Robertson Grant; Tisch LindsayGRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): I am a little bit disappointed after that contribution from Chris Bishop because colleagues on this side of the House will know that when the National Government was rejigging its Cabinet I was on team Bishop". I was saying that Chris Bishop deserves to be in Cabinet well ahead of David Bennett—well ahead of David Bennett. I was there backing Chris Bishop and then he gets up tonight and does a speech like that—he does a speech like that. I have got to say David Bennett would have probably been able to do that better and that must be a crushing blow to hear those words said. In fact I never thought I would say those words in this House.But I do want to respond to one of Mr Bishop's points which was his short constitutional law lecture that he delivered us on behalf of Geoffrey Palmer when he was wondering why the Labour Party and Michael Wood had expressed concern about the conveyer belt of tax legislation that we have been witnessing in the House in the last couple of years. I just want to make the point to Mr Bishop that this bill is in fact the bill where we had the moment of confusion when submitters were coming into the Finance and Expenditure Committee not sure which of the two tax bills that were in front of the committee they were there to submit on. That is the situation we found ourselves in in the committee. That is why Michael Wood has raised this issue and the Labour Party will continue to raise the issue that we believe there can be a much more streamlined approach to the way that taxation amendment bills come up.We have had the example in the last bill—which I know you will allow me to speak about just briefly Mr Assistant Speaker—where the bill itself was amending a piece of legislation we had passed in the House only a few months earlier. That is not a good way to make tax law—and it is not the fault of the officials necessarily. They have a work programme which the Minister of Revenue approves that they work to and that comes forward. It is however the responsibility of those who manage the House to make sure that this comes up in a way that is sensible and that allows members of the public to make the kinds of submissions that we want them to make.I am going to speak—and I imagine I will get interrupted in the middle of the speech so I want to save some of the really exciting stuff around closely held companies and aircraft overhaul expenses which I know is one of Mr Bayly's life passions and which he will no doubt speak about when he gets up. But I want to cover a couple of matters this evening if I can and one I do want to get out is my support also for the Minister's Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 261 around the depreciation rollover for businesses affected by the quakes as Mr Bishop said to avoid them having any unnecessary tax obligations. This is important. A number of businesses and business owners have been affected in this way both in Kaikōura and here in Wellington.But I also want to throw my support behind Ron Mark's SOP 260 which actually takes the Minister's SOP a step forward and says: let us actually do something now to enable those people who know they need to strengthen their buildings and who want to strengthen their buildings but are finding it financially difficult to do so. Mr Mark has proposed tax deductibility measures and that will work for some people. But personally I would go further and say we actually also need to look at how we help those people who are owners of apartments in residential buildings who have been affected in the same way either through the tax system or through some kind of low-interest or no-interest loan facility.Right across New Zealand but especially in places like Wellington we have people who live in buildings who are not rich or wealthy. They happen to own an apartment or a flat in a building that is earthquake-prone. They want to do the strengthening. Their bodies corporate cannot borrow money as a group—they themselves are struggling. We need to do the right thing by those people. They are not asking for a handout; they are just asking for some assistance to get the work done and get it done now. I implore the Government to take on the very good things that it has done here in terms of businesses affected by the quake and to take on Mr Mark's SOP. Let us have a package that gets the earthquake-strengthening work done as soon as possible.The other matter I want to just cover tonight is the question of rates. Again to help Mr Bishop out a little here this is the time when we set the annual rates. It is a bit late in the day it would be fair to say for the 2016-17 year. You know taxpayers right across New Zealand have actually been paying their tax presumably hoping the Government would actually pass the rates but it has left it pretty late and it has left it very late to the point where we might have some other announcements that might change the tax rates coming our way.I challenge the Government speakers opposite to be up front with us. If David Bennett was here he might know already what those tax rates are. But I want to know from the Government what is actually going to happen in terms of tax rates. These will be one of the shortest-term sets of tax rates ever passed in this House I venture to suggest because when it comes to Budget time we know the Government is not going to be able to resist the old tax cut dance in election year. Throw something out there—despite the fact it has created a massive deficit in infrastructure and social spending throw out the tax cuts. Make sure that the public think that there is a chance here that they will get something from it.I endorse what my colleague Michael Wood has said. What the tax system needs in New Zealand is a thorough far-reaching review. We have reached the point now where we have huge inequalities in our country particularly in terms of wealth. The owners of assets—that is where inequality is now residing and in our tax system we need to take another look at that to make sure that we actually achieve the Minister's goal of fairness which she said was the bedrock of the tax system. Right now today as we set—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. The time has come for me to leave the Chair.Debate interrupted.The House adjourned at 10 p.m."