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:16093] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Minister of Revenue) 
: 
 I am happy to respond to what I think was a very considered set of questions from the member Pete Hodgson who has just resumed his seat. Let me go through the process very clearly and very calmly. In the May Budget certain announcements were made about the future of loss attributing qualifying companies. In the attached Budget papers we announced that an issues paper would be released canvassing various legislative proposals to address the concern that had been raised in the Budget. That happened within a day or two of the May Budget being released. I can recall having a series of public meetings mainly with tax-related audiences in the month after the Budget—give or take—where the issue regarding the future of the loss attributing qualifying company regime was constantly raised. They were large meetings up and down the country. I know that others such as the Minister of Finance and officials had similar discussions. 
At the conclusion of the consultation period—and the date by which the issues paper process ended escapes me for the moment—the usual Cabinet process followed papers were developed and a proposition was put to Cabinet which was accepted. It was announced and we released draft legislation at about the same time roughly at about the beginning of October. The timing of that was important because a major tax policy conference sponsored by the Institute of Chartered Accountants was coming up at the end of October. That is the normal venue at which these things are canvassed. It was clearly understood by all parties that the Government would pass legislation before the end of the year to implement those decisions and the draft legislation because the implementation date for the new regime was 1 April 2011. That point was understood—[ 
Interruption 
] I tell the member David Cunliffe who is interjecting that the criticism I have received from those in the tax community has been not about how quick the process has been but about how slow it has been. They wanted certainty earlier on. That is why we went through the quite deliberate step of releasing the draft legislation. Comments were invited upon that; some were made. Essentially the changes in Supplementary Order Paper 187 reflect the outcome of that. 
I will draw one other point to the Committee’s attention. Opposition speakers—not the previous speaker but other Opposition speakers—have run the line that when they were briefed by officials on Wednesday they were unaware of the Supplementary Order Paper’s existence. I will make two comments in respect of that. First the Supplementary Order Paper was released to the public including this House at 1 o’clock on Tuesday—some 24 hours in advance—so the question I have to put to the Opposition— 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: As if that’s good enough. 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: The member opposite says that is not good enough. What am I supposed to do—come to him on bended knee proffering him the document? It is in the public arena. It is on the Table of the House. That member of the Opposition—I very Freudianly nearly referred to him as the Leader of the Opposition—says that is not good enough. The document was in the public arena. 
But I can go one better. I have checked the content of the discussion that took place at the briefing meeting on the Wednesday. The Opposition now says that it was unaware of the existence of a Supplementary Order Paper but I am assured that at that meeting both the MPs present and officials talked about the Supplementary Order Paper. Those members cannot have it both ways. They cannot say they were not told when actually the document was in public existence and its very existence had been foreshadowed since 20 May and they cannot go to a meeting where they talk about it then say afterwards that they were not aware of it and had got it only the night before 24 hours after the briefing meeting had occurred. 
I accept that the Opposition may not like some of the provisions in this measure—that is its prerogative; that is what we are debating this morning. But let us debate on the basis of the facts of what happened. I have been quite deliberate in ensuring that every step of this process in terms of the need to make decisions by a certain time and to engage the professional community has in fact occurred. As I said to the member the criticism that I am subject to from the profession is that the measure has taken as long as it has and that is the balance one has to strike in these matters. We indicated an implementation date certain details need to be put in place we need to pass the legislation about now to achieve the 1 April date we have been absolutely public all the way through and we have had no indication until this morning that the Opposition had a different view.