Collins JudithHon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura): Thank you Madam Chair for this opportunity to speak in this. I have to say it's a very well-mannered professional and intelligent debate from all around the Chamber.I'd like to congratulate in particular Andrew Bayly my colleague for his incredibly good amendment suggesting that this Parliament require that there be a review in no later than five years of these provisions. I'd like to thank the Minister in the chair the Hon Stuart Nash for taking a very intelligent look at this—and good-natured although he'd be even more intelligent and good-natured if he agreed with us in my humble opinion. And everyone knows how humble I am in my opinions.As the former Minister who started this whole process I think this is a very good idea from Andrew Bayly and I say this not just because he's my colleague and friend but because actually the law needs to be able to be reviewed and changed because not just are we dealing with big multinationals and obviously business but it's the fact that the nature of business the nature of communication the nature of how things evolve is changing so rapidly. I think that what we need to do is if we look at—not saying this is a criminal area—for instance and consider the way in which quite a lot of crime has moved into the cyberspace these days whether it's around child protection whether it's around other criminal activity quite a lot of it is around the cyber area now. Five years ago six years ago 10 years ago this Parliament would not have thought that was as important as we do now. So I think this is a very good opportunity to require that this review take place. I know that the Minister has said well look there's nothing wrong with Inland Revenue undertaking their own review. The fact is they won't. They won't unless they have to because Inland Revenue will be very busy with any new Government's or any Minister's views and looking to see what policies they should be doing. They will already be undertaking their own work on other areas. They're not going to naturally be looking back to four three or five years before to say well is that working now? Their general view—and certainly in my experience as a Minister—is that it's very hard to get departments to want to look backwards and then say How could we have done it better or should we look at it?" unless a Minister is driving that. That is really important I think that we think about the fact that for Inland Revenue it will not necessarily be top of their mind to think "Is this Act"—it will then be an Act—"actually now fit for purpose?"Inland Revenue is going to be very busy with its own work. It's got its whole technology programmes. It's got everything it's trying to do around making sure that it is more fit for purpose in its own practices. This is going to be way down the agenda. This is not being driven by Inland Revenue; it's being driven by the OECD and Inland Revenue is an active party in all of that and part of those considerations and they are obviously deeply involved in it and very well respected. But the problem is they're not the ones driving it. And I think it is really important that we as a Parliament understand that this bill is a big change in terms of our international tax structure and how we work with other jurisdictions overseas. So it is important that we keep this in the forefront of our minds.We talk about multinationals. We forget that we do have some multinationals active in New Zealand who are by the way New Zealand companies—or we would see them as New Zealand companies. I think that we need to be aware whether or not any of the provisions of what we are going to pass today or sometime this year are going to in any way badly affect their business and therefore the shareholders in New Zealand and New Zealand's best interests. So I think a review would be very helpful to the Minister in the chair. We would think it was a great step up for the Minister to accept this and I'd fully recommend that Andrew Bayly's amendment be supported by this House."