Muller ToddTODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you Madam Chair. I look forward to the first of hopefully many contributions today and into the night.Look first I can't help but acknowledge that all those years ago I worked with a student union president who was very very keen then to spend other people's money as if it would never run out of fashion and it's good to see he's remained consistent over the 20 or so years subsequently.Hon Scott Simpson: He's still leading a student union.TODD MULLER: Yes you're not wrong there Mr Simpson. But specifically I would like to take some of my comments this morning to the regulatory impact statement (RIS). I have a few questions relating to Part 1 that I would be interested in having the Minister of Finance respond to. There is a theme—he talked about themes just before in his short contribution—and the theme that comes through when you look at the RIS is very much the sense of a rushed process. Indeed on a number of pages—and I'm going to quote them—the advice that we can see here talks to the fact that this was rushed and that there was limited time for consideration of comprehensive advice and I have quite some concern about that. I'll be very interested specifically to get the Minister's comments on it.On page 24 there's a very specific comment with respect to the time frame for providing advice being limited: the Treasury was not in a position to undertake [any behavioural] modelling" with respect to the policies. This is unusual and this is obviously listed here and I want to understand from the Minister why that is. They also note in a broader observation with respect to consultation that there has been "no public consultation"—The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I just remind the member we're on Part 1.TODD MULLER: —"and limited consultation" with respect to the bill.Now moving specifically Madam Chair to Part 1 particularly relating to the changes in the family tax credits and Best Start payments there is in the RIS some specific criteria that are required—that any new policy needs to be assessed to. I note that on page 30 with respect to the Best Start payment the advice says that this tax credit is—and I quote—"not targeted to reduce child poverty."So I want to understand from the Minister how he can make the statements that he has with respect to this package when the advice is very clear with respect to the Best Start payment that it's not meeting one of his particular criterion. It also says—and I quote with respect to Best Start in Part 1 of the bill—that "its abatement at 21% will increase disincentives to work for a group of families between $80000 and $95000." The advice goes on to say "The combination of abatement on different transfer payments and tax means some families receiving Best Start could face an effective marginal tax rate of over 100%." I ask the Minister again: how can he promote a policy that has such a clear disincentive for New Zealanders as listed in terms of the advice that is in front of us?I'm moving to the independent earner tax credit. Again there are objectives that this package has to meet. There are three specific objectives. It is inconsistent with both of them from a policy perspective. This is very clear on page 31 of the regulatory impact statement. It is inconsistent—reinstating the income tax credit—with two out of the three policy objectives and partially consistent with one. I think that is a significant failure. I'd like to understand from the Minister again how you could be promoting a particular solution that is so at odds with the objectives that you've set—and that's actually included in your own document which we are reflecting on here this morning.When you look at the other options that have been ruled out of scope or not considered—[Time expired]"