Mallard Trevor: Taxation (GST and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
Mallard Trevor: Taxation (GST and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
[Volume:669;Page:16105] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I apologise to my colleagues who did not recognise the fact that Tau Henare made yet another error— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I want to quote to you what I said. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I have already ruled. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: It was “I move That the question be now put.” 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I have ruled. I have ruled. Sit down. Sit down or you are out. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I think we had a chocolate-covered banana did we not? That is what we got for Tau Henare in the end. We could not get something that was brown on the outside and yellow in the middle other than a chocolate-covered banana—and a chocolate-covered banana with very poor literacy skills. That is the party of national standards. That is the party of national standards and Tau Henare cannot even read out a simple bit of paper. No to be fair Aaron Gilmore might have written it down for him and he read it accurately. Aaron Gilmore wrote it down for him and he read it accurately. I apologise to Tau Henare. His literacy skills might not be a problem for him; he might have read exactly what Aaron Gilmore wrote. But then Aaron Gilmore is perfect. He tells us all the time. Aaron Gilmore drafted this Supplementary Order Paper in his sleep. 
Rahui Katene 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. This speaker has been going for about 1 minute and I have yet to hear anything on the bill. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I am the judge of that. I ask the member to speak on Part 1. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The discussion that Tau Henare had on Part 1 was pathetic. It was absolutely pathetic. He tried to say “I move the question be now put.” but he did not even get it right. That was his sole contribution. Did Aaron Gilmore make a speech? He is the expert! No he did not make a speech. He got the closure motion right to be fair. He got it right but I do not know whether he misread what he wrote down and got it right that way or whether he read it accurately. His contribution on the bill was—[ 
Interruption 
]—I agree Aaron Gilmore’s contribution was very limited. There was a very limited contribution from Aaron Gilmore on this particular bill. [ 
Interruption 
] No I think it is fair to say it was one of his better contributions. It was one of the biggest contributions that he has made in Parliament.  
I say to my colleague Stuart Nash that I was not convinced by his speech. There was one point that was absolutely valid and that was that clause 16 of the bill was improved by the select committee. There is no doubt. One only has to look at the addition of “or other authorisation”—although that probably modernises it slightly—and more so new subsection (1C) which states that subsection (1B): “does not apply when the joint bank account is an account of a partnership that files a return …”. But that does not cover a trust arrangement. A trust is not a joint partnership. 
Stuart Nash 
: A loan trust. The taxpayer does not own the trust. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: That is absolutely right; it does not stop the money coming out of it because it is a bank account. A trust has a bank account. The person does not have to own it. The person does not have to own the money according to this bill; all he or she has to do is be a signatory or a name on a bank account. There is no question of the ownership of the money being in the person. This can take money out of trust accounts of defaulting lawyers that actually belongs to third parties just because a lawyer happens to be a signatory on the bank account—just because a lawyer happens to be a signatory. That is an absolute outrage. I do not know why Stuart Nash is defending the Government. I do not know why Stuart Nash and my other colleagues are supporting the Government in this— 
Hon Members 
: We’re not; we’re voting against it. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: We are voting against it now but probably for the wrong reasons. I do not know why he was going to support it. I wonder about the whole economic team on this side frankly. I wonder whether they have been duped by Peter Dunne and this legislation into allowing a sneaky way for the Inland Revenue Department to go into lawyers’ trusts accounts and take money out that does not belong to the defaulting lawyers but to third parties only because the person—the lawyer the defaulter—is a signatory on the account. That is all that is required. Clearly there is an exception under new subsection (1C) but that is a relatively minor exception.