Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill

Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. Kia ora tātau katoa e hui nei i roto i tō tātou Whare i tēnei pō. Ka nui te mihi ki a tātau i tēnei, te āhuatanga ō wā tātou kōrero ka kōrerohia i te pō nei.

[Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Acknowledgments to us all gathered here in our House this evening. In regard to the tenor of our contributions delivered this evening, I applaud us all hugely.]

I move, That Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill be now read a second time. By way of introduction, as we do, Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill restates and reforms the law relating to Māori land. It is a major step in the journey to recognise and enhance the mana and tino rangatiratanga Māori have always exercised, and continue to exercise, over our whenua, resources, and taonga. At its heart the bill will protect the right of Māori land owners to retain, control, occupy, and develop their whenua themselves as a taonga tuku iho for the benefit of present and future generations.

The bill is based on the fundamental principles that Māori land endures as a taonga tuku iho by virtue of whakapapa, that tikanga Māori is fundamental to matters involving Māori land, and that Te Tiriti o Waitangi is central to the application of laws affecting Māori land. The bill is also grounded on the idea that Māori land owners have the right to decide for themselves how their land is governed and how it is used, to take advantage of opportunities to develop their land for the benefit of present and future generations, and to have disputes managed in a way that maintains and enhances relationships among the owners and members of the whānau and hapū.

I wish to acknowledge the work that the Māori Affairs Committee has done in its thorough consideration of the bill and I thank the committee for its contribution to this significant piece of legislation. It is a huge piece of work that required a lot of time and effort to hear submissions, to do the analysis, and provide the select committee report, which I will talk to shortly. In keeping track of the select committee process, I know that members looked right into the detail of the bill—as they should—so it is no surprise that the report is fairly comprehensive. I want to thank the chair, Tutehounuku Korako, and others of the select committee who participated in and, indeed, took leadership positions on the committee as it went through the process.

I would also like to thank everyone who provided feedback on the bill. That was important in terms of getting an understanding of the key issues that people felt needed to be addressed. In the end, the select committee, I believe, received over 152 written submissions from individuals, trusts, incorporations, and other professional groups and organisations as well. So I thank all of the submitters. The submissions covered a wide range of topics associated with the bill and I understand they gave the select committee plenty of food for thought.

As I indicated in the first reading, this bill is one of the most important measures for Māori that this Parliament will consider in our time, and it is fitting that it has received such careful scrutiny and consideration. The select committee has recommended several changes to the bill that, taken as a whole, are intended to improve the bill’s clarity and effectiveness. In reflecting on the report, it is my belief that the framework and policy reflected in the bill remains sound. This bill will bring about a significant change in the way the laws of our country reflect and provide for matters of fundamental importance to Māori and the way our laws relate to concepts embodied within tikanga Māori.

It is my view that most of the amendments made by the select committee are of a minor nature or are technical in nature. They include some additional cross-referencing to make it easier for people to navigate through the bill, and I believe that these are sensible contributions and, most importantly, contribute to the bigger picture of the bill.

There are a few amendments that are more material and should be mentioned. At its heart this bill addresses matters of Māori land tenure, which differs markedly from other forms of land tenure and has its own unique features. The matters addressed by the bill include a modern and sensible approach to the law relating to whenua Māori and whenua tāpui. The bill provides clear frameworks for Māori land owners in decision making, dispositions of Māori freehold land, governance arrangements and representation of owners, succession, and disputes resolution.

I want to give an overview of six of the most important changes recommended by the select committee. First, there is a change to the second-chance mechanism—that is, a process owners can use if they cannot reach the required quorum for a meeting. The change is to address concerns that the second-chance mechanism could expose Māori land to decisions made by a small minority of owners. The Māori Affairs Committee makes a decision under the mechanism conditional on two things: firstly, that the Māori Land Court is satisfied that the decision complies with the Act and, secondly, that the decision helps the owners to retain, occupy, or develop their land for the benefit of present and future owners.

The second matter is that all Māori who own land on the day that the bill commences will be treated as being associated with the land in accordance with tikanga Māori. In order to succeed to land or to be entitled to own land, tamariki will now have to show a whakapapa link to those owners only and not to previous generations of the owners.

Third, a high level of owner involvement will be required before a move can be made to consider revoking a governance arrangement. Previously, such a decision could have been made or been initiated by one, single owner.

The fourth issue is that when people need to determine whether whāngai and adopted children are to be regarded as descendants of their parents, they need to first consider the tikanga of the respective whānau before looking to the tikanga of the hapū. The tikanga of the iwi, which was referred to in the bill as introduced, is no longer relevant.

Fifthly, the Māori Land Court will have various remedies available when investigating the conduct of a governance body, as this was not clear in the bill as introduced. Lastly, it is spelt out in a far clearer fashion that the judges of the Māori Land Court will continue to be appointed on the advice of the Minister for Māori Development, after consultation with the Attorney-General.

The bill deals with a number of matters that support Māori land utilisation and development, such as changing the framework for valuing Māori freehold land and giving councils more workable tools to deal with rating unused and unoccupied land. I can say that work is continuing on other matters, such as providing better solutions for landlocked Māori land, improving the way the rating system works for Māori land, and addressing issues with the Public Works Act. Officials are also in the process of designing the Māori Land Service, which will provide practical support to Māori land owners so they can achieve their aspirations and take full advantage of the new legislative framework.

I would like to thank members of the select committee for their hard work, and I would also like to acknowledge everyone who has engaged constructively with the select committee throughout its consideration of the bill. I note that a minority view was attached to the select committee report. I have read the minority view, and in my view the points raised have either been addressed as part of the select committee’s recommendations or are being dealt with through ongoing work that my officials and I, and other Ministers, in fact, are engaged in at the present.

So, in closing, this bill, as I said earlier, is the most significant bill that will ensure our laws support the retention of Māori land and Māori ownership for generations to come and will ensure our laws recognise and provide for the mana and tino rangatiratanga in relation to whenua Māori. I look forward to the constructive debate that the House will have on this significant piece of legislation during the Committee stage. This will provide an opportunity for members to discuss the features of the bill as well as the changes proposed by the select committee.

So I thank, again, members of the select committee for the work they did. I know there was a considerable amount of time put in. I appreciate the effort that everybody did give to this bill, knowing full well that it is a major piece of legislation. I look forward to the Committee stage, when we can get down to the nitty-gritty of the bill and have everybody’s views expressed about—clause by clause—all the details that came up in the whole process. I close and say that 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. Labour will not be supporting this bill, not because Meka Whaitiri had some kind of road to Damascus conversion to mindless and spiteful opposition, but simply because it does not live up to what its intention was, and that was to provide tools to Māori land owners to better utilise their land.

I have brought this large pile as a demonstration of the amount of paper—the reports and the submissions—that the Māori Affairs Committee received, and I do want to support what the Minister for Māori Development said around the work of the select committee. It is a very comprehensive bill, very comprehensive, and in true honesty, as a member of the committee—well, not actually a permanent member, but a member who subbed on throughout the consideration of this bill—I can definitely attest to this side of the House, particularly, having been very constructive members of that select committee to make sure that where we could make some changes to the bill we would definitely make those suggestions, and the Minister has acknowledged them.

I do want to say there are some good points in this bill. Obviously, the rangatōpū option becoming optional—before, it was almost mandatory—has been a big change. But it was interesting to note during the select committee process that certain Māori organisations came to the select committee and wanted opt-out provisions, so we have made some amendments in the bill for certain organisations to opt out. The Minister mentioned the second-chance mechanism, which is in clause 51(8) in Part 3. I will not go into that. The Minister also touched on the clarification around the whāngai relationship, which is in clause 8. I want to also acknowledge—and it is not a new provision in the bill—the existing provision in the Act that talks about the retention of the 75 percent threshold if land is to be sold by all the owners. That is not a new provision, but it is retained in this bill as a commitment to retaining land. And, of course, the Minister talked about the judges’ appointment.

I want to actually refer members to those who appeared before the select committee. We had approximately 150 submitters; about 47 appeared before the select committee. I too want to add my word of thanks for the many—large, small—legal people who presented very compelling and passionate submissions to the select committee. I just want to pull out a couple as a way of saying why we believe the intent of the bill is a just intent—i.e., to provide the tools to Māori land owners to better utilise their land—but we have reservations around the pace at which this has gone from the intent to this particular stage of the bill, in terms of the second reading.

There are a lot of other issues with the bill that I hope to address in my contribution, but let us just turn to the Māori Land Court judges and their submission. On page 2 of their submission, this is what they said: “1. The Bill is a high-risk approach to critical law reform affecting the taonga tuku iho that is Māori land. 2. The Bill will undermine existing Māori property rights. 3. Key assumptions underpinning the Bill are flawed. 4. Aspects of the Bill do not align with tikanga Māori. 5. The Bill mainstreams Māori Land and the Māori Land Court.”

I heard the Minister say that many of the views put in the minority view are addressed, but I refute the position that the Minister is taking. The Māori Land Court judges have not submitted just once on this bill; they have submitted several times—once, twice, three times. In fact, I recall that it was their submission that the Minister tried to prevent being admitted during the Waitangi Tribunal hearings.

💬 Hon Te Ururoa Flavell: Rubbish. Come on, Meka.

No, that is correct. That is correct.

But let us move to another submitter. The New Zealand Human Rights Commission, in its submission, paragraphs 23 and 24 on page 8, said: “Given the Government’s human rights commitments as regards the implementation of UNDRIP, the Bill should both reflect and advance its principles.” and: “In the Commission’s view, the application of the UNDRIP principle of free, prior and informed consent reinforces the Tribunal’s finding that the Bill presently does not have a sufficient mandate amongst Māori.” I have given you two quotes, and there are many that are contained in our minority view where we said that major people had opposition to this bill.

So when I come down and look at what the selling point of this bill was, it was actually having the tools to enable Māori land owners provided by the Māori Land Service. Yes, the Minister has noted that that is work that is still progressing, but one of the fundamental underpinnings of this particular major land reform was the creation of a Māori Land Service. Yet the committee heard during the submission from the group that is working on the design that the business case is not coming to the Government until April 2017. In April 2017 the business case is being presented. There is no guarantee that this Government is going to commit ongoing funding, let alone take the recommendations of a business case that is not yet public. That is of real concern.

We have concerns about the Māori Land Service around the delivery capability, particularly when the intention of the Māori Land Service is to take over the succession orders of the Māori Land Court, a new dispute resolution service—which I do want to acknowledge the Māori Land Court believes we need—and the registry services that are currently found in the Māori Land Court. These are major capabilities that Māori land owners are looking for some detail on, and yet they have not been provided with it.

There is also the issue of fees—fees that have not yet been determined—so that Māori land owners might know what they are up for when they go to get succession orders. I thought that might have been really fundamental. There is also a very clear lack of a transition plan in the Māori Land Service as we move from the administrative services of a Māori Land Court into the Māori Land Service. We have no transitional plan. That is hugely risky to Māori land owners as to whom they are supposed to deal with. When you look at this bill and when you read the clauses and the various parts of the bill, you actually see the removal of some of the powers that were in the Māori Land Court.

I want to pick up the earlier point around the delivery of capability, because at this current moment the Māori Land Court is under restructuring. Some 30-odd very senior managers within the Māori Land Court hold a lot of this very important knowledge on behalf of local Māori land owners, but their jobs are going to be disestablished at the end of January. So the issue around a proposed entity yet to be established, the Māori Land Service, we totally support, but in the process, again, that this Minister, particularly, is going down, we ask him to give some surety and some safety commitments to Māori land owners that as it morphs from the Māori Land Court into this new Māori Land Service, which is yet to be determined and designed, their rights to their land, their rights to their succession, and their rights to information around their land are safeguarded.

Look, in my closing, I have tried to outline why we are not supporting this bill. Can I just, with the indulgence of the House for a couple of seconds, acknowledge that 20,000 houses in Gisborne lost power yesterday. I have just received a note that they have got the power back on. I want to just say thank you to the Eastland Network lines mechanics who worked overnight into the day to bring the power back. Can I also send my condolences to the family of the two who lost their lives tragically in the plane crash.

Labour cannot be supporting this bill. We stand by the reasons why, and it is up to the Minister and the Government to prove how this is going to benefit Māori land owners. Kia ora tātou.

I begin by acknowledging David Shearer, who I think is one of the nicest people in public life I have ever met, and I wish him all the very best for the future.

Tonight is very important because it marks another step—a very significant step—towards a much-needed, long-awaited reform of the law relating to Māori land. I acknowledge my colleague Te Ururoa Flavell, who I believe is the greatest Minister of Māori Affairs or Minister for Māori Development since Sir Apirana Ngata, and his record is very, very impressive. I am very disappointed in the crummy minority view that was presented to the House on this bill by, among others, Pita Paraone, who should know better.

These are fundamental reforms, because it is often misunderstood why it is necessary to make special provision within our laws for Māori land. Māori land tenure is entirely different from general land tenure, to begin with. It is not derived from the Crown through a system of estates; it is derived from ancient customary rights that have their basis in tikanga Māori. Māori have always said—but without always being heard by lawmakers—that within Māori culture there is a unique and special connection with the land, and I hear it time and time again as the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations. Māori land ownership is about stewardship and connection rather than proprietorship, and it is about permanence rather than transience. After a long line of statutes that have tried to characterise Māori land in terms of English-derived land law, we finally have a bill that recognises these different and special characteristics of Māori land.

Can I say something about the report of the Māori Affairs Committee. I note that the committee considered more than 150 submissions, travelled around the country to hear nearly 50 submitters in person, and gave extensive consideration to the bill. The number of submissions is less than half the number received last year, when an exposure draft of the bill was released. This clearly demonstrates, not only for this legislation but for other legislation, the value of the exposure draft procedure, which I, as the Attorney-General, am responsible for, and the very positive response by the Minister in addressing the points raised by submitters before the bill was introduced. I would like to see, in areas of complex law reform, more use being made of the exposure draft approach, because I think it is a much better approach than simply introducing a bill and referring it to a select committee. So I encourage that for all Ministers of this Government.

One of the recommendations made by the select committee is to include an explicit provision that judges of the Māori Land Court are appointed on the advice of the Minister for Māori Development, after consultation with the Attorney-General. That recommendation became necessary as a consequence of what seems to have been a concerted campaign of misinformation. Where the inspiration for this unfortunate campaign came from entirely escapes me. Judges of the Māori Land Court have always been appointed on the recommendation of the Minister for Māori Development and his predecessors in that portfolio, after consulting the Attorney-General, and nothing in the bill as introduced changed that. The reason it was not explicitly stated was, with respect, self-evident. It was an acknowledgement of the constitutional separation between the executive and the judiciary, which is a fundamental characteristic of our democracy—there should be nothing that could create the perception that judges are somehow beholden to Ministers. So it is surprising, to say the least, that the primary push for the change recommended by the select committee appears to have come from the Māori Land Court judges themselves.

It never ceases to amaze me that so many people in this country do not recognise the importance of the separation of powers. It is something that comes up time and time again, and I personally—although accepting what the Māori Affairs Committee said—am disappointed that such a self-evident proposition needed to be spelt out, because the separation of powers is something that is very important, and I hope that the Māori Land Court judges accept that. It is important to record that this bill continues to recognise the Māori Land Court as a legal institution of great importance, where Māori land owners can get access to justice. It is a difficult area of the law. It requires judges who know something about the law, and it is very important work to be done by the judges, and not simply when they have got spare time from dealing with issues in the Waitangi Tribunal. This is why, of course, they were appointed as judges of the court—to do this work.

The bill enhances the standing of the Māori Land Court as a court of law by freeing it from administrative and management tasks and ensuring it has jurisdiction to deal with a wide range of legal issues, with powers and remedies available to it that would normally be associated with the higher courts. And exactly these reforms occurred in the early 1980s with the High Court, and then a couple of years later with the District Court, but when it occurs with the Māori Land Court, somehow it is some kind of plot to undermine the Māori Land Court, and I say, with the greatest of respect, that that is utter nonsense.

Some people have been led to believe that the current Act works well and does not need to be changed.

💬 Meka Whaitiri: Who says that? Who says that?

But under the current Act there are still thousands of owners who remain disconnected from their land, and Meka Whaitiri, as the MP for her seat down the East Coast, should know that. It is one of the reasons why the late, great Apirana Mahuika asked me to start this project, so Meka Whaitiri cannot be doing a very good job in her electorate if she does not understand that. Fragmentation is actually getting worse, not better. Some trusts and incorporations are doing well, but too many, I say to Meka Whaitiri, are struggling. There is little in the current Act for all those small unmanaged blocks, and there is nothing in the current Act to help owners with dispute resolution.

Some people do not see any benefit in having a whole new Act, and to them I say that under this bill owners will finally be able to set the rules, making it harder to dispose of Māori land. Owners will finally be able to design their own governance arrangements. There will be access to tikanga-based dispute resolution, and the law will finally recognise that the mana of decision making sits with the owners and not with the court, and that is timely and it is overdue.

We can finally do something about getting a better deal for Māori land owners on things like rates, paper roads, and landlocked Māori land. In my time as Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations I have seen it time and time and time again that landlocked land is a huge problem that needs to be addressed, which is why Mr Flavell and I have actually been talking about it and working on the issue. Take the Rangitīkei District, for example, where 20 percent of the land is governed by Te Ture Whenua Māori Act. Much of that land is landlocked and it has acted de facto as a means of dispossessing Māori from enjoying the benefit of their land, and things have to change.

These are just some of the things that make this bill such a significant and important reform, and one that deserves the support of this House. So I too acknowledge the hard work of the committee and the constructive and well-considered recommendations made by the committee. I acknowledge the wonderful work of the officials, especially John Grant, one of the finest public servants with whom I have worked over the years.

The bill returns to the House with improvements that align well with the overall aim of this reform, bringing clarity to the more complex areas of the bill and responding fully to the points that were raised by submitters. It is unique in this House to be considering a bill that has had the benefit of more than 20 in-depth reports and reviews, 3 years of careful development, 171 hui, wānanga, and workshops, 581 written submissions, independent analysis, three exposure drafts, a Waitangi Tribunal report, specialist technical input, and a ministerial advisory group, as well as a thorough examination by the select committee. And Meka Whaitiri says that is not enough—what a load of rubbish. I commend the bill to the House.

I want to make a contribution in the second reading of Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill in the House, and—as many in the House would know—there are several things that Māori will be absolutely passionate about: women, children, and land. We have debated the issues of women and children this afternoon. On the issue of land, it is, I think, of particular note that not since 1993 has a serious attempt to try to look at land legislation and how it affects Māori been approached.

The way in which that has been done is arguable. Minister Finlayson identified the exposure draft process as a positive way of trying to float ideas for reform and to engage the public on that front. We would argue that although it might be a preferred process on paper, in reality when you are dealing with a dense bill with some complexities—especially around the issue of land; Māori land in particular—the exposure draft process confused many people. They were (1) people who may not have been engaged in their own land matters or, with respect, they may have had a very low level of understanding in total about the Māori Land Court; and (2) the way in which the consultation around, or wānanga, had been promoted—again, things became very feisty. There were issues around levels of participation and levels of real input and engagement into the process but also death by iteration in the legislative process. So people were kind of catching up with iterations to the bill as the wānanga were going around and as things were being taken on board. So I think for a bill of this level of density, it would be arguable about whether or not the exposure draft process is useful.

The Minister also identified the way in which the bill will seek to improve the participation of those disconnected, non-engaged Māori land owners. As my colleague Meka Whaitiri has identified, much of the reliance of getting this right will fall to the Māori Land Service. We had a very good presentation from those who were designing the process about what the intent is. I want to acknowledge that, because if there is anything through this process where owners, per se, will derive a lot of a value, it is actually in their support and assistance for their governance arrangements and decision making—the administrative aspects around succession.

However, Labour is very sure as to why it will not support this bill—because it is still in design mode. In fact, the business case has not yet been approved by Ministers—at least, not when we were briefed. Although there has been a Budget allocation for the establishment, fundamental to that is the establishment of the IT platform, on which information is key and is yet to be determined. So the way in which Land Information New Zealand tackles that process—again, it is yet to be determined. How will the Māori Land Service be established? Will it be—and we asked the question—a part of Te Puni Kōkiri, a part of the Māori Land Court, or a stand-alone agency? It is still yet to be determined.

Those things lead us to believe that although it is a very good idea, co-designing it in situ with legislative reform is probably not the best way. In fact, probably what could have been done was to set up the Māori Land Service, keep aspects of the Māori Land Court chunking through, as it has been, and get the service up and running, because many would argue in favour of this service. We are not confident that in the short time frame leading into an election, the service will give Māori land owners, who are supposed to benefit from the service, the greatest level of assurance.

The other thing that the Minister identified was the role of the Minister for Māori Development to appoint Māori Land Court judges. We understand what the convention is—in fact, Parekura Horomia appointed several of the current Māori Land Court judges who are currently sitting on the bench. However, what led us to think that it needed to be specified within this bill were changes to the Judicature Act. We thought that it was better to be clear and to ensure that the Minister for Māori Development has a key role in identifying the skill and capability of those going to the bench of the Māori Land Court, and that that be very well set out in the legislation and very specific.

The other issues that the Minister raised in regard to those outstanding matters—which we all agreed around the select committee would fundamentally improve the utilisation of Māori land—are addressing the issues of rating Māori land, landlocked lands, and formalising paper roads, to name a few. We were informed in the Māori Affairs Committee that there is an enabling work stream that is currently in progress to try to work through these matters. The only aspect of rating that has been incorporated into the legislation is around the Mangatū decision and formalising some of those adjustments, but nothing else. To give assurance that the intent of the legislation around utilisation tackles those issues at the heart of what Māori land owners themselves have raised—those are the issues, and they are outside the bill. So, again, there is a question mark for us around those particular things.

Coming back to the substantive issues around the ture whenua Māori, I think my colleague has set out the reason why Labour is taking the position it is. We had to balance up whether the issue of utilisation went hand in hand with the primary responsibility to protect Māori land. Knowing the realities of what is out there in our own communities, when we are talking about non-engaged or disconnected Māori land owners and the high level of intensive support required to support them to be in control of their own decisions, we erred in their favour. We erred in their favour.

Those Māori trusts that currently have governance arrangements that are currently working quite well—in fact, they informed the select committee: “We are doing quite well, thank you. Leave us alone.” Those ones that were doing really well actually wanted exceptions in the legislation. The only addition that we added to that was Tuarōpaki Trust. Most Māori trusts that have got a trust order were happy with what they were doing; they kind of want to just tick over in the way that they are doing.

The other aspects of vulnerability we felt—especially for those Māori land owners who did not have governance arrangements—were around the participating thresholds. I am pleased, Minister Flavell, that you accepted the recommendations of the select committee around the second-chance provision decisions and the protections there. We believe that that was a positive aspect to what was in the bill—it gave greater confidence. Also, I note the issues of ensuring that there were higher thresholds around revoking governance agreements—so you could not just do it because of a little tiff within the whānau, or whatever.

Anyway, that said, the committee spent a lot of time on the issue of succession—I think the substantial debate will come through the Committee stage—and a lot of time on the issue of whāngai and the practical ways in which that could, and should, be considered. Minister Flavell, you have commented on that. Can I assure you that the advice that we received from your officials was top class. In fact, the Māori Affairs Committee has probably recommended some of their templates for briefings to other groups that come before our committee. Actually, New Plymouth District Council comes to mind. It could do well to follow the templates that we had in this instance.

Finally, the point that I would like to highlight is that nowhere within the bill was it contemplated in terms of identifying how and whether the Resource Management Act and the changes to the Resource Management Act and the Local Government Act could interlock with this legislation, or may or may not impact on it, given that there have been changes that have been happening. To some extent the select committee is responsible for that. We did not pursue that, perhaps, with enough vigour, but I do want to identify that it may be a future issue coming up when we think about the utilisation of Māori land and the way in which changes to other principal Acts fundamentally impact on the way that this legislation is read.

💬 Hon Te Ururoa Flavell: Ka pai.

Whew! I managed to get that all out.

In closing, can I thank our own Nuk Korako, because he has been highly constructive on this particular bill when we have had some very heated differences of view, especially towards the sharp end of the business stage of this process. He has facilitated the conversation in our select committee to a high degree. He has enabled us to pursue all the information requests, so there can be no criticism on that front. In the end, whether or not we agreed was a matter for our own determination. Our clerks of committee I believe served us very well in helping us to co-construct our report, which we are presenting here in the second reading.

So I know, Mr Deputy Speaker, like you know, that you do the best that you can, and it is what it is. Labour will not be supporting this bill any further. There are some significant thresholds that we just cannot see will benefit small Māori land owners, those who have no governance arrangements, or those who need the greatest support, because much of the solution sits in the Māori Land Service, which is still being co-designed. Kia ora.

E mihi atu ki a koutou, huri noa i Te Whare nei, e mihi atu ki a koutou. Thank you to all of the previous speakers, particularly the two Ministers, and members of my Māori Affairs Committee. Thank you to the Hon Nanaia Mahuta, the previous speaker, also, for really critiquing the incredible journey to date that this bill has actually been through. I understand that we have always tried to be principled and pragmatic, so I think the real debate will come in the Committee stage.

I just want to first of all acknowledge a lot of the consultation that has gone on around this bill. It has been extensive. I mean, the whole process before reaching the House, we have heard about in previous speeches. In fact, it has been through 16 drafts. What we have here in this bill today is 495 clauses and 12 schedules, as well. So, looking at that, and looking at the very comprehensive way that it has been done, in fact, I think it is probably the most consulted-on bill I have seen during my time in the House, anyway, which has been quite short. But it has been a long process.

As a result of that preliminary work and consultation, the decision was made to introduce a new, stand-alone bill, and I think this is one of the major milestones of the bill. Originally, perhaps, it was a review and amendments to Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993, but then it was decided that a stand-alone bill would be developed. However, the bill does also need to repeal and amend some other Acts, and it is entirely appropriate, I think, that these parts of the bill will become a separate piece of legislation alongside what will become two main Acts: Te Ture Whenua Māori Act and Te Kooti Whenua Māori Act.

The select committee process for the bill has been a long one, as we have heard. We have spent a great deal of time considering the bill in detail and consulting with officials, and I want to acknowledge, again, the officials, as has been done by previous speakers—particularly Tāria Tāhana, and John Grant, as well.

When we look at the consulting, we had over 150 submitters. Of those, 47 were actually heard in person. But I think it is also worth pointing out that these submitters to our select committee actually represented the views of many more Māori with interests in Māori land, as many of the submitters whom we heard from were actually making their submissions on behalf of very large groups of Māori. I think of the Federation of Māori Authorities, which represents over 250 members, and also the Māori Women’s Welfare League, etc., etc. Even though it was a small number of submitters, it was how many people they actually represented, as well.

So, as a result, the Māori Affairs Committee recommended a number of amendments to the bill. There are a couple that I just want to—I know I have got only a very, very short time, but there are two parts of the bill that I have personal experience of, and that is why I want to cover them. One of them is actually around the two main changes. The first one was to change how descent and relationships are determined, and that descent factor is very, very important. One of the core principles of this bill is that tikaka Māori should be used in determining matters related to Māori land, and the bill as it came to us would not have done this in the case of determining descent relationships that involved adopted children. However, we believed that it was more appropriate and more in line with the core principles of the bill to defer to the tikaka Māori and allow it to override anything to the contrary in the Adoption Act.

The other part I wanted to cover was that we have also recommended that the relevant tikaka in the situation would be that of whānau or hapū, with whānau taking precedence. This is important because in the original bill, it was actually the tikaka of the iwi that was used.

Another amendment that I think is a particularly good one is a change in how the bill deals with the owners of Māori freehold land who are minors. We recognise and respect that in our other property laws a minor does not have the ability to enter into contracts related to land. However, we do not want to see situations where the interests of a minor who owns Māori freehold land are ignored, even if they are a significant or majority owner. Our recommended amendment alleviates this by allowing a property manager who has been appointed under the Protection of Personal and Property Rights Act 1988 to vote on behalf of a minor.

Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill represents a major change, as was highlighted by the Minister for Māori Development. It is actually about the utilisation and the retention of Māori land. A huge amount of work and consultation has gone into the bill, as we have heard, and it is really my pleasure and honour, as the chair of the Māori Affairs Committee, to commend this bill to the House.

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Kia ora koutou e Te Whare Pāremata. The Green Party fully supports the retention of Māori whenua and the mana motuhake of mana whenua over our whenua Māori. We absolutely support the mana motuhake of whānau, hapū, and iwi to be able to use their land and retain their land in a way that upholds their connection and whakapapa and that will provide for mokopuna for generations to come.

We will not be supporting Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill in this second reading. Our simple premise is that this is incredible reform of Māori land law, and, as such, needs to have broad support and deep understanding collectively, from across Te Ao Māori, from across iwi and hapū, and from across Māori land owners around the motu. We cannot say that that is what is happening at the moment. It is not enough of a threshold for the Green Party to support this legislation, which will have enormous implications for whenua Māori—whenua that we have tried so hard to hold on to, after most of it was already stolen or confiscated by several different means. Surely, we can then understand that in any major land legislation reform we want to be really careful. We want to ensure that we fully understand the implications of the legislation and that we broadly support it, but that is not the situation in this particular legislation.

I do want to take a short step back for a minute, because I too echo the support for our Māori Affairs Committee and the tautoko to Nuk Korako for leading the discussion and deliberation that we had across the parties. During the select committee process, after the submissions were received from around the country, as a select committee we agreed to come back, outside ordinary hours and expectations, to make time to sit together and finish our clause by clause analysis, and sit with the Crown specialists with expertise to try to meet the date for getting this legislation into the House at this point. I will state that it was raised as to why we wanted to rush the legislation into the House at this point. Absolutely, that was raised, and it is a valid concern, not just for the Opposition politicians but also for Māori land owners. This is important, and it should beg the respect of proper consultation.

The measurement of effective consultation cannot surely rest with just numbers. It cannot be just about how many meetings were held around the country, and at what time. The measurement of effective and genuine consultation and engagement has to arrive at a point where, collectively, Māori land owners understand and broadly support the reforms that are being proposed in Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill. That has not been achieved. The Green Party absolutely wants to see mana whenua, iwi, hapū, and marae being able to decide our own destinies, visions, and dreams for the land in the way that we see fit. We absolutely support that.

In fact, one of the reasons that we will not be supporting Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill is that the bill actually fails to address some of those actual impediments—those barriers to “utilising land”. I say “utilising land”, because I think we also have to understand, as Tina Ngata, in her oral submission on behalf of the Tikanga Marae, Taiao programme in Gisborne, stated, very importantly: “the notion of economic development that this bill is based upon is counterintuitive to that which we stand for—that being the retention and wellbeing of our lands and food sources.” I also do not want us to get completely stuck on fixed definitions of what is economic development and what is land utilisation. We also heard throughout the select committee process, you know—who says when land is being well utilised and when it is not? That too has to be up to Māori.

I also want to echo that I was visited—I want to acknowledge the Tauhara North No. 2 Trust, which was one of the trusts that provided an example of where it felt it had been able to achieve what it needed to in the current status quo, and that, therefore, this large reform and the large changes proposed in this legislation were unnecessary, and the approach and process was being driven about the wrong way. We need to make sure that the agenda for large-scale land law transformation is driven by Māori, and that needs to be the bottom line.

I too want to add my commendations of John Grant and Tāria Tāhana, as Crown specialists, for deliberating with us and going through the clause by clause analysis. They were fantastic in being able to provide the Māori Affairs Committee with some sort of clarity on the specific points of the legislation—big, thick piece of legislation. We cannot undermine the value that our specialists were able to provide us with, and I really wanted to add my voice to those congratulations from all of us.

Also, through the submission process it was raised by submitters: will this ture whenua bill negate the current confiscation of Māori freehold land for the purpose of public works under the Public Works Act? If we are serious about the retention of whenua Māori—of Māori land—and if we are serious about making laws to make sure that we can hold on to the last bits of it, then why are we also not amending the Public Works Act, or at least considering—and I understand the difficulty of the legal crossovers between the two different pieces of legislation, ture whenua and public works. However, the principle remains. If we really want to retain Māori land, then we should be looking at the current status quo—the fact that the Government can still confiscate it for the purposes of public works such as roads, bridges, and infrastructure.

I want to acknowledge my colleague Catherine Delahunty for her member’s bill—a simple member’s bill that did not require going around the country for months and months, but offered a clear solution to the very purpose that this large, complex piece of legislation thinks it is trying to achieve. However, the Minister has not been able to guarantee that we would see that sort of protection under these reforms.

Again, the threshold of support from Māori collectively is not enough for the Green Party to be able to support this legislation with dignity. We absolutely support, in closing, the notion—and, actually, one of our policy platforms is to provide Māori with the development finance, which is something else that is not at all addressed in this bill. It is the barrier that is a longstanding identification of the lack of development finance, which, again, is not addressed by this bill.

We welcome the discussion. We welcome how we are going to do this better, and how we are going to make sure that Māori land owners can properly use land for whatever it is that they want to, but this bill is not getting there. The reforms are so huge and so complex that everybody needs to be on board. Kia ora.

Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker, tēnā anō tātou e noho nei i roto i Te Whare i te pō nei.

[Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and acknowledgments to us once again seated here in the House this evening.]

I want to make a contribution to this debate. I do not necessarily agree with all those who have preceded me in making a contribution to this debate, but rather to say that this is a very big piece of legislation, and I think it would be one of the biggest volumes in terms of Māori land law. I want to use the analogy of a car that has a puncture. Rather than just fixing the puncture, it seems to me that the Government is replacing the whole car. That used to be the modus operandi in making amendments to legislation, particularly Māori legislation, when it required amendment.

This bill, as we are all led to believe, is to address the issue of underutilised, undeveloped Māori land. The reason for this is that a lot of the land is landlocked, and this bill is intended to address that problem. Can I suggest to members that this bill will not necessarily address that issue. As the previous speaker alluded, the major problem is access to financial resources by Māori land owners, to put into the utilisation of their land.

The other issue is that much of the land that we are talking about is landlocked. Although the bill might make reference to that, it certainly does not address that issue.

This bill has been around for a while, in terms of the genesis of it. The Māori Affairs Committee, of which I can gladly say I am a member, recommended that the bill should be passed into law with some amendments, given that throughout the various consultation processes, a Waitangi Tribunal hearing, and via the submissions we received there has clearly been a high degree of apprehension and opposition to this bill. Concerns generally are that the bill’s purpose is unclear, it is too complex, it could further alienate land from Māori owners, and it does not address more important issues such as the high rateable values of Māori land.

There is a view that this bill is largely focused on reforming and reducing the role of the Māori Land Court. Speakers have alluded to the Māori Land Service, which intends to take much of the work that the Māori Land Court is already doing now. I refer to the analogy that I used about a car and its puncture—all that needed to be done, I believe, was that the services intended by the proposed Māori Land Service could have been adopted and arranged for within the present Māori Land Court system. In fact, when I worked for the Māori Land Court, we used to have a division called the Māori land title improvement section, and it was its job to arrange for lands to be amalgamated and to be utilised for land development. That is not to say that it was perfect, but it certainly addressed the issue of land utilisation.

I think that the present bill over-exaggerates the need for the Māori Land Service, although I can understand that one of the issues confronting the use of Māori land is the whereabouts of many of the shareholders, apart from the fragmentation as well. But that, again, is part of tikanga Māori. Everybody is entitled to succeed to their tūpuna’s—or to their parents’—land interests, so you will end up getting the fragmentation that we talk about. Although it is not ideal, at least Māori are exercising tikanga Māori. They are able to do that presently through the Māori Land Court, and so, therefore, the intention to establish the new Māori Land Service is, I think, not necessary in the terms that people would like us to believe.

My party—we share in the minority view that has been prepared. If people look at the report, it articulates some of the concerns that certainly the New Zealand First Party has in relation to this bill. I want to make reference to one submission, which was made by the Māori Women’s Welfare League. I quote from our minority view: “Despite the Review Panel that gave rise to this bill being tasked with assessing the extent to which the regulatory environment is enabling or inhibiting the achievement of Māori land owner aspirations, the Panel chose to develop recommendations based on ‘what should the law look like’ rather than ‘what is wrong with the current law and how should it be fixed.’ ”

I do not think it is pure coincidence that the members of the panel at that time are now recognised as part of the corporate world. So what we have ended up with is really an extension of what they would like to have seen in their capacity as corporate warriors, so to speak. If you look at some of the thresholds in terms of participating ownership, you can see that what has been suggested is a result of the frustration that they have had in terms of wanting to advance the development of the particular interests that they hold.

The bill provides the opportunity for the establishment of governance structures, and I want to just add to the comments made by the previous speaker, which was that there are some present Māori entities that are doing very well under the present bill. They asked the question “Why the change?”, but I think for us in New Zealand First, our real concern is the high level of apprehension that was expressed not only by some submitters but by those who did not make submissions. The fact that they did not make submissions is not because they were not interested, but rather it was out of frustration—frustration at the concerns that they had, which are that this bill is sort of alienating them from participation in determining the future of their land interests.

I anticipate that during the Committee stage many of the concerns that speakers have expressed so far will be articulated during that process. Suffice it to say, New Zealand First will not be supporting this bill.

I stand to take a short call on Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill at its second reading. I too want to add my thanks to John Grant and Tāria Tāhana sitting up in the gallery tonight for their expert advice. There was nothing in our select committee that Mr Grant could not respond to. He had the current Act and our proposed new bill sitting side by side. Bit by bit and clause by clause he took us through the differences. I for one, as a member of the select committee, was very grateful for his ability to do that, to know this bill inside out, and to actually guide us through the whole process.

Everybody here in the House has talked about the various aspects of the bill. I want to just talk a little bit about landlocked land because I have friends in Rangitīkei who have landlocked land. I think the whole theory around landlocked land—that buyers of the land around it would slowly buy them out and choke the iwi out of those particular properties. But there is the resilience of those iwi and of the whānau who actually held on in there. Now we are looking at this new bill to be able to unlock access to those landlocked areas, and it has been well worth the wait for those particular iwi.

I too come from a whānau that has Māori land. Yes, we have a governance board, but it is not that functional, actually—the particular one I am referring to. I think that it does need a lot of help, and that the current Act has not really helped. Several times we have had to go to the Māori Land Court to get it to step in. I also belong to another Māori land block group as well, which has an amazing governance group.

This bill is actually addressing all the land governance groups, not just the major ones that are doing really well—the big ones—but also the little ones as well, to help them to be able to govern their lands well and to bring everybody who has been disenfranchised, I guess, from the lands back to their homelands. With me belonging to a number or Māori land organisations—we too have been disenfranchised, and we have left it up to a small group of people to manage our lands. Now is the time that we return to be able to help them. This is what this bill is all about. This bill is going to stop that fragmentation and it is going to give us the ability to be able to participate as landowners in that land.

As I said, my speech is going to be very short because I too look forward to the Committee stage of this bill. Therefore, I will commend the bill to the House and look forward to the next stage. Kia ora.

E Te Māngai o Te Whare, tēnā koe. E Te Whare, tēnā koutou katoa. I rise to take a short call on behalf of the Greens on this bill. I had the privilege of sitting on the Māori Affairs Committee for some of the submissions on this bill to support my colleague Marama Davidson, who has already spoken.

There were about 150 written submissions on this bill, and about 47 or so oral presentations. I have to say that the quality of those presentations was pretty phenomenal, particularly given the absolute complexity of the original legislation. The purpose of the bill—it has been stated by the Minister as well—is, essentially, to protect Māori land rights of whenua taonga tuku iho to retain control, occupy, and develop their land as they see fit. We have grave concerns that the bill that is coming back to this House will not actually do that. We have a number of concerns, and they are broken down into the process that has been followed and then the content of the bill—or lack of content.

Firstly, the process. Other speakers on this side of the House have referred to it. But this is the first piece of legislation on Māori land since 1993, and my understanding is that that law was passed then, after a careful process that took 20 years. This bill is extremely rushed in comparison. Yes, there were hui beforehand, and there was some feedback. But, given the complexity of this bill, I do not think that was enough, and, certainly, that is what we have heard from iwi katoa right across the land.

Then we come to the content. This bill comes back to the House after 16 different drafts, and there are significant changes in this bill that is being debated tonight from the one that was introduced in the first reading. That is good and bad. It is good, in that the select committee worked incredibly hard, and I acknowledge the chair, Nuk Korako, and I acknowledge the Māori members from this side of the House who went to huge lengths to debate—and at times some of those debates were fairly fierce—points in this bill to make it better for when it came back to the House. But, again, we have concerns about this because what comes back is not what has been consulted on. If we are going to have this far-reaching legislation that changes that legislation from 20 years ago, then iwi Māori should have had time to discuss the changes that have been made by the select committee, and they will not get it.

I have to note at this point that I join with others on this side of the House—actually, right across the House—in thanking the officials for the advice and the quality of the advice that they gave, because of the complex nature of many of the clauses in this bill. It certainly helped me a lot while I was sitting in.

Then there are the bad parts of this, the content. Essentially, we have got some really grave concerns about the Māori Land Service. Others have actually referred to some of the submissions—particularly the one from the Māori Women’s Welfare League—that basically said that the legislation as it is being presented is based on what the law should look like rather than on what is wrong with the current law. We saw no compelling evidence—in fact, no evidence—that there was something wrong with the Māori Land Court. To the contrary, we heard that there were some major issues with concern about the loss of continuity and legacy around changing the Māori Land Court. It is impossible to agree to a piece of legislation when the final details are not published, and we do not know how the land service will work.

We are also concerned that this bill will not result in iwi not being alienated from their land, because it does nothing to address the Public Works Act and the confiscations of Māori land under that. It is too important, for Māori land, to mess with and pass through legislation that has not been dealt with appropriately and has not been thought through. For these reasons we will be opposing this bill.

Just before I call a member, I am seeking a little bit of advice. I have in front of me the decision of the Business Committee from 4 November 2014, which says that for the first, second, and third readings of Government bills, where the New Zealand National Party gives one of its 10-minute calls to a Government support party, the 5-minute call for the Government support parties will be given to the New Zealand National Party. I am just seeking advice on whether, in fact, there is authority for that decision to be overruled from the Chair.

I think what I will do is I will call Marama Fox, but I will ask the Clerk to look at the rules. It appears that the Business Committee decision might prohibit it, but I think in the interests of goodwill and it being nearly Christmas, I will call Marama Fox.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker—a very wise decision, indeed, given that I think the first speaker, who was indeed a member of the support party, was also the sponsoring Minister of the bill.

I want to turn my comments to our support from our advisers. Those advisers from Te Puni Kōkiri, on behalf of the Crown, gave incredible support to the Māori Affairs Committee during the deliberations on this bill and, in fact, throughout the hearings as we went around the country. They provided us with very sound advice through some complex deliberation. We came to a point, clause by clause, where everyone in the select committee supported the recommendations. Let me say that one more time: everyone in the select committee supported every recommendation throughout the deliberation process, having been debated thoroughly throughout this process. So to John Grant and Tāria Tāhana, for their commitment to the Māori Affairs Committee, I want to commend them and their efforts.

I also want to highlight a couple of themes that this bill does that have not been done before. One is the recognition of whāngai, giving it equal status with formal adoption through law. This ensures that, as is Māori custom in whāngai—and we debated this back and forward to ensure that we understood it—that custom is now being observed in this bill. In fact, a number of tikanga elements are being observed throughout this legislation, which does give greater rangatiratanga to Māori land owners. Although we have heard that many Māori land owners did not support this bill, there were also a number of Māori land owners who, in fact, did support this bill. And you are right—it has been somewhat contentious.

But here is the thing: much has been said about the importance of having widespread approval. So, with that in mind, I actually approached the Opposition members of the House to see whether they would put aside political allegiances and come together to work on this bill, to ensure that we could have the best piece of legislation possible for our people—for Māori people, for Māori land owners. It is true that less than 5 percent, or about 5 percent, of the land of the whole of Aotearoa is still in the ownership of Māori. Therefore, we need to be careful that we do ensure retention and that the land is not at threat.

We actually had some submitters who came and said “Do you know what? The thresholds are too high. We can’t sell the land even if we want to sell the land.”, or: “We can’t even get widespread approval over the 75 percent threshold to make the changes that we want to make.” So the protections are so great that some people objected to this bill because the retention of the land is so great. That point needs to be made.

But here is what was said to me when we put out the hand across the House to work in a pan-party agreement to ensure we had the best bill possible. What was said to me by Opposition members of the House was: “But, Marama, that’s the game. That’s the game we play. We’ll object to it and we’ll stand up and we’ll say those things because, you know, at the end of the day, that’s why we are in Opposition.” Well, if that is the attitude, I find it quite surprising that we will ever get there.

💬 Meka Whaitiri: What? Name who said that.

Oh yes, I can tell you exactly who said that. But I do not want to embarrass them in this place.

I can tell you also that at the very beginning of this term of Parliament, Te Ururoa Flavell invited every member of the Labour Opposition to come and have dinner with him, on two occasions, and, therefore, he laid out the work plan, including Te Ture Whenua, and invited those members to ask him questions, to participate, and to come and work together if they had any concerns. That was never taken up. Not once did anybody walk through that door and take up the Minister’s open invitation to work collaboratively on this bill.

But when we came to the deliberations in the Māori Affairs Committee—and I do, with the others, commend Nuk Korako for the way in which he constructively worked on this—every single recommendation, every deliberation, was agreed to by every member. There is no record in our proceedings of the objections in the clause by clause consideration. Overall, there was disagreement in a minority view, but I commend this bill to the House.

It is a pleasure to be speaking in the second reading of Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill. Unfortunately, I have not been a member of the Māori Affairs Committee. I have attended it on occasions and have seen the hard work that this committee does, especially under the auspices of my good friend Nuk Korako.

I have got to say I have read a little bit about this bill and have participated in some conversations, and I fully endorse this bill. I think it is really important when you think that 5 percent of New Zealand land is held in various Māori interests. It is not being used productively, and the best way to help Māori achieve and become economically free is to actually allow them to use the land more productively. I think this bill strikes a good balance towards that. I think it is really important in terms of creating that economic freedom. I think about the real thrust of this—what it does is it enables the legislative framework for the governors of that land to be able to manage it accordingly and to put in place the governance structures to enable that land to be used. So, on that basis, I have got to say I fully endorse this bill. Thank you very much.

Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare tā te mea, i tipu mai taku Reo Māori i te whenua, ka noho tonu ahau ki roto i Te Reo Māori, kia aro pai atu taku kōrero ki ngā mema Māori me te hapori o Te Iwi Māori kei waho rā i ngā pātū o tēnei Whare. E te tuakana, e Pita Paraone, e mahara ana tāua ki ngā kōrero ā Tā Hēmi Hēnare hei tāna, e rua ngā take kia pōrangi ai te matenga o te tangata, ko te whakapapa me te whakapono, nā, ka tāpae atu i tētahi atu mea na, anei te mea tuatoru! Tuatoru, e toru ngā mea kia pōrangi ai te matenga o te tangata Māori, anā, ko te whakapapa, anā, ko te whakapono, anā, ko Te Ture Whenua Māori e totohe nei tātau i tēnei pō, kāti!

He maha ngā nekehanga me ngā kōrero kei roto i tēnei pire. Tekau miniti, ka riro ki a au te wahaina nei i wā mātou nei whakahē i te pire. Tuatahi, ka kī atu ahau ki a koe me Te Whare, ko ētahi o ngā āhuatanga kei roto i te pire, e tautoko ana. E hiahia ana mātou ngā mema o tēnei taha o Te Whare te kite atu i ngā whenua Māori e ahu whakamua ana, kia puta ai i ngā hua o te whenua ki te iwi puta noa. Horekau he raru mō tēnā. E hiahia ana mātou o tēnei taha o Te Whare, kia ū tonu te iwi Māori ki ngā whenua i marere iho mai e ō tātou mātua tupuna ki a tātou te hunga ora i te rā nei, āe, tautoko mārika ana i tērā atu āhuatanga! Ēngari, ka āta wetewete tātou i ngā tino kiko, i ngā kupu iti, i ngā kupu rahi nei ki roto i te pire, ko reira tātou e kite atu i ētahi tūāhuatanga. Kīhai mātou o tēnei taha o Te Whare e whakaae.

Ka tahuri atu ahau ki te kōrero a te mema, a Marama Fox. Ko taku whakapae he mahi māminga i oti i a ia i te pō nei, ki te kī atu: “Āe, i toro atu te ringa o Te Pāti Māori ki ngā mema o tēnei taha o Te Whare.” Āe, e tika ana tēnā. I haere atu mātou ki te kai ngātahi me Te Minita, āe, e tika ana tērā. Ko tāku atu ki a ia, ka oti ki roto i te kotahi haora ngā take katoa o Te Ture Whenua nei oti ai? E ea ai? Kāhore! Kāhore! Nō reira, ko te kī mai ki runga i te rīkoata o Te Hansard o Te Whare nei, anā, i ngau tuarā mātou i te āpitihanga i tērā pāti, me ngā nekehanga o tēnei pire! Rawa au e whakaae ana, me te kī atu he kōrero māminga tēnā.

Kāti, kua wahaina mai ngā mihi ki ngā āpihā o Te Minita, ki ngā kaiwhakahaere o Te Rōpū Whiriwhiri ngā Take Māori, āe, e tautoko ana au i ērā kōrero ki a rātou, me te mihi anō mō ngā mahi nunui kua oti i ā rātou ki roto i ngā tau kua pahure ake nei. I kī mai te mema mō tetahi wāhi ātaahua rawa atu, a Hunua, arā, ko Andrew Bayly tērā, ka kī mai ia: “Ae, ko te rima pae heneti te nuinga, te rahi o te whenua kei roto i ngā ringaringa o Te Māori.” Hei tāna: “Ko te nuinga, ē hoa, e noho tārewa ana, e noho ngoikore ana.”

Ahakoa he tamaiti taku pakeke, ko te kī atu ahau ki tēnei Whare, mō ngā tau e ono kua pahure ake nei, ko au tetahi o ngā kaiwhakahaere Whenua Māori, me te kī atu ki tērā mema: “Ē mara, kāti rā ko te kōrero pōrangi ko tērā!”. He hua nui ka puta mai i ngā whenua o Ngāti Hine. He hua nui ka puta mai i ngā poraka whenua i wahaina mai e tōku hoa mahi nei a Meka Whaitiri ki roto i Te Tairāwhiti, te wahi whenua o Te Minita o ngā take Mātauranga. Nō reira, ko te kī atu he iwi koretake Te Iwi Māori ki te ahu whenua, āe mārika, āe mārika! Ko te wero atu ki tērā mema nā. Tēnā kōrero mai i taua kōrero ki runga i te marae o Waitangi a taihoa ake nei! Kāti, kua rongo atu ahau i ngā totohe kei roto i Te Whare me te kī atu, mā te tikanga Māori ngā amuamu me ngā raruraru ka ea ki roto i tēnei pire.

Ka whakaaro ake ahau mō te raruraru ka pā ki roto i Te Iwi o Te Arawa, e pā ana ki tērā wāhi ātaahua ko Whakarewarewa. Ko wai mā ngā kaiwhakawā i tukuna e Te Karauna ki te whakatika i tērā raruraru? Ē hoa, ko tōku pāpā ko Ērima Hēnare me tōku tūpuna a Kevin Paraima. Mehemea e mōhio ana Te Kāwanatanga i ngā hītori, kei waenganui i a Ngāpuhi me Te Arawa, ē hoa, horekau he take mō te tukuna atu i tetahi o Ngāpuhi ki te whakatikatika i ngā raruraru o Te Arawa! Kātahi rā te whakaaro pōrangi ko tērā, me te kī atu, mā te tikanga e ea ēnei take. He tino raruraru tēnā.

Kua roa rawa ahau e mea atu ana, horekau he wahanga mō te tikanga Māori ki roto i te ture Pākehā, kei raruraru tātou! Kei raru tātou ā taihoa ake nei! Mehemea ka haere atu mā runga i tēnei huarahi, arā, ko te tikanga Māori, tētahi raruraru kei waenganui i a māua kō tētahi atu, mā wai rā te kī, mehemea rawa au e whakaae ana ki ngā tatūnga hei te otinga ake? Tahi ka huri atu ahau ki te kōti Pākehā hei tau ai te take nei. Nā, koinā te raruraru o tērā whakaaro, mā te tikanga ngā take o tēnei pire e ea ai? He raruraru nui tēnā ki a au nei. Rawa au ko te kī atu, he koretake te tikanga, kāhore! Rawa au mō te kī atu horekau he tāngata kai roto i Te Ao Māori, tatū ai ngā take e pā ana ki te tikanga, kāhore! Ēngari ko tāku e kī atu, mehemea ko Te Puni Kōkiri, mehemea ko Te Kāwanatanga hei tohutohu, ko wai mā te kaiwhakawā o te take nei, ā, nā ko reira te raruraru. Ko reira te raruraru.

Kua kōrero mai ngā mema o Te Whare nei mō te tīmokamokatanga o ngā hea, ara, ko te fragmentation. Ka pai tērā kupu ki a au nei, ko te “tīmokamoka”. Āe, ko tērā tetahi o ngā tino raruraru o te wā nei. E mōhio ana māua ko Pita Paraone i tērā take ki roto i ngā mahi whakahaere ngāhere o Ngāti Hine. Ē, kua rahi haere a Māori, koinā te kaha o Ngāti Hine ki te whakaputa uri, ko reira mātou raru ai. Nō reira, e tautoko ana au i te kōrero, me whakakotahi ai, me whakatōpū ai i ngā hea o te whānau, ka whai mana te reo o te whānau ki roto i ngā nekehanga o ngā mahi ahuwhenua, ngā mahi whakahaere whenua, he mea pai tēnā. [Bell rung] Ka tangi mai te pere!

Ka tahuri atu ahau ki tetahi atu take e pā ana ki Te Kōti Whenua Māori. Nā, kua kite atu i te āwangawanga o ngā kaimahi Māori kei roto i Te Kōti Whenua Māori. Āe mārika he take nui tēnā, ki te kī atu ki ngā kaimahi Māori kua roa rawa e awhi nei i te hunga whakahaere whenua, e awhi nei i ngā whānau kei a rātou ngā hea mō ngā whenua, ki te kī atu ki ā rātou, tēnā, ka pōroa ngā wāhi mahi, ngā tūranga mahi. He tino raruraru tēnā tā te mea, kua roa rawa Te Iwi Māori e mea atu ana, hoatu te kaha whakapakari ake i Te Kōti Whenua Māori, ko reira ka whiwhi mana, ka whiwhi reo ai mātou, kei a mātou ngā whenua ki roto i ngā take o Te Kōti Whenua Māori. Whakapakari ake i Te Kōti! Kaua e tapaina! Kaua e peia ko ngā tūranga mahi, he tino raruraru tēnā.

Kāti, ki roto i te toenga o te wā kei a au e kōrero ana, kore au e whakaae ana ki ngā nekehanga o tēnei pire. Ko ētahi o ngā kōrero, e whakaae ana mātou ēngari, ko te nuinga he aha te take ko te nuinga? Tā te mea i hoki atu mātou ngā kaiwhakahaere whenua Māori me ngā kaipupuru i ngā tūru Māori o Te Whare Pāremata nei ki ō mātou ake tāngata. Nā rātou te kī: “Kaua e tautoko i te pire, kaua e tautoko i te pire!”. Nā runga i tērā kōrero, ka tau tēnei ki raro, kia ora tātou katoa.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker; because my Māori language originated from the land, I will remain speaking in it so that my contribution may be taken heed of by the Māori members and indeed the Māori community outside of the walls of this House. To you, my elder sibling Pita Paraone, we can recall the comments of Sir Hēmi Hēnare, where according to him there are two matters that will derange a person’s head: it is genealogy and belief. And now another one can be added—here is a third one. There are three things that can make the head of a Māori mad: genealogy, belief, and Te Ture Whenua Māori, which we are debating this evening—enough!

There are a lot of movements and talk in this bill. I have 10 minutes to raise our opposition to the bill. Firstly, I say to you and the House that there are aspects in the bill that have our absolute support. We the members on this side of the House want to see Māori lands moving forward so that benefits from it can get out to the people throughout. There is not a problem with that. We on this side of the House want the Māori people to remain committed to the lands that were generously bequeathed to them, the ones alive today, from our ancestral forefathers. Yes, we really endorse that other aspect, indeed! But we will collectively analyse the real contents, the minor and detailed words here in the bill, and by doing that we will collectively find some other kinds of situations. We on this side of the House will not agree.

I now turn to the contribution by the member Marama Fox. My assertion is that she committed an act of deception this evening when she said: “Yes, the hand of the Māori Party reached out to the members on this side of the House.” Yes, that is right. We went and had a meal together with the Minister, yes, that is correct. What I do say to her is: can all the issues concerning the land Act be completed in 1 hour? Be settled? No! Not at all! And so according to what is recorded in the Hansard of this House, it states there that we the Opposition were biting that backs of that party with the supplementary to it, and about the movements of this bill. I absolutely do not agree and furthermore, I openly declare the statement is conniving.

And so I bring forth the accolades to the officials of the Minister and the administrators of the Māori Affairs Committee. Yes, I endorse the accolades to them and acknowledge them also for the significant tasks they completed in the years just passed. A member of a very beautiful place, Hunua it was, that was Andrew Bayly, he said to me: “Yes, the majority, much of the remaining land left in Māori hands amounts to 5 percent.” According to him: “Heck, mate, much of it is unresolved and idle.”

Even though I might be a young adult, I have always stated to this House for the last 6 years that I am one of the administrators of Māori land, and have said to that member: “Hey, mate, that statement is indeed the craziest!”. Huge benefits have been realised from the Ngāti Hine lands. The same have been realised from the land blocks borne by my fellow colleague Meka Whaitiri on the East Coast, the homeland of the Minister of Education. Therefore, to say that Māori people are hopeless at farming, yes, really, you do not say! That is a poke at that member in particular. How about making that comment on the Waitangi marae presently! Enough, I have heard the debates in the House and declare the complaints and problems in this bill can be resolved through Māori convention.

I reflect on a problem that occurred within the tribal confederation of Te Arawa and was related to a beautiful place, and it was Whakarewarewa. Who, then, were the adjudicators the Crown sent to resolve the problem? Hey, mate, it was my father Ērima Hēnare and my grandfather Kevin Prime. If the Government knew the history between Ngāpuhi and Te Arawa, heck, mate, it was a hopeless situation sending a Ngāpuhi to resolve Te Arawa’s problems! What a crazy thought that was, and saying at the same time customary protocol would resolve those matters. That is a real problem.

I have said for a long time there is no part for Māori protocol in Pākehā law; it will be our undoing. It might undo us eventually. If we were to go down this path, in other words, follow a Māori customary protocol to resolve a problem between me and someone else, who makes the call if I do not agree with the conclusions at the end of it? Then I turn to a Pākehā court to settle this issue. That, then, is the problem with that notion. Will a customary protocol resolve issues from this bill? That is a huge problem for me in particular. I will never say that customary protocol is useless; I will not. I will never say that there are no persons within Māoridom that can settle issues concerning customary protocol—there are! But if Te Puni Kōkiri or the Government are providing the advice, then I will ask who then adjudicates this issue? And that is where the problem is; that is where it is.

Members of this House have spoken about tīmokamokatanga of shares—in other words, fragmentation. I like that word “tīmokamoka”. Yes, that is one of the real problems currently. Pita Paraone and I are aware of that issue in terms of Ngāti Hine’s forestry administrative operations and hey, Māori numbers have certainly increased. That is a strength which Ngāti Hine has, producing descendants, which has become a problem of ours. And so I support the statement about the consolidation and amalgamation of family shares to give the family a stronger say in the movements in terms of farming operations and administrative duties relating to the land; that is a good thing. [Bell rung] The bell rings!

I turn to another issue regarding the Māori Land Court. I have seen the concerns of Māori staff in the Māori Land Court. Yes, indeed, that is a huge issue, to inform them who for a long time embraced the ones who administered land, and families who had shares for the land, that work places and positions are being chopped. That is a real issue, because Māoridom has been saying for a long time to give the Māori Land Court the mandate to restructure and redevelop itself, and by doing that, it receives autonomy and we get a say as we have the land involved in issues concerning the Māori Land Court. Strengthen the court! Do not disestablish it! Do not banish the positions! That is a real concern.

Well, then, in the time that is left for me to speak in, I do not agree with the movements of this bill. We agree with some of the dialogue, but with the majority, what is wrong with it? We the administrators of Māori land, and holders of Māori seats in this Parliament, went back to our own people, and they said: “Don’t support the bill, don’t support it!”. On that statement, I resume my seat, and my appreciation to us all.]

It is a pleasure to rise in support of Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill. This Government is ambitious for all New Zealanders. If we look at the measures in this bill, this is about unlocking the potential for Māori to participate fully in all of the opportunities that New Zealand offers. As my good colleague Andrew Bayly put it, this allows Māori to grasp their own economic freedom. That is enormously powerful for Māori and superbly beneficial for all of New Zealand. I commend this bill to the House.