Bayly AndrewANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you Mr Chair. I'm just hoping the Minister is going to actually answer our questions comprehensively rather than just give us the general flick. I suppose just on that issue you know there's a lot of worried people listening to this debate—I can tell because of the texts coming through. I suppose this is a more practical point: all of this comes into force by Friday night. Now I'm sure many of us down here in Parliament think we're super important but I'm not sure everyone thinks we're super important and for the many hundreds of thousands of mums and dads that own a property who are now going to be affected by these provisions what are the steps that the Government is taking to make sure that they know basically what's going to happen within the next 24 working hours? That's a pretty short time 24 working hours three days. I think it's incumbent on the Government to make sure that people are aware. I know they'll be hoping that everyone watches news media and the news etc. on TV but not everyone does of course. As the Minister said before unless you make an election—if you are in a position where you've made a bid on a house or you're in a process of doing a tender and you don't know what the outcome is you do need to make an election that you're going to withdraw your offer. And I think that is quite a significant thing. I think probably more importantly—people who are committed to the offer and find themselves in a situation they really don't want to be in. So I'd just be keen to hear what the mechanisms are in place to advise—not just advisers because not every accountant's going to ring their 2000 client base of their small partnership firm or whatever. How are people expected to know that in three working days or 24 hours they're going to have to make an election make it happen put it through get all the documentation done all that sort of stuff. And you know it gives rise to the whole question about why do this in such a rushed urgent fashion. As we all know this is cutting across the personal rights of New Zealanders who have bought and done things that they think of as perfectly legal and which have been until today and are now required to make substantial changes in the way that they are operating. Anyway so hopefully the Minister will respond to that. We still haven't had adequate response on the capital versus income test. But I'm going to just turn briefly to the purchase price allocation because it's sort of related and sort of follows on. Here's another example of this bill which says that if you're selling a property you have to agree with the purchaser what the tax treatment is going to be. So up to now if you are selling a property you could go and say Well I'm working out what will suit my accounts because that's the way I've accounted for that property over the period of time I've held it." And from the purchaser perspective there's been an option—and that's all worked pretty well. This measure is designed to raise about $44 million on a current estimate and what it does now is require for any transaction involving a business to sit down and do the complicated analysis and reach agreement on any transaction worth a million dollars or more. Now as many of us now realise you know house prices in Auckland are worth $1.1 million median average so a million dollars for a business is actually an incredibly low threshold. There's a higher threshold for residential property but this strikes at the core of business transactions. And the requirement to agree the tax treatment and to agree it between the purchaser and the vendor is quite a lengthy one. The vendor has a right to nominate and then if it doesn't do that and maybe—you know not everyone has tax accountants on their payroll and they may have to go and hire a tax accountant and they may want to not do the work because you know time involved for a one-off transaction. Then if they don't nominate a process then of course the purchaser has got to nominate a person and an approach. And if neither of the parties can come to a conclusion then the commissioner has got to come to a final binding decision. It is a real mess for a low threshold of a million dollars. I think it's really—and I've advocated for this in the Finance and Expenditure Committee a million-dollar threshold for business transactions is just minute. It's another case of a huge amount of regulation being imposed on our New Zealand businesses at a time which is a very difficult economic situation. And I'll just ask the Minister: why on earth did he go for a million-dollar threshold? It is ridiculously low."