Kedgley Sue: Taxation (Canterbury Earthquake Measures) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Kedgley Sue: Taxation (Canterbury Earthquake Measures) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:672;Page:19028] 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party is very happy to join all parties in this House in supporting the Taxation (Canterbury Earthquake Measures) Bill which will give a degree of relief in varying ways to the people of Canterbury. It is of course sorely needed. 
Under the bill welfare contributions by employers to employees will not be subject to income or fringe benefit tax for the 8 weeks after the earthquake. It would be perverse in the extreme to consider putting a tax on the goodwill of Canterbury employers on those who unselfishly contributed to the well-being of their employees at a time when there was acute hardship and suffering. The contributions that employers made to their employees were in varying forms: in cash in accommodation and in goods. None of these wonderfully generous contributions ought to be subject to penalty given the circumstances of that giving. That is why we support the rather unusually retrospective tax provisions in this bill. 
However we record our concern yet again at the circumventing of the democratic process in getting this bill through Parliament. Because the bill was actually tabled on 4 May there would have been ample time to have a select committee hearing. People asked that there be a select committee process and there would have been ample time since 4 May to have allowed a select committee process even of a week or two. But yet again it seems as though we have just got into the habit of circumventing the democratic process by rushing through the House this sort of bill—everything to do with Canterbury—circumventing a select committee and putting the House under urgency when as in this case there was no need. The bill was tabled on 4 May and it is now 19 May so there would have been time to allow the people of Canterbury to have some say and to make some submissions on this bill. 
I would also like to record our concern that in the regulatory impact statement that accompanies this bill the Inland Revenue Department talks about the fact that the very constrained time frame the department said it had had “severely limited the depth of research and analysis that had been able to be undertaken.” The department goes on to acknowledge that a significant degree of uncertainty is involved where fiscal cost estimates have been made. That is a little bit of a concern. The whole thing has been rushed. The department also goes on to say that there have been difficulties in accurately estimating the amount of employer welfare support the proportion of that support that would be treated correctly for tax purposes and so on and so forth. 
I just want to record a bit of concern there but principally we want to express our concern that every bill in respect of Canterbury has been introduced under urgency without a select committee process. In fact ironically it goes right back to the first Canterbury legislation that circumvented democracy which was the legislation before this House to get rid of Environment Canterbury. That democratically elected regional council was wiped out under urgency—well the democratically elected representatives were removed under urgency in 24 hours. Once again there was no ability for a select committee and no ability for the people of Canterbury to have their input. Then we have had a succession of bills relating to the Canterbury earthquake that have once again circumvented the democratic process and given what can be described only as Draconian powers to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery namely Gerry Brownlee. 
The other thing I want to mention is that we are delighted to support the bill which does as I say provide some relief to the people of Canterbury in varying ways. But the bigger question remains about the rebuild of Canterbury. We still cannot understand 1 day out from the Budget why this Government refused to introduce an earthquake levy. The people of New Zealand have made it clear in polls and in many ways that they are only too happy to contribute to an earthquake levy—a tax to help with the rebuild of Christchurch. But the Government refused to introduce a levy and instead effectively we will be borrowing to enable the Canterbury rebuild. We think this is extremely unfortunate. I suspect the reason is that the Government likes the idea that we are financially stretched because then that gives its members the excuse to go out wring their hands and say that they simply have to sell off all the remaining assets of New Zealand—our State-owned assets etc. It gives them that excuse. 
The other option is to increase revenue through things such as having a Canterbury earthquake levy and other suggestions we have made such as a capital gains tax other than on the family home. But no the Government wants to get rid of debt without increasing revenue at all. We see it also here in Canterbury. That is a fundamental problem that will come back to haunt us. Yes it is all very well that we have these inflated Treasury estimates of growth in the economy but most people are saying that they are completely unrealistic so what will happen then? 
I come back to this bill. We are very pleased to support it. We want to put on record our regret that yet again it has been introduced under urgency. Yet again we are not allowing the people of Canterbury to have a say on this bill which will affect them in varying ways. Yet again we have abandoned the select committee process and we are ramming this bill through the House. This seems to be becoming a pattern in this term of Parliament. It is an extremely worrying pattern. It is almost like we are abandoning the habit of democracy the habit of having a select committee process and the habit of allowing people to be heard. I hope we do not get into the habit of just constantly ramming things through when it comes to Canterbury without respecting the democratic process. Thank you.