Hide Rodney: Taxation (Annual Rates Maori Organisations Taxpayer Compliance and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — Second Reading 
Hide Rodney: Taxation (Annual Rates Maori Organisations Taxpayer Compliance and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:606;Page:3929] 
RODNEY HIDE 
: I am pleased—the Minister of Maori Affairs Parekura Horomia said: “That’s right.” Well we say that every business in New Zealand every organisation in New Zealand and every person in New Zealand should be able to enjoy that same benefit and be taxed at 19.5c in the dollar. Why allow just Maori to enjoy that benefit? Why not non-Maori? Why not Chinese people? Why not European people? Why not Croatian people? Why should they be taxed at 33c or 39c in the dollar when Maori are to be taxed at 19.5c? 
There is a third reason. We have a serious problem with this bill. I take members to clause 103. This is a shocker. We had an Inland Revenue Department inquiry ably chaired by Mr Peter Dunne and members of that committee were shocked to learn that when the Inland Revenue Department asserts a debt a taxpayer is required to produce 50 percent of the debt that is asserted. Members were shocked to hear that. I give a scenario. The department comes along and tells for example Mr Catchpole that he owes it $1 million. He replies that he does not think he does but he is told that he does. It is then Mr Catchpole’s job as a taxpayer to prove that he does not. That means he has to go to the Taxation Revenue Authority and to the court. But before he does that he has to pay half of the assessment—$500000. We have heard of New Zealand taxpayers who have gone bankrupt having to pay that half then finding out that the original assessment was wrong as the courts would rule—somewhat pointlessly after the taxpayer has been bankrupted. So this bill quite rightly does away with that. Clause 103(1) repealing section 138I(1) and (3) has been struck out and now inserts under new subclause (1C) the following new subsection (2B): “Despite subsection (2) the Commissioner may require a disputant to pay all tax in dispute that is the subject of the challenge if the Commissioner”—which means any tax officer with the delegated authority—“considers that there is a significant risk that the tax in dispute will not be paid should the disputant’s challenge not be successful.” 
I ask Government members opposite whether they have ever heard of a more iniquitous clause. For example the Inland Revenue Department could assert that Mr Catchpole owes $1 million. It is not its job to prove that he does; it is Mr Catchpole’s job to prove that he does not. The commissioner or his or her officer—anyone in the department—can then say that he or she thinks that Mr Catchpole will do a runner and hit him for the $1 million. He can be hit for the $1 million before he proves that he does not owe the money—before he can get to the court. This clause means that it is not only 100 percent of the tax that Mr Catchpole would have to pay but all penalties and interest owing. The commissioner is being given the discretionary power to declare an assessment that may not be true and to demand that that assessment be paid before the taxpayer’s case is tested in court. Not only that the commissioner can demand that the taxpayer pay any interest or penalties that the commissioner deems are payable and therefore to rule on and to bankrupt a taxpayer before that person has his or her day in court. This bill is wrong. We oppose it. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I call the honourable member David Parker.