Penk Chris; Parker DavidCHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much Mr Chair. May I begin by congratulating you and your fellow presiding officers on your role as this is the first opportunity that I've had to speak in Parliament other than briefly a moment ago and I thank you for that. I also acknowledge the Minister in the chair and his colleagues following the general election. I do want to talk a little bit and indeed ask a question of the Minister in relation to clause 33 within the bill that we have in front of us. Others on this side of the House have already spoken I think really clearly about the absurdity that we have whereby the same natural person the Hon David Parker is on two sides of the argument—indeed the poacher and gamekeeper roles that he is playing as the Attorney-General and as the Minister receiving advice effectively from himself about the inappropriateness of the legislation and its inconsistency with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. So I just did want to place that on the record and particularly in the context of legislation that is somewhat incoherent even in the terms of that particular clause that's in front of us. So we see that the Minister has justified the change which others on this side have pointed out is surely not an urgent aspect of tax reform in relation to a particular case or a particular matter between two gentlemen. He's based that on a view that he says is out there in relation to the matter on the part of some tax professionals. I take the Minister at his word that he's heard such advice from at least some professionals but there must surely be others out there who have a different view or it is at least possible. This is exactly the kind of thing that should be thrashed out in a select committee process. Others too on this side have spoken about the desirability of the Privacy Commissioner weighing in on the subject. The Hon Michael Woodhouse has clearly stated that the Privacy Commissioner quite understandably has not had a chance to reflect and form a considered view on this. But even just in terms of the Attorney-General's advice we have no assurance that the changes that are proposed in the tabled amendment by the Minister are going to do the things that the Minister believes they're going to do and actually rectify the inconsistency with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. So even the terms of the bill are problematic. We've got a person who has information demanded of him or her in an information demand. Well that's a self-licking ice cream of course. And helpfully I suppose in terms of the amendment we've got the information demand" phrase being removed. Well that's fine but it just goes to the shoddy nature of the last minute rushed process that we're engaging in without the proper scrutiny.We've got the development of policy for the improvement or reform of the tax system. Well I'm intrigued to know what kind of reforms the Minister might be planning that don't represent an improvement in his view. We've also got information that the commissioner considers relevant through a purpose relating to the development of tax policy. Why are we one step removed? Why would it not be for the purpose of developing tax policy? Why would it be a purpose merely relating to the development? It seems to me that this is a much wider ambit than is safe in constitutional terms indeed a fishing expedition in terms of the powers being given as well as the effect in any individual case for specific taxpayers or groups of taxpayers.We've heard about particular cases that the Minister is concerned about. This is dangerous territory for us to be considering lawmaking in respect of specific cases not the general principles involved. The rule of law is such that laws should be made in a way that is very general. And the confused nature of this is not only as I've said in the realm of tax and revenue but also in terms of the way that the law has been put together. I for one would have welcomed the opportunity of the New Zealand Law Society—as well as the Privacy Commissioner and other tax experts who might have had competing ideas about the desirability of this policy—to be brought forward. It's a real shame we're not going to have that opportunity. So I'll be listening very carefully for what it's worth to the remainder of the commentary by the Minister in this time. It's all we're going to have to go on.Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Revenue): In respect of the ability to gather information I would make the comparison that I made in the second reading—and the member may not have heard me say it then—that under the Statistics Act there is a power of compulsion to gather information that's needed for public policy purposes. In effect the public policy work that is done in respect of taxation is done in large part by the Commissioner of Inland Revenue and her staff through information that they collect. So in some ways you can see them as being a comparator to the statistics department in respect of the income tax system where those powers exist.In respect of whether this is some overreach I would note that the UK legislation and I have their Finance Act 2011 before me has information-gathering powers. Over there in Schedule 23 "1(1) An officer of Revenue and Customs may by notice in writing require a relevant data-holder to provide relevant data." And clause 2(1) says "The power in paragraph 1(1) is exercisable to assist with the efficient and effective discharge of HMRC's tax functions." Then it says "(a) whether a particular function or more generally and (b) whether involving a particular taxpayer or taxpayers generally." I think it's absolutely clear that Inland Revenue needs information-gathering powers like this."