Utikere TangiTANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Thank you Mr Chair. We still wait for a response from the Minister around those specific questions that have been posed around new section 167BB(1) and I really do think that is important because it might be actually that there is a bit of a gap that has been highlighted. If the Minister can confirm that the only basis upon which the registrar or the director could basically decline the registration application was purely because of a lack of a fee being paid or whether it was a partial fee. I mean yesterday—sorry last night—in the House the Minister referenced that we're talking about a very small amount of money. He talked about it being only between $5 and $20. All of that adds up. I mean he has himself cited what that adds up to in terms of the overall budget lines for this. So it would be quite helpful for the benefit of the committee if the Minister was able to identify that.But the point I was trying to make sir is if this was in fact the only way in which an application could be declined is the Minister aware of any other processes that might interplay with this? So for example if there is information that comes to the attention of the director or the registrar that is not purely related to the fee component but something else perhaps I think that would be quite helpful for the Minister to be aware of as well.I want to just also refer to the Amendment Papers that are in my name because the Minister did very kindly say at the start of this process basically: No no no no no not gonna support any of those." We've had a—Hon Simeon Brown: I gave reasons.TANGI UTIKERE: What's that?Hon Simeon Brown: I gave reasons.TANGI UTIKERE: You did give reasons for that. However you also said Minister that you have an open mind and we've had quite an opportunity from yesterday to talk about these sorts of things. And so I want to just briefly go through those because it is important none the less. But before I do that I've noted the Minister's reference around who he would consult with and he tells us that it's just importers basically. So I know for example I've certainly received feedback as recently as this morning—someone says that they see this as a lack of consultation over the bill and that there are shifting market conditions all of these sorts of things. Now I hope that the Minister perhaps would think again around some of this space.This one here I quite like; I think it's quite apt. It refers to handpicked allies that the Minister might only be consulting with. I think that is very detrimental to the process if he's only going to handpick the people who he might want to—Ryan Hamilton: Speculation!TANGI UTIKERE: Well speculation right? So we hear that it's speculation. We haven't actually heard anything else from the Minister except to say it's only going to be importers. Hon Member: Excellent!TANGI UTIKERE: Is that correct Minister? It's only going to be importers?Hon Member: They're saying "excellent" on that side.TANGI UTIKERE: Right. So we hear then that it's actually only going to be importers and that's it. Well the Minister has an open mind; we might hear something different.Now I just want to look to those Amendment Papers that are in my name. Amendment Paper 42 clause 5—this is seeking to replace "prescribing or providing for the fixing of" with "reducing and limiting". That actually ensures that there is kind of like—what do you call it—a sinking lid sort of approach that we continue over time and we'll get to this a little bit further but it has been accepted as clause 5 so I hope the Minister might consider that; he might change his view with his open mind.Amendment Paper 43 refers to replacing "services" with "back-office administration". The Minister had referred that he wasn't into supporting that particular amendment. I don't know whether he has changed. I know his Government have a particular view about back-office administration that they seem to make clear from time to time.Amendment Paper 43—so this again—no I'll tell you what Minister. I'll concede that you're probably accurate on that one in terms of your response. I've suggested replacing "Crown" there with "Agency" but you've answered that previously and it might be that I'm prepared to maybe just resile from that particular Amendment Paper given the Minister has I think actually adequately answered or addressed that particular question. So I don't have an issue with us effectively not—that's number 44.Amendment Paper 45 actually inserts a new section 167BA(1) and this is actually making sure that prior to the exercise of any of these regulations that those sorts of factors are considered.So I wonder whether the Minister might particularly actually address the concerns that have been raised by Dr Xu Nan and myself."