Waitangi National Trust Board Amendment Bill

Picking up from where I left off, I am very proud to be a member of the Māori Affairs Committee. We gave very close consideration to this very important bill, which amends the Waitangi National Trust Board. Everyone knows that the trust board administers the Waitangi Treaty Grounds and associated lands and it is administered under a deed, which is part of the enacting legislation. That original legislation dates right the way back to 1932, so if my maths is right that is 84, or coming up to 85 years since the enactment of this legislation. So that is a long period of time in which this important trust has been in operation.

We know that the Minister, through the Ministry for Culture and Heritage, conducted a review between 2006 and 2008 that wanted to update and modernise, I guess, the composition of the trust. That is, effectively, what this piece of legislation does. It does update a few of the provisions. We are supporting this bill, but to my mind I do feel that the mana of Te Tiriti o Waitangi—the Treaty of Waitangi—and the mana of the national trust is somewhat diminished by the amendments that are included in this bill. Let us bear in mind that there is very, very little in the way of historical bricks and mortar of such significance that we as a nation own collectively, and the Waitangi Treaty Grounds are to Tai Tokerau, and to us Māori, very sacred grounds. So the amendments that are included in this bill change the ex officio membership of the Prime Minister and, I believe, the Minister of Conservation and the Minister of Māori Affairs, who were by virtue of their position ex officio members of the board, and now, through this piece of legislation, those Ministers are going to be part of a Crown Representatives Group. So they will not be formally part of the trust board, but they will maintain relationships with it and the board will maintain a positive relationship with the Crown.

As I mentioned, 84 years this trust has been in operation, and there have been no difficulties with the ex officio appointments of the Ministers on to the board in all of those years. Yes, there is reasoning that the board needs to modernise, but where does that leave ex officio positions of Ministers? I cannot think of any off the top of my head, but I am sure that there are ex officio appointments for ministerial positions in other bodies, right through our statute book. So I guess constitutionally—[Interruption] That is Paul Foster-Bell on the other side there. I know he is very much an expert on these matters. But where does this place ex officio Ministers now that this piece of legislation will be removing them into a Crown appointers group? It was deemed that there was a conflict between the constitutional roles that the Ministers have and their trustee roles as being on the board, but, as I said, it has not been a problem for 84 years, so I do not really see how that is a big issue.

As I was saying, I do feel that the mana of the trust is being somewhat diminished by these changes. We are now taking away having the Prime Minister, the Governor-General, and two Government Ministers as members on the board, and having backbench MPs appointed by the Government and the Opposition. That is quite a step down, I guess, from the esteemed positions of the Governor-General, the Prime Minister, and Ministers. Although we are modernising the trust, we know that the work of the trust is very important, and we would want to ensure that very close relationships are maintained. I also notice that the Governor-General now has the role of being an honorary patron of the trust board, which is new. But that is only if the Governor-General takes up that position. It is at his or her pleasure. Again, I feel that it is diminishing the mana somewhat by no longer having those esteemed office holders as part of the trust board. But, be that as it may, that is what the new composition of the board will look like.

Briefly—and I know other speakers will go into this—a major point of amendment that the select committee considered was around the four Māori whānau having the right to appoint their own representative to the trust board. We know that the three Pākehā whānau of the trust have always had that right, but the four Māori whānau—Tai Tokerau; chiefly, rangatira whānau—currently have to appoint only one board appointee. I am pleased that through the Minister and the select committee process there has been an agreement that that amendment will now be put into the legislation.

I would also like to acknowledge the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage for her willingness to undertake a review of the operations of the trust, which was another aspect that came out of the select committee. The Waitangi National Trust Board is a very, very important body. It has a long history. It has treasured taonga that it administers on behalf of the whole country. We do support these changes. We do lament the diminishing somewhat of the mana through the positions that will no longer be on the trust board. However, these are changes that are being made to modernise the trust’s activities. I know that other members in this House have a lot more knowledge and history and connection to this trust board. I am sure that they will be able to elaborate further—my whanaunga from up in the north.

Other than that, I want to make just one last point if I may, if I have got time. I understand there is no provision in the trust deed for gender composition, gender roles, gender balance, is there? I understand there is not. Perhaps that might be something that could be considered. As we are looking a whole lot of modernisation of these boards, perhaps consideration of gender balance and representation on the board could be something to be considered also. Kia ora tātou.

Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. Thank you for this opportunity. Tēnā tātou katoa. I rise to take a call on the Waitangi National Trust Board Amendment Bill in its Committee stage. In the second reading of the bill I spoke to the House and confirmed in the House my whakapapa and its association with the Waitangi National Trust. I have a pretty passionate view about the Waitangi National Trust and fully support its functions. In fact, you might be interested to know that hanging in my office is a photo of my great-grandfather Tau Hēnare and Lord Bledisloe at the ceremony gifting the land to this country. So I am pretty passionate about this.

There are some questions that I have about this bill. On the whole we support it, but I do have some questions. One of those is about shortening or at least defining the length of service that a board member can serve. For those who have already served for over 9 years, and there are several such members, what this particular bill is doing is allowing a provision for them either to step down or to serve no more than 3 further years. Some might argue that that is a good point in so far as it keeps the board fresh. There is this Māori expression of “Ka pū te ruha, ka hao te rangatahi”.

[When the old net is worn out and cast aside, the new one goes fishing.]

It is saying the old net is pushed to the side, and the new net goes fishing. Yes, that has some merit to it. But what is not captured in that particular part is that those people who have been serving for such a long time actually hold a lot of mana. They actually hold a lot of respect from the people whom they have represented on this particular board. They range from those who are descended directly from the families that are set out in this particular bill—but some of the people in those positions also come from other positions outside those particular families. One of those is, of course, Sir Tumu te Heuheu, whom I mentioned in the second reading of the bill, who has had a long association. Like I say, one might say “Oh well, he’s past his use-by date.”, but I beg to differ. He carries the mana of his ancestor Te Iwikau, who signed the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840.

You cannot replace this. You cannot replace this kind of knowledge. It is institutional knowledge, and it is right that these people carry it down. It has been handed down to them. So I do have a few questions still about the length of service that a member on the board can give. But, like I said, I do acknowledge that there is opportunity there for a bit of new blood and a bit of fresh thinking to be injected into the board. Sadly, for my part, that was really just a part of natural attrition with the loss of my father. But, you know, I still think that those particular positions should be kept, and that knowledge, the institutional knowledge, and the mana that they bring alongside it.

My esteemed colleague here, Mr Tirikatene, also spoke about those particular families who, by right through this bill, have descendants who have served on this particular board. I was part of some of the select committee discussions and debate about this particular bill. I know there was some real strong debate, that if the Pākehā families have a representative for each whānau, then why should the Māori families be sort of lumped together? There was some good debate. I think we have come to a pretty fair conclusion.

But I want to just look at the bill. New section 2(3) in clause 3A in Part 1 says: “When the term of office of the representative member holding the position first held by Riri Maihi Kawiti ends in accordance with section 10(2) of the Waitangi National Trust Board Amendment Act 2013,—(a) that position is disestablished; and (b) the Board must appoint as representative …”; and it goes on. It goes on to say: “(ii) a member of the family of Maihi Kawiti;”. If you go back just a little bit further in that bill, you will find that the seat the Government is trying to disestablish was once held by Riri Maihi Kāwhiti. In this particular bill—and, according to our whakapapa, Riri Maihi Kāwhiti was the son of Maihi, and Maihi was the son of Kāwhiti, and they carry on the name like that. Therefore, his name was Riri Maihi Kāwhiti.

In this particular case it is going to get rid of that one, and it is going to appoint members from the families of Hone Heke, Maihi Kāwhiti, and a member of the family of Tāmati Waka Nene, and a member of the family of Pōmare. I wonder what kind of consideration was given to that, given that if you search the ancestral links of our ancestors you will find actually that Tāmati Waka Nene and Pōmare, as well as Maihi Kāwhiti and Hone Heke, were related—they were related. But we are thankful that in this particular bill it will continue the separate lines of Hone Heke, Maihi Kāwhiti, Tāmati Waka Nene, and Pōmare. I want to acknowledge one of the people who probably was the most vocal about this point and that is my matua—well, tuakana on one side and matua on the other side; it is how Māori whakapapa works sometimes. He was very vocal about the rights of the family from Pōmare. I too am a descendant of Pōmare and I am also a descendant of Kāwhiti and Nene, so I want to acknowledge that from Arapeta Hamilton.

Those appointments, when they come in and they serve their particular length of time, in this bill it says it is for 9 years—three terms of 3 years. I wonder whether there was any thought by the Government around the succession planning, because what we found in the submissions and in the debates in the Māori Affairs Committee was that it is actually not that easy to find those from the families who have the necessary skills and have the capabilities and also possess the whakapapa to fill those positions on the board. I wonder whether any thought was given to that.

Just in finishing up, just as it applies to the Māori families whom I have already mentioned in terms of their service on the board, I want to pick up the point made by Mr Tirikatene around the mana of the position of the Prime Minister, the Governor-General, and the like on the board. I think they are important because with their presence—and we have been fortunate in the past to have had Sir Don McKinnon and others involved—they actually bring a sense of honour and pride and patriotism from the wider New Zealand community not only to want to visit the Waitangi National Trust but in the operations of the Waitangi National Trust. So I am a little bit disappointed that perhaps some of that position will be lost. I know, having gone to every Waitangi Day for my entire life, that I have really enjoyed seeing them there and it gives me a sense of pride that the Government, as well as my tupuna, are taking this particular responsibility seriously.

In closing, I do want to say that I am slightly disappointed that Te Tiriti o Waitangi will not be returning home to the land of the Bay of Islands. However, the hope is still there amongst our people. Kia ora tātou.

Tēnā koe, Mr Chairman. My apologies to my colleague Nanaia Mahuta. Tēnā koutou e te Wharenui. As the previous speaker, Peeni Henare, said, it is a good day for this kōrero, especially as we woke up this morning to the debate over He Whakaputanga me Te Tiriti o Waitangi and where they should be and where they should sit, and that is what this is about.

This is about honouring and treasuring Waitangi as a sacred place not only for tangata whenua but for tangata Tiriti as well, because for us of the Pākehā culture, without Waitangi we are here with no honour—we are here with no actual foundation; we are here as colonisers and invaders rather than as partners in a relationship—so this site could not be more important to us. It is vital for us, even though whakapapa obviously gives the people of the north—and I really want to acknowledge my colleagues here in the House from the north, te Tai Tokerau, not only for their commitment to the Waitangi National Trust but for their understanding of the complexities and history of looking after that place on behalf of the nation, through their whakapapa. So it is great to have a chance to speak about this.

I sat on the Māori Affairs Committee briefly, on one of the days we were having a lively debate about representation, and I was very privileged to hear that debate. I myself, unlike Peeni Henare, have been to Waitangi for only the last 15 years—every Waitangi Day—and so I am a new person, but each time that I go I learn something powerful about what that space and place is in the history of this nation, and it is a place of both challenge and of coming together and acknowledging one another. So legislation like this Waitangi National Trust Board Amendment Bill is very important.

In some ways I feel ill-equipped to talk about some of the detail of the length of time for which people should be able to be on the board, let alone who should represent whom. But there are issues I am passionate about that we were debating at the select committee and that I would like to stand up for in a way that is possibly more superficial than you have heard. It was Arapeta Hamilton’s submission about fair representation. In many ways that discussion symbolised Te Tiriti itself because we had a situation where the Pākehā families all had a representative each, but the mana whenua families did not. To me that was a little like the ongoing struggle we have under Te Tiriti to actually create a fair, honest, and just solution to our history, and in order to do that we have to keep refining our ideas of what democracy and also rangatiratanga actually mean.

Sometimes there is a tension between the two. I think it is really good to acknowledge that in the concept of a board or a concept of representation we do not always acknowledge that there are issues of mana and issues of whakapapa and tikanga that operate within their own context, and they want to be strongly influencing the structure of the board as well as the traditional Pākehā mechanisms of who voted for whom and who represents whom. But I think that this bill came to a good place through the hard work of the select committee and people came to a good agreement around the submission of Arapeta Hamilton and around some of these other issues of representation. I am not sure myself whether the changes are lessening the mana and power of the Waitangi National Trust or not, but what I am sure about is that we need the continued commitment to reviewing the issues associated with Waitangi itself so that we continue to improve and get right the nature of the relationship that we signed up to in 1840.

So it was good to be at the select committee when the Minister came and spoke of her commitment to the review, which is excellent because I am one of those people who believe that Te Tiriti never finishes. It is not a matter of full and final settlement. And just like Te Tiriti not finishing, the improving and polishing and enhancing of a bill like this and the way in which the Waitangi National Trust, this taonga, is managed is an ongoing process. So this may not be the end, but it is important to acknowledge both the mana of the history of the Waitangi National Trust and also what it will look like in the future.

It was interesting to hear Rino Tirikatene talk about gender balance, which is obviously one thing the Greens are quite interested in. But again that kōrero needs to come into a context, and I am sure that the people of the north are the people who can lead on that context and on that issue as well. Certainly, there are many people in the north who could. Thank you.

In taking a call on the Waitangi National Trust Board Amendment Bill, I am reminded of some of the discussions around the select committee table, and I am pleased that the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage is sitting in the chair, because she probably would have liked to hear the nature of some of the questions that we were asking ourselves. One of the things that came up was with regard to the review that was undertaken and whether or not it was broad enough to actually address the submission about having all the Māori families represented on the board. We wondered why that had not been addressed in the previous review. Did it come up at all?

There are specific questions that I have of the Minister and they are in relation to a matter that she knows well, and that is the term of office for a trustee. The point was made very well by my colleague Peeni Henare when he said that the issue of succession becomes a particular matter when we think about a legacy board such as this. Making provision for members of each of the four families, as we have done in the bill, Minister, I would like to seek your response to some of the thoughts that emerged in the select committee. We wondered, actually, if a whānau identifies for the purposes of this board—a legacy board regarding the Treaty—that even after three terms of membership they want to ensure that the expertise and contribution to the board is retained, would there be scope for that to happen?

I say this in a very serious manner, in that you need only look at many marae throughout the country and, out of necessity, the need to bring forward younger people to sit on the marae committee as a trustee and perhaps in positions such as this. You are actually finding a younger generation coming through. If you are going to look at succession, then you would want to try to retain that type of contribution, because, in some instances, whānau have to dive quite deep into the younger generation. So there is one question there.

The other question that you might want to clarify, Minister Barry, for the purposes of the Committee stage, is the provision for a representative of the Government and the Opposition parties to be part of the Crown group. Will the decision to choose a member of the Opposition be by convention, where the largest party is approached and then a consultation is undertaken, or is there another process that the Minister envisages might be useful in an MMP environment? I think that it is worth asking the question, although convention might prevail—I suspect that might be the response. In an MMP environment, on a legacy board such as this, it is worth asking the question. I make mention that this is a legacy board for the very points raised by the member of the Green Party.

This is, ultimately, about a trust that oversees a very important place of national significance for the country. From a functional point of view, the administering of the Treaty House and the property under its purview is what the board does, but it is actually so much more than that. I can remember the big debate and discussion around the level of investment to improve the Treaty House—whether or not a visitors tax should be charged, whether or not tangata whenua should be charged, and all of those types of issues. So it brings into play in our national place of significance all these types of real issues that challenge our sense of a spiritual homeland where this country was founded. I would say that, unlike other boards, this one draws particular attention.

I had to ask myself how I whakapapa to the particular issue, and then I was reminded, in looking at the history, that one of my tūpuna was an initial member of the board, but not for long. He was one of the first members, Te Rata Mahuta, and then he passed. He was appointed in 1932 and he passed in October 1933. It did indicate to me that early on when this board was established, it was envisaged that this board represent the interests of all New Zealanders, and, Minister Barry, I can guarantee that although most of our discussions around the committee table focused on the proportional representation of those descending from the original Māori whānau that were named, as well as the Pākehā whanau, they really centred on the equality of that representation. Our focus was actually on the nature, role, and responsibility undertaken by the board. I am pleased to see, even after some debate with your officials about whether or not it was in scope, that we have managed to secure the inclusion of those four family members on the board. I am sure that they will make an important contribution.

We were also reminded by our colleague who declared his interest in relation to this bill about some of the current day challenges, I guess, in terms of looking at how the board undertakes to manage its affairs going forward. Certainly in my mind, it brought up a question, which I pursued with officials, around the lands and the estates that were transferred not being made available for Treaty settlement purposes but remaining for the original purpose and intent and spirit of the gift of the Bledisloe family. We were assured, through our advisers, that that would indeed be the case, and I see that Minister Finlayson is nodding his head to give absolute assurance on that.

In terms of modernising the legislation, there were some antiquated references in the bill, and you could not help but laugh. One of the references was “Pay the actual locomotion-expenses incurred and disbursed by any member of the Board …”. Well, paying “reasonable costs of travel” is what it says now, and that makes absolute sense. We look forward to what I understand to be a broader review that may be undertaken with the trust board, in conjunction with the trust board. We look forward to hearing some of the plans that the trust board intends to undertake on our behalf as a nation and hear how it reflects our national place of significance—the Treaty House and the Treaty Grounds—to educate New Zealanders and those visitors coming here to our country. There are some must-see sights that people have in their minds when they come to New Zealand. I would like to think that Waikato is one of them, but I suspect that they bypass us for Rotorua, to some degree, and then shoot straight up north. That said, this is why this bill is so important. The role that the trust board is undertaking on our behalf to reflect the place of national significance, the place where the Treaty was signed and should reside—one day—can be a positive statement for us all.

Lastly, Minister Barry, could I urge you to take a call on those particular matters—firstly, how the Opposition parties might decide on the representative. Do you have thoughts there, or will it be by convention? Then, in terms of the issue of succession, which has been raised a couple of times by members on our side of the Chamber, would there be enough scope, in your mind, going forward, even if three terms were served, and especially if the whānau members have actually identified this as an area where we are growing a succession of leadership and things like that? Could they roll their particular representative over for another term? Kia ora tātou.

Ā, kia ora e te Heamana o te Whare, e mihi atu ki a koe.

[So thank you, Mr Chair. I acknowledge you.]

I would like to take a short call as the chair of the Māori Affairs Committee, and also as someone who does acknowledge and recognise that Waitangi is the birthplace of our nation and that its heritage status absolutely needs to be acknowledged and sustained. I believe that when looking at this bill, the Waitangi National Trust Board Amendment Bill, the interesting thing is that the principal Act is over 80 years old, and so one of the important things here was that we really needed to bring it very much into the 21st century because it is not now entirely fit for purpose. That was one of the major roles of the Māori Affairs Committee.

I want to acknowledge our Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage, Minister Barry, and particularly a lot of the input she and her officials had during the select committee process. I acknowledge the submitters as well. It was the submitters who brought a lot of the important changes that were necessary. But also our understanding is that on the Māori Affairs Committee there is always going to be a conflict of interest somewhere, and it was good that our kaumātua Pita Paraone actually did—

💬 Pita Paraone: Kaumātua?

Well, the esteemed, or the—

💬 Pita Paraone: The member.

Just out of respect—just out of respect to the New Zealand First member on the Māori Affairs Committee. But this is really just to say that he declared his interest, his perceived conflict, in the fact that he is the current chair of the Waitangi National Trust Board. We were dealing with that, and we were also dealing with—and this is the nature of Māori. It does not matter where you go, there is always going to be one conflict of interest. But we also had a number of our members that came from there, that whakapapa-ed into that whole area, so it was an interesting discussion we had.

But I truly believe, in looking at the work that we have done and what we are here to represent, that the fact is there are a number of changes that we have in the provisions that I think are really important. I think the idea, though, is that the trust itself—as we all possibly know here, but it is a wider field out there—is self-funding, so it maintains the Treaty grounds and all of that at no cost to the people of New Zealand. In saying that, we are bringing it into the 21st century, and particularly in looking at, you know, ways that it wants to and needs to—and that was one of the submissions—generate its own moneys, its own commerce.

It is interesting when we talk about the tenure of the members. The fact is that before this bill there was actually no statutory term limit for board members. That actually needed to be addressed, because the fact is that—as has been highlighted by members from the other side of the Chamber, members of the Māori Affairs Committee—there was a lot of talk about tenure and about the 9 years, and whether that is enough. If we put these provisions in, it would create a catalyst whereby succession needs to be thought about a long time before the term actually expires. In looking at this, what we were doing here with the bill was—the governance structure definitely needed to be modernised and brought into a generation where it actually can develop and maintain its own income.

The other one was that—it was definitely in the submissions—we needed to address the disproportionate membership. The way that we needed to do that was to look at the balance and to bring Māori whānau, particularly, into that trust board situation so that that balance had been addressed. I come from Te Wai Pounamu; our representative is non-Māori. There was a lot of discussion around that as well. When we look at the fact of the make-up of the board, I believe that the provisions here have actually been addressed now, even though we have made the board have more members on it—but at least we have addressed a major concern that the submitters submitted about.

The other part was addressing the ex officio membership. We actually really did look at that, because that was one of the bases of why, a number of years ago, this bill was first introduced into the House. The fact is that there were ex officio members and then also board trustee members. So we have done that, and we still want to maintain a very positive working relationship.

On that note, I believe that what we have brought here, after the select committee process, has addressed all of the major issues, and we believe and we really hope that this bill will be able to continue on its journey through the House. Kia ora.

Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. It is a pleasure to take a call on the Waitangi National Trust Board Amendment Bill, or, in Te Reo Māori, Te Pire Whakatikatika i Te Poari Pou Tiaki ā-Motu o Waitangi, and I can tell you that if you put the comma in the wrong place, you could be fixing up the board not the legislation. So I suggest that there should be a comma after “Whakatikatika”, definitely not after “Pire”.

I also want to mihi to the four whānau that now, through this legislation, will have the opportunity to appoint a member to this board. Ā, e mihi ana ahau ki te whānau o Hone Heke, te whānau o Maihi Kāwiti, te whānau o Tāmati Waka Nene me te whānau o Pōmare [and so I acknowledge the families of Hone Heke, Maihi Kāwiti, Tāmati Waka Nene, and Pōmare], because it is a very new thing that they now, under this bill, will have the right to, as of right, have a seat on that board. I think it is really important that all of the descendants that had a part to play in gifting this piece of land to the nation have a right to sit on the board, so that they can have input into how it is governed and managed. The governance of such things is a very important thing, and, of course, that is the whole point of amending this legislation, so that it can be better governed.

I have taken note of the contributions from those members who sit on the Māori Affairs Committee. Although some have expressed concern about the removal of those Government members who sit on the board as of right from the position that they hold, I think it is a reflection of moving forward to a better place in terms of having those members who will now form the Crown representatives group in more of a partnership model rather than one that actually sits in a governance role. So I acknowledge that, and I think that from my point of view that is a really good idea because it maintains the relationship at a very high level between those members, without their having to actually be members of the trust board.

I also want to acknowledge that in place of that, there are going to be nominated members of the board: one nominated by the Prime Minister and one nominated by the Leader of the Opposition. I think that that in a way expresses the importance to the nation that the Parliament is represented on that trust board. So I just want to acknowledge that as well.

The contributions from the members on this particular bill I have really enjoyed. I think it is a fair reflection of our growing nationhood. I think it is a fair reflection of the relationship between Treaty partners, and I think, you know, we have come a long way, and I think we have got some way to go yet, but I think this particular bill is a good reflection of our Treaty relationship.

I do not want to carry on too long on this. The other thing I wanted to acknowledge is the term of appointment. That will be a maximum of 9 years. I also support that. I think it is a good idea to rejuvenate, to bring new people in. But I would suggest that the issue of continuity be addressed and worked out so that you do not have a wholesale change of membership after 3 years. I think that would be problematic. I think there is a case to be made where those appointments are staggered. Nō reira, kāore e roa tēnei tū, otirā, e tika ana kia tuku mihi atu ki te Whare nei. Kia ora, kia ora.

[This stand, therefore, is not a long one, but at the same time it is apt that I accord an acknowledgment to this House. Thank you, thank you.]

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): I call “Matua” Pita Paraone.

Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. Pai atu e noho ana koe i konā, kia ahatia!

[Greetings to you, Mr Chair. How wonderful that you are seated there—but so what!]

It is a privilege to take a call in this Committee stage of this bill. I have heard it already said a couple of times that this bill changes the concept of the board—well, it has been implied that the changes that this bill makes is a major shift in the Act and the board itself. But all it does is it changes the membership. That is all this bill does.

Much of the discussion has been around the term of appointment. Having said that, I need to say that my great-uncle sat on that board for 49 years. At no time did anyone question his ability and the service that he gave to that board. Can I say that the only mismanagement that occurred during that time was when the Government was responsible for the day-to-day administration of the trust.

Before I go on, I need to declare my vested interest as the present chair of that board and a representative of the four Māori families that have been alluded to tonight. Can I say that it is a pleasure to serve on that board and to represent those four families. I am delighted that the bill does give the opportunity now for each of those four Māori families to have their own representative. I look forward to sitting at the table with representatives of those other three families.

I ought to say that the removal of the ex officio members does not mean that the Government and the ministry that is responsible for this particular trust will be lost to the board, because it is the intention to establish an official working group that will act as an adviser and assist the board in its task of caring for that estate.

I want to say, though, that in terms of looking at the present membership of the board—and this must be a very rare thing for legislation that has been in for over 80 years. This is only the second time that it has been amended. The first amendment was in 1958, for a similar reason: to allow an extra family to be appointed to the board. In my mind that suggests that the board, over the years, has done a very good job.

I think one of the reasons for bringing this bill to the House was the increasing commercial activities that the board was becoming involved in. To have Ministers sitting on the board, and most of all to have the Governor-General sitting as chairman—should those commercial ventures run off the rails, so to speak, then that would bring those positions into disrepute. Hence this bill will give the opportunity for the Governor-General to choose whether he or she will take up the position of honorary patron. If he or she does not, well, then, that is fine—we will continue to operate. When I say “he or she”, I should point out to the members who have expressed some concern about gender balance that over the years there has certainly been a fair representation of women on the trust as well.

When this bill came before the Māori Affairs Committee, mention was made of a review. My understanding was that that review was not to be a consequence of this bill passing through the House. I am a little bit disappointed that that review has not begun, because in my mind there really is no reason for it not to have started already, even though many of the concerns that the review will certainly bring up are already known to officials.

I also want to say that some mention was made about—and the word used was “appointment” of members of Parliament to the board, representing both the Government and the Opposition. My little concern in that area is that all other members are subject to scrutiny by the board. I am asking whether or not the two representatives from this House will be scrutinised by the board before they actually take their place at the table. I think that is something that we need to consider.

The other thing, just talking about the membership again—of course, during the second reading, we heard of the passing of one of our members. I just wanted to reassure the Minister that I have no intention of applying for the vacancy created by the passing of Mr Ērima Hēnare. I just wanted to reassure—I understand that the Minister may have had some concerns in that area.

I know that in recent years Governments from both sides of the House have expressed a concern about the length of time members sit on the board.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Order! It is getting a bit noisy over there.

I have been on the board for 15 years, and probably half of that time has been as the board chair. I have not perceived any conflict of interest of either a personal nature or a political nature, but I sometimes think that my political opponents see that as a sort of conflict. I just want to reassure this Committee, and in particular the Minister, that Waitangi is too important to me, and I think that Waitangi is above politics. As long as we continue to see that and to adopt that approach, then I think that the nation will benefit from that approach, Minister.

I also want to say that the board has expressed its support for this legislation. There were a number of other clauses that we would have liked to see included in this bill. However, we have accepted that the review will, hopefully, bring up those concerns, because as a board that is restricted by the terms of the deed of gift, it is somewhat difficult for us to do the commercial things that we would like to do without contravening the deed of trust. I cannot overemphasise the need for the board to look at opportunities to be able to do the things that any other commercial enterprise has at its disposal.

One last thing I want to comment on is the membership of the Māori whānau. The legislation says “Maihi Kawiti”. I am a descendant of Te Ruki Kāwiti, Maihi’s father. I come from the older son. I have always wondered—and I have researched it—and I still cannot find an answer as to why the son’s name was put forward ahead of the father. So I just wanted to have that on record, again, and to say that it is a privilege to represent those families. But we will have some difficulty with a non-Māori institution like the board telling the Māori whānau who they should be selecting, or determining the qualities of the person who they put up for appointment—i.e., who are we, the board, to tell someone like Sir Tumu te Heuheu, an ariki, whether or not he is suitable to be retained on the board? Those are some of the issues that the chairman of the Māori Affairs Committee alluded to in his presentation. But I just want to conclude by saying that I commend this bill to the Committee.

I have waited and listened carefully to all of the kōrero in the Committee tonight around a bill that has been worked through very skilfully. I commend the chair of the Māori Affairs Committee for acting in the spirit of consensus, along with the other members, who acted in very good faith, and the three submitters, who talked about and presented their concerns around the wider issues that confront the trust board.

I know, having listened, that there are some concerns about the way that we are modernising this board in terms of its governance and membership. I would like to reassure people that it is not ever about questioning the integrity of any of the members of the Waitangi National Trust Board. That has never been the intention. This bill has a very narrow focus, and it is very much predicated on trying to ensure that the older ways, if you like, are put to one side and that there is an ability for the board to move forward. In the wider review, which I signalled at the first reading and which I am completely committed to, we will be examining the issues of wider concern of the board in terms of your financial sustainability for the future. It is important that the board has that ability to run it as a financially viable organisation, because that is what it needs to be to survive. The Crown is very much in favour of the trust running the area of the Waitangi Treaty Grounds and the wider other properties that are involved, in the best possible way.

The narrow focus of this bill is really about taking away the ex officio members, who have never really played an active part in the board—that is, the Prime Minister, the Minister of Conservation, and the Minister of Māori Development. As ex officio members, what this bill is doing is removing them from the board, but that does not in any way demean the mana of the board. In fact, the Governor-General and Ministers will be removed from those positions, but the Governor-General will become the honorary patron of the trust, if that is his or her wish, and the Prime Minister, the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage, and the Minister for Māori Development will form a Crown representatives group. This I think is a very good thing for the future of the trust board because what it does is it ensures that you have a relationship with the Crown and the Government that is not too close. I think a clear separation between the Government and the board is something that the board has always wanted, and this is part of ensuring that that occurs. The creation of this Crown representatives group will, I think, strengthen in the best possible sense the contribution that the Crown can make at various levels to the decisions that the board takes.

Several people, including the member the Hon Nanaia Mahuta, have asked about the succession planning, and also Rino Tirikatene and others have also raised this. It is very important that this be addressed, and I think it is very important that when we look at succession planning we have that modern ability to ensure that whoever is a member of this board—and I understand that the board has looked for nominations through a public process of trying to get people to become new board members to replace the late Mr Hēnare, and here tonight in the Chamber I commend the work that he has done and the contribution of his son. But there have been a lot of applications. There are many people who would want to serve on this board, and without diminishing the mana of the people who have been on the board for 15 years or more—and going back to, what was it, 47 years from the relative of previous speaker, Pita Paraone—I think that the injection of new skills and a skill set that is going to enable the board to continue to contribute to its financial viability in the future is a good thing.

The issue of having two members of Parliament was also raised. One of them will be nominated by the Prime Minister of the day; the other member of Parliament will be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition. If you look at new section 4B(1)(b) in clause 6 of the bill, it says that the Leader of the Opposition will have to consult with “the leader of each party that is not in Government or in coalition with the Government.” So that I think gives a reasonable amount of flexibility to the Leader of the Opposition, whoever that might be, to ensure that the spirit and the intention of the House and the Opposition benches is well served. That nominated member will continue until the end of the parliamentary term in which he or she is appointed to the board, and that nominated member ceases to be a member of the board if they cease to be a member of the House of Representatives, so it is very much tied into that process.

I would like to make a short comment, if I may, on the Supplementary Order Paper that I have put forward. Supplementary Order Paper 122 is very much a technical amendment that was correcting an oversight that was missed in the draft surrounding section 3, which was the one that the select committee asked to occur. It is as benign as that; it is what needs to happen when legislation of this nature is put together.

I will reaffirm my undertaking that it is my intention as the Minister to start a review in this term, certainly, and it will take only 1 year or less, and that we will appoint a representative from the Crown. The board, as I understand it, has already nominated an individual from the board’s ranks, the Rt Hon Sir Don McKinnon, who will be a member of that board. It is my intention as well to get in a third representative. We are putting together the terms of reference of that review. I will be consulting on those.

We will make sure that this review is robust and that the by-laws, the offences, the penalties, and the financial capability that this board requires are ensured. If it is to continue to shepherd this very important place where the Treaty was signed and where so many important things have happened, that board needs to be fit for modern purpose. I believe this bill contributes to that, and so too will the wider review. I commend this bill to the House.

Part 1 agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 122 in the name of the Hon Maggie Barry to clause 10 be agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

Part 2 as amended agreed to.

Schedule agreed to.

Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.

Bill to be reported with amendment presently.