Scott Alastair: Taxation (Annual Rates for 2015-16 Research and Development and Remedial Matters) Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeScott Alastair: Taxation (Annual Rates for 2015-16 Research and Development and Remedial Matters) Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 16 February 2016. Volume:711;Page:9046. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]ALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa): I rise in support of this the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2015-16 Research and Development and Remedial Matters) Bill. I am going to touch on a couple of points in the bill. The bill relates to and supports small businesses. It treats research and development expenditure as if the business had positive cash flows. It gives them the same cash-flow benefit as if it was a business with positive revenues by way of a rebate. It also deals with expenditure that was not deductible until now which should be—and that is known as the black hole expenditure. This is now deductible.The third and most important part of this bill clause 65 relates to the annual rates. As someone said on the other side these rates are the same as last year. Also we know that this party believes that people are better off with lower taxes. The Minister of Finance has already talked about potentially lower tax rates. Let us look at next year’s probability. If it was the other party we would know that it would be the higher rate the tax and spend party that it is. An example of that is Labour’s recent policy announcement on free education: a handout that is only going to cost the taxpayer more. It is going to give the taxpayer a view that the rates under a Labour Government would only be higher with no possibility of tax rates being lower because the Labour Party does not believe that people know how to spend their own money.This Government believes in lower taxes. It believes in people having the understanding and the wherewithal to spend their own money. The free education policy is a problem in that it does not allow the student to have skin in the game. When someone is given a handout it is taken for granted. The result of the new “bums on seats” policy that is being proposed by the Labour Party is that it will achieve nothing more than higher tax rates and higher Government expenditure. It will increase the number of buildings that are required to educate these students; it will take more lecturers more staff and more people to educate them—and for what? For bums on seats.It has not worked in the past and it will not work in the future. It is important that these students have skin in the game so that they can appreciate the money that they are spending on their own education. There is plenty of evidence to say that graduates are paid more. They do earn more over their lifetimes over their careers. It is only fair and reasonable that these people who do earn more as a result of their education should pay for a portion of their education. As we know it is only around 25 to 30 percent of the total cost that they pay—the taxpayer is generous enough to pay for the other three-quarters. That as the Prime Minister said today is about the right balance and that is what the people of New Zealand think to be fair and reasonable. They have no interest in paying for bums on seats for no real benefit.Turning to other taxes for example: by way of not voting for the supporting of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) one can only assume that the Opposition is in support of tariffs because all that the TPP does is it allows us—Hon David Cunliffe: Irrelevant and wrong.ALASTAIR SCOTT: Well it is an example of a tax. A tariff is a tax. By not supporting a reduction in tariffs you are supporting an increase in the tariffs and taxes.The Green Party is quite confused. I am not even sure why it is called the Green Party; it should be more the “Multicoloured Party” or the “Technicoloured Party” because it has absolutely no understanding of taxes. Its members talk about the methane tax. They want to close down farming. They want to reintroduce their fart tax. But of course we know that if we take out the farmers of this country if we take away the sheep and beef farmers who on earth is going to pay for the—what was the quote—“warmer houses the welfare kids and the high living wage”? Apparently those things just grow on trees. I am very pleased to support this bill to the House.