Hide Rodney: Third Readings 
Hide Rodney: Third Readings 
[Volume:607;Page:4317] 
RODNEY HIDE (ACT NZ) 
: 
 Jill Pettis’ speech might have sounded like 10 minutes of waffle but it was only 3 seconds long when she said that she supported this legislation. I thank the Hon Paul Swain for pointing out to us and to the people of New Zealand that her 3 seconds did sound like 10 minutes of waffle. But I say that was one of the more insightful comments that I have heard from Jill Pettis in this House. 
I will cut to the two main issues in this legislation. The first is that it introduces two tax rules for New Zealanders and they will be based on race. I know my colleague Mr Gordon Copeland has discovered an Irish priest he thinks can somehow benefit from these tax rules for Maori but he has not yet presented this Irish priest and the priest did not present himself as I understand it to the Finance and Expenditure Committee. I look forward to meeting that guy. But it does not seem to me to say much in favour of this bill that an Irish priest can also rort the system and get in as a Maori authority. That seems to me to be wrong. 
Mahara Okeroa 
: No he can’t. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Is that wrong? 
Mahara Okeroa 
: Oh absolutely. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Mr Okeroa says Mr Gordon Copeland has it wrong and no Irish priest will be able to take advantage of these rules. 
Mahara Okeroa 
: A Maori Catholic Irish priest yes. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: A Maori Catholic Irish priest could but an Irish Irish Catholic priest could not. And there we have it! Does Mr Okeroa with his contribution to this great House today not explain this legislation perfectly? That is there will be rules for Maori Irish priests but not for Irish Irish priests. That is what that Government MP has just said. Dr Lockwood Smith heard him as did the people at home listening to this debate on their radios. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member may not refer to radio listeners. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: I do apologise to them. We all heard it. Everyone who is listening to this debate heard that our tax laws are to get down to making fine distinctions about whether one is a Maori Irish priest or an Irish Irish priest. I am pleased to report that although I am not a priest I am according to the Minister of Maori Affairs and his associate Minister Ngai Tahu so I do believe that I will be in for a lower tax rate of 19.5c in the dollar as soon as I structure the house at home and my affairs as a marae. And as soon as we structure our business as a Maori authority we will be in like Flynn at the 19.5 percent rate. 
Mahara Okeroa 
: Hurry up hurry up. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: The member says “Hurry up”. I am as busy as I can be already unlike that member. 
I say to this House that that provision a disgrace. The idea that we should have two tax rules and distinguish amongst people’s tax payable on the basis of their race is wrong. It is divisive and wrong and an insult to New Zealanders Maori and non-Maori alike. When they went off to fight wars side by side the bullets coming over the top did not distinguish whether people were Maori or Pakeha. Those bullets took everyone out. And when those people took their pay the Army did not distinguish whether one was Maori or Pakeha—everyone received the same. So I ask Mr Okeroa why we cannot in our tax rules have one law for all New Zealanders? Why does Mr Okeroa not take a call and explain why there should be two tax rules? I would like to hear the reason for that. 
The ACT party New Zealand First and the National Party stand for the rule of law and one law for all no matter what the colour of one’s skin is or one’s ethnicity or religious belief. I am shocked to hear that United Future does not agree with that position. [ 
Interruption 
] Those members think they have sorted things out for the Irish Irish priest but as we have heard from Mr Okeroa that will not happen—not if Mr Okeroa has his way—unless the priest is a Maori Irish priest. I have not worked out how much of a Maori an Irish priest has to be in order to get to pay tax at the 19.5 percent rate. 
Let us look at the second problem in this legislation. Mr David Carter and Dr Lockwood Smith will remember—Mr Craig McNair was not born at the time—that in the last parliamentary term we had an inquiry into the Inland Revenue Department. 
David Benson-Pope 
: What about an inquiry into Pipitea Street? That would be a good inquiry. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Mr David Benson-Pope wants to have an inquiry. Do members know what I love about it? I love these guys. There was an inquiry and it has cleared us. I would like to say those members can say the same about Te Mangai Paho about Mr Dover Samuels and Mr John Tamihere and about the Minister Parekura Horomia but unfortunately the Government does not conduct inquiries into those things does it? The Government does not want to inquire into Te Mangai Paho so those members should just pipe down and concentrate on the tax issues. 
This legislation I am afraid will affect Maori and Pakeha alike. The issue is this: the committee in that inquiry was stunned to learn that the Inland Revenue Department can just construct a debt against a taxpayer. It can just announce a debt and it is up to the taxpayer to prove that he or she does not owe it. So we heard the Inland Revenue Department admit that it had announced that taxpayers owed a million dollars. The rule then was that the department could demand that half the debt be paid immediately before the taxpayer had a chance to go to court to prove that he or she did not owe it. So a taxpayer could become bankrupt before he or she got to court because the tax department had the power to be judge jury and executioner with no law. 
We said on the Finance and Expenditure Committee to a person—and I am sure if Mr McNair had been born and had been there he would have said the same thing—that that was wrong. This legislation has come back to the House and it does not provide that the tax department can demand half the money upfront. We agree with that. We should give the taxpayer his or her day in court; Mr Copeland agrees with that. But then the commissioner at his or her discretion—which means I think everyone whom the commissioner delegates that power to which is every officer—can say he or she has looked at Mr McNair and Mr Copeland and at the debt that the department has constructed against them with no evidence and has determined he or she thinks the assets are not safe. The department can then make that taxpayer cough up on the spot not just 50 percent but 100 percent—plus interest. But the department has not gone to a third party like a court to prove its case. That happens before a case is heard. Now can members imagine that? When there is a taxpayer against whom the department thinks it might lose its case it can wipe him or her out on the spot. 
We should not entrust that sort of power to any human being yet here we are entrusting it to the Inland Revenue Department. And this House is doing it. I do not blame the Inland Revenue Department; it is this House that is agreeing to that. What is Mr Copeland’s defence? He says the Inland Revenue Department will use that power only in special circumstances. What is a special circumstance? Is it when Rodney Hide or Gordon Copeland leaves Parliament? Is it someone whom members of the Inland Revenue Department do not like? Is it someone whom they do not like because they ate that person’s hamburgers which made them sick who will therefore be wiped out? Why should the Government not have to prove before the courts that a taxpayer owes it money before it can take that money or bankrupt that person by demanding it? Is that not a simple proposition for people here to get their heads around? 
We have heard from me and from the qualified lawyer Mr Dail Jones that the department can use a Mareva injunction whereby if the department does think that a taxpayer will do a runner it can go to the High Court like any other litigant. It can say to the court that it thinks that person will do a runner and ask it to put an injunction on that person. That request is tested by a third party. Presumably if the department has a good case the High Court judge will agree with it. But why should we give that arbitrary power to any civil servant? Why is this House doing that? Why are Mr Gordon Copeland and Dr Michael Cullen doing that? We heard from the Hon John Tamihere that the Government is doing that in order to get at my mates. That is what we heard him say yesterday. What sort of power and what sort of threat are we signing up to? Will fictitious amounts be demanded from people who are friendly with Rodney Hide in order to destroy them? 
We on the Opposition side of the House in the ACT party in the National Party and in New Zealand First say that this legislation is racist. We say that it is an abuse of power— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No the member must not use the word “racist.” It has been ruled out of order in this House. The member must withdraw. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: I beg your pardon but it has not. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member should look at Speaker’s ruling 6/5 (Supplement). 
RODNEY HIDE 
: It is tax law based on race which where I come from has a peculiar word that up until now Speakers have— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member must withdraw and apologise for the use of the word. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My understanding of that Speaker’s ruling is that it is up to the Speaker to decide whether describing a policy as racist is likely to lead to disorder. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: That is right and I have just done that. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. What you told the House was that the use of the word was not allowed and that is not actually correct. The word is allowed if the Speaker thinks that it will not lead to disorder. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the member for drawing that to my attention but I would also like him to look at Speaker’s ruling 6/5 (Supplement). It states: “If the word ‘racist’ is used in an insulting or demeaning way to any person or party it is out of order.” I have made my decision. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It would help if when you make a ruling rather than saying it is not possible ever to use that word to describe a bill you explain that you think it will lead to disorder. To say that we can never use that word to describe a policy or legislation is not in the Standing Orders. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the member very much. I appreciate him drawing that to my attention.