Swarbrick ChlöeCHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green—Auckland Central): Tēnā koutou e te Māngai. I just really wanted to continue prosecuting particularly this point on the repeal of this repeal Act because it is a really really important point when it comes to that trail of bread crumbs that is necessary for future lawyers and law students and politicians and people who may be interested in gathering the data and the evidence which this Government has said that they are so intent on.Because just reflecting on the regulatory impact statement which accompanies this legislation and is indeed quite light—a good old two- to four-pager which you know is quite an interesting contrast to the 17-odd pages of the regulatory impact statement for the initial legislation. But there's a point here under the header Views from consultation with stakeholders and the general public: Views of the general public" and I quote: "Due to time constraints no consultation with stakeholders was undertaken on the repeal of the Taxation Principles Reporting Act 2023." This is "no consultation with stakeholders … undertaken" no consultation whatsoever.And now we have a clause here in the form of clause 3 saying that after a year on the statute book there is going to be an automatic repeal of the evidence that this repeal occurred in the first place. We also have contained within this regulatory impact statement some really important points I think that we'll continue to prosecute throughout other clauses but this is an important one particularly on that point that there has been no consultation. Now there's an intent to repeal the repealment legislation which is that "Inland Revenue"—here I'm quoting—"intends to consider means of improving its current reporting under the Tax Administration Act 1994 subject to internal resourcing and government priorities." From that we are to assume that IRD is still going to undertake some form of reporting on something akin to something like these principles yet we have no idea what format that might take what resources might be necessary despite also knowing that the only resources that are necessary for them to do the reporting against the legislation as it currently sits in the status quo of the statute book is 2.5 fulltime-equivalent 0.06 percent of the IRD's staffing fulltime-equivalents.But this point again I really put to the Minister—because there has been absolutely no consultation as is here in black and white on the regulatory impact statement as issued to him—that there has been no consultation with stakeholders undertaken. It has been one of his core points of contention in putting forward this legislation that there was some disconcert from some of the submitters with some of the principles throughout the fulsome select committee process that we undertook at the Finance and Expenditure Committee in the middle of this year. Yet now he's looking to remove this legislation and to then remove the removal of the legislation without a trace. It's a Houdini kind of endeavour isn't it Minister Watts? So I really want to ask him: what comes next from this point? If he is to remove the evidence that he removed this legislation from the statute book for transparency and accountability what comes next?"