Connell Brian: Taxation (Annual Rates Maori Organisations Taxpayer Compliance and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — In Committee 
Connell Brian: Taxation (Annual Rates Maori Organisations Taxpayer Compliance and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:4247] 
BRIAN CONNELL (NZ National—Rakaia) 
: 
 I want to deal with clause 146 which deals with PAYE intermediaries. Other members have picked up that clause as well. In particular I want start by turning to the commentary which goes along these lines: “The bill contains provisions allowing employers to engage an accredited intermediary to assume the employer’s PAYE obligations.” That appeals as a good idea although a number of submitters were concerned about the viability of some of those intermediaries. What happens—because I do not see anything in the bill that covers it—if one of those intermediaries goes belly up? In particular I want to know—and maybe the Minister in the chair the Hon Dr Michael Cullen can tell us—who would be responsible. Can members imagine the grief and the finger-pointing that would go on if that event were to take place. 
I suppose the Minister might be able to tell us as well what the compliance impact statement is. The Minister who was in the chair just prior to this Minister the Hon Paul Swain said it was attached to the bill but we cannot find it. I am asking the Minister in the chair to educate the Committee by taking a call and telling us exactly what it is. What protection would the employee or the person who owed the tax obligation have if that person had paid it to the intermediary and the intermediary went belly up? Would there be sufficient funds in the trust account to cover that liability and the penalty as well? Maybe the Minister could also take a call on that. 
The downside of this legislation of course is that it will introduce a new layer of compliance. Others have touched on that issue as well. I turn to a compliance statement that I have picked up. It is an analysis undertaken by Business New Zealand. It is quite independent and it tells us that a medium-sized business in this country will face an extra $43000 in compliance costs. That business has had those costs foisted on it by this Government in the last 12 months. That is a staggering amount of money and when one understands the expense-to-income ratio of about 1:7 it is enough to send most small businesses under. If this Government could do something about reducing compliance costs it might not have to put in place this type of racist tax regime. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I think the Chair is ruling that to call a tax regime racist is somehow out of order. It certainly is not. One is not allowed to accuse another member of being racist but one can certainly call a policy racist. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: That is not what I was doing Mr Hide. I refer the member to Speaker’s ruling 7/1 in the  
Supplement to Speakers’ Rulings 
 which refers to judging whether a word is appropriate in terms of whether it might lead to disorder. I was just cautioning the member to be careful. 
Rodney Hide 
: The member said it and people were accepting it. It has been said all the way throughout this debate and there has been no disorder. I think that the member’s point has been accepted as fact. I do not see how the Chair can rule that word out when it has been said in a way that has not caused any disorder. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the honourable member. I have been listening to the debate and I am concerned about the context in which the word was used. The member should not question the ruling. The ruling has been made. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: I was making the point that this bureaucracy and those compliance costs have been foisted upon small businesses because of the introduction of this racist tax. It is something that will do immense damage to our international reputation. If we want to grow our economy—as we do—we need to attract foreign capital and we need to embrace those hard-working Kiwis who are prepared to invest their life savings in starting a business. I expect and I think they would expect to be treated exactly the same way as all other New Zealanders. 
Part 4 deals with the amendments to other Acts. I understand that some of those amendments are necessary but I submit that if it were not for the Government’s intention to introduce this type of legislation they would not be necessary. The select committee was given good advice. Maybe the Minister could take a call to explain why he rejected the advice the select committee was given that this legislation was discriminatory and against the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Surely the Minister is not going to shake his head and say that people such as Geoffrey Palmer—a former Labour Prime Minister funnily enough—do not know what they are talking about. Geoffrey Palmer is revered as one of our most special constitutional lawyers. 
The question we have to ask ourselves is how much governance we want in our lives.