McKelvie IanIAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): Thank you Madam Chair. I just want to take a brief call because I said earlier this bill was an enigma. Well I've now discovered an anomaly in it. It wasn't the previous Minister's comments on it but ironically I can answer the question probably that the Minister could have answered for the Rt Hon David Carter. If you look at Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 193 it deals with the issues that are raised in SOP 248 because it allows the commissioner to fix the problems that are created in SOP 248. So effectively I think there's a very unusual by parliamentary standards piece—Rt Hon David Carter: It's quite clear and helpful. IAN McKELVIE: —exactly—of legislation included in this where it enables the commissioner to make rulings on some legislation or on bits of legislation that aren't altogether clear. It's quite unusual because it's effectively allowing the Commissioner of Inland Revenue to make very minor changes to legislation that are giving trouble at the time. Having said that if the commissioner does make those changes those changes then need to come back to the House for relitigation or legislation within three years. But it is kind of ironic that those issues raised by the Rt Hon David Carter in his contribution are also issues that are covered earlier in the bill in that unusual situation where we are allowing the commissioner to make some changes or recommend temporary minor changes on how tax legislation applies. It's very unusual because I don't think there's any other case where this Parliament has ever enabled someone else to make rulings on the collection of cash effectively. I think it is a pragmatic and sensible solution oddly because it does avoid the issue that we see a lot with tax legislation where there are little bits tacked on and I guess SOP 248 is one of those. We've had to tack bits on to tax legislation because of the vastly very quickly changing environment we live in. I want to comment on a couple of other things one which is not really relevant to what is happening now but what may well happen and that was the issue that Alastair Scott raised with respect to the carbon credits and the way they're managed. It seems to me that this is a fraught area for us whatever happens and I fully support the enabling of them to be used as security. But the problem with that is that if something goes wrong with that deal then you've got a concertina effect which impacts right the way through back to the landownership. Of course that is a challenge that we've got in New Zealand with this legislation around the forestry—well not legislation so much around the forestry stuff but the legislation that has created the environment for forestry to be planted randomly all over the country. I think the treatment of these carbon units has got to be very carefully managed by both the financial institutions and by those people that own them because they will inevitably have some unforeseen circumstances. I think it is quite a dangerous situation for us because you could get a rapidly escalating price for carbon which then has a very different impact on the market place and on the original treatment of that land to the effect that you want to achieve. You could equally get a very quick drop in price of carbon units which would have another adverse effect. We're already seeing in this bill interestingly that in the life insurance sector what was predicted to happen has not happened and consequently some alterations to tax rates had to be made as a result of the lack of inflation in that area. So these perverse outcomes happen all the time in this type of legislation and I think it's a difficult thing to deal with. Giving the commissioner the ability I suppose to propose amendments and to make small changes is a sensible one and it's sensible on the basis that those changes then come back to the House for ratification later on. But I think there are so many unknowns in this business—and it is a dangerous business—and you can easily see how we could pass legislation that could then be found wanting in six or eight months' time; in fact it often is. I support the Rt Hon David Carter's view on Supplementary Order Paper 248. It's also dealing with a piece of legislation that's probably fraught and as inflation stops and house prices stop increasing it will definitely be found to be wanting as well because the reasons it was brought in are going to be very different when there's no inflation in house prices. We've been in a market like that before. It's not a nice place to be for house owners and not a nice place to be for financiers and so you could easily see a time when house prices are static or dropping. Thank you Madam Chair.