Edmonds Barbara; Parker DavidBARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana): Thank you Mr Chair. I want to speak specifically to the Minister of Revenue's Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 23. Now when you look at the back to the explanatory note the Minister has covered the extension of the brightline test. He's looked at the main home exclusion. He's looked at the business premises exclusion. He's discussed the proportionality for those different situations. He's also looked at the application date for it. The Minister has also spoken to loosening the lost continuity rules due to a call from the member Dr Deborah Russell. Then if I go through the explanatory note again we then looked at the donated trading stock. This is the call that asked the Minister the questions around what was the policy mischief of these particular clauses in this part. Then we've touched on Mycoplasma bovis as part of the second reading and also part of the feasibility expenditure some of the particular rules—we've covered that in length.The one particular area of the SOP which probably has not yet been touched is actually the Mycoplasma bovis just clause 33 and new clauses 20E and 20G. So I'd just like to ask the Minister given that the unclaimed money which is also in the SOP will be covered under Part 3 of this debate I want to go back to just the small area that has not been touched and that's the Mycoplasma bovis. If the Minister can just—given the timing—explain the policy intent to that. If I read the explanatory note it says Clause 33 of the bill introduces an option by which owners of livestock culled for having Mycoplasma bovis may spread their income over a 6-year period. The [SOP] proposes amendments giving affected farmers who have already made deposits in the Main Income Equalisation Scheme or [already made deposits] in the Adverse Event Income Equalisation Scheme an option of switching to the 6-year income spreading option [and] with the tax effects of the deposits then being reversed."So the new clauses Minister: "New clause 20E and G ensure that the income spread is taken into account when determining the maximum annual deposit for the MIES and the AEIES"—my apologies for having to directly quote from this. Now I understand the member for Tukituki in her second reading speech referred to this as a really positive change and it was one that was brought to the Minister from Federated Farmers. Can the Minister just clarify those amendments that are currently in the SOP which are the last part of the SOP to be covered—I'm just checking Minister: are these remedial changes or are these more significant changes to what was introduced earlier in the bill?Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Revenue): My understanding of these provisions as the member has already mentioned—it arises out of the M. bovis eradication campaign which at times requires livestock to be destroyed which then because the farmer is compensated for the destroyed livestock creates income for the farmer based on the compensation that the farmer receives. There are various ways in which already under the tax Act farmers can spread income across more than one year so as to avoid a peak that might put them into a higher tax bracket. The effect of this is to enable—in respect of a lumpy piece of income caused by compensation for M. bovis—the farmer to re-elect if their prior election has become less favourable to them as a consequence of that lumpy revenue. So the re-election then allows them to cure that so that they get a more beneficial tax outcome."