Taxation (Annual Rates, Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill

Part 2 is a big part of the bill, and we intend to take several calls. I start with clause 4, “Non-residents’ exempt income”.

The Labour Government continues to trumpet about how much it understands the importance of attracting foreign investment into venture capital in New Zealand. We all know that the minority Labour Government continues to talk about an innovative framework to support high-tech industry in New Zealand, but all the high-tech industries, or start-up companies, do have high levels of risk connected with them, and usually in other types of countries venture capital funds are there for that type of investment. The Labour Government, once again, has come up with a half-baked idea, in terms of clause 4. It thinks it will make everybody feel good, even though 100 percent of the submitters to the Finance and Expenditure Committee said that clause 4 is a very, very small step.

In order to attract venture capital into New Zealand, first, there needs to be a limited liability partnership structure, and, second, the list of so-called foreign countries needs to be extended to the grey list. At the moment the list that qualifies in terms of clause 4, whereby the sale of shares would not be treated as dividends but as capital gain, is extremely limited. When we ask the officials what is happening about the limited liability partnership structure that foreign investors would want, and also about a common regime between New Zealand and Australia, they say they are still working on it. We suggest that they just finish working on the whole structure, so it would then at least show a genuine understanding of the venture capital sector, and would become really useful to attract investors. We realise that this is just a political game by the Government, in terms of announcing this legislation and selling it by saying it will attract venture capital. But there is actually no substance within this legislation. Last week in the Sunday Star-Times there was an article from the venture capital sector, stating that this taxation bill will do nothing to attract any additional foreign investment into New Zealand.

I have spent a bit of time expanding on this matter in order to demonstrate that day in and day out in this Parliament, just as with the bill that we have finished debating, this Government continues to bring into this Chamber legislation that has half-baked ideas, without understanding the whole concept of getting New Zealand to become competitive in a taxation framework that is transparent, that has low taxation rates, and that is easy to comply with. Instead the Government likes to play favourites, and it keeps saying that today it is doing something to attract venture capital. But submitters to the select committee made it very clear that we have not even set up the right type of vehicle to attract that foreign investment into New Zealand. I use that example to demonstrate that Parliament is continually being presented with legislation that on the surface appears to address an issue, but that in substance does not. Submitter after submitter told us that this bill has no substance.

I disagree with giving certain non-residents a tax advantage on profits from the sale of shares in unlisted New Zealand companies. That disadvantages New Zealand - resident venture capital investors. It will not attract the appropriate capital needed for the purposes for which Part 2 was created. Even the proponents of this part say that it will not attract the capital needed for the purposes it was created for. We have a Government that allows certain non-residents a tax advantage from shares. This Government is selling off Powerco. This Government is paying for hip-hop trips and spending millions of dollars on the arts. Instead of the Government giving non-residents a tax advantage on profits from the sale of shares in unlisted New Zealand companies, why does it not give the small Kiwi battler a go? That is what we in New Zealand First are asking. Why does the Government not give the small-business owner or the small exporter a go? Why not give them a tax break?

If we look at the example of the Republic of Ireland, we can see how it helped its exporters. The Republic of Ireland exports $48,000 per man, woman, and child, compared with New Zealand’s measly $8,000, approximately, for every man, woman, and child. Singapore lacks resources when compared with a beautiful, resource-rich country like New Zealand, yet it exports about $60,000 per man, woman, and child, compared with our $8,000 per man, woman, and child. I say, and New Zealand First says, that instead of giving non-residents a tax advantage on profits from the sale of shares in unlisted New Zealand companies, we should give the Kiwi battler, the small-business owner, a go—because even proponents of the bill say that it will not attract the capital that is needed.

There is another issue that I want to address. I see the United Future member Gordon Copeland in the Chamber. As I said during the second reading debate on this bill, United Future has put in a minority report on this legislation. We note that United Future voted for the bill during all stages, yet it has written a minority report, as we see in the bill. New Zealand First says to the United Future members that this is their last chance. We will give them another chance to vote the bill down. This is their chance to vote against all the things they said they have a problem with, like increasing the taxation thresholds, and so on. We say that this is their last chance to do that. We say to this Government and to United Future that instead of spending $21 million on a propaganda campaign for the Working for Families package, and instead of giving non-residents a tax advantage on their profits from the sale of shares in unlisted New Zealand companies, we should be helping our exporters.

There is another issue I want to discuss in relation to Part 2. It was brought up last night, I think, and it is the issue of the taxation of Māori authorities. When that provision was first put into legislation, New Zealand First, under my name, put forward a Supplementary Order Paper.

The ACT party opposes the Taxation (Annual Rates, Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. I draw to the attention of the Committee the fact that we have written a minority report in respect of this bill. It is one sentence long: “The ACT Party view is that adopting a low flat rate of tax, below those of our trading partners, would overcome much of the problems this bill seeks to solve.” Of course, the reason this bill is here is that our tax code is extraordinarily complicated, because there are all sorts of different tax rates.

I turn my attention to the complications the Government has got itself into by introducing race into our tax system. It is extraordinary that a Māori authority pays a lower tax rate for the same activity than other New Zealanders are forced to pay, and, of course, that has led to all sorts of problems. I refer, in particular, to clauses 26, 27, and 34. One of the problems will be ascertaining who is a Māori. The Minister in the chair, David Cunliffe, should give us some guidance on that question. I understand there have been people in this House who have decided they are Māori and then have decided they are not—they are not quite sure. Under clause 26 people can just feel that they are Māori, and after they look at the tax rates they can decide they will set themselves up as a Māori authority.

💬 Pita Paraone: You want to be Māori!

The New Zealand First member says that, and I draw to the attention of the Committee the fact that if we look at the census, we see that in the last three censuses the number of Māori in New Zealand has increased faster than is biologically possible. People may wonder why anyone would want to say he or she is Māori. The reason that people want to do so is that Māori pay lower tax. They also become eligible for a whole range of benefits.

💬 Brian Connell: Not immigration.

Not immigration, no. That is the sort of mess the Government gets itself into.

I am not actually opposed to Māori authorities paying a lower rate of tax; I just want everyone else to be able to pay that same lower rate of tax. What I find interesting about this Government is that Dr Cullen has many, many reasons as to why average New Zealanders should not have the benefit of lower tax. He even has the United Future party, which supports the Government, pointing out that there has been a bit of inflation and that people are paying higher rates of tax. The United Future members cannot actually bring themselves to vote in that way, but they do make that point. In that respect—flip-flopping—they have got as far as that. I say to the Committee that it should look at the elections in the United States today. Has lower tax resulted in the rejection of the Bush/Cheney Government? No, it has not. We have Government members who may think that the public likes paying extra tax. The Labour Party actually has contempt for its own voters and supporters. Labour members say they are in favour of them, but what is their record? Their record is that they believe they can spend money better than the public can, and they think they have the right to do that.

I ask the Minister in the chair to take a call and tell the Committee, first, who is a Māori. I ask him to tell us about all the problems of deciding whether someone is Māori. He may have some personal experiences he wants to share with the Committee. Then he can tell us how people decide whether they are a Māori authority under clause 26. That is now an important fiscal question, because if a person decides he or she is Māori, that person can pay a lower rate of tax than non-Māori. That is what the Government has put into the tax code, so it has a duty to tell us who is a Māori. I would be really interested to hear from Mr Cunliffe, who, I understand, has personally looked into that question. Members may know that the number of Māori MPs in this Parliament keeps going up and down. It was up to 20; now it is 19. Apparently members have changed their minds yet again. That is a matter of humour here in Parliament, but it is now a matter of fiscal importance in our legislation, and I think Mr Cunliffe has a duty to explain to us, as he is the Minister in the chair, how one decides whether a person qualifies as a Māori authority. Then he can tell us why Māori authorities should pay a lower rate of tax than other people, especially when some of them are amongst New Zealand’s largest companies.

It is a great pleasure to follow the Hon Richard Prebble because he makes a lot of sense. There is an old saying that is certainly appropriate to socialists. It goes like this: “If it moves tax it, if it keeps moving tax it a bit more, and if it stops moving subsidise it to get it moving again.” That old cliché has been around for a long time, but it is as relevant today, with a Government like this, as it has ever been.

I say to the Hon Richard Prebble, who has just resumed his seat, that there is one plus in having a discriminatory tax regime for Māori, and it relates to a bit of an experiment going on in this country at the moment. There has been a lot of argument about whether lower taxes would increase growth. Dr Cullen over there, with a PhD in history—certainly not a PhD in tax rates—has said that they would not increase growth. But let us look at what has happened since we have had two tax rates for two different ethnic groups. The Māori incorporations, with a 19 percent tax rate, have had growth that has outstripped that of any other kind of business in this country, particularly in their farming. In farming, Māori incorporations—on a 19c tax rate—have had incredible growth compared with the average growth of the rest of farmers, who pay up to 39c in the dollar. [Interruption] I ask that member—look at the Topp Twins sitting in the whips’ chairs over there, heckling away—to study the facts, then come back to Parliament and tell me I am wrong. Have Māori incorporations with a lower tax rate—which will, of course, be reinforced under this piece of legislation—had strong growth rates exceeding those of any other corporation or entity in this country? The answer is absolutely yes, they have. That is absolute evidence that lower tax rates will create higher growth rates.

There are a couple of other points in Part 2 that need to be touched on. One is the fact that the tax rate for horticultural investment is going to be improved. That is a plus. I say good on the people of Hawke’s Bay, who, clearly, lobbied the member who lives there—not their local member but the member who lives there, who happens to be Dr Michael Cullen—to get a special rate. Obviously, Michael Cullen is thinking of retiring to the Hawke’s Bay and this is the “smooth the way for Michael into the Hawke’s Bay” clause. Good on them for getting it! But why is that rate not applied to all agricultural, land-based industries? Let us look at farm machinery. We all know that when we invest in modern agricultural techniques and equipment we get stronger growth rates and higher productivity. Why are the depreciation rates for farm machinery in general not taken into account in this piece of legislation? Why was that left out? Who knows; how would we ever know?

Let us look at the depreciation rates on things like planting new pasture, and on dairy conversions—a lot of which are going on in my colleague’s Rakaia area. What has happened to them? The socialists have said they are not going to have people planting new grass cultivars that achieve higher levels of production. They are not going to have that; they are going to tax them. They are now going to make people depreciate that over a 15-year period instead of claiming depreciation in the first year as they have always been able to do. [Interruption] The Minister who is carping away as usual should take the call and explain to Parliament tonight how that helps the Prime Minister’s mission statement in her speech from the throne: “We will be about creating higher growth rates in New Zealand.” How will it help in that regard? I am curious to find that out, and I am sure anybody listening is. The answer is that it clearly will not.

I ask the Committee tonight why we do not reduce all tax rates to the level that the Māori incorporations are enjoying. It has been demonstrated overwhelmingly to Parliament that that creates stronger growth. It is there for us to see. Other farming is not growing at the same rate. So why not reduce the whole tax base to 19c in the dollar, which is what the Māori incorporations pay? Instead of doing that, one of the very first things Dr Michael Cullen did was put it up.

I move, That the question be now put.

I would like to say how disappointed I am in the Government for vetoing my amendment to Part 2. [Interruption] Is Richard Prebble disappointed as well? Good. I was looking forward to his support. I know that the ACT party is very keen on encouraging New Zealanders to save for their retirement, and would therefore, I am sure, have supported our amendment to Part 2. I would have hoped that other parties in the House would be so kind as to do so as well, so that New Zealanders, particularly those earning less than $38,000 a year, would have had an incentive to save for their retirement. In fact, even those earning up to $60,000 a year deserve an incentive to save for their retirement.

What incentive do they deserve? They deserve exactly the same incentive that all the members in this Chamber have. We are part of a very privileged group of people in New Zealand, thanks to the Labour Government. When the Labour Government brought in the 39 percent marginal tax rate on income it kept the specified superannuation contribution withholding tax rate at 33 percent, which means that all of us in this Chamber get a 6 percent tax incentive to save for our retirement. I thank the Government for doing that.

But I do not thank it for initially penalising all of the people earning less than $38,000 a year by taxing them at 33 percent no matter what their marginal tax rates were. After many years of pressure—I call it Chinese water torture: drip, drip, drip—the Government finally succumbed and removed that discriminatory regime, and it has now set the specified superannuation contribution withholding tax rate at an employee’s marginal tax rate. I congratulate the Government on doing that, but it deserves a brickbat for not extending the very privileged tax status that we all have, and that all other people who enjoy an income of more than $60,000 a year have. The Government deserves a brickbat for not extending that incentive to everyone earning less than $60,000.

That is why I am so disappointed that the Labour Government has refused to allow my amendment to stand. It would have been a sensible amendment, and would have been very consistent with the Government’s claims that it wants to encourage people to save for their retirement. But, of course, as with many things with this Government, it says one thing and does another. The Government is refusing to help the very people who elected it. It is the workers of this country who voted for Labour—particularly blue-collar workers, people who earn less than $60,000 a year—but they have absolutely no incentive to save for their retirement.

That is why it is not surprising that fewer than a quarter of a million New Zealanders are currently members of subsidised superannuation funds. That is an indictment not just on the Labour Government but on successive Governments. The number of New Zealanders in subsidised superannuation funds was over 300,000 in 1990, and that number has dropped by over 60,000 since then. That is not only sad but economically disastrous. It can be seen coming through in the Reserve Bank figures. Members just need to go to the bank’s September Monetary Policy Statement to see that it is projecting negative savings rates of 11 percent for the 2006 year. A household savings rate of minus 11 percent is not good news for New Zealand—it is very bad news—and the Government could be taking a first step by backing our amendment.

But let us not stop there; let us get into some serious incentives for saving. We look forward to seeing what the Stobo report has to say. We hope it will look at where the t’s and the e’s are in the “taxed/taxed/exempt” regime. We think it is about time the Government seriously looked at making contributions exempt so that they are deducted from gross income, and, to compensate for that, taxing the money that members of those schemes withdraw at the point of retirement. Along the way, it should make the middle “t” a lower-case “t”, if one likes, by taxing the earnings of superannuation funds at 21 percent, then deducting the tax paid by members from their final payout at the point of withdrawal. That is the sort of incentive we need to be making to encourage people to save for their retirement, and it would give the Government the added advantage of tax deferral, because, quite clearly, the Government does not need the money now, given the surplus that it is running, but it will need it in 20 to 50 years’ time when the current crop of workers will retire and the Government will be short of income.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I note that the Government is calling for closure motions. We have just started to debate Part 2. We have had five speakers on Part 2, which has 65 clauses in it. Part 5 has the highest number of clauses, with 90. I am seeking from you that we be given a fair go on this legislation, which is very important to the well-being of all New Zealanders. The Opposition has a number of members who wish to take calls on this legislation during the Committee stage, and I would ask that you take that into account before closure motions are accepted.

💬 Darren Hughes: Mr Chairperson—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): I do not need any assistance.

💬 Darren Hughes: I just want to say that I note that the junior Opposition whip is developing a habit, when Government members seek the call, of giving his view of the world on it. It is not a point of order.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): I will reply to Mr Tisch. Thank you for bringing that to my attention, but we have had far more speakers than you indicated. National has had five speakers. Part 1 was, in fact, a much bigger part than this one. Albeit it did not have as many clauses, it was the most important part of the bill. I am quite aware of what is needed here.

I move, That the question be now put.

I appreciate getting the call, because this is a very important bill and I believe that this is a very, very important part.

I want to ask the Minister in the chair a question and to see what his response is. Before I was shut off last time, I was starting to elaborate on the fact that when the Government first introduced the 19.5 percent tax rate for certain Māori authorities I had introduced a Supplementary Order Paper to make that rate available to all New Zealand organisations or outfits similar to the concept that the Government had put in the legislation. The question I will ask the Minister, and I am sure he is able to answer it, is whether, if I introduce that same Supplementary Order Paper again, it will go to the vote or be subject to the financial veto. That is a question I am hoping the Minister will answer for me because I think it is very important that the Government addresses this issue and at least fronts up to the fact that it was a very reasonable Supplementary Order Paper that I put up on behalf of New Zealand First to make this tax advantage available to all New Zealand authorities of a similar type in a similar circumstance. Instead of the Government spending taxpayers’ money on a whole lot of other issues and projects like the arts, hip-hop trips, or $21 million on advertising the Government’s Working for Families package, it could put more money in the pockets of New Zealand authorities that would be available to all New Zealand races, not just to Māori. We do not have a problem with Māori authorities having this tax break—we are for it. But we also want to make it available to all New Zealanders.

As well as allowing more money to be put indirectly into the pockets of New Zealanders by allowing my Supplementary Order Paper, the Government could also be helping couples get into their first houses. That is another issue, but it is by the by. I am just hoping the Minister will be able to answer my question. If I put up a Supplementary Order Paper making this tax concession available to all New Zealanders, will the Minister veto it with his powers of financial veto?

I move, That the question be now put.

I take pleasure in rising on behalf of the ACT party to speak on this Taxation (Annual Rates, Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. Because I am not on the Finance and Expenditure Committee I have a number of questions that I would like to ask the Minister in the chair, David Cunliffe.

I am aware that the United Future party has put forward some amendments to the tax bill that go for lower taxes, I understand. I want to clarify whether United Future has put in an amendment to introduce capital gains tax, because I know that Mr Copeland has a particular interest in having a capital gains tax in New Zealand. Maybe the Minister would like to take a call to clarify that. I know he has been in contact with the Minister of Finance over this issue. Hearing from the Minister would put our minds at rest, because it would be a change for New Zealand to have a capital gains tax.

I ask the Minister also to address a second issue, which is one that the Hon Richard Prebble raised in his contribution. It is what the Government’s definition of a Māori is. Clause 26, “Election to become a Maori authority”, states that “A person who elects to become a Maori authority becomes a Maori authority—”, but then it does not appear to define what it is one has to do to become a Māori authority. I think many New Zealanders have real concerns about legislation based on race being in place. This bill is cementing that in place, yet there is no definition. I remember that this question of what actually a Māori is has been raised a number of times in the period that I have been in Parliament. For voting purposes, if one says that one feels like a Māori, one can go on the Māori roll.

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: How does the Minister feel?

Yes, how does the Minister feel about that sort of definition? Maybe the Minister would like to clarify whether, if any authority decided for the purposes of income tax that it wanted to be a Māori authority, there any rules, regulations, or provisions that it would have to abide by, or is it OK just to tick the box and say: “I feel Māori, because then I can get a lower tax rate.”?

I think this is a serious issue. This is the Committee stage and there is a Minister in the chair. The purpose of having the Minister in the chair is to address issues raised in the Committee stage; otherwise, this debate is a farce. So far I have not heard the Minister take a call. This is a serious issue. Either he knows the answer and is refusing to tell it to Opposition members, or else he does not know the answer. But he has his officials sitting right next to him, so I would suggest to the Minister that if he does not know—it sounds like he does not—he should ask his officials, seek some advice, then explain to the Committee whether an authority has to do more than simply feel that it is Māori to be able to qualify for and gain a lower tax rate.

The ACT party did put in a minority report that advocated a low flat tax. I remind the Minister that Treasury produced a paper late last year, which came to light this year, that explained that if the Labour Government simply gave back to families its surplus—the amount of money it overtaxes New Zealand working families—we could reduce our tax rate to 20c in the dollar. Let us just imagine the incentive it would bring to New Zealand to have a 20c flat tax rate; most of the provisions of this bill we could simply chuck in the rubbish bin. Our tax laws are so complicated because the taxes that this Government has put in place have made taxation in New Zealand more complex still. The average family pays 46 percent of its wages in taxes.

I move, That the question be now put.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Before you give the call, I point out that United Future has yet to make any contribution to this debate, at all. I would like to speak on this part, if possible.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): I call Gordon Copeland.

I was not intending to take a call on this part, but I must say I find it very, very disappointing in the extreme that Muriel Newman continues to advise members of a completely wrong bit of information—I am being parliamentary here, because I know that we are not allowed to use other words in this place. I have already officially informed this House of that on another occasion, and the rule of this House is that my word must be accepted, but that does not seem to make one iota of difference to the member.

Let me make United Future’s position clear. Not only have we never advocated a capital gains tax but we have no policy in that regard. I have never advocated a capital gains tax in this country. In fact, on the contrary, I am on the record both publicly and privately as advocating that a capital gains tax should not henceforth apply to superannuation fund earnings. Superannuation funds at the moment pay capital gains tax if shares and bonds are traded. I have made it clear that it is our policy—and I have been an advocate for it in forums in which ACT members have also participated with me—to remove capital gains tax from superannuation fund savings, so that they would be on a level playing field with other elements of the New Zealand tax system to which no capital gains tax applies. I put it on the record that that is the position of United Future.

I seek leave to table an official document relating to Mr Copeland’s request, in a discussion with Dr Cullen, for a capital gains tax.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): Leave has been sought for that course to be taken. Is there any objection? There is.

I move, That the question be now put.

I have not yet had an opportunity to take part in this debate, so I have come down here to the Chamber tonight and listened very carefully to the arguments that have been put forward. I have found myself agreeing with most speakers, with some notable exceptions. The contribution from Shane Ardern I found to be particularly enlightening. The taxation system that is now in place in this country is terribly complex. I would have thought that this bill would be an opportunity for the Government to do something to try to alleviate the huge taxation burden imposed on hard-working Kiwis. Mr Ardern mentioned an old saying: “If it moves, tax it.”, and he had an iteration of that. Well, there is another iteration of that, which I want to share with members: “If it moves, tax it, and if it still doesn’t move, kick it until it does, and then tax it.” That is exactly what this Government is doing.

Michael Cullen is held up to us as someone who is fiscally responsible, because he skites about a surplus of $7.4 billion. To anyone who has a half-reasonable understanding of fiscal matters, that is not something to brag about. In fact, Michael Cullen is being fiscally irresponsible. New Zealanders need tax relief. We have an unlikely ally on that in a member of the Government. John Tamihere believes that we should have tax relief, as does the Opposition. Strangely enough, he is a very strong proponent of the ACT policy of flatter taxation. In fact, John Tamihere has gone so far to the right now that he thinks there should be zero taxation. He will not get a lot of support for that from his colleagues, but we on the Opposition side of the Chamber think he is halfway right.

The New Zealand First member took a call before. I say to the young member that on the issue of venture capital, he is quite wrong. Conceptually, what has been suggested in this legislation is right. We need to attract more capital to this country, and a vehicle like this legislation will assist with that. Unfortunately—and this is where I agree with the member—this vehicle, in terms of the way it is constructed, simply will not do that. I also side with the member when he says that businesses in New Zealand deserve tax breaks. Small business after small business is being burdened with an ever-increasing level of taxation. That is the issue that John Tamihere, when he was a Cabinet Minister, articulated. I thought he would do something about de-layering tax.

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: He’s leading by example.

He is leading by example, but I was hoping he would do it in a more subtle way, rather than by just avoiding the issue.

The Minister in the chair, David Cunliffe, has had, by my count, four questions asked of him this evening: two of them by the New Zealand First member, one by the Green Party, and one by the ACT party. The Minister has steadfastly refused to get up and respond to those questions. I know he will not disappoint me. I know he will get to his feet and answer some of those questions, because it is essential that the people of New Zealand understand what the Minister is trying to do in constructing this legislation. I believe that questions that are fairly put need to be fairly answered.

The issue around Māori trusts has been debated. I understand that there were issues of double taxation—and I do not for one moment suggest that what was happening was fair—but one does not fix that problem by creating another one. One does not pick out some poor businesses based on race and think that that is a reasonable solution. That is not the way to deal with the issue. The Minister in the chair, who has just caught my eye, knows that I am right. He should be constructing legislation that takes up the issue with regard to all the businesses that are struggling. I ask the Minister what is wrong with helping out poor, non-Māori businesses as well as Māori authorities.

I move, That the question be now put.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Could you clarify which one is Supplementary Order Paper 287? Is that the amendment to have a split vote or is that the Minister’s amendment?

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): This is the amendment that has been on the Table all evening. It is the Minister’s substantive amendment, not the amendment to have a split vote.

The amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 295 in the name of Rod Donald to clause 7 and to add new clauses 61B and 67B are ruled out of order, as that Supplementary Order Paper was not lodged with 24 hours’ notice.

The question was put that Part 2 as amended be agreed to.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Now that the real Minister, Mr Cullen, has resumed the chair, I wonder whether he would like to take a call and address all the very serious issues—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): No, no. I tell the member that that is not a matter for a point of order.

Part 3 Amendments to Tax Administration Act 1994