Local Government (Rating Cap) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Local Government (Rating Cap) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:632;Page:4471] 
Local Government (Rating Cap) Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
RODNEY HIDE (ACT—Epsom) 
: 
 I move  
That the Local Government (Rating Cap) Amendment Bill be now read a first time 
. This issue will not go away and it is not something that Parliament can vote away. Rates throughout New Zealand are causing a great deal of heartache hardship and distress. In Auckland residential rates are set to rise this year by 13.8 percent. No one is getting a salary rise of 13.8 percent but people have to find an extra 13.8 percent for their rates. 
In the last 3 years Wellington City Council rates have increased by 20.5 percent Christchurch City Council rates by 19.4 percent and Hamilton City Council rates by 15.2 percent. The average increase in rates across the country is 7 percent per year. That sort of increase would make the Sheriff of Nottingham blush if he were taking that money from the poor peasants among the people. Yet we sit idly by while local government is doing that to the citizens of New Zealand. 
Parliament cannot duck responsibility for that because it is this Parliament that has given the power to local government to the councils to set those rates. We cannot sit back in Parliament and say that it is an issue for local government; it is an issue for this Parliament. Every member of Parliament knows what an issue it is because we all have constituents coming to see us who are on fixed incomes and struggling to pay their rate demands. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: In Epsom. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Mr Brian Donnelly whose party does not have any electorate seats—and because New Zealand First did not look after Tauranga and the poor ratepayers there it lost that seat to the venerable Mr Bob Clarkson—calls out: “In Epsom.” Absolutely in Epsom! People who are retired on fixed incomes are getting hit hard by rate demands and are struggling. I know that might be a surprise to Mr Donnelly and New Zealand First but it is a fact. People are struggling. The member shakes his head to say it is not possible. Well I think New Zealand First members should get out amongst the people a bit more and start listening to what people are saying. 
Maryan Street 
: It’s your defence of them Rodney that’s making people shake their heads. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Sorry? 
Maryan Street 
: It’s your defence of people that’s making us shake our heads. And this is a surprise! 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Who is this member? I have never heard a contribution quite like it. It is true contrary to what New Zealand First members might be asserting that there are people in every electorate in this country who are struggling. I was rung up last week by a Roger Beauchamp. He has been hit. He is a pensioner who has lived in his house since 1960—it is a family home. This story is repeated up and down New Zealand. He has been hit with a rates demand of $2800. I say to Mr Donnelly that it is true that Mr Beauchamp does not live in Epsom but he is getting hit with rates of $2800 and he cannot afford it. Mr Beauchamp asked me what he gets from the Porirua City Council that is worth $2800 in a year. The answer is not much. So he went to the council and said: “I can’t afford this.” Do members know what he was told by the caring people in local government which is supported by the Labour Party and now New Zealand First? He was told to sell his House if he could not afford his rates. 
Even the Sheriff of Nottingham did not do that to the peasants. But this Labour Government in association with New Zealand First expects pensioners to have to sell their houses to pump up local government so it can have its flash offices and build its monuments while the poor people of New Zealand lose their family homes. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Is this bill going to reduce his rates? 
RODNEY HIDE 
: No it is not but I will tell the member what it will do. It will stop them going up at more than plus 2 percent inflation a year and that has to be a good start. Why are New Zealand First members going around supporting rates increases of 10 percent and 20 percent a year—which New Zealand First’s own supporters cannot afford and are complaining about to them—and saying: “We don’t care.”? Why does New Zealand First not care? Because it has the baubles of office. 
Members should think about the inequity of this situation—they can look it up. Helen Clark’s rates as Prime Minister are $1600 for the year. The rates of this poor pensioner in Porirua City are $2800. Where is the equity and fairness in that situation which this Labour Government with New Zealand First is defending? 
Mark Blumsky 
: She doesn’t pay rates for the one she lives in up in Thorndon either. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Well I do not know. I am sure that Taito Phillip Field pays enough rates for half the country when one adds up all the houses he has. But that has to be iniquitous. 
I heard of a farmer who has a farm amongst the vineyards. His rates bill is $50000 in a year. The answer is not more subsidies from taxpayers; the answer is in getting local government spending under control because we see the waste and excess of local government every which way we look. When one sees what some of these city councils are up to one could say it even makes central government look quite reasonable in how it wastes its money. 
Members should understand that cities like Sydney and London have caps on how much they can increase their rates by in a year. The Hutt City Council has a strategy to raise rates by no more than half a percent above inflation. I remind the House how generous my bill is. It is saying that councils can put up rates in any year by inflation plus 2 percent. Even that is outrageous but I thought I would be generous because I would get the big spenders in New Zealand First—the big Government defenders—and the Labour Party to say that 2 percent plus inflation is quite reasonable. But oh no they are happy to vote for the rates of the poor people of New Zealand to go up by 14 percent or so a year. 
I believe there is a mistake in my bill and it is this. In order to get the support of the House the bill states that if a council wants to go higher than 4 percent plus inflation over 3 years or 2 percent plus inflation in a year it can go to the Minister of Local Government and get an exemption after having to put a case publicly. I believe that is a mistake. I included that provision because I thought it would be a cost-effective way of managing rates increases but I believe we should make it so that councils can increase their rates above that amount only by having a referendum of the ratepayers. It should be the ratepayers who get to decide whether their rates are to go up faster. If the local government has a good reason for increasing rates then I am sure the people will go along with it. So I believe we can fix that mistake in the select committee and actually give the power to the people—the ratepayers. 
Again I ask New Zealand First members what they have against ratepayers in New Zealand that they will not let them have that say. I again ask New Zealand First members having heard them trumpet their concerns about rates and about people on fixed incomes why we do not just have the debate. Why is this Parliament so scared to debate the issue of rates and how they are controlled? 
How will we have that debate? At the appropriate time I will be moving that this bill go to the Finance and Expenditure Committee. That is the appropriate committee for this bill. Why? Because every party is represented on that committee. Under Mr Shane Jones’ admirable chairmanship it is supposedly the most powerful committee in this Parliament. So that is where I will move that this bill goes to be considered so that every party will get to have a say and some input and so the people of New Zealand will be able to come to Parliament and explain their situation with regard to their rates the demands they are having and the fact that they are losing their houses and homes that they have lived in for their entire lives. I look to New Zealand First and ask why its members would deny New Zealanders the opportunity to make that contribution. 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Customs) 
: 
 I rise to oppose the first reading of the Local Government (Rating Cap) Amendment Bill. This recycled bill is identical to the one that the previous Parliament decided should not be read a first time back in 2004. I see no reason today that would make this bill any more worthy of parliamentary time than it was then. 
The bill purports to help ratepayers. It will do no such thing. The author of the bill has forgotten or ignored a lot of things. First rates are not the only funding source for local government. One of the first consequences of the enactment of this bill would almost certainly be increasing levels of user-pays for community facilities like libraries swimming pools and sports grounds. Who among us wants to discourage people from reading with their children because it costs too much to take out a book? Who wants to discourage physical exercise? This bill will do precisely that. 
Second the bill controls the total level of rates levied by the local authority yet the average rates increase is only one of the factors that determines the level of rates paid by an individual ratepayer. Also relevant are movements in property values or a shift in the incidence of rating from one sector to another. A highly desirable water view property may increase in value more than neighbouring properties with no view which means the ratepayer may well pay more in rates than last year’s rates plus the consumer price index. 
Supporters of the bill are apparently labouring under the illusion that the bill will promote the accountability of local government to its communities. It will not. In fact it would reduce the strong system of accountability and transparency that the Local Government Act 2002 has established. Local authorities have just completed their first full long-term council community plans. These plans set out what services the council will provide—the quality and the cost. Where communities have been opposed to the proposals in these plans they have had far more opportunity to make their views known than ever before. 
Mr Hide’s old recycled bill will ride roughshod over this process by imposing an externally mandated cap. That will mean that if a local community wants its council to do something and it requires the raising of rates beyond inflation plus 2 percent the council will be able to do so if—and only if—the Minister of Local Government agrees. In short any future Minister who does not believe in local people setting the priorities and magnitude of their council’s work and rating system or who sees a potential political gain will be given the power to overrule the local process created under the 2002 legislation. Our communities deserve better than to be a political football. 
 I draw the attention of the House to the report of the Joint Central Government / Local Authority Funding Project Team published late in August. It concluded that there is a degree of catch-up needed in infrastructure roads water supply sewerage and stormwater disposal schemes—not frills but the infrastructure a growing economy needs. No one wants to see our roading network clog up to have people drink substandard water or to see poorly treated sewage tipped into our waterways. One of the root causes of this infrastructural deficit is the very kind of Luddite thinking that drives this bill that rates must not increase faster than the rate of inflation. For this reason essential maintenance was deferred projects were put off and renewal work went undone because depreciation was not funded—or not sufficiently funded—let alone adequate provision made for what was often highly desirable or even essential qualitative service facility developments. 
This bill overlooks the fact that New Zealanders as a society expect higher environmental standards than they did 10 years ago. Upgrades and clean-ups are in progress all around the country. This ill-considered regressive bill would choke this activity. Our scenic lakes would remain choked with agricultural nutrients waterways would be polluted with motorway run-off and sewerage and stormwater systems in some provincial centres would mingle in a heavy storm. Infrastructural catch-up in meeting society’s aspirations of improved environmental standards and community services all comes at a cost that is often greater than the inflation plus 2 percent that this bill would allow. 
For many communities the choice is not between more or less it is between more now and even more later. Like us the local councillors’ ultimate accountability rests with the voters at the ballot box. A local council that puts rates up without demonstrating value for money and without winning the support of its constituents is likely to find itself involuntarily retired. 
So the Government will not be supporting the bill. Of course the Government is concerned about the impact that rising rates have on those ratepayers on low or fixed incomes. That is why the 2005 Budget signalled the Government’s intention to make significant changes to the qualifying thresholds and level of assistance available under the rates rebate scheme. Those changes took effect on 1 July and up to 300000 lower income New Zealanders are now likely to be eligible for a rates rebate of up to $500. Those members genuinely concerned for those on low or fixed incomes would do well to remember that this initiative alone is a far better avenue for addressing these concerns than this ideological ill-thought-out bill. So we do not support the bill; it should not go past the first reading. 
JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) 
: 
 Ratepayers across this country are hurting newly-weds in their first homes are hurting businesses across this country are hurting and elderly people—particularly those on fixed incomes—are hurting. The reason why they are hurting is that they are being loaded with rates charges that they cannot meet. Across this nation there is a growing wave of ratepayer revolt that will reach the size of a tsunami and strike at every corner of this nation and the Government needs to know that. 
Let us look at what is happening in local government. There are three areas that drive costs. One is infrastructure. No one argues against the need for us to have infrastructural development; water sewerage and roading are all things we expect in our communities and are prepared to pay for. The second cost driver is inflation. In local government for example the increased price of petrol has added huge costs—up to 50 percent in some cases—to some of the costs of local government in relation to roading. But the third area that adds to the problem—the unnecessary addition to the problem—is the imposition of responsibility-shifting from central to local government. 
That rack can be pointed directly at Helen Clark’s Labour-led Government of which New Zealand First is a part. Those members should know and recognise that in the time they have been Government 67 pieces of legislation have shifted costs and responsibility from central to local government. The cost of that to ratepayers is huge. Let us remember that this Government puts its hands in one pocket of a ratepayer takes taxes out and puts them into its bank while at the same time it expects local government to put its hands in the ratepayer’s other pocket and pull the money out of that as well. So a ratepayer pays twice for the shift of responsibility. 
Hon Member 
: They’re double-dipping. 
JOHN CARTER 
: Absolutely and the problem is that it is reaching the stage where ratepayers cannot afford it. 
We have heard about some of the costs tonight. Let me give this House one or two other examples that are interesting. In one local authority the cost imposition of the Building Act on ratepayers is $750000 per annum. That is just to meet the cost imposition regarding buildings. The ratepayers will also have to meet in excess of $1.2 million for the earthquake legislation. There is absolutely no way of recovering that other than by charging rates. Dog control costs $220000 and hazardous substances $160000 etc. The costs go on and on. 
It is interesting to note that recently one local government leader said that every time there is a law change that shifts a responsibility from central to local government it costs his council $50000 because of the consultation the legal advice the procedural changes and the reporting that it requires. If that is extrapolated out across the country we find each time there is a law change in local government it costs ratepayers in excess of $4 million just for one change. Members can figure out the cost of that when it is spread over 67 pieces of legislation. 
It is fair to say that when National was in Government we did some responsibility-shifting but not at the level that is being done now and certainly not at the cost to the ratepayers that is happening now. We need to have the opportunity of a thorough select committee investigation into local government rating. We need to look at why the costs are being put on local government and this bill will give us the opportunity to have that inquiry. This House should support the referral of this bill to a select committee after its first reading to allow such an inquiry to happen. The ratepayers of this nation are asking for it. Very shortly they will stop asking for an inquiry and start to demand it. At that stage this Parliament will have no option but to listen. Why do we not listen now and support this bill? 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 The previous speaker got one thing right and one thing wrong. The thing he got wrong was that New Zealand First is part of this Government. I tell him that I am not part of this Government. But everything else he said was correct and we support him. We would support this bill going to a select committee if in fact it allowed debate on the issue of rates. It does not do that and that is the problem. 
New Zealand First has for some time been concerned about local body rates and those concerns were reflected in its manifesto for the 2005 election. I will read out some of those policies: “New Zealand First will … explore options to reduce the rates encumbrance on seniors with a fixed income; … review the legislative burden that central government has placed on local government”—as the previous speaker talked about—“and the impact of this on ratepayers …;” and “reduce the layers of bureaucracy which have increasingly been superimposed onto local government”. Those are just some of the very significant issues around local body charges. 
I happen to live in a place called Ngunguru on the beautiful east coast of Northland. Until the last couple of decades Ngunguru was basically a seaside holiday spot joined to Whangarei by a dusty winding road. Most of the dwellings were humble baches; some still are. But in the last quarter of a century the place has been transformed. Property values have risen sharply and people who had modest homes are now asset millionaires. The trouble is that those same people are often reliant solely on superannuation. Rates are crippling many of those people and as Rodney Hide explained many of them are being driven to have to sell their homes. 
The question is does this bill address that problem? The answer is no it does not address it. This bill limits the total level of rates not the individual level. So if one part of a council’s region has value increases and another has decreases then an individual’s rates could climb far higher than the limits set in this bill. Moreover if a council’s area has significant growth—say by 10 percent more properties over 3 years; and we think in terms of the growth in places like Tauranga—then it will not have the capacity to raise revenue for the additional costs because it is limited down to the increase in the consumer price index plus 4 percent over the 3 years. 
The second issue is Government-imposed costs. Will this bill rectify what our local regional council chairperson has referred to as incremental cost creep? The answer is no the bill will not rectify it—very simply because of what Rodney Hide has already admitted. The bill allows for the Minister of Local Government to provide dispensation to go above the limits imposed by this sorry piece of legislation. Are we to believe that central government having imposed additional costs on local government will refuse dispensation to councils that ask it to accommodate those imposed costs? Of course not! Councils would push increases to the level that is allowed in this bill add central government costs on top of that and then go to the Minister and ask for a dispensation. That is exactly what has happened in New South Wales. I want to make the point that much of the additional bureaucracy within local government stems from the need to comply with central government directions. So every additional bureaucrat will be factored in as arising from central government’s compliance impositions and will be added to the case for dispensation. 
There is another important consideration. What happens when a local body seriously under-invests in infrastructural development over a considerable period of time? When that body is finally forced by circumstances to face reality—presumably with newly elected members elected by people who have themselves seen there is a shortfall—then even if those people ask for increased expenditure on neglected infrastructure the council will not be able to do it. The bill is nonsensical and those who believe that sending it through to a select committee will enable an in-depth public analysis of the whole issue of local body charges are fooling themselves. Submissions will be confined to the very restricted concepts of the bill. 
New Zealand First is calling for a well-resourced independent commission of inquiry of the magnitude of the McLeod commission of inquiry into taxation at central government level—and we will achieve it unlike this bill which will not be passed all the way through the House. Even if the bill passes its first reading tonight I will make a bet—and I will lay money on this—that at a later stage in its process National will vote against it because it knows that this bill is not workable in the real world. We believe that the only way the myriad of complexities surrounding the issue of rates will be unravelled in a truly independent fashion and the voice of the people will be allowed to be heard across the full range of issues—rather than playing silly political games that raise false hopes and have no possibility of satisfactory outcomes—will in fact be to have a fully fledged commission of inquiry into all the issues in terms of local body charges. Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker. 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party is opposing the Local Government (Rating Cap) Amendment Bill. We have received a large number of letters and emails about it and have given the issue very serious thought because the matters raised by members of the community have been really serious. We understand that rates are increasing massively in some places. We know of areas where rates have increased by 300 percent and of cases where properties worth $22000 are being rated as if they were worth $800000. We certainly know and have known for a very long time that Maori have been increasingly forced off their land as a result of rates increases that make it simply impossible for them to continue living in their papakainga areas. They are being rated highly and the increases are happening very quickly. 
But we think we have to be very very careful if we are to restrict the power of local government to raise the income it needs to manage the local infrastructure it is fundamentally responsible for managing. With a lower rating base many crucial infrastructural projects such as public transport water and waste management simply would not be affordable. And if that were to happen the next step would be local government coming to central government to ask for more money to provide for those services thereby driving up the general tax demand by central government. It is not a mechanism for finding the solution to the problems. 
One really important issue for the Green Party is that the bill—and I think to some extent though not entirely the campaign behind it—is a diversion from the real causes of increasing land prices and the subsequent rates rises. I think if the ACT party were not so ideologically bound as it is to the whole mantra of economic growth above all else its members might consider dealing with some of these underlying causes. One of those significant causes a few steps back from local government is the uncontrolled increase in foreign investment in land in this country built on the relentless pursuit of unsustainable economic growth which is helping to drive up land prices particularly in coastal land and in Maori land. It is not even productive job-creating investment it is just investment in purchase of land. 
In 2004 the Overseas Investment Commission approved the sale of nearly 200000 hectares of rural land to foreign investors. Foreign-owned land now covers more than one million hectares of New Zealand. Even the  
Financial Stability Report 
 of May 2006 recognised that significant proportions of foreign capital are being invested and used for the banking sector in residential mortgage lending. So there are steps behind the rates rises that are helping to cause those increases and we need to be able to deal with those background issues rather than try to put band-aids on the problem. The fact is that there is no monitoring of this investment in New Zealand nor any real monitoring of its impacts on New Zealand communities such as those impacted by the issues that the ACT party is trying to resolve. 
I recently went to a showing of a New Zealand - made film in Mahia called  
The Last Resort 
 and it is currently on at the film festival. It describes these processes and the background to them in great detail. It uses the example of the sale of the Blue Bay camp ground in Opoutama in Mahia. The council sold that camp ground—it was 60 years old—to the lessee who then sold it on to a developer. The developer has turned it into 44 sections worth hundreds of thousands of dollars each. The local hapu held an occupation of the adjoining reserve to try to raise consciousness about the impacts of councils doing this with community-owned land in order to help drive up the rate base. This increases the rates for all the houses around the area that are not worth hundreds of thousands of dollars and are owned by people who have been living there for generations. 
These are significant issues for those people. I understand that ACT is trying to find a solution to these issues but the fact is that unless we curb unsustainable growth that then leads to increased land prices and therefore to the economic exclusion of ordinary New Zealanders as we are seeing. We simply will not be able to stop the subsequent effects of that exclusion—rates rises and councils taking advantage of increased land valuations being one of those effects. 
This bill distorts and distracts us from the real issues behind why these things are happening for local ratepayers and we consider that we simply cannot support a bill that really only provides a band-aid approach and does not deal with the real issues. We would welcome the support of ACT and other members of this House to deal with those background issues if they are prepared to set aside their absolute adherence to unsustainable economic growth as the only option for this country because that is in large part the problem. Kia ora. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
E tautoko ana te Pati Maori i era kaupapa ka taea e te iwi kia kitea i nga mahi e mahi ana e whakapono ano hoki te tangata nana nei nga mahi. Ko ta te pire nei he whakarereke i Te Ture a-Rohe 2002. Ko tana hei whakapotae kia kore e rahi ake nga reiti kua tohungia e nga kaunihera a-rohe ki runga i te hunga e noho ana ki reira. Ko te tahuhu korero mo nga taake whenua ki a ngai Maori kei a ia ona piki me ona heke kia penei kia pera. I tera atu rau tau i kitea i nga mahi nanakia a te tari taake kia whakarahi ake te wariu o te whenua Maori ki te whenua Pakeha a i te kore utu i nga reiti ka tahae te kawana i aua whenua. Anei ano. i tera rau tau i whakaitihia te wariu o nga whenua Maori i te rohe potae o Tainui kia taea a tauiwi te hoko i aua whenua. E mea ana a tauiwi ko te take o tenei tino iti o te wariu te kore wariu ano hoki i te mea he tini rawa nga tangata na ratou te whenua. Ko enei nga mahi tukino a nga ture wariu whenua ka nui te whakama. 
He rahi tonu nga whenua Maori horekau he tangata e noho ana ki reira a kahore te whenua i mahia. Hanga pakeke ana te utu reiti mo nga tangata na ratou enei whenua. Ko etahi he rawakore ko etahi ano e kore hiahia kia whakamahia te whenua kia riro rawa ratou. Ko nga take e penei ana ara ko te ahua o nga tangata na ratou te whenua; ko te ahua o te whenua ehara i te whenua pai kia whakamahia kia noho ranei te tangata me te mea ano ko te whenua he whenua taratahi. 
Kei Te Ture Kawanatanga a-Rohe 2002 he wahanga hei tautoko i te Maori kia mahi i wa ratou mahi tawhito i aua whenua. Kia taea hoki e nga tangata whenua te whakahaere i etahi mahi rawa i raro i te mohioranga kei reira ano he wahi tapu. 
Ko tetahi wahanga o Te Ture Reiti i whakaritea kia orite te ahua o te whenua Maori ki wera atu o nga whenua whanui. Engari kua kite tatou i nga tau kua pahure ake nei kua piki haere nga reiti o nga whenua Maori tata atu ki te wha rau te rere ki tera o nga whenua whanui a wetahi o nga kaunihera. Ko te tikanga 
ma te reiti ka ngaro ano hoki te tangata i ona whenua. Koia nei te take kahore te Pati Maori i tautoko i te “putea kotahi te utu” mo nga mahi nunui i raro i Te Pire Whakarereke i te Ture Kawanatanga a-Rohe i te mea he momo ano tera kia whakarahi ake atu nga reiti. 
E tika ana kia wanangahia i tenei kaupapa i tenei ra i te mea e wanangahia ano hoki e matou nga korero mo Te Tiriti O Waitangi i tenei ra. Ko ta Pita Rikys: “Ko te tino whakaaro kia riro e te Maori i tona mana i raro i te mana o te Tiriti a kia totika tonu nga tikanga me nga kaupapa ka hangaia kia pono te mahi i muri mai o tera 
. 
” Ko te whakapono a te Pati Maori kia orite te mana o te mana whenua ki te mana o nga kaunihera a-rohe i nga wa e wanangahia ana kia reiti kahore ranei te whenua Maori. E whakapono ana matou ma te Maori ma te iwi whanui hoki e whakaritea: ko te mahi whakapotae reiti te ara totika; me whakatu tikanga hou; me u ranei ki nga tikanga utu reiti o enei ra. Ko enei nga tino kaupapa kia whakaarohia e te Maori: ko tona whakapapa ki te whenua; me te whakaaro kia u kia mahitahi hoki i te whenua ra. 
Ko ta matou wawata mo te pire nei kia puta mai te maramatanga kia marama te kite i nga mahi e mahingia ana kia kaua te tangata e ki ehara nana na tetahi atu a kia hangaia he ahuatanga hei ki ko te whenua ko tatou. Me kaua tatou e wareware i te tuturutanga o te whenua ki te ao Maori. I te Kooti i te tau 1987 e mea ana  
Te Kaunihera Maori o Niu Tireni  
i tona tautohe ki te  
Roia Nui o te Kawanatanga me Wetahi Atu 
: 
“Na te whenua ka mohio matou ko wai matou i ahu mai matou i hea e haere ana matou ki hea. He whakaaturanga kia mohio ai te ao he iwi matou mai rano he tangata whenua o tenei whenua a he tohu ano i nga kaupapa a-iwi whanaungatanga hoki. Ko te whenua te turangawaewae. Tera te tohu o te wakapapa te honohono ki nga tupuna kua ngaro atu nga reanga kei te haere mai. He tohu tuturu mo ake tonu atu mena he whenua he Maori ano hoki.” 
Anei nga kaupapa e kawe nei e matou i tenei ra a i nga pire katoa kei roto i tenei Whare. E tautoko ana matou i te pire nei i runga i te whakapono kia whai mana enei ture kia whakaritea he kaupapa kia taea e matou te noho ki o matou whenua hei tiaki i te whenua ka taea te korero ae marika ko matou te tangata whenua. Kia ora tatou katoa. 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
The Maori Party supports initiatives where accountability and transparency are important.  
The b 
ill amends the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 by capping the level of rates increases that local authorities may impose on residents. It stops local authorities from setting excessive increases. For tangata whenua the history of rating in Aotearoa has been variable and inconsistent. In the last century the property tax department was found to be valuing Maori land well above the market rate and those Maori who could not pay their rates promptly lost their lands. In another incident in the last century we learn that lands in the King Country were being valued low in order to make it easier for Europeans to buy them. The argument was that the land was worth less indeed worthless because it was in multiple ownership. So manipulation of valuation legislation is a shameful part of our history.  
L 
arge tracts of Maori freehold land are unoccupied and unimproved. This land creates a significant rating burden on the Maori owners who often do not have the means or in some cases the desire to make economic use of the land. Often this is due to the nature of the ownership or because the land has some special significance that will make it undesirable to develop or reside on or is isolated and marginal in quality. 
The Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 supported the use of Maori land by the owners for traditional purposes. It was introduced also to make it easy for owners to develop the land for economic use. It took into account the presence of wahi tapu that may affect the use of the land for other purposes.  
One section of the Local Government (Rating) Act requires that Maori freehold land be liable for rates in the same manner as if it were general land.  
But what has happened in the last few years is that  
tangata whenua have experienced excessive rate increases of three to four times the inflation rate imposed by some councils. In essence Maori are being rated off our own lands.  
That was why the Maori Party voted against lump-sum payments for capital projects in the Local Government Law Reform Bill which was just another form of rating increase. 
It is also timely to be considering this bill on this day when the importance of Te Tiriti o Waitangi is being debated. According to Pita Rikys it was critical for Maori to get the power relationship right via a clear Treaty statement and provision of effective mechanisms and structures. Mechanisms must provide real accountability and the structures must allow for effective rangatiratanga. The Maori Party believes that mana whenua should have an equal say with local/regional authorities on all matters concerned with the rating or non-rating of Maori land. We also believe that both Maori and the wider public should have a say as to whether a rating cap is the best way to regulate and monitor rate increases and whether the current method of assessing rates is the best one. There are real issues for Maori people’s relationship to the land and the practical circumstances of Maori land in joint ownership. 
We look forward to this bill providing clarity transparency and accountability in establishing the critical foundation that our land provides in our view of the world. We cannot underestimate the crucial importance of land in our world view. In the 1987 court case  
New Zealand Maori Council 
 and  
Latimer v Attorney-General and Others 
 the New Zealand Maori Council stated: “[Maori land] provides us with a sense of identity belonging and continuity. It is proof of our continued existence not only as a people but as the tangata whenua of this country. It is proof of our tribal and kin group ties. Maori land represents turangawaewae. It is proof of our link with the ancestors of our past and with the generations yet to come. It is an assurance that we shall forever exist as a people for as long as the land shall last.” 
These are the values we take into this bill as we do with every other bill coming before the House. We will vote to support this bill based on our belief that controls and consistency need to be in place so that we can stay on our land care for our land and be tangata whenua in the truest form.  
Thank you all. 
] 
Debate interrupted.