Yang JianDr JIAN YANG (National): 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 16000 (60 per cent) Māori land titles are smaller than five hectares with approximately 11000 (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."