Bayly Andrew; Parker DavidANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): OK. Sorry this might be a fast-moving debate this one. Another little area I just want to ask the Minister to check—lucky he's got his advisors there—is clause 18 Treatment of amounts derived from cross-border employees". As the Minister will be aware if you've got an employee working for a foreign-domiciled tax entity and they come and work in New Zealand there's an obligation to pay the PAYE on their New Zealand resident income. There's certain rules around it which are covered under clause 18(1) amending section CE 1F inserting new subsection (3B)(b) employees present in New Zealand for a period during which they have breached those rules around paying the PAYE. There's a 60-day clause—this is under new subsection (3C) "Grace period"—for the adjustment to be made; any correction to be made. Can I just ask the Minister to confirm why that 60-day period? Because I think that's a really important thing: that there's an understanding on whether there's consistency across other such breaches of the tax bill or other pieces of tax legislation that have previously been passed.Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Revenue): Responding to that last issue first—and I will check with officials to check that I have this correct—but I think the 60-day grace period is to reflect the fact that where you have a non-resident in respect of these somewhat complex tax arrangements it might take a bit of time for the overseas-based entity to get their head around the rules and do the right thing. So they're given a period of grace to do that.In respect of the earlier question about whether there is a difference between Māori land trust structures and other trusts I'm advised that the difference is necessary because of some of the rules that relate to Māori authorities and the ancestral rules relating to some inheritances around some Māori land trusts.If I could bring to the attention of the House—it's an issue that the Greens in particular will be interested in—we have tabled a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 322 to extend the exemption from a fringe benefit tax in the bill. The bill already attempts to deal with an inconsistency in the tax legislation around car parks. Employers can provide a car park to their employee which is of financial benefit to the employee and they don't pay fringe benefit tax on the benefit that accrues to the employee even though there could be some tax avoidance involved in it.The prior National-ACT Government under Peter Dunne tried to amend that by including fringe benefit tax on car parks. They were pushed back on that and gave up on that which left an inconsistency between fringe benefit tax implications for generally fossil fuel - heavy forms of transport and public transport and this legislation fixes that by removing fringe benefit tax on employer subsidies for public transport.The Green Party have wanted to take that further and extend the exemption from fringe benefit tax to employer contributions or purchases of bicycles—including e-bikes and scooters including e-scooters. The Green Party had promoted that as an SOP—it wasn't tabled in time for it to be free of the financial restrictions that are attached to proposals with fiscal implications. So the Government to assist has tabled a Supplementary Order Paper to similar effect which is now on the Table."