Sharples Pita: Taxation (Annual Rates and Urgent Measures) Bill — Second Reading 
Sharples Pita: Taxation (Annual Rates and Urgent Measures) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:628;Page:711] 
Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 When my colleague Tariana Turia spoke at the first reading of this bill she talked about a war that is being waged on the poor. We hoped that in referring this bill to the Finance and Expenditure Committee consideration would be given to the questions we raised about how to ensure the equitable distribution of wealth. We believe that it should not have to rely on a welfare benefit disguised as a family assistance package. It is what it is. 
Although we are supportive of family incomes being supplemented in the Working for Families package we would much prefer that the supplement be in take-home pay rather than a welfare handout. We would rather see the smile on the face of a worker because it was take-home pay than that worker being seduced by a welfare payment. Which would the members of this House prefer? 
If an individual with a gross salary of $32000 who pays tax on that salary of $6240 then receives $1118 in family assistance how much does it cost to get that $1118 to that family? That is not a riddle much as it may appear so to many economists and political commentators. Those are real questions that real families are asking us. Would it not be better for a family to pay a reduced amount of tax—in this case $5102 rather than $6240? Given that bureaucracy is absent from the second scenario what is the saving to this country? I am not an economist or an accountant but it seems crazy to me that money is taken off people then costs are incurred in order to give some of it back. It defies logic. 
In our minds pride in being fairly rewarded for work is more satisfying to people than a handout from a patronising paternalistic State machine and the expectation that gratitude can be signalled when the next ballot box needs to be filled—because believe you me workers will be reminded at the next election of the hand that fed them. I need to remind the House that Maori have always questioned the handout mentality. I recollect a song of protest by one of my Ngati Porou whanaunga Tuini Ngawai who in the 1950s wrote a song of protest at the introduction of a universal benefit. She said at that time: “He patu tikanga he patu mahara he patu mauri.”—that the benefit would undermine our customs of self-help our concern for each other and the very essence of our life force. 
Jill Pettis 
: But did she take it? 
Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: No she did not. When I look around at some of our people I can see the wisdom of the words of Tuini Ngawai. She warned against dependency and she would turn in her grave if she knew that what she warned against has now happened. Let us not assign the coming generations to that which currently afflicts many of us. I know there needs to be a safety net but it should not be a net that entangles the life essence of a people. We need to construct mechanisms and adopt philosophies that ensure that those in the net can see a way of getting out of it. This does not mean severing the net as the Working for Families package does or introducing punitive penalties as some political commentators might suggest. The Working for Families package is targeted relief which offers no poverty relief for benefit-dependent families. Core benefit levels have not changed since the 1991 benefit cuts apart from inflationary adjustments. 
A better distribution of taxation might be found that allows all low-income families to receive targeted tax relief without discrimination between those in paid work and those who are not. The Maori Party finds itself in an unenviable position. Although we would want to support this bill for working families we also know that there are many other families who will not get the benefits of increased resourcing. We have applauded the bill for introducing additional targeted tax relief to 160000 working families yet we also know that it is an irony that the Working for Families package is in itself a dressed-up welfare payment. It has the potential to create a nation of welfare dependants. 
 I need to ask the Government what action it is taking or planning to introduce specifically to address the policy deficiencies of the Working for Families package which discriminates against parents who are not in paid work. This House must not forget the 250000 poorest children in Aotearoa. This House must also not forget the recent findings of the United Nations expert on human rights of indigenous peoples that there are in fact significant disparities between Maori and Pakeha with particular concern for “the situation of Maori children in poverty and the problems facing sole parent households”. It is our obligation and responsibility as members of Parliament to look carefully at the results of the September 2005 household labour force survey which reported a 9.1 percent unemployment rate for Maori and to ask ourselves why the rate is so high—more than four times the Pakeha rate of 2.2 percent. 
The Maori Party will continue raising this issue until it is addressed. We will not desert the poor. It is not they who have created poverty. Indeed they do not have an investment in being poor. So if the poor do not have an investment in poverty who does? The Working for Families package does not sufficiently address poverty or child poverty in Aotearoa. This package along with the Government’s single core benefit system roll out the expectation that all beneficiaries should be in or moving towards paid work—often low-paid—regardless of being full-time parents or living in areas of job shortages. The Minister of Maori Affairs has for some years now spoken about his concern for the working poor. We look forward to working with him and the Government to address this issue which is of concern to all of us. Na reira Parekura Horomia tena koe anei matou hei awhina i a koe. Mena kaore e taea e koe te korero kai te pai ma matou tera. 
[ 
So greetings to you Parekura Horomia we are here to help you. If you are not able to address it that is fine we will attend to it. 
] 
Another of the key issues in the taxation bill that have concerned us is the implication around the student loan scheme of 1992. We are concerned about the disproportionately high levels of student debt incurred by Maori and the limited capacity of Maori to repay their student loans—often a capacity outside their control as I will relate. In September this year Te Mana Akonga the national Maori tertiary students association reported that the percentage of debt belonging to Maori students showed that Maori student debt had skyrocketed above $1.5 billion. That figure of $1.5 billion is more than the fiscal envelope the capped Treaty of Waitangi putea still existing today. Of those Maori students who studied in 1997 18 percent have fully repaid their loans and a further 28 percent had repaid some of their loans by 2003. That compares with 30 percent and 32 percent respectively for non-Maori students. That may look as if Maori are reluctant to pay their debts—a deficit approach would blame the debtor. 
A keener analysis shows that one reason for people making little or no progress with repayment is low income. The high level of non-repayment among Maori who studied for level 1 to 3 certificates for example is attributed to the notably lower earning capacity of those students. Average incomes for that group are just above the repayment threshold. How do we explain the fact that the average income for Maori with level 1 to 3 certificates is notably lower than that for non-Maori with the same level of qualification? What does one think Maori would be thinking when they discover this? Is there some systemic bias within the working environment? Is this one standard for all? 
The Maori Party does not have any interest in attacking individuals whom others may think are responsible or political parties that others may think are responsible. What the Maori Party is interested in is eliminating structural bias which permeates our society. Let us as members of this House look at this together. Let us join together to ensure solutions that will fit for this nation. Whenever any of us here apply for a job we talk about a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work. We talk about equity we talk about a good deal yet what I have referred to in those statistics from August 2005 demonstrates that that is not always the case for some of our citizens. 
We are acutely aware that the Working for Families package is a flawed package a programme to strengthen political dependency on the minority Labour Government. However despite the dangers of dependency we will be supporting this bill in the interests of the 160000 working families and the students saddled with debt. We remind the Government however that we will not forsake the poor and neither should it. We will continue to raise the issue of policy neglect and to join with like minds to fight the injustice of poverty.