Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill

I move, That Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Māori Affairs Committee to consider the bill. Kai aku rangatira o Te Whare, tēnā tātau katoa! Tēnā hoki tātau i te āhuatanga ki ō tātou mate e hingahinga mai ana i ō tātau marae maha huri noa i Te Motu. Kua tangihia, kua mihia rātou kua ea te wāhi ki a rātau. I tō rātou matenga, mahue mai ana ko tātau hei pīkau i ngā mahi i mahia e rātau hei tohe, hei tohe tonu i ngā take i tohea e rātau. Waihoki, ko te tohe nui ko Te Ao Māori i roto i ngā ngahurutanga tau, ko te tohe o Te Whenua.

[And so my acknowledgments to us all, oh noble ones of the House. I greet us as well in the circumstance of our dead who have fallen on our many marae throughout the country. They have been mourned and tributes have been accorded to them, and suffice to say we have fulfilled that. As a consequence of their deaths, we have been left with the responsibility of carrying out the tasks they had set out for them to meet and debate, and now it is our turn to continue what they have put in place. Therefore and in like manner, the land has been Māoridom’s great debate for decades.]

Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 was arguably one of the most groundbreaking pieces of legislation of our generation because of the seismic shift it made in Māori land policy. This bill we are considering today is one of the most important measures for Māori that this Parliament will consider in our time, and I am proud and humbled to be the steward of it into the House this afternoon. Arā noa te kōrero: “Whatungarongaro te tangata, toitū te whenua”—[there is the saying: “As people perish and disappear from sight, the land remains”.] This is one of the many whakataukī that illustrate our connection to the land. To Māori, land is everything. Land provides our sense of identity, of belonging, of continuity. Whenua is our link to our tūpuna and to the future generations.

It was the 1975 Māori Land March that completely changed the legal framework for Māori land. It shifted from one that assimilated and alienated Māori land to one that promoted retention. Along came Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993. The Act is far from perfect. We know that, because the first attempt to reform it started in 1998, 5 years later, and there have been at least six panels to consider the changes over time. It is inconsistent in how it treats the retention and utilisation of Māori land. Retention had a clear focus with detailed provisions about alienation. The utilisation provisions, however, are unclear and ambiguous. Its time has come—its time has come.

Over the years numerous reviews of Te Ture Whenua have emphasised that the law for Māori land needs to be an enabling law so that the participating owners can make decisions without having to get court approval; the law needs to be a protective law so that Māori land is retained in Māori hands; the law needs to give Māori landowners a clear and accountable governance framework for their land; the law needs to include better dispute resolution support for Māori landowners; and the law needs to have options to overcome fragmentation. This can happen only by replacing the current Act, not by tinkering with it.

This bill addresses those issues and responds to the 392 submissions; the views of technical experts and practitioners; feedback from numerous hui, workshops, and wānanga; and the advice of the ministerial advisory group. In that regard I want to acknowledge the advisory group: Linda Te Aho, Traci Houpapa, Spencer Webster, Sacha McMeeking, Matanuku Mahuika, Dr Tānira Kīngi, and their chairperson, Kīngi Smiler. E hoa mā, you have done a magnificent job of consolidating advice amongst yourselves and amongst Māori communities and organisations. Ka nui te mihi ki a koutou, ki tēnā ki tēnā! [My huge appreciation to each and every one of you.]

I also want to acknowledge the Associate Minister for Māori Development, the Hon Chris Finlayson, who in 2012, with the support of the former Minister of Māori Affairs Dr Pita Sharples, initiated a review of this Act. I want to thank Minister Finlayson for his leadership and continued support. That support is hugely appreciated. Ka nui te mihi ki a koe. I also want to acknowledge the team in the gallery today, Te Puni Kōkiri officials, for the extraordinary effort on this bill. E hoa mā, you have done a magnificent job—ka nui te mihi.

This bill is underpinned by a set of significant and important principles that all decision makers will have to recognise: Māori land endures as a taonga tuku iho by virtue of whakapapa; tikanga Māori is central to matters involving Māori land; Te Tiriti o Waitangi is central to the application of laws affecting Māori land; owners of Māori land have a right to decide how their land is used; owners of Māori land have a right to take advantage of the opportunities to develop their land for the benefit of present generations and future generations of owners, their whānau, and their hapū; and disputes involving Māori land should be managed in a manner that maintains or enhances relationships between owners and members of their whānau and hapū. This bill expressly defers to tikanga Māori on a range of matters such as the way associations with Māori customary land are determined, the way preferred recipients of Māori freehold land are determined, the way relationships of descent are determined, and the way disputes are resolved.

Another central feature of the bill is that it not only keeps Māori land retention as a primary focus, but goes further to strengthen those protections. Can I state absolutely clearly this: this bill will not lead to the loss of Māori land. The thresholds that have to be met to protect Māori land from disposal are as strict as ever. If owners want to make the thresholds even higher, the bill gives them the means to do so. There are also thresholds with clear safeguards. The court will have a critical role in preventing abuses of process.

One of the major features of the bill is its new governance framework for Māori freehold land. Under the bill, appointing and forming governance bodies is a matter for the owners themselves, through a process of decision making and registration. This will replace the current system that requires a judgment from the Māori Land Court—a process that involves an application, hearings, adjudication, with all of the litigation risk and cost that goes with that. This change is consistent with the principle of rangatiratanga. It contributes a new framework in which Māori land utilisation is determined by the aspirations of the owners.

Māori freehold land today is reduced to about 5.5 percent of all land in Aotearoa. Ninety-five percent of Māori freehold land is in the North Island and makes up approximately 12 percent of all land in the North Island. More than 180 previous laws dealing with Māori land have had a major role in the dramatic reduction in Māori landownership. Those same laws have led to a vast multiplicity of highly fragmented ownership interests. There are now more than 2.5 million ownership interests in Māori freehold land, where we have well over 14,000 ownership interests in one block and an average of nearly 100 owners for each of the blocks. This bill contains a range of mechanisms to try to stem the high rate of fragmentation. Any remaining Māori customary land will no longer be able to have its ownership individualised. It must remain in collective customary ownership.

There will be new dispute resolution support for Māori landowners. It is based on the concept of “mātauranga takawaenga”. This process will “assist people and groups to resolve disagreements and conflicts [based on] tikanga, values, and kawa” of relevant hapū and whānau. It is designed to reflect this principle of rangatiratanga and to enable parties to achieve their own solutions and outcomes rather than accepting an outcome imposed by the court. This does not mean that there is not a role for the court. The bill provides the Māori Land Court judges with a new power to hold judicial settlement conferences to assist parties to negotiate their own settlement.

Recently I announced a new Whenua Māori Fund—$12.8 million over the next 4 years. This fund supports owners and trustees who are looking to improve their existing operations, diversify, or prepare for new opportunities. I have also announced other new measures that will give councils more workable tools to deal with ratings of Māori land when it is unused and unoccupied. That will provide a more equitable approach to rates of exemptions for marae, urupā, and land that is set aside under Ngā Whenua Rahui covenants and will improve the rating valuation for Māori land.

We will be looking at solutions for landlocked Māori land, the effects of paper roads, and how the Public Works Act could work with the unique characteristics of Māori land. A new Māori Land Service will be developed to support Māori landowners in all of their land matters so that they can achieve their aspirations and so that they can take full advantage of the new legislative framework contained in this bill.

I want to conclude as I started, with the purpose of this bill. The purpose of the bill is to recognise and provide for the mana and tino rangatiratanga that since time immemorial Māori have exercised, and continue to exercise, over their lands, resources, and taonga, in accordance with tikanga Māori and, consistent with the guarantees given to Māori in Te Tiriti o Waitangi, to protect the rights of owners of Māori land to retain control, occupy, and develop their land as a taonga tuku iho for the benefit of present and future generations of owners, their whānau, and their hapū. If we can achieve this purpose, then this will unquestionably be one of the most important measures this Parliament will consider for Māori in our time.

I am proud of the work that has been done. I am proud of this bill, which is available to the country after today. I hope that they will engage with the process to ensure that when this bill comes back it will be exactly what we want: the ability for our people to make the best use of their land and yet for it to be retained in the hands of our tamariki mokopuna. I commend this bill to the House.

E ngā mema o Te Whare nei, tēnā tātou katoa. Whatungarongaro he tangata, toitū he whenua—a man disappears from sight, and the land will always remain. Labour’s position is unambiguously clear: we will not be supporting this bill to first reading. As Labour’s opening speaker, along with my colleagues, I will highlight why we are taking this position: specifically the concerns we have around the substance of the bill, the process followed, and the clear risks to Māori landowners.

In my contribution, I would like to cover three particular areas in this debate. First, I want to provide a brief historic account of Māori’s relationship with whenua, rights guaranteed under the Treaty of Waitangi, and touch on the current Te Ture Whenua Maori Act. Then I want to make comment on the process that has brought this bill to the House, and if time allows I want to make some constructive suggestions for the select committee to consider, presuming the bill will be passed in the House today. Finally, I want to touch on the substantive parts of the bill, namely the significant change of the role of the Māori Land Court and the yet-to-be-established Māori Land Service, and make comment on the critical issues facing Māori landowners that this bill does not comprehensively deal with, namely landlocked land, paper roads, land acquired under the Public Works Act, succession, and ratings.

The importance of land or whenua to Māori cannot be overstated. Our whenua has cultural and spiritual significance and is recognised as taonga tuku iho—a treasure handed down from earlier generations to be nurtured and looked after for the next generations. For iwi, hapū, and whānau our connection to our land is a connection to our personal and tribal identity. Strong legislation applying to Māori land is, therefore, essential to Māori, not just in providing rules for governance of a key important resource, but for maintaining the connection of people to their land and identity. The Tiriti o Waitangi principle requires effective protection mechanisms and properly informed, broad-based support of Māori. This bill, I believe, has not fulfilled either of these requirements.

After over a century of struggling with the effects of bad legislation that disadvantaged Māori and led to the massive loss of land, a hard-won Crown-Māori consensus, informed by the 1975 land march led by Dame Whina Cooper with a catchcry of “Not one more acre”, resulted in our current law: Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993. Today Māori freehold land comprises of over 1.4 million acres—approximately 5.5 percent of New Zealand’s land mass. About 26 percent of Māori freehold land is in Ikaroa-Rāwhiti. So in representing the many concerned landowners in my electorate, I have actively led Labour’s response to the Government’s Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill.

Why reform Māori land laws? The Crown asserts the current Act’s constraints have led to the underperformance of up to 80 percent of Māori land and believes new legislation will unlock hundreds of millions of dollars in returns for owners. This is exceptionally misleading. Under the Act many Māori entities are thriving economically. Wī Pere Trust, Mangatū Blocks Incorporation in my electorate of Ikaroa-Rāwhiti, and Tuarōpaki Trust in the Minister for Māori Development’s own electorate of Waiariki are some fine examples of economic success under the Act.

The current Act took more than 10 years to pass through the various stages of lawmaking. This shows the consideration required when attempting major changes to the relationship between Māori and their whenua. The New Zealand Māori Council and the Māori Women’s Welfare League were active political watchdogs of successive Governments, at the time, to ensure Māori land law had retention at its heart. The Law Commission also played a significant role.

This bill replaces that hard-fought principle of retention with a principle of utilisation that in effect removes the protective mechanism of the Māori Land Court and introduces the alienating principle of engaged owners. This is a fundamental shift in this bill. It looks nothing like the Act. Not only is it a complete rewrite, it takes the hard-fought principle of retention and overnight and without consultation, in the dark of night, replaces it with a corporate principle of use, abuse, and allows the elite, privileged few to benefit at the expense of the many. This is why Labour is not supporting this bill at its first reading.

Let us turn to the process. I have been critical of the process around the reforms because the Minister has not applied the necessary level of care. Since publishing the first draft bill in May 2015, the process has been characterised by a sense that the Minister is determined to rush through this bill, come hell or high water. In terms of process, let us look at the genuine lack of empirical research and problem definition. The Waitangi Tribunal found that the reforms have not been progressed with sufficient empirical research, meaning that the Crown and Māori cannot be fully informed on the rationale for changes or on the implications arising from some changes proposed. The Waitangi Tribunal further states that reforming this legislation without genuine consultation and broad-based support from Māori would be a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi. The Waitangi Tribunal declared that the consultation hui in June 2015 breached legal standards.

There have been limited opportunities for Māori landowners to genuinely consider the newly proposed bill. I attended many of the hui, including over half of the 21 hui hastily organised this February, that forced the Waitangi Tribunal to release a chapter in advance of its final report. Many attendees at these hui were at a loss as to why so little time was given to absorb the details and implications of the bill. The Minister heard it for himself. By introducing the bill to Parliament, the Crown has failed to ensure fair and valid consultation processes, and that is why Labour is not supporting this bill to the select committee.

Policy made on the hoof—with over 110 changes made to the bill since the exposure draft was first published in 2015, Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill represents policy made on the fly. A key issue is whether reforms can be effective when the bill has been subjected to such ongoing unplanned changes. Creating policy in legislative settings off the cuff is high risk, and it is concerning that it took a tribunal hearing to prompt further revisions to the bill from the Minister’s officials. The reforms now present as legislation being written on the go, without a clear analysis of impacts. The lack of empirical research on the existing Act and rolling, off-the-cuff policy changes to the bill mean that there is a lack of rationale for the reforms and no way of ensuring legislative solutions are fit for purpose. This is why Labour is not supporting the bill.

In respect of parts of the bill, I mentioned the role of the Māori Land Court. Because there has been no extensive research on the existing Act, it is impossible to say whether the removal of the Māori Land Court’s protective role will help good governance of land. In my view, the proposed changes to the role of the court are high risk. In the bill, engaged owners will be able to represent the interests of all owners for certain decisions, rather than the Māori Land Court making such determinations. Originally, this proposed shift in decision-making authority was linked with a compulsory shift in governance to new rangatōpū structures, which would have set governance plans. As the new rangatōpū governance structures are now optional—one of the many off-the-cuff changes made to the bill—there is no longer a quality safeguard in place. This means that if related parties—the engaged owners—are making decisions on behalf of others, they will be doing so with no set framework or quality standard of governance. In my view, an impartial court judgment therefore offers safer decision-making processes.

I move to the Māori Land Service. It is unfortunate that Māori landowners have not been given sufficient information on how this service will run, where it will be based, and, more importantly, what its role will actually be. It is not enough to say this work is in progress, given the expectation that succession and land development services will be provided by this yet-to-be-established service.

In terms of what the bill does not cover, at the 2015 hui and the hui held in February this year Māori landowners asked specifically that it cover access to landlocked land, paper roads, land acquired under the Public Works Act, successions, and rating. This bill does not deal with these issues in any comprehensive way. Labour supports the findings of the Waitangi Tribunal, and we respectfully ask the Government to immediately replace the retention principle, including the protection mechanism provided by the Māori Land Court.

Order! The time for the member’s speech has expired. Before I call the Hon Christopher Finlayson, I will say to Marama Fox that throughout that address she constantly interjected. That would be one reason for commenting, but, more importantly, she seemed to mix the member and me up, and she should not do that.

That was a most interesting address. I find it very difficult to believe that I am standing in this House following a member of Parliament who made a speech like that in opposition to what is a fundamental reform of Māori land law. I am very pleased to stand here today and express my admiration for the Minister for Māori Development and the phenomenal work he has done on what is a fundamental reform of Māori land law. It is incredible to have to say this in this place, but there have been more than 180 statutes relating to Māori land over the last 162 years—180 statutes over the last 162 years—and, unfortunately, that volume of legislation reflects a tendency to tinker with this important issue rather than deal with comprehensive reform.

The time for comprehensive reform is now, and this Minister—this Minister—has had the courage, determination, and intellect to pursue the issue. And let me say this to Meka Whaitiri and members of the Labour Party: we are doing exactly what Labour said it would do if was re-elected in 2008. Its policy in 2008 was this: “to help Māori realise the economic potential of Māori land by reviewing Te Ture Whenua Māori Act.” Then, in 2011, the same Labour Party said: “The most effective way to ensure the wellbeing of Māori is to grow the position of Māori in the economy.”—agreed. “Māori are no longer passive bystanders in the New Zealand economy—[they] are active participants.”—agreed. “Estimates of the size of the Māori economy range from $16b to $25b. The challenge for Labour is to grow this figure for the benefit of all Māori.” Then Labour proposed it would “review Ture Whenua land legislation to simplify the development options for multiply owned land.”

So what has happened that has caused Meka Whaitiri to have some kind of road to Damascus conversion to mindless and spiteful opposition? This is exactly what Labour would have done had it won a further term in office in 2008, and I take very strong exception to the comments made by Meka Whaitiri about process. The chronology matters, and so I will tell the House something about the chronology.

It was the late great Api Mahuika who spoke to me about these issues between 2007 and beyond, up till 2011—about the opportunities for developing land governed by Te Ture Whenua. So when I became the Associate Minister of Māori Affairs to Pita Sharples, I got together a group of experts to look at the particular issue: Toko Kāpea from Ngāti Apa, Matanuku Mahuika from Ngati Porou, Dion Tuuta from Ngāti Mutunga, and I particularly asked Dame Patsy Reddy whether she would look at it, because she had come across the issue in the course of working for me as a Treaty negotiator.

Everyone acknowledged that there were issues that needed to be addressed, and they went around the country, had many hui, and came up with the report. That report was consulted on, a further consultation was undertaken throughout 2013-14, and, in 2015, I took the most unusual step, as Attorney-General, of allowing an exposure draft to be released. The exposure draft was the subject of consultation, and then there were numerous other exposure drafts—not one exposure draft, but a number of exposure drafts.

There has been a glut of consultation on this issue, people have been consulted, and complaints about process are pathetic and they are wrong. I say to the New Zealand First member who intimated that he would be opposing the legislation at this stage, whatever that means—a lazy approach to analysing the legislation—that it was his deputy leader who took me around the Wairarapa pointing out urupā to which it was impossible to get access, and pointing out to me areas on the coastline of the Wairarapa where there had been cases to the Māori Land Court and there had been delays and expense in terms of the issues of landlocked land, and I said to him that these are issues that need to be addressed.

So we are biting the bullet, and we are not tinkering with the legislation and providing yet another amendment. We are looking fundamentally at the legislation, and at the very heart of it is the importance of land. I resent being told that this is some kind of Jesuitical plan to relieve Māori of their land. For 7½ years as the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, I have returned more land to Māori than any other Minister, because I am utterly committed to the issue of restoring iwi to their rightful place, and the preservation of land and respect for land, which culminated in the 1975 Māori Land March, is a fundamental issue.

💬 Peeni Henare: Then it was given straight to the Department of Conservation.

I have done a lot in the far north—far more than that member has ever done. He is very happy to talk about things but in this place you are judged not by fancy talk; you are judged by actions.

💬 Peeni Henare: How did it go with Ngāti Kahu?

We will get there with Ngāti Kahu. We will get there and we will even get there with Ngāpuhi because we are utterly determined to succeed. We are not going to be a “Sideline Sam” simply criticising; we are actually involved in changing people’s opportunities and improving the lot of iwi, so that is what this issue is about. To suggest that somehow we are interested in undermining the whenua is simply ridiculous. What we are wanting to do is provide mechanisms for better development of land. That is at the heart of this reform.

There is another suggestion that somehow we are wanting to undermine the Māori Land Court, which is nonsense. We are wanting to make the court more effective and relieve the court of a whole lot of administrative burdens that could be done through a Māori Land Service and leave the courts to focus on the judicial function. There is nothing novel in any of this. Exactly those reforms occurred in the High Court in the early 1980s, relieving the judges of the need to be responsible for every procedural step and letting them concentrate on judicial determination of disputes once they reached the courts, and leaving the parties to sort out a lot of things for themselves.

The current Te Ture Whenua Maori Act was important because of its focus on land retention. It served an important purpose. But its over-reliance on oversight by the court has perpetuated a negative and unjustified perception that those Māori landowners who become actively involved with their land somehow cannot be trusted. And it has never addressed—it has never addressed—the fundamental policy issue that the law should recognise and provide for the mana and the tino rangatiratanga of Māori in relation to their lands rather than undermine those concepts.

So this is a very important reform. I am pleased that it—hopefully; assuming the votes go through—goes to the Māori Affairs Committee, because these are very important issues that we need to debate. This reform has been a long time coming. The process has been impeccable. There has been a glut of consultation. There are major issues that need to be looked at for the benefit of the Māori economy, and I must say I am so very disappointed that, whereas in 2008 and 2011 Labour was prepared to address this issue, the Labour Party in 2016 is adopting what can only be called a spiteful and pitiful approach to this legislation.

Tēnā rā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Tuatahi, māku hei ‘hakapūaretia i aku kōrero e tautoko ana i ngā mihi ki a rātou kua whetūrangitia, me te maumaharatia hoki taua kōrero, “rārangi maunga tuia Te Ao, tuia Te Pō, rārangi tangata, ka ngaro, ka ngaro, ka ngaro.” Nā reira, ko taua kōrero ka tū honohono i a tātou te hunga ora ki ō tātou whenua.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. The first thing for me in opening up my sentiments is to endorse the tributes accorded to those who have become immortalised as stars in the heavens, and for me as well to reflect upon that aphorism: “Mountains aligned bind the world and the void while people aligned will be gone, lost, and will vanish forever.” In like manner, that wise old saying is the element that will bond us, the living, to our lands.]

Therefore, I would just like to acknowledge, first of all, the acknowledgments that Te Ururoa Flavell made to our departed. He raised a whakataukī, and I also started off with another whakataukī that says: “A line of mountains will stand, day and night; a line of people will fall, will fall, will fall.” In that way, we acknowledge our connection, as those who are living, to the land.

As Meka Whaitiri has so eloquently said in her speech, the Labour Party is going to oppose this bill. Let me just say that we oppose it because somebody needs to speak for all of our constituents across Te Tai Tokerau, Meka Whaitiri’s constituents across Ikaroa-Rāwhiti, Peeni Henare’s constituents through Tāmaki Makaurau—many of whom are absent landowners—Nanaia Mahuta’s constituents through Waikato-Tainui, Adrian Rurawhe’s constituents through Te Tai Hauāuru, Rino Tirikatene’s constituents through Te Wai Pounamu, and even the Minister’s constituents through Waiariki.

I have seen, through a lot of the documentation, the claim that there has been broad-based support for this bill. There is broad-based support for this bill depending on who you are talking to in Māoridom. Let me tell you now about the consultation hui. There were 22 in February of this year, of which Labour had representation at 14. Let me tell you about the two that I attended, one in Kaikohe and one in Whangarei. The one in Kaikohe, there were about 100 people. I got there; the hui had already started, and all I saw was a line of officials talking at the people. The people around me did not know and did not understand what was being said. They could not comprehend it.

I believe that there were workshops where a 64-page document was handed over. This is separate from the consultation hui. The 64-page document did not include the 370-page bill, and I ask: how are the people of Tai Tokerau, of Tāmaki Makaurau, of Waiariki, of Te Wai Pounamu, of Tai Hauāuru—all our constituents—meant to understand what this bill means for them? They do not understand. They were spoken to—they were spoken at, I should say. And, of course, as could only happen in Ngāpuhi, the people who were there jumped up, criticising, yelling, shouting, and, basically, they told them—some guy behind me said “You can stick that bill where the sun doesn’t shine”. Of course, he was a ring-in from down south, because in Ngāpuhi we do not speak like that. But the reality is that is the extent of the feeling of the people in regard to this bill.

That afternoon I went down to Whangarei. The Minister turned up and he addressed the hui, and, I have to say, I rang him afterwards to say: “Good on you for turning up and fronting the bill.” The reality is the reaction at the Whangarei hui was no different to the reaction at the Kaikohe hui. There were about 120 people at the Whangarei hui and, again, there were motions from the floor asking for this bill to be thrown out, there were people jumping up and down—it was, basically, chaos. And those are the people—those are the people whom we are standing up and speaking for, who do not understand what this bill is going to do for them.

The thing is that the Minister has not articulated to them a case for change. He has not articulated it so that they understand what is going on. If a case for change is not articulated, how are people meant to understand whether it is good or bad for them? The way to do it would have been to go in, with the bill, and break the hui down into little groups and get people to explain. The way that the consultation hui were held was just one big forum, and people did not really have the opportunity to ask the in-depth questions and to get a personal reply. That is one of the things that needed to happen in order for people to understand exactly what is in this bill. But that did not happen.

How are people like forestry workers, freezing workers, linesmen, people working in The Warehouse and at Pak ’N Save, and beneficiaries meant to access a copy of this bill? How are they meant to spend time to try to go through it and engage with it, sit down with people and ask questions around it, and even just engage with their whānau? How are all the people up in Tai Tokerau meant to print out a copy of this bill and then pull it apart and really work out what it means? They did not have the opportunity, and having a bank of officials standing there, explaining why this is going to be so good for them, without them actually understanding how it is going to be good for them—or even if it is going to be good for them—just does not work. So we are standing up and we are talking for our constituents, the people who voted us in and whose voices we need to represent, and whose thoughts we need to reflect on this.

There has not been a case for change as to why the 1993 Act does not work because, as Meka Whaitiri said, there are any number of Māori trusts and incorporations that are doing perfectly fine. They are doing very well. We have got a $40 billion Māori economy under this Act, and all of these Māori trusts and incorporations that are doing really, really well. So if it is a matter of capacity and capability, why do we not address the capacity and capability? If it is a matter of leadership, why do we not address it? If it is a matter of governance, why do we not address it? Instead, we are changing this bill.

The Minister said that the bill requires a wholesale change—why could it not just be that the parts that needed to be amended be amended? Nobody is convinced—sorry, I should not say “nobody”. Those who are convinced that there is a need to change operate at that sort of Māori corporate level, but the people whom we represent, the vast majority of Māori, the broad base of Māoridom, the people at the bottom of the Māori pyramid—not the people at the top—do not understand what this bill is all about. They see it as a bit of a land grab—whether it is or not, that is how they see it. And that is why I say we are reflecting the voices of our people, because we mix with the people in the streets. The people in Kaitāia or Kerikeri, Kaeō, Kaikohe, Kaiwaka, Dargaville—

💬 Pita Paraone: Mōtatau. Don’t forget Mōtatau.

—they do not understand. The people of Mōtatau, they do not understand. If there were a handful of people from Mōtatau at the engagement hui—and Pita Paraone was at the engagement hui—would they understand? Are they any wiser after attending the consultation hui?

The Waitangi Tribunal came out with 16 recommendations. I have seen in here that five of those recommendations have been addressed. Māori have a lot of time for the Waitangi Tribunal; they have got a lot of respect for the Waitangi Tribunal. The Waitangi Tribunal does not always come out on the side of Māoridom, as we have seen recently with the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement, but Māori look forward to these recommendations and they would like to have seen these recommendations actually changed and enforced. But only five of them have had any changes made to them. It shows that the voices of the people are not actually being heard—not properly—and the real changes that people want to see have not been made.

As I say, there has not really been a case for change articulated. I disagree with the assertion that there is a broad base of support for this, because when we are talking to the people in our communities, out on the streets, they do not see the case. Therefore, I believe that this bill should not pass. I get the feeling that it will go on to select committee, and there I hope that everybody out there listening and watching who has concerns actually does submit and make the changes, so that it does meet their needs and that they can be satisfied that it is good for them and their whānau and their whenua. Kia ora.

Kia ora, e Te Mana Whakawā, mauri ora. Tēnei te mihi me te īnoi ki Te Whare nei, e mihi atu ki a koutou katoa. [Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and good tidings to you. I wish and plead of this House, good tidings to you all.]

One of the most powerful concepts for Māori is tūrakawaewae. This is often translated as “a place to stand”. It highlights the fact that at the centre of our identity as Māori is our connection to the land. When the Europeans came to New Zealand, they viewed land as a commodity to be owned by people, and Māori viewed land as Papatūānuku, the mother who gives birth to all. Land provided an important economic base for Māori. It allowed them to provide all the resources they needed to feed and shelter their whānau. But land means much more than that to us. It is much deeper, culturally, and particularly within these connotations. Land represents our identity, our history, and our future.

Traditionally, Māori did not own plots of land. Rather, ownership rights of various kinds extended from the relationships between hapū and the resources of the land. The years since the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840 have seen huge and drastic changes to Māori land. We are all familiar with the massive alienation of land that occurred, with less than 5 percent of all land remaining in Māori hands by 1987. In fact, until 1993 Māori land law focused on providing a legal framework to transfer land out of Māori control. Te Ture Whenua Maori Act / Maori Land Act 1993 changed that, and put the focus on retention of Māori land. That Act also highlighted the importance of utilisation—how Māori land is used to maximise Māori economic development—but, actually, the focus of the law is on retention and on preventing any further alienation of land. That is what is being done under this Act.

Since 1993 we have seen a huge number of Treaty settlements progressed, mostly under the two National Governments to date. This has resulted in a great deal of land returning to Māori ownership—over 190,000 hectares by 2012, and largely under this present Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations. There is now a need to update the legislative framework for Māori land and to correct the balance to bring a bigger focus on to the utilisation of Māori land. Retention is still important, but that is what we have seen already, and it has been done relatively well. It is the utilisation of our land where the current law has been letting us down. Many large areas of Māori land are underperforming because the current legislation does not give owners of that land the freedom or the decision-making powers they need to be able to use that land to its full potential.

Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill has undergone a very extensive process before coming to this Parliament today. I want to acknowledge the work of the Hon Christopher Finlayson, who in 2012 put in place a panel to review Te Ture Whenua Maori Act / Maori Land Act 1993. I also acknowledge the members of this panel, consisting of Matanuku Mahuika, Dion Tuuta, Toko Kāpea, and Patsy Reddy, our Governor-General-in-waiting. I acknowledge the work of Te Puni Kōkiri, as well, and all of the other agencies, iwi, and hapū that have participated in the consultation process to date.

I want to particularly pay tribute to the Hon Te Ururoa Flavell, the Minister for Māori Development. When I look at this Minister, I am reminded of Sir Apirana Ngata, another man who stood in this House as a leader amongst his people. In the same mould as Ngata, I believe that Te Ururoa Flavell will be remembered as a man of foresight, a man with the vision to see what could be achieved for Māori, and a man with the intelligence to choose the right solutions and the drive to carry them through. This bill may well go down in history as his greatest achievement. It is a groundbreaking piece of legislation with far-reaching effects on Māori well-being—on Māori well-being—in this country. At times the Minister has had to put up with a great deal of nasty stuff from our own people—from those who have perhaps not understood the great strengths this bill will bring to our people. Through it all he has captained this waka to this point, and I look forward to working with him to see this bill through the rest of the process.

As the two Ministers have already outlined, this bill has the potential to provide massive benefits to Māori, unlocking the commercial value of so much underutilised land. I hope that this House can be united in our desire to reform Māori land law for the benefit of Māori and of New Zealand. The Māori Affairs Committee looks forward to working on this legislation with our usual principled and pragmatic demur. As the Hon Te Ururoa Flavell, and also Meka Whaitiri, said: “Whatungarongaro te tangata, toitū te whenua.” [The land remains while the people have disappeared.] I also say, with regard to the Minister, that this one is for the Minister: “He tuka mata anō tō te taoka.” [Fortune as well favours the brave.] On that note, I commend this bill to the House. Kia ora.

Kia ora. Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Huri noa ki tēnei Whare, tēnā koutou katoa. Yes, Māori have always known that whenua literally is life. Whenua is also placenta. “Whenua” is the word for land and is also the word for placenta. When Māori babies are born—indeed, when all of my babies were born—we return the whenua to the whenua, such is the inherent link that we maintain through whakapapa, through wairua, through tūpuna, and through rangatira. Whenua absolutely is our taonga tuku iho.

So this bill is incredibly important, then. Any law regarding ture whenua, any law regarding whenua Māori, is incredibly important—too important to get any part of it wrong. Māori land and the rules that govern it are too important to get wrong, and, for a long time, the Green Party has also acknowledged that we have had problems, starting right back with our land. Starting right back with the huge amount—we lost nearly all of it through confiscation, through straight-out theft, through administrative means, and through law. So it should come as no surprise, then, to this House that there is also widespread concern from Māori about ture whenua law. That should come as no surprise.

I do acknowledge Minister Finlayson getting quite upset over any opposition. Why? Why is he upset that there are any concerns about this law? Regardless of whether they come from the Opposition—but, actually, they are also coming from our ordinary Māori. Why should we be surprised at that? For far too long we have been done over in our whenua by many means—by straight-up theft and by administrative and legal means—so we have to take concerns seriously and not dismiss them as party politics and not dismiss them as raging up conspiracy theories. We cannot do that to our people. We cannot do that to our people, and for that reason the Green Party will not be supporting this bill. We are opposing its referral to a select committee. I stand here strongly, as our Māori development spokesperson, to talk about us opposing this bill’s referral to a select committee.

I want to talk about the opposition again. Yes, the Waitangi Tribunal itself did not consider the consultation efficient enough. I just want to stop there. The indicator of good consultation should have nothing to do with how many meetings were held there and for how long. The indicator of proper consultation is whether or not our Māori have broadly and collectively understood absolutely what is going on with reform. That is the measure of proper consultation.

Again, I do not want to be told about how many meetings were held, where, and how long we have had to look at a piece of legislation. I want to hear that Māori have broadly and collectively understood what is being proposed for our land—for our precious last bit of land that is left. For that reason, again, we cannot support this bill to the select committee. Yes, the point of these reforms was that they were supposed to address the underutilisation of Māori land. Again, the Waitangi Tribunal even agreed there has not been the proper research—the research by observation and experience to determine exactly what the barriers are to land use. That research was not done. Why would we rush ahead with reforms when we are not clear what the very barriers to land use actually are? And not just research, but research by observation and experience to tell us what those barriers are.

We know very well what one of the main barriers is. It is development funding. It is development funding. The amount of development funding currently proposed in this reform, as my Labour colleague Kelvin Davis said, is a packet of corn seeds for each hectare or so. The Green Party has policies that are simple and clear and address this part of the underutilisation of land. That is actually a simple reform—just that alone. Just investing in development funding alone would remove a barrier, without this controversial reform that is before us in the House right now.

There are clear principles the Green Party agree need to be upheld as we take any land reform law forward. It absolutely needs to be driven by Māori. I agree with the tribunal that it was not the Crown driving all of this change, but it certainly was not all Māori driving this change. I think we need to be very clear about that. The tribunal has even said and agreed this is not solely being driven collectively by Māori. That, in itself, should put the brakes on any reform. There is a whakapapa. Yes, Māori have long been demanding an easing up of admin for our land use and so forth, so that we can retain mana motuhake over what we do—absolutely. But the whakapapa of that starts to get a little bit muddy when we see at some point the Crown started having too much to do in there about driving those reforms.

I want to know, I want to be guaranteed, that when Māori way back were asking for reforms, that was not then picked up and exploited by the Crown to drive some changes, saying: “Oh look, Māori are wanting changes. Let’s do this as well.” I want to be guaranteed that is not what is happening. Not even the tribunal is clear that it is not. It needs to be solely driven by Māori.

I have got concerns, but one of the other concerns I wanted to raise today is the Māori Land Service. It is a critical aspect of this reform, but it is not included in the bill. The details of it are unclear. How can we put something before the House—something as critical as the Māori Land Service—when we know too little about it? The Green Party agrees with the Waitangi Tribunal that we cannot advance any law reform while something so critical to the running of this legislation has details that are unclear. The work on this has not been done yet, and that is clear. The Green Party cannot support this reform in light of such a critical aspect of the bill being yet to be done.

Again, the Green Party policies absolutely uphold the vision for Māori to maintain mana motuhake over our land. It needs to be driven by Māori, and the concerns need to be taken seriously. We have a right to be concerned about any law reform. We have historically been validated in our concerns about any law reform. So yes, mana motuhake for Māori land; not this bill at this stage. Thank you. Kia ora.

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Tēnā hoki tātou o Te Whare nei. Ēngari te mea tuatahi, e kara, e Te Minita, kei te tautoko au i ngā mihi i mihingia e koe ki tēnā o ngā hunga i ngaro atu ki te tirohanga kanohi i te rā nei. E tika ana kia mihi tonu ki a rātou, nā reira, kua ea, ka hoki mai ki a tātou ngā mahuetanga ō rātou mā, nā reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and to us also in this House. But the first thing is to say to you fellow colleague and Minister for Māori Development that I endorse the tributes you accorded to that one of those who is lost from our view today. It is fitting that our tributes to them continue to be accorded, and in like manner that has been satisfied. And so we come back to us, the ones left behind by them. Therefore, I acknowledge, commend, and greet each of you collectively]

I stand on behalf of the New Zealand First Party to participate in this debate and to express a number of views that we hold in relation to this proposed legislation. One of the questions I want to ask is why it has been so important for the Minister for Māori Development to introduce this piece of legislation—as Minister Finlayson said, it is a fundamental land law reform—in such haste, given the number of our people who have expressed concerns about the introduction of Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill. Although we might support the intention of this bill, i.e. to ensure the retention of the bill and to develop Māori land—the Minister made the comment that under this bill no land will be lost; no further land will be lost—I would like to ask the Minister, how much land was lost as a result of the present legislation?

💬 Marama Fox: Much, much.

No, no. You have got to be clear about this. OK, there was Māori land lost, but was it as a result of the present legislation?

💬 Marama Fox: Yes.

If you have got examples as to the reason for that, as a consequence of this present legislation, then why do you not just amend that part of the legislation?

💬 Marama Fox: We have.

But no, you have gone and introduced a new bill, and it is new, given that there are a number of concerns that certainly are not in the present bill, like tikanga Māori. We make reference to tikanga Māori, but this is one bill that does not include tikanga Māori in the interpretation. I wonder why.

💬 Marama Fox: It’s in there.

No, it is not in there.

💬 Marama Fox: It’s in the first clause.

You tell me what clause.

💬 Hon Te Ururoa Flavell: I’ll go and get it for you.

I will stand corrected if it is there. I could not find it. But anyway, that aside, if that is to be an important element of this bill, the question is how that will be ruled upon by both the Māori Land Court and the proposed entity that is yet to be established. I would suggest to this House that much of the intention that this present bill has can be done within the ambit of the present Act. I can recall when I worked in the Māori Land Court, and I am sure that there are very few people in this House who can make that claim, we were able to do things like help families deal with their succession—how they wanted their tūpuna’s land to be distributed amongst their whānau. So why do we have to introduce a new bill to establish a new entity to do all that?

The problem is that over the years the Government has not supported the Māori Land Court. It has not given the Māori Land Court the resources it has needed over the years to do the very thing that the Minister is wanting from this bill. And to be excited about a fund of $12.4 million over—how many years?

💬 Meka Whaitiri: 4 years—peanuts.

It does not make much money available for development, and in the north a lot of land is landlocked because of the geography of it—because of the size of those blocks—and, more importantly, because of the wish of the owners. They want to retain the land as it is. And I can recall a time when Māori owners were asked to clear their land of scrub—of mānuka, of tea-tree. Is it not ironic that today, in this day and age, economics are telling us to grow mānuka because honey is such an important commodity wanted by the world?

I am suggesting to the Minister that he should pull back this bill, like he did with his former colleague’s Te Reo bill—put it on hold—and then go back to our people.

💬 Hon Te Ururoa Flavell: We’ve done that.

Well, I do not know. In the north—Mr Davis made a comment about the hui that we attended, and quite clearly the people who attended those meetings were not happy and asked that consideration be given to putting this bill on hold.

💬 Hon Te Ururoa Flavell: I went to Kaitāia, and they said it was all right.

Ah! Yes, I wanted to make reference to that Kaitāia hui. The other hui in the north were all held at night-time so those who work—and in the north there are very few of my relations who do work—were able to attend and to express their opposition to the bill. But the Minister went to Kaitāia, and only because the people of the north said that they should have a meeting in Kaitāia because it was not planned originally. The Minister turned up, and all our kaumātua turned up as well, because it was held during the day. It was too cold at night. All the kaumātua turned up, as well as some young people. Some young people wanted to object, but under the tikanga, their kaumātua told them to sit down, and now the Minister has come away from that hui with the impression that the people in Te Aupōuri, in Muriwhenua actually support the bill, and, in fact, they do not. And so, Minister, I would ask you to seriously consider pulling this bill back and having a look at it, because at the end of the day, if you do not have the people with you, then we will be back in this House asking for amendments to the legislation.

Again, I ask the question: why the rush? All of this is against the objection of many Māori, particularly in the north. Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 was a major piece of legislation affecting Māori and their land. As the Minister said, the Act is not perfect, and so we had amendments to address that issue, but what the Minister is saying about this bill is that it is better, not easier. And I would suggest to him that time will show that this bill is not the bill that he envisaged. Quite clearly, the people who know about this bill are those who are operating in that corporate area. But the Joes, the Hōhepas, and the Heenis of Māoridom do not know the actual content and the implications that it will have on them and in terms of their ownership of their land—what this bill will have on that. New Zealand First will not be supporting this bill. Kia ora.

Ā, tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker, nei te mihi atu ki a koe, otirā, ki Te Whare! [Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and, at the same time, to the House.] I rise to support the sentiments of my co-leader, the honourable Minister for Māori Development, Te Ururoa Flavell. Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill provides the platform for Māori landowners to assert rangatiratanga over their whenua if they so choose. This bill shows that this party, the Māori Party, and this Government, in support of this party, have faith in our people—that they can be the determinants of their own destiny—by providing them with a vehicle by which to do that.

Yes, this bill will not answer all the issues of landlocked land, of ratings, of paper roads, but it is the vehicle and the catalyst by which we will do that in the supporting work programme. Now, the members of the Opposition know that, and yet they still choose to pull out the stick with which to whip us about in order to politicise this argument. I say that this argument is far too important for politicising and game playing. Yes, we can be concerned that we do it right, which is exactly—exactly—why you put out an exposure draft.

What other piece of legislation in this country in recent history—or if ever; I am not sure that I know of one—has had an exposure draft; puts out a draft piece of legislation and says “Here, pick it apart. Tell us what is wrong with it so that we can make the necessary changes to put it back into the House.”, and then, again, have further consultation through submissions? We welcome those submissions, as we welcomed the submissions previously that have helped refine this bill to the point that we have it at today.

This is about mana motuhake. It is about putting the power back in the hands of the people and not having a Government whip them into shape the way we whip up the conspiracy that goes on around the place—that, oh my goodness, we are doing this just so that foreign corporates can come and take our land. Why? Why would we do that? What foolish party would ever put its hand up and do that? And yet that is the very argument that has been purported by people who say we should not be politicising it, that we should not be talking about conspiracy theories, and who actually stood up and said the Māori Party was doing this to support the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

Well, that is a load of hogwash if ever I heard it. But let us not get too defensive, because, actually, there are fantastic things in this bill. This bill is going to help realise the dreams and aspirations of our tūpuna—our ancestors—so that we can realise potential for our people to assert their aspirations in this country. The principles in the foundation of the new bill—mana motuhake, taonga tuku iho, and whakawhanake; this bill is supported by those things.

And here are some principles—six important principles. Māori land endures as a taonga tuku iho by virtue of whakapapa. No one is taking that away. No one is trying to overturn that. We are upholding that. Tikanga Māori is central to matters involving Māori land, and yet we debate and argue about how we are going to determine whether tikanga Māori can be adjudicated in a court of law. Well, I say: “Who cares, actually?”. Because it is about time that tikanga Māori did lead our law. It is about time we challenged the very nature of this Government through our tikanga, and not be apologetic for doing so, but find a new way. So have some faith in yourselves, people. That is what this bill is about.

Te Tiriti o Waitangi is central to the application of laws affecting Māori land. Māori landowners have the right to decide how their land is used. Māori landowners have the right to take advantage of opportunities to develop their land for the benefit of present and future generations of owners and their whānau and their hapū, and that is a good thing. We should celebrate that. This last principle is that disputes involving Māori land should be managed in a manner that maintains and enhances relationships between the owners and the members of whānau and hapū. And this is what this bill endeavours to do.

Our people have mourned the loss of their land. Our people cry over the loss of their land. And, yes, I have been in those hui where our people have come in and told us story after story after story of how they have been disenfranchised from their land, but that did not happen under this new bill; that happened under the previous legislation, and that is why we are trying to change it. Actually, the very honourable Koro Wētere tried twice to change this legislation. My very own whanaunga Ben Couch tried to change this legislation, but the leadership at the time would not allow him to do it. Finally, we have a party with an independent voice and the guts enough to try to make the changes necessary so that our whānau can have real rangatiratanga realised through this bill. It is a vehicle. It is the beginning; it is not the end.

Now let us take a little walk down history lane. The first hui to discuss the changes to Te Ture Whenua Maori Act was held with a wānanga of kaumātua in 1999—1999. Have we rushed into this process? I say no. That hui was attended by Annette Sykes, Api Mahuika, Ben Hona, Bishop Muru Walters, George Thomas, Harry Satchell, Sir Hugh Kāwharu, Joe Rua, Koa Murdock, Mārama Henry, Matiu Wiki, Mauriora Kīngi, Mike Smith, Naka Taiora, Piri Sciascia, Rangi Manuel, Rākihia Tau, Rikirangi Gage, Ruka Broughton Jr, Te Auē Davis, Toko Rēnata, Topsy Rātahi, Toro Waaka, and William Blake. That is a pretty awesome line-up.

I am going to quote verbatim the things that they said, for the benefit of this House. These are the things that they expressed 20 years ago: “In reclaiming the Māori land tenure system, it was recognised that the autonomy of whānau, hapū, and iwi must be respected. It is for those communities to decide for themselves how they will operate, and by what means they will control the development strategies for their land use.” As one speaker stated: “Waiho mā ngā ariki o ngā whenua hei kōrero mō taua whenua.” [Why not leave it to the aristocrats of the lands, for them to speak on our behalf about the lands that belong to you and me.]

“The recent trends of iwi to legislate their constitutions were considered to be attempts to have their mana over their taonga tuku iho recognised and enforced. It was felt that these attempted to ensure whānau, hapū, and iwi carry out their role as kaitiaki, and to ensure that this would override Pākehā law.”—I am still quoting. These are not my words, these are not Te Ururoa’s words, these are the words of our old people, who gathered to tell us what they wanted to be done with Te Ture Whenua.

💬 Meka Whaitiri: That’s an old trick.

It goes on. Should we dismiss them because they are old? I think not. “It was also considered that the Māori Land Court should recognise the mana of descent and kinship groups over their taonga tuku iho. Accordingly, the role of the court should be reduced in direct correlation to the strengthening and development of mechanisms to reconstruct a Māori land tenure system.” Not my words, not the words of Mr Flavell, but the words of our old people 20 years ago. We have debated, from that day to this, the changes that we propose under Te Ture Whenua.

Find a new stick, because this is too important for the politicising and game playing. Our people’s lives depend on whether or not we can support them into jobs, into employment, to pull ourselves out of poverty, to pull ourselves out of hardship, so that we are not co-dependent on this Government, but independent of it. And Ture Whenua land reforms are a vehicle only, and it is the beginning. Reading No. 1—you have still got 6 months, submissions, and the Māori Affairs Committee to pull it apart and make sure that it is the robust document that will help provide that future for our people. I commend this bill to the House.

The next call is a split call. Denise Roche—5 minutes.

Ko Rangi-nui kei runga, ko Papatūānuku kei raro, ko ngā tāngata kei waenganui; tīhei mauri ora, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

[Rangi-nui is above, Papatūānuku is below, and mankind is in between; behold the breath of life, acknowledgments, salutations, and greetings to you all.]

I rise to take the second call—a short call—for the Greens on this, the first reading of Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill. I do that in the knowledge that we will be opposing this bill. The reasons for this were outlined in detail by our first speaker, Marama Davidson, but it is also because it breaches the very charter that the Green Party is founded on.

The opening comments in the charter of the Green Party say that “The Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand accepts Te Tiriti o Waitangi as the founding document of Aotearoa New Zealand; recognises Maori as Tangata Whenua in Aotearoa New Zealand;”, and then it goes on to commit us to four principles. The third principle is around appropriate decision-making. Our charter says that “For the implementation of ecological wisdom and social responsibility, decisions will be made directly at the appropriate level by those affected.”

The process that has happened to bring this bill to the House, we believe, does not meet our standards of appropriate decision-making, and we certainly would not want to see it continue through the legislative process. The second point is that we believe that this bill has the potential to create the kind of errors we have seen in the past from the Crown, where the Crown deliberately set up legislation that breached Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

In the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations’ address earlier today he stated that Te Ture Whenua Maori Act desperately needs reform. We are not necessarily opposed to reform in the right circumstances. He also outlined that over the last 100 years there has been something like 180 different pieces of legislation dealing with Māori land. Most of those, I would add—nearly all of them—were about alienating Māori from their land. It was not until the first Act, Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993, came into being that it actually put at its heart the retention of Māori land by Māori. So if we are going to, as a Parliament, reform this bill, then we need to look very, very, very carefully at how we do that before we even start.

The Greens agree with the report from the Waitangi Tribunal and with the concerns that it raised. Some of those concerns were around the fact that the consultation process has not been big enough or wide enough or sure enough to enable Māori to build support for this bill. We will not support this bill through the legislative process when it is not supported by Māori, because that goes right against appropriate decision-making principles, as outlined in our charter.

We are concerned that the governance of Māori land should be driven by Māori, not by the Crown. There is an unseemly haste to pursue this reform, when we still do not actually know—and the Waitangi Tribunal outlined it itself—what the barriers are to utilisation and economic development; what the barriers are with the current Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993. We believe there should be a slower process taken, and that there should be proper consultation; not consultation on the hoof, as happened with a shifting meal at every meeting, where different drafts appeared—in fact, where drafts of this appeared, which could not even be understood or digested at the time when the consultation was supposed to be taking place. So for these reasons we urge the Minister for Māori Development to pull this bill back and to think again, because we will be opposing it.

Labour makes no apologies for opposing the first reading of Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill because it deserves to be put under a bright red-line test, which Labour believes is necessary: (1) to ensure that the protection of whenua is at the heart of the bill, and (2) to ensure that owners, big or small, no matter where they are throughout the country, have their interests protected. And we will be vociferous in our attention to the detail. We could get carried away on the emotions, but we will not, because owners deserve a thorough look at the detail of this particular bill, which we believe actually challenges some of the fundamental aspects of what Māori believe the protection of land is all about.

Let me just point to a couple of things. There is a subtle change in language. In the bill that is being proposed there is a great emphasis on retention and utilisation. However, at the heart of the Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 the presumption was around protection, albeit with a heavily framed role for the Māori Land Court, but the presumption was about protection—two very different meanings, if you care to look at the dictionary. We will be testing officials on this matter.

We also believe that certain questions should be asked. Are the provisions of the bill weighted in favour of protection to ensure that disposition, or sale, or, you know, loss of land will not occur? If I was to take on board Marama Fox’s contribution, it is absolutely not going to happen. Yet clause 140, which deals with disposition, actually allows land to go to an engaged recipient or a governance body—no mention of whakapapa. So we will put a brightline test on those types of positions.

The other areas where we have concerns are on decision-making thresholds and participation of owners. We would like to know whether there is an ability, all through the process, to re-enfranchise owners who may have previously been cut out of a process as promoted in the bill. It deserves attention, because if we absolutely believe that our Māori connection to our whakapapa and to our whenua is fundamental to who we are—our sense of identity—then it deserves questions, and we will ask them. We are not afraid to be challenged on that.

We will also say “Be careful what you wish for”, because this is a diminishing of the role of the Māori Land Court. Yes, it is re-engaging owners to make decisions, but we would like to know whether or not this is just a kick and a flick to the Māori Land Court and its role, because it has built a judicial body of knowledge that is very helpful, and which many people have to look to in terms of building a case to make their connections in terms of succession to land ownership and the like.

I do want to comment briefly on the points made by Meka Whaitiri. There are a number of issues that are not addressed by the bill. The select committee will give due attention to that because if we are looking at fundamental barriers to utilisation, rating and valuation of Māori land is absolutely necessary. Without a word of a doubt I have to follow the lead of my colleagues Meka, Kelvin, and Peeni because the great majority of interests affected by this bill are in their electorates. So we need to be sure and robust and give the absolute confidence to owners in terms of whether or not this bill actually achieves what it says it is going to. We have questions. We are not convinced. We do not believe it should pass the first test. We were concerned at the exposure draft, and some of the omissions noted along the way, as a result of consultation and concerns from people, started to get slotted in.

This bill deserves a whole heap of attention. It has undergone a number of iterations. The speaker for New Zealand First Pita Paraone made the comment around the reference to tikanga but no particular definition. I had another look at the bill as well. I could not see the definition in the interpretation clause. Again, it is a simple point made by a colleague, but it deserves to be addressed because, again, whether or not you would define tikanga and have it within the context of a bill is a question that deserves the attention of the select committee.

We will not be criticised for politicising this issue, because if members of the Māori Party wanted this issue to be totally non-partisan, they would have consulted with all parties in the House prior to the exposure draft going out for consultation, and they did not. They are politicising this issue; they are making this a wedge issue for Māori. We have demonstrated that we have been constructive through Te Pire mō Te Reo Māori. We will not be criticised for being political on Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill—it is far too important an issue. Owners deserve better answers than what they are getting from the Māori Party.

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. I am pleased to stand to support this bill, Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill. Te toto o te tangata he kai, te oranga o te tangata he whenua. [The blood of man is sustenance, the welfare of man is land.]

The lifeblood of a person is food; the livelihood of a people depends on the land. For me, this sums up Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill as outlined by the Minister for Māori Development in his speech today. He said that to Māori land is everything. It is land that identifies us as Māori. The mountains, the rivers, lakes, and ocean coasts, the forests are all our landmarks—landmarks of the origins of Māori in Aotearoa New Zealand. These can be heard in our mihi, in our tauparapara, along with our linkages to our tupuna.

Since the original Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 was enacted much has happened—we know this. Much has happened in this House. There are a number of Treaty settlements that have gone through. There are the many, many debates that have gone on in this House, and people have come in from various iwi. They have come in, and our whole process for Māori land has moved on. So too must an Act—one that will reflect that; a more robust Act that brings into it the various changes that have happened over time.

But I have heard in my office the various dissentions around why this bill should not go ahead. We hear this from the benches on the opposite side opposing the bill. Some say that we are not ready. Some say that they do not like what is in it. That is what this whole process is about. This is about putting this bill here, passing it through its first reading, and bringing it into the select committee for the provision of submissions.

I have listened to the many contributions tonight around the role of the Māori Land Court. My experience with the Māori Land Court was not a good one. I went with an iwi so they could put forward a proposal that they actually decided, as an iwi, to do with some Māori land. It was to do with the establishment of an education institution, and they were stopped from doing that. It was through the Māori Land Court process that they were stopped from doing that. Today that building sits idle and decrepit. Nobody is looking after that building because the iwi cannot get to it. The bill that is going through its first reading today will actually help to resolve that for that particular iwi, as the Māori Land Court moves into a different phase of its role, and the Māori Land Service comes into being. This must be—it has to be—some relief for Māori landowners who have spent much of their time in the Māori Land Court fighting to utilise their land.

As a member of the Māori Affairs Committee I do look forward to the many submissions on this bill, from the many who attended those 70-odd hui. The Minister, through his hard work and his diligence, helped to make sure that we had as much input from whānau and hapū and iwi out there in our rohe throughout the country. It will be during this time, when the submissions come to us and the many concerns are brought to us, that the robust debate will be laid out in print for all of us to see. This will be the time—if the Opposition wants to put a “red line”, or whatever it is, test on it, that is the time. I am pleased to stand here to support our Minister. He has done an amazing job.

Ko au te whenua, ko te whenua ko au. [I am the land, and the land is me.] I commend the bill to the House.

Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. Tēnā tātou katoa. E tautoko ana ahau i ngā mihi kua tukuna ki te marea ka tau mai ki roto i te kaupapa o te pō nei. Ka tautoko anō hoki i ngā mihi ki ō tātou tini aituā, ngā mate huhua o te wā kua ngaro atu ki runga i ngā marae maha puta noa i Te Motu whānui. Kāti te wāhanga ki a au. Ki te pō haere mai, haere, ao ake ki a tātou e te hunga ora, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. Greetings to us all in the House. I endorse the welcome tributes accorded to the public who have arrived here to be among the matter at hand this evening. And, furthermore, I support the condolences extended on our myriads of mishaps and the very many deaths of the moment that have occurred on marae throughout the broad expanse of the country. But enough in terms of that from me. I bid welcome and farewell to the night, then, on the day that follows, cast my gaze upon us, the living, to acknowledge us all.]

Thank you for allowing me this contribution on Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill. I want to begin by addressing some of the claims made by Minister Finlayson towards me. I want to start that by saying a classic Ngāpuhi whakataukī, which goes like this: He karoro ka tau ki te toka, ka tiko, ka rere! [A seagull lands on the rock, defecates, and flies away!]

I am sure, as you grab your earpiece, it might be able to translate that for you. But that member said that he has done more than I have in the north. If I had the time, I would regale this House with 126 generations of my people, back from the beginning of time to myself, and the jobs we have done to protect our whenua, the job we have done to protect our culture, and the job we have done to protect our taonga. I stand here today as an embodiment of the 126 generations of my tūpuna from Te Tai Tokerau, representing them here on this important take. I am not one who gets too angry, but I just want to address that fact.

To the bill: we on this side of the House will not be supporting the bill. I echo the sentiments of my colleagues here on this side and want to, in my contribution, reiterate some of the points they have made and discuss some of the ideas and thoughts that I have on this particular bill. I want to start by talking about the Treaty settlements, just briefly. This House is constantly told about the efforts of this Government to settle Treaty grievances. I want to quote Sir Tīpene O’Regan, one of the grandfathers of the early Treaty settlement processes—alongside the father of my esteemed colleague here, the Hon Nanaia Mahuta—who said: “settlement on a basis of need rather than of right is almost certainly contrary to the Treaty itself, and is a concept that will eventually suffer review in the High Court.” I am afraid to say that this particular piece of legislation will suffer the same fate. We will see it being dragged through the High Court.

When we think of the judicial systems that will be there to adjudicate over such a piece of legislation, I want to acknowledge and address the words of tikanga that are found in this piece of legislation. Why should we leave the court to adjudicate our customs and our tikanga? You enter into a grey area when you start allowing a Pākehā construct to do that for us as Māori. No court will tell me on my marae what my tikanga is. No court will adjudicate over my ability to govern and to maintain my whenua.

I am reminded the efforts of my ancestor, a part of the 126 generations I have mentioned here, a man by the name of Te Kuhanga, who signed the Treaty of Waitangi. He later adopted the name Maihi Paraone Kawiti—the son of Kawiti. He was responsible within Ngāti Hine for establishing what is now known as Te Porowini, or the province of Ngāti Hine. What he did over 2 years, from 1875 to 1877, was consult with the people through numerous hui in Waiōmio, the mid-north. What he did was he gained the consensus of the people who lived on the land within the province of Ngāti Hine. He wrote a book that is known as Te Papa Toku o Ngāti Hine—the lands of Ngāti Hine, the ancestral lands given to him to care for, the ancestral lands that are now given to me and the members of Ngāti Hine to care for.

I want to talk briefly about the papatupu. The papatupu was put in place to protect the land. At the time, you will appreciate, a lot of land was lost, in part due to the pieces of legislation mentioned by Minister Finlayson. I want to acknowledge his efforts, and I want to make a commitment to him that that will not happen under my watch. As an administrator of land in Ngāti Hine this very day, I with my tuakana, member of Parliament Pita Paraone, are responsible for the administration of approximately 5,000 hectares of Māori land. We have dealt with the Māori Land Court—we have worked with it, we have argued with it and debated with it, and I have said in this House time and time again that we must ensure it gets the resources it needs to fulfil its job.

I am afraid this piece of legislation, and in particular the establishment of the Māori Land Service, will merely put the cart before the horse. What it will do is set up another process that will look at issues such as succession—succession of shares, succession of land. Running a parallel course to the Māori Land Service is everything else that the Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill that is being proposed today will bring. I do not believe that that is a strong, robust process. I believe we must fix those injustices of the past. I believe we must review the Māori Land Court. I believe we must resource the Māori Land Court to do the functions that it already currently does and does well. The deficit thinking of this arrogant Government is that there is far too much idle Māori land out there. I can tell you, as an administrator of Māori land, that our land is hugely productive. We have worked very hard over the past 40 years to make it that way. Is it perfect? No. Is it productive? Hell, yes.

This particular kaupapa, this particular bill, Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill, is something that gets us all passionate. We have heard the whakataukī, we have heard the expressions in this House about how important land is to us. Well, just as important is that we get it right. We must get it right.

💬 Marama Fox: We offered to work together and you rejected it.

We hear the member now spouting that we must work together. My colleague here, the Hon Nanaia Mahuta, has already stated that if this was done correctly at the beginning to gain full consensus of our people, we would not be voting against this. But here we are—but here we are. We are arguing and debating over this particular bill. We know that it will be going to the Māori Affairs Committee, and I say to members of that committee, of which I am a part-time member, depending on what food is being served at that meeting—I want to say kia mataara, kia mataara, kia mataara. Why? Because we on this side of the House will be challenging this bill. We will be picking it apart to make sure that the lines are drawn very clearly, that there is no grey area between tikanga l-a-w and l-o-r-e, because in those nuances land has been lost, and we will not see that happen again.

In conclusion, I want to endorse the words of my colleagues on this side of the House and implore the Minister for Māori Development to withdraw this bill to allow our people to digest it properly, to allow them to go through it with a fine-tooth comb. If we can wait nearly 200 years for Te Tiriti o Waitangi, I will tell you what, my tamariki and my mokopuna will be ready to do the same with Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill. I want the Minister to acknowledge the over 5,500 people who signed a petition asking this Minister to withdraw this bill to allow our people time. I can say to this Minister that 5,500 signatures on this petition are more than those who showed up to the hui over the past 5 years. We want their voices to be heard. We want their voices to be heard throughout this entire process, and you can bet your bottom dollar that we on this side of the House will be challenging this process all the way through. Kāti ki a tātau, tēnā tātau.

It is a pleasure to take a short call on Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill. I would like to commend the Minister for Māori Development and the officials for getting the bill here to this first stage.

I would like to contest what I have heard from those across the House today—that there is not a groundswell of support for this bill. I would reference Northland, Tai Tokerau, which is one of the regions most clearly set to benefit from these reforms. Let us test that support with statements from leadership in Northland. Far North District Council Mayor, John Carter, talking about the bill says this: “We have a whole lot of underutilised asset that is a liability for the owners, that is a liability for the community, and a liability for the community. … There are no losers. It’s all on the up and up, it’s great.” The chair of the Northland Regional Council Tai Tokerau Māori advisory committee is quoted as saying this: “This—[review of Te Ture Whenua Maori Act] coupled with ratings improvements—could provide significant economic benefits to both landowners and local authorities in regions like Northland.”

The Whangarei District Council, in its submission to the bill, made mention of the fact that 5 percent of its land is applicable to Te Ture Whenua Maori Act—868 individual parcels with an average size of 16.76 hectares. Its summary was: “Council acknowledges the importance of Māori land for the wellbeing of not only our Māori population, but the general population … As such Council is supportive of the intent of the TTWM Bill, which generally appears to support the retention and use of Māori land by its owners, empower Māori land owners to pursue their aspirations for their land and enable Māori …”.

To be fair, the council did have other parts it put to that bill. It was interested in crossover legislation, how it interacts with the Resource Management Act, and it was also interested in the Māori Land Service. But across Northland I believe there is a groundswell of support. That is what I am hearing and I commend the Minister and this bill to the House. Kia ora koutou.