Court Simon; Mahuta NanaiaSIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you Madam Chair. So we've heard about the provisions to remit rates and the reason why it's important to do that. What we haven't heard is how local councils local government which depends on rates revenue to fund infrastructure and to fund services which these communities also benefit from should replace the revenue and the funding that will be lost through this rates remission. We haven't heard whether the Government intends to compensate local councils to the same value of rates that they remit and in fact I having joined Parliament only in the 53rd Parliament haven't heard any recent information about the likely estimates of the value of rates that are likely to be remitted. We know that local government is facing a significant infrastructure deficit and a very large funding deficit. Most recent estimates $170 billion over 30 years for water but we don't know the extent of the deficit in terms of climate resilience and climate mitigation and all the infrastructure for roading and connections that are still outstanding. I understand whenua Māori land that is held is often in rural areas or places that are more remote from towns and cities which is much more difficult to get infrastructure to and to develop. Local councils often require significant development contributions in order to get this land made ready for housing. So what this bill doesn't cover and what we don't understand is what provisions will be made to make sure that the rates revenue that councils depend on will be made good and that provision of infrastructure to this land by councils if that's required will be possible in future without the revenue and without the ability of rates to cover those costs.So I'd appreciate hearing more about that Minister. Thank you.Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Local Government): Kia ora. Can I first just clarify—I was remiss which is why I was slow in responding to the member's question in relation to Ngā Whenua Rāhui. Just to clarify the remit and the scope of this bill enables us to ensure that Ngā Whenua Rāhui lands are not rateable. You're correct. It doesn't apply to QEII lands because that's outside of the scope of this particular bill but I acknowledge the point.In relation to the financing issues I mean that's also not a part of the land but the question is valid to the extent that if we find ways to engage Māori with their land—so not leaving land dormant and unproductive—removing the rates and then enabling whānau to re-engage with their land succeed to their land and then be able to form their governance entities the opportunity there then is to have the conversation with councils and align their development horizon to the rating of their land. So it is the intention as land becomes more productive that they will also be rated in time. But it doesn't serve any purpose or opportunity for the community the whānau or the council to leave this land dormant. So what we tried to ensure was that a different conversation could happen between councils and Māori land owners. When I think about the opportunity and some of the feedback and conversations that helped to inform certainly my thinking around this issue as had been mentioned by members on this side of the House some councils enjoy very good relationships with Māori land owners who have significant other avenues to generate finance.However it would still mean that a conversation direct with Māori land owners would be required. So for example in the settlement context if there was the potential to marry up the land opportunity with Māori land owners with potentially access to finance through an entity a Māori incorporation or a trust for example that there in itself will see land development occurring.There are examples up the coast that we could point to but my simple point is we need a different conversation. This issue has been around for far too long and really remained dormant. This approach will mean that not only will Māori land owners have a different conversation with themselves around the potential of their land they will be able to have a different conversation with councils around the cumulative opportunities if they thought about what partnership could look like.