Jones Shane: Taxation (Annual Rates Foreign Superannuation and Remedial Matters) Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeJones Shane: Taxation (Annual Rates Foreign Superannuation and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 18 February 2014. Volume:696;Page:15991. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon SHANE JONES (Labour): Kia ora Mr Chair and thank you for the opportunity to contribute during the Committee stage of this Taxation (Annual Rates Foreign Superannuation and Remedial Matters) Bill. It is an item of business that has been covered by the Finance and Expenditure Committee. It is something that this party of mine the Labour Party supports but with certain reservations.I want to direct our attention to a portion in the bill. I shall take as read that we are familiar with the purpose of the bill but I just want to isolate a small element pertaining to the rules for Working for Families tax credits. When this policy was introduced it took a while for eligible people to realise the full extent of the policy and like all major policy reforms it has required refinement as time has gone on. It is important that we continually revise the application of such initiatives under our tax system to ensure that the intended recipients are totally aware of their entitlement and so that the information that will eventually flow from these amendments this refinement is put out in such a form that the public realise the extent of their entitlement because unfortunately the public have been sold a line of misinformation recently. We are augmenting this raft of assistance measures to those who require the State to take an active role in lessening the burden of family life and raising children.The changes that are made here are slightly dry but the importance of them is that each time we endeavour to change the provision and access to State largesse for such social good purposes we end up with a system that needs to be simplified. The cost of compliance is always a headache for both I am sure the Inland Revenue Department and those administering it through the various social welfare organisations. It is a constant reminder to us that although we do support this bill and we do claim credit for the architecture surrounding this policy originally simplification is extraordinarily important.I also want to direct our attention to what I think is a very intelligent set of changes designed to deal with the Canterbury earthquake situation. It is useful to note that this bill embraces the notion of an extinction of expiry dates for relief measures. Initially it was not conceived to be necessary. The thing that I return to is that although we support this bill the overarching lens through which I and my colleagues view these things is whether we are simplifying matters. Are we making matters clearer and more lucid? Are we not empowering the accountancy profession to set itself up as high priests so no one can quite understand what is the intent or the extent of such changes? Whatever provision we might be debating or we might be discussing in our deliberations during the Committee stage it is essential that we all members of the Committee bear that in mind. Whether it is the opaque or hellishly complex areas of understanding such as imputation credits—and I will have more to say about Australians tomorrow in the general debate so I will not litter these contributions with further information about the friends of the Prime Minister who are tied up with the Australian supermarkets. That is another matter. The point needs to be made—irrespective of what provision we are focusing on—my plea to us as parliamentarians and the injunction to our professional advisers is to keep it simple and keep it lucid.