Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you Mr Chair. It's with pleasure that I address Part 2 of the Taxation (Neutralising Base Erosion and Profit Shifting) Bill. Specifically I wish to address clause 51 of the bill which will insert new section 21BA into the parent Act.I would like to outline the significance of this clause before I speak to some quite specific aspects of those provisions. The significance is really in the heavy powers that are going to be accorded to the commissioner in relation to requiring information from a large multinational group. In new section 21BA(1) we read This section applies if the Commissioner notifies"—noting that that's a unilateral instigation of a process as reflected by the fact that there's an information demand and a requirement by the member to comply. So the language is very clearly setting out a situation in which the IRD through its commissioner has very large powers and we don't need to think too long and hard about overseas jurisdictions in which tax departments—or services as they might be referred to in other countries—have used their powers in a way in which the citizens of that country would surely not approve. I would not suggest for a moment Mr Chair or indeed to the Minister in the chair Phil Twyford or to anyone else listening that our own revenue service would apply powers in an ultra vires way but nevertheless it's important to bear that in mind when we consider exactly what powers we are going to give them to conduct lawfully in accordance with the statute book.So specifically then in relation to new subsection (1)(c) a point has been highlighted in submissions to the Finance and Expenditure Committee—and I note in passing that I was not a member of the select committee for very many of the times that the committee considered this bill. The phrase that has been met with some objection—or at least some concern perhaps it's not too far to say—by the New Zealand Law Society is the one that states: "whether or not in the knowledge possession or control of the member". The significance of that is that information that must be provided as required by the commissioner is not excluded on the basis that the member doesn't have knowledge possession or control of that information. So that's a pretty high threshold. The suggestion of the New Zealand Law Society—and it seems a sensible one to me at least—is some slight stepping back from that absolute strict liability requirement so that good-faith measures to hold possess or have such knowledge could be applied. Alternatively we might consider wording such as "best endeavours" or another similar type of approach.In any case bearing in mind that the onus is placed fairly and squarely on the taxpayer—namely the member as defined—I think some slight mitigation of that pretty tough stringent requirement could be in order. If the Minister is prepared to take a call to give some indication of whether he'll contemplate that then I will draft a Supplementary Order Paper along those lines—and I would be very happy to do so.Heading to the next subsection within that same section that I'd like to address subsection (3) I note that a submission was made along similar lines by various submitters—but most compellingly in my view by PricewaterhouseCoopers—that the provisions excluding evidence are "too harsh". Subsection (3) talks about a situation in which a member of a large multinational group might dispute a prosecution imposition of a penalty and so on and in doing so the rules for the evidence being allowed or not as then set out in subsection (4) are subject to a number of criteria. Each of those criteria is required in order for an exclusion to be set aside such that—[Time expired]"