Papawai and Kaikokirikiri Trusts Amendment Bill

I move, That the Papawai and Kaikokirikiri Trusts Amendment Bill be now read a second time. I would like to acknowledge the hard work of the Papawai and Kaikokirikiri Trusts Board in getting this bill to the House. This bill was brought to the House to amend the Papawai and Kaikokirikiri Trusts Act of 1943 so that the board can better manage its functions.

The trusts have a long history in the Wairarapa, going back nearly 170 years, when two blocks of land were donated to establish a school in the Wairarapa. It involved the Lord Bishop of New Zealand as part of that Act, and since that donation those trusts have managed a Māori boarding school, from 1860 to 1865; then the Papawai Native School, which was opened in the 1930s; and then a further piece of land was added to the estate, which was purchased for Hikurangi Primary School, which operated for a few years from 1930 to 1932, which was then destroyed by fire. So that is a little bit of the history of the trusts.

The Act came into force in 1943—the Act that we are talking about today—to extend the powers of the trusts so they could better manage the practical use of the funds to advance specifically the education of the tangata whenua of Wairarapa. The Act is extremely archaic, it is out of date, and it is quite patronising in its terminology and what it is doing. So, for example, the Act required the trusts to donate two-thirds of their income to a post-primary education fund for scholarships for Ngāti Kahungunu, first, then for children of Māori descent on the East Coast, and then for Māori descendants anywhere in New Zealand—but controlled by the Anglican Church. So that is two-thirds that had to go to schools, specifically around the Anglican Church. The remaining third was to be paid out for the use of any post - primary school scholarship for books, clothing, equipment, assisting parents, and even residential costs, but it was specified.

This bill changes all that. This bill gives greater flexibility to the distribution of the funds by allowing scholarships for the post-primary education of children who have whakapapa in relation to the tangata whenua of Wairarapa. So it is not iwi-specific. It is for a wide range of uses—not specific uses—relating to education and educational support, and the requirements for scholarships to go to schools, as I say, conducted by the Anglican Church are outdated and archaic. The current Act—this is to do with the governance changes proposed in the bill—requires 10 members of the board, one of which must be a representative of the Ministry of Education, one appointed by the Māori Land Court, and four Māori descendants. So it is very, very prescriptive. The bill will establish a far more robust nomination process for board members. There will be eight board members, consisting of four members appointed by the bishop and also others appointed or elected by tangata whenua of Wairarapa in accordance with the process adopted by them and publicly notified, as you would expect. So this change will empower tangata whenua of Wairarapa by giving them the authority to decide whom they would like to see manage their trust funds and to decide on an appointment process that meets their needs. So there will be none of this patronising, dictatorial specification that is currently in the Act.

The Act also restricts the powers of the board by requiring all leasing of land to be in accordance with the Public Bodies Leases Act. The board could sell the land only with the consent of the Ministry of Education, but the Minister could not consent to the sale of land that had been required from any Māori tribe unless the Māori Land Court had been involved and given consent. So, again, it is very specific and very archaic—without giving any trust or any delegation to the people who are running the show. The requirement is unnecessarily complicated and needs updating. The bill will warrant the selling of the Clareville land, if the board wishes, but not the Papawai land or the Kaikokirikiri land without going through this process that I outlined.

I would like to acknowledge the board. The board would also be able to lease the three pieces of land that are available to them as they see fit—so, again, the bill is giving the trustees a lot more scope in conducting affairs as they should.

I would like to thank the Māori Affairs Committee members across the House for reviewing the bill and suggesting some changes. They have suggested the bill be enacted in Te Reo Māori as well as in English.

Clause 5 will be amended to be consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, and that was quite interesting because the original Act said that a trustee had to be of sound mind and have mental stability, or some such words. That actually breaches the Bill of Rights Act, so that wording is being changed. Of course, if those words were still there, half of us would not be able to be trustees of that board! There is a new section 4A, in clause 5, to specify the term of office of board members, and there have been some minor amendments to replace references to “2015” with “2017” to ensure that the bill passes before that date.

The bill will modernise the current Act to establish a more robust nomination process of trustees, remove the unnecessary restrictions on the distribution of funds and the use of the Clareville land, and allow for a much more flexible distribution of funds by the board, as they see fit. The bill can be achieved only through legislation, which is why we are here today. I commend this bill to the House.

E Te Māngai o Te Whare, tēnā koe, otirā, e ngā mema o Te Whare nei, tēnā tātou katoa. I am happy to take a call on the Papawai and Kaikokirikiri Trusts Amendment Bill in its second reading. As an uri of Papawai, o te whanau Rōpiha, as a practising Mihingare of the Anglican Church, and, of course, as the local member of Parliament for the electorate of Ikaroa-Rāwhiti, from which this bill stems, I stand in support of the intentions of modernising the Papawai and Kaikokiriri Trusts Board. I want to acknowledge the local member who has brought this bill to the House.

The convention for what I consider a non-contentious bill, like this one, is that you generally reach out across all members of the House to ensure that all views are taken into consideration when bringing a bill to the House, to ensure its safe passage. I just want to make that point because, in this case, that was not done.

I want to stand and say on record that we have got some fine people in this House who have whakapapa to Papawai. I particularly want to acknowledge the co-leader of the Greens Metiria Turei. Of course, we have got another colleague there, Ron Mark, and myself, and I have got colleagues from this side of the House who also have whakapapa to Papawai.

But back to the bill, Labour does support it. I want to share a bit of history around the word and kupu “Papawai”. Papawai has been a home to Wairarapa Māori for hundreds of years. The word “Papawai” literally means “a variety of fern root” or “water that lies on blue-coloured clay”. Some say that “Papawai” means “the tears of Papatūānuku”, when she was separated from her husband, Ranginui.

Papawai is still very much a working marae today. It has historic and cultural significance to New Zealand. In the last years of the 19th and 20th centuries Papawai was not merely the most outstanding marae in Wairarapa but one of the most culturally important in Aotearoa. At the peak of its national importance, Papawai was the largest marae in the country and the place where the Māori Parliament was built. Papawai was revered throughout the country as a place of great learning. A whare wānanga school of learning stood at Papawai. The oral history taught by important tohunga—experts—was recorded by Hoani Te Whatahoro Jury and Rīwai. Much of the basis of Māoritanga that is part of the New Zealand school curriculum has its roots in the teaching from the wānanga, houses of learning.

Papawai and Kaikokiriri Trusts Board was incorporated under the religious, charitable, and educational trusts Act of 1908. The college established by that board was destroyed by fire in the year 1932, and the trust funds were insufficient for the re-establishment and maintenance of the college, as set out in the trust deed. The purpose of the bill, the intention of the bill, which is, like I said, uncontroversial, is that it intends to modernise the Papawai and Kaikokirikiri Trusts Act 1943. The objective of this bill is to ensure that the relationship between Papawai and Kaikokiriri Trusts Board, the bishop of Te Upoko o Te Ika, and the tangata whenua of Wairarapa is upheld. The intention is also to establish a more robust nomination of board members process, to provide fairer distribution of funds for the tangata whenua of Wairarapa, and to facilitate the long-term development of land. The bill also changes the way the trust applies its funding, and no longer limits distribution to just Anglican Church schools. The board, for example, must appropriate income for each financial year to a fund, to be called the “Papawai and Kaikokirikiri Scholarship Fund”, and the bill sets out the process by which this fund is limited.

The bill also changes the make-up and appointment process for the board. It reduces the board from 10 members to eight and makes some minor amendments to definitions within the original 1943 Act. The bill further deals with the alienation of land—which I will mention again later—allowing the board more flexibility as to how it manages the land under its control. It was interesting that the member who has brought this bill to the House mentioned in his opening address how the land was donated. The bill changes the way the board’s investments are managed. That is the intention behind the bill, and anything that allows the descendants greater control over the lands and the running of the trust we here in Labour support.

But I want to turn to the report provided by the Māori Affairs Committee. I am not a member of that select committee, but I want to congratulate the chairman, under his chairmanship, and the members on that board for doing a very good job in bringing this bill to the House. I note that we had two written submissions and one oral submitter.

I just want to draw the House’s attention to two points that were made as part of the select committee process. One was on the definition of “tangata whenua of Wairarapa”. I want to acknowledge the post-settlement entity group, Rangitāne Tū Mai Rā Trust, who just noted and gave some recommendations to the Māori Affairs Committee about making it really clear that we are talking about Ngāti Kahungunu and Rangitāne, and also made some useful references, I think, to the fact of introducing the kupu of “hapū”. I see that the select committee considered and did not feel that it should adjust the definition, but, I think, for future purposes—because, you remember, this trust is going to be around a lot longer, after we have all gone—it is important that we actually allow descendants of those hapū, of those iwi, to see themselves in this bill.

The other one was around—and I mentioned it earlier—the timing for selling or leasing lands. I do want to commend the member who introduced it, making it really clear that the corpus lands—or the ones you have identified, Papawai and Kaikokirikiri—are protected under this bill, so that it is very clear that they cannot be sold, but making it really clear that Clareville lands could potentially be sold or leased on. So I just want to commend that particular amendment in this bill. Given our history around land losses in this country, it is something that I am very passionate about in this House—to ensure that not one more acre is lost, as legislators. So I just want to acknowledge that under the Act it was fairly broad in that you could potentially sell that land, and in this amendment bill that you are bringing to the House, you are making it really clear that you cannot sell those corpus lands. So I just want to acknowledge that.

Finally, I want to just comment on, again, one of the recommendations from Rangitāne Tū Mai Rā Trust, and that was the use of Te Reo. I read the Ministry of Justice’s response about how cumbersome it is to change not just this bill—because you have to actually change the entire Act, and that would take a long time, and of course we do not want to stop the passage of this bill. Can I just make the comment that in this country, as legislators, the fact is that Te Reo Māori is an official language of this country.

It may be something that you, as Speaker, or this House need to address: that we should not just be saying that in future we should be looking at introducing dual language bills into this House; we should have a more streamlined process for existing Acts if it is wished—if the people subject to those Acts want a dual translation. I just want to go on record as saying that I read the reason why they will not do it, but I am sure that there is an opportunity here as a House for us to be looking at creating mechanisms where dual usage—or multilingual, if that is what we want to get to—is not prevented simply because it will create a whole lot of unnecessary work and we have to draw the process out. So I just want to make that point, and, hopefully, when we come to the Committee stage, we might have some responses as to why we did not introduce the word “hapū” by the member. All in all, this is a very non-controversial bill. Labour does support it, and I commend it to the House. Kia ora tātou.

Tēnā koe, e Te Mana Whakawā, e mihi atu ki a koe, huri noa i Te Whare nei, tēnā koutou. Tēnei te mihi o te whanauka o te waka o Tākitimu, Kahungunu, e mihi atu ki a koutou.

[My thanks and acknowledgments to you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and to those of you throughout the House, greetings. I, this relative of the Tākitimu waka, acknowledge you, Kahungunu, my congratulations to you collectively.]

I take this call on the second reading of the Papawai and Kaikokirikiri Trusts Amendment Bill. First of all, I want to congratulate the member of Parliament for Wairarapa on bringing this bill to Parliament and also to acknowledge the MP for Ikaroa-Rāwhiti, our previous speaker, Meka Whaitiri, who gave us a very good overview of both Papawai and Kaikokirikiri. I also want to acknowledge my fellow members of the Māori Affairs Committee, who have worked really constructively on this bill. The other part is that in respect of those who did submit—there were very few submitters—it was really important that we did hear from them, particularly from the trust and Rangitāne Tū Mai Rā. I think the important thing that came out of that was the fact around the Te Reo Māori version, and the other part of it really was to make this fit for purpose for the 21st century.

The Māori Affairs Committee looked at this bill, and we continually will after this second reading, particularly around the Committee stage. One thing that I think is really important, and it was touched on very quickly by previous speakers—just to cut across a couple of amendments that we have actually recommended for the bill. One of them is actually around an issue that has arisen, in that the Attorney-General had issued a report under the Bill of Rights Act. Under that, it concluded that one provision in this bill is actually inconsistent with the Bill of Rights Act 1990.

The issue here centres around the provisions in the bill itself, which require a member’s position on the trust board to be vacated in certain circumstances. These circumstances—just to sort of highlight them—include members of the trust board becoming subject to a compulsory treatment order; that was the first one. The second one is becoming a special patient under the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992. And the other one was having an order made about them under the Protection of Personal and Property Rights Act 1988. I thought that this one here was a really important part, particularly around the report that came back from the Attorney-General. These provisions are obviously well-intentioned within the bill itself, but the intention is to ensure that if a person no longer has the capacity to carry out the work of a board member, they are removed and their position is replaced. That is where the issue lies.

However, the issue with the provisions as originally drafted is that, in fact, compulsory treatment orders under the Mental Health Act do not, by themselves, signify that someone lacks the capacity for a particular position. So, as originally drafted, this bill used these orders in a way that was not intended in the Mental Health Act and would, therefore, potentially invalidate the position of a board member who became subject to such an order but who was still perfectly capable of carrying out his or her position. This is what caused this provision to fall foul of the Bill of Rights Act, and particularly the right to be free from discrimination. That is one amendment that we looked at and was discussed, particularly after receiving the advice from the Attorney-General’s office.

There was another one that I think is worth highlighting, and this one, particularly, is bringing this trust into the 21st century, making it fit for purpose, and it is clause 13 of the bill, amending section 15 of the principal Act. We believe that the intention of the trust board, although the board wants to have more control over its investments, including the ability to diversify its investments to better provide for its beneficiaries—the bill as originally drafted would have limited the trust board to investing in land. So what we recommended, as another amendment, is that it take out one of the clauses particularly that specifically actually signifies that it can only actually invest in land. What we did was we put in another clause, or recommended another clause go in, whereby the investment can be more than just land; it can actually be a number of diversified investment products right across the board.

In saying that, they are the two main recommended amendments that I am just highlighting here in the second reading. I think the other parts of it are particularly around this situation about whānau, about the whānau of Wairarapa, and it was actually an issue that was considered within the language of the bill. I want just very quickly to say something around the submission from the Rangitāne Tū Mai Rā Trust—particularly around the Te Reo Māori version—around opening it up more instead of being specific about certain whānau who were going to be beneficiaries under this. The bill has actually been extended out further to talk more about the whānau of Wairarapa. That is another one of the recommendations we have made—not just specifically—about kotahitaka [unity] right across the board of Wairarapa. They are the amendments that I wanted to profile here today at the second reading, and I commend this bill to the House. Kia ora.

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker, tērā tētahi kīanga kei roto i tō tātou Reo Rangatira, tō tātou Reo ātaahua e pēnei ana: “Kua taka te kapa”. Ākuanei ahau e whakapākehātia wēnei kōrero kia mōhio te katoa ēngari, i rongo ake ahau i ngā kōrero o te tuahine, a Meka, nāna i kī mai ko tōna whānau o ngā Rōpiha ka whakapapa atu ki tēnei wāhi whenua o Papawai. Kua rongo ahau i te ingoa Rōpiha, kua taka te kapa i te mea, he uri ahau hoki nō ngā Rōpiha, nō roto i Ngāti Kahungunu. Ko tōku tupuna, a Pānapa Tuari, nā, kua whiwhi tōku pāpā i taua ingoa. Nāna i moe i a Arapera Rōpiha ka puta ko Maora Pānapa. Ka moe a ia i a Uru Davis kua puta ko Walton. Ka moe a ia i a Maki kua puta ko Pānapa, arā, ko tōku pāpā kua moe i tōku māmā, ā, kua puta ko ahau. Tērā pea aku tamariki, mā rātou hoki e whiwhi tētahi o ēnei karahipi, nā, kua taka te kapa!

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. There is an expression in our esteemed language, our beautiful language, which goes like this: “The penny has dropped”. I will provide an English translation of those words shortly, so that the majority gets an understanding of what the term suggests, but I heard the sentiments uttered by my sister colleague Meka. Her Rōpiha family have a genealogical connection to this Papawai piece of land. I heard her mention the Rōpiha name, and the penny dropped, because I am also a descendant of the Rōpihas, from within Ngāti Kahungunu. My grandfather was Pānapa Tuari—my father got his name—he married Arapera Rōpiha and Maora Pānapa was born. She married Uru Davis and begat Walton, who married Maki, who begat Pānapa, my dad, who married my mum, and I popped out. Perhaps my children will also be able to get one of these scholarships, and, therefore, the penny has dropped!]

I was just saying that in our beautiful Māori language there is a saying that says “Kua taka te kapa”, which means “The penny has dropped”. Obviously, it is not a traditional saying from 500 years ago in that we did not have pennies in our currency. When I heard Meka stand and say that the Rōpiha whānau whakapapas to the Papawai Trust, and that is a connection she has, the penny dropped, or the light bulb went on in my head, and I said: “Oh, crikey, I am a descendant of the Rōpiha whānau as well through my Kahungunu side.” I also just laid out that whakapapa: Arapera Rōpiha married a fulla called Pānapa Tuari, who had Maora Pānapa, who married Uru Davis, my great grandfather, who had, obviously, my grandfather Walton, who married my grandmother, who had my father, whose name is also Pānapa, from Kahungunu. Obviously, I came from that union. Then I said: “Oh, I guess now my children might be able to qualify for one of these scholarships from the Papawai and Kaikokirikiri Trusts Board.”

Actually, there is another connection, too—us Kahungunu—not many people know that Kahungunu, although they are domiciled on the East Coast around Hawke’s Bay, Kahungunu was actually born in the very far north, and we knew him as Kāhunuhunu. I was actually visiting a kaumātua in Te Hāpua right up the very far north, a couple of miles south of North Cape, and he said: “Come and stand here and look out my kitchen window. Do you see that maunga there? The maunga is called Wharerū and that is where Kāhunuhunu was born.” So that was interesting, because there is another story saying they he was born further south, around Kaitaia, but Kahungunu, as we all know, was born up in the north and moved down south. He was a bit of a womaniser—he had a number of wives—

💬 Hon Member: Henry VIII

Henry VIII, yes.

💬 Hon Member: Which bill are we on?

Getting back to the bill. Just a little bit of history there. Getting back to the bill, and I would just like to acknowledge the member for Wairarapa, Alastair Scott, who has brought this bill on behalf of the Papawai and Kaikokirikiri Trusts Board. Just before I do that, too, we debated whether this bill should be in both languages, and in the end it was just going to be too hard, for various reasons, but kei te hiahia ahau ki te kī atu ki te kaimātakitaki, arā, a Andrew Judd Te Koromatua o Ngāmotu, e mihi atu ki a koe Andrew mō tō kaha tautoko i tō tātou Reo Māori, ngā tikanga Māori, wērā āhuatanga katoa.

[I want to say to the audience, namely to Andrew Judd, the Mayor of New Plymouth, I commend you, Andrew, in regard to your robust support of our Māori language, Māori protocols, and all those situations.]

No doubt, I am sure, Andrew, that you would agree. You would like to see bills written in both languages. That was something that we explored; it was just going to be a bit difficult. But in the future it is something that we should really, in the Māori Affairs Committee, look at: dual language bills right from the outset.

The Papawai and Kaikokirikiri Trusts Amendment Bill, as the member for Wairarapa started off by saying, was set up on lands to establish a Māori school. The Māori school was there for a while. I think it was in the 1930s when the school burnt down. They were not able to re-establish the school, but instead they used the funds for these scholarships, which were to be distributed to descendants, the Māori children of Ngāti Kahungunu descent in the first instance, Māori children from the East Coast, and then Māori children from throughout New Zealand. The new bill is now saying: “Let’s not say Ngāti Kahungunu and Rangitāne; let’s just talk about the children who descended from Wairarapa.”

I actually learnt the hard way about confusing or mentioning Ngāti Kahungunu and Rangitāne in the same breath, when I got the boot from Parliament in 2011. Soon afterwards I went down to Dannevirke because my cousin was having a pōwhiri as the new police sergeant in Dannevirke. When I get got there, I said to one of the people: “Gee, just who exactly are the local people that I need to acknowledge? Is it Kahungunu?”. Well, I just about had my head bitten off. It was: “Don’t you dare say Kahungunu here; it is Rangitāne you must acknowledge.” So to avoid getting into any sort of conflict, I think it is actually great that we just talk about children who descend from Wairarapa and not make that differentiation between Kahungunu and Rangitāne. I would hate to start another land war.

The scholarships were to go towards children attending Anglican schools. We know that we have had a rich history of Anglican education through St Stephen’s, Queen Victoria, Te Aute, Hukarere—those schools—and, sadly, those schools have fallen off. So it is appropriate that, actually, the funds do not just go towards children who are attending Anglican schools, or towards Anglican children, but that they just go out to all Māori children to support education. Most people remember that I was an educator for 20-odd years. Funding and receiving financial assistance for education is a big thing—that whole poverty and lack of finance is actually a barrier to many children achieving in education as they should.

It has also been mentioned that section 5 of the original Act was inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, and the language has been refined in new section 5, inserted by clause 5, to make sure that people who have mental health issues are not discriminated against. I believe that is just the right move to make. Just because somebody might have a mental health issue does not mean to say that they cannot function at a certain level, and we need to remove steps that discriminate against people just because they are unwell in that way.

For the term of office, the trustees are going to be staggered so that some will have a term of 4 years, some of 3 years, some of 2 years, and some of 1 year. That is sensible so that when the board turns over, you do not lose all that institutional knowledge—that there is a rolling out of the old and in with the new, although board members who have been voted out may still be able to come back in again in the next election.

It has been a pleasure, on the Māori Affairs Committee, to go through this bill. I think it is going to help those children from the Wairarapa. It will help them access education, and so we commend this bill. Kia ora.

Kia ora. I stand to take a call on the Papawai and Kaikokirikiri Trusts Amendment Bill, and I too want to just pick up on a couple of threads from the speech of Kelvin Davis, the previous speaker, when he talked about Kahungunu and his travels around the North Island. I must say that Rangitāne, my ancestor on my mother’s side, also lived a pretty roaming kind of life, which begat Rangitāne ki Wairarapa, Rangitāne ki Wairau, Rangitāne o Tāmaki Nui ā Rua, and a few other Rangitānes around the place.

As I said, my mother hails from the Wairarapa. Her ancestress down there is a woman by the name of Ākura, and I too also whakapapa into the Papawai Marae through her. Just a little bit about the Papawai Marae—the Papawai Marae was the first marae in the country to hold the Māori Parliament, so it has got some amazing history behind it. I am very proud to come from the Wairarapa, and proud of the history that I learnt later on as an adult, as my mother became more and more open with her whakapapa, which she held fairly close and to herself.

My mother was very driven when it came to education, and I must say that our educational background, as her children, was derived from that. That kind of got into the head of my father as well. They said to us that the only way to success and freedom was to have a good education. So this particular bill, the Papawai and Kaikokirikiri Trusts Amendment Bill, is about education and the education of Māori. I am pleased to see that it has widened out, because our whakapapa across Aotearoa New Zealand is wide, and it offers the ability for everybody to be able to gain from the funds that this trust generates on an annual basis.

So when we start looking at the land amounts, or the acreage, we are looking at a quite significant land block, which at around about that time would have totalled 722 acres—nothing to be sniffed at—and the revenue gained from that has helped a number of our mokopuna go through the education system over time.

Previous speakers have touched a lot on where the bill has come from. I too want to thank Alastair Scott, my colleague, for bringing in this member’s bill as its sponsor, and I thank the whānau who took the time to bring the old bill and work with Alastair to modernise it into today-speak, which has resulted in a widening of the number of people who can actually access the education funds.

When we start to look at that area around the Papawai and Kaikokirikiri Trusts’ lands, we do see a steeped history of the school—as the previous speaker said—being built, burning down, and not really coming back to its full strength. But when the submitters came to the Māori Affairs Committee, I was really impressed with the way that the trust has been set up for educational purposes. I believe, as I stand here today, that it is one of the leading Māori educational services in our country. I was very proud to hear what they have done and how they are doing it.

As I said, there is lots that this bill has changed—all the little tweaks, and that—from the 1943 Act, which had 10 board members, down to having eight board members. There is the way those board members have been going through selection, with four of them coming from the Bishop of Te Upoko o Te Ika and four obviously from within the tangata whenua or mana whenua of Wairarapa Kahungunu, and to be able to not throw the baby out with the bathwater—to have it so that once their term finishes or the office becomes vacant, they can actually reapply and go back on.

The other area that I was looking at in the old Act was the remuneration for these boards of trustees. I see in the new bill that there is a facility in there for that, because they do work hard and they are appointed because of their expertise and ability within the education field and within their representation of the iwi as well, so it is nice to see that there is some sort of remuneration for them with this bill.

There is not a lot more that I want to say. I just want to thank the members on the Māori Affairs Committee, ably led by my colleague Nuk Korako, and I look forward to the further progress of this bill as we move towards its Royal assent. I commend it to the House. Thank you.

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. I just want to add the Green Party’s support for this bill. It is a little bill. It is just the modernisation of the trusts and their powers, and that is good—this is what a local bill is for—and we are very pleased to support it. I have to say I am quite impressed with the number of members who have in the past declared their whakapapa back to Papawai—myself included—but more and more are coming out as we go on through the conversation. It is fantastic. Papawai, the takeover of this Parliament by the Māori Parliament seems to be growing day by day.

💬 Meka Whaitiri: A prize strategy.

Yes, it is a great strategy.

💬 Meka Whaitiri: Don’t be afraid.

“Don’t be afraid.”, Meka Whaitiri says. Yes, the Māori Parliament is taking over slowly, bit by bit, but we will be gentle and will take good care.

I have always thought it was a little bit spooky, actually, that Papawai, given it was the home of the Māori Parliament, has had such an influence and has actually produced so many Māori MPs across the political spectrum. So it is not just that there is a whānau commitment to a particular political party, but there is a commitment to politics, to education, and to advancing our children through the system so that they can be strong advocates for our whānau in this place and in other places as well. That is what these trusts do. By being clearly established and well-established and by providing the funds for educational scholarships for the children of Wairarapa, these trusts are helping to build that expertise from the Wairarapa—from Papawai and elsewhere in the area—and so that is a great thing.

It always interests me that when hapū have been the most constrained in resources—and across the country, not just in Wairarapa and with Papawai—or have had the least resources, they have directed whatever resource they have to the education of their kids. That has always been the first priority for hapū—to do whatever is necessary to get our kids as well-educated as possible so they can live the best lives that they can and so they can be strong advocates for their whānau and hapū later in life. It just goes to show that despite all of the difficulties that iwi Māori and hapū Māori have suffered over the last 200 years, always the focus is on our kids.

I do just want to acknowledge the changes that were made to the bill by the Māori Affairs Committee, and particularly the tidying-up of some old wording. The issue of the inconsistency with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act was really just, I think, a drafting issue that arises when you are using older legislation as a model, and it is good that we have a New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vetting that reminds us to be clearer and fairer in our language. So I am very pleased to see those changes. We are happy with retaining the definition of “tangata whenua of Wairarapa” as the group of kids who would benefit from the trusts’ resources.

I too would just reiterate that there is an express provision in the bill that prevents the Papawai and Kaikokirikiri Trusts Board from selling the Papawai or Kaikokirikiri land. Not only does the bill say that the Clareville land can be sold but not the Papawai or the Kaikokirikiri land, but it goes on to say: “To avoid doubt, the Board may not consent to the sale or otherwise permanently alienate the Papawai land or the Kaikokirikiri land.” I think it is really important for everyone at home to know that the law requires the trusts to hold on to that land for the purposes of deriving an income so that kids who are in need of some financial support for their education can get it.

I am pleased too that the application of trust moneys from this is quite broad. It is not just about fees; it is actually about the things that kids need in order to be able to get a decent education—books, clothes. In increasingly impoverished families, just getting decent clothes to send kids to school in is a problem—and uniforms. Other equipment is available to be purchased too with funds from these trusts for our kids. In an increasingly digital age, when it is becoming more and more difficult for kids to access the internet and the technology to access the internet—that is really important too.

We are very pleased that the bill has come forward. Congratulations to the member who brought it to the House, Alastair Scott. We look forward to its passing. Kia ora, Mr Assistant Speaker.

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker, tēnā hoki tātou e noho nei i roto i Te Whare. Āe, i rongo au i ngā kōrero e pā ana ki ngā herenga o ētahi o ngā mema Māori e noho nei i roto i Te Whare ki te rōpū nei. Tēnā pea ko te take nei, kua taka te kapa, ka hiahia ētahi ō tātou kia mau aua kapa, kia ahatia? Ēngari, ko te mea nui mēnā e tika ana wā rātou whakapapa. Korekau he raru!

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and salutations to you seated here in the House. Yes, indeed, I heard the comments about the connections that some Māori members seated in this House here have to this organisation. Perhaps this matter about the penny dropping is due to the fact that some of us want to catch those pennies, but for what purpose? However, the main thing is to examine whether their genealogies are correct. There will not be a problem if it is fine!]

Just by way of explanation, I was acknowledging everyone in the House and referring to the comment of Metiria Turei, the previous speaker, about the number of Māori members coming out of the woodwork, so to speak, and making their genealogical connection to these trusts. I made the rather facetious comment that perhaps the reason that we are doing that is that the penny has dropped—in other words, there is a possible monetary rationale for their connection. But, in spite of that, I acknowledge their right to claim their whakapapa to the Wairarapa.

On behalf of New Zealand First, I can say that we will be supporting this bill, and I acknowledge Alastair Scott, the member who brought it to the House. I should say that we certainly do recognise the need to update the wording of an Act that has used rather archaic language, particularly in terms of its description of the Church of England. I think the bill does that very well, and it has the support of members of the trusts’ board who came before the Māori Affairs Committee and made their submission.

I should also say that, for me, I am not quite sure whether, in fact, the description “tangata whenua of Wairarapa” is prescriptive enough. But then the members of the current board accepted this description of those who would be entitled to apply to the trusts for assistance, and I acknowledge that. But I just make that comment as someone who has seen a lot of people use the description “tangata whenua” to go beyond the original intent of the comment. But, having said that, I support the members of the trusts’ board who have said that.

Reference has been made to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act inconsistency, and I, certainly, as a member of the Māori Affairs Committee, was grateful for having that issue pointed out to us. I think that the bill reflects our acceptance of the issues that were raised in regard to that part of the bill.

The other thing I want to comment on is the request by members of the trusts’ board seeking to have the bill written in Māori. The reason that the committee has given for not being able to do so was that the original Act that this bill amends is not in Te Reo Māori. So we accept that, but we certainly—and I, certainly, as a member of the Māori Affairs Committee—look forward to having all bills that are passed through this House written in Te Reo Māori.

The other part I want to make comment on is that the bill widens the range of investments to anything lawful. You might have thought that with the influence of the Church, that may have included putting thought to making moral investments, and I say that only because that has been an issue with regard to some of our KiwiSaver administrators and because of the comments made about where they invest those funds. Although they may have invested those funds towards legal investments, the public of New Zealand certainly raised the question as to whether or not they were moral. But, again, the members of the trusts’ board accepted that, and I am quite happy to support them in that regard.

I do not have too much to add, other than to say that we in New Zealand First certainly support the bill and we commend it to the House.

It is a privilege to stand and say a few words on the Papawai and Kaikokirikiri Trusts Amendment Bill’s second reading here this afternoon. Every now and again you get asked to stand and speak on a bill that you have not had the privilege of sitting through in a select committee context. I do not sit on the Māori Affairs Committee, so for me, sitting here and listening to the debate, this is the first time I have been exposed to this particular issue and the solution that we have in front of us.

I, like others, have been quite surprised at how many MPs whakapapa back to Papawai. I am, obviously, impressed with the original contribution there by Meka Whaitiri, and then Metiria Turei and Jo Hayes. I was quite impressed with Kelvin Davis’s extended attempt to try to identify some whakapapa of his in respect of Papawai, and it got me thinking. My family arrived from Prussia in 1862 on the SS African. I am sure they might have done a road trip to Wairarapa sometime in the last 100 years, but, as much as I have thought about it, I just cannot seem to find a way to add myself to that extraordinary, extensive list. In fact, my colleague Jo Hayes reminded me that there is somebody from each one of the political parties represented in this House who whakapapas back to Papawai.

The other, I guess, perspective that I reflected on, as I looked through the notes and the report back from the select committee, is the genesis of this, actually. As they often do when we reflect on Māori trusts when they are in front of this House, the genesis of this started as a gift from a people to, essentially, the country, and, in this case, it was expressed through the Anglican Church, for a specific purpose—in this case, education for their people. I think we overlook that at times, particularly in today’s world—the genesis of so many of the Māori trusts came from expressions of generosity that then had legal frameworks that were fit for the time wrapped around them.

But as we stand here, in 2016, they are no longer fit for purpose, because they unduly constrain the successors of that initial gift to the country. It is appropriate, therefore, that we actually reflect on those frameworks and ensure that that initial gift has legislative support to enable it to thrive, not only in today’s context but also for the generations to come. So I will acknowledge my colleague Alastair Scott, who, as the local MP, has taken this up. It is with gratitude that I hear of the level of collective endorsement from around the House for his leadership on this issue, and the fact that that has meant that we have a bill here that is supported by all parties.

The framework initially was very paternalistic—we have heard that referenced—and very prescriptive, and it certainly did not allow the trust arrangements to breathe and grow with the aspirations of the Papawai and Kaikokirikiri Trusts of today. There have been some key changes envisaged right through this bill—we have heard some good speakers already talk through the key components of that—particularly broadening the definition in terms of who will be able to receive the scholarships. Obviously, it still has education at its heart, as it should be, because that was the original intent of the original gift all those years ago. So it is good to see that the changes not only create a greater flexibility but reinforce the importance of ensuring that education remains core for the trusts’ purpose.

I think that the changes, in respect of governance, again move from a highly paternalistic and prescriptive approach to one that has, at its core, the view that the four members of the eight will be appointed from tangata whenua of Wairarapa. So, again, we will have a board here that is very much of the local people, for the local people, and that reflects the expectation of the local iwi and, indeed, the expectation of this House. It has been very interesting and a privilege to be part of this conversation. It is an example of Parliament at its best, and I am very pleased to be able to add my voice to those in this House. I commend it to the House.

Ā, tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare, otirā, e tika ana kia tuku mihi atu ki ngā poutiaki o Papawai me Kaikōkirikiri, oti noa ki a tātou katoa o Te Whare.

[And so, my appreciation to you, Mr Assistant Speaker, but at the same time it is fitting indeed that I accord a word of acknowledgment to the trustees of Papawai and Kaikōkirikiri, and to all of us of the House.]

At the first reading of this bill, I spoke about a number of things, including wanting to hear from submitters on this bill. I did not sit on the Māori Affairs Committee for this bill, but I commend the Māori Affairs Committee for the work it did on this bill. There were only two submissions, so I read those submissions. In my part of the world, when you get only two kaikōrero on an issue, it means that everything must be ka pai, because if it was not, we would have got a lot more submissions on this bill. So I just want to acknowledge the Māori Affairs Committee because, obviously, although there were only two submissions—and the advice from the officials, no doubt—I think it has come up with a very good position on the definition of “tangata whenua o Wairarapa”. I think it is a very good way of expressing whom this bill benefits, but also the very inclusive nature of this part of the bill, so I acknowledge that.

My reading of the 1943 Act and the language it uses shows it to be very prescriptive, and it is very paternalistic as well in the way it is written, so it is well overdue for a review. I also acknowledge the member for Wairarapa, Alastair Scott, for the work he has done on bringing this bill to the House. I always believe that reviewing legislation like this should empower the whānau—the people—it benefits. Quite clearly, the new governance arrangements—the new terms within this bill—do exactly that, so it is very easy for me to stand in support of this bill. Like a number of others, I thought I would add some whakapapa korero of my own to this debate. My grandmother—

💬 Kris Faafoi: You’ve only got 7 minutes.

That is just about enough time. My grandmother—my dad’s mum—is from Ngāti Kahungunu, and I am very proud about that part of my whakapapa, as well—my dad’s mum. It was very interesting listening to the contribution, particularly, of my colleague Kelvin Davis. He does not know this, but I have Rōpiha whakapapa as well.

I was really interested in the way that the Māori Affairs Committee dealt with the inconsistency with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. It was obviously, within the drafting of the legislation, an unintended fact that was placed in this bill, and, consequently, the Māori Affairs Committee came to an agreement on how to address the concerns of the Attorney-General. It is always important in these pieces of legislation that they are fair and that they do not contravene this very important Act—the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act—and in this instance the Māori Affairs Committee has done a very good job in addressing that. I do not have any more to contribute, except that I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

It is my pleasure today to stand in support of the Papawai and Kaikokirikiri Trusts Amendment Bill. It is probably not a surprise that I have no whakapapa back to Papawai, but I do have it on good authority that a friend of mine, Mr Nuk Korako—his uncle, the Hon Ben Couch, whakapapas back to Papawai.

I acknowledge the work of the hard-working MP for the Wairarapa, Alastair Scott, who has brought this private bill to the House. I also acknowledge the Māori Affairs Committee, which has obviously worked together to manage the process of progressing this bill to its second reading today.

The Papawai and Kaikokirikiri Trusts Board has been managing its activities since the Papawai and Kaikokirikiri Trusts Act was enacted in 1943. It distributes scholarships for post-primary education of children who have whakapapa in relation to the tangata whenua of the Wairarapa. It uses it for a wide range of uses in education and educational support—that is for things such as books, clothing, grants, or even for maintenance of school buildings. That is a very honourable purpose, but one of the things that did impress me about the focus of the Papawai and Kaikokirikiri Trusts Board is that one of its four goals is to make a positive contribution to the education of tamariki, which empowers whānau. That certainly is the understanding of this Government, and we certainly, too, understand that there is no greater investment that anyone can make than the investment in our children.

After 73 years, the time is now right to modernise this Act so that the board has the flexibility it requires to best meet the needs of the trust in this 21st century, and to make sure, as we have heard today, that it is fit for purpose. This is a very non-contentious bill. I have pleasure in commending it to the House, and I extend my very best wishes to the Papawai and Kaikokirikiri Trusts Board for its future investment in the education of its tamariki. Thank you.

Tēnā koe, tēnā tātou katoa. Firstly, I want to join in support of my colleagues, in Labour and across the House, in supporting this bill. Alastair Scott, thank you for introducing it—it was relatively painless before the Māori Affairs Committee. I do not want to traverse areas that members have already covered; I would probably be of no great use to the debate of the House to cover those matters. But I think there are points of clarification that will be useful, which have not been focused on by members previously, and that is around the dual translation of legislation.

The committee considered in part the prospect of translating this amendment bill through this process. However, we were advised by parliamentary counsel that the best way to address the issue of dual-language bills is when you are creating an entirely new Act. We thought about the precedent that it would set if we were to go down the path of drafting amendments in Te Reo Māori while the principal Act was going to remain in English, and we considered that not to be a good precedent. However, in saying that, we saw the virtues of the Māori Affairs Committee starting to think about the way in which we could address the issue of dual-language bills. It just so happened, however, that Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill was the bill before us—some 400-odd pages—so whether or not we eventually decide to go for a dual-language bill in that particular instance remains to be seen, but it would be of a good precedent-setting nature for the committee.

The other thing that is of useful comment with regard to the modernisation of this bill is the rotation of the term of office for the board. It is helpful, I believe, that in the fifty-fifty representation of the Papawai and Kaikokirikiri Trusts Board they have outlined exactly how the rotation will occur and the term of office that each board member will serve. That is really to ensure that, like all good boards, there is active succession planning and rotation of members to be able to get the contribution of people to the activities of the trust.

A lot has been said about the way in which funds will be distributed. I took some time—a little bit of time—to read the original bill. In terms of the distribution of grants, they were also used for residential scholarships as well, so I take it that that was to enable people to go to boarding school. That was a very real prospect in the early years in which the trust was in operation. I hazard a guess that many people went to Te Aute College and St Joseph’s College, as two schools within the Wairarapa/Kahungunu area. That would have been a very useful grant for families to receive to help their kids get to school and further their education.

I want to endorse all the comments about education being a window to opportunity and a real way to lift the aspirations of people—no matter where they are from and what their status is, so to speak. I know from very small communities that trusts like the Papawai Kaikokirikiri Trust have made a significant contribution to growing leaders within the Māori community, so I want to applaud that as a continued ambition of the role of the trust.

One minor bit of focus that I would like to draw the attention of the House to is that the select committee amended the bill to enable the trust to invest in more than just land. That is just recognising that the modern investment decisions that boards are making now go well beyond land, and should the trust want to diversify its interests, in whatever way it decides fit, the bill provides for that. I think that is a really positive move forward.

I also want to, like Metiria Turei, comment on the issue of the selling of land. The corpus lands remain intact, and that is very clear. However, should the trust want to purchase further lands and then sell them, that is fine—they can do that, but the corpus lands remain intact. I think that comes back to the original intent of the gift that established the trust: the strong connection, since 1843, that people will have to the lands that were originally vested in the Papawai Kaikokirikiri Trust, and also to reaffirm the tangata whenua connection of the people in the Wairarapa to these lands, the benefits that come from them, and the distributions to the various aspirations of the board.

With that said, this has had a fairly, I would like to say speedy, but, I think, average kind of passage through the role of the select committee. We did give it some strong attention. We did not want to dilly-dally around with its progress before the committee. I want to mihi to those trust members who came to the select committee. I think they were a little bit overwhelmed with the whole select committee process, but we were all the richer for hearing from them, the aspirations of their trust, and what they want to do for the future. That just confirmed our belief that in modernising this legislation and enabling the trust to get on with its business, having some guidance that can help its operations would be a very positive and fruitful exercise to help them achieve their aspirations. Nō reira, tēnā tātou.

E Te Māngai Tuarua o Te Whare, mauri ora, e ngā mema o Te Rōpū Reipa kia ora tātou, e ngā mema o Te Rōpū Kākāriki tēnā koutou, e ngā mema o Te Rōpū Aotearoa Tuatahi, kia ora, tēnā koutou.

[Mr Assistant Speaker, good health to you, and greetings to the members of the Labour Party, the members of the Green Party, and to the members of New Zealand First; hello and salutations to you collectively.]

In taking a brief call on this Papawai and Kaikokirikiri Trusts Amendment Bill in this second reading debate, I want to actually agree with all that has been said by the members who have spoken so far. It is a wonderful thing—particularly this week, when we started with some discord on the passage of legislation that is relevant to iwi Māori in this country—that we have managed to come together and put aside some of the game playing that has been undertaken by certain parties in this House, which need not be named on this happy occasion, and, in fact, progress this piece of legislation, which does much good. It modernises an obsolete piece of legislation, updates it for the circumstances of the modern world, and gives the trust board the flexibility to operate in a way that maximises the benefit accruing to the people, particularly of the Wairarapa but, actually, to Māori people throughout New Zealand.

This bill does a number of very practical things. It reforms the governance arrangements of the trust board so that half of the board of eight will be appointed by the local iwi. The other half will be appointed by His Grace the Bishop of Te Upoko o Te Ika, or the Anglican primate of this region in which we are currently standing.

The whakapapa relationships of certain members in this House with the marae in question have been raised, so far be it from me to fail to follow that precedent. Unfortunately, I whakapapa to the very far north: Te Tai Tokerau. Ko Ngātikahu ki Whangaroa te iwi, ko Ōtangaroa te marae. [Ngātikahu ki Whangaroa is the iwi, Ōtangaroa is the marae.]

My ancestor was the same as that of co-leader of the Māori Party Te Ururoa Flavell: his eponymous ancestor, the chief Te Ururoa, who was the paramount chief of Ngāti Kahu at the very start of the 19th century and also the famous victor of the battle of Kororāreka, who made some significant progression south on his raids. I am not quite sure whether he got as far as the Wairarapa, but you never know. There may be some very distant cousins present in that situation. My whakapapa is somewhat more tenuous than that of others, than that of my colleagues and members opposite. I am Ngāti Kahu, not Ngāti Kahungunu, so cannot claim that direct connection. But any intelligent person, on reading this legislation, will see the benefits that will accrue to Ngāti Kahungunu and others who benefit from the use of the land.

I just want to comment on a theme that has been raised, I think particularly eloquently, by the Hon Nanaia Mahuta, which is that times have changed and that the assets of the trust board can be put to more productive and more lucrative use for the benefit of the beneficiaries of the trust than people would have imagined back in 1932 when the schoolhouse burnt down, or even in 1943, in the midst of the Second World War, when the legislation was most recently updated. In a wonderful area like the Wairarapa, which is so ably represented by my distinguished colleague Alastair Scott as its local member, you can imagine the kinds of industries that may now be the most prosperous and lucrative. Perhaps wine growing for export is a good industry to be in. Maybe high tech—the lands could be used perhaps to house cloud-based server systems and offer those services all around the world. These are things that people back in the 1940s could not possibly have imagined. I commend that particular aspect of the bill as being incredibly positive.

As other members have stated, this bill has had thorough but not slow consideration by the Māori Affairs Committee, ably chaired by its wonderful chairman, Tutehounuku Korako, my distinguished colleague of noble heritage, who bears that proud name and does so much good work on the Māori Affairs Committee, and in such a consensual way with its deputy chair and with other members—

💬 Pita Paraone: Stop embarrassing him.

—with Pita Paraone, who also is a very hard-working member of that committee, when his leader allows him to participate. This bill has been through the select committee process, and, as others have commented, that old saying applies: “If there isn’t too much interest, if there aren’t people coming in to submit, it must actually be a pretty good piece of legislation.” You generally only get a huge queue, a horde, of submitters coming in to petition their case when there are flaws with the legislation. I think that is hugely positive, and it is a huge credit to Nuk Korako, to his committee, and to all of those who have played a part—including the Parliamentary Counsel Office and others—and have contributed to the fine-tuning of this piece of legislation.

It would be remiss of me not to comment on the very nature of this bill. This is a private bill. It is actually a relatively rare and obscure form of legislative instrument that we see in this House. It is the rarest form of bill that comes here—Government bills, of course, being the most common. We do see members’ bills drawn regularly, and we will be dealing with some of those later today. We have local bills. Local bills are not entirely uncommon; we have had several through this year. But private bills are relatively rare. We dealt with the Royal Foundation of the Blind Act Repeal legislation, and that organisation transitioned into being just a conventional trust, like any other charity or NGO. But it is appropriate that these trusts, given their heritage, given the conditions that prevail in the area—that we do not just simply repeal the previous piece of legislation, as we are doing with 124 other pieces of legislation in the Statutes Repeal Bill. It is appropriate that the bill is modernised, it is brought up to date, it is made fit for purpose, and it is done so in this way, as a private bill in the name of Alastair Scott.

I really want to commend Alastair Scott. He is both a strong local member and someone who clearly wants to support these institutions that do a lot of good in his own community. Without much further ado—actually, there is one more point I would like to make, and it is quite an important one. The committee recommends that this bill be enacted in Te Reo Māori as well as in English. We had quite a historical event earlier this year when Te Ture mō Te Reo Māori / Māori Language Act became the first where the text in both languages carried equal weight. This is not a unique situation in the Commonwealth.

I had the pleasure of having dinner with the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales earlier in the year. He also happens to be a Welshman—a very proud Welshman—hailing from Cardiff. He was discussing the way the Welsh Assembly in Cardiff legislates in both the Welsh language and in English. We also have a Commonwealth equivalent in the province of Quebec, in Canada. I also met the Chief Justice of Quebec. The French language is given equal weighting and bills are simultaneously dealt with in both French and English. They are debated in the House in both languages, they are drafted in both languages, and when lawyers are interpreting them they are given equal weight in both languages. Of course, when judges are ruling on them, the judges have to be completely fluent in both English and French, in both the common law tradition and the civil tradition derived from that French Napoleonic heritage that they also have in Canada.

It is a wonderful thing, in this bicultural, multicultural country of ours, that we are embracing the indigenous language—one of New Zealand’s official languages. The committee did make the recommendation that the bill be enacted in both languages, and I hope that this becomes somewhat of a precedent in this House, and that we do more and more, as the capacity allows, as the fluency in Te Reo of judges allows, and as the ability of our legal profession to deal with two languages allows. Let us give maximum opportunity for the beautiful Te Reo Māori to be used in this way, and also we should probably include New Zealand Sign Language, which is the third official language of New Zealand—I had better say that, as the Minister for Disability Issues is in the House today.

This is a very good bill. It is non-contentious. I have taken up more than enough time on extolling its virtues. It carries my full commendation to the House.

Bill read a second time.