Beaumont Carol: Taxation (GST and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
Beaumont Carol: Taxation (GST and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
[Volume:669;Page:16117] 
CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) 
: 
 I will follow on from some of the points made by my colleague the Hon Trevor Mallard. I start by asking David Bennett one of my colleagues across the Chamber whether he might get up to talk to us about some of the implications of the Taxation (GST and Remedial Matters) Bill for sharemilkers. I understand that being an MP from the Waikato he has some knowledge on the matter of sharemilkers. I am sure that he will want to stand up and try to deal with some of those very important questions about these tax changes and the implications they may have for sharemilkers.  
I rise to talk on Part 2. As Trevor Mallard has said this is a huge part with a whole range of provisions that traverse some quite wide territory including matters relating to emissions units superannuation and the treatment of various superannuation matters and the calculation of tax credits of multi-rate portfolio investment entities and exceptions for foreign portfolio investment entity equivalents. A whole range of quite substantive matters is amended in this very large part of the bill.  
Members on this side of the Chamber are concerned that despite all the good work despite the consideration by a select committee—my colleague Stuart Nash has referred to some of this concern—and despite the ability to deal with those matters collaboratively as a Committee we have instead found that we have ended up opposing this bill because of the substantial Supplementary Order Paper 187 which has raised a whole range of very significant matters in addition to what was already a very significant bill without the select committee having had the ability to consider it. We consider that to be a serious abuse of process.  
Of course it probably is not a surprise to see that that is happening because time after time with this Government we have seen an abuse of process and a lack of commitment to our democratic process and to the proper use of select committees. It has fast tracked significant legislation through shortened select committee process or through the use of urgency. Here we are in urgency again and it is an abuse of process.  
This Supplementary Order Paper was introduced at the eleventh hour and MPs have had very little time to consider it in detail. At 70 pages it is actually larger than the original bill which at its first reading was 57 pages long. The provisions of the Supplementary Order Paper should have gone to a select committee. This is the first opportunity this Parliament has had to consider the provisions of the Supplementary Order Paper. The complexity of tax legislation—and I am certainly no expert on tax legislation—means that it benefits more than most legislation from full select committee processes. We need people to consider it and we need to get expert advice on it.  
I turn to the provisions of the Supplementary Order Paper. A number of my colleagues have already looked at the changes to loss attributing qualifying companies. On first appearance we would probably have had very little problem with a number of areas and were likely to want to support them. We do not want to see people abusing the system to minimise or limit their tax liabilities.  
I will also talk specifically about the provisions relating to the broader definition of “income” for social assistance. On the face of it it sounds like a very sensible provision to include income from family trusts fringe benefits in certain circumstances income from a cash portfolio investment entity that is not locked in and income from a spouse living overseas. People are structuring their affairs to inflate their entitlements and we have concerns clearly if that structuring is being used to abuse things such as Working for Families which is designed to assist people who genuinely need it not people who can structure their income in certain ways to get assistance that they are not in need of.  
I note that wage earners and salary earners generally end up paying the tax they have to pay. Their affairs are generally simple and they end up paying the tax they are liable to pay. On this side of the Chamber we do not see it as appropriate that those who can structure sources of income to minimise their tax liabilities should be able to access entitlements that they do not need. To that extent there are probably some very sensible provisions in this Supplementary Order Paper.  
Talking of wage earners and salary earners I also note the fact that this Government has made it more difficult for people who rely primarily on wages and salaries to make ends meet. Those people are struggling at the moment. They pay their full tax liabilities and they are struggling. A number of the changes that the Government has made in employment relations legislation mean they will struggle more. Those changes will potentially reduce their income. People who are dismissed without reason or right of redress of course lose income. People who cannot access assistance from their union organiser to organise themselves to collectively bargain and improve their income will also effectively suffer on wages that are lower than what they need. That has tax implications too. We all should be aspiring to the completely opposite situation where we lift wages and have employment relations legislation that makes it easier for people to organise and improve their wages.  
Going back to the provisions of Part 2 I reiterate that this is already a very complicated bill. It has already had a lot of work done on it and has had a degree of support across the House. I think it is incredibly silly for the Government to have done what it has done in abusing the process by tabling this Supplementary Order Paper which means that we will end up voting against the bill. The Government could have done what it was trying to do particularly make changes to loss attributing qualifying companies and the definition of “income” for social assistance and we may well still have supported it. The Government could have done that using a different mechanism. With that comment I repeat that Labour will not be supporting this bill.