Tabuteau FletcherFLETCHER TABUTEAU (Deputy Leader—NZ First): Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker for this opportunity to speak on behalf of New Zealand First and on behalf of this great coalition Government.Ms Collins thank you very much for that contribution. I was sitting on this side of the House and I hate to admit it to my colleagues but I was nodding away for what 90 percent of the time until she got to the ridiculous statement about—did she actually use the words tax increases"? Which are not in this legislation by the way. There are no tax increases unlike when National was in power when they actually increased GST when they promised the nation that if they voted them in they were not going to put up taxes which is what happened. I'll get back to acknowledging a former Minister. I think—correct me if I'm wrong Mr Muller—Collins Woodhouse and McClay did some fantastic work on this legislation. So what we have now is a piece of legislation that is incredibly enabling.Todd Muller: It's what you've come to Parliament for.FLETCHER TABUTEAU: Exactly. That's why we're here. I was trying to reflect on the legislation votes of New Zealand First during that time. I was the revenue spokesperson for New Zealand First in Opposition and I think we voted for all the revenue legislation that was coming through.There were times when we were looking at the cost of the inland revenue digital transition system because I think we're going to get to $1.6 billion in terms of the implementation of that programme and that's quite a hard number to swallow especially when you're—well this is exactly what this legislation enables. I apologise if I'm not making the link more overtly. This legislation is the enabling legislation that along with legislation before I admit has been very much about enabling inland revenue with their digital processes and moving into essentially the modern age.It seems like really bad timing actually but I do—despite the farcical performance from the National Opposition yesterday at the Finance and Expenditure Committee which was embarrassing and it was incredibly disappointing. But today for example we had another session which was rostered on anyway and I just want to acknowledge those members opposite because we were having a similar discussion with the officials on the issues that we saw being presented by submitters at the time. So it was a collegial select committee this morning and I just want to touch on that with this legislation because I'd like to acknowledge the chair and I'd like to acknowledge members from both sides of the House who very earnestly took on the advice of submitters and heard what they had to say.I just wanted to touch on a few of those slight alterations. The first one that comes to mind is around the mis-reporting or mistaken reporting of income tax at such a low level—I think $50—that the committee on both sides thought it's not appropriate it's not even fair to get too heavy-handed on persons—especially persons whose only income is from income-tested benefits—who have to pay a tax in an extra period in that income year. So that was one example of kind of a fair approach from both sides of the House.Taxpayers' tax information could be amended to include missing information as well as to correct incorrect information. The short process on binding rulings—maybe KiwiSaver is the one more I'll touch on: allowing individuals that are subject to the transitional five-year lock-in period to opt out of the lock-in period and cease to be eligible for compulsory employee contributions. I think the Minister of Revenue touched on this in his address to the House in his offering earlier today. I think it's little things like that that can actually add up to individual experiences.I'll take the rest of the call just to address what it is the bill's trying to achieve at a higher level. So what we've been dealing with was the Tax Administration Act of 1994 which had set out rules and processes for collecting and distributing revenue. What that piece of legislation was about was efficiency efficacy in collecting and distribution and the rules and processes around it. This Business Transformation project of the Inland Revenue Department—it's a programme that provides an opportunity to step back which is what we did in reflection and look at the processes involved and see how it could be modernised. So the work to review and modernise these settings focuses on the core dimensions of the original bill the Tax Administration Act.Perhaps with the short time I have left I'd like to touch on—with your patience Madam Assistant Speaker—the secondary tax issue which Dr Deborah Russell touched on in great detail in her contribution. It seemed to me with many of the Rotorua electorate who would come into my office that one of the banes of their lives was having literally two or three jobs just to get by and then the unfortunate circumstance of having this secondary tax issue where they were literally paying a higher tax rate knowing that their actual total income tax was below the next threshold in the tax regime. So they were paying throughout the year a higher tax rate and they were having that money taken out of their income of their second or their third job. That is incredibly hard to deal with for a lot of people from all across New Zealand but in my home town of Rotorua that was a common conversation.So with the transformation process what inland revenue has been able to do with increased capacity for digital technology and an interface with what we would call clients I suppose—taxpayers—is determine tax rates while having a good and fair idea of their incomes for the period. Knowing that they can give advice to the taxpayer on the appropriate tax rate on multiple jobs and so essentially as Dr Russell set out for us in the House in quite explicit detail which lost some of the members opposite it meant a fairer system where people who have two or three jobs are now able to rely on inland revenue and their assessment of income and know that they're paying the appropriate rate. What's important to note also is I think from memory 750000 people do not claim tax rebates which they are entitled to and the automation and the updating of the system means that actually inland revenue should be paying out these rebates automatically. It's an amazing transformation process and ideally what we will see in the not so distant future is actually because of the efficiency of the system the information gathered and the way people's information can be processed we should see a great decline in rebates themselves and claims themselves because the system itself better reflects people's circumstances in a much more timely fashion.So there are no tax increases. Let me just qualify and point that out for the members opposite and those people listening at home. This is a very good piece of tax and revenue legislation which I am happy to stand in the House to support. Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker."