Cosgrove Clayton: Taxation (Residential Land Withholding Tax GST on Online Services and Student Loans) Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCosgrove Clayton: Taxation (Residential Land Withholding Tax GST on Online Services and Student Loans) Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 12 April 2016. Volume:713;Page:10380. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour): Who needs John Shewan when we have that member David Bennett? The Government could have saved a lot of money by having a special inquiry appointing that member as an absolute expert on all things in respect of taxation. But I will move on from his fiscal prowess.There is an old adage in respect of tax that for a tax system to be credible with users it has to be simple it has to be transparent and it has to be consistent—consistent. Looking at new section 209A inserted by clause 26 of the bill and the other provisions around student loans I want to ask the Minister in the chair Michael Woodhouse a question in a comparable sense. We have taxation agreements with Australia in respect of liable-parent contributions. I do not want to track into that too much but I want to ask him a question around the inquiries that he may well have made of our Australian counterparts in respect of their robustness in doing their part of the deal in terms of the collection of student loans.In my experience having represented some constituents over the years when it comes to liable-parent contributions there is always an argument that is made that when you go to the Australian side of the coin—the Australian inland revenue service the Australian Taxation Office—they have got a bit of an attitude that says “We’ll get to that when we can” whereas our Inland Revenue Department in terms of policing on our side of the fence in respect of Australians tends to be a little more vigorous in terms of meeting our obligations with our Australian cousins. But it has been said by many a constituent that when they are trying to deal with their liable-parent contributions and representations are made to the Australian Taxation Office it does not prioritise this in a great way—it gets to it when it can as per its other work. I am being colloquial but that is the feedback that comes through from people.I suppose my question to the Minister is: have there been any representations made to the Australian Taxation Office in terms of what priority it will give in the collection of student loans and information sharing to doing its half of the work if you like in its jurisdiction? I think that is a fair question to ask and I look forward to an answer.As I said—and I know the previous speaker David Bennett did not touch on these issues—fundamentally there needs to be consistency within a tax framework. Simplicity and transparency: they are the fundamental tenets for the tax system to gain credibility with those who use it. It is worth making the comparison as Mr Robertson did with the level of detail that is required to be disclosed to the Australian Taxation Office in respect of new section 209A(1) (2) and (3) where we are talking about the borrower’s name—or any other name they may have been known by—date of birth tax file number and last known address and contact details. You are almost asking for the borrower’s shoe size with the length and depth of information that is required to be disclosed and passed on.Many would argue that that is fair enough. Like many members of this House many moons ago before I came in here I had a student loan. I was lucky enough to get a decent job and pay it back and I think most students just like most taxpayers would argue that they should meet their obligations. Many struggle because of the nature of the income—or lack of it—that they get but I think most fair-minded Kiwis would say that they will meet their obligations. However if you compare the depth and detail in the requirements under new section 209A with other parts of the tax system—the policing of foreign trusts for instance but I know that is a quarantined subject. It has had razor wire put around it in this House; we are not allowed to talk about it. Somehow it is like some disease that has come in here that has infected the place but we have got to pretend that it does not exist. What is it? Suspension of disbelief I think is the technical term that people use from time to time. If you compare the requirements on a student with the requirements on those who use foreign trusts within a jurisdiction you have got to ask: does this bill and does that matter though it is secondary to this discussion meet the test of a consistent transparent simply-put-together tax system and tax framework? I ask the Minister whether he could provide us with some information on that.There seems to be a gross inconsistency. No one is arguing that the requirements in new section 209A inserted by clause 26 are not required or are onerous or are too tough. What people are asking the Minister of Revenue is whether he still agrees with the tenet that a tax system should be transparent and consistent.