Burns Brendon: Taxation (GST and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
Burns Brendon: Taxation (GST and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
[Volume:669;Page:16097] 
BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 I take your comments in the spirit intended Mr Chairperson. I first say however that the Minister of Revenue talked about a spirit of openness attached to the Taxation (GST and Remedial Matters) Bill yet here we are considering a Supplementary Order Paper that is bigger than the primary bill that the Finance and Expenditure Committee spent considerable time discussing. There was no signal to the select committee of which colleagues and I are members that a Supplementary Order Paper of this scale and consequence was coming; there was no such signal. If that is an indication of the spirit of openness I hate to think what the Minister would do if he wanted to put through a bill without any openness attached to it.  
This process is absolutely contrary I suggest to the way the Minister has operated for more than 25 years in this Parliament. He has been known as “Mr Common Sense” but this is not common sense. Supplementary Order Paper 187 is bigger than the original bill. It includes dozens and dozens of complex technical changes that will inevitably involve some issues that will have to come back to the Finance and Expenditure Committee. The history of rushed tax legislation is always that we make legislation in haste and repeal it at leisure. That will inevitably be the consequence when a Supplementary Order Paper is 13 pages longer—13 pages longer—than the original bill that was referred to the select committee in August.  
We have given patient consideration to the bill. Labour supported the bill and worked in the select committee to see it through. But without any reference to the select committee or any indication to us out of nowhere in the supposed spirit of openness comes this Supplementary Order Paper which is bigger than the bill that we initially considered.  
I also refer to the fact that the amendment tabled in the name of my colleague Stuart Nash supports zero-rating GST on fresh fruit and vegetables. I note that this amendment would go some way to taking some of the impacts of the most recent increases in GST off those hard hit New Zealanders such as retired New Zealanders of whom one in two—or more—are already saying they are worse off as a result of the GST changes and tax changes that were introduced in October. They are worse off as a result of those changes. Zero-rating the GST on fresh fruit and vegetables would be a very great assistance.  
I note also that food inflation in the year to date is around 8 percent; there has been 8 percent food inflation. That is why New Zealanders are saying they are no better off as a result of the increase in GST. Zero-rating fresh fruit and vegetables a very sound policy initiated by Labour would go some way to taking that pressure off. I also note that the projections for food inflation next year are even higher than this year’s 8 percent increase. I think they are nudging into double figures and my colleague Stuart Nash will confirm that for me. That is why I very strongly support this amendment in the name of Stuart Nash to take GST off fresh fruit and vegetables.  
I noted last night on television that the Minister of Health Tony Ryall wearing a typically florid shirt and tie combination was at a supermarket. One of the supermarket chains is introducing a healthy food regime and the Minister was there for the photo opportunity. Of course he is the same Minister the very same Minister who has allowed unhealthy food and Coca-Cola back into tuck shops so kids are now able to eat pies and sweets and drink Coca-Cola by the litre. He has also cut the healthy food in schools programme but he wants to be associated with a programme promoted by one of the major supermarket chains to try to offset some of the damage that he has done in terms of healthy eating for kids. I hope the Minister of Health will come to the Chamber and support the amendment in the name of my colleague Stuart Nash which would zero-rate GST for fresh fruit and vegetables. It is a very sensible initiative with a whole range of health benefits for children.  
I will look more broadly at the Supplementary Order Paper introduced by the Minister as it relates to various clauses in Part 1. I think it relates to clauses 10 and 19 if my memory serves me right in terms of zero rating. Labour supports the idea of some changes across zero rating. We supported the original bill in terms of zero-rating land transactions; that was sensible. But Labour’s support has been lost because of the way this Supplementary Order Paper has been introduced.  
The Supplementary Order Paper goes into other clauses around Working for Families and changes there. We have some suspicion I have to say in respect of some of the Government’s statements on that programme. We recall the Prime Minister’s view that the Working for Families programme was “communism by stealth”; I think that was the phrase he used. That is why we say that this Supplementary Order Paper needs to go back to the select committee for scrutiny.  
With all due respect to the Minister and to his officials in the Inland Revenue Department with all of this host of technical complex changes they are not likely to have picked up all of the fish-hooks that emerge when we pass under urgency sitting on a Friday a complex Supplementary Order Paper that is bigger than the original bill. More important we want to make sure that we get it right. Working for Families is a very important component. It is one of the wonderful policies implemented by the Labour Government. After the Prime Minister described it as “communism by stealth”—that is how he described it—he seemed to come to the view that it was helping ordinary New Zealanders to get through life much better than they would without it.  
We want to know what changes are proposed. Sure there will be some sensible changes and there is the odd person who pushes the boundaries. As happens with any programme there are always those who try to take advantage. But we need the scrutiny of the select committee. We need the process of input. It is all very well for the Minister to suggest that he has been working with the tax industry and they want these changes. But the tax industry does not necessarily always have the best interests of the taxpayers at heart. Some people in the tax community are obviously there to try to ensure that their clients are able to minimise shall we say their tax obligations. That is why it is important we have the scrutiny of the Finance and Expenditure Committee the watchdog committee of Parliament which is in charge of revenue on behalf of taxpayers.  
I would like to know what some of the other parties will do in respect of this Supplementary Order Paper. I know that Sir Roger Douglas has always been concerned about the complexity of tax law—the complexity of tax law. Here we have a 70-page Supplementary Order Paper with dozens and dozens of complex technical amendments which the Government is proposing to push through under urgency without any real scrutiny whatsoever.  
I ask Sir Roger and ACT—and the Maori Party; I put it into the same category—whether they felt they were briefed appropriately in respect of this huge complex Supplementary Order Paper as it relates to Part 1 of this bill clauses 3 to 20. I would like to know whether they felt they were given the appropriate briefing whether they knew that a 70-page Supplementary Order Paper was coming and whether they are comfortable with the fact that Parliament under urgency on a Friday is going to push through this complex technical Supplementary Order Paper without any real scrutiny without any reference to the Finance and Expenditure Committee and without any capacity for tax practitioners ordinary members of the public academics and others to take part in the usual sort of scrutiny that has been a hallmark of this Minister.  
We have to ask what on earth is going on when this legislation is pushed through in a most unusual fashion for this Minister. I have to say that across two different Governments he has been in coalition with he has been exemplary in the way he has put through tax legislation. Until today he has been exemplary in the way he has acted and we have to ask what is behind this. Often as we know there can be issues behind an action and we want to know why the Government wants to push through this legislation.  
I ask the Minister to respond to that question but also I really hope that the ACT Party and Maori Party will take a call—I am sure our colleagues the Greens will have a view—because I would like to know how they feel. The Minister has asserted—and we have rejected his assertion—that there was a signal that the Finance and Expenditure Committee was consulted and that a briefing was available on these issues. We did not get that briefing and I would like to know whether other members of the Finance and Expenditure Committee including Government members felt they got the appropriate briefing.