Connell Brian: Taxation (Annual Rates Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — In Committee 
Connell Brian: Taxation (Annual Rates Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17366] 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 I want to revisit some of the previous speakers’ calls particularly on clause 125 “Zero-rating of services”. I think all members would agree that the GST component of our law is very complex. I will not try to work my way through section 11A(1B) in clause 25(1) because I do find it complex and I freely admit that. I thought it might be useful if the Minister provided some examples of when these services actually would be zero-rated. I would find that particularly useful and I am sure other members would also. Three speakers—and I am the fourth—have got to their feet and said they are struggling to understand this clause. I think it would be useful given that the Minister’s advisers are here for him to take a call and supply some examples. 
Another area I would like to bring to the Committee’s attention is clause 129 “Calculation of tax payable” particularly new paragraph (b) in clause (1): “the failure of a registered person to make the deduction in the earlier taxable period arises from …”. Paragraph (b) goes through to subparagraph (iv): “a clear mistake or simple oversight of the registered person.” I am really struggling with how one could make a clear mistake or oversight because I would have thought that GST was payable only on the presentation of an invoice or in the case of buying or selling property on a settlement statement. I know from having run my own business and having done GST returns that it is a guiding principle—almost one that is set in stone—that one does not pay unless there is a GST invoice to pay on; otherwise one is putting oneself or one’s business in some jeopardy. So I pose another question to the Minister whilst he has his officials here. I ask the Minister whether he could take a call and give some insight into what this definition—“a clear mistake or simple oversight of the registered person.”—really does mean because the way it is written now strikes me as being very vague. Some unscrupulous person could probably drive a bus through it if he or she wanted to. It strikes me that as we are spending time in the Chamber now framing legislation we should get it right the first time. So if the Minister could take a call on that issue also I would be grateful. 
Finally I turn my attention to clause 141. My colleague Mr English has already raised this but I was also intrigued by this clause “Small claims jurisdiction of authorities”. I think this is a good initiative. I think it reflects the fact that as New Zealand becomes more prosperous and as individuals in New Zealand become more prosperous they are paying more tax. Once not so long ago $15000 was probably a big amount. I think $30000 is now more realistic and I am very pleased to see that we are framing legislation that allows the man in the street to go to small-claims jurisdiction rather than having to go through a very expensive court process. To take the IRD to court proceedings and pay for that is almost impossible for the average punter. So I think this is a very good initiative and I commend the Committee and the Minister for it. 
 If though my reading of this is correct does it not raise an issue or two in the Minister’s mind about how much tax New Zealanders are now paying? Does it not start to register somewhere that it is about time that he and the Government started to reflect on the fact that New Zealanders are now being overtaxed?