean up the coal industry’s mess.” That’s actually what this legislation now does.

This is why broadening it beyond waste minimisation is not what this is for. This is why broadening it as it does is, frankly—I’m not allowed to say the word that I want to say.

Simon Court: It’s a great idea, Steve. These are orphan sites.

STEVE ABEL: Orphan sites that the industry that created that mess, the legacy industry—are you telling me the construction industry should be playing to clean up the mess of the mining industry? No. Why doesn’t the mining industry have a levy to pay for cleaning up of orphan sites?

Simon Court: Well why should good operators pay for bad operators?

STEVE ABEL: Exactly, that’s what it should be. It should not be coming out of the waste minimisation levy. I actually wonder what the legality is of saying it’s a waste minimisation levy and then spending it on something other than waste minimisation. Because that’s frankly not saying what it says on the tin, and that’s not what the public of New Zealanders—they’re trying to watch their kids play football and sitting there on the phone going “What? What’s going on here?” You don’t get a say on this, by the way. I think the construction industry would have loved a select committee on this. They could have given their opinion on how good they feel about you using their money for cleaning up mining industry waste.

It is not protecting the environment to clean up a mess made by an industry that this Government is removing all the protections for the environment, including water catchment—I’ll get back to that. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Source: New Zealand Parliament – Hansard

STEVE ABEL (Green): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. Mōrena, Aotearoa New Zealand. It’s Saturday morning, you’d like to be watching your kids playing football. Because we are human beings, we’re not just ciphers for capitalist annihilation, but this crackhead coal-ition Government smashing through—[Interruption] That’s right, That’s right. You said it. You named yourselves the coalition Government. They are wanting to—

Simon Court: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Point of order. Point of order. Mr Speaker—

SPEAKER: I heard the comment.

Simon Court: Yeah, I think the comment is unhelpful to maintaining order in the House at this time in the morning.

SPEAKER: It was, and I’ve had discussions about this very matter with whips at the Business Committee, so I would ask the member to reconsider the use of that term in the House. It’s unacceptable to make blanket allegations against other parties. Carry on.

STEVE ABEL: Thank you, Mr Speaker, I’m presuming I can call them the coal-ition Government, though? That’s OK? Yeah. Because, you know, they’re barking coal from the other side of the House, proudly, all the time. That is relevant to this bill because whilst we may be wasting our time and wasting nature and indeed—

Tanya Unkovich: It’s called democracy!

STEVE ABEL: —wasting democracy, that’s right. Wasting democracy because the public don’t get a say on this, but this Government listens intently to its lobbyists. One of the interesting cook-arounds on this particular piece of legislation—one of these interesting factors here—is that they’ve been listening well to the big polluting lobbyists. So, yes, as my colleagues to that side of me—on the left side of the House, but on the right side of me—point out, rightly, we need a waste levy. A waste levy is a good thing—that is broadly supported—but it should be a waste levy.

When the minister says that it’s for improving and protecting the environment from harm, in fact, what this Government is doing is removing tens of millions of dollars in this Budget that are there for protecting the environment from harm. To protect the environment for harm is not remediating previous harms or existing harm, and this waste levy that people are paying to reduce waste—they say it’s for waste minimisation—is, in fact, going to be used for cleaning up the mining industry’s mess.

It says here from mining and industrial sites decontaminating. That is not what a waste levy is for. If we are to accumulate the necessary funds that we need to rightly build the infrastructure to deal with waste, which is a cost burden to our society and to our environment, we should be putting that money towards reducing waste, not to cleaning up industrial contaminated sites. But, of course, what the very effective lobbyists from the mining industry say to this Government and whisper in their ears—and this Government does listen intently to its lobbyists—what they say is, “You can spend that money that people think they’re spending on cleaning up waste. You can spend it on cleaning up our mining mess that we left behind; our acid mine drainage; our massive cyanide-laden tailings dams in Waihi. And when an extreme weather event causes that tailings dam to fail, you can take money from the waste levy to clean that up.”

Absolutely we should be cleaning up contaminated mine sites. Absolutely we should be cleaning them up, but we should be making the industry most closely associated with that mess pay for it, not the construction industry. So when someone dumps their landfill and they’re going to get charged more for the levy, they’re thinking, “Why am I paying more for this?” “Because we’re trying to reduce waste. Oh, but also, we’re actually going to use the money you’ve just paid on that levy to clean up the coal industry’s mess.” That’s actually what this legislation now does.

This is why broadening it beyond waste minimisation is not what this is for. This is why broadening it as it does is, frankly—I’m not allowed to say the word that I want to say.

Simon Court: It’s a great idea, Steve. These are orphan sites.

STEVE ABEL: Orphan sites that the industry that created that mess, the legacy industry—are you telling me the construction industry should be playing to clean up the mess of the mining industry? No. Why doesn’t the mining industry have a levy to pay for cleaning up of orphan sites?

Simon Court: Well why should good operators pay for bad operators?

STEVE ABEL: Exactly, that’s what it should be. It should not be coming out of the waste minimisation levy. I actually wonder what the legality is of saying it’s a waste minimisation levy and then spending it on something other than waste minimisation. Because that’s frankly not saying what it says on the tin, and that’s not what the public of New Zealanders—they’re trying to watch their kids play football and sitting there on the phone going “What? What’s going on here?” You don’t get a say on this, by the way. I think the construction industry would have loved a select committee on this. They could have given their opinion on how good they feel about you using their money for cleaning up mining industry waste.

It is not protecting the environment to clean up a mess made by an industry that this Government is removing all the protections for the environment, including water catchment—I’ll get back to that. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Source: New Zealand Parliament – Hansard

Part 2 Income Tax Act 2007 and Tax Administration Act 1994 amendments commencing 1 July 2024

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, we now come to the debate on Part 2. Part 2 is the debate on clauses 8 to 24, “Income Tax Act 2007 and Tax Administration Act 1994 amendments commencing 1 July 2024”. The question is that Part 2 stand part.

Hon JO LUXTON (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. I wanted to discuss in particular the childcare rebate. I find this a very clunky and unusual way of giving supposed relief to families. There’s a number of issues that I want to traverse in my contribution, and questions that I want to ask of the Minister.

As an ex – early childhood teacher and centre owner myself, I’m interested to know if there’s been any consultation with early childhood centres and if this is going to create any additional workload for them—are they going to have to provide a certain type of receipt of paperwork for families that they will need to use to get their rebate from IRD? If I think back to my time in early childhood, parents would often lose their receipt, their general receipt. They found it tricky enough to fill out everyday paperwork requirements within early childhood education (ECE) itself. So you’ve got families who live extremely busy, busy lives—families where both parents often work and one often working two jobs just to make ends meet. And you’re giving them this rebate where they’re going to have to fill out all this paperwork, collect their receipts, and they have to pay for the childcare upfront. So let’s be very clear about that. The money comes out of their pockets straight away; there is no relief straight away. They have to pay upfront, these families who are supposed to be getting relief from this Government. They have to pay money upfront, and we know that early childhood education in New Zealand is some of the most expensive in the world.

So they’re going to have to pay this money upfront, then collect all their paperwork—and they can only do this every quarter—take it along to IRD or send it off to IRD, and await their rebate, which will take some time to come through.

So my question to you, Minister, is how on earth is putting an extra administrative burden on families in order for them to get a rebate several months down the track after they’ve forked out the money that they can barely afford to spend anyway? How can you expect this to be successful? It is just clunky, and I’m interested to know how the Minister sees this is going to be of any real benefit for families other than creating more administration and pressure on families that have busy enough lives as it is.

Hon PEENI HENARE (Labour): Kia ora, Madam Chair. Thank you very much for this opportunity. I stand interested, too, in the same matter of the rebate here. I’m a former kōhanga reo pupil myself; I think the first kōhanga reo pupil into Parliament—just a little something for us. Apparently, the kōhanga reo generation is here—been here for 10 years.

But, look, to the point: the regulatory impact statement is quite clear in talking about the participation rates of Māori, the cost there is, and the administrative barriers for Māori and Pacific families. But I want to focus on Māori as it’s the one I know about the most. You’ve seen with their tamariki o te kōhanga reo: the burden on them to continue to receive a rebate in this respect is cumbersome, it’s onerous, and will only further reduce the uptake on Māori for putting their tamariki into ECE. The regulatory impact statement (RIS) makes it very, very clear: it says there that it “will provide a reduced benefit to Māori and Pasifika families due to these groups being less likely to pay for childcare, either due to ECE subsidies covering the costs already, lower ECE participation, or greater participation in informal/non-cash-based childcare.”

This is a huge blow to many of the working families out there who want to send their tamariki to kōhanga reo. It’s already difficult enough to get tamariki into kōhanga reo, and now they’re being asked to front up with these costs. But then there is the administrative burden of going along to make sure that they receive their rebate.

The next part to that is what does this mean, and it’s not quite clear and I’d like the Minister to explain to us what this means when it comes to kōhanga reo themselves supporting families to administer this particular rebate. That isn’t an answer that’s clearly provided for in the RIS, nor is it in the bill, so I’d really appreciate it if the Minister could help us all understand what this means and what does the burden mean for the ECE provider. It says something in the bill there that the forms have to match up to the IRD. It says that in Part 2, clause 41C—yep, I think that’s the one—and it says that the ECE provider has a little bit of work to do to make sure that they match up with the IRD forms. And I’m wondering: (1) what does that cost our ECE providers, and, in particular, kōhanga reo, who already struggle for money; and (2) will that then be passed on to families in increased cost for families who wish to put their tamariki into ECE?

So those are the questions I have for the Minister, and if he can explain what material impact that has, in particular, on Māori families, and whether or not, in their decision making, the Minister and the Cabinet considered how this will impact Māori and whether or not their uptake of ECE will rise or fall. It’s clear in the information in the RIS, and the feedback that we’re getting already from the kōhanga reo sector, that it will materially impact our families in the community.

Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Revenue): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Just in response to those questions: the FamilyBoost policy goes actually to the heart of what the last member was referring to in terms of the implications on families across the country, and is significant as a result of the early childhood education fees in which they need to incur. In comparison to the status quo—i.e., doing nothing—this Government and this bill is implementing the ability for families to receive 25 percent of those ECE costs, up to a maximum of $150 per family per fortnight for those that are earning up to $180,000—to have the ability to get that rebated back. Compared to the status quo, that is a significant benefit, and that money, irrespective of the background of those families, will be available for them to use against the impacts of the cost of living.

The regulatory impact statement at clause 29 refers clearly to say that Māori and Pasifika families are disproportionately impacted by the implications of ECE costs, and those families will benefit through the implementation of this policy, and that is a good thing in comparison to the status quo.

In regards to Jo Luxton’s questions in regards to some of the conversations around how the rebate will work and language around that, again, the regulatory impact statement does outline some of the considerations around the way in which the ECE sector was engaged and was discussed, and that engagement was undertaken, acknowledging that there are considerations around Budget secrecy. But at the end of the day, the objective for this coalition Government is to get that benefit into the hands of hard-working families who have children in ECE, as far as practical, and the considerations and the balances that my department and IRD need to draw is ensuring that we’ve got an ability to ensure that those who are receiving those rebates will receive the appropriate amount of revenue back from that, and ensure that we’ve got a good process in regards to compliance as well, to ensure that who is getting the money should get the money. And I think we’ve found that balance between the speed at which we execute and making sure that we ensure that the money goes to those who need it most.

Source: New Zealand Parliament – Hansard

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’m going to call Hon Dr Deborah Russell. I’m looking for new content now, because I’m aware that we’ve been on this part for probably almost two hours, and we’ve got several more parts to come, which will also be relevant. But I’m going to take one more call and I’m listening for very new.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): OK. Thank you, Madam Chair. You know, this is the examination we have of this extremely important bill in lieu of having had a select committee stage. There is a series of questions here that we could have dug into at select committee and we still need to have a think about them here.

I want to refer to something the Minister said last night and some more information about that which I haven’t covered yet coming out of the regulatory impact statement. Now, last night I questioned the Minister about the lead times that payroll providers needed in order to get these tax threshold changes in place in time for people to actually get the money in their pay packets. I pointed out that Inland Revenue itself said, in the regulatory impact statement, that payroll providers really needed to have a three-month lead time. Now, from 30 May to 31 July, when these changes come in, is two months. So I checked with the Minister. I said, “That doesn’t seem like a very long time and they actually need three months.” He pointed out that the regulatory impact statement was dated on 24 April, and in that time, between when the regulatory impact statement came out and the Budget itself, there had been some ongoing consultation with payroll providers to ensure that they’d be able to get the changes in place. So they were pretty sure that they could meet that two-months lead time.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Is there a new question in this?

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: Yep, there is a question coming right now. The Minister was sure about this. So I want to ask the Minister: can he guarantee that every employee will get the tax threshold changes in their pay packet in their first pay after 31 July? He said that they had consulted payroll, so I want to know: can he guarantee that? So that’s the first question.

I want to carry on because there’s some more information in the regulatory impact statement that we haven’t covered yet. I want to draw the Minister’s attention to paragraphs 49, 50, and 51 of the regulatory impact statement, which have not been discussed yet. Now, we discussed some of the large Government organisations in terms of their payrolls for their employees. But paragraphs 49, 50, and 51 point out that some large Government organisations have a whole set of other people to whom they are directing payments that are subject to income tax, and, in particular, payments made by the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) to beneficiaries, payments made by ACC under the compensation system and payments made by the Ministry of Health. Now, we’re talking lead times for payroll providers, and in paragraph 51, there are very specific numbers about how long each of those organisations think they need. So to make the necessary IT changes to ensure that people get that money in their back pocket, in their first pay, after 31 July—and that’s what the Minister has told us he can do—ACC—

Tim Costley: You don’t want them to get the money.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: —take a call—says that it needs eight to 13 weeks. So, OK, ACC is going to fit within that lead time or maybe the earlier lead time. MSD says that they need about three months from the Cabinet decision. Now, I’m taking it that the Cabinet decision would have been made on 1 May, that’s the first Cabinet after the regulatory impact statement. But here’s the cracker: Health New Zealand says it needs four months—it needs four months from the date of the Cabinet decision. Big workforce there, and that’s what Health New Zealand said.

So the Minister has put in place some changes to tax thresholds and he said that he’s confident based on the consultation with payroll providers that it can be done for employees, but then, sitting in the regulatory impact statement for Health New Zealand, one of the largest employers in this country is the very clear information that they need approximately four months from the date of the Cabinet decision, and that’s only if they get told about it in advance of the Budget. It happens because we’ve got to get that sort of thing sorted. Now, the date of the Cabinet decision was 1 May, at the earliest—so 1 June, 1 July, 1 August, 1 September. When are those people employed by Health New Zealand going to see the impact of these tax threshold changes in their pay packets?

Now, the Minister has been absolutely confident that it can be delivered. I would like that guarantee that every employee will see the impact of the tax threshold changes after 31 July—in their first pay packet after 31 July. He was confident last night—[Time expired]

Source: New Zealand Parliament – Hansard

Part 2 Income Tax Act 2007 and Tax Administration Act 1994 amendments commencing 1 July 2024

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, we now come to the debate on Part 2. Part 2 is the debate on clauses 8 to 24, “Income Tax Act 2007 and Tax Administration Act 1994 amendments commencing 1 July 2024”. The question is that Part 2 stand part.

Hon JO LUXTON (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. I wanted to discuss in particular the childcare rebate. I find this a very clunky and unusual way of giving supposed relief to families. There’s a number of issues that I want to traverse in my contribution, and questions that I want to ask of the Minister.

As an ex – early childhood teacher and centre owner myself, I’m interested to know if there’s been any consultation with early childhood centres and if this is going to create any additional workload for them—are they going to have to provide a certain type of receipt of paperwork for families that they will need to use to get their rebate from IRD? If I think back to my time in early childhood, parents would often lose their receipt, their general receipt. They found it tricky enough to fill out everyday paperwork requirements within early childhood education (ECE) itself. So you’ve got families who live extremely busy, busy lives—families where both parents often work and one often working two jobs just to make ends meet. And you’re giving them this rebate where they’re going to have to fill out all this paperwork, collect their receipts, and they have to pay for the childcare upfront. So let’s be very clear about that. The money comes out of their pockets straight away; there is no relief straight away. They have to pay upfront, these families who are supposed to be getting relief from this Government. They have to pay money upfront, and we know that early childhood education in New Zealand is some of the most expensive in the world.

So they’re going to have to pay this money upfront, then collect all their paperwork—and they can only do this every quarter—take it along to IRD or send it off to IRD, and await their rebate, which will take some time to come through.

So my question to you, Minister, is how on earth is putting an extra administrative burden on families in order for them to get a rebate several months down the track after they’ve forked out the money that they can barely afford to spend anyway? How can you expect this to be successful? It is just clunky, and I’m interested to know how the Minister sees this is going to be of any real benefit for families other than creating more administration and pressure on families that have busy enough lives as it is.

Hon PEENI HENARE (Labour): Kia ora, Madam Chair. Thank you very much for this opportunity. I stand interested, too, in the same matter of the rebate here. I’m a former kōhanga reo pupil myself; I think the first kōhanga reo pupil into Parliament—just a little something for us. Apparently, the kōhanga reo generation is here—been here for 10 years.

But, look, to the point: the regulatory impact statement is quite clear in talking about the participation rates of Māori, the cost there is, and the administrative barriers for Māori and Pacific families. But I want to focus on Māori as it’s the one I know about the most. You’ve seen with their tamariki o te kōhanga reo: the burden on them to continue to receive a rebate in this respect is cumbersome, it’s onerous, and will only further reduce the uptake on Māori for putting their tamariki into ECE. The regulatory impact statement (RIS) makes it very, very clear: it says there that it “will provide a reduced benefit to Māori and Pasifika families due to these groups being less likely to pay for childcare, either due to ECE subsidies covering the costs already, lower ECE participation, or greater participation in informal/non-cash-based childcare.”

This is a huge blow to many of the working families out there who want to send their tamariki to kōhanga reo. It’s already difficult enough to get tamariki into kōhanga reo, and now they’re being asked to front up with these costs. But then there is the administrative burden of going along to make sure that they receive their rebate.

The next part to that is what does this mean, and it’s not quite clear and I’d like the Minister to explain to us what this means when it comes to kōhanga reo themselves supporting families to administer this particular rebate. That isn’t an answer that’s clearly provided for in the RIS, nor is it in the bill, so I’d really appreciate it if the Minister could help us all understand what this means and what does the burden mean for the ECE provider. It says something in the bill there that the forms have to match up to the IRD. It says that in Part 2, clause 41C—yep, I think that’s the one—and it says that the ECE provider has a little bit of work to do to make sure that they match up with the IRD forms. And I’m wondering: (1) what does that cost our ECE providers, and, in particular, kōhanga reo, who already struggle for money; and (2) will that then be passed on to families in increased cost for families who wish to put their tamariki into ECE?

So those are the questions I have for the Minister, and if he can explain what material impact that has, in particular, on Māori families, and whether or not, in their decision making, the Minister and the Cabinet considered how this will impact Māori and whether or not their uptake of ECE will rise or fall. It’s clear in the information in the RIS, and the feedback that we’re getting already from the kōhanga reo sector, that it will materially impact our families in the community.

Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Revenue): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Just in response to those questions: the FamilyBoost policy goes actually to the heart of what the last member was referring to in terms of the implications on families across the country, and is significant as a result of the early childhood education fees in which they need to incur. In comparison to the status quo—i.e., doing nothing—this Government and this bill is implementing the ability for families to receive 25 percent of those ECE costs, up to a maximum of $150 per family per fortnight for those that are earning up to $180,000—to have the ability to get that rebated back. Compared to the status quo, that is a significant benefit, and that money, irrespective of the background of those families, will be available for them to use against the impacts of the cost of living.

The regulatory impact statement at clause 29 refers clearly to say that Māori and Pasifika families are disproportionately impacted by the implications of ECE costs, and those families will benefit through the implementation of this policy, and that is a good thing in comparison to the status quo.

In regards to Jo Luxton’s questions in regards to some of the conversations around how the rebate will work and language around that, again, the regulatory impact statement does outline some of the considerations around the way in which the ECE sector was engaged and was discussed, and that engagement was undertaken, acknowledging that there are considerations around Budget secrecy. But at the end of the day, the objective for this coalition Government is to get that benefit into the hands of hard-working families who have children in ECE, as far as practical, and the considerations and the balances that my department and IRD need to draw is ensuring that we’ve got an ability to ensure that those who are receiving those rebates will receive the appropriate amount of revenue back from that, and ensure that we’ve got a good process in regards to compliance as well, to ensure that who is getting the money should get the money. And I think we’ve found that balance between the speed at which we execute and making sure that we ensure that the money goes to those who need it most.

Source: New Zealand Parliament – Hansard

Source: New Zealand Parliament – Hansard