Jones Shane: Taxation (Annual Rates Foreign Superannuation and Remedial Matters) Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeJones Shane: Taxation (Annual Rates Foreign Superannuation and Remedial Matters) Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 05 December 2013. Volume:695;Page:15325. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon SHANE JONES (Labour):Tēnātātou katoa. It falls to me to take each of the 10 minutes to its full. Sorry I just want to test this—is there an actual Minister in the House? Oh there is Mr Foss perilously close to the departure door but there is a Minister in the House. We will support the Taxation (Annual Rates Foreign Superannuation and Remedial Matters) Bill. We will support this bill. The particular part that we look forward to supporting is mineral mining. We will be supporting that portion that provides for a new regime in respect of the taxation of mineral miningwhich is an important sector in the economy providing that there is a robust environmental framework. In the event that that remains the case investors should not worry one iota about being able to bring their capital to our country. But they must know as this bill contributes towards that there has to be social licence for such sectors to thrive and prosper in New Zealand. They may very well find a place in the north. I refer here to Tai Tokerau. In the event that they do this bill will provide for a more lucid—I would not say “favourable”—set of processes in terms of how they treat their investments over a period of time and whether or not they continue to gain access to an opportunity to spread the costs in such a way as is appropriate and also take account of any obligations in the event that they have to tidy up.I want to come back to what is probably the major reason—for the time I sat on the Finance and Expenditure Committee—that interests us in this bill. It actually makes some changes to foreign superannuation but more important it reminds us that it is this side of the House as we support this bill that is the superannuation party. It is this side of the House that is prepared to grasp the nettle and ensure there is a viable long-term scheme in terms of a State-based pension scheme. In doing that from time to time it will be necessary—because both parties should support taxation legislation like this. Naturally the regime is coming to an end and we will be sitting over there at this time next year. So we will look to them to support a variation of this type of legislation because irrespective of who sits over there or here the broad main parties know that the revenue-gathering capacity of the State must be allowed to continue unhindered.Of course things will improve at the end of the next year because that side over there will be much thinned-out—much thinned-out—and a host of people whom I actually find to be quite good company will be doing other things with their lives. They will not be politicians. Neither will they be Ministers. We will have our friends sitting down that side of the House sitting over there on the Government side enabling us to bring to pass a KiwiSaver scheme which is a key contributor to superannuation that actually provides an additional platform for New Zealanders to save. In addition to that it builds a reservoir of capital. If we can actually improve the prospect of foreign superannuation schemes contributing to the livelihood of people beyond the age of 65 as well there is nothing wrong with that.There have been a host of difficulties with foreign superannuation changes. In some respects if you are in the enviable position of having a handsome foreign-based superannuation scheme it does seem a tad unfair that you will be doubly penalised. So in that sense the bill does actually make a set of changes that the great hoi polloi probably do not know about. But this side of the House knows that superannuation and saving are going to be key features going forward not only in the election campaign but at this time next year when we are running the country.A key problem that the bill does touch on is the absence of a domestic reservoir of savings. Why is that? Well firstly the current Minister of Finance in a Dickensian-like way sort of swiped aside any obligation to continue to contribute towards the Cullen fund and stood up only several months ago boasting how well it had done. Secondly he has really turned the thumbscrews onKiwiSavers. He has lessened the contribution that the State makes in an incentivising way. He has not put the pressure—as it deserves to be—on employers. But more important he is yet to strip KiwiSaver of its unnecessary red tape.Of course I should make reference to the originator of this bill Peter Dunne who is someone who will also not be back here by the end of next year.Su’a William Sio: He’s done—done like a dinner.Hon SHANE JONES: Yes well he will be done. Whether he was done before—I do not know that. I do not want to intrude into those matters. All I know is that he is aleaker. And all I know—Su’a William Sio: He’s a “Dunne-r”.Hon SHANE JONES: My Samoan tuakana here is advising me to stray into territory that could be a bit treacherous for the Dalmatian Māori fromKaitāia to actually venture an opinion on. But he has shepherded the legislation—Simon O’Connor: Oh come on. That’s never stopped you Shane.Hon SHANE JONES: Oh! I have to acknowledge the member forTāmaki. He actually reminded me yesterday that the words “turgid” and “turd” both apply to that particular parliamentarian. He had the dreadful manners to challenge this side of the House that we would not know what the word meant because we were not possessed of a fine education. The people ofTāmaki do not want that kind of superciliousness. They want a very earthy member. They want someone who will stand and acknowledge talent and acknowledge skills across the House. I can actually suggest that some sitting beside the member Simon O’Connor may resemble turnips and are not turgid but that would bring an element of disorder to this debate.I want to come back to Mr Dunne. Mr Dunne has served as the Minister of Revenue and brought this bill forward etc. and his days are over. Just as he goes Rodney Hide wants to come back. And as if things could not get any worse in the space of those people who might sit on that august body known as the Finance and Expenditure Committee the prospect of Rodney Hide coming back and joining that committee diminishes the status of Parliament even as I speak. So the less said about that the better.The Inland Revenue Department if I could just digress but in the broad context of the bill gives a very good service to the Finance and Expenditure Committee. Indeed the Commissioner of Inland Revenue its leader was at our committee meeting yesterday. We made the point that although a great deal of high-quality work happens to do with obscure elements of policy there is an area where the department could serve the public better if only it were able to increase its visibility and give it more profile and that is the treatment of the tax affairs the tax restructuring of foreign-owned companies. I was heartened to hear from the man in charge of policy saying that with some additional resourcing they will be able to do that because if we are going to meet the full costs of Christchurch and meet the full costs of superannuation we need at all times to broaden the base from where the State finds its revenue. There is far too much opaqueness and there is far too much clever tax planning being driven to leach the revenue base not to enhance it.I actually want to give a bouquet to the commissioner and to the head of policy who saw the immediate wisdom in what the Labour members were saying and identified that without a doubt if they could find an egregious case they would be tempted to follow that great tradition of British military pedigree which the member forTāmaki professes to know a thing or three about: one field execution can motivate 100000 troops. So where there is an egregious case of a foreign entity not meeting its full tax obligations without a doubt the Inland Revenue Department should restore a greater level of confidence to the community that everyone is paying their fair share. Of course from time to time businesses strike difficulties and those difficulties can be managed through. But it is not acceptable as we further internationalise the ownership of our economy for those entities to not meet their fair share. We support the bill.