Clark David: Taxation (Annual Rates for 2015-16 Research and Development and Remedial Matters) Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeClark David: Taxation (Annual Rates for 2015-16 Research and Development and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 01 December 2015. Volume:710;Page:8454. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North): I leapt up because the members opposite seemed reluctant despite the challenge from the Hon Clayton Cosgrove. I must commend him for his work in spotting those changes and picking them up. I guess he is out there actually listening to the businesses and asking: “What is wrong with this legislation? How could it be improved?”. It is embarrassing that the Government has not picked up on this itself. It is embarrassing that it required a letter from a diligent Opposition member to get this change written into the law. Already my colleagues have suggested that the dates could be changed to make it better still for small businesses.I want to pick up on a similar theme actually because in this bill we see more examples of unnecessary compliance. It is a bill designed to tidy up the tax laws to make sure that compliance is as simple as possible—that is its usual purpose—that it is there and complete and that the tax is hard to avoid if it is fairly due. That is why we are making these amendments that are here—the amendments to other Acts in Part 4. One of the interesting ones is clause 227 where we are removing a completely irrelevant section. This is a section that this Government here on the benches opposite put in place in 2011. It has been on the statute book for 4 years—for 4 years. It has required people receiving Working for Families to furnish details to the Inland Revenue Department (IRD) of each family assistance credit paid to them in the tax year.Why has the Government required that? We learn from the notes that the IRD does not request or require this information at all. So anyone who has been diligent who has read the law who has said “I want to be sure that I meet all my obligations.” will have been filing these details when it was completely unnecessary or they were not used by the department. This is the kind of thing that is in this law. This unnecessary compliance because it is information that is not even being used by the department has been required by law to be collected for the past 4 years. Thank goodness we are getting rid of it now. But those same people who might have been double taxed under GST here may also find themselves required to submit information that the IRD neither needs nor uses. Thank goodness we are cleaning it up finally here. This is the kind of law that gets made when there is not attention to detail when the Minister is not across his portfolio when he is asleep at the wheel.We support this kind of change in the legislation. But you know we are reminded in the double GST example that my colleague has brought up of the child support collection requirements that have been put on small businesses by this Government—that small businesses collect back-owed child support. Again this is something put on small-business owners that they did not previously have to do and that introduces potential conflict into the workplace. The child support legislation that was previously passed through this House introducing a new formula—The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order! [Interruption] Order! Come back to the bill.Dr DAVID CLARK: The point which is relevant to this bill is that it is good that we are tidying up those things that need to be tidied up but they should not have got in there in the first place. We should not need to be here debating the removal of unnecessary and irrelevant legislation that was put through this House just 4 years ago.So for 4 years this information has been confusing. Some people will have complied with it unnecessarily. Likewise this double GST issue has been going on for goodness knows how long. But the issue had not been spotted until members on this side of the Chamber pointed it out. We must question why the Minister has missed these things up until now. I would like the Minister very much to get to his feet and say why clause 227 has been required now and not earlier—not requesting or requiring information—and why people will have thought that they had to supply details of every family assistance tax credit paid to them since 2011 and up until now. Why has the Minister not spotted it previously?So I hope the Minister will leap to his feet shortly because my voice will not carry for much longer. I think I have made my point and I am dying to hear the answer. Thank you Mr Chair for the opportunity to raise that issue.The other point I would quickly like to make though while my voice holds is that the family scheme income statements clause 232 gives options for families to—[Bell rung] Mr Chairman?The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Dr David Clark while your voice holds.Dr DAVID CLARK: Thank you Mr Chairman while my voice holds. It gives an opportunity for families to submit separately their family scheme income statements. To me exactly when this applies and why it applies—I understand it is to make it simpler. The guidance here says that in some circumstances especially those with child support arrangements it can be difficult to identify each spouse’s portion of family scheme income. That is when it is suggested that the statement of family scheme income be submitted separately. That is in the explanatory note not in the bill itself. The bill itself does not shed much light on the issue as I read it initially.It says in new section 80KV(2) set out in clause 232 that a person “must” within the time required file the person’s return of income. New section 80KV(3) describes what “must” be done again but there is a clause that says: “unless that other person gives a statement of their family scheme income”. I want to know how that is coordinated what the rules around coordinating those separate family scheme income submissions are and how they were decided. On the surface at least it appears a little confusing as to when who takes the lead and on what. Thank you Mr Chairperson.