Taxation (GST and Remedial Matters) Bill

I am delighted to say that I think this is the only part of this tax bill that is not subject to any amendments through Supplementary Order Paper 187, which was tabled on Wednesday, or was it Tuesday—it was tabled this week. Part 4 involves amendments to the Income Tax Act 2004, and I must admit that I think every member knows that the Income Tax Act has taken a bit of a hammering in this term. What this part does not do is give a $1,000 tax cut to someone who is earning $1 million and give very little to those on the medium wage, but what it does do, for example, is talk about the portfolio investment entity impairment provisions, which have been talked about before, but are also covered by this bill. This bill adds new section HM 35B to the Income Tax Act, and also new section HL 19B, which is the one I will talk a little bit about. The reason these changes are being made is that they will clarify that multi-rate portfolio investment entities can claim deductions for expenses and pay tax for income at the point that they are reflected in the portfolio investment entity’s unit price or its financial statements, even if this is before the portfolio investment entity has legally incurred or derived any expenditure or income. The purpose of this timing rule is to maintain investor equity over the timing by ensuring that investors who are exiting a portfolio investment entity are attributed their local share of the portfolio investment entity’s tax.

The changes in the Income Tax Act with regard to portfolio investment entities were debated in the Finance and Expenditure Committee, and that is one of the advantages of taking these sorts of bills to a select committee. It gives us the ability to question officials, to question our tax advisers, and to question submitters on the changes and on how these changes may impact upon their business. Quite a number of submitters wanted to make representations to the committee about the portfolio investment entity provisions. I must admit our technical adviser, our tax expert, Ms Turner, did a very good job in providing the committee with a non-technical, layman’s, or layperson’s—can we say “layman’s” these days without—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: If I were you I wouldn’t use the word “layman”.

—layperson’s perspective and view of what the portfolio investment entity changes involved under the new timing rule. I will outline these a little bit because they are important and they make up by far the largest section of Part 4 of the amendments to the Income Tax Act in this bill. Under the new timing rule, any future change, expense, or income that has already been deducted or taxed will also be picked up for tax purposes at the point when the change is reflected in the portfolio investment entity unit price or financial statements. There is quite a chunk here in the legislation that determines future amounts. New section HL 19B(2) in clause 91(1) states: “For the purposes of determining an amount for a portfolio allocation period under section HL 19(3), a portfolio tax rate entity may take account of an amount of future income or future expenditure or loss that is—(a) for future income, an amount that, when derived, would be class assessable income under section HL 19(4)(a):”.

This provides a high degree of equity across investment classes, so that is the sort of thing we want to see. As mentioned, Labour cannot go with this bill, because there are so many changes that have not gone before a select committee and it makes it very, very difficult to have a good, robust debate on the changes when ordinary New Zealanders have not been consulted.

The new sections in the Income Tax Act ensure that multi-rate portfolio investment entities are able to claim deductions for credit-impairment provisions when they are reflected in the portfolio investment entity’s unit price or its financial statements. Credit-impairment provisions are created to reflect the decline in the financial assets due to past events. The reason this is necessary is reasonably obvious; it is because a lot of portfolio investment entities have suffered substantial losses due to the current financial crisis that the world has been experiencing for a couple of years. As a consequence, there needs to be a way to reflect this in legislation, as there is in other parts of legislation, and that is why—in relation to clause 91—these amendments are necessary. I think members would agree that investor equity is an admirable goal for any tax legislation.

Under this legislation a portfolio investment entity will be able to claim deductions for credit-impairment provisions only if it has objective evidence of a loss of an asset’s value because of the events that have already occurred. I am not too sure what objective evidence is. I assume that the managers of the portfolio investment entity can go out and look at stock markets, analyse data, and talk to a whole range of people on the NZX and overseas, depending on where they have invested, and they can gather quantitative and qualitative evidence that there has, in fact, been a loss.

These amendments apply retrospectively from 1 October 2007. As members will be well aware, it is very rare that tax legislation is allowed to apply retrospectively. I would like to digress ever so slightly. There were retrospective provisions in this bill and, as a committee, we discussed at great length whether this bill should contain retrospective provisions. We had much debate, which Sir Roger Douglas had a very active part in. For those who do not believe that Sir Roger is still alive, he took an active part in this debate, as did my colleagues Mr Burns and Mr Cunliffe. The Taxation (GST and Remedial Matters) Bill is contentious legislation, and in the end we decided that it would be in the best interests of all taxpayers if the courts made a ruling around the one clause of retrospective legislation that was contentious in the bill, which we think was probably the right outcome. As a consequence of that—as a consequence of going through the select committee process—the retrospective provision was withdrawn.

This part in regard to portfolio investment entities is retrospective, but it includes transitional measures to confirm the tax positions already taken by multi-rate portfolio investment entities on the timing of income and expenses, as well as credit-impairment provisions. These transitional measures prevent portfolio investment entities from making retrospective adjustments to their tax returns following these clarifications. By that I mean that we do not want to have portfolio investment entities, or any sort of legal entities that have already made representations to the Inland Revenue Department, had a ruling, and provided a tax return then coming back and saying: “Oh, goodness me, with this new legislation we can claw back a whole lot of money.” It actually works both ways. The portfolio investment entities themselves would not want to be taxed at a greater rate, which they would not do if we are talking about losses, anyway. But it is good piece of legislation. It is just a pity that the Supplementary Order Paper has not gone to a select committee, because we could have amended it, as we amended the legislation, through expert advice and liaising with the Inland Revenue Department officials.

What do we mean when we talk about reasonable estimation? New section HL 19B(3) in clause 91(1) talks about reasonable estimation. It states: “For the purposes of subsection (2), the entity must make a reasonable estimate of the amount and must be able to demonstrate, if required, the reasonableness of the estimation by—(a) explaining why and when the income is likely to be derived or the expense is likely to be incurred, as applicable; and (b) providing the calculation method and actual calculations used to determine the amount, with details showing why the method is appropriate.” Again, that is saying that a portfolio investment entity manager, or whoever is looking after the entity, cannot just turn up to the Inland Revenue Department and say: “We believe that we have incurred losses outside of this and we would like to make a representation.” They have to have the evidence in front of them. It is very transparent, which all tax legislation should be.

I come back to the point that this is why we are so against this legislation. There is no transparency. Labour members have not been able to interrogate this legislation and talk to our officials or the Inland Revenue Department officials about it. But this does provide a level of transparency, which is most important, and it is welcome. I am pleased it is in here. There is something right in this.

We can also talk about credit-impairment provisions. We are debating Part 4, “Amendments to Income Tax Act 2004”, and clause 91(4), which deals with credit-impairment provisions, states: “A portfolio tax entity may take account of a credit impairment provision under this section but only if the provision is counted as a credit impairment provision under NZIAS 39.” However, a time limit is set in place.

I want to speak in particular on clause 88, which includes some of the amendments to the Income Tax Act 2004, although, having looked at that Act, I find that those sections of the 2004 Act have already been repealed and replaced in the 2007 legislation. It might be one of these numbering questions, because in clause 88 the Minister is asked to repeal section CE 1(1)(c), but there is no 1(1)(c) in the legislation. There is CE (1)(c); there is no 1(1)(c) whatsoever. To be fair, I checked back to the 2004 legislation and there was no—[Interruption] What are we repealing here if that particular section is not there? That is the question I have.

I think it is fair to say that the fact that it is not there is recognised with its replacement subsection (1B). So if there is no CE 1(1)(c) after CE 1(1), there is a recognition that there is a numbering problem. Last time I identified one of these issues the Minister told us that we had restarted the English language at B rather than at A and that that was the system being used. But that does not appear to be the case here. Again, it might be one of those technical errors that can be tidied up in the Clerk’s Office, but I think it would be useful in order to have it work properly.

The primary purpose of my taking a call and tabling an amendment is to be of assistance to the Government. My amendment relates to subclause (3) of clause 88, with the suggestion that subclauses (1) and (2), instead of applying to the 2005-06 year and later income years, would apply to the 2000-01 year. The reason for this is relatively simple, and I think it will be known in the future as the “Bill English (Pay Your Tax) clause”. If we look carefully at new subsection (1B), in clause 88, we can see that this focuses on the proper taxation of the market value of the benefits of accommodation. It makes it clear that tax should be paid on the benefits of accommodation, which are part of the perks of the job.

I think it has been made very, very clear over a period of time that Mr English has had substantial benefits. I am not saying they have all been through accommodation—I think there have been some other benefits as well—but they have been in the region of $500,000, as a result of suggesting that he lived in Dipton when in fact he lived in Wellington. Why should he pay back taxes on those benefits only back to 2005-06 when the situation has been in place since at least 2000-01? I think the general feeling is that there is a lot of evidence that it has been in place for that length of time.

I turn to new subsection (1B), in clause 88, which states: “The market value of the following benefits provided to a person is income of the person if the benefit is provided in relation to an office or position held by them: (a) the provision of accommodation:”. It might be convoluted, it might have gone through a trust or two, it might have had one name on the trust earlier and other names on the trust later, it might have been the most expensive State house in the country—on recent leasehold arrangements it is certainly the most expensive State house in the country—but it is clear that the provision of accommodation is taxable.

I am not sure whether all of my colleagues are here. It might be that fringe benefit tax has been paid on this on our behalf, but I doubt it. Some of my colleagues who are not Wellington-based are now looking at me slightly askance. Subsection (1B)(b) refers to the market value of “the provision of an accommodation allowance instead of accommodation.”, and states that it is in fact taxable—and taxable back to 2005-06. I know that the Minister is a Wellington Minister, and that, like me, he is not interested in this. If we take into account the interest that some people might have in this question, and if only Wellington members could vote on this particular issue, we could get an interesting result. I think we started the year talking about accommodation, and, in fact, I think we finished last year talking about accommodation.

The fact that we are finishing up the year dealing with subsection (1B), which relates to the benefits of accommodation and what is part of someone’s taxable income, shows just how much Gerry Brownlee, who we know is right across the details of this taxation legislation—Mr Brownlee is a details man—still dislikes Bill English for taking his job.

If we look at section CE (1)(c), referred to in clause 88(1), we see that it did not go to the question of accommodation; it went to the question of the market value of the board that someone receives. My understanding is that there is a difference between a boarding arrangement, which normally involves living with someone else in a boarding house, and the supply of accommodation, which might more logically be the entire house. So this is quite a big change. I say to the Minister in charge of the bill, the Hon Peter Dunne, that this is an old bit of the bill. It is the bit that has been to the select committee. I ask him whether Bill English made any personal submissions on this—

💬 Hon Darren Hughes: He’s bound to have.

No—to the select committee. I am not asking him to reveal whether Mr English pleaded at the Cabinet committee not to have to pay the extra tax, because I think it would be inappropriate for Mr Dunne to say that. However, I ask my colleagues whether there was ever any request from Mr English not to pay the taxation on the massive accommodation benefits that he received over a period of time. It was roughly half a million dollars of accommodation over the 10 years.

💬 Hon Darren Hughes: How do you work that out?

I do not want to go into a lot of detail. I am happy to talk about his accommodation, but clearly there is another set of benefits, which the member received as a result of pretending to live in Dipton, that go beyond that. I think to go further would be entering an area that I would be slightly uncomfortable to head down. But I think many members will be aware of what makes up the balance of the half million dollars, over and above the accommodation allowances.

💬 Hon Darren Hughes: That would be taxable.

It is taxable. It is clear, if one looks at subsection (1B), in clause 88(2), that it is taxable. There is no doubt that that is part of someone’s income.

I am certain the Commissioner of Inland Revenue will be having a look at this question. I think it is probably especially the case where the benefit is being paid when it should not be being paid—when someone is not shifting from somewhere that they are normally resident. One of the questions I have is whether the Commissioner of Inland Revenue uses the same definition as the Speaker as to where someone is normally resident. I think the Speaker has been exceptionally liberal in that area, and I think that, generally, the Commissioner of Inland Revenue has been more factual.

I move, That the question be now put.

I rise reluctantly to disagree with my colleague the Hon Trevor Mallard. Before I do, however, I would like to take to task the comments made by my colleague Stuart Nash, that somehow or another the retrospectivity of these matters would be determined by the courts. The next speaker, my colleague the Hon Trevor Mallard, pointed out that at least one aspect of this legislation goes back to 2005-06, and he mounted a particularly good argument as to why it needs to go back further. That seems to me to be yet to be resolved in the Committee stage.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Why do you disagree with me?

I will disagree with my colleague the Hon Trevor Mallard in a minute. But before I do that, I would like to ask Stuart Nash to take another call and explain to me why he thinks that retrospectivity does not apply in this legislation. It appears to me that it does. Of course, if the Minister would be able to help that would be fine, but we are not anticipating so much assistance from that quarter.

As to the remarks of the Hon Trevor Mallard, I agree in part with them and hesitantly, because he is an accountant and I am a simple country veterinarian—

💬 Hon David Carter: Very simple.

I am a very simple country veterinarian. I simply hold the view that in the case of members of Parliament, because that is where he was directing a lot of his comments, I do not think these provisions would apply, because the member of Parliament has a principal place of residence that is not here. Of course, if assistance were given for that principal place of residence, then of course we would expect it to apply, as we would expect for any other form of fringe benefit. But a member of Parliament, like a sort of travelling salesman, will have a principal place of residence, but will have accommodation costs as part of his or her weekly circuit, or whatever it is to be. That, surely, cannot be subject to taxation, as much as real and actual reimbursement of costs can be.

If one looks at it a bit more carefully, however, one will see there is an exception, and the only exception is the one my colleague drew attention to, which is where we have a point of agreement. The point of agreement is that the Hon Bill English is caught by this. The reason he is caught by it is that he has had two principal places of residence for a number of years. One of them is the real, actual principal place of residence, which is Wellington, because that is where he lives. That is where his family lives, it is where his kids go to school, and on it goes. The other one is back in Dipton, which is where he said his principal place of residence was so he could get a deal on the other house. That is where the term “double Dipton” came from. I cannot remember who first coined that—oh, that is right; the term “double Dipton” came from the Hon Trevor Mallard.

I think the member for Clutha-Southland is uniquely vulnerable to these clauses, so then the question arises that if the legislation is good enough to be retrospective to the years 2005 and 2006, why should it not be retrospective beyond that? There is no 7-year rule here; it is about a 4 or 5-year rule. We know that the member in question has lived in Wellington since the year 2000—in fact, from a little earlier than that, I would like to advise the Hon Trevor Mallard. So I strongly support the idea—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: But didn’t he have a State house then too?

Well, there was a period of time, I think, where he boarded or rented, but then he purchased. I am trying to remember all of those years too, so perhaps I should just say that my gentle recollection is that it was a little before the turn of the century. I agree with my colleague that in the case of the Hon Bill English this legislation, on its face, appears to make him vulnerable to the paying back of a whole bunch of money, and not before time, although it is still not enough, because of that whole period before 2005. However long it is, he still gets away scot-free. So it is good that there might be some more money coming into the Government’s coffers from that member of Parliament, but it is not OK that he still manages to max out his benefit at the expense of the taxpayer more than any other MP I have ever come across.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I will accept the Hon Maryan Street.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Why? Because she hasn’t had a call?

That is right.

💬 Hon Members: Ha, ha!

Excellent.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I like her.

Thank you, Mr Chairman; for whatever reason, thank you for the call. I will accept any of those reasons. I wish to speak to clause 88 also, in relation to Part 4 of the Taxation (GST and Remedial Matters) Bill, which is before us under urgency. The first point I make is one that has been made by my colleagues previously, and that is about the process of urgency. Perhaps a taxation measure is one of the few pieces of legislation that could have the word “urgency” applied to it simply in order to get everything processed and in place in time for 1 April in the following year.

💬 Chris Tremain: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. This debate is about Part 4. We have had wide-ranging debates earlier. This debate is specifically about Part 4. It is not about the process of urgency; we have moved beyond that. I just ask the Chair to draw the attention of the speaker to Part 4, and to focus on that part of the topic.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I uphold the point of order. The member will speak about Part 4.

Thank you, Mr Chairman; I was on my way to that. Clause 88 could be an example of one of two things, and I would invite the Minister in the chair, the Hon Peter Dunne, to explain to this Committee which of those two things it demonstrates. It could demonstrate a shambles of consultation amongst Ministers. That is apparent in clause 88 in the first instance, given that it talks about the “Benefit of accommodation” and that subsection (1B), inserted by subclause (2) in clause 88, states: “(1B) The market value of the following benefits provided to a person is income of the person if the benefit is provided in relation to an office or position held by them: (a) the provision of accommodation: (b) the provision of an accommodation allowance instead of accommodation.” This could be called the “Bill English’s revenge” clause, because now he has been shamed out of claiming any accommodation allowance—notwithstanding the fact that the accommodation allowance has been increased by at least 100 percent by this current Government, so Ministers can now claim more than twice as much as Ministers previously could claim; certainly, that is true.

💬 Chris Tremain: No, it’s not.

It is absolutely true, and I can demonstrate it from the amounts I was able to claim as a Minister. It is completely true; I believe Ministers are able to claim something in the vicinity of $37,500, or something of that sort.

💬 Hon Pete Hodgson: Precisely that.

Precisely $37,500. In fact, $24,000 was the amount previously; that is exactly right, and I invite those members who have not been Ministers previously to go back and have a look at the rules that applied earlier. But let us have a look, because now this amount is to be taxable. Bill English may well have consulted with the Minister over this clause, and said: “All right, I am not getting this, I have been shamed out of claiming this, so everybody else who is getting it is now going to be taxed on it.” He may well have consulted with the Minister over that provision.

Then what follows is the backdating. Why would the Minister of Finance work against his own interests and suggest that this legislation should be backdated to 2005-06, notwithstanding the fact that my colleague pointed out earlier that it could have been backdated much further? In the case of Mr English, it would have scored the Inland Revenue Department a considerably greater amount in taxation. Or was the other reason the fact that the Minister in the chair might have to answer to the fact that that clause, the backdating clause, was simply inserted to throw us off the track, to distract us from the purpose, which was to make these accommodation benefits taxable? Bill English clearly wanted to exact revenge for the fact that he was shamed, because of his own duplicity and manoeuvring, into not claiming the accommodation allowance previously. So I ask the Minister which it is. Which of these two reasons is it? Is it that consultation amongst Ministers is shambolic, as we always suspect is the case—that the right hand does not know what the other right hand is doing in this National Government? Or is it to throw us off the track?

I move, That the question be now put.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Can I just get the attention of the Minister in the chair, the Hon Peter Dunne, because what we now regard as a possible real question has come up. I seek leave for the debate on Part 4 to be dealt with subsequent to the last part of the bill—Part 7. I would just like—

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I think the member is asking that the debate be postponed to become the last debate in the Committee of the—

The last part of the debate.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): —the last part to be debated, so we would move to Part 5 now, then revert to Part 4. The member is asking for that, because he believes he has discovered something that needs some consideration.

That is right. To make it beyond all doubt, the leave would not interfere with the urgency motion. It would just give an opportunity for some advice to be sought.

Mr Chairman, can I speak to this?

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): It is a point of order. Normally we would not do that, but it might be helpful if we do.

I am not persuaded by the course of action the member is proposing but I do concede there are some issues we need to work through. Maybe, with the indulgence of the Committee, if this debate were to proceed for not an interminable amount longer but for a little longer, during the course of it we might be able to resolve the issues more rapidly. So I am not in favour of leave being granted, but I would allow the indulgence to perhaps run for another couple of speakers, while we just sort this particular issue out.

Mr Chairman, I am—

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I have given the call to the Hon Trevor Mallard.

I wanted to speak exactly on the matter concerned, but if another member is prepared to take the call, I think it might—

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): You are yielding, then?

I am finishing this call. I have one left, I am sure.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Is some other member seeking the call?

💬 Chris Tremain: Mr Chairman—

💬 Hon Pete Hodgson: I certainly am.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I call Chris Tremain.

I move, That the question be now put. [Interruption]

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): There is no need for indignation to the Chair. The Chair is well aware of what is occurring in the Chamber. I will take the call from the Hon Pete Hodgson.

I think it is time to return to clause 88 of the Taxation (GST and Remedial Matters) Bill, and get a few things said. My colleague Maryan Street mentioned that ministerial accommodation is now provided at the rate of $37,500 per Minister, and that is the case. There are two exceptions, however. The first is where the Minister lives in Wellington, as does the Minister of Revenue, the Hon Peter Dunne. He is eligible for no such—

💬 Hon Peter Dunne: And he has never sought anything.

Indeed he has not, I am sure, because he goes home when he goes home, which is not something I was able to do, or am able to do, because I do not live in Wellington; I live in Dunedin. Any Minister who lives in Wellington is not eligible for that $37,500. Therefore any possibility of the provision of an accommodation allowance instead of accommodation, as stated in new subsection (1B)(b) in clause 88(2), cannot apply to a Wellington-based Minister. But there is another category of Minister who does not receive $37,500, and those Ministers are the ones who had a house here when they were in Opposition, and who live during the week in that same house now that they are Ministers in Government. Their allowance is not $37,500. I cannot remember what it is; it is a little bit less than that. Let us call it $27,500—I have actually forgotten the amount.

The point is that the $37,500 is payable to Ministers—and most Ministers fall into the $37,500 category—irrespective of how much money they spend on Wellington accommodation. It is a gift. It goes into their bank account fortnightly, or monthly, or whenever it is, for them to spend on accommodation as they see fit. They are, of course, entitled to spend more than $37,500 a year on Wellington accommodation. Maybe some of them do. But if one thinks of $37,500 as being a reasonably large amount of money compared with the amount of money that backbenchers get to spend on Wellington accommodation—somewhere less than two-thirds of that—then one can come to the conclusion that some Ministers are able to live in Wellington rather cheaply indeed. In fact, once we say to anyone that they do not need to provide receipts for this expenditure, that they can just take the money and use it as they see fit, it is logical that there is an incentive to stay with a cousin. I do not know whether any Minister does that, but the point I am making—

💬 Hon Tariana Turia: Oh, dear! You’re pathetic.

The Hon Tariana Turia thinks it is funny. I do not. I think if we are looking for greater transparency in our systems, including the taxation treatment of these things—as in clause 88—then giving people $37,500 and saying they can have it no matter how much they spend on their Wellington accommodation is not transparent.

The House got into a bit of a lather about a year ago concerning the Deputy Prime Minister, who is also the Minister of Finance. He was double-dipping, living in Dipton and in Wellington. As a result of that the Prime Minister, John Key, said not to worry, that he would fix it, that we would have a new system, that the old system was too complicated. Well, it was not complicated for every other member of the National-Māori-ACT Government Cabinet. It certainly was not complicated when I was in Cabinet, but it seems to be too complicated now as even poor old Bill English got it all confused. So we changed the system. The new system, the Prime Minister told us, would be cheaper. He said: “Just you wait! I’m going to be really tough on my Ministers. They will get only $37,500.” Guess what? The price of ministerial expenditure has gone up.

To recap, there is no taxation as mentioned in clause 88 on ministerial expenditure, and I think that is proper. We have moved from actual and reasonable expenses—the actual costs—to some guesswork costs for every Minister. The guesswork has come in at $37,500. Of course, every Minister—reasonably—has maxed it out. They are all saying: “Yep, sure, I’m going to take all of that.” In fact, it is given to them. They have no option. When we tot it all up we find that the Prime Minister, who promised New Zealand cheaper ministerial accommodation, has given New Zealand more expensive ministerial accommodation. Although I do not aim this argument at Ministers, that means that a bunch of taxpayer money that used not to go into ministerial pockets now does go into ministerial pockets, at a time when we are all supposed to be having a nil wage increase.

So we can see that there is an issue around ministerial accommodation, and it is not fixed by clause 88. It is not fixed, and the only way to fix it is to go back to actual and reasonable expenses, by one method or another. I think an honest and transparent Government, or an honest and transparent bunch at Ministerial Services, or an honest and transparent Minister responsible for Ministerial Services would take us back to that form of payment, which served New Zealand rather well for a rather long time, and was applied to any former Minister on this side of the Chamber, and, for their first couple of years, all the Ministers on the other side of the Chamber as well. So I think clause 88 is worth reflecting on for what it does not do. I am pretty sure it will not cover that $37,500 of expenditure. I am pretty sure it will not make it taxable. I do not think it should be taxable, but I think the way in which we have managed to get ourselves an increase in ministerial expenses needs to be addressed.

I move, That the question be now put.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): The question is that the question be now put. Those of that opinion will say Aye, the contrary No—

💬 Hon Pete Hodgson: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairman. I do apologise but I was given to understand that we were going to talk this through until such time as it did not need to be talked through any more. Nobody has advised the Committee that the need has now gone.

💬 Hon Peter Dunne: Can I speak briefly—

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Let me just consider what I am going to do. I had commenced putting the vote, and we now have, I think, an expression that some kind of explanation from the Minister might be in order. I think I should seek leave for the Minister to give a brief explanation, and then I will put the vote, which I had commenced. Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there anyone opposed? There being not, I call the Hon Peter Dunne.

I will not abuse the leave of the Committee, so I will be very brief. This is quite technical stuff, but essentially Mr Mallard, officials, and I have gone away and looked at the relevant statutes and the interpretation of them, and have come to a position where we are satisfied that the concerns that he was expressing relating to the application to particular members are not, in fact, valid concerns. This legislation is essentially remedial in terms of the 2007 legislation, but the depth of the definition relating to accommodation actually covers the situation he was expressing concern about. Essentially, we are satisfied.