Dyson RuthHon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): How old is 14 dog years in human years Minister Collins?Hon Judith Collins: It's about 90.Hon RUTH DYSON: Yeah OK. Well I am not going to make any negative comments about 90-year-old dogs. Can I first of all say what a breath of fresh air it is to have a Minister who is actually engaging in our questions and not disregarding them all and who not only responds to them but knows what she is talking about. It is a blissful relief after over 8 years of not having that so thank you for that Minister. I am not sure that you have always done it to be fair in all your other portfolios but you know break the rules—that is good.I was really interested in the comment Minister Collins made earlier about tax legislation often coming as a result of substantial—white paper green paper—consultation getting a lot of understanding and support. It further cemented the concerns I had which with respect were not adequately addressed in terms of why some of the major players did not have their well-considered thoughtful submissions agreed with. We may not get to that point tonight but I would really like to understand better why you have such disagreement between a bunch of the key players—the chartered accountants the Law Society etc.—and the IRD or in fact the Minister because the Minister does the final sign-off on the policy. It was the same with the amendment which we did not support of Ron Mark. It was the same theory. I am not going to talk about the details of that but again X is saying this and Y is saying that and I do not understand. It was hard to judge who was right and who was wrong. Even if I had been on the Finance and Expenditure Committee I think that would have been quite difficult.I want to just get to the next question though which is in relation to Part 3. I have got two questions here. I am really supportive of the idea that we are allowing a longer period of time for reconsideration of tax issues but I think it has got potential downsides and I want to know whether the Minister has thought of them. Where somebody has made a genuine mistake in their GST return—and I guess obviously they would either owe money or be owed money—it can now go out to 8 years instead of just 4 years. During a period of 8 years I think individuals' circumstances can change substantially. What discretion is there going to be for the remission of debt?We are starting on the basis of this being an accident. It was a miscalculation there was an error in the return—no consideration of somebody deliberately not paying their due tax. This is a genuine error either on behalf of IRD or on behalf of the punter. They are now able to go out for 8 years as this provision in Part 3 proposes but in that time their circumstances have changed dramatically—they have been ill; they have lost their job; they have lost their home whatever; marriage break-up—there will be a variety of circumstances under which the person's finances are considerably different. It seems to me that we have heard in the past that IRD's discretion is quite limited in terms of remitting debt and I would be really interested to know alongside the extension of the time allowed—which as I say has got some good and bad features—what discretion is going to be given to IRD to say: Well your circumstances have changed. It was a genuine error that caused this underpayment of GST in the first place. We'll remit it. We won't require it to be paid." That is the first part of my question.The second part—I think one of my colleagues referred to it in a bit of a humorous way. Stuart Nash said he could not really imagine IRD ringing people up and saying "Guess what? We owe you a lot of money." but I have confidence that the system works both ways that IRD does not just ring people and say "You owe us money." but would also do the same if it was reviewing a client's returns and found that actually IRD owed them money that it had not paid. I would just like you to reinforce my confidence Minister and say that that is correct.I do not understand either though why this is only about GST. Why is this not about other forms of income? There are confusing lengths of requirement as to when people have to keep their returns. This now brings in another one. So it is going to be 8 years for GST. Does that mean people have to keep all their tax returns for 8 years? Currently most people I think do that for 7 years. If that is the situation for GST what about the next step? What about for other sorts of taxes? Is this a trial or is this as far as the Minister wants to go in this regard? [Bell rung] Mr Chairman?The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): The Hon Ruth Dyson.Hon RUTH DYSON: Thank you Mr Chairman. I will probably take just a brief call because I did want to ask about the provisions outlined in clause 328. It came as a great surprise to me that we still had stamp and cheque duties relating to the Stamp and Cheque Duties Act of 1971. I often say in jest to people that I will pay them by cheque just to see what their reaction is. Do they have any recollection—if I said "Iain Lees-Galloway I will pay you by cheque." he would look totally blank. He is of an age where he actually does not know what a cheque book is. He may remember parents or grandparents paying by cheque. On a serious note though I know that stamp duties apply to other things. If we are going to retain this regime of stamp and cheque duties what is it worth to the Crown now? What is the cost of administration of the Stamp and Cheque Duties Act of 1971 compared with the income gained and how much of that income is retained by the Crown as opposed to how much is then dispersed to other parties? I am pretty sure that stamp and cheque duties are not a direct taxation to the Crown but that might be wrong.This is a huge amount of alteration; the whole of section 86G of the Act has been taken out—in fact more than that. Section 86GB right through has been taken out and replaced. So it seemed like quite a lot of work timewise but I am not so much interested in that because we do have a responsibility as a Parliament to keep our laws up to date. It is more of just a—of interest and maybe for future review by the Finance and Expenditure Committee. What is this worth? What is the Stamp and Cheque Duties Act of 1971 worth? How much do we gain and how much of it is retained by the Crown and what is the estimate of its administration costs? Thank you for the opportunity to make those points."