Dunne Peter: Taxation (GST and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
Dunne Peter: Taxation (GST and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
[Volume:669;Page:16096] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Minister of Revenue) 
: 
 On the assumption that the member who has just resumed his seat the Hon Pete Hodgson is trying to be helpful I am happy to respond. I cannot comment on what was in the minds of his colleagues in terms of their expectations of what would come by way of the changes that have been announced.  
I refer the Committee to a statement I made on Tuesday 7 December. It states: “Proposed new tax rules released today … Mr Dunne today released a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that will introduce several Budget 2010 tax measures to the Taxation (GST and Remedial Matters) Bill which is nearing its final stages in Parliament.” That is the bill we are debating right now.  
I go back one point and say that there is a certain language that people in the tax community and this includes politicians talk and understand. We talk of bills not necessarily in terms of their titles but by the month in which they are introduced. It was always the assumption and I think it was broadly accepted that a number of the changes that were foreshadowed in the Budget—to loss attributing qualifying companies to the definition of “income” for social assistance purposes and to some aspects relating to depreciation—would be passed by the end of this year. When we looked at the available vehicles to achieve those changes we saw that there was the August bill which is this bill and the November bill which is the one I introduced last week or earlier this week. That was it.  
I come back to the point the member made. Because these things need to be in place in time for the new tax year on 1 April next year and allow for the lead time for that any reasonable assessment by people who knew about how these things work would lead to the conclusion that legislation to give effect to the changes would be passed in November. It was obvious I think—certainly it was the intention—that a Supplementary Order Paper would be attached to this bill. That is why the process that I described earlier was open and transparent to those communities. I accept it was not a process that the general public was widely engaged in because the general public is not interested in the intricacies of fit-out regimes loss attributing qualifying companies or the point at which full flow-through treatment is provided for. But the relevant tax communities in the legal accounting and broader business professions were well aware of what was intended.  
We have hidden absolutely nothing. There was an opportunity to make submissions on the issues paper. We have attempted to consult as widely as we can and bring those submissions into play in terms of the final amendment that was adopted.  
I released the Supplementary Order Paper earlier than would have normally been the case for the release of Supplementary Order Papers—again in that same spirit of openness. Members would I think concede that major Supplementary Order Papers often are released hours before the bill comes to the House because they are probably still being drafted. In this case we have gone through a very deliberate process. The drafting was out there in October; we are now into December. 
Although I hear the criticisms that are being made I do not accept them because we have been very deliberative over the last 6 months in ensuring that all of the changes we are making have been widely consulted upon and fully understood. Where change has been proposed it has been accommodated. I observe the fact that at no point until now have we heard anything from the Opposition.