Local Government (Rating of Whenua Māori) Amendment Bill

I move, That the Local Government (Rating of Whenua Māori) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Māori Affairs Committee to consider the bill. At the appropriate time, I intend to move that the Local Government (Rating of Whenua Māori) Amendment Bill be reported to the House by 29 June and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions), during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, and outside the Wellington area, despite Standing Orders 191, 193, 194(1)(b) and 194(1)(c).

Whatungarongaro te tangata toitū te whenua.

People may perish but the land shall always remain.

That is a prescient reminder of the role and responsibility that Māori electorate MPs have in this House to continue to advocate for positive change in relation to whenua Māori. A key objective of Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 is to facilitate the occupation, development, and utilisation of Māori land for the benefit of its owners. Rating law and practice has long been recognised as an impediment to achieving that objective. This bill implements measures to remove rates as an impediment to the use and development of Māori land by its owners.

In developing proposals for this bill, it became apparent that in previous reviews of rating legislation, issues around rating Māori land had been put in the too-hard basket. The result is that much of our present law about rating Māori land dates back to 1924 and what was then known as the Native Lands Rating Act. This bill makes some changes to bring rating law into line with the current expectations for Māori-Crown relationships and, importantly, the unique land tenure system applying to whenua Māori.

This Government does not believe that issues relating to use and development of Māori land can be solved by a single measure. This bill is a part of a package of measures designed to assist Māori to develop and use their whenua. Let me briefly summarise other measures this Government has taken, which include the introduction of Te Ture Whenua Maori (Succession, Dispute Resolution, and Related Matters) Amendment Bill that will simplify some of the legal process requirements that Māori land owners face; the allocation of $56.1 million in Budget 2019, enabling the establishment of regional on-the-ground advisory services in Tai Tokerau, Waiariki, and Te Tai Rāwhiti; the creation of a whenua knowledge hub, and the Tupu New Zealand website that I launched in February this year; new and enhanced services for the Māori Land Court and the modernisation of the Māori Land Court information systems; the provision of feasibility and investment funds for Māori land owners through the Whenua Māori Fund; and $100 million set aside from the Provincial Growth Fund for the development of whenua Māori.

Returning to this bill, that works in conjunction with these other initiatives to stimulate whānau development through whenua. I’d like to now comment on the key proposals contained in this bill. By far the biggest problem for owners of Māori land engaging with local authorities about development is the problem of rates arrears. Under current law, the accumulation of rates arrears creates a negative cycle. The ability of owners to pay rates and the inability of whānau to develop their land has prevented them from being able to pay those rates. Existing rates arrears inhibit owners from engaging with local authorities to promote the development of the land. We need to break this cycle. We actually need to change up the conversation, because if whenua Māori is developed, there are local and regional benefits from growth opportunities.

This bill does this in two ways. First, land blocks that are entirely unused will be made non-rateable and existing rates arrears on those blocks will be written off. At the same time, land which has been set aside under Ngā Whenua Rāhui kawenata will also be made non-rateable. Second, local authority chief executives will be given discretion to write off rates arrears on any land where they consider the rates cannot be recovered. In addition, they will be able to write off rates where a person has inherited a beneficial interest in a block of Māori land and finds that they have also inherited rates arrears. The bill’s third initiative is to create a statutory remissions process for rates on Māori land under development.

Some councils already grant rates remissions for developments they see as economically beneficial for their district. Currently, each council develops its own remissions policy, so there is no national consistency in approach to development remissions, but there needs to be. This bill will provide a consistent set of criteria and considerations that each council must take into account when dealing with an application for rates remissions for the development of Māori land. Owners of Māori land have particular difficulties accessing capital for development, as the nature of their land titles creates difficulties in securing mortgages. Granting rates remissions or postponements during the development stage recognises this issue and is an investment for a council in obtaining future rating streams from productive utilisation of whenua Māori.

The bill’s fourth initiative addresses the problem of fragmentation of Māori land titles. Many Māori land blocks are quite small, and individually they may not be economic to develop. If owners can agree to manage the blocks as one, development is possible. However, the combined rates charges for these blocks can be very high because of the application of uniform charges under the local authority rating schemes. The bill provides that where multiple units of Māori land are used as a single economic unit, if they were part of the same original block of Māori land they can be rated as if they were one rating unit. The Far North District Council, for example, did this for the Ōkahu blocks in its district, reducing annual rates from $18,000 to $8,000 per annum. This bill will make this universally available for many Māori land owners.

The bill’s fifth initiative addresses the rating treatment of homes on Māori land. Where there are multiple homes on a block of Māori land or a home is incidental to other uses of the land, the title arrangement means the homeowner is unable to access the rates rebate scheme. In 2018, this Parliament passed legislation granting access to rates rebates to occupants of retirement villages. It is clear that where there are multiple homes on Māori land, there is an equally compelling case that low-income homeowners in those homes should also be able to access the rates rebates. This bill will enable that to occur.

The bill proposes a number of other changes to the rating legislation. One is particularly important and I know it will have a positive impact in many regions. In 1967, the Government of the day amended the Maori Affairs Act to direct that certain Māori land be changed to general land. This was done without consultation or notification to the owners. The effect of that change was to expose that land to alienation through abandoned land and rating sales under the rating Act. I am aware of cases where such land has recently been offered for sale under those provisions. This bill will stop future sales of that classification of land.

Rating matters have been a concern for Māori land owners ever since the practice was introduced in the 19th century. Ironically, it was one of the key issues my tupuna Mahuta opposed as an unfair measure when he was an early member of the legislative House. This bill will deal with some of the longstanding issues that have continued to arise in that area. I commend the bill to the House.

It’s my pleasure to rise and speak to this bill. National will be opposing this bill—I say that from the beginning, and I’m going to outline some reasons why. In the specific instance of the rating of Māori land, some of this bill has some merit, but the risk it causes is that you set a policy that will then not be consistent with a whole lot of other Government policies that are being rolled out right now.

Minister, I understand the rating of Māori land; I’ve been a mayor where I’ve remitted those rates, so I know it can be done. I’ve been a mayor when we have put the uniform charges together on several properties, so the rates per property have been reduced. It can be done. It can be done with elected officials who understand the need and the value and the good. Now, I accept that not every electorate official thinks the same, but that is the core of New Zealand’s democracy. Here we have a process where the Government rides in and says, “It’s available to everybody.” It’s important I say that because—I’ll come back to this later—I’m struggling to understand what is so broken that needs to be fixed, without the precedent understanding of Ministers on your side of the House.

What the Minister Nanaia Mahuta is really asking in this bill is that there is a provision to write off rates on Māori land, and the penalties that go with that, for whatever reason, because it’s unproductive land or can’t be used.

The Government currently has a significant number of policy initiatives under way, many of which we have concerns about. One of them relates to the freshwater package that is being looked at at the moment, which asks people—or tells people, really; compels people—to fence waterways. Fence them off; they can’t be used. They then become unproductive—unproductive land all around New Zealand. Five metres, I think, Mr Parker, is the minimum. Five metres, I think you’re talking about, either side of the water—or is it going to be 10?

💬 Hon David Parker: It’s being consulted.

Yes, it might be consulted on, but that’s what’s being considered. A massive sway of farmland is becoming unproductive because we’re trying to support the waterways.

Then we have the new policy that’s just been announced about indigenous species, how we manage biodiversity—a case where a lot of New Zealand land, farmland included, may not be used for a productive purpose. Are they all going to get rates relief? Are they all going to get remissions? That hasn’t even been thought about.

So the fundamental premise from this side is that unless you do this holistically, you are setting up one part of New Zealand to have a remissions policy and a way it operates, without thinking about the precedent that goes on in other parts. I come back to my own experience in this place. I have seen the inability of, in many cases, multiply owned, unproductive Māori land, that is in some cases landlocked, having rates build up over years and having to be remitted.

I remind members of this House that rates—some countries call them “taxes”—are really the way in which we fund the local authority to operate and all the things that it operates for. Everybody that owns a property has a requirement to pay their share of those costs, and that is set on basically land or capital value, generally. If the land is unproductive for whatever reason, you can mount an argument to say that there is no loss to the community for that land because it’s not being used. You can also mount the case on Department of Conservation (DOC) land. DOC land is not being used apart from the keeping of the New Zealand estate. It may be used for tourism purposes, but in many parts of New Zealand it’s not rated for. The net result of all of that is that the people who have the productive land or the use, they fund—whether it’s houses, businesses, commercial operations, or industrial operations—the cost for that community.

Now, we have, in this case, a bill that says, basically, a chief executive can write off historic rates and arrears for Māori land—whether its multiply owned or not—that has been unproductive, to set the record straight. I can think of at least three times in my mayoral career where we had reports to us that looked at the value of the rates and the arrears. I agree with the Minister that in many cases, it’s the value of the arrears that are the issue. I think in all those three years, we wrote those off. But the net result of that is probably that we should never have charged them in the first place, because we end up putting them in a mix of the budget and then writing them off at the end. The net result of that is you push the price up for everybody else that is paying if you’re going to deliver the same level of service. So our view is that we think the Government should first settle the Māori land tenure issues through Te Ture Whenua Maori Act before addressing this issue.

We also think that the Government has not thought through the ramifications of some other policies that, out of fairness and equity, should apply for the same remission—that is that if you set land aside for an environmental value on waterways and it’s unproductive, why cannot any New Zealander get a rates remission of that? If you set land aside for biodiversity, why can any New Zealander not get a rates remission for that? The net result of doing all of those things, including the Māori land rates remission, is that you narrow the pool of people who are paying the costs of providing the services for that community.

Many farmers in New Zealand—as an example—plant large areas of land for conservation purposes. They can get a remission if it’s a QEII, but if it’s not then there is no remission available. So on one hand, we accept that there’s an issue with Māori land and historic debts and the penalties, but the way in which this goes about addressing it disadvantages all other ratepayers. If the Government wanted to fix this, and if the Government is consistent in its approach, then the Government should fund the rates of this land. The Government should fund the rates on the land that is going to be required to be fenced off and unproductive for water quality. The Government should fund the rates for the biodiversity value that New Zealand is going to get if that biodiversity strategy happens. Ultimately, what you’re doing is removing the productive base from New Zealand and you’re putting extra costs on that very same productive base.

If you’d asked me to talk on this or if the party had asked me to talk on this probably two years ago, without those new provisions I’m talking about, I would have had a little bit of sympathy. But I really worry about the precedent that is being set, and I really worry that in this wish to, sort of, put a line in the sand and allow development, you’re setting a whole precedent of issues that haven’t been thought through.

Minister, you said that in the Far North, they’ve done all sorts of things to deal with how they reorganise land. Those things are already available in the current law. I have done them myself under the current Act. So I’m struggling to understand what is so revolutionary about this bill, what it’s expecting to fix, and, on the other side of that, the dangerous precedent it’s setting for all the other land that is about to become unproductive by various other Government policies and who’s going to pay the rates on that. Ultimately, a local authority has a budget and it does things: it builds roads, sewerage, water. All those things it does, it needs to fund those, and there is a certain community that has to fund them. If you remove the rating base and you take areas out of the rating base, what you largely do is put more and more costs on what’s left, particularly urban ratepayers.

So in our view, while the issue is there, the approach to resolve it is not the answer. It creates a can of worms and will set a precedent for many other types of Government policies that haven’t been thought about. So we strongly oppose this bill.

I’m glad to follow that member who has just resumed his seat, Lawrence Yule, from Tukituki, because what I was listening for was: what would they do? What would they do to unlock the economic potential in underutilised Māori land?

💬 Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki: They’ve done nothing.

Nothing—that’s exactly right. They’ve done nothing. But here we have this Minister, in this bill, talking about unlocking and allowing Māori land that has accumulated years of rates to participate in the economic gain, to bring benefits to the region—to themselves and to the regions, to this nation.

As a member of a large area of Māori freehold land, it is important that we on this side of the House explore the options for all Māori land owners, but these ones that the Minister has outlined are those that can’t even get to the first step. We are, as the Minister outlined, making amendments to the ratings Act to ensure Māori land owners who, for whatever reason, over many years have accumulated rates and do want to participate can unlock the potential in it. But I listened to that side, because essentially what that side is saying is we don’t care about rate remission or coming up with solutions to enable Māori land to develop wherever they are. That’s what they’re saying to our people throughout the country: they don’t care.

This bill, as the Minister outlined, is actually addressing the very issue that Māori land owners, both when we were reviewing when they had the ture whenua and now that we’ve had te ture whenua, about their right to participate—and rates have been, for a long year, an inhibitor to them participating. So this is what this bill is essentially doing. It’s allowing certain tools under the ratings legislation of the local government bill to ensure that those that have Māori land blocks that are non-rateable—or removing rates on underused Māori land by providing powers to the chief executive.

Now, that member talked about a very progressive council, the Hastings District Council, that he used to lead once upon a time, but what I couldn’t get was if Hastings can apply—and they do apply, and some other progressive councils do apply—then what’s the problem with legislating it so there is an even application of rates remission on Māori land? What’s wrong with that? That’s not inequitable; that’s actually smart, right? That’s actually smart. So that is the proposition under this bill that the Minister is presenting to the House. It is a way in which we can, like I said, unlock the potential in Māori whenua. It is a very complex set of arrangements in terms of unlocking Māori land, but we see this bill as part of the Minister’s wider Māori land reforms—i.e., the changes in Te Ture Whenua Maori Act, the whenua Māori pūtea that the Hon Shane Jones has made available under the Provincial Growth Fund.

Thirty percent of Māori freehold land is in my electorate of Te Tai Rāwhiti, so the rating issue is a very real burden for many of them. I heard the former speaker talk about “Well, if we give it to them, why can’t we give it to others?” The reality is that for a lot of Māori land, we’re the last cab in the rank when it came to unlocking land, particularly around access to water—and he did mention that. He did mention water. All that we’re trying to do with this bill—that the Minister is trying to do—is show a commitment from this side around the utilisation and the potential of Māori land, that that side has never addressed, through this bill. This is what this bill is doing, and I’m excited that we are bringing this up, as I said, as part of what the Minister has said in her wider Māori land reforms.

I know that in terms of the point she made around abandoned land, one of my councils—and I’ve got 10 councils throughout my electorate, but one of my councils—has historically put abandoned Māori land up for sale—abandoned Māori land for sale. So this bill is addressing that particular issue by ruling that out. I’ve got to say, for what little land is in Māori possession, which is the 1.4 million hectares—

💬 Marama Davidson: Yeah, the last bits left.

That’s right. This side of the House are making a stance: that we need to protect what little Māori freehold land we have—not only protect it but, in this bill, enable its development economically. So I’m really pleased that the Minister has presented this bill. I’m looking forward to it coming to the Māori Affairs Committee. But more importantly, if that side had voted for it, it would’ve been interesting to hear them expand on the bill, which I have yet to see, and hopefully some of those members will get up on their feet and say what they would do around unlocking Māori economic land. I commend this bill to the House.

I speak on this Local Government (Rating of Whenua Māori) Amendment Bill. The bill has three objectives. The first one is to support the development of Māori land; and, secondly, to support the development of housing on Māori land; and, thirdly, to modernise the rating legislation affecting Māori land—so it’s all about Māori land.

Rates arrears are considered to be a very significant disincentive to Māori land owners engaging with and developing their land, but is the issue so significant? Or, shall we say, there are many other issues that you need to consider.

The regulatory impact assessment states—I read—that “Māori land tends to be more isolated, in smaller holdings and, less ‘useable’ than general land: for example, 80 per cent of Māori land is classified as being of lower quality and only 17 per cent of Māori land is considered suitable for arable use. Up to 20 per cent of land is considered landlocked, and about 16,000 (60 per cent) Māori land titles are smaller than five hectares, with approximately 11,000 (40 per cent) being smaller than one hectare.” If Māori land is more isolated and classified as being of lower economic value, how does this amendment encourage the development of the land and make the land more accessible for productivity? We are not sure whether this bill will indeed achieve the objectives—that is, to support development of Māori land and support the development of housing on Māori land.

So to develop Māori land, we need to consider a wide range of issues or factors such as the constraint due to their resource management consent or resource management system under the Resource Management Act 1991. And you may need to consider the operation of the collective decision-making rules for Māori land under Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993—or called the TTWM Act—and also we need to consider the constraints on the availability of development finance, which are also a consequence of the TTWM Act.

The bill itself incentivises Māori to develop land, with particular emphasis on housing due to the housing shortage. But why would this provision not extend to general land? There has been no mention of the impacts this bill will have on general land owners, and farmers and general land owners have not been consulted as a part of the regulatory impact assessment. Also plenty of farmers who presently plant large parts of their properties with trees, for the purpose of improving the environment, do not enjoy risk reduction for non-productive land. Well, if rates write-offs on Māori-owned land occur, this will be subsidised by general land owners, who will cover the cost of the write-offs of the council. We can see the difference between Māori land and general land.

Clause 39, the powers of the chief executive to write off rates that cannot be recovered—this is clause 39, about the powers of the chief executive to write off rates that cannot be recovered. But does this apply to non-Māori land as well? The bill needs to specify if the authority to write off rates applies to non-Māori land.

As I said, the consultation has only been between Māori land owners and land councils. The Far North District Council expressed views against the bill from general ratepayers. This is a poor policy that fails to quantify any economic benefit or value to the local districts, and places an additional cost on general ratepayers. Now, collecting rates in Māori-owned land has been an issue for a long time. The council—indeed, many councils—are facing this particular issue. But the bill itself should address more important or deeper reasons for the issues related to Māori land.

Now, the Government needs to first settle Māori land tenure issues through the TTWM Act 1993 before addressing appropriately these rate issues. Also we see that Labour, the Greens, and New Zealand First opposed Te Ture Whenua Maori Bill in 2017. I quote this: Mr Kelvin Davis said, “There has not been a case for change as to why the 1993 Act does not work because … there are any number of Māori trusts and incorporations that are doing perfectly fine. They are doing very well. We have got a $40 billion Māori economy under this Act,”—this is what Kelvin Davis said during the first reading of the bill. So Labour opposed the bill because they felt it did not help small Māori land owners. The new bill does not distinguish between smaller or larger Māori land owners. So it gives a general rating exemption to all Māori land.

Now, Labour opposed this bill because it did not support small business. But then, in the end, they did not specify this bill itself is for small Māori land owners. The Cabinet paper on the bill fails to quantify the value of writing off the rates that the local economies would get. So the bill falls short of creating effective initiatives for the development of Māori land. So this issue has been there for a long time. If the purpose is to develop Māori land, then you should give strong incentives. But this one, we do not see that it’ll achieve what it intends to achieve. As I said, if the land itself is so isolated and remote, then why would this itself be enough to incentivise people to develop on Māori land? Some councils believe that this bill will create tension in their districts and will be racially divisive. And the bill fails to safeguard Māori land staying in Māori ownership.

So these are the concerns and, therefore, we believe you should really have more discussion and, at this stage, we oppose the bill.

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Naturally, this is a first reading for this bill, and a number of the concerns have been already identified. I’ve no doubt in my mind that the Māori Affairs Committee will receive submissions and diligently work through those submissions. On this side of the House, we are not that pompous to think that this bill doesn’t deserve further scrutiny, and there can be refinements. That’s the virtue of having a select committee process. But the underlying kaupapa of the bill is to enable those Māori land owners who either want to dedicate their land to a long-term permanent heritage purpose not to be rated out of existence, or those who may actually want to evolve the use of their land to do it in such a way that they’re not insolvent before they start. Now, these are actually matters that will advance the interests of the broader rate-paying community.

Now, we did have a few contributions from the former mayor there in the Hawke’s Bay. Of course, his recitation of history is deliberately selective. We have just settled the Ahuriri claim, which gives a very sad history, originating with the affairs of Donald McLean, who, in 1867, was also the originator of the Māori seats. And if you read the history of the Ahuriri claim, you can come to no other conclusion than that local government in his area—of which he’s obviously an administrative descendant of that generation of land squatters who actually took the land off those hapūs. So there’s just no coherence. However, he’s entitled to his view.

I think that there shouldn’t be much scope for the discussion of these things of over-bloated language and apocryphal scaremongering. The Māori land is a key part of growing the provinces. The regions and the territorial authorities have proven incapable without a clear instruction from central government. And where the legislation may need some further refinement, just trust in the democratic select committee process. That’s why the Minister has nominated the Māori Affairs Committee to consider the bill. I suggest to the members on the other side of the House: use that process and stop the scaremongering, stop the divisiveness over this issue; it’s very unbecoming. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to speak to this particular bill. Other colleagues before me have expressed our party position, and that’s to not support this in its first reading. What we know is that Māori land accounts for approximately 5 percent of New Zealand’s land area and is predominantly concentrated in the mid to upper North Island. These are some of the facts and figures that the regulatory impact assessment (RIA) has brought out. And there’s about 2.7 million interests—not hectares, interests—in 27,000 or so Māori land blocks. So that is a lot of interests that we’re talking about.

Most of that land tends to be—and others have referred to this as well—more isolated, smaller holdings. But notwithstanding, there are significant pockets in some of the larger areas—for instance, Tauranga, Rotorua, Taupō. There’s also, and I smile at this—the RIA brings this out—secondary urban communities. I don’t know if I’ve even heard of that: secondary urban communities such as Kāwhia and Paihia.

So there is a need—and we all agree with this and we’re hearing this in the speeches this afternoon—for us to settle Māori land tenure issues in full. I think everyone agrees that that’s something that needs to happen, and this bill is talking about that. It wants to aim to support development of provision of housing on Māori land and to modernise the legislation. So that’s a good aim, right? That’s a good, worthwhile aim for the bill. And when you’ve got $1.1 billion or so of what those Māori land rating units currently account for, this is something of sizable importance and significance.

We know that access and development difficulties exist, and—one more time—we all agree on that and there needs to be some assistance to get some of this land productively used. But are rates the only impediment to the productive use of this land? Is that the only issue that we need to address to get this land productively used?

💬 Hon David Parker: No.

The answer is squarely no, but that’s what this bill is doing, and thanks for the assistance on the other side of the House, whoever is assisting me right now. Our issue with this bill is that it’s the wrong way around. What we’ve got here is a sidestepping of the real issues. What we feel on this side of the House is that the Government’s going for a high-profile low-effort option here. It’s not addressing the fundamentals of what the issue is. It’s just one part of it. So if you’re going to spend the time and effort of this House and the time and effort of the Government—by the way, very shortly before an election—is this the only issue that you go after? Our answer on this side of the House is no.

So what we know is that this bill—and for those listening—allows for multiple dwellings on Māori land to be treated as one dwelling and enjoying lower rates. Put simply, that’s what this bill does. So we know that if a rate write-off occurs, and that’s what this bill allows for, it’s going to be subsidised by general land owners. Make no mistake about that. Someone needs to cover the cost of the write-offs to the councils. And I’ll just say that one more time: someone needs to cover the cost of the write-offs to councils.

So if we refer back to what I said earlier around the number of interests, the amount of hectares, and the number of land blocks, this is a significant issue. Someone will have to end up paying. So we’ve got questions around where we’ve got to for this first reading, how the Government got here, but first, before I do that, the process of consultation. It’s a good question to ask for any bill or any legislation that we receive here in the House.

So, according to the Department of Internal Affairs, there’s been limited consultation with local governments, and I’ll stress the word “limited”. Really interesting for me, and it was before my time, but the Hon Nanaia Mahuta opposed Te Ture Whenua Maori Bill because she didn’t believe there was enough consultation, and here we are with not enough consultation on this bill. So we’ve got an ironic switcheroos going on here this afternoon—

💬 Hon Members: Switcheroos!

—switcheroo, switcheroo—injecting the good adjectives on a Thursday afternoon. And we’ve got Cabinet papers for this bill confirming that there has been small consultation. So that’s out there for everyone to see and for everyone to read. The consultation’s only been between Māori land owners and local councils. Now, I note that my colleague Jian Yang raised that the Far North District Council, bless their socks, did express views against the bill on behalf of general ratepayers. So at least someone talked to general ratepayers, but it wasn’t this Government and it wasn’t any of their officials in the lead-up to this. So we know that if we’re going to talk about general ratepayers and councils, there are several councils around New Zealand that feel that a move such as this in this bill will create significant tension. That’s something that we should take seriously and it’s something that we will take seriously with the passage of this bill.

So in my remaining time, back to what our questions would be on this side of the House and then I’ll finish up there. Is it OK—and here’s a fundamental question for the Government—to fail to quantify any economic value to local districts and to place an additional cost on general ratepayers? What we’re arguing is that they have failed to quantify any economic value to local districts with this bill. Perhaps it’s there; we’d like to see it. We’d like to hear from it. We’ve got a process that they can do that with.

Here’s something else, a question we have around new section 62A, in clause 33, which allows for persons using abandoned general land to be liable for rates if the land has ceased to be Māori land. Really what that means, and this is interesting, is: does the bill actually safeguard Māori land staying in Māori ownership? Has the bill actually addressed that, or is there a loophole here? That’s something that should be addressed during the select committee process, but we’ve picked that up.

Clause 39, inserting 90A, gives powers of the chief executive to write off rates that cannot be recovered. Does this apply to non-Māori land as well? In other words, if the regulatory impact analysis is confirming that this power could apply to non-Māori land—the writing off of rates—does the bill need to specify that that can in fact take place? That is another potential loophole, or something that’s not been addressed.

Another question: the bill states it incentivises Māori to develop land, and it’s emphasising the housing shortage. It’s referring to the housing shortage. So it’s encouraging the use of this land because of the housing shortage. Why would provisions in this bill not then extend to general land? Can you use the same mechanisms to encourage housing provisions in development everywhere, and perhaps specifically the powers of the chief executive that I referred to earlier?

My last question would be: if the bill has such a low legal threshold for Māori land owners to prove how their land can benefit the district—because in this bill, they have to prove that they are going to benefit the district—how is it fair, or is it right? Is that low legal threshold the right one to go after?

The real final question that would summarise all my prior questions would be this, and it’s quite simple and I think it’s a really legitimate and fulsome question that the Government should answer: does this bill create effective initiatives for the development of Māori land? That’s a very simple question to ask. Is this bill creating effective initiatives, or, in fact, is it a wrong way around, side-stepping, high-profile, low-effort pre-election push? Thank you.

The Greens strongly support the Local Government (Rating of Whenua Māori) Amendment Bill. One thing is for sure: an agreement in this House on this bill is that we all love land. That’s why so much of it was taken off tangata whenua and was benefited off for over 100 years when it was taken off us.

This bill is to correct a long injustice, a long injustice that should never have been in place in the first place. This is to make sure that unused lands are unrateable, to be able to wipe out land rates arrears that have built up over time for pieces of landlocked land, for pieces of unusable land, that whānau have not been able to engage with. This bill is going to ensure that, like other general conservation lands, Māori Rahui kawenata lands can also be considered non-rateable like other general conservation lands have been considered to this point.

This bill is about putting right something that has been long wrong, and the speeches from the Opposition that like to pit a group against other New Zealand communities and groups when we are about correcting justice is an immature approach to making law, and it is an immature approach to politics, and it’s not even real. Some Māori are farmers. Many Māori are ratepayers. The Opposition likes to section out communities as if there is no relationship and no benefit from uplifting a particular group—in this case, Māori land owners. Trying to minimise the value of uplifting Māori land owners, being able to engage with their land, as if it has no other value for the rest of our country, for their local communities, is simply an immature attempt at pitting groups of people against each other. I’m disappointed that that’s the approach that is being taken by the Opposition tonight.

So I am not going to take that approach. I am going to uphold the values of what this bill is trying to achieve, and not on its own. The Minister was very clear in her opening speech tonight that this bill of making rates fairer and equitable for Māori land owners sits in conjunction with a whole raft of changes, which at the core are about affirming and retaining Māori land for Māori whānau and hapū. It includes the provincial funding projects that are going around the provinces, for people to be able to initiate projects on their land. It includes a whole raft of visions and aspirations, and this bill is one important part of it. If people were listening in the House tonight, they would have heard that loud and clear. The questions that the Opposition are getting up to ask have already been answered. Realising that we will all benefit when we remove barriers for Māori to be able to use their land is good for all of us.

Another principle that I am actually open to hearing about: how do we make sure that local authorities and local councils are able to run and do their core business as local governments? That again is another scaremongering tactic by the Opposition, as if making things right for Māori land owners is going to deny local councils the ability to run their core business. How dare we think of that approach in this House when upholding justice. How dare we scaremonger the threat—an untrue threat, a dishonest threat—to the rest of us when we are trying to put something right that has been wrong for a long time.

Another question arose from the Opposition: how is this going to actually benefit Māori land owners? For far too long, Māori have not even felt that they have been able to approach local authorities with proposals and engage in ideas and initiatives for developing land and using land because of the rates arrears that have built up over many, many years. Removing that stigma and the real fiscal arrears absolutely is going to make it easier for Māori land owners to engage with their land. That is the prime, obvious point of this very bill. Sometimes I wonder if they are just running out of things to talk about in their speeches, because all of these questions have been canvassed steadily through the course of the speeches here in this House, in this introduction of the first reading.

I agree that I want to see this bill get its passage into the select committee so that we can start having these valid debates, so I am going to keep my speech not as long as I would initially have wanted. But I just want to end on making sure that we correct this injustice. For over 100 years, this law and the unequal process of rating Māori land has been neglected—for over 100 years. Tonight is the beginning of correcting that and amending that.

Making sure that Māori can thrive and contribute and engage and participate in our own lands is absolutely good for all of us. So I’m very proud to support this, the first reading of the Local Government (Rating of Whenua Māori) Amendment Bill, and we look forward to seeing it through to its passage.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I too rise in opposition, speaking to the Local Government (Rating of Whenua Māori) Amendment Bill today. I wonder why it actually even has that title. I suggest it could be called the “Local Government (Un-rating of Whenua Māori) Amendment Bill” because that, in effect, is what this bill is setting out to do: to un-rate Māori land.

Now, the Minister stated in her opening address to the House on this bill that rates are an impediment to developing Māori land. That’s probably quite true, but the reality for every other property owner in this country is that rates are an impediment to having property. Some people would argue, and certainly do, that rates are an impediment, but, actually, rates are what fund the local authorities.

It’s been my experience over quite a few years that the engagement that happens between local constituents and their local councils has more to do with the outcomes of those discussions and the progress that is made on various parcels of land, especially our Māori land, than legislating and having a top-down approach.

The Minister used the example of the Far North District Council, where they reached a negotiation and were able to bring the rates down from $18,000 a year to $8,000 a year. That’s really commendable. I think that’s a classic example of the partnership and the collaboration that councils individually can come to with their various landowners. But as my colleague Denise Lee pointed out earlier, that shortfall is picked up by somebody else.

So just to explain, the rating system is just one big pie, and it’s established by working out what the work programme is and the costs are for a local council over the course of the next financial year. So that figure is agreed to by the councillors: the work programme, all the projects, all of the maintenance, all of the capital investment that it’s going to have, all the debt servicing that a council has, and the rates are struck for the following year. So it doesn’t matter where that money comes from. The portion that each person pays is attributed to the parcel of land that they own. The rates are derived from your uniform annual general charges, your levies or things like your funding assistance rate, subsidies that are provided, and the rates that are struck by the council on residential properties.

So when one group has a rate discount of $10,000, that money and that cost shifts to all of the other ratepayers. So, in effect, you have one group that will be subsidising another. Now, we already know that this is going on in the country, and we’ve had a couple of great examples today, but one of the things that did concern me when I was reading this paperwork was the lack of consultation. It was even brought up in the documentation when this bill was being prepared, and it says, “The RIA acknowledges time constraints around effective consultation,” and “limited recent consultation with local authorities on proposals has led to some assumptions”, and I would argue that it’s led to some huge assumptions.

One of the things that I have most concern about in this bill is that what we’re going to do is segregate our communities, because it is going to cause disruption and it is going to cause resentment if ratepayers in a certain district are being asked to subsidise other ratepayers simply because they don’t pay their rates.

But I’d also like to just explain too how the rate arrears work. We’ve heard a lot about the rate arrears and why that is a barrier to some people coming forward and negotiating with their councils, but I would strongly argue that if a party was to come to their local council and make some arrangement for how those rate arrears could be forgiven, or waived, and then how they could move forward, I doubt there would be a council in this country that would not agree to some arrangement. But the reality is with rate arrears that they only accrue for seven years anyway, and then they are written off at the other end. Councils do this every year, as we’ve heard today from my colleagues. The rate arrears are forgiven after seven years, so the accumulation of rates is only for a window of seven years, and I say that most of those councils would definitely welcome an opportunity to come to some arrangement.

The Hon Shane Jones mentioned the select committee process and having great faith in that process, and I know that very few landowners would come to a select committee and argue against this bill when it so dramatically supports them. But I would also suggest that local government and individual ratepayers would certainly want to defend and oppose this bill, and they are the ones that I speak for.

The previous speaker, Marama Davidson, mentioned that this bill ensures that unused land is unrateable, and I’d just like to tell the story of Colin—a ratepayer and a constituent on the coast. Colin has a large parcel of land that he bought many years ago. It’s unused and, in his eyes, it’s now unusable because that land has now had a significant natural area designation put on it. Unfortunately for Colin, he still has to pay the rates. So if we are going to allow some concessions for unusable land and have them unrateable, then I think we’ve just lifted the lid off a very wriggly can of worms, and I think there’s a really valid argument for those people who feel they are going to be disadvantaged by having one portion of our community that is offered some benefit in terms of rates relief for unusable land. I think that’s a very dangerous place for this Parliament to be going. If I recall some of the arguments that have come from that quarter, from the New Zealand First members, they have been strongly opposed to different sets of rules for Māori in this country.

When you’ve got an area of land, as we do on the West Coast—I’ll talk to Westland: it is 87 percent unrateable anyway because it is mostly Department of Conservation estate or stewardship land or Government land. So when you say 87 percent is already unrateable and you’re going to now introduce a bill that could make even more of it unrateable, you simply put the squeeze on a small community and make life even harder for them to upkeep the infrastructure that they need.

The whole of the West Coast, taken as a whole, is 85 percent unrateable because of its land status, and if we think about the use of that 15 percent that West Coasters scratch a living off, they still have to pay for the roads that people drive on, they have to pay for the footpaths, and they pay for their water supplies, their water disposal, their stormwater, and their waste collection, and the cost of compliance and regulation. So all of those costs are going to fall on a smaller and smaller group of people, and when you’re already 87 percent unrateable, that’s a very big ask.

I suggest that this bill does nothing to support those people that are already doing it tough, and I think we are going to buy a fight with everyday ratepayers who bite the bullet and understand that they have to pay for the things that they enjoy in their community. They need to know that they can afford to pay to turn the lights on, to have the water run and the toilet flush, and to have all those practical things, but there comes a point when the cost on a small group becomes just too unbearable, and we have to give a great deal of consideration to things like this bill that are going to make it almost impossible. Thank you very much.

This is a split call. I call Jo Luxton—five minutes.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. This piece of legislation is about unlocking economic potential on Māori land, and what we have here is arrears that have grown and grown over many, many, many years. A lot of it has already been classified as unrecoverable. So is it not better to wipe the slate clean so that these people that own this land can turn around and build on it, make it productive, and then pay rates from there onwards, as opposed to, potentially, never ever paying the rates on this land? It would remain unproductive and unusable. So, in my mind, this is a fantastic piece of legislation, and I commend it to the House.

Mr Speaker, thank you. I just wanted to take a short call on this bill because I do actually have a bit of sympathy for what the Government members have been saying around the issue of Māori land. We need to be realistic around a lot of Māori land. It is in places where it is very hard to deal with, and it is very small blocks of land that aren’t economical in their own right, that are leased to other neighbours or farmers, and that have very multiple ownerships as well. That puts that land in a very difficult predicament to make it have an economic value, in some cases, to provide a return, and I think that is something we need to be mindful of in this House.

I know the ill that the Government is trying to deal with, and there is a problem there that we need to be aware of. We need to have a concerted effort that deals with that issue so that we can actually provide some substance, I think, to those landowners that have, generally, felt an injustice in the past and are now looking at making the best utilisation of the assets that they hold.

The National Party sees a dilemma, though, in the current bill in that it is, potentially, going to cross-subsidise between other ratepayers, and that is a valid issue that should have been worked through by the Government before this bill came to the House. So, in essence, there is an issue there that we need to consider, but it also is something that really needed a much better solution that avoided that cross-subsidisation result. I would recommend that the Government relook at the legislation to find a solution which enables that to happen. Thank you, Mr Speaker.