McNair Craig: Third Readings 
McNair Craig: Third Readings 
[Volume:607;Page:4315] 
CRAIG McNAIR (NZ First) 
: 
 I am glad to speak to the third reading of this legislation—not because I am supporting it but because I have an opportunity to speak out against it on behalf of my New Zealand First colleagues and especially on behalf of my leader the Rt Hon Winston Peters and myself. We are both members of the Finance and Expenditure Committee. 
I want to start by answering a question or two—not that I was asked the questions—raised by Gordon Copeland. He said that the current situation was unjust. Just like Lockwood Smith we believe that the current situation in respect of the income level of Maori organisations is unacceptable. We have no problem in accepting that but we do have a problem in allowing a tax regime to be implemented based on race and if we look at the legislation we see that that is exactly what it does. New Zealand First is not only concerned but also alarmed that one section of the New Zealand community is receiving an advantage over other groups. 
We expressed a minority view in the committee’s report because of our concern and I want quickly to read to the House what New Zealand First said in its minority report. We said that New Zealand First members do not endorse the proposed basic rates of tax for the 2002-03 tax year and are opposed to what we see as a race-based tax law. New Zealand First and National had the same views on that. We also said that much of our consideration of the original bill focused on amendments to the tax regime as it applies to Maori authorities. The legislation introduces to the Income Tax Act 1994 a new definition of “Maori authority” and also reduces the tax rate of Maori authorities to 19.5 percent. It is basic footy in my mind. How can that not be a race-based tax? Also clause 68(2) of the original bill amends the tax rate reducing the income tax rate for Maori authorities to 19.5 percent which is equal to the lowest income tax rate for individuals. This amendment is intended to reflect the fact that 90 percent of those individuals who receive benefits from Maori organisations pay tax at the lowest basic rate. 
My question to the Government and to parties that are supporting this bill is this: why does everybody not get taxed in the same way? Why do we not fix this anomaly? Why do we not fix this problem? We accept that the status quo is unacceptable we accept that the current situation is not right but we are saying: “Why don’t we make this available to all New Zealanders?”. I think it is kind of sad to have to stand in this Parliament and raise such a basic question. 
Last week or 2 weeks ago now—it was before the adjournment—Tony Ryall was talking on this legislation. He asked a question of the House. It was another basic question. He asked why Maori organisations get a favoured tax rate. Mahara Okeroa answered in his own words. He said: “Because we are Maori.” That is what he said. That is what you said mate; it is true is it not? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Members must be referred to by their proper names. Speaker’s ruling 6/1 in the Supplement to  
Speakers’ Rulings 
 states that members must be referred to by name title or portfolio. 
CRAIG McNAIR 
: Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker for that guidance One day I might even read that. 
In the second reading debate of the original bill New Zealand First put forward an amendment that would have amended Part 2 so that all sections of the New Zealand community that can take advantage of the proposal relating to a basic rate of tax of 19.5 percent were treated in the same way. As a party we cannot support the legislation in this form and it was sad to see that amendment defeated. This legislation is unfair. It is a race-based tax system. There are no two ways about it. We cannot get away from that fact. 
The people I have talked to on the street tell me so and some people whom I know quite well who own businesses and so on just cannot believe it. They are quite well informed as to what is going on; they have not heard just a couple of sound bites on television. They are business owners. They are people who have an interest in tax. They have been looking at this and they are concerned as well. They cannot understand why this precedent is being set and it is a scary precedent to set. 
I reiterate that New Zealand First wants to treat all New Zealanders equally. That is why we prepared an amendment to give effect to that view. I was very glad that National and ACT supported us in that effort. 
There is another member of New Zealand First here Edwin Perry and he is the chairman of a trust as I have said before. He has got 80 beneficiaries in his trust—4000 acres. He has had the message—and other members and other people from Maori trusts have said this to me or to our party and other members of the New Zealand First caucus—that the current situation is not acceptable and that Maori do not want to be treated in a different way from anybody else. They are aware Mr Perry is aware and the Rt Hon Winston Peters is aware that a regime that encourages dependence and different rules is not going to help. 
It is simple. If parents give children everything they need if they buy their children a car when they leave school—and that is not wrong depending on one’s view on that—and if the children do not want to work or contribute to society because their parents are constantly giving them money and everything they need they are not going to get anywhere in life. They are not going to make it further. They are not going to step forward in life. I have seen this with very close friends of mine. One child was given everything on a silver platter and the other with the same parents was not. Who has advanced and excelled? The child who was not given everything on a silver platter. 
We also asked some other questions on this whole issue of taxation of Maori organisations. I will mention a question that we asked different submitters to the Finance and Expenditure Committee. One of the questions I asked was this: “Are there any elements to the Government proposal in this regard that cause you or your clients any real concerns?”. I think that the other members on the committee from both sides of the House and whatever their views are will agree with me— because it was a fact—that people had concerns about this. Chen Palmer and Partners in its written submission stated that it felt like a breach of the Human Rights Act. That is exactly what it is. I thank the House for listening.