Court Simon; Salesa JennySIMON COURT (ACT): The ACT Party believes in natural rights private property rights and that these should be protected from undue interference by Government and that includes the rights of Māori land owners. We also support the rights of landowners to build on their own land. We do believe also that property should be treated equally under the law and that the rates that fund local council and infrastructure roading and drainage and waste water all those other things which our communities depend on to keep the three waters safe—that it's fair that everybody pays the same amount. They must pay their fair share.Now this bill would establish a rates remission regime favouring one group over another and that's unacceptable to the ACT Party. But turning unproductive land Māori-owned land into productive land is important. However it's just not up to the Government to provide that favourable tax treatment. There are other mechanisms available. So to be clear ACT does support the development of Māori land by its owners and we support the development of housing on Māori land. We also would support any legislation that truly modernised the rating rules which affect Māori land but this bill does not propose to do that.We know that there are many many people around New Zealand as well as people who are party to the ownership of Māori land who have problems paying their rates. There are mechanisms there are systems so that they can apply for remission or timed payment. In many cases—in Auckland for example where I live—we can pay our rates by instalment in the same way as we pay our water bills and our power and our phone bills and it's through instalment measures and other flexibility like that that it becomes possible to pay what would otherwise be a very large bill once a year. So there are opportunities for people and landowners to actually get back on track and pay their rates.Now in Auckland where I live we had an experience of a homeowner a landowner who didn't pay their rates for many years. Auckland Council spent a lot of time trying to negotiate with that landowner to pay their rates. We know there are mechanisms already available to local government to seek to recover rates to negotiate in good faith and to give as much flexibility as is needed in order for that ratepayer to fulfil their obligations to the community that they live in. In Auckland there was a wonderful woman an activist by the name of Penny Bright who while I might not have agreed with all of her political views certainly had the best interests of Aucklanders at heart. One of the reasons that she refused to pay her rates was because she did not believe that she was adequately represented and I know there are groups in the community who believe that they are not well represented at local government level yet. It remains to be seen if that condition will be remedied by other bills that have recently passed through the House; I highly doubt it. But Penny Bright was an activist. She felt because of her objections to paying rates which were philosophical and went back many many years that she wouldn't pay and that she shouldn't pay and that no one was going to make her pay. Then unfortunately for Penny she became very ill and she has since passed away and I think that's a great loss to Auckland because she was a wonderful independent voice. But Auckland Council despite the fact they were dealing with somebody who had a very large reputation and a big following in her community and amongst her supporters and somebody who was ill actually continued to negotiate with Penny in order that she fulfil her obligations and pay her rates. It was only because she reached the very final stages of her life that they decided to forgive and forgo that rates bill that she had accumulated over many many years. Otherwise there's no doubt that Auckland Council would've taken the same action to recover those outstanding rates as they do with others who are in default. So these mechanisms exist. There is a high bar but they are not to be dismissed. They're there for a reason and we know that in local government—despite the fact that many people feel they're not well represented—the people who I know who are elected members and who work in local government generally do have a great deal of compassion for the people who live in their communities and want to see them achieve their potential. I think that's where ACT differs greatly from the Government on this. Rather than just wanting to sweep this issue under the carpet an issue which has existed for decades and decades and has developed really because of some fundamental issues around property ownership access to capital—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): This debate is interrupted and is set down for resumption next sitting day. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday 16 March 2021. Debate interrupted.The House adjourned at 5 p.m.