Burns Brendon: Taxation (GST and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
Burns Brendon: Taxation (GST and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
[Volume:669;Page:16113] 
BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 I want to speak on clause 28 of the Taxation (GST and Remedial Matters) Bill. I note Supplementary Order Paper 187 which refers to some changes to clause 28 in respect of Government grants to business most particularly payments in the nature of a grant or subsidy to a business a grant-related suspensory loan advances and the tax treatment of those Government grants.  
I want to speak in support of Government grants to businesses and the tax treatment of them because it is a very timely issue. As all members of this House well know my city of Christchurch was knocked around very badly by the 4 September earthquake. There is a very strong need at this point in time for businesses in my electorate particularly in my central business district and across Christchurch and Canterbury— 
David Bennett 
: It’s not your CBD. 
BRENDON BURNS 
: The central business district is in my electorate of Christchurch Central. [ 
Interruption 
] Yes it is and we are seeing hundreds and hundreds of businesses that are struggling to survive. They were coming through the recession and now through no fault of their own they are struggling. We have experienced a once-in-750-year disaster and the case for Government grants and assistance is extraordinarily strong.  
There is no precedent for what happened in Christchurch. It is acknowledged from the Prime Minister down that this was a once-in-750-year event. The commentary from the Prime Minister and from other Ministers in the Key-led Cabinet was that whatever it took to assist Canterbury to get back on its feet would be done. Yet on Monday of last week the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery in the face of a number of approaches to him from business organisations for assistance for Canterbury business announced a derisory package that provided— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Can the member show me the relevance of his comments to Part 2.  
BRENDON BURNS 
: I am relating them to clause 28 which—as amended by the Supplementary Order Paper—provides for the tax treatment of Government grants to businesses. I say that there is a very strong case for businesses in Christchurch to be provided with grants and with the tax treatment inherent in this Supplementary Order Paper so they can survive and start paying tax again.  
Those businesses at the moment have suffered a turnover loss of as much as 80 percent since the 4 September quake—80 percent. They need the assistance that this clause envisages. We are not seeing any assistance. The announcement that came provided a sum of $100000 to promote Canterbury businesses shared with the good folk of Kaiapoi and $80000 for Christchurch when they are needing suspensory loans grants and tax assistance as envisaged by this clause. So we have the tax treatment provided for under this clause but we are not getting and we will not see assistance for businesses. According to the Minister when he was in the House yesterday this is because there are thousands of businesses in Canterbury that are thriving. I would like to see a Canterbury member opposite stand up and recite a list of thousands of Canterbury businesses that are thriving and do not need the Government support and the tax treatment provided in clause 28.  
I am not aware of thousands of Canterbury businesses that are thriving. I am aware of hundreds and hundreds of Canterbury businesses that are on their knees and have asked for Government support and assistance as envisaged under clause 28. It is envisaged that we would see suspensory loans provided or a provision of a grant to a business to assist it most particularly through the Christmas and New Year period which is the time when those businesses are trying to hang on to staff and pay their holiday pay in the face of a business environment where they may be getting only $1 in $2 of the income that they were getting on 4 September or worse. That is why the Government in the legislation provides for suspensory loans for grants to assist businesses and for assistance as envisaged by this clause which provides for the tax treatment of those businesses.  
So the Government is acknowledging that it has a role to play and therefore it needs to have the appropriate tax treatment when there is the provision of assistance to businesses. Yet we are not seeing the assistance to those businesses under the Government. We are providing for the tax treatment of assistance but we are not seeing the assistance. The outcome for the Minister of Revenue as hundreds and hundreds of businesses go to the wall will be less revenue. If there is no assistance provided—with the appropriate tax treatment as provided for in clause 28—the Minister will have less revenue.  
There is another consequence. There is a sucking sound going on in Canterbury at the moment particularly in my electorate of Christchurch Central which is home to the central business district. The sucking sound is the sound of jobs disappearing. Every person who is displaced by a business that can no longer afford him or her—because of the turnover and lack of assistance as envisaged under clause 28 and the tax treatment provided—and every person who goes home with their final pay cheque if they get it is one more person who is not spending money not buying their lunch not buying a coffee not buying a cup of tea not buying a glass of beer after work not buying a pair of shoes and not shopping in the central business district. That further impacts on the viability of those very businesses that are attempting to survive.  
Those businesses quite rightly look to the Government. They know that the Government has provided for suspensory loans for grants for assistance and for appropriate tax treatment. They are not asking for inappropriate tax treatment; they are asking for an assistance package that will give them the chance to remain viable and continue employing people. I ask the question of members opposite some of whom represent regions like the Waikato which is suffering at the moment from another drought. My heart goes out to the farmers of the Waikato. I saw a chap on TV last night in tears and my heart goes out to him. But it has to be said that farming comes in cycles and droughts hit farming on a regular basis. Farmers obviously have to do their best to try to provide for those droughts—it is part of the cycle.  
An event that happens once in 750 years is not part of a cycle and business cannot provide for it. They cannot predict it. That is why Governments through the ages in New Zealand have been there to assist New Zealanders and assist New Zealand businesses with the appropriate tax treatment as provided for under clause 28. But those businesses are not getting that assistance and I want to know from members opposite why they are not.  
I noted the Minister for Earthquake Recovery in the House yesterday talking about thousands of thriving businesses and suggesting that people were getting perfectly adequate information from the Earthquake Commission. That is not what I am hearing as the member representing Christchurch Central from the central business district. I am hearing from businesses that are looking to the Government for some support and assistance—the Government that they in most instances probably voted for. Small and medium sized enterprises—like the cobbler who has a shop in the City Mall and is the brother of Aaron Gilmore—probably voted for the National-led Government believing that they would get a fair deal. I would like to know whether Aaron Gilmore would like to see some support and assistance for his brother in that enterprise. I do not know what his turnover downturn is but I would like to know. I would like to know whether Aaron Gilmore’s brother is being affected and whether he would like to see through clause 28 and its tax treatment some support and assistance for his business along with many hundreds and hundreds of others. I met his father in another cobbler’s shop where I was getting my shoes repaired and I believe that he holds similar sentiments—that it is the role of the Government at times of crisis and times of need to provide assistance.  
Those businesses will get appropriate tax treatment under clause 28 of this bill and I wholly support that. But there cannot be appropriate tax treatment if the assistance is not provided and that assistance is not coming. There is a deafening silence from the National members from Canterbury. They are not standing up for their constituents and telling Minister Brownlee: “It is not good enough.” We are seeing viable businesses shed staff and close their doors when all they need is some support reassurance and assistance with the appropriate tax treatment provided under clause 28 in this bill. We have seen none of those members stand up. They are silent and they should be standing up for their constituents.