Shaw James; Watts SimonHon JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green): Well thank you Madam Chair. I'm specifically asking the Minister to expand on a point he was just saying. He's now said that the Government disagrees with at least one or more of the principles in the existing Act. And so my question then is: why not amend the Act to reflect the principles that they prefer to base the tax system on rather than repeal the Act and have no information available? So that is my first question because my understanding Madam Chair is that that is new information to the committee because previously in the debate the kind of general understanding has been that actually no one on the Government side had stated a disagreement with the principles but the Minister has now stated a disagreement with the principles that are in the Act so my question then is: why which ones and why would the Government simply not amend the Act rather than repeal it?I have another question which is to come back to the reasons for the repeal. At question time today and in previous stages of the debate I've heard a number of different reasons and I think it would be helpful if the Minister would give us the actual reason or the official reason. So in an earlier stage of the debate the Hon David Seymour said that the purpose of the repeal was to cut costs at IRD and then return that money to New Zealanders in the form of tax cuts which is where my question then is: if that was true of the 2.5 fulltime-equivalents (FTEs) that are resourced for this if we were to divide that by the five million New Zealanders how much money would each New Zealander receive from the 2.5 FTEs whose salaries would be returned to New Zealanders?The Hon Nicola Willis at question time today said No that wasn't the reason for the repeal"—that Mr Seymour's reason was not the reason. Her reason was that the Government didn't want reports. And I wanted to check for consistency with the coalition agreement that the decisions of Government would be based on facts and evidence and how repealing an Act that provides facts and evidence is consistent with ensuring that decisions are built around facts and evidence. How are we going to make decisions around the shape of the tax system if we don't understand it and we don't have any data or evidence about it? So I would like an answer around that.My third question is around openness and transparency. So my question is: will New Zealanders have more or less information about the tax system as a result of the repeal of this Act and how is that consistent with the commitment to openness and transparency in Government? Because the Government to my knowledge are still signatories to the Open Government Partnership and this suggests that the Government is acting inconsistently with that.So those are questions that I think are new or have not been addressed by the Government during the debate so far Madam Chair that I would be quite keen to get some insight on from the Minister.My fourth question during an earlier stage of the debate was that one of the speakers Andy Foster from the New Zealand First Party said that the purpose of repealing the Act was to build trust and confidence in the public. And I'd like to hear from the Minister how having less transparency around the tax system builds trust and confidence if that's an official line of the Government or if it was just a view of one of the MPs of one of the parties. So it would be useful to understand how having less transparency leads to more trust and confidence in our public institutions.Given that the Government has got a commitment to focusing relentlessly on living costs I'd like to understand how the repeal of this Act helps to cut living costs for New Zealanders.Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Revenue): Thank you very much the Hon James Shaw for those questions. I'll work my way through them as they were asked.The first aspect in regards to the decision around principles and whether those that submitted to the select committee were unilateral in their support and agreement for the way in which those principles were defined was not the case. There was divergence in terms of the views of those principles and there was divergence across tax experts and members of the public in regards to that. And that is what was conveyed and that is the reality. Any time spent on preparing these reports that would be undertaken if the Act wasn't repealed in our view is a waste of time and money. Any resources within our Public Service should be focused on higher priorities aligned with Government priorities and hence the basis of why this bill which is only 60 words in its entirety taking out the headings is quite straightforward.The last aspect in regards to the member's questions around openness and transparency—as I've outlined on probably three occasions now and I'm now repeating the Inland Revenue does in what I think is a good way produce a lot of reporting already on a wide variety of its operational and policy activities. The annual report is a summarisation of that information and is comprehensive. There are mechanisms to request and ask for more feedback and different views of that perspective and I again would reinforce and encourage you to provide that feedback. From my point of view I am very confident that the Inland Revenue Department being one of the most highly performing departments that I've had the experience of dealing with does uphold the important principles of being open and transparent in terms of its policy and its operational effects."