McKelvie IanIAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): Thank you Madam Chair. I just wanted to take a call on Part 3 of this bill particularly relating to Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 135 the Government SOP concerning the bloodstock industry. I suppose when this was mooted in the Budget I thought well that's quite exciting for the industry and I thought well maybe we're going to see some real positive progress here with respect to enabling people to break into an industry that's not exactly cheap to get into. So when this came to the Finance and Expenditure Committee's notice you can imagine I was quite disappointed when I saw the numbers they'd put round it because the figures they'd used to encourage people into the industry were—well by anyone's standards—astronomical. In other words you had to have $404000 I think it was to buy a colt and about $460000-odd to buy a filly if it was a thoroughbred. Now the standard breeds are a little cheaper and they're more in the $100000 and $150000-odd range.Obviously from my perspective it was never going to be a winner because imagine someone starting a new business—and we've talked a lot about business in the House today—and needing half a million bucks to kick it off; it's unlikely to happen I think. And so it proved because we've had the first of the sales at which this measure would have been implemented. I was quite keen to ask the Minister in the chair Kris Faafoi—I'm sure he will have a pretty good grip on this given his sporting prowess; he was very good on the weekend—just how many thoroughbreds might have qualified for that tax relief at the recent Karaka sales. I suspect the answer will be about as many runs as I made on Sunday which was zero. But I also wanted to just add to that that interestingly this was very strongly advocated for by the thoroughbred industry and ironically the standardbred industry looks to be the potential beneficiary of it because I think there were by my reckoning a number of horses that potentially could have qualified for this tax relief depending on where they go to in the end because of course only horses bought by New Zealanders and initially raced in New Zealand and eventually settled in New Zealand qualify for this tax relief.So it was disappointing I think to see the numbers that were put round this. There was an estimation that it would cost I think $4.8 million in the first year of its implementation. I think it's going to be nearer $48000 than $4.8 million but that's something—to be fair to the people who put this SOP together it would be very hard to understand what the outcome might be unless you understood what the level of sale was going to be. Interestingly in the thoroughbred case the sales average was slightly back on where it's been; in the standardbred case it was 30 percent up. You could never have predicted that I don't think were you trying to put a piece of legislation together like this and you probably couldn't have predicted where those horses might go and who might buy them either. So it was probably a very difficult prediction to make but none the less it could've been in my view an exciting opportunity for the industry had it been set at a level that encouraged new people into the industry. It certainly didn't enable that to happen because as I said earlier it's highly unlikely new people are going to come into an industry with half a million dollars to spend on a horse.So whilst we initially on this side of the House looked to this SOP with some enthusiasm when we saw what was going on was clearly not going to work—and I think we got to the point where we opposed it simply because it didn't enable the engagement of people in the industry that probably had been foreseen by both the industry and maybe even by the Minister who introduced the SOP Stuart Nash. So a bit of a disappointing piece of legislation I think from everyone's perspective for an industry that I think needs every bit of encouragement it can get. I think Governments have got to be very careful when they get into encouraging industries because we've seen too many times in the past where we've encouraged industries with bits of legislation that have turned out to have quite the opposite impact to that which was intended. We certainly have seen that I think with this little piece of Part 3 of this bill which is disappointing because I think as I just said it would've been really good to have attracted a whole lot of new people into this industry by using this bill. It used to be the case of course and the reason it was done away with was probably the reason there was some suspicion around its implementation on this occasion.