Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you very much Mr Chair for the opportunity to address the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2018–19 Modernising Tax Administration and Remedial Matters) Bill. I join others in discussing Part 2 of the bill. In particular I would actually like to focus on new subpart 3A inserted by clause 15 headed Collection use and disclosure of revenue information". I would like to start by looking at the purposes of the subpart because that will inform some discussion that I would like to have and ultimately a couple of questions to pose to the Minister of Revenue about the way that the powers are exercised in this piece of legislation.I might start if I may in a reasonably general way if you'll indulge me for a moment by noting that revenue information is the centrepiece of this part of the Act and information is of course knowledge and knowledge is power as Francis Bacon wisely observed many years ago. It's the exercise of power by the State in collecting that information that affects the lives of individuals and other legal persons that is really very important for us to consider as we just check ourselves—and no doubt with the officials if you do wish to confer with them—that the powers given are appropriate.So looking at new section 16 the purpose would be to provide the commissioner—of course the commissioner of Inland Revenue—with powers to enable the collection of all taxes or duties imposed by Inland Revenue Acts. I won't go through all of those; they're defined elsewhere. That would be overly taxing. Instead I'll simply note that the functions that are referred to in there are those "lawfully conferred" on the commissioner. So I suppose we have a test there a threshold in which the behaviour of the commissioner whoever she or he may be at the relevant time is judged to be legitimate or not—namely that the powers and the functions that that person already has under existing legislation must be duly followed and complied with and not exceeded in the exercise of the power that's set out in this new legislation.So moving then to what the actual power will entail but remaining on the purpose section we see that the commissioner can collect revenue information by gaining access to property or documents removing documents to make copies and removing or retaining them also for the purpose of review. We see as well that the idea of the particular provisions will be partly to allow access to that information to the commissioner at the time that documents are removed or indeed retained notwithstanding that copies might be provided back to the person from whom they are removed. Nevertheless there is at least temporarily a denial of that information to a person so just to ensure that the power isn't exercised in a way that's inappropriate my first question—and it's a reasonably general one I do appreciate—to the Minister in the chair Stuart Nash nevertheless is just to query whether he is satisfied that there are appropriate safeguards around the procedures that are put in place for the State effectively to deprive a person of information under this Act.Now looking at the particular ways in which that can take place and the limits placed on those powers I would turn the attention of the committee to new section 17I in clause 15 headed "Commissioner may conduct inquiries". Just as a heads-up I note that this is whereby the commissioner himself or herself can conduct inquiries as opposed to a practice of applying to a District Court judge to conduct inquiries which is in the following clause. New subsection (1) then just to set it out clearly is: "in relation to a tax liability of a person under an Inland Revenue Act" noting that it must be "for the purposes of administration or enforcement" of such a piece of legislation and also again to carry out "a function lawfully conferred on the Commissioner". It probably goes without saying that things that are within those Acts shouldn't be anything other than what the commissioner is lawfully conferred to be able to carry out but nevertheless for the sake of clarity I think it's a good piece of drafting that the legislation reflects that.Under the heading of "Inquiry by Commissioner" there is an instance of a couple of words that I'm a bit uncertain of so I'll just raise it for the attention of the Minister—and it might be quite deliberate but in any case I ask the question—the phrase "attend and" provides me with a bit of difficulty. The sentence that I'd like to draw to the attention of the Minister is as follows in 17I(2): "The commissioner may notify a person that they are required to attend and provide information to the Commissioner or to produce documents" etc. I wonder if the words "attend and" have a particular meaning. Reading the sentence from start to finish it looks rather as though the person might be required to attend to the commissioner perhaps. I don't know if that means to attend in person at a meeting with the commissioner or if perhaps that's the result of drafting that previously indicated such a meeting might be needed and then that was removed. I don't raise it as a major issue but nevertheless for the sake of clarity if nothing else if a change by way of Supplementary Order Paper is not practical or indeed needed then to at least maybe have some clarity for the sake of future interpretation might I suggest be helpful.Turning then to the second of the two sections that I've highlighted that I'd like to talk about this one at 17J is where the "Commissioner may apply for District Court Judge to conduct inquiries". This is going somewhat beyond the previous section whereby we heard about the ability of the commissioner to conduct inquiries himself or herself. Here instead what we have now is for a District Court judge to have the ability to obtain information at the petition I suppose—just to use that term reasonably broadly—of the commissioner. So it is appropriate that with a quasi-judicial function certain limits are prescribed on those powers. The first thing to note—and I'll just do so very quickly because it's essentially a duplication from the previous section—is that for the purpose of obtaining information it has to be in relation to a person's tax liability under an Inland Revenue Act and for the purposes of administration and enforcement thereof and to carry out a function lawfully conferred elsewhere.I note that when a judge is called upon to exercise these powers and chooses to do so—and in passing I would note that it would be a choice of the judge because the legislation expresses that a judge "may" do these things as distinct from a judge "must" do these things—a couple of things can be carried out by the judge at that time. The first is to summon a person whom the commissioner or another interested person requires to be examined. I suppose that the phrase "other interested person" would be read in the context of the legislation. I must be honest and say that I don't know whether that's the case that elsewhere in the legislation there is such a definition or if that would just be a matter of statutory interpretation. I don't suppose that's unreasonable but I note it in any case.So having summoned such a person then the judge may—again I emphasise "may"—examine the person on oath in chambers regarding any matter relevant to the subject matter of the inquiry. So that's pretty broad to be able to examine a person regarding any matter relevant to the subject matter of the inquiry. It could be a matter that's indirectly relevant I suppose but it would be the discretion of the judge or rather the judgment of the judge—if you'll excuse the tautology—that would be exercised in such a case. The person being on oath obviously is a significant safeguard I suppose in the administration of justice—obviously determined and designed to obtain the truth of the matter as readily as possible.One slightly interesting point—well a very interesting point actually to me—on which I'd seek the Minister's guidance before closing this contribution relates to subsection (4) which talks about the judge's jurisdiction and the way that such an examination would take place. I note that it would be the rules that would be relevant to a witness in a civil action that would apply as distinct from criminal procedure. I suppose I'm right in saying—although no doubt I'll be corrected by others in the House who are more knowledgeable in taxation matters of whom there are at least a couple—that it might be that the answers a person gives in such a context might ultimately give rise to criminal liability I suppose depending on what they were acknowledging or disclosing. So I wonder if the rules of criminal procedure as opposed to civil procedure might not be more appropriate in the way that a witness is called upon to respond in examination. On that I leave my contribution for now."