Cunliffe David: Taxation (GST and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
Cunliffe David: Taxation (GST and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
[Volume:669;Page:16136] 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 Firstly it is appropriate in relation to the portfolio investment entity issues in Part 3 to note the serious concern on the matter that was expressed by the Government’s senior whip Mr Tremain on 18 May 2007. He called for a substantial review of the way that portfolio investment entities were treated. I invite the member to take a substantive call to tell the Committee whether he is satisfied that this legislation addresses the issues he raised. Of course because he is the Government whip I would assume that the Minister has consulted with him but I think it is incumbent upon him to explain to the Committee whether he is now happy.  
One of the sad things about this bill is that there were elements of the bill as introduced that members on this side of the House were comfortable with. One of my colleagues Mr Burns mentioned the issue of the so-called  
Hobbit 
 clause clause 82 titled “Disclosure of information for verification of government screen production payment entitlement”. How useful would that have been if it had been passed before the skulduggery that went on in the politicisation of the process around  
The Hobbit 
. This would have been a very useful clause. So too as Mr Nash said is clause 84 regarding shortfall penalties although we ask how the cap will be applied. So is subsection (12) inserted by clause 86 about the issue of joint accounts which we raised earlier in the debate about this part and about the potential for income-splitting arbitrage by using look-through companies. On all of these issues and on the matters raised in the amendments to insert new clauses 82B to 82E—about the relationship between the proposed adjustments in taxpayer assessment in relation to the children’s provisions in MB 11 the offshore taxpayers the grandparenting provisions and in HB 7 the depreciation provisions—the Minister in the chair the Hon Peter Dunne has yet to take a call.  
We would like to propose a way forward on this despite the apparently shocking abuse of process that has gone on in bringing to the Committee this complex set of amendments this mammoth Supplementary Order Paper that dwarfs the original bill. It is like having a train that dwarfs the locomotive. That is what this is like. The Minister should have in front of him an indexed briefing folder from his officials that explains all these matters. If he is not prepared to take a call and respond in a reasonable and decent way to the substantive questions that have been raised by the Opposition I call upon him to table that briefing folder so that the Opposition might be able to satisfy itself in due diligence whether these matters have been appropriately handled.  
I invite Chris Tremain to satisfy himself whether he thinks his deep concerns about his own Government’s handling of portfolio investment entities have been satisfied. I suspect that firstly they have not and secondly who would know? We have had this just dropped on us instead of it going through the normal select committee process.  
The Minister has been squirming on this. I do not think he is an evil bloke; he is a pretty decent bloke but this is not his characteristic style. Someone said he is angling for London. Personally I think it is Ottawa. I think he is an Ottawa-type guy. He has obviously had Ottawa in his head or on his head. He is clearly angling for something because this is not his normal style. I think that because he has been squirming he has been at risk of digging himself in a bit deeper here. He has told the Committee that this can be excused because the intent was in the Budget because there is an internal assessment of regulatory impact on the website and because there has been consultation between officials and the department. If all of those things were so great why would any tax bill go near a select committee? Why would it subject itself to having to be looked over by members of other parties if there were simply a trilateral process between Ministers officials and members of the business community? Or is that perhaps a sign of things to come? Is that what the new corporatist State under National looks like? There is a triangular relationship an iron triangle between Bowen House the Wellington Club and the Beehive.