Bayly AndrewANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you Mr Chair. Wow we're having a good time tonight. I just did want to first of all respond to Dr Duncan Webb because he challenged me to say what has been wasteful spending of this Government and of course you know this is a Government that has spent $60 billion over the last 22 months and so I just wanted to respond to that because it was raised in the debate. So obviously Dr Duncan Webb wasn't watching before tea but of course we've talked about the $500 million that's been set aside for the health reforms. We wouldn't be doing that. We wouldn't be spending the $15 billion on the tram down through Mt Roskill and we wouldn't be spending the $1 billion that's just been the down payment for the three waters. Those are obvious examples. We certainly wouldn't be spending the $51 million that the Hon Michael Wood spent on the Auckland cycle bridge which is going nowhere—Simeon Brown: How is that going?ANDREW BAYLY: Going nowhere Mr Brown. And then we certainly wouldn't spend $50 million—actually up to now—doing the investigation in the Auckland tram which of course is going to go nowhere because when will that be finished Mr Brown? Simeon Brown: Oh 2090-something. ANDREW BAYLY: 2090 was the suggestion. And of course we wouldn't be spending the $35 million on the Let's Get Wellington campaign moving again so called; $35 million on consultants and what not one piece of work—Simeon Brown: They want to build a pedestrian crossing.ANDREW BAYLY: Want to build a pedestrian crossing. And so there are six examples but I can say to Dr Webb that we've got 149 projects that we know have been examples of wasteful spending of this Government. So the other contribution of course came from our resident tax expert and I was watching the Hon David Parker's face very carefully during the last speaker's contribution and I just don't think Mr Parker was agreeing with what Deborah Russell was saying and to be honest I had trouble understanding it. But the reality is Mr Seymour is right: 48 percent of tax is paid by the top 12 percent earners and in fact when you get to over $100000—and there are very few people earning over $100000 currently—actually they still pay a significant contribution. So the issue that Dr Deborah Russell was talking about is you've got to take into account their income. Well the tax does take into account their income. I found the argument very very confusing and I don't think it helped assist anything in the debate tonight. The sheer fact the simple fact is this Government loves—in the words of the deputy leader of ACT—to borrow spend tax and regulate and that's what they're doing. They've been borrowing $60 billion over the last 22 months they've been spending something chronic—and we don't mind good quality spending—but the reality is there has been truckloads of wasteful spending and of course when you do that what is your option? You can either try to grow the economy. That's a difficult thing and actually this Government hasn't really focused on growing the economy improving the incomes of New Zealanders; what they've done is gone for the easy answer which is simply to tax more. And this is why we do not support this bill and this is why we're opposing it. Mr Parker said Well you know all it is is the status quo." Well it's not the status quo. The status quo—what we want to return to—is what the tax situation in New Zealand was prior to this Government coming into power in 2017 and before they started imposing all these new taxes. And that is why we oppose this. That is why we want to return to the original tax rates. That is why the Supplementary Order Papers are on the table because that means at the end of the day hard-working mum and dad looking after their families are going to keep more money at source rather than being collected by this Government that just loves spending it on wasteful stuff and actually leaving it in their wallet before you nick it to spend it on some Government project."