Adams AmyHon AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn): Thank you Mr Chair. I want to come back to the point I was raising in my last contribution because I invited Minister Stuart Nash to address it and he certainly got to his feet and spoke to it but I'm far from satisfied that his contribution resolves the issue. What I have done instead and in light of that response—because the Minister was unable to point to the provision in the bill which requires that the investigation be commenced within the four years which is what the Finance and Expenditure Committee required—is I have taken the liberty of putting a handwritten amendment on the Table to make exactly that provision in the bill. Just before we start discussing it I just want to quote for the committee the part from the select committee report that talks about this because it's very very clear. Mr Nash in his contribution said This does exactly what the select committee said."—which I don't agree with—and he also talked about the fact that the IRD can start an investigation with employers. Well we know they can; this is a question of whether we're obliging them to which is what was the select committee recommendation. So the select committee said "We recommend amending this provision"—so this is clause 36(4) amending section GC 13—"to extend the time bar to seven years only"—and that's the critical word—"in cases where Inland Revenue has begun a transfer pricing tax investigation within four years of the relevant tax return being filed and has notified the taxpayer". So not to labour the point but very clearly it's only to be extended when there has been a tax investigation commenced and notification. Now what clause 36(4) does is only provide for the notification requirement. Now I certainly wouldn't want to imply that there's been any improper motivation here but remember we started with a provision where IRD wanted a blanket seven years and the select committee said no. That's our proper role. The select committee said no to the IRD having a blanket seven years or seven years at their discretion and the select committee very clearly in that passage I've just quoted from said "We were only happy with IRD being able to extend it to seven years if they had commenced an investigation"—only if they'd done that not "they could have" "they might have" "they're entitled to". They must have and with notification. This actually really does matter Minister and it is very concerning to me to find that that obligation—or that they must have commenced an investigation—is not there. Now in select committee I remember specifically asking the officials—some of whom are with us—whether commencing a tax investigation was a definitive thing that taxpayers and tax lawyers could understand and look to because it sounded to me a little bit amorphous. How do you know whether an investigation has been commenced? And I was reassured that "No no commencing a tax investigation is quite a definitive process step that's well-understood and it's clearly signalled and there's a framework they go through." If records of the meeting are kept I'm sure that would be recorded. I was concerned that if you're going to put something in law it has to be a definitive step that we can say "Yes that has happened and so therefore the extension applies." We were absolutely assured that commencing a tax investigation is a very defined thing. There are steps that have to happen and it will be very clear whether or not that has happened in the time frame. So I don't accept the advice that I imagine was passed to the Minister where he said "Well it's just one of those things and it can happen at any time." This is a very clear-cut line in the sand and if the Minister takes the opportunity—if his officials pass it to him—to read that passage in the select committee report which I've quoted faithfully but if he wants to reassure himself. We were very clear there was a two-legged requirement to extending it. It had to have commenced a tax investigation of the transfer pricing within four years and it had to have notified. What we've got in the bill at the moment is only a notification requirement. That would give IRD what they started with which is the ability to have a blanket extension to seven years in all cases. That is not what the select committee agreed to that is not what we wanted to see back in front of the House and if the Minister is going to be true to the select committee view—and it was a cross-party view; it wasn't a split view—then I would encourage him to support the amendment. There's nothing particularly positional in it. It's not a point-scoring exercise; it is a genuine intent to see the wording of the select committee report which is very clear reflected in the legislation in the House.Now in my last contribution I asked the Minister if I had missed it to point me to the requirement where they had to have commenced a transfer pricing investigation in order to extend the time bar. He wasn't able to do so and I don't criticise him for it. He would have received advice but the advice that he reflected back to us in no way addressed that. And I think Mr Nash to be absolutely clear about this if we're going to give effect to what the select committee said there must be a two-legged requirement to extending it. It is not enough that the IRD simply chooses to advise the taxpayer that they want longer. That is not what we agreed to. That is not what the select committee report talks about. I would urge you to support the amendment in my name. There's no press release around it there's no positioning; it's just to get what the select committee said right and at the very least to put it in the Hansard that that is absolutely the requirement in this bill. I can't see it; I encourage you to point to it. But for the sake of getting the legislation clear so the taxpayers can understand their obligations with utter clarity and to have the obligations that this Parliament—[Time expired]"