Chauvel Charles: Income Tax Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Chauvel Charles: Income Tax Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:641;Page:11290] 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 It is interesting listening to the debate as it is unfolding and particularly listening to members opposite talk about the headline corporate tax rate because if one looks at the last 25 years when both parties have led Governments for about equal amounts of time I think—probably 14 years for Labour and 11 years for National—one sees who has the better record on the headline tax rate. In 1982 that tax rate was 48c; in 1988 under a Labour Government it was cut from 48c to 33c; between 1990 and 1999 the tax rate remained the same at 33 percent—no change under a National-led Government—and then in 2007 we see a reduction to 30 percent under a Labour-led Government. So what we really need to do is just look at the facts— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: That was some time ago! 
CHARLES CHAUVEL 
: Well it may be terribly inconvenient for members opposite to be reminded of the facts and figures but none the less that is what they are. If one looks at who is trying to put in place a friendlier regime for business as far as the tax rates are concerned one sees that it is clearly Labour. Stack that up with the research and development tax credit and the tax breaks that come in with the introduction of KiwiSaver and we actually have a very equitable package as far as business taxation is concerned. If we combine that with the red-tape cuts that the Minister of Commerce has been working on we can see why New Zealand rates so well internationally as far as its environment for doing business is concerned. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: That’s why Kiwis are leaving in droves. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL 
: Dr Smith talks about Kiwis leaving in droves. If he were a more patriotic New Zealander he would stop talking this country down and stop encouraging that trend. In fact the statistics demonstrate just how well this country is doing. I wish Dr Smith would talk about some of the good news that Kiwis are entitled to hear about economic performance under this Government rather than trying to constantly talk this country down and commit economic treason by encouraging people to leave these shores. 
Let us have a look at some of those facts. For New Zealanders in work seasonally adjusted the figures speak for themselves— 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I realise that what the member is saying is so boring that you probably were not listening but I do not think that accusing a member of this Committee of treason is acceptable. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am sorry I did not hear that. If the member did accuse anyone of treason the member must withdraw and apologise. It is not acceptable parliamentary language. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL 
: I withdraw and apologise. As I was saying the facts as to economic performance speak for themselves. I heard members opposite speaking earlier about high interest rates. Let us look again at a comparison of the interest rate for the average variable first mortgage. Between 1991 and 1999 the rate was 9.68 percent. Between January 2000 and June 2007 the rate was 8.33 percent. The employment figures are also similarly good news. The figure for the number of New Zealanders in work seasonally adjusted in March 1999 was 1741000. In March 2007 that number was 2143000. I just want to make sure that the Committee is reminded of those statistics given that the debate has clearly become quite wide ranging on economic performance. When the facts are actually addressed it is seen that the members opposite do not have a lot to crow about. 
I was also interested to hear the claim that no one would lose under a National Government’s tax policies. It is interesting is it not to consider that claim. Of course the policy of members opposite has been to scrap a large part of the Working for Families package in favour of tax cuts leaving Kiwi families with less money in their pockets and putting that money into the bank accounts of wealthy New Zealanders. Middle to higher income earners are supposedly—according to Mr Key—those eligible for assistance under the Working for Families programme. Under National’s policy settings these people would get the money in a tax cut instead. I was interested to see Mr Key admit in 2005 in the  
New Zealand Herald  
on 14 April that his tax cuts would not actually help as many Kiwi families as the Working for Families package. He said that the number of families paid under a National-led Government will be lower. In other words the reach would be smaller and eventually National would have to look at redesigning the whole families package. 
This legislation is a non-controversial technical rewrite of the Income Tax Act. There are no policy changes in it so it is interesting that the debate has ranged so widely. I think the modern plain language rewrite of the legislation is a desirable thing and I commend it to the Committee.