Seymour DavidDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): The answer is very simple: they could shut down and reincorporate unless the member Stuart Smith is saying that under the legislation he proposes there could never be a new credit union. The logic there is fairly simple.I note that the member in charge said that proposed new Part 3A in my Supplementary Order Paper 40 conflicts with section 3 of the principal Act. Well members that's the whole point. It's supposed to change the bill and make it better. Yes there are conflicts. I challenged him—and he heard me—to name one such conflict given that the point of the committee stage is to debate whether the bill returned from the Finance and Expenditure Committee actually is consistent with the principles and objects agreed in the second reading and he couldn't name one. So I put it to the committee that actually this amendment does achieve its objectives and there is nobody here who could say why it won't. I just also—I know it's treasonous to give advice to your enemies in war even when the war is only a committee stage. But several members said Why on earth are you David putting this Supplementary Order Paper up in the committee stage when you could have done it in the select committee?" Well I hate to tell members but our forebears who put together the Standing Orders decided to have a committee of the whole House stage precisely so that members could put amendments to bills that had not been available during the select committee or that a select committee had not agreed to but the whole House might nevertheless agree to.If members making that argument want to argue that we should dispense with the whole committee of the whole House stage of our legislative process then I guess they can go to the Standing Orders Committee and have their go at having the committee of the whole House abolished. Madam Chair that would be terrible—you would be out of a job. So I just put it to members that there is nothing wrong and nothing illegitimate with putting an amendment up at the committee of the whole House stage. That is the whole reason for it.When challenged with reading the amendment and working out why they can't support it I've sat here all afternoon and I still haven't had a member who can come up with a specific. The best arguments that they seem to be able to make is that they would not like to impose excessive costs on New Zealanders but they're going to do it anyway. In fact that's the generous version. The member in charge is aware that it's wrong to impose excessive costs. He just thinks it's OK to do it this time and the members on the Government side of the House unsurprisingly have little concern about the costs they impose on New Zealand business and society whatsoever.So here I am. I appeal to the committee of the whole House one more time. If you would like to make better law if you would like to promote freedom and choice if you would like to give—Dr Deborah Russell: Text "David" to 3333.DAVID SEYMOUR: —protection and self-determination to those people—and Deborah Russell says people should text "David" to 3333. And I just say to anyone living at home that that is a good idea. Thank you for that interjection Deborah Russell which legitimised me mentioning that in the Chamber.But I put the more serious appeal to people that actually I'm here today with this amendment that would improve the legislative framework for the credit union sector and I hope that members will give more consideration than has been evident so far when they come to cast their votes on this amendment. Thank you Madam Chair."