Māori Purposes Bill

on behalf of the Minister for Māori Development: E te Māngai o te Whare, tēnā koe. Otirā, e ngā mema katoa o te Whare nei, tēnā tātou katoa. Today, I present the legislative statement on the Māori Purposes Bill.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

I move, That the Māori Purposes Bill be now read a second time.

Firstly, I’d like to thank those who have made submissions on the bill for their time and for sharing their whakaaro on these matters. I’d also like to thank the Māori Affairs Committee for its thoughtful consideration of the bill. Although the amendments included in this bill are considered minor or technical in nature, they remove barriers and unnecessary administrative compliance for a number of Māori entities. In doing so, they support Māori entities to better manage their own affairs, make use of new technologies, and exercise their rangatiratanga. This aligns with the Government’s commitment to building strong partnerships with Māori and working with Māori to improve wellbeing outcomes.

The Māori Purposes Bill is an omnibus bill that proposes minor technical and non-controversial updates and improvements to Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993, the Maori Purposes Act 1959, the Maori Trust Boards Act 1955, and the Maori Community Development Act 1962.

The amendments to Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993—the bill contains four specific sets of amendments to Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993. The first set of amendments ensures the Ruapuha Uekaha Hapū Trust continues to exist with the same beneficiaries as intended by the 1990 settlement of the Wai 51 Treaty claim. The Ruapuha Uekaha Hapū Trust was established to give effect to an early Treaty settlement concerning lands at Waitomo Caves. It was intended that the beneficiaries of the settlement would be all the descendants of the original 22 owners of the relevant lands. However, since 1990, succession orders made by the Māori Land Court meant that should the trust be terminated, the people entitled to interest in the land may not include all the descendants of the original owners as intended in the Wai 51 settlement. The proposed amendment in this bill would mean that powers under Te Ture Whenua Maori Act to terminate a trust do not apply to the Ruapuha Uekaha Hapū Trust, ensuring the Wai 51 settlement can continue as intended. The Ruapuha Uekaha Hapū Trust made submissions in support of these amendments.

Other amendments to Te Ture Whenua Maori Act extend certain time frames for decision making, allow assembled owners of Māori land the option of meeting by electronic means, and correct a te reo Māori mistake in the preamble of the Act.

Amendments to the Maori Purposes Act 1959—the proposed amendments to the Maori Purposes Act 1959 relate to Lake Rotoaira Trust and its trout fishery. Lake Rotoaira is privately owned Māori freehold land, and the Lake Rotoaira Trust is an ahuwhenua trust under Te Ture Whenua Maori Act. The bill proposes several amendments to provide the Lake Rotoaira Trust with more autonomy and flexibility to manage the lake and associated trout fishery. The proposed amendments include things like increasing trustees’ power to recommend fishing conditions for the lake and to manage the fishery, updating the maximum penalty for offences under the Act, and clarifying that entry to the lake without an entry permit does not authorise fishing. These amendments are supported by the Lake Rotoaira Trust.

Amendments to the Maori Trust Boards Act 1955—the amendments proposed to the Maori Trust Boards Act 1955 are aimed at ensuring Māori trust boards can operate efficiently. These will allow for electronic voting in trust board elections; remove Māori trust boards from the Cabinet Fees Framework, as they are further removed or more distanced from the Crown than other entities subject to the framework; streamline the process for board members resignations; and remove the Taranaki Māori Trust Board annuity payment following the agreed buy-out of the annuity by the Crown annuity. All Māori trust boards have been contacted about this proposal and all those who responded to consultation support the proposal.

Finally, the Maori Community Development Act 1962—the amendment proposed in relation to the Maori Community Development Act 1962 all required district Māori councils to submit the audited financial statements directly to the New Zealand Māori Council, the body district Māori councils are legally accountable to, rather than to Te Puni Kōkiri’s chief executive.

After the first reading on 25 November 2021, this bill was referred to the Māori Affairs Committee, and the committee called for submissions between 8 December 2021 and 26 January 2022. Five submissions were received on the bill—a small but not unexpected number, given the nature of this bill. The majority of submissions supported the bill. I mentioned earlier the submission received in support of the bill from the Ruapuha Uekaha Hapū Trust. The Ruapuha Uekaha Hapū Trust have been seeking the amendments proposed in this bill in relation to their trust for a number of years. I particularly want to acknowledge the lengthy involvement of Josephine Anderson, who brought the original Wai 51 claim more than 30 years ago and also appeared before the select committee on behalf of the trust.

Again, I thank the Māori Affairs Committee for their diligent scrutiny of the bill and their collaborative approach to ensuring this legislation is passed in a timely manner. The select committee’s report back was succinct and no significant amendments to the bill were proposed. However, some minor typos in the bill as introduced have been corrected, which of course I support. As I said earlier, unlike some of the bills that come before this House which propose entirely new regimes or substantive changes to existing legislation, this bill makes a number of minor and technical amendments to four Acts relevant to Māori affairs. While these changes are minor and technical in nature, they support the ability of Māori identities to manage their businesses and exercise their rangatiratanga. These changes also ensure that Māori entities are operating under up-to-date legislation that allows them to utilise modern technologies. With that, I commend this House to the bill.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

💬 Hon Meka Whaitiri: Aroha mai—this bill to the House.

I have the distinct pleasure and privilege of rising for the National Party to take a call as Māori spokesperson—as spokesperson for Māori development. Our words are getting a little bit befuddled this morning, but the intention is accurate and on point.

So I acknowledge Minister Whaitiri for the contribution to the House today in outlining in meticulous detail what this bill before the House is about. The Māori Purposes Bill came before the Māori Affairs Committee on 25 November 2021: one year and one day ago. So today, I’m taking this call. When I first spoke to the bill, it was on 16 November—is the note that I have from 2021. And in so doing, I rose with the distinct purpose of speaking on this and acknowledging many Māori who had given contributions of a lifetime of service around Māori development. Back on 16 November last year, I specifically turned my whakaaro, my thoughts, and my sentiments towards the whānau of Neville Baker, who was a very prominent contributor to te ao Māori in both Government and the private sector.

Since that time, and before I do turn to the Māori Purposes Bill, it is with purpose that I also acknowledge Tā Wira Gardiner, Sir Wira Gardiner—again, significant contributions of a lifetime of service—Moana Jackson, Dame June Jackson, and Joe Hawke.

And then I turn to the living—and the living, importantly, is in celebration of the contributions that have been made—again, with that specific intent around Māori development. I look over at Minister Whaitiri and it was a privilege to be over in Ngāti Kahungunu for Ahuwhenua Māori farming awards last Friday, and very much about the development of the whenua; of te taiao, the environment; but also ngā tāngata katoa, our Māori farmers, in the space that’s there.

My final acknowledgment with purpose—because it is relevant to Māori development and what this Māori Purposes Bill is about—is having attended the 75th anniversary celebration since the establishment of Hato Paora, a Māori boys’ Catholic kura in Rangitīkei, Feilding. My colleague Ian McKelvie, who is the member of Parliament for Rangitīkei, also attended in support and acknowledgment of that.

I now turn to the bill. Importantly, this is an omnibus bill, which means that it’s an accumulation of several bills enabling minor technical and non-controversial amendments to be made to Māori development legislation. So this Māori Purposes Bill also deals with authorisations, transfers, and validations in respect of Māori land and property.

So Minister Whaitiri addressed the first component of the bill, which is proposing amendments to Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993, also known as the Maori Land Act, to ensure that the Ruapuha Uekaha Hapū Trust can continue to exist and exercise powers, rights, and duties in a manner consistent with the 1990 settlement of the Wai—that’s the Waitangi Tribunal—51 claim in relation to the Waitomo Caves.

I always try and make a point of an association to the people of the area, of the whenua. And Waitomo Caves: earlier this year, during the recess period, in my own time with my husband, we travelled up to Ngāti Maniapoto into the area of the Waitomo Caves and met not only in visiting the adventures of Waitomo Caves. For those of us who haven’t been there, this is one of our national treasures—taonga—that is under the auspices of the authority and the kaitiakitanga of the trustees but also the uri—the descendants—of this Ruapuha Uekaha Hapū Trust.

I have here just a little memento of that visit, and the memento is capturing some photographs of the time going into the Waitomo Caves. What’s interesting too—with this little memento—is a keepsake that I will show in time to my mokopuna, because it’s an educational tool-kit here: the marvels of nature and learning Māori. “Waitomo” is a Māori word made up of two parts: wai, which translates as “water”; tomo, which means “the entrance” or “the hole”. So going into that area and the glow worms there, which light up not only the space of the cave but in an enlightenment for those of us having that adventure and that experience. Waitomo Caves: a national treasure.

So this bill is about addressing some of the detail around the importance of management and looking after. When I did go to visit Waitomo Caves, I engaged with the uri, the descendants, of the people who are charged and entrusted with looking after this natural asset, this taonga, but also the visitors—and the international visitors will be flooding and flowing back and engaging and speaking with the local employees, all of whom are uri of the trust and the peoples associated with this whenua.

The second part of the bill proposes amendments to the Maori Purposes Act 1955 to give the Lake Rotoaira Forest Trust more autonomy and flexibility in managing Lake Rotoaira and its trout fishery. So those who are not familiar with the location of Lake Rotoaira: it is within the rohe—the domains, the tribal boundaries—of Ngāti Tūwharetoa. As you’re travelling through the national park and you veer off rather than going straight ahead towards Taumarunui, turn off to the right, travel through the volcanic plateau, and that will take you past Lake Rotoaira on your journey up to Lake Taupō, into Taupō, and around the area of Ngāti Tūwharetoa.

The amendments will remove a requirement to hold a trout licence to fish for fish other than trout. So it goes into the specifics as to what is permissible in the management by the local people, by the uri of the whenua of Rotoaira Trust; clarifies that a right of entry to the lake without an entry permit does not authorise fishing; and also includes the trustees of Motuopuhi Māori Reservation and their invitees in those listed persons are allowed access to the lake without an entry permit.

So the Māori Purposes Bill just goes through and details calibrations in terms of the management, the authority, the kaitiakitanga of the taonga—the asset—Lake Rotoaira and talks about an increase of outdated low penalties for offences from $100 to $5,000.

I’m now going to move on to the third part of the bill, which proposes technical and non-contentious amendments to the Maori Trust Boards Act 1955. And that, again, is to do a note that as we’ve moved into the futurism of technology and how we’ve Zoomed into this space, the provision for electronic voting.

It also removes the Māori trust boards from the Cabinet Fees Framework—the Minister has addressed that—provides for resignations of members of the boards to be made in writing to the board, and for the board to then notify the Minister for Māori Development rather than for the member to have to resign in writing to the Minister. So these are just some administrative tweaks that go with it. And then, as the Minister said, the removal of the Taranaki Māori Trust Board annuity payment provision from the Act.

Finally—in the one minute, 30 seconds left—there is an amendment proposed to the Maori Community Development Act 1962 to require district Māori councils to provide a copy of their audited financial statement directly to the New Zealand Māori Council rather than to the chief executive of Te Puni Kōkiri. So, again, the Maori Community Development Act, my first engagement with that Act was as secretary of the local Aotearoa District Māori Council back in the early 1980s. I remember, as a 19-year-old, recording the minutes of the kaumātua—none of whom are with us to this day—but those distinct memories now, as an older woman in public service, in this place and this space, draws on the memories of those who have given a service of a time in a bygone era.

In closing, I spent time over recent weeks with Sir Taihakurei Durie, a former Māori Land Court judge, Chief Māori Land Court judge, High Court judge, and a prominent public servant in this realm—in this domain and space—of Māori development, and he continues to give service as the president of the New Zealand Māori District Councils. On that note, I commend this bill to the House.

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Mālō ni. For those just tuning in to this debate and those joining us, we’re discussing here the Māori Purposes Bill. This is one of the pieces of legislation—one of many pieces of legislation—in this House which we all agree on, and let me tell you a little bit about why we agree on this piece of legislation.

It went to the Māori Affairs Committee, and that committee is a very collegial committee. I’m honoured to sit on that committee as its deputy chairperson, alongside the member who has just spoken, Harete Hipango. We have a relationship in that committee where we discuss the ideas put to us. We draw heavily on the advice of our officials, and I must commend the officials who advised us on this piece of legislation. We had very experienced and helpful advisers on this. We worked well, as well, with our clerks’ team, particularly our clerk Dylan Hanna, who leaves us today for another committee, and I commend him on his service to the Māori Affairs Committee. [Interruption] He’s getting cheers from the Environment Committee, though.

Now look, this piece of legislation has been canvassed as technical, but let me tell you a little bit more about the Ruapuha Uekaha Hapū Trust. It was a particularly interesting part of this legislation, which the committee considered in a little bit more detail, because this is a trust that has existed since 1990. That was before having settlements written into legislation were common. This arose from the claim of Wai 51. The original claimants actually gave evidence to the committee and spoke to us through their lawyer, Mr Koning, and took us through the procedural history of how this special trust came into existence before the Government was in the habit of making formal Treaty settlements.

This was really useful for the committee to consider because the Māori Affairs Committee is responsible for considering all Treaty legislation. We consider more modern forms of Treaty settlements that have arisen since, probably, the 2005-07 era. We also consider the older settlements that did not use the same sorts of policy settings that we do now when we consider those amendments. So it was really useful for us to consider what happened at this period of 1990, when no conventions existed and Treaty settlements weren’t something that was agreed between Labour and National as important. When we consider this arrangement that has existed for both the hapū of Uekaha and Ruapuha, the arrangements that were made using ahu whenua trusts simply aren’t as nimble and aren’t as flexible as those that exist today. So that is why we have to make an amendment to the legislation to limit the power of the court, because what was put in place in 1990 isn’t acceptable today and isn’t as useful today as more modern legislation.

So, Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity for a contribution on this bill. It’s a good bill, and that’s why I commend it to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Well, what a privilege to speak on this short bill. I’ve had very little to do with the Māori Affairs Committee in my time in this House, other than to turn up for kai—and I can assure you it’s worth doing that!

But I just want to speak about the Māori Purposes Bill at this second reading. Obviously, we support this bill and, I think, rightly so. I think that the interesting thing for me about this bill, particularly, was the work those submitters must have had to do, the five of them, during their Christmas break, because the submissions for this bill were due back on 26 January. We in this Parliament have a habit of doing this to voluntary organisations, particularly, and some of these are semi-voluntary organisations that this bill deals with. So they’d have had to work through their Christmas break to put the submission in to appease the rules of the House, which I think is a little unfair and a little unfortunate, but that’s the way we seem to do things in this House. If you are suspicious, you could have been suspicious we did it on purpose to avoid submissions, but not in this case.

This bill is interesting because trusts of all natures are set up at a time and a place, and, of course, they often need alteration. Not only these sorts of trusts that are covered by the Māori Purposes Bill, but all other kinds of trusts that deal with local entities, with private people’s operations, they’re all set up with a time frame in mind and those time frames and the rules that they are living under often change. So it becomes quite complex.

But one of the things that really interests me about this bill—and, of course, as Harete Hipango said, if you drive through the Rangitīkei, you get to the top of it and there’s Lake Rotoaira. You drive a little further through the Rangitīkei and just past the boundary are the Waitomo Caves. You wonder what the Rangitīkei had to do with that, because most people think the Rangitīkei is around Marton and Bulls, but in fact it stretches right up to this area. And one of the really interesting discussions I’ve had about Lake Rotoaira in my time in this House relates to trout farming. It’s a very topical thing for the Māori communities in that area, and, frankly, when you look at the way trout farming is operated internationally, I think it’s a huge opportunity for New Zealand that we’ve never used. I’m fortunate that my colleague Louise Upston’s left the House, because she, of course, is the member for Taupō, and Taupō makes its money out of trout licences and trout fishing. But I don’t think that there’s any reason why the two couldn’t have lived in harmony, and Lake Rotoaira, of course, is a classic place that I suppose one could imagine—and I know the locals have imagined—being used for exactly that purpose, and probably with good reason.

One of the reasons that’s often been talked about with respect to trout farming in New Zealand not taking place is the fact that it needs to protect the fishing licences and the fishing industry. I don’t think trout farming would have any impact on the fishing industry at all. In fact, the salmon farming industry has proved that; there’s still a very vibrant salmon fishing industry where it’s applicable in New Zealand. Of course, it’s a thing that doesn’t happen in the North Island, we very seldom ever find salmon running up our rivers, but certainly in the lower parts of the South Island they do. Salmon farming in New Zealand is, of course, a massively huge opportunity for New Zealand, and I think that trout farming—in an appropriately managed and an appropriate place—would have the same effect. None the less, we haven’t been able to achieve it and there were some very strong submissions made by the Māori community around Tūrangi, by the people from Tūrangi, with respect to trying to instigate trout farming in that manner.

Another part of this bill relates to the way they manage the current use of Lake Rotoaira. The fishing that takes place there currently has historically run under the same rules as Lake Taupō. The local management, I think, now has the right to set those fishing limits and those fishing rules in a manner they see appropriate, which is entirely appropriate, in my view, and I think it’s proper that it should happen like that.

Interestingly, I think that if you look at New Zealand’s history, a lot of things that are reflected in this bill probably reflect some of the better things that have happened in the relationship between the Crown and Māori entities in New Zealand, and these are all areas where the local communities have maintained some interest in what, effectively, are quite—in these two instances, anyway—iconic pieces of New Zealand infrastructure, I suppose you call it. Certainly the differences between Waitomo Caves and the lake are significant; one is a major tourist attraction, the other one is a beautiful piece of water sitting at the southern end of Lake Taupō and the northern end of the Rangitīkei electorate.

So I think this bill, in its entirety, is certainly good for the purpose it’s been set out to achieve with respect to Māori trust boards. It allows Māori more autonomy with respect to the governance of some of their trusts and legal entities, and it’s obviously very good for New Zealand and for those communities involved. We support the bill. It’s certainly not a controversial bill and there’s been a number of Māori purposes bills passed in this Parliament; one passed in 2017 by the National Government. I don’t think it matters which parties are in power or which parties make up the Government in New Zealand, these kinds of issues are things that we need to progress through the House as quickly as we can. And, clearly, when you’ve got a bill that comes to the House with virtually no disagreement and no changes made at select committee, which is quite unusual—obviously the bill’s been put together with thought that’s complete and does a very good job for the entities concerned. So we support the bill. I’m sure it will progress through the next two stages in the House with very little discussion probably. But none the less, it’s important for those people it affects and it’s good for New Zealand. Thank you.

Mālō ni, Madam Speaker. Tēnā koe. Thank you for the opportunity to take what will just be a brief call on the Māori Purposes Bill. I have recently joined the Māori Affairs Committee, but, unfortunately, this piece of business was done before I joined the committee, so I do want to start by acknowledging the select committee for the work that they did on this bill, hearing from the submitters—of which there were five, I understand. On the contributions of those that we’ve heard this morning who are members of that select committee, I just want to acknowledge them for their work and for putting forward a unanimous report—unanimously supporting the report back with no further proposed changes.

The thing that I wanted to note is that I think it is great that the Minister has introduced a piece of legislation that looks at modernising some of the legislation that we have to enable these trusts and different organisations—some have existed, as Harete Hipango mentioned in her contribution, for a very long time. I think of the Māori councils, I think of our Māori trust boards, and they have been here, as I said, for decades, and technologies have changed.

The changes that I wanted to point out that I think help these organisations to manage their affairs in the 21st century are around things like the allowing for—so not saying that they have to, but allowing for—electronic voting in trust board elections and also the streamlining of processes for board members’ resignations. Another thing that I saw here, which I think, too, acknowledges the specific skill set that people have who are appointed to these positions by their people, is the removal of Māori trust boards from the Cabinet Fees Framework as they are further removed and more distant from the Crown than other entities subject to that framework. It also acknowledges the particular skill sets of those people that take up these positions and gives them that flexibility around that.

I wanted to note that in terms of the proposed changes for the Maori Trust Boards Act, all Māori trust boards were contacted, and of all of those that responded, they were all in favour. So I don’t want to take any longer in this contribution, given it is a non-controversial bill with full support across the House. I commend this bill to the House.

Talofa ni. Manuia le taeao. I rise on behalf of the Green Party to support this omnibus Māori Purposes Bill. Thank you to the handful who submitted to the Māori Affairs Committee and to the Minister for Māori Development and his officials for their work.

As we stated in the first reading, the Greens support this bill in the hope that these changes will indeed contribute to Māori wellbeing and development by providing these entities with greater autonomy in decision making, addressing previous technical issues, and reducing the administrative compliance. We particularly support bills which enable iwi, whānau, and hapū to get on with their responsibilities to each other and to the whenua, the moana, the maunga, and the awa that they are responsible for. Whether they own that or not, they have that kaitiakitanga, and, preferably, we’d like them to get on with that with a minimum of oversight, compliance, and Government interference.

We note the Ruapuha Uekaha Hapū Trust provided the most substantive submission to the Māori Affairs Committee. As stated in their submission, amending Te Ture Whenua Maori Act of 1993 will ensure that the trust continues as an ahu whenua trust where the beneficiaries of all descendants of the 22 original owners—but also at the same time account for the beneficial owners of the Hauturu East 8, who have a reversionary interest. Because there’s no other ahu whenua trust or even post-settlement governance entity that has this kind of set-up, that are in this position, the trust is rightly concerned that this will be in jeopardy if this bill does not go ahead. So we note their concerns that Hauturu East 8 could not otherwise be returned to and otherwise benefit the hapū of Ruapuha and Uekaha, and we agree that that would be a fundamental breach of the Wai 51 settlement.

For the trust of the very beautiful Rotoaira—it’s a very special place to one of my nannies—amending the Māori Purposes Act will provide more autonomy and flexibility in managing their lake and their fisheries. We appreciate that the trustees of Motuopuhi Māori Reservation are able to visit without a purpose. We note that they’re still expected to get a permit if they actually want to fish. I’m just saying, knowing some of my nannies and my pakeke, good luck with that—once they’re there, they’re probably going to do whatever they like.

As my colleagues have stated, amending the Maori Trust Boards Act will provide for, among other things, the use of electronic voting. Can someone put up a bill that just updates all the electronic voting in all our legislation so we don’t have to do this in such a piecemeal way? This is really, really important. This is something whereby more people will be able to take part in this process. We know that people who are involved in our trust boards and lots of our iwi things don’t always live in the place where they are taking part in that work. I hope it also enables the Government to think more broadly about other places where we could do electronic voting—I’m just going to put it out there about local government elections; we might have higher take-up of the opportunity.

Amending the Maori Community Development Act will also mean that district Māori councils can give their audited accounts to the New Zealand Māori Council instead of the chief executive of Te Puni Kōkiri, who I imagine has better things and more appropriate things to do with their time. I also wonder if there are still things like this embedded in different legislation which mean that our chief executives of different organisations are having to deal with this kind of micromanagement. Is it just our Māori organisations, or does this occur in other places?

Appropriate decision-making is a cornerstone of the Greens charter, so the views of the organisations impacted by all of these little changes are really important to us. We understand that most of them are in support. We’re surprised to hear, though, that of the ones—Lake Rotoaira trust, Ruapuha Uekaha Hapū Trust, Aorangi, Hauraki, Tūwharetoa, Whakatōhea, Tauranga Moana, Wairoa Waikaremoana Māori Trust Board, and Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whātua are all good with all of this, but we’re surprised to hear that Te Tai Tokerau Māori Trust Board has still not been in contact. I understand from the report from the select committee that they’re taking this to mean—it doesn’t necessarily mean it’s a negative; they just have not heard from them. So that concerns me. I hope that trust is doing OK and that they have capacity for the rest of their work.

In conclusion, given the support of all of those affected—almost all—we commend this sensible, albeit incremental, omnibus bill to the House. Kia ora.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of ACT in support of the Māori Purposes Bill. We view this piece of legislation as something that, by and large, enables people to manage their own affairs; their own properties, such as fishing on a lake that is held on privately held land. The ACT Party believes in property rights, and if people are not harming others then they should be able to do as they please, as a basic principle. By and large, that’s what this bill enables.

I would question one part of it, which is the reforms to the Te Ture Whenua Maori Act, which extends the notice period to those who might otherwise lose their interest for not responding when they have a claim of interest in land.

This is something that is a major impediment to New Zealand’s economic development and particularly the development of Māori land. Throughout the history of our country, there’s been a very complex legislative framework around the ownership of Māori land, and it has held Māori back, in our view.

We think that the Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill, that was advanced by Te Ururoa Flavell in a previous Parliament, that has been picked up by the member for Southland, Joseph Mooney, in this Parliament would move Māori property rights over collectively owned land in the correct direction, and that is that the range of people who have not shown any material interest, perhaps for generations, who can object to land being borrowed against, developed, and otherwise used to enhance people’s wellbeing—that range of people should be limited. Because if you have someone who has theoretically got an interest but hasn’t shown much interest and that prevents the people who are present and do want to develop and use land from doing so, then we’re all poorer for no benefit. It would appear that this reform is going to make it harder for people to use land if they have to wait longer to notify those people who have a remote but largely redundant interest. I think that is a movement in the wrong direction. I think that Joseph Mooney’s bill, taken on from Te Ururoa Flavell’s earlier efforts to make Māori land more economically useful, to provide often for people in some of the most impoverished parts of New Zealand, is the right direction.

But we’re not going to let that quibble prevent us from supporting this Māori Purposes Bill, because we believe that the wider issue of collective ownership is going to have to be resolved by a more serious bill, a more serious piece of legislation, perhaps in a different Parliament that has a greater regard for property rights and economic development than the make-up of the current Parliament is able to furnish.

For people interested in this topic, I highly recommend Hernando de Soto. He is the South American economist who wrote extensively, most in his book The Mystery of Capital, about the importance of indigenous peoples around the world being able to bundle up their property rights in a way that can be used in a modern, global, commercial world for the advancement of their people.

The great irony is that somewhat paternalistic Governments around the world have gone and put indigenous property rights in a format that they say is helpful and respectful of traditional ownership but, in all reality, just makes it harder for indigenous people to provide for themselves. I say indigenous because—Hernando de Soto is, as I say, South American—this is a worldwide phenomenon. I think it’s a pity that in New Zealand, Te Ururoa Flavell’s bill was not advanced. It’s been drawn by a National Party MP out of the ballot. It hasn’t been announced by the Government.

But in the long term, one of the most important things we can do is the opposite of one of the provisions in this bill, and that is make it easier for Māori property rights to be converted into commercial value for the prosperity of all people.

With that, I think, you know, important note of objection, we believe that this legislation is enabling, it enhances freedom and flexibility of people to provide for their own needs, so long as they are not harming the interests of others, and that is something that the ACT Party will always be standing up in the Parliament in support of. Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s my pleasure to speak on this, the Māori Purposes Bill. What we’ve heard from speakers already, from around the House, is how supportive people are, and I would like to thank the Māori Affairs Committee. I sit on it, and thanks to chair, Tāmati Coffey, and members who, as we’ve heard, work collegially to progress the agenda of the day.

We’ve heard, also, that some of these things are minor, technical, but we’d all agree that they make life easier, and they remove all of the unnecessary administrative compliance, etc. For me, it’s about making sure that these Māori entities can better manage their affairs, exercise their rangatiratanga, and that’s through the use of new technologies, etc.

I wanted to just pull out a few things in this short speech, and that’s the amendment to the Maori Trust Boards Act. I think allowing them to vote electronically and removing them from the Cabinet Fees Framework is great, and just streamlining their whole process for resignations, making sure that they can just do things in a timely manner, in the way they want to do them, is really good.

There’s also the Maori Community Development Act 1962. That’s the piece of legislation that really governs, authorises Māori wardens in New Zealand. They’ve done a fantastic job, and that just, I’d just say, strengthens their accountability, in terms of their financial records. So although minor in nature, they will make life easier for entities, and I commend this bill to the House.

The next call is a split call. I call on Simon Watts for five minutes.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. An absolute pleasure to rise, as the member of Parliament for North Shore and as a member of the National Party, in support of the Māori Purposes Bill on its second reading. I join with others that have made contributions in regards to this bill around the fact that the elements included within the bill are going to have a positive contribution in terms of the wellbeing and development elements that have been referred to already in this House.

I want to, in the time that I’ve got, just highlight two or three of the key aspects which we see as being integral in terms of what I’ve just described. Firstly, it is in regards—the previous speaker, Paul Eagle, noted it as well—to provision for Māori entities to have greater autonomy and greater decision-making. And I think the broad consensus across party in regards to this bill echoes that, that that is absolutely a positive aspect. I think any opportunity that we have as a House to reinforce and look for ensuring that that aspect of greater autonomy and decision-making is strengthened is a good thing. So we’ve seen that come through here.

The second aspect obviously is more remedial in nature, but for those sitting at home watching this this morning—which I’m sure there will be a large number—

💬 Hon Member: A huge number, Simon.

A huge number.

💬 Hon Member: Fewer now!

Definitely from the North Shore—if I can just raise a callout to all of those regular watchers of Parliament TV in the North Shore. You know who you are. You know who you are when you’re watching, you’ll be going “I’m glad you mentioned it.” Thank you. [Interruption] Anyway, cross-party of course—a number of people from different parties watch Parliament TV.

But anyway, let’s get back to the bill eh? Let’s get back to the bill. The other members are trying to distract me off the bill, which we don’t want to do. The second point I was getting to—before I was interrupted—was the technical issues that the previous legislation had, that this bill will, in effect, address some of those previous technical issues, which is great.

The third aspect, which as an accountant I always enjoy seeing when I see a bill, is the reduction of administrative compliance. Oh gosh. It’s just such great words there. I’ll tell you what, I don’t know, maybe it’s just me, but I’ve hardly ever seen those words in the last two years of being in this House. Not too often. Often it’s increasing—administrative compliance is increasing, administrative burden. But that’s not the case today, so that’s a good thing. So we’re seeing that this bill is going to positively impact that.

I want to also recognise the good members of the Māori Affairs Committee, Harete Hipango, right here, a fellow colleague, along with Joseph Mooney on the National side and members across the House. A great committee by all accounts, not a committee that I have attended, but I always have mentioned to my colleagues “Don’t forget, when you need someone to whip in for that committee, I’m always available.” So you can just put that on the record. So I understand there’s a lot of good times that happen there. I’m looking across at Paul Eagle and he’s not signalling—maybe he’s just getting used to being back in the House. It’s good to have him back, isn’t it?

So National will be supporting this bill at second reading. We don’t see any aspects of it that are controversial or unusual, which I think is important. Actually, the only aspect that’s unusual, as I said, is the reduction in administrative compliance, but we will take that point as noted. We are looking forward to it progressing through in terms of the third reading. I think it’s just important to recognise and link back to National Party values, which National Party values obviously recognise the Treaty of Waitangi as the founding document of New Zealand, and I think this bill aligns with the National Party values, and on that basis we will be supporting it.

So thank you very much for the opportunity to provide a very brief call in regards to this bill, and I look forward with great interest in terms of its progression through the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It has been one of these really technical bills, which, you know, you think might just be able to be changed really quickly, just somebody can jump into the keyboard and just delete this and add that, but, actually, we need to go through this process in Parliament to be able to make those changes official. So as the chair of the Māori Affairs Committee, we’ve scrutinised this bill, we bring it back it before the House with the most minor of changes—however, they are necessary. The one that I wanted to pick up on was just the change that we’re going to make off the back of conversations with the Lake Rotoaira Trust, who had some desire to be able to tighten up the rules, and relax the rules in certain areas, and that’s exactly what we’re going to do.

Really interestingly, Lake Rotoaira is actually Māori private freehold land. It’s situated between Lake Taupō and Mount Tongariro, and it’s administered by a trust on behalf of over 11,000 beneficiaries. It also looks after the trout fishery down those ways, as well. One of the things that we’re doing in here is that we’re actually updating the list of people that are allowed access to the lake without an entry permit. We’ve actually got a stakeholder group Māori Rōpū—they’re actually Māori trustees on their own reservation, which is the island in the middle of Lake Rotoaira—at the moment, they need a permit to be able to access their own whenua. So it’s little changes like this that we’re making to be able to allow the system to be a lot slicker, a lot more responsive to current-day needs, and to solve some of those wicked problems. So that one was the one that I wanted to point out.

And just the other one around updating amendments to the Maori Trust Board Act, getting with the times, things like e-voting, things like the Act currently says that if you’re going to resign, you have to write it in a letter and you have to hand that letter to the Minister of Māori Development. Times have changed; we know that we can do that a lot more efficiently these days. So this bill is well supported around the House, and rightly so, because it does make a number of technical amendments that are going to make life much easier and much more straightforward for people. I commend it to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m pleased to take a call in this, the second reading of the Māori Purposes Bill. I’m not a member of the select committee that has overseen this bill through the submissions stage, but I always enjoy it when we have a piece of legislation that comes back to the House where all parties agree on it. It makes for a much, much more pleasant process.

We’ve heard from several members who’ve spoken today that this is a small bill, a minor bill, and one that takes care of some technical issues. But I see this bill as also, partly, one that helps to remove barriers for people. We’ve heard, for example, one of the amendments that has been made to the Maori Trust Boards Act, which my colleague just prior to me mentioned around the ability to be able to vote online, and I think that’s a really big way of ensuring that barriers are removed for people.

💬 Angie Warren-Clark: Sensible.

It is sensible, thank you, Angie Warren-Clark. It’s a sensible addition, or change, to the legislation because these days most people have access to the internet and the ability to vote online, as opposed to the long drawn-out process that my colleague Tāmati Coffey just mentioned. He also mentioned—he’s taken all my speaking points!—the ability for board members to resign; a bit more of a streamlined process there.

I also wanted to, just briefly, talk about the amendments to the Te Ture Whenua Maori Act of 1993, where one of the first set of changes applies to the Ruapuha Uekaha Hapū Trust, so that it continues to exist with the same beneficiaries, as was attended under the Wai 51 Treaty claim. It means that the powers—I was just reading before that succession orders that were made by the Māori Land Court meant that the trust could be terminated and people entitled to the interest in the land may not necessarily be the ones that were direct descendants of the original owners, as was intended. And so this piece of legislation also updates that and changes that to ensure that it is able to continue with the direct descendants, as was intended by that Wai 51 part of the Treaty settlement there.

Again, I agree with all the things that colleagues around the House have said, and it’s a pleasure to take a call on this bill, and I commend it to the House.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to speak on the Māori Purposes Bill. As our colleague and friend Jo Luxton has recorded, it’s nice when parties are able to be in agreement on a matter. It does make for a more pleasant experience here, not that we should shy away from that other kind of debate that we do have from time to time.

On that note, I made myself as familiar with this as possible by reading the report of the Māori Affairs Committee, as opposed to having participated in it myself, and it seems that there was a good collegial atmosphere at that august body, and it typically operates in that way, I understand. It is famous for seeking a consensus-based model of discussion and debate and resolution, and it seems that their consideration and ultimately their deliberation on this bill has been no different. So that’s a positive thing in itself.

The name of the bill, I think, is interesting—the Māori Purposes Bill. To some extent there’s a high-level desire to act in a way that meets the purposes as opposed to being necessarily that specific, but, actually, there is a bit of detail that is quite interesting and very specific and no less interesting for that, in my view. But I think the other point about having a Māori Purposes Bill, a very broad generic name, is to reflect that there are quite a few different things that the bill is looking to do. As my colleague and friend Harete Hipango has noted, it’s an omnibus bill and four different pieces of existing legislation are amended, and so to capture a pretty wide intent and to make life easier and better for those involved in those various entities, it’s got that pretty broad catch-all kind of title. So that’s, I guess, a bit of background for anyone who is listening and is relatively new to it. If they’ve just switched on, they’ve missed more erudite contributions than I’ll be able to make, but for what it’s worth I do make that point.

In terms of what the bill actually does, as I mentioned, there are four different pieces of legislation that are amended, and I’ll look to go through each of those in turn. There is more to say about some and, for others, less, but if there’s an overall feeling or vibe, if I may, it’s that it’s providing greater autonomy in relation to decision making, and I think that’s helpful whichever way one comes at that kind of philosophy. In the National Party we like to talk about limited government and having communities able to decide and determine their own fate as much as possible. Sometimes that’s framed in negative terms—if we say limited government, for example, we might rail against Wellington, not the city itself, of course. I hear it’s good on a nice day but I’ve only been here for a few years so I wouldn’t know.

But perhaps a more positive expression is the idea of localism, which is the idea—albeit not in a local government context but a local decision-making philosophy—that those who are most directly impacted and affected by decisions that are made should have the right to participate in those to the maximum extent.

There are a couple of examples within these amendments that I’d like to bring out on that point, but just on that broad philosophical note, I note that in the Māori world, those who are more familiar with that than me—and I speak respectfully as someone who doesn’t have any great knowledge or background particularly, but my understanding is that the concept of tino rangatiratanga is, at least according to one way of characterising it, about self-determination and being able to control one’s own affairs, and that’s appropriate.

It is interesting that our colleague in the Green Party Dr Elizabeth Kerekere talked about a Green Party kaupapa of what they call appropriate decision-making, so that’s a different perspective on the same kind of philosophy that those who are closest to the impacts of decision making should be allowed to make those decisions to the greatest extent possible. Then we heard from our colleague and friend in the ACT Party through a private property lens, and they are supportive of the general direction that the bill is taking us. So there are different ways to approach essentially the same question, I think, and perhaps because of that philosophical underpinning we’re all able to come together in this House and continue to support the bill.

Firstly, the bill amends Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993. As Mr Seymour noted quite rightly, this is a law reform project that arguably should have already happened but no doubt will happen in due course. In relation to that, there’s a bigger piece of work but for now it’s relevant to the work of this bill but it’s nodding towards that work of Messrs Finlayson and Flavell and now Mooney, with that member’s bill in his name that we see in relation to the TTWM—as Te Ture Whenua Maori Act is often known—that the powers of the Māori Land Court under that Act to terminate a trust don’t apply to a particular local trust, and others have spoken more from a local perspective.

Harete Hipango, again, has superior knowledge in this regard and I would defer to Ian McKelvie’s knowledge of that geographical region as well. But with that trust having been established by the Māori Land Court in 1990, an auspicious year, of course, some century and a half after the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi, it seems that it’s intended by this bill not to allow that trust to be terminated in that way. I don’t have a good understanding of what those issues are that have arisen in terms of the succession orders and how real it is as a possibility as opposed to a mere theoretical possibility that the Māori Land Court might terminate the trust, but in any case this bill seems clear enough in placing beyond even that theoretical possibility of such termination.

As for the Maori Purposes Act 1959, which is, of course, pretty close in name to the bill that is before us, we see that, among other things, there’s a right of entry to Lake Rotoaira—excuse the pronunciation—and the significance of the trout fishery there has been well-articulated by others. So it’s clarifying that the right of entry to that lake without an entry permit doesn’t authorise fishing. It’s kind of interesting in itself, actually, just from statutory interpretation perspective in the sense that: if one has entry to a lake, would one regard that as automatically implying that one has the ability to do things there? Not necessarily. I suppose it’s unclear enough potentially on the books as it currently stands that providing some clarity through this legislation is deemed to be helpful. So that’s one of the things that the bill does.

It also increases low penalties for offences. It is currently $100, I understand. You don’t get far for 100 bucks these days—and I note the cost of living crisis here, inflation out of control, etc. But all the same, in all seriousness, if there was to be a penalty that was to be meaningful, of course, it must have some sort of real-world application and effect. So to increase those penalties for breaching the right that some enjoy in relation to private property, as our ACT colleagues would have it, seems an obvious thing to do.

I think the legislation that’s currently on the books and is being amended by this bill that caught my eye the most was the Maori Trust Boards Act 1955. Among other things, it provides for electronic voting. Sometimes the debate about electronic voting in other contexts, as Dr Kerekere talked about, is characterised in terms of increasing participation and balancing that against security, and being able to have confidence that a ballot is fairly conducted and that the results reflect the genuine true will of the people. I’m not sure that even in terms of participation it is necessarily foolproof, but in any case the Māori trust boards, should they choose, will be able to conduct their own elections in an electronic way, and good luck to them I say. It certainly seems appropriate to allow them to exercise their own judgment about whether that’s a way they want to be able to conduct their affairs.

The Māori trust boards are removed from the Cabinet Fees Framework, and while it’s a different matter, that’s similar, actually, to a move made recently by this House to take various officers of our judicial system out of the Cabinet Fees Framework. Judges proper are already outside that but it was deemed appropriate by the House and I think unanimously supported—certainly National agreed—that Cabinet not be setting fees for officers and in this case a body that’s outside the realm of the Government, and, of course, it goes back to that big-picture theme of allowing determination and operations to be unencumbered by the dictates of the Government as much as possible. I say that in a positive way: devolution or even, if one wanted to say, decolonisation. I suppose that would be another way to frame it. But in any case, it seems sensible to allow that kind of fee setting to take place without any perception even of political interference.

Other changes are relatively minor but, I think, none the less worthwhile. I’ve joined others in my party and across the House, it seems, in continuing to support this bill. Therefore, I commend the bill to the House.

It would be remiss of me not to start my contribution by just responding to the suggestion from the previous speaker, Chris Penk, but also David Seymour that the so-called Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill would be the answer to fast tracking Māori use of Māori land. That recycled bill in the name of Joseph Mooney is 509 clauses, 396 pages. There was a lot of consultation, and, actually, Māori land owners don’t want it. So that isn’t the solution.

But turning to this, the Māori Purposes Bill, I think that even though it’s technical, it’s quite significant for a couple of reasons. The first is that it recognises a public benefit about supporting the integrity and durability of a Treaty of Waitangi Act settlement consistent with the public policy of Government. So it basically says that this belongs in the area of a public law, not necessarily a private law, and it recognises that the Crown had a central role in the Wai 51 settlement, and, therefore, its conduct in undertaking should be considered a matter of public policy. That’s been the approach, as we’ve heard, since the mid-1990s. But what this bill does is really go to reinforcing that principle.

So it actually reinforces the Crown’s approach to be seen as consistent, stable, and predictable, not only in relation to its Treaty partners but also in the way it conducts itself, recognising that the Crown is representative of all New Zealanders: Māori and non-Māori. So that is the first principle, and then how it conducts itself in relation to Treaty partners, secondly.

The bill also excludes the ability of the Māori Land Court to terminate the Ruapuha Uekaha Hapū Trust, and we’ve heard that. That shores up the kaupapa of the original Wai 51 settlement, which was to benefit the descendants of the 22 original owners of that whenua. So that, in turn, effectively, rules out any claim from the beneficial owners of the land who were not direct descendants. So it goes back to first principles and, again, I would say that that shores up the recognition of the durability of Te Tiriti.

So by recognising public benefit and by recognising that these matters belong in public legislation and don’t belong in the realm of the Māori Land Court, this technical bill is actually part of a significant whakapapa of legislation in common law that really recognises the intrinsic spirit of Te Tiriti in the Crown’s own identity and how it conducts itself with its Treaty partners. Therefore, it’s a great pleasure in recommending it to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.