Salesa Jenny; Uffindell SamASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members before we broke for lunch we were debating the Taxation Principles Reporting Bill. The next call is a split call.SAM UFFINDELL (National—Tauranga): Thank you Madam Speaker. Well as we rejoin after lunch it's great to be able to stand and rise and speak against the Taxation Principles Reporting Bill. We heard some novel suggestions from one of the previous Labour speakers—that they are so committed to transparency—and I would laugh at that and say that this is one of the least open and least transparent Governments that New Zealand has ever had. Now there is a bit of nobility around wanting to increase the information and we all want transparency and we want a tax system that is open and transparent and importantly easy to administer. I'm not sure that we're going to get that with this because if we look at the other tax increases that this Government has brought in around interest deductibility around the brightline test that has significantly increased the administrative burden and cost on the New Zealand tax system.We saw an investigation that the Minister set off recently into 311 wealthy New Zealanders and it was about increasing transparency supposedly—I would challenge that and say that it was about laying the groundwork for a wealth tax. We know that this Government has said that they will not have a wealth tax but the reality is if Labour wins the next election they will be in coalition with the Green Party with Te Paati Māori who have both over the past 24 hours said that they are ardently committed to a wealth tax. So the reality for New Zealanders is if there is a Labour Government next term it will have a wealth tax component as part of any coalition agreements.I will go back to that study and I raised it earlier today that it wasn't an accurate study and it didn't give New Zealanders a fair reflection because it looked at the wealthy New Zealanders and it took into account unrealised capital gains but when it looked at the average New Zealander it only included PAYE income which is completely misleading and didn't account for their unrealised capital gains.I will also point out something that I read. This Government likes to say about how they're for the working class and how they're for the average people; they show themselves you know to be committed to every average New Zealander. This Government has presided over the greatest wealth transfer from the lower and middle classes to the wealthy in New Zealand's history. That report showed that in 2017 those 311 individuals took an income of $1 billion. You fast-forward to March 2021 and under this Government that had skyrocketed to $14.7 billion. So that is what these champagne socialists do. They preside over inequities they preside over incredible wealth transfers and they claim to be open and transparent about it.Now we don't need a taxation principles bill to show us what our principles should be around taxation. We want it to be open fair and easy to administer. The National Party's principles on tax are simple: we want Kiwis to keep more of their hard-earned dollars because on this side of the House we fundamentally believe that New Zealanders deserve to keep more of their money and they know how to spend it a lot better than the Government does.Now the socialists on the other side of the House will disagree with me on that and they will think that the Government knows better. We heard that there were piles of wealthy people ringing in to hand out more money wanting to give more. You would think—and the ACT Party put it quite well yesterday—there was a line of people lining up outside the Beehive to hand over more money to this Government in the belief that this Government does such a good job with it. That's the sort of happy fairy tale that you read to young socialists at night but on this side of the House we fundamentally believe that hard-working New Zealand taxpayers deserve to keep more of their money. We don't believe this bill will enhance that. We don't believe it is a bill with a purpose. We don't believe there are any substantive ideas in the framework of it and the bill is also very light on the details around what reporting would be required. So I quite clearly stand to oppose this bill.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): I call on Rachel Boyack for five minutes.