Quinn Paul: Taxation (Annual Rates and Budget Measures) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Quinn Paul: Taxation (Annual Rates and Budget Measures) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:672;Page:18947] 
PAUL QUINN (National) 
: 
 This is extraordinary: we are into the third year of this Government’s outstanding stewardship of this country and for the third year we hear the same rhetoric and the same arguments. I am intrigued as to when Labour members will work out that the arguments they have been running for the last 2½ years have got them only 20 percent—and falling—support from the populace. They need to change their story. If they are going to succeed— 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: Point of order. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: We are on a tax bill. 
PAUL QUINN 
: In terms of the Taxation (Annual Rates and Budget Measures) Bill Labour members keep going on about the fact that we are hurting the middle-income earners the fact that we are hurting the low-income earners and the fact that all the benefits from the tax changes we have made have gone to the rich. They base that on percentages. Well in the same way that they can regurgitate the record I want to remind them of something I said last year and that was this: if my friend Parekura Horomia loses 10 percent of his weight and I lose 10 percent of my weight— 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. This seems to be far off Part 1 of this taxation bill. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Yes we are moving into dangerous territory with the comments you are making. Let us keep the focus on the tax bill. It is a very important bill and we should focus our efforts on Part 1 which is about taxation rates. 
PAUL QUINN 
: Point of order. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: No I have ruled. 
PAUL QUINN 
: I will give an example to the Committee about how percentages work. If I lose 10 percent of my weight then clearly in absolute terms I lose less in absolute terms than Parekura Horomia if he loses 10 percent of his weight. That is how the tax system works when we make percentage changes versus absolute terms. If the Opposition cannot understand that then I am afraid that is just another classic example like the one we had in terms of the headline and the Opposition not understanding the difference between revenue and net income—another classic example of the Opposition not understanding how calculations work and how systems work. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Why are all your heads down? 
PAUL QUINN 
: Of course we heard earlier from the grand old man who is about to go out the back door who talked about the fact that we have the lowest—the lowest—tax rates in the Western World. Well so what—so what? When we had the emissions trading scheme debate the Opposition talked about wanting to be a world leader. Those members pick and choose; they want to be world leaders but when it does not suit them they want to be “fast followers”. Well I say from this side of the Chamber in terms of tax rates big deal. If we are the world leaders then so be it. We are an innovative country and we are an innovative party. We reward success. We do not penalise success; we reward it. If that means that we are world leaders in terms of our tax rates then so be it. That will attract more people. That will attract the innovators to come to this country because they know they will be rewarded for success. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: And are they coming? Where are they? 
PAUL QUINN 
: They are—they are on the way. The other thing I want to talk about is it would be nice if the members sitting opposite were to tell me what the appropriate tax rate is for middle-income earners. And what is middle income? Let us hear from those members as to what middle income is. In terms of the changes—and I stray into the phrase “Working for Families” only by way of example because I am tying it to the tax rate—I want to understand from the Opposition what middle income is. When we get to Part 2 I will point out to the Opposition that the 7000 people earning more than $100000 are actually coming off Working for Families. So are we penalising the people who earn $100000? Is that middle income? What is middle income?