Webb Duncan; Seymour DavidHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you Madam Chair. I did have a number of other questions that I thought I would ask. One of my questions perhaps is more a global question about the bill generally and that is the budget implications because obviously as has been made clear throughout the debates tonight this is related to and the funds will be used for a new ministry. I'm interested to know exactly what the savings are but not just what the savings are because that's just a budget line but also when that will occur because obviously there is the disestablishment process. I'm also aware as in my original question it was pointed out there are a number of liabilities of the commission and it may well be that given this change in the affairs of the commission those liabilities may be greater or lesser in the sense that if the employment arrangements for example are terminated and they're one-year or two-year contracts then that will have salary implications because I'm assuming that the Crown won't renege on its promise to pay people under an employment arrangement. So I'm interested in the degree of certainty and the Minister for Regulation may or may not want to comment on whether the budget savings made by this will all be used for his new endeavour or whether it will be less or whether indeed he will be going and asking for more than that. I'm also just curious and I still can't quite understand why we need to repeal repeal Acts. I mean the repeal Act has done its job—many Acts do do their job—but to repeal a repeal Act seems to be fundamentally an unnecessary legislative step and a little confusing. Of course the ultimate question is this: we're assuming that the Productivity Commission won't rise from the ashes but I'm just not clear where we get that from. So if the Minister could clarify what the effect of a repeal of a repeal is that would be really useful because if a repeal of a repeal then restores what we had before we're going to be in all kinds of trouble on 30 June 2025.I am still curious as to why it is that the bill intervenes in contractual relationships even when the relationship might be a personal one. So you might have a consultant who the chair of the commission has arranged to give advice—it's a personal relationship of trust it's one that's quite personal; might even be a solicitor-client relationship and yet that relationship can't be terminated because of Part 1 of Schedule 1 clause 1(2)(b). I won't do a Scott Simpson and read it out word for word but it does seem odd to me that this legislation intervenes into contractual relationships regardless of what it says. It's actually very very heavy-handed and I can see why people could be quite upset if they're saying Well hang on I contracted with the Productivity Commission. I contracted with the current chair on the basis that it was a relationship of trust and he valued my advice; I valued our relationship. Now I've got some boffin in Treasury who I report to who I don't have that relationship to." It does seem to me that there are relationships like that particularly those advisory relationships which are quite likely to exist in the Productivity Commission. So there's a series of questions there.I won't go through all of the interpretation clauses like Mr Meager did because I don't think they're actually there but the liabilities one is important because once again in terms of those liabilities there's a real interventionism here and I'm curious as to how the Minister can essentially require all of those transfers quite apart from the contractual relationships we're in—it totally contravenes what I understand his party's kaupapa to be. So I'm very interested in his responses to those questions.Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Minister for Regulation): Look just for the benefit of the children watching up and down New Zealand tonight I think we've just seen that anyone can grow up to be a law professor. What will the savings be? Very simply the commission has some cash reserves. It will be able to apply those to any liabilities it may have. If there are liabilities exceeding those cash reserves they will become as the bill says a liability of the Treasury. I'm advised that the cash reserves will be adequate for its liabilities.What sort of funding will the new regulation ministry have? That is a matter that is currently being worked through in the Budget process. Duncan Webb asked as a law professor why repeal this Act. Well actually the law that's being passed tonight will self-repeal and the reason for that is that in a years' time when all of the transitions and savings have been done the business has been wound up there is no longer a need to have this Act. Would that lead to the Productivity Commission somehow coming back into life? A law professor should know: no it wouldn't. The act of repeal has been done. The non-existence of this Act does not change the other legislation that will no longer give rise to a Productivity Commission.Other than that we had a question of what about personal relationships? The Productivity Commission—I mean it's not a place that has personal relationships; it's a Crown entity. The Crown is going to honour its commitments made through the Productivity Commission through another entity—in this case the Treasury. From the point of view of those counterparties to contract nothing changes."