3. 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 Development3. Hon AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) to the Associate Minister of Finance: On what date did he become aware that the majority ownership in the Te Ārai development was not held by iwi but by other commercial and foreign investors?Hon DAVID PARKER (Associate Minister of Finance): My understanding is there are no foreign investors in Te Ārai as Mr John Darby is a New Zealand citizen and Mr Ric Kayne has New Zealand residency. There is no reference in the shareholdings in the submission to the select committee although it was noted that the development is the most significant asset for iwi. Further in the report I received from Treasury on 19 March which cited the select committee submission the development was referred to as land transferred to iwi as commercial Treaty settlement redress." In February 2017 Steven Joyce of the National Party told the House that "this is iwi-owned land." I subsequently became aware of the level of iwi shareholding in the development from a Richard Harman piece Thursday last week.Hon Amy Adams: When he told this House last week and RNZ last Friday that the Government's intention in promoting the exemption was to help the iwi why did he never refer to the fact that the majority of the significant financial benefit of the exemption would in fact flow not to iwi but to major commercial developers?Hon DAVID PARKER: I've never made any secret of the fact that the transitional exemption was to apply to the land. And indeed the member as a member of the select committee received advice from Treasury noting in respect of the conflict of the advice from the clerk of the committee as to whether the exemption transitionally was in or outside of the Standing Orders—traversed the fact that the beneficiaries of that would include the various developers of the land and the eventual purchases of those properties during the term of that 15-year exemption.Hon Amy Adams: When he said in the House yesterday that the exemption was granted solely to the Te Ārai developers because "There was no … similar submission" and so "the issue didn't arise" was he aware that other submitters to the select committee also sought similar exemptions to those sought by Te Ārai?Hon DAVID PARKER: I'm not aware of any other submission that sought an exemption short term or otherwise on the basis that their development was a Treaty settlement asset that was transferred to them. As I previously said the Government was trying to balance the general proposition that all land is subject to the laws of this land as an article 1 right of the Government to govern with sovereignty including Māori land and land transferred to Māori pursuant to settlements with the desire not to cause unfairness by diminution of value of a Treaty settlement asset.Hon Amy Adams: Why did he say yesterday that the reason this individual exemption was granted to the Te Ārai developers and no others was because they were the only ones who asked for it when the Te Ārai developers didn't actually seek a specific exemption for themselves but instead asked for a series of land and development classes to be excluded from the scope of the bill which would have included a number of other New Zealand land owners?Hon DAVID PARKER: Quoting from the Treasury report to me dated 19 March on the submissions "The submitters assert the bill will diminish economic returns from the development and seek an exemption."Rt Hon Winston Peters: Have I got this right? That the land was conferred on the Māori people there by the National Party; that the body set up called the Auckland super-city set up by the National Party then sought to take a 200 metre strip off the front on the foreshore off the Māori who then decided that their asset was of such diminutive value that they needed to go into a consortium arrangement with the developers; and they seek now to retain the value of that and that's the only way they can get there by going for the exemption that they're seeking at the present time?Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You would have been I'm sure Mr Speaker listening carefully to the question. The National Party did none of those things. The Parliament of New Zealand certainly put together some Acts that might have enabled some of those things but I think it's very important that the distinction is made. It's made in all sorts of other ways. No leader for example—SPEAKER: Yeah no I agree with the member. The Rt Hon Acting Prime Minister will ask another question to that end.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Have I got it right that it was a National Government that conferred the land on the Māori at Te Ārai in the first place as a Treaty settlement that then they passed the Auckland super-city legislation which saw that super-city taking a 200 metre strip off the front—Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The conferring of the land on the iwi was done by an Act of Parliament unanimously supported by the House.SPEAKER: No. The member will resume his seat. The specific words were "settlement". Now the settlement was done by the Government not by the Parliament.Hon DAVID PARKER: Reading again from the extract of the Treasury briefing to me dated 19 March: "The land was acquired by Te Uri o Hau and Ngāti Manuhiri as commercial redress in Treaty settlements signed in 2000 and 2011 respectively." I am aware that there were significant planning delays that have been occasioned in this development and that as a consequence of some of their planning conditions there has been a substantial amount of the former forestry land that has moved back into public ownership.Hon Amy Adams: Is the Minister saying that iwi assets should be protected from the loss of value that comes with his law change but that no other New Zealand land owner is entitled to have that same consideration from this Government?Hon DAVID PARKER: No. It's actually a bit more nuanced than that and I've said it on a number of occasions but I will repeat it again for the benefit of the member. There is an article 1 Treaty right on behalf of the Government to govern in the interests of all New Zealanders. That means that Parliament passes law that affects all land in our country including—[Interruption]SPEAKER: Order! I'm going to ask the member to resume his seat and to start again and this answer will be heard in silence. It is actually a constitutionally important point and it's one that deserves to be heard.Hon DAVID PARKER: There is an article 1 right conferred upon Government that has the sovereign right to make laws for the benefit of New Zealand that cover every piece of land in our country and that includes general land Māori land and land that passes to Māori under Treaty settlements. As against that proposition it is also possible for the Government by doing that to create a new Treaty breach if they substantially decrease the value of a compensatory asset that passes to Māoridom pursuant to a Treaty issue. Really to balance those two issues you seek to do fairness to the iwi who are complaining of that diminution of value. It is a moot point as to where you cross that line. The Government thought that the appropriate way through in this case was to have a transitional not permanent exemption for the benefit of the land which cured the issue. That has been ruled out of order and so we are taking advice as to what legal duty we have to do something more but that won't be progressed through this bill.Hon Amy Adams: So given the importance that the Minister has placed on the iwi connections to the land on what basis does the Minister claim this exemption was granted to benefit iwi when land registry and Companies Office searches show that Te Ārai South development block is in fact 100 percent owned by a company controlled solely by John Darby and James Castiglione?Hon DAVID PARKER: I'm not aware of the finer detail the member mentions. If the member was worried about that whilst at select committee she could have asked either the submitter or the officials to provide her with more clarity. I've explained the way we approached the decision.Hon Amy Adams: Were any conflicts of interest declared by any Minister when the matter of this exemption was considered by Cabinet on 3 April?SPEAKER: It's strictly not the Minister's responsibility but I will allow him to inform the House.Hon DAVID PARKER: No because there were none. The idea that because I know someone I have a conflict is a nonsense. It's been asserted that I'm a friend of Mr Darby's; I'm not. It's been asserted that I'm a business associate; I am not and never have been. It's been asserted that I may have acted for him in the past. As far as I recall I have never acted for Mr Darby but even if I had that does not give rise to a conflict of interest. I acted for the current Mayor of Queenstown many decades ago. We laugh about it when I see him. That does not give rise to a conflict of interest. I have acted for Radio Otago in claims against the Hon McCully. That did not give rise to a conflict of interest in my current life. The Hon Chris Finlayson acted very well for many iwi through the years. That did not mean to say that he could not deal with iwi as Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations. These assertions are defamatory and untrue. I had no conflict of interest and knowing someone does not give rise to one. I have no fiduciary duty owed to anyone else and I've acted appropriately throughout.Hon Amy Adams: How can he claim Te Ārai deserved an exemption because there was no one in similar circumstances as he said yesterday when the last line of their own submission says "These projects—and others like it—are very beneficial for New Zealand and should continue to be provided for in any amendment of the Overseas Investment Act."?Hon DAVID PARKER: The member misrepresents the nature of that submission. The effect of that would be claiming an exemption for wealthy people to sell to wealthier people overseas like Hamish Price wants in respect of the exemption he proposes for Queenstown where he says there should be an exemption for houses that are going to cost more than $5 million—the Government disagrees with that. I've explained why from a Treaty perspective we thought there was a case in this instance.Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think in his second or third supplementary answer the Minister quoted from a document. I would like him to table that document.SPEAKER: Did the Minister quote from an official document?Hon DAVID PARKER: Well I'm happy to table it anyway sir. It's an extract from the Treasury briefing dated 19 March which—SPEAKER: Well no it's already a document before the House because it was tabled at the select committee.Hon DAVID PARKER: No it's a briefing to me.SPEAKER: Oh sorry. It's to you not to the committee. That document can be tabled by leave even though it's only an extract and not the proper document. Is there any objection? Certainly not.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House."