Scott Alastair; Williams PotoALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa): Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. I too am pleased to contribute to this debate. I'll pick up where Mr Wood left off and talk a little bit more about the KiwiSaver because that is a part of the bill which has given greater efficiency and greater access to more people to be able to save for their retirement. That previously those over 65 were not able to participate seemed to me to be slightly an ageist proposition and I'm pleased to see that those over 65 can now join KiwiSaver.Also the holiday break is now no longer a five year minimum; it's a one year minimum—that's also a good thing. People's positions change. They may not have been able to afford to contribute for a short period and therefore take a holiday but to be locked into that holiday for five years does seem excessive so I'm pleased to see that break is brought back to a one year minimum.The 6 percent to 10 percent are interesting changes—remembering of course that we've always been able to add or put in lump sum payments. But it is always useful to be able to increase the flexibility around KiwiSaver and the contributions that are made.One thing I would like to challenge or ask the Government to consider—the question is: are we having enough people contribute into KiwiSaver? Are we getting everyone in that should be in to KiwiSaver? We know that not everyone is in KiwiSaver and perhaps those that can least afford to contribute and save are not in KiwiSaver. So there's a little challenge for the Government of the day to think about.Next point I'd like to touch on is the real time—or near - real time" I think Grant Robertson mentioned—measurement of tax liability. That's a good thing—especially the fact that 750000-odd people will no longer need to file a return—because of course the information's already there. If you're a salary or a wage earner and you've got some simple straightforward investments there is really no need for one to file a return because the information's already coming in to the IRD from other sources—from your employer or from the bank or the broker that's declaring and showing through the other channels that are feeding into IRD exactly how much an individual is earning over a month or six months. And again there's flexibility in this bill to allow provisional taxpayers to change the mode of provisional tax payments. And that's also a good thing.I know that IRD are turning their mind to it but the challenge is to use this technology to catch up with the few people that are not paying their tax. Particularly I'm talking about child support payments. I'm talking about fathers who go from job to job and when they do get caught up by the IRD they move on to another job simply to avoid their obligations to their kids who are being looked after by usually mum—and certainly not them. So I know technology is changing within IRD. I know that that information is now available because we've got this bill which tells me that it is available from sources other than the employee. So the challenge is to make haste—I challenge the department and the Minister to make haste in rectifying what is a challenge for kids that are not being supported and could be supported by their fathers who choose to avoid their obligations. The next point I'd like to touch on is Mr Wood talked about bridging the gap—how are we to bridge the gap about building infrastructure and social and physical infrastructure? We've got to tax apparently—apparently the only way is to tax. Well I've got the answer Mr Wood and that is to prioritise properly—that is to prioritise properly. Do not waste—do not pour it up against the wall—when it comes to taxpayer funds. I'm talking of course about the priority that's being given to tertiary students I'm talking about the priority that's being given to Shane Jones' slush fund and I'm talking about the priority that's being given to Winston Peters' foreign affairs budget. That's how you bridge the gap. That's how you do not need to increase—or maintain I should say—and cancel the tax cuts that were proposed and put in this legislation by the previous National Government. Remember and I think we've already heard in this House around the fuel tax—about $500 $700 per family. It doesn't really matter what the number is but I think we all have agreed that that is a regressive tax. That's a tax that hurts those who can least afford it. It affects them the most. It's a fixed number essentially of a fixed fee and we've agreed that it's a regressive tax. Now what this Government has done is to cancel a progressive tax cut. That is the same sort of amount—about $1060—that was going to go to any family that earned over $52000 and a little bit less for those who earned less. But essentially it was a universal payment to workers. That is the opposite of a regressive tax—a fixed lump-sum tax. It is called a progressive tax cut because it benefits—it benefits—those who can least afford it out there because it means more to them than it does to someone on a very high income. It is exactly the opposite of the regressive tax that we're talking about when we're talking about the regional fuel tax. So it is a shame and it is a sad day that we are continuing with the same old same old fiscal drag tax rates and not taking the opportunity to introduce a progressive tax cut that affects poor people the most. It is disappointing to me that that is being revoked and that is the fundamental reason—the fundamental reason—why we are opposing this bill. Despite the other good stuff that's in there—the stuff that was introduced and kicked off by this Government—the fundamental reason is because the tax cut opportunity—a progressive tax cut that affects the people who need it the most—was rejected by this Government. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I understand this is a split call."