Russell DeborahDr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn): Let me tell you a story a story about fringe benefit tax (FBT) on public car parks. A long long time ago—well maybe not that long ago—back in 2012 under a Government led by that party—National—there was a discussion paper introduced and among the issues it canvassed was putting FBT on employer-provided car parks. I think perhaps none of the members over the other side of the House remember that because they weren't here but I remember it. There was a huge outcry about it. All the privileged people who had car parks and could drive into town and park in their employer-provided carpark were outraged that they would no longer have access to this and there followed months and months and months of discussion of outrage of cries for change. Eventually—eventually—after all the discussion after all the debate even though it was a tax change that was justified even though it was a technically correct tax change even though it would have provided greater fairness in the Income Tax Act they folded—they folded—and they didn't go ahead with it. So it took from April 2012 when the discussion paper was first introduced until March 2013 before they finally folded on it—18 March 2013 to be precise—and what it did was it left an unfairness in place. In this bill we are fixing that unfairness. Because we know that there was no public assent to the FBT on car parks we have decided instead that the way to achieve at least some degree of fairness is to exempt public transport from FBT. So previously if you drove—and still now if you drive your private car—on the roads provided by taxpayers and park it in your employer's car park which is provided to you there's no FBT on that but if your employer provided you with a train pass so that you could get to and from work or a bus pass or ferry pass then there was FBT on that. So there was a real disincentive for employers to subsidise public transport for their employees but there was a positive incentive to provide a car park on premises. It's madness. It is madness because not only was there unfairness in that it did not do anything to alleviate our emissions burden that we need to alleviate in this country.In this bill from when this bill goes through if an employer provides a bus pass a tram pass a ferry pass a cable car pass or a train pass to their employee so that employee can get to and from work then there will be no FBT on that. That is an excellent reason to support this bill. It remedies an unfairness that has existed for a long time.There's two points to that story: one is because it introduces the issue of fairness; the other one is because last time around—last time around—the FBT proposal was defeated by politics as indeed was the proposed change we had in an earlier version of this bill around introducing GST on some managed-fund providers. It is a technically correct solution tax-wise.Simon Watts: Oh you know best!Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: Indeed I do. It is a technically correct solution. However the politics defeated and so be it. We'll look at the issue another way; we'll see what else we can do to introduce fairness in the system.Simeon Brown: What else do you know best about?Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: But in fact—I know it's best to have a Labour Government—it was withdrawn and quite correctly the Minister withdrew it. So that is no longer in the bill. But there is this fantastic proposal around fairness and FBT. That fairness is also what underlies the changes to the platform tax proposals. It's about ensuring that providers who operate through platforms are subject to the same tax burdens and benefits as other providers. It's a straightforward fairness proposal.I want to address just one further issue. The previous speaker for the Opposition Andrew Bayly talked about tax cuts and he talked about the need for people to have more money in their back pocket. The tax cuts proposed by the Opposition would indeed put more money in some people's back pockets. It would put more money in MPs' back pockets. It would put more money in CEOs' back pockets. It would put more money in lawyers' and accountants' back pockets. Now I'm fine with people having more money but these are not the people who need it most at the moment. The people who most need money at the moment are the people at the low end of the income-tax scale. The proposal from the Opposition would do nothing to address that or if they did they would address it at $2 a week. That doesn't make any difference.I issue finally a challenge to the Opposition. It's a challenge I have issued at a number of times in this House in the last few weeks and never once have they answered it. Tax cuts" they say. But they will not tell us which services they will cut. How will the Opposition fund their tax cuts? Will they cut health? Will they cut education? Will they cut welfare? They do not answer this question and I say to the people who are listening every time you hear the Opposition and Opposition member-proposed tax cuts ask them to front up and say what services they will cut. If they do not say what services they will cut it is a false promise and they are leading people astray. They must tell us how they will fund their proposed tax cuts.This is an excellent bill. It is a bill about fairness. It is a bill that addresses the needs of New Zealanders. I commend this bill to the House."