Bridges SimonHon SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga): I spoke at the second reading and I said all that I wanted to say on this bill and some more frankly. I used every second of those 10 minutes. So I don't intend necessarily—unless the other side starts baiting me for more—to use the full 10 minutes. I do though want to make three points.The first one is really about what's in the bill to the extent that there is much in it because I agree with Christopher Luxon: there's really not much substance in this bill. I was thinking about it. It's like one of those sandwiches in the tuck shops where they push all the meat to the front but you get to about the second half of the sandwich and there's nothing in it right? I mean it's just Vogel's with a little bit of margarine and nothing—it's a slogan. It's window dressing. It's the chance for people like Tāmati Coffey to get up and pretend that he's doing something in the Bay of Plenty when the reality just isn't that. Tāmati Coffey: You're not doing anything. What are you doing?Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Well it's a little bit hard in Opposition but let's stick with this. So there's not much substance to this bill. It is in relation to non-rateable Māori land and the rates remission in it. But you know again that lack of meat in the sandwich when again it's been pointed out—the likes of Lawrence Yule a member of Parliament in the last Parliament—you could already do it all. You could already do it all. So that's really just the first point here. This is a bill for what it's worth that's a slogan that's a front but actually behind it you could already do it all. There's not a lot here. Except that I will acknowledge the extent that the Tāmati Coffeys of it—because I presume you know in speaking he's seeking as is Willie Jackson as is every other member of the Government who speaks to this bill to try and say it does do something; there really is an engine in this car to get it moving. What it does do in truth is provide for different treatment between a Māori land owner and another landowner in precisely the same circumstances. Again colleagues on this side have made the point that actually it's not just Māori land owners that have underutilised underproductive land with ownership issues and governance problems and all the things that are the purported reason why we're giving—I'm sorry to say it—special treatment to one category and not the other: Māori land owners over all other landowners. They're not going to today to me because they're probably getting ready to go home in 45 minutes but so often on the other side of the House what we hear when we say that sort of thing is Well that's racist. That's dog-whistle politics."—all of these things. No it's not. It's actually just pointing out that in this bill—the extent that it does anything new is it's special differential treatment for one group over others in exactly the same circumstances and I don't like that.Tāmati Coffey made a couple of telling points—I'll come back to the other one but he made one very interesting point and it's a point worth acknowledging. He ran through the numbers of Māori land proportionate to other land in the Bay of Plenty and the one I jotted down in Tauranga the area really that Todd Muller and I both represent 12 percent of land—I think it's 11.8—is Māori land. I accept his point. That's a lot of land that's Māori land in Tauranga. Yep we all agree so far. But here's the thing that happens as a result of this bill if this bill does any real work and is worth anything. Here's what'll happen: the Māori land owners no longer pay rates and so the kiwifruit orchard next door ends up having to pay significantly higher rates. By the way I know that's the process they're starting to go through at the Bay of Plenty Regional Council as they consider some of these issues. And sorry—call me old-fashioned; call me racist even if you want to; call me a dog whistler—that's not right. So I kind of don't reckon this bill actually fixes much. To the extent it does though—I accept that this side's going to go out there and trumpet how amazing it is—actually it's wrong. That's the other point that I wanted to make and that's that it doesn't do the hard mahi it should. It doesn't actually—it's trite isn't it but it's the whole thing around "Give someone a fish; feed them for a day. Show them how to fish; do it for a lifetime". This is kind of "give a fish". Yeah we'll get rid of your rates but actually they're not the driving—that's not going to make land productive when there's ownership and governance and complicated issues. Actually what's required for that to feed the village to get them fishing over time is more serious considered structural Te Ture Whenua Māori land law reform. The reality of that the tragedy of today this bill that I accept the Parliament's going to pass because Labour alone has the numbers is the missed opportunity of not doing what should be done. What should be done is pick up the bill that I think has been in Chris Finlayson's then Te Ururoa Flavell's name and now in fact is in the cake tin ballot in the name of Gerry Brownlee Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill land reform bill and pass that. Because that's not just pushing the meat to the front of the sandwich. That's not just mucking around and doing some of the easy stuff so that for a little while Tāmati Coffey's—well he doesn't have any constituents but those with constituents—Rawiri Waititi's constituents feel good for a little while. Actually we could do some stuff that made them more productive more efficient. Utilise their land. Grow kiwifruit do honey. Todd Muller: That's right.Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Frankly have—I don't know about in Tauranga Mr Muller but—space ships or rockets I should say like they do in Māhia going up—whatever they want but which at the moment can't be done because the law is arcane and actually I accept in many ways through its function oppressive. Tāmati Coffey said one other thing. He said that well you know effectively this Parliament—I think was the claim; colonisation back at—what was it now? My maths isn't very good. Let's go 1860s 1870s. Well it took the land and that was one injustice so let's kind of write that over tip the seesaw this time and make everything right. Well you know Tāmati Coffey that's kind of not the way to go. That's I think very reductive thinking regressive thinking that ends up in trying to fix things up creating other injustices a sense of unfairness amongst other New Zealanders who end up paying more rates who end up seeing the special treatment that certain people Māori land holders who know how to work the system do better than others. Actually what should happen what I hope one day will happen is we do real Māori land reform that actually really delivers productive efficient landholdings around New Zealand."