Māori Purposes Bill

When we were last considering this bill, Pita Paraone was speaking, and he has 3 minutes and 30 seconds remaining.

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. I had not realised I had that long, but never mind. This is democracy, and I want to thank the House for this opportunity. The last time this bill was before the House I expressed the view of New Zealand First at that time, and we are still of the same view, that we would have difficulty supporting this bill, particularly around the position it has in regard to the Māori Land Court and the pending legislation that is gaining points of discussion amongst the Māori World, and that is Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill. Our concern was the removal of the role that the Māori Land Court would play, and also our concern about the possibility of a number of the beneficiaries not being able to exercise their democratic right as beneficiaries of the Wī Pere Trust.

I understand that the Labour member for Ikaroa-Rāwhiti, the honourable Meka Whaitiri, has an amendment that will address one of the concerns that New Zealand First has. I just want to signal to this House, at this time, that we would be supporting that amendment. Again, we see this is as part of the overall influence of some people, described as the “Browntable”, on the future administration of Māori land entities. The Wī Pere Trust, as part of its $66 million asset value, has a number of Māori land titles included in its assets. So I just wanted to signal that. Tēnā koe.

Tēnā koe. It is a pleasure to speak to the Māori Purposes Bill. Often we have bills in front of the House that are fixing something that is fundamentally broken or fundamentally wrong; this is not one of them. The Wī Pere Trust is successful. There are 460 beneficiaries and $66 million in net assets. This is a successful trust. But what it wants to do is to be more successful, and it wants to move through into a modern world. What this bill does is it allows the Wī Pere Trust to do that. It allows it to adopt a more commercial model and to achieve greater economic autonomy. How does it do this? Well, it replaces the trustees with an incorporated trust board with a body corporate status and limited liability. The trust is able to acquire and to hold land. It removes ministerial involvement from the governance arm, and it allows the trust to maintain its own register of beneficiaries.

The Māori Affairs Committee suggested several recommendations: first of all, that the Māori Land Court, not the High Court, be the court to determine lineal descent from Wī Pere; secondly, that there should be disclosure of trust board members’ conflicts of interest; and, thirdly, a review of the new constitution that is being formed under this bill in 5 years’ time. This bill is also futureproofing for legislation in progress. Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill is likely to require only consequential amendments to this, the Māori Purposes Bill. Together, this legislation will improve both the outlook and the benefit for Māori, and the Wī Pere Trust, with this bill, can embrace its new autonomy. This is a good thing. I commend this bill to the House.

Ā, tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker, tēnā koutou e Te Whare Pāremata i tēnei rā. I would just like to mihi to te Tairāwhiti iwi katoa, tēna rā koutou.

[And so, thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and acknowledgments to you collectively, the House of Parliament today. I would just like to acknowledge the whole tribe of the East Coast, hello there.]

Having lived in their rohe, the statue of the tupuna with which this bill is associated stood down by the awa, so often we would be having rallies—sometimes protests, sometimes meetings, sometimes strolls along the riverbank—and there would be Wī Pere. So Wī Pere has always been a significant figure, whether the citizens of Gisborne understood it or not, for tāngata whenua in that rohe, and I am just acknowledging all of the whānau associated with it.

The Green Party would like to acknowledge the comments of previous speakers, and the Māori Affairs Committee, because issues were raised around the rights of people associated with the trust, in terms of access to information and the effect of further corporatisation. Issues were raised around the appropriate place for jurisdiction of disputes, and the Green Party would definitely support Meka Whaitiri’s Supplementary Order Paper around this. It is very important to recognise that there is law and there is law, and that the expertise of the High Court versus the Māori Land Court on customary law is an important issue. We look forward to and hope to see this proposed amendment go through.

We do support the right of the Wī Pere Trust to act independently—to have its independence separate from the interference of the Crown. This bill steps it out of the shadow of the Crown, if you like, into its own rangatiratanga jurisdiction. Stepping back from the detail of that, though, it is interesting because this trust has been in existence for a very, very long time—since 1899. But, in the end, whether it is 1899 or 2016, it is still the Pākehā legal framework dictating the process. It is still the issue of incorporation, the issue of trusts, the issue of Pākehā bankers’ models, in particular, defining land and the people’s relationship with the land.

In many ways, trusts such as this one have no choice; they have to stick within the framework that is available. But is that a framework based on hapūtanga and the opportunity for whānau? Nobody knows, because we have gone so far into the corporate reality that we do not ever question the way in which we do things. Many, many trusts like this have no choice; if they want to succeed, they have to play by the rules, they have to corporatise, and they have to create flexibility for themselves. But that is still reflecting the way in which law is interpreted very much from a colonial perspective.

In 2016, we have not actually moved very far, but we also recognise that this trust wants to do this. It wanted the Crown out of its business, so it is good that the Crown is out of its business, but we do think there are very real threats involved in the overall principle of corporatisation. A friend of mine who runs workshops on Māori structural models talks about the model of tangihanga. She is tāngata whenua, clearly I am not, so I am quoting her. She says tangihanga is the most intact structure that exists for organising, without corporate and hierarchical leadership, whereas most organisations are forced, if they have any financial status, to use the corporate model. And we all think there is no choice; there is no other way: TINA, there is no alternative, as opposed to TAMA, there are many alternatives.

So the challenge that we would put alongside the right of this trust to their self-determination is the challenge of whether this world is allowing hapūtanga to exist at all in any kind of meaningful way in terms of an economic base or an economic structure. Or do we dictate economic models through our judicial system and our legal system—including the Māori Land Court, which is not exactly an instrument of liberation, traditionally—or do we allow for a different way of doing things? That is a question for people who know more about these things than I do.

I am putting those questions because they have been raised with me. It has been raised with me whether the traditional governance models of the Pākehā world actually create the space for tangata whenua to do things their own way. Or is it just that we all have to do it the same and we all have to do it according to the dictates of modern hyper-capitalism, to put it bluntly. That is an interesting challenge. I do not have a quick answer to that. But when my friend says that tangihanga shows that everyone has a place, she says that everybody, without being told what to do, is valued, learns their traditions—I am interested in that as well—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order!

Kia ora.

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Ā, kua tae ki te wā ki te tautoko i tēnei pire ō tātou o te whānau o Wī Pere. E haere ana mātou ki te whakarongo ki a rātou, ka haere ā-kanohi mai ki mua i te aroaro o te komiti, he aha ai? Ki te whakatutuki i ō rātou nā wawata. Ēhara nā mātou tēnei pire, ēhara nā Te Minita tēnei pire, nā te hiahia me ngā wawata o te whānau ngā take kai roto i te pire nei. Kai te hiahia rātau i ēnei tīnihanga kia tutuki ai ō rātou na wawata, ngā wawata ō tō rātou tūpuna a Wī Pere. Ēngari mō ētahi, ka tika, mō te nuinga, te nuinga ō rātou kei raro i te komiti whakahaere i te whenua o Wī Pere. Ka hiahiatia ēnei tīnihanga, he aha ai? Kia whai rangatiratanga, kia whai i ō rātāu wawata, kia tutuki ngā hiahia mō ngā mokopuna me ngā tamariki mō ngā tau kei te heke mai.

Nā reira, mehemea ka tiro atu ki ngā whārangi o te pire nei, kua kite atu i ō rātou tīnihanga e hāpai nei i ngā hiahia, kāre rātau e hiahia kia whai atu i Te Kōti Whenua Māori. Kai te pīrangi rātau ki te whakatutuki i ō rātou ake huarahi. Nā, i rangona au i te kōrero o tēnei o ngā wāhine o Te Rōpū Kākāriki e kī nei: “Hika! Kai te whaiwhai noa iho tēnei i te āhuatanga Pākehā.” Well, ki te hiahia rātau kia whai i taua huarahi nā rātou anō tēnā! Nā rātou anō te i whakatutuki ō rātou wawata, wērā te rangatiratanga! Mehemea kua kite rātou, he hua kai roto i te ao Pākehā hai whai, ā, kua maukētia, pērā ki ngā kōrero ō tō tātou tupuna a Apirana Ngata, kua hinga atu: “Kia mau tō ringa ki ngā mahi o ō tūpuna me tētahi ki te ao Pākehā.” Mēnā he hua kai roto, ka taea te whakatīnana ō wawata. Nā reira, kāre e kore me tautoko. Kāre e kore me tautoko Te Pāti Māori nei i ō rātou na hiahia.

Nā, koirā te take e āhua ohorere nei au i tēnei o ngā pepa Supplementary Order Paper 205, nā tētahi o te komiti tēnei i whārikihia. Ko wai tātou, ko wai mātou o Te Komiti Māori e tohutohu i te whānau, me pēhea te whakahaere ī ō rātou ake wawata? Nā reira, ka āta tiro atu, ka āta tiro. Ka whakarongo anō hoki ki ngā kōrero tautohetohe o Te Whare kia rapu i te huarahi whakamua.

Nā, i a au e maumahara atu ki te kōrero o Wī Pere, i tiaki pai tōna whenua kia whai rawa te whānau i runga i te whenua, kia kore rātou e pēhi ki raro i ngā ture o Te Kāwanatanga hou i roto i Aotearoa nei, kia kore ai rātau e pēhitia ki raro i ngā ture Pākehā kai runga i ā rātau. Ēngari, koinei te huarahi mā rātau i tēnei wā, kia haramai anō ki tēnei Whare o tātau. Kia hara mai ki Te Kāwanatanga, kia purua ki roto i te ringaringa o Te Komiti Whiriwhiri Take Māori, kia whai i te huarahi whakamuri.

[Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. And so, the time has arrived to support this bill of ours of the family of Wī Pere. We will be going to listen to them when they come before the committee, and for what purpose—to fulfil their own particular aspirations. This bill is not ours, neither is it the Minister’s bill. The contents of this bill came out of the wants and hopes of the family. They want these amendments to fulfil their aspirations and those of their ancestor, Wī Pere. On the other hand, for some, it is fitting, for the majority; but for most of them, the land of Wī Pere is under an administrative body. Why are these amendments necessary? To gain autonomy, to follow their dreams, and to fulfil the needs of children and grandchildren in the future.

So if one looks through the pages of this bill, one will see their amendments accommodating needs. They do not want to follow the Māori Land Court. They really want to fulfil their very own procedures. Now then, I heard what one of the Green Party women stated: “For goodness’ sake, this is merely following a Pākehā way.” Well, they fulfilled their own aspirations; that indeed is independence. If you had not noticed, there are benefits in the mainstream world to pursue, and already grasped, much like the aphorism of our ancestor Apirana Ngata, who has passed away: “Ensure that your hand grasps the accomplishments of your forefathers, with a hand on the Pākehā.” If there is a benefit in it, your aspirations will be implemented. Without a doubt, it must be supported. The Māori Party will endorse their particular needs.

Consequently, that is the reason why I am somewhat anxious about this Supplementary Order Paper 205. This was tabled by a committee member. Who of us inclusively, exclusively of the Māori Affairs Committee can have the temerity to give advice to the family, and say how aspirations for them are to be administered? Therefore, it will be examined and scrutinised carefully. The debates of the House will also be listened to intently to find a way forward.

As I recollect from the account by Wī Pere, his land was well looked after so that the family benefited from it, and did not succumb to the new Government’s acts here in New Zealand so that they were not oppressed by mainstream laws over them. But, at this stage, this is the pathway for them, to come again to this House of ours; to come before the Government and place it in the hands of the Māori Affairs Committee, to find a way back.]

I apologise for interrupting the member. She will have 50 seconds to go next time we come to the bill, but the time has come for me to leave the Chair.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.