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:16103] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I would like the Minister in the chair the Hon Peter Dunne to focus on clauses 15B and 16 in Part 1 of the Taxation (GST and Remedial Matters) Bill as opposed to Supplementary Order Paper 187 in his name. If it is all right with you Mr Chair I will take one of the calls and my colleague will use the next one. I am not sure whether he will speak on this issue as well.  
I just go to clause 16 “Deduction of tax from payment due to defaulters” and I will focus on the arrangements where money is held in a joint bank account. It occurs to me that a number of people have joint bank accounts or arrangements—for example trust lawyers. There are a number of circumstances where individuals are signatories of a bank account and money is paid into it which theoretically as a trustee they can draw out and it might be that only their signature is required. According to new subsection (1B)(b) of section 43 in clause 16 money can be withdrawn on their signature. But what happens if that money despite being in a joint bank account is actually the property of the other signatory of the bank account?  
The Minister proposes that notwithstanding the money belonging to someone else the Inland Revenue Department is able to go into a bank account—an account that does not contain money that the department has put in but contains money that is absolutely independently there. I am looking at some of my colleagues and slightly blaming them here. How come there was a proposal that we would support legislation to allow the Inland Revenue Department to go into an account and take out money that does not belong to the tax defaulter?  
I want to know why Sir Roger Douglas is supporting legislation that would allow the Inland Revenue Department to take money that belongs to a third party out of an account to satisfy the debt of a defaulter whose money it is not. The Inland Revenue Department goes into an account which is not solely in the name of the defaulter—it is in two names; the money held in it belongs to a third party—and Roger Douglas is supporting legislation that allows the Inland Revenue Department to go into that account with no notice to anyone with no pleases and no thankyous and confiscate that cash. [ 
Interruption 
] The member says “rubbish”. The member has not read the bill because that is exactly what clause 16 of this bill does. That is exactly what clause 16 of this bill does. I want to know whether Roger Douglas who is meant to stand for freedoms for the integrity of bank accounts and for not having State involvement thinks that is an appropriate thing to do.  
I do not want to say there are an excessive number of tax-defaulting lawyers but there are a few lawyers around who are signatories as trustees to bank accounts. Like Chris Finlayson they are not currently operating them. The accounts are nothing to do with them but there is money in those accounts that does not belong to them. I just ask why the Inland Revenue Department should have the remedy of going into those accounts which might not have been used for 20 years by the tax defaulter and take money from those accounts. What can be right about that? What are the ethics of that situation whereby we are giving an enormous power to the State to confiscate money to satisfy a tax debt by taking money from someone who is not the defaulter? Confiscating money from someone who is not the defaulter is something that I think needs to be looked at.  
Another area which I am not sure whether my colleague will pick up on as he takes a call in 5 seconds’ time is the question of clause 15B on credit and debit notes.