Māori Purposes Bill

Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. Kia ora tātou katoa i tēnei ahiahi. Ka nui te mihi ki a tātou. Can I just acknowledge that there was a need, I suppose, to take the debate apart. It was my view, if I can just talk to the Māori Affairs Committee, that the amendments that were proposed in the paper were relatively minor in significance and that we had general agreement. But, be that as it may, I will leave that there, because we have voted on it and we will move on. We will go through those bits and pieces as we get there.

This is an omnibus bill that amends, basically, the Māori Purposes (Wi Pere Trust) Act of 1991 to improve the governance and operational capability of the Wī Pere Trust and to correct a minor technical error in the Māori Trust Boards (Transitional Provisions) Order of 2012. The trust that we are talking about is the Wī Pere Trust. It was set up in 1899 to administer the estate of Wī Pere, who was a prominent East Coast MP in his day. Of course, he was setting up this trust for the purposes of his whānau and the beneficiaries. It later became a statutory trust, and we have made some amendments to the trust deed. I will talk to those shortly but will also add that we have added on a couple of Supplementary Order Papers, which I will talk to as well, while we have the opportunity, which, as the Speaker has outlined, is able to be done in this process.

As the bill states, this is all about improving the governance and operational capability of the Wī Pere Trust. It removes ministerial involvement from the trust’s governance, which is something that the trustees themselves asked for. Currently, the Minister for Māori Development appoints the trustees for the trust and can remove trustees for misconduct. However, we are passing that responsibility back to the trust.

This bill establishes a new trust board structure, providing the trust board with autonomy to make decisions for itself and amend its accountability arrangements back to the beneficiaries. The bill also enables the trust to hold general title land, supporting the trust’s economic aspirations to do more with the land if it so wishes, increasing the trust’s economic development activities, while reinforcing the protections of Māori freehold land. The bill clarifies the trust’s succession arrangements through the provision of lineal descent from Wī Pere to succeed to beneficial interests, and the bill also clarifies the jurisdiction of the Māori Land Court and the High Court.

I will also be introducing these Supplementary Order Papers; there are three of them, which have been mentioned earlier. They are to do with providing, in three places—the first one is to do with the Māori Television Service. That is talking about making technical amendments to the Māori Television Service (Te Aratuku Whakaata Irirangi) Act 2003. That needs to be tidied up to remove references to Te Pūtahi Paoho, an entity that will no longer exist, actually, when Te Ture mō Te Reo Māori Act 2016 is enacted. That is pretty straightforward. It is addressing the fact that we have an entity in place, it will be out of existence, and, therefore, we are adjusting the law to deal with that—relatively minor in the scheme of things.

The second Supplementary Order Paper is amending Te Rarawa Claims Settlement Act of 2015 with a new Part 1B. This Supplementary Order Paper provides certainty as to the mandated iwi organisation, commonly known as an MIO, its status for Te Rarawa, enabling Te Rarawa to manage its fisheries assets on behalf of the iwi and make contributions from those assets to various marae. I will talk about that a little bit more later on.

The third Supplementary Order Paper is amending Te Ture Whenua Maori Act of 1993, in a new Part 3 later on. This Supplementary Order Paper amends inequitable and, in some cases, unachievable financial reporting requirements for Māori incorporations inadvertently introduced through what is called the Financial Reporting (Amendments to Other Enactments) Act of 2013. So as you, Mr Speaker, in your statements in respect of how we have ended up in this position of having to go clause by clause—basically, these are relatively minor and not controversial issues to be addressed, and I look forward to what people have to say from there.

Āe, e mihi atu ki a koe e Te Kaiwhakahaere, huri noa i Te Komiti nei, e mihi atu ki a koutou katoa.

[Yes, I thank you, Mr Chair, and acknowledge you all throughout this Committee.]

I want to address the four Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) in the Māori Purposes Bill’s Committee stage, which propose amendments to this bill. The first three SOPs, which the Government will be supporting, are from the Hon Te Ururoa Flavell. They amend the Te Rarawa Claims Settlement Act 2015, Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993, and the Māori Television Service (Te Aratuku Whakaata Irirangi Māori) Act 2003. The SOP on Te Rarawa Claims Settlement Act, first of all, simply recognises the intention of Te Rarawa iwi for the mandated iwi organisation status of the charitable trust Te Rūnanga o Te Rarawa. Under the Māori Fisheries Act 2004 this is to pass to the post-settlement governance entity, also called Te Rūnanga o Te Rarawa. This change tidies up the issue and appropriately ensures that Te Rūnanga o Te Rarawa’s mandated iwi organisation status applies retrospectively.

The second SOP is to Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 and will ensure that smaller Māori incorporations do not have the same onerous financial reporting requirements as large incorporations. Our other legislation around financial reporting for charitable organisations recognises that different reporting requirements should apply to organisations of different sizes, and it is appropriate that this be reflected in the requirements for Māori organisations under Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993.

The third SOP makes changes to the Māori Television Service Act 2003 and removes the soon to be redundant requirement for Māori Television to set money aside for operating costs of Te Pūtahi Paoho. Te Pūtahi Paoho will soon be replaced by Te Mātāwai, which receives its funding directly from the Government and, therefore, this provision does not need to be transferred to the new entity.

We have another SOP that addresses the primary purpose of this bill, the Māori Purposes Bill, and that is the changes being made to the Wī Pere Trust. Meka Whaitiri’s SOP proposes to remove the part of this bill that clarifies the jurisdiction of the High Court and the Māori Land Court over the Wī Pere Trust, and wants to return it to the status quo. Currently, the High Court and the Māori Land Court hold jurisdiction, but there is no clear demarcation of what the jurisdiction is that they actually hold. This bill, as drafted, clarifies that the High Court has jurisdiction to settle disputes relating to the administration and governance of the trust and excludes the Māori Land Court from having that jurisdiction. The argument that Meka Whaitiri has put forward in favour of her amendment is that the Māori Land Court has the appropriate expertise to deal with all of these matters. In one way, she is right—the Māori Land Court has expertise in matters related to Māori freehold land. This is why this bill still gives it jurisdiction over matters related to Māori freehold land. However, there are some other matters related to commerce, administration, and governance where the High Court has the appropriate expertise, particularly as the trust assets—and this is a really important part of it—are not limited to just Māori freehold land.

So I would not expect to see many disputes related to the Wī Pere Trust ending up in the High Court. It is only for very serious matters that cannot be resolved through the disputes process—and this is within the bill itself—that there would ever be the situation where it would end up in the High Court. What is more important is determining where the appropriate expertise lies, and this bill as currently drafted clearly and correctly determines the appropriate jurisdiction for the different types of issues that may require court proceedings under the Act.

I just want to finish by saying that out of all of that, particularly with the demarcation situation—the different roles of the Māori Land Court and also the High Court—it is very clear that this should not be changed; therefore we cannot support the SOP of Meka Whaitiri. Kia ora.

Labour was in support of the Wī Pere Trust bill. The Wī Pere Trust is a fantastic organisation that was set up by an inspired tupuna of theirs back in the 1800s and early 1900s. He did remarkable work. It is a trust that has millions of dollars in assets now and is doing a fantastic job for its beneficiaries.

It is really disappointing, though, to come here and to see that 15 minutes before the bell was rung this afternoon three Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) were dumped on us, and we knew nothing about them whatsoever. It would have been a matter of courtesy to say to the MPs and to the other parties: “Look, this is what’s going to happen, and these are the minor changes and technical amendments.” Chances are we would have understood them and supported them.

Unfortunately, we have been asked to support something we have had a brief look at and do not really fully understand the ins and outs. In fact, the SOP to do with Te Ture Whenua Maori—it is quite ironic, today in the Māori Affairs Committee we were talking about Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill. It is a thick piece of legislation that has been introduced. We are really concerned to get it right. We want to work through it, clause by clause, and make sure that if that bill is going to go through and pass in this House that we get it absolutely right for our people. So it is really disappointing to turn up this afternoon and, 15 minutes before the bell is rung, there is an SOP that is probably more than just a minor amendment to Te Ture Whenua—there are about 3½ pages of changes, and we have not had an opportunity whatsoever as a Labour Māori caucus to have a look at them and go over them. We have not been briefed by any officials, we have not been briefed by the Minister, and what we have been asked to do is just take a leap of faith and agree to amendments to a bill that we are actually debating in the Māori Affairs Committee at the moment in quite a substantial way.

I think it is really unfair, I say to the Minister in the chair, the Hon Te Ururoa Flavell, to have done this to us when, really, a simple phone call would have sufficed, even as late as yesterday. I look at the SOP from Meka Whaitiri—that was tabled on 25 August, and here we are in October. On 12 October we are given three SOPs to go through.

Te Rarawa legislation—I believe that this will be similar to what Te Rarawa approached me on last year in terms of just making it a little bit easier for them to manage their fisheries assets, so I have got a bit of background on that SOP, but I do not really have a background on the other two SOPs. It is just really disappointing that we have to stand here and talk about stuff that we are not yet fully au fait with, even though the Minister says that they are minor and technical amendments.

What it has done, though, is it has opened up the opportunity for us to debate more SOPs that Labour will be putting forward to do with Māori policy, and we look forward to the later stages. In Part 4, I believe, there is actually a Māori Housing Act and we are looking forward to getting our teeth into debating a lot of material around Māori housing. But at this stage, the Wī Pere Trust itself—it could have been all over pretty quickly into this evening.

I just want to touch again on Meka Whaitiri’s SOP, and I think it is really good. It is disappointing that the National Government is not going to support it. What the bill is proposing in its current form is that if there is an issue, that whānau have to go to the High Court to sort it out. We are saying that the better pathway for Māori is to go through the Māori Land Court, the reason being that the Māori Land Court is a lot cheaper and it is easier for whānau to have access to that court, whereas the High Court is a lot more expensive. The benefit of going to the High Court is that things get dealt with a lot more quickly, whereas in the Māori Land Court it takes a lot longer.

The Wī Pere Trust would, no doubt, prefer—because they do have money, they would be able to access the High Court, they would be able to get decisions based around their business done a lot more quickly, but it is the whānau and the beneficiaries who would struggle to go into the High Court and pay to have their issue examined by the High Court. They would much prefer that they go to the Māori Land Court, even though it may take longer. Whānau are a lot more au fait with and a lot more comfortable in the Māori Land Court—certainly, I think it is about $50 plus GST to file something in the Māori Land Court. Therefore we in the Labour Party are saying that the Māori Land Court would be the better option to have these issues dealt with, because whānau can actually access and afford to access the Māori Land Court.

So there is going to be a lot of discussion around the Māori Purposes Bill. The door has been opened for us to discuss a number of options. Like I say, I am looking forward to discussing the Māori Housing Act in Part 4, I believe it is, but I will leave it for now. Kia ora.

To be clear, the Green Party will be voting in support of the Māori Purposes Bill and that is because we always uphold the mana of iwi needing to decide over their own affairs and needing to run their own affairs.

Improving governance: this bill does seek to improve governance and the capability of the Wī Pere Trust as well as remove unnecessary Crown involvement, which we are certainly in favour of—removing unnecessary Crown involvement.

I too absolutely want to raise some concerns about the late-entry Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) from the Minister for Māori Development. I do understand and perhaps can concede that they are minor administrative updates and legislative changes, but I am somewhat concerned about process. As my colleague Kelvin Davis has said, we did not have a lot of notice, and I am particularly wondering—I just want to be clear, actually, I am asking a genuine question—whether these are purely opportunity SOPs. Do they have any actual direct relevance to the actual running of the Wī Pere Trust and to this particular bill? That is what I am genuinely asking about and so I am sure the Minister will stand to talk to that. Those are the sorts of the things I am asking.

Just to have the Greens on record, I understand that the Māori Television Service amendment in SOP 231 is certainly an administrative update, because of the disestablishment of the organisation Te Pūtahi Pāoho—kei te pai tēnā. Supplementary Order Paper 232 on Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 is slightly different and is about upholding a difference in reporting requirements between large and small organisations. I did have to check whether that was standard, just to make sure we are keeping things accountable and above board. I was advised that that is standard, so kei te pai tēnā.

Then, lastly, there is the amendment to the Te Rarawa Claims Settlement Act 2015 in SOP 233. I understand that, simply, the mandated iwi organisation—I think that is what MIO stands for—needs to apply retrospectively from the date that the Te Rarawa Claims Settlement Act commences. So those are logical and mainly understandable, but, boy, I did have to rush a bit to just try to get a little—actually, I do not understand them deeply, but the little bit that I wanted to find out I had to do really quickly on the fly. So thank you, Mr Chair, for reiterating and enforcing that better practice is to give us a little bit more time.

I now want to come down to my colleague Meka Whaitiri’s Supplementary Order Paper. Through the submissions we did hear, absolutely, concerns from whānau—some who were outright opposing this bill; others who just wanted to state concerns—that they did want the jurisdiction over the running of the trust to remain with the Māori Land Court and not the High Court. So the Green Party will absolutely be supporting Meka Whaitiri’s SOP, because one of the quotes, I think, from whānau submissions was that they did not believe that the High Court understands ngā mea Māori as the Māori Land Court has and does, and has that deep institutional knowledge and experience as well. Of course, they had concerns about access and costs, and so I would quite appreciate a response from the Minister just to justify, actually, and clarify that movement, that transfer from the Māori Land Court to the High Court. I think the families, whānau, who raised that concern really deserve a clear answer on that one as well, because I do not see why we here in this House cannot maintain that jurisdiction. Those are the main points that I wanted to raise in Part 1. Thank you.

Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. Kia ora tātou katoa. In light of tērā kōrero I thought it was appropriate to get up now and try to allay some of those issues. I probably may not but, nevertheless, I will have a go.

Me pēnei pea te kī, ki te tīmatanga kei te rongo ake i tō kōrero, kei te rongo ake i te kōrero o tēnei o ngā tuāhine, Marama Davidson. He kupu whakapāha anō hoki tāku ki a koutou mō te āhuatanga o tēnei whakatakoto kōrero. I pōhēhē nōku kua ea tērā āhuatanga, ā, ka mutu ēhara i te mea he kaupapa whakararuraru i te āhuatanga o ngā whakahaere ēngari, me pēnā rawa ahau me tuku i taku kupu whakapāha ki a koutou katoa mō te āhuatanga o ngā whakahaere. Nō reira, ka waiho tērā ki reira.

[Let me express it like this: from the outset I hear what you are saying, and what this one of the sisters, Marama Davidson, is also saying. I have an apology, as well, to you collectively about the manner in which this statement has been presented. I mistakenly thought that situation had been met, and, furthermore, it is not as though it is a matter that poses problems in terms of proceedings, but I really must do that, and apologise to you all about procedures. So I leave that there.]

I understand the issues that are raised and I offer my apology for the late tabling of the papers in my belief that it was taken care of. Certainly, the second issue is that they are relatively minor, but I hear the point and I hope to address that in this call, if I can.

The duty I do have, however, as a Minister is to respond to some of the issues that were raised in the second reading and, indeed, in the first reading, and I want to do that first, and in the second part come to the issues that the member for the Green Party Marama Davidson raised, in particular about the ture whenua. The concerns have been raised in the discussion in respect of the purpose of the trust and the vision of the Wī Pere Trust and that the bill will have a negative impact on the trust and the beneficiaries. I tried to outline in my first call that the purpose and philosophy of the trust are unaffected by this bill. The core principles of the trust are reinforced to promote the benefit and the advancement of beneficiaries. The trust board must operate with the purpose of the trust to promote the benefit and advancement of beneficiaries. The trust board can exercise only prescribed functions and these are prescribed in new sections 10 to 16 of the bill—pages 8-11 if members want to follow that up. The bill basically positions the trust to operate more flexibly, as they asked for, into the future, improving its governance and operational capability.

The second concern that was raised was around the structure, which will limit, basically, accountability to beneficiaries. Well, there will be a new trust board structure for the trust and a constitution that emphasises a greater relationship of accountability of the trust board to the beneficiaries. The trust board’s first constitution is set out in new schedule 1—on page 22 of the bill, to help out. To support this new structure and the operational capability of the trust, this bill removes ministerial—namely, myself as Minister or, rather, the ministerial position—involvement with the trust.

In respect of the land status and protections, issues were raised about removing legislation that deems all land held or acquired by the trust to be Māori freehold land. New section 29, inserted by clause 9 of the bill—page 16 of the bill—provides that the land listed in the new schedule 2 is general land. The key change makes provision for general land that was converted to Māori freehold land on acquisition by the trust—and that is about 29 percent of the total land holdings—to revert back to general land status on commencement of the bill. So this change will provide, again, more flexibility for the trust, and positions it to take hold of a wider variety of economic opportunities that might come its way.

The new provisions do not change the requirement of the trust board to act in accordance with the trust’s purpose and to undertake the prescribed function of the trust. That is really important. It is important to note, too, that the majority of the trust property—that is, over two-thirds of it—will not be converted back to general land through the bill. So that is dealing with the issue about general land.

I turn to issues about jurisdiction, and that was raised, I think, by the member Meka Whaitiri’s Supplementary Order Paper (SOP). Certainly, concerns were raised about the risks of limiting the Māori Land Court jurisdiction and losing its protections. Specific concerns included cost implications for High Court filing and the loss of the Māori Land Court expertise. I can say that new section 5 inserted by clause 9, on page 6 of the bill, provides that the trust board will be accountable to its beneficiaries under its constitution and will continue to be accountable under the Trustee Act 1956 and the amended Māori Purposes Act 1991. But, for clarity, the bill gives the High Court “jurisdiction to determine any dispute relating to the administration and governance of the trust.” So that is new section 5(2), if you like.

Following on from that, I need to say to the member, Meka Whaitiri, it is appropriate for the High Court to have jurisdiction over any dispute relating to administration and governance of the trust because the trust was not established under Te Ture Whenua Maori Act in 1993. That is important, to say that it was set up under that regime.

If I can just say that there were some concerns raised about the consultation—and I can say that from the information I have, consultation started back in 2006 with more consultation in 2008, July 2013, and November 2013, and that a beneficiary-elected working party assisted the trust. So, in a sense, it is my belief that there has been full consultation with the trust.

Finally, the interface with Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill—it was queried as to why the bill and te ture whenua Māori reforms are separate. Collective land holdings in the proposed Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill and the approach to general land in the Māori Purposes Bill were contrasted. It was also stated that the bill should not be advanced prior to te ture whenua reforms. I need to say that the two bills have always been separate and deal with absolutely separate issues. The Māori Purposes Bill relates to a private trust with a particular track record on economic development, and once the Māori Purposes Bill is enacted, Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill will need to address consequential amendments.

I will not go over the Māori Television one, because I think that is just straight out and out. The fact is that there is going to be an entity that is going to stop, and this is about dealing with that.

In respect of Supplementary Order Paper 233 dealing with Te Rarawa, again, that was about dealing with an administrative detail that actually has not been dealt with and, basically, Te Rarawa has been disadvantaged because of that. That was about trying to fix that up.

I want to turn to Te Ture Whenua Maori Act and the points raised by Marama Davidson. An amendment to Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 is sought in SOP 232 to remove an inequitable financial reporting requirement for Māori incorporations, and I will try to explain. The financial reporting requirements for Māori incorporations prescribed under Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 were amended by the Financial Reporting (Amendments to Other Enactments) Act 2013. All Māori incorporations are now required to be audited to comply with generally accepted accounting practice, and I understand the acronym is GAAP. This is a very high financial reporting standard for many incorporations, which creates additional cost. It creates an inequity with companies, as only large companies are required to comply with these standards under the Companies Act 1993. It also creates a significantly higher reporting burden for Māori incorporations compared with other Māori land entities. A legislative amendment is proposed to section 276A of Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993—the old Act—that will limit the GAAP of financial reporting requirements to large Māori incorporations. Under this approach—and here is the key—Māori incorporations that have a total revenue valued over $10 million in each of the 2 preceding financial years will continue to be required to meet the GAAP requirements, and, therefore, they come under some financial burden. Māori incorporations that have less than a total revenue of $10 million in each of the 2 preceding financial years will be required to prepare financial statements that provide a full, true, and complete account of the transactions and financial position of the incorporation. So for those entities, it will be up to the shareholders to determine whether an audit is required. The solution is urgently required because Māori incorporations are at risk of non-compliance for the financial years that ended in 2015 and 2016. Accountants and auditors are also at risk of not complying with their professional responsibilities and obligations as members of Chartered Accountants Australia and New Zealand.

So this proposed Supplementary Order Paper is about dealing with the financial years beginning on and after these provisions come into force. It is about dealing with that. That is the background to it. That is how we got here, and it is because those incorporations are going to be lumbered—and are lumbered right now, unless we fix it up—with a larger financial burden. It is through no fault of their own. It was simply that it was overlooked in the past, and this is an attempt to fix it.

Tēnā koe, Mr Tiamana, tēnā koe. E ngā mema o Te Whare nei, tēnā tātau katoa. Ā, e ngā uri o te rangatira nei, Wī Pere, kei te mihi, kei te mihi, kei te mihi. Kei te mihi i runga i ō mātou tohetohe mō tō koutou pire, Wī Pere bill. Kei te tautoko Te Pāti Reipa i tēnei pire, nō reirā, tēnā tātau katoa.

[Salutations, Mr Chairman, and thank you. I acknowledge us all, members of this House. So to you the relatives of this esteemed person, Wī Pere, I acknowledge, applaud, and commend you collectively. I acknowledge you on top of our differences of views in regards to your Wī Pere bill. The Labour Party supports this bill, so well done to all of us.]

Labour supports the Wī Pere part of this omnibus bill. It is unfortunate, in all honesty, that we have—and I acknowledge the Minister for Māori Development’s acknowledgment—three Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) that came to the Table 15 minutes before question time. That then opens a whole other kettle of fish. But I want to focus on Part 1 of the bill, and I want to have the opportunity to talk specifically to my SOP, SOP 205.

The best way I can describe the rationale behind my SOP is that it tables one of the significant contributions to the Māori Affairs Committee hearing. It is only three pages long, but I think it is important that all members hear this particular submitter, a descendant of Wī Pere. It goes like this: “1. This submission is from Robyn Mere Rauna of Te Aitanga A Mahaki, Rongowhakaata & Ngai Tāmanuhiri. 2. He mokopuna ahau a Wi Pere. Wi Pere was Eastern Māori District Member of Parliament from 1884-1887, member of the House of Representatives from 1884-1887 and 1894-1905 and a member of the Legislative Council from 1907-1912. 3. I am a lineal descendant of Wiremu Pere and Arapera o Te Rangi Tautahi through their son Moanaroa Pere and his wife Riria Kaihote Winiata. From Moanaroa Pere and Riria Kaihote Winiata my great grandmother Teria Pere was born. She married Tame Ihimaera, and they had my grandmother Meritaiakupe Smiler. My grandmother married Hape Rauna, and had my father, Tiopira. My father married my mother Drina Maynard and they had me. 4. My Wi Pere Trust Shareholder ID number is 24563. 5. I am self-employed working in various project roles for the Turanga Iwi of Te Aitanga A Mahaki and Rongowhakaata. I also serve on two boards as a Trustee of the Eastern & Central Community Trust, and Board member of Community Law Aotearoa. I have a law degree and a master’s in business administration both from the University of Waikato. … 7. To summarise, I discuss the issues raised by the Maori Purposes Bill … a. Limited jurisdiction of the Maori Land Court & Access to Justice; b. The potential risk posed to corpus lands;”—and I acknowledge the Minister has addressed this, and the select committee, in protecting or removing the corpus land away from general title—“and c. My proposal for the future.”

I raise this because in Robyn’s submission, the point around ensuring that the governance of the Wī Pere Trust remains with the Māori Land Court is one of access to natural justice and the cost of filing with the High Court. I want to acknowledge the chairman of the Māori Affairs Committee, Tutehounuku Korako, who acknowledged that, perhaps, under this bill you will not get many filing claims with the High Court. If that is the case, why have we got it in this bill? Why have we got the High Court in there, if we do not expect them to be lodging any claims with the High Court?

Robyn then goes on to the Māori Land Court, where she says that it “should be for the preferred judiciary to determine any dispute relating to the administration and governance of the trust.”—again, because of the Māori customary expertise of the Māori Land Court, where the High Court does not have that. Of course, she raises the issue around cost. What is also interesting is that she talks about her tipuna Wī Pere. She says that he was “a staunch advocate for nga mea Maori. His vision to establish our [whānau] trust was born out of a need to protect our collective whanau interests and our ancestral lands. 12. The Maori Land Court is naturally best placed to advise and arbitrate on matters Maori especially as they relate to our whanau, our collective interests, our ancestral lands, our Marae, our papakainga and our urupa. 13. Section 26 of the Bill, states that the High Court will determine who is the lineal descendant of Wi Pere.”—and I want to acknowledge the Māori Affairs Committee in acknowledging that that is not the role of the High Court and we have made the necessary adjustment back to the Māori Land Court, in so far as lineal descent of Wī Pere is concerned. “14. Section 35 and 36 severely restricts and limits the powers of the Maori Land Court. I do not understand the rationale for only partially accepting its role but not the whole to include inquiry into the administration and governance of the Trust.”

Robyn goes on to say: “15. I can only assume that it is to restrict and control inquiry into the administration and governance of the Trust as well as a demonstration of the lack of confidence in the Maori Land Court. This concerns me.” This is a lineal descendant with a law degree who is very active in the governance role up in the Gisborne area, and she is saying, on examination of this bill, that she has concern about the role of her tipuna’s trust and the role that the Māori Land Court plays going forward.

As she says, she proposes for the future of the Wī Pere Trust that “a. Changes should be made to the Bill, retaining in full the powers and jurisdiction of the Maori Land Court to inquire into all matters of the Trust, with the exception being investment lands (general title land).” Here I say again, this is a descendant who is not short in understanding bills and legislation and whose heart, in terms of her tipuna, also delves into the fact that land in the Tūranga-nui-a-Kiwa area of Gisborne has its own chequered history.

This particular submission that I have referenced in my contribution today is the reason why I have put the SOP forward. We have this particular Government that says that the Māori land tenure in this country is broken. It proposes that it is broken and so we have to fix it. We are talking about the Wī Pere legislation, but you can also align this against Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill. What this Government and, in particular, this Minister for Māori Development are espousing is that the Māori land tenure has got the balance wrong—too much protection; not enough development. They also say that one of the principles around the Māori land system that they are trying to fix is that it is about tino rangatiratanga. Here you have a direct descendant who is saying waiho—leave it with the Māori Land Court.

With all due respect, this is the issue I have in presenting my SOP. I hope I can get the support of this House. This submission is from a direct descendant, with a law degree, who is involved in very strong iwi governance roles in the Tūranga area, who has the history of that area, saying “Waiho. Leave it with the Māori Land Court.” That is my background to my SOP and keeping the status quo of the Māori Land Court having the jurisdiction of the Wī Pere Trust, like I said. This side of the House supports modernising the Wī Pere Trust. We have all visited—many of us have been on the farm. We want to acknowledge the great things that are happening there, but in terms of ensuring that all descendants of Wī Pere can be involved in the running of the organisation, and that if they have to go to the court, their rights are not prohibited because of the cost of going to the High Court. Again, Labour supports the Wī Pere legislation and we want to make that very clear. Kia ora tātou.

Progress to be reported presently.

House resumed.

The Chairperson reported the Policing (Cost Recovery) Amendment Bill without amendment, progress on the Māori Purposes Bill, and no progress on the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill.

Report adopted.