Taxation (Annual Rates for 2025-26, Compliance Simplification, and Remedial Measures) Bill

I seek leave to present a legislative statement—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member doesn’t need to seek—well, the wording I’ve got here just says “I present a legislative statement.” Are you seeking leave? Is it already on the Table?

Hon SIMON WATTS: I present a legislative statement on the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2025-26, Compliance Simplification, and Remedial Measures) Bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

Hon SIMON WATTS: I move, That the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2025-26, Compliance Simplification, and Remedial Measures) Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Finance and Expenditure Committee to consider this bill.

This bill is aimed at making New Zealand a better place. This Government’s top priority is growing the economy so that we can deliver more jobs, higher wages, and lower costs for New Zealanders. This bill aims to promote growth by welcoming talent, investment in our shores, and supporting companies trying to attract and retain talent. The bill also aims to minimise and eliminate compliance costs as far as possible and helps to make the Public Service more efficient by making better use of existing resources and freeing up time and resources for more demanding work.

I want to touch on some of the key measures in this bill, and I first want to mention the one which was brought to our attention by the private sector. Currently, new migrants are taxed on estimated overseas income, even if they don’t actually receive that income. The new law will change that so that they are only taxed on money that they actually earn. This will make it fairer and more attractive particularly for skilled migrants to move here and help keep talented New Zealanders in New Zealand and not leaving.

To get more technical on this issue, there was a report by the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research examining why New Zealand struggled to retain entrepreneurial migrants. It found that illiquid equity investments held by migrants in foreign companies that are not controlled foreign companies are taxed under New Zealand’s foreign investment fund regime. Our FIF rules—which is the acronym for the foreign investment fund regime as more commonly referred to—usually assume that overseas assets are earning income at a rate of 5 percent per year. It, therefore, taxes deemed rather than actual income from equity investments. The bill, therefore, introduces a new calculation method to determine a person’s FIF income.

The new method would tax eligible FIF investments on a realisation basis; that is, on dividends derived and 70 percent of gains or losses on disposal, rather than on a deemed annual basis. In addition, a migrant who remains taxable in another country faces potentially double taxation when they sell that investment. That’s because investments held particularly in the US, for instance, are only taxed on dividends and when shares are realised, and a credit for our FIF tax may not be available against the US tax when that investment is sold. To address this, this bill has a proposal that allows a person subject to the two tax systems to apply the revenue account method even to shares acquired after they become a New Zealand tax resident.

The bill also makes it easier for overseas visitors working remotely, sometimes known as digital nomads, to stay longer in New Zealand before being taxed, encouraging them to spend more in our economy while they are here. We are also proposing that non-resident visitors earning income through remote work may be present in New Zealand for up to nine months in a given 18-month period before incurring New Zealand tax obligations, including becoming a New Zealand tax resident. This is provided that they are tax resident in another country and that they are in New Zealand lawfully for immigration purposes and do not undertake work for a New Zealand employer or client.

I now turn to a group of proposals in the bill which aim to reduce or eliminate compliance costs on New Zealand taxpayers. Joint ventures are one way for business people to collaborate and invest in projects together for mutual benefit. Joint ventures sometimes individually account for supplies made or received in the course of that venture in their own GST returns. However, it has emerged that this approach is not correct under the current rules. To avoid imposing compliance costs, we’re proposing to validate that existing operational practice to allow for joint ventures to account for supplies made or received in the course of the venture in their own GST returns. This is about easing compliance costs for those businesses.

A growing number of New Zealanders also have solar panels on their homes, generating electricity back for them to use, but sometimes having the ability to export excess electricity back into the grid. It’s new energy and it is a new income source which was not foreseen when the Income Tax Act in 2007 was passed. In many cases, the proceeds from the sale of excess electricity are likely to be taxable under the current legislation. We want to take a pragmatic approach to that. The compliance costs associated with these obligations are likely to be disproportionately higher compared to any tax revenue that is gained, also when you take into consideration the ability to claim deductions.We’re proposing an income tax exemption for income earned from the sale of excess electricity from a residential property into the electricity grid.

The bill also proposes changes benefiting FamilyBoost recipients by increases to the rebate percentages and income thresholds that could be made by Order in Council. Changes that would decrease the payment amount or the eligible population would still need to be made through primary legislation.

One of the Government’s priorities is getting tough on crime. IRD can currently disclose information about a person to the Police on request, but that information can quickly become outdated. This bill would allow IRD to disclose updated information to Police to maintain the accuracy of information held by the Police for the purposes of the proceeds of crime regime.

The information held by IRD can be useful to other agencies, too, in trying to deliver better, more efficient services. Information can be shared at present through an approved information-sharing agreement. This is best practice, but it’s also a long process and can hold up service delivery.

The bill also proposes to repeal two information requirements that are no longer required. These are section 17GB of the Tax Administration Act, which allows the commissioner to collect information for the purpose relating to the development of policy, and the additional disclosure requirements for trustees. These provisions are not necessary. The commissioner already has broad powers to collect information, including from trustees, under the Tax Administration Act 1994.

This bill says that New Zealand is open for business. We’re making it easier to do business, we’re making it easier to attract investment, and we’re also, importantly, creating the conditions for a stronger economy—one that delivers more opportunities, higher wages, and a lower cost of living. It gives me great pleasure to commend this bill to the House.

The Labour Party supports many of the measures in this bill. The measures around employee share schemes deferring taxation events is a good measure, and a sensible one, to support our start-ups. The measures around digital nomads are sensible, and they do look to enhance what is going on in New Zealand, in terms of attracting people to come and live and work here. The measures around electricity refunds are sensible. I suspect that most people who sell electricity back to the grid are not aware that they, technically, might need to pay tax on that, but technically, also, if they’re paying tax on it, they can claim expenses. It is better just to clear that one out right away. That’s a sensible move.

The measures around the foreign investment fund rules seem sensible, too. However, given that the Minister led with it, I’m bit a surprised to find there is no regulatory impact statement around that, and we’ll certainly be asking the officials for their understanding of how this measure will work and what returns it will have and whether there are any particular impacts of it. All of these things seem pretty sensible, and, in some cases, it does just do what it says on the tin: it will reduce compliance costs. In fact, sometimes it is just ensuring that the law reflects what people are probably doing already and what is kind of consistent with the general intent of the tax law, anyway. That’s probably particularly the case with GST on joint ventures. But there are some disturbing measures in this bill, and some quite worrying ones and, for this reason, we will not be supporting this bill.

I want to turn first to the repeal of section 17GB. Section 17GB enabled the Commissioner of Inland Revenue to collect information for the purpose of making better tax policy, in order to make our tax system better. There is, of course, a lot of information that the Commissioner of Inland Revenue can collect already, but she or he needs to do it for the purposes of assessing tax. There is another big role that the Inland Revenue Department has and that our officials have, and that is of forming good tax policy. In order to write good and effective tax policy, we need good information. Section 17GB enabled the commissioner to collect that information, and it’s going. Officials even said it is going against officials’ recommendations. Officials recommended keeping section 17GB but perhaps enhancing the protections around it, to make sure that information was used only for tax policy purposes. Now, of course, that was the case already, but there were ways of putting belts and braces into the law to ensure that that was the case. But, no, section 17GB is gone, even though officials wanted to keep it so they could make better tax policy.

Information collected about trusts is going. Now, again, the commissioner can, obviously, collect information to assess the tax on trusts, but the information that will no longer be collected is about who is settling assets on trusts—who is getting benefits from trusts. In other words, we are reducing the amount of information that is available to us about sometimes quite opaque entities, and we now no longer will be able to know how income and how assets are flowing through trusts. Here’s the thing: both those measures enabled us to track wealth in this country, and we know that both of those measures were opposed by taxpayers whose affairs might otherwise be subject to more scrutiny. These two measures lead to more opacity in the ownership and distribution of assets and income in this country. People are hiding what they own and what they earn.

Then, on top of that, we now have this new information-sharing rule. The new information-sharing rule will enable the Minister of Revenue to share information much more quickly in cases where people may have committed a crime. In other words, we’ve always had a system where we try to keep the tax system away from issues of criminality, because we just want people to pay their taxes; that is being removed. What is really disturbing is the entities with whom Inland Revenue can now share information. This includes New Zealand Police, the Accident Compensation Corporation, Kāinga Ora - Homes and Communities, Health New Zealand, the New Zealand Transport Agency, the National Emergency Management Agency, the Office of the Privacy Commissioner, the Ministry for Ethnic Communities—what on earth is that doing in here? That is absolutely ridiculous. It is one rule for the rich and another rule for the poor. We oppose this bill.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. This bill is a prime example of how the Government is setting greater scrutiny and punishments for people doing it tough, on some of the lowest incomes in this country—lining up at Work and Income to get things like food grants—who are often scrutinised in undignified ways on every purchase that they make, with the Ministry of Social Development giving itself huge ability to collect information on people on the benefit, while, at the same time, bringing forward a bill that reduces the ability for our Government agencies to make informed decisions on taxation to address really serious issues in this country on wealth inequality.

We are the richest we have been in quite some time, as a country, and yet we have growing homelessness. We have a greater disparity between the haves and the have-nots, and this Government, instead of addressing those very same issues, is pushing forward a bill that will make it harder for Governments to have the information that they need to address how, for example, the rich hide their wealth in things like trusts. This will make it harder for the Government to make informed decisions on how we can tackle the reality that the wealthy few are accumulating an absurd amount of wealth at the expense of the rest of our communities.

Dr David Wilson: Just not true.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: I just heard somebody say it’s not true. I recommend that this member reads the legislation to be able to assert what it does. I would caution the member of actually saying that—well, the member is saying it’s not true; he may be new, but he may want to read Standing Orders a bit, anyway.

Going back to the bill. This bill is deeply problematic because, despite the technical bits around it, the core of this is a bill that cements this Government’s position of growing wealth inequality; perhaps that is a strategy of growth.

We also have concerns about other provisions of this bill which exempt digital nomads from potential tax obligations. This Government should be quite careful with how they choose to treat people they deem digital nomads. The reality is that, overseas, we have seen that policies that benefit the so-called digital nomads—people who enter here, often on visitor visas, with no purpose of trying to settle in our country and form part of our communities like many other migrant workers do. Those very same people—often on high incomes—end up contributing to gentrification in communities. We have seen unrest overseas because of Government decisions that have completely loosened rules in relationship to digital nomads, and this Government should be quite careful. They may be claiming that the money digital nomads spend is here, but often their incomes will go on paying for things like Airbnbs—that actually don’t create the wealth that we need for everyday people. The money that they will often be spending will also just be on things like allowing multiple-home owners to continue leasing these Airbnbs to those digital nomads. So we think this deserves a lot of scrutiny about the broader economic implications of the policy.

I think the Government should be quite cautious in relying on things like digital nomads to enable their socalled strategy of growth, because I can’t see how this bill—despite what the Minister of Revenue said in his initial remarks—actually addresses serious issues around our dwindling economy that is more and more reliant on things like speculators trading homes, instead of supporting our manufacturing industries, for example, that are struggling. I can’t see how this bill drives the cost of living down; all it does is make it easier for the wealthy few to hide their wealth and to face less scrutiny over the current tax settings. It really undermines the previous work that IRD and previous Governments have done to ascertain where the wealthy few have their wealth and how tax systems work, and it undermines the work to make informed, non-partisan recommendations and information on these very same settings.

Make no mistake: the Green Party cannot support this bill as it stands. We could be supporting some of the more technical components of this bill if they had come in a separate piece of legislation. But what this bill does is incredibly problematic, and it absolutely sends a message that the poor deserve a huge amount of scrutiny, whereas the rich can get a free pass.

Well, I think we’re pretty clear where things are heading in this country. We’ve just heard from the Green speaker Ricardo Menéndez March—and, to be fair, the Greens are at least honest: they want a wealth tax; they want a capital gains tax. What I think I heard, though, from Dr Deborah Russell was that she’s setting the groundwork for Labour to announce their wealth tax and capital gains tax policy.

Let me be clear: on this side of the House, we will be supporting this bill because we’re actually about growth and boosting the New Zealand economy. We’re actually about letting New Zealanders keep more of their own money, getting on with their lives, and building productive businesses, and, just being able to get on and contribute to society. Obviously, we’ll be supporting this bill—it’s a good bill. I also will have the pleasure of being on the Finance and Expenditure Committee, where we will go through this in great detail. Look, it was good to hear the Labour member say that there were a number of measures that I think we will get a lot of support for in the select committee to work through, so that’s good. I did want to call out a couple of things that I thought were good. Obviously, we have a totally different position from the Greens on digital nomads. We actually want to encourage people to come to New Zealand and to spend and invest their money, so it will be good to look at those changes, and the residential solar—I was really pleased when the Minister announced that. Obviously, Rewiring Aotearoa has been putting forward a number of policies to increase solar uptake, and they were very pleased to see this.

Again, I look forward to the discussions on all of the measures in this bill, which will affect some 11 Acts of Parliament. I commend it to the House.

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Look, I’ll take a short call on the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2025-26, Compliance Simplification, and Remedial Measures) Bill—

Hon Member: Point of order.

JOSEPH MOONEY: Sorry, I apologise. I’ll hand over—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Sorry—no, carry on.

JOSEPH MOONEY: I’ll take a short call, Mr Speaker, just to support this bill, which is a very sensible one, to rebalance some of the settings in the taxation system. Some of the comments that were made earlier about digital nomads—I mean, this is a sensible contribution. People who add a lot to overseas economies already—the digital nomads—if they want to come and spend some time in New Zealand and contribute to our economy, it’s something we should support. We want these young, connected people who are engaged in the digital economy, which is growing rapidly around the world; this is a very sensible addition. We don’t believe that just adding more taxation is going to be the solution; we need to grow our economy. With that, I commend this bill to the House.

I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to support this scintillating Taxation (Annual Rates for 2025-26, Compliance Simplification, and Remedial Measures) Bill. It is a comprehensive bill that reflects the evolving needs of our tax system and the people it serves. Essentially, this bill is about streamlining the machinery of Government, removing outdated rules, simplifying compliance, and being fair to taxpayers. It’s about making the system work better for everyday New Zealanders, small business, migrants, and families.

New Zealand First has always stood for pragmatic, common-sense reform in the national interest, and we do also commend the bill addressing solar on rooftops. The bill proposes to introduce an income tax exemption, which is seldom heard from the other side of the House because we do know that they do quite like tax in any way that they can possibly inform it and in any way they can support it, so they have more room to spend on the policies that they like.

I do know also that Matua Shane Jones and New Zealand First look forward to the energy sector encouraging uptake through fair prices. I note with some sense of anticipation to the debate around section 17GB and the member that brought up opacity in the tax situation. We would also say that privacy is an important issue for many of our supporters, as well.

We look forward to the debate, and for the benefit of the member who said that I told him that he was wrong, I did not refer to him in particular; I said that the statement was incorrect. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Tēnā rā koe e te Pīka, otirā tēnā rā tātou e te Whare. E tū ana ahau ki te waha i ngā kōrero mā Te Pāti Māori i te rangi nei e pā ana ki tēnei o ngā pire, me te mea anō e kore mātou e whakaae ki tēnei pire. Heoi anō ko tā mātou mahi he tuwhera i ngā take ki te wāhi e kore ai mātou e whakaae ki tēnei o ngā pire.

[Thank you, Mr Speaker, indeed greetings to all in the House. I stand to give voice to the statements on behalf of the Māori Party today regarding this particular bill, and to say that we will never agree with this bill. However, what we would like to do is open up the issues in the area of this particular bill that we do not agree with.]

This bill sets the annual rates of income tax for 2025-26, along with a list of other tax changes, which raises a number of questions from Te Pāti Māori. We believe in Aotearoa hou, where all people can thrive and where our home is more than just a playground. We want to transform the tax system in Aotearoa for the 99 percent instead of the 1 percent. We want to remove income tax from earners making less than $30,000 per year. We want to start taxing wealth instead of incomes. We want to ease the cost of living crisis by removing GST from kai.

This bill reaffirms the status quo, where the hard-working people of Aotearoa subsidise the lavish lifestyles of the rich. This bill also repeals section 17GB of the Tax Administration Act 1994, which allows the commissioner to collect information “for a purpose relating to the development of policy for the improvement or reform of the tax system.”

Engari, there are some elements within the bill that Te Pāti Māori sees as a positive step. This bill introduces “an income tax exemption for income derived by an individual from the sale of excess electricity from a residential property to the network. Under the exemption, individuals would not need to pay tax on,”. It gives Parliament power to increase FamilyBoost payments by Order in Council. While there are some sensible amendments contained within the bill, we need tax justice in Aotearoa, not fringe changes on balance.

Nō reira, Te Pāti Māori opposes this bill because the tax system we see in Aotearoa today is a continuation of taxing workers and of refusing to tax wealth in the landholdings of the people. Nā reira e kore matou e whakaae ki tēnei o ngā pire. Tēnā rā tātou.

[Therefore, we will never agree to this particular bill. Thanks to us all.]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a privilege to take a call on the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2025-26, Compliance Simplification, and Remedial Measures) Bill, but Labour will be opposing this bill.

The three main reasons that we oppose this bill are: firstly, it is easier for Government agencies to share information only if Ministers agree that it is needed to determine entitlement to Government assistance or it would help the detection and prosecution of crimes punished for more than two years, or to remove the financial benefit of crime; secondly, the ability of the commissioner to collect information for the purposes of informing tax policy will be repealed; and, thirdly, the disclosure of information about trusts will be repealed. In essence, if you’re on a benefit, you’re stuffed, but if you’ve got everything in a family trust, you’re sweet—and that pretty much sums up the National world view.

It will be much easier under this bill for Government agencies to share information if Ministers agree that it’s needed to determine the entitlement to Government assistance, and so your rights and your privacy are able to be eroded if you’re entitled to be receiving that sort of benefit from the Government. This can already be done through what’s called an approved information-sharing agreement—or AISA—and I’ve done quite a bit of work in the past on these. There’s the basic privacy principle that when you give your personal information, it can only be used for the purpose that you provided it for. What happens in situations such as these is that if someone has provided health information, it typically can’t be used by New Zealand Police, or if someone’s given information about their housing, it can’t be used by another agency without the explicit stipulation that it can be used for that reason.

So we get into this information sharing that the new rules enable Ministers to bypass the AISA process directly into these agencies. There’s a list of agencies that go through all of those key ones that hold personal information, which are Police, ACC, Kāinga Ora, Health, the New Zealand Transport Agency, the National Emergency Management Agency, the Ministry for Ethnic Communities, and the Office of the Privacy Commissioner. In other words, tax information can be used for policing purposes.

First of all, there are some deep concerns about whether that’s going to enable people to be forthcoming with providing that information, if it’s going to be used for police purposes. A lot of the work that has been done in the past shows that people are reluctant to give health information honestly to their health practitioner if it’s going to be used to potentially prosecute them down the line, and that impedes or stops people from using public services that they rightly need and are entitled to.

The regulatory impact statement—it’s good that there is one for this bill, because there is often not one—shows that the only consultation undertaken with respect to this measure was with the Privacy Commissioner. No communities, no social service providers, no health professionals, and no other people—not even tax experts—were taken in to look at whether this should be done or not; only the Privacy Commissioner. The only options examined were the status quo and the Minister’s option, and the new rules were created at the Minister’s direction, so common under this Government.

I think it’s important to note that the ability for the commissioner to collect information for the purposes of informing tax policy will be repealed. This was the rule that enabled information to be collected for the high-wealth individuals project—funny that—and many of the people involved were really unhappy about that process. Officials suggested that instead of repealing the rule, it could be retained with strengthened protections around information collected. They have also said that repealing the rule will reduce Inland Revenue’s ability to collect information solely for the purpose of policy development, which could affect the quality of future policy advice, but these guys don’t mind about that.

In a nutshell, rich people will get to hide all of their information and poor people will be subject to information being disclosed at the whim of Ministers, and this is a real concern. That is the primary reason.

Typically, Labour would support these types of taxation bills, but the fundamental flaw is that this is one step, again, in creating a divided New Zealand, creating one set of rules for those people opposite. When they say the economy has turned a corner, it has turned a corner for them, but not for the rest of us, and this law is another example of how there are two standards in New Zealand: one for those over there, and one for the rest of the Kiwis doing it tough under a cost of living crisis.

Thank you, Mr Chair. One of the little things in this bill that people may not be aware of is that we encourage people to take out solar systems—

Hon Members: Solar systems?

RYAN HAMILTON: What’s the thing when you put it on your roof to track the sun?

Hon Members: Solar panels.

RYAN HAMILTON: Solar? Solar system. It sounded funny out loud. They can earn a credit or a refund from the electricity company, and, technically, that creates a tax liability. With this bill, we think that’s too hard, there’s too much administration, and it’s nonsensical, so we’re removing it. It’s just a little thing, amongst many, to get New Zealand back on track.

Kia ora, Mr Speaker. It’s interesting to hear the previous speaker talk about space. Obviously, he’s going to great measures to avoid tax if you have to go to space to do that!

As has been traversed and talked about in this first debate on this legislation—generally, we would support tax legislation if it is measured, if it is thoughtful, and if it is doing what is right to. I guess the words I would use is “to ensure that the tax system is pure and is doing what it does”, which is to gather revenue, which, then, Government can distribute to support society. As my colleague the Hon Dr Deborah Russell said in her speech, the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2025-26, Compliance Simplification, and Remedial Measures) Bill is something we can’t support. It’s something we can’t support, because it feels like it is an overreach. When tax legislation comes through this House, we have good people in the Labour Party who know about tax. We have tax lawyers, we have tax lecturers, and we have people who understand this. To listen and to unpack it with them to understand what it means, what the potential is that this bill has to do, is something that we need to then stop and pause and consider.

The tax system—and the IRD needs to be a separate organisation that does its one job: to gather tax, to gather revenue. When we suddenly start to have this overreach of Ministers being able to step in, when we look at things like Kāinga Ora, we look at things like ACC, we look at things like the New Zealand Police or the New Zealand Transport Agency having the potential of Ministers to allow access, I think it is cause for concern.

We want people to do what is right. We want people to pay tax, absolutely, but we also want to make sure that people, no matter where they are, what their circumstances are, what life throws at them or what life choices they make, can always be in a position where they can pay tax. The approved information-sharing agreements already exist. This bill allows Ministers to overstep that and I think that is dangerous and something that we need to be concerned about.

We need to make sure that if you are living in a Kāinga Ora house, that if you do have, potentially, fines through the transport agency—if you are in arrears, for example, that’s fair enough, but that should be something that’s dealt with, with Kāinga Ora; that should be something that if you have outstanding fines that are standing there with the transport agency, it is dealt with in that space. The tax system should do what it was designed to do, and that is to gather revenue. And that’s it.

Deborah Russell also spoke—and I was thoughtful as she was speaking—around trusts and who benefits from trusts and the importance of transparency and how this piece of legislation can undermine that. We need to be very careful; we need to be very thoughtful. As this piece of legislation leaves this House, heads to select committee for debate and discussion, we hope that the Government MPs and we hope that members of the public can engage and can really prosecute and unpack what actually is being done in this legislation.

One thing I do want to comment on which is good is around those who have solar panels, for example, or wind or other forms of energy that they create and feed back into the national grid. Now, of course we agree with that. Of course we agree that we want to incentivise people to be able to have renewable energy within their own homes and to be able to then put that back into the system to get a little bit of money for it. The fact that that is something that will not have to be paid through income tax—that is sensible, a sensible move.

We just came from the debate on climate change Estimates and the importance and the challenges we’re facing. We need to remove every single barrier we can to make sure that people have options and have the ability to ensure that they can heat their home, they can run their home with solar, for example, and then any excess can be then sent back into the national grid without the need to file a tax return or do information on that. That’s fair enough.

We can’t support this bill. There are some good bits in it, but there are some really bad bits in it, and we look forward to select committee taking it forward.

I just wanted to focus on one aspect of this omnibus taxation bill, and that is the fact that it’s going to encourage digital nomads. It’s going to make New Zealand a more attractive place for what they call a “workcation”. That’s important, given the global workforce is more digitalised and more mobile. This bill will enable a non-resident individual to visit and work in New Zealand for up to 275 days in any 18-month period without becoming subject to New Zealand income tax. It will help this Government drive the value of tourism. So I commend the bill.

The question is, That the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2025-26, Compliance Simplification, and Remedial Measures) Bill be referred to the Finance and Expenditure Committee.

Bill referred to the Finance and Expenditure Committee.