Cosgrove Clayton: Taxation (International Investment and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee 
Cosgrove Clayton: Taxation (International Investment and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:677;Page:453] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour) 
: 
 I am by no means an expert in tax and I have got to raise a couple of questions. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Too modest. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Well that is true but I was going to call on John Hayes who today as the chair of the Finance and Expenditure Committee in public session made a magnificent job of running interference against the Government. That is why I hope Mr Hayes is going to take a call soon because I know it will be an outstanding contribution. He will probably ask even more deep and penetrating questions than I could even think of.  
But can I just ask the Minister given there is a trend—and I will not widen the debate as per your instructions but I just want to touch on two points. I will just mention their names and move on. There is a trend with this Government whether it be the Sentencing (Aggravating Factors) Amendment Bill or whether it be the Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill that is before the Finance and Expenditure Committee which we dealt with in public session today and part of this bill the Taxation (International Investment and Remedial Matters) Bill which of course we support where members get up and ask for evidence and rationale as to why the Government has embarked on a particular course of action and that does not arrive. I will not go into those other bills because it would not be appropriate—there will be a time and place for that—but we have seen evidence of that before a select committee today.  
I think it is right and proper that when members raise concerns in respect of possible fiscal leakage as Mr Parker has already said it would be interesting if the Minister wanted to provide evidence to perhaps allay our fears in respect of this issuer levy on the face of it not increasing liquidity or reducing interest rates or adding any debt to capital markets. They are legitimate issues that the Opposition raised and it would be helpful I think for the Minister to provide through his officials or whatever some analysis or evidence of that. I would welcome it.  
I would also ask another question. Given that the issuer levy is zero rated and therefore is effectively null and void the question that arises is why you would still have the framework in place. Again I confess I am not an expert in tax and there may be a logical reason for it but it appears to me that if the issuer levy is effectively redundant zero rated and has no relevance then why—was it a mistake? Is there some way we can sort it now perhaps in Committee maybe through leave or whatever but why would you leave a tax framework in place when it has no effect at all? So I think there are some legitimate concerns here.  
I do reiterate Mr Parker’s point that at a time when this Government seems intent on slashing and burning and clawing every dollar out of every particular department—you know doing a dash for cash desperate for cash resources everywhere and so-called savings and making cuts—why would it embark on this measure which in effect could provide fiscal leakage and could weaken the tax base without some pretty robust evidence that that would not happen. Now it may be and I know the Minister has been in the job for many many many years; he is probably the longest serving revenue Minister in the history of this country possibly the history of any Commonwealth Parliament. He went to the same university as me I think part of his degree was history and he may want to research that— 
Hon Member 
: And you went to the same high school. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Absolutely. We went to the same high school St Bede’s College absolutely and he may well want to research that fact. He may well end up in the  
Guinness Book of Records 
 but I think generally this Minister has acted in a way that does generally provide information to allay those concerns but it is legitimate to ask those questions. 
I will just say this again. There is a trend coming into this Government. When it embarks upon measures—and there will be a time and a different place for instance to talk about maybe the Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill and whether it will actually return much cash to the taxpayer for the exorbitant cost it is going to cost to put it together or not. That is for another day; evidence is not prevalent perhaps there. Other bills that have been put up are shiny politically palatable to some a good bit of spin and promotion but actually do nothing in effect but change a few words and have no practical effect in our communities. 
 We support this bill; that is absolutely clear. I accept and I support the Minister’s view that this will streamline a number of measures for New Zealand companies and will bring us into line with many other Western-country partners. But I think this is a particular issue that has vexed the Opposition and to date with respect there has not been a lot of robust evidence or analysis put up to allay our fears.  
If we are wrong fair enough. But if we are wrong I think we owe it to Parliament and the community to allay those fears and ensure that there is evidence on the table.