Clark David: Taxation (Transformation: First Phase Simplification and Other Measures) Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeClark David: Taxation (Transformation: First Phase Simplification and Other Measures) Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 24 May 2016. Volume:714;Page:11158. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North): I do want to press on the previous point that I was making because I have also perused a bit further and I have got further concerns about whether this will be able to be implemented. I am going to cover a bit that has broadly been covered so far in the debate but from a different angle. It is in Part 2—quite rightly—and it is clause 71. We are talking here about software packages that are accepted and able to be used. I go back again to the ability of the Inland Revenue Department to work with these packages and whether this will indeed be able to be implemented.The point I did not make perhaps strongly enough in my previous contribution is about this particular change that is going on at the Inland Revenue Department which the Minister spoke so eloquently about—in fact about his own involvement in bringing the figures down from $1.5 billion to $1 billion. I would be interested to hear how he did that—whether he licked his finger and held it into a stronger breeze or quite how he got to the $1 billion figure because it is a fairly round number. That aside—no perhaps the Minister would like to address that. Part of that change is actually about bringing that computer system into the 21st century.The current system was designed and implemented in about 1993. That is 10 years at least before Facebook came on the scene. It is about the time that Excel spreadsheets were being invented and used. Certainly things like Twitter and all kinds of other things that we use as MPs in our daily correspondence with constituents were not even dreamt of. The existing system we have known has been a legacy system that has not been able to deliver the modern tax system we need.The Prime Minister said—I think it was in 2012; it was certainly on Valentine’s Day because I described it as a Valentine’s Day promise at the time when I was the tax spokesperson for the Labour Party—that he would be horrified to think that policy was being held back because we had a computer system to deliver our taxes that was out of date. We now know as I said in my previous contribution that in fact some proposed tax changes have had to come back to this House because they could not be delivered by the existing tax system. Again here we have some more complex interaction involving software packages. I seek assurances from the Minister that he is confident these can be delivered.In my previous contribution I talked about the changes in thresholds and the date of delivery being 1 April. Some at home may find it ironic that that is the date that is being aimed for by the tax department to deliver changes it has previously struggled to deliver. I ask the Minister whether he has sought assurances that these changes can be put in place without this legislation having to come back to the Parliament to be reversed out again—and of course we know that has an associated cost.The cost of running this Parliament is well over $1 million I think for every bill that goes through. I hope I am right in that. It is a figure I looked up a long time ago. I was certainly surprised at all of the departmental costs that go into it—the staff the MPs’ salaries; the whole works of Parliament. Democracy is an expensive thing. What we do not want is duplication. We do not want to duplicate those costs as they go through. The Minister looks like he is ready to address the question.Hon Michael Woodhouse: I will at a later stage.Dr DAVID CLARK: He will at a later stage he says. Well I think the Minister ought to jump to his feet soon because the people who are following this debate will want an assurance that the Minister is concerned about whether this can be delivered and is not being frivolous with taxpayers’ money to simply ram a political point through and that the system should be more accountable should be quicker and should be less bureaucratic. That political point has been made in this House before and we have all carried the cost as the legislation has come back and we have had to reverse it out. Taxpayers at home have had to bear the cost of that. I think the Minister owes those taxpayers an assurance that the same thing is not going to happen again with this bill.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 171 in the name of the Hon Michael Woodhouse to Part 2 be agreed to.Amendment agreed to.Part 2 as amended agreed to.