Simpson ScottHon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you Madam Speaker. For those who may be watching on their television sets or listening on their wirelesses we're in a strange situation in the Parliament—Hon Member: Wireless?Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: The crystal sets? Perhaps there are some people listening on their crystal sets. John Banks always used to say that people would be listening on their crystal sets. I remember him referring to that regularly. But here we are on a Thursday morning in parliamentary urgency. It's a weird kind of a thing for people who are not part of the parliamentary process because the calendars around the debating chamber still say Tuesday 15 August. The reason we're doing this is because we're in the last dying days of the current Labour administration. Their shambolic legislative programme is being pushed through under urgency and this bill—the second reading of the Taxation Principles Reporting Bill—is just one of a suite of ideologically driven bills that the current Government is trying to push through before their term in office comes to an end.On this side of the House we oppose this legislation. We oppose it quite simply because we know in the National Party at least that we don't need to have a piece of legislation that tells politicians about how tax law should be interpreted and applied. We don't need a piece of legislation that goes through a set of make-work principles that are designed to do little other than lay a groundwork for even greater taxation. I had the dubious privilege of sitting in the debating chamber at about 11.50 last night listening to the Hon Dr Deborah Russell waxing lyrical. In fact it was almost Shakespearean in its delivery full of pathos and passion. It's just a shame that at 11.50 p.m. she had such a small audience because I don't think there would be too many people listening on their crystal sets last night. But if anyone wants to go and have a look at the theatre of parliamentary debate there was a good example of it last night. But it was mostly just theatre and that has become the hallmark of this Government a Government that is much bigger on theatre than actually principled actions. So we oppose this piece of legislation because we see it simply as a bureaucratic make-work scheme of which this Government has become so good.Of course it's obvious that a tax system should be fair that it should be simple and that it should be transparent and administratively easy and adequate to service the country's revenue needs. But those things are all given. They don't need a bespoke separate piece of legislation. They are a given; they have always been a given as part of the nation's taxation regime and they will continue to be notwithstanding this piece of legislation. But what is happening here as my colleague the very insightful and articulate Michael Woodhouse mentioned just a few minutes ago is that the real thing that the Labour Government wants to try and do is lay the foundation for increasing tax for New Zealanders. They want to introduce a wealth tax. They want to introduce a capital gains tax. They want to tax New Zealanders more. In fact it's been the hallmark of this Labour administration over their time in office that they really only have three policies on anything whether it's tax or any kind of subject you might like to raise. They have only three policies and their policies are to ban it make it compulsory or tax it. Often—often—they are a combination of all three: banning making compulsory or taxing and then for good measure tax again and tax again; just keep raiding the pockets of New Zealanders as if they were tapping into an unlimited ATM.When we go back and have a look at the genesis of this bill we find that the father of this bill was none other than the Hon David Parker in his capacity as the then revenue Minister. Now he's no longer the revenue Minister and what's been interesting is that his principled act of resigning as revenue Minister and then his reluctance for instance to back or endorse in any way shape or form the Labour Party's election promise to take the GST off fruit and vegetables is very telling. It's often the way in the Parliament and indeed in the discourse of political debate that sometimes it's what's not said that speaks louder than what is said. What's not said speaks louder sometimes than what is said and David Parker has not been saying much about the dancing on the head of a pin by the finance Minister Grant Robertson in terms of his flip-flop on what he previously referred to as a boondoggle". Well this piece of legislation provides the very foundation for the work that Mr Parker and I suspect a small coterie of his colleagues had wanted to achieve had they been able to convince their caucus and Cabinet colleagues that the introduction of a wealth tax was a good idea.Well they got rolled on that—they got rolled on that—when Jacinda Ardern exited stage left and Chris Hipkins fell into the spotlight. He immediately put those plans on to his policy bonfire and they are no more. He's gone from what David Parker would I am sure have assumed was a principled position at least in his mind to one of utter political expediency. We know the reasons for that. The reasons for that relate to an upcoming general election in less than 60 days. So here we are in urgency on a Thursday morning in the dying stages of this Labour administration debating an ideological piece of legislation that is little more than bureaucratic make-work—unnecessary; confirms principles that are well known understood accepted and have been part of the taxation framework structure of the New Zealand economy for years and years and years. No one is suggesting that they shouldn't be there other than that they don't need to be in a bespoke and special piece of legislation. So when we look at the principles—and my colleague Michael Woodhouse and even the Minister the Hon Dr Deborah Russell last night was waving around in the debating chamber towards midnight last night a copy of Adam Smith's four principles on tax from 1776 in The Wealth of Nations. I was surprised to know that Michael Woodhouse keeps a copy on his Kindle. I'm sure that he reads it regularly! Those principles have been part of taxation policy work for years and years and years and enshrining them in a piece of legislation like this is little more than bureaucratic make-work.So on this side of the House we don't think this bill is necessary. We are very sceptical very suspicious and very understanding of what this Government's aims and objectives are should they find themselves in a position where they want to tax New Zealanders more. It was Damien O'Connor the senior Labour Cabinet Minister only a week or so ago who said that the problem we have is not enough tax. In a moment of lucid clarity he actually spilt the beans: they want to take more tax from New Zealanders. Well on this side of the House we take the view that Governments should have a much greater respect for taxpayers' hard-earned dollars that the wasteful spending should stop that the country needs to get back on track and that this piece of legislation doesn't help that. It doesn't help that. Help is on the way—help is on the way. A general election is imminent and we think that in very short order New Zealanders will vote in the ballot box in the secrecy and privacy of the ballot box and they will make a decision about whether they want to have a Government that is determined to tax them more determined to spend more money determined to be more wasteful and have less respect for taxpayers' money or whether they will want a Government that is sensible pragmatic and sound and that will lead the country to a far more rational and balanced economic approach that is going to get us out of the recession and the economic dire mess that we are currently in. We oppose this bill."