Hodgson Pete: Taxation (GST and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
Hodgson Pete: Taxation (GST and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
[Volume:669;Page:16145] 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) 
: 
 I rise reluctantly to disagree with my colleague the Hon Trevor Mallard. Before I do however I would like to take to task the comments made by my colleague Stuart Nash that somehow or another the retrospectivity of these matters would be determined by the courts. The next speaker my colleague the Hon Trevor Mallard pointed out that at least one aspect of this legislation goes back to 2005-06 and he mounted a particularly good argument as to why it needs to go back further. That seems to me to be yet to be resolved in the Committee stage. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Why do you disagree with me? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I will disagree with my colleague the Hon Trevor Mallard in a minute. But before I do that I would like to ask Stuart Nash to take another call and explain to me why he thinks that retrospectivity does not apply in this legislation. It appears to me that it does. Of course if the Minister would be able to help that would be fine but we are not anticipating so much assistance from that quarter.  
As to the remarks of the Hon Trevor Mallard I agree in part with them and hesitantly because he is an accountant and I am a simple country veterinarian— 
Hon David Carter 
: Very simple. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I am a very simple country veterinarian. I simply hold the view that in the case of members of Parliament because that is where he was directing a lot of his comments I do not think these provisions would apply because the member of Parliament has a principal place of residence that is not here. Of course if assistance were given for that principal place of residence then of course we would expect it to apply as we would expect for any other form of fringe benefit. But a member of Parliament like a sort of travelling salesman will have a principal place of residence but will have accommodation costs as part of his or her weekly circuit or whatever it is to be. That surely cannot be subject to taxation as much as real and actual reimbursement of costs can be.  
If one looks at it a bit more carefully however one will see there is an exception and the only exception is the one my colleague drew attention to which is where we have a point of agreement. The point of agreement is that the Hon Bill English is caught by this. The reason he is caught by it is that he has had two principal places of residence for a number of years. One of them is the real actual principal place of residence which is Wellington because that is where he lives. That is where his family lives it is where his kids go to school and on it goes. The other one is back in Dipton which is where he said his principal place of residence was so he could get a deal on the other house. That is where the term “double Dipton” came from. I cannot remember who first coined that—oh that is right; the term “double Dipton” came from the Hon Trevor Mallard.  
I think the member for Clutha-Southland is uniquely vulnerable to these clauses so then the question arises that if the legislation is good enough to be retrospective to the years 2005 and 2006 why should it not be retrospective beyond that? There is no 7-year rule here; it is about a 4 or 5-year rule. We know that the member in question has lived in Wellington since the year 2000—in fact from a little earlier than that I would like to advise the Hon Trevor Mallard. So I strongly support the idea— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: But didn’t he have a State house then too? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Well there was a period of time I think where he boarded or rented but then he purchased. I am trying to remember all of those years too so perhaps I should just say that my gentle recollection is that it was a little before the turn of the century. I agree with my colleague that in the case of the Hon Bill English this legislation on its face appears to make him vulnerable to the paying back of a whole bunch of money and not before time although it is still not enough because of that whole period before 2005. However long it is he still gets away scot-free. So it is good that there might be some more money coming into the Government’s coffers from that member of Parliament but it is not OK that he still manages to max out his benefit at the expense of the taxpayer more than any other MP I have ever come across.  
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I will accept the Hon Maryan Street.  
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Why? Because she hasn’t had a call?