Taxation (GST and Remedial Matters) Bill

It is obvious which members have been here and which have not. Normally, a debate on a title and commencement date would be relatively short, but on this particular occasion it is likely to be much, much longer, because I do not think I have ever seen a bill with such a dog’s breakfast of a Supplementary Order Paper to do with the commencement date. I will start off by reading it to members.

Normally, a commencement clause has just a date, but clause 2(6) will replace sections 40 and 41—this is on line 16 of page 6. If we look at the bill as it stands, we see that the commencement date runs from line 4 on page 6 through to line 14 on page 7. I have never seen such a complex commencement date—and if that was not enough, it is subject to 15 separate amendments on the Supplementary Order Paper. Members can expect members of the Opposition to be debating every single one of those amendments to the commencement dates, because we think it is important that the Government is held to account and we think it is important to ensure that it works well.

I will refer first of all to subclause (2) of clause 2, and I will be fair to the Minister in the chair, the Minister for Courts. I am not sure whether she will be the Minister in the chair after dinner. I reckon the Government will give her the sack over the dinner break because of the way this has been handled. Subclause (2) is not affected by Supplementary Order Paper 187. Most of the subclauses in clause 2 are affected by the Supplementary Order Paper, but subclause (2) is not. Section 104, in subclause (2), is treated as coming into force on 1 January 2005.

I want to ask the Government what sort of retrospective approach it is taking to legislation. Section 104 is in Part 7, which I did not get to when we were working our way through the bill. I was cruelly interrupted and I got only two calls on it. Section 104, which relates to goods and services tax, amends section ED 4(3) of the Income Tax Act, and the changes are treated as coming into force in January 2005. I seek an assurance from the Minister that these changes are beneficial to taxpayers and are not negative.

It is one of the principles of retrospectivity in taxation legislation that one can be aggressive in a prospective sense, but when one is dealing with legislation retrospectively, as we are in this case, it should be to the benefit of taxpayers only. The assurance that I am seeking is that because of this date—[Interruption] No, it is not a hard question to answer, because it is not one of the more complicated questions that we will be getting to soon—the subclauses that are affected by the Supplementary Order Paper. But under clause 2(2), section 104 is treated as coming into force on 1 January 2005.

In a similar way, I want to now refer to subclause (3) of clause 2, the commencement clause. In doing a cross reference, I can confirm that subclause (3) is not affected by Supplementary Order Paper 187, which is very big and will, of course, be the main focus of the debate on the commencement clause. Clause 2(3) relates to sections 88, 89, 90, 92, and 93. These matters relate to a matter that we had quite a lot of discussion on. We had an interesting discussion with the Hon Peter Dunne on the question of allowances. The Opposition moved an amendment to backdate that particular taxation arrangement. It was not successful, but, of course, if we had been successful, we would have had to shift the commencement date as well.

But, again, I wanted to check and make sure that these arrangements are beneficial to taxpayers, because my interpretation is that they are not and that there is a widening, from board to allowances, which means that some people will be treated adversely. If we are treating them retrospectively back to 2005-06 and have a commencement date of 1 April 2005 in section 88—it is clause 88 of the bill, but it will be section 88 of the Act—than that is a real question.

The next question I have relates to section 89. My eyes cannot quite see so I ask the Chair whether section 89 is struck out. There may be a line there that is not well printed. Clause 89 of the bill was struck out of the bill at the select committee. I want to check that we are not giving a commencement date to clause that—

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: I was going to ask exactly that question.

I am pleased someone else is awake. Most of the strikeouts are very clear. It looks like there is a bit of a dirty mark on the page, and I cannot quite tell whether section 89 is struck out. It is struck out—I thank the Minister for her assurance on that. I move now to clause 90. That is one of the areas where I do not think there has been a lot of debate. Therefore, I will not focus on it, especially not in the debate on the commencement date.

But employment-related loans—this is in clause 92—are very important. Clearly, we have already made a decision that it applies to the 2005-06 year and later income years, but here we are bringing it into force at an earlier date, back at 1 April 2005, which is appropriate for the 2005-06 tax year. But, again—and I am interested to hear from my colleagues who have more legal experience than I do—I am very concerned about clause 92, “Employment-related loans: repayment”, and the changes that are occurring there. If we are in fact bringing in this legislation as being “treated as”, then it is deemed. Geoffrey Palmer would hate this—a deeming provision of this sort.

💬 Hon Darren Hughes: Ever since he left the Law Commission, things have gone downhill.

Well, no. I think that ever since Geoffrey became Attorney-General, things have been going downhill for him. We had a few “deemings”. But, effectively, “treated as coming into force” I think means the same as “deeming” in this context.

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: Is that in the SOP?

No, this is actually in the bill. I am up to only clause 2(3) of the commencement provisions.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7 p.m.

I am sure I was referring before dinner to clause 2(3), and I think I dealt with the commencement date of section 92, which, of course, in the bill is clause 92. I was about to move on to clause 93. Clause 93, “Schedule 22A—Identified policy changes”, is a pretty substantial area. The policy changes are within the block at line 27 on page 63.

The identified policy changes in schedule 22A are treated as coming into force on 1 April 2005. I ask the Minister in the chair—we now have a new Minister in the chair; it is Paula Bennett—for an assurance that these changes are advantageous to shareholders, because this is retrospective legislation, going back to 1 April 2005. I cannot quite tell whether the Minister is bored already, whether she is being caring and pretending to listen, or whether she is giving me the nod. She is giving me the nod. [Interruption] No, she is listening to me and she is giving me an assurance, I think.

I move now to clause 2(4), which deals with when sections 90B and 91 are treated as coming into force. I would like to ask a similar question. These are, of course, part of the bill as reported back by the select committee. It is not until we get to clause 2(6) that we start to focus on the Supplementary Order Paper. I am sure the Minister is well-briefed on that, and we thank her. She will be able to answer the question. Of course, there will be a lot more questions when we get down to that part of the Supplementary Order Paper. But, in this case, I am focusing on sections 90B and 91—which are, of course, still clauses 90B and 91.

Clause 90B deals with the investor interest size requirement. It is a new clause that was added by the select committee, and it states: “An entity with an investor holding of more than 20% of the total portfolio investor interests in a class does not breach the investor interest size requirement if the investor is listed in subsection (4).” I ask the Minister—because this is being brought in now and it appears to be backdated to 1 October 2007—whether this already exists in legislation at any other point. There is nothing in the bill that indicates that this list, which will come into force from 1 October 2007, actually exists now or whether it will be a new list that will be developed by the commissioner. It is listed in subsection (4) of the Act—it is a question of whether, as part of subsection (4), it is part of the 2007 or the 2004 amendments to the Act, or whether subsection (4) refers to the regulations that flow from this section of the Act.

I move now to clause 11. Subclause (5) of clause 2 states that “Section 11 is treated as coming into force on 30 November 2007.” The issue in clause 11 is that of special returns. If there is a requirement to furnish a special return under section 17(1B) of the Act, can one retrospectively require someone to furnish a return before the current date when it came into force previously? Frankly, I do not understand how one makes someone furnish a return now or previously. One has either furnished a return before now, and the requirement to furnish a return should come into force now, or not—and my colleagues to my left might be able to explain it to me, because it is part of the legislation. How can one retrospectively furnish a return? This is a requirement to furnish a return. How could it possibly be retrospective? People have either furnished it or not. If they have furnished it, that is fine, but they cannot go back and furnish something now.

I will begin by continuing the theme that my colleague Trevor Mallard picked up. That is to say that it looks like a random number generator has wandered its way through the pages of this Supplementary Order Paper, so incoherent are the commencement dates of the various clauses. To give just a few examples, the amendment to insert new clause 2(7B) covers sections 74(7G), 79B(1A), 79B(1D), and 79B(3), which are treated as coming into force on 1 April 2009, whereas sections 74(7BAB) and 82, inserted by new clause 2(8), are treated as coming into force on 6 October 2009, and sections 34B and 34C, inserted by new clause 2(9B), come into force on 20 May 2010. These are not even the same dates of subsequent years. They appear to be randomly distributed. Sections 19B, 28B, 30C, 36B(1), 36B(3), 64C, 67B to 67F, 73B, and 83B all come into force on 1 October 2010. Section 74G, however, comes into force on 1 November 2010. Why single out one section to come into force 1 month later? Then there is a whole swag. I will spare members opposite the experience of reading through all the provisions, but they start at section 21B and proceed through sections 51B(1), 57BA, 69(1B), 74(1B), and a bunch of subsections of section 74, right on through to section 75(1)(b) and down to section 94B. There are about 24 of those provisions that enter into force on 1 April 2013. That is just in the head note—just in the head note. When one goes through the bill, what is interesting is that the random number generator appears to have gone amok, because interspersed through the bill are a range of starting dates, some of which appear to be covered, although others are not.

If we turn to page 6 of the Supplementary Order Paper, we see the date is 1 April 2011. Flicking through, the date in subsection (2) of section CX 63 on page 8 is again 1 April 2011. Running through, we get the amendment to insert new clauses 34B to 34F, with dates of 20 May 2010. Moving over to the amendment to insert new clauses 38B to 38D, the date is 1 April 2011, including the amendment to insert new section FB 10B. The date is 1 April 2011 for new clause 41B. This is really interesting: within the same clause, new clause 41G, “Elections to become qualifying company”, we have a range of different starting dates. There are different commencement dates within the same clause. That is hard to credit. New sections HA 5(1B) and HA 5(5), inserted by new clauses 41G(2) and 41G(3) respectively, have 1 April 2011, but new clauses 41G(4) and 41G(5), which follow, are not specified. The next clause, new clause 41H, which inserts new section HA 7B, “Grandparenting requirement”, from the grandparenting Act, has the date of 1 April 2011. Sections HA 10, HA 11(4), and HA 20 have the date of 1 April 2011. But in the next clause, new clause 41J, the date is 1 April 2010.

The point is that there is no transparent logic as to why these different dates would have been selected. I can go on. New section HZ 4D, inserted by new clause 57BA, which runs from page 42 to page 44, has the date 1 April 2011, and so on and so forth. These apparently random numbers carry on throughout the Supplementary Order Paper. There may be some logic to this. I am sure officials have thought about it, I am sure they have their reasons, and the Minister, Peter Dunne, is an experienced Minister. I am sure that if it was purely random he would have noticed. But the point is that the Supplementary Order Paper is not transparent to the Committee. These questions could have been asked in a select committee if the Supplementary Order Paper had gone to a select committee, but, of course, it did not. Where we are left as a Parliament is having to make observations. There may be logical answers, but the Minister seems unprepared to reply to them, and thereby—just like the Opposition—the public, the industry, and any listeners to this debate have no idea why an assortment of apparently randomly selected commencement dates have been sprinkled through the bill like confetti or hundreds and thousands. I have seen more order on a child’s sandwich. That is an example of the sort of thing the Committee has been wrestling with since 9.30 this morning. This is very, very bad lawmaking.

That brings us, of course, to the title of the bill. It should have been called the “Taxation (GST and Minor Matters Unanimously Agreed by the Select Committee) Bill”, because every party in the House was going to agree to it.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Clearly, the work wasn’t thorough enough in select committee.

Well, my colleague has been doing a bit of late revisionism and he has found a few hairs that he wants to split—and good on him. It is great to have his laser-like focus at this stage in the proceedings. Of course, as in any bill, I say to Mr Mallard, there are things one would change—but we pick our targets. Suffice it to say that there was sufficient agreement on this bill for all colleagues around the House to feel that it did more good than harm. Hello! We now get a 70 page Supplementary Order Paper dropped on the Committee almost without notice, bigger than the original bill and filled with very, very substantive provisions, and the consensus is destroyed. The Minister has single-handedly shot the process in the foot, and with it the parliamentary consensus that it would have enjoyed.

So we could call it the “Bad Process Bill”. We could call it the “Pulling Division from the Jaws of Unity Bill”. We could call it the “Newton’s Law of Holes (What Ministers Should Always Avoid) Bill”, because the Minister fell into the trap of keeping on digging when, in earlier parts of the debate, he was confronted with the process choices he has made. Instead of saying: “OK, you guys have got a point. We didn’t provide it earlier and it hasn’t had all the scrutiny it could have had, but it should still be passed.”, no, the Minister ran the following line: “Well, we announced our intention in general terms in the Budget.” Fine. “We consulted with the industry on some matters contained in the bill.” Fine. “We therefore didn’t need to put it to a select committee.” Not fine, because by the very same logic no tax bill would ever go to a select committee, as almost all tax matters are highlighted in the Budget and almost all tax matters have been consulted on, at some point, with the industry. That is exactly why we have a generic tax policy process that involves public submissions, because—let’s face it—many of those in the industry represent vested interests. They do not represent Kiwi mums and dads, and Kiwi mums and dads are entitled to know, at the very least, why this bill affects them.

Why does it affect them? Well here is the next possible title: the “Big Bottom Line Bill”. There is $2.2 billion of tax revenue at stake in the loss attributing qualifying company avoidance stakes, which is governed by this Supplementary Order Paper. There is $2.25 billion, as opposed to a total corporate tax take of only $9 billion. That is over a quarter, yet it is supposedly amenable to discussion by a late amendment in the Committee of the whole House, without public scrutiny through a select committee. That is why this bill should be called the “Newton Law of Holes (Please Stop Digging, Minister) Bill”.

Perhaps it could be called the “Green Light to Avoidance Bill”—or at least a very soft amber light, because although it is true, as the Minister said, that the look-through company regime is just marginally tighter than the loss attributing qualifying company regime, “marginally” is the operative word. Out of the $2.3 billion - odd of potentially avoided tax, this regime recovers only $130 million for the Crown. That is $0.13 billion, not $2.3 billion. So the question has to be asked—and it is probably the primary, substantive question in this bill—as to whether the Government could not have done better. Could officials not have been asked to go further, to work harder, and to be provided with more resourcing so they could get that $130 million up, at the time of the public’s greatest need, to something closer to a shut-down of those much maligned exemptions?

Finally, we just might call this bill the “Weak Excuse For Weak Law Bill”. The excuse was that it was so urgent that we just had to bring it in before Christmas. But it was not urgent enough to take the amendments to the select committee a month ago. That has got to be the weakest excuse of all, given the magnitude of tax flows at stake in the substance of this bill. Well, it is at times like this that one is confronted with the age-old choice: was this a stuff-up, or was it a conspiracy?

I would like to reiterate some of the comments my colleagues have made on the Taxation (GST and Remedial Matters) Bill.

My colleague David Cunliffe looked at the 71-page Supplementary Order Paper 187, which was tabled on Tuesday, and went through some of the commencement dates there. If we have a look at the actual bill itself, we see that clause 2(1) states that “This Act comes into force on the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent, except as provided in this section.” Section 104 is treated as coming into force on 1 January 2005, and sections 88, 89, 90, 92, and 93 are treated as coming into force on 1 April 2005. Those dates have passed, so it is obviously retrospective legislation. Section 92B is treated as coming into force on 1 April 2006. Sections 90B and 91 are treated as coming into force on 1 October 2007. Section 11 is treated as coming into force on 30 November 2007. A whole lot of sections from section 23—in the 20s, the 30s, and the 40s, section 58, in the 60s, the 70s, and 80s, and section 108—are treated as coming into force on 1 April 2008. Section 64 is treated as coming into force on 1 October 2008. Section 82 is treated as coming into force on 6 October 2009. A whole lot of sections are treated as coming into force on 1 April 2010, more on 1 July 2010, a few more on 1 August 2010, one section on 5 August 2010, one section on 31 October 2010, and a whole lot more sections on 1 April 2011. Then, as Mr Cunliffe mentioned, the Supplementary Order Paper runs out the commencement date as far as April 2013. I think it would have been easier to list the sections that did receive the Royal assent, rather than the ones that did not. There are so many dates here that it is confusing.

To tell the truth, I do not think a date is needed. I do not think the Minister of Revenue cares. The only reason there is a date is he has to have one by law. But he does not care. If he did care, then he would not throw down a 71-page Supplementary Order Paper a day before the bill was debated in the Chamber, a week before we break for Christmas, and tell Labour members to go for it. In fact, the Minister said to us that his officials had given Labour members a briefing. He gave us a briefing on Wednesday at our request for about 40 minutes on one small part of the bill. We had no idea the Supplementary Order Paper was coming. So the commencement date is a bit of a mystery.

As my colleague the Hon David Cunliffe mentioned, there is no transparency and no accountability. The problem I have with that is that as a member of the Finance and Expenditure Committee, as well as a member of Parliament, I am accountable for this bill. This bill will go through the House and it will be stated that it went through the Finance and Expenditure Committee. Well, the truth is that less than half the bill, as it will end up, went through the Finance and Expenditure Committee. The majority of the bill did not go through the Finance and Expenditure Committee, and it should have. We have made that point, and I think it is a very valid point. I have had a couple of emails saying: “Good on you, guys, because this isn’t right.” One of them was from a tax lawyer. I can tell members that he will be rubbing his hands all the way to the bank.

But there is another point to make. This legislation will come before the Finance and Expenditure Committee—I know that it will. Do members know how it will come there? It will come as a remedial matters bill, and we will have to go through and make a whole lot of changes that the select committee would have made anyway.

Let us look at the title. The bill could be called the “Taxation (Been Dunne Over) Bill.” The reason I say that is the initial bill was introduced on 5 August and it received its first reading on, I think, 19 August. Minister Dunne told us that he needed a Supplementary Order Paper because there was not enough time to introduce a proper bill. But Mr Dunne also told us that these changes were signalled in January when the Tax Working Group came back and outlined what it wanted to do. These changes were signalled when the Inland Revenue Department, the Minister’s ministry, put out a consultation document. These changes were signalled in the Budget. The changes were signalled three times, about 6 months ago. The Budget came out on 20 May. Since then there has been June, July, August, September, October, November, and we are in December.

The Minister said that the bill had to be taken for consultation. Well, he had 6 months. In fact, he could have done that in 3 months. He has asked Labour MPs to look at it in just 2 days. Why could he not have asked high-paid consultants to look at it in 2 months? How about 10 weeks of consultation? That is enough time. We ask people who are submitting to the Finance and Expenditure Committee to have their submissions in within 5 weeks—that is what we ask them—but we now suggest 10 weeks. That is enough time for highly paid tax consultants. That would have meant the bill was brought back in June or July. The Minister could have had something drafted with all their recommendations in it and given it to the Finance and Expenditure Committee in August, when the initial bill was introduced.

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: Democracy is paying the price for his incompetence.

It very much is. I wonder what the Minister has been doing. Is he a lazy Minister? I have heard from my colleagues who know Peter Dunne a lot better than I do, because they have worked with him, that he was a stickler for process. This is not a bill from a Minister who is a stickler for process. Let us talk about this. If the consultants had had 3 months to look at it, that would have given the select committee another 3 months to look at it. But, of course, as I mentioned, we asked for submissions. We could have given the submissioners 4 weeks. They would have given their submissions, changes would have been made to the bill, and 2 months later the bill could have been reported back to the House—about 6 weeks ago. That is why I call this bill the “Taxation (Been Dunne Over) Bill”. It could be called the “Taxation by SOP Bill”, because this is taxation legislation by Supplementary Order Paper. That means that this—

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: No taxation without representation.

No taxation without representation. What this means is that the Minister has put a huge, substantial part of tax legislation on the Table with just 2 days for us to look at it. I personally do not think that is right, and it certainly does not show any measure of accountability nor any measure of transparency.

It could be called the “Taxation (Law Society Appreciation) Bill”, because a lot of this legislation will be decided in the courts. I will say why: because it has not gone through due process, which would have really tightened it up. I can say as a member of the Finance and Expenditure Committee that the drafters do a fantastic job. They draft some very good bills, and I am sure the Supplementary Order Paper was well drafted. But the select committee process allows us to go through legislation almost line by line, which Mr Mallard said used to happen in the Committee stage. The select committee does that these days, clause by clause. The drafters sit down and say they think they have made a mistake. They cross-reference everything. Even on the third report back they say they have some changes to make. That could have happened this time. There is no excuse in my mind for this legislation to be passed under urgency through a Supplementary Order Paper. It is not good process. There will be lawyers and tax consultants who make a lot of money out of this.

We have a small problem, the problem being that the banks—and I am not bringing the banks into this—had to pay back about $2 billion in tax. They had to do that because they had interpreted tax legislation one way and the Commissioner of Inland Revenue had interpreted tax legislation another way. There was confusion, and this is what happens when there is confusion: taxpayers do not get it right and the liability can be huge. Knowing the lawyers that the banks used, I can image their bill was huge.

There are a number of names that this bill could have been called that are so much more appropriate than the Taxation (GST and Remedial Matters) Bill. Let us be honest: “Remedial Matters” suggests that it is a tweaking, a tidy-up, or a correction—not substantial legislation that wipes away 130,000 legal entities. This legislation removes loss attributing qualifying companies, and that is done in a Supplementary Order Paper. There is no transparency there. That is why I have real concerns about this bill, and that is why the name of the bill does not accurately reflect the substantive quantity of it.

With “GST” in the title, we get the inference that there is something to do with GST in the bill. It is a headline act, and it was.

I move, That the question be now put.

I am pleased to follow my colleague Stuart Nash. I think he was picking up on a very important point as we debate the title and commencement clauses of the Taxation (GST and Remedial Matters) Bill. In fact, when we consider the title, it gives us a signal that this was to be a non-controversial bill. It is inherent in the title that it would not create any divisions in Parliament. Indeed, until this morning at 9.30 or thereabouts it had not done so. It had proceeded quite amicably through the process of the Finance and Expenditure Committee. It had been done in a bipartisan fashion, and some good, sensible amendments had been brought through the select committee process. We had had submissions and heard other people’s view on the bill to make sure it implemented the measures that the Government wanted to see implemented.

Then, effectively out of nowhere, came the 70-page Supplementary Order Paper. I think it complicates the process and makes it very difficult for a rational decision-making process to take place. It came out of nowhere. The Minister of Revenue asserted that there were indications of it; we certainly did not see those through the select committee. To see a Supplementary Order Paper of that magnitude—70 pages of complex detail—tabled in Parliament on Tuesday is not appropriate, given the title of what should be a non-controversial bill proceeding through Parliament. It is a wash-up bill that creates no issue between parties that simply want to resolve technical tax adjustments of an annual basis and similar adjustments. Yet here we are, at 7.30, 2 weeks out from Christmas on a Friday evening, debating a bill that has attached to it a major Supplementary Order Paper that sees the title needing to be changed to reflect the enormous addition that the Supplementary Order Paper brings.

There is major substance in the Supplementary Order Paper. Major changes are introduced to the bill, and the Parliament has no opportunity other than this very constrained chance through the Committee stage and the third reading of the bill to consider what ramifications are brought by the bill under the current title. It brings quite considerable risks of error, and we may need to revisit it as a Parliament. That is certainly the history. Anybody who follows the legislative process will know that rushed legislation is bad legislation. There are occasional needs for it to be rushed, and we as a party have not stood in the way of those changes. I think back to the Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Bill. Not a single member of this House opposed that legislation. But when we have a technical tax bill, as reflected in the title of this bill, it is incumbent on the Minister that he does not introduce controversial late changes of the scale and order that he has, which skew the original purpose of the bill and are not truly reflected in the title of the bill before the Committee.

This brings a risk for the Inland Revenue Department. Let us face it: no one particularly likes paying tax. The department has a difficult task. Its job is to be fair—I think that is the phrase—and to collect the revenue, and we uphold the department in its duty and acknowledge the work that it does. But when a bill with a Supplementary Order Paper of this size, under the bill’s title as introduced, comes through Parliament at a great rate of knots, bringing with it very high risks of error that have not been picked up by the usual process, then inevitably two parties wear those risks—probably three, in fact. The first is the Government, but technical tax bills are not likely to create enormous public disorder. They also create issues for the taxpayers, which is the second party. They will find a venue for their wrath, and that wrath will likely be deposited, I suggest, with the Inland Revenue Department.

I have some sympathy for the Inland Revenue Department officials. I am sure if they were able to speak out, they would not be favouring this process. I am sure they would want the comfort that the select committee process provides by way of scrutiny and by way of public submission. When a bill is introduced with a Supplementary Order Paper of this scale that is not truly reflective of the title that it came into this House with in August, then there have to be some very serious concerns.

The bill could be re-titled with alternative names. One that comes to the mind is the “Jonathan Coleman Mark 2 Bill”, reflecting the last time the Minister of Revenue had a major piece of legislation in the House and entrusted it to another Minister. The Minister in the chair, the Minister for Social Development and Employment, had better be a bit wary and check her speech notes. If she has any notes tonight to speak from, she should double-check that they are reflective of the Taxation (GST and Remedial Matters) Bill and not another piece of tax legislation.

Although Mr Dunne apologised profusely for that error and accepted that it was his office’s error, I think Jonathan Coleman copped the flak for that and his reputation suffered. So I suggest to the Minister for Social Development and Employment, sitting in the chair tonight in place of the Minister of Revenue, that she watch very carefully, if she has speech notes, to check that they are the right speech notes. Then she will not be given the sort of moniker that Jonathan Coleman earned in respect of reading speech notes for another tax bill.

Another name for the bill could be the “Here I Come, Ottawa Bill”. The word is that Mr Dunne may be in his last term in Parliament and that he might be looking for a posting overseas, and Ottawa is a posting that tends to go to middle-level politicians finishing their career. I am sure he would make a very good High Commissioner for New Zealand in Ottawa; I am sure he would serve us faithfully. But I have to say—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: You get the Caribbean at the same time.

Gee, it must be really nice in December to escape from Ottawa to the Caribbean, because the winters are fairly bleak.

The Minister is a competent Minister. That is why this bill has been surprising, because the hallmark of this man through 25-plus years—a quarter of a century—in this Parliament has been sober habits. He is a man who brought through legislation when he was a Minister that generally was well structured, was introduced in the appropriate time frames, and was given the right amount of time for scrutiny by select committees and by Parliament. So it is a surprise to us that we are dealing with a bill with the title of Taxation (GST and Remedial Matters) Bill. The locomotive is the bill, as reflected by the title, but behind it is this train of many carriages reflected by the Supplementary Order Paper. Perhaps we could pick a locomotive title for the bill.

Another possibility might be the “Mantle of Gerry Brownlee Bill”, because in terms of competence he is another Minister who vies for the title of not having the best command of the House’s practices. By bringing in this bill in this fashion, with this huge collected train of a 70-page Supplementary Order Paper, which is bigger by 13 pages than the original bill, Peter Dunne is bringing the House into considerable risk of disrepute as those tax changes unfold and the implications of them come through for us as a Parliament.

I expect, as a member of the Finance and Expenditure Committee, that this may not be the last we see of the Taxation (GST and Remedial Matters) Bill, soon to be an Act. I believe we will be revisiting this issue, or at least the content of the Supplementary Order Paper that is attached.

In terms of the commencement dates, I note—and my colleague Stuart Nash touched upon this—the varying commencement dates for the various clauses of the bill. They date right back to 2005-06 in the changes to the taxation treatment of accommodation issues. So there is an issue of retrospectivity with this bill, as introduced, and we always have to be very cautious with that as a House. Obviously a whole range of issues unfold when we start trying to pass legislation that deals with past issues and validates issues that have been in play for, sometimes, a number of years.

We have several varying commencement dates. Clause 104 comes into force on 1 January 2005, so we are stepping back nearly 6 years in terms of retrospectivity in respect of the bill. Clauses 88, 90, 92, and 93 come into force on 1 April 2005, so again there is that 5-year - plus time frame. Clause 92B comes into force on 1 April 2006. Clauses 90B and 91 come into force on 1 October 2007. Clause 11 comes into force on 30 November 2007. Then we come up to more recent times, with clauses 64 and 82 coming into force in October 2008 and 2009 respectively, and clause 31 and whole range of others, which I will not bore the Committee with reading, coming into force on 1 April 2010. We are into this year, coming into the home straight in respect of the retrospectivity of the measures. But it is an issue of concern that we are passing this legislation under urgency.

This is a serious question for the Minister. It is one of these issues of “Find the subclause.” I challenge someone to find subclause (7B) of clause 74 in the Taxation (GST and Remedial Matters) Bill. I have been looking for it and I cannot find it. It has been brought into force, according to the Supplementary Order Paper, and to be fair it has been brought into force by the amendment. In fact, (7B) is something that came in apparently as a result of the Finance and Expenditure Committee, but if one goes to clause 74, one will see there is no subclause (7B), or one that I can find at least on the relevant page, page 56, of the bill. If we go to page 58 of the Supplementary Order Paper, we can find subclauses (7BA) and (7BAB). We can find subclause (7BB). We can find subclause(7BC), but we do not appear to be able to find subclause (7B). If there is a separate Supplementary Order Paper from the Minister that I have not got and it is clicked in there somewhere, then that is something I would be interested in, but I am trying to work it out. I do have an interest in the Recognised Seasonal Employer scheme. I have had something to do with setting it up, and, in fact, worked with a group of its people recently.

But it is a bit like the game “Pin the Tail on the Donkey”. I am trying to find where subclause (7B) of clause 74 is. I would be obliged to any member opposite who can point out a page of the Supplementary Order Paper—or, presumably, it should be in the bill as reported back. It is referred to in the bill as reported back, but we seem to have clause 74B(1) and (2), but do not seem to have clause 74(7), although I am now working my way backwards. Clause 74—oh, is it the definition clause? That is where it is. I am obliged to officials for giving me a nod there, and, in fact, for members who have been searching. I do not know whether it involves a chocolate fish. It appears slightly out of place in the numbering, and I am obliged to people, because I think we found it at about the same time. For those who are at home searching through the bill, it is on page 55, and it is on lines 11, 12, and 13 for those people interested. I think it is one of the problems that this late at night the difference between clause 74B(7) and, in this case, clause 74(7B) is something that can be a little bit confusing.

I apologise to the Committee on that particular point. But it does go to what I think is a pretty important factor when one has a Supplementary Order Paper with so many changes. I will just check again, because we have “74(9)”, as well, and it is a matter of checking whether that is also in the right place. That has to do with the definition of “transfer of value”, in which the phrase “paragraph (b)(ii)” in paragraph (a) is substituted by “subparagraph” and then—what do they call that little “i” with the brackets around it? One of my friends who can remember Latin might be able to tell me. No, it is all right; it is a long time since they have done Latin. But we count it as a one, or an “i” with—

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Roman.

It is a roman one, I suppose. But there is a word for it. [Interruption] No, my colleague from Southland does not have a good memory for Latin, either, and it was a long time ago. I think I can remember amo amas amat, and amo was the one that I mainly went for during my career.

I move, That the question be now put.

I move, That the report be adopted.