Mr KELVIN THOMSON(8.47 p.m.) —We find the amendment moved by the government a bit disturbing. We have been told that the primary aim of schedule 10 is to clarify the way the tax commissioner has always construed the depreciation provisions involving balancing charges with respect to previously tax exempt entities. This amendment is supposed to show that this is beyond doubt. Indeed, paragraphs 10.7, 10.8 and 10.9 at pages 114 and 115 of the explanatory memorandum confirm that the schedule is to affirm what the commissioner has previously ruled. For example, paragraph 10.7 states, inter alia:

The Commissioner has consistently administered section 61 . . .

Surely if the commissioner has consistently administered the depreciation provisions, whether by way of private binding ruling or any other actions, this amendment would be redundant. So it is not consistent for the government to argue that they are clarifying the law to ensure that it accords with what taxpayers have been advised and then to come in here and say that they wish to exclude the effect of the new law on taxpayers to whom they have previously given binding private rulings.

I would appreciate an explanation from the Parliamentary Secretary [Cabinet] to the Prime Minister (Mr Miles) of this anomaly. It suggests that the commissioner has issued binding private rulings that are inconsistent with the provisions of this bill. This means that different taxpayers may well have been advised differently on the same questions of law and this amendment seeks to maintain this situation. Accordingly, I would appreciate an explanation of this matter.