Wall LouisaLOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe Mr Chair. It is a pleasure actually to take a call on this Committee stage debate of the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2016-17 Closely Held Companies and Remedial Matters) Bill. I specifically want to talk to the Supplementary Order Paper of Ron Mark. We have had a few engagements tonight because I think at the heart of what he is concerned about is the fact that there are going to be some buildings that will not be restored to 34 percent of the current new building standard which actually is the requirement to be classified for an earthquake-prone building (EPB) notice. He has some legitimate concerns. He could not answer my question because I wanted to know what n" is—like how many buildings are in this particular category—but what I have been able to find out Minister Collins which I think is really fascinating is that there are 868 in Christchurch. They have a register and we know that there are 868 earthquake-prone buildings.I know that people have been talking about the issue of repair deductibility around repair and maintenance expenditure and I was really interested in the numbers because I was wondering how much we are talking about. For Christchurch I have discerned from a couple of googles that I have managed to do tonight in the Chamber the cost was $20 billion to repair all the buildings in Christchurch of which the insurance sector seems to have picked up 80 percent of that. I am wondering whether $4 billion is about the estimate for those 868 Christchurch properties that have an EPB notice attached to them.Just following through logically because I am trying to make a constructive contribution to this debate tonight under section DA 2 of the Income Tax Act which Mr Mark is wanting to amend "General limitations" there is "Capital limitation" and what it actually reads is: "A person is denied a deduction for an amount of expenditure or loss to the extent to which it is of a capital nature." Then he has inserted " unless they are seismic works where an EPB notice has been issued …". I do not agree with his proposition—not generally. What I do agree with is in respect of those buildings that have actually sustained damage through an event—and we know what those events were; there have been two earthquakes in Christchurch so we know what those events are. Should there be provision—because this is what this is all about—for deductions based on them being classified as repairs and maintenance? I guess this is my question to the Minister because from the information that I have managed to read—I found the Interpretation Statement IS 12/03 which is "Income Tax - Deductibility of Repairs and Maintenance Expenditure - General Principles" what it says is that there is a general rule that costs for repair or maintenance or that restore an asset to its original condition without going so far as to reconstruct replace or renew will qualify as repairs and maintenance.I am interested in buildings that have we know been damaged because there has been an event—so I'm speaking specifically about Christchurch—and whether or not then they can be seen as not capital because if they were seen as capital then they would not be deductible but if they are revenue whether or not they would not qualify. So I would limit the scope of what Mr Mark has tried to do because he wants it for the whole of the country and areas of the country where we have not had an event. But I am now specifically focused on Christchurch and whether there is some merit to what he is proposing but only for buildings in Christchurch where we have had an earthquake. I just wondered whether the Minister obviously had an interest in this area. She asked her officials to make some recommendations to her. I would be interested in whether or not there has been some specific thought around providing support for business owners and qualifying buildings under this regime—whether or not there could be a look at the rules in respect of this particular cohort of qualifying EPB notice holders. Kia ora."