Cunliffe David: Taxation (International Taxation Life Insurance and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee 
Cunliffe David: Taxation (International Taxation Life Insurance and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:656;Page:6011] 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 I certainly look forward to my colleague Mr Nash’s contribution forthwith because he has been a tremendous and very studious supporter of the process of the select committee as has Mr Burns reflecting very clearly the interests of the broadcasting industry and of course the Council of Trade Unions. 
The relationship between the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions and the Institute of Chartered Accountants was so close during part of this bill that we conjectured we might witness the formation of a new body—the “CTUCA”; the “Council of Trade Unions and Chartered Accountants.” But no despite agreement on the substance of the bill the merger did not quite occur and we look forward to hearing more in that regard. Certainly they had their eye on both the principle and the detail and who in this House would not wish that to occur—because of course it would simplify our job. I am sure members opposite would be only too willing to support anything that the “CTUCA” could agree on. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I can think of a few things. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Our Labour spokesperson wishes to demur from some of that and probably with good reason. 
I would like to take us back to an issue that covers Part 2 and several other parts which are the depth and breadth of the bill. I would like to read briefly from the commentary on the bill: “The size of the bill and the depth and breadth of the material it covers have made our consideration more difficult than it might have been otherwise.” That statement is by the way a unanimous statement of the committee. It is part of the covering language that applies to all of the parts of the bill so it is not the view of only the Labour members of the committee; it includes the view of the Government members. 
The commentary on the bill continues: “In trying to meet the report due date for the bill we and our committee consideration processes have been put under considerable pressure. We do not consider it desirable to put a number of very distinct and significant proposals into one bill simply because they relate to one area of law. In future we would prefer to see such proposals introduced to the House as separate more manageable bills. If such proposals are not divided sensibly the House might wish to accord significantly more than the usual consideration time to committees charged with considering such bills.” Mr Chairman I hope that you will deem the Committee of the whole House such a committee and that we will be able to take more than the usual time to consider the important matters around payroll giving around charitable donations and around the tax treatment of meal breaks which are important to employees nationwide. 
The commentary on the bill goes on to state: “Ministers should remain mindful that if departmental advisers are appointed to advise committees on such bills they will need to meet committee deadlines and information needs under pressure.” That I think is both a compliment to the hard work of our officials and a polite warning to the powers that be that the pressure was at times excessive. 
This part includes new section CW 62B inserted by clause 39 which deals with the tax treatments of reimbursements and honoraria paid to volunteers. It is an opportunity for this Committee to once more recognise the importance of the work of volunteers. In that regard it is pretty important that we accept the principle that in many of our non-governmental organisations there is a very strong volunteer component to the work that they do. Many of those organisations do not fully cost their overheads in terms of the volunteer time and in what sector is that more apparent than the adult and community education sector? 
These clauses give us further reason to remind ourselves that recent changes that saved only around $10 million in expenditure from that sector have the impact of undermining or de-leveraging from that sector the virtually unpaid contribution of the many thousands of volunteers nationwide who are supporting the night classes and community courses by providing expertise and by assisting on a voluntary or near-voluntary basis in running those courses. 
We all know the phrase “penny wise and pound foolish” and I wonder whether it is possible to be “pound wise and penny foolish” because really those services cost only pennies but they have been the target of some of the first cuts the Budget. That is one of the things that worries Labour—the new funds allocated for Budget 2010 are only about half of the new funds in Budget 2009 and Part 2 really draws those issues high in our consideration.