Coddington Deborah: Income Tax Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Coddington Deborah: Income Tax Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12093] 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT) 
: 
 I will follow on from the Hon Peter Dunne because he brought up the subject of  
The Lord of the Rings 
. I ask the Minister to take a call and tell us whether at the time he actually supported that arrangement for  
The Lord of the Rings 
. We all know that the true story about the financing of that trilogy has yet to be written and I remember the Minister—I am sure it was the Minister at the time—saying something like: “Every New Zealander should get a free ticket to this movie because it was made on the backs of New Zealanders. We were very lucky it was a success because if it had not been a success we would have been taking a bath.” There are a number of questions to be answered and the Minister knows exactly what I am talking about. Was the film signed off in the correct time frame in order to be entitled to those tax breaks? There are a number of things— 
Darren Hughes 
: This is from the sleuth journalist. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: Those members over there on the Government benches might jeer but the Minister knows what I am talking about. He was not in favour of that. Of course we are all pleased about  
The Lord of the Rings. 
 Peter Dunne said that it is nothing to do with tax breaks that movies are made here. If that is the case why has Peter Jackson lobbied this Government so hard for more tax breaks for film makers? Why does he say he will take his films somewhere else if it has nothing to do with tax breaks? If that Minister is so informed on economic matters why does he think that incentives do not work? Of course incentives work. Everybody knows that. One needs only half a brain to know that incentives work. 
The ACT party is not supporting this bill because we cannot support legislation that has in it such an “envy” tax—such ideological tax rates as that of 39 percent for any income over $60000. There was no need to bring in that rate when this Government came into power. There was no need for that extra money in the coffers of the Government—as we have well seen with the operating surplus. It was just a way for this Government to say: “We will punish you because you are successful.” If people work hard the Government will punish them instead of rewarding them and celebrating them. If people run a company that is doing well the Government will not celebrate that either. Why does the Government not give everybody a tax cut right across the board? Why should there be a progressive tax rate at all if not just to punish the successful—those who work hard? 
There is however one clause I can support—that is clause 2 in Part A of schedule 1 “Maori authorities”. I applaud the Minister for that provision: 19.5c for every dollar of taxable income. That is a really good start a very good start. I urge him to take that rate and apply it everywhere else. The Minister when he took a call before based his argument on the status quo of spending but he has not taken into account the fact that this Government is spending far too much already. We have huge spending on “Nonsense Castle”. How many people are employed by the Ministry of Education? There are 360 Maori employees for a start and they are just 12 percent of the total number of employees in that ministry. Why on earth do we need to have as many people as that on the payroll at the Ministry of Education when we can give funding directly to students and pupils? We should let parents choose and let communities decide and take the bulk of funding which after all is taken from taxpayers to educate children. We should let the bureaucracy have what filters up through the system rather than the other way around as it is at the moment where the Government hands out all the money to the bureaucracy and what is left—what filters down through the system—reaches the schools and the children who need the education. 
Why should there be a Ministry of Women’s Affairs? If this Government supports that ministry so much why does it not have a “Ministry of Men’s Affairs”? Why not? If a Ministry of Women’s Affairs is so good why not have a “Ministry of Men’s Affairs”? It is of course just to keep people on the bureaucracy payroll. Women have gone so far now we do not need to be pandered to thank you very much with a Ministry of Women’s Affairs.