Prebble Richard: Income Tax Bill — Third Reading 
Prebble Richard: Income Tax Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12536] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 The ACT party is opposing this legislation. We are doing so for a number of reasons. Of course we are the low-tax party. [ 
Interruption 
] I ask the member why having given his speech he wants to give another one in the passageway right beside me. The ACT party has a number of reasons for being against the bill. There are actually 2421 reasons. 
Darren Hughes 
: Each one is a page. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: Each one of them is a page and as I said to the Committee it did not persuade— 
Darren Hughes 
: You used that joke as well—two old jokes. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: I am going to use it again. The member says he is a joke. I think it would have been better if he had completed his schooling before he came here but that is just an old-fashioned view that I have. 
There are 2421 pages of tax law and the Government says it is making the law simpler! I say to members that if they have a look at any of the clauses they will find that they are gobbledygook. The Government needs all this legislation for a very good reason and that is that this Government is taking 40 percent of the total wealth of New Zealand something that New Zealanders would not voluntarily hand over to it and to whoever its coalition colleagues are today. One never knows who they are; they keep changing—whoever it is who is supporting this Government. That is why the Government needs it. Of course if we had a low flat rate of tax we could have a statute that was only 12 pages long and it would be very easy to understand. 
There are 2421 pages in this bill. I could have taken any page within the bill but I want to repeat in this third reading the ones that I chose as examples in the Committee stage. Let me give just one example. I will read from clause 2 of Part A of schedule 1: “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.” That means a Maori business pays 19.5c. Then we go over the page to find paragraph 5 “Companies” which states: “On all taxable income … the basic rate of income tax on the taxable income of a company is 33 cents for every $1 of that taxable income.” That is from a Government that says it does not treat different races differently. I am not opposed to Maori companies paying 19.5c—that is getting pretty close to the right tax rate. What I am opposed to is that someone who is not Maori has to pay 33c for just one reason: because that person does not happen to be Maori. 
Then the Government says that the provision is needs-based. I assure members that I can find many non-Maori companies that can say they have a need to pay a 19.5c tax rate and they may well have poor shareholders. Indeed members should look at the case of companies that have children as shareholders: they have to pay 33c under this bill unless they are Maori. 
 Continuing to Part B of that schedule—because I am just picking a couple of pages out of the legislation—we find another objection to the bill which is the rate of tax on every dollar of taxable income. It states that on so much of the taxable income as is more than $60000 the rate is 39c in the dollar. This year 20 percent of all full-time workers will pay the 39c tax rate. What is wrong with that? The answer to that is on this election credit card with the phoney photograph on the front which I keep in my wallet. It states: “My commitment to you.” and “ We will deliver” and is signed by Helen Clark. Bullet point seven states: “No rise in income tax for … 95 per cent of taxpayers …”. This year 20 percent of full-time taxpayers who but for Helen Clark and the Labour Government would have paid 33c in the dollar are paying 39c. That is not just a broken campaign promise; it is an “envy tax” because every single year since the tax rate was increased the Government has had a taxpayer surplus—it is not a Government surplus; it is a taxpayer surplus—and that surplus was actually paid by middle-income New Zealanders. There are very few wealthy New Zealanders; those who are wealthy were driven off to London and other places overseas years ago. That surplus was paid by people who earn just $60000 a year. 
Dr Cullen and apparently the National Party both think that people who earn $60000 are wealthy and can waste money. I want to give them both a reality check. Raising a family on $60000 a year is not easy. That is not being wealthy. Yet this Government tells us—and it is doing it again today—that it is prepared to tax families that earn $60000 a year 39c in the dollar. 
It is just an “envy tax” and that is why the ACT party will not support the Income Tax Bill. We are opposed to it and we say that middle-income New Zealand should be the priority of this Government. The people who are paying for this Government’s extravagances are ordinary working New Zealanders. It may well be that ACT will be the only party to vote against the bill. Well so be it; we will vote against it. And we will say on behalf of those ordinary New Zealanders who paid the tax that they ought to be the priority for getting a tax cut. I draw it to the attention of members opposite that it would be possible to give a tax cut of $100 a fortnight to every full-time taxpayer. It would cost only $4 billion and the Government surplus at the latest count is $6.9 billion. 
Jill Pettis 
: And you will sell everything else off to do it. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: Now I see the Labour whip is screaming her head off. She thinks people on more than $60000 a year are wealthy. She is prepared to sock it to people on $60000 a year even though she got into office by promising that only 5 percent of all taxpayers would pay the 39c tax rate. That member is quite prepared to take a call I hope to defend the fact that this Government which publicly says on television: “Oh we treat all races in New Zealand fairly and equally.”; does not do that in this Income Tax Bill. I quote from clause 2 of Part A of schedule 1: “The basic rate of income tax for the taxable income of a Maori authority is 19.5 cents …”. One looks over the page to find that the tax rate paid by non-Maori is 33c. 
If that were the only provision in the bill I did not like it would be enough reason for voting against it but as I said before there are 2421 reasons for voting against this bill. When the tax code is as big as this it ought to indicate to members opposite that there is something rotten about income tax in New Zealand.