It is easy for MPs to become confused about tax legislation, and none more so than Jonathan Coleman.The unfortunate Dr Coleman, Minister of Immigration and Minister of Broadcasting, was last night given the task of introducing the first reading debate on
It is easy for MPs to become confused about tax legislation, and none more so than Jonathan Coleman.
The unfortunate Dr Coleman, Minister of Immigration and Minister of Broadcasting, was last night given the task of introducing the first reading debate on the Taxation (International Investment and Remedial Matters) Bill in the absence of Revenue Minister Peter Dunne.
His 10-minute speech was flawlessly delivered -- but it wasn't about the Taxation (International Investment and Remedial Matters) Bill.
Someone had given him the wrong speech. He was apparently reading a speech Mr Dunne delivered on July 23, 2008, on the Taxation, International Taxation, Life Insurance and Remedial Matters Bill.
Opposition MPs became suspicious and started voicing concern but Dr Coleman wasn't to be deterred and doggedly continued to the end.
When it came to Labour revenue spokesman Stuart Nash's turn to speak, he was open about it.
"I challenge the minister to show me the clauses that talk about payroll giving, that talk about insurance companies, and all those other matters he brought to the attention of the House in his speech because there are no such clauses in this bill," he said.
"The minister gave the wrong speech. He spoke for 10 minutes about a bill that was passed 12 months ago and he didn't notice."
Green Party co-leader Russel Norman explained to people who might be listening to Parliament on the radio: "You may be somewhat confused about which bill we are talking about. The reason you might be confused is that the minister introducing the bill read the wrong speech."
That led Dr Norman to wonder how confident Parliament could be about whether the Government knew what it was doing with tax law.
Mr Nash, and other Labour MPs, forgave Mr Coleman. They pointed out taxation wasn't anywhere near the minister's portfolios and said it was therefore easily understood how he could have talked about the wrong bill for 10 minutes.
None of this made any difference to the bill before the House or the process that followed. It passed its first reading on a unanimous vote and was referred to the finance and expenditure select committee.
