Leary Ingrid; Watts Simon; Tuiono TeanauINGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): Thank you Mr Chair. Look I have a new question on clause 3 which is really I know that the Minister has made the point that it is a short clause but I think what I haven't heard from the Minister is: what is the reason for the repeal of the repeal? My question to the Minister is: would he be able to give to the committee today the reports or any advice or information or drafts that he has received pursuant to the Act which is being repealed to show the intention of why he is doing the repeal?Now if for example there is information in that report that shows that there aren't great disparities that things are going all according to plan and everything looks fair that would really behove well for the Minister to share that because it would show a genuine intention from the Government that this is really about bureaucracy which is what has been said in the House. But without seeing that report and given the timing of this repeal and the repeal of the repeal the fact that we're doing it without a select committee process and then trying to remove the breadcrumbs as Chlöe Swarbrick said I think it's really important for the transparency to show the work that's been done and therefore New Zealanders who are watching this debate—and this is the only debate that we're having on this bill. This is the only time that New Zealanders will get to hear from the Minister get to hear the intention behind what he is doing and why there is this complexity in clause 3.That would be a very revealing thing because the Minister could say anything that he wants about the clauses but actually the data would speak for itself and it would be great evidence for this committee to have. It would be great evidence to show that all the statements made by the Minister and others on his side of the Chamber—they're saying that this is about busting bureaucracy. That is an admirable thing to want to do to bust bureaucracy but when we put that in the context of 2½ full-time employees and we haven't seen even just a sliver of any of the data that has been gathered or what work has been done it's very difficult for us and for the New Zealanders watching this debate to be able to make an informed judgment about what the purpose is for clause 3 and why there is this complexity around it.So this is a new point because my colleagues have asked about why it's complex but I think what I'd like to hear from the Minister is the motivation for doing it as shown by the evidence. So Minister if you cannot bring that report today or share with us the work that has been done on it my subsequent questions are when could you bring that to the House? Would you be prepared to do that? Even if this repeal does go through before Christmas would you be prepared to show the House at a later date rather than having to go through an Official Information Act process? Because that would be much more efficient and less bureaucracy for you than having Official Information Act requests come from every side of the House. So when could you do that? Or if you are not going to then I'd really like to know your reasons why you're not going to because this is really material evidence to show your intention and so that we can accept at face value the answers—or the semi-answers because I haven't heard them answered yet as my colleagues have said—to this really important strange removal of the breadcrumbing under clause 3. So I'd really like to hear that from you Minister. Will you share the report? Will you do it today? If not when will you share it with the House and will you do that proactively rather than subject to Official Information Act requests? If you're not going to do that can you please give us a really clear reason why you're not going to so that we can feel reassured that there isn't sort of some kind of hidden agenda which is partly what I'm hearing you say so that you can evidence the things you're saying about this being just a simple eight-word clause. That's what I'd really like to hear from you Minister.Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Revenue): Thank you very much. Again I acknowledge the questions and I'm going to be free and frank in regards to my responses on these questions. I do not have a copy of such report and have not seen any copies or views in regards to that report. So there is no magic report that is sitting on my desk in my office in regards to that.The reality is going back to the questions around dates by the Hon Deborah Russell around the tax year dates—so the report which is going to be technically required under legislation which we are now repealing would be as at the 31 March tax year this year. That report needs to be delivered by 31 December this year. And this bill will in effect repeal the need to do that reporting and that will be effective post this bill passing through a Royal assent. So the timeline in terms of those dates is as follows and to be honest it is as simple as that.To the questions from Arena Williams—and I acknowledge the feedback—no I will not be taking any papers to Cabinet in regards to the principles. We're pretty clear. We do not see the need for this legislation in regards to what it's purporting to do. The reality is that the tax system already and Inland Revenue and many policy aspects within that already refer to tax principles. That's not a new concept. The tax principles actually in the annual report from Inland Revenue include a wide range of information in regards to the integrity of the tax system. So the conversation around the member asking in terms of you know am I as Minister open to suggestions by the member in terms of other aspects that aren't in that annual report that might be of value of course and I'd encourage the member to get in touch and I will consider that in a best interests and genuine manner. So I think that that covers off the questions around principles covers off the questions in regards to dates and from Helen White and Ingrid Leary covers off the questions in regards to the actual report.CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Members before we move to the next call I just want to acknowledge the probing questions of members but I would also note that it's the prerogative of the Minister how he chooses to address them or not and I'm asking and looking for new material in terms of this clause. I do understand that you want to get specific answers but that is the prerogative of the Minister and members need to understand that.