Tuesday, 26 March 2024 - Volume 774 Sitting date: 26 Mar 2024 TUESDAY, 26 MARCH 2024 The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m. KARAKIA/PRAYERS SPEAKER: 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, justice, mercy, and humility for the welfare and peace of New Zealand. Amen. LIST MEMBER ELECTED New Zealand Labour—Glen Thomas Bennett SPEAKER: Members, I have received from the Electoral Commission a return declaring Glen Thomas Bennett to be elected a member of Parliament to fill the vacancy created by the resignation of the Hon Grant Robertson from his list seat. I understand that Glen Bennett is present and wishes to make an affirmation. Would he approach the Chair? MEMBERS SWORN GLEN BENNETT (Labour): Ko ahau, ko Glen Thomas Bennett, e oati ana ka noho pūmau taku pono ki a Kīngi Tiāre te Tuatoru me tōna kāhui whakaheke, e ai ki te ture. Ko te Atua nei hoki taku pou. [I, Glen Thomas Bennett, swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles III, His heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God.] VISITORS Tokelau—Head of Government SPEAKER: I'm sure that members would wish to welcome Alapati Tavite, head of the Government of Tokelau, and his accompanying delegation, who are present in the gallery. APPLICATIONS FOR URGENT DEBATES Israel-Hamas Ceasefire—United Nations Security Council Resolution SPEAKER: Members, I have received applications for an urgent debate. I have received a letter from Teanau Tuiono seeking to debate under Standing Order 399 a resolution of the United Nations Security Council calling for an immediate ceasefire between Israel and Hamas in the Gaza Strip, and the release of all hostages. For there to be an urgent debate, there must be administrative or ministerial responsibility for the case of recent occurrence; Speaker's ruling 2164. There is no ministerial or administrative responsibility for a resolution of the United Nations. The Government cannot answer to the House about a body for which it is not responsible. The application is therefore declined. Gaza Crisis—Government Response I've also received a letter from Rt Hon Chris Hipkins seeking to debate the Government's response to the Gaza crisis. An urgent debate is a way of holding the Government to account for its actions. The application does not provide all the authentication for any recent Government action but it is a matter that has had Government action reported on. This is a particular case of recent occurrence for which there is ministerial responsibility. The situation in Gaza warrants New Zealanders being aware of the views of this House. I therefore call on the Rt Hon Chris Hipkins to move that the House take note of a matter of public importance immediately at the conclusion of oral questions. PAPERS, PETITIONS, SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS, AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLS SPEAKER: We come now to petitions. CLERK: Petition of Barnaby Todd requesting that the House require schools to review rules and revise if necessary to avoid students smoking or vaping. SPEAKER: Ministers have delivered papers. CLERK: 2022/23 annual reports of: Kiwi Group Capital Limited and Subsidiaries New Zealand Railways Corporation Air New Zealand Limited Te Aratuku Whakaata Irirangi Māori, Māori Television Service Government response to a report of Petitions Committee on the Petition of Andrew Wilson. SPEAKER: Those papers are published under the authority of the House. Select committee reports have been delivered for presentation. CLERK: Report of the Environment Committee on the 2022/23 Annual review of the Environmental Protection Authority Reports of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the 2022/23 annual reviews of the Inland Revenue Department and of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Reports of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee on the 2022/23 Annual reviews of the New Zealand Antarctic Institute and of the New Zealand Customs Service and the Border Executive Board Reports of the Health Committee on the 2022/23 annual reviews of the Health and Disability Commissioner and the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission and of the Cancer Control Agency, the Health Quality and Safety Commission, and Health Research Council of New Zealand Reports of the Justice Committee on the 2022/23 annual review of the New Zealand Police and the annual review of the Public Trust, and the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) (Overseas Travel Reporting) Amendment Bill Reports of the Māori Affairs Committee on the Ngāti Tara Tokanui Claims Settlement Bill and on the petition of Seann Paurini Reports of the Petitions Committee on the petition of Free Fares NZ and the petition of Hāpai Te Hauora Report of the Primary Production Committee on 2022/23 annual review of Animal Control Products Limited Report of the Social Services and Community Committee on the 2022/23 annual review of the Ministry for Pacific Peoples. SPEAKER: Those bills are set down for second reading. There are no bills for introduction. ORAL QUESTIONS QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS Question No. 1—Prime Minister 1. CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his Government's statements and actions? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes, and especially our announcement yesterday that the Government is taking action to support young families with the cost of living crisis. FamilyBoost will help to reduce pressure from the cost of early childcare education (ECE) and support families to be able to get ahead, and from 1 July, parents of young children can get back up to 25 percent of their weekly fees, up to a maximum of $75 per week. We also want to support families who face financial challenges returning to the workforce, and ECE fees are a big barrier parents face when they head back to work. I'm telling you FamilyBoost is going to help them with that, and that's what this Government is about doing. Chlöe Swarbrick: Does he stand by his statement that tax deductibility changes will reduce rents, or would he like to revise that in light of advice that his Government has received that rents are primarily driven by household income and relative supply and demand for housing? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Across housing in New Zealand, we have a supply challenge. We have a supply challenge whether you want to own a house, whether you want to rent a house, or whether you want to secure one in social State housing. What we're doing is making sure that we can ensure that, actually, as downward pressure on rents is passing costs on to landlords that end up leading to higher rents is not an acceptable answer. Chlöe Swarbrick: What is a better use of $2.9 billion: tax cuts for landlords; or retention of food in schools, expanding fees-free tertiary education, and retaining free prescriptions, with money left over? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, what I can say is I've seen a lot of commentary about school lunches. School lunches will continue to be funded; we just want to make sure that the system is more effective and that wastage is removed, and if there's a better way to deliver it at lower cost, we'll look to do that. Hon David Seymour: Is the Prime Minister aware that the advice the member alluded to about the effects of mortgage interest deductibility on rental housing continued on to say that in the long run, reductions in rents could be expected; and would he advise members, as a matter of general practice, to read all the evidence instead of selectively quoting some? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, what I can say is that when the previous Government actually removed interest deductibility, they received advice to say that that would likely put upward pressure. It puts downward pressure on rents. Passing costs on to landlords that only get passed through to renters with higher rents isn't the way forward. Chlöe Swarbrick: What's the better use—[Interruption] SPEAKER: Wait, wait—just wait. Some people on your side of the House were offering comment. Now that that's over, please continue. Chlöe Swarbrick: Thank you, Mr Speaker—and my colleagues in Labour. What is a better use of $2.9 billion: tax cuts for landlords; or maintaining Jobs for Nature, which provides investment in conservation projects and jobs in rural communities, and doubling the funding for the Department of Conservation? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, look, I can tell you, we're a Government that's going to rebuild this economy, and that means that we are going to make sure— Chlöe Swarbrick: How—how? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, listen to what I'm about to say. We're going to make sure that we actually make sure Government spending is very effective so that we actually protect our front-line services, we are going to give low and middle income working people tax relief—that's something that the Labour Party and the Green Party used to believe in; they were people that they used to support, but they don't seem to care about it anymore—and, ultimately, we're going to work out how to grow this economy. We have a great future ahead of us, and that's what we're going to balance in our Budget. Chlöe Swarbrick: Has his Government wound down the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment's just transitions unit, and, if so, how many more climate change jobs are on the chopping block? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, what we are interested in is actually delivering on our climate change goals—that's actually what matters here. The means by which we deliver those goals may differ from the previous administration, but our commitment is incredibly strong to deliver those commitments. Chlöe Swarbrick: Does he stand by the statements from his Minister for Regulation that risks to endangered native dolphins' lives are the equivalent to driving a car, and, if so, are we to expect that this Government will wind back marine protection in line with their war on nature? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I reject the premise of that question and the way that it was characterised. Hon David Seymour: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I just want to be clear to the House that I've made no such statement. However, some people are unable to understand the point of an analogy about risk, rather than literally suggesting dolphins would drive cars. SPEAKER: OK, thank you for that. We'll have the question again, but bear in mind that what has just been—it now must be taken as the word of the House. Chlöe Swarbrick: Does he stand by the statements of his Minister for Regulation making equivalences between the risks to endangered native dolphins' lives and driving a car, and, if so, are we to expect that this Government is going to wind back marine protection in line with their war on nature? Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order. Mr Speaker, a question must be substantiated, and that last statement is utterly outside of parliamentary order and will lead to disorder if she's allowed to get away with it. Chlöe Swarbrick: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Speaker. I can very happily table the likes of the Environmental Defence Society's many press releases which speak to this Government's agenda being a war on nature. SPEAKER: Yes, but the member is not here as an advocate for anybody other than those who voted for her. I think, the question, in the first place, was borderline, and has now gone over that. So try again with another question. Hon Member: Taking another question? SPEAKER: No, I'm giving you an extra one. Chlöe Swarbrick: An extra one? Thank you, Mr Speaker. SPEAKER: Yeah, unbelievable generosity, given the circumstances! Chlöe Swarbrick: What, then, is a better use of $2.9 billion: is it tax breaks for landlords; or half-price public transport fares which ease cost for struggling families and help us to meet our climate-emission goals? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We make no apologies for being on the side of renters in New Zealand. We care deeply about folk in New Zealand who are renting properties. The previous administration loaded costs up on landlords and they got passed through to renters with higher rents—$170 more on average every single week. We're on the side of renters. We're taking action to make sure we can do something about it. Question No. 2—Prime Minister 2. Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his Government's statements and actions? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes, and in particular our commitment to deliver tax relief for hard-working New Zealanders, in stark contrast to that member, who's embarking on yet another campaign to raise taxes, because it seems that no matter the circumstances, the solution offered by that member's party is always more tax— Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Following the precedent set by David Seymour, the statement the Prime Minister has just made is incorrect. I therefore ask that he desist from making it. SPEAKER: That's right. The Prime Minister can withdraw that part but continue with his answer. Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I withdraw and apologise. What I'd say to you very clearly is that member's policy is to increase taxes. We know what the economic agenda of the Labour Party is: it's spend more, borrow more, tax more. That's something— Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. That is also incorrect. SPEAKER: Look—[Interruption] Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: If it's good enough for David Seymour, it's got to be good— SPEAKER: Yeah, I know, and I'm trying to come up with a wise ruling. Give me a minute! It's well known that the Government can't use the questions opportunity to attack Opposition policy. That's not how it works. So an answer that leaves that out, I think, is not beyond the bounds of the Prime Minister's capability to address the House. Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Look, yes, I am incredibly proud of our commitment to deliver tax relief to hard-working low and middle income working New Zealanders, unlike the other side. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: On what date did he first become aware that his Government had cut entitlements to disability support services and respite care? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, that's just not true. There has been no reduction in the funding in the disabilities budget compared to what the previous Government funded in the year before, and, further, we have made a commitment to increase funding this year, and as we go through a Budget process, there will be further increases as well. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Did Penny Simmonds request a pre-Budget commitment to boost disability support funding to Whaikaha? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: As I said, we've been working to the previous Government's budget. There has been an overspend and an overrun. There has been more money put into the ministry for this year, and there will also be more money put into the Budget 2024 process as well. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was very specific as to whether or not a pre-Budget commitment had been sought, and the Prime Minister hasn't addressed that. SPEAKER: Well, I think he did when he said that they have a Budget process and were working to the—pre-Budget, working to the previous Government's budget. I think that's a reasonable addressing of the question. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Did Penny Simmonds or her office advise his office of the changes to entitlements to disability support services and respite care prior to Whaikaha's announcement on 18 March; if so, when did they advise him? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, what I'd say firstly in response to that is that the Minister and the ministry have actually apologised for the anxiety that they caused through what was a poor communication of changes to the policy settings. We also have ensured that any future front-line changes to policy settings in the ministry of disabled services will actually be brought before Cabinet as well. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was whether the Prime Minister or his office was told about it before the announcement was made, and again the Prime Minister hasn't come even close to addressing it. SPEAKER: Well, it's one of those questions that's got a yes or no answer—hasn't it?—which you can't ask, essentially, in this House. Hon Willow-Jean Prime: No, it was "on what date". SPEAKER: Hang on. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: It was also on what date he was asked. I mean, some indication addressing the question—he's talked about what the Government are doing going forward, not actually what the question was about, which was whether or not he knew about it before the announcement was made. SPEAKER: I think the Prime Minister could elucidate a bit on that. Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Look, as I've said before, the ministry made changes to the policy settings. They were poorly communicated, and that did not go through Cabinet. That is why it caused unnecessary anxiety and confusion, for which we apologise. The Minister and the ministry have subsequently apologised for that. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister has indicated the decision didn't go through Cabinet. He hasn't indicated whether or not he knew about if before it was announced. SPEAKER: Well, given that the agenda of Cabinet—the member, more than many others in this House, would know—is set by the Prime Minister, I would assume that you've got the answer that you need. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Prime Ministers don't receive only information that goes to Cabinet; they receive information on decisions Ministers are making every day. I'm asking the Prime Minister whether he knew about this decision before it was announced. It shouldn't be a difficult question. SPEAKER: That's a fair question. Given that's the nature of it, the Prime Minister could answer that. Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I was unaware of that, and it did not go through Cabinet. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he agree with Penny Simmonds' decision to reduce entitlements for disability support, respite care, insulin pumps, and glucose monitors for disability communities; if not, why not? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, what I'd say is very important to the community: they need to know we have been working to the previous Government's budget. We are putting more money in this year to make sure that any cost overruns are actually being able to be managed, and, importantly, there is further increases in the budget coming in Budget 2024. What I've also ensured is that any future changes to front-line services are actually brought forward to Cabinet, and, importantly, we also need to make sure that there is ongoing money, but also an ongoing review to make sure that that money is being spent appropriately and that it actually gets to people who are disabled and actually need those core support services. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: What does it say about his confidence in his Minister that he is now stopping her from making any decisions in this portfolio without taking them to Cabinet first? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I have complete confidence in the Minister. By her own admission and that of her ministry, she's apologised for the confusion and the anxiety—that those changes were poorly communicated and poorly consulted on—but we've made changes to the process going forward, and that's a good thing. Question No. 3—Workplace Relations and Safety 3. Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (ACT) to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: What recent announcements has she made in her portfolio? Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): I recently announced my priorities, which are intended to restore business confidence and certainty. That is the way businesses are able to create more and better jobs, which is better for Kiwi workers. My priorities are related to the Holidays Act, contractors' arrangements, health and safety law and reform, and performance metrics for public services. Over the last six years, employers would be forgiven for feeling like they have been pitted against workers, but I believe that the frustrations both employers and workers are facing are connected. Labour market regulations are becoming increasingly complex, making it harder for employers and workers to reach the solutions that work for both of them. Flexible labour markets are the best environment for businesses to grow. When businesses thrive, the economy thrives. Dr Parmjeet Parmar: What is she planning to do to improve certainty in contracting relationships? Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: An important change I intend on making comes from the ACT-National coalition agreement. It includes the commitment to better protect choice and freedom to contract for workers and businesses. I've asked my officials for advice on how to achieve certainty for contracting parties, so that their intent, when entering into a contract for services, is upheld. Many New Zealand businesses use contractors in situations where engaging an employee to do the work would be inappropriate, or not as effective. I understand that 90 percent of contractors report that they are satisfied, or very satisfied, with their jobs, and that they would prefer to continue being self-employed, rather than to have a paid job working for someone else. Dr Parmjeet Parmar: Is the Minister planning to make changes to the Holidays Act? Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: I want to confirm that delivering improvements to the Holidays Act to simplify and clarify the law is one of my top priorities. I understand that change has been a long time coming. The previous Government's Holidays Act Taskforce began work in 2018, but were not able to deliver on changes by the end of their term in Government. I've heard from many a small business who spends a lot of time trying to comply with the Holidays Act rather than getting on with their core business. The first action that I'm going to take is to make sure that any changes to the Act are workable, that they are a material improvement on the status quo. One of the reasons why it has taken so long to deliver change is that the previous Government's proposals were so complex that it was very difficult to get draft legislation. If the draft legislation is hard, then it is going to be very difficult to implement— SPEAKER: Just an answer, thank you. Camilla Belich: Will the Minister guarantee that no employee will have a reduction in entitlements due to her proposed Holidays Act changes? Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: I am intending on consulting widely about the Holidays Act changes, and I look forward to the member being part of that consultation. Dr Parmjeet Parmar: What reforms to health and safety is she planning? Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: The Health and Safety at Work Act is now almost 10 years old. I think it is an appropriate time that we take a step back and assess whether the health and safety system is fit for purpose. Businesses want to keep people safe and healthy at work, and workers want to keep themselves and their colleagues safe and healthy at work. But one of the things I hear consistently is that businesses and workers alike either struggle to understand the reason for some of the costly health and safety regulations, or they are struggling to know what to do in order to comply. So we want to simplify and clarify the law for both workers and businesses. Before we embark on that reform, I want to hear from workers, I want to hear from businesses, and I want to hear from people who know how to keep workers safe at work. So we will be starting public consultation. Question No. 4—Finance 4. TIM COSTLEY (National—Ōtaki) to the Minister of Finance: What announcements has she made recently about supporting low- and middle-income families? Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): Yesterday, we announced that from 1 July, low to middle income parents with early childhood education costs will be able to claim back up to 25 percent of their early childhood education (ECE) fees to a maximum of $75 a week. Families who qualify for the maximum reimbursement will receive $975 in their bank accounts from October and another $975 every three months thereafter. This new FamilyBoost initiative will provide real relief for families struggling with the cost of living. Tim Costley: How many families and children will benefit from FamilyBoost? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Many families are struggling with high housing, childcare, and daily living costs. An estimated 21,000 low to middle income families will qualify for the maximum reimbursement of $975 every three months, and, in total, FamilyBoost will help support more than 140,000 children and their families. I am very proud that this Government is able to provide extra assistance to support so many hard-working New Zealand families. Tim Costley: How can Kiwi families access this support? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: To ensure the repayment goes swiftly and accurately to eligible parents and their caregivers, early childhood invoices are submitted directly through Inland Revenue's online system myIR, which I am advised can be used from a phone. Parents and caregivers will be able to submit ECE invoices every three months, with FamilyBoost refunded as a lump sum. Inland Revenue is currently talking to the early childhood sector about the best way to make this as simple as possible. Overnight, I am advised that early childhood services are already considering measures to make this as easy as possible for the parents they serve, including talking to their IT providers about issuing three-monthly invoices and assisting parents to upload these to the IRD. Tim Costley: What are the other benefits of FamilyBoost? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, childcare is one of the biggest costs for families, and members of this House who have had young children will know that full well. According to the OECD, childcare costs in New Zealand are among the highest in the world—at 37 percent of household income. Being able to afford early childhood education fees can be a barrier to entering the workforce, particularly for a second earner in a household. FamilyBoost will make it easier and more worthwhile for families with young children to work, by directly assisting them to pay those ECE fees. Hon Jan Tinetti: Does she agree the announcement made yesterday is hundreds of millions of dollars' less support to families than the previous Government's early childhood education Budget '23 support package, which she scrapped? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I'd reject that as a false analogy because, actually, it's hypothetical. The reason for that is there were serious questions raised by early childhood providers and others about where the commitments made by the previous Government were even deliverable at all. It was a phantom policy, and I tell you a really big difference: this money—this cold, hard cash—goes direct into the bank accounts of parents. There is no middleman or -woman; this is real cost of living relief for New Zealand families. Hon David Seymour: Will the Government actually allow for the FamilyBoost policy in the costings it does in its Budget, and is that a general policy of the Government: to actually put aside money to fund the things it promises the public, or will this Government simply make it up and hope to lose the election so someone else can inherit the problem? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, the Minister makes a very good point— Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. How on earth was that fitting with the requirements in Speakers' rulings and Standing Orders, given that it was clearly designed to make a political point? SPEAKER: Well, the point is that every question is designed to make a political point. The second part of it is that there was no mention of other Governments' or previous Governments' policies: it was as much, I suppose, on the edge of Standing Orders as the question in the first place. So on that basis, it's not out. Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. SPEAKER: A different point of order? Hon Kieran McAnulty: Yes, it is. On that basis, speaking generally, if a question involves a hypothetical scenario, then that, too, should be ruled out. SPEAKER: That is the case in Standing Orders; it can be. But that would leave us with a very, very bland question time, and given that today there are actually four questions that I think are the ultimate blandness, that's not looking good for the House and the public information that's supposed to come from it. So that won't always be the case, but I appreciate that you're pointing out what is currently in Standing Orders. Hon Chris Bishop: I just wonder if, for the House's elucidation, you could outline what the four sort of bland questions you're referring to are. SPEAKER: Oh, no, no. I think members of Parliament are well and truly capable of working out what is bland and what's not. Can we then progress with the balance of that answer, which I'm sure will be brief. Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The Minister makes a very good point, and yes, our Government has learnt the lessons of history. Where previous Governments announced poorly costed, funded, and poorly consulted early childhood education policies, we— SPEAKER: Yeah, I think— Hon NICOLA WILLIS: —have chosen— SPEAKER: No—stop there. Stop there. Stop there, otherwise I'll get a barrage of points of order over here, and they would be right. Hon David Seymour: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I'm a member of this House and I'd like my question addressed. Is the Government intending to put aside the money to actually allow this policy to be funded? SPEAKER: Then you should have asked that simple question, rather than the bits that elicited the balance of the argument. Hon David Seymour: It's precisely the question I asked, and it hasn't been addressed. SPEAKER: Well, I'll tell you what. Because I'm a reasonable person, if you can ask the question again without the sideswipe, that would be great. Hon David Seymour: Seeking a clarification: that's an extra supplementary question for ACT? SPEAKER: No; it simply replaces the one that you've got, not adding to your list. You're not going to eat into your total by asking again. Get on with it, please—the House is impatient. Hon David Seymour: Well, I'd like the Minister of Finance to tell the House: has the Government set aside, in its budgeting, adequate funds to show that the statements of the Government coming out at Budget time will actually indicate enough money is available to fund this FamilyBoost policy? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Yes. This policy has been fully funded, with $723 million provided over the forecast period, and the Budget will reflect that. I think it's really important that members of this House understand this fact: we have costed this policy based on 100 percent uptake, because we want every single family in New Zealand who qualifies for this policy to know that the funding is there for them. So get out there, members opposite; tell the people in your electorate— SPEAKER: Thank you. No, no; we don't need that. We don't need that. It's very helpful, I'm sure, but— Tim Costley: Has the Minister seen any reaction to the FamilyBoost announcement? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I've seen a lot of very positive reactions to yesterday's announcement, many from mums and dads who really need this cash. I've also seen reaction from those in the early childhood education sector. For example, the New Shoots Children's Centre's director said, "Parents are definitely doing it tough, like everybody in New Zealand, so I think any support for parents is going to be brilliant". And the Early Childhood Education Council chief executive said, "It will be just such a welcome relief for parents who have been facing such high child care costs." They are right, and it is a shame that some people opposite have sour grapes about relief for working parents. Question No. 5—Finance 5. Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) to the Minister of Finance: Does she stand by her commitment not to cut frontline services? Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): Yes. I stand by the full text of that commitment, which I spoke to at the Finance and Expenditure Committee, and where I went on to say, "In committing to front-line service, we are not committing to doing things the way they have always been done necessarily because, actually, we think there's a strong case for improving the delivery of front-line services." In some cases, it may be that the services that New Zealanders are receiving, whether it's from their hospital or their school, aren't actually delivering the results they want. So we are not going to ban ourselves from looking at other ways we could do things better, differently, so that we can ensure the resources we are deploying have a bigger impact for the people we are seeking to serve. Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does she consider the additional staff at the IRD processing over 7 million invoices a year for her early childhood education tax credit a back-office function; if so, how fast can parents expect their childcare rebate to be paid into their bank account? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I would consider it a back-office function, and I think it's important that all back-office functions are as efficient as possible. We are currently in consultation with the early childhood sector to work out how we make the delivery of this policy as efficient as possible. It's our expectation that this rebate be delivered as quickly as possible, and that's why we're consulting. Hon Barbara Edmonds: Will she reverse her Government's decision to remove eligibility for funding for diabetes monitors that allow carers to sleep through the night without having to worry about sudden death from a slump in glucose levels? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: If the member wishes to ask questions about the disability services portfolio, she should put them on notice to that Minister. Hon Barbara Edmonds: Is she confident that none of the changes proposed in the recent restructuring documents released by the Ministry of Health, Ministry for Primary Industries, Ministry for Ethnic Communities, Ministry for Pacific Peoples, Customs, and other ministries will impact front-line services? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: That is the expectation we have conveyed to chief executives. Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does she agree with John Key that her commitment to fully fund her tax changes through Public Service cuts is too hard and risks plunging the country into discontent, as reported by the New Zealand Herald? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: John Key would be very unhappy to hear the member opposite mischaracterise his comments in that way. And I would put to her that we should have honour in this House with comments that we make and how we represent others. Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, Mr Speaker. As has been referred to in this House a number of times, and as was used in reference to your response to the Hon David Seymour earlier, we take members by their word. Barbara Edmonds was quoting John Key. If the Minister disagrees with that, she should say so. She should not be questioning the honour of members in this House in order to respond to a fair question. SPEAKER: Yeah, all members elected to this House are considered honourable members, and so that is a reference that is not best made. Would the Minister like to say further on that? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I think it is very important that when members represent others by way of paraphrase, they take care to be very accurate. SPEAKER: I think a withdrawal and apology for the dishonourable point would be helpful. Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Sorry? SPEAKER: I think a statement of withdrawal and apology for the reference to the dishonourable nature of members would be helpful to the whole House. Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I withdraw and apologise. SPEAKER: Thank you. Hon Barbara Edmonds: Is she committed to meeting the $2.8 billion Treasury estimates is required to maintain the level of existing services for the impact for forecasted inflation and wage growth? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: We have previously made clear our commitment to ensure that there is more funding available for front-line services. Question No. 6—Infrastructure 6. DANA KIRKPATRICK (National—East Coast) to the Minister for Infrastructure: What steps is the Government taking to address New Zealand's infrastructure deficit? Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister for Infrastructure): This morning, I laid out the steps the Government is taking to close New Zealand's infrastructure deficit. Estimates vary on the size, but let's call it $100 billion or more—that's 80 Transmission Gully motorways. We have outlined a plan to fix this deficit: firstly, doing a better job of maintaining our existing assets; secondly, a credible pipeline of infrastructure projects—as part of that, developing a national infrastructure plan over 30 years—thirdly, reducing the barriers that are holding back infrastructure delivery, such as the Resource Management Act; fourthly, improving value for money; and, fifthly, new ways of funding and financing infrastructure. Dana Kirkpatrick: What will the 30-year national infrastructure plan involve? Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I've asked the Infrastructure Commission to develop a 30-year national infrastructure plan by the end of next year. This will include a national view of infrastructure projects that are planned and are being planned, an assessment of infrastructure priorities, and an analysis of long-term infrastructure needs. The purpose of the plan is to demonstrate a pipeline of major projects that make New Zealand a place worth doing business. We need the talent and the capital in this country, and part of that is to demonstrate the scale of the opportunities in the coming decade. The 30-year plan will help get our infrastructure system humming again. Dana Kirkpatrick: What did the Minister say about the Government's proposal to establish a national infrastructure agency? Hon CHRIS BISHOP: We'll be establishing a new national infrastructure agency by 2025 to connect offshore capital with New Zealand domestic infrastructure opportunities, amongst other jobs. The public sector infrastructure landscape is a crowded one and there are overlapping roles and functions, so rather than rushing into establishing a new agency, I've commissioned a piece of work to fully understand what the Crown wants and needs from a high-performing infrastructure system and who's doing what in the system and what needs to change. Treasury's leading this work alongside the Infrastructure Commission, and I'll have more to say on that very soon. Dana Kirkpatrick: How does the Government intend to improve and increase the use of infrastructure funding and financing tools? Hon CHRIS BISHOP: The coalition Government's very open to opportunities for the private sector to invest its capital to deliver high-quality infrastructure for New Zealand. These projects leveraging private finance obviously need to stack up based on cost-benefit analysis and the public good. To pave the way for more projects that leverage private finance, I'm asking officials to modernise the Crown's infrastructure governance, procurement, funding and financing, and asset management policies and frameworks. Solving New Zealand's infrastructure challenges will be hard, but with a good plan and a clear target, we can do it—and this Government will deliver. Question No. 7—Seniors 7. TANYA UNKOVICH (NZ First) to the Minister for Seniors: What recent reports has she seen regarding the aged-care sector? Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Minister for Seniors): On 7 March, the Aged Care Commissioner released her first report, titled Amplifying the voices of older people across Aotearoa New Zealand. The report has drawn on engagement with thousands of people from our important older communities alongside their families, whānau, carers, and service providers. The report is consistent with and aligns to what I've been hearing from the older New Zealanders and advice I have received around opportunities to better support aged-care services going forward. Tanya Unkovich: Is the Minister aware of any ongoing work to address opportunities to improve aged-care services? Hon CASEY COSTELLO: A review into aged-care funding and service models is under way, and I expect it will create a pathway to deliver better care for older people. The review will emphasise some key points, among these a stronger focus on supporting New Zealanders to receive the support they need at home. Additionally, we must ensure more efficient transitions through aged-care services, as well as greater capacity to support those with complex needs. I've asked for advice on immediate vulnerabilities and what is needed to sustain capacity while this work is being completed. Tanya Unkovich: What other initiatives are under way to better support the lives of older New Zealanders? Hon CASEY COSTELLO: This Government knows that supporting seniors across all aspects of their lives is critical for safeguarding their health and wellbeing. That's why improving the lives of seniors is stated as a priority for the Government in our coalition agreements. The Office for Seniors, in collaboration with other departments, has been progressing work on coalition priorities, including upgrading the benefits of the SuperGold and Veteran SuperGold Card, building on the local government rates rebate scheme, and making it easier to build subsidiary dwellings that can be used to support multigenerational living. I have been meeting with key stakeholders across the sector, who have been open about the opportunities to better support seniors across New Zealand. Finally, we have a dedicated, capable, and committed workforce and NGO sector, who I applaud for their ongoing efforts to respond to the needs of our older people. Question No. 8—Disability Issues 8. Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour) to the Minister for Disability Issues: Does she stand by her statement in the House, "no disabled person will lose access to funding for essential services"; if so, why are insulin pumps and diabetes monitors being excluded from Whaikaha's disability support funding? Hon PENNY SIMMONDS (Minister for Disability Issues): Yes, I do stand by my statement. Diabetes is a serious health condition affecting many New Zealanders, and I'm advised that avenues such as Health New Zealand and Pharmac support New Zealanders to gain access to funding for insulin pumps and monitors. The expectation is that health devices to address health conditions are dealt with under Vote Health. If, however, these have previously been funded with disability funding, I am clear that continuity of service continues for those individuals while these funding services are clarified. Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: What does she say to carers who are concerned that defunding these critical devices will lead to an increase in "dead in bed" syndrome? Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: So I have sought clarification from Whaikaha whether these monitors are funded through third-party providers under the previous rules with disability funding. I am clear—absolutely clear—that we must ensure that access is available if there have been people that have received them through disability services prior to 18 March. But I will be asking Whaikaha to work with those individual families to see whether they have been accessing health support where it is appropriate. This highlights the issues that we are working with, with Whaikaha. They are working to a budget that was put in place by a previous Government that was insufficient in terms of being able to meet needs. It has also had to put in place guidelines, and so it is important that we review the systems, processes, financial management, and the policy settings so that funding is coming from the appropriate source. Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Does the Minister consider speech therapy for a 17-year-old non-verbal, severely intellectually disabled young man effective support that should be funded through Whaikaha's disability support funding; if not, why not? Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: Again, we have asked Whaikaha to ensure that they are working with families where there are essential services needed for the disabled person to be able to function, they will be working with them to ensure those services and equipment are provided. Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Does she agree with David Seymour that her Government has gone too far in its cuts, and that "we do have a responsibility in our society to help people who genuinely have no other source of help and have no other way of changing their situation", and, if so, will she reinstate flexibility of funding while she works with the impacted communities on a longer-term solution? Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: It needs to be very, very clear that there has been no cut in funding. There has been additional funding given to get Whaikaha through to the end of the year. Whaikaha has been working to a budget that was put in place by the previous Government, which was insufficient for the policy settings they were working to. We have further indicated that there will be additional funding put in place. There is no cut in funding. Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: What does the Minister say to the woman who emailed to say—and I quote—"Today I found out from Enliven Disability support services and my psychologist that Government has said I cannot use my funding to pay for psychology sessions, despite it meeting the four purchasing guidelines outlined by Whaikaha. For me, it was the pathway to rehabilitation, successful social interactions and managing crippling anxiety, and I was hoping to return to work in the not too distant future. Now that has been taken away from me."? Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: I'm not aware of the individual case, but the member has answered the question herself, if she said that it met the guidelines of the funding. Therefore, if it meets the guidelines of the funding, it should be funded. Question No. 9—Education 9. KATIE NIMON (National—Napier) to the Minister of Education: What recent announcements has she made on period products in schools? Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I'm thrilled to announce this Government has increased funding to ensure free period products are available for all young women in intermediate, kura, and secondary schools. It's through careful spending that this Government has redirected funding to where it matters most: learners and schools. We're committed to ensuring that all young women have equal opportunities in education to go on to live the life they want. Katie Nimon: What data and evidence supported this decision? Hon ERICA STANFORD: A study by the University of Otago estimated that up to 95,000 young women could be missing school because of a lack of access to period products. This Government is committed to reducing barriers for learners. I want to be clear about the link between attendance and achievement: regular school attendance is essential for lifting student achievement. This announcement is just one of our plans to reduce barriers to attendance and lift achievement in schools. Katie Nimon: What feedback has she received from the public? Hon ERICA STANFORD: I've already received lots of positive feedback. Dignity New Zealand wrote to me, expressing their relief and appreciation upon hearing our announcement. The Children and Young People's Commission wrote, "I'm pleased to see the Government making this investment to reduce barriers to school attendance and normalising this aspect of mokopuna health." One member of the public reached out to write that this increase in funding has created one less concern for young women in their school. We will continue to empower our young women to fully participate in their education without the burden of period poverty. Katie Nimon: Who is going to benefit from this announcement? Hon ERICA STANFORD: This initiative will continue to support 200,000 young women in our schools. A lack of access to period products can be stressful, disruptive, and can impact students' confidence and wellbeing. This is an issue of dignity. Young women should never have to miss out on their education or face the embarrassment because of something as simple as access to period products. This support will help families get their children to school feeling confident and supported so they're ready to learn and do their best. And, yes, it is targeted at young women who have periods. Hon Jan Tinetti: Is this policy for young women in intermediate, secondary, and kura, as stated in the PR and by the Minister today, and does that mean young people in other schools don't menstruate? Hon ERICA STANFORD: I think I was very clear that it's available to young women in intermediate and kura and schools. There are no changes to the policy apart from the fact that we're funding it an extra half a million dollars a year to make sure that there is equal access to as many women as possible. Question No. 10—Prime Minister 10. Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statements and actions? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes, and in the context they were given. Hon Marama Davidson: Does he agree with A People's Review of Kāinga Ora—In Defence of Public Housing report, released today, that "The private housing market has failed to provide everyone with a decent, stable and affordable home. The state should have a stronger role in the ownership and provision of rental housing.", and, if so, what steps will the Government take to increase the supply of publicly-owned rental housing? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I do agree: housing has been an abject failure in this country after six years of the previous administration. What we have to do is increase supply of private houses, increase the supply of rental properties available, and increase the supply of social and State housing available as well. We've got plans to deal with all three. Hon Marama Davidson: Is he aware of the finding of the report that building good quality public housing at scale and pace can save Government spending in the long term through reduced need for landlord subsidies and through savings in health budgets, and, if so, does this suggest that increasing the supply of public housing is consistent with this Government's stated commitment to social investment? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: As I said earlier, we want to increase the supply of houses available in the private market, we want to increase the supply of houses available in the rental market and increase the supply of houses available in the social housing part of the market, too. Hon Marama Davidson: [Interruption] Is he concerned, then, at the ability of the private rental— SPEAKER: No, no, wait on. Please, start again. Hon Marama Davidson: Is he concerned, then, at the ability of the private rental market to provide New Zealanders with affordable housing when almost 350,000 people have to access the accommodation supplement because private rents are too high? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Again, I don't know how to explain this any differently to the member but it's an "and, and, and": we need to make sure that we have private housing made available to people who want to purchase homes, we need to make sure that we increase the rental supply of rental properties for people who need to rent them, and we need to increase the supply of social housing stock as well. It's an "and, and" so that all three aspects of the housing market are actually accelerated. Hon Marama Davidson: Will he commit to ensuring that any changes to Kāinga Ora, following the review, are directed at creating a more efficient and effective build programme to deliver public housing at scale rather than any wind down of existing projects? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We will await the findings of the review but what we are clear about is that we want better performance from Kāinga Ora. Rt Hon Winston Peters: Has the Prime Minister received any reports about the gulf or gap he's going to have to fill, having inherited a 100,000-homes promise that ended up with 2,000 being built by the administration that the original questioner came from? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I think it's quite well established that KiwiBuild was an utter failure. Hon Marama Davidson: Why is he prioritising tax cuts for landlords instead of building more public housing? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We are committed to making sure that we build more houses in general in this country. That has been an absolute disaster under the previous administration. This Government takes getting houses built seriously. We do that through the private market, the rental market, and the social housing market. Question No. 11—Ethnic Communities 11. Hon JENNY SALESA (Labour—Panmure-Ōtāhuhu) to the Minister for Ethnic Communities: Does she stand by all her statements and actions? Hon MELISSA LEE (Minister for Ethnic Communities): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Yes, in the context they were made and undertaken. Hon Jenny Salesa: Does she stand by her statement that—and I quote—"More than a quarter of our population in 10 years' time will be from ethnic communities.", and, if so, how does she reconcile that with the proposal to reduce the number of permanent staff at the Ministry for Ethnic Communities by 14 percent? Hon MELISSA LEE: There are currently about 22 percent of New Zealanders who actually belong to ethnic communities. However, you know, at a time when New Zealand is facing a cost of living crisis, agencies have been asked to identify where they can make savings or make changes in order to deliver savings. Decisions related to staffing numbers at ministry are operational and Budget sensitive. Hon Jenny Salesa: Does she stand by her statement that the Ministry for Ethnic Communities has a budget analogous to—and I quote—"the smell of an oily rag", and, if so, how does she justify that with the ministry staff reducing by 14 percent? Hon MELISSA LEE: I'm not so sure if the member is actually correct in suggesting that there is actually a 14 percent cut, because anything that is related to staffing numbers is actually for the ministry to answer as it is operational. In terms of the ministry operating on the smell of an oily rag, the member should know, as the former Minister— Hon Jenny Salesa: Point of order, Mr Speaker. SPEAKER: Point of order, the Hon Jenny Salesa. Hon Jenny Salesa: Speakers' ruling 182— SPEAKER: Hang on, wait—slow down. Everyone wants to listen. Hon Jenny Salesa: Speakers' ruling 182/3 states that Ministers have to answer on operational matters. SPEAKER: Well, just a minute—I'll just have a quick look at that. That's one I'm not terribly familiar with. [Seeks advice from Clerk] Yep, OK, so ministries can't answer to the House; only a Minister can, so can I suggest that we have the question again with that in mind, and then the Speakers' ruling might apply. Hon Jenny Salesa: Does she stand by her statement that the Ministry for Ethnic Communities has a budget analogous to—and I quote—"the smell of an oily rag", and, if so, how does she justify the ministry staff reducing by 14 percent? SPEAKER: Yeah, but that's the problem. She doesn't have to justify that; it's not her responsibility. There must be another way of asking that question. Hon Jenny Salesa: How can she justify, given that she made a statement that said the ministry is operating under the smell of an oily rag, the cuts to the ministry? SPEAKER: Well, it's the same problem, but I'll see what you can say. Hon MELISSA LEE: Thank you, Mr Speaker. There are no cuts currently. Everything in relation to staffing numbers that the ministry are currently consulting is just that—consulting—and the decisions will be made as part of the Budget process. Hon Jenny Salesa: Will she commit to no cuts to the Ethnic Communities Development Fund—ECDF? Hon MELISSA LEE: Thank you, Mr Speaker. As I said, the decisions on the actual funding or staffing numbers, it is actually Budget sensitive and the decisions are for the ministry to answer. Having said that, the ministry does an amazing job. As the member who actually asked the question— who was a former Minister—will well know, it is a very small ministry who works very hard to support the work of the ethnic communities, and the Ethnic Communities Development Fund does amazing work to provide for the ethnic communities. Hon Jenny Salesa: Does she agree with her coalition partner the Hon David Seymour when he stated—and I quote—"I very seldom find someone that can point to anything concrete that they've done." when talking about the Ministry for Ethnic Communities; if so, are these cuts a step towards abolishing the Ministry for Ethnic Communities? Hon MELISSA LEE: I don't have responsibility for Mr Seymour's comments. However, I feel that the Ministry for Ethnic Communities does an amazing job, and I support them 100 percent. Question No. 12—Trade 12. CATHERINE WEDD (National—Tukituki) to the Minister for Trade: What actions has the Government taken to support trade with the Middle East? Hon TODD McCLAY (Minister for Trade): Since taking office a few months ago, we've worked quickly with the United Arab Emirates (UAE) to progress exploratory discussions on a possible comprehensive economic partnership agreement (CEPA). In January, I travelled to the UAE to meet with ministerial counterparts, and again the following month to attend the 13th World Trade Organization ministerial conference. While there, and following constructive meetings with the UAE trade Minister, New Zealand announced the start of public consultations on a possible CEPA with the UAE. Exploratory discussions between our two teams are progressing well, and a decision on launching negotiations will be taken later this year. Catherine Wedd: Why has the Government asked for the public's view on an agreement with the UAE? Hon TODD McCLAY: Well, we're interested in what the public think—73 percent of New Zealand's trade will be covered by trade agreements once the EU-NZ free-trade agreement (FTA) enters into force on 1 May. However, an important gap in our FTA coverage is the Gulf region. The launch of public consultations represents a significant next step in New Zealand's ongoing consideration of a deal with the UAE, complemented with three rounds of exploratory discussions held to date. We're keen to hear from civil society and businesses currently exporting to the UAE market, or with an interest in doing so—Māori exporters and all New Zealanders. Submissions are open until 31 March, and information on how to submit is available on the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade website. Catherine Wedd: How would an agreement with the UAE be important to New Zealand? Hon TODD McCLAY: The UAE is a top-20 export market for New Zealand and our largest market in the Middle East, with exports totalling over $1 billion last year. The UAE is also an important hub for New Zealand companies operating in the region and vital to New Zealand's connectivity to the Middle East and beyond. Other countries are progressing trade negotiations with the UAE—including Australia, who are expected to conclude a deal by the end of this year—so the Government is committed to ensuring New Zealand exporters remain competitive in that market. Catherine Wedd: What else has he announced to support New Zealand trade? Hon TODD McCLAY: Well, our work towards the CEPA with the UAE will serve to further grow trade opportunities in Europe as goods and services exported to Europe transit through this busy Middle East hub and will do so more easily. Yesterday, the EU-NZ FTA gained Royal assent, confirming that the deal will enter into force on 1 May. That's great news for our horticulture industry, and, as the member asking the question will know, with the apple harvest in full swing, the onion harvest almost complete and pack houses across the Hawke's Bay, the Bay of Plenty, and the East Coast, and elsewhere packing for Europe, these industries will be able to see the immediate savings of the EU trade deal. Given the year that they've had of the cyclone recovery, this deal means a lot of our apple and onion exporters will do better. Hon Damien O'Connor: Will the consultation process on the proposed deal between the UAE and New Zealand be undertaken on the principles of Trade for All—which includes obligation to consult with Māori, small and medium enterprises, women, and all groups across New Zealand—to ensure that whatever trade deal is arrived at will benefit all New Zealanders? Hon TODD McCLAY: In, I think, my second answer to the second supplementary, I mentioned all of those groups. So yes. SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Leader of the House): Point of order. I move that the sitting of the House today be extended into tomorrow morning to complete the remaining stages— SPEAKER: Yeah, that's right. You should move that at the end of the debate that I've previously announced. Sorry, we've got to get this procedurally—[Interruption] Why are you looking so upset? The House survives on procedure. As much as you may not like it, sometimes I don't, but I've got to sit here and put up with it! So before I call on the Rt Hon Chris Hipkins to move the urgent debate, can I ask that members who have to leave the House do so as quietly as they possibly can. URGENT DEBATES Gaza Crisis—Government Response Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition): I move, That the House take note of a matter of urgent public importance. The humanitarian situation in Gaza is now well past crisis point. Three quarters of Gaza's 2.2 million people are internally displaced, more than a million people are crammed into Rafa, a tiny sliver of land which now has a population five times what it was before the war. I think New Zealanders watching images of the tragedy unfolding in Gaza on a night by night basis could be forgiven for thinking that this is happening somewhere else in the world and that this is someone else's problem—it isn't. To put into context what's happening, the 365 square kilometre area that makes up Gaza is roughly half the size of Lake Taupō and it currently contains 2.2 million people, three quarters of whom have been displaced by this conflict. There is a health system in Gaza that is clearly in crisis: 155,000 pregnant and breastfeeding women are suffering from malnutrition; over 5,000 women will give birth in the next month—they have no hospitals and no health facilities in which to deliver their babies safely. People are starving; people are dying. UNICEF has now said that Gaza is the most dangerous place in the world to be a child. They estimate there is one toilet per 700 children and their families; diarrhoea, respiratory illness, and malnutrition are now widely spread. There is no military solution to this tragedy and to this problem. As my colleague Phil Twyford pointed out in an earlier debate in this House, four generations of Palestinians are now living in refugee camps. We should absolutely acknowledge the atrocity that was the Hamas attack on Israel. We should also acknowledge Israel's right to defend itself, as I did, as our Prime Minister, when that happened. But there are limits to that right to self defence. As I pointed out, we are very concerned that the actions of the Israeli Defence Force are disproportionate and indiscriminate. The right to self defence is not an unlimited one. All parties have an obligation to take all possible steps to protect civilians, and it is clear that that has not been happening. Last year, we urged Hamas to release hostages immediately and unconditionally and to work towards peace, and we restate that now. We also called on all parties to strive to restore calm and restraint and to refrain from provocative actions, incitement, and inflammatory rhetoric. We are still concerned that basic humanitarian supplies are not reaching those who so desperately need them. New Zealand's position of encouraging all parties to work towards a two-State solution, within secure and recognised borders, where all citizens enjoy equal rights and freedoms, has been a long-standing one, and yet it feels such a long, long way away. Labour called for a ceasefire back in November. It was the right thing to do then, and it is absolutely the right thing for us to be doing now. Thousands of Palestinians, the majority of them women and children, have been killed. The lives of the victims have been changed: horrific scenes of lives destroyed, children whose parents, siblings, and grandparents have been killed, are on our TV screens on a nightly basis. There are no places for people to go for safety. I don't think we should ever, in this House, underestimate what that must feel like: to know that your home, your community, is under attack and there is literally nowhere you can go to get away from that. That is something that I hope no member of this House has ever experienced it, and I hope no New Zealander will ever experience it. We should not put up with it being the situation for those in Gaza. The carnage in Gaza must end. We must support an immediate and a sustainable ceasefire, and the immediate release of hostages. New Zealand must show leadership on this issue. Overnight, the United Nations Security Council passed a resolution calling for an immediate ceasefire for the month of Ramadan. Significantly, for the first time, the United States has not exercised its veto. This House needs to understand the New Zealand Government's position, and it must go further than it has to date. Now the United Nations has called for an immediate ceasefire, there is simply no excuse for New Zealand's position to remain that we call for steps towards a ceasefire. We should have been calling for an immediate ceasefire months ago, and our Government must do so now, and it must do so immediately. We also need to understand the New Zealand's Government's position on emergency visas for Palestinians with relatives living in New Zealand. There should be no equivocation: the Government must do the right thing. I want to quote from a Minister in a previous National Government—New Zealand, of course, has a track record of principled diplomacy in this particular area. In 2016, under then Minister of Foreign Affairs Murray McCully, New Zealand sponsored a United Nations Security Council resolution reaffirming that Israeli settlements in the Palestinian territory, occupied by Israel since 1967, constitute a flagrant violation of international law and—I quote—"a major obstacle" to the vision of two States living side by side in peace and security within internationally recognised borders. Murray McCully said we can use our voice and it does make a difference. Now is absolutely the time for us to be using our voice. We should be calling for an immediate, sustainable, and durable ceasefire. Waiting until the conditions for a ceasefire exist before calling for one simply lacks moral courage and it is not consistent with the long-held principled position that New Zealand has taken. We should not wait for more people to be displaced. We should wait for more innocent civilians to be killed. We should not tolerate the fact that we have internationally respected and recognised agencies declaring Gaza to be the most dangerous place in the world to be a child. We should not tolerate a system where women are having to give birth and with no hospitals and no health facilities. We should not tolerate a situation where people are suffering from malnutrition, from diarrhoea, from respiratory illnesses, and are unable to get the basic help that they deserve. This is more than a humanitarian crisis. The whole world can see what is unfolding in Gaza, and the very least that we can do as a country is to take a principled stance in opposition to it. It is now well and truly time for the New Zealand Government to take a much stronger position and a much more principled stance on the crisis that has been unfolding in Gaza. This debate is their opportunity to do that. The country is waiting for them to do that, and, following the United Nations Security Council resolution, it is clear that the rest of the world are waiting for New Zealand to do that as well. It should have been done months ago, but the time is now. It is now time for the Government to add its voice to the growing international call for an immediate ceasefire. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Minister of Foreign Affairs): The Labour leader's speech contained comment in the main that few could disagree with. Labour's call for a ceasefire last November is the view of nearly everyone in this Parliament. "New Zealand must show leadership on this issue.", he said. And then he became, alas, inferentially accusative in insinuating powers we simply—sadly—don't have. And anyone that understood the international circumstance would know that. I have spoken to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, someone I know and have entertained in my own home. I was able to call him and discuss the organisation he's leading and where they were going on this issue. I've spoken to foreign Ministers all over the world. I've spoken to scores and scores of my counterparts on this issue on behalf of New Zealand. I've spoken to my counterpart in Indonesia in person when we visited Indonesia just recently—the biggest Muslim country in the world. She understands New Zealand's position. How come, in this House, some don't? That's the point we're making here. We're going to be, for the second time, speaking to our counterpart in Egypt—this time in person next week. And we've spoken to the Palestinian representative. We've spoken to everyone we can about what we can do. But at the end of the day, what is being inferred here is that somehow something's happened in the United Nations last night and we don't agree with it. Nothing could be further from the truth. New Zealand has long—this Government—advocated for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire in Gaza, leading to a lasting, sustainable peace. We welcome the UN Security Council's resolution, overnight, demanding an immediate ceasefire. We have called on all parties to immediately comply with this resolution. This information and these requests are all in the public domain. How come some people don't understand that? There must be an immediate cessation of armed conflict. Hamas must release all hostages. But we were saying that on 8 October, not when something happened later by way of retaliation. And Israel must play its part in enabling a rapid, massive, and sustained increase in aid into Gaza. Nothing in terms of the geography or the condition that Mr Hipkins laid out, we could disagree with. But the point is: what can we do about it? And I want to set out what we have done. The reality is we've got 1.1 million people—half of the population—experiencing catastrophic food insecurity. A famine is imminent in Gaza. This is appalling, and it cannot be allowed to continue. This is why we continue to strongly urge Israel to do everything in its power to facilitate rapid, safe, and unimpeded humanitarian access into Gaza, including lifesaving food, medicine, and other aid. Failure to do so is clearly risking civilian lives and risks Israel not meeting its obligations under national humanitarian law as is required by the International Court of Justice provisional measures, a judgement on which there is still progress to be made. We remain gravely concerned by the repeated indications from senior Israel officials that it may soon launch a military offensive into Rafah, where 1.4 million displaced Palestinians are sheltering in already dire humanitarian conditions. New Zealand has been clear from the outset that the protection of civilians is paramount in a requirement of international law. Israel must not undertake this offensive, which would have catastrophic consequences, and Israel must listen to the international community and meet its obligations under international law. There is an urgent need for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire, together with the release of all hostages and a significantly increased flow of humanitarian assistance to civilians in need. New Zealand supports critical efforts by regional partners to achieve this as soon as possible. On the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) investigation, well, New Zealand did not suspend its aid. No. What we did was ensure that the World Food Programme, the International Committee of the Red Cross, the United Nations Children's Fund, UNICEF, that we've funded them and kept the funding going until the next tranche is due on 1 June. Many of the statements that are being made by all sorts of people are simply not correct in this matter, and it's sad looking offshore at a tragedy that it could be politicised by some. This is not what's happening, and I would beg to ask them this one question: what would you do more than we've tried to do? What would you actually do more than we've tried to do? Chlöe Swarbrick: Fund UNRWA. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Oh, no, chanting like that. I never saw that member, after that vicious atrocity on 7 October, say a word last year. Chlöe Swarbrick: How dare you! Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Unbelievable. How dare? Because it's the truth. I dare because I'm not politicising a tragedy. I dare because I am concerned for innocent Palestinian citizens and I want something to be solved, to be done to solve it. That's why I dare—not to politicise them, not to be one sided about it—because there are terrorists on both sides and this is the Government that deputed as terrorists, Israeli settlers because of their behaviour, not just Hamas but Israeli settlers as well. Did those people not notice that? So, please, please, in the interests of humanity and in the interests of our concern for the Palestinian people, stop playing politics. It is far more serious than that [Interruption]. No, you can sigh and groan, but the reality is we are a country that has a marvellous humanitarian record. And we'll go on helping out here, and we'll go on supporting what happened last night at the UN. That is precisely the present Government's policy, and it always has been. And there was a time when, across the political divide, we all had that feeling. As two states— Chlöe Swarbrick: This is the man who invoked Nazi Germany. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I beg your pardon? Chlöe Swarbrick: This is the man who invoked Nazi Germany with regards to co-governance. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: No, we know who invoked Nazi Germany. The person was in the shop with her at a clothing outlet at the time. She wasn't the one that invoked Nazi Germany, and I did not hear that member call her out back then. I want to let you know, Chlöe Swarbrick, you're not getting away with this high handed "I am more worthy than thou" attitude, because in this business you're required to put up the efforts and put up the time and indeed put up the money. And why does this Government want to be a successful Government? Steve Abel: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Chlöe Swarbrick: Just keep going. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, I'll keep going because the Speaker allows me to, not because you're running the show. With the greatest of respect— SPEAKER: Sorry, just a minute. Has there been a call for a point of order? Steve Abel: Yes, Mr Speaker. SPEAKER: Stay on your feet when you make it so I can see what's happening. Steve Abel: Thank you. The Minister asserted the presence of the member at the occurrence of an event, which is a conspiracy that's going around presently, and I just want to correct that there is no suggestion that that is correct. SPEAKER: You can't use the point of order for that sort of purpose. Steve Abel: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Speaker. SPEAKER: No, no. Let's establish it. There is no point of order, because that's not a correct use of the point of order process. If there is offence taken by a member, then they may take a point of order for the matter to be withdrawn. It's not an opportunity to make a political point. Chlöe Swarbrick: The Minister just now has outlined a conspiracy theory, widely circulated online, with regard to my alleged presence at allegations that are currently before the courts, and I take deep offence at that. Given that the Minister knows that what he is saying is untrue, I request him to withdraw and apologise. SPEAKER: Well, the member has made the point. The member the Rt Hon Winston Peters may choose to withdraw and apologise for that part of his speech. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Point of order. A conspiracy is when two or more agree to break the law. I never ever made that statement, did I? So if we're going to use language, get to understand it. Therefore, Mr Speaker, I say that point of order is worthless. SPEAKER: Yep, that's the member's response, and that's the way that it is. The member can continue with his speech. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I just want to conclude by saying that, sadly, this was an issue across the political divide over decades. We have always been united for a two-state solution—a permanent two-state solution—and we're asking now for a ceasefire to be a permanent ceasefire and again for a two-state solution. That is still the Government's view, and in the meantime, we've worked hard to ensure that we play our humanitarian role, which is respected, I might say, all around the Muslim community to whom I have spoken to worldwide. We continue playing our role, because that is the New Zealand way, and we intend to continue it. Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Defence): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to speak on the appalling situation in Gaza. No one can see the daily images of death and destruction and remain impassive, but nor can we overlook the truly disgusting events of 7 October, where close to 1,200 people, including babies, were murdered, where women were subjected to rape and mutilation, and the medieval attack then sparked a retaliation that has been devastating for the people of Gaza. Both people need to come to the party. There must be an immediate ceasefire. Hamas must release all hostages—130 hostages remain unaccounted for and they must be released—and Israel must play its part, enabling a rapid, massive, and sustained increase in aid into Gaza. The loss of life is appalling, and the humanitarian situation in Gaza is deteriorating further every day. We have been clear for months about Israel's obligations to protect civilians, and the cost of this conflict is far too high. The images on our screens are harrowing. Safe haven and the basics for survival—food, water, and fuel—are still desperately needed. The latest reports are that famine is imminent as more than 1 million people—half the population—have little or no access to food. New Zealand is committed to supporting the critical humanitarian response in Gaza, and to date we have channelled $15 million through the International Committee of the Red Cross, the World Food Programme, and the United Nations Children's Fund. The way the conflict is unfolding has the potential to make Israel less secure and will fuel the cycle of radicalisation and division, and that is why we have repeatedly said that there can be no military solution to this conflict. A lasting solution to the conflict will only be achieved by peaceful means. We continue to strongly urge Israel to do everything in its power to facilitate rapid, safe, and unimpeded humanitarian access into Gaza, including lifesaving food, medicine, and other aid. New Zealand also remains deeply concerned by indications from senior Israeli officials that it may soon launch a military offensive into Rafah. Israel must not take this action. It must listen to the international community to meet its obligations under international law. New Zealand has long advocated for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire in Gaza and will continue to do so. We welcome the UN Security Council's resolution overnight demanding an immediate ceasefire. We call on all parties to immediately comply with this resolution. There must be an immediate ceasefire. Hamas must release all hostages and Israel needs to step up and enable the aid into Gaza that is so desperately needed. In conclusion, I would send a message out to our New Zealanders of Palestinian and Jewish descent, and to say that we feel for you. It is not you that has done this. It is not you that undertook the attack on 7 October. It is not you who has continued the work into Gaza. We care for you and we worry that you are yourselves under attack from people who should know better. So this just simply has to stop. TEANAU TUIONO (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Over 32,000—that's how many people have been killed in Gaza, with 13,000 of those people were children and around 8,400 were women. We are talking about people. We are talking about people's mothers and fathers, grandparents, uncles, aunties, brothers and sisters, and sons and daughters, and the scale of the death, the scale of what is happening there, and the scale of the atrocity is appalling. Of those children that have survived, more than 13,000 of them are orphans. These are the things that we need to focus on as a House. We need to focus on it to end what is happening in Gaza and end what is happening in Palestine. I want to acknowledge the connections that many people have with our Palestinian community. I live in Palmerston North, where we have some Palestinian whānau living there with us, some of whom have approached me to try to get their children out of Gaza—to get their relatives out of Gaza. So, yes, it might be on the other side of the world, but we are all connected, and it is important for this House to remember that. I want to acknowledge the presence of Justice for Palestine, who are with us in the gallery today, and the work that they have been doing to raise awareness about the connections with the Palestinian struggle here, within Aotearoa. The question was asked about what the Government can do, and I agree with speakers—particularly, with our friends in the Labour Party—who have called on the Government to do more because more needs to happen. We need to use all diplomatic avenues to achieve a ceasefire, but this is something that the Minister of Foreign Affairs should do, and that includes supporting UN Security Council Resolution 2728—which was passed yesterday and was accepted as legally binding on Israel—and includes reporting back to this House on what concrete steps the Government is taking to hold Israel to account under the resolution. I note that this is the resolution that even Israel's sole ally, the United States of America, did not veto and block—and acknowledging the role that the US has played, in particular, in funding the military machine in Israel. What this House and this Government also need to do is to increase humanitarian aid, including maintaining aid for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency. That's important. They are on the ground, and that work needs to be supported. We need to also join the case in the International Court of Justice brought by South Africa against Israel under the Genocide Convention. More countries are joining South Africa in that case, and it would be in line with our principled place in the world to also do so and to stand with South Africa in this important moment in history. We also need to use all avenues of influence to ensure breaches of international humanitarian law are prevented, investigated, and prosecuted, including by pushing for an independent and impartial investigation by the International Criminal Court to investigate the war crimes being committed in Gaza. We also need to urgently create a special visa for Palestinian New Zealanders to bring their families to safety, and to back this up with diplomatic support to get them out of Gaza. I reflect on some of the questions that were asked in this House last week about why the Government hadn't done that, and the response was that Canada had done it and they only got 14 people out. Fourteen is better than nothing—14 is better than nothing. In our having a special visa category set up so that when people can get out and they can, that is enabled to happen. Many of these people have whānau here in Aotearoa New Zealand. They are New Zealanders—they are Palestinians, but they are New Zealanders as well. These are important points and important initiatives that this Government can do and should do to step up—to step up—to support the Palestinians in Gaza, and the Greens will continue to bring in the voices of the people on the streets here, into this House, even if this House doesn't want to hear it. This is so important, and I support this resolution by the UN, but more needs to be done by this House and more needs to be done by this Government. Thank you, Mr Speaker. SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. On 7 October 2023, Hamas attacked Israel. They killed over 1,200 people. They took hundreds hostage, of which, it is suspected, less than 100 still live in captivity, held in tunnels, held in basements, even, we've learned, held in the family living rooms of Hamas operatives in Gaza. New Zealand has taken action in line with our allies and in relation to our size and scale. New Zealand accepts around 1,500 refugees per year, which is what we can accept with the resources we have available. We must reflect the humanitarian crisis in Gaza is caused by Hamas operating a terrorist State, using Gaza as a base to attack its neighbours, and using the people of Gaza as human shields since 2007. We should not accept Hamas is allowed to exist, and that is why I am proud the New Zealand coalition Government has declared not only Hamas' so-called military wing but also its fake political wing to be a terrorist entity. Hamas has no political legitimacy, and they bear sole responsibility for the terrorist attack on Gaza and that the State of Israel has been forced to retaliate to try to get its citizens that are held hostage back and try to create sufficient defensive conditions so that Israel is safe from further attacks. New Zealand has frozen the assets and the ability for New Zealanders to send funds to Hamas. Now, people would ask, "Well, who in their right mind would want to send funds to Hamas?" Well, it turns out there are New Zealanders who wanted to and, in fact, had organised to. They had organised to. The only group to oppose the New Zealand Government's decision to categorise the political wing of Hamas as a terrorist entity was a group called Palestinian Solidarity Network, led by the confused and bitter John Minto, once a freedom fighter against Apartheid, now an apologist for anti-Semitic terrorists. How far that gentleman has fallen. But New Zealand has also, sadly, been slow to the party. In terms of designating Hamas a terrorist entity, and that includes its political wing, New Zealand and Australia didn't do this until very recently—Australia in 2022; Canada in 2022; the UK in 2003—but the US recognised the problem that Hamas was causing back in 1997. New Zealand has, and dare I say my colleagues in Labour and the Green Party, and no doubt Te Pāti Māori, seem to imagine we live in a world where a resolution or a declaration of ceasefire can be made and all of a sudden there are unicorns and rainbows. It doesn't work like that in the real world. Someone has to get the hostages back. Someone has to keep the people of Israel safe. A former Labour leader—actually, a former Prime Minister—once declared in May 2001—remember that date: May 2001—New Zealand is in an incredibly benign strategic environment. In September 2001, Al Qaeda terrorists flew two aircraft into the World Trade Center buildings, another one into the Pentagon, and passengers on another flight managed to wrestle the controls away from the terrorists and it landed in a field with all being killed. That was not a benign strategic environment then, and we do not live in one now. When the UN called for a ceasefire today, it echoes the desire of many people in Israel and Gaza's neighbours for an end to the conflict, an end to the suffering of the Palestinian people in Gaza. Only Hamas can end their suffering. They can accept the deal currently offered by Israel, return the hostages, have a ceasefire. But remember, Hamas, you are not safe, you will face justice—that is clear. The Israelis will come after you. New Zealand can do its bit by helping them and making sure that we can deliver aid to the people of Gaza as soon as we can. DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori): Kia ora. Tēnā koe, te Pīka. I arrive at this debate for urgency with a different context, having come from Taranaki and certainly people who have been persecuted for who they are and what their cultural and spiritual beliefs were. So our belief as Te Pāti Māori is all violence—all violence—is wrong, and all hostages, everywhere and anywhere, should be returned. This House has an opportunity before it to take seriously and make some serious recommendations that align with what a lot of our citizens across the House out in Aotearoa have been doing for some months. They have been rallying on weekends for some months. There have been tens of millions of stories and videos shared on social media. There have been petitions handed over—thousands, there have been signatures. There have been continual examples of families that have been killed and the 32,000-plus, those who have been maimed, those who have been targeted, including media—media and their families that we have seen. In fact, it has been so brutal, I can't remember any time in my life, and certainly my pāpā, who's 82, has shared the same. It's the kind of activity going on in the world that has generations within my household stunned by where the Government and this House has been. And to be really honest, certainly from the communities that I come from, there has been a deafening silence on both sides of this House, not taking away the fact that there have been varying degrees of ceasefire called for. This House and this Governments and all Governments have the ability to trigger levers, and some, I've been stunned by how fast that can happen. We saw it in COVID through a pandemic. This is a crisis and an urgency like humans have never seen before. And there have been analogies and references back to our history when they've seen this type of behaviour. What we have is an opportunity to really seriously talk to each other about what is it that we need to be saying to the country, to the world, to the victims, to those who are trying to live through this revolting crisis. And I also want to take on board that there have been—you know, we come unstuck on the basis of are there truly war crimes or not. We come unstuck, I think, in the House. And certainly in Aotearoa, what we are seeing is there is only one side experiencing the disproportionate scale of death and maiming, and the complete displacement. There's only one side— Laura Trask: Have you seen the Hamas video attacks? Have you seen it? DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER: —one side disproportionately. No one else is getting 32,000—and anyone that wants to heckle that really needs to have a conscience prick. Also, what we have is—and we know that there's war crimes going on because there's been ethnic violence, there've been woman and children affected, there have been people with disabilities affected, there's been trafficking of people. Again, there's only one side that's committing that scale and that disproportionate side of violence. And there's only one side that we see now that have gone way beyond the starvation of any human peoples that we should be able to consciously go to sleep and think about. This House has influence; it has the influence to end violence. Stop getting caught up in who's right or wrong. There is disproportionate killing of innocent women and children going on, and history will mark where we stood in this—I'm a result of that. We read what happened in Parihaka. We read how this House justified what it did. It justified the decisions it made and it then had to err and apologise for the scale of the decisions that it turned its whole face away from. I urge that we get over ourselves and we apply some type of sanction that forces a peace and forces the end of this violence. We have a nation's army and military force showing and humiliating victims, going into their homes. We know this because they are sharing their videos. They are sharing and promoting how proud they are of how they're humiliating, starving, killing people in a way that we could never expect any other group of refugees to have to suffer. We are seeing it because we have one side that is so righteous and so sure of what it's doing that these other human people don't matter. I support that we do something urgently in this House. Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Yesterday, the United Nations Security Council passed a resolution calling for a ceasefire in Gaza. My reaction: about bloody time. In this House today, we heard the Minister of Foreign Affairs calls for a permanent ceasefire—about bloody time. Do you know why? Don't ask me; ask António Guterres, ask the growing number of Jewish people around the world who are horrified that this continues in Gaza and the West Bank under the title of "defending Jewish people". No, it's defending Netanyahu and a right-wing Government and their Zionist agenda; not the Jewish people. If we think, or that Government thinks that what is going on in Gaza is going to secure the rights of the Jewish State, or peace in the Middle East, they are dreaming. The events that took place on 7 October were horrific, but they go way back before then and they've gone on since then. Events that we say are unjustified, horrific, and indeed it's not something that New Zealand has had to face. We've, in fact, had a proud history of being independent in our foreign policy, but we've sat on our hands for too long and not called for a permanent ceasefire. I came into this place, like most people did, to build a better New Zealand, and that has to be within a better world. But there can be no prosperity without peace anywhere in the world. For some time, the Government thought that this was in the Middle East, away from us, and then we saw the actions of people in Yemen. That directly effected our trade, so we do have a direct economic interest, but that's not the reason we should stand up. I, quite frankly, have been horrified to think that I'm in a country that can stand back and say nothing when people are being slaughtered, when people are being starved, when hospitals and schools are being bombed. We've had 25,000—or thereabouts, and I'm sure it will be today—Palestinian casualties; 61,000-plus injuries. We've had 1,200 Jewish people killed; 5,500 injured. Horrific, regardless of those people, whatever State they come from, wherever they were born, through no fault of their own, whether it was on one side of the border or to one faith or another. We have seen horrific outcomes in the Middle East that, I'm sure, unfortunately, will probably have ramifications for a long time. We've been involved in a propaganda war. Some of the things we've heard in this House today are nothing more than propaganda from one side, or from the other. Go online and look. Don't just look at one but look at many of the posted videos or statements, as I say, from Jewish people around the world, Jewish leaders around the world who do not support the actions of the Israel Defense Force (IDF), do not support the slaughter of people in Gaza. The proposed action in Rafah would be the final straw, the final step in what has not been deemed a genocide. So the International Court of Justice heard a case, made a ruling on 26 January, made some recommendations, and there has been some monitoring. The unfortunate reality is that many of the indications that might move actions towards a genocide, as set by the International Court of Justice, in fact have been carried out. I want to make the ruling here that I'd suggest to you that in the annals of history, those people who sat back and did nothing will be very embarrassed. We live, we think, in a civilised world. How can we be civilised and not speak out when we see in front of us the slaughter of women and children who have had no role in the actions of Hamas, which also we must condemn but the disproportionate and the indiscriminate reaction by the IDF in reaction to 7 October is outrageous. This must stop. A ceasefire must be permanent. RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is not a pleasure to take a call on this matter but as my colleague, Hon Damien O'Connor, has put so succinctly today: it is our duty; it is our duty as parliamentarians to speak out on this important matter of the continued killing and slaughter that we are seeing in Gaza. Speaker, the UN Security Council has finally—finally—called for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza because, finally, the United States has stopped using the veto power that it has used before to stop that from happening. That is a good thing but we need to go further and the point I wish to make is that language matters. When language matters, I actually want to talk first and foremost about the language of the Government at the moment because the Government has been calling for "steps towards a ceasefire", and "for the conditions to be met for a ceasefire." Now, what part of thousands of children killed in Gaza are not the conditions met for a ceasefire? This is an extremely serious matter for the world and for so many reasons, and I want to call firstly to the conditions that have led to the UN Security Council finally calling for the ceasefire—because it is the month of Ramadan. So I acknowledge, for our Muslim community, it is the month of Ramadan. For our Christian community, of which I am a member, it is Holy Week; it is the end of Lent as we approach Good Friday and Easter Sunday this weekend. For our Jewish communities, we are approaching Passover at the end of April. But this is not a religious war. Too often we call this "a religious war" and we allow people to hide behind religion to kill other people. This is a war about land, it is a war about power, and ultimately it's about people, and the death of thousands and thousands of innocent people being used behind religion as an excuse to kill other people. As a Christian, as a member of one of the three great Abrahamic faiths, I say no to that. One of the things that has really bothered me in the last few weeks is around the need for us to have a humanitarian visa coming into New Zealand. I've heard last week in the House the Minister of Immigration talk about why we cannot have that visa, and that is because it is so difficult to get people out of Rafah. The Labour Government put in place visas for Ukraine and Afghanistan and members of my community—people who I helped, on Zoom calls in the middle of night, get out of Afghanistan and families I supported to get their family members out of Ukraine—had visas and it took months to get out. We did not use the excuse—that it would take months to get people out—for not issuing the visa in the first place. It was that Minister of Immigration who called on us for the Ukrainian visa, even though we knew it would take a very long time. So I call on this Government to do the right thing and to give the people of Gaza and the people in the region the hope, and their families in New Zealand whose families are struggling, that they could get to New Zealand. It is not a matter for Immigration to get people out; that's actually for other agencies like defence . So I call again on this Government to actually do the right thing, as we did. The other thing I'm calling on this Government to do is to join the International Court of Justice case that South Africa are taking against Israel in the court. They have issued an interim measure, and one of the things they have stated is that Israel must take all steps in its power to prevent the commission of all acts under article 2 of the UN's 1948 Genocide Convention. Actually, it's also for member states to follow that ruling too. We, as New Zealand, are required to uphold that ruling; we must take all steps. We must use the proud, strong, independent, small but mighty international voice that we have to put the pressure needed on Israel to end this war once and for all. Of course, we call for Hamas to release the hostages—of course we do. Because no matter where you were born, no matter your religion, no matter the colour of your skin, no matter your ethnicity or who your parents are, every person in this world has the right to live in freedom, and safety, and we need an urgent, lasting, permanent ceasefire now. SPEAKER: This debate is concluded. SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Revenue): I move, That the sitting of the House today be extended into tomorrow morning to complete the remaining stages of the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2023-24, Multinational Tax, and Remedial Matters) Bill. A party vote was called for on the question, That the motion be agreed to. Ayes 102 New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Noes 21 Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6. Motion agreed to. APPROPRIATION (2022/23 CONFIRMATION AND VALIDATION) BILL Second Reading Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Revenue): I move, That the Appropriation (2022/23 Confirmation and Validation) Bill be now read a second time. Motion agreed to. Bill read a second time. SPEAKER: This bill is set down for committee stage on the next sitting day. I declare the House in committee for further consideration of the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2023-24, Multinational Tax, and Remedial Matters) Bill. TAXATION (ANNUAL RATES FOR 2023-24, MULTINATIONAL TAX, AND REMEDIAL MATTERS) BILL In Committee Debate resumed from 21 March. Part 1 Annual rates of income tax (continued) CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, the House is in committee on the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2023-24, Multinational Tax, and Remedial Matters) Bill. When we were last debating this bill, we were debating Part 1, the debate on clause 3, "Annual rates of income tax". This is where the debate on 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. Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): We started this debate the other day—Thursday, 21 March—where it had only a very short time discussing some of the matters relating to Part 1 of the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2023-24, Multinational Tax, and Remedial Matters) Bill. That part is, of course, the annual rates debate, which, after a bit of discussion, I went back and looked at the previous Hansards, and it is supposed to be a pretty free-flowing debate on tax rates and on taxation in general. Obviously not every single little detail of taxation, but taxation in general. I did look at what the Minister himself said on Thursday, 21 March, which he said that he was "Looking forward to the opportunity to have a good, free-flowing dialogue and debate in regards to the tax bill." So I'm pleased to hear that from the Minister. It's always— Hon Barbara Edmonds: Taking up that challenge. Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: Yes, happy to take that on board, Minister, and go with the flow on this one, and perhaps add to it a little bit. Also, because there had been a wee bit of a discussion as to how long this debate should go on for, I did check what happened back in 2022-23 with this debate, and I noted that there is quite a number of calls from Opposition members—an extended amount of calls from Opposition members—on what looks like a very small clause but, actually, has quite a deal to do with our annual tax rates. In particular, I saw someone raised a point of order about whether something was relevant. In fact, that someone was me and the speaker in the Chair at the time said it was a very broad-ranging part of the legislation and she did feel some anxiety as we were going over questions again and again, but then she said about how, "I have given members some leeway considering it is a very broad part of the legislation." And just for clarity, that particular ruling came from Poto Williams, who was in the Chair at the time. So, having sort of laid out all that groundwork, there is material that I do think we still need to think about in terms of the annual rates. Oh, again, just one last point. I sort of had a look at some of the topics that had been raised. Andrew Bayly had quite a good outing in that previous debate. Hon Barbara Edmonds: He's always got a lot to say, Andrew Bayly. Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: He has. He talked about tax thresholds, trust rates, how tax is used to raise money for roads and education etc., the changes to specific thresholds, the best approach for the economy in terms of cutting services or shifting tax thresholds, tax as a proportion of the economy, the issue is "how do we grow the economy"—so I thought that opened it up quite nicely—and, actually, the hidden economy. Anyway, let's see where we get to in actually debating this today. I realise I've taken three minutes now and I will get to something that's right on point. Ha, ha! CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): That's OK. The member's largely in line with the comments made. We have to be careful about the expenditure of the tax. It is about the tax and the tax rates and the tax types, rather than the expenditure of the tax. Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: Thank you. I'm pretty happy to take that on board, Madam Chair. I did see the look that you were giving me, so I am—Ha, ha! CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): No, I was listening to you. Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: It was a very speaking look. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I was intent to be listening. Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: Ha, ha! So I do just want to traverse a particular point, and it comes from the IMF report on the New Zealand economy. The Minister and I spoke about this a little the other day, but I do want to just touch on it a bit before, again. The report said that New Zealand would benefit from a more efficient, equitable, and sustainable tax system. So I want to direct the Minister's direction to the tax thresholds in particular, and to get his opinion on whether or not he thinks that they are equitable. Now, of course, equitable is an interesting word in tax. It's interpreted in terms of both horizontal equity and in terms of vertical equity. So I'd like to hear what the Minister says about whether or not our current tax thresholds do actually exemplify some form of equity, and particularly in terms of both vertical equity and horizontal equity. Especially given that the IMF has directed us to have a look at that. INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): Thank you, Madam Chair. Great to be able to continue the call that I took last week, when, I do note, there was quite a lot of interruption from the Government members, who were clearly very keen to debate taxation. I'd like to also pick up where my colleague the Hon Dr Deborah Russell has asked a question about equity, because my question for the Minister, the Hon Simon Watts, is about fairness. It's a word that we use a lot in relation to taxation. I think all New Zealanders, and certainly all members from across the House, would agree that having a fair tax system is what we're all after. And certainly knowing that the taxation rates are fair and proportionate to how much people are earning, what their circumstances are, how many dependants they have, and so on, would be really helpful. Mr Chair, you'd be aware that there was a way that we could have perhaps more transparently looked at the question of fairness, with the Taxation Principles Reporting Act that was introduced by the last Government. Not only did it have the elements of equity, as alluded to by my colleague, but it really broke fairness down into six elements. And, again, I'm directing these comments to the Minister because I would like to know if any of these elements have been on his mind when he's been looking at the rates. Those are things like the efficiency of the collection of tax, compliance and administration—clearly, when the Government is collecting taxation, it needs to be able to do so in a way that minimises the compliance burden for business. And we've heard a lot about that. I certainly knew about that when I had my own small business. There needs to be integrity of the tax system, and certainty and predictability. And that's a really fundamental principle—of course, universally accepted—that it would be most unfair for people to embark on business ventures and enterprise without understanding with some certainty the level of compliance they needed but also the level of taxation that they would be likely to be expected to contribute. So there's an element of predictability, but also to be flexible, because there are often, as we know, unusual circumstances, perhaps natural disasters in countries like ours or things that happen offshore to currencies and so on, that require quick and nimble changes to the taxation system. So there does have to be a degree of flexibility and also to understand the nuances of different groups of people within different tax bands—so taking into account that not everybody earning the same amount of money is in the same context, so therefore there needs to be some flexibility around that, and, of course, adaptability, so that the tax system can move with the times. Clearly, we've seen even, for example, last year with GST collection, there was a streamlining of the way businesses were able to produce their invoices, which meant that they were more able to be done easily by the digital invoicing systems that were available. So, when I look at these six tax principles, they seem like a really good, fair way of shining a light on what the Government's priorities are when it is setting its taxation rates. And certainly, if that statute had stayed in, there would have been a requirement for the Commissioner of Inland Revenue to aggregate the data and to report on it, so that all New Zealanders would be able to understand what is meant by tax fairness—that fundamental question—because we know that, when people know the tax system is fair, they are much more likely to comply with it, and they're much less likely to try and evade or avoid tax. But, sadly, that Act was repealed. And so now we really just have these notions of equity that Dr Deborah Russell referred to, and now my questions around efficiency, compliance and administration, integrity, certainty and predictability, horizontal and vertical equity. Which of these different principles has the Minister turned his mind to? And how has he been able to make those assessments in the absence of having some kind of written data on them? It would seem to me that would have been a really helpful thing to have. I'm sure that the Minister is concerned with fairness, and so, as we look at these tax rates, I'd like to know, in the absence of that, how he was able to address those questions. And a broader question, really, to enlighten us, what does he think of when he thinks about tax fairness in the system? It is a really relevant question at the moment. There's been a lot of commentary on it in the media. There's been a lot of political discourse. And, certainly, as we move into questions like interest deductibility and brightline tests, I think having a baseline understanding of what the Minister calls to mind and the criteria that he thinks of when he is looking at fairness in the taxation system—what is it that he bases that on, and what advice has he had from officials and from other groups as to how to make determinations around fairness? Has he taken advice on any one of these particular six universally accepted criteria? And also, has he considered the report that came out prior to that legislation that was eventually repealed, which was the High-Wealth Individuals Research Project, because that revealed a startling disparity between the effective tax rates by the super wealthy compared with other New Zealanders. And so, if I recall, there is a discrepancy of most New Zealanders paying an average tax rate of something like around 22 percent—versus around 8 percent—for those who are not super rich. So my third question to the Minister is: has he actually read that report? It would be really good to know if he has read the High-Wealth Individuals Research Project, which did lead in part to the legislation and to bringing those six principles of fairness into our legislative system. If he did read that report, what are his views about that report, and did that have any influence on the attitude and approach that he has now to the taxation rates? Did it cause him to stop and think perhaps maybe there should be adjustments? And does he see any merit in being able to get more concrete data? Because we know that taxation information, in the absence of having real data, is done through a series of assumptions about up taxation. And what assumptions does he rely on in order to be able to make these value judgments about what's fair? So I'll leave my questions there for the Minister. I'm very keen to get an answer on each one of them. CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Co-Leader—Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. What we're dealing with in this part of the debate, just for those following along at home, is Part 1 of the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2023-24, Multinational Tax, and Remedial Matters) Bill. We're dealing particularly with clause 3, which pertains to income tax rates. This is really important to lay out, because the substantive part of the debate and discussion will come in at Part 2, where we are dealing with the interest deductibility changes for landlords that have been in the headlines recently. With that context as laid out, I have a few questions which I'd love to get the Minister of Revenue's response on, particularly because what we're seeing with the Amendment Papers in the Minister's name are amendments primarily to Part 2 of this legislation with regard to the commitments that were made throughout the election process and that we'll obviously see reflected in the upcoming Budget in May. But my question to the Minister is: why is it that an Amendment Paper was used to manifest those commitments from the election as a precursor to the Budget with regard to tax deductibility, but not those changes that relate to income tax changes? This is a really salient and important point, because obviously an Amendment Paper, particularly one that proposes quite substantive changes, has not been before a select committee process, and this bill largely operates retrospectively because, of course, for those, again, following along at home, it was introduced by the last Government subsequent to the last Budget. So what we're dealing with here is a vehicle, a piece of legislation which was supposed to operationalise the changes in Budget 2023, but what we're seeing is that the Minister now, at committee of the whole House stage, is making amendments through a Supplementary Order Paper—now titled an Amendment Paper per Standing Orders changes—which are primarily related to those interest deductibility changes, I note, but why is it the case that the Minister is picking and choosing where he'd like to see those changes made, as Minister of Revenue? So that direct question to the Minister is: why is it that the Government chose to use the vehicle of this Amendment Paper and this committee stage on this bill to make those changes to interest deductibility per Part 2, but are not going through the committed to income tax changes in Part 1, which we are, again, likely to see reflected in the Budget, which again we'll also see be the case with the $2.9 billion-odd that this tax deductibility for landlords change will bring about? Hon SIMON WATTS: Thank you very much for those questions. I'll work my way backwards in order. The first one from Chlöe Swarbrick in regards to the Supplementary Order Papers. I mean, the reality is that we have a very busy programme within the coalition Government, in the large number of actions that we are working our way through, and the decision around the way in which we wanted to proceed those through the House is a decision that we have made. The personal income tax changes that we have signalled very clearly that we are going to make are subject to the Budget process, and hence will be coming through that process. The other aspect from our assessment were appropriate to go through this bill, and we're comfortable with that. The first question from the Hon Dr Deborah Russell in regards to the IMF report: we last had a discussion in the committee of the whole House around this report quite extensively, and there's not much more I want to say in regards to that report, other than the report did indicate that there needs to be a significant focus around Government expenditure, and ensuring that the Government expenditure is appropriate and that's the something that the coalition Government are working through. A question from the member Ingrid Leary in regards to fairness, compliance tax principles, and also the high-wealth individuals research project—have I reviewed that report? Well, the member will be aware that in the prior Government, when that report came out, there was a lot of questions about that. In my capacity as a MP, I requested the Government of the day to actually get the IRD in to explain that report, and the methodology and ideology that was used to prepare it, and that was voted down and declined by the Labour Government. So, I think, for me to—sort of—have more questions around that report, that maybe gives you a sense of where the prior Government thought the quality of the report was. In regards to fairness and other aspects around tax principles: again, if you look at my Hansard from the Taxation Principles Reporting Bill, which is in the context of the conversation we are having today; again, my Hansard in regards to views around tax principles are well documented. In regards to the compliance aspects, one of the clear priorities that Inland Revenue are working on under this coalition Government is a focus on ensuring that the reduction of taxpayer compliance costs, and the burden of compliance that faces tax payers and reducing that burden is a key area of focus for this coalition Government; looking forward to seeing that coming through. CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Just before I take the next call, I'll just optimistically remind members of the change in the way we do business. Certainly, while I'm on the Chair, I'm very happy to accommodate short, sharp questions to the Minister, aware that it takes two to tango—if we can try it, and see how it works. Otherwise, the members are free to do their own calls. The Hon Barbara Edmonds. Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana): Mr Chair, I will try and heed to that by providing the question first, and then going through the analysis as to why I need a clarification, if I can indulge the committee. So, for members of the committee, we are speaking in relation to clause 3, Part 1 of this particular bill. My question that I want to clarify is that clause 3 provides a cross-reference to Schedule 1. So if you look at Schedule 1, as part of this bill, it doesn't actually set out the income tax rates, because it provides a reference to another part of the Income Tax Act. But I just want to clarify that it was a purposeful intention by the Minister of Revenue and instructions to his drafters that it was not to include the different tables in Schedule 1 of this amendment bill. The reason why I need to ask that—and while the Minister is seeking advice on that—is that it is actually illegal for the Crown to levy money on its subjects without Parliament's authority. It must be done either by primary legislation or regulation, which is how we've gotten to this point here in the House. As many of the members of this House know, revenue is the income earned by the Government, basically, as a reporting entity, as defined in the Public Finance Act. Revenue can be derived from a number of sources. For taxation purposes, that includes income tax, goods and services, excise duties, ACC levies, other levies, and miscellaneous payments, like child support payments. That's unless the Income Tax Act actually excludes that within the definition of "income tax" for the purposes of the legislation. I just want to point the committee to the Regulations Review Committee, which had actually endorsed the Australian courts' definition of a "tax" as any levy that is compulsory for public purposes and is legally enforceable. That's why I ask why was the Schedule not repeated in this particular amendment bill. If we go back to the history of when income tax was actually introduced, it was introduced in New Zealand around 1 April 1892. The technology of the time was refrigeration. Basically, we had just got the technology of being able to export goods through refrigeration. So it is quite a longstanding provision, since the late-1890s, that the Parliament needs to be able to approve that particular schedule. Many members will know an income tax year runs from 1 April to 31 March. So, therefore, that's why we are going to be sitting in extended hours to try and pass this bill, because it has to be done before 1 April, and that's in order for the Government to, basically, receive its revenue for the past income tax year of 23/24. So that's why I wanted to just set out a little bit of the history, just to clarify that, for drafting purposes, it is intentional by this Government—and, I'm sure, probably other Governments have done it; I just want to make sure that they have excluded the Schedule 1, they've excluded the table of what the actual tax rates are from this particular bill, because I can't find it in the revised track version that's been reported back from the committee. Apologies to the Minister if it is actually in the Minister's Amendment Paper; I haven't had a good chance to be able to have a look. I'll quickly have a look now, clause—nope, nope; still not in the Schedule in there. So I just want to ask the Minister if he can just clarify that it is usual or it is a normal drafting approach to not include the Schedule in the annual rates bill, and, rather, that it is more of a cross-reference to where it actually is in the greater Act, given that there is no particular change to it. So if the Minister can provide a clarifying answer for that, I would be very grateful. Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): Mr Chair, thank you. It's great to be able to take another call on this, because there is a lot to discuss in this rather small part of the bill. Look, I'm just going to endorse what my colleague the Hon Barbara Edmonds has said, and I just want to pick up on something the Minister was saying, which was that the Government had had a very busy legislative programme, which was why this particular bill has been left pretty much to the last moment. But it does worry me, because we do need to have this debate on the tax rates—it's an important constitutional part of our process—but it has been left to the last moment. Now, the Minister of Revenue has said that it's because of the busy legislative schedule, but I'm curious as to why, given that this is a constitutional necessity that we have this debate on Part 1, on the annual tax rates, the Minister didn't consider splitting that out into a separate bill. It could have been done. It could have been done as a separate debate entirely on its own, as a bill that was just the annual rates bill for 2023-24. Instead—and this has been a pretty usual practice—that particular clause has been included in another tax bill. So if there was a real urgent need, and there is now an urgent need, to get those annual rates through—and it's on that Government if it doesn't happen. If it does—you know, perhaps we're all going to be here through until Thursday night, between us. Hon Member: We can't sit on a Friday. Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: We can't sit on Friday. So I want to know why the Minister hasn't considered taking the very sensible and reasonable precaution of splitting out the annual rates clause—just one clause—putting it in a separate bill, and at least being sure that that particular bill would get through. Of course, that would have enabled us to have added quite a bit more time to look at some of the changes in the other parts of this bill. So, Minister, if you could clarify why you didn't just take that rather sensible course of action. ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you, Mr Chair. My questions for the Minister of Revenue are about clause 3, in Part 1. There are ten of them, and I will ask him the first two now. What proportion of all taxes will be levied from the taxes imposed by section BB 1, "Imposition of income tax", of the tax Act 2007? And the second question is: what proportion of all taxes will be levied from personal income tax, corporate tax, and goods and services tax for the 12 months to June 2024 period? My reason for asking those two questions to the Minister now is that I need the answers to those before I can ask the next five questions. Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana): Thank you, Mr Chair. It's probably a much briefer question, this particular question. It's around actually how much tax the Minister is forecasting to collect for the 2023-24 year. Again, the reason why we're here for this bill was to be able to confirm those tax rates. I note from—I think it's from—the Inland Revenue annual report that—I think it was the 2022-23 year—we were looking at around $56 billion through individuals, $18 billion through companies, $3 billion through resident withholding tax, $28 billion through GST, and $7 billion through other. So just to make the point that individuals have paid $56 billion worth of tax, which has been confirmed by previous annual tax rate bills. So my question is a really brief question to the Minister: can he please provide a breakdown for what the forecast amounts of tax that will be collected for the 2023-24 year, which this bill seeks to confirm? ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you very much. Following on from that question from Barbara Edmonds, because it fits neatly within my line of questioning to the Minister of Revenue, I would seek to ask the Minister another question before I ask the next five questions, which is: how much as a proportion of what the Government is forecast to spend in that period which my colleague Barbara Edmonds spoke to will go to health, education, social security, and welfare payments, of which the largest cost is New Zealand Super? I ask that because I'm seeking to understand, of a proportion of the taxes levied under those three major taxes, how much will go to core Crown spending. Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Revenue): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I'll work my way through the questions that have been asked. In regards to the question, firstly by Arena Williams, in regards to how much tax was collected, if you just bear with me, I'll give you the overview—and this is for the year ended 30 June 2023. Core tax revenue was $112 billion, or 28.4 percent of GDP, made-up of individual tax of $58 billion, which is 52 percent; GST of $28 billion; corporate tax of $20 billion; and customs and excise of $7 billion. In regards to the question from the Hon Barbara Edmonds in regards to clause 3, in terms of the whether Schedule 1 is normal, and the point of clarification. I can reassure the member that this is a normal process. Clause 3 is correct in setting out the rates for 2023/24, in line with those currently in Schedule 1. As the member will no doubt remember—those very heavy income-tax legislation books that one used to carry around when in practice—the annual rates are set out in Schedule 1 of the Income Tax Act 2007. So we can have a look at that if we wish. In regards to the question from the Hon Dr Deborah Russell, in regards to the idea around maybe doing a separate bill, we have to disappoint the member to say that we won't be doing a separate bill for that portion. As said, we've taken a decision around including interest deductibility as part of this bill. It was something that was well signalled and well campaigned on. It's actually just simply a reversal of the decision made by the prior Government. I won't get into the rationale, or that around that, it's simply that this coalition Government campaigned on reversing that, and we have delivered that—that is, in effect, simplistically, going through this piece of legislation. There will, obviously, be a further piece of legislation as part of the Budget process, which will deal with the other components that I discussed with the other questions that I noted around the personal income tax rates. ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you, Mr Chair. A brief question to the Minister of Revenue, given his answer, about confirming that for the 12-month period to June 2024, it is forecast to raise $112 billion: why is that different to the forecast to raise $122 billion, and what is the difference between the forecast and the number he has just given the committee, and why is it different? CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Co-Leader—Green): I appreciate the ability to, potentially, pick back up the line of questioning that I previously had with the Minister of Revenue here. So we've just heard that the Minister was saying that the reason as to which we have the supplementary order paper, or, rather the Amendment Paper, as it's now titled, in his name, with regard to tax deductibility is that these promises were well campaigned on and well signalled early on. Yet we're still left with a situation whereby we know that the promises as were made at the campaign have blown out, in reality, to the tune of a better part of a billion dollars. So I think that the question remains outstanding to the Minister: why is it the case that these changes to tax deductibility are not due public scrutiny, meanwhile the well-signalled and well-campaigned-on signalled changes to income tax rates are not also included with an Amendment Paper? I'm just here trying to tease out the lack of logical consistency from the Minister, because we're hearing, on one account, that the changes to tax deductibility were campaigned upon and therefore they deserved to be in this Amendment Paper and bypass the opportunity for a select committee process and public participation in legislative processes, but changes to income tax rates, which the National Party, the ACT Party, and New Zealand First also campaigned on, somehow are not due the same level of bypassing that legislative process and, therefore, the public scrutiny as due. So, I guess, I just have a few things to unpick there. The first is that question to the Minister: what's up with the lack of logical consistency? The second question to the Minister is that he just said that—and he's aware—the tax changes per clause 3 in this bill as we're currently debating under Part 1 are subject to Budget processes. But why is it the case that the tax deductibility changes for landlords are not subject to those Budget processes? Again, a secondary point to this one of logical consistency. Why is it the case that these interest deductibility changes are considered to be able to bypass the select committee process, while it's the fact that income tax changes are going to be subjected to the next iteration of this legislation, following the May Budget. The second sphere of questions that I'd like to probe is a very specific one about whether the Minister received any advice whatsoever from officials that progressing in the way that he has chosen to with this Amendment Paper has meant that he has received advice from officials that there is a degraded quality of legislative standard. HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): Thank you, Mr Chair. I just want to look at Part 1, clause 3, and talk about some of the basic assumptions in it, because this, as I understand it, is the clause that will mean that New Zealand taxpayers are compelled to pay taxes at the rate set out in the Schedule. And I wanted to know from the Minister whether he considered the implications of the work that was done when we were looking at the high-wealth individuals and the amount that people were being taxed at, about the way that money churns in high-wealth individuals' accounts. My understanding was that the findings of that inquiry were that people who had a lot of money weren't actually drawing an income at these higher levels and paying tax at these higher levels, because it didn't actually crystallise this income at any time. So they were taking the money that they were gaining—when they were buying a property, for example—and buying a business. And they were simply pushing that back into a situation where there was no income, so they were consistently reporting low profits. And so they actually don't show up as an income. So we've got people here—say they're on $180,000—and so they're earning really good money, but they're paying every dollar in tax that is in this section, and they are doing their bit in terms of their contribution to the economy. But you've got a whole lot of other people who are way, way wealthier, and they are actually earning money. In the same time period, the money's going up exponentially more, and yet they're not paying any money on it, because they're sinking that money straight into businesses or property, where in fact it's recognised as a loss, not a profit. Meanwhile, their piece of the pie grows and grows and grows, and taxpayers are not produced by that process, so the rest of us end up forking out for all the services that taxes pay for, and that group actually ends up with an effective tax rate that is so much lower than anybody else's, because they simply never crystallise an income out of it. So I'm really interested to know—and I know somebody else asked the Minister whether the Minister had read the report, but I'd like to know what the Minister thinks about this and whether we should be settling a schedule that doesn't recognise the real income, because, for ordinary New Zealanders, they would actually see that as income. They would see that growth—that constant growth—of the amount of wealth earned as income. If it happens in a financial year that your wealth goes from $1 million to $2 million or your wealth goes from $5 billion to $6 billion, you'd expect to pay the same rates that are in here, and yet there's nothing being paid at all. So what's the logic for doing that, and what were the Minister's thoughts about that issue in that particular report? Because I fully expect that the Minister will have read that report. So I'd really like to know what the thinking is here. Is that something that is going to be done later? Is it something that the Minister doesn't think is fair? And, actually, I'm not seeing something here that there's some sort of gain our society gets that is of a different kind. What's going on here in terms of the logic behind setting rates for New Zealanders? Because some of those New Zealanders will be on those lower amounts and it will particularly matter to them, because they're paying amounts of 30 percent, for example, if they're at $70,000 and, yet, these individuals are paying—my understanding is—under 10 percent, and 8.9 etc. And, again, the Minister's comments are welcome on what the effective tax rate is for those people and what the learnings are from that study and whether the Minister agrees with that study and can see this, within this context, as something that's a work in progress or what's going on. Thank you. I'd value the comments. Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): I have a number of questions now, based on things that the Minister in the chair Chris Penk has said, but in the spirit of keeping things a little bit short and sweet and getting an answer from the Minister, I do want to go back to this idea of splitting out the annual rates, because it strikes me that there's a real risk here. There is a substantial bill here, that we need to discuss at the committee stage—a really substantial original bill sitting here. There's a lot in here that we will want to talk about. But, on top of that, there is a really substantial Amendment Paper—it's 39 pages of Amendment Paper—so there's a lot for us to talk about. Of course, the Amendment Paper is stuff that hasn't gone through a select committee, so there is a lot that we will be wanting to talk about, as the Opposition, and getting clarification on, and that does put the annual rates bill at risk. Now, there is a limited amount of sitting time in this House until the long weekend. You know, Monday is April 1. Now, this bill to go through this House, needs to get through the committee stage, needs to get through the third reading, and it needs to get the Royal assent, all before 1 April. We've got Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday in this House. Now, there's a lot of work for us to get through. I know I've got about 3 pages worth of questions that I want to ask during the committee stage—I'm happy to share those out with my colleagues. But, you know, I am very serious about this. We are at constitutional risk; that Government is at constitutional risk. It needs to think really hard and really quickly—now—about whether or not it ought to split out the annual rates component of this bill. If it's not prepared to do that, what is its contingency plan? The responsibility is the Government's, I'd like to hear how the Government is going to take that responsibility up. INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): Thank you, Mr Chair. I'd like to ask the Minister of Revenue some questions about the average tax rate. We have heard about that in relation to high - net-worth individuals paying 8.9 percent versus an average annual tax rate of around 22 percent. When I look at the thresholds, they seem to follow a logical sequence. So we know, for example, people earning between $0 and $14,000 pay 10.5 percent. At the top end, those on $180,000 and above, they pay 39c in the dollar. And there are kind of incremental jumps in the band, so it goes 10.5 percent, 17.5 percent, 30 percent, 33 percent, 39 percent. That will be very familiar to a lot of people, I'm sure. We know, for example, that sometimes people will try to stay within a tax band, because if they earn too much money, they might want to reduce their hours, because otherwise they're going to jump up into the next tax bracket, and, actually, it sort of shoots them in the foot. So that has been one of the arguments that have been levelled against increasing wages, although it doesn't generally play out, because usually those who are needing higher wages are not anywhere near the top of their bracket. But to the Minister, when we look at the average tax rate in those bands, it follows a different pattern. So if we look at those who are earning $50,000, who pay an average tax rate of 16 percent, there's a 5 percent gap between them and those earning $75,000, then a 3 percent gap between those earning $75,000 and $100,000, a 1 percent gap between $150,000 and $180,000, and then a 3 percent gap between anyone up to $250,000. Now, my question is: why are there incremental jumps on average tax rates of around 3 percent, 5 percent, but between $150,000, where the average tax rate is 27 percent, we jump to $180,000 and it only goes up to 28 percent? So how does that seem fair or equitable? Is there something in the way that these jump incrementally that I'm missing, or is the average tax rate just a pure consequence of the application of the thresholds? What I'm trying to fathom is whether average tax rates have actually been considered by the Minister and by officials. Have they looked at the thresholds, looked at the increments, done the maths, and extrapolated it out and realised that there is this tiny 1 percent gap in quite a significant salary gap between $150,000 and $180,000. It may be historical, it may be something that the Minister has inherited, yet if the Minister was diligent in looking at the average tax rates and looking at the thresholds and answering questions around fairness and equity, which have come up, because at the moment we don't have a common way of understanding what is fair and equitable, then I would like to know what is the algorithm that has produced this, or, if the Minister is really honest, is it just that the average tax rates kind of end up like that and no further thought has been given, because that's how they've always been done? Keen to get an answer to that. Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana): Thank you, Mr Chair. I do want to ask a question to the Minister in relation to an answer that he provided as part of my questions around the forecasted tax collected for individuals, because, if I heard correctly, when I said I think it was $56 billion for the previous income tax year, the Minister responded that the forecast was going to be $50 billion. If that is correct, I want to ask the Minister how much of those individuals—because almost half of the total tax collected is actually just via the collection of individual taxes; so wages and salaries. How much is the Minister expecting tax transfers such as Working for Families—how much is he expecting Inland Revenue to be paying out to those individuals in the sum of a Working for Families entitlement, such as an in-work tax credit, the family tax credit? The reason why I am trying to just distil from the Minister is that it's quite clear that individuals do pay the bulk amount of tax in our country—individuals, through wages and salaries. I just want to understand how much of that do they actually get back through a tax transfer such as Working for Families, and then I probably will have another question to the Minister as a response to his response. CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Co-Leader—Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. I didn't get a response to my previous line of questioning and noting that the Minister has now manifested in another form. I will try once again but perhaps articulate these as coherently as I possibly can, to lay it out for the Minister. So, there's three key questions that I would really like an answer to here. The first is the one of logical consistency. Just to foreshadow this argument, we have an Amendment Paper on the table which addresses changes to tax deductibility for landlords. We do not see the same promises that we were signalled throughout the election campaign put in here, with regard to the income tax changes. So, we've heard from the Minister, previously, that this is because these changes around tax deductibility were signalled at the election, yet the same could be said of those promises when it comes to income tax rate changes so, again, that logical inconsistency is abundantly apparent. I'd like the Minister to address it. The second point is that the Minister said that tax or income tax changes are subject to Budget processes. But, of course, that remains the case—if the argument is to be consistent—for these tax deductibility changes, where the Government has to find $2.9 billion to pay for their tax deductibility changes for landlords. So, the first one is on logical consistency: why is it the case that we have an Amendment Paper that allows the bypassing of the select committee process and of democratic engagement on tax deductibility for landlords but they're deciding not to go down that route when it comes to income tax changes. I'd make the side note that the Greens think that neither of them should bypass that opportunity for public input. The second question is: are we to take this as a signal that the Government can say, whenever it wants, that it campaigned on something and therefore it is able to bypass the select committee process—the democratic processes of this institution? The third question, which I believe bears reiterating, is whether the Minister received any advice, with regard to this amendment paper and making amendments to this bill at this stage, when we've been through the select committee when these are substantive changes about legislative quality? Did the Minister receive any advice whatsoever that making changes at this late stage, through an Amendment Paper, will impact legislative quality? So just to reiterate Mr Chair and hoping for responses to the Minister here. Logical consistency: is this a signal about the Government choosing to not engage where it believes that it's won the mandate at the election? Thirdly, has there been any advice on legislative quality through using this Amendment Paper vehicle? Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. Can I acknowledge those who have been contributing to this debate very diligently. I have had the benefit of hearing a bit of the discussion around the place. There seems to be very good and serious questions that that are worth addressing. The first and last of those, in the time that I've been in the Chamber; thank you, Ms Swarbrick—taking within your contribution that those three in the order that you've provided them. As to logical consistency, I understand the point that you're making, and I also take your point that from the Green Party perspective, you would have us do neither of those things, and you ask why the National Party does not do both of them. But I think, nevertheless, the fact that we can do a thing, and that we consider that there is a democratic mandate for doing both of them, nevertheless, we can only do a certain amount at one time. I'll stay on your various points—just to acknowledge the point that the Hon Dr Deborah Russell had made about the danger of us going all the way though to Easter weekend, and, more to the point, up to or beyond 1 April. I think if we were still going on this Friday, it wouldn't be Good Friday, it would be "Great Friday" from the point of view of people who like debating tax. But I've certainly got better plans, and I hope you do too. Hon Members: Ha-ha! Go on, go on. Hon CHRIS PENK: I'm on my own. There are a lot of tax experts in the chamber, and I'm not one of them. So, as to logical consistency, the fact that we could, on the basis of our argument, do both those things, but nevertheless, we'll do one but not both, just reflects a little bit of the constraints of time. The philosophy is really that we're going to maximise the gains for New Zealanders. We consider these to be in the best interests of New Zealand overall, and of course, we'll do what we can as quickly as we can, noting, of course, that in the case of changes that we campaigned on as a matter of public record, and therefore democratic legitimacy, by reason as a result of the election; that's why we're going ahead with what we are. As to the Budget processes, again, I take your point, but also, it's the case that where decisions are able to be brought forward before the end of May, again, recognizing the significance of the first debate, the tax or the calendar year, and the significance for people who need to, you know, make arrangements accordingly on 1 April—that's why we're doing some things and not others by that date. As for advice regarding the Amendment Paper: I think it generally would be acknowledged as true that legislative quality is derived from a number of different factors. Yes, time spent in the committee of the whole House stage is one of those factors. At the same time, where matters are reasonably clearly able to be articulated have been thrashed out. I'm noting that the original version of this bill dates back some time, ahead of the election, and therefore we can have a bit more comfort in that sense about the certainty of what is in front of us. That will enable us to focus more energy and effort on the matters within the Amendment Paper, which, of course, are narrow, as have been a part of the whole. In terms of the comments made by Helen White—I think she is articulating the difference, of course, between wealth versus income. She's asked if any work is being done on that, and if different options or discussions been presented. Of course, in the case of her own political party, that's a process that they have signalled that they're going to do, and I wish them well with that. I look forward, greatly, to hear the outcome of those deliberations. For my Labour friends, they might want to talk to my Green friends, and see if they can't come to something— Arena Williams: You are sitting in the Chair as a Minister of the Crown. Hon CHRIS PENK:—in the same space. But for now, sitting in the Chair, representing the Crown, I would say that that's not a distinction we're keen to break down at the moment. We don't think it makes logical sense. There is a good, rational basis for regarding as different income versus net income. Obviously, in the usual way that is understood deducting expenses. I'd suggest that that high-level philosophical discussion is one that the member herself may wish to engage in, but it is not something that the Government has appetite for, and certainly not within the ambit of this bill. As of the comments of the Hon Dr Deborah Russell, I've noted, of course, that as she rightly highlights, we're under some time constraints, but that's why the Chamber has taken the measure that it has; by allowing additional time tomorrow morning, if need be, I'm personally confident, based on, you know, the history of these things, in terms of how long it takes to thrash out these arguments as fully as I think we're doing now, that will be done in time. But, if not, I'll be eating not only Easter eggs, but also humble pie come the weekend. Finally, in terms of the comments by Ingrid Leary regarding tax rates, and obviously describing the progressive nature of the tax system, you know, she's articulated actually, I think, quite a good argument, if one were inclined to make it, for a flatter tax system, noting, quite rightly, that going from one bracket to another by earning more income—oh, Mr Chair— CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The Honourable Minister. Hon CHRIS PENK: Thank you; arguably has that disincentive. I mean, there is a historical element in terms of where the rates have been arrived at, but also, it is obviously true that we need to put the line in the sand somewhere. This is where the Government considers the line best be drawn. That's why these particular figures, these particular thresholds in the bill in front of us. CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): I just will remind members that we did stray into Part 2 there, and it is important that we context. If we're going to go there, make sure we context in relationship to what we're talking about now. ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you, Mr Chair. I have an amendment in my hand to save the Minister of Revenue from eating humble pie. It is an amendment which seeks to split out the bill and ensure that this part which we are discussing now would be treated as its own separate issue. It is largely agreed, though, that this side of the House has questions, and once we have used this committee of the whole House stage to thrash those out, it would be entirely appropriate to conclude the debate if it were split out. So I will photocopy off some copies shortly and deliver them to members on the other side. That is the process part of my speech. I'd like to use the rest of my time to ask further questions that I have for the Minister. I did my sums as he was giving out the numbers on the amount of personal income, corporate tax, and goods and services tax is levied, and, according to my calculations, over 90 percent of the total tax take would be generated by those three areas. I needed those numbers because my questions relate to whether that represents an efficient way for the Crown to levy its core revenue. My colleague Helen White has made some points around this, but there are some specific questions that I have for the Minister about the agreed sort of tax principles that, in New Zealand, tax practitioners use to talk about how efficient our tax system is, because we generally, around this House, all want our tax system to be efficient and to support broader economic outcomes, and all taxes, to some extent, influence behaviour. So we want to make sure that the compliance costs are low on those who interact with the tax system and that the compliance costs, in themselves, are not influencing behaviour in a way that we would not predict, and then the tax levies that have been set in section BB 1 of the Income Tax Act, clause 3 of the bill that we are debating now, do not create the wrong kinds of incentives for people. So I want to ask the Minister: given that 90 percent of the tax take is generated by those three taxes, and that represents—what I present to the Minister was $122 billion in Crown revenue, but he counted $112 billion, and we will ask some follow-up questions about that. But given those numbers, has the Minister considered whether over 50 percent of the tax take being from personal income, and 90 percent of the tax take being from those three taxes—the implications for horizontal equity within the system? What advice has the Minister considered about whether the level of horizontal equity in New Zealand's tax system is appropriate, given the IMF's recent findings on that and the comparison to other OECD countries where New Zealand stands out as having a reliance on taxation on personal income? The second question within that is around the efficiency of the overall tax system. Whatever one thinks about equity within the tax system, we all agree that it should be as efficient as possible, and given that you probably could not describe that as the broadest base in New Zealand possible, is it appropriate and is it the most efficient way of levying tax? Has the Minister considered that, and what advice can he bring to the committee that he has had on that principle? The next question I have is about the vertical equity. Has the Minister considered whether the rates proposed represent the most vertically equitable way that the taxes proposed in clause 3, Part 1 are appropriately balanced against the principle of vertical equity? The next question is about whether the Minister has sought advice on the revenue integrity. This is about whether those costs of compliance that I spoke about earlier are appropriate, given these new rates that are being levied. My next question is about specifically those compliance and administrative costs—whether anything will change, given these new rates. My next question is about certainty and predictability. Does the way that this law is being introduced represent certainty and predictability for people who are being levied? And my last question is around the principle of flexibility and adaptability, also given that the way this law is being made—has the Minister sought advice on whether it is appropriately flexible and adaptable to create the kind of tax system which works for people who are income earners and who pay GST through the goods and services that they buy within our economy? Thank you. Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): Mr Chair, thank you. I want to thank the Minister of Revenue for his good hard response around the contingency planning. He will be eating humble pie—he will be. So I do suggest that he takes up my colleague Arena Williams' very—you know, it's really good of her to do that work to provide the contingency that that side of the House is not prepared to, so thank you to my colleague Arena Williams for doing that. I just want to go back to some of the issues around the income tax scale and the sources of income tax. My colleague Helen White raised some very good points about how the Income Tax Act does not tax all income. In fact, a whole lot of income is simply left out of the Income Tax Act, and I guess that points us to some name changes we might suggest for the Income Tax Act in the final stages of this debate when we get to it on, you know, Friday night. However, aside from that— Hon Barbara Edmonds: There's a Standing Order about that; we can't sit— Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: Oh, we can't sit—well, it'll be Saturday morning then, won't it? We'll all be back here debating tax on Saturday morning. Look, I want to go back just to reference that IMF report again, because it does point to both what Helen White talked about and just one of the issues around the Income Tax Act. It talks in the IMF report about mobilising additional revenue in response to long-term fiscal challenges. Now, the Schedule 1, as it sits at the moment, changes nothing. It changes nothing. Now, of course, the Amendment Paper does introduce some changes into Schedule 1, which we'll debate in Part 2 of this debate, but it changes nothing. Now, that leaves a consistent worry about one of the other objectives of the tax system, because one of the objectives of the tax system is to raise sufficient revenue for what the Government wants to do. It's a longstanding objective of a standard way of judging tax systems: do they do what they need to do, which is to raise sufficient revenue for Government? So we've got sitting here in Part 1 confirming the tax rates that are sitting there, and there is no change to them. In fact, coming up in the next part is a substantial change to who pays tax in this country, but none of it is addressing those long-term fiscal challenges of where we raise revenue from. So I want to know what work the Minister has been doing with respect to ensuring the long-term sustainability of our income tax system. It's the kind of question we don't get to talk about very often, but this is the place to do it. So I would like to hear from the Minister just what advice he might've received, what queries he might've put in place, what discussions he might've been having with officials around the long-term sustainability of our tax system, as signalled in the IMF report, as signalled in the Treasury briefing to the incoming Minister this year. There is a challenge there; this Schedule doesn't address it. Where is it going to be addressed? Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. Can I just acknowledge the work of Arena Williams but also the Hon Dr Deborah Russell, preparing an amendment that would split the bill. On behalf of the Government, I guess, we could do a deal, which is to say that if we need to do that and we're not finished in time for the Easter weekend, then we'll contemplate that. I'm sure that that will be given just as much consideration as Opposition Amendment Papers always have had in the committee of the whole House stage. I would just say, Easter is a time for miracles, so all the best. As for Ms Williams' points around compliance costs, we do think that the degree of breadth is appropriate. We think that there is, you know, horizontal equity, to use her very elegant phrase for that that discussion. Of course, there are different philosophical or policy approaches in relation to tax—it's famously an area in which world views may dictate an approach, albeit that certain fundamentals, I think, are broadly agreed in this country, and we should be pleased about that. But to her point around the question of what might change and how we weigh up the sometimes competing values of certainty and predictability, on the one hand, versus flexibility and adapt—adaptability on the other. I'm just trying to adapt my tongue to that phrase. I think that the bill that's before us represents a willingness to be flexible, a willingness to adapt—specifically, to respond to the mood of the electorate, as expressed through the general election, but also to provide maximum certainty that, obviously, we need, in time for the tax year that is upcoming: a known set of circumstances, a known set of tax rates, a known set of mechanisms, such as this bill does achieve. In relation to the other point that the Hon Dr Deborah Russell made about whether anything will change, I can do no better than to highlight the advice of noted tax specialist David Brent that everything will stay the same if nothing changes, quite literally. I think that, therefore, we can say things need to change further than what's within the bill—obviously, such changes would be outside the scope of the bill, by definition. But the objective of the tax system, as she described, is to raise sufficient revenue for Government. We believe that that is the case and are preparing a Budget accordingly, even as we speak. So fuller details will be out there and available for public consumption and consideration and scrutiny by this House in late May, in the form of the Budget. Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. It's quite a treat. Look, this has just intrigued me, because we've been talking about Part 1 of the bill, and Part 1 of the bill is the bit that reinstates Schedule 1 of the Income Tax Act 19… or 20…—I've lost track now; the Income Tax Act 2007. So this Schedule 1 is sort of existing there somewhere. It's not in any of the pieces of legislation that are right in front of us. It's not in the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2023-24, Multinational Tax, and Remedial Matters) Bill, the bill that's sitting there, and it's not in the amendment paper. So from the point of view of people who are listening at home, we keep on referring to the income tax rates and the income tax threshold and what's in Schedule 1, but there is nowhere that it can be found in the material that's actually in front of the House. It just raises the interesting point: does the Minister know what the tax rates and tax thresholds are, and could he perhaps tell everyone in the House so that people here and people at home know what we're talking about? Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana): Thank you, Madam Chair. I do want to acknowledge the Minister, the Hon Chris Penk's back and forth, in providing answers to a number of our questions. But there was one question which I had asked the Minister, around Working for Families and tax transfers, in relation to a figure that the Minister had provided—that around $50 billion is forecasted to be collected, for individuals, which is, obviously, part of the schedule which is part of Subpart BB, which is part of the Income Tax Act, which this bill is trying to amend. So, to the Minister, if I need to kind of clarify, I just want to know how much Working for Families is forecasted to be given back out, or tax transfers given back out, to individuals. I just want to see how much individuals are being taxed through salary and wages, which, based on the figures given by the Minister, is around $50 billion, and how much of that they get back through a tax transfer—so, in-work tax credit, minimum family tax credit—which the Minister can provide. I did actually have another question, however—to give officials a bit more time to have a look at, it. It's a particular question around some of the Minister's statements to the member Chlöe Swarbrick, around the timing of this Amendment Paper. If I can quickly summarise, the member for the Green Party, the co-leader, had asked the Minister why this particular Amendment Paper, which contains aspects both from Part 1 and Part 2 around the interest deductibility rules and the brightline changes—why it was necessary for the Minister to include it as part of this tax bill. But there were aspects as part of the Budget, which is the income tax threshold changes which they had campaigned on—they had made a decision to do it later as part of the Budget. The Minister's response to that is that, if it could be brought forward before May, it would. So my question to the Minister is: who actually made that decision to bring forward this Amendment Paper? Obviously, it's in the Minister's name, but I just want to clarify: was it the Minister of Revenue or a Minister of Finance, or a joint Ministers' paper that went to Cabinet to approve this Amendment Paper coming through? Or, actually, it could be the Associate Minister of Finance, because David Seymour has taken claim for that particular interest deductibility rule change, which is in this Amendment Paper. So who specifically was that Cabinet paper in the name of? And then my next question is: under what criteria did they believe that that Amendment Paper should be brought forward before the Budget? I'm really hoping that the Minister can provide some criteria that his Government, his executive, have basically set out as to what meets a particular threshold as to why it should be put through in this particular tax bill. Because, as other members of the committee have quite concernedly said, there are obviously time pressures for this bill. It needs to be passed this week, on Thursday; if not, if we go into Saturday, then Parliament is not allowed to collect any tax on Friday, because it's Good Friday and we can't sit because it's Good Friday. And, as a result, there are some concerns on this side that this Amendment Paper, which has basically bulked the bill up, which has not been subject to select committee scrutiny, and yet it could actually be subject to select committee scrutiny as part of that Budget process later—just wanting to understand what the criteria were that the Minister used, or the Ministers responsible for the Cabinet paper used, that took this to Cabinet to approve it so that this Amendment Paper could be introduced, in order to make that decision that this should be brought forward before May. And those were the words used by the Minister: "brought forward before May". On this side of the House, we believe there are actually some other pressing types of policies that could have been brought forward before May, which we will probably discuss quite in depth as part of Part 2. But I just want to ask that specific question to the Minister as part of Part 1. TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): I move, That debate on this question now close. Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. Look, I'll just ask a really quick question, because I think that if I'm kind of hearing this debate correctly, there are just a couple of things that I thought were interesting contributions that were made earlier on. I'm not sure that we've necessarily addressed it per se, and I know that my colleague the Hon Dr Deborah Russell has another suite of questions that she wants to get to. So before we do that, if I could just kind of circle back a little bit and ask this. I heard Arena Williams mention to the Minister in the chair, Chris Penk, not that long ago the difference between the forecast revenue of $122 billion versus $112 billion. I'm not sure that the Minister necessarily addressed that, but it made me think about this concept of tax revenue forecasts and the fact that New Zealand, obviously, is in a technical recession and we need to think about encouraging growth. Certainly, from my perspective, I would have thought, therefore, that we have to be really mindful of not engaging in austerity measures as a means by which to deal with the potential of those drops in tax revenue, given that we've got this $10 billion discrepancy sitting there. So I just wondered if the Minister could circle back round to provide a little bit more clarity about that, or whether there was some sort of thought, advice, be it—not necessarily economic theory, tax theory, or anything along those lines, but some sort of means by which to show that there's been some contemplation of how, when revenue drops, do we make sure that we're still looking after our economic growth and not looking at austerity measures. Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Taking the last question first, I'm grateful to Tracey McLellan for posing that question as to whether the Government's contemplated how things might play out in terms of revenue if that were to fall. Obviously, you know, these are shifting stands always in terms of Government revenue and the factors that will be positive and the factors that will be negative. Overall, however, I think we can agree—or certainly the colleagues on my right-hand side would agree, no doubt—that by growing a strong economy and increasing the opportunity for revenue, for the Government as well as well as for those businesses, community organisations, and individual households is the way to guard against those external fluctuations as best we can. In terms of the invitation that the Hon Dr Deborah Russell has given me to set out from memory the tax rates, I think I'm going to decline that. She's concerned that New Zealanders might not know off the tops of their heads what the tax rates are. I'm more concerned that I might not know them, and, if we think about certainty being an important principle of the tax system, the last thing we need is me making even educated guesses, or even uneducated guesses, at that. So for anyone who wants to know those, I invite them to look them up. I could look them up myself, and the member herself could look them up too, for what that's worth. And the question, actually, that the Hon Barbara Edmonds has asked—and I was remiss, by the way, in not having previously responded to that question, particularly as I've got the benefit of some really helpful advice in this space. So please allow me to articulate that as clearly as I can. In relation to Working for Families, in the March year 2022, some 265,000 families received a Working for Families tax credit. This amounted to an average payment of $7,432 per family. Again, that year ending March 2022. In terms of the tax credit, cumulatively being $1,966 million—or close as anything to $2 billion. From that Working for Families tax credit, in-work tax credit, $502 million, or, so, roughly speaking half a billion dollars adding up to obviously $2.5 billion, again roughly speaking. And in the spirit of helpfulness, as best that I can understand it—this may be helpful too—in the 2023 fiscal year, core Crown tax revenue was $112 billion or 28.4 percent of GDP and comprising various proportions on a consolidated basis, of which 52 percent was from individuals, I think. I genuinely hope that's helpful. If I've missed the mark there in terms of any of the specific questions, I'm happy to go back to those, with the indulgence of the Chair obviously. I'd hate for her to cut off this great conversation. But in terms of who decided the timing, well, clearly that's a Cabinet decision, and collective Cabinet decisions are entitled to remain as such, so I can't be more specific than that. And in terms of the criteria, quite simply again, from the Government's point of view in terms of what it was both willing and able to bring forward ahead of what would otherwise be a normal Budget process, it was that which was possible and desirable within the available time frame. Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): Look, in the spirit of helping out the Minister in the chair, the Hon Chris Penk and helping out members in the House, seeing as we are debating tax rates, and for the benefit of people at home—I'm sure there are many of them listening; it'll be "Hi dad", from my point of view. But, look, the point is that the tax rates we are debating so enthusiastically—on the income tax scale, the first $0 to $14,000, the tax rate is 10.5 percent; from $14,001 to $48,000, the tax rate is 17.5 percent; from $48,000 to $70,000, the tax rate is 30 percent; from $70,000 to $180,000, the tax rate is 33 percent; and for income over $180,000, the tax rate is 39 percent. In addition to that, the numbers that are sitting in the schedule—that we're obviously debating—the trustee tax rate is 33 percent, and the company tax rate is 28 percent. Now, some people might be wondering why I'm not including the GST rate in this, and that's because GST is not part of income tax. So I've just given the Minister, for his benefit—and perhaps a quiz later, Minister on those numbers. So I hope the Minister finds that helpful. I do just want to go back to one further issue which we haven't quite addressed yet, and that's to do with the efficiency of the tax system and the efficiency of how we collect tax at those particular rates. "Efficiency" is usually taken to mean from the point of view of the tax collecting authority, all right—how much money they spend collecting the tax. Ideally, obviously, we'd hope to have a highly efficient tax system, that we spend as little as possible in collecting the tax—that money doesn't go in that direction, instead, the money that is collected is available for all the other things that Government wants to do. Now, of course, having that variety of tax rates—the more tax rates, probably the less efficient the system. So that does invite the Government to think about whether or not that particular tax scale that I've just quoted is actually appropriate in terms of efficiency. The other thing that sits in that efficiency space, and we have talked about a little bit, is, of course, compliance costs. The more tax rates, the more complicated for individuals. But we have discussed that a little already, so I do want to think about it, in terms of the Government's point of view, as to whether the different tax rates provide for an efficient system. I just invite the Minister to make some comments on that. CATHERINE WEDD (National—Tukituki): I move, That debate on this question now close. Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I wanted to take the opportunity to ask the Minister about the rationale for debating this amendment paper now, given, as many have pointed out and asked relevant questions around that—although I'm not sure the rationale is that clear to the House and to those watching, given the changes that are made here. Is it to avoid the scrutiny that comes with such a debate around the Budget time? Now, the Minister may think that's a facetious question but it's not; it's a serious one because when we consider the measures that are taken up during a Budget period—all expenditure, all revenue coming in—that would seem the appropriate time. But the Government has chosen to do this now, and do it alongside the other aspects of this bill. There's some pretty crucial elements in this paper, and I won't go into them in detail because that's Part 2 and we are committed on this side of the House to remain relevant to the debate in question. But it is fair, I think, to get an understanding as to why now, under this rushed process. We're not actually criticising the rushed process—we get it; it's got to be passed—and we're not going to delay things more than they need to be. But this didn't have to happen now. In fact, if it wasn't here, then we could have had more opportunities to debate the substantive parts of this bill; the parts of the bill that do need to be passed by a certain date. This side of the House has worked constructively with the Government and Business Committee. We've agreed to things to ensure that public servants are not unnecessarily burdened with work over the Easter break, and that is why the House is debating things in the manner in which it is, outside normal processes. So it's not like we're opposing the processes just for the sake of it, but I think we deserve an answer to that, at least. Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I think that deserved an answer and I'm happy to give it, but, as efficiently as the Hon Dr Deborah Russell would want me to do in relation to tax matters, I don't think, with all due respect, it's fair to describe the Government's motivations in debating this now as a mechanism to avoid scrutiny as compared with having a debate following the Budget. Following the Budget, famously, debates are rushed through under urgency. It would be usual, in that process, for debates to take place with one stage after another, where this is a relatively sedated, pedestrian process, so, with all due respect, I don't think I can allow that accusation to stand without at least some refuting thereof. As to whether this is, then, the appropriate time for discussion, well, it is, because the changes are contemplated to take effect—for reasons that we've been discussing at some length—on 1 April, and that date not having yet come about, we have the opportunity to make those changes in time. Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana): Thank you, Madam Chair. I do have a new question and it's relating to the drafting of, actually, the revised track version of the bill, and it was because of a comment that the Hon Dr Deborah Russell had said around the tax trust rate as 33 percent. Now, as members will know, this particular bill is looking to increase that to 39 percent, which, remarkably, the Government is now supporting. So my question is: given that clause 3, basically, confirms the Schedule in Subpart BB of the Income Tax Act—so that's what clause 3 does in this particular bill. When I look at the report back from the committee, it says that "We confirm that the trust tax rate is currently 33, the bill increases it to 39 percent." Obviously we talked through the submission process. And then it talks about "We recommend amending clauses 39 and 62 of the bill to insert proposed section HC 40 and update the schedule of basic tax rates in the Income Tax Act." So these amendments would mean that for the 2024-25 and later income years, they come into force. And it has a de minimis which the committee has agreed to. So my question is to the Minister. Given that there is a change to a tax rate, which we've covered in Part 2, which is the way that it's been drafted within the bill, should that not be as part of Part 1, given we are confirming the annual tax rates, and, if not, can the Minister explain why it's not in Part 1? Does that leave a potential grey area? We're confirming in Part 1 the current tax rates, which are in Subpart BB of the Act, but then in Part 2 of this bill, we're saying that this is what the rates should be. It's just a clarifying question for the Minister, if he can please answer in response. INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm really grateful to be able to continue the very shortened call that I took the first time we sat in committee. If you cast your mind back, Madam Chair, I believe you were in the Chair with a different Minister. So, for the benefit of this Minister in the chair, I would like to quote from the Minister of Revenue, because I want to ask a question about something that he very directly brought into this debate. If I recall correctly—and you may, Madam Chair—there was quite a reaction to this part of the debate; there was a lot of noise from both sides of the Chamber, it was clearly something that there was some contention around. What I would like to quote is from the Hansard that time, when the Minister said, "On this side of the House, this Government, and this coalition Government, are absolutely committed to reducing wasteful spending, cutting expenditure, and not taxing New Zealanders more." He went on—and I'm not going to use the committee's time to read the full quote, but just to come to the end of it and say, "the ideological point … how we get ahead as a country is not through taxing more, it is through growing our economy and reducing wasteful spending." He brought the notion of wasteful spending into the debate, and I'm really interested to know, given that taxation and expenditure are kind of like two sides of a balance sheet—so we've got money coming in, in taxation, we've got money going out as expenditure, there needs to be some relationship between them. Yet the Minister has brought in this notion of wasteful spending without giving us any indication about what his definition is of that. I'd like to know that because that has a direct bearing on the relationship between the expenditure and the money gathered in and what is an appropriate amount in these taxation rates. There are questions that I have in my mind—for example, we've seen policies around school lunches potentially being cut, we've seen the Public Service's cuts to the MPI, staff to cut from the Ministry of Health. Just today, I've been dealing in my own electorate with the real prospect of two staff from the Ministry for Ethnic Communities being cut. This is relevant, Madam Chair, because, if I am reading this correctly, this is an indication from Government members that they believe that kind of expenditure is wasteful. Certainly the Minister was talking about the relationship with wasteful spending. I cannot, for the life of me, understand why Government members would think that spending money on school lunches, for example, would be wasteful. I know we've heard an allegation that some of the food does not get eaten, but we've also seen evidence that that food often goes out into the community and goes home and that, actually, only around 6 percent of the food doesn't get used. So I don't see any wastage around that. When I think about ethnic communities, I know that the staff in Dunedin have been supporting our ethnic communities to be able to overcome unconscious bias, to be able to get into employment in the private sector. The ethnic communities have played a very important bridging role between Government agencies and ethnic communities, that goes to productivity. If I look at the Minister's quote again, he talks about growing our economy. So, for me, having a bridging function from the Government, which helps to support growing our economy, which means getting more people from ethnic communities able to be employed in the private sector or in the public sector, overcoming unconscious bias, being able to support them to be able to have job interviews and get placements, and so on, that doesn't seem like wasteful spending. So I'm really keen to understand what this Minister in the chair, if he can speak on behalf of the Minister of Revenue, means by wasteful spending. What is the appropriate amount of waste, or is it a zero tolerance of waste, that he would see as informing that balance sheet between money in and money out, taxation, and expenditure? And can he comment on the things that I've raised, because if they are not wasteful, as I believe they're not, then how can he justify them or what was the Minister who was in the chair referring to when he talking about wasteful spending, because he definitely brought it into the debate? I cannot see wasteful spending in the things I've raised, so perhaps the Minister could enlighten me as to some examples of wasteful spending, and also what that would mean for the relationship between taxation in, expenditure out, and how you sort of work out that algorithm. I'd be very keen to hear that. Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Just briefly, in relation to the question posed by the Hon Barbara Edmonds, the trustee tax rate being increased to 39 percent for the year 2024-2025 exists in subsequent parts to this bill because Part 1 deals with the annual rates for the year 2023-2024. With all due respect, I don't accept the argument of the member Ingrid Leary that a passing reference to the phrase "wasteful spending" opens us up, on this bill, to every matter of Government expenditure. We've talked about the impending public holiday, which doesn't, likewise, invite a discussion about the existence of the Easter Bunny. I think, with all due respect, it's a relatively narrow debate in terms of the tax rates as set, certainly in relation to Part 1 for the current year. I'm grateful to have had this opportunity. HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): Thank you, Madam Chair. This is an absolute genuine attempt to have a discussion about something that I raised and the Minister partially answered. And I have been mulling over the answer I got because it doesn't satisfy me, and I'd ask for him to take it just that one step further. So I was talking in my contribution about the fact that we had, in this section, amounts that we were compelling New Zealanders who were on incomes to pay across the board, when there were others we knew, because of the research, who were paying very little, and we have a lot of information now about those high-wealth individuals deliberately churning money into businesses so that they never made a profit, and so they were actually increasing their wealth pie every year by exponentially more than the people who were paying these taxes. And what I understood the Minister did when he answered my question was talk about it as a kind of highfalutin philosophical approach. And I wanted to challenge that and ask him to turn his mind to the fact that what we're talking about here is peoples' actual money in their pockets. This is real for people. This isn't philosophy, this is economics. So what we have here is base rates that we're setting to compel New Zealanders who are on limited incomes, and we are setting them today without what it seems to be thought or even a plan about what we're going to do to make that system fair, when we know—we can't unpack this genie; it's come out of the bottle. We now know that there's a whole lot of people who have money to burn in comparison, who are not facing the cost of living crisis, and they are actually paying rates which are so much—dramatically—lower, and they're doing that in a way. And I'll explain a little bit about how I understand that happens. I've had the benefit of dealing with some of these groups of high-paid individuals. They're high-wealth individuals often because of inheritance. They've come in through—and by the looks of people, people are subject to this, but I would think that the research actually proves that. Often it's because they made money at times when the Government, and us rolling the settings, they set the parameters of the way we worked, which meant that people had things like a monopoly interest in jam, and they made a lot of money, or oil. And they made that money, and then they run these things called family offices. CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Can you bring it back to the bill, please? HELEN WHITE: Thank you, Madam Chair. So if they are running these entities, they have got, obviously, every right to look at it logically and minimise the amount of tax they have. But I would wonder whether the Minister could answer whether that is a just system and whether there is a plan around this? We're putting into place these rates where we're actually compelling people, and I would like to know from the Minister, does he really think it's a philosophical highfalutin point that I'm making or does he accept that that's a pragmatic issue? Because we've got people on much lower amounts of money trying to make ends meet. And people on relatively high incomes, but every penny is being paid for under this particular clause—this is where they pay it. This is where the rubber hits the road. Does he consider that highfalutin philosophy or does he consider that the base economic structure at we as a Government have absolutely a need in this situation to deal with? We need to actually address that. So I would genuinely love the Minister to take me there in terms of what the logic is here. What is the logic where we're doing that without thinking that or are we going to do it? What is the plan? So what's the logic? What's the plan? Is this philosophy or is this basic economics? How are we flying in the face of that information? How are we still going in this particular way? Thank you. CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Can I just remind members, before I take the next call, we are talking about Part 1 and the tax rates. Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana): Thank you, Madam Chair. My question is actually in relation to the response given by the Minister around why the increase to the trustee tax rate is covered under Part 2 of this particular bill and not Part 1. And the reason that the Minister gave is because it's for a different income tax year. So I want to take the House back to my earlier speech where I talked about the history of why we have the taxation provisions the way that the House debates it. So the House debates that particular clause 3 as a separate point. And when I look at Parliamentary Practice in New Zealand, it says, "When a committee of the whole House considers a bill that includes an annual taxing provision, the committee must consider this provision as a separately debatable question. The Standing Orders Committee has held that the annual taxing provision is so important that the committee of the whole House should not have the power to avoid its separate consideration. The separate debate could be dispensed with only by way of an instruction from the House to the committee." So I do question, again—I can understand why you can put the consequential amendments to the rest of what happens in the Income Tax Act for the trustee tax rate in Part 2. But given that we are actually changing a rate of tax, regardless of whether it's the same or different income tax year, given our Standing Orders Committee and the way that review was done in 2011, given that particular outcome that had come from that Standing Orders Committee review, why then isn't just that part—the increase from 33 percent to 39 percent—not in Part 1 of the particular bill? Again, I can appreciate there is a whole lot of consequential amendments and changes to other parts of the Income Tax Act as a result of that increased change. But given that Parliament has a very well-known history for ensuring that we debate those changes to tax rates or the confirmation of tax rates as a separate part, why is that small part—which is it's going from 33 percent to 39 percent—not included in Part 1 but has been included in Part 2? Again, I accept there may be different consequential amendments as a result of it, but I just want to understand from the Minister the instructions that he gave to his drafters as to why it should be in Part 1. Given that it is a rate change, it is part of that taxation provision that we need to confirm the actual rate, and why it's not in the Part 1 where we are confirming and trying to debate the confirmation of those rates. Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Revenue): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. In regards to the member's questions in regards to this, so this is a standard process from a drafting perspective. Part 1 sets out the annual rates of the current year, 2023-2024. And Part 2 introduces a 39 percent trustee tax rate, which would apply from 2024-2025. Obviously, this can be debated as part of Part 2 of the bill, which no doubt will follow Part 1. In regards to Helen White's questions, I think—and I apologise, I just heard the last part of that, but there's not much more I want to comment on that. CATHERINE WEDD (National—Tukituki): I move, That debate on this question now close. A party vote was called for on the question, That debate on this question now close. Ayes 68 New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Noes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6. Motion agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Arena Williams' tabled amendment to Part 1 is out of order as not being in the proper form of legislation. A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 1 be agreed to. Ayes 68 New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Noes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6. Motion agreed to. Part 1 agreed to. Part 2 Amendments to Income Tax Act 2007 CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Members, we now come to Part 2. This is the debate on clauses 4 to 64B, Amendments to Income Tax Act 2007 and Schedule 1, and new Schedules 1A and 1B and Part A of new Schedule 1C as proposed by Amendment Paper 20. The question is that Part 2 stand part. Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): Much as I've enjoyed the previous debate, this is where the really interesting stuff happens, and it's heavy stuff—but thank you. So there are two sort of sets of things that we need to debate in Part 2. The first is the bill, as reported back from the Finance and Expenditure Committee. It's the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2023-24, Multinational Tax, and Remedial Matters) Bill. There are a number of issues in that that we will want to go through in some detail—in part because they introduced some pretty interesting tax changes, and some which perhaps could have gone a little further. The select committee did agree with what is sitting in this version of the bill, but more could be done in that space, and we'll be bringing some of those issues to the fore during the debate on this part of the bill. It's also important that we actually, as a committee, really understand what's in this bill. So it's a chance for the people who have been on the select committee to talk through some of the issues for the benefit of, obviously, other members. I'm looking forward to the contributions from Catherine Wedd over there, but also from other people. But the real thing that we will want to spend a great deal of time on is the Amendment Paper that was brought to the , at this committee of the whole House stage, by the Minister of Revenue. It has a number of substantial amendments in it and a particular set of issues that we really do need to talk about. So I just want to start to highlight some of those issues so that people at home know why it's worth tuning in after the dinner break. So in terms of the issues that we all want to spend a great deal of time discussing, there is a set of amendments to the bill that put interest deductibility back in place for landlords. So we'll want to spend a bit of time discussing the reason for those going back and some of the technical details. This has not been through a select committee process. Those changes are substantial. In some calculations, it's going to cost the Government $2.9 billion to do that. That's an awful lot of money. So I think this committee needs to examine that really, really closely. The second set of changes are around restoring the brightline test to two years. That brightline test was originally introduced by the then National Government and set at two years, even though Treasury advised that it should be set at five years. The incoming Labour-led Government put it to five years and then 10 years. There's a whole set of good reasons for doing that, so I'm going to want to examine very closely as to why the National Government has decided to reverse those changes. They're actually quite significant changes. I think there's some really good philosophical reasons as to why the brightline test should stay at a substantial length of time, in conjunction with keeping interest deductibility changes in there too—it should have stayed that way. The third set of changes are removing depreciation deductions for buildings. This was—let's see, depreciation deductions were removed a few years ago then, as a COVID relief measure, they were put back in place. The National Government has now decided to take them out again. So I do want to have a think about why they should be taken back out again and have a bit of a think about that. There's some really good changes around the disposals of trading stock at below market value. Now, that happens to be something that I think many of us on this side of the Chamber agree on—that it's actually a really good change. I'm very pleased to see that the Minister has brought this one to the . Nevertheless, we're going to want to have a look at the detail of that, see how it's actually going to work we want to examine the rationale for it. So we'll be spending a bit of time on that. Then, we've got the offshore gambling duty. Now, this is an entirely new tax. It doesn't matter that it applies to people who are offshore it is, nevertheless, an entirely new tax. So in an Amendment Paper to a bill, which has a constraint on it that this bill must go through by 31 March or the Government will have failed in its duty, the Government has, nevertheless, introduced an entirely new tax. We need to have a look at the detail on that. This is the one and only chance we have to examine that entirely new tax in detail. So we will be spending a bit of time doing that. There are some other transitional rules we do want to have a look at. So there's going to be a lot to discuss in this bill, and I'm sure the Minister is looking forward to what's coming at him. CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I call the Hon—oh, sorry; Chlöe Swarbrick. CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Co-Leader—Green): I'll take the "Hon" I just wanted to give this a short call, given that we soon will be hearing the maiden speech of my wonderful colleague Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan, but there are a few things that I wanted to put on the record before we get to that. So what we're dealing with now are the substantive amendments in the Minister of Revenue's name to this piece of legislation and Part 2, of which there's many clauses, deals primarily with the issues of tax deductibility with the commercial building changes, as were alluded to by the Hon Dr Deborah Russell, and also with the brightline changes herein. So the fundamental question that we have for the Minister from the Green Party perspective here is: why is it that he is progressing these substantive and costly changes? We're talking about approximately $3 billion worth of changes here contained within this legislation, without going through the usual processes as are typically afforded to taxation (annual rates) bills. We usually have a process whereby there is a Budget produced by a Government, usually in around May, and then we have a subsequent piece of legislation—the likes of these tax bills. Actually, what we're dealing with here is a tax bill that was introduced under the former Government after the last May Budget, but we're seeing, sweeping in at the last minute in the committee of the whole House stage, these substantive amendments, which have massive Budget implications, and, therefore, there has been no meaningful opportunity for public participation and democratic engagement at the select committee stage. So my core question to the Minister is: why did he do this now? Why did he not wait until after the Budget was passed and we could go through proper and due process? Because the core plea from the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand is that winning an election and campaigning on these things does not give you carte blanche authority to institute authoritarian rule and bypass the institutions of this place. So the question to the Minister is: why did he not wait for the Budget and allow these substantive changes to go through the typical select committee process? CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Members, the committee is now suspended for the maiden statement of Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan, in accordance with a determination of the Business Committee. House resumed. MAIDEN STATEMENTS SPEAKER: Members, following the maiden statement, the House will suspend for the dinner break. To make his maiden statement to the House, I now call on Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan. Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): [Singing] 没有花香 没有树高 我是一棵无人知道的小草 从不寂寞 从不烦恼 你看我的伙伴遍及天涯海角 春风啊春风你把我吹绿 阳光啊阳光你把我照耀 河流啊山川你哺育了我 大地啊母亲把我紧紧拥抱 Tākiri ake ngā haeata o te rā Ka pā ki te whenua Ki te rāwhiti Ka ao, ka ao, ka awatea Ka haukū a Papatūānuku Ka ngāueue te whenua Ko Ranginui e tū iho nei Ko Papatūānuku e takoto ake nei Tūturu whakamaua kia tīna, tīna Haumi e hui e, tāike e [The rays of the sun break the dawn They touch the earth To the east The dawn brightens into day The earth is humid The land trembles Ranginui is above Papatūānuku lies below Bind these words and make them real It coalesces, it assembles, it is bound] It is an honour for me to open my speech in my native language, Mandarin Chinese, and the first language of Aotearoa, te reo Māori. I was born in Tianjin, China, a city of only 14 million people. My home city is well known for breakfast food, or just food in general. We are a people that love to eat, and our dialect is often used for comedy. Hearing anyone using Tianjin dialect brings me fond memories of growing up. I think there is nothing that says you're in Tianjin, when you hear someone in the marketplace who says, 姐姐，做吗呢? I arrived in Aotearoa in 97, bringing with me my maternal grandparents. My mum was already here. She was a solo mum. My parents divorced when I was young, so life wasn't the easiest. Like many Asian migrants, our skills and qualifications were not recognised upon arrival. You either have to jump through hoops to obtain certification at great cost and time, or change your job, often to what has been dubbed "low-skilled" work. But do you know what? Those "low-skilled" migrants got us through the pandemic. I remember clearly one time that I wanted to eat watermelons, and Mum got some. She didn't eat any herself, telling me that she didn't like watermelon. It wasn't until years later that I found out that Mum loves watermelon—there just wasn't enough for two. I grew up in East Auckland and after high school I attended the University of Auckland. Now, I'm going to admit something that not many people, other than my closest friends up in the gallery, know about, which is that I disliked politics immensely while I was at uni. In fact, I didn't vote in three elections that I was eligible to vote in. I thought that academia was beyond the reach of politics, but that illusion was crushed by the drastic decrease in university funding, particularly in the arts and humanities in the early 2010s. So to all of the politically engaged rangatahi who might be watching, do not let politicians patronise you by saying that you're just a little excited. No, you know the value of standing up for your rights, of making yourselves heard, and I am in awe of each and every one of you, particularly the Young Greens. I would also like to thank the late Professor Matthew Trundle for the many discussions after our departmental seminars and after a few libations to Dionysus. He taught me the Athenian history behind democracy and freedom of speech. Democracy combines the Greek root demos, "people", and kratos, "power". "People power"—that's what democracy is all about. We don't get to say that we are democratic by asking the nation to tick a couple of boxes every three years; it is something that we, as parliamentarians, have to prove every day, something our people demand of us every day, and something we should empower the people to do every single day. As an educator, I was responsible for compliance and quality assurance. In the Three Kingdoms period of the 3rd century CE China, the leader of Shu, Liu Bei Liu Xuande, once said, "夫济大事，必以人为本"—for one to accomplish great things, people must be the foundation. This was the principle that I held with my work. The goal of regulations and policies was to ensure that the people—in this case, my students—were looked after and that they are provided with the best opportunities and support to flourish. My doctoral thesis looked at how ancient Egyptians told epic stories. In an age where we are so focused on having everything down on paper, pen on paper provides safety, but it also confines our words to a moment in time. Oral stories play an important part in our lives. Stories passed down from generation to generation, they live on through us. They shape our whakapapa and hononga. The significance of arts and humanities cannot be underestimated in our society. We speak of balance, like yin and yang, but we have now reduced humanity to numbers and statistics, rather than remembering that they are individuals with their own struggles, their own hopes and aspirations. There are many stories that I would like to share, stories of the long and enduring friendships between Chinese people and tangata whenua. He waka eke noa—同舟共济. As the Te Tiriti party, which is what the Green Party's known for, and tangata Tiriti, we uphold He Whakaputanga me Te Tiriti o Waitangi. We will continue to tell the stories such as Chew Chong and the Taranaki black gold—hakekakeka, or wood-ear fungus—the market gardens of Manukau Harbour, and the cooperation between hard-working Chinese farmers like Joe and Fay Gock and Pūkaki marae, and the early miners of Otago and their sharing of traditional Chinese medicine and rongoā in spite of racism. So, as a migrant, if a country cannot even respect or honour their own indigenous people and taonga, what chances do we have to have our culture and heritage accurately recognised? Another realisation, when you have undertaken something like a doctorate, is that you have to wrestle with the idea that you know very little about anything, because wisdom and knowledge are infinite. The Maxims of Ptahhotep, dated to the 5th dynasty from Egypt, which is roughly around 2300 BCE, contain some cautionary tales around this. One of my favourite lines is this: jr wxA iwty sDm=f nn jr n=f xt nbt mA=f rx m xm Axt m mnt ir=f xbdt nbt r Tsst im=f ra nb which roughly translates to: "As for the fool who does not listen, nothing can be accomplished by him. He sees knowledge as ignorance, the beneficial as the harmful. He makes every mistake, so he's accused by the people each day." See, people from 4,000 years ago were already championing evidence-based thinking. Meanwhile, some in this very room may say that they're here for the people, but when the decisions that this Government makes, deliberately through malice or inadvertently through ignorance, have left so many of our people behind—Māori, Pasifika, migrants, disabled communities, solo parents, seniors, rainbow, our prison whānau, and those with families in Gaza—who are the people they're referring to? Our older brother Fa'anānā Efeso Collins said in his maiden speech, "'E le tu fa'amauga se tagata'—'No one stands alone, no one succeeds alone', and, for [him], no one suffers alone." Aotearoa has not even begun to hear our stories, what our communities can bring and the millennia of history, wisdom, and ancestors we bring with us. It is time to take back our voices, our momentum, our people power, and if it means that we are no longer referred to as the model minority, you know what, I am OK with that. To the many amazing people in the Green Party, it has been an honour and privilege to work with and alongside you over the years. You gave me my first role in a grassroots organisation when I had no idea what a karakia was, nor the consensus decision-making process. And look at me now: I can list pretty much every single acronym the party uses. To quote a certain critically acclaimed MMORPG, which stands for massive multiplayer online role-playing game, the playable character was told to "hear, feel, think"—all great qualities I have learnt from my various roles within the party. I want to thank those of you on Kaunihera: Miriam, Alika, Vicky, Wiremu, Charlotte; the co-leaders Marama and Chloe; and also my co-partner in crime, Alyssce. Thank you for all the good times in our meetings—and you know I genuinely mean that. To all of our volunteers in branches, provinces, and networks, thank you for everything you do for the party every day. To Team Auckland: Linda, Linda, Claire, Chris, Byronny, Simon, Lisa, Ron, as well as Miriam and Sarah, thank you for standing by me all these years as I figure myself out. You've truly, and now terrifyingly, seen me at my best and worst. To my brother Matt, I love you more than you can imagine, and I will continue to express that love in the most Chinese way possible, through excessive worry and nagging. To my mum, thank you for everything you do for us, and for being the most unapologetic, feisty, and stubborn person I know. Michelle Yeoh and Constance Wu's got nothing on you. Finally, to my partner Kadek, thank you for your kindness, your wisdom, your presence. Thanks to you, I have now levelled up on my foraging skills and unlocked some serious plant identification achievements. To conclude my statement, I would like to go back to the song I sang at the beginning. The song goes like this: Ain't scented like a flower Ain't tall like a tree I'm just a blade of grass that nobody knows But I ain't ever lonely I ain't ever worried Look my companions are all around the globe Spring wind, o spring wind You make me greener Sunshine, o sunshine You shine your light on me Rivers, o valleys You have nourished me Great earth, o mother You embrace me tightly. This is a song that I grew up with; it was the last song that my paternal grandmother sang to me. I share it with all of you as a remindera reminder of the relationship we have with each other and the relationship we have with our environment. A reminder to every single person that you are the protagonist, the hero of your own epic story, and you're never alone. And a reminder of our thriving Green grassroots movement, and that we will forever and always be committed to our people and planet. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa. [Applause] Waiata – "Ko Te Tiriti" Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.