Nash Stuart: Taxation (Annual Rates for 2015-16 Research and Development and Remedial Matters) Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeNash Stuart: Taxation (Annual Rates for 2015-16 Research and Development and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 03 November 2015. Volume:709;Page:7671. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]STUART NASH (Labour—Napier): I would like to stand up and talk to Part 2 of the bill. The wording around this is actually quite interesting because what this relates to is schedule 1 of the Income Tax Act 2007. The wording in that Act is actually quite humorous because what it says is that a person’s taxable income—this is the formula for deriving a person’s taxable income: “tax under table 1 ÷ taxable income;”. You read that and you go: “‘tax under table’ well goodness me are we including that now?” Luckily they define ‘tax under table 1” as the “Table 1” below that formula so it is not actually “tax under table 1” it is actually “tax under table 1” which specifies the rates. But I suppose that if you read that in a particular way you may be talking about the tax you have received under the table and that is what you are eligible for.This is an interesting part of the legislation because not surprisingly no one submitted on Part 2 to the Finance and Expenditure Committee. But I suspect that if they had submitted on Part 2 on the rates and if it was open to debate then it would have been quite a robust debate. I suspect there would have been a whole lot of submitters who argue that the tax rates as they stand under Part 2 are unfair and are wrong. I suspect that what they would have done—because we debated tax legislation last night; all submitters but two said that the legislation was rushed it was not fit for purpose and it will only cause a whole lot of problems going forward. I suspect that if we had called for submissions on Part 2—and of course the reason we did not call for submissions—David Bennett: You were only meant to talk about the bill.STUART NASH: —on Part 2 or the reason no one submitted on Part 2 of the bill as on page—I am talking about clause 65 Mr Bennett. The reason no one did put submissions on this is that they knew it would be a complete and utter waste of time. They knew it would be a waste of time submitting on clause 65 because the Government would not have listened. It has gone through anyway. It is actually retrospective and so what is the point? I wonder whether the next time that this comes up because it comes up every year clause 65 or whatever the name is on the particular bill—I wonder whether we call for submissions on this knowing that of course it will not have any impact. But then again the Government is not listening to submissions on a whole lot of this stuff. What sort of submissions we would get and how long—The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! I am now going to draw the member back to the bill. Submissions that were not made are certainly not part of the debate at this stage of the bill.STUART NASH: OK. Well I was trying to do that. Part 2 as has been alluded to is under the Income Tax Act 2007. By and large the Income Tax Act 2007 and all tax legislation made before 2008 of which this is a piece of legislation was very good tax legislation. What it actually did is set up the country and New Zealand’s families to reap the rewards of a prosperous economy. That is what the 2007 Act did.Unfortunately this amendment to the 2007 Act—because of course these figures have to go into an amended Act and they are not changing but if they did change they would have to go into an amended Act. What it does unfortunately—and the former Minister of Finance the Hon Sir Michael Cullen would be disappointed I suspect if he saw that a piece of legislation under his name from 2007 carried tax brackets that in fact defied or undermined the philosophy that he took as the finance Minister when shepherding this 2007 Act through the House. I know that Michael Cullen really took great care when he put tax legislation forward to make sure that it was fair for all New Zealanders not just the top 0.1 percent. He made sure that the tax burden carried by New Zealanders was done in a way that was fair for everyone. He made sure that the tax system was equitable. He made sure that it was fit for purpose. That is what this 2007 legislation did.However amending the 2007 legislation to put in the tax brackets or the tax burden put forward by the Key Government in fact undermines I believe the purpose and the philosophy that Michael Cullen and that Labour Government of which the Chair was an integral part of course—The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): OK that is enough.