Smith Lockwood: Taxation (Annual Rates Maori Organisations Taxpayer Compliance and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — In Committee 
Smith Lockwood: Taxation (Annual Rates Maori Organisations Taxpayer Compliance and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:4230] 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (NZ National—Rodney) 
: 
 It was kind of sad a few minutes ago to listen to Mr Gordon Copeland trying to justify United Future’s support for something it knows is morally wrong. United Future members know that it is wrong to discriminate on the basis of race and we heard him trying to justify that he had found some priest somewhere—a Monsignor Cullen—who he claims is of Irish descent. He did not say that he was of Maori descent as well. 
Gordon Copeland 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I believe that  
Hansard 
 will show because there was so much interjection at the time that I said “but in any event he certainly is not a Maori”. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No the member will sit down. That is a debatable point. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: I remind Mr Copeland that it is not unusual for people to claim different ancestry for different occasions. I well remember Mr Peters often claims Scottish descent when that suits him and he is of Maori descent when that suits better. 
However I want to address a couple of serious issues because there are three areas where Part 1 I believe is discriminatory. I realise that the bill is not in the name of the Minister in the chair but I really would appreciate it if officials could assist him with some answers to these quite serious questions. 
The first question concerns this matter. On 3 October the Law Society appeared before the Finance and Expenditure Committee and pointed out to us that the way the imputation system will work for this special taxation system for Maori authorities is different from the way the imputation system works for normal company taxation. The Law Society indicated to us that the way it had read the bill was that it was possible for taxpayers to get an imputation credit greater than the tax they have paid and to get a refund for tax not paid. The society certainly indicated that the way this system works is different from the normal imputation system. It would be helpful if the Minister could explain to the House whether the way the imputation system works in Part 2 is the same way the imputation system works for the normal imputation system. On the one hand we have a concern that there is discrimination on the basis of the 19.5 percent tax rate. OK lots of colleagues have debated that issue. I am not asking the Minister specifically about that; I am asking him specifically about the way the credit system will work for tax paid by a Maori authority in allocating that credit to the beneficiaries of the authority and whether there is a discriminatory procedure in the mechanism of the system that will treat beneficiaries differently from the recipients of imputation credits under our normal imputation law. If there is that is a second discriminatory process in this legislation—second to the fact that there is a discriminatory tax rate in the first place. I am not asking the Minister to comment because we have had lots of debate on that but I would appreciate his advice if his officials could assist him on whether the mechanism is different and more favourable in that it would enable refunds to be paid that would not be payable under the normal imputation system. 
My next question to the Minister is this: is clause 66 in Part II also covering that extension to charitable purposes? That is also discriminatory because for all other people in this country where beneficiaries have blood ties to the charity they do not qualify under the definition of a charitable purpose. This legislation will allow exclusion on the basis of blood and blood ties for Maori people alone and for no one else. Pacific Island people who may have blood ties to an Irish charity do not get that benefit. It is specifically for Maori people. OK that is another discrimination made on the basis of race but clearly the Government has decided to make it. My question to the Minister specifically concerns this issue. When the Inland Revenue Department was in front of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on 30 October it was asked how many people would benefit from that change and what would be the fiscal cost of removing that exclusion on the basis of blood ties and extending charitable purposes to marae. 
The Inland Revenue Department could not tell the select committee. I tell the Minister standing in for the Minister responsible for the bill I think it is fair enough that in this Committee stage this Parliament should know the fiscal cost of this provision because the Inland Revenue Department—and I have notes here from 30 October—could not tell the select committee what the cost was how many people would be involved or the cost of this provision. So those are two specific questions for the Minister and I think they are reasonable questions. The first question was: is there a different arrangement in the way the imputation system will work for this special Maori taxation system? The Law Society certainly believed there was. My second question is simply: what is the fiscal cost? Those are reasonable questions deserving an answer.