Nash Stuart: Taxation (GST and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
Nash Stuart: Taxation (GST and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
[Volume:669;Page:16194] 
STUART NASH (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the motion be amended be inserting the words “this day 6 months” after the word “time”. 
 This bill is called the Taxation (GST and Remedial Matters) Bill. That implies that the bill is a taxation bill primarily concerned with GST and remedial matters. It makes sense. It is the title of the bill it is what it is about it is what was sent to the Finance and Expenditure Committee it is what we talked about at that select committee it is what we heard submissions on at that select committee and it is what the last speaker heard and deliberated on at that select committee.  
Government members spoke on the first and second readings of this bill. They gave full speeches and they spoke in support of it. However in the time between the second reading and the deliberation in the Committee stage a Supplementary Order Paper of 70 pages was introduced. The bill is 57 pages long. The Supplementary Order Paper is larger than the bill itself—in fact this Supplementary Order Paper is larger than seven of the nine tax bills that have come before the House this term.  
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: How many? 
STUART NASH 
: It is larger than seven of those nine tax bills. Even more amazing is the fact that not one member opposite not one National member of the Finance and Expenditure Committee and not one National former member of that committee has taken a call in the Committee stage. We have been debating the Committee stage for nearly 12 hours— 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Is that right? 
STUART NASH 
: We have been debating in the Committee stage for nearly 12 hours— 
Aaron Gilmore 
: Twelve hours of nothing.  
STUART NASH 
: —and not one Government member has spoken except now Mr Gilmore. He has something to say. Let us hope that Mr Gilmore has something to say for longer than 2 minutes because this bill and the amendments in the Supplementary Order Paper deserve that. They deserve more than the practice of members opposite standing up saying: “I support the bill.” and sitting down again. Mr Gilmore knows better than that. He has financial qualifications and he knows about the tax system. He knows that 130000 legal entities are being rubbed out because of this Supplementary Order Paper.  
I want to make two further points in my third reading speech. The first is that Labour might well have supported this bill if the Minister had undertaken proper process. The second point is that this is no way to pass tax legislation. The GST component in this bill related to zero-rating land purchases between GST registered parties so it was quite a change. We are talking about zero rating and therefore the bill probably deserved its title: the Taxation (GST and Remedial Matters) Bill. The zero-rating provisions remove the possibility of rogue taxpayers undertaking phoenix fraud. Labour supported those amendments. We supported this bill in its first reading second reading and during the select committee process. Everyone in this House supported that.  
Part 2 concerns amendments to the Income Tax Act and we supported that part in the first and second readings and at the select committee. Part 3 amends the Tax Administration Act 1994 and we supported that as well. Part 4 makes amendments to the Income Tax Act and yes we supported that. Part 5 makes amendments to the KiwiSaver Act. Part 6 makes amendments to the Stamp and Cheque Duties Act and Part 7 makes amendments to other legislation. We also supported those amendments. Do members get the picture?  
This is a pretty simple bill; it is a technical bill. As I said in my speeches in the first and second readings and as my colleague David Cunliffe mentioned in his second reading speech it is a technical bill—one of those necessary bills that Labour supports. Labour members support good common-sense robust and transparent legislation. That is what we are about. We support legislation that allows taxpayers ease in paying tax. We support legislation that simplifies tax legislation and adds a level of transparency. This is what we support.  
We supported the bill at the first and second readings and through the select committee process. That is what we did and we did so in good faith. Then what happened? On Wednesday evening when we were sitting in this Chamber we saw a 70-page Supplementary Order Paper dumped on the Table—a 70-page Supplementary Order Paper to the Taxation (GST and Remedial Matters) Bill. What has this Minister been doing?  
The Minister told us that these changes had been signalled and we knew that. We knew that the changes had been signalled by the Tax Working Group as the Minister pointed out. A discussion document outlined these changes as the Minister pointed out and the Budget also outlined these changes. Even within the Labour tax team we believed there should have been changes to the rules around loss attributing qualifying companies. We were not against working with the Government on changes to that tax regime. But what the Labour Party demands is transparency consultancy and accountability in tax legislation and this is not what this bill has become. That is why we do not support it.  
The original bill—I was going to say the substantive part of this bill but it is only 57 pages compared to 70 pages—was introduced on 17 August. As I have pointed out there has been plenty of time for the Minister to undertake consultation with his officials and with experts—behind closed doors because it did not happen in the select committee process. There has been plenty of time for the drafters to come up with a bill that the Minister could present to the House and to the select committee and we could be debating it now.  
The thing about this bill is that if it had stayed in its original form—57 pages—then the debate instead of starting at 9 a.m. and finishing at 9 p.m. could probably have started at 9 a.m. and finished at 11 a.m. The debate would have taken 2 hours not 12 hours. The reason it has taken 12 hours is that Labour rejects outright any tax bill that has not gone through the proper process.  
The Minister followed the proper process to the drafting stage. He drafted a bill—and a Supplementary Order Paper that could have been a bill because as I said it was larger than seven out of the nine tax bills that we have seen before this House—and then the bill was referred to the Finance and Expenditure Committee. Then at the select committee Labour members Green members ACT members Maori Party members and National members got an opportunity to look at the bill talk to their experts talk to officials and call for submissions from those who had not been originally consulted. So the Minister went halfway though the process and then stopped. He said that that was enough consultation. I contend that that is not enough and the Labour team contends that that is not enough.  
When it comes to taxation it is only fair that the people of New Zealand have their say. The select committee will put ads in every major newspaper and it will tell New Zealanders their rights under due process. It will say that New Zealand citizens have the right to appear before a parliamentary select committee and give it their views on the legislation. What then happens is that members of that select committee. from all sides every single party in this House will take on board their recommendations and their submissions. We talk to officials we talk to our expert tax consultant and then we come up with considered opinions—that is the process.  
I contend that if that process had been followed then this bill would have been passed more quickly. The Supplementary Order Paper which would have been another bill probably would have passed but it would have passed with amendments because there always are amendments. In every single remedial matters bill there are changes because we always make changes and we always make sure that the bill is a lot more robust.  
The tax officials do a brilliant job. They hear what we say they liaise with our consultant and they say: “Yes we hear what you say; this is good.” This Supplementary Order Paper would have been a good bill if it had gone through the proper process but it has not and the people of New Zealand should be outraged. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I want to deal with a motion moved by Stuart Nash. The motion to amend the question that the bill be read a third time is not in order. It is ruled out of order as it is inconsistent with the decision of the House to accord urgency to the passing of the bill. This is also consistent with my previous ruling that a motion to postpone the debate is out of order as it is inconsistent with the decision of the House to accord urgency to the passing of the bill. I draw members’ attention to Speaker’s ruling 12/2 by Speaker Jack in 1976: “When urgency is taken for the “passing” of a bill this means passing through all stages.”