Bayly Andrew; Parker DavidANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you Madam Chair. I was just listening to my colleague David Seymour who's rapidly traversed a whole range of issues and I thought we just might go back and start to actually ask a few more detailed questions.I think the line of questioning the member from ACT was talking about around the extent that you're going to collect the $2.2 billion as set out in the report—the first thing I'd have to ask the Minister: if you average that by five years it's actually $440 million a year and everyone seems to be quoting $550 million; so just one point of clarification. But the real bigger issue I think is the issue of uncertainty around that and the advice that you've received from officials is pretty clear saying these revenue estimates are highly uncertain—highly uncertain they say. And what I would be keen to ascertain is they note that people may reduce and also may divert income to other entities. Does the Minister have a breakdown of what is the maximum possible that could be achieved under this arrangement with this new arrangement? And from there how much has been deducted to arrive at this $2.2 billion figure because what I'm interested to understand is to what extent are people diverting income to other entities and that might be into company structures it might be into trusts it might be into a portfolio investment entity. So whether he's got any figures around that. Secondly the issue around reducing hours and also the issue which was raised before: there is a specific comment in here about the issue around the impact it will have on people not wanting to come to New Zealand. Contrary to what Julie Anne Genter spoke about earlier I was talking about people coming to New Zealand. She got us a little bit confused. My quote that I noted earlier was on page 29 and that was will reduce the number of highly skilled workers and reduce the efficiency of their location." So what is going to happen with people coming to New Zealand and the impacts of that? To what extent have all those aspects been taken into account? And what is the quantum of that assessment of loss of income which otherwise would have been achieved if this new tax policy had come into being and would not have had those other untoward consequences?Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Revenue): In respect of have I had advice as to what would be the likely diversion into other vehicles like companies or trusts I haven't got the range in front of me. I'm sure that in the calculations that the Revenue has made to get to their estimate of revenue they will have commitments that they will—Andrew Bayly: Can we ask them?Hon DAVID PARKER: I'm happy to ask them. Now I doubt if they'll have that detail of figure yet but I'm happy to ask my officials if they have got it there and provide it to the committee if they do have.In respect of these arguments about the effect on differentials between different tax types I do find it a little ironic that some people complain about the differential between income tax and the company rate being enlarged by a tax increase but they don't make the same argument when the differential is enlarged by a decrease to the corporate tax rate and yet the same argument would logically apply.Hon Michael Woodhouse: Yes they do. Exactly we had that conversation when we were considering that.Hon DAVID PARKER: Well I was in this House when the National Government dropped the corporate tax rate to 28c in the dollar which had previously been closer aligned to the highest rate of income tax which was 33c in the dollar and they increased the differential.Nicola Willis: Cutting taxes is so much more fun. Hon DAVID PARKER: "Cutting taxes is so much more fun." That's the response that I've just heard from Nicola—I've forgotten—Willis. Thank you. Sorry Mrs Willis I didn't mean to forget your name but I think that really sort of shows the simplicity of the arguments from the Opposition."