Woodhouse MichaelHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you Mr Chair. I just want to make a final intervention on clause 33. There's quite a bit to say about clause 35 in this part but I think we're coming to the clarity that we need about what's going on with clause 33. But it's inconsistent I have to say. The Minister's response to my last question—which was quite some time ago now—about whether this was a tidying-up provision or whether it was a new stalking horse didn't comfort me at all. He said the IRD has long been concerned about avoidance risks for some time—or words to that effect. But that's directly in contradiction to the comments on page 21 of the commentary on the bill in his name which basically says this is a clarifying provision—it simply clarifies what the existing law was intended to do. If that's the case why on earth are we doing this under urgency? I know the tax policy team sometimes takes a very long time to work up the sorts of technical amendments that the Minister portrays this is and there is no good reason if that's actually the reason for the amendment to be doing it under urgency. But I frankly think it's not. I think the Minister revealed in his answer to my last question that he was concerned about avoidance risk for some time. Now Mr Parker may well say Well both of those things can exist simultaneously." except he really let the veil slip when he talked about wealthy individuals using complex vehicles which raise the risk of tax avoidance. That is not a policy question; that is an enforcement question. The Commissioner of Inland Revenue already has the powers when there is prima facie evidence of tax avoidance in breach of the Income Tax Act to take action. It cannot use information-gathering powers as a stalking horse to go behind the veil and find out what's going on and that's exactly what the Attorney-General said.So while the Minister's amendment is going to provide some comfort Mr Seymour Ms Willis Mr Bayly myself and Mr Brownlee have no such comfort and we know from the feedback that we got in the last 22 hours from the tax advisory community—the tax experts right around the country that are normally engaged in this process—that they're far from comforted at all not only with the provision the amendment but also with the fact that they have been left out of the tent.Supplementary Order Paper 3 in my name seeks to address that by deleting this clause altogether and resetting and starting again in the manner that IRD has such a good reputation of doing and that is going out and talking to the community that knows this stuff best. If we don't do that we are letting taxpayers down who as the Attorney-General said have a right to the protection and freedom from unwanted interference—freedom of expression.I make one last point on this. I have been given advice from the Clerk's Office that if the Minister's amendment in his name is upheld then that may rule mine out. I don't want to have that argument when we get to the point so I'll just make the point that I think we've got a situation where some members will say "Well we don't much like the clause but it's improved by David Parker's amendment." but we still should consider the question about whether the clause should be in there in the first place and therefore it's a bit like an amendment to a motion before the substantive motion is put. I think that there is value in actually considering both amendments and at least having a vote on it.I do have more to say—and in fact another amendment which I've just tabled—on clause 35 which is the retrospective information-gathering of trusts but I'll leave my intervention there so we can tidy up clause 33."