Nash Stuart: Taxation (Canterbury Earthquake Measures) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Nash Stuart: Taxation (Canterbury Earthquake Measures) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:672;Page:19032] 
STUART NASH (Labour) 
: 
 We are certainly having an afternoon of two halves. Anyone who has been following the debate on television will know that we have debated in urgency one piece of tax legislation that has been vigorously opposed by the Opposition and the Greens and that we are now debating another piece of tax legislation—the Taxation (Canterbury Earthquake Measures) Bill—that we absolutely support. So we have chalk and cheese here. I suppose this is a classic example of how all parties in this Parliament work together when New Zealanders in a time of need expect Parliament to work together to not be churlish and to stand up for their rights and for what is right. That is what the Taxation (Canterbury Earthquake Measures) Bill represents. 
As we know tax legislation can be very complex. It can also be very complicated. Tax legislation can be used in a number of ways but as this legislation stands it is being used to provide short-term relief and respite in a time of need. As Amy Adams said and as both Clayton Cosgrove and Ruth Dyson have outlined these are unusual times. The last time there was an earthquake of this size and magnitude in this country it happened in Napier the city I come from. Over 250 people died in that earthquake. It was an event of enormous magnitude. It was not until the earthquake in Christchurch that we saw the same level of devastation in this country that we saw in 1931. I said to one of my colleagues that the irony is that probably 3 weeks before the Christchurch earthquake I was sitting on stage commemorating the 80th anniversary of the Hawke’s Bay earthquake. Two weeks later we had the Christchurch earthquake. 
When my colleague Brendon Burns came to Napier he spoke to the people of Napier. There is a guy there called Robert McGregor who is in charge of our Art Deco Trust. Robert McGregor is acknowledged not just in Napier and New Zealand but globally as a real expert on how to reconstruct a city on how to build it up again and on what needs to be done. He is also an expert on the history of Napier. Brendon and Robert had a great talk about how Napier did it. We are talking about an event 80 years ago of course and society has changed. 
Brendon Burns 
: Hardly yesterday for some of us. 
STUART NASH 
: Yes it is hardly yesterday. We can still learn lessons from the past. There is no doubt about that and I think Brendon took some of those lessons back. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Use the member’s full name. 
STUART NASH 
: Brendon Burns took some of those messages back. 
Brendon Burns 
: A very good member. 
STUART NASH 
: Brendon Burns is a very good member. In fact I think the people of Christchurch Central are very lucky to have an MP like Brendon Burns someone with a cool head and nerves of steel who can assess a situation and work incredibly hard in the most trying of circumstances. I know that when Brendon Burns and his wife Philippa Burns came up to Napier for a bit of a rest and to talk to Robert and look at what Napier had done he said it was the first time in months that he had been able to get away and have a decent sleep. Having not lived in Christchurch I cannot understand the stress that the earthquake placed on the people of Christchurch but from talking to my colleagues I realise that that stress was absolutely enormous. The way Brendon Ruth Clayton and Lianne have dealt with the stress— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: You must use members’ full names or titles in the Chamber. 
STUART NASH 
: The way that Brendon Burns Ruth Dyson Clayton Cosgrove and Lianne Dalziel have coped with the stress and have really advocated incredibly hard for constituents in very trying times has been admirable. There is no doubt about that. 
This legislation I think—and I am happy to be corrected—sets a precedent in terms of getting legislation through in a hurry to alleviate the stress and suffering of New Zealand citizens. I am not too sure whether I am right there but I believe I am right. Just a small note of caution here: we must ensure that this precedent is not abused. I do not think it would be but when one sets a precedent there are flow-on effects. We need to make sure that it is not abused and I doubt that it will be. I say that constructively; I am not saying that negatively. I am just saying that we all know that the magnitude of this has been significant so if this type of legislation is ever considered again then we must be sure it is for an event that actually warrants it. That is all I will say on that. 
There are a couple of questions. I think my colleague the Hon Ruth Dyson has raised a couple of those questions and I will mention them as I go through the bill or maybe even in the Committee stage. Although we support this bill wholeheartedly we would like a couple of these questions answered just so that in our minds we know that this is robust legislation and that it really does serve the people of Christchurch because that is the most important thing. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Canterbury. 
STUART NASH 
: Sorry Canterbury. How this legislation came about is that after the earthquake on 22 February many individuals and businesses donated money or goods or supplied them at less than market value—and I think Clayton Cosgrove gave a classic case of that—to those affected by the Christchurch earthquake. Normally under law those people who supplied the goods would have to pay gift duty or maybe fringe benefit tax or other forms of taxation that go with the giving of gifts to people. 
As I think Ruth Dyson mentioned this is retrospective legislation—well of course it is retrospective because the earthquakes have happened. One of the important reasons that this legislation is going through is I am assuming that a lot of people—Clayton Cosgrove talked about some of them—forgot about process and did not understand gift duty rules. They just got up and helped. They went into their warehouses they went into their stores and they asked themselves what they needed to do to help the people of Christchurch. They did not give any consideration to gift duty or that sort of carry-on. They might not have even accounted for that stock; I am not too sure—and that is one of the questions we will ask. They might not have accounted for that stock. They might have just lifted the stock given it out and helped people who were in need. 
At what level do those people have to account for their stock? That is one of the questions we will ask. They are not liable for gift duty but I know for example that there are goods that are zero rated for GST and we will have to account for those. I am keen to know—and hopefully the Minister of Revenue will be able to tell us—at what level people who have given items will have to account for them. Will they have to put a return in even though there were no fiscal implications for the people themselves? 
The other thing that is most important—and it is most important with any tax legislation—is the integrity of the tax system. The integrity of the tax system is something that Labour has been talking about in the House for probably most of this week actually and just because this is a bill that helps with the relief of citizens in need that does not mean it does not have to meet that integrity test. That integrity test is vital. 
One thing I would like to point out is that if an employer has given an employee money or goods it does not mean that the employee is exempt from their own income tax. The employee still has to pay income tax as does everyone else around the country if they are getting paid income. Again I hope the Minister of Revenue will take some calls on this during the Committee stage and we can bring up questions then. 
There are a couple of other outcomes that are most important and one of them is to ensure that the tax treatment of goods donated as part of the Christchurch earthquake relief is appropriate. I would never suggest that someone would donate inappropriate goods or that it would be done in an inappropriate manner. What I am saying is that it must be considered to be appropriate and this is what this legislation covers and again it comes down to the integrity of the tax system. 
Also the revenue base must remain sufficiently intact. So for example this legislation does not exempt employees from paying income tax. It does not do that. Of course one of the most important things this legislation does and one of the most important things that any piece of legislation does is provide a level of certainty. I suspect that what happened a day or two a week or two or a month after the earthquake is that people got up and just gave a whole lot of stuff. Then at some point they probably went to their accountant or they were having a couple of beers with their lawyer or their next-door neighbour— 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: No wine with their lawyer. 
STUART NASH 
: OK wine—whatever. They were having a drink—it was probably a stiff whisky—and they were told: “Goodness me do you know the tax implication of what has happened?” and they said: “Oh shivers! That’s the last thing I was thinking about.” That is why the Inland Revenue Department received a lot of calls. We think this is a very good legislation and we commend it to the House.