Latest news with #ParliamentTV
Otago Daily Times
5 days ago
- Politics
- Otago Daily Times
Space Bill debate: I think it's gonna be a long, long time
Dunedin Labour MP Rachel Brooking speaking in the house earlier in the year. Photo: Parliament TV Rachel Brooking gets plenty of time speaking in the House on her main portfolio responsibilities. However the Dunedin Labour MP seldom gets the opportunity to put her party Space spokeswoman astronaut helmet on ... at least not until this week, when the government unexpectedly took urgency to push through all stages of the Outer Space and High-altitude Activities Amendment Bill. It is rare for a government to push through an entire law change in 24 hours — pandemic safety requirements or Budget-critical law changes are recent occasions. Security is another reason for haste, and Space Minister Judith Collins said that law change was needed to manage "risks to the national interest posed by the misuse of ground-based space infrastructure". All very James Bond. She later expanded on that, saying that during the past five years "there have been several deceptive efforts by foreign actors to establish and/or use ground-based space infrastructure in New Zealand to harm our national security." Eek! It turns out that the existing law does a good job of covering things happening at high altitude or in actual orbit, but a rubbish job of ensuring that the terrestrial operators of that high tech were authorised, risks were properly assessed, and that enforcement powers were available when needed. "By introducing a clear and modern framework for ground-based infrastructure, we are enforcing New Zealand's reputation as a responsible spacefaring nation," Ms Collins concluded ... and who wouldn't want to live in one of those nations? Certainly not Ms Brooking, who agreed that this country's ventures to infinity and beyond — especially those which emanate from nearby Awarua — needed to be regulated so that they were in the national interest. But ... and there is always a but ... she was not happy that the law change to protect "ground-based infrastructure" such as satellite tracking stations and telemetry systems was rocketing through Parliament. "I understand there may have been some prior consultation on aspects of it, but in general nobody has been having any public discussion about this Bill, and so there may be parts of it that have inadvertent, unintended consequences," she said. "So we do want to go through, in the committee stage, and take it seriously so that we all understand the Bill as best as we can. And I hope the minister is of that view." Given that "taking it seriously" entailed debate taking up all of Tuesday and a decent chunk of Wednesday, Ms Collins' view may have steadily become less favourable as things progressed. What Ms Brooking wanted — and given the circumstances it seemed a not unreasonable request— was a post-enactment review of the law. Her proposed amendment to add one was ruled out of order, but Associate Defence Minister Chris Penk (subbing for Ms Collins) left that "thoughtful suggestion" firmly anchored to the launch pad: "The Minister for Space feels — and I, in her place, am happy to relay but also support the notion — that we don't need to specify a mandated review mechanism, be it in front of the intelligence and security committee or, indeed, the foreign affairs, defence and trade committee as per the original proposal." Thus stymied, Ms Brooking moved into fresh fields of inquiry, such as the Bill conferring the minister with the authority to stop providing electricity or internet services to any offending space infrastructure: "are there any examples of that sort of thing happening anywhere else in the world?" she wondered. Mr Penk said the idea, essentially, was to "buy a bit of time" while someone figured out what to do next. Options which the legislation said, "may include, without limitation," — which offers quite the toolbox to utilise. "It's deliberately not excluding the range of conditions or actions that might be taken — noting, of course, that in this highly technical realm and with developing technology, it might well be the case that there are conditions or actions that might be necessary in the future that we're not able to contemplate now," he added, opening the possibility of all kinds of science fiction ideas being placed in a future Space Minister's hands. Which sounds preposterous — but so, too, and not too long ago, did the idea of New Zealand having a space industry. Hence, eventually, the Bill became law. Hard quiz You know that Tuesday was a big day because Dunedin Green list MP Francisco Hernandez had dug out a tie. He had to wait a long time to display his sartorial splendour, but eventually he got to ask Q12 — just his second primary question in the House — to the Minister of Universities, on the establishment of the new Waikato medical school. As it turned out, the minister was not in the building, so Mr Hernandez instead quizzed Health Minister Simeon Brown — which, one suspects, Mr Hernandez was quite pleased by. It was a good quizzing too, as Mr Hernandez asked pertinent questions such as: will it build a strong, more diverse work force, as claimed; will it generate new doctors faster than the proposal to increase class sizes at Otago and Auckland universities, and — quite frankly — just why does the government think building a new medical school is a good idea when there are two perfectly good ones already, which have the capacity and willingness to expand their rolls? The answers were not that pertinent sadly, Mr Brown favouring sloganeering — such as "we're getting on with it and we're delivering"; "this is a great day for New Zealand"; and "Just say yes. Get on the side of the positive news this is for our country, rather than keeping on complaining." However, keeping on complaining is exactly what Mr Hernadez is likely do. Firstly, about the still unreleased business case which underpinned the decision — which the government said on Monday would be proactively released, and which as of late yesterday was still not public. And secondly, when it finally does see the light of day — and it should have done when the post-Cabinet announcement was made — if the arguments in it do not seem to back up a final decision which has huge ramifications for the University of Otago.
Time of India
5 days ago
- Business
- Time of India
GST's identity crisis: One nation, multiple headaches
Academy Empower your mind, elevate your skills Rajesh Sodhi still remembers the night of June 30, 2017. The Ludhiana-based textile manufacturer had stayed up past midnight, watching Parliament TV as the Goods and Services Tax (GST) was announced. 'One Nation, One Tax' was the clarion call. It sounded like music to his years on, Sodhi's enthusiasm has morphed into frustration. His factory now employs three accountants just to handle GST compliance . "We were promised simplicity," he says. "Instead, we got something more complicated than what we had before."Sodhi's story isn't unique. Across India, individuals and corporates alike are grappling with a tax framework that seems to have developed a mind of its complexity starts with the basics. Instead of 'One Tax', today's GST comes with five different tax rates: 0%, 5%, 12%, 18%, and 28%. Add in numerous exemptions, differential rates for services, and sector-specific rules, and you have a system that's making the old tax regime look something as basic as determining which rate applies to popcorn, which is still a hot-button issue months after the December 2024 GST Council meeting. Is it taxed at 5%, 12%, or 18%? The answer depends on factors so nuanced that even tax lawyers disagree, but the lowdown is: it's 5% if sold loose (such as in a movie theatre), 12% if packaged and savoury-flavoured, and 18% if caramelised. But if your popcorn comes bundled with your movie ticket, the GST would be 18% because this would be treated as a composite such as these have prompted entrepreneurs and companies, regardless of industry, to reclassify their products and services after routine audits, resulting in demands for additional tax ranging from lakhs to crores of rupees."There has to be a philosophy to taxation that informs decision-making. GST is far from the good and simple tax it was supposed to be," says former Finance Minister (FM) Yashwant Sinha. "When I was FM, I rationalised the multiple central excise rates down to three. GST has a rate multiplicity problem. It's creating classification, implementation, and filing issues. The slabs must be reduced— ideally to one."The digitalisation of the Indian economy has revealed another vital limitation in the implementation of GST. App-based services, digital payments, and e-commerce platforms have created a whole new category of tax disputes that the system wasn't designed to Karnataka, vendors are protesting after having received GST notices for UPI-based transactions exceeding ₹40 lakh a year. They are currently demanding that the state revoke such notices, and that enforcement of such rules be relaxed for small-scale consider fintech entrepreneurs whose lending platforms are embroiled in disputes over whether algorithmic credit scoring should be taxed as a software solution or a financial service, a distinction that could mean the difference between 0% and 18% tax rates. Software as a Service (SaaS) companies are unclear and thus unable to determine whether they're selling goods or services. There's confusion over e-commerce platforms' marketplace versus inventory models, and skill-based online gaming companies are still contending with the massive retrospective demands rising from the hike from 18% to 28%, on par with chance-based activities such as gambling and there's the 'luxury' classification. As Aarin Capital Chairman and former Infosys executive Mohandas Pai puts it:"Air conditioners and TVs larger than 32 inches are taxed at 28%, but these aren't luxury items. They're mass goods today. Two-wheelers and sedans are also not considered luxury goods in 2025. Cement, which is critical for building India, also falls in the 28% bracket. The number of slabs should be reduced, and classifications revised."A concern on GST's complexity is the volume of disputes it has generated. There were significant judgments pertaining to GST in 2024, rendered by High Courts across the nation. And 2025 is even busier, as evidenced by recent multinational corporations across sectors have taken the international arbitration route to seek relief from retrospective tax claims. Several disputes are ongoing. Two, online real money gaming platforms are challenging retrospective GST notices amounting to ₹1.12 lakh crore, which exceed the industry's turnover of approximately ₹20,000 crore. The Supreme Court heard their arguments on July 15 and has scheduled its final hearing for July 25. Three, food delivery aggregators are wondering whether delivery charges attract 5% or 18% GST, which could further dent make or break their razor-thin margins. Four, airlines and shipping companies were mired in compliance issues around 'place of supply rules' that confused rather than clarified. Lastly, life and health insurance companies contended with 18% GST, a move that was passed on to already-burdened cases highlight that retrospective tax actions, especially those related to indirect taxes like GST, may impact not only compliance but also business overall "pay first, argue later" approach is also a hurdle for micro, small, and medium enterprises (MSMEs), which have minimal resources, including cash flows, to sustain specialised tax compliance teams. And the paperwork doesn't help. This includes mandatory multi-factor authentication for GST portal access and restrictions on E-Way Bill (EWB) generation to curb fraudulent practices, which have added yet another layer of complexity to daily operations. As Rajesh Sodhi, the entrepreneur from Ludhiana, says:'Tax refund delays are my biggest problem. I'm spending most of my time on GST-related tasks. I became a businessman to sell hosiery and other textiles, not to become a tax expert. But that's what this system has forced me to become."Although India's foreign direct investment (FDI) performance has shown resilience, recent data indicates moderation in investment momentum. In FY25, net FDI inflows dropped to a record 96.5%, as reported by The Economic Times. This has everything to do with investors exiting lucrative IPOs here and Indian firms ramping up overseas investments. But here's something to consider: the retrospective application of tax laws also undermines the principle of legal certainty, which is critical for investor confidence. Such enforcement imposes additional due diligence requirements and risk assessment protocols on foreign investors, particularly in sectors with complex supply chains and cross-border Financial Times reported that disputed tax demands, totalling around ₹13.4 lakh crore (as of March 2024), may have contributed to the decrease in net FDI inflows. Automaker Volkswagen is contesting a tax demand of approximately ₹12,000 crore related to import duties stemming from a 12-year investigation. Similarly, Maruti Suzuki (~₹20,000 crore) and Hyundai (~₹4,000 crore) are also among the top companies. Such prolonged battles and uncertainty surrounding tax obligations could raise concerns among investors about the predictability of India's tax are signs that policymakers are finally acknowledging pain points. Owing to Budget 2025, enterprises can expect some GST rate rationalisation in the 56th GST Council meeting, to be held later this month. Two major measures reportedly being considered are the elimination of the 12% slab and the abolition of GST altogether for term for businesses like Sodhi's, the question isn't whether reforms will come. It's whether they'll arrive soon enough. After eight years of promises and patches, India's entrepreneurs are running out of patience with the great tax answer, it seems, is written in the stars… or perhaps in the next GST Council meeting.
The National
01-07-2025
- Business
- The National
How to watch the Government vote on welfare reforms
If passed, the proposed cuts to benefits like Universal Credit and PIP could push around 150,000 people into poverty. What time will the vote take place? As it stands, the vote is set to take place around 7pm this evening, though this could be subject to change. Where can I watch? You can watch MPs vote live on Parliament TV, which can be found here. BBC Parliament will likely provide live television coverage and can also be found via iPlayer. Other major broadcasters, such as Sky, may choose to cover the event. Alternatively, The National is running a live blog today covering everything related to the vote. You can follow along here, or read the full summary once the proceedings draw to a close.
The Herald Scotland
23-06-2025
- Politics
- The Herald Scotland
Lammy urges Reform's newest MP to ‘get some help' over ‘conspiracy theories'
Responding during a statement on the Middle East, Mr Lammy said the MP for Runcorn and Helsby should 'get off social media'. Foreign Secretary David Lammy (Parliament TV/PA) The UK-operated base in the Chagos Islands was not used in the US strike on Iran's nuclear facilities, Foreign Office minister Stephen Doughty has said. He added that the US did not ask to use it, as he answered questions from the Foreign Affairs Committee on Monday. Speaking in the Commons, Ms Pochin said: 'Is he (Mr Lammy) able to explain to the House whether the United States felt unable to use the Diego Garcia base and have to refuel, in a highly dangerous operation three times because of that, because of your deal that you did with the with the Mauritians, that would then tell the Chinese, that would then tell the Iranians?' Mr Lammy replied: 'The honourable lady has got (to) get off social media, has got to get some help… because she is swallowing conspiracy theories that should not be repeated in this House.' The deal over the Chagos Islands follows a 2019 advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice which says the islands should be handed over to Mauritius. As well as establishing a £40 million fund for Chagossians, the UK has agreed to pay Mauritius at least £120 million a year for 99 years in order to lease back the Diego Garcia base – a total cost of at least £13 billion in cash terms. During the statement on Monday, Mr Lammy was pressed by MPs on the UK's position following the US military action. Conservative MP Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) said: 'Does His Majesty's Government support or oppose US military action against Iran at the weekend?' Mr Lammy replied: 'His Majesty's Government will continue to work with our closest ally, as I was last week in Washington DC.' Liberal Democrat MP Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) said: 'What is UK Government policy on whether regime change should be pursued in Iran?' Mr Lammy replied: 'It is not our belief that it's for us to change the regime of any country, that it must be for the people themselves.' SNP MP Brendan O'Hara (Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber) said: 'We've been here for an hour, and still the Foreign Secretary appears incapable of saying whether he supports or condemns America's actions, or whether he regards them as being legal or not. 'And nowhere in this statement does the role of international law even merit a mention. So will the Foreign Secretary take this opportunity now to tell us whether he believes that America's unilateral action was compliant with international law?' Mr Lammy replied: 'I've got to tell (Mr O'Hara), I qualified and was called to the bar in 1995, I haven't practised for the last 25 years. 'It is not for me to comment on the United States' legal validity. I would refer him to article 51 and article two of the UN Charter, and he can seek his own advice.'
Glasgow Times
23-06-2025
- Politics
- Glasgow Times
Lammy urges Reform's newest MP to ‘get some help' over ‘conspiracy theories'
Sarah Pochin had asked the Foreign Secretary whether the US felt unable to use the UK-US airbase on Diego Garcia, following the Government's deal with Mauritius over the Chagos Islands. Responding during a statement on the Middle East, Mr Lammy said the MP for Runcorn and Helsby should 'get off social media'. Foreign Secretary David Lammy (Parliament TV/PA) The UK-operated base in the Chagos Islands was not used in the US strike on Iran's nuclear facilities, Foreign Office minister Stephen Doughty has said. He added that the US did not ask to use it, as he answered questions from the Foreign Affairs Committee on Monday. Speaking in the Commons, Ms Pochin said: 'Is he (Mr Lammy) able to explain to the House whether the United States felt unable to use the Diego Garcia base and have to refuel, in a highly dangerous operation three times because of that, because of your deal that you did with the with the Mauritians, that would then tell the Chinese, that would then tell the Iranians?' Mr Lammy replied: 'The honourable lady has got (to) get off social media, has got to get some help… because she is swallowing conspiracy theories that should not be repeated in this House.' The deal over the Chagos Islands follows a 2019 advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice which says the islands should be handed over to Mauritius. As well as establishing a £40 million fund for Chagossians, the UK has agreed to pay Mauritius at least £120 million a year for 99 years in order to lease back the Diego Garcia base – a total cost of at least £13 billion in cash terms. During the statement on Monday, Mr Lammy was pressed by MPs on the UK's position following the US military action. Conservative MP Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) said: 'Does His Majesty's Government support or oppose US military action against Iran at the weekend?' Mr Lammy replied: 'His Majesty's Government will continue to work with our closest ally, as I was last week in Washington DC.' Liberal Democrat MP Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) said: 'What is UK Government policy on whether regime change should be pursued in Iran?' Mr Lammy replied: 'It is not our belief that it's for us to change the regime of any country, that it must be for the people themselves.' SNP MP Brendan O'Hara (Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber) said: 'We've been here for an hour, and still the Foreign Secretary appears incapable of saying whether he supports or condemns America's actions, or whether he regards them as being legal or not. 'And nowhere in this statement does the role of international law even merit a mention. So will the Foreign Secretary take this opportunity now to tell us whether he believes that America's unilateral action was compliant with international law?' Mr Lammy replied: 'I've got to tell (Mr O'Hara), I qualified and was called to the bar in 1995, I haven't practised for the last 25 years. 'It is not for me to comment on the United States' legal validity. I would refer him to article 51 and article two of the UN Charter, and he can seek his own advice.'
