Street Maryan: Taxation (GST and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
Street Maryan: Taxation (GST and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
[Volume:669;Page:16146] 
Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
: 
 That is right. 
Hon Members 
: Ha ha! 
Hon MARYAN STREET 
: Excellent. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I like her. 
Hon MARYAN STREET 
: Thank you Mr Chairman; for whatever reason thank you for the call. I will accept any of those reasons. I wish to speak to clause 88 also in relation to Part 4 of the Taxation (GST and Remedial Matters) Bill which is before us under urgency. The first point I make is one that has been made by my colleagues previously and that is about the process of urgency. Perhaps a taxation measure is one of the few pieces of legislation that could have the word “urgency” applied to it simply in order to get everything processed and in place in time for 1 April in the following year. 
Chris Tremain 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. This debate is about Part 4. We have had wide-ranging debates earlier. This debate is specifically about Part 4. It is not about the process of urgency; we have moved beyond that. I just ask the Chair to draw the attention of the speaker to Part 4 and to focus on that part of the topic. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I uphold the point of order. The member will speak about Part 4.  
Hon MARYAN STREET 
: Thank you Mr Chairman; I was on my way to that. Clause 88 could be an example of one of two things and I would invite the Minister in the chair the Hon Peter Dunne to explain to this Committee which of those two things it demonstrates. It could demonstrate a shambles of consultation amongst Ministers. That is apparent in clause 88 in the first instance given that it talks about the “Benefit of accommodation” and that subsection (1B) inserted by subclause (2) in clause 88 states: “(1B) The market value of the following benefits provided to a person is income of the person if the benefit is provided in relation to an office or position held by them: (a) the provision of accommodation: (b) the provision of an accommodation allowance instead of accommodation.” This could be called the “Bill English’s revenge” clause because now he has been shamed out of claiming any accommodation allowance—notwithstanding the fact that the accommodation allowance has been increased by at least 100 percent by this current Government so Ministers can now claim more than twice as much as Ministers previously could claim; certainly that is true. 
Chris Tremain 
: No it’s not. 
Hon MARYAN STREET 
: It is absolutely true and I can demonstrate it from the amounts I was able to claim as a Minister. It is completely true; I believe Ministers are able to claim something in the vicinity of $37500 or something of that sort.  
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Precisely that. 
Hon MARYAN STREET 
: Precisely $37500. In fact $24000 was the amount previously; that is exactly right and I invite those members who have not been Ministers previously to go back and have a look at the rules that applied earlier. But let us have a look because now this amount is to be taxable. Bill English may well have consulted with the Minister over this clause and said: “All right I am not getting this I have been shamed out of claiming this so everybody else who is getting it is now going to be taxed on it.” He may well have consulted with the Minister over that provision.  
Then what follows is the backdating. Why would the Minister of Finance work against his own interests and suggest that this legislation should be backdated to 2005-06 notwithstanding the fact that my colleague pointed out earlier that it could have been backdated much further? In the case of Mr English it would have scored the Inland Revenue Department a considerably greater amount in taxation. Or was the other reason the fact that the Minister in the chair might have to answer to the fact that that clause the backdating clause was simply inserted to throw us off the track to distract us from the purpose which was to make these accommodation benefits taxable? Bill English clearly wanted to exact revenge for the fact that he was shamed because of his own duplicity and manoeuvring into not claiming the accommodation allowance previously. So I ask the Minister which it is. Which of these two reasons is it? Is it that consultation amongst Ministers is shambolic as we always suspect is the case—that the right hand does not know what the other right hand is doing in this National Government? Or is it to throw us off the track?