Cosgrove ClaytonHon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour): Well I have got to say that was an interesting contribution from Jami-Lee Ross the person who was acting chair of the Finance and Expenditure Committee (FEC) for one meeting and who did a pretty diligent job I thought rattling through the business. It is interesting too and you have got to ask why we have laboured long and hard as a Parliament to the point of almost exhaustion both mental and physical I think over this particular tax bill. I suspect it will not raise too much of a profile in the general communities apart from any tax practitioners and businesses but you have got to ask why it is as the last speaker Mr Henare said that the Government has not shown a bit more vim and vigour and a bit more sort of commitment to its own bill. That was from the member of the FEC Jami-Lee Ross the chief whip who was—actually I have got to say though that it was an efficient contribution and it was probably a better contribution than the former chair of the FEC David Bennett would have made. It was a far more logical contribution than he made both as chair of FEC and in this House. I commend the bill to the House." is a stunning contribution compared with that genius who has made the outer terrestrial reaches of the outer Cabinet and I congratulate him on that.The point that Mr Henare was making which I am going to enlarge on for a few minutes is the quality of legislation in respect of tax that has come into this House. Mr Henare made a very pertinent point. He said that the Government does not have a great track record on bringing quality tax legislation which either the select committee has to revamp and stitch up and sort of meld back—to sort of Humpty Dumpty put it back together again or this House in the Committee stage has to do that through Supplementary Order Papers.I recall the brightline test which was an absolute shambles under Mr Bennett's stewardship. I chaired FEC many moons ago in my 18 years in Parliament and I have never seen every accounting firm—every accounting firm—major and minor coming in and saying that the Government's tax legislation would not work. It was not just the "big five"; the lot. It was the whole of the profession.Then of course we had the Peter Dunne computer tax/carpark tax which sort of bounced up was absolutely pilloried not only by the profession but also by small business and was sort of parked and then thrown out and deep-sixed and buried and the lid was nailed fairly well firmly down on that proposal. Then of course we had the Government's provisional tax proposals which I have got to say were not bad; we supported them. But they were simply a reaction to a policy that Andrew Little put out. Within a couple of months after 8 years of doing nothing the Government came out with this sort of whiz-bang provisional tax policy that was pretty close to ours except it did not go as far as ours did. So it was a sort of reaction to the politics.I will just say and I share Mr Henare's view that I hope we are not going to come back as we have with a number of other pieces of tax legislation and redo it—get the eraser out get the pen out and start rewriting sections of it. There are some basic principles with tax legislation: it has to be transparent it has to be simply understood and it has to be fair. If those three basic principles are met—if business folk and individuals can understand it it is transparent they get it they can work with it and they consider it fair then generally you have a good First World tax system.On the point of fairness other speakers have said and I agree with them that this was an opportunity for the Government to look at where the burden lies in respect of the tax rates—to look at who is paying most and who is paying least and who is being sort of squeezed in the middle. It could have taken a breath after nigh on 9 years to have a look at that and actually look at that basic principle of fairness. I know that Mr Bishop—who took a very brief call today and who chairs FEC—took a call in a previous debate on a completely different topic which I will not go into—Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Good.Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: —at all except to say that he stood up in the House and struggled to articulate a definition of fairness. This was this week—a definition of fairness. As I said then and I say now I have got to say that the only group of people—the only group of people—in New Zealand who would have to get out the Oxford Dictionary and look up what fairness meant would be Tory MPs.I say to them: if they want to look at fairness and if they are serious about a tax system that is reflective of our community and that is actually equitable then this was the day and this was the opportunity to use this bill to have a look at that but oh no. When the chair of the FEC gets up and struggles to articulate a definition of what he would consider fairness then you have got to say that the communities out there with this Government do not have a lot of hope. After all never forget that it was this Government that—Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: So back to the bill.Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Back to the bill absolutely Mr Deputy Speaker. It was this Government that borrowed more money than Rob Muldoon—more money than Rob Muldoon. It was not for capital spending not to look after the communities and not for more hospitals and schools and those sorts of things that people would consider a fair go—and people pay their taxes expecting the money to be executed in a positive way. But oh no it borrowed more money than Sir Robert for a tax cut—to finance a tax cut. Government members peddle this notion which no one believes that it was somehow fiscally neutral. Well it was not. More than that it was unfair because those on the bottom got very little and those on the top like Mr Bennett got heaps.Here was an opportunity to actually look at it and in this bill look at the annual rates to see whether they are equitable and see whether they are fair. But what we have here is sort of the typical Government approach to tax bills. It did not happen under us. Ours were not ad hoc; ours were well planned and we listened very carefully to learned officials like the former Deputy Commissioner of Inland Revenue Robin Oliver—a person who is a sort of walking encyclopaedia and I think world class in terms of his knowledge on tax—and we produced good solid tax bills. The National Party often did not agree with them—I accept that—but they were solid in their logic and their policy and by the way they worked.We have had so many opportunities to come back and play catch-up and patch up bits of tax bills that have come apart because in the select committee process more often than not the Government rejects the opinion of the tax industry—those who have to actually administer these bills. So we will support the bill because it is necessary to make the country function. But you know if you look at the process and you look at actually what it does it is an omnibus bill—it is a mishmash of a whole series of things cobbled together in an annual rates bill. As I conclude my remarks I just come back to this: it was an opportunity for the Government to sit there even in an election year crass though that may have been to look at it and say: "Hang on. Are our tax rates and the positioning of the rates fair for the community? Are people paying what they should be paying? Are we overburdening certain groups in our society to the detriment of others?" But no it failed to do that. It is a missed opportunity something I suspect those members may live—in Opposition—to regret."