Dalziel Lianne: Taxation (Tax Administration and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Dalziel Lianne: Taxation (Tax Administration and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:675;Page:20753] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I stand as somebody who was not on the Finance and Expenditure Committee so I have a number of questions for the Minister in the chair the Minister of Revenue that perhaps can assist me to get a better understanding of the particular issues that are covered in Part 1 of the Taxation (Tax Administration and Remedial Matters) Bill. As I understand it some of the main provisions in Part 1 relate to foreign investment portfolio investment entity (PIE) rules. That is such a complex area of work—and as I understand it it was actually introduced by way of Supplementary Order Paper which was then referred to the Finance and Expenditure Committee after the bill had been referred—and the select committee as I understand it took on board the need for some of the changes to be made and felt it was appropriate to call for submissions on the Supplementary Order Paper and to report the bill back to the House with the provisions of the Supplementary Order Paper included within the bill. This does seem to me to be a sensible way of approaching significant changes to legislation after it has already been introduced. It is a very good mechanism to ensure the public do still have the ability to have a say on matters of significance even though they have been introduced after the legislation has been introduced. 
I guess the question that I would like to know the answer to personally is whether this was because Supplementary Order Paper 220 was not ready for inclusion in the main bill or whether it was something that came up subsequently to the bill being referred and therefore the bill was seen as a convenient vehicle upon which to attach these rule changes. If that was the case then I am pleased that submissions were able to be called on it because I think that approach is way more preferable to bringing a Supplementary Order Paper to the House in the Committee stage. If we had had this Supplementary Order Paper referred to the House at this stage there would probably be an uproar and many expressions of outrage at things being tabled at the last minute and in the dead of night while we were under urgency. Of course it will not get that treatment today because it has been through a good process and submissions were called on it. So I would appreciate an answer. 
I cannot pretend to be an expert on the PIE rules. In fact the one thing that I normally tell people and which I am particularly grateful for is that I have never managed to find myself on the Finance and Expenditure Committee for any period of time. 
Hon Craig Foss 
: We have high standards! 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I understand that the new Minister who formerly chaired the Finance and Expenditure Committee—and who was probably chairing the Finance and Expenditure Committee for a considerable part of this legislation if not for all of the legislation—did a very fine job as chair of that committee. No doubt that is what has seen him promoted to the high ranks that he has already managed to achieve. But I am not an expert on the PIE rules and for the sake of the record of the House I would like the Minister to go through the different elements of the adjustments that have been made the purpose of them and how they are intended to be applied with the new legislation in place. 
It does seem to me that the select committee took considerable time and effort not just to accept the Supplementary Order Paper in its entirety and insert it in the legislation but also to go through all the different elements of the Supplementary Order Paper and make some changes to it on the way through. I did note for the record that when the select committee reported back from its consideration it referred to the types of PIE that now exist. It expressed some concern about “the way the PIE legislation is structured with some over-arching rules applying to all PIES.” Therefore “Modifications for specific types of PIE explain how the rules applying to them differ from the general rules. It can be unclear whether certain provisions apply to certain PIES and some provisions conflict. We believe that the diversity of PIEs has made the legislation complicated almost inaccessible and hard to understand.” 
Well I cannot say that I am excited to read that because it worries me greatly that we may have made it inaccessible. I know that people will be making recommendations to people and it is not your average person in the street who will be looking at these matters but if we can avoid complexity we should.