Brownlee GerryHon GERRY BROWNLEE (National): There is a clause in this part clause 88 Section 11 amended (Zero-rating of goods)" and in it it talks about replacing in the principal Act in section 11(8D)(a) the words "a supply that is" with "a supply that wholly or partly consists of" and paragraph (b) which says "delete paragraph (b) does not apply". So you then go through subclauses (2) (3) (4) of that and subclause (5) but you come to subclause (5) and it says "Subsections (1) to (4)"—that's above—"apply to a supply made by a person on or after 30 June 2014 except for a supply for which the person takes a tax position" and then it says "(a) in the period beginning 30 June 2014 and ending before the date in which this Act receives the Royal assent; and (b) that is inconsistent with the amendments made by subsections (1) to (4)." Subclauses (1) to (4) of course talk about changing the principal Act and then of course it all being backdated to 2014. What is the reason for that retrospectivity or what is gained by that in this particular instance and is it related to the previous zero rating of telecommunication services or does it have a much broader application that might catch various activities unintended for such a broad net? Does the Minister want to answer that or should I keep talking on?Hon David Parker: Could I ask the member to refer me to the page and the clause number? I think we're—Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Oh sorry—yes. Page 62 of the bill Part 3 clause 88 "Section 11 amended (Zero-rating of goods)". Perhaps while the Minister looks at that I might look at one or two other aspects of Part 3 and carry on from where Mr Woodhouse was speaking and the sort of inexplicable decision to go after what's estimated to be $7 million worth of GST collected on global roaming charges. Now look some of that global roaming charge will have been calculated at a time where there was significant international travel where New Zealanders travelled significantly for recreational purposes. What we're likely to see in the next few years is New Zealanders travelling more for business reconnection more for business expansion and for a development of business activity as we try and grow exports out of this country and you'd have to ask: was that ever a consideration for the rapacious IRD when they made this particular piece of advice available to the Government? Further: did some Government Minister not think "Well we spend a lot of money through New Zealand Trade and Enterprise through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and through Callaghan Innovation trying to increase exports trying to grow export markets? Is it really necessary for us to try and collect some money off those businesses as they go about their work overseas?" Now the Minister will probably say to me "Well if they are a business this would be an expense they can collect. They can claim the GST back on it." So that raises the question of why then in an environment where we are likely to have a predominance of people who can claim the GST back being required to pay it—why spend the money on it in the first place? It seems to me it's very much at the tiny end of the scale. If the Minister perhaps is now able to think about that previous question I'm happy to sit down and have that answered. Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Revenue): I'm not yet in a position to answer the very technical question that's been raised in respect of clause 88 of the bill although I do note that it came back from select committee unmodified. It is a very technical change and I will get the answer as soon as I can. In respect of the other point that the member made that would be true in respect of being able to offset that against expenditure in the GST return. That would be true in respect of businesses but not individuals that aren't travelling for business purposes."