Jones Shane: Income Tax Bill — Second Reading 
Jones Shane: Income Tax Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:641;Page:11225] 
SHANE JONES (Labour) 
: 
 Tena tatou katoa. Firstly let me start off by reminding our listeners out in Aotearoa that this is the Income Tax Bill. It is of enormous size and it reflects a great endeavour on the part of the New Zealand Labour Government and New Zealand taxpayers—to simplify the text and language used—in terms of our tax code. We have excelled in what the British have failed to succeed at. We have excelled in the sense that the Australians despite unwanted visitors in recent times have also failed to create a readable lucid and accessible set of tax statutes. 
I would like to join with the member from the Hawke’s Bay region Chris Tremain and the Minister in charge of the bill the Hon Peter Dunne and identify Therese Turner an independent adviser to the Finance and Expenditure Committee and Sir Ivor Richardson who as a jurist in tax matters is peerless in the history of the judicial community in our country. However I should also turn with some special mention to members of the Inland Revenue Department’s policy team and its drafting team. A more wearying possibly unrewarding and obscure task than rewriting tax legislation is difficult to imagine but I am sure that I speak on behalf of all of the committee when I thank them for a job well done and I look forward to being able to take up Mr Woolerton’s challenge and share a little social conviviality with them. 
 Now I come to Dr Lockwood Smith. Dr Lockwood Smith is a fellow Northlander. He comes from Kaipara and after having heard his speech I am reminded of the English meaning of the word “Kaipara”. It means “to consume offal”. The man has left not one single useful redeeming contribution on the matter of tax this afternoon. He demonstrates why renewal is on its way to the National side of the House. He also shows why the member from Hawke’s Bay Chris Tremain—although he unwisely raised the prospect of knowing something about China which caused this side of the House to ponder whether it was a Peking duck but no it was a rooster pecking away at a Granny Smith apple—and his colleague Craig Foss two youngish but very ambitious members of the Finance and Expenditure Committee will soon replace my fellow Northlander Dr Lockwood Smith. Actually there are two Hon Dr Lockwood Smiths: one does have a contribution to make because of experience in running farms and his interest in tax; the other Dr Lockwood Smith because this is not a pharmaceutical bill has no contribution to make whatsoever. 
However let me come back to the legislation. It needs to be reinforced that clarity was an issue that submitters challenged us to improve upon. Yes lawyers and accountants up and down the country earn their keep from the likes of a number of members in this House in terms of enterprises in terms of high-quality advice and from families up and down the country. But the challenge was to create text that the average Kiwi—God forbid that he or she would want to look at it on a Friday night—would have something accessible in terms of not only what his or her obligations are but perhaps how his or her enterprises might be structured in the best possible way. So the rewriting exercise has taken a long time. Yes there were some elements that have not been fully captured. 
The KiwiSaver legislation is having the impact of a rainbow on the whole nation. It represents a sprinkling of opportunity and investment well into the future. I am sure that complex language was needed to capture the transitional measures from the failed savings policies of the Bolger time and the Ruth Richardson time—policies of course that are not fully repudiated by the current National members. We have to move on from that failed era into our era where the KiwiSaver contributions to the savings challenge we have can be simplified in terms of language. I am sure that in good time the architects of the text will address that. 
In addition to that we have heard some very foolish and almost envious statements really from the seasoned parliamentarian from Kaipara Dr Lockwood Smith about the Working for Families package. Underlying what he is saying is the realisation of those members opposite that they have been outmanoeuvred. They cannot create a compelling argument as to why they can get away with ditching the scheme. So of course they engage in these flights of fantasy and segue into obscure irrelevant discussions as to whether it has been accurately described. 
The key question as I round up and applaud the work that has gone into this text revision exercise to simplify tax legislation is whether members from the National side of the House will have a single idea they are willing to defend and sell because they know the issue is not the nature of the text; it is the content and the impact of the legislation. They have voted against our tax policy. They have no ideas that they are willing to meet us with on the street corner in the halls or even in this Chamber because they quietly and I think mischievously think they can sleepwalk to victory without having to put the case before the nation. That will not happen because we are in MMP politics and they have no friends; we have friends from the community to the commercial world. Kia ora tatou katoa.