Māori Purposes Bill

Ka nui te mihi ki a tātau e hoa mā kua tae mai i tēnei pō ki te wānanga i tēnei kaupapa, kua roa e noho tārewa ana ēngari, kai te pai! He pai tonu i whakaara ake ngā āwangawanga, ngā anipā i tērā wā nō reira, anei tātau i tēnei pō e ruku nei ki te hōhonutanga o tēnei o ngā kaupapa i tēnei pō, ka mihi rā ki te āhuatanga o wā tātau kōrero. E kore au e hoki ki ngā kōrero kua kōrerohia ēngari, ka ngana nei ki te whaiwhai haere i ētahi kōrero kua puta ake i tēnei pō.

[Fellow colleagues, your arrival here this evening is greatly appreciated to deliberate this matter that has been unresolved for a long time, but that is fine. It is quite good, really, in that concerns and uneasiness were raised during that period, and here we are delving into the depth of the matters, and I commend the tenor of our contributions. I will not be going back to sentiments expressed but will attempt to follow up on some statements that came up tonight.]

I just want to address a couple of the matters that are pretty important in the context of this bill to the member Meka Whaitiri, firstly, around her concern on clause 7. The advice I have is that beneficial interest in Māori freehold land includes corresponding interest in all other trust property, and this includes general land. That is the advice I have.

With regard to the bigger issues that have been raised by Mr Henare and, not as much, by Mr Davis, I want to take it through carefully, because this is at the nub of the issue in respect of the High Court and the Māori Land Court. My advice is this: the Wī Pere Trust is currently subject to both the High Court and Māori Land Court jurisdictions, although the jurisdiction of each court is not necessarily really clear. New sections 5(2) and 5(3), inserted by clause 9, clarify the jurisdiction of the High Court to settle disputes relating to the administration and governance of the trust, and explicitly exclude the Māori Land Court from having that jurisdiction.

The proposed change in Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 205, in the name of Meka Whaitiri, removes reference to the High Court having the jurisdiction to settle disputes relating to the administration and governance the Wī Pere Trust. It does not explicitly seek this jurisdiction for the Māori Land Court. This is potentially problematic for the beneficiaries, in creating that element of ambiguity again. The trust was not created under Te Ture Whenua Maōri Act 1993. It is not subject to all of the Act’s provisions or to the full jurisdiction of the Māori Land Court as provided by this Act. The special expertise and knowledge of the Māori Land Court in areas relating to history, tikanga, whakapapa, etc. associated with Māori freehold land is absolutely, I think, acknowledged in the bill, as we all know, with the Māori Land Court being given jurisdiction to settle disputes relating to lineal descent, which is noted in new section 26, inserted by clause 9.

The Māori Land Court continues to hold the jurisdiction for matters concerning all Māori freehold land owned by the trust. Beneficiaries will still have affordable access to the Māori Land Court in important matters related to their land and in matters relating to commerce, administration, and governance. The High Court has the appropriate expertise given that the trust’s assets are not limited to Māori freehold land. The Māori Land Court does not have jurisdiction to hear matters relating to trust property that is general land. The Wī Pere Trust is aware of the cost differences between the High Court and the Māori Land Court, and only very serious matters that are unable to be resolved through the disputes process would proceed to the High Court.

Schedule 1, “Initial constitution of trust board”, outlines the disputes resolution process, involving discussion and negotiation that is used to resolve issues that may arise between trust board members or beneficiaries. The intention, of course, is to avoid any unnecessary court or arbitration proceedings. The trustees, in their submission to the Māori Affairs Committee, I believe, acknowledged that the Māori Land Court has special expertise and knowledge in areas related to those issues of tikanga, history, and whakapapa associated with Māori freehold land. They noted that the bill continues to provide for the jurisdiction of the Māori Land Court in respect of all Māori freehold land owned by the trust. Their view was that this ensures beneficiaries will still have cost-effective access to the Māori Land Court on important matters relating to their land.

What we have generally picked up is we have heard their submissions, dealt with the submissions, and, pretty much across the board, we are here on the basis of what the Wī Pere Trust wants and has agreed to. So that is where it sort of lands, and in that regard I just need to signal to the member from Ikaroa-Rāwhiti that we will not be supporting her SOP, because we believe that it is pretty much covered off. I thought I would just stand to offer up that rebuttal to—

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: Stand up to your officials.

Ha, ha! OK, I will stand up straighter now. We will not be following on from the desire of the member, but we understand her motivation in putting the submission up. We will leave it on the Table at this point in time. Kia ora tātou.

Members, just to restate, in light of the point of order taken earlier and the leave granted, the question is that Parts 1 and 2, the schedule, and clauses 1 and 2 stand part, and that the amendments inserting new Parts 1A and 1B, new Part 3, and new schedule 2 be agreed to. I call Pita Paraone.

Kia ora, Mr Chairperson. I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I seek some clarification. In terms of widening the debate to include all parts, does that include the number of calls that members can have?

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): There is one member, Meka Whaitiri, who has used four calls on the previous clauses. She can seek leave to be given another call if she wishes and nobody objects. Apart from that, members have still got their allocation of calls. I understand the member currently with the call has not had any so far. He has got four to come.

💬 Jami-Lee Ross: It is quite normal for members to restart their calls when we take it as one debate, so I will seek leave for Meka Whaitiri to have her number reset, for want of a better term.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Is there any objection? There appears to be none. Congratulations.

First of all, I want to thank the Minister in the chair, Minister Flavell, for his explanation, particularly his justification for not supporting Ms Whaitiri’s Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 205. I just want to raise a point in terms of the use of the High Court, particularly in dispute situations. It would seem to me that where such a situation arises, the trustees will use trust resources to defend their position, whereas those, particularly beneficiaries, who have an opposing view have to use their own resources, with the possibility of being awarded costs at the end of the process. For that reason, again, New Zealand First would support the SOP from the member, and would ask the Minister whether he has considered that position, because invariably that is what will happen. While we have a disputes process outlined, in terms of where it can go, at the end of the day the objections have been around the costs that would be involved. That is No. 1.

No. 2 is the question of the ability of the Māori Land Court. Reference was made by an earlier speaker that the use of the High Court equalled a speedier decision. Reference has been made to the next bill that the House will be discussing in Committee, Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill. The issue here is whether or not the Māori Land Court has the capacity, and I would have thought that consideration would be given to strengthening the Māori Land Court in order that we can get speedier decisions, rather than, as is proposed in the next bill, establishing what we call the Māori Land Service. However, that is a debate that we will certainly have when the time comes. I just wanted to make that point.

The other point is the reference made by the member for Te Tai Tokerau in regard to Te Rūnanga o Te Rarawa, its mandated iwi authority, and its issues regarding the Fisheries Act. I actually spoke with the chairman of te rūnanga, Haami Piripi, and he is a supporter of the proposal, because it actually clarifies their position and the position of Te Rūnanga o Te Rarawa and the responsibility that it will have for managing those fisheries assets.

Tēnā koe, tēnā koutou. Where are we going? The Greens, of course, will be supporting the Māori Purposes Bill. The bill appears to be consistent with the Green Party principle of giving Māori organisations greater autonomy over their own affairs, particularly from the Crown. It appears to remove the ministerial involvement in the governance of the Wī Pere Trust. For those and other reasons upholding the Green Party’s commitment to Te Tiriti, we will be supporting this bill. I want to take a short call. I just have a couple of main questions concerning the Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs).

Minister Flavell, I listened to your response regarding my colleague Meka Whaitiri and her SOP 205, which wants to retain the status quo with the Māori Land Court. Forgive me, I am trying to make sure that I have caught up, but it appears that a lot of the concerns about retaining the cultural knowledge and the institutional knowledge of whenua Māori are why the Green Party will be supporting Meka Whaitiri’s SOP. You have, it seems, explained that actually the concerns have been taken care of in the amendments, but then I note—and I am happy for the Minister to correct me—that even though the Māori Land Court will retain jurisdiction over issues relating to Māori freehold land interest, the High Court still retains the jurisdiction to determine the lineal descent, the whakapapa, succession purposes, and discussions. So we would still actually support Meka Whaitiri’s SOP, even though all Māori land is being held under the authority of the Māori Land Court. We would still argue and debate that Māori issues are also better held by the Māori Land Court, because of the issue of tikanga relating to whenua. We would feel comfortable with the Māori Land Court retaining its jurisdiction, because of issues relating to whakapapa. I am just making sure I have caught up on where the Minister has replied on that. So that quick clarity on the Minister’s response to Meka Whaitiri’s SOP would be appreciated.

I did want to put on the record, being from Te Rarawa, that we, of course, will be supporting the catch-up SOP, I guess, SOP 234, the Minister’s SOP, which just wants to rectify that when the Te Rarawa settlements were put in place, they had to make sure that they had their mandated iwi organisation for each iwi. Of course we want to support that, and I want to put that on record. Now—yes, I have 2 minutes—I could continue this, but the Green Party did have a specific question. This is to do with land status. The bill, I think, removes the provision in the current Act deeming all land held by the trust to be Māori freehold land. This means, I think, that the trust may, after this bill is passed, own general land that would not be protected. I am just asking about that. General land that would not be protected as freehold land would be under compulsory acquisition from the Public Works Act.

I am wondering, then, whether, for example, the public works amendment legislation should—sorry, I will go back. I am wondering whether we need to consult with the Wī Pere Trust over whether it would prefer that general land held by the trust should also be protected from Public Works Act compulsory acquisition. Those were the main sorts of points at this stage that I would like to put to the Minister for clarity. Thank you.

I am very pleased to take a call in this Committee stage. At the outset, I do want to acknowledge the Wī Pere Trust for its patience in ushering through this bill, because it has been a while. I understand it has been close to a decade since it has been talking with officials and working out ways as to how it can update its trust deed or its method of operation, its structure. So I do acknowledge it. It is one of those unsung giants of the Māori economy that are under the radar, so to speak. Not too many people would have heard of it, but it is a very impressive agribusiness up there in the Gisborne-Tūranga area. So I am pleased that we are able to do what we can in the House to update and modernise its structure.

In updating the structure, I just want to pick up on a couple of things. When we talk about the Wī Pere Trust and having to use Parliament to pass a law to update or modernise its structure, one would ask the question: why would it want to have a private statutory trust? It would be much more convenient in this modern day and age to have a conventional business structure—a company, limited partnerships, or the like—rather than having to wait 25 years to come to Parliament and spend 10 years with officials to work on a piece of legislation to finally modernise its structure, the way that it is set up, and its governance.

But then one has to look at the name of the trust, the history of the trust, and the whakapapa. Wīremu Pere, a renowned member of this House, served for many years—28 years, I believe—in the Eastern Māori seat, and he also served in the Upper House. We are talking about a rangatira, their tupuna, who left this legacy for his descendants. So it is in that light that I can understand how the whānau, or the descendants, wish to preserve that whakapapa within the statute but, also, to modernise it so they can go about their business without being unduly stymied by some archaic provisions.

I just want to raise a point. By going back to the Maōri Purposes Act of 1991, which was the last piece of legislation for the trust, it is actually based on a trust deed that I think goes back to 1899. Wī Pere settled this trust back in 1899. It was a trust deed, and over successive years, I believe, there must have been changes in the trust. It is all set out in section 2 of that Act, which we are updating through this bill. But there is one part in the section—and I assume it has been covered, but it has been taken out. I know the language is quite dated, it is quite legal, but it talks about: “And whereas it is expedient, having regard to the intentions express or implied and contained in the trust deed, that new trusts should be declared …”. What it is saying there is that there has been recognition that the actions that are being taken take into account all the way back to the trust deed—the intentions, express or implied, that were established right back in 1899.

So my question is: has the Minister gone back to that deed and made sure that what is occurring through this bill actually aligns and accords with the intentions of that original trust deed? That is all I am saying. I am sure that is the case, but maybe back in those days it was only contemplated that natural people would be the trustees. Corporate trustees could be expressly precluded under the trust deed. I know it is a moot point, in a way, but I think, given the importance of the whakapapa of this piece of legislation, that it goes all the way back to the trust deed, I would just like to seek an assurance from the Minister that what is being proposed through modernising the structure now has regard to what was laid out all those years ago in the original trust deed, and that it aligns with what was laid out in that original trust deed, because those specific words are being taken out of section 2 in the bill as proposed.

While I have got another call, then, I would like to move on to the Supplementary Order Paper that deals with Te Rarawa. I would like to acknowledge Te Rarawa as well. It is one of those instances whereby an iwi creates an entity—it is a mandated iwi organisation; it is called Te Rūnanga o Te Rarawa—and then, I think through the passage of their Treaty settlement, they dissolved that entity and set up another entity and called it Te Rūnanga o Te Rarawa; exactly the same. We have got two Te Rūnanga o Te Rarawas, and they just want to make sure that the right Te Rūnanga o Te Rarawa is actually covered by the legislation. When I think of Te Rarawa, though, I think of the huge contribution that all the five iwi of the Muriwhenua made to our fisheries settlements that we have today. Were it not for Matiu Rata going to the Waitangi Tribunal for that Muriwhenua report, followed by the Ngāi Tahu Sea Fisheries Report, those ground-breaking reports, taken by those groups to the Waitangi Tribunal, opened the door for us to have the Māori fisheries settlements that we have today.

So here we are, over 30 years now—30 years on from those pioneering moves, from those rangatira from the Muriwhenua, directly to Te Rarawa. So I think it is right that we correct things in a legal sense and make sure that the right entities are actually covered. But what I would seek from the Minister is just some advice that Te Ohu Kaimoana have, I guess, approved, or they have given their support to this piece of legislation, because what we are doing in this legislation is we are, basically, directing, through an Act of Parliament, that Te Ohu Kaimoana has to put this new Te Rūnanga o Te Rarawa into its register and that it has ticked all the boxes under the Maōri Fisheries Act, and that it complies with the Maōri Fisheries Act.

That may not be the case—I am sure it is—but what I would like from the Minister is to know that there is indeed endorsement from Te Ohu Kaimoana that, indeed, this new Te Rūnanga o Te Rarawa is a mandated iwi organisation in accordance with the Maōri Fisheries Act. Although we are directing them to fill out the register and tick all the boxes, it would be nice to know that Te Ohu Kaimoana actually supports this move and we are not just bullying it to write in a new iwi. Technically, that iwi may not be in compliance with the Act, but one would think that Te Ohu Kaimoana—it would be good to have its endorsement of what we are doing here.

While we are on this point, of the other 57-odd iwi that are mandated iwi organisations under the Māori fisheries settlement, are there any others that have switched hats, kept the same name, and created new entities to hold their fisheries settlement assets? So what I am asking the Minister is: are there any other mandated iwi organisations that are in a similar position to Te Rarawa? If that is the case, rather than coming back to Parliament and passing many of these types of legislation, it might be good to do all in one hit. Thank you very much.

Ā, tēnā koe e Te Heamana, ā, huri noa i Te Whare nei, e mihi atu ki a koutou katoa.

[Thank you, Mr Chairman, and my acknowledgments to you all throughout this Chamber.]

I just want to acknowledge the fact that this bill has taken a long time, as the previous speaker, Rino Tirikatene, has just reflected. With what he is talking about, it could possibly take a bit longer. What I want to do is to say that the Government supports the three Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) to amend the Te Rarawa Claims Settlement Act 2015, Te Ture Whenua Maōri Act 1993, and the Māori Television Service (Te Aratuku Whakaata Irirangi Māori) Act 2003.

I really want, first of all, to acknowledge Meka Whaitiri, because I know that when we were in Gisborne hearing submissions, and when the Māori Affairs Committee has done the work on this bill, Meka Whaitiri has always been very passionate about the different parts of the bill, which is particularly reflected in her SOP. But I think the important thing here—unfortunately we are not going to support the SOP. One of the reasons is that when we looked at the bill originally, it was actually about bringing this legislation into, sort of, the 21st century, in some ways, and also to provide more clarity around different procedures. This is the one here, because what Meka Whaitiri’s SOP 205 does is it addresses the primary purpose of the bill. Meka Whaitiri’s SOP proposes to remove the part of the bill that clarifies the jurisdiction of the High Court and the Māori Land Court over the Wī Pere Trust, and returns it, pretty much, to the status quo. Currently the High Court and the Māori Land Court hold jurisdiction, but there is actually no clear demarcation. There is no clear demarcation of what the jurisdiction is that they actually hold.

When we looked at this—this bill as drafted clarifies that the High Court has jurisdiction to settle disputes relating to the administration and the governance of the trust, and excludes the Māori Land Court from having that jurisdiction. Yes, we know that. We looked at that. But 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 these matters. In some ways, she is right. The Māori Land Court has expertise in matters related to Māori freehold land, and that is why this bill still gives it jurisdiction over matters related to Māori freehold land itself.

However, there are other matters here, related to commerce, administration, and governance, where the High Court has the appropriate expertise. One other thing, particularly, is that the trust assets are not just limited to Māori freehold land. I think this is the real essence of this one. When we look at that, there are other things that this trust is involved with. This really does bring it into, you know, more of a modern time and more into the 21st century. There is this argument around the commercial cost to go to the High Court. But when looking at it, it is only on these really serious matters, but there is also that disputes resolution process that they could go to.

So I do think that this bill, as it has been drafted, does not need this SOP, because it actually creates that, sort of, clarity and demarcation as to what the two courts actually do. The fact is that freehold land is not the only thing that this trust actually deals with. Kia ora.

I thought I had better get ahead of the game and try to keep up with the comments that are coming through. I will start with Pita Paraone and say that I hear what he is saying about costs, but if you go to any court it is going to cost somebody—not to say that that is a good response to your kōrero, but I hear what you say. Ultimately, in this whole bill, what has happened is that the trust itself has basically shaped up this bill. Therefore, it has set the rules, it has set the terms, it understands what it is getting into, and it has made it very clear. Because of the long period of time—it is not as if this thing started just yesterday; it has been a long period of time—it has come to the conclusions that it has. But I do understand the point that the member made.

In terms of the member Marama Davidson, just for her clarity, I think I did mention—I am not too sure whether she was here—that the Māori Land Court does retain jurisdiction to settle disputes relating to lineal descent, so kua ea tērā [that has been achieved]. Around the issue about general land not being available for public works, unfortunately—and I made the statement that the trust went into it with eyes open—when the land is converted over to general title, then it does line up to everyone else’s, having the same regime of being available for that. On the good side of the coin, I suppose, it is my understanding—and it will be discussed a little bit later—that the number of times that the Public Works Act has been used on Māori land in the last 7 or 8 years has been once. That is not to say it will not happen again, and we sort of cover that off in the bill, but at least that clarifies, I think, what the member was talking about.

In terms of the tax regime—the Hon Nanaia Mahuta raised this, asking what steps I took to address the issue of transitional tax. My advice was that this was carefully considered through with officials, including the IRA—IRD, ha, ha!

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Same—same thing.

E rua, e rua. [Two, two.] Oh! So the IRD officials were a part of it, to ensure that the transitional tax clause works as it was intended, so I think we have sort of covered off that one. In terms of the member Rino Tirikatene, I think that the issue that he raised was around the trustee. Again, I say that the trust itself put this kaupapa on the table in front of me, as Minister for Māori Development, and I am pretty sure that they were very clear that the original intent of the trustee must be retained, or else we would not be here. So I think that has sort of dealt with that.

Te Rarawa—I am fairly confident that Te Ohu Kaimoana has signed off on that one, or else we would not be here, so I will leave that to sit there. I will not talk about any other iwi, because all I am focused on is getting this one through. I think that pretty much covers the issues that have been raised already, so kia ora tātou.

Actually, having heard the explanation from our colleague and chair of the Māori Affairs Committee, Nuk Korako, around the High Court jurisdiction—I understand that.

I have got a question that needs clarification, because if we look at new schedule 1, the initial constitution of the board, in the voting provision area—is it appendix 1? Sorry, it is appendix 3 in new schedule 1—where the provision is made for voting, ballots can be destroyed after 3 months. However, that implies that there is a 3-month opportunity to challenge the outcome of a voting situation. In that instance, if—I am sorry, I cannot find it now that I am looking at it.

While I am talking, anyway, I had observed that—oh, here it is. Clause 12 of appendix 2 in new schedule 1, “Retention of election records”, states: “The board must keep all documentation … for a period of 3 months after the election …”. However, there is no provision within the appendix to state that if there were a challenge it has to be done within the 3-month period, because, you know, you would need the records to be able to mount a challenge with some evidence as to why that could be put to the courts. So I am just thinking, as I read that, that that is an issue of governance, at the heart of it. If it was a genuine opportunity, I guess, to ensure the robust nature of the election of trustees, and there was the potential for challenge, there is no way to link that period of time, which is 3 months, to the potential of a challenge being mounted. So I just raise that, because as you were making some very good points, it occurred to me that we had not asked those questions at select committee.

Can I go back to new schedule 1 and say that some of the high threshold obligations that we were concerned with, to support the submissions before the select committee, were around things like the decision-making process. So when we were looking to the issue of significant or major transactions, the threshold of major transactions is set out in the initial constitution, and I think that is a helpful thing in the initial constitution. I regret that I may have been a little bit unclear when I talked to the quorum issue. What I was referring to is when the bill was initially introduced, in the constitution it made the provision of a transitional board comprising either three or seven members, and we had recommended that that should be five or seven members so that the quorum would move up from two to three. So I just wanted to clarify that for my own benefit.

The other thing that I wanted to ask a question and seek some clarification on was around the issue of disposal of a beneficial interest. The bill indicates that that would expire on things like when a civil union took place. However, it is not clear what the threshold test of that is, and if we are wanting people to self-proclaim “Oh, I’m in a civil union and therefore my beneficial interests may cease.”, I think we might be dreaming. As I am thinking through some of the practical aspects of situations and whether it was intended that there be a self-reporting of a civil union and therefore beneficial interests would cease—if we could have clarification on those.

The other aspect of the initial constitution, which I absolutely support—and I think people making submissions to the committee would be pleased about—is that we have put in a reviewable period of the constitution, and also ensured that there is an opportunity to vary the constitution by resolution. That, in my mind, at least provided an opportunity for legitimate concerns around the way in which the trust could be improved, and that shareholders contribute to the way in which the constitution operates—that there is a mechanism there, but it is not so low to allow scurrilous, let us say, opportunists to change the constitution. Again, we discussed this at length. We felt that there needed to be some kind of threshold and an opportunity, and this would be a positive innovation to the way in which the constitution was working. But everything, in terms of supporting the trust going forward and modernising, I absolutely support.

Tēnā koe e Te Heamana o Te Komiti o Te W’are, otirā, tēnā tātou katoa. First of all, I just want to acknowledge the chair of the Māori Affairs Committee and the select committee members. I had the honour of sitting for one day, hearing evidence on this bill in Gisborne, and I just want to briefly address some of the issues of the submitters. One in particular that really struck me as being quite important to the beneficiaries was around the papakāinga land and what they saw as potential for papakāinga lands to be sold. Just as a very quick message out to the people listening, that issue was heard by the committee and it has been addressed in here.

I do want to now turn to Supplementary Order Paper 234 on the issue of retrospectively allowing Te Rūnanga o Te Arawa to become a mandated iwi organisation, which is not the first time this has actually happened, to answer my colleague’s question. I know this because I was the chair of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Apa and it happened to us. I think it does actually highlight that there are two separate processes going on here, between the Treaty settlement process and the Te Ohu Kaimoana process for mandated iwi organisations. Of course, you can have only one mandated iwi organisation for the purpose of the fisheries settlement, so ensuring that there is ease of transferral from existing entities into post-settlement governance entities is really important. The interesting thing, I think, about this particular case is that we are doing this by legislation, and I think others have not been able to do that or have not had the opportunity, perhaps because there was not a Māori Purposes Bill in the House at the time. I can fully understand why the Minister for Māori Development has created a Supplementary Order Paper under the Māori Purposes Bill for this express purpose, because the only way other than that is to have its own amendment legislation, which would take a lot longer. So I want to acknowledge the Minister for doing that. I can well understand the frustration that is probably happening with Te Rarawa in having their fisheries assets transferred to their post-settlement governance entity, so I acknowledge that.

I want to just briefly speak about the governance arrangements as well. I think, for the Wī Pere Trust—jumping back to this part of the bill—I just want to acknowledge the concerns of some of the submitters and the beneficiaries and, really, just put out a word of encouragement around making certain that these new provisions do not remove the ability for beneficiaries to participate in what is, essentially, their legacy. So, with those three points, nō reira, tēnā tātou.

Tēnā koe. Just a short call on this one, and I just want to thank the Minister and the chairman of the hard-working Māori Affairs Committee for explaining the reason you cannot support my Supplementary Order Paper. I too want to acknowledge the patience of the Wī Pere Trust, and the work of the chair, Alan Haronga, Kingi Smiler, and all the others back home running this. I do not want to delay it any further.

What I think is really important, though, is to make sure when we are passing this bill that we are up to play with what is happening, particularly in the Minister’s explanation of the jurisdiction and the difference between the Māori Land Court and the High Court. I appreciate the Minister’s explanation around the Māori Land Court—that linear descendants will still be there and corpus land will still be there—but what we have not addressed is that the Māori Land Court is actually under review. When we pass this bill I am just conscious that the entity we are giving jurisdiction to in relation to linear descendants and corpus land or Māori freehold land could potentially change.

For me, it is just because we are not at that point yet of debating the next bill, but it does raise a concern I have—that by saying, in terms of the jurisdiction for these particular parts for the beneficiaries of Wī Pere, that they have access through the Māori Land Court, but we actually cannot guarantee what that land court is going to look like, because it is currently under review, particularly around the threshold decision-making parts, the role of the chief executive, and the Māori Land Service. These new players are going to have impact on the Māori Land Court as we know it now, so I am just mindful—I do not know whether it is a question to the Minister, because it is a bit of crystal-ball-gazing. But I do believe it is an important point to re-emphasise—that in not supporting my Supplementary Order Paper and the feeling that we can cover off both the running of the trust at the High Court level and giving the corpus land and linear descendant decisions to the Māori Land Court, yet we actually do not know how that it is going to fall, given it is currently under review. I just wanted to make the point that it is important that we do emphasise that.

I also want to address the point that the Minister shared with us—and I do thank the Minister for saying that this bill was written by the Trust. It is exactly what the Trust wants, and I have heard this around the House, not just from the Minister but I have heard others say that this organisation has written this bill. We run the risk of setting people up, particularly the Wī Pere Trust, simply because from an operational and governance perspective they would absolutely have an interest, or more than an interest, in how they want their trust to be run going forward. But when it comes to legislation, I still believe that the best place to make that is actually in this House and through a select committee process.

It is just a creep that I am seeing—that just because an organisation has written it, therefore it is good and we should back it, when we have not done the proper scrutiny and received advice from the officials. Those are my contributions in response to the Minister. Kia ora.

I too want to thank the Minister for his previous responses. I want to pick up on the important point that the Minister made regarding him working very closely together with the Wī Pere Trust. For the Green Party, that is pinnacle to our support. This is a fantastic model in terms of a trust wanting to increase its autonomy and distance itself further from Crown engagement. That is backed up, for us, by the consultation that the trustees had with the beneficiaries, in both 2009 and 2013. We acknowledge that that is a good level of consultation. Something that is a reality and that always pains me, if I am being honest, is that 31 percent of all beneficiaries, who represented 57 percent of beneficial interests, voted and 91 percent of them supported the changes. On paper that is a good high mandate. In reality, what I am always going to be concerned about is that we are leaving some whānau behind, even if it is just in terms of engagement and information.

On that note I think I will go now to Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 232, the Minister’s SOP. It is concerned particularly with amendments relating to financial reporting requirements. It seems, I guess, to group Māori corporations into two different groupings. There is a large Māori incorporation definition, which is an incorporation that has had more than $10 million of revenue in each of the two preceding financial years, and then there is the definition for all other Māori incorporations to simply prepare financial statements, rather than be required to give an audit. So just briefly summarising the difference between the reporting financial requirements, I agree with my colleague Nanaia Mahuta that this is useful and practical in not asking smaller Māori organisations to have too much of a burden.

What I thought might be useful in that SOP, however—other members have commented that this has been in the House, before us, for quite some time. I have tried to find anything in any of the committee reports and so forth, and I simply cannot remember. So it would be useful if the Minister could just briefly outline where that classification came from—whether it was driven from the trust or whether it is simply just a standard classification of the size of incorporations. We support this—we think it is useful—but we are just making sure of where our practices and classification are coming from, particularly because for me it goes back to wanting to make sure all the whānau are protected and making sure that we have got good, robust systems in place. That was my short query on the bill at this point. Thank you.

I rise to take only a short call. I want to get back to the purposes of Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 234 with regard to the amendment to the Te Rarawa Claims Settlement Act. I know my colleagues across the Chamber have canvassed this pretty well, but I have always got a few questions when we look at retrospective changes. If we are going to go back and change it from Te Rūnanga to Te Rūnanga o Te Rarawa, as set out in the SOP, I wonder, when I think about—and this is in respect of the retrospective change, because of the implications it has for Te Rūnanga o Te Rarawa.

What it means, in respect of Te Ture mō Te Reo Māori, schedule 3—and I raise that because we know that the iwi schedule set out in schedule 3 is based primarily on the fisheries schedule of iwi. I raise that as a point because my colleagues and my whanaunga here will know that Ngāti Hine were left out of that, primarily because of the Fisheries Act. So if we are going to retrospectively change this in the Fisheries Act, I wonder what other implications this might have.

I ask that because I notice on the SOP that Te Puni Kōkiri considers that a departmental disclosure statement is not required to be prepared for the Supplementary Order Paper. I just wonder what other impacts there are with this kind of retrospective change, given that the Fisheries Act is used as such a foundation Act for so much more moving forward. One example of that is, of course, Te Ture mō Te Reo Māori. So I will put that question to the Minister and look forward to and hope for a response.

Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. Look, I want to make some reference to the submission process and the concern that was expressed during that time. I raise it only because we have heard tonight just how closely the principals of the trust have worked with the Minister Te Ururoa Flavell, and the Minister has delivered exactly what those principals have asked. One of the concerns that a submitter made was the question of donations being made without the total support of the beneficiaries. People can take what they like out of this, but it seems to me that that submitter may have had some reason for concern.

I would say that what we are discussing tonight is actually a blueprint for the next bill that this House will be discussing. I raise that point only because of the comment made about how closely the principals have worked with the Minister, and what we see in this bill at this time is what those principals have actually requested. I suppose my concern is really for the small beneficiary holders—those who have small interests, and yet are beneficiaries—and this bill, it would seem to me, could alienate those small-interest holders. Irrespective of the size of their shareholding, at the end of the day, when we have a corporate approach to dealing with Māori interests, invariably the minor shareholders lose out. Hence my earlier reference to the dispute process—that if it is not resolved in the Māori Land Court, then it gets referred to the High Court.

Again, although I raised it, I do not think the Minister has sufficiently assured me that the cost of that process would not be a burden on the beneficiary if they should enter into a dispute with the trust, and there is the use of trust resources by the trustees to defend or to promote their process. However, we in New Zealand First are sufficiently happy that there is the retention of the Māori Land Court to a certain extent, although we are not too happy with the fact that the High Court will be the court of final resolution.

The second point I want to make is the reference to general land and Māori land—Māori interests. I have no difficulty with that, and I have no difficulty with the High Court dealing with general land. However, I do have some difficulty where the High Court is being used to deal with Māori freehold land, and I think that is where the concern is in terms of the future retention of the trust corpus property.

Apart from that, the other Supplementary Order Paper 231 in terms of the Māori Television Service and the allocation of direct funding to Te Mātāwai—while that could be a management or an administrative issue, I was quite surprised to see that the Māori Purposes Bill was being used to enable that direct funding. I would have thought that the Minister would make that allocation through Te Puni Kōkiri and not resort to the need to utilise the Māori Purposes Bill. But, be that as it may, it has come before the House in Committee tonight, it has been included in this bill, and I suppose that is one of the purposes of the Māori Purposes Bill—to enable those omnibus decisions to be implemented. That was the point I wanted to make. Thank you.

This is a sweep-up of, again, the issues that have been raised. I will try to get through them as quickly as I can. Earlier in the debate, there was the question about the retention, I think, of election records. I think it was raised by the Hon Nanaia Mahuta, who talked about—I think it was—something to do with a 3-month period. It is true that the board must keep all the documentation relating to an election for a period of 3 months after that election and thereafter the board may destroy—and I think that is the key issue, “may”—or dispose of such records as it sees fit. At least everybody knows that it is there, and it is a part of the rules and documents that we have anyway, and that is at the discretion of the board. So I think that one covers that particular issue off.

The quorum of the board—again, Nanaia Mahuta raised this one. Again, the board must have at least five members and not more than seven. If five members are present then the quorum is three, and if there are seven members on the board, the quorum will be four. This is just clarifying that one.

Marama Davidson raised two issues, if I can address those. One was around the cut-off for the financial reporting, if I heard what she had to say. That was worked out between the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, IRD, and Te Puni Kōkiri, to align with the wider financial reporting regime as was originally intended. So I just provide that as response to that one.

Finally, as to the issue about the Māori Land Court, it is my advice that the Māori Land Court in this particular case continues under, obviously, Te Ture Whenua Maōri Act. It does have jurisdiction under various Acts, including this bill. Its jurisdiction under Te Ture Whenua Maōri Act will change, but not under this bill. That is the advice I have, and thanks very much for the contributions.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 232 in the name of the Hon Te Ururoa Flavell to clause 10 be agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 205 in the name of Meka Whaitiri to clause 9 be agreed to.