Wood MichaelMICHAEL WOOD (Labour—Mt Roskill): Mr Chair thank you for the opportunity to make a brief comment. I think the debate is moving along and we're receiving a lot of similar material but there are some points I want to make. The first is I want to affirm the point made by the Hon Paul Goldsmith earlier on in the debate where he said it was important that we focus on low-quality public expenditure and I think the public who are viewing this debate might be asking that very same question after listening to the previous three Opposition speeches because those speeches displayed absolutely no understanding of actually why this part of the bill is important. Part 1 of the annual rates bill sets and validates the annual rates for the year up to 1 April and as such they are a critical part of the Government's revenue stream and for any member to come to this House and make an argument against the annual rates that are set out in that bill but to actually make no suggestion as to what they would do differently were that revenue to be changed is not only a hollow argument it is an irresponsible argument. So members on the opposite side of the Chamber who have argued with some passion and ideological fervour that the rates should be lower would have been responsible members had they stood up and then said what they would cut when they cut that revenue. That would be the responsible thing to do because here's something that members of the Opposition need to actually know: there isn't literally a Scrooge McDuck - style vault that sits there underneath this House after the revenue has been collected and just builds up and builds up. Every single dollar of tax revenue that is collected through this annual rates bill gets used. It gets used in our justice system our transport system. It gets used to build our schools it gets used to build our hospitals and it gets used to build houses. It also gets used for things like—Hon Dr Nick Smith: And slush funds.MICHAEL WOOD: Yes that's right Mr Smith—developing our provincial economies that were run down for so many years and I look forward to members on that side of the House in rural electorates campaigning against the projects funded by the Provincial Growth Fund in their districts in the election next year. I look forward to seeing that happen. And the other thing that the revenue that is drawn down from the annual rates set in this tax bill goes to achieving is things like investing in the New Zealand Superannuation Fund and things like paying down New Zealand's debt. For those members who argue against these annual rates if they want to argue with any real conviction or any real consistency they need to stand up in this Chamber and tell us what it is they would cut. Would they repay debt at a slower rate? Would they cut housing? Would they cut education? Would they cut health because every single—Matt King: Fees free.MICHAEL WOOD: Fees free—what an excellent example from the member from Northland because despite all of their protestations that party has not yet made any commitment to actually remove the policy should they have the choice were they in office. They are all care and no responsibility.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! I'm on my feet. Thank you. I've given warning to the Opposition side. Now I'm going to give the same warning. You can argue about the annual rates. You can mention in passing about what the Government intends spending it on but getting into detail from either point of view around the expenditure is not part of Part 1. We're talking about the annual rates so to both sides of the committee—if we can concern ourselves with the annual rates in Part 1. Thank you.MICHAEL WOOD: Thank you Mr Chair. So in respect of the annual rate I think probably the points that I've made stand on their own merits and I think the argument from both sides of the committee may well have gotten to a point at which we've covered much of the material. I will conclude simply by saying that the annual rates set out in this document support extremely important areas of expenditure and investment from the Government. They are set at a responsible level to build an economy that can be conclusive. And I commend this part of the bill to the committee. Thank you Mr Chair.