Māori Trustee Amendment Bill

I am delighted to support the Māori Trustee Amendment Bill. It appears that there is general support for the bill from throughout the Committee, and that is rightly so. When one looks at Part 2, one sees that it is largely procedural. It is about the procedural matters to do with the Māori Trustee and with the Māori Trust Office. I looked up the current legislation regarding the Māori Trust Office, because I was interested to know what the situation was. Essentially, it is an office of the Public Service and that will continue. One of the aspects that I particularly like is that there is some oversight in regard to the Māori Trustee. I think that is actually quite important.

I will digress slightly, with the indulgence of the Committee, and talk about an actual trust, because I think this bill is a really good example of doing things right—a really good example. We do not always get things right. I would like to talk about a particular trust, the Earthwise Living Foundation New Zealand. The same person from this trust also happens to be involved with Kiwi internships and provides activities under the auspices of being a trust. This can be very misleading. One of the things about this bill is that there is some oversight here for the activities of a trust. In the case of the trust I have just mentioned—the Earthwise Living Foundation New Zealand—the main individual involved with it, one Jon Traylen, provides the activities, gets donations and funding, and is paid considerable sums of money for what he says he will provide but does not deliver. Often the young people who come from overseas looking for Kiwi internships, or who provide voluntary labour for the Earthwise Living Foundation New Zealand, do not get the sorts of care, support, education, activities, or services that have been promised.

I will tell members about one girl who was assigned to go and feed the chooks—this is an environmental trust. She was assigned the job of feeding the chooks. Everyone had been working very hard day after day doing all Jon Traylen’s dirty work, and she actually refused in this instance. Mr Traylen said that if she did not feed the chooks, he would kill them all. She still refused to feed the chooks, because she did not believe him, but that is exactly what he did. He killed the chooks, and then he made her bury them. This is seriously unconscionable behaviour. This is not the sort of behaviour for somebody to engage in who purports to be a representative of a trust, and who offers these sorts of opportunities to young people from overseas—and not necessarily just young people. Earthwise Living Foundation New Zealand purports to be an environmental trust, but it is not offering the sorts of things that the trust purports to offer.

That is why I applaud this bill. There is some oversight here. Yes, I have digressed, but it is very difficult to try to bring the Earthwise Living Foundation New Zealand to account. This is one of the real issues that Fair Go is exploring tomorrow night on television. That is why I applaud this bill—and what I have said is a long stretch from the bill we are discussing, but there are some things that one can say here that one cannot say elsewhere, and I am taking full advantage of that opportunity. It is very important that trusts have integrity and are accountable. This is why this bill is particularly important in terms of the Māori Trustee and the Māori Trust Office.

As I said previously, Part 2 is about fiduciary rights and liabilities. It is about the new Māori Trustee succeeding to existing undertakings, and about the dissolution of the Māori Trust Office. It is about contracts and other instruments, the status of existing securities, the effect of the Act, registers, the registrar of deeds, and the Registrar-General of Land. It is also about the transfer of employees, the protection of employment conditions, and continuity of employment. One certainly could not say that with regard to Jon Traylen, because when he did employ the services of young people, they were volunteering, and they were paying money for services they did not receive. In actual fact, Mr Traylen would claim any moneys that were left unspent as a non-refundable donation. I have never heard of a donation being able to be enforced, but in this instance that was the case.

I thank the member who has just resumed her seat for her contribution. During the course of this debate in the Committee stage on the Māori Trustee Amendment Bill, we have been reminded many times that we are speaking to particular parts of it, so I will do my best to stay in line—[Interruption] It is hard not to laugh, but I will try to stay in line, lest, as my colleague the previous Minister of Māori Affairs says, I be scolded like a headless chook. I think he was referring to the previous contribution.

Nevertheless, this is a very important part of the bill. I would like to talk about the necessity of change, and the necessity that the Māori Trustee become a stand-alone organisation. I would like to talk about the necessity of very clear roles and responsibilities, and the necessity of robust financial internal systems to guide prudent financial management. We still have to get there. This part of the bill explains to us how we should get there. We are debating the transitional provisions, and they are showing us how we will get there. The consequential amendments are required, to ensure that everything we have voted in favour of this evening meets certain standards. There is reference to the existing undertakings in relation to “all property and estates administered, held, managed, or controlled by the Māori Trustee or the Māori Trust Office before the commencement of this Act”.

I mentioned earlier that much of the work done over a number of years by the Māori Trustee has been viewed by Māori as favourable and quite necessary. This part refers to shares held by the Māori Trustee, certain land blocks and estates where it has been thought that the Māori Trustee should not in any way be a beneficiary or a shareholder in these estates, and where the Māori Trustee has, through a transparent process, transferred the assets back to their rightful owners.

Having said that, the Māori Trustee still holds a lot of interest in lands. I mentioned earlier one particular area that I am familiar with, but I am also familiar with several others where the Māori Trust Office holds shares. I recall some time ago in 2001 where the Māori Affairs Committee, when speaking with the Māori Trustee, inquired into the interests of the Māori Trustee in terms of certain estates. We were pleased to hear that the Māori Trustee had, over a period of time, been transferring those assets back. Some of it was very difficult, because the Māori Trustee just could not locate the rightful beneficiaries of the estates.

In Part 2, I highlight the fiduciary rights and liabilities. It includes “all rights, capacities, authorities, discretions, duties, and liabilities of the Māori Trustee”. We expect that the Māori Trustee would perform his or her particular role to an extremely high degree, because that is the expectation of this Parliament and it is certainly the expectation of those who have interests held on behalf of their families within the Māori Trustee. To be fair, the Māori Trustee has managed many of those interests, if not all of them. That is the prudent way. But it has still been subject to criticism. Naturally, there are those who think they know better and have better ideas about accountability, reporting, and a whole lot of other things. But when we want them to front up to a particular meeting, we cannot find them. They never turn up. We do not see them about. Nevertheless, the Māori Trustee has taken a lot of this criticism on the chin. In my view, over a number of years the Māori Trustee has boldly tackled a lot of the difficult issues.

The new form of the Māori Trustee would, naturally, succeed to the existing undertakings of the current Māori Trustee, even though we are talking about the same person. As I say, these transitional provisions are necessary for this to be enacted.

I will continue along the lines of previous speakers by explaining exactly the provisions in Part 2 of the Māori Trustee Amendment Bill, “Transitional provisions and consequential amendments”. Part 2—clauses 17 to 30—provides continuity for the Māori Trustee, for the staff of the Māori Trust Office, for clients, and for others who deal with the Māori Trustee in the transition to being a stand-alone organisation. It is a very important part.

As the previous speaker, Mita Ririnui, said, the “New Māori Trustee succeeds to existing undertaking”—that is clause 18. This clause provides that “the new Māori Trustee succeeds to—(a) the existing undertaking,” as defined in clause 17, and to the Māori Trustee’s “fiduciary rights and liabilities,”. I think clause 18 is a very important clause. It is one of a number of clauses that provide continuity for the Māori Trustee clients and others who deal with the Māori Trustee.

Why does the office need to be dissolved? It needs to be dissolved to allow for the transfer of staff and of the Māori Trustee. The Maori Trustee Act 1953 currently provides for an office of the Public Service called the Māori Trust Office. At present, all employees of the Māori Trust Office are employees of Te Puni Kōkiri. As the Māori Trustee will be a stand-alone organisation separate from Te Puni Kōkiri, the current Māori Trust Office needs to be formally dissolved. Staff who are employed in the Māori Trust Office at the time of the bill’s enactment will be transferred to the new Māori Trustee organisation. These clauses provide for the continuation of their contracts, and of other instruments and proceedings involving the Māori Trustee. Any proceeding against or in favour of the Māori Trustee or the Māori Trust Office may be continued. This is covered in clause 22, which provides continuity for “An action, arbitration, proceeding, or cause of action …”. So this whole part is important; it is concerned with continuity during the transition from the Māori Trustee’s current status to its new status.

Clauses 25 to 29 provide for the transfer of staff employed in the Māori Trust Office to the employment of the Māori Trustee: continuity of service, and continuity for the staff of the Māori Trust Office. As well, staff employed in the Māori Trust Office immediately before the commencement of these amendments will become employees of the new, stand-alone Māori Trustee organisation. The only exception is the incumbent Māori Trustee, who is currently the general manager of the Māori Trust Office as well as being the Māori Trustee. This person will be appointed as the new Māori Trustee under new section 6A, which is inserted by clause 7, ensuring continuity for both staff and clients, and helping to ensure a smooth transition. The transferred staff will be employed on terms and conditions that are no less favourable than those applying before the commencement of this Act.

Clause 30 provides that “every reference in any enactment or document” to the Māori Trustee must be read as applying to the new, stand-alone Māori Trustee established by this bill. I just thought I would take a call to clarify the importance of the transition stage set out in Part 2.

Part 2, clauses 17 to 30, ranges from the dissolution of the Māori Trust Office to taxation issues. All of the clauses in Part 2 are procedural, and without them we would not have the new Māori Trustee.

Let us cut to the chase and talk about the real issues. I reiterate the point that some beneficiaries may like the idea of sharing their largesse or their dividends. That is cool; no one has a problem with that. The problem is when Big Brother, the nanny State, or the grandpa State—call him or her what you will—determines for everybody an outcome from a pool of people who hardly see anything out the Māori Trustee. I will give members a couple of examples. Why is it so easy for Bay Collection Agency and the Inland Revenue Department to find us, but not for the Māori Trustee to do so? Why is it that people who have no known address, and who have been missing for 8, 9, or 10 years from the planet, all of a sudden are found by Bay Collection Agency and the Inland Revenue Department because they want their 500 bucks? Why is it that we have a situation like that, yet the Māori Trustee cannot find anybody? I do not want to personalise the issue in any way, shape, or form, but why would we not contract the Inland Revenue Department and Bay Collection Agency to go and find these fullas?

Hon Member: Pay them a commission. Get it sorted.

Hon TAU HENARE: We could then hand over what is rightfully theirs.

On another tack, in the past 25 to 30 years assets have been handed back to the owners, and the owners have got on and looked after their assets. Nobody could argue against that. One of the greatest things the Māori Trustee has been able to do is to hand back the assets, so that the beneficiaries and the whānau can get on with making a living. What I have not liked over the past 25 to 30 years is the handing back of not only an asset but also a huge debt. That debt has got out of hand. There is no point in handing back something with a massive debt that takes the owners years and years to get over.

All in all, without the 13 or so clauses in Part 2, we would not be able to move forward. I take my hat off to the previous Minister of Māori Affairs, Parekura Horomia. Let us not be disparaging. We would not have this bill if it had not been for the previous Minister sitting down with the officials and saying this was what he wanted to do. OK, we can argue the toss about splitting the bill and about what was in the other part of the bill, but the fact of the matter is that there is no other part of this bill. Only one bill is in front of us. It tidies matters up, as the Minister has said, and it parks the Māori Trustee in the position of being there for the benefit of beneficiaries in the future. Who can argue against some of the clauses that we have discussed in the Committee stage?

I will make a small reference to clause 28, “No compensation for redundancy”. Let me read it out: “A transferred employee is not entitled to compensation for redundancy by reason only of the person ceasing to be an employee in the Maori Trust Office.” Am I to take it that if a person who is employed at the Māori Trust Office becomes superfluous to the needs of the Māori Trust Office, he or she is not entitled by virtue of this clause to redundancy? It is an interesting little question. [Interruption] Well, to some it would be bad; to some it would be good. I say it is bad. I say there must be some sort of protection there, notwithstanding the side of the Chamber that I am on at the moment. It is an interesting juxtaposition.

The fact of the matter is that that little clause, clause 28, has been there forever and a day. Ever since the bill was promulgated by the previous Minister of Māori Affairs, who just so happens to represent a party—

Hon Tariana Turia: Do the unions know that?

Hon Parekura Horomia: It was there, the same, when you were there.

Hon TAU HENARE: Oh, no! Just to correct things, I say that I was never put in Parliament to represent the unions. I did not scab money off the unions to run my campaign. But we all know that Parekura Horomia—

Moana Mackey: You were the worst union organiser ever in the history of New Zealand—sold them out.

Hon TAU HENARE: Oh dear, I am hurt. How sad! Let us move on. It is those members’ party that represents—or is supposed to represent—the workers.

But here is the little clause, and I will read it out again. It says there will be no compensation for redundancy. What a shocking state of affairs! [Interruption] Absolutely! But who put it in there? I do not blame the Māori Party or even the National Party for this clause, because this bill was promulgated by the previous Minister of Māori Affairs, the Hon Parekura Horomia. All night we have been thrashed about what a good job the previous Minister of Māori Affairs did. If clause 28 was such a good idea, then maybe the previous Minister can take a call and just tell us where he got the little doozy of an idea of no compensation for redundancy from.

What about those fullas up on the coast who work in the Gisborne office? I ask what will happen if they are made superfluous to the needs of the Māori Trust Office. Does this clause mean that they will not get any redundancy? I am just asking. It is not a question of whether I believe they should. Does the clause mean that they will get redundancy? It is a simple question, which I would like the previous Minister of Māori Affairs to answer, because I know that in his heart the present Minister of Māori Affairs would not wear that.

Hon Tariana Turia: Must need an SOP from you.

Hon TAU HENARE: Yeah, maybe; let us not push things along too fast.

But it is interesting to see what can come out of the procedural parts of a bill if we look hard enough. I do not know whether I am barking up the wrong tree. I am sure that somebody will be able to help me out in my understanding of clause 28. I would really like the previous Minister to help me out on that clause, which relates to there being no redundancy for workers.

That was yet another very interesting contribution from Mr Tau Henare, on clause 28. Is it not funny to hear National MPs get up and talk about how much they care about workers and redundancies, what with the slash-and-burn job they are doing across the public sector at the moment? For Tau Henare to get up in this Chamber and claim to care about workers, after being largely regarded as one of New Zealand’s worst union organisers, and then to have him supporting a Government that has slashed and burnt the public sector and has told public servants that they are not allowed to be part of the 9-day fortnight plan as only the private sector qualifies—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): We are on Part 2.

MOANA MACKEY: Mr Chair, I am responding to the points made on clause 28 by the member who spoke before me. Tau Henare claimed to care about workers, and he has asked the Minister in the chair, the Hon Dr Pita Sharples, to respond to what he said about this clause. My understanding of this clause—and I am sure the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—is that this provision is to ensure that any workers who are transferred over to a new job do not get redundancy pay and the new job at the same time. It is just to make it clear that even though they technically lose their job in one place, it is a technical redundancy, as they are picking up a job somewhere else. This clause is just to make it clear that they do not get the redundancy pay and the job. I look forward to having the Minister clarify this point, and I think it is fair to say that I look forward to hearing his contribution far more than I looked forward to hearing the contribution of the member who spoke before me.

This part of the bill deals with transitional provisions, and my colleagues have spoken earlier about the need to get on with this legislation. We are very pleased that National has come on board with this legislation. We were not quite sure where it would be on it. There was a long period of time when we were not sure how it felt about Māori development, and I wonder whether the clauses in this legislation outline National’s transition from not caring about Māori development, to its suddenly wanting to embrace it wholeheartedly. In considering this part of the Māori Trustee Amendment Bill, I was reminded of the Local Government Act, and the discussions we had around Māori development in that context, which are very relevant to the issues raised here. In particular, when it was clear that we wanted Māori input on issues of land and waterways, the Hon Dr Nick Smith said it was “apartheid” to suggest that Māori should have to be considered, and that Māori rating should be dealt with separately under the Local Government Act. In Hansard it shows that he even attacked the then Minister, Tariana Turia, along those lines. I think it is interesting to hear National debating and wholeheartedly endorsing the transitional provisions of this bill in the Chamber today, considering that when we looked at similar provisions in the Local Government Act, Dr Nick Smith said: “This damn law that we are being required to pass is nothing less than apartheid. It offends National’s principle of one standard of citizenship, and I say to Tariana Turia that she should take a call and explain to me and to the people of New Zealand why one sort of people have a rates remission policy and others do not.” Well, of course, here we are with an entire bill that deals with Māori development.

Chris Hipkins: How things have changed.

MOANA MACKEY: How things have changed. I wonder whether the Minister in the chair can point to the clauses in this part of the bill that deal with National’s enormous transition on issues of Māori development, and how we can be assured that in the next term of Government this will not be completely changed around, and that we will not go back to the “one standard of citizenship” type of rhetoric that we enjoyed for a long time.

Hon Tariana Turia: You had 9 years. You had 9 long years.

MOANA MACKEY: I say to Tariana Turia that I think she did a very good job on the Local Government Act. She was a Minister for 6 years in previous Labour Governments, and she did some very good work while she was with us. We very much want to work with the Minister to ensure that we can further that work. But, again, I raise the point that this sudden “road to Damascus” situation that we are being faced with from the National Government is slightly hard to believe, given the comments National members have made in the past, relating to legislation that is specifically to do with Māori. I restate my point on clause 28. I think it is an important issue. I am sorry that the member Tau Henare just got up to make fun of the situation.

Hon Tau Henare: No, I got up to make fun of you.

MOANA MACKEY: Oh, he is over there now. I am sorry, I did not see that he was there. I ask him to reconsider his position on this bill in light of the cuts that his own Government is making in the public sector. I say that if he cares about workers as much as that, he might need to go a little bit beyond a very political speech made in jest. I would be very interested to see a Supplementary Order Paper put up by that member if the Minister in the chair stands and confirms what Tau Henare has said, which is that this provision will mean redundancies across the board, with no payout. Tau Henare has indicated that he might be interested in putting up a Supplementary Order Paper. We would always be prepared to consider that. But I think we do need clarification, because that certainly was not my understanding of clause 28.

I will take another call on this point of redundancy. Clause 28 of the Māori Trustee Amendment Bill states that employees are not entitled to redundancy compensation by reason only of their ceasing to be employed by the Māori Trust Office. I think that is the key point—for only that reason. The bill’s provisions are intended to provide continuity for all clients and staff. All staff are transferred to the Māori Trustee. Following that, normal employment law applies. What clause 28 really means is that an employee of the Māori Trust Office does not get redundancy just because he or she is no longer employed by the Māori Trust Office. If the employee is surplus to the needs of the Māori Trustee, which is a different situation, redundancy is not necessarily ruled out by clause 28.

It is a pleasure to take a short call. I want to focus on and address Part 2 of the Māori Trustee Amendment Bill. As the Minister of Māori Affairs rightly pointed out in his brief overview of this part, it is about the transitioning arrangements between the old organisation and the new organisation. It is appropriate that we reflect for a bit of time on transitioning, because that is something that this Government has done extraordinarily well. It has transitioned from the previous Government to the new Government. In fact, we have done outstandingly well in terms of, for instance, getting through our 100 day programme. That is particularly important in terms of transitioning to ensure that the right things are in place and life can go on. That is what we are particularly good at.

Part of that process is to clean up the mess that was left behind. That is evidenced in this part, which originally made reference to 1 July 2008, when this bill was supposed to have become an Act. Of course, the previous Government was totally unable to do that, so we have had to take on the responsibility. We have changed that date to 1 July 2009, which is mentioned in this bill. We have been able to push it through with determination because we care about the Māori people. We care about economic development. We do not stand there and just talk about it. We do something about it. That is why the transitional arrangements in this bill will come into force in July 2009.

Hon Phil Heatley: Talk, talk, talk.

PAUL QUINN: We are sick of talking. Unfortunately, my colleague and friend Kelvin left the Chamber when I last spoke about economic development. That is not part of this debate, so I will not talk about it, but I am happy to talk to him about economic development, because that is exactly what we are on about—aspiration for Māori iwi and hapū. We do not talk about it; we are getting on.

This is exactly the Government to push through the transitional arrangements in this bill. As I said in an earlier call, it is about making sure that, prior to the enactment of this bill in July 2009—and members should remember that date, July 2009, because we will stick to that; we will not put it in the bill and sort of think about it—the new corporate sole, as it is described in the bill, will take over all of the legal requirements of the existing organisation. Simplistically, the existing organisation will go out of existence. It will have in place, for instance, contracts with employees or contracts to deliver, and, if we do not have these transitional arrangements, no one will be able to pick them up. An employee will have a contract with the old Māori Trust Office, and if he or she is not covered by these transitional arrangements, he or she will not have a contract for employment. We want to make sure that these people are cared for, because we are a caring Government. We care about making sure that these transitional arrangements go into place.

Once we have the Act in place in July 2009, as we have timetabled, we will then be able to move on and meet the needs of Kelvin, who really should be on this side of the Chamber—

H V Ross Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I know the member is a new member, and I did not pull him up on the first occasion, but I will on the second. On both occasions he has used a member’s first name. Under the Speakers’ rulings, members must use a member’s full name, his or her portfolio, or his or her title.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): That is correct. I ask the member in future to refer to the member by his or her full name.

PAUL QUINN: Thank you, Mr Chairperson, for that guidance, and I apologise to the member. I hope the member, Mr Kelvin Davis, does not take offence. If he has taken offence, I ask him to please accept my apology. We will have to have a beer in the pub later. Anyway, I get back to the business at hand, and focus specifically on these transitional arrangements. It is important that these are put in place so that we can have a seamless transition.

I congratulate the previous speaker, Paul Quinn, on a very robust contribution to this debate. It was something like 120 decibels. We have been reminded on a number of occasions throughout the afternoon that we are referring to particular parts of the Māori Trustee Amendment Bill. As Tau Henare said earlier, there seems to be a strong desire for people to be acknowledged for their contribution, but I will steal a bit of the limelight away from the previous speaker and remind him that this bill was introduced to the House by the former Minister of Māori Affairs. All the provisions within the bill are the provisions that the previous Minister of Māori Affairs insisted be included in the bill, and all of the what we call transitional provisions and consequential amendments—from clauses 24 to 28—were introduced to the House by the former Minister of Māori Affairs.

It is very interesting that one of the previous speakers, Tau Henare, made mention of clause 28. I could see by the reaction of a lot of the members on the opposite side of the Chamber that there was considerable concern, and a reaction to the misunderstanding of that particular clause. I thank the Minister for clarifying the matter, because had he not clarified it then one of us on this side of the Chamber would have had the obligation to do that. We are talking about transitional provisions, mainly about roles and responsibilities and making sure that assets are not only accounted for but protected, and that the Māori Trustee is aware of his roles and responsibilities, including accountability, as the Māori Trustee under the new legislation.

We should spend quite a bit of time talking about the issues that relate to employees. I congratulate Tau Henare on the fact that he raised an employment issue, and it is probably incumbent on members to spend some time talking about employment conditions. My understanding of the bill is that the previous undertakings are transferred across. The employees will continue to be employed under the same conditions and protections as they had as employees of the Māori Trustee, and all of those conditions are highlighted. There is considerable comfort to employees of the Māori Trust Office that they will not be disadvantaged in any way, shape, or form whatsoever with the new arrangements—particularly as the new legislation takes effect. Changes in employment arrangements are of concern to anyone when there is restructuring—in this case a restructuring of the legislation—and the transferring of employees to a new organisation. I congratulate the Minister in the chair on clarifying that situation, and I am sure that those staff employed by the Māori Trustee will find the transition, transfer, and arrangements to be smooth and without too much difficulty.

When we talk about transitional provisions and consequential amendments we must keep in mind that we are talking about the well-being and continual employment of staff members. They themselves should be kept informed as to what the changes may mean, if anything, to them as employees. That is a very, very important matter that we need to discuss at the Committee stage for Part 2 of the Māori Trustee Amendment Bill. It is not just a transfer of responsibilities but also a transfer of employment rights of staff members to the new Māori Trustee office and the new regime. That is my contribution on this particular part of the bill. I congratulate the former Minister of Māori Affairs on his foresight in ensuring that these provisions are in place.

I thank the Hon Pita Sharples for his excellent contribution, for being such a magnificent Minister of Māori Affairs, and for seeing the passage of the Māori Trustee Amendment Bill through the House. His explanation of Part 2 was exemplary and was much appreciated by all those listening in, so I thank him for that. I certainly appreciated his contribution just to expand my own understanding of the bill. Part 2 of the Māori Trustee Amendment Bill is largely procedural, as previous members who have spoken on it have said. I recall the comments from the Hon Tau Henare about beneficiaries and about actually finding beneficiaries, because there are multiple beneficiaries. That is problematic enough, but I have to say that judging from the recent attempt to find Jon Traylen, who is one of just two trustees of a trust, and who would appear to be its sole beneficiary, it is very difficult to find just one beneficiary, let alone a whole lot of beneficiaries. It was extremely difficult. I think that, because of the investigation by Fair Go, he is probably trying—so far, successfully—to evade its attempts to find him and make him accountable for the lack of services he is providing.

When looking at the Māori Trustee Amendment Bill I am mindful of clause 29A, which is about taxes and duties. The clause “applies for the purposes of the Inland Revenue Acts and any other enactments…”. I will pause here because the one thing we have not really done much of in the Chamber today is speak slowly for the benefit of the interpreters. I wonder how many people are aware of the fact that it is really important to speak slowly and clearly for those people who are signing for others who cannot hear what we are saying. I acknowledge Sign Language Week and the fact that the interpreters have been working all day to interpret what is being said in the Chamber. That is why it is so important to speak slowly. I do not know how many members understand sign language; I do not understand anything very much at all. But it is relevant because whatever we say about the Māori Trustee Amendment Bill—and, in particular, I am looking at clause 29A, “Taxes and other duties”—is being interpreted. That is why it is so important. It is as important for those people who cannot hear as it is for those who can.

I will go through what clause 29A, “Taxes and duties”, actually states. It states: “This section applies for the purposes of the Inland Revenue Acts and any other enactment that imposes or provides for the collection of any tax, duty, levy, rate, or other charge.” When reading that particular portion I am very mindful once again of Jon Traylen, a particular trustee of a particular trust, who uses donations in what appears to be a coercive manner. Donations are contributions that are given willingly. Donations are something a person gives freely. People choose to give a donation. I do not know whether donations have any relevance to this clause, but they certainly had relevance for those people who provided money to Jon Traylen. Whatever was left over from the services he provided to them he claimed as a donation. He would state on the registration form that a donation was a non-refundable part of the fee. But I do not see anything in this particular clause that relates to donations. It is quite extraordinary how some people can use that particular aspect of a trust.

Clause 29A goes on to talk about the commencement of this bill. I will refer to what the Minister said before: the bill is about disbanding the Māori Trust Office and establishing more comprehensively the Māori Trustee as a separate entity. I think that is really commendable. I think it is fantastic what the speakers have had to say in the Chamber tonight. I do not know whether the enactments that will be amended by clause 30 have been covered to any great extent.

Part 2 of the Māori Trustee Amendment Bill is really about the transition from the old Māori Trustee regime to the new regime. But first of all I will touch on the generalisation that my whanaunga, the Hon Tau Henare, made about collection agencies, and about how easy it appears to be for the likes of the collection agency Baycorp to collect money. That really is just a generalisation, and it is a bit of a fallacy. I know, from talking to constituents up in the far north, that they are having trouble getting money owed to them by other members of the community. They have had collection agencies going around, and bailiffs trying to find the people who owe them, but they are finding it quite difficult to get that money.

Moving back to Part 2, the whole transition side of things is just to ensure that the transition from the old regime of the Māori Trustee to the new regime is smooth, and that it ensures that work conditions and other parts of people’s employment move smoothly into the new regime. In particular, in relation to the transfer of employment rights, the legislation makes sure that just because an employee has worked for the old Maori Trustee and then moves to work for the new Maori Trustee, there is no degradation of his or her work conditions—things just tick over and make that transition nice and smooth.

There is also the part in clause 28 about compensation and redundancy issues, which the Minister clarified for us. The clause basically states that if somebody is transferred over, just because he or she finished working for the old Māori Trustee and moved over to work for the new Māori Trustee, his or her work does not actually cease there. Employees should not receive redundancy from shifting from the old regime to the new regime, but if their work in the old regime finishes then they might be entitled to redundancy.

Clause 26, “Protection of employment conditions”, states that if “a transferred employee … is employed on an individual employment agreement, the transferred employee must be employed by the new Māori Trustee on terms and conditions no less favourable than those applying to that employee immediately before …” the transfer. It is really important that people have that security in their employment and know that, although there will be changes, their work conditions will remain the same.

The effect of the Act, as outlined in clause 23, is that “(1) Nothing done or authorised by this Act—(a) places the old Maori Trustee, the Maori Trust Office, the new Māori Trustee, or any other person in breach of contract or confidence, or makes any of them liable for a civil wrong;”.

Hon Tau Henare: Take your time, bro!

KELVIN DAVIS: I thank the Hon Tau Henare. As I said, it is important that the transition goes smoothly and that under people’s conditions of employment they are not liable for things that occurred before they moved into a new regime or for any acts or omissions from it. It is important that people have the security of knowing that the transition will be smooth for them. It is important that employees know that their employment conditions will ensure that they will be looked after. So with that I say that this is a short call. I thank the Committee. Kia ora.

Finally! I congratulate the Minister Pita Sharples again on his understanding of clause 28, and, with the help of his officials, of course, on giving us that definition. That puts my mind at ease: no worker from the Māori Trust Office will go away without any redundancy compensation if he or she is out of a job. So I am happy.

The previous Labour speaker—

Hon Member: Who was that?

Hon TAU HENARE: Mr Kelvin Davis from Kāretu—

Hon Mita Ririnui: Great speaker.

Hon TAU HENARE: He is a great speaker, although he traversed one of the issues I brought up before, which was the finding of beneficiaries—the hunting of beneficiaries. I make no bones about the fact that if it is easy for agencies like the Bay Collection Agency and the Inland Revenue Department to find all these fellas quick-smart, then somebody is doing the job properly.

But I want to take this a bit further. Currently, the Māori Trustee produces a book full of names. It is a list of names, and next to the names are the amounts owed by the Māori Trustee to the individuals. It is no good just putting that book in the library or the rūnanga office and expecting a Mr Harry Walker to jump out of the ether and say “Wow! I am owed $500; I think I will go down to the rūnanga or the Māori Trustee’s office and get my money.” A concerted effort has to be made by the office of the Māori Trustee to find these people. Maybe our Government and our Minister of Māori Affairs should be looking to the future and saying “OK. Maybe we bring in a time period whereby we really go and look for these people who have gone and left no address. And if we can’t find them after a period of time, then the money can be used for another purpose, in terms of Māori development.”

We have to protect the initial property right. We cannot just flick it off because we have bleeding hearts or believe we have a good idea. We cannot do it, and this is where I think the biggest issue will take us in the next couple of years—the issue of the property right that belongs to the beneficiary, that belongs to the shareholder. What if we make all the attempts to find these people and they still fail? Do we have the right, then, to be able to use that money for another purpose? That is a discussion, no doubt, that we will have in the future.

Other than that, I want to say again that it was a sterling effort by our Minister of Māori Affairs on the explanation of clause 28. It was very succinct. I do not think there is too much else wrong with Part 2—in fact, there is nothing wrong with this part. As I said, it is very procedural and very straightforward.

Chris Hipkins: Is the Government filibustering this bill?

Hon TAU HENARE: Oh, well, “Opie” asks the question—

Hon Member: It’s “Richie Cunningham”.

Hon TAU HENARE: It’s “Richie Cunningham”—I am sorry.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Can I just say before the member speaks that we are moving, in some parts, away from relevancy. We want to bring this back to be relevant to Part 2 of the debate.

Thank you for that reminder, Mr Chair; quite often we have a tendency to wander off and use some of our life experiences to support what we are about to say. I was hoping the previous speaker was going to hang around but—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): You cannot refer to a member who is not here.

Hon MITA RIRINUI: I apologise, Mr Chair, but I think that in his contribution he actually meant that he was putting a challenge to the current Minister of Māori Affairs to basically go out and find those beneficiaries—those who need to succeed to these unclaimed moneys. He also made reference to the Bay Collection Agency and to how well it does its job, and to the Inland Revenue Department and to how well it does its job. He said that they do not seem to have any problem locating people, and asked why the Māori Trustee has a problem. But the problem with the Bay Collection Agency—I am told; I am not 100 percent sure of this—is just that it employs heavies to do its bidding. The Accident Compensation Corporation does not need to do that; it is accustomed to locating people that it needs to speak to. But the Māori Trustee is dealing with an intergenerational problem, a problem that has been around for a very, very long time, and we have to give some credit for the attempts that the Māori Trustee has made over the past years—over decades—to locate the beneficiaries of unclaimed interest.

I took from the Hon Tau Henare’s contribution to this part of the debate that he was issuing a challenge to the current Minister of Māori Affairs. I want to pick up on that particular point, because it is a real issue—an issue around whether the Māori Trustee can continue to accumulate funds on behalf of unknown beneficiaries without making serious attempts to locate those people, wherever they may be, and whether they are still with us. I do not think that it is such a huge undertaking for the Minister of Māori Affairs to take on that responsibility, but I will say to him that it is a bold move because, from my experiences over a number of years, the Māori Trustee has done everything possible to locate those beneficiaries. But who knows? There may be a much simpler way of doing it. I do not think that all of the ideas have been discussed, or all of the attempts have been made, to locate those people. Some ideas that may sound absolutely ridiculous sometimes seem to be the most effective. So as the Hon Tau Henare has issued a challenge to the Minister now sitting in the chair, the Hon Pita Sharples, I hope the Minister will take a call on this particular matter, because it is one that would resolve a lot of concerns, not only in this Chamber but also around the country, when we look at the size of the fund that has been accumulated through the Māori Trust Office.

As Tau Henare said, I think, in another challenge to the Minister, once all these attempts have been exhausted and we are quite happy that we are not going to find those people, then we spend their money. Essentially, he is saying “Let us use the money”—I am sure he means in a transparent and prudent way—“to promote Māori economic development.” We are getting close to the dinner break and I am sure the Minister in the chair has a response for us, because this issue, as I said earlier on, is a very, very important issue. I say to the Minister that we on this side of the Chamber are very, very interested in his response, and we are more than happy to sit down and work with him around this particular matter, because, as I said earlier on, many of us in this Chamber know certain families—we know everybody; let us be honest about it—from every whānau, from every iwi, and from every hapū in the country. Just mention a name and I am sure there is a Māori member in this Chamber who can tell us who that person is—not necessarily the person involved, but who his or her family is. Thank you.

I would like to respond to the kind of challenge that has been waving around the room. I agree with the last speaker that the Māori Trust Office has gone to great pains to seek out owners, in a variety of activities. One of the core duties of this Government is to provide extra funding towards the location of beneficial owners, but the Māori Trustee has always sought to locate those owners—for example, through actively seeking them out by writing to them, and by circulating ownership lists at meetings. The Māori Trustee also publishes and distributes an annual unclaimed moneys book. This is available at the Māori Trust Office, at Te Puni Kōkiri, and at Māori Land Court offices. It is distributed to over 150 Māori organisations and libraries, and to Māori MPs, and it is also now available online. Māori Trust Office staff check electoral rolls, and directly contact other whānau members to try to obtain current addresses. As part of the Māori Land Court succession orders process, the Māori Trustee routinely checks and updates client addresses, where they are available.

Everyone knows how important it is to let people know about the funds to which they are entitled, but I would like to make the point emphatically that this is the Māori Trustee’s responsibility. That is why we are setting up the Māori Trustee to be totally independent; it is certainly not for me as Minister to interfere in that. The Māori Trustee is quite independent and should pursue that with vigour, not the Minister of Māori Affairs. I ask members to remember that beneficial owners’ money always belongs to beneficiaries. Kia ora.

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 2 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Part 2 as amended agreed to.

Schedule 2

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 14 in the name of the Hon Dr Pita Sharples to schedule 2 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Schedule 2 as amended agreed to.

Clauses 1 to 3