Pugh MaureenMAUREEN PUGH (National): Thank you for the call Mr Chair. I take the opportunity to stand and speak to the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2018-19 Modernising Tax Administration and Remedial Matters) Bill in its committee stage this evening. I think my contribution is probably going to be shorter than the title.We all know that this bill is an omnibus bill and it does impact on several Acts. There's no argument on this side of the Chamber that we do need to modernise our taxation system and deal with the taxation rates for the year. As many of my colleagues have mentioned this afternoon we actually do believe that there has been a lost opportunity in this bill to leave money in the pockets of Kiwis rather than adopting the tax and spend policies that this Government is so set on. But we are not supporting this bill from the Government which does tax hard-working Kiwis as though they're a bottomless piggy bank and then goes on to fund untargeted and ill-thought-through policies.But I'm going to turn my attention also to Part 4 which relates to the Child Support Act 1991 and in particular to clause 239 section 35(6) where the proposed bill talks about the role of the commissioner. Now the section 35 amendment replaces (6) with If a person's taxable income for a tax year has not been assessed the Commissioner must determine the person's taxable income on the basis of the income and any other particulars known to the Commissioner." So my question to the Minister in the chair tonight is: what are those other particulars likely to be and how will they come to the commissioner's attention if they are not recorded as income that is available to the commissioner? The reason that this is important is because those assessments that are made can have quite dire impacts on a liable parent who is liable for child support payments. I think I can safely assume that there would be very few MPs in this Parliament that have not had a constituent case where child support payments have had a crippling impact on a parent and they are seeking some relief. So with this in mind it would be helpful if the Minister in the chair could comment on whether he believes there is an adequate process for an appeal around these determinations that can be made by the commissioner and that they are made under this clause 239. My other point I'd like to make regarding this proposed replacement to section 35(6) relates to the commissioner making determinations on a person's taxable income. Is this an activity that is likely to be delegated and if it is to be delegated what are those delegations likely to look like? I imagine that they will have to be because it's unlikely that the commissioner himself will be able to manage this without the delegations being in place. But it's important that we're clear about who will be making those determinations and undertaking that role on behalf of the commissioner because the flow-on effects of that are life changing for a liable parent. Now I'm not suggesting for one minute that we soften up on the approach to child support payments but in the Government's own words we do need to be fair. If it's not deemed to be fair by the liable parent then there does need to be a suitable process that can be followed to reach resolution especially when that outcome is determined by the commissioner and that determination has been made.I think it's also appropriate that I use the opportunity to mention the huge investment in technology that's been made—billions of dollars in fact—that has gone into the Business Transformation programme that has allowed the treatment of tax to be easier for users and to allow people less time for compliance and costs and certainly less time in settling their tax bills. We certainly on this side of the Chamber support the introduction of the automatic tax refunds. Thank you Mr Chair."