Carter David: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
Carter David: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
[Volume:615;Page:10971] 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 I thank Jill Pettis for her valedictory speech today. I thank that member for the contribution she has made to New Zealand politics in the expectation that some day somebody will find her contribution. 
I start my speech by supporting the no-confidence motion as advanced by Don Brash on Tuesday. I fear that the motion will be lost because it will be noted that United Future will support the Labour Government and as a result that party and the Government will pay at the next election. 
I have listened to most of this debate and without doubt the issue of race relations has dominated it. I guess that is inevitable as a consequence of the issues raised by Don Brash recently in his Orewa speech. The issue of race relations concerns many New Zealanders. As I have listened to this debate many Labour members have come to the House and accused the National Party of picking the scab or scratching the itch—as Jill Pettis referred to it—of Maori bashing or of being racist. I say to the Labour Party that this issue is worrying New Zealanders and that is why we saw more people than ever before vote on a  
Holmes 
 poll—34000 people—of whom 90 percent said that Don Brash was right to raise these issues. 
Labour has been asking the National Party to front up with examples of why New Zealanders are worried about race relations. I will spend my time doing that today with a very specific example. I will talk about what is now known in Christchurch property circles as the “Maori tax”. To do that I need to step back to 29 September 1998 when I and many members of Parliament who are in the House today voted proudly for the Ngai Tahu Claims Settlement Act which settled 150 years of grievances. I recall that as I got ready to vote on that legislation one aspect worried me—that is the ability of Ngai Tahu to have first option to purchase surplus Crown land. Because I was concerned I spent a considerable amount of time in discussion with Sir Doug Graham. He explained that if there were grievances and if they were associated with land then if we were able to give an option to Ngai Tahu to buy back surplus land—provided it was bought at market value—there was nothing wrong with that. Doug Graham convinced me that that was fair and reasonable. 
As so often happens with legislation the intent was there by most members of Parliament around this issue but sadly that particular part is not working. It is 5½ years since that legislation was passed and I will share a specific example of why that part is not working. The Canterbury District Health Board signalled that it wanted to sell the land associated with the old Templeton Hospital. It was a good move—the land was surplus. I have evidence of a person who wanted to purchase that land and therefore submitted to the Canterbury District Health Board an unconditional contract for $2.4 million. That contract arrived on the desk accompanied by a valuation and a cash cheque for $240000 being the deposit for that contract. The Canterbury District Health Board returned that unconditional contract and said that it first had to deal with Ngai Tahu and offer the land to them. 
After 2 months Ngai Tahu purchased that land but they purchased it for $1.9 million. That is $500000 less than was offered in an unconditional contract. Why did the Canterbury District Health Board accept $500000 less than that land was worth? 
Jill Pettis 
: Why believe anything that member says? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Jill Pettis interjects but she should come down to Christchurch where people are waiting for hospital operations but they are not being provided because the hospital claims it is under-resourced. 
Why then did the Canterbury District Health Board sell that land under value by $500000? I will move to what subsequently happened with that land because Ngai Tahu did not hold it for very long before they on-sold it. That is a practice they are following with many pieces of land throughout the Canterbury district. When they on-sold it they sold it apparently for $3 million. I say to Jill Pettis to think about the figures now. That land was shown to be worth $3 million because Ngai Tahu sold it within a couple of months for that figure. 
Hon George Hawkins 
: They are business people. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: George Hawkins interjects that they are business people. I accept they are business people but I ask the member to give me a reason why they should buy land for substantially less than it is worth diddle Cantabrians who are waiting for health outputs diddle Cantabrians who are on the waiting list and then profiteer by on-selling it straightaway. I say to Jill Pettis and George Hawkins that that is wrong. That is exactly the reason— 
Jill Pettis 
: I think this is another Kermadec. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Jill Pettis said stupidly that this is another Kermadec. This is a case whereby land is being traded advantageously to one sector of the community. The legislation was done with good reason and I accept the explanation that Doug Graham gave to me. But it was done on the basis that the transactions would take place at market value. That seemed perfectly fair to me whereby land that was surplus to the Crown was then offered to Ngai Tahu at market value. 
I intend to front up to the House with many more examples showing that Ngai Tahu has not been paying market value. That is my issue. 
Jill Pettis 
: Here we go again; scratching the itch. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Jill Pettis says that I am scratching the itch. That is exactly the defence that Labour Party politicians are putting up day after day because they are defenceless. When we raise issues like this we are now accused of scratching the itch. I tell Jill Pettis that I am not doing that and I am certainly not a racist. I am here to make sure that the best outcomes are delivered to Cantabrians and they cannot be delivered when they are constrained by laws that give Ngai Tahu the advantage to purchase land but when it is done at a huge disadvantage to others. That is what is wrong with race relations in this country. There are many examples— 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: What about selling airports to their mates? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: The only airport in Christchurch that I can think of would be Wigram and I am sure that in future I will be able to table documents in the House to show that that is yet another example of surplus Crown land that had to be offered to Ngai Tahu and portions of it have then been on-sold at substantial profits. Mr Gosche might say that that is right but I say that it is wrong. 
That is why many people I know in Christchurch who are dealing in the property arena talk about the Maori tax. That was not the purpose of that part of the legislation. It was not meant to be a means of Ngai Tahu quickly clipping the ticket and making a profit. It was about them picking up surplus Crown land at a fair market price. [ 
Interruption 
] Jill Pettis should go back and look at the case I am talking about. If there is a cash offer on the table for $2.4 million no strings attached at all and 2 months later the land is sold to Ngai Tahu for $1.9 million—for $500000 less—that land is sold at a 25 percent discount. 
Jill Pettis 
: That’s not right. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: That is not right. So I say to the House and I say to Jill Pettis who continues to interrupt that that is why this issue raised by Don Brash in Orewa is having such a resonance with people. They are concerned about the policy of the Labour Government that is continuing to embed separate treatment. It is not right; it must stop. Otherwise New Zealanders cannot be at one. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Judy Turner has a 5-minute speech with a bell at 1 minute.