Collins JudithHon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura): I would like to speak in relation to Andrew Bayly's Supplementary Order Paper 477. I am a former Minister of Revenue for unfortunately only about nine months otherwise we would have been in Government when the technological changes were made for IRD which we funded and all that and it's been an ongoing process. It was once a technological issue for Inland Revenue and that's why the law was put in place: to say that they did not have to refund the money because they couldn't physically do it—that was one of their issues. But now that the technology has been invested in over many years around about $1 billion and I think that my colleague the Hon Michael Woodhouse was the Minister at the time when we first started the process to actually—[Interruption]—oh actually yes even earlier than that—bring the Inland Review computer system and technological system up to date and to that terrible word futureproof"—whatever that means—it. We can do this now but we can't do it while the law is as it is. That's why Andrew Bayly's Supplementary Order Paper is a very sensible and reasoned way of dealing with it.I would say to the Minister in the chair Stuart Nash that I was disappointed in the second reading speech that he gave where he made some comments about what we could have done; well we were doing what we could do but now he has the ability and we are there to help when it comes to the law change. It is not fair for the Government to hold money that it doesn't—and actually not hold it; keep it and spend it—deserve to have and shouldn't have. As has been stated from Andrew Bayly these are in most cases people who have the smallest amounts often in investment and they are not often able to switch and change and do all sorts of other things with their investments. It is simply wrong for the Government to retain and to use money that it is not entitled to. Whether it's $60 million or $100 million or $30 million—whatever—it's still not right; it's not right for anyone else to do it and it's not right for the Government. The only reason that it was allowed before was because of the technological difficulty of sorting it.So our system of tax collection is very effective because it relies on people doing the right thing PAYE and also people's withholding taxes and everything else coming out without Inland Revenue having to do much for it. It is done by employers it's done by the people who are the investment advisers; it's done by other people a lot of that work. So surely Inland Revenue could now that it has the technology—and as Andrew Bayly said the commissioner has confirmed that they do have the technology now to do it—this would be a really good thing to do and it would help to also increase the confidence in the tax system which is important for the well-functioning working of a system that relies in a great deal on the goodwill and the work of others—unpaid work of employers and those who have to collect taxes child support and all the other things.So I just don't understand why the Government wouldn't want to take this opportunity. I would say to the Minister in the chair: it's not often that we get in Parliament very genuine opportunities to make this sort of change which is hardly likely to be an election issue—it is hardly likely to be something that you know the 6 o'clock news covers tonight—but it is something that will make a difference and it will right a wrong.Hon Shane Jones: Headline hunting.Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I think that when the Hon Shane Jones calls out "Headline hunting" there is that old saying of the pot calling the kettle black actually. I would say to Mr Jones that even he would have difficulty making a headline out of a portfolio investment entity (PIE) interest rate but I think that he wouldn't know what the pie was. But having said that—Hon Stuart Nash: He knows what pies are.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Mince and cheese.Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Ha! Let's just stick to the issue which is that this is actually a very good Supplementary Order Paper. That's why I'm speaking to it and I think it is something—I know it is something—that if we'd had the ability when I was the Minister of Revenue we would have done it and that's why we should do it now."