Seymour DavidDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you Madam Speaker. I thank the member who's just resumed her seat Chlöe Swarbrick for the speech she gave although I have to say I don't think the last nine minutes were really necessary.I stand in support of the Taxation Principles Reporting Act Repeal Bill and let me take an opportunity to respond to some of the things that we've just heard. We've heard time and again that the wealthiest New Zealanders pay half the tax rate of the average New Zealander. We've heard that time and again repeated by people on the Opposition benches and I wouldn't describe it as lying because as Chlöe Swarbrick recently found you're not supposed to say that. In fact for people who want to watch on replay you can see the high and mighty Chlöe Swarbrick who tells us we're all inexperienced and have no data come into the House at midnight and apologise to the House for not knowing the most basic rules.She also repeats continuously this untrue assertion that the wealthiest New Zealanders pay half the tax rate of the average New Zealander. Let me tell you where that comes from. It comes from a fishing expedition that the previous Government sent the IRD on to survey 311 high net worth New Zealanders and they calculated how much money those people had and how much their paper assets increased over a period of time and how much tax they paid. And they divided the tax they paid by how much their paper wealth had increased to try and calculate what they described as an effective tax rate.Well the problem with that is that if that was really the standard that was applied to New Zealanders then take a year like 2021. The median house price in 2021 under the previous Government when it lost control of monetary policy and lost control of inflation increased by $135000. And that means that the average person has a $45000 tax bill. That's what they would have paid if we took this thinking seriously. If we were seriously going to say that every time your paper assets go up such as house prices increase that you are liable to pay tax on that then we would have a very different tax system. And actually that is the policy of the Greens. The question is whether it is the policy of the Labour Party.Does the Labour Party want to join the Greens in saying that people should pay tax on their paper asset gains? Should there be a tax on your house? I see Grant Robertson waving the bill at me while I'm responding to members who have contributed to the debate. And if Grant Robertson doesn't like the members contributing to the debate he'd better think about how to win back Wellington Central from them. That's the real problem he's got.So that is the real question about tax principles—are we serious about taxing wealth? Because the Green Party is very clear that they're coming after your house. I remember debating Julie Anne Genter in Epsom one day years ago and the question was asked: how should a person who has a lot of assets perhaps a widow who has recently lost their partner pay for the Greens' wealth tax on their house? And Julie Anne Genter told the audience Oh well maybe they could get a reverse mortgage" and you could hear the air getting sucked out of the room. She hasn't said it again I've got to say.But that is where these tax principles take us. The problem that the Green Party has and the Labour Party for that matter is that none of their own policies would actually adhere to these principles because these parties want to start using tax not as a way to raise revenue not in a way to be fair not in a way to be efficient—they want to add new taxes that will go after your assets and if you don't have the money to pay they'll put you on a reverse mortgage and start bleeding you dry. That's what these guys really believe and that is why the Taxation Principles Reporting Act which we're repealing today makes no difference—because the parties opposite who brought this legislation in then went and wrote tax policies and campaigned on policies that would never be consistent with the Taxation Principles Reporting Act.I see a new member over there from the Greens who's frowning at me thinking "Does this make sense? Was that really our policy?" Well let me explain to her how it works. Actually the Green Party's policy is that you pay 1.5 percent wealth tax on assets in trust. So you've got two people one owns a home one owns a home that they've put in trust and if you've put your home in a trust because you're worried that your kid is getting married and you don't want them to lose their asset in a settlement when it's their inheritance from you you pay 1.5 percent. The person that keeps the house in their own ownership doesn't pay the 1.5 percent. So that's one Green Party policy that would fail the horizonal equity test. So they voted for the legislation and then they campaigned on a policy that would fail the first test.And here's another one. They say that if you have $4 million of wealth you pay 2.5 percent as a couple but you pay only 2.5 percent on $2 million of wealth if you're single. So what happens to an older couple who might have $3 million of wealth that they've worked their whole life for they've got a nice house they've got some retirement savings their $3 million is not taxable because it's under $4 million. All of a sudden one partner dies—that can happen with elderly couples—and all of a sudden one of those people is liable for 2.5 percent on the extra million dollars a $25000 a year tax bill for that elderly lady who's grieving the loss of her husband under the Greens' tax policy. Now is that equitable? Oh here we go.Hon Julie Anne Genter: Point of order. I just wanted to raise with you a question because it seems to me that the member currently speaking is not speaking to the bill at all but is talking about imagined conversations from 10 years ago policies from other parties that they campaigned on. It's very interesting and I'm glad that he's promoting our policies but it's not really in the bill.DAVID SEYMOUR: Speaking to the point of order Madam Speaker—DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can I first of all say I am actually hearing the member who has been on his feet talking about tax principles and the bill is about tax principles reporting so unless the member has something further to add to the point or order I'd ask you to carry on.DAVID SEYMOUR: Oh I do Madam Speaker. In raising the point of order Julie Anne Genter said that the conversation I assume she was referring to events where she told a group of my Epsom constituents to get a reverse mortgage was an imagined conversation. I just want to put it on the record that that actually happened and for her not to take me at my word and accuse me of lying is wrong.DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. I'm sorry; that's not a point of order. I'm sorry I was talking and I missed that comment when I was speaking to the Clerk.DAVID SEYMOUR: Thank you very much Madam Speaker. I think that people watching at home can take heed of the fact that the Green Party is the only party I know that has just tried to shut down a discussion about its own tax policy. But it's kind of understandable. The point that Julie Anne Genter was not following along is that the Green Party voted for the Taxation Principles Reporting Act and then ran the election on policies and had they been successful they would no doubt have tried to implement policies that violate the Act. That is why we oppose it—because even the people who believe in it don't follow it. Why would it make any difference for this Parliament to require the IRD to go to great expense to prepare a report every year when even the people whose idea it was don't agree with it and don't follow it? If it can't have any influence on the Green Party who think it's desperately necessary to have this law then how can it possibly have an effect on anyone else? They don't do it; why would anyone else?There's another point that maybe needs to be considered. The Labour Party and the Green Party were in Government for six years and not a single report was produced under the Taxation Principles Reporting Act. As we heard earlier the first report is due at the end of this year. So how is it possible that the Labour Party and the Green Party are sitting here desperately telling us that we have to have this legislation when they themselves governed without it for six years? They cannot be sincere when they believe that this is important.On this side of the House we are interested in saving the taxpayer money. We are interested in a smaller more efficient Government. We are interested in removing red tape regulation and bureaucracy wherever we find it. Taking a few hours to debate the removal of the Taxation Principles Reporting Act is a very good example of this Government getting to work and saving money so that people sitting at home can actually have some more money left at the end of the week and spend less of their time funding pointless bureaucracy and stupid law that even the people who came up with it and supported it do not believe in because even they don't follow it in their own policy. As an added Christmas bonus the Green Party are over there and they're not going to be taxing a house. Thank you Madam Speaker."