Court SimonSIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you Madam Speaker. The ACT Party supports the development of Māori land and we understand how complex it is when there are so many complex ownership arrangements. We also support the development of housing on Māori land and to modernise the rating legislation which affects Māori land in collective ownership but this bill lacks ambition to solve the underlying problems. It is an inefficient way to regulate the issue that it's trying to solve and it will come at significant cost to local authorities. The reason that the ACT Party believes this bill lacks ambition is because it hasn't accurately and correctly defined the problem that needs to be solved and it hasn't addressed the underlying complex relationships between multiple landowners and their competing objectives which is the main reason why this land has not been developed and has not become productive and is not returning any benefits to its owners.While this bill may go some way to relieving historical debts which may seem difficult and very challenging to some groups and some extended families particularly when some individuals have been prepared to play their part in paying but others haven't had the means they're very complex interpersonal relationships which this type of legislation cannot hope to address and solve. So instead of that it takes a much less ambitious approach. Rather than challenging the people who own the land to be a part of solving the problem it says We'll take this one issue away. We hope that makes you feel better but you can keep your problem." That's from an outsider's perspective looking in but that appears to be where this legislation has led us.It's also very inefficient because not only does it create a regulatory instrument just to deal with one group of landowners that then forces local government to essentially set up their own internal regulatory and administrative process to engage with these landowners understand what the criteria are for them to apply for an exemption or a remission of their rates and then to work its way through council's own finance and administrative and governance process so that local councils and their ratepayers can at least have some smidgeon of confidence that there's been an adequate process around it although the outcome is not in question. The Government intends that very large amounts—although the Minister couldn't offer us an amount—of outstanding rates are remitted. It's not giving local government any kind of out and so really this will be yet another burden on local government administrators and managers and ratepayers to manage an administrative process which they didn't ask for but again like so many things central government does it doesn't just impose costs and regulatory burden on individuals and businesses; it always catches local government in its net.And then we come down to the costs not just the costs of administering this legislation but also the opportunity cost because this land which remains unproductive and which has incurred rates that are subject to the legislation that require a rates remission—if you think about the huge infrastructure deficit which the Minister of Local Government has confirmed to us is somewhere in the region of $110 billion for three waters infrastructure alone over the next 30 years. We haven't had a stocktake of the roading and other connectivity infrastructure and what that deficit might be. That deficit is between the amount that central and local government has to spend or has signalled it will spend and actually the condition of their existing assets which in many cases are so run down that they'll need to be replaced entirely—but if not at least patched up for the interim. So that infrastructure deficit for water assets is $110 billion over 30 years. We can only imagine the deferred roading projects—those wonderful projects like roads of national significance that the last Government gave us—some of which are still under construction but many like the East-West Link which was a fantastic project to unlock Auckland supported by mana whenua groups because it was the one project that would solve some of the worst environmental problems in the south-east catchment of Onehunga—Hon Julie Anne Genter: Zero evidence for that—zero evidence.SIMON COURT: And if you think about how much these projects cost—Hon Julie Anne Genter: Benefits are lower than the cost.SIMON COURT: —and what the benefits are to communities—because some of those benefits are non-monetary and I would have thought that the member here the Green Party member to my left understands that there are many benefits that are non-monetary: social environmental and community benefits.Hon Julie Anne Genter: You don't believe in economics now?ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! The member will not bring the Speaker into the debate.SIMON COURT: Thank you Madam Speaker. So again the costs and the opportunity costs from sacrificing these rates amounts which will be remitted and what that means for local government and their ambitions for infrastructure to unlock development—because it's no doubt that many of these titles in collective ownership will have the people who have that ownership will have ambitions for their land but those ambitions can only be realised through better connectivity better infrastructure and so that is one of the reasons why we need this rates money. The Government through the Minister was not able to explain how they're going to make up not just the infrastructure deficit but this cash hole—this cash hole. No doubt that burden will fall unfairly on many other ratepayers.I want to reiterate: the ACT Party does support the development of Māori land by Māori and for Māori including the development of housing on their land whether it's in individual Māori ownership or collective ownership and we do applaud the intention to modernise the rating legislation but unfortunately it only applies to one group of ratepayers not all of those long-suffering ratepayers around New Zealand who now find the unfair burden of rates increases falling upon them because of the very poor decision-making in the past by local government officers and a wilful blindness from many in leadership roles in central government with those responsibilities.So in closing what I'd like to say is the ACT Party supports it but we believe that property should be treated equally under the law and this bill does not appear to treat the property of certain groups of people equally. In fact it gives them unequal opportunity to avoid paying historical costs that other ratepayers have to pay. These rates fund local government infrastructure. Local government is going to miss out and until the underlying issue of collective ownership and the stresses and strains between large groups of people which I can only reflect on must be the most complex body corporate arrangement ever—and we know how difficult it is to get bodies corporates in places where they have weathertightness issues and other issues around shared driveways. You know one party won't agree to install the duct for the fibre up the driveway. I can only imagine how complex and difficult it is for land that's in shared ownership in this context to be advanced for development. I don't think this bill will do anything to advance that.So for that reason the ACT Party will not support this bill but we do look forward to engaging further with the Government with local government and with other parties across the House on helping these landowners unlock their land for development become more productive and enjoy all the benefits of landownership and homeownership. Thank you very much Madam Speaker."