Adams Amy: Taxation (Tax Administration and Remedial Matters) Bill — First Reading 
Adams Amy: Taxation (Tax Administration and Remedial Matters) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:669;Page:15892] 
AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) 
: 
 I am pleased to stand up tonight to take a call on the Taxation (Tax Administration and Remedial Matters) Bill. We have already heard in the House tonight discussion on some of the key things this bill does. I commend Rahui Katene from the Maori Party who addressed the full ambit of what this bill does rather than focusing on just a single aspect the removal of gift duty. 
I have to start there though. Frankly having listened to some of the contributions tonight I am appalled at the level of absolute claptrap being spoken about the system. I would be very surprised if any of the members who have contributed in the last half an hour that I have been sitting here with the possible exception of Rahui Katene have ever been through the process of managing a gift duty application applying transactions or setting up these very structures and dealing with them. Listening to some of the speakers it became very clear to me that they had no concept in fact of how gift duty works what it does and how simple a matter it is to structure one’s affairs so that it is of no relevance. 
We heard from Mr Burns that he will not support the removal of gift duty because it does not do anything to assist recovery from the Canterbury earthquake. Well I say good on him but this is tax legislation. The Canterbury earthquake is of course a very serious matter but life does go on. This is a tax bill that addresses issues with the tax system and for the member to say that he will not support it because it does not do anything for the Canterbury earthquake recovery efforts is inane. 
Then Mr Caygill—sorry Cunliffe—said that he does not support it because guess what it is a tax cut for the wealthy. Talk about a one-trick pony! That man cannot give a speech in this House without claiming that the Government is giving tax cuts to the wealthy. But let us look at this. Gift duty is not a tax cut. It creates almost no revenue for the country. Do members know what this bill is doing? It is removing a nice little earner for lawyers and accountants up and down the country. If Mr Cunliffe is concerned because we are removing this nice little revenue stream from lawyers and accountants up and down Herne Bay then he should say so and not pretend that it is some sort of tax cut package for the wealthy. Either the man is disingenuous in the extreme or he has no clue and I suspect that it is possibly both. He is probably a little out of sorts because his leader does not know who he is. 
But let us be really clear. Gift duty does not stop assets from being transferred. Gift duty has never stopped assets from being transferred and as anyone who is familiar with the sector knows its removal will not suddenly open up the way for assets to be transferred into family trusts. Gift duty has been the simplest thing to structure one’s affairs around for years and years and years. In fact its abolition recognises that it is a nonsense. Rather than create an industry of fee charging for the professional sector let us be up front and say it is not achieving anything of note for the public purse it is not stopping assets from being moved into other structures and it simply creates a compliance cost burden that is far from justified. I think the arguments referred to in the House in respect of this measure have been pretty poor and I hope we will have a better discussion at the Finance and Expenditure Committee. 
I end my contribution tonight by picking up the other two key elements of the bill which are quite important. They are the changes to the secrecy and information-sharing rules which are critical to making our tax system work well and frankly deserve a lot more debate on them than we have heard tonight and the changes to the tax dispute system. That is where the real meat of the bill is and I hope we have a better discussion on them at the select committee than we have heard this evening. Thank you.