Prosser RichardRICHARD PROSSER (NZ First): I am very pleased to rise on behalf of New Zealand First and on behalf of my colleague Fletcher Tabuteau to make a reasonably brief statement on the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2017-18 Employment and Investment Income and Remedial Matters) Bill. I am pleased as Mr Bayly was but not necessarily ecstatic. Tax bills are not something that we generally get excited about which is kind of anachronistic because they are a major part of the business that this House concerns itself with. Members of the public watching do I think have to have confidence that in amongst all the other shenanigans that go on particularly during an election year and particularly in Budget week Parliament is actually debating matters that do affect them and have the potential to affect them seriously and tax and revenue is one of those issues. I do want to pick up on something that my colleague Mr Coates mentioned with regard to considerations around remediation and decommissioning of oil mining and so forth. I think that those are certainly very valid observations but we do have to be cognisant that in the grand scheme of things such operations can run for decades and the cost of cleaning up decommissioning and remediating has to really be seen if it is going to be done—if it is going to be as the concern was raised carried out by the private corporate in question that has profited from the undertaking the cost of that decommissioning and cleaning up has to be taken as part of an overall view of the costs and losses and profits of that operation over its lifetime. So it is important that whilst we are not seen to be favouring foreign corporations we also have to be fair to them because like any other business operation the scale the nature the scope and the time frame of their business and the undertaking and so forth has to be taken into account. Many businesses that run for generations such as farms and so forth do have annual costs but they do not then have a 50-year or a 70-year decommissioning period. So that is an important aspect that will be examined in the Finance and Expenditure Committee. I am not a member of that committee but I know that members from across the House will be very keenly investigating the submissions from concerned people—both those who support taking a more aggressive approach and those who perhaps take a more conciliatory view based on the long-term nature of those businesses. So going back to brass tacks one of the important matters of this bill is that it does set the annual rates for 2017-18 and as Mr Coates pointed out the last one of these bills that we passed—I am not sure it was quite in the nick of time; I think it was actually a little bit late—squeaked through and we do have to dot the i's and cross the t's and make sure that the legislation under which the Government operates and sets tax rates and collects revenue is backed by the appropriate rules being in place at the right time. So it is a necessary thing to be doing. In a general sense we have no major issues with the broad aspects of this bill. We will be supporting it to select committee. It is unlikely we feel at this point that much will crop up to give us concern to the point that we would withdraw our support for it but as with any bill of this nature there will be details that come to light there will be suggestions made and there will be perhaps things that even the officials—despite all their many hours of work in the background—have not considered and there will be tweaks and refinements that can be made to it. At the end of the day with input with reason and with support from across the House we will I am sure end up with a bill that is fit for purpose and one that takes us forward. That is important because when we look at the criteria against which the options for change that are outlined in this bill have been assessed they are quite simple. They are fairness and equity efficiency of compliance and administration sustainability of tax and income-related social policy and a basis for improved social policy and other Government services—all of which are fine goals and we support them. I am intrigued by this statement which pretty much seems a summation of the way that we need to approach these things—and which this bill appears to do. Under the heading Proposed changes to PAYE and GST" it simply says that taxpayers need a tax system that is easy to comply with so it is easy to get it right and I think that is true. Everyone grumbles a little bit and resents paying tax but I think people understand that if it is a fair amount collected in the right way although they might not always agree with the way in which various Governments spend tax revenue they do accept and understand that we—all of us here voters and taxpayers—have a stake in the nation and we do have a responsibility to pay our share. If it is fair and is done simply and equitably and in a way that does keep up with changing workforce types and with changing technology then people are more inclined to accept that. I do have a concern—and as I say I am not on the select committee—about some of the figures that have come out as a result of this which I was not aware of off the top of my head. The PAYE system raises 37 percent of tax revenue and GST raises 36 percent and that is two-thirds of the total Government revenue coming from essentially sources that—notwithstanding that there are many well-paid individuals in the PAYE system—do not involve corporates. Of course we have seen a lot of conversation in the media just of late about particularly foreign corporations—not about the amount of tax they pay but about the amount of tax that they do not pay. I am hoping that bills of this type and the structure that comes about through their passing—transparency adoption of technology—will make it an easier task for the nation to have a look at the structure of how foreign corporates are taxed. Perhaps we can learn some lessons from the way that this bill goes through the select committee process by which those concerns could be addressed again in a manner relating to as I said in the earlier example the decommissioning of oil and mining operations and so forth so that we can look at those in a more long-term broad-spectrum light and so that they will also come to find a way in which they can see a simple track through the tax system and be motivated shall we say to provide a fairer share of Government revenue relative to the amount of business they do. With those comments I do not wish to tie up too much of the time of the House. As I say we will be supporting this bill through to the select committee and very probably beyond and I imagine that my colleague will be very much looking forward to going through that process in the committee. So I commend this bill to the House. Thank you."