Bayly Andrew; Parker DavidANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you Madam Chair. Now I want to talk about two other matters that we raised—one during the select committee process and one in our minority view; we are consistent. The first one deals with the definition of income" and this is an area that we traversed quite significantly during the select committee stage Minister and hopefully you were aware of what was going on. But we certainly agree with including interest and dividends in the calculation of income which should be used for the assessment of what payment should be made.One of the issues that we raised repeatedly was around the issue of advances from companies as a way of some people trying to get around disclosing income that would normally be paid either by way of dividend interest or salary or even drawings. So we raised this quite often in the select committee and obviously the officials tried to help us on that matter. But what we heard at the end of the day was that they hadn't had time to consider that. I was surprised about that particularly with the background of the Minister—why he hadn't had regard for the issue of shareholder advances being used as a way for people to supplement their income but without being assessed as income for the purposes of determining what payment should be made. So I am interested in what his view is on that and why he didn't include that form of payment that should be taken into account into the definition of "income".The second thing that we raised in the minority view is this ongoing issue of businesses being required to collect and make payments to people in respect of child support payments. So there is this ongoing desire by the IRD particularly to impose the cost of collection in the form of businesses doing that and the HR departments within those businesses taking the money out of the accounts of people that they employ and making those payments. Those deductions all come with time costs for the businesses and actually a physical cost in terms of running those departments and making sure their IT systems are all up to speed and making sure that it is correct. So we are concerned that this is a trend that just keeps on going and there's always the assumption around businesses having to do this. I note that the Minister said that penalties need to go back to the IRD to reimburse the IRD for its costs—what about for the costs of businesses administering these schemes on behalf of the IRD? There does not seem to be any recompense or even recognition that businesses undertake this function and will increasingly have to undertake it under this new bill that is going through and yet there is silence from the Government as to supporting our businesses in doing that and making those payments on behalf effectively of the IRD.Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Revenue): Thanks Madam Chair. The Inland Revenue don't think the universal rule in respect of shareholder advances would be fair. Therefore they think that the circumstances of the individual have to be taken into account. How that occurs in practice is if someone thinks that their former partner or the parent of their child is avoiding obligations by constructing their affairs in the way that understates their real income they can apply to the Inland Revenue for them to do an assessment which could look through sham transactions. Similarly the Inland Revenue Department can initiate those things of their own volition if they think it is necessary. And that is why they chose not to adopt a rule.Andrew Bayly: And second point?Hon DAVID PARKER: I forget your second point."