Cosgrove Clayton: Taxation (Canterbury Earthquake Measures) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Cosgrove Clayton: Taxation (Canterbury Earthquake Measures) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:672;Page:19037] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 As we said in the first reading of the Taxation (Canterbury Earthquake Measures) Bill and as it appears from the vote in its first reading there is unanimity on this bill. It is one of those unique times in this House when we all agree. As the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture on behalf of the Minister of Revenue said the bill ensures that people do not have to pay tax on donations they received from employers to help them in the wake of the earthquakes. My colleague Ruth Dyson raised an interesting question which we will be pursuing in the Committee stage. Under the law in respect of the Earthquake Commission there are now I think four—although I may be incorrect—registered or recognised earthquake events. There was 4 September obviously; Boxing Day; 22 February; and amongst those there was—and I recall it because it was a jolt—a 5.3 magnitude earthquake on a Saturday evening that I think is also recognised as an official earthquake event although I could be wrong. 
The question that arises out of this—and we do not inquire out of any malice or disrespect; we want this legislation to be as robust and effective as possible—that my colleague Ruth Dyson raised is it seems to encompass only the two major events which are the 8 weeks post - 4 September and the 8 weeks post - 22 February. I am sure the Minister will want to get his officials to rapidly provide him with an explanation in the Committee stage. It seems to us to present a slight anomaly. It is appropriate that this bill exempts employers and others who have been generous and have perhaps paid over the odds in terms of some income or have made some in-kind donations or given support to employees and others in respect of the two major events. However I am sure there are employees and others who may well have been impacted or have suffered as a result of the third or possibly fourth—if it is recognised—earthquake events. It seems to me in terms of consistency and also logic that this bill applies to those events. 
There is as I understand it a future-proofing clause in the legislation to allow for the Commissioner of Inland Revenue to trigger these provisions for future events—such as perhaps for example the Napier floods had they been of a significant proportion; or indeed as I said before the tornado in the North Shore had it been of a significant proportion. The question is why those other official events are not contained within the bill—or is there some other provision? If the intent was to do that and that has been missed through misadventure or a slight oversight will the provisions be amended by the Minister to ensure that those other events are catered for? 
Likewise it could be the case before this legislation is passed—and we do not wish this on anybody—that there is another official event. The jolts we get in Canterbury seem to be quite regular. We just want some assurance as to why those other historical events have not been included. 
There are some other issues in this legislation in respect of some of the technical points that will be raised in the Committee stage. I am interested to know the number of people—a likely projection if there is such; if we know or we can make a projection—who will be positively affected by it. I am also interested to know what level of declaration is required by businesses. I can give an analogy that may assist the Minister who I am sure is listening. In Rangiora we had a group called the Rangiora Express that materialised. Rangiora is their patch; it was like Rangiora’s own air force. A couple of fantastic chopper pilots emerged out of the ether under the stewardship of one Jayne Rattray and a number of other people. Jane is a local in that area. They decided they wanted to help people after that 22 February quake. A large number of donations were made by a number of organisations and I also know that a number of companies made a significant number of in-kind donations to their own employees. We would like to know what sorts of accounting processes have to be put in place in order for those issues to be addressed to satisfy the requirements of this bill. Whilst I note that this is an attempt to cut down red tape businesses may be in a position where they do not have—possibly through the effects of a natural disaster—the ability to account for those goods and services in respect of GST income etc. I think that needs to be addressed perhaps more properly in the Committee stage. 
There are also issues in respect of advertising and promotion to make commercial organisations aware that this exemption if you will or this facility will exist. What guidance will be provided to organisations given that we are not in a “business as usual” period? 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7 p.m. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Before the dinner break I was in the process of raising a number of questions. As Canterbury members on this side of the Chamber have spent the dinner break diligently researching a number of issues in respect of this bill there is one thing I and colleagues would be interested to ask the Minister or to get some background from the Minister about. The purpose of the bill is stated as being to create tax exemptions for businesses donating trading stock to people affected by the earthquakes. A question arises as to what level of accountability paperwork declaration and administrative activity will be required presumably to account for that. I was in the process of using as an example the Rangiora Express. For the uninitiated I will explain that the Rangiora Express started its own as it were air force. Helicopter pilots were engaged to fly hot meals to the eastern suburbs of Christchurch in the Hon Lianne Dalziel’s electorate. As part of that initiative I recall that the local McDonald’s shop or whatever— 
Stuart Nash 
: Restaurant. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
:—restaurant donated a large amount of its product. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: This was before the Double Down burger. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: No it was not the Double Down burger. I am told that there is another member of this House who is more proficient in takeaway food than I am I say to my colleague but I do not believe that he is within the precinct. Anyway that food was donated and the question then arises say for that business as a lot of material and food was donated by other providers and businesses as to what level of accountability is required to account for that product so as to gain this bill’s tax exemption. I am assuming that the intent of this bill is actually to cut down any red tape and to make it administratively easy for those businesses to get through this. As a colleague said and I think it might have been Brendon Burns in the hours and days after the 22 February quake especially businesses moved very swiftly to donate. We would ring them and Heller Tasty donated smallgoods Verkerks in my patch donated smallgoods and other businesses when we rang and asked simply donated products and services. Frucor the local bottled water manufacturer in Kaiapoi donated hundreds and hundreds—thousands probably—of bottles of water just to get it done and to assist people. 
An issue arises about what the technical mechanics are for accounting for that. It may be that due to the nature of the quake businesses did not through loss of records or whatever have an ability to account for it. I ask whether there is any flexibility within this legislation to deal with it. 
The other point we raised was one of promotion. What sort of advertising promotion and material will be provided to educate businesses and others so that they can take advantage of this exemption? I would be grateful if the Minister in due course could address those issues.