Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill

Peeni Henare has the call. He has 4 minutes and 55 seconds remaining.

Excellent—thank you very much. I thought I had about 4 minutes and 59 seconds. Kia ora anō tātau katoa kua hāpai nei i tō tātau kaupapa ki roto i tō tātau Whare i te rā nei.

[Acknowledgments to us once again who have supported this matter of ours here in our House today.]

I think, given the long period of time since I was last on my feet on this particular matter, I might just canvass briefly, if I may, some of the discussions and points had last night, in particular in my contribution. We are looking at Part 1 here, and I mentioned last night the interpretation of the term “ahi kā” in relation to Part 1, clause 8—“Descent relationships determined by tikanga Māori”. In clause 8(1)(b) it says there: “an association with land in accordance with tikanga Māori.” I raise the fact that many of the Māori land shareholders live outside of the actual land holding itself. They live in Tāmaki-makau-rau. They live in Australia. If you are going to use the basis of tikanga Māori, then it is a well-known one within Māoridom: the term “ahi kā”. Ahi kā is a very straightforward one. It is about making sure that the home fires are tended to—the home fires are burning. If, for example, a shareholder lives in Australia, one could argue over a length of time that they no longer have ahi kā. They no longer have ahi kā. It would be easy to suggest that, through association, they would have ahi kā, but the reality of the types of shareholdings that we are talking about is that actually, no, it is pertaining only to their shares. That was one point I made yesterday, and I wanted to just reiterate that in my contribution now.

The other one was even further in, to the “Evidence of applicable tikanga Māori” under Part 1, clause 9. It says there: “In any proceedings under Parts 1 to 9, any questions as to the tikanga Māori that applies in a particular situation must be determined on the basis of evidence.” A bit later on in the bill, or in this particular Supplementary Order Paper, we will look at some of the appointments that can be made for administrators and other roles that have been given power through this particular bill to oversee the administration of Māori land. I will delve into a little bit of the pitfalls of some of those.

But I want to point out the “Evidence of applicable tikanga Māori”. I mentioned last night about the relevance of tikanga Māori, and, more importantly, the failure of legislation to truly and adequately determine what tikanga Māori is. It is easy to suggest: “Well, it’s such and such.” It is funny—I remember a discussion with one of my colleagues. We discussed the term “wairua”, and that person said: “Oh yes, ‘spirit.’ ” And I said: “Well, no, actually. ‘Wairua’ isn’t just ‘spirit’. Wairua means so much more.” Tikanga is the same argument. Tikanga is the same argument. It is not just simply about “koha” meaning “giving something”. Actually, koha means more than that. So it is these kinds of vagaries that make me think—and I have always said this in this House in my short time here—that tikanga Māori must stay out of legislation. It must stay out of the hands of legislators. It must stay out of the hands of judges.

Later on we will see about the appointments of particular administrators of Māori land, and I made reference in a previous contribution on another bill in this House about the fact that this Government appointed my father, Ērima Henare, and my great-uncle Kevin Prime to resolve a dispute in Te Arawa. Anybody who knows Māori history—New Zealand history—will tell you that sending a Ngāpuhi into Te Arawa is the worst thing to do. It is like sending a Ngāpuhi into Ngati Porou. You just do not do it. You just do not do it. And they were given an extremely hard task, under the vague explanation of tikanga Māori, that this dispute would be resolved. So I have some serious questions about tikanga Māori, in particular in relation to the principles of Parts 1 to 9.

Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. Kia ora tātau katoa o Te Whare, ka mihi rānō rā ki a tātau katoa kua whakawhāiti mai i tēnei pō.

[Thank you, Mr Chair. My acknowledgments to all of us of the House, right back to when all of us here this evening were involved.]

I ran out of space last night to respond to some of the issues that were raised by the member who just took his seat, Peeni Henare, so I thought I would just come back and just bring us back to some of those issues before they get lost in the discussion. Members questioned the support for the reform and asked about the research as to whether the changes were actually needed. The reform has arisen out of a dialogue between Māori and the Crown over a long period of time. During this period, a range of research and reviews has taken place, and has always, constantly, identified the issues the reforms are seeking to address. That is why we are actually here.

Concerns were raised about the reform process, and that Māori land owners had not been given adequate time or been a part of the consultation process and did not necessarily fully understand the reforms. Let us just put it on the record. There have been more than 171 consultation hui, with more than 3,000 Māori land owners, trustees, and whānau attending the hui that were set up to discuss the reforms. Three drafts of the bill were released for consultation, and many people took part, obviously, in the opportunity to comment on the workability of the proposals. For instance, the first exposure draft of the bill led to about 109 provisions being amended and the removal of 28 provisions.

During the select committee process 152 written submissions and 47 oral submissions were made to the Māori Affairs Committee. The select committee recommended a number of appropriate changes, actually, all of which—all of which—I have adopted and were taken into consideration at the second reading of this bill. Critics have said I have not listened and have made too many changes. On the other side of the coin, I made the changes on what I actually heard and what I saw in submissions.

Referring to the purpose statement, Kelvin Davis last night questioned why the current Act had to be changed. Although the current Act was significant, there are thousands of owners who remain disconnected from their land, and fragmentation is getting worse, not better. So while some trusts are doing quite well, there are many that are actually struggling, and the current Act does little to support those little, unmanaged blocks. The current Act does not contain a disputes resolution mechanism, and requires the Māori Land Court to spend, from my perspective, way too much time on administration instead of focusing on the judicial issues. This bill addresses each of these issues, and by doing so this must benefit Māori land owners.

Pita Paraone asked why we need to adopt a whole new bill, stating that it would have been better to simply amend the current Act. Over the last 150 years almost 200 different laws and amendments have been passed affecting Māori land. The current Act has inherited a huge patchwork of complex rules, many of which were designed, sure, for the time, but are now way outdated. The review panel recommended full legislative change on the basis that this will provide the most fit for purpose and durable approach. Several members spoke about the principle that owners of Māori land have the right to decide how their land is used.

Concerns were raised about small groups of owners dictating to the majority, and how absent owners can participate in the decision-making process. Decisions about what happens to the land can be made only by a threshold majority of all owners, not by a small group. The participating owners’ model applies only to decisions about what happens on the land, such as appointing a governance model. This is an important part of the policy of the bill that should avoid small groups, basically, taking over or capturing the process. By modernising the decision making, the bill ensures everyone has the opportunity to participate, including those who live away from their rohe. For instance, owners will be able to attend meetings in person via a proxy or via telephone or internet-based technology. My hope is that they will be able to cast their votes using postal or email voting forms, or through electronic voting systems.

During the debate members raised concerns about the terminology that has been introduced. The language in the bill reflects, as I said last night, a deliberate change of focus, and it has been carefully chosen. We got specialist advice on the choice and the use of the words and expressions in the technical context. This was especially so in relation to the term that was highlighted by Meka Whaitiri last night, kaitiaki. Several options were considered around this notion of kaitiaki, but the advice that we got was that kaitiaki was the most appropriate term for this role. Meka Whaitiri raised the concern under clause 7(7) around kaiwhakamarumaru, that they are considered as owners of parcels or interests that they are managing. The current Act equivalent actually vests ownership in the trustee. Under the bill the interest does not vest in the kaiwhakamarumaru, but, to make sure the owner, who is in this case a minor or possibly has a disability, is protected, third parties must deal with the kaiwhakamarumaru in the same way they would have to deal with an owner. So I hope that helps the member in respect of that.

Ms Whaitiri also asked about the determination that has been addressed by Mr Henare about how we determine tikanga. It is determined against evidence. People have asked the question about whose evidence will apply. Tikanga Māori is not a matter of law; it is a matter of fact, and Māori land owners will be supported to resolve those issues amongst themselves in a way they believe is appropriate according to their tikanga. They will be helped to resolve disputes over the content of tikanga Māori, but the new dispute resolution service is about giving them a hand if they wish. As a last resort, the parties will be able to go to court to resolve some of those disputes, but the real hope is that we stay within our own tikanga to address tikanga issues. The person giving evidence in that case would state their experience with the relevant tikanga so that it is really clear they understand the relevant tikanga when it comes to that.

Just to wrap up, then, about those issues raised last night, Ms Whaitiri raised the issue about the SILNA beneficiaries. Just to respond to the member, this clause makes sure that Māori owners, at commencement, are treated as being associated with the land in accordance with tikanga, but, because of the unique way that SILNA successors are defined in the Ngāi Tahu Claims Settlement Act, it was necessary to explicitly exclude them in this provision. I hope that provides some background to the issue that the member raised last night. So that wraps up pretty much most of those issues that were dealt with last night. I look forward to the ongoing debate.

I am pleased to make a contribution on Part 1 of this very important bill. I would like to acknowledge Minister Te Ururoa Flavell for his contribution, but I guess what I took from that contribution is just how out of depth this Minister is in terms of ushering in this Frankenstein piece of legislation—way out of his depth—because this bill is a train wreck. It is a train wreck that has been—

💬 Marama Fox: Part 1.

Absolutely, and I am getting to Part 1, but it is a train wreck. The Minister talked about the research that underpinned it. Well, that research was so flawed it was laughable. The research said that by overhauling the Māori land legislation, that would create an $8 billion boon for the New Zealand economy—

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: How much?

—and the Māori economy—$8 billion. And then—hello—2 years later, after a couple of working groups and a few huis, they had to tone it down a bit. They had to tone it down a bit and say “Oh, it’s only $3.5 billion.”, and even then they were not sure. Highly qualified conclusions by these highly paid so-called consultants at all these flash accountancy firms.

The problem with this bill is that it has morphed into a Frankenstein bill, because it has been passed on from Minister Finlayson and Minister Sharples to Minister Flavell. Goodness knows, we have had working groups and huis and consultation, and—how many? Sixteen exposure drafts—16 drafts.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Really?

Absolutely. And we are not at the end of it yet, because there was a 370-page bill and then, 2 weeks ago, lo and behold, the Minister dumped another 400-page Supplementary Order Paper. But wait, there is more—then he dumped about another four Supplementary Order Papers, amending the earlier Supplementary Order Paper.

So the Minister is way out of his depth. He has created a monstrous piece of legislation, and that is why—I am getting to Part 1—this is a monstrous, taniwha piece of legislation.

If we go to Part 1, I will just give you an example.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. It is not normal for a Minister to vacate the chair, stay in the Chamber, and put a pretender in there. That is what has happened for the last minute and a half, and whilst he was doing that—sadly, you were talking to your staff, so it was not quite your fault, but the person to your right knows full well that that is wrong. We are not living in some medieval society where you behave as you please, I say for the benefit of the Blackstone sitting in the chair now—yes, the Blackstone of the antipodean world.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): I think the point of order is—

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: You get my point, don’t you?

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Yes—and I am on my feet—and we have moved from a point of order into a little bit of stand-up. The rule, of course, is that a member cannot move his position in the House to better barrack, or barrack better, so I understand the problem has now disappeared. We will carry on.

💬 Hon Christopher Finlayson: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I take offence at being called the Blackstone of the Antipodes. As the right honourable member knows full well, because he has addressed me in this way before, I am the Lord Denning of the Antipodes.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Well, I take offence at the member thinking that the right honourable member was referring to him. I took it as a compliment, because I thought he was referring to me.

So here we have this monstrous, taniwha, Frankenstein piece of legislation that has been created.

Referring to Part 1, when we talk about unlocking economic potential, the only economic boon that will occur from this piece of legislation is with the lawyers, and one just needs to look at Part 1—one just needs to look at Part 1. It is just—honestly, talking about principles—

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: It makes you speechless.

—the purpose and principles—it does make one speechless. Seriously, we are wiping aside 30 years of jurisprudence case law that has been established under a very sound piece of the legislation, Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993, which took 20 years—20 years—of consultation and hui to put in place. We are wiping that aside with this monstrous monstrosity of a bill. We are wiping all of that aside with totally new definitions—totally new definitions.

By way of example, the references to Te Tiriti o Waitangi—well, we have had 30 years’ jurisprudence about the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. Why could that not be put in? Instead, we are going to performing powers and duties that recognise the Treaty of Waitangi. The principles, the purpose—it is an absolute mess, but it is great for lawyers. It is absolutely great for lawyers, because there are many people with Māori land interests now who will be scratching their heads and trying to make sense of this monstrous piece of a bill, and it need not be that way.

The problem with this bill—it need not have been this way—has been, right from the get-go, in the definition of the problem. You see, what can be achieved could have been a range of amendments to Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993. There was no need for the Minister to think “OK, we are going to wipe this 1993 Act aside, and we are going to create this whole new Act that will unlock an $8 billion boon.”. So that was fatally flawed, right from the get-go. With what we have here, I feel for the officials, because they have been tirelessly working on this monstrosity—Frankenstein—of a bill, and it is just getting uglier and uglier, and now we have come to the point—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Order! I gave the member a second call hoping he would move to new material.

OK. But, by way of another example, if we look at the relationship between the English version and the Māori version, when it comes to principles and purpose, it says that the Māori definitions will prevail, but there are so many vagaries and uncertainties around which version takes precedent if they are treated equally, or whether one is superior even if there are no points of conflict between the two. It is just poor drafting, which is creating a whole lot of uncertainty.

That is why iwi Māori are so fed up and concerned with what has been happening with the creation of this bill. They can see that it need not go this far—it need not go this far. Sure, we want to improve engagement with owners, and sure, we want to improve governance and make it a bit easier to get things done on Māori land, but you do not need to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Another example is the use of these new terms. We have got a whole host of customary Māori terms, defined Māori terms, and totally new terms that I have never heard of before, and all of them have been thrown into this mishmash in the interpretation within Part 1—and it is going to take years. It is going to take years of court cases and court actions going to the High Court to actually establish what it all means, and I think that is doing our whānau and doing the motu an injustice. It is doing them an injustice because, yes, we wanted to improve on our governance, our structures, and our engagement with owners, but we do not need to totally wipe aside 30-plus years of really important case law on that.

The final point that I would like to make is that this bill is not—sure, we want to empower the owners. But the real issue with Māori land—which is why it was totally flawed—is that over 100,000 blocks of Māori land are under 1 hectare. You know, we are talking about—you cannot prescribe by putting in place a law that says magic will happen when you are dealing with less than 1 hectare of a mud-pool or a hillside, or a marginal piece of land on the coast. We need to be realistic. Sure, there have been issues with Māori land being underutilised, but the fact of the matter is a lot of that has to do with a lack of access to capital. The fact that the raw land itself is marginal and the fact that it is not a bankable proposition, whatever the owner’s wawata or dreams may be, means they cannot actually see them to fruition. So those issues will still remain. The legislation can be put in place, but those issues will not change. You are not going to change a mud-pool and turn it into a geothermal powerhouse.

There have been so many successes that have occurred under the 1993 Act that it was not really that bad. Sure, it might have needed some tweaks, but, fundamentally, this bill has just morphed way out of control. It is unnecessary. The definitions and the new terms that have been inserted are going to create litigation for years, and I think Minister Flavell just demonstrated how out of his depth he is. That is a real shame, because, unfortunately, this train wreck has gotten way out of control and he cannot control it. But we are doing our best to, hopefully, bring it back into focus. Kia ora tātou.

I thought I would help the honourable member Rino Tirikatene by referring to clause 3, because he seemed to have a problem with which version was to prevail. I would have thought it was tolerably clear that the Māori version prevailed, as is said in the explanatory note to clause 3(5). English is only an explanation; the only formal version is the Māori version.

The second issue that was raised earlier by another speaker was this term “tikanga Māori”. I agree that avoiding a statutory codification of this phrase is absolutely fundamental. Tikanga Māori is not a matter of law; it is a matter of fact. I think it was the Chief Justice who said in the well-known Takamore case, which went to the Supreme Court some time ago, that what constitutes tikanga Māori in any particular situation is a question of fact, and a court asked to identify its content by evidence is not engaged in a process of interpretation or law creation. This aligns with the Māori Land Court’s approach to matters of tikanga Māori under the current Act, as I understand it.

When one strips away the Roget’s Thesaurus approach to argumentation that we have had from the member for Te Tai Tonga tonight—it has been described in various colourful terms—I think what it boils down to, if I understand the essence of his argument, is that, yes, changes were required to the 1993 Act, but they should have been done by way of an amendment to the 1993 Act rather than through a complete rewrite. Look, I can understand that there will be circumstances where an amendment is appropriate, but sometimes—and this is particularly the case with the 1993 Act—the substructure of the Act has been fundamentally weakened by so many amendments. From time to time you have got to go back to base one and start again.

There are many pieces of legislation that this House has dealt with over the years where exactly that principle has been applied. I remember it very well with the Limitation Act 1950. It was so far past its use-by date that a complete rewrite was required, and just a couple of weeks ago we did exactly the same thing with the intelligence legislation. So to mount an argument that it can all be done by amendment is, in my respectful submission, totally wrong. This Act has been amended, as the Minister for Māori Development said, on many, many occasions, and the time comes when you go back to first principles, you take a fresh look at it, and you rewrite the legislation. It is hardly a ground for opposition to the passage of this very important bill.

So I hope that we have more than formulaic and presentational arguments about this legislation. Let us get down to the detail and debate the detail, but suggesting that it could have been done by amendment is quite simply wrong.

Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. Look, listening to the responses of the Ministers who have been in the chair, perhaps I should direct my comments to those who are sitting at home watching this debate. Nā reira, koutou e noho tonu ki te wa kāinga, anei ngā kōrero mā koutou nā te mea, mōhio ana au kei a koutou nahe e whakarongo ki ngā kōrero i puta mai i tēnei taha.

[So those of you who still live back home, here are comments especially for you, because I know you are the only ones who listened to the sentiments that came out of this side.]

Firstly, I would like to just quote the Minister in the chair in regard to tikanga. He said that tikanga is a matter of fact. If we take that to its full conclusion, then the concerns of people around the country, having witnessed the claims from the New Zealand Māori Council for the coastline of New Zealand, claims made under tikanga Māori—perhaps those claims will be successful for the simple reason that using tikanga is a matter of fact. That is the issue that I know that I have concerns with, in terms of legislating tikanga Māori. That is something that ought to be seriously considered before this bill proceeds to its next stage.

I can recall in 2005, when the Ngāti Awa settlement bill was passed into law, that part of that bill made reference to the establishment of an iwi group here in Wellington to represent those members of that tribe who lived here in Wellington. In fact, the bill actually established a subtribe. I do not think that that was correct, and New Zealand First—particularly its Māori members, and there were seven of us—opposed the passing of that bill at that time. We did not think that it was right for this House to legislate and to create things like new hapū or new iwi groups. I think that what we are discussing here—and the member from Te Tai Tonga articulated very well, I thought, his concerns and, certainly, our concerns in regard to that part of Part 1.

The other issue is that the Minister for Māori Development made reference to the fact that this bill came out as the result of a review panel—it was the work of a review panel. But what he failed to say was that the review panel did not do what it was originally asked to do, and it came back with a different response. So this bill is actually a result of that decision by the review panel at the time. That was confirmed during the submission process by the submission from the Māori Women’s Welfare League. Its spokesperson is a trained lawyer, and she made the point, quite strongly, that the review panel reported on something that was not asked for.

The other thing I would like to talk about is the meaning of “owner”. We are now talking about owners; previously, we talked about beneficiaries. I do not know what happened to beneficiaries, but we are now owners, and as all Māori will tell you, they are not owners; they are merely guardians for their time on Earth. When they pass on—

💬 Marama Fox: Is that tikanga?

Of course it is. But the bill does not make reference to that. It calls them owners, so I do not know what happened to the issue of beneficiaries.

The other thing was the fragmentation of shares. That is a concern that non-Māori have; for Māori, that is not a concern. Whether you call them owners or beneficiaries, that is a fact. The issue of fragmentation is not a matter or tikanga; it is just a matter of ensuring that those people who whakapapa to the original beneficiaries maintain those interests on behalf of the next generation. I am not quite sure whether this bill articulates that fact.

The other issue I wanted to make reference to—and the member for Tāmaki Makaurau certainly touched on it—was clause 9: “Evidence of applicable tikanga Māori”. Here, again, when there is a conflict between hapū or iwi—the fact that they have to go to the High Court if they do not agree, then that in itself will pose some impediment on the affordability for those people involved. I would suggest that we ought to look at this again.

The other issue was the question of Māori reserves. Clause 5 says “(a) any land vested in the Māori Trustee as, or for the purposes of, a Māori reserve; and (b) any land that is subject to the Maori Reserved Land Act 1955.” Can I say that, for many hapū, they have lands set aside that they would refer to as reserves but certainly are not covered by these two references made here in the bill. Again, that comes under the issue of tikanga Māori. It may be quite a sacred place for the hapū, but it certainly is not covered by any legislation. I suppose, under tikanga Māori, we can argue for that.

Other than that, I still believe, and New Zealand First certainly believes, that in spite of the number of consultation hui that the Minister has alluded to, I still make the same comment that I did last night: that of all those hui, not one of them actually resolved to support the bill. I think that that is the main point. If there was one, then I will stand corrected. But compare that with the number of hui that the Minister has referred to. That certainly does not indicate full-scale support for the bill. Kia ora.

I think it has been a fantastic debate tonight, listening to the contribution from the members of the Opposition and from the Ministers who have occupied the chair. Let us just go to a couple of points that many of the members have raised. Mr Paraone said that if there was one hui that endorsed the bill, then he would stand corrected—well, I can tell you now that in Wairarapa, at the land hui that was held there, they endorsed the bill through a vote of the people and the landowners who were there, who listened, and who asked their questions. From the answers that were provided to them, the member will be happy to know that they endorse Te Ture Whenua as heading in the right direction, and they endorsed the bill. So there you stand corrected, thank you very much.

The bill established a sub-tribe. Let us just talk about that. I would like to put it to the chair that, in fact, Te Wharepōuri established a sub-tribe here for Te Ātiawa in the Whanga-nui-a-Tara, at Pito-one, when our tupuna Nuku-pewapewa chased him out of Wairarapa and sent him back here on his way down with the other tribes who came from up north. They established the sub-tribe here, not the law; the law recognised that they had a sub-tribe here, and I think that point needs to be made.

Sixteen exposure drafts—let us go to the 16 exposure drafts. Sixteen exposure drafts means that the Minister listened to the people. Sixteen exposure drafts means that every single submission that was given to the Minister was responded to—every single one. He worked with those people who put their submissions across and ensured that they were listened to, that their points were taken on board, and that their recommendations were adopted. I am going to agree that we have the hugest Supplementary Order Paper that we have seen in this House for this term—that is for sure—but we have the hugest bill.

This bill is important, and Part 1 talks about tikanga. I do not understand why we are afraid to start to implement tikanga Māori into law. I get it, because I have been in a ministry where every time you get a new Māori person coming along and we want to discuss what the tikanga of the pōwhiri might be—if you are from Te Arawa, it is going to look like this; if you are from Ngati Porou, it is going to be a little bit different; if you are from Kāi Tahu, and so on, and so on. Then whoever comes new into that ministry will establish what the tikanga looks like, and that is why this is important.

If we look at the purpose of Part 1, it says that it “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, resources, and taonga in accordance with tikanga Māori …”. So it is not up to, as the member Peeni Henare pointed out, Ngāpuhi to tell Te Arawa what to do. But I am pretty sure that in the case of Ngāpuhi, your father would have gone there and said: “Well, what do you think, Te Arawa? What do you think?”.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: What does Hone say?

I have talked with Hone, and what he has said—

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: No, no, no. He’s not happy at all.

Well, if you do not want to listen, then I will carry on. Here it says “to exercise over their lands, resources, and taonga in accordance with tikanga Māori and consistent with the guarantees given to Māori in Te Tiriti o Waitangi, …”. What the Minister has done is ensure the place of Te Tiriti is recognised in the law of this country. It does not determine exactly what tikanga means, because each area will have a different tikanga, and that is why it is up to us to determine. That is not something we should be afraid of; that is something we should damn right be proud of. Finally—finally—we have come to this place, this Parliament, and tikanga Māori is being recognised in this law as a value-add to this nation. I applaud the Minister for doing so.

Let us have a look at the formal version, which is the Māori version. The formal version is the Māori version. Hello—again, giving precedence to the Māori language in Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill, which establishes that tikanga Māori will be determined by that rohe, that hapū, and that tribe. That is progress, not regress. That is not a retrograde step, as some parties in this Chamber would have us continue to live under the colonised law of Pākehā law.

Finally, Mr Chair—oh, no one has rung the bell, so I will carry on.

Actually, having heard that contribution by Marama Fox, I just had to get up and speak, because there are a couple of things that we need to take from the comments that were just made. Sixteen exposure drafts indicates to me that it is very difficult to co-design a piece of legislation. In fact, it took a very long time, because the Minister for Māori Development heard so much feedback and dissatisfaction from owners that he realised that this is not a good way to do legislation. It is fundamentally a very difficult way to address some of the core issues at the heart of what makes Māori tick, which is the Māori land tenure system. Books have been written about it. Academics more qualified than me have written to a degree that tells us that if you are going to change Māori land law tenure to be very careful about how you do it. So 16 exposure drafts, I think, very much highlighted that in the first instance.

But I want to come back to the bill, and specifically Part 1 and the intent. When we consider how the new land framework will work for Māori, we should ask the questions that have been debated in the House. First is the issue of tikanga. Very erudite speeches have been made, but can I say this: if we apply tikanga to the way in which Māori feel about land, my colleague Pita Paraone is absolutely right—the reference to ownership becomes a non-reference within that context. In fact, what you would have seen in New Zealand is a land tenure system much like the Pacific, where you would have long leaseholding types of arrangements that enable the utilisation of land, which ensures the retention of land to whakapapa owners—owners who have a whakapapa interest in land—yet you are still able to utilise it for a period of time. That is not the case in New Zealand, because things happened here. We understand that. So I think some of this is a little bit ethereal—some of the debates around the legislation truly giving back the rangatiratanga to Māori owners.

Let me come back to the issue of tikanga. I accept that tikanga should be an opportunity, within hapū groups, certainly to try to resolve some very difficult issues. But let us go to the reality. That is not often the case. If you have, I guess even within a hapū, some very different versions of how tikanga applies, who in the end adjudicates? That is what we are just raising here, within the context of the bill. If a hapū cannot settle on an outcome, it does go back to the court. So let us just call a spade a spade, and recognise that although tikanga, to the best intents and purposes, is inserted in the bill, it actually may not deliver the outcome that is sought and still the court remains the place where a remedy is achieved.

Secondly, on the issue of tikanga—especially when we think about the ways in which people connect to their whenua and want to exercise a right and an interest—I am all for actually modernising the participation of owners. Coming back to Part 1, one of the things that it indicates is that there is the provision for other people, who may not whakapapa to the land, who can act on behalf of the interests of owners, to exercise that interest.

Let us just come back to kaiwhakamarumaru. We did talk about this in the Māori Affairs Committee. It was an opportunity if, for example, children are not of an age to make those decisions for a kaiwhakamarumaru to be appointed. Who appoints? It is the court. Does that person necessarily have to have a whakapapa interest in land—possibly not, probably not, maybe not. How, then, do they make a good judgment on behalf of children in an instance where these children or young people cannot make that determination themselves? Well, common sense will prevail. I get that. Common sense will prevail, and they will exercise their own judgment. But that is nothing to do with tikanga. That is just common sense and being pragmatic. So let us not disguise the Māori words within this kind of shroud of belief that, therefore, tikanga will apply. It is not like that.

One of the other key challenges I think to give real effect to the bill, which we have questioned the Minister for Māori Development on and certainly continue to question him on, is that when this legislation takes effect we have got a period of time until the major support agency, the Māori Land Service, is up and running in a way that can support the owners whom this legislation—

I move, That the question be now put. [Interruption]

Calling while I am making a decision is likely to disadvantage the member, whoever it is. We have been going on this for well over an hour and a half now. It is a long bill with lots of other parts, so I think those can be dealt with later on.