Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much Madam Chair. My colleague Michael Woodhouse says he's not one to give trite speeches on the title of bills. I on the other hand am exactly that person. And I know that I'll receive great support across that side of the Chamber and no doubt from all those watching at home or perhaps both of them by this stage and greetings to both my parents.The title of the bill is actually quite significant in this case. It's a taxation Act—of course it is because that's the whole point of most Labour Budgets or Labour-led Budgets. We're now into Labour-led rather than Labour led by the nose by New Zealand First Government. So I suppose some things have changed even though far too much has stayed the same.So it's not just a bill that's taxing. It's actually been very taxing tonight. And I think we've all done our best to get our head around it and that's been—Hon Peeni Henare: Do us all a favour and call it quits Chief.CHRIS PENK: I beg your pardon? No I've missed the contribution from Peeni Henare the honourable excuse me—Hon Michael Woodhouse: You didn't miss much.CHRIS PENK: I didn't miss much apparently. Well I mean I shouldn't throw stones from inside a glass house so we'll leave it at that.But it's also a significant title of a bill because not only does it relate to taxation inevitably on this the day of Budget 2021 but it refers explicitly to Budget 2021 it's giving effect to that but I wonder if it could just about apply to any Budget that this Government passes. And the reason I say that is because no doubt in 12 months' time we're going to have yet another Budget from this Government that contains much of the same material because the good intentions haven't changed the lack of delivery hasn't changed and that is why we will no doubt be back legislating and re-legislating and unlegislating in the case of some of these measures and then re-unlegislating if there's any errors compounding the errors and maybe remedial measures may be needed for the remedial measures themselves. I think I can only conclude that by saying that—again referencing the comments of the Hon Michael Woodhouse he characterised that previous change as a muck-up". Some people at home might be watching Parliament and think that it characterises something that rhymes with muck-up but I won't obviously dwell on that that would be—Hon Peeni Henare: Stop being a suck up—stop being a suck up.CHRIS PENK: That's actually a very good comment. And I hope that Hansard has captured that from Peeni Henare. And I take it all back what I endorsed before about his lack of contribution to the debate. It's nice to have a Labour member in the Hansard on this bill other than mere closure motions.So anyway my final comment and I do promise you it is my final one is in relation to the commencement date. And it's not that gnarly detail—[Interruption]—I'm being encouraged. I fear not in sincerity but nevertheless. [Interruption] Oh OK. No. I will nevertheless put us all out of our misery in relation to this contribution.But I did want to make a serious point about the commencement which is that it is entirely offensive to anyone who has any kinds of grammatical standards—and I expect others to cross the floor and I'm not going to look at them but they know who they are—when I say that we should not have a phrase "come into force on 1 April 2021." That date is in the past. It should read "Sections 5 6 8(1) and (3) and 9(1) came into force on 1 April 2021." And I look to the Minister to propose or perhaps accept a Supplementary Order Paper that I might put to change—Hon Michael Woodhouse: The whole Budget's a great leap backwards so why don't we just go back in time?CHRIS PENK: Well that's right. Well actually Michael Woodhouse points out again very perceptively and I'm leaning a lot on his contributions tonight in making my own that the whole Budget is a bit of a leap back. I sort of wonder if the Budget also contained an announcement about R & D tax credits for time travel. I think we'll shortly have an announcement about "time travel is soon to be made possible last year" or something like that. But nevertheless we've been in a sort of Back to the Future kind of frame today: we've had compulsory unionism the creation of railway wagon construction yards and a huge national debt. So it's back to the future with Labour. But as far as this bill is concerned we're back we're forward we're in we're out and it's hard to know whether we're up or down.But in any case if the Minister could give some thought to the title of the bill and also that very serious point about the tense and the tension indeed of the coming into force on a date that is in the past as opposed to the fact that it had come into force or we should say came into force that would be much appreciated."