Tuiono Teanau; Court SimonGOODS AND SERVICES TAX (REMOVING GST FROM FOOD) AMENDMENT BILLFirst ReadingDebate resumed.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): Kia ora members. The House is resumed. Just before the dinner break we were debating the Goods and Services Tax (Removing GST from Food) Amendment Bill.SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you Mr Speaker. The ACT Party will be opposing this bill today. This is poor policy for many reasons but not limited to the constant legal battles and lobbying as to what might be considered fresh food or not—Hon Dr Duncan Webb: You'd know about lobbying!SIMON COURT: —as seen in other countries like the UK and Australia. Dr Webb no one has to lobby the ACT Party with good ideas OK? Let's just be clear about that. Giving a tax cut to some of our highest-earning duopolistic companies the supermarket companies it's clear the full savings won't be passed on to consumers. All the evidence says that. Opening the floodgates next to what else could be GST-exempt—once you exempt GST on a few items what next? Dental treatment? Wheelchairs? There's no longer a justification against any further campaigns to remove GST from items on the basis of necessity.The beauty of New Zealand's GST scheme is its simplicity something mentioned by extensive reviews of the UK system—Rawiri Waititi: Stinks of privilege.SIMON COURT: —and this is at risk by giving certain goods GST-free status. The gentleman says that campaigning for a single GST applying to everything stinks of privilege. Well when you look at removing GST from food what might be the implications Mr Waititi? Food for human consumption: live animals intended for human consumption at the place of purchase is one of the definitions. I didn't realise people ate live animals at the place of consumption but maybe they will if your bill was to pass. What about any ingredient or any other constituent of food and drink anything intended to be mixed with or added to food and drink? Does that mean the tonic that I add to my gin? Mr Waititi your bill is flawed—it is flawed.Who would be the main beneficiaries? Well consumers might have cheaper food at the margins but supermarkets would effectively get a 15 percent income tax cut and of course all the lawyers who would make a big business arguing what is food Mr Waititi. The costs to the Crown's tax revenue would be significant. New Zealanders would get a short-term reduction in the price of food rather than any real addressing of the underlying concerns which are the competition issues which increase our food prices.One way we might address competition issues is through reform of the Resource Management Act to remove some of the economic tests that would currently apply if you wanted to open a new supermarket down the road where there's an existing supermarket. Did you know Mr Waititi that if you want to get a resource consent to open a supermarket—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): If the member could direct his comments to the front to me.SIMON COURT: Certainly Mr Speaker. Did the Speaker know that if you wanted to get a resource consent for a supermarket down the road you would have to prove that your new supermarket Mr Speaker would not interfere with the business of the existing supermarket?Hon David Parker: That's not correct.SIMON COURT: That is completely nonsensical Mr Parker and you know it. What did the Tax Working Group led by that great champion of financial stability former finance Minister Michael Cullen say about it? He said only 30 per cent of the benefit of removing GST from fruit and vegetables will be passed through to consumers in the form of lower prices with supermarkets keeping the rest." In 2009 France reduced their VAT rate on restaurant service from 19.6 to 5.5 percent but only 45 percent of that rate cut ended up being passed through to lower consumer prices. In 2010 in Germany the VAT on hotels guest houses and campsites was reduced from 19 to 7 percent but only 28.4 percent of those savings were passed through to consumers.This policy Mr Waititi Mr Speaker is nothing but an act of desperation from a visionless TikTok-driven party—absolutely empty of ideas no idea how to deliver real value to New Zealanders. ACT will not support this TikTok-driven bill.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): On the subject of TikTok the Hon Shane Jones—apologies Hon Shane Jones; I had to."