Watts SimonSIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Well thank you very much Madam Speaker. It's an absolute pleasure to rise to speak on the Taxation Principles Reporting Bill first reading. Hasn't it been interesting this morning and this afternoon to hear some of the commentary from the other side? Comments such as that from the Hon Minister Twyford about how transparent this Government has been in regards to taxation and their principles; how the Minister in their speech said very genuinely I've written to all political parties and we are open for discussion."—if I quote the Minister in regards to his comments on this bill only a few hours ago. Well on 9 May in the Finance and Expenditure Committee (FEC) in regards to this exact topic around the IRD departmental report I tabled a motion to move that the committee call for relevant officials from IRD for a one-hour briefing on the high-wealth individuals research project published in April 2023—a simple request a simple motion in order that the Finance and Expenditure Committee of which a number of members are in this House right here could actually get officials to come in and outline more background on the underlying principles of which this bill is based upon. And as has been outlined in terms of the Minister's letter I am open for discussion. When that motion went to the committee it was supported by of course National ACT and even the Greens supported that motion. But Labour members voted that motion down. They voted down the principle of transparency of getting the Inland Revenue in to explain some background around the tax principles in the research report that underpins this bill. They voted that down. So all this narrative from the Minister and the members on the other side holds absolutely no water. They have no credibility. They are simply words. The evidence and the substantiation around driving more transparency being willing to discuss this in open forum was shot down in flames. That personifies a Government that is all talk and no action. How could you hide behind the fact that you do not want to talk about the integrity of this report? Sure many will see pros and cons around this but I think it has placed in particular our Inland Revenue Department which was for the record the first organisation that I was employed in at university—right? I was a summer intern for the Inland Revenue Department working in Manners Mall in personal customer services—that was a department back in those days—and it was an absolutely exceptional organisation. I worked with and learnt from some of the best people. But I believe that they will be very disappointed by this bill because this bill and the underpinning report that they were commissioned to do by the Minister has become politicised and that is a great shame in terms of the integrity of our tax system. Schedule 1 of this bill talks about tax principles. It outlines a number of aspects in regards to concepts of horizontal equity vertical equity efficiency and likewise. A number of speakers on the other side have articulated that these are all well-established principles. Well they are not. They are not well-established principles. There is significant commentary and also criticism from officials in regards to the explanation of some of these principles some of the assertions and unfamiliar nature of the statements—in particular the unfamiliar statements around horizontal equity which is one of the principles here on the sheet—absolutely acknowledging that there are different positions on these aspects. Inconclusive and contested statements—the comments from officials—around GST is regressive. We heard the Minister speak exactly that statement in his speech today in regards to that. But there is ideological overlay in regards to that and the way in which this has been blended into this bill means that this is simply not credible. The Minister is using incorrect information or potentially the Minister is misunderstanding the information which as a result of that can lead to mistrust. What I mean by that is the Minister is cherry-picking particular aspects from that IRD high-wealth report. I'll give you an example of what I mean by that. He consistently refers to the mean wealth of $276 million when the median wealth is actually $106 million a far more appropriate measure. But the element that the Minister is deliberately using in regards to referring to mean wealth indicates a completely different quantum of differential. That use of incorrect information—or potentially he misunderstands the information or misunderstands the difference between "mean" and "median" which I don't know maybe he does. Something's going on but the use of that incorrect information is causing mistrust and that is well known and that is established in terms of what the Minister has articulated.The other aspects that the Minister has referred to in regards to some of those principles—he said in his speeches earlier today that the bill includes sound principles; another quote: "generally accepted principles". Well I'm sorry that is a perspective from a Minister that is trying to drive through ideological tax reform and they are not based on getting a wide perception of feedback from tax experts and specialists across this country. This leads me on to the process if any in terms of the substance of the consultation that has been undertaken leading up to the provision of this bill. Because for what we know the consultation on this bill has been lacklustre. It has been limited. And while there was some consultation it is very clear from some of the official reports that the people who were consulted around this bill do not fully endorse this bill and that is the reality of what we are seeing. That's a shame because if you only consult a very narrow group you're only going to get a very narrow aspect of feedback. But then if that narrow group doesn't necessarily endorse this bill then one would expect that maybe you should go a little bit wider before tabling a bill under urgency in this House with a shortened report back in regards to pushing this through under pace. I mean there are probably only a couple of reasons why you would want to do that for a bill. Or there could be a couple of reasons why you'd want to do that: one you're sitting on your policy tax agenda for the election and you need some of this stuff in the play to allow that to be endorsed or substantiated. The other reason is—well who knows?The other factor around this bill is in regards to the costs of actually funding and administering this bill. There's nothing in the clarity in terms of what it is going to cost. What are the resources? Is IRD going to be receiving any additional information in regards to being able to administer this Act and what will that look like? So there is a cost of doing this and there is no clarity around what that would be. Well there actually is in terms of some of the cost benefits and the number of fulltime-equivalents but there's no clarity in terms of how that will be funded.So we've talked about funding. We've talked about consultation. We're talking about the things that people who were consulted have not endorsed. We've talked about the principles which are not generally accepted. We've talked about the fact that when they say transparency they act completely differently. And we've evidence that substantiated that with an example in real life in FEC where that was in exactly this area on exactly the same topic. We've talked about the use of incorrect information by the Minister.Lastly I'll finish off with the powers within this bill to be able to request data from the public. It is without doubt that this bill opens up the ability for Inland Revenue to collect data from New Zealand citizens in an unfettered manner. That should be raising significant flags in terms of the scope of what that information will be used for. New Zealanders don't need more big government in their lives. This bill is a bad bill and for that reason we will be opposing it."