Swarbrick ChlöeCHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green—Auckland Central): E te Māngai tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. There's been a lot made of the fact that as I've stood up here representing the Greens in opposition to this legislation I've exerted some level of frustration. And that's true I am deeply frustrated about the fact that we are sitting under urgency without due process for this legislation through a select committee process which ironically the National-led Government is saying they think should have occurred to a greater extent when it came to the imposition of this legislation in the first place but also the fact that I have not heard yet one coherent or consistent argument from members of the Government on the need to repeal this legislation. So if I may Madam Speaker given that this is the only scrutiny that we'll have on this repeal legislation I think it is really important to put these points on record again and again. As actually members of the Government themselves have stated this legislation as it currently sits on our statute book doesn't fix our broken tax system. So let's dig into what it is that the Greens are talking about when we're talking about our broken tax system. Well actually arguably some would say it's by design that it is inequitable and unfair as reflected in that report from the beginning of this year from the IRD with subsidiary papers from Treasury which showed us that the wealthiest 311 families in this country pay an effective tax rate of less than half of that of the average New Zealander. What that kind of rubbed up against is the general sentiment and sense out there that many New Zealanders have that the tax system is unfair. But that tax system is a result of either intentional decisions that have been made by Government after Government after Government or by intentional neglect. That is the point of this reporting legislation to require that for the first time God forbid in this country we have consistent reporting against consistent measures so that we can measure the efficacy of our tax system against principles.So to dig through those principles—because I think it is a really really important point that I actually haven't heard any contention from members of the Government in opposition to any of the seven principles within the legislation. So let's talk about those seven principles; the first is the notion of horizontal equity—and this is a bingo card so folks can play along at home or those on the Government benches if they'd like to actually address the substance of the legislation that they're appealing under urgency this morning. Horizontal equity—first up. That is basically the notion and I quote The extent to which people with similar levels of economic income pay similar amounts of tax". It seems like a pretty fair metric that we should be measuring against. The second principle is efficiency something that I often hear members of the Government railing in support for. Efficiency and I quote "is the extent to which tax revenue is raised in ways that minimise costs to the economy including distortions." The third principle is that of vertical equity and here I quote "Tax is progressive if people with higher levels of economic income pay a higher proportion of that income in tax." That is a principle that's been baked into our tax system since time immemorial. The fourth principle is of revenue integrity and that is and I quote "[coherent and] sustainable over time and minimises opportunities for tax avoidance and tax evasion."I'll never forget the point at which we were debating another piece of tax legislation a few years ago when the Hon Andrew Bayly said "There is such a thing as legitimate tax avoidance." And he really said the quiet part out loud there in talking about how our tax system enables those with power and wealth to squirrel away that wealth in such a way to avoid payment of taxation. It's totally legal and totally legitimate. Is it ethical? Is it fair? Well that's exactly what this principle would have allowed us to report against.The fifth principle is one of compliance and administrative costs—again something I would have thought that this Government who is really opposed to waste would have been in support of. It is and I quote "the extent to which compliance and administrative costs for taxpayers and the Government are reasonable." The sixth is certainty and predictability—and here I thought that we loved a "certain" investment environment—that is and I quote "the extent to which the tax system is … transparent and taxpayers are able to determine their tax obligations before they are due." Is that not a really important principle that all of us in this House should abide by or seek to uphold? The seventh is the principle of flexibility and adaptability; here it says I quote "the extent to which the tax system keeps pace with changes in society in particular technological and commercial developments and changes in inequality or comparative wellbeing."The reason that I thought it was really really important to put that on the record is because I've reflected on a number of the speeches especially from new members and it appears as though they're not quite aware of the extent of the process that we had undertaken at the Finance and Expenditure Committee to put really really serious scrutiny on these principles and the operation of this legislation. And here I would just refer those members back to the points—not made by the Government not even made by IRD advisers or by officials or even by submitters but by the independent adviser that members of the ACT Party and the National Party agreed to appointing to our Finance and Expenditure Committee on the basis of those principles and his ability to offer us meaningful insight into them. This is again the substantial document of the Finance and Expenditure Committee's scrutiny on the taxation reporting legislation and this is Sir Rob McLeod—you can google him if you're not aware of how extensive his experience and his reputation is in this space. He was actually arguing for the removal of the definition of these principles because he thought that they were so well understood. So just to put this on the record again he says and I quote "I would omit the descriptors because the meaning of each design principle is sufficiently well understood on their own."So that then takes us to another point which we've heard rather flippantly from the Minister and from members of the Government that apparently this was really widely opposed. Well unfortunately that doesn't really quite bear out in the facts. Again I would invite members to go and look at the Finance and Expenditure Committee report and the departmental report from that select committee scrutiny which shows us that in fact the majority of submitters were in favour of consistent reporting and data and evidence on the efficacy and operation of our tax system. In fact even players like the Federated Farmers were in support of the basic principles as outlined in this legislation. They wanted this reporting because—you know what?—all of us benefit. All New Zealanders benefit when we have more access to information more transparency so that better and more informed decisions can be made by the Government but also yeah so that those in contention with the direction of the Government can make the argument in the opposite direction.Here I just reflect on the statement from Jeanette Fitzsimons who obviously was the founding female co-leader of the Greens who said "Sunlight is the best disinfectant." We can reflect on a number of different instruments that Parliaments past have instituted in order to provide greater levels of insight into decision making into data into evidence such that the public can draw their own conclusion. I think about how our forebears advocated for example for the pecuniary interests for members of Parliament which at the time might have been argued against on the basis that they are a massive incursion into the privacy of members of Parliament and you know members of the public should just trust members of Parliament when it comes to any kind of influence that they may or may not have over their decision making. But hey guess what? It's now a matter of common practice and it is out there for members of the public to draw their own conclusions. It is a standard practice of transparency and accountability. Same actually goes for PAYE. When that was first instituted as an income tax proposal there were arguments made that this was a massive incursion into the privacy of individuals to organise and arrange their own affairs and you know just a little "wink wink nudge nudge—just trust us". But again obviously now this is a matter of common practice because this is how society and our economy evolves.So let's talk about that point of how our society and our economy has evolved. Well it's evolved in such a way that as I held up before in the first reading we have the greatest levels of wealth inequality in this country that we have ever seen on record. And you know what? It's actually as far as democracy goes an OK thing that members of the Government don't want to see that addressed. That is their prerogative. They can choose what side they want to sit on when it comes to that argument and that debate. But our contention here in the Opposition is that in lieu of having access to that data and that information and that consistent data set we are robbing not only this Parliament of the opportunity to have a meaningful and informed debate and discussion but the general public's ability to also participate in understanding precisely what is going on.The point's been made time and again that this work has actually already been done because we know that the first report is due out on 31 December and the 2.5 full-time equivalents (FTEs) who have been seconded into working on this—just for the record again that's 0.06 percent of all of the FTEs working within IRD—we have seen that they will have already done this work. So I'm very much looking forward to putting forth those Official Information Act requests to the Minister and seeing the advice that he so evidently has seen which scared him so much into putting this into urgency before Christmas.The final point is that I just really put it on the Government who have said that they still want to see some transparency in reporting to tell us precisely what format they'd like it to take. Because the IRD themselves in their own regulatory impact statements are asking for more resources to keep doing exactly that."