Māori Purposes Bill

Members, we come first to the Māori Purposes Bill, Part 1.

I seek leave of the House for all provisions in the bill to be taken as one question.

Leave is sought for that purpose. Are there any objections to the motion? There are no objections. The question is that Parts 1 to 3, Schedules 1 to 4, and clauses 1 and 2 stand part.

Kia ora, Madam Chair. I acknowledge Minister Jackson, seated beside you, and also the officials, the advisers, who have entered the Chamber to provide advice and support.

Before I do address the detail in relation to the Māori Purposes Bill, I have, previously in this House, addressed members and those listening from the public: those of our people who have given service in this sector with purpose and with kaupapa Māori, and with the Māori purposes that have been their pursuit in service. I say this because this afternoon, at 12.15, there is to be a memorial service for Sir Wira Gardiner, Tā Wira Gardiner. There are a number of us present in the Chamber at the moment who knew him both professionally and personally, and so my whakaaro, my thoughts, turn to the whānau of Sir Wira Gardiner, and also to the service that Sir Wira Gardiner gave a lifetime of, with purpose, to the Māori community but also the nation of the Aotearoa New Zealand.

I now turn to the Māori Purposes Bill. As a member of the National Party, I sat on the Māori Affairs Committee with other members in the House. We scrutinised the bill after hearing submissions from members, and after taking the advice of Ben Paki, seated in the Chamber. Ben, I acknowledge you, because we have given service in the days of the Department of Māori Affairs, and now your advisory role with Te Puni Kōkiri.

Minister, as is known, the bill is in three parts, and what came before the select committee were recommendations for amendments that have been detailed and outlined, and they’re highlighted in the bill that we have before us. Minister, it’s known to those members who sat on the Māori Affairs Committee, after hearing submissions, the reason and the purpose for the Ruapuha Uekaha Hapū Trust to have specific amendments within this bill.

Minister, my eye in looking through the bill—it doesn’t give context unless it’s known what it is in terms of the Treaty settlement that came about. It hasn’t been addressed by way of any Supplementary Order Paper, or, certainly, in the detail of the proposed amendments within the bill, other than saying that under clause 5, section 4 is to be amended in terms of the interpretation; where Ruapuha Uekaha Hapū Trust, which is the trust that has the authority and the responsibility of the administration of Waitomo Caves, “means the trust of that name constituted by the Maori Land Court on 2 October 1990 under section 438 of the Maori Affairs Act 1953 and continued under section 354 of this Act”.

Madam Chair, through you to Minister Jackson, it’s a somewhat complicated way of trying to interpret what the purpose is of this trust. So, Minister, perhaps in terms of some advice from the advisers, the officials seated in the Chamber, wouldn’t it be a simpler way just to say that this trust has been tasked and recognised with the authority for the administration of the Waitomo Caves, as pursuant to the particular Treaty settlement and arrangement that came about? Just clarity, really, Minister, whether that would be possible and permissible, because we know that legislation—and we’ve had come before this House plain English bills and the like and other matters: it’s about the benefit of those who are reading and interpreting, our laypeople, members of the public, to understand rather than having to rely on lawyers or people specialised in this area to have to interpret and to clarify.

Thank you, Madam Speaker, and I want to thank that member Harete Hipango for her cooperation, too—and all members, actually, during this process. It’s been a very collaborative process. I want to thank the Hon Meka Whaitiri for standing in and speaking on the bill on my behalf in the second reading. It was pleasing to see the House coming together. As the member knows, just with that question, that trust has a very unique history, doesn’t it? It does have a unique history, and we certainly want to give it effect in terms of the early Treaty settlement concerning the lands at the Waitomo Caves, so I will work through things with my officials to try and make it as efficient as possible.

I need to clarify, I suppose, that this bill makes a series of small amendments to four Acts that are relevant to Māori affairs: Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993, the Maori Purposes Act 1959, the Maori Trust Boards Act 1955, and the Maori Community Development Act 1962. I mention first some of the amendments to Te Ture Whenua Māori Act. Amendments in the bill ensure that Ruapuha Uekaha Hapū Trust continues to exist with the same beneficiaries as intended by the 1990 settlement of the Wai 51 Treaty claim. Further amendments with this kaupapa will allow for meetings for assembled owners of Māori land to be held by electronic means. We’ve seen through the COVID-19 pandemic how critical technology is to ensure that entities can continue to operate even if they cannot meet face-to-face, or kanohi ki te kanohi. Attending meetings in person is difficult for many owners who now live away from their lands. This change will make participation in meetings much easier.

Other amendments to Te Ture Whenua Maori Act increase the notice period to owners and wider whānau of proposals to sell or transfer Māori freehold land from 15 to 20 working days. Amendments to the Maori Purposes Act 1959 will make it easier for the Lake Rotoaira Forest Trust to administer their freshwater fisheries. Amendments to the Maori Trust Boards Act 1955 will remove the requirement that the members of Māori trust boards provide their resignations in writing to the Minister for Māori Development; instead, they’ll be able to make their resignation directly to the trust board, who will then notify the Minister. Amendments to the Maori Community Development Act 1962 will require district Māori councils to provide their audited financial statements to the New Zealand Māori Council, rather than to the CEO of Te Puni Kōkiri.

The amendments proposed in this bill have broad support from the entities who will be impacted by them, and, in many cases, have been proposed by the relevant entities themselves. So I do want to, again, acknowledge the cooperative spirit in which the bill has progressed through the House, the constructive approach by all members in the House who’ve taken to the bill, and I hope that we continue in that vein. Kia ora, Madam Speaker.

Thank you. I certainly endorse everything that the Minister for Māori Development has said, and it shall continue in the vein of being supportive for this important legislation to pass through.

So dealing with all parts together, Minister Jackson has identified Part 1 as “Amendments to Te Ture Whenua Maori Act”. There is certainly no opposition to the proposals. But the purpose of the committee of the whole House is inviting, also, contributions from other party members—those I see who sit on the Māori Affairs Committee. In dealing with Te Ture Whenua Maori Act, it is, from clauses 3 to 13, detailed in the bill what is proposed to be amended, and it is about amendments of Te Ture Whenua Maori Act consistent with other parts of legislation, particularly administrative functions that go with it.

Minister Jackson has talked about—in my opening statement and question in relation to—the Ruapuha Uekaha Hapū Trust, which is a trust within the rohe of Ngāti Maniapoto. There may be members in the Chamber and members of the public who have visited the Waitomo Caves, and the recognition and the importance of that as a national taonga, which the trust has the appropriate authority and mana motuhake in terms of that taonga, that asset within their domain, as is recognised under the 1990 Treaty settlement of their Wai 51 claim for the recognition of the trust status of the people of the local hapū, of the tribal rohe of Ngāti Maniapoto.

For that to remain, despite what some of the regulated provisions under Te Ture Whenua Maori Act, it is required, importantly—and I refer to clause 8 of the bill—that section 231 of Te Ture Whenua Maori Act be amended in relation to the review of trusts to say that subsection (3)(c) of section 231 of that Te Ture Whenua Maori Act does not apply in respect of Ruapuha Uekaha Hapū Trust. The reason for that, perhaps I could invite the Minister to explain to this committee why that would be, and the importance for that.

So I’m not going to labour it; I’m really putting the onus of responsibility back on to the Minister just to confirm and clarify why that amendment is important in relation to the trusts authority, and that despite measures or legislated accountabilities under Te Ture Whenua Maori Act, why the review of trust would not apply to the hapū trust that is the subject of this kōrero at the moment.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and thank you to the Minister for Māori Development for being in the Chair and to, hopefully, answer some questions. We just heard from my colleague Harete Hipango.

I’m just having a look at the ballot papers and electronic voting to be made available. This is the amendments to the Māori Trust Boards Act 1955, and I note that it has provision of “electronic voting systems means an electronic voting system provided for by regulations made under this Act,” and that the elections can be by postal ballot or electronic vote “unless regulations provide otherwise”. You see that in clause 50 on page 8—for the Minister’s reference—and I note it says that, “The election of candidates to a membership of a Board must be by one or both of the following as required by the board unless regulations made under this Act provide otherwise: postal ballot or electronic vote.”

I’m just wondering what the Minister’s expectations are for those regulations, because it says “unless the regulations provide otherwise”. So is the Minister’s expectation that electronic vote will become the expectation for the Māori Trust Boards and/or will there be an expectation that it’s a postal ballot and electronic vote; or will there be an expectation that there is something else? Because I do see that there’s provision for “otherwise” here. So I would appreciate some clarification from the Minister on that point.

I thank the two members for their questions. Part 1 proposes the amendment to the Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 to provide that the Māori Land Court’s powers under that Act to terminate trusts do not apply to Ruapuha Uekaha Hapū Trust.

The trust was established by the Māori Land Court, as the member knows, of course, in 1990 to give effect to the settlement of the Treaty of Waitangi claim concerning the Waitomo claims. It’s now an ahu whenua trust under Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993.

Now, issues have arisen in regards to succession orders and to the possibility that if the court was to terminate the trust, the people would be entitled may not align with the beneficiaries of the trust as established. So the intention is that the trust continues to exist with the same beneficiaries in a manner consistent with the settlement of the Wai 51 claim.

It also proposes amendments to Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 that will extend the notification period for exercising rights of first refusal on proposed sales and certain other alienations of Māori freehold lane, extend the notice period for Māori incorporations to notify shareholders of a general meeting to consider a special resolution.

In terms of Mr Mooney’s question, obviously I think the face-to-face, kanohi ki te kanohi-type hui are much more preferred. It’s the preferred perspective, I suppose, by most Māori, but emerging meetings of assembled owners provision are designed for Māori land that, as the member will know, has multiple owners and no management or governance structure. These provisions enable owners to meet and make decisions concerning their land, and we think that if you’re asking what the preference is, the preference will certainly always be a kanohi ki te kanohi position.

Kia ora, Minister. I always appreciate the enlightenment that you bring to the House with the kōrero and the contribution. On that note also, at clause 15—under Part 2 of the bill, “Amendments to Maori Purposes Act 1959”—it states that section 3 be amended—that’s the interpretation section of the Māori Purposes Act 1959—so that the “definition of adjoining waters forming part of the Lake, paragraph (b), replace ‘Wairehau Canal’ with ‘Wairehu Canal’.” So, again, in terms of enlightenment, it’s interesting that this amendment corrects the spelling, which does have significance in terms of the story associated with the place—in this instance, the canal—having the correct spelling. So is the Minister able to enlighten the House as to why it has taken so long to detect the incorrect spelling and if there is a difference between “Wairehau” and “Wairehu” other than the spelling? Kia ora.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just having a look at Schedule 3, Minister, on page 12, regarding the “Amendments to Rotoaira Trout Fishing Regulations 1979”, I just noticed that the definition of “adjoining waters forming part of the lake” has been amended, and it now states: “those portions of the natural tributaries of Lake Rotoaira situated within the area bounded by longitude 175°42.000′E, State Highway 46, and State Highway 47”. And I would just appreciate a brief explanation of why that definition has been changed.

And in terms of the definition of “stipendiary ranger”, I note that here has been a small change there as well, but in respect of the “Applications for entry permit”, regulation 6, it’s now going to say it will “apply to a permit officer in person or in writing; and (b) state the period for which the permit is required; and (c) state if entry is required for the purpose of fishing; and (d) if entry is required for the purpose of fishing for trout, produce to the permit officer a current trout-fishing licence issued to the applicant in respect of the Taupo District under regulations made under any Act; and (e) pay the permit officer the fee payable”. What is the purpose for this change and what is the primary thrust of the changes to the Rotoaira Trout Fishing Regulations 1979 with the changes that have been made here?

Thank you, Madam Chair. That’s an interesting question there from the member Harete Hipango. In terms of the misspelling from “Wairehau” to “Wairehu”, it’s always a big question why we have mistakes in place for so long, and I think that’s the case, probably, with a lot of—Māori have talked about townships being mispronounced for 50 to 100 years, and we go through this whole process of correction. So, in this instance, there’s been a real consultation with stakeholders, and that is the preference from those affected—a little bit like “Wanganui” and “Whanganui”, I suppose, if you really want to go down that track. Some of us stand by “Wanganui”, which, the member will know, the people who live there will always use, and they have that right; but others I encourage to use “Whanganui”. So that’s why there was a change, and sometimes in legislation there are errors, so it’s good that we finally got there.

In terms of clause 12, clause 12 includes transitional provisions that relate to the extension of notification periods in clauses 6 and 10 of the bill. The first transitional provision relates to the deadline for receiving tenders or expressions of interest under a right of refusal. Without the transitional provision, there could be ambiguity as to whether notices under section 147A of Te Ture Whenua Maori Act must specify the present in 15 working days or the new 20-working-day deadline. Clause 12 clarifies that the new minimum deadline would not apply to any notice published before the commencement date. Similarly, there may be ambiguity as to whether a Māori incorporation must give 15 or 20 working days’ notice of a general meeting at which a special resolution is proposed. The transitional provisions clarify that the new 20-working-day minimum notice period does not apply to a notice given before the commencement day.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just going back to the amendments to the Māori Purposes Act 1959 to give the Lake Rotoaira Forest Trust more autonomy and flexibility in managing Lake Rotoaira and its trout fishery. Would the Minister be able to make some comments about removing the requirement to hold a trout licence to fish for fish other than trout, and why there has been that change that a right of entry to the lake without an entry permit does not authorise fishing.

I note, Minister, that clause 17 amends section 11 of the Māori Purposes Act to increase the maximum fine for an offence from $100 to $5,000, which is quite a significant increase, clearly. But it would be good just to have the clarification for anyone watching or anyone reading this transcript, for why that penalty has been increased—it’s a significant increase, from $100 to $5,000—and the rationale behind the warranted officer under the Conservation Act being amended in terms of the definition of a “stipendiary ranger”.

I note also, Minister, the question I asked before about the definition of “adjoining waters forming part of the Lake”, and why that definition has been changed here. So there’s a few little issues in there, Minister, and it would be useful if we could have just a bit of an explanation from the Minister as to the rationale behind these amendments.

Thank you. Whilst Minister Jackson’s contemplating and constructing answers to the questions posed by my colleague Joseph Mooney, in terms of just something that’s very simple, and it was identified by the Māori Affairs Committee, and has been highlighted in the report back to the House: correcting capitalisation. So under Part 2, clause 15(4) is to provide for the reference of Taupo District—district rather than a small “d”, a capital “D”, which “means the district described in the Taupo District Order 1983”.

But what’s interesting also, Minister, to draw your eye to when you do have time, so clause 15(4), it’s been detected small “d” to be capitalised for Taupo District and then under Schedule 3, regulation 2, it states further down in the third highlighted section of the bill “In regulation 2(1), insert in its appropriate alphabetical order: Taupo District”—which is a capital “D” and as minor as this might seem, it’s significant because this about consistency and standardisation. So Taupo District, with a capital “D” “In regulation 2(1) … means the district described in the Taupo District Order 1983”, yet in clause 15(4), we have a small “d”. So just pointing out, Minister, whilst you’ve had time to contemplate responses to the earlier ones, the importance of drilling down into the detail to make sure that the Ds are either capitalised or they’re not, so that everything is on point. On that note, Minister, we’re expecting—you know, waiting with bated breath—your responses to the questions posed earlier. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Minister, while you’re contemplating answers to those scintillating questions posed earlier—I’m waiting for the fantastic responses which I’m sure will be coming—just in terms of the changes to the Te Ture Whenua Maori Act, I note that the Government wrote to all Māori trust boards on 9 August 2021. I’m just wondering if you could confirm, has there been a response from all of them now, and, if so, what those responses were.

We’re still waiting on some of those responses in terms of I think it was your bill—wasn’t it?—in terms of ture whenua. I have to be clear, though, Mr Mooney, that we totally rejected your bill because, well, basically, Māoridom told us, as my good colleague Meka Whaitiri has said, that the ture whenua, as it was, was not acceptable in terms of the way that it was being rolled out. That was conveyed to the previous Minister Mr Finlayson and, I think, conveyed to you, even though I know that you put that up in good spirit and good faith. In fact, I have to say, it was quite a winner, actually, rejecting your ture whenua, for the Māori caucus and our Māori MPs. But feel free to have another crack—feel free to have another crack, Mr Mooney.

In terms of Lake Rotoaira, as you know, that’s privately owned freehold land. It’s currently the primary location for trout monitoring and the location where all Rotoaira trout spawns outside the area administered by the trustees. Now, Part 2 of the bill provides, as you know, several amendments to provide the Rotoaira Trust more autonomy and flexibility to manage the lake and associated trout fishery, principally to include adjoining waters so that the trustees can undertake monitoring and fisheries management activities without authorisation from the Director-General of Conservation.

Mr Mooney, re your question on offences in clause 17, which amends section 11 of the Maori Purposes Act 1959, which is penalties in terms of offences, clause 17 increases the fine for breaching the Maori Purposes Act in regulations made under the Act from $100 to $5,000. The maximum fine is currently $100, which has not increased since 1959. So there’s your answer. Clause 17 increases this to $5,000, consistent with the sports fishery penalties under the Conservation Act 1987.

So I hope those exhilarating responses fulfil your questions. Kia ora.

I move, That the question be now put.

Motion agreed to.

Parts 1 to 3, Schedules 1 to 4, and clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.

Bill to be reported without amendment.