Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill

Ā, tēnā tātau katoa, titia tēnei kaupapa ki te ngākau, ki te wairua o tātau o Te Ao Māori, ka mihi rā ki te āhuatanga o ngā kōrero kua puta i uta, i kāinga i ngā marama, i ngā tau kua hipa ake, anā, kua eke ki tēnei wā, i tēnei pō, huri noa i tō tātau Whare, tēnā koutou, kia ora tātau katoa.

[Acknowledgments to us all. Adorn this matter to the heart and spirit of ours and of Māoridom. I commend the tenor of the sentiments that have emerged from the coastland and home in the months and past years right up to the present moment, to this evening. So to you collectively throughout our House, my congratulations and appreciation to us all.]

Can I start by, firstly, acknowledging the Māori Affairs Committee, which listened to submissions, the chair for carrying out the obligations of the committee, and, indeed, others who took his place throughout the debate. Can I also thank all of the submitters; many, many of them provided solid advice throughout the debate and discussions. I want particularly to thank all of the officials for the hard work that has been done over these last couple of years to get us to this point in time, and will, hopefully, thank them in another way at another time. But there has been a hell of a lot of work done, and, indeed, I thank the Parliamentary Counsel Office for the work that has been done to present the documents that sit on the Table. I also want to acknowledge the Attorney-General, the Hon Christopher Finlayson, for his assistance and help as we have moved through this bill.

This bill is the most significant reform of Māori land law since Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993. That Act refocused the law from one that assimilated and alienated Māori land to one that promoted its retention. However, a range of reviews have highlighted the need to give owners greater autonomy to make their own decisions about their land, as in mana motuhake, to enhance protections so that the remaining Māori land stays in Māori hands, as in taonga tuku iho, and to provide better support to enable owners to develop their land, whakawhanake. These matters underpin Part 1 of the bill.

The bill recognises the mana and tino rangatiratanga Māori exercise over our whenua, and protects the right of Māori land owners to retain, occupy, control, and develop our land. It might seem obvious, but the law has taken a long time to recognise mana and tino rangatiratanga, even though Māori land owners have consistently called for them to be recognised. The bill’s purpose statement is supported by a set of significant and important principles, which all decision makers will need to recognise. These include the principles that Māori land endures as 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 underpinned by the idea that Māori land owners have the absolute right to design their own governance arrangements and to set rules making it harder to dispose of Māori land. The mana of decision making will sit with the owners, not with the Māori Land Court. Owners will also be able to refer matters they cannot agree on to a disputes resolution process.

The purpose and principles clauses reflect the concepts and align with the key principles expressed in the preamble of the current Act. The bill recognises the guarantees given to Māori under Te Tiriti o Waitangi and ensures that the concept of retention continues to be one of the key focus points of Māori land law.

I would like to state very clearly that the bill will not lead to the loss of Māori land. In fact, the bill makes it harder to sell Māori land. The thresholds that need to be met for sales and permanent alienation are the same as those under the current Act, but with the major difference that owners will have the ability to increase these thresholds up to 100 percent if they so wish. That would make sales virtually impossible. Added to that, the bill makes it impossible to sell Māori freehold land that has been converted to collective ownerships and prevents the sale or acquisition of Māori customary land or land reserved as whenua tāpui. The bill gives the Māori Land Court a critical role in ensuring that the law relating to whenua Māori is observed. The level of protection for Māori land has never been stronger than it is under this particular bill.

Part 1 of the bill also contains the interpretation and related provisions. The terminology defined in this part reflects a deliberate change of focus, and has been carefully chosen to reflect modern drafting concepts—for example, “Māori reservation” will become “whenua tāpui”, “agent” will become “kaiwhakahaere”, “preferred classes of alienees” will become “preferred recipients”, “alienation” will become “disposition”, and “undivided interest” will become “individual freehold interest”. Other new terms reflect new concepts in the bill such as kaiwhakahaere, kaiwhakamarumaru, kaitiaki, and rangatōpū.

Part 1 of the bill also recognises an important feature, and that is that tikanga Māori is central to matters involving Māori land and the law must give way to tikanga on a range of matters. For instance, tikanga Māori will determine relationships of descent when whāngai and adoptions are involved. It will also determine eligibility to become an owner of Māori land. Care has been taken to avoid codifying what constitutes tikanga Māori. The bill directs courts to determine any question as to tikanga Māori that applies in a particular situation on the basis of evidence.

I have tabled some Supplementary Order Papers that amend various aspects of the bill. Supplementary Order Paper 279 addresses concerns that the proposal to address barriers contained in other laws that prevent Māori using their land do not go far enough. Provisions are included that relate to the application of the Public Works Act, discussed a little bit earlier, the rating of Māori land, and the application of the Rates Rebate Scheme. This Supplementary Order Paper also makes a number of minor and technical amendments to Part 1, as well as to other parts of the bill, that were identified through quality assurance and peer review processes. As is the practice with legislation of this kind, this Supplementary Order Paper is in the form of a revision-tracked version of the bill. Supplementary Order Paper 279 has been supplemented by two others that include consequential amendments to the Māori Purposes (Wi Pere Trust) Act 1991 and provide for a review of the new Act 7 years after it comes into force.

I would like to take the opportunity to comment on a point that has been repeatedly raised about the reforms—namely, that they have been rushed and that Māori land owners have not been adequately consulted. I particularly want to address this in relation to the purpose and principles, given their importance to the way the bill has been interpreted and applied.

The bill has been developed through a long, thorough, and considered process of review and engagement. Over the past 4 years 171 consultation hui and wānanga workshops have been held. Drawing on the experience of owners and other people with an interest in Māori land, appropriate changes have been made to improve specific aspects of the bill. For instance, the evolution of the purpose and the principles began with the aims of the reform articulated by the review panel. Initial drafting was developed in conjunction with iwi advisers, reviewed, and then developed on the basis of submissions received on the exposure draft that was released in 2015, and was further refined following feedback on a further draft that I released in 2016. This has been a careful and thorough process of listening and reflecting, not just over months but actually years.

Through Part 1 of the bill, the reform seeks to strengthen Māori land ownership to ensure no more whenua is lost unnecessarily and to let whānau make decisions about their land in the way they believe is appropriate.

I look forward to the debate, which is likely to be fairly lengthy, bearing in mind this is a big piece of legislation. I look forward to the discussion and the input from all members across the House. I encourage members to work together to achieve the admirable goals that I think are implicit in what we are doing about whenua Māori. Kia ora tātou.

Tēnā koe Mr Chair, tēnei ahau tū ake nei hei mihi ki a tātau katoa i te tīmatanga o tēnei pire tino nui, tino mātotoru, tino hōhonu, tino whānui, tautoko ana ahau i ngā mihi o Te Minita ki Te Komiti Take Māori me ngā āpiha o Te Komiti ēngari i runga i wēna kōrero, horekau Te Rōpū Reipa e tautokongia ana i tēnei pire.

[Thank you, Mr Chair. I rise specifically to acknowledge us all at the start of this really important, dense, profound, and extensive bill. I endorse the accolades of the Minister to the Māori Affairs Committee and its officials, but on those sentiments the Labour Party will not be supporting this bill.]

I would just like to acknowledge everybody, and in particular the Māori Affairs Committee. We have put a lot of effort into this bill. I would also like to acknowledge the officials who have also put a lot of work into this bill, and, actually, I would like to acknowledge my colleague Meka Whaitiri, who knows this bill back to front despite not being a permanent member of the Māori Affairs Committee.

All that said, the Labour Party does not support the bill. There are a number of reasons why we do not support it. We will go through those reasons clause by clause, part by part. I just want to start off by rebutting, I guess, some of the Minister’s comments. He said there has been widespread consultation, and I guess there have been a number of hui, but let us just remind everybody of those 20 consultation hui for the exposure draft. Of those 20 hui, Labour members of Parliament attended 14, and in not one of those 14 hui did the people support the bill. In fact, the two hui that I attended in Tai Tokerau—in Kaikohe and Whangarei—there was almost outright anarchy, with people moving motions left, right, and centre to have the bill chucked out. OK, admittedly, that was Peeni Henare’s whanaunga and we have got to make allowances—they are not mine, of course. Ha, ha!

Admittedly, that was to an exposure draft. I do not believe the changes that have been made since—and there have been many—have actually been absorbed by the people. They do not understand them. I do not think they have had time to understand them. This thick Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 279 that I have here in front of me—the Minister rang me up about a month ago and said that it was coming out, and that is fair enough. But even up until last week there were more SOPs coming out. Our people certainly would not have time to look at them, absorb them, and understand what they mean. There is a deep-seated mistrust of this process.

I would like to just start at clause 3(3). It says—this is the very first clause that we are debating here—“The purpose of Parts 1 to 9 is to recognise and provide for the mana and tino rangatiratanga that since time immemorial Māori have exercised and continue to exercise over their lands …”. I just want to repeat the part there that I believe is relevant to what I am going to say: “for the mana and tino rangatiratanga that since time immemorial Māori have exercised and continue to exercise over their lands …”. What that clause is saying—the very first three lines that we are debating—is that Māori have mana and tino rangatiratanga over their lands. If that is the case, why then this bill? If we already have mana, if we already have tino rangatiratanga, and if we already have the ability to have the final word on our land, and we have got that under the current Te Ture Whenua Māori Act, why is it that this bill is indeed necessary?

It goes on to say—this is still clause 3(3)—that it is “to protect the right of owners of Māori land to retain, control, occupy, and develop their land as a taonga tuku iho for the benefit of present and future generations of owners, their whānau, and their hapū.” You know, we agree that that is what we want from any bill—for Māori to retain and control and occupy and develop their land for the benefit of present and future generations. We believe that that already exists and, respectfully, we dispute that this bill goes any way to actually improving the outcomes for Māori.

The principles that the Minister has mentioned are these, and there are six of them. I agree—and this is in clause 3(4)—with the first three. The next three I have questions about. The first principle is: “(a) Māori land endures as a taonga tuku iho by virtue of whakapapa:”. I have got no problems with that.

The second principle is: “(b) tikanga Māori is central to matters involving Māori land:”. I have no problems with that, although tikanga—further on in the bill it talks about “the tikanga of the whānau, hapū, … [should] prevail”. I have real concerns, not so much about the use of tikanga; it is just that I know that in many whānau, tikanga does not exist. In many hapū, tikanga does not exist. We live in a bit of a fluffy world where tikanga is now observed by everybody, and it is solid and we can fall back on it and lean back on it. But the reality is that tikanga these days, in many whānau and in many hapū, is just a floating beast and it does not exist in the ideal world that, probably, our tūpuna lived in.

In the third principle, clause (4)(c), it says: “Te Tiriti o Waitangi is central to the application of laws affecting Māori land:”—actually, sorry, I do support that. The comment I wanted to make is that I am glad it says “Te Tiriti o Waitangi”, even though this is the English version that I am reading out. The Māori version of the bill is the version that takes precedence over the English version. People may wonder: “Well, why, then, in the English version does it say ‘Te Tiriti o Waitangi’ and not ‘the Treaty of Waitangi’?”. The reason is, basically, this: do not ever dare go into Ngāpuhi and say that our tūpuna signed “the Treaty of Waitangi”. They signed “Te Tiriti o Waitangi”, and there are differences between the two versions of the Treaty, Te Tiriti—sorry, I just fell into the trap myself. There are subtle differences to “Te Tiriti o Waitangi” and “the Treaty of Waitangi”, and under the Māori version, Ngāpuhi will affirm that we did not cede sovereignty.

Then we come to the three principles that I have concerns about, and the fourth principle, clause 3(4)(d), says: “owners of Māori land have the right to decide how their land is used:”. On the outside that sounds really good, but it is the issue of owners, and which owners? In this bill—and we will go through this in some detail over the course of the debate—there are some owners who have more nous, more clout, more resources, and more understanding than other owners. When we go through things and we see participation thresholds, we will see and we will debate the fact that not all owners have an equal say. So if somebody is not a participating owner, or, for whatever reason, somebody cannot attend a hui to participate or give their proxy, the chances are that they may miss out on actually being involved in having the right to decide how their land is used.

One of the big concerns about this bill is that it is actually going to pit whanaunga against whanaunga. Despite all the intentions—and, you know, things look OK on the outside—when we get down to it, when there are a thousand owners who own a piece of land and there are, say, 20 who want to make changes, and those 20 are articulate and know the law and know this bill back to front, they will have the ability to laud it, for want of a better word, over those whanaunga who are disengaged, who may live overseas, who may not hear about the meeting. There are just too many variables there for me to accept that we can say “owners”, meaning all owners of Māori land, have the right to decide how their land is used.

The next principle is “owners of Māori land have the right to take advantage of opportunities to develop their land for the benefit of present and future generations of owners, their whānau, and their hapū:”—again, future generations of which of the owners? If there are some owners who do not have the opportunity to participate in the decision making for whatever reason, and there could be a million reasons, how is it that their descendants will not then have their tūpuna actually speaking for them when it comes down to that principle? The next principle, and the last principle—

Well, we are finally here, debating Te Ture Whenua. Because of the complexity around this bill—we have 16 parts and a number of schedules. It is not for me to say, but I would really encourage the Minister, at the beginning of each part—if he could outlay what he thinks that part is. We have had so many amendments, and I think that would help our debate and would focus our debate. So that would be great, Minister Flavell.

Part 1, “Preliminary provisions”—so, simply, what is this bill about? This part is about outlining, obviously, the intentions behind the bill, and the Minister did touch on that in his introductory delivery. I too want to particularly address clause 5 of Part 1, which talks about the interpretation, and to just raise, for the benefit of the Committee, the interpretation of new terms and positions both in English and in Te Reo. So, terms and positions like “chief executive”—the chief executive of a yet to be defined Māori Land Service. That is contained in clause 5, this new person. As we go through the bill you will see more and more of the powers and responsibilities this chief executive will have over the Māori Land Service, which we are yet to see any detail of at this point in time.

The Minister did touch on “kaitiaki”. We had submitters who came in front of the Māori Affairs Committee who said: “I don’t want to be known as a kaitiaki; I’m a trustee.” So, obviously, from some trustees there are issues with that term, “kaitiaki”, when, really, for them they are a trustee. The other term is “kaiwhakahaere”, which is raised under clause 5, “Interpretation”. Again, this kaiwhakahaere, in terms of their appointment and who appoints them—it explains that. “Kaiwhakamarumaru”—another concept—again, appointed by the court. For this one in particular it is around under-age people who are under 18, or people incapable of running their own affairs—the court will appoint somebody to run their affairs on their behalf. You have got another term called “kawenata tiaki whenua”. So the point I am making in referencing these interpretations is that it can lead to an enormous amount of uncertainty and confusion, simply because we have got terms there that Māori land owners are still coming to grips with.

If I turn to clause 7(7), the Minister in his opening speech talked about how it was almost guaranteed that there will be no further Māori alienation. I guess, as I look through this bill I am looking for the opportunities—I take the Minister at his word that there will not be any provisions in this bill that could enable Māori land owners to lose their land. But in terms of clause 7(7) it talks about making statement that the kaiwhakamarumaru, for all intents and purposes, should be treated as the owner. So this is not the point around alienation; what it is talking about is that the power of an owner is given to a court-appointed person to run land interests on behalf of an under-age person or someone incapable of running their own affairs. So, for me, that throws up some potential alarm bells. If the kaiwhakamarumaru should be treated as the owner, then how do the real owners—and, yes, Part 1 does talk about beneficial interests, but, for me: how do the kaiwhakamarumaru and the real owners ensure that their land interests are adhered to?

In Part 1, in clause 7A(1)(c), I just note with interest that there is a kind of exception clause that talks about the CNI exception. [Interruption] Yes. It is clause 7A(1)(c). In this clause of Part 1 it is talking about association with land in accordance with tikanga Māori, and then it goes through, again, consistency with the parts from 1 to 9. In this clause it is talking about association with land in accordance—and paragraph (c) talks about the successor of CIL, or SINA land—

💬 Hon Te Ururoa Flavell: SILNA.

Yes—“land, as those terms are defined by section 446 of the Ngāi Tahu Claims Settlement Act 1998:”. I do not have an issue with that, but my question to you is: are there any other iwi or hapū that could be included under that particular clause in Part 1? So that was just a question that I thought I would ask and see if you would be able to answer.

In clause 9 of Part 1, where we are talking about “Evidence of applicable tikanga Māori”, it explains in this clause that “In any proceedings under Parts 1 to 9, any question as to the tikanga Māori that applies in a particular situation must be determined on the basis of evidence.” The Minister did cover that in his introductory comments. I guess my question is: whose evidence? Whose evidence? If we take it down into tikanga, and even within whānau, like my colleague Kelvin Davis said, we have all got different tikanga depending on the occasion and the situation. So I see there, potentially, some problems around defining on whose evidence we will be making a judgment call on which tikanga applies in that particular circumstance.

This Part 1 is important to Māori land owners because this bill outlines its purpose, and yet there have been numerous concerns around not just the genesis of the bill but the process by which the bill has come up. We must remind ourselves in this Committee that this is not an amendment of the Act; this is a complete rewrite. So we are rewriting a significant piece of legislation that guides Māori land in this country. The contents of this bill are completely untested, and there is no case law to guide either the Māori Land Court or landowners when interpreting this. So I appreciate the Minister’s explanation of the introduction to the bill. That is his interpretation, but for Māori land owners they will have to go to the Māori Land Court to get the interpretation of this bill realised. All I am saying is that that is going to take several years, so I am just making the point: the bill is complex and there have been many, many amendments. The most recent was just yesterday when we got three Supplementary Order Papers from the Minister—hence my motion to try to get this to be referred back to the Māori Affairs Committee so we could properly scrutinise them.

The process has been woeful. It has been woeful, leading the Waitangi Tribunal to recommend more consultations and empirical analysis of the barriers to Māori land development. As my colleague Kelvin Davis has referenced, with the principles in Part 1, in terms of meeting the obligations of the Treaty, it is really important, as we go through this bill—and I will give the Committee the assurances that I am looking through the contents of each clause against the guiding principles in the Minister’s bill. I will throw up clauses where I think that it actually puts at risk those core principles of ensuring that Māori land owners have the right to make decisions on their land and that the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi are upheld. As we go through this in this debate, we will find that from my analysis and my assessment of the parts—

Whoa! So here is the proposal for the Act in and of itself. It is huge, and it is a big telephone book - sized thing. Then you have got the Supplementary Order Paper, which is about the same size. We, the Green Party, really wanted to support Meka Whaitiri’s point of order to have the Supplementary Order Paper referred back the Māori Affairs Committee. I regret that we have not been able to do that.

I want to put on record just a couple of quick points in this Part 1 debate in the Committee of the whole House stage, probably picking up mainly on the principles relating to upholding Te Tiriti o Waitangi. The Greens will not be supporting Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill. I think, in terms of the principles in Part 1, we will continue to uphold that the whole entire land reform absolutely needs to be driven by Māori. It concerns Māori land. It needs to be fully understood, fully driven, and fully accepted by Māori. I do want to thank the advisers and all of the work that has gone into this enormous set of reforms. The advisers have been on the select committee through this particular piece of legislation, and have been incredibly grateful to them—for the advice we continue to receive, and also for the attempts from the advisers and from the officials to help us on the Māori Affairs Committee come to terms with what we were dealing with.

My colleagues and I on the Māori Affairs Committee were somewhat vindicated when it became known that we were not just struggling ourselves to fully comprehend all of this bill—that, actually, Māori Land Court judges and Māori lawyers were themselves also constantly advocating how large and unwieldy this piece of legislation was. In that respect, I do want to thank the officials and the advisers for trying really hard to help us all understand it clause by clause and come up with clear summaries and presentations to help us understand that.

Notwithstanding their incredible hard work and their openness to engage with all of us, I think at the core of the Greens’ opposition is that—quite differently from the previous bill we just debated, the Māori Purposes Bill, where that was driven and worked with the group concerned—we are yet to see the mandate, the understanding, and the drive from Māori on a collective basis to this piece of legislation. That is notwithstanding that, actually, some or most of the changes could actually be beneficial. We have to first at least understand that.

I just wanted to go back and pick up on the Part 1 principles. The Waitangi Tribunal, after its analysis, and notwithstanding all the subsequent amendments, did stipulate that if we are going to be making such large reforms to address the barriers to Māori land utilisation and to prevent further Māori land loss and alienation, then we need to at least be very sure about what is causing that in the first place.

The Green Party was very clear in our support through all the readings that the empirical research should have been done so that we at least had a clear, evidence-based reference point to start with where we actually knew exactly what the barriers and what the challenges were, and we could perhaps address them more specifically. So reasons of mandate and reasons of having a clear, evidence-based research platform are just two of the main, top, overall reasons why the Greens will continue to oppose this Te Ture Whenua legislation overall.

I wanted to, probably lastly, just pick up on the Minister’s address at the beginning of this Committee of the whole House stage where he touched on the consultation that has been held with this bill. I have maintained that the indication of the success of the consultation should not just come down to numbers. A successful consultation for any legislation should not just rest on how many hui and meetings were held around the country. What I would prefer instead is if the consultations were able to provide us with a clear mandate and understanding from all of our people, from all of our landowners.

I think, just lastly, in this particular call at this place, in terms of principles in upholding tikanga Māori through land governance, I wanted to agree with my colleague Kelvin Davis that we are wary of setting up or upholding the inequities between different whānau and land groupings and holdings and organisations. We are wary and we feel that these matters are too important and that we do not have clear direction about the success. Thank you.

Tēnā koe, Mr Chairman. I want to preface my contribution to this debate by signalling that New Zealand First will not be supporting this bill, and it will be for various reasons, and there will be a number of speakers during the course of this debate who will express their own views.

I want to pick up on the comments made in reference to the number of consultation meetings. I suppose Minister Flavell and his department should be commended for that number, but I think where it falls down is that no comment has been made about how many of those consultation hui actually said they supported the bill. You might have discussed it, but none of them that I am aware of actually said: “We support the bill. Go to it, Minister, and make the changes.” While I would support the notion that the old legislation, Te Ture Whenua Māori Act, should have had some changes, I used the analogy in my second reading speech that said that all that Act really needed was to fix the flat tire, not to replace the whole car. I think this is what we are seeing now, and that is why it has taken so long for this bill to come before the Committee at this stage.

I think that the Minister is making a mistake in railroading this bill through the House, because I know that there are a number of Māori organisations, even at this stage, that supported the notion of making some changes to the legislation, but, having made those changes now, they do not support the bill to the same extent that they indicated to the Minister during the early stages.

I also want to make comment that in the submission made by the Māori Land Court judges—and I thought it was a very good submission because they, being involved in the administration of Māori land by virtue of being judges in the Māori Land Court, had a clear understanding of the Act. Amongst their concerns was the introduction of a number of different concepts that they described as legally untested, things “such as ‘kaitiaki’ of governance bodies, ‘rangatōpu’ and ‘relationships of descent’, amongst others. It will introduce an extensive new lexicon of statutory terms previously unknown.” We have heard from my colleagues who have spoken before me this evening making reference to some of those terms, particularly in the area of the principles of Parts 1 to 9 of the bill, as outlined in clause 3(4). One of the principles is that “tikanga Māori is central to matters involving Māori land;”. I have no problem with that, but I would say to you, Minister Flavell, that a lot of Māori today do not look at it in terms of tikanga; they look at in terms of their entitlement, irrespective of the size of the interest that they might have.

I certainly agree with the reference to Te Tiriti o Waitangi. That is in recognition of the Treaty that was actually signed by our tūpuna. The principle of owners of Māori land having the right to decide how the Māori land is used—that has always been there. That is nothing new. I think the problem has been their ability to be able to use it. I am hoping that this bill will provide easy access for our people to use their land, but we know that is not so much the access to how they use their land, but having the resources to do so. I do not think that this bill addresses that issue, because it cannot. At the end of the day, if you do not have the financial resources, then you are not going to make any difference to the present situation. While the Minister has established a development fund, that in itself is not enough for the real issue, because of the amount of Māori land that is unused.

Tēnā koe e Te Heamana o Te Whare. Kia ora. In opening my contribution, I want to start with some general comments before I delve deeper into some of the interpretations and explanations that some of my colleagues have already covered. I want to go a little bit further into some of those and, perhaps, offer my perspective on them. For the most part, I believe, and, certainly, this side of the Chamber believes, that this bill actually fails to provide security of Māori land, the retention of Māori land. More importantly, it fails to empower our people to utilise their Māori land, and I pick up the point made by my tuakana Pita Paraone with regard to the fact that resourcing is an important part to address—the 22 years of struggle that Māori people have had with regard to their land. I say 22 years of struggle because I believe that before we are able to move on into a better bill, a more robust bill, it is important that we address, first and foremost, the issues that have been faced by our people over the past 22 years, and do it meaningfully. I understand the advisers and the panel took a principled approach towards their consultation on this bill. Instead of asking what the problems are, they were asking: “How can we make things better for you?”. I do not believe that this addresses the issues that were faced by Māori land owners over a number of years.

I want to get straight into clause 8 and the term “Descent relationships determined by tikanga Māori”. I have heard a mixture of responses to the use of tikanga in legislation throughout this particular debate, and I have, indeed, in many bills that have come through this House in my short time here. I have made my point very clear: I am not a fan of tikanga Māori being used in legislation, because of some of the reasons already mentioned by my colleagues about interpretation, about true intent, tikanga tangata, tikanga wairua—all of these other issues that raise more questions than answers. This particular part, “Descent relationships determined by tikanga Māori”—clause 8(1) “This section applies to a provision of Parts 1 to 9 that depends on there being a relationship of descent between people, such as a provision that refers to—(a) a child, grandchild, brother, sister, parent, grandparent, whānau, or descendant; or (b) an association with land in accordance with tikanga Māori.”

The number of Māori who currently live in Australia is no secret. Under my understanding of tikanga, I would argue that once ahi kā is lost, according to tikanga, it is whenua mātao: the land is cold. There is no ability for that person to go back there. Why? Because they gave up their right. They gave it up. That is tikanga. That is what tikanga tells me. Now, I wonder how that argument would go down in the kāinga of the Māori people in Australia. I wonder how that discussion would go down even interstate here in Aotearoa New Zealand, where, for many whānau, they do not actually live in their homeland. In fact, recent statistics say that only 13 percent of Ngāpuhi actually live in Ngāpuhi—only 13 percent. So under tikanga one could argue, if they were of this particular mind, that, well, when they moved to Auckland—we are now three generations, four generations of te whānau being in Tāmaki-makau-rau. They now have given up their right of ahi kā, which now—whenua matao. Then it links to the arguments made by my colleagues here that you get the small shareholders being ignored, or, even worse, you get the tail wagging the dog, whereby the small shareholders look to have a bigger say in the development or the administration of land. So those are important issues.

Where do we base this kind of tikanga from? I tell you that my interpretation of this, when I consider tikanga, actually goes back to the time of our tupuna. In the previous bill we discussed Te Rarawa. For those who know their—[Bell rung] Thank you—

I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. The time has come for me to report progress.

Progress to be reported presently.

House resumed.

The Chairperson reported progress on the Appropriation (2015/16 Confirmation and Validation) Bill, the Fire and Emergency New Zealand Bill with amendment, the Māori Purposes Bill with amendment, and progress on Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill.

Report adopted.

The House adjourned at 9.56 p.m.