Lee DeniseDENISE LEE (National—Maungakiekie): Thank you very much Mr Speaker for the opportunity to speak to this particular bill. Other colleagues before me have expressed our party position and that's to not support this in its first reading. What we know is that Māori land accounts for approximately 5 percent of New Zealand's land area and is predominantly concentrated in the mid to upper North Island. These are some of the facts and figures that the regulatory impact assessment (RIA) has brought out. And there's about 2.7 million interests—not hectares interests—in 27000 or so Māori land blocks. So that is a lot of interests that we're talking about. Most of that land tends to be—and others have referred to this as well—more isolated smaller holdings. But notwithstanding there are significant pockets in some of the larger areas—for instance Tauranga Rotorua Taupō. There's also and I smile at this—the RIA brings this out—secondary urban communities. I don't know if I've even heard of that: secondary urban communities such as Kāwhia and Paihia.So there is a need—and we all agree with this and we're hearing this in the speeches this afternoon—for us to settle Māori land tenure issues in full. I think everyone agrees that that's something that needs to happen and this bill is talking about that. It wants to aim to support development of provision of housing on Māori land and to modernise the legislation. So that's a good aim right? That's a good worthwhile aim for the bill. And when you've got $1.1 billion or so of what those Māori land rating units currently account for this is something of sizable importance and significance. We know that access and development difficulties exist and—one more time—we all agree on that and there needs to be some assistance to get some of this land productively used. But are rates the only impediment to the productive use of this land? Is that the only issue that we need to address to get this land productively used?Hon David Parker: No.DENISE LEE: The answer is squarely no but that's what this bill is doing and thanks for the assistance on the other side of the House whoever is assisting me right now. Our issue with this bill is that it's the wrong way around. What we've got here is a sidestepping of the real issues. What we feel on this side of the House is that the Government's going for a high-profile low-effort option here. It's not addressing the fundamentals of what the issue is. It's just one part of it. So if you're going to spend the time and effort of this House and the time and effort of the Government—by the way very shortly before an election—is this the only issue that you go after? Our answer on this side of the House is no. So what we know is that this bill—and for those listening—allows for multiple dwellings on Māori land to be treated as one dwelling and enjoying lower rates. Put simply that's what this bill does. So we know that if a rate write-off occurs and that's what this bill allows for it's going to be subsidised by general land owners. Make no mistake about that. Someone needs to cover the cost of the write-offs to the councils. And I'll just say that one more time: someone needs to cover the cost of the write-offs to councils. So if we refer back to what I said earlier around the number of interests the amount of hectares and the number of land blocks this is a significant issue. Someone will have to end up paying. So we've got questions around where we've got to for this first reading how the Government got here but first before I do that the process of consultation. It's a good question to ask for any bill or any legislation that we receive here in the House. So according to the Department of Internal Affairs there's been limited consultation with local governments and I'll stress the word limited". Really interesting for me and it was before my time but the Hon Nanaia Mahuta opposed Te Ture Whenua Maori Bill because she didn't believe there was enough consultation and here we are with not enough consultation on this bill. So we've got an ironic switcheroos going on here this afternoon—Hon Members: Switcheroos!DENISE LEE: —switcheroo switcheroo—injecting the good adjectives on a Thursday afternoon. And we've got Cabinet papers for this bill confirming that there has been small consultation. So that's out there for everyone to see and for everyone to read. The consultation's only been between Māori land owners and local councils. Now I note that my colleague Jian Yang raised that the Far North District Council bless their socks did express views against the bill on behalf of general ratepayers. So at least someone talked to general ratepayers but it wasn't this Government and it wasn't any of their officials in the lead-up to this. So we know that if we're going to talk about general ratepayers and councils there are several councils around New Zealand that feel that a move such as this in this bill will create significant tension. That's something that we should take seriously and it's something that we will take seriously with the passage of this bill. So in my remaining time back to what our questions would be on this side of the House and then I'll finish up there. Is it OK—and here's a fundamental question for the Government—to fail to quantify any economic value to local districts and to place an additional cost on general ratepayers? What we're arguing is that they have failed to quantify any economic value to local districts with this bill. Perhaps it's there; we'd like to see it. We'd like to hear from it. We've got a process that they can do that with. Here's something else a question we have around new section 62A in clause 33 which allows for persons using abandoned general land to be liable for rates if the land has ceased to be Māori land. Really what that means and this is interesting is: does the bill actually safeguard Māori land staying in Māori ownership? Has the bill actually addressed that or is there a loophole here? That's something that should be addressed during the select committee process but we've picked that up.Clause 39 inserting 90A gives powers of the chief executive to write off rates that cannot be recovered. Does this apply to non-Māori land as well? In other words if the regulatory impact analysis is confirming that this power could apply to non-Māori land—the writing off of rates—does the bill need to specify that that can in fact take place? That is another potential loophole or something that's not been addressed.Another question: the bill states it incentivises Māori to develop land and it's emphasising the housing shortage. It's referring to the housing shortage. So it's encouraging the use of this land because of the housing shortage. Why would provisions in this bill not then extend to general land? Can you use the same mechanisms to encourage housing provisions in development everywhere and perhaps specifically the powers of the chief executive that I referred to earlier? My last question would be: if the bill has such a low legal threshold for Māori land owners to prove how their land can benefit the district—because in this bill they have to prove that they are going to benefit the district—how is it fair or is it right? Is that low legal threshold the right one to go after?The real final question that would summarise all my prior questions would be this and it's quite simple and I think it's a really legitimate and fulsome question that the Government should answer: does this bill create effective initiatives for the development of Māori land? That's a very simple question to ask. Is this bill creating effective initiatives or in fact is it a wrong way around side-stepping high-profile low-effort pre-election push? Thank you."