McAnulty KieranHon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Thank you very much Mr Chair. I'd have to say I was a little bit disappointed with the answers that have been provided so far. They've been very fair questions in my view and I hope to provide a fair question myself as I rise to speak in support of the proposed amendment in the name of Arena Williams which proposes to insert that as one option the day after an inquiry of a committee of the House of Representatives has reported back to the House of Representatives on those parts of the Taxation Principles Reporting Act that should be given effect in policy. What on earth is wrong with that? If the bill is going to be repealed and wiped off the books and the dust's covered over it why not at least look into it first? So my question to the Minister is: what's changed? Why has his view changed because I was sitting here listening to the response and I was thinking I'm pretty sure that before the election Simon Watts was a huge advocate for ensuring that the public had their say. So I had a little bit of a nosy and I found here a quote from Hansard which is part of a debate on a bill that went to select committee and had a full public hearing—and I quote—I placed a motion on the table to extend the process to give them more time—more time for scrutiny to listen to those submissions—but it is clear from those members on that side of the House that they have no interest in listening to Kiwis". We did listen because we had a select committee process and there's a clear difference between that and this.As we've seen throughout urgency there's been no opportunity for the public to have their say and in this instance not only have the public not had their say but as is proposed in this clause they're going to wipe it. They're going to wipe all record of the fact that there was a bill there was a repeal bill and we're just going to fritter it away.However Arena Williams has come up with an elegant solution in my view—as she has done throughout this entire period of urgency. She has proposed—look fine we get it. As the Minister has explained the purpose of clause 3 is to indicate that this bill will be repealed. We get that—fine. But why not do that after we have an inquiry because the public hasn't had their say. The Government says it's not needed. Why don't we put that to the test—why don't we put that to the test? I imagine that the report is actually written as has been talked about. Give it to the select committee have a nosy and I tell you what—here's a promise. I haven't consulted my colleagues but I'm pretty sure they'll back me on this. If after the independent inquiry it says "You know what? This isn't needed. This is a waste of time.'' we'll go "Fair enough—fair enough. We're not into that." Hon Barbara Edmonds: I'm not sure I can give my support to that.Hon KIERAN McANULTY: Ha ha! Yep. All right I'll reconsider my proposal. But it's a fair question and it's a question that quite clearly has a range of responses and that's good. We're here to debate. But the only response that really matters right now is that from the Minister so let's hear it. Will you give it a go? Will you stick up for what you used to believe and let this go to an inquiry?"