Māori Purposes Bill

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker, kia ora tātou katoa e noho nei i roto i tō tātou Whare. Ka nui te mihi ki a tātou.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and greetings to us all seated here in our House. I appreciate us all greatly.]

I move, That the Māori Purposes Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Māori Affairs Committee to consider the bill. This Māori Purposes Bill amends the Maori Purposes Act 1991 to improve the governance arrangements for the Wī Pere Trust. This includes enhancing the trust’s operational capability and removing unnecessary Crown involvement in the administration of the trust. It is a huge privilege and honour to present this bill to the House.

By way of some background, the Wī Pere Trust was established in 1899 to administer the estate of Wīremu Pere, a prominent East Coast politician who graced the halls of this Parliament in his day. In 1906 the trust became a statutory trust, and the trust deed has been incorporated in legislation since the early 20th century. The Wī Pere Trust is now governed by the Maori Purposes Act 1991 and has grown to be a successful enterprise. The trust has approximately 460 beneficiaries with land and other net assets valued at nearly $66 million, as at June 2014.

The Maori Purposes Act 1991 requires the Minister of Māori Affairs—currently the Minister for Māori Development—to be responsible for certain aspects of the trust’s administration. The internal management of the trust is also detailed in the provisions of the Maori Purposes Act 1991. This means that any changes to the way the trust operates must be effected through statutory amendment. The Māori Purposes Bill removes the need for further ministerial involvement in the administration of the trust. It empowers the trust to adopt rules relating to internal management, and that can only be good. The bill also replaces the current trustees of the Wī Pere Trust with an incorporated trust board.

These amendments will provide more commercial flexibility for the trust in the future. They will strengthen the direct relationship of accountability between the Wī Pere Trust Board and the beneficiaries of that trust. The trust board will be accountable to beneficiaries under the constitution and will continue to be accountable under the Trustee Act 1956 and the amended Maori Purposes Act. The trust’s register of beneficial interests is currently maintained by the Māori Land Court. In line with recognising the Wī Pere Trust’s autonomy over its own affairs, the bill allows the trust to control and maintain its own register of beneficial interests. This will help the trust to administer its unique succession rules.

The Māori Purposes Bill continues and clarifies the Wī Peri Trust’s longstanding succession provisions as set out in the Maori Purposes Act 1991. Succession to beneficial interest in the Wī Peri Trust is limited to direct lineal descendants of Wī Peri himself. However, the beneficiary spouses and children and remoter issue who are not lineal descendants can succeed to life interests. It is important for beneficiaries of the Wī Pere Trust that these unique succession provisions are maintained: firstly, to preserve the whakapapa of Wī Pere; secondly, to honour his wishes to provide for his whanau; and, finally, to pass on the legacy of Wī Pere to his descendants.

The Maori Purposes Act 1991 provides that all land forming part of the trust property is deemed to be Māori freehold land. Under Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993, Māori freehold land is subject to alienation restrictions and requirements that general land is not. These restrictions are designed to promote retention of Māori freehold land by Māori but also to considerably limit the Wī Pere Trust’s use of this land. The Māori Purposes Bill removes the current provision deeming all land held by the trust to be Māori freehold land and enables the trust to hold general land for investment purposes. It reverts land owned by the Wī Pere Trust, which was general land at the time it was acquired, to its original general land status. These changes will allow the trust to exercise far greater economic autonomy in the management of its landholdings.

The Māori Purposes Bill clarifies the relationship between Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 and the legislation governing the Wī Pere Trust. It also clarifies the respective jurisdictions of the Māori Land Court and the High Court in respect of the trust. The High Court will have jurisdiction over matters relating to governance and general land held by the Wī Pere Trust. The Māori Land Court will have jurisdiction in relation to Māori freehold land held by the Wī Pere Trust. A new Te Ture Whenua Māori bill has been drafted. These feature future changes that may impact on the amended Maori Purposes Act 1991, though the Act will likely require only consequential amendments to update references to the new Te Ture Whenua Māori bill. The bill provides a framework tailored to the needs of the Wī Pere Trust to govern itself while maintaining key protections for Māori land set out in Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993.

The amendments to the Maori Purposes Act 1991, can I say, were initiated at the request of the representatives of the Wī Pere Trust. Representatives of the trust have been closely involved in the development of this Māori Purposes bill. The trustees consulted formally with beneficiaries in 2009 and again in 2013. I hope that information will be helpful to those considering the bill tonight. Of the beneficiaries who voted on the amendments, 91 percent supported the changes to the trust—91 percent—as given effect to by the bill.

Finally, the bill corrects a minor technical error in the Maori Trust Boards (Transitional Provisions) Order 2012. This order specifies the transition dates for those Māori trust boards transferring to revised financial accountability requirements under the updated Maori Trust Boards Act 1955. The order mistakenly refers to the Tauranga Moana Māori Trust Board as the Tauranga Māori Trust Board. The Māori Purposes Bill corrects this error.

In conclusion, I want to thank all of those who participated in the consultation on these amendments. I am confident that these amendments will contribute to the autonomy of the Wī Pere Trust to manage its own affairs, something that it wants and something that it should be given. It will enable a successful Māori enterprise to operate more effectively in a commercial environment. With those words I commend this bill to the House.

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. E ngā mema o te Whare nei, tēnā tātou katoa. Can I preface my contribution to today’s bill with a couple of acknowledgements. Firstly, some 40 years ago an 80-year-old woman, whom we all know, Dame Whina Cooper, left Te Hāpua to lead the historic land march under the banner of “Not another acre more”. Her legacy around protecting Māori land is, for me, a preface to my contribution to this debate.

Her commitment 40 years ago is something all Māori members of this House need to uphold, and her commitment to “Not another acre more” was not just about those non-Māori who may be threatening to take whenua, but actually amongst our own, I am sure. In my second contribution, I want to acknowledge another Māori member who is going to join us very shortly, Marama Davidson. I look forward to her expertise when she joins us here in the ranks.

Can I turn to the purpose of this bill and thank the Minister for Māori Development for outlining its purpose. Labour, can I put on record, will support this bill to the select committee but with reservations—reservations that I, hopefully, will outline in my contribution. As the Minister has outlined, the main aim of the bill, which is an omnibus bill, is to amend the Maori Purposes Act 1991 in so far as it governs the Wī Pere Trust, and it also amends the Maori Trust Boards (Transitional Provisions) Order 2012.

Can I add, as the member for Ikaroa-Rāwhiti, which the Wī Pere Trust descends from, that it is a very successful whānau whenua trust. I too whakapapa to that, being a descendant of Thomas Halbert, who is actually the father of Wī Pere. So I acknowledge my whakapapa to this particular bill and what its intention is.

However, when we look at what it is trying to create—and I am going to go through the amendments one by one and offer some comments around what this bill is trying to achieve. Let me first turn to the amendments that I support, which were outlined by the Minister. Point one: “allow the trust board to adopt rules relating to internal management and governance, and set out the new trust board’s initial constitution …”. Clearly, as a progressive future-focused organisation, you want the ability to run your own affairs, and to me that makes absolute sense. You cannot do that without a constitution, so I have no issues with that particular provision.

We move to the next one, and that is to “remove unnecessary ministerial involvements in the governance of the trust;”. I think we should remove all ministerial involvements in the trust, but we have certain ministerial involvements, meaning there must be some good ministerial involvements we want to retain, but we also say that that too does not send any alarm bells.

Moving to “enable the trust to acquire and hold general land for investment purposes;”—again, if you are a successful business, you want the opportunity to invest, be it in land or be it in other resource areas. So, again, there is no particular issue there. Then we move on to “allow the trust to maintain its own register of beneficial interests;”. Again, it is important that those in the Wī Pere Trust at the present time must have lineage to Wī Pere. It is important that they maintain and update the register of beneficial interests, and I do note that if you are a spouse or a whāngai, then you currently have life interest in the trust.

I have pretty much endorsed four of the amendments. Can I now turn to the ones that cause me some concerns. Let us start with the easier one: “replace the trustees with an incorporated trust board with body corporate status and limited liability;”. Why does that give me some concerns? We are talking about the management and the protection of Māori whenua—Māori whenua. So how does turning an entity into a corporate body uphold, protect, and maintain whenua?

When I read that particular provision—which is why we are supporting it going to the select committee, so that we can have submissions on that—that was definitely a concern that came out of Te Ture Whenua Maori Act reviews, of which I attended all four. There was a concern for Māori landowners around turning their trust into corporate bodies. As we are seeing under this particular regime of this Government, profit is often always put before people. So I want to put it on record that I have a concern with that particular amendment.

I turn to the second amendment that I have a concern with, and that is: “clarify the interface between the principal Act and the 1993 Act, and the jurisdiction of the Māori Land Court.” It is no secret that Te Ture Whenua Maori Act, which has been deferred—again, from my experience of attending the four reviews throughout Ikaroa-Rāwhiti, there are real concerns around what is actually wrong with the Māori Land Court. Why is this legislation removing the protection that the Māori Land Court offers?

I will refer to the preamble to the current Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993. In that preamble it talks about land, or whenua, as taonga tuku iho, which means that it is to be protected and enhanced for the purpose and that we, the current descendants, are only in terms of custodianship or kaitiakitanga over it. In practice, the preamble, as used by the Māori Land Court judges, references that particular section when making decisions on land. By this particular amendment, which says it is clarifying “between the principal Act and the 1993 Act, and the jurisdiction of the Māori Land Court.”—I, again, share my reservations about who is going to protect the Māori landowners, which is currently done by the Māori Land Court in the preamble to Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993.

The third amendment, which I ring-fence because it gives me the greatest concern—I want to share with you that I have spoken to a couple of beneficiaries of Wī Pere before I came to the House—is the amendment to “remove the provision deeming all land held by the trust to be Māori freehold land;”. I have been trying to paint a picture around the protection of Māori whenua. Taonga tuku iho, which, perhaps, many in this House do not understand, is our legacy as Māori MPs and as representatives of constituencies that have been losing many, many acres of land and that have got—and I am sure that the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations will agree—a small pittance of what was taken. Yet here we are, potentially alienating further Māori whenua.

For me, that particular amendment around removing the provision deeming land to be Māori whenua is a red flag. It is an absolute red flag. On this side, Labour supports the bill, like I said, going to the Māori Affairs Committee, but I, like many, many in my electorate and, I am sure, around the country will, have some keen reservations around who is going to pick up that responsibility.

I can hear people saying “Well, that’s being a nanny State.”, but trust me, when you get to a certain point when it comes to Māori whenua, you cannot turn back—and you cannot turn back. So I will say again that Labour, with these reservations, supports this bill going to the select committee. Beyond that, who knows? Kia ora tātou.

I just want to take a brief call to discuss the possible application of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 to this legislation, so I am doing it as Attorney-General. Normally the obligation of the Attorney-General is to produce a section 7 report if an issue arises, but I have thought long and hard about the matter I want to discuss, and have concluded that the Bill of Rights Act does not apply. But, because it is an important issue, I thought I would take a brief call to highlight it for members of the select committee who in due course will be looking at the bill, if it goes there.

As has been stated by the Minister for Māori Development and the previous speaker, Meka Whaitiri, the bill is going to amend certain provisions of the Maori Purposes Act 1991 relating to the Wī Pere Trust. One aspect—and the aspect of the bill that caused me to think long and hard—was the issue of possible discrimination on the grounds of family status. As things stand under the Maori Purposes Act 1991, beneficiaries of the trust are treated differently according to whether they are lineal descendants of Wī Pere or descendants as a result of adoption. Those related by blood may inherit a parent’s beneficial interest in the trust and in turn pass that interest to their own children. Those related as a spouse or by adoption inherit only a life interest, which by definition cannot be passed on to their children. So the relevant part of the bill, which is Part 3, is introduced by clause 9 of the bill—and I refer honourable members to the proposed new sections 23, 24, and 25.

Clause 9 inserts a new section 21, which prohibits the disposal of any beneficial interests in the trust property other than in accordance with the new sections to which I have referred: the new section 23, the disposal by will; the new section 24, which deals with intestate; and the new section 25, which deals with the issue of gifts. The effect of the bill will be that a beneficiary may dispose of his or her beneficial interest—whether by will, intestate, or gift—only to a lineal descendant of Wī Pere. The phrase “lineal descendant” is defined in the bill as “a person who is a direct descendant … by blood”, and so the beneficiary’s spouse, child, or descendant, if not the lineal descendant, is eligible to succeed only to the life interest. So I needed to give some thought as to whether the bill discriminated on a prohibited ground, and I must say that I spent quite some time thinking about the issue, because, as a general principle, treating adopted children differently from non-adoptees gives rise to a prima facie family status discrimination issue.

However, in the particular context of the bill I consider that the different treatment was justified and not inconsistent with section 19 of the Bill of Rights Act. In forming that conclusion, I had regard to the essentially private character of the trust. The trust’s succession arrangements are very long standing, as the previous speaker said, and are the means by which the trust seeks to preserve its tikanga. Were the trust to be created by deed today it would probably contain exactly the same provisions and be consistent with the Human Rights Act and the Bill of Rights. The fact that the terms of the trust are set out in legislation necessarily engages the Bill of Rights Act because legislation is an act of the legislative branch, but having thought long and hard about it, in my view, this does not on balance obscure the fact that in substance the trust was, and remains, essentially a private one.

So I thought I would bring that issue to the attention of the House. It is a very important issue. In a sense I am giving what could be called not a section 7 report, but it is a very important issue, and I want the House to know that as Attorney-General I gave the matter a lot of thought. In my opinion, the bill exemplifies the difficulties in reckoning with matters of indigeneity and ethnic identity in legislation. Generally it is preferable that iwi, hapū, and whānau determine their own membership in accordance with tikanga Māori, and that the State not impose a non-Māori world view. Where legislation is used to define rights as between or within various iwi, hapū, or whānau, such as through Treaty settlements, any apparent inconsistencies with fundamental human rights have to be shown to be reasonable and justified. I believe they are in this instance for the reasons that I have endeavoured to explain to the House. If people are interested, I can advise them that there is a comprehensive coverage of this point by me that is on the Ministry of Justice website in an opinion dated 27 July 2015.

With those brief comments on only one aspect of the bill, I commend the bill to the House.

I take a call to reiterate the comments of my colleague Meka Whaitiri, the member for Ikaroa-Rāwhiti, who has stated that Labour will support this bill in its first reading and referral to select committee. We have some questions and some reservations, which may or may not be answered at that point.

Wī Pere was a member of Parliament, as members before me have highlighted. He served in this House in 1884-87 and then from 1893-1905. We have some questions of the Minister that we think deserve clarification once it gets to the select committee like, for example: much of the intent of this bill could have been dealt with within the changes that are anticipated with Te Ture Whenua Maori Act—why is he preceding that decision or that ability to take up that pathway by having this bill go through the House? The other question is one of a substantive nature around the change in classification of land. I took some time to look into the history of the establishment of the trust, and what comes forth to me is that this was a very innovative way of looking at collective Māori land ownership under the laws of the time. Wī Pere and his whānau—well, he encouraged all his whānau to transfer all their estates and form a trust under the Native Land Laws Amendment Act 1897.

At the time I believe that would have been quite a radical concept—to get everybody to collectivise with the specific purpose of collectivising the utilisation of the land and, therefore, the way in which they were going to look at improving the productivity of that land. There was a trustee—only one trustee was appointed at the time—and they were to be free from any interference from the beneficiaries of that particular land. Again, it was a very innovative and interesting establishment.

Reading through some of the history, it is chequered with regard to how that land was managed in a freehold title. I think Walter George Foster of Wellington was the first trustee. It is interesting to track the way in which that estate was utilised—I suspect much for the benefit of the Wī Pere descendants, but with a very chequered history. The reason why I draw the attention of the House to that is that in the inception of the trust there was some sense of collectivising interests under an individualised native land tenure system. The point that my colleague Meka Whaitiri makes with regard to the inherent collective aspects of having land held under Te Ture Whenua Maori Act I think still applies, and it is a valid question.

The other point that I wanted to draw to the attention of the House is more in the present day. Looking at the website, the estate is being managed well. It was valued at approximately $35.7 million in 2003, and it has a number of commercial interests that are within its operations. That said, it is really important that the beneficiaries of the Wī Pere Trust are able to influence the governance decision-making of that particular entity. Again, as far as the collective aspiration and the opportunities generated from the Wī Pere Trust are concerned, I would think that the select committee would pursue this with some vigour to ensure that there was widespread consultation with beneficiaries around what has tried to be achieved under this particular bill. If it has indeed been the case that beneficiaries have not been well consulted or that the new terms and conditions of the trustees have not been widely publicised amongst the beneficiary group, I think that would raise some concern for the select committee, but we have ample time through the submissions process to pursue questions.

The changes in the bill that propose to renew the governance structure—there is some merit in that. In fact, it is happening in other trusts as we speak, and there are opportunities to ensure that, I think, greater leveraging from the estate can occur.

Can I just identify, with regard to the matter that the Minister raised around who has a beneficial interest, that it is certainly my view that the way in which the Wī Pere Trust has been specific about who holds a beneficial interest is useful when we are looking at changes that impact on trusts of this kind. It is useful that we reaffirm that this was always the intent from its inception through to the various refinements—and the ability of the trust to operate within its contemporary context.

The reason why I make mention of that is that a number of Māori members will have experienced in one way or another a range of emotional types of situations where spouses and adopted children have had such a close connection with the whenua that they have been living on and raised on, but it belongs to their spouse by whakapapa, and when their spouse dies they have literally no ability to continue that relationship because it is only for their lifetime interest. I have had one case that comes to mind which was particularly emotive. It pulled at my conscience to ask whether something should be done here. I land on, I guess, the whakapapa connections that people in this House have to their lands and, actually, it is probably landing in the right place—blood, kin relationships to whenua tōpū must be retained at all costs, and any weakening of those connections can fundamentally break down your kin connection to the area and your ability to be able to continue to, I think, invest back in your whenua tōpū.

The Minister makes some good points. I am looking forward to this particular bill coming to the select committee and to the ability to ask submitters questions. I have highlighted a number: were beneficiaries consulted widely on the change in this trust deed and the provisions of this particular bill; why is it that the Minister introduced this bill in advance to pending changes to Te Ture Whenua Maori Act; and what ways does the Wī Pere Trust envisage that this will help to advance its economic opportunities and well as its social opportunities? I note that it funds—along with the distributions, the shareholding beneficiaries—education grants and tangi grants, and it is engaged in a number of social activities as well.

I do not want to spend too much time on this first reading of the bill, as I know that the select committee is an important part of the process. I am hoping that the Minister at some point—or a member of the Māori Party—might get up and let us know when the amendments to Te Ture Whenua Maori Act will be introduced in the House. That will be a robust debate. It is an important debate to be held, but for the time being I support this bill going to the Māori Affairs Committee.

E mihi atu ki a koe e te Māngai o te Whare, huri noa i te Whare tēnā koutou katoa.

[I acknowledge you, Mr Assistant Speaker of the House, and greet you all throughout the House.]

I am pleased to take a call in support of the Māori Purposes Bill. This bill is an omnibus bill that amends the Maori Purposes Act 1991 and the Maori Trust Boards (Transitional Provisions) Order 2012. These amendments are important, particularly in regard to the changes of the Wī Pere Trust.

To understand what this bill is about, we need to go back to 1899 and the establishment of the Wī Pere Trust. Wīremu Pere, or Wī Pere, was the MP for Eastern Maori for five terms in the late 1800s and early 1900s. He was widely acclaimed as being one of the great Māori MPs and was a leading figure amongst the people of the Poverty Bay area. Pere had a reputation as a great orator in Te Reo Māori, both before the Native Land Court and, later, in the House of Representatives. Although he lost three elections, it would be hard for history to judge him too harshly as his election losses were only to the great Māori MPs in Sir Apirana Ngata and Sir James Carroll.

Part-way through his time in Parliament, Wī Pere was forced to set up the Wī Pere Trust to ensure a legacy was left to his descendants. The trust has long been incorporated in legislation, becoming a statutory trust under the Maori Purposes Act 1938. Although the trust has these legislative protections, it does operate as a private business in a commercial environment, and, in fact, it operates quite successfully. The trust has business activities in the agribusiness sector—the citrus fruit sector, vineyards—and I understand it is looking at possible mining activities in the future. I am not sure of the latest figures—well, I am now, actually, because I heard the Minister quote one—but it is interesting that in 2003 the trust assets were in excess of $35 million, and now, with a new figure in 2013, it is $66 million. So, obviously, it is a trust that is doing very, very well in this economic climate.

The payments to beneficiaries include a per share beneficial interest, age grants for those over 60, tangi grants, and limited education scholarships. The trust also contributes to the maintenance of Rongopai Marae at Waituhi, which was established by Wī Pere’s son Moanaroa. These changes to the governing legislation will put the trust in a better position to operate more effectively in the commercial environment of today and without the Crown’s involvement.

The Minister has already talked about the various changes, so I do not intend to go into the proposed changes in detail. However, I do look forward to the bill coming through the various stages of the Māori Affairs Committee process. I would just like to acknowledge my colleagues on our committee because you have raised some very, very interesting points, particularly when we talk about whāngai and also about he tikanga tuku iho nā ngā matua tīpuna kua wehe atu ki Te Pō—and it is the tikanga that has been laid down by those of our tīpuna who have passed into the long night. So it will be a very interesting discussion, I am sure, but we will find our way through, as we usually do.

But one thing for me is that Wī Pere was a visionary right back in 1899, and so what he actually left and what he put together was a structure in which he believed that only the best people should be trustees, and the beneficiaries need to be separated and apart. It is interesting when we talk about incorporations and when we talk about trusts in today’s world, I think of the Mawhera Inc. on Te Tai Poutini and I think about the Rakaia Inc. as well, where they still have those very strict laws about whāngai and about bloodlines actually inheriting those shareholdings. So we are looking forward to that.

But I think the key message of this bill is that we want to see the Wī Pere Trust operating in an autonomous way, free of some of the constraints that it currently has. We do not see any need for ongoing ministerial involvement in the trust’s affairs, I believe, and this bill will maintain the key protections—because that is what is important, as well—for Māori land that currently exist. But it will give the trust the flexibility and autonomy that it should have to operate as a successful commercial entity. I have no hesitation in commending this bill to the House. Kia ora.

Before I invite the next member to speak, I have been looking at Speakers’ rulings with regard to visual aids. I understand the question of the display of the New Zealand flag in the Chamber has been the subject of some discussion at the Business Committee, but what is also clear is that other visual aids should be displayed only by members who are making speeches or asking questions. There are some other visual aids currently being displayed in the House, and before I call Metiria Turei, can I ask that they may be removed. It may be that staff have to remove the one from Mr Seymour’s bench. Could I ask some of the floor staff, or the Serjeant-at-Arms, possibly, to or—Marama Fox, thank you.

I do not intend to speak for long on this bill. It is not particularly complicated or particularly controversial, so far at least, but when we get to the select committee—[Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! Sorry, I did not make myself clear. I think there had been previous discussion about the New Zealand flag at the Business Committee and, although not all of us would agree with the conclusion the committee came to, I think that those flags have been displayed for some time and I have not made a ruling as to the New Zealand flags. Thank you. Metiria Turei—time starting again.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. But there will be issues that will come to the Māori Affairs Committee, and I look forward to hearing the submissions from those who are involved, particularly the beneficiaries, and I will be particularly looking at two of the questions that have been raised by other members on that committee.

One is the corporatisation of the trust and the extent to which the purpose of the trust moves from managing the assets in the best interests of the beneficiaries to a much more corporatised model, where the changes will allow for a whole different approach to the management of that asset. I do not think that is a small change; I think that is quite a significant one. It may well be supported by the trustees and possibly by most of the beneficiaries—we are yet to find out. But that will be one of the questions that I will be looking for advice on from submitters—about whether that new kind of structure will be in the best interests of everyone.

This is an old whānau trust. It has been running for a long, long time, and anybody who has been involved with Māori land will know how difficult it is to manage the assets that a trust like this might have—and there are hundreds of them around the country—to be able to maximise the opportunities that those assets have while retaining the land in Māori ownership and protecting it from sale, because, of course, that is always the risk. It is why these kinds of structures are set up. So the corporatisation of the trust is a concern, and we will be looking for more information about that.

Related to that is the change in the status of land under the trust. As I understand it, Māori freehold land will become general land as a result of this legislation. On the one hand, you could argue that that makes that land more usable in a commercial sense, but it also makes it much more vulnerable to being lost to that whānau in the short and long term. And it is not necessarily even because of the decisions of the trust and the beneficiaries and the trustees, but potentially, for example, through compulsory acquisition. We have seen examples in New Zealand in very recent times, and very close to here, of Māori land that has been taken or attempted to be taken through the Public Works Act compulsory acquisition process and the fight that iwi have had to try to retain some of that land. And that is land that is in their ownership; we are not talking about other examples like we see in Auckland where whānau land is being rezoned for housing against their will. That land is technically owned by an agency but actually Māori land, owned by Māori, which is subject to the Public Works Act and can be taken.

I would just note that Green MP Catherine Delahunty does have a bill in the ballot, the Public Works (Prohibition of Compulsory Acquisition of Māori Land) Amendment Bill, and it is designed to protect Māori land from being taken under the Public Works Act without consent. Just as an example, should this bill pass with the current provisions that transfer Māori freehold land into general land, that land is then available to be taken without the consent of the owners under the Public Works Act. If perchance Catherine Delahunty’s bill was pulled from the ballot and was passed, that legislation would protect the Māori freehold land but it would not protect the general land. So there are real consequences and there are real issues around the protection of Māori land, and we see continued threats to Māori land, for example through the Public Works Act compulsory acquisition process. The Green Party has proposed a solution to that so it is just not possible to take Māori land in that way.

But if Māori land becomes general land, it becomes much more vulnerable. I am looking to hear from the beneficiaries and the trustees about their intentions, how they expect to protect that land, what the beneficiaries are hoping to see from that change in status, and what protections they think are necessary to make sure that there is always whānau land being held by this trust, that it will not be wasted, that there will not be too many mistakes being made about its management—and this happens; it is just the nature of business—and that the effects of the corporate model on this trust will not, in time, disenfranchise this whānau from the land that they have been caring for for so long. I will say that I am always pleased to see legislation that removes Crown control over Māori resources, and this bill does that to at least some degree. That is a good thing, so I am looking forward to talking about that more too with the trustees.

We are happy to support this bill to select committee, and I expect that if we hear good support from the trustees and, particularly, the beneficiaries about these provisions—it might be that there is a little bit of negotiation or change to the bill—

💬 Meka Whaitiri: Bet you you won’t. Bet you there won’t.

Well, yes, my colleague says: “Bet you there won’t.” That is probably true, too. Often these things are faits accomplis by the time they come to us. But assuming that the beneficiaries, in particular, are comfortable with the provisions and with the protections in the bill, I cannot see why we would not support it through to the second and third readings. At the moment the Green Party certainly commits itself to supporting it to the select committee so that we can have the conversation about whether this is the right approach. Thank you.

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker, ā, tēnā hoki tātou e noho nei i roto i te Whare i te wā nei. He tū wāhi poto tēnei ki te mihi atu ki a koutou o te hau kāinga e mātakitaki mai, e ‘hakarongo hoki mai ana ki ēnei kōrero i puta atu nei i te Whare i te ahiahi nei. Tua atu i tēnā, hiahia ana au kia mihi atu ki tetahi o waku whaea, a Phoebe Matiu, mōhio ana au ki tana kaha ki te mātakitaki i ngā mahi o te Whare nei, nā reira, ka nui taku mihi ki a ia mō tērā.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and greetings to us seated here in the House at this time. This is a short call to accord a tribute to those of you back home watching and listening as well, to these contributions emerging from within the House this afternoon. Further to that, I want to shout out to one of my aunties, Phoebe Matiu. I know how staunch she is at watching the proceedings of this House, and so I really appreciate her greatly for that.]

I stand on behalf of New Zealand First to say that although we support much of the intention of this bill we do have some concerns, and some of those concerns have already been articulated by members who have spoken before me.

I want to just touch on a bit of history. Although I acknowledge the standing and the mana of Wīremu Pere, himself a former member of this House, I think that we would be remiss in not articulating the original reason for the trust. Due to his benevolence, he found himself in some financial difficulty, so that gave rise to the establishment of the trust, because some money was owed to the Bank of New Zealand. It was the bank at the time that determined who should be the trustee and what its requirements were in accepting the trust, so I just wanted to have that included in the discussion this afternoon.

We have heard how, in 2003, this trust had assets totalling $36 million, and there has been the suggestion that it now has assets around $60 million. I ask the question: why are we changing the legislation for an entity that, quite clearly, is very successful?

💬 Meka Whaitiri: What’s broken?

That is the question: what is broken? I have some thoughts, but I will keep those for the select committee process, because we will certainly be supporting this legislation to the select committee. The Minister of Justice, Minister Finlayson, made reference to adoption—

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: Attorney-General.

Oh, the Attorney-General. He made reference to adoption and the intent of this legislation to recognise as beneficiaries only those who whakapapa to their tupuna. I want to ask a question. In terms of the Māori view—whāngai is very much of the Māori world view. My question is: what of those particular whāngai, who have since passed on, who at the time became beneficiaries? Their issue would be entitled, and I would suggest that for some of those whāngai who fall into that category—who have since passed on—their issue will now be beneficiaries of the trust. In terms of the intent of the bill and the intent of the trust itself, I am asking: what of those beneficiaries? Perhaps we will get some clarification during the select committee process.

The notion of replacing the trustees with an incorporated trust board quite clearly is an indication that the trust wants to adopt a more corporate approach to its dealings, and, in spite of its concern about the overview that the Minister and the Māori Land Court have over their land assets, it has still managed to do very well. I want to ask the question, during the select committee process, whether the Minister has ever been asked to intervene in the running of this trust.

The other issue for me is grants. The previous speaker articulated the many grants that the trust presently makes available. I have some concerns as to whether or not those grants and the level of those grants will continue, because when you move into the corporate world you need financial resources, and one of the major sources is to just turn off the grants tap and make that available to whatever corporate decision you want to make. So I will certainly be asking that question in the select committee process.

One concern that I have is, who then takes responsibility if things should go belly up as a consequence of this bill being passed? I suppose we have to go to the High Court. Talking about the court and, in particular, the Māori Land Court, part of the intent of the bill is to allow the trust to administer its own beneficiary registration. At the moment, that work is done by the Māori Land Court. I would suggest that the trust would probably not know the whereabouts of a number of its beneficiaries, or its beneficiaries have not been succeeded to because people have not made the succession, whereas with the Māori Land Court there is a drive to encourage beneficiaries to make succession and therefore keep the ownership list up to date.

We heard about the current trustees consulting with the beneficiaries in 2009, and having a subsequent meeting in 2013 where a draft constitution and an overview of proposed amendments to the Maori Purposes Act were circulated. In November 2013, 143 beneficiaries took part in making the decision as to whether or not this proposal should be adopted, and although we talk about 91 percent of those 143 giving approval, if we look at it in the context of having around 460 beneficiaries in total, then the overall approval rate is not that high. However, this seems to be the process that this Government is adopting, particularly around Treaty settlements, and so we should not be surprised that that return has been accepted and therefore forms the basis of this bill.

Overall, the bill is well intended but I fear for the beneficiaries—in particular, the question of who might be appointed as trustees—because all you need is one or two rogue trustees and the whole asset base of the trust could be lost. Having said that, I, on behalf of New Zealand First, will certainly be supporting the bill going to the Māori Affairs Committee. Kia ora.

There is such a lack of faith in our people to be able to govern themselves—is that not what we are fighting for? Is that not why we come to this place? And, in fact, is that not why Wīremu Pere came to this place? You know, Wīremu Pere from Te Aitanga-a-Māhaki and Rongowhakaata was described as being a mediator, as a person who was called upon to share his knowledge to settle disputes. He was schooled—yes, in an Anglican mission—but he was also schooled in the whare wānanga. He was schooled in the traditions of his ancestors and he was called on to settle disputes not just between his own people but between Māori and Pākehā as well. You know, he used his position to criticise the Government, he used his position to oppose land sales, and he used his position to set up a trust—a trust that started with 18,000 sheep. We have heard already that this is a very successful trust—a trust that has considerable assets and a trust that has managed to exert its rangatiratanga over its land for a long period of time.

So why are we questioning its ability to continue to do that, and why are we questioning its desire to make these changes? These changes have been put through because it has asked for them—91 percent of the beneficiaries who are mentioned here have agreed to this. The Minister would not be doing something in complete opposition to the will of the people. The people have asked for this to happen and therefore the Māori Purposes Bill has been prepared. We can debate back and forward the intricacies of it but, essentially, we are doing this to support their aspirations, their tino rangatiratanga, and their desire to advance their asset holdings and to do more with the land that they still have—and they have that land because Wīremu Pere was visionary.

Wīremu Pere did put aside that land, and while he was a parliamentarian he actually wanted to ensure that there was money given from the Parliament to help Māori people develop their lands and their holdings and their assets, and to become strong entrepreneurs. He put bills forward. He supported Hone Heke’s bill to boycott the Native Land Court—it had too much power. He was bold and he was courageous and he did this on behalf of his people, and now they are the beneficiaries of his vision. Now, after all these years—more than 100 years of having run their assets as a trust—they have asked for this to happen. They have learnt over that time; they are capable people.

I find it a little bit disrespectful that actually we are questioning their ability to do this by saying that it takes only one rogue trustee—one rogue trustee. Well, these people have been operating well for a good long time and have proven their worth in developing the assets to a considerable base, as we have already talked about. There are some things in the bill that make people nervous because we do, as they have said, want to continue to keep the land in perpetuity—for all time—for the beneficiaries of not just these ones now but for their descendants, just as Wīremu Pere wanted to do when he first established this trust.

I think the bill has been considered with the people. The changes have been put forward by them. The Minister has upheld their right to do so and has brought that bill to the House. I stand to support that bill. I do not have to keep going on about the things that are in here; everybody has talked about it. The Minister has completely articulated the changes that the Government wants to make, and, yes, we can debate the intricacies of it at the select committee. But, essentially, we stand not just to support this bill but to support the people and their ability to be self-determining about the way in which they want to operate their lands and their holdings, and so I commend this bill to the House.

Kia ora, Mr Assistant Speaker, e te Māngai o te Whare. Tēnā koutou katoa. Actually, it is a privilege to join my colleagues to contribute to the debate that seeks through the Māori Purposes Bill to create a new piece of legislation called the Māori Purposes (Wi Pere Trust) Act 1991.

I think it begs the question who Wī Pere was. Many have spoken about Wīremu Pere this afternoon, who was Te Aitangi-a-Māhaki, Te Whānau a Kai, and Rongowhakaata, and born in 1837 in Tūranga. He was the MP for Eastern Māori between 1893 and 1905, and Sir Apirana Ngata said of him: “No man had ever done more for his people.” So he was obviously a person who was visionary, and, as my colleague Meka Whaitiri has just pointed out to me, he was also incredibly entrepreneurial. In fact, he would have probably been a large property developer in today’s times because he accumulated land.

Actually, this bill is about land and it is incredibly ironic for me that this bill is talking about the alienation of Māori land, within the context of Dame Whina Cooper leading a hīkoi from Te Hāpua to us here in Wellington 40 years ago—1,100 kilometres. This would have been day 2 of the hīkoi, and the whole kaupapa of Dame Whina’s hīkoi was “not one more acre of Māori land”.

So the point I want to make, primarily, is that changing the classification of Māori freehold land to general freehold land actually has huge implications. Māori freehold land, by virtue of it being Māori freehold, is within Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993. And what was that designed to do? It was designed to protect Māori land. The preamble of Te Ture Whenua Maori Act says that it recognises that land is taonga tuku iho and it has a special significance to Māori people, and it also highlights that the retention of lands in the hands of owners’ whānau and hapū is of utmost importance and significance. So I think the implication of this piece of legislation is huge. What it does is that it transfers the status of that land to a commodity that is easily bought and sold. There are not a lot of protections around it, and, actually, if the trust got into trouble because it expanded, then the banks could take the land.

That is the other irony of this piece of legislation, because the fact that it is in trust in the first place can actually be traced back to 1899, because Wī Pere got into a bit of trouble. The Bank of New Zealand actually had a mortgage over the land and the fact that it was put into a trust was in lieu of the land being taken. He and the other beneficiaries were given time to repay the mortgage. It took them 6 years. So in 1905 Wī Pere had paid £47,000—which in today’s money is $4,510,000—to reclaim his land. That is what Wī Pere did at that time. They kept that land in a trust, so in 1906 we had the establishment of the Wī Pere Estates Act and he was the sole trustee. Progressively, over time, we have had different trustees who have been whānau of Wī Pere. Then there was an amendment in 1991 and that amendment Act empowered five trustees, who had a 3-year tenure. To be a beneficiary you had to be related by blood to Wī Pere.

So we come to the discussions today about the amendment to this piece of legislation that I think contains something within it that we must be incredibly wary of—more than wary, actually. We have to be vigilant and we have to continue the legacy, I believe, of Dame Whina Cooper and the 50 people, including people like Deirdre Nehua, whom I saw on Sunday. I was privileged; I was one of a few people who were invited by Hinerangi Puru and Joe Cooper—the children of Dame Whina Cooper—to attend the 40th anniversary of the Land March at Te Ūnga Waka Marae. So for me to attend that particular hui and to be part of that commemoration was incredibly special.

I think what bills like this highlight is actually ka whawhai tonu mātou—struggle without end—which is just what Tā Ranginui Walker said. Our struggles will never be over. Our struggles to retain—and I am talking about ours in terms of our mana whenua, our tangata whenua, our whānau, our hapū, our iwi. Actually, we have to be ever watchful of pieces of legislation such as this that actually have the potential to take more than one more acre of land.

I want to commend Nuk Korako for actually acknowledging that there are challenges about this piece of legislation that the Māori Affairs Committee is going to have to deliberate on. I want to acknowledge the members of the Māori Affairs Committee because I think one of the things that can be amended, for example, is that the lands that are currently within the holdings of the trust should remain Māori freehold land, but if they want to get into commercial development and purchase other lands, then that land can be general freehold land. But the reserve of land that they currently have, there should not be any ability to change it from Māori freehold to general freehold, which would protect the legacy of Wīremu Pere that we have all talked about today. The fact that he established the trust was to keep the land for ever—for ever—for his tamariki, the mokopuna, the uri of Wī Pere. So I think what we could say, though, is that there will be a distinction between land that the trust has an ability to purchase once this legislation goes through the House—and that can be general freehold land and they can do whatever they like with that, but they need to safeguard the land that they have for future generations.

I want to say to my colleagues “kia kaha”. I think that this piece of legislation is going to challenge you in many ways, but what I am hoping is that through the process of the select committee we can actually hear from all the whānau and make sure that the mandate of 91 percent is actually real, and we will know, once submissions are open, whether or not this bill has the widespread support of the whānau. Inherent in this is maintaining the legacy of Wī Pere, his vision for the future, the fact that he must have been committed to passing the land on to his direct descendants because of the blood requirement. So we need to help protect and safeguard this piece of whenua, the whenua within the Wī Pere Trust, forevermore. Nō reira, tēnā koutou katoa. Kia ora.

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. I am pleased to stand to take a very short call to support the Māori Purposes Bill, which is in the name of the Hon Te Ururoa Flavell, the Minister for Māori Development, in its first reading today. It is always difficult when you are the third-to-last speaker in the House on a bill. Much of what has been said about the Wī Pere Trust has been articulated right throughout this House on this day. There are many views about it. As a member of the Māori Affairs Committee I look forward to the bill coming to the select committee.

Wī Pere was a very good leader. He was a very staunch supporter, as we have heard, of Māori land, and especially that land around the East Coast. Yes, he did have some trouble with the mortgage and that, and the Bank of New Zealand did take a mortgage out over the lands, but he did pay it back, and I think that was the test of the man. He was a leader who walked the talk, back in those days. He talked it and he walked it, and I think that he leaves a very good legacy behind him.

I am going to end my contribution there because, as I said, I look forward to the select committee process. I look forward to hearing the kōrero from the whānau of the Wī Pere Trust. I totally support the bill and commend it to the House. Thank you.

Ā, tēna koe, Mr Assistant Speaker, otirā, tēnā tātou katoa i tēnei rā whakahirahira.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, but at the same time acknowledgments to us all on this wonderful day.]

I stand with my colleagues in support of this bill. This is not about us making it difficult or about us not trusting our people; we do trust our people. Our position on this bill is to make it the best legislation it can possibly be. In saying that, I too want to talk about the status of land. We are talking, in this instance, about it being general freehold land at the time that the principal Act, the Maori Purposes Act, was passed into law, which was then transferred and made Māori freehold land. This particular bill changes that and gives the opportunity for those particular lands that were once general freehold land but were transferred under the principal Act to become Māori freehold land to now, under this bill, become general freehold land again. What I would ask the House and the select committee to consider is what the original intent of the principal Act was in making that determination of changing the status from general freehold land to Māori freehold land. I would suggest that the intent was to protect the land from alienation. We see a number of settlement bills come through this House that address that very issue—the issue of alienation of Māori freehold land. I encourage the select committee to take a very close look at that particular issue.

I also want to talk about the governance aspects of this bill. The changes, to me, look like they will give a lot more scope for the governance of these lands—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): I apologise for interrupting the member but it is kai time. I will resume the Chair at 7.30 p.m.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. Before the dinner break I was speaking about the governance arrangements for the Wī Pere Trust. The thing that I really like about these kinds of bills is that it does give the trustees and the beneficial owners greater autonomy in their governance arrangements. Can I quote from the departmental disclosure statement where it says “These changes include reducing the role of the Crown,”, which is, I think, always a good thing. It gives a lot more responsibility to the trustees themselves. That is something that I agree with. It also increases direct accountability to beneficiaries, which I also agree with. I think it is really important that the beneficiaries know what the trustees are doing, so having a new constitution for the trust is a very good idea.

I did hear the Minister for Māori Development in his contribution refer to the consultation that had taken place between the Crown and the beneficial owners. There was a vote for the change to support the changes that are included in this bill. Of those who participated, 91 percent supported the changes. I just want to highlight that only 31 percent of the beneficiaries representing 57 percent of the beneficial interests actually participated in this process. Out of those 143 beneficiaries, by my calculations, 99 did not participate in this. I think it is important that that fact is highlighted and that there is an opportunity through the select committee process for these beneficial owners to make a contribution to this bill, and a contribution that, hopefully, addresses some of the issues that have been raised through this first reading.

I think another good thing about this bill is the register of beneficial interests. I think it is important also that the trust runs its own register. It is part of what we would call rangatiratanga. So from a Māori world view it is about taking care of our own interests. I think that having this in there as well is a very good thing.

I go back to the status of the lands. I mentioned earlier about changing the status of lands that were once general freehold land under the principal Act to Māori freehold land, and then under this change they will return to general land. I want to talk further about that, having thought about it a little bit more over the dinner break. There are both positives and negatives to this. I highlighted the negative side of it being that this land could now potentially—turning it back to general freehold land—be alienated. On the other hand, it does give the trust the opportunity to invest and to purchase other lands, whether it be farmland or any other properties, and for the specific purpose of being an investment property. As we all know, the true benefits of an investment property are realised when it is sold. In selling that it would give the trust more opportunities to invest further, whether it be in property, other properties, or other kinds of investment. I thought that in fairness to my first comments about the concern I have about alienation of land I would balance that with the acknowledgement that there are situations in the future for this trust where they may be able to purchase land specifically for the purpose of economic development.

I think that is all I have to contribute to this debate on the first reading. I look forward to the bill going to the Māori Affairs Committee. I do not sit on that committee but I am certain that it will do a really good job. I look forward to the report back when it comes back to the House. Thank you.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Māori Affairs Committee.