Edmonds BarbaraHon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana): Thank you Mr Chair. Really great—Hon Kieran McAnulty: Oh no!Hon BARBARA EDMONDS: Yeah I'm going to take this call. I too want to support the amendment that's been put forward by the formidable MP for Manurewa in relation to having a select committee review after this bill to be able to actually provide some assurance to the public of New Zealand that actually the actions taken by this Government can be scrutinised because clearly under urgency we have not had that opportunity.I'm a little bit indifferent as to what the Hon Kieran McAnulty has proposed but you know I can take things into consideration you know just a bit more. I might just have to think about that one. But you know I absolutely agree with the Hon Kieran McAnulty that a select committee process should follow this. And there's also something that I have seen over the last couple of weeks that we've been under urgency; even external people such as Professor Dean Knight from Victoria University has also said that actually this is something that should be done as part of good process when a bill goes through under urgency—is to allow select committee process to go through it.When I asked that question of a previous Minister the Hon Chris Bishop in the departmental disclosure statement it actually made reference to: The 100-day initiatives will be reviewed by the Government." So I actually specifically asked that Minister who is going to undertake that review and that Minister's response was Ministry for the Environment and Treasury. So my question to the Minister is: given that this bill meets that criteria that it is within the 100-day period that it is going through under urgency who is going to undertake that post-implementation assessment? Is it going to be Inland Revenue? Is it going to be Treasury? I still agree with the member from Manurewa that it should be a select committee to look to it but if the Minister does not agree with that particular amendment then actually going back to what his Government has put in the disclosure statements who's going to be doing that post 100-day implementation and assessment? Yesterday when I—actually it wasn't long after the Minister was just made the co-captain of the Parliamentary Rugby Team so I have to congratulate you on that one. I don't think you quite understood what you were signing up to given you know possibly Fiji South Africa and there's only $57 in the balance book but I congratulate you on that. So when I turned my mind to this particular repeal bill I too actually questioned when this actually comes into force and I had to go talk to a bunch of lawyers—it happens to be just on this side of the House over here and it had to be clarified to me this is what they thought was the interpretation of clause 3. And I did worry because I thought hang on Inland Revenue drafters—they're an absolutely amazing bunch of drafters that I have had the privilege of working with for over 10 years when I worked for Inland Revenue. I thought no they can't get this wrong I'm pretty sure that they have this right. And I still haven't had that clarification from the Minister as to—exactly what Dr Deborah Russell has gone through—how this interacts with the reporting Act which is then going to be repealed and then this repeal bill which will become an Act which will then be repealed in January 2025.I'm still trying to understand how that alignment works so I'd really like the Minister to be able to really clarify. The Minister did talk about the precedents around the fair pay agreements that there was a particular bill that again went through under urgency with no select committee process and that that was in that bill. However I want to ask the Minister: have there been other tax bills similar to this or tax bills where this type of precedent has been used? And then the Minister also in his response to one of the earlier questions said that basically they're going to be maintaining it for a year. So my next question is given that the purpose and intention of this particular repeal bill is to remove wastage and to remove bureaucracy given that we have seen right throughout the regulatory impact statement that it's only going to be 2.5 full-time equivalents (FTEs) how many FTEs will be required to maintain these pieces of repealed legislation on the Inland Revenue—I'm guessing maybe the Inland Revenue website if you can clarify where it's going to be held given that we want to be able to have it on some record where members of the public can find it. I want to understand from the Minister how many FTEs will be required for that."