Edmonds BarbaraHon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana): Thank you Mr Chair. I just want to continue the line of questioning in relation to some of the penalties which are part of the global anti-base erosion rules in Part 3 of this particular bill. The Tax Administration Act effectively sets out the different interests and penalties that a taxpayer may be applicable for if they fail to do a particular obligation. It also provides the Tax Administration Act for the disputes rules. So if a taxpayer disputes an assessment that's been provided by the commissioner they have an ability to use the different provisions within the Tax Administration Act to issue a notice of proposed adjustment or perhaps the commissioner themselves will actually provide an assessment and it will force the taxpayer basically to take a position to either confirm the commissioner's position or to actually dispute it.So my particular question is in relation to clause 72 C which inserts new sections 94BB to 94BD. I know this is in relation to section 139AAB of the Act and it's around the assessment of penalties for large multinational groups failing to meet country-by-country reporting requirements which the Hon Dr Deborah Russell briefly touched on. In that new section it talks about The Commissioner may make an assessment for an ultimate owner of a large multinational group of the amount of a penalty under section 139AAB that in the Commissioner's opinion ought to be imposed and the ultimate owner is liable to pay the penal penalty assessed." So my question to the Minister before I continue going through that particular new section is: is this what they would say is a disputable decision that if the commissioner's opinion is—because the commissioner is making the assessment and the commissioner is of his opinion that an assessment of penalties ought to be imposed on that particular multinational group.So then despite subsection (1) subsection (2) continues that "this section does not apply in so far as the ultimate owner establishes in proceedings challenging the assessment that the assessment is excessive or that the ultimate owner is not chargeable with the penalty." So the commissioner makes an assessment for an ultimate owner of a large multinational group of the amount of a penalty under that section 139AAB and then the commissioner has an opinion that it ought to be opposed despite that particularly subsection (1) if the owner then establishes in proceedings challenging the assessment that the assessment is excessive—and we have had some commentary around the particular penalties and how much they are—or that the ultimate owner is not chargeable with the penalty the question for me is: how then does that particular ultimate owner under subsection (2)—what is the procedure for them to be able to dispute that decision made by the commissioner in subsection (1).Ryan Hamilton: It's an 0800 number.Hon BARBARA EDMONDS: And again the member on the other side may mock this particular element of interest and penalties but we are dealing with large multinational entities who have complex tax affairs and if the Commissioner of Inland Revenue says to a person "You owe X amount of tax because it's my opinion that you have sought this amount." we need to be clear that there is a way for those taxpayers to be able to dispute it because if not I don't think that's a laughing matter.So then it goes to new section 94BC the "Assessment of penalty for member of large multinational group failing to provide information". Again the commissioner then can "make an assessment for a member of a large multinational group of the amount of a penalty under [that] section 139AB that in the Commissioner's opinion ought to be imposed and the member is [again] liable to pay the penalty assessed." But then we have the caveat in new subsection (2) that "this section does not apply in so far as the member establishes in proceedings challenging the assessment that the assessment is excessive or that the member is not chargeable with the penalty."So my questions are: procedurally what is the best way for an ultimate owner to be able to challenge that assessment or opinion that's been made by the Commissioner of Inland Revenue? My second question is: what is excessive—it might be in the definitions the Minister may be able to clarify that particular element—and if the member is not chargeable with that penalty?"