Penk Chris; O'Connor GregHon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction): Thank you very much Mr Chair. Can I acknowledge those who have been contributing to this debate very diligently. I have had the benefit of hearing a bit of the discussion around the place. There seems to be very good and serious questions that are worth addressing. The first and last of those in the time that I've been in the Chamber—thank you Ms Swarbrick—taking within your contribution that those three in the order that you've provided them. As to logical consistency I understand the point that you're making and I also take your point that from the Green Party perspective you would have us do neither of those things and you ask why the National Party does not do both of them. But I think nevertheless the fact that we can do a thing and that we consider that there is a democratic mandate for doing both of them but nevertheless we can only do a certain amount at one time. I'll stay on your various points—just to acknowledge the point that the Hon Dr Deborah Russell had made about the danger of us going all the way though to Easter weekend and more to the point up to or beyond 1 April. I think if we were still going on this Friday it wouldn't be Good Friday it would be Great Friday" from the point of view of people who like debating tax. But I've certainly got better plans and I hope you do too.Hon Members: Ha ha! Go on go on.Hon CHRIS PENK: I'm on my own. There are a lot of tax experts in the chamber and I'm not one of them. So as to logical consistency the fact that we could on the basis of our argument do both those things but nevertheless we'll do one but not both just reflects a little bit of the constraints of time. The philosophy is really that we're going to maximise the gains for New Zealanders. We consider these to be in the best interests of New Zealand overall and of course we'll do what we can as quickly as we can. Noting of course that in the case of changes that we campaigned on as a matter of public record and therefore democratic legitimacy by reason as a result of the election; that's why we're going ahead with what we are. As to the Budget processes again I take your point but also it's the case that where decisions are able to be brought forward before the end of May again recognising the significance of 1 April the tax or the calendar year and the significance for people who need to you know make arrangements accordingly on 1 April—that's why we're doing some things and not others by that date. As for advice regarding the Amendment Paper: I think it generally would be acknowledged as true that legislative quality is derived from a number of different factors. Yes time spent in the committee of the whole House stage is one of those factors. At the same time where matters are reasonably clearly able to be articulated have been thrashed out—I'm noting that the original version of this bill dates back some time ahead of the election and therefore we can have a bit more comfort in that sense about the certainty of what is in front of us. That will enable us to focus more energy and effort on the matters within the Amendment Paper which of course are narrow as have been a part of the whole.In terms of the comments made by Helen White I think she is articulating the difference of course between wealth and income. She's asked if any work is being done on that and if different options or discussions have been presented. Of course in the case of her own political party that's a process that they have signalled that they're going to do and I wish them well with that. I look forward greatly to hear the outcome of those deliberations. For my Labour friends they might want to talk to my Green friends and see if they can't come to something—Arena Williams: You are sitting in the chair as a Minister of the Crown.Hon CHRIS PENK:—in the same space. But for now sitting in the chair representing the Crown I would say that that's not a distinction we're keen to break down at the moment. We don't think it makes logical sense. There is a good rational basis for regarding as different income versus net income. Obviously in the usual way that is understood deducting expenses. I'd suggest that that high-level philosophical discussion is one that the member herself may wish to engage in but it is not something that the Government has appetite for and certainly not within the ambit of this bill.As of the comments of the Hon Dr Deborah Russell I've noted of course that as she rightly highlights we're under some time constraints but that's why the Chamber has taken the measure that it has; by allowing additional time tomorrow morning if need be. I'm personally confident based on you know the history of these things in terms of how long it takes to thrash out these arguments as fully as I think we're doing now that we will be done in time. But if not I'll be eating not only Easter eggs but also humble pie come the weekend. Finally in terms of the comments by Ingrid Leary regarding tax rates and obviously describing the progressive nature of the tax system you know she's articulated actually I think quite a good argument if one were inclined to make it for a flatter tax system noting quite rightly that going from one bracket to another by earning more income arguably has that disincentive. I mean there is a historical element in terms of where the rates have arrived at but also it is obviously true that we need to put the line in the sand somewhere. This is where the Government considers the line best be drawn. That's why these particular figures these particular thresholds are in the bill in front of us.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): I just will remind members that we did stray into Part 2 there and it is important that we context—if we're going to go there make sure we context in relationship to what we're talking about now."