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:19049] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I note that Mr Ryall is the Minister in the chair. Having no problem with that at all I would assume given the non-partisan nature of the Taxation (Canterbury Earthquake Measures) Bill that his officials will have provided him with some advice that he will be able to offer us in good faith on a number of critical questions. I ask the Minister to indicate whether that is a possibility. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: I can’t see why not. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I thank the Minister. Excellent; that is wonderful. That is brilliant; I am glad we have that on the record. Issues that a number of colleagues raised and that I particularly raised were in respect of the purposes of the bill where it creates taxation exemptions for businesses donating trade stock to people affected by the earthquakes. 
The question I ask the Minister is simple. We have heard examples in the first reading and the second reading of large-scale and small-scale businesses that have done just that—donated in the heat of the quake as it were goods and services. We are seeking advice on the technical requirements that will be needed to ensure that these businesses meet the requirements of this legislation and can gain the exemption and on whether there is any unintended consequence. For instance as a result of the quake records provision may not have been maintained and adequate records might not have been put in place and cannot be retrievable now because to be blunt businesses just gave on request. They did not seek any assistance in respect of tax liability and I suspect most of them did not even give any consideration to whether there would be a liability. It was simply an act of generosity. 
The second issue is the number of employees or businesses that may well be affected by this and will be able to participate in this and again I ask what sort of requirements will be placed on them. Thirdly and more important colleagues have raised the issue that there are a number of legal events: 4 September 22 February Boxing Day prior to that and—I have tried to find it in the short time we have had—I believe a fourth recognised official quake that event happened some weeks ago. Regardless of that we know there are three official events but only two of them are mentioned and recognised within the legislation itself even though there is a future-proofing provision that allows for future disasters or scenarios. 
The Commissioner of Inland Revenue can activate these provisions in the future if the disaster meets the requirements and we think that is a very good thing. But at least one official earthquake event is not recognised in the bill. People could be subject to the same difficulties from that unrecognised event and they are not catered for in this legislation. If the lack of this provision is an oversight—again we do not say that with any malice—Labour Opposition members would be well prepared to facilitate an amendment to deal with that if it was deemed appropriate. If it has been catered for then we seek some assurance on that point. 
Equally we would want to know the level of administrative red tape that businesses may have to go through to meet the requirements of this legislation and if a business cannot produce appropriate records of stock that was handed out because of the nature of the disaster we want to know whether there is flexibility within the legislation or a discretion within the Inland Revenue Department to deal with that issue. Again one cannot think of everything but an unintended consequence may occur with some businesses or some entities that donated goods money or services without any sort of acknowledgment that there may have been a liability and without any anticipation that Parliament might deal with it and provide some sort of exemption. 
The other issue is around promotion if there is any and what sort of materials will be provided to businesses employees and others who may be affected and who may be able to take advantage of this to assist them in terms of dealing with the legislation when it comes into force. As has been mentioned there was a large amount of generosity out there. This legislation given that it is future-proofed presumably has the ability to facilitate further generosity for future events. If that is the case then we will support that. So there are a number of questions and I am sure colleagues will have others. If the Minister is in a position to provide us with some advice we would appreciate it.