Rurawhe Adrian; Woodhouse MichaelPart 3 Amendments to other enactmentsCHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Members we now come to the debate on Part 3. This is the debate on clauses 66 to 102 containing amendments to other enactments. The question is that Part 3 stand part.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you Mr Chair. It was a bit previous before the dinner break on my tabled amendment to GST on roaming charges and so I'm very happy to take a call on it now and ask the Minister a couple of questions. But before I do and in relation to that I want to quote the report the Finance and Expenditure Committee received from our independent specialist tax adviser Therese Turner someone whom I have very high regard for. She's fiercely intelligent on these matters and she doesn't take a backward step. In her overall comment on the bill she said this: I'm of the view that making significant changes at the select committee stage of a bill is fraught with the danger of unintended consequences as it's impossible to identify and deal with every practical situation to which changes may apply." I find that both prophetic and ironic given what we've just been debating that we've had for some hours and that the finance committee wasn't even able to consider changes to it because it never went to that.In respect of GST on outbound mobile roaming services the committee heard a number of very very smart people saying this is not necessary. They were strongly opposed to it. Chartered Accountants Australia and New Zealand said the changes were inconsistent with the destination principle. The proposals seek to impose GST on a supply which is consumed outside of New Zealand. That's the fundamental principle of the GST Act which for 35 years has been lauded as the exemplar globally because of its comprehensive nature. There are very few exceptions to the tax on goods and services provided. One of them—well it's not even an exception; it's zero rated—is exports and this isn't even an export. This is something that is not even provided in New Zealand to a person who's in New Zealand. I mean it breaches every principle of the Goods and Services Tax Act. The Corporate Taxpayers Group which successive Ministers of Revenue used to listen to said the changes will result in costly software upgrades for the telecommunications industry. Deloitte says the revenue that may be obtained from this measure is minimal and not commensurate with the costs involved. So not only is it wrong in principle it's wrong practically because an efficient tax system seeks to raise more revenue than it costs to collect. Now this is a very interesting nuance to that principle because the costs of collection don't fall on IRD; they actually fall on agents who are not even gaining the revenue and so this is just wrong all round. Ms Turner made a recommendation to the committee that the measure be withdrawn from the bill and be reconsidered at a time when international travel settles into its new normal. So I do want to hear from the Minister about whether he took advice from officials on that because I know they were pretty firm in committee that they didn't agree that this broke any of the principles but also just to inform him as he now knows that I have tabled an amendment that deletes these clauses altogether because the sensible thing to do and the advice that we received from our adviser was let's not put this through in haste. It may have significant consequences not necessarily for IRD but for the people who are going to be charged with reporting that revenue and essentially collecting it on behalf of the Crown. So I'm just trying to remember which of the clauses they are now. We're now where? Part 3. I should probably find it. We should just dispense with it. This is not necessary. It's not good law it's not efficient law and it breaches every principle of that very very good piece of legislation the Goods and Services Tax Act. And as I come to it—here we are—I will be able to inform the House that the relevant clauses that I seek to delete are—lost to me.Hon Gerry Brownlee: 85.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: 85 is that right? Thank you Mr Brownlee. They're unnecessary and my amendment which I seek members' support to agree with is that those clauses be deleted."