Jones Shane: Taxation (Tax Administration and Remedial Matters) Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Jones Shane: Taxation (Tax Administration and Remedial Matters) Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 14 July 2011. Volume:674;Page:20140. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) 
: 
 Tena tatou. I give greetings to those people who have just celebrated the successful passage of the legislation dealing with that scourge otherwise known as smoking and related cancer. 
I rise along with my colleagues to oppose this bill but in expressing opposition there are one or three things that can be found to be less disagreeable about it. First the bill does not enable the indiscriminate sharing of information between the Inland Revenue Department and a host of other agencies. The Inland Revenue Department is the repository or dare I say the steward of very important information and we on the Finance and Expenditure Committee felt there was not a suitable level of confidence that such information should be shared certainly with private sector agencies. On that small matter we actually find ourselves in agreement with our colleagues on the other side of the House. 
It has been a very taxing day. This legislation deals with tax but perhaps one of the most taxing elements was watching the Speaker’s patience being taxed. Unfortunately that has led to a level of coverage that I fear might eclipse the announcement of the day which is to do with tax reform policy that is not unrelated to this bill. Today’s announcement builds upon the reasons why Labour does not support this legislation which abolishes gift duty. We feel that it is likely to have the effect of calcifying the current distribution of assets and resources and that we should pay attention to those submitters who did not support the notion that it be stripped. For those reasons we will not support the bill. 
However we do support the announcements that have been made today. Those announcements are directed at improving the distribution of resources and adjusting the structure of our economy. Fiscal policy and in particular tax policy has a key role in influencing the way in which investment decisions financial conduct and economic bets are placed to advance either an individual’s interests a firm’s interests or indeed the overall well-being of society. For those reasons it has come as something of a surprise to us in all honesty to hear the rather shrill voice of the current Minister of Transport talking about economic vandalism etc. and surprisingly to me to hear the very mercurial Judith Collins finding every which way to demonstrate new levels of hysteria. It is unusual that tax policy or tax decisions should elicit those kinds of responses from politicians. 
This day which is not disconnected from this bill also represents a clear demarcation of where we will be going over the next 16 to 18 weeks. We have not feared making a very difficult but challenging—and ultimately rewarding we believe—call about why the tax burden should not fall exclusively on labour. It ought to be shared between those who have only their labour to sell and those who enjoy the fruits of their capital stewardship. For those reasons it will be very exciting although in itself that is an incongruous statement—that anything about tax could be exciting—except to people like Robin Oliver Rob McLeod perhaps or some of those other hacks who quietly contribute to our colleagues on the other side of the House. For those reasons although this is not particularly colourful legislation a great deal of colourful language has been emitted from the other side of the House. As a consequence of the overdue statements and policy directions that were adopted today we will have a relatively modest impost of 15 percent—an improvement and an invitation for those New Zealanders who earn well beyond $150000 to make a contribution to issues such as the Christchurch earthquake. Of course their contributions will be indexed. 
We have a host of other challenges not the least of which is how we would deal with Maori land because gifts have a great deal to do with Maori land and in particular with what we call in te reo Maori whenua tuku iho or multiple-owned Maori land. Fortunately for those worry-warts on the other side of the House a panel of experts will be dragooned into action. In fact names come to mind while I am on my feet but for fear of them being ensnarled in the debate and debacle of Hone Harawira today I will put their names to the side. Experts will take a very very close and judicious eye to the implementation of these historic announcements today not the least of which will be to ensure that assets transferred through the Treaty of Waitangi process are not disproportionately impacted in a negative way in particular the Maori land in Te Ture Whenua Maori Act which is a bit of a challenge because if we were to ask 12 lawyers what it means they would be likely to give us 12 different answers. Perhaps they are not unlike tax lawyers. That is why a group of experts will be empanelled. They will look at these matters and in good time they will come back to a select committee and provide the public with a host of opportunities to finesse the ideas and the concepts that we have announced today. 
I will come back briefly to the bill. Part of the reason why we were not supportive of the abolition of gift duty was that although we saw that it would provide an opportunity for ongoing activities that were bedevilling the tax department we feared that changes of this nature would not have a desirable impact in terms of how we want to see generations of New Zealanders enjoy the opportunity to amass wealth and develop resources rather than play second fiddle to a calcified cast of economic players that we can guarantee will be the primary beneficiaries. Small though they may be in number those players will be the primary beneficiaries once the current Government moves on its foul plans etc. to privatise State-owned enterprises for a narrow cast of economic beneficiaries. 
In addition to that reason why we will not be supporting this bill I say that we should pay a great deal of care and attention to the regulatory impact statement. It notes that tax avoidance could increase in the absence of gift duty. When Labour was in power we were assiduous in following to an exhaustive degree what those regulatory impact statements had to say. It is very disappointing that the current crop of Ministers and their backbench colleagues tend to have a cavalier disregard for such matters. It is almost a constitutional impropriety. It falls to me to read from the statement: “it is not possible to precisely determine the extent to which gift duty alleviates issues such as income tax minimisation social assistance targeting and defeat of creditors.” I think that even those colleagues on the other side of the House agree on that for that narrow range of New Zealanders who are able to rort their affairs so they can qualify for a large degree of social assistance through the welfare distribution system. That is wrong. If they are capable of standing on their own two feet then they ought not to be allowed to manipulate their affairs in such a way that they are able to enjoy access to welfare programmes that were designed for people in “Strugglers’ Gully” not for people living in “Parasite Drive”— 
Phil Twyford 
: Parasite? 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: —sorry Paritai Drive. That means the high-tide mark. The tide is definitely lifting the wakas of Te Ropu Reipa today. [ 
Interruption 
] Why do we have that shrill denunciation from the other side of the House? It is because those members cannot agree on what it is they dislike about this particular tax policy other than the fact that they cannot find any reasonable or credible companies to bolster their arguments. For those reasons the electorate has a clear view about what is being offered—contributing in a fair system by everyone or hocking off the assets and watching foreigners and a narrow cast of economic players amass wealth and maintain it amongst a narrower and narrower group of people. That is not the vision for Aotearoa. It is akin to spending a great deal of money on a road going nowhere and not having the money to maintain the road which is something the current Minister of Transport is an expert at. 
Labour will not be supporting this bill. Assistant Speaker Robertson’s body language and the way he is moving his hands are encouraging me to be focused; being unfocused is quite unlike me on ordinary occasions. No one should be in any doubt that we will not be supporting this bill. We think that it is ill-placed and that the real tax issue of the day is the announcement offered by the Leader of the Opposition our tumuaki. Kia ora tatou katoa.