Turei Metiria: Third Readings 
Turei Metiria: Third Readings 
[Volume:607;Page:4342] 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 The Greens are pleased to— 
Dail Jones 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. New Zealand First is entitled to a second call in this debate. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. I have the countdown of speakers. The National Party has had three calls. Every other minor party has had one call except that the Greens have not had any calls. They are entitled to the call. 
Dail Jones 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Greens are a semi-Government party. They should have taken one of the calls of the Labour Party— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. The member knows that is not right. 
Dail Jones 
: —because New Zealand First invariably gets the last call. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. 
Dail Jones 
: It does. Would you like to tell me when we get a call other than the last call in this situation? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Occasionally New Zealand First gets the last call because the Greens get the eighth call. The Greens have not had a call and— 
Dail Jones 
: That is their problem. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No that is not their problem. The Greens can seek the call in the Opposition slot whenever they like. Metiria Turei— 
Dail Jones 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I suggest that is unfair. We get two calls and one of them is the twelfth. If we are down to the eighth call that is the Greens’ problem. You are being discriminatory against New Zealand First. I think we deserve an explanation of that. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No I am not discriminating against New Zealand First; I am conducting the debate according to the list that I have and there is no change at all. I call Metiria Turei. 
METIRIA TUREI 
: Throughout the Committee stage of this legislation there has been a continual barrage of attacks on its provisions particularly on those that reflect the particular characteristics of and economic constraints on Maori organisations. The claim that the legislation is racist is absolute drivel. In fact it could be successfully argued that the previous system of high tax rates despite the relatively low income of 90 percent of Maori and despite double taxing was itself racist. That system failed to provide for the particular circumstances of Maori authorities and failed to recognise that those circumstances were largely the result of Government–imposed legislation and process and therefore favoured non-Maori. But some members of this House even go so ridiculously far as to suggest that the 19.5 percent tax rate will result in the withdrawal of overseas investment and that the favourable treatment of Maori may even cause New Zealand businesses to relocate overseas. Before we take those views even remotely seriously let us consider what this legislation will actually mean for everyone in this country. 
This legislation will put in place a good behaviour rule that will provide some relief to taxpayers who for whatever reason find themselves landed with a shortfall penalty for lack of reasonable care. It will remove the requirement to pay 50 percent of any tax in dispute and instead will give the Inland Revenue Department some discretion in that. Although for some people that change will be onerous for many the removal of the requirement to make that payment will assist them in their financial recovery. Surely that is an essential aim when taxpayers find themselves in trouble. For employers this legislation will simplify their PAYE obligations thus reducing their compliance costs which indirectly will assist employees. For individuals the legislation will raise the maximum rebate rate for charities thus giving further relief to those charities that rely on individual donations for their vital community contributions. 
This legislation provides some good opportunities and changes that will benefit everyone but regardless of those advantages some poor members of this House have continued the hue and cry about it being racist. It is as I say utter rubbish to say that the legislation is based on the human traits and biological composition of nga tangata Maori. That is absurd. It is based on the characteristics of the entities established as a result of Government legislation and process in the past. This legislation is not racially based; it provides a much fairer system for Maori organisations and authorities. The 19.5 percent tax rate is not a new tax rate. Since April 1999 all New Zealanders regardless of race have paid that rate on their first $38000 of income—and they still do. Perhaps some members of this House have not been in that position or perhaps they can no longer remember it but members should at least remember that in 2001 Treasury estimated that 90 percent of Maori earned less than $38000. Thus the choice of the 19.5 percent tax rate for Maori authorities is entirely reasonable. 
The differential tax rate in this circumstance is but one of many variations that may exist between different commercial entities. If other MPs want an equal playing field then they also need to consider and recognise the factors that do effectively disadvantage many Maori authorities in a commercial sense. Those factors include circumstances such as limited access to loan finance because of multiple and communal land ownership high demands for benefit distribution support by those organisations of broader social objectives—not just commercial ones—and the difficulty for those organisations in disposing of uneconomic assets. 
The 19.5 percent tax rate is a sensible and practical move which recognises the particular constraints faced by Maori organisations in the development of their assets for their people. Those constraints arise out of the structural framework in which Maori have had to manage communally owned land and I must add that the roots of that system lie in the establishment of the Native Land Court and its attempts to individualise title in order to make easier the purchase and alienation of Maori land. It is not surprising that critics of the legislation seldom refer to the many examples of uneconomic land units forestry blocks and farming trusts that are designed to create jobs for local Maori but that have difficulty in doing so. It appears that the criticism is aimed at circumstances where Maori development may in fact challenge mainstream corporate business. 
This legislation makes other significant changes that the Greens support and which reflect the needs of Maori organisations. We are very pleased to see the widening of the definition of “charitable purpose” to include those organisations whose beneficiaries are primarily related by blood. That recognises the authority and purpose of whanau and hapu and their traditional structural system of caring for and taking care of their members. We are also very pleased to see the broadening of the purposes for which marae can be considered “charitable” as a way of recognising the essential community functions that marae provide not only for the hapu and whanau in particular areas but also for the wider community. 
The Greens think the advantages in this legislation outweigh the disadvantages. Some considerable work has been done by Maori organisations in bringing to the fore the issues that particularly affect them and we acknowledge their work in raising these issues with the Finance and Expenditure Committee and with other members. One of the previous speakers referred to Maori millionaires being able to gain a competitive advantage for their children under this legislation. I suggest to members of the Rongotai electorate that they might want to ask for some further information about that issue. Although it is not appropriate to describe that member’s contribution as misleading it is appropriate to describe it as not entirely putting forward the whole story. In fact Maori millionaires the few that there may be will be required to pay tax at the same rate as they would in any other circumstances. 
This legislation does not provide a special taxation system for Maori individuals but recognises the particular constraints placed on Maori organisations for the benefit of their members and of the wider community as well. So the Greens are very pleased to support this legislation.