Wong Pansy: Taxation (Annual Rates Maori Organisations Taxpayer Compliance and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Wong Pansy: Taxation (Annual Rates Maori Organisations Taxpayer Compliance and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:606;Page:4090] 
PANSY WONG (NZ National) 
: 
 First of all I compliment the Minister on taking a call and I hope that he keeps up this good practice. We have many many more questions that we will put to him and I encourage him to continue to take calls. It is absolutely refreshing that a Labour Minister has taken a call during the Committee stage—except that he did not make much sense to me or to the public but that is beside the point. We encourage him to continue to take calls. 
The Minister tried to tell us that if something has happened for the last 50 or 100 years then it is good enough to continue. That is sad because one of the reasons the title refers to tax rates for Maori organisations is that most taxpayers of Maori ethnic origin are on low incomes. If the Minister is saying that whatever happened in the last 50 years is good enough I think it is very sad to aim so low. As well I would like to take up that point because my very learned colleague the Hon Lockwood Smith a member of the Finance and Expenditure Committee is adamant that there has not always been double taxation on Maori organisations unless those organisations did not distribute their profits after 4 years. It is not true for the Minister to say that that was double taxation because if it were I would want the Minister to take another call to say whether this Government would refund that double taxation. He has to be a bit careful when he makes those assertions. 
In relation to the title I agree with my colleague the Hon Lockwood Smith that new legislation should have a meaningful title to convey to the public its purpose. So I think that the Labour Government should accept an amendment to the title for a start of the “Taxation (Top Half OECD High Tax Rate) Bill”. After all the Labour Government should be happy. It has returned New Zealand to the top half of the OECD—unfortunately not through income levels but through high tax rates. The next time the Hon Dr Michael Cullen stands up in the House he should not apologise for abandoning the target of returning New Zealand to the top half of the OECD; he should claim credit and say that in effect Labour has returned New Zealand to the top half of the OECD but only through high tax rates. To be fair to members of the public and to convey to them what this bill is trying to achieve it should be renamed the “Taxation (Preferential Treatment for Maori Organisations) Bill”. Now I am getting a little bit concerned about why Mr Chairman keeps staring at me. I hope this speech is very narrow and focused— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The debate is to the title. 
PANSY WONG 
: Yes absolutely! The title should be changed to “Taxation (Preferential Treatment for Maori Organisations) Bill” which is a lot more appropriate. After all if the Labour Government prefers to dish out that preferential treatment then it should be courageous enough to include it specifically in the title so that the public will immediately know that the content of the legislation relates to the treatment of Maori organisations. 
I have an interesting question for the Minister. Today we learnt that the Race Relations Commissioner advised private businesses to take on Maori names for their organisations. Would those businesses qualify for this preferential tax treatment because they have taken on a Maori name for their organisations? It is a matter of being fair to all New Zealanders because I understand that some submitters challenged the definition of a Maori organisation when they made their submissions at the select committee. 
It would also be useful when the title simply states “Taxpayer Compliance” for it to be more specific about what compliance that is.