Māori Trustee Amendment Bill

As the Hon Nanaia Mahuta is not in the Chamber, I am more than happy to take a call in the Committee stage of this bill. Just to recap much of the earlier debate, it is important that we go over some of the issues that were canvassed, debated, and certainly thrown around the Committee at that time. I welcome to the chair the Minister of Māori Affairs, the Hon Pita Sharples—I welcome him back. Kia piki te ora ki tō hoa rangatira.

[May your good lady’s health be restored.]

As stated previously in the Committee stage, the bill was introduced with some very, very essential and long overdue changes. There is a strong focus on the establishment of the Māori Trustee as an independent organisation. The necessary changes to the Maori Trustee Act were put into place to legitimise much of the activities of the Māori Trustee.

This bill was introduced to the House under the previous Minister of Māori Affairs, the Hon Parekura Horomia. Our support for this bill still stands, although when people listened to the earlier debate in the Committee stage they may have wondered whether members in this Committee were really aware that this bill was introduced by the previous Minister.

Essentially, the bill was divided into the Māori Trustee Amendment Bill and the Māori Development Amendment Bill in order to address two distinct subjects. The first was to introduce changes to establish the Māori Trustee as a stand-alone organisation. This sets up a new independent statutory corporation to further Māori economic development by using the resources available to Māori. Having considered and heard submissions on the bill, the Māori Affairs Committee concluded that the first intention of the bill was to establish the Māori Trustee as a stand-alone organisation, and Part 1 is essentially focused around that. But the committee expressed the view that the arrangements proposed for the statutory corporation to further Māori development were very contentious and that they naturally deserved further consideration. That is desirable, and that sentiment was expressed during the round of consultations on the bill. Although there was support for the Māori Trustee as a stand-alone organisation, it was also made clear that Māori economic development would benefit very much through the utilisation of the Māori Trustee funds.

In terms of the main changes to the bill, we see that there are changes to the termination and appointment of the Māori Trustee. The changes to the operation of the Māori Trustee accounts make it very clear that where money held in the common fund has been invested, the investments are to come back into the fund. I suppose that this change was necessary to make that very clear, because obviously it has not been clear in the past.

It is also interesting that section 41 of the Maori Trustee Act 1953 allows the Minister of Finance to recover the amounts paid for the expenses of the Māori Trust Office before 1 July 2008. The previous Government was authorising the writing off of the accumulated debt of the Māori Trustee. The Crown wants this bill to pass through all its stages in the House. Obviously, we have seen some changes over a number of months.

This is a very, very important step forward for the Māori Trustee, as the bill clarifies a lot of the trustee’s operations and functions, as well as making it very clear that it will become a stand-alone organisation. I look forward to the next debate we have about the Māori Trustee taking another gigantic step forward by playing a major role in the acceleration of Māori economic development. In the past, we have seen organisations benefit from Māori Trustee funds, and I see no reason at all why that cannot continue into the future. I would be very, very interested to hear the views of the Minister of Māori Affairs, the Hon Dr Pita Sharples, who is now in the chair, on the way forward for Māori through the assistance of the Māori Trust Office.

I will go back to where we were in the beginning in terms of what Part 1 of the Māori Trustee Amendment Bill does. But before I get to that point, I say that I suppose my colleague Mita Ririnui was saying that he wanted a bit of recognition. There was a cry for a bit of recognition that this bill was essentially the previous Labour Government’s bill. Well, I will give my colleague the recognition. After 9 long years, this bill is what Māoridom got—the Māori Trustee Amendment Bill. I congratulate the previous Minister of Māori Affairs, the Hon Parekura Horomia, who did a sterling job trying to get this bill through.

But let us not forget that the bill, in its other clothes, was actually a bigger bill, and that the second part of the bill was the real humdinger. It was not particularly about independence, or about a stand-alone agency, and it did not have a lot to do with the appointment of the Māori Trustee and how to get rid of the trustee if we did not like him or her. Instead, it was about the $35-odd million that was going away from the Māori Trustee, and about the Government using it as some sort of model of Māori development.

This bill is specifically about the independence of the Māori Trustee, as per any other entity that we have in Government. The Māori Trustee is a stand-alone organisation. Prior to these provisions, it was always on the coat-tails of Te Puni Kōkiri—or, as it was called in its former life, the Ministry of Māori Affairs. It was always part of that big picture of the Ministry of Māori Affairs. In fact, the previous Māori Affairs Committee was quite happy to see the Māori Trustee come away from the apron strings of Te Puni Kōkiri. We are quite happy to see this bill go forward.

One of the issues that my colleague the Hon Nanaia Mahuta brought up in her kōrero last week was about the appointment of the Māori Trustee, and how he or she could be dismissed. New section 6(1), in clause 7, states: “The Māori Trustee is appointed by the Minister.” I have some questions to ask about the appointment of the Māori Trustee by the Minister of Māori Affairs. The bill does not really set out the process of how we get to that position. Is it that somebody hands in his or her CV, and the Minister has a look and handles the appointment process? I think it is a must that we say not only that the Maori Trustee is appointed by the Minister of Māori Affairs but also how he or she is appointed and what sort of process we use when we appoint that person and when we wish to terminate that person’s appointment, if, for some reason, the Minister feels that is necessary to do so. Overall, it is a good start in the 21st century.

Mihi atu ki a koe e te Minita Māori, e Pita, tēnā koe.

[My acknowledgments to you, Pita, Minister of Māori Affairs, greetings.]

I will reconcile some of the matters progressed by the previous speaker about the great term that I undertook in steering the Māori Affairs portfolio. When that member was the Minister of Māori Affairs, he did nothing. When I came into Parliament, unemployment was running at 21 percent, the minimum wage had not been touched, and a whole lot of our people were in disarray. But I will recognise that member’s effort in starting the commissions that he established. I thought they were good under his tutelage.

Paul Quinn: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Notwithstanding my great respect for the honourable member, I fail to follow his train of thought as it relates to the Māori Trustee Amendment Bill, and, in particular, to the Committee stage.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I think that is a little heads-up that probably is in order. If we are using these examples, they should be comparative to Part 1. I ask the member to continue.

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: I was getting there. The issue with this bill, in all of its parts, is timing. Certainly, the accountability issues that have pervaded the Māori Trustee over a long period of time need to be dealt with. I am very pleased that the Minister of Māori Affairs continues to take those provisions through.

The issues relevant to the Māori Trustee as a stand-alone organisation, as outlined in new sections 4 and 5, are provisions that the Labour Party was committed to and is keen to follow. The issues around accountability in new subsection 6(1), in clause 7, which provides that the Māori Trustee will be appointed by the Minister of Māori Affairs, as was brought up by the previous speaker, are truly issues that need to be dealt with. The accumulated funds that the Māori Trustee manages are beneficiaries’ funds, as the previous speaker continually reminds me. The bigger part of the bill—which he suggested has started to disappear—has now become the Māori Trustee and Māori Development Amendment Bill. It is about kick-starting assets owned by Māori to help those who were short of cash flow. The beauty of the Māori Trustee system is the management of multiple layers. Multiplicity pervades the title.

There were some really unfair situations relating to the Māori Trustee that Māori people had to put up with. Evaluations of Māori properties, as discussed during the genesis of the original bill, which is now split into two bills—and this is some of the detail of that discussion—are recognised in the sense that they are considered similar to Pākeha properties, and there is the issue of saleability. The real issue is that those property owners are paying the same level of rates, yet they will never sell that property. There is a contradiction in terms. The freeing up of the Māori Trustee, ensuring that the role was more transparent, and that accountability, in some way, came back to the people were the reasons behind the second thrust of the original bill, which now makes up the Māori Trustee and Māori Development Amendment Bill.

The Māori Trustee has stood the test of time. The services purchased from, and paid for, by the Crown are those services that had to be differentiated, because they were stuck together. The bill is quite specific that those services are differentiated. There is a whole host of things that the Māori Trustee can do in a better fashion, in my mind, but which have not yet been done. So if one takes the basic fundamentals of what comprises Māori land, one adds multiplicity, which is brought about by a succession plan whereby the title or hectarage is divided amongst all family members. That is the Māori situation. The land does not necessarily, or generally, go from one owner to the next owner. That multiplicity then makes it unmanageable, yet the premise that the land is valued as land of production, similar to Pākehā land, is something that it really has to be measured on. I cite the Mangatū case in relation to the rates that Māori pay and the value they cannot get because they do not sell. It seems quite weird.

The bill also makes changes to the way in which interest on money held in trust in the common fund is determined, because that is something we have to be very clear about—about it being banked and the interest gleaned off it, then minimised, and returned to the owners at a lesser rate. That is not fair. The bill provides that the Māori Trustee must pay the amount earned by the trustee in interest, less the management fee. The Māori Trustee will be required to review the amounts paid on a quarterly basis in light of appropriate market rates.

One point I want to make is the unfairness on Māori beneficiaries in relation to what the nation, the State, or the Government places upon them. The property is valued like anybody else’s property. It is rated like anybody else’s rates. Māori owners actually pay huge rates in areas like the Bay of Plenty, North Auckland, Hawke’s Bay, and Tai Rāwhiti. Huge amounts of rates are paid, but Māori do not get the benefit of selling their property. This bill will make things better.

I am honoured to stand up and talk more on the Māori Trustee Amendment Bill. I spoke in the earlier part of the Committee stage of the bill. We are now talking about Part 1, and I want to focus on one particular clause, which I think a number of members have spoken about, which is clause 11. Clause 11 amends a number of sections in the original Māori Trustee Act and talks particularly about the issue around distributable income and about who is entitled to income and who is not. In the area I am from in the South Island we have talked about the $35 million fund that was going to be set up in a statutory corporation for use for Māori development. But I want to talk about some of the people whose money that would have been. Clause 11 protects that in many ways. Many people who are listed are owed money by the Māori Trustee. In particular, I want to talk about one family: the Johnson family. The Johnson family comprises six individuals on the Te Wai Pounamu register. They are entitled to about $38,000. That is $38,000 that that family would not have received had this bill passed in its earlier form, as the former Minister of Māori Affairs proposed it. In particular, Mr Richard Johnson was entitled to $28,747.35. That is $28,747.35 that would have gone, had this bill been done in a different way. Clause 11 is a very important clause, and I think it is important that we make a good account. It allows the ability to give back the income earned off this land, which the previous speaker spoke about, to those people like Richard Johnson and his family—his $28,747.35.

Another important part of this bill, in particular—and the previous speaker spoke about this—is clause 12 and the repeal of section 41 of the Māori Trustee Act. Clause 12, which repeals section 41, takes away an enormous debt that existed to the trustee from the Minister of Finance. Again, that means that Richard Johnson and many others in a similar position would be entitled to make sure he and the rest of his family—including John Johnson, Mary Johnson, and Moira Johnson—got the $28,747.35. In fact, a number of families are entitled to many more funds than the Johnson family is, and one of the good things about this bill is that it will make sure that that money is protected and that mechanisms of governance are put in place to ensure that these families, who are in need and are entitled to this money, get it in time. It might be that the Māori Trustee sets up a mechanism just like the Inland Revenue Department has done for people to claim refunds, and promotes in a stronger fashion how to get this money back to their families so they can spend it on the things they think are necessarily, not that some bureaucrat in Wellington thinks are necessary.

Another important aspect of this bill—as has been touched on by many other speakers—is around the setting up of the independence of the Māori Trustee. That is an important aspect that has not really been talked about in this Committee stage. One of the roles of the Māori Trustee is administering a large number of Māori scholarships—in particular, one that is in the name of Sir Apirana Ngata. He is one of the most famous former members of Parliament, who has been honoured in a special way. That scholarship is one that, I must admit, I wish I knew about when I was at university. It is something I would have applied for, but I did not know it existed. Te Puni Kōkiri has had too much oversight of the Māori Trustee. In particular, that means that a scholarship in the name of one of our greatest New Zealanders has been hidden a bit behind the skirts of that organisation. I do not think that is really wise.

The other things that have been spoken about this bill—

Hon Parekura Horomia: Te Puni Kōkiri’s a good ministry.

AARON GILMORE: Apparently so.

The other big issues that exist in this bill that have been talked about include worries around the appointment of the Māori Trustee and the removal of the Māori Trustee if issues arise. If one looks at the bill one sees there are many mechanisms, should the Māori Trustee need to be replaced for impropriety. There are many mechanisms to deal with that situation. They are very clear that the trustee can be removed, should the Minister decide to do so. The Māori Trustee is actually appointed for a period of time. It is not a job for life, in many ways. I think that is important, as well.

The other good thing about this bill is that it actually requires disclosure. Disclosure from the Māori Trustee has been a problem for some of these beneficiaries, like Mr Richard Johnson with his $28,747.35. I am sure Mr Johnson—if he is out there listening today—will be ecstatic to know that he is entitled to $28,747.35. I think one of the problems that existed with the trustee is the ability to disclose how the money flows through, who is entitled to it, and where it actually is. One of the important things that exists here is the vision, values, and mission of the Māori Trustee—as outlined in its annual report—which are to provide a productive and sustainable framework for the development and utilisation of Māori resources that the Māori Trustee administers. That sounds pretty good. The previous speaker stood up and said that that was the idea around his statutory corporation and the use of funds for that statutory corporation. That already exists as the vision of the current Māori Trustee. We have to talk about how we use that $39 million in assets and funds for the best use of those people who are entitled to that money, including the Richard Johnsons of the world.

Previous speakers have spoken about the 111,000 hectares of land. Yes, it is problematic and, yes, this land is highly unlikely ever to be sold, which is one of the reasons why the protective provisions around Part 1 exist: to make sure that the land can be retained, returns can be earned, there are funds in terms of management fees, there is no debt issue because of the repeal of section 41, and people like Mr Richard Johnson can actually receive the funds they deserve.

Some of the other particular issues that exist here are the economies of scale and the uncertainty around some little things, particularly around the management fee. Part 1, as it has been put forward here, allows some changes around the management fee and gives more certainty and surety for the deduction of the management fee, which can be given back to the recipients, like Mr Richard Johnson and the rest of his family.

The other aspect that has some issues is around the confusion that existed between Te Puni Kōkiri and the Māori Trustee—where the roles and entitlements actually start and stop for some of these things. Whose job has it been to promote whether Mr Richard Johnson is entitled to $28,747.35, and where does Te Puni Kōkiri’s role start and finish? Part 1 outlines in a clearer fashion the vision, values, and mission of the Māori Trustee and how it will be much clearer in terms of its governance. I think that is a good step, and it is wonderful for Mr Richard Johnson and other families of the world. If we can get more of these funds, like the amounts for the Johnson family and many others, back to those families, with the Māori Trustee as it will function under this bill, then it will be a neat thing for them to be able to use.

In fact, I am actually shocked that more members of this Committee are not standing up and talking about the Mr Richard Johnsons of this world, and making sure they are aware of their entitlements. If those people are not listening, then maybe members who know them can pass on the fact that the Māori Trustee is set up to make sure these people get what they are entitled to. As the previous speaker said, some of these families may be greatly in need, particularly in these tough economic circumstances, and if we can get some of the money they are entitled to back to them, so they can use it for their own families to do what they want to do for their own homes, or whatever, then they will have the choice to spend their funds in the way they wish. I think that would be a good step, and particularly so in the economic times we have today.

I want to touch on just one more thing. One of the key things about the change in the $52 million debt is that the debt treated as a one-off, of course; it means that it can never happen again. One of the important things in relation to governance under Part 1 is to make sure that the Māori Trustee is managed in a certain way so as to ensure that the Māori Trustee does not incur such a large debt owed back to the Crown, and that $52 million does not get racked up again. To have a $52 million debt and $39 million in assets and funds means that the Māori Trustee is in negative equity, which is not good for Mr Richard Johnson and the other people who might not get their funds, given the uncertainty around the equity position of the Māori Trustee.

I think this bill is non-controversial. The only issue that has been controversial has been the $35 million statutory corporation that was originally proposed by the previous Government. The previous speaker is right: we as a new Government are happy to run with this bill, because with the removal of that proposal it is a good piece of legislation, and it will be good for Mr Richard Johnson and the other people out there who are entitled to some of the funds that exist in there. In the main, the Māori Trustee can deliver what it can do, in education, land management, and other things, in terms of getting money back to those people who deserve it the most. There is nothing wrong with that. We have heard discussion from some members on the other side about who is responsible for how good this is, and who is not. But I think we should all be focused on how we get the money held by the Māori Trustee back, in the most efficient way, to the Johnson family and to the other people who are entitled to funds that currently exist, rather than thinking about how we can best spend the $35 million. The Johnson family is entitled to its $37,000 or $38,000, and Mr Johnson himself is entitled to his $28,000. We should be focusing on how we get the Māori Trustee to operate in the best way and to maximise returns. Thank you.

Tēnā koe, Mr Chairperson. Tēnā rā hoki koe e te Minita, e Pita. I am happy to stand again in support of the Māori Trustee Amendment Bill, and in particular I want to return to new section 5, which I think is an important and essential part of the debate. New section 5, which is inserted by clause 7, states that the Māori Trustee must act independently of the Crown, “free from any direction or instruction from the Crown.” This is great news for Māori. This bill, which was introduced by the previous Labour Government, sought a way for Māori to have resources at their disposal and the authority to make decisions as Māori over those resources.

In effect, the intent of this provision is to ensure that Māori assume—and rightly so—tino rangatiratanga over the Māori Trustee. This was never going to be the case while the Māori Trustee was attached to a Government ministry. There are many ways in which tino rangatiratanga can be interpreted, and this is one of them—to have the ability and resources to make decisions for oneself. So I expect that new section 5 will be welcomed by Māori the length and breadth of the country.

The big problem with this bill, though, is that it does not go far enough. The bill was split in two, with the first part of the original bill being about establishing the Māori Trustee as a stand-alone organisation. The second part of the original bill, which provided for the establishment of a statutory corporation to further Māori economic development, is being left to the side for now.

I spoke earlier in the Committee stage about clause 11, which substitutes sections 26 to 26B and refers to money held in a common fund being invested in the fund. New section 26(1) states: “any income derived from investment of the money forms part of the Common Fund.” If Māori were to think boldly and outside of the square, we could see the Māori Trustee becoming an integral part of Māori development, and financial gains being reinvested in the common fund so that the fund available grew and we could reinvest in more Māori initiatives. This would mean that we could see Māori entrepreneurs and business people investing and supporting yet more Māori to be successful. Success could well breed success, and we could lift each other out of the oft-quoted cycle of dependency. We would then be enabling more and more Māori to become financially independent, and when we have that sort of independence, we take a large step towards tino rangatiratanga. This would be a case of Māori helping Māori. It would mean a giant step away from dependency on other people to fund and support our initiatives.

Just this last Saturday I was talking to a person from Te Rarawa, up in Ahipara, who, along with a group of friends, has invented a device that will aid recreational fishermen while out boating. These Māori entrepreneurs have had to make contact with non-Māori investors, who have poured close to $30,000 into developing and improving the prototype of this invention. I congratulate these backyard inventors, and I believe that their product will be a success. The problem for these inventors—and for all Māori—is that the investors will expect a dividend to be returned to them, and so they should. They have taken on board a financial risk, and they expect payback somewhere and somehow. I believe that it would be a lot better for Māori if that dividend were paid back to Māori, so that Māori received all profits from a venture like this. Sure, there are risks attached, but the Māori Trustee should be someone with a nose for investment and the ability to put in place strategies to minimise those risks. If the Māori Trustee invested in that invention, then royalties could be paid back into the common fund, and the growth of that fund could be used to invest in further Māori ventures. This is progressive thinking.

We could be doing a lot to help already established Māori businesses and enterprises. Some say that this is purely a Māori bank. In response to that, I say, firstly, that there is nothing wrong with Māori owning banks—and there is a subtle implication there that we are not actually capable of running a bank—but, secondly, and more important, this is about Māori becoming financially independent and successful. We have the basis here for Māori to develop financial success, so why do we not just go for it but put checks and balances in place to make sure those risks are minimised? But, true to Māori form, instead of having a go, we hear the knockers and pessimists spouting off, and basically, by their backward-thinking conservatism, they continue to condemn Māori to being second-rate citizens.

New section 6D(1), inserted by clause 7, explains that “The Māori Trustee may appoint the employees … to enable the Māori Trustee to exercise the powers and perform the functions and duties of office … effectively and efficiently.”

I am intrigued to hear my whanaunga from the north, Kelvin Davis, talk about progressiveness, the idea of a Māori bank, and the financial independence of the Māori Trustee. He talked as though the money that was in the common fund—or any fund, really—belonged to Māori. Well, let me point out that it does not belong to all Māori; it belongs to the beneficiaries whose land is under the auspices of the Māori Trustee. The dividends from that land should be paid to those beneficiaries. It is their money.

I am not sure whether Labour members can understand that this money is not for all Māori; this is about the beneficiaries. This is about the shareholders and their property right. So when people talk and wax lyrical about the ideas of a Māori bank, I say that they should first and foremost think about whose property right they are taking away in order to establish this so-called brilliant idea of a Māori development fund or bank. I also want to say that this issue has absolutely nothing to do with Part 1; Part 1 is about the independence of the Māori Trustee. It is about the stand-alone nature of the trustee. Part 1 is about how the Māori Trustee is appointed, and also about how the Māori Trustee is removed from office—and a few other things I have not got to yet. All in all, yes, it is great to see the Māori Trustee break away from that influence of Te Puni Kōkiri and strike out on his or her own. But let us not forget that the purpose of the Māori Trustee is to look after the assets of owners of land, and of shareholders of land. The position was not set up to do anything else. When we want to change that then we should spell it out, as the previous Minister did last year when he wanted to use beneficiary money. There is still an argument about whether that was beneficiary money or whether it was the interest on beneficiary money, and I still contend that even the interest belonged to the beneficiaries. If we are to go down that path, then let us have a bigger discussion and a bigger consultation around the issue than there has been in the past.

Nobody disses the idea of Māori development. Nobody disagrees with a fund for Māori development. The argument was always about where it came from. If it came from a property right that was owned by beneficiaries, then that was the sticking point. Nobody wanted to pooh-pooh the idea that the former Minister had; it was all about the propriety of taking the money out of a fund that was essentially a shareholders’ fund. I make those points with all due respect to my colleague and my whanaunga from the north.

I thank the speaker who has just resumed his seat for that valuable contribution to the Committee stage of the Māori Trustee Amendment Bill and for reminding us that we are, in fact, discussing Part 1 of the bill. Having said that, in the next breath he wandered off on to other matters totally unrelated to Part 1 of the bill, but I will come back to him in a minute.

My colleague the Hon Parekura Horomia, the previous Minister of Māori Affairs, who introduced this bill to the House, raised some interesting matters about the difficulties the Māori Trustee has in terms of identifying beneficiaries of funds held within the Māori Trustee Office. One of the previous speakers from National, Aaron Gilmore, also made reference to that particular matter and to the difficulties around it. He mentioned a particular person—a Mr Richard Johnson—and quite a substantial amount of money being held in the Māori Trustee. There are many similar instances where the Māori Trustee has held funds on behalf of beneficiaries who have not stepped forward to claim those moneys, and there are legitimate reasons for that. Apart from the fact that many beneficiaries are not aware that they have these funds sitting there, waiting to be uplifted, many of those beneficiaries no longer exist, and it is difficult to deal with that particular matter—

Paul Quinn: They are not with us.

Hon MITA RIRINUI: I thank my whanaunga from Ngāti Awa for that elocution lesson. Many of those beneficiaries have passed on, as we might say, and no succession orders have been lodged on their behalf. As the previous Minister of Māori Affairs mentioned, it is a major task to attempt to locate potential beneficiaries, particularly as many of them no longer even take an interest in their family business or their family estates. Some of them, like the member from Whakatāne said, are no longer with us, and that itself is a reason why the Māori Trustee has accumulated such a high level of funds that are being held in certain accounts.

We have certainly debated a lot around what Part 1 of the bill essentially means in establishing a stand-alone Māori Trustee, and the necessary legislative amendments to ensure that the responsibility of the Māori Trustee is clear and that strong and robust financial management systems are in place. There has been a lot of debate around clause 11 of Part 1 on when the funds are held in the common fund and invested. Any returns on that investment must come back into the common fund and not, as has been the case in the past, transferred into the general fund. I always find it an unusual practice when Peter pays the bill and Paul receives the benefits. It is certainly very unusual—

Paul Quinn: Not me. I wish they would.

Hon MITA RIRINUI: Yes, something like that. I really found the contribution from my colleague Kelvin Davis to be very, very valuable, and I did not appreciate the attack on the quality of his contribution. I am reminded of a speaker who was previously on his feet. Before his return to Parliament he worked for an organisation that was established using funds from the Māori Trust Office. That is not the only case where that has happened in the past—where organisations have been set up using funds from either the general fund or the common fund of the Māori Trust Office. I do not know why people get so uptight at any suggestion that the funds held by the Māori Trustee should be directed to Māori economic development. It is a bold step, but it is also a step that I believe will be taken responsibly. I could not say with my hand on my heart that it has been done so in the past. I am sure the Minister of Māori Affairs will have some views about that.

Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. Tēnā koe, te Minita. I wanted to take a call on Part 1 of the bill just to clarify a few figures for the benefit of members of the New Zealand public who may be diligently listening to this debate, so that they can put into context exactly what we are talking about with regard to this Te Pire Whakatikatika Kaitiaki Māori—the Māori Trustee Amendment Bill. We are dealing with an organisation that manages a considerable number of parcels of multiple-owned land. In fact, I have just been speaking to the officials, who told me that 111,000 hectares of land are managed by this organisation. That is close to 250,000 acres of land that is managed by this organisation, and I put it to members of the Committee that in some parts this land is being well utilised and has been well developed, but in many instances it is possibly well located but is considerably underdeveloped. When I look at my own rohe back in Heretaunga in Hawke’s Bay—and I know the Minister who is sitting in the chair today, the Hon Dr Pita Sharples, can speak fondly of that part of Aotearoa—I see there is a considerable amount of land managed by the Māori Trustee in Hawke’s Bay. Some of it is returning real value; a lot of it is underdeveloped and could be better utilised. That is essentially what the organisation exists to manage.

But over the course of time a common fund has also been developed. I asked the officials to put some numbers around that common fund, and I was told that at 31 March 2007, which I must admit is somewhat out of date, it stood at $39,496,263. So we are talking about a serious amount of capital in that fund. But I must add to what my colleague Tau Henare said today: that money has been accrued over time from rents and from interest for the beneficiaries of the land that is managed in many small parcels by the Māori Trustee. It is their money. I am informed—and it is an interesting debating point raised by my colleague from the north—that the money is currently not invested in small entrepreneurial businesses or Māori business. It is actually invested in a range of portfolio investments at quite low risk at this point in time, and that money is returned to the common fund. In effect, it is not being returned to the beneficiaries of the fund.

There is a dilemma in regard to this. When the legislation was first put up, it was proposed that the money be utilised specifically for wider Māori development, rather than being for just the beneficiaries, and that is where the issue arose in regard to this side of the House opposing that part of the legislation. What we now have is the Māori Trustee Amendment Bill. Two bills have come out as a result of the original bill that was put up, which proposed establishing a stand-alone Māori Trustee, and also proposed establishing an economic development arm under it. We have now divided that bill into two bills, and Part 1 of this bill gives effect to the independent establishment of the Māori Trustee role.

If we look at the various clauses of the bill, we see that new section 3, “Māori Trustee established”, which is inserted by clause 7, provides the legislative means to separate the Māori Trustee from Te Puni Kōkiri; new section 4 deals with the capacity and powers of the Māori Trustee; and new section 5 deals with the independence of the Māori Trustee. Many speakers in the Committee have spoken this evening about how important it is that the Māori Trustee is independent—particularly for the sake of the beneficiaries of the small parcels of land throughout New Zealand, so that sensible decisions can be made about the rents that accrue from that land, and so that, ultimately, the best use or purpose of that land is fostered.

New section 6, also inserted by clause 7, talks about the appointment of the Māori Trustee, and, interestingly, states that the Māori Trustee is appointed by the Minister. So there is a strong involvement by the Minister of Māori Affairs, who will play a key part in taking this legislation forward.

As I listen to the debate going on, I keep coming back to the feeling that this bill has missed a number of opportunities. I hear what my whanaunga over there is saying about money being held in the common fund. I am not talking about taking, taking, taking, and depleting that common fund; it is about investing—it is about Māori investing in Māori, and returning funds for Māori.

Hon Tau Henare: It’s the Government’s job.

KELVIN DAVIS: I come back to what I said. It is a missed opportunity—and I just heard my whanaunga say it is the Government’s job—but what I am talking about here is that this is an opportunity for Māori to invest in Māori and return to Māori. It is about aspiration. What I am hearing is just dull conservatism that is missing a huge opportunity to actually do something for Māori. I hear about underdeveloped land, I hear about significant sums of money just sitting there doing very little, and I hear the member Mr Tremain saying the money is already invested in low-risk opportunities and then invested back. What is wrong with investing in Māori initiatives? It does come under Part 1 of the Māori Trustee Amendment Bill, in that the Māori Trustee, acting independently from Te Puni Kōkiri, should have the ability to do something significant so that Māori get a greater return.

I will now touch on new section 6D, inserted by clause 7, in Part 1, which allows for the Māori Trustee to employ staff. Here is another perfect opportunity for us to actually do something. Instead of just employing people to do administrative things, we could employ those people, make sure they have financial skills and acumen, and get around to helping our whanaunga who are trying to develop businesses and enterprises and trying to be entrepreneurial. We could use this opportunity to get those employees of the Māori Trustee out amongst the whānau, and help them to work with the investment that has been made in them, so they can make more money and then return a dividend to the common fund.

It is not about just taking money; as I said earlier, it is about Māori having tino rangatiratanga—having the resources and the independence to make decisions for the betterment of themselves, and then making returns to the fund. The beneficiaries would not miss out. Mr Gilmore spoke about a Mr Johnson being owed thousands of dollars—that would not change. That money, if it were invested back into the common fund, could still be accessed by Mr Johnson, if and when he is found, and his family—and Mr Gilmore named them all.

As I say, I believe this is a missed opportunity. We, as Māori, need to be aspirational and see how we can develop ideas further so that we do not stagnate and do not continue to have our hands out and be dependent on other people’s help to invest in and develop our businesses. I take this short call to reiterate that I think this bill does not go far enough, and I would really like, when Part 2 is discussed and debated, for us to open our eyes and think outside the square, so that Māori do develop and become financially successful and independent. Kia ora.

I acknowledge the previous speakers for giving their general support to the Māori Trustee Amendment Bill. A lot of people speaking on this bill today have been major architects in its development and in getting it to this stage, and I congratulate them on their efforts, particularly the previous Minister of Māori Affairs, Parekura Horomia, who introduced the bill and sent it off to the Māori Affairs Committee, where it went through the select committee process.

As everyone knows, the bill is one part of a two-part bill—the Māori Trustee and Māori Development Amendment Bill—that was divided by the select committee. This division took away the economic development part of the original bill, and left the Māori Trustee part, which is what we are considering today. The bill gives the Māori Trustee stand-alone status; at the present time the Māori Trustee is an employee of Te Puni Kōkiri—a staff member.

Under the bill, the Māori Trustee is appointed to that role by the Minister of Māori Affairs. Appointment by the Minister gives the position the mana that it deserves. Many would see flaws in the Minister’s having the appointment process in his or her hands. However, there are some benefits, as well. It guarantees that there will be transparency in the appointment and that there will be a selection process by which the Minister will seek the acumen and experience required to carry out the role, so that it is not left to chance. In some ways there is support for the idea that the Minister does this. That support came through in the consideration of this bill, and that provision is in the bill now. The appointment is an administrative process, and—as I said in my second reading speech—I, having the role of Minister at the moment, have committed to consulting and to ensuring that this process is definitely open.

In answer to the question about the removal of the part of the original bill about the economic development of the Māori people, and the suggestion that it would be good to see an economic development arm of the bill, I say that the opportunity to establish some sort of pūtea, or bank, to help Māori economic development—say, for small-business enterprises—is still a possibility, and there are Māori moneys around that could be called upon to support such a venture. However, I am also really happy to say that the promotion of Māori economic and business development is currently in action, and a lot of that action results from the Māori economic summit conference, which we held about the end of last year. It also results from the Prime Minister’s Job Summit, which followed the Māori economic summit conference, and the proposals that came out of that summit. There is quite a bit of activity in that particular area.

I acknowledge an earlier speaker’s comment that a Mr Johnson’s $28,000 would have gone down the tubes if the bill had not been changed, but I say that that would not have happened, because the common fund moneys are not, and never were, to be touched in that operation. The economic side of the bill, which was to be called Māori Business Aotearoa New Zealand, was to be funded through the general purpose funds and not the common fund moneys. So Mr Johnson’s money would have been quite safe and used appropriately.

I am happy to take the call and to acknowledge the contribution of members, especially those who served on the Māori Affairs Committee last year. Kia ora.

Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. Tēnā koe, te Minita. I start by saying I am pleased that the Hon Nanaia Mahuta has not been left to battle on the Opposition benches, as she was last week, as the only speaker who was put up by the Opposition. Up until about a minute ago we at least had the waka triangle present to provide some robust debate, although how robust it was I am not very sure. I wondered in bewilderment when my cousin Mita Ririnui, who opened the proceedings today, said this bill had been introduced by the previous Labour Government, and told us what a great job that that Government had done. I again quote from the Māori Affairs Committee’s commentary on the bill, because there is this interesting statement in it: “Because it is desirable that changes to establish the Māori Trustee as a stand-alone organisation be passed into legislation before the close of this Parliament, we resolved that splitting the bill along these lines was prudent.”

If we look at the bill, we see it was originally intended to be passed into law in July 2008. So I ask what the previous Government had been doing. If it was so good at its work, what had it been doing with regard to this bill? That speaks for itself, and once again it has been left to this National Government to carry out the role of cleaning up legislation to clear the decks. It is interesting to refer to an independent report in the latest version of the Trans Tasman that espouses the great and dedicated work this Government is doing. So this Government is again cleaning up a matter that the previous Government failed to address. This Government is committed to passing this bill into law by July 2009, and that will be achieved.

The other issue that my cousin Mita Ririnui waxed eloquent on and that Kelvin Davis talked about was Māori economic development, and, although I agree with the sentiment that was expressed, the fact is that the Minister has now clarified the purpose of the bill. The purpose, as reported back by the select committee, is to deal with a number of operational matters in respect of the Māori Trustee and how he operates now. It is not about expanding those activities, vision, mission, and all those sorts of things. The purpose is about dealing with a number of operational matters. Those issues are all fundamentally about independence and being able to make the Māori Trustee more independent, more accountable, and in a greater position to progress the issues that confront him in the normal administration of his job.

I sympathise with the thoughts expressed by Mr Davis about aspiration, but that is why the National Party came into Government. People do want to have aspiration, and that is why this Government is clearing the decks, getting rid of all this administration stuff, and moving forward. The previous administration, with my friend the Hon Parekura Horomia as Minister of Māori Affairs, had 9 years to do that. It started with closing the gaps, and what happened? We are still waiting. Members opposite still stand and talk about aspiration and Māori economic development, but nothing happened about that when they were in Government. Although I agree that “that must happen” and “this will happen”, fundamentally this bill is about independence.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): Before I call the next speaker, I just remind members that we are debating Part 1.

Part 1 of the Māori Trustee Amendment Bill is expansive and can bring into play a whole lot of discussions, like those about activity. Yes, Labour was in Government for 9 years, and we shared 6 wonderful years with Minister Turia, who was there too at that time. I am very pleased that the Minister of Māori Affairs has the courage to go forward and to really spend some time reading about the second part of this activity, so we can get to the space that Kelvin Davis was talking about.

I want to assure members, as certain aspects of Part 1 point out, that the Māori Trustee has held, over a long period of time, certain independence. Staff members of Te Puni Kōkiri and the Māori Trustee are to have a clear delineation and differentiation between them, because the profit margin, or the accumulated fund, was becoming the Māori Trustee’s in isolation. Part 1 is about ensuring the independence of those staff—between Te Puni Kōkiri and the Māori Trustee. They have done a damn good job.

Part 1 gasses it up a bit. I like Kelvin Davis’ paraphrasing, in relation to Part 1, that we had better put a bit more speed on this, so people can utilise the accumulated funds. We did that when we started the Poutama Māori Business Trust, we did it when we started the Māori Education Trust, and we did it when we started te kōhanga reo. We saw that those would bear benefits for most of the beneficiaries of this fund. We saw fit to do that at that time, and we can still be bold and courageous enough to do things like that now.

Part 1 is about restructuring. I remind the previous speaker that it is about reconfiguring the role of the Māori Trustee, and that just a short period back the Ngāti Awa Trust Board was reconfigured—and he led the restructuring of it—because it was becoming antiquated and had old-fashioned practices. It has been gassed up in order to modernise it and bring it forward. That is what this bill is about. It is about trying to ensure we can get some clarity. Part 1 is about exposing relevant issues so that there is a template that people can understand in relation to the assets held by, and the practices of, the Māori Trustee. Those staff have done a good job. I am encouraged that the Minister of Māori Affairs will continue to appoint the Māori Trustee, and I say that so he should. That is no different from what Nick Smith did with regard to the chair of the Accident Compensation Corporation. He did not take cognisance of—

David Bennett: Come on!

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: He did not take cognisance of what the participants wanted. He appointed the board members. He knocked some over, and he put some back. I can assure the Committee that knowing the Minister of Māori Affairs as I do, he will do a better job in ensuring that the Māori Trustee continues to ensure that Māori beneficiaries get the benefit out of this change. Additionally, a lot of our people are in Australia.

I was going to wax lyrical about our previous Labour Government taking 200,000 children out of poverty and ensuring that our people’s minimum wage went up nine times. We never bought into the rubbish that the previous speaker was talking about. We should have this discussion this time next year and see how many Māori have been put on to the unemployment heap, but members opposite do not care about that. They sip their lattes, they sit in their pastel confines, and they put our people into despair and despondency. This bill is imaginative. It is a forward-thinking bill. Part 1 ensures that National can have a crack at everything that is going. What is wrong with Māori getting a hand up? This is not a handout. This bill talks about Māori funds; it talks about putting them over there. [Interruption] Yes, Mr Quinn, let us have this discussion this time next year. Let us see where we are at.

Paul Quinn: I am looking forward to it.

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: I am looking forward to the Minister of Māori Affairs continuing to use his courage in order to get this issue sorted out. I want to make sure he refocuses on Part 2 of the original bill, which ensures that Māori beneficiaries can have a say in lifting up our people in the future. I certainly applaud the Māori Affairs Committee for standing by this bill.

I want to go back to the Ngāti Awa reconstruction, because that trust board was reconfigured. Why? It was stepped up and modernised to ensure that beneficiaries would get the best out of it. [Interruption] That is right. I signed it off as the Minister at that time, and that member led it and made sure it was OK then. So why is it that when we come to this bill, National is trying to pooh-pooh it and make believe that it ain’t a good idea for Māoridom?

Paul Quinn: No. We support it.

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: It is an excellent idea for Māoridom. I am glad the member supports it.

For anyone who does not know, that was the previous Minister of Māori Affairs, a Labour member, who was speaking. He has talked about this bill as being imaginative and something that is good for Māori. When we compare that comment with a Labour member who spoke before him who said it was dull conservatism, we see that the Labour Party does not actually know what it thinks about this bill. On the one hand, it looks at this bill and sees it as being imaginative and something it wants to support. On the other hand, it cannot say it supports the bill, because it cannot support the National Party doing the right thing by Māori. That is the reality behind the Labour Party.

When we look at the Māori Trustee Amendment Bill we see there are two parts that were originally considered. Part 1, which I do not think anyone has any problem with, establishes a stand-alone Māori Trustee organisation. People see the benefit in that. Recognising that reflects the maturity of Parliament and a maturity in the way we deal with issues of land ownership. The second area of this bill, which is more contentious, is related, basically, to the siphoning off—as the great Tau Henare described it—of money into a fund that Labour would use to invest in what it thought was right at any particular time. That was more contentious, because it did not relate to any aspect of land ownership.

There is an increasing maturity in how we deal with the issues that need to be dealt with by Parliament. The National Party has supported the legislation coming forward, but only in the sense of Part 1, which deals constructively with the issue of trying to find a solution that represents more modern thinking around land ownership. It gives Māoridom the ability to have control over that ownership through the Māori Trustee being a stand-alone organisation rather than just an employee of Te Puni Kōkiri. That is part of the process that will go on. It still enables the unique aspects of Māori ownership to be part of what the Māori Trustee will deal with, but in an increasing role of independence from the State, and independence from a Government department that is in control of Māori land. I think that is a good starting point, and it will probably lead to more development over time in this area in the future.

If we go back to what Labour was looking to do when it originally introduced this bill, it wanted to have control over another slush fund to dictate where that money would go. That is basic Labour theory: that it knows best how to spend somebody else’s money. It does not trust other people to be able to deal with their own assets. It certainly does not trust Māori to be able to deal with their own assets. Labour says that it knows best. That was the whole decision-making process behind the Labour Party. At the select committee and at the last election the good people of New Zealand decided that they did not want to be told any more that the Labour Party knows best. They want to have the ability to make those decisions for themselves. They want independence.

Hon Parekura Horomia: Like the ACC board! When was that?

DAVID BENNETT: The previous Minister of Māori Affairs is going on about things that do not even relate to this bill. If he actually stayed on the point and talked about what was in the best interests of the Māori Trustee it would be more appropriate for this debate. That is what we are doing; we are concentrating on the issues at hand, we are looking at what is in the best interest of Māori and the Māori Trustee role, and we are coming to constructive solutions that are in the best interests of New Zealand and the Māori Trustee, going forward.

That independence is actually very important, because the title of this bill identifies an entity that we commonly consider has an independent role—a trustee. When we talk about legislation related to a trustee, we normally expect the person to be independent and making the right decisions in relation to looking after somebody else’s funds. That is what we are doing here. We are setting up a stand-alone organisation that is free from political pressure, which I know Labour members find very difficult to stomach. They want to have organisations that they can control so they can dictate their terms, but the National Government does not want that. We want something that is free from that political pressure.

Once again, I take a call on Part 1 of the Māori Trustee Amendment Bill. I am not sure whether I am amused or bemused by the statements of the previous speaker, David Bennett, but I recall that earlier in the Committee stage of this bill he took a call also. His speech was so hilarious—for want of other words—that the member for Hauraki-Waikato, the Hon Nanaia Mahuta, had to stand up in the Chamber and ask if he had been drinking water out of the Waikato River, because he was well off track. I find that his contribution to this particular debate is no different. Although the member espouses considerable understanding of various clauses within Part 1, he has no understanding at all of the dynamics of Māori land ownership. If he had been listening to the debate so far he would have understood—as has been commented by a number of people who have stood in the Chamber to speak to Part 1—that it is not as straightforward as he seems to think. He thinks that he can walk into the Chamber, get to his feet, take a glimpse of the bill, and have a complete understanding of Māori land issues. Mate, I have never seen so much arrogance in my life. That was the most paternalistic speech I have heard in the time that I have been in this Chamber.

David Bennett: I raise a point of order, Mr Chair. I require the speaker to withdraw and apologise for that last comment.

Hon MITA RIRINUI: Mr Chair, which comment in particular does the member want me to withdraw?

David Bennett: I do not have to repeat the comment. You know.

Hon MITA RIRINUI: He said that “You know.”, Mr Chair, so I am asking you whether you know.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): I was talking to the Clerk at the time, so I am a little bit at sea here. Offence has been taken. I take it that Mr Bennett is serious about this, and that it is a genuine point of order. If that is the case I accept his word. I ask the member to withdraw.

Hon MITA RIRINUI: I withdraw in the interests of time, but it would have been interesting to hear his clarification—

Chris Tremain: I raise a point of order, Mr Chair. The member was asked to withdraw and apologise. He did not need to add on the words: “in the interests of time,”. Can the member just do what he was asked to do?

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): The point of order is well made. The member will simply withdraw and continue with the speech, and will not refer to the matter again.

Hon MITA RIRINUI: Thank you, Mr Chair. I said that I found much of the previous speaker’s comments and the comments of a number of speakers in the Chamber this afternoon quite paternalistic.

There is no dispute around the need for the Māori Trustee to become a stand-alone organisation. There is no dispute that the legislation needs to reflect very clearly the roles and responsibilities of the Māori Trustee, including the Māori Trustee’s appointment and—if it ever comes about—dismissal. There is no dispute that the legislation needs to include robust financial management systems, and clarification around the investment of funds from out of the common fund and where the return on those investments must go. The change in that particular area is, of course, that returns will not go into the general purpose funds but back into the common fund. As mentioned in the Chamber many times through this debate, there is support for that particular approach.

As I said earlier, there seems to be a total lack of understanding of the complexities around Māori land ownership and Māori land tenure, and the difficulties the Māori Trustee will face in identifying beneficiaries. I believe that a previous speaker referred to a particular case in Te Tai Tonga—in Te Wai Pounamu—of a particular family that has a sizable amount of money already accumulated in the Māori Trust Office. Kelvin Davis, Parekura Horomia, and I—and, I am sure, many other Māori members around the House—either are beneficiaries of lands held by the Māori Trustee or know someone who is. There are reasons why many do not come forward, as I said previously. Those reasons are that they are no longer with us—

Paul Quinn: They don’t know it exists!

Hon MITA RIRINUI:—they do not know it exists, or they are basically just not interested enough in their family’s affairs to inquire into the possibility of funds being held on their behalf.

The Māori Trustee has made some tremendous steps forward over a number of years. I am familiar with cases where the Māori Trustee has actually held shares in particular blocks around the country, and those shares have been handed back to the governing authority of those estates. I can recall very recently the encouragement of the then Minister of Māori Affairs, Parekura Horomia, in interests in Tuhua Island—or Mayor Island, as it is commonly known—in the Bay of Plenty, just off the coast of Tauranga. It is a very, very popular spot. In years gone by it was frequented by a lot of recreational fishers. Those shares were handed back to the Tuhua Trust Board. Now the board holds those shares on behalf of all the beneficiaries with interest in Tuhua Island. So although we might be making changes to the role of the Māori Trustee, I hope that that particular important function carried out by the Māori Trustee remains in place for a long period to come.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 14 in the name of the Hon Dr Pita Sharples to Part 1 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 16 in the name of the Hon Dr Pita Sharples to Part 1 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 17 in the name of the Hon Dr Pita Sharples to Part 1 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Part 1 as amended agreed to.

Part 2 Transitional provisions and consequential amendments

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): The debate covers clauses 17 to 30, and includes schedule 2.