Woodhouse MichaelHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you Madam Chair. I want to raise a couple of points in response to the Minister of Revenue's last intervention. I think I heard him say that the tabled amendment in Mr Bayly's name requiring the details of the resurgence payments to have been set out by tomorrow night would prevent the Government from making decisions—I think he then said—should they be needed. Now that's a quite interesting statement because it suggests that at the moment the Government isn't convinced that they are needed. So my question to the Minister is a slightly hypothetical one but it will segue into where else I want to go and that is: does the Government foresee getting to 3 December having made decisions around the traffic light system—who goes to red who goes to orange; nobody goes to green—and determining that as a consequence of that no business will need support through this legislation? That is a very important question. I know it's hypothetical but it is important to understand how much time we've got because if that's the Government's start position—[Interruption] Huh? Hon Gerry Brownlee: Well the Prime Minister's said every business can be open.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Well she has and I listened to the Prime Minister Mr Brownlee but I also listen to business. I listen to business and I listen to my colleagues who have come from Auckland and they tell me these businesses are about to go to the wall and continue to need help and it's no surprise given the 100-and-something days that they have been under lockdown. So we do need to hear from the Minister but I also want him to confirm my understanding of Part 1 that clause 5—which is the meat and drink of Part 1—which replaces the existing 7AAB and 7AAC of the Tax Administration Act which we put in in February for the first bill. The only change that's effectively being made to this is to change the words COVID-19 resurgence support payments scheme (the CRSP scheme)" by replacing those words with "a COVID-19 support payments scheme (the CSP scheme)". So all we're doing in this clause is changing from "CRSP" to "CSP". We're taking one letter out of the Act. Now I may be wrong but I've had a pretty good look at it and I can't see any other difference. So we've been debating for hours the removal of the letter "R". I feel like an episode of Sesame Street. Now—Nicola Grigg: The Muppets.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: The Muppets—yeah The Muppets. Better than Sesame Street Ms Grigg—I quite agree. So we're removing an "R" and we're debating hours of House time to remove an "R". If that were all it was well we'd just lampoon them and go home but actually the elephant in the room is what can business expect.I go back to when we did pass this in February the same regulation-making framework was put in place—I accept that—in sections 7AAB and 7AAC. But what the Minister of Finance did in the debate was give the House the public the tax advisers and those businesses—most importantly—a very clear framework for what they could expect and what we were doing. There was a plethora of references to what alert level it would be how much they would get: $1500 per applicant; $400 per firm up to 50 fulltime-equivalents. They would have to have had a drop of revenue of 30 percent or more it would have to have been calculated by comparing a seven-day period at alert level 2 and on and on and on. It might not have been in the black-letter law but at least this House was able to debate what we knew the Government was intending to do and at the moment we're flying blind. We're being asked to take an "R" out of the Act: resurgence. Simon O'Connor: Ridiculous.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: "Ridiculous" is a much better word. I think there's a steer for the title and commencement debate Mr O'Connor. Hon Gerry Brownlee: Maybe it was for "required"—they don't want it any more.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: But we're doing—"ridiculous" is probably a better word I think. I'll come up with a few other "R" words in a minute but they probably aren't going to be very parliamentary.Minister we need to know what we're debating here. The idea that the regulatory impact statement doesn't have a fiscal impact because taking an "R" out is costless belies the fact that this could be costing the Crown or the taxpayer hundreds of millions of dollars. We need better information."