SpeechClauses 1 and 2SIMON COURT (ACT): I note that the title of the bill is the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2021–22 GST"—which I assume is an acronym for goods and services tax although I'm aware the accessibility criteria that are described for better public communication suggest that acronyms aren't helpful for people to understand. People would hear the words "GST" hear those sounds "GST" often; they might not realise that it's a tax on goods and services.Then we come to "and Remedial Matters) Bill". Now I have undertaken a large number of contaminated site remediations in a previous role before I came to Parliament. But there is nothing that can remediate this bill except a change in Government a complete change in direction—Barbara Edmonds: Point of order. As you know we are debating the title clause of this bill. The member is going into policy discussion which I think is much more wide than the title of the bill.Andrew Bayly: Point of order Madam Chair. CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Let me deal with this point of order before I take your point of order.Andrew Bayly: Mine is related to it.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Andrew Bayly.Andrew Bayly: Speaking to the point of order I just note now that this is the second time the same member has stood and tried to advise the Chair of what should be debated and what shouldn't be debated. That is not the role of the member and I just urge the member to stop interrupting the debate and the flow of debate from the honourable member because it's disruptive. That's what I'd suggest.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): I'd like to urge all members that have taken a point of order on this issue that I'm the sole judge when I sit here. I do not need assistance in this regard.SIMON COURT: Thank you Madam Chair. Look we are debating the title of this bill. That's why it's important; because the people of New Zealand who will be watching this evening's 6 o'clock news and potentially hearing about the passage of this bill the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2021–22 GST and Remedial Matters) Bill which is a mouthful—in fact it's more than a lungful—will be saying "Well does this mean that I'll have more money in my pocket?" Does the title of this bill these words mean that actually all the problems with the taxation system—for example the bracket creep; the fact that most of the tax appears to be paid by a very small number of people; the fact that the taxation system means that people who are earning below a certain threshold would be reluctant to take on more overtime reluctant to work an extra day reluctant to take on a second job so they can save money for a deposit for a house—will be remediated by this bill?" This bill doesn't remediate any of those matters.So if we're thinking about whether the title of this bill is appropriate I would contend in fact that the title needs remediation. The title does not actually reflect what is needed from the taxation system in New Zealand or in fact what this bill purports to do.I just want to go back to the point I made earlier when talking about liable parents for example. Now the Minister made a point that in fact there is a process to stop the clock if you think that you've got a change in circumstances—you've lost your job for example. But what it doesn't do is allow circumstances from months or a year prior to be taken into account. The backdating that the Minister and I were discussing only actually applies to taking more money from a liable parent.So again if this is going to be a remedial matters bill what would be helpful is if the bill remediated some of the unfairness with the tax system that unfairly penalises people who accept they need to do their bit by contributing through the taxation system to social services and to things that can't otherwise be provided by the private sector which is the only reason that people should be paying tax—to fund things that only the private sector cannot possibly provide. In fact that's what needs remediation. What's set out in this bill—and in fact what the title describes—doesn't remedy the most basic things about our taxation system such as if you're a liable parent and your business loses money throughout the year you still have to keep paying your liable parent contribution until the following financial year. Your circumstances may have changed but the liable parent doesn't get to stop the clock on what they're paying. But a backdated assessment can still ping them for more money.So it's all one way in favour of the Government. That's what needs remediation.Hon David Parker: The Government doesn't get the money.SIMON COURT: And Minister Parker sitting there in his seat is commenting about who gets the money—it's also not clear who gets the money. Because even though a receiving parent may in fact not be entitled to the money—and that might be discovered through an assessment—the money has already been paid by the liable parent so one can only assume that the money sits in Inland Revenue's bank accounts and it will wash up at the end of the year. It's handed over to the revenue Minister to distribute to projects that he finds favour with and that his Government actually thinks are more important than New Zealanders having the money in their back pocket to spend on things that are important to their families.So that's just one example of where the title of this bill fails to live up to actually what New Zealanders need and even to describe the contents of the bill accurately. It is not a remedial matters bill; it is essentially a cover-up for the fact that this Government proposes to take billions more in taxation from New Zealand workers New Zealand businesses and spend it on its projects because it thinks that its projects whether they be green projects or whether they're funding possum control for example are more important right now. While they might be a priority for the future more important right now for New Zealanders is having the money in their pocket."