Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato) Link to this
I rise to speak in the Committee stage of the Māori Trustee Amendment Bill, particularly to Part 1. Supplementary Order Papers containing some technical amendments and an amendment to the commencement date have been lodged by the Minister of Māori Affairs, and we certainly support them.
The history of this particular bill is that it has been well debated in this House. The previous Labour Government introduced it with two specific components. One was to have the office of the Māori Trustee established as a stand-alone entity, and the other was to do with accelerating Māori development. The Māori Affairs Committee at the time gave the bill quite a full hearing, and what we now have in the Committee stage are some minor but useful amendments.
As I point out some of those issues, I hope that the Minister in the chair, the Hon Georgina te Heuheu, sees fit to take a call, because what has happened is that of the two parts of the bill as it was introduced by the previous Labour Government, the first part of the bill has remained all but intact, with some useful amendments, and the second part, regarding Māori development, has been left for a further conversation.
I was not a member of that select committee, but I remember the debate in the House. It is interesting that people tend to forget what they have said in Opposition once they are in Government. I have a particular statement here, which is a very forceful one: “National believes that the role of the Māori Trustee needs fundamental revision. National believes that it is time to have a deep think about how Māori land should be reviewed, particularly the assets involved with the Māori Trustee. It is fundamentally wrong to have this approach. It simply transfers assets that could have been transferred to iwi back into a centralised approach … It simply transfers assets that could have been transferred back to iwi back into a centralised approach.” That was said by none other than Dr Wayne Mapp during the first reading debate. What he was saying there basically is that what Labour was doing in trying to set up the Māori Trustee office as a stand-alone entity was not the right thing to do—
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA Link to this
—and that we should in fact give all the assets back to iwi. I have that statement here, I say to Mr Henare, and I am quite happy to table the statements made by Dr Mapp when he was in the House.
Actually, the important thing about this particular issue is what it leads one to think. National, now that it is in Government, has a real ability to add things into the Māori Trustee Act. When National members were in Opposition they talked about the types of things they said they would do. Now that National is in Government it has the prime opportunity to do those things, and it has not done so.
I will give an example. One of criticisms voiced by Mr Henare when he was in Opposition was that it was difficult to find Māori landowners. Many of the Māori electorate MPs—in fact, many of the Māori MPs in this House—know just how difficult it is to find Māori landowners and to try to ascribe a lot of those unclaimed moneys. Is there anything in the Supplementary Order Papers that suggests a way of putting greater obligation on the Māori Trustee to do this? There is nothing. Members opposite when in Opposition criticised things that were very difficult to do, and they said that this should be done and that should be done. Now they have an opportunity to do that, and they have not done so. I have raised that point because it is very interesting to hear what people say in Opposition and do not deliver on when in Government.
Largely, this bill is not controversial. I think everyone would agree that setting up the Māori Trust Office as a stand-alone entity is a good thing. I see that it is the strong intention of the Government to make sure that the Act comes into force by 1 July, and I think the sooner, the better. That is very important. The Act is to be read in line with Te Ture Whenua Maori Act, and I do want to pick up on some comments made by Dr Wayne Mapp in the previous debate. I also agree that Te Ture Whenua Maori Act is in need of review, and some changes should and must be made.
This is a slight departure from the debate, but it is a useful one, I think. When we consider a number of the inhibiting and constraining factors around developing unproductive Māori land, we see that part of it lies in a legislative solution and part of it lies in policy, but a great part of it lies in a reorientation of how current policy is used. I am particularly pleased to see that Te Puni Kōkiri is continuing its review of Māori land with regard to the valuation of Māori land and the rating of Māori land. I think this in part may help to loosen some of the constrictions.
PAUL QUINN (National) Link to this
I welcome the opportunity to speak to the Māori Trustee Amendment Bill during the Committee stage, and I am sure my friends and colleagues from the Opposition will be pleased to know that I intend taking a number of calls on it. There is a lot to share with them, and for them to understand and come to grips with.
But I want to start by reflecting on one statement that my friend and colleague Master Hipkins has reiterated throughout this evening in respect of the previous bill—that this is a Labour bill that National is bringing forward. The truth of the matter is that he is right, but what he has not said is that Labour was unable to get things done. It has been left to the great National Government that we are becoming to clean up and clear the slate. This bill is a classic example. Let me, if I may, take a moment of the Committee’s time and read from the select committee report: “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.” In recognition of trying to get this bill through the previous Parliament, Labour split the bill but it still could not deliver.
The Opposition might remind us from time to time that when this great National Government was in Opposition, we opposed this bill. That is correct, as well. But the reason National opposed the bill was, as my honourable colleague the previous speaker, Nanaia Mahuta, has pointed out, that this was part of a much larger bill, commonly referred to as the Māori Trustee and Māori Development Amendment Bill. In fact, because of the great stewardship and leadership shown by the select committee members who considered this bill, which I note was made up of a majority of members who are now Government members, they were able to bring some focus and some common sense to the reality of “let’s just deal with the Māori Trustee aspects of this”.
We were opposed because, on the one hand, there was a need to deal with the specific issues around the Māori Trustee and the Māori Trust Office, but the then Government also, on the other hand, tried to create this monolith Māori Development Corporation, to which it was going to appoint a whole lot of ministerial cronies and create this huge slush fund for them to spend. We opposed that because time and time again we have had reference made to political appointments. My learned friends on the Opposition benches are past masters and colleagues of this particular skill. We were opposed to that, and through our great vision and drive and the majority we had on the select committee we were able to separate it out and create a focused bill to deal specifically with the issues confronting the Māori Trust Office.
As we work our way through this bill, I think it will provide an excellent opportunity to focus on the work that the Māori Trust Office does and needs to do, because there are a number of aspects in this bill that will drag the office and the Māori Trustee into the 21st century. For instance, there are clauses in the bill that deal with the fact that the Māori Trustee no longer has to just sign cheques, and cheques only, but will be able to use other means of efficient distribution, and so on.
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato) Link to this
I will pick up from where I left off. In terms of the opportunities provided by this bill and the associated mechanisms that may help to support the development of unproductive Māori land, which I think falls on the Māori Trustee to try to aid, the real issue is trying to review Te Ture Whenua Maori Act to look at how the role of the Māori Trustee can support the development of unproductive Māori lands. Many of these lands might fall under his purview. I think further thinking can happen in that space. It was interesting to listen to the speaker on the other side of the Chamber, Paul Quinn. Not once did he mention a lot of the detail of Part 1, but then as a new member he may not have read the full part of the bill.
There are obviously some practical issues in respect of setting up the Māori Trust Office. At the moment the Māori Trustee exists under Te Puni Kōkiri. They co-locate in many regions. Their office spaces share resources. The new opportunity that is afforded here is that the Māori Trustee will be set up as a corporation sole, and it will have in its own right the capacity to employ people. It will continue to have deputy trustee officers who will have certain delegations. I think that is all well and good, and it is really important. My only concern, in terms of the transitional issues that the two parties will have to consider, is the fact that we are in a recession. I hope they do not lose the opportunity, if and where useful, to continue to co-locate. There are some very sound financial reasons why I think that is really important.
The other aspect that could be considered—and I am not sure whether the Māori Affairs Committee deliberated on it—is that of the annual reports. Given that the trustee is to be set up as a stand-alone entity that will be fully accountable for its operations, I hope the annual reports provide greater clarity to the beneficiaries of unclaimed monies. Those are exactly the kinds of things that the Māori Trustee will undertake on their behalf. The devil will be in the detail and in the reporting.
I welcome, under schedule 2, the insertion of “the Māori Trustee” to schedule 4 of the Public Finance Act, which will give a level of accountability that will be very important to many of the beneficiaries, who have a right to know what the Māori Trustee is doing on their behalf. The explanatory note and some other information I have read suggest that some beneficiaries will choose or elect to retain their small shareholdings within the Māori Trust Office. That may well be the case, and that is why greater transparency around annual reporting will be helpful to them.
The other aspect of Part 1 that I want to comment on in particular relates to the termination of appointment of the Māori Trustee. I will take some time on this, because I have some questions to ask. The criteria for terminating the appointment of the Māori Trustee are well set out in the bill. Essentially, there could be a situation whereby the Māori Trustee is appointed for 5 years and rolls over for another 5 years, or the trustee could be terminated according to express criteria in the bill. If the Minister chooses to terminate the employment of the Māori Trustee, who then carries out the functions? It is not clear. Although there are deputy trustees who have specific written delegations, if the Minister is required, for some very public reasons or based on some very public criticisms, to suspend the office of the Māori Trustee, what happens to those delegated functions in that time period? In the way the legislation reads, one must have express written delegations to the deputy trustee.
I ask the Minister in the chair, the Hon Georgina te Heuheu, to clarify that particular question, for no other reason than to highlight that there could be a bit of a difficulty there. Often with appointments like this the consideration of termination or suspension of time in office is carried out purely for political reasons. That presents a difficulty in terms of the smooth functioning and running of the office. I would like the Minister to take a call to clarify that.
Hon TAU HENARE (National) Link to this
I am mindful that the previous speaker, in her opening 5-minute speech, said that what members say when they are in Opposition is the opposite of what they say when they are in Government. But I am not sure whether she was talking about us or them.
Opposition members have mentioned that the Māori Trustee will stand alone, they have mentioned Wayne Mapp, and they have mentioned all those flowery things that could happen to the Māori Trustee. Actually, all of those things are happening under this bill. As for the stuff that is not happening—the development stuff that Nanaia Mahuta talked about—I ask Labour members why they did not put it in the bill when they were in Government. Oh, that is right—they did not do that. They tried to cleverly siphon off $35 million into some sort of development fund, but nobody knew how that development fund was to be worked out.
No, I am not a Minister. I should be—but OK, that is not for me to say. All of the things the previous speaker talked about—the corporation sole and a stand-alone Māori Trustee—are good, excellent ideas. That is why the previous Māori Affairs Committee—chaired, I might add, by Dave Hereora, who did a pretty good job—had already agreed to do all of that. So it should not come as a shock.
If other things should have been added to Part 1, why did that last Māori Affairs Committee not have those things in front of it? It is because the previous Minister of Māori Affairs, the Hon Parekura Horomia, in his wisdom, thought otherwise. In his wisdom, he brought the Māori Trustee and Māori Development Amendment Bill to this House and to the select committee. We have split that bill in half because there was not too much agreement on its second half, but there certainly was on the first half, as we see here in Part 1. This bill is about a corporation sole, and about making the Māori Trustee more responsible and transparent. It is about making sure there is a reporting regime, so that all of the beneficiaries can see what the trustee is up to.
The bill addresses the termination of the trustee, but I bet a year’s salary that if the trustee were terminated, one of the assistant trustees, or another person—maybe it would be the Chief Executive of Te Puni Kōkiri; who knows—would be put in place. There would be a process whereby the office of the Māori Trustee would have a leader, for however long.
So the previous speaker can go on about what should have been in the bill, what is in the bill, and what is not in the bill, but here is the question: if so much is missing from this part of the bill, and from the part that was shaved off by the previous Māori Affairs Committee, why did the present Opposition not do something about it during its 9 years in Government? This is not a big criticism, but it is in response to the previous speaker saying that what members say in Opposition is different from what they say when they are in Government.
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (Associate Minister of Māori Affairs) Link to this
I will make a few observations, particularly in relation to the matter raised by the Hon Nanaia Mahuta, which my colleague the Hon Tau Henare also made some comment on.
By way of a preliminary, I thank the Māori Affairs Committee for its work. This bill is very important to the National Government. When National was in Opposition, its members on the Māori Affairs Committee were very clear that they supported the setting up of the Māori Trustee as a separate organisation in order to make sure that it had independence. As has already been referred to by one of my colleagues, National did not agree with what the Labour Government of the time tried to include in the original Māori Trustee and Māori Development Amendment Bill, hence the split into the Māori Trustee Amendment Bill and the Māori Trustee and Māori Development Amendment Bill. When National was in Opposition, it clearly did not support the original bill. There was no support for it, and it was not raised in consultation with Māori at the number of hui that were held around the country. The setting up of the Māori Trustee as an independent organisation was supported, but the other part of the bill was not. The select committee worked quite hard last year to make sure that when and if the bill emerged in the House again, it would deal with the core issue, which was to create the Māori Trustee as an independent organisation.
Under current law, the Māori Trustee is independent from the Crown, but also it is an office conferred on an employee of Te Puni Kōkiri. Under current arrangements there is potential for the perception of a conflict of interest; that matter has been raised by Māori over a long period of time. The setting up of the Māori Trustee as a stand-alone organisation will underline its independence, as I have already said; there was broad support for this stand-alone Māori Trustee at consultation. Those are very important points, and it was on the basis of those points that the National Opposition last year opposed the bill as it was originally brought to the House by the Labour Government. That is why we are very pleased to be here in the Chamber tonight in the Committee of the whole House, and to see this bill as it is now—as the Māori Trustee Amendment Bill—progress through Parliament.
I want to make some comments, though; I think it is fair, as the Hon Nanaia Mahuta raised the issue. One of the questions raised by the member was how the Māori Trustee is able to be removed from office.
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU Link to this
Yes—what will happen if the Māori Trustee is removed from office? In that event—and we hope that it would never occur—grounds are set out. New section 6B(5) explains that the Minister of Māori Affairs may remove the Māori Trustee from office on the grounds of “(a) undischarged bankruptcy, misconduct, or neglect of duty; or “(b) inability to perform the functions and duties of the Māori Trustee.” We should be very clear that this threshold is very high—very high, indeed—and is similar to the thresholds applying to the removal from office of the Auditor-General. The bill makes explicit the Minister’s requirement to observe the rules of natural justice—again, that threshold is very high. The Minister must also publish any removal or suspension in the Gazette.
The member asked who, if by some unfortunate chance that event should occur, will then take up the role. The Deputy Māori Trustee will, if one is appointed by the Māori Trustee; the deputy will pick up delegated responsibilities. It would be very, very unlikely that there would be no deputy in place. So that is the provision that deals with that issue. As I say, I ask the Committee to note the high threshold for removal of the Māori Trustee. If the position is terminated by the Minister of Māori Affairs, the Minister is also in a position to make a new appointment. Thank you.
Hon MITA RIRINUI (Labour) Link to this
I congratulate the Hon Georgina te Heuheu, the Associate Minister of Māori Affairs, on rising to her feet to give us a very detailed explanation of her understanding of the Māori Trustee Amendment Bill. I think that it is very appropriate that she should have done that, given that she was one of the three members in this Parliament who was part of the Māori Affairs Committee under the previous Government. The Hon Tau Henare and I were the other two. But it is interesting that although there were two members on the select committee from the same party, their recollection of events, and of the issues raised and interpreted in a number of ways, are quite different. But let me backtrack a little, because I think I can bring a better understanding of the intensity of the discussion that took place at the Māori Affairs Committee when we were considering and deliberating on this particular bill.
There was considerable support for the Māori Trust Office to become a stand-alone organisation, and necessary changes were made to the legislation to ensure that the level of accountability and the responsibilities of the Māori Trustee were very clear in law. But it is a pity that when the opportunity was put before the committee to establish a funding arm to encourage Māori economic development, because of the political differences around the table it basically met with considerable resistance—not on the part of the members of the previous Government but on the part of the members of the previous Opposition. When I say that they are wrong, it is amazing how people from the same party recollect things in different ways, which is what I am going to speak about at this point in time.
The Minister in the chair, the Hon Georgina te Heuheu, did say that that proposal for Māori Business Aotearoa New Zealand, or for a Māori business development organisation, was tagged on as part of the consultation on the review of the Māori Trust Office. If I have misunderstood what the Minister said, I apologise, but I understand that she said that it was a tag-on, and that as a result the members of the Māori Affairs Committee were very, very concerned. But that is not entirely true. In fact, there were submitters who were of the view that it was a cloak-and-dagger approach on behalf of the Government; that was not true, at all. The proposal was raised as part of the consultation for the establishment of Māori Business Aotearoa New Zealand, and put before the select committee. Although the Māori Trustee had his concerns about it, the select committee was required to make its decision, or its views, known, based on the evidence placed before it.
I was one of the Government members at that time on the select committee who was more than satisfied with the level of discussion that had taken place prior to the matter coming before the committee. I would like to say that that was an opportunity that was lost. I concede that there was still a bit more work to be done on the proposal, and the Māori Affairs Committee was in a position to do that. Instead, the Opposition at that time raised the issue strongly enough for the proposal, basically, to be shelved until another day, and I believe that that is what is happening at this point in time. But, as I said before, different members on that committee have different levels of recollection.
I will congratulate the Māori Affairs Committee, because it was a very intense discussion, and people came in support not only of the Māori Trustee being a stand-alone organisation but of the concept of the development of a Māori development organisation out of the pūtea. And that was referred to in this House as the establishment of a slush fund for certain people’s friends. That is a phrase I have not heard in a very, very long time, because I do not believe that it happens any more. A former Minister of Māori Affairs, the Hon Tau Henare, may recall that those things may have happened during his time. But we are now in the 21st century, and those sorts of practices, as I might term them, are no longer apparent with the former Minister of Māori Affairs, and I certainly would say with the current Minister of Māori Affairs—unless he wants to prove me wrong, and I would like to see that happen! But I congratulate the current Minister of Māori Affairs on supporting this bill to this stage, and say that it is also good to hear from the Associate Minister of Māori Affairs, who is currently in the chair, expressing views on this very, very important bill.
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) Link to this
It is a great pleasure to speak in the Committee stage of the Māori Trustee Amendment Bill. It is important to note that the Labour members opposite are not saying they will vote for the bill; they are doing everything they can to talk about the outlying issues of this legislation, but they will not actually commit to supporting it. They will not say they believe that National is doing the right thing in putting this bill forward with our Māori Party colleagues, and they will not admit that this bill is in the best interests of Māori.
Labour Party members do not see the benefits in establishing the Māori Trustee as a stand-alone organisation. It is important that we do establish it as a stand-alone organisation, because we need to give that degree of accountability and transparency to any Government position, and given the issues that have been so prominent in recent times. In creating that stand-alone position of the Māori Trustee, this bill leads to that transparency and that accountability. The Māori Trustee will be free from political pressure.
The Māori Trustee Amendment Bill provides for better and more open communication between the Māori Trustee and its beneficiaries. The provisions of this bill enable the beneficiaries of the Māori Trustee to be sure they are receiving equal income from the common fund. In all, this bill is a very positive step forward by the National Government, taking into account what can be done in the best interests of Māori. It is very disappointing to see that Labour members cannot stand up and admit to that. They cannot stand up and say that this bill is in the best interests of Māori, and that they will support it. In this legislation, members will see that support, and see the support from the people who see the benefit of having the Māori Trustee as a stand-alone organisation. It is part of the National Government’s commitment to having a strong relationship with Māori.
In this current economic climate, it is important that public entities are seen as transparent and accountable, because difficult times are coming. We need to make sure that the best processes are there for our people going forward. The Māori Trustee Amendment Bill is part of providing that transparency and accountability.
It is important to see that Labour members are now trying to create some havoc in this debate. They will not actually stand up and support the bill, or constructively add value to the debate. They talk about what happened in the select committee in past Governments; we look at what is going forward for Māori. This bill will provide a future and a solution to this issue. This bill shows that the Government is listening to the people, is taking on board the issues people see as relevant, and is providing constructive solutions. These solutions are what we need. This is a Government based on solutions that are fair and proper. These solutions take into account that there are issues that need to be dealt with through a Māori Trustee that is open, independent, and not subject to political pressure. That is why we need to have it as a stand-alone organisation. That is what we have achieved through this legislation. I think the National Government and its colleagues can take great credit for the way this issue has moved forward. We now have a situation where the Government will pass legislation that enables there to be a stand-alone organisation to take advantage of the requirements of Māoridom and this community to see that kind of respect and legislative impetus behind it.
This bill includes a few major amendments to the creation of that stand-alone organisation that the Māori Affairs Committee has worked on. It instructs that in exercising authority to terminate the appointment of the Māori Trustee, the Minister must observe the rules of natural justice.
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato) Link to this
Anyone listening to the debate right now should know that that was a second-term Government member—unfortunately from the Waikato but who must have drunk too much water from another catchment. I say to Mr Bennett that if he had listened to the debate, he would have known all too well that the Māori Trustee Amendment Bill as introduced was actually introduced by the previous Labour Government, so that is half of his speech gone. On the second half, about the issue of a stand-alone entity, it is well agreed within this Chamber that people believe that the Māori Trustee should be a stand-alone entity. Really, if Mr Bennett wants to get involved in debates such as this one, he should take a leaf out of the old marae handbook: titiro, whakarongo, then kōrero. He certainly did not do any of that when he talked in this debate; I think his two mates next to him in the Chamber must have given him a big side ball. Anyway, I appreciate his efforts to try to contribute to this debate. We all agree that the Māori Trustee should be a stand-alone office. But this is a Committee stage debate, and Mr Bennett knows well that it is an opportunity to debate the clauses within the bill, not just to talk at some random level. Everybody is being so polite to David Bennett in the Chamber.
Anyway, I want to get back to acknowledging the Minister in the chair, the Hon Georgina te Heuheu. I thank the Minister for taking a call on the issue I raised. It was a very serious question about practicalities, if a termination of a Māori Trustee did occur; there were some practical things that I thought were not as clear as they could have been. Firstly, the issue of termination is a direct matter between the Minister of Māori Affairs and the Māori Trustee. It must occur in writing and the criteria are clearly set out in the bill. The reason I raised the question is that the bill also sets out the basis upon which a delegation occurs, which must be by written authority. The Minister has clarified, in part, that the threshold for termination is very high, and I accept that. But I do think there is the potential for a practical difficulty to occur when a Minister has had reason, perhaps, to suspend the Māori Trustee while an investigation is occurring. During that period of time at which notification occurs, there has not been any authority delegated to the deputy trustee, and it is not clearly expressed in the legislation what happens if, for the practical reason of a time lapse, the Māori Trustee is suspended before a written delegation occurs. That is the nature of the question, but I accept the explanation that the Minister has given, on the basis that it is a high threshold in the first instance. I just invite the Minister to maybe consider that there is a potential loophole there.
Mr Henare made an interesting contribution, as well. I often like to go back to what he said in the Chamber, because holding him accountable is so easy. He said “National fully supports Māori economic development, but don’t go and steal other people’s money to do it.” I re-state that on the record. He says time and time again that “We will privatise services and get people to use their own money instead.” In fact, the Government has convinced the Māori Party that if we privatise prisons it will be a good thing for Māori. Māori can then use their own money to invest in rehabilitation programmes to try to improve the lot of those who unfortunately are in prison. That is the ethos of Mr Henare.
But I have a serious question. I could ask the question of the member directly, or of the Minister. I would prefer to ask the question of the member, because he is the one who raises these types of issues in the Chamber, and because he has been a Minister before. I want to know what assurance that member, as a member of the Government, will give that the retained earnings of the Māori Trustee will not be used by the Government for any other Māori development purpose. Would the member answer that, because I think it is a very important question? Is there a commitment to ring-fence the Māori Trustee’s retained earnings, so that the Government cannot draw down on that for any other development opportunities? There is silence. I could ask the question of the Minister, but out of courtesy I will not. The implication of what Mr Henare said was that the Government will not touch it. The Government will leave it to Māori beneficiaries and not touch it, at all. So I challenge that member to get up in this Chamber and be accountable for the information he gave that the National-led Government will retain the earnings of the Māori Trust Office in its own entity, and will not draw down on it at any point in time in the future for Māori development. I suspect he will find difficulty in answering that question.
HEKIA PARATA (National) Link to this
Mr Chair, tēnā koe. Tēnā tātou katoa. I am delighted to rise and take a call on the Māori Trustee Amendment Bill, as this is my first opportunity as a new member of the House to participate in a Committee of the whole House. I will address my attention to Part 1 and specifically to a couple of clauses within it. I would also like to make some general comments in support of this bill.
First, I would like to acknowledge the select committee that did all of this work, and the approach from both sides of the House in attending to this important matter. The key reason for my support of this bill is that it symbolises the coming of age of a very old institution that has been a very important part of Māori development. The bill recognises the need for the Māori Trust Office and the Māori Trustee to be a stand-alone organisation, and to be accountable, transparent, and disciplined in the manner that the functions of that office are discharged. Currently, the Māori Trustee is an employee of a department of the State. The separation of the Māori Trustee from this ambiguous and confusing situation is a really important step away from the State’s constant oversight of all things Māori. The bill represents the long-overdue maturing of the State in terms of respecting the ability of Māori and those in charge of Māori assets to take responsibility for, to organise, and to direct those assets in the interests of the beneficial owners. I am delighted that the Māori Trustee is to become a stand-alone organisation.
Similarly, I am delighted that the bill will update some of the core processes and functions within the Māori Trust Office so that it may be comparable with other like trust entities. Māori beneficial owners may expect, like other beneficial owners of trusts, that they will be well treated, that market conditions will apply, and that there will be transparency and discipline in the way that the functions of the Māori Trustee are carried out. Clauses 9, 9A, and 9B set up a new appropriation account for funds received from the Crown. They also repeal the current sections 19 and 21 of the Maori Trustee Act, which relate to the way that payments by the Māori Trustee can be made. Why are these changes necessary? It is because the Māori Trustee’s existing accounts had been set up for separate, specific purposes that are set out in the statute. The setting up of a new appropriation account for Crown funding will provide transparency, and will enhance accountability to the Crown and to the beneficial owners.
As everyone in this House knows and is aware, under this fresh, new National-led Government there has been a focus on getting greater discipline within State departments, and on ensuring that they are not oversubscribed in terms of the processes but do meet the best professional disciplines possible. This bill gives the opportunity for a very old institution to be brought into modern times. It recognises that banking procedures have moved beyond purely cheque accounts. It recognises that it is possible to take advantage of new banking instruments, and to use the technology that is so much part and parcel of our very secure and stable banking system, which has helped to provide a very strong and resilient foundation to Aotearoa New Zealand during these challenging times of recession. So the changes ensure that the Māori Trustee can operate a very contemporary practice, and, in so doing, can provide a better and more professional service to the beneficial owners of the Māori Trustee.
There are changes in clause 11 to the way in which income from the common fund is to be paid to account holders. Account holders will now be paid what the Māori Trustee receives, less a management fee. Why are the current provisions being changed? At present, the interest rates paid on funds held in trust are set by the Maori Trust Office Regulations 1954—from a time before I was born.
KELVIN DAVIS (Labour) Link to this
The Labour Party supports—we do indeed—the Māori Trustee Amendment Bill. We support changes to establish the Māori Trustee as a stand-alone organisation. At present the Māori Trustee is an office conferred on an employee of Te Puni Kōkiri, as many people have mentioned already this evening. The bill will establish the Māori Trustee as a stand-alone organisation, and we all support separating it from Te Puni Kōkiri. This will underline the independence of the Māori Trustee in carrying out the position’s fiduciary responsibilities. I refer to clause 5, “Independence of Māori Trustee”, which states that “the Māori Trustee must act independently, free from any direction or instruction from the Crown.” I support this, in that it ensures the integrity of the Māori Trustee. It is important that the integrity of the Māori Trustee is not jeopardised just by direction or instruction from the Crown but also by direction or instruction from any organisation. Just by carrying the name “Māori Trustee”—or the name “Māori”—means there is responsibility on the Māori Trustee to be seen to be highly independent and existing right away from any sort of undue influences. There is a saying that Māori have to work twice as hard as other people to be seen to be half as good, so it is really important that the Māori Trustee is seen not to have any bias or favouritism in what it does.
New sections 26 to 26B, substituted in clause 11, relate to money held in the common fund being invested in the fund, and in part section 26(1) states: “and any income derived from investment of the money forms part of the Common Fund.” I want to talk about investing this fund, because particularly at this time of global recession I think that Māori need to be seen to be investing in Māori initiatives. Our tūpuna were entrepreneurs. When Europeans first came to New Zealand it was our ancestors who grew the crops and exported them, and who created an economy that sustained the people. So we have a history of being entrepreneurs, but there are a number of Māori initiatives and Māori businesses that could do with support from the Māori Trustee fund.
We heard today about a really exciting Māori business development in the information technology and broadcasting industry that has been successful internationally, but to sustain the business, research and development investment is needed. It would be really cool if the Māori Trustee were able to invest in that business and help to sustain it and grow it further. A number of Māori businesses up north could do with investment through that fund. I think specifically of relations of mine who are in the honey industry. They are looking for ways to expand and grow their business, to develop it and spread it further, and to look for new markets; the Māori Trustee would be a great way of investing in this Māori-owned business and enterprise. Other successful Māori industries, such as the oyster farms up north, are in jeopardy. They are very successful, but the Northland Regional Council is asking for a $22,000 per hectare bond on those oyster farms. That affects our relations up north, and I can think of one relative, in particular, who has had to fork out $250,000 just on bonds.
TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) Link to this
It is a great pleasure to take a call on this important bill, the Māori Trustee Amendment Bill, and Part 1 of it, which we are speaking on. I was sitting in my office looking at the television and I saw my great friend Paul Quinn up on his feet, telling the Opposition what this bill is all about. I was moved enough to walk from the building on the other side of the parliamentary complex and come to the Chamber to support Paul. He is a great speaker.
I make reference to something that others have said earlier—in particular, the Hon Nanaia Mahuta, and her concern that the public of New Zealand should know that this was the previous Government’s bill. In fact, all I have heard over the last 5 months is “Here is another one of our bills that we brought forward.” I put this down to the scattergun effect of a re-election strategy on the part of the previous Government. It put up a lot of bills, did nothing at all about them, but pretended it was doing everything so that the world would be a great place. When it was thrown out of Government by the people of New Zealand, it said “This was our bill; we were going to fix this problem.” Labour had its chance, and it did not fix the problems.
Nanaia Mahuta also spoke about the very great member of Parliament for Hamilton, David Bennett, a second-term member who is now in Government. The member was saying she was unsure whether the people of the Waikato were proud that he was representing them. I ask David what his majority was on election night. Did it go up from that of 3 years ago? I think the answer to that is yes, it did. I can confirm to the Hon Nanaia Mahuta, with whom I had the pleasure of sharing a television platform and talking about issues to do with Māori people during the election campaign, that I enjoyed doing that. She spoke a lot of wisdom there and I thought she was a very nice lady; I am not sure whether that is the case today. She has not yet said she will support this bill, but I know she is going to, despite all the excuses she gives us. Nanaia Mahuta spoke about my good friend David Bennett in Hamilton, and she said he had been drinking too much water from the Waikato River. I have been to Hamilton. [Interruption] It was from another catchment, was it? Well, I have been to Hamilton with David Bennett, and I can confirm that that member does not drink water at all.
As I come directly to the bill, and Part 1 of it, I say there are some very important things here, particularly about the way that the Māori Trustee will be appointed. The Minister of Māori Affairs will appoint the Māori Trustee for a period of 5 years. This appointment must be made in writing. Trustees cannot take up the position until they receive their letter. They can be reappointed for other periods of time, up to 5 years. It is important that the legislation states what is to happen in the case that a Government or a Minister has not decided on who may replace a trustee when the 5-year period is up. Let us think about the importance of that in the bill. Let us think about the situation a good 15 years from now, when the members opposite are hoping to weakly limp back into Government. That could be three more appointments of trustees from now. A new Minister who has limped from the Opposition into Government 15 years from now might not be able to make up his or her mind whom to appoint, or what should happen to the important money that is tied up in trust, which the trustee administers on behalf of Māori landowners. What this legislation means is that the trustee would stay in place. The bill specifically says that until a Minister is able to decide who is to be appointed, then upon the termination of his or her appointment the current trustee remains in place and continues to look after the people he or she is responsible for.
When I looked at the Māori Trustee’s website, I saw it makes great comments about Part 1 of this bill. It says the Māori Trustee’s role is to protect and enhance the interests of Māori clients and their resources. That is why it is important that Ministers make good decisions. Let us hope 15 years from now that the Opposition does not limp into Government, because the current Minister of Māori Affairs is going to do a very good job in this area.
It is important that the Māori Trustee is a stand-alone organisation. Why is this important? The Māori Trustee deals with a number of disagreements that have taken place between different agencies and sets those aside, so that those who would benefit from the funds being held in trust can do so. The bill, of course, amends the Maori Trustee Act 1953.
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato) Link to this
I am not sure whether I made the point as clearly as it could have been made, but, for the benefit of the previous speaker, I say the point was not so much about whom to delegate to. The point was that within the way that the Māori Trustee Amendment Bill is written, the process for terminating or suspending the employment of the Māori Trustee is that it has to be in writing between the Minister and the Māori Trustee. The process by which delegated authority occurs is by written delegation. The issue I was raising, if the member was at all interested in the point I raised, was that there could potentially be a time lapse. A meeting with the Minister to inform the Māori Trustee that some issues may have arisen or been brought to the Minister’s attention, and that therefore a suspension is impending, has to be followed through by a written letter. And it may be for practical reasons—or in the court of public opinion things have to happen sooner rather than later—that the Māori Trustee has not written formally greater delegations than those already held by the deputy trustee.