Collins JudithHon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Revenue): I will just take a call to address some of the questions that have been raised. Mr Mark has made some quite impassioned pleas in relation to his Supplementary Order Paper. One of the issues I think we need to consider is what the best use of the tax system is. We have in New Zealand a broad based low rate system that has been in place now—and a commitment to that—actually over many different Governments for well over 20 years; really 25 30 years. It has proven to be something that a lot of other countries and jurisdictions would like to have. So the question is really when we are looking at earthquake strengthening whether it is right for Government to use the tax system to subsidise that or whether there are other methods apart from the heritage way.I think one of the things you need to consider is that if you are a church for instance and you have a tax-free status a tax break is not going to help you with the earthquake strengthening of your building. It is the same if you are a charity of any other sort. It is not going to help you; it is only going to help people who actually have a tax liability. It is not going to help companies or businesses that are not profitable; it will help only those who do have a tax liability. I do not think it is the panacea. As I said I have certainly questioned IRD. As I say I really enjoy our policy discussions. I really love being in the tax area again after years in Parliament and not actually practising tax any more. So it is something that we are keeping an eye on but the question is that it is not actually the panacea in my opinion.There were some questions raised by the Hon Ruth Dyson around the submissions from the various tax experts in places like PricewaterhouseCoopers or CAANZ the Chartered Accountants of Australia and New Zealand and the New Zealand Law Society—and I must say I did appreciate the reference thank you Ms Dyson. I think it is important to understand that we also have a generic tax policy process in New Zealand and again we are envied in this country for that. What that actually means is that a lot of the tax changes that happen in New Zealand—unless they are to do with rates and they are part of a Budget process generally—they are very much signalled to and consulted with interested tax professionals from both accounting and law firms to such a degree that one of the big issues that many of the tax professionals wanted to ask me about was whether they would still be consulted in that way. I was able to assure them that yes they are whenever possible.The Finance and Expenditure Committee took into account those submissions. They did make some changes based on those submissions having heard from very experienced submitters. I would also say that Inland Revenue has its fair share of tax experts. I mean this is what they do; they are some of the most highly qualified tax experts in the country. But this is not a competition about who has got the better experts. The tax professionals are in my opinion some of the most highly professional people who provide the best advice that they can to the department and to the select committees. But actually they also want to promote positions on behalf of their clients. They do promote I think in many ways an extremely professional demeanour and integrity. They show a great deal of integrity in their relationship with Government and with the Inland Revenue Department. So I can assure the member that they have been taken into account—that some proposals were changed. I understand from those on the committee that they gave those submissions full consideration and were very respectful of them.