Watts Simon; Dean JacquiSIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Well thank you very much Madam Speaker for the opportunity to speak on the Companies (Levies) Amendment Bill second reading. It is an absolute pleasure as a member of Parliament for North Shore to have this opportunity. I had the pleasure as the prior speaker member and chair of the Finance and Expenditure Committee just noted to sit on this committee through the deliberation process of the select committee. Madam Speaker as you'll appreciate on such processes while we didn't have a large number of submissions it was interesting to get some feedback on those that did make submissions and it raised a number of concerns for us in regards to I guess the process which was undertaken or not undertaken in regards to drafting and recommending this bill.In the submissions we heard we asked a simple question. We asked: is there any way other than putting this legislation on the table to fix the problem? I think that's a pretty legitimate question to ask and you would expect that we would've got an answer that was reasonably comprehensive from officials to say Yeah absolutely. We've looked at all the different alternatives across the board and we've come up with this as the preferred option." In short that wasn't the case. A horizon scan of ways in which to fix this problem using international examples or other jurisdictions where they have similar systems was not undertaken. This solution in terms of legislation in an amendment bill was deemed as the only solution option that was basically considered and therefore recommended. I don't think that's unreasonable to say from an Opposition perspective that that doesn't necessarily feel like we've been through due process.The example in terms of the way in which my colleague Mr Andrew Bayly noted around cross-subsidisation: there are for example—and we questioned officials in regards to this—other mechanisms to achieve the split-out or the separation such as through systems enhancements and other technology solutions. You know call me old-fashioned but some of the accounting systems that are available in the market can actually achieve in part the solutions that are required under this bill. But those aspects were not considered and this piece of legislation was rammed through by majority by the members on the committee with opposition obviously from National and I believe ACT as well at the time. You know that is disappointing in the context of where we are as the prior speaker Mr Bayly noted.The actual process in regards to what occurred in the past in that amendment that was done on a bipartisan basis was in our view the way in which to deal with this problem. But what we've gone back to and set quite a significant precedent on in terms of the cross-subsidisation model—which very much sits out of piste in terms of where we should be and sets I think a precedent which isn't consistent in regards to how we should be approaching such problems. So that's a little bit of context in terms of just one small element around why we have been and continue to be opposed to this legislation.The other aspect is one around simple fairness of the appropriation and in effect the cross-subsidisation now of certain levy groups on to others means that some of the blurring of you know in effect the Companies Register or the Personal Property Securities Register—previously we had a good clear articulation in terms of each of those different registers and whether they could stand on their own two feet but in effect now we've got a blurred model of cross-subsidisation and one of those levies being collecting their fees and using some of that to pay for another. At the end of the day these levies are collected off hard-working taxpayers across this country and I think they have a right at its simplest level to know where their money and their taxpayers' money is going. That is no longer going to be the case under this amendment.While there'll be a lot of people sitting at home tonight thinking "Geez companies levies—geez I'm glad I stayed up to 9.55 to watch this speech."—because that's exactly what I would be thinking about potentially if I was sitting at home in the beautiful North Shore on an evening like tonight. But for those that are sitting at home going "Yep I absolutely agree." I just want to make it very clear to those people that we did do what we could do in terms of opposition around that and raised the questions I think most Kiwis would raise around whether this is fair whether this is appropriate or whether we've actually done a proper options analysis around the solutions that would solve this problem. But the reality is that—and I won't go on too much further because I know we're all looking forward to the end of this—that is what occurred and that is a great shame. On that basis the National Party will be opposing this bill.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members the House is suspended until 9 o'clock tomorrow morning.Debate interrupted.Sitting suspended from 9.58 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Wednesday)"