Swarbrick Chlöe; Watts Simon; Kuriger BarbaraCHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green—Auckland Central): I just wanted to say that I'm appreciative of the Minister engaging in this back and forth. I think it's a really important and constructive process for us to have in lieu of having a fulsome select committee process here as we pass this under urgency.So a few more questions for the Minister following his answers to my questioning just before. He noted that he has not seen that report and he does not intend to see that report. But with your leave Madam Chair it does not feel as though the actual question which I asked—which is whether he has seen any advice any correspondence any memorandums or had any conversations with officials about where in the work programme that report is actually at. Because the Minister as the Hon James Shaw said before in the second reading of this bill earlier today can decide that he wants to hear no evil see no evil speak no evil but it doesn't necessarily mean that it doesn't exist. So my question to the Minister remains: does he have any idea where in the work programme this report is given that under the law as it currently sits on the statute book this report is due out on 31 December in 10 days? Two of those days are Christmas and Boxing Day—public holidays—two of those days are weekend days and the other days we would assume will largely be taken up by the holiday of the public servants who largely work in these white-collar jobs where most people will be on break from tomorrow which would lead us to the inevitable conclusion that this work should already be done.If the Minister is to say potentially that he doesn't know that then I would then say that that begs the question of what on earth else is happening with Inland Revenue (IR) that the Minister is not aware of. So the core question is whether the Minister has had any engagement with his IR officials about where this work programme is currently at because based on the law as it currently stands it should be near publication. The second question—because I think there's been some really important and valuable engagement and discussion around the fact that he still believes that there needs to be some form of reporting against some form of taxation principles. Again we're still kind of left in the dark as to what that may or may not look like. Which of the seven principles within the taxation principle reporting legislation as it currently stands again does he or does the Government disagree with? Because throughout the Finance and Expenditure Committee process a few months ago now a rigorous process with dozens and dozens of submitters that we heard from with an independent adviser who advised us that these tax principles were commonly known to the extent that they didn't actually require descriptors within the legislation itself the National Party and the ACT Party throughout that process didn't disagree with any of those seven principles which leads us to the conclusion that they agree with the importance of those seven principles the likes of equity and vertical integration and otherwise.So that kind of begs the question: why is it that they are now revoking the reporting against those principles which they agree upon? And that begs the question which the Hon James Shaw put before of whose interests does this bill serve? Because it's definitely not the interests of a general public who deserve to be informed about the functioning of our tax system. Because if I may make the point and not to belabour it we operate in a dearth of evidence in this country when it comes to making meaningful public policy decisions not just in the tax arena but also actually when we're talking about housing policy. We actually don't even know how many landlords there are in this country. We have to scrape to get the data from Land Information New Zealand the Companies Office the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment bond lodgement data and a range of other areas to try and pull together any meaningful insights. I had thought that this legislation as it sits on our books would have been a really useful potential bipartisan accord to move towards consistent reporting which can inform a better public debate and a stronger democracy as a result.So those questions if I may repeat them are: where in the cycle or in the work programme is that report at or is it simply a matter that the Minister doesn't want his officials to tell him? And secondarily what of the seven principles does the Minister or the Government and its three parties inherently disagree with? Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Revenue): Thank you very much Chair. I acknowledge we are getting close to Christmas and we're getting a little bit off-piste on some of that and some repetition as well in regards to some of these questions but I will be free and frank again in terms of the position around what I've said. The requirement on that report is by 31 December and I acknowledge that all Government departments and all public sector workers are under significant pressure and at this stage that is the time at which they would deliver the report and I have not received the report. The reality of what we are doing in terms of the repeal is going to be the fact that that reporting is no longer required and that is as simple as that.In regards to the principles point—and I was in the Finance and Expenditure Committee along with the member as we worked through this bill—the reality is that there isn't consistent agreement by parties around the principles in the tax principles and that is the reality of where we're at. The challenge that we have identified is that we believe that the requirements under this Act to report and require IRD in a legislative manner to report on that is not something that we deem as a priority or necessary. That's why we're repealing the Act.CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The Hon James Shaw but I'm just looking for very new information and very new questions.