Willis NicolaNICOLA WILLIS (National): Isn't it extraordinary to be debating this under urgency given the significance of the implications that are being raised in this committee because what we have in Part 2 of this bill—and I'm very pleased to be debating this part—is what in hip hop terms would be called a series of Easter eggs. Of course what Easter eggs normally are are the little bits you find in a great song when you pay a lot of attention that recall earlier hip-hop classics. But of course in this case the Easter eggs aren't tasty; the Easter eggs are pretty vicious. And I want to turn to one of them and ask the Minister in the chair the Hon David Parker questions about his amendment in mitigation. The first of those is new section 17GB of the Tax Administration Act set out in clause 33 which has been the subject of some discussion. Now of course what this piece does is it creates a massive new power for the Commissioner of Inland Revenue to require information or documents for an incredibly broad purpose which is tax policy development. And I want to distinguish that from the UK example which the Minister just raised acknowledging I haven't looked at the UK legislation in detail but basing my comments on his description which is different because in the UK example the reason the information is being collected is for the discharge of tax functions—that is existing tax functions—whereas what's happening here with new section 17GB is collecting information in order to dream up potentially new tax functions in order to dream up new policy. And of course it casts an extraordinarily wide net because the commissioner can make an information demand that they consider relevant for the purpose relating to the development of policy or the improvement of reform of the tax system. This is a massive invasion into people's private financial affairs. And it's not just me saying that; it is the Attorney-General who views that it is such an extraordinary expansion of power for the Inland Revenue commissioner that it amounts to taking away New Zealanders' constitutional right—well our New Zealand Bill of Rights Act (NZBORA) right to be free from search and surveillance and furthermore to be free from having our freedom of expression impugned. Now what the Minister is arguing with the amendment before the House is that he can tidy all of this up by saying Well don't worry. We won't use the information to prosecute you for criminal purposes." And he's gone down this whole line which I think is beneath him of saying "Oh look you know this is about the Eric Watsons of this world who do criminal stuff." Well Minister your logic doesn't add up because if it's about Eric Watson - type people doing tax dodgy stuff then how does excluding the information from being used for prosecution help? Well that seems a bit of a problem. But secondly and most importantly and this is where I'm leading to the question I want the Minister to address: how does having an amendment which simply excludes the information being used for criminal purposes actually correct the broader breach of our privacy rights that exists with this sort of trawling mechanism because such an extensive trawling mechanism is very new to New Zealand in which anyone can have their personal financial affairs investigated just because it might help the IRD create some new tax policy in the future? And I put to the Minister that given this is going through under urgency and the Privacy Commissioner hasn't even had a look—and you know this week we saw the new Privacy Act coming on with quite a few new requirements—does he really feel comfortable that his amendment goes far enough in ensuring that this bill isn't going to continue to be a breach of NZBORA rights? That's my first question.Secondly why does new section 17GB need to be progressed via this bill? If this is such a new important power for the commissioner why can't it be subject to a separate bill that goes through a thorough select committee process so that people like the Privacy Commission people like the Law Society can comment on its implications and what it means? So I invite the Minister to address those questions."