Prebble Richard: Taxation (Annual Rates Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — In Committee 
Prebble Richard: Taxation (Annual Rates Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:16777] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT) 
: 
 In rising to speak to the Taxation (Annual Rates Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill I invite the Minister in the chair the Hon David Cunliffe to participate in the debate. The Minister’s failure to do so turns Parliament into a rubber stamp. 
Some quite serious points have been raised one of which goes to the integrity of the whole process we are dealing with. The Hon Lockwood Smith has asked a perfectly reasonable question with regard to this part which talks about GST and refunds of tax. Of course it carries on further from what we have already passed in Part 3 in relation to time limits on charging GST. He asked what the effect would be on the Waipareira Trust. I say to the Minister that the ACT party has received correspondence from accountants who have said that they have been reading with incredulity statements about the trust about false invoices and the like and they have asked: “How can this happen if the trust has been paying GST?”. If it has been paying GST there ought to be a clear paper trail showing what has happened. Apparently when one looks at the reports that are coming out one finds that one thing that does not exist is a clear paper trail. That can only be if GST was not being paid. 
The Minister was asked that by Lockwood Smith and I now join him in asking that. While we are making changes to the law here and to the position of taxpayers are we in fact assisting the Waipareira Trust? Indeed I asked the other day whether when the Government drafted this legislation it knew that it would be assisting a fellow Minister. Is that the purpose of this part? I say that the Minister has an obligation to get up and tell us what he knows about this provision. Does it assist Mr Tamihere—he is not the Hon Mr Tamihere now; I understand he is Mr Tamihere but all members are honourable members—or the Waipareira Trust? These are reasonable questions to ask and so far they have not been answered. 
It appears to me that the answer is one of two explanations. The worst explanation is that it does and the Government does not want to tell us but the more likely one is that the Minister does not know. I just say to him that that is not acceptable. He ought to know. He ought to be asking those questions and he should not be presenting a bill to the House that could create an impression—which may not be deliberate—that this Government is prepared not just to bend the law to assist a colleague but to rewrite it. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: It did it for Harry! 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: That is true; the Government did it for Mr Duynhoven. But at least in the case of Mr Duynhoven Government members were brazen about it. They came here and said: “We’re fixing it up for our mate.” They told us that. But here we have a situation where they may or may not be fixing it up for their mate. 
I actually think the Minister does not know but I also think he does not want to know. Well I tell the Minister that that is not good enough. He ought to be able to get up and go through the provisions. We had the Minister of Finance in the House when we were debating the matter earlier and he started to say that no it did not help them. When we drew to his attention what was actually in the bill—and I suspect that Mr Cullen is so busy that he either did not know or had forgotten what was in the bill—I could see on his face that he had started to realise that this bill most certainly will assist the Waipareira Trust from the facts that we know and from the facts that we suspect. 
I suspect that the trust has not been paying GST. One of the great advantages of GST and one of the reasons accountants like it is that in order to fill out one’s GST return one has to have a decent set of accounts which is better for a business. It also follows that if one does not have a decent set of accounts—and I have to say that the Waipareira Trust is not the only outfit I know that has not paid GST; I will be right up front and say I do not think the Pipi Foundation paid its GST either—one would find it difficult to reconcile one’s GST. The difference between the Government and myself is that I think that is outrageous. 
RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom) 
: 
 It is a privilege to rise on behalf of National and oppose the Taxation (Annual Rates Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. It was truly said by Benjamin Franklin many years ago in a letter that he wrote to Jean Baptiste Leroy-Beaulieu that in this world nothing can be said to be certain except death and taxes. Part 4 is a complex and technical part of the bill and I join with others in condemning the reluctance or perhaps it is the refusal of the Minister to stand and participate in this debate. I do that with a sense of sadness because Mr Cunliffe came to the House quite recently as a new member with a great future—or so some people thought. Here he has an opportunity to show off his knowledge and his intellect and to show that he is a capable and conscientious Minister with some knowledge of this bill. Does he take the opportunity to demonstrate his skill to the Committee? No. Are some of us questioning whether he has that skill? Yes. Is it probable that he lacks that skill? Yes. That is why I want to pick up on a number of technical issues in connection with Part 4—to prod the Minister from his seated position in the Chamber and his apparent lack of interest in this legislation so he will rise and make some limited substantive comment on the issues I raise. 
Part 4 contains a number of changes that amend various statutes. Other members have referred to changes to the Goods and Services Tax Act. There are amendments to the Taxation Review Authorities Act that I would like to deal with at some length in later calls. Also there are amendments to the Income Tax Act 1976 particularly with regard to voting and market interests amendments to the Taxation Review Authorities Regulations and a very significant change to the Partnership Act of 1908—that old legislation. 
I start the analysis by looking at the changes to the Taxation Review Authorities Act which are set out in clause 141. That Act is not well-known legislation. Certainly the role of the Taxation Review Authority is clear and it has been discharged manfully by officials and members of the authority for a number of years. Why is it I ask the Minister that there has been a change in clause 141 that replaces the figure of $15000 with the figure of $30000? The question must be asked as to why there is no alignment between the position in a civil jurisdiction in respect of small claims and a different and apparently seemingly illogical alignment in connection with the Taxation Review Authority’s legislation. Surely the issues must be the same in both circumstances and the monetary jurisdiction should not alter. Small claims are small claims and across the broad brush of Government legislation there should be constancy. That is the first question I would like to raise. 
The second aspect concerns the amendment to the Taxation Review Authorities Regulations. I am glad that the Minister is listening closely to this point because I husband the hope that he may rise and make some contribution other perhaps than belching to the discussion that centres upon clause 144. For the first time it seems there is a definition in clause 144(1) of the meaning of the word “precedent”. I do not think it is a remarkable definition but it states: “precedent means a decision of the authority that affects or may affect the outcome of a separate and unrelated dispute between—”.