Dyson Ruth: Taxation (Canterbury Earthquake Measures) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Dyson Ruth: Taxation (Canterbury Earthquake Measures) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:672;Page:19040] 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
: 
 Thank you very much for the opportunity to take a call in further support of the progress of the Taxation (Canterbury Earthquake Measures) Bill. I was interested in the comments that the member who has just resumed her seat the Hon Kate Wilkinson made in respect of business payments. She was not referring to the bill that we are discussing but that is all right. She was really drawing other related matters into the debate and I am not criticising her for that but she did talk about the huge amount of money in the Budget that was going towards business support. That is quite a revelation for the House because to the best of the public understanding the business support is finishing in just 2 weeks’ time. I am sure that her words about how much extra financial support is going into business support will be warmly welcomed. I urge her to give us proper details of that package during the Committee stage because the business people who have finished their day and are at home listening to this debate—if they have the power on and if they have nothing else to do with their lives which is quite possible at the moment in Christchurch—will be very interested to know the details of that support. So I urge the member who has just resumed her seat to get to the details of the package that she has announced and share it with us during the Committee stage or the third reading debate tomorrow morning. 
As I said earlier in this debate Labour supports the progress of this bill. We have had a series of earthquakes which have caused widespread devastation and trauma to people. I am still concerned—and I hope the Minister of Revenue is able to comment on this matter during the Committee stage—that this bill is restricted to two earthquakes one on 4 September and one on 22 February because we had a third and quite substantial one on Boxing Day. That earthquake had a large impact on many people and it will fall outside the 8-week time gap that this bill imposes. That would be a mistake. I am sure that that is not deliberate because this bill is intended to help Canterbury people. It is meant to recognise the huge generosity that we have been overwhelmed with from people within our region who have not been affected directly by the earthquake and from people up and down the country. We have had Aucklanders and Wellingtonians supporting us as well as of course people from all the parts in between and from the rest of the South Island. We have had people internationally supporting us. We even had people from Japan offer financial support to Canterbury after the devastation in their own country. It was more than a little moving; it was truly humbling to be supported in that way. So for the Government to now come to the party—it is the middle of May 8½ months after the September quake but that is OK; I am sure it has been busy—and say it is prepared to back the people who have donated goods and have supported the people of Canterbury and exclude them from tax duty from other taxes is a really good move. So we certainly support that. 
I have some other concerns and I briefly mentioned some of them earlier but I want to put on the record the fact that I am also concerned about the redundancy tax credits. It is great to see that people who have been made redundant as a result of the earthquake will have their tax credit for redundancy payment pushed out by a few months. It is not great actually; I used the wrong word. It is just fair. What I do not understand is that if it is fair for Canterbury workers who have been made redundant as a result of the earthquake to have their tax credit payment on redundancy payments pushed out by a few months why is it not fair for every other New Zealand worker who is made redundant up and down the country? We see redundancies literally every day under this Government. Why is it not fair that those redundant workers have their tax credits pushed out altogether? It is an outrageous imposition on people who are going through a very bad time in their lives. They have just lost their jobs not because of anything they did wrong but because the business they have been employed in—perhaps they worked very hard for very many years—is not able to employ them any longer. This is an opportunity and I challenge the Minister of Revenue the Hon Peter Dunne to put forward a Supplementary Order Paper during the Committee stage—it would be supported by Labour—to eliminate those tax credits altogether. It is hard not to compare how long it has taken the Government to advance this very straightforward and relatively inexpensive bill with how long it took for three tax packages worth $23 billion to be pushed through the House under urgency since the Budget. It really shows that National has different priorities compared with Labour. 
When people are in a state of trauma and in critical need it is really good to be able to step up quickly and help them rather than wait for such a long period of time. Certainly the focus should always be on the people who are trying hard and working hard but not getting much financial support. They are the people who should be better supported by the Government not the people who in last year’s tax cuts—people like the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister—received an additional $1000 a week. That is more than many people in Canterbury are earning. They got not $1000 a week but an additional $1000 a week on top of their salary as a result of last year’s tax cuts. 
As I mentioned earlier we will raise some questions during the Committee stage and I hope that the Minister in the chair is competent to answer them or at least take the opportunity to do so. Although we support this legislation and we are not opposing any of the intentions we note that this tax legislation has quite a lot of detail in it. Members will notice the level of detail when they start looking at new sections CZ 23 and CZ 24 or GZ 3 or MB 13(2)(q) which is a really interesting new section that the bill inserts into the Income Tax Act 2007. When we start talking about that level of detail we should try to get it right. It will be beholden on the Minister in the chair during the Committee stage to pay attention to the debate and make sure that we do get it right. This is not just tax legislation; it is retrospective tax legislation. There is no indication in the bill as to how many people it will apply to. If the officials know that it would be good for the Minister to take a call and give us that information. We do not know how the measures will be applied or whether people have already paid tax for some of the goods that are covered by this legislation. Will they get a refund or will they just have an abatement on their next tax bill? What if people have not put in a tax return? Do they have to file one? What are the forms like? How much bureaucracy are we putting Cantabrians through in order to get this great gift from the Government? Is it worth it? We do not want a lot of red tape and we do not want a lot of forms. As Amy Adams said earlier in this debate we have new rules now. We do not like people delaying progress. We do not like people putting barriers in our way to getting help and support and getting on the path to full recovery. 
The final point I want to make is in relation to another major concern we have in Canterbury and it was highlighted during the passing of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority legislation which again was rammed through Parliament with very limited time for consultation. Only invited submitters were able to have their say and that was only after a lot of battling with the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery. The other concern we have which the Minister might like to allude to during the Committee stage is the power of the Minister Gerry Brownlee to instruct our three local authorities to sell some of the assets they hold. No amount of tax concession abolition of tax credits on redundancies or reduction of tax duty in any regard of donations in this legislation would make up for the anger that Cantabrians would feel if their assets were ordered to be sold by the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery. 
I am pleased to be part of this bill. I am sorry that it has come so late but it is a good bill. I hope it is easy to administer. I hope it adds to the support we have received from around the country and I put on record my appreciation to the Minister for introducing it.