Tabuteau FletcherFLETCHER TABUTEAU (NZ First): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak to this the third reading of the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2016-17 Closely Held Companies and Remedial Matters) Bill. Firstly let me say for the benefit of my colleagues on the other side of the House that New Zealand First will be supporting this legislation at this the third reading. [Interruption] I am grateful for their cries of delight.I will start off though by highlighting and putting to the House that at its core our tax system relies heavily and is highly dependent on trust. It was very scary when the Minister in charge of destroying—I mean growing—the New Zealand racing industry came out to take the first call on this the third reading. His empty platitudes and generic descriptions of an ideal tax system must have sent shivers up the spine of Chris Bishop and tax experts throughout the country and in fact taxpayers themselves. I just want to give a few quotes to the House: A number of items in the bill are business friendly."—that was lovely to hear. "We must always aim to uphold the integrity of the tax system"—that was absolutely lovely to hear. "Ensuring that our tax rules work well in practice helps to keep compliance costs to a minimum which in turn helps our economy to grow and prosper." I tell you for the 2½ minutes he made his contribution in it was wonderful to hear. But that was the extent of the Minister's contribution and that was the fullest detail we got from the Minister for Racing. It was intriguing to say the least.I do know that some—myself included—are concerned that we have less than a week to go before this law needs to come into effect. Indeed that the Government's legislative schedule for this bill has accelerated somewhat speedily is perhaps an understatement. The reasoning for this is that the Government's appropriations over the last year will in fact be unlawful otherwise. I put it to the House that that does not in fact inspire any kind of trust at all in this Government's legislative capabilities.In terms of the annual rate which was a significant part of the legislation—although a small part of the legislation—it has remained unchanged for many years. I think off the top of my head it has been 6 years. Even though we have got a week to go this Government still has an opportunity to be very clear before the election to either make a statement on low-income and middle-income earners or address the fiscal drag issue for example.But I would suggest to the members opposite that firstly they need to stop talking about their scandalously named "surpluses" and instead ask: can they actually get Government services such as the police health—education is a great example. Just out there this afternoon there was the taking and receiving of a submission from those in early childhood education who outlined in great detail how their services alone have been short-changed by $500 million since this Government came in and changed the laws—nearly half a billion just in early childhood education. That is the indictment on this National Government at the moment. So what I am suggesting is that its scandalously named "surpluses" are ridiculous.What the Government members need to do instead is talk about getting us back to the point at which they actually took over—get us back to the start and then own up to the problems ahead of us—and then they might be able to have this conversation about the annual rates although I think they are still in denial. They still need to actually build some homes for the homeless people of New Zealand which is just an anathema to say in this House. The "homeless people of New Zealand"—I cannot believe I am saying that. They actually need houses and the Government needs to be part of the solution but that is not going to happen. This Government will not own up and will not admit that there is a problem.The annual rates provided us with an opportunity to have a conversation which did come up in the second reading about secondary tax rates. In a world where the Government has promoted and advanced the thinking around a mobile and flexible workforce this Government—that Government—refuses to even talk about changing the secondary tax rate rules. Right now people who are living pay cheque to pay cheque—and we are talking three or four every week because they are holding down two or three jobs—are paying exorbitant rates of tax on their second job. It does not matter that it is not enough to support their families. It does not matter that it is not enough to pay the rent. This Government will not admit to the problem or do anything about it.In the second reading we noted that the Government's revenue strategy seeks to ensure that our tax system is broadly fair to encourage voluntary compliance. What the Minister who spoke at the time needs to realise is that not all business believes in that "voluntary" part. Recent revelations highlighting what we already knew regarding multinational corporates and their zero tax payments would seem to suggest that "broadly fair" in this Government's mind might apply only to international big business whilst our wage and salary earners our small and medium sized New Zealand - based businesses must bear an exorbitant share of the tax burden that this Government is putting on them. In fact I put it to the House that it was only last year that Minister Joyce boasted to us that it was the middle class and the wealthy who were bearing the greatest burden of the tax in New Zealand. He said it like it was a good thing—like the middle class who are currently struggling just to survive and in fact are moving down into the lower class should be proud that they are paying an unnecessary and high tax burden.It is an issue that the Government has refused year after year to hold big business to account on in terms of their tax obligations. Whether we call it evasion or avoidance is beside the point. This Government has for years spoken about those kinds of tax practices being smart business. It has suggested that if it enforced the tax rules those businesses might not want to operate in New Zealand. It even suggested that it was too hard and too complex. Then it said: "Oh no no no we have to work with the OECD in order to make this unilaterally fair across all borders." It just does not make sense and in the meantime New Zealanders are suffering.I do want to touch on another point that has been raised and that was in this legislation with regard to the reporting and recording of foreign trusts. New Zealand First was indeed part of a minority report that suggested to this House that although we have taken great steps in the right direction we still have some transparency issues and the publication of the list might be one of those issues that we need to deal with.With little time on the clock I do want to say that the Government has achieved some good things in this legislation. We think that we will support this bill because in the main it actually does what it says it will. Just to end it I would like to actually have a brief conversation with Mr Bishop—in that I agree with him which does surprise all in the House today—around the need to use legislation to alter or adjust the charities list. But bear in mind Mr Bishop that currently under this Government's administration there is far too much power given by Order in Council to Ministers and their discretionary powers—all their obligations to talk to their mates in order to make a consulted and engaged decision with the stakeholders in the community. But in the main we congratulate the Government on this legislation and do in fact commend it to the House. Thank you."