Are NZ banks being taxed properly?
Finance Minister Nicola Willis said she is continuing to receive advice from IRD on how income tax laws applied to the major banks in New Zealand, particularly compared with Australia.
Willis asked for the advice last year, but said no announcements would be made until Budget next year.
The key issues were around how the "parent banks" and branch banks in New Zealand interacted for tax purposes.
She said there was some "very arcane and complex tax law" in that area where the OECD had guidance, but New Zealand operated slightly differently.
ADVERTISEMENT
Willis was also looking at the Australian "major bank levy" which New Zealand did not have. This forced banks with more than $100 billion in liabilities to pay a levy to the government, raising significant sums a year.
Willis would not rule out applying something similar here, but she did confirm the Government was not looking at a windfall tax.
"There's a range of highly technical, highly complex issues with the way that banks are taxed, and we're just doing a check in to make sure that it's resulting in an overall fair system."
Willis said it was possible more revenue could be generated for the Crown if the Government found banks were not paying the full amount of tax expected.
Acting Prime Minister David Seymour was asked about the issue on Monday and said he believed banks were being fairly taxed.
"Some of the biggest taxpayers in New Zealanders are banks," he said, and stated they were all paying the 28% average tax rate as their company tax.
"There's nothing to suggest that they are not paying the same share that they would if they were any other kind of business."
ADVERTISEMENT
Asked about Willis' work, Seymour said, like most ministers, she was "always asking for advice, always tossing around the ideas". He suspected the result of that work would show banks were fairly taxed.
Seymour said, from what he saw, there seemed to be a "consistent pattern" in terms of what banks paid, and the question around any proposals to change the settings would need to be based on "fairness".
He pointed to a dairy, retail or manufacturing company that were doing "pretty much the same stuff, making the same profit and paying the same tax, would you treat them differently"?
"One of the core principles of taxation is that 'like taxpayers pay tax alike', and 'unlike, taxpayers pay tax un-alike' based on the size of the difference.
"So you'd start with fairness as your principle."
He acknowledged there may be more information he was not aware of. He also wanted more information on the major bank levy.
"I've seen the argument for that, and it goes something like this: Banks inevitably get bailed out.
ADVERTISEMENT
"If they're so big that their failure would affect the entire economy, maybe they should be putting something aside for that rainy day, if it happens one day. That's the argument.
"It's, in a way, a form of de facto deposit insurance."
He said it was an interesting argument, but would need to see the detail before deciding on supporting a proposal or not as ACT leader.
rnz.co.nz
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Otago Daily Times
10 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
Half say risk data insufficient — insurer
File photo: Getty Images Nearly half of New Zealanders report they do not have enough information about the climate-related risks to their properties, a major insurance provider says. Tower Insurance chief executive Paul Johnston welcomed the release of the report "A proposed approach for New Zealand's adaptation framework", calling it a step towards greater certainty for communities, councils and insurers. The report by seven specialists, representing iwi, banks, economists, insurers and local authorities, has called for a 20-year transition period to a "mature adaptation framework" to balance the need to spread out costs associated with climate change adaptation with creating the right incentives to act. Mr Johnston said Tower had advocated for nationally consistent hazard modelling and greater data transparency, for all New Zealanders, for some time. "Tower's research shows that 48% of New Zealanders say they lack information about their property's exposure to climate-related risks and natural disasters," he said. "The insurance sector has a vital role in New Zealand's ongoing response to the increasing impacts of climate-related weather events and insurers need long-term certainty around climate adaptation policy to remain attractive to global reinsurers and help keep insurance accessible and affordable. "Risk-based pricing plays a vital role in this by helping to send important market signals." The company urged the government to act swiftly and deliver a bipartisan adaptation framework to provide long-term certainty for all New Zealanders, he said. — APL
NZ Herald
11 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Covid inquiry: Time to cut Dame Jacinda Ardern a break – Fran O'Sullivan
Sowing dissension when this country could more usefully focus on setting an ambition that might persuade more talented New Zealanders to build their futures here instead of heading for the departure lounge. Fact: Ardern has agreed to give evidence to phase two of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Government's response to Covid-19. If she cares deeply for her reputation – and I am sure she does, given the global acclaim that has come her way after her memoir A Different Kind of Power – she will agree to do that in public during the commission's hearings. Ardern doesn't have to come back to New Zealand for that. If the commission calls her – and it should – it can take evidence via Zoom as is now commonplace in transnational court hearings. Subjecting the former Prime Minister to running a gauntlet of personal and potentially physical abuse by insisting she gives evidence in New Zealand will just set off another wave of paranoid behaviour. It won't help in getting to the facts and motivations which coloured prime ministerial decision-making in the Covid years in the dispassionate manner that is needed. The economic trade-offs where the money printers went overtime and dollars were flung at business – critics lament that now. The country has a debt bubble to digest. But it is notable that some critics come from companies that took the Government's financial handouts but did not remit them back when their fortunes improved. The shareholders were winners. The taxpayers were 'tail-end Charlie' here. Go figure. Commission chair Grant Illingworth, KC, has said the inquiry will take public evidence from those affected by 'social division and isolation, health and education, and business activity'. This is important so New Zealand can learn the hard lessons from the Covid-19 pandemic and craft strategies for when the next pandemic arrives, as it certainly will. It will also provide a bloodletting for those who were most cruelly affected by the former Labour Government's Covid policies. Hearing from the 'victims' is long overdue. And there are personal stories aplenty, as most can attest. The commission also wants to hear from key decision-makers (and experts) about major decisions and their consequences so lessons can be learned. But the inquiry would be incomplete without hearing from Ardern, former Finance Minister Grant Robertson, former health supremo Sir Ashley Bloomfield and others within the tight Beehive circle that ran the country during the Covid years. It is undeniable that Ardern's performances at the 1pm 'podium of truth', where she and Bloomfield updated daily on the latest Covid situation, were required viewing. Her most impressive attribute was her mastery of that press conference. Her coining of the 'team of five million' (drawn from the late Sir Peter Blake's slogans to build public support for his America's Cup campaigns) to unite New Zealanders in 'fighting the virus' was also masterful. And it worked – at least in the initial phases of the pandemic response. People stayed home. The hospitals were not overrun. Lives were saved – although it is noticeable that the current world Covid death rate statistics show that many other countries did better than New Zealand in the long run. But Ardern's Covid honeymoon was quick to sour. Just one year after she pulled off a historic victory by catapulting Labour to an outright win in the October 2020 election, Ardern's reign hit stumbling blocks. Her Government's tardiness in getting sufficient New Zealanders vaccinated before the mid-August 2021 Delta outbreak helped pave the way for a punishing Auckland lockdown. This was Ardern's toughest year as Prime Minister. Cap that with the politically naive decision not to speak with protesters on Parliament's front lawn – instead of at least speaking with their leaders as commonsense former PM Jim Bolger advocated – and it is not surprising that the tide went out on her prime ministership. It was obvious to anyone coming down from Auckland to Wellington during this period that our political leaders were in a bubble of their own. I went to political journalist Tova O'Brien's farewell from the press gallery on the day we were finally allowed to travel domestically again. It was a different world. No paranoia about drunk citizens hassling or mugging people and acting thuggishly, which had become all too commonplace in the Auckland CBD, where I had spent the past four months. It was all bonhomie and drinks aplenty. The atmosphere also brought into sharp focus the lack of reality that coloured those 1pm press conferences to those watching from Auckland. Bizarre traffic light systems, for instance. The Prime Minister's empathetic response to the March 2019 Christchurch massacre, where 51 Muslims were murdered at the Al Noor and Linwood mosques, had earlier propelled her to international superstardom. The world's tallest building – Dubai's Burj Khalifa – had been lit up with a giant image of Ardern embracing a woman at a Kilbirnie mosque. Her leadership was tested not just by the terrorist attack, but by the Whakaari/White Island disaster and the pandemic. It's ironic that few thank her now for throwing so much money at the crisis. That's the pain of having to pay all that debt back. But there is room to examine all of this dispassionately – not try to (figuratively) hang her again as the more deranged attempted when they wheeled out their noose on Parliament's grounds.
Otago Daily Times
15 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
Shuffles continue at top of project
A fast-rising bureaucrat brought in to helm the government's reset of the new Dunedin hospital project has been dumped from the inpatient build, the Otago Daily Times understands. Health New Zealand Te Whatu Ora (HNZ) head of infrastructure delivery Blake Lepper had fronted the $1.88 billion Dunedin hospital project for HNZ, including standing alongside ministers at press briefings and being described as ''senior responsible officer''. Mr Lepper arrived at HNZ last March from a management role at the Infrastructure Commission, but after repeated questions to HNZ from the Otago Daily Times about whether Mr Lepper was still senior responsible officer for the inpatient build, the agency admitted he is not. Tony Lloyd, who was removed as the build's programme director in November, has been confirmed as project director for the build. HNZ said Mr Lepper, who has a law and physics degree from the University of Otago, retained responsibilities for completion of Dunedin's outpatient building, and workforce and data and digital work streams, as well as other infrastructure projects. The period of Mr Lepper's leadership of the inpatient build was fraught. After piles were driven, no contract was awarded to build the inpatients building and ministers claimed a project blowout, and sought a reset. Meanwhile, sources moaned about HNZ leadership prevarication causing delays. The option of refurbishing the existing ward block, rather than constructing a new inpatient building, had been previously considered and ditched, but was reconsidered under Mr Lepper and dismissed again. Mr Lepper's departure from the inpatient building comes hot on the heels of other senior personnel changes and announcements relating to how the project is staffed, delivered and governed. Last month, corporate boss Evan Davies — group chief executive of gas and property company Todd and member of a new HNZ health infrastructure committee — was appointed as crown manager of the inpatient building project by Health Minister Simeon Brown. When announcing the appointment, Mr Brown said HNZ had ''struggled to maintain momentum on the project and identify a path forward''. Mr Brown, who had spoken in January alongside Mr Lepper at a press conference announcing the inpatient build would go ahead, has repeatedly stressed that Mr Davies now has authority to make appointments to run the project. In the press conference, Mr Brown said the focus was ''cracking on'' with the build. Mr Lepper's messaging in the conference was less clear. He said HNZ was committed to leading the project, but was also ''looking across government to get the support we need to make sure we can move''. He was ''really grateful'' for support that was being provided by Crown Infrastructure Delivery (CID), a crown agency tasked with helping government departments manage infrastructure builds. Subsequent to Mr Davies becoming crown manager, HNZ sent Australian construction giant CPB a ''letter of intent'' to hire the firm to deliver the inpatient building. CID, which has no hospital-building experience, will not be project managing CPB's work. A question mark also hovers over the future and role of the project's governance committee, the Project Steering Group (PSG), which is meant to oversee the build. Rebecca Wark, the former head of health construction for New South Wales, was the most recent independent chairwoman of the PSG, but HNZ said her contract ended last month and it was ''currently reviewing the structure of the group''.
