Māori Purposes Bill

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker, kia ora tātou katoa e noho nei i tēnei wā, te wā e whakanuia ana te tekau tau o te noho o Kīngi Tūheitia i tōna taumata, e whakanuia ana ki runga o Tūrangawaewae i tēnei wā. Ka mihi ki a ia, ā, ki Te Kāhui Ariki, ki Te Kīngitanga e whakanuia ana i a rātou. Ka mutu, ko te āhuatanga ō tō tātou mate, waiho rātou kia tangihia, ā, anei tātou i tēnei rā, huri noa, kia ora tātou.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and salutations to us all seated here at this moment in time, at the time that the 10th year of King Tuheitia’s reign is being celebrated at Tūrangawaewae. I congratulate him, the royal entourage, and the King movement in the celebration. Furthermore, and in terms of the circumstances relating to our deaths, allow them to be mourned over, so here we are today; my appreciation to us all throughout. ]

I move, That the Māori Purposes Bill be now read a second time. The Māori Purposes Bill amends the Maori Purposes Act 1991, the legislation governing the Wī Pere Trust. This bill responds to requests for empowerment from the trustees of that trust. They wanted flexibility to balance their goals for cultural, social, and economic development, and preservation. This bill provides more autonomy for the trust and accountabilities to beneficiaries. This bill comes from them and what they want and what their beneficiaries want.

I want to take a moment to acknowledge Wī Pere, as I did in the first reading of this particular bill. He was acknowledged by Sir Apirana Ngata as a man of great mana who made significant gains for Māori land owners in the Tai Rāwhiti and East Coast region. I also want to mihi to the trustees, the custodians of Wī Pere’s legacy, and to the beneficiaries, some of whom are in the gallery, I hope, today. [Interruption] They are here today and have been following with great interest the movement of this bill.

The second reading follows a consultation process run by the trustees of the trust, with the beneficiaries, and the consideration of the bill by the select committee. I want to thank very much the Māori Affairs Committee, chaired by Nuk Korako. You heard and were responsive to the submitters. You also permitted consultation with the trust on changes to its initial constitution, and they are very comfortable with those, I believe. I very much appreciate your work. The bill as reported back strengthens the original intent of the bill. The technical changes provide clarity and simplicity. I think it has landed at the right place.

Let me provide a little bit of an overview of the bill, and also some information on some of the concerns raised in the first reading, and an outline of the key changes to the bill made in response to some of the submissions. In respect of autonomy and accountability, in this bill Ministers will no longer be responsible for any aspect of the trust’s administration. For example, where previously the Minister for Māori Development has appointed trustees, beneficiaries will now elect their representatives. This is as it should be—the owners and trustees making decisions about the land for themselves.

This bill also replaces the trustees with an incorporated trust board. That board will hold and manage trust property within the accountabilities set out in this bill. For example, the trust board must promote the purpose of the trust so that trust property is used to the benefit of the beneficiaries. The trust board must also comply with the legal obligations, including the Trustee Act 1956, and its constitution. The constitution is a new way for the trust’s internal management rules to be set out; legislation will no longer be needed to do so. The bill has minimum requirements for the constitution, and the trust’s initial constitution is attached to the bill.

As reported back by the Māori Affairs Committee, the constitution now allows beneficiaries to propose changes to the constitution, if they represent at least 10 percent of beneficial interests. The constitution now requires a minimum of five trust board members, so that a quorum requires at least three members. Additionally, the constitution must now be reviewed within 5 years.

In terms of succession—an issue raised during the discussions—the bill clarifies the trust’s succession arrangements, set out in the legislation. Lineal descendants of Wī Pere may succeed to beneficial interests in the trust. Spouses, children, and remoter issue who are not lineal descendants can succeed only to a life interest. As reported back from the Māori Affairs Committee, the Māori Land Court is given clear jurisdiction to determine whether a person is a lineal descendant. The bill relocates the management of the register of beneficiaries from the Māori Land Court to the trust board. It will now maintain the register and notify the Māori Land Court of any changes.

There was a comment about general land in the discussions in the first reading. We need to know that since the 1930s legislation governing the trust has deemed the trust’s general land to be Māori freehold land. The bill changes this. It allows general land that was deemed to be Māori freehold land to revert to general land status. Approximately 29 percent of the trust’s total landholdings will revert. For certainty, this land is listed in the bill. This does not include the trust’s corpus lands set aside as papakāinga, and māra kai. The trust will also be able to acquire new general title land, which will remain as general land.

These changes align this bill with other legislation that supports tino rangatiratanga. Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill is an example. That bill explicitly recognises and provides for mana and tino rangatiratanga over the land. There is another example in Treaty settlements. Settling groups choose whether they receive land as Māori freehold title or in another form, and many groups do choose general land. The arrangements for general land will have no effect at all on land that has always been Māori freehold land, being approximately 71 percent of the trust’s total landholdings. The protections for this Māori freehold land are reinforced within the bill, and it remains under the protection of Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993. In terms of jurisdiction, the High Court will have jurisdiction for governance and administration matters, and over general land. The Māori Land Court will continue to have jurisdiction for the trust’s Māori freehold land.

Finally, I want to address two issues. They are technical issues by nature. Firstly, the bill includes cross-references to Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993. Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill, which focuses on national matters rather than on one particular trust, has now had its first reading. After this bill has been enacted, cross-references to Te Ture Whenua Maori Act will be updated by way of consequential amendments. Secondly, the Māori Purposes Bill also addresses a wholly separate matter: the correction of a wording error in the Maori Trust Boards (Transitional Provisions) Order 2012. The wrongly described Tauranga Māori Trust Board will be correctly identified as the Tauranga Moana Māori Trust Board.

In closing, this bill provides for mana motuhake. It supports the trust board to be more flexible in its choices, whether it preserves or develops assets, or whether it uses land for cultural or commercial purposes. Those choices will be made within an environment of accountability. I am very confident that this bill does what other legislation in relation to the Wī Pere Trust has aimed to do: to support the legacy of Wī Pere so trust property can be used to the benefit of the beneficiaries. Finally, can I thank, briefly, those officials who have worked on this bill. It has been much appreciated, particularly in light of the feedback from the Māori Affairs Committee and submitters. I commend this bill to the House.

Tēnā rā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker, tēnā rā koutou e Te Whare.

[Thank you indeed, Mr Assistant Speaker, and acknowledgments to you collectively in the House.] It gives me pleasure to speak on the Māori Purposes Bill, a bill that Minister Flavell has so eloquently described in terms of the way it is going to help assist the Wī Pere Trust to fulfil its obligations to its beneficiaries. Just a bit of background around Wīremu Pere, or Wī Pere, as he was known—a man born on 7 March 1837, 3 years before the Treaty of Waitangi. He went on to become a leader of his people and a member of Parliament, elected for the first time in, I think, the ninth Parliament, in 1884. He lost his seat in the subsequent election and the next election to Turi Carroll , but when Turi Carroll stood down to contest the general seat of Gisborne, Wī Pere won his seat again in, I think, the 12th Parliament, and carried on for four terms. When he passed away, Sir Apirana Ngata said there was no man who had done more for his people, and that is a huge accolade. In 1899 he established the Wī Pere Trust to protect his land and interests for the benefit of his descendants.

The trust, 117 years later, is still going strong, and the changes in this bill will help the trustees and the incorporated trust board to continue the great work that he started all those years ago. The Māori caucus of the Labour Party was honoured to be hosted by the members of the Wī Pere Trust about 5 or 6 weeks ago. We were able to see and visit the landholdings. They took us around two blocks where they are farming sheep and cattle on, I must say, some fairly rugged East Coast country. We came across shepherds mustering huge flocks of sheep on horseback, and you have to take your hat off to the conditions that those guys work under. Obviously, they enjoy their job and the freedom of the outdoors. We also visited the persimmon orchards and the kiwifruit orchards. We saw the vineyards that they have an interest in.

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: Persimmon? Wow.

Citrus—did I say citrus orchards? The Wī Pere Trust also has interests in marae. Some of the benefits that are distributed to its beneficiaries: for each year there is a $30 payment, there are education benefits, and there is an age grant. Everyone over 60 years of age who is a beneficiary gets a $200 grant, everybody who is over 80 years of age gets a $300 grant, there are tangi grants to assist with the substantial costs of tangis, and these are all part of the legacy that Wī Pere left for his descendants. I believe that the Wī Pere Trust stands as an example to other whānau and other hapū and other iwi right throughout the country as a way to administer lands for the benefit of the people. So I have to stand and applaud the trust and, of course, applaud the ancestor Wī Pere, who began it all.

The bill was not without its critics, and I will just go through a couple of the issues raised in submissions. There were concerns that the trust’s consultation with beneficiaries on amendments was inadequate or rushed, there were submissions that the amendments in the bill do not align with the purpose of the trust, there were submissions that the board will become more corporate in administering the trust, there were concerns about potential loss of land if the trust is used for investment purposes, and there were a few other issues raised, as well.

There is one issue, and it is in terms of the—there is a bit of friction between the use of the High Court and the Māori Land Court, and I will just refer to this one submission, where the submitter said: “I am concerned about the limited jurisdiction of the Māori Land Court and the powers conferred on the High Court in the bill to be the preferred court that interprets and applies the law for the Wī Pere Trust.” This is first seen in new Part 2, section 5(2) and 5(3) inserted by clause 9 of the bill, where it states: “The High Court has jurisdiction to determine any dispute relating to the administration and governance of the [Wī Pere Trust].” and “… the Māori Land Court has no jurisdiction to determine any dispute relating to the administration and governance of the trust”. The submitter goes on to say: “In my opinion, the Māori Land Court should be the preferred judiciary to determine any dispute relating to the administration and governance of the trust. I say this on the basis of two key points: firstly, the Māori Land Court has expertise in Māori customary law, whereas the High Court does not, and, secondly, the costs associated with lodging a dispute before the High Court is cost-prohibitive, which will severely limit and disadvantage the ability of shareholders to access justice.”

So, just to explain, the High Court is the court that costs more money. The cons of using the High Court is that it costs more money for people to put their foot through the door; the pros of using the High Court is that a decision is made a lot more quickly. For a trust like the Wī Pere Trust, it is a business. It wants decisions made quickly around its business. It wants them to be made as speedily as possible. Of course, the Māori Land Court is a lot easier, financially, for people to get their foot in the door—I think it is about $50 plus GST to get in the door of the Māori Land Court. However, decisions are made a lot more slowly, so there is a friction there between a business doing business quickly, getting decisions made quickly, whether the decisions go in favour of the trust or against—it does not really matter. I guess what they want is decisions made so that they can carry on with business in whatever decision is made, however it goes. For whānau, though, who may not be all that well-resourced, this does mean that their access to courts may well be jeopardised.

That is the real friction in terms of using the High Court or the Māori Land Court. To that extent, during the Committee stage the Labour Party intends to introduce a Supplementary Order Paper under the name of Meka Whaitiri that would remove sections 5(2) and 5(3), inserted by clause 9, so that the Māori Land Court has jurisdiction to determine disputes related to administration and governance. The High Court still has jurisdiction over general land acquired by the trust, but we do not believe it should have jurisdiction over the corpus land. It would ensure easier access to the court for whānau, but dispute resolution processes are the preferred avenue, of course. In the dispute resolution process it is always best to resolve any disputes at the lowest possible level, instead of having to get to the situation where you need to go to court. There is a disputes process, which is set out very clearly in new schedule 1.

To briefly go through it in the time I have, the first step is to notify the board in writing of a dispute, then there needs to be face-to-face dialogue to try to resolve the dispute at that level. If that does not work, go to mediation. If that does not work, there is a process through the annual general meeting, or to hold the special general meeting. Then, and only then, if those do not work, the court would be the next option. We believe that whānau that would have fewer resources actually need to have access to the Māori Land Court, despite the fact that it would take longer to get a decision. We do not believe that this is going to impact hugely on the overall running of the Wī Pere Trust.

As I said, it is an organisation that has done extremely well. It has 460 or so beneficiaries with assets in land of some $66 million. It has done very, very well over the 117 years the trust has been going. I believe that, as I have said already, it is an example to all of Māoridom for the way to run the affairs of whānau, hapū, and iwi so that everybody can be successful. Kia ora.

Kia ora e Te Mana Whakawā, huri noa i Te Whare nei e mihi atu ki a koutou katoa. Before I begin, I want to acknowledge the passing of a rangatira from Kāi Tahu, a rangatira from Rāpaki o Te Rakiwhakaputa. He was the first cousin of a late member of this House, the Hon Ben Rīwai Couch. I want to acknowledge the passing of Dudley John Couch, who was a really big leader, particularly within Rāpaki, the small village on Banks Peninsula. No reira, e Uncle e haere atu rā, e haere atu rā ki te pā o te whakawairua e takoto mai, takoto mai, takoto mai, e moe mai. Nō reira, uncle, e haere atu rā, e haere atu rā ki te pā o te whakawairua, e takoto mai, takoto mai, takoto mai, e moe mai!

[Therefore, uncle, depart. Go forth to the gathering place of the spirits; lie there, lie there, lie there, rest!]

I would like to speak in the second reading of the Māori Purposes Bill, just to cover the Māori Affairs Committee process and, particularly, around the submissions. The Māori Affairs Committee considered this bill very, very carefully. We received 225 submissions in total, including a number of form submissions, and we heard 20 submitters—we went to Gisborne to do that. As the chair of the Māori Affairs Committee, I want to focus on the submissions and the resulting changes we have recommended be made to this bill.

The bill as originally drafted would have limited the jurisdiction of the Māori Land Court over the affairs of the Wī Pere Trust. In most cases, we think this change is justified and we recommend that the High Court continue to have jurisdiction over disputes relating to the administration and the governance of the trust. There was a concern, though, from some submitters that this would make the process prohibitively expensive. However, we were comfortable that only very serious matters unable to be resolved through the trust’s constitutional dispute resolution procedures would end up before the High Court. We were comfortable with that.

We did think, though, that a change was warranted in the settlement of lineal disputes, particularly around whakapapa. The Māori Land Court has particular expertise in these types of issues—and we all know that—so we recommended moving the responsibility of lineal descent disputes back to the Māori Land Court.

There were also some concerns raised with us about the difficulty beneficiaries had in influencing board decisions and the lack of accountability the board had to the beneficiaries. So to combat this concern we have recommended that the trust board’s constitution be reviewed within 5 years of the new Act coming into force. We also recommend changes that would allow beneficiaries to propose changes to the constitution of the new board through special resolution. Around the composition of the board, we have also recommended an amendment to ensure that the trust board comprises at least five members, but no more than seven. This will ensure that the minimum quorum is three, removing the possibility that a situation could arise where the quorum was only two.

We have also recommended a minor change to clause 6.2 of new schedule 1, which would add the word “materially” to clarify the effect of the clause that requires disclosure of board members’ interests in business before the trust board. We have also recommended another clarification, which ensures that decisions at board meetings “must be”, rather than “may be”, decided by simple majority of the members present. We have also made recommendations that will ensure that there are no adverse and unintended tax consequences of establishing the new incorporated trust board or of the resulting transfer of trusts, assets, and liabilities. This is one point that we have seen in a number of instances about that transition period when there is a change in the constitution of the trust. This is one of the reasons why we have made this recommendation.

I want to thank the Wī Pere Trust board members and those beneficiaries who contributed to the select committee process. The trust, as we know, is a longstanding and very successful Māori enterprise. The good thing about this trust is that it actually is a trust that is all about regional development in that area. Even though this bill is small and has a direct effect only on a small number of people, it is right that we should be debating these changes, which will make the trust board more accountable, allow it to adopt its own rules for its management, and remove the current ministerial involvement from the governance of the trust. On that note, I commend this bill to the House. Kia ora.

Ā, tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker, otirā, e pīrangi ana ahau ki te tautoko te mihi kua mihia e Te Minita ki a Kīngi Tuheitia me ōna tau tekau i runga i tōna tūranga. Nō reira, ko te tūmanako kia uhia mai e Te Runga Rawa ōna manaakitanga ki runga ki a ia, ā, tihei mauri ora! Kei te mihi hoki au ki a rātou mā kua tae mai, ngā uri o Wī Pere i tēnei rā, nō reira, tēnei te mihi ake ki a rātou.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and at the same time I want to endorse the acknowledgments accorded by the Minister to King Tuheitia and his 10 years in his role. My hope, therefore, is that the Almighty Above places His protection upon him; behold, the sneeze of life! I also acknowledge the offspring of Wī Pere who have arrived here today, I commend them. ]

It is a privilege to speak to the Māori Purposes Bill. I had the pleasure of sitting in on the hearing of evidence from submitters in Gisborne, and I want to thank the chair of the Māori Affairs Committee, Tutehounuku Korako, and the members of the Māori Affairs Committee for the work that they have done on this bill. We have heard a number of speakers so far, all supporting the bill, and I stand to support this bill.

In listening to the submitters in Gisborne, one in particular struck me. She had brought to the select committee, as part of her submission, a portrait of Wī Pere. It was a very moving submission from her, and I want to acknowledge all of those who made submissions. I think it is quite clear from the report of the Māori Affairs Committee that those issues were heard, and not only heard but acted upon. We see within this second reading of the Māori Purposes Bill the changes that have been made to this bill.

I want to, first of all, look at and acknowledge the change made in new section 12, inserted by clause 9, clarifying the function of the trust board. I think that adding a new provision in there to actually explicitly say what the function is is the sort of thing that acknowledges what the submitters were saying about the way that the new trust would operate—so do, as other members have noted, the changes introducing the explicit acknowledgment of the jurisdiction of the Māori Land Court and the High Court as they refer to the new trust in this bill. I think that the Māori Affairs Committee has got that absolutely right. I think, again, it addresses some of those submissions from beneficiaries of the Wī Pere Trust who had some concerns around their ability to access the courts and the prohibitive nature of having to go to the High Court.

I want to also talk about the changes to the governance. As my colleague Kelvin Davis pointed out, I was one of the ones who had the opportunity to visit some of the operations of the Wī Pere Trust, and it is very impressive, not only in the type of business and operations but also in the way that it has achieved, to date, great success in its farming operations in particular. That is done under the current governance arrangements. I look forward to the next decades coming, under a new governance arrangement, and look forward to further successes from having a changed governance arrangement.

I would go so far as to say that the current arrangements are paternalistic in nature, and this bill addresses that. It removes the Crown—the Government—involvement in the governance arrangements, and I think that is a good thing. After 117 years there is no doubt that the Wī Pere Trust is able to govern its operations all by itself, and after 117 years it does not need any input, really, from the Crown. So I want to acknowledge that.

I also want to acknowledge that this bill, in my opinion, enhances the rights of the beneficiaries. It gives a lot more clarity around how they are able to participate in the ongoing management and governance of this organisation. In the first reading I spoke about concerns around papakāinga land. They were certainly discussed at the select committee and by the submitters. I am absolutely confident that concerns around the potential of having papakāinga lands within the trust sold will not happen. I absolutely acknowledge the current trustees for giving their feedback through that submission process.

There are changes to what was once general-titled land. As the Minister pointed out, the previous legislation, in 1991, changed what was then general-titled land into Māori freehold land. This bill reverses that. I think giving the trust the opportunity to purchase other lands for the purpose of investment and then also trading that for other investments is OK as long as what is referred to as the corpus lands are not touched, and that is guaranteed within this bill.

I again acknowledge the trustees for the work that they have done. I do not want to take up any more of the House’s time. I think that this is a very good bill. It sets out to do what it says it sets out to do, and I commend this bill to the House. Tēnā tātou.

Kia ora, Mr Assistant Speaker. I stand to take a brief call on the Wī Pere Trust—on the Māori Purposes Bill—today. Before I do that I just want to acknowledge the Māori King Tuheitia’s koroneihana celebrations in Waikato over the next few days. I just want to wish them well for their celebrations.

I want to talk a little bit about an author, Witi Ihimaera. Witi Ihimaera is a whanaunga of the Wī Pere whānau. His nanny was a descendant of Wī Pere. Witi Ihimaera wrote a book called Māori Boy. When we went to the submissions in Gisborne, the way that those people spoke about their lands and the way that he had written about his life, growing up on those lands, and the power of his nanny, and how, back then, they developed their governance and they developed the trust lands and the way that they managed their lands—it all came to light for me as I sat and I listened, and as I read through the bill and the submissions that came forward. So when we heard today about the fear—I think the member Kelvin Davis talked about it—of their trust adding in a level of trust board and the fear that they were turning into more of a corporate body, that did not surprise me. There was a fear of the unknown, and I think the way that the bill has actually set itself out—with the implementation of the section on the trust board and the functions of the trust board and how that will operate and also how the first trust board members will come from the actual trust itself, trying to keep that continuity going through that transition period—should bring some comfort to the whānau of Wī Pere.

When I hear about grants to whānau from that trust I am reminded of the payments to the kaumātua for the Atihau-Whanganui Trust in Wanganui. They too enjoy some of the fruits of that land incorporation, just as the Wī Pere Trust whānau enjoy their annual cheque or payment that they get as lineal descendants of Wī Pere. I too look at the way that Māori land is actually managed in this country over time. It does not surprise me that our Labour colleagues were impressed with the way that those lands on the coast have been managed. It has taken a lot of blood, sweat, and tears to get them there, as new innovations come about and our Māori whānau pick those up and incorporate them into their farming industry.

I stand proud to be part and parcel of that, as a heritage in my whānau as well. I can see that the way forward for this trust is going to be a very prosperous one. Yes, there are going to be a lot of ups and downs. Yes, you do not know what your whānau are going to say when you go to submissions. We have it every single time, as a select committee, when we go and discuss bills like this. They all come in, and it is an opportunity for everybody to have their say.

There is not really much more that I can add. Everybody who has spoken before me—and no doubt those who will speak after me—will continue to outline what is included in this bill and will also give their views on how the submissions went. For me, what I heard, what I saw, and what I have read really came to light for me after I had finished reading that book Māori Boy, written by Witi Ihimaera. I literally could see everything start to unfold. I will conclude my contribution here. I have no hesitation in commending the bill to the House. Kia ora.

Tēnā koe e Te Māngai, ā, tēnā tātou katoa ngā mema Pāremata o tēnei Whare, kia ora! Anō hoki he mihi mahana, mihi aroha ki a Ngāti Kuhungunu, Rongowhakaata, Te Aitanga-ā-Māhaki hoki. Ā, ki a koe te tupuna, a Wī Pere me tōna whakapapa me ngā uri, ā, kia ora koutou katoa.

[Greetings to you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and to all of us, members of Parliament of this House, greetings! Once again I bid you a warm and affectionate welcome Ngāti Kahungunu, Rongowhakaata, and Aitanga-a-Māhaki, and to you the ancestor Wī Pere and his genealogy, his descendants, my acknowledgments to you all.]

It is my honour to stand for the Green Party and speak in support of the Māori Purposes Bill, in respect of changes to the Māori Purposes (Wi Pere Trust) Act 1991. We are very clear—the Green Party is very clear—and have long stood for the position that Māori must be empowered and trusted to make governance decisions over their land, their people, and so forth. That absolutely is upholding Te Tiriti relationship and mana motuhake, tino rangatiratanga, which is what our tūpuna always envisaged for our people. What we are debating here in the House is that the Māori Purposes Bill will remove the Crown, so that is the mana motuhake part—the removing of the Crown from the administration of the Wī Pere Trust, and we fully support that move.

As we have heard, and I will repeat again, the trust was created in 1899 to be able to care for, and be the kaitiaki—a collective kaitiaki—of the estate of the prominent East Coast leader and politician, Wīremu Pere. This is a sizable trust, as many of my colleagues have put forward to this House today—I think we are talking about 460 beneficiaries, and net assets of around $66 million, which has probably grown since last year, but that was the recorded number.

The purpose of this bill—we need to be very clear about that. What the Wī Pere Trust wants to do is to make their whenua more usable, make their land more usable, which requires for the trust to be more commercially flexible. They want to be more accountable to beneficiaries. They want to improve the governance arrangements and remove the unnecessary Crown involvement. On the face of it we absolutely support and uphold those kaupapa and that vision for their trust. Essentially, this bill is to corporatise the trust and to corporatise its workings in terms of the way that it runs its business.

So the positive is that we will see a more modern trust organisation, unshackled from the Crown—that is a good thing—that is able to move Māori organisations forward. What I do want to spend a little bit of time on—I take it very seriously, being on the Māori Affairs Committee and hearing submitters, and also in the tradition of the Green Party—is about ensuring that the concerns are given space and are given an airing, which is part of a healthy democratic system.

I was very honoured to be at the Gisborne submissions. The submitters were very, very clear that the whakapapa and blood connections needed to be retained at all costs. We have heard that in a good move—the work of the Māori Affairs Committee—the Māori Land Court will retain being able to determine that, as a more knowledgable organisation when it comes to tikanga Māori and mātauranga Māori.

Absolutely there were concerns that there could be the possibility of a minority of owners being able to override the majority. That concern is not for nothing, because the mandate was something that was raised—the mandate given to making these changes. So although there was a 91 percent vote of support, yes—but, as with Te Tiriti settlements, only 30 percent of eligible voters actually voted. I certainly have always questioned what sort of a mandate that is. This is actually not always a criticism of the trust either, because we do need to acknowledge the real difficulties and the challenges of engagement, the real difficulties and challenges of trying to sort of fit Māori organisations into an imposed, essentially, Pākehā and Crown system. That is always met with challenge and it is nearly every time met with a low level of engagement. However, it was a concern that was noted and one I feel obliged to raise.

It is not so much corporatisation in and of itself that is opposed by Māori. That concern is also not for nothing, and it is raised across many Māori settlements and process changes because of the very real threats, which we have seen over hundreds of years and many generations, of what can happen when we shift power—when power imbalances arise. My colleague Catherine Delahunty will spend a bit more time on that issue when she gets to her speech, absolutely.

I want to pick up on one of the submitters, who said: “We do not fully understand the benefits.” Although I think there is strong confidence from this House that the benefits will be forthcoming, that still does not take away from the fact that beneficiaries have a right to be incredibly convinced about those very benefits. I acknowledge my colleague Joanne Hayes in recognising the fear of the unknown, but I still think it is incumbent that every single effort is made to ensure that beneficiaries are comfortable and can fully understand the benefits.

The protective mechanisms of the Māori Land Court have been discussed, as well as the costs. We sort of had to weigh up, a little bit, the difference between cheaper access and longer times taken to try to resolve issues, disputes, and so forth. I hope the changes made through ongoing discussions, as well as in the Māori Affairs Committee, can ensure that there is not going to be a huge problem of access for whānau.

One more concern that I raised in particular was around conflicts of interest for trustees and board members. We see that the select committee has tried to ensure that that part of the legislation will keep things transparent and above board for all of the beneficiaries. Also, the rollover of the trustees—the fact that, in going from the board to the corporation—[Bell rung]. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. Is that 1 minute to go?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Two.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. They did question a straight rollover, as opposed to a vote for trustees, but I understand that that is a standard practice.

I will just spend the last few seconds talking about the aspirations that whānau also had. I am hearing in the House that the trust does indeed have whānau-centred and whakapapa-centred aspirations and projects happening. I look forward to hearing that every single beneficiary feels that they are at least going to look forward to the benefits—that the power will be spread fairly and justly across whānau and beneficiaries. I want to acknowledge the hard work of the select committee to make the changes that try to ensure that very just application of power and benefits. Lastly, I want to emphasise my absolute wish that the Wī Pere Trust continues in the nature of the tupuna Wīremu Pere, and kia kaha to the work that it does. Kia ora.

Ā, tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker, tēnā anō tātou o Te Whare nei. He tū wāhi poto tēnei ki te tautoko i ngā mihi i mihingia e tō mātou tangata mai Te Wai Pounamu, tana mihi ki tetahi o ngā rangatira i roto o Ngāi Tahu, i hinga atu i te rā nei, nā reira, kei te tautoko i ngā mihi i mihingia e koe ki a ia.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and greetings to us of this House once again. This is a brief call to endorse the tributes accorded by our man from the South Island to one of the leaders from within Ngāi Tahu who passed away today, and so I support the tributes that you from the South Island made to him.]

Listening to the debate so far has been very interesting. For New Zealand First, we still have some disquiet about some of the issues, particularly those that were expressed by the submitters who presented their submissions in Gisborne when the Māori Affairs Committee was there to listen to them.

First of all, I just want to acknowledge just how well the Wī Pere Trust has operated since its inception in 1899. I can recall my comments during the first reading of this bill that if it ain’t broke, why fix it, given the number of assets that it had and that up until this point in time there has not been any major issue—well, it certainly has not been made public. If there has, then perhaps that is all the more reason why this bill should not go any further, but we have not heard any adverse comment about how it has been operating and how it has been able to increase its asset base.

One of the things for us in New Zealand First is that we are seriously looking at this issue of the quorum. Although the trust board may be made up of up to seven members, I would suggest that that may not necessarily be the reality. Although it is there and available for them, I would suggest that, possibly, in order to carry out the corporate work that corporates of this size normally do, the fewer number of trustees you have the better. So I would think that it would probably take the option of limiting the size of its board to just five. But for New Zealand First, with the trust having an asset base of $66 million and with the possibility of limiting the board to just three trustees, we think that that needs to be looked at. Perhaps the wording in the bill should be more specific and say that it has to be seven trustees as opposed to no more than seven trustees. That is one of the points that New Zealand First is still looking at.

The other point is this issue regarding the Māori Land Court. Although we support the notion that it should be left to the Māori Land Court to look at the lineal succession of shareholders, we are also conscious of the fact that in a few days’, weeks’, or perhaps months’ time, we will be talking about Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill, which, as part of its intention, actually removes that responsibility from the Māori Land Court and moves it back to what is regarded as a non-judicial entity known as the Māori Land Service. Listening to the discussion today, I note that speakers are supporting the notion of leaving that responsibility to the Māori Land Court, and yet, in a few months’ time, we will be back in this House asking that it be removed from the Māori Land Court and passed on to the new Māori Land Service. For New Zealand First, we have some issues regarding that.

During the process of hearing submissions, we heard from submitters their disquiet about some of the decisions that had been made by the trustees at the time without their knowledge. I am talking about contributions that were made to certain groups. We are not questioning the right of the trustees to do that, but, quite clearly, there were beneficiaries who expressed a very strong disquiet about their trust making contributions to certain groups. I think that that is just an example of when the beneficiaries are either not interested or not able to keep up with what the trustees are doing. I think that as the intention of this bill is to allow the trust to move into a more corporate area, then I would suggest to this House that a number of the beneficiaries, unaware of the machinations of corporatisation, will be lost in terms of the decisions that will be made going into the future. We are still of the view that the trust has been able to grow its asset base to the level that it has now under the system that has existed for most of the time of the trust. We would suggest that we are not convinced at this stage that—

I apologise for interrupting the member, but the time has come for me to leave the Chair.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.