Swarbrick ChlöeCHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green—Auckland Central): E te Māngai tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. Let's be really clear about what it is that we're debating today in the Taxation Principles Reporting Bill. This is not a piece of legislation that proposes any amendments to how we collect tax in this country or where the burden of taxation should lie. All it does is outline a way in which we can collect and then go about reporting on the way that our tax system currently operates in this country against a set of seven principles that are outlined explicitly in this bill. I have not heard any arguments from any members of the Opposition—who have stood up and bandied about their red herrings I would say—against those principles. In fact we had quite collegial discussions about what those principles are at the Finance and Expenditure Committee. What it is that they are apparently fighting against is the process of collection and publication of the apparent distortions within our taxation system in this country and therefore the flow-on impacts with regard to productivity inequality and otherwise.So just to really dig into this—and I guess I should first foreshadow that of course the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand will be supporting this bill. I just wanted to commend the former Minister the Hon David Parker for the mahi that he has done in this space not just this year in bringing this bill to this House but also in the production of the high - net-wealth individuals report as published at the beginning of this year which of course as many other members have alluded to—and again it's worthwhile putting on the record—made it patently clear that our tax system is fundamentally unfair and that there is a disproportionate tax burden borne by those who work in this country not those who make their money off of the further and further accumulation of wealth.So the Opposition are fighting against the collection of this data and the Hon Michael Woodhouse said—and I quote—that this is setting the information framework [for] … a wealth tax." Well I think you may be saying the quiet part out loud there because if in fact the publication of this data and this evidence and this information provides the information framework and therefore a rationale for the implementation of a wealth tax well that's a political decision and one that I guess would be mandated by the general public demanding something like this happen because they for the first time have the evidence which very clearly points out the discrepancies and the unfairness in our tax system.Further to that point we heard from the Hon Scott Simpson that this is ideologically driven. Of course this is one of those arguments that I've got to stand up and argue against every single time because guys I'm sorry to tell you all of us here are ideologically driven. We have these things called ideologies or values which underpin our political parties and colour how we interpret and conceptualise of evidence—the things that we're willing to look at the things that we're not willing to look at; the communities that we're willing to listen to and the communities that we are not willing to listen to. We are all ideological and I would say actually the antithesis of ideology is being open to collecting the evidence and the data and looking at it as objectively as is possible—i.e. the very point behind this legislation: to put out objective facts which all of us can interpret subjectively through our ideological values political parties and partisan lenses. So what is it in fact that is ideologically driven? Well I'd say it's the argument ideologically to not collect objective data to prove a point which we could all then go about debating from our different ideological positions.I also heard from the Hon Scott Simpson and again I quote—I wrote all these down—that he's "very suspicious" of what we might do with this data. Again that will be a matter of public debate because all this bill does is set up a framework for collecting evidence and then reporting that publicly. There is absolutely no impetus—nothing in here—that says that you must do X Y and Z with it. In fact that's the point of an election campaign. That's the point of fiscal policy. It's the point of everything that we do in this place—to interpret data. But the point of this bill is that we don't have the damn data to do that meaningfully or objectively—or subjectively—in the first place.The other point made by the Hon Scott Simpson is that this shows a disdain or a lack of respect for taxpayer dollars. In fact I'd say quite the opposite because again as outlined in the research from the Hon David Parker in his former role as Minister of Revenue commissioned by the IRD it made it explicitly and abundantly clear that the average taxpayer in this country pays more than double the effective tax rate of the wealthiest in this country. There is a disproportionate burden on those who earn their income from work as opposed to those who earn their income from wealth. I'd say the greatest disrespect that you could pay to the average New Zealand taxpayer is to tell them that you're not interested in lifting the lid on that issue.In fact I'd say that the most responsible thing that we could do as ostensible leaders of this country is to try and get all the more evidence and data to have an all the more informed public debate on this stuff because otherwise all we're doing in this place is vibes and that's not good enough. It's how we've gone about facilitating and creating tax and economic policy in this country for far far too long. There's a reason that people have an intuition out there that this stuff is unfair because as the data is beginning to bear out from the IRD and Treasury research as reported at the beginning of this year it is unfair.I also need to respond to the point raised by Brooke van Velden from the ACT Party that we can't meet all seven principles. Well that again is part of the point. We are reporting against those seven principles—again I've not yet heard any member of the Opposition argue against any of those seven principles just simply the collection of and reporting of this data. So I'd really really ask them to respond to which of those seven principles they're against. But if you can't meet those seven principles then let's be explicit as lawmakers about which ones we're willing to prioritise and the weighting that we're wanting to put on each of them because that is the political decision. All this does is set up a reporting framework against principles which again it appears there's relative consensus in this House on. The debate is whether we actually report on this stuff in the first place and therefore whether we have an objectively informed evidence-based debate. Brooke van Velden was here saying that there's not going to be any explanation of the trade-offs within the IRD research. That's not their role. Their role is to provide us with the evidence and then it is our ideologically driven positions as politicians which will then decide to interpret and make decisions on how we make those trade-offs on those variables.To that effect it's already been made abundantly clear in the likes of that high-wealth individuals report from the beginning of this year that we're already making quite substantive trade-offs with regard to productivity in this country because what we see is that as a result of our tax system being 136th in the world based on Oxfam's reporting for addressing inequality we know that there are massive challenges right now with how capital flows continue to go into land speculation at the expense of productivity small businesses innovation and research and development. We also know that there are distortions which continue to suppress talent and skills and people's genuine want to participate in our society in lower-income neighbourhoods and communities across this country.I just for the life of me can't understand how we're here having a debate today about whether we just want this data out there in the first place. This bill does not do anything in terms of actual changes to our tax system which I'd say I wish that we were actually debating about because we do have quite substantial evidence that was released at the beginning of this year. But what we're debating about is whether we just have baseline access to what I would say is fundamental information that is useful for having an informed public debate. I thought that was the point of this place. So I really really would appeal to members of particularly the National Party to stand up and to point to which of the seven principles they oppose being reported against because otherwise all I'm hearing from them is ideological drivel and that they do not want objective evidence and information out there which we can pick over and debate explicitly from each of our ideological and values-based standpoints.Just finally because I've got another minute and a half the tax system is unfair and the Greens have outlined our policy going to this election in 2023. The National Party of course are waving around the bogeyman that perhaps the Labour Party might be foreshadowing a wealth tax but I'd say to those who are listening along at home that so far it's only really the Green Party that I'm aware of who have meaningfully outlined how we would implement something like that to pay for a guaranteed minimum income and to make the political choice to end poverty in this country because after all that's the point of this place."