Watts Simon; Parker DavidSIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Thank you very much Mr Chair and I appreciate the Minister's providing a little bit more information in regards to that point. I want to refer to Part 4 clause 135B which is an amendment that was made in regards to Authorisation to make payments under small business cashflow loan scheme". What I'm interested in from the Minister in this regard is the context in which that was deemed to be made and the extent to which that aspect—which is on page 137 just for reference—was brought into play. We appreciate the implications around the impact of COVID and we appreciate that this has brought a number of unique implications to a wide range of business areas in this country and obviously in this case particularly in regards to the taxation of those businesses. But I think what would be fair to say is—and we saw this across a number of other areas of legislation—that it was the aspect around the fact that a number of these points were done under considerable pace and it would be fair to say that in some other areas of legislation in regards to COVID we've noted that there have been a number of errors made subsequently when we've reviewed that. So I'm looking for more context in terms of this point. I refer in particular to the aspect of the definition around "associated person who receives the benefit of the grant"—and I quote from clause 135C—and the extent to how broadly that associated person definition is being looked at. The other aspect that I'm interested in is it talks about "adequate consideration for the supply of goods and services" and I guess that is a point at which I will no doubt have a range of considerations around what is deemed to be adequate consideration. What I'd be interested for the Minister to address is in terms of where he sees that and how that is going to be determined I guess in terms of what is deemed adequate consideration. So I'll leave it there if I may Minister and then we'll come back to a couple of other areas. Thank you. Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Revenue): Payments that are made under the likes of the COVID support payments or under the business cash-flow scheme are made pursuant to applications under which the people that are seeking to receive the money make certain declarations to the Inland Revenue and if they're assessed according to the criteria for which the processing is generally computerised for large numbers of transactions they then get the payment. There are integrity measures that are used by the Inland Revenue to take samples and check whether things are all as they ought to be. Some of those end up in applications being declined; others are found after the money is disbursed. Where the money is disbursed wrongly there is a right to get the money back from the person to whom it is paid. If they say they can't pay it because they've given the money to somebody else the Inland Revenue needs the power to get the money back from the person to whom it's given and the associated person test is to find the class of people from whom the money could be sought to be repaid in those circumstances. The associated person definition is quite a broad definition which already sits in the income tax legislation. That definition is not changed by this legislation. It imports that same definition. As to the question as to what is or isn't adequate consideration I'd presume that that's an assessment as to whether it was for value. If the money was paid in return for fair value of services then it probably would be for adequate consideration. If it was gifted or it was somehow used to repay a debt I think that probably wouldn't be seen to be for adequate consideration."