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:19026] 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
: 
 It is unusual having had such heated debate over the Government’s slashing of KiwiSaver to now move into a bill on which I guess the entire Parliament will agree. It is a better way in terms of our stress levels and in terms of our ability to have a good and productive weekend. It does not reduce of course the anger frustration and literal pain that so many people will now go through though as a result of the Government slashing KiwiSaver in the Budget yesterday. But I add my support to the support already expressed by my colleague the member of Parliament for Waimakariri Clayton Cosgrove for the Taxation (Canterbury Earthquake Measures) Bill 2011. I commend the Minister of Revenue the Hon Peter Dunne who is part Cantabrian and part Wellingtonian. He resides in Wellington at the moment but I guess by the end of November he might be returning to his home base in Christchurch for some well-earned retirement time. I commend him though for introducing this bill. 
It is a bit of a shame that the bill is so late in coming to this Parliament. The first major earthquake in Christchurch was in September last year. That was 8½ months ago so we now have legislation that not only is quite late and therefore for a lot of people will be past the time when it would have most benefited them but very unusually contains retrospective taxation provisions. It is pretty unusual for this House to have introduced such legislation let alone for the entire Parliament to have agreed on it. 
One of the questions I will be asking the Hon Peter Dunne when we move to the Committee stage later on tonight is exactly what data the Inland Revenue Department provided to him during the preparation of this legislation and what understanding he has gained about the size of the issue the Inland Revenue Department is facing in terms of people who between 4 September and now would have committed actions that will now be covered by this different taxation provision. I will be asking those questions. The officials can start preparing the answers now to advise the Minister; I am giving the officials a bit of an advance shot on those ones but I have some other questions I will be asking the Minister too. 
This bill is supported and its passage will be unusual in that not only will it be supported but it will go through all stages of the House in one go—we will do the first reading the second reading the Committee stage and the third reading sometime between now and tomorrow or whenever the House rises. That is unusual but it still does not mean that we should not give the specific provisions quite a lot of detailed attention in the Committee stage. I know that people are keen to get home but I hope that people like Craig Foss who has a lot of experience in taxation legislation by virtue of being the chair of the Finance and Expenditure Committee will take seriously a situation when we have retrospective tax legislation and when we should pay as much attention to the detail as is possible and sensible. I certainly hope the Minister takes those issues seriously as well during the Committee stage. 
There are four primary points in this legislation. They all relate to tax issues and they are all specifically tied to actions that have occurred as a result of the Canterbury earthquakes. As I said earlier the legislation is retrospective; it dates right back to 4 September 2010. The bill exempts from tax the gifts given by employers to employees in the first 8 weeks after either the 4 September 2010 quake or the 22 February 2011 quake. I do not know why the Boxing Day quake is not counted as a separate event; that is another issue. The dates are obviously different in that regard but it was actually a separate and significant event. During the Committee stage I will ask why we did not count that earthquake as well. People who were in Christchurch on Boxing Day will share their experiences for anyone who doubts that it was anything other than a significant event. 
The second point is that the legislation allows the Commissioner of Inland Revenue to declare an emergency event during which time contributions to aid families will be excluded from a personal family income scheme. As Craig Foss noted in his contribution this legislation is future-proofed. I share his view: we do not want to have another such incident but it is really good that the Hon Peter Dunne thought of that in advance and said we should not have to put through such legislation again in the future. Instead we should say that this legislation can be triggered if any comparable event occurs in the future. 
The bill delays the removal of tax credits for people receiving redundancy payments from 1 April 2011 to 1 October 2011. I certainly support that provision; it is a good one. But again during the Committee stage I will be stating that if it is good enough for people who lost their jobs as a result of the earthquake to have fairness accorded to them—and I welcome that—I do not understand why it is not good enough for workers who have lost their jobs in other circumstances to have fairness accorded to them as well. We should not have unfair provisions on our statute book at all so it will be an opportunity for the Minister to extend that provision much more broadly. 
The fourth point covered in this legislation is that it creates tax exemptions for businesses donating trading stock to people affected by the earthquakes. Those are substantial changes and on behalf of my constituents I join the other Canterbury electorate MPs in welcoming that support for Cantabrians. Many people whom I know saw the events of both September and February on the news watched it for a few days and felt horrified. Then they watched what happened in Japan and thought that that was worse and it was. Then they forgot about Canterbury. In fact quite a lot of people are surprised when I tell them that it is not all fixed. People in our city have lost family members have suffered significant injury and have lost friends and colleagues. Many have lost their jobs and their homes and many people are looking towards winter with a great deal of despondency because it will be for many a long cold hard winter. This package will give those people the feeling that Parliament is a little more relevant to their lives than sometimes they would think and that people in Parliament do give a toss about how things are going in Canterbury. I hope it is with a totally united voice that we can welcome the support that the Hon Peter Dunne has introduced into this legislation. 
But this bill cannot be the end of the support. We know that in the Budget yesterday a packet of money was given to Canterbury. The specificity—or lack of it—was quite frustrating and many people are saying they do not know whether it is enough; we do not even really know what it will be used for. The scale of the gap in support is not yet determined. I certainly welcome the amount of funding in the Budget. I am not in total agreement with the way it has been given and I hope the fact that Canterbury’s support is so significant does not cause resentment from other people around the country. 
We know that since both major incidents since 4 September and 22 February—and the Boxing Day earthquake—Cantabrians have been overwhelmed by offers of support not just from people in their own city who were not as badly affected and who were in a position to help but also from people around the country and indeed around the world. This legislation formally recognises that the gifts given and the support offered were a huge help not only in practical terms but also in emotional terms for people in Canterbury and it recognises that the Government can do its bit by removing the tax burden that may have been attracted as a result of that generosity. It is entirely appropriate that the Government looks at that generosity and says it is fantastic. That is how Kiwis around the world people from other countries and people from within Canterbury itself have responded to other people’s need—with support generosity and offers of help. The Government has said that that is a fine thing and now the Government as a result of that generosity wants to do its bit as well to make sure we do not slice off a bit as tax take. It is a good bill and I support its progress.