Dunne Peter: Taxation (GST and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
Dunne Peter: Taxation (GST and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
[Volume:669;Page:16127] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Minister of Revenue) 
: 
 I will ignore most of Mr Nash’s comments because they do not deserve a response. I come to Mr Cunliffe’s points which were more substantial.  
Stuart Nash 
: Play the ball not the man. 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: The member makes an interjection. He should try to demonstrate some credibility before he starts to comment on process which is something he understands nothing about. His colleague Mr Cunliffe on the other hand— 
Stuart Nash 
: When you start playing the ball and not the person then you will get credibility.  
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: Oh Mr Nash is hurt! Mr Nash stands here and trumpets his knowledge which actually fills a thimble and then becomes concerned when he is drawn to account. Mr Cunliffe I think made a worthy effort which I will seek to respond to.  
Stuart Nash 
: We could hold you to account because you were a Labour MP who sold out. 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: Oh dear! Now we get into personal prejudice.  
Paul Quinn 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Stuart Nash has regularly referred to you Mr Chairperson in the last 30 seconds. I think that is against the Standing Orders.  
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I will deal with the matter of “you” hopefully finally. The word “you” in itself is not proscribed in the House. When people say “you” it does not necessarily always apply to the Chair. Mr Nash was interjecting towards Mr Dunne the Minister in the chair and was making reference to him. So I took the “you” in that context to refer to Mr Dunne. However although Mr Nash has not shifted his seat for the purposes of interjecting he is interjecting continuously from that position. I want to get on with the debate so can we just taihoa draw a breath and move forward.  
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: I am happy to do that. I will respond to two points that were made by Mr Cunliffe. The first one related to the issue of regulatory impact statements. I made a comment earlier in respect of regulatory impact statements. I have had some more inquiry made about process and I can inform him as follows: as I said in my earlier comments the provisions relating to loss attributing qualifying companies were part of the post-Budget regulatory impact material. When Supplementary Order Paper 187 which is the subject of the debate today was released on Tuesday so too were regulatory impact statements regarding the social assistance provisions the changes to non-resident seasonal workers and the Maori authority changes. That material is all out in the public arena. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I thank the Minister very much for his so far partial explanation but— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: If the member is going to take a point of order the member should make a point of order. The member does not get up and start issuing thankyous and all sorts of other things. The Standing Orders are quite to the point: they talk about points of order being terse. Thankyous and salutations to anyone are irrelevant. If the member wants to make a point of order the member stands asks for a point of order and delivers the point of order. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: The point of order is this. If a regulatory impact statement was issued as the Minister now contends I take it that you as the Chairperson would be responsible for ensuring that it was attached to the draft bill and the Supplementary Order Paper. It does not so appear. Can the Chair explain why the regulatory impact statement is not available to members? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I say to the member that that is not a point of order. It is not a point of process. The member is seeking information. If the member wishes to seek information then he does so by way of debate. The member can stand take a call and make the point by way of a call. The member does not make that point by way of a point of order. It has nothing to do with the order of the Committee. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I thought it proper to address a matter of Committee order and procedure to you as the Chair and not to the Minister responsible because it is you who presides over the Committee. The Minister is saying that he has issued a regulatory impact statement. It has not been tabled in the House. I take it that as the Chair you are responsible for the Parliamentary Service and the Office of the Clerk. I take it that it would have been the responsibility of the Office of the Clerk to ensure that the regulatory impact statement appeared before the House which it has not.  
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I make the point again that the member is not able to distinguish between a matter of the order of the proceedings of the Committee and a matter that is a material fact on what a member has or has not done. If the member has a question about that it is for him to address to the Minister because the Minister is responsible for those matters and as the Chair of the Committee I am not. I am responsible for the organisation of the debate the structure of the debate and making sure that the Standing Orders are complied with. Those are matters for the Chair. I have now answered that question twice for the member. I hope we have it clear at this point. 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: I will respond to the point that Mr Cunliffe has made. The regulatory impact statements to which I referred have been issued publicly. They are available via the Inland Revenue Department policy website; they are freely available in that regard.  
I come back to the point that he raised regarding the portfolio investment entity regime. He and I recall from a previous existence that a lot of the issues that led to the introduction of the portfolio investment entity regime were not as Mr Nash contended to do with KiwiSaver; they were a consequence of changes relating to offshore investments that I think he initiated when he was holding the revenue portfolio. A number of the changes occurred around that regime in 2007 from memory. He will recall that we had subsequently a lot of discussion about what became known as cash portfolio investment entities land portfolio investment entities or various iterations of the portfolio investment entity regime.  
The issue has been one of how this new vehicle is adapted for the future if you like. In many senses the jury is still out on that issue because the Savings Working Group which is due to report early next year will also be focusing its attention on it in terms of the broader canvas.  
In terms of the specific provisions in this part of the bill they are consequential on the changes being made to the definition of “income” for social assistance purposes. Those provisions do not relate to individual contributors; they relate to the funds themselves. So in answer to the question that he was raising about the impact on contributors I say that it is lessened. The impact is on the funds. The funds have been fully consulted throughout the development of these proposals and are broadly supportive of them. I think that deals with the question that he was raising. This is a very specific and narrow area; it is not a major area of policy. It is an administrative change consequential upon some other changes that are being made which one of his colleagues indicated his party was broadly supportive of.  
I thought that I should put that on the record at this point. I have no intention of interfering with or delaying the debate but I put those facts on the record because they may be of assistance.