Mallard Trevor: Taxation (GST and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
Mallard Trevor: Taxation (GST and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
[Volume:669;Page:16134] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I will start off with a relatively unusual contribution one that might sometimes be ruled out of order at a Committee stage. I want to refer to a clause that is not here. I ask the Minister in the chair the Minister of Revenue what happened to new clause 78A. If we look carefully at the top of page 58 running over from page 57 we see clause 78. Then if we look at the Supplementary Order Paper we see clause 77 as amended at the bottom of page 61. But at the top of page 62 of the Supplementary Order Paper we have new clause 78B. I am wondering what happened to clause 78A. I want some sort of assurance that there is not a printing mistake and that we have not jumped over from one area to another area by accident. I would appreciate that assurance even if it is only a nod and a wink from the Minister. I know the way these things are fixed up. When there is a drafting or a numeration mistake in a bill then the Clerk’s Office—working no doubt with the Inland Revenue Department—will be able to sort it out later on if in fact it was just a mistake and there was never meant to be a clause 78A. If there is meant to be a 78A then I want an assurance from the Minister that it is not a vital clause. It is not a vital clause? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Well— 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: It is the Committee stage. You are always allowed to go back and forth. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: It is a drafting style issue. Nothing was deleted. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: So it is a drafting style issue. So they do not have As any more they have Bs—I apologise it might be the case. So we go now from nothing to B and then to C rather than from nothing to A. Well I say that if one were working one’s way down the street trying to find a flat and “A” was always missing I would submit that that is a drafting lack of style. My colleague the Hon Pete Hodgson has pointed out something that I would have got to on my second third or fourth call on this particular area. In fact we have two areas to note in clause 79B. I tell the member—and I will get back to it—that what clause 79B in the Supplementary Order Paper does is amend clause 79B in the bill itself.  
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: I don’t think so. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The member might not think so but that was my interpretation. But I will rely on my colleagues who have looked at this bill more carefully than I have.  
The second question I ask the Minister is why there are different arrangements for superannuation funds and retirement savings schemes vis-á-vis portfolio investment entities that are such versus portfolio investment entities that are not. I cannot think of a good reason for having a different reporting system for the notification of investors. Some people invest through superannuation schemes—some of the portfolio investment entities are superannuation funds or retirement savings schemes and some of them are not. There appears to be special treatment being given—delayed reporting treatment—to the portfolio investment entities that are in fact themselves superannuation funds or retirement savings schemes. I ask the Minister to indicate why there is a delay in those extra advantages in place for that particular type of scheme.  
I will now talk about issuer status and ask what the system is that the Inland Revenue Department uses when it is making decisions after someone has notified under new section 32M(2B) in clause 79(1)—I have already pleaded guilty to having trouble with the modern style that has been used within this bill—where it says “to become an approved issuer the person must notify the Commissioner that they wish to have approved issuer status.” The legislation pretty well sets out the sorts of people who have that approved issuer status but the question I have is whether that will flow pretty much automatically and whether they will get the approved issuer status. 
This does not appear—again I am subject to correction from my colleagues; I am talking about the bill as it was reported back from the select committee—to replace any other legislation. So my question asks whether this is necessary or whether people in the past had the ability to have issuer status without there being the necessity for legislation and whether there was discretion on the part of the Commissioner of Inland Revenue or whether it was just assumed. I suppose the question about whether we are adding unnecessary detail in the legislation could go to Sir Roger Douglas and others. I do not think we have ever indicated before that one had to write a letter in order to make an application. I wonder whether that complicates it.  
The next question concerns the type of notification. I am looking at new subsection (2B) of section 32M in clause 79. Is there a requirement for the notification to be in writing? Does a facsimile count? Is there a form on the Inland Revenue Department website? Can it be done by email? Is there a Facebook way of notifying the commissioner that one wants to have approved issuer status? I have been unable—again I am subject to correction by the Minister—to find notification in this part of the legislation. I accept that the Minister will probably berate me by saying that this is not the new bit of the legislation but the bit that has been to the select committee. If I had been on the committee I would have spent some time trying to work out at that stage what notification is but seeing— 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: We’ll take you on for the next one. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I thank the member. I think the Opposition spokesperson on finance wants to pass his role on but I do not think that that is totally his decision. I go back to the bill and I want to check that new clauses 80B and 80C are still within this part of the legislation. I would not at this late stage want to miss them out. I see that yes they are still within Part 3. In fact they must be part of it because my colleague the Hon Pete Hodgson was referring to them before. I think he was making the point that I would have made. I use the word “mirror” because although there is the expression “look-through” in fact it appears that some sort of mirror arrangement is being set up. I know we should not always expect tax legislation to be in pure English because my former colleagues who are accountants and more especially those who are lawyers would not make any money if it were in pure English. But generally it should be and this sort of mirror arrangement is quite hard for a layperson to understand.