Foss Craig: Taxation (Depreciation Payment Dates Alignment FBT and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Foss Craig: Taxation (Depreciation Payment Dates Alignment FBT and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:630;Page:2023] 
CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) 
: 
 I would like to address a few more points particularly in Part 2. First I congratulate my colleague Mr Tisch on the awesome racing policy he formulated which the National Party took into the election that resulted in our party’s vote going to 48 seats from 27 seats. Obviously real New Zealanders out there appreciated that policy big time. Well done I say to Mr Tisch. 
I have a couple of points to make. One of the comments that has been made—and I guess I was guilty of this myself earlier—was we talked about the thrust of the bill being slightly business-friendly as I have stated. Yes that is true but again like so much of the Government’s nice intentions etc. the implication and execution of this legislation has been absolutely lousy. I make an example of the change of commencement date for one of the most business-friendly parts that was publicised with this bill—that is the combination of GST and provisional tax payments—from what was to be 1 April 2006 to 1 April 2007. 
Someone from Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu made a comment in one of its tax news releases—and it is interesting that this House is now busy discussing this bill which may well get through tonight I suppose on tenterhooks—to ask why if the Government is business-friendly businesses are having to suffer for 1 more year. The Minister of Revenue has announced the provision was to be delayed until 1 April 2007 but in contrast the Government was able to introduce the urgent measures bill on 8 November 2005 and have that legislation enacted before Christmas. That Act made good on election promises such as interest-free loans for student borrowers amnesties working families etc. OK those were election promises bribes or pledges—whatever one likes to call them—but the point is that the Government’s prioritisation is round the wrong way. 
We are trying to grow New Zealand and add value yet we can rush through zero percent interest on student loans. Yet another 365— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I know that those members have been here about 5 minutes but they cannot talk about bribes. Members cannot get up in this House and accuse other parties of bribes. It might be a familiar conversation amongst themselves but it is not with the rest of the House. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the member. I am sorry I did not hear that. I was otherwise engaged. However the member is completely right. Members must not make allegations of such nature. They can be taken as a personal reflection against a member. The member will withdraw and apologise if that is the case. 
CRAIG FOSS 
: I withdraw and apologise. I am sorry if I caused offence. 
I was speaking on why this provision should be delayed 1 more year from 1 April 2006 to 1 April 2007 when businesses out there are trying to plan and get their cash flows ready. Suddenly when something nice and good was dangled in front of them it has now been whipped away because another bill—which I believe in the greater scheme of things is not really good for New Zealand—managed to be passed through in about a few weeks. The effects of the student loan bill as opposed to this one will not come into reality for quite some time. 
Also with regard to payroll agents it will be the same thing. Yes it is a good measure for businesses to be helped and to be able to write off contributions to payroll agents especially once they will have to deal with yet another 346 pages of tax law—so they will have a big job in the future. But again that change has been delayed until 1 October 2006 not 1 April 2006. Again what was thrust out to be nice and business-friendly has not come through. 
In the second reading the other night I pointed out that the bill also touches on share lending equity lending or the repo market and I would like to go on record as saying that quite honestly I am nervous about this move. Quite simply yes it is a step in the right direction but what was thrown in the too-hard basket is in fact a part of the global financial market which is massive and is a multiple of shares equity rather than just on balance sheet items. I mentioned the other night derivatives and credit derivatives that are derived from share equities etc. It is very technical stuff I know but I would like to note that members have to be very wary because I have been told things can happen off the balance sheet—not just on the balance sheet—that various auditors and others look at. 
I also note we are starting to look at addressing some research and development write-offs in this part as a member commented before. Again I would like to point out what we are up against when I keep saying that we are not being bold enough in New Zealand. We are tinkering here. The other day I heard that China is offering 150 percent research and development write-offs. I also heard that in Kuala Lumpur a business can go for 5 years without paying any tax on any research and development write-offs. I am not saying that New Zealand goes there right away but that is what we are up against. That is why we have to be bolder and harder.