Bayly AndrewANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. It's wonderful to be talking on this third reading of the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2018-19 Modernising Tax Administration and Remedial Matters) Bill. I want to congratulate the Minister on a beautifully read summary of the bill that we're about to debate. You know there is a lot of good stuff in this bill I've got to say and I think the underlying tenet of this is that I'm just so grateful that my colleagues initiated that major wholesale change at the IRD that brought about the Business Transformation programme that is leading to a lot of these changes. Of course we're now seeing the fruition of that coming to pass and of course what this bill does is pick up on some of those issues—and I'll come back to that in a moment. But the reason why we cannot support this bill is that it is a continuation of this rapacious Government—that all they want to do is grab money from those hard-working New Zealanders. That's all they want to do and this bill enshrines that by making sure that the tax rates remain as they are. That is the worst thing about it. That's why I am so bitterly disappointed that—when my colleague the Hon Amy Adams put up that wonderful Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) which has now been picked up by the Hon Simon Bridges which is about protecting New Zealanders so that they don't pay more tax than they need to. We want everyone to pay what they should have to pay but no more.This bill enshrines high rates of taxes on people and that is the reason we can't support it. Of course the SOP that Amy Adams put up was about making sure the four thresholds at which you kick over into the higher tax rates are enshrined by making sure that they are linked to CPI. So your wages may increase but the tax rates mean that you would stay in the same bracket provided you don't actually increase greater than that. And that means it is fairer and it is fair for people. Tax creep is the issue—fiscal drag. That is the worst thing about this bill because this Government which has already imposed $2.6 billion of additional taxes in the 16 months they've been in power—they've already imposed that. All they've done is enshrine in this bill that they're going to allow people to pay more tax than they should otherwise have to. That is the issue. That's the issue.The only other issue that we have a fundamental disagreement on with this bill is the issue around bloodstock. I know my colleague Mr McKelvie is going to speak at length on this issue. We support the thoroughbred industry. In fact in my electorate and where I live there are lots of horse-racing operations. We would have liked to have seen something that actually did some good for the thoroughbred industry. What we ended up with was the Winston Peters flop for the racing industry because this bill includes a bloodstock mechanism that doesn't work. We tested the officials at the select committee. And even at the Karaka sales this year it would not have resulted in one single horse getting any benefit or any owners or buyers thereof. That is why it's a sop to the racing industry. Those are the worst things about this bill: those two elements.I'm going to leave it up to my other colleagues to talk about some of the other stuff but I think the one thing that the Minister missed in his summary was the issue of backdating of ACC payments. This is one that the select committee thought about for some time because often you get ACC payments that span financial years. Of course people receiving those payments don't always know about them; they don't plan for them because the payments are made by ACC as an organisation. What this does is to make sure that those ACC people do not actually end up being disadvantaged by receiving a payment right at the end of the year which would otherwise go towards their assessable income. I think that's quite a crucial but small step in terms of recognising them.I think as a bill there's a lot to be commended but those two issues are fundamental and we on this side remain implacably opposed to anything that enshrines the tax rates as they are at a personal level because New Zealanders should be able to keep what they earn as much as they should earn and pay only that amount of tax which is fair and reasonable.