Bishop Chris: Taxation (Transformation: First Phase Simplification and Other Measures) Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBishop Chris: Taxation (Transformation: First Phase Simplification and Other Measures) Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 31 May 2016. Volume:714;Page:11537. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]CHRIS BISHOP (National): I do not know about my colleague Mr Bennett but I for one am going to miss Clayton when he shuffles off his political coil into whatever venture he journeys to outside this Parliament. I will miss Mr Cosgrove for his contributions. I was going to say “learned contributions” in the debates but I am not sure you could call them learned but they are certainly amusing and certainly he has provided a few comical moments in the debate on this bill with the other readings and indeed in the Finance and Expenditure Committee.I was absent for various parts of the deliberation on the Taxation (Transformation: First Phase Simplification and Other Measures) Bill.Hon Clayton Cosgrove: They were very long days when you weren’t there.CHRIS BISHOP: Very long days when I was away says Mr Cosgrove. Well I am sure they were. They are very long days when I am here too to be fair because we are a very hard-working committee the Finance and Expenditure Committee. I do just want to pay tribute to Mr Bennett because people listening on the wireless tonight watching on Parliament TV or watching online could be forgiven for thinking that Mr Bennett is not a diligent and dutiful chair of the Finance and Expenditure Committee and nothing actually could be further from the truth. He is a very hard-working chair and he does do a great job. Despite all that we will miss Clayton when he goes.I just want to pick up on one of the remarks that Clayton made. He said that I should have written David Bennett’s speech. Well we now know what is going to be happening to Labour Party speeches going forward in that they will be written by the Green Party because we have just had the tie-up of all tie-ups today the political marriage—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order!CHRIS BISHOP: —where one person promises to not be monogamous.Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. With respect you have given a ruling and I think Mr Bishop has got “David Bennett-itis”.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): That is not a point of order. I will just remind members that this is a third reading speech and the content of the debate is what has been referred from the Committee back into the House for the third reading. I mentioned earlier that there are Speakers’ rulings a number of them on pages 136 and 137. I will ask the member to come back to the bill.CHRIS BISHOP: I apologise Mr Assistant Speaker. I was just trying to wind Clayton up a bit but—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): No no. Just carry on with the bill.CHRIS BISHOP: I do want to commend this bill because members opposite have said a few things—that it is not the transformation that the tax system needs—and they have tried to I think mitigate some of the actual expansive benefits that the bill does provide. For example I think it is very good that with these amendments going through we are going to reduce the threshold for personal tax summaries allowing for automatic refunds from 30 days to 15 days. That is actually to be fair going to be of substantive significance for a large number of New Zealanders. Thousands of New Zealanders are going to benefit from that. We are increasing the threshold for automatic refunds from $200 to $600 and we are reducing the wait time from 30 days to 15 days. That will be of benefit to a large number of people.People might say “Well look it is just a small change.” but actually sometimes it is the smallest changes that can have the biggest effect on people—actually it is things like having to wait 15 days for your refund to come through and that threshold. Sometimes it is those small changes that are significant for people.The other thing that I just want to quickly point out is that as Mr Nash I think mentioned the bill does in some ways bring our tax law and bring our Inland Revenue Department up to date with modern technology and up to date and into the 21st century. It is a little bit silly that certain communications have to be in writing or delivered by post even though of course delivering information electronically is by far the preferred means for many taxpayers and of course it is cheaper and more efficient for both the customers and the Inland Revenue Department. So that does make sense.The bill also updates some of the language in our tax laws and we had some very amusing conversations I have to say at the select committee about the various definitions of words and the various—Andrew Bayly: Very technical—very technical.CHRIS BISHOP: —cross-references into the literal mountain of tax legislation that this Parliament has managed to pass over the years. My colleague Andrew Bayly points out that it was very technical. Yes we were really down—I think the colloquial phrase is “down in the weeds”. We were down in the weeds of the legislation but actually that stuff makes a difference. As a lawyer—well as someone who has a law degree; I am not allowed to say I am a lawyer—I know that words matter and actually you have got to get that stuff right. Andrew Bayly in particular did a really good job in the committee of sorting some of that stuff out. I think we have got a better bill as a result of the select committee consideration.Look members opposite might say that it is not the huge great step forward—and we wait with bated breath as to what that new political marriage will deliver. Members opposite may condemn the bill a little bit but actually it is a substantive step forward I think for our tax legislation and I commend the bill to the House.