Jones Shane: Taxation (International Investment and Remedial Matters) Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Jones Shane: Taxation (International Investment and Remedial Matters) Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 08 February 2012. Volume:677;Page:251. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker Robertson. I want to acknowledge Simon Bridges as the new chair of the Finance and Expenditure Committee. Actually he follows the efforts of Amy Adams Shane Jones Clayton Cosgrove—I am not entirely sure whether I can accord that status to David Cunliffe—and even Peter Dunne. For reasons that escape me my colleague David Parker said that Simon Bridges chaired the meeting very well. I am not entirely sure whether he is ready for a CSI test or something like that but I am prepared to follow the words of my senior colleague and wish Simon Bridges well as he steers that committee which after all is the all-important Finance and Expenditure Committee.  
It is a committee I might say that was bedevilled during the period of time after Air New Zealand’s private equity shrank as a consequence of a financial collapse to somewhere near 20 to 30 percent. The Crown picked up the rest but for reasons that were never fully understood the power and fears of the private shareholders in that company meant that it was very difficult for the Finance and Expenditure Committee to exert a level of surveillance over the investment the Crown had in that entity. Unfortunately no doubt we will hear about that issue a great deal more frequently as the year unfolds.  
We will support the Taxation (International Investment and Remedial Matters) Bill. For a mercifully short period of time I sat on the committee and heard a number of submissions about this bill. I enjoyed the company of David Bennett and others and I could see that one did not need to read legislation in order to advance in the National Party unlike our side of the House where we were virtually reduced to candles as we studied hour upon hour into the twilight.  
That causes me to remind myself about Dr Cullen’s attempt to regularise and to improve how we taxed investments held and enjoyed by Kiwis overseas. It has led to arguably one of the most successful lobbying attempts to do with international taxation that I ever saw when Tony Gibbs started spending enormous amounts of money hiring lobbyists and plastering advertisements—which I am sure the Inland Revenue Department officials of that time would recall—in our provincial newspapers and our national newspapers. That example showed that the kinds of people who store their wealth in entities that might be captured by attempts—such as this bill—to ensure that the taxation system is not unfair but also that people pay a fair amount are not to be trifled with.  
We will support this bill but the bottom line is that whether you are on that side of the House or where my colleague Mr Parker and I sit we know that it is important that investors who are coming to New Zealand and are taking a punt to put their funds into areas that may or may not turn into further jobs but that are successful investments are not scared away through our tax system and at the same time that we New Zealanders do not find ourselves being able to make investments in other overseas jurisdictions and then having people complain that there is an uneven playing field. And that is a reasonable principle; politics will determine how far the principle tilts one way or the other. But we will support this bill.  
I think it is interesting that the amendments that have been made draw on the fact that although we have a internationally recognised set of accountancy principles—and after the Enron crisis at that particular point in time I was wisely the chair of the Sealord company before being possessed by a sort of flash of enthusiasm to come into Parliament—I do recall that the imposition and the application of the accountancy principles at that time led to a whole host of transactional difficulties for New Zealand firms. Now to avoid such opportunities for leakage opportunities for gouging from the professionals—because many of the business managers are not really au fait with the integration between our domestic code and international standards—we are going to go with the accountancy principles enjoyed by the United States. So it is good to see that our friends in the United States still have a level of repute and power in that particular sphere of the world’s economy because they have been great. As someone who suffered an education in the United States it is good to see that that particular part of the apparatus has not been eclipsed by other economies that are growing very strongly.  
It is important that the Labour Party reiterates—and unfortunately my colleagues who actually were on that committee are no longer here this evening—the areas that we disagreed upon. But broadly speaking the two main parties have to have a view as to whether or not we have got the balance right when we mesh together domestic expectations of tax revenue and international expectations as to whether or not this country is either a fair or a reasonable place to store wealth or to attract wealth into. Now we are always going to have a problem for as long as we have the current fiscal settings that are being pursued by the Government of the day. We have a revenue base that is shrinking we have spending ambitions that are large in the community and we have capital ambitions that are large. Let us hope that these remedial matters actually improve the prospect of not so much the Government as the community being able to delve into various sources in the economy and generate enough revenue to pay.  
 Now we are always going to have a debate as well as to what the appropriate level of expenditure is in terms of the community’s expectations when there is—as our friends from the Maori Party seem to have developed—a sudden fascination for funding family reunions etc. Given my father had 17 kids I look forward to being an applicant in that regard after I leave politics 
Hon Member 
: No chance! 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: No chance—you are probably right there. They are more Dalmatian than Maori and they will say “You can pay for it yourself Mr Jones.”  
This committee in dealing with technical matters at the end of the day has depended indeed even in our time on Therese Turner and the very fine officials from the Inland Revenue Department. There are a couple of occasions when submitters do come to the committee and they want to find enough confidence that individual members of the committee not only understand the content but understand the context of the problem that they are bringing to us. We rely on the technical advice of such officials and of course the greatest official of them all was Mr Oliver; no doubt he is endeavouring or did endeavour to clone himself and he was aided by that old mate of mine Rob McLeod who has long since fled to Australia to substantially improve his income. Those matters aside we have to acknowledge the efforts of the Inland Revenue Department officials. But in particular they also need to recognise that individual members of the committee from time to time do call for additional information from specific submitters.  
Now why we do that is to ensure that as lobbyists representatives from companies and investors come they want to know that this committee the most senior committee in the select committee constellation has people who will make the additional effort in a highly technical area. 
Hon Christopher Finlayson 
: Like Maori Affairs. 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: Well I have yet to enjoy the pleasure not of Hone Harawira’s company but of Tau Henare’s chairmanship on the Maori Affairs Committee. I have waited 6 years to actually get on to the Primary Production Committee. I am particularly glad to be on that committee because I am told that from time to time it is invited to places such as Central Otago and I understand an Adelaide trip could be in the offing as well. Given I have a modest level of knowledge about aquaculture I look forward to that invitation. No doubt leave will be sought and hopefully provided.  
So we will support this bill. I acknowledge the efforts of the officials. I acknowledge Simon Bridges and the role that he has taken on. We have some senior people on our side who will be working on this committee so we suffer not a sliver of doubt as to whether we should support this bill. But we point out that the underlying principles will always be a balance of politics and there is one area we are disappointed with: the approval levy. But that goes more to ensuring at a time when revenue is shrinking and spending ambitions in the community are growing that we do not unwisely or foolishly block off important sources of income. We will support this bill.