Taxation (Canterbury Earthquake Measures) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Taxation (Canterbury Earthquake Measures) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:672;Page:19022] 
Taxation (Canterbury Earthquake Measures) Bill 
First Reading 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Minister of Revenue) 
: 
 I move  
That the Taxation (Canterbury Earthquake Measures) Bill be now read a first time. 
 This bill is necessary because our tax laws were never designed to cover such extraordinary circumstances as have befallen the people of Canterbury in the last few months. The bill provides relief and support through the tax system to both the people and the businesses of Canterbury as they seek to recover from the earthquakes. This bill will provide income tax and gift duty relief on trading stock that a business has donated from 4 September 2010 up to 31 March 2012 for the purpose of relief from the adverse effect of the Canterbury earthquakes. This relates to those situations where a number of businesses have provided trading stock from their own businesses to assist those affected by the earthquake and to help with the necessary recovery efforts. Ordinarily such donated trading stock would attract tax as a person disposing of trading stock for less than market value is deemed to have disposed of that stock at market value. This is an anti-avoidance measure and although there are good reasons for its existence in normal circumstances this bill provides for tax relief for such donations in relation to the earthquakes. 
Similarly the bill proposes making tax-free certain welfare contributions provided by employers to their employees within 8 weeks of either the original 4 September 2010 earthquake or the 22 February 2011 earthquake. Many employers have responded with praiseworthy charitable instincts to provide their employees who are affected by the earthquakes with a range of welfare benefits including cash goods and accommodation. Current tax law often treats such benefits as income and therefore tax would be payable on those benefits at this time. Imposing such tax however on welfare payments to these people in these extraordinary circumstances seems quite inappropriate and it would result in arbitrary outcomes depending on the nature of the benefits provided. The Government is proposing several parallel tax exemptions using the Ministry of Social Development’s job loss cover payment which was at the rate of $400 a week tax-free for 8 weeks as a basis. 
Another measure the bill proposes is a practical one to extend the availability of the redundancy tax credit which had been due to end on 31 March to 30 September this year. Members will recall that the redundancy tax credit was repealed following Budget 2010 but had been extended following the September 2010 Canterbury earthquake. The tax credit was designed to ensure that people were not moved into a higher tax bracket due to their receiving a redundancy payment. This extension is not limited to redundancy payments resulting from the Canterbury earthquakes; the provision is being generally extended. 
The bill also provides reassurance to families who rely on Working for Families tax credits. The definition of “income” for Working for Families was broadened from 1 April this year to include cash gifts the payment of expenses and certain other payments. This could also include donations of cash or provisions to support a relative who had been affected by the earthquakes. The amendment proposed in this bill would apply in relation to an event that meets the criteria for an emergency event including the Canterbury earthquakes. Under the amendment the Commissioner of Inland Revenue will be authorised to recognise the emergency event and to ignore the support provided by relatives to affected families when determining Working for Families tax credits. I point out—because I know that at least one party in the House has raised this as an issue of concern already—that the definition of an emergency will be that contained in the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002 and the discretion being applied to the Commissioner of Inland Revenue will be in relation only to the particular event not to whether a particular payment made in response to that event qualifies. 
By removing unnecessary obstacles and tax compliance burdens at this challenging time the changes the bill introduces are designed to help the people and the economy of Canterbury recover. The Government has been committed from the outset to providing assistance to the people of Canterbury and this bill follows measures already in place. Members will recall for instance that on 28 March this year the Commissioner of Inland Revenue was granted through Order in Council the discretion to extend statutory tax dates so that businesses are not unfairly penalised for failing to meet tax obligations. In addition further earthquake-related depreciation changes will be brought to the House for consideration later this year. Those measures and the measures contained in this bill are practical ones. They are designed to provide much-needed help through the tax system and a measure of certainty to the people of Christchurch and Canterbury generally as they recover from the appalling events that they have been subject to in recent months. The aim fundamentally has to be to help those earthquake-stricken residents and businesses of Canterbury get back on to their feet and to help the people of Canterbury and the region as a whole play again in the future before too long the dominant role they have played in large areas of national life in the past. With a great deal of pleasure I commend this bill to the house. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 The Opposition of course supports the Taxation (Canterbury Earthquake Measures) Bill. Those of us who are from Canterbury and those members of Parliament—there have been many—who have visited the province in recent days weeks and months will know of the devastation that still exists in many parts of the province. We should acknowledge again the tragedies that occurred more recently on 22 February and leading from that the devastation that has occurred in the Christchurch central business district in the outer suburbs in the east in the electorate of the member for Port Hills and through Lyttelton Sumner and that area and in my own electorate specifically in Kaiapoi. And latterly in my patch in a superficial way there has been damage throughout not only many parts of the rural area but also the northern part of Christchurch and equally in the Selwyn district which was at one point the epicentre as it were of the original quake. 
Kiwis across New Zealand and in Canterbury specifically have shown a huge generosity of spirit. It was inspiring to those of us who were there and had been working in that area to find just how generous folk were. It was amazing. As a member of Parliament a city councillor or anybody else in a position of influence in these times of crisis one realises how generous people actually are and one realises the privileged position one is in because it gives one an ability to ring up all sorts of strange individuals entities and corporates and ask for help. I know personally that when I approached—as other colleagues have done in their patches—companies and individuals for food shelter and all sorts of commodities and assistance in the vast majority of cases the folks who were asked to assist did so immediately. 
I recall a chap called Dave Pilkington who runs a vegetable pack-house in Belfast. In the days after the initial quake I rang him. He is a packer of vegetables; he is not a producer of vegetables so he does not own them. The call had gone out from the Kaiapoi rugby clubrooms that there was a need for vegetables for the food bank. I recall ringing Dave who is the president of the Belfast Rugby Football Club—a great humanitarian and sporting aficionado—saying that the folks needed some help and asking whether he could provide anything. He said: “Well”—I could hear him scratching his head—“I do not actually own the vegetables; I pack them. They are owned by others. Give me 5 minutes.” He rang back and used some interesting and colourful language that when translated meant “To hell with it. I’ll sort it out.” Within a couple of hours a couple of truckloads of potatoes carrots and goodness knows what else turned up. I just raise that from personal experience as an illustration of how generous people are. I do not know how Mr Pilkington organised payment for that. I have a strong suspicion that it came out of his own pocket because he is a generous guy. 
I return to the bill. We support the bill. It would be a tragedy I think if somehow the generosity of employers—and many and most employers were very generous in providing goods and services a bit of top-up money time off and all sorts of other assistance to employees—fell within the net and was penalised through the tax system. I am pleased to see that the bill looks to future-proof as it were for future events. We hope they will not happen. We hoped that after the 4 September earthquake we would not experience a further major event but tragically we did. Certainly for those of us who live in Canterbury we are now all quite used to the aftershocks and the shakes that occur. People are under an extensive amount of stress. I think it is noteworthy as we proceed through this bill that this measure will take away a wee bit of stress. It is another little brick in the wall if you like to take another worry or another bit of stress off the shoulders of people. As I say it cuts down a bit of red tape as well. It cuts through that. It takes a weight off the mind of those people who especially in respect of their employees went the extra mile and were generous. 
It is worth noting as we reflect on this bill that all of us probably through our respective electorate offices from talking with Government agencies and non-governmental organisations dealing in the social sector and dealing with the welfare and care of people are aware that for folks the battle is not over. In fact for many it has just started. Thousands of people in Canterbury are living in difficult conditions. I know that my colleague Lianne Dalziel who is not here at this point—and I say that out of respect for her—would want it noted that in her area of the eastern suburbs of Christchurch there are people who are racked and stacked if you like six or 10 deep within their houses and who are without lavatories and without some of the necessities of life. I think it is worth within the context of this bill noting that for the record. The battle for these folks will be a long one. This bill goes some way as a contributing factor towards easing their struggle. They seek a pathway to get their lives back their jobs back their kids back into a routine and their houses back. They face a winter as we do in Christchurch and Canterbury that will be cold. There have been some difficulties with home heating. 
I note in passing given the lack of contention about this bill as opposed to the previous one that the money that has been put aside or committed to by the Government is $5.5 billion to assist Canterbury in its recovery from the earthquake. We welcome that as the people of Canterbury would welcome it. We do not know whether it is enough. Possibly none of us know whether it is enough. It has to be a case of whatever it takes to get our problems resolved. Christchurch is an engine room for this economy. It is our second-biggest city and Canterbury our second-biggest province. Given that the Government now has its own department it has wartime powers effectively to cut through all sorts of red tape and get on with it as the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery is fond of noting and given that it now has a bucket load of cash we look forward to the hastening of the recovery. There should be no excuses. The people of Canterbury would expect that and this bill is part of it. There should be no more delays. There should be an increased pace in respect of the recovery process leading to people getting back to a normal and fruitful life. This is critical. 
I suspect that the folks in Canterbury who are listening to this debate may not as with the previous bill take a lot of notice. Again I say that not out of any disrespect. They are focused on the here and now. It is difficult for people who are in grave difficulty within their homes and who face a high degree of uncertainty in terms of their livelihoods. We know that by 31 May the business support package comes off. We know that there are 67000 - odd employees who are depending on that and that businesses are in dire straits and on their knees. We do not know what will be put in place to replace that package. If people are sitting in a house that has no heating and no toilet have kids whose lives and education have been disrupted and have lost their job or have the uncertainty and inability to predict whether their job or business will be there then life ain’t too great for them at this point or for our communities. This bill will go some way towards easing that. People should not have to be looking over their shoulder saying: “Hang on. Do I have tax liability because I was generous?”. I am pleased as I say that the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery has put in a future-proofing provision so that if we find ourselves in difficult circumstances whether it be the difficulties in Hawke’s Bay or caused by the tornado on the North Shore if it is warranted and if the circumstances fit within the definition then the Commissioner of Inland Revenue can move and if you like with the flick of a switch can put these mechanisms in place. I think this will encourage people not that they need it because they are Kiwis and Kiwis are always generous to continue with their generosity and look after their fellow man or woman. 
We support this legislation. It is common sense. It will reduce the burden the worry and some stress on our people. But I just say in passing and I am sure the media somewhere are listening that the battle for Cantabrians goes on and the focus on that for the rest of the country should not be forgotten. We support the bill. 
CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) 
: 
 I fully and totally acknowledge the sentiments and the tone of the previous speaker Clayton Cosgrove and of the Minister of Revenue who moved the first reading motion on this bill. It is interesting that there can be such a response to all things taxation which is generally somewhat boring. I know it has made us all excited over the last day or so. 
The previous speaker noted that New Zealanders are generous and when we listen to the radio or to those in this House it is interesting to note the change in tone as we all focus on what is a human tragedy an economic disaster and a very very high mountain that has been put in front of our country for us to climb. 
I note sadly that the bill is future-proofed but we note that that is quite prudent. Let us hope we do not have to use the key items in the bill—the taxation parts of it and the friendliness of them. Let us hope we do not have to use those in the foreseeable future. I think we may find that the entire House is getting behind this bill. I fully acknowledge all members of the House and the Minister of Revenue for putting this bill together in a rapid response to help our friends our whanau our family and our fellow New Zealanders in Canterbury. 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
: 
 It is unusual having had such heated debate over the Government’s slashing of KiwiSaver to now move into a bill on which I guess the entire Parliament will agree. It is a better way in terms of our stress levels and in terms of our ability to have a good and productive weekend. It does not reduce of course the anger frustration and literal pain that so many people will now go through though as a result of the Government slashing KiwiSaver in the Budget yesterday. But I add my support to the support already expressed by my colleague the member of Parliament for Waimakariri Clayton Cosgrove for the Taxation (Canterbury Earthquake Measures) Bill 2011. I commend the Minister of Revenue the Hon Peter Dunne who is part Cantabrian and part Wellingtonian. He resides in Wellington at the moment but I guess by the end of November he might be returning to his home base in Christchurch for some well-earned retirement time. I commend him though for introducing this bill. 
It is a bit of a shame that the bill is so late in coming to this Parliament. The first major earthquake in Christchurch was in September last year. That was 8½ months ago so we now have legislation that not only is quite late and therefore for a lot of people will be past the time when it would have most benefited them but very unusually contains retrospective taxation provisions. It is pretty unusual for this House to have introduced such legislation let alone for the entire Parliament to have agreed on it. 
One of the questions I will be asking the Hon Peter Dunne when we move to the Committee stage later on tonight is exactly what data the Inland Revenue Department provided to him during the preparation of this legislation and what understanding he has gained about the size of the issue the Inland Revenue Department is facing in terms of people who between 4 September and now would have committed actions that will now be covered by this different taxation provision. I will be asking those questions. The officials can start preparing the answers now to advise the Minister; I am giving the officials a bit of an advance shot on those ones but I have some other questions I will be asking the Minister too. 
This bill is supported and its passage will be unusual in that not only will it be supported but it will go through all stages of the House in one go—we will do the first reading the second reading the Committee stage and the third reading sometime between now and tomorrow or whenever the House rises. That is unusual but it still does not mean that we should not give the specific provisions quite a lot of detailed attention in the Committee stage. I know that people are keen to get home but I hope that people like Craig Foss who has a lot of experience in taxation legislation by virtue of being the chair of the Finance and Expenditure Committee will take seriously a situation when we have retrospective tax legislation and when we should pay as much attention to the detail as is possible and sensible. I certainly hope the Minister takes those issues seriously as well during the Committee stage. 
There are four primary points in this legislation. They all relate to tax issues and they are all specifically tied to actions that have occurred as a result of the Canterbury earthquakes. As I said earlier the legislation is retrospective; it dates right back to 4 September 2010. The bill exempts from tax the gifts given by employers to employees in the first 8 weeks after either the 4 September 2010 quake or the 22 February 2011 quake. I do not know why the Boxing Day quake is not counted as a separate event; that is another issue. The dates are obviously different in that regard but it was actually a separate and significant event. During the Committee stage I will ask why we did not count that earthquake as well. People who were in Christchurch on Boxing Day will share their experiences for anyone who doubts that it was anything other than a significant event. 
The second point is that the legislation allows the Commissioner of Inland Revenue to declare an emergency event during which time contributions to aid families will be excluded from a personal family income scheme. As Craig Foss noted in his contribution this legislation is future-proofed. I share his view: we do not want to have another such incident but it is really good that the Hon Peter Dunne thought of that in advance and said we should not have to put through such legislation again in the future. Instead we should say that this legislation can be triggered if any comparable event occurs in the future. 
The bill delays the removal of tax credits for people receiving redundancy payments from 1 April 2011 to 1 October 2011. I certainly support that provision; it is a good one. But again during the Committee stage I will be stating that if it is good enough for people who lost their jobs as a result of the earthquake to have fairness accorded to them—and I welcome that—I do not understand why it is not good enough for workers who have lost their jobs in other circumstances to have fairness accorded to them as well. We should not have unfair provisions on our statute book at all so it will be an opportunity for the Minister to extend that provision much more broadly. 
The fourth point covered in this legislation is that it creates tax exemptions for businesses donating trading stock to people affected by the earthquakes. Those are substantial changes and on behalf of my constituents I join the other Canterbury electorate MPs in welcoming that support for Cantabrians. Many people whom I know saw the events of both September and February on the news watched it for a few days and felt horrified. Then they watched what happened in Japan and thought that that was worse and it was. Then they forgot about Canterbury. In fact quite a lot of people are surprised when I tell them that it is not all fixed. People in our city have lost family members have suffered significant injury and have lost friends and colleagues. Many have lost their jobs and their homes and many people are looking towards winter with a great deal of despondency because it will be for many a long cold hard winter. This package will give those people the feeling that Parliament is a little more relevant to their lives than sometimes they would think and that people in Parliament do give a toss about how things are going in Canterbury. I hope it is with a totally united voice that we can welcome the support that the Hon Peter Dunne has introduced into this legislation. 
But this bill cannot be the end of the support. We know that in the Budget yesterday a packet of money was given to Canterbury. The specificity—or lack of it—was quite frustrating and many people are saying they do not know whether it is enough; we do not even really know what it will be used for. The scale of the gap in support is not yet determined. I certainly welcome the amount of funding in the Budget. I am not in total agreement with the way it has been given and I hope the fact that Canterbury’s support is so significant does not cause resentment from other people around the country. 
We know that since both major incidents since 4 September and 22 February—and the Boxing Day earthquake—Cantabrians have been overwhelmed by offers of support not just from people in their own city who were not as badly affected and who were in a position to help but also from people around the country and indeed around the world. This legislation formally recognises that the gifts given and the support offered were a huge help not only in practical terms but also in emotional terms for people in Canterbury and it recognises that the Government can do its bit by removing the tax burden that may have been attracted as a result of that generosity. It is entirely appropriate that the Government looks at that generosity and says it is fantastic. That is how Kiwis around the world people from other countries and people from within Canterbury itself have responded to other people’s need—with support generosity and offers of help. The Government has said that that is a fine thing and now the Government as a result of that generosity wants to do its bit as well to make sure we do not slice off a bit as tax take. It is a good bill and I support its progress. 
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. 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 I am pleased to stand and speak to the Taxation (Canterbury Earthquake Measures) Bill to discuss the proposed measures to deal with taxation issues arising from the earthquakes that occurred on 4 September 2010 and 22 February 2011 and affected the entire Canterbury region. 
This bill is absolutely necessary to enable the communities of Christchurch to respond to and recover from the impacts of the Canterbury earthquakes. There are dual purposes: the restoration and rehabilitation of communities left shattered by the natural disasters and the rebuilding of the Greater Christchurch area. The Maori Party has actively supported the rebuilding of the Maori community in Otautahi. In doing so we have been very aware of the impressive iwi contribution to the recovery effort of this scale. Iwi organisations sent donations and people to support relief efforts including ropu from Te Arawa Tainui Ngati Rarua and Ngati Whatua. Enormous containers of supplies were distributed from Pipitea marae here in Wellington. In short there has been a systematic effort by iwi to support relief and reconstruction. 
In the immediate aftermath of the quake marae opened their doors to all people in search of refuge food and accommodation. The marae in Otautahi became command centres for different agencies: Maori sectors of the police the Fire Service health providers Te Puni Kokiri Maori media Ngai Tahu and so on. Seventy Watene Maori assisted police and non-governmental organisations with checking on people in the hot spots. In other rohe Takitimu Te Arawa Tai Tokerau whanau arrived either in transit or returning home to an uncertain future. And of course this weekend we are gearing up for the global telethon being led by Maori Television:  
Rise Up Christchurch—Te Kotahitanga 
. I was really moved by the words of Maori Television chief executive Jim Mather: “ 
Rise Up Christchurch—Te Kotahitanga 
 will inspire and unite New Zealanders across the globe to support the people of Christchurch as they ‘Rise Up Christchurch’ from this challenge that Papatuanuku has presented”. 
This bill then the Taxation (Canterbury Earthquake Measures) Bill falls well within the context of the leadership that Maori communities and whanau have already shown leading up to this point. We must ensure that the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority learns from this lesson and leans on this leadership. And we can apply that same thinking to the proposed measures to deal with taxation issues arising from the earthquakes. A focused and timely recovery of Greater Christchurch and its communities will be assisted by all of us pitching in. So we support the intention of this bill to exempt from fringe tax and fringe benefit tax certain welfare contributions made by some employers to their employees in the 2 months after each of the two big earthquakes; provide income tax and gift duty relief to businesses that donated trading stock with the intention of helping alleviate the impact of the Canterbury earthquakes and their aftershocks from 4 September 2010 to 31 March 2012; provide a discretion to exclude from the “other payments” category of income for Working for Families certain payments made to people adversely affected by the Canterbury earthquakes and similar events; and extend the redundancy tax credit by 6 months to 30 September 2011. 
These proposals will work in a number of ways. It is proposed that a tax exemption applies where targeted welfare in the form of cash including pro rata payments to Canterbury staff and/or goods and services have been provided to known staff. Some employers have provided emergency accommodation for their staff. It is also proposed that this be tax-exempt. Some employers have made welfare contributions that fall into sundry benefits available to all staff and targeted welfare to known recipients. It is proposed that these welfare-type benefits be tax-exempt for compliance and equity reasons where they are unclassified benefits that are generally available to all staff and provided in the 8 weeks after both the Canterbury earthquake and the Christchurch one. These benefits have an obvious welfare intention. 
In essence this bill is both pragmatic and technical in its application. Having said so however I would be very interested to learn from the Minister what the response of mana whenua has been to the provisions included within the bill. In a recent submission to Parliament Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu stated: “Like the Crown and local government we are a perpetual presence with histories aspirations and accountabilities to contribute to the recovery and rebuilding of Christchurch.” The Maori Party has therefore been very pleased that Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu is explicitly stated as one of the entities that the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority must work alongside and that Ngai Tahu and other Maori will be included in the community forum.  
Mana whenua must remain an essential part of the recovery strategy and have help to lead development of the central business district recovery plan and other statutory plans. To this end whether it be about employer welfare contributions targeted welfare tax relief for donated trading stock tax relief for other categories of income for Working for Families or a redundancy tax credit such details should still benefit from ample consideration with Ngai Tahu as to their application.  
We support the measures included in this bill and we believe that they represent a commitment to doing whatever it takes to give the people of Canterbury every opportunity to respond to and recover from the impacts of the Canterbury earthquakes. We are happy to support this bill. 
AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) 
: 
 I am very happy to take a call on the first reading of the Taxation (Canterbury Earthquake Measures) Bill. It really is quite heart-warming and humbling to stand in the House and hear support from all parties and to hear the kind words of members from all around the country expressing their support for the people of Canterbury. As my Cantabrian colleague the Hon Ruth Dyson mentioned in her contribution all of the Canterbury MPs are certainly very grateful for what this House and the Government have done to support them. This bill is another example of that support. 
The context in which we have to look at this bill and measures like it—although obviously it sounds trite to say—is that these were an extraordinary set of events. They were like nothing else we have ever experienced. Proportional to the size of our country the earthquakes were one of the biggest events of this type that any of us can remember. Normal rules just cannot apply. We cannot look to address and deal with this issue by using our normal parameters. The flavour of all of the legislative response we have made to the Canterbury earthquakes was that they are too big and too serious and we have to look at them through a new one-off purpose-built lens. Really this bill is the taxation continuation of that line of thought. 
It simply would not be right to penalise people or to apply a financial cost to people who simply have reacted to need as they saw it. That is what happened in Canterbury after both of these earthquakes. There was tremendous need and people just reacted. They just did what they saw they could do to help. That is an amazing thing to watch and to be part of. It really gives me incredible hope for the future of our country. It gives me incredible pride in our people. When something like this happens there is no distinction division race age or barrier. It is simply a case of people helping people. This bill is about saying that where people have helped each other in this time of need there is no way that we as a Government will now say we will assess them for gift duty on that help or look at the tax implications of the stock that they put aside for welfare. 
This is the sort of thing that everybody can see the wisdom in. Across the House we have certainly heard that widespread support. It is just another way we are working to help Canterbury in every way we can. I thank the people from all over New Zealand who continue to understand that we need special circumstances at this time and I thank them for their willingness to do what they can to continue to support Canterbury as it goes through this terribly difficult period of rebuilding. I commend the bill to the House. 
STUART NASH (Labour) 
: 
 We are certainly having an afternoon of two halves. Anyone who has been following the debate on television will know that we have debated in urgency one piece of tax legislation that has been vigorously opposed by the Opposition and the Greens and that we are now debating another piece of tax legislation—the Taxation (Canterbury Earthquake Measures) Bill—that we absolutely support. So we have chalk and cheese here. I suppose this is a classic example of how all parties in this Parliament work together when New Zealanders in a time of need expect Parliament to work together to not be churlish and to stand up for their rights and for what is right. That is what the Taxation (Canterbury Earthquake Measures) Bill represents. 
As we know tax legislation can be very complex. It can also be very complicated. Tax legislation can be used in a number of ways but as this legislation stands it is being used to provide short-term relief and respite in a time of need. As Amy Adams said and as both Clayton Cosgrove and Ruth Dyson have outlined these are unusual times. The last time there was an earthquake of this size and magnitude in this country it happened in Napier the city I come from. Over 250 people died in that earthquake. It was an event of enormous magnitude. It was not until the earthquake in Christchurch that we saw the same level of devastation in this country that we saw in 1931. I said to one of my colleagues that the irony is that probably 3 weeks before the Christchurch earthquake I was sitting on stage commemorating the 80th anniversary of the Hawke’s Bay earthquake. Two weeks later we had the Christchurch earthquake. 
When my colleague Brendon Burns came to Napier he spoke to the people of Napier. There is a guy there called Robert McGregor who is in charge of our Art Deco Trust. Robert McGregor is acknowledged not just in Napier and New Zealand but globally as a real expert on how to reconstruct a city on how to build it up again and on what needs to be done. He is also an expert on the history of Napier. Brendon and Robert had a great talk about how Napier did it. We are talking about an event 80 years ago of course and society has changed. 
Brendon Burns 
: Hardly yesterday for some of us. 
STUART NASH 
: Yes it is hardly yesterday. We can still learn lessons from the past. There is no doubt about that and I think Brendon took some of those lessons back. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Use the member’s full name. 
STUART NASH 
: Brendon Burns took some of those messages back. 
Brendon Burns 
: A very good member. 
STUART NASH 
: Brendon Burns is a very good member. In fact I think the people of Christchurch Central are very lucky to have an MP like Brendon Burns someone with a cool head and nerves of steel who can assess a situation and work incredibly hard in the most trying of circumstances. I know that when Brendon Burns and his wife Philippa Burns came up to Napier for a bit of a rest and to talk to Robert and look at what Napier had done he said it was the first time in months that he had been able to get away and have a decent sleep. Having not lived in Christchurch I cannot understand the stress that the earthquake placed on the people of Christchurch but from talking to my colleagues I realise that that stress was absolutely enormous. The way Brendon Ruth Clayton and Lianne have dealt with the stress— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: You must use members’ full names or titles in the Chamber. 
STUART NASH 
: The way that Brendon Burns Ruth Dyson Clayton Cosgrove and Lianne Dalziel have coped with the stress and have really advocated incredibly hard for constituents in very trying times has been admirable. There is no doubt about that. 
This legislation I think—and I am happy to be corrected—sets a precedent in terms of getting legislation through in a hurry to alleviate the stress and suffering of New Zealand citizens. I am not too sure whether I am right there but I believe I am right. Just a small note of caution here: we must ensure that this precedent is not abused. I do not think it would be but when one sets a precedent there are flow-on effects. We need to make sure that it is not abused and I doubt that it will be. I say that constructively; I am not saying that negatively. I am just saying that we all know that the magnitude of this has been significant so if this type of legislation is ever considered again then we must be sure it is for an event that actually warrants it. That is all I will say on that. 
There are a couple of questions. I think my colleague the Hon Ruth Dyson has raised a couple of those questions and I will mention them as I go through the bill or maybe even in the Committee stage. Although we support this bill wholeheartedly we would like a couple of these questions answered just so that in our minds we know that this is robust legislation and that it really does serve the people of Christchurch because that is the most important thing. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Canterbury. 
STUART NASH 
: Sorry Canterbury. How this legislation came about is that after the earthquake on 22 February many individuals and businesses donated money or goods or supplied them at less than market value—and I think Clayton Cosgrove gave a classic case of that—to those affected by the Christchurch earthquake. Normally under law those people who supplied the goods would have to pay gift duty or maybe fringe benefit tax or other forms of taxation that go with the giving of gifts to people. 
As I think Ruth Dyson mentioned this is retrospective legislation—well of course it is retrospective because the earthquakes have happened. One of the important reasons that this legislation is going through is I am assuming that a lot of people—Clayton Cosgrove talked about some of them—forgot about process and did not understand gift duty rules. They just got up and helped. They went into their warehouses they went into their stores and they asked themselves what they needed to do to help the people of Christchurch. They did not give any consideration to gift duty or that sort of carry-on. They might not have even accounted for that stock; I am not too sure—and that is one of the questions we will ask. They might not have accounted for that stock. They might have just lifted the stock given it out and helped people who were in need. 
At what level do those people have to account for their stock? That is one of the questions we will ask. They are not liable for gift duty but I know for example that there are goods that are zero rated for GST and we will have to account for those. I am keen to know—and hopefully the Minister of Revenue will be able to tell us—at what level people who have given items will have to account for them. Will they have to put a return in even though there were no fiscal implications for the people themselves? 
The other thing that is most important—and it is most important with any tax legislation—is the integrity of the tax system. The integrity of the tax system is something that Labour has been talking about in the House for probably most of this week actually and just because this is a bill that helps with the relief of citizens in need that does not mean it does not have to meet that integrity test. That integrity test is vital. 
One thing I would like to point out is that if an employer has given an employee money or goods it does not mean that the employee is exempt from their own income tax. The employee still has to pay income tax as does everyone else around the country if they are getting paid income. Again I hope the Minister of Revenue will take some calls on this during the Committee stage and we can bring up questions then. 
There are a couple of other outcomes that are most important and one of them is to ensure that the tax treatment of goods donated as part of the Christchurch earthquake relief is appropriate. I would never suggest that someone would donate inappropriate goods or that it would be done in an inappropriate manner. What I am saying is that it must be considered to be appropriate and this is what this legislation covers and again it comes down to the integrity of the tax system. 
Also the revenue base must remain sufficiently intact. So for example this legislation does not exempt employees from paying income tax. It does not do that. Of course one of the most important things this legislation does and one of the most important things that any piece of legislation does is provide a level of certainty. I suspect that what happened a day or two a week or two or a month after the earthquake is that people got up and just gave a whole lot of stuff. Then at some point they probably went to their accountant or they were having a couple of beers with their lawyer or their next-door neighbour— 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: No wine with their lawyer. 
STUART NASH 
: OK wine—whatever. They were having a drink—it was probably a stiff whisky—and they were told: “Goodness me do you know the tax implication of what has happened?” and they said: “Oh shivers! That’s the last thing I was thinking about.” That is why the Inland Revenue Department received a lot of calls. We think this is a very good legislation and we commend it to the House. 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I thank all members of the House for the way in which they have approached the Taxation (Canterbury Earthquake Measures) Bill. First of all I thank my National colleagues who have dealt with the issues on the ground in Christchurch. We have a number of members in the House who have led the way for their region and through the leadership of the Hon Gerry Brownlee the National Party and the Government have delivered for the people of Christchurch. On the other side of the House we have a number of members also from Christchurch who have been very diligent in advocating for their issues in their areas as well. The way that they are contributing to this bill tonight shows their interest and their desire to make sure that we get the best result for Christchurch that we can. In the end I think that everybody around the country has seen the need and desire to support Christchurch at this time and we wish everyone the best on Sunday in the fund-raising effort to help to do that. 
This bill is something that should not take long to go through this House but that does not take away the magnitude of what we are doing here. This bill represents a time when New Zealanders came together to support fellow New Zealanders in their time of need and it is something that we need to do in this House from time to time. It represents the role of the Government. The bill has some technical taxation elements to it relating to areas such as effective contributions for the family scheme income the redundancy payment tax credit the donated trading stock and welfare contributions by employers to employees. In the end this is a bill that is in the best interests of Cantabrians. It shows the support that this Parliament can provide for all New Zealanders at this time through the Budget and we support this bill going through the House. 
BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 I will continue in the bipartisan spirit that has been displayed by this House; I think it is truly appropriate. I thank my colleague Stuart Nash for his fulsome acknowledgment of the role that I played but I also acknowledge all of the Canterbury MPs on both sides of the House and our Green colleague Kennedy Graham for the work that they have done and Rahui Katene too for her work on behalf of the Te Tai Tonga electorate and the Maori community in Christchurch. I think we have served our communities well through what has been the most extraordinarily difficult time. Of course we are not out of the woods yet. Obviously the winter is upon us and that will present its own challenges to us as a city but Parliament has shown that at times like this we can come together in the best interests of our communities. 
To give an example—picking up on the comments of the member for Hamilton East—on Monday night a exhibition opened in Hamilton of photographs taken by Fairfax photographers including some from the  
Waikato Times 
 photographers who came down to cover the enormous event of 22 February and its aftermath. One of those photographers is a chap called Chris Hillock a very fine and award-winning photographer for the  
Waikato Times 
. His mother Maggie Hillock who happens to be my campaign manager suggested the idea of having a photo exhibition which was backed by the  
Waikato Times 
—by Fairfax. Again in a bipartisan spirit I note that even though the exhibition was suggested by a Labour member and organised by the former MP for Hamilton East when the photograph from the exhibition appeared it was of the current MP for Hamilton West. It is a good example of the bipartisan spirit that is serving Canterbury well at this time. Of course over the weekend we will also see a huge global telethon supported by Maori Television in order to raise funds for our city and region in the wake of the enormous disaster of 22 February. 
The Taxation (Canterbury Earthquake Measures) Bill is a measure that assists in respect of donations that have been made by employers to their employees in the wake of the quake so that those donations do not affect the employees’ eligibility for Working for Families and other benefits. The amount that Working for Families pays in the Canterbury region is in the order of $300 million a year. Those payments are very welcome and they are enormously important to the more beleaguered communities although the payments were spread across the income spectrum. Some of those who have benefited most from Working for Families are in the hard-hit eastern suburbs of Christchurch including in parts of my electorate in Avonside and Richmond. This bill means that those employees will not have their eligibility for Working for Families payments affected by payments that employers might have given them in the wake of 22 February. That is very welcome. 
I also acknowledge the extraordinary outpouring of donations from the business community in the wake of the 22 February earthquake. I made it a practice on an almost daily basis from about day three or four in to go to the civil defence headquarters open the boot of my red beetle and fill it with goods that had been donated by companies from the length and breadth of New Zealand and in fact from further afield. I know that amongst the consignments I put into my boot was Australian-made Banana Boat sun cream and it was very welcome. The weather was still hot and people obviously were sometimes choosing to spend a lot a time outdoors because of the damage to their homes and businesses so that sunscreen was amongst the goods I took on a daily basis to the community groups trusts and organisations that were helping people. 
Torches had been donated there were batteries and there was water by the pallet-load because large parts of the city lost potable water for some days after the quake. There was flyspray which was quite useful for some households and a great quantity of rubber gloves and face masks. I have to confess that I still have some rubber gloves and face masks in the garage at home and I hope that they might be useful at some other point. I did not know quite who to give them back to once the need had passed but I guess they might be of some use later in the year if we have an outbreak of flu or anything similar. 
Those things were donated generously by businesses across New Zealand. This bill is in part making sure that those businesses will not have to pay tax on the goods they have donated to people affected by the quake. It is another indication of the national response. We have felt enormously heartened. It goes on. As I mentioned there was the photo exhibition opened as recently as Monday night of this week and an appeal to raise funds for the people of Canterbury will be launched this weekend on Maori Television with global support. Thinking of the comments made by a colleague from the Taranaki - King Country electorate earlier in the House during the debate on a previous bill I acknowledge the role Fonterra is playing in supporting that enormous fund-raising initiative. 
The only disquiet I would express about this bill is its timing. As we have seen a regulatory impact statement was prepared by Inland Revenue Department officials. I note that they concluded the statement and submitted it to Cabinet on 17 March—St Patrick’s Day if you like—3 weeks after the quake yet the bill was introduced on 4 May some 7 weeks later. I suggest that the lead time indicates that it might have provided the opportunity for us to scrutinise the legislation which is what we in this House would have preferred. With all due respect to the officials issues can often be picked up by the combined intelligence that comes through having the select committee process and having public input into it. It is really the best way through. 
A pattern is emerging here. I note that a Canterbury ram should be a sheep or a sports team; it should not be a Government habit in respect of legislation introduced to the House. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: There’s a few old wethers over there; a few two-tooths. 
BRENDON BURNS 
: Despite the temptation and the presence of some members opposite from rural electorates I will not pick up on the sheep analogies that my colleague the member for Waimakariri is starting to develop. I make the point again to the Government while trying to respect the bipartisan nature of the bill that where it is at all possible there should only be compelling circumstances in which legislation is not subject to the scrutiny of a select committee. The select committee process truly adds to our knowledge and to the rigour of the bill. It also means that we avoid two things. Firstly it avoids the prospect of Parliament having to come back to legislation because it was pushed through under urgency without any consideration. That is the process; that is what we should be following. Secondly it also means that the fish-hooks in the legislation can be picked up there and then. Those are the benefits of the select committee process. 
As Labour members have made clear we are keen to see the Taxation (Canterbury Earthquake Measures) Bill progressed. We will support it through all its stages. We have some concerns about the urgency that is being applied but this bill makes absolute sense for Canterbury at this time. Canterbury is still very much a community in need. We acknowledge that other Budget measures have provided the funding to pay for 60 percent of the restoration of Canterbury’s infrastructure. That has come through in earlier legislation than the Budget. This bill is an accompanying measure if you like. We are still nowhere near to being out of the woods in respect of the challenges we face as a community and as a city and a province and we will need every ongoing effort. 
One of the things that I think we need to do if we are to use urgency is to connect it to the rebuild of Christchurch. My colleague Stuart Nash mentioned the Napier example. On a final comment and note Napier rebuilt its central business district in 2 years flat—2 years flat—from absolute desolation. Everything was razed by the fire that followed the quake. Napier had an interim “tin town” where the commercial businesses were able to operate. That was a fantastic initiative. More building was done in Napier in those 2 years than in the whole of the rest of New Zealand. We need a sense of urgency not in the sense of a bill being pushed through the House under urgency but in the sense of the rebuild of Christchurch. I ask members to give their support to that urgency in respect of Christchurch’s future. 
PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 Malo Mr Assistant Speaker Robertson. I thank you for the opportunity to take a short call on the Taxation (Canterbury Earthquake Measures) Bill. In other speeches this afternoon we have heard widespread support for the bill. I do not wish to dwell too much on it. I will say that it receives support not just from our Canterbury MPs but also from those across the country. As was witnessed in the aftermath of both earthquakes affecting the Canterbury region the country and indeed the world responded in a compassionate and caring way. It is really about supporting and rebuilding Canterbury. Christchurch is New Zealand’s second-largest city. It is an important part of the economy and our country. Certainly it will not just be the Government’s role to rebuild Christchurch and Canterbury. 
The private sector has played a major part in the rebuild. I acknowledge the speaker opposite Brendon Burns who conceded that point because we do not often hear positive things about the private sector from members opposite. So I thank Mr Burns for at least conceding that point. 
There is a telethon on this Sunday and again people will be asked to dig deep to support that. There are also a number of fund-raising measures across the country. I will be attending one in my local electorate of Maungakiekie. The Royal Oak Racquets Club will hold a breakfast with a number of auction items. I know that there is a nice bottle of wine from the Prime Minister for auction next Friday morning and we will be doing our part in Maungakiekie to support the people of Canterbury. 
This bill is part of a number of measures that this Government has taken to respond to the catastrophe that occurred in Canterbury and Christchurch. It supports the Budget measures that were announced yesterday. This Government is committing $5.5 billion over the next 4 years to the reconstruction and rebuilding of our second-largest city. I support this bill and I am happy that members all around this Chamber are supporting this very good cause. Thank you. 
Bill read a first time. 
Second Reading 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture)  
on behalf of the  
Minister of Revenue 
: I move  
That the Taxation (Canterbury Earthquake Measures) Bill be now read a second time 
. To recap briefly the bill introduces a range of tax measures to assist people affected and help with the recovery efforts in Canterbury following the earthquakes there. The changes proposed include income tax and gift duty relief on trading stock businesses that have donated to the earthquake relief fund making certain welfare contributions made by employers to their employees tax-free extending the redundancy tax credit from its current end date of 31 March to 30 September 2011 and ensuring certain payments do not count as income where families receive Working for Families tax credits. 
The objectives of these changes in the bill are of course to help people. I am confident that the proposals in this bill will be helpful and practical. In March this year the original proposals for this bill were publicised. These attracted comment and suggestions from taxpayers and tax professionals which resulted in the eligible period for donated trading stock being changed from the original 4-month period for either earthquake. The bill proposes that trading stock donated in the period from 4 September 2010 up to 31 March 2012 will be eligible for the exemption. This change to support the realities people are facing in Canterbury gives me confidence that the measures this bill proposes will provide the help and support that people there really really need. I commend this bill to the House. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 As we said in the first reading of the Taxation (Canterbury Earthquake Measures) Bill and as it appears from the vote in its first reading there is unanimity on this bill. It is one of those unique times in this House when we all agree. As the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture on behalf of the Minister of Revenue said the bill ensures that people do not have to pay tax on donations they received from employers to help them in the wake of the earthquakes. My colleague Ruth Dyson raised an interesting question which we will be pursuing in the Committee stage. Under the law in respect of the Earthquake Commission there are now I think four—although I may be incorrect—registered or recognised earthquake events. There was 4 September obviously; Boxing Day; 22 February; and amongst those there was—and I recall it because it was a jolt—a 5.3 magnitude earthquake on a Saturday evening that I think is also recognised as an official earthquake event although I could be wrong. 
The question that arises out of this—and we do not inquire out of any malice or disrespect; we want this legislation to be as robust and effective as possible—that my colleague Ruth Dyson raised is it seems to encompass only the two major events which are the 8 weeks post - 4 September and the 8 weeks post - 22 February. I am sure the Minister will want to get his officials to rapidly provide him with an explanation in the Committee stage. It seems to us to present a slight anomaly. It is appropriate that this bill exempts employers and others who have been generous and have perhaps paid over the odds in terms of some income or have made some in-kind donations or given support to employees and others in respect of the two major events. However I am sure there are employees and others who may well have been impacted or have suffered as a result of the third or possibly fourth—if it is recognised—earthquake events. It seems to me in terms of consistency and also logic that this bill applies to those events. 
There is as I understand it a future-proofing clause in the legislation to allow for the Commissioner of Inland Revenue to trigger these provisions for future events—such as perhaps for example the Napier floods had they been of a significant proportion; or indeed as I said before the tornado in the North Shore had it been of a significant proportion. The question is why those other official events are not contained within the bill—or is there some other provision? If the intent was to do that and that has been missed through misadventure or a slight oversight will the provisions be amended by the Minister to ensure that those other events are catered for? 
Likewise it could be the case before this legislation is passed—and we do not wish this on anybody—that there is another official event. The jolts we get in Canterbury seem to be quite regular. We just want some assurance as to why those other historical events have not been included. 
There are some other issues in this legislation in respect of some of the technical points that will be raised in the Committee stage. I am interested to know the number of people—a likely projection if there is such; if we know or we can make a projection—who will be positively affected by it. I am also interested to know what level of declaration is required by businesses. I can give an analogy that may assist the Minister who I am sure is listening. In Rangiora we had a group called the Rangiora Express that materialised. Rangiora is their patch; it was like Rangiora’s own air force. A couple of fantastic chopper pilots emerged out of the ether under the stewardship of one Jayne Rattray and a number of other people. Jane is a local in that area. They decided they wanted to help people after that 22 February quake. A large number of donations were made by a number of organisations and I also know that a number of companies made a significant number of in-kind donations to their own employees. We would like to know what sorts of accounting processes have to be put in place in order for those issues to be addressed to satisfy the requirements of this bill. Whilst I note that this is an attempt to cut down red tape businesses may be in a position where they do not have—possibly through the effects of a natural disaster—the ability to account for those goods and services in respect of GST income etc. I think that needs to be addressed perhaps more properly in the Committee stage. 
There are also issues in respect of advertising and promotion to make commercial organisations aware that this exemption if you will or this facility will exist. What guidance will be provided to organisations given that we are not in a “business as usual” period? 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7 p.m. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Before the dinner break I was in the process of raising a number of questions. As Canterbury members on this side of the Chamber have spent the dinner break diligently researching a number of issues in respect of this bill there is one thing I and colleagues would be interested to ask the Minister or to get some background from the Minister about. The purpose of the bill is stated as being to create tax exemptions for businesses donating trading stock to people affected by the earthquakes. A question arises as to what level of accountability paperwork declaration and administrative activity will be required presumably to account for that. I was in the process of using as an example the Rangiora Express. For the uninitiated I will explain that the Rangiora Express started its own as it were air force. Helicopter pilots were engaged to fly hot meals to the eastern suburbs of Christchurch in the Hon Lianne Dalziel’s electorate. As part of that initiative I recall that the local McDonald’s shop or whatever— 
Stuart Nash 
: Restaurant. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
:—restaurant donated a large amount of its product. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: This was before the Double Down burger. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: No it was not the Double Down burger. I am told that there is another member of this House who is more proficient in takeaway food than I am I say to my colleague but I do not believe that he is within the precinct. Anyway that food was donated and the question then arises say for that business as a lot of material and food was donated by other providers and businesses as to what level of accountability is required to account for that product so as to gain this bill’s tax exemption. I am assuming that the intent of this bill is actually to cut down any red tape and to make it administratively easy for those businesses to get through this. As a colleague said and I think it might have been Brendon Burns in the hours and days after the 22 February quake especially businesses moved very swiftly to donate. We would ring them and Heller Tasty donated smallgoods Verkerks in my patch donated smallgoods and other businesses when we rang and asked simply donated products and services. Frucor the local bottled water manufacturer in Kaiapoi donated hundreds and hundreds—thousands probably—of bottles of water just to get it done and to assist people. 
An issue arises about what the technical mechanics are for accounting for that. It may be that due to the nature of the quake businesses did not through loss of records or whatever have an ability to account for it. I ask whether there is any flexibility within this legislation to deal with it. 
The other point we raised was one of promotion. What sort of advertising promotion and material will be provided to educate businesses and others so that they can take advantage of this exemption? I would be grateful if the Minister in due course could address those issues. 
Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Conservation) 
: 
 I am pleased to stand and speak in support of the Taxation (Canterbury Earthquake Measures) Bill at its second reading. This bill is one of a number of actions the Government is taking to support Cantabrians and help rebuild Christchurch and indeed Canterbury. Yesterday’s Budget revealed even more the extent of that support to the tune of $5.5 billion. This bill is practical. Many words have been spoken in this House about the September and February earthquakes. They are certainly events that will never be forgotten. 
This bill represents another concrete action to provide help where people could be negatively affected by current tax law. As we have heard the main features of the bill include an exemption so that businesses will not have to pay tax and gift duty on trading stock they have donated up to 31 March 2012 for relief from the effects of both Canterbury earthquakes. Also exempted from tax will be certain welfare contributions provided by employers within 8 weeks of either the September or February earthquakes. The other two matters in the bill extend the redundancy tax credit to 30 September 2011 and provide the Commissioner of Inland Revenue with the power in emergency situations to exclude certain income from counting for Working for Families entitlement purposes. 
This Government continues to work hard to rebuild Canterbury and provide all the assistance necessary to the local communities. The $5.5 billion for the new Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Fund announced yesterday is obviously a big part of that too. We are talking about spending on local infrastructure and social services. We are talking about roads water schools hospitals welfare support and wage subsidies. This is $5.5 billion that will go directly into the Canterbury region. As for jobs this money will bring with it employment. It will see tradespeople and support services flowing into the region with locals to be the first to pick up the jobs they need. 
Rebuilding Canterbury after two particularly nasty earthquakes will be a long and difficult task. For many the grief remains very real and personal but we have to move forward and rebuild our lives and our region and this Government is committed to providing the resources to do that. To break down that $5.5 billion a little more we have $1.1 billion already allocated to local infrastructure $85 million on assets such as schools and hospitals $521 million on welfare and emergency support and $3.2 billion in the back pocket for future decisions such as land remediation and as needed for further infrastructure. 
It goes without saying that everyone would prefer we never had to endure either of the September or February earthquakes or the aftershocks. We would love to spend a nice sunny autumn day walking down Cashel Mall and eating at a local cafe but our reality has changed and now we get on with what needs to be done. This Government is working hard for Canterbury. This bill forms part of the overall picture as we continue to respond to the circumstances people are facing. There is quite some way to go yet but piece by piece this Government is providing the necessary tools and resources to help Cantabrians reclaim their lives and move forward. This bill is part of that toolkit and I support the bill. 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
: 
 Thank you very much for the opportunity to take a call in further support of the progress of the Taxation (Canterbury Earthquake Measures) Bill. I was interested in the comments that the member who has just resumed her seat the Hon Kate Wilkinson made in respect of business payments. She was not referring to the bill that we are discussing but that is all right. She was really drawing other related matters into the debate and I am not criticising her for that but she did talk about the huge amount of money in the Budget that was going towards business support. That is quite a revelation for the House because to the best of the public understanding the business support is finishing in just 2 weeks’ time. I am sure that her words about how much extra financial support is going into business support will be warmly welcomed. I urge her to give us proper details of that package during the Committee stage because the business people who have finished their day and are at home listening to this debate—if they have the power on and if they have nothing else to do with their lives which is quite possible at the moment in Christchurch—will be very interested to know the details of that support. So I urge the member who has just resumed her seat to get to the details of the package that she has announced and share it with us during the Committee stage or the third reading debate tomorrow morning. 
As I said earlier in this debate Labour supports the progress of this bill. We have had a series of earthquakes which have caused widespread devastation and trauma to people. I am still concerned—and I hope the Minister of Revenue is able to comment on this matter during the Committee stage—that this bill is restricted to two earthquakes one on 4 September and one on 22 February because we had a third and quite substantial one on Boxing Day. That earthquake had a large impact on many people and it will fall outside the 8-week time gap that this bill imposes. That would be a mistake. I am sure that that is not deliberate because this bill is intended to help Canterbury people. It is meant to recognise the huge generosity that we have been overwhelmed with from people within our region who have not been affected directly by the earthquake and from people up and down the country. We have had Aucklanders and Wellingtonians supporting us as well as of course people from all the parts in between and from the rest of the South Island. We have had people internationally supporting us. We even had people from Japan offer financial support to Canterbury after the devastation in their own country. It was more than a little moving; it was truly humbling to be supported in that way. So for the Government to now come to the party—it is the middle of May 8½ months after the September quake but that is OK; I am sure it has been busy—and say it is prepared to back the people who have donated goods and have supported the people of Canterbury and exclude them from tax duty from other taxes is a really good move. So we certainly support that. 
I have some other concerns and I briefly mentioned some of them earlier but I want to put on the record the fact that I am also concerned about the redundancy tax credits. It is great to see that people who have been made redundant as a result of the earthquake will have their tax credit for redundancy payment pushed out by a few months. It is not great actually; I used the wrong word. It is just fair. What I do not understand is that if it is fair for Canterbury workers who have been made redundant as a result of the earthquake to have their tax credit payment on redundancy payments pushed out by a few months why is it not fair for every other New Zealand worker who is made redundant up and down the country? We see redundancies literally every day under this Government. Why is it not fair that those redundant workers have their tax credits pushed out altogether? It is an outrageous imposition on people who are going through a very bad time in their lives. They have just lost their jobs not because of anything they did wrong but because the business they have been employed in—perhaps they worked very hard for very many years—is not able to employ them any longer. This is an opportunity and I challenge the Minister of Revenue the Hon Peter Dunne to put forward a Supplementary Order Paper during the Committee stage—it would be supported by Labour—to eliminate those tax credits altogether. It is hard not to compare how long it has taken the Government to advance this very straightforward and relatively inexpensive bill with how long it took for three tax packages worth $23 billion to be pushed through the House under urgency since the Budget. It really shows that National has different priorities compared with Labour. 
When people are in a state of trauma and in critical need it is really good to be able to step up quickly and help them rather than wait for such a long period of time. Certainly the focus should always be on the people who are trying hard and working hard but not getting much financial support. They are the people who should be better supported by the Government not the people who in last year’s tax cuts—people like the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister—received an additional $1000 a week. That is more than many people in Canterbury are earning. They got not $1000 a week but an additional $1000 a week on top of their salary as a result of last year’s tax cuts. 
As I mentioned earlier we will raise some questions during the Committee stage and I hope that the Minister in the chair is competent to answer them or at least take the opportunity to do so. Although we support this legislation and we are not opposing any of the intentions we note that this tax legislation has quite a lot of detail in it. Members will notice the level of detail when they start looking at new sections CZ 23 and CZ 24 or GZ 3 or MB 13(2)(q) which is a really interesting new section that the bill inserts into the Income Tax Act 2007. When we start talking about that level of detail we should try to get it right. It will be beholden on the Minister in the chair during the Committee stage to pay attention to the debate and make sure that we do get it right. This is not just tax legislation; it is retrospective tax legislation. There is no indication in the bill as to how many people it will apply to. If the officials know that it would be good for the Minister to take a call and give us that information. We do not know how the measures will be applied or whether people have already paid tax for some of the goods that are covered by this legislation. Will they get a refund or will they just have an abatement on their next tax bill? What if people have not put in a tax return? Do they have to file one? What are the forms like? How much bureaucracy are we putting Cantabrians through in order to get this great gift from the Government? Is it worth it? We do not want a lot of red tape and we do not want a lot of forms. As Amy Adams said earlier in this debate we have new rules now. We do not like people delaying progress. We do not like people putting barriers in our way to getting help and support and getting on the path to full recovery. 
The final point I want to make is in relation to another major concern we have in Canterbury and it was highlighted during the passing of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority legislation which again was rammed through Parliament with very limited time for consultation. Only invited submitters were able to have their say and that was only after a lot of battling with the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery. The other concern we have which the Minister might like to allude to during the Committee stage is the power of the Minister Gerry Brownlee to instruct our three local authorities to sell some of the assets they hold. No amount of tax concession abolition of tax credits on redundancies or reduction of tax duty in any regard of donations in this legislation would make up for the anger that Cantabrians would feel if their assets were ordered to be sold by the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery. 
I am pleased to be part of this bill. I am sorry that it has come so late but it is a good bill. I hope it is easy to administer. I hope it adds to the support we have received from around the country and I put on record my appreciation to the Minister for introducing it. 
KEVIN HAGUE (Green) 
: 
 I begin by quoting my colleague Kennedy Graham from his general debate speech on 11 May: “We do not yet know precisely the nature of the land in our brave new world. We have had two massive earthquakes and half a dozen major aftershocks. We have had 6989 ripples”—I think we are over the 7000 mark now—“large and small as the land reconfigures and settles down to the new tectonic era. We know that the peninsula has jerked up by a metre the estuary has gone sideways a bit and the flat land has sunk by perhaps one-quarter of a metre. But is that the end of it? We do not know. We do not know how many more aftershocks we must endure or whether they will flatten out within a year a decade or more.” 
The series of earthquakes in fact over this extended period has been a crisis without parallel in New Zealand’s history. The Green Party has been doing its bit on the ground from day one with efforts towards fund-raising. We have been shovelling silt delivering food going door to door assessing people’s needs and helping them and now Dr Graham is holding a series of public meetings to look at what the future of Christchurch will be. 
Throughout that time one of the things we have appreciated is the opportunity to work with other parties and we would like to express to Mr Brownlee our appreciation for the times that it has been possible. We think though that that cross-party work has been patchy and we would like to see it improved. 
Similarly we think one of the crucial elements in the rebuild of Christchurch and in the relief work for people in Christchurch and Canterbury more generally has to be democratic participation. Again we thought it was great when that was able to occur but we note that it has been patchy and that decisions have been made about Canterbury and for Canterbury people without involving those people and we think that is poor process. 
The Green Party as my colleague Sue Kedgley indicated in the first reading supports the objectives of the Taxation (Canterbury Earthquake Measures) Bill and certainly will be voting for it. We think there are some improvements that can be made and I think one of them would be around the restricted scope of the tax relief measures that the bill sets out in terms of the duration of just those two particular earthquakes against the context of a series of very many earthquakes each of which has caused damage and each of which has caused trauma pain and suffering and loss to the people of Christchurch and of Canterbury. 
The task of coping with this earthquake and its aftermath is as I say an unprecedented one. It is interesting that the Government itself invites a comparison with this year’s Budget which we have just heard. The Green Party has proposed what we believe is a fiscally prudent approach to some of the costs associated with the Christchurch rebuild and some of the costs associated with the recovery of Christchurch people. Although the tax measures that are set out in this bill will provide some value and will actually assist people in getting on with their lives other things could also have been done. In particular we have proposed a suite of three measures: a temporary modest levy; some additional borrowing; and reprioritisation of Government expenditure to assist with some of the costs associated with the earthquake. We think it is a shame that the Government so far has chosen not to take up that approach. 
In this abbreviated second reading speech I will come to some of my concerns about the democratic process in relation to this bill. As I indicated when people are traumatised when they have already been damaged by the events caused by the earthquakes themselves their exclusion from processes and decisions that will affect them in their recovery from those earthquakes is actually a double victimisation. One of the concerns that the Green Party has about this bill although we support its objectives is that the Government has not taken the opportunity to have even an abbreviated select committee process in which the people of Christchurch and the people of Canterbury could have had their say about it. We think that is a major concern. There is no reason why the Government could not have done it. The bill was tabled on 4 May so there was plenty of time for such a process in the intervening period. It is a shame that that opportunity was not taken. 
That comes hard on the heels of a bit of a history from this Government of poor process that has excluded people in Canterbury. I guess the Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Bill was the most recent predecessor. Once again Canterbury people were excluded from that process very largely with the exception of a cursory select committee process in that case. Once again there was absolutely no need for that to have occurred. The other example that I want to draw to the House’s attention is the termination of the Environment Canterbury councillors and the Government’s summary intervention in water conservation orders. Actually some really fundamental changes to democracy and to conservation in the Canterbury region have been undertaken absolutely without due process and absolutely without the involvement of the people who are affected by those decisions. Again that was entirely unnecessary. 
I will conclude by repeating that the Green Party will vote for this bill but we extend our hope that the Government will change its tradition in relation to Christchurch and Canterbury to ensure that in the steps that follow in the rebuild of Christchurch and in the rebuild of Christchurch people’s lives—in which this bill plays a small but significant part—the Government will begin the process of inclusion of the people affected by its decisions and begin the process of democratic engagement with the people of Christchurch over the decisions that affect them. Thank you. 
BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 I will pick up a couple of the points made by our Green colleague Kevin Hague in relation to this Taxation (Canterbury Earthquake Measures) Bill. It is and has been a bipartisan bill and appropriately so. When I talked about Canterbury in my past address on this bill to this House I did not acknowledge that Canterbury extends north to the Kaikoura electorate and south to the Rangitata electorate and that people as far afield as those electorates have been affected as well as those of us who live in Christchurch or on its periphery. 
But I will pick up on a point particularly with Minister Kate Wilkinson in the House. I know that it does not pertain to her particular portfolio area but it is a concern that has come through to me just this week in a parliamentary question. It relates to the earthquake subsidy. Of course this bill will support those who have suffered through the quake so that their eligibility for Working for Families is not affected and so that they do not have to pay tax on donations received from employers. But obviously the big element of Government support to those in employment has been the earthquake support subsidy which I acknowledge the Government commenced quickly. I think it was an initiative driven by both the Canterbury Employers’ Chamber of Commerce and the Canterbury trade unions and it kicked in quickly and generously. Figures back to me this week from Minister Bennett say that in the first phase of the subsidy which began on 22 February and went through to 4 April 46607 employees and 8020 employers were represented and supported by that subsidy. There was an interim period of a 2-week extension from 4 April which brought in a smaller number but we now have what appears to be—unless there are announcements pending—the final phase of that. At this point as of 9 May 660 employers—from that peak of 8020—and 3300 employees have been granted a second round of subsidy. 
The point I will make is that one of the conditions of that second or third phase of subsidy in effect is that an employer needs to show that his or her business is viable before employees can receive the subsidy and the business needs to be shown to be viable beyond 6 weeks. I guess the concern for me as the MP representing Christchurch Central with all of the central business district is that I would expect that many of the affected businesses and those most likely to benefit from the subsidy would be businesses within the red zone. Of course for some of them it is not just a question of needing to be viable beyond 6 weeks; some of them will not get access to their businesses for 6 months or more. I just wanted to see whether a Minister might pick up on that and give us any assurance about whether anything further is coming and whether that is just a technicality that might be able to be overcome in individual circumstances. I have for instance a bar owner in the central business district who is very keen to keep his key staff employed. He wants a little bit of help to keep that going but does not know when the bar will be able to reopen. It is my view that if the Government can step up on an individual basis to assist a business like that it will help to keep people in jobs and the cost will be met in a way other than through unemployment benefits. 
I will take members through a kind of audio tour if you like of the red zone of Christchurch because on Monday a number of MPs from Christchurch went for their first visit for several weeks at least into the red zone. We went down through Armagh Street past buildings that even some non-Christchurch members would recognise which now have major question marks about their future including high-rise buildings such as the Forsyth Barr building which is a 20-storey building. It has a big question over its future. The PricewaterhouseCoopers building I think from the indications probably will come through. We went through to Cathedral Square where there is the Regent Building known to some members who have visited Christchurch as the building that housed the aquarium and also the Holy Grail Sports Bar at one point; it might be known to some other members for that purpose. There is a major question mark about that building. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Name them. 
BRENDON BURNS 
: No I do not want to name members at this point but they will know that bar I am sure. The BNZ building on the corner of Hereford Street has major question marks upon it. Interestingly two heritage buildings that have had been earthquake strengthened came through well. The first is the Heritage Christchurch Hotel which used to be opposite my former electorate office. That office was one of a number of electorate offices I have lost—[ 
Interruption 
] I have lost only two electorate offices. The third one I am very pleased to say is now on the corner of Fitzgerald Avenue and Bealey Avenue which is a very prominent site. The hotel which used to be the Government Buildings had been earthquake strengthened and has come through with very little damage. I think it is a signal in the rebuild of Christchurch that heritage buildings where strengthened should be able to play that part. The second building is the former Chief Post Office and that has come through very very well. Clearly buildings without that amount of strengthening—as indeed our dear cathedral—have not come through so well. 
We went down to the Cashel Mall area. The Ballantynes building had come through pretty well. Ballantynes is going to be at the heart of the Cashel Mall Re:Start programme which is the initiative to get a part of our city reopened by Canterbury A and P show weekend by the end of October into the first week of November. It is being driven by the Central City Business Association headed by Antony Gough and Paul Lonsdale who are doing a fantastic job on behalf of the inner-city business groups. They were working with the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority to get that going as an early symbol of the rebuild of Christchurch. But we actually went left rather than right on Cashel Mall and up past some of the shops towards the Hotel Grand Chancellor. The Hotel Grand Chancellor again about a 20-storey building is definitely coming down. Although the options were still being weighed up the signals are that they will be taking a more traditional route to bring it down. We may be looking at a 12-month period to bring down that major building at the heart of our central business district—12 months. High Street and Lichfield Street one of the cultural precincts of our city had extensive damage. A number of buildings had already gone. 
One of the sombre impacts for me of the tour was to see cleared sites where buildings had been felled and the rubble has gone. It is getting to the point where at times one has to look and think what on earth was there. The point about that is that the schedule of buildings to come down already extends to 900 buildings in the central business district and I think we can expect well in excess of a thousand to come down. That if one thinks of the size of our city centre is a huge huge tally and underlines the importance of that Budget earthquake recovery funding of $5.5 billion for the rebuild of our city. Just concluding my audio tour other members may know the Holy Trinity Church a base for the Pasifika community in particular. That has already gone. It was identified as probably the most damaged building. It had already experienced earthquake damage and a fire prior to February. That has totally gone apart from the foundations. Dorothy’s Boutique Hotel will be an institution known to many members of this House now known as Beaufort House. It has sustained moderate damage and there is a question mark on whether it will be rebuilt. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: We want to keep Dorothy’s! 
BRENDON BURNS 
: We want to keep Dorothy’s. I am absolutely with my colleague the member for Port Hills on that but it has sustained considerable damage. We went around the corner of Latimer Square through to the Harcourts Grenadier building—a modern building. That has been earmarked for demolition. The Council of Trade Unions building also has a major question mark on it. It has slumped about half a metre in one corner. We came back down through Gloucester Street and saw that the TVNZ building had already been completely felled and demolished. So that sort of completes the picture as part of the central business district. 
That leads me to the Earthquake Kiwi Bonds put in place in the Budget. I acknowledge and applaud that contribution. It will be important for the rebuild of our city. I had an email tonight from one of the members of the Interests in Conserving the Identity of Christchurch group which I chair. Nicky Wagner is another member of that group. One of the members noted there is nothing in the bonding structure to assist the private sector with its rebuild programme. I think there is an assumption that the private sector insurance will be sufficient. The word is that that is not likely. So maybe that issue needs to be given some further consideration as we move towards the rebuild of Christchurch. 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 The Maori Party is committed as part of the Government along with mana whenua Ngai Tuahuriri and Ngai Tahu to rebuild Otautahi in all its dimensions. As such we welcome these amendments to the tax law in order to support recovery and rebuilding of Otautahi. We commend this bill to the House. 
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
: 
 I rise to support the Taxation (Canterbury Earthquake Measures) Bill. As a one-eyed Cantabrian and someone who has lived in Christchurch all my life I am delighted that the Budget put the recovery and rebuild of Canterbury right at its centre. The Prime Minister had promised us that the rebuild of our city and our province would be one of the Government’s most high priorities and through Budget 2011 he has delivered on that promise. He said the Government would do what was needed to make the rebuild happen over the coming weeks months and years. He is doing that. He said he knew that it was a huge task and that we need to have ongoing patience and tolerance from all Cantabrians but together we will get it done. And we will. It is going to be a long hard slog but we will get there especially now that thanks to Budget 2011 we have $8.8 billion in the kitty. That is 8.8 billion reasons to feel secure about the future of our province. 
This bill is needed to amend tax legislation so that people who so generously donated goods and services to the people of Canterbury do not create a tax liability. In the days and weeks following the earthquakes so many people donated so generously to Canterbury. They donated to the people they knew and they donated to the people they did not know. They donated to their neighbourhoods; they donated to their employees. I do not think even one of them thought about a tax liability coming out of that. The Canterbury earthquake of 22 February was the first national civil defence disaster in our country. The people of New Zealand and also people internationally responded magnificently. This bill will make sure that the people of Canterbury get the full benefit of that generosity. 
The main features of this bill include an exemption so businesses will not have to pay tax or gift duty on trading stock that they donated. It also exempts from tax welfare contributions provided by employers to their employees. There are numerous stories of what employers supplied; things like washing machines food and places to have showers and generally supporting each other. But the bill also covers two further matters. It extends the redundancy tax credit to 30 September 2011 and provides the Commissioner of Inland Revenue with the power in emergency situations to exclude certain income from counting for Working for Families entitlements purposes. They are all good common-sense amendments and I believe that every New Zealander will support them. 
Over the weeks and months since the earthquake enormous amounts of goods and services have poured in to our city. Just last weekend I visited a New Brighton hall where volunteers from the Buddhist Compassion Relief Tzu Chi Foundation delivered hundreds of welfare packages. These packages consisted of blankets and personal necessities such as shampoos and soaps and the package also included a blessing from Master Cheng Yen. They were also given a debit card with $200 credited to it. It was fantastic. The volunteers gave out hundreds of these packages. The changes in this legislation will mean that very very generous gifts like these will be tax free. 
The cost of the Canterbury earthquakes is enormous. It is estimated at about $15 billion which is about 8 percent of our GDP. It will probably be one of the most expensive disasters the world has ever seen and a huge commitment for a country the size of New Zealand. Putting that into context the recent devastating earthquake in Japan is equivalent to about 3 to 5 percent of Japan’s GDP. The cost of the earthquakes is too big for Christchurch residents to manage alone but it is manageable within the Government’s nationwide fiscal programme. The people of Canterbury really appreciate the support of all New Zealanders who have given so generously to us through the Budget and understand that this bill is just another way of them showing their support. I commend the bill to the House. 
STUART NASH (Labour) 
: 
 I suppose that over the next 4½ hours we will hear in the House how good the Taxation (Canterbury Earthquake Measures) Bill is and what a magnificent job our Christchurch MPs are doing. We will also hear that this is important legislation. In a way it is ground-breaking legislation certainly from a tax perspective. [ 
Interruption 
] Thank you very much. It took about 2 seconds. 
I know we cannot refer to someone not being here but perhaps during the Committee stage the Minister could let us know whether this bill is the first piece of tax legislation to be brought in for this sort of event. I suspect it is because as the last speaker alluded to the earthquakes are in fact the first national disaster we have had in the country’s history. I suspect that back when the Napier earthquake occurred there was no such thing as a national disaster. It is good to see the House rallying around this legislation. It could have been here a little bit earlier. Certainly Labour and National—in fact every party—wanted it here a little bit earlier except the Greens I think who may have blocked it at the Business Committee but that is OK because it is here now. Better late than never I suppose. 
There are a couple of things I will talk about. I will not take a long call on this; there is plenty of time for that. I want to talk about the policy problem. 
There is no doubt that the immediate provision of goods to those in need was of vital importance and we talked about that before. I think most speakers have alluded to the fact that it just had to happen. People did not sit down and they did not consult a tax accountant or a lawyer. They knew they had to get out there and make it happen for the people of Christchurch as soon as possible. But the problem we have is that the existing laws do not support that sort of behaviour. They do not encourage a donation or supply of goods for less than market value—but let us say a donation—to assist people in Christchurch who have been affected by the earthquake. In fact existing laws are designed to deal with manipulation by business not the goodwill of business. That is one of the great things to come out of the Christchurch earthquake and again many speakers have talked about it. People rallied together in a way that not only brought a city together but brought a nation together for a small time. As a result of the existing law dealing with the bad side with manipulation it does not adequately deal with the donation of trading stock particularly in circumstances such as the Christchurch earthquake. I suppose it is an unintended policy outcome due simply to the fact that when tax legislation was designed the drafters did not contemplate the fact that people would be giving away stock to victims of such an extreme national disaster. So that is part of the policy problem. 
As has been mentioned currently under the law that exists at this point in time goods donated to victims of the Christchurch earthquake are not eligible for the donations tax credit or the company donation deduction. The effect of the section in the Income Tax Act that governs this issue is that people donating in response to the Christchurch earthquake will have to file a tax return for income tax purposes for the full market value of that trading stock. We are posing some questions about that and it will be very interesting to get the answers to those questions in the Committee stage. The sorts of questions this issue brings up include whether those businesses will have to file a tax return or any form of return that deals with the stock that has been given away—how they will have to account for it I suppose. The gift of trading stock or selling it down at less than market value constitutes a gift under the Estate and Gift Duties Act. Even though we are getting rid of gift duty—probably before the election I suspect—under this Act during this time one will still be liable for gift duty. 
This was what we were talking about before. There was just not the time to consult a tax accountant and to get one’s affairs in order. I do not know at what point the businessmen and businesswomen suddenly said: “Hell’s teeth! What am I going to do about this?” but at some point it did happen and the Inland Revenue Department received a number of calls about it. In a way this bill is cutting out a whole lot of red tape because if the Inland Revenue Department had insisted on those business people accounting for every single bean then there would have been problems because I suspect that a lot of businesses had no idea. I understand that a lot of businesses have lost a lot of their records so to go back and stocktake would have been close to impossible. In fact there was no realistic way to deal with this issue. So that is a question we will pose in Committee. 
This is very good legislation because it deals with an extreme event in a way that I think the vast majority of businesses would like it to be dealt with and I think every New Zealander would expect it to be dealt with. We absolutely support it and we commend it to the House. Thank you. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National—West Coast - Tasman) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to rise in support of the Taxation (Canterbury Earthquake Measures) Bill. Yesterday the Minister of Finance the Hon Bill English delivered a responsible Budget. It is a growth Budget a Budget towards better times and a rational National Budget. This is a Budget that has been prepared in some of the most challenging economic circumstances New Zealand has ever faced. One of the key components in this Budget is the need to get Christchurch back on its feet and that is what this bill is all about. Rebuilding Christchurch is one of the Government’s top priorities and that is why we have found $5.5 billion in a Budget where little extra expenditure—other than for education and health—is possible. 
The Taxation (Canterbury Earthquake Measures) Bill is one of the things this Government is doing to support the people of Canterbury to rebuild their city. This bill looks at a range of situations where the people of Christchurch could be negatively affected by our current tax laws. Our current tax laws though robust were never designed to cope with a disaster on this scale. This is a sensitive compassionate and considerate bill. 
My colleague Nicky Wagner the next MP for Christchurch Central has been working tirelessly with the people of Christchurch throughout their recovery from this devastating earthquake. Nicky often tells me of the extraordinary resilience of the people she has been supporting and the remarkable examples of people helping each other out. The same can be said of the Hon Kate Wilkinson and Amy Adams and indeed the Hon Ruth Dyson the Hon Clayton Cosgrove the Hon Lianne Dalziel and Brendon Burns. This is not a time to be cute or partisan. Just as on the West Coast we subsumed our political differences at the time of the Pike River disaster so it is time to do so now in Christchurch and for everyone to work together. 
That is what this bill is all about. Let us work together and bring about the best for Christchurch. I will be there tomorrow for the weekend. The West Coast helped build Christchurch originally and will do so again. I support this bill and all those who are working for the betterment of Christchurch. Thank you. 
Bill read a second time. 
In Committee 
JO GOODHEW (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one question. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Parts 1 and 2 and clauses 1 and 2 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I note that Mr Ryall is the Minister in the chair. Having no problem with that at all I would assume given the non-partisan nature of the Taxation (Canterbury Earthquake Measures) Bill that his officials will have provided him with some advice that he will be able to offer us in good faith on a number of critical questions. I ask the Minister to indicate whether that is a possibility. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: I can’t see why not. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I thank the Minister. Excellent; that is wonderful. That is brilliant; I am glad we have that on the record. Issues that a number of colleagues raised and that I particularly raised were in respect of the purposes of the bill where it creates taxation exemptions for businesses donating trade stock to people affected by the earthquakes. 
The question I ask the Minister is simple. We have heard examples in the first reading and the second reading of large-scale and small-scale businesses that have done just that—donated in the heat of the quake as it were goods and services. We are seeking advice on the technical requirements that will be needed to ensure that these businesses meet the requirements of this legislation and can gain the exemption and on whether there is any unintended consequence. For instance as a result of the quake records provision may not have been maintained and adequate records might not have been put in place and cannot be retrievable now because to be blunt businesses just gave on request. They did not seek any assistance in respect of tax liability and I suspect most of them did not even give any consideration to whether there would be a liability. It was simply an act of generosity. 
The second issue is the number of employees or businesses that may well be affected by this and will be able to participate in this and again I ask what sort of requirements will be placed on them. Thirdly and more important colleagues have raised the issue that there are a number of legal events: 4 September 22 February Boxing Day prior to that and—I have tried to find it in the short time we have had—I believe a fourth recognised official quake that event happened some weeks ago. Regardless of that we know there are three official events but only two of them are mentioned and recognised within the legislation itself even though there is a future-proofing provision that allows for future disasters or scenarios. 
The Commissioner of Inland Revenue can activate these provisions in the future if the disaster meets the requirements and we think that is a very good thing. But at least one official earthquake event is not recognised in the bill. People could be subject to the same difficulties from that unrecognised event and they are not catered for in this legislation. If the lack of this provision is an oversight—again we do not say that with any malice—Labour Opposition members would be well prepared to facilitate an amendment to deal with that if it was deemed appropriate. If it has been catered for then we seek some assurance on that point. 
Equally we would want to know the level of administrative red tape that businesses may have to go through to meet the requirements of this legislation and if a business cannot produce appropriate records of stock that was handed out because of the nature of the disaster we want to know whether there is flexibility within the legislation or a discretion within the Inland Revenue Department to deal with that issue. Again one cannot think of everything but an unintended consequence may occur with some businesses or some entities that donated goods money or services without any sort of acknowledgment that there may have been a liability and without any anticipation that Parliament might deal with it and provide some sort of exemption. 
The other issue is around promotion if there is any and what sort of materials will be provided to businesses employees and others who may be affected and who may be able to take advantage of this to assist them in terms of dealing with the legislation when it comes into force. As has been mentioned there was a large amount of generosity out there. This legislation given that it is future-proofed presumably has the ability to facilitate further generosity for future events. If that is the case then we will support that. So there are a number of questions and I am sure colleagues will have others. If the Minister is in a position to provide us with some advice we would appreciate it. 
STUART NASH (Labour) 
: 
 I am just taking a very short call on the Taxation (Canterbury Earthquake Measures) Bill. I have a couple of questions. Normally what happens with tax bills is that they go to the Finance and Expenditure Committee. We have talked about the very good reason why this bill is not going the Finance and Expenditure Committee but the reason I mention that is that at select committees as members will be well aware members have a chance to talk to officials about why certain things have been drafted and are there or why they are not. In this circumstance I just have a couple of questions. 
If we look at clause 4 in Part 1 which inserts new section CZ 23 into the Income Tax Act we see that it is an amendment to the Income Tax Act 2007. Section CZ 23(1)(f) states that income is exempt if it “is available to another employee who is not an associated person of the employer”—I understand that—“and is or was immediately before a Canterbury earthquake in full-time employment with the employer if the employee is an associated person of the employer;”. I suppose I am asking how the Inland Revenue Department will police this provision or how it will confirm that in fact something that was given to one employee was open to all employees. It might be a very easy test; I am not very sure about that. I suppose I am asking for a bit of clarification that this provision will not be so onerous that a lot of business owners will just throw up their hands and say: “Goodness me we wanted a bit of light relief. That is why we went to the Inland Revenue Department.” The fiscal cost of this is only $3 million so in the scheme of things it is not much. But we do not want to have legislation that is pretty onerous. 
The other point I would like to raise is with regard to section CZ 23(2)(b) to do with the extent of the income exemption. It states that it is to be “less than or equal to $3200 in total if the income is in a form other than accommodation.” I may be wrong here—totally wrong—but I suspect what will happen is that once this legislation is passed a lot of businesses will try to get hold of a copy of it because they will want to know the status of what they have given or the status of their requirements in terms of their provision to the Inland Revenue Department. They will look at this legislation and say: “Oh shivers ‘other than accommodation’—well what does that mean? And ‘less than … $3200’. Oh shivers how am I going to account for this?”. 
I suppose that where I am coming to is that this is a very small bill and I wonder whether it would be practical—and it is a question; it is not a suggestion—maybe to have somewhere in the back a definition of “accommodation”. Again I am not sure how many employers have provided accommodation to their employees or how many employers have actually offered goods to the value of $3200 or even maybe of over that amount. So I really just seek clarification of a lot of this because one of the purposes of this legislation is to provide a level of clarification for businesses that have donated to the people of Christchurch. It is very important; we all know this. It is very important that tax legislation is easy to understand. I suspect that this legislation may be accessed by more people than those who would usually access tax legislation but I could be wrong about that. We could go through this bill if we were really going to draw this debate out and pick all these things out but as I mentioned I am just a little concerned that there may be room to expand on some of the definitions in this bill. Thank you very much. 
BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 I have just a couple of very brief queries on the Taxation (Canterbury Earthquake Measures) Bill for the Minister of Health and via him the officials. It relates to this issue. During the course of the aftermath of the quake I have observed goods being donated by businesses. I welcome that I think the response of business has been overwhelming and generous. But I have noted that sometimes the stock donated has been out of date. I was aware of one hub in my community in Shirley that received crates and crates of cheese that was out of date. I am wondering whether there might be situations in which claims are made for special taxation treatment of materials donated that were out of date. 
Similarly everybody will be well aware that supermarkets and wholesalers suffered enormous damage in the quake. There would be more dented tins in Christchurch on 22 February than in a lifetime elsewhere. Again it is the same question: if those tins are covered by insurance is there any potential for a double-dip to be going on? 
Finally I have bought wine from a local retailer in my electorate. The bottles have dented caps they are sticky and on occasion there are even slight slivers of glass on the edge of the bottle or on the label. Again I wonder whether insurance claims are being made and special tax treatment is being sought. I would like an official to answer that. Thank you. 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
: 
 I know we have a commitment from the Minister in the chair the Minister of Health to answer our questions. I appreciate that offer. I have one question in relation to the number of people who are likely to be affected by the Taxation (Canterbury Earthquake Measures) Bill and whether people will be getting reversals of actions that they have already taken between 4 September and now. Will they have already paid some tax liability and now receive a refund; if so how will that process work? I just want to get a bit of a feel of how many people we might be talking about how many organisations we might be talking about and what sort of process they will have to go through in order to access the benefits of the legislation. I am looking hopefully at the officials who are busy writing some advice for the Minister who unfortunately is not the Minister responsible for this legislation. The Minister of Revenue has been detained on very important matters of public business no doubt and is unable to join us tonight. 
The second question I want to ask is whether any consideration was given during the preparation of this bill to the terrible situation that our early childhood education centres have found themselves in. The Minister of Education has recently announced that the operations grants for our compulsory education in schools are to be maintained at the pre - 22 February level until the end of the calendar year. That is an absolute delight for our schools which were really wondering how they would be able to fund-raise in order to meet the deficit when they have quite traumatised children who need additional support not less support. That was a really welcome announcement by the Minister. But nothing at all has been given to early childhood education centres which are in exactly the same position as schools. They are even worse affected than schools because both their staff as well as their comparable operations grants come from their daily attendance records. They are paid by the number of pupils the number of students who attend early childhood centres every day. Once a few families leave the suburb or leave the town those numbers drop. We do not know quite when people will come back to Canterbury if they will at all. The insecurity for early childhood centres is also really problematic. During the preparation of this package of support for Cantabrians I wonder whether any consideration was given to that; if not would the Minister give a commitment to pass that matter on to the Minister of Education for her consideration at the earliest possible opportunity? 
The final question I want to ask is one that I will also answer for the Minister. It is not because I do not think he knows the answer but because I received a commitment last evening from the Hon Peter Dunne to answer the question when I asked it so that we would have it on the public record that this was in fact the case in relation to this legislation and the employment subsidy. The concern I raised with Peter Dunne last night when I read the legislation was whether the tax exemption applied to the employment support subsidy. It might sound odd but if it did it would be very problematic if it was not counted as income. I do not need to go into the details unless the Minister would like me to share them with members in which case I am happy to do that. I checked with the Minister on whether an employment support subsidy would be counted as a gift to a Cantabrian and therefore be exempt from income tax. I had my fingers crossed that he would come back to me and say no and I was very pleased when he did that. The employment support subsidy is treated as income. It covers loss of wages and it is subject to PAYE. I am happy with that but I want it to be put on the record that the Minister gave me that advice so that there can be no confusion as to the status of the subsidy. 
Those are is all the outstanding questions that I have and I look forward to the Minister’s responses. 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I will respond to a number of questions that have been asked. There is no firm indication of the number of businesses or people who are likely to benefit from these changes. The amendment has come because of a number of concerns that have been raised with the Government and we do not have any specifics that we can put our finger on regarding the exact number of people who will be affected. 
The Taxation (Canterbury Earthquake Measures) Bill of course is not unusual in this sort of environment. Members will recall that during the Rangitikei floods specific legislation went through the House by leave that provided some tax flexibility around some administrative issues. However officials advise that for the Canterbury earthquakes which are extraordinary events more specific responses are required because of the breadth of issues that have been raised to be dealt with. The bill represents those responses. The depreciation amendments referred to earlier are also part of the response and the third responsive issue is the Order in Council stuff that happened at that time. 
A number of accounting-related questions were raised some of which took me back to Accounting 101 at Massey University for which incidentally I got an A+ but it was all downhill from there. In terms of periods of relief any trading stock donated between 4 September last year and 31 March this year will be covered. The redundancy provision finishes on 30 September 2011—that is all redundancies not just earthquake-related redundancies. The Working for Families provision will be at the discretion of the Commissioner of Inland Revenue. There is no evidence that employer welfare contributions were needed for any of the so-called aftershocks but for the two major earthquakes which significantly damaged businesses and affected employees we are providing for employer welfare contributions in the 8 weeks after each of the two main events to be exempt which makes a lot of sense. 
The GST questions have been raised. GST is payable by businesses on their sales income. If the goods have been given away then there is no GST liability and the usual business systems will be involved. The Income Tax Act 2007 requires that trading stock on hand at the end of the year be added back. That is because trading stock is a deductible when it is purchased so therefore it has to be put back in over the top line. These proposals mean that no special accounting requirements are necessary. All businesses with trading stock have to file a return. 
On the question of compliance costs clearly the trading stock provision will not create any issues the redundancy provision is pretty straightforward and in terms of the Working for Families discretion Working for Families always has some compliance cost and the extra cost will be pretty small. On the employer welfare proposals logically there will be compliance cost implications because of the detail that is required but the officials do not think there will be any great specific burden. The relief of course is voluntary for employers who are suffering these costs and there is a benefit for them in incurring those costs in order to make a claim. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Ruth Dyson to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to insert in section CZ 23(1)(b) and in section CZ 24(1)(b) “or 26 December 2010” after “2010”. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
Parts 1 and 2 and clauses 1 and 2 agreed to. 
Bill reported without amendment. 
Report adopted. 
Third Reading 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am just in the middle of a—just give me one second. I just have to find a third reading speech. 
Hon Rick Barker 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: Are you speaking to the point of order? 
Hon Rick Barker 
: I am just saying I will give the member an extension of time—ha ha! 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: No. That is not a point of order. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Mr Speaker— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: Is this a point of order or a call? 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: It is a call. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: Oh a call. 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Revenue 
: I am pleased to be able to move the third reading of this bill. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: The Taxation (Canterbury Earthquake Measures) Bill. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: That is right; it is the Taxation (Canterbury Earthquake Measures) Bill. As we spoke about in the Committee stage a number of issues were raised in the bill and I think the very strong support this bill has enjoyed from across the House was quite clear. In the Committee stage of the Taxation (Canterbury Earthquake Measures) Bill I was able to provide quite detailed answers to the questions from the members opposite. There was some considerable debate particularly in relation to trading stock issues which always cause quite a lot of consideration and discussion. I commend the progress and the finalisation of the bill to the House. 
Hon Rick Barker 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I will just rule on something first. The member must move a motion first. This is the third reading so if the member would like to do that— 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Yes Mr Speaker. I did seek to do that at the beginning— 
Hon Rick Barker 
: I move that the Taxation (Canterbury Earthquake Measures) Bill be now read a third time. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I move  
That the Taxation (Canterbury Earthquake Measures) Bill be now read a third time 
. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Yes; that is what it should be. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 Firstly I congratulate the Minister of Health on his high degree of management and organisation in respect of the Taxation (Canterbury Earthquake Measures) Bill. It exemplifies and sets a high bar in terms of how to manage legislation through the House. Many precedents have been created in the last 2 or 3 minutes and I thank the senior Opposition whip for assisting to move the motion. We would not want to see this bill delayed or implode on itself through a bungled legislative process. Putting that aside we did right in supporting the clean slate legislation and I think we should probably adhere to that principle as well. 
With regard to the Opposition I think there is unanimity on all sides of the House in all parties that this bill will be supported. I will not waylay it much longer. Suffice to say this is good legislation. It will provide some comfort and assistance to a large number of people and entities in Canterbury who in many cases are going through a living hell in respect of their businesses and in respect of their livelihoods. This legislation will take one small bit of stress out of a number of people’s lives. 
It should also be noted that through the earthquakes as I think all members have alluded to the generosity of spirit exhibited by people businesses and entities has been well beyond anybody’s expectation. Those of us who are Canterbury members of Parliament—I am sure this is shared on the other side of the House—have found out through these disasters firstly just how generous people can be and secondly the ability of community leaders councillors and others to make calls and simply ask for things. It is amazing what people will do and it is amazing what people do in terms of dipping into their own pockets and providing goods services and comforts. 
It is also noteworthy that a large number of employers treated their staff very very well and went beyond the minimal requirements. I think those who did that had the ethos that staff are the most important asset that organisations have. If they are looked after organisations will perform and perform well. 
Again it is with a great deal of pleasure that I commend the Minister of Health whom I suspect was dropped in it at the last moment to shepherd this legislation through its last stage in the House. He has shown amazing legislative and parliamentary flexibility and dexterity to make sure this bill goes through in a timely fashion and does not hit any roadblocks on the way. I give our thanks to the officials as well. 
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
: 
 I rise to support the Taxation (Canterbury Earthquake Measures) Bill at its third reading. Rebuilding Canterbury is one of the Government’s top priorities. We have seen that in the Budget this week and we are doing everything that is needed to support and build Canterbury over the coming weeks months and years. The Government and all New Zealanders stand behind Canterbury in this difficult time and together we will get Christchurch and Canterbury back on its feet. 
This bill is one of a number of actions the Government is taking to support Cantabrians and to help rebuild Christchurch. It provides real and practical help through the tax system to the people of Canterbury. Much has been said and written about the 22 February earthquake and this bill represents concrete action to provide help that is both useful and practical. We have heard from members across the House of the number of generous donors that we have had in our city both local people and international people. We have heard of them donating to neighbourhoods and employees; we have heard about fantastic opportunities from everywhere. So this is an opportunity to make sure that their generous donations do not carry any tax liabilities. 
The bill focuses on the tax treatment for a range of situations where people could have been negatively affected by tax law because the current tax law of course has never been designed to cope with disasters of this scale. As has been noted this is the first time that we have had a national civil defence disaster. I think right across the House everybody has been supporting this bill. We see that it is needed. We see that it is practical and common sense. I commend the bill to the House. 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
: 
 As I said earlier this debate is a very good note to end the parliamentary week on particularly after the very tense debate on the National - ACT - Maori Party provisions to hack away at our KiwiSaver which many people around the House and around the country are very distressed about. Being able to conclude the week on a unanimous vote of support for Canterbury is very good. 
I remind the Government members that the Taxation (Canterbury Earthquake Measures) Bill is not the end of the work that needs to be done in Canterbury. I hope they take some note of the concerns that have been raised about the plight of early childhood education centres. A large number of people are still living in homes that as a result of damage from the earthquake do not have a source of heating and it is cold in our city in the winter. I would really like everyone to have at least one source of heating in their home. We want speedy resolution of our land issues. We have land that people are not certain they will ever be able to rebuild on. We have the danger of rockfall. People are not sure whether they will be able to move back to their homes because of the danger of rockfall. Those are the practical and big issues that are facing our residents at the moment. I do not want the Government to relax after we pass this bill tonight but to understand that we have not by any means finished the job. 
This bill is a good measure. It recognises the generosity of individuals and organisations that donated various items either to their employees or to other people affected by the earthquake. That generosity should be matched by the Government taking away some tax liability. That is what the Government is doing tonight. It is a very good move. Pushing out to October the tax credits for people who have been made redundant as a result of the business situation following the earthquakes is good but it is not enough. We should have used the opportunity tonight to get rid of that scheme altogether because it is basically unfair. I am saddened that the Minister of Health did not take the brief moment of power he had while acting for the Minister of Revenue to accept the amendment I proposed which would have extended the scheme to events covered by the 26 December earthquake because that was a significant event. Omitting it makes the legislation look a bit cheap and it need not; it could be a complete package. But that is the decision of the Government. 
I have enjoyed the contributions from members around the House tonight. It is good to know that even though the people of Canterbury are off the TV screens and out of the newspapers we are not out of people’s minds altogether. I have only one lasting regret and that is that despite what has clearly been a lot of work from the officials—they have put a lot of work into this legislation—they did not have to do a lot of work at the select committee because the Government bypassed that opportunity for them. They clearly gave the Minister in the chair very good advice and he reported it back to the House well to his credit in response to the questions that we raised and I appreciated that. Some Ministers do not bother doing that for their own portfolios so for an acting Minister to do that was very good. But it is to my deep regret that they were not able to provide him with a third reading speech in time for him to give it. 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 In speaking to the third reading of the Taxation (Canterbury Earthquake Measures) Bill I say it is good to see that this measure has been well considered and well canvassed. It is a sensible pragmatic compassionate and fair attempt to use the Income Tax Act 2007 to consider the full circumstances that have happened in Canterbury and in Christchurch. When we look at the legislation in general we see it is an anti - tax avoidance measure. Therefore it is fair and reasonable that it provides the relief that Christchurch so admirably deserves. 
We look forward to Christchurch’s return to its former glory. The dislocation is on a phenomenal scale and we look forward to a speedy recovery although we do recognise that that will take some time and that there is a lot of pain and suffering down there. I commend the bill to the House. 
Bill read a third time.