Jones Shane: Taxation (Tax Administration and Remedial Matters) Bill — First Reading 
Jones Shane: Taxation (Tax Administration and Remedial Matters) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:669;Page:15893] 
Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) 
: 
 I too look forward to hearing what the submitters actually say when the Taxation (Tax Administration and Remedial Matters) Bill wends it way to the Finance and Expenditure Committee. I will not say a great deal about the gift duty portion as my colleagues have traversed that field but there will inevitably be a debate as to whether the removal of the gift duty obligation improves or worsens the situation in terms of people’s entitlement to various social benefits. 
Today a report was put forward by Diana Crossan in which essentially she warned parliamentarians about the burden of our ageing population and the welfare cost associated with the changing nature of our population. 
I acknowledge part of the contribution that came from Minister Dunne. Without doubt there are very large challenges before us as a country and as an assembly as to what the balance is how we raise our revenue how we dedicate revenue to those who need it and at what point their need should be assessed. In one small respect he says he is raising a remedy to that but that is an innovation we will not be agreeing with. 
I want to talk about something that did concern a number of us at the select committee when we received an earlier briefing about some of the changes the Inland Revenue Department officials were looking at. I found very helpful the Inland Revenue Department officials’ outlining some of their thinking and the responses that came to us from the public. One of the concerns—and I am glad that the Minister of Revenue is in the House—is whether the State agency the Inland Revenue Department ought to be simplifying the transfer of information to private credit agencies. I understand and fully support the opportunity for the public to come and tell us what it thinks in relation to the sharing of data and information between State agencies. Given that we are in the business of improving efficiency and trying to lessen the administrative burden I can get my head around that. But the next step relates to whether people who either owe debt or are endeavouring to pay back debt and who are negotiating the final quantum etc. with other State agencies ought to have that information disclosed if it involves child support and student debt to private credit agencies. I digress slightly but it is an issue that impacts on the administration efficiency and integrity of the information that the Inland Revenue Department keeps about us as citizens. This bill does not include those provisions but I have no doubt—through you Mr Deputy Speaker to the Minister—that this will remain a live issue. It is as much a privacy issue and a justice issue as it is a tax administration issue but it is something that bothers me considerably. 
The new framework for sharing Inland Revenue Department information provides that the manner in which that information is exchanged or provided is at the same time shared with the citizen it pertains to. There may be some circumstances where investigations are under way and privacy is required in terms of what information can be revealed to the person who is suffering the not inconsiderable powers of the State to investigate his or her affairs but I think that the best way if this is ever to work—and I look forward to hearing what the submitters have to say—is to ensure that the citizen concerned is not overwhelmed or feels that he or she is in some sort of Orwellian experience. 
In relation to the deeper question of whether other changes could have been made members on our side of the House have recited some might say ad nauseam the reasons we did not agree with the distribution of winners and losers in the recent tax changes. We are told that $250 million a week is being borrowed by the State. I think that once we shrink the Crown’s revenue we can get revenue from only one of two other sources: by raising it through debt or by shrinking—and I would say savaging—our cost structure so that rather than put our revenue up which would be to restore some of the taxes that have been lessened we are left with the problem that the Government currently has. So we did not agree and we will be not agreeing that the recent tax changes have enriched the country. That key ideological point defines the different approaches between the two parties. 
We heard from the co-leader of the Green Party about his enthusiasm for a capital gains tax. Earlier this year the Tax Working Group out of Victoria University did not embrace a capital gains tax model. It is certainly not something that we have been trumpeting loudly on this side of the House or racing forward as a key feature to the tax change. This bill shows us that if we continue to treat the tax system so that it rewards only a narrow category of people and worsens the burden of the majority we should not for a moment think that that narrow category of taxpayer as a consequence of having more dough at their disposal will somehow act as a new agent of dynamism to unleash economic growth and represent a new threshold for investment new firms new jobs etc. That is something that probably lies behind as my colleagues were saying why we will not be agreeing with the changes to gift duty. 
The member from the South Island Amy Adams told us I presume as a consequence of her unsurpassed knowledge of being an accountant about how easy it is to circumvent the current rules etc.— 
Hon Christopher Finlayson 
: She’s a lawyer. 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: Oh sorry a lawyer. I feel that she needs to change the tune in terms of how she addresses the select committee because she has left us with the impression of being not only a highly qualified legal beagle but also a very skilled accountant. That may be the case but that does not necessarily lead her colleagues to conclude that she is a fine parliamentarian. In fact I think Hekia Parata is a fine parliamentarian. I have yet to enjoy the opportunity to acknowledge that she has ascended the ranks. She now occupies a position that is possibly the most junior position but one that is quite a lofty spot to occupy. I too was once there. So along with my colleague Parekura Horomia I want to congratulate— 
Hon Member 
: In what? 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: I have had slightly different positions this year and I have heard enough from “Ngati Wahine” at the back. I might have to call on the Deputy Speaker’s support. I acknowledge the contribution that Hekia Parata has made. I look forward to hearing more of her in the House. 
We will not be supporting this bill. However we do look forward to hearing the submissions. It lays out some important challenges. Mr Dunne and I will never agree on everything but I would like to say one thing: he is clearly outlining the fact that revenue is brittle. When we have brittle revenue we have to find innovative ways to justify not only the cost but the purpose of running ongoing programmes. No doubt part of that will come from the submissions and it may only be as a segue because part of the debate about the gift duty was always a concern as to whether clever people with access to Amy Adam’s unsurpassed knowledge would be enjoying an entitlement to certain services of the State that we may not feel they deserve by dint of wealth that they putatively own but technically have handed on to another. So we do look forward to the submissions. Thank you very much.