Willis Nicola; Robertson GrantNICOLA WILLIS (National): I just want to dwell on a part of this bill that I know is of significant public interest and that is subclause 13B relating to the publication of details relating to COVID-19 resurgence support payments. This has been an issue which has been fairly important over the past year as New Zealanders have learnt of those firms who claimed Government support while also continuing to be extremely profitable and has been an issue of some debate. So it is right that this bill includes provision for publishing the details of those who are taking these payments in some circumstances.But I want to point out the restrictions in this bill. I'm hoping the Minister will offer some commentary on the judgments that have been made in defining these criteria because what this subclause requires is that the commissioner may only publish information about the businesses receiving the support if they meet quite a long list of criteria and they are that the information is readily available—we would expect that this information would be available—that it's reasonable and practicable to disclose the information which is of course quite a subjective judgment for the commissioner as to whether or not it is reasonable; that it's not undesirable to disclose the information and again there's some judgment applied there; and that finally the disclosure of the information is reasonably necessary for the purposes of the administration of the scheme.I think that final point's quite interesting because what I take from that is that this bill provides for a regime in which New Zealanders won't learn of who has accessed this support unless businesses themselves come forward or unless it is the judgment of the commissioner that it's necessary to publish that information for administrative purposes. That's how I read this section but I would appreciate the Minister's clarification on that point.Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I thank the member for the question. One of the interesting elements of the wage subsidy scheme was the level of interest in who got it and when we released the information database it kept crashing because so many New Zealanders were keen to find out who was there and we learnt all sorts of interesting information. I learnt that the Taxpayers' Union for example had taken the option of getting it which I found to be an interesting piece of information.What we are doing here is replicating the ability for people to see that. It is a policy decision that we have taken that names of those companies who take it will be disclosed with the same caveat that we had around sole traders or two-person businesses where there are some privacy concerns about that. Other than that it is our intention that the names will be published.The information here for the commissioner I believe is either the same or similar to what was put in place for the wage subsidy scheme which is just to prevent any potential abuses or misuses or the commissioner feeling that they are obliged to publish some details that might compromise safety or national security or matters like that. So that's the sort of desirable point and the line about disclosure being reasonably necessary for the purposes of the administration of the scheme merely aligns it with the fact that we've taken a policy decision that we will do that. So I'm happy to put on the record of the House for the member today that the same level of transparency that we saw for the wage subsidy scheme is enabled through this clause.