Copeland Gordon: Taxation (Annual Rates Maori Organisations Taxpayer Compliance and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — In Committee 
Copeland Gordon: Taxation (Annual Rates Maori Organisations Taxpayer Compliance and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:4221] 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 I am surprised that I have 4 minutes and 30 seconds remaining because I think I had completed less than one sentence when consideration of this bill came to an end on Thursday 6 March. I was then speaking to clause 68(2) and the rate of 19.5c for Maori authorities. 
By my own count on at least three occasions Dr the Hon. Lockwood Smith has challenged parties on this side of the House to name one person who will benefit from this change in tax rate who is not a Maori saying that if we can do so he will publicly apologise to the House for insisting that only Maori will benefit from that provision. I personally know one such person. He is I believe of Irish ancestry but in any event he is certainly not a Maori and my contact with him was precisely because of his status as a shareholder and beneficiary of a Maori authority. He is a Catholic priest by the name of Monsignor Patrick Cullen. My instincts tell me that there are probably many Maori authority beneficiaries who are of Asian European or Pacific Island ancestry. But the member’s challenge was quite specific—namely that if we could name one person he would publicly apologise and Dr Lockwood Smith is an honourable man. 
Today I want to ask National Party and New Zealand First Party members to take a call and give a yes or no answer to a straightforward question. My question is this: as a matter of tax principle do they believe that members or beneficiaries of family and other trusts Maori authorities and superannuation funds should pay tax on income arising from those sources at their personal marginal tax rate? If their answer is yes then for them to select out just one of those groups—namely the Maori authorities—is to select on the basis of race. That is the very thing they have falsely accused the Government and United Future of doing. 
On the other hand if their answer is no then I will personally do my part to ensure that their policy in that regard is made known to Business New Zealand representing 74000 businesses in this country and who do support the principle in this bill; the Investment Savings and Insurance Association of New Zealand which invests the superannuation savings of probably around 500000 working New Zealanders; and the 150000 or more New Zealand families who have established family trusts. The 19.5 percent rate in clause 68 has been struck precisely because it is the marginal tax rate of 90 percent of the members of Maori authorities. In principle it has nothing to do with their race and everything to do with their personal marginal tax rate. 
I want to speak further to clause 68 and to address some of the comments of the ACT members. Dr Muriel Newman and Gerrard Eckhoff who have also claimed that the 19.5 rate is race-based. I must say I was amazed to hear that because the ACT spokesperson on taxation Rodney Hide is a member of the Finance and Expenditure Committee and expressed himself to be in favour of that rate. If one reads the committee’s report one sees that a minority view claiming that that provision is race-based was filed by New Zealand First and National but not by ACT. I want to draw members’ attention to the commentary on the bill where that is clearly set out. 
I guess my amazement at hearing Rodney Hide’s ACT party colleagues taking an exactly opposite point of view is based on my fairly short experience of belonging to a caucus that takes a “united” and “future”-looking view of these matters whereas consistent with its libertarian ideology it appears that in the ACT party each individual member does what seems right in his or her own eyes.