Clark David: Taxation (Residential Land Withholding Tax GST on Online Services and Student Loans) Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeClark David: Taxation (Residential Land Withholding Tax GST on Online Services and Student Loans) Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 12 April 2016. Volume:713;Page:10390. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North): My colleague Stuart Nash was discussing the offshore persons aspects of this bill. I myself was not on the Finance and Expenditure Committee so I will preface my comments with that but I have identified particularly in the notes around the bill—and I will search further for future contributions into the actual clauses in the bill—the issues around anti - money-laundering identification in respect of offshore persons.There is a recommendation that comes back with this bill for amendments that will make gathering a bank account and understanding the bank account less onerous for those who are offshore persons. This I think is worrying in light of the events of recent days. I invite members of the select committee to also contribute because as Mr Nash just noted they might have looked at this in a different light in respect of blind trusts and other things had the events of the Panama Papers and so on which have become public fodder in recent days been in front of the committee at that stage.I note that in the commentary on the bill it says: “Officials have undertaken to continue to work on solutions whether legislative or operational for some of the … practical difficulties and unintended consequences.” It says that in a paragraph that speaks specifically to anti - money-laundering identity verification. Officials are wanting to maintain the integrity of the system to make sure that the people who are operating here are vetted and to ensure that those people are not involved in money-laundering but they are wanting to do that without placing too much burden on those people. Where that balance falls is a legitimate question to be asking in tax law. I think that what we have seen in recent days is that burden may not be in the right place.So I encourage those officials to look into that and I look forward to this debate as it continues and as it begins to open up those questions of whether the balance is struck right in this part of the bill.The anti - money-laundering verification undertaken by New Zealand entities—somebody is exempt I read if they already have this verification. If they have achieved that verification once it seems they are exempt—in this bill—from having to achieve it again to avoid duplication of process. Where are the checks and balances? Is that a once and for all thing? If somebody has been certified as being free of any kind of wrongdoing in respect of anti - money-laundering in one investigation are they free forevermore? I wonder whether Mr Foss may be able to shed some light on that as the person representing the bill to the Committee as the Minister in the chair because these are questions that I think now demand answers.We have in this country a reputation as a fair dealer when it comes to tax—historically that is true—but what we have seen over the years and during the time of this Government is the gap between rich and poor growing.We had tax changes that meant the top 40 percent of the benefits of those changes went to the top 10 percent of earners and the bottom earners got a few percent which was swallowed up in a GST change. We have got a tax system that has become less fair over time and people are concerned. The public whom I have spoken to in recent days have questioned me on whether our tax system is really fair any more and here we have in this bill exemptions for people who have previously been cleared of money-laundering allegations as I read it.I would appreciate it if the Minister in the chair would clarify whether there is a once and for all stamp of approval if people have been through one set of investigations or whether there are likely to be more investigations and whether the tests that are in place for money-laundering are sufficient in this bill because I am not clear having read the notes—as I said I do want to go back and speak to the individual clauses and come back to this debate.I might not carry my particular contribution much further at this stage because I do want to dig in and do a little bit more research having just stumbled across this particular matter of concern. But what I can say in closing is that I think we need to be assured that we have a fair tax system. I think we are right as Kiwis to be worried when we see non-resident people taking advantage of our growing status as a tax haven and the damage that that does to New Zealand’s reputation. I think that the Panama Papers have cast a whole different light on the tax legislation that we pass through this House and it will need to be more closely examined.