Jones ShaneHon SHANE JONES (NZ First): I rise to speak in favour of the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2017-18 Employment and Investment Income and Remedial Matters) Bill. It's very disappointing that the only element that the Opposition can focus on is that particular provision that has been swept into this new bill as a consequence of democracy.The mandate for this amendment to stretch the brightline test from two to five years derives its legitimacy from democracy. Now OK I accept that National went through a process today that defeated democracy but rest assured: those who were disappointed today will be leading the pack in several years' time; of that we've no doubt.But let's come back as to why we should support this bill. Both sides of the House should try and find common ground when really what we're doing is refining the actual administration of our taxation system. Now the particular select committee that's dealing with this ably chaired by Mr Wood follow in the footsteps of my good self in 2005—we tried to find unanimity on that committee.Now let's just quietly go through and identify why this is a bill that really other than a small diversion between two years and five years—the principle was enunciated and the principle was legislated by the other side of the House. What was that principle? That there would be a test to curb the appetite of speculators the effect of which is to drive first-home buyers out of the market. So the principle didn't come necessarily from this side of the House; the principle was enunciated and legislated on that side of the House.Now it's not surprising after an election after a mandate has been delivered—formed a glorious coalition Government—that that overdue business should be taken care of and now it has been. It's disappointing that tawdry politics have been made of this point but anyhow let's continue on.The key point that really the officials have brought to the attention is that there's got to be a continued improvement of efficiency in identifying ways of how people can honour their tax obligations in the most efficient way possible. Now those obligations will grow in volume as a consequence of great things that are going to happen in the provinces. And without a doubt through $60 million - odd then we're likely to see an uplift of $364 million worth of happy activity and 700 jobs. Naturally it's important that the tax system prepare for the inevitable expansion of economic activity that will happen in these benighted neglected areas forgotten about over the last nine years—but more on that later. Far be it from me to use up the entirety of the House's time reciting the many press statements of affirmation and support that have been thrown my way; modesty precludes me from talking about it any further.I'm just going to sort of say a little bit more as to why this particular extension does not defeat the purpose of the Tax Working Group. Now the Tax Working Group is a substantial assemblage of people that I have to acknowledge. One in particular—and I'm sure that the former Minister of taxation would agree with me—is Joanne Hodge. I must acknowledge her in particular—a highly skilled senior woman tax practitioner tax analyst senior partner at one of our bigger law firms. She deserves to be mentioned because to survive in that world not only as a practitioner and a professional but also as a women and a mother they deserve—Hon Judith Collins: She's also married to Rob McLeod.Hon SHANE JONES: Ah! She's worked it out. Married to Rob McLeod—yes of course—both of them high quality people.Hon Judith Collins: Good people.Hon SHANE JONES: Oh were you taking a point of order?Hon Judith Collins: No no.Hon SHANE JONES: Well I must continue.Hon Todd McClay: He sat down.Hon SHANE JONES: No no I never sat down. Madam Assistant Speaker I heard her call for your attention.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Just a moment there—Hon Todd McClay: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Just a point of clarification: he may not have intended to but I'm sure part of his anatomy did touch the chair unexpectedly. It's the same as sitting down; he's given up his right to speak.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): No I don't require—[Interruption] I did not call you—just a moment—I did not call the member; neither did I call the Hon Todd McClay to speak either. We were in the process of changing shifts so at this stage—thank you very much for your intervention—I will allow the Hon Shane Jones to continue with his speech.Hon SHANE JONES: Thank you very much Madam Assistant Speaker. Democracy could have been wrecked but for that unwise intervention on the other side of the House from the member for Rotorua.Let me continue and point out the other areas. Now the bill deals with petroleum mining decommissioning amendments—hmm!Hon Todd McClay: What does that mean?Hon SHANE JONES: What it means is that we're in a transition economy. We're heading towards carbon neutrality but gas still has a role in a modern economy. I think that's what it means in terms of my contribution.But I would say these particular areas and indeed our tax changes—not only the administration of the system and the efficiency and the maintenance of the subsidy and the affirmation that there should be constant vigilance against speculation. And there'll be a debate—there'll be a debate—as to whether or not there'll be additional views thrown into the mix from the Tax Working Group. In fact before I was rudely interrupted I was just acknowledging a tremendously talented member of that Tax Working Group Ms Joanne Hodge. But anyway I don't want to cause her to be brought into the debate any further and possibly pilloried by the other side of the House.In terms of the quality of the work that does take place in relation to that select committee I'm disappointed that there be a hint on that side of the House that there's not collegiality there. I go back to the days when Don Brash was there John Key was there Bill English was there—and I think the worst possible day was when Rodney Hide was there but because the pea weevil [Gestures to Mr Seymour's seat] is not able to participate in this particular debate I won't talk about Mr Hide any more.In relation to employment income information changes that were introduced by the last regime naturally these are refinements; these are matters in terms of quality administration. And it's wrong for either side of the House to actually worsen the prospects of the professional advisers who have a duty to ensure that the system raises revenue legitimately that people are made aware of their obligations and are assisted when they may fall behind in their obligations and most importantly that the system deals with the changing styles of business operation the changing styles of connectedness—I think it was Mr Nash who talked about the fact that the postal system is grossly changed. In fact out my way it's almost like a pony express up there in the Far North. But help's on the way. As I understand infrastructure will improve as a consequence of a certain fund but more on that into the future. I keep the other side of the House waiting for a new round of great care.So New Zealand First supports this bill. New Zealand First supports the work of the select committee and the stance of the Minister in bringing forward the test in terms of five years because let it be known the principle was founded by that side of the House. Now all this side of the House is doing is adding a year or three to that principle. For those reasons we support the bill and look forward to the committee stage where no doubt people will have a chance to ventilate. But it's important that we give hope and we give confidence to that group of New Zealanders who have been priced right out of the property market and we're doing very practicable things in a host of ways including this particular bill. I support the bill.