Burns Brendon: Taxation (GST and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
Burns Brendon: Taxation (GST and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
[Volume:669;Page:16184] 
BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 I am pleased to follow my colleague Stuart Nash. I think he was picking up on a very important point as we debate the title and commencement clauses of the Taxation (GST and Remedial Matters) Bill. In fact when we consider the title it gives us a signal that this was to be a non-controversial bill. It is inherent in the title that it would not create any divisions in Parliament. Indeed until this morning at 9.30 or thereabouts it had not done so. It had proceeded quite amicably through the process of the Finance and Expenditure Committee. It had been done in a bipartisan fashion and some good sensible amendments had been brought through the select committee process. We had had submissions and heard other people’s view on the bill to make sure it implemented the measures that the Government wanted to see implemented.  
Then effectively out of nowhere came the 70-page Supplementary Order Paper. I think it complicates the process and makes it very difficult for a rational decision-making process to take place. It came out of nowhere. The Minister of Revenue asserted that there were indications of it; we certainly did not see those through the select committee. To see a Supplementary Order Paper of that magnitude—70 pages of complex detail—tabled in Parliament on Tuesday is not appropriate given the title of what should be a non-controversial bill proceeding through Parliament. It is a wash-up bill that creates no issue between parties that simply want to resolve technical tax adjustments of an annual basis and similar adjustments. Yet here we are at 7.30 2 weeks out from Christmas on a Friday evening debating a bill that has attached to it a major Supplementary Order Paper that sees the title needing to be changed to reflect the enormous addition that the Supplementary Order Paper brings.  
There is major substance in the Supplementary Order Paper. Major changes are introduced to the bill and the Parliament has no opportunity other than this very constrained chance through the Committee stage and the third reading of the bill to consider what ramifications are brought by the bill under the current title. It brings quite considerable risks of error and we may need to revisit it as a Parliament. That is certainly the history. Anybody who follows the legislative process will know that rushed legislation is bad legislation. There are occasional needs for it to be rushed and we as a party have not stood in the way of those changes. I think back to the Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Bill. Not a single member of this House opposed that legislation. But when we have a technical tax bill as reflected in the title of this bill it is incumbent on the Minister that he does not introduce controversial late changes of the scale and order that he has which skew the original purpose of the bill and are not truly reflected in the title of the bill before the Committee.  
This brings a risk for the Inland Revenue Department. Let us face it: no one particularly likes paying tax. The department has a difficult task. Its job is to be fair—I think that is the phrase—and to collect the revenue and we uphold the department in its duty and acknowledge the work that it does. But when a bill with a Supplementary Order Paper of this size under the bill’s title as introduced comes through Parliament at a great rate of knots bringing with it very high risks of error that have not been picked up by the usual process then inevitably two parties wear those risks—probably three in fact. The first is the Government but technical tax bills are not likely to create enormous public disorder. They also create issues for the taxpayers which is the second party. They will find a venue for their wrath and that wrath will likely be deposited I suggest with the Inland Revenue Department.  
I have some sympathy for the Inland Revenue Department officials. I am sure if they were able to speak out they would not be favouring this process. I am sure they would want the comfort that the select committee process provides by way of scrutiny and by way of public submission. When a bill is introduced with a Supplementary Order Paper of this scale that is not truly reflective of the title that it came into this House with in August then there have to be some very serious concerns.  
The bill could be re-titled with alternative names. One that comes to the mind is the “Jonathan Coleman Mark 2 Bill” reflecting the last time the Minister of Revenue had a major piece of legislation in the House and entrusted it to another Minister. The Minister in the chair the Minister for Social Development and Employment had better be a bit wary and check her speech notes. If she has any notes tonight to speak from she should double-check that they are reflective of the Taxation (GST and Remedial Matters) Bill and not another piece of tax legislation.  
Although Mr Dunne apologised profusely for that error and accepted that it was his office’s error I think Jonathan Coleman copped the flak for that and his reputation suffered. So I suggest to the Minister for Social Development and Employment sitting in the chair tonight in place of the Minister of Revenue that she watch very carefully if she has speech notes to check that they are the right speech notes. Then she will not be given the sort of moniker that Jonathan Coleman earned in respect of reading speech notes for another tax bill.  
Another name for the bill could be the “Here I Come Ottawa Bill”. The word is that Mr Dunne may be in his last term in Parliament and that he might be looking for a posting overseas and Ottawa is a posting that tends to go to middle-level politicians finishing their career. I am sure he would make a very good High Commissioner for New Zealand in Ottawa; I am sure he would serve us faithfully. But I have to say— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: You get the Caribbean at the same time. 
BRENDON BURNS 
: Gee it must be really nice in December to escape from Ottawa to the Caribbean because the winters are fairly bleak.  
The Minister is a competent Minister. That is why this bill has been surprising because the hallmark of this man through 25-plus years—a quarter of a century—in this Parliament has been sober habits. He is a man who brought through legislation when he was a Minister that generally was well structured was introduced in the appropriate time frames and was given the right amount of time for scrutiny by select committees and by Parliament. So it is a surprise to us that we are dealing with a bill with the title of Taxation (GST and Remedial Matters) Bill. The locomotive is the bill as reflected by the title but behind it is this train of many carriages reflected by the Supplementary Order Paper. Perhaps we could pick a locomotive title for the bill.  
Another possibility might be the “Mantle of Gerry Brownlee Bill” because in terms of competence he is another Minister who vies for the title of not having the best command of the House’s practices. By bringing in this bill in this fashion with this huge collected train of a 70-page Supplementary Order Paper which is bigger by 13 pages than the original bill Peter Dunne is bringing the House into considerable risk of disrepute as those tax changes unfold and the implications of them come through for us as a Parliament.  
I expect as a member of the Finance and Expenditure Committee that this may not be the last we see of the Taxation (GST and Remedial Matters) Bill soon to be an Act. I believe we will be revisiting this issue or at least the content of the Supplementary Order Paper that is attached.  
In terms of the commencement dates I note—and my colleague Stuart Nash touched upon this—the varying commencement dates for the various clauses of the bill. They date right back to 2005-06 in the changes to the taxation treatment of accommodation issues. So there is an issue of retrospectivity with this bill as introduced and we always have to be very cautious with that as a House. Obviously a whole range of issues unfold when we start trying to pass legislation that deals with past issues and validates issues that have been in play for sometimes a number of years. 
We have several varying commencement dates. Clause 104 comes into force on 1 January 2005 so we are stepping back nearly 6 years in terms of retrospectivity in respect of the bill. Clauses 88 90 92 and 93 come into force on 1 April 2005 so again there is that 5-year - plus time frame. Clause 92B comes into force on 1 April 2006. Clauses 90B and 91 come into force on 1 October 2007. Clause 11 comes into force on 30 November 2007. Then we come up to more recent times with clauses 64 and 82 coming into force in October 2008 and 2009 respectively and clause 31 and whole range of others which I will not bore the Committee with reading coming into force on 1 April 2010. We are into this year coming into the home straight in respect of the retrospectivity of the measures. But it is an issue of concern that we are passing this legislation under urgency.