Prebble Richard: Income Tax Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Prebble Richard: Income Tax Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12075] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 The ACT party has voted against the Income Tax Bill we are now debating in its Committee stage and let me give members 2307 reasons why the ACT party is opposed to this tax bill. The first is the number of pages of tax law that we are about to implement—2307 pages of law are required for this Government to collect income tax. Why do we need so much law? The reason is quite simple: the Government is now taking 40 percent of everything produced in this country. The citizens of New Zealand would never voluntarily hand over 40 percent of everything earned so we need 2307 pages of what really are police State measures in order to be able— 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: Oh! 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: The member says “Oh!”. Under this bill the Inland Revenue Department can enter private property; it does not need any sort of permit from the courts. It can open up a person’s records. These most certainly are police State measures. The ACT party is opposed to the Government taking that amount of tax. 
But let me give reason No. 2308 and it can be found on page 2026 which states: “The basic rate of income tax for the taxable income of a Maori authority is 19.5 cents for every $1 of that taxable income.” The rate of tax for a non-Maori company is 33c so not only do we have two laws in New Zealand but we have two different tax rates depending on race. 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: The rate of tax and the average rate of tax. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: I ask the member who is interjecting to run in New Plymouth on the basis that Maori ought to pay a lower tax rate than the general population and see what happens to his majority in the next election. 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: Mr Prebble you know that is a fallacy. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: If the member speaks across the cross benches it is very hard for the member to hear. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: I say to Mr Duynhoven that he should read page 2026 and he will see that I have quoted the bill accurately to him. 
But if he would like to turn to page 2029 he would see the next reason that we should vote against that. It says—and I will read it to him given that he says this issue is a fallacy—that the rate of tax for every dollar of taxable income on so much of the taxable income as is more than $60000 a year is 39c. That is the so-called “envy tax” and is the way that this Government has increased income tax that it said would not be increased. Labour promised: “No rise in income tax for the 95 per cent of taxpayers earning under $60000 a year.” Twenty percent of all full-time workers are now paying the 39c tax rate. The “envy tax” was never needed. We have had a surplus every year yet the Government tells us that it is not its priority to cut income tax and unfortunately so does National. 
I say to this Committee that that rate of income tax should be cut and should be cut right now. One of the reasons for that is it is the investment rate; it is the rate paid by people who are actually investing and creating the jobs and the growth that the two major parties say they want. The jobs and growth come from people investing yet this Government hits those people with a 39c tax rate. 
The ACT party makes no apology for pointing out that people on $60000 a year are not rich; they are on a middle income. We also point out as Don Brash did before he was an MP that a couple on $100000 a year with children pay 100 times more in tax than a couple on $25000 a year who qualify for family support. Who thinks that is fair? Obviously the Labour Party does.