2. Overseas Ownership of New Zealand Property—Exemption for Te Ārai DevelopmentHon AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) to the Associate Minister of FinanceOverseas Ownership of New Zealand Property—Exemption for Te Ārai Development2. Hon AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) to the Associate Minister of Finance: In the timeline of events put to him in the first supplementary question to Oral Question No. 11 on Wednesday 4 July which specific events were incorrect and what is the alternative correct version of those events?Hon DAVID PARKER (Associate Minister of Finance): I became aware of the issues relating to the local iwi Te Uri o Hau and Ngāti Manuhiri after they made a joint submission with Darby Partners to the Finance and Expenditure Committee on 15 March. I became aware there were non-iwi developers in the weeks that followed—i.e. shortly after the member did. Other errors in her version of events include a claim that I took the paper to a Cabinet committee on 22 March when the Cabinet committee met on 28 March. The member claims Treasury advised me of the level of non-iwi interest in the land—they did not. The correct version of events is that the Government called for public submissions on the bill and in response to those submissions and after discussions between Ministers and with Cabinet approval proposed changes to the bill on the face of the bill not through a regulation-making power including a transitional exemption for the Te Ārai development.Hon Amy Adams: How does he reconcile the statement in his paper to the chair of Cabinet's economic development committee In particular it should be clear that a decision to exempt this development is not due to the fact that the land is provided as Treaty redress." with his statements in Parliament that the exemption was driven by "a desire not to cause unfairness by diminution of value of a Treaty settlement asset"?Hon DAVID PARKER: Easily. That's a reference to the Treaty—the Article 1 Treaty sovereign right of the Government to make those laws. I believe and the Government believes that changing the law in a way that substantially diminishes the value of the Treaty settlement asset is a legal Article 1 act of sovereignty. But it also risks creating a Treaty grievance and that's what I've said time and again. The Treasury advice focused on the Article 1 rights; that means it's legal to do so not that it's fair to do so and not that it will not create a new grievance. I've also said that when that line is crossed is a moot point and I've explained why in these circumstances which are unusual we propose the time limit exemption.Hon Amy Adams: When he said in this House on 3 July that his decision to advance the exemption was informed by conversations he had had with ministerial colleagues and advice from Treasury which was itself informed by legal advice was he actually saying he just did what his colleagues asked given that Treasury's actual advice to him was that "There is no legal obligation to exempt Te Uri O Hau or Ngāti Manuhiri from the bill." and that Treasury recommended the exemption not proceed?SPEAKER: Any one of the three.Hon DAVID PARKER: No.Hon Amy Adams: Was the Rt Hon Winston Peters one of the ministerial colleagues whom he had conversations with about the Te Ārai development?Hon DAVID PARKER: By the end of the process but not at the start.Hon Amy Adams: So when he took his recommendation for an exemption for Te Ārai to Cabinet did he know that prominent Ngāti Wai kamatua chair of Ngāti Manuhiri and one of the owning trustees of the Ngāti Manuhiri land at Te Ārai is John Paki Winston Peters' cousin?Hon DAVID PARKER: No.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. With respect when one mentions the word "cousin" does she mean "first" "second" "third" "fourth" or "fifth removed" because that sort of insinuation—Hon Members: That's not a point of order!Rt Hon Winston Peters: —beg your pardon?—is beneath that member?SPEAKER: Well I'm not sure that is a point of order but what is clearly in question is a generally held convention around families of members. But it is a convention and not a Standing Order. Does the member have a further supplementary?Hon Amy Adams: When he said on Wednesday 27 June that no Ministers had declared conflicts in respect of Te Ārai because there were none does he think Mr Peters should have declared a conflict in respect of Mr Paki under Section 2.65a of the Cabinet Manual—SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume her seat. This Minister has no responsibility for that. Further supplementary?Hon Amy Adams: Isn't the reality of this situation most accurately summed up in this way: as Minister he didn't want an exemption for the Te Ārai land; Treasury agreed they shouldn't get one; the legal advice said there was no case to grant one; but in a fiery debate around the Cabinet table which included his own Māori caucus arguing for an exemption for all Māori land New Zealand First won the day and saw a purpose-built exemption created just for their Northland friends and family members?Hon DAVID PARKER: No. And can I further say that if the member wants an instance as to where potential Government action that affects value creates a sense of grievance she needs to look no further than the bill which she promoted in respect of the Kermadecs which proposed taking away all fishing rights in respect of a total fishery management area with no compensation under a pretence that said that you could fish but you had a total allowable catch of zero that you could go to court but you couldn't get a remedy. I think that is a case in point as to where it is that responsible Governments look a little bit more deeply at these things than the superficiality that that member displays.Rt Hon Winston Peters: On the issue of undue influence and connectivity of cousins to Ministers is he aware that the Scottish-Māori relationship to the extent that the questioner raised it includes about 10000 people?Hon Member: Great question cuz.Hon DAVID PARKER: No—ha ha! My friend quipped "Great question cuz." But I do note that this is in a similar vein to last week when it was alleged that I had a conflict because I was at one stage a friend—not true—at one stage a business associate—not true—at one stage had been the person's lawyer—not true. And even if they had been true there would not have been a conflict of interest. [Interruption] SPEAKER: Order! Question No. 3."