Woodhouse Michael; Parker DavidHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): This often affords us an opportunity to briefly round up the bill and then talk about what I think is very important: the commencement of this bill. The bill is going to be made effective on 1 April 2021 which is customary for the tax year. What we do know though is that the changes that are being made firstly to the tax rates will affect individuals but the changes that are being made to the trust requirements actually affect trusts and the tax year for trusts is often not 31 March. It can be any number of dates in the calendar year. I wonder if the Minister has considered whether or not to delay the implementation. I haven't got a tabled amendment on this but I would like the Minister's views on whether or not he would consider or did consider whether or not—despite the fact that he wasn't prepared to allow people to have an opportunity to submit on Part 2 of this bill or any part of this bill—he would now consider or did consider delaying the effective date of enactment past 1 April in order that the plethora of tax advisers and tax lawyers who have contacted Messieurs Bayly and myself and Nicola Willis can now say to IRD and to the Minister what they believe is wrong with these clauses. The Privacy Commissioner said in the departmental disclosure statement that he hasn't even been asked for comment—well he was asked whether he had been asked and the answer was no because he hadn't had time. The Attorney-General it appears has not had an opportunity to revise his opinion on whether or not those parts of the bill breach two fundamental human rights that the Attorney-General at least holds dear and has told the Minister of Revenue the right to freedom of expression and the right to prevention of unlawful search and seizure is fundamental and is being breached in this case. Now the Minister of Revenue's gone Well here's an amendment." We are none the wiser about whether the Attorney-General is OK with that—whether he has moved in his opinion that this is a fundamental breach. And actually the Attorney-General should have an opportunity.So even if we pass this bill this morning delaying the enactment of Part 2 of this bill will give the plethora of tax advisers the Privacy Commissioner and the Attorney-General an opportunity to have a say on it. As was pointed out by Mr Seymour we do two or three tax bills a year. I don't know what the hurry is with this. Well I do know what the hurry is—the Minister's not prepared to say what he really thinks in my view. But we could come back if it was found that there was a better way to do Part 2 even though the bill would be passed. It's not like an immigration bill where you get one every 10 years. You get three a year chances to improve tax legislation. Let's take that chance if it's found that those advisers are of the view and the Minister agrees that this could have been done better and delay the start date of Part 2 of this bill.Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Revenue): In respect of whether the amendments that went through a tabled amendment in the last part meet the Attorney-General's requirements refer to paragraphs 20 and 32 of the report of the Attorney-General on the Table. They do.In respect of the start date I think it's sensible that the information-gathering powers match the date when the incentive to avoid tax by diverting income through trusts start. As members have noted from both sides that starts on 1 April and therefore the information-gathering powers should start on the same day."