Edmonds BarbaraHon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana): Mr Chair I will try and heed to that by providing the question first and then going through the analysis as to why I need that clarification if I can indulge the committee.So for members of the committee we are speaking in relation to clause 3 Part 1 of this particular bill. My question that I want to clarify is that clause 3 provides a cross-reference to Schedule 1. So if you look at Schedule 1 as part of this bill it doesn't actually set out the income tax rates because it provides a reference to another part of the Income Tax Act. But I just want to clarify that it was a purposeful intention by the Minister of Revenue and instructions to his drafters that it was not to include the different tables in Schedule 1 of this amendment bill. The reason why I need to ask that—and while the Minister is seeking advice on that—is that it is actually illegal for the Crown to levy money on its subjects without Parliament's authority. It must be done either by primary legislation or regulation which is how we've gotten to this point here in the House.As many of the members of this House know revenue is the income earned by the Government basically as a reporting entity as defined in the Public Finance Act. Revenue can be derived from a number of sources. For taxation purposes that includes income tax goods and services excise duties ACC levies other levies and miscellaneous payments like child support payments. That's unless the Income Tax Act actually excludes that within the definition of income tax" for the purposes of the legislation.I just want to point the committee to the Regulations Review Committee which had actually endorsed the Australian courts' definition of a "tax" as any levy that is compulsory for public purposes and is legally enforceable. That's why I ask: why was the Schedule not repeated in this particular amendment bill?If we go back to the history of when income tax was actually introduced it was introduced in New Zealand around 1 April 1892. The technology of the time was refrigeration. Basically we had just got the technology of being able to export goods through refrigeration. So it is quite a longstanding provision since the late-1890s that the Parliament needs to be able to approve that particular schedule.Many members will know an income tax year runs from 1 April to 31 March. So therefore that's why we are going to be sitting in extended hours to try and pass this bill because it has to be done before 1 April and that's in order for the Government to basically receive its revenue for the past income tax year of 23/24. So that's why I wanted to just set out a little bit of the history just to clarify that for drafting purposes it is intentional by this Government—and I'm sure probably other Governments have done it; I just want to make sure that they have excluded the Schedule 1 they've excluded the table of what the actual tax rates are from this particular bill because I can't find it in the revised track version that's been reported back from the committee. Apologies to the Minister if it is actually in the Minister's Amendment Paper; I haven't had a good chance to be able to have a look. I'll quickly have a look now clause—nope nope; still not in the Schedule in there. So I just want to ask the Minister if he can just clarify that it is usual or it is a normal drafting approach to not include the Schedule in the annual rates bill and rather that it is more of a cross-reference to where it actually is in the greater Act given that there is no particular change to it. So if the Minister can provide a clarifying answer for that I would be very grateful."