Bayly AndrewANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): I do want to talk about something else but I want to just have one more talk on this specific issue and hopefully the Minister will be able to respond or will take the opportunity to respond. But the thing about this money is it is owed to those people earning the least amount of money in New Zealand. It doesn't apply to people like us on the top tax bracket because the default rate is lower. So the issue about this is that this applies to the people on the lowest rates of tax and by implication that means the people earning the least amount in New Zealand. The bit I find disquieting is I look over the other side there and I see a Labour Party and I see the Minister who has been in the chair with his very bright red tie proudly supporting the Labour Party and its ideals about looking after people in New Zealand who are less fortunate than others. And I haven't had one call from any member of that House other than the Minister. This is wrong from that perspective. I look over here to the Greens who have a strong socialist ideal that goes through their party and again there is just a deafening silence. This is not about National protecting its rich mates as it's sometimes characterised by members of the Government. But this is actually a bill about protecting the rights of the people who are the least informed the least empowered to make a change who are the least sophisticated in terms of understanding these types of arrangements—after all who knows what a prescribed investor rate a portfolio investment entity is; when we step out of this debating chamber in a half an hour's time or whatever no one knows it other than a few geeks like us. Yet the reality if you strip away all the terminology in this bill is what this bill is about is working and helping those people who most need it in New Zealand. And that's why I just can't understand it. I find it reprehensible that the members of the Labour and the Greens particularly—I don't think New Zealand First would have much interest in an issue like this—but you you're two proud parties who say you represent the people who are the most dispossessed in New Zealand. On an issue like this and we're not talking about an inconsequential amount of money by the time we get to when this gets paid or balanced it is probably in the order of $70 million that is owed to these people. Stand up for their rights you people over the other side in the Government. Stand up for their people that need you at a time when they do not have the capability. That's what MPs are about. This is what this bill is about. It's not about technology and resourcing and all that sort of stuff. It can be done; the commissioner has said she can do it. There is a legislative framework to do it. If you don't want to accept my Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) simply change the date in the bill and make it effective from 2018-19. It's that easy. But the Government should not be holding this money. It is not our income it is not our money. It is owed to those New Zealanders. Pay it back Minister. [Bell rung] OK I'll carry on Madam Chair. Can I take a call?CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Sure Andrew Bayly.ANDREW BAYLY: Thank you. Right I was hoping for the Minister to and I pleaded for him so I'll take another call. But I'm hoping the Minister will respond on that substantive issue.I now want to turn to this issue round employment share schemes—Tim van de Molen: Are the Greens going to back your SOP?ANDREW BAYLY: And also yes that's a very good point from my colleague. I'm hoping we're going to get a call from the Greens about the SOP. It would be very helpful if the Greens stepped up and at least put forward their view as to whether in fact the SOP is something that they might support or otherwise.But I just want to turn now to the issue of employee shares schemes and this is a very relevant part because in New Zealand we are trying to create an environment for the business community to thrive and to grow and to be innovative. And this clause regarding employment share schemes—it's covered broadly under sort of clause 69 inserting new section CE 7CB to the Income Tax Act Madam Chair just for your reference. But basically this is the component of our business sector which is the most innovative and creative. Those are the fledging businesses where normally young people go out and basically forgo a good salary with the view of creating large businesses over time. So part of that is that those businesses often don't have the cash available to pay full salaries. And the trade-off the quid pro quo for that is that in many cases in order to attract that young talent—that dynamic young talent that we need in New Zealand and we need them to flourish—what happens is they are offered employment share schemes. Now they might be in the form of options they might be in form of different types of shares and I don't really want to go into that. But this enables them to get those people who take up these options or shares to participate in the future increase in the value of that company. And that comes about through their hard endeavours as they make that company successful over time. So they're trading off the income now—and therefore the tax on that—for the gain on the capital value of that company if it's sold or transferred or a new investor comes into play. So one of the issues with this with this dynamic creative sector—and we do have a flourishing creative sector in New Zealand covering a whole suite of different businesses—is that these businesses as they morph transfer and mature over time increasingly look for new investors to come in. And that is the issue with this because under the tax rules there was a requirement that you must hold the shares and there cannot be a substantial change in the shareholding of that company. That of course is all about restricting the ability to bring in new fresh capital to continue to fund the growth of that company over time. And so this clause looked at how these instruments are valued and there's three methodologies that are proposed which are a slightly wider sort of definition of those and more flexible. I think that's a very good part of this and I think for many people who are involved in this sector and future people that are going to be involved this is a very very important part. The other bit is in the event of a takeover or corporate reorganisation—and often what happens with these companies is they might go down one track and then they work out that there's no market for that. They'll change tack. They may park up a subsidiary and move into a new area. And under those arrangements this bill provides much more flexibility around it and also in terms of the level of shareholding and it builds more flexibility around that as well. So I think these takeovers these capital injections are an important facet of companies growing from early stage through to much more mature companies. And I think the aspects in this should be highlighted. We need to tell the investment community in New Zealand. We need to make sure our young people who are thinking about getting into creating businesses are aware of this because this is a very good piece of legislation to ensure that we have a flourishing new source of companies coming into the market in New Zealand.