Prebble Richard: Appropriation (2003/04 Estimates) Bill — Third Reading Imprest Supply Debate 
Prebble Richard: Appropriation (2003/04 Estimates) Bill — Third Reading Imprest Supply Debate 
[Volume:610;Page:7675] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 We have just listened to the New Zealand First MP— 
David Benson-Pope 
: What a dishonest party! 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The chief Government whip who put up a silly list to put through the Business Committee to try to make some silly point with the Greens is now calling out “dishonest”. He says the ACT party is delaying this House but that is exactly what he is doing. He is trying to cut out other members from speaking—with the help of Rod Donald. A couple of junior MPs are holding up the House. I ask that he be asked to withdraw and apologise for his claim against me in that way. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I ask the member to stand withdraw and apologise please for the remark of “dishonest”. 
David Benson-Pope 
: I did not refer to any member as being dishonest. I said the party was dishonest. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I am sorry it is the same thing. Please stand withdraw and apologise. 
David Benson-Pope 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: Before the interruptions I was rising to speak to the Appropriation (2003/04 Estimates) Bill. But after listening to Mr Peter Brown speaking—and I do not know whether his accent is a north of England accent—about immigration I have to comment that I always find it extraordinary. The gall of that party is just simply amazing though perhaps he regards himself as a personal example of the fact that immigration is a bit of a mixed blessing. 
I want to debate the matter in front of us—and I know that is not usual in these debates. I want to discuss the Appropriation (2003/04 Estimates) Bill and to look at the very interesting question of exactly how much money the Government is receiving and how much it is spending. At the time of the Budget the Government said it was going to have a $4 billion surplus. That is a huge surplus. A surplus of $4 billion dollars is not as the ACT party has commented a matter for praise. It means we are being overtaxed $4 billion. There are approximately 1.6 million workers in New Zealand and that works out at $2500 too much tax each. Well the situation has got worse. In the latest figures I have from Treasury for the year ending 31 May Treasury now estimates from the operating balance before revaluations and accounting changes that the surplus has now become $5.6 billion. For those MPs who have done the mental arithmetic that is $3500 of overtaxation per worker in New Zealand. 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: Dreadful! 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: It is dreadful. Three thousand five hundred dollars is a lot of money and every worker in New Zealand on average is paying $3500 too much tax so that Dr Cullen can put together a huge fund. And what does he want to do that for? Well this is not election year is it. He will wait until election year then spray it around in order to win votes. 
Deborah Coddington 
: Tax and bribe. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: Yes—tax and bribe. The ACT party says that what we need to do is have a tax cut and $5.6 billion is enough to actually go to a flat rate of tax immediately. We could cut the rate of income tax for every worker in New Zealand substantially. 
 I would like to hear from members opposite: do they not believe that if the average New Zealand family was getting another $3500—and if both parents are working it would be $7000—it could do something with that money? Imagine what people could do for their children if they had another $7000 a year of their own money coming back instead of having the Government boasting that it has money to spend on Maori television on sponsoring the America’s Cup on the Ministry of Women’s Affairs on Kiwibank and on all the other nonsense that a Labour Government engages in and still has a massive surplus. 
I say to the Government that it should send back the money. There is also another reason that it should do so. It might enable ordinary New Zealanders to be able to pay their rates. The solution of this Government and of the Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues Judith Tizard to the rates problem is to say: “Let them eat cake; let them move house.” That is the Labour Party solution to the rates problem. If people’s rates are too great they should just shift house or mortgage themselves to the council. I want the next Government speaker to tell us why the Government should not express some concern about the fact that the survey the ACT party has done shows that although inflation last year was 1.5 percent—so if councils were just moving rates in line with inflation they should have been 1.5 percent—the average increase is 4.5 percent. The Auckland Regional Council rates increase is 34 percent and the increase for Banks Peninsula is 16.64 percent. I do not know why that is. Did it not just win a case against one of its employees? But despite that the increase is 16.64 percent. The Franklin District Council increase is 16 percent. The Marlborough District Council increase is 11 percent. Ashburton’s increase is 10 percent—no doubt that is the effect of Jenny Shipley moving away and not keeping a supervisory note on it. 
When we look at those councils we can see that they are putting in huge rates rises. That is a matter of concern especially when the councils say with a great deal of truth that the reason they are putting up rates is that a Labour Government has increased the responsibilities that they must go through. We now have a nonsense at local body level whereby there is consultation upon consultation—paralysis by analysis. We have planners to burn all of whom cost money and push up the cost of rates to the ordinary New Zealander. But of course the Labour Government’s solution to rates rises is to say that people should move. Judith Tizard said that she had contacted the local citizens advice bureau and it had not had anyone complain to it! I did not realise that people paid their rates to the citizens advice bureau but then the sort of world that Judith Tizard lives in is a very strange one. She of course lives in a State house and the taxpayer pays all the charges for her. She has no real idea of the sorts of costs being met by ordinary New Zealanders. The ACT party has a solution to that. I would like to think that this House will support Rodney Hide’s bill. Let us put in a provision whereby if a council wants to increase rates greater than the rate of inflation a poll is held. We used to have polls if councils wanted to borrow money. If the regional council carried out a poll of ratepayers in Auckland who believes that the ratepayers of Auckland would vote for a 34 percent increase? 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: That’s right. No way. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: Especially those on the North Shore as the member for North Shore is calling out. Of course people on the North Shore are paying extra rates for a rail system. I do not think that the Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues actually knows that the rail does not go over to the North Shore. I do not think she ever visits the North Shore. 
Shane Ardern 
: She’s never been over there. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: She has never been over and would not have a clue. She has never been on the train of course. She has an LTD. 
Paul Adams 
: We’ll get rail soon. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: Well it will cost hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars and it will be paid for by ratepayers the vast majority of whom will not be using it. This Labour Government says that it is a matter for the local people—and we agree with that. Therefore a Labour Government should support our bill which states that any council that wants to increase rates greater than the rate of inflation must hold a poll. Let the local people decide. There are massive rates increases in the central Hawke’s Bay in central New Zealand and in the South Island. The average is 4.5 percent—that is four times the rate of inflation. So far in this debate the only party to speak out on that matter has been the ACT party. That is consistent. We have always been the party in favour of lower taxes and less costs. We say that the things councils are being asked to do are things that the local people would never have asked for. One of them is to do extensive consultation with iwi. Why do iwi need to be consulted more than any other ratepayer? It is just this Government’s political correctness. 
I come back to the point I made earlier and I ask the House this: how can we support giving the Government $5.6 billion more than it says it needs? As I have said and I say it again that is enough money to give $3500 back to every working person in New Zealand and if both partners in a family work that is $7000. I want to know from the Labour Government why we should not give back $7000 to ordinary working people. The ACT party thinks that ordinary working people will spend that $7000 far better than this Cullen-Clark Government with its proposed Maori television and all the other nonsense like the foreshore claims and all the other things that the Government intends to spend people’s money on. Let us have some faith in ordinary New Zealanders. Let us realise that it is morally wrong for this Parliament to take more taxes than it needs.