Yule LawrenceLAWRENCE YULE (National—Tukituki): It's a pleasure to follow Mr Tabuteau. On a lot of things we agree but some of the comments he made in his previous contribution I can't agree with. First of all this side of the House is very very supportive of growth in New Zealand. In fact the current growth is largely the result of the policies of the previous National Government. We want that to continue. We want New Zealand to be prosperous and to succeed and we support research and development support and we have done previously.This has been announced as my colleague Mr Bayly said as a billion-dollar programme. That's ambitious and anything that supports research and development and the growth of New Zealand businesses we also support. But he also said—and I wish to reiterate—that around 2000 businesses would probably be eligible for this type of support out of a business community of around 550000. So it's a very small percentage but it is important.In my own electorate I've watched innovation research and development flow right through the horticultural sector in my own community. At a very time when that is booming and we can't find enough labour what we need to do is innovate and I see lots of businesses that are doing that. So I'm hugely supportive of research and development and how we can do things and we on this side of the House are happy for this bill to go to the select committee. Then we'll have a proper analysis of the issues that are involved in this different approach. It's fair to say that we have some concerns and some have been raised by previous speakers—my colleagues on this side of the House.The Australian example would show you that the tax credits tend to blow out over time. They start off as a prescribed amount—and in this case we're talking about a billion dollars—but the Australian example with all the best advice with all the best rationale and all the best controls has ended up in a somewhat uncontrolled position far greater than what was envisaged. That's because accountants lawyers and smart business-restructuring experts find ways around to actually shift normal income that isn't taxable into a taxable expenditure. We shouldn't underestimate—and I've read the schedule and I've seen the exemptions—how accountants will try and reclassify expenditure to get a greater deduction.I also have a particular concern because I can't see in the legislation how start-up companies can access this easily. I'll give you an example: in my own electorate last week I met a start-up company that in my reading of this bill would qualify for R & D tax credits but they told me that for the first four years they have been cash-flow negative so they are not paying tax to get a credit. These are the types of things that we want explored properly in the select committee. This is why we're happy for it to go to that stage and at the select committee there will be a robust debate and this side of the House will form its view as to which side we're on whether we're supporting grants like with the Callaghan Innovation process or we're supporting R & D tax credits or a combination of both.But I do not want Mr Tabuteau and others to think that this side of the House is not supportive of R & D support and grants or tax initiatives going to our businesses. We are a completely pro-business party. We strongly support the endeavours of community businesses large and small right across New Zealand.When I draw it back once again in closing to my own electorate I see tremendous opportunity for more R & D and tremendous opportunity for more growth. We just have to make sure as politicians in this House that we create a structure in terms of R & D that is fair enduring and also uses the best of knowledge we can glean from other countries that have tried this. So I commend this bill at its first reading to select committee and I'm really interested to see what comes out of that process. Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker.