Garcia PauloPAULO GARCIA (National): I premise my contribution that it is to be assumed that all members of this House want to do what's best for all New Zealanders. So the question to ask of every bill that comes before us is whether it is the best possible bill for the situation that it seeks to deal with and that it is the best for all New Zealanders especially at the time now that we have where we are in urgency. So for people out there who are watching when the Parliament is in urgency we are going to be running beginning from yesterday through today up to midnight and then again tomorrow up to midnight—SPEAKER: Saturday.PAULO GARCIA: If at all hopefully not. To debate 21 bills that the Government seeks to pass over these days.Added to this question is that we are presented with circumstances that demand all the more that this question be answered transparently and with clarity as to its intent and its effects. The circumstances we call COVID-19 the pandemic which has required a lockdown which has now resulted in a New Zealand economy that is in severe decline. We are in crisis. Both sides of the House confirm that we are—to use an overused but very apt word—in an unprecedented situation where the Government has to spend to unprecedented levels. Spending which is of borrowed funds—borrowed money. My colleague Lawrence Yule in his speech yesterday on the appropriations bill said that when Government speaks of spending and allocating funds then these funds are not Government's funds but borrowed funds and funds that are borrowed against all New Zealanders against us—that we will be paying for this.So there are further questions to ask. First I will ask these questions. So the first question to ask is is the borrowing at the right level? Is the spending useful and appropriate for getting the country towards improving the economy?The other question is how will New Zealanders be paying for this? So we are going to be paying for it by taxes—and just again for the benefit of the viewers out there especially because of the very strong messaging in the 2017 campaign which I remember very clearly that very good promises were made that no new taxes would be raised. But several have been for example the Government has increased fuel taxes three times it's added on a regional fuel tax in Auckland introduced ring-fencing of losses and Amazon tax.SPEAKER: Order! Sorry the member will resume his seat. I've been searching through the bill. Not in this bill. The member will speak to this bill thank you.PAULO GARCIA: Thank you Mr Speaker. I apologise for that.So it is a given that inflation leads to higher taxes and higher taxes means a heavier burden on the common ordinary New Zealander like myself.Matt Doocey: Everyday New Zealanders.PAULO GARCIA: With the income—everyday New Zealanders. The Taxation (Annual Rates for 2020-21 Feasibility Expenditure and Remedial Matters) Bill actually fixes the income tax—it remains the same unchanged for 2020-2021. So this essentially will result in a higher and increased financial pressure on New Zealanders.An arguably better bill would provide for a rolling tax relief which would link income tax brackets to inflation ensuring income taxes are adjusted in line with the cost of living—Hon Tracey Martin: Cut spending.PAULO GARCIA: —allowing New Zealanders to keep a little bit more in their pockets.Kieran McAnulty: Would the member sell assets?PAULO GARCIA: This is—SPEAKER: Order! It's hard enough to keep this debate on track without irrelevant interjections.Kieran McAnulty: Yeah Tracey.SPEAKER: No Kieran McAnulty.PAULO GARCIA: The rolling tax bracket is actually a policy that National announced last year. And the Government has been free to accept this but the current taxation bill before us does not. It does not provide for this.This is the principal reason why National opposes this bill. National does not support potential increases in tax whether directly or indirectly and we view this as leading to that. The bill does provide for a deduction on feasibility a $10000 write-off which is something that we agree on the deduction on the feasibility. But we are just uncertain whether that $10000 is the correct amount.I end my contribution there. Mr Speaker thank you.