Ardern Shane: Taxation (Annual Rates Maori Organisations Taxpayer Compliance and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — In Committee 
Ardern Shane: Taxation (Annual Rates Maori Organisations Taxpayer Compliance and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:4243] 
SHANE ARDERN (NZ National—Taranaki - King Country) 
: 
 Here we are again under a Labour-led Government—and it is a good thing that the Minister of Maori Affairs is in the Chamber—debating legislation that adds more costs to business in this country. We have been told: “We’re going to look after small business. We’re going to look after entrepreneurs. We’re going to help people out and we’re going to help Maori in particular.” But despite that rhetoric which we have heard up and down the country here we are passing legislation that does exactly the opposite of the stated objective. 
My colleague the very good member Pansy Wong wondered whether she could carry out this debate in Chinese. I told her I could see no reason for her not being able to do that. The Minister of Maori Affairs answers most of his questions in Chinese so I can see no reason for that not being permissible. But here we are again adding costs under a Labour-led Government to the very people who provide it with the wherewithal that it desperately needs to spend on its social agenda. And there is no better clause to demonstrate that than clause 146(1). Under that clause the definition of “PAYE intermediary” means that somebody else can pay the tax on behalf of another person. That seems fair enough on the surface. I cannot see anything wrong with it. But when we look at the clause in Part 3 which states that taxpayers can be penalised up to 100 percent of the tax outstanding—unless in cases where it is wrong they prove they are innocent—and pay interest on that as well at whatever rate is set by the Inland Revenue Department at the time and then look at what happens in Part 4 clause 146(1) we find that if a person who is making the payment on the taxpayer’s behalf goes broke in the process thereby losing the taxpayer’s money then it is still the taxpayer who is still liable. 
I wonder whether the Maori corporations—and I can see the Minister is listening very carefully now—that presented submissions on this bill to the Finance and Expenditure Committee said they were happy with the notion that if they enter into a new business venture they will be liable for 100 percent of the tax outstanding plus interest on that at whatever rate is set by the Inland Revenue Department and that they will still be liable for that amount even if the person who is paying the Inland Revenue Department on their behalf goes broke in the process. I wonder whether they raised that issue with the select committee. I wonder whether the Minister of Maori Affairs was made aware of that. Obviously the Hon John Tamihere was not made aware of it otherwise he would have spoken about it in his speech earlier. He never mentioned it. However it is an issue. 
I would like the Minister in the chair the Hon Dr Michael Cullen to get some advice from his officials and take a call to clear this up for the Committee and for those who are listening tonight. That is the way it looks to me and I know there were submissions to the select committee by senior accountancy firms in this country that also pointed that out. 
I see that the honourable United Future member Gordon Copeland is listening. I know he has some knowledge in this area so perhaps he will take another call and clear this up. One of the things I know for sure is that people who voted for United Future never realised that party would load all those costs on to them. I am sure that if voters had realised that then United Future would not have got the amount of votes it did. Its leader said the party stands for common sense but this bill absolutely flies in the face of common sense. 
Clause 146(1) has the ability to add a huge cost in litigation extra tax and losses because if an agent who is paying the tax on behalf of a business fails to meet the obligations set down by the Inland Revenue Department it could potentially result in the failure of a few businesses. If that happens the taxpayer who authorised the agent to act on behalf of his or her business will be liable for substantial amounts of funds—and we could be talking about amounts of up to $100000 or maybe $200000—which they may potentially have to pay twice. That will be the case in most Maori corporations because they will be employing an accountant to do this work for them. I wonder whether the Minister has considered that.