Smith Lockwood: Taxation (Annual Rates Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — In Committee 
Smith Lockwood: Taxation (Annual Rates Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:16509] 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
: 
 As we debate Part 2 of the Taxation (Annual Rates Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill I cannot help but scrutinise a significant number of clauses from clause 4A through to clause 68. Members of the Committee will remember that it was not that long ago that Labour had a member of Parliament in trouble. Do members remember the situation with Harry Duynhoven? The Government passedspecial retrospective legislation to get Harry Duynhoven out of trouble and to enable him to stay in this Parliament. Now I have been looking at this part and I note that Labour now has another member the Hon John Tamihere who is in trouble. 
John Key 
: Deep trouble! 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: Deep trouble. What are Labour members sneaking into this bill retrospectively to get John Tamihere out of trouble? Lots of clauses in this part need to be examined. I draw members’ attention for a start to clause 66 “Meaning of ‘income tax’ ”. Maybe this Labour Government is changing the meaning of income tax to get John Tamihere off the hook so let us have a look at clause 66. What does it say? Clause 66 states: “In section OB 6(1)(b) ‘CB 2’ is inserted before ‘CB 10.’ ” 
Opposition Member 
: What does that mean? 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: I am not sure what that means but it troubles me that that could be something designed to get John Tamihere off the hook for not paying his taxes. Maybe they have changed the meaning of “income tax”. One gets more suspicious when one looks at other clauses. There is a clause about the rebate for gifts of money. Maybe they are changing that law to make it so that when the Hon John Tamihere received this koha as he calls it this— 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Golden! 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: Yes golden koha or something. Maybe they are changing the rebates rules around gifts of money. That is what clause 32 is about. We should look at that carefully to make sure they are not changing the rules to get the Hon John Tamihere off the hook. 
It does not finish there—we should look at clauses 34 and 35. Clause 34 is about refunding excess tax. What are they changing there in order to try to argue that the Hon John Tamihere has paid excess tax on some of his earnings perhaps to get him off the hook there? When one reads clause 35 “Limits on refunds of tax in relation to Maori authorities” in conjunction with clause 27 “Distributions by Maori authority” and clause 28 “Amount distributed to member by Maori authority” one has to ask what the Government is sneaking in there. We should have a good look at clause 28 because I am suspicious that—just as they did with Harry Duynhoven—they are sneaking something in there to get the Hon John Tamihere off the hook for not paying his taxes. He received an amount distributed to him by a Maori authority. Is clause 28 a sneaky little clause to get John Tamihere off the hook? 
What gets me even more concerned is clause 8 “Exception for withdrawal when member ceases employment”. Now we know that the Hon John Tamihere got his golden koha when he ceased employment so one can see that there are a number of clauses in Part 2 that need the scrutiny of this Committee. So many of them could enable this sneaky Labour Government to get John Tamihere out of trouble. We know what it did to get Harry Duynhoven off the hook when he was in trouble. 
There are so many clauses in this bill that in fact according to what is said in the titles of those clauses they could be designed to get John Tamihere off the hook for not paying his taxes. We know that Helen Clark has not dismissed him from Cabinet. She seems keen to find a way to keep him in Cabinet. I get suspicious when we debate legislation that talks about distribution by Maori authorities to members exceptions and withdrawals when members cease employment and the meaning of income tax. In fact all those clauses could be designed to change the meaning of the Income Tax Act because they are all amendments to the Income Tax Act 1994. The Committee should spend considerable time examining each of those clauses to make sure that what they mean is clear. I quoted clause 66 and it is far from clear what it means.