Ngaro AlfredHon ALFRED NGARO (Minister for Pacific Peoples): It is an honour to sit in the chair and to be able to take a call in the Committee stage of this bill. I just want to acknowledge the Minister of Revenue in her role in her work and also with the officials.I want first of all to comment on the first speaker of the night who was Grant Robertson. Actually it was a good speech. However what people may not know is that Grant Robertson had a major in theatrics at university and so there was a little bit of embellishment in his criticism of New Zealand and the view that it is now being viewed as a tax haven. I have to question that because Mr Robertson will know that the Corruption Perceptions Index of 2016 found that New Zealand was No. 2 internationally OK behind Denmark. Then there was New Zealand. So the view internationally that we are a tax haven and that there is some concern I think has to be questioned OK when we think about that index. It is an international index.Anyway let us go straight to some of the challenges I suppose that have been put forward. First of all I want to address some of the issues that Mr Robertson raised because I think they are worthy of some comment and some response as well—in particular in regard to the public register of foreign trusts. I know that was raised. It was in the minority report from Labour the Greens and New Zealand First.The response to that is quite clear. The amendments in this bill follow the recommendations of the inquiry. The inquiry considered whether a public register of information from foreign trusts was necessary in the context of maintaining New Zealand's international reputation. As I indicated the Corruption Perceptions Index was quite clear. There is not that concern internationally and we believe that this strikes the right balance. Trusts are generally as we know asset management vehicles controlled by family units. So I think that is critically important as well.What is also important is that Mr Robertson also raised the issue around—Hon Ruth Dyson: Are you just reading the highlighted bit?Hon ALFRED NGARO: It is good to have highlights because they help to focus you. That is what they do. Hon Ruth Dyson: It shows you what to read.Hon ALFRED NGARO: Well it does. That is very good. That is what a highlighter was designed for and that is a great thing. It is a great thing. I love them. They are really good.The question that was raised by Mr Robertson was why the bill does not adopt all of the inquiry recommendations and why the timing of the anti – money-laundering phase was not brought forward. Mr Robertson will know that there is work that is being done at the moment. The Minister of Justice is currently working through this issue so it has been taken into consideration as well.My friend and colleague over there Mr Fletcher Tabuteau who got quite technical and wanted to bring forth two issues—Fletcher Tabuteau: I just wanted an answer—I just wanted an answer.Hon ALFRED NGARO: I know he just wanted an answer. One of the issues that he raised was in regard to pooling. He talked about why cannot taxpayers use—Hon Clayton Cosgrove: This has come from Judith's office directly.Hon ALFRED NGARO: Well it is important. We have got to get the technical aspects of it right do we not gentlemen? That is critically important.Grant Robertson: Use a highlighter.Hon ALFRED NGARO: No highlighter on that. Look at that. That is quite good. Just a black circle—just a black circle. OK?So just in regards to this pooling is designed to remove—I am sure the member will know—the uncertainty. The accounting income method (AIM)—there is no underpayment or overpayment and no exposure to the use of money interest. But in regards to why AIM is limited to businesses with under $5 million turnover above this turnover level businesses tend to have in-house professional advice and bespoke accounting systems. The Government will consider how AIM could be applied to large businesses in future work. The last question—and I will round off my comments because they really do comment on it—is the brightline test. That was quite good that you read that through. Why have the changes to the brightline test been made and why are they retrospective? Good question. The amendment ensures that the brightline test does not apply when there is a change of trustees for a trust holding residential property. The amendment is taxpayer-friendly and is retrospective as the brightline test was not intended to apply in these circumstances. So that is the technical advice that we have got. But I do appreciate the comments that were made and also too the collegiality of the debate so far. Thank you.