Māori Purposes Bill (No 2)

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) Link to this

I am pleased to follow upon the heels of the completion of the second reading of the Mauao Historic Reserve Vesting Bill with the Committee stage of this bill. Part 1 deals with changes to the Maniapoto Maori Trust Board Act. This, of course, is an omnibus bill that amends several pieces of legislation from the portfolio of the Minister of Māori Affairs. As I say, the Maniapoto Maori Trust Board Act comes under scrutiny here with some changes to the legislation. There are four changes but the two most important are the name change for the Maniapoto council of elders and the proposals to formalise a new regional management committee for Kāwhia Harbour. The name change issue is dealt with under clauses 4 and 7.

These amendments give effect to a request from the Maniapoto Maori Trust Board to update its trust board legislation by reflecting a name change for its council of elders. I touched upon this in my second reading speech yesterday, but I think it bears commenting on here. The Maniapoto council of elders requested these changes. It was concerned that the current name, Te Mauri o Maniapoto, as the council is currently referred to under the Maniapoto Maori Trust Board Act, suggests that it holds the mauri of Maniapoto. As Māori members and others in the Chamber will appreciate, this is an unusual use for that word. The council of elders is of the view that the mauri of Maniapoto is instead held by all the marae of Maniapoto and it requested of the Minister or his ministry, maybe both, that the name be changed to Te Kaumātua Kaunihera o Maniapoto—the Kaumātua Council of Maniapoto. All of the board, obviously, was in agreement with that.

This in essence appears like a housekeeping change, but when we go to the thrust of why the board members wanted that change, in terms of the use and the embodiment of all of the meanings behind the word “mauri”, it is understandable that this is more than housekeeping for them—it goes to the very heart of the way their elders want to describe themselves. As I say, both clauses 4 and 7 effect this name change.

The other issue of note in Part 1 is in clauses 6 and 13, which see the establishment of a new Maniapoto Regional Management Committee. Again, these amendments give effect to a request by the Maniapoto Maori Trust Board to formalise a seventh regional management committee for Kāwhia Harbour. Māori trust boards are empowered to establish committees. The Maniapoto Maori Trust Board currently has six regional management committees that represent the interests of 43 Maniapoto-affiliated marae. Under section 6 of the Maniapoto Maori Trust Board Act a representative from each of the regional management committees sits on the trust board and has full voting rights in trust board matters.

In 2003 five Kāwhia Harbour marae came together to request a separate regional management committee to represent them. This proposal grants that request. Although the committee was asked to look more closely at this change, because a couple of submissions were made to us that would suggest the change was not appropriate, all was well when we asked Te Puni Kōkiri to have a look at the matter again. As it turns out the proposal will go through, so the Maniapoto Maori Trust Board will have its membership increased from 14 to 15, and the number of regional management committee representatives on the trust board will increase from six to seven.

These amendments will formally provide for the representation of the new regional management committee on the trust board. With that representation, of course, comes, first of all, a representation on behalf of one’s constituency; second, access to funding; and, third, the right to vote on all Maniapoto Maori Trust Board matters. So it is very important for this group of five representatives from the Kāwhia Harbour marae that this change is effected, because, as I say, it adds to their representation on the tribal trust and gives them a voice in the overall affairs of the trust.

My colleague Chris Finlayson yesterday mentioned how he and I had recently spent a very pleasant and productive afternoon with the Maniapoto Maori Trust Board—it very kindly hosted us—and this legislation being before us was obviously a matter for some small discussion. It also gave a plank for us to touch on other matters that are in the trust board’s domain right now, including its Treaty settlement negotiations, or maybe the lack of them.

PITA PARAONE (NZ First) Link to this

Tēna koe, Mr Chairman. On behalf of New Zealand First I want to make a contribution to this particular bill and talk to Part 1, which covers clauses 3 to 8. I will elaborate on some of the things that the previous speaker touched on, particularly in reference to the name change. Being a Māori, I can understand the reason for wanting to change the name from Te Mauri o Maniapoto to Te Kaumātua Kaunihera o Maniapoto, because in terms of the word “mauri” itself—if I can just use the Māori phrase to describe this word: “he kupu tino hōhonu”—it has more than just an ordinary meaning. “Mauri” is talking about the life force, the life essence, of, in this case, Maniapoto. For a group of people to have placed on them the responsibility for the mauri of their tribe may be a little bit beyond what one would expect, so I can understand the need, or the reason, for wanting to change the word to “kaumātua”. I think that that in itself actually reflects the importance that kaumātua can play in the life of their iwi in these days, and I certainly want to support the reason for the change.

I also make the point that this change was made at the request of the board. I can understand why the board would want to make this request, given the deep meaning that the word “mauri” has, and to place that sort of responsibility on kaumātua, on those whom we would regard as mere mortals, is something that I do not think should happen, in spite of whatever their status—their mana—within their tribes might be. New Zealand First certainly supports the intention of the name change.

I want to refer to the membership of the board. The bill states that the board will consist of 15 persons. In particular, clause 6(c) states: “1 member appointed by the Governor-General on the recommendation of the Minister of Māori Affairs, nominated by, and representing, Te Arikinui;”. I would have thought that Te Arikinui had the authority, without having to cede to a Minister of the Crown, with all due respect and without demeaning the office of the Governor-General, to have a direct responsibility in terms of nominating his or her representative on this board. I initially had the same thought with regard to Te Kaumātua Kaunihera o Maniapoto, but then I could not put it in the same position as that of Te Arikinui. Then again, who am I to contradict what quite clearly the members who represent Maniapoto through their trust board had asked to be done?

I cannot see anything else in Part 1 that we should be concerned about, other than to say that unlike other Māori trust boards, this board will continue to maintain its entity and its responsibilities for its iwi.

DAVE HEREORA (Labour) Link to this

I will start off by acknowledging in Part 1 of the Māori Purposes Bill (No 2) the Maniapoto Maori Trust Board Act, and to say that Te Puni Kōkiri and the Minister of Māori Affairs have been working with the trust since 2003 on the proposal to establish a new regional management committee to represent the marae of Kāwhia Harbour and the five marae that seek the establishment of a new regional management committee for the Kāwhia Harbour region. The trust board has organised regular hui to consult with the marae members on the proposal and to provide a demonstration of sufficient support for a new regional management committee for Kāwhia Harbour.

Earlier I raised an issue in relation to this matter, and I will recollect my thoughts on it and share with the Committee the information that some submitters opposed the bill’s proposal to establish a new regional management committee for Kāwhia Harbour to represent Te Māhoe Pā and Mōkai Kāinga marae. On hearing from these submitters, the Māori Affairs Committee asked the officials to seek the views of the Maniapoto Maori Trust Board, which requested this amendment, and the views of representatives of the two marae at issue. It was clear to the committee, on hearing from the trust board and representatives of Te Māhoe Pā and Mōkai Kāinga marae, that these marae wanted to be represented by a new regional management committee and that the submissions received were not supported. To that end, I acknowledge the request of the Minister of Māori Affairs that the committee consider correcting its report to accurately describe who was consulted on this issue. I gave a commitment that I would take that request back to the committee for its consideration.

The committee, in its deliberation yesterday, considered this matter. After some robust discussion we felt that the commentary, as presented to the House, was not in need of correction, and the basis for that generally surrounded one’s interpretation of the report. But the committee felt that if there were a need to rectify this issue, then there would be a number of options at our disposal to do so. Of those options the committee felt that it would probably make good sense to raise the matter in the Committee of the whole House stage and to say that, in considering this concern, the select committee felt that the issue came back to one’s interpretation of the commentary and where that sat.

To that end, the select committee felt that the issue would not impede the progress of the bill, and it is my understanding that there was support, and that there continues to be support, for this bill. Again, I suppose it was an issue surrounding the point of whether there was a need to revisit the situation by bringing back to this House an amended version of the commentary. As I have stated earlier, the committee’s consensus decision on the matter was that we would raise this issue at the Committee stage and formally subscribe to the fact that we have agreed that there was no intention to misinterpret the findings within that report, and that it was left to one’s individual determination as to where that interpretation sat.

Overall, we are still quite pleased with this bill as it is in the Committee stage, particularly with Part 1, and we are pleased with its progress. I stand in support of the bill.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) Link to this

The debate on this part includes debate on schedule 1.

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) Link to this

Part 2 deals with the Maori Trust Boards Act 1955. It amends that Act to specify, first of all, a minimum voting age of 18 for Māori trust board elections. It ensures that past Māori trust board elections are not invalid because of under-age voting. It also reflects changes to the annual payment to be made by the Crown to the Tuwharetoa Maori Trust Board under a new agreement relating to Lake Taupō.

Clauses 10 and 13 deal with the minimum voting age. The amendment seeks to align the minimum voting age—under the Maori Trust Boards Act it is 20 years, and under the Maori Fisheries Act it is 18 years—in order to eliminate statutory compliance issues for those Māori trust boards that must comply with both Acts. Not all Māori trust boards are in that category, but some are, and this issue was raised from the outside by a legal representative of some of the affected Māori trust boards. Five trust boards also act as trustees of their iwi’s fisheries settlement entity and they are subject to both their own Act—the Maori Trust Boards Act 1955—and the Maori Fisheries Act 2004. In practice, this means that when iwi members vote for members of their Māori trust board, they are also voting for the trustees of their iwi fisheries settlement entities.

There is confusion over who is eligible to vote in these elections. Adult beneficiaries, or those who are entitled to vote, are not defined in the Maori Trust Boards Act and, therefore, section 4 of the Age of Majority Act applies, making an adult beneficiary under that Act a person aged 20 years or over. In contrast, the term “adult” is defined in the Maori Fisheries Act as a person aged 18 years or over. I suppose some young people will be a little bit alarmed to find they will have to wait until they are 20 before they are classed as adults in this respect when, for most purposes in our everyday lives as New Zealanders, 18 seems to be the more consistent, accepted age.

As has already been said, there are some compliance issues for those boards that have to comply with both Acts. Clause 10 will remedy the issue by inserting a definition in the Maori Trust Boards Act that an adult beneficiary is a person of 18 years of age or over. That is a very simple solution. The clause also provides that the new minimum voting age will apply to a Maori Trust Board’s first election after the commencement of the amendment. Clause 13 will update regulations to include that.

The 15 Maori trust boards were consulted on the proposal. Nine supported the amendment and six did not respond. The Ministry of Fisheries and Te Ohu Kaimoana were also consulted, and they support the proposed amendment. It is a very sensible change, again requested from outside Parliament and outside the bureaucracy. It is designed to give better overall management for those iwi who are now managing both their traditional assets under their trust boards’ legislation and their fisheries assets under the Maori Fisheries Act.

The other matters of note in the bill are the changes to the annual payment to be made by the Crown to the Tuwharetoa Maori Trust Board. This follows the settlement that was forged between the Crown and Tūwharetoa in September 2007. It updates issues surrounding the balance of property rights held by the board in relation to Lake Taupō. The genesis for that was the vesting of the Lake Taupō bed and its tributaries in Tūwharetoa in 1992, under the National Government. This is a similar arrangement to the one we have just finished talking about, in relation to the Mauao Historic Reserve Vesting Bill, where the land in question—in this case, the lake bed—is vested back in the name of the iwi concerned. All public access to the lake will be maintained as previously, as it always was, but there will be a recognition of certain rights now, and there will be some division in terms of income made from the lake, as well. Responsibility for the daily management of Lake Taupō and its bed is held by a combined committee of both the trust board and officials.

A colleague of mine was talking about this earlier, in relation to how we as New Zealanders can progress these issues where iwi want more than the symbolic return of land, as we saw in the Mauao case. Iwi want the land to be vested in them, but that is not in any way to impinge on the rights of their fellow New Zealanders. And that is the case here. The changes in this part are designed to address the balance of property rights issues that were not addressed in 1992, and to reflect certain payments from the Crown to the trust board in relation to the rights, revenues, and rents from the lake.

I think these issues are definitely more than housekeeping matters, as the Minister has so often referred to them in the amendment to the Maori Purposes Act. They go to the heart of that Act. They look minor, on the face of it, but in fact they are very, very important. Like the Maniapoto Maori Trust Board and the amendments there, these amendments are also very important to the trust boards concerned, in terms of minimum voting rights and in respect of the Tuwharetoa Maori Trust Board.

It is also very important that something that was started in 1992 is concluded now, is tidied, and that overall the enhancement of the relationship between the Crown and the iwi concerned is progressed even further. That is what we, particularly the Māori members, want to see in this Chamber. I think most of us, if not all of us, are here to progress these matters—not just on behalf of Māori but because they are good for New Zealand and for New Zealanders. I think the speech given by my colleague Chris Tremain demonstrates the level of understanding that has gone on over the last 30 years in particular with regard to Māori claims and Māori rights, and it can only be applauded. We should not forget that New Zealand is watched by other nations that have indigenous peoples who also pursue their rights in the same way that Māori people do—maybe not as well sometimes, but maybe that says more about the psyche of New Zealanders and ultimately their fairness and their wish to see things made right eventually. Luckily, Māori are very patient people, and ultimately something good and just comes out of these changes. These are good changes; we support them. Thank you.

PITA PARAONE (NZ First) Link to this

Tēnā koe, Mr Chairman. I want to follow on from the previous speaker and remind the Committee that Māori do not have a mortgage on passion. Perhaps that is why we in New Zealand First are more focused on what is best for New Zealand.

In supporting this Māori Purposes Bill (No 2) and in talking to Part 2, where changes are recommended to the Maori Trust Boards Act 1955, we say that it is important that the democracy that the rest of the country is able to enjoy applies to the beneficiaries of Māori trust boards. These amendments are made to accommodate the five Māori trust boards that have taken on the responsibilities outlined in the Maori Fisheries Act 2004. I am not quite sure whether this will be limited to just the five Māori trust boards, as the Treaty of Waitangi Fisheries Commission has continued to allocate fishing quota. I know that over the past week or so two further iwi groups, Te Aupōuri and Ngāti Ruanui, have received their allocation. I am not quite sure whether the Te Aupōuri Māori Trust Board will take on this responsibility. If it does, then this bill would need to apply to it as well.

In respect of the interpretation of “adult beneficiary”, we have often made reference to the importance of young people and I know that in the description of young people age 18 is included. Be that as it may, it is important in terms of the Maori Fisheries Act that the entitlement for 18-year-olds to vote also applies to their Māori trust board. This part of the bill certainly provides for that.

The other issue in Part 2 is in respect of the Tuwharetoa Maori Trust Board. I will not say too much about that other than to say that it is important that the arrangement that the board has made with the Crown is carried out in a manner that does not conflict with the intention of that payment, and that the Tuwharetoa Maori Trust Board is able to carry out its duties according to the law of the land.

A question was raised in the select committee consideration of the bill about validation and whether this change would affect those decisions that have been made by some boards that have carried out their elections. If a beneficiary aged 18 is able to vote under one particular Act, it just makes sense that there should be some continuity for that age group. This part of the bill certainly provides for that. The question was raised as to how that links in with the Maori Fisheries Act. This part certainly addresses that issue. As the report from the Māori Affairs Committee said, should there be any concerns about that then the costs of validating those elections—those decisions made by the trust boards as a consequence of their election process—should be met by the Crown. Although we might think that this is an exception in terms of validating previous elections, should there be some concern then people should not be afraid to carry on with their concern because of the cost issue. I would recommend that if that were to occur, then beneficiaries and trust boards alike should carry it through.

On the fact of it, the only changes to the Maori Trust Boards Act are those I have outlined. We should give support to this part.

CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) Link to this

Part 3 deals with amendments to the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975—legislation as important as any in the history of this Parliament.

I think the Waitangi Tribunal was a creation of the Hon Matiu Rata in 1975. It was probably the only constructive contribution he made to political life, but it was a very important contribution. In 1984 the jurisdiction of the tribunal was extended to cover historical claims dating from 1840. Throughout the 1990s there was an outstanding performance by the National Government as the Rt Hon Doug Graham and the Rt Hon Jim Bolger achieved wonderful things by settling a large number of claims, starting with the fisheries claim in 1992.

Since then there has been a big gap when nothing has been done. This afternoon I do not want to focus on that big gap. I see the member for Otaki going red with embarrassment—rightly so—because it is an appalling performance by a do-nothing Government.

DAVE HEREORA (Labour) Link to this

I have a couple of comments in relation to Part 3 of the Māori Purposes Bill (No 2). In previous debates on this bill, members of the Māori Affairs Committee have all congratulated each other on the collective work we have done and on the nature in which we have been working and continue to work. From time to time, as we have just witnessed, one member jumps out of the loop and expresses some negativity about the Government. But at the end of the day, collectively, the committee worked very well in dealing with the issues surrounding this bill.

Part 3 is about an extension of a discussion the committee had late last year about the proposed closing date of 1 September 2008 for historical Treaty claims, and about the Government’s intention to have them resolved by 2020. What I am alluding to is that Part 3 is about the Government’s intention to resource that process by increasing the number of Waitangi Tribunal members from 16 to 20.

I do think it is necessary, as we will be faced with a lot of negotiations surrounding claims, that we are mindful that we are adequately resourcing the process so that we end up with settlements that are enduring. It is, I think, quite important to make sure that that issue is brought to the Committee’s attention. This is about adequate resources and the Government’s intention to ensure that we follow that path.

PITA PARAONE (NZ First) Link to this

Tēnā koe, Mr Chairman. I am talking to Part 3 of the Māori Purposes Bill (No 2), which makes changes to the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975. The main point of this part is to increase the number of members on the tribunal from 16 to 20. I think that is laudable, but I ask the Minister in the chair, the Hon Parekura Horomia, whether the 16 current positions have been filled. Has there been a full appointment of 16 tribunal members? There is no point in increasing the number to 20 if we have not filled the 16 positions. I must say that this very point has been overlooked during the course of this debate.

The other point I want to make about the increase of the tribunal membership from 16 to 20 is that although it might be intended to increase the resources, this bill does not say that. I just point that out. There is the expectation that if we increase the size of the tribunal, then the resources must follow. Quite clearly, as the closing date for the lodging of historical claims approaches, it is important that we have a tribunal that is suitably resourced to deal with the claims and to do so in a timely manner, without prejudicing the durability of those settlements.

I ought to say, though, that in order for the tribunal to carry out its duties, it must give due regard to what the Act says are the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, and, of course, I cannot go on without making reference to those undefined principles that are now appearing in a whole raft of legislation that emanates from this House.

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) Link to this

I want to take a short call on Part 3. I really want to echo the point the honourable member Pita Paraone has just raised. I have certainly raised it on previous occasions. One of the provisions in this part, which is an important measure—it is important, though, only if we recognise what ought to follow—provides for the membership of the Waitangi Tribunal to be increased from 16 members to 20. The point has been made that increasing the human resource—that is, the people—is great, but, yes, I would like the Minister to take a call and tell us whether the current 16 places are filled right now. If they are not, then what is the point of this measure? I certainly can see the point of it, given the way National will deal with Treaty settlements when we get into power, which will be quite soon. There is no point in just raising the membership of the tribunal if we do not have the financial resources to accompany that. The Minister needs to tell us whether he will bring a bill to this House or at least get some policy going that will see a funding provision for the daily fees for four extra members, and for the increased sittings that one might assume will accompany the increase in membership. Also, there will be reading fees and report writing fees. If the Minister knows anything about these things, he can show it by taking a call and telling us that he has all those matters in his sights and that, yes, he will get some additional people, and that, yes, he knows exactly what funding resource and support is required to make this increase in membership a reality. It is very important, and I wait with anticipation for the Minister to take a call. Perhaps he can tell us that he has put in a Budget bid for this very thing.

The membership of the tribunal is to be increased by four members, which is a small number but it does require a certain amount of additional funding. We do not want to have to conclude that this is just a bit of window dressing, and that the Government is trying to look like it is doing something because it has made provision to appoint more of its mates to another organisation.

The Waitangi Tribunal is an important organisation. Over the past 9 years the tribunal, year on year, has had to scale back its forecasts for its hearing days, and scale back the number of reports it can produce in relation to the hearings. Basically, part-way though its financial year the tribunal has had to rejig the activities it thought it was going to carry out, and in the end found it would not be able to fulfil them.

I appreciate the opportunity to take a call. These are very important matters, and I would very much request that the Minister stand and give some assurance to members of the House, and to New Zealanders who, frankly, are in support of seeing this process completed in a just, durable, and timely way. He needs to assure us that he has all these things in his mind and that the addition of four members, if required—and we still do not know whether the current 16 places are filled—will result in a flow-on of additional resources and support to make sure that the tribunal is able to increase the speed with which it can deal with very, very complex issues. Thank you.

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Māori Affairs) Link to this

The Māori Purposes Bill (No 2) is important legislation. It brings together a number of amendments that are critical to Māori, and each part shows that. As a result, this bill’s passage into law will be a significant milestone for Māori, and it will be well appreciated.

For example, in Part 1 the amendments formalise the establishment of a seventh regional management committee, in Kāwhia . This amendment will allow the five marae in Kāwhia to cluster together to ensure that they fully participate in decision making related to their area. Part 2 provides for a new annual payment from the Crown to the Tuwharetoa Maori Trust Board under a new agreement relating to Lake Taupō—something that has been outstanding for a long, long time. This is an important event for Ngāti Tūwharetoa, who, as a result of this bill, can get on with business and realise the potential of their settlement. This part of the bill will also allow, as speakers have pointed out, our rangatahi to be fully involved in trust board matters, by allowing 18 and 19-year-old beneficiaries to vote in trust board elections. Once this bill is passed, our rangatahi will be legitimately involved in deciding who will manage the governance entities and the management of and distribution from the fisheries.

Part 3 will provide the Waitangi Tribunal with up to four additional members. This Government takes the role of the Waitangi Tribunal in our nation’s progress towards the settlement of Treaty claims very, very seriously, and we are well on track with that. I really want to mihi to that great member Matiu Rata; I think anybody who is nonsensical enough to talk ill of the dead needs to get his or her facts or marbles together. It is this commitment that has led us to respond quickly to iwi. If members travel the roadways of this nation, they will understand that several iwi are in tandem with the Government, that the Treaty settlements are well progressed by the Deputy Prime Minister in his role as the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, and that iwi are flocking in to get finality and to be as serious as this Government is about achieving that.

This bill represents the Government’s latest efforts to ensure the Waitangi Tribunal is adequately resourced, by providing it with the people to power it. This Government has increased the tribunal’s funding—I would like those members to listen to this—by 60 percent since 2001. The previous Government thought ill of the tribunal, and did not even give it any funding. Most recently the Government, in Budget 2007, injected a further $7.7 million into the tribunal over a 4-year period. This latest boost saw the funding of the tribunal rise by a further 25 percent. That is how serious we are about it.

In relation to the membership of the board, I say tēnā koe to Mr Paraone for his very supportive kōrero. There are currently 15 members of the tribunal. One member has resigned—Sir Paul Reeves—for a host of reasons, and we are currently appointing a new member to replace him.

PITA PARAONE (NZ First) Link to this

First of all, I thank the Minister in the chair, the Hon Parekura Horomia, for responding to my question. However, I ask a further question in relation to the membership of the Waitangi Tribunal. Can the Minister tell us how many appointed members sit in on each hearing? If there is only one member per hearing, then is the Minister suggesting that 15 hearings are going on around the country at the moment? If that is not the case, then I seek clarification about this issue, because I think it is very important.

We are talking about the timely consideration of Treaty of Waitangi claims, and although this amendment to the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 is a step towards that by increasing the membership of the tribunal, the effectiveness of this increase will be awarded only by the number of sittings that take place. I wonder whether the Minister, as a matter of courtesy, might take a call in response to that question.

DAVE HEREORA (Labour) Link to this

I want to take just a short call on this part. I suppose the Māori Affairs Committee’s consideration of the amendment to the Te Ture Whenua Maori Act was not highlighted much in its discussion, but I think it is necessary that we mention it in the Committee stage. Section 277 is amended to indicate that it does not apply to Māori incorporations that had gross revenue of $25,000 or less for their most recently completed financial year. I think that amendment is a necessary one. It is basically to tidy up an inconsistency that surrounds a typographical error in the Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993, and an erroneous cross-reference that inserted a new provision into the wrong section of the principal Act. I did think it was necessary that I take a call to ensure that that is highlighted to the House.

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) Link to this

Clause 1 deals with the title and clause 2 deals with the commencement. The commencement in a very technical way rests upon the title itself. Clause 1 states that the title of the Act will be the Māori Purposes Act (No 2) 2007. Well, we have long gone past 2007; we are now in 2008. Obviously, the Act cannot commence from 2007. Presumably it will come into force sometime in 2008 and the procedures will ensure that the title of the Act becomes the Māori Purposes Act (No 2) 2008. If I am wrong, I am sure the Minister in the chair, Parekura Horomia, will take a call to that effect.

I guess that, generally speaking, one might say the matters that have been dealt with in the changes set out in the bill have been to enhance the purposes of Māori people, activities, and things. As so many of the proposals in this bill were proposed by Māori themselves, I guess this is an apt enough way to describe them. National obviously supports both clauses 1 and 2, provided the appropriate and necessary change is made.

Just before I take my seat, though, I want to make a comment in relation to the purposes being served under Part 3, relating to the Treaty of Waitangi. I say again—I have said this in this House before—that Matiu Rata is the person whose legacy the Waitangi Tribunal is, and I pay tribute to him. He was a wily politician and a pretty wise person, in my view. He appointed Chief Judge Durie to the Māori Land Court—one of the first judges, and the youngest judge to be appointed to the court—and around the same time he set up the Waitangi Tribunal to deal with historic claims and to look at breaches by the Crown under the Treaty of Waitangi.

In doing so he saw the difficulties that might be caused by a treaty that is in two versions, a Māori version and an English version. Although the majority of Māori signed the Māori version, obviously there is still an English one, which, understandably, Pākehā New Zealanders look to in the first place. Knowing the symbolic nature of te reo Māori—the Māori language—and seeing there could be problems between what Pākehā understood the Treaty to be and what Māori understood it to be, Matiu Rata knew that a reference to the terms or provisions of the Treaty of Waitangi itself was not necessarily going to bring us to where we know we are heading. So the term “the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi” was introduced right at that stage, back in 1975. The promoter of that bill was Matiu Rata, and as I have said, he was very wise and wily at the same time.

PITA PARAONE (NZ First) Link to this

I just say, for the interest of the people of New Zealand who are presently in gridlock on the motorways of our country and are listening to this debate, that we are debating the Māori Purposes Bill (No 2). The title is the Māori Purposes Bill (No 2), and one could presume that there was a “Māori Purposes Bill (No 1)”. I will just explain what happened to the No. 1 bill. Some members of the Māori Affairs Committee believe that it went a little bit too far in terms of the omnibus nature of these bills. I say to the New Zealanders who are listening to and watching this debate that although the changes being made to one or two of the pieces of legislation in this bill are small, they are very important changes for Māoridom and, indeed, for New Zealand.

Previous speakers have made reference to the proposed changes in terms of the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975, and have made reference to the author of that legislation, Matiu Rata. I am sure that if he were with us today he would accept the challenge of defining what the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi are, as that term is articulated in a number of the Acts of Parliament affecting our country.

I think that because of the omnibus nature of this bill, it is only proper that the title Māori Purposes Bill (No 2) be retained. Kia ora.