Shaw JamesHon JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green): Well obviously the members of the Government don't have a great deal to say about this bill. They can't defend it because it is an indefensible bill. As far as I'm aware no one in the coalition Government has said that they object to any of the seven principles that are outlined in the Act that is about to be repealed here. So if they don't object to the principles themselves the question then is: why are they spending the last sitting day or two of the year repealing this? They ran an election campaign saying that they were going to be relentlessly focused on the cost of living for New Zealanders. The question here is: when there are 2½ fulltime-equivalent staff in an operation of 4000 at Inland Revenue how does repealing this Act reduce the cost of living for middle and low income New Zealanders? The answer is that it makes no difference at all to the cost of living of middle and low income New Zealanders.So the question then is: in whose interests is the Government repealing this Act? That is obvious—the answer to that is obvious. It is the interests of the people who pay less of a share in tax as a proportion of their wealth and income than middle and low income New Zealanders and those are the people who are the donors to the National Party and the ACT Party and the New Zealand First Party who funded those parties' election campaigns in order to ensure that their tax transparency would be erased so that questions would stop being asked about what an unfair unproductive unprofessional and inequitable tax system we have.Particularly for those members of the National Party who when they were in Opposition sat on this side of the House and day after day after day taunted the Labour-led Government around how transparent they were being how open and transparent they were being throwing that in the faces of the Government at the time—and one of their very first acts as a Government is to take away openness and transparency about the tax system of this country to simply eliminate that and to say We actually don't want to know. We want to see no evil we want to hear no evil and we want to speak no evil about what an inequitable tax system we have." Because that is what is in the report that has already been written that is under the current Act.So those are the only interests—Hon Judith Collins: Point of order Madam Speaker. I draw to your attention Speakers' ruling 55/5 where it is out of order to say that a Government is influenced and certainly that is what I am hearing from the member who has just resumed his seat. It's out of order to suggest a Government or any member is subject to outside domination. It does say that the term "pressure" is a borderline one but it is really not in the spirit of Speakers' rulings nor is it by the way in the spirit of Christmas and when I'm on my feet—thank you—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Is this still the point of order?Hon Judith Collins: So I would ask the member to withdraw his statement please.Hon JAMES SHAW: Speaking to the point of order I did not say that the Government was acting under influence.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Just to the member that raised the point of order I did seek clarification when I heard that comment and technically it is within the Standing Orders. Thank you.Hon JAMES SHAW: Well in the spirit of Christmas just seeing as we're taking away transparency we're taking away openness about the nature of this tax system in a way that obviously makes no difference to average New Zealanders which the members of that Government said that they were supposed to represent. And I do want to thank the Minister for her interjection there just because it helps to kind of really point out just how defensive they are about what a pointless bill this is given that actually the one thing that we did not have a good understanding of in this country was an understanding of the nature of the tax system and of wealth distribution and so on and so forth. That was why this Act was there.So for all of those new members who have been elected as part of the Government benches I'd just ask them to reflect on exactly why it is that this has been introduced. What is so urgent that it gets introduced under urgency right before Christmas in order to kind of fill the time? I have to say that for a Government whose coalition agreements refer to saying that "decisions will be based on data and evidence" one of their very first acts is to ensure that there is no data or evidence in relation to the tax system of this country. I have to say that it is appalling that this Government would say as one of its very first acts having fought an election campaign saying that the whole point was to focus on the cost of living that this only serves the cost of living of the wealthiest New Zealanders of this country."