SpeechDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I feel I have a little bit to respond to. One in particular—if you don't mind me saying Madam Chair—is that Standing Order 302(1) says the committee of the whole House is here to consider whether the bill properly incorporates the principles or objects of the bill as read a second time by the House." I can't help but comment that we've had a number of contributions—one particularly friendly one which failed to do that entirely but nevertheless managed to fill the five minutes. I think we could get a lot more done here if we stuck to some of these Standing Orders put down by our forebears.CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): I do need to remind the member that relevancy is within my purview and not the member's.DAVID SEYMOUR: Absolutely and we can each have a view on that. I'm just putting forward mine but ultimately I respect your judgment Madam Chair.I want to also just reply to some of the speeches that I've heard. Dr Duncan Webb: I think his most substantial contribution was a dispute on what the legal costs might be based on a quote provided from a law firm that he used to work for. Now I'll put aside the obvious conflict of interest and just say to people listening or watching at home that we've all had a quote from our lawyer that later turned out to be a bit of lowball when we got the final bill. I would put a lot more store in the credit unions' estimates of the costs that will be imposed upon them if they're forced to incorporate than in the quote from a member's former law firm.I'll also just respond to what Deborah Russell the Labour member that spoke immediately after him had to say. She's correct that the intention behind this amendment is not about mutuality and other members have commented that that complaint has been resolved somewhat. It is about the requirement to incorporate. It is about freedom and choice.I go back to Duncan Webb and just make a couple of comments. One day the member will learn as he becomes more experienced that politics not actually about winning arguments; it's about winning hearts minds and votes. And you can be as snarky as the member would like but unfortunately it doesn't play well at home. He might like to consider that he himself is actually quite susceptible to personal attacks and throwing around insults but it won't get him far politically and that's why he's going to be saved from some right now. But nevertheless he needs to start arguing on the substance. The fact that remains and that nobody has challenged on the floor of this committee tonight is that this amendment if advanced would save many credit unions—including some of those that represent the majority of New Zealanders who subscribe to credit unions—tens of thousands of dollars.And I'll take that opportunity to give people some help with understanding the ethos of the ACT Party because they seem to believe it was strange that ACT would put forward an amendment that made a piece of legislation longer. Well we don't necessarily measure regulatory impost by the length of the legislation. What we measure legislation by is actually the impost that it puts on New Zealanders and even though this amendment would lengthen the bill—and earlier Andrew Bayly certainly pointed out that it is quite a long amendment and I explained why that was in my earlier speech—what it would do is it would reduce the costs imposed by this Parliament on institutions in this country. That is what is consistent with ACT's principles but it's also something that all members of this House should strive to do—to reduce the negative impacts that we impose on those people that we're making laws for.So I just appeal to the committee again. Some people may have gone off a bit half-cocked but once they consider the wisdom of allowing those credit unions who do not wish to incorporate to have a track to not do so to save them a large amount of money in the process—it may not be large to some members but it's large to those credit unions who will have to pay it—actually we can have two tracks for credit unions in New Zealand. There's no law or principle that says there has to be one type of credit union specifically. I think this amendment would be a useful addition to the bill and I hope that members will consider it in due course."