McNair Craig: Income Tax Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
McNair Craig: Income Tax Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12076] 
CRAIG McNAIR (NZ First) 
:  
There were some submissions that the Finance and Expenditure Committee felt would enhance the Income Tax Bill. I will share with the Committee just one or two of the submissions that were very important to me and that I am very happy to see accepted and taken on board. 
I will share just one submission with the Committee this evening and that was the one from Business New Zealand PricewaterhouseCoopers the Institute of Chartered Accountants of New Zealand and the New Zealand Law Society. They submitted that a transitional provision should indicate that the provisions of the rewritten Act must be interpreted in the light of the corresponding provisions of the Income Tax Act 1994 and associated judicial interpretation other than intended policy changes. They submitted that the transitional provision should also make clear that the rewritten Act is not intended to change the meaning and effect of the Income Tax Act 1994. 
The officials agreed that the bill should contain transitional provisions and indicate that no change in the effect of the law is intended. Where the meaning of a provision in the rewritten Act is unclear or gives rise to absurdity the old law is to be used as an interpretive guide to ensure that no unintended changes in law occur. Transitional provisions should not apply to notified changes in law arising in the rewrite nor to subsequent amendments to provisions in the rewritten Act. The officials agreed with this approach as it ensures that the plain words of the rewritten legislation have full effect from the commencement of the new Act. In conjunction with the Government wanting to promote retrospective legislation to correct unintended changes these further transitional provisions will provide the level of protection sought by practitioners. I believe that was a critical provision in order to give certainty and that the old law should be an interpretive guide in some way shape or form. 
In speaking in the Committee stage of the Income Tax Bill I will take a moment to mention in relation to the last couple of speeches the amount of time we have sat in the Chamber listening to different parties—namely the National Party and the ACT party—say that income and company tax cuts are basically the answer to all of our problems in this country. I say to those members John Key and Richard Prebble that I believe that their way of thinking is just a little bit lazy. As a nation we have exports of roughly only US$3600 per person. Mr Key mentioned how much of a success story Ireland is but that country has an export strategy as well and that is something we do not have and we need. So we need to look at Ireland’s US$19000 per man woman and child and at Singapore’s US$34000 and I say that because we need to have tax incentives for exporters rather than always thinking that the answer to our problems is tax cuts for the rich. I firmly believe that. 
I have to ask myself after hearing John Key and Richard Prebble whether the National Party and the ACT party have a vision. 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: No. 
CRAIG McNAIR 
: Members of the Government say they do not have a vision. I believe that the only vision the National Party and the ACT party have—mainly the National Party because this is what its leader said once—is to have 10 million people living here in New Zealand and to sell the rest of our State-owned assets the last that we have. One asset that I am talking about is Kiwibank. New Zealand First has a bigger vision for New Zealand than that. The National Party needs to think about tax incentives for exporters rather than just chopping the highest tax rate from 39c to 33c—and it does not even really want to do that. We want to encourage this Parliament and this Government to think outside the box. Instead of just thinking about tax cuts for the rich let us give a 20 percent tax rate on new export net profit. 
With regard to National’s thoughts on tax cuts for the rich and not helping the Kiwi battler I will read a question that National’s associate spokesperson on finance asked the Minister of Finance. He said to Dr Cullen in respect of Kiwibank: “… why does he not just admit that the people most happy with New Zealand Kiwibank are the other banks in the New Zealand system which have managed to give that bank the poorest most unprofitable worst accounts?”. I agree with Dr Cullen when he said: “That was certainly a very revealing question. New Zealanders who do not have large wealth and large incomes—according to the National Party’s deputy finance spokesperson—are people not worth having in one’s business.” I say that New Zealand First members have a better vision for the New Zealand Kiwi battler—not the Kiwi battler with three Jaguars in the garage but the Kiwi battler who is earning $50000 a year—and we have a better vision for this country as far as our tax system and our tax laws are concerned. 
In closing I say that New Zealand First does support this bill. One would have to question whether with more than 2000 pages the bill is simplifying the legislation but it is; tax legislation obviously is so complicated. New Zealand First supports the bill.