Jones Dail: Taxation (Annual Rates Maori Organisations Taxpayer Compliance and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — In Committee 
Jones Dail: Taxation (Annual Rates Maori Organisations Taxpayer Compliance and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:4239] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 I have never heard anything as despicable as the speech I have just heard from John Tamihere. He is supposed to have had some legal training and for him to say that that type of clause is there for that type of purpose is utterly ridiculous. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
DAIL JONES 
: When the Committee rose various issues were being discussed. We had just had to put up with a speech from the Labour Minister the Hon John Tamihere which must have been one of the low points of the House since I have come back to it. With speeches like that one wonders how he can remain a Minister under this Labour Government. From his speeches about Labour Party policy and from the manner in which he conducts himself in the House it seems he has dissociated himself from Labour Party policy which is totally outside the Westminster system but that is obviously the standard the Prime Minister wishes to set. That is all I will say about that. 
In so far as the bill is concerned I refer to clause 103 “Obligation to pay tax during challenge”. As I see the bill now it seems to require that the total amount has to be paid. There was a time when one paid only 50 percent—and although I say “only 50 percent” it was still 50 percent. I believe the reason it has been increased to 100 percent is that it was possible under the old system to get some money back from the Inland Revenue Department. If one had paid the Inland Revenue Department 100 percent and was under a challenge one could then say to the Inland Revenue Department: “Look I’ve paid you 50 percent more than I had to and now I want 50 percent back.” 
That situation applied to a client of mine when I was involved with the taxation review. Do members think I could get that 50 percent back from the Inland Revenue Department? Under that system the department insisted that people pay 50 percent but when people overpaid the department and they tried to get 50 percent back it was virtually impossible. Fortunately in that case not only did I win but I was also given interest on the money the Inland Revenue Department had failed to pay back to my client. That is a dreadfully uneven playing field. 
As the honourable Rodney Hide mentioned people can go broke in the course of that process. As the member also suggested if there were a malevolent Government in place that could somehow influence the Inland Revenue Department this clause could be grossly manipulated to put people into bankruptcy and companies into liquidation. I am pleased to say I have never ever known that to happen but times can always change. 
Even in the fairest of economies and in the fairest of times someone in the Inland Revenue Department can make a mistake. We have known of cases where that has happened. Was there not a Mr John Henderson involved once? 
Rodney Hide 
: David. 
DAIL JONES 
: David Henderson—he got into all sorts of financial difficulties as I recall and that would have been under the 50 percent system. Members can imagine what would have happened to him under the 100 percent system. 
This is an iniquitous clause. It is dreadful legislation. It shows that the Government and the Inland Revenue Department have no faith in their view of things. Most people have the opportunity to go to court and to fight out a case and if they lose they pay. One of the things Roger Douglas did in the 1984-90 era was to increase the amount of penalties so that people thought twice about getting involved in that type of situation. If they did try to take on the Inland Revenue Department and lost they paid through the nose with interest penalty interest and suchlike. That made it very very dangerous to try to take the Inland Revenue Department on. I will be supporting Rodney Hide’s amendment for that reason. 
The other area I will discuss is with regard to Maori authorities which are mentioned in this part of the bill as well.