Woodhouse Michael; Rurawhe Adrian; Robertson GrantHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you Mr Chair. My committee stage contribution will be very brief and I think the Minister in the Chair knows the questions that I want to ask and they are simply these. The question of whether officials did discuss a loan scheme that could be converted into a grant in order that cash flow could be maintained but that those businesses that genuinely had the sustained loss in revenue as a consequence of an alert level lockdown was that considered? A supplementary question to that is: could it even now be considered if we amended the definition of the grant as set out in subclause 2 and 3 I think it is of clause 5?The second question which I raised in my second reading speech was in relation to clause 6. We're amending section 157 to add the definition of income tax to include an amount payable in relation to the grants. It worries me that may mean that the grant that a business might be eligible for is then offset directly against tax debt already incurred.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Just for the avoidance of doubt I should have stated earlier that the question is that Parts 1 and 2 and clauses 1 and 2 stand part.Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Thank you Mr Chair and I thank the member Mr Woodhouse for those questions. In terms of the loan convertibility issue we already have the Small Business Cashflow (Loan) Scheme that's been used by about 100000 businesses for working capital purposes and that's worked well. One of the considerations we had when we were designing this was we did not want to create the barrier of debt when people are taking this even convertible debt as it were. So we went for the simplest option which was a grant-based scheme. What I would say to the member and the dialogue that I'm very happy to continue after this bill passes is the way in which we can continue to look at what supports are possible.We're constantly taking a look at for example the Small Business Cashflow (Loan) Scheme and how we can enhance and tweak that. We've made a couple of changes we've extended it out and we've looked at the possibility that if you didn't drawn your full amount down that you could go back and then draw more down. That is what we believe is the appropriate way to design that scheme. We see this very much as a grant scheme. The specific issue we were talking about before which is about what happens if the impact is felt later—that I think we're going to have to see when we do eventually have to implement the scheme. Now we're hoping that that is not in the very near future. If it is that will give us the ability to be able to judge this and it actually answers the question around the Order in Council process because it does give us some flexibility to make those changes without having to come back to the House to change the law.In terms of the member's other question I have sought further advice from officials on this matter. This inclusion specifically relates to those who are overpaid or incorrectly paid the amount. So for example if your revenue drop actually was 10 percent or 20 percent not 30 percent this gives the ability for it to be considered within 157. The officials point out that—in the example the member gave—if you already had a tax debt or something Inland Revenue has the power to move and try and get that money back from you. This wouldn't alter that. It's merely put in there effectively as an integrity measure as a way of making sure that if there is an incorrect payment we have a way of getting it back. The member and I were discussing in the corridors earlier the issues we've had as we've gone through the wage subsidy scheme audit process of actually being able to get money back. We've mainly been doing that on a voluntary capacity. What we're doing here is putting it in here so that as with the wage subsidy scheme we're now in a position to be able to say if there's an incorrect or a false filing we've got a way of getting the money back. If you get it properly and you already had a tax debt you would be included in 157 this is not changing that.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): OK just to clarify that if I may. That means that when it says an amount payable in relation to a grant it's talking about an amount payable by the taxpayer not by the Crown?