Oral Questions to Ministers

Asked by: Hon CARMEL SEPULONI, Answered by: Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON

to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his Government’s statements and actions?

Yes, particularly our desire never to introduce a capital gains tax that taxes inflation.

💬 Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Does he stand by the fact that after two years of his Government there are only 54 additional nurses across the country and does he accept that his cuts mean fewer nurses and a health system under immense pressure?

What I acknowledge, as I said last week, is that under this Government we have hired 2,100 extra nurses. We’re actually also recruiting 2,300 full-time nurses at this point in time as well.

💬 Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Why won’t he guarantee a job for every nurse who graduates in New Zealand so that New Zealanders can get the healthcare they need and qualified nurses don’t need to move overseas for work?

Well, look, I appreciate the member might want to tell her version of the facts, but here on this side, we understand that immunisation rates for under-two-year-olds are up, wait times in emergency departments are getting better, elective surgeries are getting better, and we’ve set some clear targets. Unlike the last Government, we are putting money into this, we’re putting workforce into this, and we are very clear on the outcomes and improved outcomes we want to see for patients.

💬 Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Does he stand by his Government’s decision to cancel or halt infrastructure and construction projects, which has cost at least 20,000 construction jobs across New Zealand?

Well, I disagree and refute the characterisation of that question, because, I’ll just say to the member, what caused a slow-down in our construction sector was the last administration, which cranked up Government spending 70 percent—a lot of it wasteful—which drove up inflation and drove up interest rates. No wonder developers don’t have certainty. The good news is that we’ve had a 35 percent growth in construction jobs on SEEK and we’re getting this show on the road.

💬 Hon David Seymour: Has the Government considered, or would it consider, borrowing $50 million to design a bike bridge it doesn’t ultimately build in order to stimulate activity in the engineering consulting industry?

No, we wouldn’t, and we also wouldn’t spend $300 million on an Auckland Light Rail project—money spent on consultants over six years without a single metre of track being laid and a route even being agreed.

💬 Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Why won’t he restore and extend Apprenticeship Boost and invest in Māori Trade Training so that young New Zealanders have the skills and qualifications they will need when the industry gets moving again?

Well, that’s exactly why I’m very proud of our decision to double the amount of trades academy spaces from 10,000 to 20,000, and another 1,000 Youth Guarantee places for young students that actually have nil or very poor quality qualifications.

💬 Hon Carmel Sepuloni: How many New Zealanders have been affected by his Government’s failure to administer winter energy payments, benefits, and hardship grants, and will he admit that those issues were a direct result of his decision to cut public services?

No. We have a law change that required beneficiaries to confirm their circumstances annually. It’s entirely appropriate, because we’re interested in getting people off welfare and into work. We don’t believe in having a 3.2 percent unemployment rate and putting 60,000 additional Kiwis on jobseeker support as that member did in Government.

💬 Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Why won’t he support a public good test before he cuts jobs across Government agencies, given that his cuts to the Public Service are exactly what left pensioners without the winter energy payments and sitting in the cold?

Because this is a Government that actually does a lot and makes sure that for taxpayers’ dollars, we’re extracting maximum value from it. We believe we can build a classroom for $600,000, not $1.2 million, and, as a result, we can build twice the number of classrooms than that member and that Government did.

Prime Minister

Question No. 2

Asked by: Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON, Answered by: Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON

to the Prime Minister: E tautoko ana ia i ngā kōrero me ngā mahi katoa a tōna Kāwanatanga?

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

Yes, and in particular our desire never, ever to introduce a wealth tax, an inheritance tax, a gift tax, a death tax, or to lift income tax rates or corporate tax rates either.

💬 Hon Marama Davidson: Does the Natural Environment Bill include any changes sought by agriculture lobbyists in a private meeting that was held while the bill was still being drafted?

I’m unsure—you’d need to direct that to the relevant Minister—but what I’d say is that we engage with industry groups, and we also engage with the environmental NGOs.

💬 Hon Marama Davidson: Can he confirm that the requirement for a development to be considered “within environmental limits” has been removed from the Natural Environment Bill following a specific request from agriculture lobbyists in a private meeting?

Well, I make no bones about the fact we are powering up farmers in this country, because they are the backbone of this country. They are doing exceptionally well, and we are very proud of what we’re doing to make it easier for farmers to get on and farm and growers to get on and grow and builders to get on and build.

💬 Hon Marama Davidson: Did Federated Farmers ask for the Natural Environment Bill to prevent decision makers from considering the negative impacts of greenhouse gas emissions, and can he confirm that the bill was subsequently amended to require that persons “must not … consider any adverse effect on climate change of any greenhouse gas emissions”?

Well, I’d just say to the member, on this side of the House, we take advice, and we consult with broad ranges of people from our officials right out to industry groups and also environmental NGOs, and that’s exactly what happened in this case.

💬 Hon Chris Bishop: Can the Prime Minister confirm that in addition to so-called private, closed-door meetings with Federated Farmers, the Government also held private, closed-door briefings with the Environmental Defence Society, Greenpeace, Forest & Bird, and indeed Lan Pham and the Hon Julie Anne Genter?

Yes, I can, and that’s the point I was trying to make in my earlier answers—that we are a Government that consults and takes advice from lots of different people, then we weigh it all up, and then we make our own decision.

💬 Hon David Seymour: Does the Prime Minister stand by the Government consulting affected people “while the bill was still being drafted”, and, if not, what better time is there?

Well, that’s exactly the point. We want to get the perspectives from lots of New Zealanders who have views on lots of different things, then we weigh it all up, and we make a decision on this side of the House.

💬 Hon Marama Davidson: Does he agree that Te Tiriti provisions in legislation provide an essential safeguard against the exploitation of te taiao and public resources?

Well, again, what we’re doing is making sure that our Treaty clauses are crystal clear for everybody so that everyone understands the obligations they have to each other, and we get some consistency in it.

💬 Hon Chris Bishop: Does he think the Government would be accused and criticised for not talking to groups like Federated Farmers, the Environmental Defence Society, and other interested stakeholders in the resource management and planning system if the Government had indeed not talked to them during the development of the bill’s progress?

Well, I mean, I think this is the fundamental difference between this side of the House and that side of the House, right? I mean, we don’t just take our officials’ advice and just box-tick our way through it; we actually take our officials’ advice, we talk to lots of other people, and then we make a decision to get good policy in place. [Interruption]

💬 SPEAKER: We’ll just wait for a moment. I’ll call the Hon Marama Davidson.

💬 Hon Marama Davidson: Why is he prioritising, in the final weeks of this Parliament, repealing Treaty clauses from legislation while New Zealanders are struggling to afford kai, heat their homes, and get a decent job?

Well, I’d just say to the member that the thing that actually doesn’t help the cost of living crisis for many New Zealanders is, actually, implementing more taxes, and that’s what the other side want to do. But I’d just say, look, I’ve said it very clearly; we’ve got all sorts of Treaty clauses in our different legislation. They create uncertainty, they create legal risk, and we want everyone to be crystal clear on their obligations.

💬 Hon Shane Jones: Do you consider it unusual in te Wiki o te Reo Māori, Māori Language Week, that the Greens have asked the same well-rehearsed primary question in Māori, but they don’t put the same effort into asking their supplementaries, and would he like me to give a Māori translation of the word “sock-puppet”?

💬 SPEAKER: No, no. Thanks.

Finance

Question No. 3

Asked by: RYAN HAMILTON, Answered by: Hon NICOLA WILLIS

to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has she seen on the economy?

The BNZ-Business New Zealand Performance of Manufacturing Index for August came out on Friday, followed on Monday by the Performance of Services Index. These surveys show that both the manufacturing and service sectors are expanding in New Zealand. Manufacturing and services together make up about 78 percent of our economy, so these results are a positive signal about economic growth in the September quarter of this year, which is almost at an end.

💬 Ryan Hamilton: What could harm growth in the manufacturing sector?

Well, ongoing conflict in the Middle East and its impact on fuel and freight costs is obviously a concern. Another blow to the sector would be the scrapping of the Government’s Investment Boost policy. If that were to happen, manufacturing businesses could no longer immediately deduct 20 percent of the cost of a new asset and would pay more tax when they invest in machinery, plant, tools, equipment, buildings, and other capital assets. Business tax in New Zealand would go up by $1.6 billion a year, and the country would miss out on much-needed investment in productive assets that would have raised wages for New Zealand workers.

💬 Ryan Hamilton: What else could impede business growth in New Zealand?

Well, new taxes would hurt business and hurt the economy. Consider, for example, a capital gains tax on property that businesses own. Businesses, large and small, across New Zealand own and use factories, sheds, workshops, warehouses, garages, office buildings, laboratories, shops, and the land they sit on. These are an intrinsic part of productive businesses that employ people and pay wages. A capital gains tax would impose a new tax on them. Ultimately, that tax would fall on the owners of the business and the workers they employ.

💬 Ryan Hamilton: What would be the impact of a major increase in Government revenue?

Well, a major increase in Government revenue would have an impact on all Kiwis, not just on businesses. Core Crown revenue is currently expected to be 31.2 percent of GDP in four years’ time. If, for example, that proportion was deliberately raised to 33 percent, it would require taxes to increase by $10.4 billion a year. Now, obviously, $10.4 billion is a big increase and would likely require some sort of combination of raising GST, increasing personal income tax rates, putting up the company tax rate, and introducing a comprehensive capital gains tax that included all assets. Those measures would be a huge blow, both to the economy and to everyday Kiwis.

Finance

Question No. 4

Asked by: Hon BARBARA EDMONDS, Answered by: Hon NICOLA WILLIS

to the Minister of Finance: E te rangatira o te Whare, mihi nui ki a koe. Does she stand by all her statements and actions?

In context, yes. I particularly stand by the statement of the National Party finance spokesperson that there should be no new taxes.

💬 Hon Barbara Edmonds: Weird. Has the Government received Treasury’s review of State assets, first announced in November, and have any papers been taken to Cabinet?

I can confirm that no papers have been taken to Cabinet.

💬 Hon Barbara Edmonds: Has the Government received Treasury’s review of State assets, first announced in November?

Treasury has been conducting performance ownership - purpose analyses of each company that the Crown owns, and Ministers have received Treasury’s draft advice.

💬 Hon Barbara Edmonds: Will she rule out any asset sales as long as she is the Minister of Finance?

Yes.

💬 Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does she stand by her previous statements regarding asset sales: “I think we’ve got to be really open with New Zealanders if we’re planning to change anything.”, and why won’t she front up to Kiwis on her plans to sell the assets they’ve built up over generations?

I stand by my statements, and despite the member’s wish for fireworks, the only fireworks are popping in her caucus, that is busily designing new taxes.

Revenue

Question No. 5

Asked by: CARL BATES, Answered by: Hon SIMON WATTS

to the Minister of Revenue: Is the Government considering introducing a capital gains tax that would apply to gains caused by inflation?

No. This Government will not introduce a capital gains tax. We do not think New Zealanders should be hit with a new tax. [Interruption]

💬 Carl Bates: Supplementary—

💬 SPEAKER: Just a moment: we’ll just wait for everyone to calm themselves down.

💬 Carl Bates: Why is it important to distinguish between an increase in the dollar value of an asset, and a real capital gain?

Because a higher price on paper does not necessarily mean someone is actually better off. If inflation pushes up the value of a property, taxing that increase can mean taxing someone on money they have not actually received. That is not fair and it is not something this Government supports.

💬 Carl Bates: Supplementary—

💬 Hon Dr Deborah Russell: 25 properties.

💬 Carl Bates: What could it mean—

💬 SPEAKER: Just a minute. Who was speaking then, while the question was being asked?

💬 Hon Dr Deborah Russell: That was me.

💬 SPEAKER: Well, then please apologise to the person asking the question.

💬 Hon Dr Deborah Russell: I withdraw and apologise.

💬 Carl Bates: Supplementary. What could it mean—

💬 Hon Ginny Andersen: 25 properties.

💬 Carl Bates: —for a small—

💬 SPEAKER: No, hang on. One more time.

💬 Hon Ginny Andersen: Sorry, I thought he was finished.

💬 SPEAKER: I’m sorry?

💬 Hon Ginny Andersen: I apologise.

💬 SPEAKER: Well, stand up and do it. I’m sick of this.

💬 Hon Ginny Andersen: Withdraw and apologise.

💬 Carl Bates: What could it mean for a small-business owner if their property increases in value because of inflation but they are taxed on the full nominal gain? [Interruption]

💬 SPEAKER: The balance of this question will be heard in silence with no interjections whatsoever.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. In some cases, they could actually be worse off in real terms after getting a whopping tax bill from the Government. That is not how we should be treating people who are hard-working and build something up.

💬 Carl Bates: What is the Government’s approach to New Zealanders who work hard, save, and invest to get ahead? [Interruption]

Question 5 interrupted.