NZ First and fishing boat camera delays

Newshub has agitated Winston Peters with their reporting of ongoing delays at fitting cameras on fishing boats to monitor catches and protection of protected bird and sea mammal species.

Peters has been connected with fishing company interests for years, Shane Jones is former chair of both Te Ohu Kaimoana and Sealord, and fishing companies have donated to NZ First and to the NZ First trust (and also to national and Labour candidates).

The installation of cameras on fishing boats seems to have been contentious. National planned to require it when they were in Government, and the Green Party, Greenpeace and NZ Forest and Bird strongly supports it.

RNZ (February 2018): Govt considering ditching fishing boat camera plans

Fisheries Minister Stuart Nash said many in the fishing industry were unhappy with the camera proposal and all options were on the table – including dumping it entirely.

One of Mr Nash’s first moves when he became the Fisheries Minister was to put the brakes on the rollout of electronic monitoring of the commercial fishing fleet.

The former National government came up with the plan last year, saying it would protect the sustainability of fish stocks and act as a deterrent against illegal activity, like fish dumping.

But Mr Nash said National forced it upon the sector, and he was getting advice from officials on what should be done.

“There are certainly concerns in the industry that there hasn’t been a proper process followed and a complete and utter lack of consultation.

“That does seem to be the prevailing attitude but we haven’t made any final decision on that,” he said.

Mr Nash said ditching the programme entirely was one of the options being considered.

“We could continue the project as it is, we could delay it – at the extreme we could dump it.”

National Party fisheries spokesman Gerry Brownlee said the rollout of cameras was needed to deal with well-publicised problems in the sector.

“Our step to put cameras on board was not rejected by the industry, it was the speed with which they were required to comply and they felt they needed more time,” he said.

Mr Brownlee said to move away from cameras would be ignoring problems, such as commercial fisheries catching non-quota species, as well as seabirds and sea mammals.

Forest and Bird chief executive Kevin Hague said the fishing industry could not be trusted and cameras on boats was the only way to keep it honest.

Seafood New Zealand chief executive Tim Pankhurst said Forest and Bird had an anti-commercial fishing agenda, and that the camera proposal was simplistic, unreasonably costly and inadequate.

Stuff (January 2019): Cameras on fishing boats delayed, angering Greens and Greenpeace

The Government has again delayed the rollout of mandatory cameras on fishing boats.

The change to the regulation was “gazetted” on Wednesday and gives companies until August 2019 to get their boats ready.

This follows another delay caused as the policy, supported by the previous Government, made its way through Cabinet.

Both the Green Party and Greenpeace have expressed disappointment at the delay.

“We don’t agree with this delay which is putting our fisheries and natural environment at risk”, Green Party animal welfare spokesperson Gareth Hughes said.

Despite being a part of the Government, the Greens are free to disagree with it on issues its MPs have no ministerial discretion over.

Former Green Party co-leader and Greenpeace executive director Russel Norman was also angered by the delay.

“There was a disturbing level of malpractice exposed by the original trials of the cameras back in 2012,” Norman said.

Norman alleged NZ First MP and Regional Development Minister Shane Jones was behind the move. NZ First have interfered in several other fishing policy decisions in recent months, and Jones received thousands of dollars in donations from fishing companies.

“If Shane Jones is now the de facto Minister of Fishing and has a policy agenda to help fishing companies destroy the environment, then the Government should just come clean about it rather than quietly delaying any action to protect our oceans,” Norman said.

Jones vigorously defended himself against Norman, saying the Greenpeace leader had left politics so should stay out of it.

Newsroom last month (June 2020): Why the delay to get cameras on boats?

The deadline for having cameras installed on commercial fishing boats was pushed back again last week with technology being pegged as one reason for the delay.

Newsroom’s enquiries have not been able to establish the nature of those technology issues, finding only that a step to define which technology solutions are required hasn’t yet happened.

Since cameras on boats were first proposed by the National-led government following concern over illegal fish-dumping, the rollout date has shifted several times from the original date of October 2018.

A new date of October 2021 added to legislation last week is not a firm line in the sand. Nash said it’s a holding date, “not a planned date for either beginning or completing any implementation”.

Stuff reported Nash raised cost as an issue last week as well as technical complications saying: “The technology at this point is just not available to allow us to equip the whole fleet with cameras.”

However, enquiries to Fisheries NZ reveal there’s a process step required before technical decisions are made and costs are known.

Asked what the technical issues causing the delay were, Fisheries NZ’s deputy director-general Dan Bolger said a public consultation would be needed.

Public consultation will take time, but it’s not clear why it is needed at this stage.

The delays have frustrated conservationists. Greenpeace’s ocean campaigner Jessica Desmond said the ongoing stalling wasn’t good enough.

“There’s been a long pattern of delaying this legislation implementation. There’s been OIAs showing the industry oppose this legislation, there’s been all kinds of excuses about money and technicalities.”

Fishing industry opposition was made clear in a letter sent in 2018 to Nash signed by Sealord, Talley’s, New Zealand Federation of Commercial Fishermen and Te Ohu Kai Moana:

“The purpose of this letter is to dismiss any suggestion that the New Zealand seafood industry supports the current proposal, is in any way split in its opposition to it or that our industry has anything less than overwhelming opposition to your Ministry’s current proposal for cameras.”

New Zealand First’s Shane Jones denied being involved with the delay despite his past ties to the fishing industry as a former chair of both Te Ohu Kaimoana and Sealord, pro-industry stance, and history of receiving donations from Talley’s.

The NZ First Foundation received $26,950 from Talley’s and managing director Sir Peter Talley between 2017 and 2019. In 2017, Talley’s donated $10,000 to Jones.

The company also made a donation of $2000 to one other NZ First candidate, and donations of $5000 to seven National candidates and one Labour candidate in 2017.

Timeline:

2012 to 2013 – Video-monitoring pilot programme shows some monitored boats illegally discarding unwanted fish.

May 2016 – A report by an MPI investigator is leaked which called for prosecutions to be pursued. MPI announces an inquiry by former Solicitor General into the lack of prosecutions.

May 2017 – $30.5 million boost to fisheries management announced by then-Minister for Primary Industries Nathan Guy. It includes funding for GPS monitoring, electronic logbooks and was to be “followed by cameras on every vessel phased in from 1 October next year”.

November 2017 – Minister Stuart Nash postpones cameras on fishing boats saying: “I am working with MPI officials on options for timing and these will be communicated once a decision has been made.”

July 2018 – Letter from fishing companies sent to Nash saying the companies do not support cameras on boats.

January 2019 – Rollout of cameras delayed until August.

June 2019 – $17.1 million announced in Budget for cameras on boats fishing in Māui dolphin habitat by November 2019.

June 2020 – Rollout delayed to a “holding date” of October 2021.

On Tuesday: Winston Peters launches attack on Newshub journalist Michael Morrah ahead of fishing boat camera investigative report

On Tuesday’s Newshub Live at 6pm, Newshub Investigations Reporter Michael Morrah will reveal the politics behind delays in introducing cameras on fishing boats – and who’s responsible.

NZ First leader Winston Peters has released a statement before it goes it air, defending his party’s actions.

Peters is calling it “the worst form of unethical tabloid journalism”.

“What is appalling is how clickbait journalism is affecting the public’s right to be informed accurately about government policy,” he said.

“Newshub’s ‘shock horror’ special investigation will be as shallow as the motives behind its creation, and highlight once again some in the New Zealand’s media’s inability to understand how coalitions work.”

Morrah has covered the fishing industry for a decade and stands by his reporting.

“The public can make their own mind up tonight on Newshub Live at 6pm about whether this is clickbait journalism as Peters has claimed,” he says.

“I strongly reject any such suggestion, and I believe this story is in the public interest.”

The news item on Tuesday evening: Fisheries Minister Stuart Nash blames pressure from NZ First for delay in fishing boat cameras in recording

Newshub has obtained an explosive audio recording of Fisheries Minister Stuart Nash talking about NZ First MPs Winston Peters and Shane Jones.

The recording was from February 2018, around the time the Government first delayed the rollout of cameras on nearly 1000 fishing boats – since then it’s been delayed again until at least October next year.

In it, Nash points the finger of blame squarely at them for delaying plans to put cameras on commercial fishing boats to make sure they don’t break the law.

“New Zealand First has not been the cause of delays on cameras,” Nash has claimed on Tuesday.

But in February 2018, a few months after he took office, the explanation was remarkably different according to this secret recording obtained by Newshub.

“I’ve got to play the political game in a way that allows me to make these changes. Now, Winston Peters and Shane Jones have made it very clear they do not want cameras on boats,” Nash can be heard saying in a recording.

Nash then went on to say a public review of the fisheries management is needed to get the cameras rolled out.

“If Winston wants to have that discussion with Jacinda, it is had in the public arena and it is almost impossible for him to win it,” he said.

“But if he has it behind closed doors on the 9th floor now, then the public will never know about it. So what I am trying to do is put Winston and Shane into a position where they cannot back down.”

“By revoking these regulations, first of all people like Winston and the industry will go, ‘oh there, there you go. That’s fantastic, that’s been done. We don’t have to worry about this’,” he said in the recording.

“Little do they know behind the scenes the tidal wave on this is coming and they won’t be able to avoid it.”

But that tidal wave never came, nor did the planned fisheries review nor cameras on all boats.

On Tuesday, Nash said his comments were a mistake and that he ‘misread’ NZ First’s position.

“I just got it wrong. I was a new Minister. I was coming to grips with the portfolio. I got it wrong,” he told Newshub.

NZ First MPs are adamant they haven’t delayed things, with Jones blaming the pandemic.

“I’m not the Fisheries Minister, but I suspect that COVID has got a lot to do with it,” Regional Development Minister Shane Jones told Newshub.

“Cameras on fishing boats is really interesting. We haven’t blocked cameras on fishing boats,” NZ First MP Tracey Martin told Newshub Nation.

Although in an interview with Newshub less than two weeks ago, party leader Winston Peters eventually acknowledged NZ First was involved in the delay.

“Do we listen to industry representation, yes. Are we concerned about families and their economic representation? Yes. Are we the cause of that delay? Well, we are part of the representation that has ended up with a more rational and sane policy, yes” he said. Asked whether that was a yes to the original question, Peters responded: “yes”.

Talley’s Andrew Talley told Newshub “within the right framework cameras have a place in modern fisheries management”.

He says there’s “no connection” with donations and the camera delays.

When questioned if NZ First had delayed the cameras because he got financial backing from the fishing industry, Peters called it an “insulting question”.

“Stop making your vile, defamatory allegations by way of an accusatory question,” he told Newshub. “This conversation is over.”

Peters can get tetchy when under pressure.

Newshub followed up yesterday:  Talleys hosted fundraiser dinners for NZ First, but denies that’s behind delay in fishing boat cameras

Members of fishing family Talleys organised two fundraising dinners at hotels for New Zealand First, Newshub can reveal – another link between the party and the fishing industry.

Newshub can reveal Talleys Fishing directors hosted two fundraising dinners for NZ First – one last year at a Christchurch hotel.

There’s nothing illegal or wrong about hosting fundraisers. The MC was former RNZ board chair Richard Griffin. He confirmed to Newshub that he’d MCed two fundraiser meetings for NZ First, and that Winston Peters, Shane Jones and Clayton Mitchell were there.

Asked about the fundraisers, Peters said “I’ve got no idea what you’re talking about.”

Even after Newshub briefed his office, he still refused to talk about it, saying “I don’t know what on earth you’re asking these questions for”.

After contentious donation issues in 2008 Peters lost his Tauranga seat and NZ First failed to make the 5% threshold, dumping them out of Parliament.

Stuff: Stuart Nash apologises to Winston Peters and Shane Jones over fisheries comments

Fisheries Minister Stuart Nash made a “heartfelt” apology to Winston Peters and Shane Jones for remarks made in a private phone call, which aired on television last night.

Nash said today that the conversation was had two and a half years ago, and he couldn’t remember who was on the other end of the call.

He said he’d apologised to Peters and Jones about the call.

“I’ve apologised to Winston and to Shane and said I got it wrong,” Nash said. “I think they took it well because it was heartfelt,” he said.

Nash said at the time that while the technology had been rolled on 20 boats on the West Coast, it was not yet ready for wider distribution.

If it works on some boats why shouldn’t it be able to work on others?

Cameras are already used successfully on some fishing boats, so the technology seems fine. Fisheries New Zealand:  On-board cameras for commercial fishing vessels

On-board cameras give us independent information about what goes on at sea. They help verify catch reporting, and monitor fishing activity by commercial fishers, to encourage compliance with the rules.

Overseas experience shows that placing cameras on commercial fishing vessels greatly improves the quality of fisher-reported data.

For example, reports of interactions with seabirds and mammals increased 7 times when electronic monitoring was introduced to Australia’s longline fisheries in 2015. Overall reported catch remained the same.

Camera technologies have been used around the world on commercial fishing vessels for decades, and we have learnt a lot from fisheries overseas which are already using these systems.

New Zealand regulations for on-board cameras on commercial fishing vessels came into effect in 2018.

Since then, we’ve been developing the systems and processes to support this, and have now put cameras on some fishing vessels. The regulations applied to these vessels from 1 November 2019 in a defined fishing area on the west coast of the North Island.

Currently, a holding date of 1 October 2021 has been set before the on-board camera regulations apply to other commercial fishing vessels.

So technology does not appear to be an issue.  It looks more like a political problem. Putting things on hold until next year sounds like waiting and hoping for a different mix of parties in Government.

 

 

Ardern sounding defensive and looking rattled over Level 1 pressure

Jacinda Ardern has generally handled the Covid-19 crisis with aplomb, aided by a largely sympathetic media. But yesterday she looked rattled and sounded defensive after pressure increased over staying at Alert Level 2 for at least another week, despite protests in the weekend largely ignoring the Level 2 social distancing rules.

There have been no new Covid cases in New Zealand for over a week and there is just one remaining active case.

Stuff: Prime Minister says Cabinet will decide on Covid-19 Alert Level 1on Monday, June 8

Ardern, concerned about the long “tail” of the virus’ spread, has previously said June 22 was the latest a decision to lessen remaining social distancing restrictions would come, and on June 8 the Government would reconsider the “settings” of alert level 2.

But after speaking with director-general of health Dr Ashley Bloomfield over the week, Ardern said the country was “exceeding” expectations and could be in level 1 as early as June 10, “as long as we keep seeing the results we’re seeing now”.

There has been mounting pressure for New Zealand, which has counted 10 days without a new case of Covid-19, to lessen restrictions and move to alert level 1. Imagery of protests held in Auckland and Wellington on Monday has frustrated critics of the remaining restrictions.

Businesses in particular are limited in how they can operate under level 2.

Deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters, who last week broke Cabinet conventions by calling for Covid-19 Alert Level 1, on Tuesday morning took to Newstalk ZB to question why the protesters hadn’t been prosecuted.

“If you’re going to have a protest like we saw both in Auckland and Wellington, where they don’t observe the distancing rules, then the question’s going to be asked, and it’ll be asked rapidly why aren’t we in level 1, or why aren’t we prosecuting these people who organised those protests?”

Asked whether he wanted the protest organisers prosecuted, or the rules to be loosened, Peters said he wanted “both, frankly”.

“We can’t have one law for one group of people and a different law for everybody else.”

He said Cabinet would not be discussing a move to level 1 at Tuesday’s meeting.

That seems to be because last week Ardern said Cabinet would not review Level 2 until next week.

RNZ: NZ Black Lives Matter march distancing breaches ‘irresponsible’ – Police Minister

Minister of Police Stuart Nash is describing the weekend’s Black Lives Matter protests as “irresponsible”, but any prosecutions appear unlikely.

Nash said while he sympathised with the cause and the right to protest, these gatherings were “disappointing” considering the pain other New Zealanders had gone through under Covid-19 restrictions.

“I think they were probably irresponsible in what they did … we are where we are because people have been very, very good about obeying the rules, for some at great cost to themselves, so this was disappointing,” he said.

However, Nash said that was an independent operational matter for police.

“I don’t have a personal opinion when it comes to this. It is the police’s [decision], they will determine whether anyone is prosecuted or not, I understand they’re not going to. They have taken a graduated response to anyone in any situation throughout alert level 4, 3, 2,” he said.

National Party police spokesperson Brett Hudson said to see thousands breaching level 2 rules in this way was “regrettable to say the least”.

National leader Todd Muller pushed her on this in Question Time yesterday and I think Ardern looked unusually tetchy.

NZ:  PM Jacinda Ardern rejects Todd Muller claim government ‘fractured’ over level 1

National leader Todd Muller said today that it was “completely unacceptable” that Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and Deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters were not publicly on the same page.

“What’s happening right now is a shambles. For the Prime Minister to be standing and communicating to New Zealand the importance of level 2, the importance of social distancing and the importance of following the rules, but her own deputy is taking a completely counter view – not only subtly, but very overtly – holding the view that actually we should already be back to where we were,” he said.

Ardern told reporters following today’s Cabinet meeting she did not think Peters’ comments were causing confusion.

“He does have a different view, and he has been open about that view, he is however not advocating that anyone break the rules that are currently in place,” she said.

Ardern downplayed any tensions between the coalition partners, saying she was aware and not concerned about Peters’ decision to speak out against the government’s decision.

Another sign of a more critical media: Our compassionate PM’s mean policies

Our Prime Minister is lauded overseas for her compassion, but her Cabinet is refusing to properly support tens of thousands of jobless migrants and beneficiaries struggling through the Covid-19 crisis, Bernard Hickey argues.

Police managed the firearms buy back scheme well – Auditor-General

The Auditor-General has investigated the firearms buy-back and amnesty scheme that was put in place following the deaths of 51 people at the Christchurch mosque shootings, and says that the Police managed the scheme well, but advised that “more work should be done to find out what level of compliance with the scheme has been achieved and the extent to which it has made New Zealanders safer.”

The Minister of police summarised the findings of the report in Gun buyback well run, ongoing work needed

  • The buyback scheme was complex, challenging, and high risk, and Police managed it effectively,
  • 61,332 prohibited firearms were collected, destroyed, or modified, as at February 2020. Every single one of them was tightly traced and accounted for during the process.
  • Compensation of $102 million was paid and the final cost is forecast to be $120 million. Police took a principled and informed approach to compensation prices,
  • Police communicated well with the public, and treated gun owners with empathy and respect. There was a wide range of opportunities for people to hand in guns,
  • No one could be certain how many prohibited firearms existed before the law change. Police estimates, scrutinised by NZIER, suggested it could range from 55,000 to 240,000 firearms. NZIER advised part of the uncertainty was because guns could be easily modified with certain parts to make them a prohibited firearm,
  • There were deficiencies in how information was recorded in the past for military style semi-automatics, or E-category firearms. However Police were successful in locating them and are actively following up outstanding items,
  • The buyback scheme was supported by good systems and processes, with a robust level of oversight,
  • It cost more to administer the scheme than first anticipated. The initial estimate of $18 million grew to $35 million which Police met from internal budgets. The OAG found financial controls were appropriate and there was no wasteful spending,
  • More work is needed to process some applications. The OAG Report lists the number of outstanding applications as at February 2020, but the figures are now lower. Police are expected to keep publicly reporting on this till it is complete,
  • The scheme is important for the well-being of New Zealanders and Police should carry out a formal evaluation to look at compliance with firearms laws and improvements to public safety over time.

From the OAG report:

As part of the response to the attacks, Parliament passed the Arms (Prohibited Firearms, Magazines, and Parts) Amendment Act 2019 on 11 April 2019. The Act prohibited firearms with the ability to cause harm in a rapid and highly destructive way from a distance.

The Act, supplemented by a set of associated statutory regulations, included a provision for a firearms buy-back and amnesty scheme (the scheme). The scheme allowed owners of newly prohibited firearms, magazines, and parts to hand them in to the New Zealand Police (the Police) in exchange for compensation. The purpose of the scheme was to improve public safety. We examined how effectively and efficiently the Police implemented the scheme.

We thought it important to provide the Police with real-time feedback so that they could make any improvements the scheme needed quickly. The Police were open to receiving and acting on Ernst & Young’s feedback and recommendations. I commend the Police for the open approach they took to this assurance work.

We make no comment on the policy decision to have a buy-back scheme because commenting on policy decisions is outside of my statutory mandate.

The Police managed the scheme effectively

Implementing the scheme was a complex, challenging, and high-risk task, and the Police had to do it in tight time frames.

The Police communicated with the public well

We found that the Police, assessors, and support staff treated people handing in firearms with empathy and respect. Firearms assessors were trained extensively to make fair decisions on compensating people for their firearms.

The scheme was supported by good systems and processes

The Police used a software system to register and track handed-in firearms and process compensation payments. This system was well designed and thoroughly tested before it went live. Although it mostly worked well, some internet connectivity issues caused delays at some local collection events.

Compensation payments did not exceed what was appropriated, and ACC’s contribution was compatible with its statutory functions

The 2019 Budget included an appropriation of $150 million in Vote Police to fund compensation payments for people handing in their prohibited firearms, magazines, and parts. The Police’s provisional information at 20 December 2019 shows that compensation payments to that date totalled $102 million.

Administering the scheme cost considerably more than estimated

In March 2019, the Police produced an initial estimate that administering the scheme would cost $18 million.

he Police now estimate that, once fully completed, administering the scheme will have cost up to $35 million. This includes costs of tracked staff time, contractors, and goods and services.

The Police need to finish implementing the scheme and make improvements to support their regulatory responsibilities

The Police still have much work to do to complete the scheme.

The process of implementing the scheme is ongoing and has proved more challenging than the Police anticipated. Some firearms still need modifications to comply with the new regulatory requirements, and the Police are still processing applications for endorsements to use newly prohibited firearms for a limited range of purposes. In my view, the Police should continue to report publicly on the performance of the scheme until they have completed this remaining work. The Police should also report to Parliament about the final outcomes of the scheme.

Importantly, the scheme is only one component of firearms regulation the Police have to implement. The Government introduced a Bill on 13 September 2019 that includes a wide range of controls on the use and possession of firearms. Parliament was considering this Bill at the time we were writing this report.

Concluding thoughts

The Police managed the scheme well. They were effective in providing people with a wide range of opportunities to hand in firearms and receive compensation, which was paid in a timely manner. The public was kept safe at local collection events, and the Police made considerable efforts to treat people with empathy and respect. However, there is still much work to be done, and the Police should continue to focus on completing the scheme.

We do not yet know how effective the scheme was in removing all newly prohibited firearms, magazines, and parts from the community. This is because there is no reliable picture of how many newly prohibited firearms, magazines, and parts remain in the community. Without this picture, I cannot determine whether implementing the scheme has delivered value for money.

In my view, given the high level of public interest and expenditure, and the importance of this scheme for the well-being of all New Zealanders, more work should be done to find out what level of compliance with the scheme has been achieved and the extent to which it has made New Zealanders safer.

Read the whole report (52 pages)

 

Urgent tax relief for small businesses to be pushed through Parliament

The Government has announced what they say are significant tax reforms targeting small and medium sized businesses that they will try to rush through Parliament today.

The main measures will:

  • introduce a tax loss carry-back regime to provide cash flow quickly to businesses, by allowing losses to be carried back one year;
  • allow IR to change due dates, timeframes or other procedural requirements for tax returns for taxpayers affected by COVID-19;
  • ensure the treatment of benefits and pensions paid to New Zealanders stranded overseas is consistent with the treatment of equivalent payments in New Zealand;
  • Bring forward the commencement date of certain protections relating to high-cost consumer credit contracts;
  • Prevent famers and others working with animals having to call in vets to undertake minor surgical procedures during the lockdown; and
  • extend the timeframe for certain Crown entities to provide planning documents to responsible or shareholding Ministers.

Tax changes throw cash lifeline to SMEs

A significant package of tax reforms will be pushed through all stages in Parliament today to throw a cash flow lifeline to small businesses.

Revenue Minister Stuart Nash says the COVID-19 Response (Taxation and other Regulatory Urgent Measures) Bill gives businesses more than $3 billion in tax refunds as they deal with the economic impact of the virus.

“This response delivers the single biggest government support package to businesses via the tax system in modern New Zealand history, and more is yet to come,” Mr Nash said.

“As the Prime Minister and Finance Minister have said we are constantly monitoring the situation for business and adjusting our support as required. Just yesterday we indicated additional support will be coming for commercial leases.

“We will keep supporting business and jobs where we can to cushion the blow of the virus and ensure New Zealand is well positioned for recovery.”

“Today’s changes mean cash could start flowing to businesses via the tax system as early as next week. Many small and medium enterprises (SMEs) are feeling the pain now. We are moving urgently to get cash into their hands as quickly as possible, by taking current losses back to a prior year.

“My strong advice to businesses is to talk to their accountant, bookkeeper or tax agent, or log onto the MyIR portal as quickly as possible to ensure they take advantage of the government support as soon as changes come into effect this week.

“The tax refunds will be a cash lifeline for businesses with non-wage fixed costs, like rent, interest and insurance. Some don’t want to take on extra debt with a bank loan. Without this support these otherwise viable SMEs may be forced to close.

“The changes were signalled two weeks ago and design features have now been finalised after discussions between Inland Revenue and external tax practitioners. I am grateful to the accounting and legal profession and IR officials for their rapid work on this legislation.

“The omnibus bill deals with tax and regulatory changes to support businesses and others get through the economic shock caused by COVID. The main measures will:

  • introduce a tax loss carry-back regime to provide cash flow quickly to businesses, by allowing losses to be carried back one year;
  • allow IR to change due dates, timeframes or other procedural requirements for tax returns for taxpayers affected by COVID-19;
  • ensure the treatment of benefits and pensions paid to New Zealanders stranded overseas is consistent with the treatment of equivalent payments in New Zealand;
  • Bring forward the commencement date of certain protections relating to high-cost consumer credit contracts;
  • Prevent famers and others working with animals having to call in vets to undertake minor surgical procedures during the lockdown; and
  • extend the timeframe for certain Crown entities to provide planning documents to responsible or shareholding Ministers.

Other tax changes just before the lockdown involved a $2.8 billion support package for business.

“It gives $2 billion in tax deductions to landlords through depreciation on commercial buildings. It removes 95,000 taxpayers from the provisional tax regime by raising the tax threshold to $5,000; allows businesses to claim back more for spending on low-value assets like laptops and phones; and allows interest to be waived on late payments.

“The wage subsidy has also been a vital factor in small business survival. Around 97 per cent of businesses who received the subsidy are either sole traders or firms employing fewer than 20 staff.

“More than $1.25 billion has been paid to about 188,000 sole traders. A further $4.27 billion has gone to 160,000 small businesses that employ between one and 19 staff. Almost 8,900 medium-sized firms, with 20-99 staff, have been paid $1.3 billion.

“SMEs can also call on government support to pay for professional advice to plan for survival and recovery from the economic shock caused by COVID. A $25 million business consultancy fund will pay for tailored specialist support such as business continuity planning, finance and cash flow management, HR and staffing issues.

“The global pandemic and economic crisis is hitting every nation hard. We are moving to cushion the blow for businesses and workers in this country as Alert Level 3 opens up the economy to prepare for recovery,” Mr Nash said.

Further information: :

831 new frontline Police officers in financial year

A record number of Police officers were trained in the 2018/19 financial year with 831 new front line officers deployed around the country. Since the Coalition Government was formed there have been 1,367 new recruits have graduated.  Some of those will have been planned under the previous government, but the new government has boosted those numbers.

This looks to be well on it’s way to fulfilling a commitment made in the Labour-NZ First Coalition Agreement:

Law and order

  • Strive towards adding 1800 new Police officers over three years and commit to a serious
    focus on combatting organised crime and drugs.

Government: Greatest number of new Police in a single year

Police Minister Stuart Nash says the graduation of 78 new constables means a total of 831 new frontline Police have been deployed to communities around the country during the 2018/19 financial year.

“The previous highest number of new Police in one financial year occurred 21 years ago when 683 officers graduated during 1997/98,” says Mr Nash.

“Since the Coalition Government was formed 1,367 new recruits have graduated from the Police College at Porirua and from two innovative training wings in Auckland.

“The Wellbeing Budget contains more than $260 million in new initiatives for Police. Thanks to this new investment, Police can strengthen controls on the use of firearms. They will be able to take the most dangerous weapons out of circulation and begin the next stage of reforms to reduce the risk of firearms falling into the wrong hands.”

The new initiatives for Police include:

  • $168 million for payments and administration of the gun buyback scheme;
  • $41.8 million to tackle family violence;
  • $5.86 million for victim video statements;
  • $37.19 million to provide all emergency services (Police, Fire, Ambulance) with state of the art new digital communications capabilities and to ensure the integrity of the current system in the interim;
  • $8.778 million for other initiatives across the wider justice sector, such as mental health, addiction and alcohol and drug programmes.

“In addition we are making a substantial investment of $455 million in frontline mental health services. Police officers have been under pressure because a lack of health resources meant they were the first line of response to mental health needs. Improving mental health care is one of our long-term challenges,” Mr Nash says.

The boost in mental health services has taken longer to implement, but it should take pressure off police resources, and will hopefully reduce crime committed by people with mental health issues.

Digital services tax proposals to target multinationals

The avoidance of paying tax by multinational companies is well known, but an effective solution is difficult to come up with. The Government has proposed two options.


Ensuring multinationals pay their fair share of tax

Finance Minister Grant Robertson and Revenue Minister Stuart Nash today proposed two broad options to ensure offshore digital companies no longer enjoy tax breaks which are not available to local businesses.

“Our number one preference remains an internationally agreed solution through the OECD,” says Mr Robertson. “However if the OECD cannot make sufficient progress this year we need an interim solution. Other nations have already taken this step.”

“The UK has announced it will introduce a two percent DST from April 2020. Austria, the Czech Republic, France, India, Italy and Spain have also enacted or announced DSTs.

“We need to protect our economy and the integrity of our tax system. Modern business practices, digitalisation in particular, mean that a company can be significantly involved in the economic life of a country without paying tax on income or turnover.

“Multinational companies like social media platforms and e-commerce sites generate income through cross-border digital services rather than face-to-face retail,” says Mr Robertson.

The DST outlined in a discussion document released today would apply to:

  • platforms which facilitate the sale of goods or services between people, such as Uber and Airbnb and eBay;
  • social media platforms like Facebook;
  • content sharing sites like YouTube and Instagram; and
  • companies which provide search engines and sell data about users.

“A DST would be narrowly targeted at certain highly digitalised business models. It would not apply to sales of goods or services, but to digital platforms who depend on a base of users for income from advertising or data.

“The value of cross-border digital services in New Zealand is estimated to be around $2.7 billion. The estimated revenue of a DST is between $30 million and $80 million, depending on the design,” Grant Robertson said.

Revenue Minister Stuart Nash says the Tax Working Group concluded New Zealand should continue to participate in the OECD discussions but also stand ready to implement a DST if a critical mass of other countries move in that direction.

“The OECD is seeking approval for its digital economy work programme from the G20 group of large economies at a meeting in late June. The progress made at the OECD to date has not been sufficient to allay the concerns of several countries, who have announced or introduced DSTs as unilateral interim measures.

“Any DST in New Zealand would be an interim measure. The Government would look to repeal it if and when the OECD’s international solution was implemented,” says Mr Nash.

The two options are:

  • Changing the current international income tax rules, to allow more taxation in market countries.  This option is currently being discussed by the OECD and the G20 group of large economies.
  •  Applying a separate DST of three per cent to certain revenues earned by highly digitalised multinationals operating in New Zealand. The discussion document seeks feedback on how a DST might work in practice.

“The Government is committed to future-proofing the tax system to ensure it can handle changes to how people work and how business is done,” Mr Nash says.

“The significance of the digital economy is only going to grow over the coming decades. We need to keep adapting to ensure multinationals who do business here are paying their fair share of tax.

“We’ve passed legislation to collect GST on remote services, and to ensure multinationals pay their fair share of tax if they have a physical presence in New Zealand, and we have legislation before parliament to ensure we collect GST on low-value imported goods,” says Mr Nash.

The discussion document can be found at taxpolicy.ird.govt.nz. Consultation closes on 18 July 2019.

 

Drug driver testing consultation by Government

Last week National MP Nick Smith tried to get a members’ bill trying to address drug driving fast tracked in Parliament.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I seek leave of the House for the Land Transport (Roadside Drug Testing) Amendment Bill to be set down as the first members’ order of the day on the next members’ day on 22 May.

The Speaker Trevor Mallard intervened himself (an unusual move from the Speaker who is supposed to be neutral), and when Smith reacted in response sent Smith from Parliament. This escalated when Smith over-reacted and was then officially ‘named’ by the Speaker and copped a 1 day ban from Parliament.

See Nick Smith named and suspended from Parliament for “grossly disorderly conduct”

This week the Government decided to do something about drug driver testing themselves.


Safety focus in improved drug driver testing

Improving the safety of all road users is the focus of a new public consultation document on the issue of drug driver testing.

Plans for public consultation on options to improve the drug driver testing process have been announced by Associate Transport Minister Julie Anne Genter and Minister of Police Stuart Nash.

Julie Anne Genter said: “While drug drivers already face serious criminal penalties if caught, the current law makes it hard for Police to carry out higher numbers of tests that could deter drug driving.

“And unlike with alcohol testing, drug testing comes with some unique challenges, which is why we want expert and public input into the design process.   For example, unlike alcohol breath tests, drug tests can only detect the presence of drugs or medication. They cannot test if a driver is impaired.

“We know the public wants to be involved in the development of legislation that will impact them. Consultation will ensure changes to the current system incorporate the needs and wishes of New Zealanders.

“A considered approach to developing enhanced drug driver testing will mean we can develop a robust testing system that’s grounded in evidence and best practice. We need to do this thoughtfully,” says Julie Anne Genter.

“Irrespective of whether someone is impaired by alcohol, medication or recreational drugs, they shouldn’t be behind the wheel,” says Stuart Nash.

“Last year, 71 people were killed in crashes where a driver was found to have drugs or medication in their system which may have impaired their driving.  That compares to 109 deaths where a driver was found to have alcohol in their system.

“We need to do more to stop dangerous drivers getting behind the wheel and enforcement on our roads is a key part of this.  However Police cannot do this on their own. Every one of us must challenge dangerous driving behaviours when we see them,” Mr Nash said.

Consultation will take place over the next six weeks, concluding on Friday 28 June. The Government will be looking to confirm its options at the end of this year.

The Government is looking for feedback on:

  • the methods that could be used to screen and test for drugs
  • the circumstances in which a driver should be tested
  • what drugs should be tested for
  • how an offence for drug driving should be dealt with by Police.

Ministry of Transport:  Drug Driving

Changes to the drug driver testing and enforcement system in New Zealand

The Government is considering making changes to New Zealand’s drug driver testing and enforcement regime. Research shows that many illicit and prescription drugs have the potential to impair driving, and studies show that New Zealanders are using those drugs and driving.

Addressing drug impaired driving is an important objective if we are to make our roads safer – since 2013, the number of road deaths in New Zealand has increased by nearly 50 percent. Drug driving is making an increasing contribution to this statistic.

The Government has decided that it is time to reconsider our approach to drug driving and the public should be involved in that conversation.

A Discussion Document has been developed to facilitate a conversation about possible approaches to improving our drug driving system. The consultation seeks feedback about:

  • How we can be better at detecting drug drivers and deterring drug driving?
  • The circumstances in which drivers should be tested for drugs?
  • How to decide which drugs to test for?
  • What evidence is required to establish a drug driving offence?
  • How we should deal with people caught drug driving?

Download the Discussion Document [PDF, 1.4 MB]

Consultation process

The Ministry requests written submissions and they must arrive by 5.00 pm Friday 28 June 2019 to be considered. Submissions can be forwarded to the Ministry at:

drugdrivingconsultation@transport.govt.nz

Also:

Bridges tries to keep tax debate going

When Jacinda Ardern announced that the Government was ditching any change to a Capital Gains Tax, and also that she was dropping any CGT plans while she remained leader, some (notably Michael Cullen) claimed that that neutered Simon Bridges and any tax debate in next year’s election campaign.

But Bridges is trying to keep the tax discussion going. He has gone as far as putting a a bill into the member’s ballot that would index tax brackets to inflation. This would avoid the bracket creep that harmed Labour’s re-election chances in 2008 when the Clark/Cullen government list to John Key and National – but Bill English also let bracket creep erode take home pays through their nine years in office.

National went into last election with legislation already in place to adjust tax rates and brackets, but lost power, and the Labour led government reversed those adjustments.

The Spinoff – The Bulletin: Bridges pushes for bigger focus on tax debate

As Stuff’s Henry Cooke points out, under the member’s ballot it almost certain not to pass if it gets pulled out, “but would force the Government parties to vote against an effective tax cut.” National has signalled they intend to campaign on the issue, which means that if it does come out there will be a voting record of that come election time. If Labour in turn opt to campaign on any of the other, non CGT recommendations from the Tax Working Group, that would set the terms of the debate on ground that National would be comfortable with.

The policy would result in the loss of about $650 million a year in tax revenue, according to Mr Bridges’ figures, reports the NZ Herald. When the policy has come up, finance minister Grant Robertson has often pointed to that figure as money that will have to be cut from elsewhere. And while the Budget Responsibility Rules are in place – vocally hated as they are by those who want bigger investments in social services – it’s difficult to argue that the government is currently over-spending.

A point of clarification – as people go up tax brackets, they only pay higher rates on their income above the previous threshold. So while the percentage of people earning above the 33% rate for incomes of $70,000 up has risen (11% of earners in 2011 to 17% in 2016) those people are only paying 33% on what they make on top of the $70,000. Even for those in that bracket, income earned at lower thresholds gets taxed at a lower rate.

How the tax rates and brackets work is poorly understood.

The current Government has passed legislation that they have promoted as An end to unnecessary secondary tax

Workers who are paying too much tax because of incorrect secondary tax codes are in line for relief with the passage of legislation through Parliament late last night.

The Taxation (Annual Rates for 2018-19, Modernising Tax Administration, and Remedial Matters) Bill passed its third reading and will come into effect on 1 April.

“We promised to eliminate unnecessary secondary tax for workers with more than one job. We are delivering on that promise,” says Revenue Minister Stuart Nash.

But this is quite misleading. Secondary tax rates (there are several) won’t change. Workers who paid secondary tax will continue to pay secondary tax, and their tax for a year will be no different.

All this does is encourage IRD to advise employees through the tax year if their secondary tax rate is appropriate to their level of earnings or not.

“The changes mean Inland Revenue will more closely monitor the tax paid by wage and salary earners through the year. If it appears the worker is being over taxed, Inland Revenue will suggest a more suitable PAYE tax code tailored to that worker.

“Till now the tax on the second job has often seemed too high. These changes ensure wage and salary earners are only paying the tax they should. Just under 600,000 secondary tax codes are used every year.”

Again this is misleading. The end of year tax calculation which determines how much tax you pay in a year remains exactly the same.

All this change does is attempts to tax more accurately through the year. It will reduce the chances of underpaying or overpaying (it can work both ways) interim tax via secondary tax rates, that is all. The end result will be exactly the same.

Secondary tax is a system designed to prevent employees from getting big tax bills at the end of the tax year. People who earn variable amounts in different jobs will always have a greater chance of inaccuracy through the year, regardless of this change.

New firearm legislation introduced to Parliament

Announced yesterday:  Tighter gun laws to enhance public safety


Police Minister Stuart Nash has introduced legislation changing firearms laws to improve public safety following the Christchurch terror attacks.

“Every semi-automatic weapon used in the terrorist attack will be banned,” Mr Nash says. “Owning a gun is a privilege not a right. Too many people have legal access to semi-automatic firearms which are capable of causing significant harm.”

“The attack exposed considerable weaknesses in our laws. The firearms, magazines and parts used by the terrorist were purchased lawfully and modified into MSSAs due to legal loopholes. Our priority is to enhance public safety and wellbeing by urgent changes to the law.

“It is important to reiterate the legislation introduced today is not directed at law-abiding firearms owners who have legitimate uses for their guns. Our actions are instead directed at making sure this never happens again,” Mr Nash says.

The Arms (Prohibited Firearms, Magazines and Parts) Amendment Bill will:

  • Ban semi-automatic weapons and military style semi-automatics (MSSAs)
  • Ban parts, magazines and ammunition which can be used to assemble a prohibited firearm or convert a lower-powered firearm into a semi-automatic
  • Ban pump action shotguns with more than a five shot capacity
  • Ban semi-automatic shotguns with a capacity to hold a detachable magazine, or with an internal magazine capable of holding more than five cartridges
  • Exempt some semi-automatic firearms, such as .22 calibres and shotguns, which have limited ammunition capacity
  • Create tougher penalties and introduce new offences
  • Create new definitions of prohibited firearms, prohibited magazines, prohibited parts and prohibited ammunition
  • Establish an amnesty for firearms owners who take steps to hand over unlawful weapons, parts, magazines and ammunition to Police by 30 September 2019

“The misuse of semi-automatic weapons has caused death and injury at our places of worship. It has left a nationwide legacy of harm, pain and grief,” Mr Nash says.

“The men, women and children who died and suffered injuries at the mosques now have their own legacy. We will tighten gun laws to improve the safety and security of all New Zealanders. Their memory is our responsibility.

“The Arms Amendment Bill will have its first reading tomorrow, and be referred to a Select Committee for a swift public submissions process. It will return to Parliament next week to pass through its remaining stages. It is intended to come into force on 12 April, the day after the Royal Assent.

“Further announcements are due shortly on the administration and parameters of the buyback scheme,” Mr Nash says.

Questions and Answers

What are the new prohibitions?

  • Prohibited firearms include semi-automatics and MSSAs; and shotguns with detachable magazines or internal magazines which hold more than five rounds.
  • Prohibited magazines include those holding more than 5 cartridges for a shotgun; more than ten cartridges for a .22 calibre rimfire weapon; and any other magazine capable of holding more than ten cartridges.
  • Prohibited parts include any component of a prohibited firearm, or any component that can enable a firearm to be used as a semi-automatic or fully automatic weapon. Examples could include bump stocks, free-standing pistol grips and silencers.
  • Prohibited ammunition will include certain types of military ammunition as defined by the Governor General through Order in Council. Examples could include armour piercing ammunition.

Are any semi-automatic firearms exempted from the changes?

  • A small number of firearms owners have a legitimate use for weapons with a larger capacity. Semi-automatic firearms which are commonly used for hunting, pest control, stock management on farms, and duck shooting will not be affected. These are:
  • Semi-automatic .22 calibre rimfire firearms with a magazine which holds no more than ten rounds
  • Semi-automatic and pump action shotguns with a non-detachable tubular magazine which holds no more than five rounds

What about licensed owners who have a professional reason for having a semi-automatic or another prohibited firearm?

  • There will be exemptions for specially licensed dealers, bona fide collectors, museum curators and firearms used during dramatic productions, as there are now. They must take steps to disable the weapon and follow other guidelines around security and safety.
  • Authorised pest controllers governed by s.100 of the Biosecurity Act may be permitted by Police to own a semi-automatic
  • There are exemptions for Police and Defence Force personnel.
  • There is no exemption for international sporting competitions. Further advice is needed and it may be considered as part of the second Arms Amendment Bill which is likely later this year

What are the new penalties and offences?

  • maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment:

using a prohibited firearm to resist arrest

  • maximum penalty of 7 years imprisonment:

unlawful possession of a prohibited firearm in a public place

presenting a prohibited firearm at another person

carrying a prohibited firearm with criminal intent

possessing a prohibited firearm while committing any offence that has a maximum penalty of 3 years or more

  • maximum penalty of 5 years imprisonment:

importing a prohibited item

unlawful possession of a prohibited firearm

supplying or selling a prohibited firearm or magazine

intentionally using a prohibited part to assemble or convert a firearm into a prohibited weapon

  • maximum penalty of 2 years:

possessing a prohibited part or magazine

supplying or selling a prohibited part

How does the amnesty work?

The amnesty means firearms owners who now inadvertently possess a prohibited weapon, magazine, part, or ammunition can hand it over to Police or a licensed dealer without fear of being penalised. Any other firearm, magazine, parts and ammunition not affected by the ban can also be handed over.

Around 200 firearms have already been handed over.

More than 1400 calls have been made to the dedicated Police line 0800 311311

Around 900 online web forms have been filled in at www.police.govt.nz

How will the buyback work?

Police and the Treasury are working on the details of the buyback. The underlying principle is that fair and reasonable compensation will be paid. It will take into account the age and type of weapon, and the market value. It is estimated it will cost between $100 million and $200 million.

What measures are likely to be included in the next Arms Amendment Bill, later in 2019?

Several issues require more analysis and advice from Police, other government agencies and affected groups. This will take time to get right. These include:

  • A register of firearms
  • Licensing of firearms owners and the Police vetting process for a ‘fit and proper person’
  • The Police inspection and monitoring regime, such as rules around storage of firearms

Labour response to Tax Working Group final report

Jacinda Ardern not ‘ruling anything in or out’ after capital gains tax recommended by Working Group

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern won’t commit to any tax reform despite the Tax Working Group report released today recommended a comprehensive capital gains tax.

It’s hardly comprehensive – it is more comprehensive than the current tax on property for developers and speculators, but the recommendations have some significant exclusions.

“We’re going to give the public a little bit of time, we’re going to take a little bit of time to form some consensus around the Government’s response,” she said.

“As you can see in the report there are some areas where everyone agrees, and there are some areas where the group did not, it’s our opportunity as government to go away, take a little bit of time, build some consensus and then come back to the public.”

“We are not ruling anything in or out at this stage.”

But Minister of Finance Grant Robertson and Minister of Revenue Stuart Nash have fronted for the Government  – here is their official response:


Government response to Tax Working Group report

The Coalition Government will take a measured response to the final report of the Tax Working Group (TWG), Finance Minister Grant Robertson and Revenue Minister Stuart Nash said today.

“We welcome the release of the report and thank Sir Michael Cullen and the TWG for their hard work,” the Ministers say.

“The independent report finds that overall our tax system is clear and simple but there is room for improvement. There is some unfairness that we need to address. We will work through ways to do this to make the system fairer and more balanced,” says Mr Robertson.

“The overall findings confirm that there is no need for a major overhaul of the system,” says Mr Nash. “Our response will preserve the key principles of our existing broad-based low-rate tax system. In the words of the Prime Minister, we will not throw the baby out with the bathwater.”

As the Working Group has said, the Government is not bound to accept all the recommendations it put forward. There are options to accept some, and/or to phase or sequence aspects of the packages proposed by the Group. Both Ministers said it was highly unlikely all recommendations will need to be implemented.

“We will seek technical advice on addressing the unfair and unbalanced elements identified by the TWG and make further announcements in April on any measures to enhance the fairness and integrity of the tax system,” Mr Nash said.

“Our aim is to ensure the system is fair for families and businesses and that it offers balance across the wider economy,” Mr Robertson says.

“We look forward to discussing the recommendations with our Coalition and Confidence and Supply partners as we work to find consensus on the best overall package. We will work to get the balance right,” he says.

“I am also happy to reaffirm the commitment made when the TWG was established that no changes arising from the report will be implemented this term. We also set out some clear bottom lines. In particular, the family home, increases to income tax and GST, and an inheritance tax are off limits and this remains the case,” says Mr Robertson.

Mr Nash also confirmed that tax reform initiatives separate to the work of the TWG will continue in the meantime. “We remain vigilant to ways the current tax system fails to address global economic and social forces which affect economic activity. These deficiencies are being acted on through our existing programme of reform.”

The Ministers noted that the Coalition Government has already moved to restore fairness and balance through a series of business-as-usual reforms:

  • Digital Economy. As announced earlier this week we are taking steps to ensure companies in the digital economy who do business across borders pay their fair share of tax. A discussion document on the options for a design of a digital services tax will be released in May, and we continue to work with other countries for a global solution;
  • Multinationals. The aggressive tax planning of some multinational companies who do business here has been tackled through the Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) legislation which came into force in 2018;
  • Bright line test. The previous Government’s bright-line test that determines whether you pay tax on residential property investments sold within two years of purchase was extended by this Government to include those sold within five years;
  • Ring fenced losses. Losses on residential investment properties are to be ring-fenced, to remove the ability of property investors to pay less tax on other income;
  • Research and Development. We are encouraging innovation and investment by business with a package of R&D tax incentives that come into force from 1 April 2019;
  • GST on offshore suppliers. Domestic retailers will finally be on a level playing field with foreign companies who sell low value goods into NZ and don’t collect GST;
  • Double Tax Agreements. The ability to detect and prevent tax evasion involving taxpayers who operate in both NZ and offshore jurisdictions is enhanced by DTAs. We have updated the DTA with Hong Kong, a major financial centre in Asia. Updated DTAs with China, Korea and Fiji are also on the Government work programme;
  • Hidden economy and tax evasion. We increased the ability of IR to go after tax cheats, especially in the hidden economy, with more funding for compliance and enforcement;
  • IR Business Transformation. The BT programme of modernisation within IR makes it easier to eliminate punitive secondary tax for those who hold down more than one job, and to automate tax refunds each year;
  • Families Package. Measures in the Families Package targeted low and middle income families including changes to Working for Families;
  • Business Advisory Council and Small Business Council. The PM’s Business Advisory Council and the Small Business Council have been tasked to come up with a strategic approach to supporting business across central agencies.

Timeline:
Ministers expect to release the Government’s full response to the Report in April 2019 following detailed discussions with officials and consultation between Government parties.

As previously indicated, it is the Government’s intention to pass any legislation to implement any policy changes arising from the report before the end of the Parliamentary term. No policy measures would come into force until 1 April 2021 – giving New Zealanders the chance to vote on any decisions made by the Government.