Parker DavidHon DAVID PARKER (Attorney-General): As the Minister the Hon Deborah Russell has said this is only about a reporting framework. It's not about new taxes it's not about interfering in people's lives but it is about reporting on the actual outcomes of the tax system in a robust and complete way.The member Andrew Bayly is correct that the Adam Smith principles go way back when. But of course since then there have been reports in comparable jurisdictions to New Zealand—including the Mirrlees report in the United Kingdom the Henry report in Australia and in New Zealand reports going back to the McCaw report followed by two reports that McLeod was involved in Sir Rob McLeod followed by the Victory University report followed by the Tax Working Group that the Hon Sir Michael Cullen chaired—that have elucidated on those principles. They are better described and I think the expert advice that the Finance and Expenditure Committee had from Sir Rob McLeod was that the principles were appropriate: horizontal equity efficiency vertical equity revenue integrity compliance administrative costs certainty and predictability flexibility and adaptability.Now it's interesting to hear from Andrew Bayly—because he doesn't actually object to the ones that go to efficiency. He is just fixated on people not being able to understand what the actual outcomes are for New Zealand in respect of horizontal equity and vertical equity. Those are the things that the National Party dislikes light being shone upon.Until the high-wealth individuals report was done earlier this year New Zealanders did not know that that cohort on average had $256 million of net assets each yet paid a tax rate of under 10 percent per annum on their effective economic income. Now Mr Bayly translates that to a statement by the Labour Party that says all unrealised gains should be taxed. That's never been the proposition from the Labour Party and indeed the questions that were asked by the Opposition spokesperson on finance Nicola Willis in the House today illustrate why this is so necessary. She peppered the Government with questions purporting to say that we have a capital gains tax on the family home. This is one of the ways in which the right always manage to obfuscate on the actual effects of tax rates.So that's why this tax principle in respect of horizontal equity says that there are important areas where exemptions to taxing economic income are justified in pursuit of wider social outcomes. For example not taxing the imputed rent or gains on an owner-occupied house. So this principle would put beyond doubt that in the view of this Government you should never tax the family home whether it's on capital gains—and yet that party is voting against it. Why is that party voting against it? Because there are other parts of this bill that really worry them which is shining the light on the true state of affairs in our tax system.Mr Bayly seems worried that there's going to be some enormous compliance burden. You know the study that was produced by the Treasury at the same time as the high-wealth individuals study didn't rely upon any data of an individual nature. It relied upon survey data through the household economic survey which the member doesn't seem to complain about—the household economic survey which looks into the affairs of people in all stratas of society and which we know is very accurate for nine out of the 10 deciles studied or 18 out of the 20 ventiles studied as per the Treasury study. They did that on the basis of that information without having to go to individuals. They then make adjustments to it based on their understandings of other data sets. But they're not going into individuals and doing as we did with the high-wealth individuals research project and that is not going to be repeated often. But that sort of study is necessary occasionally because we know that those survey measures of wealth don't work at the top end as evidenced by the fact that the high-wealth individuals study found that the average wealth in that cohort was $256 million per person including all their trusts and company interests whereas the household economic survey has only ever found two people with assets of more than $20 million and I think the figure was something like $36 million. That's the highest net wealth ever found by the household economic survey. Yet this survey of the high wealthy showed that the average of this cohort was $256 million.Chlöe Swarbrick: They're scared of data.Hon DAVID PARKER: It's just data—it is just data. The idea that the National Party on that basis would oppose this legislation when we know that the absence of data has made for a barren and ill-informed debate on taxation in New Zealand misrepresented by the National Party as they did this very day in respect of the taxation of the family home in the questions by Nicola Willis—another example just today of why we need this legislation and another example of why the National Party hates it because this pulls the plaster off. It shows transparently what's actually going on over time. This is a fantastic bill.Dr Emily Henderson: Long overdue.Hon DAVID PARKER: It's long overdue and I commend it to the House.