Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much Madam Speaker. What an interesting discussion on this Thursday morning that's also somehow a Tuesday still because we're in urgency. While the parliamentary calendar is delayed by a couple of days I can assure New Zealand that we are in fact still a couple of days closer to the election and the change of Government that so many people want in order to get their country back on track.But it's been an interesting discussion from the three Smith brothers. We've had Stuart Smith and before that the reference to ACT's Damien Smith and of course Adam Smith their older brother—their contemporary—but also other interesting discussions around the House. I do want to refer to a couple of those because I think it's quite illuminating the way that different parties have approached this. I enjoyed for example in David Parker's valedictory statement the reason that he set out why in his time in Parliament he's been fighting the Labour Party on these things. I didn't find all his remarks particularly persuasive but I do like that he gave a really good go at persuading the Prime Minister and the finance Minister of the wisdom of his tax principles. At least he has shown that to him the Groucho Marx quote does not apply that if you don't like these principles then I have others.Anyway it's been an interesting discussion and I think actually at the heart of it is a question that was asked by my colleague and friend the Hon Michael Woodhouse leading the debate from the National Party side of things which was to ask why we need a framework scheme divorced from actual tax policy or law that would actually have a real-world meaningful effect. Because actually what we have here Madam Speaker as you'll be aware having heard the debate is not a particular proposal in terms of rates or bans or even types of taxation that should be levied—which is not you know technically accurate—or you know imposed if you like. I was trying to find some more neutral way of putting that. Anyway the taxpayers of this country have particular proposals that are made by political parties ahead of an election. Of course the Government of the day can introduce policy by way of a Budget or at other times too for that matter. But we don't have that. All we've got is a set of principles and permission to display and gather data about wealth and income and we can talk about the specifics of that but I don't understand why legislation should be needed merely to put in place an ideological world view. Of course everyone's entitled to their ideology. I agree with our colleague and friend Chlöe Swarbrick who notes that at some level we do all have an ideology so we shouldn't shy away from that. But the point that was being made on this side of the House—I think by my colleague and friend the Hon Scott Simpson—was that if an ideological basis for a law comes through that isn't founded in any kind of reality in any real-world outcome that would be positive and productive then actually that's a very dangerous thing and we should resist that and we should call that out when we see it. We see it here precisely because a law is being passed in this House by the current Government that has no foundation in reality in terms of any real-world outcome positive or negative except of course in the gathering of the data and the presentation of these so-called principles.If this isn't necessary in itself to authorise the fishing expedition or the witch hunt that we've already seen then what is the value of having it in law? I mean potentially one has a sort of framework legislation like the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act (BORA) because that's the yardstick against which you can measure other legislation. In the case of NZ BORA it would be the case that if someone doesn't like the way another law is operating then they can actually go to the court and say that that law should be declared inconsistent with NZ BORA. Obviously we can have a debate and discussion about that and the former revenue Minister before he found his position untenable understands that well in his position as Attorney-General.I presume that no one's going to go running off to the court and say that the tax law that's passed by a duly elected Government isn't consistent with the Tax Principles Reporting Act and therefore should be struck down or declared inconsistent. But this is the door that we open when we have framework legislation that sets up principles against which other legislation can be measured and does not in itself provide anything useful or concrete or tangible to affect the taxpayers and indeed the other citizens and residents of this country.We've heard from the Hon Dr Deborah Russell as the Minister who led the contribution for the Labour Government side of things about Adam Smith the father of economics back in 1776. I find it interesting and amusing—actually I found the discussion genuinely quite interesting despite the fact that it was very nearly midnight last night and I was wanting to do a Cinderella routine and leave the House as quickly as I could before the clock struck 12 with or without my glass slippers. But you know we go all the way back to those centuries of economic thought. Indeed he was credited with starting the idea of economic thought and how markets work and so forth in his seminal work The Wealth of Nations. Yet relatively recent application of principles by no less than the Minister herself and the Hon David Parker and the finance Minister have been discarded as being all the way back in the distant past of 10 years ago and we heard that exchange in question time yesterday.So if we're talking about tax principles and the tax principles Act as it will be soon enough I think we do need to understand as a House and as a country that the principles appear to be very malleable on that side of the House and they seem to be a way of justifying the things that one side of politics wants to do and could do anyway if it were minded. It has a single party majority. It can pass tax law whether we like it or not and then the people can speak. I think Chlöe Swarbrick came so close to understanding and getting it right actually when she said that we've got to be wary of discussion that's only based on the vibes and actually we should be talking with people about what tax policy should be. That's of course the main criticism of this bill as far as I'm concerned. It is just about the vibes. It's not actually doing anything real. It's not doing anything concrete—again good bad or indifferent. It's just not actually achieving anything.So yes let's have a discussion about it. Let's discuss it in the next 60 days with the people who matter which is the taxpayers and other residents and citizens in New Zealand. We look forward to doing so and we'll do so in a way that will produce real positive outcomes for all New Zealanders and not be an ideological witch hunt enabling tax principles bills such as this. We do not commend the bill.