Clark David: Taxation (Transformation: First Phase Simplification and Other Measures) Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeClark David: Taxation (Transformation: First Phase Simplification and Other Measures) Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 24 May 2016. Volume:714;Page:11155. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North): Thank you Mr Chair. It is very kind of you to use my extended title. The Minister of Revenue has raised the issue of the rebuild as many members before him have and some of my questions that I would like some reassurance from the Minister on relate precisely to that same project. I wish to discuss—and I do not think anyone in the debate has yet raised these—clauses 59 and 116 which specifically point to changes in thresholds. Clause 59 amends the repayment threshold for overpayment on income statements. They relate to the personal tax summary.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Are they related to Part 2?Dr DAVID CLARK: Yes absolutely Mr Chair—clause 116 is absolutely in Part 2. The other clause is in Part 1 but it is the same general principle that is in both parts of the bill and relates to the thresholds. The basic issue for those who are at home or new to the debate is that if your personal tax summary shows that you are owed a refund it can be automatically returned to you as a taxpayer. There is a threshold which is currently $200. So if the refund is less than $200 and you do not confirm it through a personal tax summary interaction with the department it is automatically returned to you after 300 days. If it is over $200 then you have to go through the process.The proposal in those two clauses together amounts to changing that threshold to $600 and making the wait just 15 days. So if you are entitled to a refund you get it within 15 days which seems to me broadly a sensible step. It is about reducing bureaucracy. It is about saying if it is below a certain threshold we should not have lots of bureaucrats batting backwards and forwards. It would be very odd given the competence historically of the Inland Revenue Department (IRD) for that number to be wrong. “We should just get on and do it” is the basic premise I take it behind this change.My one concern is whether the IRD can deliver on this given the significant changes that are going on with the business transformation package that is before us which the Minister has just spoken to because we have had situations in this House in the past couple of years when the Minister—and the previous Minister is the one who has had to do this—has brought back child support legislation that simply has not been able to be implemented when thresholds have changed or when a formula has changed. We have passed a law through the Parliament which is one thing to say: “We’re going to change this to what we think is more sensible as a Parliament.” It is then voted upon a change is made that looks sensible on paper and then the Government has been in the distinctly embarrassing situation of having to come back and reverse out those changes because the IRD had not been able to implement them through the computer system. It has happened more than once.What I would like to know—and I believe it was not discussed at the Finance and Expenditure Committee—is whether the Minister has sought assurances that this change can be simply made and whether it can be delivered in the time frame which in the proposed amendment in the original commentary was 1 April this year. Clearly that is no longer the schedule and I would be interested in the Minister letting us know whether this is in fact still the schedule for delivery—whether it is a retrospective piece of legislation. I mean it is a detail but this is what we are here to discuss in respect of the committee changes. This is the kind of thing that could trip the Government up and see the whole legislation coming back to the House. If the Minister has not got that assurance I am prepared to move an amendment that would either remove that or push out the date for implementation to a time when the Minister thinks he could safely ensure that change as a part of the rebuild without the embarrassment of having to bring it back to the House again as has befallen the Government previously. The Minister I see has had some advice so I will look forward to his contribution.I do not wish to prolong my contribution much further only to say that if that is not deliverable as I have mentioned already to the Minister I would be happy to move an amendment that either changes the date so it can be safely implemented or if that is not necessary I am sure the Minister will explain to us shortly. Thank you.