Government Decision To Abandon Proposed Digital Services Tax Disappointing
Press Release – Better Taxes for a Better Future
We need to know how the Government intends to plug the $479m revenue gap left by their decision to drop the Digital Services Tax, at a time when our public services, particularly health, are in crisis because of underfunding, says Glenn Barclay …
The decision by the Government to abandon the proposed Digital Services Tax has been described as very disappointing by the Better Taxes for a Better Future campaign, raising questions about how the Government intends to fill the revenue gap left by this move. It also raises questions about how the Government will ensure digital services companies are paying a fair rate of tax on their earnings in New Zealand.
The Digital Services Tax Bill, which was introduced by the previous Labour Government has been sitting on Parliament's order paper since August 2023. It would have instituted a 3% tax on digital services revenue earned from New Zealand customers by large digital services companies. Treasury had already included the revenue from the proposed tax in its latest forecasts and estimated it would contribute $479m between 2027 and 2029.
'We need to know how the Government intends to plug the $479m revenue gap left by their decision to drop the Digital Services Tax, at a time when our public services, particularly health, are in crisis because of underfunding,' says Glenn Barclay spokesperson for the Better Taxes campaign.
'The digital economy has proven very difficult to tax and the absence of a digital services tax has allowed multi-national tech companies to avoid paying their fair share of tax in Aotearoa New Zealand.'
'Around 18 countries already operate digital services taxes, and while the American administration doesn't like them, we are not aware of any countries repealing these laws in response to threats from the Trump administration,' says Glenn Barclay.
'Instead of giving in to such threats,the Government should have proceeded with the Bill, or at the very least left it on the Parliamentary Order Paper until it could be implemented or an alternative developed.'
'If the Government is stepping away from the Bill then we need to know how it intends to progress the taxation of multi-national tech companies in this country, to ensure that these companies contribute to this country, rather than just exploiting their privileged position.' says Glenn Barclay.
'We don't share the Minister's optimism about an enforceable agreement on minimum corporate tax rates at the OECD in the medium term in the face of opposition from the Trump Administration. New Zealand needs another solution.'
'In addition it leaves another big question mark over how the Government will ensure advertising-dependent news local media will survive when their news and advertising is being taken by the social media giants who don't pay a fair rate of tax,' says Glenn Barclay.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
31 minutes ago
- Scoop
Manawatū Gorge Replacement Opens Toll-Free
Press Release – New Zealand Labour Party We had to campaign hard against a National Government that wanted to slap a toll on locals who had already waited a long time for this road to open,' says Labour transport spokesperson Tangi Utikere. Thanks to a successful community-led campaign backed by Labour, Lower North Island locals are today celebrating the toll-free opening of Te Ahu a Turanga – Manawatū Tararua Highway. Local Labour MPs Tangi Utikere and Kieran McAnulty wore their Toll-Free Tararua t-shirts to celebrate the opening of the new road without the National Government's proposed toll. 'It is such a relief for locals to have the Manawatū Tararua Highway open today, after years of work went in to replace the old Manawatū Gorge,' Labour transport spokesperson Tangi Utikere said. 'We had to campaign hard against a National Government that wanted to slap a toll on locals who had already waited a long time for this road to open. 'That was greedy and uncalled for, given the road had already been funded by Labour. 'It took a huge effort by locals, and strong support from people in surrounding areas who stood against National's toll. 'It's a beautiful new road, and I look forward to using it regularly to drive between the mighty electorates of Palmerston North and Wairarapa,' Tangi Utikere said.
Techday NZ
an hour ago
- Techday NZ
US-China chip export debate highlights risks for AI leadership
DeepSeek. TikTok. Taiwan. And a White House shake-up on AI rules. The spiralling US-China technology rivalry landed at the heart of Johns Hopkins University last week, as a panel of top experts and policymakers took to the stage to debate whether restricting exports of advanced semiconductors to China can help the US maintain its edge in the race for artificial intelligence. The discussion, hosted by Open to Debate in partnership with the SNF Agora Institute, comes at a critical time. In Washington, the Trump administration has announced plans to roll back the Biden-era AI Diffusion Rule and introduce new chip export controls targeting China – a move seen by many as a signal that the technology contest between the two superpowers is only intensifying. On one side of the Johns Hopkins debate were Lindsay Gorman, managing director at the German Marshall Fund's Technology Program, and former CIA officer and congressman Will Hurd. They argued the answer is yes: semiconductor controls can give the US a real advantage in the AI race. Gorman pointed to DeepSeek, a Chinese AI model whose CEO has publicly lamented the impact of advanced chip bans. "Money has never been the problem for us. Bans on shipments of advanced chips are the problem. And they have to consume twice the power to achieve the same results," she quoted, highlighting how China's AI advances still depend heavily on imported hardware. "The United States has significant hard computing power advantages – the ability to produce high-end chips, designed specifically for training AI models," Gorman told the audience. She argued that, together with its allies, the US controls a "strategic choke point" on computing power. "Properly implemented controls can have an effect and also have an increasing and compounding effect over time in retarding China's AI advantages and giving the United States a head start," she explained. Will Hurd, who also served on OpenAI's board before running for US president, compared the AI contest to the nuclear arms race. "Artificial intelligence is the equivalent of nuclear fission. Nuclear fission controlled gives you nuclear power… uncontrolled, nuclear weapons can kill everybody," he said. Hurd emphasised the importance of first-mover advantage, warning that the US cannot afford to lose its technological lead. He also highlighted a lack of reciprocity in the tech relationship between the two countries. "Chinese companies like Baidu, DJI, and TikTok operate freely in the US, but American companies are not allowed to operate in China," Hurd pointed out. "If there was a level of reciprocity between our two countries, we wouldn't be here having this debate about chip controls." Yet, on the opposing side, former senior US diplomat Susan Thornton and technology strategist Paul Triolo insisted the US could not outpace China in AI simply by tightening export controls. Triolo argued that the controls are "not working and will not lead to US dominance in AI", describing them as a blunt instrument that creates confusion for industry and disrupts global supply chains. "Most experts believe that Chinese companies are only three months behind US leaders in developing advanced AI models," Triolo said, suggesting any technological gap is vanishingly slim. Thornton, who spent decades at the heart of US-China diplomacy, warned of unintended consequences. "The main thing we should be asking ourselves about this question… is what is the cost benefit of US policy actions?" she said. "We have to face the reality that China is already building AI… a third of the world's top AI scientists are Chinese. China is one third of the entire global technology market. So it's clearly a player." She cautioned that blocking China from critical technology could backfire, hurting US companies, alienating allies and raising the risks around Taiwan, the global centre of advanced chip manufacturing. "Certainly, the one thing we need to do is avoid going to war," Thornton warned. "Taiwan, the most sensitive issue in US-China relations, has now been dragged right into the middle of this AI issue because they're the place that produces all the cutting-edge chips that we're trying to control." Audience members pressed the panel on whether international collaboration on AI safety was possible, and whether the US could ever match China's data advantage, given the size of the Chinese population and its permissive data environment. Hurd conceded that "the US will always have less data because we have a little thing called civil liberties," but argued that superior algorithms and privacy-protective machine learning could level the playing field. For Triolo, the dynamic nature of the technology means that attempts to wall off China are self-defeating. "There are many ways to get to different ends. The controls have forced Chinese companies to work together, develop innovations, and become more competitive both domestically and globally," he said. Gorman, in closing, rejected what she called "a defeatism that says America can't out-compete China or slow its progress". "Our companies are doing well. There isn't an issue here with demand, it's with supply. Doing better means that we have to throw what we can at this problem now with a smart application of tools," she argued. But Thornton had the last word, urging caution. "Making the AI competition with China a zero-sum game, not only will not work, it is dangerous," she said. "We should focus on the things that are going to matter to our children and their children, which is the long-term AI competition, which if not constrained and bounded by international agreements and by cooperation among countries… it'll be a very dangerous world."
Otago Daily Times
an hour ago
- Otago Daily Times
'We hit a nerve': Te Pāti Māori leader on suspension
This week Parliament took the unprecedented step of suspending both Te Pāti Māori leaders - Debbie Ngarewa-Packer and Rawiri Waititi - for 21 days. Te Pāti Māori MP Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke was suspended for seven days - but had also been punished with a 24-hour suspension on the day over a haka all three had performed in Parliament, against the Treaty Principles Bill, in November last year. It is against the rules of the House for members to leave their seats during a debate - which all three did. Ngarewa-Packer told RNZ's Saturday Morning programme that the 21-day suspension, which was seven times harsher than any previous sanction an MP has faced, was not proportionate. "I think the backlash from the public, nationally and internationally, validates that," she said. Previously, the longest suspension for an MP had been three days, given to the former prime minister Robert Muldoon for criticising the speaker in the 1980s. While New Zealand First leader Winston Peters said the duration of the suspension would have been lessened if the Te Pāti Māori MPs had apologised, Ngarewa-Packer said that was never requested by the Privileges Committee. "What we have here is a situation where, and some are calling it Trumpism, we've been a lot more specific - we have an Atlas agenda that has not only crept in, it's stormed in on the shores of Aotearoa and some may not understand what that means, but this is just the extension of the attack on the treaty, on the attack on Indigenous voices. "We made the point the whole way through when we started to see that they weren't going to be able to meet us halfway on anything, even a quarter of the way, on any of the requests for tikanga experts, for legal experts when we knew the bias of the committee." Ngarewa-Packer added that the Privileges Committee process was not equipped to deal with the issue. "We hit a nerve and we can call it a colonial nerve, we can call it institutional nerve... I think that this will be looked back on at some stage and say how ridiculous we looked back in 2025." She also added that the language from Peters during the debate on Thursday was "all very deliberate" - "and that's what we're contending with in Aotearoa". "Everyone should have a view but don't use the might of legislation and the power to be able to assert your racism and assert your anti-Māori, anti-Treaty agenda." Peters had taken aim at Waititi on Thursday as "the one in the cowboy hat" and "scribbles on his face" in reference to his mataora moko. He said countless haka have taken place in Parliament but only after first consulting the Speaker. "They told the media they were going to do it, but they didn't tell the Speaker did they?" Peters added that Te Pāti Māori were "a bunch of extremists" and that "New Zealand has had enough of them". "They don't want democracy, they want anarchy. They don't want one country, they don't want one law, they don't want one people."
