Scott AlastairALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa): I would like to focus on the bill for a minute specifically to discuss some of the ideas that Stuart Nash was talking about earlier when he was trying to suggest that this tainted capital gains portion of the bill somehow enabled capital gains that would otherwise be taxable to be distributed. In fact the opposite is true. That piece of the bill enables gains of a capital nature to be distributed as capital sums rather than as is the case today as taxable distributions. I just thought I would clear that up for Mr Nash at the outset. Other members have quite correctly said there is a lot going on in this bill. Jan Logie listed the whole gambit of affected legislation and I am not planning to do that but what I will do is help Mr Robertson out when he was confused about what were The overall goals of the Government regarding taxation"—I think that is what his words were. One of the overall goals is to make sure that taxpayers have more of the money that they earn remain in their pocket. That comes in relation to this bill in the rates that are set by way of this legislation. That is important—I have not heard anyone in the Opposition talk about the taxpayer. They are the people who we are taking money from and spending on their behalf to help those who are most in need. The philosophy of this side is as I say to either keep rates the same or reduce them and that is only going to happen if we have good public accounts—accounts that are managed prudently and effectively—and by making sure that we hit surpluses. As the House knows projected surpluses in the foreseeable future are positive rising to between $6 billion and $7 billion in the next few years. That enables us to think about options whether it is to pay down debt or coming back to the bill reduce income tax rates. The alternative course from the Opposition is to talk about universal basic income (UBI) as being a core policy of the Opposition.I just thought I would note that there is an article actually in the Wall Street Journal of 4 and 5 June this year which specifically discusses a guaranteed income for all. For the House's interest it is written by Charles Murray who first talked about a UBI in 2006. If you read the article a UBI is a scary thought because everyone gets paid a certain amount no matter what their circumstances are. There is no consideration for those who need it most—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! I am going to ask the member to come back to the bill.ALASTAIR SCOTT: What I am saying is the Opposition's policies in general—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): No no—the member will come back to the bill.ALASTAIR SCOTT: OK the tax rates that are in this bill would not be the same if it were an Opposition made up of Greens and Labour because we know that their policies are only about spending taxpayers' money inefficiently and ineffectively.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! I probably should have got to my feet earlier to warn the member. He actually started his speech quite well. He stayed on the bill for about a minute and a half but since that time he has diverted a long way from it. He has gone through what is not in it from the Government perspective and now he is going through what is not in it from the Opposition's perspective. Neither of those parts are relevant as I have made clear to members earlier.ALASTAIR SCOTT: Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. This bill does a number of things. It is going to be an interesting select committee process. There is going to be a lot of discussion. It is a collegial select committee and I look forward to that debate.Bill read a first time. Bill referred to the Finance and Expenditure Committee."